Paul Schrade Two

(for Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory see November 1, 2009 Update (D) on this web site)

( As always, I admonish the Reader to skip this Report if he/she doesn't have the necessary smarts)

Fraudulent evidence vs. bona fide evidence

One day in discussing this problem with my son Brad, he posed this question. Are photographs (alone) of questioned bullets sufficient to meet scientific requirements for bullet identification? A great question.

Let us again review what was going on. On pages three and four of the 1975 seven examiners' Official Report to the Judge Robert Wenke court the examiners wrote the following:

“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 and those appearing microscopically on PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN (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,”

The operative words are “...and those appearing MICROSCOPICALLY ...” (emphasis my own). Then the examiners went on to write: “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.”

What the examiners are telling us plain folk is that they did in fact examine the Kennedy neck bullet (Ex. 47) and the Goldstein bullet (Ex. 52) under the microscope. (so their examination wasn't with photographs alone).

The examiners go on to say that these bullets (Kennedy neck bullet and Goldstein bullet) have not changed (appreciably) from back in June 6, 1968 until today. This means that on 6-6-68 at 9:00 p.m. Wolfer had crime photographer Jim Watson make comparison photomicrographs (Special Exhibit 10) of Peo. 47 compared with Peo. 52. These were the very same bullets that the examiners examined in 1975. and that there was little change to the bullets.

The examiners successfully reproduced Wolfer's photomicrograph (Special Exhibit 10) and now called their reproduction Special Hearing Exhibit 10.

This tells us in plain English that since the examiners' Kennedy neck bullet and Goldstein bullet were fakes – (wrong ID markings on the bullet bases) then it must follow that Wolfer's Kennedy neck bullet and Goldstein bullet were the same fakes.

The real Kennedy neck bullet is the question

Was Wolfer given the bona fide Kennedy neck bullet and the bona fide Goldstein bullet at some time earlier in the day on 6-6-68- to satisfy him that these bullets are authentic – then switched out later that same day? After all Wolfer was running around like a mad man all day and SUS had the assurance that Wolfer would not take photographs of the bullets. Those were Wolfer's marching orders. (but Wolfer defied those orders and went ahead and photographed the Kennedy neck and the Goldstein bullets anyway). I suspect he just wanted souvenirs for himself.

It will be remembered that everyone was surprised to learn that Wolfer had photomicrographs made of the Kennedy neck bullet and the Goldstein bullet. This very information is corroborated in Thomas Kranz's RFK Investigation Report and also by Dr. Noguchi delivering that 1x1 in. negative to Robert Joling in 1969 to “Hold onto this for safekeeping, We may need it someday.”

Let us now move on to the 1975 examiners' PID markings

Take a very close look at the examiners' report for Peo. 55 test bullets (three) and their report for GJ5B test bullets (four) and what you will see is that they did not mark the undamaged three test bullets (Peo. 55) with their own identification mark of “A” “B” “C” - whereas the examiners did in fact mark the four badly damaged test bullets in GJ5B (on their noses).


Why mark GJ5B test bullets and NOT mark Peo. 55 test bullets? Maybe it was because each envelope contained test fired bullets from two different guns - #H-53725 and #H-18602 and each set of test bullets were delivered to two different courts: GJ5B four test bullets with gun # H-53725 went to the Grand Jury (and never went to the Sirhan trial) and the three test bullets in Peo. 55 with the police gun # H-18602 went to the Sirhan trial (and never went to the Grand Jury)

The evidence envelope for the four GJ5B test bullets bears the (alleged) CORRECT gun number H-53725 written on the evidence envelope. However, the three test bullets in Peo. 55 evidence envelope has the POLICE GUN number H-18602 written on it. And those examiners DID NOT want to apply their PID mark to fake bullets.

The examiners failure to engrave certain bullets meant one thing – the examiners were POSITIVELY AWARE that the bullets were fakes but they did not want their PID # engraved on these tainted pieces of evidence. They were not responsible for the fake bullets and wanted no connection to them.

What the examiners really did was to pass the buck. This clearly was not their fight and they were not about to get dragged into a false bullet battle.


Carefully examine Garland's information for the envelope marked Peo. 55 and you will see that the serial number for the test gun is H -18602 – the Jake Williams gun (which became a police gun in March, 1967 when Williams failed to claim it upon his release from his burglary arrest)

I must repeat this again

We plainly see proof positive that the examiners were aware that a gun with a different number was fired for the three test bullets in Peo. 55 evidence envelope. What this tells us is that the examiners could not risk placing their PID numbers on Peo. 55 test bullets now that they were aware of a police gun written on Sirhan evidence envelope (Peo. 55). They just would not stick their necks out.

I have always been puzzled by the examiners failure to ask – Where are the shell casings? We want to compare the evidence shell casings with our own test shell casings from gun number H 53725.

