Is there any threat that would cause YOU to kill someone? If not, then why do you think it was any different for Jack Ruby?
The thing I usually hear is that they threatened to kill his sister or other family member if he didn't do it.
Well, what about you? If someone threatened to kill your sister if you didn't kill somebody, would you oblige? I'm thinking no. So, what would you do? Wouldn't you call the police and tell them of the threat? It's a crime to make such a threat. Wouldn't you tell your sister and help her get to a place that was safe and secure? And if it was a famous person who made the threat, you might even go to the newspapers and ask them to publicize it- for the sake of your sister and yourself. But, you certainly wouldn't perform the murder.
Keep in mind that you wouldn't do it, perform the murder, even if you were guaranteed escape and no consequences. And that's because you're not a murderer. Right? But, in this case, it meant absolute certain capture and prosecution and the complete end of the life he knew with nothing but a nightmare life to replace it. It was truly a fate worse than death. When I look at the quality of Ruby's life from 11/24 to the end, I think it would have been better for him if he had just died on 11/24. So, what they were demanding (if there was someone demanding) was that Ruby forfeit everything: his whole life.
How could you possibly agree to forfeit your whole life just because of a threat?
The whole idea that Ruby was ordered to kill Oswald is ridiculous. Maybe if it involved shooting Oswald and getting away with it, but in this case it meant certain capture, conviction, and even a death sentence.
Moreover, if Ruby was forced to do it by someone who was threatening him, why didn't he use it as his defense? Why didn't he tell his lawyers? Why didn't he tell the Warren Commissioners? Why didn't he tell the Dallas Police?
The whole idea is preposterous. Jack Ruby was not forced to kill Oswald. And he had NO MOTIVE to kill Oswald. The idea that he did it to save Jackie Kennedy from returning to Texas for Oswald's trial is absurd. Why would Jackie Kennedy have to appear at Oswald's trial? She had nothing to offer in the case against Oswald. What would the prosecutor have needed her for? "Does this look like the guy who killed your husband?" What could she have said that would have made the case against Oswald? There's nothing. So, Jackie wasn't going to have to come back to Dallas regardless. And the whole idea that Jack Ruby said he did it for Jackie is a lie. It was his lawyer who came up with that and told him to say it. And it certainly wasn't on 11/24. IT IS A BOLD-FACED LIE THAT RUBY TOLD DALLAS POLICE ON 11/24 THAT HE SHOT OSWALD TO SPARE JACKIE. It is part of the folklore now, but it is a lie.
Jack Ruby showed up at the garage earlier than 11:15, much earlier. It was before people like Robert Jackson were there. He was wrestled to the ground by Dallas Police who knew that he was mentally deranged. They convinced him that he had shot Oswald, and he believed them because he had great respect for the police, and he couldn't imagine that they would lie to him. They hustled him up to the 5th floor, and that's where he was when the televised spectacle took place, with FBI Agent James Bookhout playing the role of Jack Ruby.
What reason do you have to believe that these two are the same man? It's not based on what you're seeing. How could that short pudgy guy on the left, with the stubby legs, be Jack Ruby?
Then, there's another guy in the footage that is claimed to be Ruby, but he's not Ruby either.
It's bogus image upon bogus image. What is wrong with the American people that they ever believed this shit?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.