Just as the sun rises every day - there will come a day when independent crime labs will look into the appalling record of wrong-doing with Sirhan ballistics.


(click here for part a exhibits)

(click here for part b exhibits)

(click here for part c exhibits)


I want to share with you  the latest puzzling happenings in the Sirhan court filings because I want the reader to examine and compare Attorney General of California, Kamala D. Harris’ filing with the court  (re evidence bullets) with the response to the court by Sirhan attorneys, William Pepper and Laurie Dusek. Then, I ask the reader to compare both filings with what I would have written the court (only in response to Harris’ false charges with respect to Sirhan evidence bullets on page 5, lines 11-13).


Also included are some new charges - separate from the latest court happenings, And here I warn the reader - skip if you weren’t blessed with a super - super abundance of smarts as it is extremely to follow.


It  is not my intention to in any way suggest or imply that Sirhan Attorneys William Pepper and Laurie Dusek are anything but very capable and knowledgable attorneys. I simply do not agree with their  latest Court filing with respect to the ballistics issues.  And I will not be shy about speaking out  about it.


Let me begin by telling the reader that I agreed to assist/share my decades long ballistics research with Pepper/Dusek in their latest court filings when I saw neither Harris nor Sirhan attorneys possessed sufficient knowledge of the many instances of ballistics wrong doing  to appropriately respond to the Court.. This unlikely agreement came about as a result of the relentless probing and prodding by Mr. X(who wishes to keep his name out of it) until I agreed to assist. In the end, I agreed  to assist Pepper/Dusek because it was the right thing to do.


Shortly after obtaining my consent to cooperate,  Mr. X suggested I be part of a team consisting of some very talented and bright young men. This extraordinary team included  Tom O’Neil, writer,researcher; Shane O’Sullivan, author and documentary producer; Phillip Van Praag, audio specialist/expert and myself of course.  Mr. X was the co-ordinator who put this brain trust together - and did most of the heavy lifting.


No question, I felt honored to be part of this very talented brain trust and  felt  Pepper/Dusek was going to get some real help..


Understandably, P/D was limited in  what they could include in their response to the Court. That is not at issue. However, their latest court filing with respect to responding to Harris’ ballitics charge  left me so stunned that I immediately was reminded of Russian Pavel’s sleigh ride.


I have to  ask - why didn’t Pepper/Dusek bring Wenke/Court Order # 2 to the attention of the Court- instead of writing the following:


“Consequently, any comments made by the Wenke experts with respect to those bullets they examined must - through no fault of the the panel - be disregarded. They were simply not looking at the actual bullets which should have been in evidence but apparently, were not before the Trial Court and jury.”


Here then is the heart of my argument.  It goes without question, a major discovery was  made by the Wenke examiners - and it resides in Wenke/Court Order # 2, pages three and four:


“Special Hearing Exhibit 10, a photomicrograph depicting a bullet comparison, was found to be a comparison between PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN 6 (Ex. 52). This was determined by a matching of the surface defects in the photomicrograph andthose appearing microscopically on PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN 6 (Ex. 52). ON THE BASIS OF SUCH  COMPARISONS,  IT DOES NOT APPEAR  THAT  PN 2 (Ex. 47)  AND  PN 6 (Ex. 52) HAVE CHANGED  APPRECIABLY   BETWEEN  JUNE 6, 1968 (WHEN THE  PHOTOMICROGRAPH  WAS TAKEN)  AND THE PRESENT DATE.”  (Wenke/Court Order # 2, dated October 3, 1975)  (emphasis my own)   (exhibit provided)


Why am I so upset?


Because - Wenke/Court Order # 2  RAISES THE ALARM  of ballistics wrong-doing.  It  stands as one of the major cornerstones of documented, irrefutable proof of evidence rigging.


The fact is, Wenke/Court Order # 2  reveals that Wolfer’s Kennedy/Goldstein comparison bullets on 6-6-68 were the VERY SAME Kennedy/Goldstein comparison bullets  the Wenke examiners used in 1975 to make their Special Hearing Exhibit 10 photomicrograph - ( technically, a re-creation of Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10 dated 6--68).  Therefore, the examiners’ Kennedy/Goldstein bullets were inauthentic bullets since the id markings on the bases of the examiners’ bullets differed  from the bullets removed by Doctors Noguchi and Dr. Finkel ( the incorrect “DW””TN”  instead of the correct “TN31”on Kennedy neck bullet base and the incorrect number “6” instead of the correct “X” on the base of the Goldstein bullet).


The above lays the groundwork for the bane of SUS -   Wolfer’s Special Exhinit 10  photomicrograph and  the Wenke examiners’ Special Hearing Exhibit 10  photomicrograph (the name the  examiners’ gave to their re-creation of Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10 photomicrograph)  I  wish to remind the reader - since this is all new to you -  the official Wenke examiners’ Special Hearing Exhibit 10  Report is contained in Wenke/Court Order # 2, pages three and four.


