by DALE K. MYERS
For nearly a month now, a small group of conspiracy theorists have been cluttering up two assassination forums with a discussion over the merits of eyewitness Lee Bowers, Jr.’s alleged testimony that he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll, the long suspect source of the fatal shot – according to conspiracy buffs.
I say “alleged” because as I pointed out in the ‘Testimony’ section of “Badge Man: A Photogrammetric Analysis of Moorman Photograph No.5 of the JFK Assassination,” Bowers actually said that no one was behind the fence shooting at the president.
In the last few weeks, several frequent posters on two assassination newsgroups – Debra Conway’s JFK/Lancer Forum and John Simkin’s U.K. Educational Forum – have been having a war of words over what Lee Bowers said and what he meant.
What’s it all about? Here’s the complete statement Lee Bowers, a railroad worker stationed in the switching tower located several hundred feet north of and behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll, gave police on the afternoon of November 22, 1963:
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lee E. Bowers, Jr., w/m/38 of 10508 Maplegrove Lane, Dallas, Texas DA-1-1909 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at North Tower Union Terminal Co. RI-8-4698 7 am to 3 pm Monday thru [sic] Friday. The tower where I work is West and a little north of the Texas Book Depository Building. I was on duty today and about 11:55 am I saw a dirty 1959 Oldsmobile Station Wagon come down the street toward my building. This street dead ends in the railroad yard. This car had out of state license plats with white background and black numbers, no letters. It also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker in the rear window. This car just drove around slowly and left the area. It was occupied by a middle aged white man partly grey hair. At about 12:15 pm another car came into the area with a white man about 25 to 35 years old driving. This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car. Just a few minutes after this car left at 12:20 pm another car pulled in. This car was a 1961 Chevrolet, Impala, 4 door, am not sure that this was a 4 door, color white and dirty up to the windows. This car also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker. This car was driven by a white male about 25 to 35 years old with long blond hair. He stayed in the area longer than the others. This car also had the XXX [strikeout] same type license plates as the 1959 Oldsmobile. He left this area about 12:25 pm. About 8 or 10 minutes after he left I heard at least 3 shots very close together. Just after the shots the area became crowded with people coming from Elm Street and the slope just north of Elm.
/s/ Lee E. Bowers Jr.
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Nowhere in this statement, made within hours of the shooting, does Bowers say or suggest that he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll or shooting the president. Wouldn’t you think that would be an important fact to note had it actually happened?
Five months later, on April 2, 1964, Bowers testified before the Warren Commission, and gave essentially the same testimony he gave police on November 22 – all about three suspicious cars that circled the railroad parking shortly before the shooting. In addition, Bowers provided information about several people standing in the vicinity of the stockade fence. Here is the relevant exchange:
Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
As I noted in my report on the “Badge Man” image, Bowers places the two men in an area that was "directly in line" with his view of the "mouth of the underpass," which, of course, would have been the area on the west end of the stockade fence, opposite the end where conspiracy theorists place Kennedy’s assassin(s).
Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?
Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
It would appear that the two men Bowers was referring to were not accomplices but were simply eyewitnesses who happened to be in close proximity to each other. In fact, over the next few moments, Bowers told Warren Commission counsel Joseph A. Ball that there were a number of eyewitnesses, including police officers, standing on the Triple Overpass nearby. Bowers also described one or two uniformed custodians (one whom he knew) standing in the parking lot a slight distance back from the fence area.
Mr. BALL - When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?
Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.
The area Bowers is now describing is at the east end of the stockade fence, the area opposite the place where he described two men, but the very area that some conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired from behind the fence.
Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?
Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Bowers was under the impression that the motorcycle officer, Clyde A. Haygood, shot all the way up the incline on his motorbike, however, Bowers could not see the south side (or front side) of the fence. Had he been able to see the south side of the fence he would have reported what numerous films and photographs show [See: Trask, Richard B., “Picture of the Pain,” pp.175, 210-11, 333-34, 405, 427] – the motorcycle officer dumped his bike at the foot of Elm street and ran up the incline toward the west end of the fence where photographs show him standing. Bowers described his arrival at the west end of the stockade fence:
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---
So here, we have confirmation that the two men Bowers described earlier were standing at the west end of the stockade fence – where Haygood ran to – and not at the east end where some conspiracy buffs claim two men were shooting at Kennedy.
Where, in any of this testimony, does Bowers claim he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence shooting at the president?
Asked about the moment of the shots, the following exchange took place:
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Bowers explained that having worked in the “same tower for some 10 or 12 years” it was his experience that sounds originating from either location had a similarity in sound. Once again, no mention of seeing or hearing anyone firing at the president from behind the stockade fence – which would have been in clear view from the railroad tower.
And for those that think Bowers had more to say but was cut off by Mr. Ball (as Mark Lane later alleged), there is this final exchange:
Mr. BALL - I believe you have talked this over with me before your deposition was taken, haven't we?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
Mr. BALL - Now, this will be reduced to writing, and you can sign it, look it over and sign it, or waive your signature if you wish. What do you wish?
Mr. BOWERS - I have no reason to sign it unless you want me to.
Mr. BALL - Would you just as leave waive the signature?
Mr. BOWERS - Fine.
Mr. BALL - Then we thank you very much.
And so, Lee Bowers walked off into history. But, not quite.
