Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work. Then either Oswald had a pancake for lunch or he didn't see the bag carried from the front, as he said in testimony.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please. And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There doesn't have to be. I have told you this before and I'll say it again; the paper bag is of no significance to the case if it did not contain the broken down MC rifle that was later found at the TSBD. It really is as simple as that.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please.

It's one of his "53 pieces of evidence that convict Oswald". Look it up.. it's easy enough to find

And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

Reply # 148

"Richard Smith" tells us that "he knocks off early for a movie" is part of the "evidence" that shows he killed JFK

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.

Or, see what they do? They take all sorts of innocent and explainable events, give them a different interpretation and lumb them together in a narrative that makes it look as if the suspect was up to no good.

That's the beauty of circumstantial evidence. With enough malice and imagination you can twist and turn even benign events, like leaving a wedding ring behind, into evidence of murder. It's what prosecutors do every day of the week!

[Martin Weidmann]

Not so fast, Waldo. You have yet to thank me for providing you with information about Tony Fratini.

Do you think Tony Fratini will thank you for sharing his private information on a public forum?

[Bill Chapman]

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There doesn't have to be. I have told you this before and I'll say it again; the paper bag is of no significance to the case if it did not contain the broken down MC rifle that was later found at the TSBD. It really is as simple as that.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please.

It's one of his "53 pieces of evidence that convict Oswald". Look it up.. it's easy enough to find

And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

Reply # 148

"Richard Smith" tells us that "he knocks off early for a movie" is part of the "evidence" that shows he killed JFK

Richard is mocking you lot, and rightly so.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying. And stop acting so put upon.

[Alan Ford]

It’s really depressing to me that somebody would not dare to speak if having found these rods (and possibly a bag ) a month later   If there was significance in that finding that definitely proves Oswald took those from the Paines garage on Friday morning Nov 22/63

I believe a copy of the original form (release date 3/24) was shown to whoever found the curtain rods at the Depository as 'proof' that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and there was nothing to see here.

This document renders unsafe the LNer claim that 'No curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD therefore LHO lied to Wesley Frazier about what was in the bag'.

[Alan Ford]

I don't know anything about this aspect of the case so I read the first few pages of this thread but my head started hurting.
Surely, at the very least, the image above is proof that tampering with the evidence, or the processing of evidence has taken place. As i read it all the writing is Day except the Howlett signature(s).

Yes

The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day

Not sure this was alteration as such, Mr O'Meara.

This is what a BW copy of the form must have looked like after the rods had been submitted & tested, but before they had been released-------------



Lt. Day added a 3/24/64 signout to the original and a 3/26/64 signout to the copy

and there is no Howlett signature to say he has received the rods back. If Day is willing to change the date of the release why should we trust the date of the submission?
The rods are collected from Mrs Paine's house on the 23rd and taken to Day, maybe the morning of the 24th. He writes in a fake submission date and releases them on the 26th.

I don't think the submission date is fake. What's fake is the elaborate 'finding' of two curtain rods in the Paine garage 3/23 and the contrived marking of them as Exhibits 275 & 276. The WC on-the-record visit to the Paine garage only took place BECAUSE two curtain rods had shown up elsewhere---------two curtain rods that, because of where they were found, needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints

[Martin Weidmann]

Richard is mocking you lot, and rightly so.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying. And stop acting so put upon.

Sticks and stones.... Hardly surprising, if he is, because absent sound arguments and/or persuasive evidence, mocking is just about the only thing you LN clowns have got.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying.

Who says I was quoting him verbatim? Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?