Jump to content


Spartacus

The Tale of Jack Ruby's Dog


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Tony Austin

Tony Austin

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 15 May 2007 - 11:58 PM

THE TALE OF JACK RUBY'S DOG

Part One

Introduction

There can be no doubt that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald two days after the assassination of President Kennedy. However, the exact reason why he decided to shoot Oswald has always been very controversial. Soon after the event rumours were spreading that Ruby might have been acting under orders to kill Oswald. Some people suggested that there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and that those involved wanted to silence Oswald in case he gave away any information which could expose the conspiracy. Some thought that Ruby had links with the Mafia and that it was this organisation that ordered Ruby to shoot Oswald.
However, the official Warren Report published in 1964 firmly rejected such ideas. The report concluded that President Kennedy had been shot dead by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. It found no evidence to show that Jack Ruby was associated with the Mafia or part of any conspiracy. Instead, it stated that Ruby acted alone and he did so without any previous planning. When he shot Oswald it was a completely spontaneous reaction to events at a time when Ruby was in a very emotional state.

This view of events was challenged by the House Select Committee on Assassinations which reviewed the matter in the 1970s. One of the main findings of the Committee was that Kennedy was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. Some of the expert panels for the HSCA produced more specific conclusions which were in marked contradiction to the Warren Report, for example:
- Oswald might have had links to Ruby.
- Ruby had considerable ties to the Mafia.
- The Mafia had the means, motive and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy.
- Ruby did not enter the basement of Police Headquarters by slipping down the Main Street ramp but he entered by some other means and he probably had help from someone in the police department.
- Ruby's killing of Oswald was probably premeditated.

Over the years since the HSCA report came out many people have claimed that the Committee was wrong regarding these matters. Writers such as Gerald Posner have defended the original views put forward by the Warren Commission. There are two arguments that they have been able to use in defence of the Warren Commission. The first has to do with the timing of events on the day that Oswald was shot. Jack Ruby would have known that the press had been told to assemble for the transfer of Oswald from Police Headquarters at 10am and yet he stayed at home until nearly 11am. Only then did he drive into town to make a money transfer from the Western Union Telegraph Office at 11:17am. A few minutes later he found his way into the basement of the nearby Police Headquarters. It was only by chance that this was the moment that Oswald was brought out and his appearance proked an emotional response in Ruby which resulted in him shooting Oswald.

The second argument put forward by supporters of the Warren Commission has to do with Jack Ruby's dog. Ruby kept Dachshund dogs and his favourite was a bitch called Sheba. On the day that Oswald was shot Ruby drove down to a car park near to the Western Union with Sheba in his car. He left her in the car with the doors unlocked when he went off to the Post Office. The argument is that if Ruby had intended to shoot Oswald that morning he would never have brought his dog with him. He was so fond of her that he would have left her behind and made arrangements for her care following his arrest for Oswald's murder.
It is this second argument that is the subject of this article. We will take a fresh look at this subject and see if we can find any new insights into this odd episode of the dog in the car.

Was Ruby very fond of Sheba?

All the evidence available suggests that this was the case. William G. Serur testified at Jack Ruby's trial that he called his dogs "my children" and "my kids" he told the court: "Jack used to always tell me, 'I don't want you to refer to them as dogs.' He said, 'Those are my children'."
Ruby's roommate, George Senator, told the Warren Commission that Ruby was very fond of his dogs and other people had told him that Ruby would often refer to Sheba as his "wife". Senator told the Commission that Ruby had a few dogs living at the Carousel Club and that Sheba was his favourite. She was always with Ruby and he would take her home at night and then back to the club next day. Numerous other witnesses testified that Ruby was fond of his dogs and Sheba in particular.

When was Sheba found in Ruby's car?

Lieutenant Vernon Smart testified to the Warren Commission that he was told to go and find Ruby's car and that he went along with Lieutenant Swain but he did not specify the time. Car Park Attendant Theodore Jackson testified to the Warren Commission that on the day Oswald was shot he arrived for work at about noon. He stated that two detectives arrived about one hour later to search Ruby' car. He said that there was a dog in the car.

Another Car Park Attendant, John Daniels, confirmed this account when he testified to the Warren Commission that he also started work about noon and that the police arrived about an hour later. He also stated that there was a dog in the car.
Going by these two accounts, Sheba was probably found at about 1pm which would be about one hour and forty minutes after Oswald had been shot.

Who ordered the detectives to go out to Ruby's car?

Assistant Deputy Chief M. W. Stevenson testified to the Warren Commission "..It is possible that someone who had talked to Ruby, but I can't say about that because I don't recall who it was that advised me that his car was up there at the Western Union, but I did receive the information and directed Lieutenant Smart to get the car and search it thoroughly, impound it, and have the pound take the dog."

The doors of Ruby's car were unlocked and the key to the car boot ( US = 'trunk' ) was in the glove compartment. The ignition key was on a bunch of keys locked in the boot ( US = 'trunk' ). Ruby could have told his captors about this to help get his car and dog sorted out without delay. Stevenson did not say if he gave this information about the keys to Lieutenant Smart but he did claim that he informed him about the dog. What is strange is that Lieutenant Smart appeared to be not only unaware about the keys situation, he also seemed unaware that there was a dog in the car.

Firstly, with regard to the keys, Car Park Attendant John Daniels was asked by the Warren Commission if the detectives got a key from anybody. He said "I don't know if the key ever come... They unlocked the trunk before the man got back with the key or something..."
It appears that the man he was referring to was Detective Thomas McMillon. When the Warren Commission question him about a set of keys that were removed from Jack Ruby after his arrest he said "Later in the afternoon, one of the lieutenants, I believe it was, instructed me to take the keys from his property, to meet, I believe Lieutenant Smart and lieutenant Swain with those keys so that he could get into his car. I took those keys...and I couldn't find them. I returned to the jail, and I was later able to determine that they had already gotten the car and had impounded it..so the keys weren't needed.

Lieutenant Smart was questioned by the Warren Commission as follows:
Mr Griffin: "..When you got to the car, was the car locked or unlocked?"
Mr Smart: "The doors were unlocked."
Mr Griffin: "Now, did you have a key to the car at that time?"
Mr Smart: "No, sir."
Mr Griffin: "Had you been told at that time whether or not there was a key to the car?.."
Mr Smart: "No, sir."
Mr Griffin: "Or whether you needed one?"
Mr Smart: "No, sir; I hadn't been told. I just assumed the keys were in the car, but nobody told me that."

Clearly, if Ruby told the police that the doors were open and that the keys were already in the car then the message did not through to the two detectives who went to collect the car.