In 1966, Bowers resurfaced in the Mark Lane/ Emile De Antonio film “Rush to Judgment,” based on Lane’s best-selling book. In an on-camera and heavily edited interview, the following exchange occurs between Mark Lane and Lee Bowers:
BOWERS: At the time of the shooting in the vicinity of where these two men that I have described were [on camera, the audience is looking at an aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza, with white ‘X’ marking the east end of the stockade fence] there was a flash of light or there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. What this was I could not say at that time and at this time I could not identify it other than there was some unusual occurrence – a flash of light or smoke or something - which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.
LANE: In reading your testimony Mr. Bowers it appears that just as you were about to make that statement you were interrupted in the middle of the sentence by the Commission counsel who then went into another area.
BOWERS: Ah, well, ah - well – that’s correct. I was there only to tell them what they asked so that when they seemed to want to cut off the conversation I felt like that was as far as I was concerned that was the end of it.
LANE: Mr. Bowers, how many shots did you hear?
BOWERS: There were three shots and these were spaced with one shot then a pause and then two shots in very close order. Such as perhaps [knocking his knuckles against the desk] Knock, Knock-Knock. Almost on top of each other while there was some pause between the first and the second shots.
LANE: Did you tell that to the Dallas police?
BOWERS: Yes, I told this to the police, and then also told it to the FBI and then also I had the discussion two or three days later with them concerning this. And they made no comment other than the fact that when I say I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle they reminded me that I wasn’t an expert and I had to agree.
In neither the film nor Lane’s book, is it ever explained that Bowers was describing two men standing “in a direct line” with mouth of the Overpass, which is what Bowers said during testimony before the Warren Commission.
In his book, Lane only says that the two men were standing “near the fence,” although surely Lane had to know where Bowers actually placed them. In his film too, Lane carefully skirts this issue, never asking Bowers to describe their exact position. Instead, in an obvious deception perpetrated on the audience, Lane cuts away from Bowers and shows an aerial photograph of the fence and a white ‘X’ marking the east corner of the stockade fence (opposite the location Bowers actually testified about). Quite obviously, Lane wanted his viewers to believe that Bowers was talking about the east corner of the stockade fence. He wasn’t – as his Warren Commission testimony shows.
As for Bowers’ response to Lane’s suggestion that the Warren Commission counsel Joseph A. Ball cut off Bowers before he could give crucial information about the shooting, we are treated to Bowers’ half-baked claim that he was only there to testify about what they asked and not volunteer addition information. Really? So, unless the Warren Commission counsel asked Bowers the right question, by God, he wasn’t going to tell them about it – even though he knew they were charged with investigating the President’s death and he was under oath to tell the truth for the purpose of helping, rather than hindering, their investigation? What a load of crap. How then does Bowers explain his response to Ball when asked:
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
I can remember nothing else. Nothing else? Either Bowers is telling the truth (i.e., he really didn’t have anything else of relevance to offer) or he is a liar. What do the conspiracy theorists believe? Is Bowers telling the truth or is he a liar?
On October 25, 1988, Central Independent Television, a British commercial network, broadcast Nigel Turner's two part documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Part two of the documentary, "Forces of Darkness," featured the work of Gary Mack, a conspiracy theorist and Coverups! newsletter editor, and Jack White, an advertising photo technician, and the three alleged figures identified as Badge Man, Hard Hat Man, and Gordon Arnold, which Mack and White claimed appeared in a photograph taken by Mary Moorman. [See: “Badge Man: A Photogrammetric Analysis of Moorman Photograph No.5 of the JFK Assassination” for a complete analysis.]
The program offered Mack and White's work as “convincing evidence of a gunman up on the grassy knoll,” and put great emphasis on the recollections of Gordon Arnold, deaf-mute Ed Hoffman, and the testimony of Lee Bowers as corroboration for the three figures discovered by Mack and White.
Mack had this to say about Bowers during the program:
MACK: “...And he testified to the Warren Commission and told them that - when Kennedy appeared in Dealey Plaza there were two men behind the fence that he could see. And these two men were in this one position the whole time before, during, and after the shooting.”
The phrase “this position” refers to the location of Badge Man at the east end of the stockade fence, but where and when did Bowers ever say that?
According to Mack, his source was a series of unreleased transcripts of the filmed interviews conducted by Mark Lane and Emile De Antonio for the 1966 film Rush to Judgment. Mack learned of the existence of the transcripts during the research phase of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and had obtained copies.
While the transcripts make it clear that the two men Bowers told the Warren Commission about in 1964 were in fact standing at the east end of the stockade fence, just as Mack stated in The Men Who Killed Kennedy – a fact, by the way, that is diametrically opposed to what Bowers told the Commission – the transcripts also make it clear that the two men were not suspicious individuals standing behind the stockade fence in the alleged Badge Man position but were eyewitnesses standing in front of the fence in full view of everyone in Dealey Plaza. More importantly, Bowers specifically says – in a portion edited out of the film - that no one was standing behind the fence.
I presented that unedited exchange in the “Badge Man” report. Here it is again:
LANE: "Mr. Bowers, did you see any pedestrians at any time between your tower and Elm Street that day?"
BOWERS: "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park. And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area. And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..." [emphasis added]
As I wrote in my earlier report on this subject, Bowers' statement that one of the men disappeared behind a wooden fence is highly significant when one realizes that Lee Bowers had a clear view of the north side of the stockade fence - both the east-west and north-south extensions. This fact has been known since the publication of the Warren Report in 1964 [24H548-CE2118(A)] and again in 1967, when Josiah Thompson published a photograph of the stockade fence area, as seen from Bowers' railroad tower, in his book Six Seconds in Dallas.
