Please explain how it can be "solidly established" that it was an entry wound, when it could also have been an exit wound?

I said it was solidly established by all those present at Parkland that it was an entry wound. That includes the original statements of Perry and Carrico.

First of all, the Warren Commission hearings were not a trial (this is why Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald), and did not follow the rules of criminal procedure. Second, because the hearings were non-adversarial proceedings, there were no "hostile witnesses" or "friendly witnesses"--there were only "witnesses." There would have been nothing improper about Specter's leading a witness had he so chosen.

Then why did they later flip-flop in that regard?

Under its "investigation" concept, the commission had no trouble at all in dealing with the New York lawyer, Mark Lane, when he came forward early in the inquiry with an offer to "protect" the interests of Lee Oswald - presumably, as a trial advocate would. There could be no intention to appoint a lawyer to act on Oswald's behalf, since, as was pointed out by chief counsel J. Lee Rankin: "The commission is not engaged in determining the guilt of anybody. It is a fact-finding body."

Mr. Rankin made that statement on January 10. A few weeks later, in early February, the Warren Commission took the testimony of Oswald's widow as the first witness, followed by testimony from his mother and brother. Then suddenly, on February 24, the commission did a turnabout and appointed lawyer Walter E. Craig of Phoenix, Arizona, the president of the American Bar Association and a designee for the federal district bench, as an "independent lawyer" to protect Oswald's interests.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history...Rosenberg.html

Second, Specter is not asking leading questions here--the only question he asks is at the end, and that is a yes/no question [edit: that is not leading--merely asking the opinion of an expert witness.]

Specter proposes a scenario in order to make the SBT look not only plausible, but also most likely to be the truth, and is clearly fishing for a positive reply from the witnesses to achieve that goal.

Even in criminal proceedings, there is nothing inherently wrong with asking hypothetical questions as long as the judge allows them, and it is perfectly proper to ask an expert witness to comment on a certain theory of the crime.

A judge will sometimes allow hypothetical questions if they are based on established facts and evidence. Why did Specter qualify his scenario by stating that it included "...facts...to assume as being true.." if it only contained proven facts? Why the need to assume they were true?

I wrote...

WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back.

Uh, turbonium, exactly how does a member's making revisions to a draft of a commission's final report constitute a crime?? I can't wait to hear this one.

Ford changed the actual location of the wound which had previously been established even by the autopsy diagram (among other sources) as being at the upper part of his back. Not at the nack of his neck. Not a simple "revision", as if it was done for insignificant reasons such as semantics or grammar. "Revising" the wound entry from the back to the neck is altering indisputably critical evidence of the murder investigation.

Ford did not alter the evidence--he altered the wording of the report

When he altered the "wording", he clearly altered the evidence - the wound location is a critical detail of the evidence.

I'll address the rest of the post later..