Where?
Assange and Kim Dotcom certainly haven't produced any.
The way you are viewing the case, if Rich's murder was in fact a random act of violence, then he couldn't have been the leaker.
No, not at all. I'd just don't think the fact that he was murdered is any indication that he was the leaker.
I agree with that. Maybe the leak and murder are linked, maybe they aren't. That's what I said in the first place.
As far as evidence of both events (leaking and the murder), I wasn't asserting I could marshal it, or even that it would ever see the light of day, only that it exists. The way the press and DEMs are framing the issue, if the Rich murder isn't linked to the leak, then Rich didn't leak. IOW, if you can't prove Rich was murdered for leaking, then he isn't the leaker.
If Rich was murdered for leaking, there is more than one way to get to "Rich was the leaker." One is to solve the murder including establishing the motive, the other is to find evidence created when he leaked, before he was murdered. If Rich was the leaker, some evidence of that was created before he was murdered.