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

The National Enquirer published an article in February of this year claiming that Jack Ruby's death was faked, that he was whisked away to Mexico and given a new life. 

https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/jack-ruby-cia-lee-harvey-oswald/

It is complete, total, utter nonsense, replete with bogus images of Jack Ruby with long, thick hair. 

The very same story was reported in 1988 by another tabloid called Globe.

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005/09/jfk-assassination-shockerthe-secret.html


Like the Bob Vanderslice story, this one relies on one claimant, a woman named Vergie Lunsford, who claimed to have been a CIA agent who worked with Ruby. The National Enquirer claimed that she was a career CIA woman while the Globe claim that she left the agency in 1945 to start a family. The National Enquirer claimed that she made them promise to wait 25 years after her death to report the story which had already been published in 1988.  They also said she died in 2000. Hey, I'm no Math major, but isn't that only 18 years, not 25? 

And supposedly, according to Vergie Lunsford, Ruby was standing right next to Oswald on the 6th floor when he shot Kennedy. How ridiculous is that? Not only was Ruby not up there, neither was Oswald, who, as you know, was in the doorway. 

But, another difference is that the Vanderslice story was published not just in the tabloid world but throughout the mainstream media. Here is a reporting of it I hadn't seen before in The New York Post, which is the 4th largest newspaper in the United States.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/18/jack-ruby-watched-jfk-get-assassinated/

Look how emphatic the headline is:

Why would something that was reportedly told to the FBI by one person in 1977 on which they took no action whatsoever be considered bankably newsworthy in 2018? And enough so to warrant an emphatic, matter-of-fact headline? 

And let's note that the two stories contradict each other. Vanderslice said he watched "the fireworks" with Ruby in Dealey Plaza, while Lunsford said that Ruby was up on the 6th floor with Oswald at that time. Which is true? NEITHER. 

But, it's no accident that these stories keep surfacing because what they do, no matter how they are told, is reinforce the idea that Ruby shot Oswald. And, he didn't. Ruby was innocent. He was framed and innocent. And because of his mental incapacity, even he was convinced that he did it.  

It is a very bizarre thing because THE WHOLE WORLD BOUGHT THE LIE THAT JACK RUBY DID IT. And even those infused with a desire to uncover the truth have gone completely in the wrong direction and, unwittingly, reinforced the falsehood that he did it. It's like they went from blind to blinder. 

Jack Ruby is the most wronged man who ever loved, even more wronged than Oswald. At least Oswald had his wits about him and could deny guilt and profess innocence. But, Ruby wasn't aware enough even to do that. He was played, and the whole world has been played- until Maxsim Irkutsk shined the first light on the truth in 2013. 

That Jack Ruby was innocent is on par with Oswald in the doorway as being the two most important facts about the JFK assassination. And unless you know those two things, you are completely and totally in the dark about what happened that weekend.