A new look at paper bags, curtain rods, and Oswald

[James DiEugenio]

You know Greg, it would really be better for you not to emulate your buddy Paul Hoch in your eagerness to slam me.   For you end up making as many errors as him.

I wrote over two annotated pages on this subject in Destiny Betrayed. (pp. 204-07). And I did something that you apparently did not:  I talked to two people who inspected the pictures at the Archives. Namely Carol Hewett and John Armstrong.  It was  a package with paper inside it.  No one knows if it was a bag or sheet because the package was slit at one end.  So its hard to figure how long the original paper was. But the FBI says it was 18 inches.  The problem, according to Carol, is that in the FBI photos she saw there is no tape measure next to it.

 I was not, in any way, the first person to discover this or to write about it.  Way back then Meagher wrote about it in 1967 and then Hewett inspected it and so did Armstrong. There was clearly a cover up about this matter, and I delineate it in my book.

Edited October 20, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

43 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know Greg, it would really be better for you not to emulate your buddy Paul Hoch in your eagerness to slam me.   For you end up making as many errors as him.

I wrote over two annotated pages on this subject in Destiny Betrayed. (pp. 204-07). And I did something that you apparently did not:  I talked to two people who inspected the pictures at the Archives. Namely Carol Hewett and John Armstrong.  It was  a package with paper inside it.  No one knows if it was a bag or sheet because the package was slit at one end.  So its hard to figure how long the original paper was. But the FBI says it was 18 inches.  The problem, according to Carol, is that in the FBI photos she saw there is no tape measure next to it.

 I was not, in any way, the first person to discover this or to write about it.  Way back then Meagher wrote about it in 1967 and then Hewett inspected it and so did Armstrong. There was clearly a cover up about this matter, and I delineate it in my book.

You are correct. Here are some images of the bag. No ruler. Not the best quality but scroll through to see some more. Looks a lot like the alleged rifle bag. Does seem shorter but hard to tell. 

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/oct.-3-1963-to-nov.-21-1963-nixie-section-post-office/703328?item=703334

Here’s the FBI lab description: 

Q266. Accompanying portion of long, narrow paper bag and strip of brown corrugated paper: 

Also according to the FBI: 

“It is to be noted that the outer wrapping paper of the parcel covers a long brown bag open at both ends.”

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/oct.-3-1963-to-nov.-21-1963-nixie-section-post-office/703328?item=703337

If it looks like a bag, was called a bag by FBI agents, and the FBI laboratory officially described it as a long brown bag, I think it’s safe to say it was a bag. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Greg Doudna]

Jim D from the FBI report quoted by Tom Gram and also from you I see I misspoke but I had no intent to slam you and apologize for my misunderstanding. I am deleting the comment. Yes, I see now there was a paper bag or wrapper. Is it excluded there had been a magazine inside that paper bag or wrapper? (If Holmes’ report of the mailer being only half opened at one end in the condition found is true, that would rule out a full-sized magazine inside which had been removed?) Or was it never more than the paper bag or wrapping alone which had been in the mailer, if so curious. The FBI report asks that that paper be analyzed, I wonder what happened with that. I am away from my books at this moment but will recheck yours tonight on this.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

On 10/16/2023 at 3:45 PM, Pat Speer said:

And I wonder what the odds are of

[...]

3. Some curtain rods being tested by the DPD before any were retrieved from Mrs. Paine's garage.

4. Someone changing the dates on the paperwork for these rods, as if to conceal the actual timing of their discovery. 

Thank you, Mr. Speer, for noticing the elephant in the room..................

The Warren Gullibles' solution to the conundrum presented by these forms is that Lt. Day got both dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable.

To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative (i.e. 'correct') submission date to take the place of 15 March!

A pair of curtain rods was found in the Depository after the assassination, and tested for Mr. Oswald's prints.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

4 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

The Warren Gullibles' solution to the conundrum presented by these forms is that Lt. Day got both dates on the original form wrong, which is of course just laughable.

