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

That third weekend of November 1963, the National Security State, as Vincent Salandria put it, killed three men with young children: JFK, Tippit, and Oswald. Ruby had no children, but he got a fate worse than death. They completely destroyed his life, his reputation, and he lost everything he held dear. And when he died 3 years later, it's very likely it was their doing.  After all, when he was in the hospital, two weeks before he died, and he was asked what was wrong with him, he said nothing about lung cancer. He said he was bleeding from his rectum. 

Jack Ruby never "admitted" that he shot Oswald. He "accepted" that he did. There's a big difference. To admit that you did something means to know that you did it from your own cognizance.  That was not the case for Ruby. He had no awareness or recollection of shooting Oswald. He also said he had no thought or intention to kill Oswald. He said the whole idea of it was foreign to his mind. He said that all he could remember was going down to the garage, being jumped by the cops, not knowing why, and then being told by them, on the 5th floor, that he had shot Oswald. That is not an "admission." 

Jack Ruby was mentally impaired. It wasn't normal to do what he did, mentally. An example of normal is what Roy Vaughn did. Have you considered the similarity between his situation and Ruby's? 

Roy Vaughn was told by police, by investigators, by media, and ultimately by historians, that he let Ruby in; that while he was guarding the Main Street ramp, he, incompetently, let Ruby slip by him. He wasn't accused of conspiring with Ruby. He was accused of being a blithering idiot, of being unable to protect an 8 foot wide expanse: something that an 80 year old Walmart greeter, on oxygen and a walker, could do. But, even though he was officially held responsible by the Warren Commission in their narrative, and even though he was officially reprimanded by the Dallas Police, he stuck to his convictions, to his dying breath, that Ruby did not get past him. 

And let's be very clear about the implications of it because if you remove a derelict Roy Vaughn from the Official Story, there is no story.  It utterly depends on Roy Vaughn having fucked up.

There used to be on Youtube a video of Roy Vaughn defiantly denying that Ruby got past him. Did that I mention he was defiant about it? It got removed. Why do you think that is? It's because Roy Vaughn did more damage to the Official Story of Oswald's murder than Ralph Cinque or a hundred Ralph Cinques could do.

And Roy Vaughn did more than that. He hired a lawyer, a real lawyer, unlike the impotent saps that Ruby had. And guess what? They sued. When in 1978, CBS broadcast RUBY AND OSWALD that implicated Vaughn as the fail point,  Vaughn filed suit. And guess again: CBS quietly settled with him. They paid him money, an undisclosed amount. Now, why wasn't that news? They should have had Dan Rather talking about that on their Evening News.

It didn't matter to Roy Vaughn that investigators and the history-makers and his own superiors at the DPD said that he fucked up.  He defiantly, obstinately, adamantly, and aggressively denied it-until his last breath. 

Don't you see that Jack Ruby had just as much grounds to do that as Roy Vaughn? And note that they used a Sharpie on Ruby's hair in the image below; he did not have such a thick tuft of hair on top. Why did they keep doing that? It's because the Garage Shooter seemed to have such a thick rug of hair, and "rug" is the right word. 

But, what about you? What if police and all the voices of authority in the world told you that you committed a terrible act which you knew you wouldn't, couldn't, and didn't; would you give in to them, or would you defiantly hold your ground? In other words, are you a Roy Vaughn or a Jack Ruby?