The Walker Case

[Andrew Mason]

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.

All you are saying is that you think that it is reasonable to hold a doubt about a piece of evidence.  But reasonable doubt does not apply to pieces of evidence.  It applies only to the totality of the evidence.  It is an error in law for a judge to instruct a jury that they may apply the standard of proof to each piece of evidence. 

I'll give you an example:  you live in a big city. Your down-the-street neighbour, Bob (you don't know his last name) is about 70 years old and a bit heavy.  He has referred to his wife as Betty and his children as Becky and Art who are grown up.  He also has a dog that he calls Snooks or something like that. From what others said it sounds like used to be teach school and he was pretty good at fixing cars.  One day you see an obituary in the paper for Robert ("Bob") Smith and it says that he died of a heart attack at age 73 and speaks about his wife Betty, children Rebecca and Arthur and his dog Snookie.  It talks about his career teaching at a nearby high school and his passion for old cars.  You conclude, beyond all doubt, that your friend Bob has died.  Although each piece of evidence is really not reliable, in total, the evidence convinces you that the deceased must be Bob.

[Martin Weidmann]

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

It is a reasonable standard and prerequisite if the two “researchers” want anyone to believe them. Why would they include only selected portions of a very ambiguous telephone conversation (due to a “mistake” in which the one document that clarifies what the interviewer is asking about) and turn around and include no transcript for their in-person interview?

No double standard. C2011 is an official FBI document written by the Dallas Office of the FBI. It was admitted into evidence by the WC. Your innuendo that it is somehow tainted is pure speculation. A jury could not consider speculation.

C2011 is an official FBI document written by the Dallas Office of the FBI.

And the head of that office, SAC Shanklin, wrote an Airtel to Washington head office containing information that does not match what is written in CE2011. Go figure!

It was admitted into evidence by the WC.

Which is just about the most meaningless statement you have ever made. The WC picked the evidence they needed to support the predetermined objective.
For crying out loud, they gave themselves the right to edit witness testimony, they introduced CE399 into evidence "subject to later proof" (which never came), they failed to ask crucial questions from crucial witnesses and tried to discredit other witnesses who were saying something they did not want to hear.

[John Iacoletti]

All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. If you want to claim that it is unreliable you need a reasonable doubt,

You just don’t think it’s reasonable to question “FBI letter says so”. I do.

Give us a reasonable doubt. Not some innuendo or conjecture that it is possible it is tainted in some unidentified way.

I gave you reasonable doubt. Again, it’s not necessary to prove it’s false. It’s tainted merely by the unanswerable questions surrounding its existence.

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.

CE2011 is about as blatant a case of words being put in the mouths of interviewees as you can have. Yet that’s perfectly fine with you. Because FBI.

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. Other than by making excuses like “Odum was old”.

You need solid evidence that CE2011 is not accurate before you can claim that it is unreliable.

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.

[John Iacoletti]

I have provided a legal definition of reasonable doubt.

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 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.

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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

An office doesn't write reports or memos. People do. So, who exactly wrote CE2011? If you don't know you have an document on FBI paper written by somebody anonymous

[Charles Collins]

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

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.

You stated outright that it was faulty.

Where?


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

It is apparently unsigned. That’s it. The FBI document that I referenced tells us that the overall letterhead memo is to be by Dallas Office. The overall letterhead memo has the Dallas Office of the FBI identified just below the letterhead. This overall memo is also known as CE2011. Each individual identification lists the persons and dates involved in that particular identification. So the source of the memo, and the persons involved in the identifications have been identified. The memo is therefore not anonymous. It is however apparently unsigned, so we may never know which one of the typists in the Dallas Office of the FBI actually typed it. So what if he typist is anonymous, it doesn’t make the memo anonymous. If you were to change your characterization of the memo accordingly, I wouldn’t have to correct you any more.

[Charles Collins]

You just don’t think it’s reasonable to question “FBI letter says so”. I do.

I gave you reasonable doubt. Again, it’s not necessary to prove it’s false. It’s tainted merely by the unanswerable questions surrounding its existence.

CE2011 is about as blatant a case of words being put in the mouths of interviewees as you can have. Yet that’s perfectly fine with you. Because FBI.

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. Other than by making excuses like “Odum was old”.

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.

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.