The lapel flip -- what did i miss?

[Michael T. Griffith]

You're citing two layers of hearsay by non-medical people of a "conversation" not recorded?

Oh, of course. Just never mind that this information was shared in confidence and never intended to be disclosed, right? What exactly would these men have "misunderstood" about the subject? The account consisted only of a few components, none overly technical.

Isn't CBS part of the Mass Media Coverup? What x-ray with a probe did the three pathologists describe in their 1967 "Military Review" or in sworn testimony?

Holy cow, you obviously have no idea about all the testimony regarding missing autopsy  photos and x-rays.

Your only response is to say, "Gee, the autopsy doctors didn't mention such an x-ray in their 1967 review or in their testimony"?! Of course they didn't mention it on those occasions, because they were trying to keep it from being known.

Why does Humes seem to probe the whole neck transit, then say he doesn't want to use it to authenticate the SBT?

Humm, indeed, why do you suppose that was? Think really hard. It'll come to you. Here's a hint: Until WC staffers finally badgered him enough to get him to change his stated position, Humes initially said the SBT was impossible. You know this, right?

Is there some law that pathologists can only write a set number of drafts?

Gosh, how many autopsies do you know of that required two drafts and where the chief pathologist burned all of his notes and both drafts?

ou wrote:
    "And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound
     enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract
     was "not into the chest cavity.""

Not the same as the probe pushing against the cavity lining.

That's a hoot. If the wound tract did not go into the chest cavity, then the SBT is a myth.

On other occasions Jenkins explained that he could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. How can you not know this? This fact has been in the public record for going on three decades now.

Since you're citing Jenkins, he said the autopsy doctors had no knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy.

And Jenkins might well have believed that. He was not in the room the whole time.

The Silbert-O'Neill Report also says as much.

That means that Stringer imagined the throat wound being probed. That means Dr. Ebersole imagined that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound. That means Burkley said nothing about the throat wound to the autopsy doctors. That means Humes lied to Snyder or that Snyder somehow misunderstood his relatively simple account. That means Nurse Bell lied about or imagined her conversation with Dr. Perry on the morning after the autopsy.

What Finck told the ARRB about the extent of the probing:

     Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy,
     did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet—
     A: Yes.

     Q:—that you referred to as the upper back?
     A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.

     Q: What kind of probe did you use?
     A: I don't remember.

     Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
     A: A non-metallic probe.

     Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the
     entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
     A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.

     Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that
     would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the
     place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
     A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful.
     ...
     Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes
     inserted into the wounds?
     A: I don't.
     ...
     Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November
     22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what
     had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
     A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the
     following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the
     front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware
     of that exit wound in the front of the neck.
     ...
     Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into
     the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
     cavity rather than out the throat?
     A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing
     was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing
     was unsuccessful?

Surely you know that you are being dishonest in cherry-picking this quote, which is nothing but a slightly modified version of the standard tale that the autopsy doctors told for decades. You know that Finck testified in 1967 that a senior military officer would not allow him to dissect the back wound, which would have been another way to categorically determine where the wound went.

Humes to the ARRB:

     A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high
     in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the
     exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew
     in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than
     we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate
     and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper
     lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's
     obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
     ...
     ... it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
     you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
     point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in
     this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
     be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature.
     It just doesn't work that way.
     Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path—
     A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive
     efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
     ...
     Q. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe
     inserted into the post thorax?
     A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.

How can you quote this stuff with a straight face? I mean, this is just silly. You can quote Humes's lies 100 times, but that won't make them any more credible or believable. Is this your answer to all of the evidence that I've cited?

And we'll just see about Humes's (and Boswell's) claim that no photos were taken of inserted probes.

Boswell to the ARRB:

     Q. Previously in the deposition, you've made reference to there being a
     probe to help track the direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
     A. Mm-hmm.

     Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the
     dimensions of the probe?
     A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt
     end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you
     would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long,
     blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.

     Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that
     you recall?
     A. No.

