But, consider the irony: Oswald pleaded for a lawyer, almost constantly, but they wouldn't give him one. And those were his exact words: "But, these police officers won't let me have one."
So, they wouldn't give Oswald a lawyer, who was imploring them for one, but they did get a lawyer for Ruby, who never said a word about it.
I repeat: Ruby NEVER asked for a lawyer, and he never asked for Joe Tonahill, and he never said that Tonahill was his lawyer. In fact, Tonahill was NOT his lawyer at the time. Tonahill had done some legal work for Ruby years before. That's it. I think it had to do with getting his liquor license. Tonahill lived in Houston. He just happened to be there. He was there the whole weekend. He was seen talking to Fritz on Friday evening at the PD at the time of the Midnight Press Conference. There may even be a picture of them.
So, how did Joe Tonahill get to be Ruby's defense lawyer? It was foisted on Ruby. I'm sure they just told him, "Your lawyer is here." Ruby went along with it because he went along with everything. If they told him Vinny Gambini was his lawyer, he would have gone along with that too. That Ruby wound up with Joe Tonahill is because the Dallas Police wanted him to have Joe Tonahill.
But really dwell on it for a moment, the contrast between how Oswald was denied a lawyer while Ruby had a lawyer foisted on him. They were both patsies, but why the difference? The answer is very clear and simple:
Oswald had something he could tell a lawyer. He had plenty he could tell a lawyer. He could tell a lawyer that he didn't shoot Kennedy or Tippit; that he never ordered or owned a rifle; that he never posed for a photo with a rifle that he didn't own; that he never went to Mexico City; and that he was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository during the shooting. That is a hell of a lot to tell a lawyer. But Ruby? He had NOTHING to tell a lawyer. He didn't know what happened. All he knew, and all he went by is what police told him what happened. The Dallas Police had no worries that he was going to reveal anything to a lawyer because they knew that he didn't know anything. He had nothing to reveal, so it was safe to give him a lawyer.
Now, keep in mind that anyone who looked closely at the images of the Garage Shooter could tell straight away that he wasn't Jack Ruby. And anyone who studies the tapes can tell easily enough that the spectacle wasn't real. If it were real, Leavelle and Graves would have been looking around, scanning the area for threats. They would have treated it like a war zone and proceeded with the caution and watchfulness of Special Ops guys, and those Homicide detectives had all been in the Military. If you look closely, you can see Leavelle turning his head away from the Shooter. The Shooter came in from Leavelle's left, so Leavelle turned his head to the right. The Shooter moved directly in front of Graves, but Graves didn't see him. But, Graves would have had to be blind not to see him, and I mean that literally. But, everybody bought it, including Ruby's lawyers. And it's a very big question: why? The answer is that THE ATTITUDE PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT AMERICA ACTS LIKE A BLINDER.
Most people don't know how vision works. They don't realize the extent to which what you see is determined by your brain, not your eyes. It really is true that you see what you want to see, and it's not everything that is in front of you. Even though the photons for everything that is in your visual field reach your retina and stimulates it, resulting in a nervous impulse that is carried to the visual center of your brain, which is located in the posterior occipital area of your cerebral cortex, not all of that raw data culminates in a thought. What you actually "see" depends a lot on what you are thinking about.
So, for instance, if you are looking at footage in which you already have the thought that "this is Jack Ruby shooting Oswald" then that very thought prevents you from doing anything critical with your mind to process the visual data that you are getting of the Shooter. If he's too chubby to be Ruby; if he's too short to be Ruby; if he's got hair that is different from Ruby; you're gong to miss all that because you've already decided and accepted that he's Ruby. So, you just uncritically "see" Ruby there, and that's the end of it for you.
We have this idea of "brainwashing" as a mental phenomenon, but it's not limited to what is being done to and by our brains. It includes the way we process visual information that our eyes collect and deliver to our brain. If people accept, beforehand, that the Garage Shooter is Jack Ruby, then that acceptance, which is a mental process, blinds them to seeing that he is not Jack Ruby. They will see Jack Ruby because they want to see Jack Ruby.
What's needed to break that cycle is to abandon the conclusion that you've held for a very long time and start with a clean slate, an open mind. When you do that and look at specific data points and make the comparisons to Ruby, that's when it dawns on you that he is not Jack Ruby. The Shooter is too short to be Ruby, who was Oswald's height. The Shooter is too fat to be Ruby, who was not overweight at the time. If you look at images of Ruby from earlier in the 1950s, he was indeed chubby. But, by November 1963, he had slimmed down, and probably from all the amphetamines he was taking, which he spoke of as "diet pills." We can only see the Shooter's hair in back, but if you compare his hair in back to Ruby's, it was very different. If you compare the length of Ruby's neck to that of the Shooter, you can see that the Shooter had a much shorter neck. That's actually enough right there to ice it that that Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was not Jack Ruby.
Look at that chubby guy on the right. He can't possibly be Ruby, who is on the left.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.