Oh My God! The Ops are getting desperate! They must be scared shitless. They've produced a phony invoice for Jack Ruby's underwear! 

But, before we look at the phony one for Jack Ruby that bpete submitted, we are going to look at Oswald's.

Those are items of his turned over by Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald. But, notice that it says nothing about underwear. We'll look at another one.

Now, on this one, they had the nerve to put down as belongings of his things that he denied owning, such as the rifle. If he denied owning it, what right did they have to say that it was his? Wasn't it up to a court to decide whether he was lying or not? And they put the paper bag made out of shipping paper down as a belonging of his?????? But here, they do include an article of clothing, the Man's brown sport shirt "Taken from Lee Harvey Oswald". They also had the nerve to include a piece of cardboard allegedly with his palm print as a belonging of his. But, if it was from a box of books at the TSBD, then they owned the cardboard, not him. Dirty mudderpluckers. 

OK, but let's note that the only reference to clothing is his infamous brown shirt, which, of course, he wore in the doorway. It doesn't say a God-damn thing about underwear, for Christ's sake! 

There is a third one for Oswald:

This one refers to his cash money, his ID bracelet, his bus transfer ticket, his pay voucher, and a few other small items. 

There is another one from 1964 which consisted of some envelopes of letters that were sent to him in Russia by some friends. But, we won't bother with it.

OK, so now you see, that the only clothing item that they took from Oswald was his infamous brown shirt. His underwear stayed on him. Now, we'll look at Ruby's.

Notice that it says "1 set underwear". 1 set underwear???  What the pluck does that mean? Does it mean that soon after the Penguins were done with him:

that they stripped him down, bone naked, and confiscated his undershirt, his underpants, and his socks??????  That's what followed the Charge in the Garage? We're actually supposed to believe that, are we? And being in a rush and also lazy, the one making the list couldn't go to the trouble of specifying: "one pair of socks, one white t-shirt, and a pair of underpants"? Instead, he wrapped it all up into the term "1 set of underwear"? Is that it?  

But wait. That was really negligent. Here's the definition of underwear: 

 clothing that is worn next to your skin and under other clothing

So, it definitely includes undershirts, that is t-shirts, yet, it is also true that men don't always wear t-shirts. It is not at all uncommon for men not to wear t-shirts. So, making a generic reference to a "set of underwear" in a police property invoice doesn't make sense. 

Of course, they would specify the individual items. They would never say "1 set underwear." NEVER!

In fact, it makes so little sense, I dare someone to find another invoice of prisoner's property besides this one that includes "1 set underwear." In fact, I would be very surprised if anyone found any other property invoice that included underwear, in a city jail situation. And note that I'm not talking about a penitentiary where one goes for a long time. There, you do strip down and turn over everything. I'm talking about a City Jail, which is what this was. 

I'll save you the trouble: there are none. Jack Ruby is the only person there was ever in City Jail who was told that he had to take off his dirty underpants, give it to them, and put on the proper jail underpants, because God-forbid he not be wearing jail underpants.

And what did they do with his dirty underpants when he handed them over there? Do they have a hamper there at the Dallas City Jail, do they? 

1 set underwear.  1 set underwear. I wish my father were alive so that he could hear how they did things at the Dallas City Jail. It would shock the hell out of him, and he only had 45 years experience in police work in three cities including New York and Los Angeles. In L.A., he was a city jailer, and I guarantee you that he never gave out or confiscated any underwear. 

The fucking nerve of the stupid, filthy, bloodied bastards who did this. You actually think we're going to fall for it, do you? With all the phony stuff there is in the JFK assassination, you think we're going to fall for this phony document, which is as phony as Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate, do you? You actually think we're going to see a form in which they claimed it was necessary to take Ruby's used, soiled underwear from him on 11/24/63, shortly after the shooting, and give him jail underwear instead, and we're just going to accept that, do you? You think that because you produce something that is printed and typed that we'll think it's authentic because it's printed and typed, do you? Is that how your pea-brain mind works, does it? You filthy, bloodied bastard. You are a disgrace to your people, and I don't mean the American people. I mean the Cherokee people. You should have stayed true to them. You should have remained loyal to them. You should have fought for them, instead of killing for the White Man, who marched your people across the country, many to their deaths. This is a flagrant sham. It is an outrage. It is an abomination of Biblical proportion.      

