Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

It's ironic that the defense that Ruby's legal team used at his trial- that Ruby had no intention of shooting Oswald but did it in a moment of madness- is exactly what was portrayed in the 1978 tv movie RUBY AND OSWALD. So, even though that defense failed, and Ruby was convicted of premeditated murder and given the death sentence, history has sided with the defense. 

But, it's not entirely true because we hear every bit as much about the alternate story, which is that Ruby was a Mafioso, a hardened criminal, a hit man, a pimp, and more. And the story goes that Ruby was ordered by the Mafia to kill Oswald. 

Note first that there isn't a stitch of evidence for it. At least, there isn't any evidence that wouldn't be thrown out of court as hearsay. There is no document supporting it. There is no phone record supporting it. There are only unverified, unsubstantiated claims of Ruby's Mafia ties, along with some dubious Ruby sightings. 

But, let's look at the basic claim that the Mafia threatened Ruby with something that forced him to do it.  First, consider that it amounted to the total utter destruction of Ruby's life.  Killing Oswald within a swarm of police meant that Ruby was going to lose everything he held dear. It was the equivalent of suicide. It may have been worse than suicide. 

What threat could someone make to you to cause you to destroy your life and give up everything you hold dear? There is nothing. Right? You wouldn't destroy your life no matter who ordered you to do it. right? Why do you think Ruby would?

And let's note that that story can't possibly explain why Ruby brought his beloved dog Sheba along and left her in his car while he went on to destroy his life. That makes no sense at all. The "Mafia made him do it" claim dies on that alone. 

But, once Ruby did it, he wouldn't have been needed any more. So, why would the Mafia let him live? Why would they trust him to keep his mouth shut about what really happened? They knew he was going to be interrogated, over and over, by police and his own lawyers. What if he tripped up? What if they broke him? Why take the chance when he wasn't needed anymore? They could have had him die trying to escape; or he hung himself like Jeffery Epstein; or he overdosed on drugs; or he was killed by another prisoner. The list goes on and on.  But, Jack Ruby lived for over 3 years, and that is proof-positive that he didn't know anything. Not a damn thing. If he did, they would have killed him.

So, who started the story that Ruby was an underworld criminal deep in the Mafia with a long history of violent acts? It was the very same people who actually killed Oswald. They wanted that story spread. Why? Because: it's a very safe, tolerable story. The truth was that Ruby didn't do it at all. That's the secret that had to be kept. So, you get the buffs to go the other way. You monsterize Ruby, so that nobody, even in his wildest dreams, could imagine that Ruby didn't do it.  

For instance, there is this FBI letter about a Jack Rubenstein from Chicago working undercover for Richard Nixon infiltrating Communist groups. Was that the Jack Ruby of fame? Some say yes. Some say no, that it was another Jack Rubenstein from Chicago. The fact is: they're both wrong. The letter is just bogus. It was written in 1947 and it includes a zip code. Ironically, zip codes didn't come into use until 1963. 

So, the letter is definitely bogus, but who would have created such a letter? It certainly wasn't created by "conspiracy theorists." It was created FOR conspiracy theorists; not by them. It was created to galvanize them to accept Ruby's guilt even more vigorously. 

The framing of Ruby for the killing of Oswald is THE most Machiavellian plan that has ever been executed. It took 50 years for someone to see through it. And it wasn't me. It was Maxim Irkutsk.