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

Amy, I am very disturbed and put off by this hearsay evidence that Jim Martin cited in his WC testimony:

Mr. MARTIN. I met a gentleman who is an executive with the Dinkler Hotel chain, and he related the story to me that was told to him by one of their engineers, a maintenance man in the Atlanta, in their Atlanta hotel. The maintenance man's wife was an, or is a long distance telephone operator, and on the night preceding the assassination there was an individual that called, well, the way I heard the story, that she said he sounded like he had been drinking, and that he mentioned to her to remember this telephone call because it would go down in history. He made a credit card call to Lee Harvey Oswald, and simply said, "Proceed as planned." Then he made another telephone call to Jack Ruby and told him that if anything went wrong he knew what to do. Now, I questioned this, I guess there are numerous rumors of this type or whatever it is, and he said no, that it was definitely the truth, and the reason she hadn't come out before with it was that it is a violation of Federal law to listen to a long distance telephone call, and that they finally did report it to the FBI.

Amy, nobody called Oswald and told him that, and nobody called Jack Ruby and told him that. This is just more horse shit to link Oswald and Ruby together, to plant them both into the plot to kill Kennedy, so that Ruby's killing of Oswald seems to have a motive. But, it is totally bogus. And think about it: if an executive with the Dinkler Hotel chain (which was like the Hilton of the South) met Jim Martin, the manager of the Inn of the Sixth Flags in Dallas, why would he share a story like that with him? He might tell it, confidentially, to someone he really knew well and trusted. But, why would he tell it to a hotel manager in Texas he just met? 

I have come to realize that FROM THE VERY BEGINNING the plotters fostered conspiracy leanings in the public. They wanted there to be an alternate story, which you can think of as a pressure relief valve. 

Oswald didn't know a thing. Nobody told him anything about the JFK assassination; not over the phone, not in person; nothing. It is completely and totally wrong to think otherwise. And likewise Jack Ruby knew absolutely nothing about the JFK assassination; nor did he know anything about the Oswald assassination. He died not knowing anything about the Oswald assassination. He was completely in the dark about what really happened. Nobody put him up to doing it, and he said so. He said it repeatedly. 

The difference between me and a lot of other people is that I believe both Oswald and Ruby. I believe their statements. I don't think either one lied. And it is chilling to realize that the dichotomy over whether Ruby shot Oswald to save Jackie a trip to Dallas or to silence him following their joint involvement in the JFK assassination is a false dichotomy because neither one is true. They were setting up the debate and shaping the conflict, such that it would never get to the truth that Jack Ruby was innocent. And hiding that fact is ALL they cared about. They did NOT care a bit, and they still don't, if people want to think that Ruby knew Oswald, colluded with him, and then shot him to silence him. That was fine with them. That was all viewed as safe. All that mattered to them was hiding the fact that the Dallas Police and the FBI were the real killers of Oswald, and they framed Jack Ruby for it.