Mitch McConnell is probably not dead but he is certainly not Woke.

This comes from the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. It is not in the autopsy report. According to Sibert and O'Neill, at one point Humes voiced the view that the back-wound bullet hit at a 45-60-degree downward angle. Obviously, either Humes was unbelievably incompetent or he could not have been looking at the back wound seen in the autopsy photo of the wound. The wound in the autopsy photo has an abrasion ring around it that is wider on the bottom half than on the top half, proving an upward trajectory at the time of impact, as the HSCA FPP correctly noted:

A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)

Dr. Spitz had already made the same point, in writing, four years earlier in his report to the Rockefeller Commission:

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)

Could Humes have been so utterly incompetent as not to recognize that an abrasion ring that is wider on the bottom than on the top proves the bullet struck at an upward angle? I don't think Humes was that incompetent. Finck surely recognized what the abrasion ring indicated. Yet, not surprisingly, this crucial information never made it into the autopsy report, just as the 6.5 mm object and the high fragment trail did not make it into the autopsy report.

Let's say, for argument's sake, there was an "upward angle back wound", where would that shot have come from and when, in the Z-film, did it happen?

2] The man in the image I posted is also wearing a plaid shirt and, most definitely, not the white shirt Molina was wearing.
3] During his WC testimony Molina is specifically asked if a girl had come up while he was on the steps and mentioned the President being shot, to which he said "no". This alone proves it wasn't Molina. When asked about Gloria he mentioned nothing about being on the steps. He specifically states he was in the lobby when he interacted with her. Molina's WC testimony does preclude him from being the man on the steps. As does the lack of white shirt:

Mr. BALL. Had somebody come up and said the President was shot before you saw Truly go in?
Mr. MOLINA. No.
Mr. BALL. Do you know a girl named Gloria Calvary?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did Gloria come up?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, she came. I was in the lobby standing there and she came in with this other girl.

When did Frazier say this?
During his WC testimony he seems to be just guessing what Shelley and Lovelady did. He doesn't seem to really know.

Reed or Hicks. It doesn't really matter but if you feel from your interview of Reed that it might have been her that's good enough for me.
I'm still pretty sure you said something else but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.
For what it's worth, you had left this forum not long after I was getting involved. I thought the Prayer Man cult was pure nonsense and it seemed to me the only real candidate was Sarah Stanton. When I expressed this I was surprised by how vehement the opposition was to this notion. There were a lot of insults but the main one was the 'new Brian Doyle'. I get the impression I was supposed to be really offended by this.

LATER EDIT: How do you reconcile the WC testimonies of Shelley and Lovelady with the identification of the men on the extension. This is what really disproves the identification so I would like to hear how you navigate it.