Jump to content
The Education Forum

EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense.

Do you read your posts before you post them? You just used the word "nonsense" in the same post that you say that you are going to stand by an opinion that is based on imaginary opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The answer, quite simply, is that nobody really knows what this memo was all about, but it appears to be a rather benign mix of paranoia on the part of Marguerite Oswald and imprecise language on the part of Hoover. This article offers a clear-eyed analysis and provides valuable background information. Tracy Parnell has also covered this subject extensively on his own site. Again, the larger point is that EVEN IF someone was (or was attempting to) impersonate Oswald as far back as 1960, there is ZERO evidence it was connected to some larger, decades-long conspiracy to pass off two distinct people (and their mothers) as one.

The larger point is that, according to your own source, at least four individuals believed that an imposter was posing as Oswald at a time when it would have been impossible for that impersonation to be part of a plan to frame him for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This alone proves that Oswald was not just "some guy".

Regarding your first link, “The Possessions of Lee Harvey Oswald: Identification Documents” which, as far as I am able to determine, has no credited author.

In a separate post in this thread, Jeremy Bojczuk makes a specific point that not all H&L opponents are LN’s, yet you cite an apparently anonymously-written article that seems to assume Oswald really was JFK’s assassin, and then you go on to characterize that same article as “a clear-eyed analysis” of the facts.

Quote

Of course, no one knew then that this child would grow up to be an assassin of world-shaking consequence... 

https://debunked.wordpress.com/the-possessions-of-lee-harvey-oswald-identification-documents/

Let’s take a look at the article you chose to cite to support your position.

The article you cited tells the story of a budding young Marxist so desperate to join the United States Marines that he drops out of school specifically to enlist and pressures his mother to falsify a birth certificate to let him enlist a year before he was old enough to be eligible.

The article you cited implies that Oswald’s birth certificate shenanigans did occur and might have happened/started as early as 1955.

Quote

In October of 1955, Lee desired to join the Marine Corps. … Lee was adamant that he be given a chance. He informed his mother that he had dropped out of school with the intentions of enlisting. Marguerite testified: “So Lee was determined at age 16 and his birthday was going to be October 18th… that he was going to join the Marines. So what he wanted me to do was falsify his birth certificate. Which I would not do.” … Lee, taking the matter into his own hands, altered the birth date on his baptismal certificate as part of this deception.

The article then says that either young Lee or someone unidentified party working on his behalf apparently took it upon themselves to start the process of enlisting early with a forged note to his high school.

Quote

On October 2, 1955, a note signed by “Mrs. M. Oswald” was sent to Lee’s school, Warren Easton High, requesting that any of his records, including his birth certificate, be given to him, as the family would soon be moving to San Diego. Mrs. Oswald was quite resolute that she had not written this note.

Nothing suspicious about that, right? Lee was just your typical 15-year-old high school dropout self-starter wanting to go behind his mother’s back in order to obtain his school records and his own birth certificate in order to illegally join the military, right? I'm sure this was typical behavior of teenagers in the 1950's, especially fledgling Marxists.

According to the article you posted, Lee Oswald seems to have had encouragement to join the Marines early by:

  • Oswald’s uncle, Charles “Dutz” Murret
  • “Family friend” politically connected attorney Clem Sehrt

Both of whom appear to have had connections to Mafia boss Carlos Marcello.

Quote

Marguerite, by this point concerned, sought out advice. She talked to her brother-in-law, Charles “Dutz” Murret, who told her, “Let him join, let him go. If he wants to go so badly, let him join the Marines.” She discussed the situation with a “family friend,” prominent New Orleans attorney Clem Sehrt, who said he could offer her no legal advice, but stated “a lot of boys join the service at age 16.”

According to the article you posted, in addition to Murret and Sehrt, Lee was apparently also encouraged to illegally join the Marines early by:

  • An unnamed “colonel on the street”
  • An unnamed uniformed Marine recruitment officer
Quote

“There was a colonel on the street that I stopped-I didn’t know him-I said, ‘Sir, I would like to talk with you.’ I told him about the boy wanting to join the Marines and I didn’t know what to do. I was frantic. And he was insistent that I let him join the Marines at age 16. So he advised me, ‘Well, if he doesn’t want to go to school, let him join the Marines. It is done all the time.’”

The next day, when she returned home from work, a uniformed recruitment officer was at her home. Lee had evidently made contact with the Marine recruiters, as a minor without parental permission, and had received encouragement from them.