The only way the two men could have disappeared from Bowers’ point-of-view is if they were standing on the south side of the stockade fence, between the fence and Elm Street, not crouching on the north side of the fence getting ready to shoot the president. In other words, the fence was between Bowers and the two men, thus blocking his view of them as they walked back and forth.
Bowers later reiterated that other than the two men he described "standing back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline," which we now know to be in front of the east end of the stockade fence, there were no strangers in the area:
BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."
And there is absolutely no question that Bowers is referring here to the area behind the stockade fence, the very location where Mack and White claim two of the three figures they see in the Moorman photograph (i.e., Badge Man and Hard Hat Man) were standing. In a later exchange Bowers makes this point crystal clear:
BOWERS: "Now I could see back, or the South side, of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
Here, we can see that Bowers spells it right out - there was no one behind the fence at the time the shots were fired.
What do the conspiracy theorists on the two assassination newsgroups have to say about all this? As you might imagine, they have managed to take Bowers explicit testimony to new levels of silliness.
According to Bill Miller, the most vocal conspiracy theorist in the debate, “...Bowers said that there was no one there on the south side of the fence that could have been an assassin or an accomplice, and Lee Bowers was correct as supported by the assassination films and photographs.”
But Miller must know that what Bowers said was that he could see the back side of the fence, regardless of whether that back side faced north or south. The back side of the fence – not the front side.
What is so hard to understand? This is so simple, I can’t believe that I have to explain it; but here goes: The back of the stockade fence faced north, the front of it faced south – that was the side facing Elm Street. Yes, Bowers referred to the back of the fence as “the south side,” but surely that was a misstatement of fact. Bowers couldn’t possibly have meant that he could see the side of the fence facing away from him (the south side), could he?
Well, guess what? That’s exactly what the conspiracy folks believe – Lee Bowers had a clear view of the side of the fence facing away from him. Really. I’m not joking. How’s that for reality?
Conspiracy advocate Bill Miller has gone so far as to say that, “What Bowers was saying to most everyone else who has ever read his testimony was that he could see over the top of the fence from his elevated view [Editor’s note: Bower’s was fourteen feet in the air, and several hundred feet north of the fence line] and there was no one standing on the SOUTH side of the fence that could have been an accomplice to the men he saw standing on the RR yard side of the fence.”
Bowers’ elevated position in the railroad tower allowed him to see the south side of the fence? The side facing away from him? Common sense and fifth grade arithmetic proves that notion to be false.
Yet, according to Miller, he has it all figured out, thanks to guys like Gary Mack, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden, Nigel Turner, Oliver Stone and a whole list of other “truthsayers”.
Of course, there’s two sides to every fence – er – story, {grin} and here’s the conspiracy take on the issue:
Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum and principle source for the notion that Bower’s testimony supports the idea of a grassy knoll gunman, writes, "I don't need others to interpret for me what Lee Bowers said vs. what Lee Bowers meant. I can read, and I have also interviewed two people who interviewed him extensively: filmmaker Emile de Antonio and researcher Jones Harris. de Antonio was the producer/director of the film ‘Rush To Judgment.’ De, as he was called by his friends, told me directly that, without question, the most credible person he and Mark Lane interviewed for their documentary was Lee Bowers. De remembered vividly how Bowers described the events and what he saw before, during and after the assassination. There were two men behind the fence near the east corner. That was one of the main reasons Bowers appeared in the film.”
”Furthermore,” Mack wrote, “Bowers had worked for years in that railroad tower and he certainly knew which side of the fence was north and which was south. When Bowers said, ‘Now I could see back, or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously there was no one there who could have had anything to do with either, as accomplice or anything else, because there was no one there at the moment that the shots were fired,’ he was clearly saying that there was no one on the south (Elm Street) side of the fence. And he was right - there wasn't! There were two men standing with groundskeeper Emmett Hudson and all three were on the steps a good distance away from the south side of the fence."
How goofy can it get? Does Mack really believe that Bowers could see the south side of the fence – the side facing away from him? Does Mack really believe that Bowers’ would even be talking about what was going on the side of the fence facing away from him when he had a clear, unobstructed view of the side facing toward him?
More important, if Emile de Antonio and Mark Lane really thought Bowers saw two men shooting Kennedy from behind the east corner of the fence, and were convinced – as Mack seems to be – that Bowers’ remark that no one was behind the fence at the time of the shooting actually referred to the side of the fence facing away from him, why in the world did they edit his comment from the final film? Better yet, why didn’t Bowers just flat out say what Lane, de Antonio, and Mack are so convinced he meant – ‘Two men shot Kennedy and I saw them’?
The answer is as obvious as the nose on Pinnochio’s face: Bowers wasn’t talking about the side of the fence facing away from him and consequently the remark about no one being behind the fence was cut from the film because it destroyed the fantasy that Lane and de Antonio were trying to create – that Bowers was an eyewitness to the grass knoll assassin.
If there is any doubt about which side Bowers could see, consider the fact that Bowers mistakenly thought that a police motorcyclist rode part of the way up the incline before abandoning his motorbike. Of course, we know that the police officer, Clyde A. Haygood, actually ran up the incline on foot (a fact captured in film and photographs). Bowers didn’t know that the officer was on foot because he couldn’t see the activity on the south side of the fence, which is obvious to everyone but Mack and his fellow conspiracy theorists.
