JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 28, 2025, 04:55:18 PM
-
The ARRB-released medical files include the disclosure that at the autopsy, mortician Tom Robinson noticed three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek. Robinson filled the holes with wax because embalming fluid was leaking from them (Meeting Report: Interview of Tom Robinson, ARRB, 6/21/96, p. 2). Robinson even drew a diagram of the wounds for the ARRB. The conspiracy theory of the JFK case can explain these wounds. We have credible evidence that a bullet from the front penetrated the front windshield. This bullet certainly must have blown glass and metal particles toward JFK, providing us with a plausible and logical explanation for those three small puncture wounds.
How can the lone-gunman theory explain the three small wounds in JFK's right cheek? It cannot.
The bullet that struck the pavement early in the shooting landed near the limousine and deposited several small fragments in the back of JFK's skull, so that bullet could not have caused the three small puncture wounds in the right cheek.
No fragment from the back of the skull, ricochet or not, could have made it to the right cheek wound without smashing through the intervening bone. And a ricochet fragment off the inside back of the skull would have had to travel at a downward angle to reach the cheek, even ignoring the intervening bone structures, while the bullet from which this fragment would have had to come allegedly exited above the right ear.
Robinson said the three cheek holes were not visible in the right superior profile autopsy photo because it is of poor quality (p. 4), which means the holes would be visible if a better-quality photo had been taken.
The obvious and most logical and plausible explanation is that the wounds were made by three small projectiles that struck the surface of the cheek, but lone-gunman theorists cannot accept this because they have no bullet that could have produced three small fragments that hit the surface of the cheek.
The first lone-gunman answer was that the three holes were "most likely" caused by three bone fragments "exiting as a result of the EOP shot." But this won't work because the fragments would have had to tear through the cheek bone.
The second lone-gunman answer was that the three fragments could have come from the eye socket. But this won't work because the fragments would have had to somehow travel virtually straight down from the eye socket, barely missing the cheek bone, and then, even more amazingly, made a sharp turn to exit the cheek.
The third and apparently final lone-gunman answer is that a pressure wave from the EOP head shot caused the three puncture wounds. This pressure wave supposedly began at some point between the EOP entry site and the alleged exit wound above the right ear, then passed through the right cheek bone without damaging it, and then made the three small holes in the right cheek. This magic pressure wave not only did no damage to the cheek bone but did not make holes in any other place on the face--just the three holes that the morticians noticed and filled with wax.
Pressure waves are most often associated with cavitation caused by high-velocity bullets, but the alleged assassin used a low-velocity rifle:
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it
has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power
at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight
would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
There is some question about whether pressure waves actually do cause wounds. Forensic expert Martin Fackler has argued that pressure waves do not cause tissue disruption, that temporary cavitation is the actual cause of tissue disruption, and that this damage is mistakenly attributed to pressure waves. Experts are divided on whether pressure waves contribute to wound injury. One article concludes that no "conclusive evidence could be found for permanent pathological effects produced by the pressure wave" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock).
The windshield bullet's course could have been slightly altered while penetrating the windshield, causing the bullet to narrowly miss JFK, but some glass fragments from this shot could have hit JFK in the throat and face.
The bottom line is that those who posit multiple gunmen have a credible explanation for the three small puncture wounds. Those who posit a lone gunman and only three shots have no credible explanation for the wounds.
-
With the possibility of the curb/street being hit with a missed shot and then spewing (3) concrete fragments into the (R) Cheek of JFK, also comes the possibility of other concrete fragments from this same missed shot striking/chipping the (R) side of the JFK Limo. If only (3) fragments struck JFK in the cheek, there had to of been other concrete fragments that fell short of striking JFK. These fragments would have struck the (R) rear side of the JFK Limo and left mark(s) on the highly polished/detailed exterior of that car. Images of the (R) rear of the JFK Limo need to be scrutinized.
-
With the possibility of the curb/street being hit with a missed shot and then spewing (3) concrete fragments into the (R) Cheek of JFK, also comes the possibility of other concrete fragments from this same missed shot striking/chipping the (R) side of the JFK Limo. If only (3) fragments struck JFK in the cheek, there had to of been other concrete fragments that fell short of striking JFK. These fragments would have struck the (R) rear side of the JFK Limo and left mark(s) on the highly polished/detailed exterior of that car. Images of the (R) rear of the JFK Limo need to be scrutinized.
The problem with this idea is that the pavement bullet sent several fragments into the back of JFK's head, with two of them (the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment) lodging in different layers of the outer table of the skull and with several small particles lodging around the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment. The trajectory from the pavement strike to JFK's right cheek seems impossible.
