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

Again, this was spurred by Rick Bucciarelli, who pointed to the contrast in how the Dallas Police Department handled Oswald's clothes and how they handled Ruby's. Oswald got nothing. They didn't give him anything. And even the clothes he wore when he walked the green mile were his own clothes. 

At 4 pm on Friday, he went through the first lineup. And for that, they took his shirt away. And Oswald complained about it. This is a picture of him complaining about it. He is pointing to his t-shirt. 

He said "All these other guys have shirts. How come I'm the only one who doesn't have one?" So, why did they do that? I think it was because when Brennan described the guy he saw in the window, he said he wore a white shirt. He didn't say it was a t-shirt, but white is white. 

But then, afterwards, they did not give him his shirt back until the Midnight Press Conference. There, we see him in his shirt again. He spoke of the arraignment at which he complained to the judge that he was being denied legal representation. Think about that for a minute. He complained to a judge that he was being denied a lawyer, and then less than 24 hours later, when one was offered he turned it down? You really need to believe me that that whole bit about H. Louis Nichols visiting Oswald in his cell is a con. And I don't say that Nichols was in on it. He was conned too. They used an Oswald double, which they had. And the purpose of it was damage control from what Oswald said so eloquently at the Midnight Press Conference about being denied a lawyer.

So, from the video that is available to us, Oswald was stipped of his shirt at 4 pm on Friday. He was given his shirt back for the Midnight Press Conference. Then, all day Saturday he is is shirtless in the footage that we have. And then on Sunday, he was shot wearing his own clothes which they got from his room. 

Now, compare that to Jack Ruby who had all his clothes changed down to his underwear, including socks and shoes.  

Now, if that doesn't jar you, why? It's a bloodied thing. You are looking at gore when you ponder the fact that Oswald got nothing and Ruby had every stitch of his clothing changed, down to his underwear. It is indefensable. It is impossible to rationalize. It is absolutely impossible to come up with an excuse for it. 

Yet, I realize that there are plenty of people who just don't care. What if I could send this to every History teacher and every History professor in America? How many of them would be moved by it? I would like to think that a few would, but I have no doubt that the vast majority would just brush it off as as the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, and go on with their deluded lives.