Amy Joyce found the report: Ruby told FBI he got to WU at 10:15

[Ralph Cinque]

It's just like I surmised. It was the better part of an hour before the
televised spectacle that Ruby actually got to the basement. That's when he
had his scuffle with police. They dragged him away and then got ready for
the coming spectacle. Lights! Camera! Action!

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/09/holy-cow-amy-joyce-is-right-on-hall-had.html

[David Von Pein]

Ralph yet again jumps to the conclusion he's desperate to reach without
doing a bit of research to confirm his outrageous findings.

Ralph should know that at 10:15 AM (Dallas time) on 11/24/63, Ruby had not
yet even received the telephone call from Karen Carlin requesting the $25
money order that Ruby ultimately sent at 11:17 AM from the Western Union
office. Carlin called Ruby at 10:19 AM on Nov. 24th (nineteen minutes
after Oswald was *supposed* to originally be moved to the County Jail).
The 10:19 call from Carlin to Ruby is confirmed in CE2298, here....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0132a.htm

Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=karen+carlin+10%3A19+AM

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Hey, Ralph, you wanna be famous? I'll get the bartender at the Adolphus
to invent a new cocktail called

"Oswald in the Doorway". OK, what should the ingredients be?
Suggestions? Liquor only, no

psychedelics, please.

[Ralph Cinque]

Amy Joyce:

I was just reading Hall's testimony again. He said that he was with Ruby
most of the afternoon from 12:40 - 5:30. He interviewed Ruby some of the
time, while others interviewed Ruby at other times, but Hall was always
there witnessing it. The following is what pisses me off:

When Hall showed up, Ruby was already stripped down to his underwear. At
about 2:00, Tom Howard showed up so they allowed Ruby to get dressed and
visit with him .... a meeting with his lawyer that only lasted four
minutes? Afterwards, they stripped Ruby down to his shorts again right
away. What??? What reason did they have to keep Ruby stripped to his
undergarments for hours at a time in the jail cell hallway? They checked
his clothing for weapons and there wasn't any. Was this an intimidation
thing or what? Questioning him in a hallway without his clothes on?
Seriously? Who ever heard of such a thing?

And what's with that very short four minute interview with his lawyer?
..... And why didn't Howard stick around during the questioning?

And if Howard was not Ruby's lawyer yet then why was he giving statements
to the press about what Ruby admitted doing and why he did it? Tom Howard
was totally out of line as Ruby's lawyer, and it makes me wonder if he was
in on it.

There is a report written by Fritz in which Fritz details a q&a interview
with Howard, all pertaining to Jack Ruby and Oswald's murder. A copy was
even sent to the D.A., Henry Wade. Again, WTF? I can't help but be
angry. Is this normal conduct for a defense attorney?

The whole damn security of LHO was a joke and Oswald's family should have
sued the pants of the DPD. I wonder if they still could, seeing that it's
murder. Even the WC said it was bad security and the DPD seemed more
concerned about how they looked then actually protecting a prisoner that
was receiving death threats. There were 6-8 officer's guarding the
Commerce Street Ramp but ONLY ONE on the Main Street Ramp. Sounds like a
set up to me or at the least guilty of not protecting their prisoner!!!
One guy on one side, 6 on the other, and 22 officers were sent to cover a
traffic corner (15-30 minutes before the incident). On a Sunday!
Clearly it was pre-planned regarding what they were going to say about how
Ruby got in. Curry (or Fritz) said they were concerned that someone might
kidnap Oswald - that they got a threatening call saying that 100 men were
going to take him during the transfer. Apparently that concern made them
decide to actually put one man on Main street.... instead of none! Heck,
can't make it too obvious now can they?

Ralph Cinque:

First, Amy, I share your outrage about them keeping Ruby stripped to his
underwear for so long. But, I also want to point out that there was no
mention of them stripping him out of his underwear and into new underwear;
DPD-approved underwear. And that makes a mockery out of this ridiculous
inclusion in the property invoice:

What even is "1 set underwear"? Who would make such a reference? Did they
really strip Ruby out of his underpants and give him other underpants?
That is preposterous! The very idea! Yet, that is the unavoidable
implication. "Set" means more than one item. So, it had to be at least two
things, and in this case, the "set" consisted of socks, underpants, and
undershirt. So, they had all those things there for prisoners? They were
replacing all those things on prisoners at the City Jail? And what?
Gathering and laundering all their soiled underclothes to return to them?
IT IS PREPOSTEROUS! God damn it. That little inclusion of "1 set
underwear" is a smoking gun in itself, and it proves by itself that the
whole thing was a con. Ruby got conned. We got conned. The whole damn
world got conned.

