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

This is Jack Ruby's deathbed confession. It's only 4 minutes long. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uxiSspMlxY

So, since it's only 4 minutes, why would anyone edit anything out of it? And this is a conversation between Jack Ruby and his lawyer Elmer Gertz and his brother Earl. So, how did it become edited, as in cropped?

Here's how I know it was edited: David Reitzes, who is another dis-info op for the official story, published a written transcript of the "confession" and it's longer than the recorded version. You can read statements in it that you don't hear Jack Ruby say.  Like Hank Sienzant (not his real name) Reitzes postures himself as a former conspiracy advocate who saw the light. Ops like to do that, say they used to be CTs. They think it wins them favor with CTs. 

Now, I realize you can't read that very well, but I'll help you. All the text in light blue you do NOT hear Ruby say. You hear him get to where it says "that's where the incident happened at the bottom of the ramp." And then he stops. And he's quiet. The way he said it sounded like he was finished, that he would wait until he was asked something else before speaking again. But, in the transcript above, despite the seeming finality of the statement, "that's where the incident happened at the bottom of the ramp" it segues awkwardly into "according to Western Union records, the time stamped on the Western Union records, it's 11:17, the time the incident taking place is 11:21; it was 11:21."

This is what Ruby said at his Warren Commission testimony:

"There was no one near me when I walked down that ramp, because if you will time the time I sent the money order, I think it was 10:17 Sunday morning. I think the actual act was committed--I take that back--was it 11 o'clock? You should know this."

A Secret Service, who wasn't even in Dallas or the state of Texas at the time, told him it was 11:21.  And of course, Ruby didn't argue with him. Ruby didn't argue with anyone. He was subservient to authority. 

If you actually listen to the tape, his voice lands with such finality on "bottom of the ramp" it is hard for me to believe that he fired up again with "according to Western Union records, it's 11:17.." How does that really connect? Does it seem like there had to be something else in-between? Why would he just go into that?

It's very serving to the official story for him to have said that. And keep in mind that even if he did say it, it would change nothing for me. It would just mean that he accepted the time that they told him, just as he accepted everything that they told him. 

It's just like with Oswald in the doorway. Even if someone found a statement by Oswald in which he stated, categorically, that he was not in the doorway, it would only mean that he lied. That's because: THE IMAGES RULE. And the images say, beyond the slightest shadow of  a doubt that that's him in the doorway. 

The immature people I am fighting are too stupid to realize that there is a hierarchy to the evidence, and those images trump anybody's and everybody's lip-flapping, including Oswald's. However, the fact is that Oswald told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting. So, the truth is the exact opposite of the hypothetical. I was just making a point.

But what if, in Jack Ruby's case, he said 10:15 again at his deathbed "confession." I could understand why they would remove it from an audio tape because you can't edit what he said. In other words, you can't change the sound. But, it's easy as pie to change the words in a typed document. 

So, is that the explanation for why we have that extra statement in the written transcript that David Reitzes put up while it's missing in the audio tape?

I listened to several of the posted versions of the "confession" on Youtube, and they're all the same. Exactly the same. It's ridiculous to call it a confession. A confession invariably entails an allocution, but he had nothing to allocute. All he could say is that he accepts that he did it because police told him that he did, but he had no memory of doing it, no plan to do it, and no awareness of having done it even after it was done. HIS ENTIRE COGNITIVE TIE TO THE EVENT WAS POLICE TELLING HIM THAT HE DID IT; NOTHING MORE. How can anybody construe that as a confession? That's not a confession. It's a capitulation; not a confession.

Meanwhile, we have multiple Dallas detectives caught in multiple lies: Leavelle, Graves, and Combest, to name three. Then, we have the ridiculous situation of two Dallas police officers being perched at a narrow ramp who, nevertheless, missed catching Ruby as he walked in.  I could have gotten an 80 year old Walmart greeter to do that, and he'd have gotten it done. And, there was a mob of spectators there who were well aware that police were trying to keep people out, yet none of them alerted the officers when Ruby went down there? They weren't inclined to be helpful, is that it? One of those spectators was a former Dallas policeman. 

Then, we have the ridiculous situation of a man supposedly shooting a man fatally and trying to shoot another man, yet police had no resolve to cuff him in the garage?????????????????????

Nobody should be OK with that. It is NOT OK. It has never happened before. It has never happened since. And it will probably never happen again. Police don't do that. They don't take violent offenders anywhere without getting them in cuffs first. 

All you have to do is watch any of those real-life cop shows on tv. For crimes much less serious than murder, you see cops swiftly methodically- like a basketball team on fast break- putting a perp in cuffs for even minor infractions or resistance- never mind shooting someone and then trying to shoot a cop.

And what a vicious, awful thing James Leavelle did when he accused Jack Ruby of trying to shoot him. For the sake of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Holy Mother of God, JACK RUBY LOVED THE DALLAS POLICE. He adored them. He worshiped them. They were his heroes.  He would have given his life for them, but never in a million years would he have tried to shoot one. And fortunately, Jack Ruby did deny that charge. And he was never formally charged with it. It was just something that Leavelle claimed. Just him and no one else, a proven liar and a pathological liar.  But, let's think about this because Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald, and if he thought he had a memory lapse at the time, then how could he know that during the same memory lapse he didn't try to shoot Leavelle? The answer: his intuition. He knew himself well enough to know that, amnesic or not, he would never try to shoot one of his beloved Dallas cops.