Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 31, 2023 19:48:07 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Robinson.jpg
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/pages/md88_0003a.gif
When it was decided to bring President John F. Kennedy (JFK) to the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH), a local embalmer, Thomas Robinson, from the Gawler's Funeral Home was asked to come to the hospital to watch the autopsy and then perform the necessary work on JFK to prepare him for burial. We can’t say this work was done for viewing purposes unless they were done in private as I am NOT aware of an open casket viewing taking place for his friends and colleagues at anytime before his burial on November 25, 1963.
Mr. Robinson was NOT called by the Warren Commission (WC), and he was not interviewed by the FBI either. Why would the WC ignore such an important witness as this? Probably because he saw things that did NOT match the official theory.
Luckily for us the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) did interview him. Here is a list of things he saw when he worked on JFK’s body after the autopsy that he passed on to investigator Joe West. Before I start, Let's look at Robinson's handwritten notes about the wounds he saw on JFK's body.
web.archive.org/web/20170609162449im_/http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/EMBALMER.gif
When one looks at this list of injuries, they will see four things that are in direct conflict with the WC's claims.
*Mr. Robinson said there was a "large gaping wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD." He told Joe West that “stretching a piece of rubber over it” had covered it. He also felt the skull was "full of Plaster of Paris."
Here is his testimony before the HSCA that was included in the files of the ARRB on this wound.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image00.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image01.gif
Purdy: Where on the face were they shattered, which of the bones?
Robinson: You cannot see that from the outside. This is looking through the opening that the physicians had made at the BACK of the skull.
Purdy: How big was that opening? Was it an official opening?
Robinson: Well, there, of course, was an opening from the BULLETS, but they then had enlarged that. The brain had been removed, and you could see it.
Purdy: Could you tell how large the opening had been caused by the BULLETS?
Robinson: Not really, well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to piece together, so I would probably say about (the size of ) a small orange.
Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape?
Robinson: Three.
Purdy: And the shape?
Robinson: Circular.
Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or fairly ragged?
Robinson: Ragged.
Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located?
Robinson: Directly behind the BACK OF THE HEAD. (ARRB, MD-63, pp. 1-2)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1
We see he saw a RAGGED wound in the BACK of the head and this would indicate a shot from the FRONT of the limousine hit JFK. This is why the WC was NOT interested in calling him or having him interviewed by the FBI. This was in DIRECT conflict with their theory. The other interesting point in this exchange is the use of the term “BULLETS” in regard to the damage done to JFK when the WC said JFK was hit by A BULLET to the head. This shows in Robinson’s opinion JFK was hit by more than one bullet to the head and the HSCA did NOT dispute this point with him.
*He noted a "smaller wound in the right temple" (1/4" across) that was so near the hairline that it was covered from sight. He would plug this wound with wax. (Remember Malcolm Kilduff’s pointing to the temple?)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image01.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image02.gif
Purdy: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been ARTIFICIALLY caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy?
Robinson: Probably, a little mark at the TEMPLES in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn’t have to be covered with make-up. I thought it [was] probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.
Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound.
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.
Purdy: On his right side?
Robinson: That’s an anatomical right, yes.
Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
Robinson: Somewhere around the TEMPLES.
Purdy: Approximately what size?
Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch.
Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
Robinson: No, he didn’t have to close it. If anything I would have just probably put a little wax on it. (ARRB, MD-63, pp. 2-3)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=2
So we see a wound in the right temple, but we have NOT disqualified one for the LEFT TEMPLE either as we saw covered in post #237 of “The Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions” series since Robinson kept saying TEMPLES instead of temple. I am NOT aware of more than one temple on EACH SIDE of the head, so he can’t be limiting the scope to just one side as indicated, but that course was not pursued here for some reason. Again, Dr. Kemp Clark of Parkland Hospital (PH) said he saw a would to JFK’s LEFT TEMPLE area. This was corroborated by Father Huber who gave last rites to JFK although he would try and take it back later.
