Well, there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence may not be persuasive. But that does not mean much. It is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that you have to consider. You seem to be looking at each piece individually and rejecting each piece because you don't consider it to establish guilt or you think it may be tainted somehow.
Evidence that is weak or tainted when combined is still weak and tainted.
the MC was the murder weapon
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.
that it was fired on 22-11-63
No evidence of that.
that it was fired from the SN
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.
that Oswald owned the MC
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 he took a large longish package to work that day that he told Buell Frazier was curtain rods
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.
that Oswald's palm print was on the MC and the boxes in the SN
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 Oswald was last seen before the assassination on 6th floor of the TSBD
That's not even true. Carolyn Arnold said she saw him at either 12:15 or 12:25 in the second floor lunchroom.
that Oswald left the TSBD within minutes of the assassination without telling anyone and without permission
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.
that Oswald was the only employee to leave the TSBD before an attendance check was made
that he was in such a hurry to get to his room that he took a taxi when the bus seemed to be taking too long
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.
that he asked the taxi driver to let him off well past his rooming house and he than walked back to the house
Any conclusion based on this is speculative, and not evidence of anything.
that he seemed to be in a hurry and left quickly after getting his handgun and a jacket
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.
that he shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason when stopped on the street
Well now you're using your assumption that he shot someone as "evidence" that he shot someone else.
that he went into the Texas Theater without paying
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.
that he said "Well, it's all over now"
Nobody else present at the theater heard him say that.
and reached for his gun out when being arrested
"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 no curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD or in his room
That's not evidence of murder.
that fibres consistent with the green blanket in which Marina said that Oswald's rifle had been stored were found in the paper package found in the SN;
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.
and that according to Marina and corroborated by the handwritten note left by Oswald for Marina on the evening of April 10, 1963, Oswald had used the MC to attempt to assassinate General Walker by hiding himself in a place where he could shoot him in the head, then ditched the rifle and got away.
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.
That is a lot of evidence.
It's a big list of things. That doesn't make the things evidence of murder, or in many cases even true statements.
You just think that it was all 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.
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"?
It is either that, or the evidence is correct but it was set up as part of an elaborate plan by conspirators who wanted JFK dead and chose a buiilding next across from the Dallas police headquarters to do 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.
Of course, the conspirators needed Oswald as a "patsy" to deflect the investigation into who really was behind it. Oswald's murder was part of that plot to frame the patsy. That murder, of course, was planned and executed flawlessly by Jack Ruby who on the morning of executing this flawless plan went down to the telegraph office at the time Oswald was supposed to be transferred, leaving his dog in the car, and sent $25 to one of his employees. Then without any possibility of knowing that Oswald was going to be over an hour late in being moved, wandered down into the basement of the Dallas police building.
I'm not sure how making up a story and putting "of course" in front of it somehow makes a different story actually true.
So let's not talk about the amount of circumstantial evidence being miniscule.
No, actually let's
do talk about that, because that's what you are basing your entire argument upon.
What you really need to talk about is the theory that all the circumstantial evidence is either false because of an elaborate conspiracy involving Dallas police, FBI, doctors, ballistics experts, Parkland hospital staff, and the Warren Commission to fabricate and suppress evidence; or was part of an elaborate frame-up of their patsy Oswald, perfectly planned and executed by conspirators who then had Oswald silenced. Where is the evidence of either?
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?
What is your explanation of the "note" left by Oswald for Marina?
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.