I just heard from a guy who read my post, and he's mad!!!!!  He said that he was in City Lockup, and he never got any socks.

One naysayer suggested that perhaps the Dallas Police issued Ruby new socks. So, the Dallas Police gave Ruby new underwear? Because that's what socks are: underwear.

Well, the Dallas Police certainly didn't give Oswald any new underwear. The Dallas Police didn't give Oswald anything in the way of clothes until the morning of 24th, and even then, it wasn't prison garb. They gave him a sweater, and I'm pretty sure it was his own sweater that was obtained from his boarding room, although I'm not positive.

But here he is, the evening of Saturday 23rd, and he's still in the original t-shirt in which he was arrested. He hasn't been given any outer clothes, let alone any underwear, and he hasn't even been permitted to take a shower. He complains about his "basic, fundamental hygienic rights, like a shower and a book."

Notice that you see the same stretched sunken t-shirt in which he was arrested and which he wore in the doorway. So, he didn't get squat in the way of clothes from them. Yet, some apologist wants to suggest that they Jack Ruby, in contrast, was given new shoes and socks.

Remember that this was a City Jail, not a prison. I know about city jails. My father's last stint in law enforcement before he retired was to work as a jailer for the LAPD. And I remember him saying that, typically, they kept inmates there for very short periods of time, usually just a few days, at the most. Then they would go to court, and either get out on bail, or if they were remanded, they were sent somewhere else. They weren't sent back to the downtown city jail. In this case, Ruby was kept there one day. The very next day, November 25, he was sent to the County Jail. So, what the heck would they be issuing him shoes and socks for? What, do you think they had a shoe room at the DPD with all possible sizes of men's feet, like they have at a bowling alley? 

They didn't have anything like that. It wasn't a prison. It was a city jail. There is no reason to think that Jack Ruby was wearing anything but his own shoes and socks.

And they were not the shoes and socks of the Garage Shooter.

Denis Morrissette tells me that this tall guy, rather than being James Bookhout as Linda Zambanini erroneously thought, is actually Detective T.L. Baker.

You hear that, Backes? Now, you need to correct all those fucking pages in which you said he was Bookhout. 

On the left below is an image of Nat Pinkston from Joseph Backes, and in the center is the guy who was acting cop-like after the Charge in the Garage. And on the right is Detective RL Beck.

The odd man out is Beck on the right. And notice that he is wearing the trademark white stetson hat that Fritz' men wore. Don't try to tell me that there were two guys who looked as much alike and dressed as much alike as the man left and the man center, such that if they ran into each other, they would have thought they were looking in the mirror.  I don't accept it. That is Pinkston, Pinkston, Pinkson at the Oswald killing. 

There is a huge difference between Ruby's shirt and the Shooter's.

Do you see how on the left Ruby's shirt is all flattened down at the collar but not so with the Shooter? 

And, if you're going to claim that that picture on the right was taken before "Ruby" was processed and given his prison garb, then that means it went from the penguins swarming upon "Ruby":

to "everyone say cheese" in a matter of minutes and before they even processed him. 

How could things possibly turn around so fast? Supposedly, that man fatally shot a man and then struggled with police in a wild frenzy, and now they're calmly posing for a picture together? That soon? Before he's even issued his jail uniform? 

So, we have clear visual evidence now that the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald wore different socks and different shoes than Jack Ruby.

If the difference between black and white means anything to you, you'll see it here:

The crop on the left is taken from the famous Jack Beers photo of "Ruby" shooting Oswald. But, he's wearing light socks, while Ruby wore black socks. He didn't change his socks, did he?

He is wearing light socks, presumably grey, but Ruby was wearing jet black socks.

Also, Ruby wore a high-top functional work shoe, while the Garage Shooter wore a low-top dress shoe.

Different shoes and socks means they were different men.