Like me, Richard E. Sprague believed that JFK was shot with a frozen dart which contained an immobilizing agent. But, he believed the shooter was Umbrella Man, and the weapon was the umbrella, and I don't think that is likely at all. For one, the only way to shoot it with accuracy would be to raise it to eye level and sight down the length of it- as you would a rifle. But, that would have stuck out like a sore thumb, and it could easily have been photographed. 

Sprague made reference to the 1975 Church Committee which displayed the CIA ice gun, but it looked like a gun and nothing like an umbrella.  To say there is speculation in this piece is an understatement. It is wild, fanciful speculation. 

And really, he got everything wrong. He claims that that neck shot came before the back shot, and it was vice versa. The back shot came first. And it came early. Very early. It came before the Croft photo because JFK is reacting to it in the Croft photo. The Croft photo was reportedly taken at Z161, so if it was taken slightly before that, what Zapruder frame are we talking about? It is impossible to say because the Zapruder is so cut-up and cobbled together. You can't get any accurate times at all from it. 

So, forget about Zapruder which is useless for timing and locating anything, but we can safely say that the back shot struck up to a second before the Croft photo, and JFK is reacting to it in the Croft photo, and a lot was done to the Croft photo to cover that up. 

So, the back shot was the first shot to strike the President, and it occurred rather high on the hill, right about when the limo was passing the obelisk. It was taken very close in time to the Altgens photo, either a fraction of a second before or after. And regardless, nothing we see of JFK and Jackie in the Altgens photo is real. The whole bit about JFK raising his fist and Jackie tenderly caressing his arm is fake. It hadn't happened yet. Remember, the Altgens photo is severely cropped. Altgens lied when he told the WC that he zoomed in, and he gave it away when he admitted that his assignment was to capture the "caravan" amid the Dallas skyline, meaning the tops of buildings. How are you going to do that if you zoom in? 

But, the back shot was definitely a straight-on shot. There is no reason to think it was taken from a diagonal. It went straight into his back. So, the shooter had to be directly behind him, not off to the side, as Umbrella Man was. The back shot was taken from the Dal-Tex building.  

Then, Sprague grossly exaggerates the transfer of momentum of the bullet to the body. There is very little. Almost all the bullet's energy goes towards tunneling through the body not towards moving it. Sprague attributes JFK's arm motions to the transfer of energy from the bullet, and that is nonsense. JFK moved his arms with his own energy. Listen to Gilles Jesus. 

Alas, Sprague was an idiot. He actually claimed that there was a "second African-American" at the TSBD doorway whose arm got super-imposed over Doorman's, but that is ridiculous. The Altgens photo is a spasm of photographic alteration, which he missed completely. There was only one black guy.

So, this analysis by Sprague is historically important because it refers to JFK being shot with a frozen dart to deliver a chemical agent that would "paralyze" him before he entered the Kill Zone. But, "paralyze" is not the right word because paralysis refers to the complete loss of innervation to a muscle, whereas what happened  to Kennedy was just the opposite: the spasming of his muscles from a nerve agent. His muscles were hypertonic, not paralyzed. He was rendered spasmodic, and the purpose was to immobilize him.      

A lot of people like to laugh at this piece by Sprague, and I can't say I blame them. But, he was right that JFK was shot with a frozen dart to deliver an immobilizing agent. Umbrella Man was just a signaler to the shooters and not a shooter himself. 

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html 

Imagine if Mark Lane had forced his way into the PD and demanded to consult with Oswald as his lawyer. Say he used Marguerite as his authorization, that she hired him to defend her son. A mother is a pretty close family member, isn't she? 

And if they gave him a hard time about it, he could have pointed out that there were no other lawyers stepping forward. And if they got Robert Oswald or even Marina Oswald to object, Lane could point out that they weren't arranging any legal help for Lee. 

So, it's fun for me to imagine what that meeting between Mark Lane and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been like:

Lane: Did you do this? Did you shoot the President?

Oswald. No, I did not not.

Lane: Did you shoot Officer Tippit?

Oswald: No, I did not.

Lane: Where were you when the President was shot?

Oswald: I was in the doorway. There were other people there: Shelley, Lovelady, Frazier, and others. I wasn't really with them. I keep to myself around here. But, I presume they saw me.

Lane: (reaches into his briefcase and takes out a newspaper) Is this you?

Oswald: (takes the paper; looks at it wide-eyed) Yes, that's me. But, it's a weird image. They did something to it. It doesn't look entirely like me, but that is me. It's definitely my clothes. And hey, that is where I was, so it has to be me. 

Lane: How did you wind up in the lunch room after the shooting? 

