Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Alan Ford]

And then we have the dates/times, and the fact that there are two different versions of the form:



The Warren Gullibles' solution is that Lt. Day got BOTH dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable. To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative submission date to take the place of 15 March!

Here, by contrast, is a grown-up starting point for solving the conundrum presented by these forms:

A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.

So what does Lt. Day do? He makes a copy of the submission/release form as it looked BEFORE "& 276" and the RELEASE sign-out details have been added. The TSBD person is therefore given a copy looking like this:



 

[Alan Ford]

Now!

I hypothesize that this was initially the original limit to how far the 'investigating' authorities felt they could go to deal with the curtain rods that had been found in the Depository. Within a couple of days of 15 March (submission date), the witness had been furnished-----perhaps at his/her own insistence, and intimating that otherwise he/she would not let the matter rest-----with his/her copy of the document whose findings would, it was hoped, set his/her mind at rest: no LHO prints.

But!

The 'investigators' were still seriously worried about the matter, and put their heads together to see if they couldn't go better. There was still an unacceptably high chance that the Depository employee who found the curtain rods would, even after being fobbed off with the report, blab about those rods in a way highly dangerous to the official story that was being pursued with such grim determination. If that were to happen, the authorities would have to admit that, yes, two curtain rods were found in the Depository. Sure, they could engage in some damage limitation, but the scenario was still intolerable to have to think about.........

So!

Here's what they came up with:

Let's disappear those two curtain rods into two curtain rods whose 'finding' we can stage 'on the record' in the Paine garage.

And so, by the afternoon of Wed. March 18, Mr. Jenner of the WC is (during Ms. Paine's first testimony taking) talking of coming "to Mrs. Paine's home in Irving, Tex., sometime on Monday or Monday evening or if she finds it more convenient, on Tuesday of next week to inquire of her with a court reporter present relative to the curtain rod package".

That visit of Mr. Jenner and Agent Howlett to the Paine home happens on the evening of Monday, 23 March. They are there for one reason and one reason only: the curtain rods. But they go through an elaborate charade of examining, itemising and measuring lots of other secondary items, all to misdirect from what's really going on..

A pair of rods, each measuring "2 feet 3 1/2 inches" (=27.5!), is 'found' in the garage and taken by Agent Howlett----------------the same man who, eight days previously, had submitted two curtain rods to Lt. Day for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints! Crucially, the numbering of the Ruth Paine Exhibits starts with 270, a cute contrivance to have the two curtain rods end up being assigned the numbers 275 & 276:



The original form is then 'corrected' by Lt. Day back at the lab by the addition of "& 276". Lt. Day keeps a COPY of the form at this stage of its evolution. My crude with-deletions version below reconstructs what this copy looks like as to content:


.
But why don't they change the submission date to a point in time AFTER the deposition at the Paine home? Why not change the submission to 9:45 a.m. on "3-24-64" instead of "3-15-64"? Indeed, why not just create a new form altogether, with no need to hide such a change?

Because a copy of the original form is in the hands of the Depository employee who found the curtain rods. And it contains the submission date "3-15-64"..

Agreeing to release that copy to the Depository employee made sense BEFORE the switcheroo scheme had been hatched. Now they see how regrettable an error it was.

But............. needs must. Quite simply, Lt. Day and Agent Howlett have no choice but to hope that nobody notices the date anomaly (which nobody will for over three decades...........)

The next time Agent Howlett comes by the crime lab, release date/time and signature/countersignature can be added to the original form.
 

[Alan Ford]

Next time Agent Howlett does drop by the crime lab, the original form finally finds its finished state, through the addition of
a) release date/time
b) Lt. Day's release signature
c) Agent Howlett's countersignature confirming receipt.

And what release date/time is chosen? 7.50 a.m. on "3-24-64":



Later-------------when asked to furnish a copy to the WC--------------Lt. Day decides to add a couple of days to the release date for realism. This way, the form contains not two but only one problematical date (which is the one that cannot be changed). And who the hell is going to see the original in the police files?

But how does Lt. Day change the release date? Well, thankfully he still has a copy of the form from when it was at THIS stage in its evolution:



He adds the new, improved release details to THIS COPY, and then creates a copy of that. Agent Howlett not being at hand, there is no countersignature from him.

Thus we get the otherwise perplexing differences in the two different versions of the form in evidence:
a) the original form buried in the DPD archives
b) the copy of a copy submitted to the WC



 

[Alan Ford]

So!

Those who wish to continue to declare that no curtain rods were found in the Depository need to answer some straightforward questions:

1. Why were two curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints 8 days before two curtain rods were taken from Ms. Paine's garage, and only released from the crime lab the morning after the taking of two curtain rods from Ms. Paine's garage?

2. Why do we have two different versions of the form, with
---------------different release dates
---------------different release signatures from Lt. Day
---------------release countersignature vs. no release countersignature from Agent Howlett?

3. Why did the WC choose the number 270 at which to begin numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

4. How do you explain away the incredible coincidence involving the digits 2-7-5:
----------------length of curtain rods: 27.5 inches
----------------"marked 27.5" on the crime lab form
----------------no. of first Ruth Paine Exhibit: 275?

I have offered an explanation for every one of these things. Can you offer a counter-explanation?