But that was not to be. Literally all of the shell casings in evidence were deliberally WITHHELD from the examiners (including the 8 crime scene shell casings and the missing (2) shell casings in Peo. 55 envelope from the police gun H-18602)

But there was one more stick in the eye for those bewildered seven examiners. Their very own test shell casings from their firing of gun number H -53725 have VANISHED !!! The examiners' test shell casings were never delivered to the California State Archives. Truly they are missing. I discovered this shocking fact upon a close scrutiny of something called “Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Evidence” which is the official inventory of Sirhan evidence that was delivered to CSA. (see my letter to Nancy Zimmelman for this official document)

And not to forget I asked CSA Nancy Zimmelman for the 1975 test bullets and their shell casings so that I might photograph them. She told me that CSA never received them. Her response was only partly true, CSA did receive the 1975 test bullets but they did not receive the 1975 test shell casings. That is a true fact.

More switched bullets and fake evidence envelopes – I warn the Reader – if you read this you'll have a headache like you've never had before

Here is a brief review of the mind boggling problem of the switched bullets and fake evidence envelopes

Peo. 38, 1 and 1a, the two “car seat” spent bullets were NOT. marked by the examiners with PID numbers (1 & 1a)

Peo. 47, the Kennedy neck bullet, was NOT marked by the examiners with a PID number (2)

Peo. 48, the large flattened piece of the fatal Kennedy bullet , was marked by the examiners with PID # 3 on base.

Peo. 50, the Schrade bullet fragments (2 small fragments) was marked twice by the examiners with PID # 4 on top and PID # 4 on base .

Peo. 51, the Stroll bullet - flattened on one side, was NOT marked by the examiners with a PID # (5)

Peo. 52, the Goldstein bullet was marked by the examiners with PID # 6 on the bullet base !!!!!!!

Peo. 53, the Evans bullet fragments were NOT marked by the examiners with PID # 7 (the fragments were too small)

Peo. 54, the Weisel bullet was marked by the examiners with PID # 8 on nose.

Peo. 55, the three test bullets in evidence envelope Peo. 55 with an LAPD police gun # H-18602 and written in red ink on the envelope were NOT marked by the examiners with PID # A, B, C.

GJ5B, the four damaged test bullets with gun # H53725 written on the evidence envelope were marked by the examiners with their PID # “D” “E” “F” “G” - It is important to remember these four Grand Jury evidence test bullets remained in the custody of the Grand Jury. They were NOT delivered to the Sirhan trial. This is an unbelievable but true fact.

Peo. 6, the alleged Sirhan gun. - Carefully examine Patrick Garland's description of the information on the evidence envelope for Peo. 6 and the Reader will see that the serial number for the gun is not recorded. However, the serial number for the gun is recorded under “Contents”:

My question, why doesn't the serial number for the gun appear on Peo. 6 envelope?

Now compare the evidence envelope for Peo. 55 containing the three test bullets and what you plainly see is the wrong gun number - H-18602 (remember the two spent shell casings were removed prior to Wolfer's trial testimony).

Allow me to explain what happened

Criminalist William Harper made the amazing discovery that an LAPD gun (serial # H18602) was written on Peo. 55 evidence envelope (written in red ink) instead of gun # H-53725.

In light of the fact that Harper's discovery was made public it was not possible for Garland to withhold this damning envelope from his official evidence inventory.

All of this amazing information is fully corroborated in the Trapp/Howard Memorandum. This important Memorandum does not list Garland's evidence envelope for Peo. 6 , the Sirhan gun. How to explain Garland's evidence inventory wherein he records an envelope for the gun – but he does not record the gun's serial number?

And why wasn't that fake envelope recorded in the Trapp/Howard Memorandum? I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't exist – it was a fake evidence envelope which was used one time only to fool the examiners. There is no record of the existence of this fraudulent evidence envelope before or after Patrick Garland's evidence inventory. It was a one time prop. Period.

One must ask where did the Patrick Garland envelope for Peo. 6 suddenly come from?

Isn't this the same thing that happened when Dr. Noguchi gave a 1x1 inch negative in a coin envelope to Robert Joling at the Drake Hotel, Chicago, Ill. in 1969? Dr. Noguchi told Joling to: “Hold onto this for safekeeping, we may need it someday”.

Allow me to explain what was going on

When Harper discovered the LAPD police gun # H-18602 on Peo. 55 evidence envelope was used as evidence in the Sirhan trial quite naturally it generated a great deal of publicity therefore it was literally impossible to withhold Peo. 55 envelope from the examiners.

There is this point to consider - no one paid attention to the false evidence, including the missing evidence envelope for the Sirhan gun. This is supported by the SUS records which contains the Trapp/Howard Memorandum wherein they report there is no evidence envelope for the Sirhan gun.

What the Reader will see is a definite pattern by the examiners to withhold their PID number from an evidence bullet if they suspected the bullet might not be authentic. They said nothing – they just didn't place their ID mark on a question bullet.

After all, the examiners were not there to solve a crime. They shut their eyes to the bad bullets and shut their mouths at what they saw.

