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

[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.

[Alan Ford]

Now!

From Ms Paine's testimony before the Warren Commission, Washington, 19 March 1964:

Mr. JENNER - Let us return to the curtain rods first. Do you still have those curtain rods?
Mrs. PAINE - I believe so.
Mr. JENNER - You believe so, or you know; which?
Mrs. PAINE - I think Michael went to look after the assassination, whether these were still in the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have a conversation with Michael as to whether he did or didn't look?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Why was he looking to see if the curtain rod package was there?
Mrs. PAINE - He was particularly interested in the wrapping, was the wrapping still there, the brown paper.
Mr. JENNER - When did this take place?
Mrs. PAINE - After the assassination, perhaps a week or so later, perhaps when one of the FBI people were out; I don't really recall.
Mr. JENNER - And was the package with the curtain rods found on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - It is my recollection it was.

So!

Ms Paine cannot confirm that the package with the curtain rods was found in her garage within a week or so of the assassination.

The farthest she is willing to go is that such is her "recollection".

Given that Mr Frazier had from Day 1 been quoting Mr Oswald to the effect that
-----------the purpose of his trip to Irving on the Thursday night had been to pick up curtain rods
-----------he had curtain rods in the large bulky bag he brought to work on the Friday morning,
there were two competing explanations in the air for what was in the bag:

1. A disassembled rifle
2. Curtain rods.

Naturally the DPD and/or FBI would have made it their business to verify a.s.a.p. that Ms Paine's curtain rods were still in her garage, yes?

Naturally the fact of the rods' continued presence in the garage would have been duly noted as strong evidence that what Mr Oswald had allegedly told Mr Frazier was a flat lie, yes?

Question!

Is there any official record from prior to the Paines' testimony in March 1964 confirming that her curtain rods were still in the garage?

Another way of asking this question:

Is this the first official reference we find in the documentary record to verified, actually existing curtain rods?:

[Alan Ford]

Friends! Unbelievable as it may sound, the latter half of March 64 seems to have been the first time those charged with investigating the case took a serious interest in curtain rods!

15 March: Agent Howlett submits 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting to Lieutenant Day in the DPD Crime Scene Search Section

17 March: Mr Michael Paine is asked about curtain rods in the Irving garage

19 March: Ms Ruth Paine is asked about curtain rods in the Irving garage

23 March: Two curtain rods are inspected and removed from the Irving garage by Agent Howlett (!)

24 March: Agent Howlett receives two fingerprinted curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day (!!)

26 March: An unnamed party receives two fingerprinted curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day (!!!)

Now!

At the tail end of all this curtain rod business, the FBI finally------4 months after the assassination!-------think to pay Ms Gladys Johnson a visit at Mr Oswald's rooming house to talk to her about (you guessed it) curtain rods:



The point of this visit? To establish that Mr Oswald had no need of, or permission to mount, curtain rods in his rented apartment.

So!

Before 15 March? Radio silence. (If I'm wrong about this, friends, please put me right by pointing me to pre-March 15 evidence on Ms Paine's curtain rods!  )

After 15 March? The curtain rods have become an issue that needs addressing.

This is what I think happened:

1. The Paine garage is searched after the assassination and it is quickly established that curtain rods that once were there are there no longer

2. This fact is not allowed to make it onto the record: the issue of Ms Paine's curtain rods is turned into a non-issue

3. At some point prior to 15 March, two curtain rods turn up----not in the Paine garage, but at another location germane to the case

4. These two curtain rods are sent for fingerprinting in order to establish whether Mr Oswald's prints are on them

5. The location at which the rods were found, as well as their match with the missing curtain rods described by Ms Paine, prompts a bold decision:

6. The lost-but-now-found Paine curtain rods are to be hidden in plain sight by being turned into 2 curtain rods that were in the Paine garage all along.

If this is indeed what happened, then the curtain rods laughably designated 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276', and currently housed in the National Archives----------



----------are the very curtain rods which Mr Oswald brought to work in a long package on the morning of the assassination!

 

[Alan Ford]

Ah yes, the ever-dependable Mr Truly! 



Way to tie up the bow, boys!