The preponderance of the evidence

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Actually, Jack didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  He said,

"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."

You don't have to be a part of anything to be a patsy.

[John Iacoletti]

Not at all. If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.

Agreed.  Just like if you claim that Oswald did it, then the burden of proof is on you.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.

True, but no such claim is being made, at least not by me, for lack of credible evidence.

However, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And to say that absence of evidence is why you believe LHO is guilty is simply one jump to a conclusion too far.

Guilt must be proven and can not merely be assumed simply because there is no or not sufficient evidence to support another scenario.

[Charles Collins]

Actually, Jack didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  He said,

"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."

You don't have to be a part of anything to be a patsy.

Yes a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy? instead of he did it alone.

[John Iacoletti]

>>> 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 himself; in effect rendering any Fritz 'ask' moot.

Because Fritz never said that Oswald refused to pinpoint the actual transaction location.  Did you not read the previous comments?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes a better wording would have been ?there was no conspiracy? instead of he did it alone.

It also depends a lot on what you mean by "conspiracy" -- as in accessories after the fact.

[Charles Collins]

If you claim that there was a conspiracy then the burden of proof is on you.

True, but no such claim is being made, at least not by me, for lack of credible evidence.

However, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And to say that absence of evidence is why you believe LHO is guilty is simply one jump to a conclusion too far.

Guilt must be proven and can not merely be assumed simply because there is no or not sufficient evidence to support another scenario.

I clarified what I meant to say.

[Charles Collins]

It also depends a lot on what you mean by "conspiracy" -- as in accessories after the fact.

Are you making a claim?