Thursday, June 22, 2017

Melvin Belli defended Jack Ruby by claiming that he had "psychomotor epilepsy" and that his actions in shooting Oswald were involuntary. He also used the word "blackout." He said that Ruby blacked out meaning that he had no mental awareness of what he was doing when he shot Oswald, that he might as well have been sleepwalking. 

The only reason why Belli would go that route is because Ruby must have told him, "I have no memory of shooting Oswald. I remember going down the ramp, getting to the bottom, and then, before I knew it, policemen were swarming all over me."

We need to take what Belli said seriously and also literally. He claimed that Ruby had no mental consciousness of shooting Oswald, that he was not awake and aware at the time. 

Of course, his diagnosis of psychomotor epilepsy is absurd. It is laughable. In psychomotor epilepsy, the movements are random and purposeless and repetitive. It never resembles the action involved here. 

So, I have no respect for Belli, and I have disdain for him for not being smart enough to figure out what really happened. But, I am keenly interested in the reasons why he chose to defend Ruby that way. And it must be because Ruby kept telling him, "I don't remember shooting Oswald. I have no memory of it." 

Where Belli went wrong is in not considering that the reason Ruby was saying it is because he really didn't shoot Oswald. But, that of would have meant going through the Looking Glass, where up is down, black is white, and in is out.  It would have meant that the world was upside down, where the police- the good guys who are here to protect us- were really the bad guys. Belli had no capacity to go there mentally. He lacked the mental scope, the mental vision. And it's beyond most people's. Most people respect authority, and that's their problem.  

Belli did not doubt that Ruby really had no memory of shooting Oswald. He didn't think Ruby was lying to him. But, it was a terrible mistake for him to claim psychomotor epilepsy. And what a far cry it was from what Ruby's first lawyer said, which was that Ruby shot Oswald to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas to testify. Obviously, that was polar-opposite, and both could not be true. In fact, neither was true. But, the "I did it for Jackie" story became and still is part of the lore in the case. I see it cited often. 
I just added an unnecessary e, Backes. Lit is a legitimate word. 

Now, moving on. another thing about that Davis film is that somehow provokes the idea of greater distance than was involved. Doesn't it seem like Davidson is way back and far away from Oswald?

 It's actually a very small space.

Where was Davidson? He was presumably inside the double doors when he shot them getting off the elevator and walking through the office to get to the side door. But note that we don't see him in the KRLD footage, even though the doors are open and it's lit up. But then presumably, he went through the double doors and was standing a little in front of them. So, the distance involved was very small. So, how could he be there filming when Leavelle and Combest picked up Oswald and carried him inside without capturing any of it? Answer: THEY weren't going to let us see Oswald being carried inside. That was not allowed. It was prohibited. It wasn't the frenzy and pandemonium that caused it. And the frenzy and pandemonium were all fake anyway. That's what those cops were there for, to make sure there was no visibility of the principals during the evacuation of the garage. 
It's interesting that we don't see Bill Lord or Jim Davidson in any of the other films. 

You can watch it for a while, and you never see them. And Oswald is about to walk his Green Mile. Notice also that it isn't that dark. It's pretty well lit-up. Right?  So, why is Davidson's film so dark?
At times, it turns practically black. How come? The inside was lit-up. The garage was well lit. Why so dark?

And it was the same way when they returned to the garage for Oswald's departure.

Why was it so dark? I'll tell you why. It was because of the evil. The evil, the evil, the evil, the evil, the evil.

We know now that Detective Charles Dhority lied. He told the Warren Commission that he backed the car up, when, in fact, he pulled it up. 

Mr. BALL. Fritz gave you instructions to do what?
Mr. DHORITY. He gave me the keys to his car and told me to go down and get his car and back it up front of the jail door to put Oswald in.
Mr. BALL. Is that what you did?
Mr. DHORITY. I went downstairs and got his car, unlocked his car, and was in the process of backing it up there in fact--I was just about ready to stop, when Captain Fritz came out and Leavelle and Oswald and Graves and Johnson and Montgomery came out the jail door.
Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like. At first, I thought it was somebody going to take a picture and then I saw a hand come out and I heard the shot.

