1) If in your opinion there is not even any circumstantial evidence that tends to incriminate Oswald for the assassination of JFK, does that mean you think (sic) "Lone Nutters" have been fooled by "evidence" that was fabricated against him?
Even if there was no fabrication, the existing evidence (real evidence, not silly crap like "why did he leave his wedding ring?") does not demonstrate who killed Kennedy. Not to anything even approaching beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the few pieces of actual evidence are weak, circumstantial, and questionable or tainted in some way is just gravy.
2) In your humble opinion, which of these is an incorrect description of Oswald:
A) He was psychologically disturbed.
Yes. What are you basing this on? A report from when he was 13? That doesn't even say "psychologically disturbed" anywhere?
B) He was a sharpshooter.
Yes. You mean barely qualifying as one 7 years earlier?
C) He was a self-described Marxist.
You got that one right. But what does that have to do with anything?