“He (the recuiter) was very vague about the thing. I said, ‘NO, Lee is too young, age 16, to join the Marines. They are liable to send him overseas.’ He said, ‘There is less delinquency in Japan and those places than we have here.’ He saw nothing wrong with it. What he was doing was telling me to falsify his birth certificate.” 

Also, according to the article you cited, it was not only J. Edgar Hoover who expressed a belief in the possibility that Oswald’s identity was being used by an impostor. In addition to Hoover, an Oswald imposter was also suspected by at least three other individuals:

  • Soviet section officer Bill Bright
  • An unnamed author of a March 31, 1961 memo sent from the passport office to John White, an official at the consular section of the State Department
  • The head of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Agency, William Sullivan
Quote

According to writer Bill Simpich, “the routing slip shows how a Soviet section officer named Bill Bright silently directed his Soviet section colleague “IEL” to keep an eye on Oswald’s birth certificate, and to watch for the possibility that an impostor might get ahold of this certificate.
...
according to author Peter Whitmey: “On March 31, 1961, a memo was sent from the passport office to John White, an official at the consular section of the State Department… in regard to the possibility of an impostor obtaining Oswald’s passport (in addition to the likelihood that his birth certificate was in the hands of the Soviets)… Oswald’s file indicated “that it has been stated that there is an impostor using Oswald’s identification data…’”

After the assassination of President Kennedy, Senator Richard Russell of the blue-ribbon Warren Commission panel had serious doubts about the findings, believing that there could have been a conspiracy. He enlisted the aid of Colonel Philip Corso, a former Army intelligence officer with “FBI connections” to perform some investigative work concerning Oswald’s background during the investigation. Corso reported to Russell that there were, according to William Sullivan, head of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Agency, two birth certificates for Lee Harvey Oswald and that one of the documents had been used by an impostor, which seemed to confirm Hoover’s 1960 statement. 

The article you cited also poses the possibility that either the aforementioned unnamed “colonel on the street” or the unnamed uniformed Marine recruitment officer might have been David Ferrie, a key suspect in the JFK assassination who was:

  • Accomplished at forging documents
  • Had a confirmed connection to Lee Oswald in 1955
  • And, like Murret and Sehrt, also had a connection to Carlos Marcello

You have not only failed to debunk the 1960 Hoover memo, you’ve actually gone a long way to confirming it with multiple supporting statements from the article you chose to reference.

You’ve also moved the timeline of suspicious activity concerning the falsification of Oswald's birth certificate from 1960 to possibly as early as 1955.

So, thanks to you and the article you chose to cite, we’ve gone from questioning a 3 or 4 year period to possibly as long as an 8 year period.

And somehow you continue to insist there is “ZERO” evidence of a long-term plan. It seems that the article that you chose to cite to support your position suggests otherwise.

The very last sentence of the article you cited states the following:

Quote

The existence and identification of this second “Oswald” has never been determined. 

No part of the last sentence of the article, indeed nowhere in the article itself, does it say definitively that it has been proven without a doubt that the second Oswald never existed, only that the existence of a second Oswald has "never been determined." The article does reference multiple individuals who believed Oswald's identity was possibly co-opted by an impersonator.

This seems to be a far cry from your emphatically definitive statement of “ZERO” evidence for a second Oswald. It also seems to directly contradict the emphatically definitive statements posted by another forum member in this thread that the non-existence of a second Oswald is an absolute, concrete, and unquestionable fact:

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I was making the point that the hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme simply could never have happened. We know that it didn't happen;

 

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It not only didn't happen, but it could never have happened.

--------------------------------

Addendum:

Quote

Marguerite Oswald told this author about another fascinating incident. She said one day after junior high school, Lee arrived home in the company of a military officer who said Lee was a self-starter, an independent sort but bright - just the sort of young man the military was looking for.

“Crossfire” by Jim Marrs, Second Edition, 2013, Pgs. 97 - 98.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

I stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense.

John Armstrong took his case to a journalist from the Texas Monthly in 1998, but failed to convince the journalist, understandably.

I have it on good authority that the 'Harvey and Lee' brigade were interviewed on another occasion. There's a transcript here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=360675

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Zartman asks me:

Quote

Who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in 1960 or earlier, and why?

If you have so many answers and know so much, answer that question, please.

No-one. There's no solid evidence that Oswald's ID was being used by anyone other than the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

The 'Hoover memo' storm-in-a-tea-cup doesn't show that there was a second Oswald. It shows that officials were worried that the ID of the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald might have got into the hands of the Soviets.

