Nov. 24, 1963: Jack Ruby kills Oswald. Why?

In an exclusive interview with JFK Facts earlier this year, one of Ruby’s friends–a dancer who worked in his nightclub in 1963 and knew the man well, offered this informed explanation.


  1. Ramon F Herrera says:

    The Ruby element provides one of the biggest holes in the LN argument.

    “I did it to save Mrs. Kennedy from going to a trail”

    Everybody in America wanted to know (some of us still do!) more about Oswald. For instance, how about a MOTIVE? Wasn’t Mr. Ruby the last curious?

    He later said: “Actually, my lawyer told me to say that”.

    “I did it in order to prove that the Jews are not cowards”

    Come on! Give me a break! What kind of absurd argument is that!

    Both Lee and Ruby publicly CONFESSED about being part of a conspiracy. It is on video.

  2. Ramon F Herrera says:

    I wonder how well documented is the following version:

    A policeman asked Ruby: “Why didn’t you kill him earlier?, on Friday you had the opportunity.”

    Ruby: “I was afraid I would shoot one of you guys”.

  3. Juniper says:

    Hey, here’s a song didn’t make it into the “best JFK songs” post awhile back. This seems like a good day to play “Jack Ruby” by Camper Van Beethoven:

    “So draw the box along quickly
    Avert your eyes with shame
    Let us stand and speak of the weather
    And pretend nothing ever happened on that day…”

  4. John Kirsch says:

    It’s hard for me to avoid the impression that Ruby was stalking Oswald and as someone familiar to the Dallas police, Ruby would have been the perfect person to be able to get close enough to Oswald to shoot him.
    Ruby’s shooting of Oswald, in the police station, as Oswald was almost literally surrounded by law enforcement officials, live on national TV, was shocking enough.
    But how do you explain this,courtesy of Wikipedia?
    “Ruby (also known as “Sparky,” from his boxing nickname “Sparkling Ruby”[51]) was seen in the halls of the Dallas Police Headquarters on several occasions after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963; and newsreel footage from WFAA-TV (Dallas) and NBC shows Ruby impersonating a newspaper reporter during a press conference at Dallas Police Headquarters on the night of the assassination.[52] District Attorney Henry Wade briefed reporters at the press conference telling them that Lee Oswald was a member of the anti-Castro Free Cuba Committee. Ruby was one of several people there who spoke up to correct Wade, saying: “Henry, that’s the Fair Play for Cuba Committee,” a pro-Castro organization.[53][54][55] Some speculate that Ruby may have hoped to kill Oswald that night at the police station press conference. Ruby told the FBI, a month after his arrest for killing Oswald, that he had his loaded snub-nosed Colt Cobra .38 revolver in his right-hand pocket during the press conference.”
    The “reasons” that Ruby gave for shooting Oswald would be laughable if they hadn’t occurred in such a tragic context. I don’t take those reasons seriously because I don’t think they were meant to be taken seriously. Forget about what Ruby said about what he did and look at the effects: the assassin silenced and a trial averted.

  5. John Kirsch says:

    I think it’s useful to compare Ruby and Oswald. We have absolutely unimpeachable evidence that Ruby used a firearm to kill someone. Via TV, the whole world saw Ruby step forward and shoot Oswald.
    To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever come forward and said, under oath, that they saw Lee Harvey Oswald himself fire at JFK. I’m not talking about a witness some distance away who claims to have seen someone who COULD have been Oswald. I’m talking about someone who has sworn under oath that he or she saw Oswald HIMSELF fire at the motorcade.
    So of the two men, who had the greater capacity for violence?

    • Photon says:

      March 24, 1964.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I’m reluctant to respond to you but you’re going to have to clarify that comment if you want me to respond. What is the point you are trying to make?

      • Fearfaxer says:

        If that’s a reference to Howard Brennan, that shows just how desperate you Lone Nut Buffs are. Brennan claimed to have seen Oswald fire from a standing position. No one could have fired from the so-called sniper’s nest while standing, they would have to have fired through the window glass, and obviously that didn’t happen. That window only opened some 18 inches at maximum. Not only that, but a number of people who’ve studied film and photos of the assassination state that Brennan wasn’t even looking at the TSBD at that point, he was looking at the Presidential limousine.

