Humes never made any drawings. He was going by memory when giving instructions to Rydberg.
This sounds a bit childish. Humes directly supervised Rydberg's drawing point-by-point, then he reviewed it and said it represented what he saw, and then he presented to the WC as an accurate depiction of the back wound's location.
Humes could have used his autopsy notes and Boswell's autopsy face sheet, but he chose not to do so because he was determined to misrepresent the wound's location as being above the throat wound so he could portray a mythical downward trajectory through the neck.
The wound placement is too high in the drawing but the wound was in the low neck.
No, it most certainly was not in the "low neck." The autopsy photo alone refutes this myth.
Even Google AI knows that T1 is not in the neck:
The "T" stands for Thoracic: This means T1 is the first vertebra of the thoracic spine (the upper and middle back section).Even partially acknowledging the autopsy photo of the back wound and mislocating the wound at C7 does not work, because C7 would have been only very slightly above the throat wound, if not level with it, whereas the downward angle from the sixth-floor window to JFK would have been between 20 and 21.5 degrees. Humes knew this, and this is why he purposely falsified the back wound's location in CE 385, and this is why the WC assumed the back wound was in the neck and that it was visibly above the throat wound.
Of course, you continue to cling to the absurd bunched-clothing theory to explain away the fact that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were 5 inches below the collar, even though Croft 3 and Willis 5 plainly refute the theory, not to mention the severely far-fetched notion that the shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat.
BTW, do you still stand by your bizarre claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray are the same object, even though both are plainly visible on the x-ray and look nothing like each other?
