JFK Facts Top 5: Stories about evidence find favor

U.S Attorney Ron Machen changes the government’s story.

The story of how the U.S. Attorney in Washington DC made a small but significant change to the government’s accounting of the whereabouts of undercover CIA officer George Joannides in 1963 was the most viewed JFK Facts story for the week of March 6-13.

That story, like popular stories about Douglas Horne’s take on the medical evidence and sound engineer Ed Primeau’s work on the Air Force One tapes, is based on granular examination of facts and their pattern.

It seems that readers want evidence, not theories.

Here are the top 5 stories of the week.

  1. U.S. Attorney walks back a JFK story (March 6, 2014 )
  2. Would JFK medical evidence be admissible in a court of law? (March 8, 2014)
  3. Ex-flame says Jack Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald (March 21, 2013)
  4. What’s the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence to surface in recent years? (March 10, 2014)
  5. 21 cops who heard a grassy knoll shot (March 11, 2014)

 

103 comments

  1. Melvin Fromme says:

    Story #4 about the Bill Kelly discovery of censored AF-1 tapes, Doug Horne’s analysis of what is heard on the tapes & how it ties in with the body of JFK arriving early at Bethesda & the uninterviewed pilots of the C-130 cargo plane that transported JFK’s parade car to Washington from Dallas was the story that sent shock waves through me (David Lifton wasn’t mentioned but his research published in Best Evidence led to Horne’s current thesis posted at Greg Burnham’s new website). Why that C-130 crew cannot be located & interviewed in 50 years is beyond my comprehension. What does the AF-1 pilot (Mr. Swindal, I believe)have to say about all this? It’s been told to me that the first suggestion to the global public that something very wrong & illegal took place between Parkland & Love Field following JFK’s horrific murder was when William Manchester published excerpts from his book, ‘Death Of A President’ in Look magazine in late 1966-1967. There was a big hassle over the book between Jackie Kennedy & Manchester I’ve been told. No grand jury was assembled back then, my questions now are with this information combined can one be assembled now & is there more to be learned about aircraft that landed at Love Field 22 Nov 1963 that documentation was withheld by Love Field, the military or any other parties involved?

    • Thomas Joseph says:

      Melvin:

      I recall reading on one of the older JFK forums a couple years back that researcher Vince Palamera had located the C-130 flight manifest & attempted to make contact with one of its pilots, the loadmaster or a member of his crew. The person Vince contacted refused to talk with him or answer any questions. Perhaps he will see this (if published) & give us the names of the people listed on the flight manifest so more effort can be put into locating them. Vince’s discovery put to rest an early theory that the entire crew had been sent to Viet Nam & perished in the mid 1960′s. Any gag orders the crew may have been under should have terminated once each member left the military service. I agree, that crew collectively or individually can shed a lot of light on several mysterious aspects following the ambush of President Kennedy. Whoever & wherever they are, each & every crew member can contact Jeff Morley & safely tell him their stories while maintaining their privacy. What they saw & heard is important to history.

      • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

        Nondisclosure agreements are not based on ones separation from Military service. The agreements are for set time periods unrelated to separaton dates.

  2. John Kirsch says:

    “It seems that readers want evidence, not theories”
    I know I do.
    It seems significant to me that evidence, or at least hints and traces of evidence, still exist after all this time.
    Even after half a century, the government is still trying to hide information. Or changing information, as is the case with the U.S. attorney.
    For me, the unavoidable implication is that they have something to hide. And they know they have something to hide.

  3. Jean Davison says:

    Concerning #3, Gale Raven…

    Another of Ruby’s employees, Tammi True, told the FBI that in her opinion Raven was never Ruby’s girlfriend:

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=676075

    In recent interviews, Tammi echoed the opinion of others who knew Ruby:

    “Jack did it because he had the opportunity ….There were a lot of people who wanted to do what Jack did.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454371/Former-stripper-says-nightclub-owner-Jack-Ruby-shot-JFKs-assassin-opportunity-just-did-lot-people-wanted-do.html

    Another interview says, QUOTE:

    Her story doesn’t embrace conspiracies, deliver an exposé. If there was a plot to kill the president, “no way” Ruby was involved, she says.

    “He was distraught, and he had the opportunity,” she said …

    UNQUOTE

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20131005-dallas-stripper-recalls-jack-rubys-club-50-years-after-jfk.ece?nclick_check=1

    • Mike says:

      Jack Ruby’s own words are quite persuasive for me:

      “Everything pertaining to what’s happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world,”

      Asked if these men were in very high positions, Ruby replied, “Yes.”

      “I want to tell the truth, and I can’t tell it here,” Ruby told Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in June 1964

      • Jean Davison says:

        Mike,

        Ruby believed there was a rightwing conspiracy to make it appear that he was involved, in order to pin the blame for the assassination on the Jews. He talked about this in his testimony:

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm

        Ruby told Warren, “All I want to all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all. There was no conspiracy.” In Rush to Judgment Mark Lane omitted that last sentence, making it appear that Ruby was saying exactly the opposite.

        Ruby was a conspiracy theorist himself and eventually suspected LBJ (someone in a “very high position”). He imagined that the Jews were being persecuted because of what he’d done.

        Transcript of Ruby’s “deathbed” interview (a few weeks before he died):

        http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydeathbed.html

        An audio recording of it is here:

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=179_1390690503&comments=1

      • John McAdams says:

        This seems to come up on this board about every day.

        Ruby was not confessing he was part of any conspiracy. He consistently (right up to a deathbed statement in an interview conducted in Yiddish) that he was never part of any conspiracy.

        He believed there was a conspiracy.

        He believed it was a conspiracy to kill all the Jews. He believe he had been scapegoated by this conspiracy.

        And he came to believe LBJ was involved. But not because he had any “inside information” about that, but because he had read the book A Texan Looks at Lyndon.

        Read his Warren Commission testimony (and not just the excerpts conspiracists will show you). He wants to go to DC to prove his innocence to LBJ.

        • Jonathan says:

          Let’s cut to the chase. These are facts:

          1) Ruby shot Oswald unimpeded while Oswald was handcuffed to two cops.

          2) Ruby promised Warren he’d tell all if Warren got him to Washington, D.C. Warren denied his request.

          3) No one knows for sure how Ruby got into the bowels of the DPD.

          4) Ruby had friends or associates who were involved in organized crime.

          5) Ruby’s expressed reason why he killed Oswald was to prevent Jackie from having to testify at a trial.

          6) Ruby is reputed not to have voted for JFK

          There are many other facts alleged of Ruby, but I insist we focus on these because they are a matter of record.

          If we put these facts in front of an impartial jury, the jury will determine the facts as it will.

          Yet, John McAdams (and Jean Davison), you try to make it appear here Ruby had nothing much of interest to say to a jury.

          Juries are interested in facts filtered through the rules of evidence and subject to cross-exam.

          John and Jean, you are sure about Ruby.

