Paul Brancato

Chris - Mckeown strikes me as an unreliable witness. I read many pages of questioning which you posted a link to, and he is very evasive usually. But his recollection of Lee Oswald is clear enough, though he doesn't remember clearly the name of the Latino with him. My guess is that Mckeown was playing a part in the post assassination conviction of Oswald, similar to the Walker shooting, showing Oswald's gun loving violent tendencies.

Tommy - I should add that it wouldn't surprise me if this Morales/Oswald operation began in NO.

Personally I think it's very likely that It was Morales, and that he was running Oswald on orders from DAP. I'm not sure how Ruby fits in with this scenario.

James - I think you got my point. I've come to the same conclusion. We don't know enough. I not convinced that he was 'mob', even though it seems obvious on the surface. But being 'ok' with mobsters, or friends with the Dallas mob boss, or making phone calls to various mob connected people in the weeks and months before Nov.22 doesn't make him a mobster. Is there proof that he was part of the Chicago Syndicate's move into Dallas in the late 1940's? I don't have the impression that he was rolling in dough. I'm becoming more convinced that Ruby and Oswald knew each other, and that the WC did their best to make sure that didn't come out. A prior relationship changes everything.

Rob - it is striking that he was never convicted for the various crimes he committed. David - I must be dense - could you explain your post?

Agree Brian. I can't vote for Trump. But the fire exists. Sanders puts up a good fight, yet people, my friends, find reasons not to support him that go beyond whether he can win or not. And Clinton's political machine played dirty in my opinion, playing on fears that Sanders would lose to Trump. I keep my fingers crossed that Clinton will turn out to be more progressive than she has appeared so far. I worry about the 2017 document release. Of course neither candidate will ever be asked the question.

Sandy - 'the person' is followed by the word 'believed' on each occasion, so possibly it should read 'the person believed to be Oswald'. It's the only thing that makes sense. Do you and others think that David Morales fits the description of the man with the scar over his left eye? The incident with the photographer taking a Polaroid is strangely worded as well. Ruby steps in after the emcee says something about blackmail, and he is heard to say the photo didn't come out. But, seeing as according to Wade the photo would have included Oswald and his companions in the foreground, I might be tempted to think that the photo survived and is the source for the detailed descriptions. Whatever the case, it's interesting to speculate whether the man with the scar might be David Morales, because if it is the implications are enormous. Tommy - what do you think? You've been carrying the torch on Morales for a while. Does the rest of the description fit?

Sandy - the long black hair refers to someone else not Oswald.

Tommy - thanks for responding to my bump of this old thread. The document describing the sighting at the Carousel Club was generated two days after the assassination, so it seems unlikely to be a deliberate rabbit hole. Morales must have been very much in the shadows at that time. The witness Mr. Harvey Wade seems to have an exceptional memory for detail, but some people do have memories like that. I sure don't. So now we have, in addition to Veciana seeing Oswald with David Atlee Phillips a few months earlier in Dallas, we have Morales, possibly, sighted with Oswald, possibly, at Ruby's club. Morales would have been a perfect choice to carry out any plans with Oswald that Phillips might have been hatching.

