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

What is the official story of the Oswald shooting?  We know what the official story of the JFK shooting is, that Oswald did it alone, that he went to Irving on Thursday night with Frazier to get the rifle he had stored at Ruth Paine's house. And, he returned with it the next morning in a self-made bag, and he assembled it with a dime and shot Kennedy 3x, hitting him twice. 

But, the official story of the Oswald shooting is not so cut and dry. Of course, it says that Ruby shot Oswald, but did he intend to? Did he go there to shoot Oswald? 

According to Ruby, he certainly didn't. Ruby said that he wondered down the ramp, for no particular reason and mostly out of curiosity, but with no expectation of seeing Oswald, let alone shooting him, and he must have impulsively and compulsively done it, but he wasn't aware of it at the time, not until Dallas Police told him afterwards that he did it.

So, that was his story, and his lawyers ran with it to defend him, except that they gave it a fancy diagnosis: psychomotor epilepsy. 

But, what does officialdom say? Well, let's start with Henry Wade's prosecution of Ruby. Wade made it that Ruby planned to shoot Oswald, that it was premeditated murder. And Ruby got the death penalty, right? So, I guess the jury believed Wade. 

And the corporate media has gone along with that, often showing images, supposedly of Ruby at the DPD and refer to it as Ruby "stalking" Oswald: stalking him with the intent to kill him. 

And they go farther than that. The sometimes report the claims of certain individuals that Ruby said, in advance, that he was going to shoot Oswald.  One such person who supposedly heard Ruby say it was his roommate George Senator. However, if you read Senator's testimony to the Warren Commission, he never said it; rather, he denied it. He stated emphatically that he did not think Ruby had any intention of shooting Oswald, and he would never have brought his dog Sheba along if he did. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Are you saying now as you think about this further, the fact that he had the dog with him is not an overriding fact in deciding whether Jack had any plan to shoot Oswald before he went down there?
Mr. SENATOR. To my knowledge I would say that he had definitely no plans.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/senator.htm 

So, how did the rumor start that George Senator said that he heard it from Ruby that he was going to shoot Oswald? I don't know, but surely if it were true, he would have said so in his testimony to the Warren Commission. Right? So, either the rumor is false, or George Senator can't be trusted about anything. 

And there are other reports of people claiming to have heard Ruby say he was going to shoot Oswald. But, those were either Dallas cops or people closely tied to the DPD. So, consider the source. 

Jack Ruby emphatically denied telling anyone that he intended to shoot Oswald, and he denied ever having the intention to shoot him. At times, the official story seems to accept it, but at other times, it brandishes his premeditation. 

But, there are unsolvable problems with the pre-meditation story. There is the oft-quoted fact of him bringing his beloved dog Sheba along, and leaving her in the car, which he never would have done if he knew he was never coming back. There is the fact that the thing he did right before going to the garage was send a $25 money order to an employee. How could he do that if he was then going to shoot Oswald? That act was work-related. Karen Carlin worked for him. They were not having an affair; she was married. And he expected her to report to work the very next night, and he wanted her to because he needed her to entertain. The business had been closed for 3 nights, and he was starting up again. But, why would he care about the business if he was going away forever? 

The wiring of the money right before killing Oswald just doesn't make sense. They just don't go together. It would be like having a shopping list, a to-do list, which read: 1) buy groceries 2) mail package 3) pick up dry cleaning 4) send money order 5) kill Oswald.   

It makes no sense. Ruby shooting Oswald meant ending Oswald's life- and his own. In a way, it was like suicide. He lost everything. So, how could Ruby go from one to the other? 

If Ruby had any plan of shooting Oswald, he had to know that it meant instant capture; therefore, he would have made arrangements for everything, and particularly, his beloved dogs. The fact that he didn't tells you that he had no intention of shooting Oswald. 