          I’m far less certain about how his testimony would affect a jury.

          • John Kirsch says:

            Well put.
            If you believe the official story, you have to believe that Ruby was a sort of nut (sound familiar?) who somehow managed to be present, gun at the ready, when Oswald was at his most vulnerable and who shot Oswald (in the police station) for reasons that are still being debated.
            Yet there was nothing unclear about the results of Ruby’s actions. He silenced the accused assassin and eliminated the possibility of a trial.
            It’s a pattern: Oswald, a sort of nut who smuggles a rifle into the TSBD and who fires the fatal shot at the president riding in an open car, and who carries out this act of enormous violence and importance for no clear reason.
            Despite this hazy series of events, the result is clear: the president is dead.
            In both cases, the shooting of Oswald and the shooting of JFK, an end had been achieved. The question is, who or what benefited from this?

          • John Kirsch says:

            Just to follow up: How did Oswald benefit from the death of the president and how did Ruby benefit from the death of Oswald?

          • John McAdams says:

            Yet, John McAdams (and Jean Davison), you try to make it appear here Ruby had nothing much of interest to say to a jury.

            Oh, I’m sure a jury would be interested in his notion that there was a new holocaust being mounted against the Jews.

            But they would have known that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

            You folks can’t produce one single Ruby quote where he claims or alludes to having been part of any conspiracy, or having inside knowledge of any conspiracy.

            Deciding that LBJ did it doesn’t count. A lot of people believed that.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to John McAdams, who writes on March 16:

            “You folks can’t produce one single Ruby quote where he claims or alludes to having been part of any conspiracy, or having inside knowledge of any conspiracy.”

            How about this:

            “Everything pertaining to what’s happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.”

            Jack Ruby said this to reporters after he’d been granted a new trial.

            John, I’m trying to be responsive to you because I accept your challenges. I only ask in return that you challenge me personally and not simply as one of “you folks”. Not a matter of ego. Just a matter of polite exchange.

          • John McAdams says:

            The people had, that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.”

            You are assuming that this means he was saying his “real motive” was that Carlos Marcello told him to do it, or some such?

            He believed there was a conspiracy. He absolutely and always insisted that he was not part of any conspiracy, and had been framed as a way of scapegoating the Jews.

            All he’s really saying in the passage you quoted is “they have framed me.” And “the world is convinced I was part of some conspiracy.”

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams, you argue that “Then is follows that we don’t know that he killed Oswald at the behest of a conspiracy, doesn’t it?”

            The only reality that follows is that we do not know the full truth behind Ruby’s murder of Oswald. If you are satisfied that Ruby acted on impulse following Oswald acting on impulse as a result of their shared, muddled mind(s), you are indeed fortunate. Those of us that continued to question the Warren Report issued by a “stacked” Warren Commission are left with decades of unease and disenchantment – not simply relating to the assassination of John Kennedy and murder of Lee Harvey Oswald – but with what little residue remains of the democracy we envisioned.

            Academicians unwilling to look beyond the information issued in the Warren REport are in my opinion, lazy.

          • TLR says:

            Ruby, like Oswald, was a patsy in a highly compartmentalized operation who was used for a particular task and then disposed of. He was only aware of the handful of Dallas police who helped him get into the basement. All Ruby could do was sit in his jail cell theorizing about who was behind it all. Sometimes he suspected LBJ, sometimes it was the Nazis.

          • John McAdams says:

            The only reality that follows is that we do not know the full truth behind Ruby’s murder of Oswald.

            Then we certainly don’t know it was a conspiracy, and you folks have no business claiming that Ruby’s testimony shows that it was.

            Academicians unwilling to look beyond the information issued in the Warren REport are in my opinion, lazy.

            You folks have been “looking beyond” for more than a half century. So what do you have on Ruby? Recycling the same old stuff about how his WC testimony or later statements show he had inside knowledge of a conspiracy.

            When you actually have something, by all means let us know.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, the unique quality of this forum is that there does not seem to be a cohesive ‘you folks,’ except for those few – you included – who advocate in favor of the Warren Report; in spite of you folks, there seems to be a collection of sincere, well meaning, and relatively informed individuals teasing out the most current information. I’ve not participated on other forums over the decades, but maybe there is still one with a more antiquated approach with which you would be more comfortable.

            That being said, I do not advocate that Ruby was consciously involved in a conspiracy. I think as evidenced by his statements, he was a confused individual at the mercy of many including his alleged close friends. Facts support the claim that he and Oswald were known to one another; beyond that there is credible, circumstantial information that they were involved in a drug and gun running operation. I also think there is no getting around the influence that Chicagoan Lawrence Meyers had on Ruby with whom he spent time on the eve of the assassination (Ruby phone calls, Meyers phone calls, AMF (Beedle Smith)/Ero Mfg., American National B&T – bankers to Lone Star Steel of Dallas/Tyler and Joe Zeppa, Al Ulmer, Jack Crichton, and the Murchisons. None of this research should be discounted in my opinion, not the least of which is Meyers’ brother – a Long Island Pepsi guy – and his daughter who would be hired into a high level nuclear operation in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Admittedly it gets complicated and controversial and this line of argument has been ridiculed over the last two decades. I predict however that we will return to it because nothing short of a military industrial cabal could have pulled off the assassination and cover up of President Kennedy.

        • Mike Rago says:

          It comes up every day because it is extremely important.

          Jack Ruby lied when he said he did not know Oswald and the Commission.

          All one need do is read the report of the HSCA Polygraph Panel to see that.

          Here is what the Panel of Polygraph Experts said regarding Jack Ruby’s polygraph test…

          “Based on its analysis of the charts themselves,

          and not considering the negative factors affecting the veracity of the examination,

          the panel could not form an opinion that Ruby told the truth when answering “No” to the four relevant questions asked in test series 1 and 2.

          On the contrary, the panel found more indications that Ruby was lying in response to these four questions.”

          http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0111b.htm

        • leslie sharp says:

          Gertz: Do you remember anything when you reached the bottom of the ramp?

          Ruby: Yeah, I did, like I said, a flash came to me from the point at the bottom of the ramp at the time that I was grappling with the police officers for the gun. Actually, what had happened I don’t know at that time.

          John or Jean, Ruby’s various statements are fraught with contradictions and in spite of your attempts to interpret them, there is no valid reason to conclude that we know the full story behind Ruby’s involvement in the events of that weekend.

          You fail to acknowledge that Ruby was at the police press conference – correcting statements made pertaining to Oswald’s history; you fail to acknowledge that Ruby was well known to the Dallas’ law and order community including Officer Tippit; you fail to acknowledge his home address was in close proximity to and on a path that crossed the murder of Officer Tippit; you fail to mention that hundreds of man hours were expended following leads that Ruby and Oswald were associates. (visit that testimony; why were credible sightings dismissed without explanation.)

