From - Mon Mar 27 21:00:38 2000 From: john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Subject: LaFontaines' Bogus "Curtain Rods" claim Approved: jmcadams@execpc.com Status: O X-Status: Return-Path: Message-ID: <38DD940F.46EB@mu.edu> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:37:35 -0600 Organization: Marquette University X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.219 Lines: 113 NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.143.0.8 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.143.0.8 X-Trace: 25 Mar 2000 23:00:36 -0600, 168.143.0.8 Path: mcadams.posc.mu.edu!jmcadams Xref: mcadams.posc.mu.edu alt.assassination.jfk:58708 In their Appendix B, the LaFontaines review the case against Oswald, and deal with a variety of issues. On many they claim to be publishing "new evidence" in the case. For example, the curtain rods: ------------------------------------------------- C. Oswald brought a long package to work with him on the morning of November 22, 1963. SIGNIFICANCE: The package, believed from its shape to have contained a hidden rifle, helped place the murder weapon in Oswald's hands on the day of the assassination and strongly suggested a premeditated crime. RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES: The Commission discounted Oswald's claim that the package contained "curtain rods." The only witnesses to the package, B.W. Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, testified that the package was shorter than what would have been the broken-down length of the alleged assassination weapon, and would not change their stories under great pressure to do so. NEW EVIDENCE: Newly released Dallas Police files on the assassination contain photographs of "curtain rods" dusted for fingerprints. No evidence could be found that the photos were ever turned over to the Warren Commission. Carl Day, lieutenant-in-charge of the DPD Crime Scene Search division in 1963, could not recall where the curtain rods had been found. He examined the photos of the dusted rods in October 1993, and although it didn't appear to him that the clearest fingerprint (an apparent right thumbprint) was Oswald's, he could not say conclusively that it was not when comparing it with a photo of Oswald's thumbprint. Since then, the curtain rod photos have been examined informally by three fingerprint experts in other cities with similarly inconclusive results. (Bill Adams later found a report signed by Carl Day stating that the prints are not Oswald's. The other question remains.) ------------------------------------------------- The LaFontaines clearly want their readers to believe that these *might* be curtain rods that Oswald brought into the Depository on November 22nd. If they are, a major part of the Warren Commission's case against Oswald collapses. Jean Davison deserves credit for questioning the LaFontaines treatment of this issue, and for running down important information. She contacted Cindy Smolovik, Dallas Municipal Archivist, and asked about these pictures of "curtain rods." What the Dallas Archives has is (1) two pictures of prints, KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE PAINE'S GARAGE, numbered 275 and 276. (2) A form from the DPD Identification Bureau showing that Howlett of the Secret Service submitted to Day two curtain rods, numbered 275 and 276, on March 15, 1964. Day's notation on this form is "1 legible print -- does not belong to Oswald." The form shows the rods were released back to Howlett on March 24th. Finally, (3) A form, dated 3-25-64, and numbered 256, with the notation "opposite those on other side and" [truncated]. The card shows fingerprints on a curtain rod. In short, what the Archives has is one set of prints on curtain rods from the Paine's garage, and another print or prints, not known to be from the Paine's garage, BUT NOT KNOWN TO BE FROM ANYWERE ELSE EITHER. Given the dates -- the unidentified fingerprints are dated the day after Day released the rods back to Howlett -- it seems likely that this is simply more paperwork on the rods found in the Paine's garage. The LaFontaines are certainly remiss in not even telling their readers about the curtain rods found in the garage. They are especially remiss in quoting Adams' document, as though it pertained to curtain rods that *might* have been brought to the Depository by Oswald, when in fact the rods could not have been brought in by Oswald. As bad is the LaFontaines statement that "No evidence could be found that the photos were ever turned over to the Warren Commission." The implication here is that this is evidence the Warren Commission never knew about, but in fact, the curtain rods were discussed at considerable length in the testimony of Michael Paine (9H447-450) and Ruth Paine and Agent John Howlett (9H424-425). The actual curtain rods were turned over to the Warren Commission. Had the LaFontaines been curious enough to look in the Warren Commission Exhibits, under "Paine Exhibits," they would have found a photo labelled "Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 & 276." There are the curtain rods that Ruth Paine turned over to Howlett on March 23, 1964. JENNER. Miss Reporter, the cream colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275 and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276. The curtain rods referred to were at this time marked by the reporter as Ruth Paine Exhibit Nos. 275 and 276 for identification. (9H424) This is extraordinarily shoddy use of evidence. Either the LaFontaines didn't know about the Warren Commission testimony about curtain rods found in the Paine's garage, or they intentionally misled their readers. .John -- Kennedy Assassination Home Page http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm --