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

[Tim Nickerson]

Right, this whole "it must have been an error because I want to believe something different" will only carry you so far.

Still waiting for your reasonable explanation. Having trouble coming up with one are ya? I can't wait to see Ford's reasoning for why Oswald denied the curtain rods. Should be a real doozy.   Possibly the silliest speculation we've ever seen on any aspect of the case. Unless you can undo him.

[John Iacoletti]

Still waiting for your reasonable explanation. Having trouble coming up with one are ya?

IMO Alan's explanation is more reasonable than the WC breaking and entering the Paine home to return curtain rods so that they can make a show of rediscovering them.

I can't wait to see Ford's reasoning for why Oswald denied the curtain rods. Should be a real doozy.

Unfortunately we don't know exactly what he was asked or what the exact answer was.

[Tim Nickerson]

IMO Alan's explanation is more reasonable than the WC breaking and entering the Paine home to return curtain rods so that they can make a show of rediscovering them.

Who has made the bolded explanation?

Unfortunately we don't know exactly what he was asked or what the exact answer was.

We don't need to know exactly what he said to know that he denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning. At least four people reported hearing his denial.

[John Iacoletti]

We don't need to know exactly what he said to know that he denied bringing curtain rods to work that morning. At least four people reported hearing his denial.

That is a misrepresentation of what the interrogation reports say.

[Colin Crow]

With the "March 15 entry being in error" scenario the rods were submitted at 9:45 pm on March 23 and then released at 7:50 the next morning.

So in this scenario Howlett contacted Day, who worked on the night of the 23rd, processed the rods and Howlett returned at 7.50 the next morning to retrieve them?

Likely?

[Alan Ford]

Still waiting for your reasonable explanation. Having trouble coming up with one are ya? I can't wait to see Ford's reasoning for why Oswald denied the curtain rods. Should be a real doozy.   Possibly the silliest speculation we've ever seen on any aspect of the case. Unless you can undo him.

 

Your resort to absurd hyperbole, Mr Nickerson, tells us how uncomfortable you are with the present discussion--------and with your own wild and rather desperate pleading! 

Now!

As I suspect you already know full well, I have already on multiple occasions in this thread responded to the question, 'Why then did Oswald deny having brought curtain rods to work?'

But I'll lay out my response one more time for you, because you've put me in such a good mood. The response comes in two parts....

Part I!
We don't know for sure that Mr Oswald made this denial. We now know that he told Captain Fritz & Company he "went outside to watch the P. parade". There was some documentation on this missing for five-and-a-half decades, but thankfully it came to light on 19 February 2019
---------i.e. Captain Fritz & Company suppressed Mr Oswald's claim as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting.
Therefore! It is perfectly possible that
a)----------------Mr Oswald confirmed that he had indeed brought curtain rods into the building
b)----------------Captain Fritz, knowing that 2 curtain rods were indeed missing from the Paine garage, and understanding the significance of this, suppressed Mr Oswald's claim.

Part II!
However! If---------if!---------Mr Oswald did indeed lie to Captain Fritz by denying he'd brought curtain rods to work, then there's a simple explanation:
a)--------------Shortly after the assassination, Mr Oswald discovered that the curtain rods were gone from the place he had left them (= 1st fl storage room?); he very quickly put 2 and 2 together (i.e. he had been tricked into bringing a long package to work in order to tie him to a rifle); he left the scene
b)--------------In custody, when asked about the curtain rods, which he knew to be missing and therefore of no material help to his cause, he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long package to work that morning.
A good judgment call on Mr Oswald's part? Perhaps, perhaps not. But------given that the curtain rods were gone anyway, and given the way he was being railroaded------an understandable one from a man who found himself framed for a capital crime!

Now back over to you, Mr Nickerson:

Why would 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage four months after the assassination be sent for testing for Mr Oswald's fingerprints?

[Alan Ford]

So in this scenario Howlett contacted Day, who worked on the night of the 23rd, processed the rods and Howlett returned at 7.50 the next morning to retrieve them?

Likely?

Not just likely-----it's the obvious explanation. Along with Lieutenant Day's getting the date wildly wrong, and notating the time incorrectly for good measure. And Agent Howlett's not noticing. And neither of them stopping to ask the other, 'Hey, remind me again why exactly we're printing these rods found in the Paine garage?' And Lieutenant Day's deciding, just for a lark, to write a different release date on a copy of the same form a couple of days later.

I mean, it's not like these two guys were trained professionals or anything. Only a kook would consider a Crime Scene Search Section form an official record of chain of evidence. 

Now that I think of it, Lieutenant Day drank heavily on the job and was suffering from dementia from October '62 on. Can I prove any of this, no? But what I can prove is that there must obviously be some missing documentation on it somewhere nowhere.