The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

Does that mean that you haven't got an answer?

No, it means that you hadn't been making any sense in this conversation for a while. And it kept getting worse. It was like trying to have a conversation with a babbling drunkard, except worse due to the normal difficulties of communicating details over an internet forum. I will list some items and see if we can all agree that these are correct.

• Tomlinson tells the WC, in his March 20, 1964 deposition, that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. Tomlinson says nothing about being shown any bullet.
• As far as the evidence shows, CE399 (the bullet in question) can be presumed to be in Washington in late November 1963. In other words, there is no evidence that we know of that shows that CE399 had been sent back to Dallas in late November 1963.
• We know of no evidence in the FBI's records that shows that Shaneyfelt ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Wright.
• On July 25, 1966 Marcus conducts a telephone interview with Tomlinson.
  
  Tomlinson tells Marcus:  T: "No, it wasn't mangled. It was a pretty clean bullet".  M: "Pretty clean shape?"  T: "Yep". ...
  
  ... Tomlinson tells Marcus:  M: "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?"  T: "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in."   M: "When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?"   T: "Yes."  M: "Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?"  T: "Yes, I believe they did."  M: And as far as you could tell---of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it---but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?"
   T: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."   ...   M: "Uh, now, I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot --- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?"  T: "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now."  M: "Yeah, all right now, the Secret Service then never showed you the bullet---it was just the FBI?"  T: "It was just the FBI."

Does the above look correct to you?

[Martin Weidmann]

No, it means that you hadn't been making any sense in this conversation for a while. And it kept getting worse. It was like trying to have a conversation with a babbling drunkard, except worse due to the normal difficulties of communicating details over an internet forum. I will list some items and see if we can all agree that these are correct.

• Tomlinson tells the WC, in his March 20, 1964 deposition, that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. Tomlinson says nothing about being shown any bullet.
• As far as the evidence shows, CE399 (the bullet in question) can be presumed to be in Washington in late November 1963. In other words, there is no evidence that we know of that shows that CE399 had been sent back to Dallas in late November 1963.
• We know of no evidence in the FBI's records that shows that Shaneyfelt ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Wright.
• On July 25, 1966 Marcus conducts a telephone interview with Tomlinson.
  
  Tomlinson tells Marcus:  T: "No, it wasn't mangled. It was a pretty clean bullet".  M: "Pretty clean shape?"  T: "Yep". ...
  
  ... Tomlinson tells Marcus:  M: "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?"  T: "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in."   M: "When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?"   T: "Yes."  M: "Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?"  T: "Yes, I believe they did."  M: And as far as you could tell---of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it---but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?"
   T: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."   ...   M: "Uh, now, I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot --- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?"  T: "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now."  M: "Yeah, all right now, the Secret Service then never showed you the bullet---it was just the FBI?"  T: "It was just the FBI."

Does the above look correct to you?

No, it means that you hadn't been making any sense in this conversation for a while.

I was making perfect sense, but as John already pointed out, you simply were not listening.

It was like trying to have a conversation with a babbling drunkard

Do you have much experience with such conversations or is it simply intended to be a childish ad hom attack?


Tomlinson tells the WC, in his March 20, 1964 deposition, that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. Tomlinson says nothing about being shown any bullet.

Correct. That's what it says in the published version of the deposition, for which the transcript was written after the fact. Tomlinson never signed the transcript.

As far as the evidence shows, CE399 (the bullet in question) can be presumed to be in Washington in late November 1963. In other words, there is no evidence that we know of that shows that CE399 had been sent back to Dallas in late November 1963.

You can presume all you want, but what is correct is the fact that we don't know where CE399 was in November 1963. There is no chain of custody and there is also no evidence that the bullet was in Washington in November 1963.

We know of no evidence in the FBI's records that shows that Shaneyfelt ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Wright.

So what? Shaneyfelt has nothing to do with this. You probably mean Shanklin and I have already told you that I have never checked the FBI records for such a document. So indeed, we know of no evidence, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Tomlinson tells Marcus:  T: "No, it wasn't mangled. It was a pretty clean bullet".  M: "Pretty clean shape?"  T: "Yep". ...

So what?

Tomlinson tells Marcus: 

M: "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?"
T: "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in."   
M: "When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?"   
T: "Yes." 
M: "Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?" 
T: "Yes, I believe they did." 
M: And as far as you could tell---of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it---but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?"
T: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."   ...   
M: "Uh, now, I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot --- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?" 
T: "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now." 
M: "Yeah, all right now, the Secret Service then never showed you the bullet---it was just the FBI?"  T: "It was just the FBI."

Correct.

Let me guess, now you are going to try to argue, based on no evidence whatsoever that Shanklin never talked to Tomlinson, that the bullet was in Washington in November 63, and that he simply confused Shanklin with Odum, right?

There's just one problem with that argument; in his WC deposition on March 20, 1964 Tomlinson said that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. There is no way he could have been talking about Odum, because according to CE2011 Odum allegedly showed Tomlinson a bullet on June 12, 1964, nearly three months after Tomlinson gave his deposition to the WC.

[Charles Collins]

I don’t see any meaningful difference between “questionable” and “unreliable”.

No, unreliable is not the same thing as false.

I don’t see any meaningful difference between “questionable” and “unreliable”.

