Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Death of Jack Ruby


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

This passage is especially interesting:

"The United States is suspected of using thallium in one of its many attempts to kill President Castro of Cuba. Sidney Gottlieb, a CIA chemist, conceived a plan to poison the Cuban leader by putting thallium powder in his shoes. This method would have caused his hair to fall out, robbing him of his iconic beard, as it destroys hair follicles."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This passage is especially interesting:

"The United States is suspected of using thallium in one of its many attempts to kill President Castro of Cuba. Sidney Gottlieb, a CIA chemist, conceived a plan to poison the Cuban leader by putting thallium powder in his shoes. This method would have caused his hair to fall out, robbing him of his iconic beard, as it destroys hair follicles."

According to another website, the US stopped using thallium because it was believed to cause cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexander Litvinenko: the poison of power

Zygmunt Dzieciolowski

20 - 11 - 2006

Their dream was a poison which would kill a man instantly but which could not be found in a corpse’s blood during the post-mortem examination. For years, the secret poison laboratory of the Soviet-era biologist Grigory M Mairanovski, founded on the orders of Lavrenti Beria in 1938, researched deadly substances. The moment came when Mairanovski and his team felt that, by deceiving even experienced medical experts, they had achieved their dream.

It happened when German prisoners-of war who had been killed with Mairanovski’s poison were immediately transferred to the Sklifasovskii emergency clinic in the heart of Moscow. The Sklifasovskii medics were unable to find the poison - and concluded that the German POWs had in fact died of natural causes.

The Mairanovski laboratory was closed in 1946 following the replacement of Lavrenti Beria by Vsevolod Merkulov as head of the NKVD. But poisons continued to be used intermittently throughout modern Soviet and post-Soviet history, indicating that the tradition of toxicological assassination was never completely abandoned.

It is hard to believe that similar experiments were not taking place in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexander Litvinenko: the poison of power

Zygmunt Dzieciolowski

20 - 11 - 2006

Their dream was a poison which would kill a man instantly but which could not be found in a corpse’s blood during the post-mortem examination. For years, the secret poison laboratory of the Soviet-era biologist Grigory M Mairanovski, founded on the orders of Lavrenti Beria in 1938, researched deadly substances. The moment came when Mairanovski and his team felt that, by deceiving even experienced medical experts, they had achieved their dream.

It happened when German prisoners-of war who had been killed with Mairanovski’s poison were immediately transferred to the Sklifasovskii emergency clinic in the heart of Moscow. The Sklifasovskii medics were unable to find the poison - and concluded that the German POWs had in fact died of natural causes.

The Mairanovski laboratory was closed in 1946 following the replacement of Lavrenti Beria by Vsevolod Merkulov as head of the NKVD. But poisons continued to be used intermittently throughout modern Soviet and post-Soviet history, indicating that the tradition of toxicological assassination was never completely abandoned.

It is hard to believe that similar experiments were not taking place in the United States.

John, indeed they were. All sub-projects under the banner of MKULTRA and its predecessor programs.

What may be most relevant to the Ruby case was a CIA draft memo dated Feb 4, 1952 which surfaced during 1980 Select Committee on Intelligence Hearings. The memo discussed in part, human subjects and the use of Beryllium because of it's "extreme toxicity". THis memo was all about finding substances which would kill, leaving the victim appaearing to have suffered death by natural causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is excellent info Greg, thank you.

I don't know enough to have an opinion, but Garrison's book "On the Trail of the Assassins" makes a point of describing the foul smell from Ferrie's apartment due to the large number of mice he kept there for his cancer experiments. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't give the exact quote.

-MB

Myra, OTTOTA was the second book I read on the case (first was Conspiracy). I'm up to about number 9. Ferrie told 3 or 4 different stories about how he lost his hair. Cancer research was one of the reasons he gave.

Sorry I missed that the first time it was posted. Fascinating.
-JS

John,

Found this today, It shows that there was concern even back then that his cancer was "artificially induced." I haven't seen the report, but needless to say, the FBI would not have found any evidence of this.

ORIGINATOR : FBI

FROM : [No From]

TO : [No To]

TITLE : [No Title]

DATE : 03/17/1967

PAGES : 2

DOCUMENT TYPE : MEMORANDUM.

SUBJECTS : RUBY, JACK; CANCER ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED.

CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : OPEN

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/04/1993

COMMENTS : Box 15. Section 89.

Also in NARA... confirmation that Eva had noticed he was seriously ill many weeks prior to his trip to Parkland.

Some newspaper reports from Dec '66 that I've just located tend to support what I wrote in the original piece.

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 pneumonia.

