If I understand the Eaglesham story he claims the Navy pathologists were incorrect about their assertions of two bullet wounds, on on each side of the head, no powder residue near the wounds, or on Pitzer's hands
I thought Eaglesham's involvement was in correcting this original story, and pointing out how these original findings were incorrect
What am I missing?
I haven't read it it a while, but...
The lack of powder tattooing around the entry wound is because the muzzle was held firmly against the head at the time of firing. In those instances, the unburned gunpowder follows the bullet into the head instead of collecting on the skin around the wound, as it would at ranges of < 3'. You also tend to see a muzzzle imprint on the skin at the entry site, and the entry on Pitzer's temple showed just such an imprint.
Eaglesham explains that the lack of a residue test to find residue on the hands is due to the sample being improperly prepared.
And I think the "two bullet wounds" refers to the entry and exit.