Questions for Bud, re: Jack Ruby
RICLAND
Jack Ruby killed Oswald for personal reasons.
If this is so, what did Ruby mean when he said:
"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 who 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 aboveboard to the world."
-- Jack Ruby
ricland
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, Bud, when you say
> Jack Ruby killed Oswald for personal reasons.
Reasons of his own. Not put up to the task by Jesus, Santa, or Al
Capone.
> If this is so, what did Ruby mean when he said:
>
> "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 who 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 aboveboard to the world."
No idea (mostly because I`m not inclined to find the portions you
didn`t include, to put Ruby`s stream of consiousness rant in context).
Jack was a babbler. I`d say the postion he found himself in may be is
some way connected to the fact that he killed another human being
(used loosely) in a room full of cops. How does one find oneself
positioned that way by others?
> -- Jack Ruby
>
>
> ricland
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, Bud, when you say
>> Jack Ruby killed Oswald for personal reasons.
>
> Reasons of his own. Not put up to the task by Jesus, Santa, or Al
> Capone.
>
>> If this is so, what did Ruby mean when he said:
>>
>> "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 who 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 aboveboard to the world."
>
> No idea (mostly because I`m not inclined to find the portions you
> didn`t include, to put Ruby`s stream of consiousness rant in context).
> Jack was a babbler. I`d say the postion he found himself in may be is
> some way connected to the fact that he killed another human being
> (used loosely) in a room full of cops. How does one find oneself
> positioned that way by others?
>
Fine. But tell us, Bud, what prompted you to write this:
"Ruby was a pimp. Ruby also had a soft
spot for the Kennedys. These two things can co-exist..."
-- Bud
ricland
Bud
What prompts me to reply to anything you write? Boredom would
explain most of it, I guess.
> ricland
RICLAND
You assert Ruby had a soft spot for the Kennedys. I'd be interested in
hearing what you base that assertion on.
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
RICLAND
>>>> "You assert Ruby had a soft spot for the Kennedys. I'd be interested in hearing what you base that assertion on." <<<
>
>
> anything on his own, I'll do it (this time). This took exactly 15
> seconds to locate, btw.....
>
> [...]
>
> Mr. BURLESON. What did Jack have to say about President Kennedy?
>
> Mrs. GRANT. Oh, all I know is that it just killed him. I'll tell you
> the truth--he sat there like it wasn't worth life like he thought they
> were out to get the world, the whole world, and this was part of it.
>
> Mr. BURLESON. All right. He was very respectful of President Kennedy
> as a man and as a President?
>
> Mrs. GRANT. Oh, he admired him--he thought this man was a great man of
> courage. If I said anything like I said there something about his
> brother and integration, he said, "This man is greater, than Lincoln"--
> the same night.
>
[...]
I think the point you're trying to make here, David, is that you're
basing your opinion that Ruby greatly admired Kennedy on the things he
told his sister; that is, Ruby's statements.
Fine.
But what about Ruby's later statements? What 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 who 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 aboveboard to the world."
>> -- Jack Ruby
ricland
David Von Pein
Since Ric is evidently incapable of using his mouse and searching for
anything on his own, I'll do it (this time). This took exactly 15
seconds to locate, btw.....
Some of the WC testimony of Eva Grant is provided below. Eva was Jack
Ruby's sister, who certainly knew Jack very well. Jack felt compelled,
in fact, to call Eva several times between 11/22 and 11/24/63.
=======================
Mr. BURLESON. Did you and Jack talk about Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. GRANT. He had made very few remarks--he says, "He's a creep." You
see, "a creep" is a real low life to Jack and "what a creep he is" he
says, and he was sick--he went in the bathroom.
Mr. BURLESON. Did he actually vomit?
Mrs. GRANT. He did not--he was sick to his stomach and he cried, he
looked terrible he just wasn't himself, and truthfully, so help me, I
remember even my mother's funeral--it just killed him. He said this,
"Someone tore my heart out," and he says, "I didn't even feel so bad
when pops died because pappa was an old man. He was close to 90."
Mr. BURLESON. What did Jack have to say about President Kennedy?
Mrs. GRANT. Oh, all I know is that it just killed him. I'll tell you
the truth--he sat there like it wasn't worth life like he thought they
were out to get the world, the whole world, and this was part of it.
Mr. BURLESON. All right. He was very respectful of President Kennedy
as a man and as a President?
Mrs. GRANT. Oh, he admired him--he thought this man was a great man of
courage. If I said anything like I said there something about his
brother and integration, he said, "This man is greater, than
Lincoln"--
the same night.
