Monday, July 16, 2018

Juliette de la Bretoniere To talk to Jack Ruby for how many hours, must have been an ordeal for Earl Warren, yet he remained calm and patient with him. Had to read his testimony several times because Ruby kept on talking on and on irrelevantly, indeed without any self-restriction, but without bounderies instead. Warren conversed with him as if Ruby was a child and I agree with you Ralph, it was the only way to talk to him and the wisest.
I believe Ruby didn’t even realise how depressed he was and how much he relied on other people’s acceptances. Like he suffered from an inferiority complex or something.... Have you read about his urge to buy sandwiches and hand them out to the authorities? I mean, it’s nice and thoughtful, but this behaviour is also a bit strange..
Manage
Reply1h
Ralph Cinque Ruby was constantly looking for approval from the Dallas Police. He didn't have a vicious bone in his body. If you think about how you expect a killer to act and talk, Ruby was the opposite. And he was so honest that he couldn't filter anything. His mind just roamed wherever it wanted; he couldn't stay on point. He was extremely submissive. Anytime anyone in authority corrected him he accepted it. He never challenged anyone. And he was kind. His kindness ran deep. Do you think the Dallas Police ever had a more cooperative prisoner? I doubt it. People need to forget about the Jack Ruby of lore and just look at the Jack Ruby that there was. He was harmless.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Jack Ruby requested a polygraph test. I think that that establishes beyond  any doubt, that he had no intention of lying. And he said in the test and passed in saying it that he did not know Oswald and did not see him before 11/22/63. That makes all the claims about Ruby knowing Oswald and conspiring with him completely and totally bogus.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Anybody can lie, on occasion, and I'm sure that everybody, or nearly everybody does. But, to lie for three years? About everything in your life, about everything that you are? You think Jack Ruby did that? To cover up his real identity as a conspirator in the JFK assassination, and as having known Oswald, and some say since Oswald was a teenager? To lie about all that for three years? To his family? To his friends? To his lawyers? To the Warren Commission? To the public? For three solid years?

Let me tell you something: that would take not just a liar, but an actor. Jack Ruby would have had to have been an actor- an Oscar-caliber actor. 

And his family had to know the truth about him, so I guess all of them were lying too. And lawyers, whom you might say are professional liars, are excellent at detecting liars. And yet, Ruby effectively fooled them too? 

You would have to be a very naive and foolish person to believe that. And all the indications are just the opposite, that Jack Ruby was scrupulously honest. Do you understand that he pleaded with the Warren Commissioners to give him a lie detector test or truth serum? That's right: he offered to take truth serum. So, I guess you think he figured he could lie his way through truth serum. And, guess what: you DO figure that he DID lie his way through a polygraph test because he was given one. And these were the first two questions:

   Question. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?
         Answer. No. (16)
         Question. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?
         Answer. No. (17)


The truth is that what really happened to Jack Ruby is the most Machiavellian story of all time. They deceived him about what he did and didn't do, while at the same time, they deceived everybody else- the public at large, the whole world- about what happened on November 24, 1963. It was all a lie; all an act. Call it the greatest deception of all time. I do. It is unbelievable; the size of it; the depth of it; the scope of it. It was so effective that it led researchers to go in exactly the wrong direction; to start thinking that Ruby was MORE guilty when in fact, he wasn't guilty at all. They had him not only killing Oswald, but being involved in killing Kennedy- and others. It really is incredible what they did. They created a whole false identity for Ruby, a false life, in which he was a killer, a Mafioso, a gun-runner, etc.  They have controlled people like marionettes- not only in believing the official story, but in how they went about disputing it- if that was their penchant. Who do you think started the rumors about Ruby being a gangster? It came from the same people who said he killed Oswald. And what we saw happen last year- with that ridiculous story about him "watching the fireworks in Dealey Plaza" which was published far and wide in the mainstream media, was a classic case of "baiting and battering the buffs." Don't you see that they are controlling everybody? The people who accept the official story as well as those who don't? 

