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

Amazon bans a lot of books, but one they have not banned, which I think they should ban, is a complete guide to murder entitled Kill Without Joy. It's out of print, but used copies are for sale on Amazon for over $300. Shame on them. I am formally requesting Amazon to stop selling this book. 

https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Without-Joy-Complete-Book/dp/0873646479

The book includes a passage about Jack Ruby shooting Oswald that is outrageous for being so wrong. 

It starts by saying that Ruby was "strictly a pro" meaning, a professional assassin, which he most certainly was not. Then it refers to him pumping bullets into Oswald. The Garage Shooter only fired once at Oswald, but you know how in gangster movies, they often have the killer or killers riddle the victim's body with bullets, if only for show. 

Then, the author  refers to the "left hand drawing back the jacket and the gun clearing leather," but that is never seen, nor could it have been seen since there was no leather. Leather refers to the holster, and Ruby didn't have one. His gun was just in his pocket. Then, the author refers to Ruby using his middle finger to squeeze the trigger, that being the mark of a pro. He states that British SOE agents did that during WW2. But, that isn't true either. British SOE agents were known to do that with Lee-Enfield rifles, so that they could bolt faster, but not with small revolvers. It's very dangerous to have your index finger right next to the cylinder gap. 

And the fact is that the pistol is designed to fit your hand using the index finger to fire. Using the middle finger would result in you having less control and weaker control of the gun. 

Finally, the author applauds the Shooter's lunge that is seen in the Beers photo. He failed to say that that's the only time we see the lunge. In the Jackson photo, which was supposedly taken just a fraction of a second later, the Shooter is not lunging. How do they explain that contradiction? They don't.  To lunge, the Shooter would have to stop some distance away from Oswald, then after planting his right foot, lean and stretch the rest of the distance to get to Oswald. It was practically a contact shot. But, in none of the films, do we see that happen. 

So, the lunge we see in the Beers photo is an anomaly, and it was made to look like that to cover up the Shooter's short stature, which I am going to cover next. The reason Bookhout went through the motion of firing with his middle finger is because Ruby was missing his index finger. It so happened that it was his left index finger that was missing, but that was something that was easy to get wrong. So, it was a production error. 

Remember, I am a filmmaker, and I know how easy it is for production errors like this to occur. There is a flow of information in the production process, and somewhere it got switched around that it was Ruby's right index finger that was missing. And that's why the actor, James Bookhout, did it that way. It was a set error.  Everything stated in this excerpt below is utterly false.  If it had been Ruby in the Garage, which it wasn't, he most certainly would have used his index finger. He wouldn't even have thought about it. Would you? Does anyone want to claim that Jack Ruby actually had the thought to use his middle finger to fire when he had a perfectly intact right index finger? And would it not be a strange coincidence that he just happened to be missing his left index finger? The association of those two things is mathematically bizarre. Clearly, it was a set error.