David Von Pein
babbler. Man, he could ramble on...and on.
Just read his WC transcript (two days' worth of babbling). It's really
hard to get through, due to Jack's incessant, sometimes-totally-
meaningless ramblings. ......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/ruby_j2.htm
Jack Ruby was fading into mental illness, IMO. He sometimes probably
didn't know what the hell he was saying.
In short --- An already-high-strung babbler who turns a little "whack-
o" while in jail after murdering the President's murderer = A total
loon.
YMMV.
Gil Jesus
>
> Jack Ruby was fading into mental illness, IMO. He sometimes probably
> didn't know what the hell he was saying.
But he was perfectly sane when he gave the reason why he killed
Oswald, right ? That reason had nothing to do with Tom Howard,
right ? When EXACTLY did he "fade" into mental illness ?
tomnln
Cook in Chicago?
How come Ruby NEVER "babbled" about being a Dallas Police Informant?
How come Ruby NEVER "babbled" about being an FBI Informant?
How come Ruby NEVER "babbled" about being an Informant for Nixon?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174771888.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Bud
What do you get out of reading what he says, Gil? An emotionaly
stable individual? Like Ric said, probably an act, like Oz`s lifetime
Marxist routine. Luckily you kooks can see right through these things,
and merely ingnore all the information that contradicts your
preconceived notions. You guys are probably right, Ruby was left to
wander in and out of the Dallas police station at will for years, just
in case there was someone in there "they" needed killed. And Oz was
given the job at the TSBD, just in case someone "they" wanted killed
should happen by. "They" have set-up like this in every city,
operatives all over, just waiting for the word to strike. And despite
convincing yourself that you think you know what they do, you will
never be able to show that what you think is true. Because it isn`t,
you are only paranoid kooks.
David Von Pein
That occurred at precisely 6:09 PM on May 31st, 1964.
Further "Ruby Fading Into Madness" was exhibited at 1:06 PM on the
24th of October, 1965.*
* = However, another witness (I think his name was "Bowley" or some
such name) timed that last "fade" at 1:10 PM. Hard to know whose watch
was exactly correct though. ~shrug~
RICLAND
At his last press conference Ruby was probably saner than he'd ever been
in his life.
He been in jail three or four years by then; his morale was soaring
because his murder conviction had just been overturned on appeal; he was
clean, shaved, in a new suit; and, most importantly, in the spotlight
again which meant he was a force to be reckoned with again.
He picked his words as skillfully as anyone has ever picked their words
before. In fact, so careful was he that he paused to ask the news
reporter the correct pronouncation of his name before answering his
question.
After this he delivered what was clearly a veiled threat to "the people
who put me in this position."
His message was crystal clear. The only question -- the names of the
people it was meant.
Babbling? Definitely not. Without question he was letting his people
know their time was up. He had done his part of the deal, now it was
time for them to do theirs ... or else.
But, here again, David, Bud, et. al., you can't have it both ways. You
can't use this words when they fit your agenda then discard them when
they don't.
That's not how being unbiased works.
ricland
Bud
How did they put Ruby into this position? Was Ruby shooting at
something behind Oz, and Oz just happened to step into his line of
fire?
> His message was crystal clear. The only question -- the names of the
> people it was meant.
Not whether they exist?
> Babbling? Definitely not. Without question he was letting his people
> know their time was up. He had done his part of the deal, now it was
> time for them to do theirs ... or else.
Wow, you sure read a lot into a little. Ruby only had 4 years to
pony up any information he had. Next, you can try producing all the
reliable information Ruby gave, the names he gave, and their
connection to the murder he committed.
> But, here again, David, Bud, et. al., you can't have it both ways. You
> can't use this words when they fit your agenda then discard them when
> they don't.
I don`t need his words, his actions speak louder. I only see Ruby in
the picture shooting Oz, no one else. If you want to say others were
involved, by all means, present your case.
> That's not how being unbiased works.
<snicker> You kooks want to disregard all the context to Ruby`s
actions, everything he told friends and family prior, and then say
"Wow, Ruby`s actions are a mystery to me". Yah, they would be.
> ricland
David Von Pein
None.
Other things to consider with respect to Ruby and the murder of Lee
Harvey Oswald.....
What if another customer or two had been in line at Western Union?
Or -- What if Jack had left his apartment just TWO MINUTES later on
November 24th?
Either of the above occurrences would very likely have meant that Ruby
would have missed having the chance to kill Oswald.
Do conspiracy advocates really think the "timing" and the "Western
Union money order" were things that were part of a "ruse" of some
kind....designed to merely throw people off of the "pre-planned
conspiracy" track in the years to come?
