Plain Talk 2


This section will address a  number of  disturbing issues including a  testy letter  I wrote to Sirhan shortly after receiving a copy of  Attorneys Pepper/Dusek October 2010 court filing -  ( thoughtfully sent to me by  a  fellow writer/researcher who asked that I review  it for accuracy and what if any errors I discovered)). The documents   also included  the above referenced  Sirhan letter  to Pepper/Dusek which was attached as an exhibit  ( and  now  became  part of the  court record )  So I asked myself “what could be going on?) Can there possibly be a connection to a copyright violation (of my research) by a prominent Mr. X ?  The fact is when I first discovered  that copyright violation I  promptly notified  Mr. X  by letter with a cc to my attorney. I certainly had no intention of financially harming him, all I require is permission or attribution to use my copyrighted research.


I had to ask myself why this particular time-line for Sirhan to present the court with  false and misleading information  about  my  being the sole researcher and author of my  research discoveries  (Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report and my Special Exhibit 10 Report)   I can  see what an opportunistic defense Sirhan’s  letter  to Pepper/Dusek  might offer to Mr. X. in his  great and embarrassing dilemma .  Of course I make no charge of a link between those two events.  However,  I ask myself why Sirhan wrote something which is absolutely false - as I will prove in this report  by including a copy of Sirhan’s Declaration  in Teeter’s court filing which once-and-for-all refutes what Sirhan now writes.  I find Sirhan’s conduct to be outrageously offensive.


 I am not over-inflating this matter since there currently exists a legal notification of copyright violation  and  Mr. X’s present  position remains unchanged - as far as I am aware of.


So what the court now has to deal with  are Sirhan’s own  dueling letters !!!


 Here  is  a portion of what Sirhan wrote that I so strongly take issue with:  “As I began to develop the conviction that I was innocent based on the newly developed evidence by Rose Lynn Mangan and Larry Teeter…”  Since Sirhan  brought into question  my  sole authorship I began to look through my files for  past Declarations to  the Court and other references ( written by Sirhan ) in which he addresses my research.  So far I found two which did not include Teeter’s  name in  any connection with my research discoveries. By far the most important is Sirhan’s Declaration to the Court dated August 1998. Sirhan  specifically wrote about my Special Exhibit 10 Report and that he first learned of it in 1993 from me.  Again, I stress no mention of Teeter’s involvement in my research..  In fact that document was included in Teeter’s court filing. The point I make is that this  August 1998  Declaration totally refutes what Sirhan wrote to Pepper/Dusek and which P/D included in their  Oct 2010  Court filing.. Then there is Sirhan’s letter to me dated March 18, 1996 wherein Sirhan is very clear about my research findings. Again , no suggestion of Teeter’s involvement with my work.


In my letter to Sirhan I asked that either he or his attorney notify me in writing of the specific instance of the “newly developed evidence by Rose Lynn Mangan and Larry Teeter” he relies on.  Sirhan well knows I wrote my Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report - and copyrighted it -  as a guide to assist Teeter with his filing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.




 After Teeter passed  away I was not consulted by Sirhan’s new legal team  until Attorney Pepper contacted me  a few months ago about my sending him an affidavit for the Supplement he was then preparing for the court.


He ended up not using it.  However , I found P/D  did include some of  my research  in their Oct. 2010 court filing without mentioning that I am the author. Aside  from any  possible legal requirements of using evidence-related  information  in a court filing without sourcing it, I was deeply  offended by  Pepper/Dusek  not allowing me to review  the use of my research for accuracy, and, as it turned out  P/D did make  a few minor errors when they used information from my Special Exhibit 10 Report.


 When I did in fact discover one extremely serious  error and  the above mentioned  lesser additional errors  ( the major error was repeated in  the April 2011 Supplement) I included this information in my testy  letter to Sirhan and asked that he forward  information of that  major error to Pepper/Dusek  as I did not care to have anything to do with them.


Without getting into a lengthy report of the major error which  I discovered in the  Pepper/Dusek Oct. 2010 court filing and repeated in their April  2011 Supplement I will say this. It  erroneously  offers up information of  an extremely important pre-trial  ballistics examination. That is patently untrue  since Harper never examined any of the Sirhan evidence bullets  before the trial !!.


