Don Jeffries

I think it would be illuminating for posters to state their own personal beliefs as to what happened on November 22, 1963. In light of the fact that some seem to have changed their position over the years (as I have certainly pointed out several times), it would be educational for all of us to see who now believes what.

This is not to infer that there is anything suspicious about changing one's beliefs. I just think that posters on this forum should be up front about where they're coming from.

I'd like to know if you:

- Believe Oswald fired any shots

- Believe Oswald killed Tippit

- Believe the single bullet theory is possible

- Believe shots were fired from the front, back or both directions

- Can assess the performance of the Secret Service in Dallas

- Think LBJ and/or other high public officials were involved

I'll get things started by saying that I think Oswald fired no weapons that day. I tend to agree with Jim Garrison that he was some sort of intelligence operative, who was assigned at the time of the assassination to infiltrate a group he was told was planning on murdering JFK. I don't think Oswald killed Tippit. I think the single bullet theory is scientifically impossible. I think shots were fired from at least two directions (at least one rear location and one front location). I think the Secret Service failed miserably on the day of the assassination, and I can't accept that their failure was due merely to incompetence. I think Greer, Kellerman and Emory Roberts, at the very least, had prior knowledge of the assassination. I think LBJ and other high public officials (Hoover, McGeorge Bundy, among others) were active participants in the conspiracy and coverup.

In short, I think there was a massive conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy and coverup the crime afterwards. I think the most powerful forces in our society at that time were involved.

So, what's your take? For once, let's hear everyone's opinion without referencing the perceived shortcomings of other posters. Where do you stand?

And yet another poster here quotes Craig Lamson as some sort of higher authority.

Are you some kind of XXXXXX? Nothing was quoted, I merely reiterated Craig's stated fact, that belief is not proof.

In the first sentence of your reply, you resort to nasty name calling. I didn't call you any names. You cited Craig Lamson's unoriginal credo and I asked why.

Duncan- what is there about 317 that qualfies as the sort of "proof" or "evidence" that Craig and other LNers approve of?

Show me where I said that 317 qualifies as proof, or that Craig, or any LN that you mention above, approved of my post.

Do you really expect us to accept that your interpretation of this frame is not "believing," but solid proof?

I expect nothing from "us" whoever "us" are. Show me where i said it was proof?

Your interpretation of this single frame, in your view, now trumps the backwards head snap (seen in the frames immediately prior to this), the medical testimony of everyone in Dallas about the massive wound in the back of JFK's head, the initial medical description of the throat wound as one of entrance, and all the witnesses (the majority of those at the scene) who testified to hearing shots from the knoll area and ran there afterwards?

Fictitiously inventing what my view is on any of the above is insane.

Now I'm insane for questioning you.

Yet now you are stating that it is "highly unlikely" that there were shots from the front?

Wow, you actually understood something I said. I'll upgrade you to a D grade.

I'm sure the "disinterested" Craig Lamson will support your position.

Well, with you being a talented mind reader, then who am I to argue with you.

Let me ask you- do you now think that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy?

You're the mind reader, you tell me.

Why are you reluctant to answer this? Aren't you confident of your beliefs?

Quote edited by moderator.

I was just about to castigate Lee Farley for unleashing a juvenile comment about diapers towards Ray, but then Ray let his nastier side get the better of him again, and referred to Mike Hogan as "drug addled."

The childish name calling on this forum is really getting out of hand. There are way too many posters who resort to this. Can't we at least be civil?

I think the critics of Jim Fetzer and Jack White are parsing words here. To me, the testimony of those witnesses cited clearly refers to actions that occurred only moments after shots were fired.

If you want to defend the integrity of the film record, and claim it doesn't show Chaney rushing forward, and therefore all witnesses who claimed he did were mistaken, that's one thing. But to over analyze the word "underpass" and maintain the witnesses didn't specify exactly what time they were referring to, smacks of desperation, in my view.

Craig,

I appreciate the reply, but you didn't answer my primary question. Exactly what are your qualifications in this field? As I've said, I'm certainly no photographic expert, but imho everyone on this forum-including you-is doing nothing more than expressing their opinion about what they see in a particular film or photo.

