Bill Newman
Well-known bystander Bill Newman has given some fairly confusing and sometimes contradictory versions of events--for example, his first-day interview he thought that the shots came from "behind" his position, up on the hill. In other interviews, he said that the shots came from his "left." The distance of the President's limousine from him at the time of the first shot has varied, from "150 feet" to "50 feet" to "directly in front" of him. Newman himself acknowledged that his story has changed over time. In a Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" video, he said:
"Stephen (Fagin), as you know, we've done this over the years, and multiple times, and the story always changes a little bit, , and I was reading where I testified in New Orleans, and I said, you know, we'd been there probably about 15 minutes, when the reality of it was there was no way we'd been there 15 minutes. I mean, we'd probably been there less than 5--3 or 4 minutes. But that's just a little thing that happens. I try to stay as close as I can to what I recall, but everybody in this audience could pick something out that I've said a little differently, but I've tried to stay on the main theme." ("JFK Lancer 2016: A Conversation with Bill and Gayle Newman" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcJnww6pxw about 06:26)
"When the car got within about 100 feet (coming towards us), it could have been less than that because in reality it was such a small area, but we'll say within 100 feet of us, the first two shots rang out. And I can recall boom...boom, about like that. And I thought somebody had thrown a couple of firecrackers against the President's car. I thought, you know, that's a pretty poor joke to do something like that. And in my affidavit that I gave later on that day, I even said the President stood up or raised up in the car. When in reality, what he actually did, was he come up somewhat (straightening in his seat and demonstrating the "chest grab"), and something in this manner, and I'm sure it was a reaction from the bullet that went through his back, probably. It was more like that (demonstrating chest-grab with raised elbows). So I've taken some flak, even from Dan Rather, about making the statement that he stood up.* Actually, in that affidavit, it said that I heard two shots. Which I'm here today, and I've always stood by this, I heard at least three shots**. But I did not even recognize the first two shots as gunfire. But as the car got closer to us, and straight out in front of us, and about as far in front of us as here as this man in the blue shirt, a third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's (head?) blew off, and white matter, and you could see the blood, and here again, I stated that his ear blew off. Sometime later, it might have been several years later, I saw an autopsy photo where that right ear was still in place. But at that moment, I just had the sensation that the whole side of his head blew off, and (you could) probably set a baseball in it. I turned to Gayle, and I said, "That's it, hit the ground." And we actually stumbled over our children. Everybody gives us credit for covering them." (laughter)
starting about 8:52
*Denise: The decorticate posture "chest grab" is also characterized ty a locking of the knees. Being confined in the car, the knee-lock likely caused Kennedy to rise somewhat in his seat.
**Denise: "at least three" leaves open the possibility for more.
"And here's something that I almost hate to bring up, but I just can't keep myself from it. I can remember looking back, and also I recall when President Kennedy was ahead, and he went over and back in the car, more or less in her direction or her arms. And in looking back,, whether this was the truth or not, I swear to God I believe it, the car momentarily stopped. Now, when I say 'momentarily stopped,' I saw the taillights, and kind of how the car rocks when you hit the brakes a little sudden. And the Secret Service man who was on the passenger side, it seemed to me that he was trying to talk to somebody (demonstrating)--I'm sure it was a two-way (radio), but it looked like a telephone in his hand. And as the Secret Service man (Clint Hill) got aboard the car and pushed Mrs. Kennedy back, the driver must have floorboarded the car, and it just shot out and went under the Triple Underpass. When you look at the Zapruder film, to me, it always is a confusing point, because I just see the motion of the car go by, and it looks like it's going in a constant speed, and never stops. And if that's a fact, well, then I'm just imagining what I just got through telling you. Now, if you quote me that I say the car stopped, I don't mean it stopped for no 15 seconds. It was just a very momentarily (sic.) action, and then they shot off. But I'll still always make that statement, and I'm not trying to create anything when I say that.
(starting about 11:11)
"I also remember some men, and I thought they flopped back the cover on the convertible behind, and coming out with what I'd say short rifles, and like what' I'd imagine (was) a Thompson submachine gun, and some--a couple of them--going up the Grassy Knoll, you know, in that direction behind me. But that's just stuck in my ind, and I've always said it, But, you know, that's just stuck in my mind, and I've always said it, I think I've said ti from the beginning, Steve--Stephen--these statements.
