Buell Wesley Frazier, curtain rods and the lack of blaming Frazier- very interesting

[David Von Pein]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If Oswald damaged the curtain rods in his room, he would want to replace it himself to insure the return of his deposit. 

And if that had been the case, then Oswald would have had no reason at all to deny the existence of any curtain rods. And yet we know (from Capt. Fritz' report on his interrogations with LHO) that Oswald did deny taking any curtain rods into work on the day of the assassination.

Plus, we know that Oswald himself didn't damage the curtain rod in his Beckley room. The police caused that damage. The owner of the roominghouse, Gladys Johnson, confirms that fact in CD 705. Now, is there any reason why I should not believe what Mrs. Johnson says there?

Here's a photo taken on either 11/22 or 11/23 showing the bent curtain rod:

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You keep insisting no curtain rods were ever found. Why don't you ask the BIG question. Where did the curtain rods tested by the DPD BEFORE any were recovered from Mrs. P's garage come from? And why would they be fingerprinted if it wasn't someplace connected to Oswald?

No curtain rods were tested other than CE275/276 (the Paine rods). The "March 15" date at the top of CE1952 is simply a mistake. (Much like other documents connected with this case, such as the duplicate First National Bank receipt related to the deposit that Klein's Sporting Goods made on March 13, 1963. It shows an obviously incorrect date too.)

The March 15 date on CE1952 is almost certainly merely a slipped digit or a clerical error, because everything else in CE1952, as Vince Bugliosi put it in the book excerpt pictured below, "relates precisely to the events surrounding the curtain rods recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage on the night of March 23".

Click to enlarge:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

No curtain rods were tested other than CE275/276 (the Paine rods). The "March 15" date at the top of CE1952 is simply a mistake. (Much like other documents connected with this case, such as the duplicate First National Bank receipt related to the deposit that Klein's Sporting Goods made on March 13, 1963. It shows an obviously incorrect date too.)

The March 15 date on CE1952 is almost certainly merely a slipped digit or a clerical error, because everything else in CE1952, as Vince Bugliosi put it in the book excerpt pictured below, "relates precisely to the events surrounding the curtain rods recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage on the night of March 23".

Click to enlarge:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html

 

David... I've written what amounts to a book on this and have fully addressed Bugliosi's nonsense in that book. I have recently separated this material into a separate chapter on my website--Chapter 4h: The Curtain Rod Story.

What VB and you are missing is that Alan Ford compared Lt. Day's report on the curtain rod prints as published by the WC with the original in the UNT archives and found that it was not just the date that was wrong...but that the submission date had been changed. When I dug into this further I discovered, moreover, that the curtain rod photos in the UNT archives pre-date the "discovery" of the rods by Jenner and Howlett, and that the curtain rods in the National Archives have no stickers or smudges or indications any prints were discovered on them. IOW, the set in the National Archives is a different set of rods than the ones fingerprinted by Day. 

As far as what Oswald did or did not say...I fully accept the possibility he denied stealing Mrs. Paine's curtain rods. He may have thought it was best to deny everything until he had a lawyer... But I also find it entirely possible they lied or misrepresented what he said. Maybe they told him Frazier said he'd brought curtains, and Oswald denied that because they were curtain rods, not curtains, or some such thing.

I would like to think we are beyond, way beyond, pretending the DPD's interrogation was a nice friendly chat within which Oswald would have most certainly told the truth about everything and Fritz et al would most certainly have reported everything he said in the best possible light. There is a reason they didn't record the interviews, and I know you know what that is... So they could lie about what was said later. This was SOP for the police in the 60's, and is still done today. Police think it's perfectly fine to lie to suspects in an effort to drag out a confession. They don't want there to be record of these lies. More importantly, they don't want a defense attorney to ever see a record of these lies. We have reason to suspect then that Fritz told Oswald lie after lie--"We have five eyewitnesses who said you did it...we found your fingerprints on the rifle...etc" And that Oswald's response was to not give him anything, not even an admission he stole some curtain rods...

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And if that had been the case, then Oswald would have had no reason at all to deny the existence of any curtain rods. And yet we know (from Capt. Fritz' report on his interrogations with LHO) that Oswald did deny taking any curtain rods into work on the day of the assassination.

Plus, we know that Oswald himself didn't damage the curtain rod in his Beckley room. The police caused that damage. The owner of the roominghouse, Gladys Johnson, confirms that fact in CD 705. Now, is there any reason why I should not believe what Mrs. Johnson says there?