     Q. How far in did the probe go?
     A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.

     Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
     A. I doubt it.
     ...
     ... When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was—
     if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the
     coat had been—was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched
     up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this
     would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the
     way I know this best is my memory of the fact that—see, we probed this hole
     which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such
     a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had
     closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when
     we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle
     and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through
     into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura.
     And so if I can move this up to here—it's shown better on the front, actually.
     The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and
     out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back
     through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.

Uh. .  . . Umm. . . . Did you actually read this quote before you pasted it? Did you miss the part where Boswell said that at first they couldn't get "a finger or probe through it" but that when they "opened the chest" they could see that "the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura"? Did you miss that?

This mirrors Dr. Karnei's account of the probing: that the doctors removed the chest organs to get a better view of the bullet's tract and that they probed the wound extensively after they removed the chest organs. Karnei added that they moved the body "every which way" during the probing.

Here's what Jenkins explained in a filmed interview:

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura [lining of the chest cavity] . . . . You could actually see where it was making an indentation . . . where it was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity. . . . No way that could have exited in the front.

During his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview, Jenkins said that Humes found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]."

Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area."

Dr. Karnei told the ARRB that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder." In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Karnei said that he recalled them "putting the probe in and taking pictures."

Significantly, Karnei told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs."

O'Neill told the HSCA in his 11/8/78 interview that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." That's when Sibert left to call the FBI lab to see if "any extra bullets existed." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound.

He offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat."

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I found a copy of Lattimer's 1994 report re tests re Connally's lapel bulge flap flip at Z224.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lattimer%20John%20Dr/Item%2006.pdf
Lattimer's tests show that the flip goes from say 20% at his Frame-06 to say 90% at Frame-07.
His frames are 30 fps.  The Zapruder frames are 18.3 fps.
I said that reactions show that Oswald's shot-2 was at i reckoned Z218.  However, the Zapruder footage shows that the lapel flip happened (ie attained 100% flip or nearly) between Z223 & Z224.
Therefore i need to change my estimate for Oswald's shot-2 being at Z218, it was at Z219, or a fraction later than Z219.
At Z219 & Z220 Connally was hidden by the road signage – hence the Zapruder footage missed showing the cloud of debris that caused the bulge & the flip.

Lattimer said that his tests confirmed that the shot was at Z224.
NNOOOOOOOOO.
His sequence clearly shows that his lapel flip happened at his Frame-07 (ie just before Frame-07), not at his Frame-00.
His first photo is Frame-minus-01 if u like – it merely shows his "Connally" test dummy etc before the shot.
His first frame of his shot sequence is what i call Frame-00 – it shows that the shot & the debris cloud have already happened.  What i call Frame-07 is the 8th frame of his shot sequence.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52543820000/in/dateposted-public/