Since Lee Bowers’ death in December, 1965, when his car ran into a bridge abutment assuring his immortality on the list of mysterious deaths in connection with the Kennedy assassination [see Dave Perry’s excellent article, “Now It Can Be Told: The Lee Bowers Story”], numerous people have come forward to support the Lee Bowers testimony that Bowers never gave.
The Reverend Wilfred Bailey, Bowers’ minister, told researchers, “Lee did discuss that day with me. He said he saw movement behind the fence. He believed something was going on, but he never got more specific than that. He did not share with me any more than he shared with the Warren Commission.”
In 1967 a friend and fellow employee of Bowers, James R. Sterling gave a statement to Gary Sanders of Jim Garrison's staff. Sterling said Bowers “...observed two men running from behind the fence. They ran up to a car parked behind the Pergola, opened the trunk and placed something in it and then closed the trunk. The two men then drove the car away in somewhat of a peculiar method.”
Then there’s Walter Rishel, a self-proclaimed friend of Lee Bowers (the Bowers family doesn’t recall him), who claimed that Bowers told him he saw two men fire shots from the picket fence, but was afraid to speak out.
Yea, sure. While associates of Bowers claim he told them precisely what he saw that day in Dallas, Bowers himself never described anything remotely close to these flights of fantasy.
Even today’s conspiracy theorists continue to claim that Bowers was afraid to tell the truth – afraid for his family – which is why, they claim, Bowers didn’t tell authorities what he knew.
For instance, in response to one of conspiracy theorist Bill Miller’s postings about Bowers on her own assassination forum, administrator Debra Conway wrote, “I interviewed the supervisor for the railroad yard and Bowers’ boss's superior. He told us that Bowers told him and his direct boss that he did see the two men BEHIND THE FENCE and he thought at least one of them was shooting. He said he didn't go further with it because he was afraid. He didn't want his life threatened or ruined being the main witness against Lee Oswald being the lone shooter. This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories.”
Really? If Bowers was truly afraid for his own life and that of his family, then, why on earth would Bowers tell police that he saw three suspicious vehicles circling the parking lot behind the stockade fence? Wasn’t Bowers afraid that one of these three vehicles might have been involved in the killing? And why in heaven would Bowers, if he was truly fearful for his life and that of his family, appear on camera in a documentary film that would be seen by millions around the world? Didn’t it occur to him that Kennedy’s killers could now put a face to the name of the man who could identify them? And if Bowers was no longer afraid by 1966 (which might explain to some why he agreed to appear on camera), why in the devil didn’t he tell Mark Lane all about the two men shooting Kennedy from behind the fence, instead of the vague “something” that he couldn’t quite identify?
It just doesn’t add up – except of course for the legions of gullible conspiracy advocates who, for reasons only they know, feel the need to perpetuate a lot of B-U Double-L.
The fact remains, Lee Bowers had three chances to tell what he knew about November 22, 1963, before his untimely, sudden, and tragic death in 1966.
I believe the record shows that Lee Bowers, Jr., did tell all he knew, and none of his testimony includes two men shooting at Kennedy from behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll, no matter how bad the conspiracy theorists wish it were so, and no matter which side of the fence you think he could see.
No interpretation necessary.
END
For nearly a month now, a small group of conspiracy theorists have been cluttering up two assassination forums with a discussion over the merits of eyewitness Lee Bowers, Jr.’s alleged testimony that he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll, the long suspect source of the fatal shot – according to conspiracy buffs.
I say “alleged” because as I pointed out in the ‘Testimony’ section of “Badge Man: A Photogrammetric Analysis of Moorman Photograph No.5 of the JFK Assassination,” Bowers actually said that no one was behind the fence shooting at the president.
In the last few weeks, several frequent posters on two assassination newsgroups – Debra Conway’s JFK/Lancer Forum and John Simkin’s U.K. Educational Forum – have been having a war of words over what Lee Bowers said and what he meant.
What’s it all about? Here’s the complete statement Lee Bowers, a railroad worker stationed in the switching tower located several hundred feet north of and behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll, gave police on the afternoon of November 22, 1963:
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lee E. Bowers, Jr., w/m/38 of 10508 Maplegrove Lane, Dallas, Texas DA-1-1909 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
I work at North Tower Union Terminal Co. RI-8-4698 7 am to 3 pm Monday thru [sic] Friday. The tower where I work is West and a little north of the Texas Book Depository Building. I was on duty today and about 11:55 am I saw a dirty 1959 Oldsmobile Station Wagon come down the street toward my building. This street dead ends in the railroad yard. This car had out of state license plats with white background and black numbers, no letters. It also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker in the rear window. This car just drove around slowly and left the area. It was occupied by a middle aged white man partly grey hair. At about 12:15 pm another car came into the area with a white man about 25 to 35 years old driving. This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car. Just a few minutes after this car left at 12:20 pm another car pulled in. This car was a 1961 Chevrolet, Impala, 4 door, am not sure that this was a 4 door, color white and dirty up to the windows. This car also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker. This car was driven by a white male about 25 to 35 years old with long blond hair. He stayed in the area longer than the others. This car also had the XXX [strikeout] same type license plates as the 1959 Oldsmobile. He left this area about 12:25 pm. About 8 or 10 minutes after he left I heard at least 3 shots very close together. Just after the shots the area became crowded with people coming from Elm Street and the slope just north of Elm.
/s/ Lee E. Bowers Jr.
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Nowhere in this statement, made within hours of the shooting, does Bowers say or suggest that he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll or shooting the president. Wouldn’t you think that would be an important fact to note had it actually happened?
Five months later, on April 2, 1964, Bowers testified before the Warren Commission, and gave essentially the same testimony he gave police on November 22 – all about three suspicious cars that circled the railroad parking shortly before the shooting. In addition, Bowers provided information about several people standing in the vicinity of the stockade fence. Here is the relevant exchange:
Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
As I noted in my report on the “Badge Man” image, Bowers places the two men in an area that was "directly in line" with his view of the "mouth of the underpass," which, of course, would have been the area on the west end of the stockade fence, opposite the end where conspiracy theorists place Kennedy’s assassin(s).
Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?
Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
It would appear that the two men Bowers was referring to were not accomplices but were simply eyewitnesses who happened to be in close proximity to each other. In fact, over the next few moments, Bowers told Warren Commission counsel Joseph A. Ball that there were a number of eyewitnesses, including police officers, standing on the Triple Overpass nearby. Bowers also described one or two uniformed custodians (one whom he knew) standing in the parking lot a slight distance back from the fence area.
Mr. BALL - When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?
Mr. BOWERS - At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.
The area Bowers is now describing is at the east end of the stockade fence, the area opposite the place where he described two men, but the very area that some conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired from behind the fence.
Mr. BALL - And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?
Mr. BOWERS - No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Bowers was under the impression that the motorcycle officer, Clyde A. Haygood, shot all the way up the incline on his motorbike, however, Bowers could not see the south side (or front side) of the fence. Had he been able to see the south side of the fence he would have reported what numerous films and photographs show [See: Trask, Richard B., “Picture of the Pain,” pp.175, 210-11, 333-34, 405, 427] – the motorcycle officer dumped his bike at the foot of Elm street and ran up the incline toward the west end of the fence where photographs show him standing. Bowers described his arrival at the west end of the stockade fence:
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---
So here, we have confirmation that the two men Bowers described earlier were standing at the west end of the stockade fence – where Haygood ran to – and not at the east end where some conspiracy buffs claim two men were shooting at Kennedy.
Where, in any of this testimony, does Bowers claim he saw two men standing behind the stockade fence shooting at the president?
Asked about the moment of the shots, the following exchange took place:
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Bowers explained that having worked in the “same tower for some 10 or 12 years” it was his experience that sounds originating from either location had a similarity in sound. Once again, no mention of seeing or hearing anyone firing at the president from behind the stockade fence – which would have been in clear view from the railroad tower.
And for those that think Bowers had more to say but was cut off by Mr. Ball (as Mark Lane later alleged), there is this final exchange:
Mr. BALL - I believe you have talked this over with me before your deposition was taken, haven't we?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
Mr. BALL - Now, this will be reduced to writing, and you can sign it, look it over and sign it, or waive your signature if you wish. What do you wish?
Mr. BOWERS - I have no reason to sign it unless you want me to.
Mr. BALL - Would you just as leave waive the signature?
Mr. BOWERS - Fine.
Mr. BALL - Then we thank you very much.
And so, Lee Bowers walked off into history. But, not quite.
In 1966, Bowers resurfaced in the Mark Lane/ Emile De Antonio film “Rush to Judgment,” based on Lane’s best-selling book. In an on-camera and heavily edited interview, the following exchange occurs between Mark Lane and Lee Bowers:
BOWERS: At the time of the shooting in the vicinity of where these two men that I have described were [on camera, the audience is looking at an aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza, with white ‘X’ marking the east end of the stockade fence] there was a flash of light or there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. What this was I could not say at that time and at this time I could not identify it other than there was some unusual occurrence – a flash of light or smoke or something - which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.
LANE: In reading your testimony Mr. Bowers it appears that just as you were about to make that statement you were interrupted in the middle of the sentence by the Commission counsel who then went into another area.
BOWERS: Ah, well, ah - well – that’s correct. I was there only to tell them what they asked so that when they seemed to want to cut off the conversation I felt like that was as far as I was concerned that was the end of it.
LANE: Mr. Bowers, how many shots did you hear?
BOWERS: There were three shots and these were spaced with one shot then a pause and then two shots in very close order. Such as perhaps [knocking his knuckles against the desk] Knock, Knock-Knock. Almost on top of each other while there was some pause between the first and the second shots.
LANE: Did you tell that to the Dallas police?
BOWERS: Yes, I told this to the police, and then also told it to the FBI and then also I had the discussion two or three days later with them concerning this. And they made no comment other than the fact that when I say I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle they reminded me that I wasn’t an expert and I had to agree.
In neither the film nor Lane’s book, is it ever explained that Bowers was describing two men standing “in a direct line” with mouth of the Overpass, which is what Bowers said during testimony before the Warren Commission.
In his book, Lane only says that the two men were standing “near the fence,” although surely Lane had to know where Bowers actually placed them. In his film too, Lane carefully skirts this issue, never asking Bowers to describe their exact position. Instead, in an obvious deception perpetrated on the audience, Lane cuts away from Bowers and shows an aerial photograph of the fence and a white ‘X’ marking the east corner of the stockade fence (opposite the location Bowers actually testified about). Quite obviously, Lane wanted his viewers to believe that Bowers was talking about the east corner of the stockade fence. He wasn’t – as his Warren Commission testimony shows.
