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

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 a murder that was carried out on live
television all around the United States? Who, then, is going to "rub
out" the person who just eliminated Lee Oswald?

Ruby's stated motives for killing Oswald are somewhat muddled. I can't
deny that. He claimed he shot Oswald to spare First Lady Jacqueline
Kennedy the anguish of having to come back to Dallas for Oswald's
trial. But it has also been claimed that he killed Oswald to show the
world that Jewish people had "guts". (But, then too, it's quite
possible that those two reasons could, indeed, co-exist in tandem.)

Ruby was upset by the "Bernard Weissman" (Jewish) black-bordered anti-
Kennedy ad that appeared in a Dallas newspaper on the morning of
November 22, 1963.

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 in question
evidently had Weissman's name associated with it in some manner; or at
least Ruby thought Weissman or an anti-Jewish group might be
associated with it.)

Now, if Ruby had been creating a "file" of some kind to use against
Mr. Weissman or against some kind of anti-Jewish organization (via the
photos of the billboard that he took), and he later said he did it to
show everybody that "Jews had guts"....that certainly would indicate
premeditation on Ruby's behalf.

But the way he actually DID kill Oswald certainly does NOT imply any
premeditation whatsoever (e.g., leaving his dog in his car; the
Western Union trip; and not leaving his apartment until AFTER the
previously-announced time for Oswald's transfer from the City Jail

If Ruby woke up on Sunday morning with the idea in his head of killing
Lee Harvey 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 approximately 11:20 AM that Sunday?

Also -- Would Ruby have really taken his dog with him to a pre-planned
murder? 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 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 Harvey 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.



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?


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.

Now, when examining Karen Carlin's Warren Commission testimony,
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.

Do conspiracy buffs think that Karen Carlin was part of some kind of
"plot" or "ruse" or "Mob hit on Oswald" too?


What if Ruby had decided to just loan Carlin $25 out of his own
pocket, which certainly could conceivably have occurred. That scenario
would have meant no Western Union visit needed at all that Sunday.


If Jack hadn't made the decision to close his nightclubs for a few
days (a decision that he made two days before he killed Oswald), then
Karen Carlin would not have had a reason to have the cash "money
ordered" to her (she could have picked up the money 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

This "coordination", if it was a pre-arranged plan, would have to go
all the way down to Karen Carlin's penniless state on November 23rd
and 24th, which is CRITICAL to having Jack Ruby located in the right
place at the right time at 11:21 AM on Sunday, November 24th, 1963.


Another interesting piece of insight into Mr. Ruby's bereaved and very
emotional mindset during that November weekend can be found in the
following portion of Karen Carlin's Warren Commission testimony.....

KAREN CARLIN -- "I reached him [Ruby] at home [on Saturday night, Nov.
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."



1.) Jack Ruby was very upset about the murder of President Kennedy.

2.) Ruby was known to almost always carry a gun on him.

3.) Ruby was friendly with several members of the DPD.

4.) Ruby liked to be "where the action is".

5.) Ruby had a perfectly-reasonable and perfectly-innocent (i.e., "non-
conspiratorial") reason for being where he was (at the Western Union
office near the Dallas City Jail) just minutes before Lee Oswald was

6.) Ruby could practically come and go at his own leisure within the
Dallas police stations.

7.) 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

8.) At 11:21 AM on 11/24/63, Jack Ruby fired one shot from his Colt
Cobra revolver into the gut of Lee Harvey Oswald, resulting in
Oswald's death 106 minutes later.

The above eight items add up to the actions of a second "Lone Nut"
during that dark weekend back in November of 1963.



"But even though neither the CIA nor organized crime would have any
productive motive whatsoever to kill the President, let's make the
unwarranted assumption that they did....that they had such a motive,
and let's go on and discuss Ruby killing Oswald. ....

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

Another point HAS to be mentioned -- It is a well-known fact that
throughout the years organized crime has consistently and religiously
avoided killing public officials....if for no other reason, that they
have enough heat on them already, without significantly INCREASING
that heat by going after a public figure. They don't do it.

