Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?

[Richard Smith]

Talk about being all over the place;

Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

So, first she knew that was a rifle wrapped in a blanket....

There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

But then, she didn't because she wanted to find out what was in the blanket...

Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

And then she found that the rifle was in the blanket because she saw the wooden part of it...

What are you babbling about here?  On Nov. 22 Marina clearly and without ambiguity confirmed that there was a rifle in the blanket.  Because in one single instance in her testimony she refers to the "wooden stock" in response to a question about the RIFLE, you go down this endless rabbit hole.  A RIFLE has a wooden stock.  If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE.  In dozens of other instances in her testimony, she makes clear reference to the "RIFLE."  THE RIFLE!  She took pictures of Oswald holding it.  You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.   Unreal.  What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?  LOL.

[Dan O'meara]

No, there were some fibres similar to the blanket's found in the paper bag recovered from the TSBD.
You know, the bag that was carried out of the TSBD upside down....

 

Is there a single piece of evidence in this case that answers more questions than it raises?

[Martin Weidmann]

What are you babbling about here?  On Nov. 22 Marina clearly and without ambiguity confirmed that there was a rifle in the blanket.  Because in one single instance in her testimony she refers to the "wooden stock" in response to a question about the RIFLE, you go down this endless rabbit hole.  A RIFLE has a wooden stock.  If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE.  In dozens of other instances in her testimony, she makes clear reference to the "RIFLE."  THE RIFLE!  She took pictures of Oswald holding it.  You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.   Unreal.  What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?  LOL.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

By the time Marina Oswald testified before the WC she had been in protective custody for several months being subjected to a large number of interviews by the all sorts of law enforcement agencies to whom she lied on multiple occassions. She was alone with two young children and was told by a specially flown in immigration officer that she would not be deported if she "cooporated" with the investigators. Her husband was dead and she was being told over and over again that he was the lone gunman. That alone would make any widow, placed in her position, very angry. And with all this going on, she gets an offer for a substantial amount of money (back then) to buy the rights she had to Lee's rifle and revolver. So, why would she have to stay loyal to her dead husband when she can also get herself out of the mess by "cooperating" with the investigators and perhaps make some money on the side?

The bottom line is that nothing Marina said should be taken at face value as there is no way of knowing what is and isn't true.

If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE. 

Really?

She took pictures of Oswald holding it.

Holding what?

You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.

What rifle would that be?

What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?

I'm not claiming any of it, because I simply do not know and the evidence is not conclusive enough to make a determination. Not that that will stop you from making one assumpution to another leap of faith.

[Martin Weidmann]

Is there a single piece of evidence in this case that answers more questions than it raises?

And yet, LNs will insist this is a simple open and shut murder case. Go figure!

[Richard Smith]

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE. 

Really?

She took pictures of Oswald holding it.

Holding what?

You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.

What rifle would that be?

What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?

I'm not claiming any of it, because I simply do not know and the evidence is not conclusive enough to make a determination. Not that that will stop you from making one assumpution to another leap of faith.

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.  Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.  A time machine is not necessary.   

[Martin Weidmann]

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.  Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.  A time machine is not necessary.

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?

The only object that could be attached to a wooden stock of a rifle is a rifle, but that does not mean that every wooden stock automatically has a rifle attached to it. Your claim that when you look at a wooden stock you are looking at a rifle is indeed nothing more than an assumption. It's not an unreasonable assumption but it is an assumption nevertheless.

The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.

John Mytton recently posted the interview with Questioned Documents expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who admitted to Gerry Spence that photocopies of documents need to be treated with caution because they could have been manipulated. In other words, when a FBI expert examines photocopies of documents there is always a possibility of it being a fake. With this in mind no expert can conclude with 100% certainty that the Kleins' copies are indeed authentic.

There are no prints that place "a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald"!

And the BY photos only show a man holding a rifle and a revolver on the day the photos were taken. It does not proves in any way, shape or form ownership of those weapons.

And there is no testimony "from a variety of different sources" that places a rifle in the possession of Oswald, after March 1963. All there is, is the testimony of Marina Oswald and that is so dubious it can not be relied upon.

Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.

A lot of stuff is being used as "evidence" in "every trial", but not all of it is authenticated or persuasive. Oswald's wedding ring being found in a cup is "evidence", but it doesn't prove a damned thing.

[John Iacoletti]

Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the rifle for god's sake.  Those pictures exist. Anyone can see the RIFLE in Oswald's own hands with their own eyes. 

a) that was 8-9 months earlier

b) you can’t uniquely identify that rifle

[John Iacoletti]

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.

LOL. Name a single thing that places “a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald”.

Here on planet Earth that’s called an unsubstantiated claim.