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

I know it seems extreme to some, the idea that Jack Ruby was innocent, but it is not extreme, and it isn't even unique. All I'm saying is that Jack Ruby was the kind of assassin that Sirhan Sirhan was, as well as Mark David Chapman, the patsy in the John Lennon assassination. And there have been others, including James Earl Ray and John Hinckley. What do they all have in common, including Jack Ruby? It is that they were not right in the head; they were all deranged. Oswald stands out in contrast because he was right in the head. He was lucid; he was sound; and he fought back- effectively. And if he had spoken to a lawyer, forget about it; it would have all come crashing down on the perpetrators. And they most certainly knew that which is why they wouldn't allow him to speak to a lawyer. 

Think about it: Jack Ruby supposedly shoots Oswald, and we hear Will Fritz tell reporters that "Of course, Ruby is consulting with his lawyer, which is his right." Oh really? Then why wasn't it Oswald's right 24 hours before? 

So, they let Ruby see a lawyer but not Oswald. Why? It was because Ruby was deranged. He was too deranged to help himself even with a lawyer. But, Oswald was not deranged, and with a lawyer's help, he would have crushed the plotters, like they were bugs.  

And I am going to remind you that that whole bit about Attorney H. Louis Nichols visiting Oswald, and Oswald turning down his offer to get him a lawyer is bull. It never happened. Nichols saw the Oswald double, and they had a very good one on hand.

The plotters had set in motion the plan to use Oswald as patsy in 1961. They probably brought him back from Russia precisely for that reason. If we assume that the plot to kill Kennedy emerged right after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, when Kennedy fired Dulles as well as the brother of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, that was April 1961. So, they had plenty of time to choose Oswald and get him back here by June 1962, a little over a year later. But, after that, somebody high-up realized, "Hey! We're going about this the wrong way. We're making it harder than it has to be. We shouldn't pick guys who are mentally competent who are going to fight back like dogs. We need to go with mental cases- guys who are totally out of it. And if they need help getting totally out of it, we can oblige them." 

Sirhan Sirhan was totally out of it mentally. He was strung out on drugs. He was immersed in Rosicrucianism, which is a very mystic kind of religion. And I know what I'm talking about because I have been to the Rosicrucian Center in Oceanside, California several times. Sirhan Sirhan was strung out on drugs, and he was subjected hypnotic/mind control techniques. He really was in bad shape, and they certainly weren't going to use him to actually shoot RFK. They weren't going to assume that risk; the risk that he would have missed or not shot him fatally, or went about it clumsily such that a well-meaning person might have stopped him, or that he shot someone else, which was easily possible because it was a very crowded place, just like the DPD basement garage. And, it was just the same for Jack Ruby. He was strung out on drugs: amphetamines. And because of that, and perhaps for other reasons, he had a very severe sleep disorder. If you look at timeline of Jack Ruby, you'll see that he only slept a total of 7 hours the last 3 nights before the Oswald shooting.

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

And if you read his narrative, you find out that he said he took twice his usual dose of amphetamines on Sunday morning plus some other large pills, which he did not identify.  Why did he do that, and why did he write it like that without elaborating? But remember, somebody edited what he wrote. 

It was reported on WGN, the local ABC affiliate in Dallas that when first arrested, Ruby was "mumbling incoherently." It wasn't repeated. but it was reported the one time. But, if that is the state that he was in, who would want him wielding a loaded gun in a crowded place? And even if you think they wouldn't have cared if a reporter got killed, the place was swarming with Dallas policemen. They weren't going to take the chance of him firing.  Therefore, the plan could not have been that Jacky Ruby would pull the trigger of a loaded gun in that garage. The plan was just that he would take the blame for it. He was a Sirhan Sirhan kind of patsy, not a Lee Harvey Oswald kind of patsy.  

I wrote earlier about that wonderful article by the Iranian journalist Ramin Mazaheri who said that after they killed Suleimani, they laid out a whole "false life" for him as a terrorist, when, in reality, he fought terrorism, and probably saved American lives.  

Well likewise, after his death, they laid out a whole "false life" for Jack Ruby, claiming that he was a gun runner, a pimp, a hit man, a Mafioso, and more. It was all lies. They even said he was involved in killing Kennedy. I realize that that contradicts the whole idea of Oswald as lone gunman, but they knew beforehand that a lot of people were never going to buy that, and they wanted those people to embrace the idea that Oswald and Ruby were confederates. That's why the idea surfaced right away that Oswald had been to Ruby's nightclub, the Carousel. It's nonsense, and Ruby said so, himself, in his death bed confession. He said, "it's just a fabrication." And in the mental state that he was in, I doubt that anyone was a worse liar than Jack Ruby. But, he did not lie. He did not lie about anything. He didn't even have it in him to lie about anything. For Goodness sake, he pleaded to take a polygraph test and to be given truth serum. Since when do liars do that? 

Jack Ruby, a devout Jew, was completely, and totally innocent, and  he only accepted that he shot Oswald because he was told that he did it. He said he had no memory of doing it and no intention of doing it, and his innocence is the deep, dark underbelly of the whole JFK assassination saga.