I also appreciate Barb's reply, but again wonder why Craig's opinion is trotted out as if it means something more than Jack's, or David Healy's, or anyone else's who works in the field. You may believe his observations are especially astute, or that he has interpreted a photo the way you interpret it, but what is his expertise? Considering that he disparages other alleged experts in this area, I assume he has an impressive background on the subject.

While Craig sneered at the Hollywood experts cited by Doug Horne, and Barb intimated that perhaps they weren't real experts, Jim Fetzer followed up by listing their names and qualifications. They certainly seem impressive to me. But then again, I'm no expert....

This is semantic quibbling to an absurd degree. Any reasonable person would infer that all these witnesses were talking about something that happened only instants after the shooting. As such, Jim and Jack just as reasonably question why we don't see any evidence of this in the Zapruder film.

And yet another poster here quotes Craig Lamson as some sort of higher authority.

Duncan- what is there about 317 that qualfies as the sort of "proof" or "evidence" that Craig and other LNers approve of? Do you really expect us to accept that your interpretation of this frame is not "believing," but solid proof?

Your interpretation of this single frame, in your view, now trumps the backwards head snap (seen in the frames immediately prior to this), the medical testimony of everyone in Dallas about the massive wound in the back of JFK's head, the initial medical description of the throat wound as one of entrance, and all the witnesses (the majority of those at the scene) who testified to hearing shots from the knoll area and ran there afterwards? Yet now you are stating that it is "highly unlikely" that there were shots from the front? I'm sure the "disinterested" Craig Lamson will support your position.

Let me ask you- do you now think that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy?

Exactly what does Craig Lamson do, or has he done, that qualifies him as a preeminent expert in photography? He sneers at those who have worked in this area in Hollywood for a long time. He sneers at Jack White, who was once universally considered THE assassination film expert. He sneers at anyone cited by an alterationist in one of their posts, as he has done here to Homer McMahon (and Bill isn't really an alterationist).

Craig boasts of "not caring about" the assassination. What kind of person spends the hours he does, posting prolifically about a subject that supposedly doesn't matter to him? Shockingly, all his posts are criticisms of a pro-conspiracy position. Apparently, his extremely critical personality finds nothing to criticize in the official lone assassin thesis.

Craig doesn't seem to offend the likes of Josiah Thompson, who quotes him favorably quite frequently on this forum. As I've noted before, all these alteration discussions invariably boil down to shouting matches over how someone interprets a particular photo or film frame. I was a long time agnostic on the subject of Z-film alteration, but the work of Doug Horne, especially that of the experts from Hollywood, has persuaded me that, at the very least, the Zapruder film we have come to know all too well is not completely legitimate.

I can't understand why the findings of true experts in the film business don't impress Josiah, Barb, Jerry, etc., but the predictable postings of Craig Lamson-whose expertise in this area cannot possibly be any more impressive-are lauded by the same people and quoted favorably.

Great, thought provoking post, Lee. I don't know how anyone can look at the circumstances of Oswald's whirlwind courtship of the very attractive Marina, and their hasty exit back to the USA, and not see something suspicious. Oswald's defection and return home has always drawn the skeptical attention of researchers. In my view, every aspect of that should be scrutinized keenly, including his marriage to Marina.

We've debated the subject of Marina's credibility on this forum a few times before. I would suggest that anyone with an interest re-read Harold Weisberg's Whitewash books, especially Whitewash II. He analyzes her testimony far better than I, or anyone else on this forum, ever could.

Once again, thanks to Bill Kelly for continuing to post these excerpts for us. We truly appreciate it.

There are many on this forum who are self-proclaimed experts in analyzing film. I am decidedly not an expert in this area, but it just seems logical that if people who do this for a living in Hollywood state the Zapruder film is an amateurish forgery, then we probably ought to listen to them.

I know- the debate will rage on, about fifth generation copies and the like, but it seems to me that the case is pretty convincing that the Zapruder film we know is not completely legitimate.

Great stuff, Gil, as always. Thank you.

Jack, as I recall Jim didn't spend much time on Z-film alteration. What annoys him is people like Paul trying to resuscitate the Greer-did-it argument, and Fetzer's claiming Tink is a spook.

I think you have already acknowledged that you don't think Tink is a spook (or was that Lifton?). Care to comment on the Greer did it theory?

