Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[John Iacoletti]

I know they showed photos of CE399 multiple times, during testimony by Baden, Wecht and Sturdivan.

However

I have been able to find where a photo of CE573 was shown in the HSCA hearings. It was displayed as exhibit F-107 during the firearms panel testimony.
Walker could indeed be referring to that.

 

[John Iacoletti]

You lot put way too much emphasis on evidence chain of custody

To wit:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

'I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." --- Vincent Bugliosi

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.

[Jerry Freeman]

You lot put way too much emphasis on evidence chain of custody

To wit:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

'I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." --- Vincent Bugliosi

He could have just as well stated that 110% of the Phys Evid would have been admissible.
I mean the one sided argument prevails ad nauseum.
So why even have a chain of custody anywhere then? [if too much emphasis is placed on it]
Assuming CE 399 was indeed fired from C2766 [the pronouncement 'Oswald's rifle' is a core gross accusation that was not proven in court] it could not have been proven with any degree of accuracy when it was fired from that rifle. Chain of custody of the Walker bullet remains non-existent.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Exactly John, but he can't support the WC's claim so he makes it about something else.

[Jerry Freeman]

In her HSCA appearance, Marina Porter testified that Lee would play like he was shooting his rifle.
I guess this was deemed as practice enough.
This is a new story from her Warren testimony. She told investigators at first that she knew nothing about a rifle.
'He would put his rifle under his raincoat' [never produced in evidence] and 'ride the bus like that to where ever he practiced shooting'. [Give me a break]
She saw him 'cleaning his rifle once a week' [cleaning oil and rods etc. were never found or produced in evidence]
Marina also testified that Lee [upon coming home that night] told her 'he tried to shoot Walker'... how then could it have been known at that time that he had failed the attempt?
She did not tell the police about the Walker incident 'out of loyalty' and 'because she didn't speak English'.
If you haven't ever researched it...start reading this fairy tale at page 233 [of the site pages] 229 of the Vol page here----
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0117a.htm
 

[Mitch Todd]

The WC made the claim that there was a chain of custody in 1964! You support this claim. It is clear that you CANNOT support it with evidence though. No surprise there since neither could the WC.

You got it, the WC did. They've already said their peace, and you can take it up against them if you so desire.  But this isn't about a specific claim the WC made, it's about a specific claim that you made. You made that claim, and claimed you proved it, but refuse to back up your assertions.  I wouldn't have all that big of a deal with it, except you have such a habit of whining about everyone else not supporting their claims. Sauce for the goose, Rob

[Mitch Todd]

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.

I figure if that were really true, Rob would have already said that when he replied to Chapman.

[Mitch Todd]

The turns were an excuse for why the motorcade didn't speed up. Without the turns there would have been no excuse.

Why don't you support the WC's claim and show why the two turns were necessary?

Who said that "he turns were an excuse for why the motorcade didn't speed up?" I mean, other than you?