Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[John Iacoletti]

Rob, Can't you see that Lee was involved in the Walker hoax?     How much evidence do you need to convince you that the Walker incident was nothing but a hoax....And Lee Oswald was involved...

How about any whatsoever?

[Mitch Todd]

Where have you been? That has been the excuse for LNers for a long time. You are still having trouble showing that those two turns were necessary, aren't you?

Where have we been? Well, we've been here all along! Waiting, (with baited breath, even!) for you to reveal how "the turns were an excuse for why the motorcade didn't speed up?"  How fast would have the limousine been going had it continued on Elm? Or do you really not know?

[Mitch Todd]

So you can show that CE 573 is relevant in the EAW shooting?

You're the guy who's been asserting that there's "NO chain of custody for it." That's a very specific claim. And the burden of proof for it is your burden.

[Mitch Todd]

What a lame response. It has everything to do with the WC's claim that YOU support. Why can't you show that CE 573 is relevant as claimed?

This is a classic example of shifting the burden that LNers employ constantly to cover for the fact that they have NO supporting evidence for the WC's claims they support wholeheartedly.

Did I ever say that CE 573 "was relevant"?

[Mitch Todd]

What a lame response. It has everything to do with the WC's claim that YOU support. Why can't you show that CE 573 is relevant as claimed?

This is a classic example of shifting the burden that LNers employ constantly to cover for the fact that they have NO supporting evidence for the WC's claims they support wholeheartedly.

You are the guy who claimed that there is "NO [you like to capitalize that for some reason] chain of possession for CE573." Not just, "the chain of possession is weak" or "the chain of possession is muddled" or "the chain of possession has gaps" or anything but, "there is NO chain of possession." Again, that's a very specific, direct, and unambiguous assertion. It's your assertion, so it's up to you to present a supporting case for it. It's pretty funny that you constantly try to shift the burden onto others, and when they point out that you're responsible for your assertions, you complain that the are trying to shift the burden on you. Well, that's where the burden should lie in this case. You. 

[Bill Chapman]

So you offer opinion instead of evidence. No surprise there. It is clear that you cannot support the WC's claim.

So you dodge the relatively rare usage of 'chain of evidence' at trial. No surprise there. The opinion I quoted pretty much renders moot the never-ending story you lot cling to regarding chain of evidence. 

[Rob Caprio]

Rob, Can't you see that Lee was involved in the Walker hoax?     How much evidence do you need to convince you that the Walker incident was nothing but a hoax....And Lee Oswald was involved...

Walt, there is NO evidence showing that LHO was involved in the EAW shooting. It doesn't matter if it was a hoax or not. The evidence is the evidence.