Post by Gil Jesus on Apr 15, 2023 8:50:06 GMT -5
The Curtain Rod Debacle
by Gil Jesus (2023)
The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald's excuse for his return to Irving Thursday was the lie that he intended to pick up curtain rods for "an apartment." (Report, pg. 15)
The Report attempted to destroy this excuse by noting that:
(a) Oswald spoke with neither his wife, nor his landlady, nor Mrs. Paine about curtain rods,
(b) Oswald's landlady testified that his room on North Beckley Avenue had curtains and rods, and
(c) "No curtain rods were known to have been discovered in the Depository Building after the assassination" (pg. 130).
Lets take these assertions one at a time.
(a) Oswald spoke with neither his wife, nor his landlady, nor Mrs. Paine about curtain rods.
All of the Oswald family's possessions had been brought back from New Orleans and were stored in the Paine garage. Although it is assumed that the family had curtains in their apartment in New Orleans and those curtains would have required curtain rods, the Commission never explained why Oswald would need permission from his wife or Ruth Paine to remove his own curtain rods from the Paine garage.
The Commission acted like the only curtain rods that were in the garage were Ruth Paine's. And although she testified that hers were the only rods in the garage, she also testified that she didn't know there was a rifle in her garage, thus making her credibility when it comes to what was and was not in her garage questionable at best.
The Commission also never explained why Oswald would "ask permission" of his landlady to bring curtain rods to his room before he knew for sure they were in the Paine garage.
(b) Oswald's landlady testified that his room on North Beckley Avenue had curtains and rods.
The Commission accepted without question the landlady's assurance that Oswald's room had curtain rods. Had it conducted the least investigation, it could easily have determined that the room did need curtain rods.
A photograph taken on the evening of November 22 by a photographer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram shows the curtain rods in Oswald's room pulled away from the wall.
The next morning, November 23, Black Star photographer Gene Daniels went to Oswald's rooming house and obtained a fascinating set of pictures. Daniels explained the circumstances:
"I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. I'm not sure of her name but I don't think she was the owner. We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put 'the curtains back up.' She said that newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room and she didn't want anyone to see it messed up. I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc."
It seems extremely doubtful that newsmen the night before would physically have torn the curtain rods from the wall in Oswald's room.
This is not something one could do with their bare hands. Don't believe me ? Try pulling the curtain rod brackets out of the window frame with your bare hands. Never happen. You need a hammer.
The Star-Telegram photo shows that the rods were broken and in need of replacement on November 22, and it's more likely that Mrs. Johnson was embarrassed by the condition of the room and blamed newsmen for its disarray.
(c) "No curtain rods were known to have been discovered in the Depository Building after the assassination" (R130).
The source cited for the assertion that no curtain rods were found in the Depository after the assassination is CE 2640. The Report neglects to mention that CE 2640 details an investigation conducted on September 21, 1964, ten months after the assassination, when only one person, Roy Truly, was questioned about curtain rods (25 H 899).
Truly was "certain" that no curtain rods had been found because "it would be customary for any discovery of curtain rods to immediately be called to his attention."
Customary? You mean the TSBD had rules on the discovery of curtain rods?
Aside from this ludicrous implication that the Depository had rules governing the discovery of curtain rods, this "inquiry" was too limited and too late to be of any significance.
Apparently, the Commission's request for this inquiry calculated its worthlessness. Rankin made this request of Hoover in a letter dated August 31, 1964. The letter leaves little doubt that the result of the inquiry was preconceived to be against Oswald.
Rankin ordered the FBI to interview TSBD Suprintendent Roy Truly in order to, "establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository building following the assassination."
This phraseology seems to instruct Hoover NOT to conduct an objective investigation; otherwise, the letter would have read "in order to establish WHETHER (or "if") any curtain rods were found."
This was not to be an interview to inquire or ascertain, but rather to inform. This was to make sure that Roy Truly understood that no curtain rods were ever found in the Texas School Book Depository.
But conflicts in the document evidence cast a reasonable doubt on whether this was so.
Conflicts In The Evidence
One of the many conflicts in evidence in the case against Oswald has to do with the receipt by the Dallas Police of curtain rods from the Paine garage. Credit researcher Alan Ford for bringing this issue to the forefront.
Commission Exhibit 1952 is the Crime Scene Search (CSS) form used to record the receipt, result and release of the evidence. It indicates that the Dallas Police received a set of curtain rods from Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett on 3/15/64.
