Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Death of Jack Ruby


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

Greg, Somwhere it was mentioned that Ruby could also have been over exposed to X-ray radiation, during his early exams. Just wonder if ,or how quickly that could cause cancer.

Also, I have Ruby's Autopsy somewhere in mountanous stacks of doc's, that are moving me out of house and home. If I recall correctly Ruby was btw 5'-8''and 9''.

I was sure I have the Lattimer book, but cannot find it. In 1999, I scanned the

attached image from it.

I do not remember the Lattimer book having a Ruby autopsy; I googled

JACK RUBY AUTOPSY REPORT today, and the only thing I found was that

there was no autopsy. Texas does not require an autopsy when a patient

dies in a hospital under a doctor's care and there is no suspicion of foul

play.

Jack

After much additional searching, I located Ruby's DPD fingerprint card,

which lists his height at 5'8 1/2" and his weight at 179. Guess that makes

it "official". (The fingerprint card is on page 210 of Groden's TSFLHO.)

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greg, Somwhere it was mentioned that Ruby could also have been over exposed to X-ray radiation, during his early exams. Just wonder if ,or how quickly that could cause cancer.

Also, I have Ruby's Autopsy somewhere in mountanous stacks of doc's, that are moving me out of house and home. If I recall correctly Ruby was btw 5'-8''and 9''.

- WO

Bill, the only claims about x-ray radiation and Ruby I'm aware of come from Judyth Baker. Her claim was, I think, that over-exposure was used to knock out his immune system in readiness for cancer cell injections.

Looks like your memory was better than mine on the height. I thought it was in 5'7" to 5'8" range.

I was sure I have the Lattimer book, but cannot find it. In 1999, I scanned the attached image from it.

I do not remember the Lattimer book having a Ruby autopsy; I googled JACK RUBY AUTOPSY REPORT today, and the only thing I found was that there was no autopsy. Texas does not require an autopsy when a patient

dies in a hospital under a doctor's care and there is no suspicion of foul play.

- JW

Just shows, Jack, you can't believe everything you read on the web. Bill has a copy of it, and it's reproduced on pages 340 to 343 of Lattimer's book. As for no suspicion (which you seem to believe because you thought no autopsy was done) I'd have to disagree. The FBI "debunked" the suspicion it was "articiially induced" in a memo dated 3.17.67.

Thanks for taking the trouble to locate the correct height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, Somwhere it was mentioned that Ruby could also have been over exposed to X-ray radiation, during his early exams. Just wonder if ,or how quickly that could cause cancer.

Also, I have Ruby's Autopsy somewhere in mountanous stacks of doc's, that are moving me out of house and home. If I recall correctly Ruby was btw 5'-8''and 9''.

- WO

Bill, the only claims about x-ray radiation and Ruby I'm aware of come from Judyth Baker. Her claim was, I think, that over-exposure was used to knock out his immune system in readiness for cancer cell injections.

Looks like your memory was better than mine on the height. I thought it was in 5'7" to 5'8" range.

I was sure I have the Lattimer book, but cannot find it. In 1999, I scanned the attached image from it.

I do not remember the Lattimer book having a Ruby autopsy; I googled JACK RUBY AUTOPSY REPORT today, and the only thing I found was that there was no autopsy. Texas does not require an autopsy when a patient

dies in a hospital under a doctor's care and there is no suspicion of foul play.

- JW

Just shows, Jack, you can't believe everything you read on the web. Bill has a copy of it, and it's reproduced on pages 340 to 343 of Lattimer's book. As for no suspicion (which you seem to believe because you thought no autopsy was done) I'd have to disagree. The FBI "debunked" the suspicion it was "articiially induced" in a memo dated 3.17.67.

Thanks for taking the trouble to locate the correct height.

I kept looking and finally found my Lattimer book, right under my nose. You are correct

that he gives the complete text of the Ruby autopsy, and it does indeed confirm the 5' 8.5"

height.

Like the LHO autopsy, the very thorough Ruby autopsy was done by Dr. Earl Rose at

Parkland Hospital.

