Talk:Jack Ruby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] In Comedy

Deleted the "In Comedy" section: it adds nothing to an understanding of Jack Ruby, and distracts from the rest of the article. Any significant influence by Ruby upon comedy could be placed in the Popular Culture section; any Ruby-related jokes are gratuitous at best. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the popular culture section: NOFX reference

I don't think the reference to the NOFX song "The Man I Killed" being about Jack Ruby is correct. From what I've read, and my interpretation of the song, it is about someone (perhaps Fat Mike the lead singer) killing a world leader (most likely George W. Bush). Unless a good reference can be found to support the claim I don't think it is appropriate to have this claim listed under the "Popular Culture" section. I am going to remove it for the time being.

AMo4 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[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 somehow addressed in this article so people looking for information 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) (learn to spell...)

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confidential capacity and it would be unacceptable to question him in public (I forget the exact wording); the subpoena was revoked.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
A case has been made for explaining the ZIP code -- that the one-page xerox is really a composite of 2 different documents. The top (on FBI letterhead) is a half-page undated typed note ("NOTE: Extra copy. Inclosure not verified by official report. Return to file. This is sensitive."), used as a transmittal sheet, stapled on top of full page underneath. Only the bottom half of the full sheet dated 1947 is seen. If this is correct, the presence of the ZIP code on the letterhead need not affect the dating of the bottom half. See discussion here. J496 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[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] Popular Culture

In another Simpsons episode, Homer and Marge began to investigate the assassination of JFK (parodying the show "Dallas") to which Homer says to Marge, "I got it! Lee Harvey Oswald did it for the Jack Ruby!" To which marge replies, "Homer, Jack Ruby was a man." Homer then replies, "Damn! I was so close." — Irishalex92 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the apostrophe in The Simpsons? — Walloon 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[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)

I went ahead and put the reference to American Tabloid back into the article, but without the followup. Whether or not the man fucked dogs right in their dogg butts is true isn't important. However, it is an example of Jack Ruby being a character in pop culture. 24.218.218.9 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Oswald

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

Yeah, maybe there was an ATM nearby and we can get the camera footage. Or maybe Ruby's friend was filming it on his cellphone and put it up on youtube. 12.155.141.132 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, at YouTube. — Walloon 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Ruby told to his defense lawyer

A censor removed a link [11] to authentic statements of Ruby to his defense lawyer William Kunstler, published in Kunstler's autobiography. These statements are not irrelevant in the present context and there is no rational reason for their removal.

[edit] Errors

1. “March 25, 1911.” Researchers note there are two conflicting birth certificates for Rubinstien. It would be a accurate to simply state “1911”.

Actually for WP purposes, we should simply state the one tied to the more reliable source. Ruby himself used that date on several occasions. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


2. “…convicted of murder and sentenced to a federal penitentiary, where he spent the remainder of his life.” This makes it sound as if Ruby was sentenced to jail time when in fact he was sentenced to death. He died in Parkland Hospital ironically the same emergency room as JFK and Oswald. While this issue is addressed in later paragraphs the introductory synopsis should be reworded.

Disagree, and since it is addressed later on, there is no need to change the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

3. “…he yelled at Oswald, "You killed my President, you rat!" What is the source for this? Ruby said, “Son of a bitch!” when he shot Oswald, according to the testimony of the two closest officers, Don Ray Archer and William Harrison.

Well you got one, there should be some citation there. BTW-- you need sources for your suggestion as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

4. “Ruby stated that he shot Oswald to avenge Kennedy.” When? What is the source? This is the very first time I have ever heard the claim that Ruby confessed to shooting Oswald.

5. “Later, however, he claimed he shot Oswald on the spur of the moment when the opportunity presented itself, without considering any reason for doing so.” Again, what is the source that Ruby confessed?

The Warren Commision for both 4 and 5. Again, it should be sourced in the article. But then again, you probably going to dispute using the WC as a source. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

6. There should be more space given to possible intelligence ties. Namely Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, and Santos Trafficante and there work with the CIA to assassinate Castro.

WP:ATT, or more accurately WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Bring reliable sources to the table and we'll discuss. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Oswald’s murder should be detailed as to how Ruby gained access to the garage and the Warren Commission’s contradictory conclusion that he entered via the ramp.

Same as above. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Ruby’s alleged presence in Dealey Plaza should be mentioned.

No reliable sources to support this alleged presence. Therefore it can't go in here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Ruby’s presence at Parkland Hospital after the assassination and denial there of should be mentioned.

Same as #6 and #7. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dear Ramsquire

It only took four postings before you conceded defeat on this page by blocking it. I did not even have to use another IP address.

At least we found some consensus on the opening synopsis and pop culture references.

Ruby’s SOB comment was witnessed by officers Don Ray Archer (WC vol. XII p.395) and William Harrison (WC vol. XII p.234). While I have read varied accounts of what Ruby said in numerous JFK books, they never cite a source. Archer and Harrison are the only two to actually testify as to what Ruby said and no other witness contradicted their testimony.

Why did you take out his confession to Archer? It is the only evidence of his confession. This would back up your theory that he admitted his guilt.

You say he confessed to the Commission and I would refute it but if you can cite a source for Ruby publicly confessing to law enforcement or the media during testimony or interview it deserves to be in the article. In his WC testimony Ruby does remark that he was sickened by the idea of Jackie attending a trial. But never confesses. Otherwise your synopsis of his testimony in very good which is why I did not change it.

It is difficult to expand his mob and intelligence connections in context without getting side tracked into AM/Lash and Operation Mongoose. It is better to leave it out of Ruby’s actual biography.

Ruby’s alleged presence at Dealey Plaza deserves to be added to the story because it shows his interest in the assassination early on. And shows the Warren Commission’s ignorance in covering it up. As I objectively stated there is no 100% proof the man at Dealey Plaza was really him.

His presence at Parkland should also be mentioned. Wilma May Tice’s testimony is in vol. XV p.388 and a further report about her threats is in vol. XXV p.224. Seth Kantor’s testimony is in vol. XV p.71. HSCA’s conclusion is on page 193 of their report.

Ruby’s access to police garage is important because as HSCA states it cuts to the issue of a conspiracy to kill Oswald. Their comment is on page 187 of their report.

The Warren Commission’s paradox theory shows their corruption. My source for the Griffin Warren confrontation is the 1999 A&E documentary ‘The Warren Commission.’ (CWC)

Editing Wikipedia is not about reverting until you defeat another editor. You show your lack of understanding of the nature of Wikipedia and its policies and you will continue to be block until you can adhere to them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To Anon:

  1. I didn't lock the page.
  2. Only an admin can lock a page.
  3. The locking of a page is not a victory or defeat for anyone. It is to stop edit warring and vandalism.
  4. I did not make any of the edits or deletions you reference. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel’s censorship is a victory because anyone whom researches the JFK assassination will know the issue is so controversial it cannot be discussed.

The errors and facts I corrected in the article are not, “edit warring” or “vandalism”. (CWC)

Please do not accuse Gamaliel of things he did not do. Are you RPJ? If you are, you know better than that. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from signing your posts CWC. There is an actual user here with that name, and I'm sure he does not want to be confused with you. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prosecution and Conviction

This section appears to be out of order, chronologically. ==Why is his lineage so important?A whole paragraph about his father? When I added the ancestry of Lee H.Oswald, most of it was deleted as not being relevant?LHO was certainly more important historically than that pimp Ruby15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

[edit] Early Life

Should the early life section really cover until he is 48 years old? Ajk91 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)