Hopeless. The obvious point is that an otherwise legal, not uncommon action can - when examined within the totality of circumstances in a case - become probative of guilt.
Yes, you're hopeless. A false equivalence doesn't become a valid argument no matter how many times you try to repeat it.
Even if standing alone it would not. Buying a life insurance policy just prior to a mysterious death is the classic example. Oswald's decision to leave his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina along with an unusually large amount of money (during an unexpected visit to the location where he stored the rifle) on the day when other evidence links him to the assassination demonstrates foreknowledge of his potential arrest or death that day.
No, it demonstrates that he gave her some money and left his ring behind. Everything else is attempted mind-reading and supposition -- nothing more.
He wants to ensure that his wife has his wedding ring and as much money as he can provide his family before he is separated from them. Now what was so dangerous that day that might lead Oswald to believe he might never be coming home?
So now you somehow know that Oswald believed he might never be coming home. This just keep getting better and better. This is no different from Walt believing that Oswald and deMorenschildt cooked up a hoax shooting to impress the Cubans. You're making something up out of whole cloth just because you
want it to be true.
Hopeless indeed.
Find someone in your community with a functioning brain to help at this point if you need further assistance.
Yeah....no. Arrogance doesn't make a fallacious argument any less fallacious either.