Let's try an example that might help you see the difference:

This is a true story that I was told, first person, many years ago.

A man was speeding down the road and pulled over by a cop. The cop explains the situation to the man and writes him a ticket for speeding. When the court date arrives, the man tells the judge that he wasn't speeding according to the speedometer in his car. And the man then hands over a letter from a speedometer shop that says his speedometer in his car had just been tested and calibrated two-weeks before the speeding incident. The judge turns to the cop and asks when his radar gun had last been calibrated. The cop doesn't know. The judge then rules in favor of the man who got the ticket and drops the charges.

The cop's radar gun was questionable. But it wasn't shown to be unreliable. If this had been a more serious crime, the judge might have ordered that both the speedometer and the radar gun in question be tested. Then he probably would have found that the radar gun was accurate because the letter that the speedometer shop wrote was incorrect. The man's speedometer had not been tested or calibrated two-weeks before the incident. And the man had a friend willing to help and was lying about everything.

Do you understand the differene between questionable and unreliable now?

[Charles Collins]

Tomlinson tells the WC, in his March 20, 1964 deposition, that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. Tomlinson says nothing about being shown any bullet.

Correct. That's what it says in the published version of the deposition, for which the transcript was written after the fact. Tomlinson never signed the transcript.

As far as the evidence shows, CE399 (the bullet in question) can be presumed to be in Washington in late November 1963. In other words, there is no evidence that we know of that shows that CE399 had been sent back to Dallas in late November 1963.

You can presume all you want, but what is correct is the fact that we don't know where CE399 was in November 1963. There is no chain of custody and there is also no evidence that the bullet was in Washington in November 1963.

We know of no evidence in the FBI's records that shows that Shaneyfelt ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Wright.

So what? Shaneyfelt has nothing to do with this.

Tomlinson tells Marcus:  T: "No, it wasn't mangled. It was a pretty clean bullet".  M: "Pretty clean shape?"  T: "Yep". ...

So what?

Tomlinson tells Marcus: 

M: "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?"
T: "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in."   
M: "When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?"   
T: "Yes." 
M: "Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?" 
T: "Yes, I believe they did." 
M: And as far as you could tell---of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it---but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?"
T: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."   ...   
M: "Uh, now, I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot --- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?" 
T: "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now." 
M: "Yeah, all right now, the Secret Service then never showed you the bullet---it was just the FBI?"  T: "It was just the FBI."

Correct.

Let me guess, now you are going to try to argue, based on no evidence whatsoever that Shanklin never talked to Tomlinson, that the bullet was in Washington in November 63, and that he simply confused Shanklin with Odum, right?

There's just one problem with that argument; in his WC deposition on March 20, 1964 Tomlinson said that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. There is no way he could have been talking about Odum, because according to CE2011 Odum allegedly showed Tomlinson a bullet on June 12, 1964, nearly three months after Tomlinson gave his deposition to the WC.

So what? Shaneyfelt has nothing to do with this.

My mistake, I meant Shanklin, who does have something to do with this.


There's just one problem with that argument; in his WC deposition on March 20, 1964 Tomlinson said that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. There is no way he could have been talking about Odum, because according to CE2011 Odum allegedly showed Tomlinson a bullet on June 12, 1964, nearly three months after Tomlinson gave his deposition to the WC.

There is no problem with the argument. Tomlinson had only been interviewed once by the FBI when he testified in March 1964. And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.

[Martin Weidmann]

So what? Shaneyfelt has nothing to do with this.

My mistake, I meant Shanklin, who does have something to do with this.


There's just one problem with that argument; in his WC deposition on March 20, 1964 Tomlinson said that he had been interviewed once by the FBI in late November 1963. There is no way he could have been talking about Odum, because according to CE2011 Odum allegedly showed Tomlinson a bullet on June 12, 1964, nearly three months after Tomlinson gave his deposition to the WC.

There is no problem with the argument. Tomlinson had only been interviewed once by the FBI when he testified in March 1964. And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.

And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.

No, it's not reasonable to believe that because Tomlinson also told Marcus that he was shown the bullet once and that was by Shanklin in November 1963.

In both his WC deposition and in his interview with Marcus, Tomlinson is consistently talking about one meeting not two!

[Charles Collins]

And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.

No, it's not reasonable to believe that because Tomlinson also told Marcus that he was shown the bullet once and that was by Shanklin in November 1963.

In both his WC deposition and in his interview with Marcus, Tomlinson is consistently talking about one meeting not two!

In both his WC deposition and in his interview with Marcus, Tomlinson is consistently talking about one meeting not two!

That’s only your opinion.

[Martin Weidmann]

In both his WC deposition and in his interview with Marcus, Tomlinson is consistently talking about one meeting not two!

That’s only your opinion.

It is a fact that Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown a bullet once by Shanklin in November 1963. He also told the WC that he had been interviewed by the FBI once.


Are you claiming there were in fact two meetings?

Or are you saying that there was only one (with Odum) and the one with Shanklin didn't really happen?

[Charles Collins]

It is a fact that Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown a bullet once by Shanklin in November 1963. He also told the WC that he had been interviewed by the FBI once.


Are you claiming there were in fact two meetings?

Or are you saying that there was only one (with Odum) and the one with Shanklin didn't really happen?

It appears to me that there were two meetings. One shortly after the assassination. And the other in June 1964.