JACK RUBY -- WHY DID HE DO IT?
David Von Pein
"I suppose you really believe Ruby shot Oswald out of concern for Mrs.
Kennedy?"
D.V.P. REPLIES WITH:
I think that MIGHT have been a part of his motive. But, more so, I
believe he killed Oswald BECAUSE HE COULD, and because the opportunity
presented itself in a perfect way to get rid of the man who took the
life of a President that was highly thought of by Ruby (And I have no
doubt, via his friends' accounts, that Ruby's affection for JFK and
his family were genuine and heartfelt.)
Those feelings of sadness and grief over JFK's death + the perfect
chance to do it + the fact he liked to always be "where the action is"
+ the fact he could easily "blend in" with the other reporters and
plainclothes officers in the DPD basement + the fact he almost always
walked around with a pistol in his pocket = A dead Lee Harvey Oswald.
Re. Ruby "blending in" -- It was stated that Ruby was believed to be
"a Secret Service Agent" by at least one officer in the basement.
Others might very well have thought so too.
And, just exactly like Oswald's feat, Ruby's occurred by pure
happenstance and was unplanned (at least Oswald's wasn't "planned"
WELL ahead of time, IMO).
Because there's no way in heck that Ruby set out that morning with the
thought in mind of killing Lee Oswald. Because if he had, he certainly
would have been more-or-less "camped out" at DPD, waiting to pounce at
his prey, instead of sending a stripper $25 at the Western Union
office nearby (and just HOPING "they don't move Oswald before I get
this all-important cash to that stripper").
RICLAND
> A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
>
> "I suppose you really believe Ruby shot Oswald out of concern for Mrs.
> Kennedy?"
>
> D.V.P. REPLIES WITH:
>
> I think that MIGHT have been a part of his motive. But, more so, I
> believe he killed Oswald BECAUSE HE COULD, and because the opportunity
> presented itself in a perfect way to get rid of the man who took the
> life of a President that was highly thought of by Ruby (And I have no
> doubt, via his friends' accounts, that Ruby's affection for JFK and
> his family were genuine and heartfelt.)
[... sentimental crap snipped...]
Some kind of love that Jack Rubinstein had for the Kennedys, David. In
fact in the history of criminal justice in this country (USA) I doubt if
you could find another instance of anyone ever pulling a Jack Ruby.
Your mistake, David, is you're repeating Ruby's stated motive word for word.
Not the way it's done, I'm afraid.
The way we try and figure what a murderer's motive was is not by asking
him, but by reviewing all we know about the man and coming to our own
conclusions.
Ruby was a life-long criminal. He got his start with Capone in Chicago.
By 1963 he had worked himself up to a glorified pimp in Dallas. He
wasn't the gentle and sentient flower child seem to think he was. He'd
have had Jackie on stage in a tong shaking her ass the day after the
assassination if he could, because that's the kind of slimeball Jack
Ruby was.
More telling still, Ruby, like everyone else in Dallas at the time, was
theoretically only aware of two things: (1) that Oswald was denying all
the charges; and (2) that everyone was talking about the shots from the
grassy knoll.
In other words, in these pre-Warren Commission Days rumors were flying
around like confetti. Nobody knew exactly what had happened at Dealey
Plaza, all were glued to their radios and television sets with a mad
desire to find out.
Now, you may argue that had Oswald admitted shooting Kennedy and Tippit,
had he bragged and laughed when the reporters asked him about it, a man
who loved Kennedy might have snapped and shot him. But this isn't what
Oswald was doing. Oswald proclaimed his innocence every time he got in
front of the camera. He kept saying he didn't do it, that he was a "patsy."
So, if Ruby is the man of compassion and love you tell us he is, how
does he not pause to wonder about Oswald's claims of innocence?
How does he sacrifice his own life without knowing for sure if the man
he's about to murder is the one who murdered his beloved Kennedy?
ricland
David Von Pein
Which is also what the WC did....with them finding no strong "motive"
for Ruby killing Oswald at the behest of any third party at all. (Your
protestations notwithstanding of course.)
Ruby was distraught and in tears virtually all weekend in late Nov.
'63. Ask his sister, Eva...ask the cops who saw him at the DPD...ask
Seth Kantor.
