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

I want to address the Warren Commission testimony of the brother of Jack Ruby: Hyman Rubenstein. But first: do you realize that the FBI determined who the Warren Commission talked to? With very few exceptions, the FBI interrogated all the Warren Commission witnesses before the Warren Commission got to them.  Essentially, the FBI told the Warren Commission who they could interview, and who they couldn't. 

For instance, it is significant some of the people the WC did NOT interview. They didn't interview Carolyn Arnold, even though she claimed that she saw Oswald standing at the doorway (behind the glass) shortly before the shooting. How was that not relevant in an honest investigation? But, this was not an honest investigation. And they didn't interview Mary Moorman either. But, why not her? 

I know why, and everybody should know why. From the beginning and all along, Mary Moorman said that she took her photo at the instant of the FIRST shot. But, the Moorman photo, supposedly, shows the limo after the last shot. According to the FBI, it coincides with Z-315. So, how could she take it at the instant of the first shot but capture the scene after the last shot? And why, after waiting for hours in the hot sun to capture their faces, would she wait to snap the shutter only to capture the backs of their heads? This was Jack and Jackie Kennedy- the most celebrated couple in the world.  And when you're photographing celebrities, you want their faces- not the backs of their heads. 

But, the FBI knew the truth, and it was what I've been telling you, that Mary Moorman did not take the Moorman photo. It was taken by Babushka Lady- at an angle from behind. Apparently, Mary's real photo revealed more than the world could be allowed to see, and I can only imagine what that was. The FBI made sure that MM never got to speak to the WC because that would have been way too dangerous a mine field for them- the FBI. 

But, the FBI did direct the WC to talk to people about Jack Ruby, including several of his siblings. They talked to his brother Hyman even though he was much older and hadn't spent that much time with him. And then, they wanted to know every detail about Hyman's life. It is absolutely incredible the detail they went into with him about himself- and I mean every little thing he did in his entire life. 

What was the purpose of it all? Well eventually, they did get around to asking him about his brother's violent tendencies. And Hyman obliged, citing several instances of fights that Jack had. But, he also admitted that he never saw Jack engage in any violent acts; it was just stuff he heard about- urban legends.

The killing of Oswald and the framing of Jack Ruby was a joint operation of the Dallas Police and the FBI. And, it was FBI agent James Bookhout who played Ruby during the televised spectacle.  So, J. Edgar Hoover was keenly aware of what really happened, and he was determined to create a violent past for Ruby. And that was the one and only purpose of having Hyman testify, even though they ensconced it in all this other tedious and irrelevant stuff. I could give you the link, but you'll never read it; it is so filled with boring and tedious minutia about Hyman's life. It's excruciating.  

It was similar for Jack's brother Sam who was interviewed by the FBI 5x before he spoke to the Warren Commission. And most of the tales of Jack's violence involved incidents from many years before.  But, it was Jack Ruby in late 1963- his tendencies then- that mattered. A propensity to violence does not occur in a vacuum. Violent acts are the progression of violent rages. We should think of civility, or the lack of thereof, as a spectrum, and transcending into violence is at the end of the spectrum. In other words, except in self-defense or the defense of others, getting violent entails losing it- losing control of yourself. Violence is preceded by belligerence, hostility, arrogance, aggressiveness, and anger. Those are the preliminaries to violence. Did Jack Ruby show them? Did he show them to us? We can evaluate that by looking at his behavior following his arrest.  And what we see is a man who was extremely and inordinately docile. Jack Ruby showed not the slightest tendency to violence, and his whole attitude and demeanor were submissive, and not just submissive but also respectful- respectful of authority. 

There is a complete disconnect between the Jack Ruby that the FBI tried to picture, and the one that we can see and hear and experience ourselves. And who are you going to believe?

Jack Ruby did NOT have a short fuse. He, in fact, had a very long fuse. I'm not sure he had any fuse at all. He had little capacity to get angry, and anger is the prelude to violence. 

I am asking you to appraise Jack Ruby yourself. Watch him here. Listen to him. 

And note that he's crying. What came easy to him wasn't violence but crying. He had a childlike nature. That was his nature. This is the real Jack Ruby. Stop believing the false narrative. This was him, and he was not a violent man. He was a childlike man. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBrlzi744Y