The preponderance of the evidence

[Martin Weidmann]

The context is that it was part of a sentence. Read the rest of it.

I did?.

Jack never said anything about a conspiracy and neither John or Jack made any "he did it alone" comment, which according to you would have been better worded by "there was no conspiracy?.

The only person to bring up that there was no conspiracy was you.

[Rob Caprio]

Of course he's relying on that.

There's nothing in Fritz's report that says that Oswald refused to tell him where he purchased a revolver.

Or that LHO said anything. He knew his rights. The only sources who said that he said anything are official ones. Without recordings or a stenographic record there is no way to validate what he was claimed to have said.

[Rob Caprio]

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

So you don't think LBJ is credible? Because on April 3, 1967, he told his aide Marvin Watson that he was convinced that there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassination and that the CIA was involved in some way.

If you think that LBJ isn't credible then how can you believe the WC's conclusion when he created it?

[John Iacoletti]

Did you not read the earlier comments where Martin went on a rant about no one asking Oswald about where he purchased the pistol?

You keep quoting Mae Brussell's invented dialog.  Here's what Fritz's report actually said:

"I asked him again why he carried the pistol to the show. He refused to answer questions about the pistol. He did tell me, however, that he had bought it several months before in Fort Worth, Texas."

There's nothing in there about Oswald refusing to tell Fritz where in Fort Worth the pistol was purchased.  Or of Fritz even asking him that.

[Charles Collins]

I did?.

Jack never said anything about a conspiracy and neither John or Jack made any "he did it alone" comment, which according to you would have been better worded by "there was no conspiracy?.

The only person to bring up that there was no conspiracy was you.

A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.

[Charles Collins]

So you don't think LBJ is credible? Because on April 3, 1967, he told his aide Marvin Watson that he was convinced that there was a conspiracy involved in JFK's assassination and that the CIA was involved in some way.

If you think that LBJ isn't credible then how can you believe the WC's conclusion when he created it?

Did LBJ provide any credible evidence to support his opinion?

[John Iacoletti]

A patsy isn?t possible without a conspiracy.

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