Whether they presumed it or not, just because they found it hard to prove, don't automatically mean they were wrong in their conclusions. You seem to be saying that because they couldn't be 100% sure about things, that they were wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence that they actually were wrong, you just want to cast doubt on their conclusions to try and win by default. That's a classic CT ploy and it dioesn't float about here. If you want to show why they were wrong and the bullet didn't pass through him then fine, show your evidence for it, but merely pointing out that they were entirely sure isn't good enough to prove diddly.

No, the conclusion they make is diametrically opposed to the actual findings of the autopsy. They only stated in the report that a bullet path was "difficult to prove", when in fact they clearly demonstrated that there was no exit point for the back wound. The evidence for that is overwhelmingly clear - they probed the wound several times, and all those present agreed that the wound was very shallow. The ARRB helped clarify this fact in an interview with one of the Navy medical technicians who witnessed the autopsy, James Jenkins...

Mr . Jenkins recalls Humes trying to probe the wound with his finger which enabled him to reach the end of the wound...He said Humes could probe the bottom of the wound with his little finger and said that the metal probe went in 2 - 4 inches. He said it was quite a "...fact of controversy..." that the doctors "... couldn't prove the bullet came into the cavity."

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...t/pdf/md65.pdf (pgs. 9, 13 of pdf file)

This does more than "cast doubt on their conclusions" - it clearly shows that the back wound did not have an exit point at the throat, nor did it even have an exit point whatsoever.