Plain Talk  3



What I will try to accomplish in this section is to address some of  the  nagging problems which I feel were not sufficiently explored in my  earlier reports. Here they are:


#1  - It will be remembered that the Los Angeles County Grand Jury met on June 7, 1968 in the Sirhan case. One of the items which the LACGJ received in evidence  on that date was the Sirhan gun, however, nowhere in that entire LACGJ Transcript was the serial number of that gun recorded. A gun in evidence without a serial number!! Now let us take a look at what transpired at the Sirhan trial with respect to that gun’s unrecorded  id number.


There is an official Property Receipt  in SUS files  with Sirhan’s DR No. (68-521 466)  at the upper right. The box on the upper left lists the officer who authorized release of evidence Item numbers  (1-14) to the trial court custody as Sgt. F.J. Patchett #7872 Homi.  The box listing “person issuing this receipt (name, serial no. Div.)”  is left blank - so, where was this gun  (also without a serial number) transferred from?  It will be remembered that on Aug. 24, 1968 gun id # H 53725 was illegally  transferred  from LACGJ custody to SUS under  documents marked CONFIDENTIAL.  That secret SUS transfer was a patent violation of Judge Arthur Alarcon’s Los Angeles County Grand Jury Court Order dated 6-7-68 which sealed all of the Grand Jury’s Evidence.


 The  list of evidence items  # 1-14  was  transferred to  the  Sirhan court for use in his trial and signed by  Court Clerk A. Nishikawa. I noted Item #11 (the gun) is  typewritten and bears the following description: “Gun, 22 cal., Iver Johnson Cadet”. That is all  - no serial number for this gun appears on this  official Property Receipt. However please examine the handwritten number “6” which was written in at a later date. How do I know this? Because number “6” is the Siirhan Trial People’s Exhibit # 6  assigned to the Sirhan gun at Sirhan’s trial  when Defense Attorney Cooper stipulated the gun in evidence and  therefore could not possibly have been known at the time Court Clerk Nishikawa received evidence items # 1-14.  So what does this tell me? That literally there is no way anyone can  definitively know the true id number of the Sirhan gun simply because  these critical  documents lack the gun’s serial number!  And further, there isn’t even a Grand Jury  Evidence Tag (#7) for the gun LACGJ received in evidence on 6-7-68. But that is not all. There isn’t even an LAPD Evidence Envelope  in existence for the alleged Sirhan gun! That is a true  fact.  I asked California  State Archivist  Nancy Zimmelman to produce the evidence envelope for the gun in CSA possession  so that I might photograph it. She informed me that CSA never received an evidence envelope with the gun. And  that is  positively borne out by  an  official  SUS document - see the Memorandum To: John E. Howard, Chief Deputy District Attorney From: Sidney D. Trapp, Jr., Deputy District Attorney. As to a chain of custody for the gun- forget it.


Even in 1975 in accordance with the Judge Robert Wenke  Court Order calling for the refiring of the Sirhan gun and examination of certain items of evidence - the  transfer documents in  SUS still do not record the gun’s serial number.  (see attached document)


 The above  events were not oversights. What does one do when it is impossible to commit  to a gun’s serial number in writing?   Simple,  omit it from the records!  click here



#2  -Shortly after Sirhan’s arrest Sirhan raised his right  clenched  fist. I immediately told Mary Sirhan to tell Sirhan it was a terrible thing to do  and to stop it.  He listened to her and never repeated it. Also, very shortly after Sirhan’s arrest he told ACLU Attorney A.L. Wirin that he killed Robert F. Kennedy. Wirin told this to both Robert Blair Kaiser and  at a later date Wirin told the same thing to me  and added :“Don’t waste your time” And  why I wondered was Wirin - in my opinion-  “poisoning the well”. I ask, who else did Wirin tell that to? Why?


