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

We know that the Shooter's shoes were black because we can see it in the photo and it's on the property invoice. And, though the invoice lists brown suit, we know that it was dark brown because of its greyscale in the photos and films. So, who would wear tan socks in that situation? I assure you that Brian Pete in his $1500 suits wouldn't do that. It's way too much contrast. To wear grey socks with black shoes is one thing, but tan? TAN? Where did they get that from? No place. They just made it up. 

And especially in this case when it was Bookhout pretending to be Ruby. Bookhout would have known better than to wear tan socks. That would not have sailed over his radar. But grey? Yes; that just sailed right over. 

So, my presumption is that the socks were grey. 

Now, obviously, "1 set underwear" is a fake thing that was added later. How much later we don't know, but perhaps quite recently. Notice how it's squeezed in between the normal space of the shirt and the suit. It was a regular old typewriter, right? So, when he hit the carriage return, wouldn't it have made a full space? What would have crowded it like that?  

As I said, nobody would do that. There is no such thing as a set of underwear. They don't come in a set, and nobody's mind would work like that in real-life. 

But, what the alterers needed was the grey socks. So, why didn't they put "1 pair grey socks"?  And, since it is highly unlikely that the DPD kept Men's shoes in sizes 7 to 13 to give to detainees, the black shoes must be fake too. After all, not even at the Darington Penitentiary do they give out shoes, so how could the Dallas City Jail provide shoes? 

If you look at the Property Invoice, you see that the black shoes are also squeezed in. Again, it was just a guy typing. He swung the mechanical carriage return, right? It went a standard distance, didn't it?

But again, why didn't they just put "1 pr. gry. socks" instead of "1 set underwear"? They really didn't need to imply that they changed the guy's jock strap. After all, they didn't change anything on Oswald. How can you account for the different treatment? One is led around profusely in his own clothes, including before the judge, including to the Midnight Press Conference, left in a t-shirt in late November while all the detectives and FBI agents were apparently comfortable in shirts, jackets, and hats? That's cruel and unusual punishment. Meanwhile, while the other is yanked out of his underwear immediately? It doesn't make sense, and there is no excuse for it. There is no talking point for it. Don't even try, Backes.

So why'd they go with underwear? It really may come down to the stupidity of one person who thought that he was being clever and cunning. After all, if he needed socks, he didn't want to make it look like socks were being pursued at the time. He may have thought that it would look too convenient if he put socks. In a word, he was covering up his own guilt at what he was doing by putting "set of underwear" instead. But, it was awfully stupid because the very idea of changing his underwear is laughable and ridiculous.

But, they shall never live it down. It's there for eternity. It's just another weird, wild, wacky thing from the JFK assassination, of which there are so many.