Ruby's strange motivation

[Mark Stapleton]

Steve,

Ruby's boyhood chum Barney Ross (Barnet Rosofsky) went on to win world boxing titles in three weight divisions.

Once Welterweight champ though, Mark, he refused, on the advice of Light Heaveyweight champ, Maxie Rosembloom, to fight Australian Jack Carroll.

As with Ross, he had changed his name due to due family disapproval of boxing. He had been born Arthur Hardwicke.

Ross may have been brave, but in dodging Carroll, he showed he was also no fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greg,

Quoting from Ross's autobiography, "I woulda moidered dat bum"

[Greg Parker]

Possibly even:  Oswald killed escaping, blame it on Castro.

Not the plan, imo. That is why he was told he could leave the TSBD. He was supposed to "escape".

Oswald escapes, the right-wing is blamed.

The "escape" however, included flying him out of the country and executing him, leaving behind "evidence" tying him to Castro, the rifle, and being aboard a certain flight to Cuba.

Who knows but what there was also a "right-wing" patsy waiting to be framed as well?

CUSA was trying to infiltrate and take over various R-W groups. I believe Larry Jones "defected" to one of those groups and spilled the beans on his former buddies. A plan was then hatched to get some revenge, and implicate a Jew at the same time. The orignal plan by Schmidt to picket JFK was thus abandoned and the idea of the ad and using a Jewish name on it was suggested to him instead. At the same time all this was being hatched, the JBC in Dallas began trying to distance itself from anti-Semitism. Oswald's history, via Michael Paine's testimony, was used to buttress this by inserting the BS about the ACLU telling the meeting Oswald attended that the JBC should not be considered anti-Semitic. The ACLU surely is not in the business of telling people what to think. Paine himself was undoubtedly an avid reader of Bircher material, and showed that he swallowed their propaganda hook, line and sinker during his testimony by claiming that David Dubinsky was a Stalinist.

If there was a right-wing plot, one can, I think reasonably conclude one of the following: a) the sponsors of the ad were not aware of or involved with it; or if they were their stupidity cannot be described in mere words.

(1) They did not think the money trial would be followed, and indeed, the FBI had to be dragged kicking and screaming into pursuing it.

(2) They saw themselves as above the law.

(3) If all had gone according to plan, Castro was history. If Castro's Cuba was attacked, no-one was ever going to open any can of worms looking for alternative conspirators.

(4) They weren't the only ones involved. This ensured a degree of protection.

CUSA (much like the FPCC) was destroyed by the assassination.

[Tim Gratz]

Greg wrote:

If all had gone according to plan, Castro was history. If Castro's Cuba was attacked, no-one was ever going to open any can of worms looking for alternative conspirators.

Funny how so many of you advocate a scenario on which the motive underlying the assassination FAILED!

Is it not more logical to accept a scenario in which the assassination accomplished its intended effect? In mine, all went "according to plan".

[Greg Parker]

Greg wrote:

If all had gone according to plan, Castro was history. If Castro's Cuba was attacked, no-one was ever going to open any can of worms looking for alternative conspirators.

Funny how so many of you advocate a scenario on which the motive underlying the assassination FAILED!

Is it not more logical to accept a scenario in which the assassination accomplished its intended effect?  In mine, all went "according to plan".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Not sure what you find "funny" in that. Care to expand? perhaps in a new thread so this one can can back on track, you can explain that, and why a scenario where total success is acheived is inherently the most logical.

[Greg Parker]

Steve,

Ruby's boyhood chum Barney Ross (Barnet Rosofsky) went on to win world boxing titles in three weight divisions.

Once Welterweight champ though, Mark, he refused, on the advice of Light Heaveyweight champ, Maxie Rosembloom, to fight Australian Jack Carroll.

As with Ross, he had changed his name due to due family disapproval of boxing. He had been born Arthur Hardwicke.

