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

[Alan Ford]

Alan, did you see the above scenario? I am reminded of Tony Fratini's work on CE142 being constructed by Studebaker originally as a transportation cover for the rifle. Was another bag discovered in mid-March? In the Paine curtain rod paperwork we have combined efforts of the DPD and SS, no FBI. The latter mysteriously finding an Oswald print on 23 November.

Not sure I quite follow you, Mr Crow:

"I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald?s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2)."

Even if Mr Oswald's prints showed up on 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, how would that tie a bag discovered in the Depository to curtain rods? And how would a random empty bag discovered in the Depository even have come to the authorities' attention?

[Colin Crow]

Not sure I quite follow you, Mr Crow:

"I can now think of a reason to fingerprint the rods in the Paine garage. If the rods were originally stored in a bag and Oswald?s prints were on rods 275 and/or 276 it might suggest he used that bag (and possibly other rods if there were originally more than 2)."

Even if Mr Oswald's prints showed up on 2 curtain rods in the Paine garage, how would that tie a bag discovered in the Depository to curtain rods? And how would a random empty bag discovered in the Depository even have come to the authorities' attention?

Just wondering why they bothered with the tape and paper samples at that time also. Was an alternate bag found, one that might have been originally constructed to house the Paine curtain rods.

[Alan Ford]

Just wondering why they bothered with the tape and paper samples at that time also. Was an alternate bag found, one that might have been originally constructed to house the Paine curtain rods.

Mr Crow, I think the entire on-the-record WC visit to the Paine garage was a complete sham, of no evidentiary value whatsoever. Its sole purpose was to make safe the curtain rods issue.

The items they took away were nonsense items removed and marked as Exhibits in order to lend cover for Mr Jenner's contrived numbering of the two curtain rods as 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 276'.



If any of these items had been considered important as evidence, they would have been removed by DPD, FBI, SS back in November.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr Crow, I think the entire on-the-record WC visit to the Paine garage was a complete sham, of no evidentiary value whatsoever. Its sole purpose was to make safe the curtain rods issue.

The items they took away were nonsense items whose sole purpose was to lend cover for Mr Jenner's contrived numbering of the two curtain rods as 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 275' and 'Ruth Paine Exhibit 276'.



If any of these items had been considered important as evidence, they would have been removed by DPD, FBI, SS back in November.

Item #6----"Ruth Paine Ex 275-276  Curtain Rods found on a shelf in the garage of Ruth Paine."

May I suggest that this entry is simply a bold lie and the entire list was composed for the sole purpose of establishing that the curtain rods 275 - 276 were found in the Paine Garage and not at the TSBD....

[Alan Ford]

Item #6----"Ruth Paine Ex 275-276  Curtain Rods found on a shelf in the garage of Ruth Paine."

May I suggest that this entry is simply a bold lie and the entire list was composed for the sole purpose of establishing that the curtain rods 275 - 276 were found in the Paine Garage and not at the TSBD....

You may, Mr Cakebread, and you'd be right! 

The dates on the Crime Scene Search Section form(s) support this.

Mr Jenner's 'random' choice of 270 to start his Exhibit marking at supports it.

The fact that the 2 curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

The utter inconsequentiality of the other items on this list supports it.

The utter pointlessness of the WC's on-the-record visit to the Paine home supports it.

The fact that none of these other items were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

It's very simple:

2 curtain rods were found in the Depository; they were 'absorbed' into the 2 curtain rods still left in the Paine garage!

[Walt Cakebread]

You may, Mr Cakebread, and you'd be right! 

The dates on the Crime Scene Search Section form(s) support this.

Mr Jenner's 'random' choice of 270 to start his Exhibit marking at supports it.

The fact that the 2 curtain rods 'marked 275 & 276' were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

The utter inconsequentiality of the other items on this list supports it.

The utter pointlessness of the WC's on-the-record visit to the Paine home supports it.

The fact that none of these other items were tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints supports it.

It's very simple:

2 curtain rods were found in the Depository; they were 'absorbed' into the 2 curtain rods still left in the Paine garage!

You realize of course, Mr Ford.....That I think I was merely rephrasing  ( or untangling) your position...    I often become confused in trying to follow your ideas, so I'm pleased that we are on the same page and in harmony on this point.   

Bottom Line.....  This phony list of junk that was taken from Liar Paine's  garage was nothing but a cover sham document created by the conspirators to make it appear that the curtain rods had come from that garage on March 15.     I reality the curtain rods came from that garage on November 22, 1963, and they were in the same flimsy light weight paper sack that contained Lee's sandwich and oranapple.....   Lee cupped the bottom of the flimsy paper sack in his palm to prevent his lunch from bursting the bottom of the sack and falling in the mud.  He ditched the paper sack and curtain rods prior to entering the back door near the Domino room where Jack Dougherty was watching for tardy employees.....

[Walt Cakebread]

I conclude that CE1952 is a very poor photocopy of a document that was copied before John Howlett signed it a second time. It's similar to the following:

No, CE 1952 is NOT a photo copy of a document that was copied prior to Howett signing it.... CE 1952 (date 3 / 24 63 )and the document dated 3 /26/ 63 are two different documents.

The flashing images are a trick.... ignore Mytton's trickery and ....LOOK at the two documents and compare Day's signature and other writing  on the documents....

[Alan Ford]

No, CE 1952 is NOT a photo copy of a document that was copied prior to Howett signing it.... CE 1952 (date 3 / 24 63 )and the document dated 3 /26/ 63 are two different documents.

The flashing images are a trick.... ignore Mytton's trickery and ....LOOK at the two documents and compare Day's signature and other writing  on the documents....

~Sigh!~

They are exactly the same, Mr Cakebread, apart from the bits boxed in red below...