(PART 969)


David posts a link to his blog because he doesn't have time to type a response.

I am unclear how [the] video [at the webpage linked above] answers my question [asked in this post].


It doesn't. I just posted the "On Trial" Kantor link as a free "FYI" public service from my CIA HQ here in Mooresville, Indiana USA (zip code 46158-7730). (You're welcome.)

And here's an additional "FYI" link regarding Jack Ruby that I posted on my site just today. It includes a very interesting conversation I had with Dr. Jeffrey K. Smith, author of "Rendezvous In Dallas".


Wilma May Tice - Ruby witness, Parkland witness....

Tice told the WC she had seen Ruby at Parkland Hospital at the time JFK's death was announced. She said, "If it wasn't him, it was his twin brother."

This corroborates reporter Seth Kantor's testimony.


I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Jack Ruby had been at Parkland shortly after JFK was shot. Being a person who went where the action was known to be, I find it perfectly reasonable and believable that Ruby went out to Parkland on November 22.

I cannot, however, see why Ruby would deny going to Parkland that day. CTers, however, think there was a really good reason for Ruby to deny going there---because he planted the stretcher bullet. That accusation is pure speculation, of course, and it flies in the face of logic at the time that any such alleged "planting" would have occurred.

Plus, amid a CTer's theory that has Ruby actually planting Bullet CE399 from Oswald's rifle (and I have heard CTers suggest this very possibility, including Oliver Stone), then the question arises....

How did Jack Ruby get ahold of a bullet fired from Lee Oswald's Carcano rifle PRIOR to 2:00 PM CST on November 22?

That Jack Ruby was sure one busy Dallas nightclub owner around the time of JFK's murder, wasn't he? Apparently he stole Oswald's rifle (which necessitated breaking into Ruth Paine's garage--undetected by anyone, of course) .... he plants a bullet inside Parkland Hospital .... he was telephoning all kinds of his "Mobster" pals in the days leading up to the assassination (as part of the assassination "plot", no doubt) .... he also (per Julia Mercer) was seen in a pick-up truck on Elm Street as somebody took a "rifle" out of the back of the truck Ruby was driving .... and Ruby was also running around on the Grassy Knoll immediately after JFK was shot (per Jean Hill) .... he was also seen in front of the Book Depository wearing sunglasses (per many other conspiracy theorists) .... and then, according to nearly every CTer on the planet, the same Mr. Ruby was "assigned" the task of rubbing out Patsy Oswald in the basement of City Hall on Sunday, November 24th.

And now it would appear as if Ruby was riding in the Presidential limousine itself during the motorcade through Dallas --- Click Here.

So, as we can see, a lot of people seemed to resemble Jack Ruby. (Just like a lot of people also bore a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald too -- e.g., Billy Lovelady, Larry Crafard, Donald House, and "Rambler Man" [i.e., the man seen getting into the Rambler by Roger Craig on November 22].)


A lot of people also looked like JFK. Maybe someone else was shot a few times on Elm Street.


Who else "looked like JFK"? I can think of no one.

And if you think J.D. Tippit was a JFK look-alike, you must be off your rocker. Tippit doesn't look a thing like Kennedy.


David, I don't recall why Ruby so badly wanted to be moved to Washington, D.C. While it may have provided nothing, I'd really rather they had done it, just to not leave that question.


Yes, that would have been nice. But it was the opinion of J. Lee Rankin (and others) of the Warren Commission that Ruby's request to go to Washington was merely because he wanted to take a trip to Washington and meet with President Johnson himself. In other words, the Commission was of the opinion that the TRIP ITSELF was the overriding factor in Ruby's insisting that he go to Washington. And Rankin says that very thing in his HSCA testimony in 1978....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "We were all convinced that Ruby was interested in a trip to Washington rather than how much he could enlighten the Commission. It seemed quite apparent when you observed him and his approach to the whole suggestion. .... I thought that he was quite enamored with the idea of coming to Washington and he even wanted to see the President. It was easy to imagine what that would all develop into if you got started on it."

An audio excerpt of the above testimony by Rankin can be heard HERE.

It is also pretty clear when reading Jack Ruby's Warren Commission testimony that the reason that he wanted to go to Washington had absolutely NOTHING to do with spilling his guts about a conspiracy. Just the opposite, in fact. Let's have a look:

JACK RUBY -- "Is there any way of you getting me to Washington?"

EARL WARREN -- "I don't know of any. I will be glad to talk to your counsel about what the situation is, Mr. Ruby, when we get an opportunity to talk."

