Jack Ruby and a Faked Assassination Plot

[Tim Gratz]

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" suggests there may have been a plan to fake an assassination attempt on JFK, a plan hijacked by the real conspirators.

Pat Speer once started a thread suggesting just such a scenario. His thread was titled: "Thinking Dark Thoughts".

A few months later I started a similar thread.

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

In any event, unfortunately I cannot cite the specifics but I read to this effect in Larry Hancock's book earlier today:

1) The morning of the assassination, Jack Ruby was reported to have remarked to someone: "Are you going to [be in Dealey Plaza] to watch the fireworks today?"

2) After the assassination Ruby was reportedly visibly shaken (by several people).

#2 suggests, of course, that Ruby had no foreknowledge of the assassination. Of course, if he was a conspirator he could have been acting. He could, for instance, already have been given his assignment to kill Oswald so his feigned shock was part of his planned defense. But . . .

What about #1? It does not make sense that Ruby would reveal his foreknowledge of the assassination. But perhaps what he was privy to was that there was to be a staged assassination attempt. So he expected there would be "fireworks" but no actual injuries.

Am I reading to much in to the above facts? It would seem that if both 1 and 2 are true, and if Ruby's shock was genuine, perhaps he had been informed of a staged assassination attempt and was in shock when he realized that someone had hijacked the staged event and made it horribly real.

How Ruby's knowledge of a faked assassination attempt would fit into the entire conspiracy, however, I do not suggest even a scenario.

Edited October 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Tim wrote:

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

Or might I suggest the "Pure Speculation" thread.

[Now that I've gotten your blood pressure up, Tim, I might remind you that I also believe there might be some credence to this theory...unfortunately, I've also found no proof, which by your own definition makes this "pure speculation."]

The theory concerning a hijacked fake assassination attempt is appealing on a lot of different levels, but I don't think the evidence is out there to sell it...although, in some ways, I truly wish it was.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, it is always good when we agree. And I agree that the fake attempt scenario is at this time "pure speculation" but that it could explain a lot of things.

So what did you think of the two reports re Ruby? Was Ruby just faking the "shock"?

[Adam Wilkinson]

Tim, although this theory is just pure speculation, It is intriguing. I don't believe that Ruby had prior knowledge of the assassination, however some hard evidence would be good.

[Mark Knight]

Tim, since I have no firsthand information upon which to base my speculation on this matter, this is all from my impressions. I believe that Ruby is genuinely shocked by the assassination. However, since I have no earthly idea of Ruby having any foreknowledge of the assassination whatsoever, I would suggest that the "fireworks" comment would be a reference to the likelihood of the Kennedy visit possibly precipitating another incident similar to the Adelai Stevenson attack of some weeks prior.

There just isn't sufficient evidence to read anything more into Ruby's "fireworks" comment. And it's my belief that, initially at least, Ruby's shock at learning of the assassination was like the shock felt by most Americans that day...and just as genuine.

But, absent further evidence, this is just my own speculation...drawn from the evidence, but unproven.

[Mark Stapleton]

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" suggests there may have been a plan to fake an assassination attempt on JFK, a plan hijacked by the real conspirators.

Pat Speer once started a thread suggesting just such a scenario. His thread was titled: "Thinking Dark Thoughts".

A few months later I started a similar thread.

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

In any event, unfortunately I cannot cite the specifics but I read to this effect in Larry Hancock's book earlier today:

1) The morning of the assassination, Jack Ruby was reported to have remarked to someone: "Are you going to [be in Dealey Plaza] to watch the fireworks today?"

2) After the assassination Ruby was reportedly visibly shaken (by several people).

#2 suggests, of course, that Ruby had no foreknowledge of the assassination. Of course, if he was a conspirator he could have been acting. He could, for instance, already have been given his assignment to kill Oswald so his feigned shock was part of his planned defense. But . . .

What about #1? It does not make sense that Ruby would reveal his foreknowledge of the assassination. But perhaps what he was privy to was that there was to be a staged assassination attempt. So he expected there would be "fireworks" but no actual injuries.

Am I reading to much in to the above facts? It would seem that if both 1 and 2 are true, and if Ruby's shock was genuine, perhaps he had been informed of a staged assassination attempt and was in shock when he realized that someone had hijacked the staged event and made it horribly real.

