The killer of JFK’s assassin died just weeks before he could speak out in a second trial (from Yahoo News UK.)
After killing Lee Harvey Oswald on national television, Ruby, the owner of a Dallas nightclub, usually denied that he was part of any conspiracy. On other occasions he intimated that he might have a different story. In June 1964, he asked Chief Justice Earl Warren to bring him to Washington to testify; Warren refused.
Ruby said once that he killed Oswald to spare Jackie Kennedy the pain of a criminal trial. That story was made up, said Gail Raven, a Texas woman who was friends with Ruby in 1963.
See: Ex-flame says Jack Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald (March 21, 2013).
Raven also said Ruby actively disliked Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
I find the LN allegations about Jack Ruby being a macho kind of guy, at the very least lacking substance. So he was his own bouncer? Big deal!
In order to push people around there are two possible preconditions. Either…
(a) You are Arnold Schwarzenegger.
(b) You have half the Dallas police force, eating your food, drinking your alcohol and having sex with your girls, seating behind you.
LNs claim (a).
Jack Ruby was but one of many convenient coincidences for the later investigators.
I wonder, who benefitted by Oswald being murdered and never going to trial?
Ruby’s motives, even if true – which I seriously doubt – tell us nothing about Oswald.
they tell us nothing about what could have come out at trial if Lee Harvey Oswald had lived to face a trial.
Can you imagine 544 Camp Street & Mexico City being raised In the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald?
And the autopsy?
So one should ask cui bono from Jack Ruby’s hit?
CJ Earl Warren’s direct involvement in this testimony is worth reviewing.
Chief Justice WARREN. Mr. Ruby, I think you are
entitled to a statement to this effect, because you
have been frank with us and have told us your story.
I think I can say to you that there has been no witness
before this Commission out of the hundreds we have
questioned who has claimed to have any personal
knowledge that you were a party to any conspiracy to
kill our President.
Mr. RUBY. Yes; but you don’t know this area here.
Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don’t vouch for
anything except that I think I am correct in that, am I
not?
Mr. RANKIN. That is correct.
Chief Justice WARREN. I just wanted to tell you
before our own Commission, and I might say to you also
that we have explored the situation.
Mr. RUBY. I know, but I want to say this to you.
If certain people have the means and want to gain
something by propagandizing something to their own use,
they will make ways to present certain things that I do
look guilty.
Chief Justice WARREN. Well, I will make this
additional statement to you, that if any witness should
testify before the Commission that you were, to their
knowledge, a party to any conspiracy to assassinate the
President, I assure you that we will give you the
opportunity to deny it and to take any tests that you
may desire to so disprove it.
I don’t anticipate that there will be any such
testimony, but should there be, we will give you that
opportunity.
Does that seem fair?
Jack Ruby told us he was part of a larger conspiracy.
Here is what Jack Ruby said…(I am paraphrasing but you can hear the words from his own lips at the youtube link below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dLupbqmtUU
Ruby: “Everything pertaining to what is happening has not come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred my motives in other words, I am the only person in the background that knows the truth pertaining to everything relating to my circumstance”.
Reporter : Do you think it will ever come out?
Ruby: “The people had so much to gain and had such a material motive to put me in the position I am in will never let the true facts come above world to the world.”
Reporter: Are these people in high positions Jack?
Ruby: “Yes.”
It’s not that simple. Ruby believed there was a conspiracy but he always denied that he was a part of it. He referred to a plot by right-wingers (the John Birch Society in particular) to blame the Jews for the assassination, using the fact that he was Jewish. This idea apparently started even before the assassination, when he became suspicious about an anti-JFK ad in the newspaper that had a Jewish name attached (Bernard Weissman). Eventually he suspected that LBJ was involved, too. Anybody can have a conspiracy theory, even Ruby.
Here’s an audio excerpt from an interview of Ruby 18 days before he died:
Sorry but the evidence does not support your position.
Here is a picture of Ruby at the Friday night news conference.
I have no doubt , that if Jack Ruby if the opportunity had come about on Friday Night Jack Ruby would have killed Oswald on Friday Night.
It is obvious that Ruby was stalking Oswald. The Friday night news conference shows that.
Stalking and Impulsive are mutually exclusive.
You do not impulsively murder someone INSIDE a police station while that person is handcuffed to a detective.