By law, the JFK autopsy should ALSO have been performed by Rose before the body

left Dallas. If it had been, we would not still be discussing the facts of the shooting.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to compare the Jack Ruby case with that of William Casey, who was likely to tell the HSCI what he knew about what he knew about the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Casey was due to appear before the HSCI on 16th December. The day before, CIA physician, Dr. Arvel Tharp went to visit Casey in his office. According to Tharp, while he was being examined, Casey suffered a seizure. He was taken to Georgetown University Hospital and was not able to appear before the HSCI. Tharp told Casey he had a brain tumor and that he would have to endure an operation. Casey was not keen and asked if he could have radio therapy instead. However, Tharp was insistent that he needed surgery.

Casey entered the operating room on 18th December. The tumor was removed but during the operation, brain cells were damaged and Casey lost his ability to speak. As his biographer, Joseph E. Persico, points out (The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey): "one school of rumors ran, the CIA or the NSC or the White House had arranged to have a piece of the brain removed from the man who knew the secrets".

Robert Gates now became acting director of the CIA. He claimed that he was not involved in the Iran-Contra operation. As Lawrence E. Walsh pointed out in Iran-Contra: The Final Report (1993): "Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of proof there is Ruby's own statements and Judyth Baker's background knowledge, plus the fact that he contracted cancer which proved fatal within a month from diagnosis. This is uncommon.
Not hardly. Happens quite frequently ... or at least, more often than most people might expect. Even still, "uncommon" does not equate with "strange" or "impossible."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to compare the Jack Ruby case with that of William Casey, who was likely to tell the HSCI what he knew about what he knew about the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Casey was due to appear before the HSCI on 16th December. The day before, CIA physician, Dr. Arvel Tharp went to visit Casey in his office. According to Tharp, while he was being examined, Casey suffered a seizure. He was taken to Georgetown University Hospital and was not able to appear before the HSCI. Tharp told Casey he had a brain tumor and that he would have to endure an operation. Casey was not keen and asked if he could have radio therapy instead. However, Tharp was insistent that he needed surgery.

Casey entered the operating room on 18th December. The tumor was removed but during the operation, brain cells were damaged and Casey lost his ability to speak. As his biographer, Joseph E. Persico, points out (The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey): "one school of rumors ran, the CIA or the NSC or the White House had arranged to have a piece of the brain removed from the man who knew the secrets".

Robert Gates now became acting director of the CIA. He claimed that he was not involved in the Iran-Contra operation. As Lawrence E. Walsh pointed out in Iran-Contra: The Final Report (1993): "Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October."

This is astounding information John. Is there a book or other source you recommended for further research?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of proof there is Ruby's own statements and Judyth Baker's background knowledge, plus the fact that he contracted cancer which proved fatal within a month from diagnosis. This is uncommon.
Not hardly. Happens quite frequently ... or at least, more often than most people might expect. Even still, "uncommon" does not equate with "strange" or "impossible."

In the category of other allegations dept, Joan Mellen asserted in her book that "Ruby had cancer as far back as 1962 [rectal] no comment; The following is from pg 432-33 of Jim Marr's Crossfire,

"Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox told researchers in 1982: We had a phony doctor come in to [the Dallas County Jail] from Chicago, just as phony and as queer as a three-dollar bill. And he worked his way in through---- I don't know, whoever supplied the county at that time with doctors. . . . . you could tell he was Ruby's doctor. He spent half his time up there talking with Ruby. And one day I went in and Ruby told me, he said 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that xxxx. He said, 'I damn sure do!' I never said anything to Decker or anybody . . . . [Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm. . . . [in this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said . . . .if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut you're gonna learn a lot. And that was the last time I ever got to him. Maddox was not the only lawman to suspect that Ruby's death was entirely natural. Policeman Tom Tilson has told researchers: It was the opinion of a number of other Dallas police officers that Ruby had received injections of cancer while he was incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail following the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald."

A paragraph later there is this......."Bruce McCarty operated an electron microscope at Southwest Medical School near Parkland. He told this author that he was called back to work during the holiday's in 1966 to make a study of Ruby's cancer cells. McCarty explained that there are two types of cancer cells ----- cilia, which indicate an origin in the respiratory system, and microvilli, indicate an origin in the digestive system.

