So, who did they bring to Washington ?

[Mark Wengler]

In June 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, and other commission members went to Dallas to see Ruby. Ruby asked Warren several times to take him to Washington D.C., saying "my life is in danger here" and that he wanted an opportunity to make additional statements.[56] He added: "I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it here.

Also here is a link to a video of Ruby talking about him being able to talk

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Jack Ruby called Lyndon Johnson a “Nazi” of the worst order” and said that if JFK had picked Adlai Stevenson instead of LBJ, Kennedy would still be alive.

And here is Jack Ruby saying it was "the man in the office now" (Video no longer available on YouTube) Ruby was referring to Johnson.

Another Jack Ruby video, not made public at the time it was made: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-177236594543303

A year after his conviction, in March 1965, Ruby conducted a brief televised news conference in which he stated: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter: "Are these people in very high positions Jack?", he responded "Yes."

Jack Ruby also said to his jailer: "Now there're going to find out about Cuba, the guns, New Orleans and everything"

It is possible that Jack Ruby could have read some of the early books on the JFK assassination, particularly Thomas Buchanan's or Joachim Joestens's - both books pretty much pointed the finger at LBJ and Texas oil men - and digested that and spitted it back out.

Or it is possible that Jack Ruby knew H.L Hunt very well and knew all about LBJ's character and he had his on theory on the JFK assassination. H.L. Hunt used to get some of his girls from Ruby.

Or is is possible that Jack Ruby was somehow involved in the JFK assassination and had insider knowledge that it emanated from H.L. Hunt, Murchison and/or Lyndon Johnson.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Gil Jesus]

In 1964, where did Ruby point the finger at LBJ?

It's been a long time but I think I read it in Marrs Crossfire book like 17/18 years back. If i recall correctly, he had a written letter to somebody (maybe RFK, maybe a reporter??) that LBJ was behind it all. He also said something to the effect of If Aldai Stevenson was the VP, then JFK would still be alive today.

I'm sure some of the other researchers on this site can provide some validation.

Video of Ruby saying that if Stevenson was VP, Kennedy would be alive.

RUBY: You mentioned about Adlai Stevenson. If he was Vice-President, there would never have been the assassination of our beloved President Kennedy.

REPORTER: Would you explain it again ?

RUBY: Well, the answer is the man in office now.

I think you can take this several ways:

1. Johnson was behind the assassination

2. Johnson's supporters were behind the assassination or

3. That the forces behind it were so conservative in their political beliefs that elevating an ultra liberal like Stevenson to the Oval Office was out of the question and that JFK would have been seen as the lesser of two evils.

Originally, I picked #3, although in recent years the more I learn about the assassination, I'm leaning towards # 2.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

But nowhere did I see where he gave a coherent reason to be taken to Washington other than his absurd desire to speak to the president.

Mr. RUBY. Gentlemen, my life is in danger here. Not with my guilty plea of execution. Do I sound sober enough to you as I say this?

Chief Justice WARREN. You do. You sound entirely sober.

Mr. RUBY. From the moment I started my testimony, have I sounded as though, with the exception of becoming emotional, have I sounded as though I made sense, what I was speaking about?

Chief Justice WARREN. You have indeed. I understood everything you have said. If I haven't, it is my fault.

Mr. RUBY. Then I follow this up. I may not live tomorrow to give any further testimony. The reason why I add this to this, since you assure me that I have been speaking sense by then, I might be speaking sense by following what I have said, and the only thing I want to get out to the public, and I can't say it here, is with authenticity, with sincerity of the truth of everything and why my act was committed, but it can't be said here. It can be said, it's got to be said amongst people of the highest authority that would give me the benefit of doubt. And following that, immediately give me the lie detector test after I do make the statement. Chairman Warren, if you felt that your life was in danger at the moment, how would you feel? Wouldn't you be reluctant to go on speaking, even though you request me to do so?

( 5 H 196 )

It doesn't matter whether the guy was looney-tuney or not. HE felt his life was in danger in Dallas and it was this feeling that prevented him from saying something he was withholding. To suggest that the witness was mentally unstable or that whatever he had to say was useless is opinion and unfounded.