----

A malignant tumor was discovered Saturday to have nearly consumed a lymph node in Ruby's neck. The doctors said this signified there were other cites and the cancer had advanced.

----

Whatever the results of this weeks tests [to find where the cancer originated], Dr Sanford said, "I do not expect he will be able to go to court" as early as February for a retrial...

The Nevada State Journal two days later reported...

Cancer has been found in the lining of Ruby's chest, in addition to the lymph node on his neck, where it was originally discovered. Both lungs are filled with suspicious looking nodules. The cancer spread to these areas; physicians are still looking for the place it started.

----

The right lung was collapsed by the pressure of four quarts of fluid that were in his chest cavity when he was taken Friday from the Dallas County jail...

----

Dr Barnett said it was impossible to tell how long Ruby had been suffering from cancer and declined even to speculate whether he may have had it when he killed Oswald.

My time is running out. I am breathing toward my last breath. I was set up and tried the minute I walked down that ramp. - Jack Ruby to reporters, 31mar65.

Woah, more great info, thanks again Greg. In general I don't totally trust anyone on this subject, and even the trustworthy people should be double/triple checked. But Garrison is as trustworthy as anyone can be IMO. Of course he only stated that Ferrie was doing experiments. Nothing about results.

I do want to learn more about the general subject of cancer experiments in mice. If researchers do such experimentation then it seems like they must have some way of inducing cancer in the animals. Do they transplant cancerous organs into them? Do they inject cells? Do they inject something else? Do they only get animals that already show signs of cancer?

Well, it looks like cancer experiments can be done on mice by transplanting cancer cells into them (from a human or another mouse), after which they develop cancer. At least according to this source:

"Experimental Cancers in Mice

There are several different strategies for studying cancer in mice, and they vary in their ability to predict the behavior of cancers or therapies in human patients. For example, one can divide the types of mouse cancer models into five major categories: 1) inducing endogenous (naturally occurring) cancer in mice using chemical carcinogens, 2) inducing endogenous cancer in mice using genetic manipulation, 3) allowing mice to grow old and get spontaneous cancers, 4) transplanting human cancers into immune-deficient mice that cannot reject cells from a different species and 5) transplanting aggressive cancers from other mice. This last group represents the type of model we used in our experiments. Some therapies that work for the first four categories have difficulty treating these more aggressive mouse cancers. The SR/CR cancer resistant mouse was originally identified using these aggressive mouse cancers and, therefore, had to be a very effective resistance mechanism to have been detected. One might predict that such an effective mechanism might not only be able to kill cancer cells in the original mutant mouse, but perhaps one could transfer this mechanism to normal mice, as well."

http://www1.wfubmc.edu/cancer/research/mice/part3.htm

And it's easy to find websites that discuss, in a very matter of fact way, that mice are injected with cancer cells, after which they develop cancer:

"One injection can give a mouse cancer but a second can cure it. That was one of the conclusions made from recent experiments on mice conducted by Steve Kennel and Saed Mirzadeh, both of ORNL's Life Sciences Division.

Dozens of mice were injected with lung cancer or breast cancer cells. The injected cells lodged in the mouse lungs and grew there. Several of the mice were later anesthetized, and the tiny, solid tumors in the lungs were imaged by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography, using the ORNL-developed MicroCAT scanner (see MicroCAT "Sees" Hidden Mouse Defects)."

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-cci061802.php

Googling on the terms "cancer experiments mice injected" turns up hit after hit referring to the injection of cancer cells into mice, and the cancer that results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like cancer experiments can be done on mice by transplanting cancer cells into them (from a human or another mouse), after which they develop cancer. At least according to this source:

"Experimental Cancers in Mice

There are several different strategies for studying cancer in mice, and they vary in their ability to predict the behavior of cancers or therapies in human patients. For example, one can divide the types of mouse cancer models into five major categories: 1) inducing endogenous (naturally occurring) cancer in mice using chemical carcinogens, 2) inducing endogenous cancer in mice using genetic manipulation, 3) allowing mice to grow old and get spontaneous cancers, 4) transplanting human cancers into immune-deficient mice that cannot reject cells from a different species and 5) transplanting aggressive cancers from other mice. This last group represents the type of model we used in our experiments. Some therapies that work for the first four categories have difficulty treating these more aggressive mouse cancers. The SR/CR cancer resistant mouse was originally identified using these aggressive mouse cancers and, therefore, had to be a very effective resistance mechanism to have been detected. One might predict that such an effective mechanism might not only be able to kill cancer cells in the original mutant mouse, but perhaps one could transfer this mechanism to normal mice, as well."

http://www1.wfubmc.edu/cancer/research/mice/part3.htm

And it's easy to find websites that discuss, in a very matter of fact way, that mice are injected with cancer cells, after which they develop cancer:

"One injection can give a mouse cancer but a second can cure it. That was one of the conclusions made from recent experiments on mice conducted by Steve Kennel and Saed Mirzadeh, both of ORNL's Life Sciences Division.

