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

How pathetic and revealing it is when my enemies resort to empty put-downs. When they attack me without addressing a single thing I said, it shows me how helpless they are. You would think that getting an article published on VT is a bad thing. My new VT article has already generated over 200 Likes on Facebook. 

 The word is spreading that Jack Ruby was innocent, and the State killed Oswald, just as they killed Kennedy. And in a way, it was worse what they did to Ruby than what they did to Oswald. At least Oswald was of sound mind. At least Oswald could fight back. And he did! He fought hard. How many times did he deny guilt and declare his innocence? And he did it adamantly and convincingly. And he fought them on all fronts. The rifle? "I don't own one, and I never ordered one." The Backyard photo? "I never posed for it." Mexico City? "I never went there." The curtain rods. "I never told him that." My lunch? "I brought it with me from Mrs. Paine's and never said I was going to buy it." Shot Kennedy or Tippit? "I did not. I did not shoot anybody." And, he would have made a formidable witness in court. And you know he would have had good lawyers. You know that Mark Lane would have come forward to defend him- gratis. And once that happened, other great lawyers would have followed suit and offered their services. He would have wound up with a dream team. And, I guarantee you they would have put him on the stand to make all the necessary denials. And he would have done it, emphatically looking the jurors in the eye. And remember that the prosecutors would not have had Marina supporting them. How can a man get a fair trial if his wife is being detained by the State? All that ugly, monstrous stuff she said to the Warren Commission about him would have gone bye-bye. And what would they have been left with? His palm print on the rifle? It wasn't found until after he was dead, so why assume it would exist if he lived? His fingerprints on some boxes? He worked there and handled boxes. Somebody sees him handle a box and then takes it and puts it in the Sniper's Nest. Bingo. The bag? Oh MY GOD! The paper bag???? You really think they wanted to talk about that in court?? You think they wanted to do battle over that with Oswald alive? Don't you think he knew whether he made a bag or not? Oswald would have won. Hands down, he would have won. In fact, regardless of what the jury said, he would have won. They could NOT let it go to court, and they knew it. 

So, they had to kill him, and they did kill him. And they pinned it on a poor hapless guy named Jack Ruby, who when told that he had shot Oswald, even though he had no memory of doing it, no mental image of doing it, no intention of doing it, and not even any inclination to do it (for all the talk about Jack Ruby being an aggressive, violent person was and is a lie)- but he believed them and accepted it and for one reason and one reason only: because he adored the Dallas Police and didn't think they would lie to him.  

What a miserable fate that man had. One video said that "the light in his spartan cell was kept on 24 hours a day." Now, why would they do that? That definitely constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the U.S. Constitution. 

And remember, he plead not guilty because of insanity. But, such a plea did not dispute the facts of the case. His state of mind, his sanity, was the only issue at stake at the trial. And it makes me wonder why they hauled in all those cops and had them recall what happened and what they saw him do- when he wasn't disputing any of it.  And in the end, the jury rejected his insanity plea. But why? It was well established that there was no premeditation involved. Who brings a dog along to a premeditated murder? Who intends to murder someone but takes care of a $25 money wire first?  And worst of all, who kills without a motive? He did it to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas for Oswald's trial? Why would Jackie Kennedy be called to testify at Oswald's trial? What could she have said that pertained to Oswald's guilt or innocence? She couldn't possibly have looked at Oswald and said "yeah, it was him; he did it." And even if you think her testimony could somehow have supported the 6th floor window as the source of the shots, Oswald and his lawyers were going to deny that he was in the 6th floor window. So, what damage could Jackie Kennedy have done to Oswald? None. If anyone called her to testify, it would have been the Defense. We know that one of Ruby's lawyers thought of that motive. But, what his Defense should have done is establish that Jack Ruby had no motive. 