How Ruby's knowledge of a faked assassination attempt would fit into the entire conspiracy, however, I do not suggest even a scenario.

I lean a little towards a staged attempt, too. It seems like a neat way of getting those lower down the line to assist in some of the pre-planning without burdening them with the actual consequences of their actions.

Ruby knew something--the testimony of Julieanne Mercer points to that, along with Ruby's alleged comment about watching the fireworks. But would the conspirators entrust full knowledge of the plan to such an irresponsible talker as Jack Ruby?

It makes me think that there might have been two plans that day, the assassination's true sponsors retaining control over both while limiting knowledge of its extent to just a few. The "outer" group of conspirators are not likely to rush to the authorities and confess their ignorance of the plan's full extent. (the authorities wouldn't let them anyway).

Worth mulling over I think.

[John Simkin]

There just isn't sufficient evidence to read anything more into Ruby's "fireworks" comment. And it's my belief that, initially at least, Ruby's shock at learning of the assassination was like the shock felt by most Americans that day...and just as genuine.

I suspect you are right. However, they are not the words of a JFK supporter. The use of the word “fireworks” suggests it was going to be an enjoyable experience. Yet a couple of days later he was willing to sacrifice his freedom in order to kill the man who “killed” JFK. Very strange.

[John Dolva]

There just isn't sufficient evidence to read anything more into Ruby's "fireworks" comment. And it's my belief that, initially at least, Ruby's shock at learning of the assassination was like the shock felt by most Americans that day...and just as genuine.

I suspect you are right. However, they are not the words of a JFK supporter. The use of the word “fireworks” suggests it was going to be an enjoyable experience. Yet a couple of days later he was willing to sacrifice his freedom in order to kill the man who “killed” JFK. Very strange.

The FBI document referring to this 'fireworks' statement also says he said it in an invitation to the informant to come to the corner of the post office building with him to see the fireworks.

suggestion : Maybe he had been tipped off, and he did see the fireworks, and something else as well. He was now in the grip of the assassins and as Garrison suggested,(from Garrisons JFK tapes on video, I believe it was a basis for JFK the movie?) the step from there to obeying the order to eliminate Oswald was not so big. The alternative was frying as accessory. In a nut shell, they now had him by the balls. His attempt to go to Washington and reveal all failed. He died. Betrayed. Patsy#2?

Edited October 17, 2005 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

Strange of course only if you accept at face value Ruby's statement re why he killed Oswald.

[Lee Forman]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2861

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee,

Thanks for that. That threads a while back so I'm glad you pointed it out. Very interesting research. Do you still like the scenario?

[Lee Forman]

Lee,

Thanks for that. That threads a while back so I'm glad you pointed it out. Very interesting research. Do you still like the scenario?

Hi Mark.

I don't know to be honest. Can't figure out whether this was:

1. A scam, created after-the-fact, to implicate EH Hunt.

2. An ingenious scheme created by someone to create a clean method to 'lure' certain folks to Dealey Plaza, where they would be made complicit, and the provision of a 'backdoor' - if things got too hot.

3. A scenario that was only provided as a ruse only to certain individuals - like LHO.

4. Total crap.

It's all speculation, but perhaps there was something by way of JCS / DOD and providing something to PSYOPS, as with Lansdale and Operation Northwoods - the concept of a simulated assassination, which was twisted early on. RFK's reaction, as well as MacNamara and others - following the assassination - quite peculiar.

As for me personally, I like what Thornley said about a 'Maximum Complicity' crime. Invite everyone to the dance so as to camoflauge the orchestra. I was also very interested to read what I saw some others considering, which was that perhaps there was a second operational plan of some sort for the Trade Mart. So perhaps the Corsican Connection [soutre], and the host of operational types that were found mixing in Dallas on 11/22/63 [Vaganov, DPD arrest records, etc.], were part of something else?

If Culligan is to be credited, then his information could have come from one or two sources. He said his 'helpers' included a Texas State Police Officer, and a plumber from Corpus Cristi [Wouldn't it be great to have those IDs]. Anyway, part of what I find interesting about his 'story' is that the operation had the use of 2 DPD squad cars. There is a reference in the Warren Report to 2 retired squad cars. There is no official record of a DPD car being in the area of Oswald's boarding house. Then on a Tippit thread, Dixie made mention of a witness that claimed to have seen a DPD squad car in the driveway at the house where Tippit was shot.

