CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[Martin Weidmann]

Testimony Of Michael R. Paine
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

[EXCERPTS]

Mr. PAINE - The first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment. I said to myself they don't make camping equipment of iron pipes any more.
Mr. LIEBELER - Why did you say that to yourself when you picked up the package?
Mr. PAINE - I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.
Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?
Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.
Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?
Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - The witness yesterday did draw a picture of what he visualized as being in the blanket, and I will offer it in evidence later on in the hearing.
How long was this package in your estimation?
Mr. PAINE - Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I indicated with my hand, I think it came to 37 inches.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how thick would you say it was?
Mr. PAINE - I picked it up each time and I put it in a position and then I would recover it from that position, so each time I moved it with the same position with my hands in the same position. My right hand, the thumb and forefinger could go around the pipe, and my left hand grabbed something which was an inch and a half inside the blanket or something thick.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me.
Mr. LIEBELER - You never at any time looked inside the package?
Mr. PAINE - That is correct. I could easily have felt the package but I was aware that of respecting his privacy of his possessions.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you subsequently advised of the probability or the possibility that there had been a rifle wrapped in that package?
Mr. PAINE - When I arrived on Friday afternoon we went into the garage, I think Ruth, Marina and the policeman, and I am not sure it was the first time, but there we saw this blanket was on the floor below the bandsaw--
Mr. PAINE - And a rifle was mentioned and then it rang a bell, the rifle answered, fitted the package that I had been trying to fit these unsuccessfully. It had never resolved itself, this shovel and pipe didn't fit in there.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it seemed to you likely that there had in fact been a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That answered it.

You still haven't understood that supposition is not the same as evidence?

[Bill Chapman]

You still haven't understood that supposition is not the same as evidence?

So your claim that Paine thought the blanket contained camping equipment falls under the 'supposition' category? If so, why did you bring up Paine's 'supposition' in the first place, and furthermore, why did you ignore the statement that Paine was immediately doubtful about his first impression as to the blanket's contents?

[Richard Smith]

Great, now make the leap of faith that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD.... Go on then...

Progress.  So Marina confirms multiple times in her testimony that Oswald owned a rifle.  There is no ambiguity about this point as dishonestly suggested by the claim that she only saw something made of wood.  At a minimum, that means Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.  The implication of that should be obvious.  Once you agree that Oswald owned a rifle per Marina's testimony and that of Mrs. DeM the issue becomes was it the THE rifle.  There are two possibilities- it was or was not.  We know the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD matches that of the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box.  Oswald's prints are on that rifle.  It is found at his place of employment.  It can't be linked by one iota of evidence to any other person in that building or the world.  Oswald carried a long package to work that morning that can't otherwise be accounted for except as containing the rifle.  In fifty plus years and counting there is not one iota of evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle during the relevant time period.  And by implication, if he had then it should have been found in the blanket on 11.22 where Marian confirms he kept "it" (the rifle).  It's almost impossible to conceive how there could be any more evidence that the rifle found in the TSBD was the same one ordered and possessed by Oswald.  He is even pictured holding it.  It is a slam dunk.  Zero doubt.

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen, the kids were playing with it, Oswald took it another time or whatever but who are you trying to convince, yourself?

And you can convince yourself that there was ever a rifle in it, and also that the rifle you think was in it was actually still there on the evening of November 21, and that Lee Oswald was ever even in the garage that night, because there's no evidence for any of it.

[John Iacoletti]

>>> She was knowledgeable enough to testify that the rifle/shotgun Oswald had in Russia he also sold in Russia. Which pretty much eliminates it as being in the blanket.

So now you're all of a sudden interested in using her testimony to clarify what her affidavit said.  You know, the testimony where she said she saw the "wooden stock" about a week after coming back from New Orleans?  And yet you're still clinging to the "two weeks ago" thing, as if it somehow matters.

So, is your argument that she was so unfamilar with rifles that it must have been a rifle that she saw?
>>> Where do you get that impression?