Oswald: Bill Shelley told me to go there and wait. He is my supervisor, and I do what he tells me. 

Lane: Do you have any idea who did this?

Oswald: I don't have any concrete knowledge, no. Nobody told me anything. But, I know people who do this kind of thing in other countries and other parts of the world. For instance, if you want a name, there is David Atlee Phillips. But again, nobody said a word to me about killing President Kennedy. Not a word. 

Lane: Is it your rifle they found on the 6th floor?

Oswald: No. As I told police, I don't own a rifle. And their claim that I ordered one from Chicago is totally bogus. I did not.  

Lane: Did you come to work with a large package?

Oswald: No. I came to work with a small package: my lunch. And if you go to the lunch room, the paper bag should still be there in the trash can.

Lane: Did you say anything to Frazier about needing to get curtain rods? 

Oswald: No. Why would I do that? My boarding room has got curtains hanging. I don't know where he got that from. 

Lane: Alright, now listen. First of all, I believe you. Second, it's obvious that you are being framed and that very powerful people in this country wanted the President dead. They couldn't just kill him because it's unAmerican to do that. The U.S. isn't some banana republic. So, they concocted this story that you are a deranged lunatic who did it out of bitterness, resentment, etc. Now, here's what I am going to do:

First, I am going to demand a hearing with the judge concerning the conditions of your detention and your safety. I'll argue for your release on bail on the grounds that we can arrange security for you better than the Dallas Police can, that resentment against you within the community and within the Dallas Police Department is high. The judge is not likely to honor it, but I want to get it on the record that we don't consider you to be safe, and the idea of an accident or security breach that results in an attack on you looms large. And to you, I say: be 100% vigilant at all times. 

Second, I need to impress the judge that because of the gravity of the situation and the risk to you, that the wheels of justice can't turn slowly in this case, that we need to have preliminary hearing within days, in which all of the State's evidence against you is made available to me, your lawyer. 

Third, what do you know about your family's situation?

Oswald: Just that Marina and the children are living with Ruth Paine, and I presume that will continue to do that. Do you know anything otherwise?

Lane: I know that Dallas Police have swarmed the Paine house and are rifling through your possessions.  What can you tell me about Marina? Is she one to stand up to police, assert her rights, etc.?

Oswald: No, I wouldn't say so. She comes from a country where people live in fear of the State.  What should we tell her to do?

Lane: Again, we need to assert that her safety is best provided by private security which we can arrange. We can't allow them to harbor and detain her at a time that they are coming after you for double murder. You can't prosecute a man while holding his wife. 

Oswald: Of course, you realize that I don't have any money- nothing that could buy that. 

Lane: Don't worry about the money. I'll take care of it. 

Oswald: Why are you doing this?

Lane: I was a friend of President Kennedy, and I am not going to let the people who killed him get away with it. 

Alright, now I have motions to file. I have papers prepared which you need to sign, authorizing me to be your lawyer. 

He takes out papers, and they go through the motions of getting them signed.

I want you to tell them that you refuse to undergo any further questioning unless I am present. Will you do that?

Oswald: Yes. I'll do anything you say.

Lane: Good. So, don't talk to them, but do continue declaring your innocence to the press. You're doing a good job of that. 

Oswald: OK. I will. 

Lane: Otherwise, you just have to keep your eyes and ears open. You have to scan constantly for threats. I am going to immediately demand that they provide you a bullet-proof jacket.  

Oswald: OK. I understand.

I intend to visit you every day. And I want you to know that I am going to be working on this 24/7. 

Oswald: I am very grateful. 

Lane: And if they demand something from you that makes you uncomfortable or seems risky to you, don't hesitate to demand to see me. 

Oswald: I will.

Lane: Alright then. I'm going now. Be strong, Lee. You're not alone any more. We are going to make hell for them. Holy Hell. Trust me.

Oswald: I do.  

  

That lousy rotten David Von Pein. He quotes me, but then he jumps to something else that was said in a different context. 

[...]

I deny that the guy was Ruby, and I'm not even sure he's real. I suspect he is more photographic flim-flam and probably of recent origin. 

You would think from reading that I was referring to the Garage Shooter whom we can plainly see. We can't see his face, but we can him from behind. 

But, that statement was made in reference to this:

Gary Mack claimed to know that that was Jack Ruby during the scuffle. 

So, that's what I was talking about, not the major images of the Garage Shooter. 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Ruby admitting he did it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it Ralph?

And the verification that it was Ruby by the various police officers who were there in the basement on November 24, 1963, also means zilch to you, right Ralph? Such as Jim Leavelle.

