Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

Lol, these questions are about as potent as the LNer's 'So you say Oswald didn't do it but you can't show me a photograph of the real shooter taking aim, eh?'

Very weak.

Not remotely correct, Mr Weidmann:

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that two curtain rods were submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23)........ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that these two curtain rods (the ones submitted 3/15) were submitted to be tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints........ Other than their having been found in the Depository building, how would you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that numbering of the Ruth Paine exhibits began at the number 270..........  Can you offer a good reason why this number was chosen, Mr Weidmann?

No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald). There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that the digits 2-7-5 match exactly the length of curtain rod (27.5 inches) taken from the Paine garage......... Are you seriously suggesting this is a coincidence, Mr Weidmann?

I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!

--------------------It is not speculation but fact that a variant version of the Crime Scene Search Section document, sans Howlett release signature and with different release date, went into the public record via the Warren volumes............ How do you account for this fact, Mr Weidmann?

We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.

The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage. Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.

The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods. However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as "Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htm

This could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods. Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.

The fact is that what you have here is a puzzle which clearly has pieces missing. Speculating about what those pieces are isn't going to help you solve the puzzle.

[Alan Ford]

Very weak.

That is indeed no speculation, as it is documented. Without additional information your question can not be answered.

So: You cannot offer any alternative explanation why two curtain rods would be submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23). Noted! 

It is indeed documented that the curtain rods you refer to were submitted for testing for Oswald's prints, but absolutely is speculation that those rods were found at the TSBD. Again, without further information your question can not be answered.

So: You cannot offer any alternative location (alternative, that is, to the Depository) where the testing of two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise. Noted! 

No I can't, but having looked through the WC's evidence list there are more exhibit numbers that do not make sense. For instance, why did they jump from 278 to 469 (A translated letter by Ruth Paine to Marina Oswald).

Ruth Paine Exhibit 469 was created BEFORE Ruth Paine Exhibit 270! It is one of many (CE 401-469) Ruth Paine-related Commission Exhibits, whose first number follows on sequentially from Commission Exhibit 400.

270, by contrast, comes out of nowhere.

There simply isn't enough information to make any kind of credible inference. But the mere fact that I can't offer you a good reason doesn't automatically mean that you speculation is correct.

So: you can't explain why the number 270 was chosen to begin with? Noted!

The Michael Paine Exhibits, by the way, begin at the number.............1.

I'm not suggesting anything. I simply reserve judgment on that and wonder if the digits did match the length of the rods, why did they number the other one 276 and not, for instance, 275 A and 275 B? They did it for 277 (two cheques)!

Because they needed to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276. 'Marking' the two rods in the Paine garage 275 and 275-A would have defeated the point of the entire exercise.

We've already been over this. It is indeed strange, but your reasoning still doesn't make any sense. The curtain rods were taken from Ruth Paine's garage during her testimony on 23 March 1964. In other words, they must have been there on that day.

The original copy of the DPD document shows that Howlett collected the rods tested for prints on the next day, which means they were in Day's possession when Howlett found the rods in Ruth Paine's garage.

Correct-----which means we're talking about two different sets of curtain rods.

Just how does it make sense for Lt Day to date a copy of the document two days later, on 26 March 1964.

The first impression would be that this suggests that there must have been two different sets of curtain rods.

Correct

However, the DPD document is WC exhibit 1952 and described in the evidence list as "Dallas Police Department fingerprint check report submitted March 15, 1964, on two curtain rods received from Mrs. Paine."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh23.htm

This could suggest there were indeed four sets of curtain rods.

No, it tells us exactly what the scam was: to absorb the two curtain rods that needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints into the two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage.

Two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964 and two others taken from Ruth Paine's garage on 23 March, but that also doesn't make a great deal of sense.

No, it doesn't-----------unless we understand that the "two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964" were not given him by Ms Paine but by someone who found them in a place that would make testing them for Mr Oswald's fingerprints a meaningful exercise, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

[Martin Weidmann]

So: You cannot offer any alternative explanation why two curtain rods would be submitted to the Crime Scene Search Section eight days before two curtain rods were formally taken from the Paine garage (3/15 vs. 3/23). Noted! 

So: You cannot offer any alternative location (alternative, that is, to the Depository) where the testing of two curtain rods for Mr Oswald's fingerprints would be a meaningful exercise. Noted! 

Ruth Paine Exhibit 469 was created BEFORE Ruth Paine Exhibit 270! It is one of many (CE 401-469) Ruth Paine-related Commission Exhibits, whose first number follows on sequentially from Commission Exhibit 400.

270, by contrast, comes out of nowhere.

So: you can't explain why the number 270 was chosen to begin with? Noted!

The Michael Paine Exhibits, by the way, begin at the number.............1.

Because they needed to contrive into evidence two curtain rods 'marked' 275 and 276. 'Marking' the two rods in the Paine garage 275 and 275-A would have defeated the point of the entire exercise.

