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

[Colin Crow]

Colin, I sense that you haven't been following along here. Alan Ford postulates that the curtain rods removed from the Paine garage are not the curtain rods submitted to the DPD crime lab by John Howlett. He is claiming that the two rods submitted to the DPD crime lab were found at the TSBD. That they were in fact the curtain rods that Oswald told Buell Frazier were in the long package he carried with him on the morning of the 22nd. When asked why Oswald denied anything to do with curtain rods during his interrogations and interviews, Ford dismisses those who reported the denial as being liars.

Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

[Richard Smith]

Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

Again, Oswald told Frazier that he went to the Paine residence to obtain curtain rods.  The investigators were simply doing due diligence to check the only curtain rods found at that location to see if there was any link to Oswald.  Seems pretty obvious why they check them.  A better question has been posed several times now.  If these were the curtain rods Oswald carried to the TSBD and the authorities knew that and had successfully suppressed them to frame Oswald, why bring them to light five months later and have them tested for Oswald's prints?  In that nutty scenario, the authorities had already succeeded in their objective in hiding the curtain rods.  They would also already know they were linked to Oswald.  So they would have every incentive in that scenario NOT to bring them light and there would be no point to test them for Oswald's prints.  It is completely absurd.  If there were any doubt, Ruth Paine confirmed these rods came from her garage and had been there since 11.22.    Oswald himself denied carrying any curtain rods.  To suggest these curtain rods were found at the TSBD is ridiculous.

[Colin Crow]

Feel free to address the document details when ready. Are the dates/times accurate or not? If not what should they be.

While your at it, how might Oswald's prints on the Paine garage rods advance the case? Not that I am a detective, perhaps I am missing something?

PS Oswald was a liar.

[Walt Cakebread]

Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

IF???.....   Do you doubt that Howlett presented curtain rods to the DPD crime lab ( J.C. Day) on March 15 1964??  And Howlett wanted them checked to see if Lee Oswald's prints were on them??

[Denis Pointing]

Au contrare Tim, I sense you have not been following my contributions. The Paine rods obtained on the evening of the 23rd, were of no evidentiary value whatsoever, Oswald?s prints or not.

If the doc refers to the Paine rods and the entry date (3/15/64) is incorrect as you stated. Were they submitted after the Paine visit? Ie the next morning at 9.45am and then released after "printing" by Day 5 minutes later? Or are the times incorrect as well?

On the other hand if Howlett submitted rods discovered elsewhere for processing on the 15th, where might they have been found to warrant such analysis?

Hi Collin, with due respect to Tim, I can't accept his 'mistaken date' hypothesis. If you'rd care to follow my link (below) you'll find all the photos/documents that the Dallas Municipal Archives possess concerning the rods. If you 'blow up' the document in question, which is clearer than the one posted by Alan, you'll see the release time is actually 7.50a, not 9.50a. Obviously, the release time can't be 2hrs earlier than the submit time and to suggest two mistakes were made, IMO, just isn't feasible. Amazingly, you will also find a photo/document, which shows the reverse side of rod 275, which is dated 3-25-64, one day after the release date!?! Nothing in this case is easy, is it? lol As I posited in a previous post, I would put forward the possibility that agent Howlet, removed and submitted the garage rods on the 3-15-64 and then replaced them before the garage visit by himself, Jenner and RP. As John Iacoletti, points out, this may well have been technically illegal.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=curtain&t=fulltext&sort=

[Alan Ford]

Affidavit Of Ruth Hyde Paine

The following affidavit was executed by Ruth Hyde Paine on June 24, 1964.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss: Ruth Hyde Paine, being affirmed, says:

1. I reside at 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas. I am the Ruth Hyde Paine who testified before the Commission on March 18, 19 and 20, 1964, and gave testimony by deposition in Washington, D.C. at the offices of the Commission on SaPersonay, March 21, 1964, and gave further testimony by deposition in my home the evening of Monday, March 23, 1964.

The "garage adventure" took place on the evening of 3/23/64?

If so the "date error"  theorists claim that the date that Howlett provided Day with the garage rods was actually the next morning, 3/24/94 at 9.45am. Day then processed the rods with particular focus on Oswald's prints and released them back to Howlett at 9.50am. Remarkably fast processing......

Oh, it's even worse than that, Mr Crow. The release date is actually 7.50 a. m.:



I pointed this fact out to Mr Nickerson many pages back, but of course he never got back to me on it!

 

[Alan Ford]

Denis, If you think on it a bit, the most reasonable explanation for this whole thing is that March 15 was marked in error. That is, the curtain rods were submitted to the DPD crime lab by Howlett on Mar 23, not Mar 15.

 

So you're backing off from your wild and rather desperate 'missing-documentation' speculation (involving an elaborate sham by Agent Howlett and Mr Jenner for the purpose of... no good reason whatsoever) and are now back to your original wild and rather desperate 'mistaken date' speculation?

Too funny!

But what the heck, let's play the Mistaken Date Game:

What time on 23-March-not-15-March (!) might Agent Howlett have submitted the 2 curtain rods he had just taken from the Paine garage?

 

[Alan Ford]

That?s always the go-to excuse for inconvenient evidence.

Trouble is, the release date and time (24 March, 7.50 a.m.) mean that no other date works either!