Pat Speer

I believe Duncan left on his own volition to start his own forum. I seem to recall that someone who did that was subsequently banned from this forum, because he only returned to try to draw people away from this forum. But I don't think that was Duncan.

You are quoting a consultant. The HSCA pathology panel ignored or rejected much of what they were told by their consultants, and the HSCA rubber-stamped the conclusions of the panel, and not the consultants. Here's the panel's conclusion: "The panel noted a general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed by positive pressure insufflation, with a slight escape of air into the adjacent tissues. Continued breathing by the President, possible even after the trachea had been perforated by the missile because the overlyng defect was more or less sealed by the shirt and necktie, could also have caused air to leak into the adjacent tissues.” And yes, I agree, that was a crock of nonsense.

To be clear, then, you believe the skull wound was restricted to the right side, and did not involve the middle of the back of the head, where the Mantik clique places the wound.

Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette.

I'm sorry, but if you think researchers doubting the authenticity of the back of the head photo do so because it's inconsistent with the other photos, well, you're flat-out wrong. Now, some researchers have come to believe that the back of the head in the back of the head photo was added in. And some researchers have claimed that the back of the head was reconstructed for the photo. And some, like McClelland, believed that scalp was pulled up to conceal the rear-most aspect of the wound. But that's because they choose to believe that...not because the other photos lead them to believe that. I mean, if the photos were inconsistent, wouldn't THAT be the focus of those pushing the back of the head was blown out, and not the subsequently withdrawn statements of a couple of doctors? And IF the photos were inconsistent, why would David Lifton and his supporters have been arguing that the body must have been altered before its arrival in the autopsy room? IF they were inconsistent, after all, it would indicate that the alteration was performed in front of the photographers, and that the photographers were knowingly documenting the alteration of the body.

I'm sorry Keven, but your arguments are all stuff from 20 years ago, that have either been debunked or addressed long ago. I have a few chapters on my website which discuss all this stuff with which you should familiarize yourself. For example...Custer. Custer was shown the HSCA's computer enhanced x-rays with the face cut off. So of course he failed to recognize them. When shown the originals by the ARRB, he said holy moly that's my marker and yessiree those are the x-rays I took on 11-22-63. Well, as you probably know, this upset Horne and Mantik's apple cart. So they put out the story that Custer was afraid of telling the truth or some such thing. Which is mighty insulting. And downright stupid, when you consider this was the later 90's, when there was little to be afraid of, in comparison to a decade before, when Custer was first painted as a conspiracy theorist. And this also avoided that even before he spoke to the ARRB, Custer had told researcher Tom Wilson that there was a "king-sized hole" on the top of Kennedy's skull and that the skull was like "somebody took a hardboiled egg and just rolled it around until it was thoroughly cracked...Part of the head would bulge out, another part would sink in. The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose."

I have written what amounts to several books on this subject, Chris. And you are correct if you mean to suggest the trajectory analysis was a con. When the medical panel alerted Canning to the fact they'd changed their minds about the entrance location, he realized that this would change the horizontal angle of the bullet through the skull, as well as the vertical angle. And he'd already testified to the trajectory's pointing back to the sniper's nest. So he shrunk the skull. This is discussed ad nauseam in chapter 15 at patspeer.com.

Ughh... Robertson's claim is that the original autopsy photos are consistent with each other AND that the Riebe photos prove these photos were taken of Kennedy during the autopsy. So the Riebe photos DO authenticate the back of the head photo, at least according to Robertson. it should be pointed out as well that a number of researchers--I think Livingstone? Groden?--had long claimed that the photos taken of JFK were not taken at Bethesda and/or that the back of the head photo was not even JFK. Robertson's viewing of the Riebe photos demolished this claim. As brought to our attention by Jerrol Custer, moreover, the photos show JFK on his back with his head in a stirrup. IF there had been a gigantic hole in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, this would not have been possible. Now, Custer mentioned this when discussing the x-rays. He took the x-rays. In order to take the A-P x-ray film would have to have been placed beneath the back of the head. Custer claimed he would not have placed film directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter, and that the back of the head was shattered, but remained beneath the scalp. And the x-rays he took show this fractured eggshell pattern he remembered. Which is why he signed off on the authenticity of the x-rays when speaking before the ARRB.

