The Walker Case

[Martin Weidmann]

It appears to me that there were two meetings. One shortly after the assassination. And the other in June 1964.

That's only your opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all.

In your theory, Odum and Tomlinson must both have forgotten the meeting completely. Very unlikely....

[Richard Smith]

That's only your opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all.

The irony!

[Charles Collins]

That's only your opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all.

In your theory, Odum and Tomlinson must both have forgotten the meeting completely. Very unlikely....

No, Tomlinson didn’t forget the meeting. He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview. I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all. And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, Tomlinson didn’t forget the meeting. He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview. I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all. And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".


He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview.

No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all.

No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous. [/quote]

And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

[Charles Collins]

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".


He told Marcus about it on the telephone in a late night interview.

No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

I think that it is reasonable that he got the date wrong. That is all.

No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

And CE2011 is documentation from the FBI that Odum did interview Tomlinson on June 12, 1964. So, you idea that my opinion is based on nothing at all is ridiculous.

And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".

It is relevant evidence. I am not questioning it. You are the one who claims it is unreliable, not me.


No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

Tomlinson could easily be mistaken, in a late-night telephone interview in 1966, about who he thought Odum was. What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.


No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

It is quite reasonable given the circumstances of the interview that are already posted in this reply. Heck, you got confused about who and when Tomlinson told about seeing CE399 earlier in this thread. You claimed he told the WC that in his deposition. I corrected you. If you can get confused like that shortly after typing the relevant passages, then so could Tomlinson when being interviewed late at night ~2-years afterwards.


And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

Already addressed. But since you repeated it, I will add an 

[Martin Weidmann]

What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence".

It is relevant evidence. I am not questioning it. You are the one who claims it is unreliable, not me.

No, he told Marcus about the meeting with Shanklin. He does not mention Odum.

Tomlinson could easily be mistaken, in a late-night telephone interview in 1966, about who he thought Odum was. What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.

No, that's not a reasonable conclusion, because Tomlinson specifically mentions Shanklin and he did not have a meeting with Shanklin in June 1964.

It is quite reasonable given the circumstances of the interview that are already posted in this reply. Heck, you got confused about who and when Tomlinson told about seeing CE399 earlier in this thread. You claimed he told the WC that in his deposition. I corrected you. If you can get confused like that shortly after typing the relevant passages, then so could Tomlinson when being interviewed late at night ~2-years afterwards.

And there is the "FBI said so" argument again. What is ridiculous is to use the document that is being challenged as "evidence" .

Already addressed. But since you repeated it, I will add an 

What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.

I'm not all that interested in being taken seriously by a man who pretends evidence which has already been provided doesn't exist.

Tomlinson told the WC he was interviewed only once by the FBI and he told Marcus that it was Shanklin who showed him a bullet in November 1963. There is no reason, except perhaps your wishful thinking, to believe that Tomlinson was confused or mistaken.

Your theory relies on;

Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
There were really two meetings - Evidence for this claim: non-existing

And I should take you seriously?

[Charles Collins]

What you need is something that documents Shanklin ever interviewed either one of them if you want to be taken seriously about this.

I'm not all that interested in being taken seriously by a man who pretends evidence which has already been provided doesn't exist.

Tomlinson told the WC he was interviewed only once by the FBI and he told Marcus that it was Shanklin who showed him a bullet in November 1963. There is no reason, except perhaps your wishful thinking, to believe that Tomlinson was confused or mistaken.

Your theory relies on;

Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum - Evidence for this claim: non-existing
There were really two meetings - Evidence for this claim: non-existing

And I should take you seriously?

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture. You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.


Odum was old and was asked to remember details from almost 40-years earlier by two biased interviewers with an agenda. You showed that your colors are similar to theirs when you distorted the picture by omission of Tomlinson's remarks that the bullet looked like the same one to him. That is one of the main tactics that they use regularly. How are we supposed to know everything that was really said? The partial telephone interview with gaps that is included in their article is a joke. But you apparently blindly accept it as the truth and rely completely upon it and the word of the biased interviewers with an agenda. And you think that people should take you seriously?

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture. You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.

Odum was old and was asked to remember details from almost 40-years earlier by two biased interviewers with an agenda. You showed that your colors are similar to theirs when you distorted the picture by omission of Tomlinson's remarks that the bullet looked like the same one to him. That is one of the main tactics that they use regularly. How are we supposed to know everything that was really said? The partial telephone interview with gaps that is included in their article is a joke. But you apparently blindly accept it as the truth and rely completely upon it and the word of the biased interviewers with an agenda. And you think that people should take you seriously?

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

Your theory that the FBI document CE2011 is unreliable has absolutely no evidence to support it. Only suspicions, innuendo, and conjecture.

Oh please, give me a break and try to sing another song for once. This is getting boring!

You are relying completely on two separate interviews that are not sworn testimony, that are highly questionable, and in the case of Thompson & Aguilar at least, quite biased with an agenda. I don't know anything about Marcus' interview circumstances except what we can see in the interview itself. So it may or may not have some "baggage" with it.

So, now the interviewers somehow can't be trusted? Hilarious. Thompson wrote in his book "Six seconds in Dallas" what Wright told him about the bullet and he has never ever been challenged. As far as Marcus goes, the HSCA found his interview sufficiently reliable to add it to their files.

CE2011 is evidence probative of two separate meetings, Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. I really don't care whether you like it or not.

I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in no way shape or form provide evidence of two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

Every one of your claims that evidence is "non-existing" are false.

Really? Then where, other than in your imagination, is the evidence for;

1. Odum was old and probably forgot about showing a bullet to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland
2. Tomlinson could have mistaken Shanklin for Odum
3. There were really two meetings

CE2011 is utterly unreliable because it falsely claims that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought the bullet looked similar. Odum denies completely that it happened. Tomlinson says he was only shown a bullet once, by Shanklin in November 1963 and Wright - a former police man who knows about weapons and ammo - disputes that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is even remotely similar to the pointed bullet he actually saw.

You don't have to like it, but it is what it is, no matter how hard you try to dismiss all the information.

The one who is speculating to keep his narrative alive is you!

Instead of desperately trying to discredit just about everybody involved in this matter, why don't you give it a try to provide a shred of evidence (except of course "FBI said so") to support the validity of the content of the report, on the matter we have been discussing.