Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
John Simkin

The Death of Jack Ruby

Recommended Posts

Has anyone read the 12/23/63 FBI Report of Manning/Clements re Jack Ruby?

It is 16 pages long, and is basically the JFK Assassination Gospel According to Jack Ruby, read [activities of Jack Ruby from the time of the car ride he provided for Connie Trammel up to the moment he shot Oswald] in the company of Melvin Belli, Sam Brody, William Choulos and Joe Tonahill plus the aforementioned FBI Agents, can anyone find it on maryferrell.org? It needs to be made available for the Education Forum

This may assist the search: I believe the Ruby interview in question was conducted by MANNING. C . CLEMENTS (singular).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg; I think the American Cancer Society would argue that "passive" or second hand smoke inhalation, indeed does cause, or at least puts you at risk for lung cancer, Ruby was definately exposed to that in a nightclub. Ruby was riddled with metastatic tumors, including lymph system invasion, which makes it harder to determine point of origin. Rose does not state exactly where site of origin occured. He just states immediate cause of death as- Pulmonary emboli, secondary to bronchiolar carcinoma of the lungs.

Whats your opinion?


Bill, little doubt that "passive" smoking is a risk factor in lung cancer - just not small cell carcenoma - which is the type Ruby had (ie the type that spreads). Anthracosis is not cancer, and I have found nothing suggesting "passive" smoking can cause it. In fact, what the literature does say is that it only ever leads to lung cancer when the person is a long-term smoker.

That Rose does not state point of origin is interesting. I thought it had been determined by Parkland doctors before death (they were investigating point of origin, acording to newspaper accounts. Might be misremembering that they succeeded). Doesn't matter much to my theory. The beryllium usually stores itself in bone and from there, once released, may end up causing tumors in any organ.

Doh! I gotta stop posting first thing in the morning before coffee. Although not stated explicitly, Rose does in fact indicate it started in the lungs by describing all other tumors as metastatic (secondary).

I'd also like to reiterate the importance of the anthracosis. Unless someone can show "passive" smoking is a risk factor for this, it's presence is - according to the literature - limited in cause to coal dust or heavy polution. We really need someone with experience in forensic medicine to look at the autopsy report alongside Ruby's known lifestyle and health history.

Maybe we should be looking at the symptoms of Black Lung Disease?

It was great work by John D in finding and pointing out the heavy reliance Chicago had on coal during Ruby's early years in that city. It does explains the presence of anthracosis in Ruby lymph nodes.

See: http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/lymphnodes.html

Anthracosis in lymph nodes


Common in intrapulmonary lymph nodes

Due to coal dust, smoke or pollution

But here's the however... however...


"anthracosis is the term typically utilized to describe black lung disease before it has progressed to such an extent that symptoms of the disease are palpable. The condition typically develops gradually over the course of many years and is characterized by black spotting or marbling of the lungs. The dark pigmentation associated with anthracosis primarily is caused by excessive exposure to carbonaceous material, which may stem from soot, diesel exhaust, coal, or other sources of carbon-containing dusts. Pollution and smoking are also known to contribute to anthracosis, and the condition is present to some extent in many residents of urban areas. Historically, however, anthracosis and its more severe manifestation, black lung disease, are best known as occupational illnesses that occur most commonly in coal miners."

Based on the above, I think the anthracosis Ruby had was asymptomatic and had not progressed to black lung disease due to his removing himself from the irritant which probably caused it. Lateral to that, I don't think it was a factor in the development of his lung cancer, but I'd welcome any opinion/knowledge which might counter that. Till then, as far as I'm concerned, the hunt for the "trigger" continues, as does my belief that beryllium belongs at the top of the list possibilities.

Beryllium actually gets a mention in a book called "The Elements of Murder: A History of Poison" by John Emsley.

According to Emsley "...although the lungs are particularly sensitive, it is not because beryllium accumulates there. If beryllium dust is breathed in it is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and carries to other sites in the body, generally to the bone, where it concentrates... there are no cases on record of people being deliberately poisoned with beryllium compounds..." All of which may just indicate how wise the CIA was in identifying it as a potential assassination "tool" back in the '50s.

Greg: I agree, I don't believe the above conditions are described in Ruby's autopsy, at least as far as black spotting , dark pigmentation, marbling etc.

One would think Rose would have mentioned what he found, as possibly indicative of (pre) BLD.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In his book, Dr. Mary's Monkey, Edward Haslam covers many different subjects in his book that may or may not be linked to the death of Dr. Mary Sherman. One of the most interesting pieces of information concerns a report published by the American Medical Association. Haslam quotes USA Today as saying: “Men born between 1948 and 1957 have three times as much cancer not related to smoking as men born in the late 1800s… The study’s researchers insist the increase cannot be explained by smoking, better diagnosis, or an aging population.” The article, published on 9th April, 1994, quotes U.S. Public Health Service official Devera Lee Davies as saying: “There’s something else going on.”

