Did Ruby really kill Oswald?

[Rob Conti]

That might make an interesting novel.  But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle.  Leavelle was looking right at Ruby as he fired his pistol.  Leavelle knew Ruby and recognized him.  You are not going to go anywhere with suggesting that Jim Leavelle was lying.

Yes, it does require a conspiracy between the Dallas police, the FBI all the way up to LBJ. That's exactly what I'm saying!  But people cannot fathom something like that could actually occur. Oh nooo, the gov't wouldn't do that. The police could never lie to us. They could not have faked the whole thing. Ha. Why not? Yes, they could have, and did. Another point: Why did LBJ order the washing and fixing of the JFK crime scene ? I'm talking about the Motorcade. This is crazy to me. It's sent immediately to Michigan to be washed and repaired, and front windshield replaced.

[Rob Conti]

"--But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle."

Yes, of course Jim Leavelle was part of the conspiracy to LIE and say nothing about the identity of the true shooter, FBI agent James Bookhout. It was probably sold as a matter of "national security" for the police officers at the scene to say absolutely nothing regarding what had just transpired.  All were instructed by higher ups like LBJ and Hoover to say Ruby killed Oswald. I just rewatched Leavelle's original 1963 testimony. To me he is unconvincing. It looks, feels and sounds like he is just rehashing something he was told to say that day. 

[Bill Chapman]

The shooter was FBI agent James Bookhout. He had interrogated Oswald that day with Hosty, another FBI agent, and no one but Captain Fritz had greater access to Oswald that day than Bookhout. He looked a lot like Ruby? Or maybe Ruby was chosen bec, among many other reasons (besides being a CIA informant, having a criminal record, the Dallas police knew him very well, etc), he also looked quite like agent Bookhout. Ruby was identified as the killer bec they needed SOMEONE to take the blame that day, and Ruby was the perfect patsy to do so, being there at the right time, the right place, with the right criminal record, having the right ties with law enforcement, being the right build. How did he know Oswald would be there, you ask? What if the Police lured Ruby to the Western Union building, which was less than 200 steps away from the police station, via the stripper employee named Karen Carlin and her plea to Ruby for money? The police could have easily jumped Ruby (an hour before Oswald gets shot) and have taken him into the police station next store on some pretext or another. This would put Ruby exactly in the same building and at the same time where Oswald was and where Oswald was about to be moved from the police station to the County Jail. Ruby used the gun of the shooter? What if it was the other way around? What if the shooter's gun was planted on Ruby, after the shooting? How can this not be plausible if Ruby was now in police custody and being held on the 5th floor, and they had fingerprinted him? How do we know the gun was truly Ruby's? I have seen no independent ballistics test results done to prove Ruby's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon moments after. And even if they were, they could have been planted on the murder weapon by the police, who were in on it too - along with the higher ups, all the way up to LBJ. YES, these are bold claims. And if what I say is even remotely true it is the greatest cover-up and best kept secret in history. And I believe it truly is. Why did Ruby not mention this to his defense council, you ask? Ruby told his defense council that he didn't remember anything. That he didn't remember shooting Oswald. "I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground". " Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.", Ruby said.

YES, these are bold claims
>>> NO, they are crackpot claims

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Ex-Stripper and former girlfriend of Jack Ruby Gail Raven was asked: "Did Ruby kill Oswald to spare First Lady Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of a criminal trial?" Gail Raven's response: “That was absolutely made up.”

I'm not the only one who thinks Ruby's WC testimony was made up, and even ridiculous... Yes, he admitted it but people will admit a lot of things under extreme duress - or when brainwashed by his MK Ultra psychologist, Jolyon West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Jolyon_West

Interviewer also asked Gail Raven: "Did you think that killing Oswald was Ruby’s original plan on November 24, 1963?"
 
Gail Raven responds: “He would have never done it with Sheba (his weenie dog) left in his car, knowing they would arrest him and Sheba would be alone,” she said. “Sheba was a child to Jack.”

Do you think someone else shot Oswald and then they got away? And nobody else at the scene - the basement was filled with reporters and others - saw this switch or escape? How did they switch the real shooter with Ruby? And why did Ruby go along?

What evidence would you accept that he shot Oswald? We have him admitting it, we have the police arresting him (there are photos), we have witnesses saying they saw him shoot Oswald, we have witnesses saying they saw the police grabbing him, we have the police saying they grabbed him, we have the police saying he confessed...

What more would convince you of this?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"--But as far as fitting reality, it requires an enormous conspiracy that involves the press, including Detective Jim Leavelle."

Yes, of course Jim Leavelle was part of the conspiracy to LIE and say nothing about the identity of the true shooter, FBI agent James Bookhout. It was probably sold as a matter of "national security" for the police officers at the scene to say absolutely nothing regarding what had just transpired.  All were instructed by higher ups like LBJ and Hoover to say Ruby killed Oswald. I just rewatched Leavelle's original 1963 testimony. To me he is unconvincing. It looks, feels and sounds like he is just rehashing something he was told to say that day.

And all of the people in the basement - it was filmed live with numerous reporters around - went along with this?

Okay, at this point there's no way of finding common ground with someone who thinks something like you believe could be pulled off. It simply cannot be done. And it wasn't. Ruby shot Oswald - as he admitted in numerous interviews.

[Charles Collins]

Did Rob Conti loose his:

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Did Rob Conti loose his:

In his defense there are a lot of conspiracy people here who believe things that are simply not possible; so, he's not alone. Was the Oliver Stone movie or the Garrison thesis any more unbelievable, any more illogical? Millions of people saw Stone's movie - it was widely praised; thousands of people hear Garrison's claims - he is still heralded for his work by some.

We have people who come here day-after-day for years saying "There's no evidence Oswald shot Tippit" or "There's no evidence Oswald owned the rifle." That's almost as illogical as the claim that Ruby didn't shoot Oswald.