Cory Santos

Based on the facts they did not act in accordance with the facts. Thus, the question is why? The answer is no one knows because no one has asked. This question has been ignored. Hopefully someone will ask them both. They should also be asked if LHO said whether he did or did not want them to watch the motorcade. If the answer is yes neither mentioned this in their testimonies. Someone should ask exactly what did he say. You do agree right? ps no “e” in my name. I am more than enough without it.

Thank you John. You are using relevant facts not speculation.

Yet that doesn’t rule out conspiracy just shows he had foreknowledge. This is why the question needs to be asked.

What if Marina said the night before let’s go down to watch and LHO and/or RP said “no”. Doesn’t anyone here think the person(s) saying “no” might have a reason? Depending on who said it it might be extremely relevant to one side of the debate.

Meant with all due respect. Is the objection the label or is the objection of me placing you in a group w DVP?

Thank you Jim. The question has great significance when put together with the bigger picture. As you and DVP have noted it’s a relevant question which confirms its importance when two of the most influential researchers agree. Also, as I have shown-and I don’t believe it’s been brought out previously- the RP testimony about the location of the TSBD is not credible. Finally, that Ruby’s movements are not consistent with his character those few days if one accepts the wc. Lastly, that we do not know where he was at 12:30 during the parade.

Joe your speculating. Again, the question has not been asked nor answered.

Your speculating though. The question still has not been answered. It needs to be asked.

Correct.

You missed what I said above then. Get some sleep and read it again tomorrow. Thanks for the lovely discussion tonight.

Anyone who needs an alibi needs a lawyer. That is my answer. Now, you just asked if I believe what he says. Ok! Let’s say I do. Do you DVP find all his statements credible and believable then?

Typo. Cmon man! I originally asked about 12:30 and you responded about 12:30. Your cite respectfully is wrong as noted above. Please admit that as a gentleman.

For evidence.

Umm yes it was. Go back and check and your response.