JACK RUBY -- "I don't think I will get a fair representation with my counsel, Joe Tonahill. I don't think so. I would like to request that I go to Washington and you take all the tests that I have to take. It is very important."

JOE TONAHILL -- "Jack, will you tell him why you don't think you will get a fair representation?"

JACK RUBY -- "Because I have been over this for the longest time to get the lie detector test. Somebody has been holding it back from me."


JACK RUBY -- "You have a lost cause, Earl Warren. You don't stand a chance. They feel about you like they do about me, Chief Justice Warren. I shouldn't hurt your feelings in telling you that."

EARL WARREN -- "That won't hurt my feelings, because I have had some evidence of the feeling that some people have concerning me."

JACK RUBY -- "But you are the only one that can save me. I think you can."


JACK RUBY -- "But by delaying minutes, you lose the chance. And all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all. There was no conspiracy. But by you telling them what you are going to do and how you are going to do it is too late as of this moment."

EARL WARREN -- "You take my word for it and the word of Representative Ford, that we will do this thing at the earliest possible moment, and that it will be done in time. It will be done in time."

JACK RUBY -- "Well, you won't ever see me again, I tell you that. And I have lost my family."


JACK RUBY -- "No, no; you don't believe me, do you?"

EARL WARREN -- "To be frank with you, I believe that you are not stating now what is the fact. I don't say you don't believe it, but I believe that I will be able to see you again and that we will be able to take this test that you are speaking of. Well, I think we have tired Mr. Ruby. We have had him here for close to 4 hours now, and I am sure our reporter must be equally tired, but we appreciate your patience and your willingness to testify in this manner for us."

JACK RUBY -- "All I want to do is tell the truth, and the only way you can know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only way you can know it."

EARL WARREN -- "That we will do for you."


This sure doesn't sound like a man who is in desperate need of getting to Washington to spill the beans about some conspiracy to kill the President---

"There was no conspiracy. .... All I want to do is tell the truth, and the only way you can know it is by the polygraph, as that is the only way you can know it." -- Jack Ruby; June 7, 1964


The fact that the lie detector testing was conducted so dishonestly argues against this.


And you think Ruby knew in advance that his lie detector test would be conducted "dishonestly"?

That's quite an assumption, Mr. Holmes. Anything to back that up?

And if Ruby had thought (as he no doubt did at the time) that the polygraph test that he was practically BEGGING Chief Justice Warren to give him would be a fair and honest test that would probably detect whether he was lying or not, then does any reasonable person really believe that Ruby would have been so anxious to take such a lie detector test if he was REALLY involved in a conspiracy?

That's crazy talk.


You're a gutless dishonest liar, Davey.

You're desperately trying to change the topic of what the Warren Commission staff thought - to what Ruby thought... even though what Ruby thought isn't the issue at all.


You're nuts, Holmes. My comment about Ruby was a perfectly reasonable one (re: Ruby assuming the polygraph would be an HONEST test and not a "dishonest" one as you said). And that's the key, IMO. Ruby WANTING to take a polygraph test that he had every reason to think would be an honest and fair test is the KEY, in my view, to knowing that Ruby was not part of any conspiracy.

And, btw, I somewhat agree with you about Ruby's lie detector test being rather "dishonest". It was one weird way to conduct a polygraph, and I've said that many times before today....

"I agree with Jimbo [DiEugenio] that Jack Ruby's polygraph exam was a joke. That was one weird lie detector test, no doubt about it, with even Ruby HIMSELF seemingly having an input as to the questions he would be asked. But DiEugenio will always sidestep the key issue with regard to Ruby's polygraph---i.e., the fact Ruby BEGGED the Warren Commission to give him the test. And does anybody really believe the only reason Ruby begged Earl Warren to give him the test is because Ruby knew it was going to be "rigged"? That's stretching things a bit--even for rabid conspiracy-happy clowns like James DiEugenio." -- DVP; April 20, 2015


"I will say that I agree with Jim DiEugenio about one thing -- the polygraph (or lie detector) test that was given to Jack Ruby by Mr. Bell Herndon of the FBI should probably be tossed out the window. It was conducted in such a strange and unorthodox manner that it has virtually no value, IMO. It even seemed as if Ruby HIMSELF was controlling, to some extent, the way some of the questions were going to be phrased during the polygraph test. Unbelievable! But the key point regarding the polygraph subject, in my opinion, is this: RUBY WANTED TO TAKE THE LIE DETECTOR TEST. In fact, he practically BEGGED the Warren Commission to let him take the test. And that fact certainly should be considered and weighed when we look at the whole topic of Jack Ruby and potential conspiracy." -- DVP; March 2012



Ruby said very different things at different times. Quoting just one selection unfortunately gives a limited picture.

