Evidence that is weak or tainted when combined is still weak and tainted.
Being weak and/or tainted gives it a less than 100% chance of being accurate. Let's suppose there was a 50-50 chance that each piece of evidence might not be accurate. There are over 50 individual facts that point to Oswald. The chance that all of them are wrong is 2
50. Even if 50% of the evidence was wrong, that still leaves 25 pieces of evidence that point to Oswald. How is even that possible if Oswald was not guilty? The only way that could be reasonably possible is if there was a broad conspiracy either to fabricate and suppress evidence or a conspiracy of the perpetrators to frame Oswald. It is simply not possible for that much evidence to randomly point to an innocent Oswald
This is an assumption based solely on two mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo, and the marks on them being lined up in Robert Frazier's mind, because they didn't line up under the microscope. There's no evidence that these fragments ever caused a person's death or indeed ever went through any human being.
No evidence of that.
Weak evidence of that. The claim that any rifle was fired from the SN relies completely on Euins' claim to have seen a rifle being fired, and Norman's assumption that shots were not only above, but directly above.
No evidence of that whatsoever. At best you have unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank that offers the opinion that he filled out the coupon.
That's not evidence of murder or indeed of any crime. Furthermore, the only the people who saw the "longish package" said it was a length that would have been too short to contain the alleged murder weapon. So this is a complete bust as far as evidence is concerned.
You mean a partial palm print attributed to Oswald was found on an index card a week later. And fingerprints on boxes is unremarkable given that his job was to get books out of boxes.
That's not even true. Carolyn Arnold said she saw him at either 12:15 or 12:25 in the second floor lunchroom.
That's not evidence of murder. It's not even evidence that he left without permission if he overheard Shelley saying something about there being no more work that day.
All these things dealing with Oswald's "behavior" are highly speculative, and not evidence of anything. He also offered his cab to another person, which could be interpreted as not being in a hurry.
Any conclusion based on this is speculative, and not evidence of anything.
There's no evidence that he "got his handgun" -- that's another one of many assumptions. As for being in a "hurry", Earlene Roberts said she looked out the window and saw him just standing there at the bus stop.
Well now you're using your assumption that he shot someone as "evidence" that he shot someone else.
Another assumption. Julia Postal said that she wasn't sure if he bought a ticket or not. I'm not sure how that's evidence of murder though.
Nobody else present at the theater heard him say that.
"Reaching" for a gun is a subjective assessment of one's hand movements. Furthermore, they had no legal grounds for searching him or arresting him when they approached him in the theater.
That's not evidence of murder.
All "consistent with" means is that they could have come from that blanket. Equally true is that they could not have come from that blanket. Marina peeked in the end of that rolled up and tied up blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks earlier.
This is all speculative. The unsigned undated note in Russian that doesn't mention Walker doesn't corroborate anything. The bullet retrieved from Walker's house was described by the police as steel-jacketed, and Walker himself said that the mutilated fragment they later purported to be from his house was not the same one. Also, Michael Paine testified that the Oswalds were having dinner at his house on the evening of April 10.
It's a big list of things. That doesn't make the things evidence of murder, or in many cases even true statements.
When did I claim that anything on your list was "fabricated by persons unknown who conspired and arranged before hand to set up the "perfect" assassination and covered up by every FBI investigator and every member of the the WC and HSCA who looked into it"?
No, it's not either that or the other thing. The evidence either conclusively shows that Oswald committed the crime in question or it does not. And it does not. One does not have to appeal to any kind of "elaborate plan" in order to point out that your evidence is weak, circumstantial and tainted.
I'm not sure how making up a story and putting "of course" in front of it somehow makes a different story actually true.
No, actually let's do talk about that, because that's what you are basing your entire argument upon.
Why do I have to talk about a theory that I never postulated or claimed was true? Just so you can avoid talking about how weak your case is?
My explanation? I don't think an unsigned, undated note that doesn't mention Walker explains much of anything at all. Nor do I think that unscientific handwriting "analysis" -- particularly done by examiners who aren't familiar with the Russian language or the Cyrillic alphabet -- is particularly meaningful in the first place.
Again, all you are doing in suggesting that each of these bodies of evidence is wrong is to make the case that there was a conspiracy either to fabricate or suppress evidence by law enforcement and the WC or by conspirators to frame Oswald for the assassination. It is impossible, as you suggest, that this evidence is all wrong by random chance.