The main point is any would to EITHER temple means the official theory is sunk and we have evidence JFK had a wound in these areas. Robinson did attribute the wound in the temple to a “piece of bone or shrapnel or from a piece of a bullet” though so he was NOT saying he felt a bullet caused this wound by itself. This is damaging to the WC’s claim as it should have been caused by the bullet EXITING from JFK’s head after he was shot from the REAR.
* He said he patched two shrapnel wounds to JFK's face with wax. How this could have happened if all the shots came from behind is a mystery.
* He placed a wound in the BACK (5 to 6") below the shoulder base and to the right of the backbone. This is the same location others like Hill, Kellerman, O'Neill and Sibert would place it.
In his testimony before the HSCA, and included in the ARRB files, Robinson would make other comments that were detrimental to the WC’s conclusions like these.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image02.gif
Purdy: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head?
Robinson: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought in a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area (area in the back of the head). I remember treating the…organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another.
Purdy: O.K., you had to close the wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head?
And:
Purdy: Where 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: That’s all. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 3)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=3
So we see the ONLY wounds seen do NOT match up with the official theory at all as the temple wound should have been caused by the bullet EXITING from the rear entry if the WC was correct. And:
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image03.gif
Purdy: What is your understanding of how the BULLETS went through the head? And where it went, did it stop in the head?
Robinson: I don’t think so.
Purdy: Where did it exit?
Robinson: Well it exited in MANY PIECES. They were literally picked out, little pieces of this bullet from all over his head.
Purdy: In other words, where do you feel the bullet entered and in that major back wound. What would have caused a three inch hole. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 4)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=4
This exchange is illuminating as we again see the use of the word bullet in the PLURAL when the WC said JFK was ONLY hit with one bullet. Also, the official claim is that a FULL-METAL JACKETED (FMJ) bullet was used so, why would it shatter so completely on impact that it exited in “many pieces” and required the embalmer to “pick out little pieces of it from all over the head?” Does this make any sense to you?
Here Robinson again sinks the WC’s conclusion as he again stresses the wound in the right temple was not caused by an EXITING bullet.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image04.gif
Purdy: Do you feel that any significant portion of the bullet after it hit the head, exited from the head, not just being picked up by the doctors? Do you fell that [the bullet] possibly exited, where could some it exited from the head? If any. You mentioned one possibly was the RIGHT TEMPLE.
Robinson: Yes, that did go through my mind. Well they had the little pieces, they picked them out.
Purdy: So you feel that’s the ONLY place that the significant size of the bullet could have exited?
Robinson: It was NO bullet, it was a fragment or a piece of the bone. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 5)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=5
He shot down the idea that the wound seen in the right temple was from an exiting bullet. If the wound was indeed caused by bone or a fragment could this show the shot came from the LEFT front then? We know it fragmented into pieces as he confirmed this again for us.
Prudy: What is your understanding of what happened to the bullet once it hit the head? You say the bullet went into pieces.
Robinson: That is what I would say. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 5)
FMJ bullets are NOT meant to fragment into many pieces as that was agreed to by all warring nations under the GENEVA CONVENTION Act, so how could a FMJ do this? It can’t of course which shows us a FMJ bullet was NOT used as claimed by the WC.
It appears that a man with “credentials” told Robinson a lie.
Purdy: What did he say about the bullets shattering?
Robinson: He just explained to me that on occasion that just happens. The bullet will smash into a great many pieces. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 5)
Ah, NO it won’t when it has a METAL jacket! Who was this person with credentials?
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image05.gif
Purdy: Do you know that this man was an FBI Agent or…
Robinson: He showed me some credentials, I don’t know whether it was Secret Service or, to me they all BELONG TO THE SAME. No he was not military. There were military people there.
Purdy: So he was either FBI or Secret Service or some other plain clothes type, but he show[ed] you some credentials.
