The Walker Case

[John Iacoletti]

It is an official FBI report that the WC asked for, received, and accepted into the record.

Is that supposed to make it something other than third-hand hearsay in an anonymously written letter? We already have Bardwell Odum on record as saying that another part of this anonymously written letter was incorrect when it claimed he showed another piece of evidence to certain people.

[Charles Collins]

Base on your response, I don't think you understand the differences between physical and metaphysical evidence 

It requires no belief or speculation on my part to acknowledge that direct evidence connecting LHO to the crime scene doesn't exist or has never been found.

Marina’s testimony is direct evidence (per the definition in the instructions to the jury that have already been posted in this thread) that LHO confessed to her to taking a shot at Walker on the night of the incident. Marina is an eyewitness to LHO’s confession. The physical evidence supports Marina’s testimony.

The bullet recovered from Walker’s house is direct probative evidence connecting LHO to the crime scene. The experts say that it is completely consistent with a Carcano bullet fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor. And that there are five identifying marks on that bullet that match that specific rifle. Eight identifying marks are what the FBI standards are, but the New York standards only require five identifying marks to exclude all other firearms in the world. The FBI experts therefore state that it very likely came from that rifle. Combine the probabilities of all the evidence (as a jury is required to do). LHO’s confession, the note, Marina’s testimony, the bullet, the photos of Walker’s house, etc.  There is no reasonable doubt (aka: evidence that LHO was not at the scene). And a jury is required to make their conclusions based on the evidence, they are not allowed to consider conjecture. The verdict should be guilty without question.

[Charles Collins]

Is that supposed to make it something other than third-hand hearsay in an anonymously written letter? We already have Bardwell Odum on record as saying that another part of this anonymously written letter was incorrect when it claimed he showed another piece of evidence to certain people.

If Odum actually did go on record regarding an incorrect item, but Odum didn’t go on record with a need to make any corrections to what the official FBI report said about the Walker bullet identification, then I think it stands to reason that Odum must have agreed with the report regarding the Walker bullet. YMMV

[Martin Weidmann]

If Odum actually did go on record regarding an incorrect item, but Odum didn’t go on record with a need to make any corrections to what the official FBI report said about the Walker bullet identification, then I think it stands to reason that Odum must have agreed with the report regarding the Walker bullet. YMMV

What makes you think that Odum even knew about what some unknown FBI employee wrote in a report?
When he was contacted he was completely surprised to learn that his name had been used, in the "authentication" of CE399 so, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Odum must have agreed with anything in CE2011 and that includes anything to do with the Walker shooting.

Btw, where would somebody go to make a statement on the record about what is written in a FBI report that's locked away for many years in the National Archives?

[Charles Collins]

What makes you think that Odum even knew about what some unknown FBI employee wrote in a report?
When he was contacted he was completely surprised to learn that his name had been used, in the "authentication" of CE399 so, no, it doesn't stand to reason that Odum must have agreed with anything in CE2011 and that includes anything to do with the Walker shooting.

Btw, where would somebody go to make a statement on the record about what is written in a FBI report that's locked away for many years in the National Archives?

Is that supposed to make it something other than third-hand hearsay in an anonymously written letter? We already have Bardwell Odum on record as saying that another part of this anonymously written letter was incorrect when it claimed he showed another piece of evidence to certain people.

John’s claim states that Odum said part of the report was incorrect. It is reasonable to believe that if this is true that Odum must have actually read the report. If you can show that Odum didn’t read the report then you might have a point.

[Martin Weidmann]

John’s claim states that Odum said part of the report was incorrect. It is reasonable to believe that if this is true that Odum must have actually read the report. If you can show that Odum didn’t read the report then you might have a point.

This only shows that you are not familiar with the actual facts.

CE2011 is the FBI's response to a request of the WC for authentication of a number of pieces of evidence that, at that point, lacked such authentication.
In the report it said that Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that neither could confirm that it was the bullet they handled at Parkland on 11/22/63. However, it added that both men thought the bullet looked similar.

We have since learned that Tomlinson was only shown a bullet once, by SAC Shanklin, in December 1963 and that Wright is on record saying that the bullet we now know as CE399 does not resemble the bullet he received from Tomlinson on 11/22/63. We also know that Odum was known for writing reports about everything he did and that for this alleged encounter no report exists or has been found.

The FBI report, written in Washington when Odum was stationed in Dallas, went under lock and key along with all the other WC documents. When it was finally released into the public domain, many years later, researchers noted the discrepancy between what was written in CE2011 and an Airtel of SAC Shanklin about the same matter.

So, they contacted Odum who reacted with surprise that his name had been used because he had never had or shown CE399 to anybody. If Odum had read the report, when it was presented to the WC, he would not have reacted surprised when he learned his name had been used.

So, John was correct in pointing out that Odum said that a part of the report was not correct.

[Charles Collins]

This only shows that you are not familiar with the actual facts.

CE2011 is the FBI's response to a request of the WC for authentication of a number of pieces of evidence that, at that point, lacked such authentication.
In the report it said that Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that neither could confirm that it was the bullet they handled at Parkland on 11/22/63. However, it added that both men thought the bullet looked similar.

We have since learned that Tomlinson was only shown a bullet once, by SAC Shanklin, in December 1963 and that Wright is on record saying that the bullet we now know as CE399 does not resemble the bullet he received from Tomlinson on 11/22/63. We also know that Odum was known for writing reports about everything he did and that for this alleged encounter no report exists or has been found.

The FBI report, written in Washington when Odum was stationed in Dallas, went under lock and key along with all the other WC documents. When it was finally released into the public domain, many years later, researchers noted the discrepancy between what was written in CE2011 and an Airtel of SAC Shanklin about the same matter.

So, they contacted Odum who reacted with surprise that his name had been used because he had never had or shown CE399 to anybody. If Odum had read the report, when it was presented to the WC, he would not have reacted surprised when he learned his name had been used.

So, John was correct in pointing out that Odum said that a part of the report was not correct.

What makes you think that CE 2011 was written in Washington? At the top of the report, just under the official FBI letterhead, is typed: Dallas, Texas, July 7, 1964.

[Martin Weidmann]

What makes you think that CE 2011 was written in Washington? At the top of the report, just under the official FBI letterhead, is typed: Dallas, Texas, July 7, 1964.

Does that mean the entire report was written in Dallas?

So, the Dallas office sent people to Washington and New Orleans to verify the authenticity of pieces of evidence. Does that make sense to you?

Anyway, it's hardly relevant where it was written. The fact remains that Odum wasn't aware his name had been used in the report, which automatically means that he didn't read it before it was submitted to the WC.