          Do you recognize that Ruby was – at least on reflection – confused by his actions that Sunday. His statements do little to clarify his motive to murder Oswald in front of a cadre of police and sheriff’s department personnel; it does nothing to explain how he entered the ramp undeterred; it leaves the impression that he could not explain what was going on in his mind; it suggests that even he was startled by the timing; and it belies anyone’s insistence that we know all of the facts behind Ruby’s involvement in the conspiracy.

          Why didn’t Gertz ask Ruby if he had known Oswald prior to November 24, 1963. Why didn’t Gertz speak to Louis J. West’s assessment of Ruby’s mental state while he was incarcerated. Why didn’t Gertz speak to West’s history with Army Intelligence and mind control experiments.

          Oswald – as the victim of Ruby’s crime – is entitled to his day in court; you are not the judge and jury.

          • John McAdams says:

            Ruby’s various statements are fraught with contradictions and in spite of your attempts to interpret them, there is no valid reason to conclude that we know the full story behind Ruby’s involvement in the events of that weekend.

            Then is follows that we don’t know that he killed Oswald at the behest of a conspiracy, doesn’t it?

            Given his muddled testimony (which reflected a muddled mind), you folks have no business claiming that he was privy to any inside information that indicated a conspiracy.

        • Mike says:

          My thanks to Davison and McAdams for pointing out the Warren Commission interview of Jack Ruby. As an amateur in this discussion, I had never read the interview taken by the Chief Justice.
          After reading the interview, I was very much impressed by three things. The first is that Jack Ruby was proactive in downplaying his association with Lewis McWillie, his friend (and associate of Santos Trafficante). He also said something to the effect that McWillie didn’t have “subversive thoughts”. He was deliberately minimizing the importance of his trip to Havana, at the invitation of McWillie, while trying to paint McWillie in a positive light at the same time. McWillie, who he reportedly idolized, but who he had also described as the man he feared the most.
          Something else that impressed me was how he described Oswald. He said Oswald was nothing to him. Nothing. Think about that. If he was so distraught at the death of JFK, would you not expect him to have been full of rage directed toward JFK’s assassin? “Nothing” sounds more like a hit man’s description of his victim.
          And lastly, he appeared to be extremely desperate to be taken out of the Dallas jail and transported to D.C.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Mike, very interesting and fresh insights.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Mike,

            Unless you’re sure that McWillie and the 1959 trip to Cuba are somehow important, how can you be sure that Ruby was “downplaying” or “minimizing” them?

            Very likely most people who believe Ruby was part of a conspiracy have never read his testimony. They’ve formed an opinion based on how it looks to them. It LOOKS as if Ruby shot Oswald to shut him up.

            And yet, most of those who knew Ruby and expressed an opinion agreed with Tammi True: no way was Ruby part of a conspiracy. They believed he acted impulsively and did what many other people wanted to do — kill the man who appeared to be JFK’s assassin.

            Other evidence, particularly the timing, indicates that Ruby’s crime wasn’t planned — if he’d arrived at the basement just a minute or so later he would’ve missed the chance.

            Although Ruby was in the same room with Oswald Friday night, Oswald lived to talk to reporters, a lawyer, and family members on Saturday. When Oswald spoke of being a “patsy” he implied that the police were setting him up because he was a leftist, not that he had knowledge of a conspiracy.

            Here’s the link to Ruby’s testimony again:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm

          • Dave says:

            Ruby sounds “crazy” like a fox. His testimony seems calculated, manipulative, dissembling and self-serving, with the twin purposes of minimizing the true extent of his criminal connections, and constructing his altruistic if flimsy motivations of protecting Jackie, his family and the Jewish people.
            For example, he lied to the WC concerning his presence at Parkland Hospital shortly after JFK’s arrival.
            For a guy who apparently was so upset about JFK’s murder that he then murdered Oswald for the sake of Jackie’s dignity, isn’t it odd he couldn’t be bothered to go watch the motorcade as it passed by a few blocks away?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, “Other evidence, particularly the timing, indicates that Ruby’s crime wasn’t planned — if he’d arrived at the basement just a minute or so later he would’ve missed the chance.”

            On the other hand, one can reasonably argue: How did Ruby make his way down the ramp and to within feet of Oswald unimpeded. The timing was perfect – not one minute early nor one minute late as you point out.

            Persistently ignoring circumstances, which you seem to argue are merely extenuating, ie Ruby’s association with McWillie, does not make those facts go away.

            “When Oswald spoke of being a “patsy” he implied that the police were setting him up because he was a leftist, not that he had knowledge of a conspiracy.”

            This is your interpretation. I argue that he makes the statement about the Soviet Union before he makes the freestanding statement “I’m just a patsy.” I do not hear implication; I hear him slowly putting two and two together.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Here’s Oswald’s patsy remark. Whether it’s related to the statement he made just before that is a matter of opinion:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

            Another indication that Oswald was implying a police frame-up, imo, is that when he was shown the backyard photos he reportedly said that the police could’ve doctored the photo using pictures taken by the media after his arrest:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=649

            Ruby got into the basement because it wasn’t sealed off as well as it should’ve been.

            What you call my “ignoring circumstances,” I call “asking for evidence.” Ruby certainly knew McWillie and visited him in Cuba in 1959. What evidence is there that this is connected to the assassination? Not suspicion, *evidence*.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, following is the youtube version (you’ll note that it’s biased towards Oswald’s guilt as is your vonPein link) that I accessed. However both recordings support my position.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTnzfmCJY4

            Oswald did not say, ‘I’m just a patsy because I lived in the Soviet Union.” He said: “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union.” And THEN he said “I’m just a patsy.” Prior to that he was responding to reporters in a completely coherent fashion. He was not deluded; he was ‘processing’ what was happening to him. I contend that in those few minutes he realized that he had been set up.

            Your interpretation suggests what? I’ve lost site of the argument. You contend that Oswald’s use of the term patsy was related to ….? My unbiased question is: what might Oswald have been inferring?

            I trust that a jury would not rely on your personal interpretation but would instead apply all of the known facts as they listened to this recording. Were I sitting on that jury, I can assure you that I would not draw similar conclusions. I would recognize that there were layers in the circumstances, layers that think you are now deliberately avoiding.

            As a member of a jury, I would ask: if Oswald’s motive was notoriety, a wish to go down in history, why didn’t he lay claim to the assassination while he was in custody? I would ask: why did he even utter the word “patsy?” I would ask: who was exerting pressure on him during that (near) 48 hour time frame and where are the full records of those events?

        • leslie sharp says:

          “You folks can’t produce one single Ruby quote where he claims or alludes to having been part of any conspiracy, or having inside knowledge of any conspiracy.”

          John, you divert the argument and suggest that the investigation should go in search of a confession by Ruby…. and if he didn’t confess, then obviously …. What? This is an absurd distraction and those engaged should rethink how they are being manipulated.