Dr. Randy Robertson has been writing about the case for 30 years. He is active in organizations which put on conferences, and has been a regular attendee at conferences over the years. He has also viewed the autopsy materials at the archives, and was the first researcher to view the photos taken by Floyd Riebe, once developed. These photos, to be clear, were establishing shots taken at the beginning of the autopsy, before the Secret Service took away his camera, and exposed the film to light. The film was not destroyed, however, and the ARRB had it developed. Robertson viewed the photos and published his conclusions after doing so. Here is his conclusion about the authenticity of the photos:: "The original photographs and radiographs provide a degree of fidelity unchallengeable by any eyewitness attempts to describe the wounds to the President’s head in any manner. There are no internal discrepancies between the original and newly available photographs taken at the same time during the autopsy, or between any of the individual photographs or radiographs. Two cameras were simultaneously recording the true condition of the President’s body at the start of the autopsy." Now, our friend Dr. Aguilar has made no effort to view the Riebe photos for himself. And there's a reason for this. Because he knows Dr. Robertson and knows Dr. Robertson is telling the truth. So, calling me the only notable holdout is an insult to Robertson. As stated, I came into the research community armed with the presumption the back of the head photo was a fake, and only came to believe otherwise after spending years researching the case, and getting to know many of the most prominent researchers, and recognizing their limitations. So, no, I am not a holdout to their way of thinking. I have in fact evolved from their way of thinking.

The problem isn't so much the trajectory as the timing. Connally is obviously hit by 225. The rifle tests suggested there needed to be 42 frames between shots. So...was JFK hit by 183? It's hard to see how. The Z-film necessitated the single-bullet theory. Which is ironic, considering how many prominent people expressed doubts about the theory, and how many current theorists think the film was faked to sell the public there was a solo shooter, firing from behind.

The government is out of the theory business. At least for now. But you're right. If the animation shows JFK's neck in alignment with JBC's shoulder at any time between Z-190 and Z-225, single assassin theorists will say it proves the viability of the SBT.

Thanks, Ron. I'll check it out.

Did he say what became of Brownlow's JFK materials? I met Mike a couple of times in the plaza, and he told me he'd performed numerous interviews. I don't think they were taped, but I gotta believe he'd have had some notes or something...perhaps even an unreleased manuscript.

Wait. You're stating it's a FACT that I am the only researcher to believe the autopsy photos are legit? I asked you in my last post...Did you or did you not once brag that you preferred not to read what others have written? If not, and I'm mistaken, well, yeah, I owe you an apology. But you haven't denied that yet, so I'm guessing what I wrote is true.

Shall I make a similar request of yourself, and your numerous and insulting misrepresentations of my research and methodology? (For example, you keep stating that I arrange the facts to fit my preconceived notions, when I am quite possibly the least guilty researcher of that particular crime.) FWIW, my comment was not meant as an insult. I seem to recall that you once boasted that you didn't want to read what others had written about certain subjects because you didn't want that clouding your ability to come up with stuff on your own. I apologize if I'm confusing you with someone else. My point remans that if you HAD actually studied the medical evidence, you'd know that a number of prominent researchers such as Thompson and Robertson do not believe the photos are fakes, and that some, like Wecht and Aguilar, question their authenticity but refuse to commit, either way. As far as "low on the back of the head," I applaud you for your consistency, in that you continue to refuse to buy into the wound's being in that location. But this raises an additional question... Why are you and the boys so intent on going after me, for saying the head wound was at the top of the back of the head, and was inconsistent with the single-assassin solution, when some of the people you seem to support continue to pretend that an area low on the back of the head was blown out...which can easily be disproved, or at least used to make us all look silly. I mean, now, who is REALLY "hurting the cause" or "holding us back"? Not me.

This is ridiculous. A number of prominent researchers are convinced the wound was at the top of the back of the head, and not low on the back of the head. My GIFs of the autopsy photos have proven, for that matter, that the top of the back of the head--where many witnesses placed the wound--was a flap, that would have flapped open while JFK was laying on his back at Parkland. So, no, your implication all the top CT researchers believe the autopsy photos are fake falls flat. It's just not true. Now, some, like Aguilar, whose cherry-picked arguments you so happily swallow, will not commit one way or the other. Or has he?

