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

[John Iacoletti]

“Richard” thinks that repeating the same failed arguments without addressing (or even acknowledging) their shortcomings somehow makes them more convincing. Anybody can make a circle on a piece of paper. It confirms “nothing”.

[Martin Weidmann]

You can tell when the contrarian brothers are running scared.  LOL.  Martin went on and on about how Klein's would have kept a business record of the shipment of the rifle.  And they did!  Now he is on to the record not proving a rifle was sent.  Imagine that scenario.  Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.  His evidence for such?  None.  Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?  Of course not.  What does Martin believe happened here?  We have no idea because he lives in a contrarian fantasy world where no fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt can be acknowledged.  An order is received and processed as reflected in Klein's business records.  Oswald receives a rifle.  The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.  But that is not sufficient in the delusional contrarian world to prove that Oswald was sent the rifle.

When "Richard" can not present conclusive evidence to support his pathetic claims, he starts attacking the person he is talking to.

Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.

What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.

Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?

The order was for a 36" rifle, which Klein's no longer had in stock. There's your logical reason!

Oswald receives a rifle.

Really? From whom?

The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.

Really?

[John Mytton]

When "Richard" can not present conclusive evidence to support his pathetic claims, he starts attacking the person he is talking to.

Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.

What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.

Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?

The order was for a 36" rifle, which Klein's no longer had in stock. There's your logical reason!

Oswald receives a rifle.

Really? From whom?

The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.

Really?

What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle and Oswald possessing the rifle and the rifle with Oswald's prints being discovered at his work. What do you feel that whatever you're looking for would add to the preceding evidence?









JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle and Oswald possessing the rifle and the rifle with Oswald's prints being discovered at his work. What do you feel that whatever you're looking for would add to the preceding evidence?


JohnM

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

True, but it doesn't apply here.


Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle

What you can not do without making assumptions

Oswald possessing the rifle

Which you can not prove, beyond him being photographed with a rifle

the rifle with Oswald's prints being discovered at his work.

Which is not true. The FBI examined the rifle within 24 hours after the shooting and found no trace of any kind of print or even the residue that's normally left behind if a print had been lifted.

What do you feel that whatever you're looking for would add to the preceding evidence?

What "preceding evidence"?

[John Mytton]

Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle

What you can not do without making assumptions

What assumptions?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

What assumptions?

JohnM

That Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
That Klein's actually sent out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered
That Oswald received a rifle through the mail
That a photocopy of an internal Klein's document with a serial number and "PP" handwritten on it is authentic
That Westra, Klein's principal gunsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles

[John Mytton]

That Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
That Klein's actually sent out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered
That Oswald received a rifle through the mail
That a photocopy of an internal Klein's document with a serial number and "PP" handwritten on it is authentic
That Westra, Klein's principal gubsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles

That Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.

That's a possibility but how did the rifle the exact same rifle that Kliens sent end up at Oswald's work?

That Klein's actually sent out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered

Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.

That Oswald received a rifle through the mail

As explained to you before, not any old rifle but a specific 40 inch italian Carcano which the HSCA forensic expert determined was the exact same rifle as was found on the 6th floor. And the easily accessible visual evidence has not been disputed for over three decades.

That a photocopy of an internal Klein's document with a serial number and "PP" handwritten on it is authentic

Waldman took the print straight from the microfilm.

That Westra, Klein's principal gubsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles

Sharp who actually did the work confirmed that he mounted the scope.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a possibility but how did the rifle the exact same rifle that Kliens sent end up at Oswald's work?

Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.

As explained to you before, not any old rifle but a specific 40 inch italian Carcano which the HSCA forensic expert determined was the exact same rifle as was found on the 6th floor. And the easily accessible visual evidence has not been disputed for over three decades.

Waldman took the print straight from the microfilm.

Sharp who actually did the work confirmed that he mounted the scope.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

JohnM

That's a possibility but how did the rifle the exact same rifle that Kliens sent end up at Oswald's work?

Did it? First of all, there is no evidence that Klein's sent C2766 to anybody. The only link to the rifle found at the TSBD is the serial number handwritten on a photocopy of an unauthenticated internal document.

Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.

No. Hidell ordered C20-T750 from Department 358, which is a 36"rifle as advertised in February 1963

As explained to you before, not any old rifle but a specific 40 inch italian Carcano which the HSCA forensic expert determined was the exact same rifle as was found on the 6th floor. And the easily accessible visual evidence has not been disputed for over three decades.

First of all, where would anybody go to dispute that "easily accessible visual evidence"?
And secondly, Ceril Kirk's opinion was not shared by the other photographic specialists on the panel. Cherry pick much?

Waldman took the print straight from the microfilm.

During his testimony, you mean? Sure, but that was months after the FBI took the microfilm and who knows what happened to it after that.

Sharp who actually did the work confirmed that he mounted the scope.

Confirmed it to whom?