Brainless question
Brainless when you have no curiosity as to whether Bennett meant below the shoulder line or below the shoulder body mass. And it's brainless when one believes the clothing bunching didn't compromise the level of the wound in the the base of the back of the neck, but instead thinks the clothing on a near flat plane and hanging from a hanger is a better indication of the wound level.
Why wouldn't he have said below the shoulder body mass?
Because 5 to 6 inches below the shoulder body mass would mean the bullet struck the kidney. But if you're alright with that, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on the wounds.
Nice graphics, Jerry. Pity they are immaterial.
No surprise you didn't take anything away from it.
She was talking about how she saw the body in the car in her WC testimony.
If she mentions seeing the back wound there, let us know.
Just your opinion.
Sure. Could be other reasons why Bowron got "inspired".
Another brainless question
Seems pertinent to explore what Hill meant by "about six inches below the neckline".
You mean the same brainless way you accept the Specter's single bullet theory?
Given that the serious 3D studys and ballistics re-creations (you know, the kind of forensic analysis that critics can't and won't do) tend to support the salient features of the theory, I'm going with that for now.
"Err" Dummkopf can't even figure out how to get the rifle out the window.
If you can show a good resolution photo of JFK's shirt bunching up whilst he was in the limo, be my guest.
How we gonna do that, Ray? X-ray specs? The jacket bunch is the only visible indication we have that the clothing was raised up at the nape area. You can figure that one out, can't you?