Why do you keep repeating this gibberish? Aguilar has bought me dinner on several occasions, and has asked me to speak at conferences, and even stay at his house. We're friends. This idea of yours that he has schooled me or that I am a pariah in the research community because of my research and conclusions is nonsense. There is no consensus. Most everyone's theories are annoying to someone. While some of my theories annoy others, most all those annoyed by one or more of my conclusions will cite my research on one thing or another, or email me to ask me where I learned something or found this or that. Which brings me back to Aguilar. If you read his recent review of the Parkland film you'll see that he was extremely critical of Horne's involvement. Now why is that? Because Horne twists everything to support his theory of body alteration, that's why. Well, what about Mantik? You probably think Aguilar supports Mantik, right? Wrong. Aguilar does not believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone, and finds Mantik (and Horne's) three head shot theory laughable. So why am I being singled-out for refusing to pretend there is a consensus on the medical evidence, that has all the answers? No one honestly believes that, IMO. Certainly not Aguilar, or Mantik, or Horne, or Groden, or lesser known but widely respected writers on the medical evidence like Randy Robertson and Joe Riley. Just who are you trying to impress? Or, if not impress, support? I've asked a few times and am still not sure where you stand. 1. Do you think the head wound was altered between Parkland and the beginning of the autopsy? (If so, well, then you better watch out before Aguilar, Groden, Robertson and Riley "school" you on this topic.) 2. Was the occipital bone blown out? (If so, well, then, you better watch out before Robertson and Riley "school" you on this one as well.) P.S. I just went back and read your bizarre diatribe about McClelland, in which you insist he mentioned two head wounds in his initial report. This is preposterous. Such a statement makes me worry about you. NONE of the Parkland witnesses claimed to see two wounds in their reports, or in their testimony. And McClelland never said he saw two wounds. So what you're saying is what I've been saying. IF the wound of the left temple in his report was a description of an entrance wound--which he admittedly never saw--and his description of the massive wound was a description of a wound on the back of the head, which he later claimed to see, he is guilty of making a major mistake. A bad one. Doctors do not give locations for wounds they did not see while failing to provide locations for wounds they did see. At least not competent ones. As the news was filled with witnesses pointing to their temples, moreover, it's actually much more respectful to McClelland's reputation for us to assume he didn't pay much attention to the exact location and was confused by what he saw on TV, than to say he gave a location for a wound he never saw. Snark alert: his family is awaiting your apology. P.P.S. You made out that I'd accused McClelland of malpractice. This is not true. Malpractice does not mean making a mistake, it means making a mistake that causes a patient harm. I know you know this stuff. So why are you trying to put words in my mouth? And besides...just how is it offensive for me to say McClelland made a mistake when he claimed he'd made an even worse mistake? I mean, we've had threads on this forum where it was postured that Perry cut into Kennedy's throat to finish him off, and we've had a prominent member of this forum write a book in which he offered that a number of the Parkland doctors were in on the plot to kill Kennedy. And few objected. But my claiming McClelland's mistake was less severe than his admitted mistake makes me the bad guy? Why? How is that? Oh, because in my offered possibility, I indulge the sacrilege that the wound observed by McClelland was a few inches forward from where you want it to be? Okay. Got it.

