I said "evidence". I didn't say "Warren Commission evidence". The House Select Committee on Assassinations did a remarkably thorough job of gathering and interpreting evidence as well. Do you know what they found? Oswald fired 3 shots from the TSBD, one of which missed and one of which was the head shot. The other caused all the other wounds.
You want to just wave away the evidence that says Oswald did it so you say the WC evidence is "questionable". Is it? Why? Because you say so? Because you don't like it? Sorry, you don't get to do that up front. You have to produce other evidence to support your theories. You don't even know what the WC says, yet you are sure it's "questionable". I think we can all see what kind "logic" that is.
The Findings:
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:
1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight.
2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."