Plus.....
What about Karen Carlin (the stripper/dancer who called Jack on the
morning of the 24th and asked for the $25 money order)?*
* = The money needed to be wired to Carlin, btw, because Ruby had
decided to close both of his nightclubs for two or more days in
deference to the assassinated President -- which was a decision Jack
made within hours of JFK's death on Friday.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carlin_k1.htm
Now, when examining Carlin's WC testimony (linked above), we can see
that Karen called Ruby on Saturday for a $5 advance, with Jack then
telling Carlin to call him on Sunday for any additional money she
required (which Carlin needed to pay her rent).
But Jack never told Carlin exactly WHAT TIME on Sunday to call him.
Nor did he confirm on Saturday exactly how much cash to wire her. He
didn't say to her, "call me before 10:00", for example. Nor did he ask
her on Saturday, "how much money do you need?".
So, for all Jack knew on Saturday night, Carlin might be calling him
at 12:00 noon or 2:00 PM on Sunday with the details re. her additional
loan that she needed. If the call had occurred at either of those
times on Sunday...obviously Oswald would have not been shot, because
Jack's trip to Western Union would have occurred after Oswald had been
transferred to the County Jail.
Also, if Carlin hadn't called Ruby on Sunday morning AT ALL (which was
certainly possible for all Jack knew on SATURDAY), the "coincidence
chain" leading to Oswald's death would never have been started in the
first place.
Because if Carlin hadn't called Ruby to ask for that $25 money order,
then Jack would certainly not have had any reason to visit the Western
Union office in downtown Dallas, which was just a block from the City
Jail (where a crowd had formed, which attracted Jack's attention, even
though Ruby thought that Oswald had ALREADY BEEN MOVED by that time).
Now, it's true that Ruby did tell Carlin (on Sunday morning) that he
had intended to go "downtown" sometime on Sunday anyway. But without
Carlin's plea for a money order (necessitating Jack's trip to the
Western Union office), Ruby would almost certainly not have been
exactly where he was in the downtown area at 11:17 AM on Sunday, Nov.
24th.
Do CTers think that Karen Carlin was part of some kind of "plot" or
"ruse" too?
Plus.....
What if Jack had decided to send Carlin the money order from a
different Western Union office? (Surely there was more than just one
such office in the whole of Dallas, Texas....right? I'm not sure, but
I'm guessing there was probably more than just the one W.U. office in
that large U.S. city.)
Or: What if Jack had decided to just loan Karen $25 out of his own
pocket, which could have also occurred. That scenario would have meant
no Western Union visit needed at all.
Plus.....
If Jack hadn't made the decision to close his nightclubs for a few
days that weekend (a decision he made, as I mentioned, two days before
he killed Oswald), then Karen Carlin would not have had a reason to
have cash "money ordered" to her (she could have picked it up at one
of the nightclubs instead, had they been open).
The "happenstance" and "mere coincidence" trail is significant here.
It's either "happenstance", or the most remarkable hunk of
"conspiratorial coordination" I've ever encountered (including little
"Sheba" being left in the car to make things look "spontaneous" in
nature).
This "coordination", if it was a pre-arranged plan, would have to go
all the way down to Karen Carlin's penniless state on Nov. 23 and 24,
which is CRITICAL to having Ruby being in the right place at the right
time at 11:21 AM on Sunday, the 24th.
================
Another interesting hunk of insight into Jack Ruby's bereaved state of
mind during that November '63 weekend can be found in the following
portion of Karen Carlin's WC testimony.....
KAREN CARLIN -- "I reached him {Ruby} at home {on Saturday night,
11/23}. He answered the telephone. And I asked Jack if we were going
to be open, and he got very angry and was very short with me. He said,
"Don't you have any respect for the President? Don't you know the
President is dead?" And I said, "Jack, I am sorry. Andrew said that
perhaps we would be open, and I don't have any money, and you know I
am supposed to get paid." And I wanted some money on my pay to get
back home. And he said, "I don't know when I will open. I don't know
if I will ever open back up." And he was very hateful. And he said he
had to come down to the club in about an hour, and for me to wait and
he would see me then. And I hung up and told my husband what had
happened; and we waited and waited, and he didn't show up."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42364b9e887a0213
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>
>> But, here again, David, Bud, et. al., you can't have it both ways. You
>> can't use this words when they fit your agenda then discard them when
>> they don't.
>
> I don`t need his words, his actions speak louder. I only see Ruby in
> the picture shooting Oz, no one else. If you want to say others were
> involved, by all means, present your case.