I do not understand why Pepper/Dusek  did not bring  Wenke/Court Order # 2  to the Court’s attention instead of their answer.


To fully understand what this means one must read DeWayne Wolfer’s Log dated June 6, 1968 - Thursday  which reads  “9:00 p.m. - Comparison of Kennedy and Goldstein bullets.”   (exhibit provided)


which leads to the following


On page 160 of  of my privately published book Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report, written by myself, Rose Lynn Mangan with Adel Sirhan; copyright date 11-6-96 we see three remarkable photographs. (exhibit provided)


Depicted on page 160 are three separate  bullet comparison photomicrographs of Peo. 47 compared with Peo. 52. (Kennedy neck bullet on the left compared with Goldstein bullet on the right)


My handwritten explanation for the photo at the top of the page  reads “this is 47/52 - the seven examiners’ re-creaction of Spec. Ex. 10”  which the examiner’s labelled Special Hearing Exhibit 10  in Court Order # 2 . This was necessary to differentiate their own re-creation of Kennedy/Goldstein  bullet comparison photomicrograph from Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10  (bullet comparison photomicrograph of Kennedy/Goldstein  bullets).


The middle picture is a photograph of  Wolfer’s photomicrograph Special Exhibit 10 taken at his direction by LAPD crime lab photographer Jimmy Watson on 6-6-68 and bears Wolfer’s initials “DW”  along with Sirhan’s DR #521-466  on the upper left and at the  bottom lower left “photo #8” is written.


My handwritten explanation to the left is as follows “Dr. Noguchi gave this printed negative to Dr. Joling in Feb 1969 to ‘hold on to for safe-keeping, we may need it someday’ writing @ upper right is by Dr. Joling. Note disk @ lower right”


The third photograph on page 160 is identified by me as “This is the print from the negative Wolfer gave to the seven examiners in 1975 - Note the same disc @ lower right” This photograph also contains Sirhan DR #521-466 and DW initials at upper left and “photo # 8”  is written at the bottom left - and also an added  # 8 within a circle.


It will be remembered “Special Hearing Exhibit 10” is the official name given by the Wenke examiners’  to their 1975  RE-CREATION of Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10 dated 6-6-68


In plain English this means that Wolfer’s two comparison bullets (Kennedy/Goldstein) in his Special Exhibit 10  photomicrograph dated 6-6-68 were the  VERY SAME  bullets  given to the seven examiners in 1975 which they used to make their own re-creation of Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10 photomicrogrph. And we know from Garland’s 1975  Evidence Inventory that both Kennedy neck bullet and Goldstein bullet were IMPOSTER/SWITCHED BULLETS.  That is a true fact.


So,  this means we have proof positive that Wolfer’s Kennedy neck bullet (Ex. 47) and the Goldstein bullet (Ex. 52) in his 6-6-68 , 9: p.m. bullet comparison were - unquestionably, substituted bullets. Why ? Because the examiners’ report in Wenke/Court Order # 2, pages 3 and 4  dated October 3, 1975 tells us.  And, remember the examiners’  “Kennedy” neck bullet was marked “DW””TN” on its base instead of the correct TN31 engraved by Dr. Noguchi. And the examiners’  “Goldstein”  bullet had the Panel’s Identification numbet 6 on its base instead of Dr. Finkel’s X.


Put it this way  -  it stands to reason that since the Wenke examiners were indeed successful in their re-creation of  Wolfer’s  Special Exhibit 10 photomicrograph dated 6-6-68, the examiners  USED THE VERY SAME BULLETS  that Wolfer used.   (“DW””TN” instead of the correct TN31 and instead of the correct X  on Golstein bullet it was marked 6)


Now who could have cooked up such a devious and slimey trick?


But wait, there is more to this slippery business


Bullet Worksheets  -  did not contain bullet id markings - and so I ask WHY NOT?


The Bullet Worksheets used by theWenke examiners inexplicably did not have a  separate column whereby each examiner would record the id marking and  its location  on each  bullet he  had in his own hands during their examination. Therefore, we have no way of knowing with an absolute certainty the actual id markings on the bullet bases the panel members were examining. 


In other words - the additional  bullet comparison tests were separate tests which were   conducted on DIFFERENT dates than the examiners’  Special Hearing Exhibit 10 photomicrograph comparison of Kennedy/Goldstein test.


Who in their right minds would create such a flawed Bullet Worksheet in light of the fact that this was a  Court Ordered re-testing of Sirhan ballistics evidence! Why on earth  wouldn’t you allow each examiner to record for himself  the id markings appearing on the bullets he was examining??? Why a ONE MAN bullet identification in a court-ordered re-examination?


I’ll tell you why

It is because this unorthadox Bullet Worksheet conveniently served as a break in the chain of custody between Garland’s  imposter Kennedy/Goldstein  Evidence Inventory bullets and  the  Kennedy/Goldstein bullets  given to the examiners on a different date for their  ADDITIONAL comparison  tests.


So, what does this tell us?