Either Ruby was legitimately UPSET by the murder of a President he
seemed to truly admire and respect (which other witnesses also
verified), or Jacob Leon Rubenstein was a heck of a good actor.
Sorry...you lose (again).
No conspiracy. No way. No how.
(The Western Union/$25 to a stripper thing is proof enough RIGHT
THERE.)
>>> "Because that's the kind of slimeball Jack Ruby was." <<<
Even slimeballs have SOME inner feelings. (Don't they?)
Or have you done a "Slimeball" study that can debunk my theory about
that?
>>> "So, if Ruby is the man of compassion and love you tell us he is, how does he not pause to wonder about Oswald's claims of innocence?" <<<
You seem to think that *I* think that Ruby was some kind of perfect
Saint. Why? I never said that. I simply said he had very strong
feelings for his President named Kennedy -- and all indications are
that he did have those. (And he liked dogs, too. Big deal.)
But I certainly didn't imply that he wore a constant halo around his
head.
>>> "How does he sacrifice his own life without knowing for sure if the man he's about to murder is the one who murdered his beloved Kennedy?" <<<
You're asking why a distraught, obviously-emotional and high-strung
man would be willing to take the kneejerk, sudden type action he did
in a police basement without having every last piece of evidence
against his victim firmly entrenched (and verified) in his brain, huh?
Oh, well, I don't know....maybe because IT WAS A SUDDEN, MAD ACT OF
SPUR-OF-THE-MOMENT VIOLENCE THAT WASN'T IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE PRE-
PLANNED OR THOUGHT OUT AHEAD OF TIME.
That could be it right there. Ya think? ;)
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
> >
> > "I suppose you really believe Ruby shot Oswald out of concern for Mrs.
> > Kennedy?"
> >
> > D.V.P. REPLIES WITH:
> >
> > I think that MIGHT have been a part of his motive. But, more so, I
> > believe he killed Oswald BECAUSE HE COULD, and because the opportunity
> > presented itself in a perfect way to get rid of the man who took the
> > life of a President that was highly thought of by Ruby (And I have no
> > doubt, via his friends' accounts, that Ruby's affection for JFK and
> > his family were genuine and heartfelt.)
>
> [... sentimental crap snipped...]
>
>
>
> Some kind of love that Jack Rubinstein had for the Kennedys, David. In
> fact in the history of criminal justice in this country (USA) I doubt if
> you could find another instance of anyone ever pulling a Jack Ruby.
People don`t shoot people every day for reqasons of their own. None
of these people doing the shooting have a history of violence?
> Your mistake, David, is you're repeating Ruby's stated motive word for word.
Your mistake is not understanding what he wrote. He said "according
to friends". Ruby was relating his anguish to everyone he came across,
and telling some he intended retribution.
> Not the way it's done, I'm afraid.
>
> The way we try and figure what a murderer's motive was is not by asking
> him, but by reviewing all we know about the man and coming to our own
> conclusions.
That doesn`t seem to apply to Oz. Difference is, Ruby had a trial,
and was found guilty, so the morive offered by the prosecution was
deemed adequate to the jury.
> Ruby was a life-long criminal. He got his start with Capone in Chicago.
> By 1963 he had worked himself up to a glorified pimp in Dallas. He
> wasn't the gentle and sentient flower child seem to think he was. He'd
> have had Jackie on stage in a tong shaking her ass the day after the
> assassination if he could, because that's the kind of slimeball Jack
> Ruby was.
Theres no support for that. Ruby was a pimp. Ruby also had a soft
spot for the Kennedys. These two things can co-exist, they are not
mutually exclusive, people are complicated, and not totally defined by
how they make a living. Ruby who was a hard-nosed guy, but would
probably blubber like a baby if his dog died, for instance.
> More telling still, Ruby, like everyone else in Dallas at the time, was
> theoretically only aware of two things: (1) that Oswald was denying all
> the charges;
Yah, and being close to those in the DPD, he`d know for sure that
Oz killed Tippit, making it known to Ruby he was lying, and if he is
lying about one, he is obviously lying about the other (but, not so
obvious that kooks can discern it).
> and (2) that everyone was talking about the shots from the
> grassy knoll.
Doubtful there was any buzz about that at all at the time.