Autopsy photograph F8 (the label derives from the list of Fox photographs) has generated endless controversy. This view has been exceptionally difficult to orient, even for the pathologists. Line BA was interpreted by Michael Baden, M.D., of the HSCA as passing from left to right, with the visible bone lying immediately anterior to the coronal suture. In fact, point B lies deep in the occiput, while point A is situated toward the front of the skull. Line BA divides the skull into left and right. Point L identifies the lead deposit on the Harper fragment; its location on the skull is remarkably consistent with the pathologists' skull entry site. The small white triangle identifies a triangle discussed in the text. The black circumferential perimeter outlines the site of origin of the Harper fragment. Letters C and D identify small bone fragments that are also identified in Figures 4A and 7. In F8 the Harper fragment appears distorted because of the perspective offered by the camera. Beyond point A (in the photographs at the Archives) a tangential view of the chest and abdomen (with fat pads folded back) can be seen. I determined this by stereo viewing of two, nearly identical, color photographs of F8. In this section I present proof that this photograph (B& W # 17, # 18 and color #44, #45 in the current collection) shows the posterior skull. Even Robert McClelland, M.D., insisted, after his visit to the Archives, that the collection included a view of the large hole as seen at Parkland Hospital. It must have been F8. During their initial inventory review (signed on 10 November 1966), the pathologists labeled this as a posterior view: "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp." Furthermore, in his ARRB deposition (reported to me by Douglas Home), Humes located the entry wound (in the posterior skull) toward the bottom of this photograph (as oriented here). This agrees with my interpretation, but disagrees with Baden, who described it more as a view from the left side. At their ARRB depositions, none of the pathologists could orient this photograph. However, when the X-rays are used in conjunction with the photograph, then its orientation becomes unambiguous, as I describe here in stepwise fashion. 1. Note the remaining frontal bone (Figure 12), as determined from the frontal skull Xray. This is consistent with Boswell's drawing at the autopsy (Figure 4A) and also with his drawing for the ARRB, as rendered by Home (Figure 9A-D). Note that the upper edge of the remaining frontal bone lies close to the hairline. Although not shown here, these drawings are also consistent with the drawings of Angel, the physical anthropologist, who served as an expert witness for the HSCA (7HSCA228-230). Giesecke (6H74) is one Parkland physician who did describe the large skull defect as extending from the occiput to the browline, in remarkable agreement with Boswell. 2. On the lateral skull X-ray (Figure 11B), I have indicated, with a line passing through the metallic debris, how the X-ray beam would have transited the skull when the frontal X-ray was taken. For confirmation of this X-ray trajectory note that (a) on the frontal X-ray (Figure 14) the metallic debris is closely bunched from top to bottom, as would be expected if the X-ray beam were traveling nearly parallel to this debris, (b) the transverse fracture just above the left eye (on the right side of the page) corresponds to the discontinuity at the rear of the lateral X-ray, and (c) the 7 x 2 mm metal fragment lies well above the right eye socket on both views. (There is additional evidence for this conclusion not given here.) 82 3. On the frontal X-ray, all of the bone is absent just above the trail of metallic debris. 4. In the HSCA interpretation of F8 (I have watched Baden demonstrate this on television), the segment BA runs from left to right across the skull at the coronal suture; therefore, according to the photograph, almost all of the bone anterior to this line segment was intact. This conclusion made some sense, because the largest, late arriving bone fragment had a suture line at one edge, which the HSCA took to be the coronal suture. Angel agreed that this was the coronal suture, but he placed this bone fragment anterior to the coronal suture, whereas Baden (in an unintended confirmation of the confusion that reigned over this issue) placed it posterior to the coronal suture. [What convinced Baden was the semicircular notch just below the letter C in the photograph) at the edge of the bone, which he took to be the exit site for the posterior bullet. Furthermore, this largest, late arriving bone fragment showed (on its X-ray image) multiple, tiny, metal particles, strongly suggestive of an exit site, meaning that it had to fit next to the notch (in Baden's view). The largest bone fragment can probably be placed anterior to the coronal suture (as Angel did), thus still permitting the actual exit site to lie at or near the coronal suture. (The X-ray’s leave an irresolvable ambiguity about the orientation of the bone fragments: it is impossible to distinguish inside from outside, and, strangely enough, the pathologists said nothing to clarify this. No photographs were taken either.) 5. Notice, however, that we have now arrived at a reductio ad absurdum there is a fatal contradiction in Baden's interpretation: from the X-rays, we know that bone must be missing all the way forward to the hairline, but Baden has just told us that it is present all the way back to the coronal suture! (On the lateral X-ray, this is where the skull is fractured at the skull vertex.) If the bone really were present to the coronal suture, then, on the frontal X-ray, we would see bone right at the very top on the right side of the skull, just as it is present on the left side. We can be certain of this because we know (from step 1) what the beam's eye view is, i.e., we know the direction that the X-ray beam traveled at the top of the skull during the taking of the frontal X- ray. Therefore, Baden's orientation of F8 is certainly wrong. 6. On the other hand, if F8 is the back of the head, then the line segment BA is the midsaggital line. There is further confirmation that this is the correct. While at the Archives, I viewed this photograph and its near twin (most views are pairs, taken with the camera slightly displaced in successive views) with a stereo viewer, which, for this view, is particularly illuminating. The bone surface (left of midline) was quite rounded, as would be expected for the occiput. In addition, the fractured bone islands at the right front (labeled C and D) could now be appreciated in 3D. After some staring, I realized that there were only two, and that they corresponded to the two bone islands on the frontal X-ray (also labeled C and D). Their sizes, shapes, and locations all fit perfectly. But one additional feature surprised me. In the color photographs at the Archives, there was more to see beyond the top edge of the film than is visible here. I finally realized that I was looking tangentially across the chest and abdomen. I could actually see a nipple (extending out into space in 3D) and the biggest surprise; I could see fat pads folded back from the abdominal incision. 83 7. There is a specimen bottle at the bottom left of this photograph (not well seen here), which seemed to suggest that Baden might have been right after all. However, now that I knew where parts of the body were located, I could conclude that the head had merely been rotated into a nonstandard orientation, no doubt to better expose the large, occipital hole for the camera, and that the specimen jar posed no special problem in interpretation. 8. Having concluded that the large defect extended all the way to the anterior hairline, Boswell's 13 cm measurement for the large hole fits better than it would for an anterior border at the coronal suture. This is further confirmation of my conclusion. 9. When questioned about this notch (on the bone edge) in F8 by the HSCA, Humes (7HSCA249) did not hesitate to say that the notch was not in the frontal bone, thus disagreeing with Baden's orientation! 10. In conclusion, the orientation described here is consistent with the historical orientation, with the X-rays, with Humes's comment about the notch, with Boswell's two drawings (one at the autopsy and one for the ARRB), and even with Angel's drawings, but not with Baden's orientation. From this photograph, we can be certain that the back of the head was blown out, quite dramatically in fact, just like all of the witnesses said. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that a frontal headshot led to this injury. This deduction, of course, also corroborates the recollections of all of those new and old witnesses who saw autopsy photographs with such a massive defect, which, in turn, means that other photographs really have disappeared." 'THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DECODED' By David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/4989902384399124/ Yes, of course, the cowlick entry was a hoax. That was the point of my video series. The slide above shows that the red spot in the cowlick that was called an entry did not match the proportions of the entry discussed in the autopsy report. While everyone knows the report's description of a wound to the right and slightly above the EOP is at odds with the cowlick entry, moreover, I believe I was the first to prove the red spot is not an inch to the right of midline, nowhere close. It is absolutely positively not the wound described in the autopsy report. It was in the wrong vertical location, wrong horizontal location. It had the wrong proportions and did not match the description provided for the wound. Once one realizes that, moreover, one realizes that the autopsy photos fail to support the HSCA's analysis of the photos. Once one studies the case, one realizes why--that the Clark Panel was asked to solve the riddle of the low entry/high exit, and just decided to move the wound. This parallels what happened with the back wound, moreover. The autopsy doctors were asked to solve the problem of the back wound being higher than the throat wound, and voila! they showed up at their depositions with drawings in which the back wound was two inches or so higher than the throat wound, and two inches or more higher than its location as shown in the photos. So, in short, the problem was not that the body was altered, or that the photos were faked, it was that the doctors tasked with analyzing and presenting the medical evidence misrepresented what was demonstrated in the photos. And the problem doesn't stop with those pushing the Oswald-did-it agenda. Those who've pushed conspiracy have been also guilty of misrepresenting the evidence.