Those headlights are indeed very illuminating. First, it completely and totally resolves the question of what direction he was going to drive out. The story had to be that he was going to follow the Brinks trunk. He obviously wasn't going to do it, but neither was he going to go anywhere. They knew that Oswald would not be getting into that car. Even Backes will tell you that because he admits that the Dallas Police were complicit in the murder, and that Fritz got out of the way for "Ruby".  But, why didn't Dhority back it up just for show? Just to give the whole ruse an air of authenticity. I don't know. Maybe, knowing what was about to happen, he wanted to get a good view.   

You have no evidence whatsoever that Pierce drove out of the garage prior 
to 11:20. None. Fritz car was already in the garage, and was being backed 
into place. It was facing the Commerce exit, and was to follow the armored 
vehicle out onto that street. Don't believe me? Watch the film, and read 
the testimony of Detective Dhority. 

Ralph Cinque:

Uh oh, Sparta. You just ate the royal pegoda. Dhority didn't back that car up. He pulled it up. Watch the KRLD film. You see the headlights of his car moving forward.

Is anyone going to claim that those aren't headlights? They're not taillights. Tail lights are red.

Alright, so you are wrong about that. Now, do you want to admit it, or do you want to make like Joseph Backes and keep arguing and defending after you have been shown to be wrong?

But, you are right about something, Sparta: Dhority did testify to the Warren Commission that he backed the car up.

Detective Dhority: Captain Fritz reached over to the door of the car and I was turned around to see backing it up--still had the car moving it along and I saw someone run across the end of the car real rapid like. 

So, Dhority lied. Hmmm. This is quite big. I shall have to write it up. And don't worry, Sparta: you'll get credit for finding it. I'm going to make you famous. 
OIC member Bernard Wilds found something important. 

Jack Ruby liked to wear a ring.

You see the ring, right? 

Both times on the pinkie, but on one right, and the other left. 

Let's look at one more, and in this one, his hands look weird.

How many fingers does he have there? I count 11. And why is it so weird? How could his left pinkie (bottom right) be so thick? It looks more like a thumb. So, I have to think that this is yet another JFK assassination-related manipulated image of which there are so many. There are more altered images than unaltered ones. But look at his right pinkie on our left. There is a ring of discoloration there. A ring perhaps?

But, I think the point has been made that Jack dug rings. But now, let's look at the garage shooter.

That hand is not physically possible. He couldn't get his thumb to where it is. It's going too far. And there's a line there that shouldn't be there. You couldn't duplicate that. But, the other thing is that you couldn't tuck your pinkie away like we see there. Try flexing your fingers. They all flex together. The pinkie joint is a little recessed because it's shorter, but not as much as we see there. That is a highly manipulated image.

So, did they want to remove his pinkie to remove the issue of a ring? Of course, that was Bookhout not Ruby, and I'm sure that Bookhout knew better than to wear a ring. 

Then, in the Beers photo, the hand is also weird, but in a different way.

Now the pinkie is too long; it's as long as the ring finger. Some have assumed that he is holding something in his hand, like a card. Of course, that isn't part of the story. But, this was just .3 second before the other. That's less than 1/3 of 1 second. So how could he change what he's doing with his hand, and why would he? 

Oh, the evil of it all. Evil, evil, evil. But, the point is that Jack Ruby may have been wearing a ring that day, and if so, they must have taken it from him and vanished it. And if he ever asked them about it, they must have told him that he's mistaken that he wasn't wearing one. And he believed them. Don't you get it? Jack Ruby would believe anything they told him. He was under their spell. And that is the only way this could have been pulled off. 
Isn't it obvious that Martin appears to be in front of Hargis in the Muchmore film? Generally, we say that things that are leftward in the photo, as we look at it, are forward of things that are rightward. Here, the difference isn't much, but Martin is leftward of Hargis in the picture. So, in that sense, he appears to be ahead of him. 

I never said that he WAS ahead of him, only that he appears to be. And likewise, it is the same way in the Moorman photo, except that they used the "accidental" thumbprint to hide it.

So that, became this:

Meanwhile, my enemies can't even explain the thumbprint, how it happened. And no matter what explanation they give, my response will be: "Shut your trap; stop your lip-flapping; and demonstrate it. Show don't tell."

Until they do that, they have no argument. And they are never going to do that. They, in fact, have no argument; just gibberish.