> In other words, in these pre-Warren Commission Days rumors were flying
> around like confetti. Nobody knew exactly what had happened at Dealey
> Plaza, all were glued to their radios and television sets with a mad
> desire to find out.
I have the Philadelphia newspapers from the day after the
assassination. All the basic facts of the case are laid out, not what
shots hit who, but the general facts are there, and not much is wrong,
or rumor.
> Now, you may argue that had Oswald admitted shooting Kennedy and Tippit,
> had he bragged and laughed when the reporters asked him about it, a man
> who loved Kennedy might have snapped and shot him. But this isn't what
> Oswald was doing. Oswald proclaimed his innocence every time he got in
> front of the camera. He kept saying he didn't do it, that he was a "patsy."
Not everyone is so stupid as to believe what an obviously guilty
man says.
> So, if Ruby is the man of compassion and love you tell us he is, how
> does he not pause to wonder about Oswald's claims of innocence?
If he did, it obviously wasn`t a long pause.
> How does he sacrifice his own life without knowing for sure if the man
> he's about to murder is the one who murdered his beloved Kennedy?
<snicker> You are projecting reservations onto Ruby he apparently
didn`t have. In order to understand why Ruby did this, you`d have to
have an understanding of Ruby as a man, and the state he was in just
prior to this event, as related by the people in contact with him. In
any case, the only real question concerning Ruby is whether he killed
Oz of his own volition, or not. Arguing that his own internal
motivations were insufficient to kill Oz is pretty weak.
> ricland
RICLAND
>>>> "The way we try and figure what a murderer's motive was is not by asking him, but by reviewing all we know about the man and coming to our own conclusions." <<<
>
> for Ruby killing Oswald at the behest of any third party at all. (Your
> protestations notwithstanding of course.)
What part of "no motive" don't you understand, David?
>
> Ruby was distraught and in tears virtually all weekend in late Nov.
> '63. Ask his sister, Eva...ask the cops who saw him at the DPD...ask
> Seth Kantor.
All of America was distraught and in tears.
>
> Either Ruby was legitimately UPSET by the murder of a President he
> seemed to truly admire and respect (which other witnesses also
> verified), or Jacob Leon Rubenstein was a heck of a good actor.
Finally we agree on something.
>
> Sorry...you lose (again).
Why? Ruby came to the police station to kill Oswald. No one found out
about this until he manage to show Oswald. That's got to go down as the
best acting performance of the year, as good, in my opinion, as Sidney
Poitier's performance in "Lilies of the Field" for which Sidney won the
'63 Oscar.
>
> No conspiracy. No way. No how.
>
Because Jack Ruby says so?
Which underlines the problem in your thinking, David -- you assemble
facts to support your theories instead of using facts to test your theories.
The Ruby incident is a good example.
You argue Ruby killed Oswald because he admired Kennedy. You believe
this because of what Ruby said after the shooting. But when Ruby later
retracted this and said the real reason he did it was at the behest of
powerful people in Washington, you dismiss this as lying.
You can't have it both ways, David.
ricland
RICLAND
> Your mistake is not understanding what he wrote. He said "according
> to friends". Ruby was relating his anguish to everyone he came across,
> and telling some he intended retribution.
Ha, ha!
And there you have it!
Case solved.
You see it or must I explain it to you?
ricland
Gil Jesus
> A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
>
> "I suppose you really believe Ruby shot Oswald out of concern for Mrs.
> Kennedy?"
>
> D.V.P. REPLIES WITH:
>
> I think that MIGHT have been a part of his motive. But, more so, I
> believe he killed Oswald BECAUSE HE COULD, and because the opportunity
> presented itself in a perfect way to get rid of the man who took the
> life of a President that was highly thought of by Ruby (And I have no
> doubt, via his friends' accounts, that Ruby's affection for JFK and
> his family were genuine and heartfelt.)
>
> Those feelings of sadness and grief over JFK's death + the perfect
> chance to do it + the fact he liked to always be "where the action is"
> + the fact he could easily "blend in" with the other reporters and
> plainclothes officers in the DPD basement + the fact he almost always
> walked around with a pistol in his pocket = A dead Lee Harvey Oswald.
Wow Von Pein, you REALLY don't have a clue, do you ?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GaUDGTw6D_A
Walt
> A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
>
> "I suppose you really believe Ruby shot Oswald out of concern for Mrs.