Ralph Cinque: Jim Leavelle lied. How many times do I have to tell you? He said he saw Ruby in advance. He said he saw the gun in advance. He said he jerked on Oswald to pull him behind him- to protect him. And he said that he shoved on Ruby's shoulder. All of it was lies! The films confirm it. So, knowing that he lied like a dog, why should anyone believe him? 

And I have listened to Ruby's deathbed interview many times. He said that all he remembered was going to the bottom of the ramp and then being pounced upon by police. The rest was a blur. He used the word "blur" repeatedly. He had no memory of shooting Oswald. He accepted that he did only because police told him that he did. But, they lied to him. They framed him. They took advantage of him, his mental incompetence. Jack Ruby could only remember going to the bottom of the ramp and then being jumped by the police. That's all he could remember. And that is all that happened when he was there. Then, they swifted him out of there; took him up to the 5th floor; and then got ready to do it all over again with Bookhout. But, they brought Ruby down and slipped him into the scene, though forgetting to have him put his jacket on, which was up on the 5th floor. 

It was all a sleight of hand/sleight of mind trick. It may be the most devious, machiavellian, and dastardly manipulation of minds- all of our minds- that has ever been done. The trickery, the manipulation involved in this was just staggering. 

Then, look how David Von Pein had NOTHING to say. 

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

The fact that there are NO discernible images of Ruby doing it doesn't mean a thing to you, does it, David? Despite all those different camera angles, there is not a single frame in which we can tell from looking that it's him.

Then, after the shooting, the police scurried him away without handcuffing him and keeping him totally covered, and I mean blanketed, and that doesn't bother you either?

Then, there is the fact that Ruby had no memory of doing it. He didn't remember a thing about the shooting. He only remembered going to the garage and then being pushed down to the ground by police. Nothing in-between. And that doesn't bother you?

And you have the nerve to bring up Leavelle? A man who claimed to have seen Ruby coming which made him jerk Oswald behind him which we know with 100% certainty did not happen. Leavelle did not react in any way until after the shot went off.

David: It wasn't Ruby. The little bit of visual data we have from the films and photos guarantees that it wasn't Ruby; for instance; different hairline in back, different facial contour, different weight, different height.

Jack Ruby most certainly did NOT shoot Oswald. 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Talk about a bad case of denial. Ralph's got it.

You might as well be arguing that Dallas isn't in the state of Texas. That's how silly you've become, Ralph.

Is there any end to your "denial" about every aspect of this case? Any end at all?

You said nothing, David. You didn't answer the blows. You just blathered. It doesn't count for squat. 

Then, Von Pein quoted Tim Brennan, a real lightweight from Australia, who said that Bookhout wasn't even in the garage during the shooting, and he quoted Bookhout's testimony. But, what the hell is wrong with these people? OF COURSE, IF BOOKHOUT WAS GOING TO LIE ABOUT THAT IF HE WAS THE GARAGE SHOOTER?

Seriously, what is wrong with them? I'm accusing the man of shooting Oswald. Don't you think I wouldn't put it past him to lie???????????? So, they throw his testimony at me as though I'm obliged to accept it. 

James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar.
James Bookhout was a liar. 

Now, is that understood? Will you please refrain from quoting him to me as though I am obliged to accept what he said? I am NOT obliged. I call him a LIAR.

But, let's look at what Bookhout said because I don't mind exposing his lies. He said that he arrived a little late for the morning interrogation of Oswald, and not wanting to disrupt it, he remained outside and just watched it through the glass. Do you believe that? I find it hard to believe because I don't think him quietly entering the room after it began would have disrupted anything. Then, he said that after the interrogation, he stayed up in Fritz' office- doing nothing- rather than go down and watch the jail transfer. Now, why would he do that? He followed Oswald everywhere. He wanted to see everything that involved Oswald. And he had nothing to do in Fritz' office. He didn't say that he was doing FBI work there. He just say he waited there. And then when he heard that Oswald was shot, he said he went down to the jail office and followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage. That was largely true, but he didn't go from Fritz' office to the jail office. He went from what I believe is the 3rd floor foyer next to the elevator down to the office- after a change of clothes. This is Bookhout with Detectives Boyd, Sims, and Hall.