Haslam argues that the increase in cancer could be linked to the polio epidemic in the early 1950s. The first polio vaccine was developed in 1952 by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh, and announced to the world on April 12, 1955. Haslam writes about a researcher called Bernice Eddy. She carried out an experiment where she injected the polio vaccine into monkeys. They immediately fell paralyzed in their cages. Eddy realized that the virus in the vaccine was not dead as promised, but still alive and ready to breed. Eddy reported her findings to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Her research received some publicity but the medical establishment insisted that the mass inoculation should go ahead. Dr. Alton Ochsner, Dr. Mary Sherman’s boss, joined in the debate by announcing he intended to inject his own grandchildren with the new vaccine. Eddy was roundly condemned for her comments and was taken off polio research.

However, Eddy was right, within a few days children all over America who had been given this vaccine fell ill with polio. Two of Ochsner’s grandchildren developed the disease. One died and the other one survived. The Secretary of Health, Oveta Hobby and the Director of the NIH were forced to resign.

The Salk vaccine was withdrawn and a second weaker vaccine developed by Albert Sabin was deployed instead. This new vaccine was used all over the world. I, like I suspect most members of this forum, received their injection while at school. In time, polio ceased to be a killer disease.

Meanwhile, Eddy continued her research. She joined forces with Dr. Sarah Stewart who worked at the National Cancer Institute. In 1957 they became the first people to identify the polyoma virus (SV40), which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small mammals and that it can be transferred from one animal to another.

In 1959 Eddy and Stewart began to look closely at the Sabin polio vaccine that was being given to children all over the world. The vaccine’s manufacturers had grown their polio viruses on the kidney’s of monkeys. They speculated that when they removed the polio virus from the monkeys’ kidneys, they also removed an unknown number of other monkey viruses. If they were right, the world had been inoculating an entire generation of Americans with cancer-causing monkey viruses?

In October, 1960, Bernice Eddy went public with their findings at the New York Cancer Society. The NIH immediately took steps to silence her. They took away her lab, destroyed the animals she was carrying out experiments on, put her under a gagging order and prevented her from attending professional meetings.

The research of Eddy and Stewart was backed up by that of Laurella McClelland working in Philadelphia. As McClelland was working for a vaccine manufacturer, this information was covered up at the time. However, on 26th July, 1961, the New York Times reported that two vaccine manufacturers were withdrawing their polio vaccines until they can eliminate a monkey virus. Seven months later another article in the New York Times suggested that there was a possibility of cancer in the polio vaccine. However, no one picked up on this information and the idea of children being vaccinated with cancer never entered the public consciousness.

Meanwhile the US government arranged for secret experiments to take place to produce a new polio vaccine that did not cause cancer. Haslam speculates that Dr. Mary Sherman was involved in this research and that her death might be linked to this. (I will explain this later).

Haslam does not mention that recent scientific develops have confirmed that Eddy and Stewart were right about their belief that there was a connection between the polio vaccine and the cancer epidemic. Scientists have discovered that the DNA of SV40 in monkeys is very similar to the DNA of cancer tumors in humans.

Haslam does not mention another important possible link with the assassination of JFK. If people like Dr. Alton Ochsner were aware as early as 1961 that it was possible to inject humans with SV40 in order to create a cancer tumor. Is it possible that this is what they did to Jack Ruby?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

John wrote:

Haslam does not mention another important possible link with the assassination of JFK. If people like Dr. Alton Ochsner were aware as early as 1961 that it was possible to inject humans with SV40 in order to create a cancer tumor. Is it possible that this is what they did to Jack Ruby?

VB disputes the idea that Ruby was silencing LHO as part of a conspiracy by claiming that he had the opportunity to do so on Friday night and surely if LHO was to be silenced the conspirators would want it done as soon as possible, rather than giving LHO another full day to "talk". I must admit there is some logic to that if Ruby was close enough to Oswald on Friday night to shoot him. Surely if the plot was going down as so many of us expect it was there was a plan to kill LHO shortly after the assassination, which plan failed, and Ruby would have then been ordered no later than Friday afternoon to kill LHO. I mean I suspect 99% of us believe that Ruby was part of the conspiracy at a relatively early stage, e.g. his reported meetings with Rosselli.

So if anyone has info that JR could not have killed LHO on Friday night, that would be helpful.

But getting to the point about Jack Ruby, as interesting a theory as it is, why would the conspirators wait until Ruby had not only been tried but sentenced to death before killing him? If he had kept quiet all that long, was there some reason they expected he might start to "sing" at that point? And if that was there concern, why a slow death (other than the fact that it would not be seen as a murder)? If Ruby was slowly dying and expected foul play, why would that not prompt him to talk before he died?