          • Mike says:

            Does anyone know if Ruby’s MMPI evaluation is included in the Warren Report? I can’t find it. His interview by the Chief Justice suggests a manipulative, sociopathic type personality. Certainly not an altruistic type who would commit a crime for a higher purpose.

          • John McAdams says:

            Are you somehow overlooking the fact that, for him to have any “inside knowledge” of a conspiracy, he would have to be part of a conspiracy?

            You folks continue to imply that Ruby had some inside knowledge that he wanted to share in DC.

            But you have no evidence that he actually knew anything about any conspiracy. He was just a fellow that believed there was a conspiracy.

          • Mike says:

            Reply to John McAdams: I believe that Ruby was most likely ordered to silence Oswald, by the mafia. His motive that he did it for Jackie doesn’t pass the
            smell test. I think that his delusional state after being in jail for several months was due to sleep deprivation and isolation – his guards talked about the spotlights shining on him in his room 24 hours/day. His basic personality seems to have been sociopathic.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Ruby is hardly “just a fellow that believed there was a conspiracy.” To the untrained ear, this phrase suggests that Ruby’s reflections were somehow more significant than his murder of Oswald in front of nearly a dozen law enforcement officers. The intimation is that Ruby’s act was a mere twist of fate and that the real issue is whether or not he thought a conspiracy was behind the assassination of John Kennedy. Has this been a red herring for decades?

            What Ruby did or did not say in the aftermath of the assassination should not distract from the fact that he was afforded access to the alleged assassin. His murder of Oswald circumvented a trial during which motive and method could have been revealed, his prior association with Oswald established, and quite possibly those that authorized the assassination would have been exposed. Justice would have been served. Democracy would have survived. Ruby may be a very tragic figure, but he was not “just a fellow.”

          • John McAdams says:

            You guys have, for decades, been interpreting some of Ruby’s statements as indicating he has some sort of inside knowledge of a conspiracy.

            And now you are saying “what does it matter?”

          • John McAdams says:

            His motive that he did it for Jackie doesn’t pass the smell test.

            There is no doubt that it’s one of the things that was going through his addled brain.

            It most certainly was not a lie on Ruby’s part — although it was only one of the things he believed.

            How about reading the following?

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

        • John Kirsch says:

          John McAdams, do you have any legal training or experience?

        • bogman says:

          The lone nut crowd takes Ruby at his word but not Oswald’s. Interesting.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bogman, my point as well. How does anyone argue that Ruby’s testimony should be taken at face value, yet Oswald’s statements after the assassination are derided as tainted, deranged, not to be taken seriously. This is further indication of intentional obfuscation of the record.

        • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

          “Ruby was not confessing he was part of any conspiracy”. Really John? How about Ruby’s words “the people that put me in this position”…feel free pontificate the implication.

          • John McAdams says:

            How many times do I have to repeat this: he believed he was framed.

            He believed that various sinister forces (the John Birch Society in his WC testimony, LBJ later) had framed him and scapegoated him as part of a plot to blame Jews for the assassination, and start a new Holocaust.

            Which Ruby, deranged as he was, believed was underway.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            “He believed he was framed”…framed for what John? Ruby couldn’t possibly think he was framed for shooting LHO, could he? After all, he was filmed in the act, so would be silly to claim he was framed for that benevolent act. Of course Ruby didn’t mean “framed”, he meant forced or blackmailed (“the people that put me into this position”). Ruby told us why he shot LHO, to prevent the trial. The same reason that the Secret Service, LBJ and etc., forced the taking of JFK’s body prior to the autopsy…to block outside investigations and prevent a trial in Abstentia in the State of Texas. I for one think Ruby told the truth on this subject…his job was to prevent the trial. He succeeded and Eva got to live.

          • John McAdams says:

            “He believed he was framed”…framed for what John?

            Framed for being part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.

          • S.R. "Dusty" Rohde says:

            John…so no legitimate rebuttal?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        What did Ruby say? “the assassination of Kennedy was “an act of over throwing the Government”…added he knew who had Kennedy killed and that he was framed to kill Oswald”.
        Reclaiming Parkland, pg 206. I.E., to me that’s a fact Jack. Mr. D does not walk on water and is not infallible but but he is meticulous in his documentation.
        This thread seems to ignore the big picture. Ruby ran numbers for Al Capone as a teen in Chicago. He was arrested for murder of a Union boss then sent to California by Giancana’s boss at the time in the 40′s. There he was kept from testifying before the Senate committee on organized crime by a memo from Nixon that he was working on his election committee. He was later sent to Dallas by the same man to set up racketeering and prostitution for the mob in conjunction with the shared efforts of Carlos Marcello in New Orleans. He was so enamored with his Jewish heritage he legally changed his name from Jacob Rubenstein to Jack Ruby to keep people he met from realizing it. He was the bagman and fixer between the politicians and cops and the mob in Dallas. It’s all pretty well documented. Through testimony, statements and pictures he was in DP @ 12:30 11/22/63. He was seen driving a getaway truck Dallas Sheriff Officer “Officer of the Year” Roger Craig said Oswald got into. He lied about being at Parkland after the murder. That night he corrected his acquaintance D.A Wade as “Henry” about the FPCC. The list goes on. Mc Willie, Trafficante, many more.
        This is why when I tried to read the short version of the Warren Omission/Fairy Tale years ago when I got to the part about Ruby-no organized crime connection, I threw against the wall and yelled Bullshit.
        It’s not conspiracy theory, it’s conspiracy reality.
        FREETHEFILES.

        212

        • John McAdams says:

          Almost everything you say here is a factoid.

          But let me address one: the “correcting Wade.”

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby.htm#fpcc

          Bottom line: a whole chorus of voiced corrected Wade. And Oswald’s association with the FPCC had been in the news since before 4:00 p.m.

          • Dave says:

            Ruby’s “I did it for Jackie” justification for murdering Oswald was a fabrication by Ruby, not to mention a useful defense strategy readily endorsed by his lawyers, in hopes of obtaining a “not guilty by reason of insanity” verdict.

          • John McAdams says:

            Ruby’s “I did it for Jackie” justification for murdering Oswald was a fabrication by Ruby,

            Then why did he give a bunch of other, somewhat contradictory, explanations of what he did? Remember “to show the Jews have guts.” Or “he killed my president, the rat.” Or “somebody had to do it, and you guys [the cops] couldn’t.”

            Or “I just wanted to be a hero.”

            Further (you appear not to have noticed) if you think Ruby was so shrewd and calculating, how would that shrewd and calculating excuse suggest a conspiracy?

          • John Kirsch says:

            Prof. McAdams, do you have any legal training or experience?

          • Dave says:

            It’s not unusual for someone accused of a serious crime to proffer one or more false or misleading “red herring” motives for their actions in order to deflect attention from their true motive. Hey, maybe one of these so-called motives will find sympathy with the judge, jury and public opinion, even if they are just self-serving clutching at straws!
            If Ruby really was as bonkers prior to his death as his last letters to his brother suggest, then the $64 question is when did he begin to deteriorate psychologically in relation to the world-shattering events of November 22-24, 1963?