That is James Bookhout in the center; not Jack Ruby. He is too short to be Ruby. His neck is too short. And his face is too round. And I want you to realize that the only place this image has ever appeared is the 1993 30 year retrospective on the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Fred Rhinestein of NBC. If that was really an image of Jack Ruby with the three detectives, why didn't it proliferate? Why didn't it spread like a wildfire? Why didn't it go anywhere? It didn't go anywhere because they must have realized afterwards the mistake they made, and they torpedoed the picture. They made sure it didn't go anywhere else. So, James Bookhout, after going through the motions of shooting Oswald in the garage (I don't believe he actually shot him; I believe it was a ruse) was danced into the jail house, and then these three swifted him away. And undoubtedly, shortly after that, they released him. He changed his clothes, and then he went down to the jail office as himself, James Bookhout. He followed Oswald's stretcher out to the garage, just as he said. 

 And this is as close as he got to the ambulance:

That's him, Bookhout, standing in back, taking it all in. He never did get up close to the ambulance. From here, he turned around and went back inside.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I wonder how the police got Ruby to admit to a murder he never committed? Those cops were amazing, huh?


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

This is a good example of what [I] mean. I said the other day that Ruby was insane. He did plead insanity. And every time he spoke he sounded zany, disoriented, confused, and incoherent. But, David Von Pein asks how Dallas Police got Ruby to admit to a murder he didn't commit, as if Ruby was of sound mind. But, Ruby was NOT of sound mind.


RALPH CINQUE ALSO SAID:

Do you think these two are the same guy? Why? Look how different the ears are. Look how different the sideburns are. Look how phony the sunglasses are on the left. And look at his hairline in back. Jack Ruby was scruffy with hair growth back there. Why would you claim that that guy is Jack Ruby? You just want him to be Jack Ruby, so you say that he is? Is that how it works? 




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph thinks the NBC footage shows Ruby wearing sunglasses in the basement. Hilarious.


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Then, what is it? It's a black disc around his eye, and there's a bridge over his nose. What is it?

And you've got some nerve. You mock me, and you don't even say what it is.

You're getting more famous all the time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's a shadow, Ralph. Simple as that. The same type of blackness (i.e., shadow) can be seen on Ruby's neck. What do you think is causing the blackness on Ruby's neck?



David Von Pein is not a physicist. He knows nothing about Optics. He claims to know that the black discs around "Ruby's" eyes above are shadows, but he doesn't even know that shadows are cast by specific objects. You have a light source; you have an object that is in front of the light source and blocks some of the light; and then you have the resulting shadow. So, what is the object that is casting shadow in the shape of a black disc around Ruby's eye? If you don't know what the object is, you can't claim it is a shadow. 

I would not mind at all getting a physics professor to weigh-in on this, and I think it is important enough to do it. 

Above, you see the correspondence between the shape of the shadow and the shape of the object casting it. The shape can be stretched and deformed by the angle of the light, but still, you get the idea of what cast that shadow. So, what is the corresponding object casting the shadow here, and what is the light source?

If you can't answer that, then you can't claim that it is a shadow. 

David Von Pein:

Plus, do you really think somebody would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame for those sunglasses? Where is the hinged frame that should extend over Ruby's left ear? Are the glasses supposed to be just hanging there over his nose?

Ralph Cinque:

In some of the views, there does seem to be a faint frame:

Don't you see what appears to be a faint frame there passing behind his ear? And look how three-dimensional the glasses look. You think that's shadow? It's shadow that they added! They had to cover his eyes because he's not Jack Ruby. And he's not the Garage Shooter either. He is much taller than the Garage Shooter. 

Then, David put up this image which shows darkness around the eyes of Blackie Harrison:

First, it would be much better if you provided independent examples. Because here, they may have messed with Blackie's eyes just to authenticate the other. I don't know if this legit or not, but regardless, it doesn't compare to this:

Come on, for crying out loud. You should me one other image in which shadow appeared like that, and I mean from the entire world of photography.

Mark Knight ( in support of DVP)

Ruby admitted shooting Oswald.

Millions of witnesses on TV saw Ruby shoot Oswald.

No, no, no. How many times do I have to tell you that Ruby just accepted that he shot Oswald. He believed it because that's what he was told. He had no memory of doing it. And you can't say that millions of witnesses saw Ruby shoot Oswald on tv. They believed it only because they were told it. They didn't "know" it until they were told. 

Hugh Aynesworth knew Ruby well and had seen and interacted with him 3x that weekend. He saw the shooter zoom in, but Hugh didn't know that it was Ruby until he was told. He didn't know from looking at the shooter. He "knew" from being told. 

 Jim DiEugenio (in support of DVP)

If you look at the combination of the clips from Evidence of Revision, and the KRLD tapes, there is no question at all that this is Ruby. And as Bauer said, he was concealing himself behind Harrison. 

There are NO IMAGES, not from the KRLD tapes and not from anywhere else in which the Garage Shooter can be ID'd as Jack Ruby. This is the man who was concealing himself behind Blackie Harrison.