Secondly, regarding the dog in the car, Lieutenant Smart testified that he first looked inside the glove compartment where he found a key. He went around to the other side of the car so that he could try the key in the ignition. He told the Warren Commission "I sat down in the front seat to try this key, and I put my hand down on these papers, and that is when I felt the dog raise up.."
It appears that Lieutenant Smart was not expecting to find a dog in the car. I am sure that if he had been told that there was a dog in the car he would have looked for this first and he would be very cautious about where he placed his hand. Even the smallest of dogs can give a nasty nip if disturbed. I am sure Lieutenant Smart would be smart enough to know that!

Lieutenant Smart was interviewed by the FBI the following day. He stated that Assistant Chief Stevenson had asked him to take a dog from the car and place it in an animal shelter. Both men mentioned the dog when interviewed but were Stevenson and Smart telling the truth or were they trying to make members of the police department seem better informed than they really were? From his own statements, you can see that Lieutenant Smart was acting like a man who was unaware that there was a dog in the car, inspite of what he told the FBI.

Who did Ruby speak to about his dog?

Chief Stevenson ordered the detectives to go out and sort out Ruby's car but he testified that he could not remember who told him about the car. Ruby shot Oswald at 11:21 am and he was arrested immediately. The detectives arrived at the car park at about 1pm so clearly at some point between these two times Ruby must have alerted somebody with him about the situation regarding his car and his dog.

What would we expect to happen under such circumstances? Ruby encounters Oswald as he is being brought out into the basement area of Police Headquarters and in a sudden rush of emotion he pulls out his gun and shoots him. The police disarm him and take him away to a jail cell upstairs. Then sometime in the following one and a half hours, Ruby suddenly realises that he has left his car unlocked in a nearby car park with around a thousand dollars in the boot (trunk) but worse than that, he has left his beloved Sheba in the car. So what does he do?

You would expect him to voice great concern about his dog to everyone around him and to be concerned at the prospect of her being taken away to the city dog pound. Ruby had such devotion to Sheba that you could easily imagine him demanding or pleading with the police to let him contact a friend or employee to arrange for his dog to be taken back ot the Carousel Club where his other dogs were and where his bartender, Andrew Armstrong, would be able to take good care of her. You would predict that ruby would keep going on about Sheba to his captors, reminding them that she had not been fed and that she really ought to go back to join the other dogs at his club.

Therefore, it comes as a surprise to find that there is no evidence that this is how Ruby behaved. In fact it is very hard to find any evidence that he told anybody about the dog in his car. Records do show who was with Ruby in the early hours following his arrest. FBI agent Mr C. Hall told the Warren Commission that he interviewed Ruby on the day he shot Oswald and he was with him from 12:40pm until 5:30pm. This is probably too late for it to have been the initial occasion on which Ruby spoke up about his car with Sheba in it. Hall told the Commission about small interruptions to his interview and there is no mention of him stopping to inform the police that Ruby had voiced concern about his dog in the car.

Hall's interview was the first formal interview of Ruby after he killed Oswald. Ruby describes events leading up to him shooting Oswald. He makes no mention of the dog in the car at all in his statement.

A 1963 FBI report states that Detective Don Archer informed them that,following the arrest of Ruby,three detectives and a jailer were with Ruby up until 3pm that day. Detectives Clardy, McMillon and Archer and jailer Haake were the people concerned. Ruby must have have informed one of these individuals about Sheba in his car some time after 11:21am that day and that person must have informed Chief Stevenson about the matter before 1pm.

There are no formal statements from Jailer Haake but if Ruby told him about Sheba it is most likely that he would have passed the information straight on to one of the three detectives mentioned earlier.

Detective McMillon was talking to Mr Griffin from the Warren Commission when the following exchange occurred:
Mr Griffin: "Did you have any information at the time you got hold of those keys as to whether the car was locked or unlocked?"
Mr McMillon: "I don't remember that. It had come up in conversation some way that he had a dog in the car."
Mr Griffin: "Now, how did that come up?"
Mr McMillon: "I don't remember that, but maybe Jack asked us to take care of his dog or something like that. I don't know.I made no note of it after I found they had impounded the car, that matter had been taken care of, and I felt like that ended our responsibility..."

The vagueness of McMillon's statement is striking. He appears to have no clear memory of Ruby talking about his dog in the car. Was Ruby really so quiet and low key about his beloved dog?

Detective Clardy spoke with Mr Hubert from the Warren Commission. His testimony is even more surprising:
Mr Hubert: "Did he say anything about where his car was?"
Mr Clardy: "Yes, sir."
Mr Hubert: "Did he say anything about there being a dog in it?"
Mr Clardy: "Sir, I recall that he said there was some money in the car. I don't recall him saying it in my presence, about the dog being in it. I do recall he talked later about some dogs that he had that he thought so much of."

Why were Ruby's comments about there being money in the car so memorable to Clardy but the comments he made about his dog totally unmemorable? Why was Ruby expressing a great deal of concern about his money but very little concern about his dog? When later in the day he was talking about "some dogs that..he thought so much of" why did he not take the opportunity to start making a fuss about Sheba in the car and making sure the police were police were sorting her out properly?

The third detective was Don Archer but unfortunately when he testified to the Warren Commission he was never questioned about the dog in the car and he never brought the subject up. Letters from Archer to Police Chief Curry do not mention this aspect and neither do FBI reports involoving Archer. We simply do not know what Ruby said to Archer regarding his car and the dog left in it.

However, the available evidence suggests that Ruby showed concern that he had left his car parked nearby with a lot of money in it but he showed very little concern for the poor dog left inside. This is very strange given what we know Ruby's love of his dogs and Sheba in particular.

Jack Ruby has some visitors

In jail Jack Ruby's first visitor was his friend Joe Campisi and his wife on the 30th of November, 6 days after he shot Oswald. Campisi told the FBI that it was a brief 10 minute meeting. He said that Ruby talked about the mail he had been receiving and asked if his friends were 'mad' at him. He also asked about his lawyer and, according to Campisi, he cried as he talked about Jackie Kennedy and her children. Campisis made no mention of Ruby expressing any concern for his dog or asking him if he could have her retrieved from the dog pound.

