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

I have a new thesis to present tonight concerning Jack Ruby. It does not contradict anything that I have said before. I began thinking about it in connection with all the Jack Ruby sightings there are, some which are undoubtedly false. For instance, the one at the DPD on Friday afternoon is DEFINITELY false. There are phone records which prove that Ruby was on the phone with his sister Eva at the time (2:00) from the Carousel Club. And that's the most heralded of the Ruby sightings since there are supposedly images of him that go along with it. But, it wasn't him. He wasn't there. He said he wasn't there, and the phone records prove he wasn't there. And there are also witnesses who placed him at the Carousel Club at that time, such as Larry Craford.  

The second most heralded sighting is probably Julia Ann Mercer adamantly claiming to see Jack Ruby driving a pickup truck in Dealey Plaza an hour before the motorcade and transporting weapons and a shooter. Again, false. Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News at the time, tending to his ads, and there were multiple witnesses, including Hugh Aynesworth. There was the woman who said that her daughter and friends saw Jack Ruby give Lee Harvey Oswald a pistol outside the TSBD shortly after the shooting. Now, who would be stupid enough to brandish a pistol in Dealey Plaza shortly after Kennedy was killed? If Ruby was going to give a pistol to Oswald, don't you think they would have been smart enough to meet somewhere else to do it? 

At least two witnesses claimed to see Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital, but Ruby denied going there, and why would he lie about that? It wasn't a crime, was it? Some take it as far as having Jack Ruby plant the "Magic Bullet" on the stretcher. 

Victoria Adams claimed to see Jack Ruby outside the TSBD after the shooting, "barking orders and acting like a cop". George Aplin claimed to see Jack Ruby sitting a few rows behind Oswald at the Texas Theater at the time of his arrest. 

There are more, but are you getting the picture now? That there are just too many Jack Ruby sightings?

So, here's what I think, and it is chillingly Machiavellian. I think Ruby was set up to be the patsy for the Oswald killing (which was decided well in advance) but, the plotters knew that many wouldn't accept the story, as told. So, for those who were going to contest it, they wanted to steer them into a safe zone that would never get them anywhere near the truth, that Jack Ruby didn't do it. On the contrary, they were going to provide a strong motive for why Ruby did it- something much more satisfying to the conspiracist than the one Ruby's lawyer thought of, which is that he did it save Jackie a trip to Dallas (and I'll point out again, that there is no compelling reason why Jackie Kennedy would have been called upon to testify at Oswald's trial). So, the stronger motive is that Ruby did it to silence Oswald because Ruby was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. 

I'll repeat what I've said before that that is very foolish because no one would destroy his whole life and be willing to lose everything just to silence Oswald. HOW COULD ANYTHING BE WORSE THAN DESTROYING ONE'S ENTIRE LIFE?

You could make the argument if it involved killing Oswald from a great distance or in a manner that allowed escape. But, nobody would be willing to destroy his entire life and lose everything just to silence Oswald. Nobody, as in no one. Nada. Zilch. Zed. 

Remember what Ruby did right before going to the basement: he wired money to one of his employees, Karen Carlin. So, he was taking care of business, wasn't he? But, what did it matter if he was about to lose everything and never return to his business? 

So, the whole idea is cockamamie, and that's why the plotters cleverly coaxed the conspiracy-minded to go down that road. It would keep them busy, and far away from the truth that Jack Ruby didn't shoot Oswald. 

And, it makes no sense for the plotters to put Jack Ruby up to shooting Oswald if he was involved in the assassination because once arrested, he could talk, right? And wouldn't his lawyers have browbeat him to talk? Wouldn't it mitigate his own case to talk? How could the plotters take a chance like that?

And, how could they get him to do it when it meant losing everything? Frankly, I think that if Ruby shot Oswald the way that he supposedly did,  he would have been better off turning the gun on himself. Why not? What did he have to live for after that? He was never going to be a free man again. He was going to lose everything. He was never going to have his life back. He was going to be sleeping in a jail cell from then on. So, what's to live for? 

I say that the false Ruby sightings were deliberate, as deliberate as the false Oswald sightings, such as Oswald going to the rifle range and Oswald going to the car dealership. These false sightings seem to provide motive for Ruby to shoot Oswald (even though they really don't because nothing could attract a person to completely destroy his own life). But, they keep people far, far away from the truth, that Ruby did NOT shoot Oswald.  Jack Ruby was framed and innocent. And I don't believe for a second that he was involved in the JFK assassination or that he had any motive, whatsoever, to shoot Oswald.  It's all made-up. You're being conned. You're being tricked. You're being hoodwinked. It's the craftiness of it all that gives me the chills. You see, if you want to think that Ruby was involved, and he shot Oswald to silence him, they don't care-- so long as you think he shot him. And if you do think he shot him, then they are playing you like a marionette. 

Listen to me: THEY don't mind if you want to think that Oswald was in a conspiracy when he shot Kennedy- SO LONG AS YOU THINK HE SHOT KENNEDY. It's Government Story #2. They offered it to you. And likewise, THEY don't mind if you want to think that Ruby was in a conspiracy when he shot Oswald, SO LONG AS YOU THINK HE SHOT OSWALD.