Then went inside with the curtain rods

[Martin Weidmann]

Not so fast, Waldo. You have yet to thank me for providing you with information about Tony Fratini.

Do you think Tony Fratini will thank you for sharing his private information on a public forum?

[Bill Chapman]

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

Richard is mocking you lot, and rightly so.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying. And stop acting so put upon.

[Alan Ford]

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

I believe a copy of the original form (release date 3/24) was shown to whoever found the curtain rods at the Depository as 'proof' that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and there was nothing to see here.

This document renders unsafe the LNer claim that 'No curtain rods were ever found at the TSBD therefore LHO lied to Wesley Frazier about what was in the bag'.

[Alan Ford]

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).

Yes

The top copy is the one with Blue and red ink, the bottom copy (the WC exhibit) has been altered by Day

Not sure this was alteration as such, Mr O'Meara.

This is what a BW copy of the form must have looked like after the rods had been submitted & tested, but before they had been released-------------



Lt. Day added a 3/24/64 signout to the original and a 3/26/64 signout to the copy

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 don't think the submission date is fake. What's fake is the elaborate 'finding' of two curtain rods in the Paine garage 3/23 and the contrived marking of them as Exhibits 275 & 276. The WC on-the-record visit to the Paine garage only took place BECAUSE two curtain rods had shown up elsewhere---------two curtain rods that, because of where they were found, needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints

[Martin Weidmann]

Richard is mocking you lot, and rightly so.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying. And stop acting so put upon.

Sticks and stones.... Hardly surprising, if he is, because absent sound arguments and/or persuasive evidence, mocking is just about the only thing you LN clowns have got.

I know what the Bug53 are and he didn't say what you fake-quoted him as saying.

Who says I was quoting him verbatim? Did Bugs include the leaving behind of the wedding ring in the 53 or not?

[Walt Cakebread]

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 no 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.

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

[Richard Smith]

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.

Prints and DNA are not circumstantial evidence?  LOL.  Time to consult with Roger Collins again since your ignorance of the law and evidence is profound.

[Dan O'meara]

Not sure this was alteration as such, Mr O'Meara.

This is what a BW copy of the form must have looked like after the rods had been submitted & tested, but before they had been released-------------



Lt. Day added a 3/24/64 signout to the original and a 3/26/64 signout to the copy

I phrased it poorly.
Day has clearly altered the sign-out date between the two copies. Whatever the interpretation given to these documents this aspect of it cannot be denied. When arguments are put forward about 'following the evidence' the counter-argument is that it's not possible as the evidence is either lost/destroyed (as with the lunch remains and bottle of soda found by the SN) or the processing of the evidence is corrupt (as in this example of the differing documents). There is no reason to trust any of the information in these documents as we can see alterations have already taken place - the submission date is suspect as is the notion any test was even carried out.



When I look at the top copy it appears to me that all the red writing has been done at the same time. The two documents must have been separated before Howlett put his second signature on the top copy as it doesn't appear on the bottom copy. Day then filled in the rest of the information on the bottom copy changing the sign-out date. How can this be explained other than corrupt practices?

I don't think the submission date is fake. What's fake is the elaborate 'finding' of two curtain rods in the Paine garage 3/23 and the contrived marking of them as Exhibits 275 & 276. The WC on-the-record visit to the Paine garage only took place BECAUSE two curtain rods had shown up elsewhere---------two curtain rods that, because of where they were found, needed to be tested for Mr Oswald's prints

A weakness in the scenario you propose is the reason for the top copy:

"I believe a copy of the original form (release date 3/24) was shown to whoever found the curtain rods at the Depository as 'proof' that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and there was nothing to see here."

I would be very surprised indeed if the DPD felt it had to justify itself to some member of the public. I would imagine anyone finding the rods would be taken in and grilled about every single detail of the discovery. The DPD didn't need to make a fake copy to impress someone off the street.
I totally agree that the testimony regarding the taking of the rods from the Paine house has an air of pantomime about it. Really over the top. And the thing that makes the least sense would be for the DPD to take the rods on the 23rd then pretend they had been found elsewhere over a week earlier.
But a lot of things don't make sense:
Why the change of sign-out date?
If the rods were discovered elsewhere why go to the trouble of putting them back in the Paine house then do the "pantomime of discovery"?
If they were first discovered in the Paine house, why pretend they were discovered earlier?