The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

Show me where Tomlinson told the WC this.

Playing games?

What you posted of the WC testimony only shows Tomlinson saying he was interviewed once. Not one word about being shown a bullet.

He wasn't asked during his depositon (for the same reason that he was never shown CE399).

But he did explain in the Marcus interview, which I am sure you will dismiss regardless of it being part of the HSCA files.

What you posted of the WC testimony only shows Tomlinson saying he was interviewed once. Not one word about being shown a bullet.

True, for that you need to check the HSCA records, unless, of course, you are going to dismiss those as bogus as well

You are really desperate, aren't you?

So, do you agree that Tomlinson never told the WC that he was shown a bullet?

[Martin Weidmann]

But let's get back to basic.

What evidence is there that shows C2011 is authetic?

[Charles Collins]

But let's get back to basic.

What evidence is there that shows C2011 is authetic?

Good grief, I think you must be drunk. We will have to continue tomorrow if you aren’t too hung over.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, do you agree that Tomlinson never told the WC that he was shown a bullet?

Yes, in his deposition he did not mention it. But in his interview with Marcus he did and the HSCA accepted the transcript as evidence.

Still desperately looking for a way out?

[Martin Weidmann]

Good grief, I think you must be drunk. We will have to continue tomorrow if you aren’t too hung over.

Does that mean that you haven't got an answer?

[John Iacoletti]

All you are saying is that you think that it is reasonable to hold a doubt about a piece of evidence.  But reasonable doubt does not apply to pieces of evidence.  It applies only to the totality of the evidence. 

If every (or even most of the) pieces of purported evidence have reasonable doubt associated with them, then the totality also has reasonable doubt. Several doubtful things don’t magically combine to form an undoubtful thing.

In your Bob example, it’s not really clear how you acquired the information that you already knew about Bob. It could have been unreliable, but you haven’t given any details about inconsistencies, contradictions, or unreliable sources. You could also go to the funeral or talk to Betty to verify things. That’s similar to Aguilar talking to Odum to see if he really showed CE399 to people.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

I don’t see any meaningful difference between “questionable” and “unreliable”.

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

No, unreliable is not the same thing as false.

[John Iacoletti]

Your argument violates it because your claim that CE2011 is unreliable is based on nothing but speculation.

You’re not listening. It’s based on contradictory information and/or evidence that is not authenticatable. I have not speculated anything.