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

It is absolutely crazy that Jack Ruby had inside knowledge of the JFK assassination and was in cahoots with Lyndon Johnson. It's true there is a famous piece of footage in which Ruby, talking to reporters, said that Johnson had a role. But, that's only because he read a book called A Texan Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley, which came out in March 1964. Somebody- I don't know who- brought the book to Ruby, and he read it there at the County Jail. And what the book says is that Oswald was the lone gunman but Johnson put him up to it. It's ridiculous. As you know, Oswald wasn't a gunman at all and didn't own a gun. 

If Ruby had any inside knowledge, if he had the means to incriminate and make revelations about the movers and shakers and what really happened, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO KILL HIM IMMEDIATELY. 

Recall the movie Casablanca, when Police Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains, says of Ugarete played by Peter Lorre, 

"We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape." 

The fact that Ruby lived for 3 years should tell you that he knew nothing. Absolutely nothing. And it is likely that they did kill him in 1967, but it wasn't because of what he knew and could say about the assassination, which was nothing. It was because he won a new trial, and they weren't going to risk having a second one.  They knew that his lawyers would have learned from the first trial, and it was possible that a light would go on in their heads.  For instance, what if they smartened up and put Ruby on the stand? His childlike nature would have come through to the jury. His religiosity. And just how completely devoid of awareness he was of what happened. The gist of it would have been, "I don't know what happened. I had no thought of shooting Oswald. All I know is that police told me I did it."  

The point is that even by accident, a crack could have occurred in the story if he was tried again. And then, what if his layers really studied the Shooter in the films and photos and really compared him to Ruby? And I mean in the way that a fingerprint comparison is made, comparing fine points. 

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that Ruby should suddenly come down with lung cancer right after winning a new trial? He was practically a non-smoker. He rarely smoked a cigarette. And when he was taken to the hospital and asked about his health, he didn't say anything about lung cancer. He thought he was there because of a rectal problem. He officially died of a blood clot, and there are a lot of drugs that can cause blood clots. 

Jack Ruby was innocent, and the stories that he was a hit man, a Mafioso, a pimp, etc. are just bull shit. He was a nicer, softer, kinder person than most people you are ever going to meet. He was almost childlike in his simplicity and his assumptions. And he was deeply religious in the Jewish faith.  He did not shoot Oswald. He showed up there much earlier than reported and was skirted up to the 5th floor where he was held during the televised spectacle. Then, they wove him into the story by bringing him back down and parading him around. 

It is just so dastardly what they did to him, so Machiavellian, but I'm not surprised that no one in 1963 thought of it because it was a naive time when people trusted authority and trusted the media. People were incapable of fathoming this much evil back then. But, this is 2020. It's almost 2021. And nobody is naive any more, right? Everyone knows how rotten and corrupt and driven by lies the whole system is.  So, anyone who fights this now is just an ostrich with his head in the sane.