The problem with the 3/15 date is that the Paine curtain rods were not even heard of until Michael Paine mentioned them in his Commission testimony of 3/17 (9 H 447) and were not discovered in the garage until Ruth Paine's deposition at her home on 3/23. (9 H 424, below)
A second problem is that the Commission Exhibit numbers given to the Paine rods, 275 and 276 are on CE 1952 (dated 3/15), but were not designated until the discovery of the rods in the Paine garage on 3/23.
So you might ask, "what's going on here"?
How can the police be receiving curtain rods on 3/15 and citing their Commission Exhibit numbers eight days before they were found and their Exhibit numbers designated?
The answer is obvious: the Commission Exhibit numbers were added to the 3/15 form after 3/23. If the form was revised after 3/23 for the exhibit numbers, what other information was added to it?
What we have here is a corruption of the public record in order to hide the fact that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of curtain rods, one they received on 3/15 and a second set they received on 3/23.
And the evidence that these were two separate events lies in the record of when the curtain rods were released.
Evidence The DPD Dusted Two Sets Of Curtain Rods
The evidence indicates that two different sets of curtain rods were dusted for fingerprints by the Dallas Police and released on different dates.
The 3/15 First Set Of Curtain Rods
Lt. Day dusted these rods and I believe that he identified one or more prints that belonged to Oswald. Again, this is speculative and the only proof that day received curtain rods on 3/15 is the CSS form dated 3/15.
The 3/23 Second Set Of Curtain Rods
Lt. Day received a SECOND set of curtain rods, this one from the Paine residence via SS agent Howlett on 3/23. He knew he had a problem dusting for two sets of rods. One set had to vanish into eternity, but in order to do that, he had to have a release form to get it out of the building. So instead of making another original form, he made a copy the 3/15 form prior to the 3/24 release of the second set of rods.
Lt. Day dusted those SECOND set of curtain rods and released them back to Howlett on 3/24. But instead of using the copy he made, he used the original colorized form itself. These were the Paine rods and these are the ones in evidence. Of course, Oswald's prints were not on that set and that fact was added to the form.
What Happened To The First Set Of Rods?
If Oswald's prints were on that first set of rods, the rods would have been destroyed. I believe Lt. Day used the copy of the 3/15 form to release the first set to himself on 3/26 and destroyed them. That form became Commission Exhibit 1952.
You'll notice that those rods were released by Lt. Day and that no one signed for them.
That's because he didn't release them to anyone else.
More Evidence Of Two Separate Events
Not only were the discrepancies in the release dates evidence of two separate fingerprinting events, the signatures on the release part of the forms were not identical, meaning that the forms were filled out at different times.
As you can see, beside the different dates, the writing scripts and their positions on the form are not identical, indicating that the release part of the forms were signed at different times.
For example, none of the numbers or letter designation in the time "750a" are identical. The "C" in "JC Day" is not identical. And where Lt. Day starts his signature on the line is not identical.
Then there is the missing signature of Agent Howlett on the 3/26 release.
These would be evidence to a document examiner that neither of these documents were a copy of the other and that they were signed at different times.
So What Does It All Mean?
The evidence indicates that Lt. Day used the original paperwork from the first set of rods they received on 3/15 and applied it to the rods turned in on 3/23 from the Paine garage. He then made revisions to the form after he received the second set of rods on 3/23 as needed. He used that form to release the Paine curtain rods to Agent Howlett on 3/24/64.
But, before he released the Paine curtain rods, he made a copy of the original form after all the revisions were completed and used it to get the first set of curtain rods out of the building so they could be destroyed. He released those 3/15 rods to himself on 3/26/64.
That copy became Commission Exhibit 1952.
This is the reason why you have two seemingly identical documents with different release dates. Whe you look at the colorized version, you see that the only place Howlett signs is on the line where the person submitting the evidence signs. The rest of the from is filled in by Lt. Day in red.
They simply forgot to destroy the original paperwork that proved that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of rods, one set released by Lt. Day on 3/24 to Agent Howlett (left) and the other released on 3/26, apparently to himself. (right)
The copy would have allowed him to take the evidence out of the building on 3/26 without Howlett's signature on the pretense that he was returning it to the Secret Service office in Dallas, where he'd get a signature.
They also forgot to change the record of the Dallas Police ID bureau that they had received curtain rods on 3/15.
Those 3/15 rods were NOT the Paine curtain rods because any curtain rods turned into the Dallas Police ID Bureau on 3/15 or anytime before 3/23 were NOT the Paine curtain rods.