As for Bowers’ response to Lane’s suggestion that the Warren Commission counsel Joseph A. Ball cut off Bowers before he could give crucial information about the shooting, we are treated to Bowers’ half-baked claim that he was only there to testify about what they asked and not volunteer addition information. Really? So, unless the Warren Commission counsel asked Bowers the right question, by God, he wasn’t going to tell them about it – even though he knew they were charged with investigating the President’s death and he was under oath to tell the truth for the purpose of helping, rather than hindering, their investigation? What a load of crap. How then does Bowers explain his response to Ball when asked:
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
I can remember nothing else. Nothing else? Either Bowers is telling the truth (i.e., he really didn’t have anything else of relevance to offer) or he is a liar. What do the conspiracy theorists believe? Is Bowers telling the truth or is he a liar?
On October 25, 1988, Central Independent Television, a British commercial network, broadcast Nigel Turner's two part documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Part two of the documentary, "Forces of Darkness," featured the work of Gary Mack, a conspiracy theorist and Coverups! newsletter editor, and Jack White, an advertising photo technician, and the three alleged figures identified as Badge Man, Hard Hat Man, and Gordon Arnold, which Mack and White claimed appeared in a photograph taken by Mary Moorman. [See: “Badge Man: A Photogrammetric Analysis of Moorman Photograph No.5 of the JFK Assassination” for a complete analysis.]
The program offered Mack and White's work as “convincing evidence of a gunman up on the grassy knoll,” and put great emphasis on the recollections of Gordon Arnold, deaf-mute Ed Hoffman, and the testimony of Lee Bowers as corroboration for the three figures discovered by Mack and White.
Mack had this to say about Bowers during the program:
MACK: “...And he testified to the Warren Commission and told them that - when Kennedy appeared in Dealey Plaza there were two men behind the fence that he could see. And these two men were in this one position the whole time before, during, and after the shooting.”
The phrase “this position” refers to the location of Badge Man at the east end of the stockade fence, but where and when did Bowers ever say that?
According to Mack, his source was a series of unreleased transcripts of the filmed interviews conducted by Mark Lane and Emile De Antonio for the 1966 film Rush to Judgment. Mack learned of the existence of the transcripts during the research phase of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and had obtained copies.
While the transcripts make it clear that the two men Bowers told the Warren Commission about in 1964 were in fact standing at the east end of the stockade fence, just as Mack stated in The Men Who Killed Kennedy – a fact, by the way, that is diametrically opposed to what Bowers told the Commission – the transcripts also make it clear that the two men were not suspicious individuals standing behind the stockade fence in the alleged Badge Man position but were eyewitnesses standing in front of the fence in full view of everyone in Dealey Plaza. More importantly, Bowers specifically says – in a portion edited out of the film - that no one was standing behind the fence.
I presented that unedited exchange in the “Badge Man” report. Here it is again:
LANE: "Mr. Bowers, did you see any pedestrians at any time between your tower and Elm Street that day?"
BOWERS: "Directly in line - uh - there - of course is - uh - there leading toward the Triple Underpass there is a curved decorative wall - I guess you'd call it - it's not a solid wall but it is part of the - uh - park. And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area. And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence which is also slightly to the west of that. Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting..." [emphasis added]
As I wrote in my earlier report on this subject, Bowers' statement that one of the men disappeared behind a wooden fence is highly significant when one realizes that Lee Bowers had a clear view of the north side of the stockade fence - both the east-west and north-south extensions. This fact has been known since the publication of the Warren Report in 1964 [24H548-CE2118(A)] and again in 1967, when Josiah Thompson published a photograph of the stockade fence area, as seen from Bowers' railroad tower, in his book Six Seconds in Dallas.
The only way the two men could have disappeared from Bowers’ point-of-view is if they were standing on the south side of the stockade fence, between the fence and Elm Street, not crouching on the north side of the fence getting ready to shoot the president. In other words, the fence was between Bowers and the two men, thus blocking his view of them as they walked back and forth.
Bowers later reiterated that other than the two men he described "standing back from the street somewhat, at the top of the incline," which we now know to be in front of the east end of the stockade fence, there were no strangers in the area:
BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."
And there is absolutely no question that Bowers is referring here to the area behind the stockade fence, the very location where Mack and White claim two of the three figures they see in the Moorman photograph (i.e., Badge Man and Hard Hat Man) were standing. In a later exchange Bowers makes this point crystal clear:
BOWERS: "Now I could see back, or the South side, of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
Here, we can see that Bowers spells it right out - there was no one behind the fence at the time the shots were fired.
What do the conspiracy theorists on the two assassination newsgroups have to say about all this? As you might imagine, they have managed to take Bowers explicit testimony to new levels of silliness.
According to Bill Miller, the most vocal conspiracy theorist in the debate, “...Bowers said that there was no one there on the south side of the fence that could have been an assassin or an accomplice, and Lee Bowers was correct as supported by the assassination films and photographs.”
But Miller must know that what Bowers said was that he could see the back side of the fence, regardless of whether that back side faced north or south. The back side of the fence – not the front side.
What is so hard to understand? This is so simple, I can’t believe that I have to explain it; but here goes: The back of the stockade fence faced north, the front of it faced south – that was the side facing Elm Street. Yes, Bowers referred to the back of the fence as “the south side,” but surely that was a misstatement of fact. Bowers couldn’t possibly have meant that he could see the side of the fence facing away from him (the south side), could he?
