Ugh.
"Ugh"? Seriously ?....ugh? When will you be 14?
Your silly argument appears to be that there is so much evidence of Oswald's guilt that we can only conclude that he is innocent.
You don't have a more descriptive variety of words? You have to repeat mine?
Silly argument?-- The Keystone Cops of Dallas screwed up every aspect of the assassination from start to finish... from protection of Kennedy to protection of Oswald, despite warnings, tips and more warnings. And yet... yeah, they were too damn sure that Oswald was guilty before half of them ever knew his name.
Criminals often do stupid things and get caught.
Which contradicts your earlier post stating that Oswald was "covering his tracks to the best of his ability"..yet he was able to pull off the crime of the century all alone. Now that is silly.
Here is a very simple notion for you to ponder. Shooting the president is fraught with enormous risk.
Oh really? Gee, enlighten me more
John Iacolleti wrote.....
'Richard' said so is not evidence.
You mean it wasn't Oswald's rifle?