Saturday, February 24, 2018

THE CASE FOR RUBY INNOCENCE: The evidence and the reasons why Jack Ruby could not have shot Lee Harvey Oswald are numerous. Look how many there are.  

1) There is irreconcilable conflict between the images of Jack Ruby and those of the Garage Shooter. They simply do not match. The shooter was shorter, stockier, had a shorter neck, longer thicker hair, a rounder face, and more. And it is something that was plainly visible to investigators at the time. It was also plainly visible to Ruby's lawyers and to his family. I could add that it was also plainly visible to Ruby himself, but Ruby was not of sound mind. His lawyers were correct about that, although not on the basis that they claimed. They claimed he was insane for having shot Oswald and not remembering it, when actually, he was insane for accepting that he shot Oswald just because Dallas Police told him he did. 

2) The behavior of Dallas Police in response to the shooting was clearly devious and wrong. The very idea that they would move a lethally violent offender to another location without first handcuffing him is inexplicable and inexcusable. The very idea that Dallas Police knew to do that without any verbal order being given, where they all knew exactly which door they were going through, proves that it was pre-arranged. And supposedly, as soon as they got through the door, several detectives simultaneously got the idea to cuff Ruby, but why did none of them get the idea in the garage? It can't be rationalized, explained, or justified. 

3) The clear fact is that the Dallas detectives lied, starting with Jim Leavelle, who claimed to see the shooter in advance, to recognize him as Jack Ruby, to see his gun, and to take evasive action, including trying to protect Oswald by yanking him behind him and shoving on "Ruby" all of which never happened. Graves lied about riding in the ambulance. Combest lied about Oswald being conscious and communicative (non-verbally) in the jail office. And, there were plenty more lies.  

4) There is undeniable/unmistakable photographic fraud in the photographic record of the Oswald shooting. And that includes, most especially, the famous Jackson photo which is a photographic monstrosity. The claim that the Beers photo and the Jackson photo were taken .6 second apart is clearly a lie. The fact is that the details of the Beers photo and the Jackson photo cannot be rectified- including who is in them. And, the Jackson photo cannot be confirmed by comparison to any of the many films that exist. The exact situation and arrangement of the Jackson photo never occurs during the televised spectacle. The Jackson photo is obviously its own staged event. 

5) There is no evidence for, nor is there any basis to believe, that Jack Ruby lied- about anything. Yet, there is no correlation between what he described at the time he entered the Main Street ramp and what others claimed, including Lt. Pierce and Officer Vaughan. And that points to Ruby having gotten there earlier and had his own incident in the garage with police, separate from and prior to the televised spectacle. 

6) The fact that Dallas police and federal law enforcement officers kept Ruby in his underwear for hours suggests a form of psychological intimidation and control.

7) The fact that Dallas Police claimed that Jack Ruby's underwear was changed- as part of his being processed as a prisoner- is both a laughing stock and an outrage. He was kept at the Dallas City Jail for less than 24 hours, and the idea that they would have had the need to replace his underwear is preposterous. That claim was made to rationalize the fact that the shooter in the Beers photo is obviously wearing light socks, whereas Ruby in his mug shot, is wearing jet-black socks. Hence, "1 set underwear" was squeezed into the property invoice after it was made.

8) There is also clear evidence of fraudulence in the photographic record of Jack Ruby prior to the shooting, including false images of him at the DPD on Friday afternoon and at the Midnight Press Conference on Friday evening. 

9)  There is strong photographic evidence that images of the Garage Shooter are a match to FBI agent James Bookhout. Plus, the fact is that Bookhout had no "alibi" for the shooting. His claim that he chose to remain in Fritz' office doing nothing rather than go down watch the jail transfer is not credible, as he was someone who followed Oswald everywhere. He was like Oswald's shadow.  

10) The case against Jack Ruby depends upon accepting that Ruby evaded Officer Roy Vaughan to enter the ramp, and that is not realistic, practical, or credible. Roy Vaughan was a 29 year old police officer at the time, and he went to his grave denying that Ruby ever got past him- and there is no reason to doubt him. Yet, there is also no reason not to believe Ruby who said that he got in that way. Ipso facto, the only logical conclusion, the only thing that makes sense is to conclude that Ruby was there at the ramp and got in that way but at a different time-BEFORE Roy Vaughan was assigned the task of guarding the ramp.

11) The very fact that Dallas Police were aware of grave threats to Oswald put the onus on them to move him to the County Jail discretely, without fanfare or announcement- in the dead of the night. The fact that they didn't do that is inexcusable and unforgivable.

12) Although Dallas DA Henry Wade won a conviction and the death penalty for Ruby on the basis that he shot Oswald with premeditation, over time, the case made by Ruby's lawyers that Ruby had no awareness of shooting Oswald, has largely been accepted. As early as 1978, a tv movie which starred and was overseen by Jim Leavelle, made the case that Ruby shot Oswald without being conscious or aware of what he was doing. But, there is no basis to think that such a mental lapse was possible since Ruby remembered so many other things perfectly well. 

13) False Ruby sightings are about as pervasive and numerous as false Oswald sightings. And some of them are utterly preposterous, such as the idea that Ruby watched the motorcade from the corner of Commerce and Houston, across the street from the Postal Annex. Many witnesses, besides Ruby himself, placed Ruby inside the Dallas Morning News building, tending to his ads, at the time of the motorcade. That element is rock-solid and unassailable. Yet, the story of him watching the motorcade in DP with an acquaintance and referring in advance to "watching the fireworks" was given traction by the U.S. media as late as 2017. It was deliberate misdirection and myth-making, and the order to do it must have come from up high since the media covered it so well. And note that this is the same media that repeatedly and frequently mocks "conspiracy theorists" as mental cases.

14) False stories about Ruby's past are also numerous: that he was a gangster, that he was a gun-runner, that he was a pimp and dope peddler; that he did murders for hire; that he threw a woman down a flight of stairs two weeks before the assassination; etc. And yet, this wanton criminal adored the Dallas Police. (which is true)

15) There is no way that Ruby could have known that the jail transfer of Oswald was postponed after it was scheduled for 10:00. There is no way he could have been told or found out. Ruby denied having any expectation of seeing Oswald- let alone shooting him- when he walked down the ramp, and there is no reason to doubt him. And the idea that he did it by sudden impulse makes no sense when you consider that he had no such impulse Friday evening. 

16) The idea that Ruby would go from sending a $25 money order to an employee to shooting Oswald, that his mind could go from one to the other in scant minutes is preposterous. That segue- of sending Western Union money to committing murder- makes no sense. Why would he do the former if he knew that he would be utterly and completely and forever destroying his life with the latter? 

17) Why would Jack Ruby, if he had any intention of shooting Oswald within a nest of police, bring his beloved dog Sheba along, leaving her in his car, if he knew he was never going back to his car?

18) There is compelling evidence that Oswald was not shot in the garage, that it was a hoax, a ruse. And that automatically exonerates Jack Ruby. 

19) It is preposterous that the film record of the aftermath of the shooting includes no images- nor any glimpse- of Oswald being moved into the jail office. It is simply unbelievable that every movie camera missed that. 

20) It is preposterous to think that despite an Olympian effort by Dallas Police to secure the garage in the face of threats to Oswald, that Jack Ruby penetrated their fortress and got to Oswald: outwitting them and outsmarting them. That is ludicrous. 

I will quit at 20 since it's a round number, but this list is by no mean exhaustive. There are more reasons why Jack Ruby could not have shot Lee Harvey Oswald. He most certainly did not shoot him. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

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