These cells are difficult to differentiate with a regular microscope, hence the need for his electron microscope. McCarty confirmed that Ruby's cells were microvilli, indicating his cancer originated in the digestive system. He was shocked when it was announced that Ruby died from lung cancer. Could Ruby have been injected with live cancer cells, which could account for the presence of the microvilli? Traditional medical science claims this is impossible"

END

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to compare the Jack Ruby case with that of William Casey, who was likely to tell the HSCI what he knew about what he knew about the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Casey was due to appear before the HSCI on 16th December. The day before, CIA physician, Dr. Arvel Tharp went to visit Casey in his office. According to Tharp, while he was being examined, Casey suffered a seizure. He was taken to Georgetown University Hospital and was not able to appear before the HSCI. Tharp told Casey he had a brain tumor and that he would have to endure an operation. Casey was not keen and asked if he could have radio therapy instead. However, Tharp was insistent that he needed surgery.

Casey entered the operating room on 18th December. The tumor was removed but during the operation, brain cells were damaged and Casey lost his ability to speak. As his biographer, Joseph E. Persico, points out (The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey): "one school of rumors ran, the CIA or the NSC or the White House had arranged to have a piece of the brain removed from the man who knew the secrets".

Robert Gates now became acting director of the CIA. He claimed that he was not involved in the Iran-Contra operation. As Lawrence E. Walsh pointed out in Iran-Contra: The Final Report (1993): "Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October."

This is astounding information John. Is there a book or other source you recommended for further research?

Thanks.

The best source on the Iran-Contra scandal is Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation. See the following: Final Report: Iran-Contra (1993) and Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up (1997).

Robert Parry's Secrecy & Priviledge: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004) is also well worth reading.

The most detailed book I have seen on Casey is Joseph E. Persico's The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey (1990). Persico is not a conspiracy theorist but he provides enough information to enable you to work it out yourself. Robert Gates' book, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (1996), where he puts the blame on Casey is also worth reading. However, make sure you have a copy of Walsh's two books by your side so you can see how Gates lies about his involvement in the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

__________________________________________________

.... Maddox was not the only lawman to suspect that Ruby's death was not entirely natural. ....
(post 37, above)

In the interest of clarity, just trying to help Robert (or Jim Marrs?) here a bit with grammar/syntax.

FWIW, Thomas B)

__________________________________________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of proof there is Ruby's own statements and Judyth Baker's background knowledge, plus the fact that he contracted cancer which proved fatal within a month from diagnosis. This is uncommon.
Not hardly. Happens quite frequently ... or at least, more often than most people might expect. Even still, "uncommon" does not equate with "strange" or "impossible."

In the category of other allegations dept, Joan Mellen asserted in her book that "Ruby had cancer as far back as 1962 [rectal] no comment; The following is from pg 432-33 of Jim Marr's Crossfire,

Robert, I read Joan's book under somewhat difficult circumstances around a year ago, and I don't recall that particular claim. Without searching through the book, my guess is she was referring to his consultations with a Dr Gross [no I didn't make that up] between 1956 and 1962. Among the things Gross treated him for were uretheral discharge (once); prostate problems (twice); rectal itching once; gonorrhoea (once) and just to round it out... blood in semen (once). A cornucopia of possibilities among those, but I always thought it was most likely some of these were symptoms of anal gonorrhoea. I ran that theory past a UCLA specialist in preventive medicine I was in touch with about other JFK matters a few years ago, and she told me it wasn't necessarily infection originating in that area, as anal itching can occur regardless of how it was contracted.

Which leads to... could it have been early signs of anal cancer? The only risk factors Ruby had were age (over 50 for men which Ruby was in '62); participating in anal sex (there is plenty of evidence for this in regard to Ruby if one searches for it); and a weakened immune system (which Ruby would have had through his "walking" pnuemonia).

