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

This issue of Ruby wearing different shoes and socks than Bookhout really is very damning. 

 Obviously, they are not the same socks, but they aren't the same shoes  either. On the left, it's a dressy wingtip. On the right, it's a high-top utility shoe, for working or walking. It was a set production error. I'm a filmmaker, and I know all about set production errors. It's easy to make them because there is so much you have to get right, that it's easy for something to fall between the cracks.   

The way they responded to this dire situation was to claim that they changed every stitch of clothing on Ruby's body, down to his underwear. 

My father, Mark John Cinque, was a policeman his whole working life. The only exception was the 4 years he served in WW2. And part of his career, he worked as a jailer in a city jail. He spent time as a jailer in New York City, and also his last gig before retiring was being a jailer in Los Angeles. He talked about it. They didn't give detainees uniforms. That's because they were Constitutionally entitled to a speedy arraignment before a judge. And the outcome of that arraignment was going to be either bail set, or released on their own recognizance, or charges dismissed, or being remanded to County Jail without bail. But, no matter what it turned out to be, they weren't going back to the City Jail, which this was. 

And we know for a fact that Ruby was transferred to the County Jail at Noon the very next day. So why WHY WHYwould they be changing his clothes, let alone his underwear? The underwear claim is so laughable, comical, and ridicuous that it warrants no credibility at all. If you are going to believe that the Dallas Police did that, replaced Ruby's underwear, then you get on your hands and knees and start cleaning their toilets, because that's what you're doing. 

So, this collage means something: it means that Jack Ruby wasn't the Garage Shooter. It's what I call a dealbreaker. It just breaks the whole connection. And it means that anything else that you've been leaning on to claim that Ruby did it, goes out the window. This beats the shit out of it. So, all the "So-and so said this, and So-and-so said that, and So-and-so said he saw Ruby here, and So-and-so said he saw Ruby there" all that shit goes out the window in the light of this picture:

You don't ignore this in favor of other stuff. This is the dealbreaker; the other stuff is just lipflapping. You need to have the maturity, the objectivity, and the integrity to realize that. And even if it's discomforting to you to admit that Ruby was innocent, and that you've been lied to about the Mafia ties and the gunrunning and his working for Richard Nixon etc., you do it. If it involves turning on a dime and reassessing years and decades of past work, you do it.  Because: you're not doing this to indulge yourself; to give yourself good feelings. This is just about one thing: an uncompromising, relentless pursuit of the truth.  And it is as certain that Ruby was innocent as it is that Oswald was innocent, and this collage is telling you that.