JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Three Small Puncture Wounds in JFK's Right Cheek: Proof of a Second Gunman
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on September 05, 2025, 09:51:15 PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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. ::)
Mitch Todd:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 04, 2025, 05:53:46 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
MG: 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.
So? This is just a red herring, and it actually hurts your argument: the sudden emergence of embalming fluid from JFKs face would have made the wounds even more easily apparent to everyone else in the room. The morgue was still full of people during the embalming process. Do you think that everyone in the morgue during the autopsy suddenly vanished the second that the embalming started? And --again-- none other than Robinson ever said they saw any wounds to JFK's face nor saw embalming fluid leaking out therefrom.
MG: 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?
There are several photos showing JFK's face. You really think all those photos are that bad? You're talking about wounds you claim were made by jagged pieces of shrapnel. Those create equally ragged, irregular injuries. Not the kind of thing that's difficult to spot, even when small.
MG: The fact that Robinson did not mention the three small punctures in his HSCA interview proves nothing.
You misrepresent what goes down in Robinson's interview with Purdy. Robinson described to Purdy the tracheotomy, the large head wound, and the small wound in the hairline at the temple. After that, Purdy asks Robinson "Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in the back?" Robinson's reply is specific: "that's all." The fact that Purdy specifically cued Robinson as to additional wounds slams the door on your argument that it just somehow slipped Robinson's mind as he was prattling on.
Also, in 1978, Robinson described two wounds to JFK's head: a large one at the rear and a small one in the temple in the hairline. 20 years later, he remembered a large wound at the rear, of large-ish triangular one on the side of the head above the ear, and two or three in the face. The small, temple hairline wound just disappears in the 20-year gap and new, previously undisclosed, injuries mysteriously appear. The difference can't be reconciled by your handwaving.
Did Robinson lie? Well, he tries to claim that he was in the morgue from the beginning of the autopsy. However, the Sibert and O'Neil report says that "At the termination of the autopsy, the following personnel from Gawler’s Funeral Home entered the autopsy room to prepare the President’s body for burial: JOHN VAN HAESEN, EDWIN STROBLE, THOMAS ROBINSON, Mr. HAGEN." Manchester, in Death of a President, says that Robinson (described only as a "young cosmetician") accompanied Joe Hagen, he mahogany casket, and one of the Gawlers to the Morgue in a hearse. Manchester places the selection of the casket at "around midnight," citing Powers and Powers' contemporaneous notes of the events. The autopsy started about 8PM, and the brain, heart and lungs had already been removed by the time Finck showed up at 8:30PM. It's very hard to believe that Robinson could have seen the early stages of the autopsy --before the Y-incision had been made-- when he arrived close to midnight and was kept out of the morgue until the end of the autopsy proper.
MG: 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
By Robinson's own description, the cheek wounds were literally "visible wounds to JFK's head." Not sure what you're trying to argue here, other than you're not thinking carefully.
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 05, 2025, 10:53:41 PM ---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. ::)
--- End quote ---
"...squarely in the ballpark....". That's subjective babble. Horne's books explain what was going on with respect to 'interviewed" witnesses like Robinson. I recommend you take the time to read those books.
Mitch Todd:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on September 05, 2025, 01:09:50 AM --- "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.
--- End quote ---
"Testimony" has a number of related meanings. I figure that Purdy's Robinson "interview" fits under M-W definition #1: "a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official"
Then again, whether or not I used Storing-approved terminology is unimportant. The point is that Robinson had some very different descriptions of the wounds over the years.
Royell Storing:
Just my opinion, but to me, there is Only 1 kind of "testimony" and that is "Sworn Testimony". To me, an "interview" usually results in "note taking" or a "summation" after the fact. This being debatable. There is No claiming that "testimony" is equivalent to an "interview".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version