The Walker Case

[John Iacoletti]

See John, that's the difference between a LNer and a CT or the members who repeatedly say "show me where I said I was a CT", we accept the vast majority of Expert evidence as stated

What does “Expert evidence” even mean?

and make reasonable inferences from said evidence

Of course you think they’re reasonable. But inferences aren’t evidence.

whereas a CT will not accept anything that doesn't fit their World view and claim that "they" lied or faked it or planted it, etc ad nauseum!

I don’t know who you’re referring to. Nobody here has made such a claim.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Your quote doesn’t apply in the least to what I said.

In fact, you are the one not considering all the evidence when you ignore all the details, inconsistencies, and provenance issues surrounding certain evidence, and just blindly go with “anonymous letter says so”.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

So a mistake makes somebody “inept”. I suppose you’ve never made one. In any case he ended up showing the documents to Odum, so what difference does it make?

And Odum was old, no smearing intended or necessary.

And how is that even relevant?

[John Iacoletti]

This is really ridiculous. No one has shown CE2011 to be unreliable.

It was shown to be unreliable because Odum disputed ever having shown CE399 to anyone. And Tomlinson and Wright disputed ever having been shown CE399 by Odum.

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.

If something or someone is unreliable then they are unreliable. You don’t just get to pick out things you like and declare them to be reliable if the source is not.

[John Iacoletti]

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

Not “the DPD”, Carl Day. And there are good reasons to not accept it. You ignore all that and go with “cop said so”.

[Charles Collins]

Your quote doesn’t apply in the least to what I said.

In fact, you are the one not considering all the evidence when you ignore all the details, inconsistencies, and provenance issues surrounding certain evidence, and just blindly going with “anonymous letter says so”.

It most certainly does apply to what you said.

And the rest of your accusations are simply not true either,.

[Charles Collins]

So a mistake makes somebody “inept”. I suppose you’ve never made one. In any case he ended up showing the documents to Odum, so what difference does it make?

And how is that even relevant?

I make mistakes. Everyone does. Aguilar’s mistake is a whopper though… And are we supposed to just take his word that he showed the documents to him. Why doesn’t he provide a transcript of what Odum said when he supposedly did see the document? What happened to your insistence on “authentication” that you always clamor about regarding the plethora of incriminating evidence.


And how is that even relevant?

You are the one who accused me of smearing him because he was old. It is relevant because any perceived smearing was not intentional or needed. He was old.

[John Iacoletti]

It most certainly does apply to what you said.

How? Reasonable doubt in this case does arise from the examination of all the evidence, and from lack of evidence. There’s no speculation. You argument for guilt is the thing that’s based on speculation.