Yikes. That's quite misleading. The assumption seems to be that any photo ANYONE remembers being taken was in fact taken. This avoids that many of those saying photo A was taken were simultaneously insistent photo B was not taken. More problematic though is Horne's claim the photo showing an entry on the back of the skull is missing. It is not missing. It is the so-called mystery photo. Those familiar with my history will know that this is what sucked me into this maelstrom. I took one look at the mystery photo in Groden's book The Killing of a President and saw what I thought was a bullet hole, but saw nothing about this in the caption. Years later, after my discovery of Rex Bradford's website, I decided to see what the HSCA panel had to say about this photo, and was horrified to find they'd claimed it showed the forehead, and not the back of the head. I then performed a deep dive, and read every comment or description of the photo in the records. And found that, unbelievably, the autopsy doctors had originally claimed it showed the entry wound on the back of the head, and that a secret panel was formed shortly thereafter to reconcile how such a low entry could lead to such a high exit, if the bullet had in fact been fired from above...and had claimed the doctors were simply mistaken, and that the photo did not show a low wound, and that, even worse, there was no low wound, as the only entry on the back of the head was a wound high on the back of the head, in the cowlick. Now in the swirls of the maelstrom, I continued on and found that the members of the HSCA pathology panel were cronies of the secret panel that had moved the wound, and had denied the wound was apparent on the back of the head in the mystery photo. Well, this explained to me why their report claimed the photo showed the forehead. But what confused me was why no one in the research community had stepped up and said "Hey, the autopsy doctors weren't kidding! It's right there in the photo!" I asked Lifton. He said yeah that's the entrance wound. I asked Jack White. He said yeah that's the entrance wound. I asked Bob Groden. He said yeah of course that's the wound and I say so in my book...only he hadn't said so in his book. And I could find no record of Lifton or White ever identifying the wound in an article, or book, or video. So I spent a year off and on creating a video series on the history of the mystery photo, entitled The Mysterious Death of Number 35. This video series has been well received within the research community. So for Horne to claim the photo of the entry wound is missing, when it's been studied since 1966, and published by numerous authors since the 80's, and featured in a video series on YouTube receiving hundreds of thousands of views, is a bit bizarre, IMO. Catch up, Doug!

