Which makes absolutely no sense, when he was face up in the car the whole ride there. And Clint Hill's hand is all over his now. He says it one way during this interview, then changes it and moves it to another location in another and so on. Totally unreliable. There was no hole on the back of the head. I don't care where Parkland doctors drew the wound. They also said they didn't examine the wound on the head, years ago. The hole was on op of the head and extended into the top rear--somewhat--. The missing skull in the top of the head autopsy photos and one of the uncropped back wound photos show the top of the head missing. You choose to completely ignore what Mrs. Kennedy said. You completely ignore it!
"They also said they didn't examine the wound on the head, years ago"". No, No No, read the actual statements the doctors made. Posner tires to pass that bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns off in his books. They said after dealing with the airways several of them had a chance too closely inspect the head wound in the back of the head. One of them said he sat there and stared right into it for several minutes while holding the trach equipment for Dr Perry. Two of the doctors closely inspected the wound and informed Dr Perry that they thought it was mortal.
Dr Carrico claimed in an 80's interview for the TSBD museum that he knew the wound was in the top of the head but didn't not take the report he was writing seriously enough and lazily put the wound in the back of the head. He said he didn't consider that these reports were used for things like medical billing and Police investigations. Seriously? It was the PRESIDENT and he just didn't take the report seriously, wow. But what discounts his testimony completely is that famous poster that shows 14 of the parkland staff pointing to the back of their heads when describing the wound and Carrico is one of them!!! He acted like he knew the wound was on top the whole time and just got lazy with the report, But there he is in that poster holding his hand in the occipital region.
The Dr's all put the wound in the same place and same size. They noted the Cerebellum was protruding and one saw a piece of it fall out revealing part of the Cerbrum. The actual interviews you can see and statements they gave at the time are consistent and completely contradicts Posner's bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns line that they never inspected the wound. Clint hills statements right after the shooting are consistent too. Over time he changed it.
I have heard his testimony discounted because he said something like 'the whole back of the head was blown off' then changed it to the 4 inch hole in the right occipital area. Well it is completely plausible that he saw blood and matter all over the back of his head and with the horror of it all he exaggerated a bit and was simply more specific later. It is not a reason to discount his testimony. Also I have to wonder if JFK was facing up all the way to Parkland how does Hill describe both the entrance and exit wound? He may be mixing actual memory with the official story after so many years.
Every attempt to discount the Parlkand Dr's testimony that I have see uses mis information to make the case. The actual fact is there is a huge problem between what they saw at Parkland and the official story. even FBI agent Sibert who was present at the autopsy said there was a big hole in the back of his head. He tried to talk to the Warren Commission but they would not listen and they also lost his notes from the autopsy.