Sometime after that visit Andrew Armstrong went to see Ruby in jail. He was a bar tender at the Carousel Club but he also did numerous jobs for Ruby so he was more like a manager at the club. He also fed Ruby's dogs down at the club every day. Mr Hubert of the Warren Commission asked Armstrong about his contact with Ruby in jail:
Mr Hubert: "You say you went to see Jack in Jail?"
Mr Armstrong: "Yes"
Mr hubert: "how many times did you see him?"
Mr Armstrong: "Oh, five or six, maybe seven times?".....
...Mr Hubert: "What did he talk about?"
Mr armstrong: "He talked mainly about the dogs and.."
Mr Hubert: "What did he say about Sheba?"
Mr Armstrong: "Just see that Sheba don't eat too much because she will get too fat"
Mr Hubert: "What did he say about leaving Sheba in the automobile that Sunday when Oswald was shot?"
Mr Armstrong: "He didn't say..he didn't mention that to me. the first time I went to see him I asked him where were Sheba and he told me he had left her in the automobile and later on, so he told me, to see if the pound had Sheba, and. would they release her, so I called the pound and the pound said that they had her, and Joy Dale went out and picked her up and brought her to the club."

According to Armstrong, more than six days after he was imprisoned, Ruby still did not know where his dog was. This was the first time he was asking someone to get her out of the dog pound and brought back to the club where the other dogs were living. It also appears that he had not asked his friend Campisi to help sort out his dog when he had seen him earlier. The overall impression we get from looking at the statements of the police detectives and Ruby's friends is that, following his arrest for murder, Ruby showed minimal concern for his dog Sheba. Very strange for a man who had become extremely fond and devoted to his dog according to the people who knew him well. In fact it looks as if Ruby's wife had grounds for a divorce!

All joking aside, Ruby's behaviour is hard to explain. There is one way it can be explained, however, this involves making the bold assumption that Ruby planned to kill Oswald some hours before the event. If we make this assumption there is a simple explanation, the dog in the car was NOT Sheba. Somebody had placed another dog in the car which looked like Sheba and Ruby pretended it was Sheba when in fact Sheba had been switched with another dog.
If this hypothesis is put forward it immediately raises a number of questions: Would Ruby have a motive for switching dogs? Would Ruby have easy access to a dog that looked like Sheba but for which he only had minimal concern? Would Ruby have had time to switch Sheba for another dog? Could anybody else have switched dogs for Ruby? Could his roommate George Senator have been involved? Is there proof that a dog switch occurred? In the next few sections we shall examine these questions in turn.

Would Ruby have a motive for switching the dogs?

If Ruby planned to shoot Oswald in advance he would be aware that he would be facing two great problems. Firstly, he would be immediately arrested by the police and secondly, premeditated murder in Texas in 1963 carried the death penalty. He may have been aware or he may have found out, that if a murder is carried out in the "heat of the moment" then it is possible to enter a plea of "murder without malice" for which you could be given a term in prison but avoid the death penalty.

Ruby would need to make his actions on the morning of Oswald's murder look unplanned. How he could do this with regards to getting into police headquarters is beyond the scope of this article, however, bringing his dog along in the car could have just been an extra touch to make it look as though Ruby had no thought of killing Oswald when he parked his car that morning. Ruby might have worried that unforeseen delays by the police could have led to Sheba being in his car for hours and he probably would not have wanted the police to take her away to the city pound where conditions for her might not have been very good. Ruby might have come up with an ingenious way of making it appear that he had brought Sheba along in his car that morning but at the same time avoiding the problem of Sheba being left in his car for hours and later taken away to the dog pound. Therefore, we can find a reasonably plausible motive for Ruby wanting to switch two dogs around.

Would Ruby have a replacement dog?

According to Andrew Armstrong, Ruby had Sheba and a male dog called Clipper. Clipper had seven puppies so that at one time there were nine dogs. Ruby then gave away the puppies untill there was only one left. so for a time Ruby had three dogs: Sheba, Clipper and one of Sheba's puppies. However, this changed shortly before the assassination of Kennedy. Curtis LaVerne Crafard worked for Ruby at the Carousel Club. He was questioned by the Warren Commission regarding Ruby's dogs:
Mr Hubert: "Where were they kept?"
Mr Crafard: "They were kept in a room behind the kitchen area, a storeroom."
Mr Hubert: "How many were they?"
Mr Crafard: "When I first went there he had two dogs at the club and then his Sheba that he kept with him all the time."
Mr Hubert: "You said when you first went he had that many dogs, did that change during the time you were there?"
Mr Crafard: "About a week before the assassination, a man that [Ruby] had given the dog to brought it back and Jack gave me
instructions to check the feight prices to California, a friend of his out there wanted the dog, and he was going to
send it out there....."....
..Mr Hubert: "For a period of time there were three dogs there?"
{ie 3 dogs at the club plus sheba who stayed with Ruby every night}
Mr Crafard: "Yes"
Mr Hubert: "Was the dog ever shipped to California?"
Mr Craffard: "Not while I was there: no sir."

It can be seen that Ruby kept a male dog called Clipper and two dogs that had been the puppies of Sheba down at the Carousel Club. These two dogs were never mentioned by name and Ruby was almost certainly less fond of them than Sheba and Clipper. One of these dogs was eventually shipped to Alexander Gruber in California but in his HSCA testimony he talks about the dog as being 'him' so it appears that this was a male dog. However, the other dog could have been female and her mother was Sheba so the two dogs would have looked very similar. So there is a possibility that Ruby had access to a young dog at his club which he could have switched with Sheba.

Time for Ruby to switch dogs?

The official version of events is that on the morning of the 24th of November 1963 Jack Ruby was at home and at 10:19am he received a phone call from an employee called Karen Carlin, also known as 'Little Lyne' requesting some money from Ruby. In response to her request, sometime in the next hour, Ruby left his apartment and drove to a car park near to the Western Union. From the telegraph office he wired some money to Karen Carlin at exactly 11:17am.

The question is exactly when did Ruby leave his apartment? did he have time to drive to the Carousel Club to do a dog switch and still get to the Post Office at Western Union before 11:17am?

When Jack Ruby's roommate, George Senator, was questioned by the FBI on the day of Oswald's murder he said that Ruby left around 10:30am. He also said that he left their apartment at around 11am and he arrived at the Eatwell Restaurant at approximately 11:30am. He gave different times to the Warren Commission. He told them that Ruby left about three quarters of an hour after Karen Carlin's phone call (which would be around 11:04am) and he himself left three quarters of an hour after that (which would be around 11:49am) When Ruby was first questioned by the FBI within hours of shooting Oswald he said that he left his apartment at 10am, which did not make any sense because Karen Carlin phoned at 10:19am.