The context of Marguerite's behaviour, and of officialdom's response, is explained in Part 5 of Bill Simpich's The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_5.html

Tracy Parnell has written a good account of the Hoover memo and Oswald's birth certificate:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

Tracy quotes Paul Hoch, who points out that the US officials took an interest in Marguerite's allegation because the Soviets were known to have misused such IDs in the past. Greg Parker, who helped Bill with the research for his article, makes the same point, and addresses Denny personally, here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush

Greg writes that Marguerite's "search for Lee and that comment [that he took his birth certificate with him when he defected], were discussed in a series of memos going up the line, escalating ala Chinese Whispers, into the possibility that someone may be using Oswald's ID."

Just because several officials discussed Marguerite's claim, doesn't mean that several officials independently had evidence that Oswald's ID was being misused.

Denny also writes:

Quote

I've not been a proponent of the Harvey and Lee theory. I understand completely why someone would find it hard to believe. I instinctually find it difficult to believe myself; that's why I've never been a proponent. It is asking a lot of anyone to believe in the possibility that Oswald had a double shadowing him since childhood.

That's very encouraging. Before his recent outburst, Denny had always struck me as one of the more rational members of this forum. I'm glad to see that he hasn't fallen down the 'Harvey and Lee' rabbit hole.

I'd very much recommend that Denny reads Bill Simpich's Oswald Legend series, mentioned above. Bill shows that you don't need ridiculous doppelganger inventions in order to explain Oswald's defection and intelligence connections:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Oswald_Legend.html

Jeremy  I thought we had an understanding. When you write that in your view some members post  "ridiculous doppelganger inventions", fellow members who contribute to this thread can be offended when they legitimately consider that your remarks may refer to them. I fully accept that you are genuine in your views but it would help if you were more temporate in your language.

Be advised curtsey on this forum is something that is enforced on members especially when they stray from what is expected from all members.

Robustly argue your corner but do not do so by also insulting fellow members

James

Edited by James R Gordon
Within days Ignored Request
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Jeremy Bojczuk's post and thought he went over the line after being warned about his language and other posters.  I think he was testing the water to see if he could revert to his prior (and now consistent) insulting behavior.

I think Mr. Gordon is being very patient with him in hopes of a more moderate behavior.  My advice to Jeremy would be to pay heed to Mr. Gordon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Gordon wrote:

10 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Jeremy  I thought we had an understanding. When you write that in your view some members post  "ridiculous doppelganger inventions", fellow members who contribute to this thread can be offended when they legitimately consider that your remarks may refer to them.

Just to be clear, I don’t believe any of the posters believe Jeremy is calling them “ridiculous doppelganger inventions.”

It is how he refers to the H&L hypothesis - far from proven, as yet - which has been mocked on every JFK online forum since Day One.  When things don’t go their way, we are regaled for the umpteenth time with H&L website content that has been recycled for a decade or longer.  Were it persuasive, this should not be necessary.

Jeremy is guilty of hurting the genteel feelings of the easily offended.  So they play to the referee instead of providing what is required of those propounding a theory they expect to be taken seriously: proof.  Had they done so, ever, it would have made further argument unnecessary.

While we’re on the topic of hurt feelings, a despicable habit - too often displayed by the H&L publicists - is that agreement with any LN believer on a single matter means that you are yourself an LN believer.  It is a ridiculous claim made against people who’ve studied the JFK assassination longer than either Hargrove or Armstrong.  If Mr. Parnell and I agree that H&L is rot, it doesn’t automatically follow that we agree on anything else.  Just ask either of us.

Not just a cheap attempt to score points, but also rather underhanded, wouldn’t you agree, James?

I fully accept that you are genuine in your views but it would help if you were more temporate in your language.

Be advised curtsey on this forum is something that is enforced on members especially when they stray from what is expected from all members.

Now you’d like Jeremy to “curtsey?”  You’re a cruel man.  But fair.

Robustly argue your corner but do not do so by also insulting fellow members

James

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

You sent me a private message a few days ago informing me that some members had had their feelings hurt. You used the phrase "you are not always mindful of others feelings". The title of the message was 'Insensitive to other members views'. You sent this message the day after I had equated belief in the double-doppelganger theory with belief in creationism, astrology, crystal-waving and that the earth is flat. I assumed that you were referring to that post of mine, and that one or more members who were sympathetic to creationism or astrology had had their feelings dented. Fair enough; even though I had explained in my post the similarities that these beliefs have with the double-doppelganger theory, and why the beliefs were faulty, I resolved to try not to upset the feelings of creationists and similar folk.

