Unless you are going to nominate a location for Oswald's Carcano rifle: You're a contrarian.
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
-- Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol).
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans.
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).
-- Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.
Not enough for ya [sic] Sherlock Weidmann?
I assume you are expecting someone to verify where Oswald's Carcano rifle was regularly... perhaps ever day from late March 1963 to the evening of 21 November 1963? The date, location written down in a diary with a detailed description of the gun; serial number etc. This is unrealistic and would never be required in a criminal trial.
Nobody can prove it.... ha, ha!
If you're child, wife, brother, sister, father or mother was murdered and the police arrested some person who was the last to be seen with him or her: You'd be enraged if the cops didn't arrest the suspect.
Or would you say: "No, no, no Captain let the guy go. Unless you have photographic evidence and seven witnesses, that man is inoooooocent".
Well?
Oh, if you were asked to participate in a television documentary about the JFK assassination (on camera) would you speak the sort of nonsense you write here?
Unless you are going to nominate a location for Oswald's Carcano rifle: You're a contrarian.Because I don't agree with the crap you're trying to sell us? Works for me.... I'll gladly be contrarian, as to me it is only confirmation of the fact that I am asking you questions that you can not answer and confront you with factual information you don't want to deal with....
When compiling physical evidence: Often a conclusion is made based on a series of previous events and/or statements by relatives, friends, acquaintances, neighbors or co-workers. That would be
circumstantial evidence at best and not physical evidence! Get your facts straight, Clouseau!
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle at Neely Street Dallas.
-- Marina Oswald testified that she took the backyard photos of Lee Oswald with a rifle (and pistol). So what? That was in late March/early April and what she did not testify was that Oswald actually owned the rifle she photographed him with!
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans. Really, did she? And again, did she testify it was a Carcano rifle?
-- Marina Oswald testified that Lee Oswald had a rifle stored in a blanket in the Paine's garage.Actually, no she didn't. She said she had looked in the blanket once, in late September 1963, and she saw what she described as the wooden stock of a rifle. The WC lawyers subsequently got her to say it was a rifle.
-- Marina Oswald nearly fainted when the Police Officer held the blanket and it hung limp over his arm. No rifle in the blanket (afternoon of 22 November1963).Insignificant BS... Even if true, it proves nothing.
-- Marina Oswald spoke about "the fateful rifle" of Lee Oswald.And that's what you call evidence?
Not enough for ya [sic] Sherlock Weidmann? No, not nearly enough or convincing, but it might fool a simpleton ...
I assume you are expecting someone to verify where Oswald's Carcano rifle was regularly... perhaps ever day from late March 1963 to the evening of 21 November 1963? The date, location written down in a diary with a detailed description of the gun; serial number etc. This is unrealistic and would never be required in a criminal trial.You can assume all you want. It doesn't mean you are right. You don't have to show me any of that. Just show me one piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that there (still) was a rifle in the blanket on 11/21/63, that it was the Carcano rifle later found at the TSBD and that it belonged to Oswald. Can you do that, genius?
Nobody can prove it.... ha, ha!Indeed... nobody can prove there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 and that it belonged to Oswald and you haven't done so either....
To support your conjecture and speculations, you rely only on Marina's testimony, but a good cross examination by a defense lawyer would have destroyed her within minutes. Marina was in survival mode. She did not start to cooperate until after Oswald was dead and Hoover had promised her she could stay in the country. Her entire testimony is tainted and worthless.
If you're child, wife, brother, sister, father or mother was murdered and the police arrested some person who was the last to be seen with him or her: You'd be enraged if the cops didn't arrest the suspect.
Or would you say: "No, no, no Captain let the guy go. Unless you have photographic evidence and seven witnesses, that man is inoooooocent".
Well?
Actually, my younger brother was murdered some years ago and I let the police do their job, which they did.
Oh, if you were asked to participate in a television documentary about the JFK assassination (on camera) would you speak the sort of nonsense you write here?
The mere fact that you consider it to be nonsense doesn't mean it is. It only means that you are not willing to consider contrary points of view.
And yes, I would ask the same critical questions which the WC and you and your ilk simply can not answer.
Your annoying habit of believing that you are right unless somebody else can prove you wrong (which will never happen because of your unwillingness to accept anything that does not compute with your belief) doesn't make you right. It makes you a fool.
Now, do you have any real evidence that the MC Carcano found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald and that he still owned it on 11/21/63? Well....?
