Literally at the top of this page. I laid out the bullet points one at a time.
Are you serious?
Ah, there it is.
Yes.
We've provided everything a prosecuting attorney would ask for when trying a murder case.
Were there witnesses that saw the shooter? Does our suspect match their description?
Yes, and yes. Multiple witnesses saw the gunman, Oswald fits the descriptions provided.
No it doesn’t. And no, no one could identify the shooter as Oswald.
No evidence.
Can we place the suspect at the scene? Does he have an alibi during the shooting?
Yes we can definitively place him in the depository. Better than that, he was definitively at the sixth floor window within hours of his prints being lifted from boxes arranged around it. He had no verifiable alibi.
He worked in the TSBD and he worked on a daily basis on the 6th floor lifting boxes around.
No evidence.
Did we recover the murder weapon? Can it be conclusively linked to the shooting?
Yes, a weapon was recovered from the same window we know Oswald was at.
No, it was allegedly recovered from in between boxes at the other end of the 6th floor. And no, no one have identified Oswald in any window in connection to the shooting on Elm Street.
No evidence.
Yes, that weapon links to every recovered shell and fragment large enough to have rifling marks on it.
Does it? Provide the evidence. And if so, it doesn’t say that Oswald used it, does it.
No evidence.
Can we link the suspect to the murder weapon?
Yes. Every available piece of evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald. The order form,
Ordering a completely different model than that allegedly found in the TSBD. IF it is genuine, which is impossible to determine since there is no original document available.
Missing all the stamps from the banks who must have stamped it if genuine. Have a serial number that says it should have been used approximately 6 months after the date stamped on it. And, no original available.
In the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, yes. No access for an Alek Hidell = the package would have been returned to sender. No one remember Oswald collecting a big heavy package of any sort, and he was an almost daily visitor at the post office checking his mail. His box was under surveilance by the FBI but no report of a big Italian infantry rifle in his box. And, no original records available.
Yes, in his wallet, yes. Which one of them are we talking about? The one he left behind with all his money at his wifes place? The one seen in TV news from the Tippit murder scene, studied by police officers? The one the police found in his pocket when whisking him in the backseat of the police car after arresting him at the Texas Theater? All three of them? Two? One?
Why all these wallets everywhere?
1. Could be a frame up, pretending it was taken for other purposes.
2. Could be faked.
3. Could be Oswald playing tough guy borrowing the clothes and weapons from ’friends’.
the statements of his wife,
Both the WC and the HSCA circulated internal memos complaining of Marina as a witness. She lied, forgot, gave contradicting testimony, changed her mind, etc, that it ”read like a nightmare” and that the only way to find out what is true and what is false is a cross examination. Needles to say, no such cross examination was arranged. Why all this lying? Well, she was a russian immigrant, mother of two small children and a widdow to the most hated man in the USA. In house arrest, guarded night and day by federal agents with an agenda. You play ball or ...
the statements of the Paines,
Oswalds ”baby sitters” after the white russian baron De Mohrenschildt had left for Tahiti with a fat government contract, yes. The Paines garage, which kept giving and giving.
all link Oswald AND ONLY Oswald to the rifle.
So far, nothing of what you have mentioned links Oswald to the rifle and absolutely nothing that says he assassinated JFK. Nothing. On the contrary, most of it are evidence of framing him which in turn points to the framers as sharing the guilt of the real assassins. I believe Oswald when he shouts out: ”I’m just a patsy!”
Can we come up with a plausible explanation for how the weapon got to the murder scen
Yup. Paper bag,
Lol. No one saw Oswald with the alleged paper bag that day, or, any day ever. No traces inside of a broken down oiled rifle. Spotless. The Frazier siblings could not identify the alleged paper bag. It looked more like an ordinary brown grocery bag, not like the one in evidence. Too big and full of tape on it. No one knows who found it in the snipers nest or who picked it up before photographing it on the scene. Oswald did not have access to the machine from where the tape was pulled out and wetted before being used. And on and on ...
Easy to plant. The undertaker who took care of Oswalds dead body said in interviews that the FBI visited his workplace late at night and took Oswalds fingerprints, this in spite of those have been taken by the DPD before he got silenced by Jack Ruby. He had to clean his hands again, after they left.
Fibers of what?
Was it? Oswald testified that his lunchbag contained his, lunch. You are accusing him of lying? Why?
Buell Fraser's statements,
What statements? Do you know that Frazier nowadays are claiming that Oswald was completely innocent of the assassination?
Linnie May Randall's statements,
What statements?
all paint a pretty plausible explanation for how the rifle got to the depository.
Does it? Why?
Did the suspect leave prints or other identifiable markings tying him to the crime?
Yup, palm print on the rifle, fingerprints on the rifle,
Fingerprints not visible when the rifle arrived at FBI forensic lab at the HQ in DC. Nothing. A week later there is?
fingerprints in the snipers nest window,
Where? On the frame? On the glass? Where? He worked there.
fingerprints on the paper bag on the sixth floor, fibers in the paper bag,
Repeting ourselves are we?
fibers in the butt of the gun,
Exeptionally easy to plant. Look at the totality of shadyness. Every item. Every chain. Every lack in procedure. It is everywhere you look. A classic sloppy frameup.
No. All of it points to a frame up of the patsy, Oswald.
Did the suspect show consciousness of guilt after the crime?
Yup. Fled the scene within 3 minutes,
No, he did not ”fled” the scene. He left work because he was told to call it the day since the president had been assassinated down the street. One of nearly two dussin employees who did so.
Did he? With the gun he couldn’t have bought according to the fabricated evidence?
Did he? Any witnesses actually seeing him kill Tippit?
snuck into a theater to get off the street,
You know that there are witnesses on record testifying that he already were at the Theater when Tippit got shot? You know that the list of all the ca 20 patrons in the Theater disappeared shortly after the arrest of Oswald?
attacked other cops on the theater.
There is at least four versions on record of how this ”attack” developed. Which one should I trust? Or should I trust the accused when stating that: ”A policeman hit me”, when asked of his black eye? Looks like self-defense to me? To you?
This is just scratching the surface.
No it’s not. It is taking the ’evidence’ presented by the authorities at face value, without even scratching on the surface. Most of this has been known to the WC critics since their tome went public in october 1964. Parts of it has been uncovered at a later date, but known for years. It is all out in the open.
There is so much more than this, these are just the bullet points.
If this is the best you got, it’s pretty much time to go home and do something productive for a change, don’t you think? For your own sake?
You can attempt to pick holes at this, but you can't make any of it go away,
Just did and more to that, I have shown you that all of it are evidence of a frame up of Oswald, the patsy. It is in the frame up you find the people who really assassinated JFK.
and more importantly, you can't produce a shred of evidence implicating a different shooter.
Correct. I do not know who did the actual shooting, but I do know who ordered it and covered it up.
It was a covert coup d’etat.
wonder why I add the part I do. Have you 
