I cannot emphasize too strongly-or enough- that the very idea that Jack Ruby would shoot Oswald and thereby devastate his own life, losing everything he had, everything he cared for, everything he looked forward to, and everything that made him feel good about being alive, is preposterous.
Jack Ruby didn't know JFK, and he didn't know Oswald. I'm sure he felt bad about the President's death, but not enough to be willing to destroy his own life.
NOBODY WOULD DO THAT. NOBODY. AND I MEAN: NOBODY.
When people commit murders, they usually do so with the hope and even the expectation that they're going to get away with it. Scot-free. And remember that a lot of murders go unsolved. There are plenty of "cold cases." So, the fact is: people do get away with murder, sometimes.
But, in this case, there was NO HOPE of getting away with it. Doing it meant certain capture; certain punishment; and the complete obliteration of Jack Ruby's life.
So, the idea that Jack Ruby would have done such a thing because he was pressured by the Mob to do it is extremely stupid. What could the Mob possibly threaten him with that was worse than the outcome Ruby got? Do it, or else what? There was nothing worse than the outcome he got.
So, the idea that Ruby planned to do it, or that he was pressured to do it- by the Mafia, the Dallas Police, or anyone else is woefully stupid.
And did I mention that he brought his dog along? Why would he do that if he planned to shoot Oswald?
So, what does that leave? It leaves the idea that Ruby just did it as a rash act, a sudden impulse, an uncontrolled, unrestrained compulsion.
And that is exactly how they depicted it in the 1978 tv movie Ruby and Oswald. They even showed Ruby twitching before he bolted to Oswald- shades of the "psychomotor epilepsy" that Marvin Belli thought up.
Then, afterwards in the movie, as they were riding up to the 5th floor in the elevator, Dallas Police had to inform Ruby that he did it; because he didn't know.
That story was fiction, but in a way, it's the only thing left. It's the only move available on the chess board. But, how likely is it to be true?
We should start with the known facts about sudden, impulsive, spur-of-the-moment killings. Most of them are suicides. That's right. It is much more common for a person to suddenly and impulsively kill himself than anyone else.
And it's easy to understand why. We think of our own life as ours, where we have the right to do whatever we want with it, including end it. But, at the same time, we also know that other people's lives are theirs. And the "wrong" of snuffing out another human life registers with us very deeply.
Besides, to kill someone else, you have to have a reason. You're not going to do it just because you happen to be holding a gun in your hand. But sadly, people have been known to shoot themselves just because they were holding a gun in their hands.
The idea that Jack Ruby would have gotten a sudden, irresistible urge to shoot Oswald is extremely unlikely and for multiple reasons.
1) There is no evidence that Ruby ever threatened to kill Oswald. There is nothing substantial; nothing concrete.
2) There is no substance to any of the claims that Ruby was prone to violence. For instance, there is no evidence that he threw a woman down the stairs two weeks before the assassination.
3) Ruby's behavior at the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night evinced no tendency whatsoever to lose control and act rashly and violently around Oswald, and Ruby was definitely in Oswald's presence.
4) Ruby was deeply religious, and obviously, murder is just as condemned in the Jewish faith as it is in any other.
5) Ruby was extremely respectful of the Dallas Police, and the idea that he would have usurped them on their terrain is preposterous.
6) But, here is the most compelling reason of all why the idea that Ruby impulsively shot Oswald is preposterous: BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE OR SINCE. There is no other shooting like it- in the history of shootings. Name me another time when someone shot someone impulsively whom he didn't know, for having shot someone he also didn't know, where there was no personal relationship, involvement, or connection with the person he shot or the person shot by that person. Where are the other cases that are comparable to Ruby shooting Oswald? Name one.
This is very much like the Twin Towers and Building 7. No high rise, steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed before 9/11, and none have collapsed since 9/11. This phenomenon occurred on 9/11 and no other time. Recently, the tower in London burned for 14 hours, and it was ravaged by flames, but even it didn't collapse.
So, Jack Ruby is like the Building 7 of the JFK assassination. There has been no one else like him in the history of criminology.
So, don't talk to me about him having been pressured (by anyone) to kill Oswald because that is complete, total utter nonsense. And don't talk to me about him having been overcome with a sudden irresistible urge to do it because nothing like that has ever happened before or since. There is no other case like that of Jack Ruby. He is the Building 7 of the JFK assassination.