Talk:Jack Ruby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"more of a nuisance" ?[edit]

The "criticism" section ends with the following sentence: "...trying to make friends with people and being more of a nuisance.[85]" Sentence is incomplete and needs to be rephrased.

I have removed the sub-section "Gun" from the section "Popular Culture". Even though the type of gun to kill Oswald was a .38 Caliber Colt and has been referenced many times in pop culture, the specific gun that Ruby used to shoot Oswald has not been referenced in any pop culture and the sub-section was only about the auction that the gun was sold at.

Anyone looking to reverse the change let me know. Ug5151 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LHO "accused" or "alleged"[edit]

Multiple government investigations have concluded that LHO assassinated JFK. The evidence is copious and compelling. The fact that Oswald never stood trial, due to Ruby having shot him, is immaterial. We have numerous sources giving us the authority to say that Oswald assassinated Kennedy. Trying to water down the facts to allow the possibility that someone else killed Kennedy is WP:FRINGEy and against WP:WEIGHT. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That government investigations concluded LHO assassinated JFK does not prove he did it. I am not a specialist, but apparently there are evidences that have been disregarded or that contradict the conclusion of the government investigations. I do not think it is the role of Wikipedia to judge the evidences and conclusions, it is enough to say what is known: that LHO is accused of killing JFK. I will modify to say the he "assassinated, according to government investigations", as in the article on LHO. --Cokaban (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
To prove something, it is better, if possible, not to cite copious evidence but to cite one fact. --Cokaban (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact, i know next to nothing about this story, but do not believe there can be a "proof", and Wikipedia should not affirm something unknown. After watching one documentary and looking up a map, i have the question: wasn't JFK shot from the front, according to the gun wound and witness accounts, while LHO was supposed to be behind on the right? Why to affirm something unknown? --Cokaban (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This peripheral page is not the appropriate place to debate whether LHO should be described as the "alleged" assassin. Consensus at the primary topic articles is that "alleged" is inappropriate weasel-wording. The fact that he was killed before being tried does not make it impossible to state as a fact that LHO was the assassin without a trial and conviction, and the use of "alleged" is undue weight in favor of a wide variety of conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not write "alleged", i wrote "accused", i do not see what was wrong about it. It was not that LHO was killed that makes impossible to state the fact. It looks like it is not known to be a fact, even if it is true. The known fact is: LHO was accused of killing JFK. --Cokaban (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
To put it simple: anyone who wishes to state in Wikipedia that LHO killed JFK must at least personally KNOW it. Otherwise only known facts should be stated. This is not about conspiracy theory (i do not propose any theory), it is about known and proved vs. unknown or unproved. Maybe i will try later to give examples from elsewhere in Wikipedia or other encyclopedias. --Cokaban (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand your position, but in this community, we go by the community rules and standards regardless of what we ourselves believe. This question has been debated long and hard, but we have sources - good, solid, reliable sources - that we can use to support the statement that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Views to the contrary lack the weight we need. That's how we work, and if you think wikipolicy should be changed site-wide, then this is not the page to argue that view. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In this case, these sources must be cited. As i have not seen them, i cannot say more, but i doubt that, given the circumstances, a "hard" proof is even theoretically possible. Wikipedia is not about beliefs but about facts. I do not yet see the contradiction with the wikipolicy, but i have not checked the links you gave yet. --Cokaban (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact, there is nothing special about wikipolicy in this case, rules are the same as in real life. How would you tell, for example, your child who was LHO? Would you say that he killed JFK, or would you say that he is believed by you and some others to have killed JFK? --Cokaban (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reinstated my contribution, amending it to include definitive proof that LHO was deemed the lone killer before any investigation could even begin. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach designated him in his memo to Mr. Moyers, issued the day after LHO's removal. Given the official sources I have provided, it would appear extremely odd were Wikipedia to reject my contribution. Accused or alleged? Neither applies. He was simply "designated". Let's stop the bickering once and for all. 4eyes (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
The reliable sources all say that Oswald fired the fatal shot, and therefore he was the assassin, and that's what these articles must say. The wide variety of unreliable souces pushing many speculative, mutually exclusive conspiracy theories does not change the clear consensus of reliable sources and professional investigations. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy, just as John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln. Neither was tried nor convicted, but both are called the assassin by the reliable sources. All other scenarios are unreliable speculative conspiracy theories, which can be described in the articles about those conspiracy theories. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Cullen328, those sources must be cited. Which sources are reliable is a subjective point of view in general. Your statement about "all the reliable sources" make me suspect that you are lying: i do not believe you know what all the reliable sources have said, unless you decide which sources are reliable based on what they said. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Warren Commission[edit]