Going after the President of the United States -- of all people --
would be a suicidal act on their part....an act guaranteed to bring a
heat upon them not too much less than the surface of the sun. When the
Mob came to this country, they didn't leave their brains behind in

The whole notion of sophisticated groups -- like organized crime, U.S.
Intelligence -- getting Jack Ruby, of all people, to accomplish a job
which, if he talked, would prove fatal to their existence is just
downright laughable."

David Von Pein
March 2006
March 2007




Others who knew him have said of Ruby that he was no JFK fan.


So does that mean you think Jack Ruby was lying through his teeth and crying merely crocodile tears when he was captured on camera in January 1964 saying (with voice cracking): "I couldn't understand how a great man like that could be lost"?

The "great man" Ruby was referring to was, of course, John F. Kennedy.

Watch Ruby choke back tears as he says those words here:

Just an act, Garry Puffer? Or genuine emotion being exhibited for a person Jack Ruby obviously admired?

That one brief video clip of Ruby breaking down and crying over President Kennedy's death in front of the news media, two months after the assassination, just might be the single best piece of anti-conspiracy evidence there is when it comes to the subject of: Why did Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald?

Because if Mr. Ruby was merely putting on a show of fake emotion in the video clip presented above, then he should have won the Academy Award for Best Actor of 1964 instead of Rex Harrison.

David Von Pein
March 2014




I wonder how the conspiracy believers can manage to wedge a conspiracy into the known actions and movements of Jack Ruby on 11/24/63, even though none of Ruby's movements (and especially the TIME he left his apartment that morning) can possibly suggest to any reasonable person anything remotely close to a "pre-arranged rub out" of Lee Harvey Oswald?

In addition, let me ask this remarkably simple (but logical) question with respect to Jack Ruby and his alleged PRE-ARRANGED involvement in the murder of Oswald:

What type of incredible and overpowering strong-arming tactics would likely have been required to get a man to commit a pre-arranged murder in a crowded police station, with no reasonable expectation of ever being able to get away with the crime?

Did the Langley or Mob boys hypnotize poor Ruby to send him into "Manchurian Candidate" mode in the basement of Dallas City Hall? Or did they offer to pay him about $5 million or so to kill Oswald, even though Ruby KNEW he would never be getting out of jail for the rest of his life after plugging Oswald -- so what good is five million to a person doing life behind bars (or facing the death penalty himself)?

The way Jack Ruby DID murder Lee Harvey Oswald, from that always-overlooked perspective of "WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET A GUY TO DO THIS VIA A PRE-PLANNED PLOT?", is fairly decent circumstantial evidence that NO such "pre-arranged plot" was in existence at 11:21 AM CST on November 24th, 1963, at Dallas City Hall. Because if it WAS a pre-planned scheme, then Jack Ruby would have to be considered the biggest sucker of all-time.

David Von Pein
May 2014




Some "fairly decent circumstantial evidence" that Ruby set out to do this is:

1. He lied about the way he entered the building.


I think you're wrong about that. Here's why....


Excerpt from above article:


DATE: 2/4/2008
FROM: David Von Pein
TO: Gary Mack

Interesting theory....except for one HUGE problem -- Jack Ruby's
own version of how he entered the DPD basement/garage.

Via the scenario of a LONE-NUT named Ruby entering the basement
in the manner you suggest via the back entrance (and NOT a person
named Ruby who was AIDED by the cops or anyone else in order to get
into the basement), there would have been absolutely NO REASON under
the sun for Ruby to lie to the police afterward and say he entered by
way of the Main Street ramp vs. the way he would have actually
entered--via the back entrance.

Can you think of one good reason why a "LONE-NUT RUBY" would
want to lie about such a thing? I can't.

/s/ DVP



2. He was conveniently across the street at the right time sending money that didn't need to be sent (which leads one to infer that the money was just an excuse to get him across the street from the transfer).


Why do you say the money "didn't need to be sent"?

Are you saying that Karen Carlin's telephone call to Ruby at 10:19 AM on Sunday morning was pre-arranged in some manner and/or Ruby's trip downtown to the Western Union office was merely a convenient "excuse" for Ruby to use in order to avoid the notion of "premeditation"?