How can anyone look at that and say that from the visual data, they know he's Ruby? They only "know" he's Ruby because that's what they were told. They are looking at the image with their minds, not with their eyes. There is no reason to think that that guy is Jack Ruby. The condition of the hair on the back of his neck alone proves that he's not Ruby. 

Do you not get it that Jack Ruby did not have a high horizontal hairline and a cleanly razored neck? How much difference and deviation does it take to establish different men?

The noses don't match. Can't you see on the left it's much more bulbous and Roman? The sideburns don't match. On the left, it's beveled. And look at the distance from the ear it is. The ears don't match, although it looks like they messed with the ear on the left trying to get it to match. The lines in the face on the left are not present on Ruby on the right. Even the whole angle of the head is different, and that's a postural thing that is very consistent. They are different men. You have no basis to claim that the man on the left was Jack Ruby.

Then, Von Pein put up this collage, in which the only certain thing is that the 2nd and 4th figures are Ruby.

The man on the far left was balder than Ruby. There are phone records proving that Ruby was on the phone talking to his sister Eve at 2 PM on Friday, November 22. He was not at the Dallas PD. 

In the 2nd and 4th images (both Ruby) look at the consistency of the curve of the back of the neck and head. Now look at the #3 who has a neck like Dick Tracy.

I'm telling you: he was not Jack Ruby.

David Von Pein:

If you agree that the man with the torn shirt being taken to an elevator IS Jack Ruby, then what do you think the police are doing with Ruby at that moment? Did Ruby JUST HAPPEN to coincidentally be in that area of City Hall within minutes of Oswald getting shot by someone ELSE?

Or will you simply say that the WFAA video isn't nearly clear enough to determine who the man with the torn shirt is? I expect that will be your only reply.

It's Jack Ruby in that video, of course. And Ruby is being escorted upstairs just minutes after he plugged Oswald. But Ralph will now have to invent some excuse for why the police are escorting an INNOCENT Ruby (or a Ruby look-alike) upstairs. Or maybe Ralph thinks the man in the torn shirt is really James Bookhout. Could that be it?

Ralph Cinque: They brought him back down from the 5th floor just to insert him into that scene. And they left his jacket up on the 5th floor, which is why he is not wearing it. So, what the police are doing there is giving Jack Ruby is catwalk in front of the cameras. It is the "switch" in the "bait and switch." 

After that, DVP repeated his ridiculous argument that Dallas Police "yanked Ruby's jacket off to check it for weapons" which they would not have done since it is standard practice to pat down suspects for weapons. They don't strip them looking for weapons. Then, he also repeated his ridiculous claim that it can be seen that Ruby is putting his jacket back on as he walks across the jail office to the elevator. It simply isn't true. I asked David to post a frame which shows it (the jacket going back on) but he hasn't done so, and he can't do so because it didn't happen. There is only a 3 second different between the last frame of Ruby walking sans the jacket and the image of him by the elevator with the jacket. And it doesn't even look like a jacket. It looks like a black screen.

You can't see any of the specific features of a jacket, for instance, sleeves. So, how you be sure it is a jacket? I think it is most likely a black screen which they added in order to hide the fact that he wasn't yet handcuffed even by this late time. But keep in mind that he had been in custody already for the better part of an hour. What they are doing there is taking him BACK up to the 5th floor. He had already been there. And he was going back there. This whole thing was a fake and a fraud. This was their way of sticking Jack Ruby into the scene. 

There is no doubt that Jack Ruby was not in the garage during the televised spectacle. He was NOT the Garage Shooter. He was too tall to be. Jack Ruby was 5'8 1/2 inches. Look how short the shooter was:

And there is a reason why we never see the Shooter's face. IT'S BECAUSE HE WASN'T JACK RUBY! They deliberately kept his face concealed. 

The discovery of Jack Ruby's innocence is the most important discovery in JFK assassination research in the 21st century. And people like David Von Pein can't stop it from spreading. No one can. 

Reportedly, Leavelle's left wrist was handcuffed to Oswald's right wrist. On a very short chain. That means that Leavelle's left wrist was at Oswald's right wrist at all times- until the cuffs were removed. So, Leavelle's left hand and Oswald's right hand were together. Side by side. But, how is that possible here?

Where is Leavelle's left hand? It is underneath Oswald. It is underneath his right upper back, That's where he's carrying him. That's where Leavelle's left hand is, but where is Oswald's right hand? It is not under his upper back. Don't tell me that Leavelle twisted Oswald's arm to get his hand under his upper back. Nobody would do that. Nobody could do that. Try it yourself. You can get your hand to your lower back, but you can't get it to your upper back.  If Leavelle's hand couldn't go there, then Oswald's hand couldn't go there. 