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was bamboozled into thinking that he killed Oswald. He never admitted doing it; he merely accepted that he did it. And he accepted it because his beloved Dallas Police told him that he did it. He had an almost pathological admiration for the Dallas Police. It was more like an adoration. He worshiped them. And I wonder sometimes if he was trained, that is, programmed to be that way. I've said before that he was MK-ULTRA, that he was a Manchurian candidate. Do you remember in the movie The Manchurian Candidate that the soldiers would wake up in a sweat and start saying, "Raymond Shaw is the most nicest, the kindest, the most wonderful human being who ever lived." So, was Ruby put under hypnotic and drug influence and told, "The Dallas Police are the greatest men who ever lived" ?????

Jack Ruby was innocent. He didn't kill Oswald, and he didn't have it in him to kill Oswald. He was completely and totally out of it mentally, and they knew that about him. This is the most dastardly thing I can think of. I don't know that it gets any worse than this. What they did to him: they stole his life, and they stole his very mind. What they turned him into- it would have been easier on him if they had just killed him on November 24, 1963.  

Monday, July 9, 2018

Really, it amazes me that anybody believes that Jack Ruby was capable to doing the things he is purported to have done, such as being a hit man. That's right. According to some, Oswald wasn't the first person that Ruby killed. On the contrary, he was a regular Mafia hit man, according to some. He was also a pimp and someone who often beat people up. His favorite thing to do was to throw them down stairs. He even threw them down his own stairs- when he was trying to get rid of them. Seems like a contradiction to me, but what do I know. Ruby was also purportedly a drug runner, a gun runner, and a guy who regularly abused women. 

You don't have to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist to know that violent acts are committed by those with violent personalities.  Jack Ruby lived in custody for three years, and we got to see a lot of him and hear quite a bit from him. He testified directly to the Warren Commissioners. He wrote letters which became public. And we have enough of Jack Ruby's words and his behavior and reactions over those three years to get a sense about how violent a nature he had.  

He did a long interview with Dorothy Kilgallen, and even though we know nothing about what he told her,  her reaction was like a thunderbolt- like she learned something about him which changed everything. And, I assure you that it wasn't that he was working with Johnson or Nixon or anything like that. It would be very foolish to think that Jack Ruby changed his story to Dorothy Kilgallen. I'm sure it had to do with HIM- that he wasn't the person being depicted by the press.   

And what I gather from it is that he did not have a violent nature at all. The fierce temper that he was supposed to have- it didn't exist. The maddest I ever saw Ruby get was when he erupted at his attorney who was trying to tell the judge not to allow Ruby to speak because he was out of his mind. Lo and behold, Ruby didn't like that. Would you? He told his lawyer, in so many words, to shut up, but he was barely rankled.    

It was the maddest I ever saw him get, but on the scale of anger, I would say it was about 10% as mad as I am capable of getting. From observing him and knowing myself, I would say that I am 10X more hot-headed than Jack Ruby. Seriously. If I feel I have been wronged or mistreated, I can get plenty mad. It doesn't translate into physical violence. I would NEVER initiate violence against anyone- no matter how mad I got. I took an oath when I became a doctor- to do no harm. It was handed down by Hippocrates, and it is the first principle of Medicine. 

So, I would never hit anybody- unless I had to defend myself or another from someone who became violent- where he started it. But still, it is undeniably true that one can emanate a violent energy just with words.  A voice can seem violent even if the words don't threaten physical harm. If one is explosive, if one bursts into anger at the slightest provocation, it can seem violent. 

And one would expect that a person who regularly committed acts of physical violence, as Jack Ruby was purported to,  would display a violent disposition- all the time, or at least frequently.

