Comment: then it seems like you would have to

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What if (see in situ)

then it seems like you would have to

tie specific evidence to a specific accused conspirator.

None of that was accomplished in the OP.

The Hard physical evidence and consistent testimony from unrelated witnesses portion of the presentation is compelling.

The conspiracy portion is speculative, weak, and not compelling.

(Down vote if you want or help the OP refine his case. HE ASKED US TO BE A JURROR.)