To make us break into further hysterics, they cannot, when asked, come up with a single viable alternative (i.e. 'correct') submission date to take the place of 15 March!

In the following posts, I'm going to offer a grown-up solution to the conundrum presented by these forms...............

[Alan Ford]

THE CURTAIN RODS: PART 1

We begin by noting an incredible coincidence involving the digits 2-7-5:
----------------length of Paine garage curtain rods: 27.5 inches
----------------"marked 27.5" written on the crime lab form

----------------no. of first Ruth Paine curtain rod Exhibit: 275

The "marked 27.5" annotation on the Crime Scene Search Lab submission form is not a Ruth Paine exhibit no. but a length marking. The two rods found in the TSBD had 27.5 stamped or written on them: 27.5 inches.

Understand this simple fact, and the rest falls into place.

Kindly note also that Mr Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Ms Linnie Mae Randle both estimated the length of Mr Oswald's paper sack at 27 inches-------------impressively close to the actual length of the curtain rods in the bag Mr. Oswald brought to work that morning.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

THE CURTAIN RODS: PART 2

A Depository employee found the rods and alerted the authorities. Word must not leak out that a pair of curtain rods had been found in the building. A priority therefore was to contain this person by making them think the matter had been scrupulously looked into.

So what does Lt. Day do? He makes a copy of the submission/release form. This copy contains the annotation "marked 27.5"---------------there is no "& 276" written in yet.

The TSBD person is given a copy looking like this (please note: the following is a document which I have altered for illustration purposes )

Its purpose is to satisfy the person who originally found the rods that the matter has been thoroughly looked into. All very official-looking. Now kindly shut up, good Sir/Ma'am, about the curtain rods.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

THE CURTAIN RODS: PART 3

Well!

I hypothesize that this was initially the original limit to how far the 'investigating' authorities felt they could go to deal with the curtain rods that had been found in the Depository. Within a couple of days of 15 March (submission date), the witness had been furnished-----perhaps at his/her own insistence, and intimating that otherwise he/she would not let the matter rest-----with his/her copy of the document whose findings would, it was hoped, set his/her mind at rest: no LHO prints. False lead, Sir/Ma'am, but thank you for your doing your civic duty.

But!

The 'investigators' were still seriously worried about the matter, and put their heads together to see if they couldn't go better. There was still an unacceptably high chance that the Depository employee who found the curtain rods would, even after being fobbed off with the report, blab about those rods in a way highly dangerous to the official story that was being pursued with such grim determination. If that were to happen, the authorities would have to admit that, yes, two curtain rods were found in the Depository. Sure, they could engage in some damage limitation, but the scenario was still intolerable to have to think about.........

So!

Here's what they came up with:

Let's disappear those two curtain rods into two curtain rods whose 'finding' we can stage 'on the record' in the Paine garage.

And so, by the afternoon of Wed. March 18, Mr. Jenner of the WC is (during Ms. Paine's first testimony taking) talking of coming "to Mrs. Paine's home in Irving, Tex., sometime on Monday or Monday evening or if she finds it more convenient, on Tuesday of next week to inquire of her with a court reporter present relative to the curtain rod package".

That visit of Mr. Jenner and Agent Howlett to the Paine home happens on the evening of Monday, 23 March. They are there for one reason and one reason only: the curtain rods. But they go through an elaborate charade of examining, itemising and measuring lots of other secondary items, all to misdirect from what's really going on.

And lo and behold, a pair of rods, each measuring "2 feet 3 1/2 inches" (=27.5!), is 'found' in the garage and taken by Agent Howlett----------------the same man who, eight days previously, had submitted two curtain rods to Lt. Day for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints! Crucially, the numbering of the Ruth Paine Exhibits starts with 270, a cute contrivance to have the two curtain rods end up being assigned the numbers 275 & 276:

The original form is then 'corrected' by Lt. Day back at the lab by the addition in the same red pen of "& 276". Lt. Day keeps a COPY of the form at this stage of its evolution. My crude with-deletions version below reconstructs what this copy looks like as to content:

.
But why don't they change the submission date to a point in time AFTER the deposition at the Paine home? Why not change the submission to 9:45 a.m. on "3-24-64" instead of "3-15-64"? Indeed, why not just create a new form altogether, with no need to hide such a change?

