I`m unconvinced by the Warren report and the official explanation, however I`m equally unimpressed by the conspiracy. As I`ve said somewhere else I believe in more then one shooter, however I don`t believe it`s as big of a cover up some people believe it is.

We most certainly did not.

SO 80% OF THE EVIDENCE IS ENOUGH TO CONVICT OSWALD. WELL, GUESS WHAT.....80% OF NOTHING EQUALS....PLANTED EVIDENCE, WHICH IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
IT IS P-L-A-N-T-E-D. IE: PEOPLE, LOONEYS, AND NERDS, TRULY ENJOY DISINFORMATION.
THE CIA (INCLUDING ITS MEMBER POSNER) MUST BE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE SCREW-THE-TRUTH FACTORY.
FOR EXAMPLE: HOW DID THOSE INK STAINS GET ON OSWALD'S PALMS AT THE CHAPEL OF REST - JUST WHEN INCRIMINATING FINGERPRINTS WERE MOST NEEDED? OH, I KNOW I BET HE'D BEEN STEALING CARTRIDGES FOR HIS EPSON PRINTER, DON'T YOU THINK?
DREAM ON YOU LONE NUT THEORISTS - THERE'S ENOUGH OF YOU TO FORM A CONSPIARACY OF YOUR OWN.

JP

There are three levels of proof at a trial in the American System of Justice.

1. Preponderance of the evidence (used in civil cases);

2. Clear and convincing evidence (used in many civil fraud cases and civil special proceedings);

3. Beyond a reasonable doubt (used in criminal cases.)

The conspiracy nuts cannot bring enough evidence to meet ANY of the above standards. All they have is innuendo and speculation. Where is the hard proof?

Even if we have to fall back to the burden of proof necessary to return a grand jury indictment, and that is probable cause, that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it, the conspiracy buffs cannot even meet that low standard!

A grand jury can even hear hearsay testimony not admissible in a court of law in order to return an indictment, and the conspiracy buffs cannot even gather enough hearsay to make a case. (Hearsay is generally an unsworn statment not made in a situation where it can be cross-examined at the time of its origin.)

Nope. Oswald acted alone, period. I've studied this case for close to 40 years now and I've gone in many different directions (from conspiracy to the government's explanation). Every conspiracy theory can be shot down if one looks at the facts and solid evidence putting the rifle into LHO's hands on 11/22/1963. Read the following books to give you a fair balance of information (what am I , FOX news?!):

The Warren Report (the government's report)

Case Closed by Gerald Posner (backs WC)

Crossfire by Jim Marrs (a huge conspiracy book and basis for the movie JFK)

High Treason by Robert Groden and Harrison E Livingstone (more conspiracy fodder that was somewhat believable for me early on)

After reading those books you need to see the DVD "Unsolved History: JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet" (this is in the Discovery Channel store). It physically re-inacts the events of that fateful day in Dallas and proves that the single bullet theory is true (one bullet hitting JFK and John Connally)

There is also a book coming mid-year 2007 by Vincent Bugliosi (prosecuting attorney who tried and convicted Charles Manson in the Sharon Tate murders). The name is "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President Kennedy". This will definitely put a big dent in the conspiracy buff's armor. That's another must read. . As Bugliosi explains "Even if you throw out 80% of the evidence against Oswald, you still have more than enough to convict him". Only common sense and knowledge tells the well informed that the "lone nut" theory IS correct: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The mother of all conspiracy theories, from which an industry sprang. I do believe there was a second gunner, and the subsequent cover-up was probably more about hiding incompetence at having lost that gunner's trail. But he was probably just Oswald's buddy.

Still, a cover-up stimulates paranoia, and the government acted in a squirrelly matter for years thereafter whenever the topic came up. Leaves some room for doubt.