        • Jean Davison says:

          Ronnie,
          There are a lot of claims there, but how many are well documented?

          Ruby may have been questioned about the Leon Cooke murder, but the man arrested for it admitted shooting Cooke and claimed self-defense. The Nixon memo referred to the House Un-American Activities Committee not one on organized crime, and its authenticity has been disputed. So far as I know, Craig didn’t claim he saw anybody get into a getaway TRUCK. The truck Julia Ann Mercer saw was identified as workman’s truck that same day.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        BTW Juli Ann ID’d JR on 11/23 from police photos, the day before he shot O.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Ronnie,

          The police had no reason to show anyone Ruby’s photo on 11/23, and there’s no record that they did, so far as I know. I believe this claim about Ruby’s picture first showed up in a conspiracy book later on.

          Again, the truck Mercer saw was positively identified as an air conditioning truck that had broken down near the triple underpass. She saw several policemen nearby who they were trying to get the truck moved out of the motorcade route.

          Here’s Mercer’s original affidavit, which describes the same truck the police described in the link posted earlier:

          http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1308-001.gif
          http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1308-002.gif

          There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of FBI files on false leads by well-meaning people who, like Mercer, mistakenly thought they’d seen or heard something important.

          Josiah Thompson debunked this myth in Six Seconds in Dallas. That was in 1967, folks, but JFK myths never die, they just keep wandering around on the internet.

  4. Jonathan says:

    No, Jeff. Readers here want facts not theories.

  5. bogman says:

    My personal favorite post lately is the first-person account of David Ferrie after the assassination and the conclusion by the military personnel who took flying lessons from him that he was working for the CIA.

    That’s the first highly credible corroboration that Ferrie was a CIA contract pilot I’ve seen.

    Think about the long line of revelations caused by Ferrie first being questioned by Garrison immediately following the assassination because sources told him Oswald had been in his company that previous summer. That eventually led to the Shaw trial then the JFK movie then the release of docs then the Joannides bombshell.

    Ferrie was the fuse to the tinderbox of lies and disinformation by our govt.

    • D. Olmens says:

      “That’s the first highly credible corroboration that Ferrie was a CIA contract pilot I’ve seen.”

      I don’t think so. The relevant section from that post is as follows:

      “The company that had the government contract was called ComAir and was operated by a retired USAF Lt.Col whom I never met. This sounds like CIA to those of us with a military background….,” Bauer wrote.

      Note the use of “sounds like”. That’s not corroboration. That’s a suspicion.

      “Think about the long line of revelations caused by Ferrie first being questioned by Garrison immediately following the assassination because sources told him Oswald had been in his company that previous summer. That eventually led to the Shaw trial then the JFK movie then the release of docs then the Joannides bombshell.”

      That’s an unusual way of looking at causation. I think you’re massively overstating Ferrie’s significance. As far as the three specific things you mention, the Shaw trial was a gross miscarriage of justice, JFK is a creative, albeit cinematic, reinterpretation of history, and the credit for the Joannides revelation must go to Jeff Morley. I don’t see any connection to Ferrie at all in the latter case. The Joannides information is the only one of those three that I can see having any relevance to future research on the case.

      “Ferrie was the fuse to the tinderbox of lies and disinformation by our govt.”

      I see no justification whatsoever for that claim. Researchers have been trying to pin claims on Ferrie for decades with essentially zero success. The one interesting item that has been unearthed is the photo of Ferrie and Oswald together in the Civil Air Patrol. This in itself indicates nothing other than they were together at the same place on the same occasion exactly once. Appearing in a photo with someone does not automatically equate to being friends, colleagues, or having any kind of relationship at all.

      • leslie sharp says:

        D. Olmens: not every young student of the assassination will know what is missing in this observation: the photograph of David Ferrie with Oswald seems innocuous enough given that it was taken years prior to the assassination, but what you fail to acknowledge in this seemingly random equation is that DH Byrd – owner of 411 Elm and landlord for the Texas School Book Depository business (employer of LHO on 11.22) – was intensely involved with the Civil Air Patrol at the same time that Oswald encountered David Ferrie in New Orleans. Byrd was also a member of at least one “hunting club” in the NO area during the same period. This may all be reasoned away as fascinating examples of propinquity, or the coincidences may warrant a revisit.

        • John McAdams says:

          Are you aware that you could connect about anybody with anybody else using that kind of logic?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Your remark is predictable and anticipated; law enforcement investigations more often than not are initiated with similar trails of possibilities, and in fact, DPD used the method to locate Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was in the building, Officer Tippitt was murdered in an area where Oswald lived, police officers followed a hunch and rushed to the Texas Theater. (hopefully you will not play the card – eyewitness descriptions of Oswald in that hour after the assassination – because the descriptions are full of contradictions and discrepancies.) The police followed the threads. Likewise, thousands of tax-payer funded man hours were expended following up the leads relating to Ferrie, to the Minutemen, to sightings of Ruby and Oswald … so there is no reason to dismiss one area of reasonable interest.

            I challenge you to work the odds tying Ferrie, Oswald and DH Byrd and then get back with how absurd the argument of propinquity is, particularly considering the aforementioned is the tip of that unique iceberg and you know it.

            A side bit of miscellaneous: Angus Wynne, developer of the 6 Flags operation where Marina spent night two following the assassination under the care of Wynne’s Hotel Manager (this man was allegedly qualified to deal with the circumstances because he knew someone that spoke Russian – more propinquity?), was on a big game hunt in Africa at the time of the assassination. DH Byrd was a member of Wynne’s big game club. Factoid, but curious nonetheless.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Do you really not know why the police went to the Texas Theater?

            Did you know that JFK can be connected to Jack Ruby in four steps?

            JFK reportedly dated stripper Tempest Storm, who dated mobster Mickey Cohen, who dated another stripper, Candy Barr, who knew Jack Ruby:

            http://www.whosdatedwho.com/ctn_26651553/john-f-kennedy-and-jack-ruby/

            Thus every person that JFK ever knew is “connected” to Ruby in 5 steps — Marilyn, Khrushchev …

            Tempest Storm also knew Elvis, which opens up many other “connections”:

            http://www.whosdatedwho.com/ctn_16475408/elvis-presley-and-tempest-storm/

            Eventually, even you may be connected to DH Bird!

          • leslie sharp says:

            An expected reaction Jean, and I’m fully aware of the arguments against the significance of propinquity. Your diminution of these relationships fails to take into account HOW these people were known to one another … under what circumstance they were associated. As always you avoid the context of argument and critical information that does not support your book.

            Are you suggesting that President Kennedy was in some way colluding with Jack Ruby and mob lawyer Mickey Cohen through Tempest Storm? I certainly am not.