Dozens of mice were injected with lung cancer or breast cancer cells. The injected cells lodged in the mouse lungs and grew there. Several of the mice were later anesthetized, and the tiny, solid tumors in the lungs were imaged by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography, using the ORNL-developed MicroCAT scanner (see MicroCAT "Sees" Hidden Mouse Defects)."

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-cci061802.php

Googling on the terms "cancer experiments mice injected" turns up hit after hit referring to the injection of cancer cells into mice, and the cancer that results.

Myra, as I said in a previous post, Sloan-Kettering had conducted such experiments staring in the 1950s with animals, then moving on to healthy humans, before finally experimenting on people whose immune systems were damaged.

They found (or would only admit to) success in animals where the cancer cells come from an animal of the same species, and the animals were "purebred" and as "genetically alike as twins". No mention of animal experiments where the immune system was down.

Of course, techniques and technology over the years would have vastly improved test results. In any case, nothing in the tests you've pointed to actually shows Sloan-Kettering where hedging in their statements.

In the first example you gave, nothing is said about injecting cancer cells into healthy mice. Their success, it appears, was only with immune-deficient specimens.

In the second example, we don't know how genetically similar the mice were.

With all of that said, I don't entirely rule out cancer cell injections being given to Ruby, as I believe his immune system was damaged (as I indicated in my original post). However, the nationwide outcry at the time over cancer cell injections given to patients in the Jewish hospital in Brooklyn (by Sloan-Kettering doctors), would really make it a high risk strategy. Letting Ruby BELIEVE that's what they were doing on the other hand, was perfect since suspicion was bound to be strong given the timing of his death. By throwing that suspicion on to something which could be easily dismissed, the real culprit then would never be looked for - Beryllium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myra, as I said in a previous post, Sloan-Kettering had conducted such experiments staring in the 1950s with animals, then moving on to healthy humans, before finally experimenting on people whose immune systems were damaged.

And I actually like to find my own sources Greg.

In the first example you gave, nothing is said about injecting cancer cells into healthy mice.

No Greg, and I wasn't posting it as an example of an injection method. As you like to say, "as I said in a previous post" it is an experiment in "transplanting" cancer cells. I clearly labeled it as such. You might want to take the time to read a post before you post a rebuke about someone not reading your post.

In the second example, we don't know how genetically similar the mice were.

Oh, whatever. I'm not personally experimenting on mice and I'm not keeping stats on those that do and don't develop cancer. I'm finding out how common it is to introduce cancer into mice. And based on a google search--as I said in a previous post--it's a common technique. That was the point of the post. There are many google hits on the search term. So I don't see a reason to be incredulous over the technique. Whether you're incredulous or not is your business.

With all of that said, I don't entirely rule out cancer cell injections being given to Ruby, as I believe his immune system was damaged (as I indicated in my original post). However, the nationwide outcry at the time over cancer cell injections given to patients in the Jewish hospital in Brooklyn (by Sloan-Kettering doctors), would really make it a high risk strategy. Letting Ruby BELIEVE that's what they were doing on the other hand, was perfect since suspicion was bound to be strong given the timing of his death. By throwing that suspicion on to something which could be easily dismissed, the real culprit then would never be looked for - Beryllium.

Are you serious? They blew away the president in broad daylight on a public street with hundreds of witnesses in the most conspicuous possible manner, and covered it up for years before Ruby died. They own the media. And they're supposed to care that killing yet another witness is "high risk"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

Myra, as I said in a previous post, Sloan-Kettering had conducted such experiments staring in the 1950s with animals, then moving on to healthy humans, before finally experimenting on people whose immune systems were damaged.

And I actually like to find my own sources Greg.

Myra, I'm glad you do. However, the sources you provided are about tests conducted in recent years. We need sources on tests from the 1950s/60s. Sloan-Kettering's tests from the '50s had limited success (if they are to be believed). If you can find other reports from that era, I think that would be very useful.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

In the first example you gave, nothing is said about injecting cancer cells into healthy mice.

No Greg, and I wasn't posting it as an example of an injection method. As you like to say, "as I said in a previous post" it is an experiment in "transplanting" cancer cells. I clearly labeled it as such. You might want to take the time to read a post before you post a rebuke about someone not reading your post.

