Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[Richard Smith]

We already know your head has been spinning for a decade or so.

No, what I said was that if rifles evidently have wooden stock there's no need to confirm the obvious.

Shotguns also have wooden stock so the detail she alleged to have seen does not confirm the presence of a rifle.

So Oswald owned a shotgun and kept it in the blanket?  That's your explanation.  LOL.  And your evidence of such is what?  For example, do you have pictures of him holding a shotgun?  Are his prints found on a shotgun?  Are there documents from some third party gun dealer that demonstrate that he ordered a shotgun and it was delivered to his PO Box?  This shotgun is not in the blanket on 11.22.  So what happened to it?  Keep spinning.

[Richard Smith]

Who told you Oswald owned a shotgun???

That would be silly, see above.

Not my claim so why would you even ask such a question?

See above.

See above.

See above.

"This" -- LOL

Have your head checked.

Let us summarize.  Despite Marina using the word "rifle" multiple times in her testimony including saying that she once looked in the blanket and "saw a rifle" in one single instance she refers to the object as having a "wooden stock."  Which, of course, Oswald's rifle has.  CTers seize upon this one description (while even dishonestly implying that Marina said only that she saw something made of wood) to suggest there is doubt as to the object that she saw in blanket.  When asked what else could have been in the blanket that had a "wooden stock" Otto suggested a shotgun.  When asked for evidence that Oswald ever owned any shotgun in this timeframe, Otto indicates that he never suggested that Oswald owned a shotgun.  Thus eliminating it as an object that could have been in the blanket and making his input entirely pointless as usual.  Taking us back to square one.  So again, what object with a "wooden stock" did Marina see in the blanket if it was not the rifle?  And what happened to this object since it is gone on 11.22 when Marina directs the police to the blanket when asked if her husband owned a rifle?  Questions for which there will be many words but no answers.

[Richard Smith]

Okay....



Well, there's no way of knowing what she actually saw if she even looked in the blanket.

There isn't?  LOL.

"I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle." Marina Oswald.

[Walt Cakebread]

Okay....

So there was no need to stress she saw part of the rifle if she actually saw a rifle.

So far no ownership has been established.

I also noticed it, which obviously is causing you a great deal of frustration.

Well, there's no way of knowing what she actually saw if she even looked in the blanket. She couldn't place it correctly in the garage.

Well, some have wooden stock...

Because I didn't.

How would you know Oswald owned the object in the blanket?

Your favorite spot, right?

How about the rifle without a scope?

I haven't got a clue and Marina didn't indicate she ever saw it again.

I've kept it real short to make it easier for you to comprehend 

So far no ownership has been established.

This a key statement.....   Who can prove that Lee Oswald "OWNED" a caracano???   It seems that he did have possession of a carcano in the spring of 1963..... But WHO owned that carcano??   

And simply because Marina said that she saw a weapon with a wooden stock in the blanket does not in anyway establish that the gun she saw was a carcano.....and it certainly doesn't establish ownership of that weapon.

[Richard Smith]

Uncorroborated testimony is inherently weak.

Brutal being left with only Marina to support your fantasy.

Oh, did you work out how Oswald's rifle without a scope vanished?

Marina is Oswald's own wife.  The best possible witness other than Oswald himself to confirm the contents of the blanket.  I can understand why you are conflating different issues.  The point under discussion here is whether Oswald owned a rifle and kept it the Paine's garage.  Marina's testimony, as corroborated by photos, prints, and third-party documents that pre-date the assassination confirms this beyond any doubt.  We also know from her testimony, as corroborated by the police search, that Oswald's rifle was no longer in the blanket on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD.  We also know that Oswald lied about his ownership of any rifle.  The most obvious explanation of a lie in that circumstance is to avoid implicating himself in the assassination.  If he had owned some other rifle not used in a crime and could account for it in a way that was exculpatory, then he would have every incentive to tell the truth and direct the police to that rifle.  So we know from Marina's testimony (as corroborated by other evidence) that:

1) Oswald owned a rifle;
2) it had a scope on it because that is the rifle shown in the photos that Marina took (even if Marina had no particular cause to remember the scope);
3) he kept the rifle in the Paine's garage in the months leading up to the assassination;
4) that rifle was not in the blanket just hours after the crime and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD: and
5) Oswald lied about the ownership of any rifle.

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.   The totality of facts and circumstances when taken together leaves no doubt that Oswald owned the rifle found in the TSBD.

[Walt Cakebread]

Marina is Oswald's own wife.  The best possible witness other than Oswald himself to confirm the contents of the blanket.  I can understand why you are conflating different issues.  The point under discussion here is whether Oswald owned a rifle and kept it the Paine's garage.  Marina's testimony, as corroborated by photos, prints, and third-party documents that pre-date the assassination confirms this beyond any doubt.  We also know from her testimony, as corroborated by the police search, that Oswald's rifle was no longer in the blanket on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD.  We also know that Oswald lied about his ownership of any rifle.  The most obvious explanation of a lie in that circumstance is to avoid implicating himself in the assassination.  If he had owned some other rifle not used in a crime and could account for it in a way that was exculpatory, then he would have every incentive to tell the truth and direct the police to that rifle.  So we know from Marina's testimony (as corroborated by other evidence) that:

1) Oswald owned a rifle;
2) it had a scope on it because that is the rifle shown in the photos that Marina took (even if Marina had no particular cause to remember the scope);
3) he kept the rifle in the Paine's garage in the months leading up to the assassination;
4) that rifle was not in the blanket just hours after the crime and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found in the TSBD: and
5) Oswald lied about the ownership of any rifle.

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.   The totality of facts and circumstances when taken together leaves no doubt that Oswald owned the rifle found in the TSBD.

Does all that necessarily prove it was THE rifle standing alone?  Perhaps not definitively, but of course there is other evidence to link Oswald to the rifle found in the TSBD including a serial number and print.

How does the rifle's serial number prove that Lee owned the rifle?    And since the authorities lied about finding Lee's palm print  on the carcano, one is compelled to question their need to lie about finding Lee's palm print on the 5/8 inch diameter barrel.

It is a physical impossibility for an adult male to deposit an identifiable palm print on a cylinder ( Carcano barrel) that is only 5/8 of in inch in diameter, when that barrel is partially covered by a bayonet lug.

[John Iacoletti]

No matter how many times “Richard’s” BS is refuted, he ignores it and just parrots the same mantra over again. This is why “Richard” is useless.

Marina’s day one affidavit says “I told them Lee used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia”. Shotguns were legal to own in the Soviet Union but not rifles. Marina also told the Warren commission that she didn’t know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. So no, her thinking the portion of the wooden stock that she actually saw was a rifle does not “confirm” that there was a rifle in the garage that belonged to Lee. Much less C2766. “Can’t be accounted for in any other way” is BS rhetoric and proves nothing. It’s yet another shifting the burden fallacy that “Richard” is so fond of.