The Gun in the California State Archives arrived  without a recorded serial number. (Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits)

(click here for all exhibits)

This report was actually begun several years ago, but due to an illness  had to be delayed. And in fact I did not take it up again until I received a telephone call this past week from Len Osanic from Black Op Radio asking for an interview.

It was  in the course of that interview while reviewing my notes I resumed my report. But for Len Osanic’s telephone call this report woud not have been written.

In an effort to make it easier for the Reader to follow I determined on the best way to achieve that would be in a letter to Ms. Nancy Zimmelman, Head Archivist at the California State Archives, to ask what she might know about the  many serious misidentifications  and missing descriptions I found in  “Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits” which accompanied the Sirhan evidence.

Here is my letter to Ms. Zimmelman:

To: Ms. Nancy Zimmelman, Head Archivist, California State Archives
From: Rose Lynn Mangan, Sirhan Researcher
Date: June 22, 2014
Re: Request for information in “Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits”

Before I present my questions I would like to thank you and your  fine staff  who were  always generous with their time and assistance during my twenty years’ research and examination of Sirhan bullets and evidence.

There was one time when my research priveleges were terminated, and I noted the termination order did not come from CSA but from Ms. Lisa Niguel, Attorney for California Secretary of State. No reason was given for that termination.

Sirhan’s brother Adel was in a panic and so this quiet man sat down and wrote a letter to Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, asking  for her help.  That good lady listened to him,  and without delay, my research privileges were promptly restored. I  picked up where I had left off as if nothing had happened. I remember your staff was most welcoming.

Here then are my questions:

Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits

ID No.       Exhibit No.                                  Description

F3906:2  - Motion to Suppress  -  Peo. 6  -  Sirhan’s certificate of discharge from California Cadet Corps

(my question: Peo. 6 is the trial exhibit number for the Sirhan gun. Why this misleading description? Also, Peo. 6 is repeated on page 4 under “F3906:152” without recording the serial number. How to explain this ?)

F3906:54  - Trial                       -  Peo. 47 - spent .22 cartridge

(my question:  I have to ask why Trial Exhibit Peo. 47 is described as a “spent .22 cartridge” only. There is no mention of Peo. 47 being the Robert F. Kennedy neck bullet. It will be seen that virtually all of the victim bullets in Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits are in fact correctly  described/identified by  both the Trial number and the name of the victim the bullet was removed from.

I am sorry to say I strongly suspect F3906:54  is not an oversight. It is a legal disconnect. There is no description which connects this spent .22 cartridge with  the actual Robert F. Kennedy neck bullet. And so I ask how would I know with an absolute certainty whether the California State Archives  in fact received the authentic Peo. 47 or the switched Peo. 47 bullet in the 1975 Patrick Garland Evidence Report? Remember, we already know Peo. 47 was a switched bullet in 1975 (incorrect “DW” “TN” engraved on Peo. 47 base instead of the correct engraving “TN31”) - my question - could this Peo. 47 bullet be the same switched 1975 bullet? We have no way of positively knowing this - but I strongly suspect it is the very same switched 1975 Peo. 47 bullet.

I say this because I brought one of the 1975 examiners, criminalist Lowell Bradford, to CSA in 1994 to have him examine the base of Peo. 47 for me.  Bradford reported seeing a grease like coating had been applied to the bullets - including the base of Peo. 47 - and immediately terminated the examination because the coating obliterated the fine identifying markings on the bullets.  Bradford’s Report covers this very incident.)   (see exhibit)

Then  too there is another problem with Peo. 47, the Kennedy neck bullet. It begins in the autopsy room when Dr. Thomas Noguchi gave custody of the bullet he removed from Kennedy’s neck and engraved his initials and the last coroner case number on the bullet base – TN31 to LAPD Sgt. William Jordan.

But, here is where something fishy took place. Somehow, there occurred a  break in protocol. Somehow, I know not under what circumstances, LAPD Officer Orozco came in possession of the neck bullet and it was he, Orozco,  - and NOT Sgt. Jordan - who placed it in evidence with Los Angeles Police Department  Property Report. This official entry, written by Orozco does NOT record the engraving “TN31” in his report.