But, for the whole three years, Jack Ruby was never that way. When did he ever lose control? When did he ever show fierceness? When did he ever show combativeness? And I'll plainly admit that I am VERY combative in my disposition.  Again, I have a firewall of prohibition to being physically violent, but that would fall apart quickly if the other guy got violent with me.  But, the point is that we can look at Jack Ruby over the last three years of his life and get a feeling from his words, his responsiveness, his body language, his gestures, and even his facial expressions about how far down the spectrum of violence he was, and I have to say that he was in the lowest percentile. I've known plenty of women in my life with a greater penchant for anger and violence than Jack Ruby had.  

And that's why I don't believe these stories about him throwing people down stairs and beating women and beating men. I look at him, and I see someone who was very non-aggressive. Even in court, when policemen were testifying against him, and saying terrible things about him, he never reacted with anger, bitterness, or contempt. He retained his admiration, his hero-worship, of the Dallas Police until his last breath. He never put up resistance to them. He was not aggressive. He was never bitter. He was never even irate. The idea that he was this monster of abuse, a psychopath or sociopath, is ridiculous. He was nothing like that.  He was fundamentally a very nice guy, in some ways childlike, and not at all like the Jack Ruby of legend. 

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Just recently, it dawned on me that they brought Attorney Louis Nichols in on Saturday precisely because of what Oswald said to the world at the Midnight Press Conference, that Dallas Police were denying him a lawyer, that he complained to the judge about it, and then he asked for someone to come forward to give him legal assistance. 

So, they felt that they had to respond to that, and that's what Nichols was for. 

I don't know who Nichols spent two minutes with, but I don't believe it was with Oswald. And that's because: Oswald wasn't stupid. He would have known that any lawyer was better than no lawyer, and that if he started with a Texas lawyer that Abt could join the team later. Considering how impassioned he was about wanting a lawyer the night before, why would he turn one down a few hours later? It's ridiculous.

And compare it to Ruby. Ruby never asked for a lawyer. Ruby never asked for anything. But, the Dallas Police immediately got him a lawyer: Tom Howard. why Why WHY did the Dallas get a lawyer for Ruby but not Oswald? I'll tell you why. IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT OSWALD HAD PLENTY HE COULD TELL HIS LAWYER ABOUT HIS ALIBI AND ABOUT THE PHONY EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. BUT, RUBY HAD NOTHING HE COULD TELL HIS LAWYER. THEY KNEW THAT RUBY WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. 

Ruby was a blank. Do you get that? He wasn't sitting on any secrets.  He wouldn't know a secret if it cracked him in the skull with a two by four. Do you really think they would have provided him a lawyer if they knew he was sitting on all kinds of dirt: about the JFK murder; about Oswald; about the Mob; about the Dallas Police and his collaboration with them to kill Oswald? 

The very fact that the Dallas Police provided Jack Ruby a lawyer should tell you that he didn't know anything.  Not a damn thing. He had NOTHING he could tell his lawyer. And it's not that they could trust him to keep his mouth shut.  It's that they knew he didn't know anything. They NEVER would have given him a lawyer if they knew he was sitting on a ton of revelations. The whole "Ruby was up to his neck in the conspiracy" theory is pure, unadulterated horse crap. 


Friday, July 6, 2018


Ralph Cinque The reason Ruby didn't deny it is because he was mentally deranged, and they knew he was mentally deranged. You need to answer this: Why didn't Ruby know he shot Oswald until Police told him he shot Oswald? The Police telling him that he did it is the only basis that he accepted it. He said he had no intention of shooting Oswald. He had no thought to do it. He had no memory of doing it. Their telling him was the only reason why he accepted it. He even titled his bio, "They Told Me I Shot Oswald."


Thursday, July 5, 2018

Do you realize how often stunt doubles are used in action movies? Try every single time. You have NEVER seen an action movie that did not include the use of stunt doubles. And yet, how many times have you watched an action movie and said, "That was a double!" For most people, the answer is: NOT EVEN ONCE. 

At the following link, you can see famous actors standing with their stunt doubles:

http://viraldroid.com/14-celebrities-stunt-doubles-will-blow-mind/

The Garage Shooter was a stunt double for Jack Ruby. It's as simple as that. Stop fighting it. 
I watched an old rerun of Law and Order today in which the detectives tell someone's defense attorney that they have his client in footage battering someone, and the attorney's response was:

"No. You have an unidentifiable man in footage battering someone."  

