In her WC testimony, Marina Oswald confirmed that her husband owned a rifle. There is no doubt about her testimony on that point even from a contrarian. The DPD indicate that they asked Oswald about his ownership of a rifle and he denied owning any rifle in the US. That is a fact unless you are suggesting that the DPD fabricated Oswald's DENIAL of ownership of the rifle. And think how idiotic it would be for the DPD to lie about this of all things. If the DPD were going to lie about what Oswald said to frame him, they would have said that he admitted owning the murder weapon not that he denied it. HA HA HA. You are unreal. Aren't you embarrassed by this stupidity? We are supposed to believe that Oswald admitted owning the rifle and the DPD for some inexplicable reason while trying to frame him for a crime using a rifle lied and said that he denied owing a rifle. Classic contrarian lunacy.
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual? How many sniper assassination attempts took place in Dallas that year? HA HA HA. And we are supposed to ignore the similarities between such unique crimes? Idiocy. Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose. Her testimony doesn't exist in a contrarian vacuum. She confirms that he owned a rifle. She took a picture of him holding that rifle. From that photograph and the associated documentation including a specific serial number, there is no doubt it is the same rifle left at the crime scene. Fired bullet casings from that rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Oswald lies about his ownership of a rifle. Why does he do this if it was not used in the assassination? Where is his rifle if different from the one found on the 6th floor? All of this is indicative of guilt in any criminal case in history. No amount of contrarian nonsense changes it. But again, are you saying that Marina was honest and did not lie about any of these matter or not? That was the point before you deflected us again down the rabbit hole.
In her WC testimony, Marina Oswald confirmed that her husband owned a rifle. She also testified that she saw that rifle for the first time at Neely street in February 1963. If we believe that too, it couldn't have been the MC rifle ordered by Hidell in March 1963, right? Even less so, as the strap mount on the wooden stock of the rifle in the BY photos is at a different location than on the MC rifle found at the TSBD!
The DPD indicate that they asked Oswald about his ownership of a rifle and he denied owning any rifle in the US. If he didn't own the rifle he was photographed with, he may well have been telling the truth. How in the world can you determine that he lied?
And you don't think having a MO in the conduct of crime is a signature that can link multiple crimes to a specific individual? How many sniper assassination attempts took place in Dallas that year? I have no idea, but why do you limit it to Dallas? Are you really saying that somebody with a similar MO in, for example, Fort Worth, wouldn't qualify?
But let's get real for a moment here. There is no conclusive evidence at all that Oswald ever took a shot at General Walker. There is in fact evidence that points to the bullet taken out of Walker's wall not being fired by the MC rifle. Not only is the description of the bullet taken for Walker's house different is at least seven different DPD reports but Walker himself also told the HSCA on multiple occassions that the bullet now in evidence as the "Walker bullet" isn't the one that was recovered from his house.
Btw isn't it remarkable that O.V. Wright also described a pointed bullet that is completely different than the one now in evidence as CE399? What do you think; is that just a coincidence?
And we are supposed to ignore the similarities between such unique crimes? Idiocy. What is unique about them?
Marina doesn't have to "confirm" that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon for her testimony to be used for that purpose. I understand that you don't like this, but of course Marina has to confirm that for her testimony about "a" rifle to be of any value and significance. Texas is full of people who own a rifle, so what, except more assumptions, makes Marina saying that Oswald owned a rifle enough to conclude that particular rifle was the murder weapon?
She confirms that he owned a rifle.No, she confirmed that she saw a rifle in Neely street in February 1963 and she saw the wooden stock of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in late September 1963. Everything was conjecture on her part.
She took a picture of him holding that rifle. From that photograph and the associated documentation including a specific serial number, there is no doubt it is the same rifle left at the crime scene. Really? So when was the strap holder on the wooden stock moved then? And when did a 36" rifle (allegedly ordered by Oswald) become a 40,2" rifle?
Fired bullet casings from that rifle are found by the window from which the shots were fired. Are these the shells Fritz picked up or are they the ones he threw back on the floor? When were those bullets fired, do you know, when we don't even know for sure if the MC rifle found at the TSBD was indeed fired that day?
Oswald lies about his ownership of a rifle. Again, you don't know that he lied.
But again, are you saying that Marina was honest and did not lie about any of these matter or not? You tell me;
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