Correct-----which means we're talking about two different sets of curtain rods.

Correct

No, it tells us exactly what the scam was: to absorb the two curtain rods that needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints into the two curtain rods taken from the Paine garage.

No, it doesn't-----------unless we understand that the "two given to Howlett prior to 15 March 1964" were not given him by Ms Paine but by someone who found them in a place that would make testing them for Mr Oswald's fingerprints a meaningful exercise, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

Of course it is speculation. You are making assumptions, that are not supported by evidence, to fill in the gaps. For instance, when you claim that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD you are just guessing, based only on your opinion that they couldn't have come from somewhere else.

If you want to call that "logical inference", then you must also agree with the LNs who claim that it is a "logical inference" that Oswald carried a broken down MC rifle in a paper bag to the TSBD on Friday morning.

For neither, there is a shred of evidence and for both a "what else could have been" argument can be made. You can not call the one "logical inference" and the other speculation. So, what is it? Are the LNs right when they claim Oswald concealed a broken down MC rifle in his paper bag or not?

Btw I agree with you that something very strange is going on here, but if your ultimate goal is to claim that curtain rods were actually found at the TSBD - nearly four months after the murder - you are very far away from proving it.

[Alan Ford]

This is not speculation, it's just logical inference.

Of course it is speculation. You are making assumptions, that are not supported by evidence, to fill in the gaps. For instance, when you claim that the curtain rods were found at the TSBD you are just guessing, based only on your opinion that they couldn't have come from somewhere else.

My logical inference is based on the simple reality that there is no other location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Give me another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING.

[Martin Weidmann]

My logical inference is based on the simple reality that there is no other location where the finding of two curtain rods would merit their being tested for Mr Oswald's prints.

Give me another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING.

Sorry, not playing that game. Your opinion that there isn't another location, simply because you can not think of one, simply does not justify the conclusion that the rods were found at the TSBD.

But, let's for argument's sake say that the rods were indeed found at the TSBD. Wouldn't you expect that Oswald's prints would be on them? How do you explain that they were not, but a print of somebody else was? And if Oswald brought those rods in a paper bag, why was the bag not submitted for fingerprinting? Or is it your position that the rods were no longer in a bag when they were found at the TSBD?

[Alan Ford]

Sorry, not playing that game. Your opinion that there isn't another location, simply because you can not think of one, simply does not justify the conclusion that the rods were found at the TSBD.

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

But, let's for argument's sake say that the rods were indeed found at the TSBD. Wouldn't you expect that Oswald's prints would be on them?

Not necessarily

How do you explain that they were not, but a print of somebody else was?

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

And if Oswald brought those rods in a paper bag, why was the bag not submitted for fingerprinting? Or is it your position that the rods were no longer in a bag when they were found at the TSBD?

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

Not necessarily

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

It's not that I can't think of an alternative location, it's that NO ONE can--------------because there isn't one. Hence my logical inference stands.

You don't know this with any kind of certainty. It's just a selfserving claim, when in fact the WC in it's evidence list described the rods as "received from Mrs. Paine" thus disproving your claim that there is no other possible explanation. Obviously you don't accept that explanation, but it is an alternative source nevertheless.

No evidence they were ever properly tested--------nor should we be so naive as to think that, even if they were tested, Lt Day (a professional liar) would have recorded the results honestly. This was all geared to appeasing the Depository employee who had found the rods ('Look, there's nothing to see here...')

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but you seem to be all over the place. First you ask me to provide "another location where a positive result for such tests would mean ANYTHING", only to now say that there is no evidence the rods were ever properly tested and that Lt Day would not have recorded the results honestly. It doesn't add up.

I've asked you this before, but never got answer. Who is this TSBD employee who found the rods? Also, what would be the point to go through the charade of having the rods tested for prints?. Only just in case a TSBD employee might say something? It seems too far fetched, as this happened in March and the WC report wasn't released in September, with all the evidence being locked away, initially, for 75 years. They simply could have ignored the matter as they did with so many other things. They buried the Stroud letter and that was far more significant. There was IMO no need to actually put on the charade you are suggesting. Even less so, when they subsequently put in the exhibit description of the DPD document that the rods were received from Ruth Paine.

They probably had been removed from their bag. But even if not, the very last thing Lt Day and Agent Howlett were interested in was finding evidence exculpatory of Mr Oswald.

And why in the world would they have been removed from the bag? There simply is no plausible reason for it. As for Lt Day and Secret Service Agent not being interested in finding exculpatory evidence, if that's true than why go through the charade in the first place and generate paperwork. Just because they were worried about what this unnamed TSBD employee might say in the future? Really? I seriously doubt it.

[Bill Chapman]

You CTers would piss yourselves if the curtain rod thing hadn't been investigated. Same thing goes for the paraffin tests, which were largely useless in that era*.

And what things haven't been investigated? Oh, yeah: CTer pet theories. So call a press conference, already.

*Firearm Factoids/MacAdams