It is known fact that this group began with the premise that "LHO killed JFK" and then set out to write the report that supported that claim. It is known fact that the three shots supposedly fired by LHO were physically impossible to make in the time allotted. This is not "leaning towards conspiracy theory". It is stating independent fact. It is therefore perfectly acceptable to make reference to the uncertainty surrounding the culpability of LHO when stating that JR killed him. U (User ) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by U (Usercontribs) 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect that it was "physically impossible" to get off those three shots with that rifle at those people in that moving vehicle from that sniper perch. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Absolutely not. Oswald was a marksman and other skilled shooters have duplicated the feat, as closely as conditions can be replicated. Skilled and lucky shooting, from Oswald's point of view? Yes. Impossible? Absolutely not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, it's hard not to laugh when reading your contribution. However, I'm pleased to debate the issue with you. By all means please prove me wrong. Let's start with you providing some independently verifiable references to these shooters who claim to have been capable of replicating the events. However, were your claim true, it is actually a moot point because it is well established that the shots came from multiple locations. But for argument's sake, let's see what you've got. Thank you for engaging in this discussion. U (User ) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
Feel free to laugh, as it doesn't bother me. This article must reflect how the main assassination and Oswald articles describe Oswald. Those articles have archives where this issue has been debated at great length and in enormous detail. The consensus is that reliable sources support the description of Oswald as the assassin. Conspiracy theories can be discussed in articles about the conspiracy thories. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, it's actually no longer up to debate whether it was possible or not, it has been scientifically determined by the FBI through analyzing the Zapruder film frame rate and maximum reload speed of the rifle for it to have been physically impossible to have fired 3 shots within the allotted time. The definitive test - a forensic recreation was expertly performed by field professionals using state-of-the-art equipment - see (PBS) Nova: Cold Case JFK HD (History Documentary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The John F. Kennedy assassination rifle article is well-sourced and lists several tests by multiple firers, demonstrating that LHO had enough time to fire the three shots. However, this sort of discussion is well off-topic for this article. Perhaps it could be taken someplace else? --Pete (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You are either making things up or completely misunderstanding what was shown in the PBS show. The allotted time for three shots was 8.31 seconds and the allotted time for two shots was 1.66 seconds. G. Robert Blakey is a conspiracy believer and he acknowledged it was possible.[1] Even Penn Jillette could get off three shots in 3.45 seconds![2] I agree that this appears to be a discussion about the single-bullet theory and unrelated to improving this article. - Location (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Read my references![edit]

People, why is it so hard for you to accept reality? My contribution cites official, verifiable information. The latest "undo" of it cites "common sense". Are you serious? Also, before invoking WPBRD, I suggest you read it. I did. And I have followed the procedures. You have NOT. NO ONE has chosen to refute or discuss my contribution in a civilized manner. Stop your baseless bullying and fulfill your obligation to publish FACTUAL, verifiable information, not "common sense", especially here, on such an important historical incident. Thank you. 4eyes (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes

The sources provided are far from adequate to support the assertions made.
Your interpretation of a memo is neither official nor a verifiable source. You claim this memo instructed the Warren Commission to make certain findings, yet the memo was written before the commission was established, and in fact indicated Katzenbach's preference that such a commision not be established, relying on an investigation by the FBI instead.
The History Channel is known for having many dramatic episodes about Nazi Germany; it is not known for its scholarly research. Even if it were a marginally reliable source, citing a full 93-minute video for a contentious point is about as acceptable as saying "Read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's in there somewhere." Where and by whom is it stated that "considerable hard evidence proving the contrary was known at the time"? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I sometimes enjoy watching shows on the History Channel, but some are better than others. Many of their shows resort to sensationalism and speculation, and they are willing to advance wild fringe claims to get viewers, often accompanied by low key disclaimers stating that they don't as a network endorse the factual nature of the claims the show makes. That channel should not be considered a reliable source for controversial claims. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin". What is not clear about that sentence? I am not "interpreting" anything. It's written in plain English. As for the establishment of the commission, it was set up shortly after the issuance of this memo. Had you thoroughly read it, you would see that the proposal to create a commission (composed of "unimpeachable" people) was made in a "cya" environment (cover your ass) because there was doubt that the simple issuing of an FBI report would be sufficient to convince the US and the world. That's why, ultimately, the commission was formed. As such, their "investigation" began with the fait accompli outlined in that memo. Links to it are readily available, including from the official government archives JFK commemorative website. Note that there is also a plain text version, however I personally prefer the old typewriter version with date and signature.
Also, citing totally unrelated subjects, such as you done here with the History Channel, is common practice used to distract and derail the debate. I will not reply further.4eyes (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)4eyes
This is the Jack Ruby article, and therefore this talk page is completely the wrong place to discuss unsubstantiated speculation that Oswald was not the guy who put a bullet through Kennedy's head. Take that elsewhere, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Cullen328, in this case this page should not state anything about Oswald other than facts: that he was accused of killing JFK. I think unsupported claims about Oswald on this page are not appropriate (everything should be objectively worded). --Alexey Muranov (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Put bluntly, you're foolish if you think ""The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin"." is an idictment of anyone. It can be taken multiple ways. Another, less conspiratorial interpretation, is that the Warren Commision members were well aware that their work had to stand up to extreme scrutiny. The sentence is stating that if Ruby was indeed guilty, the evidence had to be presented in such detail and with such clarity that the public was convinced of it. (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read the same article in spanish. Jack Ruby was protected for Richard Nixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Alexey Muranov, are you 4eyes editing under a new name? We have established consensus to call Oswald the assassin without qualification, and this page is the wrong place to try to change that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, i am not 4eyes. Ok without qualification, not ok without a reference. Unsupported claims or personal beliefs are inappropriate. If you are knowledgeable about the facts, you may share your knowledge here but not without proofs or references. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
When and with whom did you establish consensus? I did not participate. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please read the archives for the main assassination article and the Oswald article. You will find the consensus there. This talk page is clearly the wrong place to discuss it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. You used to be called Cokaban, right? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November 23 section?[edit]

Can a "November 23" section be added to the Timeline? This seems like a critical omission. Thanks (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anything really relevant happened on 23 November. However, as far as critical omissions go, the phone calls received by Dallas authorities in the early hours of 24 November, saying Oswald would be killed if he wasn't adequately protected, seems a fairly spectacular one. Especially as one of the callers was identified by the Dallas police officer recipient as being Ruby. [3] Podiaebba (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Since it appears that the following is going to be censored out of this page (yes, even the Warren Report!), I'm going to stick it here.

Between 2:30 and 3am on Sunday, November 24, anonymous calls were received by the Sheriff's Office and FBI, with a man declaring that a committee had made a decision "to kill the man that killed the President."[1] According to Lieutenant Billy Grammer, at 3am an anonymous call was also received by the Dallas Police, taken by Grammer as the dispatcher on duty. The caller warned Grammer that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". After the shooting, Grammer, who knew Ruby, and found the voice familiar at the time of the call, identified Ruby as the caller.[2]

Podiaebba (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Warren Report, Chapter V - Detention and Death of Oswald: The Abortive Transfer
  2. ^ Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer was interviewed in May 1984 by Henry Hurt, with results published in Hurt's Reasonable doubt: an investigation into the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1986, p409-10 and p518; Grammer was again interviewed in 1988 on camera for an interview broadcast in the first episode of Central Independent Television's The Men Who Killed Kennedy, "The Coup D'Etat" (1988). Grammer's interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy is cited in James W. Douglass (2008), JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p368


At the top it says, "Others have argued against this, saying that Ruby's connection with gangsters was minimal at most, or circumstantial, and also that Ruby was not the sort to be entrusted with such an act within a high-level conspiracy."

This entire article then goes on to detail numerous engagements with organized crime or figures associated with organized crime. I think it should just read "Others have argued against this, saying that Ruby's connection with gangsters was circumstantial, and that Ruby was not the sort to be entrusted with such an act within a high-level conspiracy."

I don't care to make the change, but maybe an editor that is more in the know could do so. (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is actually true[edit]

The article says, Ruby fatally shot Lee Harvey Oswald, who was in police custody after being charged with the assassination of John F. Kennedy two days earlier.