Here they are supposedly removing the cuff after moving Oswald.

You see Levelle's left hand and Oswald's right hand. So, if Leavelle's left hand was underneath Oswald's upper back then so was Oswald's right hand. But how? It can't possibly go there. 

Leavelle could not lift and carry Oswald without first removing the handcuffs, but he claims he didn't do that until they put him down inside. So, what is the truth?

Leavelle definitely did NOT have his hand in Oswald's pants. That is a lie, and it was faked in the films and photos, as you see here:

That is fake. It cannot possibly be Leavelle's hand. 

So, in none of the images is Oswald handcuffed to himself. And every image of Leavelle snugging his hand up to Oswald looks fake and glaringly so.  

I don't think there were any handcuffs involved, and it makes sense that there wouldn't be because they were all in on it. They knew Oswald was going to get "shot" and therefore go through the motions of being shot, needing to fall to the ground, etc. So, he needed to be free and mobile. And then Leavelle had to carry Oswald inside which he couldn't do if he was handcuffed to him. And think about it: why would Leavelle need to cuff himself to Oswald? How was that going to protect Oswald? How was that going to stop him from being shot? What was the purpose of it? To keep Oswald from running away? But, that is ridiculous. Was it to keep someone from grabbing Oswald and dragging him away? But, that is also ridiculous. They were in a police garage and walking 20 feet to a police car. Oswald was not in any way benefited in his safety by being handcuffed to Leavelle. I don't believe it happened. 

What came out of the brief misstep over James Bookhout's image is the reminder that there really are NO images of him from the time of the assassination; none; but alas there are NO images of him from any time or anywhere. The only images we have of James Bookhout, from his whole life, are his school yearbook images, which were all doctored: with dragqueen eyebrows, etc. And even at his death, he must have given the order to have no photo with his obituary. His wife had one, but he didn't. James Bookhout did not do pictures. The very fact of that is a smoking gun in itself.

But, what I really want to talk about is what happened the morning of November 24. We are told that Oswald was brought from his jail cell on the 5th floor to Captain Fritz' office for his final interrogation at the DPD. That was reportedly at 9:30. That interrogation would last until 11:15, so nearly 2 hours. It would be the longest interrogation he did. Bookhout said that he arrived late and just watched it through the glass partition.  

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Now, yes; on the morning of November 24, 1963, I observed him in interview with Captain Fritz and numerous other officers in the homicide and robbery bureau. Captain Fritz---I did not participate in this interview. It had already started before I arrived. There is a glass partition or wall on one side of the office that you can see what is going on inside there. I took a seat adjacent to this glass area in the office proper of the homicide and robbery bureau, and watched.

I find that hard to believe, even the part about him being late. 9:30? It's not like it was 6:30. And what would be the point of watching an interview? They weren't miming, were they? They weren't using sign language. What was the point of doing that? Presumably, if he had gotten there on time, he would have attended the meeting, right? So, would it have been so terrible if he had entered a little late? Then after it was over, he said he asked Fritz if Oswald had revealed anything, and Fritz said no, nothing. But, Harry Holmes, the postal inspector, said that Oswald sang like a canary about Mexico City. We know from multiple sources that when first asked at the first interrogation, Oswald denied having gone there, saying that the only place in Mexico he had ever been to was Tijuana. So, how could he reverse himself without saying something like, "I wasn't being truthful when I denied going there." Doesn't there have to be a segue between the lie and the truth? An explanation, a reason for the lie? It involved no crime. So, why would Oswald lie about it in the first place? He's accused of killing the President of the United States and a police officer, and he's going to start lying about a trip to Mexico City? And the trip had nothing to do with the assassination. I don't care what people say. The official story has it that it never crossed his mind to kill Kennedy until he saw the motorcade route in the newspaper a couple days before. So, how could a trip to Mexico City in September have anything to do with it? Therefore, again, why would he lie about it? He wasn't the one lying about that; Holmes lied. 

In fact, why assume they even talked about it? If Oswald stated, emphatically, that he didn't go to Mexico City, that the only place he ever went to in Mexico was Tijuana, which is on the opposite side of the country, then why ask him again? 

"Are you sure you didn't go to Mexico City?"

Man, I'll tell you, if that had been me, after explaining to them that I had never been there and giving them a point of reference, if they asked me again? "God damn it, I told you I never went to Mexico City! What the hell is wrong with you? Are you deaf? Are you stupid?" 