But, the corporate media is all over the place on this. At times, they seem to accept Ruby's story of a sudden, unplanned impulse, a "moment of madness" as Ruby's attorney Elmer Gertz put it. An example is the 1978 tv movie, Ruby and Oswald, which included Jim Leavelle as actor and adviser, which portrayed Ruby's story of doing it with complete oblivion. They had Dallas Police on the elevator informing him that he did it, followed by his complete surprise and bewilderment. But, at other times, they pose Ruby as having foreknowledge, not only of the Oswald shooting, but the JFK shooting too, as in the ridiculous "fireworks" story. 

Then, there is the problem of Officer Roy Vaughan, who adamantly denied that Ruby went down the ramp on his watch. But, that is definitely part of the official story. But, who are you going to believe? It was a narrow ramp, and you know very well that even an 80 year old Walmart greeter could have kept Ruby out. So, how could a robust 29 year old cop fail to do it? But, that is the official story: that Vaughan was looking the other way, and Ruby got past him. Too bad. Shame. Shit happens.

So, the official story has it that Vaughan never saw Ruby. But, neither did anyone else. Lt. Rio "Sam" Pierce was there at the same time that Vaughan failed to see Ruby, plus two other officers riding in his car, but none of them got cited for dereliction of duty: just Vaughan. And what about all the officers at the bottom of the ramp? Most claimed not to see Ruby at all prior to the shot. Jim Leavelle said he did, and he claimed to take evasive action, but it's totally in conflict with what the films show. 

So, it's obvious that Roy Vaughan was just a scapegoat. But, why should the Dallas Police be believed at all? Is everyone enamored with them the way Ruby was?

So, why does the corporate media oscillate back and forth between the oblivion story and the pre-mediation story? I think it's because 
neither one is credible. How could Ruby remember everything he did that weekend, everyone he spoke to, every call he made, and there were many, and not remember shooting Oswald? And yet, how could he have planned to shoot Oswald without making arrangements for his dogs, etc.? Neither one makes sense.

Then, the story that someone put him up to shooting Oswald is the wackiest of all. Remember: his entire weekend is detailed, minute by minute:

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Jack_Ruby/Timeline_of_Ruby.html  

There isn't even a time that someone (the Mafia or the CIA, presumably) could have threatened him. They didn't do it over the phone, did they? "Kill Oswald, or we're going to kill your sister, Jack." Click. And the truth is that nobody would do that. He would take action to protect his sister. He would report the threat to the police. And in Ruby's case, he had friends not only in the police department but in the newspaper business, and he could have gone to them with the threat. The idea that he would shoot Oswald on order from somebody, completely destroying his own life in the process, is ridiculous. It's absurd. Nobody would do that. You hear me? I said nobody.  

So, the Media swings back and forth between accepting Ruby's oblivion story and brandishing the premeditation story, and sometimes they spice it up by giving him foreknowledge of the JFK assassination and making him a conspirator in it. But, the latter they do just to bait the buffs and keep them occupied with tomfoolery. 


The point, the ultimate point, is that none of the media stories are true. The truth is unspoken. The is unspeakable. The truth is unmentionable. The truth is that Jack Ruby was innocent. Completely and totally innocent. The truth is that he was framed for killing Oswald by people who knew that he was mentally incompetent and took out an insurance policy on his mental incompetence by giving him drugs that guaranteed it. Remember what Ruby said in his published autobiography; that besides taking twice his usual dose of amphetamines, he took 5 or 6 other tablets that Sunday morning. What were those other tablets, and how did he come to take them? 

What it really comes down to is contradiction. It is a contradiction for Ruby to go off to shoot Oswald and bring his dog along. It is a contradiction for Ruby to combine the mundane act of sending a $25 money order to an employee with the life-changing and life-destroying (referring to Ruby's life) act of shooting Oswald.

And what did Ayn Rand tell us to do when facing a contradiction? She said to check your premises. And in this case, it means checking your premise that Ruby shot Oswald.