Here's a photo taken on either 11/22 or 11/23 showing the bent curtain rod:

 

She didn't say it there. That's what the FBI said she said. She could very well have said something like "I don't know when or how the curtain rods were damaged--it may have been by the police." (She later told Howard Roffman it was the press who'd damaged the curtain rods.) In any event, the WC in the person of Joe Ball never followed up on this, at least not officially. I'm relying on memory here, but if I recall the FBI knew about the damaged curtain rods mid-March, after they interviewed Mrs. Johnson. Joe Ball then took her testimony on April 1, and NEVER (at least not on the record) asked her about the damaged curtain rods. The FBI then forwarded their report on their interview with the Johnsons on the 2nd... ONLY...ONLY...a close look at all the copies of this report proves it was originally dated April 1 and that someone individually re-typed each copy so it would say April 2. Well, this suggests that Ball or the FBI or both knew how bad it looked that Ball had failed to ask Mrs. Johnson about the curtain rods on the record, and that they sought to change the record to look like he didn't know about them when he took her testimony.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

She didn't say it there. That's what the FBI said she said. She could very well have said something like "I don't know when or how the curtain rods were damaged--it may have been by the police." (She later told Howard Roffman it was the press who'd damaged the curtain rods.) In any event, the WC in the person of Joe Ball never followed up on this, at least not officially. I'm relying on memory here, but if I recall the FBI knew about the damaged curtain rods mid-March, after they interviewed Mrs. Johnson. Joe Ball then took her testimony on April 1, and NEVER (at least not on the record) asked her about the damaged curtain rods. The FBI then forwarded their report on their interview with the Johnsons on the 2nd... ONLY...ONLY...a close look at all the copies of this report proves it was originally dated April 1 and that someone individually re-typed each copy so it would say April 2. Well, this suggests that Ball or the FBI or both knew how bad it looked that Ball had failed to ask Mrs. Johnson about the curtain rods on the record, and that they sought to change the record to look like he didn't know about them when he took her testimony.

Wow. Until now, I don't think I was fully aware of how far down "Everybody In Officialdom Lied And Fudged The Evidence Every Time They Turned Around In Order To Help Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" Avenue Mr. Patrick J. Speer has travelled since he began writing online about the JFK assassination in 2006. But with each passing post, I'm realizing that Pat has, indeed, traversed many miles down that rocky (and unprovable) road. What a shame.

Edited August 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Wow. Until now, I don't think I was fully aware of how far down "Everybody In Officialdom Lied And Fudged The Evidence Every Time They Turned Around In Order To Help Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" Avenue Mr. Patrick J. Speer has travelled since he began writing online about the JFK assassination in 2006. But with each passing post, I'm realizing that Pat has, indeed, traversed many miles down that rocky (and unprovable) road. What a shame.

I hate it when people start xxxxx  generalizing  (and as such actually going off a detailed topic...).

If you don't agree, at least make an effort to "agree to disagree" like a gentleman... 

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

If you don't agree, at least make an effort to "agree to disagree" like a gentleman... 

Okay, JPC. I do, indeed, "agree to disagree".

(But the constant "Li@r, Li@r" refrain coming from the keyboards of conspiracists does get a bit tiresome. Such a refrain is, IMO, nothing but a huge cop-out on the part of CTers.)

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Wow. Until now, I don't think I was fully aware of how far down "Everybody In Officialdom Lied And Fudged The Evidence Every Time They Turned Around In Order To Help Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" Avenue Mr. Patrick J. Speer has travelled since he began writing online about the JFK assassination in 2006. But with each passing post, I'm realizing that Pat has, indeed, traversed many miles down that rocky (and unprovable) road. What a shame.

Quit with the games, David. It's a cheap stunt used by your hero to avoid evidence, but you can do better. 

The ball is in your court. Please explain why

1) The curtain rods submitted to the DPD were submitted and photographed before any curtain rods were recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage.

2) The Lt. Day-authored report on these curtain rods was doctored before publication by the WC.

3) Joe Ball failed to ask Mrs. Johnson about the damaged curtain rod in her rooming house.

4) All the dates on all the copies of the FBI report referring to this damaged curtain rod were changed to reflect that Ball and the WC were informed of this damaged curtain rod after Ball took Mrs. Johnson's testimony.

5) The curtain rods residing in the archives have no arrows or markings indicating where Lt. Day found an identifiable print.

6) There is no FBI report on its own study of the curtain rods (quite possibly because there were no prints on the rods sent to them).

