Monday, January 22, 2018

The Wizard and Amy Joyce weigh-in on Tom Howard, and they do not like him.


Another thing about Howard:  

People regularly say that Ruby or Ruby's family retained him as Ruby's attorney, but that's not true - neither did.  At one point George Senator claimed that he had, through his lawyer friend Jim Martin.  However in the end, Ralph Paul said that he had called Tom Howard after hearing about the incident from employees that heard about it on the radio.  That doesn't make sense because Howard was acting as Ruby's lawyer before it was even announced who did the shooting.  Howard supposedly called a judge to obtain a writ for Ruby's release from the County jail before Oswald had even reached the hospital.  Why didn't he stay with his client and make sure he didn't talk?  Why didn't he ensure his rights weren't being violated (like that he was kept fully clothed)?  Most importantly, why didn't Howard call for the writ from the City police station instead of leaving?

Amy Joyce:

Yes, there were two witnesses to Howard being there.  And originally Howard had said he was having lunch at the time of the incident.  This is why I've always thought that Howard was in on it and placed there (as Ruby's lawyer), to help convince Ruby that he had done it.  He was an awful man.  That same lawyer that gave vital ammunition to the prosecution in front of the press the next day and got into trouble with the bar association for it:  

 “A Dallas Bar Association grievance committee met three hours last night on charges that Tom Howard, attorney for Jack Ruby, had violated legal ethics by discussing Ruby’s case with the press … No charges had been placed against District Attorney Henry Wade.” (New York Post, Dec. 6).
The Wizard sent me this excerpt to establish that the lawyer who became Ruby's first lawyer, Tom Howard, was in the jail office when Oswald was brought down. He wasn't Ruby's lawyer at the time, so how did he become Ruby's lawyer? 

But, what interests me just as much is the second paragraph, even though it's wrong. The name of the book is Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldron, who glibly claims that Ruby reached the garage through an alley and a fire stairway, the door of which had to be opened from the inside. Bull shit! Ruby entered through the Main Street ramp, just as he said. Waldron pointed to the impossibility of Roy Vaughn not seeing him, and I agree. But, Ruby got there earlier, before Vaughn was put there. That's the correct explanation, not there was an elaborate scheme in which  a Dallas policeman let Ruby in through a door in an alley. Ruby could not have had any police collaborators because he surely would have given them up. Wouldn't you? Why would he have protected them? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. That is not what happened, and the people who think it did are just being childish and stupid. 
This is a good read from David Reitzes' website. He supports the official story, and he had his reasons for putting this up. But, the fact is: it does NOT support the official story of the Oswald shooting. 

What it describes is Ruby appearing before a judge, without his lawyers, to declare that he was not insane, that if he's insane, the whole world's insane, this despite the fact that insanity is the defense his lawyers argued at trial. So, why didn't Ruby object then when in open court they were calling him insane? Ruby's former lawyer Joe Tonahill was there to inform the court the Dr. Louis Joylan West- a psychiatrist the State brought in, whom Tonahill should never have allowed to go near Ruby, never mind let him drug Ruby- said Ruby was insane. Ruby gives the account again of what happened Sunday morning, and it includes times, all of which conform to the official story. Either by that time (1965) Ruby had adopted those times in his head, having heard them so many times, or they were edited into it. And I lean towards the latter because there are parenthetical remarks that Ruby definitely didn't say. Who has the right to add explanatory remarks to Jack Ruby's statements? Why can't they just be published? Especially to put them within the statement- to lead the reader by the nose. That's wrong. If the editor or commentator wants to wax afterwards, fine. But, to break it up with insertions is manipulative. 

Ruby went on to describe that not only was he not in a conspiracy with anyone to shoot Oswald, but he wasn't even in a conspiracy with himself because he had no thought whatsoever of doing it. All the claims- by Fritz, by his roommate George Senator, and perhaps others that he spoke of planning to shoot Oswald are totally, utterly false. All the claims that he was involved in the JFK assassination or knew anything about it are totally, utterly false. Yet, our own media last month brandished the ridiculous story about him going to watch the fireworks in Dealey Plaza. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that it's true. 

