The preponderance of the evidence

[Charles Collins]

How are you defining conspiracy?  Patsy just means somebody who is blamed for doing something they didn't do.

Who would be doing the blaming/framing in this case other than the conspirators?

[Martin Weidmann]

A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.

And so you did in fact claim there was no conspiracy!

[Charles Collins]

And so you did in fact claim there was no conspiracy!

No I didn?t.

[Bill Chapman]

 

These are just the JAQers/IOWers/CTrollers not to ignore.


Bill Chapman
Hunter of Trolls

[Charles Collins]

This is what I said:

No credible evidence of a conspiracy is why I believe he did it alone.

It was a response to Jack?s request. It is my opinion. The words ?I believe? are indicative of that.

[Bill Chapman]

You've just underlined the fundamental flaw in jury based justice systems. How can anyone expect a "jury of your peers" to understand the legal nuances of a complicated civil or criminal court case to render an informed verdict? It's the reason the guilty get off and the innocent get the chair. OJ comes to mind.

Face it, your avg juror is simply not qualified to deliberate a court case and your avg LNer is not qualified to assess what constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Oswald was a lone nut assassin. 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.

From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.

[Walt Cakebread]

From the CT POV: Oswald was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and ammo. Do I have that right so far?
If so, I'd ask how would any framers would go about convincing anyone that he was believable as killer.

When you're J.Edna Hoover....You could say that Snidely Whiplash was the assassin and a large segment of the gullible pissants would believe it.