“As a matter of law, a deathbed statement is usually regarded as sufficiently reliable that it is permitted to be introduced into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. In that sense, Hunt’s statement is evidence.”
I don’t mean to imply that eye witness tesimony is not worthy of being called evidence. However, if it isn’t consistent with existing evidence and doesn’t lead to any new evidence, such testimony is usually pretty worthless. Also, I can’t speak for the courts, but personally I have a lot less respect for confessions on the deathbed, since by that point the person has little to fear from consequences. Oh, and the confession was years after the fact, which also makes it more likely to be false.
Notably, the Warren Commission did not determine that there was no conspiracy, only that it was “probable” that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone. Separately, in various contexts, all members of the Commission expressed the view that there was a conspiracy.
The House Assassinations Committee report concluded that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy by members of organized crime. Although disputed, forensic analysis of an audiotape indicated that there were at least four and likely more shots in Dealey Plaza, including one from the grassy knoll.
A recent book, "Brothers," revealed that Robert Kennedy suspected that JFK had been killed by a conspiracy involving the Mafia, Cuban exiles, and rogue former CIA officers. Robert Kennedy sent an emissary to the Soviet government to assure them that he knew that his brother was not killed by the Soviets or Castro but as the result of a domestic conspiracy.
For these and many other reasons, a conspiracy cannot be ruled out and Hunt's statement cannot fairly be cast aside as unworthy of consideration.