The Three Small Puncture Wounds in JFK's Right Cheek: Proof of a Second Gunman

[Michael T. Griffith]

MG: mortician Tom Robinson noticed three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek.

In his HSCA testimony with Purdy, Robinson said that the only wounds to JFK's head were the large gaping wound and a single small wound in the hairline of the right temple, which ascribed to being caused by a fragment. He was asked about any other wounds and said no. Three wounds to JFK's face would be clearly visible to everyone else in the morgue, yet no one else at the autopsy saw anything like that. Nor do these wounds show up in the autopsy photos, as you've sorta noticed.. The only way to believe that those wounds existed is to cherry-pick Robinson's statement to Horne then filter out the rest of the universe.

More of your sophistry, misleading omissions, and flimsy rejection of evidence that you can't explain. You failed to mention that Robinson only noticed the three small puncture wounds after the autopsy was over and when embalming fluid was then put into the body and some of the fluid began leaking from the three small cheek punctures and slight discoloration began to appear around the punctures. Did you just miss these statements? Humm?

So the three small puncture wounds would not have been "clearly visible to everyone else in the morgue." Again, Robinson only noticed them after the autopsy ended, when embalming fluid began to leak from the punctures and when they began to become slightly discolored.

Robinson also explained that the punctures don't show up in the right-superior profile photo because the photo is of poor quality ("because of the photo's poor quality"). Gee, did you just miss this statement too?

Robinson noticed the small wound in the right temple, but the autopsy report says nothing about it. Robinson, along with nearly everyone else at the autopsy, also saw the large back-of-head wound, but it has vanished from the autopsy photos, is obscured on the autopsy x-rays, and is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

You seem to have a habit of trying to mislead readers by omitting key information, or at least that's how it appears to me. I don't know how you could have missed the above-mentioned statements or thought they weren't worth mentioning.

For those who want to read the entire ARRB summary of the Robinson interview, here's a link to it:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0001a.htm

The fact that Robinson did not mention the three small punctures in his HSCA interview proves nothing. Are you implying that he lied to the ARRB about them? Robinson may simply not have thought to mention them in his HSCA interview since the focus was on the visible wounds to JFK's head and since he didn't notice the tiny punctures until after the autopsy. Witnesses quite frequently remember certain things in one interview that they forgot to mention in another interview.

WC apologists don't want to admit there were three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek because they know they have no way to explain them.

[Royell Storing]

MG: mortician Tom Robinson noticed three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek.

In his HSCA testimony with Purdy, Robinson said that the only wounds to JFK's head were the large gaping wound and a single small wound in the hairline of the right temple, which ascribed to being caused by a fragment. He was asked about any other wounds and said no. Three wounds to JFK's face would be clearly visible to everyone else in the morgue, yet no one else at the autopsy saw anything like that. Nor do these wounds show up in the autopsy photos, as you've sorta noticed.. The only way to believe that those wounds existed is to cherry-pick Robinson's statement to Horne then filter out the rest of the universe.

   "HSCA TESTIMONY........"?  Is anyone aware of Tom Robinson being sworn in and giving "HSCA TESTIMONY"?  Maybe what is being attributed to Tom Robinson was an HSCA "interview" of some kind? Nothing attributed to Tom Robinson above, is enclosed in quotation marks. This further makes me believe we are looking at someone's Reader's Digest condensed version of a possible HSCA "interview" of Robinson.

[Michael T. Griffith]

   "HSCA TESTIMONY........"?  Is anyone aware of Tom Robinson being sworn in and giving "HSCA TESTIMONY"?  Maybe what is being attributed to Tom Robinson was an HSCA "interview" of some kind? Nothing attributed to Tom Robinson above, is enclosed in quotation marks. This further makes me believe we are looking at someone's Reader's Digest condensed version of a possible HSCA "interview" of Robinson.

You can find the transcript of Robinson's HSCA interview here:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image00.htm

[Royell Storing]

  HUGE difference between Sworn Testimony and an "interview". Anyone confusing sworn testimony with an interview are: (1) intentionally confusing the audience, or (2) confused themselves. This is the same kinda thing we sometimes run into with Cropped Images of the JFK Assassination. Intentional or Accidental, it is Misrepresentation which can lead to Faulty Conclusions.

[Lance Payette]

MG: mortician Tom Robinson noticed three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek.

