And the theme of my talk will be that multiple streams of evidence support the innocence of Jack Ruby. And that increases the certainty that he was innocent exponentially.
We've been hearing that term "exponential" lately connected the Corona crisis because they have a test in which they take a bit of RNA, that they presumably got from you, and amplify it exponentially, and if it amplifies, they say it is from the Corona virus. I'm not so sure.
But, another example of exponentiality are the odds of you winning the lottery. If it was just one number, your odds of winning would be 1 in 45. But, do you know what they jump to if it was just 2 numbers? It jumps to 1 in 1920 chance of winning. It's much harder, isn't it?
So, that's what having multiple streams of evidence does in this case, and it applies to Oswald as well as Ruby. I have often said that with Oswald, we have a match of both the man and the clothes between him and the Doorway Man, and that increases the certainty that he was the Doorway Man exponentially.
Why do I say that? I say it because there is a great wide world of men out there, and there is a great wide world of clothes, and any of the men can wear any of the clothes. They are entirely separate things, so when you match both, it's like getting two numbers right in the lottery. And actually, the odds of that NOT being Oswald are more like one in a million.
So, let's examine it in the case of Jack Ruby. First, there is the photographic evidence which establishes that he was no match to the Garage Shooter. There are no frontal images of the Garage Shooter, but we do have side images of him, although his hat obscures his face. Still, we can compare them to Ruby.
So, on the left is Ruby from the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night. Often, that image has been falsely assigned to Friday afternoon, but it is definitely from Friday night. That newspaper in view is the Saturday morning edition of the Dallas Morning News. Ruby did not go to the DPD on Friday afternoon. He said he didn't, and phone records prove it. He was not stalking Oswald. But here, notice that Ruby was much thinner than the Garage Shooter who was a very pudgy guy. Ruby was taller, and the Garage Shooter was quite short, the shortest man in the garage, that we know of. At 5'9", Ruby was average height. There is no way he could be that short guy.
Their hair in back was different.
So, the Garage Shooter had very long hair in back, especially for 1963. And there is something else I shall point out for the first time. It just occurred to me: The fact that his neck is razored so cleanly tells you that his hair was styled to be like that. It wasn't just overgrown between haircuts. On Ruby, on the right, the abundant stubble on his neck, which goes all the way down to his shirt collar, tells you that he was just a long way out from his last haircut. So, he has that scruffiness back there which the Garage Shooter does not have. It is a very different picture, and it, in itself, is a dealbreaker. They cannot possibly be the same man.
There are a lot more comparative images I could show, but I only have time for one, and it is the one frontal image of the Garage Shooter that was taken on the third floor of the PD about two minutes after the shooting. Note, we are certain that this is the 3rd floor because of a meticulous analysis done by the Wizard. But, officially, Ruby wasn't even on the third floor at the time, that he was taken from the Jail Office to the 5th floor, with no stops in-between. That man is actually FBI Agent James Bookhout. They blackened his eyes to stripes in order to obscure him.
Here is the comparison to Ruby on the left. Ruby had a MUCH longer neck. He had a longer and gaunter face. The man on the right had a much rounder face. Their hair looks similar, but actually, neither is authentic. Ruby had much less hair than that, and, and Bookhout's was no doubt doctored to match what they did to Ruby. Ruby's nose was much broader, wider at the bottom. So, we are talking about a pinched nose on the right and a pyramidal nose on the left. And finally, I'll point out that Ruby had a long forehead (the distance from his eyebrows to his hairline) whereas, the other man had a very short forehead.
So, they are different men, and there is no doubt that they are not the same man. And that, by itself, settles it. Absolutely nothing more is needed to establish that Ruby was not the shooter. But, there is more, and I'll start with the behavior of the police.
I call this the penguin collage because those cops remind me of huddling penguins. The huge guy in the middle with his back to us isn't real. He was there, but he was a skinny guy, Detective Thomas McMillon. They enhanced his size just to increase coverage.
They figured they could get away with that, that nobody would notice. But, they were wrong. But, what are those cops doing? Do you think they are struggling with Ruby?
They are not struggling with him. They are just covering him up. This was the ONLY time, in all of police history, that police moved a violent offender somewhere without cuffing him first. My father was a policeman for 45 years, first in New York, and then in Los Angeles, and he said that, without exception, the first thing you do with a violent offender is get him in cuffs. But, they didn't do that here. They took him into the jail office WITHOUT cuffing him. Why? It's because they knew he wasn't Ruby, and they did not want to expose his face. So, this is aberrant, inexplicable behavior on the part of the Dallas Police, and it is a piece of evidence that points to the innocence of Jack Ruby.
Then, how did they know what they were doing? Nobody yelled, "Let's take him into the Jail Office!" They just did it. And, there were two ways in: the very wide double doors and the narrow door in the corner. How did they all know to go to that door? IT WAS ALL WORKED OUT IN ADVANCE. No mindreading or ESP was necessary.
Then, there are the lies told by the Dallas detectives. James Leavelle said that he saw Ruby coming in; that he tried to jerk Oswald behind him; and then he shoved on Ruby's left shoulder with his right hand. He didn't do any of those things, and the films tell us that. Leavelle didn't begin to react to the Shooter until after the shot went off. He didn't even look in the direction of the shooter until the shot went off.
