The Walker Case

[John Iacoletti]

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?

That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?

What happened to your insistence on “authentication” that you always clamor about regarding the plethora of incriminating evidence.

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

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.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.

[Charles Collins]

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.

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.

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.

Those are inconsistencies, not proof.


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.


Again, no one has proven that CE2011 is unreliable. All we have are some inconsistencies and unanswered questions. And again, even if a part of a document such as CE2011 is found to have an error (it hasn’t been) that does not automatically mean the entire document is unreliable.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Those are inconsistencies, not proof.

This is where the disconnect is. Nobody has to prove CE2011 false. If you want to rely on it as evidence, you need to demonstrate that it is true. The inconsistencies raise doubt as to its veracity. The anonymous, thirdhand nature of the document raises doubt about its authenticity.

Again, no one has proven that CE2011 is unreliable.

The inconsistencies make it unreliable. If it could be proven false then we would say it’s false, not just unreliable.

And again, even if a part of a document such as CE2011 is found to have an error (it hasn’t been) that does not automatically mean the entire document is unreliable.

If there’s no way to determine what parts are reliable and what parts are not, then an unreliable source is an unreliable source.

[Charles Collins]

That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.

That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer

It is a reasonable standard and prerequisite if the two “researchers” want anyone to believe them. Why would they include only selected portions of a very ambiguous telephone conversation (due to a “mistake” in which the one document that clarifies what the interviewer is asking about) and turn around and include no transcript for their in-person interview?

No double standard. C2011 is an official FBI document written by the Dallas Office of the FBI. It was admitted into evidence by the WC. Your innuendo that it is somehow tainted is pure speculation. A jury could not consider speculation.

[Charles Collins]

That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Ridiculous, reasonable doubt is not based on inconsistencies that only generate questions without answers, only speculation. Speculation is not reasonable doubt. Your idea of reasonable doubt is most definitely not based on the legal definition.

[John Iacoletti]

It is a reasonable standard and prerequisite if the two “researchers” want anyone to believe them.

If that’s the case (and I tend to agree) then why aren’t you applying the same standard to the anonymous FBI letter writer? In that case, there isn’t even anybody to challenge. IMHO by design.

No double standard. C2011 is an official FBI document written by the Dallas Office of the FBI.

So that makes it somehow immune to equal scrutiny?

It was admitted into evidence by the WC.

Without any scrutiny, it seems. Does the WC’s deference to the FBI somehow make this letter authenticated in any way?

Weak, uncorroborated thirdhand hearsay is weak, uncorroborated, thirdhand hearsay. Regardless of the source.

Your innuendo that it is somehow tainted is pure speculation. A jury could not consider speculation.

Reasonable doubt doesn’t require proof of tampering. Or speculation.

[Charles Collins]

That’s quite a double standard. Why don’t you require anything of the sort from your anonymous letter writer?

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.

Yes, but your attempt to equate “old” with “faulty memory” is a smear. Merely to prop up an anonymous letter that you would prefer to believe.


Old age and an elapsed time frame of almost 440-years are easily demonstrated to be impediments to accurate memories. It is fact, not some intentional smear based on a bias. And I think that you really should stop referring to CE2011 as anonymous. It is clearly written by the Dallas Office of the FBI and was accepted by the WC as such. You are the one trying to smear the FBI because of your bias.

[John Iacoletti]

Because I’m only arguing for reasonable doubt — not claiming to prove any particular claim. You have a higher burden and standard.

Ridiculous, reasonable doubt is not based on inconsistencies that only generate questions without answers, only speculation. Speculation is not reasonable doubt. Your idea of reasonable doubt is most definitely not based on the legal definition.

You seem to be under the impression that reasonable doubt requires proof to the contrary. It doesn’t. It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence. Doubt is based on the quality, relevance, and reliability of what’s presented. There’s no speculation involved.