Robinson: Yes. I’m pretty sure he told me that was his field. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 6)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=6
So who was this guy? This is important because all of the pieces of the bullet they pulled out of JFK’s head and put in either a test tube or vial were taken by this person. I doubt it was either FBI Agents Sibert or O’Neill as they documented everything quite well. Could he have been Secret Service (SS)? If so, who was he? Obviously these pieces have never been seen again so this is important.
Remember how it was said X-Rays were taken of the chest area, but we don’t see them now? Here is a comment Robinson said about something being found in the chest area.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image09.gif
Purdy: In your impression, where is the lowest point on the body that any metal fragments were found?
Robinson: Somehow I feel like there was something found in the thorax.
Purdy: Is that what I normally call the chest?
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Do you remember it to be metallic or a piece of bone?[/b]
Robinson: I think they found a piece of metal, a piece of a BULLET. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 10)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=10
Why would a piece of a bullet be in the chest area IF the official theory was correct? Obviously, it wouldn’t so we again see the official claim of one bullet traveling through JFK and exiting and then going into Governor John B. Connally (JBC) is NOT correct.
NONE of the wounds listed by Robinson are what we got from the WC however. They would move, or remove, all the wounds to fit their scenario. The temple wound -- gone. The back of the head wound -- gone. The shrapnel type wounds to the face -- gone. The back wound at the base of the shoulders and 5 to 6” to the right of the spine – moved to the base of the neck.
In terms of the head wound however the prosectors would state the wound was one of a temporal-parietal-occipital nature, meaning some of the BACK OF THE HEAD WAS INCLUDED! During the first observations by both Humes and Boswell they noted the wound was in the occipital area. The entry wound was put at the lower part of the skull by the prosectors, but the “experts” on the Clark Panel would MOVE this wound up 8 inches to the EOP area. What made them do this? Who knows as they never looked at the X-Rays or saw the body. They felt like it was incorrect where it was based on the alleged path (and 40-50 dust like fragments seen in the head) and without looking at anything they moved it!
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Robinson.jpg
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/pages/md88_0003a.gif
When it was decided to bring President John F. Kennedy (JFK) to the Bethesda Naval Hospital (BNH), a local embalmer, Thomas Robinson, from the Gawler's Funeral Home was asked to come to the hospital to watch the autopsy and then perform the necessary work on JFK to prepare him for burial. We can’t say this work was done for viewing purposes unless they were done in private as I am NOT aware of an open casket viewing taking place for his friends and colleagues at anytime before his burial on November 25, 1963.
Mr. Robinson was NOT called by the Warren Commission (WC), and he was not interviewed by the FBI either. Why would the WC ignore such an important witness as this? Probably because he saw things that did NOT match the official theory.
Luckily for us the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) did interview him. Here is a list of things he saw when he worked on JFK’s body after the autopsy that he passed on to investigator Joe West. Before I start, Let's look at Robinson's handwritten notes about the wounds he saw on JFK's body.
web.archive.org/web/20170609162449im_/http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/EMBALMER.gif
When one looks at this list of injuries, they will see four things that are in direct conflict with the WC's claims.
*Mr. Robinson said there was a "large gaping wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD." He told Joe West that “stretching a piece of rubber over it” had covered it. He also felt the skull was "full of Plaster of Paris."
Here is his testimony before the HSCA that was included in the files of the ARRB on this wound.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image00.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image01.gif
Purdy: Where on the face were they shattered, which of the bones?
Robinson: You cannot see that from the outside. This is looking through the opening that the physicians had made at the BACK of the skull.
Purdy: How big was that opening? Was it an official opening?
Robinson: Well, there, of course, was an opening from the BULLETS, but they then had enlarged that. The brain had been removed, and you could see it.
Purdy: Could you tell how large the opening had been caused by the BULLETS?
Robinson: Not really, well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to piece together, so I would probably say about (the size of ) a small orange.
Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape?
Robinson: Three.
Purdy: And the shape?
Robinson: Circular.
Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or fairly ragged?
Robinson: Ragged.
Purdy: Approximately where was this wound located?