For example, as one site summarizes, other things he said did indeed suggest 'wanting to spill the beans'. Either way, it [taking Ruby to Washington] seems a small price they could have paid to resolve the question.

While in prison, Ruby told a psychiatrist that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed." He said he had been "framed into killing Oswald..." "They got what they wanted on me." He never did say who "they" were.

In early June 1963, a number of Chicago mobsters met in Dallas at Ruby's nightclub.

After killing Oswald, Ruby said "The only thing I can say is -- everything pertaining to what's happened has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred--my motive. In other words, I am the only person in the background to know the truth pertaining to everything relating to my circumstances."

When asked by the interviewer if he thought the truth would ever come out, Ruby replied, "No. Because unfortunately these people, who have so much to gain and have such an ulterior motive to put me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world."

While other things Ruby said contradicted the above, they are very odd statements for someone who simply acted on an urge. Usually someone who had just acted on an urge would seem more likely to just stick to that. The fact Ruby had credible connections to the mob adds to the mystery of his claims. If an average person said those things, it'd be something else.

It also just doesn't make sense why a trip to Washington would be all that attractive, travelling as a prisoner. He wasn't going out for a nice dinner. My point is, his statements--looked at together--make little sense, but are mysterious. It is too bad, out of all our surveillance of mob bosses, I don't recall seeing them discuss Ruby one way or another.

Since the assassination and Ruby were obviously major topics for the mob and Ruby had such mob ties, you'd think they'd have had some conversations along the lines of discussing his rash action, and speculating whether the authorities might try to find a link to them. Wiretaps with comments like those would add some support to dispelling their involvement.


Good post, Craig.

And you're right about Ruby saying different things at different times. I was focusing on his "I want to go to Washington" statement in my previous post, but, yes, his later statements (when his mind was very likely becoming increasingly muddled and diseased) certainly sound like a man who is hiding some deep, dark secret.

But in June 1964, just seven months after he shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby was begging Chief Justice Earl Warren to take him to Washington in order to take a polygraph test that could have conceivably shown him up to be a bald-faced liar about many things connected with the deaths of both President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald had Ruby really been involved in such conspiratorial conduct in November of 1963.

And would Ruby have WANTED to put himself on the hot seat like that if he KNEW he was going to have to lie through his teeth several times when answering questions that he HAD to know would be included in such a lie detector test? Questions such as:

"Were you, Mr. Ruby, involved in any way in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?"


"Were you hired by anyone to kill Lee Harvey Oswald?"


"Did anyone assist you, in any manner, in gaining access to the basement of Dallas police headquarters on November 24, 1963?"

Now, I suppose that some of the conspiracy theorists can say that I'm all wet and that Ruby really wanted to go to Washington in order to tell the Warren Commission that he HAD been involved in a conspiracy and that he DID have assistance in getting into the police basement. (Of course, WHY Ruby couldn't simply tell the Commission those things while he was IN DALLAS is anyone's guess. And WHY Ruby thought that the ONLY place on Earth he could be given a lie detector test was IN WASHINGTON D.C. is also anyone's guess. But Mr. Ruby seemed to have those strange beliefs in his head when he testified in front of the Commission in June of 1964. ~big ol' shrug~)

But those same conspiracy theorists are going to have to explain why Ruby said the following words in the very same WC session in June of '64 when he was begging Earl Warren to give him a polygraph examination --- "There was no conspiracy."



Given that you agree that Ruby's lie detector test was rigged to let him pass, did you ever take the next (obvious) step and ask "Why?"

Or do the implications of an honest answer frighten you?


But HOW could Ruby have known IN ADVANCE about the weird manner in which his polygraph test would be conducted?

Are you suggesting that there was some sort of covert meeting between the Warren Commission and Jack Ruby before the official "on the record" session began on June 7, 1964? And that during this meeting, the Commission asked Ruby to please BEG to take a lie detector test? And that Ruby agreed to do that because the Commission assured him, off the record, that the test will be rigged so that Ruby could not possibly flunk it?

Without some kind of sinister meeting taking place between the Commission and Jack Ruby along the lines indicated above, I can't see where CTers can go with their arguments regarding Ruby's polygraph (even if the examination was an unorthodox one).

David Von Pein
July 3, 2015