If I'm wrong, where is the CSS form from the Dallas Police ID Bureau indicating it received a pair of curtain rods from Agent Howlett on 3/23?
by Gil Jesus (2023)
The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald's excuse for his return to Irving Thursday was the lie that he intended to pick up curtain rods for "an apartment." (Report, pg. 15)
The Report attempted to destroy this excuse by noting that:
(a) Oswald spoke with neither his wife, nor his landlady, nor Mrs. Paine about curtain rods,
(b) Oswald's landlady testified that his room on North Beckley Avenue had curtains and rods, and
(c) "No curtain rods were known to have been discovered in the Depository Building after the assassination" (pg. 130).
Lets take these assertions one at a time.
(a) Oswald spoke with neither his wife, nor his landlady, nor Mrs. Paine about curtain rods.
All of the Oswald family's possessions had been brought back from New Orleans and were stored in the Paine garage. Although it is assumed that the family had curtains in their apartment in New Orleans and those curtains would have required curtain rods, the Commission never explained why Oswald would need permission from his wife or Ruth Paine to remove his own curtain rods from the Paine garage.
The Commission acted like the only curtain rods that were in the garage were Ruth Paine's. And although she testified that hers were the only rods in the garage, she also testified that she didn't know there was a rifle in her garage, thus making her credibility when it comes to what was and was not in her garage questionable at best.
The Commission also never explained why Oswald would "ask permission" of his landlady to bring curtain rods to his room before he knew for sure they were in the Paine garage.
(b) Oswald's landlady testified that his room on North Beckley Avenue had curtains and rods.
The Commission accepted without question the landlady's assurance that Oswald's room had curtain rods. Had it conducted the least investigation, it could easily have determined that the room did need curtain rods.
A photograph taken on the evening of November 22 by a photographer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram shows the curtain rods in Oswald's room pulled away from the wall.
The next morning, November 23, Black Star photographer Gene Daniels went to Oswald's rooming house and obtained a fascinating set of pictures. Daniels explained the circumstances:
"I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. I'm not sure of her name but I don't think she was the owner. We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put 'the curtains back up.' She said that newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room and she didn't want anyone to see it messed up. I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc."
It seems extremely doubtful that newsmen the night before would physically have torn the curtain rods from the wall in Oswald's room.
This is not something one could do with their bare hands. Don't believe me ? Try pulling the curtain rod brackets out of the window frame with your bare hands. Never happen. You need a hammer.
The Star-Telegram photo shows that the rods were broken and in need of replacement on November 22, and it's more likely that Mrs. Johnson was embarrassed by the condition of the room and blamed newsmen for its disarray.
(c) "No curtain rods were known to have been discovered in the Depository Building after the assassination" (R130).
The source cited for the assertion that no curtain rods were found in the Depository after the assassination is CE 2640. The Report neglects to mention that CE 2640 details an investigation conducted on September 21, 1964, ten months after the assassination, when only one person, Roy Truly, was questioned about curtain rods (25 H 899).
Truly was "certain" that no curtain rods had been found because "it would be customary for any discovery of curtain rods to immediately be called to his attention."
Customary? You mean the TSBD had rules on the discovery of curtain rods?
Aside from this ludicrous implication that the Depository had rules governing the discovery of curtain rods, this "inquiry" was too limited and too late to be of any significance.
Apparently, the Commission's request for this inquiry calculated its worthlessness. Rankin made this request of Hoover in a letter dated August 31, 1964. The letter leaves little doubt that the result of the inquiry was preconceived to be against Oswald.
Rankin ordered the FBI to interview TSBD Suprintendent Roy Truly in order to, "establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository building following the assassination."
This phraseology seems to instruct Hoover NOT to conduct an objective investigation; otherwise, the letter would have read "in order to establish WHETHER (or "if") any curtain rods were found."
This was not to be an interview to inquire or ascertain, but rather to inform. This was to make sure that Roy Truly understood that no curtain rods were ever found in the Texas School Book Depository.
But conflicts in the document evidence cast a reasonable doubt on whether this was so.
Conflicts In The Evidence
One of the many conflicts in evidence in the case against Oswald has to do with the receipt by the Dallas Police of curtain rods from the Paine garage. Credit researcher Alan Ford for bringing this issue to the forefront.
Commission Exhibit 1952 is the Crime Scene Search (CSS) form used to record the receipt, result and release of the evidence. It indicates that the Dallas Police received a set of curtain rods from Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett on 3/15/64.