Unbelievably, what Orozco did was to substitute the Coroner case number in the place of  the bullet id number (TN31) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There can be no justification for this breach in the chain of custody for Peo. 47.

And here we see Peo 47 was delivered to CSI for safekeeping/storage  – but, .literally,  unlike virtually ALL of the five victim bullets, Peo 47 and Peo 48 – both Kennedy bullets – were not described. No engraving , no identifying marking was recorded for these two Kennedy bullets.

These two Kennedy bullets were singled out where they were not only not  fully  identified – but also not described for identification purposes. How do I know where they came from?

With the above wrongdoing in mind, my suspicions lead me to conclude that CSA received substitute evidence – in the same way as the Judge Wenke seven examiners were given  substitute bullets – which were in fact proven to be substitute bullets.

F3906:55  -  Trial                     -  Peo. 48  -  portion of Court Reporter’s transcript; bullet fragments

(my question:  Here too we see there is a legal disconnect. There is no legal connection of these bullet fragments with the actual Robert F. Kennedy fatal bullet and  its fragments. And so I ask , absent the description, how would I know  with an absolute certainty whether the California State Archives received
the authentic Peo. 48 or an imposter Peo. 48?)

With respect to the five victim bullets listed below we learn from the official Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory that Peo. 52, the Ira Goldstein bullet was substituted from the id engraving “X” to the number “6” which also does double duty here because it is an engraving on the bullet base as well as the newly designated Panel Number “6”. An extraordinary fact !!!

This Garland Evidence Inventory reveals numerous tampering took place with the evidence envelopes, e.g., the wrong LAPD Penal Code charge - #187 vs.# 217. This And further, that he Kennedy bullet was” fired from barrel with sharper rifling than Weisel” This cannot be explained away.

With respect to the Weisel bullet we see the LAPD Property Report is post dated.

There are only two examinable victim bullets and they suffer from serious problems – the wrong id engraving on Goldstein bullet and criminalist William Harper’s discovery ( Balliscan photographs) that Peo. 47 and Peo. 54 (Weisel bullet) striations differ.

Due to Harper’s extraordinary charge the LAPD sought the opinion of an independent criminalist to examine Harper’s charge.  This is the famous Baggett Memo. Mr. Baggett agreed with Harper’s findings and concluded that the Kennedy (neck) bullet and the Weisel bullet were fired from two different guns and further, the Kennedy bullet appeared to be a Federal – or some other bullet. He is telling us the Kennedy neck bullet was not a mini mag bullet. (see exhibit)

F3906:56  - Trial                      -  Peo. 50  -  bullet fragments taken from Paul Schrade

F3906:57  - Trial                      -  Peo. 51  -  spent .22 cartridge taken from Irwin Stroll

F3906:58  - Trial                      -  Peo. 52  -  spent .22 cartridge taken from Ira Goldstein

F3906:59  - Trial                      -  Peo. 52A - clinical report on Goldstein’s treatment; receipt of bullet taken from Goldstein

F3906:60  - Trial                       -  Peo. 53  -  bullet fragments taken from Elizabeth Evans

F3906:61  - Trial                       -  Peo.  54 -  spent .22 cartridge taken from William Weisel

F3906:62  - Trial                       -  Peo. 55  -   spent .22 cartridges (2); expended test bullets (3); shell casigs (2)

(Frankly, I hardly know where to begin with F3906:62. This information DOES NOT MATCH the  description in Sirhan Trial Transcript for Peo. 55 !!! Again, there is a legal  disconnect between the Peo. 55 exhibit in evidence at Sirhan trial and the Peo. 55 exhibit delivered to the California State Archives. But there is more to this false and misleading record. Read on

Where, I ask, did the EXTRA “spent .22 cartridge (2)” come from? And where are they now? It will be remembered, the two shell casings in Peo. 55 were NOT inside the evidence envelope Peo. 55 at the trial. And we see, CSA did receive the two test shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope along with these BONUS  “spent .22 cartridge (2)” Additionally, on the many occasions when I examined and photographed Peo. 55 evidence envelope and its contents those two .22 cartridges were not included.

I do not see even a remote possibility that anyone can explain this away.) 

