The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

That's not an answer to my question

How would I know? Why do you think it matters. Is this just another one of the unanswerable questions that you plan to use to insinuate something sinister? More suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture are getting you nowhere. It has been that way for almost 60-years and will continue to be that way.

[Martin Weidmann]

How would I know? Why do you think it matters. Is this just another one of the unanswerable questions that you plan to use to insinuate something sinister? More suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture are getting you nowhere. It has been that way for almost 60-years and will continue to be that way.

Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.

It has been obvious for a very long time now that you are one of those die hard LNs who call themselves reasonable but who in fact will not accept (and dismiss outright) anything that could negatively impact their "Oswald did it alone" mindset. That's fine. You can have that opinion. But what I don't understand is why you clearly are so afraid of evidence you don't like that you even refuse to discuss it.

Let's try this again; SAC Dallas Gordon Shanklin wrote in an airtel to his superiors in Washington that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet.
There is no FD302 by Odum or any other officer on this subject that could have provided the additional "both men thought it was the same bullet" for inclusion in CE2011

Yet, CE2011, written by somebody in Shanklin's office somehow just added that last part and thus changed the total context of the message.

Now, you may have no problem with some unidentified FBI official, being part of an official investigation, adding on something in a report that neither witness actually said, but I do.

So, when you ask why it matters, the answer is that it is manipulation of evidence to present as evidence something that a witness never said!

[Charles Collins]

Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.

Again. SAC Dallas Gordon Shanklin wrote in an airtel to his superiors in Washington that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet.
There is no FD302 by Odum or any other officer on this subject that could have provided the "both men thought it was the same bullet" for inclusion in CE2011

Yet, CE2011, written by somebody in Shanklin's office somehow just added that last part and thus change the total context of the message.

Now, you may have no problem with some unidentified FBI official, being part of an official investigation, adding on something in a report that neither witness actually said, but I do.

So, when you ask why it matters, the answer is that it is manipulation of evidence to present as evidence something that a witness never said!

“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation. The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say. The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict). The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews. If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.

[Martin Weidmann]

“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation. The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say. The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict). The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews. If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.

“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation.

No it isn't. Tomlinson is on record twice that he was only shown a bullet once, in December 1963 by SAC Shanklin, so there is no way he could have told anything to Odum and Wright is on record that the bullet he saw on 11/22/63 was pointed, which eliminates the possibility that he told Odum "it looks like the bullet".

The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say.

Really? Then show us where that information came from. How did the man who wrote CE2011 in Shanklin's office know what both witnesses (allegedly) said, when there are no FD 302 reports by Odum about the alleged meeting?

And "could just as well" is a nice bit of speculation.....

The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict).

More "could just as well" speculation. You clearly seem to think that an Airtel from an Agent in Charge of a fieldoffice to FBI headoffice can easily contain incomplete information.... Really?

And indeed, there is no conflict between the Airtel and CE2011 when it concerns the "could not identify" part. But that part isn't the problem!

The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews.

More "could just as well" speculation. And what "complete interviews"? Where are the transcripts of those interviews? You know, the FD 302 that Odum said he would have written if the meeting with Tomlinson and Wright had indeed taken place. Those same FD 302's the National Archives looked for and could not find. Actually because of the numbering of documents they were able to conclude that those FD 302's were not missing and thus simply did not exist.

If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.

Oh yes I have... it's painfully obvious what's wrong with it, but you will never be willing to see it. Instead you prefer the "could just as well" speculations you have displayed here.

[Charles Collins]

“Adding something that neither witness said” is pure speculation.

No it isn't. Tomlinson is on record twice that he was only shown a bullet once, in December 1963 by SAC Shanklin, so there is no way he could have told anything to Odum and Wright is on record that the bullet he saw on 11/22/63 was pointed, which eliminates the possibility that he told Odum "it looks like the bullet".

The CE2011 memo could just as well contain what they did say.

Really? Then show us where that information came from. How did the man who wrote CE2011 in Shanklin's office know what both witnesses (allegedly) said, when there are no FD 302 reports by Odum about the alleged meeting?

And "could just as well" is a nice bit of speculation.....

The air tel could just as well mean they didn’t positively identify the bullet, which is also what is said in CE2011 (hence no conflict).

More "could just as well" speculation. You clearly seem to think that an Airtel from an Agent in Charge of a fieldoffice to FBI headoffice can easily contain incomplete information.... Really?

And indeed, there is no conflict between the Airtel and CE2011 when it concerns the "could not identify" part. But that part isn't the problem!

The “additions” could just as well simply be elaborating on the complete interviews.

More "could just as well" speculation. And what "complete interviews"? Where are the transcripts of those interviews? You know, the FD 302 that Odum said he would have written if the meeting with Tomlinson and Wright had indeed taken place. Those same FD 302's the National Archives looked for and could not find. Actually because of the numbering of documents they were able to conclude that those FD 302's were not missing and thus simply did not exist.

If you are going to claim that CE2011 is unreliable you have to first show that there is something actually wrong with it. You haven’t done that.

Oh yes I have... it's painfully obvious what's wrong with it, but you will never be willing to see it. Instead you prefer the "could just as well" speculations you have displayed here.

All you have provided so far is speculation, hearsay, and more questions.

[Martin Weidmann]

All you have provided so far is speculation, hearsay, and more questions.

Thank you for proving my point.

Is there an error in your software? You seem to think that everything you don't agree with or like is somehow "suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture". What's up with that.

You can't explain where the addition of the "both men thought it looked similar" came from. You can't even prove that the meeting of Odum, Tomlinson and Wright actually took place and you can't refute any of the information I have provided so you just dismiss it all and rely on CE2011..... because "the FBI said so" 

You've shown your faith based true colors and just like any other die hard LN you can't even argue your own case.

[Charles Collins]

Thank you for proving my point.

You can't explain where the addition of the "both men thought it looked similar" came from. You can't even prove that the meeting of Odum, Tomlinson and Wright actually took place and you can't refute any of the information I have provided so you just dismiss it all and rely on CE2011..... because "the FBI said so" 

You've shown your faith based true colors and just like any other die hard LN you can't even argue your own case.

What?! No real evidence? Basing everything on what your two “researchers” say? 

[Martin Weidmann]

What?! No real evidence? Basing everything on what your two “researchers” say?

Not really....

From Tomlinson's WC deposition;

Mr. SPECTER. How many times did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Once.
Mr. SPECTER. How many times did the Secret Service interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Once.
Mr. SPECTER. When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when was that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that was the latter part of November.

From the transcript of the Marcus - Tomlinson interview July 25, 1966 (HSCA RG 233)

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 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: Appeared to be. OK, so that was the only time that the FBI, then, ever asked you to maken an identification of the bullet to your recollection.
T: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock --- uh, excuse me that's saPersonay morning --- after the assassination the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.

O.V. Wright's story about the pointed bullet was published in the book "Six seconds in Dallas" by Josiah Thompson and has never ever been challenged by anybody.

I bet you never wondered why the WC did not call Wright to testify, and why they didn't show CE399 to Tomlinson during his deposition, right?

The only one who has no real evidence for your "could have been" claims is you!

When you find a way to squeeze "Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright" in there, you will let me know, won't you?

But let me guess;

Odum was old and thus must have forgotten the entire encounter
Tomlinson also just forgot the Odum encounter
Wright was lying to Josiah Thompson
The National Archives didn't search well enough for the FB302's
And SAC Shanklin showed massive dereliction of duty by not informing his superiors completely in his Airtel

Does that sound about right?