Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Richard Smith]

I don’t see why just 2 curtain rods would have been in a 8”x 34” paper bag constructed with tape , not why the rods would be left behind in the TSBD absent the bag

Nor why just 2 rods would have even been considered important if randomly found by a TSBD employee

This is why I have speculated that Oswald may have taken an entire SET of Rods AND blinds (rolled up) and actually in  the original mailing package bag on the shelf in Paines garage. ( Mrs Paine I think mentioned having mail ordered this set of blinds)
address of Paines residence on this package would be significant.

Now if THIS package was discovered by some TSBD employee  then it makes sense WHY such object would be significant enough to report and once it became apparent to some dedicated WC theory authority  , this bag negated official WC theory, that the bag HAD to be returned to Paines garage before Mrs Paine became aware the package was missing

Question though, who would be so dedicated to the official LN theory that they would willingly attempt to suppress or confuse evidence? I mean besides, Will Fritz (shells tossed and boxes moved, Lt Day, (the “palm print”)and Mr. Belin( Dorothy Garner who?)

Pretty soon Oswald will have taken a sofa and bed to work.  Maybe take it up with Old Lee.  He denied taking any curtain rods to work that morning.

[Alan Ford]

The date of release is different from one version to the other, but the time of release is exactly the same (7:50 a.m.). Amazing!

[Zeon Mason]

It’s really depressing to me that somebody would not dare to speak if having found these rods (and possibly a bag ) a month later   If there was significance in that finding that definitely proves Oswald took those from the Paines garage on Friday morning Nov 22/63

[Dan O'meara]

The date of release is different from one version to the other, but the time of release is exactly the same (7:50 a.m.). Amazing!

I don't know anything about this aspect of the case so I read the first few pages of this thread but my head started hurting.
Surely, at the very least, the image above is proof that tampering with the evidence, or the processing of evidence has taken place. As i read it all the writing is Day except the Howlett signature(s). The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day and there is no Howlett signature to say he has received the rods back. If Day is willing to change the date of the release why should we trust the date of the submission?
The rods are collected from Mrs Paine's house on the 23rd and taken to Day, maybe the morning of the 24th. He writes in a fake submission date and releases them on the 26th.
I have absolutely no idea why this would happen or what purpose it serves. Why pretend they were found in the TSBD? This only strengthens Oswald's claims. Why then demonstrate Oswald's prints were not on the rods? To make it look like there were rods in the TSBD but they weren't Oswalds? What's the point of that? Was the bag found on the 6th floor supposed to be the bag he brought the curtain rods in? WTF is going on?

[Walt Cakebread]

I don't know anything about this aspect of the case so I read the first few pages of this thread but my head started hurting.
Surely, at the very least, the image above is proof that tampering with the evidence, or the processing of evidence has taken place. As i read it all the writing is Day except the Howlett signature(s). The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day and there is no Howlett signature to say he has received the rods back. If Day is willing to change the date of the release why should we trust the date of the submission?
The rods are collected from Mrs Paine's house on the 23rd and taken to Day, maybe the morning of the 24th. He writes in a fake submission date and releases them on the 26th.
I have absolutely no idea why this would happen or what purpose it serves. Why pretend they were found in the TSBD? This only strengthens Oswald's claims. Why then demonstrate Oswald's prints were not on the rods? To make it look like there were rods in the TSBD but they weren't Oswalds? What's the point of that? Was the bag found on the 6th floor supposed to be the bag he brought the curtain rods in? WTF is going on?

WTF is going on?

I'm glad that I'm not alone in being lost in a fog?  What the hell is all of  this BS?

[Martin Weidmann]

What a bizarre and kooky response.  Imagine making a case for innocence to a jury when the murder weapon is found at the scene of a crime, it is linked via documents and serial number to an individual who works at that building, his wife confirms he owns a rifle, he has no alibi or explanation for the rifle's presence there, and even lies about owning a rifle even though there are recent pictures of him holding a rifle.  HA HA HA.   And he also flees the scene and is identified by multiple individuals as the person who murdered a police officer within an hour.  Wow.  And it is only "circumstantial"!  HA HA HA.  Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.  And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals.   It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

Hilarious. None of the BS in your post is evidence for the presence of a broken down rifle in the bag Oswald carried to the TSBD.

Beyond that, your entire post is a massive display of total ignorance. And then the idiot complains that I do not know what circumstantial evidence actually means, only to have that pathetic claim preceded by a 100% circumstantial argument. Just how stupid can you be? A circumstantial case is build when there is a lack or shortage of physical, direct, evidence. You throw "circumstances" painted in the most suspicious light possible at the wall and hope it will stick.

Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.  It is often the best kind of evidence (prints, DNA etc) in solving a crime.

Hey stupid, prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence. They are direct evidence! Didn't they tell you this when you got your law degree from Walmart? Get your facts right!

And as criminals often take measures to conceal their activities is frequently used to convict individuals. 

This is true. Circumstantial evidence is frequently used to get a conviction that otherwise could not be gotten due to a lack of direct, physical, evidence. However, most of the wrongful convictions are also obtained based on incorrectly presented or weighed circumstantial evidence.

It would take a jury about 30 seconds to bring back a guilty verdict.

It would take a judge in a sanity hearing less than that to lock you up for treatment.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work. Then either Oswald had a pancake for lunch or he didn't see the bag carried from the front, as he said in testimony.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please. And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There doesn't have to be. I have told you this before and I'll say it again; the paper bag is of no significance to the case if it did not contain the broken down MC rifle that was later found at the TSBD. It really is as simple as that.

You’ve just quoted Bugliosi as saying "he left his wedding ring in Irving, so he must have killed the President”. Cite that, please.

It's one of his "53 pieces of evidence that convict Oswald". Look it up.. it's easy enough to find

And show us where anyone other than you said "he went to a movie, so he must have killed JFK"

Reply # 148

"Richard Smith" tells us that "he knocks off early for a movie" is part of the "evidence" that shows he killed JFK

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.

Or, see what they do? They take all sorts of innocent and explainable events, give them a different interpretation and lumb them together in a narrative that makes it look as if the suspect was up to no good.

That's the beauty of circumstantial evidence. With enough malice and imagination you can twist and turn even benign events, like leaving a wedding ring behind, into evidence of murder. It's what prosecutors do every day of the week!