You think the truth of the "Ruby Shoots Oswald" story rests on whether or
not Ruby could have slipped his jacket back on in just a few seconds in
the DPD jail office? You're too hilarious for words, Dr. Cinque!
And I explained the "Ruby's jacket" thing in the post below. Why do you
keep starting separate threads every time a silly thought crosses your
mind about the same subject?:
But the bigger mystery is WHY Ralph Cinque thinks it would have been
impossible for someone to put on a jacket in 5 seconds. That task can
easily be accomplished in less time than that and everybody knows it
(except Ralph apparently).
David, you are being ridiculous. You are being Joseph Backes. First, you make the ridiculous assumption that Jack Ruby took his jacket off or had it taken off. And then, you make the ridiculous assumption that he put it back on. But, how can a man put a jacket on when he's handcuffed? And Ruby was handcuffed at that point- unless you think the three detectives who said they handcuffed him were lying.
And note that it would have been outrageous if they didn't handcuff him. It's outrageous as it is that they didn't handcuff him in the garage. But, if you are going to argue that even after dragging him in to the jail office they didn't handcuff him, now we're talking about cartoon cops.
What I am going to tell you now may sound like a double standard to you, and that's because it is. How can I put this? Let's try this:
I can say that cops lied, but you can't.
It's a double standard but not an arbitrary double standard. I can say that cops lied because I claim that the whole story is a lie and that the cops were in on it. I state outright that the cops were bad guys: killers, in fact. And lying is nothing compared to killing.
But, you maintain that the cops were good guys who did nothing wrong. You maintain that the cops had nothing to lie about. So, you can't say that cops lied, while I can. And that's just the way it is.
So, you are bound by all the cop testimonies, while I am not. And there are three explicit testimonies, that I know of, in which cops said that they handcuffed Ruby immediately upon getting him into the jail office.
Now, regarding Ruby putting his jacket on while walking, we can see him until he gets to the partition, and he looks jacketless throughout. But, it is a comical idea to begin with. A lethal shooter walks by a bevy of cops, and they not only ignore him, but he's just casually putting his jacket on? After this?
I'm pretty sure that after a thing like that, they want you in handcuffs.
But, let's talk about the time again because it's not 5 seconds; it's 3 seconds. There are only 3 seconds until Ruby appears again- after walking behind the partition. And even under normal conditions, he couldn't put his jacket on in 3 seconds. He couldn't do it in 3 hours or 3 months- if he's handcuffed. And he is definitely handcuffed. That is DEFINITELY part of the story. Three detectives testified that they pushed Ruby down to the ground as soon as they got him inside, and they handcuffed him. No explanation was given as to why they didn't handcuff him in the garage- and none was asked for. But, they did make it clear that he was immediately handcuffed upon getting him inside. And it was also mentioned that they didn't start unclothing him until they got up to the 5th floor.
Ruby was under arrest and under the physical control of policemen. So, why do you flippantly refer to him slipping his jacket back on? Slipping? As in slipping a robe on, or slipping into something comfortable? His slipping days were over, and he certainly wasn't going to be slipping into anything here. You are just making it up as you go; weaving and shucking and jiving to get around any obstacle.
It is indeed a big question how Jack Ruby could be seen shortly after the ruckus in just a shirt when the shooter was wearing a jacket. And, how could his shirt get ripped apart when he was wearing a jacket? You're assuming now that the cops reached into his jacket and were yanking on his shirt? There is no basis to claim that his shirt was a point of contact during the fight- since he was wearing a jacket. And, there is no basis to claim that his jacket came off during the fight either. Look at this:
That is supposed to be Jack Ruby during the fight, and if you don't believe me, just ask Joseph Backes.
David, you can just drop the smug attitude because it's just an act, and it isn't helping you. There are multiple, irreconcilable problems with the appearance of Jack Ruby in the WFAA video, and they prove that the entire story of Ruby shooting Oswald is a lie. Jack Ruby was NOT the Garage Shooter, and during the garage shooting, he was up on the 5th floor. What we are seeing in that segment of the WFAA footage is the scene 3 minutes after the shooting after Ruby was brought down from the 5th floor. It's where the real Jack Ruby took over the role started for him by James Bookhout.