Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

There are a lot of weird images and weird records in the JFK assassination, but I doubt there is anything weirder than this.

We are supposed to believe that within scant minutes of Ruby fatally shooting Oswald that Dallas Police were concerned with getting Ruby out of his underwear and into regulation underwear, because that was the rule; that prisoners at the DPD had to have their underwear promptly replaced.

For some reason, the rule didn't apply to Oswald. He wasn't offered any change of clothing at all- not even outer clothing, until the morning of the 24th. And even then, the clothes that Oswald wore on his death walk were his own clothes, taken from his boarding room. The Dallas Police never offered him a stitch of clothing of any kind. 

But not so with Jack Ruby. With him, it was very different. Why was it different? Who knows? No explanation has ever been given. But, promptly upon getting Jack Ruby up to the 5th floor, they demanded that he strip.  And I mean down to his birthday suit.  He probably assumed that it meant just pants and shirt. But then, someone must have told him, 

"No, Jack. That's not enough. Keep going. Take it off. Take it all off. We need everything. Get naked, Jack. Because: we need your underwear. You kill a man, and that's what happens. We strip you of your underwear."

The very idea is absurd, but let's go with it because it's their claim. But, why would they write "1 set underwear"? What is a set of underwear? What does it consist of? Is it a pair of socks, a t-shirt, and underpants? At this very moment, I'm only wearing one of the three; the underpants. I have no socks on because I wear sandals without socks during the warm months; hence about 9 months of the year in Texas. And I am wearing a shirt that is not a t-shirt; it is an outer shirt and not an undershirt; and I am not wearing an undershirt underneath it. So, it's obvious that a person's set of underwear could consist of 1, 2, or 3 items, and in my case, just 1. So, what is the point of referring to a "set of underwear" without specifying?  Was the jailer just being lazy? Did he not want to write down 1 men's underpants, either brief or boxer, because it was just too weird? That "1 set underwear" looked less weird?

Let's see other prisoner invoices from the DPD which show the confiscation of "1 set underwear." I'll tell you right now that there aren't any. Jack Ruby is the only one in the entire history of the Dallas Police Department from its founding to this very day.

I called the Dallas Police Department, recently. I talked to the jailer. And I asked him what clothes or uniform they supplied to prisoners. And he said none because they are not usually there that long. They remain in their own clothes; street clothes. Jack Ruby was supplied with white pants and a white shirt, what I call a cabana outfit. So, did they have a whole inventory of those cabana outfits at the DPD, in a range of sizes, to give to prisoners? No, they didn't. It was just something they rigged up for Jack Ruby. There are no other images of any other prisoners at the Dallas PD being dressed like that- at any time. Not at that time and not at any other time. Just Jack Ruby. No one else. It was really just something they rigged up for Jack Ruby.

But wait. How could they? How could they have rigged that up for him in advance without knowing that he was going to be arrested for shooting Oswald? So, they must have known. They had to know. I've been telling you for a long time that the Oswald shooting was a DPD plot. It was all planned- by them. It wasn't planned for Ruby to shoot Oswald, but for him to be arrested for and charged with shooting Oswald. 

So, what is the bit about the "1 set underwear" really all about? I'll tell you: In the Beers photo, the shooter is seen wearing light grey socks, but Ruby, after his arrest, is seen wearing jet black socks. 

So naturally, that is a contradiction. So, to explain it and rationalize it, they made it that Ruby's socks were confiscated and replaced. Bingo: problem solved.

So, why didn't they just list "1 pair grey socks" rather than "1 set underwear"? After all: neither underpants nor t-shirt were an issue. They didn't need them. I can't speak for them, but I assume that somebody thought that it would look too obvious if they put "1 pair grey socks", that that would look more doctored and contrived than "1 set underwear". Personally, I think it was a mistake. "1 set underwear" is laughable. It's stupid. Really stupid. Not everyone can write a good script.

Here's the ultimate irony: They supposedly confiscated Ruby's whole set of underwear, but they didn't even replace his t-shirt. Do you see any sign of a t-shirt here?