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

[Alan Ford]

12 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Here are many more witness exhibits which appear to be just randomly numbered with very high numbers -- including the B.G. Patterson exhibits, which begin with #5311. And the Riggs exhibits, which begin with 5128. And then there's the Talbert exhibit series, which begins with numbers 1 and 2, but then jumps to number 5065 for some reason.

And, btw, the Ruth Paine exhibit numbers jump around too, going from #278-A to #461 and finally to #469 for the last one in the Ruth Paine series.

So there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for the strange numbering system utilized by the Commission for the numbers assigned to the exhibits that have the witness' name attached to them---which is something else I've also never understood. Why didn't the Warren Commission just simply label every exhibit the same way (e.g., CE1, CE2, etc.)? Why did some witnesses warrant having their own names being attached to their exhibits? I've always wondered why that was done. ~shrug~

"Very high numbers", lol.

What do all these numbers have in common, Mr. Von Pein?

5003

5125

5027

5311

5128

5065

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

As for the lack of "rhyme or reason" with Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers, how might this document help you?

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

I say: The choice of a number out of nowhere ("270") as the start number for the sequence of Ruth Paine Exhibits is quite without counterpart in the WC's exhibit numbering system.

Prove me wrong!

👍

[David Von Pein]

9 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

As for the lack of "rhyme or reason" with Ruth Paine Exhibit numbers, how might this document help you?

 

OK. That explains part of the numbering system (I guess). But then the Ruth Paine exhibits jump from 461 to 469 without apparent reason. What's the reason for that particular jump, Alan?

And I also can't help but scratch my head and wonder why CE449 and CE459-1 and CE460 weren't labeled as "Ruth Paine Exhibit 449", etc.?

Quite a confusing numbering system indeed, with some exhibits dealing directly with Ruth Paine materials being straight "CE" numbers and some being labeled with "Ruth Paine Exhibit" numbers.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

OK. That explains part of the numbering system (I guess). But then the Ruth Paine exhibits jump from 461 to 469 without apparent reason. What's the reason for that particular jump, Alan?

And I also can't help but scratch my head and wonder why CE449 and CE459-1 and CE460 weren't labeled as "Ruth Paine Exhibit 449", etc.?

Different issue, Mr. Von Pein.

Can you or can you not find me any case in the entire WC exhibit numbering system that would genuinely compare with the choice of a number out of nowhere ("270") as the start number for the sequence of Ruth Paine Exhibits?

[David Von Pein]

12 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

Can you or can you not find me any case in the entire WC exhibit numbering system that would genuinely compare with the choice of a number out of nowhere ("270") as the start number for the sequence of Ruth Paine Exhibits?

I think I already did that with all those exhibit numbers that START in the 5000s. Since there's only 3,154 "CE" exhibit numbers, what reason would there be to start the Armstrong Exhibits (to pick just one of many examples) at #5300?

Please enlighten us all, Mr. Ford.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I think I already did that with all those exhibit numbers that START in the 5000s. Since there's only 3,154 "CE" exhibit numbers, what reason would there be to start the Armstrong Exhibits (to pick just one of many examples) at #5300?

Please enlighten us all, Mr. Ford.

 

~Grin~

Nice try, Mr. Von Pein!

All the numbers in the examples you cite have something in common: the fact that they are over 5000. Clearly there was a numbering system in place for the massive volume of items collected by the Commission. There was a collection numbered 5000+. There was also a 3000+ collection, by the way. No onus on me to explain the exact rationale for such a numbering system: all I have to do is point out that none of the members of the 5000+ club represents a freak anomaly. Each was selected for inclusion as a named Commission Exhibit and simply retained its original 5000+ number. 

Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270, by contrast, is a freak outlier. Can you prove me wrong by finding me one exhibit number anywhere that genuinely compares?

It's looking like the answer is no, and that this will be a repeat of.................

[Alan Ford]

ALAN FORD SAID: Give us alternative date------any one that you think would work-------for the submission of the two curtain rods to the Crime Lab.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: .............................................

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Alan Ford said:

Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270, by contrast, is a freak outlier. Can you prove me wrong by finding me one exhibit number anywhere that genuinely compares?

Well, after just a brief search, I was indeed able to find a total of FOUR such WC exhibits, all of which appear in WC Volume No. 21, with none of these four examples having numbers in the 5000s.

Here are those four examples:

Pizzo Exhibits 453A—453C. *

Raigorodsky Exhibits 9—14A.

Semingsen Exhibit 3001.

Wilcox Exhibits 3002—3017.

Sorry, Alan. Looks like another crackpot conspiracy theory has just gone sliding down the drain. Better luck next time.

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

* Note --- The "Pizzo" exhibit numbers shown above aren't just "out of the blue" numbers picked by the Warren Commission (which no doubt will make Alan Ford very happy). The WC, in the Pizzo instance, must have chosen the number "453" in order to match "CE453", which is an exhibit that also surfaces in Mr. Pizzo's WC testimony. So there is a "tie in" there. I tried to find such a tie-in with the other three witnesses mentioned in this post, but I couldn't do it. Mr. Wilcox, for example, certainly has no connection with "CE3002", because CE3002 is Lee Oswald's autopsy report and Mr. Wilcox worked at Western Union Telegraph Company in 1963. So there's no "connection" there at all.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Alan Ford]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, after just a brief search, I was indeed able to find a total of FOUR such WC exhibits, all of which appear in WC Volume No. 21, with none of these four examples having numbers in the 5000s.

