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

[John Iacoletti]

There was an aunt or a mother in law that lived with Frazier and Randle who also saw Oswald that morning. Does anyone recall her name?

Their mother, Essie Mae Williams.  She looked out the same window and didn't see Oswald carrying anything.

[John Iacoletti]

Who prepared CE-142?

Where was it prepared?

Who gave it to Mr Oswald?

Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

[Alan Ford]

Very interesting find, Alan!  There's some shenanigans going on here...

Thank you, Mr Iacoletti!  And yes, shenanigans is about the word for it.

It is an extremely curious circumstance.

We have two official forms for the 2 curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

The first (call it CURTAINS #1) has the 'released' date of 3-24-64:



It is important to note that the elements on this document written in red pen are exactly replicated in the second version (call it CURTAINS #2), which has the 'released' date of 3-26-64:



This tells us that
---------------CURTAINS #1 is the original
---------------CURTAINS #2 contains text added to a photocopy of CURTAINS #1
---------------the photocopy of CURTAINS #1 was made, however, before the following elements had been written in: signature of 'John Joe Howlett' (the 2nd instance of this signature) + '3-24-64' + '750 a[.m.]' + signature of 'J. C. Day'.

This is the only logical way of accounting for the discrepancies.

In other words, CURTAINS #2, a.k.a. Commission Exhibit 1952----------

-----------is not just a photocopy (already obvious), but a photocopy of a deliberately prepared photocopy.

The question then becomes:

What benefit did having ready to hand this photocopied version bring?

Answer: flexibility in checking the 2 curtain rods in and out of the lab.

 

[Alan Ford]

Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

Hmmm... that has always puzzled me...

Thank you for the pointer! 

[Brent Moldenhauer]

Both LMR and BWF saw Oswald carry a large bag that morning and the bag was found in the SN so there is a basis for fact.

But both BWF and LMR were shown the package supposedly found on the 6th floor and said it wasnt what Oswald carried. Also both suggest they saw it carried in a way impossible had it been the rifle. So there is also a basis for fact that Oswald didnt carry the supposed large package that was forensically examined and showed no signs of gun oil, gunpowder, nitrates, creases or scratches that could connect it with the transportation of a broken down rifle, a rifle the FBI described as "well oiled" in particular.

I dont like to say people are lying and I can agree that people can make errors when trying to recall the length of an item but Frazier observed the package being stuffed under the armpit with the bottom part cupped in his palm. That is not a guess or an estimate but an observation. He then was shown the large package and said it wasnt what Oswald had. Again, that is not a guess but a comparison based on his observations which was corroborated by Randle.

I am very suspicious of that large package any way.

[Alan Ford]

Now!

I've been variously calling this document a 'release' form or an 'official' form.

Actually, the form itself is rather more informative as to its place in the bigger scheme of things:



CRIME SCENE SEARCH SECTION.

[Oscar Navarro]

I thought Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich and a piece of fruit for his lunch that day?

Yes, but what type of cheese was it? Notice that all accounts of Oswald's interrogation leave this item out. If it turned out that Oswald named a cheese that was in Mrs. Paine's refrigerator then it would mean that BWF, LMR and even Mrs. Roberts were all in collusion to frame Roger Rabbit., I mean LHO. The plot thickens and the clues that exonerate LHO just keep on piling up. 

[Oscar Navarro]

Such multifaceted silliness in one sentence! 

Let's see if we can tweak it towards the Land of Logic:

Even if BWF did not see any bag other than CE-142, that does not mean that Oswald carried no lunch bag that morning.

 

I can back up my statement with the testimony of the one who took LHO to work. What you propose has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking.