A Clear Giveaway of Conspiracy: Jack Ruby's Stalking and Killing of Oswald

[Tom Graves]

As to Garrison: [...] you [Michael Griffith] said you believed Garrison's claims that an eyewitness, Perry Russo, heard/saw Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspire to kill JFK. That's the key part of the Garrison claim. Are you now retracting it? You don't believe Russo? Do you still believe Shaw and Ferrie were involved? The only evidence of their involvement is the Perry Russo claim. Which you don't believe? What other evidence is there? They were seen with Oswald? That's evidence of their involvement?

I think it's been established that Russo, in his foolish Dean Andrews-like striving for fame, somehow mistook Ferrie's homosexual roommate and longtime friend -- "dirty" (he worked at NASA as a mechanic), bearded, tall-and-thin James "Lew"/"Leon" Lewallen -- for cleanshaven 5' 9.5" Oswald.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Sorry, you simply cannot exclude the people you believe altered the evidence, covered things up in their investigations. from your answer. You believe the Warren Commission was a sham, a fraud, a whitewash, correct? To prevent WWIII? Or for what reason? The people who carried that out *have* to be included in your answer. The question is - and has always been - how many people were involved in your conspiracy to assassinate the president. That is, the actual act and the conspiracy around it, before and after. From soup to, pardon the expression, nuts. We're not talking just about the shooting in Dealey Plaza. Or those who ordered it. Everything.

Covering up what happened and framing Oswald are essential parts of the assassination. The easy part is killing the President. The hard part is covering your tracks. You can't subtract the people who you think did this coverup, who altered evidence (Were they fools? Did they not know what they were being asked to do? People were asked to alter the x-rays and simply said okay?) from your numbers to make it small.

Your problem and those fellow conspiracists who believe much of this was faked, the films, the photos, the x-rays, the autopsy, is that you have so many people involved over so many decades that the whole plan is absurd, it contradicts human nature, the way people behave, the way the world works. So you have to limit your answer to 20-30.

Let's try again: Okay, so in addition to the original 20-30 you have how many people involved over these past 60-plus years?

As to the other points:
Do you or do you not believe there are government disinformation agents right now actively disseminating disinformation to coverup what happened in the assassination? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not believe that the CIA used Operation Mockinbird to disseminate disinformation in the media or use "assets" in the media to coverup their role in the assassination? Yes or no? Who ordered this? Who are/were these reporters? Seymour Hersh? Tim Weiner? Max Holland? Who? Is this disinformation program, in some form, still happening? Yes or not?

As to Garrison: In an exchange with me you said you believed Garrison's claims that a eyewitness, Perry Russo, heard/saw Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspire to kill JFK. That's the key part of the Garrison claim. Are you now retracting it? You don't believe Russo?

Do you still believe Shaw and Ferrie were involved? The only evidence of their involvement is the Perry Russo claim. Which you don't believe? What other evidence is there? They were seen with Oswald? That's evidence of their involvement? You think Shaw tried to get a lawyer for Oswald? Why would Shaw try to get a lawyer for Oswald if Oswald wasn't involved? But he, Shaw, was? You do realize that none of this makes sense?

My conclusion is that Garrison stumbled upon part of the Oswald-sheep-dipping operation in New Orleans. I believe Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister were part of the operation. I think this was by far Garrison's most significant contribution to our understanding of the plot.

I believe Dean Andrews was telling the truth when he said a Clay Bertrand called him about being Oswald's lawyer.

I also believe Harold Weisberg was telling the truth when he said Andrews told him Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand, and when Weisberg said Andrews made him promise not to reveal this until after he, Andrews, died.

I further believe that Lou Ivon was telling the truth when he said Ferrie told him that he had worked for the CIA, that Shaw was Bertrand, and that Oswald had been in Banister's office many times. 

I don't see how anyone could view Ferrie's late-night 11/22/63 trip to Houston as anything but highly suspicious.

I have a hard time believing Perry Russo's story, although I would not be shocked to learn it is true.

I've already answered your theoretical argument about the number of people involved in the cover-up and whether they fully knew what they were doing and why they were doing it. You need to explain the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy x-rays were altered.