And what they really should have done is discover the truth, that Ruby was innocent. And it was so easy to do. For goodness sake, they had Leavelle and Graves saying that Oswald's hands were cuffed, and they had the Jackson photo staring them in the face showing that they weren't. They had Leavelle telling bold-faced lies about what he did- seeing Ruby and jerking on Oswald and shoving on Ruby's shoulder- and all they had to do was watch the movies, and they'd have seen that it was all lies, that he didn't do any of those things. 

There is so much they could have done. They could have re-enacted it. They could have had someone come out the way Graves did and then had someone cross in front of him the way the Garage Shooter did, and then have the actor report to the jury on the visibility of it- what he saw. 

"Yes, I saw him plain as day. He was a moving object passing right across my visual field. He stuck out like a sore thumb. And I knew instantly that there was a person there heading towards Oswald."

"Why, Detective Leavelle, did you not turn your head to your left to look for a possible attacker? The films show that you didn't. But, wasn't that the most likely direction that one would come from? You claim to know that Oswald was in grave danger. You claim to know that there were countless threats against his life. So, why did you not look to your left? Why didn't you turn your head?"

And don't you wonder why didn't they accept Ruby's insanity plea? It would have meant that he went to a state mental hospital- indefinitely. Why were they so determined to get him a death sentence? You can't tell me that the public was clamoring for Oswald's killer to get the electric chair. And if try to tell me it was because they so resented having been denied the chance to try Oswald in a court of law, my advice to you is: don't. Don't say it. Think it if you want to- that's your business. But don't say it.

No, the reason they sought the death penalty is because they really wanted Ruby dead. Why? Because of fear. Fear that he might wake up someday and come to his senses. He was getting progressively bolder, saying that there was a conspiracy and that it went to the top. You think they wanted him saying that? Or, what if somebody were able to contact him and point out the things that I point out? They would have had to watch him like a hawk: 24/7/365. 

And when he won a new trial, they really must have freaked out. It meant they had to start all over again, from the very beginning. What if the witnesses who skated through the first trial tripped up this time? What if Ruby's lawyers took an aggressive approach and seriously cross-examined the witnesses? What if, for the first time, they examined the photographic images of the Oswald shooting critically? 

No, that was it. After that, it was time for ol' Jack to get sick. I keep reading online that Jack Ruby died of cancer. He was said to have lung cancer, but he died of a pulmonary embolism, which is a blood clot that travels to the lung and kills you. Yes, cancer can cause a blood clot, but, it's well know that there are many drugs which can cause blood clots to form.  Here is an abstract about it:

Drugs may play an important role in development of thrombosis (blood clots), and in recent years there has been increased attention to the importance of this issue. Although drug-induced thrombosis usually causes venous thrombotic events, arterial events are also noted due to drug administration. Here we review the different mechanisms through which drugs can exert thrombosis. Drugs can cause direct endothelial damage (the endothelium is the inner lining of the arteries) and expose the underlying sub-endothelium thus leading to platelet adherence and subsequent thrombus formation. Such an effect is seen by contrast media and chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs. Drugs may also attenuate the secretion of pro- and anticoagulation mediators by the endothelial cells and may have prothrombotic effects on platelets by increasing adhesion and aggregation, as for example seen after heparin administration. Red and white cells can also be affected by drugs, by increasing their aggregation or adhesion to the endothelial wall. Some drugs may promote thrombosis by altering the balance between the different coagulation factors, and many drugs can lead to decreased blood flow by increasing blood viscosity, as seen for example after intravenous immunoglobulin administration. Better understanding of the mechanisms through which drugs exert thrombosis may facilitate their safer use in patients. Additionally, awareness of the drugs that are known to induce thrombosis is important in order to stop their administration in case of a thrombotic event. This review further emphasizes the fact that drug administration is a risk factor that should always be considered in thrombo-embolic events. 

So, even if Jack Ruby really did have lung cancer, it's still possible he was given one or more drugs which triggered his fatal embolism. It's either that or the State just got damn lucky that Fate stepped in and saved them from another treacherous Ruby trial.