Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[Rob Caprio]

"Could have."

The limo could have picked up speed after the turn, too, so that's and excuse, not
a reason.

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?

[Rob Caprio]

You haven't shown that he could have, or would have been able to, For that matter, how would he have have been able to tell it was a .30-06?

I seem to recall trying to hold you to an explanation of how one could tell that a bullet  was steel jacketed. You hemmed and hawwed and talked around an answer. I figure an even better question is, how do one tell a bullet is a .30-06 just from the (mangled) bullet alone. Your ensuing gyrations might be entertaining.
Then it shouldn't be too all that hard to to answer my question, now that you've studied it.

EAW said that CE 573 was NOT the bullet that he saw and held on the evening of April 10, 1963. I am not aware of him saying that it was a 30.06 bullet that he saw and held. I think that *you* invented that.

There is NO chain of custody for CE 573 and that is why you won't support the official claim.

[Rob Caprio]

So, when pressed, you're simply going to claim that Duncan ate your homework?

That is what happened. Why don't you support the WC's claim? What are you afraid of?

[Rob Caprio]

Wait a minute... Caprio told us he saved all his posts, in fact bragged about at the top of every OP... , along with repeating Duncan's suggestion that everyone follow his lead.

 

I can repost it and it will show that there is no chain of custody. You guys support the WC's claim and say that it is correct. So why not support it? What are you afraid of?

[Bill Chapman]

I can repost it and it will show that there is no chain of custody. You guys support the WC's claim and say that it is correct. So why not support it? What are you afraid of?

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

[Mitch Todd]

That is what happened. Why don't you support the WC's claim? What are you afraid of?

You're the guy who made the assertion that there is NO chain of possession. You're also the guy who's notoriously enamored of pitching a such a fuss if you think that someone else isn't backing up their assertions. I'm asking you to live up to your own rules.

[Rob Caprio]

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

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

[Rob Caprio]

You're the guy who made the assertion that there is NO chain of possession. You're also the guy who's notoriously enamored of pitching a such a fuss if you think that someone else isn't backing up their assertions. I'm asking you to live up to your own rules.

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.