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

OIC member Bernard Wilds sent me an article about Jack Ruby that was written a few months after his death in 1967. 

The first thought I had, before reading it, was that the two authors are probably prominent and well-connected. And, I was right. Garry Willis is an author, essayist, journalist and historian, who was paid by William F. Buckley to write for the National Review. He has also taught history at Johns Hopkins University. Ovid Demaris was a relentless author of fiction and non-fiction who wrote over 30 books. Demaris is dead, but Willis is still alive.

You recall that when it was time to publish Ruby's autobiography in the newspaper, they brought in a prominent writer to help him too: William Read Woodfield, a screenwriter who mostly wrote for television; the creator of the Mission Impossible tv series. 

So, they kept getting prominent writers to weave the stories about Jack Ruby; why? Because this was court history they weren't taking any chances.

So, what did they say in this 35 page article? Most of it concerns Ruby's life as a club owner in Dallas, and much of it focused on his violent nature, how he was either beating someone up, throwing someone down the stairs, etc. And please note that I dispute every single bit of this. I don't think Ruby was violent at all, and there is evidence that way: Jack Ruby. We have reports of him when he was in custody, and we have footage him during his trial. Obviously, physical violence is a form of aggression. And if a person is physically violent, it's very likely that he will be aggressive.  But, Jack Ruby was the least aggressive person I have ever seen. He showed none of the physical mannerisms, the facial mannerism, or other mannerisms of a violent person. He never once reacted outraged in court at his trial, to those who testified against him. Even though it wasn't likely that he would get violent in court, those who are violent will shows signs of it- even in court; the speed by which they react with outrage at the things being said against them; acting impatient; acting incensed; there was none of that by Jack Ruby. He never argued with anyone during his lengthy testimony. And I don't mean in court, but to the WC. His lawyers would not allow him to testify in court, and it was a big mistake. 


At the end, they give an account of Sunday morning. They refer to the article in the paper, the "Letter to Caroline" which moved Ruby so much. They claimed the letter started with "Carolyn, you have a lot of courageous blood in your veins." Go ahead and do a Google search for that. You'll find nothing. Try to find the letter. You won't find it. I dare you to try. If this was the letter that moved Ruby to shoot Oswald, how come we all don't get to read it?

They wrote that Ruby said to his roommate George Senator that morning that "that punk needs killing." George Senator, in his Warren Commission testimony, emphatically denied that Ruby ever referred to him or anyone killing Oswald. They wrote that Ruby spoke to him of needing to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas- also denied by George Senator and not created until Ruby's lawyer Tom Howard conjured it up.

I've mentioned before that Ruby's lawyers argued that Ruby had no plan to kill Oswald- he even brought his dog along. These authors claim that Ruby told Senator that he was taking Sheba with him to drop her off at the club after he sent the money order. They seem to admit that Ruby had no explicit plan to shoot Oswald, but that he did speak of wanting to see Oswald dead. It really is a lie. But, the point is that Henry Wade got the death penalty for Ruby on the basis that he did plan and plot to shoot Oswald. But here, just a few months after Ruby's death, these authors confirmed that Ruby had every intention of going on with his Sunday after he sent the money order- with no expectation whatsoever of losing his entire life after sending the money order. So, it's interesting that the case that the Defense made and lost on very quickly became the official story- as soon as Ruby was dead.

The authors play psychiatrists. They are constantly psychoanalyzing Ruby, telling us how his mind worked, and drawing parallels to other actions and behaviors that preceded his supposed shooting of Oswald. Here is how they parsed Ruby's decision to walk down to the ramp:

(Must get the keys out, drive Sheba to the club. The dogs need food and an airing: then leave Sheba with them; can't have her waiting for me in the car all day while I mix with the other reporters. But those people are still there, just down the street. Looks like the same ones, not just passers-by. Well, it will only take a minute to find out what's happening.) 

And so, according to them, that was Ruby's mental exercise in deciding to go down to the ramp.

But then, according to them, he goes down there, and nobody syncs on him breaking through the checkpoint in broad daylight. They don't even acknowledge that there were 4 cops there. Vaughan, Pierce, Putnam, and Maxie. You would think it was just Vaughan and Pierce from what they wrote. They just made it that Vaughn got distracted because he was helping Pierce make a left turn onto Main Street. And they imply that the spectators were distracted watching that. Hence, nobody saw Ruby waltz on down the ramp.

And then, moments later, he shoots Oswald, and they end the article with what Ruby supposedly said when the police piled on top of him: "YOU ALL KNOW ME. I'M JACK RUBY."

But, people are forgetting something: we have all the footages of the Oswald shooting, and in each and every one, it's obvious and plain as day that the shooter didn't say anything. We don't hear him speak, and we don't see him speak. We don't see any indication whatsoever that there was any verbal communication going on. The Garage Shooter did NOT speak. He did not talk. He was as mute as Teller when he's on stage with Penn.