And that is exactly the situation with the garage footage. It isn't footage of Ruby shooting Oswald; it's footage of an unidentifiable man shooting Oswald.



There isn't enough visual data there to claim to know that that man is Jack Ruby. And when you start analyzing the small amount of visual data that is there, you realize that it can't be Ruby. He's too short to be Ruby. His neck is too short to be Ruby's. His hairline in back isn't the same as Ruby's. When you stop just assuming that he's Ruby and really try to confirm it, you run into a wall.

There is a reason why the Garage Shooter's face was never captured by any camera, and it's because he wasn't Jack Ruby. It's why they couldn't show his face. 
This says it all. Ruby wrote that he "got up early," but Wakefield wrote "Approximately 9:30". Doesn't everyone and his brother know that sleeping to 9:30 is not getting up early; it's sleeping in?  
Ruby didn't stay in bed to 9:30. He got up EARLY. So, why did Wakefield say 9:30? Because he was conforming to the official story, to arrive Ruby to the basement at 11:20. 

And look above that where Ruby said he went to bed at 1 AM on Saturday night. Now, that was early for him; he was a very short sleeper. He typically slept 3 to 5 hours. And he certainly didn't sleep 8 1/2 hours by staying in bed until 9:30.  

Ruby got to the basement much earlier than 11;20. It was between 9:45 and 10 AM. He was pounced upon, and he didn't know why. That's why he said, "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby. You know me." Why would he say that if he had just shot a man? Didn't he know that Police tend to frown on that kind of thing? Furthermore, you only have to watch to footage to realize that the Garage Shooter didn't say anything. You don't hear anything from him, and you don't see him talking. So obviously, it was a different event. 

Jack Ruby was completely innocent, and he was completely different from the Jack Ruby of lore. He wasn't violent. He wasn't a gangster. He never worked for Richard Nixon- that was another Jack Ruby. The whole official story about him is a lie. 

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Now, I'll try to piece together the exact time that Ruby was actually snared in the garage, which was prior to the televised spectacle. 

I'll start with the testimony of Dr. Fred Bieberdorf who said that the basement parking area was cleared by police at 9:45, that he and others were asked to leave.

Dr. BIEBERDORF. Okay, on page 3, the last paragraph, second sentence, "He stated he had no knowledge of security measures in effect in the basement on November 24, 1963, other than the fact that he was asked to remove himself from the basement, and he assumed only police officers and press men were allowed to remain." I think that sentence ought to be deleted and changed to something like: "I was asked to remove myself from the basement parking area at--prior to Oswald's being moved, and was told by police officers at that time that only police personnel were being allowed in the area, and I, of course, later saw that press men were able to gain access to the area by presenting their credentials."
And that is, I think, the only correction.
Mr. HUBERT. About what time did you move from the first aid----
Dr. BIEBERDORF. 9:45. It states that earlier in here. States that on the first page.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you remain in the position indicated by you on the chart, which has been identified as Exhibit 5124, all that while? In other words, you were told by the police to leave the----
Dr. BIEBERDORF. To leave the parking area, and I left there, and at the time of the shooting I was at that particular spot.
Mr. HUBERT. That is to say, the spot that----
Dr. BIEBERDORF. That I marked on that you have marked the No. 5124.
Mr. HUBERT. Between the time that you left and the time of the shooting, where were you?

Dr. BIEBERDORF. I was, the majority of the time, down at the subbasement in the locker room. I was no closer to the spot that Oswald was shot--at which Oswald was shot than I was at the time of the shooting, and no time was I--well, with the exception of crossing through about 9:45.

So, the Bieb crossed through at 9:45 to get out because he was ordered to get out. Now, let's go to the testimony of Officer Roy Vaughn.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, about what time did he assign you to the Main Street entrance?
Mr. VAUGHN. I would say, Mr. Hubert, somewhere around 9:30--I couldn't be definite. 


