http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TMWKK

You're looking for the 2nd episode, The Love Affair. It sucks that it's chopped up into nine-minute chunks but you'll get the idea. Have a watch of it and let me know your thoughts.

I think Oswald pulled the trigger and blew off Kennedy's skull.

But was he involved with a conspiracy involving mobsters and rogue CIA operatives? Maybe.

Maybe I was also. There's no evidence to support his association withe any conspiracy group.

Olivant, a good conspiracy is one that you can't prove.

So what's the point of discussing it then?

Whats the point?

We gotta talk about something besides Yankees, movies, wrestling, and fantasy sports...right?

Anyway, "Who shot JFK?" is always a good fun debate among people.

Again, I wish to think that Oswald shot JFK, but possibly was part of a bigger cabal, but who knows.

All I know is, put the rifle on display. That would be cool.

Can anyone tell me what happened to jack ruby after he shot lee harvey oswald? all replys welcome

Wikipedia's entry on Jack Ruby

To briefly summarise, he was arrested immediately after he killed Oswald and convicted of murder on March 14th 1964, when he received the death sentence. Whilst in jail, he begged Chief Justice Earl Warren to take him to Washington DC so he could testify as to his involvement in the assassination, and also because he feared for his life. Warren denied his request and Ruby, in spite of being granted a new trial a few years later, died before it could take place of a pulmonary embolism on January 3rd 1967

Originally Ruby was convicted and sentenced to death. But after winning an appeal he was granted a new trial by an appellate court.

While awaiting his new trial, Ruby came down with pneumonia and about a month later died from what was said to be a pulminary embolism.

Wow, I never knew that Ruby was originally sentenced to death - interesting. Was the death penalty enforced in Texas at that time? I know there was a time in the 60s or maybe even through the 70s that the death penalty was outlawed. I may be thinking of a federal law though.

The death penalty was declared unconstitutional in the early 70s by the U.S. Supreme Court. I forget the year, but it coincided with the Manson trial/conviction although it was not related to it. I may be off by a year or two.

It was declared Constitutional a few years later, and the first person executed was Gary Gilmore in Utah around 1977-8.

Klyd. Wasn't it declared unconstitutional AFTER Manson and company were already on death row? And because of this delcaration weren't their death sentences overturned and changed to life in prison sentences instead?

DC - I read Helter Skelter recently (damn good read by the way) and can confirm you're correct on this. Their death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.

But I personally don't believe Ruby, if he'd not died earlier, would have been alive to see the law changed.

DC, you sound skeptical about the way Ruby died. I also have my doubts that an embolism caused his death. I've heard and read stories of visits by mystery doctors to Ruby's cell when he was in perfect health and his sudden deteriation afterwards. Am I sounding like a complete conspiracy geek here?

Helter Skelter is a fantastic read. How brilliant was Bugliosi in building this case against Manson, who never ever entered those home to commit those murders? In truth, when he first started investigating the case, all he really had was circumstantial evidence. Bugliosi did some job in collecting evidence and getting witnesses to testify against Manson. Simply brilliant.

As for Ruby, no, you don't sound like a conspiracy geek. I've always suspected that something intentional was done to deteriorate his health. There is no question in my mind that the whole John F. Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy of some sort.

I can't really remember where I read this - could be Jim Marrs's Crossfire or Mark Lane's Plausible Denial, but I do seem to remember speculation that the hospital staff administered injections to Ruby containing cancerous chemicals. This ties in somewhat with Judith Vary Baker's story of a CIA-sponsored programme to develop a cancer virus to be injected into Castro, a project Oswald allegedly assisted in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

I'm in agreement, DC. The Warren Commission's version of events vs the eyewitness accounts, medical and forensic expertise, physical evidence and, of course, the Zapruder film... there's no contest which is more plausible.

Poleese! Do you include aliens from another planet in your eyewitness accounts? Why not? They too are unsupported by any evidence, so they qualify, right? Ruby received injections? No, your wrong. Actually, nano-robots developed through the technology that was discovered at Roswell were inserted into his body and told to disassemble his internal organs killed him. I have no evidence, let alone proof. But, it is plausible, huh!

Woah... olivant, chill out.

