The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".


He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview.

No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all.

No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous.

And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".

It is relevant evidence. I am not questioning it. You are the one who claims it is unreliable, not me.


No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

Tomlinson could easily be mistaken, in a late-night telephone interview in 1966, about who he thought Odum was. What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.


No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

It is quite reasonable given the circumstances of the interview that are already posted in this reply. Heck, you got confused about who and when Tomlinson told about seeing CE399 earlier in this thread. You claimed he told the WC that in his deposition. I corrected you. If you can get confused like that shortly after typing the relevant passages, then so could Tomlinson when being interviewed late at night ~2-years afterwards.


And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

Already addressed. But since you repeated it, I will add an 

[Martin Weidmann]

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".

It is relevant evidence. I am not questioning it. You are the one who claims it is unreliable, not me.

No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

Tomlinson could easily be mistaken, in a late-night telephone interview in 1966, about who he thought Odum was. What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.

No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

It is quite reasonable given the circumstances of the interview that are already posted in this reply. Heck, you got confused about who and when Tomlinson told about seeing CE399 earlier in this thread. You claimed he told the WC that in his deposition. I corrected you. If you can get confused like that shortly after typing the relevant passages, then so could Tomlinson when being interviewed late at night ~2-years afterwards.

And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

Already addressed. But since you repeated it, I will add an 

What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.

I'm not all that interested in being taken seriously by a man who pretends evidence which has already been provided doesn't exist.

Tomlinson told the WC he was interviewed only once by the FBI and he told Marcus that it was Shanklin who showed him a bullet in November 1963. There is no reason, except perhaps your wishful thinking, to believe that Tomlinson was confused or mistaken.

Your theory relies on;

Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
There were really two meetings - Evidence for this claim: non-existing

And I should take you seriously?

[Charles Collins]

What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.

I'm not all that interested in being taken seriously by a man who pretends evidence which has already been provided doesn't exist.

Tomlinson told the WC he was interviewed only once by the FBI and he told Marcus that it was Shanklin who showed him a bullet in November 1963. There is no reason, except perhaps your wishful thinking, to believe that Tomlinson was confused or mistaken.

Your theory relies on;

Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
There were really two meetings - Evidence for this claim: non-existing

And I should take you seriously?

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture. You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.


Odum was old and was asked to remember details from almost 40-years earlier by two biased interviewers with an agenda. You showed that your colors are similar to theirs when you distorted the picture by omission of Tomlinson's remarks that the bullet looked like the same one to him. That is one of the main tactics that they use regularly. How are we supposed to know everything that was really said? The partial telephone interview with gaps that is included in their article is a joke. But you apparently blindly accept it as the truth and rely completely upon it and the word of the biased interviewers with an agenda. And you think that people should take you seriously?

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture. You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.

Odum was old and was asked to remember details from almost 40-years earlier by two biased interviewers with an agenda. You showed that your colors are similar to theirs when you distorted the picture by omission of Tomlinson's remarks that the bullet looked like the same one to him. That is one of the main tactics that they use regularly. How are we supposed to know everything that was really said? The partial telephone interview with gaps that is included in their article is a joke. But you apparently blindly accept it as the truth and rely completely upon it and the word of the biased interviewers with an agenda. And you think that people should take you seriously?

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture.

Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!

You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.

So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in no way shape or form provide evidence of two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;

1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings

CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.

You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, no matter how hard you try to dismiss all the information.

The one who is speculating to keep his narrative alive is you!

Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.

[Charles Collins]

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture.

Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!

You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.

So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;

1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings

CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.

You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, no matter how hard you try to dismiss all the information.

The one who is speculating to keep his narrative alive is you!

Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.

Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!

You may find it boring. And I may get tired of repeating it. However, it is the truth.


So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.

Regardless of anything else, all you have is hearsay.


I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

It most certainly does. You just don't want to admit it.


Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;

1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings

I already have. Unfortunately, you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water (much like the traffic court judge did in the story I posted for John's benefit). If the judge really needed to get down to the truth, he could have had the radar gun tested instead of dismissing the charges. If he had, the charges would have stuck because the speeder was lying his ass off.


CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.

