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

[Mitch Todd]

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.

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]

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. 

   "...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]

   "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.

"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". 

[Lance Payette]

HSCA witness interviews were generally not under oath. In legal practice, interviews generally are not. If anything, the interview will later be used by the attorney to prepare an affidavit for the witness to sign. There is no indication in the HSCA transcript that Robinson was under oath. Purdy reminds him at the beginning that a tape recorder is running - he does not add "and you are under oath."

The meeting with the ARRB was clearly not under oath. It is documented only by Horne's "Meeting Report." The attendees are indicated on page 1. There is no indication the meeting was taped. No transcript was made. If Robinson had been put under oath, his interview would have been taped so verbatim statements could later be incorporated into the report if needed. If there had been a tape or transcript, Horne's lengthy summary would have been completely unnecessary.

I have been unable to find any indication that Robinson's marked-up photo showing the cheek punctures was even preserved. Surely, much ado about nothing.

For the cheek punctures, we have only Horne's notes and terminology, and even they suggest nothing spectacular or that Horne regarded them as anything spectacular. The whole point of embalming fluid is to fully penetrate the tissue so as to preserve it. I at least picture very inconsequential holes that no one else noticed and that Robinson himself didn't notice until he saw that embalming fluid was seeping through. It seems from my reading that embalming fluid seeping through tissue and unobserved outlets during the embalming process - and even after - is common. Surely, much ado about nothing.

I have no idea what Robinson was all about. In later interviews, he seems credible and sincere and not a publicity hound. He is simply an outlier, like many JFKA witnesses and some eyewitnesses in every case. FWIW, here's a short 2006 video interview with Robinson in which he comes across (to me) as fairly credible.

[Royell Storing]

     I seriously doubt that an every day Zit, Wart, Cut from shaving, etc, would permit embalming fluid seepage on JFK's cheek/face. Robinson also mentioned that every bone in JFK's Face was broken. I think Robinson also made mention that bruising around an eye was beginning to show. Personally, I believe that ALL of what Tom Robinson described in the JFK Face area is the result of the JFK Body having been dropped, fallen off the table, etc. This could have even happened at Parkland Hospital before the JFK body was placed inside the ceremonial casket.   

[Lance Payette]

     I seriously doubt that an every day Zit, Wart, Cut from shaving, etc, would permit embalming fluid seepage on JFK's cheek/face. Robinson also mentioned that every bone in JFK's Face was broken. I think Robinson also made mention that bruising around an eye was beginning to show. Personally, I believe that ALL of what Tom Robinson described in the JFK Face area is the result of the JFK Body having been dropped, fallen off the table, etc. This could have even happened at Parkland Hospital before the JFK body was placed inside the ceremonial casket.   

And so what? As you seemingly always do, you weave speculation out of the thin air. If JFK's body actually were dropped, presumably someone would have noticed and mentioned that fact somewhere along the line (or was this yet another "conspiracy"?). And if it was dropped - well, so what? This would have nothing to do with Michael's goofy theory about windshield shards from a frontal shot.

If you can stomach it, Google (or AI) "embalming fluid seeping or oozing during embalming process." It can even occur because the skin is unusually thin due to the decedent's use of certain drugs. (Corticosteroids are the primary treatment for Addison's disease, and thinning of the skin is one of the primary side-effects.) There is absolutely no reason to think that Robinson's observation of embalming fluid seeping from previously unobserved spots of some sort - on a body that had been shot in the head, treated in an emergency room (including a tracheotomy), flown across the entire country, and autopsied - is anything but the proverbial nothingburger.