I would like to understand why you believe it to be an entry wound.The problem with the throat wound is that his ER doc, Dr. Perry, who was dealing with that wound, believed it to be an entry wound.
Reading over the ARRB report, that's what he initially believed.
Now it sounds like he at some point in time began to doubt his initial findings, but I haven't figured out why. Since he was one of only maybe a handful of people who saw it before the tracheostomy was done, maybe he began to doubt what he had seen over the years, given the emphasis on "shots only from the rear", I just don't know.
On this link, start at about page 52, and a few pages following.
link
"...but actually it looked like an entrance wound and the bullet appeared to have been coming at him..."
Thanks for the link, texasbluebell. Given the circumstances at the time and my belief that the WC was part of a massive cover-up, I tend to place more weight on the initial reports from the ER docs at Parkland.
I think that Dr. Perry has begun to doubt what he saw as the result of so much controversy, so many years and so many conflicting stories. By the same token, considering that I don't believe that Oswald acted alone and that other assassins were stationed in front of the motorcade (I mean, let's be frank; if you hired Oswald to commit an assassination, wouldn't you want some insurance? The guy wasn't too bright) then I have to consider that the throat/neck wound was an entrance wound.