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

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you realize how insane that is?  This is a document generated by Klein's as part of their routine business records.  Not just anybody.  Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?  He has knowledge of the records that they kept.  Those records confirmed that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is why he is testifying.  He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.  The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.  The documentary evidence is conclusive of the fact.

What is truly insane is that they didn't call the man who actually wrote the handwritten information on Waldman 7. That would have authenticated it and settled the matter. The WC were very much aware of the fact that evidence needs to be authenticated. When Arlen Specter introduced the bullet CE399 in evidence, during Dr. Humes' testimony, he said;

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

One can only wonder why they failed to call a man who could authenticate the evidence and called instead a VP who was not involved in gun sales, had no first hand knowledge and couldn't authenticate a damned thing.

Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?

Mr. BELIN. Let me just ask you this preliminary question: This is a photostatic copy of a document, is it not?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. And is the original copy, or was the original copy prepared by someone under your direction or supervision?
Mr. WALDMAN. The original was prepared under a system which I originated and this particular order was not prepared at my direction. It would be--the merchandise was ordered in a routine basis at a time in which it was needed, and----
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who the person is that filled out this order?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; his initials are so indicated as "M.W."
Mr. BELIN. Would that be the name at the lower lefthand corner of Exhibit 1?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. And that is who?
Mr. WALDMAN. Mitchell W. Westra.
Mr. BELIN. At that time was he an employee of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. He was.
Mr. BELIN. Was he under your jurisdiction and supervision?
Mr. WALDMAN. He was not under my direct supervision, no. He was under the supervision of Sam Kasper.
Mr. BELIN. And where is Sam Kasper now?
Mr. WALDMAN. He may or may not be here.
Mr. BELIN. I don't mean this afternoon. Is he with the company?
Mr. WALDMAN. He is the vice president of our company.
Mr. BELIN. He is the other vice president of the company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.

He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.

Nobody disputes that

The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.

I have no burden of proof and I don't need to make a claim. The law is clear; if somebody relies on a piece of evidence to support his argument, that person has the obligation to authenticate the evidence he wants to rely on. It is that simple!

The documentary evidence is conclusive of the fact.

The only fact that it is conclusive of is that Waldman told Belin what the handwritten notes on Waldman 7 mean. Everything else is your assumption.

Now, mr. know it all, tell me, why did they call Waldman to testify and not the man who could have authenticated the document beyond doubt?

[John Iacoletti]

You questioned the conclusion that Oswald didn't complain about not receiving his rifle.  That seems to imply that you believe there is a viability possibility that he did complain about it.

It’s also a viable possibility that Oswald didn’t complain because he never ordered a rifle from Klein’s.

[John Iacoletti]

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm
record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes, the date of shipment was March 20,1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle
around the letters “PP.”

Anybody can circle letters on a piece of paper. Where is the postal service record of shipment?

[John Iacoletti]

Do you realize how insane that is?  This is a document generated by Klein's as part of their routine business records.  Not just anybody.  Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?  He has knowledge of the records that they kept.  Those records confirmed that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is why he is testifying.

Conspicuous in its absence is any testimony from those who processed, filled, and shipped the orders and generated the actual paperwork. Maybe they didn’t want that much scrutiny of these photocopies. And they certainly didn’t want to talk to the guy who said he didn’t mount any scopes on 40” rifles.

[Richard Smith]

He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.

Nobody disputes that

The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.

I have no burden of proof and I don't need to make a claim. The law is clear; if somebody relies on a piece of evidence to support his argument, that person has the obligation to authenticate the evidence he wants to rely on. It is that simple!

Again, Klein's provided their business record that confirm that a specific rifle was ordered and sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is what the form clearly indicates.  You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle.  That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.  By implication you are suggesting this information was fabricated.  That is the only way to avoid accepting the conclusion that Oswald was sent a specific rifle since that is what the records indicate.  You have provided no evidence or even attempted to provide any evidence to support this baseless claim.  Instead you run away with the weak burden of proof nonsense.  This is not a criminal trial with burden of proof standards.  You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, Klein's provided their business record that confirm that a specific rifle was ordered and sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is what the form clearly indicates.  You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle.  That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.  By implication you are suggesting this information was fabricated.  That is the only way to avoid accepting the conclusion that Oswald was sent a specific rifle since that is what the records indicate.  You have provided no evidence or even attempted to provide any evidence to support this baseless claim.  Instead you run away with the weak burden of proof nonsense.  This is not a criminal trial with burden of proof standards.  You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation.

You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle. 

That's not a claim, it's a statement of fact and it is also 100% true. There is still doubt that Oswald was sent a rifle for one reason only; you have failed completely in showing that a rifle was indeed sent. Waldman's opinion about something that's written on a piece of paper isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.

Kleins' business records do not show a rifle was actually shipped. You can twist and turn this all you want, but Waldman 7 will never be evidence that a rifle was actually sent.

Instead you run away with the weak burden of proof nonsense. 

There is nothing weak about it. You claim a rifle was sent, the burden of proof is on you.

This is not a criminal trial with burden of proof standards.

Says the guy who has the burden of proof and can't meet it.... Hilarious.

Oh, and btw, why do you constantly keep asking me for evidence? Double standard, perhaps?

You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation.

And there he goes ad hom again... a clear sign of the weakness of his argument.

Just like with the "Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired" and "Oswald came down the stairs completely unnoticed", you have yet again failed to back up your claim (or is it your faith) with conclusive evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

“Burden of proof nonsense” tells you everything you need to know about how “Richard’s” mind operates.

Burden of proof isn’t just a trial thing. It applies to any argument or truth claim.

[John Mytton]

And they certainly didn’t want to talk to the guy who said he didn’t mount any scopes on 40” rifles.

Besides advertising the "40 inch Carcano with scope" in American Rifleman in 1963,



here's 2 Kleins ads advertising the "40 inch Carcano with scope" from Guns Magazine from the November 1963 and December 1963 issues.


https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G1163.pdf


https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G1263.pdf

JohnM