From Ruby and Senator there appears to be no clear, consistent answer as to when Ruby left his appartment. However, before Ruby went to trial, he worked out with his legal team a timeline of events. This became a record of where he was at any given time over the weekend in question. For the 24th of November he stated "Then left the apartment and spoke to a neighbor for a minute (Curtiss?) about some fences that I promised him then left to go to Western Unionto send some money to Lynn. 10:45am"

Ruby could not remember his neighbor's name and guessed it might be Curtiss. However, Ruby appears to have guessed wrong. FBI agent C. Ray Hall testified to the Warren Commissionthat Ruby was able to tell him that the neighbour in question was the father in law of police officer Buddy Munster. From this informationthe FBI found out the who the neighbour was so that when agent Hall testified to the W.C. he stated that the neighbour was in fact Mr J. Doyle Stokes and that he had been interviewed by the FBI.

In fact, there are two interviews of Stokes by the FBI in the archives which confirm that he was the neighbour of Jack Ruby and he was also the father-in-law of Officer Munster. But the surprising thing is that in both statements he states that he saw Jack Ruby on Saturday the 23rd of November 1963 and he states that he definitely did NOT see Ruby on Sunday the 24th of November 1963.

So, to get back to the original question, it would appear that, following the phone call from Karen Carlin, Ruby would have had enough time to go to the Carousel Club and swap over two dogs before going on to the Post Office. There are no witnesses, independent of Ruby and Senator, who provided statements that would show Ruby left his apartment too late to have gone to the Carousel Club to do some dog switching.

End of part one

Part two presented further down:

Edited by Tony Austin, 19 June 2011 - 06:46 PM.


#2 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 16 May 2007 - 03:09 AM

Tony,

Very interesting theory about the dog switch. I see one thing wrong with it, but will wait for part two before comment.

I also did not know about Clardy's testimony (further evidence that I should not be posting articles without knowing all the facts). It is significant that Ruby apparently said nothing about his dog being in his car during his first hours in custody, during which time Clardy was with him.

I look forward to part two.

Ron

#3 James Richards

James Richards

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,288 posts
  • Location:The Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 16 May 2007 - 06:35 AM

All the evidence available suggests that this was the case. William G. Serur testified at Jack Ruby's trial that he called his dogs "my children" and "my kids" he told the court: "Jack used to always tell me, 'I don't want you to refer to them as dogs.' He said, 'Those are my children'." (Tony Austin)

Tony,

This William Serur mentioned, do you know if he was once manager of a store called Rayco (mid 1950's) which used to manufacture and sell seat covers?

james

#4 Tony Austin

Tony Austin

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 16 May 2007 - 09:30 AM

All the evidence available suggests that this was the case. William G. Serur testified at Jack Ruby's trial that he called his dogs "my children" and "my kids" he told the court: "Jack used to always tell me, 'I don't want you to refer to them as dogs.' He said, 'Those are my children'." (Tony Austin)

Tony,

This William Serur mentioned, do you know if he was once manager of a store called Rayco (mid 1950's) which used to manufacture and sell seat covers?

james

Thanks James, no I did not know that. I am sure that Jack Ruby would be interested in seat covers as he had Sheba in the car with him most days.

#5 James Richards

James Richards

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,288 posts
  • Location:The Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 16 May 2007 - 10:06 AM

All the evidence available suggests that this was the case. William G. Serur testified at Jack Ruby's trial that he called his dogs "my children" and "my kids" he told the court: "Jack used to always tell me, 'I don't want you to refer to them as dogs.' He said, 'Those are my children'." (Tony Austin)

Tony,

This William Serur mentioned, do you know if he was once manager of a store called Rayco (mid 1950's) which used to manufacture and sell seat covers?

james

Thanks James, no I did not know that. I am sure that Jack Ruby would be interested in seat covers as he had Sheba in the car with him most days.


Tony,

I dug up Serur's testimony at Ruby's trial and he said he used to be in the upholstery business so I assume it is the same man.

The reason I asked is because the owner of Rayco was a man named Bill Naxon. Naxon was friends with not only Serur but with Henry Zapruder (Abe's son) as both men performed together with the B'nai B'rith theater group.

Like they say, small world.

James

Edited by James Richards, 16 May 2007 - 10:12 AM.


#6 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,468 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 May 2007 - 02:37 PM

"Over the years since the HSCA report came out many people have claimed that the Committee was wrong regarding these matters. Writers such as Gerald Posner have defended the original views put forward by the Warren Commission. There are two arguments which they have been able to use in defence of the Warren Commission. The first has to do with the timing of events on the day that Oswald was shot. Jack Ruby would have known that the press had been told to assemble for the transfer of Oswald from Police Headquartersat 10am and yet he stayed at home until nearly 11am. Only then did he drive into town to make a money transfer from the Western Union Telegraph Office at 11:17am. A few minutes later he found his way into the basement of the nearby Police Headquarters. It was only by chance that this was the moment that Oswald was brought out and his appearance proked an emotional response in Ruby which resulted in him shooting Oswald."


"only by chance" is the common view from day one. However:

That morning Harry D. Holmes arrived at his regular church visit with his wife. 'Out of the blue', he leaves her there and goes to the DPD.

When he arrives at the DPD, his friend Capt. Fritz, motions to him and 'whispers' an invitation for Harry to be in on the last pre-transfer Oswald interview. Harry then joined the interview and when most have asked their questions he largely takes over and starts to go over assorted miutae re post boxes etc. IOW Harry was the reason for why the interviewed lasted until: "someone banged on the door" and the interview wound up. Harry then invited someone (Sorrels?) to come with him to his office to view the transfer. on TV.

This moment of someone banging on the door appears to coincide with the time when Ruby was approaching.

Coincidences? Harry, Fritz, and Ruby (+ who else?) all doing things in a coordinated way? All suggested as chance events. With one significant end result: Oswald is dead.

Edited by John Dolva, 16 May 2007 - 02:40 PM.


#7 Tony Austin

Tony Austin

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 16 May 2007 - 09:10 PM

PART TWO OF THE TALE OF JACK RUBY'S DOG

and references


Key Evidence?

When an employee of Jack Ruby named Curtis LaVerne Crafard testified to the Warren Commission it became apparent that Ruby had often asked him to fetch things from the boot ( Am = 'trunk' ) of his car. Crafard was very familiar with Ruby's habits regarding his car and the keys for it and he was able to give detailed information on this subject to the Commission.