As I was writing this report, I took a break and googled Lawrence Teeter on you tube and much to my surprise I found  Lawrence Teeter talks about CIA and RFK Uploaded by Reprehensor,  Part 2/9 .  Teeter did in in fact acknowledge my research and gave full credit to me  for the research I did in  both the Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report and my Special Exhibit 10 Report . What Teeter also speaks of is his research into the Viet Nam war and its connection to the RFK assassination  and CIA involvement. Whereas   my research focused on SUS files, Sirhan Trial Transcripts,  official documents ,examination of evidence  and  information supplied to me by criminalist William W. Harper and numerous other official documents.   Clearly Teeter and I were traveling on separate  research paths. .  I want to point out an error in Teeter’s talk  (referenced above)  He said Dr. Noguchi examined the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) at the  Sirhan trial. That didn’t take place. What Teeter meant to say  was Dr. Noguchi examined the Kennedy neck bullet for the third time at the Baxter Ward Hearings  (it was an innocent slip of  the tongue). Teeter’s talk was without notes or aids and certainly it was one of the best  talks about  this case  by anyone to date. It was quite remarkable.


Several weeks ago in my email to Robert Blair Kaiser I asked him if he had any knowledge of that secret  pact  (Sirhan Trial Transcript page 3967) between the three prosecutors and the three trial attorneys  in trial Judge Walker’s chambers (when prosecutor Fitts admits they do not  have adequate foundation  for the bullets and in response defense attorney Cooper agrees to stipulate to the bullets)  Kaiser’s  response was “no” -  the defense team couldn’t risk his having any  prior knowledge of  the treachery they were  about to engage in.  Everyone of those “officers of the court”  who were present that day in trial judge Walker’s court chambers ( including the trial judge) were deeply wounding our justice system. And that is the plain simple reason  why I am so suspicious of the integrity  of our legal system.  These men  were not above the law. And equally disturbing, now that page 3967 has been brought to the court’s attention in Teeter’s court filings there is a deafening silence.


I want to write  few words about why it is that my research has not  in the past  and presently not endorsed  by a few  men who have associated themselves  in some measure in the RFK  assassination research.


I am going to speak plainly.  It will be remembered in Feb. 1969  Dr. Noguchi gave  a 1”x1” 35 millimeter  negative/ photomicrograph of Special Exhibit 10 to Robert Joling to  “hold onto for safekeeping, we may need  it someday”  But Dr. Noguchi  did not say why it was important ( it is an image of two comparison bullets).  Why did he give  this UNIDENTIFIED  negative it to Joling “for safekeeping”? It obviously meant something.  But what was it that was so important? The only writings  on that photomicrograph appeared on the lower left -” Photo #8”  and on the upper left  “68- 521466 6-6-68  DW”  (Sirhan’s daily report DR#521466) . So we know several things - that was part of a series of photos (what did photos 1-7 depict ?)  We also know from the date 6-6-68 that it was on this date that Dr. Noguchi removed the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) during the autopsy he performed on Sen. Kennedy. But something is clearly wrong because - it will be remembered-  this was the Special Exhibit 10 photomicrograph which depicted two comparison bullets. Wolfer declared the bullet on the left was the Kennedy neck bullet and opposite it was his “test” bullet from Peoples 55 envelope (bearing the gun serial number H18602 - the Jake Williams gun - belonging to LAPD Property Division.) Then, later when I carefully examined the engraved markings on the bullet bases in the  Patrick Garland’s Evidence Inventory ( an attachment to the  1975 Judge Robert Wenke Court Order) I found what I was looking for..


I had a chance to closely  examine that photomicrograph when Robert Joling , at  my request, brought it to my home in Nv. in 1992.  I wanted to compare it with  records in William Harper’s  collection. In order to effectively research that  negative I needed  to have a photocopy. And so when I asked Joling to have one made and send it to me he was kind enough to do so. Now keep in mind that was in 1992. And Joling had it in his possession since Feb. 1969.


