The preponderance of the evidence

[Charles Collins]

So you?re more than willing to accept a claim made with no supporting evidence until somebody proves the claim false?

I have an invisible pet dragon named Charles. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not as I describe?

Does your invisible dragon help you with your invisible evidence?

[Charles Collins]

No.. like a true LN you simply did not like the implication

The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

to what is a criminal case

There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.

So you are then going to use a preponderance of the evidence as your flimsy burden of proof. You could be honest by telling everyone you are a Lone nut believer instead of posing as Mr. Independent. Don't kid yourself. Hey, if you are ever called to jury duty, I can assure you they won't need you and you will be relieved of your duty

[Charles Collins]

So you are then going to use a preponderance of the evidence as your flimsy burden of proof. You could be honest by telling everyone you are a Lone nut believer instead of posing as Mr. Independent. Don't kid yourself. Hey, if you are ever called to jury duty, I can assure you they won't need you and you will be relieved of your duty

Are you just going to criticize something that is irrelevant?

[Martin Weidmann]

to what is a criminal case

There will never be a criminal case brought against LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that.

As there never will be a criminal case, there will also never be a guilty verdict.

Claims that Oswald was somehow proven guilty nevertheless are obviously not accurate and should better not be repeated.

[Martin Weidmann]

The implication suggests that something sinister could have happened with this item. No credible evidence that it did happen. Are you claiming that something sinister DID happen?

I made no such claim. I am merely stating that the possibility that it did happen can not be ruled out.

In the WC case against Oswald there a plenty of claims for which there either is no credible evidence, or - even worse - credible evidence that does not support the claim is simply dismissed. Yet, you accept the case against Oswald. Why the double standard?

As to the item discussed, there also is no credible evidence that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given the multitude of instances where there has been questional handling of physical evidence, a circumstantial case of evidence manipulation can be made, but we have already established that you are not interested in that and just call it "conjecture and innuendo"

[Charles Collins]

As there never will be a criminal case, there will also never be a guilty verdict.

Claims that Oswald was somehow proven guilty nevertheless are obviously not accurate and should better not be repeated.

The WC conclusions are what we have. It is your prerogative to disagree with them. At one time I did also.