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.
"...but actually it looked like an entrance wound and the bullet appeared to have been coming at him..."
Can you cite your sources or reasons for this statement? I would like to understand why you believe it to be an entry wound.
Assassination Science, ed. James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Catsfeet/Carus, 1998, "Dr. Charles Crenshaw Replies", pp. 46-50:
Dr. Malcolm Perry
As has been shown, Perry also said three times that the throat wound had been inflicted from the front.
Dr. James Carrico
In his CE-392 statement on Friday afternoon, Carrico did not specifically call the throat wound an entrance wound, but used another similar word: "Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of mid-neck in lower 1/3." 32 Before the Warren Commission, he gave the width of the throat wound before Perry's tracheostomy as 5-8 millimeters and said it was "fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns and so forth."33
Dr. Charles Baxter
When he testified before the Warren Commission, Baxter conceded that the throat wound could have been either an entrance wound or an exit wound.37 But his other statements about the wound are enlightening: "this wound was, in my estimation, 4 to 5 mm in widest diameter and was a spherical wound. . .so that it was very small."38 "Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we later found or became acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry."39 As late as spring of 1992, Dr. Baxter, on ABC-TV's 20-20, stated that the wound he saw could have been "either an entrance wound or an exit wound."40
Dr. Paul Peters
*WC testimony--"We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound."
Dr. Ronald Jones
*". . . a small hole in the midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound."
Ibid., page 54:
When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just the small bullet hole and the thin line of Perry's incision.
Ibid., page 55:
In his Warren Commission testimony, Dr. Humes stated the length as 7-8 cm. (2.8-3.2 in., app. 3 in.). Dr. Perry estimated the length of the incision he made at 2-3 cm. (.8-1.2 in., app. 1 in.) The incision Dr. Crenshaw saw at Parkland Hospital was straight and neat, nothing like the autopsy photograph shows.
Arlen Specter and Allen Dulles went to extraordinary lengths to make Dr. Malcolm Perry recant his statement regarding the nature of the throat wound.
Dr. Perry's neat incision was torn to three times its length by the time it was observed by Dr. Hume.
A small, neat round hole, a neat one-inch incision: they become a three-inch gash by the time Humes sees them.
Humes was advised by Dr. Robert Livingston to observe the entry wound in the throat before the arrival of the body--yet Humes claimed he was not so apprised until after the autopsy.
Specter and Dulles militantly enforced orthodoxy--without benefit of having seen X-rays or photos.
To the medical professional eyewitnesses, these ignorant lay persons said, "What are you going to believe, our agenda or your lying eyes?"
As for the assault on Crenshaw led by the former editor of JAMA, George Lundberg--Lundberg became the former editor when he tried unsuccessfully to publish a shabby "study" (a poll of college students) to "prove" that oral sex is not sex!
That was in 1998, when another president captured the nation's attention.
Magic Bullets and Monica Lewinsky--you can't make this stuff up.