Notice that there are two dispensations there. He didn't say "at 9:30"; he said "around 9:30".  And it certainly wasn't earlier than 9:30 because he said that at 9:00, he was somewhere else in Dallas, and he got a call to report to Lt. Pierce at City Hall. So, he drove from wherever he was, parked, proceeded to the patrol dispatch room; stood around drinking coffee and talking with others until Pierce got there (and you know how long that kind of thing can go on) and then Pierce got there and sent him to the basement where he was ordered by Sergeant Putnam to guard the Main Street ramp.  So, if it wasn't "at" 9:30, it had to be later. And then he added that he couldn't be definite. So, that's two dispensations, two exemptions from being held to that time. 

Time just slips away when you're sitting or standing around with others drinking coffee and chewing the cud. So, that easily could have been 10:00. 

Now let's look at Ruby's own story, as written by him and a Hollywood scriptwriter, the guy who created the tv show Mission Impossible. Look at the title of it. 



They Told Me I Shot Oswald. They Told Me I Shot Oswald. That's the only way Ruby knew. He had no awareness of doing it. He had no memory of doing it. They took him up to the 5th floor, and they told him that he did it. And that's it. That is the totality of his mental process in thinking and accepting that he had done it. 

Here is what he wrote about Sunday morning:



So, he had doubled his dose 4 or 5 days before. Why? And that morning he also took some other tablets. Why? Did someone put him up to it? What were the tablets?

Note that above where he wrote "I was up early" there was a subheading which said "Approximately 9:30". Do you consider rising at 9:30 to be getting up early? Because most people, including me, would call it sleeping in. 

So, who wrote that heading? It wasn't Ruby. It had to be Wakefield, the script writer. 

Then Little Lynn called, but be aware that she had called Ruby the night before, Saturday, lamenting her money woes. So, was it established then that Ruby would go to Western Union the next morning? Obviously, that's not part of the story. 

In his report, Ruby said that he was driving to Western Union when he passed the County Jail and saw all the people gathered. Then, he glanced at a clock and saw that it was a little past 11. But wait. What clock? He's in a car. Was there a clock in the car? This was pre-digital. Today, cars have clocks- digital ones. But, you can't tell me there was a clock built into his car back then. And if he meant his watch, he'd have said so.  Besides, there was no watch in the inventory of Ruby's possessions. So, what the hell was this referring to? Did they have a watch tower like in Back to the Future? It's just script writing. It was just Wakefield trying to insert the official narrative into Ruby's story. 

It said that he went to view the wreaths on Elm Street, but did he? Ruby did that on Saturday morning. He got out; he went and read every card; he talked to a police officer; who pointed out where the shots came from. All that happened Saturday morning. So, would he go back on Sunday? Amy Joyce was the first to suspect that he didn't go to the wreaths on Sunday, and I agree with her. It's just another thing added to the story to kill time so as to put off Ruby getting to the garage until the time of the televised spectacle. 

And keep in mind that Ruby was extremely submissive about anything and everything. If someone corrected him, he accepted it; always. 

Ruby said he got up early. To most people that would mean before 8. But, let's say 8. He perused the newspaper. He had Rabbi Seligman on the tv. He had some breakfast. Karen called. And then he left. I see him having no trouble getting out of there by 9 if he arose early at 8. And then he drove down to Western Union; forget the wreaths. It wasn't that far; a couple miles. He's there by 9:15. He's out of there by 9:30. Did Doyle Lane, the WU rep, say something to him, like, "You ought to go down and see what's happening at the ramp." If Ruby was on scopolamine, that is all it would have taken to get him to do it. He walks down to the ramp. He lingers a little. Then somebody gives him a head gesture, points, and says, "Go on down. Check it out." Again, that's all it would have taken if he was on scopolamine.  So, by 9:45 or soon thereafter, he's down there. He gets. pounced upon and hustled up to the 5th floor. Then, Vaughn gets there and is told to guard the Main Street ramp. It is still before 10 AM.