 

Who knows? There could be a rational explanation. But the best I could come up with was that these men were gross incompetents and should not have been allowed anywhere near a criminal investigation. 

I actually find it comforting to think they were hiding something. I mean, think about it. Oswald was a dead commie-symp. To the minds of all the men involved he must have had something to do with the killing of JFK, and was almost certainly the killer of Tippit. If the Johnson Administration preferred to leave it at Oswald, none of these men were likely to say anything to support his innocence. Why? To what end?

I mean, do you know what momentum looks like? By early December the FBI's propaganda chief DeLoach had leaked much of its investigation to the press, and the press had repeated it without question. By the time the Warren Commission was actually talking to people Oswald's guilt was as much as certain. The outlines for the commission's investigation and report were all built around Oswald, and evidence for his guilt...before they had taken any testimony.

So, really, do you honestly believe there was a single soul on the Warren Commission or its staff who would rock the boat to the extent where they would actually question Oswald's guilt? When you look through their papers and interviews there was never any question about his guilt. The only question was to whether he'd been under the influence of others, or maybe had help from others. But there was never any question from the beginning of the WC investigation that they were gonna say Oswald fired all the shots. I mean, when you look at the record, this is crystal clear. When a Marine Corps expert told them he would consider Oswald a "poor" shot at the time of the assassination, did they let that stand? No. They waited until AFTER the chapter saying Oswald fired all the shots had been written and approved and then brought back in another expert to tell them that each shot in isolation would not have been all that difficult, and then used this to misrepresent the evidence for Oswald's guilt. 

The fix was in, and no one was gonna risk their future to say as much.

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Please explain why

1) The curtain rods submitted to the DPD were submitted and photographed before any curtain rods were recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage.

That's a huge assumption on your part that cannot be proven. The March 15 date on CE1952 is simply wrong.

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2) The Lt. Day-authored report on these curtain rods was doctored before publication by the WC.

Another huge assumption on your part that you certainly can never prove.

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

3) Joe Ball failed to ask Mrs. Johnson about the damaged curtain rod in her rooming house.

And this fact is supposed to mean----what exactly? Am I supposed to think that Joe Ball helped to deep-six Oswald's "curtain rods" and deliberately buried the info about his room having a damaged rod? (Even though we know that Mrs. Johnson claimed that somebody damaged the rod AFTER Oswald last set foot in that room.)

Well, I guess you can believe stuff like that if you want to.

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

4) All the dates on all the copies of the FBI report referring to this damaged curtain rod were changed to reflect that Ball and the WC were informed of this damaged curtain rod after Ball took Mrs. Johnson's testimony.

And you KNOW for a fact that this "April 2" date was "changed" to a date that was not the actual and correct date for this FBI report, eh? How do you know that?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11103#relPageId=2

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

5) The curtain rods residing in the archives have no arrows or markings indicating where Lt. Day found an identifiable print.

So?

Is this another one of those "This Must Mean I Should Believe In Conspiracy & Cover-Up" moments again?

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

6) There is no FBI report on its own study of the curtain rods (quite possibly because there were no prints on the rods sent to them).

Maybe it's buried at the Mary Ferrell Archive someplace. Or perhaps the FBI just didn't create a report on the matter---similar in nature to the total lack of those 60 FD-302 reports that CTers insist should exist (but evidently don't) relating to the sixty individual interviews that comprise CE2011. Beats me. But I fail to see how something like this should automatically lead a person down the "conspiracy" path.

Edited August 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

On 8/27/2022 at 2:20 PM, David Von Pein said:

That's a huge assumption on your part that cannot be proven. The March 15 date on CE1952 is simply wrong.

 

Another huge assumption on your part that you certainly can never prove.

 

And this fact is supposed to mean----what exactly? Am I supposed to think that Joe Ball helped to deep-six Oswald's "curtain rods" and deliberately buried the info about his room having a damaged rod? (Even though we know that Mrs. Johnson claimed that somebody damaged the rod AFTER Oswald last set foot in that room.)

Well, I guess you can believe stuff like that if you want to.

 

And you KNOW for a fact that this "April 2" date was "changed" to a date that was not the actual and correct date for this FBI report, eh? How do you know that?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11103#relPageId=2

 

So?

Is this another one of those "This Must Mean I Should Believe In Conspiracy & Cover-Up" moments again?

