Sunday, January 21, 2018

This is extremely big. Amy Joyce found it and sent it to me, and I thank her. It is the autobiography of Jack Ruby, which was written in 1964 and published in the Washington Post after he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. It was written in collaboration with a well known television screenwriter by the name of William Read Woodfield, who was the screenwriter for the Mission Impossible tv series. Woodfield was also a photographer who took pictures of celebrities. Who put Ruby in touch with Woodfield I do not know. But, you can be absolutely sure that Woodfield was screened and prepped for the task.  

I am going to provide you the link to it, so that you can read it yourself, but I want you to read my remarks first, if you don't mind.   

First, you should realize that, considering that this was written for publication in the Washington Post, that it had to tell the official story of the Oswald shooting. They wouldn't have published it otherwise. 

So, I knew, before reading a word, that it was going to present the official story of the Oswald shooting. But, what I hoped to find- and did find- are nuggets of revelation that confirm that I am right; that Jack Ruby did NOT shoot Oswald.  

It starts with Ruby talking about his early life in Chicago. He denied that he was a gangster or a communist or any kind of extremist or subversive. Basically, he claimed to have a rough, struggling childhood in Chicago, but not that his family ever went hungry. And, from an early age, he was very entrepreneurial. For a while, as a young man,  he managed the dancing career of this little black youngster- successfully. But, when the US entered WW2, he was drafted into the Air Force, where he worked as an airplane mechanic. And after his military stint, he joined his brother Earl in a business manufacturing and selling salt and pepper shakers. And that was successful too. And then after that, he went to Dallas and joined his sister Eva in the nightclub business. 

But, he denied ever being involved in Cuban gunrunning, and he said nothing about being an aide to Richard Nixon; nothing about attending Communist meetings, presumably as a spy; and nothing about having any connection with the CIA or with gangsters. And, he repeated his claim of being at the Dallas Morning News at the time JFK got shot. So, he wasn't watching the motorcade with an acquaintance whom he invited to watch the "fireworks" with him. That story is completely and totally bogus, even though it was circulated as fact by our media in 2017. 

Another important point is that he covered Friday afternoon, and he denied going to Parkland Hospital, and he denied being at the Dallas PD, Homicide Division, at 2 PM. Both those claims are false, and the images purportedly of Ruby at the Dallas PD at 2 PM Friday afternoon are false. Those images are of someone else; not Jack Ruby.  

He certainly confirmed going to the Midnight Press Conference, although he did not go there to see Oswald. He went there because after Detective Sims turned down his offer of the corned beef sandwiches, Ruby decided to offer them to the crew that was covering the story for KLIF a local tv station. He was determined to get those sandwiches to people who were working the case. So, he went there for that and basically stumbled into the Midnight Press Conference. So, he wasn't stalking Oswald on Friday afternoon or on Friday evening. 

And Ruby stated that he was only a few feet from Oswald on Friday night, and he had his gun in his pocket, but he had not the slightest urge to kill him. And, he had no such urge on Sunday morning either. Read this:

Who are you going to believe, Fritz or Ruby? I believe Ruby.

OK, let's get to the morning of the 24th. Note again that the story given is largely a re-telling of the official story, and it had to be. This was published in one of the nation's leading newspapers, and there is no way they would tell anything but the official story. And by then, Ruby had essentially accepted the official story anyway, and he had integrated it into his memory. So, I knew before I started reading, that it was going to conform completely with officialdom. But, there are still some nuggets of revelation that came out, as you'll see.  

First, Ruby admitted taking A LOT of drugs the morning of the 24th. He said that for 4 or 5 days, he had been taking twice his usual dose of "diet pills" which were amphetamines. He also said that he took a "cold prescription," which may have been more amphetamine. He also wrote, "This morning I also took some other tablets."

WHAT???!!! What other tablets???? And did he really write it that way? Ruby tended to provide a lot of detail, often too much detail. So, why no detail on the other tablets? Did someone give him those tablets and urge him to take them? Did he specify who, and was it deleted? Remember, it is typed newspaper article, not a handwritten statement. So, they could have done any editing whatsoever that they wanted without his permission. It sounds awfully abbreviated for him to say that that morning he also took some other tablets. But, start counting the tablets. It sounds like he swallowed a heck of a lot of pills that morning. AND IT CONFIRMS MY THESIS THAT JACK RUBY WAS HEAVILY DRUGGED THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER 24.

Ruby said that he got up early on Sunday. Early, early, early, early, early. And then he said that Little Lynn called asking for money, but he didn't give a time. So, what time was it? Little Lynn was very evasive, hemming and hawing, when she was asked what time it was by the WC. The autobiography features an internal heading which has a time, but, I don't assume that that was Jack Ruby's doing. It may have been Woodfield's doing, but if not, then it was done by some editor.  Take a look: 

    Do you see how slick that is? That's the editor telling you that that the time that Little Lynn called was 10 AM. But, don't assume that Ruby said that. 

