BWF and LMR may not have been the only ones who saw LHO with a bag on 11/22/1963

[John Iacoletti]

Congrats.  You have solved a mystery of your own creation. Read the part about Ruth Paine and the curtain rods again.  Try to understand how this is inconsistent with your claim about them being found elsewhere.  Your fixation on the dates is strange.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about things happening before they happened or different versions of the same document with altered dates and information, because of course he doesn't.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about taking and then returning evidence to somebody's home without her even knowing about it so they can make a show out of "finding" it again, because of course he doesn't.

[Alan Ford]

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about things happening before they happened or different versions of the same document with altered dates and information, because of course he doesn't.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about taking and then returning evidence to somebody's home without her even knowing about it so they can make a show out of "finding" it again, because of course he doesn't.

Indeed so, Mr Iacoletti-------poor Mr Smith will believe any number of absurdities before he will even begin to question the official story! 

[Alan Ford]

Friends!

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Reason I ask is, in a little while we're going to get this:

Mr. JENNER - May we take these curtain rods and mark them as exhibits and we will return them after they have been placed of record?
Mrs. PAINE - All right.
Mr. JENNER - Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276.
(The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276, for identification.)

Why did Mr Jenner start at 270?

Friends, there is a pretty simple explanation for why Mr Jenner decided to start at what otherwise looks like an entirely random number: 270...



Why not just start at 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 1'----as had been the policy with 'PaineMichael Exhibit No. 1'?

Because Agent Howlett had told Mr Jenner he needed to contrive a way of naming the 2 curtain rods 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276' .

Why would this have been important?

Because of this notation in the Crime Scene Search Section document (which Agent Howlett had signed):



Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' eight days before the 2 curtain rods were formally designated as such!

Agent Howlett noticed Lieutenant Day's notation when signing the document and decided to establish a link between the curtain rods he had given to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting and the curtain rods he was to 'find' in the Paine garage!

For Mr Jenner to start at 'Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 275' by heading straight for the curtain rods in the garage on March 23 would have been a little too obvious. Much better to start at 270 and work one's way, as though by happenstance, to the magic numbers 275 and 276 by the time the 2 curtain rods were to be entered as exhibits:



This also explains why the curtain rods could not be entered as a single exhibit!

Contrast the brisk efficiency of:



 

[Alan Ford]

Now!

Why did Lieutenant Day write of the 2 curtains received on 15 March that they were "marked 275 & 276"?

I believe there may be a very simple explanation! 

He saw the digits 2-7-5 written (in pencil?) on one of the curtain rods, and 2-7-6 written on the other-------and simply wrote down what he saw.

But!

These digits did not refer to any assigned item-of-evidence number or anything like that.

No!

They gave the length of each curtain rod when measured carefully:
27.5 inches, 27.6 inches! 

[Tom Scully]

Do try to keep up, Mr Galbraith! 

The curtain rods found in the garage were found on the evening of 23 March 1964.

The curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant J. C. Day for fingerprinting by Agent Howlett were submitted on 15 March 1964 and not released until 24 March 1964.

Do you accept that 15 March 1964 fell before 23 March 1964?

And that 23 March 1964 fell before 24 March 1964?

If so, what is your explanation for this curious circumstance?

And while you're there:

Why would 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage be fingerprinted for a match with Mr Oswald's? What would be the point exactly? Was he suspected of excessive interest in home improvement?

 

Alan, you do not indicate you are interested in posting a truthful response, or (your) analysis. I presented to you the official record, ce1952.
You demonstrate you cannot "go there". In fact, you ignored, and now contradict the return date, March 26, displayed on the
official record, ce1952. You are not behaving sincerely and not worth the time to interact with. What would be the point of
expending even another minute with you? Your mind is as closed as a sprung trap!

Anybody else see what I noticed? I dislike speculation, but how is it avoided, now? Is 3/15/64 an error, vs. 3/25/64? Was an attempt
made to correct the return date, from 3/24 to 3/26 ? How will these dates ever be resolved, to the delight of all interested parties?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0394b.htm

Cropped close-ups:
...................

[Alan Ford]

Alan, you do not indicate you are interested in posting a truthful response, or (your) analysis. I presented to you the official record, ce1952.
You demonstrate you cannot "go there". In fact, you ignored, and now contradict the return date, March 26, displayed on the
official record, ce1952. You are not behaving sincerely and not worth the time to interact with. What would be the point of
expending even another minute with you? Your mind is as closed as a sprung trap!

On the contrary, Mr Scully, I ignored your post because it merely drew attention to something to which I had already drawn attention several pages earlier.

Not my fault that you hadn't bothered to read the thread properly before jumping in!

To save you the chore of going through the thread-----------you evidently have no interest in doing that--------------here's what I posted on page 14:

Now!

Compare and contrast, if you will...





For ease of cross-reference!:



 

You're welcome, Mr Scully! 

[Tom Scully]

I have difficulty reading entire 25 pages of threads I see no practical purpose of. I should ignore them completely.

I am welcome?

I'll double down on my last post....you really are insincere. Sincere is the pursuit of verifiable facts, ideally with an open mind.

.......]

As a taster, ask yourself the question:

How can Lieutenant Day have released the curtain rods twice
-----------first to Agent Howlett on March 23
-----------second to A. N. Other on March 26?

 

Good to see your new hero, Ms Davison, is teaching you well, Mr Scully! 

Unfortunately, however, Davisonian waffle won't get you out of this.

The dates are not in the least murky:

------------Agent Howlett submitted 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting to Lieutenant J. C. Day on March 15
------------Lieutenant J. C. Day released the 2 curtain rods back to Agent Howlett on March 24.

 

Your rules.... quote Jean Davison, a sweet, very bright person with a similar deficit you exhibit, a bias,
and one has married her? I had no use for her until I got to know her considering her comments for approval
at jfkfacts.org. I probably agree with you more often than I agree with her, but she seems more sincere than you do.