https://i.postimg.cc/hvCw3MrK/latimer-4-Copy-2.jpg

Here are my latest estimates (done today) off Lattimer's 18 frames (actually 18 photos)(it was not a film)(camera took 30 pix/sec)(Lattimer's test dunn in 1994).
Its difficult to see what is what in Lattimer's 1994 frames (pix) – its partly guesswork.
The flap on the jacket on the 1994 dummy was much longer than the 1963 jacket, so i have divided the 1994 flap into the lower flap & the upper flap.
In the 1963 Zapruder frames the 1963 flap is in effect the upper flap in the 1994 frames.
I assumed that the 1963 slug hit Connally at Z220.0.  This accords with the max flip at Lattimer 07 (1994) happening at the same time as the flip in Z224 (1963).
We don’t see any debris cloud in the 1963 Zapruder frames – the exit outshoot on the 1963 jacket is hidden below the level of the 1963 limo door.
Frame … Time s … Bulge % … Lower/Upper [Flap Flip %] … Debris Cloud % … Zapruder Frame … Connally 1963 Flap.
…. 00 …. 0.0000 …. 000 ……….. 010 …. 000 ……………………………….. 075 ……………………. Z220.0 ….…. hidden by sign..
…. 01 …. 0.0333 …. 040 ………...010 …. 000 ……………………………….. 100 …………………... Z220.6 …….. hidden by sign..
…. 02 …. 0.0667 …. 070 ……….. 060 …. 010 ………………………………. 050 ……………………. Z221.2 … half hidden by sign..
…. 03 …. 0.1000 …. 100 ……….. 100 …. 010 ………………………………. 040 ……………………. Z221.8 … half hidden by sign..
…. 04 …. 0.1333 …. 100 …….... 100 …. 010 ………………………………. 030 ……………………. Z222.4 …….….... no flip [edit 1dec2023][Andrew Mason has pointed out that there is a small flip or bulge in Z222].
…. 05 …. 0.1667 …. 090 …….…. 100 …. 020 ……………………………... 010 ……………………. Z223.0 …….….... no flip ..
…. 06 …. 0.2000 …. 080 …….... 100 …. 050 ………………………………. 005 …………………….. Z223.7 …….….... no flip ..
…. 07 …. 0.2333 …. 070 ……….. 100 …. 100 …………………….………. 000 …………………….. Z224.3 …….. flipped ..
…. 08 …. 0.2667 …. 060 ……….. 100 …. 100 ………………………….…. 000 …………………….. Z224.9 …….. flipped ..
…. 09 …. 0.3000 …. 050 ……... 100 …. 100 …………………………….. 000 ……………….….…. Z225.4 …….. flipped ..
…. 10 …. 0.3333 …. 040 ……... 100 …. 080 …………………………….. 000 ……………….……. Z225.9 …….. flipped ..
…. 11 …. 0.3667 …. 030 ………. 100 …. 050 …………………………….. 000 ……………….…... Z226.8 …….. flipped ..
…. 12 …. 0.4000 …. 020 ………. 100 …. 030 ……………………………. 000 ……….…………... Z227.3 ……...….. blurred frame ..
…. 13 …. 0.4333 …. 020 ……... 080 …. 020 ……………………………... 000 ……….………….. Z227.9 ……...….. blurred frame..
…. 14 …. 0.4667 …. 010 ……... 050 …. 010 ……………………………... 000 …………….……. Z228.4 …….. hidden ..
…. 15 …. 0.5000 …. 010 ……... 030 …. 005 …………………….……….. 000 …………….….…. Z229.2 …….. hidden ..
…. 16 …. 0.5333 …. 000 ………. 020 …. 000 ……………….….…………. 000 …………….……. Z229.8 …….. hidden ..
…. 17 …. 0.5667 …. 000 ……... 010 …. 000 …………………..…………. 000 …………….……. Z2230.3 …….. hidden ..
…. …. …. 0.6000 …. ……. ……... …... …. …... …………………..…………. ..... …………….……. Z231.0 …….. hidden ..

[Michael T. Griffith]

A few follow-up points on the SBT and the myth that the autopsy doctors knew nothing about the throat wound until the next morning:

-- Dr. Boswell destroyed the unaware-of-throat-wound myth in his 8/17/77 HSCA interview with HSCA staffer Andy Purdy. Boswell said that when the autopsy doctors saw the body, they assumed the throat wound ("anterior neck wound") was an exit wound, and he added that they were not certain that a tracheotomy had been done and only thought it was a possibility. And then, Boswell dropped the bombshell that he saw part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the throat! I quote from Purdy's summary of the interview:

Dr. Boswell said that the autopsy doctors assumed that the anterior neck wound was a wound of exit, saying the hole is not that big and that it was "far bigger than a wound of entry." He said the doctors didn't explicitly discuss the possibility of a tracheotomy having been performed but said it was assumed this was a possibility. . . . Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. ( p. 8 )

So not only did the autopsy doctors assume that the throat wound was an exit wound, but Boswell could see part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the throat wound.