The only possible symptom of it I can find in the records however, is the aforementioned anal itching - and that was almost certainly from gonnorrhoea. Moreover, the first place cancer was discovered in Ruby was in the lymph glands located in the neck. This means if he had any type of cancer originating in the digestive system (including the anus), it had reached stage IV prior to any diagnosis.

"Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox told researchers in 1982: We had a phony doctor come in to [the Dallas County Jail] from Chicago, just as phony and as queer as a three-dollar bill. And he worked his way in through---- I don't know, whoever supplied the county at that time with doctors. . . . . you could tell he was Ruby's doctor. He spent half his time up there talking with Ruby. And one day I went in and Ruby told me, he said 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that xxxx. He said, 'I damn sure do!' I never said anything to Decker or anybody . . . .

From the Long Beach Press-Telegram 12dec66: "Ruby... was taken to Parkland Hospital Friday night after being treated for a week by the County Health Officer for a congested, tight-feeling chest. The hospital said he had pnuemonia..." I'd find it difficult to believe that even if cancer cell injections guarranteed giving someone cancer, that it could do so instananeously. I think these statements by Maddox actually support my claim, if anything - that the injections were innocuous, but newspaper and magazine articles on cancer cell injections to Jews were in reading material supplied to him - thus encouraging Ruby to believe they were doing the same to him.

[Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm. . . . [in this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said . . . .if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut you're gonna learn a lot. And that was the last time I ever got to him.[/i] Maddox was not the only lawman to suspect that Ruby's death was entirely natural. Policeman Tom Tilson has told researchers: It was the opinion of a number of other Dallas police officers that Ruby had received injections of cancer while he was incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail following the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald."

A paragraph later there is this......."Bruce McCarty operated an electron microscope at Southwest Medical School near Parkland. He told this author that he was called back to work during the holiday's in 1966 to make a study of Ruby's cancer cells. McCarty explained that there are two types of cancer cells ----- cilia, which indicate an origin in the respiratory system, and microvilli, indicate an origin in the digestive system.

These cells are difficult to differentiate with a regular microscope, hence the need for his electron microscope. McCarty confirmed that Ruby's cells were microvilli, indicating his cancer originated in the digestive system. He was shocked when it was announced that Ruby died from lung cancer. Could Ruby have been injected with live cancer cells, which could account for the presence of the microvilli? Traditional medical science claims this is impossible"

Someone's got their wires crossed. Neither cilia nor microvilli are names of cancer cells. The former are "hair-like processes of the cells of some animal tissues, or of a single cell in some Protozoa. Their function is to keep fluids moving in one direction by their sweeping action, or to affect locomotion." and the latter are "tiny, hairlike structures on the surface of epithelial cells involved in absorption and secretion." Cancer cells are merely components of tumors. In any case, the autopsy report indicated Ruby's cancer probably originated in the lining of his lungs (source on autopsy result: Long Beach Independent, 4jan67).

END

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I googled JACK RUBY AUTOPSY REPORT today, and the only thing I found was that there was no autopsy. Texas does not require an autopsy when a patient dies in a hospital under a doctor's care and there is no suspicion of foul play. - JW
Just shows, Jack, you can't believe everything you read on the web. Bill has a copy of it, and it's reproduced on pages 340 to 343 of Lattimer's book. As for no suspicion (which you seem to believe because you thought no autopsy was done) I'd have to disagree. The FBI "debunked" the suspicion it was "articiially induced" in a memo dated 3.17.67.

You can obtain an original copy of Ruby's autopsy report from the Office of the Dallas County Medical Examiner for a small fee. The official version is that:

Dallas County Medical Examiner Dr. Earl Rose ruled the immediate cause of death to be pulmonary embolism. He said a massive blood clot had formed in the leg, passed through the heart, and lodged in the lungs. He also found
evidence of cancer in the right lung, which he listed as a contributing cause of death
. But much to the surprise of Ruby's doctors, who believed that the disease had originated in the pancreas, Dr. Rose found the pancreas perfectly normal.
(
,
The People's Almanac
, 1975-81; emphasis added)

So the real deal here is not that Ruby died "suddenly" of cancer, but rather that a pulmonary embolism, which is said to be "a leading cause of hospital deaths" today ... and where it stood in the spectrum of "leading causes" 40+ years ago is anybody's good guess!

