Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

One of the major falsehoods about the Oswald shooting is that Jack Ruby said that he did it. No. He just didn't deny it. Big difference. He had nothing to say about doing it. He had no memory of doing it. When asked, he said that he remembered going there, and he remembered being pounced upon by police, but he remembered nothing in-between. How can a person admit doing something that he can't even remember doing?

And, do you know the ditty about Ruby shooting Oswald to spare Jackie a trial? He didn't say that either. His lawyer came up with that. And, there is a famous memo in which Ruby asked another lawyer whether he thought he should say that since the other lawyer recommended it. 

But, according to the lying Dallas detectives, Ruby was spouting that from the very start on 11/24/63 But, since Ruby never thought of it at all, and his lawyer did much later, how could Ruby have said it on 11/24?

Ruby said that he did not recognize any of the police officers or detectives in the garage. Rio "Sam" Pierce was the only name he gave of a Dallas policeman or detective that he recognized. And he was driving away when Ruby saw him. So, in the garage, Ruby recognized no one. Yet, there were plenty of people in the garage at 1:20 whom Ruby knew, such as Leavelle, Henderson, and Dean. And Ruby definitely knew reporter Hugh Aynesworth, who reported to see and recognize him. So, why didn't Ruby recognize Aynesworth?

Why did Ruby cite the time that he was there as 10:15 and have to be corrected? To be an hour off in the context of late morning is a hell of a lot.   And to be an hour off in the context of what happened is even worse. So, I don't think he was wrong. 10:15 is probably when the incident with Ruby took place. They scurried him away and up to the 5th floor, and then they got the place ready for showtime, which was the spectacle with Bookhout. 

There is no doubt about this, and the only ones who should be fighting it are those who support the official story. If you are smart enough to realize that Oswald was innocent (completely innocent, meaning that he didn't prep the rifle for any shooter) then you should be smart enough to realize that Ruby was innocent too.

Ruby was under the influence of heavy amphetamines, and he was subject to amphetamine psychosis. His drinking didn't help, and he couldn't handle alcohol. He suffered from a severe sleep deficit, and he slept very little. And the result was that he was deranged in his mind, and they knew he was deranged in his mind. We know that Dallas Police had been talking to him that weekend about the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet into Oswald, and that it would be heroic to do so. Ruby was NOT set up by the Mafia to kill Oswald. He was set up by the Dallas Police to kill Oswald. But, the Dallas Police didn't want that deranged lunatic wielding a gun. They just wanted him to take the blame for the shooting that they had planned. 

Ruby was truly a helpless, hapless patsy. He had so much respect for the Dallas Police that when they told him that he shot Oswald, he believed them. Poor guy. It's hard to know who to feel  more sorry for, him or Oswald. He lived longer than Oswald, but to what avail? And ultimately, they probably killed him too. Don't you find it strange that he takes ill right after he is granted a new trial? Well, if you don't, I do.