Creative Speculation

I haven't accused anyone of murder. There are overwhelming indications of complicity, namely a pattern of lies, obfuscation, and behaviour indicative of guilty knowledge.

Good reasons? A deceitful biography designed to cover-up the accused assassin's history of covert relationships with government intelligence agencies. CE399 was planted. There were more grains of bullet in Connally's body than missing from CE399. Dr Shaw at Parklands stated that a bullet remained in Connally's leg two hours after that bullet was supposedly found on a stretcher. The autopsy was curtailed by senior military officials to prevent proper tracking of the bullet paths. Oswald was fingered as the lone assassin, with no confederates, within three hours of the shooting, long before he was even charged and long before any of the evidence was associated with him in any fashion. Oswald was not on the sixth floor when the shooting happened and the Warren Commission knew it had witnesses proving it and suppressed that information. That's right off the top of my head and there are a lot more.

But you are now resorting to a rhetorical device, like Posner and Bugliosi, wrapped in the demand for "credible evidence", with yourselves self-appointed as the judges of what constitutes "credible". I've seen this script many times before: "credible" is anything which backs up the predetermined official story. Everything else is a "fantasy" or "speculation". And so you will bluster on, hoping the sum of your bluff will deflect attention from the fact that you are defending falsehood and prevarication, and doing so without a full grasp of what you are even talking about.