(starting about 13:10)
I don't believe Newman had any nefarious effect, but rather that his memory is perhaps more receptive to suggestion and what-not than certain other people's memories. He clearly viewed the (altered) Zapruder film at some point, which is why his accounts seemed to change to match what the film shows Psychological studies have shown that when confronted with certain false "evidence" some people will reconstruct their memories in order to accommodate that false evidence. For example, in an experiment involving adult children whose parent was available to cooperate with the experiment, a false story of being "lost in a store" was created, with the parent's cooperation. A certain number of the adult subjects would suddenly "recall" the false event, and sometimes even add details not given in the original false account. There is also the "Mandela Effect," wherein a large number of the population would remember things in a way other than what is true. For example, a certain number of people think that "Jif" peanut butter had actually been called "Jiffy" at some point (it was always "Jif"), likely conflating "Jif" and "Skippy." Things like that. Google "Mandela Effect" for numerous examples of how people can mis-remember some things as being one way, when they were actually another.
There is nothing malicious about this sort of thing. It is just a natural occurrence that happens in some individuals who are more susceptible to that process. Bill Newman is, I think, one such individual. There was never any intentional attempt to deceive, but a susceptibility to conform one's memory to conflicting "evidence" (such as the altered Zapruder film) results in Newman's changing accounts.
Memory is a constantly reconstructed process. And I think that Newman's memory has been susceptible to that reconstruction process.
Well-known bystander Bill Newman has given some fairly confusing and sometimes contradictory versions of events--for example, his first-day interview he thought that the shots came from "behind" his position, up on the hill. In other interviews, he said that the shots came from his "left." The distance of the President's limousine from him at the time of the first shot has varied, from "150 feet" to "50 feet" to "directly in front" of him. Newman himself acknowledged that his story has changed over time. In a Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" video, he said:
"Stephen (Fagin), as you know, we've done this over the years, and multiple times, and the story always changes a little bit, , and I was reading where I testified in New Orleans, and I said, you know, we'd been there probably about 15 minutes, when the reality of it was there was no way we'd been there 15 minutes. I mean, we'd probably been there less than 5--3 or 4 minutes. But that's just a little thing that happens. I try to stay as close as I can to what I recall, but everybody in this audience could pick something out that I've said a little differently, but I've tried to stay on the main theme." ("JFK Lancer 2016: A Conversation with Bill and Gayle Newman" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcJnww6pxw about 06:26)
"When the car got within about 100 feet (coming towards us), it could have been less than that because in reality it was such a small area, but we'll say within 100 feet of us, the first two shots rang out. And I can recall boom...boom, about like that. And I thought somebody had thrown a couple of firecrackers against the President's car. I thought, you know, that's a pretty poor joke to do something like that. And in my affidavit that I gave later on that day, I even said the President stood up or raised up in the car. When in reality, what he actually did, was he come up somewhat (straightening in his seat and demonstrating the "chest grab"), and something in this manner, and I'm sure it was a reaction from the bullet that went through his back, probably. It was more like that (demonstrating chest-grab with raised elbows). So I've taken some flak, even from Dan Rather, about making the statement that he stood up.* Actually, in that affidavit, it said that I heard two shots. Which I'm here today, and I've always stood by this, I heard at least three shots**. But I did not even recognize the first two shots as gunfire. But as the car got closer to us, and straight out in front of us, and about as far in front of us as here as this man in the blue shirt, a third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's (head?) blew off, and white matter, and you could see the blood, and here again, I stated that his ear blew off. Sometime later, it might have been several years later, I saw an autopsy photo where that right ear was still in place. But at that moment, I just had the sensation that the whole side of his head blew off, and (you could) probably set a baseball in it. I turned to Gayle, and I said, "That's it, hit the ground." And we actually stumbled over our children. Everybody gives us credit for covering them." (laughter)
starting about 8:52
*Denise: The decorticate posture "chest grab" is also characterized ty a locking of the knees. Being confined in the car, the knee-lock likely caused Kennedy to rise somewhat in his seat.