From this testimony we get a clear picture of Jack Ruby's usual habits with respect to his keys and his car. These can be summarised as followed:

- Jack Ruby usually kept some house keys on a key ring in the boot ( Am = trunk )
- Ruby had a large set of keys on a key ring which included:
keys to his apartment
keys to his clubs
a key to the boot ( Am = trunk )
a key for the ignition

NB If Crafard ever had to get something from the boots he had to use this large bunch of keys

- Ruby was never known to make use of a separate key, not on any chain or ring, to open the boot ( Am = trunk )
- Crafard was not aware of Ruby having a spare set of keys which included car keys

The importance of these observations is that on the Sunday morning in question, when Ruby went to the car park near the Western Union he did something completely different to his normal habit. From the statements made by police detectives that day we find that he did the following:

Firstly, he left a single key to the boot ( Am = trunk ) in the glove compartment.
Secondly, there was a bunch of keys in the boot ( Am = trunk ) but this included a key to the ignition and not just house keys.
Thirdly, when he was arrested he was found to have a set of keys on him which appeared to include a car key.
Detective McMillon was requested to take these keys down to the two detectives examining Ruby's car. He did this because he felt sure that one of the keys looked like a car key. They did not look like just a bunch of house keys.

These observations raise a lot of questions:
Why did Ruby suddenly change his normal habits? Why did Ruby change over the set of keys in the boot ( Am = trunk ) to one which included a key to the ignition? Why had he started to use a separate key to the boot ( Am = trunk ) when he already had a key of this type on a large bunch of keys which also included his car keys? Why did he leave the key to the boot ( Am = trunk )in the glove compartment? Why did he not walk off with his usual all-inclusive bunch of keys and simply throw all other keys in the boot ( Am = trunk )? Why were there now two sets of keys which included car keys?

These questions are difficult to answer, however, if there are two sets of keys found in association with one car at one time the most usual explanation is that there are two individual accessing that car at that time. Could that be the case here?

Imagine for a moment that Ruby's roommate, George Senator, was involved in making the switch. Ruby drives with Sheba to the parking lot at about 11am using his usual set of keys. He parks his car in an area of rough ground in the middle of the car park ( as testified by Detective Smart ) . He wants to keep Sheba safe, so he locks her in the car and he walks off to the Post Office.

About 20 minutes later Senator arrives in his Volkswagen van and parks along side Ruby's car. Ruby's car is hidden from view by the large van. Senator has another dog in his van taken from the Carousel Club or perhaps somewhere else. He has a spare set of keys given to him by Ruby which includes car keys but no key for the boot ( Am = trunk ) However, Ruby has also given him a separate, spare key for the boot that he kept at home but never used before then. With these keys Senator is able to switch the dogs. He then drives off with Sheba in his van. Ruby has instructed him to leave the doors of the car unlocked to make it look as if he had left his car with the intention of returning within a short space of time.

Why would Senator leave the key to the boot in the glove compartment and the other keys in the boot? Perhaps Senator was anxious to be rid of the keys in case he was detained and searched by the police later that day. They would be suspicious of him carrying Ruby's car keys around with him. He already had enough to worry about trying to sort out Sheba. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding between Senator and Ruby. Ruby might not have known about Senator leaving the keys in the car. This might explain why when the detectives arrived at the car they were unaware of the situation regarding the keys in the car.

George Senator - a likely suspect?

If Jack Ruby used his roommate George Senator to swap Sheba with another dog then, obviously, Senator would have known in advance that Ruby was going to shoot Oswald. There is some evidence to suggest that Senator did know of Ruby's plan to shoot Oswald before it happened. I can present this evidence as follows:

The phone call to Jim Martin.
Senator gave a statement to the FBI on the day that Oswald was killed. He stated that he went to the Eatwell Restaurant at about 11:30am and he overheard a waitress say that Oswald had been shot and a short time later he learned from the waitress that it was Jack Ruby who had shot Oswald. Soon after this he telephoned Attorney Jim Martin who was a friend of his. Martin was not at home so he drove to his house and found Martin there when he arrived. Martin was then able to go with Senator down to Police Headquarters.
The statement he gave to the Warren Commission a few months later was a little different. He stated that he was in the Eatwell Restaurant drinking coffee when he heard a girl say that Oswald had been shot and then he phoned his friend Jim Martin and he was told by his daughter that his friend was out but that he would be home in half an hour.
About five minutes later he heard that it was Jack Ruby who shot Oswald and then he decided to drive straight over to Jim Martin's house.
Mr Hubert of the Warren Commission realised that this sounded suspicious because Senator was testifying that he was trying to contact an attorney, who would later go down with him to Police headquarters and later assist Ruby with his legal defence, at a time when all he knew was that somebody had shot Lee Harvey Oswald. Hubert questioned him in detail about the matter and Senator claimed that he did not try and ring his roommate Ruby because he overheard him on the phone talking about going to Western Union but when Ruby left the apartment he said he was going to the club so he could not be sure where he was. He also claimed that he had a few friends and he just happened to think of phoning Jim Martin when he heard that Oswald had been shot. Senator was trying to say that it was only a matter of chance that he was trying to phone the one person known to him who might be most useful to Jack Ruby after the shooting of Oswald. The Warren Commission were happy to accept this explanation. However, there was another event that suggested that Senator might have had prior knowledge of Ruby shooting Oswald but this time the Warren Commission failed to spot it.

William Downey's actions on the day of the shooting.
A personal friend of George Senator by the name of William Downey gave a statement to the FBI. In the FBI report we find the following paragraph:
"Downey heard a radio announcement that Oswald had been shot by Jack Ruby, and, knowing that Senator and Ruby lived together, Downey then attempted to reach Senator by telephone at the residence of Jim Martin, where Senator mentioned he had been staying."
The problem is that Senator had not been staying with Jim Martin, on the contrary, he had been living in the same apartment block as Ruby for a year. He told the Warren Commission that on the Sunday evening, of the 24th of November 1963, he was with Jim Martin and another lawyer. His testimony reads:
Mr Hubert: "After that Sunday night when you talked to the lawyers for a while, you went home I understand to Jim Martin's?"
Mr Senator:"If I remeber right, I'm not sure but I think Jim put me up because I was afraid to go home and I didn't have a place to go. If I remember right I think he did. I think I went to his appartment, to his home rather."
In fact Senator twice told the Warren Commission that after Ruby shot Oswald he was afraid to go home and because of his fear he asked Jim Martin if he could stay at his home that night. However, Downey's testimony suggests that Senator already had plans to be staying with Martin before Oswald had been shot.

Taken together, these two pieces of information are very suggestive of the fact that George Senator knew in advance that Ruby was going to shoot Oswald.


Is there proof that a dog switch occured?

To find absolute proof that the dog taken to the pound was not Sheba after more than forty years is a difficult if not impossible task. However, there is some interesting testimony from Jack Ruby's bartender/manager Andrew Armstrong which does support this idea. Armstrong told the Warren Commission that he was at home when he heard that Oswald had been shot and his response was to go straight down to the Carousel Club to feed the dogs.