 

Maybe it's buried at the Mary Ferrell Archive someplace. Or perhaps the FBI just didn't create a report on the matter---similar in nature to the total lack of those 60 FD-302 reports that CTers insist should exist (but evidently don't) relating to the sixty individual interviews that comprise CE2011. Beats me. But I fail to see how something like this should automatically lead a person down the "conspiracy" path.

 

Here is my discussion of the obviously doctored document on my website:

Here is the original on the UNT website...

 

And here is the doctored document published by WC...

 

Now, let's note the differences between the original full-color form published on the the UNT website, and the black and white copy of this form published as CE 1952 in the Warren Commission's volumes. To create CE 1952, someone had to:

Remove the signature "John Joe Howlett" from the "specimen released to" line.

Change the date of the specimen's release from "3-24-64" to "3-26-64."

Re-write Lt. Day's signature on the "specimen released by" line.

Inadvertently change the relationship of the "d" in "Oswald" and the "a" in "Day" in the writing at the bottom of the page.

Now, this last bit is quite confusing. The thought occurs, however, that the person dummying-up CE 1952 may have taped sections from a photo-copy of the original document onto a new form, then filled out the rest of this form, then made a photo-copy of this new phony document that was then sent to the Commission. Or something like that...

So what can be made of this?

1. Bugliosi's insistence that the submission date of "3-15-64" on CE 1952 was a simple mistake no longer passes muster. Not only were the curtain rods in Mrs. Paine's garage not retrieved until 3-23-64, 8 days after 3-15-64, but the original form for CE 1952 has a release date of "3-24-64," a day before Lt. Day created the lift card from the curtain rod shown above (in DPD image 91-001/256).

2. This suggests, then, that there were 2 sets of curtain rods. One set submitted to the DPD by Howlett on 3-15-64 ("two white curtain rods"), and then released back to him on 3-24-64, and another set retrieved from Mrs. Paine on 3-23-64 (one cream-colored curtain rod and one white curtain rod), tested on 3-25-64, and released on 3-26-64.

3. It could be, then, that the curtain rods turned over on 3-15-64 were made to go bye-bye, and that the on-the-record seizure of Mrs. Paine's curtain rods on 3-23-64 was designed in part to conceal that curtain rods had been recovered and submitted to the DPD's crime lab from somewhere other than Mrs. Paine's garage.

4. If this is so, then, Secret Service Agent John Joe Howlett was right in the middle of it. One can not avoid that Howlett's signature was on the submission line of CE 1952...on 3-15...8 days before he'd supposedly even seen the curtain rods he recovered in Mrs. Paine's garage. In all other instances where physical evidence was collected for the WC's investigation, it was collected through the FBI. So why was Howlett, an SS Agent, even involved in this--the collection of physical evidence for the Warren Commission's investigation? While Howlett's involvement in this on 3-23-64 (when the Commission and FBI were at odds) might make sense, his submission of these curtain rods to the DPD on 3-15-63 (before Jenner had even arrived in Dallas) makes far less sense...unless...unless...he'd obtained these rods during the Secret Service's investigation of the assassination back in December. So when could he have found them? Or received them? Well, the thought occurs that Howlett starred in a Secret Service re-enactment film produced on 12-5-63...that was filmed on location in Oswald's place of work, the school book depository. It seems possible, then, that Howlett found or was given two white curtain rods at that time, and had decided to hold off telling anyone about them until he could do so without raising too much ruckus. One might presume then that he spoke to Jenner about this later, and that the two conspired to go behind Hoover's back and have the curtain rods tested by Lt. Day...and that it was then decided to make them disappear, and use the curtain rods found in Mrs. Paine's garage to conceal their very existence.

5. If this is so, then, it follows that Howlett or Day created the numbers for these curtain rods (275 and 276) and that Jenner chose to re-use these numbers on 3-23-64. (It has long been a mystery as to why Jenner gave the exhibits entered into evidence on 3-23-64 numbers in the 270's. I mean, why not start at Ruth Paine Exhibit 1, and proceed from there...as was done with most every other witness? Perhaps now we have an answer.)

6. It seems probable, for that matter, that the replacement of "3-24-64" on the original DPD form, with the "3-26-64" on the form as published by the Warren Commission, was done to conceal that this was a different set of rods than those tested by Lt. Day on 3-25-64.

7. In such case, it follows that whoever was behind this switcheroo (presumably Day, seeing as he'd provided two different signatures on the release line for the two different versions of the form), had failed to notice that the submission date on this form was 8 days before Howlett (and Jenner) had acquired the curtain rods from Mrs. Paine.