Any way this is sliced, it seems to me that the only way to work a pre-planned conspiracy into Jack Ruby's actions on 11/24/63 is to involve Mrs. Karen Bennett Carlin as one of THE prime conspirators and orchestrators of such an alleged plot.

I suppose some innovative CTers might want to think that Ruby was somehow FORCING Carlin to do the things she did and say the things she said (e.g., about needing money to pay her rent). But, you see, my feeble little CIA-sponsored mind doesn't work like that. I usually settle for the ordinary and most reasonable and likely explanations, versus settling for the extraordinary and almost-impossible-to-be-true scenarios that most conspiracy theorists have decided to embrace.


3. He had been hanging around Oswald as much as he could from Friday on...


Which means he passed up multiple golden chances to kill Oswald on Friday OR Saturday, didn't he?

I guess ol' Jack just wasn't quite ready to silence the patsy on Friday or Saturday, huh? He wanted to wait until Lee Harvey had ample time to spill any beans and confess to Captain Fritz something along these lines:

"I've been set up here! And Jack Ruby is one of the bastards setting me up! Where do you guys think I was headed when Officer Tippit got in my way? I was going to Ruby's place. And that vixen Ruth Paine is setting me up too! Check it out, Captain!"

I guess perhaps the conspirators who arranged the assassination thought it was better to let the patsy stay alive for 48 hours, even though the plotters have a PERFECT "inside" guy (with a gun!) named Ruby who can just walk within a few feet of the patsy anytime he wants to at Dallas City Hall on Friday AND Saturday.

But I guess Jack was more concerned about arranging for Ike Pappas that radio interview with Henry Wade and acting like an Israeli reporter than doing the job he was REALLY sent to City Hall to perform that weekend--rub out the patsy.


...and just how and why did he know enough to correct Henry Wade about the FPCC anyway?


Conspiracy buffs just love to use this silly argument concerning Ruby knowing about Lee Oswald's affiliation with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee....even though those same silly CTers have got to KNOW that it wasn't JUST Jack Ruby who corrected Henry Wade at Wade's midnight press conference on Friday night. Multiple OTHER people (reporters) also shouted out the correct name of the FPCC organization, as everyone can easily hear for themselves right here.

But are those OTHER reporters ever considered "suspects" with some kind of shady "inside knowledge" about the FPCC? Of course not, because those other people weren't Jack Ruby.

But the answer to this question is very simple (and is obviously the way Ruby himself found out about LHO's connection to the FPCC, because, as mentioned, there were other reporters at that same Wade conference who had this very same information to supply to Mr. Wade on Friday night) -- Ruby simply heard the FPCC information from someone at the DPD or on his car radio as he was driving around town on Friday afternoon or evening.

The info about Oswald belonging to the FPCC was broadcast by Frank McGee of NBC-TV just a few hours after the assassination. And if McGee had that information, you can bet every other radio and TV outlet had the same info and would have aired it very quickly.


4. Jack Ruby was a Mafia guy, and Bill Bonanno had no trouble seeing just what Ruby's role was.


It's funny though, that almost everybody who was fairly close to Jack Ruby tends to laugh at the suggestion that Ruby was "a Mafia guy" -- such as his brother Earl, his sisters, and many of his close acquaintances in Dallas, like Tony Zoppi, to name just one (see the videos featuring Zoppi HERE).

But the conspiracy book writers and people like Garry Puffer KNOW Ruby much much better than, say, his own brother. I find that idea most humorous.


5. He lied about his motivation and admitted this.


Ruby was practically a basket case and ready for a rubber room (almost) in the months and years that followed the murders of Kennedy and Oswald. Ruby seemed to change his story about his "motivation" quite often. I doubt if even he himself knew exactly what his "motive" was.

But one thing's for certain -- if he did have any clear-cut motive at all on the date of 11/24/63, it was certainly a motive that appeared almost instantaneously that Sunday morning in the police basement (or within just a minute or two of Ruby getting into that basement). Because Ruby barely had enough time to slip in there and do the job, let alone formulate any of the type of well-thought-out "Jews Have Guts" or "I Want To Spare Jackie A Trial" motives that have been attributed to Mr. Ruby over the years.

