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

Hah,hah,hah, I tell you, some people, as Ray Charles used to say, are just born to lose. The idiot Brian Pete, after venturing down Panty Road a little too far, has decided to jump to another road. He wants to revisit Wim Dankbaar, who simply turned out to not only be a Judyth Baker supporter but a very close associate of Robert Groden, who sold out JFK Truth to the HSCA with his phony comparison of Oswald, Lovelady, and Doorman which included exactly zero images of Oswald. 

So, Groden went with this:

...when he could have gone with this:

So, why didn't Groden get that published in the HSCA Final Report? It's because he knew he had to avoid it, lest readers think, "Hey, that looks like Oswald and Oswald's clothes."

So, with Baker and Groden, that was two strikes against Wim, I got rid of him. 

And, big deal? The world is full of idiots. He's one; you're one; and there are plenty of others. So what?

But, getting back to your debacle of last night, a police department is in some ways like a business. They aren't seeking a profit, in dollars and cents, but they do have to live within a budget; they do have to account for their spending; and they do have to keep track of their necessary supplies. So, if underwear and panties and bras and such are included in their supplies, they have to keep track of it all. They have to know what they have; what they're running low on; what they have run out of; and especially since getting all that underwear and clothing back may have been a problem.

And, at some point, doesn't it seem likely that somebody- perhaps the City Accountant- would have scratched his head and asked, "What the hell are we doing this for when we usually hold people for 48 hours or less?" 

But, if you are going to claim that the Dallas City Jail was taking detainees out of their underwear and putting them into jail underwear, you can't just claim it with a stupid document like this:

which purports to show that used, soiled underwear was put into bins along with other belongings.

It says Bin #N-18, but originally it said N-30, and on the other copy, it still says N-30.

So, if someone changed information on one copy, didn't he worry about the misinformation that remained on the other copies? 

But, no matter what bin it was, shouldn't used underwear have gone into a laundry bin? They were going to this trouble of taking people out of their underwear and into police underwear for no discernible reason, but isn't it a civilized practice everywhere to wash used underwear?  

But, since they reportedly took his underwear (again: for no discernible reason whatsoever) then presumably they gave him other underwear. So, let's see the paperwork on the provisioning of underwear, socks, shoes, etc. at the Dallas PD. If they were really dressing detainees in outer and inner garments, let's see the nuts and bolts of the process- how it was done. I want to see the order forms for all the shoes, socks, drawers, panties, bras, etc. 

And regarding the uneven spacing of the document, that's a problem too because there is no logical explanation for it.

Again, you've got a guy at a typewriter, so why would he mess with the spacing? Why wouldn't he keep it all the same? Why wouldn't he be consistent? Why would his mind operate the way it did in typing that form? How did he make all those decisions about big spaces, small spaces, and no spaces at all? And what's worse is that he would have had to do something to the typewriter to alter that spacing. He would have had to take a distinct action every time he changed it, so why would he do it? Why bother? What was he thinking? And that's especially true because we are talking here about a typed list, and in a typed list, it is customary and typical to keep the spacing the same throughout. 

I question the authenticity of this whole document. Why wouldn't Jack Ruby's name appear at the top? If you were making a list of someone's belongings, wouldn't you start by putting down his name? "These are the belongings of so and so." They list the charge of involuntary murder (which is a contradiction since volition is a part of murder, and in this case, the guy stuck a gun in another man's ribcage and pulled the trigger, so what was involuntary about it?) but don't get around to stating who they were talking about until the bottom? As if one would want to know the charge before knowing who the accused was?  

Doesn't every document and form about a person start with the person's name? 

Think about it from your own experience. Every time anyone's ever made a form about you, what's the first thing they ask? Isn't it "Name?" Doesn't it always start with that? 

The idea that they were changing anybody's underwear at the Dallas City Jail is laughably preposterous, and only the most stupid of the stupid could believe it. 

Now, get those requisition forms for all that clothing and shoes they were keeping at the Dallas City Jail for detainees. I say "were" because I know very well that they aren't doing it now. I called them, and I'll admit that the guy I talked to sounded pretty annoyed with the question.