Jim Leavelle wore dark suits, Friday, Saturday, and Monday, but on Sunday, he wore that Easter suit- in November. Did he wear it to stand out, to be easily distinguished? Of course! But, it was not to signal Ruby from the window that it was time to enter the garage. Rather, it was just to provide Bookhout a good easy visual cue to locate Oswald to shoot him. But, I don't mean that he really shot Oswald. They knew better than to take a risk like that. Oswald was shot afterwards. And the idea that they would have trusted Jack Ruby to shoot him is preposterous. How could they? They knew Ruby was loony. YOU CAN'T PROPOSE A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN RUBY AND THE DALLAS POLICE BECAUSE IT INVOLVED RUBY BEING ARRESTED, PROSECUTED, CONVICTED, AND PUT TO DEATH, AND NOBODY WOULD GO FOR THAT- NOT EVEN JACK RUBY. And even if you foolishly think that Ruby was masochistic enough to go for such a deal, (Sure! I'll die to silence Oswald. Who wouldn't?) it doesn't matter. That's because they could never have trusted him to keep his mouth shut. Even if he promised to, they couldn't trust him. They would have had to kill him right away. The very fact that Ruby lived for 3 years tells you that he was not holding any secrets about the Dallas Police.
I have visited the Sixth Floor Museum. and I have seen the Easter suit that Jim Leavelle donated to them. But, it isn't authentic. I noticed right away that it's a different suit. It's a different color. It's too dark. It's a tannish brown.
If you look closely at that picture, you can see the color of the real suit behind the fake one. The real one was cream-colored. It was distinctly lighter, and so was the hat. So, what are they suggesting there? That the photography falsely manifested the suit as cream-colored? I can prove to you that it didn't: Look at the color of the hat. Leavelle was wearing his Homicide detective signature hat which was a white Stetson. You saw a lot of them. You saw a sea of them. And they were all white. You know it wasn't the color of the hat behind the glass. So, that wasn't his hat, and it wasn't his suit.
So, why would they lie about this, a suit? It was to hide the oddity of him wearing such a light suit to work as a policeman, and just 2 days after the President of the United States and a fellow police officer were gunned down. They were trying to take the Easter out of the Easter suit.
And to all those who think that the official story of the Oswald assassination is true: if it's true, then why would they have to lie about something as minor and mundane as the color of Jim Leavelle's suit? And, if the story is true, then why would they have to lie about anything at all?
It's time for people to realize that if you are savvy enough to recognize that the official story of the JFK assassination is untrue, then you should be savvy enough to recognize that the official story of the Oswald assassination is also untrue.
Look: you know they were in trouble. You know that the the so-called "evidence" against Oswald was never going to hold up in court. How hard would it have been for Oswald to prove that he never mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago? He had the means to prove that he never even left work the day he supposedly played hooky from work to send the money order. And how hard would it have been for him to prove that he never went to Mexico City? And you know-directly- that the case was in so much trouble that THEY COULDN'T EVEN LET OSWALD TALK TO A LAWYER. Look how many times he complained about not having legal representation, even saying, "these police officers won't let me have any." So, what do you think happened after that? Do you think they just got lucky that Jack Ruby came along and ended their woes?
And again, you can't tell me they were collaborating with Jack Ruby because that is ridiculous. Ruby was framed just as Oswald was framed, but the difference was that Ruby was completely bamboozled whereas Oswald was not. And that's why Oswald was not allowed to see a lawyer while Ruby was allowed to see a lawyer, Tom Howard, immediately, with Will Fritz saying, "he's with his lawyer, of course." Of course, Will? Of course? Then what about Oswald? How come no "of course" for him?
The killing of Oswald had to be one of the darkest deeds ever done. It had to have been planned well in advance, even though they hoped they didn't need it. They hoped he would be killed in the theater. But, they knew there was no guarantee of that, so they had this as a fail-safe.
But, it was also one of the most cunning and Machiavellian deeds ever done because they thought, in advance, about the opposition to it, knowing that there would be opposition; there would be doubters. So, THEY, the very people who did it, thought up the idea of portraying Ruby as a Mafioso, and giving him a colorful but totally fictitious past, even implying that he knew Oswald. They were even willing to fan the flames of the idea that Ruby was involved in killing Kennedy (which is preposterous), and it was all to set the direction that the resistance would go, which was diametrically opposite the truth, which is that Ruby was innocent. What I'm saying is that they don't mind if you want to believe that he was a Mafioso, a killer, a pimp, a gun runner, and that he went to watch the fireworks in Dealey Plaza... so long as you keep the part about him shooting Oswald. That's all that they care about. They just don't want you to go anywhere near the truth of Ruby being totally, completely innocent and truly a helpless, hapless, hopeless victim. Oh, did they prey on the weak.