> Kennedy?"
>
> D.V.P. REPLIES WITH:
>
> I think that MIGHT have been a part of his motive. But, more so, I
> believe he killed Oswald BECAUSE HE COULD, and because the opportunity
> presented itself in a perfect way to get rid of the man who took the
> life of a President that was highly thought of by Ruby
Riiiiiight..... Ruby thought so much of JFK that he didn't even go to
see his Motorcade when it passed by just a block away from his
Carousel Club. Do ya suppose Ruby had more important things to do at
that time?
Walt
Walt
Spur -of- the- moment??? Then why did he call the police station in
the wee hours of Sunday morning and tell the desk sargeant that Oswald
was going to be shot that morning?
Walt
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Listening to Ruby on that final tape.....It's obvious that he killed
Oswald on some other person's order. He says the people responsible
are so powerful that they can control all investigations. Through out
his life he talked in "carni talk" or shaded language. He never
answered a question directly..... and yet he replies instantly and
concisely to the last question on that tape.....
" Are these people in very high positions, Jack?" Yes!
Walt
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ricland? Your postings are obtuse as is your
rhetoric. We know much about Ruby. We know
he was a police groupie. We know he placed
his dog Sheba above all else in his life, even
more important than relationships with human
beings. We know at the announced transfer
time on November 24th, Ruby was wandering
around his apartment in his underwear. How
do we know these things? We RESEARCH
Richland which is apparently something you
do not believe in. Rubys affection for his
Sheba was such that he referred to this
animal as his "wife" to many friends of his.
Rubys final opportunity to take out Oswald
as the CT crowd believes was the morning
of the transfer and yet, you and your
paranoid thinking won't accept certain
FACTS that we do know. To believe Ruby
would have left his beloved "wife" in the
car while he went to eliminate Oswald,
knowing he'd be captured on the spot
is indicative of everything that's wrong
with the CT community. Logic and
rationale play no role in the maniacal
ramblings of a lunatic mind. You need
to accept conspiracy so badly it pervades
your thinking and doesn't allow for
the truth. Ricland? You portend a
rational, sophisticated persona on
this site yet your basic knowledge of
the facts show you to be incapable
of rational thought.
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Your mistake is not understanding what he wrote. He said "according
> > to friends". Ruby was relating his anguish to everyone he came across,
> > and telling some he intended retribution.
>
>
> Ha, ha!
>
> And there you have it!
<snicker> The old quickest gun in the west routine. "You want to
see it again?".
> Case solved.
Again?
> You see it or must I explain it to you?
Keep it to yourself, I`m sure I wouldn`t be as impressed with it as
you are. If you had a valid point to make, which is unlikely, you
missed the oportunity to present it.
> ricland
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 24 Mar, 08:48, "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 3:32 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
> >
> > > "I suppose you really believe Ruby shot Oswald out of concern for Mrs.
> > > Kennedy?"
> >
> > > D.V.P. REPLIES WITH:
> >
> > > I think that MIGHT have been a part of his motive. But, more so, I
> > > believe he killed Oswald BECAUSE HE COULD, and because the opportunity
> > > presented itself in a perfect way to get rid of the man who took the
> > > life of a President that was highly thought of by Ruby (And I have no
> > > doubt, via his friends' accounts, that Ruby's affection for JFK and
> > > his family were genuine and heartfelt.)
> >
> > > Those feelings of sadness and grief over JFK's death + the perfect
> > > chance to do it + the fact he liked to always be "where the action is"
> > > + the fact he could easily "blend in" with the other reporters and
> > > plainclothes officers in the DPD basement + the fact he almost always
> > > walked around with a pistol in his pocket = A dead Lee Harvey Oswald.
> >
> > Wow Von Pein, you REALLY don't have a clue, do you ?
> >
> > http://youtube.com/watch?v=GaUDGTw6D_A- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Listening to Ruby on that final tape.....It's obvious that he killed
> Oswald on some other person's order.
Ruby denied being part of a plot to silence oswald.
> He says the people responsible
> are so powerful that they can control all investigations.
How can anyone else be responsible? I saw Jack do it.
> Through out
> his life he talked in "carni talk" or shaded language. He never
> answered a question directly..... and yet he replies instantly and
> concisely to the last question on that tape.....