Yes, much hay was made of the chicken bones in the first few days. Newspaper accounts used them to paint a picture of a cold-blooded killer, Lee Oswald, calmly eating chicken while he awaited his moment in the sun. It turned out, of course, that the chicken bones were from Williams' lunch. It is unclear just when the DPD learned this, but it seems probable it was on Sunday, or so. Well, this suggests that as of the night of the shooting, they thought the chicken bones and Pepper bottle were connected to the shooting. Well, the bottle must have been covered with greasy prints, right? So why isn't there a report saying they compared the bottle prints with Oswald's prints, and they didn't match? There should be a record of this, right? Anyhow, all this makes me suspect they DID test the prints on the bottle, and DITCHED the report after it came up negative, and ditched the lunch sack and bottle after Oswald was killed.

Kinney's report on the assassination says that after the arrival at Parkland, he emptied out the limo and put the roof back on, He says this took 15-20 minutes. He says he and Hickey then took the limo to Love Field, and secured it on a plane. And that this plane left for Washington at 3:35. Hickey's report confirms this timeline, and notes that he and Kinney drove the President's limo and SS back-up car to the airport shortly after the arrival of the priest. IOW, around 1:00. So, no dice, Hugh. The limo was locked up on an airplane by the time you made it out to the theater.

Thanks for posting the video. Yeah, it's clear old Hugh was blithering at the end. He said he went out and examined the limo "a few hours later". As I recall, the limo was in the air within two hours or so of the shooting, long before anyone had published anything about a hole's being in the windshield. So, no, Hugh...

A couple of points about Bowron. 1. She claimed the head wound was low on the back of the head, but claimed the whole right rear of the brain was missing. Well, how could she have seen that? Did she put her fingers down in the hole and measure how much brain was left? At least one of these claims is not credible. 2. And how could far more brain have been missing than skull? Is that how bullets work? They enter a skull and stir up all the brains, and the brains then explode through a hole less than half the size of the missing brain? Nope. Not how it works. 3. She placed the wound exactly where it is shown in the McClelland drawing, when speaking to a man who misrepresented the statements of numerous witnesses while claiming they all said the drawing was an accurate depiction of the wound. Is this a coincidence? It's doubtful. 4. While some like to cite her as support for their theory the back of the head was blown out, few recognize or acknowledge she also said she saw NO other wounds. None on the face. None by the temples. Well, this is toxic to their theory a bullet entered the forehead or the temple and blew out the back of the head. So, back of the head proponents have a choice: they can claim she's unreliable, and leave it at that. Or they can ignore what she said about there being no entrance on the front of the head. They choose the latter because, well, they're desperate.

The back of the head in the photos is not identical. It is therefore not an identical matte.