From reading your posts on this thread, it appears you do not believe Kennedy was shot from behind. The forensic pathologists for the Warren Commission and the HSCA concluded that the head wound was cause by a shot from the rear. After having read what the forensic pathologists say in the reports, what is your opinion of their conclusions?
It's interesting but odd. I hadn't realized until reading Best Evidence (the author escapes me at the moment)and going back to a couple online Warren Report sites that the forensic testimony wasn't based on any first hand evidence. Outside experts based their testimony upon the autopsy report and drawings of the body, not photographs, a view of the body, or x-rays, which is irregular to say the least. The lead doctor in the autopsy, Dr. Humes has been criticized as not qualified for his task, oddly remained noncommittal in his testimony. Some have pointed to discrepancies in bullet wound positions in his various testimonies (Warren vs. House Select Committee).
Now, most are familiar with the ER doctors and nurses described radically different wounds than the autopsy report. Witnesses described shots from more than the Book Depository and Kennedy being hit from the front and some say the back. But all this testimony and even the Zapruder film was not given weight by the Warren Commission because it wasn't the best evidence, in legal thinking the best evidence is the physical evidence, the body, or lacking that, the official coroner's report. That is the evidence that mattered, that is the evidence the forensic testimony was based upon.
The forensics were, shall we politely say, unconventional. The autopsy report contained some errors, some say, and it didn't always agree with the coroner's testimony. So, there is way too much room for error in the Warren forensic testimony. Importantly, why wasn't the autopsy performed in Dallas County by a forensic pathologist but moved to D.C. and performed by non-forensic doctors. I don't understand why they were so damn sloppy for something so important.
As a conclusion, I think the forensic work was oddly sloppy and subpar for a major case. When I read the forensics, I counted four or five significantly different descriptions in location and size of just the fatal head shot - so how can I take a determination of trajectory with confidence?