Ruby was mentally deranged, even though he denied it to the judge, and David Reitzes gives some examples of his bizarre, delusional claims. And it's more evidence that the only conspiracy involving Ruby was the conspiracy against him, the conspiracy targeting him. And that's because no one would trust a deranged person like him to do anything, let alone shoot someone and keep his mouth shut. Who would want to be beholden to Jack Ruby? Not the CIA, not the Mafia, not anybody. None of these people would have been willing to rely upon Ruby's silence. This whole thing was set up with Ruby not knowing anything. And frankly, the same applies to Oswald: they were both set up as patsies with neither knowing a thing. Nobody told Oswald anything about the JFK assassination. He was the patsy, and you keep the patsy in the dark. It's the first thing they teach you in Patsification 101. In Ruby's case, he was so deranged that the idea of trusting him to lethally shoot Oswald and no one else in such a crowded place is insane itself. And the idea of trusting that he would keep his silence about it for years was equally insane. They got him there to that garage without him knowing a thing about what they did. He truly had nothing to tell. What follows is much more supportive of my thesis than David Reitzes': 

On March 18, 1965, Jack Ruby's attorneys made an appearance in the United States District Court in Dallas, with Judge T. Whitfield Davidson presiding, seeking a writ of habeas corpus in order to insure that control of Ruby's whereabouts remain under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the Federal Marshall. Opposing arguments were also heard from the State, represented by Bill Alexander.
The following afternoon Judge Davidson called a further hearing on the matter, As required by law, Ruby himself was brought before the judge, but none of Ruby's attorneys were prepared to attend. Ruby took advantage of the opportunity to speak without his attorneys present, interrupting the proceedings to make an unexpected appeal to the judge.
"Your Honor, may I say something? I don't have any counsel here, your Honor, and I wish the courtesy of the Court to give me a chance to take the stand . . ."
Attorney Joe Tonahill was on hand, and, although he was not formally representing Ruby at the time, was allowed to preface Ruby's statements with some remarks. Tonahill sought to inform the Court that psychiatrist L. J. West had sworn an affidavit stating that "Jack Ruby was insane, and highly susceptible to delusions and suspicions, and a complete paranoid." Dr. West had demonstrated, Tonahill said, that Ruby's condition necessitated the presence of an attorney to represent him. He also insisted that Ruby's mental illness was primarily responsible for his own removal from Ruby's defense team.
Judge Davidson allowed Ruby to speak, however. "I will permit him to stand where he is," without requiring Ruby to be sworn in, "and he may give the Court any statement he may care to give."
Ruby wasted no time whatsoever. "This is the most tragic thing in the history of the world," he announced. "One of the most tragic conspiracies in the world," he declared.
"I will get on the stand and speak with tears in my heart because of such a terrible conspiracy which is combined against me."
This is it, ladies and gentlemen: the moment we've all been waiting for. Jack Ruby is about to blow the lid off one of the most heinous conspiracies of all time.