We have good evidence that a bullet made a hole in the front windshield. It is entirely plausible that three small glass fragments from this windshield strike hit JFK's right cheek, creating the puncture wounds.
-
When you say "impossible", you need to remember that the alleged shot striking the street/curb was possibly a 4th "missed" shot. If this 4th shot/missed shot is also what the HSCA Acoustics Experts were referencing, the shooter of that 4th Shot would be located somewhere along the picket fence firing (E) down Elm St. This would change the trajectory of the alleged spewed concrete fragments.
-
When you say "impossible", you need to remember that the alleged shot striking the street/curb was possibly a 4th "missed" shot. If this 4th shot/missed shot is also what the HSCA Acoustics Experts were referencing, the shooter of that 4th Shot would be located somewhere along the picket fence firing (E) down Elm St. This would change the trajectory of the alleged spewed concrete fragments.
I just don't see how a bullet that sent several bullet fragments toward the back of the head could have also sent concrete fragments toward the right cheek. In order to send bullet fragments to the back of the head, the bullet must have struck behind the limousine, as some witnesses indicated. I don't see how such a bullet could have sent concrete fragments toward the right cheek.
-
I just don't see how a bullet that sent several bullet fragments toward the back of the head could have also sent concrete fragments toward the right cheek. In order to send bullet fragments to the back of the head, the bullet must have struck behind the limousine, as some witnesses indicated. I don't see how such a bullet could have sent concrete fragments toward the right cheek.
Depends on the position of JFK's head with respect to the Back of the head and the (R) cheek wounds. A missed 4th Shot would be at some point after the 3 shots. How long after I do Not know. We also have the wound on the (R) Forehead/Hairline Level. Keep that in mind too.
-
The ARRB-released medical files include the disclosure that at the autopsy, mortician Tom Robinson noticed three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek. Robinson filled the holes with wax because embalming fluid was leaking from them (Meeting Report: Interview of Tom Robinson, ARRB, 6/21/96, p. 2). Robinson even drew a diagram of the wounds for the ARRB. The conspiracy theory of the JFK case can explain these wounds. We have credible evidence that a bullet from the front penetrated the front windshield. This bullet certainly must have blown glass and metal particles toward JFK, providing us with a plausible and logical explanation for those three small puncture wounds.
How can the lone-gunman theory explain the three small wounds in JFK's right cheek? It cannot.
The bullet that struck the pavement early in the shooting landed near the limousine and deposited several small fragments in the back of JFK's skull, so that bullet could not have caused the three small puncture wounds in the right cheek.
No fragment from the back of the skull, ricochet or not, could have made it to the right cheek wound without smashing through the intervening bone. And a ricochet fragment off the inside back of the skull would have had to travel at a downward angle to reach the cheek, even ignoring the intervening bone structures, while the bullet from which this fragment would have had to come allegedly exited above the right ear.
Robinson said the three cheek holes were not visible in the right superior profile autopsy photo because it is of poor quality (p. 4), which means the holes would be visible if a better-quality photo had been taken.
The obvious and most logical and plausible explanation is that the wounds were made by three small projectiles that struck the surface of the cheek, but lone-gunman theorists cannot accept this because they have no bullet that could have produced three small fragments that hit the surface of the cheek.
The first lone-gunman answer was that the three holes were "most likely" caused by three bone fragments "exiting as a result of the EOP shot." But this won't work because the fragments would have had to tear through the cheek bone.
The second lone-gunman answer was that the three fragments could have come from the eye socket. But this won't work because the fragments would have had to somehow travel virtually straight down from the eye socket, barely missing the cheek bone, and then, even more amazingly, made a sharp turn to exit the cheek.
The third and apparently final lone-gunman answer is that a pressure wave from the EOP head shot caused the three puncture wounds. This pressure wave supposedly began at some point between the EOP entry site and the alleged exit wound above the right ear, then passed through the right cheek bone without damaging it, and then made the three small holes in the right cheek. This magic pressure wave not only did no damage to the cheek bone but did not make holes in any other place on the face--just the three holes that the morticians noticed and filled with wax.
Pressure waves are most often associated with cavitation caused by high-velocity bullets, but the alleged assassin used a low-velocity rifle:
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it
has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power
at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight
would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
There is some question about whether pressure waves actually do cause wounds. Forensic expert Martin Fackler has argued that pressure waves do not cause tissue disruption, that temporary cavitation is the actual cause of tissue disruption, and that this damage is mistakenly attributed to pressure waves. Experts are divided on whether pressure waves contribute to wound injury. One article concludes that no "conclusive evidence could be found for permanent pathological effects produced by the pressure wave" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock).
The windshield bullet's course could have been slightly altered while penetrating the windshield, causing the bullet to narrowly miss JFK, but some glass fragments from this shot could have hit JFK in the throat and face.