Ross may have been brave, but in dodging Carroll, he showed he was also no fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greg,

Quoting from Ross's autobiography, "I woulda moidered dat bum"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark, when did Ross acquire the Bronx accent?

Carroll was unbeaten in his last 6 years as a pro, including wins over two world rated middleweights. He was no bum.

Few non-US ciizens ever got a crack at world title in those days (which made it easy for Ross to duck and dodge Carroll)... in fact that's one of the reasons we now have an alphabet soup of sanctioning bodies... originally meant to give fighters from other countries a fair go at getting a world title.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Gents....

My hope, originally, was that we might discuss if Mr Ruby was capable of killing

Oswald for the reasons he gave. We now appear to be debating the finer points

of the Noble Art. Any chance of getting back ON TOPIC....

Steve

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Greg wrote:

If all had gone according to plan, Castro was history. If Castro's Cuba was attacked, no-one was ever going to open any can of worms looking for alternative conspirators.

Funny how so many of you advocate a scenario on which the motive underlying the assassination FAILED!

Is it not more logical to accept a scenario in which the assassination accomplished its intended effect?

It is easy to assume that because "they" [whomever] managed to off the President without getting caught, that the "plan" was executed perfectly.  It's also simplistic, when it fails to take into account a wide variety of actions related to the event.  

In mine, all went "according to plan".

However, your scenario is rendered anemic by a paucity of evidence, and what little does exist was originally scripted by CIA, with no confirmation or verification.  Its' unadorned regurgitation over the years by various Agency shills and toadies hasn't made it a more saleable commodity, as you're coming to realize here.  Your scenario may seem compelling to the uninitiated or entry-level readers, but for those who have done decades of actual research - it fails on every single salient point.  That said, however, your scenario is very neat and tidy.  Which is rather like submitting your literary work to the Pulitzer committee and being praised for your penmanship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited May 26, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Greg Parker]

Gents....

My hope, originally, was that we might discuss if Mr Ruby was capable of killing

Oswald for the reasons he gave. We now appear to be debating the finer points

of the Noble Art. Any chance of getting back ON TOPIC....

Steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Ruby loved the fights, Steve!

Just kidding... I was indending to make the post to which you refer, my last off topic one in your thread. I know it can be annoying if the topic strays and never gets back on track.

Ruby, according to some, gave as many as 4 different reasons for doing it. His defence team came up with another.

Was he capable of doing it for Jackie's benefit? The FBI and WC sure found a lot of people willing to say he just as capable of spontaneous acts of kindness as we was spontaneous acts of violence. IF this had been in fact, the real reason he did it, he may well have considered it a kindness to her. Many also said there was a highly emotional side to his character. It's hard to believe he was successfully fooling all those people over many years.

Do I believe that was the reason? No.

Was he a psychopathic as you contend? Whlist I can understand your reasoning, I wouldn't go that far.

In fact, though I disagree with the defence (of psychomotor epilepsy) as well, I can also see why they used it. If those who knew him can be believed, when his sudden violence dissipated, he often acted like nothing had happened.

What is your source for his mother beating and abusing her children? As I recall the reports I've read, she gave them little positive OR negative attention i.e she neglected them.

I believe, based on my own research, that her mental state was caused by radiation "treatment" from Michael Reece Hospital.

I look forward to seeing more from you on your reasoning. I'm open to being swayed by force of a good, well-reasoned argument.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Greg, thanks for your reasoned reply. The source I am quoting as regards fanny;s

violent outbursts is //www.americanmafia.com. title The Lost Boy, Jack Ruby and

the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, by John William Tuohy. I will put a longer post

together, as regards your other points soon. Steve..

I do, however consider the cold blooded shooting of an individual, unknown to the

protagonist, who is offering no threat, and outside the realm of war, a psycopathic

act. what ever excuses are later offered in mitigation.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Does anybody buy the idea that Ruby, was acting independantly of any plot to

assassinate JFK? Tim, any thoughts?

