Amy Joyce:
I was just reading Hall's testimony again. He said that he was with Ruby most of the afternoon from 12:40 - 5:30. He interviewed Ruby some of the time, while others interviewed Ruby at other times, but Hall was always there witnessing it. The following is what pisses me off:
When Hall showed up, Ruby was already stripped down to his underwear. At about 2:00, Tom Howard showed up so they allowed Ruby to get dressed and visit with him .... a meeting with his lawyer that only lasted four minutes? Afterwards, they stripped Ruby down to his shorts again right away. What??? What reason did they have to keep Ruby stripped to his undergarments for hours at a time in the jail cell hallway? They checked his clothing for weapons and there wasn't any. Was this an intimidation thing or what? Questioning him in a hallway without his clothes on? Seriously? Who ever heard of such a thing?
And what's with that very short four minute interview with his lawyer? ..... And why didn't Howard stick around during the questioning?
And if Howard was not Ruby's lawyer yet then why was he giving statements to the press about what Ruby admitted doing and why he did it? Tom Howard was totally out of line as Ruby's lawyer, and it makes me wonder if he was in on it.
There is a report written by Fritz in which Fritz details a q&a interview with Howard, all pertaining to Jack Ruby and Oswald's murder. A copy was even sent to the D.A., Henry Wade. Again, WTF? I can't help but be angry. Is this normal conduct for a defense attorney?
The whole damn security of LHO was a joke and Oswald's family should have sued the pants of the DPD. I wonder if they still could, seeing that it's murder. Even the WC said it was bad security and the DPD seemed more concerned about how they looked then actually protecting a prisoner that was receiving death threats. There were 6-8 officer's guarding the Commerce Street Ramp but ONLY ONE on the Main Street Ramp. Sounds like a set up to me or at the least guilty of not protecting their prisoner!!! One guy on one side, 6 on the other, and 22 officers were sent to cover a traffic corner (15-30 minutes before the incident). On a Sunday! Clearly it was pre-planned regarding what they were going to say about how Ruby got in. Curry (or Fritz) said they were concerned that someone might kidnap Oswald - that they got a threatening call saying that 100 men were going to take him during the transfer. Apparently that concern made them decide to actually put one man on Main street.... instead of none! Heck, can't make it too obvious now can they?
Ralph Cinque:
First, Amy, I share your outrage about them keeping Ruby stripped to his underwear for so long. But, I also want to point out that there was no mention of them stripping him out of his underwear and into new underwear; DPD-approved underwear. And that makes a mockery out of this ridiculous inclusion in the property invoice:
What even is "1 set underwear"? Who would make such a reference? Did they really strip Ruby out of his underpants and give him other underpants? That is preposterous! The very idea! Yet, that is the unavoidable implication. "Set" means more than one item. So, it had to be at least two things, and in this case, the "set" consisted of socks, underpants, and undershirt. So, they had all those things there for prisoners? They were replacing all those things on prisoners at the City Jail? And what? Gathering and laundering all their soiled underclothes to return to them? IT IS PREPOSTEROUS! God damn it. That little inclusion of "1 set underwear" is a smoking gun in itself, and it proves by itself that the whole thing was a con. Ruby got conned. We got conned. The whole damn world got conned.
And I share your outrage about Tom Howard. How dare he propose a motive for Ruby? Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. He didn't know that he had done it until he was told that he did it by Dallas Police. HOW CAN YOU HAVE A MOTIVE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER DOING? For Tom Howard to have cooperated with Dallas Police to the extent that he did; for him to have failed to recognize the significance of Ruby's impaired mental state, and worst of all, for him not to have demanded to see the images of the shooting and studied them with an open, critical, and highly suspicious mind is an outrage. All he had to do was look at the images and actually ask himself, "IS THAT JACK?" and he would have seen that it was NOT Jack. But, on that matter, I hold all of Ruby's attorneys guilty, including Melvin Belli.
And regarding the Main Street ramp, why were spectators tolerated there when it was an incoming ramp? There was no chance they were going to see Oswald coming in. And, on Commerce Street, the spectators were required to remain on the other side of the street. So, why would Roy Vaughan allow them to clutter right around where he was working?
Amy, the whole Main Street ramp thing was meant to be a magnet, a trap for Ruby. He even said that his curiosity was aroused by seeing the people there. They were there for him. They had no reason to be there since it was incoming. And Roy Vaughan had no reason not to consider it loitering.
"Now, beat it; get out of here! There is nothing to see. Or, I'll arrest you for loitering."
How hard is it to say that? So, why didn't he?
It's because it was all planned. And some of them probably coaxed Ruby to go down the ramp. He had no reason to do that. He had no thought of seeing Oswald- let alone shoot him. But, he was drugged, and he was rendered highly susceptible to suggestion. Ruby NEVER explained why he walked down the ramp. And that's because he didn't know why he did it. Somebody just had to nudge him with a nod, and he would do it. It's how people act when they are on Scopolamine. Look at this face. Look at those eyes. Can you see that he is staring? That he looks robotic? That he looks hypnotized? His whole affect is totally inappropriate for someone who just shot somebody. Ruby was out of it. He was out of his mind. He was drugged. They definitely drugged him.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.