            I am however suggesting that if Oswald knew David Ferrie in the mid-50′s via membership in the Civil Air Patrol and then signed up for the Marines; if Ferrie is known to have been running drugs and or guns in the early 1960′s; if he is known to have been a fanatical mercenary for lack of a better term at the precise time that Oswald returned from the USSR and spent time in NO; if official investigators spent time, energy and tax-payer money to pursue allegations that not only Oswald and Jack Ruby knew one another BUT were involved in at the very least the purchase of rifles through the same person; if that same person can be identified with illicit gun running to Cuba; if David Ferrie is known to have been active in the CAP; if DH Byrd, at the same time and in the same region (Texas/Louisiana) was active in a regional gun (read rifle) club as Ferrie; if DH Byrd was a close associate of Dallas oil men, in particular one on whose land an isolated/unmarked landing strip was located within driving distance of sightings of Ruby and Oswald … etc. etc. etc. that is far more curious to me, far more worthy of pursuit, than two men sharing a bed with the same woman, if indeed your allegation is fact.

            It should not be lost on anyone following this site that the guns are being drawn (no pun intended) in an oh so subtle fashion to repudiate John Kennedy’s character. Desperate moves by desperate authors and researchers.

          • leslie sharp says:

            An expected reaction Jean. Your diminution of these relationships fails to take into account HOW these people were known to one another … under what circumstance they were associated. One should not avoid the context of these relationships.

            Are you suggesting that President Kennedy was in some way colluding with Jack Ruby and mob lawyer Mickey Cohen through Tempest Storm? I certainly am not.

            I am however suggesting that if Oswald knew David Ferrie in the mid-50′s via membership in the Civil Air Patrol; if Ferrie is known to have been running guns in the early 1960′s; if he is known to have been a fanatical mercenary at the precise time that Oswald returned from the USSR and spent time in NO; if official investigators spent tax-payer money to pursue allegations that not only Oswald and Jack Ruby knew one another BUT were involved in the attempted purchase of rifles, etc. through the same person; if that same person can be identified with illicit gun running to Cuba; if David Ferrie is known to have been active in the CAP; if DH Byrd, at the same time and in the same region was active in a regional gun (read rifle) club as Ferrie; if DH Byrd was a close associate of Dallas oil men, in particular one on whose land an isolated/unmarked landing strip was located within driving distance of sightings of Ruby and Oswald; if Oswald was employed in Byrd’s building at the time of the assassination … relationships viewed in this context are far more curious and of potential importance than two men sharing a bed with the same woman, if indeed that allegation is fact.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Your suggestion that I’m attempting to “repudiate John Kennedy’s character” is insulting and untrue.

            What evidence have you found that any of your suspects, including Ferrie and DH Bird, had anything to do with JFK’s assassination?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, I merely noted your comment:

            “JFK reportedly dated stripper Tempest Storm, who dated mobster Mickey Cohen, who dated another stripper, Candy Barr, who knew Jack Ruby:”

            I thought it an odd choice of analogies given the plethora of instances of degrees of separation; and because you included John Kennedy with a close degree to four people whose reputations might be less than savory, I thought you were suggesting that Kennedy shared character traits or specific alliances with Storm, Cohen, Barr and Ruby. If you find that insulting, I think you might have chosen a more relative and less inflammatory analogy.

            I would still be interested in how those particular degrees of separation kept in specific context – which they seem to lack – can be compared to those shared by Ferrie, Oswald, Ruby, Byrd, and those shadowy Dallas men and how the associations interlock.

            As the late American diplomat, George Ball said, “nothing propinks like propinquity.”

        • Jean Davison says:

          Leslie,

          My point was that “connections” between people are easy to find and don’t necessarily mean anything. The “Who Dated Who” site is the only one I’ve run across that points out surprising connections between famous people. There may be others.

          Again I ask, what evidence have you found that DH Byrd or any of your other numerous suspects had anything to do with the JFK assassination?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean,“Again I ask, what evidence have you found that DH Byrd or any of your other numerous suspects had anything to do with the JFK assassination?”
            You seek “evidence” by which I assume you mean ‘where is it in the Warren Report that states these numerous suspects had anything to do with the JFK assassination.’
            The commission set the bar for evidence in spite of the fact that it did not follow the rule of law for same.
            All I can present are facts: to the propinquity of Oswald, Ferrie and DH Byrd, all of the Civil Air Patrol, we can add George deMohrenschildt whose affiliation with David H. Byrd via the oil industry is well recorded; this of course draws unpleasant attention to deMohrenschildt’s babysitting assignment of Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina that involved Ruth (and Michael) Paine who secured a job for Oswald at 411 Elm Street owned by deMohrenschildt’s colleague, DH Byrd.
            Evidence? Only if the Warren Commission determined it as such, which of course they did not. Had the commission summoned the courage to pursue these and similar leads aggressively rather than in a perfunctory fashion, they would not have been able to direct all evidence toward what now is obvious as the predestined conclusion that Oswald was a lone assassin.
            It was an unconscionable failure by professional lawmakers and defenders of the law of our country to fail to aggressively pursue these leads. The pressures that impeded that pursuit are readily identifiable.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            I asked for evidence, not a citation from the Warren Report, for heaven’s sake.

            The truth is there’s no evidence that any of the people you named had anything to do with JFK’s murder. Funny how it’s okay to imply the people you named are guilty of something … but not Oswald?

          • John McAdams says:

            I challenge you to work the odds tying Ferrie, Oswald and DH Byrd and then get back with how absurd the argument of propinquity is

            Look . . . I once knew somebody who knew Leonid Brezhnev, and I knew the President of Marquette University who knew Mother Theresa, and I knew a woman who was a classmate of Hillary Clinton in grade school.

            Oh, my! I’m implicated in Benghazi!

            Again, you can connect anybody to anybody with that sort of logic.

          • John McAdams says:

            deMohrenschildt’s babysitting assignment of Lee Harvey Oswald

            DeMohrenschildt only began talking about babysitting in the 70s, when he was demonstrably insane.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, your process is somewhat confusing. Given that no judge or jury has determined who assassinated President Kennedy, I’m not certain how the issue of evidence can be debated except in the abstract. Skilled prosecutors and defense attorneys would manipulate the facts to their ends, including those you ably argue; a jury would be saddled with the final determination, so simply because your information is closely aligned with the Warren REport, John McAdams, David vonP. et al, does not constitute the final determination of the case.

            The goal of this particular website, I thought, was to pursue the investigation, not defend the official line that Oswald was a lone assassin. I, along with others on this forum, consider this an ongoing investigation, and I see no evidence that you are willing to consider new let alone contradictory facts or discrepancies. So what is your goal if I might ask?

            Neither you nor I nor anyone in America has been selected as a jury member in the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, let alone the assassination of John Kennedy. I want to see a thorough investigation of the characters closest to Oswald in the years leading to Dallas, 11.22.63, and I want to be convinced that they had nothing to do with the assassination. Until then, why should they be afforded liberties that Oswald was not as you are insisting. Oswald was guilty until someone proved him innocent. Do you grasp how insidious that was, the slippery slope we went down in 1964?

