Hi Jerry, You may want to add Mrs. Kennedy's name when mentioning the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. No, she's not a pathologist, but what she told Theodore White during his interview with her just 7 days after the assassination about the condition of JFK's head--which is quite graphic and quite reliable--she describes a much different head wound location than the CT crowd claims--and she repeated it twice not only does she say where the head wound was, she also described how and where on the head she was trying to keep ["His] brains in".
In the real world, the wound suffered by a victim is just that;
one wound of a certain description, which should be supported by all those who saw the wound, either at Parkland or during the autopsy.
So, where is this discrepancy coming from? One the one hand you have the official narrative and on the other you have all sorts of people who actually saw the wound who seriously disagree with eachother. How in the world can anybody dismiss all those witnesses that saw something different than what the official narrative is telling us. Are they all mistaken or liars, even when they have nothing to gain from sticking by their observations?
Paul O'Connor was supposed to have removed Kennedy's brain and when he tried to do that he found that was hardly anything there to remove. They then told him to keep his mouth shut about what he had seen at the autopsy. Only when the HSCA wanted to talk to him, he was released from the order to remain silent. And that's when he told what he really saw. Did he, and others, make it all up?
Just stop and think about it for a minute. The official narrative tells you one thing and multiple people who actually saw the wound tell you something different. Did they all get together and make up this story? Did they stand to make money out of it? Of course not, so why do all these people tell a different story, if in fact the official story is the only true one?
