How did Ruby Know?

[drawen...@gmail.com]

I was reading the Wikipeadia article about Jack ruby and something bothers
me a lot. I apologize if this has already been addressed but all the
searches I've donne have produced no results.

From WWikipedia:

"District Attorney Henry Wade briefed reporters at the press conference
telling them that Lee Oswald was a member of the anti-Castro Free Cuba
Committee. Ruby was one of several people there who spoke up to correct
Wade, saying: "Henry, that's the Fair Play for Cuba Committee," a
pro-Castro organization."

Since both groups were active at that time how did Ruby know the correct
group Oswald was a member of?

[bigdog]

The correct name had been brought up earlier when Ruby was present.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-383.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-ruby.html

[Ralph Cinque]

How do you know Ruby didn't it from having been with Oswald and from being
involved in the plot to frame him?

[David Von Pein]

Also keep in mind that other people (reporters) besides just Ruby shouted
out the name "FPCC" at the same time Ruby did during Wade's press
conference [below]. So why don't CTers ask "Where did those OTHER people
get their FPCC info?"....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/08/henry-wade-press-conference-11-22-63.html

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 9:42:43 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> How do you know Ruby didn't it from having been with Oswald and from being
> involved in the plot to frame him?

We have overwhelming evidence Oswald was guilty. You don't need to frame a
guilty man. We have no credible evidence Oswald and Ruby knew each other
prior to the assassination. Got any? We do have credible evidence that the
correct name of the organization Oswald belonged to had been brought up
earlier.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/17/2014 10:35 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Also keep in mind that other people (reporters) besides just Ruby shouted
> out the name "FPCC" at the same time Ruby did during Wade's press
> conference [below]. So why don't CTers ask "Where did those OTHER people
> get their FPCC info?"....
>

Because we know. The CIA. Are you saying Ruby got his information from
the CIA? Any proof of that?

> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/08/henry-wade-press-conference-11-22-63.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/17/2014 1:49 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 9:42:43 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> How do you know Ruby didn't it from having been with Oswald and from being
>> involved in the plot to frame him?
>
> We have overwhelming evidence Oswald was guilty. You don't need to frame a
> guilty man. We have no credible evidence Oswald and Ruby knew each other

Of course you need to frame a guilty man. Where ya been. Every cop knew
instantly tha OJ Simpson killed his wife. But they had no evidence, so
they had to plant blood evidence to help convict him. Up here in Boston we
had a drug squad that routinely planted evidence on known drug dealers
because those drug dealers had been so careful to hide their drugs that
the cases were getting dismissed.

> prior to the assassination. Got any? We do have credible evidence that the

Ok, only stories from witnesses. We don't have any proof in the form of
a marriage certificate.

> correct name of the organization Oswald belonged to had been brought up
> earlier.
>

Yeah, one second earlier. BFD.

>

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Every cop knew instantly that OJ Simpson killed his wife.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just exactly WHY did those cops know Simpson was guilty? Was it just a
gut feeling they all had?

And you actually believe the cops would start planting evidence (i.e., the
bloody glove) on Simpson's estate at a time when they could not possibly
know if he had a foolproof alibi?

What if it turned out Simpson was in another state at the time of the
murders? That would have been a nice sticky wicket for Fuhrman and
Company, wouldn't it?

To segue this into a "JFK" topic, I like to ask CTers this question
occasionally (which no CTer can reasonably answer without resorting to the
old "The Cops Were Crooked" standby).....

Did the Dallas Police normally have a habit of officially charging
suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against that
suspect at all? (And many CTers seem to think the police had NO REAL
EVIDENCE at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff that all
reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)

But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was
planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for
Oswald's *probable* guilt based on *just* the fact that the police
officially charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes
being committed. That fact *alone* is strong circumstantial evidence of
Oswald's guilt.

In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be
confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that
important fact mean just a *little* something to the conspiracy theorists
of the world?

[TED ROSSLEY]

You know nothing about OJ Simpson. The LAPD didn't plant anything.One
major problem was the jury. The jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper,
but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was
sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were
Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a
negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was
less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/19/2014 2:26 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Every cop knew instantly that OJ Simpson killed his wife.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And just exactly WHY did those cops know Simpson was guilty? Was it just a
> gut feeling they all had?
>

Because they weere very experienced cops and in their experience they know
that in most cases like that it is the husband who killed he wife.
Especially with a knife. Very upfront and personal. Some drug gang would
shoot via drive by.

> And you actually believe the cops would start planting evidence (i.e., the
> bloody glove) on Simpson's estate at a time when they could not possibly
> know if he had a foolproof alibi?
>

Of course. There is no such thing as a perfect alibi when the cops are
involved.

> What if it turned out Simpson was in another state at the time of the
> murders? That would have been a nice sticky wicket for Fuhrman and
> Company, wouldn't it?
>

What if he was on a plane at the time, silly? There's his airtight
alibi. But they couldn't be sure exactly when the victims were killed.
One hour's difference can be the difference between no alibi and a
perfect alibi.

> To segue this into a "JFK" topic, I like to ask CTers this question
> occasionally (which no CTer can reasonably answer without resorting to the
> old "The Cops Were Crooked" standby).....
>
> Did the Dallas Police normally have a habit of officially charging
> suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against that
> suspect at all? (And many CTers seem to think the police had NO REAL
> EVIDENCE at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff that all
> reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)
>

Don't know about the charging, but they had a track record of beating
confessions out of innocent people and framing people, especially blacks.
That's why the press demanded to SEE Oswald because they wanted to hear
his side of the story before the cops beat him to death.

> But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was
> planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for

I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted. Got any
quotes? Could the LA cops plant EVERYTHING to frame OJ? Methinks thou
doth protest too much.