Well, guess what? That’s exactly what the conspiracy folks believe – Lee Bowers had a clear view of the side of the fence facing away from him. Really. I’m not joking. How’s that for reality?
Conspiracy advocate Bill Miller has gone so far as to say that, “What Bowers was saying to most everyone else who has ever read his testimony was that he could see over the top of the fence from his elevated view [Editor’s note: Bower’s was fourteen feet in the air, and several hundred feet north of the fence line] and there was no one standing on the SOUTH side of the fence that could have been an accomplice to the men he saw standing on the RR yard side of the fence.”
Bowers’ elevated position in the railroad tower allowed him to see the south side of the fence? The side facing away from him? Common sense and fifth grade arithmetic proves that notion to be false.
Yet, according to Miller, he has it all figured out, thanks to guys like Gary Mack, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden, Nigel Turner, Oliver Stone and a whole list of other “truthsayers”.
Of course, there’s two sides to every fence – er – story, {grin} and here’s the conspiracy take on the issue:
Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum and principle source for the notion that Bower’s testimony supports the idea of a grassy knoll gunman, writes, "I don't need others to interpret for me what Lee Bowers said vs. what Lee Bowers meant. I can read, and I have also interviewed two people who interviewed him extensively: filmmaker Emile de Antonio and researcher Jones Harris. de Antonio was the producer/director of the film ‘Rush To Judgment.’ De, as he was called by his friends, told me directly that, without question, the most credible person he and Mark Lane interviewed for their documentary was Lee Bowers. De remembered vividly how Bowers described the events and what he saw before, during and after the assassination. There were two men behind the fence near the east corner. That was one of the main reasons Bowers appeared in the film.”
”Furthermore,” Mack wrote, “Bowers had worked for years in that railroad tower and he certainly knew which side of the fence was north and which was south. When Bowers said, ‘Now I could see back, or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously there was no one there who could have had anything to do with either, as accomplice or anything else, because there was no one there at the moment that the shots were fired,’ he was clearly saying that there was no one on the south (Elm Street) side of the fence. And he was right - there wasn't! There were two men standing with groundskeeper Emmett Hudson and all three were on the steps a good distance away from the south side of the fence."
How goofy can it get? Does Mack really believe that Bowers could see the south side of the fence – the side facing away from him? Does Mack really believe that Bowers’ would even be talking about what was going on the side of the fence facing away from him when he had a clear, unobstructed view of the side facing toward him?
More important, if Emile de Antonio and Mark Lane really thought Bowers saw two men shooting Kennedy from behind the east corner of the fence, and were convinced – as Mack seems to be – that Bowers’ remark that no one was behind the fence at the time of the shooting actually referred to the side of the fence facing away from him, why in the world did they edit his comment from the final film? Better yet, why didn’t Bowers just flat out say what Lane, de Antonio, and Mack are so convinced he meant – ‘Two men shot Kennedy and I saw them’?
The answer is as obvious as the nose on Pinnochio’s face: Bowers wasn’t talking about the side of the fence facing away from him and consequently the remark about no one being behind the fence was cut from the film because it destroyed the fantasy that Lane and de Antonio were trying to create – that Bowers was an eyewitness to the grass knoll assassin.
If there is any doubt about which side Bowers could see, consider the fact that Bowers mistakenly thought that a police motorcyclist rode part of the way up the incline before abandoning his motorbike. Of course, we know that the police officer, Clyde A. Haygood, actually ran up the incline on foot (a fact captured in film and photographs). Bowers didn’t know that the officer was on foot because he couldn’t see the activity on the south side of the fence, which is obvious to everyone but Mack and his fellow conspiracy theorists.
Since Lee Bowers’ death in December, 1965, when his car ran into a bridge abutment assuring his immortality on the list of mysterious deaths in connection with the Kennedy assassination [see Dave Perry’s excellent article, “Now It Can Be Told: The Lee Bowers Story”], numerous people have come forward to support the Lee Bowers testimony that Bowers never gave.
The Reverend Wilfred Bailey, Bowers’ minister, told researchers, “Lee did discuss that day with me. He said he saw movement behind the fence. He believed something was going on, but he never got more specific than that. He did not share with me any more than he shared with the Warren Commission.”
In 1967 a friend and fellow employee of Bowers, James R. Sterling gave a statement to Gary Sanders of Jim Garrison's staff. Sterling said Bowers “...observed two men running from behind the fence. They ran up to a car parked behind the Pergola, opened the trunk and placed something in it and then closed the trunk. The two men then drove the car away in somewhat of a peculiar method.”
Then there’s Walter Rishel, a self-proclaimed friend of Lee Bowers (the Bowers family doesn’t recall him), who claimed that Bowers told him he saw two men fire shots from the picket fence, but was afraid to speak out.
Yea, sure. While associates of Bowers claim he told them precisely what he saw that day in Dallas, Bowers himself never described anything remotely close to these flights of fantasy.
Even today’s conspiracy theorists continue to claim that Bowers was afraid to tell the truth – afraid for his family – which is why, they claim, Bowers didn’t tell authorities what he knew.
