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

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr Crow, I think the entire on-the-record WC visit to the Paine garage was a complete sham, of no evidentiary value whatsoever. Its sole purpose was to make safe the curtain rods issue.

The items they took away were nonsense items whose sole purpose was to lend cover for Mr Jenner's contrived numbering of the two curtain rods as 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 276'.



If any of these items had been considered important as evidence, they would have been removed by DPD, FBI, SS back in November.

Item #6----"Ruth Paine Ex 275-276  Curtain Rods found on a shelf in the garage of Ruth Paine."

May I suggest that this entry is simply a bold lie and the entire list was composed for the sole purpose of establishing that the curtain rods 275 - 276 were found in the Paine Garage and not at the TSBD....

[Alan Ford]

Item #6----"Ruth Paine Ex 275-276  Curtain Rods found on a shelf in the garage of Ruth Paine."

May I suggest that this entry is simply a bold lie and the entire list was composed for the sole purpose of establishing that the curtain rods 275 - 276 were found in the Paine Garage and not at the TSBD....

You may, Mr Cakebread, and you'd be right! 

The dates on the Crime Scene Search Section form(s) support this.

Mr Jenner's 'random' choice of 270 to start his Exhibit marking at supports it.

The fact that the 2 curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

The utter inconsequentiality of the other items on this list supports it.

The utter pointlessness of the WC's on-the-record visit to the Paine home supports it.

The fact that none of these other items were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

It's very simple:

2 curtain rods were found in the Depository; they were 'absorbed' into the 2 curtain rods still left in the Paine garage!

[Walt Cakebread]

You may, Mr Cakebread, and you'd be right! 

The dates on the Crime Scene Search Section form(s) support this.

Mr Jenner's 'random' choice of 270 to start his Exhibit marking at supports it.

The fact that the 2 curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

The utter inconsequentiality of the other items on this list supports it.

The utter pointlessness of the WC's on-the-record visit to the Paine home supports it.

The fact that none of these other items were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

It's very simple:

2 curtain rods were found in the Depository; they were 'absorbed' into the 2 curtain rods still left in the Paine garage!

You realize of course, Mr Ford.....That I think I was merely rephrasing  ( or untangling) your position...    I often become confused in trying to follow your ideas, so I'm pleased that we are on the same page and in harmony on this point.   

Bottom Line.....  This phony list of junk that was taken from Liar Paine's  garage was nothing but a cover sham document created by the conspirators to make it appear that the curtain rods had come from that garage on March 15.     I reality the curtain rods came from that garage on November 22, 1963, and they were in the same flimsy light weight paper sack that contained Lee's sandwich and oranapple.....   Lee cupped the bottom of the flimsy paper sack in his palm to prevent his lunch from bursting the bottom of the sack and falling in the mud.  He ditched the paper sack and curtain rods prior to entering the back door near the Domino room where Jack Dougherty was watching for tardy employees.....

[Walt Cakebread]

I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:

No, CE 1952 is NOT a photo copy of a document that was copied prior to Howett signing it.... CE 1952 (date 3 / 24 63 )and the document dated 3 /26/ 63 are two different documents.

The flashing images are a trick.... ignore Mytton's trickery and ....LOOK at the two documents and compare Day's signature and other writing  on the documents....

[Alan Ford]

No, CE 1952 is NOT a photo copy of a document that was copied prior to Howett signing it.... CE 1952 (date 3 / 24 63 )and the document dated 3 /26/ 63 are two different documents.

The flashing images are a trick.... ignore Mytton's trickery and ....LOOK at the two documents and compare Day's signature and other writing  on the documents....

~Sigh!~

They are exactly the same, Mr Cakebread, apart from the bits boxed in red below...

[Colin Crow]

I am wondering why we see two different versions of the same pieces of information. The time of release, 7.50, and Day's signature on the same line. Why the need to redo them?

[John Mytton]

I am wondering why we see two different versions of the same pieces of information. The time of release, 7.50, and Day's signature on the same line. Why the need to redo them?

I don't think anything was altered but Day signed the original and at a different time signed Howlett's incomplete copy, which became the WC exhibit.

JohnM