There's no reference to this in either the Lee Harvey Oswald or Assassination of John F. Kennedy articles. This looks like sloppy editing to me. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Shortly after 1:30 a.m. Oswald was brought to the identification bureau on the fourth floor and arraigned before Justice of the Peace Johnston, this time for the murder President Kennedy."p. 198 - Location (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Still, that's a murder charge. As opposed to assassination. It wasn't actually a distinct crime to murder the President - I'm guessing that murdering a police officer was a more serious crime. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So, you want to change "assassination" to "murder"? - Location (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Or re-arrange the wording. LHO assassinated JFK. It's just that he wasn't charged with assassination, and we're saying he was. --Pete (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Assassination, by its very definition, is murder which makes the wording correct and true. I think most reasonably intelligent people know the two words are synonymous (or so I thought) and understand that "assassination" merely specifies that the victim was a political figure (or arguably, someone of high stature). A different word being used doesn't make the charge any more sinister and it certainly doesn't invalidate it or change its meaning. I'm also fairly certain that no court document would say a person is charged with assassination because, again, it is murder. The law is concerned with classifying the degrees of the murder, not by the social stature or importance of the victim. Officer Tippit's murder wasn't considered "more serious" than President Kennedy's. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. It simply wasn't a federal crime to kill the president at the time. Violating a federal law is no different than violating a state law - it's not like a felony compared to a misdemeanor. You'll just be charged, tried and sentenced by a different jurisdiction. Actually, I take that back. There is a difference. If you violate a federal law, go ahead and get your checkbook out or prepare yourself for prison 'cause the Feds don't play. 2602:306:8383:E010:28BA:A605:1AF8:236A (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. He wasn't charged with assassination, so we can't say he was. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious you aren't interested in other editors' opinions as you completely dismissed my explanation (along with the first editor who answered you) and changed the article anyway. There is no such charge as assassination. It will be worded "murder" and classified by a degree (first, capital, etc.) because there is no zero distinction about the victim in a legal sense. Wikipedia isn't a court of law and doesn't have to word an article with the exact legalese that is used in an indictment. The terms are absolutely synonymous and "we" can most certainly say Oswald allegedly assassinated Kennedy. Thousands of books and articles use this exact terminology because it is specific and I've yet to see someone make a stink about it but by all means, we can't say assassination because it will make Oswald more unseemly. 2602:306:8383:E010:F92C:505:4F0A:9292 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course LHO assassinated JFK. We have a whole article entitled just that. I read your post carefully, but it relies on WP:SYNTHESIS to equate a charge of murder with a charge of assassination. The best and most reliable sources we have agree that LHO was charged with two murders, but was not charged with assassination. We cannot state things as facts when they are untrue. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Links with OC[edit]

I've restored the work of an IP editor here. The comments made by Bugliosi and others about the actual known connections with organised crime are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. Bugliosi is an excellent source, and I see no problems with the others cited in these few lines.

The points are pertinent because they put the attention on two major problems with the "organised crime links" theory: 1. Ruby didn't seem to have had any, and 2. Those promoting the theory that he did are synthesising connections. A knew B and B knew Ruby, therefore Ruby knew A. That's not even good logic.

I think this needs some discussion, as we now have three opinions on the material: two for inclusion, and one for removal. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, added the material and Acroterion reverted it. I am in favor of removing not just that but almost the entire section on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT, similar to how conspiracy theories are address in Lee Harvey Oswald and Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I would be OK with something that touches on that the Warren Commission and HSCA addressed speculations and rumors of a conspiracy and found no evidence that Ruby was involved, then link to the garbage heap that is John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories where the yeas and nays of various theories can be addressed. - Location (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Pete (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Presumed innocent vs. Presumed not guilty[edit]

The correct term is "presumed innocent."  It's a fine distinction: in criminal cases, juries are called upon to determine whether the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty."  However the presumption is "presumed innocent," not "presumed not guilty."  Please see Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology  by Larry Laudan; (page 99) for the United States Supreme Court's view on the subject.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement of his presumed innocence[edit]