Robinson: Directly behind the BACK OF THE HEAD. (ARRB, MD-63, pp. 1-2)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=1
We see he saw a RAGGED wound in the BACK of the head and this would indicate a shot from the FRONT of the limousine hit JFK. This is why the WC was NOT interested in calling him or having him interviewed by the FBI. This was in DIRECT conflict with their theory. The other interesting point in this exchange is the use of the term “BULLETS” in regard to the damage done to JFK when the WC said JFK was hit by A BULLET to the head. This shows in Robinson’s opinion JFK was hit by more than one bullet to the head and the HSCA did NOT dispute this point with him.
*He noted a "smaller wound in the right temple" (1/4" across) that was so near the hairline that it was covered from sight. He would plug this wound with wax. (Remember Malcolm Kilduff’s pointing to the temple?)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image01.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image02.gif
Purdy: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been ARTIFICIALLY caused, that is, caused by something other than the autopsy?
Robinson: Probably, a little mark at the TEMPLES in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn’t have to be covered with make-up. I thought it [was] probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.
Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound.
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.
Purdy: On his right side?
Robinson: That’s an anatomical right, yes.
Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
Robinson: Somewhere around the TEMPLES.
Purdy: Approximately what size?
Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch.
Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
Robinson: No, he didn’t have to close it. If anything I would have just probably put a little wax on it. (ARRB, MD-63, pp. 2-3)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=2
So we see a wound in the right temple, but we have NOT disqualified one for the LEFT TEMPLE either as we saw covered in post #237 of “The Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions” series since Robinson kept saying TEMPLES instead of temple. I am NOT aware of more than one temple on EACH SIDE of the head, so he can’t be limiting the scope to just one side as indicated, but that course was not pursued here for some reason. Again, Dr. Kemp Clark of Parkland Hospital (PH) said he saw a would to JFK’s LEFT TEMPLE area. This was corroborated by Father Huber who gave last rites to JFK although he would try and take it back later.
The main point is any would to EITHER temple means the official theory is sunk and we have evidence JFK had a wound in these areas. Robinson did attribute the wound in the temple to a “piece of bone or shrapnel or from a piece of a bullet” though so he was NOT saying he felt a bullet caused this wound by itself. This is damaging to the WC’s claim as it should have been caused by the bullet EXITING from JFK’s head after he was shot from the REAR.
* He said he patched two shrapnel wounds to JFK's face with wax. How this could have happened if all the shots came from behind is a mystery.
* He placed a wound in the BACK (5 to 6") below the shoulder base and to the right of the backbone. This is the same location others like Hill, Kellerman, O'Neill and Sibert would place it.
In his testimony before the HSCA, and included in the ARRB files, Robinson would make other comments that were detrimental to the WC’s conclusions like these.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image02.gif
Purdy: Were you the one that was responsible for closing these wounds in the head?
Robinson: Well, we all worked on it. Once the body was embalmed arterially and they brought in a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area (area in the back of the head). I remember treating the…organs, like I said, we all tried to help one another.
Purdy: O.K., you had to close the wound in the BACK OF THE HEAD using the rubber, what other work had to be done on the head?
And:
Purdy: Where 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: That’s all. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 3)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=3
So we see the ONLY wounds seen do NOT match up with the official theory at all as the temple wound should have been caused by the bullet EXITING from the rear entry if the WC was correct. And:
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image03.gif
Purdy: What is your understanding of how the BULLETS went through the head? And where it went, did it stop in the head?
Robinson: I don’t think so.
Purdy: Where did it exit?
Robinson: Well it exited in MANY PIECES. They were literally picked out, little pieces of this bullet from all over his head.
Purdy: In other words, where do you feel the bullet entered and in that major back wound. What would have caused a three inch hole. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 4)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=4
This exchange is illuminating as we again see the use of the word bullet in the PLURAL when the WC said JFK was ONLY hit with one bullet. Also, the official claim is that a FULL-METAL JACKETED (FMJ) bullet was used so, why would it shatter so completely on impact that it exited in “many pieces” and required the embalmer to “pick out little pieces of it from all over the head?” Does this make any sense to you?
