For andrej stancak @ the ed forum

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Andrej asks "Does anyone know who Johny Crank and Lynn were? "
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29164-jack-rubys-letter-to-al-maddox/

Yes, Andrej. They both worked for the Texas Liquor Control Board. Lynn's full name: Lynn Burke.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

The thread started by Andrej is about the letter allegedly written by Ruby to Al Maddox who was one of his guards.

There was discussion on it a TV special some years ago. Andgej goes on to say..

Around the time 42:00, former Dallas sheriff Al Maddox was presented as a guest to the show. Al Maddox was a guard to Ruby from 1963 until the very last days when Ruby fell ill with pneumonia. Jack Ruby secretely handed over a short letter to Al Maddox, and Maddox brought the letter  to Larry Howard after 25 years. The letter was authenticated as Jack Ruby's letter by a handwriting expert on the program.

It always inspires confidence when a letter or other potentially very important evidence is only brought out decades later and confirms the conspiracy concensus of the day - in this case, that Ruby shot Oswald before Oswald could "talk". A round about way of saying that Ruby and Oswald were co-conspirators with others. And of course, the hand writing was "authenticated" as being Ruby's. The producers had a pecuniary interest in the letter being genuine. Never mind that a law enforcement officer sat on it for 25 years and then took it to a conspiracy theorist, before it became the centrepiece of a TV special.

The claim that Ruby shot Oswald to stop Oswald talking is utter crap. 

And therefore the letter is a fake.

Like other faked evidence produced in Dallas... Ricky White... comes to mind and all the photo retouching by Groden and White are two more examples, along with the faked police report of a fight between Ruby and Oswald.

[Roger Odisio]

GP:  The thread started by Andrej is about the letter allegedly written by Ruby to Al Maddox who was one of his guards.

There was discussion on it a TV special some years ago. Andgej goes on to say..

Around the time 42:00, former Dallas sheriff Al Maddox was presented as a guest to the show. Al Maddox was a guard to Ruby from 1963 until the very last days when Ruby fell ill with pneumonia. Jack Ruby secretely handed over a short letter to Al Maddox, and Maddox brought the letter  to Larry Howard after 25 years. The letter was authenticated as Jack Ruby's letter by a handwriting expert on the program.

It always inspires confidence when a letter or other potentially very important evidence is only brought out decades later and confirms the conspiracy concensus of the day - in this case, that Ruby shot Oswald before Oswald could "talk". A round about way of saying that Ruby and Oswald were co-conspirators with others....
 
The claim that Ruby shot Oswald to stop Oswald talking is utter crap. 

And therefore the letter is a fake.
 
RO:  Not so, or at least not established. It depends on what is meant by "talking".  On what Oswald was going to say before he was killed.  Ruby killing Oswald to keep him from "talking" establishes them as coconspirators with others in the murder, only if Oswald was going to say that.  Only if Oswald was an integral part of the murder and was going to jeopardize others. 
 
But if Oswald was a patsy as he claimed, "talking" takes on a different meaning. He had to be killed before he could defend himself. Everyone here knows that Oswald had an alibi that they failed to suppress or destroy.  He was killed so that authorities could frame him unhindered.

[Vinny]

Why would they need to shut Oswald up? He knew absolutely nothing about the plot and had nothing to do with it. He was shot to prevent a trial. As Greg has said a trial would have shined a spotlight on the DPD's behavior in framing people.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

RO:  Not so, or at least not established. It depends on what is meant by "talking".  On what Oswald was going to say before he was killed.  Ruby killing Oswald to keep him from "talking" establishes them as coconspirators with others in the murder, only if Oswald was going to say that.  Only if Oswald was an integral part of the murder and was going to jeopardize others. 

Very precicesly - what Vinny said.

The above scenario where Oswald is killed before he can rat everyone out, was the consensus among the Conspiriatii at the time the letter  was faked. 

You are disregarding that obvious meaning and going with not talking about his alibi, but that interpretation is simply stretching credulity to keep the letter on the evidence table.

There is also a current discussion at the Empire of the Encephylitic 'Eads, about Ruby's original motive of doing it to save Jackie the pain of a trial and how he got that from his original lawyer, Tom Howard.

Since it is all related, let's kick that over first.

Howard had been there all morning on Sunday. It was the cops who gave Howard that motive to pass on to Ruby. Ruby should have stuck with Howard and that excuse. Texans, as general rule of thumb, like chivalry and despise psychiatry.

