The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

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 now way shape or form provide evidence 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.

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

You may find it boring. And I may get tired of repeating it. However, it is the truth.


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.

Regardless of anything else, all you have is hearsay.


I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

It most certainly does. You just don't want to admit it.


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

I already have. Unfortunately, you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water (much like the traffic court judge did in the story I posted for John's benefit). If the judge really needed to get down to the truth, he could have had the radar gun tested instead of dismissing the charges. If he had, the charges would have stuck because the speeder was lying his ass off.


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 have presented nothing that shows CE2011 is unreliable. All you have done is present hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc that suggests that it is questionable. And again I will allude to the radar gun in the story not being tested.


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.

Instead of making claims that you cannot support with anything but hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. Try finding something that supports your claims. I have already given some items that you might want to look for. We won't hold our breaths waiting for it however. 

[Martin Weidmann]

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

You may find it boring. And I may get tired of repeating it. However, it is the truth.

It's your truth perhaps... There is a difference.

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.

Regardless of anything else, all you have is hearsay.

And round and round we go..... But at least now we know that you feel the interviewers can't be trusted for the simple reason that their message isn't what you want to hear.

I don't have to like it. It's an outright lie. CE2011 does not, in now way shape or form provide evidence two meetings and/or for Tomlinson mistaking Odum for Shanklin, and getting the date wrong. You just made that up... all of it.

It most certainly does. You just don't want to admit it.

There is nothing to admit. Your "say so" doesn't count for much.

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

I already have. Unfortunately, you insist on throwing out the baby with the bath water (much like the traffic court judge did in the story I posted for John's benefit). If the judge really needed to get down to the truth, he could have had the radar gun tested instead of dismissing the charges. If he had, the charges would have stuck because the speeder was lying his ass off.

Nope. You have presented no evidence at all. Just pure and utter speculation. If, as you claim, you have already provided that evidence (so not your speculations) than it should be easy for you to tell me the number of the post in which you provided it. You don't do that, because you can't.

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 have presented nothing that shows CE2011 is unreliable. All you have done is present hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc that suggests that it is questionable. And again I will allude to the radar gun in the story not being tested.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!

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.

Instead of making claims that you cannot support with anything but hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. Try finding something that supports your claims. I have already given some items that you might want to look for. We won't hold our breaths waiting for it however. 

I take it this means that you can't produce a shred of evidence to support your claim that CE2011 is reliable? Got it 

I don't have to provide more evidence than I already have. All you've got is "FBI said so" with some added speculations and stuff you simply made up.

I'll let you have the last word, because this yes/no thing is going nowhere and I have better things to do.

[Charles Collins]

It's your truth perhaps... There is a difference.

And round and round we go.....

There is nothing to admit. Your "say so" doesn't count for much

Nope. You have presented no evidence at all. Just pure and utter speculation. If, as you claim, you have already provided that evidence (so not your speculations) than it should be easy for you to tell me the number of the post in which you provided it. You don't do that, because you can't.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!

I don't have to. All you've got is "FBI said so" with some added speculations and stuff you simply made up.

I'll let you have the last word, because this yes/no thing is going nowhere.

Even if that were true, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't have to prove CE2011 is unreliable. The person who relies on a piece of evidence needs to prove it's reliable. And, silly stories about radar guns or not, you simply can not corroborate what is written in CE 2011. Period!

You are the one who burst into this thread and claimed that CE2011 is unreliable. You have not shown that it is, only that you are questioning it with a bunch of hearsay, suspicions, conjecture, etc. I have shown reasonable theories that could explain all of the perceived inconsistencies. You claim that the official FBI document, CE2011 contains false information. But you offer no explanation as to why, who, what, or when this alleged false information was placed in that document. You claimed that "there is no way for that information to be accurate." I have shown how it can be accurate based on some inaccurate memories. I have shown that your memory isn't always accurate; you confused the two different transcripts with respect to when Tomlinson said anything about seeing C399. Why do you not think it is possible for two other people to have confused a few details from years earlier. Tomlinson appears to be a reliable witness and his description of what the bullet looked like when he found it on 11/22/63 agrees with the official account. Tomlinson qualified his statement regarding the date he was shown the bullet by: (I paraphrase) "the best I can remember." So, Tomlinson was not 100% sure of when he was shown the bullet. Your theory is shot to hell and back if that date was not accurate. Plus you have yet to show any evidence that Shanklin ever interviewed Tomlinson, much less that he did so in November, 1963. None of the hearsay that you have presented has been authenticated. All we have is the word of two very biased "researchers", Thompson & Aguilar, who have an agenda to try to prove their theories and sell their book. What they have presented is a joke. And you eat it up and rely upon it for what Odum supposedly said. They don't even publish the transcript from the in-person interview, the phone interview is worthless. Frankly, you have absolutely nothing to even question CE2011 with, much less show that it is unreliable. At least the speeder brought in an official receipt from the speedometer company to turn over to the court. it was falsified, but the judge chose expediency over truth-finding. You haven't brought anything even remotely close to the speedometer shop's receipt's perceived authenticity to this argument. I doubt very seriously that you have ever let anyone have the last word on anything. But maybe this will be a first. I sure hope so.

