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

This was written by the Wizard BEFORE he read what I wrote last night, but you'll see that it dovetails with it nicely. In fact, his first paragraph is like a succinct telling of what I wrote last night. 

Amy/Ralph,

I definitely agree that the main 'push' of all, or most of, the activities was aimed at supporting the idea that Ruby was actually guilty and that they wanted to avoid discussion of any other possibility: hence all the talk about Ruby knowing Oswald - that was a diversion. In fact, the perps probably encouraged Oswald/Ruby conspiracy talk.

Ralph's idea that Ruby was drugged and that they took advantage of his blackouts fits everything I have learned so far. Critics will say that it's implausible, but in the JFK case you have to take a different perspective on timelines and not get things back-to-front. I think that the deal was that somebody noted Ruby's blackouts in the past, possibly years before, and tagged this as useful information - a possible ideal patsy for some future crime. When the most important crime came round, they used their asset - as simple as that. I doubt that Jack was the only potential patsy in the event that Oswald survived the Friday.

I also agree with Amy's contention that the money order was an alibi and part of the setup. The odds of anybody needing to wire money on a Sunday morning in 1963 must be a bit thin. It's just too neat. Against this, we have the fact that Ruby himself did repeat that story and other parts of the official story, but we have to re-evaluate everything he later said (the what, where and when) that supported the DPD story. For example, how much of it can be attributed to Ruby's willingness to be told what to say? (The blackout would not have stretched back to the money transfer, etc.) He hinted to Warren that he had not told the truth and started to drop really big hints to the press near the end, when his already destroyed life was falling apart even more.

RC: Let's consider that there aren't many statements to the press by Jack Ruby. He didn't talk to reporters the way Oswald did. But, there is the famous one with reporters in which he alluded to Johnson being involved in the assassination. Did he really know something? Think about it from his lawyer's perspective. His lawyer was right next to him when he said it. So, don't you think afterwards, his lawyer said to him, "Jack, if you know something about LBJ being involved, you need to tell me. Your life is on the line. They want to kill you." It is a fact that during his imprisonment, Ruby read conspiracy books. He read one that I've read, A Texan Looks At Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley, which was truly the first book to point the finger at LBJ. But Haley, was a Bircher, and his thesis was that Johnson put Oswald up to it. In other words, he accepted everything about Oswald being the lone gunman, but he added Johnson to it. And his spin was that Johnson was a Communist. Ruby was deranged; he was mentally ill. He had no knowledge about LBJ's involvement. And think about it from the plotters' perspective. Let's say that Ruby was brought into it on some operational level. Why would they tell him anything about LBJ's involvement? It was a need-to-know situation, and Ruby would not have needed to know that. Now back to the Wizard:

I would find it logical to conclude that they had him in the DPD early on the Sunday, even if he was instructed or led to do the money order himself. They would have wanted maximum control of him, but he would not have been desperate to hide himself.

I have it in my mind, from the past, that a witness called Elizabeth Pascoe confirmed Ruby's blackouts at his trial, but that name is on my backlog of things to double-check. The trial pdf is essentially a series of images and non-searchable. If you miss something you have to go back.

I agree that much of the 'detail'  in the Warren Report is flim-flam and padding to give the appearance of thoroughness.

Wizard