"The report states explicitly that the main organizations accused of conspiring to kill Kennedy were not involved." I think it would be very good for this answer to quote that part(s), since that's exactly the implication the claim makes.

@fredsbend The report is linked and the statements are in the summary and are easy to find. I'm not going to quote because they refute each allegation in a separate statement and the entire thing would get quite long.

@Caleth yes, a conspiracy could also comprise non-shooter co-conspirators, so the existence of a conspiracy would not imply multiple shooters. But the point is that the existence of a second shooter does imply a conspiracy, even if there were only the two shooters with nobody else involved. The first two quotes in this answer, taken by themselves without further context, imply nothing more than the probable existence of a second shooter. I haven't read the report, so I don't know whether this answer mischaracterizes it, but knowing DJClayworth's contributions, I doubt that it does.

Committees especially legal ones tend to state their conclusions "based on the evidence available " because that's all they can do. It's an admission that if other evidence were to show up they might have to change their conclusion.

"But the point is that the existence of a second shooter does imply a conspiracy," Either that, or that JFK was unlucky enough that two different people independently decided to try to kill him at the same place and time.

It doesn't help that the legal definition of "conspiracy" is significantly different from the way it's used by the general community, particularly conspiracy theorists. Calling a two-man job a conspiracy gives them false legitimacy.

@Barmar More than that, the legal definition of "conspiracy" doesn't require any actual crime to be committed. If two people planned to assassinate JFK but never actually did it, it's still technically a conspiracy.

@DJClayworth See, for example, the difference between Summary Finding C1: "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy." and Summary finding C5: "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy." C5 is a categorical statement of fact, C1 is a statement of belief. Only statements C1-4 are couched like that.

@Wossname I missed that. Thank you.

The Warren Commission basically came up with the lone wolf theory. That idea is refuted by Jack Ruby's murder of LHO. If LHO had been a lone wolf, with no-one else involved, there would have been no motivation to murder him.

@OscarBravo You can't think of anyone that would have a motive to kill someone that murdered a beloved public figure?

This is starting to digress.

@JasonGoemaat I can think of some people - but a sleazy nightclub manager with links to the Mob with no cultural or religious connection to JFK would be last on my list of suspects. Also, it is a unique event; I don't recall a rush of assassins going after the killers of MLK, Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy, John Lennon. Jack Ruby was a hit-man doing a job.

@DJClayworth ...starting?

@OscarBravo If you agree that it's digressing, you can con prevent it by not posting comments that digress. Seriously people, please take this elsewhere.

@DJClayworth Buddy, the digressions are what makes this site so much fun :-) BTW, how do you move to chat? the instructions are all about creating a titled chat room from scratch...

You create a chat room, and then post a comment giving the link to the chat room.

@OscarBravo there might have been. Maybe someone wanted him dead for some entirely unrelated reason, but after his arrest he became much easier to find, enabling Ruby to shoot him.

@OscarBravo the hit-for-some-unrelated-reason hypotheses has the advantage of not relying on Ruby's supposed patriotism or affection for JFK.