And yes, convicted murderers give testimony in court cases when the prosecution is relying on "jailhouse confessions".

Edited February 29, 2012 by Gil Jesus

[William Kelly]

If anybody's keeping track of who they should have brought to DC to officially question under oath, he's another one to add to the list.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Mather Subpoena

IMG 0014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In the Matter of the Application of

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATION

MISC. No. 78

NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONFERING IMMUNITY ON ANDCOMPELLING TESTIMONY FROM CARL AMOS MATHER

TO: HONORABLE GRIFFIN B. BELL

ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Main Justice Building

10^th and Constitution Aveenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on or after the 30^th dayof May 1978 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,United States Courthouse, Third and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington ,D.C., Counsel for the Select Committee on Assassinations, acting on behalf ofthe Select Committee on Assassinations of the United States House ofRepresntatives, will apply to the Court, pursuant to the provisions of Title18, United States Code, Section 6002, et. seq., for an order conferringimmunity upon Carl Amos Mather

And compelling him to testify and provide other informationin an inquiry being conducted by the Subcommittee on the Assassination ofPresident John F. Kennedy of the Select Committee on Assassinations.

Dated 5-19-78

G. Robert Blakey Sig

Chief Counsel and Director

Select Committee on Assassinations

U.S.House of Representatives

Edited February 29, 2012 by William Kelly

[Len Colby]

But nowhere did I see where he gave a coherent reason to be taken to Washington other than his absurd desire to speak to the president.

Mr. RUBY. Gentlemen, my life is in danger here. Not with my guilty plea of execution. Do I sound sober enough to you as I say this?

Chief Justice WARREN. You do. You sound entirely sober.

Mr. RUBY. From the moment I started my testimony, have I sounded as though, with the exception of becoming emotional, have I sounded as though I made sense, what I was speaking about?

Chief Justice WARREN. You have indeed. I understood everything you have said. If I haven't, it is my fault.

Mr. RUBY. Then I follow this up. I may not live tomorrow to give any further testimony. The reason why I add this to this, since you assure me that I have been speaking sense by then, I might be speaking sense by following what I have said, and the only thing I want to get out to the public, and I can't say it here, is with authenticity, with sincerity of the truth of everything and why my act was committed, but it can't be said here. It can be said, it's got to be said amongst people of the highest authority that would give me the benefit of doubt. And following that, immediately give me the lie detector test after I do make the statement. Chairman Warren, if you felt that your life was in danger at the moment, how would you feel? Wouldn't you be reluctant to go on speaking, even though you request me to do so?

( 5 H 196 )

Do you really think Warren thought he “sound[ed] entirely sober” or was humoring him? Ruby said:

“I want to say this to you. The Jewish people are being exterminated at this moment. Consequently, a whole new form of government is going to take over our country, and I know I won't live to see you another time. Do I sound sort of screwy--in telling you these things?”

AND

“Naturally, I am a foregone conclusion. My sisters Eva, Eileen, and Mary, I lost my sisters. My brothers Sam, Earl, Hyman, and myself naturally--my in-laws, Harold Kaminsky, Marge Ruby, the wife of Earl, and Phyllis, the wife of Sam Ruby, they are in jeopardy of loss of their lives. Yet they have, just because they are blood related to myself--does that sound serious enough to you, Chief Justice Warren?”

AND

“All I know is maybe something can be saved. Because right now, I want to tell you this, I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing of President Kennedy.

Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me. But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing.

Right now, when I leave your presence now, I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President, who believes in righteousness and justice.”

It doesn't matter whether the guy was looney-tuney or not. HE felt his life was in danger in Dallas and it was this feeling that prevented him from saying something he was withholding. To suggest that the witness was mentally unstable or that whatever he had to say was useless is opinion and unfounded.

Strawman as I never indicated “that whatever he had to say was useless” but obviously the pronouncements of a delusional witness carry far less weight than a sane one. And it was not a question of hearing what had to say or not, but rather whether all the complications of transporting him to DC would be justified by whatever additional information he might possible divulge there, he denied being part of a conspiracy. His claims that ‘his life was in danger in Dallas’ made little sense, after testifying he would returned to same jail and as I pointed out to Bill the Texas lawmen had left the room.

