The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

Nope, the details were laid out to you and you just ignored them.

And this the reason why you ignored them; it's easier to just dismiss something when you don't have to deal with the facts

Too bad you even have to misrepresent the details to get to this point.

There is no evidence to support your conclusion that Odum (I presume you are talking about him) had a faulty memory, other than - of course - your biased opinion

And there are no "missing documents". What there is, is an Airtel from SAC Shanklin that does not match what the FBI told the WC in CE2011.

But you don't want to know that, right?

You don't want to know that Tomlinson is on record twice saying that the only person who ever showed him a bullet was SAC Shanklin in December 1963, nor do you want to know that Wright is on record saying that the bullet now known as CE399 isn't the pointed bullet he received from Tomlinson. You couldn't care less that Odum stated he never showed any bullet to anybody, nor that there is no FD 302 for that alleged encounter and you certainly don't care that SAC Shanklin never mentioned Odum in his Airtel and gave a different version from what is written in CE2011.

This is the kind of ignorance that the WC and Hoover wanted people to have to sell their fairytale to.

Damn, I guess we should just let Martin tell us what we should think, call the case solved and go home and close up the forum now…. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Damn, I guess we should just let Martin tell us what we should think, call the case solved and go home and close up the forum now…. 

Anything but to deal with the actual details.... So sad

[Charles Collins]

Anything but to deal with the actual details.... So sad

None of this has anything to do with the Walker case. You have tried in vain to imply that the FBI report (CE2011) was deliberately construed to misrepresent the facts surrounding a completely different bullet. Conjecture and innuendo is all you have provided for your implication that the entire CE3011 report, including the Walker bullet identification is tainted. You only have unanswerable questions which you use as innuendo and when no one responds you claim it is because we are ignoring these things. Yet you couldn’t possibly know what we are thinking unless we tell you.

[Martin Weidmann]

None of this has anything to do with the Walker case. You have tried in vain to imply that the FBI report (CE2011) was deliberately construed to misrepresent the facts surrounding a completely different bullet. Conjecture and innuendo is all you have provided for your implication that the entire CE3011 report, including the Walker bullet identification is tainted. You only have unanswerable questions which you use as innuendo and when no one responds you claim it is because we are ignoring these things. Yet you couldn’t possibly know what we are thinking unless we tell you.

You have tried in vain to imply that the FBI report (CE2011) was deliberately construed to misrepresent the facts surrounding a completely different bullet.

Keep running.....

Conjecture and innuendo is all you have provided for your implication that the entire CE3011 report

What CE3011 report? You can't even get that right.

You only have unanswerable questions which you use as innuendo and when no one responds you claim it is because we are ignoring these things. Yet you couldn’t possibly know what we are thinking unless we tell you.

But that's the point. If you have anything of value to say, you would have said it by now..... Instead you are running away from dealing with the facts.... Says everything, really...

[John Mytton]

This is the way it always goes. You cannot back up any of your claims, so you start attacking others. Pitiful…

It's Weidmann's typical behaviour, whenever you try and have a reasonable conversation and point out the ridiculous flaws in his arguments he starts attacking, then as repeated here, he starts insulting "gutless LN" then he comes out with the it's "pathetic". rinse wash repeat.

It seems that every innocent conversation about the evidence always ends the same way, and his list of questionable evidence builds by the day but he will always seem to imply that the conspiracy doesn't need to be massive! Hahaha!

The guy lives breathes and probably dreams about the "Conspiracy" and as he himself recently pointed out, when Weidmann says he's going out for the day, he's still checking out the site on his phone! WOW!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

The conspiracy theorists or those who absurdly claim "show me where I said I was a conspiracy theorist" go all out to defend a person who defected to the enemy at the height of the Cold War and when rejected, hacked into his own wrist which caused massive blood loss and required stitches to repair, the same guy who in a letter to his brother Robert said he was willing to KILL any American, ANY American, the same guy who while in the marines shot himself in the elbow. He also hit his wife!

Is this rant supposed to be evidence that he killed the president or took a shot at Walker?

I find Oswald's history interesting and it's worth people knowing what sort of person Oswald was.

Why do you have a problem with that and if you do, don't read my posts.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

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.

It’s direct evidence as to what Lee told her. It’s not direct evidence that Lee actually did it. And Marina is known to be unreliable.

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.

I don’t know where you got the silly idea that reasonable doubt requires contradictory evidence.

The Walker bullet was described in contemporary reports as a steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet. That’s reasonable doubt. Norvell and McElroy gave different accounts about who found the bullet. That’s reasonable doubt. The only evidence that the bullet was identified is an anonymously written thirdhand account. That’s reasonable doubt. The so-called Walker note doesn’t mention Walker or shooting and cannot be dated. That’s reasonable doubt. The bullet in evidence cannot be matched to a specific rifle to the exclusion of all others. That’s reasonable doubt. Connecting a bullet to a rifle doesn’t tell you who fired it anyway. That’s reasonable doubt. Photos of a house have nothing to do with firing a bullet at somebody. That’s reasonable doubt. You can’t determine who took the photos anyway. That’s reasonable doubt. One of the photos was tampered with anyway, by cutting out a license plate. Oswald would have no reason to do that. That’s reasonable doubt.

[John Iacoletti]

Again, why would anyone need to link Oswald to the Walker attempt AFTER he was already dead, and the investigating authorities were satisfied of his guilt?  What would be the purpose of all that? The conspirators aren't satisfied with just framing him for the JFK assassination and then murdering him to keep him silent?  They now have to frame him for yet another crime by fabricating a note, hiding it in a book in Paine's home, and then somehow manipulating the discovery of the note? 

“Richard” loves this argument.

“Conspirators” would never leave around weak, unreliable, inconclusive evidence, therefore you should consider it to be strong, reliable, conclusive evidence.

If it was good evidence, Oswald did it.

If it’s bad or nonexistent evidence, Oswald did it.

How convenient.