BOWERS VERY LIMITED VIEW FROM THE TOWER.

[Chris Davidson]

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Bowers recounts the FBI telling him ( "reminding" ) him that "he wasn't an expert" regards him telling them his belief that the second and third shots could not have come from the same rifle. Their interrupting him and his account with a credibility discounting charge that he was no expert, was an act of intimidation. Bowers didn't argue their charge. In fact he felt compelled to say back to them ... " I agree." What person being interviewed by the FBI regards their involvement in one of the most important eyewitness aspects of the most important and scary historical event of the 20th century and being condescendingly "countered and corrected" by them wouldn't feel intimidated? Bowers knew he had limits to what he could and could not say in interviews with official government agencies. Bowers knew their questioning of him revealed they didn't trust him and his version of what he saw and thought that day.

 

Bowers was consistent in his recollections of the shot sequence. This was consistent with what others remembered, and is  at odds with the WC's scenario. But he did not claim he saw men behind the fence or that he thought the shots were fired from behind the fence. This was Lane's mis-representation of what he said. 

Now, was Lane deliberately lying about all this? I suspect not. He was sifting through tons of statements and interviews in a desperate search to prove the Warren Commission in error--to prove they had made a rush to judgment. He was not particularly interested in the truth. His intent was always to throw mud at the wall, and hope some of it sticks, so that the man he thought of as his client, Oswald, would get a fair trial. He cherry-picked some of Bowers' statements and threw them at the wall. They stuck. But they gradually slid down the wall. 

I had a chance to talk to Lane about his approach while waiting for a shuttle to a party at Cyril Wecht's house. We talked for about ten minutes. I asked him whether he believed Marita Lorenz's testimony--when she implicated Hunt. He gave me lawyerese. He said the issue was not whether he believed it or not, but whether the jury might believe her--that if he thought the jury might believe her he had an obligation to his client to put her under oath. He said further that she had been used as an informant by intelligence agencies, and if they thought she was a reliable source then he could not use his own opinion of her to prevent a jury from hearing from her. The implication was clear. He didn't believe her but he didn't not believe her. He simply saw her as a means to an end. He felt the same about Bowers, IMO. 

 

Edited September 15 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

CD--Interesting photos.

I think a consensus is if there was a gunman behind the wooden fence, he was near the junction of the fences.

There is still the outstanding problem that Bowers, in his 11/22 affidavit, mentioned no men with guns behind the fence.

If Bowers had seen armed men behind the fence on 11/22, his affidavit contains glaring omissions and is inexplicable.

[Karl Kinaski]

Activity behind the fence was seen at least from four different directions. Ed Hoffmann saw it all. 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

29 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Activity behind the fence was seen at least from four different directions. Ed Hoffmann saw it all. 

 

 

 

 

KK-

Yes, Ed Hoffman says he saw it all. But he waited until 1967 to say so. 

Like many witnesses, including those of Bowers, his story evolved. 

That makes me uncomfortable. 

 

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 

57 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

KK-

Yes, Ed Hoffman says he saw it all. But he waited until 1967 to say so. 

Like many witnesses, including those of Bowers, his story evolved. 

That makes me uncomfortable. 

 

 

No need to feel uncomfortable.

Quotes from the book BEYOND THE FENCELINE, by Casey J. Quinlan and BrianK. Edwards (2008): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

No need to feel uncomfortable.

Quotes from the book BEYOND THE FENCELINE, by Casey J. Quinlan and BrianK. Edwards (2008): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your comments. 

This is another one of those mysteries regarding JFKA witnesses. 

Why didn't Ed Hoffman's father have him write down, in clear English, what he (Ed) saw on 11/22, and deliver the letter confidentially to his (the father's) brother, who was on the DPD? 

That seems like the minimum civic obligation, given the gravity of the event. 

Maybe Bowers, and Hoffman, and others unknown saw armed men behind the wooden fence on 11/22, and then somehow they did not relate that elementary and basic fact to authorities in a timely fashion, due to fear. 

Although on 11/22 and 11/23, there were no tales of witnesses being rubbed out. That all came later. In fact, the story for public consumption was that LHO was a leftie, loser, loner, someone without confederates who could intimidate witnesses.

Also, it appears Hoffman's version of events evolved over the years, as did Bowers'. 

The FBI pressure on witnesses after 11/24 is inexcusable. But, they didn't bring out blackjacks on errant witnesses. Witnesses needed a little temerity to say what they thought. 