Now, I've thought about this a bit, and have tried to come up with a less horrifying explanation for the changing of the dates on the DPD crime lab form, but have come up with nothing but ?????

Edited March 29 by Pat Speer

[Gil Jesus]

34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Here is my discussion of the obviously doctored document on my website:

Here is the original on the UNT website...

And here is the doctored document published by WC...

 

Now, let's note the differences between the original full-color form published on the the UNT website, and the black and white copy of this form published as CE 1952 in the Warren Commission's volumes. To create CE 1952, someone had to:

Remove the signature "John Joe Howlett" from the "specimen released to" line.

Change the date of the specimen's release from "3-24-64" to "3-26-64."

Re-write Lt. Day's signature on the "specimen released by" line.

Inadvertently change the relationship of the "d" in "Oswald" and the "a" in "Day" in the writing at the bottom of the page.

Now, this last bit is quite confusing. The thought occurs, however, that the person dummying-up CE 1952 may have taped sections from a photo-copy of the original document onto a new form, then filled out the rest of this form, then made a photo-copy of this new phony document that was then sent to the Commission. Or something like that...

So what can be made of this?

1. Bugliosi's insistence that the submission date of "3-15-64" on CE 1952 was a simple mistake no longer passes muster. Not only were the curtain rods in Mrs. Paine's garage not retrieved until 3-23-64, 8 days after 3-15-64, but the original form for CE 1952 has a release date of "3-24-64," a day before Lt. Day created the lift card from the curtain rod shown above (in DPD image 91-001/256).

2. This suggests, then, that there were 2 sets of curtain rods. One set submitted to the DPD by Howlett on 3-15-64 ("two white curtain rods"), and then released back to him on 3-24-64, and another set retrieved from Mrs. Paine on 3-23-64 (one cream-colored curtain rod and one white curtain rod), tested on 3-25-64, and released on 3-26-64.

3. It could be, then, that the curtain rods turned over on 3-15-64 were made to go bye-bye, and that the on-the-record seizure of Mrs. Paine's curtain rods on 3-23-64 was designed in part to conceal that curtain rods had been recovered and submitted to the DPD's crime lab from somewhere other than Mrs. Paine's garage.

4. If this is so, then, Secret Service Agent John Joe Howlett was right in the middle of it. One can not avoid that Howlett's signature was on the submission line of CE 1952...on 3-15...8 days before he'd supposedly even seen the curtain rods he recovered in Mrs. Paine's garage. In all other instances where physical evidence was collected for the WC's investigation, it was collected through the FBI. So why was Howlett, an SS Agent, even involved in this--the collection of physical evidence for the Warren Commission's investigation? While Howlett's involvement in this on 3-23-64 (when the Commission and FBI were at odds) might make sense, his submission of these curtain rods to the DPD on 3-15-63 (before Jenner had even arrived in Dallas) makes far less sense...unless...unless...he'd obtained these rods during the Secret Service's investigation of the assassination back in December. So when could he have found them? Or received them? Well, the thought occurs that Howlett starred in a Secret Service re-enactment film produced on 12-5-63...that was filmed on location in Oswald's place of work, the school book depository. It seems possible, then, that Howlett found or was given two white curtain rods at that time, and had decided to hold off telling anyone about them until he could do so without raising too much ruckus. One might presume then that he spoke to Jenner about this later, and that the two conspired to go behind Hoover's back and have the curtain rods tested by Lt. Day...and that it was then decided to make them disappear, and use the curtain rods found in Mrs. Paine's garage to conceal their very existence.

5. If this is so, then, it follows that Howlett or Day created the numbers for these curtain rods (275 and 276) and that Jenner chose to re-use these numbers on 3-23-64. (It has long been a mystery as to why Jenner gave the exhibits entered into evidence on 3-23-64 numbers in the 270's. I mean, why not start at Ruth Paine Exhibit 1, and proceed from there...as was done with most every other witness? Perhaps now we have an answer.)

6. It seems probable, for that matter, that the replacement of "3-24-64" on the original DPD form, with the "3-26-64" on the form as published by the Warren Commission, was done to conceal that this was a different set of rods than those tested by Lt. Day on 3-25-64.

7. In such case, it follows that whoever was behind this switcheroo (presumably Day, seeing as he'd provided two different signatures on the release line for the two different versions of the form), had failed to notice that the submission date on this form was 8 days before Howlett (and Jenner) had acquired the curtain rods from Mrs. Paine.

Now, I've thought about this a bit, and have tried to come up with a less horrifying explanation for the changing of the dates on the DPD crime lab form, but have come up with nothing but ?????