If I upset you, I apologise unreservedly. It wasn't my intent. My point went to the relevance of your sources to the discussion at hand.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

In the second example, we don't know how genetically similar the mice were.

Oh, whatever. I'm not personally experimenting on mice and I'm not keeping stats on those that do and don't develop cancer. I'm finding out how common it is to introduce cancer into mice. And based on a google search--as I said in a previous post--it's a common technique. That was the point of the post. There are many google hits on the search term. So I don't see a reason to be incredulous over the technique. Whether you're incredulous or not is your business.

You can hardly say it's common (now) to introduce cancer cells to mice -- and therefore it's likely that this is what happened to Ruby 40 years ago. I want to know how successful the experiments are, what conditions are needed (eg a destroyed immune system) and how advanced this knowledge was in the mid '60s.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

With all of that said, I don't entirely rule out cancer cell injections being given to Ruby, as I believe his immune system was damaged (as I indicated in my original post). However, the nationwide outcry at the time over cancer cell injections given to patients in the Jewish hospital in Brooklyn (by Sloan-Kettering doctors), would really make it a high risk strategy. Letting Ruby BELIEVE that's what they were doing on the other hand, was perfect since suspicion was bound to be strong given the timing of his death. By throwing that suspicion on to something which could be easily dismissed, the real culprit then would never be looked for - Beryllium.

Are you serious? They blew away the president in broad daylight on a public street with hundreds of witnesses in the most conspicuous possible manner, and covered it up for years before Ruby died. They own the media. And they're supposed to care that killing yet another witness is "high risk"?

If you're going to blame a "lone nut" for the assassination of a president, you can't have it happening in the Oval Office. "Lone nuts" are opportunistic and therefore go for the kill in high risk settings out of necessity. The fact that a "lone nut" patsy was in place made the risk to the real killer/s much less heightened. By 1966, when Ruby became stricken with cancer, the WCR was under serious and sustained attack, and a number of suspicious deaths had already occurred. So - yes, I'm serious. In the face of much adverse attention to the Sloan-Kettering cancer cell injection experiments, as well as the timing and the growing public disquiet fueled by the sluething of the WC critics, it would be "high risk". Use another method unlikely in the extreme to be detected unless suspected, and it becomes wise to allow "cancer cells" to be blamed so it can then be "debunked" (as it was in an FBI report). Everyone could then relax again safe in the knowledge that it was just "coincidental" cancer, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

Myra, as I said in a previous post, Sloan-Kettering had conducted such experiments staring in the 1950s with animals, then moving on to healthy humans, before finally experimenting on people whose immune systems were damaged.

And I actually like to find my own sources Greg.

Myra, I'm glad you do. However, the sources you provided are about tests conducted in recent years. We need sources on tests from the 1950s/60s. Sloan-Kettering's tests from the '50s had limited success (if they are to be believed). If you can find other reports from that era, I think that would be very useful.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

In the first example you gave, nothing is said about injecting cancer cells into healthy mice.

No Greg, and I wasn't posting it as an example of an injection method. As you like to say, "as I said in a previous post" it is an experiment in "transplanting" cancer cells. I clearly labeled it as such. You might want to take the time to read a post before you post a rebuke about someone not reading your post.

If I upset you, I apologise unreservedly. It wasn't my intent. My point went to the relevance of your sources to the discussion at hand.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

In the second example, we don't know how genetically similar the mice were.

Oh, whatever. I'm not personally experimenting on mice and I'm not keeping stats on those that do and don't develop cancer. I'm finding out how common it is to introduce cancer into mice. And based on a google search--as I said in a previous post--it's a common technique. That was the point of the post. There are many google hits on the search term. So I don't see a reason to be incredulous over the technique. Whether you're incredulous or not is your business.

You can hardly say it's common (now) to introduce cancer cells to mice -- and therefore it's likely that this is what happened to Ruby 40 years ago. I want to know how successful the experiments are, what conditions are needed (eg a destroyed immune system) and how advanced this knowledge was in the mid '60s.

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Nov 27 2006, 12:26 AM) *

With all of that said, I don't entirely rule out cancer cell injections being given to Ruby, as I believe his immune system was damaged (as I indicated in my original post). However, the nationwide outcry at the time over cancer cell injections given to patients in the Jewish hospital in Brooklyn (by Sloan-Kettering doctors), would really make it a high risk strategy. Letting Ruby BELIEVE that's what they were doing on the other hand, was perfect since suspicion was bound to be strong given the timing of his death. By throwing that suspicion on to something which could be easily dismissed, the real culprit then would never be looked for - Beryllium.