All of you make excellent points on why Ruby shot Oswald. And yes only he knows for sure but he did make a very cryptic statement about why he wanted to be transferred to Washington in order to give a statement about his roll in the assassination. Why he wasn’t given the chance there in Dallas or in DC was beyond me. I think that even a Chief Justice Warren was afraid if what might come out. I’m sure that Johnson had pressured him and told Warren what was what. Oswald Otis our man. The End!
What I can’t get out of my mind is how supports of the Warren Report say us that a Ruby was busy going about his day, going to send money to one of his girls and even having his dogs in the car and not having any idea that Oswald was about to be moved even though it was running later then they expected. I don’t buy it! I think it was all an alibi for Ruby so that it couldn’t be shown to be premeditated. So he wonders down to the police station slips in just in the nick of time? It was a set up from start to finish
One coincidence maybe two or three happens but in the JFK assassination there are far to many to happen in a lifetime. Let alone the witnesses that were killed.
Ruby did not testify that he wanted to be taken to Washington so that he could reveal his role in the conspiracy. Actually, it was the opposite — he said he wanted to go there to prove that he was NOT part of a conspiracy.
Ruby said: “I would like to request that I go to Washington and you take all the tests that I have to take. It is very important.” And, “I would like to be able to get a lie detector test or truth serum [test]…”
“If you don’t take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.”
His testimony is here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=50&relPageId=520
A version that’s searchable (Control + F):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm
AP reported 11/25/1963: “One man who said he knew Ruby from 1944 on, and visited with him as recently as three years ago in Dallas, scoffed at the idea that a patriotic motive was involved in the slaying of Oswald. “I can’t see the guy as pushing through a thing like this out of patriotism. He might for publicity, yes. He might for money,” said Jack Kelley, 54, former vaudevillian and nightclub master of ceremonies. Kelley, now manager of a Pekin, IL, drive-in restaurant, said he knew Ruby during World War II, and that Ruby wore a false hearing aid. “He wasn’t deaf. His friends all said it was to duck the draft board,” Kelly said.”
It used to be considered telling that a Dallas Police Car horn sounds at the moment LHO was brought through the door way and is presented for killing? Police Cars were to be locked at all times so it fairly impossible that civilian was randomly in a car and absent mindedly hit a horn at just the perfect moment- It used to be a point of interest that the single bullet that struck LHO basically blew a hole though his left torso and liquified his internal organs, ensuring that one bullet was all that was needed- Where did Ruby aquire such ammunition and why was it in his gun? Are there reasonable explanations that have been uncovered over the years that render these points less profound than they appeared to be 35 years ago when I first became aware of them? BB
Because of the crowd, Det. Dhority hadn’t been able to back the transfer car into the agreed-upon position, so he honked his horn to let the men accompanying Oswald know where he was.
Ruby used ordinary ammunition and Oswald’s organs weren’t “liquefied.”
So the DPD was not able to control the crowd? Aside from that strange admission, how can anyone discount the possibility that the honking of the horn was part of the intended scenario? Hand signals would not have worked as efficiently, cell phones were not available, but if Ruby heard a signal, for instance the sound of a car horn, might not he have descended down the ramp at the perfect moment to align with Oswald approaching the car.
This is what the HSCA said in its final report:
“Ruby’s shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved at least some premeditation. Similarly, the committee believed it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby’s intentions… The committee was troubled by the apparently unlocked doors along the stairway route and the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting… There is also evidence that the Dallas Police Department withheld relevant information from the Warren Commission concerning Ruby’s entry to the scene of the Oswald transfer.”
Sergeant Patrick Dean might have been the Police officer who let or escorted Ruby into the basement.
I never believed that Ruby shot Oswald to spare Jackie from a trial. But that “rationale” is easily sold to an shocked nation who sees the grieving widow and her fatherless children….except…Ruby was at the police station with a loaded gun pretending to be a reporter (for the Israeli/jewish press). Is it just me, or is there a mass disconnect when it comes to Jack Ruby? Ruby is a pivotal player in the assassination and cover-up, either on the gangster side, Dallas law enforcement side, or the business side, perhaps all three.
Ruby : “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
If Ruby acted impulsively when he shot Oswald, as many Warren Ommission apologist assert, why would he subsequently get on camera and make statements alluding to involvement of others more powerful than himself, who have the capability to suppress the “truth” and “never let the true facts come above board to the world.” Folks, 50 years later Ruby’s words become huge because he spoke the truth about his participation in the coup d’etat…silencing the patsy!
At the time of that statement wasn’t Ruby also claiming that they were killing Jews on other floors of the jail?
