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

[John Iacoletti]

I don?t think anyone is disputing that there is a human print on Day?s index card.

According to he FBI lab ....There was no identifiable print in that index card....The FBI examined it on Saturday 11/23/63 and reported the print was nothing but a smudge and useless for identification purposes.

No, the FBI didn?t get that index card until November 29th.

[Colin Crow]

Why did the WC use Day to process the rods? I thought that the FBI were the investigative arm of the WC.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, the FBI didn?t get that index card until November 29th.

I don't really understand why it's so important to Walt that the idex card went to Washington on 11/23/63 when all the evidence shows it didn't get there until the 29th.

I just don't understand his narrative...

[Walt Cakebread]

No, the FBI didn?t get that index card until November 29th.

Yes John, I know the official tale.....The evidence speaks louder ....

[Alan Ford]

The "Day" in each case looks identical.....just moved slightly.....my guess is it result of carbon copy and the copy paper underneath moved slightly when that word was written.

Great Scott, Holmes, I think you have it!     

My suggestion of the chronology would be this.

The original CSS was a form that had a carbon copy underneath. The original was written on by Day using red pen on the day they were submitted on two occasions. Day completed everything in red in the top portion. Howlett signed off at this time in blue, the top signature. Then the rods were fingerprinted and the results placed on the form again in red, maybe indicating a quick turnaround. The "Day" at the bottom was written as an afterthought and at a time when the carbon copy had moved slightly underneath.

For some reason the original was detached from the carbon copy after the results were entered but prior to release.

The blue pen was used to enter the release date information at a later time. Howlett signing at that time and Day entering the information. So the original had the correct information and Howlett's signature on the release line but the carbon had nothing on those lines. This was later filled in by Day with the correct time of release but the incorrect date. It was this carbon copy that was used as the WC exhibit.

Another brilliantly cogent suggestion, Mr Crow, though I'm not all the way convinced this accounts for the 3-26-64 'error'...

If you are right, then perhaps the WC later asked for the copy, which was when Lieutenant Day found it was incomplete and filled it out from memory. Odd though that he gets the date wrong but the time exactly right? Odd also that he doesn't just pull out the original (which, as you point out, "had the correct information and Howlett's signature on the release line") and copy the information?

The '3-25-64' notation on the card for photographs of fingerprints found on curtain rods (which is, of course, not the same as photographs of curtain rods themselves!) might also be worth thinking about in this context.

 

[Alan Ford]

Was the clipboard, discovered by (and manufactured by) Frankie Kaiser on the sixth floor about a week after the assassination, ever fingerprinted to determine handling by the misappropriating, commie, recently deceased accused assassin?

Don't think so. Not sure it was even determined conclusively whether Mr Oswald's writing was on it?

The potential evidentiary significance of curtain rods found in the Depository would have been far greater than that of a clipboard, which Mr Oswald would have used, innocent or guilty.

 

[Colin Crow]

Great Scott, Holmes, I think you have it!     

Another brilliantly cogent suggestion, Mr Crow, though I'm not all the way convinced this accounts for the 3-26-64 'error'...

If you are right, then perhaps the WC later asked for the copy, which was when Lieutenant Day found it was incomplete and filled it out from memory. Odd though that he gets the date wrong but the time exactly right? Odd also that he doesn't just pull out the original (which, as you point out, "had the correct information and Howlett's signature on the release line") and copy the information?

The '3-25-64' notation on the card for photographs of fingerprints found on curtain rods (which is, of course, not the same as photographs of curtain rods themselves!) might also be worth thinking about in this context.

 

Of course Alan, my scenario does not account for the original date of March 15. Then again this particular date has significance for assassinations.