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

[Martin Weidmann]

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.  Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.  A time machine is not necessary.

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?

The only object that could be attached to a wooden stock of a rifle is a rifle, but that does not mean that every wooden stock automatically has a rifle attached to it. Your claim that when you look at a wooden stock you are looking at a rifle is indeed nothing more than an assumption. It's not an unreasonable assumption but it is an assumption nevertheless.

The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.

John Mytton recently posted the interview with Questioned Documents expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who admitted to Gerry Spence that photocopies of documents need to be treated with caution because they could have been manipulated. In other words, when a FBI expert examines photocopies of documents there is always a possibility of it being a fake. With this in mind no expert can conclude with 100% certainty that the Kleins' copies are indeed authentic.

There are no prints that place "a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald"!

And the BY photos only show a man holding a rifle and a revolver on the day the photos were taken. It does not proves in any way, shape or form ownership of those weapons.

And there is no testimony "from a variety of different sources" that places a rifle in the possession of Oswald, after March 1963. All there is, is the testimony of Marina Oswald and that is so dubious it can not be relied upon.

Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.

A lot of stuff is being used as "evidence" in "every trial", but not all of it is authenticated or persuasive. Oswald's wedding ring being found in a cup is "evidence", but it doesn't prove a damned thing.

[John Iacoletti]

Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the rifle for god's sake.  Those pictures exist. Anyone can see the RIFLE in Oswald's own hands with their own eyes. 

a) that was 8-9 months earlier

b) you can’t uniquely identify that rifle

[John Iacoletti]

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.

LOL. Name a single thing that places “a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald”.

Here on planet Earth that’s called an unsubstantiated claim.

[Richard Smith]

The serial number on the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box is the same as the rifle found in TSBD.   Oswald's prints were found on that rifle.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle. There is no accounting for the rifle in Oswald's possession except as the rifle found in his place of employment.  On planet Earth, that is considered evidence.  It is of type used in any criminal investigation.  It is hard to imagine how there could be much more evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle.  A time machine is only necessary if you are someone who takes a defense attorney approach that nothing can ever be proven.

[John Iacoletti]

The serial number on the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box is the same as the rifle found in TSBD.   

There’s no evidence that any rifle went through the postal service, was delivered to Dallas, or was picked up by Oswald or anybody else.

Oswald's prints were found on that rifle. 

No, there were some prints near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.

No, there are photos of Oswald holding a rifle that cannot be uniquely identified to the exclusion of all other rifles.

There is no accounting for the rifle in Oswald's possession except as the rifle found in his place of employment.

The burden is on you to prove that it’s the same rifle, not on anybody else to prove that it isn’t.

On planet Earth, that is considered evidence.

On planet Earth, that’s called misrepresenting evidence.

It is of type used in any criminal investigation.  It is hard to imagine how there could be much more evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle. 

Why, you have no problem imagining all sorts of things. Imagine having any conclusive evidence of any of the above claims. For example, evidence that was actually properly collected, documented, stored, and secured.

[Richard Smith]

In the contrarian world, nothing can ever be proven no matter the evidence while anything can be implied no matter the lack of evidence.  Here they tell us that they are taking no position except that the evidence linking Oswald to the TSBD rifle is lacking.  But in supporting this position, they claim the evidence has been manipulated or falsified.  His prints are apparently not on rifle despite the DPD saying so etc.  Of course, there is zero evidence to support any fabrication of this evidence which comes from a variety of different sources in different timeframes.  To even suggest that the evidence is fabricated is then taking a position that were was a conspiracy.  Nevertheless, the contrarians refuse to even acknowledge they are CTers while making outrageous conspiracy claims to support their "non-position" on the case.  It is humorous.  A defense attorney approach to the case but without a client.  That is the only way to avoid accepting that obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence that Oswald committed this crime.

[Richard Smith]

I don't respond to Dishonest John but this one is a real keeper and provides insight into the "mind" of the contrarian:  "There’s no evidence that any rifle went through the postal service."  What does this even mean in that context?  That some postal worker would remember one of thousands of packages over a period of many months?  They didn't keep such records in 1963.  Does that mean it is impossible to prove Oswald ordered and received the rifle as stupidly suggested?  Of course not.  We know from the Klein's records that someone using an alias associated with OSWALD ordered a rifle, that rifle would have been sent to the address noted on the order, that address was OSWALD"S PO Box, that rifle had the same serial number as the one found at OSWALD"s place of employment, Marina confirms that OSWALD obtained a rifle in this same timeframe, there is a picture of OSWALD holding the rifle, experts have indicated that rifle is the same rifle found on the 6th floor, the DPD indicates that they found OSWALD'S prints on TSBD rifle (with the same serial number as the one sent to OSWALD'S PO Box), and there is not a scintilla of evidence after six decades to suggest that Oswald possessed any rifle other than the one found on the 6th floor.  None.  There is no accounting for the rifle which Klein's sent to Oswald's PO Box in any other way except sending it to Oswald.  What exactly does the contrarian think Klein's did when they received an order requesting delivery at a specific address?  They would send the purchased item to that address. That address is OSWALD'S PO Box.  But we don't have "evidence that any rifle went through the postal service"!  HA HA HA.  So nothing to see here unless someone invents a time machine to confirm it was put in the mail.  Wow.