So, what did they talk about for nearly 2 hours? Let's look at the Fritz Notes:

So, they apparently talked about nothing, since Fritz wrote nothing down. And according to Bookhout, Fritz told him that nothing important was said. But note the time the meeting started: 10 AM. So really, it was just one hour and fifteen minutes. There was some processing involved because Oswald was leaving the the Dallas Jail for good. He was going directly from that meeting to the garage to be driven to the County Jail. So, there was a checking out process. I can see that. But, it meant that Bookhout had to arrive after 10 in order to be late for the meeting. So, how could he possibly be that late? An FBI agent? Nope. Not buying it. Who were the et al? I suspect Bookhout was one of the et al. 

So, nothing got written down about an hour and fifteen minute interrogation. What did they talk about? How about 'dem Cowboys?

How about: they were talking about the ruse they were about to pull off.  That would explain why nothing got written down. And not just talking about it, but doing it. Let's remember that it was during that time that the incident with the real Jack Ruby had to take place, in which he was arrested. So, did they bring Oswald down for that and go through the motions? The only one who can possibly shed any light on that is Jack Ruby. 

A. When I went into the Western Union to try to send the money, and naturally the clerk took my money, and uh, and uh, turned away after he took the money, I turned away and walked out. I walked down the street, just natural strides, and as I . . .

Q. Main Street?

A. No -- Yes, Main Street, going west to Main Street, the south side of Main Street, as I walked toward the ramp, I noticed the police squad car at the head of the ramp and an officer leaning over talking to him with his back to me. All I did was walk down there, down to the bottom of the ramp and that's when the incident happened, at the bottom of the ramp -- according to the Western Union records -- the time stamped on the Western Union records -- it's 11:17 the time the incident taking place 11:21, it was 11:21.

Q. Did you walk slowly?

A. I walked my natural pace.

Q. You did not rush?

A. No.

Q. Did you recognize anybody when you reached the bottom of the ramp?

A. No. I recognized the police officer in the car -- that was in the car -- it was Lt. Sam Pierce, and this other man was just talking to him, and why Sam Pierce had not seen me, I don't know.

Q. Did you try to avoid him or anything?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. When did you finally realize that something had happened, Jack, when did you finally know?

A. Well, it happened in such a blur -- well it happened in such a blur, that before I knew it, I was down on the ground -- the officers had me on the ground.

Q. Had you realized you had done anything?

A. Well, really it happened so fast, and anything else I cannot recall what happened from the time I came to the bottom of the ramp until the police officers had me on the ground.

Q. Have no recollection?

A. No. But, I knew they were holding my hand and grabbing for the gun.

That's from David Reitzes, a written transcript of Ruby's oral interview, his death bed interview. But, you don't hear the part about 11:17 and 11:21 in the recording. Here's the link to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mOyyPKMMHY


It goes from: "That's where the incident happened, at the bottom of the ramp" to his being asked: "Did you recognize anybody at the bottom of the ramp?" 

So, what are we supposed to surmise from that? That they edited the interview? That they cut the tape? That they spliced out part of Jack Ruby's death bed statement? But, why would they do that? 


But, let's look at what Ruby said to the Warren Commissioners:

Jack Ruby: And when I walked down the ramp--I would say there was an 8-foot clearance--not that I wanted to be a hero, or I didn't realize that even if the officer would have observed me, the klieg lights, but I can't take that. I did not mingle with the crowd. There was no one near me when I walked down that ramp, because if you will time the time I sent the money order, I think it was 10:17 Sunday morning.

Then his lawyer corrected him about the time, and Jack didn't dispute it. But, maybe the correction didn't take in his mind. If his own memory was 10:17, maybe it stayed at 10:17, and maybe that is what he said at his death bed interview. And since you can't edit an audio tape, all they could do is cut it out. I think it is very likely that that is what happened. Because: why else would they cut it out? And that would make the time that David Rietzes used a lie. 

Here is more of Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commissioners:

Mr. RUBY. I had the gun in my right hip pocket, and impulsively, if that is the correct word here, I saw him, and that is all I can say. And I didn't care what happened to me.
I think I used the words, "You killed my President, you rat." The next thing, I was down on the floor.
I said, "I am Jack Ruby. You all know me."
I never used anything malicious, nothing like s.o.b. I never said that I wanted to get three more off, as they stated.

The implication of that, I presume, is that he saw Oswald. "I saw him" means "I saw Oswald." So, if this happened an hour before, at say 10:21, it means that that's what they were doing: going through the motions of the jail transfer. You've heard of the pre-autopsy? Well, this was the pre-jail-transfer. 

