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

[John Iacoletti]

No one ever made any such claim.  Oswald was asked about his lunch.  Frazier clearly, and in multiple instances in his testimony confirms that Oswald did not have a lunch that morning.  There is no ambiguity on that point.  Take it up with Oswald if you don't like the facts: 


"I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day."

Just because Frazier said that Oswald told him something, that doesn't automatically make it factual.

[John Iacoletti]

Excuse me, but how are curtain rods found in the garage owned by the Paines, which is where the rods you cited were found, evidence that Oswald brought curtain rods with him to work, to the TSBD?

How do we know that these curtain rods were really found in the garage owned by the Paines?  Especially when they were found after they were found.

And for what it's worth, here is a photo of Oswald's room on the eve of the assassination. The rods appear to me to be fine:

Who had the foresight to take a picture of Oswald's room the night before the assassination?

Also for what it's worth, here's a picture of Mrs. Johnson putting up curtain rods in Oswald's room after the assassination.

[John Iacoletti]

Ruth Paine's testimony was taken on March 23 AT HER HOME.  Paine had made reference to them a week earlier.  During the course of that testimony she confirmed that the curtain rods were still in her garage.  They were never in the TSBD.  That is crooked John-like logic.  It seems obvious why they might be tested for Oswald's prints.  His cover story for making the unexpected trip to get his rifle involved - wait for it - curtain rods.  So they were tested and Oswald had never touched them.

That doesn't mean he had never touched them.  That's crooked "Richard" logic.

As was the case with the chicken bag and soda bottle, if something didn't have Oswald's prints on it, they weren't interested.

[John Iacoletti]

Captain Fritz testified that there were no curtain rods found in the depository (4H218).

Here's what Fritz actually said:

Mr. FRITZ. I hesitated to ask him about those curtain rods and I will tell you why I hesitated, because I wanted to find out more about that package before I got started with the curtain rods because if there were curtain rods I didn't want to mention it to him but we couldn't find--I talked to his wife and asked her if they were going to use any curtain rods, while I was talking to her that afternoon and she didn't know anything about it.

[John Iacoletti]

So Oswald's best defense was to lie about carrying a long bag that he knew Frazier and possibly others would confirm he had when it contained only curtain rods and his lunch! And it was still laying around somewhere in the TSBD to be found to assist him.

Who says it was still laying around somewhere in the TSBD to be found to assist him?  You haven't even demonstrated that it was EVER in the TSBD.

  LOL.  That is your theory as to why he lied?  It was in his interest that the bag be found if it contained curtain rods and not a rifle.  In your bizarre theory, however, Oswald is lying against his own self-interest.  The first criminal to lie himself into trouble instead of out of it.  And the DPD involved in the frame up find the curtain rods, hide them until March, convince Ruth Paine to lie under oath, and then suddenly bring them to light for no apparent reason to blow their own frame up!   Wow.  Great story.

Your strawmen usually are.

[John Iacoletti]

So Mr Chapman can't answer..
>>> You got my answer

Yeah, your "answer" was to accuse him of claiming "sinister intent" when he did nothing of the kind.

[John Iacoletti]

Congrats.  You have solved a mystery of your own creation. Read the part about Ruth Paine and the curtain rods again.  Try to understand how this is inconsistent with your claim about them being found elsewhere.  Your fixation on the dates is strange.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about things happening before they happened or different versions of the same document with altered dates and information, because of course he doesn't.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about taking and then returning evidence to somebody's home without her even knowing about it so they can make a show out of "finding" it again, because of course he doesn't.

[Alan Ford]

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about things happening before they happened or different versions of the same document with altered dates and information, because of course he doesn't.

"Richard" doesn't see anything strange about taking and then returning evidence to somebody's home without her even knowing about it so they can make a show out of "finding" it again, because of course he doesn't.

Indeed so, Mr Iacoletti-------poor Mr Smith will believe any number of absurdities before he will even begin to question the official story!