In his HSCA interview, Boswell also indicated that he and the other pathologists discussed the back wound and the throat wound with Secret Service agents during the autopsy. Note that Boswell repeatedly referred to the back wound as a "neck wound." And he said that a federal agent was on the phone "most of the time" during the autopsy (the parenthetical comment is Purdy's--my comments will always be in brackets):

DR. BOSWELL indicated that "we had gotten ourselves in dutch [in trouble] with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service." DR. BOSWELL indicated that one of the agents (he wasn't sure if FBI or Secret Service) was on the phone most of the time. (He seemed to be implying they were on the phone that was in the main autopsy room.) (p. 4)

So the autopsy doctors were talking with the Secret Service about the throat wound and the back wound. That makes perfect sense. That is exactly what you would expect them to have done.

The federal agent who was on the phone "most of the time" during the autopsy may very well have been the person, or one of the persons, who repeatedly called Dr. Perry that night to try to badger him into changing his description of the throat wound from an entrance wound to an exit wound.

So, let us repeat for the millionth time that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound early in the autopsy. Boswell's HSCA interview was sealed, but the ARRB released it in the 1990s. Yet, lone-gunman theorists continue to peddle the myth that the doctors knew nothing about the throat wound until the next morning. This myth was created at least partly to explain Humes's highly unusual action of destroying the previous autopsy report drafts and his notes.

Let us continue. Even Purdy noted that Boswell contradicted himself when Purdy asked him why the autopsy doctors had bothered to probe the back wound if they knew the bullet had exited the front of the neck. Boswell's answer is not only unconvincing, but it casts further doubt on the official story:

Dr. BOSWELL was asked why the back wound was probed if the autopsy doctors knew the bullet had exited out the anterior neck (as Dr. BOSWELL stated earlier in the interview).

Dr. BOSWELL said that Dr. BURKLEY didn't mention the fact that a tracheotomy had been performed. He said that Dr. BURKLEY was very upset and this might have explained his failure to mention this important fact. Dr. BOSWELL said (without indicating that he was being inconsistent with his previous statement), the doctors felt the anterior neck damage was caused by a tracheotomy wound and in the later courses of the autopsy thought it may have included the exit wound of a bullet. (pp. 11-12; again, all parenthetical comments are Purdy's)

One would hope that not even the most gullible WC apologist would dare suggest that Dr. Burkley not only said nothing about the throat wound to the autopsy doctors but that he didn't even mention that a tracheotomy had been done.

Anyway, Boswell's claim that Burkley didn't mention the tracheotomy actually supports his earlier statement that the pathologists didn't know that a tracheotomy had been done. However, his claim that later in the autopsy the doctors opined that the throat wound included an exit wound contradicts his earlier statement that they had assumed the throat wound was an exit wound.

Purdy attempted to get Boswell to specify when the autopsy doctors concluded or began to believe that the throat wound was an exit wound. Boswell was "a little vague" in his reply:

Dr. BOSWELL is a little vague as to when the doctors felt that a bullet may have fallen out the neck wound, but seemed to indicate it occurred around the time they learned the bullet had been discovered in Parkland. . . . (p. 12)

So initially Boswell indicated that soon after they saw the body, they believed the throat wound was an exit wound. Then, when asked why they therefore probed the back wound if they had already assumed the throat wound was an exit wound, Boswell gave the irrelevant and doubtful answer that Burkley failed to mention that a tracheotomy had been done. Even if Burkley failed to mention the tracheotomy, this would not explain why the pathologists probed the back wound if they had already assumed that the throat wound was an exit wound.

Also, note Purdy's use of the phrase "fallen out the neck wound," implying that the bullet was barely moving when it allegedly exited the throat. This is consistent with Humes's description of the bullet tract to Dan Snyder: Humes said the tract went downward, and then upward, and then downward again, which would logically indicate that the bullet would have been moving very slowly when it exited the throat, certainly nowhere near rapidly enough to cause Connally's back wound. Is this another reason that Humes initially insisted that the SBT was impossible? Is this why he declined to defend the SBT when he spoke with Snyder?