Pat,

I have to say that I find Paul Rigby to be one of the most lucid and fascinating posters on this or any other forum. On the surface, the suggestion that Greer shot JFK is ridiculous. However, everything else Paul posts is full of sound reasoning and impeccably articulated, in my view. Who knows- I wouldn't hesitate to say that the "Greer did it" theory at least is more plausible than the official lone assassin fairy tale.

I, for one, find Paul Rigby's contributions here to be delightful and entertaining.

Jack White takes more abuse on this forum than anyone. Yes, he can be cantakerous. Yes, he is sometimes impatient with those who question him. I might not agree with the way he responds at times, but then I'm not having my work ridiculed on a constant basis.

As Jack has noted, just because Len or Evan or Craig or anyone else says he is wrong doesn't make it so. All the threads where Jack and Jim Fetzer argue with their usual opponents over what is seen in a partcular photograph are debates about individual interpretation. Bill Miller or Craig Lamson can shout as loud as they want that there is nothing suspcious about a frame of the Zapruder film, but it's just their opinon vs. the opinon of Jack, of Jim Fetzer, or whoever is claming there is something suspicious there.

Jack White's work on the backyard photos was impressive, but I was already convinced they were fakes well before then. I think that a simple glance at them reveals a very amateurish fabrication, along the lines of much of the purposefully shoddy coverup (almost pristine "magic" bullet, misaligned scope on Carcano, etc.) When you throw in the monumental overkill of both alleged murder weapons being proudly displayed, and commie literature to boot, well, I don't see how anyone can take them seriously.

I agree neither Jack, nor Peter, nor anyone else, should be accusing fellow posters of being disinfo agents. I think it's unfortunate that they've done that, but I do understand their frustration. None of that has anything to do with their interpretation of the evidence, their research, or their opinions about anything connected to this case.

I agree wholeheartedly with most everything Jack White says about the evidence in this and other related cases.

Yes, Virginia, there are conspiracies.

You wrote: "Exotic weaponry tested in Oklahoma City was then used to bring down the twin towers."

Having served as Tim McVeigh's defense investigator in the Oklahoma City bombing, I know a little bit about that bombing. This is not just silly. It is preposterous. The federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a bomb constructed of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil... the sort of materials you could buy at your local feed store and fuel depot. This is not controversial. It is simply the unvarnished, established truth of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

As Tim McVeigh's defense investigator, are you satisfied he received a fair trial? Were you disturbed at the evidence that the judge didn't permit to be introduced (like the large defense brief prepared by attorney Stephen Jones?) Do you feel a bit uneasy that a man was convicted who wasn't even legally placed at the scene of the crime? I say this because the prosecution didn't introduce a single witness who testified to seeing McVeigh there. The reason- all those witnesses (who did exist) saw him with the infamous "John Doe #2."

Did you have any contact with Glenn and Cathy Wilburn? Hoppy Heidelberg? Jayna Davis? Jesse Trentadue? General Ben Partin? Ted Gunderson? David Hoffman- whose The Oklahoma City Bombing And The Politics Of Terror is the Rush To Judgment of this case? There are tons of unanswered questions, mysterious deaths and government goverup here, just as there was with the JFK assassination.

If you look at all the evidence, the magic fertilizer bomb is just as impossible as the magic bullet theory. McVeigh received a sham of a trial and was executed more swiftly than any criminal in modern times.

Jack is completely right to scoff at the official explanation.

Mark,

You ask a logical question. I think that many of us came to a firm belief in conspiracy because of all the lost, damaged, missing and unwanted evidence. There is indeed reasonable doubt about every piece of the "evidence" used against Oswald. The alleged murder weapon is tainted in every way; the only legal documentation regarding its discovery identifies it as a completely different rifle and the entire ordering process, from Klein's ad to the specifics of the p.o. box and the Hidell alias itself, is shrouded in doubt. The same thing can be said about the pistol allegedly used to kill officer Tippit, as well as the ammunition for both weapons.

