Paul Schrade spoke before the Sirhan Parole Board and the whole world listened.
(for Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory see November 1, 2009 Update (D) on this web site)
On February 11 of this year Paul Schrade, one of the five victims who was shot in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel, at the time Robert F. Kennedy was shot, spoke before Sirhan B. Sirhan Parole Board Hearing.
Schrade's talk was an impassioned plea to set Sirhan free after nearly forty eight years of prison confinement. Paul also made the charge that Sirhan did not kill Robert F. Kennedy because Sirhan was at all times in front of Kennedy and Kennedy was shot from a shooter to his right rear.
In addition Paul Schrade was determined to read the Bagget Memo into the record. It will be remembered that Sirhan attempted to read this Baggett Memo before his Parole Board Hearing in 1997 – but as he was about to read it he was abruptly whisked out of the Hearing room. The hearing was suddenly at an end.
But they could not shut up Paul Schrade.
What did the Baggett Memo tell us? That two guns were fired in the pantry.
Schrade's eloquent talk not surprisingly made world wide headlines. It was very special.
The 1975 Examiners
Here is the story of just plain bad ballistics “science” and it took place while in the hands of the 1975 examiners. Their role in the use of substituted evidence bullets (the impostor Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47), the impostor Goldstein bullet (Peo. 52) and the 1975 Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory deserves a closer look.
The fact is the 1975 examiners were up to their eyeballs in substituted evidence bullets – yet they would have us believe that they were unaware the bullets were substitutes.
It will be remembered that the examiners received a “victim” bullet with moderate damage to the nose. The base of the bullet was undamaged and UNMARKED, however the nose of the bullet was engraved with the initials “DW” (LAPD criminalist DeWayne Wolfer).
Dr. Max Finkel removed a bullet from victim Ira Goldstein and marked “X” on the bullet base. That original Goldstein bullet was at some point in time switched out for a fake “Goldstein” bullet with a fake ID mark (6) on its base – placed there by guess who? None other than our very smart 1975 examiners!
My charge is that the examiners placed their OWN ID ENGRAVING “6” on the base of this fraudulent Goldstein bullet – never mind that the operating surgeon engraved an “X” on the bullet base. (see the Patrick Evidence Inventory)
Why didn't the examiners ask – Where is the operating surgeon's mark? After all the bullet base was in an intact condition. There was no fragmentation. And what about the chain of custody?
How did the examiners know for certain that this bullet with an unmarked bullet base was bona fide? Why didn't they place their Panel ID # 6 engraving on the available space on the ogive of the bullet and below the “DW” engraving on the nose instead of the bullet base?
But that is not the end of the problem.
Once again, I ask WHY didn't the Bullet Worksheets contain a column whereby the examiners could record the ID engraving on the bullet he was examining? After all the examiners themselves gave their approval to this gangrenous Bullet Worksheet.
Only one person, Patrick Garland, reported what engravings were on each bullet! That was truly a brilliant ploy. But everybody kept their mouths shut while the tricks played out.
Why didn't EACH examiner tell us what ID engravings were present on each bullet he examined – and where on the bullet were the engravings located? Listen, if you are going to use dirty tactics, then keep the honest examiners in the dark. And that Bullet Worksheet was the perfect tool.
These high-up frauds were no accident
But there is more
These seven examiners wrote the following:
“The panel recognizes that the original issue was raised after Balliscan photographs of the Kennedy, Weisel, and test bullet had been studied. It is felt that final judgements should be based on an examination of original evidence, not photographs of the evidence. ...”
What these seven examiners were telling us is that the newly developed Balliscan Camera photographs should not be accepted. To their slippery worded charge I ask WHY didn't the examiners take their own Balliscan Camera photographs of the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) and the Weisel bullet (Peo. 54)? After all their Kennedy neck bullet was 100% a fake bullet (wrong ID marking on bullet base).
