32 Reasons and Arguments There Was No Conspiracy Behind Oswald Killing Kennedy

[Bolo Boffin]

1. (1) There is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any suspected group actually did.

That's truncated to fit in the title form. Here's the quote from page 1439:

Perhaps the most powerful single piece of evidence that there was no conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy is simply the fact that after all these years there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any of the persons or groups suspected by conspiracy theorists (e.g., organized crime, CIA, KGB, FBI, military-industrial complex, Castro, LBJ, etc.) or anyone else conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy. And when there is no evidence of something, although not conclusive, this itself is very, very persuasive evidence that the alleged "something" does not exist. Particularly here where the search for the "something" (conspiracy) has been the greatest and most comprehensive search for anything in American, perhaps world, history.

Emphasis is Bugliosi's.

As Bugliosi points out, prosecutors in court must always present direct and substantive evidence of those persons or groups acting in concert to carry out a crime. Otherwise, they are going to lose their case, right? The burden of proof is on those alleging the conspiracy, and for a conviction, they must present solid evidence and make reasonable inferences based on that evidence. Here's the evidence this guy killed the state's witness. Here's the evidence of the hit guy meeting with the boss. Here's the phone calls from a wiretap. Here's the surveillance footage of them together. Here's the path the money takes from the boss to the hit man. Boom, conspiracy.

There is nothing like this in the entire corpus of JFK conspiracy literature. Bugliosi gives an example of what this would look like:

In the Oswald case, if, for instance, Oswald had disappeared for a few days before the assassination without adequate explanation, or within these few days he was seen in the company of a stranger, or there was evidence he had come into some serious money, or he had made any statement to anyone, such as Marina, suggesting, even vaguely, a conspiratorial relationship, or someone had called him at the Paine residence and he left the room and took the call in another room, or he was seen getting out of a car after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, or any of a hundred possible events and circumstances had occurred, that would be one thing. But here, there is nothing, nothing. Just completely foundationless speculation and conjecture.

One example of these assumptions is the idea Oswald was an unwitting participant in a conspiracy. Building on this, another assumption is made that Oswald becomes aware of this conspiracy to frame him of the assassination as it is happening, and on this a final assumption that this is why he ran from the Texas School Book Depository. Where is any evidence to support any of these assumptions? There is none. The assumptions are taken as givens and then the evidence that does exist is laboriously fitted into and around these assumptions, never allowed to be questioned or falsified. It's as painful to watch sometimes as the efforts of creationists who work to preserve the validity of their peculiar creation myths as science.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But after 50 years of painstaking examination of the minutia of this case, there still is no credible evidence of any conspiracy? No one on the conspiracy side can manage to come up with a viable theory that satisfies most of the conspiracy advocates at all, much less us "lone gunman" advocates. And as the other reasons and arguments and evidence here will show, there is plenty of evidence that there is no conspiracy.