Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

What have I been smoking?

Look at your little scenario again Alan.
You've got Day testing the rods for fingerprints the Day after he released them to Howlett.
Howlett has taken the rods away and then Day tests them.

Snap out of it man.

Your notion that an elaborate hoax involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the WC and Mrs Paine took place to show why the rods were marked 275 and 276  is "on the edge", to say the least.
You still haven't explained why they felt the need to justify doing this just because, as you would have it, some random person wrote
some random numbers on the curtain rods (this, of course, is not the case, the curtain rods were marked for identification at Ruth Paine's house)
Why did they have to have the Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers for the rods the same as the numbers scrawled on the "TSBD rods" (lol)?

The rods are collected on the 23rd from Ruth Paine's house and marked 275 and 276
The fingerprint card shows they were tested on the 25th (you don't find it strange at all that in your scenario Day waits for 10 days before testing the rods. Are you saying that one minute the rods are important the next minute their not.?
The bottom copy of the document, the part in the official record, records a release date of 26th.

Ignore submission date:

Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th

Ignore submission date:

Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th

Let's assume for a second this is true. How do you explain that Howlett and Day both signed for the release on the 24th?

And why didn't Howlett sign for the release on the 26th?

[Martin Weidmann]

Come on Alan.

Oswald denied taking the rods.
You think it was high on the investigator's priority list to show Oswald lied to Frazier?
You think they didn't have enough on Oswald already?
It's safe to say it didn't cross anybody's mind that ​the curtain rod story was true.
You think the investigator's wasted one second trying to prove an alibi for Oswald that he denied himself?
All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.

All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.

Indeed. And in the process anything exculpatory was ignored or dismissed.

[Alan Ford]

What have I been smoking?

Look at your little scenario again Alan.
You've got Day testing the rods for fingerprints the Day after he released them to Howlett.
Howlett has taken the rods away and then Day tests them.

Snap out of it man.

Your notion that an elaborate hoax involving the Secret Service, the senior counsel of the WC and Mrs Paine took place to show why the rods were marked 275 and 276  is "on the edge", to say the least.
You still haven't explained why they felt the need to justify doing this just because, as you would have it, some random person wrote
some random numbers on the curtain rods (this, of course, is not the case, the curtain rods were marked for identification at Ruth Paine's house)
Why did they have to have the Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers for the rods the same as the numbers scrawled on the "TSBD rods" (lol)?

Lol, already explained, Mr O'Meara. The fact that you ignore my explanation merely tells us you can't come up with a rebuttal

The rods are collected on the 23rd from Ruth Paine's house and marked 275 and 276
The fingerprint card shows they were tested on the 25th (you don't find it strange at all that in your scenario Day waits for 10 days before testing the rods. Are you saying that one minute the rods are important the next minute their not.?
The bottom copy of the document, the part in the official record, records a release date of 26th.

Ignore submission date:

Rods taken into evidence - 23rd
Tested for prints - 25th
Released- 26th

So, once again your mad solution to the problem posed by the submission date and the release date is:
---------------Ignore submission date
---------------Ignore release date

 

[Alan Ford]

Come on Alan.

Oswald denied taking the rods.

We don't know that for sure. Remember-------we're dealing with the same professional liars here who buried Mr Oswald's claim to have gone "outside to watch P. Parade". You know, the guys whose devoted fanboy you are

You think it was high on the investigator's priority list to show Oswald lied to Frazier?
You think they didn't have enough on Oswald already?
It's safe to say it didn't cross anybody's mind that ​the curtain rod story was true.
You think the investigator's wasted one second trying to prove an alibi for Oswald that he denied himself?

What a silly question!

All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.

Exactly-----------and so too is all your energy

[Dan O'meara]

All energy was focussed on building a case against Oswald.

Indeed. And in the process anything exculpatory was ignored or dismissed.

Agreed

[Dan O'meara]

Lol, already explained, Mr O'Meara. The fact that you ignore my explanation merely tells us you can't come up with a rebuttal

It's not true Alan.
You have not explained why the elaborate hoax has to focus on the numbers scribbled on the TSBD rods.
The whole point of this pantomime, involving the Secret Service, the hierarchy of the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department and Ruth Paine, is to number the rods found at Ruth Paine's house 275 and 276.
Why is it necessary to do this?

[Alan Ford]

It's not true Alan.
You have not explained why the elaborate hoax has to focus on the numbers scribbled on the TSBD rods.
The whole point of this pantomime, involving the Secret Service, the hierarchy of the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department and Ruth Paine, is to number the rods found at Ruth Paine's house 275 and 276.
Why is it necessary to do this?

Stop playing games, Mr O'Meara. Reply #856