We DO know a few important things, and nothing can taint that. First, as Cliff points out regularly, JFK's real clothing exists in the record, and the bullet hole in the back of both shirt and coat are far too low to have exited from the throat. We also have the real alleged bullet- CE399- which the authorities claim caused 7 wounds. The condition of said bullet, combined with the government's own photos of identical test bullets, prove conclusively that this bullet could not have done what it is alleged to have done. What we can see in all the available films from that day reveal a total lack of response on the part of JFK's Secret Service detail. Perhaps they edited out even more damaging things, but we can still see that in Zapruder, Altgens, etc. These few items alone prove conspiracy and destroy the official lone assassin fairy tale.

Obviously, there is far more evidence tainted than not in this case. There is nothing we can do about that at this point. Private citizens didn't "lose" the President's brain, for instance. We didn't move or destroy the Stemmons Freeway sign. We didn't foul up the chain of possession on every piece of "evidence" said to implicate Oswald. We didn't tamper with the crime scene- which was the limousine. We didn't "mistakenly" identify the Mannlicher Carcano as a German Mauser, and sign a sworn affidavit to that effect. We didn't conduct an autopsy that was, in the words of Harold Weisberg, "unworthy of a bowery bum." Of course, we know some of the identities of those who did these things, and they should have been questioned intensively at the time. Had there been a real investigation into the assassination, they undoubtedly would have. If the Zapruder film was altered, that will be just another crucial piece of evidence against somebody, but we will probably never be certain of the exact perpetrators.

I hope you don't mean to infer that some of us- especially the dreaded alterationists- are claiming everything is tainted, and that somehow that discredits the suggestion that anything was tainted. Clearly, so much was tainted that it's hard to blame researchers for finding alteration or fabrication everywhere. The autopsy photos and x-rays, for instance, are tainted from the get go because we know how shoddy and incomplete the autopsy was. The fact that they contradict what all the medical personnel in Dallas said about the head wound leads us to conclude that either all those doctors and lawyers were identically mistaken, or the photos and x-rays are not legitimate.

Governor's Connally's clothing- which was part of the evidence in this case- was unquestionably tainted by the fact it was laundered and then eventually found in the possession of Rep. Henry Gonzalez. All of Oswald's alleged comments during his interrogation sessions are tainted, because they weren't recorded. Who knows what he really said? In a broad sense, there are few things connected to this case that weren't tainted somehow.

I'd like to ask another pertinent question. This would be perfect for Josiah and other anti-alterationists. Exactly what evidence, in your view, was tainted? It will be interesting to hear your comments.

Thank you, Raymond. I've mentioned this subject before. To those following long threads, it is especially exasperating to have to scroll past old post after old post to finally see the new post (which is often only a single line).

If everyone would try to remember to do this it would make reading these threads a lot easier.

No disrespect to you. I just don't find the question you ask to be interesting to me. Have I got things wrong? I thought folks could answer the questions that interested them and ignore those that didn't interest them. I just have other interests than pursuing questions about the throat wound now.

Josiah Thompson

Thanks for finally responding to me by telling me that you don't find my question interesting enough.

Btw, I wasn't really questioning you about your opinion on the throat wound. I was simply pointing out that you had used very different wording on another thread to describe the evidence for an entrance wound to the throat vs. an exit wound to the throat. You seemed interested enough to venture your thoughts about it then.

I find it fascinating that someone who has been researching this case for as long as you have doesn't have an interest in the throat wound. After all, an entrance wound to the throat is proof positive of conspiracy.

Thank you, Bill Kelly, for taking the time to post these excerpts from Doug Horne. We very much appreciate it.

It's hardly surprising that fervent believers in the legitimacy of the Zapruder film are unimpressed by Doug Horne's research on the subject. At this point, they have far too much time and energy invested in this one aspect of the assassination to admit they were wrong.

I have always been an agnostic on the question of film alteration. I don't see how anyone with an open mind can't admit that Doug Horne has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the Zapruder film.

While I disagree with much of the personal stuff Jim Fetzer has directed at Josiah Thompson on this forum, I don't believe he's posted anything quite as nasty as this. What purpose is there in rehashing a poster's entire work history? How, by the way, do you have all this personal information on him? Talk about completely irrelevant....

Josiah, I have never been anything but courteous with you on this forum. I have asked you a few hard questions, but in a perfectly appropriate manner. You have ignored me. Why? Are you incapable of commenting on anything that doesn't relate to Jim Fetzer?