The problem with the 3/15 date is that the Paine curtain rods were not even heard of until Michael Paine mentioned them in his Commission testimony of 3/17 (9 H 447) and were not discovered in the garage until Ruth Paine's deposition at her home on 3/23. (9 H 424, below)
A second problem is that the Commission Exhibit numbers given to the Paine rods, 275 and 276 are on CE 1952 (dated 3/15), but were not designated until the discovery of the rods in the Paine garage on 3/23.
How can the police be receiving curtain rods on 3/15 and citing their Commission Exhibit numbers eight days before they were found and their Exhibit numbers designated?
The answer is obvious: the Commission Exhibit numbers were added to the 3/15 form after 3/23. If the form was revised after 3/23 for the exhibit numbers, what other information was added to it?
What we have here is a corruption of the public record in order to hide the fact that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of curtain rods, one they received on 3/15 and a second set they received on 3/23.
And the evidence that these were two separate events lies in the record of when the curtain rods were released.
Evidence The DPD Dusted Two Sets Of Curtain Rods
The evidence indicates that two different sets of curtain rods were dusted for fingerprints by the Dallas Police and released on different dates.
The 3/15 First Set Of Curtain Rods
Lt. Day dusted these rods and I believe that he identified one or more prints that belonged to Oswald. Again, this is speculative and the only proof that day received curtain rods on 3/15 is the CSS form dated 3/15.
The 3/23 Second Set Of Curtain Rods
Lt. Day received a SECOND set of curtain rods, this one from the Paine residence via SS agent Howlett on 3/23. He knew he had a problem dusting for two sets of rods. One set had to vanish into eternity, but in order to do that, he had to have a release form to get it out of the building. So instead of making another original form, he made a copy the 3/15 form prior to the 3/24 release of the second set of rods.
Lt. Day dusted those SECOND set of curtain rods and released them back to Howlett on 3/24. But instead of using the copy he made, he used the original colorized form itself. These were the Paine rods and these are the ones in evidence. Of course, Oswald's prints were not on that set and that fact was added to the form.
What Happened To The First Set Of Rods?
If Oswald's prints were on that first set of rods, the rods would have been destroyed. I believe Lt. Day used the copy of the 3/15 form to release the first set to himself on 3/26 and destroyed them. That form became Commission Exhibit 1952.
You'll notice that those rods were released by Lt. Day and that no one signed for them.
That's because he didn't release them to anyone else.
More Evidence Of Two Separate Events
Not only were the discrepancies in the release dates evidence of two separate fingerprinting events, the signatures on the release part of the forms were not identical, meaning that the forms were filled out at different times.
As you can see, beside the different dates, the writing scripts and their positions on the form are not identical, indicating that the release part of the forms were signed at different times.
For example, none of the numbers or letter designation in the time "750a" are identical. The "C" in "JC Day" is not identical. And where Lt. Day starts his signature on the line is not identical.
Then there is the missing signature of Agent Howlett on the 3/26 release.
These would be evidence to a document examiner that neither of these documents were a copy of the other and that they were signed at different times.
So What Does It All Mean?
The evidence indicates that Lt. Day used the original paperwork from the first set of rods they received on 3/15 and applied it to the rods turned in on 3/23 from the Paine garage. He then made revisions to the form after he received the second set of rods on 3/23 as needed. He used that form to release the Paine curtain rods to Agent Howlett on 3/24/64.
But, before he released the Paine curtain rods, he made a copy of the original form after all the revisions were completed and used it to get the first set of curtain rods out of the building so they could be destroyed. He released those 3/15 rods to himself on 3/26/64.
That copy became Commission Exhibit 1952.
This is the reason why you have two seemingly identical documents with different release dates. Whe you look at the colorized version, you see that the only place Howlett signs is on the line where the person submitting the evidence signs. The rest of the from is filled in by Lt. Day in red.
They simply forgot to destroy the original paperwork that proved that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of rods, one set released by Lt. Day on 3/24 to Agent Howlett (left) and the other released on 3/26, apparently to himself. (right)
The copy would have allowed him to take the evidence out of the building on 3/26 without Howlett's signature on the pretense that he was returning it to the Secret Service office in Dallas, where he'd get a signature.
They also forgot to change the record of the Dallas Police ID bureau that they had received curtain rods on 3/15.
Those 3/15 rods were NOT the Paine curtain rods because any curtain rods turned into the Dallas Police ID Bureau on 3/15 or anytime before 3/23 were NOT the Paine curtain rods.
If I'm wrong, where is the CSS form from the Dallas Police ID Bureau indicating it received a pair of curtain rods from Agent Howlett on 3/23?