What Mr. Tonahill has said is a total lie [Ruby continued]. That goes from the contract I signed, I never did sign a contract with him. It has been a conspiracy between him and the District Attorney, [attorney] Phil Burleson and Joe Tonahill, to convince the public that Jack Ruby is insane.Now, your Honor, you have had many a person appear before you pleading their case. If I am a person who sounds insane at this time, then the rest of the world is crazy. I say this with choking in my heart and tears in my eyes.The most tragic thing happened that Sunday morning when I went down that ramp. I happened to be there for a purpose which is going to be the most tragic thing that ever happened in this world. . . . [Lengthy description of Ruby's succession of attorneys omitted.] At 10:15, I left my apartment, and the story was out that this person [Oswald] was supposed to leave the jail at ten AM. I received a call from a young girl [Karen Carlin, one of Ruby's strippers] who wanted some money. [Because Ruby had closed his club for the weekend, out of respect for the slain President, Carlin was unable to pay her rent.](1) I went to the Western Union, which was coincidental, and prior to that, I will admit [I'd read] a letter [that] was written to Caroline [Kennedy -- actually an editorial in the November 24, 1963, edition of the Dallas Times Herald] which broke my heart. This letter was written to Caroline telling her how awfully sorry I [sic] was for her. And another situation [in another article], there was something about a trial [Mrs. Kennedy expected to return to Dallas for Oswald's trial]. Don't ask me what took place, and that triggered me off that Sunday morning.
I accepted the call at 10:15 and went down to the Western Union and parked my car across the street, and took off to transact my business. . . . At 11:17 I walked, I don't say it was premeditated, but never prior to Sunday morning, I never made up my mind what to do.
From 11:17 until later, I was guilty of a homicide. Which must be the most perfect conspiracy in the history of the world that a man was going to accept a call and came from his apartment down to the Western Union. If it had been three seconds later I would have missed this particular person [Oswald]. I guess God was against me. I left the Western Union and it took about three and a half minutes to go to the bottom of the ramp. I didn't conspire or sneak in to do these things, I am telling you. If they had said, 'Jack, are you going down now?' that would make some conspiracy on me. I left the Western Union and it was a fraction of a second until that tragic act happened.
Now, it seems all these circumstances were against me. I had a great emotional feeling for our beloved President and Mrs. Kennedy, or I never would have been involved in this tragic crime, that was completely reverse from what my emotional feeling was.

Ruby returned to the subject of his numerous attorneys and how he felt they had mistreated him and mishandled his defense.

As far as Joe Tonahill is concerned, he doesn't care what happens to me, nor does Phil Burleson, and I am not saying this just to make the headlines, I am not remembering this from rehearsal, I am speaking word-for-word, that I know what took place. And I am like the stupid idiot, that loved this country so much, and I felt so sorry for Mrs. Kennedy when she was standing on that plane with blood on her dress, and they were bringing the casket back with our beloved President, and now I am going to [go] down in history as the most despicable person that ever lived.If I am able to use this little oratory on you, as I am doing, if I have that capability, looking at you and telling this courtroom a slight fraction of a lie then I am a genius.Thank you.(2)

Contrary to what some people would like to believe, whenever Ruby had a chance to describe the "conspiracy" against him, the "conspiracy" ultimately turned out to be a plot to falsely implicate him in the Kennedy assassination -- not exactly what conspiracy theorists would seem to have in mind.
[S]ome persons are accusing me falsely of being part of the plot . . . a plot to silence Oswald," Ruby told the Warren Commission in 1964. ". . . [T]he people that have the power here . . . already have me [portrayed] as the accused assassin of our beloved President."(3)
He pleaded for a chance to reassure President Johnson in person that he was not part of any such plot, and lamented that LBJ "has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to assassinate the President."(4)
He also told the Commission that his actions had led to widespread anti-Semitic action, including the torture of Jews in the very same building in which the Warren Commission was deposing him. Such delusions would haunt him the rest of his life, and fired his guilt about his actions on the morning of November 24, 1963. Soon, however, he would come to believe that people higher up, including LBJ himself, were part of this anti-Semitic plot.
In a letter from prison to his brother Earl, Ruby wrote, "You must believe what I've been telling you for the past two and a half years. If you only would have believed me all along you would have found some way to check out what I said. You would have saved Israel, but now they are doomed, because they think the U.S. are [sic] for them, but they are wrong because [President] Johnson wants to see them [the Jews] slaughtered and tortured. Egypt is making believe they are an ally of Russia, that is only to fool Russia and the rest of the world. The Arabs are going to over-run Israel. They are going to get help both from Russia and the U.S. It's too late now to do anything, and we are all doomed." "They are torturing children here. If you only would believe what I'm telling you. Phil [Burleson] was in on the conspiracy all along, and he was very instrumental in the frame-up they planned, [claiming] that I was in on the assassination of the President."(5)
Even on his deathbed, Ruby continued to say the same thing he'd been saying all along: that he was not part of any plot, and his close proximity to Oswald in the basement of Dallas police headquarters was a one-in-a-million coincidence.