**Denise: "at least three" leaves open the possibility for more.
"And here's something that I almost hate to bring up, but I just can't keep myself from it. I can remember looking back, and also I recall when President Kennedy was ahead, and he went over and back in the car, more or less in her direction or her arms. And in looking back,, whether this was the truth or not, I swear to God I believe it, the car momentarily stopped. Now, when I say 'momentarily stopped,' I saw the taillights, and kind of how the car rocks when you hit the brakes a little sudden. And the Secret Service man who was on the passenger side, it seemed to me that he was trying to talk to somebody (demonstrating)--I'm sure it was a two-way (radio), but it looked like a telephone in his hand. And as the Secret Service man (Clint Hill) got aboard the car and pushed Mrs. Kennedy back, the driver must have floorboarded the car, and it just shot out and went under the Triple Underpass. When you look at the Zapruder film, to me, it always is a confusing point, because I just see the motion of the car go by, and it looks like it's going in a constant speed, and never stops. And if that's a fact, well, then I'm just imagining what I just got through telling you. Now, if you quote me that I say the car stopped, I don't mean it stopped for no 15 seconds. It was just a very momentarily (sic.) action, and then they shot off. But I'll still always make that statement, and I'm not trying to create anything when I say that.
(starting about 11:11)
"I also remember some men, and I thought they flopped back the cover on the convertible behind, and coming out with what I'd say short rifles, and like what' I'd imagine (was) a Thompson submachine gun, and some--a couple of them--going up the Grassy Knoll, you know, in that direction behind me. But that's just stuck in my ind, and I've always said it, But, you know, that's just stuck in my mind, and I've always said it, I think I've said ti from the beginning, Steve--Stephen--these statements.
(starting about 13:10)
I don't believe Newman had any nefarious effect, but rather that his memory is perhaps more receptive to suggestion and what-not than certain other people's memories. He clearly viewed the (altered) Zapruder film at some point, which is why his accounts seemed to change to match what the film shows Psychological studies have shown that when confronted with certain false "evidence" some people will reconstruct their memories in order to accommodate that false evidence. For example, in an experiment involving adult children whose parent was available to cooperate with the experiment, a false story of being "lost in a store" was created, with the parent's cooperation. A certain number of the adult subjects would suddenly "recall" the false event, and sometimes even add details not given in the original false account. There is also the "Mandela Effect," wherein a large number of the population would remember things in a way other than what is true. For example, a certain number of people think that "Jif" peanut butter had actually been called "Jiffy" at some point (it was always "Jif"), likely conflating "Jif" and "Skippy." Things like that. Google "Mandela Effect" for numerous examples of how people can mis-remember some things as being one way, when they were actually another.
There is nothing malicious about this sort of thing. It is just a natural occurrence that happens in some individuals who are more susceptible to that process. Bill Newman is, I think, one such individual. There was never any intentional attempt to deceive, but a susceptibility to conform one's memory to conflicting "evidence" (such as the altered Zapruder film) results in Newman's changing accounts.
Memory is a constantly reconstructed process. And I think that Newman's memory has been susceptible to that reconstruction process.
"Stephen (Fagin), as you know, we've done this over the years, and multiple times, and the story always changes a little bit, , and I was reading where I testified in New Orleans, and I said, you know, we'd been there probably about 15 minutes, when the reality of it was there was no way we'd been there 15 minutes. I mean, we'd probably been there less than 5--3 or 4 minutes. But that's just a little thing that happens. I try to stay as close as I can to what I recall, but everybody in this audience could pick something out that I've said a little differently, but I've tried to stay on the main theme." ("JFK Lancer 2016: A Conversation with Bill and Gayle Newman" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcJnww6pxw about 06:26)
"When the car got within about 100 feet (coming towards us), it could have been less than that because in reality it was such a small area, but we'll say within 100 feet of us, the first two shots rang out. And I can recall boom...boom, about like that. And I thought somebody had thrown a couple of firecrackers against the President's car. I thought, you know, that's a pretty poor joke to do something like that. And in my affidavit that I gave later on that day, I even said the President stood up or raised up in the car. When in reality, what he actually did, was he come up somewhat (straightening in his seat and demonstrating the "chest grab"), and something in this manner, and I'm sure it was a reaction from the bullet that went through his back, probably. It was more like that (demonstrating chest-grab with raised elbows). So I've taken some flak, even from Dan Rather, about making the statement that he stood up.* Actually, in that affidavit, it said that I heard two shots. Which I'm here today, and I've always stood by this, I heard at least three shots**. But I did not even recognize the first two shots as gunfire. But as the car got closer to us, and straight out in front of us, and about as far in front of us as here as this man in the blue shirt, a third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's (head?) blew off, and white matter, and you could see the blood, and here again, I stated that his ear blew off. Sometime later, it might have been several years later, I saw an autopsy photo where that right ear was still in place. But at that moment, I just had the sensation that the whole side of his head blew off, and (you could) probably set a baseball in it. I turned to Gayle, and I said, "That's it, hit the ground." And we actually stumbled over our children. Everybody gives us credit for covering them." (laughter)
starting about 8:52
*Denise: The decorticate posture "chest grab" is also characterized ty a locking of the knees. Being confined in the car, the knee-lock likely caused Kennedy to rise somewhat in his seat.
