OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque
Monday, June 5, 2017
David Von Pein
5:53 PM (3 hours ago)
- show quoted text -
"Ralph, the things that you consider to be "concrete" are, in actuality, nothing
more than watered-down mush. And everybody knows it. Take your "Ruby was
wearing a jacket" mush, for example. Yes, Ruby was certainly wearing his
jacket when he shot Lee Oswald, and he's not wearing it when he was being
escorted by the police to the elevator in the jail office just a few
"But, so what? Why can't those two things possibly co-exist? Why couldn't
Ruby be wearing his jacket one minute, and then not wearing it the next?
Why is that impossible? A jacket is an item that can be taken on and off
very quickly and easily in a matter of seconds. Why couldn't the police,
after struggling with Ruby to take the revolver out of his hand, have then
yanked the jacket off his back to make certain there were no additional
weapons in the pockets of his jacket? Why is that possibility not even on
Ralph Cinque's radar screen? Ralph, instead, always jumps to the most
ludicrous and "conspiratorial" conclusion imaginable, even when ample
non-conspiratorial explanations are readily available. Why do you always
do that, Ralph?"
David, what you are doing here is helping yourself to
a very convenient conclusion that is not based on
evidence, not based on logic, and not based on
experience. The police struggled with Ruby until they,
finally, got him in handcuffs. Right? Now, once they got
him in handcuffs, they could have searched his pockets and patted him down for weapons. The idea that they would "yank the jacket off his back to make certain there were no additional weapons" is preposterous. You have no right to even suggest it. When have police ever done that? It's simple enough to search a man for weapons without removing his jacket. And if they had to yank off his jacket to check for weapons, then why not yank off his pants for the same reason? Besides, they couldn't yank off his jacket because of the handcuffs. The fighting continued until he was cuffed, right? Isn't that the first thing cops seek to do with a violent offender? Get him in cuffs? And once the cuffs are on, you can't take the jacket off. So, are you suggesting that, after all that struggling, they got the cuffs on him, but then they took the cuffs off him so that they could yank his jacket off to search it for other weapons? Why couldn't they just search the jacket for weapons with it on him? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. It's ridiculous! You are being ridiculous.
"In summary, a nonsensical theory like the one Ralph has created from whole
cloth about James Bookhout killing Lee Harvey Oswald instead of Jack Ruby
doesn't deserve anything more than scorn and ridicule because it is so
patently silly and provably wrong for a whole host of reasons. But you,
Ralph, don't care about those reasons. You have it set in your mind that
an FBI man (of all people) took the shot at Oswald instead of Ruby. Which
is a crazy notion all by itself from this standpoint."
"If Jim Bookhout HAD, in fact, been the actual shooter of Oswald, then it
would have given the Dallas Police a perfect way to "save face" in front
of the world after the shooting, because Bookhout was an *FBI man* who had
a RIGHT to be in that basement on November 24th. He was a member of *law
enforcement*. Ruby wasn't. Ruby was an outsider who shouldn't have been in
the basement at all."
"So please tell the world, Ralph, WHY the DPD was trying to pin the murder
on someone whose entry into the basement could only make the DPD look like
fools, idiots, and Keystone Kops---instead of just placing the blame on
the person you say did it--a "rogue" FBI man who had a grievance against
What? Are you nuts? I never said that James Bookhout shot Oswald as a personal act, that it was his baby, his own personal vendetta, or even that he had a grievance against Oswald. And I never said he was rogue. On the contrary, he was a company man. It wasn't that he was rogue; it was that J. Edgar Hoover and the whole FBI was rogue. They were all in on it together, the Dallas Police and the FBI. I'm saying that the order came down from the top, from Johnson and Hoover, that Oswald had to die, that the country needed closure. And I don't claim that Bookhout actually shot Oswald. What we saw in the garage was a ruse. How could Oswald, with a ruptured aorta and vena cava, at first start crumbling, collapsing straight down, but then veer back and go up on his toes, in what one supporter called a "ballerina stretch"? He couldn't. So, that was all fake, and Oswald must have been fatally shot afterwards. I don't claim to know who pulled the trigger.
Blaming the actual killer would certainly have been much better for the
DPD (and much easier, of course), versus going through the complicated
"bait and switch" charade and "fake films" operation that you say did
occur on 11/24/63. Ever think of that?
David, you have hit a new low here, and it makes me realize that you are no competition. You are in the Joseph Backes class of JFK thinkers. I know you don't agree with him, but you are at the same level of mental ability as him, which is to say, very low. Why didn't the Dallas Police blame the actual killer of Oswald? The Dallas Police WERE the actual killers of Oswald. And that's why they needed a patsy in Jack Ruby.
But, let's go back to your starting premise, that the Dallas Police yanked Ruby's jacket off to search it for weapons. Even though police, the world over, have been able to search suspects for weapons without removing their clothes, where it is standard practice to just pat them down, you helped yourself to the idea that they yanked his jacket off. However, undoubtedly, the first priority and the great imperative was to get the violent offender in handcuffs. Get him cuffed. Get him cuffed. Get him cuffed. Get him cuffed. Get him cuffed. They would do that BEFORE they did anything else, including search him for weapons. But, once the cuffs were on, they couldn't yank the jacket off without first removing the cuffs. And you can't tell me they were going to do that- not after what they went through to get those cuffs on. That fracas in the garage which we all saw? You think they were going to remove his cuffs just to remove his jacket to search it for weapons when it was not only just as easy to search it while on him, but, in fact, easier and quicker too. You helped yourself to crap, David. Your idea is crap.
And even if there was some remote chance that it was true- and there isn't- don't you think that in 53 years, we would have heard it? Don't you think that McMillon or Archer or Clardy or someone would have testified that "then we yanked his jacket off to search it for weapons"? Isn't it a little late for you to be proposing that now, after 53 years?
You didn't make a new discovery today, David, that Dallas detectives yanked Ruby's jacket off to search it for weapons. What you did was make a laughing stock out of yourself.
You're pathetic, David. You're what I call a JFK research clown.