I put Hoffman into the very large "uncertain" file on the JFKA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sean Coleman]

Beverley Oliver? Thought she was filed under ‘C’ for crank…

[Karl Kinaski]

Beverly Oliver: "There was a figure there and there was smoke there." 

 

Edited September 16 by Karl Kinaski

[Joe Bauer]

I always keep in mind Julia Ann Mercer's account of being stuck behind a green utility truck ( air conditioning ) that had apparently stalled and pulled over right below the over-pass end of the grassy knoll on Elm Street as she was driving through Dealey Plaza on her sales job. This was just an hour or two before the JFK motorcade came through.

Her actual signed ( Sheriff's Department ? ) affidavit below:

Right after the assassination, Julia Ann Mercer gave a statement to the FBI:

She was directly behind this truck. She was disturbed upon seeing a younger, thin build man ( with "plaid shirt" and wool pullover head cap ) get out of the truck and walk to the back of the truck and pull out from a tool box what appeared to her to be a gun ( rifle ) carrying case (or bag?) and then walking this up the grassy knoll and not seeing this young man return by the time she was able to get passed the truck. 

Seeing this odd gun removal and illogical walking away with it action ( which upon reflection she found disturbing enough to share with someone else " the Secret Service wasn't very secret.") not long after as she stopped at a diner down the road  and which resulted in her being over-heard by someone who called the authorities who came and took her in for questioning.

Mercer has never been seriously found to be a witness of questionable character.

Her post JFKA bio is quite interesting and of good social standing.

Common sense forces one to consider what Mercer saw and shared to the FBI that day ( or the next two days ) as very possibly connected on at least two key points to several other eye-witness testimonies regards what they saw in the same area next to and above the grassy knoll just before and after the shooting.

Bowers saw a younger thinner man next to the picket fence who was wearing a "plaid shirt." Ed Hoffman said he saw two men passing a broken-down gun ( rifle ) in the same area just seconds after the shooting, etc. 

Let us assume Mercer's recounting of her observation of the younger man taking a gun case out of the back of the stalled green truck and illogically walking away with it to an area oddly away from it ( and that made no sense regards the urgent task at hand to get the stalled truck on it's way ) is true. 

Just all an unrelated coincidence?  Grassy knoll rifle movement, plaid shirt, a man sitting behind the steering wheel of the stalled truck who Mercer picked out of photo's the FBI presented to Mercer as Jack Ruby?

The FBI took Mercer and her story seriously enough to call her in for questioning and to have her sign an affidavit. And affidavit that was signed by a notary which Mercer told Jim Garrison "was not present" when she gave it? And signed with a signature that was not hers?

Please.

 

 

Edited September 16 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

I always keep in mind Julia Ann Mercer's account of being stuck behind a green utility truck ( air conditioning ) that had apparently stalled and pulled over right below the over-pass end of the grassy knoll on Elm Street as she was driving through Dealey Plaza on her sales job. This was just an hour or two before the JFK motorcade came through.

Her actual signed ( Sheriff's Department ? ) affidavit below:

Right after the assassination, Julia Ann Mercer gave a statement to the FBI:

She was directly behind this truck. She was disturbed upon seeing a younger, thin build man ( with "plaid shirt" and wool pullover head cap ) get out of the truck and walk to the back of the truck and pull out from a tool box what appeared to her to be a gun ( rifle ) carrying case (or bag?) and then walking this up the grassy knoll and not seeing this young man return by the time she was able to get passed the truck. 

Seeing this odd gun removal and illogical walking away with it action ( which upon reflection she found disturbing enough to share with someone else " the Secret Service wasn't very secret.") not long after as she stopped at a diner down the road  and which resulted in her being over-heard by someone who called the authorities who came and took her in for questioning.

Mercer has never been seriously found to be a witness of questionable character.

Her post JFKA bio is quite interesting and of good social standing.

Common sense forces one to consider what Mercer saw and shared to the FBI that day ( or the next two days ) as very possibly connected on at least two key points to several other eye-witness testimonies regards what they saw in the same area next to and above the grassy knoll just before and after the shooting.

Bowers saw a younger thinner man next to the picket fence who was wearing a "plaid shirt." Ed Hoffman said he saw two men passing a broken-down gun ( rifle ) in the same area just seconds after the shooting, etc. 