I replaced the part about him dying constitutionally presumed innocent.  This is not in support of any conspiracy theories.  It is a very important part of the United States justice system.  Any person accused of a crime is legally presumed innocent until if and when they are convicted without that conviction being overturned.  (Also he did not die in prison; he died at Parkland Hospital.)  Because the article mentions his trial and conviction and the reversal of that conviction, it should also at least briefly mention the legal implications of the reversal of his conviction.  If you feel that this should not be even briefly mentioned in the article, please feel free to discuss your reasons here.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Cornerstone of American justice it may be, but I think that if someone shoots another on live TV before the eyes of multiple police and media witnesses, there is only so far one can presume innocence. Few murder cases would be quite so cut and dried. --Pete (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No one is asking or expecting anyone to presume his factual innocence; but according to the Constitution, his legal innocence is presumed.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
A little precious, I think. What is the intent here? To quibble over Ruby's guilt? --Pete (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Not at all!  Jack Ruby is as guilty as sin.  He definitely committed that murder.  There is no question about his guilt; he did it!  And I can't imagine any rational person believing otherwise.  The point I'm quibbling about is the fact that, under the justice system which handled his case, the lack of an unreversed conviction leaves him legally (or judicially or constitutionally) presumed innocent.  That may be just a technicality; but it is not a trivial one.  It involves the essence of what the justice system in the United States is based on: presumed innocence until proven guilty.  An obviously guilty man can, under the right circumstances, go to his grave with a legal presumption of innocence.  Although that may seem illogical and irrational and bizarre and ludicrous, that is not a reason for it to be completely excluded from the article.  Neither is the fact that many if not most people are unaware of it; if anything, that's a reason to include a brief mention of it in the article.  Wikipedia is supposed to provide complete information and be as informative as possible on the subjects of its articles.  I don't think the explanation needs to be long and extensive; I think the very few words already used are quite sufficient.   But I do think they need to be there.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your point, but I don't think it needs be laboured here. Perhaps American justice system or something of that nature, where the case of JR and LHO could be held up as an example. Claiming innocence of any party to this affair merely spurs on the conspiracymongers, who are happy to claim any irregularity or inconsistency as solid proof of a Mafia/CIA/alien plot. spreading doubt and uncertainty over all. --Pete (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I fully respect your right to your opinion. But I think it's doubtful we'll ever agree on this particular subject. Perhaps it would be best to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Richard27182 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand your motivation to add this statement, but it is not one that is appropriate for NPOV or encyclopedic style. I don't believe you are attempting to push any point of view, but this statement has that effect regardless. Even if it did not, such a statement generally does not appear in the encyclopedia articles of deceased alleged criminals. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not see how my contribution to the article in any way, shape, or form constitutes lack of NPOV, or directly or indirectly has the effect of attempting to push a point of view. It is simply stating a verifyable (and properly sourced) legal fact.
I think the time has come to invite input from the rest of the community, so I have started an RFC.
On an indirectly related topic, please check your sources about where he died; it was not in prison.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any sources at hand at the moment, could you correct it with a proper source? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Jack Ruby's constitutional presumption of innocence[edit]

Proposing editor has, unfortunately, left Wikipedia and per his statement below is "through with this RFC". Early results were trending to a snowy "No" but due to this action and some late support, I'm going to call this inconclusive and subject to further future discussion if anyone here cares to pursue it further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the Jack Ruby article should it be briefly mentioned that, technically, he died legally presumed innocent because his conviction was overturned and he died before his new trial?

  • Yes, mention it.
  • No, do not mention it.
  • Other (please explain)

Richard27182 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please edit the "Survey" section and specify your preference along with a brief explanation.  Long comments and/or discussions should go in the "Threaded discussion" section.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