The excuse was part of the Reifd Technique. 

From https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/the-interview-7

Having headed off denials, you steer the subject toward a confession by offering a face-saving alternative. The process is called “minimization”—downplaying the moral consequences of the crime without mentioning the legal ones. In the case of the woman who tampered with her oxycodone prescription, you can suggest that the dentist did not give her enough pain pills and that she only wanted to save a trip to the pharmacy. “If you were a drug addict, you wouldn’t have changed the prescription to forty—you would have changed it to a hundred!” Senese’s 2005 book “Anatomy of Interrogation Themes” lists more than two thousand such excuses, in cases ranging from identity theft to murder. No matter how repugnant the crime, he told us, you can come up with a rationalization that makes it easier for the suspect to admit it. The standard Reid Technique manual, first published in 1962 and now in its fifth edition, suggests a way an interviewer can minimize rape:


Joe, no woman should be on the street alone at night looking as sexy as she did. Even here today, she’s got on a low-cut dress that makes visible damn near all of her breasts. That’s wrong! It’s too much temptation for any normal man. If she hadn’t gone around dressed like that you wouldn’t be in this room now.


You can further lower barriers to confession by presenting the crime as the lesser of two evils. Was this your idea or did your buddies talk you into it? Did you use that money for drugs or to help feed your kids?

----------------
From the get-go, the Jackie excuse was meant to get Ruby off with a light sentence in s state that had no minimum for murder. It was what was promised him by the cops who put him up to it. 

It was Harry Olsen who gave Ruby his orders on the Friday night.

Mr SPECTER. How long did you talk to Mr. Ruby on this Friday night?
Mr OLSEN. Two or three hours.

Wow! Wonder what they talked about?

Mr SPECTER. Tell me. as specifically as you can recall exactly what it was that Ruby said and what it was that you and Kay and Johnny said in reply to him?
Mr OLSEN. We were all upset about the President's assassination, and we were just talking about how we hated it, that it was a tragedy.
Mr SPECTER. Did Jack Ruby say something to that effect?
Mr OLSEN. Yes; very strongly.

Two or three hours of talking about upset they all are? Absolute bullshit. 

What else ya got, Harry?

Mr SPECTER. Did he say anything at that time about whether or not he knew Officer J. D. Tippit?
Mr OLSEN. It seemed that he did know Officer Tippit.
Mr SPECTER. Why do you say, "It seemed that he did know Officer Tippit?
Mr OLSEN. I believe he said that Tippit had been to his club.
Mr SPECTER. Recollect as specifically as you can exactly what he said about that, if you can, Mr. Olsen.
Mr OLSEN. Something about Oswald shooting the President and Officer Tippit and leaving the wife and children, and he kept referring to Jaequeline.

Firstly, it was the officer named TippET who knew Jack...

Secondly, adding that stuff about Jack being upset on behalf of Jackie is proof that Olsen is lying and that this was no innocent grief counselling session. This talk was about planning.

What did Jack do after this talk with Olsen? He went and collected his two sidekicks and a camera to go photograph the Impeach Earl Warren poster. Forget Garrison. Jack was the first man on the trail of the assassins. After taking some photos of it, they went to keep vigil over the PO box listed in the Wlcome ad in the DMN. Ruby connected both the poster and the ad to the plotters of thye assassination. He was going to catch them and relive himself of the task of killing Oswald. After he got sick of waiting for someone to come and use the box, he went in to get the name of the owner of a clerk. He failed. The clerk refused to give the name up and Jack retired from the Private Eye profession. 

His next get out of jail free card was to call in a favor and get someone to give him a legitimate reason to leave the state, or to otherwise get him off the hook as hitman. He bombed out on that too.

His third and mostr despparate attempt to get out of this mess was to phone in threats to Oswald to the FBI, Sheriff's Office and DPD. Ruby gave his identity away by not disguising his voice and by suggesting he was calling to give warning to save any law enforcement getting hurt. Only Ruby, the cop groupie, would give a fuck about that.  This too, failed. Fritz's simply came up with a plan that appeared to use extra security measured, but incorporated very simple ways to subvert them. 

Meanwhile, after learning what was going on with Jack via his early morning Private Dicking with the man, Crafard did the only sane thing and got out of Dodge. Harry-O, the cop who could not recall whose house he was guarding on crutches iand n daylight hours during the assassination, and was an acredited Grief Counsellor for depressed night club owners, not only got of Didge he also got out of the police force. 