**Denise: "at least three" leaves open the possibility for more.
"And here's something that I almost hate to bring up, but I just can't keep myself from it. I can remember looking back, and also I recall when President Kennedy was ahead, and he went over and back in the car, more or less in her direction or her arms. And in looking back,, whether this was the truth or not, I swear to God I believe it, the car momentarily stopped. Now, when I say 'momentarily stopped,' I saw the taillights, and kind of how the car rocks when you hit the brakes a little sudden. And the Secret Service man who was on the passenger side, it seemed to me that he was trying to talk to somebody (demonstrating)--I'm sure it was a two-way (radio), but it looked like a telephone in his hand. And as the Secret Service man (Clint Hill) got aboard the car and pushed Mrs. Kennedy back, the driver must have floorboarded the car, and it just shot out and went under the Triple Underpass. When you look at the Zapruder film, to me, it always is a confusing point, because I just see the motion of the car go by, and it looks like it's going in a constant speed, and never stops. And if that's a fact, well, then I'm just imagining what I just got through telling you. Now, if you quote me that I say the car stopped, I don't mean it stopped for no 15 seconds. It was just a very momentarily (sic.) action, and then they shot off. But I'll still always make that statement, and I'm not trying to create anything when I say that.
(starting about 11:11)
"I also remember some men, and I thought they flopped back the cover on the convertible behind, and coming out with what I'd say short rifles, and like what' I'd imagine (was) a Thompson submachine gun, and some--a couple of them--going up the Grassy Knoll, you know, in that direction behind me. But that's just stuck in my ind, and I've always said it, But, you know, that's just stuck in my mind, and I've always said it, I think I've said ti from the beginning, Steve--Stephen--these statements.
(starting about 13:10)
I don't believe Newman had any nefarious effect, but rather that his memory is perhaps more receptive to suggestion and what-not than certain other people's memories. He clearly viewed the (altered) Zapruder film at some point, which is why his accounts seemed to change to match what the film shows Psychological studies have shown that when confronted with certain false "evidence" some people will reconstruct their memories in order to accommodate that false evidence. For example, in an experiment involving adult children whose parent was available to cooperate with the experiment, a false story of being "lost in a store" was created, with the parent's cooperation. A certain number of the adult subjects would suddenly "recall" the false event, and sometimes even add details not given in the original false account. There is also the "Mandela Effect," wherein a large number of the population would remember things in a way other than what is true. For example, a certain number of people think that "Jif" peanut butter had actually been called "Jiffy" at some point (it was always "Jif"), likely conflating "Jif" and "Skippy." Things like that. Google "Mandela Effect" for numerous examples of how people can mis-remember some things as being one way, when they were actually another.
There is nothing malicious about this sort of thing. It is just a natural occurrence that happens in some individuals who are more susceptible to that process. Bill Newman is, I think, one such individual. There was never any intentional attempt to deceive, but a susceptibility to conform one's memory to conflicting "evidence" (such as the altered Zapruder film) results in Newman's changing accounts.
Memory is a constantly reconstructed process. And I think that Newman's memory has been susceptible to that reconstruction process.