I have just been watching the television interview of Jack Ruby.
Ruby : “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.
Q : “Are these people in very high positions Jack?”
A : “Yes”
I feel this is important because it comes from the horses mouth, the man himself, and only he could have known what his true motives were.
Q : “Are these people in very high positions Jack?”
A : “Yes”
Furthermore, the word “vice president” was said and reporters followed Mr. Ruby as he was taken away.
Reporters: “Vice president? Do you mean vice president Adlai Stevenson”?
Jack Ruby: “No, the current *president*. Your answer is the man in office now [referring to LBJ].”
It would take a blind person -by nature or by choice- to deny this confession/accusation.
Ramon,
Anyone can be a conspiracy theorist, even Jack Ruby. At first he blamed the John Birch Society, later he suspected LBJ as well. But he consistently denied that he himself was involved.
Jean,
Are you able to counter the following excerpt from ‘Not in Your Lifetime’ – Anthony Summers, pp. 399
Ruby presented himself as the misguided exponent of his own brand of sentimental patriotism, and the Warren Commission saw no need to probe further.
A month earlier (of Ruby’s questioning), the two lawyers charged with the Ruby investigation, Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin, had fired off a long memorandum to Chief Counsel Lee Rankin. It laid out, in precise detail, areas they felt had been inadequately investigated, emphasizing that the Commission had yet to disprove that “Ruby killed Oswald at the suggestion of others.” Their recommendations were followed up only in a halfhearted sort of way, for–as Griffin put it–“They were in a different ball game then we were….They really thought that ours was crazy and that we were incompetent.” Hubert resigned, on the understanding that he would still be present at the forthcoming interview with Ruby. THe promise was not kept. Warren, Ford and Lee Rankin departed for Dallas without informing Hubert. The Commission’s specialists on Ruby, the two men most qualified for the job, were excluded from quetioning the man who perhaps held the key to unsolved areas of the assassination.
“Are you able to counter the following excerpt from ‘Not in Your Lifetime’ – Anthony Summers, pp. 399”
Well, yes and no. The first sentence is clearly not true:
“Ruby presented himself as the misguided exponent of his own brand of sentimental patriotism, and the Warren Commission saw no need to probe further.”
Look at the WC witness list and the hundreds of FBI files on Ruby, e.g. It’s simply not true that the WC accepted Ruby’s testimony at face value and “probed no further.”
According to Griffin’s HSCA testimony, it’s true that he and Hubert felt the Ruby investigation wasn’t extensive enough. I can’t comment on the rest of that paragraph because I don’t know what it’s based on.
Jeff,
I hope you will post many more articles on Jack Ruby. It’s good to see both Jean Davison and John McAdams here. I gather Jack Ruby is a hot topic for them. Me too.
Here’s some info about the reported CIA’s research on cancer-inducing substances:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html
… and this is a cartoon that those of us part of the Venezuelan opposition circulated during the celebrations:
http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/USAFCIS.jpg
A 1952 CIA memo on a known carcinogen is evidence of CIA research on cancer-inducing substances?
Is that supposed to be a serious comment?
If you worked in the CIA and tried to block research of that nature you would be fired on the spot.
In 1963 and in 2014.
Ruby died of an incredibly fast acting cancer. I’ve always believed he was murdered.
No he didn’t – he died from a pulmonary embolism- on the death certificate. His cancer was a run of the mill brochiogenic lung carcinoma. The fact that he had multiple metastasis at the time of diagnosis is unfortunately a very common presentation.
It is impossible to give somebody cancer in a predictable manner by injecting that person with cancer cells or even exposing the same person to a carcinogen. The medical ignorance concerning this topic in the conspiracy community is hilarious.
A small point perhaps, but shouldn’t your headline read, killer of jfk’s alleged assassin. Oswald never received a trial and at the very least he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. At the recent JFK conferences one would be hard put to locate a single serious researcher who thinks Oswald even fired a shot that day.
>>> On other occasions he intimated that he might have a different story <<<
I'm not aware of any testimony of Ruby's were he said or even implied that he was part of any conspiracy.
Of course he believed there was a conspiracy. He believed there was a conspiracy against the Jews, and that he was the "patsy" of that conspiracy.
“I’m not aware of any testimony of Ruby’s were he said or even implied that he was part of any conspiracy.”
Yeah, well, you wouldn’t be. You’ve also said you aren’t aware of people saying shots came from the Grassy Knoll at the time of the assassination, although dozens of people, including police officers, did believe just that.