So why, if that scenario is true, would they wait until 11:20 to stage the shooting? 

First, the press still had to get ready in the garage; assemble there; get their cameras in place; their lights; and that takes time. 

Second, they wanted to give Vaughn a sizable stretch of time to be guarding the ramp. If they did it immediately, others might have wondered if Ruby came before Vaughn. But, by giving Vaughn a good long stint there, it curtailed any such thinking. 

Third, they may have felt that there would be a larger television audience at that time. After all, it was two hours earlier on the west coast.

Plus, Bookhout had to get in position so that he could slip in because he couldn't come down the ramp past Vaughn either. 

The time of Ruby's actual apprehension was probably between 9:45 and 10:00 AM, and Vaughn took over after that. 

So, they had another policeman there on foot. But, Pierce made a point of pulling out so that it would match what he was going to do at 11:18. Pierce was alone, but when he did it the second time, he had two other officers in the car with him. Why? Perhaps to establish witnesses. They both testified. But, Ruby remembered seeing just Pierce in the car and an officer on foot whom he didn't know or recognize. So, we are talking about two separate and different events.   

It all depended on Ruby showing up. The Karen Carlin call got him within a block and a half. So, how could they be certain that he could be coaxed to do the remaining part? That certainty came from a drug, most likely scopolamine, the zombie drug that makes one totally susceptible to suggestion. It was a controlled situation. They didn't just cross their fingers and hope that he showed up. 

Ruby said that he took extra tablets that morning. The tablet form of Scopolamine is called Scopace, and it was available until 2011.  







Sunday, July 1, 2018

Doc Whiteraven Having been a Navy Chaser, prisoners are not told anything...including where they are going...they are told to "roll it up," and that's it. Knowing the location of where they are going might result in an ambush of the transporting vehicle...
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply2h
Ralph CinqueYou and 15 others manage the membership, moderators, settings, and posts for Association for John Kennedy Ambush Truth. Alright, then in that case, Doc Whiteraven, why didn't Oswald act surprised when he entered the garage and into a media spectacle? I say he didn't act surprised because he was prepped. He was recruited into the plot, except that he didn't know he was going to die at the end. They must have told him that they were going to get him out of this by faking his death.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1m
If Ruby planned to shoot Oswald, why didn't he show up on time? 10:00 was the only time ever given. So, how did Ruby know he could arrive at 11:20 and still be able to shoot Oswald?
Stupid clowns claim that the Dallas Police signaled him from the window, but that makes no sense. How could Ruby be colluding with the Dallas Police when they were the ones who pounced upon him, dragged him up to the 5th floor, stripped him naked, and then subjected him to a rectal examination looking for weapons, as if he shoved a gun up his butt? And of course, they testified against him in court, called him a homosexual, and cooperated with the District Attorney to get him sentenced to death.
Do these fools not get it that conspirators work together because they all expect to win? They all expect to come out on top? And if you think the Police just double-crossed Ruby, then why didn't he sing like a canary? And how could they trust him not to sing like a canary after they betrayed him?
Just think about what they're saying, that it went something like this:
"OK, Jack, we'll signal you from the window when it's time to come down. Then, when you do it, we'll jump you, and sodomize you, you know, just for show, and we'll work with the prosecution to get you convicted and sentenced to death. Now, any questions?"
Nobody would do that. Ruby wouldn't do it, and the Police wouldn't do it either because they could never trust him to keep his mouth shut.
So, you can't make it that Ruby conspired with the Dallas Police- unless you are fucking insane.
So, since he could not have conspired with them, how did Ruby know that Oswald wasn't going to be moved until 11:20? The police never gave any guidance. Once 10:00 passed, it was up in the air. It was just going to happen when it happened.
And why, if there was collusion between Ruby and the Dallas Police would they bother complicating it? Why not just pick a time and stick to it? Why couldn't they have just done it at 10? Told him ahead of time and gone through with it at 10.
I'll tell you why they couldn't. It was because there was no collusion between Ruby and the Dallas Police. The reason it got delayed to 11:20 is because they were waiting on him- not vice versa. They were waiting on him to arrive- waiting for him to wind up there as a consequence of the manipulation that was applied to him, starting with the call from Karen Carlin. All of that was planned. But, Ruby was still a living, breathing human being who was seemingly guiding himself around. Ruby was oblivious- to everything. He didn't know a damn thing about anything. He was completely and totally in the dark. He didn't know that he was late to anything. He was just stumbling around in a drugged state, and the way it went down was that he just didn't get there until 10;20. And they had to process him. So, that's why it happened so late. They were ready. They were just waiting on him.
Think of it like a surprise birthday party in which the birthday boy is expected to get home from work at 8 PM, as he usually does, but it turns out that this day he does something different, and he doesn't get home until 9:20. So, the revelers waiting at his house just have to wait. They just have to sit tight until he gets there. It's not like they are in complete control of him. They still have to work around what his autonomous mind decides to do.
And Ruby's mind wasn't completely autonomous- far from it. But, he was driving his own car and going about his morning with the usual sense of autonomy that people have.
They were leading him by the nose, and it was a very Machiavellian process, but they still had to wait until his fractured mind got him there.
And frankly, there was no guarantee that he was going to get there at all. Did they have a backup plan in case Ruby didn't show up? They very well may have.
The people who think that Ruby conspired WITH the Dallas Police are not only stupid but really sick in the head. Their whole understanding of human nature and human motivation is severely warped. And, they are also extremely immature. Mentally, they are like children.
One visit with a lawyer would have collapsed the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. The criminality of the FBI and the Dallas Police would have been exposed. They couldn't allow it. But consider that Fritz got an attorney for Ruby immediately: Tom Howard. FRITZ WAS SEEN CONFERRING WITH HOWARD ON SATURDAY EVENING.  

