Talk:Jack Ruby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Crime This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance for Crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Featured on Template:March 14 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Nixon Ruby Connection

A number of sources claim that there was some sort of connection between Jack Ruby and Richard Nixon ([1][2] [3] [4]). Even if this is all conspiracy nonsense, it should be some how adressed in this article so people looking for imformation on the connection can get the truth and won't continue on to some other less reliable source . --The_stuart 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a physical piece of paper (which of course I couldn't yet scan) at the National Archives in the 70s. (My father was a good friend of E. Raymond Lewis, Librarian of the House of Representative IIRC, and I would hang out talking to whomever while they met.) Rubenstein had been subpeonaed by McCarthy's Subcommitee on Investigations; Nixon sent a note (which is what I saw) saying that Ruby had been working for him in a confidential capacity and it would be unacceptable to question him in public (I forget the exact wording); the subpoena was revoked. I think the paper might have been in the congressional record.
See WP:NOR, crank. Tempshill 07:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got a xerox copy of that document, and it has a zip code on the FBI letterhead. That's a bit of a problem, since there were no zip codes when it was supposedly was written. It's actually widely admitted to be a forgery. -- John McAdams

[edit] Moved "editing" discussion from article

This was originally part of the article itself:

Can someone clarify the next sentence for me? What is it trying to say? It was originally tacked onto the end of the previous paragraph:

They point to the fact that Ruby had only just arrived at the police station, having wired money to an employee at 11:17 AM, while Oswald's movement had been delayed, due to his last Dallas police/secret service interrogation and his putting on a black sweater.


    • It appears to mean that both Ruby and Oswald had been delayed by various incidents which could not have been predicted or pre-arranged; the obvious conclusion is that the assassination was an impulsive act on Ruby's part. If Oswald's last interrogation had lasted one minute more (or one minute less), or if Oswald had not taken the extra time to put on his black sweater, or if Ruby had not taken the extra time to wire money to an employee, then they would not have been in the same place at the same moment. True? Who knows.DS 13:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


However, Oswald was not moved until Ruby was already there. Perhaps Oswald was not going to be moved until Ruby was in place. The extra interrogation time and going back for the sweater could just be BS.

[edit] Wasn't there a movie "Ruby"?

Was it based on historical facts?

[edit] Request another image

This article should have a profile or face shot of Ruby at the top with the shooting picture later on. 172.168.165.254 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby At Parkland

I thought that if Ruby was at Parkland then you needed to mention why that might be significant ie the bullet was found there. The orderly who found the bullet Darrell Tomlinson stated that it was not found on Connally's stretcher as you would expect, but another one unrelated to the assassination and reenacted his movements for a NOVA documentary. Of course the whole pristine Bullet thing is very suspicious and if you don't believe it was genuine then obviously somebody had to plant it there.

There is nothing to connect the bullet to Ruby other than pure conjecture. To mention the bullet here is pushing the POV that Ruby planted it, an idea which is pure fantasy. Gamaliel 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the whole thing is speculation isn't it ? Was Ruby part of a conspiracy or not ?? We don't know. I thought it was a relevant fact that a reliable journalist was certain that he saw Ruby at Parkland. The only reason that might be important is that the Bullet was found there. Otherwise whether Ruby was at the hospital or not doesn't matter. If you just mention Kantor's testimony witout saying why it may matter then there's no point in saying it is there ?

Because it is speculation unsupported by any facts at all is precisely the reason that it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. There's a perfectly good reason he could have been at Parkland, assuming Kantor's story is true: Ruby was distraught at the president's death. Gamaliel 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes but he denied being at Parkland to the Warren Commission, why would he do that if he had a genuine reason to be there ? Just because it is an encyclopedia article does not mean you cannot say 'this has led people to speculate . .' or some such. If you aren't able to add speculation stating that it is speculation then you are very limited to what you can say. The important thing is to get as many facts as you can into the article to allow people to make up their own minds as to whether there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or not.

We don't just make a pile of crap and say "make up your own mind". We must make decisions about what facts and which speculation to include. This speculation is not important enough to include for a number of reasons: it is unsourced, it is not a widely cited theory, it has no supporting facts. Gamaliel 00:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I would agree with you about the pile of crap bit, but find the remainder of your last statement a little odd. What speculation is sourced ? You can say I sourced it if you like. I have heard this story lots of times and I think the movie JFK has a scene with Ruby planting the bullet. No supporting facts ? What about Kantor's testimony ? Anyhow you clearly don't want to put it in so let's just forget about it. I have some other stuff on Ruby that I'd like to add later though . . .

Sourced meaning it is attributed to a person or publication. Theories we make up on our own would fall under the Wikipedia:No original research prohibition. Does Kantor say that Ruby planted the bullet or that Ruby was merely there? One does not automatically follow from the other. Gamaliel 00:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OK fair enough but I didn't make up the theory, I have heard it on many occasions from many sources. Like I say it's in the movie JFK. It's in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, it's doubtless in many books, Crossfire I would expect, but I haven't got time to plough through them again. Have you not heard this theory before ? I would have thought it was just like saying it has been speculated that Ruby was part of a plot to silence Oswald. Everybody has heard that theory but I couldn't attribute it to any person or publication in particular.

JFK (the Oliver Stone movie) is not a scholarly source, is replete with distortions and is generally dismissed by serious historians (and many film critics) as fiction. The Men Who Killed Kennedy has a similar reputation. These are not encyclopedic citations. Truth be told, people who actually read the summaries in the Warren Commission report often learn to their surprise that most conspiracy buff theories are base on stuff the WC itself publicly examined at length and discarded. Wyss 17:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPoV?

This article does a thorough job of presenting the conspiracy buff PoV. Rather much the whole JFK assassination category is about the most embarassing series on the English WP. There is not a shred of evidence JR was involved in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK or murder LHO. As for his underworld contacts, in principle, try running a nightclub anywhere for ten years and avoid them. Wyss 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you make of Ruby saying he was part of a conspiracy then ? Is that not a shred of evidence ? Or is Ruby himself not a scholarly enough source ?

Ruby never every said he was part of any conspiracy. He certainly believed there was a conspiracy. Indeed he eventually came to believe there was a massive slaughter of Jews going on -- even on the floors of the county lockup below his cell. -- John McAdams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.248.28 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Original research

Under "NPoV" referenced immediately above there are several statements the author should reflect upon.

1--The first sentence states: "This article does a thorough job of presenting the conspiracy buff PoV."

Would the author care to reveal the offending language or did she simply drop into the article to chastise the editors with unsupported statements.

Then she uses the term "conspiracy buff" to apparantly describe the editors of the allged "PoV" article. Would she then, in turn, be called a "Lone Nut buff." If the term is being used in a denigrating way, shouldn't she stop doing so? It just creates bad feelings. Remember Wikipedia says to: "Be nice."

2-- The second sentence states: Rather much the (sic)whole JFK assassination catagory is about the most embarassing series on the English WP."

I am sure the editors of the article are pleased with this keen insight by Wyss, and the pleasant way it is presented. Again, "Be nice."

3--The third sentence states: "There is not a shred of evidence JR was involved in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK or murder LHO."

Well, the word has just come down and Wyss apparantly believes that settles the matter.

Noted.

4--The fourth sentence states: "As for his [Jack Ruby's] underworld contacts, in principle, try running a nightclub anywhere for ten years and avoid them."

Now Wyss is an expert on night club owners, and their contacts with organized crime. She has even reduced it to a "principle."

Isn't this original research that is to be avoided?

RPJ 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mytwocents"is deleting out properly referenced material again

The person calling himself "Mytwocents" must read the rules of this website.

His eratic deletions of carefully researched and referenced material put in the article by others is, almost at random, in a wholesale fashion. This violates the rule of this website.