For instance, in response to one of conspiracy theorist Bill Miller’s postings about Bowers on her own assassination forum, administrator Debra Conway wrote, “I interviewed the supervisor for the railroad yard and Bowers’ boss's superior. He told us that Bowers told him and his direct boss that he did see the two men BEHIND THE FENCE and he thought at least one of them was shooting. He said he didn't go further with it because he was afraid. He didn't want his life threatened or ruined being the main witness against Lee Oswald being the lone shooter. This information, as Gary Mack stated, has long been known and ignored by those who wish to change Bowers' statements to suit their own theories.”
Really? If Bowers was truly afraid for his own life and that of his family, then, why on earth would Bowers tell police that he saw three suspicious vehicles circling the parking lot behind the stockade fence? Wasn’t Bowers afraid that one of these three vehicles might have been involved in the killing? And why in heaven would Bowers, if he was truly fearful for his life and that of his family, appear on camera in a documentary film that would be seen by millions around the world? Didn’t it occur to him that Kennedy’s killers could now put a face to the name of the man who could identify them? And if Bowers was no longer afraid by 1966 (which might explain to some why he agreed to appear on camera), why in the devil didn’t he tell Mark Lane all about the two men shooting Kennedy from behind the fence, instead of the vague “something” that he couldn’t quite identify?
It just doesn’t add up – except of course for the legions of gullible conspiracy advocates who, for reasons only they know, feel the need to perpetuate a lot of B-U Double-L.
The fact remains, Lee Bowers had three chances to tell what he knew about November 22, 1963, before his untimely, sudden, and tragic death in 1966.
I believe the record shows that Lee Bowers, Jr., did tell all he knew, and none of his testimony includes two men shooting at Kennedy from behind the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll, no matter how bad the conspiracy theorists wish it were so, and no matter which side of the fence you think he could see.
No interpretation necessary.
END
Posts
8 comments:
In re Lee Bowers and the men at the fence: after reading the article and Lee Bowers' statement, it seems to me that Bowers was describing two different pairs of men. The men in his line of sight to the triple underpass are on the west portion of the fence. He doesn't specifically say which side of the fence they were on, but by his ability to describe them down to the pants they wore, I'd say it's more likely that they were on the north side of the fence. I would think that if Bowers was able to see enough on the south side of the fence to be able to make such a description, he'd have been able to determine that Officer Haygood had run, not driven, up the knoll. I note that Haygood's reponse was to the very area where these men were located. Additionally, the fact that the two men were maybe 15 feet apart does not mean, necessarily, that they were innocent bystanders. That doesn't mean that they were shooters either. If they were some kind of back-up/security for a shooter, the standing apart would only be a means of widening their coverage and seeming to be unconnected with each other. That's IF they were involved in some way. The other pair of men were described by Bowers in reference to a question about what "pedestrians" he saw. Bowers response was about two men standing back from the street and towards the top of the knoll. But he located these men with reference to the west pergola, which is fairly well to the east of the first pair of men that he described. It would have been an easy walk for one of the men, as he said, to walk from his location jn front of the fence to a position behind the fence, apparently more than once. From the position where he seems to locate them south of the fence, it's an easy walk to the nearby steps that run between the west pergola and the fence, up the steps, and around the corner to a position behind the fence. Two men in his line of sight to the underpass, very likely on the north side of the fence; two men on the south side of the fence and near the pergola (and east of the first pair of men), one of whom apparently nakes more than one trip from the south side of the fence to the north side. Two different pairs of men, I think.
Lee Bowers told his brother that he was afraid to tell the police exactly what he saw. He saw men get out of the car removing what looked like shotguns. He said he told the fbi that he thought shots came from behind the fence and was interrupted and told that "he wasn't a expert". You can actually watch the video of him saying this. He said it!! He saw a puff of smoke after the shots behind the fence.
After his death, a witness said they saw a black car run him off the road. The last person he spoke to was the medic in the ambulance who said he seemed "drugged" and out of it.
When looking at a situation, you have to take everything into consideration. Rose Cheramie told a doctor in the hospital 3 days before that she was with the men who were talking about killing the president. 3 DAYS BEFORE!!! The fact that she was high at the time doesn't make her a liar. Many people who were there that day lost their lives a few years after. This is a problem. An intelligent person looking at this has no choice but to laugh at how easily manipulated people can be. It's really sad. The public will never really know why the president was killed but anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together must conclude that there was another gunman (or gunmen) involved.
Repeating the same old tired conspiracy myths, Anonymous, doesn't make them more true.
Mr. Myers- It appears Bowers said two men were standing in front of the picket fence on the grassy side of the knoll. One man "disappeared" while the other stood in position during and after the shooting. Are there any photographs or films taken from across Elm depicting these two men, or the one man Bowers saw still standing in front of the fence after the assassination?
Look for the three men standing on the walkway leading down from the stone wall near the grassy knoll in the Marie Muchmore film. This is the only area on the south side of the fence that Bowers could have seen.
I was always puzzled by Bower saying he saw some commotion occurring in the parking area (from the movie JFK) until I actually read the official testimony. It's nothing like it's meant to represent in the movie. From then I realized conspiracy buffs liked to pick facts that would 'support' their case but not use them in context. Your work is important because it tries to set things right.
Eugene Boone talked to Bowers immediately after the shooting and Bowers saw nothing unusual at the time.....Boone states this in his 2014 interview with the Sixth Floor Museum.
And "anonymous" doesn't make them more false, either. What a Stupid comment! The identity of the commenter has NOTHING to do with the validity of the statement.
Post a Comment