There are other references to the DPD. The extra uniform in Tippit's car. The Mike Robinson account. The remark made by Altgens to Lifton concerning having seen Policemen on the knoll. Arnold's account. etc. etc.

I never managed to figure out a lot of what I thought was seeing in the photos and films [eg Military hats] - but it strikes me that you wouldn't want a 'simulated assassination' to include the DPD?

I guess there's no real way of knowing - save for getting ahold of the document [allegedly] given to Audie Murphy by John Tower, or if we could get real, original, unaltered imagery taken in Dealey Plaza of what actually transpired. Or if a document comes to light which looks a lot like Operation Northwoods, and maybe spells out what RFK had planned?

- lee

[Greg Wagner]

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" suggests there may have been a plan to fake an assassination attempt on JFK, a plan hijacked by the real conspirators.

Pat Speer once started a thread suggesting just such a scenario. His thread was titled: "Thinking Dark Thoughts".

A few months later I started a similar thread.

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

In any event, unfortunately I cannot cite the specifics but I read to this effect in Larry Hancock's book earlier today:

1) The morning of the assassination, Jack Ruby was reported to have remarked to someone: "Are you going to [be in Dealey Plaza] to watch the fireworks today?"

2) After the assassination Ruby was reportedly visibly shaken (by several people).

#2 suggests, of course, that Ruby had no foreknowledge of the assassination. Of course, if he was a conspirator he could have been acting. He could, for instance, already have been given his assignment to kill Oswald so his feigned shock was part of his planned defense. But . . .

What about #1? It does not make sense that Ruby would reveal his foreknowledge of the assassination. But perhaps what he was privy to was that there was to be a staged assassination attempt. So he expected there would be "fireworks" but no actual injuries.

Am I reading to much in to the above facts? It would seem that if both 1 and 2 are true, and if Ruby's shock was genuine, perhaps he had been informed of a staged assassination attempt and was in shock when he realized that someone had hijacked the staged event and made it horribly real.

How Ruby's knowledge of a faked assassination attempt would fit into the entire conspiracy, however, I do not suggest even a scenario.

Just some thoughts and speculation on this:

An interesting line of thought Tim. Given Ruby's statement and post assassination demeanor, I see three possibilities:

1. Ruby had no idea that anything related to an assassination or a phony, staged "attempt" was going to take place. Maybe by "fireworks" he simply meant the motorcade, the crowds of people, etc. Maybe by "fireworks", he just meant the general hoopla surrounding JFK's motorcade. If this was the case, then I would speculate that his reaction to the assassination (visibly shaken) was probably genuine.

The big problem I see with this one is his specific reference to Dealey Plaza (although the way it's bracketed in the quotation makes it difficult to know just how specific that reference to DP was). If by "fireworks" Ruby simply meant all of the hoopla surrounding the motorcade, the reference to DP seems too specific, as the motorcade traveled through downtown Dallas prior to arriving in DP. One could have viewed the "fireworks" anywhere along that route if Ruby's "fireworks" reference was really that general. I think here is where knowing some context, along the actual words that came out of Jack Ruby's mouth would be helpful. Is that info available? To whom was he speaking? Who is the original source of this info? I do have a copy of Larry's book, could you direct me to the appropriate page?

2. Ruby knew that JKF was going to be assassinated in Dealey Plaza. His remark about seeing the "fireworks" suggests this. Again context; do we know who he said this to and what his exact words were? His immediate reaction to the murder could still have been genuine when he saw that it had actually happened and happened in such graphic fashion. Or his reaction was feigned in order to help conceal the fact that he had foreknowledge of what had just happened.