Essential reading to understanding Ruby is Peter Dale Scott’s”Deep Politics” essay on him(likely online) For the aficionados, “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” becomes essential since Ruby, Ferrie, New Orleans, organized crime, and right wing resources all blended so easily together in ways beneath the surface.
Jim Garrison’s “Playboy” interview mentions the white rats in Ferrie’s apartment and Ruby’s fear of being “injected with cancer” and the strange death of Dr Mary Sherman connected with cancer inducing viruses. Ruby doesn’t testify, gets a new trial, and dies within a few months of the old trial and the new trial.
Reading his WC testimopny is a roller coaster of a ride (also unline). He’s surrounded by law enforcers and begs to get away from them; he particularly asks that HIS lawyer leave. He rambles – you can practically hear him sweating and he begs Warren to get him out of Dallas.The only full interview he gave-during his trial – was to journalist Dorothy Kilgallen, who herself was mysteriously suicided and her journals disappeared.
R
Most of the people who knew Ruby who expressed an opinion believed that he acted impulsively. Since Gail Raven evidently was not even living in Dallas after the summer of 1963, was she merely expressing her *opinion* about Ruby’s motive and not some inside knowledge?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10489&relPageId=377
Earl Ruby told the HSCA:
Mr. RUBY. I can’t add any more to what I already stated, what he told me. He saw Oswald walk out of the hallway, the area there, with a smirk on his face as though he were proud of having killed our President, and that’s what he told me. That’s when he lost control of himself and shot him. Those are his words to me.
END QUOTE
Sometimes people act on impulse and later rationalize an explanation for why they did it. As I recall, there was a newspaper found in Ruby’s apartment that had an article suggesting Jackie might have to return for a trial.
People not alive then may not realize how many other people might’ve killed Oswald that day if they’d had the chance. Ruby got a flood of telegrams congratulating him. The crowd outside the jail cheered when it heard the news. The young wife of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas saw Ruby shoot Oswald on TV and reportedly exclaimed, “Good! Give it to him again.”
An impulsive act is also consistent with the timing of Ruby’s movements, since he arrived just moments before Oswald walked out.
The reason people don’t believe Ruby was in the garage by chance is because he had been seen around the police station so many other times that weekend. He even tried to get into the room where Fritz was interrogating Oswald.
Perhaps Ruby waited til Oswald was in the garage because he was reluctant to shoot Oswald? We’ll never know. But it’s hard to believe he hadn’t thought about shooting Oswald before that moment that weekend given his pattern of behavior.
Jean, I recognize the time and space constraints on this site, but this is an over-simplification in the extreme, and I’m surprised that anyone with depth of knowledge of the facts would take this position.
Emphasis on Earl Ruby’s statement convolutes the facts relating to Jack Ruby’s murder of Oswald by suggesting that Jack merely stumbled into the parking garage, pistol in tow, and only when he saw a smirk on Oswald’s face did he decide – on impulse – to murder Oswald. Further, the newspaper in Jack Ruby’s possession relating to Jackie’s appearance at trial is one of the weakest arguments in support of a motive for Ruby; anyone with any degree of understanding of the complex history of either Ruby or Oswald will dismiss it out of hand. I won’t bring up the allegations made by numerous individuals that Oswald and Ruby actually knew one another; but I am disappointed that you do not at least give that a line or two.
A parallel to your impulse argument is that of Oswald’s assassination of the president. The argument goes thusly: there was no conspiracy. And proof of that premise is that that Oswald acted on impulse to assassinate John Kennedy. He discovered that the president would be in Dallas, he found himself employed in a building that provided an ideal sniper’s perch from which to shoot the president, he did so, he strolled from the building and caught public transportation, he worked his way back to his room, he picked up a hand gun, he shot a Dallas police officer, and he went to the movies … all on impulse.
Your argument includes that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas’s wife was enthused that Oswald had been executed without trail for his traitorous act. Surely your not consciously inflaming the argument in order to emphasize that the most revered in our country at the time knew for certain that Lee Oswald had assassinated their “beloved president?” What evidence was Mrs. Douglas and her husband relying upon – on that Sunday, November 24th – when they witnessed Ruby acting “on impulse.” How had they been so readily convinced that Oswald was the lone assassin? Surely as a jurist, Mrs. Douglas’s husband insisted that evidence and a trial must go hand in hand in our democracy.