And yes, convicted murderers give testimony in court cases when the prosecution is relying on "jailhouse confessions"

.

But they infrequently are transported to other states just to testify, can you cite any examples when this has happen for an investigative commission?

[Len Colby]

So Ruby was convicted but he was under appeal, so his court process was not compete,

He shot someone to death in cold blood on film and before several witnesses, the best he could have hoped for was being found guilty of a lesser charge or not guilty by reason of insanity. But at the time he wanted to go to DC he convicted murderer, the legal and logistical considerations were quite different than for a normal person.

and I said there were twelve or more people in the room and there were 12, and Warren confirms what I said, they weren't going to take him to DC so he could be questioned without the Texas authorities present to intimidate him.

There were 11 people there (not counting Ruby himself) at the beginning of his testimony, as per his request “Sheriff Decker and law enforcement officers left room.” Thus there were 7 other men in the room: his lawyer, 5 members of the commission and an SS agent but no “Texas authorities present to intimidate him.” Warren gave rational reasons for not sending him to Washington, Ruby made numerous irrational comments during his testimony.

[William Kelly]

So Ruby was convicted but he was under appeal, so his court process was not compete,

He shot someone to death in cold blood on film and before several witnesses, the best he could have hoped for was being found guilty of a lesser charge or not guilty by reason of insanity. But at the time he wanted to go to DC he convicted murderer, the legal and logistical considerations were quite different than for a normal person.

and I said there were twelve or more people in the room and there were 12, and Warren confirms what I said, they weren't going to take him to DC so he could be questioned without the Texas authorities present to intimidate him.

There were 11 people there (not counting Ruby himself) at the beginning of his testimony, as per his request "Sheriff Decker and law enforcement officers left room." Thus there were 7 other men in the room: his lawyer, 5 members of the commission and an SS agent but no "Texas authorities present to intimidate him." Warren gave rational reasons for not sending him to Washington, Ruby made numerous irrational comments during his testimony.

So 11 plus one is 12 - and I said a dozen - so what?

The point being that Ruby was asked questions he couldn't answer with certain people in the room - he knew who they were and knew what he could and could not say.

He did not go to Washington to testify.

I don't find any interest in Ruby at all, so you can drag it to death if you want to.

I think the fact that the FBI failed to properly investigate Carl Mather is far more significant than anything Ruby had to say, and that on top of the fact that the HSCA granted Mather immunity and then failed to question him under oath.

That's what I find important about who and who they did not bring to Washington.

BK

JFKcountercoup

[Len Colby]

So 11 plus one is 12 - and I said a dozen - so what?

Five of them left the room as per Ruby’s request 12 – 5 = 7

The point being that Ruby was asked questions he couldn't answer with certain people in the room - he knew who they were and knew what he could and could not say.

As per his request they left. What difference would going to DC have made? After testifying there he would have been returned to the same Batcell in the same Batjail in the same Batcity on the same (or next) Batday!

He did not go to Washington to testify

.

He testified in Dallas and spouted nothing but nonsense.

I don't find any interest in Ruby at all, so you can drag it to death if you want to.

Then why do you keep replying?

I think the fact that the FBI failed to properly investigate Carl Mather is far more significant than anything Ruby had to say, and that on top of the fact that the HSCA granted Mather immunity and then failed to question him under oath.

That's what I find important about who and who they did not bring to Washington.

BK

At risk of setting off on a tangent, why do you think Mather was such a crucial witness? Are you saying the HSCA didn’t interview him or that they did but not under oath?

Edited March 2, 2012 by Len Colby

[Richard Hocking]

...

So which witnesses DID the taxpayers pay to fly to Washington to give testimony in this case ?

...

Among the other items that went to Washington (some of them in violation of existing law at that time):

The body of the murdered President

The Limousine he was killed in that was part of the crime scene

The Rifle that was the suspected murder weapon

A boat load of first-hand witnesses to the assassination (Jackie, SS Agents, LBJ, and some other members of the motorcade...)

but not the number one living witness who may have extremely valuable information, and who is in fear of his life in Dallas.