Would it not have been far far easier (and faster) to get him a day long furlough and take him on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Long (long) article From Harpers on the science of contagious and transmissible cancer. The main animals studied are Tasmanian devils, where tumor cells can be spread by bites. And the population is thought to be so inbred that the animals' immune systems don't kick in because they don't recognize cancer cells from another devil as a foreign invader.

No telling whether Ruby died from a toxin or an injection of cancer, but it's becoming clear that prospect of a deadly cancer injection is not far fetched.


"The case of the Syrian hamster is more complicated. This tumor arose around 1960, when researchers at the National Cancer Institute, in Bethesda, Maryland, performed an experiment in which they harvested a naturally occurring sarcoma from one hamster and injected those cells (as cancer scientists often do) into healthy animals. When the injected hamsters developed malignancies, more cells were harvested. Each such inoculation-and-harvest cycle is called a passage. The experiment involved a dozen such passages, and over time the tumor began to change. It had evolved. The later generations, unlike the first, represented a sort of super tumor, capable of getting from hamster to hamster without benefit of a needle.


The phenomenon of transmissible tumors isn’t confined to canines, Tasmanian devils, and Syrian hamsters. There have been human cases, too. Forty years ago a team of physicians led by Edward F. Scanlon reported, in the journal Cancer, that they had “decided to transplant small pieces of tumor from a cancer patient into a healthy donor, on a well informed volunteer basis, in the hope of gaining a little better understanding of cancer immunity,” which they thought might help in treating the patient. The patient was a fifty-year-old woman with advanced melanoma; the “donor” was her healthy eighty-year-old mother, who had agreed to receive a bit of the tumor by surgical transplant. One day after the transplant procedure, the daughter died suddenly from a perforated bowel. Scanlon’s report neglects to explain why the experiment wasn’t promptly terminated—why they didn’t dive back in surgically to undo what had been done to the mother. Instead, three weeks were allowed to pass, at which point the mother had developed a tumor indistinguishable from her daughter’s. Now it was too late for surgery. This cancer moved fast. It metastasized, and the mother died about fifteen months later, with tumors in her lungs, ribs, lymph nodes, and diaphragm.

The case of the daughter–mother transplant and the case of the Syrian hamsters have one common element: the original sources of the tumor and the recipients were genetically very similar. If the genome of one individual closely resembles the genome of another (as children resemble their parents, and as inbred animals resemble one another), the immune system of a recipient may not detect the foreignness of transplanted cells. The hamsters were highly inbred (intentionally, for experimental control) and therefore not very individuated from one another as far as their immune systems could discern. The mother and daughter were also genetically similar—as similar as two people can be without being identical twins. Lack of normal immune response, because of such closeness, goes some way toward explaining why those tumors survived transference between individuals.

Low immune response also figures in two other situations in which tumor transmission is known to occur: pregnancy and organ transplant. A mother sometimes passes cancer cells to her fetus in the womb. And a transplanted organ sometimes carries tiny tumors into the recipient, vitiating the benefits of receiving a life-saving liver or kidney from someone else. Cases of both kinds are very rare, and they involve some inherent or arranged compatibility between the original victim of the tumor and the secondary victim, plus an immune system that is either compromised (by immuno-suppressive drugs, in the organ recipient) or immature (in the fetus).

Other cases are less easily explained. In 1986, two researchers from the National Institutes of Health reported that a laboratory worker, a healthy nineteen-year-old woman, had accidentally jabbed herself with a syringe carrying colon-cancer cells; a colonic tumor grew in her hand, but she was rescued by surgery. More recently, a fifty-three-year-old surgeon cut his left palm while removing a malignancy from a patient’s abdomen, and five months later he found himself with a palm tumor, one that genetically matched the patient’s tumor. His immune system responded, creating an inflammation around the tumor, but the response was insufficient and the tumor kept growing. Why? How? It wasn’t supposed to be able to do that. Again, though, surgery delivered a full cure. And then there’s Henri Vadon. He was a medical student in the 1920s who poked his left hand with a syringe after drawing liquid from the mastectomy wound of a woman being treated for breast cancer. Vadon, too, developed a hand tumor. Three years later, he died of metastasized cancer because neither the surgical techniques of his era nor his own immune system could save him."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably is a better place for this, but I couldn't find THE Jack Ruby thread [Lee Farley There Can Be Only One].

At any rate, this is courtesy of one of Seth Kantor's Ruby books.....To me this poem is to Jack Ruby what

I Have A Rendezvous With Death is to John F. Kennedy....The fact that the poem was written 64 years before Jack Ruby shot Oswald, makes it even more interesting to me.

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

"Antigonish" (1899)

Edited by Robert Howard

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this