  • Definitely Yes, mention it.  This is not suggesting that he may have been in fact innocent; nor is it trivial.  It is pointing out the important legal principle that, (in the United States) in the eyes of the law, a person is presumed innocent until they are convicted (without that conviction being reversed).  And this important constitutional presumption applies to everyone, even to someone who committed their crime on live television with millions of people witnessing it.  Because the article mentions his trial and conviction and the reversal of that conviction, it should also at least briefly mention the constitutional legal implications of the reversal of his conviction.  I believe the bottom of the first paragraph of the article should be returned to how it read in this very recent version.
    Richard27182 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No. While it is an important, non-trivial fact, it is a legal issue that is not typically mentioned in encyclopedia articles of deceased alleged criminals. (See John Wilkes Booth, etc.) Singing this article out for different treatment and mentioning this fact prominently in the intro serves to (purposely or not) push the POV that he was innocent of the shooting, long a contention of many fringe conspiracy theorists. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2016 (UT
  • Please consider that most deceased alleged criminals (such as John Wilkes Booth) were not initially convicted, had their conviction overturned, and then died before retrial. These are special circumstances.
    Richard27182 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem mentioning those facts in the intro, I just take issue with your choice of wording and emphasis. Gamaliel (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - for my reasons given above in the previous section. There is no doubt that Ruby killed Oswald. He did it live on national television before an audience of media and police. Raising a technical point here to make him appear innocent is a red rag to the conspiracy theorists, who will happily jump on any minor inconsistency to spread uncertainty and doubt. If there is an appropriate article on the American justice system, the JR/LHO incident could serve as an example of a case where there is no doubt of guilt, but the shooter died innocent. (As, I guess, many murderers do.) --Pete (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not an attempt to make him look innocent. It is pointing out a legal technicality. It is relevant and properly sourced. Content of a Wikipedia article should not be removed just because conspiracy theorists might misuse the information.
    Richard27182 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you identify a source you propose to use in the article for this statement which discusses the fact that Ruby was "constitutionally innocent"? If sources do not discuss this legal matter in this way, Wikipedia cannot. Gamaliel (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ".........being constitutionally presumed innocent at the time.[1][2] (especially the New York Times)
Thank you. I'm afraid neither one of those sources discusses his constitutional presumed innocence, so we would not be able to use them to cite that statement per Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The New York Times article does discuss his presumption of innocence. The "constitutional" part was not my original wording to begin with.
Richard27182 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad we can ditch the "constitutional" part. I don't think his lawyer's obituary is a strong enough of a source to justify placement in the introduction. Would you be satisfied in discussing it in the article text? Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if we can also move the stuff about his conviction and reversal of conviction there too to keep it all together. Also, why would the lawyer's obituary not be acceptable as a source? It's technically about the lawyer, but the lawyer wouldn't have been famous at all if it weren't for his role in defending Jack Ruby. And anyway, it is the New York Times. In terms of reliable source newspapers, they don't get much better than that.
Richard27182 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. If there's going to be some back and forth discussion here, maybe we should move it down to the Threaded Discussion section.
Richard27182 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Too suggestive of actual innocence and, as noted, will attract conspiracy theorists to add excess to the article. Richard27812, your opinions are fine here, but please don't argue with us about our opinions. This issue is about opinions, not facts. Our opinions are our opinions and don't need to be disputed by you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree that I am discussing opinions. How the United States legal system classifies a particular (living or deceased) defendant is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact.
    Richard27182 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The survey is about opinions -- yes or no -- about what should or should not be included in the article. If you want to opine about the legal system, do so in the threaded discussion below, but stop arguing with us here when we express our opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No A legalistic quibble, suggestive of innocence in a case where there is no doubt of guilt. This proposal gives a general impression of coatracking a straw man discussion into the article. The conviction was overturned on fair-trial grounds, not on the basis of actual guilt or innocence. The article could go into more depth on why the verdict was overturned, but it doesn't belong in the lede. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - For all the reasons already given, but also because this is an attempt at legal formalism where there is no actual form. That is, while presumption of innocence undoubtedly flows from the Bill of Rights in the United States constitution, it is not explicitly set forth nor the consequences thereof limned. Moreover, in my (admittedly very brief) review, I don't see this as representative of the secondary sources, though I certainly could be wrong. All in all, way too much heat and too little light in my opinion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - presumption of innocence is designed to protect living people from being punished for crimes they possibly didn't commit. We don't claim that John Wilkes Booth (the person who assassinated Lincoln) is presumed innocent, as he never went on trial. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe - I think a small mention is not undue given the size of the conspiracy section and the tangential mention in the NYT[4]. By small I mean a single addition to the sentence on his death there. Something like Three weeks later he died, at the time under a presumption of innocence. A better option might be to trim back the whole section. The multiple and lengthy quotes make it difficult to parse and the whole section feels undue. It should definitely not be included in the lead so I agree with this edit. AIRcorn (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No - The presumption of innocence is a normal part of the U.S. judicial system that applies equally to all defendants before they are convicted. Should every article about a defendant who died before trial concluded have a statement suggesting they died under a presumption of innocence? Like another editor wrote, "this proposal gives a general impression of coatracking a straw man discussion into the article. If you want to suggest that dying during the presumption of innocence is somehow related to a conspiracy then that needs to be cited otherwise it is original research.Waters.Justin (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

