But, notwithstanding that, the early researchers still had the means at their disposal to figure out the truth about Jack Ruby, that he was innocent. But, none of them did, and none of them even got close. In fact, the ways they pursued an alternative story for the Oswald shooting was to imagine that Jack Ruby was involved in the JFK assassination and that he knew Oswald, and that rather being another lone gunman, he was forced to shooting Oswald, either by the CIA or the Mafia. But, it is a very ridiculous idea. The only way it would have been workable is if the plan was to involve killing Ruby right after he killed Oswald. But, that didn't happen, and there is no evidence that any such plan existed. But, without it, they would have been at the mercy of Ruby- not to sing like a canary. He lived for 3 years, and the idea that he could have been trusted to keep his mouth shut all that time is ridiculous.
But they- the researchers, Ruby's lawyers and Ruby's family had the means right in front of their noses to discover that Jack Ruby was innocent- despite his willingness to accept that he shot Oswald. And by that, I mean that they had the Jackson and Beers photos right in front of their noses, and if they had looked at them closely and critically, they could have/would have seen that the Garage Shooter was not Ruby, that he simply does not conform to the physicality of Jack Ruby in many aspects.
Look how short and thick the shooter's neck was on the left. Ruby's neck, on the right, was longer and narrower. There is just no way they could be the same man, and they had these pictures back then, and they were about as accessible as they are today.
The plotters did all they could to keep the Shooter's face out of view, but we still have enough visual data to see that he was not Jack Ruby.
So, why didn't Ruby's defenders look at the photos? Why didn't they look at the films? Why didn't they ask: "Is that really Jack Ruby?"
We know from the science of Ophthalmology that we don't "see" everything that is in our visual field. There's plenty that's there, right in front of our eyes, that does not register on the brain. And until something registers on the brain, it isn't "seen." If you look at the photo with the assumption, the pre-determined conclusion, that the guy is Jack Ruby, then you won't see that he isn't. The fixed thought will literally block your vision. And in the case of Ruby's lawyers, they never examined the photos, period. They looked at them with brainwashed minds, which is to say, they never looked at them at all.
Ruby's lawyers accepted the official story of the JFK assassination, just as much as they accepted the official story of the Oswald assassination, that Ruby did it. So, like good, dutiful Americans, they accepted the claim of Oswald's guilt and the claim of Ruby's guilt, both. They just qualified the latter, saying that Ruby didn't mean it, that he was in an altered mental state, in which he was acting without conscience or consciousness. And, what's eerie is that what they presented as his defense in 1963, which the State denied and fought, successfully, was presented as fact in the 1978 movie that starred Detective Jim Leavelle. They even had the actor playing Ruby twitching his mouth uncontrollably before he shot Oswald. Shades of "psychomotor epilepsy?"
I just don't know how Henry Wade won that trial. All Ruby's lawyers had to say was, "How could our client have planned to shoot Oswald when he showed up an hour and 20 minutes after the announced time of the jail transfer (with no way of knowing it was delayed) and with his dog in the car, indicating that he had ever expectation of returning to her. And yet, the jury convicted Ruby of first degree murder? Unbelievable.
What made the early researchers miss this is: psychology; their psychology. They just couldn't go to a mental place in which the Dallas Police were as as murderously corrupt as they were. Like Ruby himself, they respected the Dallas Police too much. It was the disease of "Americana" the belief that things like that CAN'T happen in the United States of America because we are a nation of laws, that there is order here, that violence and chaos are the exception, not the rule. But, it's a lie and a myth.
I recently watched a film review of the movie No Country For Old Men by the Coen brothers. I generally think highly of the production values of the movie, except that I did NOT like the ending. But, in the review, the ending was explained by saying that the reign of terror of Anton Chigurh was meant to snap us out of our delusion that the world is mostly safe and orderly and predictable and under control. But, people want to believe that it is under control. And who represents that control more than the police? The Jack Ruby trial was held in a courtroom, where the men were dressed in suits, and women were nicely dressed. There were procedures and rules being followed. It was civilized, as normal life and the normal world are civilized. And because the normal world is civilized, you can't question the motives and actions of a whole police department, like the Dallas Police Department.
It was said that the Coen Brothers, in their movie, were trying to throw us off-balance- to make us stop thinking that we are in balance. Well, that was fiction, but what happened to Jack Ruby at the hands of the Dallas Police, with help from federal law enforcement, was very real. And that's why what happened to Jack Ruby is MUCH more scary and frightening than No Country For Old Men.