It can be as simple as a mistake on the date on the form. Instead of a submission date of "3/15" it should have been "3/25".
Which leaves you with a form that now has a submission date LATER than the release date. Which is as simple as a mistake on BOTH dates on the form!
That aligns with Paine's testimony on 3/23
The only reason it aligns is that you have changed the number arbitrarily in order to force an alignment.
and explains how the same exhibit numbers can appear on the form that weren't assigned until 3/23 (i.e. 275 and 276). We know these are the same curtain rods taken from the Paine's garage because they have the exact same exhibit number as noted on the form. So the curtain rods are obtained on 3/23 and assigned their exhibit numbers that day
How were the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 arrived at? Read the testimony--------it's a hoot!
(as then reflected on the form) and provided to the DPD on 3/25. As noted below, there is confusion on the release date which could have been 3/26 per the WC exhibit. Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods. They could have been obtained and tested for prints
Ludicrous to suggest that checking the garage for curtain rods would not have entered anyone's mind until months after the assassination!
And why on earth would two curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result show?
and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony.
In which case that phase of the testimony-taking in Ms Paine's garage is a complete charade, yes? Agent Howlett is only pretending to see the curtain rods for the first time.
Some information on the form could have been filled in at a later time (such as the correct exhibit numbers).
btw: CE 1952 appears to contain a different date than the form Alan has posted.
No 'appears' about it!
It suggests the "specimen" was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24.
No, it suggests that *a* specimen was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24--------------and photographic evidence tells us further that testing was done on *a* specimen on 3/25 = a day AFTER *another* specimen was formally released.
Demonstrating that this form could have been completed well after the fact and post dated back to the original times and dates. Thus, the potential for confusion on the dates. In addition, we know there were no curtain rods found at the TSBD because Roy Truly confirmed that to the WC when asked that specific question in Sept. '64. If the purpose of this exercise was to appease some person who had found curtain rods at the TSBD, as Alan suggests,
No he doesn't------------read again what Alan wrote!
