Most viewed JFK Facts stories of the week

These were the best read JFK Facts stories in the week of Feb. 7-13

David Talbot

1) Ex-flame says Jack Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald (March 21, 2013)

2) Belzer misses the mark with ‘Hit List’ (Feb. 3, 2014)

3) Top 6 Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot (Feb. 6, 2014)

4) Is ‘Badgeman’ for real? (Feb.9,  2014)

5) David Talbot’s top 7 JFK books (Feb. 11, 2014)

——-

Help bring JFK Facts complete the record of JFK’s assassination in pursuit of a credible explanation of its causes on which all Americans can agreed.

We depend on your contributions to sustain a mission from which many shy.

Donate Now

 

16 comments

  1. John McAdams says:

    Now just why does the “ex flame” story keep showing up on your most read list, Jeff?

    She actually doesn’t know anything about why Ruby shot Oswald.

    It couldn’t be that guys like looking at the photo posted with the article, could it? :-)

  2. Mike says:

    Her story seems credible to me. Why would she lie about this? I don’t see why she would be motivated to lie about it. What seems to be happening in the last few years, is that some people feel safe and more comfortable giving their side of the story, as they are approaching the end of their life. Veciana, for example. Many obviously feared for their life in the aftermath of the assassination and Oswald’s death. As for you, Dr McAdams, what is your motivation in ridiculing her?

  3. John McAdams says:

    What is your motivation in believing her?

    I don’t think she’s actually lying, but it looks like she is spouting opinions she has about various things, and doesn’t actually know anything that’s not on the public record.

    As for the notion that Ruby’s “doing it for Jackie” excuse is “made up,” it’s contrary to the evidence.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sorrow.htm

    An important proviso, however, is that a lot of different “reasons” went through Jack’s addled brain, but this one was real (and so where the others).

    Again, I don’t think she is lying about this, I simply think it’s sloppy research to accept an opinion from somebody whose opinion is probably no better than yours or mine.

    As Paul Hoch put it:

    Watch out for principals who have become buffs, and are basing conclusions on information outside their areas of direct knowledge or expertise.

    • Mike says:

      Obviously, he had to have some excuse for killing Oswald, and he must have hoped that he would win the sympathy of the people (and the court) if he “did it for Jackie”. If he actually did it for the mob, what was he going to say? “Oh, Carlos told me to do it”.
      Dr. McAdams, I presume that you think that Ruby had no mob connections, and that he never visited Cuba, and that all of his phone calls to mob figures in 1963 were simply wrong numbers. Whether or not he was mentally unstable doesn’t have any bearing upon the underlying motivation for his crime.

      • John McAdams says:

        The phone calls were because he was having trouble with the AGVA, which was a mob-influenced union.

        His rivals at the Colony Club were using amateur strippers, and Ruby wanted that stopped.

        So he was calling everybody he knew (including some childhood friends he had not seen in decades) to get some help.

        He got no help at all. What does that say?

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Ruby’s explanation for killing Oswald would be “exposed … as a fabricated legal ploy”, according to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In a private note to one of his attorneys, Joseph Tonahill, Ruby wrote: “Joe, you should know this. My first lawyer Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn’t have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?”[46][60][61]
      Source, Wikipedia.

      • John McAdams says:

        You guys are never going to get up to speed so long as you continue to spout factoids.

        Ruby told several people he did it for Jackie before he ever talked to Tom Howard.

        Also, he told Wes Wise what a terrible thing it would be for Jackie to have to return to Dallas to testify at a Lee Oswald trial, and this was on Saturday.

        Why don’t you actually read the page at the link I posted?

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sorrow.htm

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Doc, how do you KNOW that I have not?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Another motive was put forth by Frank Sheeran, allegedly a hitman for the Mafia, in a conversation he had with the then-former Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. During the conversation, Hoffa claimed that Ruby was assigned[by whom?] the task of coordinating police officers who were loyal to Ruby to murder Oswald while he was in their custody. As Ruby evidently mismanaged the operation, he was given a choice[by whom?] to either finish the job himself or forfeit his life.[62]

    • Jonathan says:

      John,

      Here’s how I analyze your comment.

      1. You state what you believe.

      2. You cite your website.

      3. You make an assertion about what went through Jack Ruby’s mind.

      4. You state what you think.

      Come on, John. You’re an expert on the JFK case. You can do better than this.

      • John McAdams says:

        If you would actually bother to read the page I cited, you would see all the primary sources quoted and cited.

        And you’re ignoring the main point: Ruby was saying “he did it for Jackie” before he ever talked to Tom Howard. He was also saying things like “I had to show that the Jews have guts” and “the rat, he killed my president” and (to the cops) “you guys couldn’t do it, somebody had to” (paraphrasing).

  4. Jonathan says:

    My question, and it’s just a question, is why would Gail Raven say Jack Ruby had no choice but to shoot Oswald?

    I assume she knew Ruby well, as she claims. But that’s just an assumption. It’s not an unreasonable assumption, in my opinion, given that Ruby employed a number of young women. But still an assumption.

    If Gail Raven knew Jack Ruby well, as she claims, she might know all kinds of things. That she says Ruby had no choice requires one to make two assumptions: (1) she knew Ruby well, and (b) she knew his mob connections.

    I’d much rather interview Janet Conforto (Jada), Karen Carlin (Little Lyn), and Nancy Perrin.

    • John McAdams says:

      why would Gail Raven say Jack Ruby had no choice but to shoot Oswald?

      Please, pay attention to Paul Hoch’s dictum:

      Watch out for principals who have become buffs, and are basing conclusions on information outside their areas of direct knowledge or expertise.

      You said:

      That she says Ruby had no choice requires one to make two assumptions: (1) she knew Ruby well, and (b) she knew his mob connections.

      Are you admitting that the “Ruby had to do it” was something she inferred, and had no direct knowledge of?

  5. Avinash says:

    Ruby also had connections to Al Capone as a youth in Chicago.

  6. John Kirsch says:

    As is so often the case on this site, people allow themselves to be drawn down into the weeds where they waste time on speculative, he said-she said, “what if” discussions that lead nowhere. It’s a tried and true tactic used by the WC fundamentalists.
    The point is to start with what we know, which is that Ruby shot Oswald (in the police station!) and that this act had two important effects: it permanently silenced the man who had been accused of killing the president — and it eliminated the possibility of a trial, where Oswald’s lawyer or lawyers would have been able to attack the state’s case.
    Ruby’s act, premeditated or not, part of a plot or not, derailed the legal process. From my standpoint, it was the “tell” that said something else was going on.

  7. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Yes we do. Ignoring some comment’s is the best course, but some need rebuttal for the sake of accuracy in History and the Truth in the JFK Assassination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more