It seems unlikely to me that the plotters would have provided such information to Jack Ruby unless he was actually part of the plot to kill JFK. Having said that, I suppose that given Ruby's mob ties and their potential involvement (at an operational/support level, not a strategic one, IMO), he could have been assigned to perform in a support role. Julianne Mercer's testimony supports this, as does the allegation that Ruby visited HL Hunt’s office the day before the assassination (Hunt being some who allegedly had foreknowledge of the events in DP and an untampered with copy of the Z film on the evening of 11/22. I know the Z film allegation comes from various Hunt household employees, but I cannot recall who claims to have seen Ruby at Hunt’s office on 11/21.). The claim that Ruby was in the offices of the Dallas Morning News at the time of the assassination seem to shoot holes (no pun intended) in Mercer’s account. In Seth Kantor’s book on Ruby, he’s specific and names two or three people that had interaction with Ruby and verify that he was there. So, is Julianne Mercer mistaken? Does a timeline work where Mercer could have seen him In DP before he heads over to the DMN? IMO, if Ruby knew, then he was probably involved. Any thoughts on Ruby’s movements/whereabouts/timeline on 11/23?

3. Ruby knew of a phony, staged "attempt" on Kennedy's life that would take place in Dealey Plaza and this is reflected in the "fireworks" remark. His being "visibly shaken" after the shooting coming as the result of the realization that something had gone horribly wrong.

This is certainly an intriguing idea. Are we suggesting/speculating that there could have been an actual fake attempt on JFK’s like in order to convince him that he needed to take his security more seriously? In order to gain public support for efforts against Castro? And that such a plan was somehow infiltrated by the real perps and “turned?” I don’t know if I buy that. Who in an official capacity would actually OK a staged assassination attempt against their President? That would have sounded pretty crazy at the time. And awful risky. What if the DPD or the SS actually shot someone during such a caper? This scenario is just a little too far out for me. Not saying it’s impossible, but who would have been stupid enough to authorize this? Or are we speculating that the fake assassination attempt was a story cooked up by the real plotters, perhaps purporting to be (or perhaps actually being for that matter) U.S. Government officials/agents in order to enlist the services of certain individuals (like Ruby?) who may have thought that they were doing a service to their country (until the real bullets started flying, that is)? I don’t know. It’s very intriguing, but when I try to piece it all together, I just don’t see the plotters needing to do it. They could hire professional killers/teams, there were plenty of powerful people/groups that wanted Kennedy dead and would have cooperated willingly (Cubans, Agency, Mafia, Suite 8F types, JBS, Hunt, Murchison, all the usual suspects), and it’s pretty obvious that there could be sufficient leverage applied to low level support personnel like a Jack Ruby that no fake assassination story would have been necessary.

I guess I’m more inclined to believe scenario #1 or #2. In choosing between those two, I’d like to know more about Ruby’s “fireworks” statement (To whom was it said? Exact words? Etc.). How credible is the story about Ruby being at HL Hunt’s office on 11/21? Can Mercer’s account and the account of Ruby being at the DMN at the time of the shooting both be correct?

Just rambling and speculating here. Interested in your thoughts or any corrections to the above.

Edited October 18, 2005 by Greg Wagner

[Mark Stapleton]

Lee,

Thanks for that. That threads a while back so I'm glad you pointed it out. Very interesting research. Do you still like the scenario?

Hi Mark.

I don't know to be honest. Can't figure out whether this was:

1. A scam, created after-the-fact, to implicate EH Hunt.

2. An ingenious scheme created by someone to create a clean method to 'lure' certain folks to Dealey Plaza, where they would be made complicit, and the provision of a 'backdoor' - if things got too hot.

3. A scenario that was only provided as a ruse only to certain individuals - like LHO.

4. Total crap.

It's all speculation, but perhaps there was something by way of JCS / DOD and providing something to PSYOPS, as with Lansdale and Operation Northwoods - the concept of a simulated assassination, which was twisted early on. RFK's reaction, as well as MacNamara and others - following the assassination - quite peculiar.

As for me personally, I like what Thornley said about a 'Maximum Complicity' crime. Invite everyone to the dance so as to camoflauge the orchestra. I was also very interested to read what I saw some others considering, which was that perhaps there was a second operational plan of some sort for the Trade Mart. So perhaps the Corsican Connection [soutre], and the host of operational types that were found mixing in Dallas on 11/22/63 [Vaganov, DPD arrest records, etc.], were part of something else?