Then, there was Detective Jim Combest, who said that Oswald was communicating in the Jail Office. Everyone else said that Oswald was completely unconscious and unresponsive. But, Combest said Oswald was shaking his head, with his eyes open, responding to Combest's question. I don't know what emboldened Combest to tell such a lie. He said that he effectively asked Oswald if he wanted to confess anything, seeing that he was about to die, and Oswald shook his head no. It can't be true. They were all huddled around Oswald's body on the floor. At least, that's what we are led to believe, as we look at them in the WFAA footage. Was Oswald really lying there? I don't know. But, I do know that Combest was a liar.
L.C. Graves said that he rode to Parkland Hospital in the ambulance. He did NOT, and he could not have. There was no room for him. Here is the layout.
It was a station wagon. Hardin and Wolfe were in the front seat. There were separate seats in back. The left seat was folded down for Oswald's stretcher. Dr. Frank Bieberdorf sat in the right seat. Oswald's body occupied the left side of the rear, and Leavelle and Dhority were on the right side. And that's it. There was no place for Graves. And we know what Graves did because we can see it in the KRLD footage. He went and got a squad car, and he followed the ambulance out on Commerce Street. And by the time they got to Parkland Hospital, he was in front of it, leading it.
So above, that is L.C. Graves following the ambulance after it left for Parkland.
And above, is Graves leading well ahead of the ambulance as they arrived at Parkland. How did he get ahead of the ambulance? That I can't tell you. But, that he did that is certain. But, what's even stranger: why would he lie about this? Why didn't he just say that he took a squad car?
These are only some of the lies told by the Dallas Police. There are plenty more.
Then, there is the problem of Ruby getting into the garage, supposedly getting past the witless Officer Roy Vaughan. Well, Vaughan was not witless. He went on to become the Chief of Police of Midlothian, Texas, and he followed that with a 13 year career as a Municipal Judge. Vaughan swore that Ruby did NOT get past him. He swore it to his last breath. But, Ruby said he got in that way, and there is no reason to doubt him either. He accepted responsibility for shooting Oswald (only because Dallas Police told him that he did it; he had no memory of doing it and no plan to do it). But, since he was accepting responsibility for killing Oswald, why would he lie about how he got in there? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't.
But, the fact is that RUBY KNEW VAUGHAN. Vaughan had forgiven a traffic violation for him once for being a "friend of the Department." So, it's no wonder Ruby remembered him. But, Ruby said he did NOT recognize the officer on foot who was there when Rio Pierce pulled out and talked to him. Ruby also said that Pierce and that officer on foot were the only ones he saw. He did not report seeing two other officers in the car with Pierce.
What happened is that Ruby got there early, about an hour early, before Vaughan was placed there. Ruby was already tucked away up on the 5th floor when Vaughan began his shift guarding the Main Street ramp. So, Vaughan didn't lie. And Ruby didn't lie. The Dallas Police lied. They set up Vaughan to be the fall guy.
Then, there is the timeline. Ruby said that he got up "early" on Sunday morning. He didn't say exactly what time, but it had to be by 8, don't you think? Then, he just got dressed and ate breakfast. He had the tv while he ate, and he browsed through the paper. And then he left for downtown. He was 5 minutes away. Hells Bells, you could have given him nearly two hours to leisurely eat breakfast, and he'd still have gotten to Western Union by 10:00. And guess what? When Ruby gave his account to the Warren Commissioners, he said that he sent the money order at 10:15. Very quickly, a SS agent corrected him, very gently, "No, Jack, it was 11:15." And Ruby didn't dispute it. He didn't dispute anything. He was very respectful of authority. But, what Ruby said was correct. He did get there an hour earlier. But, what about the paperwork, you say? I say: fake, fake, fake. You realize that the first thing they did when they got Ruby up to the 5th floor was strip him down to his underwear. That's in the record. Vincent Bugliosi even reported it in Reclaiming History. They needed Ruby's suit to give it to Bookhout to wear during the televised spectacle. But, at the same time, they grabbed his paperwork from Western Union and replaced it with bogus paperwork showing a later time.
Then, there is this gem: The Shooter wore light socks, and Ruby wore black ones on 11/24/63.
So, they had to scramble fast for this one and say that they replaced every stitch of clothing on Ruby's body, including his socks. You understand that it was a City Jail where prisoners were held for about 24 hours and then released or sent to the County Jail, at the discretion of the judge. They didn't provide ANY uniforms or clothing to prisoners. Nothing. They didn't provide any clothes to Oswald. The clothes he wore on Sunday they got from his room. But, we're supposed to believe that that they replaced all of Ruby's clothes, including his underwear, even though the very next day he was sent to the County Jail? It's all just a pack of lies.
There are plenty more streams of evidence that Ruby was innocent, but my time is up. But, I am telling you, with 1000% certainty, that Jack Rubenstein was innocent, that he did NOT shoot Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no more chance that Ruby shot Oswald than that Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor. And he would have had a hell of a time doing that considering that he was in the doorway at the time.
And to anyone who believes that Oswald was innocent, I've got news for you: If you don't recognize and accept the innocence of Jack Ruby, then you are completely in the dark about the JFK assassination, and you might as well know nothing about it. And if you continue to endorse Ruby's guilt, then you are just a puppet of the killers and plotters, and you are doing their bidding. Jack Ruby was innocent, and I am telling you that with 10,000% certainty. I would bet my life on it in a heartbeat.