F3906:152 -  Trial  -  Peo. 6  - Sirhan’s gun

Where is the serial number for the”Sirhan” gun ? Why does the gun, sans its serial number, appear two times  in this Report? (page one and page four)

What I am charging is that there is no legal description for Peo. 47; Peo. 48; Peo. 55 and Peo. 6 (F3906:152 - Trial - Peo. 6 - Sirhan’s gun). We see all of the victim bullets Peo. 50; Peo. 50A; Peo. 51;, Peo. 52; Peo. 53; and Peo. 54 were in fact correctly described. Why were the two Kennedy bullets treated differently in this official inventory ?

My question - why wasn’t the Sirhan gun serial number included? Technically, the CSA received  a gun but not its serial number in this extremely important Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits.

Isn’t that what took place on 6-7-68 when the L.A. County Grand Jury received the “Sirhan”  gun in evidence WITHOUT recording the serial number of the gun in the  Grand Jury Transcript ?

There is positively nothing in Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits which tells me WITH AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY  the evidence  - Peo. 6; Peo. 47; Peo. 48; Peo. 55 - which was delivered to CSA are in fact authentic.

If Peo. 6; Peo. 47; Peo. 48; Peo. 55 are in fact authentic pieces of evidence, then why were their descriptions  NOT recorded in the same way as Peo. 50; Peo. 51; Peo. 52; Peo. 53; Peo. 54 were recorded? I find this to be totally unacceptable. And suspicious.

And so I ask if you can shed any light on my serious charges? Do you have any information concerning Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits ?

I do not suggest that CSA was in any way connected with these missing descriptions.

 I would like to take this opportunity in clearing up the missing 1975 test shell casings I discovered. You will remember I asked  you for the 1975 test bullets and shell casings to examine and photograph and your response was that the CSA did not receive them. Therefore, while examining   “F3906:128 - Special Hearing  -  24 (A-H)  - bullets fired from Sirhan’s gun on 9-27-1975 (8)” I filed it away with the many  errors  and misidentifications I found. This is seen in my handwritten  correction/notations. 

It was not until  about a year or so ago when Shane O’Sullivan brought to my attention that CSA does indeed have the ‘75 test bullets. I can only assume, since I asked for the ‘75  “test bullets and shell casings” your response that CSA did not receive them was only in part correct. The ‘75 test shell casings are indeed missing as this inventory shows.

If you can shed any light on the missing ‘75 test shell casings I would greatly appreciate it.

It is not my intention to in any way  place blame on CSA for the issues I raise in this letter. I simply ask what , if anything , you may know of the extremely serious charge I make of  doubting the authenticity of  - Peo. 6; Peo. 47; Peo. 48 and Peo. 55 which was delivered to the California State Archives?  No question, these issues are highly irregular. And, not to forget we are dealing with evidence in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination.

Careful examination of the Howard/Trapp Memorandum  100% supports my charges - no  tag number 7 in the envelope (see exhibit).  Number 7 of course is the Grand Jury tag. It is not in evidence with CSA. We know this from my asking you and your staff on several occasions for all of the  official identifying tags (related to the chain of custody for the Sirhan gun) as I wanted to photograph them alongside the gun. The official Trial tag  marked Peo. 6 was the only gun tag I received. This is seen in my photographs of Peo. 6.

Then too, it will be remembered, CII in Sacramento, Ca. destroyed the original triplicate copy of the Dealer Record of Sale for Iver Johnson,  .22 ca. rev. # H53725. What CSA has in its possession is a photostatic copy. (A copy of Geoge Hisamoto’s letter notifying me of the destruction of the triplicate copy of DROS is in my book Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report)    (see exhibit)

I find it incomprehensible  for CII to destroy the original triplicate copy of the DROS and keep the photostatic copy under lock and key at CSA. The reason this disturbs me is that I found evidence of what appeared to be white-outs on the DROS for H-53725 and when I sought to have it examined by an examiner of questioned documents I was notified by Mr. Hisamoto the triplicate copy of the DROS  for H53725 Iver Johnson rev. in their custody had been destroyed. And just like that - there ended examination of original triplicate copy of the DROS for gun H53725. Business as usual.

Again, please do not feel I suggest any wrong doing on the part of CSA staff. That is not at all the case. You folks are only safeguarding the evidence you were given. No matter how doubtful it is..

In closing I want to thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Rose Lynn Mangan