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

[Denis Pointing]

Look at the difference between Day's signature on the photographed copy and the photocopied one.

Yep, just about to point out the same thing Tim, the 'DAY' signature is written more to the right than on the photographed copy. Also, the 7.50a timestamp is written slightly different.

[Tim Nickerson]

Yep, just about to point out the same thing Tim, the 'DAY' signature is written more to the right than on the photographed copy.

I deleted my post because I realized that John was already making that point.

[Walt Cakebread]

I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation. Knock me over with a feather.

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).

I think the least we can conclude is that Day was not adverse to altering documentation.

Day, wasn't adverse to outright lying......   He lied his eyes out about the so called "palm print"  CE 639 is absolute proof that Day did not lift the unidentifiable smudge from the metal barrel of a carcano....CE 639 shows the bayonet slot that is cut into the WOODEN foregrip  of all 91/38 Mannlicher Carcanos.

That bayonet storage slot is solid proof that the lift was taken from the WOODEN foregrip. 

[Colin Crow]

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:

On your example I can see for some reason the photocopy has Burkley's signature removed. It does not appear to be lost from the photocopy process but a deliberate removal. Why would anyone do that? Without doing an overlay I can't see any other obvious alterations. Thanks for providing another example though. Do you not agree that the documents shown are "alterations" of originals?

[John Mytton]

Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
Also if Day was going to alter the date wouldn't he just alter the 4 into 6 and just leave the signature?



JohnM

[Colin Crow]

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:

So you conclude that both Howlett and Day signed a form on two occasions that had the wrong date of submission of the evidence. Could both of then be so sloppy? Do you think they do not even read the documents they put their signature to in such an important case? It was an eight day mistake.....an error of 800% if signed on the 24th.

[Alan Ford]

Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
JohnM

I posted the below on 6 March, Mr Mytton, but it's good to see you're catching up! 

It is an extremely curious circumstance.

We have two official forms for the 2 curtain rods tested for Mr Oswald's fingerprints.

The first (call it CURTAINS #1) has the 'released' date of 3-24-64:



It is important to note that the elements on this document written in red pen are exactly replicated in the second version (call it CURTAINS #2), which has the 'released' date of 3-26-64:



This tells us that
---------------CURTAINS #1 is the original
---------------CURTAINS #2 contains text added to a photocopy of CURTAINS #1
---------------the photocopy of CURTAINS #1 was made, however, before the following elements had been written in: signature of 'John Joe Howlett' (the 2nd instance of this signature) + '3-24-64' + '750 a[.m.]' + signature of 'J. C. Day'.

This is the only logical way of accounting for the discrepancies.

[Colin Crow]

Since Colin discovered the WC exhibit it helps make all the pieces fall into place.
Like Tim's example, I think Day signed and dated a photocopy or carbon of Howlett's earlier partially completed copy which became the WC exhibit.
Also if Day was going to alter the date wouldn't he just alter the 4 into 6 and just leave the signature?



JohnM

Edit.....sorry Alan could not post the correction fast enough.

Not my discovery. Both Alan and Tom Scully reported on the CE earlier in the thread. My only credit claim is in taking the time in reading the thread from the start of Alan?s document submission.

I am wondering why Howlett's signature was removed with the CE. Seems to be much care taken to leave the lines appearing unaltered and other markings.