 Apparently no one understands what this RfC was intended to be about.
It is NOT about making Jack Ruby "appear innocent."  (It has nothing to do with his actual guilt or innocence; it has to do with his legal status.)
It is NOT about whether we would be giving ammunition to conspiracy theorists.  (Legitimate information is not censored (omitted) from Wikipedia articles just because it might be misinterpreted or misused.)
It is NOT about "legalistic quibble." (The presumption of innocence is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of the United States' system of justice.)
It is NOT about protecting living people (or dead people for that matter) from anything.  (Again it's entirely about the factual matter of someone's legal status.)
This is what it's about: Jack Ruby is 100% undeniably guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt; he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death; but because of a few twists of fate, when he died (at Parkland Hospital) he was technically legally classified as presumed innocent.  It's a pretty safe bet that a majority of people (including Wikipedia readers) are not aware of this bizarre ironic absurdity of history.  And because of this RfC, they probably never will be.
 I will not subject myself to any more of the stress and anxiety of every time I get on my computer having to worry about finding out how many more people are against me.  I've had enough.  I am through with this RfC, and I am through with Wikipedia.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you feel this way. Your point is taken, and you are quite correct. Ironically, this article is probably not the best place to link Jack Ruby with this technical point, especially not in the lede. Another article, one dealing with justice and innocence might be better, where Ruby would serve as an excellent example. --Pete (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Skyring. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think that encyclopedia articles are a good place to make technical legal points of this kind. As I noted, a little more discussion in the article is probably warranted, but given the undoubted actual guilt, the technical presumption of innocence in between trials based solely on Ruby's death before he could be re-tried in a neutral venue should not be given unwarranted prominence. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Richard27182, I'm also sorry you feel "stressed", but if you can't accept that anyone's edits -- not just yours -- can be mercilessly edited and that editors can have opinions that differ from yours without being "against you", then it's probably best if you not get involved with controversial issues on Wikipedia. If I find I'm getting upset about an article, I take it off my watchlist for a while to let the dust settle. If you do that I think you'll find that your editing here will be much more enjoyable and productive. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry your experience on Wikipedia has been a negative one. Editors often disagree and this is frequently a source of friction here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jack Ruby RfC reference list[edit]


  1. ^ New York Times Retrieved September 19, 2015
  2. ^ Retrieved September 19, 2015

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 24: The killing of Oswald - NPOV[edit]

Most of this is coming from his own testimony so is the NPOV the sources or his word?--WatchingContent (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is there so much crap in this article?[edit]

Looking at this article, I see a lot of content aimed at boosting speculation. No facts, just hints and suppositions and "we can't find anybody to join the dots, but you can, dear reader" speculation about the Mob, and the CIA, and prostitutes. Ruby didn't know Oswald, he wasn't part of any conspiracy, he shot Oswald because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Trying to making him into some grand conspirator is twaddle of the first order. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember that a few days after November 24, 1963, newspapers (and probably were some reliable source among them) were already reporting 1) that Ruby had connections to the Mafia and 2) that he had lung cancer and was going to be dead in about one year. Anything else is speculation. Are any reliable sources reporting that he "he wasn't part of any conspiracy, he shot Oswald because it seemed like a good idea at the time"? (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
Within a few days of the assassination it was reported that Ruby had lung cancer? That's a new one on me. When he first went into the hospital in late 1966, the doctors didn't know what was wrong with him. And by the way, I agree with Skyring. This article could use some work.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

New revelation in recent release of JFK files[edit]

Jack Ruby told FBI informant Bob Vanderslice to “watch the fireworks” on the day President John F Kennedy was assassinated, before the assassination occurred. The informant's information was not officially relayed to the FBI until March 1977, and has remained closed until now. -- GreenC 23:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

More rubbish. Did he mention JFK or LHO? No. This is pathetic. --Pete (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Except for the fact mentioned here, if indeed it is confirmed, that Ruby was on Dealey Plaza watching the motorcade, at the time the President was shot and killed. This fact was recorded nowhere up to this point, certainly not in Ruby's own testimony, and if verified, it changes the puzzle quite a bit. warshy (¥¥) 01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Pish. --Pete (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack Ruby calling Oswald "good looking" and resembling Paul Newman(lol)[edit]

  • laughs* I was surprised when I read that on the article. I actually hunted Knight's testimony down just now, thinking to myself “there is no way that Ruby would have said that” and.. well.. I am still questioning how on earth he pulled that Paul Newman comparison, as they don’t really look alike to me at all? But I cracked up when I read this because it actually made me imagine Oswald as a movie star for a second. Just look it up.