So, why didn't Fritz get a lawyer for Oswald? And why didn't Fritz get a cabana suit for Oswald as he did for Ruby? But, I digress.

The common lore is that Oswald refused an attorney because he wanted John Abt, but what do we really know about the truth of that? We know that Oswald complained publicly several times about not having an attorney, and to me, he sounded really irate, really upset about it. And when he had a chance to speak to the public at the Midnight Press Conference, he asked for someone to come forward to give him legal assistance. He didn't ask for someone to contact John Abt. He just asked for legal assistance. 

So, what do we have directly from Oswald about John Abt? 
What do we have to substantiate the common lore that he rejected legal assistance, that he said no to having a local criminal defense attorney? 

Well, we don't have anything from Oswald directly because he never mentioned it in public. I found one reference to it in the Fritz Notes, the 4th Fritz Note. This note was not dated, but it had to be an interrogation on Saturday, November 23. So, let's consider the significance of it. It says, "Desires to speak to Mr. Abt." Wait a second; that doesn't even establish that Oswald wanted Abt to defend him. It doesn't say, "Desires Mr. Abt to represent him."

And since Abt isn't mentioned prior to that, we have to presume that Oswald didn't bring him up prior to that. Why? Because Fritz would have written it down prior to that. And that means that on Friday night, at the Midnight Press Conference, Oswald hadn't, to that point, said a word to Dallas Police about Abt. So, when he gave the impassioned request for legal assistance, it existed in a vacuum. It means he must have complained about not having a lawyer in a vacuum. 

And that brings us to the testimony of Attorney H. Louis Nichols, who did not practice criminal law but was the head of the Dallas Bar Association. He visited Oswald on Saturday afternoon and said that Oswald rejected Nichols' offer to get him an attorney. But, consider the following facts:

1. Nichols claimed that he took no notes. Think about that a second. He's an attorney, and he didn't bring a pencil and paper to write anything down. It didn't occur to him to do that. 