As Robert points out, when I used the words 'ridiculous doppelganger inventions' I was describing the 'Harvey and Lee' double-doppelganger theory, not those who promote that theory. It was not an insult. The theory is literally ridiculous, in that it is a object of ridicule; people have been making fun of it for years, here and elsewhere.

Do 'Harvey and Lee' believers genuinely get offended when their pet theory is justifiably described as ridiculous? And if they do, is that sufficient reason for critics not to use that word? Again, fair enough; if that is the rule here, I'll abide by it.

I don't know how many people have complained about my posts, or how many complaints there have been. Evidently, most or all of these people have been 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiasts, rather than enthusiasts for such things as creationism, astrology, or a flat earth.

I don't know how many of the complaints you receive relate to other JFK-related topics. It would be interesting to learn the proportion of all complaints to you that have come from the small number of members who are 'Harvey and Lee' proponents, given that the 'Harvey and Lee' folk seem to have form in trying to get their critics banned from this forum: Michael Walton and Greg Parker are two former members here who claim to have been the victims of unreasonable sustained complaints from 'Harvey and Lee' proponents.

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Changed 'source of ridicule' to 'object of ridicule'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2021 at 10:24 AM, John Kowalski said:

Will be looking forward to reading the updates.

Do you know if he has found any connection between Edwin Ekdahl and ONI?

John,

I’ve been working some of John’s new write-ups primarily into three pages on HarveyandLee.net:

Early Years of Harvey and Lee

Marine Corps and the Soviet Union

Harvey in Russia … Lee in the USA

The most substantial of the new Early Years material reaches back to 1947 and 1948 and examines the two Oswald families apparently living at 101 San Saba in Benbrook and at 1505 8th Ave. in Fort Worth.   It also includes additional information about Harvey’s friend Ed Voebel in 1954.  The Marine Corps updates are relatively brief.

The Harvey in Russia … Lee in the USA page has some substantial updates, largely about CIA agent Donald P. Norton, who said he took a case full of money to “Harvey Lee” in Mexico in the fall of 1962. After the assassination, Norton said “Harvey Lee” looked just like Lee Harvey Oswald.  John cautioned readers not to confuse Donald P. Norton with Donald O. Norton, the man who met  John Judge and Mae Brussel in Ohio and who the two researchers believed might be the birth LHO.

We've got several more substantial updates in the works.  John has several homes and he’s now at the one where he keeps all his paper files on Oswald, and he’s re-reading as many as he can.  I hope he’ll have quite a few more updates to come.

I'll ask him about Ekdahl and ONI.
 

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a challenge for the few remaining 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiasts.

Most aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory have been debated over and over again. The same topics have been promoted ad nauseam* by the theory's promoters, and criticised repeatedly by its critics: the Stripling witnesses, the arrest in the Texas Theater, the 13-inch head, and so on.

But there is one fundamental aspect that doesn't seem to have been described adequately, if at all, by the theory's promoters. It's the thinking behind the hypothetical long-term double-doppelganger scheme. 

We have been told that the purpose of the scheme was to produce a false defector to the Soviet Union. Proponents of the theory seem to be agreed that there were two requirements for this defector:

  • Firstly, language. He needed to be able to understand the Russian that would be spoken around him in the Soviet Union, but he did not need to be a native speaker with an authentic Russian accent, because this would have given the game away.
  • Secondly, background. He needed to possess a plausible background as a genuine American, and preferably as a genuine American serviceman.

We have also been told that the hypothetical scheme was hypothetically set up no later than the early 1950s. The defection of the real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald occurred in 1959. The hypothetical masterminds behind the hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme thus had several years in which to hypothetically cultivate their hypothetical doppelgangers.

The hypothetical masterminds knew what their ultimate goal was, and they knew that they had plenty of time in which to achieve that goal. For some reason, the hypothetical masterminds decided that the best way to achieve their goal was to set up a long-term scheme involving two unrelated boys, who grew up to look virtually identical, with two unrelated, yet also virtually identical, mothers.

As far as I'm aware, the reason for that decision has not yet been explained by the 'Harvey and Lee' theory's proponents.