So let’s sum up some things but first, earlier I asked David and he responded: Jack Ruby was in the office of a Mr. John W. Newnam at the Dallas Morning News building at precisely 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63 AD. (Witnessed by Newnam. See his testimony below.) https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/newnam.htm Point 1. Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, by the testimony of Mr Newman, which Mr. Von Pein acknowledged as credible and believable, If we also find that testimony credible and believable too, we know that Jack Ruby was in the newspaper building at 1240. We know that they learned of JFK’s assassination at approximately 12:45. My question was where was Jack Ruby at 12:30? Mr. Von Pein still has not answered that question because he cannot because the source he cited does not discuss this time. In fact we don’t have any clear citation or proof in the record, which is verifiable, where Jack Ruby was at 12:30 in Dallas, let alone at the time of the assassination according to Mr. Von Pein. Admirably, Mr. Von Pein admits to the incongruity of the fact that Jack Ruby was not in Dealey Plaza or along the motorcade route even though that is where the “action was”. This admission is significant. Because when someone acts outside their character we have to ask questions and we need answers to those questions before we can truly ascertain the truth which is what we’re here today for! Why then was he at the police department on Friday night or for that matter at the jail on Sunday if it was just for the action. We have already shown in his character that he did not always act in accordance with this rule. So why was the police department so important but the newspaper room was more important than the motorcade? The obvious answer is the easiest one, that is, he needed an alibi. We have proven tonight that both sides of the debate agree if Jack Ruby was going to go somewhere there was a purpose. Following that logic he was definitely at the newspaper room for a purpose, that is for an alibi. We choose this over the alternative of him placing an ad because of the other rule which Mr. Von Pein has created, that being Ruby wanted to be where the action was and being in the newsroom violated this rule. Therefore, there was a serious reason for him to be there to overturn his character personality. He was at the Dallas Police Department for a purpose and at the jail for a purpose. It’s probably no coincidence where he had dinner the night before he went to the jail either, which by the way I recommend because they have some of the best food in Dallas. In this frank discussion we’ve also discussed Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald and the obvious incongruences in the facts before us. When I asked the obvious question why they did not go down to see the motorcade, like Jack Ruby, It was brought to my attention by Mr. Von Pein RP did not know the parade route went by LHOs place of work because she did not know it was on Elm. Citing basic sources it is indisputable that on two occasions prior to the assassination, contrary to her testimony, she saw the address of the book depository being at Elm Street. These are facts and one could even speculate further that it is odd that she didn’t know where the building was especially considering she had mentioned to her neighbors daughter that she had called to help LHO get a job there. Frasier admitted this much and that he had been working there before Oswald for several weeks. The obvious question then, are we to believe that neither Frasier nor LHO ever mentioned the book depository location to RP but she freely discussed LHO w Truly and Frazier’s sister? We know for a fact that the parade motorcade and visit was mentioned the night before at the Paine household. Considering she received her newspapers in the morning, is one to really believe she did not look at the parade route and notice that she could just drive down and bring marina -who admittedly was interested in the visit- and the children, all because the dentist treasure box was calling? Are we really to believe that when she helped LHO move that she did not notice his rifle which he allegedly owned at the time? Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt on that, which we probably should as we have no reason not to, are we then going to take the next leap and believe that this pacifist (a self description she used) didn’t know that a rifle was located in her garage on the floor where her children or Marina’s child - the non infant-could have found it? Or what about the other people she testified that came in and out of her household? Even if we believe that and again give her the benefit of the doubt, her testimony about the location of the building is extremely suspicious and highly doubtful which calls into question the rest of her testimony. On two occasions she looked and saw the address for the book depository showing it on Elm Street. She even called the depository and talked with Roy Truly. Making a most likely third notice of its location probable. It is extremely unlikely she did not discuss the location considering LHO did not drive- per her testimony. So what? One might ask. Certainly not everyone in Dallas that day went downtown to the motorcade to see the parade. But we are not talking about all those other people, we are talking about specific people such as Jack Ruby who had a personality and character that would mandate he go to where the action was, i.e., Dealey Plaza or the parade route. His actions that day were out of character unless there was another reason, that is he needed an alibi. As for RP and Marina, again Marina was reliant on RP for a drive so that is easily excused. But this event was so big it makes no sense that RP would not go with Marina and the children. There is no evidence she did not like crowds. To the contrary. She met the Oswald’s at a party and described her life as “boring”. Why would she therefore not go to be part of the “action”. As I said in the beginning no one has truly asked her this question and had it answered. Instead, all we have is her stating where she was that morning. But that is not an answer to this question. I submit to you that there are many coincidences in this historical event that are just that, coincidences. But when you have too many, they become what I call “strange coincidences” and too many equal something wrong. On the facts we discussed tonight, there are way too many “strange coincidences”. When this happens, you have something other than a mere coincidence. The relevance at this point needs to be determined with follow-up questions to her focusing on these incongruences. As for Ruby, it is clear his actions prove he had a purpose other than placing an ad or filing a missing dog report. Lastly if someone wants to make this out to be an attack on RP then they are the one with the problem. This is a simple question and search for the truth which is what the education forum is supposed to be about. 🎤 drop.

Thank you David.

While David answers can I get a quick vote? Who thinks the action was at the newsroom or along the parade route?

But the”action” was Dealey Plaza or along the parade route not in a smelly stuffy gross newspaper room. Explain that because it is incongruent with what you just said was true.

This is very relevant. I want to make sure he was not filing a missing dog report. So why was he there? We have established now that when Jack Ruby goes somewhere he has a purpose apparently just like when he is not somewhere there is a reason so let’s keep playing this game.

Thank you. now, why was Ruby in the dpd Friday evening at the press conference? Citation of source please.

Ok so again was the testimony you cited regarding this credible and believable? Do you accept it?

What happened to the truth is unfair so I ask questions of both sides and demand the truth. Let’s keep working on conclusions without accusations.

Ok the testimony you provided answers why Ruby was there or do you not believe that testimony? Do you believe the testimony you cited is credible and believable?

David this is important. Why was Ruby there? It is very relevant. I need you to confirm the reason.

David come on keep playing. Why was Ruby there. Be a sport.