Bugliosi Fails To Name Mr. Ekdahl's Divorce Attorney

[19efppp]

When Edward Ekdahl decided that he'd had enough of Marguerite Oswald,
LHO's mother, he hired Fred Korth, the future Secretary of The Navy under
JFK, John Connally's successor, to handle the divorce case. A very notable
fellow, Fred Korth, but Bugliosi fails to note the fact in any of his 2444
pages that he handled Ekdahl's divorce from Oswald's mother. Lee Harvey
Oswald's stepdad's lawyer became the Secretary of the Navy. Of the United
States. It may have no relevance to the assassination, but how does
Bugliosi not mention it? It certainly is notable, more notable than much
of the garbage he does mention.

[John Corbett]

Post by 19efppp
When Edward Ekdahl decided that he'd had enough of Marguerite Oswald,
LHO's mother, he hired Fred Korth, the future Secretary of The Navy under
JFK, John Connally's successor, to handle the divorce case. A very notable
fellow, Fred Korth, but Bugliosi fails to note the fact in any of his 2444
pages that he handled Ekdahl's divorce from Oswald's mother. Lee Harvey
Oswald's stepdad's lawyer became the Secretary of the Navy. Of the United
States. It may have no relevance to the assassination, but how does
Bugliosi not mention it? It certainly is notable, more notable than much
of the garbage he does mention.

Why would you expect Bugliosi to mention things that aren't relevant. I
guess his book wasn't long enough for you. Maybe he should have added 500
pages of trivia.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Post by John Corbett

Post by 19efppp
When Edward Ekdahl decided that he'd had enough of Marguerite Oswald,
LHO's mother, he hired Fred Korth, the future Secretary of The Navy under
JFK, John Connally's successor, to handle the divorce case. A very notable
fellow, Fred Korth, but Bugliosi fails to note the fact in any of his 2444
pages that he handled Ekdahl's divorce from Oswald's mother. Lee Harvey
Oswald's stepdad's lawyer became the Secretary of the Navy. Of the United
States. It may have no relevance to the assassination, but how does
Bugliosi not mention it? It certainly is notable, more notable than much
of the garbage he does mention.

Why would you expect Bugliosi to mention things that aren't relevant. I
guess his book wasn't long enough for you. Maybe he should have added 500
pages of trivia.

Oswald wanted John Abt as his lawyer. Richard Nixon questioned Abt during
the Hiss/Chambers investigation (Abt took the 5th when asked about whether
he was a communist or knew Hiss to be a communist, et cetera).

Nixon did it.

More seriously, Abt was an "interesting" guy. He was a major figure in the
Ware Group, the Soviet spy ring managed first by Harold Ware and then by
Whittaker Chambers. This was the ring that Hiss belonged too.

Abt was smart in always taking the 5th when asked about his CP membership,
et cetera and not challenging/suing people who accused him of being a
communist. Hiss made a major mistake by filing a slander/defamation suit
against Chambers. Once he did that Chambers had to fight back and reveal
everything he knew about Hiss's espionage work. Until then Chambers didn't
want to do so.

And the "Pumpkin Papers" were not papers. Chambers hid in the pumpkin two
roles of microfilm of classified documents that Hiss gave him.

[19efppp]

Post by John Corbett

Post by 19efppp
When Edward Ekdahl decided that he'd had enough of Marguerite Oswald,
LHO's mother, he hired Fred Korth, the future Secretary of The Navy under
JFK, John Connally's successor, to handle the divorce case. A very notable
fellow, Fred Korth, but Bugliosi fails to note the fact in any of his 2444
pages that he handled Ekdahl's divorce from Oswald's mother. Lee Harvey
Oswald's stepdad's lawyer became the Secretary of the Navy. Of the United
States. It may have no relevance to the assassination, but how does
Bugliosi not mention it? It certainly is notable, more notable than much
of the garbage he does mention.

Why would you expect Bugliosi to mention things that aren't relevant. I
guess his book wasn't long enough for you. Maybe he should have added 500
pages of trivia.

No. I think the 1000 or so pages of trivia he stuffed into his turkey are
good enough. In fact, he need not have added a single line. He does
mention Fred Korth in a list of conspiracy kook suspects. It's just his
name, but the rest of the line is blank. He could have added, "Ekdahl
divorce attorney and Secretary of the Navy," without adding a single line
to the book. I wonder why he didn't.

[Mark]

Post by 19efppp
When Edward Ekdahl decided that he'd had enough of Marguerite Oswald,
LHO's mother, he hired Fred Korth, the future Secretary of The Navy under
JFK, John Connally's successor, to handle the divorce case. A very notable
fellow, Fred Korth, but Bugliosi fails to note the fact in any of his 2444
pages that he handled Ekdahl's divorce from Oswald's mother. Lee Harvey
Oswald's stepdad's lawyer became the Secretary of the Navy. Of the United
States. It may have no relevance to the assassination, but how does
Bugliosi not mention it? It certainly is notable, more notable than much
of the garbage he does mention.

Is this an example of Jim Garrison's propinquity? For the best
explanation, see Fred Litwin's new ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION. Mark

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Post by Mark

Post by 19efppp
When Edward Ekdahl decided that he'd had enough of Marguerite Oswald,
LHO's mother, he hired Fred Korth, the future Secretary of The Navy under
JFK, John Connally's successor, to handle the divorce case. A very notable
fellow, Fred Korth, but Bugliosi fails to note the fact in any of his 2444
pages that he handled Ekdahl's divorce from Oswald's mother. Lee Harvey
Oswald's stepdad's lawyer became the Secretary of the Navy. Of the United
States. It may have no relevance to the assassination, but how does
Bugliosi not mention it? It certainly is notable, more notable than much
of the garbage he does mention.

Is this an example of Jim Garrison's propinquity? For the best
explanation, see Fred Litwin's new ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION. Mark

Person "A" knew/associated with/lived near Person "B". Person "B" was
associated with bad thing "X". Therefor Person "A" was involved in "X".

As I mentioned in another thread, Garrison did this sort of intellectual
exercise with anyone EXCEPT mob figures. With mob people not only did he
not practice "propinquity" he went to great lengths to distance them from
"X", the assassination. It was the only domestic group (broadly speaking)
that he did this with vis-a-vis the assassination. At no time, even early
on in his farce of an investigation, did he show any interest in looking
into any possible mob role in the murder.