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

[Alan Ford]

  [...] Did one of the TSBD employees tell one of the Dallas Team that he had found some curtain rods hidden near the back door of the TSBD?

Whoever found the curtain rods somewhere in the Depository would, one assumes, have notified someone in law enforcement. This may have put Agent Howlett in a very difficult situation: he had to control the narrative by being seen to 'resolve' the matter through official channels (i.e. sending the rods for fingerprinting). All it would have taken was one honest, not-in-the-loop person in law enforcement to constrain Agent Howlett's options------------they could come forward at any point in the future and ask, 'Hey, what happened to those curtain rods I passed on to you?' Furthermore, the person in the Depository who found the rods could make unwelcome noises about it. A way had to be found to create a paper record showing that the matter had been followed up on and 'resolved'.

Solution: Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner contrived a pretty dance around 'finding' 2 rods in the Paine garage---and tagging them '275 & 276' in order to lend the impression they were the same 2 rods as those discovered in the Depository.

I believe that you've previously stated that Howlett was interested in curtain rods in the Paine garage on March 24.....

No! March 23!

WHY?   WHY Would have Howlett been interested in curtain rods in the Paine garage?

He became interested in them as a result of the 2 curtain rods discovered in the Depository. The on-the-record theatre in the Paine garage on 23 March was an elaborate way of making the 2 curtain rods from the Depository disappear: the 2 rods notated 'marked 275 & 276' by Lieutenant Day 'became' 'Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276'! 

You've reported that Howlett took some curtain rods from the Paine garage and then had Lt day check them for finger prints....

No! That is exactly what he didn't do!

15 March: Agent Howlett submits 2 rods for fingerprinting.
23 March: Agent Howlett takes 2 rods from Paine garage.
24 March: Agent Howlett receives back the original 2 rods from fingerprinting lab.

We are dealing with two pairs of curtain rods here, not one!

I can only surmise that Howlett thought that Lee Oswald might have handled those curtain rods when he removed the rods that he carried on the morning of 11/22/63  ( assuming that the curtain rods were in a common bundle) ....

If the rods had been found in the Paine garage, the issue of Mr Oswald's prints would have been irrelevant. What made that issue burningly relevant was their discovery in a place other than the Paine garage----i.e. somewhere Mr Oswald had been after leaving the Paine home that morning.

[Alan Ford]

You left out the part where Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods or long package.  In your fantasy scenario, Oswald lies to get himself into further difficulties instead of out of them.  If his bag had contained curtain rods, the obvious thing to do is direct the police to it.  Instead he denies carrying a long package because it contains something he doesn't want to be associated with.  And then it gets even better.  Having somehow successfully suppressed the recovery of curtain rods found at the TSBD, Howlett suddenly decides to bring them to light five months later to check for some inexplicable reason whether Oswald's prints are on them when, in a frame up, they have succeeded in covering their existence.  And he conveniently fills out a form to document the very evidence they want to cover up!   LOL.   What a plan.  Everyone is acting contrary to their own interest in this scenario but it must be true because March 15 comes before March 23.  Whew.

Yes-------March 15 comes before March 23, and March 23 comes before March 24, and March 24 comes before March 26.

You still haven't offered an explanation for the dates on these forms, Mr Smith!

I, on the other hand have:
------------2 curtain rods were found by A. N. Other in the Depository
------------A. N. Other alerted someone in law enforcement
------------this someone passed the matter up to someone in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation
------------the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators had to 'resolve' the issue
------------the story of how they 'resolved' the issue is told in the clearest way by the dates which you can't explain!

As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
----------he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.

Now! Over to you yet again, Mr Smith, for your theory explaining the following:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

 

[Jerry Freeman]

Maybe the same person who sent the backup bag:

That is the address of where?