[Len Colby]

...

So which witnesses DID the taxpayers pay to fly to Washington to give testimony in this case ?

...

Among the other items that went to Washington (some of them in violation of existing law at that time):

The body of the murdered President

The Limousine he was killed in that was part of the crime scene

The Rifle that was the suspected murder weapon

A boat load of first-hand witnesses to the assassination (Jackie, SS Agents, LBJ, and some other members of the motorcade...)

but not the number one living witness who may have extremely valuable information, and who is in fear of his life in Dallas.

I’m not so sure about that Federal authority trumps state authority and I’m pretty sure there was no legal restriction on witnesses leaving the state.

PS In my previous post I said 5 men left the room it seem the correct number was 4, so 8 remained, Ruby, his lawyer, the SS agent and 5 men from the WC and staff.

[Mark Wengler]

...

So which witnesses DID the taxpayers pay to fly to Washington to give testimony in this case ?

...

Among the other items that went to Washington (some of them in violation of existing law at that time):

The body of the murdered President

The Limousine he was killed in that was part of the crime scene

The Rifle that was the suspected murder weapon

A boat load of first-hand witnesses to the assassination (Jackie, SS Agents, LBJ, and some other members of the motorcade...)

but not the number one living witness who may have extremely valuable information, and who is in fear of his life in Dallas.

I’m not so sure about that Federal authority trumps state authority and I’m pretty sure there was no legal restriction on witnesses leaving the state.

PS In my previous post I said 5 men left the room it seem the correct number was 4, so 8 remained, Ruby, his lawyer, the SS agent and 5 men from the WC and staff.

In 1963 it was not a federal crime in killing President Kennedy. It was only a state crime.

[Mark Knight]

...

So which witnesses DID the taxpayers pay to fly to Washington to give testimony in this case ?

...

Among the other items that went to Washington (some of them in violation of existing law at that time):

The body of the murdered President

The Limousine he was killed in that was part of the crime scene

The Rifle that was the suspected murder weapon

A boat load of first-hand witnesses to the assassination (Jackie, SS Agents, LBJ, and some other members of the motorcade...)

but not the number one living witness who may have extremely valuable information, and who is in fear of his life in Dallas.

I’m not so sure about that Federal authority trumps state authority and I’m pretty sure there was no legal restriction on witnesses leaving the state.

PS In my previous post I said 5 men left the room it seem the correct number was 4, so 8 remained, Ruby, his lawyer, the SS agent and 5 men from the WC and staff.

In 1963 it was not a federal crime in killing President Kennedy. It was only a state crime.

BINGO!!!

There was NO legal federal authority in this case, other than what the Dallas authorities allowed the Feds to have..or what authority the Feds seized in the wake of the assassination.

[Len Colby]

In 1963 it was not a federal crime in killing President Kennedy. It was only a state crime.

I’m aware of that, but I’m not sure federal authorities have to invoke a crime to take precedence over state/local authorities. In any case I doubt there would have been a restriction on witnesses leaving the state.

[Mark Knight]

In 1963 it was not a federal crime in killing President Kennedy. It was only a state crime.

I’m aware of that, but I’m not sure federal authorities have to invoke a crime to take precedence over state/local authorities. In any case I doubt there would have been a restriction on witnesses leaving the state.

In light of the difficulty that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison had in compelling out-of-state witnesses to come to Louisiana to testify, I beg to differ, Mr. Colby. Or do you believe that Texas law is stronger than Louisiana law in this area?

The assassination of JFK was a state crime, not a federal crime. In fact, NO federal laws were broken when JFK was assassinated.

It occurred on a Texas city street, not on a federal facility in Texas.

SO...knowing this...other that the simple acquiescence of the Dallas police...upon what authority did the FBI take over the investigation of the assassination? I would suggest that the Dallas police asked for--and possibly expected--the assistance and cooperation of the FBI...but they didn't anticipate that the entire investigation would be taken away from them, as there was no legal authority for the FBI to do so, since NO federal statutes had been broken.