top of page
  • Writer's pictureFred Litwin

Paul Bleau Chokes, Part 8

Updated: Mar 4

J. Lee Rankin (on the left)

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.

J. Lee Rankin

Bleau Assertion:

Bleau uses some excerpts of an HSCA phone interview with J. Lee Rankin to make it appear he now had doubts about the conclusions of the Warren Report: (page 50 in the Kindle edition)

In 1978, before an executive session appearance, the top legal expert of the Warren Commission, J. Lee Rankin, was interviewed by Michael Ewing, a staff member for the HSCA. A report on the phone conversation was declassified in the mid-1990s which clearly underscores his dissatisfaction with the FBI and the CIA in their investigations and their cooperation, and the doubts he had about the Warren Commission conclusions.

What Bleau Doesn't Tell You:

Rankin was upset about the destruction of an Oswald note by FBI agent James Hosty and the failure of the CIA to disclose its involvement in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. Rankin also told Ewing that "he has nothing to regret about his work on the Commission, and that he tried his hardest to make it the best investigation possible. He said he still believes very strongly that he had a good staff of the finest legal minds."

Mr. Klein: As you sit here today, do you still believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission to be correct?

Mr. Rankin: I do.

Mr. Devine: Finally, Mr. Rankin, recognizing that nearly 15 years have intervened since the event and 14 years since the filing of the Warren Commission report, learning the things that you have learned during the intervening period, the new technical exotic crime detection techniques that have developed, additional witnesses that were not available to you, the meeting of the Rockefeller committee, the Church committee, the Assassinations committee and all, as you sit here today, do you feel that the Warren Commission, had the benefit of all this additional information, would have reached a conclusion different than that which you actually did?

Mr. Rankin: No; I think the Commission would not have arrived at any different conclusions.

Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Paul Bleau

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.


Recent Posts

See All


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page