You're saying, "I didn't see anyone shoot Oswald but Ruby, ergo, there's
no conspiracy."
Now, honestly, Bud, what makes you think that kind of logic works in
Usenet?
Is there somebody else here from your bowling league?
>
>> That's not how being unbiased works.
>
> <snicker> You kooks want to disregard all the context to Ruby`s
> actions, everything he told friends and family prior, and then say
> "Wow, Ruby`s actions are a mystery to me". Yah, they would be.
And here you use the term "context" incorrectly. You define it as
"everything he told friends and family..." when it doesn't mean that at all.
Context is everything he DIDN'T tell his friends and family.
It's the stuff that motivated him to say the things he said to his
friends and family -- not what he actually said.
In other words, Bud, it's suddenly abundantly clear to me that you're
not a particularly intelligent or well-schooled person, that there are
vast holes in your education, that you're faking it.
Therefore, don't mind me if I ignore you in the future.
Nothing personal.
ricland
RICLAND
> Jack Ruby's ACTIONS on 11/24/63 positively show NO PREMEDITATION.
> None.
>
> Other things to consider with respect to Ruby and the murder of Lee
> Harvey Oswald.....
>
> What if another customer or two had been in line at Western Union?
[...]
You seem to think, David, the more tedious you get, the stronger case
you make.
Hardly ...
The Oswald shooting was a textbook mob job. Later on Ruby began
referring to Oswald as a "creep" and a "jerk" words that are both
synonymous with "patsy."
Years earlier Ruby had done a similar hit in Chicago on a Teamster's
president.
And speaking of the earlier hit, the mob got Ruby off without even an
grand jury indictment, after which they rewarded him by relocating him
to Dallas and giving him his own strip joint.
So Ruby had reason to believe he'd walk on the Oswald job. What he
didn't know was this job called for two patsies.
ricland
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174783939.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
EASY to determine David.
Just give an Official Citation for the timing on your 2 claims above.
1. 6:09 PM on May 31st, 1964.
2. 1:06 PM on the 24th of October, 1965.*
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174798837.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "You seem to think, David, the more tedious you get, the stronger case
>>>> you make." <<<
>
>
>
>
> I'd suggest you (and everyone) read the Warren Report chapter entitled
> "POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY INVOLVING JACK RUBY", beginning on Page #333 of
> the 888-page WR:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0179a.htm
>
> You'll find very, very detailed analysis of Ruby's movements from Nov.
> 21st to the 24th, 1963. And EVERYTHING indicates "No Plot"/"No
> Premeditation".
>
> Naturally, you'll spit on those WR pages, as you peddle your non-
> existent, makde-up-from-nothingness conspiracy plot involving Mr.
> Ruby.
>
> But why not try to actually see the ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF NO CONSPIRACY
> for a change? What have you got to lose (except your "CT-Kook" name
> tag)?
>
>
>>>> "The Oswald shooting was a textbook mob job.' <<<
>
> <laugh> I thought you earlier said that a professional hitman would
> never go within miles of that DPD basement on 11/24. Now it seems to
> be "textbook mob" stuff.
>
> Was the "Mob" in the habit of utilizing NON-"professional"
> blabbermouths like Ruby on such enormous "hits" like killing the
> "patsy" connected to a President's murder?
>
> "Mafia contract killers are always selected with utmost care. I mean
> the one chosen to kill Oswald would be everything that Jack Ruby was
> not. He'd be someone who had a long track record of effectively
> carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would be a precise,
> unemotional, business-like, and above all, tight-lipped killer for
> hire." -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
>
>
>>>> "Ruby began referring to Oswald as a "creep" and a "jerk" -- words that
>>>> are both synonymous with "patsy"." <<<
>
> <laughing loudly>
>
> Great "clue" there, Mr. Sherlock.
>
> "Creep" = "Patsy", huh?
>
> Crazy.
>
>
>>>> "So Ruby had reason to believe he'd walk on the Oswald job. What he
>>>> didn't know was this job called for two patsies." <<<
>
> Nope. You really need three. Because there's no way in hell that the
> idiotic "Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison"-like "Patsy" plot could succeed
> with just ONE patsy in Dealey Plaza.
>
> You need a minimum of TWO in Dealey; and Jack Ruby (of course).
>
> (And you SURELY endorse Big Jim and The Stone-man...right? Most kooks
> do.)
>
> Dallas '63 = Patsy Paradise USA!
>
David Von Pein
==================================
>>> "You seem to think, David, the more tedious you get, the stronger case you make." <<<
"Tedious"?
