Yes. That evidence is "Howard Brennan".
I know CTers will forever toss Mr. Brennan into the nearest gutter, practically treating him as if he had witnessed nothing at all in Dealey Plaza, but Brennan's Warren Commission testimony will forever be part of the record of the JFK case, whether conspiracists like it or not.
And if Brennan's WC testimony and positive identification of Oswald as the assassin is to be believed (and I think it is), then that means Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a gun at 12:30 PM, which also therefore has to mean he did manage to get from the sixth floor down to the second floor (unnoticed) in less than (approx.) 90 seconds, because we know (via Roy S. Truly's verification) that Oswald did encounter Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in the lunchroom at approximately 12:32 PM.
Plus, of course, there's also the circumstantial evidence of the JFK murder weapon positively being the C2766 Carcano rifle that was found on the 6th floor. And that's a rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald, whether stubborn CTers want to admit that fact or not. And on any given day--including 11/22/63--please tell me who is MORE likely to be using OSWALD'S gun if not Lee Oswald himself? That's very good circumstantial evidence right there---especially when it's ADDED TO Howard Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.
No conspiracy believer, however, wants to face up to the fact that the "rifle" evidence is, in fact, excellent circumstantial evidence pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald as the President's murderer.
In other words all you really have as "evidence" are basically two assumptions, of which one is based on a large number of other assumptions.
Any lawyer will tell you that witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is. Nevertheless you assume that Brennan's "identification" of Oswald during his WC testimony, months later, is more reliable than his initial failure to identify Oswald in a line up. There is no reason, other than wishful thinking, to place more value on the belated "identification". Even more so because the testimony was given several months later after Brennan, just like everybody else, had been exposed to continuous media reports declaring Oswald's alleged guilt. In addition, Brennan has been proven to be lying about what he was doing when the second shot was fired. He claimed he looked up to the TSBD window, but the Zapruder film shows that he actually was looking at the motorcade. He also lied about where on the wall he was sitting. He claimed he was facing the main entrance of the TSBD (which would place him on Elm street) but photographic evidence show he was in fact sitting facing Houston with his back to Dealey Plaza.
The second assumption you make is that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald. The only justification for that assumption is the opinion of one FBI expert who claimed the Klein's order form was written by Oswald. Never mind that another FBI expert (I can't recall his name instantly) later stated that the handwriting sample (and the fact that the documents were photocopies) made it impossible to make such a determination with any kind of certainty. You also have to assume that Klein's did in fact send a rifle and Oswald received it. There is no evidence for either, expect that Waldman stated that a circle around the letters "PP" (on Waldman 7) means a rifle was send. Next you have to assume that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself and kept it in his possession between March and November 1963, which means that you also have to assume that the rifle allegedly stored in Ruth Paine's garage was indeed C2766. There isn't corroborating evidence for any of it.
What it basically comes down to is this; if I register a weapon in your name and leave it behind at a crime scene some six months later, would that be evidence that you were at that crime scene?
You are of course aware of the fact that Jesse Curry is on record saying that they never had any conclusive evidence that placed Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, right? And that fact that Robert Tanenbaum, the former prosecutor and deputy chief counsel of the HSCA, has said that the evidence there was against Oswald was insufficient to secure a conviction.
Your cherry picked "evidence" is paper thin and in fact highly inconclusive.
