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

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

They didn't keep such records in 1963.

Really? If that's true, why is there a shipping document for the revolver?

Are you seriously suggesting that a mail order company would send merchandise to clients all over the country without some sort of proof of shipment?

[Richard Smith]

They didn't keep such records in 1963.

Really? If that's true, why is there a shipping document for the revolver?

Are you seriously suggesting that a mail order company would send merchandise to clients all over the country without some sort of proof of shipment?

They received an order with a name and address.  They send the item to that name and address.  Marina confirms that Oswald obtained a rifle in that same timeframe.  The rifle found in the TSBD has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent to Oswald.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "proof of shipment".  There was no requirement in 1963 that I'm aware of that would require any such record.  Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?  If not, you are just suggesting that they should have complied with some imaginary best business practice that you have conjured up nearly six decades after the event.

[Richard Smith]

They didn't keep such records in 1963.

Really? If that's true, why is there a shipping document for the revolver?

Are you seriously suggesting that a mail order company would send merchandise to clients all over the country without some sort of proof of shipment?

As I recall, there were different legal rules for shipping handguns.  Different companies also have different business policies.  You have shown us nothing to support the conclusion that Klein's must have had additional evidence of the transaction.  For example, is there is any evidence that Klein's handled any other rifle order differently from this one?

[Martin Weidmann]

They received an order with a name and address.  They send the item to that name and address.  Marina confirms that Oswald obtained a rifle in that same timeframe.  The rifle found in the TSBD has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent to Oswald.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "proof of shipment".  There was no requirement in 1963 that I'm aware of that would require any such record.  Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?  If not, you are just suggesting that they should have complied with some imaginary best business practice that you have conjured up nearly six decades after the event.

Thank you for not answering my question.

Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?

Required by whom? They would be utter fools and very quickly out of business if they didn't keep some sort of postal receipt to show that a particular item was send to a particular client or address. Just imagine the free for all as a result of a lack of such proof of shipment; anybody could order something, receive it and then claim their money back by pretending they never received it.

[Richard Smith]

Thank you for not answering my question.

Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?

Required by whom? They would be utter fools and very quickly out of business if they didn't keep some sort of postal receipt to show that a particular item was send to a particular client or address. Just imagine the free for all as a result of a lack of such proof of shipment; anybody could order something, receive it and then claim their money back by pretending they never received it.

Required by the law in 1963.  That's how things are "required."  LOL.  Your personal opinion of the wisdom of their business practices is amusing but not evidence that they failed to abide by any requirement or treated Oswald's situation differently from any other order.  You are claiming that some proof of shipping is missing here but haven't demonstrated what that would be.  If they were not required to do so and they didn't do so in other cases, no such thing would ever have existed.  You are the one suggesting it did and we should have it to demonstrate that Oswald was sent the rifle.  But that is a false premise.

[Martin Weidmann]

Required by the law in 1963.  That's how things are "required."  LOL.  Your personal opinion of the wisdom of their business practices is amusing but not evidence that they failed to abide by any requirement or treated Oswald's situation differently from any other order.  You are claiming that some proof of shipping is missing here but haven't demonstrated what that would be.  If they were not required to do so and they didn't do so in other cases, no such thing would ever have existed.  You are the one suggesting it did and we should have it to demonstrate that Oswald was sent the rifle.  But that is a false premise.

Nope, I am suggesting that if no such proof of shipping existed, they took for granted that they couldn't prove that an item had indeed been sent. Which of course is exactly what we have here in this case. Thanks for agreeing with me. 

[Richard Smith]

Nope, I am suggesting that if no such proof of shipping existed, they took for granted that they couldn't prove that an item had indeed been sent. Which of course is exactly what we have here in this case. Thanks for agreeing with me. 

You suggested that Klein's failed to do something here that they were never required to do and for which you have provided no evidence that they did in any other similar situations.  Your opinion of their business practices is not relevant.  They knew their business better than you.  Oswald never complained to them about not receiving his rifle.  Oswald provided a mailing address with his order.  A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to this PO Box.  Oswald received a rifle in this same timeframe according to his own wife. A rifle with that same serial number was found in Oswald's place of employment.  According to the DPD, Oswald left his print on that rifle.  According to various experts, that rifle is depicted in the BY photos.  How or why would anyone need to trace the delivery of the rifle through the mail system to link this rifle to Oswald?  There are pictures of him holding it.