But we have the evidence.
We have the
script story that was released by the Report.
CTers are the people making the claims. That Ruby was a hitman meant to silence Oswald. Theres no evidence for it and fairly strong evidence to suggest otherwise.
Nonsense. The word
'evidence' is being overused-reused- & abused enough. Ruby was the obvious killer and Oswald was consequently most definitely silenced....because that is what happened.
To suggest otherwise
What does that mean? That his gun fell out of Ruby's suit on the pavement and accidentally fired-- shooting Oswald in the belly. He didn't really mean to?
From the Report---Five reporters testified ....supporting the
POSSIBILITY that Ruby was at the police station the day after the assassination...another reporter stated that Ruby gave him a business card...still another stated that he even saw Ruby going into Henry Wade's city office ---However, the Commission could "
reach no firm conclusion" that Jack Ruby was at the police station that Saturday afternoon. Just like Parkland...the Commission accepted Ruby's claim that he was not at City Hall that afternoon and no police had reported seeing him [no surprise there]
The Warren Commission--- promising to leave 'no stone unturned'---- turned over some stones they had rather not have--- and turned them back over just as quickly.