[Jerry Freeman]

Quote from: Bill Chapman on March 06, 2019, 04:18:07 PM

Just because JackD didn't see Oswald carrying a bag, doesn't mean that he wasn't 

Re-read that drivel...or was Jack blind? No... He stated that he saw Oswald enter for work and didn't see him carrying anything.
 

Their mother, Essie Mae Williams.  She looked out the same window and didn't see Oswald carrying anything.
 https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10672/images/img_10672_150_300.png

Another case of proving a negative. Mrs Williams did not see a bag...does not mean there was no bag. So far 2 people say they saw the bag. A dubious description of supposed bag from both of them. No one of the entire rest of all the employees in that building said that they saw any bag carried by Oswald that day. How many negatives is that?
 

[John Iacoletti]

That is the address of where?

That address doesn?t exist.

[Richard Smith]

Yes-------March 15 comes before March 23, and March 23 comes before March 24, and March 24 comes before March 26.

You still haven't offered an explanation for the dates on these forms, Mr Smith!

I, on the other hand have:
------------2 curtain rods were found by A. N. Other in the Depository
------------A. N. Other alerted someone in law enforcement
------------this someone passed the matter up to someone in the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigation
------------the Oswald-Acted-Alone investigators had to 'resolve' the issue
------------the story of how they 'resolved' the issue is told in the clearest way by the dates which you can't explain!

As for Mr Oswald's alleged denial of the curtain rods, I have already answered that point multiple times in this thread:
----------he realised how the curtain rods had been used to frame him, so he made a calculated decision to deny having brought any long bag to work that morning.

Now! Over to you yet again, Mr Smith, for your theory explaining the following:

7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964: 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

 

There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

[Alan Ford]

There is nothing "alleged" about Oswald's denial of the curtain rods.  It is a matter of record for which there is zero evidence that anyone made this up.  He denied it to more than one person.  It is just CTer dishonesty to suggest that it might, maybe, possibly didn't happen because they don't like it.  As for your "explanation" of his denial, it makes no sense.  How exactly would Oswald think it improved his situation to deny that he carried a long package containing curtain rods when he would have known that he had driven to work with Frazier who had seen a long package in his possession?  In your bizarre explanation, Oswald is denying that he has exculpatory evidence that he knew would assist his cause and that a witness (Frazier) could confirm!  Instead he denies it.  That is fall on the ground laughable.  But then it gets even better.  The super fantasy conspiracy swoops into action and recovers the curtain rods at the TSBD which they then successfully cover up.  But ooops.  Five months later they decide to bring them to light (and conveniently fill out a form!) to test them for - wait for it - Oswald's prints on items they would have known in this scenario that Oswald carried and that they would have every reason not to want to associate with him by, for example, testing them for his prints.  Good grief.  You can't possibly believe that nonsense in which everyone is acting against their own self interest.

Breaking News!!!

Mr Richard Smith confirmed earlier today that he still cannot come up with an explanation for the clear, unambiguous hard evidence that
-----------as of 7:30 p. m., 23 March 1964------------
there were 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage; 2 curtain rods in Lieutenant Day's crime lab.

Sources close to Mr Smith indicate however that he remains "quietly but defiantly" committed to the view that
---------------15 March 1964 came after 23 March 1964
---------------23 March 1964 came after 24 March 1964.

"Smith is one of our top guys," commented one LN source understood to be particularly close to Mr Smith. "If he says 2 + 2 = 2, then heck, that's good enough for me."

[Alan Ford]

Question for Mr Tim Nickerson!

On March 7, your explanation for the Crime Scene Search Section form went as follows:

"Howlett was well aware that he had removed the curtain rods on the 15th and was just going through the motions during the deposition for demonstration purposes. There was no need for him to mention that he was familiar with the two rods and their location because he knew that Jenner was already aware of those facts himself."

Do you still stand over this explanation? If so, do you think Agent Howlett was also aware that he had not yet received the two curtain rods back from Lieutenant Day and so could not possibly be about to find them in the Paine garage?

Thanking you in advance for your resumed input, good sir!