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.
Feel free to address the document details when ready. Are the dates/times accurate or not? If not what should they be.
While your at it, how might Oswald's prints on the Paine garage rods advance the case? Not that I am a detective, perhaps I am missing something?
PS Oswald was a teller of non truths.
Hi Collin, with due respect to Tim, I can't accept his 'mistaken date' hypothesis. If you'rd care to follow my link (below) you'll find all the photos/documents that the Dallas Municipal Archives possess concerning the rods. If you 'blow up' the document in question, which is clearer than the one posted by Alan, you'll see the release time is actually 7.50a, not 9.50a. Obviously, the release time can't be 2hrs earlier than the submit time and to suggest two mistakes were made, IMO, just isn't feasible. Amazingly, you will also find a photo/document, which shows the reverse side of rod 275, which is dated 3-25-64, one day after the release date!?! Nothing in this case is easy, is it? lol As I posited in a previous post, I would put forward the possibility that agent Howlet, removed and submitted the garage rods on the 3-15-64 and then replaced them before the garage visit by himself, Jenner and RP. As John Iacoletti, points out, this may well have been technically illegal.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=curtain&t=fulltext&sort=
Correct, Mr Pointing! 
It is a mistake to imagine perfect cover-up conditions. That's not how things work in the real world. If an employee finds 2 curtain rods in the Depository three months after the assassination, said employee may not keep that fact to themselves. Word may get around about the curtain rods. Best course of action for the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators is to 'action' and 'resolve' the matter. "Thanks for alerting us to these rods. We've examined them closely and they don't have Oswald's prints. Look, here's a copy of the paperwork for you to look at. In fact, I am at liberty to tell you they didn't even come originally from the Paine home. But thank you anyway. You did the right thing in contacting us." Chances of said worker (and any of his or her co-workers) going to the press or bragging about the discovery? Substantially reduced.
I believe the 2 curtain rods were destroyed-----------but not until the 2 other (Paine garage) curtain rods had been safely received as a Commission Exhibit, and so could take their place.
Again, this was a matter of putting out a fire-----a fire started by a Depository employee who discovered 2 curtain rods in the building.
Nearly six months after Agent Howlett submitted the 2 curtain rods for fingerprinting, a 'Curtain rods found at the Depository' rumour was evidently still in the air:
The plan for the sham 23 March on-the-record visit to the Paine garage would surely have come after the rods were submitted for fingerprinting. Howlett, having noted Day's 'marked 275 & 276' notation, hatched a ruse-----a clever ruse that kept everyone fooled for decades!
Thank you for the kind words, Mr Pointing!
I must however beg to differ on one point: the document most certainly has not been addressed and answered by anyone claiming that the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March were the same 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage on 23 March.
Why would Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner (to name just the two central players here) go to such elaborate lengths of secrecy and mendacity to get a fingerprint test done on 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage? An absurd proposition!
Great posts! Distilled to its simplest, is the point ?
1.) More evidence the Warren Commission in cooperation with DPD, SS, and FBI conducted a purposely corrupt investigation.
2.) A main, if not the central motivation for conducting a corrupt investigation was to reinforce the foregone conclusion Oswald was a lone assassin.
The public learned the investigation was inept when Oswald was shot down in DPD custody in their HQ basement during a live TV feed set up
in cooperation with DPD to broadcast Oswald's transfer from city to county jail.
An inept investigation resulting in the Warren Report and Oswald's silencing by imposing martyrdom on him have profound influence on researchers and
other students of the Kennedy Assassination, predisposing some to communicate analysis beyond the specific supporting evidence, especially from the POV
of those who believe in a priority to rein themselves in, assuming they endeavor to regard evidence, especially new evidence at face value.
Face value is an obviousness standard of "buy in". IMO, identifying matters with a high probability of being developed into "end of story" fact
yields much more satisfaction motivating further inquiries intended to serve up "the final word" over any particular controversy, is an approach
foreign to posters dwelling on image interpretation or "Oswald was framed" or "multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza". Debate ending presentations
especially in those three example areas are as rare as hen's teeth.
If you accept that researchers and sincere investigators and journalists much closer in time and proximity to the case, many who were much better
connected and savvy than you are, in 2019, attempted and failed to end debate, from the authenticity of the BYP to who, how many, and where all
the shooters are, why make those your focus? There is still plenty to learn. My focus is trying to answer who was Jim Garrison and what was he
actually doing, and at whose behest. I've exhaustively supported why I am asking. The unexpected outcome is a new appreciation of the depth
of the impact of Oliver Stone's film, despite its failure to offer the fact Garrison's alleged battle with CIA was with brothers of his wife's family and
their in-law, accused CIA "paymaster" Stephen Lemann. Sklar, Stone, and Mellen were unaware because neither Garrison or his wife shared their
family ties relevant to the narrative fashioned by Garrison and his autobiography editor Sklar, adopted by Oliver Stone. Upon release of the film,
GQ published an unqualified attack on Garrison and Stone's movie authored by the nephew of Stephen Lemann.
Fact anecdotally at least, is this far into this Assassination controversy, the overwhelming majority knows what it knows, thank you very much,
and does not summon the interest to summon the focus on the question, do my assumptions, my biases continue to serve me well or slow
reevaluation, new thinking, or a second look, starting as close to "from scratch" as self-restraint might permit.
