Thursday, November 3, 2016

We can tell a lot just by comparing Ruby's lower leg to Bookhout's. And I mean besides the obvious sock color difference that jumps out at you.
I have had several people estimate the Shooter's height at 5'6", and I concur with it. Ruby was 5'8" so he was distinctly taller. It isn't a lot taller, but it is distinctly taller. We can use the length of the lower leg as a proxy for height. And, I would say from looking that Ruby's lower leg was longer- despite the positional difference. However, a greater difference than that is the thickness of the ankles. Ruby's lower leg was thin and scrawny compared to Bookhout's. See how Ruby's ankle looks like a chicken leg, in comparison?

One thing about Ruby is that he had sloping shoulders.

I've seen worse slopes than that, but that is definitely a little sloping compared to Bookhout's, whose shoulders were more square.

Of course, the facial differences were vast.

Another big, huge, colossal difference is the length of the necks. Can you, or can you not see that Ruby on the left had a longer neck than Bookhout on the right? 

Do you, or do you not see that Ruby on the left had a longer neck than Bookhout on the right? And notice on the left that Ruby doesn't seem to be wearing an undershirt. So, let me get this straight, they collected his whole set of underwear because they typed 1 set underwear:

Now, if they just meant socks and drawers would they have described that as a set of underwear? If it was just socks and drawers, it seems to me that they would have just listed each. Why would anyone describe socks and drawers as a "set of underwear"? What would be the need to combine them into a single term when they are really nothing remotely like each other in form and function? Was it done just to save a listing? Out of laziness? This was supposed to be a register, a receipt, an invoice for items taken that would presumably be returned. So, why would they be so vague and obscure? And really for no reason at all? Ruby does not seem to be wearing a t-shirt. So, do you think he came in with one? So, let me get this straight: they stripped him down to his birthday suit, replacing all his clothes, including his underwear. Yeah, they do that at the Dallas PD. You commit a crime, and your underwear goes- as soon as you get to the station. But, they didn't dispense undershirts as part of the prison garb. Part of their cost-cutting. But, if you were used to wearing undershirts, and you had one on, and they weren't going to replace it, wouldn't you probably just keep it on? Why not? And if you think they might object, why on Earth would they? What was this obsession with possessing every last stitch and thread that the prisoner had on? 

Anyway, since Ruby doesn't seem to be wearing an undershirt, we'll assume he didn't come in with one. So, that would mean that the "set" of underwear has been reduced to socks and drawers. And it again raises the question: why describe that as a "set" of underwear when it's not even a full set? And, if they really confiscated his socks and drawers- if you really believe that- then why didn't they just list:

If Ruby wasn't wearing an undershirt, it means the "set" of underwear consisted of sock and shorts. A set means at least two. Right? If you are willing to grant that they left his shorts alone- not having any reason to confiscate the guy's underpants- then apparently we're down to just socks- if he wasn't wearing an undershirt. And that raises the question: Why would anyone describe a "pair of socks" as a "set of underwear"?

Well, in reality, in the real world, the very idea that a jailer would notate a "set of underwear" is pretty laughable. Show me one other prisoner property invoice from the City Jail that lists "set of underwear" as an item to be returned. Now, watch the fuckers go out and make one up. They'll just fabricate whatever the hell they want. That's how they play this game. I'm pretty sure that this is the only time that a City Jail, who was just holding a guy overnight, for just one night,confiscated his underwear.

Here, Oswald, the presumed killer of JFK and Tippit, had been grievously traumatized, whose life was hanging on the threadedge of yonder... was he going to live?... was he going to die? And Dallas Police, meanwhile, were busy confiscating Ruby's underwear.   

1 set underwear. 1 set underwear. 1 set underwear. You're never going to live that down, fool. It is an albatross around your neck.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.