I really think, in a way, ALL of the alleged "motives" that Ruby utilized to explain his actions were probably, for the most part, true and accurate motives from Ruby's own point-of-view. But I also believe that those motives (or most of them) were things that Ruby only thought about in hindsight--AFTER he had done his murderous deed in the police basement on November 24th. But in Ruby's somewhat deteriorating mind as he sat in a jail cell, those motives WERE the truth.

David Von Pein
May 2014




During this pathetic flick ["Ruby And Oswald"], you note how many times Ruby is in tears? My God, talk about hyperbole!

The real life flesh and blood Jack Ruby was incapable of tears. Has anyone who really knew Jack come forward during the last 50 years claiming witness to him crying over anything?


Anyone who is silly enough to think Jack Ruby was "incapable of tears" should read the testimony and the statements of the witnesses (including KRLD newsman Wes Wise) who said they saw Jack in tears (or near tears) during the weekend of President Kennedy's assassination.

Here are a few examples....

BURT W. GRIFFIN -- "Tell us how this call went...you picked up the phone and there was Jack."

EILEEN KAMINSKY (Jack Ruby's sister) -- "That's right."

MR. GRIFFIN -- "What did he say and what did you say?"

MRS. KAMINSKY -- "He was crying to start off with. He said--he said, "Did you hear the awful news?" And I said, "Yes," and he said, "Oh, my God, oh, my God." He repeated it several times. He said, "What a black mark for Dallas...""


PHIL BURLESON (Eva Grant's attorney) -- "And at that time what was Jack's state as you recall it?"

EVA GRANT (Jack Ruby's sister) -- "Well, I was hysterical myself. He must have been crying, from his voice."


BURT GRIFFIN -- "Did he [Jack Ruby] tell you he called Eileen?"

MRS. GRANT -- "Yes, it seems to me he told me that."

MR. GRIFFIN -- "What did he say about that?"

MRS. GRANT -- "Now, let me explain something. You see, you are jumping the gun. When he was sitting on this chair and crying, I had made this remark--don't forget, I saw all this business on television already. This was now after 6. Maybe even a quarter of 7. He left shortly after 7."


LEON D. HUBERT -- "And then you told him [Jack Ruby] he ought to be glad he stopped, because if nobody was doing any business he might as well be closed, and that was about the subject of that conversation?"

RALPH PAUL -- "That was that conversation. That's the subject, and then he called me back and he told me he was over at his sister's house and his sister was crying and he was crying with her on account of the President, and that's the last I spoke to him."

MR. HUBERT -- "You could hear her crying or he told you?"

MR. PAUL -- "He just told me."

MR. HUBERT -- "What about his own crying, could you tell that he was crying, did he seem to be crying?"

MR. PAUL -- "No, he wasn't crying then--when he spoke to me."

MR. HUBERT -- "He wasn't crying then--in other words, what he was telling you was that he and his sister had been crying?"

MR. PAUL -- "Had been crying."


BURT GRIFFIN -- "Mr. Rubenstein, who did you hear about the crying from? Who told you about the crying?"

HYMAN RUBENSTEIN (Jack Ruby's brother) -- "Eva [Grant]. He made her sick. He came over there crying. .... Also from the rabbi in Dallas. He went to synagogue Saturday night, and he cried, and there is witnesses to prove it in the synagogue."

MR. GRIFFIN -- "Are there people in the synagogue who saw him?"

MR. RUBENSTEIN -- "People in the synagogue that saw him crying when they had a special, some services for the President and they saw him crying and the rabbi saw him crying."


GEORGE SENATOR (Jack Ruby's roommate) -- "And I had seen him cry...and he just got that funny look in his eyes. I don't know how to describe it. You call it a far-away look or a look of something. I don't now how to tear it down. But it wasn't a natural look. .... He was plenty disturbed. He was plenty disturbed. The man was crying. People have seen him, not only I, people have seen him crying. As a matter of fact, one of the kids in the club one night when we sat in a corner related he was crying and very, very disturbed."


[Also see Pages 248-249 of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" for more about Wes Wise and Jack Ruby.]

David Von Pein
November 2014




My book "Rendezvous in Dallas" is akin to a modern day "Death of the President", focusing on the assassination and the psychological impact (I am a psychiatrist) on our nature and how four men's lives intersected, resulting in JFK and LHO's deaths, the resurrection of LBJ's dormant political career, and Jack Ruby's fast track toward insanity.