If Culligan is to be credited, then his information could have come from one or two sources. He said his 'helpers' included a Texas State Police Officer, and a plumber from Corpus Cristi [Wouldn't it be great to have those IDs]. Anyway, part of what I find interesting about his 'story' is that the operation had the use of 2 DPD squad cars. There is a reference in the Warren Report to 2 retired squad cars. There is no official record of a DPD car being in the area of Oswald's boarding house. Then on a Tippit thread, Dixie made mention of a witness that claimed to have seen a DPD squad car in the driveway at the house where Tippit was shot.

There are other references to the DPD. The extra uniform in Tippit's car. The Mike Robinson account. The remark made by Altgens to Lifton concerning having seen Policemen on the knoll. Arnold's account. etc. etc.

I never managed to figure out a lot of what I thought was seeing in the photos and films [eg Military hats] - but it strikes me that you wouldn't want a 'simulated assassination' to include the DPD?

I guess there's no real way of knowing - save for getting ahold of the document [allegedly] given to Audie Murphy by John Tower, or if we could get real, original, unaltered imagery taken in Dealey Plaza of what actually transpired. Or if a document comes to light which looks a lot like Operation Northwoods, and maybe spells out what RFK had planned?

- lee

Lee,

Thanks for your thoughts. It's a headscratcher. Agree the DPD were unlikely to have known of any mock assassination. Possibly they thought it might be some kind of practical joke.

Ruby's the fly in the ointment for me. If Julieanne Mercer's testimony is credible--and her descriptions "heavyset, middle aged" and "late 20s, plaid shirt" are a close match with Lee Bowers description of the two guys standing near the fence, then he at least delivered the gun case and was possibly in DP (despite his alibi about the DMN). If so, he knows he's helping in something. I don't see him calmly "slouched" over the wheel (and blocking traffic) in the knowledge that he's assisting in the assassination of the President. I could be wrong of course.

I never knew Audie Murphy was the most decorated soldier in US history. How about that.

[Mark Stapleton]

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" suggests there may have been a plan to fake an assassination attempt on JFK, a plan hijacked by the real conspirators.

Pat Speer once started a thread suggesting just such a scenario. His thread was titled: "Thinking Dark Thoughts".

A few months later I started a similar thread.

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

In any event, unfortunately I cannot cite the specifics but I read to this effect in Larry Hancock's book earlier today:

1) The morning of the assassination, Jack Ruby was reported to have remarked to someone: "Are you going to [be in Dealey Plaza] to watch the fireworks today?"

2) After the assassination Ruby was reportedly visibly shaken (by several people).

#2 suggests, of course, that Ruby had no foreknowledge of the assassination. Of course, if he was a conspirator he could have been acting. He could, for instance, already have been given his assignment to kill Oswald so his feigned shock was part of his planned defense. But . . .

What about #1? It does not make sense that Ruby would reveal his foreknowledge of the assassination. But perhaps what he was privy to was that there was to be a staged assassination attempt. So he expected there would be "fireworks" but no actual injuries.

Am I reading to much in to the above facts? It would seem that if both 1 and 2 are true, and if Ruby's shock was genuine, perhaps he had been informed of a staged assassination attempt and was in shock when he realized that someone had hijacked the staged event and made it horribly real.

How Ruby's knowledge of a faked assassination attempt would fit into the entire conspiracy, however, I do not suggest even a scenario.

Just some thoughts and speculation on this:

An interesting line of thought Tim. Given Ruby's statement and post assassination demeanor, I see three possibilities:

1. Ruby had no idea that anything related to an assassination or a phony, staged "attempt" was going to take place. Maybe by "fireworks" he simply meant the motorcade, the crowds of people, etc. Maybe by "fireworks", he just meant the general hoopla surrounding JFK's motorcade. If this was the case, then I would speculate that his reaction to the assassination (visibly shaken) was probably genuine.

The big problem I see with this one is his specific reference to Dealey Plaza (although the way it's bracketed in the quotation makes it difficult to know just how specific that reference to DP was). If by "fireworks" Ruby simply meant all of the hoopla surrounding the motorcade, the reference to DP seems too specific, as the motorcade traveled through downtown Dallas prior to arriving in DP. One could have viewed the "fireworks" anywhere along that route if Ruby's "fireworks" reference was really that general. I think here is where knowing some context, along the actual words that came out of Jack Ruby's mouth would be helpful. Is that info available? To whom was he speaking? Who is the original source of this info? I do have a copy of Larry's book, could you direct me to the appropriate page?

