And Jack Ruby was devout. He went to the synagogue on Friday evening. He listened to a broadcast by a rabbi on Sunday morning. He took his religion very seriously. And the admonition not to kill, thou shalt not kill, it was a commandment to the Jews going back to Moses- long before the time of Christ.
The idea that Jack Ruby conspired with anyone to kill Oswald or had any preconceived notion to kill Oswald has no footing whatsoever. Really, there is nothing to it at all, the proof of it being that he lived. They could not have trusted Jack Ruby to keep his mouth shut, and there was no reason to trust him. If he knew anything about anyone, they would have killed him as fast as they killed Epstein. And it would have been easy. He hung himself in his cell. It would have been easier to pull that off with Ruby than with Epstein, because with Epstein, people were making jokes about it in advance. They cynically saw it coming. The Deep State did it anyway, and it goes to show how arrogant they are. And notice that all those famous guys, such as Clinton and Prince Andrew, instantly got off the hook.
Some people even claim that Jack Ruby conspired with the Dallas Police to kill Oswald. But, then the Dallas Police would have had to trust him to keep his mouth shut, even as they testified against him in a prosecution that sought, and got, the death penalty.
Plus, it would have meant trusting Ruby to shoot Oswald and not miss or hit him in the wrong place that wasn't lethal. And before you laugh at that because you think it was so easy, what about Oswald? In a different scenario in which Ruby was really rushing in to shoot him, don't you think Oswald wanted to stay alive? He could have taken some evasive action. He could have screamed. He could have kicked him. And remember, his hands weren't cuffed. You can see it in the Jackson photo. Let's take the "story" of the Jackson photo at face value, shall we? Oswald's hands weren't cuffed. Supposedly, his right hand was cuffed to Leavelle's, but his left hand was free.
Graves held his upper arm, but that was nothing. Oswald had his left hand at his disposal to use as a weapon, and he did use his hand as a weapon in the theater. There was plenty that could go wrong if Ruby was actually going to shoot Oswald, and the idea that Dallas Police would have trusted him to do it- TRUSTED HIM WITH THEIR OWN LIVES- is ridiculous and preposterous.
And to the people who claim that the Mafia put Ruby up to shooting Oswald, there isn't a speck of evidence for that. What can they cite as evidence? There is nothing.
So, it is no wonder that the argument that Ruby's defense team used in court, that Ruby did it by sudden impulse and with no awareness, became widely accepted, even though the jury didn't buy it. And, his lawyers didn't just make it up. Ruby told them that he had no awareness of shooting Oswald, that he had no thought of doing it, and no memory of doing it. He told them that he remembered going to the bottom of the ramp and being pounced upon by police and not knowing why they were doing it. He recalled nothing in-between. And he said that he asked them as they were doing it, "Why are you doing this? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby."
Of course, the Garage Shooter never said anything. We can see that for ourselves by watching the footage that he never speaks, and the reporters all said that he never spoke.
But, why didn't Ruby's lawyers, including Melvin Belli, believe him? Why didn't they consider that he was telling the literal truth, that he got to the bottom of the ramp and was pounced upon, and nothing happened in-between? Why didn't they consider that the cops were lying? And why didn't they actually LOOK at the tapes and focus on the shooter to see if he was Ruby? If they had done that, they would have seen that it wasn't him, that the discrepancies between Ruby and the Garage Shooter are so great, it is beyond the pale to think it was him. It is obviously another guy, who was shorter, stockier, with a shorter, wider neck, longer, thicker hair, different ears, and more.
There was a psychological process involved, a psychological barrier, and it was subconscious. The barrier was the belief that such a thing couldn't happen in America, that the Dallas Police were not capable of the absolute extreme of maliciousness that was involved in killing Oswald and framing Ruby for it, as they did. His lawyers couldn't get over that bar. They couldn't even get off the ground. It was like a pole vaulter who couldn't get airborne. They just couldn't go there mentally. They were incapable of it.
But, what if I had been around then, as an adult, and I got to them and showed them that the Garage Shooter and Ruby do not match, their hairlines in back are very different, that the shooter was too short- the shortest guy in the garage, etc. Would they have listened?
I think they would have. I really do. It's a speculation, but I really think I could have convinced them. Why do I say that when there are plenty of people today who reject what I say, even after hearing it? It's because these lawyers were strongly motivated to defend Ruby. Well, I'm not sure about Tonahill, but I don't doubt that Belli was really out to defend him. He would have listened. How could he not if I went to him and said, "The features of the Garage Shooter are not a match to Ruby, and I can show you. May I?" How could he say no? What would he have to lose by hearing me out? He was truly trying to defend Ruby, wasn't he?
The innocence of Jack Ruby is the new frontier in JFK assassination research. And even if you know everything about the killing of JFK: who did it, how many shooters there were, how many locations they used, etc., if you don't realize that Jack was innocent, you might as well be completely in the dark about everything. There is just no understanding the JFK assassination without realizing that Jack Ruby was innocent; completely and totally innocent; framed and innocent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.