This of course made me ask myself what could possibly be going on and so I asked Deputy Public Defender Wilbur Littlefield  (Sirhan’s earliest attorney) if Sirhan  also confessed RFK killing to him. His response was “no”. Why not?  Could it be that Sirhan was carrying out post-hypnotic suggestions/commands ?  I posed that question to Dr. Herbert Spiegel and he told me  “yes”  that behavior was very consistent with post-hypnotic commands  in a  hypno-programmed subject. I am not trying to make a case one way or another - I am just stating the true  facts.  Also, it will be remembered on Mary’s first visit with Sirhan after the assassination she asked him :”Son, why did you do this?”  To which he responded : “I was told I did it”.  In all of my visits with  Sirhan his   loss of memory of the pantry scene events has never wavered. I positively believe he was being truthful and  truly suffers from a memory block of what happened in the pantry.  I want to state that I am not Sirhan’s apologist. I firmly  believe Sirhan was hypnotized that awful night in the Ambassador Hotel Pantry.  Also, if Sirhan was the killer - then why  was there  a  need for false evidence?


Recently Dr. Daniel Brown questioned Sirhan under hypnoses  in deprogramming  sessions to bring back Sirhan’s memory of the pantry events.  Had I talked with Dr. Brown prior to his  sessions with Sirhan I would  have  suggested Dr. Brown  ask Sirhan what he remembers about the raised fist salute (were they  instructions ?) and ask him does he remember telling Wirin that he killed Robert F. Kennedy?  But, that unfortunately  is a lost opportunity.



#   3-I discovered a very clear photograph of Sirhan’s gun box with Mary Sirhan’s handwriting “this is Sirhan’s gun box” and was fortunate to have a Lebanese young man translate the  Arabic writing into English. One of the things that continues to puzzle me about that gun box is that Sirhan always kept the gun in its  box. So why wasn’t it among the items of evidence  removed from Sirhan’s car when it was searched? Where exactly was it on 6-5-68 ? It wasn’t in the Sirhan home on 6-5-68.  So, when, how and why was  that gun box hidden away in the back  of the bottom shelf of the  Sirhan living room bookcase?  (It will be remembered that is where Adel Sirhan discovered it in 1994)  click here



#   4- Here you will see  clearer copies  of documents in SUS files about  Sirhan firing blanks  at the gun range . These documents fully corroborate Sirhan’s telling me that he met a young man  at the Fish Canyon Firing Range and that the young man had received a gun for his eighteenth birthday. He was firing blanks and shared those blanks with Sirhan. That is not to say that Sirhan had blanks in his gun when he left the firing range.  Still, that is a record in SUS  files  about Sirhan firing blanks at the gun range and it corroborates  what Sirhan told me  (that he  fired blanks in his gun at the gun range on  June fourth).click here



#   5- Sirhan’s handwritten account of attorney Cooper’s refusal to even listen to Sirhan about  his not having a memory of the pantry  shooting is virtually unchanged from his  1993 note which he asked  Adel  to give to me  and his letter to Pepper/Dusek dated here



#   6- Take a close look at the two different test firing dates: On 6-5-68  the .22cal  Iver Johnson revolver with serial # H53725 was fired for (four) comparison test bullets (GJ5B).  Now examine  the test firing of an Iver Johnson .22 cal revolver with serial # H18602 for comparison (three) test bullets (Peo. Ex. 55).  Take a close look at the date and you will see the number “ 6 “ appears to have  been superimposed over what looks like  the number “ 5”. However, even if one were to dismiss the conflicting dates on Peo. Ex. 55  there remains a far greater  problem . It will be remembered  LAPD Officer Wolfer stated under oath that LAPD Officer Lee removed the Jake Williams gun (H18602)  from  LAPD Property Division on 6-11-68  for  the purpose of conducting distance  and  sound level tests.  So, how exactly did it happen that Officer  Lee removed the Jake Williams gun (H18602)  on  either June 5 or 6 from LAPD Property Division when Wolfer stated under oath that Officer Lee removed H18602  on 6-11-68?  Why is Peo. Ex. 55 PREDATED ?  IMPOSSIBLE!  Then, GJ5B containing  the four badly damaged  test bullets from test gun # H53725  was not transferred to the Sirhan trial - it was  in fact suppressed  and  well -hidden  supposedly still in the custody of the LACGJ - however,  the records marked CONFIDENTIAL  clearly show the illegal transfer to SUS custody on Aug. 24, 1968 (gun id #H53725).  Just how could these violations  have taken place?



