I have been dwelling on Jack Ruby's innocence for so long that my starting thesis, that Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, seems old hat. It seems like it's been so well established and so well covered that it's as secure as any accepted element of the case. There is no doubt that among Oswald defenders- those who say he was innocent of shooting anyone- that more of them place him in the doorway at 12:30 than anywhere else.
So, why didn't those goofy lawyers, Schnapf and Simpleton, use it in Houston? The short answer is that within the "community" there is respectable way to be an Oswald defender. And when I say respectable, I mean that you are treated well, even by the other side. It's considered civilized if you just harp on disputing the Single Bullet Theory and stuff like that and don't try to give Oswald an alibi and certainly don't place him in the doorway, which is considered uncivilized. An example of a civilized Oswald defender would be Tink Thompson, who got help from CBS when he wrote his book, and who gets featured on programs with lone-nutters, in which they all get along fine. Another example is Attorney Robert Tannenbaum, and, Tink Thompson was advising him at the mock trial- like his coach- and Tannenbaum announced it at the trial. And it's weird, don't you think? Because, usually you have a lawyer advising a non-lawyer, but there, it was opposite. But, Tannenbaum has been opposed to Oswald in the doorway for a very long time. He denounced it in his 1967 book in which he said that CBS talked to Lovelady, and they assured him that Lovelady said he was the Man in the doorway. But, that was at the same time that CBS was doing its legendary 4 hour television special on the JFK assassination, in which they had a whole segment devoted to the Doorman controversy. But, after paying to get Lovelady there and photographing him, and doing a lot else, they decided to ditch the whole thing: lock, stock, and barrel.
And note that Tannenbaum isn't really an Oswald defender at all, and he admits it. He doesn't even like Oswald. He's really just a JFK disputer. But, he and Tink are considered to be respectable opposition. So, even though there were 3 lawyers there supposedly defending Oswald, none of them put forward his alibi for the murder, which was that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. And there is no place else he could have been.
But even though in mainstream circles and in what are considered to be polite, respectable debates, Oswald in the doorway is still considered persona non grata, nevertheless, among the rank and file Oswald defenders, it now has the most support, and no other location comes close. So, enormous progress has been made, despite the lingering aura of it being politically incorrect.
And, it is absolutely certain now that it will never recede into obscurity again. The whole timeworn argument that "it was settled back in the 60s and 70s in two government investigations" means nothing because one of those investigations was the Warren Commission, and the other was the HSCA, which was every bit as corrupt and bad. And, the operative word in that statement is "government." Government investigations protect the government: first, last, and always. And, since the corollary to Oswald being in the doorway, is that THE GOVERNMENT KILLED KENNEDY, it's no wonder that a government investigation will always decide against Oswald in the doorway.
So, Oswald's innocence based on his presence in the doorway is now well-established - despite the fact that it still is considered unsuitable for polite company. But, just think about who tells you that it's unsuitable for polite company, and you'll realize that it's no one you respect, and you're better off with the impolite company.
But, in contrast, Jack Ruby's innocence based on the fact that he was not in the garage during the televised spectacle, that that was another man, is admittedly not well-established and it is beyond impolite. But, I maintain that the fact of Jack Ruby's innocence is now just as well established- by the evidence- as the fact of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence. And both are supported by strong photographic evidence and many other things.
And I admit that there are many Oswald defenders who are at the same time Jack Ruby accusers. And there were some great men among these Oswald defenders who unfortunately passed on before they acquired even an inkling of awareness that Jack Ruby was innocent. And they got help to think that way from mainstream sources that have continually spread untrue rumors about Jack Ruby: that he was a drug pusher (he was a drug taker but not a pusher), a pimp, a gun runner, a Mafia hit man, etc. About as many lies have been told about Jack Ruby as have been told about Oswald. I heard one about Oswald the other day that floored me. It quoted Oswald as saying "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." That wasn't said by Lee Harvey Oswald. It was said by Wayne Gretsky, the hockey player, and he was talking about hockey. The very notion that Oswald would have said such a thing is preposterous.
So, until quite recently, the Establishment has a safety valve to protect the truth about Jack Ruby from being exposed, and that is the stories that he was in deep with the Mob, that his killing of Oswald was Mob hit, that he was ordered to do it- or else. And many continue to brandish the claim that Jack Ruby was a participant in the JFK assassination. BUT, PEOPLE NEED TO REALIZE THAT FALSE RUBY SIGHTINGS ARE JUST AS NUMEROUS AND WIDESPREAD AS FALSE OSWALD SIGHTINGS.
But, the point is that we are a lot farther back with Ruby than we are with Oswald- and I admit that. But, on the other hand, the realization that Jack Ruby was innocent carries an even heavier payload. What it does is cast the whole assassination plot in an even darker more evil, more Machiavellian, and satanic light than the JFK assassination has by itself. In a way, the JFK assassination is very straight-forward, in comparison to the Oswald assassination. As frightful as the JFK assassination is, with them blowing up JFK's head right while he sat next to his wife in the car, it's not nearly as scary and disturbing as what they did to Oswald and what they did to Jack Ruby. It's like a whole magnitude higher in terms of the depth of the lies and the depth of the photographic manipulations. And it involved real protracted acting, particularly by Dallas detectives who became actors.
It's ironic that after framing poor, hapless, confused Jack Ruby and convincing him that he shot Oswald, that they proceeded to order their student doctor to perform a rectal exam on him. I am reminded of the dialogue in No Country For Old Men when the store clerk, whose chit-chat irritated the sociopath, Anton Chigurh. And when the clerk said, "I don't know how to take that" Chigugh responded with, "Yes, you do, and you've been taking it your whole life."
Well, I can't say that Jack Ruby took it his whole life, and I don't know the exact point in his life that he became a sacrificial lamb. But, what I do know is that they set him up because they were 100% positive that if Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald that he would believe them- even though he didn't do it. How deranged do you have to be to put someone else's declarations ahead of your own experience and memory when it comes to whether you shot somebody? What they did to Jack Ruby they could not do to the vast majority of people, and I mean well over 99.99%. It's awfully damn hard to convince a person that he shot someone if he didn't. But, they NEVER would have done it the way they did without knowing that Jack Ruby's mind was in their control. Jack Ruby WAS the Manchurian candidate subject, but not as an assassin, rather as the non-assassin willing to take the blame. Jack Ruby was deranged- his lawyers weren't wrong about that. And the Dallas Police knew that he was deranged, and that THEY were his Queen of Hearts. Do you really think this deranged man outsmarted them? That he prevailed over all their unprecedented high security to protect Oswald? That he got the better of them? That he made fools of them? That he made a fool of Officer Roy Vaughan? You believe that, do you? Or conversely, do you believe that the Dallas Police were working WITH Jack Ruby, that they were colluding, and that as messed up as Ruby was mentally, that they were content for him to have and use a loaded gun and shoot it within inches of them? You think that they, the Dallas Police, were going to trust Jack Ruby to shoot a gun in a crowded, cop-filled cubbyhole? What could possibly go wrong, eh?