"Stephen (Fagin), as you know, we've done this over the years, and multiple times, and the story always changes a little bit, , and I was reading where I testified in New Orleans, and I said, you know, we'd been there probably about 15 minutes, when the reality of it was there was no way we'd been there 15 minutes. I mean, we'd probably been there less than 5--3 or 4 minutes. But that's just a little thing that happens. I try to stay as close as I can to what I recall, but everybody in this audience could pick something out that I've said a little differently, but I've tried to stay on the main theme." ("JFK Lancer 2016: A Conversation with Bill and Gayle Newman" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcJnww6pxw about 06:26)
"When the car got within about 100 feet (coming towards us), it could have been less than that because in reality it was such a small area, but we'll say within 100 feet of us, the first two shots rang out. And I can recall boom...boom, about like that. And I thought somebody had thrown a couple of firecrackers against the President's car. I thought, you know, that's a pretty poor joke to do something like that. And in my affidavit that I gave later on that day, I even said the President stood up or raised up in the car. When in reality, what he actually did, was he come up somewhat (straightening in his seat and demonstrating the "chest grab"), and something in this manner, and I'm sure it was a reaction from the bullet that went through his back, probably. It was more like that (demonstrating chest-grab with raised elbows). So I've taken some flak, even from Dan Rather, about making the statement that he stood up.* Actually, in that affidavit, it said that I heard two shots. Which I'm here today, and I've always stood by this, I heard at least three shots**. But I did not even recognize the first two shots as gunfire. But as the car got closer to us, and straight out in front of us, and about as far in front of us as here as this man in the blue shirt, a third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's (head?) blew off, and white matter, and you could see the blood, and here again, I stated that his ear blew off. Sometime later, it might have been several years later, I saw an autopsy photo where that right ear was still in place. But at that moment, I just had the sensation that the whole side of his head blew off, and (you could) probably set a baseball in it. I turned to Gayle, and I said, "That's it, hit the ground." And we actually stumbled over our children. Everybody gives us credit for covering them." (laughter)
starting about 8:52
*Denise: The decorticate posture "chest grab" is also characterized ty a locking of the knees. Being confined in the car, the knee-lock likely caused Kennedy to rise somewhat in his seat.
**Denise: "at least three" leaves open the possibility for more.
"And here's something that I almost hate to bring up, but I just can't keep myself from it. I can remember looking back, and also I recall when President Kennedy was ahead, and he went over and back in the car, more or less in her direction or her arms. And in looking back,, whether this was the truth or not, I swear to God I believe it, the car momentarily stopped. Now, when I say 'momentarily stopped,' I saw the taillights, and kind of how the car rocks when you hit the brakes a little sudden. And the Secret Service man who was on the passenger side, it seemed to me that he was trying to talk to somebody (demonstrating)--I'm sure it was a two-way (radio), but it looked like a telephone in his hand. And as the Secret Service man (Clint Hill) got aboard the car and pushed Mrs. Kennedy back, the driver must have floorboarded the car, and it just shot out and went under the Triple Underpass. When you look at the Zapruder film, to me, it always is a confusing point, because I just see the motion of the car go by, and it looks like it's going in a constant speed, and never stops. And if that's a fact, well, then I'm just imagining what I just got through telling you. Now, if you quote me that I say the car stopped, I don't mean it stopped for no 15 seconds. It was just a very momentarily (sic.) action, and then they shot off. But I'll still always make that statement, and I'm not trying to create anything when I say that.
(starting about 11:11)
"I also remember some men, and I thought they flopped back the cover on the convertible behind, and coming out with what I'd say short rifles, and like what' I'd imagine (was) a Thompson submachine gun, and some--a couple of them--going up the Grassy Knoll, you know, in that direction behind me. But that's just stuck in my ind, and I've always said it, But, you know, that's just stuck in my mind, and I've always said it, I think I've said ti from the beginning, Steve--Stephen--these statements.
(starting about 13:10)
I don't believe Newman had any nefarious effect, but rather that his memory is perhaps more receptive to suggestion and what-not than certain other people's memories. He clearly viewed the (altered) Zapruder film at some point, which is why his accounts seemed to change to match what the film shows Psychological studies have shown that when confronted with certain false "evidence" some people will reconstruct their memories in order to accommodate that false evidence. For example, in an experiment involving adult children whose parent was available to cooperate with the experiment, a false story of being "lost in a store" was created, with the parent's cooperation. A certain number of the adult subjects would suddenly "recall" the false event, and sometimes even add details not given in the original false account. There is also the "Mandela Effect," wherein a large number of the population would remember things in a way other than what is true. For example, a certain number of people think that "Jif" peanut butter had actually been called "Jiffy" at some point (it was always "Jif"), likely conflating "Jif" and "Skippy." Things like that. Google "Mandela Effect" for numerous examples of how people can mis-remember some things as being one way, when they were actually another.
