Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

Which leaves you with a form that now has a submission date LATER than the release date. Which is as simple as a mistake on BOTH dates on the form! 

The only reason it aligns is that you have changed the number arbitrarily in order to force an alignment.

How were the exhibit numbers 275 and 276 arrived at? Read the testimony--------it's a hoot!

Ludicrous to suggest that checking the garage for curtain rods would not have entered anyone's mind until months after the assassination!

And why on earth would two curtain rods found in Ms Paine's garage need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result show?

In which case that phase of the testimony-taking in Ms Paine's garage is a complete charade, yes? Agent Howlett is only pretending to see the curtain rods for the first time.

No 'appears' about it!



No, it suggests that *a* specimen was released on 3/26 rather than 3/24--------------and photographic evidence tells us further that testing was done on *a* specimen on 3/25 = a day AFTER *another* specimen was formally released.

No he doesn't------------read again what Alan wrote! 

I don't follow your last point.  These are identical handwritten forms in every respect except one.  They have two different release dates.  One that indicates the curtain rods were released on 3/24 and the other indicates they were released on 3/26.  They make reference to the exact same items (i.e. 2 curtain rods) and results.  Right?  A 3/26 release date makes a mistake between 3/15 and 3/25 entirely possible.  What is "another" specimen that could have been released on 3/26 given the identical handwritten descriptions?  These documents appear to be duplicates in every respect including the placement of the handwriting. 

How is Howlett "pretending" to see the curtain rods for the first time?  They are taking Paine's testimony for the official record.  The four corners of a document and testimony doesn't mean that the parties have not discussed matters informally before the testimony.  In fact that seems probable.  They are not like Sherlock Holmes and Watson blindly searching for clues.  LOL.

[Alan Ford]

I don't follow your last point.  These are identical handwritten forms in every respect except one.  They have two different release dates.  One that indicates the curtain rods were released on 3/24 and the other indicates they were released on 3/26.  They make reference to the exact same items (i.e. 2 curtain rods) and results.  Right?  A 3/26 release date makes a mistake between 3/15 and 3/25 entirely possible.

But that would still leave you with an original form---------countersigned by Agent Howlett---------that makes no such mistake possible. In most people's worlds, the 24th of the month comes before the 25th. In 'solving' (quite arbitrarily) one problem, you created a whole new one.

What is "another" specimen that could have been released on 3/26 given the identical handwritten descriptions?

Specimen A: submitted 3/15, released 3/24: two curtain rods that need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints because they were found in the Depository

Specimen B: submitted late-3/23 or within a day or two of that, released 3/26: two curtain rods that have taken the place (right down to the numbers 275 & 276) of the Depository curtain rods.

These documents appear to be duplicates in every respect including the placement of the handwriting.

Yes, they differ only in the release date & time, the placement of Lt. Day's releasing signature and the presence/absence of Agent Howlett's receiving signature. The 3/26 version is the one made public (in the WC vols.)

How is Howlett "pretending" to see the curtain rods for the first time?

I was speaking to the alternative scenario created by your words: "Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony."

If that were the case, then Agent Howlett would be both the man who submitted them to the lab AND subsequently pretended to be seeing them for the first time in the Paine garage.

[Richard Smith]

But that would still leave you with an original form---------countersigned by Agent Howlett---------that makes no such mistake possible. In most people's worlds, the 24th of the month comes before the 25th. In 'solving' (quite arbitrarily) one problem, you created a whole new one.

Specimen A: submitted 3/15, released 3/24: two curtain rods that need to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints because they were found in the Depository

Specimen B: submitted late-3/23 or within a day or two of that, released 3/26: two curtain rods that have taken the place (right down to the numbers 275 & 276) of the Depository curtain rods.

Yes, they differ only in the release date & time, the placement of Lt. Day's releasing signature and the presence/absence of Agent Howlett's receiving signature. The 3/26 version is the one made public (in the WC vols.)

I was speaking to the alternative scenario created by your words: "Alternatively, it is also possible that Ruth Paine had contacted the WC prior to 3/15 and mentioned the curtain rods.  They could have been obtained and tested for prints and then returned to the garage for her formal WC testimony."

If that were the case, then Agent Howlett would be both the man who submitted them to the lab AND subsequently pretended to be seeing them for the first time in the Paine garage.