Here are those four examples:

Pizzo Exhibits 453A—453C. *

Raigorodsky Exhibits 9—14A.

Semingsen Exhibit 3001.

Wilcox Exhibits 3002—3017.

Sorry, Alan. Looks like another crackpot conspiracy theory has just gone sliding down the drain. Better luck next time.

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

* Note --- The "Pizzo" exhibit numbers shown above aren't just "out of the blue" numbers picked by the Warren Commission (which no doubt will make Alan Ford very happy). The WC, in the Pizzo instance, must have chosen the number "453" in order to match "CE453", which is an exhibit that also surfaces in Mr. Pizzo's WC testimony. So there is a "tie in" there. I tried to find such a tie-in with the other three witnesses mentioned in this post, but I couldn't do it. Mr. Wilcox, for example, certainly has no connection with "CE3002", because CE3002 is Lee Oswald's autopsy report and Mr. Wilcox worked at Western Union Telegraph Company in 1963. So there's no "connection" there at all.

 

~Grin~

Great work, Mr. Von Pein------------you've still got nothing!

------The 3000+ club I've already covered

------The Pizzo numbers left you holding dust

------Raigodorsky:

Mr. JENNER [to Mr. Raigodorsky]: You have given me a file and it is entitled "George De Mohrenschildt". I have been browsing through it.

The de-Menil-to-de-Mohrenschildt letter evidently was item #9 in that file, so Mr. Jenner assigned it the number 9, and went from there.

So! You're still stuck with Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270 as a freak outlier. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Alan, I don't have the time now to write it all out, I'll copy my notes below (and adjust a few things so one can read them a little better).

If you read the hearing in the garage, you'll see they also took wrapping paper, a cord or string of some kind, etc.  These were NOT numbered "on the spot", at least not in the transcription unless I have looked over it.  But did get numbers later on.  Now, this wasn't the first time wrapping paper and string were taken.

@James DiEugenio

Allegedly, the first time the Paines talked to officials about it was at the hearing 3/21/1964, the hearing just before the WC went to the garage.

When they (the WC + SS Howlett) went to Irving on 3/23 they took possession of the rods and some paper and other stuff.    That was a hearing on the spot, the transcription is in the Hearings like the other hearings 

PS : Howlett was in the TSBD building on 3/20 (timing the staircase descent, etc) !

RECAP

a couple of week post 11/22/63 Michael had spoken to Ruth about the curtain rods and their wrapping way before their hearings.  Ruth stated they talked about it and especially Michael had checked it in the garage (the rods and the paper they were wrapped in.  No date given, but some time after they heard about Frazier and the curtain-rod package.  On wether the curtain rods at that time were (still ?) wrapped in paper was or not, nothing is said later on...  The  rods were no longer wrapped in paper by the time the WC got to see them, see my previous post !  This makes me feel the FBI was contacted, but there is no proof of that.... 

3/16/1964  WC asks Hoover about checking out Oswald's room on Beckley (see Pat Speer on that in reation to the answer and Mrs. Johnsen's statement)

3/17-18-    Hearing Michael Paine was shown the TSBD paper bag, didn’t recognize the paper, and talked about tape in his garage.  Said he moved the rods not too lang ago, and even that he checked them a couple of weeks before 3/17. But they didn't ask about the packaging of the curtain rods and he didn't tell.. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_MichaelPaine.pdf

3/19 Hearing Ruth is asked about the TSBD paper bag, she does say she has paper etc for wrapping stuff in the garage, 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_RuthPaine.pdf

3/20 Howlett at the TSBD

3/21 Hearing Ruth Hearing, now talking about the curtain rods in her garage (IX page 331), according to her she has some in there and they are wrapped (two days later, see below...), she did say Michael had checked them out a couple of week post 22/11, but Michaels was not asked about his (they should have called him in and ask about the date, he did state he checked them, but was not asked about these specific rods if they were wrapped or not)). 

3/23  Irving with Howlett, Hearing Ruth now  the rods are found and taken into evidence (Vol. IX page 396) Now, the venetian blinds are (still) wrapped, the curtain rods are NOT (or should we say no longer wrapped ???).  Ruth had stated before she had wrapped them, later on she was no longer sure (I can understand that).

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-9/pdf/GPO-WARRENCOMMISSIONHEARINGS-9.pdf

And in August-September 1964 the Hoover-Shanklin-Truly affair about NO curtain rods in the TSBD

See my 2 previous posts on Ruth being evasive on the matter.   

Something was going on, but what ?  I have a feeling it had to do with the FBI because that's specifically what Ruth was being evasive about.   