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, were Breznev, the President of Marguette (John Patrick Raynor?), Mother Teresa and Hillary Clinton members of the Civil Air Patrol in Texas/Louisiana? Were you? Were at least three of you members of the same gun club? Did any two seek to purchase weapons from the same Cuban-related gun runner? Were any two of you associated in any fashion with George deMohrenschildt in the lead up to the assassination? Were at least two of you business colleagues of Texas oilmen tied to the White Russian community in close contact with at least one of your spouses; did any of you arrange for Marina’s safety the weekend of 11.22. I’m certain you get my point. This argument is not a thorough one unless you agree to discuss context and the basis of these associations. Brezhnev, Hillary, Mother Teresa, Rev. Raynor and yourself share the planet and from there only very thin threads connect you all at once. Entirely different than the set of facts I am highlighting. One is a loosely woven cloth, the other a tapestry of tightly interlaced threads.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, I’m not getting your point that deMohrenschildt’s reference to babysitting came quite late. I was using the term metaphorically and refer primarily to his introductions of Oswald around town; of particular interest to me was his intro of Oswald to Sam Ballen for potential employment.

            The Ballens were in Santa Fe, NM when fellow cross country trekker deMohrenschildt scheduled to visit them but instead “died” that same spring. The Ballens were in Santa Fe in 1964 where they were close friends with the Davenports who hosted Priscilla McMillan (a family relative of theirs) and Marina Oswald while the two were on a retreat from the trauma of Dallas. More messy dots.

          • John McAdams says:

            John, were Breznev, the President of Marguette (John Patrick Raynor?), Mother Teresa and Hillary Clinton members of the Civil Air Patrol in Texas/Louisiana?

            You basic logic here is circular.

            You are saying that all these very sinister people were connected to Oswald, and to each other.

            But what makes them sinister?

            Well, they were connected to Oswald, and each other.

            And this is leaving aside the fact that most of the “connections” are pretty tenuous and distant.

          • John McAdams says:

            I see no evidence that you are willing to consider new let alone contradictory facts or discrepancies. So what is your goal if I might ask?

            Are you aware that virtually no new evidence has been posted here? Mostly just old factoids.

            And people like Jean and I have considered them, and looked at the evidence. And a huge number of them come up short.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, I sense you are not taking this argument seriously. Brezhnev et al do not represent a “fraternity,” in the same way that Oswald, Ferrie, Ruby, Byrd, deMohrenschildt, Wynne et al do … a fraternity that spans time and implicates each of them to the assassination by virtue of Oswald’s presence in the building at 411 elm. It’s not a difficult concept.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, who is the arbiter of evidence? We have no Grand Jury in place, we have no pending trial, no prosecutor to assess the evidence, no defense team to argue the facts, and certainly you are not sitting in judgement except in a purely subjective manner. So I assume you define evidence as anything you deem it to be unless of course you are reaching for your copy of the Warren Commission with each controversy to compare facts.

            I’ll let others, Morley, Kelley/Primeau, et al defend their own presentations that they consider to be new evidence themselves. I will continue to present facts from my own research and await their contributions to new evidence.

      • bogman says:

        My point is that Jeff’s Joannides revelations could never have happened without the ARRB which was a direct result of the JFK movie which was a movie about Garrison’s Shaw trial which started with his investigation into allegations about Ferrie’s relationship with Oswald.

        Whatever you think of Ferrie’s involvement in the assassination or not, the long road to records being released and a better understanding of what might have happened starts with Jack Martin reporting Ferrie to the FBI after the assassination.

        As far as Ferrie being a contract pilot for the CIA, I’ll take the direct experience and objective appraisals of random military pilots over the CIA’s denials any day of the week.

  6. Jordan says:

    Anyone who thinks that people running a Men’s club in the 60′s were without mob involvement is naive.
    Not only the clubs, but protection, the dancers, the people who hire and schedule the girls, and any gambling or slots all had mob ties if not outright control.

    Even LBJ was getting paid off by Marcello 55,000$ monthly to look the other way and ensure the police and prosecutors did likewise in regards to pinball and slot machines in Texas alone….

    • Photon says:

      LBJ had nothing to do with enforcing gambling laws in Texas.
      He had nothing to do with enforcing any laws in Texas.
      Why would he be paid by ” Marcello 55,000$ monthly” ?

    • JSA says:

      I agree, and I’ll go you one further: Anyone who thinks our intelligence agencies are above corruptibility (not that everyone in them is corrupt–I want to make that distinction) but that heads and key players, as well as politicians on the take like LBJ—are above suspicion is naive, and their assertion that the Warren Report is all we need to know about the JFK assassination is a “faith based” assertion, not an assertion based on logic and skeptical inquiry.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I don’t know about LBJ accepting bribes from Marcello, but it’s ludicrous to believe that Ruby’s murder of LHO was a spontaneous, emotional act when he was stalking him for a couple of days or so.

      It’s incredible to believe that the filmed statement by Ruby about his true motives and others having so much to gain can be interpreted as benign.

      Also, didn’t the HSCA or other committee say Ruby had a connection to the Mob?

      • Photon says:

        Why is it ludicrous ? The vast majority of murders in this country are impulsive crimes of passion- well documented for years. If Oswald hadn’t asked for a sweater their paths would not have crossed on Nov. 24; Oswald would have left before Ruby ever walked to the garage.
        There is no evidence that Ruby had any active Mob ties in 1963 or frankly even earlier. You could even say that JFK had more Mob ties than Ruby.

        • leslie sharp says:

          “If Oswald hadn’t asked for a sweater their paths would not have crossed on Nov. 24; Oswald would have left before Ruby ever walked to the garage.”

          Your speculation begs so many questions. You have no way of knowing whether or not any number of the people accompanying Oswald were not prepped to slow the procession; in fact, studying the footage, the behavior of more than one of those near him is suspect. Can you address specifically why Ruby was allowed to descend the ramp and approach Oswald unimpeded?

          • John McAdams says:

            in fact, studying the footage, the behavior of more than one of those near him is suspect.

            Can you kindly specify what you find “suspect?”

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, I would begin with Leavelle. Perhaps I’ve watched too many films that depict the bravery we have come to expect in our law enforcement officers, but it seems that Leavelle has shirked his responsibility to protect Oswald – similar to Secret Service agents in front of 411 Elm.

        • TLR says:

          Oh my god. How can you make a statement like that? Photon, you have read the HSCA’s report, haven’t you?

          http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hscaonlhoandruby.htm

          “The evidence available to the committee . . . showed that he [Ruby] had a significant number of associations and direct and indirect contacts with underworld figures, a number of whom were connected to the most powerful La Cosa Nostra leaders. Additionally, Ruby had numerous associations with the Dallas criminal element.”