> Oswald's *probable* guilt based on *just* the fact that the police
> officially charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes
> being committed. That fact *alone* is strong circumstantial evidence of
> Oswald's guilt.
>

OK then, the mere fact that William Alexander wanted to charge Oswald with
conspiray therefore it must be a conspiracy. In your Pollyanna world the
cops would never make false charges against anyone. No need for a trial.
Once the cops charge someone just lynch him.

> In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be
> confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that
> important fact mean just a *little* something to the conspiracy theorists
> of the world?
>

The cops were still missing some evidence which was later provided by
the FBI.

[TED ROSSLEY]

Marsh, do you think that the CIA planted O J Simpson's bloody glove?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually ALL Internet
conspiracy believers that I have encountered think that every single scrap
of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner,
including each of the following items:

1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.

4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on
it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).

5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.

7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder
or J.D. Tippit's slaying -- from Howard Brennan, to Helen Markham, to
Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to William Scoggins,
etc., etc.

8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed
President Kennedy.

9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver
#V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.

11. The Walker bullet (CE573). .... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TIN59nj-vbI/AAAAAAAAFQI/orGtgLLWo-E/s1600/CE573+&+CE399+Comparison.jpg

12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his
pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some
conspiracists, are phony too. Some CTers say the cops PLANTED those five
bullets on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down
"Crazy Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled down in their
efforts to exonerate a guilty double-murderer.

About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists MIGHT
say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the
fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside
the Sniper's Nest.

But, naturally, the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers would never in a million
years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor Lee
Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN ALSO MUST HAVE HANDLED (and I guess the "real"
Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
boxes on November 22, 1963).

And just because shells from OSWALD'S gun were found right there in the
Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
planted in the Book Depository too.

Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
that's pretty much the ONLY reason.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/21/2014 9:39 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually ALL Internet
> conspiracy believers that I have encountered think that every single scrap
> of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner,
> including each of the following items:
>

No, you are conflating. You can find 10 people that believe half of
those and another 10 who believe the other half. But then you claim that
20 believe all of them.

Now hold on there one damn minute. You don't read the kook boards. You
can find people there who claim those aren't real.

You can find a kook for every crazy theory. Even UFOs and aliens.

> But, naturally, the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers would never in a million
> years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor Lee
> Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his
> prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the
> PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN ALSO MUST HAVE HANDLED (and I guess the "real"
> Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those
> boxes on November 22, 1963).
>

Someone else must have also handled them, including the floor laying crew
and the cops when they kept rearranging the boxes. SHOW me THEIR
fingerprints on those boxes. Otherwise you have nothing but hot air. Who
left the unidentified prints?

> And just because shells from OSWALD'S gun were found right there in the
> Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even
> a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S
> shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing
> something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all
> good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were
> planted in the Book Depository too.
>

The fact that they were planted WHERE they were found does not mean that
they weren't fired during the assassination.

> Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have
> said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter,
> that's pretty much the ONLY reason.
>

No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.

> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

...officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all
conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" COULD have
possibly been done is enough to convince those CTers (particularly
"Internet CTers") that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Oswald WAS,
in fact, tampered with.

Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, NO defendant who was on trial for
any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense
attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence COULD have
conceivably been tampered with.

And how can the jury possibly KNOW with 100% certainty if any (or all) of
the evidence really had been tampered with? They can't possibly KNOW such
a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every last piece
of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of custody"
trail be faked too? Obviously, it COULD be faked.

Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom
due to the mere *possibility* of such underhanded shenanigans on the part
of the authorities.

For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth,
all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.

But the ALLEGATION of evidence-tampering is a far cry from PROVING that
the evidence really was tampered with. Isn't it, Tony?

And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth
(including the all-knowing W. Anthony Marsh) possess that would verify and
prove that even ONE piece of evidence in the JFK murder case was, in fact,
"tampered with" by any of the authorities?

I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is ---
There is no such PROOF. And there never has been.

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/23/2014 10:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> ...officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all
> conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" COULD have
> possibly been done is enough to convince those CTers (particularly
> "Internet CTers") that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Oswald WAS,
> in fact, tampered with.
>

It's not an escape hatch. It's an impediment to discovering the truth.
3 seconds examining the brain would confirm that the bullet did not come
from behind.

> Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, NO defendant who was on trial for
> any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense
> attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence COULD have
> conceivably been tampered with.
>

Ever hear of the OJ Simpson trial?
Your motto is: Better that 100 innocent men be executed than one guilty
man go free.

> And how can the jury possibly KNOW with 100% certainty if any (or all) of
> the evidence really had been tampered with? They can't possibly KNOW such

How can you know? You don't even know the evidence.

> a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every last piece
> of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of custody"
> trail be faked too? Obviously, it COULD be faked.
>
> Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom
> due to the mere *possibility* of such underhanded shenanigans on the part
> of the authorities.
>

Did I ever cite mere possibility? No. You use straw man arguments to
avoid the truth.

> For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth,
> all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.
>

The sham was created by prosecutorial misconduct and tampering with
evidence.

> But the ALLEGATION of evidence-tampering is a far cry from PROVING that
> the evidence really was tampered with. Isn't it, Tony?
>

So when I break through the cover-up and prove tampering with evidence
you just shrug your shoulders and say stuff happens.

> And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth
> (including the all-knowing W. Anthony Marsh) possess that would verify and
> prove that even ONE piece of evidence in the JFK murder case was, in fact,
> "tampered with" by any of the authorities?
>

The memo.

> I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is ---
> There is no such PROOF. And there never has been.
>

You refuse to look at the evidence.
The evidence says one thing. The government says another.
You believe the government instead of the evidence.

> http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>