The preponderance of the evidence

[Charles Collins]

But don't you have to explain why you believe all the arguments lead to a preponderance of the evidence?  Otherwise, who gives a rat's arse what your gut tells you?

Like all LNers, your problem is you don't know how to evaluate evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Critical thinking is something you must learn before you debate or you wind up looking like Chapman the Clown who is bereft of critical thinking skills and toes the LNer party line with ad homs, obfuscation and denial. Is this the club you want to join?

Besides, CTs don't have to prove Oswald was innocent or a patsy. Like the WC, LNers have to provide conclusive evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin and not part of a conspiracy. You would think after 56 years at least 1 of you would have come up with something definitive by now. You LNers don't understand that Oswald wasn't a lone nut by default. Your circumstantial evidence doesn't even meet the legal criteria for proof let alone a logical proof. You have set the bar impossibly high for yourselves by insisting that Oswald was a lone nut killer and not a patsy. Too bad for you that every single piece of evidence in the JFK assassination fits a coup d'etat with Oswald as the designated patsy. It all fits together like a glove (not OJ's), the LNer hypothesis, not so much.

You might want to look up the meaning of the word preponderance. Your not making sense.

And please let us know exactly what the legal criteria for proof is.

[Martin Weidmann]

You might want to look up the meaning of the word preponderance. Your not making sense.

And please let us know exactly what the legal criteria for proof is.

If you pile one piece of crap onto another piece of crap, you will ultimately end up with a preponderance of crap.

[Charles Collins]

If you pile one piece of crap onto another piece of crap, you will ultimately end up with a preponderance of crap.

How many pieces of crap did you have to examine to figure that one out? I know that you like to examine the actual evidence.

[Jack Trojan]

You might want to look up the meaning of the word preponderance. Your not making sense.

You didn't know the ramifications of the word "preponderance" when you started this thread, did you?  A preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. But how can you establish the preponderance if you can't evaluate the evidence critically?

And please let us know exactly what the legal criteria for proof is.

Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.

[Martin Weidmann]

How many pieces of crap did you have to examine to figure that one out? I know that you like to examine the actual evidence.

What makes you even think I had to examine even one piece of crap to figure that out?

And please tell how in the world you think you know what I like?

[Charles Collins]

You didn't know the ramifications of the word "preponderance" when you started this thread, did you?  A preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. But how can you establish the preponderance if you can't evaluate the evidence critically?

Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.

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.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

that the same evidence can be completely polarizing in this case.

It might not have been if it had been looked at honestly, without a political agenda.