Here Robinson again sinks the WC’s conclusion as he again stresses the wound in the right temple was not caused by an EXITING bullet.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image04.gif
Purdy: Do you feel that any significant portion of the bullet after it hit the head, exited from the head, not just being picked up by the doctors? Do you fell that [the bullet] possibly exited, where could some it exited from the head? If any. You mentioned one possibly was the RIGHT TEMPLE.
Robinson: Yes, that did go through my mind. Well they had the little pieces, they picked them out.
Purdy: So you feel that’s the ONLY place that the significant size of the bullet could have exited?
Robinson: It was NO bullet, it was a fragment or a piece of the bone. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 5)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=5
He shot down the idea that the wound seen in the right temple was from an exiting bullet. If the wound was indeed caused by bone or a fragment could this show the shot came from the LEFT front then? We know it fragmented into pieces as he confirmed this again for us.
Prudy: What is your understanding of what happened to the bullet once it hit the head? You say the bullet went into pieces.
Robinson: That is what I would say. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 5)
FMJ bullets are NOT meant to fragment into many pieces as that was agreed to by all warring nations under the GENEVA CONVENTION Act, so how could a FMJ do this? It can’t of course which shows us a FMJ bullet was NOT used as claimed by the WC.
It appears that a man with “credentials” told Robinson a lie.
Purdy: What did he say about the bullets shattering?
Robinson: He just explained to me that on occasion that just happens. The bullet will smash into a great many pieces. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 5)
Ah, NO it won’t when it has a METAL jacket! Who was this person with credentials?
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image05.gif
Purdy: Do you know that this man was an FBI Agent or…
Robinson: He showed me some credentials, I don’t know whether it was Secret Service or, to me they all BELONG TO THE SAME. No he was not military. There were military people there.
Purdy: So he was either FBI or Secret Service or some other plain clothes type, but he show[ed] you some credentials.
Robinson: Yes. I’m pretty sure he told me that was his field. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 6)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=6
So who was this guy? This is important because all of the pieces of the bullet they pulled out of JFK’s head and put in either a test tube or vial were taken by this person. I doubt it was either FBI Agents Sibert or O’Neill as they documented everything quite well. Could he have been Secret Service (SS)? If so, who was he? Obviously these pieces have never been seen again so this is important.
Remember how it was said X-Rays were taken of the chest area, but we don’t see them now? Here is a comment Robinson said about something being found in the chest area.
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/pages/Image09.gif
Purdy: In your impression, where is the lowest point on the body that any metal fragments were found?
Robinson: Somehow I feel like there was something found in the thorax.
Purdy: Is that what I normally call the chest?
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Do you remember it to be metallic or a piece of bone?[/b]
Robinson: I think they found a piece of metal, a piece of a BULLET. (ARRB, MD-63, p. 10)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=10
Why would a piece of a bullet be in the chest area IF the official theory was correct? Obviously, it wouldn’t so we again see the official claim of one bullet traveling through JFK and exiting and then going into Governor John B. Connally (JBC) is NOT correct.
NONE of the wounds listed by Robinson are what we got from the WC however. They would move, or remove, all the wounds to fit their scenario. The temple wound -- gone. The back of the head wound -- gone. The shrapnel type wounds to the face -- gone. The back wound at the base of the shoulders and 5 to 6” to the right of the spine – moved to the base of the neck.
In terms of the head wound however the prosectors would state the wound was one of a temporal-parietal-occipital nature, meaning some of the BACK OF THE HEAD WAS INCLUDED! During the first observations by both Humes and Boswell they noted the wound was in the occipital area. The entry wound was put at the lower part of the skull by the prosectors, but the “experts” on the Clark Panel would MOVE this wound up 8 inches to the EOP area. What made them do this? Who knows as they never looked at the X-Rays or saw the body. They felt like it was incorrect where it was based on the alleged path (and 40-50 dust like fragments seen in the head) and without looking at anything they moved it!