Let us recap how many dogs Ruby kept at that time. Armstrong had testified that Ruby kept Sheba at his apartment and her mate Clipper was down at the club along with one dog that had been one of Sheba's puppies. Craffard testified that another of Sheba's offspring had been returned to the Club a week before the assassination so there were four dogs: Sheba (who stayed with Ruby at night) and Clipper and the two dogs (the offspring of Sheba and Clipper) that stayed at the Carousel Club.
This can be verified by looking at George Senator's statement to the FBI dated the 24th of November 1963. It can also be verified by reading the statement made by Crafard to the FBI five days after Oswald was shot.

Officially, on the morning of the 24th of November 1963, Sheba was removed from Jack Ruby's car and taken down to the dog pound. This should have left three dogs down at the Carousel Club. When Andrew Armstrong testified to the Warren Commission the following exchange occurred:
Mr Hubert: "What did you go down to the club for?"
Mr Armstrong: "I went down and fed the dogs, because I knew that they would be down there all day long without any food,and Clipper, I was crazy about and I didn't want him going hungry...that was the only two dogs there, so I fed the dogs...went down and fed the dogs and there was a newsman in front of the club and he tried to grab me when I came out."

So it appears that there were only two dogs down at the Carousel Club. What happened to the other dog? This was a little before twelve noon, could it be that at the time Clipper and one of Sheba's offspring were down at the club, the other dog that had been one of Sheba's puppies was in Jack Ruby's car and Sheba was still in George Senator's Volkswagen van?

Andrew Armstrong told both the Warren Commission and the HSCA that, some time after Ruby went to Jail, Sheba came under his care. If Sheba was not the dog found in Ruby's Car then when Armstrong received Sheba it would not have been via the dog pound. It is interesting that when he testified to the Warren Commission about receiving Sheba into his care he gave one account but when he testified to the HSCA some years later he gave a completely different account of what happened.

The Warren Commission account went as follows:
Mr Armstrong: "The first time I went to see him [Ruby] I asked him where were Sheba and he told me that he left her in the
automobile and later on, so he told me, to contact the pound, to see if the pound had Sheba, and. would they release her, so I called the pound and the pound said they had her, and Joy Dale went out and picked her up and brought her to the club."
Mr Hubert: "That's the McDonald girl?"
Mr Armstrong: "That's the McDonald girl."

However, the HSCA account was as follows:
Q. "Where was Sheba after Oswald was shot?"
A. "Now that's another thing I Don't ...where was Sheba after Oswald was shot. Now. I remember going and getting Sheba, and
I don't remember whether I went to the police station and got Sheba or whether I went to the Carousel and got Sheba. Now I could have went to the police station. If I did I would have got somebody to carry me, and I don't remember getting anybody to carry me to pick up Sheba, because I didn't have a car."
Q. "But you ended up with Sheba?"
A. "Yes, I ended up with Sheba."

Why did Armstrong give such different versions of how he came to acquire Sheba? Was this just a problem of remembering events ten years earlier or was he hiding something?

Conclusions

This article puts forward the theory Jack Ruby led the authorities to believe that he had left his favourite dog Sheba in his car before he entered Police Headquarters and shot Lee Harvey Oswald when, in fact, Sheba had been substituted for another dog.
This may seem a minor point but if it could be proven that Ruby had swapped Sheba for another dog, with the help of another person, it would mean that he planned to shoot Oswald before he left his apartment that day. It would also mean that it could not have been a simple matter of chance that he entered police headquarters at the exact moment Oswald was being transfered. Ruby must have had help from somebody on the 'inside' to get into the basement at the right moment to shoot Oswald.

If the theory could be proven it would mean that Ruby was a very devious individual who conspired with others to murder Oswald whilst making the act look like a spontaneous 'act of madness' by an unbalanced, patriotic, night club owner.

Detective Archer testified to the Warren Commission that when he searched Jack Ruby after his arrest he was worried about Oswald's condition so he said to Ruby, "Jack, I think you killed him." Archer said that Ruby looked him straight in the eye and said, "Well, I intended to shoot him three times." This response does not suggest a spontaneous reaction. The very word "intended" implies having prior intention. Perhaps he was intending to shoot Oswald three times even before he left his apartment that day.

There may be some people who will quickly dismiss the idea that Sheba was switched for another dog as being too far fetched. However, this article does show that if Ruby had planned to kill Oswald in advance he could have had the motive and the means for such a switch.

The theory can explain why Ruby suddenly changed his habits with regards to car keys and appeared to have two sets of keys associated with one car. It can explain why there is some evendence which suggests that Senator knew of Ruby's plans in advance. It can explain why Andrew Armstrong went to the Carousel Club after Oswald was shot and found only two dogs to feed when there should have been three. It can explain why Armstrong gave two contradictory accounts to the Warren Commission and HSCA as to how Sheba came into his care some days after Ruby shot Oswald.

Most of all, it gives a rational explanation as to why a man who was totally besotted with his dog should suddenly start acting as if he had very little concern for her. Therefore, I believe it is a theory that should be taken seriously and investigated further.

Tony Austin


REFERENCES

Was Ruby very fond of Sheba?

William G Serur testimony at Ruby trial:
CE 2411 page 484
The Warren Commission Testimony of George Senator
14H 195 and 316

When was Sheba found in Ruby's car?

The Warren Commission Testimony of Vernon S Smart
13H 271 to 274
The Warren Commission Testimony of Theodore Jackson
13H 300 to 301
The Warren Commission Testimony of John L Daniels
13H 297 and 298

Who ordered the detectives to go out to the car?

The Warren Commission Testimony of M W Stevenson (taken on March 23rd 1964)
12H 91
Lt Vernon Smart's statement to the FBI November 25
CE 5021
The Warren Commission Testimony of Thomas D Mc Millon
13H 51
The Warren Commission Testimony of Vernon S Smart
13H 271 to 273

Who did Ruby speak to about his dog?

The Warren Commission Testimony of C Ray Hall
15H 63 and 64
Jack Ruby's statement made to C Ray Hall of the FBI
20H 37 to 46
Archer's statement regarding who was with Ruby up until 3pm
CE 5093
The Warren Commission Testimony of Thomas D McMillon
13H 51
The Warren Commission Testimony of Bernard S Clardy
12H 413
The Warren Commission Testimony of Don Ray Archer
(nine pages of testimony and no mention of Ruby's dog in the car)
12H 395

Jack Ruby has some visitors

FBI report regarding Joe Campisi's visit to Ruby in jail
CE 2259
The Warren Commission Testimony of Andrew Armstrong
13H 355

Would Ruby have easy access to a replacement dog?

The Warren Commission Testimony of Andrew Armstrong
13H 318
The Warren Commision Testimony of Curtis LaVerne Crafard
13H 422
The House Select Committee on Assassinations Volume IX
section on Alexander Gruber 979

Time for Ruby to switch dogs?

Statement to the FBI by George Senator
21H 430 and 431
Jack Ruby's statement to C Ray Hall
20H (third page)
Ruby talks to a neighbour, Ruby timeline from "Moment of madness"
by Gertz page 114
The Warren Commission Testimony of C Ray Hall
15H 70
Statements by J Doyle Stokes to the FBI
CE 2330 and CE 2340

Could anybody else have swapped the dogs for Ruby?

The Warren Commission Testimony of Georger Senator
14H 244

Key Evidence?

The Warren Commission Statement of Curtis LaVerne Crafard
13H 500 (last sentance) 501 and "resumed" page 84
The Warren Commission Testimony of Vernon S Smart
13H 272 and 273 (the keys found in Ruby's car)
The Warren Commission Testimony of Thomas D Mc Millon
13H 51 (the keys found on Jack Ruby)
The Warren Commission Testimony of Vernon S Smart
13H 274 "uneven...pretty close to the centre of the lot"

Is there proof that a dog switch occurred?

The Warren Commission Testimony of Andrew Armstrong
13H 318 (number of dogs)
The Warren Commission Testimony of Curtis LaVerne Crafard
13H 422 (number of dogs, returned dog)
Warren Commission Hearings Volume XXI (George Senator)
CE 5400 page 430 ( four dogs including Sheba)
Warren Commission Hearings Volume XIX (Curtis Crafard)
CE 5226 page 358 (three dogs down at the club)
The Warren Commission Testimony of Andrew Armstrong
13H (two dogs at the club)
13H (how he came to have Sheba)
The House Select Committee on Assassinations - testimony of Andrew Armstrong
page 15 of 18

Conclusions

The Warren Commission Testimony of Don Ray Archer
12H 401 ( "I intended to shoot him three times" )

Edited by Tony Austin, 19 June 2011 - 06:05 PM.


#8 Tony Austin

Tony Austin

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 16 May 2007 - 09:26 PM

Tony,

Very interesting theory about the dog switch. I see one thing wrong with it, but will wait for part two before comment.

I also did not know about Clardy's testimony (further evidence that I should not be posting articles without knowing all the facts). It is significant that Ruby apparently said nothing about his dog being in his car during his first hours in custody, during which time Clardy was with him.

I look forward to part two.

Ron


Part two now posted, thanks Ron

#9 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,468 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 May 2007 - 10:03 PM

a curio: (just to complicate things a little bit)

"the little bottle with a brown liquid" that disappeared, and Ruby's diet medication*. There was a little bottle found in Rub's car that disappeared at some point. It is in the list of what was found in his car, but does not appear in the list of his possessions after his being jailed. (There is also an odd event where a so far unidentified person in the basement seems to pass something to one of the people subduing Ruby.)

"Mr Hubert: "What did he say about Sheba?"
Mr Armstrong: "Just see that Sheba don't eat too much because she will get too fat"
Mr Hubert: "What did he say about leaving Sheba in the automobile that Sunday when Oswald was shot?"
Mr Armstrong: "He didn't say.."

"Ephedra is the herbal form of the stimulant ephedrine*, an ingredient in cold medicines that raises heart rates, suppresses appetites and staves off sleep. Ephedrine also is a key ingredient in the street drug methamphetamine."

"cheeba" which is another misinterpertation of the mexican slang word "civa" which means "goat" and now means black tar heroin.
"It's a perversion of the spanish word Chiva which is slang for Heroin."

Edited by John Dolva, 16 May 2007 - 10:05 PM.


#10 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 17 May 2007 - 01:35 AM

Tony,

I question the dog switch theory for one reason. His dog in the car (whether it was actually Sheba or not) was his alibi against premeditated murder. Having gone to the trouble of establishing this alibi beforehand, one would expect Ruby to express concern for his dog during his first hours in custody, drawing attention to his well-prepared alibi.

Also, if someone else switched the dog for him, Ruby in custody had no way of knowing if that someone had successfully made the switch. It could still be his beloved Sheba in the car. He would therefore let his concern be known, to be on the safe side for Sheba.

The fact that there is apparently no real evidence that Ruby expressed concern to anyone about the dog in the car thus not only militates against the dog switch theory, but against there being a dog in the car at all.

You have nevertheless advanced a well-argued theory. Ruby's failure to exploit or draw attention to such a prearranged alibi is why I question the theory. (And having established such an alibi against premeditation, why in the world would he say "I intended to shoot him three times"?)

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker, 17 May 2007 - 01:38 AM.


#11 Sid Walker

Sid Walker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:near Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Posted 17 May 2007 - 02:17 AM

Tony,

I question the dog switch theory for one reason. His dog in the car (whether it was actually Sheba or not) was his alibi against premeditated murder. Having gone to the trouble of establishing this alibi beforehand, one would expect Ruby to express concern for his dog during his first hours in custody, drawing attention to his well-prepared alibi.

Also, if someone else switched the dog for him, Ruby in custody had no way of knowing if that someone had successfully made the switch. It could still be his beloved Sheba in the car. He would therefore let his concern be known, to be on the safe side for Sheba.

The fact that there is apparently no real evidence that Ruby expressed concern to anyone about the dog in the car thus not only militates against the dog switch theory, but against there being a dog in the car at all.

You have nevertheless advanced a well-argued theory. Ruby's failure to exploit or draw attention to such a prearranged alibi is why I question the theory. (And having established such an alibi against premeditation, why in the world would he say "I intended to shoot him three times"?)

Ron


Ron,

First, well done for a charming and well-written story. Every great tale has a canine angle, and you've both found it in the JFK case.

I think that looking for perfect rationality in all the activities surrounding Ruby's actions is probably searching for something that doesn't exist. It seems likely to me that Ruby was called to duty in a rush, because LHO was unexpectedly still alive. Ruby can't have been happy about it and was flustered. He and his controllers were patching up a bodged job on the fly. They couldn't plan their operation like clockwork.

Their main objective - other than killing LHO - must have been to make a plausible story stick in the public mind in the long run - a story, that is, compatible with Ruby's claim to be acting on impulse.

Because I personally also believe that elements of the Zionist lobby were ultimately responsible for the JFK assassination, I also believe that the most crucial objective of all when crafting the public image of Ruby was to downplay his Zionist affiliations - and make it seem that if he was lying, it was a mob (rather than Israeli) scam.