You must have misunderstood. I used the word speculation because that's exactly what it is. I didn't say I subscribed to it, I was simply discussing a theory I read once. That's all.

Do I really believe that Ruby was injected with a cancerous agent? Well, considering how many eyewitnesses and vital witnesses died after the assassination, I would conclude that it's indeed a possibility. Add to that the fact that, as previously discussed, Ruby knew more than he could tell in Dallas, and was denied the opportunity to give his account in a safer environment.

Regarding the eyewitness accounts etc, I was referring to the assassination as a whole. It was an arse-about-face way of agreeing with DC that, IMHO, it was a conspiracy.

Geez Olivant, there is no need for such hostilities. We're just having a discussion on the subject, that's all. No one is saying that what they believe in is fact. It's purely speculation on our part, that's all. Conversation. If you do not agree with the conspiracy theories or the speculation surrounding the Kennedy assassination and Jack Ruby, all you had to do was say so.

Thaks for the replys guys.i recently read double cross by chuck giancana and according to the book mooney was personally resposible for jfk's death i honestly dont know what to belive.

Chuck Giancana, much like the testimony/evidence from mob lawyer Frank Ragano, is nearly impossible to substantiate, which makes it difficult from an academic standpoint to validate these sources. Obviously, you have to take them at face value, or discard them entirely. I do however think that there is some truth to what they say - mostly because after some time and research I still think the mob had some part in the assassination - but that you have to remember where the stuff is coming from, and put it into perspective.

Yes i know what your saying in chuck giancanas book some things just dont ring true with me, although still a very interesting book as it shows just how heartless mooney really was.

Not read Chuck Giancana's book, Chopper. Not sure what you're talking about. Does it give an account of the events from Momo's point of view?

The book is wrote by mooney's brother chuck and his godson and namesake sam giancana the book is called double cross and in the book chuck tells the story of mooneys early child hood and his rise to power it also tells you alot about mooneys personality how angry he could be one minute and the next bearing gifts.Obviously it goes into the kennedys,marylin monroe etc it really is worth reading i got my copy off amazon hope that helps you out.
Regards Chopper

Really enjoying the new tome by Bugliosi, Reclaiming History. It's better than Posner, and its huge (1500 pages, plus endnotes, plus a CD of source material).

Highly recommend it.

The Supreme Court, in its 1972 ruling, did not say the death penalty itself was unconstitutional. They ruled that the penalty, as administered under state laws, was "arbitrary and capricious," agreeing with a NAACP contention that blacks were sentenced to death far more often than whites. The Court was careful to say that the states could revise or correct their death penalty statutes and resume executions, which is what happened starting in '78. Fuller details here:

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html

I have never been convinced that Sam Giancana swung Illinois votes for Kennedy in 1960. He hated both Kennedys. JFK was a member of the McClellan Rackets Committee, which heard evidence of rackets and labor crimes in 1957-59. Bobby Kennedy was its chief counsel. While interrogating Giancana, Bobby pointedly chided him for giggling and said, "I thought only little girls giggled." Seem like the kind of remark that would induce Momo to put money and votes behind JFK in '60? Bobby also went after Jimmy Hoffa, Momo's big ally; the Teamsters supported Nixon in '60. And in any event, JFK had Mayor Daly--the state's most powerful Democrat--behind him. Daly delivered Illinois through the time-tested technique of having voters vote early and often.

I agree with you Turnbull on both accounts especially regarding the Supreme Court. That's the trouble with media reporting of SC decisions. It takes a 50, 100, or 150 page opinion and condenses it down to a few paragraphs. No wonder there is so much misinformation out there.

So,turnbull whats your opinion of chuck giancanas book Double cross?

I haven't read this book.
I agree completely with what Double J said about the unreliability of most Mob books. Gangsters weren't the types of people to leave their collected papers to universities for people like us to peruse. Most Mob autobiographies and bios by relatives or friends are even more self-serving than the usual run. But I read 'em anyway .

Just as another nod, the further I get into the Bugliosi book, the more I love it. Sure, it kills my arms after a couple of hours (it weighs at least 10 pounds :p) but it is extremely thorough and loaded with evidence.

Yeah sure i understand what you are saying.some do seem more reliable than others though which goes without saying i suppose.