So, Ruby leaves with his dog Sheba; he drives by the wreaths in Dealey Plaza, which he had also done the day before. He didn't say he got out of his car this time. Then, as he was driving down Main Street to WU, he saw people gathered at the incoming ramp. He turned left and parked in the lot across the street. He went and conducted his business at Western Union. Now read this:

Notice the big time indicators again. Don't assume that was Ruby's doing. So, he was going to pass out guest passes, and he had no intention, not only of shooting Oswald, but even of seeing Oswald. Ruby claimed to see no one he knew in the basement. But, he knew most of the detectives. He knew Blackie Harrison. He knew Leavelle and Graves. He certainly knew Fritz. So, were none of them present when he was there? Then, he said that Oswald was there, "looking, smirky, defiant, cursing, and vicious." Well, as you watch the films, do you see Oswald that way? I sure don't.  And then he said, "I MUST have pulled out my gun and taken a couple steps." What? Must have? What does that mean? It means that he didn't know that he did any such thing, but he must have done it simply because of the situation he's in. And the parenthetical sentence: (This was 11:20, 3 minutes after the time stamped on the ticket), who wrote that? Why is it in parenthesis? I bet it's in parenthesis because Ruby didn't write it, that it was edited in. 

And don't assume the authenticity of that ticket. Snap out of it! Ruby was there earlier, and the first thing the cops did when they got him up to the 5th floor is undress him. Why? IT WAS TO GET THE STUFF IN HIS POCKETS AND REPLACE HIS REAL RECEIPT WITH THEIR PHONY ONE.  

Then, Ruby made clear that the talking that he did DURING the melee was based on the fact that he did not know why the cops were pouncing on him. He did not know what was going on. They were jumping him; but he didn't know why they were jumping him. He was not aware of having done anything.  And he didn't find out that he had shot Oswald until he was taken upstairs to the 5th floor and told. 

Now, think about this: You can see how good Ruby's memory was overall. He provided a lot of details; a lot of names; a lot of places; and a lot of other details. So, how could he be unaware that he shot Oswald? I am here to tell you that the reason why they had to tell him that he shot Oswald, the reason he didn't know it, is because he didn't do it. There is no other explanation.

And think about it from the police perspective. WHY WOULD THEY EVEN ASSUME THEY NEEDED TO TELL HIM? If he acted as though he didn't know, you'd think they'd respond with disbelief. With incredulity. Not with, "Well, you see, Jack, you shot Oswald; and that's why we dragged you up here." 

And remember that they went on to make wild claims about him talking trash, saying things like, "I hope the son of a bitch dies" and "I did you all a favor." If he didn't even know that he did it, how could he say those things? And note that he denied saying them. 

He did not have any kind of epilepsy, as his lawyer claimed. That was bogus. The doctors said it was bogus. They did an autopsy of his brain after his death and said he had no epilepsy. The reason he didn't know that he shot Oswald is because he didn't shoot him. 

And look what he said about the Dallas Police, even after they all testified against him in court and told lies about him.  

He still loved the Dallas Police. And they knew he loved them. And they knew that if they told him he shot Oswald, that he would believe them because he could never conceive of the Dallas Police, his friends, his buddies, his heroes, lying to him.

So, he denied going to Parkland, which I already mentioned, and he also denied gun-running to Cuba. He said he had the idea of selling surplus jeeps to Cuba, but a lawyer talked him out of it.

John Armstrong makes a very big deal out of Jack Ruby being a gun-runner to Cuba, and I understand that there is this thing that people do called LYING. So yes, it's possible that Jack Ruby lied here. But, on the other hand, I think his denials call for looking at the claims and stories about this with some reservation and circumspection, because it's entirely possible that it's the others who lied- not him. 

He admitted going to Cuba in 1959 to visit LC McWhitters, a friend of his, who paid for his trip. I have not been able to find out anything about LC McWhitters. 

And that's it. Repeatedly, Ruby pointed out that he offered to take a lie detector test or ingest truth serum. How many people make such an offer? How many people who are lying make such an offer? It is my belief that Jack Ruby was truthful. It is also my belief that he was a very decent human being, who had his faults and failings, but was fundamentally good. I really mean it. 

And, he did not shoot Oswald. He was told that he did, and he came to believe it because of his faith in the ones telling him: the Dallas Police: his heroes. But, I am telling you, with great conviction, that those police heroes of his killed Oswald, and Jack Ruby was their unwitting patsy. 

And if you refuse to believe it, it's only because you are trapped in the delusion of Americana, the belief that something that bad couldn't happen in America. 

Here's the link: 



No comments:

Post a Comment

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