I just realized something: The reason Dallas Police immediately stripped Jack Ruby to his underwear on the 5th floor-which was a very unusual thing- was to get his clothes. Why? BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO GET THE PAPERWORK FROM HIS POCKET; HIS RECEIPT FROM WESTERN UNION; AND REPLACE IT WITH ONE THAT SHOWED THE TIME OF HIS TRANSACTION AS 11:17. 

Why else would they strip him? They didn't strip Oswald. They took his shirt, but they didn't take his pants. They didn't strip him to his underwear. Oswald wasn't left in boxer shorts the way Ruby was. 

And it wasn't to change Ruby's clothes because his clothes weren't changed until evening, about 6 PM. So, why was he reduced to boxer shorts right away? It was to get his paperwork; to destroy the evidence that he was at Western Union much earlier than 11:15. 

At his WC testimony, Ruby cited the time he was at Western Union as 10:15. He was corrected right away, and he didn't dispute the correction. Nevertheless, why assume that what he said was a mistake? 

To be off by a whole hour in the context of a morning is a huge chasm of time. And that's because mornings aren't that long. Especially from the standpoint of the functional morning, the time that you are doing things. It's only a few hours long, so to be off a whole hour is a lot. 

Ruby was in the garage at a time that he recognized nobody. NOBODY. But, we know for a fact that he knew most of those Dallas cops, the ones appearing in the footage. He also said that nobody was around him, that he stood alone- in a wide open space. But, we know that wasn't true of the Garage Shooter, who was shoulder-to-shoulder with people- in a crowd. Ruby said the garage was NOT crowded when he was there. But, it was like a sardine can during the televised spectacle. Ruby said that he spoke during the melee and spoke a lot. Yet, we know that the Garage Shooter said nothing, not only because we hear nothing, but because we see nothing- he wasn't moving his lips. No one can watch any of the films and claim they perceive the shooter talking.

Ruby reported Sam Pierce being alone in the squad car at the top of the ramp, and you can be damn sure that if Ruby saw other other policemen in the car, he would have said so. And, Ruby did not recognize Roy Vaughn even though he knew him. Roy Vaughn excused a traffic violation for Ruby; he wasn't going to forget him. RUBY KNEW ROY VAUGHN BY SIGHT AND BY NAME. Yet, he didn't recognize the man he saw on foot talking to Pierce as Roy Vaughn. So, it must have been someone else- someone who was there BEFORE Roy Vaughn got there. 

It all happened earlier for Ruby. Probably about an hour earlier, and no less than 45 minutes earlier. They had cleared out the garage; we know that from the testimony of Fred Bieberdorf. Then, they had a few people there- not many. Ruby showed up; they jumped him; then they hustled him up to the 5th floor. Did Ruby lay eyes on Oswald in the garage? I don't know, but I doubt it. They may have had a proxy there for Oswald. 

And of course there was no gunshot. There couldn't have been. 

And don't worry about the people at the top of the ramp and what they heard and saw because they were all plants. Do you get it that it was an incoming ramp? That they could have had no expectation of seeing Oswald being taken out that ramp? So, what were they doing there? Who did they expect to see come in? There's nobody. They were only there as a magnet for Ruby. 

The real Jack Ruby showed up much earlier than 11:17, and he had his fracas with a much smaller assembly in the garage, and he was gone, vanished, before the reporters and cameramen were allowed to start filling the garage for the televised event. That is the truth.    

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Jim Fetzer has called my attention this evening to the latest edition of Penn magazine in which Winston Wu wrote a superb article: 35 Proofs We Didn't Go.

Winston Wu is one of those Renaissance men who delves into all kinds of fields of endeavor. But, he does have a scientific background. He has a degree in Computer Science from the University of California. Granted, he's not an astrophysicist or professor of astronomy. Nevertheless, he provides 35 very cogent reasons why an intelligent person- of any educational level and background- will reject the moon-landings claim. 

And, his very first reason is especially riveting, the fact that today NASA has a complete and total inability to send people to the moon. It's not just that they can't do it, but they have no prospect of doing it; they have no expectation of doing it, in the near or distant future; it isn't even on their radar. And yet, we are supposed to believe that they did it one year shy of 50 years ago? 

50 years ago??