And I share your outrage about Tom Howard. How dare he propose a motive
for Ruby? Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald. He didn't know that he
had done it until he was told that he did it by Dallas Police. HOW CAN YOU
HAVE A MOTIVE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER DOING? For Tom
Howard to have cooperated with Dallas Police to the extent that he did;
for him to have failed to recognize the significance of Ruby's impaired
mental state, and worst of all, for him not to have demanded to see the
images of the shooting and studied them with an open, critical, and highly
suspicious mind is an outrage. All he had to do was look at the images and
actually ask himself, "IS THAT JACK?" and he would have seen that it was
NOT Jack. But, on that matter, I hold all of Ruby's attorneys guilty,
including Melvin Belli.

And regarding the Main Street ramp, why were spectators tolerated there
when it was an incoming ramp? There was no chance they were going to see
Oswald coming in. And, on Commerce Street, the spectators were required to
remain on the other side of the street. So, why would Roy Vaughan allow
them to clutter right around where he was working?

Amy, the whole Main Street ramp thing was meant to be a magnet, a trap for
Ruby. He even said that his curiosity was aroused by seeing the people
there. They were there for him. They had no reason to be there since it
was incoming. And Roy Vaughan had no reason not to consider it
loitering.

"Now, beat it; get out of here! There is nothing to see. Or, I'll arrest
you for loitering."

How hard is it to say that? So, why didn't he?

It's because it was all planned. And some of them probably coaxed Ruby to
go down the ramp. He had no reason to do that. He had no thought of seeing
Oswald- let alone shoot him. But, he was drugged, and he was rendered
highly susceptible to suggestion. Ruby NEVER explained why he walked down
the ramp. And that's because he didn't know why he did it. Somebody just
had to nudge him with a nod, and he would do it. It's how people act when
they are on Scopolamine. Look at this face. Look at those eyes. Can you
see that he is staring? That he looks robotic? That he looks hypnotized?
His whole affect is totally inappropriate for someone who just shot
somebody. Ruby was out of it. He was out of his mind. He was drugged.
They definitely drugged him.

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/09/some-very-astute-observations-here-by.html

[Ralph Cinque]

David, in a ruse such as this, they would certainly go to great effort to
lie in order to authenticate the story. I already asserted that Western
Union lied about when Ruby was there. So, I wouldn't put it past the phone
company to lie about when the call occurred. Here is George Senator said
about the time of the call in his testimony:

Mr. HUBERT. Do you know what time that call was?
Mr. SENATOR. I don't know. It could have been anywheres between 9:30, I am
not sure, maybe 10. I am not sure what time it was.

It wasn't far to go; just a couple miles. So, if the call came in between
9:30 and 10, indeed Ruby could have been at WU at 10:15, as he maintained.

Within the context of a morning, excluding early morning, an hour is a big
variable. Why would Ruby lie about what time he was there? He wouldn't.
And within a morning that didn't start until, say 8:00, an hour's
difference is a huge gap in time.

George Senator, his roommate said the call came in between 9:30 and 10.

This is what Karen Carlin said:

Mr. Hubert. Do you remember what time you called him?
Mrs. CARLIN. It was 10. I think it was around 10 or 10:05 or 10:15, something
like that. It was between that time.
Mr. Hubert. Would you be able to say with any degree of accuracy that it
could not have been earlier than 10?
Mrs. CARLIN. It could have been. I am not going to say for sure.

So, Karen Carlin said it could have been before 10 that she called. 10:19
wasn't even on her radar. Her first thought was 10:00, and later she
admitted that it may have been earlier.

David: they phonied the time at Western Union, and it's obvious now that
they also phonied the time of the call.

[Jason Burke]

Sound like someone we all know?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

There goes Ralph, talking about Ruby underpants again. Got skid mark?

[Jonny Mayer]

Ruby may have shat his pants.

