Have you presented such an 'obvious' expectation before, Captain H?
Um...yes. Yes I did. Post #33. It directly precedes your first post in this thread. The one where I say everything seems explainable by being a "quirky traveling guy". I gave a couple quick examples, as I didn't see the need for a page long dissertation over a pretty mundane occurrence.
The spy explanation was plausible and reasonable, has nothing to do with conspiratorial thinking (you're preaching to the choir, brother).
The woman of the telephone number also admitted to having in the past the same, niche book, that me and you never heard of before, spoke russian, cold war was going on and espionage thriving.
What? It was 1948. NATO wasn't even formed yet. The Cold War was in its most preliminary infancies.
She spoke Russian. So do a lot of people. If she and Webb shared an interest in obscure Persian poetry (which of course you and I would never had heard of), that would lead me to think that they knew each other and there was indeed some illicit pipe being laid. Maybe she thought he was still married, so played dumb to police? I dunno. But again, nothing to make me jump to the fantastical explanations.
And that's what I would keep returning to. If Webb had a Soviet gun or garrote or micro camera or something, I would tilt the needle towards espionage. But he was carrying bus and train tickets, and a valise with overnight toiletries and stuff. Nothing that screams James Bond.
Mundane "revelation" is as good as a sensational one, case (to some extent) solved is a worthy result.
These label removing common practice hint, indeed, gave me new perspective, I admit. Shortage of goods might be the reason people more commonly used second hand clothes (and personal labeling was more common).
Yeah, it was news to me too, but makes total sense at that time. Nice clothes were pricey, so you put your brand on them to show ownership. When handing down, because you outgrew them or whatever, you cut out the tags, and the new wearer doesn't look like a thief or imposter.
In terms of this thread, though, I had already mentioned it specifically, so it shouldn't have been news to you when I said it the second time.