Saturday, November 5, 2016

What possible legitimate reason was there to confiscate Ruby's underwear? Oswald was not only not offered new underwear; he wasn't even offered a shower over two days time, which he complained about. He spoke of his "basic hygienic rights" being violated. But right away, in contrast, they wanted Ruby out of his own underwear and into police underwear? Is that the story? Is that what you're selling? You're sticking to that, are you?

It is gut-wrenchingly comical to think that the first thing they did with detainees- before even taking their mug shots- was to change their underwear.

So, they put Ruby into this outfit that doesn't look remotely like prison clothes, in which they pressed the collar down into a flattened condition- which doesn't happen without help. Are we to believe that they did that for every detainee? What for? In case they wanted to break out into some mambo? Dat-dat-dah. Dat-dah-dat-dah-dah. Dat-dat-dah. It's ridiculous. Whoever came up with "1 set underwear" was a dolt. Stupid. Joseph Backes stupid. That's how stupid. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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