You suggest that Ruby’s movements prove an impulsive act. How do his movements as he entered the scene to shoot Oswald go anywhere near suggesting an impulsive act? You are omitting (I trust not deliberately) the facts that are in the public domain to suggest a close relationship between Jack Ruby and certain Dallas authorities/police officers that might have kept him apprised of the Oswald transfer. I think that this omission is unfair to new students of the assassination who hold you in high regard. I also think it is irresponsible to not at least mention Ruby’s underworld connections.
Ruby’s perfectly timed arrival on the scene does not prove that his act was impulsive. Certain Dallas authorities known to Ruby could well have kept him apprised of the Oswald transfer.
Emphasizing Earl’s statement convolutes the facts by suggesting that Jack found himself in the parking garage, pistol in hand, simply to witness the transfer, and only when he saw a smirk on Oswald’s face did he decide – on impulse – to murder him.
A similar impulse argument has been assigned to Oswald’s actions. He read that the president would be in Dallas, he found himself employed in a building that provided an ideal sniper’s perch, he shot Kennedy, he strolled from the building and caught public transportation, he worked his way back to his room, picked up a hand gun, shot a Dallas police officer, and went to the movies … all on impulse.
You mention that SCJ Douglas’s wife was enthused that Oswald had been executed without trial for his traitorous act, and that Ruby did what many wanted to do. Maybe you use it as indication of the volatile climate. But how was Mrs. Douglas or Ruby certain of Oswald’s guilt on that Sunday, 48 hours after the assassination? Oswald had not confessed. Surely as a jurist, W.O. Douglas was insisting that evidence be presented at trial. If hers was merely an emotional expression in the heat of the moment, then why mention it in the first place.
Jean, in fairness my two responses to your comment relating to Jack Ruby will appear to be somewhat redundant. When my initial response was not posted, I assumed that the word count had exceeded the maximum so I drafted another, shorter version. However, the spirit of my concerns regarding your statement is reflected in both.
Mrs. Douglas later regretted her remarks, calling them “barbaric,” but her response wasn’t unusual. By Sunday the public knew among other things that Oswald worked in the TSBD and left, that his rifle was the murder weapon, that he had resisted arrest and was accused of killing a cop. To many, he looked guilty. The telegrams praising Ruby show what the atmosphere was like, starting here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=385
According to Wally Weston, “Jack wanted everybody to know that he did it, and he had the guts to do what everybody in Dallas probably wanted to do, including myself.”
People often form opinions about this case based on how it *looks* to them. It certainly *looked* as if Ruby shot Oswald to keep him from talking. But what kind of hit man waits two days to silence the patsy? And Oswald had plenty of opportunity to tell all, but instead he implied that the police were trying to frame him because he’d lived in the Soviet Union.
No one has been able to show how Ruby could’ve possibly known precisely when Oswald would be brought down into the basement. The transfer was unexpectedly delayed. At 11:17 a.m. Ruby was at the Western Union office a block away. The police called an ambulance for Oswald at 11:21. If there had been another person in line ahead of him, Ruby might’ve missed his opportunity.
I know most of you don’t agree with that. C’est la vie.
Why do you think Ruby(armed with a pistol) decided to go to a Western Union next to the garage downtown when there were two or three Western Unions closer to his Oak Cliff apartment?
Do you honestly believe Ruby’s story about entering the garage via the ramp when there were dozens of witnesses standing around who didn’t see him(including Police officers who knew Ruby personally)?
The downtown Western Union clerk who waited on him that day said that Ruby was a regular customer there.
“Dozens of witnesses” failed to see Ruby? Really? Ruby’s story was that as he came down Main St. he noticed the crowd near the jail and saw a police car carrying a Lt. Pierce leaving the basement via the ramp. When he saw patrolman Vaughn move away from his post to direct the car into traffic, he went down the ramp into the basement.
Vaughn agreed that he’d stepped into the street to guide Pierce’s car into traffic but he insisted that he could still see the ramp and that nobody got by him. But my question is, How would Ruby know about this car and Vaughn’s movements unless he actually came in that way? Is there some other explanation?
For all we know Ruby couldve seen Pierce and Vaughn from a different location inside or outside the garage. There were passengers inside the car with Pierce and a former police officer standing by Vaughn at the ramp. None of these witnesses saw Ruby come down the ramp. Vaughn took a lie detector test and passed. Sgt Patrick Dean and Jack Ruby’s polygraph tests were inconclusive.