But there are no documents that show the FBI being on the road with curtains rods froms the Paines...  Let alone curtain rods from the TSBD... OR a bag that was in the Paine-garage untill  3/23.... (or untill Michael checked it out some weeks post 22/11)

According Ruth (we don't know about Michael, he was never asked about what he was actually doing while checking them out !) So everything was still there in the garage when Michael checked ???  Well, it seems,  later on, it was not.

We'll never know if the 274-275 rods had previously been wrapped in paper or not.......

  

Edited November 6, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Jean Ceulemans]

@Greg Doudna @Pat Speer

About the numbers. In the first transcription they corrected the exhibits from "Commission" Exhibit to "Ruth Paine" Exhibit for these items. 

So when they found out CE was ofcourse already in use,  in stead of changing the CE number they changed the Exhibit NAME and left the number as it was.   So it happens... etc  a weird numbering sequence.... at least in part explained IMO

These manual corrections (I copied a few below) are in :  warren commission records related to key persons / Paine, Ruth - deposition, 3/23/64

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233432#relPageId=111

And (this in regards one of my previous posts) the Michael exhibit number 1 for the string. That became number 2 later on,  the drawing he made was to be number 1.  

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Jean Ceulemans]

Now, that's what the reporter assumed, because.... later on it appeared they simply started off on the wrong track (again....).  It seems some numbers were indeed "reserved" for the Irving Hearing, or at least should have started with 259 iso 270.   But decided to leave as it was with the Paine Exhibit numbering... , it already was complicated enough as it was....

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

@Greg Doudna @Pat Speer

About the numbers. In the first transcription they corrected the exhibits from "Commission" Exhibit to "Ruth Paine" Exhibit for these items. 

So when they found out CE was ofcourse already in use,  in stead of changing the CE number they changed the Exhibit NAME and left the number as it was.   So it happens... etc  a weird numbering sequence.... at least in part explained IMO

And (this in regards one of my previous posts) the Michael exhibit number 1 for the string, making 2 strings (reed the hearing, too complicated....)

 

Did you check the date Jenner gave the items exhibit numbers against the exhibit numbers given elsewhere on the same date? If so, and it appears he simply gave out a number he didn't realize was in use, and then corrected his error by changing "CE" to "Ruth Paine Exhibit" on the items, well, that's some good sleuthing. Bravo.  

[Greg Doudna]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Did you check the date Jenner gave the items exhibit numbers against the exhibit numbers given elsewhere on the same date? If so, and it appears he simply gave out a number he didn't realize was in use, and then corrected his error by changing "CE" to "Ruth Paine Exhibit" on the items, well, that's some good sleuthing. Bravo.  

Agree on the good sleuthing, thanks Jean Paul. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 11/6/2023 at 3:57 PM, Pat Speer said:

Did you check the date Jenner gave the items exhibit numbers against the exhibit numbers given elsewhere on the same date? If so, and it appears he simply gave out a number he didn't realize was in use, and then corrected his error by changing "CE" to "Ruth Paine Exhibit" on the items, well, that's some good sleuthing. Bravo.  

See the remark between (   ) next to 271, this is when they noticed I think 

In Marguerite Oswalds Hearing (2/10/64) they were entering numbers CE-271, 272, etc

She was asked to check if it was LHO's handwriting.   CE-270 was a taped interview between SS Agent Howard and Marg. Oswald

So there was a serious mix-up and re-location of numbers

Later on they did use some of the un-used numbers

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Alan Ford]

20 February 1964:

Mr. JENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
May I suggest the wisdom of identifying each of these series of four letters with an exhibit number, and may the reporter supply me with the next number.
The first letter mentioned by Mr. McKenzie is the letter dated February 17, 1964, addressed to Mr. McKenzie, and signed by Mr. Robert L. Oswald, witnessed by Mr. Henry Baer, Joan Connelly, and Peter White. That will be marked Commission Exhibit No. 272.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 272, for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The second letter mentioned by Mr. McKenzie is dated February 18, 1964, also addressed to Mr. McKenzie, signed by Mrs. Marina N. Oswald, and witnessed by Declan P. Ford, Katherine N. Ford, and Joan Connelly. That will be marked Commission Exhibit 273.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 273, for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The next letter is dated February 18, 1964, and addressed to Mr. James H. Martin, identified by Mr. McKenzie, and signed by Mrs. Marina N. Oswald, witnessed by Mrs. Katherine Ford. Two pages.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 274 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The next and last of the series is a letter of the same date, February 18, 1964, addressed to Mr. Thorne, John M. Thorne, signed by Mrs. Marina N. Oswald, and witnessed by Mrs. Katherine Ford, two pages.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 275 for identification.)

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Jenner, if I may at this time, I would like to make one other statement to the Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that, may I ask if you want those introduced into evidence?
Mr. JENNER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
I offer in evidence as Commission Exhibits 272 through 275, inclusive, the documents that have been so identified and marked.
The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents heretofore marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 272 through 275, inclusive, for identification, were received in evidence.)

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

23 March 1964:

 

Mr. JENNER - The short piece which Mrs. Paine has picked up and has exhibited to me, we will mark "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 270," and we will cut a piece of the other twine or string and mark that as "Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 271."

(Materials referred to marked by the reporter as "Ruth Paine Exhibits Nos. 270 and 271," for identification.)