The bottom line is that those who posit multiple gunmen have a credible explanation for the three small puncture wounds. Those who posit a lone gunman and only three shots have no credible explanation for the wounds.
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.
-
Mortician Robinson also mentioned that every bone in JFK's Face was Broken. I thought that was very strange. Almost like the body of JFK had been dropped or fallen at some point.
-
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.
Excellent point, Mitch. This is the only solution for the alarming amount of people who believe all of the films, photos and records from the autopsy were altered or fakes.
-
Excellent point, Mitch. This is the only solution for the alarming amount of people who believe all of the films, photos and records from the autopsy were altered or fakes.
Even more than that. In the end, they start building an entire alternate reality.
-
Mortician Tom Robinson said he stretched a large patch over the HOLE in the Back of JFK's Head. In a court of law, lawyers regard the testimony of a highly qualified witness such as this as a Slam Dunk!
-
Mortician Tom Robinson said he stretched a large patch over the HOLE in the Back of JFK's Head. In a court of law, lawyers regard the testimony of a highly qualified witness such as this as a Slam Dunk!
LN's cannot accept the fact there was a hole in the back of his head. My opinion is the autopsy photo showing the back intact was taken after the procedure when the scalp was sutured shut.
-
LN's cannot accept the fact there was a hole in the back of his head. My opinion is the autopsy photo showing the back intact was taken after the procedure when the scalp was sutured shut.
How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the getting-away, the planting of false evidence, the altering of photos / films / x-rays, and the all-important (and ongoing!) coverup?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
-
We have: (1) Parkland Hospital Dr's reporting a Wound in the BACK of JFK's Head immediately following the Kill Shot, & (2) Mortician Tom Robinson detailing to the ARRB that he placed a Patch over a Wound in the BACK of JFK's Head immediately following the Bethesda Autopsy. This corroborates a wound in the back of JFK's head.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Per Tom Robinson, ALL the bones in JFK's face were broken and Bruising was just beginning to show around the eye. There are claims of JFK's body being: (1) inside a Body Bag, and (2) delivered within a cheap metal shipping casket. The explanation for all of this is that the body was moved and dropped in the process. This shattered ALL of his facial bones and bruised an eye.
-
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.
First off, yes, Robinson's ARRB interview was recorded.
I notice you offered no explanation for what caused the three puncture wounds. Puncture wounds don't just magically appear out of thin air. Something causes them. You know that your scenario has no possible explanation for those wounds, so you lamely declare they are "much ado about nothing" without even bothering to try to explain what made them.
You ignore the fact that Robinson said the puncture wounds would be visible in the right-side profile photo if the photo were of better quality. This indicates that after Robinson noticed the wounds and cleaned them, they were visible now that he knew they were there. IOW, the small wounds would be visible in a higher-quality version of the right-side profile photo, but only if you knew to look for them and if the photo were enlarged. Such small wounds can be easily overlooked, even though you can see them once you know to look for them.
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.
Oh, so Robinson just lied about the three punctures??? He just made it all up??? Really??? This is the kind of pitiful argumentation you are reduced to offering because you know your shooting scenario has no way to explain the three small puncture wounds.
No, the morgue was not "full of people during the embalming process." Many attendees left after the autopsy was completed and after the autopsy doctors told the morticians to start their work. It was, after all, 1:00 AM when the autopsy ended, according to Sibert and O'Neill. O'Neill said even the autopsy doctors left the room and went into a different room when the embalming and reconstruction work began (ARRB interview, 9/12/97, p. 139).
Dr. Robert Karnei said he saw the morticians "putting some wax into a tear or laceration on the side of the face near the eye, and that when they were finished, you could not even tell there had been any damage to that area" (Meeting Report, ARRB, 5/21/96, p. 3). Well, well. Where is this tear in the autopsy photos of the face? Humm? And, gee, according to your logic, since Karnei was the only one who reported seeing the tear near the eye and the only one who reported seeing the morticians repairing the tear, he must have been lying about the tear and its repair.
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.
Well, the HSCA's forensic experts said the autopsy photos "are generally of rather poor photographic quality" and that "due to their lack of documentation and poor quality, the defense could have challenged the use of these photos as evidence in a trial" (7 HSCA 46-47).
As you surely well know, the puncture wounds were made by very tiny fragments of some kind. Robinson clearly indicated that the wounds were visible but only if you knew to look for them, which is typical of such tiny wounds, which explains why he did not notice them until after the embalming process started and fluid began to leak from them, and why he said they would be visible on higher-quality right-profile photos.
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.