I asked you simply to explain why, on another thread, you stated that the evidence for a frontal throat wound was lacking, but that you "didn't know" about the evidence for the throat wound being one of exit. To me, that seems highly inconsistent. While we can debate the case for a frontal wound to the throat, it seems to me that the only "evidence" for the throat wound being one of exit is to accept the single bullet theory. Do you now "not know" about the single bullet theory? I understand you postulated that the wound was caused by a fragment from the head, and I'm not arguing with that. I simply want to know how you can assess the state of the evidence for the throat wound being either of entrance or exit so differently.

If you're truly agnostic on this subject, your answer should be "don't know" either way. I would really appreciate a response from you.

Thank you, Jim Fetzer, for including in one post all the eyewitness testimony regarding Chaney's alleged movement ahead of the motorcade. For someone who isn't an expert on this aspect of the case, it was very helpful. Frankly, I was surprised there were that many references to it. As with all the reported observations of an indentical massive wound to the back of JFK's head, and the myriad of witnesses who reported the motorcade stopped, or nearly stopped- we have to ask ourselves how so many people could have been wrong about all these things.

The alteration debate boils down to; how do we explain the fact that the Zapruder film fails to show things that countless credible witnesses reported seeing? Without getting distracted by side issues (which seems to happen in almost every post on these threads- thus Jim's post I referred to was all the more refreshing), I'd really appreciate hearing Josiah, Jerry or any other anti-alterationist explain why so many people reported the limo stopped, Chaney rushed on past the limousine and all the medical personnnel in Dallas reported a massive blowout to the back of JFK's head, since none of this is seen in the extant Zapruder film. It seems to me that either all those witnesses were terribly mistaken in exactly the same way, about exactly the same issues, or the Zapruder film doesn't accurately reflect what happened. I have an open mind on this subject- but if you're going to blindly trust in the authenticity of the filmed record, then you have an obligation to explain, at the very least, all that medical testimony in Dallas. Merely interpreting what other photos show doesn't explain away all that inconvenient testimony from all those mysteriously "mistaken" people.

I have grown weary of all the witness bashing by LNers and neo-cons. Without all the eyewitnesses who testified to things that contradicted the official story, there would probably have never been a critical movement at all. Over the passage of time, however, I can't think of a single witness whose testimony contradicted the official story that hasn't been smeared and discredited. This was initially done by the likes of Lawrence Schiller, David Belin and Gerald Posner, but in the past few years we've seen an increasing number of self-proclaimed believers in conspiracy who have spent considerable resources on discrediting Roger Craig, Richard Carr and others. I simply don't understand this. If you look at anyone closely enough, and examine their lives thoroughly enough, you'll find something. At the same time, there is anger from many on this forum when Gary Mack, for instance, is criticized. Needless to say, Mack has become one of the most prominent public figures associated with the case and thus, in my view, should be fair game for criticism.

If one or two people reported the limo stopped, that would be one thing. However, over 50 did. Jim posted all the testimony, from those directly involved, indicating Chaney sped ahead to catch up to Curry. As for the medical testimony, everyone who attended the President at Parkland reported the same massive wound in the rear of the head. It's been my observation that individuals, or small groups closely connected to each other, can easily makes mistakes and testify inaccurately about something. However, large groups of witnesses, who are unknown and unconnected to each other, are very unlikely to all be mistaken in exactly the same way. So, what is the alternate explanation?

Thanks, Doug, for a very informative post. Your research on the hole in the windshield is an invaluable resource for students of the assassination.

My main argument against the article in question was its claim to be the definitive, final word on the subject. In my view, they made their case by using the witnesses one would expect them to. By any reasonable standard, they did not prove there wasn't a hole, nor did they succeed in discrediting the witnesses who reported seeing one.

I'm glad to see you on the forum. We will all benefit from your presence here.

Josiah,

I'm starting to get a complex- you seem to respond to everyone on this forum but me. I'm cordial with everyone here, and I cartainly haven't done anything to offend you. My question is a legitimate one. Why do you describe the evidence for an entry wound to the throat to be lacking, yet respond with a "don't know" regarding the possibility of an exit wound in the throat? No insinuations here about anything, but to me that is a very telling and inconsistent stance.

I'd love to hear an explanation.

