The Walker Case

[John Iacoletti]

I have provided a legal definition of reasonable doubt.

And nothing in this argument violates it. You made an appeal to “speculation” and there is none. You’re trying to equate reasonable doubt to providing solid evidence that something is false, which is not part of the definition.

Your idea of “It just requires doubt about what’s presented as evidence” leaves out a crucial word: reasonable. You need a reason to doubt, not just speculation.

You don’t think disagreement with your assumptions is “reasonable”. No surprise there. The doubt lies in the letter being anonymously written thirdhand hearsay that conflicts with what some witnesses referred to therein said directly. It has nothing to do with speculation.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

And I think that you really should stop referring to CE2011 as anonymous. It is clearly written by the Dallas Office of the FBI

An office doesn't write reports or memos. People do. So, who exactly wrote CE2011? If you don't know you have an document on FBI paper written by somebody anonymous

[Charles Collins]

You didn’t say his memory could have been impeded. You stated outright that it was faulty. That’s bias.

It is anonymous. Nobody knows what person wrote the words or how the information in there was gathered and reported to the author. And it wasn’t “clearly” written by the Dallas office. An office can’t write. And the document you cited just says they made contributions. It doesn’t say who the author was.

You stated outright that it was faulty.

Where?


It is anonymous. Nobody knows what person wrote the words or how the information in there was gathered and reported to the author. And it wasn’t “clearly” written by the Dallas office. An office can’t write. And the document you cited just says they made contributions. It doesn’t say who the author was

It is apparently unsigned. That’s it. The FBI document that I referenced tells us that the overall letterhead memo is to be by Dallas Office. The overall letterhead memo has the Dallas Office of the FBI identified just below the letterhead. This overall memo is also known as CE2011. Each individual identification lists the persons and dates involved in that particular identification. So the source of the memo, and the persons involved in the identifications have been identified. The memo is therefore not anonymous. It is however apparently unsigned, so we may never know which one of the typists in the Dallas Office of the FBI actually typed it. So what if he typist is anonymous, it doesn’t make the memo anonymous. If you were to change your characterization of the memo accordingly, I wouldn’t have to correct you any more.

[Charles Collins]

You just don’t think it’s reasonable to question “FBI letter says so”. I do.

I gave you reasonable doubt. Again, it’s not necessary to prove it’s false. It’s tainted merely by the unanswerable questions surrounding its existence.

CE2011 is about as blatant a case of words being put in the mouths of interviewees as you can have. Yet that’s perfectly fine with you. Because FBI.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what hypothetical reason for the inconsistencies is actually true. The issue is that there are inconsistencies, so you can’t determine which is correct. Other than by making excuses like “Odum was old”.

No, you need solid evidence to claim that it is false. It’s unreliable merely because it doesn’t match what some of the people therein stated directly. It has no corroboration whatsoever.

Questioning it is one thing. Claiming that it is unreliable without any reasonable evidence is another thing which is pure speculation and not allowed to be considered by a jury.


In the end, it doesn’t matter what hypothetical reason for the inconsistencies is actually true. The issue is that there are inconsistencies, so you can’t determine which is correct.

Of course it matters which is correct if you want to claim the document is unreliable you need something more than suspicions, innuendo and conjecture.


No, you need solid evidence to claim that it is false. It’s unreliable merely because it doesn’t match what some of the people therein stated directly. It has no corroboration whatsoever.

You need to show that it is false before you can claim that it is unreliable. Suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture will not suffice.

[Charles Collins]

And nothing in this argument violates it. You made an appeal to “speculation” and there is none. You’re trying to equate reasonable doubt to providing solid evidence that something is false, which is not part of the definition.

You don’t think disagreement with your assumptions is “reasonable”. No surprise there. The doubt lies in the letter being anonymously written thirdhand hearsay that conflicts with what some witnesses referred to therein said directly. It has nothing to do with speculation.

And nothing in this argument violates it. You made an appeal to “speculation” and there is none. You’re trying to equate reasonable doubt to providing solid evidence that something is false, which is not part of the definition.

Your argument violates it because your claim that CE2011 is unreliable is based on nothing but speculation. All you have is questions. You cannot claim something is unreliable without showing that it actually is unreliable.


The doubt lies in the letter being anonymously written thirdhand hearsay that conflicts with what some witnesses referred to therein said directly. It has nothing to do with speculation.


All possible doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. Speculation and unanswered questions are not reasonable doubt.

[Martin Weidmann]

Questioning it is one thing. Claiming that it is unreliable without any reasonable evidence is another thing which is pure speculation and not allowed to be considered by a jury.


In the end, it doesn’t matter what hypothetical reason for the inconsistencies is actually true. The issue is that there are inconsistencies, so you can’t determine which is correct.

Of course it matters which is correct if you want to claim the document is unreliable you need something more than suspicions, innuendo and conjecture.


No, you need solid evidence to claim that it is false. It’s unreliable merely because it doesn’t match what some of the people therein stated directly. It has no corroboration whatsoever.

You need to show that it is false before you can claim that it is unreliable. Suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture will not suffice.

Oh boy,

Is it a suspicion, innuendo or conjecture to compare the content of SAC Shanklin's airtel and the content of CE2011 on that subject and determine, without a shadow of doubt, that the content of both documents does not match?

Shanklin was in charge of the Dallas FBI office. CE2011 must have been written under his supervision. We know from the National Archives that there are no FD 302 reports on this subject that are missing. So, how did Shanklin get from "neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet" to the added (and I paraphrase) "both men thought the bullet looked similar"?

[Charles Collins]

Oh boy,

Is it a suspicion, innuendo or conjecture to compare the content of SAC Shanklin's airtel and the content of CE2011 on that subject and determine, without a shadow of doubt, that the content of both documents does not match?

Shanklin was in charge of the Dallas FBI office. CE2011 must have been written under his supervision. We know from the National Archives that there are no FD 302 reports on this subject that are missing. So, how did Shanklin get from "neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet" to the added (and I paraphrase) "both men thought the bullet looked similar"?

There is no conflict. Both can be correct.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no conflict. Both can be correct.

That's not an answer to my question