top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureFred Litwin

Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 12


Paul Bleau's first chokehold is that "the official record impeaches the Warren Commission." He believes that: (page 38 in the Kindle edition of his book Chokeholds)

U.S. investigations into the assassination, statements made by investigation insiders and foreign government conclusions about the assassination prove that there is a strong consensus by the independent investigative authorities that there was a conspiracy in the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Bleau's chapter then lists out a variety of statements that seemingly prove conspiracy. Of course, Bleau doesn't tell readers the full truth about these viewpoints.


Alfreda Scobey

Bleau Assertion: (page 51)

Scobey wrote down notes taking the position of what a defense lawyer for Oswald could have argued with respect to the evidence presented by the Warren Commission. Her observations underscore many problems the prosecution would have faced including: The denial of Oswald’s right to legal counsel; the inadmissibility of his wife’s testimony; the poor quality of Helen Markham as witness to the Tippit assassination; the number of witnesses that refused to identify Oswald as Tippit’s assassin; the lack of pertinence of the Walker incident; the evidence obtained from the Paines without a proper warrant; the chain of possession of the rifle, etc.

What Bleau Doesn't Tell You:

If we assume that our defense counsel was very, very lucky, he would be able, if Oswald stood trial, either to exclude or impeach the testimony of a large number of key persons whose accounts add so much to the strength of the report. This is not to say that what would be left, granting the unlikely event of success in all these endeavors, would leave room for a reasonable doubt of Oswald’s guilt, but the surprising fact is that the conviction in such an event would depend to an amazing degree on documentary evidence and its interpretation by experts.

Previous Relevant Blog Post on Alfreda Scobey


Scobey discussed on TV how Mark Lane had misinterpreted her memo.. Here is an excerpt of what she had to say:

Let me begin with a personal reference. I wrote a bar journal article the thesis of which was that the evidence before the Warren Commission was like the brief of evidence on the trial of the case, but that, had Oswald been on trial, much of this testimony (for example, that of his wife) could have been excluded by defense counsel, but that nevertheless Oswald could not have been acquitted because his guilt was overwhelmingly proved by physical, documentary and circumstantial evidence. After stating what a defense counsel might delete, I wrote -- here is the language -- "This is NOT to say that what would be left would leave room for a reasonable doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Mr. Lane knows as a lawyer knows that if there is no room for a reasonable doubt, the defendant in a criminal case must be convicted. If the jury believes there is a reasonable doubt he must be acquitted. I emphasized I was NOT saying there was room for reasonable doubt.
Mr. Lane, on page 59 of the current issue of Playboy writes about this: "Let me add that there is no doubt in my mind that HAD OWALD LIVED TO FACE TRIAL HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED. A Commission attorney, Alfredda Scobey, CONCEDED THAT in the January, 1965 issue of the American Bar Association Journal.
I said the admissible evidence on a trial would not leave room for a reasonable doubt of guilt. Mr. Lane quotes me as saying I concede his acquittal. Does Mr. Lane find his position so precarious that it's necessary for him to do this to gain the appearance of support in his public interviews?

Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Paul Bleau


Bleau misleads readers on the testimony of John Moss Whitten.


Bleau gets it all wrong on Dr. George Burkley.


Bleau doesn't tell the whole story about John Sherman Cooper.


Bleau claims that J. Lee Rankin questioned the findings of the Warren Report. This is just true.


Bleau tries to make it appear that Dallas policeman James Leavelle had doubts that Oswald could be found guilty at a trial.


Bleau gets it all wrong on the FBI Summary Report.


Bleau discusses the conclusions of the HSCA but leaves out it most important finding.


Bleau leaves out some important details about a Warren Commission staffer.


Was Oswald a loner? Bleau says no, and then says yes.


Bleau leaves out some important details about Malcolm Kilduff.


An introduction to Paul Bleau's new book, Chokeholds.


Was David Ferrie Clay Shaw's pimp?


Did Lee Harvey Oswald have an escort?


Edward Girnus was in prison for forgery, and he told a fanciful story about Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald.


Leander D'Avy told the HSCA he saw Oswald and Ferrie with the three tramps.


Bleau's analysis of Garrison's files is full of errors.


Bleau believes there were seven plots against JFK before Dallas.


Bolden's allegation that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago has changed over the years.


There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Tampa.


There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago.


61 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page