This would once and for all tell us whether the Kennedy neck bullet in Harper's Balliscan camera photograph was “DW””TN” !!! Because we know the Kennedy neck bullet given to the examiners was marked “DW””TN” - A FAKE bullet!! In other words did Harper also use the fake Kennedy neck bullet (“D””W” “T””N”) for his Balliscan Camera photograph? I for one would like to know the answer.
In other words – the seven examiners went out on a limb by giving a big black eye to the validity of the Balliscan Camera photographs but like thieves in the night – they did not take their very own Balliscan camera photograph of the fake Kennedy neck bullet and the suspect Weisel bullet in their hands!!! ( Read my report on the Weisel bullet and see why I question this bullet)
It seems only logical that the examiners discredited the validity of the Balliscan Camera photographs as evidence because of the Baggett Memo conclusion that two different bullet manufacturers meant two guns were fired in the pantry.
What I am saying is that the examiners ruled out the validity of Balliscan Camera photographs – then , I ask WHY did they take up valuable examination time on seemingly VALUELESS photographs? Just where is their logic?
Three criminalists reach the same conclusion
Harper's Balliscan Camera photographs of Kennedy neck bullet and Weisel bullet were examined by William W. Harper, Larry Baggett and Herbert Leon MacDonell and each of these criminalists reached the conclusion that the Kennedy neck bullet and the Weisel bullet were fired from two different guns.
We see the examiners' gratuitous finding that the Balliscan Camera photographs do not meet acceptable scientific standards is nothing more than a false charge because – once again - the examiners did not take their OWN Balliscan Camera photograph of the fake Kennedy neck bullet and the suspect Weisel bullet which was given to them.
What I am charging is that the examiners themselves did not meet proper scientific standards when they ruled out the validity of the Balliscan Camera photographs because their own examination was incomplete.(not making their own Balliscan Camera photograph)
Let's attack MacDonell! That will surely bury the Balliscan Camera photographs
A vigorous attack was made on MacDonell's finding of a single canalure on the Balliscan Camera photograph of the Kennedy neck bullet, whereas the Weisel bullet had two canalures. Well, since the LAPD declared the eight crime scene shell casings (Peo. 21) were manufactured by CCI – this meant that the pantry bullets would have the same number of canalures – two.
The fine engravings on the bullet itself were not challenged – only the canalure count. The bullet striations were crisp and clear and not at all in question. And the fact that the Kennedy neck bullet had such clear striations meant that the Kennedy neck bullet was fired from a newer gun than the Weisel bullet. This conclusion is indeed found in the Baggett Memo.
In short, that canalure business was meant to negate the validity of Harper's Balliscan Camera photographs. I repeat, if the examiners sought to conduct a true scientific Balliscan Camera Report – then they would have taken their own Balliscan Camera photographs of the very bullets they were given – the fake Kennedy neck bullet and the questioned Weisel bullet. Wouldn't that tell us if Harper's Balliscan Camera photograph depicted the real Kennedy neck bullet? And what about the Baggett Memo finding of two guns being fired in the pantry?
Were the examiners compromised?
We cannot know for certain - they made far too many mistakes.
Here is DOUBLESPEAK at its best
The Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory begins with these words:
“Prior to any examinations, the evidence was inventoried and assigned Panel Identification Numbers. Each bullet was indexed with a circular depression on the ogive, and an identification mark was placed where it would do the least amount of harm”
And so I again ask why did the examiners place their own Panel ID # “6” on the base of an unmarked bullet (base) – the Goldstein bullet? What happened to Dr. Max Finkel's ID mark “X” on this undamaged bullet base????? Why didn't the examiners place their ID mark “6” immediately next to their Circular depression on the ogive of the Goldstein bullet? After all the moderate damage to the nose of the Goldstein bullet didn't rule out the available space still remaining on the ogive after their circular depression was stamped on it. I know this for a fact because I examined the Goldstein bullet many times.
You just can't win with these slippery SUS devils, they just had too much power
It will be remembered that a grease like substance was applied to the surface of the Sirhan evidence bullets sometime in the spring of 1993 in an effort to thwart the observation of any identifying markings on the bullets.
