David Von Pein has made an utter fool of himself suggesting that there is a jacket here, but we just can't see it.
He goes on to assume that men were helping Ruby on with his jacket, even though the man who is holding on to Ruby isn't even looking his direction; he's looking down at Oswald. Everything DVP said was invented; conjured up from nothing.
The fact is that, according to sworn testimonies, the dis-robing of Ruby did not begin UNTIL they reached the 5th floor. They did not start undressing him in the jail office.
My other enemies haven't weighed-in yet on this. But, what can they say now? No matter what they say, my first response is going to be, "What took you so long? If that's what you believe, why didn't you say so right away? Why have you waited until now?"
And really: what can they say? What's left to say? The fact is that there is no account of Ruby having his jacket removed in the jail office, and no one has the right to conjure that up. And the idea that his jacket went off and then went back on in the jail office is even more fantastical. This was a man who who lethally shot one man and then tried to shoot another man, who then fought against police, and who police could not get restrained in the garage. Obviously, their first objective was to get him in restraints. You don't have to be a graduate of the police academy to know that. And once he's in restraints, he can't access any weapons- even if he's got them. That's because he's in restraints. And at that point, they couldn't remove his jacket even if they wanted to. That's because he's in restraints. The restraints would have prevented it. But, why would they do that until they got to where they were going with him, which was the 5th floor? They wouldn't. They couldn't. They didn't.
There is no way out of this. Ruby's jacket was already up on the 5th floor. They left it up there when they brought him back down. And ironically, you can even hear the reporter say, "they are taking him back upstairs." He apparently thought, at the time, that Ruby was Oswald, and somebody corrected him. And that's why I say it is "ironic." But still, it makes me wonder.