Hi Alan, there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this. It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5. Would they have even written the measurement that way back then? I would have expected the 'old fashioned way' of plain feet and inches. Anyway, moot point as there were no markings.
You raise some good points, good questions, good post...and then start really overreaching by claiming, without any proof what-so-ever, that rods had also been found at the TSBD and 'swapped' with the rods found in the Paine's garage. There really is a much simpler and logical explanation, which admittedly I can't prove, but you certainly can't disprove.
As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather ingenious and had Howlet take the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later. Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'. Truthful answer Alan,..I don't know for sure and neither does anybody else.
I realise you're not going to accept this explanation, that you'd much rather stick to your 'rods found in TSBD' explanation. That's OK, we can agree to differ. All I'm trying to do is offer a reasonable alternative that fits your criteria of why and how, which I believe I've done. Thank you.
Hello Mr Pointing, and thank you for what is a genuinely substantive response!
Let me take your key points in sequence. I don't wish to point-score with you on this, merely to respond as clearly & honestly as I can.
there were no "length markings" on the curtain rods, photos in the Dallas Municipal Archives prove this.But I am arguing that
----------the curtain rods in the Archives (kept there as Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276) are
not the curtain rods submitted to Lieutenant Day on 15 March;
----------
those curtain rods were never seen again after they left the crime lab in Mr Howlett's 'care';
----------Mr Jenner's shenanigans with the numbers (275 & 276) give the game away as to the switcheroo (the 2 curtain rods submitted for fingerprinting '
becoming' the 2 curtain rods taken from the Paine garage).
It was Jenner that instructed the recorder to mark the rods 275/276 as shown in RP's testimony. Whatever reason the rods were designated 275/276 had nothing to do with their length, both of which was 27.5.Again, we are talking about different curtain rods here. We have never seen the 2 curtain rods found and submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March, therefore we cannot say they were both exactly 27.5 inches long. For all we know, Ms Paine herself may have scribbled 2-7-[supernumeral] 5 and 2-7-[supernumeral] 6 in pencil on the rods. Lieutenant Day, not understanding the meaning of the numbers, just wrote down what he saw:
If these numbers have nothing to do with the rods' length,
where did they come from? Why
these particular numbers?
As you know, the WC already knew about the rods in the Paine's garage from previous testimony taken from RP. I would suggest Jenner was being rather ingenious and had Howlet take the rods from the garage, whilst RP was in Washington, have them tested for fingerprints etc and then return them in time for the garage inspection with himself, RP and Howlet, a week or so later.The problem with this is that the 2 curtain rods were submitted for fingerprinting 4 days
before Ms Paine's first discussion (Washington, 19 March) of the 2 rods in her garage.
Why? Difficult to say. Perhaps Jenner suspected RP in some way, the tone of his questioning would seem to suggest that, perhaps he wanted as much information as possible on the rods before the garage inspection, not a bad investigative technique, or perhaps as it was such an important case Jenner was just being 'belt n braces'.Is it really credible that, in the three-and-a-half months prior to 15 March 1964, not a soul in DPD or FBI would have thought to verify that
a) Ms Paine had indeed had curtain rods?
b) none had gone missing after 11/21/63?
The official documentary record's
complete silence on this
potentially case-defining issue speaks volumes IMO. Something was wrong, and no one wanted to draw attention to it.
It was only when 2 curtain rods turned up at the Depository that the issue had to be faced and 'resolved'. Cue a carefully choreographed on-the-record testimony taking at the Paine home in Irving.
Now, as to the fingerprinting. It is a key aspect of this whole puzzle...
Mr Jenner and Agent Howlett would have had to have a pretty good reason to go to the trouble of deceiving Ms Paine and staging the on-the-record (and bizarrely belated) 'discovery' of 2 curtain rods in Ms Paine's garage. All in order to have them tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints? Makes no sense IMO! Suppose the test had come up positive for Mr Oswald's prints. How exactly would that have furthered the investigation? It would have been a meaningless result. So what if Mr Oswald had at some time handled 2 curtain rods which had never even left the Paine home!
My deduction that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March were found at the Depository is not one I make rashly.
It is surely the
only scenario that would actually justify
-------------a test for Mr Oswald's fingerprints
-------------a subsequent staged discovery of 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, involving a contrived arrival at the numbers marked on the 2 curtain rods that had been submitted for testing 8 days earlier.
I believe, in short, that my theory, however startling, is the only one thus far put forward that accounts without unnecessary complication for the evidence we have before us.