As far as the medico-legal authorities in Dallas and Texas were concerned at the time of Ruby's death, there was no actual cause for suspicion of foul play, especially given the embolism which could generally not be induced by people who staffed the county jail or who visited Ruby in the hospital (as who may have been allowed to). It is also not something that you can "set in motion" earlier and expect to take place in the near future. That any suspicion arose outside of the medico-legal community does not mean that it was real or even meaningful.

It appears that the reason(s) for Ruby being autopsied at all, absent the suspicion of foul play may be "for appearances," that is to rule it out or allay any suspicions in the first place. Another may be - it appears to be the case, but I can't find any history on the law going back that far - that Texas Law (at least now) requires autopsy in the case of someone who dies while in custody except if it is clearly a case of death by natural causes (old age, established disease, etc.).

It was Dallas Medical Examiner Earl Rose who personally prosected Ruby. Rose, we will remember, attempted to stand up to gun-wielding USSS agents determined to remove JFK's body from his jurisdiction. I spoke with Dr Rose some 10-15 years ago, and would definitely categorize him as a "no-nonsense" kind of guy. If the man said that Ruby died of an embolism, that's how Ruby died. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it really didn't matter whether or not Rose had prevented JFK's body from being removed, it was going to be a cover-up no matter who was involved, so we can stop bemoaning the fact that Rose didn't do JFK's autopsy. Or we can accede to his being the "right man for the job" and accept his finding.

As our in-house super-skeptic recently said:

By law, the JFK autopsy should ALSO have been performed by Rose before the body left Dallas. If it had been, we would not still be discussing the facts of the shooting. (emphasis added)
So why are we discussing the facts of Ruby's death? We can't have it both ways! Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I googled JACK RUBY AUTOPSY REPORT today, and the only thing I found was that there was no autopsy. Texas does not require an autopsy when a patient dies in a hospital under a doctor's care and there is no suspicion of foul play. - JW
Just shows, Jack, you can't believe everything you read on the web. Bill has a copy of it, and it's reproduced on pages 340 to 343 of Lattimer's book. As for no suspicion (which you seem to believe because you thought no autopsy was done) I'd have to disagree. The FBI "debunked" the suspicion it was "articiially induced" in a memo dated 3.17.67.

You can obtain an original copy of Ruby's autopsy report from the Office of the Dallas County Medical Examiner for a small fee. The official version is that:

Dallas County Medical Examiner Dr. Earl Rose ruled the immediate cause of death to be pulmonary embolism. He said a massive blood clot had formed in the leg, passed through the heart, and lodged in the lungs. He also found
evidence of cancer in the right lung, which he listed as a contributing cause of death
. But much to the surprise of Ruby's doctors, who believed that the disease had originated in the pancreas, Dr. Rose found the pancreas perfectly normal.
(
,
The People's Almanac
, 1975-81; emphasis added)

So the real deal here is not that Ruby died "suddenly" of cancer, but rather that a pulmonary embolism, which is said to be "a leading cause of hospital deaths" today ... and where it stood in the spectrum of "leading causes" 40+ years ago is anybody's good guess!

As far as the medico-legal authorities in Dallas and Texas were concerned at the time of Ruby's death, there was no actual cause for suspicion of foul play, especially given the embolism which could generally not be induced by people who staffed the county jail or who visited Ruby in the hospital (as who may have been allowed to). It is also not something that you can "set in motion" earlier and expect to take place in the near future. That any suspicion arose outside of the medico-legal community does not mean that it was real or even meaningful.

It appears that the reason(s) for Ruby being autopsied at all, absent the suspicion of foul play may be "for appearances," that is to rule it out or allay any suspicions in the first place. Another may be - it appears to be the case, but I can't find any history on the law going back that far - that Texas Law (at least now) requires autopsy in the case of someone who dies while in custody except if it is clearly a case of death by natural causes (old age, established disease, etc.).

