How about a simple example for our contrarians? Let's say there were three people named Martin, Roger, and Otto who all lived in Dallas and left their wedding rings at home on 11.22.63. Would this alone make them suspects in the assassination? Of course not. No one ever has ever made this claim about Oswald. But suppose "Martin" also worked in the building from which the shots were fired, his rifle is found there, his prints were on the SN boxes, rifle, and long bag, he had no credible alibi, fled the scene, got a gun, shot a policer officer, resisted arrest, and told the DPD numerous lies. Martin's act of leaving his wedding ring at home that very day gains greater significance in the totality of context with the other evidence and circumstances. It becomes highly probative that Martin anticipated not coming home again. Why would this have been the case on 11.22.63 if Oswald simply planned on going to work? It demonstrates foreknowledge of the assassination. Something only the assassin could have known that morning. A small child could understand this without assistance but some others either cannot or are intentionally dishonest.