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

The story of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald never had any credibility. So, why did virtually everyone accept it? The reasons were: (1) Ruby's veritable acceptance of it. Even though he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, and no awareness of doing it, he was still willing to accept that he did it. And that tipped the scale for just about everybody. (2) the lack of any alternative. The idea that the Dallas Police committed the murder was not on anyone's radar. And that left no one but Jack Ruby. 

But today, there is no excuse for believing it. Anyone who recognizes that the official story of JFK's murder is a lie should be willing to accept that the official story of Oswald's murder is also a lie. And there is no longer any reason or any excuse why anyone should be enamored with the Dallas Police and be unwilling to see them for what they were in this case: the murderers of Lee Harvey Oswald.  

But even at the time, people should have had grave doubts and especially Ruby's lawyers. When they heard Ruby say that he had no memory of shooting Oswald, that all he could remember was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being jumped on by police, they should have accepted that at face value. They should have considered that his memory was crafted like that because the truth was crafted like that- that that is all that happened when he went down there.

But, the story of him shooting Oswald had no credibility as to motive. The idea that he did it out of grief about JFK does not stand up. He wasn't THAT absorbed in the grief. If you study Ruby's movements and activities the two days between JFK's murder and Oswald's,  most of it had to do with his business. And when he went to the DPD on Friday night, it was to distribute sandwiches. The whole time, Ruby never gave any thought to killing Oswald. He, himself, pointed out that when he wound up at the Midnight Press Conference, he never had the slightest compunction to shoot Oswald, even though he had a gun in his pocket. We know now that the motive that was given afterwards, that he did it to spare Jackie another trip to Dallas, was invented by his lawyer, Tom Howard. Moreover, Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas Police, who were Ruby's heroes.  The fact is that he had a very unnatural and excessive admiration for and worship of them. It wasn't anything sexual. It was more like they were his superheroes. But, the point is that his "feeling" for them was much stronger than his "feeling" for Oswald- as different and opposite as those feelings were. So, the idea that he would have disrupted and interfered with their operation is preposterous. He supported them. It was a very big, established value in his life- something that he treasured- his special relationship with the Dallas PD. He would not have endangered it for anything in the world.  

However, those who support the official story of the JFK killing are going to automatically support the official story of the Oswald killing; it's a matter of necessity and default for them.  And, it's really a waste of time to engage them because they are never going to know better.  But, the people who know that the JFK story is a lie, a bold-faced lie, they are the ones who should know better about Ruby. They are the ones who have no excuse for not embracing the truth: that Jack Ruby was innocent.

But, here's what we have among that group, and I really don't know what numbers to assign percentage-wise to each.: 

1) there are those who accept the official story of the Oswald shooting as-is, that Ruby did it; he did it alone; and he did it because of his grief over Kennedy

2) there are those who think Ruby did it because he was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, and he needed to silence Oswald. 

3) there are those who think Ruby did it because he was threatened, that either he or his loved ones would be killed unless he killed Oswald. "Kill Oswald or your sister gets it." That sounds like something from a gangster movie.

But, none of these reasons make any sense. The first doesn't make sense because Ruby was not that preoccupied with Oswald, and he wasn't that grief-stricken over Kennedy. He told a joke on Friday night, saying to a guy he knew whom he ran into at the PD, "Have they arrested you yet?" That says a lot about his state of mind that he wasn't THAT grief-stricken. 

The idea that Ruby was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, that he was delivering guns and shooters to Dealey Plaza is ridiculous, despite the witnesses. Why would the plotters go to Jack Ruby for that? He was a night club owner. Furthermore, he was famous for being a blabbermouth, a braggart, and show-off. So, how could they trust a guy like him? Why would Allen Dulles, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and J. Edgar Hoover have any need to resort to Jack Ruby to get JFK killed? It's ridiculous on the face of it. And what would be the point of "silencing" Oswald after he already underwent 13 hours of interrogation? If Oswald was going to say anything, to expose anything, don't you think he'd do it in 13 hours? If you were going to silence him, you'd have to do it before he talked to police, right? Not after 13 hours of interrogation. 

And that brings us to the last one, that he did it because of threats- to himself or even more likely, to members of his family. And so, they think he killed Oswald for that reason. But, it makes no sense. Nobody would do that. Would you? If someone threatened to kill your sister unless you killed someone, would you commit the murder? Of course not. What would you do? What would Jack Ruby do? Well first, he would seek to protect his sister. Remember, he didn't lack resources. He handled a lot of money. He walked around with thousands on him. And that was 1963. If he had two thousand on him, it was worth about $12,000 today. Maybe a little more. And I don't think it's physically possible for a person to carry that much cash. So, Jack Ruby typically walked around with more cash on him (in terms of purchasing power) than anybody walks around with today, not even billionaires. So, he first could have sought to protect his sister by secretly moving her to a new location that was out of reach. He could have sent her far away from Dallas, to another part of the country or even abroad. Swifted her out in the dead of night. Then, he could have gone to the police and told them about the threats. Remember, he had connections with the Dallas Police. He could have gone to his friends in the media and told them about the threats. Don't you think if the threats were published in the newspaper that it would make it awfully hard for the Mafia or the CIA to go through with it? He could have gone to his lawyer. He could have gone to his congressman. He could have gone to his senator. He could have gone to his governor. That's what I did when I was threatened, and I received a very concerned reply in writing from Governor Greg Abbott which I have to this day. He could have gone to the FBI, and likewise, I have gone to them. There is so much that he could have done. The idea that he had no choice but to go through with the murder they wanted is ridiculous. And again: nobody would do that. I wouldn't. You wouldn't. And neither would anyone else we know. Just going off and murdering somebody? It's not something that any sane person does. Most of us are living our lives knowing that we are never going to murder anybody, that it's out of the question. And of course, killing in self-defense or the defense of another is not murder: it is justifiable homicide, and the law says so. 

And if the threat was that they would kill Ruby himself if he didn't do it, so what? Wouldn't it be better to be killed than to go through what Jack Ruby went through the last three years of his life? If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd sooner die than be a cold-blooded murderer. Wouldn't you? 

So, none of these alternate stories about how Ruby came to shoot Oswald make any sense. 

It's time. It's time for the community of Oswald defenders to embrace Ruby innocence the way they do Oswald innocence. And there is no excuse not to. We have the evidence, including the photographic evidence that the Garage Shooter is incompatible with Jack Ruby. Concomitant with that, we have the photographic evidence and other evidence that the Garage Shooter was FBI Agent James Bookhout. We have the evidence that the whole spectacle was a hoax, that Oswald was killed later. We have the evidence that Jack Ruby reported seeing things at the ramp entrance that did not occur when Officer Roy Vaughan was there. We have the many lies told by the Dallas cops, which have been cited and collected by Amy Joyce. And we have all the strange behaviors, such as stripping Ruby to his underwear and keeping like that; we have the strange claim that they replaced his underwear, that he killed a man and the first thing they did was give him regulation underwear; we have the strange order for Dr. Fred Bieberdorf to perform a rectal exam on Ruby to make sure he didn't have a gun stuffed up his butt- as if there was any possibility of that or that they did such a thing with other gun-toting offenders; and we have the weird photographic anomalies concerning the microphone, the A/C duct, and all the freaky things in the Jackson photo showing inappropriate responses to a gun shot by virtually everyone in the photo. 

There is just no reason to believe any of it any more. The official story of the JFK shooting is a grotesque lie, and likewise, the official story of the Oswald shooting is a grotesque lie.  In fact, I believe it is even more grotesque.