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

The Ops have been awfully quiet lately, ever since they submitted this ridiculous document alleging that Dallas Police, moments after "Ruby" shot Oswald, confiscated his underwear.

Stupid, stupid move. It's like in chess where a player rushes to capture an opponent's piece without thinking about the consequences, the aftermath, that he might be being set up and succumbing to a trap. In chess, it's referred to as a "gambit" and they really ate the royal pagoda on this one.

Foolishly, they treated it like a trump card. "Different socks? Well, here's a notation that they changed his underwear. So, what do you think o' dem apples?

What I think is that dem apples are being hurled by a fool who is both led and followed by fools. It seemed so simple to him at the time, but he failed to think about the nuts and bolts of it, the practicalities, or I should say: the impracticalities.

So, in their bizarro world, the Dallas Police Department was a land teeming with clothes. They had rooms for shoes, socks, t-shirts, outer shirts, pants, and underpants- in all sizes. They confiscated every stitch from their detainees, keeping tedious records, and then supplied them only with proper, court-sanctioned garments and undergarments. I presume they washed the soiled ones. I would like to think they did. Then, they stored them until such time that the detainee was released or transferred. But, how did they get the Department's clothing back? Did they go through the whole process again,  in reverse, where they had the detainee strip down again and put on his own clothes and turn over the Department's clothes, now soiled? And if so, what was the point of this whole exercise? Why would anybody do such a thing? How could anybody calmly go about doing it as if it was sane? It isn't sane. I guarantee you that they are not doing that today. And, I did call them and ask. And, it is lunacy to think that they did it back then.

But, that brings us back to this document.

   Where did it come from? It comes from this:

It's from the Portal of Texas History, run by the University of North Texas Library. 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338313/m1/1

About the Portal

The Portal to Texas History is a gateway to rare, historical, and primary source materials from or about Texas. Created and maintained by the University of North Texas Libraries, the Portal leverages the power of hundreds of content partners across the state to provide a vibrant, growing collection of resources.

This text is part of the collection entitled: John F. Kennedy, Dallas Police Department Collectionand one other and was provided by Dallas Municipal Archives to The Portal to Texas History, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries.

This is what it says about Dallas Municipal Archives: 

Dallas Municipal Archives

Dallas Municipal Archives partnered with the Portal to provide access to several collections, one of which is the John F Kennedy, Dallas Police Department Collection. 

Now, when it gets to the Dallas Municipal Archives, it gets interesting.

In 1989, and later through City of Dallas Ordinance 92-0438, the Dallas Police Department transferred to the Dallas Municipal Archives, Office of the City Secretary, all police records relating to the assassination. These records have been available to researchers since the transfer. The collection contains 11,406 documents and photographs, including homicide reports, affidavits, witness statements, newspaper clippings and correspondence. The collection is also available on microfilm. The Municipal Archives possesses the original files, except those that have been transferred to the federal government permanently.

Handling of original materials is restricted due to their fragile nature, though researchers are encouraged to use the photographs series through the Portal to Texas History digital library here. The 1992 digitized paper series is maintained on this website, though the entire collection is scheduled for re-scanning in 2010.

This site displays all of the scanned images from this collection, which were scanned in 2-bit depth at 300 dpi in the early 1990s in a pioneering digitization project. Each scan is full-screen, so that nothing was cropped. Many documents are difficult to read due to poor originals or due to the low scanning resolution. All copies of images and documents, including all generations of carbon copies, are presented to ensure the integrity of the collection. Most browsers should be able to zoom on images and resize for printing. Please contact the Municipal Archives if you are unable to view any images.

Here is one of their images:

Wow, that is one clear image, isn't it? It's better than what we're used to seeing. Those stacks on the left are 7 boxes high. 7. Do you think they would stack boxes of books 7 high? When my books were delivered, they told me not to make stacks more than 3 high because otherwise the upper books would crush the lower books. But, how were you supposed to even get to those top boxes when there were no ladders? How were you supposed to know what's in them when they aren't marked? 

So, when did they doctor this document?

I wonder why the one bpete posted doesn't have the handwriting and check marks? And how come this one is on pink paper, while his is on white? There is only one, right? 

So, how long ago was this thing modified? I seriously doubt it was done right away. I bet years went by before they did it. And it may have been done very recently in response to us. We just don't know. If nobody noticed the sock disparity before the Wizard did, why would they have thought of doing it?

I just did a Google search for "different socks on Jack Ruby" just to see if anyone else noticed it. This blog made the first page, but I found no one else who saw it before we did. So, would they have altered and faked that document in anticipation of someone discovering it later? Well, maybe. It's possible. But, it's also possible that they did it in response to us.