And notice that he said "down on the floor" that he was down on the floor. Well, the televised Garage Shooter was never down on the floor. He was always on his feet. And just think about it: if they had gotten him down to the floor, then why would they have ever let him up from the floor until he was cuffed? Are we to believe that they had him down on the floor but then they let him up from the floor? Without cuffing him? Why would they do that? The whole purpose of getting an offender down on the floor is to cuff him. And you keep him down on the floor until he's cuffed. What they did makes no sense as a police behavior.

So, the incident with Ruby happened an hour before. Then they quickly got him up to the 5th floor- to get him out of the way. Then, the spectacle with Bookhout took place in the same place for the cameras. That's what I think happened. 

Trump wins again. God, did I ever know this was going to happen, that Trump was going to throw a few million at the Trump University lawsuit to make it go away. And, he did it for a measly $25 million. I tell you, he does know the art of the deal.  

When you think about how much the Trump brand has gone up in value since he won, it's probably gone up several billion dollars. So, what's a lousy $25 million? He would have paid twice that without blinking an eye. These people were nuts settling for so little. It would be different if he lost. But he won. 

Trump settles Trump University lawsuits for $25 million

Michael Isikoff 44 minutes ago 

• Comments
 
• Like
 
• Reblog on Tumblr
 
• Share
 
• Tweet
 
• Email

Donald Trump at a 2005 press conference announcing the establishment of Trump University. (Photo: Bebeto Matthews/AP)

President-elect Donald Trump has agreed to pay $25 million to former students of his for-profit Trump University as part of a settlement that resolves three outstanding lawsuits against him, including one in which he was set to testify in a trial that was due to begin in San Diego later this month.

As part of the agreement, Trump will pay $1 million in penalties to the state of New York for violating state education laws by labeling his nonaccredited school a “university” without registering as an educational institution with New York state officials, according to New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who announced the settlement Friday afternoon.

“In 2013, my office sued Donald Trump for swindling thousands of innocent Americans out of millions of dollars through a scheme known as Trump University,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “Donald Trump fought us every step of the way, filing baseless charges and fruitless appeals and refusing to settle for even modest amounts of compensation for the victims of his phony university. Today, that all changes. Today’s $25 million settlement agreement is a stunning reversal by Donald Trump and a major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent university.”

Trump, for his part, was as defiant as ever. “I just had a great victory against lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman,” he wrote in a tweet this afternoon. “Most of his case re Trump U. was thrown out or gutted. Little remains.”

The announcement came after days of frantic negotiations among the parties that began last week, after Trump was elected president and U.S. Judge Gonzalo Curiel — the U.S.-born judge whom Trump repeatedly attacked during the campaign as biased due to his “Mexican” heritage — began prodding the parties to resolve the cases. The first of three lawsuits was scheduled to start in Curiel’s courtroom Nov. 28. Trump’s lawyers had filed motions urging that the trial date be postponed, arguing that their client was too busy assembling his new administration to testify in a civil trial.

The negotiations were a three-sided affair, involving Trump’s lawyers in Los Angeles, plaintiff’s lawyers in San Diego and Schneiderman’s office in New York, according to a source familiar with the talks. During the negotiations, Trump — who vowed during the campaign to never settle the cases — balked at the wording of the proposed agreement and refused to accept that he was paying “penalties” for violating state laws, according to the source. Friday’s announcement by Schneiderman used the word “penalties” for Trump’s alleged violation of state education laws. The final terms of the agreement, however, are due to be presented to Curiel later Friday afternoon and have not yet been publicly released. Curiel must still approve the settlement for it to take effect.

The Trump University case concerns the running of a for-profit business school launched by Trump in 2005 with a promotional YouTube video and ads that proclaimed, “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you,” “Are you my next apprentice?” and “Learn from my handpicked experts how you can profit from the largest real estate liquidation in history.”

In fact, Trump University was never an accredited educational institution, and he was later forced by state attorneys general to change its name to the “Trump Entrepreneurial Initiative.” The former students suing him allege that Trump used “misleading, fraudulent and predatory practices,” conning them into maxing out their credit cards and in some cases paying more than $35,000 in fees for seminars and “mentoring” by Trump’s “handpicked” real estate experts. The lawsuit against the school, which is no longer in business, alleged that the seminars were little more than an “infomercial” and that the Trump mentors offered “no practical advice” and “mostly disappeared.”

Trump has consistently denied the allegations and insisted that questionnaires filled out by students after the seminars showed that “98 percent” of them were positive about their experiences.

Under the terms of the settlement, all 6,000 students who enrolled in Trump University would be eligible to receive some compensation, although the amounts will vary widely depending on how much they paid for courses, the source familiar with the deal said.