Had the Los Angeles Police Department had been  allowed to conduct their own  investigation  without having been taken over by SUS we  would not be facing these problems today.  But, they were not. Instead, the ultra-  secret SUS  was  quickly  formed and  they  hand-picked  their  own team.  This top-secret  SUS outfit  took over the entire RFK  investigation - out of LAPD hands -  and   then went about  the business of cooking up a batch of their own  rotten “evidence”.  I found ample proof of this  again and again.

click here



#   7-For the serious RFK/Sirhan researcher this is an extremely important discovery: here is a brief review  of  SUS documents of the two fake mini mag bullet sales receipts.  Additionally, I have included Sirhan’s trial testimony about his purchase of the mini mag bullets. If the reader takes the time to carefully examine each document it will be seen that without the slightest doubt in the world that the Sportarm receipt #2372 is a  fraudulently manufactured document which has Sirhan’s DR number 68 521466 on the right and at the bottom is the FBI identification # 7607G67 !! Compare with the Lock Stock”n Barrel receipt also #2372. Take note of Sirhan’s trial testimony wherein he testifies that he bought one box of mini mag bullets and not two boxes  as seen in Lock, Stock’n  Barrel receipt # 2372.  My source of this critically important photograph of Lock, Stock ‘n Barrel receipt # 2372 shows its condition  prior to its chemical burning which I received from the California State Archives RFK Collection in Sacramento,  Ca.  I am greatly indepted to CSA staff for their assistance in my acquiring this rare copy of this extremely important photograph.



There is also the matter of the same FFL number on both Sportarm and Lock, Stock ‘n Barrel receipts. However, when I wrote to ATF to confirm L,S ‘n B’s FFL #   I was informed that number was not in their files. And as to my inquiry about Sportarm, there was no record in ATF records for that here



#   8- When one  reads  Sirhan  Trial Transcript page 3967  it will clearly  be seen  how this sinister   Machiavellian  cover-up was set in motion. Note the objective was secrecy, e.g.  the taking over of LAPD investigation  of RFK assassination  by the ultra- secret SUS Investigation Team.  Following that SUS moved  into the  Sirhan Trial  courtroom itself  on February 21, 1969 to seal the agreement  between prosecution and defense attorneys  to stipulate  to literally all of the ballistics evidence.  And to make certain there was no last minute glitch,  Sirhan Trial Judge Herbert V. Walker presided over that  unbelievable cabal.



This is nothing less than a “dirty back room deal”. Not one of those participants present was in a coma, they knew exactly what was taking place  And what if that  happened to you,  to me  to  everyone? Then what?



Truly, that was one of the darkest days in an American courtroom. And  if anyone began probing into that  ugliness they were smeared with a broad “Conspiracy Nut” brush.


Well, I am not a “Conspiracy Nut” and I tell you the Emperor is stark  naked.  Shame on such appalling theft.

click here

                                       See next


#    9-       I’d like to clarify the most recent problem I have encountered in this case. It involves errors in both the October 2010  court filing and the April 2011  Supplement  filed in the United States District Court by Sirhan attorneys William  F. Pepper and Laurie  D. Dusek . On taking a closer look at the source  of  a  serious  error  what I discovered  simply puzzled me. That is not to imply either Pepper or Dusek did some bad lawyering here  but , to speak plainly something is clearly wrong.  It sufficiently  bothered me enough to look deeper. This is what I found:  


On pages 37 and 38 of the October 2010 court filing and repeated in the April 2010 Supplement  Pepper/Dusek present to the court incorrect  information that Harper’s pre -trial examination  (of the bullets) resulted in his (Harper’s) conclusion that there was no match of the Senator Kennedy, victims Weisel and Goldstein bullets and that this pre -trial  information was brought to the attention of Trial Attorney Grant Cooper who failed to act on Harper’s warning. That of course was  clearly untrue.


The  only source I found  by P/D of this stunning misinformation was  the attribution of  Robert J. Joling and Philip Van Praag,’s book,  An Open & Shut Case: How a “rush to judgment” led to failed justice in the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination viii (2008). 