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, since all things must be considered, even that possibility must be considered. I think it highly unlikely however, unless we want to try to jam everything else into a lone nut scenario, which probably cannot be done.

For if LHO was indeed a patsy, would not the actual conspirators have wanted to silence him? And therefore enter Ruby.

The one scenario that might fit with Ruby NOT being part of the conspiracy is if the conspirators thought it mattered not if Oswald was alive in custody. Perhaps they thought he was adequately framed and did not know enough to implicate anyone else.

Unlikely, but possible?

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

However, your scenario is rendered anemic by a paucity of evidence, and what little does exist was originally scripted by CIA, with no confirmation or verification.

Funny, Robert, John's most recent scenario factors in Gilberto Policarpo Lopez in Dallas but assumes (without evidence) that he was a double agent working for both the CIA and Castro's intelligence.

Gee I guess there is a paucity of evidence if you ASSUME all evidence indicating there were Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza was manufactured by the CIA. Kind of reminds me of the O. J. Simpson defense: ignore all the evidence, I've been framed by the Los Angeles Police Department!

So what do you say about Mr. Policarpo? We know he existed. He lived in Key West for several years. What part, if any, of the record of his suspicious movements around the time of the assassination do you contend were scripted by the CIA?

It is interesting that the House Select Committee on Assassinations apparently had no doubts re Policarpo's travel itinerary.

And as you know Win Scott put Fabian Escalante in Dealey Plaza as well. If Escalante was there, Castro did it, my friend. So it comes down to your assumption that Scott was lying. But of course Scott had nothing to do with the reports of Policarpo so I guess everyone was just lying about these Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza. And your evidence that everyone was lying is. . .?

Edited May 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Again quoting Mr. Dunne:

That said, however, your scenario is very neat and tidy.

I do not take that as a complement just as an ackowledgement of the cogency of the evidence.

To summarize some (not all) of the salient points:

I think the evidence points quite clearly from Ruby to Trafficante.

What points to Castro is (without necessarily limiting myself):

1. The presence of Cuban intelligence agents in Dealey Plaza (unless each report

was made up.)

2. Trafficante's ties to Cubela. This information comes in part from Escalante.

3. Cubela's association with Kostikov.

4. The widely reported deal between Trafficante and Castro.

5. Nosenko flunking his polygraph test.

6. Castro's statement warning the US of reprisals against our leaders if US

attempts to kill Cuban leaders continued coupled with the coincidence of

Cubela contacting the CIA and offering to kill Castro on the very same day.

I also credit the assessment of people such as Califano and Haig who were intimately involved in the Kennedys' campaign against Castro. And Haig claims to have seen a document indicating foreign involvement.

Now I should say that just as there is no "smoking gun" to prove JFK was witting of the plots to kill Castro, so I, of course, have no evidence that Castro personally authorized the assassination. It is theoretically possible it was done for his benefit but without his express authorization. That is unlikely, however.

Now perhaps you can tell me what EVIDENCE (based on years of research) counters this? As I see it, the primary "evidence" that could point in a different direction are the statements made by Morales and Martino. I have seen no real evidence of anyone else being involved, other than those statements.

As you put it "all that being said" could I be wrong? Certainly. It is my assessment that the evidence is "clear and convincing" but it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Edited May 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim.

If as you belive, Castro was behind the assassination,in what way does Ruby tie in

to your scenario? I think we both agree, that somebody forced Mr Ruby's hand, as

LHO had to be silenced. whoever this was must have had something BIG on old

Jack. Who do you think put his feet to the fire, and how do they tie in to Castro?

[Stan Wilbourne]

Tim.

If as you belive, Castro was behind the assassination,in what way does Ruby tie in

to your scenario? I think we both agree, that somebody forced Mr Ruby's hand, as

LHO had to be silenced. whoever this was must have had something BIG on old

Jack. Who do you think put his feet to the fire, and how do they tie in to Castro?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

McWillie had Ruby knock off Oswald because Lansky and Fidel were such good buddies.