This is not rocket science. These simple to follow actions of Ruby, Crafard and Olsen, the giving to Ruby a Reid Technique "minimization" motive, and the departures of Crafard and Olsen all pretty much speak for themselves. But what do we get instead? Layer after layer of bullshit to try and turn this into a Mob-CIA-Ruby-Oswald co-production because why? It is somehow sexier? Simple explanations are no fun? 

Ruby, as he knew he would be, was double-crossed when they dumped Howard, lied to him about the availability of Percy Foreman to help Howard,  and brought in Belli instead. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Maybe we can reconstruct it by asking you questions. From what you have said, I take it that by the time you called or somebody talked to Stanley Kaufman, the idea had been implanted that you would need a lawyer other than Tom Howard.
Mr. RUBY. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, who had planted the idea? How did that idea develop that you would need a lawyer other than Tom Howard?
Mr. RUBY. I don't remember exactly, but it could have been even my own thoughts, because a day or two after the shooting and the papers started to print stories, and stories about Tom Howard, and I realized who he was, and he was suspended at one time, I immediately thought this was not a good lawyer to have for my brother.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, what was Jack's original attitude, if you know, about Tom Howard?
Mr. RUBY. He wasn't too crazy about Tom Howard, as far as I could see, from what he hold me, because he said Tom Howard contradicted himself a few times to him.
Mr. GRIFFIN. But did Jack, to your knowledge, develop the idea on his own that he should get somebody other than Howard, or was this suggestion raised to Jack?
Mr. RUBY. That I don't know. You are asking me what his thoughts were. I don't know. I can't answer that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I didn't know if you had contact with him or not. Now, to your knowledge, were any other Dallas lawyers contacted besides Tom Howard before the final team of Belli, Tonahill, and Burleson?
Mr. RUBY. Oh, yes; Belli was the main one, you know. He was the first one.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; but before Belli was brought in, were any other Dallas lawyers, or Texas lawyers----
Mr. RUBY. Oh, yes; they talked, Howard--Howard and I discussed this, and he said he needs help, he wouldn't mind another good lawyer. So we mentioned several names. He talked to Percy Foreman, and Percy Foreman, he told me Percy Foreman wants $25,000 as a retainer before he will even step into the case. So he says, "I know you don't have that kind of money so that eliminates him."
However, later, upon talking to Foreman, he denies that. He said he only asked for $2,500.
Anyhow, they contacted Stanley Kaufman, Stanley Kaufman contacted Fred Brunner. He is a Dallas criminal lawyer, very good. And the story I got is he says, "Okay, I'll handle the case. I will be right down to take over."

The fact is that Howard represented a number of surder suspects. None were executed. That alone is a major victory for a defense lawyer in Dallas.

In summary

Ruby and Oswald did not know each other

Ruby was brought into the plot when Bob Carroll failed to execute Oswald in the theatre.

Oswald was never part of the plot, except as designated patsy.

All adding up to the alleged Ruby note being a forgery, authenticated by unknown "experts" for a TV show.

[Roger Odisio]

Here is Greg's original statement that drew consternation on EF and at least one request for an explanation:   “The claim that Ruby shot Oswald to stop Oswald talking is utter crap.” 
 
Of course that's true in the sense Greg meant it.  As he said, Oswald was not part of the conspiracy; he was the designated patsy. The real killers obviously knew that. They weren't worried about him spilling their beans.
 
I suspect that instead of saying "to stop Oswald from talking" (a nebulous term, talking about what?) Greg was more specific--"the claim that Ruby shot Oswald to stop Oswald from revealing the conspiracy" is utter crap-- there would have been little room for confusion or consternation. 
 
Why then was Oswald murdered?  Right from the beginning, when he was captured at the theatre, he started screaming for a lawyer.  I don't know at what point he realized the trouble he was in, but whenever that was, he knew he had to get a lawyer to tell his story and to contradict the fabrications and lies that were surely coming.
 
The killers weren't going to let him have a lawyer.  They knew he didn't do it.  They knew how weak the case was that they were to about to fabricate. They couldn't let him defend himself.
 
That Saturday the head of the Dallas Bar offered one of their lawyers to Oswald. Knowing a bit about the state of the Dallas Bar, Oswald declined, but said he would get back to him if he couldn't find one of his preferred options.  That set the time frame for his murder.

[Sponsored content]