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

John McAdams

6:16 PM (4 hours ago)

On 18 Jul 2017 19:14:55 -0400, Alex Foyle <alexand...@gmail.com>
wrote:

- show quoted text -

And so was Ruby, who *admitted* he shot Oswald.  In fact insisted on
it.

.John 

Ralph Cinque: 

No, John. That is not true. Jack Ruby ACCEPTED that he shot Oswald. But, that is a far cry from admitting that he did it.

You were a professor. So, you should be smart enough to realize what is involved in admitting something. How can you possibly admit doing something for which you have no memory? Ruby accepted that he shot Oswald because the Dallas Police told him that he did. He trusted them. He regarded them as his friends. So, he believed them. But, he had no memory of doing it. Therefore, an admission of doing it was not possible for him. 

Even at his "deathbed confession,": he had no memory of it. He said that all he could remember was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being pounced upon by police. He said that all the rest was a blur. But, it wasn't even that because if you remember something blurrily, you presumably caught something. But, he had nothing to say about the shooting of Oswald. 

Jack Ruby was extremely out of it the day of the shooting. He was unfocused; he was mentally distant; and you can see it in his face, in his look. And he was silent. Dallas Police claimed he was a chatterbox WITH THEM. But, he wasn't that way in the hallway. Oswald talked in the hallway. But, Ruby didn't. 

Ruby was addicted to at least two amphetamines. One was Preludin. What I want to know is why his lawuers allowed the State to administer his psychiatric care. They brought in Dr. Louis Joylan West from UCLA. I guess they didn't have any good psychiatrists in Dallas. And "Jolly," as he was known, was drugging Ruby. Now, why didn't Ruby's lawyers object? Since when does the State get to prosecute you for murder and also medicate you in ways that affect your mind, your consciousness? Jack Ruby had to be the most atrociously represented defendant in the history of jurisprudence.