2. Ruby knew that JKF was going to be assassinated in Dealey Plaza. His remark about seeing the "fireworks" suggests this. Again context; do we know who he said this to and what his exact words were? His immediate reaction to the murder could still have been genuine when he saw that it had actually happened and happened in such graphic fashion. Or his reaction was feigned in order to help conceal the fact that he had foreknowledge of what had just happened.

It seems unlikely to me that the plotters would have provided such information to Jack Ruby unless he was actually part of the plot to kill JFK. Having said that, I suppose that given Ruby's mob ties and their potential involvement (at an operational/support level, not a strategic one, IMO), he could have been assigned to perform in a support role. Julianne Mercer's testimony supports this, as does the allegation that Ruby visited HL Hunt’s office the day before the assassination (Hunt being some who allegedly had foreknowledge of the events in DP and an untampered with copy of the Z film on the evening of 11/22. I know the Z film allegation comes from various Hunt household employees, but I cannot recall who claims to have seen Ruby at Hunt’s office on 11/21.). The claim that Ruby was in the offices of the Dallas Morning News at the time of the assassination seem to shoot holes (no pun intended) in Mercer’s account. In Seth Kantor’s book on Ruby, he’s specific and names two or three people that had interaction with Ruby and verify that he was there. So, is Julianne Mercer mistaken? Does a timeline work where Mercer could have seen him In DP before he heads over to the DMN? IMO, if Ruby knew, then he was probably involved. Any thoughts on Ruby’s movements/whereabouts/timeline on 11/23?

3. Ruby knew of a phony, staged "attempt" on Kennedy's life that would take place in Dealey Plaza and this is reflected in the "fireworks" remark. His being "visibly shaken" after the shooting coming as the result of the realization that something had gone horribly wrong.

This is certainly an intriguing idea. Are we suggesting/speculating that there could have been an actual fake attempt on JFK’s like in order to convince him that he needed to take his security more seriously? In order to gain public support for efforts against Castro? And that such a plan was somehow infiltrated by the real perps and “turned?” I don’t know if I buy that. Who in an official capacity would actually OK a staged assassination attempt against their President? That would have sounded pretty crazy at the time. And awful risky. What if the DPD or the SS actually shot someone during such a caper? This scenario is just a little too far out for me. Not saying it’s impossible, but who would have been stupid enough to authorize this? Or are we speculating that the fake assassination attempt was a story cooked up by the real plotters, perhaps purporting to be (or perhaps actually being for that matter) U.S. Government officials/agents in order to enlist the services of certain individuals (like Ruby?) who may have thought that they were doing a service to their country (until the real bullets started flying, that is)? I don’t know. It’s very intriguing, but when I try to piece it all together, I just don’t see the plotters needing to do it. They could hire professional killers/teams, there were plenty of powerful people/groups that wanted Kennedy dead and would have cooperated willingly (Cubans, Agency, Mafia, Suite 8F types, JBS, Hunt, Murchison, all the usual suspects), and it’s pretty obvious that there could be sufficient leverage applied to low level support personnel like a Jack Ruby that no fake assassination story would have been necessary.

I guess I’m more inclined to believe scenario #1 or #2. In choosing between those two, I’d like to know more about Ruby’s “fireworks” statement (To whom was it said? Exact words? Etc.). How credible is the story about Ruby being at HL Hunt’s office on 11/21? Can Mercer’s account and the account of Ruby being at the DMN at the time of the shooting both be correct?

Just rambling and speculating here. Interested in your thoughts or any corrections to the above.

Greg,

Interesting thoughts. You're right, there would need to be an adequate explanation for planning a faked assassination. I can't think of anything except maybe to blame it on Castro and get JFK to invade Cuba. That's a longshot.

Concerning Ruby, didn't he change his story about being at the Morning News? And were there other sightings of Ruby in DP? He was seemingly everywhere that day.

On the question of Ruby's alibi, if its true, it wouldn't necessarily disprove Mercer's testimony as that concerned the earlier sighting of Ruby in the Ford pickup delivering the gun case.