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

 The Absolute Certainty of Jack Ruby's Innocence

by Ralph C. Cinque

I hope that, at the very least, you have begun to question Jack Ruby's guilt and consider the possibility that he was innocent. Now, I am out to overcome any last resistance you may have to it, and I think I can do it.

However, I am only speaking to the people who are honest and uncorrupted. This is a war, and you know how wars are fought. You know what the first casualty of war is.

And what is at stake is the whole moral authority of the government, the integrity of the U.S. media, and that of U.S. education. So, how hard are they going to fight?

And speaking of education, one thing they don't teach you in school is how to think. They may teach you how to think in technical areas, for instance, if you are learning to fly a plane. But, they don't teach you how to think about things like this.

So, let's look at what we know about Jack Ruby. We know for absolute certain that he had no intention of shooting Oswald on the morning of November 24. He told his roommate George Senator that he was going to wire the $25 to Little Lyn and then drop the dog off at the club. And he had plans after that. I learned from Dr. Gerald McKnight that Ruby was planning to move into a new and swankier apartment and that he intended to go there after dropping the dog off. I regret that I can't give you details. He told me the name of the apartment building, but I can't remember it.

But, that aside, if Ruby really intended to shoot Oswald in a crowd of police, he would not only have not brought his dog along, he would have made provisions for his dogs, knowing that he would not be returning to them.

He left his dog unattended in his unlocked car when he went into Western Union. So, obviously, he had every expectation of not being gone long and coming back.

The bringing of Sheba along is big. It is so big that it really does establish, by itself, that Ruby had no intention of shooting Oswald.

And how could he have a plan to shoot Oswald if he showed up an hour and twenty minutes late? The jail transfer was scheduled for 10, with no further guidance.

Now, there is something that is VERY incriminating, but not to Ruby. It is the presence of a crowd at the Main Street ramp. It was an incoming ramp, and no one was expected to arrive. There was no reason for those people to be there. So, their very presence there is guilt-ridden. And you, if you're smart, you will realize that is is not OK, them being there.

And when I tell you that they were there to attract Ruby, to be a magnet for him, that exhausts all the possibiliites. There is no other reason- or excuse- for them to be there.

The claim is often made that the Mafia ordered Ruby to kill Oswald. There is not the slightest bit of evidence for that. There is nothing whatsoever supporting it. Zero.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that Ruby had any expectation of seeing Oswald. How can you plan to shoot someone that you don't expect to see?

There are other reasons why there is no basis to claim that Ruby intended to shoot Oswald. But, I want this to be concise, so I am just going to give you one more: the juxtaposing of sending the money order with the shooting. First one, then the other. Ruby sent Little Lyn that money because she worked for him. Ruby was running a business, and she was a valued employee. He expected things from her. He expected her to show up that Monday night and dance and flirt with the men, etc. He was depending on her to do that. They had been closed all weekend, which meant that he was losing money, and Monday night was the reopening. He wanted it to be rousing. He wanted her to be there.There is every reason to believe that sending that money order was a business decision. Little Lyn was an asset to him that he was securing. Him sending her that money tells you that he expected to open that Monday night, for her to show up, and for him to be there. But, if he planned to shoot Oswald in a crowd of police, he would have known that all of that was moot. You just cannot rationalize the money wire and the shooting.

Ruby's actions tell you that he had no intention whatsoever of shooting Oswald. That is established, and we really can move on from it.

So now the question is: did he shoot Oswald on impulse? And unfortunately we have to divide it into two categories: consciously and unconsciously.

I say unfortunately because it's unfortunate that his defense team decided to claim that he shot Oswald unconsciously, that he blanked out, that he had a "psychomotor seizure." Take a moment and read this short description of it by a neurologist. https://www.healthline.com/health/epilepsy/psychomotor-seizure

So, Melvin Belli didn't make up that diagnosis. But, what he did make up is the idea that the convulsion could result in the performance of a complex action, like taking out a gun, pointing it, and pulling the trigger, and murdering someone.

So, that is complete nonsense, but there remains the question of whether Ruby experienced a brief lapse of awareness. Obviously, one can't claim that he was unconscious because when you are unconscious, you can't do anything. Even a sleepwalker is partially conscious. They are not forming memories of what they are doing, but they are seeing things, and hearing things, and functioning in a state of partial consciousness. But, did Ruby have a complete lapse of awareness to the point that he did something without being aware that he was doing it at all, and forming no memory of it? That is what his lawyers claimed, but it is totally unfounded.

