The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.


Old age and an elapsed time frame of almost 440-years are easily demonstrated to be impediments to accurate memories. It is fact, not some intentional smear based on a bias. And I think that you really should stop referring to CE2011 as anonymous. It is clearly written by the Dallas Office of the FBI and was accepted by the WC as such. You are the one trying to smear the FBI because of your bias.

[John Iacoletti]

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Ridiculous, reasonable doubt is not based on inconsistencies that only generate questions without answers, only speculation. Speculation is not reasonable doubt. Your idea of reasonable doubt is most definitely not based on the legal definition.

You seem to be under the impression that reasonable doubt requires proof to the contrary. It doesn’t. It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence. Doubt is based on the quality, relevance, and reliability of what’s presented. There’s no speculation involved.

[Charles Collins]

This is where the disconnect is. Nobody has to prove CE2011 false. If you want to rely on it as evidence, you need to demonstrate that it is true. The inconsistencies raise doubt as to its veracity. The anonymous, thirdhand nature of the document raises doubt about its authenticity.

The inconsistencies make it unreliable. If it could be proven false then we would say it’s false, not just unreliable.

If there’s no way to determine what parts are reliable and what parts are not, then an unreliable source is an unreliable source.

This is where the disconnect is. Nobody has to prove CE2011 false. If you want to rely on it as evidence, you need to demonstrate that it is true. The inconsistencies raise doubt as to its veracity. The anonymous, thirdhand nature of the document raises doubt about its authenticity.


All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. If you want to claim that it is unreliable you need a reasonable doubt, not some inconsistencies that have no answers only innuendo and conjecture. Give us a reasonable doubt. Not some innuendo or conjecture that it is possible it is tainted in some unidentified way.


The inconsistencies make it unreliable. If it could be proven false then we would say it’s false, not just unreliable.

No the inconsistencies do not make it unreliable. The inconsistencies only generate questions which have not been answered. The answers could just as likely (if not more so) lie with faulty memories, faulty interviews (one of which I have pointed out) where words are twisted or “put in the mouths” of the interviewees. You need solid evidence that CE2011 is not accurate before you can claim that it is unreliable.

[Charles Collins]

You seem to be under the impression that reasonable doubt requires proof to the contrary. It doesn’t. It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence. Doubt is based on the quality, relevance, and reliability of what’s presented. There’s no speculation involved.

I have provided a legal definition of reasonable doubt. Your idea of “It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence” leaves out a crucial word: reasonable. You need a reason to doubt, not just speculation.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is where the disconnect is. Nobody has to prove CE2011 false. If you want to rely on it as evidence, you need to demonstrate that it is true. The inconsistencies raise doubt as to its veracity. The anonymous, thirdhand nature of the document raises doubt about its authenticity.


All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. If you want to claim that it is unreliable you need a reasonable doubt, not some inconsistencies that have no answers only innuendo and conjecture. Give us a reasonable doubt. Not some innuendo or conjecture that it is possible it is tainted in some unidentified way.


The inconsistencies make it unreliable. If it could be proven false then we would say it’s false, not just unreliable.

No the inconsistencies do not make it unreliable. The inconsistencies only generate questions which have not been answered. The answers could just as likely (if not more so) lie with faulty memories, faulty interviews (one of which I have pointed out) where words are twisted or “put in the mouths” of the interviewees. You need solid evidence that CE2011 is not accurate before you can claim that it is unreliable.

Translation; I, Charles Collins, do not need to prove that a piece of evidence is authentic. I can just assume it to be. You need to prove - beyond a standard I will never consider reasonable - that it is false.

The world upside down 


Just because a witness or party has written evidence to support his claim does not automatically mean that a judge will allow that evidence to be presented to the jury. One test evidence must meet in order to be deemed admissible by the court is that the evidence must be authentic.

Authentication refers to a rule of evidence which requires that evidence must be sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. The "authenticity" rule relates to whether the subject of an evidentiary offering (generally a tangible thing), is what it purports to be. This is a legal way of saying that evidence must be proven to be genuine to be admissible.

The issue of authenticity must be determined at two stages of a proceeding. First, the court must determine if the proffered item appears sufficiently genuine so that its admission could assist the fact-finder (usually the jury). Second, the fact-finder must ultimately decide whether he believes that the evidence is actually genuine.

https://cochranfirm.com/what-is-authentication/#:~:text=One%20test%20evidence%20must%20meet,is%20what%20its%20proponent%20claims.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

The DPD indicated that they found Oswald's print on the rifle.  You still don't accept it.

Lt Day claimed he lifted a print from the rifle after the FBI had already determined there was no trace of a print (or one being lifted) on the rifle. Why in the world would I accept Day's story, after he failed to bring forward the index card with a print on for an entire week and only did so after Oswald was dead and thus unable to dispute it.

You just prefer to believe Day just because it fits your narrative.

[John Iacoletti]

Old age and an elapsed time frame of almost 440-years are easily demonstrated to be impediments to accurate memories.

You didn’t say his memory could have been impeded. You stated outright that it was faulty. That’s bias.

And I think that you really should stop referring to CE2011 as anonymous. It is clearly written by the Dallas Office of the FBI and was accepted by the WC as such.

It is anonymous. Nobody knows what person wrote the words or how the information in there was gathered and reported to the author. And it wasn’t “clearly” written by the Dallas office. An office can’t write. And the document you cited just says they made contributions. It doesn’t say who the author was.