Edited by Sid Walker, 17 May 2007 - 02:27 AM.


#12 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,468 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 17 May 2007 - 06:11 AM

"being a dog in the car at all."

- indeed, well then another scenario presents itself involving crooked cops, Ruby and drugs. There may have been a dog, but not quite the one that yaps.

Sheeba is also a slang for Heroin, but possibly derived from a spanish slang of the more raw Opium from which Heroin is derived. In biblical times Solmon and the Queen of Sheeba apparently indulged in Myrrh laced with Laudanum*. (Possibly that was what was also offered to Jesus on the cross which he refused.)

Hookers and Heroin are often not far apart. The notion that Ruby had some dealing going on in his club is not unreasonable, rather the opposite.

Assassin is a word that comes from the Indian Hashashins, hash eaters/smokers. Hash oil is dark brown or black even depending on dilution, as is liquid Opium. Finely diluted it moves towards yellow. Ruby was known to go a bit berserk at times. The Berserkers were the Viking Stormtroopers who pre-battle would chew on a herb which by some accounts was Cannabis. They traded down the Volga to Baghdad. So having Laudan and Cannabis is not unreasonable. Either way, it helped them pump up to frenzy few could withstand in battle.

SO: blah-de-blah etc ad infinitum.....Crooked cops and Ruby's stash Doin' The Rhumba. Sheba becomes a dog ('Red Dog' is another slang for Heroin) in front of the Judge and no-one's the wiser.

*Latin word ladanum, the Arabic ladan, an aromatic juice of a shrub called the Cistus or rock rose, which has the same qualities, though in a slight degree, of opium, whence a decoction of opium is called laudanum.

Edited by John Dolva, 17 May 2007 - 06:14 AM.


#13 Tony Austin

Tony Austin

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 18 May 2007 - 03:48 PM

Tony,

I question the dog switch theory for one reason. His dog in the car (whether it was actually Sheba or not) was his alibi against premeditated murder. Having gone to the trouble of establishing this alibi beforehand, one would expect Ruby to express concern for his dog during his first hours in custody, drawing attention to his well-prepared alibi.

Also, if someone else switched the dog for him, Ruby in custody had no way of knowing if that someone had successfully made the switch. It could still be his beloved Sheba in the car. He would therefore let his concern be known, to be on the safe side for Sheba.

The fact that there is apparently no real evidence that Ruby expressed concern to anyone about the dog in the car thus not only militates against the dog switch theory, but against there being a dog in the car at all.

You have nevertheless advanced a well-argued theory. Ruby's failure to exploit or draw attention to such a prearranged alibi is why I question the theory. (And having established such an alibi against premeditation, why in the world would he say "I intended to shoot him three times"?)

Ron


Ron,
Ruby's comment to detective Archer: "..I intended to shoot him three times." is an interesting one. It was made very soon after he was arrested and confirmed by Detective Clardy in his testimony to the Warren Commission. Ruby was not sitting down to make a formal statement to the police or FBI. Archer made a comment to him an I believe Ruby may have replied quickly without thinking about it and made the comment as a 'slip of the tongue' saying his true thoughts on the matter when, if he had paused for a moment to consider the situation, he probably would have said nothing.
This may sound unlikely but you have to remember the circumstances. Following Kennedy's assassination, Ruby spent the next two days travelling backwards and forwards to numerous locations in Dallas both day and night. Records of his activities show he had very little sleep at all over that period. He was very emotional over that period and he was probably keeping going through a combination of stimulant drugs, coffee and adrenaline. When he was detained by the police he must have been in a state of physical and emotional exhaustion. In these circumstances I believe it is possible that he let one 'unguarded' sentence slip out.

Your question, about if Ruby was using the dog in the car 'set-up' as an important alibi why would he not make a lot of fuss about his dog in the car to help to promote that alibi, is a good one. Not easy to answer but I will suggest a possible answer.
I would think that the plans to get Ruby into Police Headquarters at the right moment and the plan to have the dog in the car were made by unknown individuals in the Mafia. Ruby probably thought the plans to get him into the Police Department were brilliant and he even made a point of telling the police about the 'perfect timing' if he had planned to arrive the moment Oswald appeared. However, he probably thought the plan about leaving his dog in the car was an unnecessary touch that he could do without. He would much rather have dropped Sheba off at the Carousel Club before he drove to the Western Union. He could also see his dog ending up in the dog pound, an idea he would not like at all. He probably felt the plan to get a time stamp at the Post Office and then shoot Oswald within a few minutes was so good it did not need any embellishments.
However, he was under orders from his superiors in the Mafia and he knew better than to not do as they wished. So he went ahead and made sure that there was a dog in his car but he made sure the dog was not Sheba but another dog with Sheba's collar on her. Having achieved what he wanted to do and having managed not to upset the Mafia he thought no more of the dog in the car matter. It was not his idea and he thought it was a silly irrelevance so he said little about the dog after his arrest. He told his captors about leaving his car lot near the Headquarters and quietly mentioned the dog in passing. So quietly that when questioned later, his captors could not remember him saying something about the dog.
Well, that's my thoughts at the moment,

Tony

#14 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 06:29 PM

Tony,

I'll update my article to include Clardy's testimony that I missed, and will also mention your theory with a link to this thread.

Ron

#15 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,468 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 19 May 2007 - 07:45 AM

Tony: "Following Kennedy's assassination, Ruby spent the next two days travelling backwards and forwards to numerous locations in Dallas both day and night. Records of his activities show he had very little sleep at all over that period. He was very emotional over that period and he was probably keeping going through a combination of stimulant drugs, coffee and adrenaline."

He definitely was taking Diet Pills. Which brand I don't know, but ephedrine is a very likely ingredient. This is what is known as 'Speed'. People who 'speed' for extended periods lose touch with reality, as well as right after dosing gain a kind of focus that removes inhibitions and speeds reaction times, apart from when not abusing, lessens appetite and the need for sleep. Of course there are consequences and understanding Ruby necessarily needs to include an understanding of his drug, medicine, whatever, taking.

At the crisis points extreme emotionality, sadness and anger and suicidal actions increase. He had been projecting his needs all over the place, bringing food to the cops and others, buzzing around talking to anyone who would listen. He was 'investigating' and closed his club.

_________________


(There is a significant moment in his Warren interview when suddenly the subject is changed and not resumed having to do with his encounter with Olsen and Kay. It's one of those Kostner 'ask the question' moments. I think there was a window of opportunity that was let go of, seemingly willingly by all concerned. Anyone else noticed that one, or is it just me?)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users