One should really be able to see, with your own eyes, that the Zapruder Film, the Backyard Photos are faked; and that the Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out.

Very well put, Peter. Many things in this case are quite simple. One of them is the total failure of JFK's Secret Service detail on November 22, 1963. It is indisputable that none of them did their job that day. Now, you can rationalize why they didn't react, argue that "they're only human," etc., but you can't deny the reality that they didn't respond to the sound of gunfire. To many of us, that has always been one of the single greatest indicators of conspiracy.

I also grow weary of hearing "we'll never know." This sounds much like the old LN line about "no new evidence," to which critics like Mark Lane replied, "What's wrong with the old evidence?" There are some important things we DO know:

- All available evidence indicates Oswald was not a good shot

- No one places him on the sixth floor window, and eyewitness testimony places him on another floor 10-15 minutes prior to the assassination.

- No one can establish a motive for him- on the contrary, the available evidence indicates he liked JFK

- The only legal affidavits attesting to the weapon found on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser

- The weapon alleged to be owned by Oswald was an Italian Mannlicher Carcano

- Serious discrephancies exist about the order of this weapon, as well as the A. Hidell alias allegedly used by Oswald

- There are astonishing problems with the chain of possession for all official evidence in this case, as well as the Tippit case

- Most eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the front, grassy knoll area, and this is bolstered by the existing photographic evidence showing people rushing towards that area in the aftermath of the shooting

- The holes in JFK's coat and shirt, buttressed by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report, all place the non-fatal wound some 5 inches down on JFK's back, far too low to have caused an exit wound to the throat

- The bullet allegedly causing all the non-fatal wounds in JFK and Connally was virtually undamaged, while the Commission's own evidence showed identical test bullets as severely deformed when hitting merely a wrist bone

- As Harold Weisberg noted, JFK received an autopsy "unworthy of a Bowery bum," and because of that virtually everything about the medical evidence is suspect

- Oswald was killed while in police custody, in spite of being "guarded" by over 70 police officers

- Oswald's public comments indicate he was frustrated over not being represented by a lawyer and what he termed unfair police lineups, while he maintained a steadfast claim of innocence

- The official "investigation" was laughably bogus; the FBI and Dallas Police failed to identify crucial witnesses like the Umbrella Man and the Babushka Lady and the Warren Commission failed to call some of the most important figures imaginable to testify, while padding its mostly meaningless record with page after unncessary page of irrelevant blather from "witnesses" like Oswald's infant babysitter

I could go on, but you get the point. This has always been a classic, textbook case of conspiracy. As Vincent Salandria has deftly noted, this was not an intricate coverup- on the contrary, a ten year old child can see through the holes in the official story. This was also not a "benign" coverup- from Bundy's assurance to the cabinet members flying back from Hawaii that there was no conspiracy, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, when the "investigation" hadn't even begun, to Katzenbach's plea to censor the inquiry issued moments after Oswald was shot by Ruby, to Hoover purposefully seeing that copies of documents released by the FBI were photocopied over and over to decrease their clarity, powerful figures of that time were intent on covering up the truth about what happened in Dealey Plaza. The only "confusing" aspects are due to the glaring omissions and destruction of evidence in the official record.

Josiah,

I asked you earlier in this thread a very simple question. Once again, it appears you are ignoring me. Not sure why- I've never been uncivil with you.

I'll try one more time- how can you state that the evidence indicates the throat wound was not of entrance, but merely say "I don't know" in regards to whether it could have been of exit? That seems awfully inconsistent to me. If you're going to be agnostic about this issue, intellectual honesty demands that you be consistent.

Just curious, Josiah- you "don't think the evidence sustains the view that JFK was hit from the front in the throat" but "don't know" if the "evidence sustains the view" that the wound in JFK's throat was one of exit. Isn't that just a bit inconsistent?

I don't know for certain that JFK was struck in the throat by a shot from the front, but there are strong indications he was. On the other hand, the only "evidence" that a bullet exited from his throat is the entrance wound in his back, which we know for a certainty was far too low to have come from the 6th floor window or any other elevated point from behind. In other words, the single bullet theory, in your view, warrants a "don't know," but the indications JFK's throat wound was one of entrance isn't sustained by the evidence?