The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

And nothing in this argument violates it. You made an appeal to “speculation” and there is none. You’re trying to equate reasonable doubt to providing solid evidence that something is false, which is not part of the definition.

You don’t think disagreement with your assumptions is “reasonable”. No surprise there. The doubt lies in the letter being anonymously written thirdhand hearsay that conflicts with what some witnesses referred to therein said directly. It has nothing to do with speculation.

And nothing in this argument violates it. You made an appeal to “speculation” and there is none. You’re trying to equate reasonable doubt to providing solid evidence that something is false, which is not part of the definition.

Your argument violates it because your claim that CE2011 is unreliable is based on nothing but speculation. All you have is questions. You cannot claim something is unreliable without showing that it actually is unreliable.


The doubt lies in the letter being anonymously written thirdhand hearsay that conflicts with what some witnesses referred to therein said directly. It has nothing to do with speculation.


All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. Speculation and unanswered questions are not reasonable doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Questioning it is one thing. Claiming that it is unreliable without any reasonable evidence is another thing which is pure speculation and not allowed to be considered by a jury.


In the end, it doesn’t matter what hypothetical reason for the inconsistencies is actually true. The issue is that there are inconsistencies, so you can’t determine which is correct.

Of course it matters which is correct if you want to claim the document is unreliable you need something more than suspicions, innuendo and conjecture.


No, you need solid evidence to claim that it is false. It’s unreliable merely because it doesn’t match what some of the people therein stated directly. It has no corroboration whatsoever.

You need to show that it is false before you can claim that it is unreliable. Suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture will not suffice.

Oh boy,

Is it a suspicion, innuendo or conjecture to compare the content of SAC Shanklin's airtel and the content of CE2011 on that subject and determine, without a shadow of doubt, that the content of both documents does not match?

Shanklin was in charge of the Dallas FBI office. CE2011 must have been written under his supervision. We know from the National Archives that there are no FD 302 reports on this subject that are missing. So, how did Shanklin get from "neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet" to the added (and I paraphrase) "both men thought the bullet looked similar"?

[Charles Collins]

Oh boy,

Is it a suspicion, innuendo or conjecture to compare the content of SAC Shanklin's airtel and the content of CE2011 on that subject and determine, without a shadow of doubt, that the content of both documents does not match?

Shanklin was in charge of the Dallas FBI office. CE2011 must have been written under his supervision. We know from the National Archives that there are no FD 302 reports on this subject that are missing. So, how did Shanklin get from "neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet" to the added (and I paraphrase) "both men thought the bullet looked similar"?

There is no conflict. Both can be correct.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no conflict. Both can be correct.

That's not an answer to my question

[Charles Collins]

That's not an answer to my question

How would I know? Why do you think it matters. Is this just another one of the unanswerable questions that you plan to use to insinuate something sinister? More suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture are getting you nowhere. It has been that way for almost 60-years and will continue to be that way.

[Martin Weidmann]

How would I know? Why do you think it matters. Is this just another one of the unanswerable questions that you plan to use to insinuate something sinister? More suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture are getting you nowhere. It has been that way for almost 60-years and will continue to be that way.

Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.

It has been obvious for a very long time now that you are one of those die hard LNs who call themselves reasonable but who in fact will not accept (and dismiss outright) anything that could negatively impact their "Oswald did it alone" mindset. That's fine. You can have that opinion. But what I don't understand is why you clearly are so afraid of evidence you don't like that you even refuse to discuss it.

Let's try this again; SAC Dallas Gordon Shanklin wrote in an airtel to his superiors in Washington that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet.
There is no FD302 by Odum or any other officer on this subject that could have provided the additional "both men thought it was the same bullet" for inclusion in CE2011

Yet, CE2011, written by somebody in Shanklin's office somehow just added that last part and thus changed the total context of the message.

Now, you may have no problem with some unidentified FBI official, being part of an official investigation, adding on something in a report that neither witness actually said, but I do.

So, when you ask why it matters, the answer is that it is manipulation of evidence to present as evidence something that a witness never said!

[Charles Collins]

Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.

Again. SAC Dallas Gordon Shanklin wrote in an airtel to his superiors in Washington that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet.
There is no FD302 by Odum or any other officer on this subject that could have provided the "both men thought it was the same bullet" for inclusion in CE2011

Yet, CE2011, written by somebody in Shanklin's office somehow just added that last part and thus change the total context of the message.

Now, you may have no problem with some unidentified FBI official, being part of an official investigation, adding on something in a report that neither witness actually said, but I do.

So, when you ask why it matters, the answer is that it is manipulation of evidence to present as evidence something that a witness never said!

“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation. The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say. The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict). The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews. If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.