Thanks Ron - very interesting article with much insight. James - I have both books and will review them. As we all know, Ruby said he had a story to tell but couldn't tell it safely during his Dallas incarceration. I'm sure we've all speculated what what he might have said had Warren taken him to DC. We have hints I suppose, since he did say many suggestive things in his final years. I'd like to know what ideas the experts and non experts like myself have regarding Ruby's untold story, or whether there even was one. At this point in pondering this mystery I have speculations of my own, starting from the premise that Ruby knew Oswald. I think it likely that their acquaintance did not go back any further than September 1963. I find the witnesses who saw Oswald at the Carousel fairly convincing, as most of those witness statements date from shortly after Nov. 22, 1963. The one I posted a link to in a thread on Oswald/Ruby suggests that David Morales was with Oswald at the Carousel. Perhaps their presence their together can be seen from three angles - Oswald, Morales, and Ruby. Oswald in my view was set up as a patsy by the CIA, so that would be what Morales was up to. If true, Oswald would have been unaware of that, and instead would have had his own purpose, perhaps to infiltrate a plot being hatched in Dallas. if the plot was to be a fake attempt by a Castroite to kill JFK, and Oswald the failed shooter, Oswald might have been willing to participate, and still think he was 'infiltrating'. I personally doubt that Oswald was a secret right winger, and I don't think there is any credible evidence that he shot anybody ever. There is better evidence in my opinion that he attempted to infiltrate the anti-Castro DRE in New Orleans. I also think the files pertaining to Cubans supposedly found at Ruth Paine's house but never put into evidence really existed and belonged to Oswald. To come back to the point, whatever Oswald thinks he is doing, others think otherwise. So - what was Ruby thinking? Did he know that Oswald was to be the Patsy in a plot to kill the president? I always find myself going back to the 'fake assassination attempt hijacked by a real kill team' angle because it requires far less character assassination to imagine the willing involvement of so many actors. I referring here to the broader conspiracy in which apparently secret service, Dallas police, and local military intelligence all withdrew protection of JFK. But it applies equally to individuals like Ruby and Oswald. It's far easier for me to imagine Ruby being recruited for an operation whose ultimate goal was removing Castro from power, than one in which a U.S. President would be killed in order to accomplish that same goal. Ruby s a good candidate for the person that placed CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland. If he did then he was prepared to do so beforehand, which would indicate that he knew Oswald did not fire the bullets that killed JFK, and therefore that it was necessary to plant evidence linking the MC supposedly belonging to Oswald to the assassination, real or attempted. The rest of the story is less clear to me. Why did he shoot Oswald? Was it to protect himself? He might have seen himself as the back up Patsy in case Oswald lived and was able to prove his innocence. Or perhaps he had no choice and was blackmailed into it. Ruby claimed he was ready to name names, persons high up. LBJ and Walker come to mind. But he came up with these suggestive dollops while claiming he couldn't talk freely, suggesting other names he dared not utter.

I hope I'm doing his right. I'm posting from an old thread about Ruby and Oswald. There is a link here which describes three men at the Carousel club in November 1963. When this was posted no one apparently noticed the description of one of the 'Oswald' companions as Mexican with a scar over his left eye. Isn't that suggestive of David Morales?

Thanks Chris. Some of the most interesting material on Ruby is written by John Armstrong. Is that research reliable?

Please ignore my plea in the post I made requesting info on Ruby.i see someone already started a discussion on this photo.

I think the problem might be that Krop made the phone call in 1967.

I am starting this thread because I would like to know what fellow board members think are the most reliable, and/or interesting books and articles about Jack Ruby. The research seems fragmented, and some sources claim things others do not. I'm interested in as much detail as possible, and in hearsay and speculation, especially about whether Ruby and Oswald knew each other.

Chris - the last link you posted leads to pages about the autopsy. Is the material in there?

Chris - really interesting work. Jim - thanks for posting the pic with Prescott Bush and Nixon. Are we sure that's Jack Ruby in the photo?

Chris - Great work. I'm not really a nuts and bolts guy, but I read it all. What I'd like to ask you Chris is how you would interpret a prior relationship between Ruby and Oswald? What story does that tell about 11/23/63?

Brian - I guess my suspicion is that she is being backed by someone whose agenda is more than financial. Maybe she isn't trying to muddy the waters, but it will have that effect anyway, since researchers that accept her favors can suffer loss of credibility, even while making a buck. Is Larry correct when he says that Trine Day could compel their published authors to participate in a forum in order to promote their books?

Tommy - you queried "is nothing Judyth says about the JFK assassination true"? Maybe, but unless it's something she has first hand knowledge of its immaterial. Doesn't make her less of a fraud if she says something true.

Tommy - is that really the question? She says lots of things that have nothing to do with her own personal (imagined) involvement. Have you heard her act the part of the knowledgable researcher, another hat she wears?

Well, Paul T. - you may not be in this for the money, but you have a clear and omnipresent agenda.

That's the truth Larry - she is 'operating' on a whole different level, one in which she is injecting herself into the story and clearly lying or delusional. I suspect the former because she is 'operating' with a purpose, and it's not to uncover the truth, but rather to muddy the waters and taint some good researchers with her brush. I continue to have a problem with those that choose to make a buck even if it means giving her credibility, whether knowingly or not. When did this become a business? Larry - you have written many books and hopefully ave made a few bucks doing so. But do you do it for the money? Would you speak at her events?

Michael - I'm with you, and could not have expressed myself more considerately. I don't know the Babushka lady story, but Ms. Baker got my attention. I think the community should challenge her claims more unanimously. I wish that the speakers in any forum or convention that includes or is organized by her would take advantage of the public opportunity to distance themselves from her. It's one thing to accept an opportunity from Ms. Baker to speak at an event produced whole or part by her, and another to muzzle oneself in the process, or even worse, swallow a bit of her Koolaid.

Please - what I was referring to was the ridiculous moniker Dallas liberal yuppies.