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

[Alan Ford]

JohnM

Where is the confliction of dates?

[John Mytton]

Where is the confliction of dates?

Huh?

You yourself said that the curtain rods were returned to Howlett on the 24th.



But according to your evidence, Day was testing the curtain rods on the 25th.



Explanation?

JohnM

[Alan Ford]

Huh?

You yourself said that the curtain rods were returned to Howlett on the 24th.

Yes! 

But according to your evidence, Day was testing the curtain rods on the 25th.

Where do you get that conclusion from, Mr Mytton?

[John Mytton]

Where do you get that conclusion from, Mr Mytton?

JohnM

[Alan Ford]

JohnM

Yes---------photograph of fingerprints removed from a curtain rod! 

Where is the confliction of dates?

[Denis Pointing]

Ah yes, the dangers of jumping into a discussion without having done one's homework!

Mr Pointing's explanation of the Crime Scene Search Section form was as follows, Mr Mytton:

------------the dates & times on the form are accurate
------------Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner conspired to put on an elaborate (and illegal) hoax whereby they only pretended to find the 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage on 23 March.

As to why Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner would do all this just for the sake of a meaningless fingerprint test, Mr Pointing had no answer to offer.

You happy with Mr Pointing's explanation, Mr Mytton?

 

That's not true Alan, if you're going to quote me do so accurately! I'll post it AGAIN. As you can see, I offered three possible explanations. Alan, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply made a mistake, rather than deliberately lied but at the very least you should have checked what I actually wrote before misquoting me..that's just damn lazy. I'm not impressed.

"Hi Alan, there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this. It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5. Would they have even written the measurement that way back then? I would have expected the 'old fashioned way' of plain feet and inches. Anyway, moot point as there were no markings.
You raise some good points, good questions, good post...and then start really overreaching by claiming, without any proof what-so-ever, that rods had also been found at the TSBD and 'swapped' with the rods found in the Paine's garage. There really is a much simpler and logical explanation, which admittedly I can't prove, but you certainly can't disprove.
As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather disingenuous and instructed Howlet to remove the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later. Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'. Truthful answer Alan,..I don't know for sure and neither does anybody else.
I realise you're not going to accept this explanation, that you'd much rather stick to your 'rods found in TSBD' scenario. That's OK, we can agree to differ. All I'm trying to do is offer a reasonable alternative as you requested, that fits your criteria of why and how, which I believe I've done. Thank you."

[Tim Nickerson]

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

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2019, 07:47:08 AM
Was he sharing his toothbrush as well? 

Quote from: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 07:58:24 AM
Quite possibly. Or maybe it wasn't his toothbrush. Either way, someone else's prints would indicate that Mr Oswald had a secret associate in his life.

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2019, 09:16:16 PM
That is ludicrous. Try again.

Quote from: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 09:48:16 PM
Why is it ludicrous, Mr Nickerson? Do explain!

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2019, 10:10:43 PM
Why the hell would Oswald be sharing his toothbrush?

Quote from: Alan Ford on April 12, 2019, 10:23:58 PM
If-----------e.g.!-----------Mr J Ruby's prints were found on the same toothbrush as Mr Oswald's prints, you don't think that might be indicative of something interesting? 

You were saying Ray?

[Tim Nickerson]

Nice pickup, did Alan ever explain how this confliction of dates applies to his strict chronological theory?



JohnM

Damn, I missed that one. Apologies to Denis Pointing for not paying closer attention to what he has posted here.