Sibert / O'Neill testimony- forgot which one of them - mentions : "it was in the hairline". The hairline, last time checked, is not the cowlick.
Oh, I wasn't disputing that. But Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, oddly enough, says nothing about the location of the rear head entry wound.
The conspirators were forced to pick their poison: leave the low fragment trail in the x-rays and acknowledge the EOP entry point, which posed an impossible trajectory from the sixth-floor window and could not explain the high fragment trail, or remove the low fragment trail, deny the EOP entry wound, and move the entry wound up 4 inches to at least appear to explain the high fragment trail, which posed the risk that the revised entry wound would eventually be debunked by honest experts, which in turn would leave a second headshot as the only rational explanation for the high fragment trail.
Adding the 6.5 mm object to the AP x-ray to appear to lend credence to a cowlick entry wound turned out to be a blunder of huge proportions, because the forgers apparently did not imagine that one day technology (OD measurements) would be able to categorically prove the object to be fake.
It also appears that the forgers were not aware that there are four tiny bullet fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, in addition to the small fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. Dr. McDonnel spotted one of them when he reviewed the skull x-rays for the HSCA (7 HSCA 218). Dr. Mantik spotted the three others with OD measurements and high-magnification viewing.
As to Mr Griffith: the missing piece of skull arrived long after the autopsy began, yes?
No, that is not correct. Several skull fragments arrived toward the end of the autopsy. This is documented in the autopsy report and in the testimony of several people at the autopsy.
Anyone who claims that the autopsy skull x-rays are unaltered is simply unaware or of, or in denial about, the hard scientific evidence that they have been altered: the 6.5 mm object, the impossible white patch, the impossible dark frontal area on the lateral x-rays, the confirmation that the Harper fragment is occipital bone (just as the three pathologists who examined it in Dallas determined), the absence of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, etc.