Do you recall the state of computer science in 1969? It was nascent. The computers they had then were crude and archaic, virtually nothing compared to what we have today. Do you realize the advances that have been in rocket science? In propulsion generation? In synthetic materials that can withstand space, and I'm talking about everything from the rockets to the spacesuits? And yet, they could do it in 1969 but not today? Wu made the point that every other technological and scientific breakthrough has been followed by advances and further achievement and in short order. But, in this case, not only have we not exceeded the 1969 accomplishment, we haven't even matched it; we haven't even duplicated it; and that's in half a century of the greatest technological advance in human history!

That was his first of 35 points, but before I give you the link to his article, I am also going to share with you one of the last points he made, and it's an answer to a question: Why didn't the Soviets call us out on the hoax if indeed it was a hoax?

Wu's answer started with the admonition not to assume that the Soviets didn't know it was a hoax. But rather than make a spectacle out of denouncing it to the world, they may have felt that they had more to gain by keeping their mouths shut: for a price. Who knows what backroom deal was made? What kind of concessions were offered? Remember that the Soviet Union was hurting. Their very currency was something that the world considered to be worthless; not money. And yet, there was plenty that they desperately needed to buy from the West, including food! So, who knows what they bargained for to keep their mouths shut about our phony moon landings. 

And, let's bump it up to 2018. Do you think that today, President Vladimir Putin believes that the U.S. sent men to the moon? What do you think his scientific advisers are telling him? Honestly, what do you think? You know very well what they're telling him; that it's bull shit. The Russians aren't slouches when it comes to space expeditions. And you recall what Putin did last year with Megyn Kelly, with the whole world watching: he referred to the JFK assassination being an operation of U.S. intelligence agencies. She pushed, and he shoved. And who is to say he won't do it again, next time, concerning the moon landings? It just might happen. And that's because today, Russia is MUCH LESS dependent on, and beholden to, the US than it was back then, when they had to depend on us even for food. Economically, we were MUCH stronger than they were. Is that true today? Today, Russia, under Putin, is immensely wealthier and more productive than it was in the Soviet era, and don't believe the US media's claims to the contrary. Russia has two "sovereign wealth funds" which hold stocks and bonds from all over the world, plus gold, and more. It represents national savings. But, if you are an American, what do you think your government is holding for you besides debts and obligations that probably exceed $100 trillion? Do you really think there are 147.3 million ounces of gold at Ft. Knox? They haven't audited it since the Eisenhower years. Doesn't that tell you something? So, if push comes to shove again, Vlad just may get mad, and the moon landing hoax will be had.  

In any case, Wu's treatise is truly scintillating. It is refreshing to see such a quick, sharp, unfettered mind at work. So, read his article because it is a display of sound reasoning:

I tell you, I don't get this. How is it possible? Baldness only goes one way, toward getting worse, right? 

This is extremely big. Amy Joyce found it and sent it to me, and I thank her. It is the autobiography of Jack Ruby, which was written in 1964 and published in the Washington Post after he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. It was written in collaboration with a well known television screenwriter by the name of William Read Woodfield, who was the screenwriter for the Mission Impossible tv series. Woodfield was also a photographer who took pictures of celebrities. Who put Ruby in touch with Woodfield I do not know. But, you can be absolutely sure that Woodfield was screened and prepped for the task.  

I am going to provide you the link to it, so that you can read it yourself, but I want you to read my remarks first, if you don't mind.   

First, you should realize that, considering that this was written for publication in the Washington Post, that it had to tell the official story of the Oswald shooting. They wouldn't have published it otherwise. 

So, I knew, before reading a word, that it was going to present the official story of the Oswald shooting. But, what I hoped to find- and did find- are nuggets of revelation that confirm that I am right; that Jack Ruby did NOT shoot Oswald.  

It starts with Ruby talking about his early life in Chicago. He denied that he was a gangster or a communist or any kind of extremist or subversive. Basically, he claimed to have a rough, struggling childhood in Chicago, but not that his family ever went hungry. And, from an early age, he was very entrepreneurial. For a while, as a young man,  he managed the dancing career of this little black youngster- successfully. But, when the US entered WW2, he was drafted into the Air Force, where he worked as an airplane mechanic. And after his military stint, he joined his brother Earl in a business manufacturing and selling salt and pepper shakers. And that was successful too. And then after that, he went to Dallas and joined his sister Eva in the nightclub business. 

