Jack Ruby
David Von Pein
THE SECOND "LONE NUT" ASSASSIN IN DALLAS IN NOVEMBER 1963
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rubyshot.jpg
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ruby.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------
When 52-year-old Jacob L. "Sparky" Rubenstein (more commonly known as
Jack Ruby) stepped out of a group of policemen and reporters in a
Dallas Police Department basement to shoot Presidential assassin Lee
Harvey Oswald on November 24th, 1963, it sparked a whole new wave of
"It Was A Conspiracy" talk with respect to the John F. Kennedy murder
(which Oswald was charged with committing two days before he died at
Ruby's hand).
But when weighing all the evidence surrounding the actions of Jack Ruby
during that November 1963 weekend when President Kennedy was
assassinated, a clear pattern emerges -- and it doesn't add up to
"conspiracy".
Many conspiracy believers endorse the theory that has Ruby "rubbing
out" Oswald at the behest of organized crime figures. But would a known
blabbermouth like Jack Ruby have really been a wise choice for Oswald's
killing (which was carried out on Live television all around the United
States)? Who, then, is going to "rub out" the person who just
eliminated LHO?
Plus, there's the "timing" factor to consider when talking about any
possible pre-arranged "hit" on Lee Oswald in the DPD basement. If Ruby
woke up on Sunday morning with the intent of killing Oswald at 10:00 AM
(which is a time that was later pushed back by the police), would Ruby
have really NOT been in "position" to do the deed until approx. 11:20
AM (CST) that Sunday? (Could he have possibly known about the delays in
transferring Oswald to the County Jail? Highly doubtful he could have
known.)
Also -- Would Ruby have really taken his dog with him to a pre-planned
murder? (One of his pooches was found in his car after the murder of
Oswald.) And would he have left that dog in his car under such
circumstances? By all accounts he loved that dog greatly, even
referring to "Sheba" as his "wife". He would never have taken that dog
with him downtown if it was in Ruby's mind to kill Oswald at the police
station that morning.
And would Ruby have really taken the time to stop at the nearby Western
Union office and send a $25 money order to one of his strippers (who
worked at one of his Dallas nightclubs) just a mere four minutes before
casually strolling into the DPD basement to encounter Lee Oswald? How
can CTers possibly reconcile that pesky item?
In my opinion, every single thing about Lee Oswald's murder by Jack
Ruby spells a "last-minute" and "spur-of-the-moment" act of violence.
And it also spells "deeply personal" on Ruby's part.
It was known that Ruby was distraught and in tears much of that
November weekend. The death of JFK hit him hard. And it's certainly
true that the press was painting just one man as the killer of the
President -- Lee Oswald. (And given the trail of evidence that the
police had to follow, there was no other possible rational and
reasonable conclusion to reach other than that.)
So Ruby was probably thinking like most of America on that Sunday
morning -- he thought this guy Oswald killed his beloved President.
It's, therefore, fairly logical to assume that Ruby hated Oswald's guts
that weekend. ....
....And Ruby was known to almost always carry a gun on him.
....And Ruby was friendly with the DPD.
....And Ruby liked to be "where the action is".
....And Ruby could practically come and go at his own leisure within
the DPD Headquarters and Precincts.
....And Ruby always dressed rather conservatively (one policeman later
stated: "I never saw Jack when he didn't have on a black suit"),
meaning he could literally "blend in" with other similarly-dressed
plainclothes policemen and reporters in the DPD basement that Sunday
morning.
....And at 11:21 AM on 11/24/63, Jack fired one shot from his revolver
into the gut of Lee Harvey Oswald, resulting in Oswald's death 106
minutes later.
All of this adds up to the actions of a second "Lone Nut" during that
dark weekend back in 1963.
David Von Pein
March 2006
lazu...@webtv.net
just like Oswald based on many people that had encounters with them that
is the polar opposite of the Warren report.
aeffects
there you go, Laz -- telling VonPein what he didn't want to hear,
roflmao!
lazu...@webtv.net
side ya gotta shoot it down. Of course DVP's stuff has a welcome home
over on McAdams board. If a conspiracy guy using an alias tried half the
tactics of these lone nutters doing the same over there, he wouldn't get
his posts throough. But, hey McAdams & crew are fair and balanced...just
like Fox news right?
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> That's it David- when some guy posts compulsively and without the other
> side ya gotta shoot it down.
<snicker> In what meaningful way did you shhot down what DVP wrote?
You pointed out that there is some weak contrary information that kooks
prefer to latch onto. But kooks are like that.
> Of course DVP's stuff has a welcome home
> over on McAdams board. If a conspiracy guy using an alias tried half the
> tactics of these lone nutters doing the same over there, he wouldn't get
> his posts throough. But, hey McAdams & crew are fair and balanced...just
> like Fox news right?
Do you ever try to post there, Lazy? I`ve been rejected dozens of
times there, how about you?
aeffects
dudster, when you get time-in-grade on THIS board, we cantalk about
rejects at .john's. You've been around here for what, couple of years,
maybe? You're a newbie! For the record most no longer bother to post on
McAdam's board, some never have. Then there's you and the rest of the
Lone Neuters, we do understand you need the moral support...
David Von Pein
He won't even allow the word "kook" in the moderated group....which I
hate, because such a restriction severely limits my JFK vocab.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > That's it David- when some guy posts compulsively and without the other
> > > side ya gotta shoot it down.
> >
> > <snicker> In what meaningful way did you shhot down what DVP wrote?
> > You pointed out that there is some weak contrary information that kooks
> > prefer to latch onto. But kooks are like that.
> >
> > > Of course DVP's stuff has a welcome home
> > > over on McAdams board. If a conspiracy guy using an alias tried half the
> > > tactics of these lone nutters doing the same over there, he wouldn't get
> > > his posts throough. But, hey McAdams & crew are fair and balanced...just
> > > like Fox news right?
> >
> > Do you ever try to post there, Lazy? I`ve been rejected dozens of
> > times there, how about you?
>
> dudster, when you get time-in-grade on THIS board, we cantalk about
> rejects at .john's. You've been around here for what, couple of years,
> maybe? You're a newbie!
I`m sure it takes decades to fully appreciate the subtle nuances of
kook thinking.
> For the record most no longer bother to post on
> McAdam's board, some never have.
Are you saying that Lazy was speaking with authority on a subject he
knew nothing about, that subject being McAdams rejection practices? I
think that was the same point I was making.