Clint Hill's March 9, 1964 Warren Commission testimony- "IT WAS RIGHT, BUT I CANNOT SAY FOR SURE THAT IT WAS REAR"--?!

[Vince Palamara]

Clint Hill's March 9, 1964 Warren Commission testimony- "IT WAS RIGHT, BUT I CANNOT SAY FOR SURE THAT IT WAS REAR"--?!?!?!?!?

 

 

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 Clint Hills memories were fading in the direction of the lone assassin ... this memory-adjustment of the eye-witness is a widespread phenomenon in the jfka ... and of course none of the headwounds-witness were shown the autopsy pics ... to refresh their memory ... to cruel to show them? But they all have seen these wounds in reality.

[Pat Speer]

52 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 Clint Hills memories were fading in the direction of the lone assassin ... this memory-adjustment of the eye-witness is a widespread phenomenon in the jfka ... and of course none of the headwounds-witness were shown the autopsy pics ... to refresh their memory ... to cruel to show them? But they all have seen these wounds in reality.

I don't think it's fair to say Hill has changed his views much. To this day, he says he disagrees with the single-bullet theory, and he continues to say the head wound he saw was on the back of the head. It's just that when he points out where he recalls seeing this wound he points to a location at the top of the back of the head behind the ear. And people who desperately want to believe the wound was below this location have taken to claiming he's a xxxx. This is grossly unfair, as these same people don't seem to mind the contradictory statements of men like McClelland and Crenshaw, who undoubtedly changed their recollections and ended up telling people what they knew they wanted to hear.

On a separate point, moreover, Hill claimed that when he looked down into Kennedy's skull it looked like someone had taken a scoop out of his brain. This is inconsistent with the single-assassin scenario. Such a wound to the brain would not occur at exit and would only occur in a wound of both entrance and exit--a tangential wound. Dr. William Kemp Clark, a neurosurgeon with a military background, who was the only doctor to fully inspect the wound at Parkland, told the press and never recanted that in his impression the wound was a tangential wound. 

Ultimately, this obsession with location location location has been an enormous distraction, as Hill's observations and Clark's impressions--when viewed in conjunction with the autopsy photos and x-rays--are clear evidence for two head shots and more than one shooter. And have been since day one...

Edited July 29, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

I think the released HSCA and ARRB interviews of the autopsy personnel have destroyed the credibility of the autopsy photos. We now know that the HSCA report lied when it said that the autopsy personnel contradicted the Dallas doctors about the right-rear head wound. In point of fact, most of them described the same wound that the Dallas doctors and nurses described.