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

From the Document Dump, there is this memo by J. Edgar Hoover written on November 24, 1963, shortly after Oswald died.

"There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead."

What does it mean? Can you read between the lines? I think it means, "What a relief that Oswald is dead."

So, what do you figure? That Hoover just got lucky, that Jack Ruby came along, penetrated the Dallas Police wall of security, and shot Oswald? This is J. Edgar Hoover we are talking about, a guy who never depended on luck for anything. Then, he said:

"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

The "real" assassin? As opposed to what? The fake one? If he had said the "lone" assassin or the "only" assassin, that would sound familiar, but in saying "real", Hoover was admitting something that never gets admitted today, that the whole entire story lacks credibility. Think about it: Hoover was "concerned" as in worried about "convincing" the public. 

Then, there was this:

"Oswald having been killed today after our warnings to the Dallas Police Department was inexcusable," Hoover dictated. "It will allow, I am afraid, a lot of civil rights people to raise a lot of hell because he was handcuffed and had no weapon. There are bound to be some elements of our society who will holler their heads off that his civil rights were violated — which they were."

What the hell was he saying? That because Oswald was handcuffed and had no weapon that it wasn't a fair fight between him and Ruby? That he didn't have a fighting chance? 

First, Oswald wasn't really handcuffed, but the reason civil libertarians would holler is not because he was handcuffed or because he was unarmed, but because he was in the custody of the Dallas Police who were responsible for his safety. 

So, Edgar, how were Oswald's 'civil rights' violated? You agreed they were violated. But surely, you don't mean that Oswald should have been armed, do you? 

And Hoover said the FBI warned the Dallas Police that Oswald was in danger. But, the Dallas Police reportedly received dozens of phone calls threatening Oswald. So, they were plenty warned even without Hoover. But, what were Hoover's warnings based on? Did these vigilantes, besides calling the Dallas Police to reveal their intentions, also call the FBI to say that they were gunning for Oswald?

"OK, I called the Dallas Police, but I better call the FBI too just so they know that I'm comin' and I'm totin'."

It's ridiculous. Only in the JFK assassination. 

And, if Hoover thought the Dallas Police were so derelict, why didn't he order an FBI investigation of the Oswald shooting? 

And how does that mesh with his first statement, about there being nothing further?

"There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead."

What he really meant is: there is nothing further on the Oswald case NOW that he is dead.

All of this was nothing but showboating. Hoover was up to his neck in the Oswald shooting. His own man, James Bookhout, played the role of Jack Ruby for the cameras. 

The only disciplinary action that resulted from the Oswald shooting was that Roy Vaughan got a slap on the wrist, but don't be concerned because he went far. He went on to become a police chief of Midlothian, Texas, which is 25 miles southwest of Dallas, and then he went on to become a Municipal Court Judge in Midlothian for 13 years. He lived until 2010. His obituary didn't even mention his involvement in the Oswald assassination.