The preponderance of the evidence

[Charles Collins]

Or, alternatively, I could just ignore your nonsensical ramblings.

 

[Jack Trojan]

convinces the fact finder

Yes and evidence that one person finds to be convincing might not be convincing to another person. Hence we have ?hung juries ? and subsequent mistrials. What is amazing to me is that the same evidence can be completely polarizing in this case.

You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.

Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do.

[Charles Collins]

You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.

Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. Otherwise, cite 1 piece of evidence that convinces you that Oswald was a lone nut and not a patsy. We don't need a preponderance, just 1 will do.

No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.

[John Iacoletti]

No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.

And what's the credible evidence that he did it at all?

[Martin Weidmann]

No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.

Hey, that's very similar to what they said in Salem... "Can't prove she isn't a witch = she must be a witch"

[Charles Collins]

And what's the credible evidence that he did it at all?

That is a different  question than what Jack asked. If I understand his question he is asking about whether or not LHO was part of a conspiracy.

[Charles Collins]

Hey, that's very similar to what they said in Salem... "Can't prove she isn't a witch = she must be a witch"

Not at all. If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.
I only answered John?s question as I understand it.

[Bill Chapman]

So, you rely on a website that is presenting a possible scenario of what Oswald could have said without actually knowing with any kind of certainty that these words were actually spoken by him. Sorry, not worth my time

>>> So you rely on withholding complete information. Tell us why you fail to mention that Oswald volunteered his refusal to pinpoint the actual transaction location; in effect rendering any Fritz 'ask' moot.

Fritz reported that Oswald told him he bought his revolver in Fort Worth
>>> See above

Will Fritz Oswald Interview 4:45-6:30

Excerpt:

"I bought a pistol several months ago in Fort Worth. I refuse to tell you where the pistol was purchased"--- Oswald [AKA Dirty Harvey]


Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls