I'm going to be really controversial here:

In fifteen years of thinking about this subject, I, today, think that there are only really three pieces of evidence to suggest that JFK was not killed by Oswald.

1. The Zapruder footage.

2. The admission by the US government that the 'back of the head' photo was a 'soft matte insertion'.

3. The HSCA finding that there was a 'probable conspiracy' in the assassination of JFK.

Any additions?

All right. I will bite;

4) The fact that the Single Bullet Theory can not be proven. ( here is major lack of evidence, or evidence of a frame job)
5) Mulitiple Parkland Hospital testimony to shots from the front.
6) Negative Parafin test and false report of a positive test by Chief Curry.

Thank you, Peter McGuire!

The point I am trying to make is, that, for all the wealth of information on the subject, there has been little 'official' detail. I would accept the Parkland testimony, but that has not been said in court.

I'm not trying to wind anybody up here. Hopefully, if I live long enough,I will see the 'official; detail.
That is, if it hasn't been altered, as John has written.

7. Eye witnesses to shots from the grassy knoll.

Actually, I am in error:

If you go by the film JFK, there was evidence given in court from hospital staff.

I don't know about the shots from the Knoll.

...and again, I may be wrong:

I think even the Warren Commision heard of shots form the Knoll.

It would be interesting to put together all the 'official' facts surrounding the assassination.

I bet there can't be more than 25. A bit more than three!

I see what you are doing, Carl. And I think it is good. Correct me if I am wrong but this excercise will point out all the official facts as you put them that are simply ignored by everyone. Another words they are ignoring the official facts in the case and blindly believing the official conclusion, which is contradicted by the official facts.

And that would not surprise me! Although I am dizzy now.

When did the government admit this?

Ron;

I seem to remember that President Clinton promised to release lots of files about the assassination before he took office. He backtracked when in office, and said that he was 'satisfied' that LHO had killed JFK, when asked.

I seem to remember that bit about the 'back of the head' photo in a UK newspaper in the 90's.

If we had to present a case for a Grand Jury, or whatever it is called, we would have to put together a file of 'facts' concerning the assassination. I bet there's not more than thirty, but they would all be disturbing.

By 'official', I mean something that has been admitted in court, or by the US government.

A lot of what has been said about the assassination could be dismissed as rumour designed to keep the consiracy industry going.

There's another bit of 'evidence' of sorts on Youtube:

An interview with Gordon Arnold, who said he saw the 'Badgeman'.

He's the only person who could identify him.

Did John, or anyone else, mention putting a case for the Grand Jury, or something?

I think we should do it.