The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

You have tried in vain to imply that the FBI report (CE2011) was deliberately construed to misrepresent the facts surrounding a completely different bullet.

Keep running.....

Conjecture and innuendo is all you have provided for your implication that the entire CE3011 report

What CE3011 report? You can't even get that right.

You only have unanswerable questions which you use as innuendo and when no one responds you claim it is because we are ignoring these things. Yet you couldn’t possibly know what we are thinking unless we tell you.

But that's the point. If you have anything of value to say, you would have said it by now..... Instead you are running away from dealing with the facts.... Says everything, really...

dealing with the facts


What facts? Questions, innuendo, and conjecture are not facts.

[Charles Collins]

It’s direct evidence as to what Lee told her. It’s not direct evidence that Lee actually did it. And Marina is known to be unreliable.

I don’t know where you got the silly idea that reasonable doubt requires contradictory evidence.

The Walker bullet was described in contemporary reports as a steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet. That’s reasonable doubt. Norvell and McElroy gave different accounts about who found the bullet. That’s reasonable doubt. The only evidence that the bullet was identified is an anonymously written thirdhand account. That’s reasonable doubt. The so-called Walker note doesn’t mention Walker or shooting and cannot be dated. That’s reasonable doubt. The bullet in evidence cannot be matched to a specific rifle to the exclusion of all others. That’s reasonable doubt. Connecting a bullet to a rifle doesn’t tell you who fired it anyway. That’s reasonable doubt. Photos of a house have nothing to do with firing a bullet at somebody. That’s reasonable doubt. You can’t determine who took the photos anyway. That’s reasonable doubt. One of the photos was tampered with anyway, by cutting out a license plate. Oswald would have no reason to do that. That’s reasonable doubt.

None of your items could be considered reasonable doubt.


A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338#:~:text=A%20reasonable%20doubt%20is%20a,or%20from%20lack%20of%20evidence.

[Charles Collins]

And this is the crux of where we diverge on what constitutes reliable evidence. “FBI letter says so” isn’t inherently any more reliable than “Gary Aguilar says so”.

Remember, Hoover had a pre-existing agenda to “convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin”.

Smearing Aguilar as “inept” and Odum as “old” doesn’t make an anonymously written thirdhand account any more reliable.

Aguilar was inept. There is no reason for me to have to smear him. He tells us this himself in his telephone conversation with Odum:

You know, when I look at this material that I sent you, I notice that this is not the one document that says you had …. Thank you, by the way, for …..  I just asked the question because this is not the one that actually lists you as the guy that carried it around. No, but there is one that does and like an idiot I guess I didn’t include that.

And Odum was old, no smearing intended or necessary.

[Charles Collins]

What makes you think his memory was “faulty”? Just because you want to believe something else?

1. He was 82-years old at the time.

2. The details he was asked to remember happened almost 40-years before the interview.

3. The inept Aguilar failed to send him a document that might have helped him remember. I could play the favorite game of the naysayers and suggest that Aguilar intentionally left out that document. But I won’t.

[Charles Collins]

This is really disingenuous. If CE2011 can be shown to be unreliable, then it’s all unreliable. Why are there no actual reports written by the agents who are being spoken for there?

This is really ridiculous. No one has shown CE2011 to be unreliable. And even if someone were able to show that there is an error in one part of it, that does not automatically mean that the whole document is unreliable. Same goes with Marina’s testimony. You regularly dismiss her entire testimony without good reason.

[Charles Collins]

I noticed this at the bottom of one of the FBI documents shown in Aguilar’s & Thompson’s article regarding CE399:




So it appears to me that the last paragraph spells out and documents that CE2011 was written by the Dallas Office of the FBI.

[Richard Smith]

And, of course, if Oswald's prints were found on the note (as they were on the rifle etc), Martin would be claiming it was the product of fabrication.

I have never ever claimed that a print was the product of fabrication. I have also never misrepresented the facts like you do. The FBI examined the rifle the night after the murder and found no prints. Even worse, not even a trace of a print having been lifted. So don't give me the BS that there were prints on the rifle.

LOL.  You proved my point.  The DPD indicated that they found Oswald's print on the rifle.  You still don't accept it.  Ignore that and discuss the FBI.  We would be going down this same contrarian rabbit hole if Oswald's prints were found on the note.  You would be telling us it didn't prove he wrote it.  Just touched it etc.  Imply it was the product of fabrication and then deny you are claiming it is the product of fabrication. The same lunacy over and over.   Every single thread on this forum is taken down these same rabbit holes.