Pat I have a problem wit the chain of possession of those rods.

First and formost is the conflict with the dates they were released as you said.

Then there's the 3/15 date they were allegedly submitted with the note that they were "marked 275 and 276".

The problem is that they weren't marked 275 and 276 until 3/21/64, when Ruth Paine testified before the Commission.

How did they know on 3/15 what the rods' commission numbers would be ?

How did the rods get to Washington with SS Howlett if the above CSS report has them with the Dallas Police between 3/15 and 3/24 or 26 ?

What's going on here ?

Edited August 27, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Pat I have a problem wit the chain of possession of those rods.

First and formost is the conflict with the dates they were released as you said.

Then there's the 3/15 date they were allegedly submitted with the note that they were "marked 275 and 276".

The problem is that they weren't marked 275 and 276 until 3/21/64, when Ruth Paine testified before the Commission.

How did they know on 3/15 what the rods' commission numbers would be ?

How did the rods get to Washington with SS Howlett if the above CSS report has them with the Dallas Police between 3/15 and 3/24 or 26 ?

What's going on here ?

If I'm not mistaken the testimony you cite from 3/21 is actually from 3/23. Ruth Paine testified in Washington before the commission on 3/21 I believe. Jenner then flew back to Dallas with her to continue the questioning in her garage with Howlett.

[Mark Ulrik]

The colored ink in the UNT scan suggests that it's the original document, which would make the WC exhibit a copy, no? I'm just brainstorming here, but is it unreasonable to suspect that the DPD may have had a habit of generating extra copies for misc. purposes (or just in case the original got lost) and that notations may sometimes have been added later when memories were no longer fresh? I think I've seen variants of other documents with similar discrepancies on the UNT site. The wider "Oswald" in CE 1952 is peculiar, though, but can a copying artifact be ruled out? Perhaps someone kicked the Xerox machine.
Btw, forging a copy seems a bit reckless when the original still exists, and if the CE is a forgery then why not change the 3-15-64 date as well? Also, why change the whole date (and time) when a single digit is enough?

Edited August 28, 2022 by Mark Ulrik

[Guest]

- the 3 - 24  is signed by John Joe Howlett (the release back to that is ?)

- the 3 - 26 is not (if it was, that would def. proof once more there was this 2nd set), why make up a new release when you already had one dated and signed 3 - 24 ?  

They needed to get it in, and make sure that it stayed in (or got lost...) fore ever and ever ?   According to the papers above, where is that first set... interesting 

Looks someone got handed a piece too-hot-to-handle*, needed to get rid of it, but needed a proof (on-the-side) to cover himself.

Unless LHO's rods (nicked from Mrs. Paine) were after all used to repair the ones in his room 😃  :  landlady happy, Mrs.Paine not happy at all

*I don' t think DPD at the TBSD was looking for curtain rods on day 1 / 2, they only went looking in Mrs. Paine garaga months later !  That actually says it all kinda.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

The colored ink in the UNT scan suggests that it's the original document, which would make the WC exhibit a copy, no? I'm just brainstorming here, but is it unreasonable to suspect that the DPD may have had a habit of generating extra copies for misc. purposes (or just in case the original got lost) and that notations may sometimes have been added later when memories were no longer fresh? I think I've seen variants of other documents with similar discrepancies on the UNT site. The wider "Oswald" in CE 1952 is peculiar, though, but can a copying artifact be ruled out? Perhaps someone kicked the Xerox machine.
Btw, forging a copy seems a bit reckless when the original still exists, and if the CE is a forgery then why not change the 3-15-64 date as well? Also, why change the whole date (and time) when a single digit is enough?

Seeing as Day signed both copies, it is reasonable to assume he was involved in the creation of the fake copy. Upon being asked to send his report to the WC, he may have realized that the report said the rods were released to Howlett, when he'd sent the rods recovered by Jenner directly to Washington. He may also have realized that at least one of the lifts was dated 11-25--AFTER he had returned the original set to Howlett. He would then make a new copy of the report in which Howlett's name was removed and the release date was changed. As this was weeks after he'd originally received both sets of rods, he may not have realized that the date on the report preceded the date Jenner and Howlett had received the second set from Paine. 

FWIW, I tried to track down when the rods and this report were sent to Washington, and could find no paper trail. The FBI reported their existence in August, if I remember. But I could find nothing that indicated when and who sent this stuff to Washington, and how it came to be published by the WC. 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Pat Speer