Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[Rob Caprio]

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?

Shifting the burden again. There were TWO viable options that did NOT require those two drastic turns. Your beloved WC claimed in 1964 that the turns were needed, but like almost all their claims they failed to support it.

It is apparent that you cannot support their claim either.

[Bill Chapman]

I don't believe Rob is making any argument about its admissibility.  Since there will never be a trial, that's irrelevant.  What Rob is arguing is that without a proper documented chain of custody, there's no way to have any confidence that CE 573 was pulled from Walker's wall or had anything to do with the events of April 10.

Since there will never be a trial, by default forums such as this become courts of public opinion. At least that's what you and buddies act like... what with your constant demanding instant proof of murder on single things that we don't claim to be proof of murder on their own.

I contend that Bugliosi's statement re chain of evidence is valid in the court of public opinion.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

You are now the new resident game player. Chain of custody is part of showing that CE 573 was used in the EAW shooting. The WC claimed that it was in 1964, but FAILED to support it with evidence.

It is clear that you are incapable of supporting any of their claims. So why do you support them again?

[Rob Caprio]

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

Well, we are making progress then. You agree that LHO did not shoot at EAW. 👍

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Wrong as usual. The WC made a claim in 1964, but the evidence that they provided does NOT support it. Me pointing this out is NOT a new claim by me. Stop playing games.

Why do you support a theory with NO supporting evidence?

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Opinion is not evidence. Where's your evidence for showing the chain of custody for CE 573?

[Walt Cakebread]

Well, we are making progress then. You agree that LHO did not shoot at EAW. 👍

" LHO did not shoot at EAW."

I believe that's true....  I doubt that walker was in the room at the time.....  But Lee did fire the bullet through the window.

Both Walker and Lee wanted the publicity of the hoax....  but for different reasons.

Walker wanted the incident blamed on "communists" who the Kennedy's were allowing to "run free" ( as Walker said) and Lee wanted the publicity of attempting to shoot one of Castro's most avowed foes.