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

That they would have replaced Jack Ruby's underwear minutes after he fatally shot Lee Harvey Oswald is so laughable, so preposterous, and so incredibly stupid, that the phoniness of this entry screams out loud:

But, the big question is: why did the utter fool who came up with this fraud express it that way? Why didn't he just put down "1 pair grey socks"? Although, he probably would have made it "1 pair gry. socks" since he went with "1 brn. suit". The socks were all he needed. He didn't need Ruby's underpants. And he didn't need Ruby's undershirt. He only needed Ruby's socks. So, why not just list that? I think I know why. 

It's because if he detailed the grey socks it would have highlighted the fact that Bookhout did the unusual thing of wearing light grey socks with a darn brown suit and black shoes. 

Few men even own grey socks. We're not talking about sports socks here; we're talking about dressy socks that go with fancy shoes. Most men just have brown and black when it comes to that. But, Bookhout had grey.

   

Notice at the top of the picture that Oswald's sock is black. That's what you'd expect, but then you've got that light sock on Bookhout. 

And, we don't even know if it was grey; we only know that it was light. It's a black and white photo, so everything is in greyscale. Perhaps the socks were tan. Why did Bookhout wear them? Who knows. He probably didn't think about it. It probably sailed right over his low-to-the-ground head. 

So, the forger didn't want to highlight this difference: 

Remember, once they made the phony document, it became part of the record. And that means that if somebody came across it- someone who was unaware of this controversy- he would get to "1 pair gry. socks" or "1 pair tan socks" and he might pause. "Ruby was wearing light socks? I never noticed that. I better take a look at it." 

So, if you mention the socks, then you get more people honing in on them, focusing on them, and looking at them. But, if you just put down "underwear" now you've covered them, presumably, but without naming them. That's what they were aiming for.  

But, by making it "underwear" it really takes it to the absurd- the theater of the absurd- the very idea that replacing the man's drawers was part of the prisoner processing at the Dallas Police Department. You kill somebody, and you get a fresh pair of underwear.  It's comical. It's ridiculous. It's absurd.  

And look at the whole form:

Notice that 1 blk. lea. belt was listed twice. And notice that there is only one line that is written directly over the black line of the printed document, and that is 1 set underwear. Who would do that? There were more spaces, so why not use them? And how come a bin number was assigned to the shoes, shirt, and underwear, N-15? Which was changed from Bin N-30. You had to keep your bins straight there at the DPD because they had a lot of bins for all those under and outer garments that they were confiscating and storing. However, why didn't the black leather belt go into a bin? Didn't it get a bin? And what about the necktie? No bin? And what about the brown suit? Binless too? Or, maybe it went on rack R-19, but they forgot to put it down.

Look: the whole thing is just ridiculous. It's a laughing stock. It's just busy-ness; making the document look busy with minutia. 

It's just another fraud, another lie, in a case that is teeming with them. 

What a disgusting spectacle. I am reminded of something. It's what Robert DeNiro said he'd like to do to Donald Trump.