Well, ownership is relevant because it connects Oswald to the murder weapon. A jury does not have to find he owned it beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that he owned the gun. They only have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. They could conclude that he likely owned the gun and use that as one of the many pieces of evidence connecting Oswald to the murder to ultimately find, beyond a reasonable doubt, Oswald guilty.
First of all, there's no proof that this was the murder weapon. At best you can show that it was the weapon that fired the shells allegedly found on the 6th floor, and (if you buy Frazier's "lining up the marks in his mind" technique) the weapon that fired the mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo and the near pristine bullet allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
The ownership of the gun comes from many different sources and circumstances. Marina admitted that Oswald purchased a rifle at about the same time as the purchase from Klein's by "Hidell" and that he had told her that he used the rifle to shoot at Gen. Walker.
It's not enough to show that Oswald had
some rifle.
She said the rifle was kept in the garage in a blanket.
She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks before the assassination.
The rifle was not there after the assassination. No other rifle belonging to Oswald has ever been found.
You can't just assume that particular rifle was Oswald's because you didn't find any other one.
The rifle had Oswald's palm print on the stock.
No it didn't. A partial palm print was found a week later on an index card that was claimed to have been lifted from the barrel.
His prints were on the paper bag found in the SN.
There's no evidence that that bag ever had anything to do with any rifle. Or that it was even in the SN when it was first discovered.
Marina admitted taking the backyard photo of Oswald with the rifle.
With
some rifle.
Oswald was seen taking a long paper package that he told Buell Frazier contained curtain rods.
A bag that both Frazier and Randle said was not the bag supposedly found in the SN.
No curtain rods were ever found, of course. Oswald denied telling Frazier this and said he took his lunch. A jury might have little difficulty concluding that was not a lunch bag and that it did not contain curtain rods.
A jury might have a lot of difficulty concluding that this was the CE 142 bag and that it ever contained a rifle. Because there is no evidence to support that.
On all the evidence, it is difficult to fathom how any group of 12 reasonable people could, at the end of the day, find that Oswald was not tied to that rifle found in the TSBD.
The problem is that you're defining "reasonable people" as people who agree with your assumptions.
Finding Oswald guilty of murder requires more than that, of course. But there is ample evidence simply from Oswald's conduct after the assassination adding to the strong circumstantial link to the rifle.
No, there really isn't. No matter how Oswald had conducted himself, it would have been spun as the actions of a guilty person.
All the evidence, together, is more than enough to establish Oswald's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The similar fact evidence from Marina of the attempt on Gen. Walker, is just icing on the cake.
I know you believe that, but what evidence is that based on? Can you name a single piece of evidence, physical or circumstantial, that isn't questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way?