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 3:44:23 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> David, in a ruse such as this, they would certainly go to great effort to
> lie in order to authenticate the story. I already asserted that Western
> Union lied about when Ruby was there. So, I wouldn't put it past the phone
> company to lie about when the call occurred.

Yeah, everybody under the sun lied. Right, Ralph? Even the telephone
records are forged. Right?

You see, this is what happens when a person such as Ralph gets it in his
head that something happened that we all know could not have happened ---
such as somebody *other* than Jack Ruby shooting Lee Oswald. Via such a
cockeyed theory, it doesn't matter how many people (and phone companies)
Ralph has to call liars and "cover-up agents", he's going to do it. If
that number of liars reaches 5,000, it won't matter to Ralph, because he's
got an impossible theory to peddle---so, by God, there are going to be
5,000 liars in this case if that's what it takes to make his theory fly.

There's a term for that kind of "investigating" --- it's called
"Delusional".

[Jason Burke]

"Amy" seems to find a lot of stuff, eh, "Ralph"?

[Amy Joyce]

On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 8:43:34 AM UTC-5, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> Ruby may have shat his pants.

Jonny, I considered that but since the city jail normally didn't house
prisoners or issue them clothing of any kind tt's unlikely they would have
clothing available (let alone underwear) for prisoners. They did't bother
giving Oswald a change of clothes yet he was there for days, and they
should have transferred him to county within hours of his arraignment.
Ruby was given his won clothing back to wear at 2:00 pm, when he went to
visit with Tom Howard. If he'd of shat his pants it's likely that his
clothing (pants) would have been too soiled to wear.

[Amy Joyce]

DVP, despite the WC findings regarding Ruby's whereabouts that morning
they failed to consider the testimony of others that placed him in the
jail at 10:30 and a little later.

Mayo started work at 10:15 and a preacher named Ray Rushing attempted to gain
entrance to the building from the Commerce Ramp (to visit with LHO).
After Mayo denied him entry, Rushing hung around another 20 minutes before
leaving and apparently gaining entrance elsewhere.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mayo_l.htm

Reville testified of his interview with Rushing whom rode on the elevator
with Jack Ruby that morning, which obviously would have happened after his
failed attempt of gaining entry near Mayo's post. So Ruby and Rushing engaged
in conversation on a city jail elevator within 40 minutes of the shooting.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/revill.htm

The WC accepted Rushing's story that he had been at the jail and talked
with Ruby but instead of considering Mayo's claim regarding the time (he
stated he didn't start work until 10:15 and that Rushing hung around for
20 minutes after being denied entry), they went by the timeline of others.
What's most interesting to me is that they didn't ask Jack Ruby about his
encounter with Rushing and didn't independently attempt to question to
Rushing himself. They also didn't question the assistant chief,
Batchelor, specifically about engaging with Rushing or Ruby that morning
despite Revill testifying that one of them was on the way to Batchelor's
office (his testimony wasn't clear and he was not asked to clear it up).

It was Revill's job to investigate Ruby and how he might have gained
entrance to the garage but he didn't bother filling out a report regarding
the Rushing/Ruby encounter. The point of the WC regarding Ruby was not his
guilt or innocence, it was about how Ruby got into the garage, if he had
assistance, and if he had ties to LHO. They failed to follow each lead
and gave no indication they even considered the time Mayo started work.

[Ralph Cinque]

On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 8:43:34 AM UTC-5, Jonny Mayer wrote:

> Ruby may have shat his pants.

You don't have the right to speculate that. So, they all conspired to keep
it a secret?

"Let's not spread this around. Sure, the guy shot Oswald, but we don't
want to humiliate him. He's got feelings."

[Ralph Cinque]

You don't know how to think, David Von Pein. The first and most crucial
step in determining whether Ruby shot Oswald is not to consider anyone's
lip-flapping, but to examine the images of the Shooter and confirm, by
looking, that he was Jack Ruby. And when we try to do that, we fail. The
Shooter, in his physicality, conflicts with Jack Ruby. He is too short to
be Jack Ruby. His hair is not that of Jack Ruby. The back of his neck is
not the same as Ruby's. And the length of his neck is not the same as
Ruby's. And that establishes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he was
not Jack Ruby.

To deny what the eyes can see, now that is delusional.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Ralph's sure getting to the bottom of the mystery of Ruby's drawers, isn't
he?

Go ahead, Ralph. Tell us what you REALLY think about Jack Ruby's
underwear.