        • John Kirsch says:

          I suspect that the reference is to Brennan, whose testimony to the Warren Commission struck me as less than empathic.
          “Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?
          Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man.”
          That is not what I would call an emphatic statement. In fact there is a lot of equivocation in it. That may have something to do with the fact that on 11/22 Brennan “identified Oswald in a police lineup as the person who most closely resembled the man in the window but Brennan said he was unable to make a positive identification,” according to Wikipedia.
          Again, from later on in the WC testimony, “Mr. BELIN… “Could you or could you not actually identify this person as the man you saw firing the rifle?
          Mr. BRENNAN. I believed I could with all fairness and sincerity. As you asked me the question before, had I saw those pictures of Oswald prior, which • naturally I don’t know whether it confused me or made me feel as though I was taking unfair advantage or what. But with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man.”
          That statement is what I would call a head-scratcher.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I assume Brennan took an oath before testifying to the WC and I suppose it’s possible to construe his statements to the WC to mean that Oswald was the person he claimed to have seen in the window. So I made a mistake. But even the WC found him of limited use. “Because Brennan declined to make a positive identification in the police lineup, the commission regarded Brennan’s subsequent testimony, that he sincerely believed he saw Oswald, as probative but not conclusive evidence that Oswald was the gunman in the sixth floor window.[18]
        Brennan is a pretty thin reed upon which to hang the theory that Oswald was indeed the gunman.

    • Victor DiEleanora says:

      I love your suggested point that Oswald WAS NEVER convicted of these crimes, and should be alluded to as “the alleged assassin” which is actually on the plaque at the Texas School Book building today.

      I also wonder about this:the events happened in late November, colder weather and if you look at the picture taken at the time Ruby shoots Oswald, everyone is dressed in dark clothing except for Detective Leavell, who is in a white suit and hat, much taller than those around him–and is handcuffed to the suspect!

      Why has no one, not even Sabato explained who those people were on the Grassy Knoll identifying themselves as “Secret service?” And along with the smell of gunpowder right there, why Posner, Bugliosi et al aren’t suspicious?

      Lets keep pushing this until there is truth for America, resolution for JFK and justice for Lee Harvey Oswald–whoever he was..

      • Tim Gratz says:

        The man or men claiming to be secret service agents, at least one of whom even showed “credentials” is in my opinion ironclad proof of a conspiracy. And a suspect, Ray Hargraves, had shown a neighbor that he had secret service credentials. Although the information on Hargraves was forwarded to the Warren Commission apparently no further investigation of Hargraves was made. Inexplicable to me.

  6. John Kirsch says:

    Re: my first comment where I said “the assassin silenced.” I should have said the “accused assassin silenced.” No jury ever found Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  7. John Kirsch says:

    The method that Ruby used to kill Oswald, firing at close range with a handgun, echoes the methods that Guiteau and Czolgosz used to assassinate Garfield and McKinley, respectively. In each case, the presidential assassins were immediately subdued and taken into custody, just as Ruby was immediately taken into custody, not surprising since the shooting of Oswald had taken place in the basement of the police station.

  8. al says:

    Ruby aka Jack Rubenstein was an informant to Nixon in the 50’s on Mob activities. Ruby worked directly for Capone as a driver. He was known as an active member of the Bronfman Family (Capone’s Bootleggers). He got the contract from Santos Trafficante. Santos was an underboss to Joe Bonnano (Leader of the Southern Mafia – See Hoffa Wars -Modela). Bonnano’s other underbosses were Sam Giacana, Carlos Marcellus. Joe Kennedy Sr. Made a deal with Bonnano to gain his support for JFK to be president. Bonnano had to play a major role in the JFK murder. See Docs Section PDF. Ruby’s Nephew Alan Rubenstein is a judge for They are behind the Warren Commission to setup the JFK Single Bullet Theory via (Specter, Sprague, Walter Annenberg, Sen Schweiker and Herb Barness prior leader).

  9. J.D. says:

    The official explanation for Ruby’s shooting of Oswald has always struck me as the single most unbelievable aspect of the entire official story. I wonder if there’s a single other example in history of a man who walks into a police station, sees a heavily guarded prisoner being escorted by police in handcuffs, and suddenly decides to take the law into his own hands.

    If Ruby had simply assaulted Oswald, or if he had just started shooting blindly in Oswald’s direction, I might be able to buy the idea that he acted out of impulse. But that’s not what he did. Think about it: If Ruby had not moved with the dispatch of a professional who had planned out the killing in advance, he almost certainly wouldn’t have succeeded. If we believe the Warren Commission, we’re asked to believe not only in a second lone gunman who acted for no coherent reason, but in a man who makes the decision to shoot someone in a matter of seconds and has the state of mind to move toward Oswald at just the right second, pull out the gun at just the right second, and shoot at just the right second. We’re also asked to believe that the aforementioned man was a completely unreliable nut who could not possibly be depended upon to do anything right.

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, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more