Addition to Paul Schrade Two


Please examine the following information concerning the stolen/missing test shell cases from the 1975 examiners' test firing of  gun number H-53725 -  in addition take a really close look at Patrick Garland writing in the past tense about marking of the bullets.


The consequence of the theft of the examiners' test shell cases in 1975 means that it is literally impossible to compare the eight Sirhan crime scene shell cases (Peo. 21) or the two test shell cases  in (Peo. 55) with the test shell cases from the 1975 firing of gun number H-53725.  Was there a match between the stolen 1975 test shell cases and Peo. 21 or the two test shell cases in Peo. 55 ? We will never know that answer.


This  unbelievable state of affairs exists because someone was powerful enough to become part of the Judge Wenke investigation team. As a result the tightest security was breached and the test shell cases were quietly stolen. And now that I have made this stunning theft information public  – not a word of inquiry from any governmental official. Unfortunately, this is all too true.


But there is more – there is the serious problem of  PatrickGarland using the  past tense


Patrick Garland opens his Evidence Inventory 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.”  (note the past tense was used not once- but twice)


Remember, the examiners were mandated by the court to place their PID#  on each bullet but they failed to do this with all of the bullets. (including the three unmarked test bullets in Peo. 55)


Here is the big problem - the past tense


Read Patrick Garland's Evidence Inventory prelude “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” (emphasis my own).


After closely examining the layout of Garland's Evidence Inventory I was finally able to make sense of how the marking – or – non marking of the bullets eluded detection. Examine the page layout of Patrick Garland's Evidence Inventory and this is what you will see:


“The evidence inventory follows:


People's                   Panel

Exhibit                    ID

No.                          No.                     Description       ...”          


Below the line and to the left Garland recorded the Peo. Ex. Number

To the right, under the heading “Panel ID No.” Garland recorded the “...assigned  Panel Identification Numbers.”

Beneath “Description” Garland recorded the information written on the evidence envelope and beneath that Garland describes the “Contents”. 

Under “Contents” Garland listed all of the identification marks appearing on the bullets and where the marks were located.

However, when Garland reported the PID# information for the test bullets we see a change has taken place.

Garland clearly OMITS the markings of  “A””B””C” (at the right) for the three test bullets in Peo. Ex. 55.

Carefully compare how Garland reported the  PID markings on GJ5B, the four Grand Jury test bullets, and what you will see is that – now – Garland DOES RECORD the PID  markings of “D””E””F””G” (at the right)-  with emphasis “on the right”


If one does not take the time to closely examine the entire Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory they will not see the subtle inconsistencies or the outright omissions of PID numbers.


For years I was aware of the tremendous importance of the stolen/missing test shell cases  – but there seemed to be little interest . 


But today, with the miracle of the internet my little web site can roar like a lion.


In case anyone thinks I'm making much ado about nothing – my response is this - read  “Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Evidence”.  (I promise you'll get all shook up)                                                                                                                                       


Rose Lynn Mangan      March 25, 2016