Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Amy Joyce has been very helpful to me in tracking down that Letter to Caroline that Jack Ruby read on Sunday morning. She found this from the book: The JFK assassination: Political Trauma and American Memory by Alice L George.

 Why, after 54 years, can we not find this letter? But first, let me point out that it was supposed to have moved Jack Ruby to tears. But, what about that is so moving? "You will cry." He had to tell Caroline that? "You will miss him." We are supposed to break down from reading that? "You will be lonely for him." Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. That isn't even good writing. It's maudlin. If that's all this guy could come up with, why would Caroline need to hear that from him, a stranger? It isn't eloquent, and it isn't anything that everybody, including Jack Ruby, didn't already know. So, why would Jack Ruby be so affected by it?

I just did a Google search for: Letter to Caroline, No one can erase this day. You will cry. You will miss him. You will be lonely for him. And guess what I got: Nothing. So, this letter that moved Jack Ruby to tears, enough to drive him to shoot Oswald, is apparently something that moved no one else. And notice that Ms. George above didn't even bother to cite the man's name. 

So, where does this leave us? I'll tell you where it leaves me. It leaves me thinking that this was a Jack Ruby-specific thing, that the plotters were thinking ahead to providing an explanation for what drove him to do it. So, they came up with this. It was put into the paper FOR Jack Ruby.  I wonder if his roommate George Senator brought his attention to it. If he did, then I say Senator was in on it. And even if he didn't, he may have been in on it. But, if he did, then he was definitely in on it. 

And the same goes for the ridiculous article about Jackie and LBJ having to come back to Dallas to testify. Why them? And if them, then why not Connally? Why not Nellie? Why not Yarborough? He was in the same car as LBJ. Don't Senators count? But, what could any of them say about Oswald being the culprit? Even if they saw someone up on the 6th floor, Oswald's defense was going to be that he wasn't up there. And his lawyer would have entered the Altgens photo into evidence to prove that Oswald was standing in the doorway when he was supposedly up on the 6th floor. 

The only thing that any of these witnesses could have done is aided the defense. What if for instance, Carolyn in being questioned, said that it seemed like the shot came from the Grassy Knoll? That would have exonerated Oswald. But, even if she said she thought the shots all came from the 6th floor window, it would not have hurt Oswald  because he wasn't up there, and his lawyers would have had no trouble proving it. So, Caroline may have been able to help Oswald, but there was NO CHANCE she could have hurt him. And for that very reason, there was NO WAY the prosecution would have called her. So, it was a complete bull shit article, which I also think was Jack Ruby-specific. It was put there to flesh out Ruby shooting Oswald. And Ruby's lawyer Joe Tonahill told him to say it. And Joe Tonahill was never hired by Ruby; he was assigned by Judge Joe Brown to defend Ruby. So, he was like a public defender- a public defender who had a long meeting with Capt. Will Fritz late on Saturday, November 23. Then, of course, Tonahill just happened to be there the next day for the big event, and he was all ready to step in to defend Ruby. Isn't that convenient. 

Jack Ruby was not in good shape financially. It's very likely he had a negative net worth- more debt than assets. He owned no real estate. I've never heard it said that he owned stocks and bonds. He handled a lot of cash, but he owed a lot of money. He owed money to the IRS. He owed money to his business partner Ralph Paul. And I mean thousands of dollars in 1963 money. And I'm sure he had other debts as well. Hence, his need for a public defender. 

Today, public defenders work directly for the state. Back then, if you were a defense attorney, the court would assign you to do so much public defender work. But in Ruby's case, Tonahill got assigned because Tonahill volunteered. I do have to wonder who Tonahill was really working for. 

Anyway, the bottom line is that I think the "Letter to Caroline" was a Jack Ruby-specific thing.  And since there was no need for it after he got arrested, it just disappeared. And you know why: because it stinks. And Ruby was moved to tears? You will miss him, Caroline. Gets me every time.  


No comments:

Post a Comment

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