Finally, let's concentrate on this claim: You wrote that "The HSCA concluded that Ruby killed Oswald on orders from the Mafia."

Sorry no, they did no such thing. In fact they concluded the opposite. Viz., that based on the evidence they found that organized crime, i.e., the Mafia, was NOT involved in the assassination.

Here is what they specifically said in their conclusions (one of which was that Lee Oswald fired all of the shots that struck JFK):



They added that the evidence "does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."  "Preclude the possibility" is not concluding anything and it certainly doesn't say Ruby was the hitmen for the Mafia's hit. Link: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm

You missed this statement on Ruby in the HSCA report:

<<< In assessing the significance of these Ruby contacts . . . the pattern of contacts did show that individuals who had the motive to kill the President also had knowledge of a man who could be used to get access to Oswald in the custody of the Dallas police. In Ruby, they also had knowledge of a man who had exhibited a violent nature and who was in serious financial trouble. The calls, in short, established knowledge and possible availability, if not actual planning. (p. 156). >>>

And this segment on Ruby from the HSCA report:

<<< The committee noted that other Ruby activities and movements during the period immediately following the assassination--on November 22 and 23--raised disturbing questions. For example, Ruby's first encounter with Oswald occurred over 36 hours before he shot him. Ruby was standing within a few feet of Oswald as he was being moved from one part of police headquarters to another just before midnight on November 22. Ruby testified that he had no trouble entering the building, and the committee found no evidence contradicting his story. The committee was disturbed, however, by Ruby's easy access to headquarters and by his inconsistent accounts of his carrying a pistol. In an FBI interview on December 25, 1963, he said he had the pistol during the encounter with Oswald late in the evening of November 22. But when questioned about it by the Warren Commission, Ruby replied, "I will be honest with you. I lied about it. It isn't so, I didn't have a gun." Finally, the committee was troubled by reported sightings of Ruby on SaPersonay, November 23, at Dallas police headquarters and at the county jail at a time when Oswald's transfer to the county facility had originally been scheduled. These sightings, along with the one on Friday night, could indicate that Ruby was pursuing Oswald's movements throughout the weekend.

The committee also questioned Ruby's self-professed motive for killing Oswald, his story to the Warren Commission and other authorities that he did it out of sorrow over the assassination and sympathy for the President's widow and children. Ruby consistently claimed there had been no other motive and that no one had influenced his act. A handwritten note by Ruby, disclosed in 1967, however, exposed Ruby's explanation for the Oswald slaying as a fabricated legal ploy. Addressed to his attorney, Joseph Tonahill, it told of advice Ruby had received from his first lawyer. Tom Howard, in 1963: "Joe, you should know this. Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?"

The committee examined a report that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital shortly after the fatally wounded President had been brought there on November 22, 1963. Seth Kantor, a newsman then employed by Scripps-Howard who had known Ruby, later testified to the Warren Commission that he had run into him at Parkland and spoken with him briefly shortly before the President's death was announced. While the Warren Commission concluded that Kantor was mistaken. The committee determined he probably was not. The committee was impressed by the opinion of Burt W. Griffin, the Warren Commission counsel who directed the Ruby investigation and wrote the Ruby section of the Warren report. Griffin told the committee he had come to believe, in light of evidence subsequently brought out, that the Commission conclusion about Kantor's testimony was wrong." (pp. 158-159) >>>

Go read the books by the HSCA's chief counsel and deputy counsel, G. Robert Blakey and Gary Cornwell. They make it clear they believe Ruby's shooting of Oswald was a Mafia hit. It had all the earmarks of a carefully planned Mafia hit. And I again point out that we have Ruby's own handwritten admission that he was "framed" and that he shot Oswald to "silence" him. 

Do you know who visited Ruby in jail after his arrest? Take a guess. It was Joseph Campisi, a Carlos Marcello Mafia capo/lieutenant, who had a close association with Ruby. The HSCA also discovered that Ruby knew Joseph Civello, the Marcello-appointed Mafia boss of Dallas.