>
> " Are these people in very high positions, Jack?" Yes!
Walt applies the usual kook testing method before decided what to
accept... "Does it sound like it indicates conspiracy?" If the answer
is yes, then it`s reliable information.
> Walt
RICLAND
Well, you do have an imagination, can't fault you there.
But all this business about Ruby's dog is a tad ridiculous, don't you
think?
Look, Ruby was a mob-enforcer, had been all his life, and the Oswald
shooting was a mob hit.
That's the simplest explanation.
ricland
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
But all this business about Ruby's dog is a tad ridiculous, don't you
think?
Look, Ruby was a mob-enforcer, had been all his life, and the Oswald
shooting was a mob hit.
That's the simplest explanation.
You continue to show your ignorance about
Jack Ruby. In reality, the dog issue is
so relevant as to be ridiculous. This in
itself shows your lack of research and
knowledge about Ruby. To Ruby,
Sheba WAS HIS LIFE. That animal
accompanied Ruby everywhere he
went. Ruby carried food and water
in his car when they travelled
together. Ruby allowed that dog
into the Carousel club at his
leasure. For Ruby to admit
to people he knew that Sheba
was his "wife" shows the
importance of that dog to
Ruby.
Ruby was NOT a mob enforcer all
of his life. Ruby was a bit player
and small time crook who knew
mobsters and those who knew
Ruby knew him to be loquacious
and a big mouth incapable of
keeping the smallest details
secret. To believe the mob
would entrust a killing of this
scope to somebody this in-
significant is so improbable
as to defy odds. In addition,
how would Ruby killing Oswald
help the mob? They would
simply be replacing one
individual with information
with another. The exact
same problems would exist.
Ricland, I suggest to you
that you need to delve
deeper into the personalities
of the players rather than
waste time on ballistics,
autopsies and the like.
That information has not
changed in 43 years and
never will.
RICLAND
Bud, this isn't rocket science. Ruby was a cunning gangster. By telling
everyone of his anguish and his intent to get retribution he was laying
the groundwork for his defense.
His handlers would have told him this was necessary to receive his "get
out of jail" pass. They'd have told him this was how LBJ was able to Mac
Wallace a suspended 5 year sentence for his cold-blooded murder of
golf pro John Phillip Kinsser who was having an affair with Wallace's wife.
In other words, cunning hood that he was, Ruby's was looking to "make
his bones" something he'd been trying to do with the mob, political big
shots, the Dallas police for years.
Which is why when his "get out of jail pass" never materialized he made
this statement:
"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."
Well, that's it. Those are the man's own words. Why quote his earlier
words if you're not going to believe what he said later?
Either the man is a liar or he isn't.
Which one is it, Bud?
ricland
RICLAND
>
> Walt applies the usual kook testing method before decided what to
> accept... "Does it sound like it indicates conspiracy?" If the answer
> is yes, then it`s reliable information.
>
>> Walt
>
And lest we forget, Bud, Ruby's word to a friend about his upcoming
trial (the second one): "They're going to find out Cuba. They're going
to find out about the guns. They're going to find out about New Orleans."
ricland
-
YoHarvey
Forget about Rubys words and LOOK at
his actions! The words mean NOTHING.
Bud
Meaningless, unless he produces actual information, isn`t it?
> ricland
>
> -
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>
> >>> Your mistake is not understanding what he wrote. He said "according
> >>> to friends". Ruby was relating his anguish to everyone he came across,
> >>> and telling some he intended retribution.
> >>
> >> Ha, ha!
> >>
> >> And there you have it!
> >
> > <snicker> The old quickest gun in the west routine. "You want to
> > see it again?".
> >
> >> Case solved.
> >
> > Again?
> >
> >> You see it or must I explain it to you?
> >
> > Keep it to yourself, I`m sure I wouldn`t be as impressed with it as
> > you are. If you had a valid point to make, which is unlikely, you
> > missed the oportunity to present it.
>
>
> Bud, this isn't rocket science. Ruby was a cunning gangster. By telling
> everyone of his anguish and his intent to get retribution he was laying
> the groundwork for his defense.
Laying groundwork for a first degree murder conviction.