Are you serious? They blew away the president in broad daylight on a public street with hundreds of witnesses in the most conspicuous possible manner, and covered it up for years before Ruby died. They own the media. And they're supposed to care that killing yet another witness is "high risk"?

If you're going to blame a "lone nut" for the assassination of a president, you can't have it happening in the Oval Office. "Lone nuts" are opportunistic and therefore go for the kill in high risk settings out of necessity. The fact that a "lone nut" patsy was in place made the risk to the real killer/s much less heightened. By 1966, when Ruby became stricken with cancer, the WCR was under serious and sustained attack, and a number of suspicious deaths had already occurred. So - yes, I'm serious. In the face of much adverse attention to the Sloan-Kettering cancer cell injection experiments, as well as the timing and the growing public disquiet fueled by the sluething of the WC critics, it would be "high risk". Use another method unlikely in the extreme to be detected unless suspected, and it becomes wise to allow "cancer cells" to be blamed so it can then be "debunked" (as it was in an FBI report). Everyone could then relax again safe in the knowledge that it was just "coincidental" cancer, after all.

Ah, ok I understand now; thanks Greg. True, I do need to look for tests from the era in question. Thanks for taking the time to explain it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Guardian (27th November, 2006)

Anti-terrorist detectives are poised to fly to Russia and Italy in an effort to solve the fatal poisoning of the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko.

But as John Reid, the home secretary, said the police inquiry had been upgraded from an "unexplained" to a "suspicious" death, experts voiced doubt at the theory that anyone acting alone could have used the isotope polonium 210 to kill Mr Litvinenko. One scientist said polonium 210 would only kill so quickly if combined into a "designer toxin" with another isotope, beryllium, in a complicated process that would require state sponsorship. Such a process was used by Britain in early atomic weapons in the 1950s.

"No individual could do this," said John Large, an independent nuclear consultant. "What you are talking about is the creation of a very clever little device, a designer poison pill, possibly created by nanotechnology. Without nanotechnology you would be talking about a fairly big pill, a pea-sized pill. Either way you are looking at intricate technology which is beyond the means and designs of a hired assassin without a state sponsor."

He said the likely poison pill that killed Mr Litvinenko would have to have been manufactured in a special laboratory over two or three weeks and then used very quickly - possibly within 28 days - because the half-life of the isotope polonium is only 138 days.

Senior police officers are drawing in experts from the International Atomic Energy Authority, and from the Atomic Weapons establishment at Aldermaston. Every option is being considered, from Kremlin involvement to the theory that Mr Litvinenko's work in the anti-corruption unit of the FSB, Russia's MI5, created enemies with the means and knowledge to assassinate him.

It is a shame that these questions were not asked when Jack Ruby died.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKruby.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some time, I have tried to find a HEIGHT for Jack Ruby.

So far I have found that NO AUTOPSY was performed, so nothing there.

I have found one WC deposition by a Dallas lawyer who said Ruby was 5'11".

The Bledsoe document says he was 5'9".

Can anyone here supply information about Ruby's height?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some time, I have tried to find a HEIGHT for Jack Ruby.

So far I have found that NO AUTOPSY was performed, so nothing there.

I have found one WC deposition by a Dallas lawyer who said Ruby was 5'11".

The Bledsoe document says he was 5'9".

Can anyone here supply information about Ruby's height?

Jack

Well this isn't much help but Oswald was 5'9" (per http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm) and Ruby was clearly shorter than him in the photos of the shooting. Maybe 5'7"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a shame that these questions were not asked when Jack Ruby died.
-JS

John, I doubt they had the capacity back then to test for beryllium - though certainly radioactive material. In fact, such tests seem to be precisely what John Pic was explaining to Marina Oswald in their communication via Pic's notebook at the alleged Oswald family reunion.

The fact that traces of polonium have been found in at least two locations in the current case, doesn't seem to fit with a pill being used.

For some time, I have tried to find a HEIGHT for Jack Ruby. So far I have found that NO AUTOPSY was performed, so nothing there. I have found one WC deposition by a Dallas lawyer who said Ruby was 5'11".

The Bledsoe document says he was 5'9". Can anyone here supply information about Ruby's height?

- JW

Jack, I'm told Ruby's autopsy report was repoduced in John Lattimer's book. If anyone has the book, or a copy of the autopsy report, I'd be much appreciate it being posted here.

Well this isn't much help but Oswald was 5'9" (per http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm) and Ruby was clearly shorter than him in the photos of the shooting. Maybe 5'7"?
- MB

Myra, I believe that estimate is about right.

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''.

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''.

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

Edited by Jack White
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...