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

Notice that Boyd, on the left, and Hall on the right have clear eyes. But, Bookhout, in the center, has stripes for eyes, and Sims, in back, has no eyes. 

It's not that his eyes are closed; it's that he doesn't have any. 

What you are seeing there is that somebody took a Sharpie and drew an exaggerated eyebrow and then his eye was obliterated. Actually, if you look very, very closely, you do see an eyeball, but it is obscured. What follows involves some filtering:

You can see that they went too far with the Sharpie. It is exceeding the side of his head. 

So, they got carried away doing that. Obviously, he didn't have eyebrows like that. You can see that that is not hair. That is paint. 

So, why did they do that to him? It was to justify what they did to Bookhout, converting his eyes to stripes. 

They were trying to imply that Hall and Boyd were closer to the camera, and so were in focus, but "Ruby" and Sims were farther away, and so got compromised. But, it is ridiculous. You can make your desired object, in the center of the photo, in focus and leave the periphery in blur, if you adjust the camera accordingly. But, you can't have the periphery on right and left focused and then have the center object blurred. No camera can do that, and no photographer would want to do it. You point the camera at the thing you want to capture. Moreover, it's not so much that Bookhout is blurred; it's that his eyes are stripes. And it's photographically ridiculous and impossible. 

On the left, they really got carried away with the Sharpie. It's like a sea of black. It's really a disc of black, blacking out the whole eye. On the right, it's more like a stripe. There is also black right above the bridge of his nose. Sharpie, Sharpie, Sharpie, Sharpie. It was just hiding the fact that he was James Bookhout. No one, except the bloodied, can claim that that is an unaltered image.