I'm sorry, Keven, but your posts are insulting, not just to me, but to anyone who's studied the case. No matter what you would like to believe about McClelland, he was erratic as heck. Now, did he consistently claim post-1963 that the wound he saw was on the back of the head? Yes. And did he subsequently claim the wound in the autopsy photos was lower than he recalled? Yes, no one disputes that. But was he consistent in where he placed the wound, as to above the ear or at the level of the ear? N