Given our agreement about her unfamiliarity of firearms, why are you so convinced that what she saw the end of in a tied up, rolled up blanket a week after coming back from New Orleans was actually a rifle?

[John Iacoletti]

Progress.  So Marina confirms multiple times in her testimony that Oswald owned a rifle.  There is no ambiguity about this point as dishonestly suggested by the claim that she only saw something made of wood.

Wrong.  Just because she knew he had a rifle in New Orleans and at Neely doesn't mean that the thing she saw in the tied up blanket was that rifle, or indeed any rifle.

At a minimum, that means Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.

Wrong.  Just because he had a rifle in New Orleans or at Neely doesn't mean that he owned a rifle on November 22nd when he (allegedly) said he didn't own a rifle.

  The implication of that should be obvious.  Once you agree that Oswald owned a rifle per Marina's testimony and that of Mrs. DeM the issue becomes was it the THE rifle.  There are two possibilities- it was or was not.  We know the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD matches that of the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box.

We don't know that Klein's sent anything to Oswald's PO box.

  Oswald's prints are on that rifle.

You still have yet to demonstrate that this is true.

  It is found at his place of employment.

Still not relevant.

  It can't be linked by one iota of evidence to any other person in that building or the world.

Or to Oswald personally.

  Oswald carried a long package to work that morning that can't otherwise be accounted for except as containing the rifle.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the package Oswald carried that morning did, or even could contain that rifle.

  In fifty plus years and counting there is not one iota of evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle during the relevant time period.

or that particular rifle either.

  And by implication, if he had then it should have been found in the blanket on 11.22 where Marian confirms he kept "it" (the rifle).

Why, because she thought a rifle was in the blanket six weeks earlier?

  It's almost impossible to conceive how there could be any more evidence that the rifle found in the TSBD was the same one ordered and possessed by Oswald.  He is even pictured holding it.

You have not demonstrated that "he is even pictured holding it".  That's a baseless supposition.

  It is a slam dunk.  Zero doubt.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  "In my opinion, it was Oswald's rifle".

[John Iacoletti]

So your claim that Paine thought the blanket contained camping equipment falls under the 'supposition' category? If so, why did you bring up Paine's 'supposition' in the first place, and furthermore, why did you ignore the statement that Paine was immediately doubtful about his first impression as to the blanket's contents?

Maybe for the same reason you brought up Marina's supposition that it was a rifle.

[Richard Smith]

Whew.  Brutal dishonesty.  As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period.  There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle.  Oswald denied owning any rifle.  That means he lied.  There is no ambiguity about that.  Next issue.  Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket.  Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket.  Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle.  If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there.  Why would she do that unless she knew a rifle was kept in the blanket?  It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object.   In the one instance that our dishonest contrarians grasp at straws to desperately suggest that she merely saw some object made of wood (like a rifle) they take her comment out of context and without reference to the question being asked or her previous confirmation that the object in the blanket was a rifle. 

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?  (Here Marina is asked about "the rifle" 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.  (So Marina clarifies that although she was not "checking" for a rifle when she looked in the blanket the object she saw "was a rifle."  A "rifle" for F's sake!  Inexplicable how anyone can argue that there is ambiguity about her seeing "the rifle" when she confirms that she "saw that it was a rifle."  How much clearer could it be?


 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? (Again Marina is specifically being asked about "the rifle")
 Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.  (Marina responds "yes" to the question about finding the rifle in the blanket.  In context Marina is not suggesting that she saw some unknown object made of "wood"  she is confirming that she saw the "wooden part of it."  "It" can only mean a rifle since that is subject of the question.  If there was any doubt she goes on to say "the wooden stock."  Of course the rifle has a "wooden stock." 

To suggest there is any reasonable ambiguity about whether she is confirming the presence of a rifle in the blanket here or just some unknown object made of wood is mere kookery when you read the totality of her testimony.  She confirms multiple times that 1) Oswald owned a rifle; 2) he kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage; 3) she expected the DPD to find it there on 11.22 because that is where she had seen it with her own eyes.