I’ll grant you that there isn’t any hard evidence linking Ruby to a conspiracy but I don’t find the argument that his shooting of Oswald wasn’t premeditated very convincing.
Jean, do people impulsively attend press conferences? I was a journalist for 25 years, and I don’t think so. How does that impact your impulse theory?
What kind of hit man waits two days? Well, how was he supposed to shoot Oswald when he was being interrogated?
Legally, the fact that he was around the police station so much is evidence that can be used to rebut the “impulsive” argument.
And why is it important what “everybody” was thinking (in what was obviously a bit of hyperbole)? If someone says that “everybody” thinks that Ruby was acting on mob orders, would you find that meaningful? I think not.
Retired Dallas Police Officer RC Nelson told his story, apparently for the first time, on the 50th anniversary to a Florida TV station. He was helping guard the main entrance to the Police garage when Oswald was shot. Ruby never walked by him, and he told Chief Curry that when Curry initially reprimanded him. What Nelson said he learned shortly thereafter was that Ruby walked down a separate ramp that was open for a decoy police car to exit (to throw off the throng of media). The lieutenant who was in that car told Nelson that “the SOB walked right by us” as they were driving up the ramp. RC was part of the scrum of officers to manhandle Ruby after the shooting. “Hey guys it’s Jack; it’s me,” Ruby said to the police as they placed the cuffs on him. RC said he didn’t know Ruby.
” . . . They’ll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they’ll wear you down.”
Vince Salandria
C’mon, it is impossible to believe that this was impulsive. Literally impossible, not only using common sense but because the facts say otherwise.
An impulsive act implies spur-of-the-moment behavior. Ruby attended the press conference the night before. He corrected a questioner about a curious fact. How often do non-journalists impulsively attend a press conference?
If he was so overcome with grief that he was unable to control himself, why didn’t he act that night? If it was an impulse, he had a lot of time to come to his senses. Yet he seems to have spent some time planning it.
Nothing argues more for a conspiracy than Ruby’s murder of Oswald. It makes no sense other than an attempt to avoid a trial. A lot of people felt bad for Mrs. Kennedy, but Ruby sacrificed his own life? How would killing Oswald help her anyway? It wouldn’t bring Jack back.
Oh, and to the point about how many other people “might” have killed Oswald? Do you have any evidence or statistics on that?
Even hinting at something like that reeks of desperation, since it is so far removed from the way people act in the real world. You can’t point to other similar instances and say that what Ruby did was common or even occasional. The fact is, killing of murderers in retribution is extremely rare, and even more so for people in police custody. What’s more, Ruby had no personal connection to any of the parties that would have made sense of such an act.
“Most of the people who knew Ruby who expressed an opinion believed that he acted impulsively.”
A hell of a lot of those people were themselves shady characters who had much to fear from anybody taking a close look at Ruby and their relations with him.
Jack Ruby was a career criminal. This was obvious to everyone in late 1963, the man ran a strip joint for God’s sake. His murder of Oswald, which was obviously premeditated (he’d been stalking Oswald for some 36 hours prior to killing him) is what made it so difficult for people to believe there wasn’t more to the story of JFK’s assassination than the government was letting on. That remains the case today. That will still be the case 50 years from now, assuming something like the truth doesn’t become known by that time.
“Henry, that’s the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.”
I think the case might be made for premeditation rather than impulse.
Then there is the question of how Ruby got into the basement. Of course, if he had sat in at a press conference, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume Ruby had gotten his hands on some phony press credentials. That wouldn’t sit well with the Second Lone Nut Theory though.
In an era of censorship and live TV delays, when blood couldn’t even be shown at the movies, it seems to beggar belief that a cold-blooded murder would have been uncritically and instantly relayed to TV audiences without some sort of pow-wow with the relevant authorities. In fact, nothing like that had happened before, or as far as I know, has happened since.
Sure as hell was shocking though.
Narrator:
“If Ruby was a hit man working for the Mafia, he had already missed one perfect opportunity to silence Oswald.”
Lonnie Hudkins, Reporter:
“And I asked him if he was he was packing a pistol at that midnight press conference, and he said ‘yes’. And I said ‘then why didn’t you plug him then’?
Jack Ruby: “I was afraid of hitting one of you guys”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/transcript-52/
“The pattern of contacts did show that individuals who had the motive to kill the President also had knowledge of a man who could be used to get access to Oswald in the custody of the Dallas police.” – HSCA Report, 1979