Because a copy of the original form is in the hands of the Depository employee who found the curtain rods. And it contains the submission date "3-15-64".

Agreeing to release that copy to the Depository employee made sense BEFORE the switcheroo scheme had been hatched. Now they see how regrettable an error it was.

But............. needs must. Quite simply, Lt. Day and Agent Howlett have no choice but to hope that nobody notices the date anomaly (which nobody will for over three decades...........)

The next time Agent Howlett comes by the crime lab, release date/time and signature/countersignature can be added to the original form................

[Alan Ford]

THE CURTAIN RODS: PART 4

Next time Agent Howlett does drop by the crime lab, the original form finally achieves its finished state, through the addition of
a) release date/time
b) Lt. Day's release signature
c) Agent Howlett's countersignature confirming receipt.

And what release date/time is chosen? 7.50 a.m. on "3-24-64":

Later-------------when asked to furnish a copy to the WC--------------Lt. Day decides to add a couple of days to the release date for realism. This way, the form contains not two but only one problematical date (which is the one that cannot be changed). And who the hell is going to see the original in the police files?

But how does Lt. Day change the release date? Well, thankfully he still has a copy of the form from when it was at THIS stage in its evolution:

He adds the new, improved release details to THIS COPY, and then creates a copy of that. Agent Howlett not being at hand, there is no countersignature from him.

Thus we get the otherwise perplexing differences in the two different versions of the form in evidence:
a) the original form buried in the DPD archives
b) the copy of a copy submitted to the WC

[Alan Ford]

THE CURTAIN RODS: PART 5

So!

Those Warren Gullibles who wish to continue to declare that no curtain rods were found in the Depository need to answer some straightforward questions:

1. Why were two curtain rods submitted for testing for Mr. Oswald's prints 8 days before two curtain rods were taken from Ms. Paine's garage, and only released from the crime lab the morning after the taking of two curtain rods from Ms. Paine's garage?

2. Why do we have two different versions of the form, with
---------------different release dates
---------------different release signatures from Lt. Day
---------------release countersignature vs. no release countersignature from Agent Howlett?

3. Why did the WC choose the number 270 at which to begin numbering the Ruth Paine Exhibits?

4. How do you explain away the incredible coincidence involving the digits 2-7-5:
----------------length of curtain rods: 27.5 inches
----------------"marked 27.5" on the crime lab form
----------------no. of first Ruth Paine Exhibit: 275?

I have offered an explanation for every one of these things. Can you offer a counter-explanation?

Maybe start with question #3 above. Go on, give us all a laugh! 👍

[Greg Doudna]

Interesting, Alan Ford! I have no idea yet whether the reconstruction you propose is or is not viable or correct either as is or in some modified form—need time to think about it—but thank you for putting this on the table.

One minor point I can offer right now though. 

On the proposal that the original description on the crime lab form of the curtain rods read handwritten “27.5” instead of “275”, that could be supported by close attention to the way the three other “5”’s on the form from the same hand (Day’s?) are written. The “5” in question has a pen mark above the bottom left stroke of the “5” which either is a continuation of the writing of the “5” with an ending upward, or, as you suggest, it is a distinct “dot” or period mark, i.e. original writing “27.5”.

The other three “5”’s on that form show no upward ending, in all three cases, which would be in agreement or support of your suggestion of the “27.5” original reading in the fourth case, the one at issue. Someone might check what must be many other instances of handwritten 5’s by Day on other preserved documents and confirm or disconfirm how strong this point is from a larger database of Day’s handwritten 5’s.

You suggest the ‘27.5’ (as written) originally meant 27.5 inches as the curtain rods’ length. An objection to that might be there is no expected inches notation, such as expected ‘ 27.5” ‘ (if inches were the originally intended meaning), with the double quote symbol for inches written after the 27.5.

