Non problematic evidence?

[Steve Logan]

I'm sure that I could call out at least six pieces of evidence that points to a conspiracy....But at the same time I'm sure that you couldn't see them....

We're waiting...?.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

[Walt Cakebread]

We're waiting...?.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

OK Lo Gun ....Just hold your breath......

[Charles Collins]

In other words; just pile up as much as you like, don't question it or examine it closely, call it evidence and conclude that the preponderance of evidence points to LHO.....

It doesn't matter if a conspiracy can be proven or not. Even if it can't be proven, it still does not allow the conclusion that Oswald did it (alone), so your question has very little to do with my question. Care to try again?

You have a habit of attempting to put words and ideas into posts that I never said or even hinted at. Please stop.

[Charles Collins]

I'm sure that I could call out at least six pieces of evidence that points to a conspiracy....But at the same time I'm sure that you couldn't see them....

I promise to give them a fair and open minded consideration. But nothing about that statement indicates that I will have to agree with your opinion.

[Martin Weidmann]

You have a habit of attempting to put words and ideas into posts that I never said or even hinted at. Please stop.

Perhaps you should try to communicate more clearly. I am merely telling you what I have understood your position seems to be.

A preponderance of evidence is hardly any good if the evidence itself is weak, speculative and questionable, right?

If you go there and state that a preponderance of evidence points to LHO's guilt, you must feel comfortable that the actual evidence is authentic and valid, right?

So, if I have misrepresented what you have said, please tell me what exactly I misunderstood and I will gladly correct my post(s).

[Louis Earl]

What is the point of the question?  The criminal justice system does not require that there be ANY ONE piece of evidence sufficient to convict.

[Martin Weidmann]

What is the point of the question?  The criminal justice system does not require that there be ANY ONE piece of evidence sufficient to convict.

Who ever claimed otherwise?

But it does require that evidence is at least authentic, valid and pertains to the case. A prosecutorial case against a defendant tries to connect dots between pieces of evidence. If those pieces of evidence are not sound enough to withstand scrutiny, the entire case can fail.

You don't build a house on weak foundation, right?

[Charles Collins]

Perhaps you should try to communicate more clearly. I am merely telling you what I have understood your position seems to be.

A preponderance of evidence is hardly any good if the evidence itself is weak, speculative and questionable, right?

If you go there and state that a preponderance of evidence points to LHO's guilt, you must feel comfortable that the actual evidence is authentic and valid, right?

So, if I have misrepresented what you have said, please tell me what exactly I misunderstood and I will gladly correct my post(s).

I do communicate clearly. You are jumping to conclusions about my position and how I got there. Again, please stop.