But, he denied ever being involved in Cuban gunrunning, and he said nothing about being an aide to Richard Nixon; nothing about attending Communist meetings, presumably as a spy; and nothing about having any connection with the CIA or with gangsters. And, he repeated his claim of being at the Dallas Morning News at the time JFK got shot. So, he wasn't watching the motorcade with an acquaintance whom he invited to watch the "fireworks" with him. That story is completely and totally bogus, even though it was circulated as fact by our media in 2017. 

Another important point is that he covered Friday afternoon, and he denied going to Parkland Hospital, and he denied being at the Dallas PD, Homicide Division, at 2 PM. Both those claims are false, and the images purportedly of Ruby at the Dallas PD at 2 PM Friday afternoon are false. Those images are of someone else; not Jack Ruby.  

He certainly confirmed going to the Midnight Press Conference, although he did not go there to see Oswald. He went there because after Detective Sims turned down his offer of the corned beef sandwiches, Ruby decided to offer them to the crew that was covering the story for KLIF a local tv station. He was determined to get those sandwiches to people who were working the case. So, he went there for that and basically stumbled into the Midnight Press Conference. So, he wasn't stalking Oswald on Friday afternoon or on Friday evening. 

And Ruby stated that he was only a few feet from Oswald on Friday night, and he had his gun in his pocket, but he had not the slightest urge to kill him. And, he had no such urge on Sunday morning either. Read this:

Who are you going to believe, Fritz or Ruby? I believe Ruby.

OK, let's get to the morning of the 24th. Note again that the story given is largely a re-telling of the official story, and it had to be. This was published in one of the nation's leading newspapers, and there is no way they would tell anything but the official story. And by then, Ruby had essentially accepted the official story anyway, and he had integrated it into his memory. So, I knew before I started reading, that it was going to conform completely with officialdom. But, there are still some nuggets of revelation that came out, as you'll see.  

First, Ruby admitted taking A LOT of drugs the morning of the 24th. He said that for 4 or 5 days, he had been taking twice his usual dose of "diet pills" which were amphetamines. He also said that he took a "cold prescription," which may have been more amphetamine. He also wrote, "This morning I also took some other tablets."

WHAT???!!! What other tablets???? And did he really write it that way? Ruby tended to provide a lot of detail, often too much detail. So, why no detail on the other tablets? Did someone give him those tablets and urge him to take them? Did he specify who, and was it deleted? Remember, it is typed newspaper article, not a handwritten statement. So, they could have done any editing whatsoever that they wanted without his permission. It sounds awfully abbreviated for him to say that that morning he also took some other tablets. But, start counting the tablets. It sounds like he swallowed a heck of a lot of pills that morning. AND IT CONFIRMS MY THESIS THAT JACK RUBY WAS HEAVILY DRUGGED THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER 24.

Ruby said that he got up early on Sunday. Early, early, early, early, early. And then he said that Little Lynn called asking for money, but he didn't give a time. So, what time was it? Little Lynn was very evasive, hemming and hawing, when she was asked what time it was by the WC. The autobiography features an internal heading which has a time, but, I don't assume that that was Jack Ruby's doing. It may have been Woodfield's doing, but if not, then it was done by some editor.  Take a look: 

    Do you see how slick that is? That's the editor telling you that that the time that Little Lynn called was 10 AM. But, don't assume that Ruby said that. 

