Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Why shoot JFK in the throat from the front if the plan was to attribute all the shots to a lone gunman in the rear? And how did they intend to get away with it?

But, what if the plan all along was to go with the Single Bullet Theory, to shoot him shallowly in the back, and shallowly in the throat, and say that they were one continuous shot from the rear?

And we can be absolutely sure that both shots were shallow and did only minor damage because once JFK cleared the airway obstruction that panicked him, he was stable physically. He had that weird dyskinesia and muscle spasming going on, and he was mentally deranged, but otherwise, he was stable. He wasn't bleeding to death. He didn't suffer a collapse of his vital organs or vital signs. 

But, why hit him with two shallow shots at all? Why direct any shots at him that weren't lethal? Some have tried to say that the purpose of the back shot was to establish a shot from the rear, but if they had shot him in the head, that would have done the same thing, and it would also have killed him, which is what they wanted. 

I don't think we should assume there was anything accidental about the back shot or the throat shot. I think it's clear that they were not trying to kill him with those shots. So, what were they trying to do? The shot to his throat may have been intended to take out his voice box, so that he couldn't speak. 

But, if you believe, as I do, that the back shot was deliberate, you need to proffer a reason for it.  Why shoot JFK shallowly in the back? You know why I think he was shot in the back: to deliver a nerve agent to produce the effects that we see in the Zapruder film.