They are duplicate forms for the same items as specified on both forms "2 curtain rods" marked 275 & 276.  They appear to have made a copy of your "original" but changed the release date. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date and that was corrected from 3/24 to 3/26.  These documents are clearly making reference to the same curtain rods (275 and 276) and the handwritten words used are not only identical but they are in the exact same place on both forms!  It is a copy.  There is no "Specimen A" and "Specimen B" being submitted and released as you suggest. 

And why do you keep suggesting Howlett was "pretending" to be seeing them for the first time?  Paine had previously told them of their presence in her garage.  If the authorities had taken them and then returned them to that exact spot for her official testimony, then Paine's WC testimony on record would be confirmation of that fact.  They went to the garage, and Paine confirmed the curtain rods were there. 

[Alan Ford]

Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date and that was corrected from 3/24 to 3/26.

So, to sum up your 'explanation' of the document:

1. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the submission date
2. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date

[Richard Smith]

So, to sum up your 'explanation' of the document:

1. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the submission date
2. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date

There are clearly two documented release dates as there are identical forms with different release dates.  If the 3/26 release date is correct, everything else falls into place.  In your narrative, nothing makes sense.  Your fantasy conspirators successfully suppress the curtain rods, frame Oswald for the crime, and then months later on their own motion for some unknown reason decide to bring them to light to test them for his prints!  And conveniently they document all this on a form.  Then they ask Truly to confirm that no such curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD despite someone apparently finding them.  Makes no sense.  In my scenario, they just made a mistake as to the submission date.  The form may have been completed at some later time and the confusion over the release date supports the likelihood that they simply made a mistake with the submission date (likely 3/25 instead of 3/15).   The fact that the form references the same exhibit numbers that were apparently assigned on 3/23 supports the conclusion that the curtain rods were not submitted until after 3/23 and are the same curtain rods that were taken from Paine's garage.

[Martin Weidmann]

They are duplicate forms for the same items as specified on both forms "2 curtain rods" marked 275 & 276.  They appear to have made a copy of your "original" but changed the release date. Perhaps a mistake was made as to the release date and that was corrected from 3/24 to 3/26.  These documents are clearly making reference to the same curtain rods (275 and 276) and the handwritten words used are not only identical but they are in the exact same place on both forms!  It is a copy.  There is no "Specimen A" and "Specimen B" being submitted and released as you suggest. 

And why do you keep suggesting Howlett was "pretending" to be seeing them for the first time?  Paine had previously told them of their presence in her garage.  If the authorities had taken them and then returned them to that exact spot for her official testimony, then Paine's WC testimony on record would be confirmation of that fact.  They went to the garage, and Paine confirmed the curtain rods were there.

I am not 100% sure about this, but it seems to me that the submission form used must have had carbon copies. As it is a receipt, it could very well be that the original was kept by the officer who submitted the evidence and the other(s) remained with the DPD. Obviously the part "Specimen released to" would not have been filled out at that time.

When Howlett collected the curtain rods from Lt Day, on 3/24/63, the original copy of the document was used to fill in the details in the part "Specimen released to". That's the one Alan is referring to.

A carbon copy (which later became CE 1952) was later dated 3/26/63 and also counter signed by Day, but without noting the name of the person to which the evidence was being released.

That might explain the discrepancy between the two forms. It does of course justify the question why a carbon copy form was used to document a second (later) date?

[Alan Ford]

There are clearly two documented release dates as there are identical forms with different release dates.  If the 3/26 release date is correct, everything else falls into place.

So your 'explanation' amounts to:

-------------they got the submission date wrong on the original form
-------------they got the release date wrong on the original form

After that, everything false into place! 

[Richard Smith]

So your 'explanation' amounts to:

-------------they got the submission date wrong on the original form
-------------they got the release date wrong on the original form

After that, everything false into place! 

Says the guy suggesting a massive conspiracy to kill the president in which the conspirators decide to check for the evidence they themselves suppressed to frame Oswald.  All based on a date on a single form.  Good luck with that.  Don't waste any more time here.  Like starting the yet another thread on this as you have now done countless times.  Send it to the NY Times and tell them you have evidence to confirm a conspiracy.  Get back to us with their response.