Let us assume Mercer's recounting of her observation of the younger man taking a gun case out of the back of the stalled green truck and illogically walking away with it to an area oddly away from it ( and that made no sense regards the urgent task at hand to get the stalled truck on it's way ) is true. 

Just all an unrelated coincidence?  Grassy knoll rifle movement, plaid shirt, a man sitting behind the steering wheel of the stalled truck who Mercer picked out of photo's the FBI presented to Mercer as Jack Ruby?

The FBI took Mercer and her story seriously enough to call her in for questioning and to have her sign an affidavit. And affidavit that was signed by a notary which Mercer told Jim Garrison "was not present" when she gave it? And signed with a signature that was not hers?

Please.

 

 

FWIW, a lot of people have looked into Mercer's story and concluded she had pieced together a real event--someone stopping on Elm Street--and mis-remembered it in the aftermath of the shooting. I think it was Larry Hancock who wrote about this decades ago. 

When one thinks about it, moreover, her story makes little sense. There were plenty of ways to get a shooter in place on the knoll without having him parade a rifle around in public. The biggest problem, to me, is her placing Ruby at the scene. In the aftermath of the Oswald shooting all sorts of people suddenly remembered seeing Ruby in Dealey Plaza, Ruby hanging out with Oswald, etc. I don't put much credit in any of them, and I suspect Oswald knew Ruby and was heading towards his apartment when stopped by Tippit. I mean, heck, Oswald's mom blew the whistle on the Mexico City Mystery man when she told people it was Ruby, and the CIA had to make the photos public to prove it was not. It wasn't Ruby in the photos. And it wasn't Ruby in front of the TSBD in the Willis photos, either. 

[Kevin Balch]

14 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Activity behind the fence was seen at least from four different directions. Ed Hoffmann saw it all. 

 

 

 

 

Duke Lane (who used to post here) convincingly demolished the Ed Hoffman story.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/FreeWayman.htm

[Karl Kinaski]

@Kevin Balch 

 I would recommend: Read BEHIND THE FENCELINE  and think it over ... BTW the Duke Lane article is from 2007, BEHIND THE FENCE LINE was published first in 2008 ...

 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, a lot of people have looked into Mercer's story and concluded she had pieced together a real event--someone stopping on Elm Street--and mis-remembered it in the aftermath of the shooting. I think it was Larry Hancock who wrote about this decades ago. 

When one thinks about it, moreover, her story makes little sense. There were plenty of ways to get a shooter in place on the knoll without having him parade a rifle around in public. The biggest problem, to me, is her placing Ruby at the scene. In the aftermath of the Oswald shooting all sorts of people suddenly remembered seeing Ruby in Dealey Plaza, Ruby hanging out with Oswald, etc. I don't put much credit in any of them, and I suspect Oswald knew Ruby and was heading towards his apartment when stopped by Tippit. I mean, heck, Oswald's mom blew the whistle on the Mexico City Mystery man when she told people it was Ruby, and the CIA had to make the photos public to prove it was not. It wasn't Ruby in the photos. And it wasn't Ruby in front of the TSBD in the Willis photos, either. 

Indeed, literally hundreds of people earnestly remembered seeing LHO, or Ruby, somewhere, after their faces became well known. 

[Chris Bristow]

The person who took the photo from Hudson's position, which I posted Saturday, also took video as he walked to the left(west) of the stairs. This was done to determine how far Hudson would have to move in order to see the tower. 
  Here are 4 frames of that video with a still shot at the end. The color of the tower's red roof is easy to identify as the frames progress left to right. The tower is not visible in the 1st image, even though that image was taken 1 ft. off the edge of Hudson's stair.
   That 2nd image was taken about 2 ft away from Hudson's location. We can see maybe 9 ft. of the tower roof and Bowers window might just be coming into view. It depends on just how much of the tower roof was hidden behind the pergola to begin with.
 The last image was taken 7 ft away from Hudson's position.  7 ft allows for 38 ft to be be revealed at the distance of the tower. Using the roof(which measures 28 ft across on Google Earth) as a yardstick, the roof extends almost exactly 38 ft from the pergola. 
 The small white building just to the west of the tower and it's door are visible in the original photo I posted Saturday. Using it as a reference shows the tower roof was hidden behind the pergola by about 2 ft.. 
 Bowers could never have seen Hudson and Mudd. So where could these two people have been standing that allowed Bowers to describe one of them wearing  a light shirt and dark trousers and the other having a plain shirt or coat?