But there is a noticeable gap of space before the following “+276” which you propose was added in a post-whiteout secondary copy stage changing the date at the bottom. That gap or space after ‘ 27.5 ‘ (if measurement in inches was the original meaning) is consistent in spacing with an originally written ‘ 27.5” ‘ (with the inches notation), prior to whiting out (of the inches notation) and re-photocopying with the changed date at the bottom and added “+276” per your reconstruction.

That is, both the actual spacing and comparison with the three out of three other handwritten “5”’s on this form show agreement with your hypothesis. That’s about how I put it at this point, not proof, but agreement so far as this goes. 

Day must have dozens of other handwritten 5’s on documents either on the MFF site or other DPD records online that could easily be collated and compared to either confirm or disconfirm a necessity to read the present case as original ‘27.5’ instead of ‘275’. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

I have always been intrigued by the fingerprint Pat has referred to, I know nothing about fingerprints (palmprints) but is sure looks close to me :

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story 

The print is discussed close to the end of the page

No experts we could show this to ?

[Alan Ford]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On the proposal that the original description on the crime lab form of the curtain rods read handwritten “27.5” instead of “275”, that could be supported by close attention to the way the three other “5”’s on the form from the same hand (Day’s?) are written. The “5” in question has a pen mark above the bottom left stroke of the “5” which either is a continuation of the writing of the “5” with an ending upward, or, as you suggest, it is a distinct “dot” or period mark, i.e. original writing “27.5”.

Thank you for this, Mr. Doudna. Good catch!

Note also that the "5" in "27[.]5" is, in the original red-ink doc, raised relative to the 2 and 7.

Also, note the change in the tail of the "5" from original to copy-provided-to-WC. It seems to represent more than loss of detail due to copying (which happens elsewhere in the document). I reckon Lt. Day modified the "5" in order to

------------lose the decimal point

------------lend the "5" more of an unraised look relative to the first two digits

-------------------

Regarding the lack of the word "inches", you make an interesting suggestion. But could a whiteout have been done on the original doc without being evident?

The most likely scenario IMO is that "27.5" was scribbled in pencil on each rod (presumably by Mrs. Ruth Paine), upon measuring the rods--------------no need to note for her own future reference the units she had measured in. (And they're not likely to be confused for centimeters!)

Edited November 1, 2023 by Alan Ford

[Greg Doudna]

Alan Ford — I did not catch it before but you are right, there is a difference in the ending of that “5” of “275” in the second, March 26 dated one, compared to the version dated Mar 24. The Mar 26 dated one does not have that preceding dot or upturn of the final stroke, whichever it was and however it is interpreted, of the Mar 24, leaving only a routine 5 in agreement with the way Day writes his other 5’s. If that was from an intentional alteration, it would add weight to the Mar 24 dated version with the upturn or dot being, as you suggest, a dot or decimal point of 27.5, rather than part of writing of a 5 of 275.

If the original form read with the meaning that both curtain rods were “marked 27.5”, I see your point that that could be a marking from the owner of those curtain rods, or alternatively a window installer or home builder, or alternatively marked by the maker or seller prior to shipping when ordered, penciling the lengths on them, as minimum compressed length needed in a window frame for the two moving pieces per curtain rod. That would make sense. 

Or is the difference in the 5's only from a carbon copy in which the final ending was not pressed hard enough by the pen to show up on the carbon copy?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Alan Ford]

15 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Or is the difference in the 5's only from a carbon copy in which the final ending was not pressed hard enough by the pen to show up on the carbon copy?

That's just the thing, Mr. Doudna, the tail of the 5 seems differently shaped. Compare, say, the tail of the "2", or the bottom of the "7", or the horizontal top stroke of the "5": all explicable by loss of detail. But the tail of the "5" seems to have gained a little upwards curve.

What's also clear from the red-ink original is that what I take to be a decimal point was definitely made by a separate stroke of Lt. Day's pen: he had to raise that pen from the paper to continue to the number five.