Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Walt Cakebread]

Hilarious. None of the BS in your post is evidence for the presence of a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Beyond that, your entire post is a massive display of total ignorance. And then the idiot complains that I do no know what circumstantial evidence actually means, only to have that pathetic claim preceded by a 100% circumstantial argument. Just how stupid can you be? A circumstantial case is build when there is a lack or shortage of physical, direct, evidence. You throw "circumstances" painted in the most suspicious light possible at the wall and hope it will stick.

Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.

Hey stupid, prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence. They are direct evidence! Didn't they tell you this when you got your law degree from Walmart? Get your facts right!

And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals. 

This is true. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to get a conviction that otherwise could not be gotten due to a lack of direct, physical, evidence. However, most of the wrongful convictions are also obtained based on incorrectly presented or weighed circumstantial evidence.

It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.

[Richard Smith]

Hilarious. None of the BS in your post is evidence for the presence of a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Beyond that, your entire post is a massive display of total ignorance. And then the idiot complains that I do not know what circumstantial evidence actually means, only to have that pathetic claim preceded by a 100% circumstantial argument. Just how stupid can you be? A circumstantial case is build when there is a lack or shortage of physical, direct, evidence. You throw "circumstances" painted in the most suspicious light possible at the wall and hope it will stick.

Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.

Hey stupid, prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence. They are direct evidence! Didn't they tell you this when you got your law degree from Walmart? Get your facts right!

And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals. 

This is true. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to get a conviction that otherwise could not be gotten due to a lack of direct, physical, evidence. However, most of the wrongful convictions are also obtained based on incorrectly presented or weighed circumstantial evidence.

It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.

Prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence?  LOL.  Time to consult with Roger Collins again since your ignorance of the law and evidence is profound.

[Dan O'meara]

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

I phrased it poorly.
Day has clearly altered the sign-out date between the two copies. Whatever the interpretation given to these documents this aspect of it cannot be denied. When arguments are put forward about 'following the evidence' the counter-argument is that it's not possible as the evidence is either lost/destroyed (as with the lunch remains and bottle of soda found by the SN) or the processing of the evidence is corrupt (as in this example of the differing documents). There is no reason to trust any of the information in these documents as we can see alterations have already taken place - the submission date is suspect as is the notion any test was even carried out.



When I look at the top copy it appears to me that all the red writing has been done at the same time. The two documents must have been separated before Howlett put his second signature on the top copy as it doesn't appear on the bottom copy. Day then filled in the rest of the information on the bottom copy changing the sign-out date. How can this be explained other than corrupt practices?

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

A weakness in the scenario you propose is the reason for the top copy:

"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."

I would be very surprised indeed if the DPD felt it had to justify itself to some member of the public. I would imagine anyone finding the rods would be taken in and grilled about every single detail of the discovery. The DPD didn't need to make a fake copy to impress someone off the street.
I totally agree that the testimony regarding the taking of the rods from the Paine house has an air of pantomime about it. Really over the top. And the thing that makes the least sense would be for the DPD to take the rods on the 23rd then pretend they had been found elsewhere over a week earlier.
But a lot of things don't make sense:
Why the change of sign-out date?
If the rods were discovered elsewhere why go to the trouble of putting them back in the Paine house then do the "pantomime of discovery"?
If they were first discovered in the Paine house, why pretend they were discovered earlier?

[Alan Ford]

Note the date-----------March 16..........
-----------the day AFTER two curtain rods are submitted to the DPD lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------a week BEFORE two curtain rods are formally taken from the Paine garage

[Jack Trojan]

Manipulation of this document alone should be enough to implicate Day and the DPD. They controlled all the evidence from sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs to the curtain rods and planting and discovering the MC in the TSBD.

What I find the most interesting, however, is the apparent closing of the gap between Day's signature and the word "Oswald". That gap is not the result of simply photocopying the document, but rather a sophisticated modification of the document that went beyond whiting out and changing the date. The modified document was pieced together and for some reason Day's comment and signature were re-positioned relative to one another. Certainly not on purpose, but it shows the effort that went into modifying the document to deceive. And why was a photocopy submitted into evidence instead of the original document? This is a very damning document that confirms the DPD's involvement as conspirators.

[Walt Cakebread]

Manipulation of this document alone should be enough to implicate Day and the DPD. They controlled all the evidence from sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs to the curtain rods and planting and discovering the MC in the TSBD.

What I find the most interesting, however, is the apparent closing of the gap between Day's signature and the word "Oswald". That gap is not the result of simply photocopying the document, but rather a sophisticated modification of the document that went beyond whiting out and changing the date. The modified document was pieced together and for some reason Day's comment and signature were re-positioned relative to one another. Certainly not on purpose, but it shows the effort that went into modifying the document to deceive. And why was a photocopy submitted into evidence instead of the original document? This is a very damning document that confirms the DPD's involvement as conspirators.

Manipulation of this document alone should be enough to implicate Day and the DPD. They controlled all the evidence from sheep-dipping Oswald with the BYPs to the curtain rods and planting and discovering the MC in the TSBD.

There is ample evidence that the DPD railroaded Lee Oswald, and lynched him before he could expose them.   This document is a little icing on the cake.....

[Jack Trojan]

Note the date-----------March 16..........
-----------the day AFTER two curtain rods are submitted to the DPD lab for testing for Mr Oswald's prints
-----------a week BEFORE two curtain rods are formally taken from the Paine garage

Yet another damning document that implicates the WC, Hoover and the FBI into the mix. Hoover had already recruited the DPD to manage all the evidence, including the curtain rod BS. Otherwise, the WC (Dulles), Hoover and Johnson knew way too much about Oswald and the evidence mere hours after the assassination.