Wednesday, December 27, 2017

I watched Law and Order tonight, and in it, a Senator was charged with murdering his daughter. And he did kill her, he stabbed her to death. But, he claimed it was self-defense, that she had a knife, and she was trying to kill him. And, he did have some abdominal stab wounds, though they were very superficial. Her fatal wounds were deep, and there 13 of them. 13. 

And, a medical examiner testified that she thought that his superficial wounds were self-inflicted. 

In her closing argument, the prosecutor, a woman, had some kind of prop, and she had a knife, and as she spoke to the jury, she slammed the knife into the prop 13 times. He had to stab his daughter 13 times to stop her. He was 6 foot, 200 pound man, and she was 5'3" 110 pound woman. 12 stabs wasn't enough, eh? He got convicted. 

And now, let's talk about Jack Ruby. We have multiple films of the shooting, and what we see in the films is that the shooter approached Oswald from the side. It was quite a sideways angle. And there is no doubt about it because the bullet traveled from left to right across Oswald's abdomen; so, the shot had to have been taken from the side. 

But after firing, the shooter pivoted around so that he was in front of Oswald with his back to the camera. And then he dove into the  waiting arms of the police. And he didn't say a word. We know he didn't say a word because we don't hear him say anything, and we don't see him talking. All of that is confirmed by multiple films. 

But, Jack Ruby claimed to talk. He claimed he said, "What are you doing? You know me; I'm Jack Ruby." One account even had him saying, "I am not a criminal."

What's clear from that is that Jack Ruby was surprised that police were attacking him, and he did not know why they were attacking him. Didn't he know that when you shoot someone that police don't take kindly to it, that they immediately subdue you, with extreme prejudice, and they put you in restraints? 

How old do you have to be to recognize that shooting someone is wrong? I was thinking about that today, and at first I was going to say 3. But, I changed my mind. Make it 2. That's right. Even a 2 year old knows that shooting someone, for real, is a very bad thing to do.

So, if Jack Ruby had shot Oswald, he would have known why the police were attacking him. He certainly was as smart as a 2 year old, wasn't he? He wouldn't have to ask them. He wouldn't be befuddled and bewildered. He would know exactly why they were doing what they were doing. 

So, why did Jack Ruby say those things? Those things we know the Garage Shooter did not say? He said them because, at the time, he was unaware of having done anything. 

And look what his lawyers concluded from it: that he shot Oswald due to psychomotor epilepsy without consciousness or awareness. I watched the interview of the autopsy doctors after Ruby died, and they said that dissecting his brain showed that he had no epilepsy. Of course, he didn't.

His stupid lawyers. His incredibly stupid lawyers. So taken were they with Americana that they couldn't see what was staring them in the face: that Ruby was unaware of shooting Oswald BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SHOOT HIM.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.