I have my own theory about Ruby's psychiatric diagnosis (bipolar disorder with psychosis fueled by amphetamine diet pills) which played significant contributory roles in his impulsive killing of LHO.


Thank you, Jeff. That's an interesting theory regarding Ruby. Bipolar disorder plus the diet pills (which he was definitely known to take). You could very well be on the right track there. No one can know for certain, though, and the timing of the way things played themselves out in the police basement on 11/24/63 certainly indicates (to me) sheer happenstance and pure luck of being in just the right spot at the operative time to pull that trigger.

But from a MENTAL standpoint, in conjunction with the "happenstance", your theory regarding Ruby can still make sense. But I take it, then, Jeff, that you don't buy into Ruby's defense of him suffering from Psychomotor Epilepsy at the time of the shooting, is that right? Or could that explanation, too, still be considered, on top of the Bipolar theory?


I think the Psychomotor (or Temporal) Epilepsy defense was BS. The patients I've observed and read about with that disorder tend to stare off into space and may engage in simple repetitive behaviors, like smacking their lips or blinking repeatedly (what are referred to as automatic behaviors). Pulling a pistol from your trousers pocket, lunging from a crowd, and shooting someone is too complex for an automatic behavior.

I think [Ruby defense lawyer Melvin] Belli thought he could use complex medical terminology and his renowned "demonstrative evidence" to fool what he thought would be an unsophisticated (dare I say, redneck) jury in Dallas. It is interesting that none of Belli's experts who opined that Ruby suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy were willing to state under oath that he was suffering a "fugue" episode at the time he shot LHO.

If you look at Ruby's history, his mother was mentally ill (and had to be institutionalized) and one of his brothers (Sam or Earl) had to be hospitalized at one point for psychiatric reasons. There is a strong genetic component to mood disorders. Jack Ruby had at least one severe depressive episode after a business failure, where he took to the bed and was non-functional for several weeks with severe depression.

His life appears to be consistent with rapid cycling bipolar disorder: a mercurial temper, decreased need for sleep, often rapid, pressured, and disjointed speech, periods of grandiosity, impulsiveness, inability to manage money, and intrusiveness. And not all manic or mixed mood episodes are euphoric--they can be extremely agitated and angry. Diet pills elevate brain dopamine levels and can markedly worsen mood swings, which makes one a ticking time bomb.

He just so happened (by 60 seconds or less) to be in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at [the] wrong time, depending on how you look at it) to change history. Just the fact that he walked down the Main Street ramp when Roy Vaughn was checking traffic for the "wrong way" car's exit is impulsive and rather grandiose (most people would not have taken that as an invitation to enter the basement).

I hope I didn't bore you with my small essay!



Thanks, Jeff, for the "small essay". I wasn't bored at all. It was quite interesting, in fact. Thank you.

As an addendum to the subject of "diet pills" and what effect such pills can possibly have on a person's behavior, I offer up the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History":

[Quote On:]

"Some of Ruby’s extreme agitation on Sunday morning [November 24, 1963] is due to the Preludin he’s been taking, a diet pill he believed to be harmless, but, like most prescription appetite suppressants, is basically speed, a synthetic form of Dexedrine which makes some users not only alert, but confused, anxious, and even paranoid. Ruby would later conjecture to the Warren Commission that the Preludin was an added stimulus to his emotions at the time (5 H 199).

And Ruby took the witness stand at a hearing in Dallas on May 24, 1965, to determine if his attorney, Joe Tonahill, should remain on the case for Ruby’s appeal and, per the New York Times, “said that after getting up the day he killed Oswald he took 30 antibiotic pills and some other pills that ‘stimulate you and make you want to do positive things’” (New York Times, May 25, 1965, p.21)."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 103 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein
July 2-3, 2015






A Biography Of Jack Ruby

Jack Ruby Timeline

Jack Ruby's Warren Commission Testimony -- Part 1

Jack Ruby's Warren Commission Testimony -- Part 2

Warren Report: Possible Conspiracy Involving Jack Ruby