"Respect" for the clothing evidence?

[Tracy Riddle]

On the Colby/McAdams thread Jim DiEugenio wrote:

We all know about the shirt evidence and the jacket evidence and how it does not align with a high back wound. Its been around in a popular way at least since Epstein's book Inquest.

There was no "high back wound."

Can you even come out and say it? The holes in the clothes align with T3.

Vincent Salandria was the first to point out the primacy of the clothing evidence.

The Salandria Group -- Vincent S., Gaeton Fonzi, E. Martin Schotz, Michael Morrissey, Harold Feldman -- all tout the primacy of the clothing evidence.

This has fallen on deaf ears, Jim.

I respect it, as do most people on our side.

No, Jim, you don't. I recall you bragging about the fact you don't cite it.

Most of your colleagues seem to buy into this notion of a high back wound.

Tink Thompson, Cyril Wecht, Stu Wexler, Pat Speer, John Hunt.

David Mantik has wasted all kinds of words micro-analyzing a wound that never existed.

When was the last time the T3 back wound and front throat entrance wound were discussed at a major JFK conference?

1998?

There is a distinct lack of consensus on this issue that speaks ill of the collective efforts of the JFK Critical Assassination Research Community

Ed Lopez tried to talk Andy Purdy out of his switcher with the HSCA on that point.

We all know how you are wedded to it. That includes me. Thanks for that contribution.

Do you sneer at Vincent Salandria for being "wedded" to the clothing evidence?

Those who don't grasp the significance of the low back wound/throat entrance don't understand the first thing about the murder of JFK.

I don't care how many books they've written.

I can shut down David Von Pein with one piece of evidence -- something Jim DiEugenio cannot.

I think we should be able to debate and discuss matters here without questioning each others' integrity and motives. The terms "high" and "low" are very vague and relative. I'm the first to admit I don't know whether JFK was really struck in the back, or exactly where, or by what.