        • John Kirsch says:

          Photon, I am moved once again to note a continuing pattern in your comments, i.e., your habit of saying things that seem designed merely to provoke, not enlighten, such as your suggestion that JFK had more Mob ties than Ruby.
          This pattern of behavior on your part suggests to me that you are not interested in taking part in a reasoned, informed, factual discussion of issues related to 11/22.
          Instead, my sense is that you are simply trying to disrupt discussions and draw attention to yourself.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, thank you for calling attention to Photon’s subtle inference relating to Kennedy’s reputation. I’ve long suspected that some people on this site harbor a degree of disdain for the president and members of his family. That certainly is their prerogative, but more transparency should be required. If they are here to blame or undermine the reputation of the victim, that should be stated clearly.

            We are discussing the assassination of a sitting president in broad daylight with major repercussions for the entire world; the character of the man is secondary but fortunately in John Kennedy’s case, his was more than sufficient to lead the free world, and relatively speaking, superior to most both past and present. His father’s history is irrelevant unless Photon or others would like to introduce facts to be considered as evidence; otherwise stop the attempted defamation.

          • Photon says:

            If you can’t accept that JFK had an intimate affair with Judy Campbell you simply cannot be taken seriously.
            We were discussing Mob ties. I would believe that fooling around with Momo Giancana’s girlfriend is more significant than the vague associations that Ruby had in the 1950s.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon, What does Campbell have to do with the assassination, specifically. Are you suggesting that Giancana orchestrated an assassination to get rid of an amorous competitor? Or that the Russian angle in that romantic scenario iss cause to divert attention.

            Russians could not have controlled the situation in Dallas leading to the assassination, and Russians certainly could not have orchestrated the cover up. One has to wonder in fact how much do you actually know about the white noise surrounding this investigation. It’s not to be found on the internet, not easily anyway.

            What do Ruby’s associations have to do with the assassination? If you have to ask, I do not see how you expect to be taken seriously.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          “Based on a review of the evidence, albeit circumstantial, the committee believed that Ruby’s shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, and in that it involved at least some premeditation (125)”.

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=187

        • leslie sharp says:

          John, I would begin with Leavelle. Perhaps I’ve watched too many films that depict the bravery we have come to expect in our law enforcement officers, but it seems that Leavelle has shirked his responsibility to protect Oswald – similar to Secret Service agents in front of 411 Elm.

  7. TLR says:

    Then there’s Karen Carlin, the stripper Ruby used for his alibi as to why he was downtown that morning.

    11/24/1963 Secret Service agent Roger C. Warner interviewed her; his report reads: “Mrs. Carlin was highly agitated and was reluctant to make any statements to me. She stated to me that she was under the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if she gave any information to the authorities….twisted in her chair, stammered in her speech, and seemed on the point of hysteria…all information she had related had to be kept confidential to prevent retaliation against her…” (H 15 619-20).

    After her WC testimony, she disappeared and went into hiding. Her fear of talking publicly about the subject speaks volumes:

    http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local/x1267065279/This-just-in-Little-Lynn-still-dead/print

    • Brian H says:

      One other thing TLR when Karen Carlin was interviewed by the DPD the interviewing officer noted that she was nearly hysterical and could barely speak she also said a couple times “If they find out about me talking to you they will kill me”
      Shortly after that interview she disappeared and has NOT! been seen or heard from since.

    • John McAdams says:

      Her fear of talking publicly about the subject speaks volumes

      About what? The source you cited doesn’t say she had any actual information that would indicate a conspiracy, just that she believed there was one, and was fearful.

      “Under the impression” and “hysteria” don’t suggest she was very credible.

      • leslie sharp says:

        “Under the impression” and “hysteria” don’t suggest she was very credible.”

        Presumably you were not close to the situation that Karen Carlin found herself in while in Dallas, so you have no way of knowing the source of her fear or the circumstances that created the impressions she drew relating to Oswald and Ruby. You have no way or knowing, let alone proving, whether or not there was reason for her to fear retaliation should she talk. fwiw, there are circumstantial indications that Carlin had a close tie to Chicago other than any that may have been reported; she may have been privy to far deeper information than anyone has ever uncovered. Are you not curious why she did not come forward years later?

  8. Brian H says:

    If you track both David Ferries and Jack Rubys phone calls actions and meetings prior to 11-22 and especially the immediate forty hours after the assassination you will see that Ruby killed Oswald because he was told to not because he wanted too!!
    Look at Breck Wall and Raymond Broshears for a clearer picture…..

  9. leslie sharp says:

    For Photon, this is an example of an abandoned exchange:

    I asked: “Can you address specifically why Ruby was allowed to descend the ramp and approach Oswald unimpeded?”

    If your intentions are honorable, meaning you adhere to the general goals of jfkfacts that include dispelling confusion and establishing an accurate historical record, would you be respectful enough to respond.

    • Photon says:

      For the same reason he was seen at Dallas PD headquarters several times on Nov. 22.
      For the same reason he was at the Friday night press conference , as seen on the WFAA videotape.
      For the same reason Ike Pappas stated on national radio ” I know Jack Ruby!
      For the same reason he was able to bring his .38 to the Friday night conference.
      Many cops knew him. Many cops had been patrons of his clubs. Many cops looked the other way, as apparently they had done for years, even in the face of obscenity complaints.
      He was a police groupie and had free rein at DPD headquarters. In 1963 you didn’t have metal detectors in public buildings. Security procedures were minimal and inadequate, but appropriate for that more innocent time.
      And to be blunt, the DPD was incompetent. The circus atmosphere could have been a major problem at a trial, but the DPD lost control of events in an attempt to be as open to the press as possible.

  10. leslie sharp says:

    “Many cops knew him. Many cops had been patrons of his clubs. Many cops looked the other way, as apparently they had done for years, even in the face of obscenity complaints. … He was a police groupie and had free rein at DPD headquarters.

    Who better to silence Oswald.

    “In 1963 you didn’t have metal detectors in public buildings. Security procedures were minimal and inadequate, but appropriate for that more innocent time.”

    Now you claim that the time was “innocent,” and yet the country was under siege by communists, civil rights leaders and followers, and Castro-supporters. The Minutemen certainly did not view these as “innocent times.” It would not have required the DPD to scan Ruby for metal … only to cordon off the entrance and secure it with several police officers who didn’t care if Ruby wanted access, he wasn’t getting inside. If security procedures were minimal, why were the streets of Dallas full or officers along the parade route; why were so many seconded to the Texas Theater. There are discrepancies and contradictions in your argument.

    “And to be blunt, the DPD was incompetent. The circus atmosphere could have been a major problem at a trial, but the DPD lost control of events in an attempt to be as open to the press as possible.”

    And yet the DPD arrested Oswald within an hour or so of the assassination – another example of incompetence? The attempt at “openness” was a public relations move, well orchestrated, and I contend they did not “lose control of events,” on the contrary.

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