-- CBS producer Les Midgley was so impressed with Dan Snyder's account of his conversation with Dr. Humes that he wrote about it to WC member John McCloy. After getting Richter's memo, Midgley apparently spoke with Snyder himself to get the story straight from Snyder, and he said the following about Snyder's account in his 1/11/67 memo to McCloy:

I have been told, by a man who is a personal friend of Dr. Humes, that he says one of the x-rays shows a wire left in the bullet path through the neck. If this is indeed true, publication of same would forever resolve the discussion about back versus neck wound and generally settle the dust about the autopsy.

We have multiple accounts that pictures and x-rays were taken of the probing of the back wound, and also of the chest cavity, which is standard autopsy procedure.

Importantly, Boswell stated that "they photographed the exposed thoracic [chest] cavity and lung" (p. 4), which is standard autopsy procedure: you have photos and x-rays taken of any damage that sheds light on the wounds, of any probing of wounds, etc., etc. Yet, no such photos or x-rays are in the extant collection of autopsy materials. I think we all know why, even if some of us can't bring ourselves to publicly say it.

-- Boswell said the back wound was less than 1 inch deep when probed with a finger:

According to BOSWELL, HUMES probed the neck wound [the back wound] with his little finger (indicating a point on the little finger which did not go past the first knuckle, less than one inch). He said HUMES also probed it with a metal probe. (p. 6)

-- James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell at the autopsy, consistently described, in his HSCA interview and in filmed interviews with researchers, a back wound that slanted downward and that definitely did not transit the body because it did not even penetrate the pleura (the lining of the chest cavity and of the lungs).

In his 8/29/77 HSCA interview, Jenkins said that the back wound was “very shallow," that it "didn't enter the peritoneal cavity," that Humes reached the end of the wound when he probed it with his finger, and that the pathologists spent a long time probing the wound.

In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following:

Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.

As I've documented in previous replies, a number of other autopsy witnesses likewise said that the back wound had no exit point.

Even the autopsy doctors made it clear in several statements that during the autopsy they never actually saw a tract that went from the back wound to the throat wound, even after they opened the chest and removed the chest organs and even after prolonged and extensive probing (probing that included positioning the body "every which way").

Only later, after the autopsy, did they put forward the purely speculative opinion that the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound. They had not one shred of evidence for this speculation. They cited bruising around part of the lungs, but that bruising could have just as easily, and far more plausibly, have been caused by a projectile entering the throat.

We have known for many years that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point, and we have also known for a number of years that this fact was reflected in the first two drafts of the autopsy report. We now know that the second draft of the autopsy report concluded that a skull fragment from the head was blown out of the throat, causing the throat wound.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I made a giff of Lattimer's 18 frames (1994 test).
The tie is out of there.
Lattimer's slug takes a big chunk out of the lapel (as can be seen). He didnt tell us that.
The 1994 exit outshoot is not in the correct place, it is too high & too close to center.
And, the silly 1994 lapel (the 1994 lapel is very long) & the silly 1994 jacket are unlike the (shortish) 1963 lapel & jacket, hence the 1994 tie escapes, & the 1994 lapel loozes a chunk (missing chunk is vizible in the photos).
So, koz of the (missing) chunk, Lattimer's 1994 lapel would (i think) have flipped more violently than the 1963 lapel (see lapel flip in Z224), & (i think) it would have flipped earlier than the 1963 lapel.
Which means that my estimate of Z218 for Oswald's shot-2 is looking better & better (ie rather than Lattimer's Z220).
Lattimer actually said that his test showed that the shot was at Z224, even tho as can be seen his 1994 test timings clearly tell us that the shot must have been at Z220, & (as i said) the 1994 flip would have been seen later if Lattimer's 1994 slug had missed the lapel (we know that the 1963 slug missed the lapel), which means that the shot at the supposed Z220 would in fact have been say Z219 (or even at my Z218).