[Michael Capasse]

There is no problem with the argument. Tomlinson had only been interviewed once by the FBI when he testified in March 1964. And it is reasonable to believe that Tomlinson could have been mistaken about when he actually was shown the bullet, when he was interviewed by Marcus in 1966.

Actually, no it's not. "could have been mistaken", doesn't carry much weight against the two men that agreed Odum never showed Tomlinson the bullet.

[Walt Cakebread]

How would Carl Day know where CE573 came from?

Where's the PROOF that CE573  was fired by someone who intended to kill Walker?   Is there anybody who is such a poor shot that he couldn't hit Walker from the close range involved???  Isn't the idea that someoneone was trying to kill Walker just a tad absurd?   

[Walt Cakebread]

CE573 does indeed look copper-jacketed. Is there any good reason to believe that CE573 is the “steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet” that was retrieved from the Walker home in April, 1963?

Is there any good reason to believe that CE573 is the “steel-jacketed .30 caliber bullet” that was retrieved from the Walker home in April, 1963?

C'mon John.....

We don't know where the reporter who reported that the bullet was 30 cal and steel jacked got his info.  But it's unreasonable to believe that the bullet (CE 573) was in fact a steel jacketed bullet , because steel jacked bullets were and are, quite rare outside the military. And if that bullet had been steel jacketed it would not have been mangled by passing through the soft substances of Walker's house. IOW if the bullet had been "steel Jacketed" it probably would have been as pristine as CE 399....and CE 399 is a damned lie.....   

[John Iacoletti]

The cop's radar gun was questionable. But it wasn't shown to be unreliable.

No, your example doesn’t help because IMO you are making the same error. The mere fact that the radar gun is of unknown calibration makes the cop’s claim of speeding unreliable. If you could demonstrate the device was incorrect, then it wouldn’t be unreliable — it would just be wrong. Unreliable means you can’t rely on what it says to be correct. It could still be correct, but you don’t know.

[Charles Collins]

No, your example doesn’t help because IMO you are making the same error. The mere fact that the radar gun is of unknown calibration makes the cop’s claim of speeding unreliable. If you could demonstrate the device was incorrect, then it wouldn’t be unreliable — it would just be wrong. Unreliable means you can’t rely on what it says to be correct. It could still be correct, but you don’t know.

For the radar gun to be declared unreliable, it would need to be shown that it cannot be relied upon to function accurately. The fact that the cop had no documentation with him indicating when it was last calibrated is not relevant to the radar gun’s actual performance reliabilities. The judge just chose expediency over truth-finding. It is that simple.

You are confusing “unknown reliability” with “unreliability.” You are jumping to a conclusion as to it’s reliability and stating that it cannot be relied upon to be accurate. When all you know is that there was no documentation brought to court by the cop that says when the radar gun was last calibrated.

So, lets apply this to what we have concerning CE2011. Documentation indicates that it does appear to have been generated in the Dallas, TX FBI office. It does appear that it came to the Warren Commission through the proper channels and therefore accepted by the WC as evidence. Therefore it does appear that only the typist is anonymous (not the entire document). Additionally, there is documentation indicating that CE399 was sent from Washington to Dallas in early June, 1964. We also find documentation indicating that Odum interviewed the two Parkland Hospital employees in question on June 12, 1964. However, we don’t find any documentation indicating that CE399 was sent to Dallas in late November 1963. Nor do we find any documentation indicating that Shanklin interviewed either one of the Parkland Hospital employees in question in late November 1963 (or ever).

Human memories are often fallible. This is why we document things. It is why I normally take a list with me to the grocery store. It is why we often-times develop routines regarding things we need to do; the routines help us to remember. And why, when those routines are interrupted, we sometimes forget to do the things we needed do.

Now, you are claiming that CE2011 is “unreliable” based upon the two Parkland Hospital employees’ ~2.5-year old and almost 39-year old “apparent memories”. Their “apparent memories” are indicated to us through hearsay by (at least two) interviewers who are demonstrably biased towards the conspiracy side.

I submit that the questionable reliability monicker properly belongs with the “apparent memories” that your claim is based upon. Therefore your claim is not in any way shown to be true. Only that you have questioned the reliability of CE2011; and that the basis for your question is based upon some very questionable hearsay.