In other words they went along. These men were no Don Quixotes.

Let us take a look at the examiners' PID marks

Peo. 38 (1&1a) were reported to have been found on the front passenger seat of Sirhan's car. The wood tracings are still visible on these bullets and it is suspected these spent bullets were removed from the pantry door post.

Peo. 51 is the Stroll bullet, it is a smashed / flattened bullet. The experts who I brought in to the CSA to examine the bullets were in agreement that this bullet appeared to have ricocheted off the cement floor.

Peo. 53 is the Evans bullet. It was fragmented into several pieces – not suitable for placing ID marks on.

Peo. 54 is the Weisel bullet. While this bullet was marked by the examiners with their ID mark 8 on the bullet's nose there are far too many instances of wrong doing.

This is a near perfect bullet with a number of problems. It passed unmarked through seven separate transactions before LAPD Officer L.M. Orozco received it then unbelievably he placed his own initials “LMO” on the base of this bullet!!! This is truly a fantastic scenario.

I noticed that Orozco's LAPD Property Report is dated a day later (6-6-68) but the bullet was removed on the 5th by Dr. Neal.

Upon close examination of Patrick Garland's evidence inventory I noticed the initials were now “ LM” on the base of this bullet, but that is incorrect. Orozco's LAPD Property Report clearly records “LMO” on this bullet base. Was someone trying to mask the wrong initial “M” for Dr. Neal's initial “N”? And what happened to the missing initial “O”? Did someone swallow it ?

I find Officer Orozco's role in this bullet's history is highly questionable – if not outright fraud.

Peo. 55. Ah, this is a horse of a different color. Remember

Peo. 55 is an evidence envelope containing three test bullets from an LAPD owned gun with serial number H-18602.

The envelope is entirely written in red ink and dated 6-5/6-68 (the number 6 was written over the number 5)

In addition to the three test bullets in Peo/ 55, there were also two test shell casings - but when Officer Wolfer testified at the Sirhan trial someone had removed those ( two) spent shell casings from the envelope. Consequently there is no record in the Sirhan trial transcript of these two spent shell casings from gun ID number H-18602. That is a true fact.

And finally, the examiners did NOT place their ID markings, “A” “B” “C” on these three test bullets - which were fired from a police gun. Why do you suppose the examiners withheld their PID # from the three test bullets?

Could it be that Patrick Garland recorded the police gun number H-18602 in his evidence inventory?

Harper's discovery of a different gun ID number on Peo. 55 evidence envelope created a great deal of publicity. Garland was left to deal with a police gun ID number on a Sirhan evidence envelope


I believe the examiners did not place their ID marks on these test bullets for the simple reason that they COULDN'T. How could they place their ID marks on test bullets from a cop's gun?

The examiners failure to take their own Balliscan Camera photographs revisited

Harper's Balliscan photo and the Baxter Ward (1974) Balliscan photo showed the same Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) they were not switched - but - we do know that the 1975 examiners were given a fake Kennedy neck bullet in 1975 (wrong engraving on bullet base).

We also know the examiners did not take their own Balliscan Camera photograph of the fake Kennedy neck bullet in their hands. My question – Why not?

This is what I suspect. There would be irrefutable proof in the official records that the Kennedy neck bullet was switched in 1975. I believe that was the very reason the examiners did not take their own Balliscan Camera photos.

With that thought in mind – how dare those examiners discredit the Balliscan Camera photographs! Their action was unscientific. And it resembles the examiners' withholding their own PID numbers on above listed bullets.

The examiners were instructed to mark the bullets with their own PID numbers and they failed to do so with all of the bullets. I suggest the reason for that is that they didn't want to be linked to the proven fake bullets. These were no oversights.

Sirhan's memory

I knew Sirhan and his family very well and never at any time did I see Sirhan waver about having no memory of the shooting in the pantry. In addition I had many discussions with the late Dr. Herbert Spiegel, a world renown expert on hypnoses, and he too believed Sirhan had a true memory block and was a pawn who was placed in the pantry as a necessary distraction.

What I find so compelling is the fact that nearly all of the evidence that was given to the 1975 Judge Robert Wenke court order seven examiners was proven to be fraudulent. What possible explanation can there be for such outrageous goings on? Especially where someone connected with this special examination was able to steal the spent shell casings from the test firing of gun # H-53725.

This thief had to have played an inside role in Judge Wenke's court ordered special investigation of the Sirhan evidence to have inside knowledge of the tests and be able to steal those spent test shell casings.

Surely the Reader can see that without those stolen 1975 test shell casings from gun # H-53725 there can be no future comparison test from a refiring of gun number H-53725. That is a true fact.

Why else would anyone steal the 1975 test shell casings ?

No one should have the power to thwart justice and plant fraudulent evidence. Nor should they have the power to steal the People's property. I don't care how big they are.

Rose Lynn Mangan March 22, 2016