(Crazy.)
I'd suggest you (and everyone) read the Warren Report chapter entitled
"POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY INVOLVING JACK RUBY", beginning on Page #333 of
the 888-page WR:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0179a.htm
You'll find very, very detailed analysis of Ruby's movements from Nov.
21st to the 24th, 1963. And EVERYTHING indicates "No Plot"/"No
Premeditation".
Naturally, you'll spit on those WR pages, as you peddle your non-
existent, made-up-from-nothingness conspiracy plot involving Mr. Ruby.
But why not try to actually see the EVIDENCE OF NO CONSPIRACY for a
change? What have you got to lose (except your "CT-Kook" name tag)?
>>> "The Oswald shooting was a textbook mob job." <<<
<laugh> I thought you said earlier that a professional hit-man would
never go within miles of that DPD basement on 11/24. Now it seems to
be "textbook mob" stuff.
Was the "Mob" in the habit of utilizing NON-"professional"
blabbermouths like Jack Ruby on such enormous "hits" like killing the
"patsy" connected to a President's murder?
And was the "Mob" in the habit of eliminating their patsies on TV
while millions watched, so that they could easily IDENTIFY the killer?
And was the "Mob" in the habit of eliminating their victims at very
close range IN A POLICE STATION, where the killer will be apprehended
immediately?
Give me ONE other example in your vast "Mafia Files" of such sloppy
"Mob hits"? (You have those Mafia files in front of you, right Mr.
Kook? I can only assume you do, via your vast knowledge of such Mob
hits.)
~~~~~~
"Mafia contract killers are always selected with utmost care. I mean
the one chosen to kill Oswald would be everything that Jack Ruby was
not. He'd be someone who had a long track record of effectively
carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would be a precise,
unemotional, business-like, and above all, tight-lipped killer for
hire." -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
>>> "Ruby began referring to Oswald as a "creep" and a "jerk" -- words that are both synonymous with "patsy"." <<<
<laughing loudly>
Great "clue" there, Mr. Sherlock.
"Creep" = "Patsy", huh?
Never heard that one heretofore.
Crazy.
>>> "So Ruby had reason to believe he'd walk on the Oswald job. What he didn't know was this job called for two patsies." <<<
Nope. You really need three. Because there's no way in hell that the
idiotic "Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison"-like "Patsy" plot could succeed
with just ONE patsy in Dealey Plaza.
You need a minimum of TWO in Dealey; and Jack Ruby (of course) in the
DPD basement.
(And you SURELY endorse the theories espoused by Big Jim and The Stone-
man...right? Most good kooks do.)
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
>
> >
> >> But, here again, David, Bud, et. al., you can't have it both ways. You
> >> can't use this words when they fit your agenda then discard them when
> >> they don't.
> >
> > I don`t need his words, his actions speak louder. I only see Ruby in
> > the picture shooting Oz, no one else. If you want to say others were
> > involved, by all means, present your case.
>
>
> You're saying, "I didn't see anyone shoot Oswald but Ruby, ergo, there's
> no conspiracy."
Poor interpretation of what I said. No signs of conspiracy are
evident, and none have been shown, is more closely accurate.
> Now, honestly, Bud, what makes you think that kind of logic works in
> Usenet?
What makes you think any kind of logic works on usenet?
> Is there somebody else here from your bowling league?
Did anyone here march with you in a Gay Parade?
> >> That's not how being unbiased works.
> >
> > <snicker> You kooks want to disregard all the context to Ruby`s
> > actions, everything he told friends and family prior, and then say
> > "Wow, Ruby`s actions are a mystery to me". Yah, they would be.
>
>
> And here you use the term "context" incorrectly. You define it as
> "everything he told friends and family..." when it doesn't mean that at all.
Play the frustrated editor elsewhere. I get my points across in
the manner I choose.
> Context is everything he DIDN'T tell his friends and family.
Yah, theres that logical kook approach. Give more weight to what
you imagine than what is known and in evidence.
> It's the stuff that motivated him to say the things he said to his
> friends and family -- not what he actually said.
You can`t begin to support your contentions that what Ruby was
telling these people was an act, so why bother going there?
> In other words, Bud, it's suddenly abundantly clear to me that you're
> not a particularly intelligent or well-schooled person, that there are
> vast holes in your education, that you're faking it.
<snicker> Seems I`m a disappointment to ric. How will I survive?
> Therefore, don't mind me if I ignore you in the future.
Not at all. I hope you don`t mind if I continue to take shots at
the stupid things you write, though.
> Nothing personal.
How could it be?
> ricland