I have another problem with the examiners -
Why, I ask, did the examiners engrave their own ID markings “D” “E” “ F” “G” on the nose of the Grand Jury 5 B four test bullets and NOT engrave their ID mark “A” “B” “C” on the three test bullets in Peo. 55 - with the POLICE GUN #H18602 written in red ink on this evidence envelope??????
No, the Robert F. Kennedy assassination investigation wasn't sloppy. It was a dirty, filthy cover up of fraudulent bullets, fraudulent evidence and fraudulent LAPD Property Reports - all committed by the powerful SUS. And nearly everyone wore blinders (the examiners were no Don Quixotes)
While I'm on the subject of the examiners
Lowell Bradford did NOT
write the correct identification for the torn gun label in his:
“ REPORT OF EVALUATION
Rose Lynn Mangan
4445 Highway 50 East
Carson City, Nv. 89703 (sic)
August 6, 1994”
On the first page of Bradford's Report he lists the number of items he will examine (six).
We see the torn gun label is incorrectly listed: “5. EXHIBIT 75-A ------portion of a label”
Here is my problem.
We see Bradford incorrectly identifies one of the items of evidence (as number 5) that he will examine. Bradford's wrong identification of the torn gun label occurs not once – but twice. Allow me to show this to you.
The torn gun label was identified at the Sirhan trial as 75-A for Identification only. It was not a trial Exhibit and was not shown to either the trial judge or the jury. In fact the torn gun label remained hidden away in the little sealed cellophane envelope during the trial.
Then on the following page Bradford writes:
“It was also requested that the box (Item 7.) be examined to determine whether or not:
a. the label (Item 75 – A) was originally attached to the box. ...”
Correction: the LAPD Property Report records the torn gun label (which included additional items) as Item # 71- and not Item 75-A as Bradford incorrectly writes.
I find Bradford's wrong identification of the torn gun label in his Report to be extremely troublesome in that his mistaken gun label identification seriously conflicts with the Sirhan Trial Transcript for 75-A.
Now, there is yet another problem
There is the matter of a conflicting LAPD Property Report. There exists two different LAPD Property Reports for Item # 71. How can this be?
One LAPD Property Report attributes Item #71 to be a: “Photo – 3”X4” of female “Shirin Khan” with writing on back “Shirin Khan DOB 4/22/50 daughter of Khaiber Khan (Todardzian, presented flowers & court order to Shah of Iran in N.Y. 6/1964” (sic) This item of evidence is initialed “DLK” for Officer D.L. Klein #11233.
We see this copy of the dual LAPD Property Report has a diagonal cross out line near the bottom and the writing “ALL CONTENTS TRANSFERRED TO SUS with a printed stamp at the side.
What we clearly see going on is the SWITCHING of an LAPD Property Report.
This switching business also occurred with the dual identification of the fatal Kennedy bullet – from the original Item #24 and #25 to Item #26 and #27.
I testified about my discovery of the alteration of evidence identification, evidence switching and false LAPD Property Reports in the Jamie Scott Enyart trial.
Also we see the Goldstein bullet was altered from Item #1 to Item #113 – this of course required a different LAPD Property Report.
Simply stated – there in fact occurred a switching of LAPD Property Reports. We have no way of knowing an original LAPD Property Report from a fake LAPD Property Report. That is a true fact.
And unfortunately this sort of thing is not new in this case. Remember the bullets themselves were switched (Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory) and the gun number was NOT recorded in either the Grand Jury Transcript nor was it (accurately) recorded in the Sirhan trial transcript – nor was the gun ID number recorded in Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits which accompanied the Sirhan evidence to the California State Archives.
The fact is these were not goof-ups, they were deliberate acts of fraud.
And they got caught.
We must take the crime labs out of the hands of the police departments – create well equipped independent crime labs with the best qualified experts and routinely monitor them. And then get on your knees and pray that they are not corrupted any time soon.
With the many frauds I discovered over these long years I say - But for the Grace of God go I - and you.
Rose Lynn Mangan (I wish Harper was alive) date March 19, 2016