An important part of the 'Harvey and Lee' argument is missing. How did the hypothetical masterminds decide that a double-doppelganger scheme was the best solution to their problem?

In other words, the 'Harvey and Lee' theorists need to explain how, if the masterminds started out with this goal:

(a) We need a defector with an American background who can understand Russian!

they ended up with this decision:

(b) We'll recruit two unrelated boys from different continents who will be native speakers of two different languages! And we'll recruit the actual mother of one of those boys and another woman who will act as the mother of the other boy! And we will ensure that this other woman, despite being unrelated to the first woman, is virtually identical to her! And we will hope that when the two boys grow up several years later they too will look virtually identical!

What was the thinking behind their decision?

How did they get from (a) to (b)?

There doesn't appear to be any credible way in which those hypothetical masterminds would have reached that decision. Or is there? The question must have occurred to the 'Harvey and Lee' proponents, so they should have a ready answer for us. Over to you, boys! What's the answer? How did the hypothetical masterminds come up with that decision?

You see, the problem is that if those hypothetical masterminds really did want to produce such a defector, they had a far easier way to do so. All they had to do was:

  • look at the 2.5 million or more Americans who were in the military in the early 1950s;
  • select one genuine American serviceman with an above-average talent for languages;
  • and allow him to learn Russian for several years.

There would have been more than enough suitable candidates for the role of American-defector-who-understood-Russian. There would have been more than enough time for a motivated person to learn Russian to the necessary level. This scheme would have produced the desired result, and would have had several advantages over the 'Harvey and Lee' scheme:

  • Result: one hypothetical defector!
  • Amount of fuss, expense and complication: not much!
  • Number of doppelganger Oswalds required: none!
  • Number of doppelganger Marguerites required: none!

Why did the hypothetical masterminds instead go for the vastly more complicated and implausible hypothetical double-doppelganger scheme when they had such an obvious solution to their hypothetical problem?

--

* My schoolboy Latin is a bit rusty, but ad nauseam is roughly translated as "if Jim copies and pastes those same 'Harvey and Lee' talking points one more time, I'm liable to throw up over my keyboard".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Following the assassination of President Kennedy the FBI conducted a background search on Edwin Ekdahl. Their report states, "Records do not indicate where Ekdahl worked from 1943 to 1953. The company (EBASCO Services) will not be able to furnish this information." The only other identifying information included was Ekdahl's social security number...

Why am I not at all surprised?

Good work, Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What was the thinking behind their decision?

How did they get from (a) to (b)?

From Harvey and Lee via Jim Hargrove:

Frank Wisner was a Wall Street lawyer and during WW II worked for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the CIA). After World War II ended thousands of Eastern European refugees were brought to the United States under his supervision. National Security Council (NSC) records show that Wisner, the CIA's director of clandestine operations, oversaw the re-location of thousands of anti-Communist exiles to the United States as a means of rewarding them for conducting secret operations against the Soviets. Wisner became the CIA and State Department’s expert on European war refugees, and secretly subsidized the refugee relief organizations that brought these Eastern Bloc refugees to the United States throughout the 1940s and early 1950s.

Wisner and his group recognized they could use these Eastern European immigrant's knowledge, customs, and familiarity with their respective homelands. Wisner asked the National Security Council (NSC) to sanction the “systematic” use of such refugees, and they (the NSC) agreed. The NSC soon issued a top-secret intelligence directive (NSCID No. 14), which even today remains "classified," that authorized both the FBI and the CIA to find and jointly exploit the knowledge, experience, and talents of well over 200,000 Eastern European refugees resettled in the USA. The CIA soon contacted the Displaced Person's Commission (DPC), which worked closely with the leaders of refugee organizations in the USA. DPC chairman Ugo Carusi sent a memorandum to all refugee organizations in the USA that read: “We would like to advise that the U.S. Commission [DPC] has a formal agreement with the CIA to cooperate in every possible way to facilitate their programs. It is, therefore, altogether desirable that local representatives of the voluntary agencies and State Commissions and Committees make available to fully identified CIA agents the addresses of displaced persons.”

I might add as a foot note that along with Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles was involved with this.  He was stationed in Switzerland as the most important OSS agent.  Switzerland and Dulles were the main conduit of refugees into the US during the war years.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Wisner and his group recognized they could use these Eastern European immigrant's knowledge, customs, and familiarity with their respective homelands. Wisner asked the National Security Council (NSC) to sanction the “systematic” use of such refugees, and they (the NSC) agreed. The NSC soon issued a top-secret intelligence directive (NSCID No. 14), which even today remains "classified," that authorized both the FBI and the CIA to find and jointly exploit the knowledge, experience, and talents of well over 200,000 Eastern European refugees resettled in the USA.

