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

[John Mytton]

Mr Mytton seems not to understand what an official Crime Scene Search Section evidence sign-in and sign-out form is---------he seems to be confusing it with a personal diary!

That's actually a neat analogy but arse up, my personal diary is always accurate because I'm writing about something that's important to me, whereas just another document that is thrust in my face at work will likely just get signed off.
You people seem to think that they were writing The Holy Bible or something and place unrealistic expectations on every syllable, they were just doing their best under unwanted and incredible circumstances.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Apology for your lazy mistake accepted, Mr Mytton! 

Sorry Alan, but after Denis exposed the ridiculous assumptions that you pass off as fact, I have no reason to read your posts, whereas when Colin posted the document he at least comes with some credibility and I took notice.

JohnM

[Alan Ford]

That's actually a neat analogy but arse up, my personal diary is always accurate because I'm writing about something that's important to me, whereas just another document that is thrust in my face at work will likely just get signed off.

 

Oh my, oh my, Mr Mytton, you're really reaching now!

And diverting!

Let's try again...

We have three dates in front of us:

3-15-64: this date of evidence submission is on both versions of the official Crime Scene Search Section form

3-24-64: this date of evidence release is on the original (color) version which did not see the light of day until decades after the assassination

3-26-64: this date of evidence release is on the black-and-white copy version which became a WC Exhibit.

So, Mr Mytton, simple question for you:

Is it your fantastic conclusion that all three of these dates was written down in error?

 

[Alan Ford]

Sorry Alan, but after Denis exposed the ridiculous assumptions that you pass off as fact, I have no reason to read your posts, whereas when Colin posted the document he at least comes with some credibility and I took notice.

JohnM

 

Keep wriggling, Mr Mytton-----everyone's watching!

 

[Tim Nickerson]

On your example I can see for some reason the photocopy has Burkley's signature removed. It does not appear to be lost from the photocopy process but a deliberate removal. Why would anyone do that? Without doing an overlay I can't see any other obvious alterations. Thanks for providing another example though. Do you not agree that the documents shown are "alterations" of originals?

Colin, I do not believe that Burkley's signature was removed from the poor photocopy of the Facesheet, either by the photocopy process or by any other means. Burkley had yet to sign the Facesheet at the time that it was photocopied.

[Zeon Mason]

If still not convinced by the blinking documents, focus on the blinking lights, and count slowly backwards from 100 until you fall asleep. When you awaken tomorrow, you will accept all the WC mistakes as perfectly normal and usual.

[Tim Nickerson]

Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
Also if Day was going to alter the date wouldn't he just alter the 4 into 6 and just leave the signature?



JohnM

I hadn't actually thought of that. It's a good possibility. A very good one.  I was thinking that the 6 in the very poor photocopy was just a "warped" replication of the 4.