The first thing I did was to make a copy for Adel Sirhan and tell him the above story because I never withheld any of my research from him.   And that is how a problem  of major proportions developed.


Adel wanted  more than anything to know  what those two bullets were. And so one day Adel and I met with Paul Schrade  (in a different meeting than  our luncheon with Schrade, Barrett and Teeter)  at which time  Adel told him the story of  how I came into possession of  the photo (Special Exhibit 10)  because he (Adel) hoped Schrade would inform  the Kennedy family that something could be wrong with the evidence.


Joling was livid that I shared  the  Dr.Noguchi confidence with Adel Sirhan.


That was exactly how it came about that Joling and two other men (whose names I will omit)  had a three-way telephonic conference set up by Ted Charach in which these three men  discussed my  Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report  and  jointly agreed that they would not lend their names to  it , because , among other things,  it was not written in a scientific format  ( or some similar expression)!!!!!!  When Ted told me why they refused to acknowledge my research I was in shock.  Ted sent me a copy of the letter of  the above referenced conference. I wondered why those  influential men were silencing my research.  (but when it was convenient Mr. X used my copyrighted research without my permission or attribution!!!)


My personal opinion of that  truly  shameful  conduct by those three  “gentlemen “ is that  they were less than thrilled at what I had discovered.  I truly suspect some jealousy was involved.  The fact is Special Exhibit 10 was an UNCRACKED CODE and remained so until I got my hands on it. Then I meticulously went about studying  and researching everything and anything  I could locate until I was able to -  indeed  crack the code. The only problem with that is that I am a housewife without any scientific training or experience.. And I  had the good sense to think out of the box.  I did the necessary  digging until I finally discovered what Special Exhibit 10  actually meant.  And how terribly important it turned out to be. That approximately took from  December 1992 to the early part of 1996.


While performing my research I felt the great responsibility that was in my hands to report my discoveries with truth, honesty ,fairness  and exactness. This more often than not earned me great enmity. By  operating as an independent researcher I go where, when  and why I wanted (into areas of evidence). I know I have been extremely critical of our judicial system - but that is because I held the prosecutors , defense attorneys and trial judge to the highest standards. My disappointment  with the conduct of those gentlemen in this case has never left me . The point I want to stress is that  I spoke out against prosecutorial misconduct when I saw it and when I saw rank ineptness, dishonesty and (God forbid)  errors in court filings by the defense  I spoke out even louder. When a man’s freedom and very life is at stake -there can be no room for anything  but the best.


Another word about our prison system. I have noticed that the prison officials are frequently criticized in the press sometimes deservedly so. But what the reader doesn’t hear about are the thousands of life-saving measures the prison officials are daily taking  - at great risk of their own lives -to control violence and in fact save prisoner’s lives. As I earlier wrote about the wardens and prison officials in both San Quentin Prison and Corcoran State Prison did in fact save Sirhan’s life. As I wrote about  earlier of  these incidents the press was never informed. Mary feared the consequences publicity might bring.  In talking to my son Brad about the details of that terrible  San Quentin incident my son commented “he’s lucky the prisoner told his lawyer about it”. What Brad refers to is that attorney Luke Mcissack  learned from an inmate  that seven prisoners had a pact to …..and how it was to be carried out. In fact Sirhan had full knowledge of this sinister plot as Sirhan himself told it to his mother and me  when we visited  with him and it was right after  leaving Sirhan that Mary and I went directly into Associate Warden Park’s office to report the plot to him . (Sirhan never knew Mary and I reported the plot to A.W. Park) It will be remembered I memorialized the Park visit by sending him a Western Union Night Letter with a copy sent to Mary’s address.


The San Quentin prison officials literally saved Sirhan’s life. I find it most strange that , to me the real heroes in this case are the prison officials. The public too often hears only negative stories about the prisons, and next to nothing about their true heroic roles.  Whenever I visited Sirhan in prison  I always - always  thought  back of how the San Quentin Warden and his staff saved Sirhan’s life. I am glad I finally told this story.


In the end what did I really learn? Perhaps it is that mistakes  can and often do happen. On both sides.