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

[Martin Weidmann]

If Waldman had never been born, the business record still confirms the shipment.  That is how businesses track transactions.   You suggested as much noting that a shipping company would keep records of such transaction in case there was an issue.  And here it is!  Do you think employees of a shipping company that sends endless packages would remember better than a form when a specific package was mailed?  Unreal.  Business records are kept exactly for this reason.  This is a classic example of refusing to accept any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ironclad the evidence while entertaining all manner of baseless counter explanations.  Here, by implication, you are suggesting a narrative in which this form has been fabricated by someone and Klein's is cooperating with some unknown conspirators to frame Oswald.  For which you have not one iota of supporting evidence other than a time machine does not exist to allow us to view someone putting the package in the mail.

If Waldman had never been born, the business record still confirms the shipment.

Nope...Anybody can write "PP" and a serial number on a document. FBI questioned documents expert Lundal Shaynefelt agreed with Gerry Spence (in the mock trial) that photocopies can be manipulated. This alone requires that a document is authenticated. Waldman 7 never was!

You suggested as much noting that a shipping company would keep records of such transaction in case there was an issue.  And here it is!

Nope... a internal document doesn't prove shipment.

Do you think employees of a shipping company that sends endless packages would remember better than a form when a specific package was mailed?

Well they could have easily found out by asking the man who wrote the date on the document, but for some reason they just didn't want to do that. Go figure!

This is a classic example of refusing to accept any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ironclad the evidence

First of all, Waldman 7, even if it is authentic, isn't evidence of Oswald's guilt and secondly, if you really believe Waldman 7 to be ironclad then there simply is no reason for me to waste any time on your naive stupidity.

Here, by implication, you are suggesting a narrative in which this form has been fabricated by someone and Klein's is cooperating with some unknown conspirators to frame Oswald.

Wrong again. I am suggesting that the investigators failed completely to authenticate a piece of evidence in order to eliminate the possibility of manipulation.

That's what you seem to be unable to understand; the burden of proof is on you and your ilk. You either provide conclusive and persuasive evidence or you don't (can't). Unauthenticated documents are not conclusive evidence.

other than a time machine does not exist to allow us to view someone putting the package in the mail.

So you agree, there is no evidence that someone put a package in the mail   

[John Iacoletti]

and as an added bonus, some extra logical conclusions from myself.

LOL

1.Oswald’s choice of weapon aside, there was something else to haunt him. At work the next day, Sharp relayed concerns to his boss about the gun he had seen on television.
“It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it,” Sharp told him. His boss replied, "'No No No, don't say that!'"  Sharp said his boss was afraid of the consequences.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

That's not what he said to the HSCA.  But by all means, let's go with a newspaper quote from 50 years after the events in question.

3. America is full of Gun Enthusiasts and after the Scoped Carcano became one of the most notorious rifles in America it's difficult to believe that there wasn't at least 1 Gun Enthusiast who would want a similar Scoped Rifle.

Appeal to ignorance.  Is there any evidence that Klein's ever got an order for a 40-inch scoped Carcano?  Yes or no? 

[John Iacoletti]

I'm not going to repeat myself. If you don't get that Waldman had no first hand knowledge of the shipment and was merely explaining what some handwritten remarks on a photocopy of an utterly unauthenticated internal document mean, then I can't help you.

"Richard" doesn't actually read or consider what is written in any responses.  He's a one-way propaganda machine.

"Business record".  LOL.  Where are the corresponding United States Postal Service "business records"?  If an issue came up, How would Klein's ever prove that somebody actually took this package to the post office?

[Martin Weidmann]

"Richard" doesn't actually read or consider what is written in any responses.  He's a one-way propaganda machine.

"Business record".  LOL.  Where are the corresponding United States Postal Service "business records"?  If an issue came up, How would Klein's ever prove that somebody actually took this package to the post office?

Well, let's see just how bad "Richard"'s ignorance really is.

Let's say, somebody steals "Richard"'s identity and uses it to order, out of pure malice, an item, via the internet, at a mail order company.
The mail order company then sends the item to the address on the order form and sends the bill, by e-mail, to "Richard".
He receives the bill and contacts the mail order company saying that he never ordered or received anything, to which the mail order company replies; "well, according to our business records" you have ordered and received the item. Would you like to see the internal document?"

Going by "Richard"'s so-called "logic" he would have no choice but to pay the bill, right? After all, the mail order's business records is conclusive proof of shipment, right?

[John Iacoletti]

Let’s go a step further and imagine that “Richard” dies in an unfortunate incident at the police station prior to the bill being send out, and his widow contacts the company, because she didn’t know anything about the order and they say, well “Richard” must have picked it up because our “business records” have a PP stain on them. So pay up.

[John Mytton]

Let’s go a step further and imagine that “Richard” dies in an unfortunate incident at the police station prior to the bill being send out, and his widow contacts the company, because she didn’t know anything about the order and they say, well “Richard” must have picked it up because our “business records” have a PP stain on them. So pay up.

and imagine that “Richard” dies

Wow, talk about inappropriate, I don't particularly like some of my critics but I don't imagine their deaths.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Wow, talk about inappropriate, I don't particularly like some of my critics but I don't imagine their deaths.

It’s just an analogy — lighten up. But nice use of moral indignance to try to divert.

Besides, “Richard Smith” doesn’t actually exist.