That  the examiners performed different bullet comparison tests on different dates, some of which were  with UNKNOWN victim bullets


See it for yourself


One comparison test was their re-creation of Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10 photomicrograph by matching  Wolfer’s Kennedy/Goldstein bullets  with the Kennedy/Goldstein bullets given to them (with the wrong id markings on the bullet bases)


Another bullet comparison test performed by the examiners was the comparison of evidence bullets  -  officially WITHOUT ID MARKINGS -with the newly test-fired bullets from gun # H53725


Then there was the examiners’ comparison of GJ5B test bullets (four) with test-fired bullets and  with victim bullets


And, the examiners’ comparison of Peo 55 test bullets  (three) with test-fired bullets and with victim bullets.


I have long been puzzled by that unorthadox  Bullet Worksheet used by the Wenke examiners,   therefore, I diligently searched  through volumes of SUS records for bullet id markings  independent of Garland’s evidence inventory.  I found nothing.


My question


Again, how would I know with an absolute certainty what precise markings were on the bases of the bullets used by the examiners for their additional bullet comparison tests  which were  performed on different days? (I speak to the break in the chain of custody because testings were spread out over several weeks)


The time line was once explained to me by  one of the examiners, Lowell Bradford,  in a casual conversation.  But I didn’t immediately connect the dots - and what it meant


The County Clerk was to maintain “custody of the exhibits at all times during any examination or testing done pursuant  to this order ...” AFTE JOURNAL, vol. 8, # 3 , October 1976, Special Edition, page 18. 


But we know that was so much window dressing , because, in spiteof the watchful eyes of the County Clerk,  Patrick Garland’s Evidence Inventory records  false id markings on most of  the bullets.


It is simply unacceptable for Bullet Worksheets  to tell us positively nothing about id markings on the bases of the bullets the panelists examined.  Then too, what about the chain of custody ?  I stopped believing in the tooth fairy long ago.


This means - technically  speaking -  the Wenke examiners compared  mostly unidentified  “victim” bullets for their numerous bullet comparison tests - including  comparisons with the 1975 test-fired bullets from gun  #H53725 -   and, EXCLUDING, of course, the  bullets in Special Hearing Exhibit 10 photomicrograph test ( because we do know those bullets were  marked “DW””TN” and # 6  - which co-incidentally was the newly designated Panel id # 6. Isn’t that interesting?)


It is an established rule in the crime lab that an examiner never engraves over an existing engraving on an item of evidence. So, tell me, how did Patrick Garland come to engrave the  newly designated Panel’s ID # 6 on the base of the Goldstein bullet ? What happened to the Goldstein bullet with  Dr. Max Finkel’s “X” engraving on its base?


I will tell you. The bullet masquerading as the Goldstein bullet which was given to Patrick Garland was an unmarked bullet. Like it or not - that is what happened.


But there loomed a far greater problem  (for SUS)


There posed the enormous problem of shell casings for identification  purposes -   and so - in order  to avoid that Third Rail  ALL shell casings were withheld from the examiners! These are  the eight shell casings in Peo 21  evidence envelope (listed in Court Order #1 and deleted from Court Order #2)  and the two shell casings which were removed from Peo. 55 Evidence Envelope by an unknown hand   (on whose order I ask?  and with the wrong gun number on the evidence envelope)


And, if that wasn’t enough the eight shell casings from the test-firing of gun #H53725 by Wenke examiners have VANISHED. They are not listed  in CSA records.  That is a true fact.


Here’s the problem - switching bullets is relatively easy - but not so with the shell casings, because of the identifying  strike marks made by the gun on the shell casings. Therefore, since that posed  such a serious problem - all shell casings were withheld from the examiners. And, to take no chances - those little devils - (the eight shell casings from examiners’ test firing of gun # H 53725)  conveniently blasted  themselves off into outer space, never to be seen or heard from again


I previously wrote on my web site that I asked CSA  head archivist, Nancy Zimmelman to produce the eight test-fired bullets and the eight shell casings  from the 1975 Wenke examination  to me so that I might photograph them. Zimmelman told me they were never delivered to California State Archives.


As it turned out, Zimmelman’s answer was only partially correct. I recently learned the eight test-fired bullets are in the RFK evidence collection. But this is not the case with the eight test-fired shell casings. They have vanished.


I can only surmise that Zimmelman was herself unaware of the whereabouts of the eight test-fired bullets. As I am confident Zimmelman  would  not knowingly mis-inform/mislead anyone concerning the  whereabouts of the test-fired bullets and/or their shell casings. In any event - the eight shell casings have been swept off the face of the earth - and  SUS Records  100%  documents this.


This shocking  shell casings affair is on my web site under Plain Talk 5: November 20, 2011


I  promise I didn’t make this stuff up


In closing this report I am reminded of my dear late brother Abe’s love of the Torah and its many wise teachings - one of which is - Justice, Justice, always pursue Justice


Rose Lynn Mangan  -   June 5, 2013