You have presented nothing that shows CE2011 is unreliable. All you have done is present hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc that suggests that it is questionable. And again I will allude to the radar gun in the story not being tested.


Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.

Instead of making claims that you cannot support with anything but hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. Try finding something that supports your claims. I have already given some items that you might want to look for. We won't hold our breaths waiting for it however. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!

You may find it boring. And I may get tired of repeating it. However, it is the truth.

It's your truth perhaps... There is a difference.

So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.

Regardless of anything else, all you have is hearsay.

And round and round we go..... But at least now we know that you feel the interviewers can't be trusted for the simple reason that their message isn't what you want to hear.

I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

It most certainly does. You just don't want to admit it.

There is nothing to admit. Your "say so" doesn't count for much.

Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;

1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings

I already have. Unfortunately, you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water (much like the traffic court judge did in the story I posted for John's benefit). If the judge really needed to get down to the truth, he could have had the radar gun tested instead of dismissing the charges. If he had, the charges would have stuck because the speeder was lying his ass off.

Nope. You have presented no evidence at all. Just pure and utter speculation. If, as you claim, you have already provided that evidence (so not your speculations) than it should be easy for you to tell me the number of the post in which you provided it. You don't do that, because you can't.

CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.

You have presented nothing that shows CE2011 is unreliable. All you have done is present hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc that suggests that it is questionable. And again I will allude to the radar gun in the story not being tested.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!

Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.

Instead of making claims that you cannot support with anything but hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. Try finding something that supports your claims. I have already given some items that you might want to look for. We won't hold our breaths waiting for it however. 

I take it this means that you can't produce a shred of evidence to support your claim that CE2011 is reliable? Got it 

I don't have to provide more evidence than I already have. All you've got is "FBI said so" with some added speculations and stuff you simply made up.

I'll let you have the last word, because this yes/no thing is going nowhere and I have better things to do.

[Charles Collins]

It's your truth perhaps... There is a difference.

And round and round we go.....

There is nothing to admit. Your "say so" doesn't count for much

Nope. You have presented no evidence at all. Just pure and utter speculation. If, as you claim, you have already provided that evidence (so not your speculations) than it should be easy for you to tell me the number of the post in which you provided it. You don't do that, because you can't.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!

I don't have to. All you've got is "FBI said so" with some added speculations and stuff you simply made up.

I'll let you have the last word, because this yes/no thing is going nowhere.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!

You are the one who burst into this thread and claimed that CE2011 is unreliable. You have not shown that it is, only that you are questioning it with a bunch of hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. I have shown reasonable theories that could explain all of the perceived inconsistencies. You claim that the official FBI document, CE2011 contains false information. But you offer no explanation as to why, who, what, or when this alleged false information was placed in that document. You claimed that "there is no way for that information to be accurate." I have shown how it can be accurate based on some inaccurate memories. I have shown that your memory isn't always accurate; you confused the two different transcripts with respect to when Tomlinson said anything about seeing C399. Why do you not think it is possible for two other people to have confused a few details from years earlier. Tomlinson appears to be a reliable witness and his description of what the bullet looked like when he found it on 11/22/63 agrees with the official account. Tomlinson qualified his statement regarding the date he was shown the bullet by: (I paraphrase) "the best I can remember." So, Tomlinson was not 100% sure of when he was shown the bullet. Your theory is shot to hell and back if that date was not accurate. Plus you have yet to show any evidence that Shanklin ever interviewed Tomlinson, much less that he did so in November, 1963. None of the hearsay that you have presented has been authenticated. All we have is the word of two very biased "researchers", Thompson & Aguilar, who have an agenda to try to prove their theories and sell their book. What they have presented is a joke. And you eat it up and rely upon it for what Odum supposedly said. They don't even publish the transcript from the in-person interview, the phone interview is worthless. Frankly, you have absolutely nothing to even question CE2011 with, much less show that it is unreliable. At least the speeder brought in an official receipt from the speedometer company to turn over to the court. it was falsified, but the judge chose expediency over truth-finding. You haven't brought anything even remotely close to the speedometer shop's receipt's perceived authenticity to this argument. I doubt very seriously that you have ever let anyone have the last word on anything. But maybe this will be a first. I sure hope so.