The point about circumstantial evidence is that each piece by itself means little. It is the collective effect (including even weak pieces of evidence) of all these circumstances that proves the case.
In this case, the collective effect also means little, because almost none of your "evidence" actually points to Oswald.
The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.
No they aren't. You're taking what Oswald did and speculating that they are the actions of a guilty person. That's not evidence.
You do not attack circumstantial evidence by raising doubts about individual pieces of evidence. There is just too much of it in this case to succeed in doing that.
No, there really isn't. Once you try to enumerate it, that becomes patently obvious.