Of course you apply a ridiculous, draconian standard to Robinson, a standard that you never apply to any pro-WC witnesses. As we'll see, you even accuse Robinson of outright lying, not only about the wounds but about even being present at the autopsy! Never mind that both Hagan and Von Hoesen also said that they and Robinson arrived at Bethesda at about 8:00 PM, when the autopsy started.
As I said, witnesses quite frequently remember certain things in one interview that they forgot to mention in another interview. But you refuse to apply that reasonable, reality-based standard to Robinson because you are determined to reject his account of the three puncture wounds, a small right-temple wound, and a large back-of-wound, and his rejection of the damage above the right ear/top of the head as a bullet wound (he said the doctors did that damage, not a bullet).
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.
You are misrepresenting Robinson's statements. Robinson said the wound above the right ear/top of the head was not a wound but was damage made by the doctors (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/96, p. 4). He also specified that at the start of the autopsy, the top-of-head wound was not an open wound like the back-of-head wound (Ibid., p. 4). Robinson further said that Ed Stroble, one of the morticians, covered the back-of-head wound with a piece of rubber that was about the size of an orange (Ibid., p. 4).
Robinson told the ARRB there was a wound "in the right temple." In both his HSCA and ARRB interviews, he opined that the right-temple wound, just inside the hairline, was the exit wound of a fragment. Yet, you still feel compelled to nitpick at his descriptions of the wound because the autopsy doctors ignored it and omitted it from the autopsy report.
Anytime Robinson's ARRB interview contains any additional information beyond his HSCA interview or fails to fails to describe something exactly as it's described in his HSCA interview, you accuse him of fabricating. Never mind that nearly every other witness at the autopsy, including the other morticians, also saw a large back-of-head wound. Never mind that the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound, packed it with gauze, and wrapped the head in a sheet--never mind that they, too, said they saw a large wound in the back of the head.
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.
Oh my heavens! So Robinson even lied about being at the autopsy?! So all the details that he gave about what he observed during the autopsy were just fabrications?! He just made it all up?! Why? FYI, Joe Hagan told the ARRB that he and his team of morticians arrived at Bethesda at "about 8:00 PM" (Call Report, ARRB, 6/11/96, p. 1). Von Hoesen, one of the morticians, likewise said they arrived at Bethesda at around 8:00 (Ibid., p. 1) So both Hagan and Von Hoesen supported Robinson's statement that he and the other morticians arrived at right around the same time the autopsy started, but according to you Robinson lied about being at the autopsy.
BTW, in a reply in this thread, your fellow WC apologist Lance Payette says Robinson "seems credible and sincere and not a publicity hound." But according to you, he even lied about being at the autopsy.
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."
Oh, hogwash. Are you just hoping people will forget that Robinson said he didn't even notice the tiny wounds until after the embalming process started and fluid began leaking out of them and they became discolored? Until then, he did not notice them. They were not "visible wounds to JFK's head" unless you knew to look for them because they were so small that Robinson didn't notice them until embalming fluid began to leak from them.
The bottom line is that you will never acknowledge any evidence of conspiracy, no matter how credible and corroborated it is. You will always look for any excuse, no matter how lame and forced, to reject evidence that you can't explain. We saw you do this repeatedly and in brazen fashion when it came to Vincent DiMaio's plain-English statements that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls and that x-rays that show dozens of fragments rule out FMJ bullets as the ammo that produced the fragments.
Rather than offer any explanation for the cause of the three small puncture wounds, you stoop to accusing Robinson of not only lying about them but also lying about even being at the autopsy.
-
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.
"Thinning skin"? Seriously? :D
-
"Thinning skin"? Seriously? :D
I don't know about "seriously," but it is mentioned in the technical literature on the seepage of embalming fluid.
I have no pet theory. My only observation is that (1) no one else noticed these "wounds," (2) Robinson didn't notice them until embalming fluid began to seep out, and (3) ergo, it is highly unlikely these were punctures from windshield shards as Michael suggests. My guess would be that the "wounds" were internal, not external.
When we factor in that Robinson didn't mention it to the HSCA and even an ARRB loon like Horne didn't think it was worth following up, I have to believe we are squarely in the realm of Much Ado About Nothing.
I'll bet a lot of embalming fluid would've seeped through those Huge Gates, eh? :D :D :D
-
"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.
Above you typed, "UNDER OATH". Robinson's HSCA "Interview" was Not "under oath". You just defeated your own argument.
-
Bumping this thread by noting that the only answer from WC apologists regarding the three puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek is that Tom Robinson, the mortician who reported seeing the three wounds and filling them with wax, was lying, that Robinson fabricated the story for some unidentified reason. This is really all they can say, since their version of the shooting has no way to explain these wounds.
-
Don't forget whatever JFK had at the hairline/forehead area. I think that and the 3 cheek punctures were both on the (R) side of JFK's face/forehead.