I estimated that Oswald's shot-2 was at Z218, which is when JFK was hidden by the traffic sign, in fact Z218 is when JFK was halfway along the sign (ie at the midpoint of his disappearance).
My estimate of Z218 was based on the typical human reaction time that would give the JFK & Connally reactions seen in Zapruder frame Z224.
So, JFK's & Connally's 1963 reaction times were similar to the reaction time for Connally's 1963 jacket flap-flip (flap-flip happened at Z224) -- 6 Zapruder frames is 0.30 sec (Latimer said 1/3rd of a sec).



https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.96.html

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

You're citing two layers of hearsay by non-medical people of a "conversation" not recorded?



Isn't CBS part of the Mass Media Coverup? What x-ray with a probe did the three pathologists describe in their 1967 "Military Review" or in sworn testimony? Why does Humes seem to probe the whole neck transit, then say he doesn't want to use it to authenticate the SBT?

Is there some law that pathologists can only write a set number of drafts?

You wrote:
    "And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound
     enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract
     was "not into the chest cavity.""

Not the same as the probe pushing against the cavity lining.

Since you're citing Jenkins, he said the autopsy doctors had no knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy. The Silbert-O'Neill Report also says as much.

What Finck told the ARRB about the extent of the probing:

     Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy,
     did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet—
     A: Yes.

     Q:—that you referred to as the upper back?
     A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.

     Q: What kind of probe did you use?
     A: I don't remember.

     Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
     A: A non-metallic probe.

     Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the
     entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
     A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.

     Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that
     would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the
     place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
     A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful.
     ...
     Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes
     inserted into the wounds?
     A: I don't.
     ...
     Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November
     22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what
     had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
     A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the
     following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the
     front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware
     of that exit wound in the front of the neck.
     ...
     Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into
     the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
     cavity rather than out the throat?
     A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing
     was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing
     was unsuccessful?
_____
Humes to the ARRB:

     A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high
     in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the
     exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew
     in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than
     we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate
     and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper
     lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's
     obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
     ...
     ... it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
     you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
     point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in
     this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
     be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature.
     It just doesn't work that way.
     Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path—
     A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive
     efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
     ...
     Q. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe
     inserted into the post thorax?
     A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.
_____
Boswell to the ARRB:

     Q. Previously in the deposition, you've made reference to there being a
     probe to help track the direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
     A. Mm-hmm.

     Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the
     dimensions of the probe?
     A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt
     end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you
     would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long,
     blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.

     Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that
     you recall?
     A. No.

     Q. How far in did the probe go?
     A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.

     Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
     A. I doubt it.
     ...
     ... When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was—
     if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the
     coat had been—was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched
     up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this
     would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the
     way I know this best is my memory of the fact that—see, we probed this hole
     which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such
     a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had
     closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when
     we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle
     and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through
     into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura.
     And so if I can move this up to here—it's shown better on the front, actually.
     The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and
     out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back
     through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.

bump

[Royell Storing]

  Again, the Knott Lab Laser testing recently concluded that the SBT was IMPOSSIBLE. ALL of this discussion is Now Immaterial. FOLLOW THE SCIENCE. No SBT = Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy CASE CLOSED !!!

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

  Again, the Knott Lab Laser testing recently concluded that the SBT was IMPOSSIBLE. ALL of this discussion is Now Immaterial. FOLLOW THE SCIENCE. No SBT = Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy CASE CLOSED !!!

Nope. Your BS meter is definitely sick. I suggest the carnivore diet.
The Knott Lab put a lot of work into modelling the location of jfk & of Connally, but in the end stuffed it all up.
Blind Freddie can see that they have JFK leaning back in his seat.
If they had him leaning forward just a little, as per all of the pix & footages, then their SBT would work, as per other analysts.
The shot happens at Z218, ie while jfk is behind the large Stemmons sign, ie halfway along the sign.

Allso, Lattimer showed that the bulging jacket & the lapel flip-eversion cannot happen unless the slug has firstly passed throo JFK & is tumbling while passing throo Connally.
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE = SBT.