Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[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.

[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?