Did you ever in your life thought you'd be reading something like this in
2017?

[Jonny Mayer]

I wouldn't know Mark I don't have the right to speculate.

[Ralph Cinque]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 2:13:57 PM UTC-5, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> I wouldn't know Mark I don't have the right to speculate.

Speculations have to be tied to material facts and obtain their
plausibility from known facts. For example, if it was known that Ruby had
Crohn's disease or regional ileitis, and you wanted to speculate that he
shat his pants, tht would be one thing, since the issue was already one
the radar. But, to suggest it without anything preliminary is arbitrary
and whimsical. There is no basis to do it. There is no reason to go there.
How many murder suspects shit their pants upon being arrested? Do you know
of any?

I offer that to you, Jonny, in the hope that you will learn something.

[Amy Joyce]

Imo it's as a legitimate speculation as suggesting that Ruby had been
drugged or that the cops kept him stripped to keep him from running away.
I considered that he messed himself and so did a fellow from a show that
you were a guest on.

The fact is that Ruby had his clothes removed, remained stripped for hours
(except for few minute interim), and there are peculiar references to his
underwear. Considering Ruby had just been tackled and overpowered by a
half dozen men when he claimed not to know what was going on, it isn't
much of a stretch to wonder if he 'had the shit scared out of him'.

[Jonny Mayer]

Thanks Ralph.

[bpete1969]

Bookhout was "no less than 6 feet tall". His actual picture pretty much
shows that.

[Jonny Mayer]

Genuine thanks Amy

[Ralph Cinque]

I am going on the Real Deal tonight just to expose this elaborate fraud.
All will be shown.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/09/denis-morrissettes-1968-image-of-james.html

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 1:14:36 AM UTC+2, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> Genuine thanks Amy

No, Amy, I mean THANK YOU. Not the disingenuous 'genuine thanks' Mr.
Mayer so liberally throws about.

[berk...@yahoo.com]

•

Nice old vtg 1960s Mans Resistol Hat XXX Beaver Kitten Finish Size 7 1/2
Fedora

$42.99
$8.70 shipping
or Best Offer
12 watching
I can't get the pic to transfer.....but it is for sale now on e-bay and is
exactly like the fedora you were describing Amy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/11/2017 4:11 PM, berk...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:03:31 AM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 2:13:57 PM UTC-5, Jonny Mayer wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't know Mark I don't have the right to speculate.
>>>
>>> Speculations have to be tied to material facts and obtain their
>>> plausibility from known facts. For example, if it was known that Ruby had
>>> Crohn's disease or regional ileitis, and you wanted to speculate that he
>>> shat his pants, tht would be one thing, since the issue was already one
>>> the radar. But, to suggest it without anything preliminary is arbitrary
>>> and whimsical. There is no basis to do it. There is no reason to go there.
>>> How many murder suspects shit their pants upon being arrested? Do you know
>>> of any?
>>>
>>> I offer that to you, Jonny, in the hope that you will learn something.
>>
>> Imo it's as a legitimate speculation as suggesting that Ruby had been
>> drugged or that the cops kept him stripped to keep him from running away.
>> I considered that he messed himself and so did a fellow from a show that
>> you were a guest on.
>>
>> The fact is that Ruby had his clothes removed, remained stripped for hours
>> (except for few minute interim), and there are peculiar references to his
>> underwear. Considering Ruby had just been tackled and overpowered by a
>> half dozen men when he claimed not to know what was going on, it isn't
>> much of a stretch to wonder if he 'had the shit scared out of him'.

> ???

>
> Nice old vtg 1960s Mans Resistol Hat XXX Beaver Kitten Finish Size 7 1/2
> Fedora
>
> $42.99
> $8.70 shipping
> or Best Offer
> 12 watching
> I can't get the pic to transfer.....but it is for sale now on e-bay and is
> exactly like the fedora you were describing Amy.
>
>

You can't upload here. Go to Ebay and find the hat you like. What color
was it? Jack Ruby's Fedora looks gray to me. Don't be conned by a red hat
or charcoal. Prices keep changing and things sell quickly so might not
find it tomorrow.

Click on the picture then right click and select COPY LINK LOCATION. Then
when you write your message here you can PASTE that saved link:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I10AAOSwnOFZ4Y-b/s-l1600.jpg