Ruby and Oswald

I watch this movie on an early Sunday morning Bank Holidays. Being an early riser, saw this at 0700. This must be a made-for-telly one. Its not bad at all. It looked like it was made in the 70s maybe, Dennehy was so young then. It seemed to try to give a balanced view of what happened with Ruby. I used to read about The Kennedy Assassination and to my mind this Ruby guy is a bit loony and this movie I supposed portrayed it pretty well. It gave a good historical description I supposed. The acting ain't great at times but maybe people who like facts will say that it represented accurate accounts of what happened that time.

As a student of the John F. KENNEDY assassination, I want to point out that this movie is a very accurate portrayal of the real Jack Ruby. First of all, I strongly feel that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone--NO conspiracy. And another thing, I think that Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, stinks. It is one of the most fraudulent, deceptive piece of historical analysis that has ever been my personal displeasure to watch.

I believe that both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were too emotionally unstable to be a part of a conspiracy, because sooner or later they would have cracked under pressure. (Oswald once tried to commit suicide and Ruby was notorious for NOT being able to keep his mouth shut).

This movie shows Jack Ruby very accurately portrayed (for a change). Ruby was very emotionally unbalanced, unstable and was extremely fond of JFK.

For a couple of books on the JFK assassination, try "Case Closed," by Gerald Posner and "Reclaiming History," by Vincent Bugliosi (pronounced bull-YO-c).

Don't buy the silly 1992 film that makes Ruby out to be some kind of Shakespearian hero, and shooting Oswald because it would bring some huge conspiracy to light (when in fact, the killing was largely responsible for appearing to make it a big mystery!).

This is the movie to see to know the real Jack Ruby, and Michael Lerner nails him exactly. In a way, Ruby was like a very low rent Frank Sinatra. Both were sensitive about their child-of-immigrants upbringing, which is possibly why they both liked John Kennedy so much. Both had a hot, impulsive temper. Both were also extremely fond of attractive women and capable of great generosity. And both considered mobsters unfairly persecuted good-time boys with money.

The movie depicts a couple things that would cast doubt on Ruby being part of a conspiracy. One was that when he went to see Oswald being brought out, he left his beloved dog sitting in his car. The other was that when Oswald was scheduled to be brought out, Ruby was not in the garage, but across the street wiring money to a stripper in need. He returned just in time for the fatal encounter.

A worthwhile 90 minutes for those obsessed with the events of Nov. 22, 1963

Having just completed viewing this made for TV movie I can say several things. 1)It was adequately made but not outstanding as far as entertainment. 2)The acting was hit & miss, with Michael Lerner doing the best at portraying an emotionally unbalanced Jack Ruby. 3)As far as historical worth goes this is virtually worthless for any but those who slavishly hold to the Warren Commission's finding of a "Lone Gunman" in the case of not only Lee Harvey Oswald but in HIS assassin Jack Ruby as well. Believers in the "Lone Nut" scenario accused Oliver Stone's film "J.F.K." of being complete fiction & I suppose that it would be to them in the same sense that footage of the Moon Landing would be complete fiction to someone who believes that we never went there & consequently faked the whole thing. This made for TV film is a rote,down the line love letter to the Warren Commission findings,eliminating anything inconvenient (Like the whole "Magic Bullet" part of the tragedy for example. Aside from the trajectory of it which defied the laws of physics "Lone Gunman" adherents would have us believe that it just magically fell out of Governor John Connally to lay gently beside him on the hospital stretcher in practically pristine condition, a condition that never has been repeated since in countless tests under countless conditions. A bullet fired through NO bones or flesh but simply water itself has more degradation than that present on the "Magic Bullet" not to mention that the fragments of shrapnel removed from Governor Connally add up to more mass than is even missing from the conveniently discovered cartridge in the first place!)that they might not be able to explain away with the ease of how for example Jack Ruby came to know that Oswald had been involved in the Fair Play for Cuba committee. (Here it has Ruby overhearing it on the radio shortly before arriving at the police station where he just so happens to get into the press room so that he can have the first of his moments in the spotlight before getting locked away until his own suspicious death under incarceration.) What they don't replicate for their own purposes (Like having Oswald scowl a lot to make him look more guilty) they simply invent (Like the radio bit that I just mentioned) or eliminate entirely (Like the "Magic Bullet" stuff or the fact that Oswald worked at a top secret photo developing lab & would have known how to fake the photos of him with the guns that basically announced to the world "I'M GUILTY!" Here it's portrayed like he was just saying that they were faked with nothing to back it up. Or the fact that a man fitting Ruby's description was seen around Dealey Plaza at the time of J.F.K.'s murder. "When in doubt, throw it out" seems to have been the order of the day here.) so as to convince either the casual viewer who doesn't know much about the case or the choir of Warren Commission apologists that they're preaching to that this indeed is the way that it REALLY happened. (As a side-note it's interesting that with so many rave reviews it's not rated very highly. Almost makes you suspicious doesn't it?)

I'm not saying that you HAVE to believe that there was a conspiracy (Though I think that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach upon examining all of the evidence.)but what I am saying is that if you're interested in the assassination of President Kennedy (As I would assume just about everyone watching this would be)then AT LEAST look at the evidence presented from both sides & decide for yourself.

Certainly this film is worth watching for the location filming and the real film of JFK but, as several reviewers have pointed out, as an account of the assassination of JFK it bears little resemblance to the truth. Some glaring errors have already been noted above, especially the ridiculous characterisations of Ruby and Oswald. Ruby was a mobster working for the New Orleans and Chicago mob and was never known to be a defender of JFK's 'honour' as portrayed in the film. This is a later invention aimed at providing a motive for his murder of Oswald, which was done to silence Oswald. Everything that Ruby does in the film is clearly intended to present him as some kind of good guy/avenger of JFK and is clumsily obvious. Furthermore, even basic details are wrong in this movie - for example, the package of 'curtain rods' which Oswald carried into Dallas was described by several witnesses as 13 inches long - yet in the film it looks more like two feet long to suggest a rifle. As for this film being based on the findings of the Warren Commission and thus being a 'truthful' account, a Senate Commission on Assassinations in the late 1970s re-investigated JFK's death and discredited the Warren Commission findings completely. In the opinion of the Senate Commission - which reviewed physical and witness evidence that the Warren Commission deliberately refused to admit, there WAS a conspiracy to kill JFK and they concluded that if Oswald was directly involved, he did not act alone. This is undisputed fact, as anyone can check. Further physical and eyewitness testimony that the Warren Commission refused to review also conclusively demonstrates that the fatal wound to JFK's head came from the right front, meaning there was a second gunman at least. Also, no fingerprints were ever found on the alleged murder weapon and Oswald's partial palm print was 'discovered' until after his death two days later. The only accurate point is that we never see Oswald firing the rifle - no one ever did.So viewers who think this film is an accurate representation are deluding themselves - and no, I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just prefer to keep an open mind and base my opinions on established fact rather than the accepting on face value anything that a government chooses to tell us. Incidentally, much of the acting in this movie is poor to say the least, wooden I would say. Only Frederic Forrest as Oswald carries any conviction in my opinion.