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

[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

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Just because they advertised one doesn’t mean they sold any like that. Especially prior to it being advertised.

[John Mytton]

Just because they advertised one doesn’t mean they sold any like that.

Yeah, you're probably right, Kleins obviously didn't have a clue on what to include in their ads.

JohnM