Mytwocents still doesn't understand that he cannot delete material from the article merely because he doesn't share the viewpoint.

The basic rule of this web page is: All significant points of view must be included, and reader then gets to choose what he or she wants to believe. "Mytwocents cannot delete material just because he doen't agree with the viewpoint.

"Mytwo cents" deleted this material from the artilce that is taken from the report issued by the House Selcect Assassination Committee:

Jack Ruby knew Sam and Joe Campisi since 1947, and had been seen with them on many occasions. In 1963, Campisi were leading figures in the Dallas underworld. The Campisi Brothers were lieutenants of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss who had reportedly talked of killing the President. [5](this citation doesn't support that Carlos Marcello, was a Mafia boss or talked of killing the President Mytwocents)
A day before President Kennedy was murdered, Ruby went to Joe Campisi's restaurant.(to eat? Mytwocents) [[6] Several days later, after Jack Ruby was put in jail for murdering Lee Oswald, Campisi visited him in jail. [7] (for 10 minutes, at Ruby's request Mytwocents)

There is no basis for deleting the material and therefore, "Mytwocents" merely deletes without comment. This indicates "Mytwocents" is knowingly violating the web site rules.

Some of the believers in the Warren Report seemed compelled to supress information with which they disagee. "Mytwocents" acts as if he is on a mission from a higher authority, and doesn't care what the website rule prohibit.

RPJ 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, your citations don't support the statements. The whole sections you add to pages are NPOV extentions of conspiracy sites. Then you chastise and belittle other editors for being ignorant and breaking wikirules. BTW, when I rv a page, I leave comments on the edit summary.
Mytwocents 21:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Ruby and the Campisi brothers

Here is how it can be stated:

A PBS investigation into the connections between Ruby and Dallas organized crime figures resulted in it reporting following:

Jack Ruby knew Sam and Joe Campisi since 1947, and had been seen with them on many occasions. In 1963, Campisi were leading figures in the Dallas underworld. The Campisi Brothers were lieutenants of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss who had reportedly talked of killing the President. [8]
At the time of the Kennedy assassination, Ruby was close enough to the Campisi's to ask them to come see Ruby once he was arrested for shooting Lee Oswald. [9] A day before Kennedy was assassinated, Ruby went to Joe Campisis's restraunt. [10]


RPJ 08:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I daresay, that edit would work. It states the facts and stays NPOV. Mytwocents 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews being slaughtered

There an article or book or something that mentions this? It's interesting. --Jeffrey 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Dispute Tag

Although the Campisi mentions seem solid. The info linking Ruby to Capone is unsourced and the extent of his mob ties is disputed. Please cite the information and remove the tag once citations are provided. Ramsquire 23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Ruby and his dogs

I have moved these dog molesting charges to the talk page. They are irrelevant for the biography of the man. I think we can paint an accurate picture of the man without these sick, unsubstanciated stories. But if any one wants to argue the point, they can do it here.

In the James Ellroy novel American Tabloid, which tells a fictionalized account of the Kennedy assassination, Jack Ruby is featured as a supporting character who, it is intimated, has sex with dogs. Ruby's unnatural behaviour with dogs is discussed in Case Closed by Gerald Posner. Citing the Warren Report, Posner explained:

At the club, there were rumors that Ruby had an unnatural relationship with the dogs, something he vehemently denied...One of his Chicago friends, Harry Goldbaum, last visiting Ruby in August 1963. They spent an hour in the Carousel's rear office, where Ruby was taking care of three small dogs for a friend. According to Goldbaum, Ruby promised to show him something interesting and began masturbating one of the male dogs, and only stopped when Goldbaum told Ruby it was making him sick...The Warren Commission dealt with his affection for dogs under a separate heading in its final report, but downplayed the more bizarre aspects of the relationship. (Case Closed, pp.358-359(ff)

Mytwocents 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Oswald

Is there any video footage I could see of the shooting? Chao9999 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Ruby_7879.html"