It was Dallas Medical Examiner Earl Rose who personally prosected Ruby. Rose, we will remember, attempted to stand up to gun-wielding USSS agents determined to remove JFK's body from his jurisdiction. I spoke with Dr Rose some 10-15 years ago, and would definitely categorize him as a "no-nonsense" kind of guy. If the man said that Ruby died of an embolism, that's how Ruby died. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that it really didn't matter whether or not Rose had prevented JFK's body from being removed, it was going to be a cover-up no matter who was involved, so we can stop bemoaning the fact that Rose didn't do JFK's autopsy. Or we can accede to his being the "right man for the job" and accept his finding.

As our in-house super-skeptic recently said:

By law, the JFK autopsy should ALSO have been performed by Rose before the body left Dallas. If it had been, we would not still be discussing the facts of the shooting. (emphasis added)
So why are we discussing the facts of Ruby's death? We can't have it both ways!

Thanks, Duke, for the enlightenment. I had never read about the pulmonary

embolism (blood clot) finding by Dr. Rose. Most researchers have passed on

the "galloping cancer" theory. In fact researching on the internet I found only

the "no autopsy" and "cancer" stories...never a mention of a Rose autopsy.

I consider Rose a model character amidst all the JFK malfeasance.

Incidentally, are you correct about Rose being the person who confronted the SS

agents at Parkland? I remember Mary Ferrell saying it was a Justice of the Peace

whose first name was Theron ___. Rose was the medical examiner, but I believe

by law a JP must rule first before an autopsy. So the JP would call in the ME.

My memory is a little hazy on this.

However...I am not an "in-house skeptic"; I look for facts, and am not skeptical

when I find them...I am only skeptical about OFFICIAL STORIES and "spin"

by persons with agendas.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Jack White @ Nov 28 2006, 09:38 PM) *

By law, the JFK autopsy should ALSO have been performed by Rose before the body left Dallas. If it had been, we would not still be discussing the facts of the shooting. (emphasis added)

Duke - So why are we discussing the facts of Ruby's death? We can't have it both ways!

Duke, speaking only for myself, here is why:

1. The suspicious timing.

2. It was not like JFK and Oswald, which were clear-cut cases of lead poisoning.

3. The CIA were known to be interested in using cancer as an assassination "weapon".

4. The presence of CIA psychiatrist, Dr Jolyon West.

5. The similarity between Ruby's known symptoms and symptoms of beryllium exposure.

6. The fact that beryllium exposure does cause mesothelioma (cancer of the chest and/or lung lining - which is precisely what Ruby had). see: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec04/ch049/ch049a.html . "Certain toxic particles, such as asbestos, can cause lung cancer, especially in smokers, or cancer of the lining of the chest and lung (mesothelioma), regardless of the person's smoking history." Quoting the Long Beach Independent story on the autopsy previously referred to: The autopsy determined that the cancer probably originated in the lining of the lungs. Frenkel said the cancer was technically called a "mucin-forming ademo carcenomo" which attacks cells that line ducts and glands of the body. It is common in non-smokers, he said.

7. The fact that the CIA identified beryllium in 1952 as potential cancer-causing "weapon".

All that said, can "natural" cancer be ruled out? No.

Could an autopsy have determined whether the cancer had been caused by cancer cell injections? No. The only way that could have been proven would have been through a police investigation interviewing everyone who had come into contact with Ruby during the likely timeframe his cancer first developed. One wonders if such an investigation had taken place, what Maddox would have said. It does amaze me that none of the researchers Maddox spoke to thought to ask wether he kept the note he said Ruby slipped him. I think this lack of curiosity indicates a willingness to believe just about any conspiritorial evidence on their part.

Could an autopsy have shown beryllium exposure? Not sure, but unless it was suspected, it would not have been tested for, even if such tests then existed.

And Jack, the blood clot in his leg which ultimately killed him is noted on the web. Google "Jack Ruby" clot leg. The clot was a direct result of the cancer spreading to other parts of the body. Someone now with the same cancer can expect to live a max 7 months from the time of diagnosis. Ruby wasn't making it to a retrial, even if he had lived until Feb when the retrial was scheduled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...