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

What irks is, why didn't Jack Ruby's lawyers, and his family, look closely at the images of the Garage Shooter to see if it was really him? When you do that, it doesn't take long to realize that the shooter was NOT him. The shooter was shorter and pudgier. He was like the Pillsbury Dough Boy. He had long hair in back (a toupee) and a very straight, horizontal hairline (because it was a toupee). He had a very short neck; Ruby's was longer. The shooter had a very full, round face, which you can even see from the side. He wasn't Jack Ruby. 

What the hell was wrong with them that they didn't critically look at the images? They could have blown this whole thing out of the water right at the time. Can you imagine if Ruby's defense was that he didn't do it, that it's not him in the films and photos? And talk about photo experts. The defense could have brought in a few. Again: they could have blown this whole thing out of the water. And it would really have been powerful for the reason that the media would not have been able to ignore it. If that was his defense in court, how could the media not report it? JACK RUBY'S LAWYERS CLAIM IT'S NOT HIM IN THE FILMS AND PHOTOS. Can you imagine that headline, what it would have done? It would have shaken up the whole country and maybe woken it up. Oh damn but for what could have been.