When I carefully examined page viii of the  above cited Joling/Van Praag book  I immediately found the source of that misinformation.  There was no mention of the fact that it was  in actuality  Sirhan Trial Attorney Grant Cooper who advised Ted to seek out Harper for his  evaluation of the ballistics evidence (after the trial  had ended) .  This is  extremely important since it  addresses the correct time-line of Harper’s earliest introduction to the Sirhan ballistics evidence.


The truth of exactly how and when  criminalist Wm. Harper  entered this case  is this:  One day  a few   months after the Sirhan Trial concluded Ted Charach came to the Sirhan home and while having tea  with Mary and me Ted made the comment that attorney Grant Cooper did an excellent job defending Sirhan  and that he charged no fee. Since I had  read the Sirhan Trial Transcripts  I  knew differently  and I  told Charach  in very sharp words why I disagreed with him - which of course  included  my finding of faulty ballistics evidence.  When Charach heard my strong criticism  of Cooper’s defense  he immediately got up from his chair and said that he was going to tell Cooper about my   charges.


The way Charach reacted to what I  had just said  I really thought he was out  looking for trouble, eg,  a  sensationalist story to write about,  so I warned Charach to be sure to tell Cooper that it was me and not Mary Sirhan who is attacking his  “defense “  of Sirhan.  Charach  immediately went to see Cooper  to tell him about my stinging  criticism. Cooper’s response was to give Charach  Harper’s  phone number and address and to tell him to go to Harper and let him see what my charges were based on. Following his  meeting with Cooper Charach  returned to the Sirhan home and related  to me Cooper’s advising him to pay Harper a visit. Charach  then asked to borrow the Sirhan Trial Transcript  I relied on - vol.15 -  as that is where I found most of the  ballistics problems. Those were the  precise circumstances under which  I loaned vol. 15 to Ted  to take to Harper for him to  examine  for the first time. Indeed when Harper read the pages I cited he (Harper) fully agreed with my findings - he too found something was definitely wrong with the Sirhan ballistics evidence. And that is  precisely  when and how Wm. Harper actively  became involved in Sirhan  case  research.  The trial was over  when Harper  examined the Sirhan bullets and the gun for the first time and therefore  did not perform the pre-trial ballistics examination Pepper/Dusek write about in their Oct. 2010 and April 2011 court filings. Aside from my own personal experience about  when it was that Harper actually  became  involved in the Sirhan ballistics there are several documents from SUS files which  I am  here including which  fully attests to  when and how Harper was given access to  Sirhan case bullets and  gun.



It appears to me P/D’s account stems from the pages viii  and ix of  Joling/Van Praag’s book  Open & Shut Case  (I  include page ix as  it is a continuation on the subject of Harper))   It was  not until  September/October 1970 time- line  that  Sirhan  Appellate  Attorney George Shibley wrote a letter to  the  Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office   authorizing Wm. Harper  be given access to  the Sirhan Trial ballistics evidence for examination purposes.


Thus it was that Cooper played a pivotal  role in bringing William Harper into  Sirhan case appellate phase for it was positively he who  advised  Charach to bring my criticisms  of the evidence to Harper’s attention.  If not for Ted’s tenacious tracking down  of a  promising story  Harper’s curiosity  and ultimate entry into  the case would not have occurred.  There were many times  when  Charach nearly drove me out of my mind with his relentless hounding to learn what I was working on and then wouldn’t stop until I provided him with a copy.  That whirlwind of a man gave no quarter; when he wanted something you had  - God help you - he was going to get it.  But, that was his style - he  just wore you down until he got what he was after.   


In spite of  my frequent trying experiences with Ted, I feel he   truly deserves his place in history for his outstanding  investigative work in the RFK/Sirhan case.  With respect to attorney  Cooper, though I strongly disagreed  with his  defense of Sirhan  I feel he showed real character when he  advised  Charach  to contact Harper about the evidence.   As to  both Harper and Dr. Noguchi’s role -  there are no words that  I can possibly use to  adequately  express  my  great admiration  for them.  Sadly, even Harper’s smarts were no match for SUS’ enormous power.  We see from the above (which represents only a portion of the serious problems I  discovered with the evidence)  that SUS answered to  absolutely no one - not even the law.  Since when is that acceptable?  

click here