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

[John Iacoletti]

John Iacoletti posted this first floor diagram.....   Is it possible that Lee could have removed his sandwich and oraple from the sack and then slipped the curtain rods under the steps to the loading dock before opening the door onto the loading dock....  Thus he would have had nothing in his hand when he entered the 1st floor Shipping room

He could have even dumped the two foot flimsy bag somewhere in the parking area.  Frazier was watching trains and then could no longer see the bag by the time Oswald entered the door of the annex.

[Tim Nickerson]

So!

Silence from Mr von Pein!

Silence from Mr Nickerson!

Silence from Mr Galbraith!

Silence from Mr Navarro (albeit he did have the honesty to acknowledge the problem before disappearing)!

Cowardly flight from Mr May!

Dunderheaded diversion from Mr Smith!

Is there not a single Warren Defender/Oswald Accuser able to offer a rational counter-explanation for the contents of this form?



 

Why are you having such a problem with this? On March 15, 1964, Howlett submitted the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab. The document shows that the curtain rods were released to Howlett on March 24. However, we know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that the curtain rods were released to Howlett at least once before that time. There is obviously some documentation missing. Howlett may have preferred not to have held onto the rods and so he may have submitted them to the DPD and retrieved them several times.

[Alan Ford]

Why are you having such a problem with this? On March 15, 1964, Howlett submitted the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab. The document shows that the curtain rods were released to Howlett on March 24. However, we know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that the curtain rods were released to Howlett at least once before that time. There is obviously some documentation missing. Howlett may have preferred not to have held onto the rods and so he may have submitted them to the DPD and retrieved them several times.

Thank you for your belated response, Mr Nickerson! 

Now! Let's take your points one at a time, shall we?

On March 15, 1964, Howlett submitted the curtain rods to the DPD crime lab.

Correct! 

The document shows that the curtain rods were released to Howlett on March 24.

Correct! 

However, we know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that the curtain rods were released to Howlett at least once before that time.

Incorrect! We know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that two curtain rods--------not "the curtain rods" already submitted to the fingerprinting lab---------were released to Howlett on 23 March.

Are you suggesting that Ms Paine released two curtain rods twice---------and that she and Agent Howlett conspired to hide this fact from the Warren Commission?

There is obviously some documentation missing.

Incorrect! You must obviously posit some missing documentation in order to explain away the dates. Very different thing!

Howlett may have preferred not to have held onto the rods and so he may have submitted them to the DPD and retrieved them several times.

Wild, and rather desperate, speculation!

The Crime Scene Search Section form makes it a matter of record that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March.

Besides, why would two curtain rods released from the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result have demonstrated?

 

[Tim Nickerson]

Incorrect! We know from the testimony of Ruth Paine that two curtain rods--------not "the curtain rods" already submitted to the fingerprinting lab---------were released to Howlett on 23 March.

Hmmm....are we talking about two different pairs of curtain rods here? I'm confused. 

Are you suggesting that Ms Paine released two curtain rods twice---------and that she and Agent Howlett conspired to hide this fact from the Warren Commission?

Nope.

Incorrect! You must obviously posit some missing documentation in order to explain away the dates. Very different thing!

I'm sorry but I don't follow you. Would not missing documentation fill in the gaps?

Wild, and rather desperate, speculation!

The Crime Scene Search Section form makes it a matter of record that the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March.

Ok, if the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March then explain the two curtain rods that were picked up in the Paine garage by John Howlett during Ruth Paine's testimony of March 21, 1963 and which were then marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276? Try to do so without engaging in any wild, and rather desperate, speculation.

Besides, why would two curtain rods released from the Paine garage be tested for Mr Oswald's prints? What exactly would a positive result have demonstrated?

Don't know. Don't care.

[Alan Ford]

Hmmm....are we talking about two different pairs of curtain rods here? I'm confused. 

You certainly are confused, Mr Nickerson!

We are talking about 4 curtain rods here:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March and released on 24 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

I'm sorry but I don't follow you. Would not missing documentation fill in the gaps?

There are no gaps. There are 2 different pairs of curtain rods:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

Ok, if the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March then explain the two curtain rods that were picked up in the Paine garage by John Howlett during Ruth Paine's testimony of March 21, 1963 and which were then marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276?

They explain themselves: they had lain undisturbed in Ms Paine's garage since before the assassination.

Don't know. Don't care.

So you can't explain why 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be tested for Mr Oswald's prints. Got it 

[John Iacoletti]

Ok, if the 2 curtain rods submitted on 15 March did not leave the lab until 24 March then explain the two curtain rods that were picked up in the Paine garage by John Howlett during Ruth Paine's testimony of March 21, 1963 and which were then marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276? Try to do so without engaging in any wild, and rather desperate, speculation.

Isn?t it wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that it?s the same curtain rods taken out of the garage earlier without Ruth Paine?s knowledge and then returned, again without her knowledge, in order to be ?found? again? And ?documentation? for all of that is just ?missing??

[Tim Nickerson]

You certainly are confused, Mr Nickerson!

We are talking about 4 curtain rods here:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March and released on 24 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

There are no gaps. There are 2 different pairs of curtain rods:
----------2 submitted for fingerprinting on 15 March
----------2 taken from Ms Paine's garage on 23 March.

They explain themselves: they had lain undisturbed in Ms Paine's garage since before the assassination.

So you can't explain why 2 curtain rods found in the Paine garage would be tested for Mr Oswald's prints. Got it 

Yes, I definitely am confused. You say that the rods explain themselves. Well, I'm going to need you to interpret their explanation for me. You claim that they laid undisturbed in the Paine garage since before the assassination and that they were different from the two that were submitted to the DPD crime lab on March 15. How is it then that they were of the same description and were given the same number designations(275  and 276) as those submitted on March 15? Keeping in mind that Howlett was the official who personally handled "both sets", what are the odds that they were actually two different sets of curtain rods?

Please explain it all for me, without engaging in any wild, and rather desperate, speculation.

[Tim Nickerson]

Isn?t it wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that it?s the same curtain rods taken out of the garage earlier without Ruth Paine?s knowledge and then returned, again without her knowledge, in order to be ?found? again? And ?documentation? for all of that is just ?missing??

Is it really wild and rather desperate speculation to assume that Ruth Paine was not aware of every single item that was removed from her garage and possibly returned by the numerous investigators who sifted through its contents in the days , weeks and months that followed the assassination?