Sleepwalking really does happen, but there is no basis to believe that Ruby shot Oswald in a mental state that was akin to sleepwalking. He wasn't asleep. Before you can walk in your sleep, you have to be asleep. If we look at Ruby's mental awareness before and after the shooting, we realize that he recognized someone he knew at the top of the ramp: Lt. Rio Sam Pierce. When he got to the basement, he saw people, and he observed that there was no one that he knew. He claimed to recognize Oswald when he was brought out, and he described him. And then, he remembered very well the pouncing that he got, and he remembered what he said during the pouncing, verbatim. Then, he remembered what happened next, them taking him up to the 5th floor and telling him that he shot Oswald. And he remembered his response to that, saying, "My God, My God."

So, there is strong evidence of awareness that Ruby had at the time, and there is no medical basis to claim that he lost it for a few seconds. There is no basis to claim that Ruby entered an altered mental state, just for several seconds, in which he did something without remembering it.

I should stop and address the issue of whether Ruby could have been lying. There is no basis to claim it. Ruby implored the authorities to give him a polygraph test (which they did) and truth serum (which they didn't). And he passed the polygraph test. It was later dismissed because of his psychosis diagnosis, but as far as the needle jumps went, the machine said he wasn't lying.

Ruby accepted that he shot Oswald. He didn't dispute it. So, why would he lie about anything else?

What about the claim that Ruby was in a rage towards Oswald? He wasn't. There isn't a speck of evidence that he was. He was very affected by Kennedy's death, and more so than most people. But, he said that what he felt that weekend was grief, sadness, and remorse, but not anger. He said that anger wasn't in his vocabulary.

But, there is a bigger issue, and that is: did Ruby have any inclination to override the law and law enforcement authority? Absolutely not. Ruby was a groupie to the Dallas Police. They were his heroes. They were like his rock stars. He worshipped them. And really, to an extent that was extreme and quite baffling. And I do wonder if he might have been hypnotized to feel that way, as in The Manchurian Candidate, "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, gentled, warmest, most wonderful human being I have ever met." But, even if we put that aside and accept that he naturally came to feel that way, it precludes the idea that he would have any inclination to usurp a Dallas Police operation and thwart what they were trying to do.

The truth is: Ruby had a lot of respect for the system. He respected authority. He respected the law. He had a very strong moral compass. He was a very devout, practicing Jew. He sought counseling with his rabbi that Friday night. And his rabbi did interviews and never said that Ruby exhibited the slightest bit of rage.

Ruby had no rage. I have rage. I admit it! Compared to me, Ruby had no rage at all. The idea that he was capable of murder is preposterous and totally, completely unfounded. Ruby had mental problems, but rage wasn't one of them.

Ruby said that when he went down there, that the police jumped him, and he did not know why. He said he asked them why as they were doing it. "Hey, what you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby, not some criminal." And then they took him up to the 5th floor and told him that he shot Oswald.

There is no sound reason to doubt that that is exactly what happened; that Jack Ruby was telling the truth. He had no mental lapse, certainly not in terms of recalling what happened and what he did.

So, if Ruby was telling the truth, and he was, it means that he must have been there at another time. It means that the footage that we've seen has to be another event involving someone else.

And if he was telling the truth, and he was; he was incapable of lying, as his mind wasn't cunning enough to lie; then it means that the Dallas Police must have lied. And that is where everything went south. When Ruby's lawyers heard what he had to say, they felt compelled to marry it to Dallas Police truthfulnes. They were mentally incapable of conceiving that a very evil and diabolical plot took place involving the Dallas Police. And I refer to it as the disease of "Americana," that things like that don't happen in this country. It wasn't Red China or the Soviet Union. It was the United States of America. And things like that don't happen here.

So, that move (of the Dallas Police lying) was off the chessboard. It was never on the chessboard. Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald and no intention to shoot him, but Dallas police said he did; plus he was there; he was arrested; there was no one else on the radar; so it had to be him.

And that mindset prevented his attorneys from "seeing" what the films were showing. You don't see just with your eyes. Everything you see has to be processed by your brain. Your eyes collect the visual data, but your brain interprets it. So, when they watched the films, even though the Shooter was shorter than Ruby, and fatter than Ruby, and had different hair than Ruby, and a much shorter, burlier neck than Ruby, they didn't see any of it because their minds were telling them that it was Ruby.

And the exact same thing goes on to this day. There is the foregone conclusion that it was Ruby in the garage shooting Oswald, and that conclusion usurps the rational examination of the visual evidence, which shows otherwise. The disparity between Jack Ruby and the Garage Shooter is great; it is extreme. Yet, people don't see it because of their overriding minds, which insist it was Ruby despite plain and obvious evidence that it wasn't.

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was a victim, and you are too. You should defend him, for his sake and yours. Break free from the psychological manipulation of authority. Defend Jack Ruby and take back your mind.