In his HSCA testimony with Purdy, Robinson said that the only wounds to JFK's head were the large gaping wound and a single small wound in the hairline of the right temple, which ascribed to being caused by a fragment. He was asked about any other wounds and said no. Three wounds to JFK's face would be clearly visible to everyone else in the morgue, yet no one else at the autopsy saw anything like that. Nor do these wounds show up in the autopsy photos, as you've sorta noticed.. The only way to believe that those wounds existed is to cherry-pick Robinson's statement to Horne then filter out the rest of the universe.

All points that I was going to make after reviewing the materials! As I read Horne's summary of the interview, Robinson noticed the "2 or 3 small perforations or holes" WHEN EMBALMING FLUID BEGAN TO SEEP OUT OF THEM. There is no suggestion that he or anyone else had noticed them before, or that they would justify Horne's use of the term "wounds." I watched or listened to all I could find with Robinson himself; he always discussed the head wound and throat wound, but I found no further mention of the cheek "wounds." Good Lord, by this time the body had been autopsied - who knows what minute perforations of the inside of the cheek the doctors (or bone fragments) might have caused? Michael's "analysis" strikes me as much ado about nothing.

In legal work, we typically interview a witness and then go to the trouble and expense of a deposition if we decide the witness has something significant to add to the case. Apparently, neither the HSCA nor even the ARRB decided that Robinson did.

I was struck by the somewhat "conspiratorial" vein of Andy Purdy's questioning, especially considering that Robinson was a mere mortician (albeit one who had watched the autopsy). He was questioned as though he were some sort of medical or forensic witness.

As it turns out, Andy Purdy as a law student at the University of Virginia was one the persons whose activities were responsible for Congress forming the HSCA. At the time Purdy was questioned, he was a fairly new lawyer. In a recent interview, he states that "the entire [HSCA] staff wanted and expected to find a conspiracy" and was "shocked" when things didn't go in this direction. He feels that his bombshell medical interviews, including the one with Robinson, were deep-sixed by Blakey. Today, he believes there were two morgues, two autopsies, altered photos, yada yada. All of which would tend to explain the somewhat conspiratorial orientation I noticed in his questioning of Purdy (and that shines through whenever Horne questioned someone for the ARRB).

[Royell Storing]

All points that I was going to make after reviewing the materials! As I read Horne's summary of the interview, Robinson noticed the "2 or 3 small perforations or holes" WHEN EMBALMING FLUID BEGAN TO SEEP OUT OF THEM. There is no suggestion that he or anyone else had noticed them before, or that they would justify Horne's use of the term "wounds." I watched or listened to all I could find with Robinson himself; he always discussed the head wound and throat wound, but I found no further mention of the cheek "wounds." Good Lord, by this time the body had been autopsied - who knows what minute perforations of the inside of the cheek the doctors (or bone fragments) might have caused? Michael's "analysis" strikes me as much ado about nothing.

In legal work, we typically interview a witness and then go to the trouble and expense of a deposition if we decide the witness has something significant to add to the case. Apparently, neither the HSCA nor even the ARRB decided that Robinson did.

I was struck by the somewhat "conspiratorial" vein of Andy Purdy's questioning, especially considering that Robinson was a mere mortician (albeit one who had watched the autopsy). He was questioned as though he were some sort of medical or forensic witness.

As it turns out, Andy Purdy as a law student at the University of Virginia was one the persons whose activities were responsible for Congress forming the HSCA. At the time Purdy was questioned, he was a fairly new lawyer. In a recent interview, he states that "the entire [HSCA] staff wanted and expected to find a conspiracy" and was "shocked" when things didn't go in this direction. He feels that his bombshell medical interviews, including the one with Robinson, were deep-sixed by Blakey. Today, he believes there were two morgues, two autopsies, altered photos, yada yada. All of which would tend to explain the somewhat conspiratorial orientation I noticed in his questioning of Purdy (and that shines through whenever Horne questioned someone for the ARRB).

       With respect to not calling Tom Robinson to give ARRB testimony, I believe you are forgetting the Primary Purpose of the ARRB. The purpose of the ARRB was NOT, "...looking for something significant to add to the case".  The HSCA and the ARRB were 2 different govt bodies with 2 different directives. Please keep this in mind.

[Lance Payette]

       With respect to not calling Tom Robinson to give ARRB testimony, I believe you are forgetting the Primary Purpose of the ARRB. The purpose of the ARRB was NOT, "...looking for something significant to add to the case".  The HSCA and the ARRB were 2 different govt bodies with 2 different directives. Please keep this in mind.

The ARRB took at least 16 formal, court-reporter-present, had-to-be-paid-for, fully-indexed depositions: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/contents.htm.

The testimony taken was squarely in the ballpark of what Robinson had to talk about. He was apparently deemed not sufficiently significant.

Oops. Please keep this in mind.