So, Ruby leaves with his dog Sheba; he drives by the wreaths in Dealey Plaza, which he had also done the day before. He didn't say he got out of his car this time. Then, as he was driving down Main Street to WU, he saw people gathered at the incoming ramp. He turned left and parked in the lot across the street. He went and conducted his business at Western Union. Now read this:

Notice the big time indicators again. Don't assume that was Ruby's doing. So, he was going to pass out guest passes, and he had no intention, not only of shooting Oswald, but even of seeing Oswald. Ruby claimed to see no one he knew in the basement. But, he knew most of the detectives. He knew Blackie Harrison. He knew Leavelle and Graves. He certainly knew Fritz. So, were none of them present when he was there? Then, he said that Oswald was there, "looking, smirky, defiant, cursing, and vicious." Well, as you watch the films, do you see Oswald that way? I sure don't.  And then he said, "I MUST have pulled out my gun and taken a couple steps." What? Must have? What does that mean? It means that he didn't know that he did any such thing, but he must have done it simply because of the situation he's in. And the parenthetical sentence: (This was 11:20, 3 minutes after the time stamped on the ticket), who wrote that? Why is it in parenthesis? I bet it's in parenthesis because Ruby didn't write it, that it was edited in. 

And don't assume the authenticity of that ticket. Snap out of it! Ruby was there earlier, and the first thing the cops did when they got him up to the 5th floor is undress him. Why? IT WAS TO GET THE STUFF IN HIS POCKETS AND REPLACE HIS REAL RECEIPT WITH THEIR PHONY ONE.  

Then, Ruby made clear that the talking that he did DURING the melee was based on the fact that he did not know why the cops were pouncing on him. He did not know what was going on. They were jumping him; but he didn't know why they were jumping him. He was not aware of having done anything.  And he didn't find out that he had shot Oswald until he was taken upstairs to the 5th floor and told. 

Now, think about this: You can see how good Ruby's memory was overall. He provided a lot of details; a lot of names; a lot of places; and a lot of other details. So, how could he be unaware that he shot Oswald? I am here to tell you that the reason why they had to tell him that he shot Oswald, the reason he didn't know it, is because he didn't do it. There is no other explanation.

And think about it from the police perspective. WHY WOULD THEY EVEN ASSUME THEY NEEDED TO TELL HIM? If he acted as though he didn't know, you'd think they'd respond with disbelief. With incredulity. Not with, "Well, you see, Jack, you shot Oswald; and that's why we dragged you up here." 

And remember that they went on to make wild claims about him talking trash, saying things like, "I hope the son of a bitch dies" and "I did you all a favor." If he didn't even know that he did it, how could he say those things? And note that he denied saying them. 

He did not have any kind of epilepsy, as his lawyer claimed. That was bogus. The doctors said it was bogus. They did an autopsy of his brain after his death and said he had no epilepsy. The reason he didn't know that he shot Oswald is because he didn't shoot him. 

And look what he said about the Dallas Police, even after they all testified against him in court and told lies about him.  

He still loved the Dallas Police. And they knew he loved them. And they knew that if they told him he shot Oswald, that he would believe them because he could never conceive of the Dallas Police, his friends, his buddies, his heroes, lying to him.

So, he denied going to Parkland, which I already mentioned, and he also denied gun-running to Cuba. He said he had the idea of selling surplus jeeps to Cuba, but a lawyer talked him out of it.

John Armstrong makes a very big deal out of Jack Ruby being a gun-runner to Cuba, and I understand that there is this thing that people do called LYING. So yes, it's possible that Jack Ruby lied here. But, on the other hand, I think his denials call for looking at the claims and stories about this with some reservation and circumspection, because it's entirely possible that it's the others who lied- not him. 

He admitted going to Cuba in 1959 to visit LC McWhitters, a friend of his, who paid for his trip. I have not been able to find out anything about LC McWhitters. 

And that's it. Repeatedly, Ruby pointed out that he offered to take a lie detector test or ingest truth serum. How many people make such an offer? How many people who are lying make such an offer? It is my belief that Jack Ruby was truthful. It is also my belief that he was a very decent human being, who had his faults and failings, but was fundamentally good. I really mean it. 

And, he did not shoot Oswald. He was told that he did, and he came to believe it because of his faith in the ones telling him: the Dallas Police: his heroes. But, I am telling you, with great conviction, that those police heroes of his killed Oswald, and Jack Ruby was their unwitting patsy. 

And if you refuse to believe it, it's only because you are trapped in the delusion of Americana, the belief that something that bad couldn't happen in America. 

Here's the link: