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

[Denis Pointing]

Oh, I put up many pages back, Mr Nickerson, while you were off observing your vow of silence.

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' on 15 March for the simple reason that he saw those numbers written down on the curtain rods: they were length markings (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches). (I remind you of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's common estimate of the length of the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald on the morning of 11/22: 27 inches. Impressively close, dontcha think?)

The reason these rods were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints is obvious: they were discovered in the Depository, not in Ms Paine's garage. (Which reminds me: you still haven't offered a reason why 2 curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage would have been tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Tsk tsk!)

This explanation, unlike your wild and rather desperate speculation, has the benefit of being consistent with, and explaining, the Crime Scene Search Section form. No need to invent 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' or fingerprinting-for-no-reason-in-the-world! 

Now!

The coincidence of the numbers 275 & 276 with the numbers assigned by Mr Jenner to the 2 rods taken from Ms Paine's garage is, of course, no coincidence at all:
as you yourself have already conceded, Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner agreed, in advance of Ms Paine's on-the-record handover of the 2 remaining curtain rods in her garage, a contrived way of assigning the numbers 275 and 276.

You and I agree that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on a sham 'discovery' show and fiddled the numbers. Unlike me, however, you can't offer any non-silly explanation for such devious behavior.

 

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.
 

[Alan Ford]

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 ingenious and had Howlet take 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' explanation. That's OK, we can agree to differ. All I'm trying to do is offer a reasonable alternative that fits your criteria of why and how, which I believe I've done. Thank you.

Hello Mr Pointing, and thank you for what is a genuinely substantive response! 

Let me take your key points in sequence. I don't wish to point-score with you on this, merely to respond as clearly & honestly as I can.

there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this.

But I am arguing that
----------the curtain rods in the Archives (kept there as Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276) are not the curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant Day on 15 March;
----------those curtain rods were never seen again after they left the crime lab in Mr Howlett's 'care';
----------Mr Jenner's shenanigans with the numbers (275 & 276) give the game away as to the switcheroo (the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting 'becoming' the 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage).

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.

Again, we are talking about different curtain rods here. We have never seen the 2 curtain rods found and submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March, therefore we cannot say they were both exactly 27.5 inches long. For all we know, Ms Paine herself may have scribbled 2-7-[supernumeral] 5 and 2-7-[supernumeral] 6 in pencil on the rods. Lieutenant Day, not understanding the meaning of the numbers, just wrote down what he saw:



If these numbers have nothing to do with the rods' length, where did they come from? Why these particular numbers?

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 ingenious and had Howlet take 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.

The problem with this is that the 2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting 4 days before Ms Paine's first discussion (Washington, 19 March) of the 2 rods in her garage.

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'.

Is it really credible that, in the three-and-a-half months prior to 15 March 1964, not a soul in DPD or FBI would have thought to verify that
a) Ms Paine had indeed had curtain rods?
b) none had gone missing after 11/21/63?

The official documentary record's complete silence on this potentially case-defining issue speaks volumes IMO. Something was wrong, and no one wanted to draw attention to it.

It was only when 2 curtain rods turned up at the Depository that the issue had to be faced and 'resolved'. Cue a carefully choreographed on-the-record testimony taking at the Paine home in Irving.

Now, as to the fingerprinting. It is a key aspect of this whole puzzle...

Mr Jenner and Agent Howlett would have had to have a pretty good reason to go to the trouble of deceiving Ms Paine and staging the on-the-record (and bizarrely belated) 'discovery' of 2 curtain rods in Ms Paine's garage. All in order to have them tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints? Makes no sense IMO! Suppose the test had come up positive for Mr Oswald's prints. How exactly would that have furthered the investigation? It would have been a meaningless result. So what if Mr Oswald had at some time handled 2 curtain rods which had never even left the Paine home!

My deduction that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March were found at the Depository is not one I make rashly.

It is surely the only scenario that would actually justify
-------------a test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
-------------a subsequent staged discovery of 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, involving a contrived arrival at the numbers marked on the 2 curtain rods that had been submitted for testing 8 days earlier.

I believe, in short, that my theory, however startling, is the only one thus far put forward that accounts without unnecessary complication for the evidence we have before us.

[Tim Nickerson]

Oh, I put up many pages back, Mr Nickerson, while you were off observing your vow of silence.

Lieutenant Day wrote 'marked 275 & 276' on 15 March for the simple reason that he saw those numbers written down on the curtain rods: they were length markings (27.5 inches, 27.6 inches). (I remind you of Mr Frazier and Ms Randle's common estimate of the length of the paper bag carried by Mr Oswald on the morning of 11/22: 27 inches. Impressively close, dontcha think?)

The reason these rods were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints is obvious: they were discovered in the Depository, not in Ms Paine's garage. (Which reminds me: you still haven't offered a reason why 2 curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage would have been tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints. Tsk tsk!)

This explanation, unlike your wild and rather desperate speculation, has the benefit of being consistent with, and explaining, the Crime Scene Search Section form. No need to invent 'obviously' 'missing' 'documentation' or fingerprinting-for-no-reason-in-the-world! 

Now!

The coincidence of the numbers 275 & 276 with the numbers assigned by Mr Jenner to the 2 rods taken from Ms Paine's garage is, of course, no coincidence at all:
as you yourself have already conceded, Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner agreed, in advance of Ms Paine's on-the-record handover of the 2 remaining curtain rods in her garage, a contrived way of assigning the numbers 275 and 276.

You and I agree that Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner put on a sham 'discovery' show and fiddled the numbers. Unlike me, however, you can't offer any non-silly explanation for such devious behavior.

 

You're short on specifics but let's see if I understand you correctly.

John Howlett found two curtain rods in the TSBD and submitted them to the DPD crime lab on March 15. They were marked 275 and 276 which stood for their respective lengths of 27.5 and 27.6 inches. This represented a problem for "them". Although, it's not clear why Howlett, who must have been one of "them", ever submitted the rods to the DPD in the first place. Nevertheless, they now had a problem on their hands. What to do? What to do? And then two days later , by a stroke of luck, Michael Paine informs them that there were some curtain rods in the garage at the residence of his estranged wife. Paine informs them that the rods are about 32.5 to 36 inches in length. A little long but close enough, so they decide to run with it. What about the numbers marked on the two rods? What to do about those? Not a problem. They'll just start numbering the items of evidence, that they'll attach Ruth's name to, at 270. Piece of cake. Jenner can handle it. He works at it a bit beforehand to set things up for the big day. And then wouldn't you know it, not only were the rods there, they were also the exact lengths of the two that resided in the DPD crime lab. The Gods were smiling upon "them". All that was left to do was for Howlett to head to the DPD crime lab and have those two rods released to him and then he can make them disappear. Which I guess he must have.

I have got that right Alan? And it's free of any wild, and rather desperate, speculation, right? 

As I said, I'm not sure why they tested the rods for prints. Other items were checked for prints for no apparent reason. The CSS form does not specify that the sole purpose of checking them for prints was to determine if Oswald's were on them.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error. That is, the curtain rods were submitted to the DPD crime lab by Howlett on Mar 23, not Mar 15. The numbers 275 and 276 had been placed on them earlier that day during the deposition of Ruth Paine.

[Colin Crow]

Affidavit Of Ruth Hyde Paine

The following affidavit was executed by Ruth Hyde Paine on June 24, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss: Ruth Hyde Paine, being affirmed, says:

1. I reside at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. I am the Ruth Hyde Paine who testified before the Commission on March 18, 19 and 20, 1964, and gave testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. at the offices of the Commission on Saturday, March 21, 1964, and gave further testimony by deposition in my home the evening of Monday, March 23, 1964.

The "garage adventure" took place on the evening of 3/23/64?

If so the "date error"  theorists claim that the date that Howlett provided Day with the garage rods was actually the next morning, 3/24/94 at 9.45am. Day then processed the rods with particular focus on Oswald's prints and released them back to Howlett at 9.50am. Remarkably fast processing......

[John Iacoletti]

Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error.

That?s always the go-to excuse for inconvenient evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

If the WC was willing to be this devious and dishonest with a piece of evidence (not to mention breaking the law), what does that tell you about the integrity of the rest of the investigation?