Mr. Hubert. Intending to shoot somebody with the certainty of being caught?
Mr. Kaufman. That’s right. Knowing Jack Ruby as I did, knowing his financial situation, I feel that if the story that I read in the paper this morning was correct, that he considered himself a sacrifice, I just can’t believe this, because I would say that if he did do this, Mr. Hubert, I feel, knowing him, that Jack would have taken his money and left it with his sister or left it with his bartender or left it with someone, but I don’t believe Jack Ruby would have walked into the jail with his money, and leaving his dogs elsewhere, with the understanding he was going to make a sacrifice out of himself and be caught, because this does not demonstrate to me the actions of a sane person—to walk into a place with your money, with your dogs here, and without any plan of getting away or a plan of getting out of it.
Mr. Hubert. And you say that’s inconsistent of what your estimate of Jack Ruby as a human being was?
Mr. Kaufman. Yes.
Mr. Hubert. You made reference to what you read in the paper this morning, and I take it you are referring to the front page story of the Dallas Morning News by Carl Fruend?
Mr. Kaufman. By Mr. Fruend.
Mr. Hubert. Who writes a story concerning the interview of Jack Ruby with the Chief Justice, is that correct, that’s the story?
Mr. Kaufman. That’s correct.
Mr. Hubert. I wanted to identify it.
Mr. Kaufman. Yes, sir; in other words, the story you refer to is a story that purports to be a copyrighted story regarding the testimony of Jack Ruby before the Chief Justice and other members of the Commission or whoever was present, and in which the story relates that Jack said he went down there for a twofold purpose. One was to send a telegram and the “other”—referring to the elimination or assassination or the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I say that I believe that’s inconsistent with the man’s personality and with his actions—with the man that I know.