And I’m just going “if you thought he was goodlooking, why on earth did you shoot him and rob the planet of his pretty face?” at Ruby non-stop right now, sorry. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Did Ruby "assassinate" Oswald or just "murder" him?[edit]

Does Ruby's killing of Oswald count as an assassination or no? To one degree, Oswald wasn't a politician or major public figure until a few days before his death, but then again Ruby did kill Oswald due to Oswald's sudden high profile and for presumably some sort of ideological/principled grounds rather than as a rational crime. I note this question was asked in this page's Archives some years ago with no answer.

I'm vaguely inclined to include Ruby's Colt Cobra revolver in List of assassinations by firearm but I'm refraining so far since Wikipedia doesn't currently categorize Ruby as an "assassin". Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view this was clearly a political assassination and not for the reasons you refer to: It's objective was to silence Oswald about any thing he may have known about the assassination of President Kennedy. The assassin's objective was thoroughly and cleanly accomplished. warshy (¥¥) 22:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
If anyone was trying to assassinate Oswald to "silence" him.....they were a few days late.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Less than 48 hours after he was apprehended at the Texas Theatre. And, in any case, Oswald certainly did not live to see his day in court, which was precisely the purpose of Ruby's assassination of him to begin with. He was summarily executed from close range right under the watch of the Dallas police force, and silenced for ever. And, after being assassinated like that, Oswald was also finally named the lone assassin of President Kennedy, the nut-case earst-while Communist defector who killed the President of the United States all by himself, with just an old WWII rifle and a single bullet. Case closed. warshy (¥¥) 14:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Ruby indeed did not want a trial.....but it had nothing to do with any conspiracy. He didn't want Jackie Kennedy to have to come back to Dallas for such a trial. As far as him being silenced, again: Ruby was a little late. Oswald spent the weekend lying to the police, his family, and the media. He revealed nothing of substance (other than his own mendacity). Likely had it gone to would have been more of the same. (With those desperate to prove a conspiracy in this case taking his every word as the gospel while ignoring everything damaging to his claims of innocence.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not mention the word "conspiracy" yet, you did... That is right. For the Warren Commission apologists such as Gerald Posner this case was closed even before it was opened. It was closed by J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI even before Ruby assassinated and silenced Oswald on Sunday, November 24, 1963, around 11 AM. And thanks to the silencing of the President's alleged assassin, and to the FBI's clean up of the record for the Warren Commission, it will never be open again. Time to close it here too. Thank you. warshy (¥¥) 13:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You may have not mentioned the word....but obviously, that is what you are getting at. (Otherwise, what difference would it make if LHO was "silenced"?) In the real world, it makes little difference if Oswald was silenced. We can investigate his background and see pretty clearly that no Intel agency in their right minds would use him for anything. We can also see that he was almost literally penniless. (Something even Harold Weisberg admitted.) You get to that point (eliminating Intel, mob ties, etc) and what do you have left? A lone nut. And before you start screaming about Ruby's "mob ties"....I remind you: I am talking about LHO here. All this work LHO was supposedly doing for all these organizations....and the guy couldn't even put food on the table or shoes on his kid's feet. I assume even the CIA or mob has a minimum wage program.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep, you are right. A lone-nut killed the President of the United States, and less than 48 hours after that, a second lone-nut eliminated the apprehended main suspect for the assassination under the watch of the police, on live TV. As I said, this case was closed before the second lone-nut even accomplished what he set out to do, at least for Posner, and for all Warren Commission apologists in the world such as yourself. The case is closed, and the State of the Union is very strong ever since. Thank you. warshy (¥¥) 19:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of nuts out there. (As the school shootings prove. That is, unless you are one of these people who think these shootings are inside jobs, conspiracies, or whatever.) To me, the case was indeed closed the second LHO tried to kill additional police officers upon his arrest in the Texas Theater. (Testified to by 4 police officers.) Ironically enough, Oswald himself said (while doing that) something like "It's all over now." True enough. As far as the direction of the country goes....very little changed. I know JFK has been re-invented in some circles as an early version of George McGovern.....but nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody who runs on any "missile gap" can be called a dove. I would advise you to read some of his speeches. Overwhelmingly (save but for the one in 1957 in the Senate and the one at American University that the conspiracy theorists love to cite) they are pro-Cold War and strongly anti-communist. No one ever put the issues at stake in the Cold War as eloquently as JFK did standing at the Brandenburg Gate in 1963. I assume I am about to hear the usual nonsense on Vietnam (complete with the cherry picked quotes, misunderstood NSAM memos, and backroom quotes that came out after the war became unpopular). I always look forward to that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)