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

[Tim Nickerson]

All you've done is throw makey-uppy numbers and nonsensical scenarios at it in a wild and rather desperate bid to explain away its obvious significance.

You posited that Oswald and Jack Ruby were sharing the same toothbrush at 1026 North Beckley. I may be good at coming up with nonsensical scenarios but I could never come close to even matching that one.

[John Iacoletti]

No I do NOT think that Lee wanted to be identified as THE ASSASSIN.....   I believe that Lee wanted to be identified as an ATTEMPTED assassin....

An attempted assassin goes to prison too. What is the motivation?

[John Mytton]

I haven't read the whole thread but here's some observations.



It looks like the red writing is all written by Day, as seen in the near exact duplication of the word "print" and a comparison of 275 & 276.





Howlett's name seems to be in a completely different style and technique in both samples....



...and in what appears to be a different blue pen to what Day wrote in blue.



So my question is when was each piece of information written onto this document and what was done from notes or memory?

JohnM

[Ray Mitcham]

You posited that Oswald and Jack Ruby were sharing the same toothbrush at 1026 North Beckley. I may be good at coming up with nonsensical scenarios but I could never come close to even matching that one.

Naughty, Tim. It was you who suggested that they may have been sharing toothbrushes, not Alan, so yours is the nonsensical scenario.

[Alan Ford]

You posited that Oswald and Jack Ruby were sharing the same toothbrush at 1026 North Beckley.

Nope! I posited that items taken from Mr Oswald's Beckley apartment were tested for fingerprints in order to determine whether he had associates. You evidently hadn't even thought of that, and had no substantive comeback

What else you got?

[Alan Ford]

So my question is when was each piece of information written onto this document and what was done from notes or memory?

JohnM

Hello, Mr Mytton------------good of you to join us! 

Now!

9.45 a. m., 15 March 1964:

-------------Lieutenant Day receives from Agent Howlett 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting, and (with red pen) fills out (as he is required to do) the upper section of the Crime Scene Search Section form:



-------------Further down the form, Agent Howlett signs (as he is required to do) his name (with blue pen) beside the words 'SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUBMITTING SPECIMEN'; right under this, Lieutenant Day signs (as he is required to do) his name (still with red pen) beside the words 'SIGNATURE OF PERSON RECEIVING SPECIMEN':

Some point between Submission and Release of the Curtain Rods:

-------------Lieutenant Day, having tested the curtain rods for Mr Oswald's prints, notes (in red ink) at the bottom of the form the results:



-------------The rods will remain securely in the crime lab until Agent Howlett comes to pick them up.

7.50 a. m., 24 March 1964:

-------------Lieutenant Day hands back the 2 curtain rods to Agent Howlett, and formally records this fact (in blue pen this time) in the relevant field on the Crime Scene Search Section form:



-------------Agent Howlett signs (as he is required to do) his name (with what looks like the same blue pen he used 9 days ago) beside the words 'SPECIMEN RELEASED TO'; Lieutenant Day signs (as he is required to do) his name (in the same blue-like-Agent-Howlett's-but-slightly-darker-than-it ink he has just noted the date and time with) beside the word 'BY':



All-----------in short-----------very straightforward!

Reasonable grounds for believing any of the data on the Crime Scene Search Section form derived from 'notes or memory'? The Big Zilcho! 

[John Mytton]

Alan, for reasons of clarity, do you mind if I just cut to the very basics of your theory? If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that Jenner, agent Howlett and possibly others unknown, concocted the idea of staging a visit to RP's garage for the purpose of having it on record that 2no curtain rods were retrieved and sent to the police lab. Correct so far? The sole reason for this deception was to enable 2no curtain rods, previously found at the TSBD, to be in effect, 'lost'..yes?
Two obvious questions immediately begged to be asked; Why concoct and execute such a very complicated, not to say dangerous 'plot' in the first place? There was obviously no record of rods ever being found at the TSBD, if there was they must have been destroyed, so why not just destroy the TSBD rods as well? The next question is; Is it really feasible, that after going to such lengths to ''swape' the rods, agent Howell would be stupid enough to 'cock' everything up by submitting the TSBD rods nine days too early!! I'm sorry Alan, but IMO, the very basics of your theory don't make any sense, they just don't add up.
Alan, I'm very glad you brought this document to light, it was certainly something I'd missed, and it certainly needed to be addressed and answered. I'm afraid, at least in my humble opinion, it has been just that, addressed and answered. If you have anything new to substantiate your theory I'd be very happy to read it. Thank you.

Thanks Denis, you've saved me some time and yep this is just yet another crazy theory that doesn't pass any logic test.

JohnM