OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
David Von Pein
2:07 PM (43 minutes ago)
- show quoted text -
The answer is simple....
Jack Ruby is in the process of putting his jacket back on when we first
see him in the WFAA-TV footage in the jail office, and when we see his
back as he gets in the elevator, he's got his jacket back on....
So the police obviously did not handcuff Ruby at all prior to taking him
to the elevator.
Why are you insisting that the cops *must* have handcuffed Ruby
immediately? They obviously didn't do that, as we can see by examining
Ruby's movements in the WFAA footage.
WHAT??? Are you out of your mind? Both McMillon and Archer said, in their testimonies, that they handcuffed Ruby as soon as they got him in the jail office. They said that they pushed him down to the ground, and both of them took out their cuffs. Archer asked McMillon if he wanted to use his (Archer's), and McMillon responded that he would use his own.
And why don't you think about it logically. Ruby had just fought with a whole police battalion in the garage, before which he fatally shot Oswald and reportedly tried to shoot Leavelle. That's what Leavelle said, that if not for Graves locking the barrel of the gun, keeping it from revolving, that he'd be dead. So you think that after all that, they would not only not cuff Ruby in the garage but not even cuff him inside the jail office? But, regardless of what you think, I am telling you that it conflicts with the men who were there who did it. They said they cuffed Ruby right away, and that stands incontestable.
And there was only 5 seconds between these two:
And for part of the 5 seconds, we continue to see Ruby walking along without putting on his jacket. Here he is at 26:34, and note the time within the frame, lower left.
But below, you see it says 26:37, and he's got his jacket on, presumably, but how could that happen in 3 seconds? And how could it happen at all when he was handcuffed? And we have ever right to presume that he was since the cops said that they cuffed him, and it makes perfect sense that they would. And what about this? Isn't he supposed to be in cuffs?
You have no right to even suggest that he wasn't cuffed. It is not a card you are holding in your hand, so you can't play it. All the evidence points the other way: from the testimonies, from what we see, and from what we know to be normal police response in handling violent offenders. How dare you assume otherwise? Everyone who has ever looked at this, even without reading the testimonies, has concluded that Ruby was in handcuffs. How, after 53 years, do you have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to just glibly say that Dallas Police did not handcuff Ruby? You're just rewriting the history as you go, aren't you? To you, this is just a script, which you can revise at will.
Ruby was handcuffed. That is not in question; it is not in dispute. And therefore, what we see in this footage, with the jacket first missing and then mysteriously appearing on him is a sign of foul play- by the ones telling the story. It is a lie. Ruby was innocent. James Bookhout was the Garage Shooter. But, it was not Bookhout's plot. He was just a cog in the wheel. The plot went up to the top. The very top. Johnson and Hoover. "Oswald must die!" That's what they told the Dallas Police, and the Dallas Police obliged.
This is your second attempt to rationalize this incongruity. Your first was to suggest that they "yanked his jacket off to search it for weapons." That was ridiculous. They can easily determine if there is a weapon in the jacket without taking it off him. And now you're making the "they didn't handcuff Ruby at all" argument, and it is equally ridiculous. And you are showing your true colors, your willingness to bend reality and say anything to defend the official story. It is truly disgusting, David, but very revealing.