This doesn't answer Jeremy's question. Just because the "talents" of Eastern European refugees were "exploited" after World War II, how does that in any way support the specific implementation of a long-term doppelganger project involving the variables Jeremy outlined above (two boys who maybe, just maybe, would grow up to look identical, two identical mothers, etc.) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
Quote

Following the assassination of President Kennedy the FBI conducted a background search on Edwin Ekdahl. Their report states, "Records do not indicate where Ekdahl worked from 1943 to 1953. The company (EBASCO Services) will not be able to furnish this information." The only other identifying information included was Ekdahl's social security number...

Why am I not at all surprised?

Good work, Jim.

To be charitable, the above is incomplete.  To be less so, it is a misinterpretation of what FBI learned.

The Bureau received confirmation of Ekdahl’s employment with EBASCO, from 1943 to 1953, when he died.  So we know for whom he worked.  No mystery.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10548#relPageId=2&search=ebasco

If one goes to the following page of the above doc, one sees that due to Ekdahl’s information being incomplete a decade after he stopped work there, EBASCO wouldn’t be able to tell FBI all the places he had worked for them. (At the very time that it was all being microfilmed.)

We are asked to infer something suspicious about paperwork missing about a man dead for a decade.  And now somehow involved in something nefarious.

And yet, the Bureau had already learned the prior day precisely where Ekdahl was at least part of the time:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57725#relPageId=183&search=ebasco

“He was assigned in this capacity with Texas Electrical Service Company, Ft. Worth, at least part of period of nineteenfortyfive to nineteenfortyeight..    

“In nineteen fortyeight Ekdahl separated from Oswald’s mother and returned to New York.
        
“Source at Fort Worth advised word received some years later that Ekdahl deceased in New York.”

Presumably a Fort Worth source would have known Ekdahl through his work in Fort Worth.  Between 1945 and 1948 specifically.  Which is a time of concern because it is the duration of his marriage to Marguerite.  Seems the Bureau knew more than some are willing to admit.

Additional information gleaned by FBI interviewing, or testimony from, various Oswald relatives depicts Ekdahl as a traveler.  

From sister Lillian Murret: “She (the one and only Marguerite) went around with Mr. Ekdahl in his travels for the company.....  Mr. Ekdahl was traveling for the company but she couldn’t travel with him because she had the boys during the vacation time.”

Marguerite saw to it that the boys were all sent to a military academy, which allowed her to travel with her husband, but she became house-bound when the sons’ academic year ended.

If it doesn’t sound like Ekdahl ever hung his hat anywhere for very long, it is because he was an electrical consultant who visited numerous clients.  And he was paid for it remarkably well.

At time of death, his $15,000 insurance policy payout went to his sister, listed as next of kin, and Ekdahl bequeathed his portfolio of stocks and bonds to his estranged son from another marriage.

From this thin gruel is raised yet another nefarious angle of H&L?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

From this thin gruel is raised yet another nefarious angle of H&L?

Multiple mysterious addresses are the crux of this particular discussion, and it's convenient that Texas single mom Marguerite just happened to meet and marry a well-paid professional with just happened to have no fixed address and who just happened to work for a big company that didn't keep complete employment records on its most well-paid employees (yet saw fit to microfilm the little they did manage to retain.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Multiple mysterious addresses are the crux of this particular discussion,

which would be rather normal for a traveling consultant

24 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

and it's convenient that Texas single mom Marguerite just happened to meet and marry a well-paid professional

Convenient?  Seems a huge stroke of good fortune and one cannot fault her for jumping on a man who seemed a good thing.

24 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

with just happened to have no fixed address

which again would be rather normal for a traveling consultant.

25 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

and who just happened to work for a big company that didn't keep complete employment records

on people who died ten years previous

27 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

on its most well-paid employees

you don’t know whether he was one of the “most well-paid,” only that he was paid well.  Presumably because he was a hell of good traveling consultant.

28 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

(yet saw fit to microfilm the little they did manage to retain.)

Couldn't agree more with your praise for EBASCO.  Top points to them for microfilming documents even ten years after an employee died.  Had they not done so, perhaps we wouldn't know even what little we do. 

Which would be highly suspect, right?

Your mileage may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...