> His handlers would have told him this was necessary to receive his "get
> out of jail" pass. They'd have told him this was how LBJ was able to Mac
> Wallace a suspended 5 year sentence for his cold-blooded murder of
> golf pro John Phillip Kinsser who was having an affair with Wallace's wife.
>
> In other words, cunning hood that he was, Ruby's was looking to "make
> his bones" something he'd been trying to do with the mob, political big
> shots, the Dallas police for years.
>
> Which is why when his "get out of jail pass" never materialized he made
> this statement:
>
> "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 had funny ideas about things. Thought the Jews would be blamed
for Kennedy being killed.
> Well, that's it. Those are the man's own words. Why quote his earlier
> words if you're not going to believe what he said later?
>
> Either the man is a liar or he isn't.
>
> Which one is it, Bud?
The guy was a murderer who killed someone in front of many
witnesses. He said he did it on his own, not as part of a plot to
silence Oswald. Despite great effort, no one has been able to show
that Ruby was part of a plot to silence Oswald. You can imagine all
the "handlers" giving Ruby all the instructions you want, it doesn`t
change the basic facts. If you want to assert a conspiracy, show a
conspiracy.
> ricland
David Von Pein
You can't read very well, can you?
It wasn't JUST the words from Ruby's lips. His friends and family all
said that Ruby was a big JFK fan. We don't have to take Ruby's word
alone for that.
>>> "But when Ruby later retracted this and said the real reason he did it was at the behest of powerful people in Washington, you dismiss this as lying." <<<
When did Ruby ever say anything remotely similar to that? I don't
think he ever did. In fact, he was eager (begging!) to be taken to
Washington so that he could prove that he WASN'T part of any
conspiracy.
Ruby feared, and rightly so, that many people in Dallas would be out
to get him because they would think he was part of some bigger "plot";
which is why he didn't feel safe in Dallas and wanted to go to
Washington.
Another of Ruby's stated reasons for killing Oswald was because he
"wanted to show the world that Jews had guts" (paraphrased Ruby
quote).
Ruby was upset by the "Bernard Weissman" (Jewish) black-bordered anti-
Kennedy ad that appeared in the Dallas newspaper(s) on the morning of
11/22/63.
And Ruby even went so far as to take pictures of an "Impeach Earl
Warren" billboard at 5:00 AM on 11/23/63 (the billboard evidently had
Weissman's name associated with it in some manner, or at least Ruby
thought Weissman might be associated with it).
Ruby's motives are somewhat muddled, true. I can't deny that. Because
if he was creating a "file" (or whatever) on Weissman, and he later
said he "did it to show that Jews had guts"....that certainly implies
premeditation on Ruby's behalf.
But the way he actually DID kill Oswald certainly does NOT imply any
premeditation whatsoever (e.g., little "Sheba" [dog] left in his car;
Western Union trip; and not leaving his apartment until AFTER the
previously-announced time for Oswald's transfer).
So, it's a puzzle of sorts....no doubt. But Ruby was positively
distraught after the President's murder....and he was positively upset
about the Weissman ad, and he said this to the DMN people on 11/22
(Ruby even mentioned his displeasure re. the Weissman ad BEFORE
Kennedy was even shot, mentioning it to his sister over the phone and
also when he was placing his nightclub ads at the newspaper office;
Zoppi and Newnam are probably witnesses to that fact, but I'd have to
check the record to verify).
Bottom-line:
1.) Ruby was upset over the President's murder and he was upset over
the Weissman ad that appeared in the paper.
2.) Ruby was AT the midnight press conference, so we KNOW for a fact
he heard what America heard as DA Henry Wade was roasting Oswald in
front of the Live TV cameras (not a smart move, btw, IMO, but Wade,
Fritz, and Curry had no hesitation whatsoever to put their case before
America, for some reason, miles ahead of Oswald's trial).
3.) So we know that Ruby almost certainly thought Lee Oswald was
guilty.
4.) A distraught Ruby + the "Weissman" thing + the knowledge that Oz
was almost certainly guilty + THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT = A dead
Lee Harvey Oswald.
aeffects
wow.... 2 crazy lone nut assassins converging at the same City of
Dallas underground police station... can you imagine that?
Bud
Chances are Ruby wouldn`t have killed Oz, if Oz hadn`t killed JFK.
No telling who you are going to piss off, when you kill a popular
figure.