2. When, Oswald rejected a lawyer from Nichols, did Nichols weigh upon him about the importance of having an attorney, that holding out for a lawyer in New York whom he didn't know and had never had contact with, was not a prudent thing to do? Did he impress upon him that he could get a local Texas lawyer and that Abt could join the case afterwards, so there was no reason to reject immediate help? 

3. And even though Nichols was not a criminal defense lawyer, he was a lawyer. And since he was there, and supposedly on Oswald's behalf, did he make any attempt to garner any information from him about the charges? He did mention that Oswald said that he wanted a lawyer who believed in his innocence, which is a tacit way of claiming innocence. But, would it have killed Nichols to solicit information from Oswald about what happened? Doesn't it seem like he should have started by asking, "Do you want to tell me what happened?" And again, I realize that he wasn't a criminal defense attorney, but he was an attorney, and presumably, he was an intelligent man. If he was going to go there at all, why wouldn't he act lawyerly? Why wouldn't he think like a lawyer? Why would he be so restricted in his interaction, as to say, "Do you want me to get you a lawyer or not?" It would be one thing if he wasn't a lawyer at all, but he was a lawyer. And he certainly had to know that Oswald desperately needed a lawyer.  He certainly was knowledgeable enough to tell Oswald that he was making a grave mistake by turning down his offer to get him a lawyer. And yet, he didn't. According to him, Oswald said no thanks, and he said fine.  

Look: if it was a medical emergency, say a heart attack, and the only doctor around was an orthopedist, he would do the best he could, even though he wasn't a cardiologist, right? Well, Nichols was a lawyer, and he should have done the best he could, and he should have acted lawyerly to Oswald. For instance, upon seeing, he should have asked him how he was. Nichols said that he looked alright, that he had a scratch or bruise over one eye but otherwise seemed OK. But, Nichols was a lawyer, so why wouldn't he ask Oswald about it? And the fact was that Oswald had a scratch over one eye, but the other eye had major swelling. The whole supraorbital area was swollen. 

 So, Nichols' minimizing of Oswald's injuries wasn't legit either. He sounded more like a lawyer for the Dallas Police. 

Nichols was in the Army during WW2, and he was in the Army Reserve in 1963, holding the rank of Colonel. 

Do you know how long Nichols spent with Oswald? Two minutes. The man was being accused of murdering the President of the United States and a police officer, and this lawyer excused himself after two minutes.

So, this attorney was also a Colonel in the U.S. Army. When he spoke to the press, Chief Curry stood right behind him.


It was just the night before that Oswald pleaded with the world to give him legal assistance. So, when a lawyer finally walked into his cell offering to get him legal assistance, did Oswald actually say no? And this Nichols said that he received multiple inquiries from defense lawyers in Dallas concerned about Oswald's legal rights and his need for an attorney. But, doesn't it seem likely that one or more of them would have called the DPD about it? Or, just gone there and said: I'm a criminal defense attorney, and I am offering my services to Oswald.

So, how many lawyers did call the DPD? I suggest that Nichols' appearance was in response to Oswald's public appeal and that it was instigated by the DPD itself. I think they allowed Nichols to see Oswald on the stipulation that he not discuss the case with him. I find it very strange that a lawyer, supposedly concerned with the legal rights of an accused suspect, would not discuss the case with him at all. There you see Curry standing behind Nichols. So, was it really Curry who called him? 

P.S. I'm not certain they let him see Oswald. And that's because I find it hard to believe that Oswald was stupid enough to be in the situation he was in and actually turn down help from an attorney. Would you? Furthermore, you would think that just from the standpoint of having an attorney to come visit him who was not presumptive of his guilt, who was open to listening to his side of the story with an open mind, his account of what happened that day, would appeal to him greatly.  You would think that Oswald would be dying to be heard, especially since his interrogators weren't hearing him except with tainted, closed minds. So, I have to wonder if Nichols ever really saw Oswald at all, or if he saw someone else, an Oswald double.