There is nothing malicious about this sort of thing. It is just a natural occurrence that happens in some individuals who are more susceptible to that process. Bill Newman is, I think, one such individual. There was never any intentional attempt to deceive, but a susceptibility to conform one's memory to conflicting "evidence" (such as the altered Zapruder film) results in Newman's changing accounts.
Memory is a constantly reconstructed process. And I think that Newman's memory has been susceptible to that reconstruction process.
"When the car got within about 100 feet (coming towards us), it could have been less than that because in reality it was such a small area, but we'll say within 100 feet of us, the first two shots rang out. And I can recall boom...boom, about like that. And I thought somebody had thrown a couple of firecrackers against the President's car. I thought, you know, that's a pretty poor joke to do something like that. And in my affidavit that I gave later on that day, I even said the President stood up or raised up in the car. When in reality, what he actually did, was he come up somewhat (straightening in his seat and demonstrating the "chest grab"), and something in this manner, and I'm sure it was a reaction from the bullet that went through his back, probably. It was more like that (demonstrating chest-grab with raised elbows). So I've taken some flak, even from Dan Rather, about making the statement that he stood up.* Actually, in that affidavit, it said that I heard two shots. Which I'm here today, and I've always stood by this, I heard at least three shots**. But I did not even recognize the first two shots as gunfire. But as the car got closer to us, and straight out in front of us, and about as far in front of us as here as this man in the blue shirt, a third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's (head?) blew off, and white matter, and you could see the blood, and here again, I stated that his ear blew off. Sometime later, it might have been several years later, I saw an autopsy photo where that right ear was still in place. But at that moment, I just had the sensation that the whole side of his head blew off, and (you could) probably set a baseball in it. I turned to Gayle, and I said, "That's it, hit the ground." And we actually stumbled over our children. Everybody gives us credit for covering them." (laughter)
starting about 8:52
*Denise: The decorticate posture "chest grab" is also characterized ty a locking of the knees. Being confined in the car, the knee-lock likely caused Kennedy to rise somewhat in his seat.
**Denise: "at least three" leaves open the possibility for more.
"And here's something that I almost hate to bring up, but I just can't keep myself from it. I can remember looking back, and also I recall when President Kennedy was ahead, and he went over and back in the car, more or less in her direction or her arms. And in looking back,, whether this was the truth or not, I swear to God I believe it, the car momentarily stopped. Now, when I say 'momentarily stopped,' I saw the taillights, and kind of how the car rocks when you hit the brakes a little sudden. And the Secret Service man who was on the passenger side, it seemed to me that he was trying to talk to somebody (demonstrating)--I'm sure it was a two-way (radio), but it looked like a telephone in his hand. And as the Secret Service man (Clint Hill) got aboard the car and pushed Mrs. Kennedy back, the driver must have floorboarded the car, and it just shot out and went under the Triple Underpass. When you look at the Zapruder film, to me, it always is a confusing point, because I just see the motion of the car go by, and it looks like it's going in a constant speed, and never stops. And if that's a fact, well, then I'm just imagining what I just got through telling you. Now, if you quote me that I say the car stopped, I don't mean it stopped for no 15 seconds. It was just a very momentarily (sic.) action, and then they shot off. But I'll still always make that statement, and I'm not trying to create anything when I say that.
(starting about 11:11)
"I also remember some men, and I thought they flopped back the cover on the convertible behind, and coming out with what I'd say short rifles, and like what' I'd imagine (was) a Thompson submachine gun, and some--a couple of them--going up the Grassy Knoll, you know, in that direction behind me. But that's just stuck in my ind, and I've always said it, But, you know, that's just stuck in my mind, and I've always said it, I think I've said ti from the beginning, Steve--Stephen--these statements.
(starting about 13:10)
I don't believe Newman had any nefarious effect, but rather that his memory is perhaps more receptive to suggestion and what-not than certain other people's memories. He clearly viewed the (altered) Zapruder film at some point, which is why his accounts seemed to change to match what the film shows Psychological studies have shown that when confronted with certain false "evidence" some people will reconstruct their memories in order to accommodate that false evidence. For example, in an experiment involving adult children whose parent was available to cooperate with the experiment, a false story of being "lost in a store" was created, with the parent's cooperation. A certain number of the adult subjects would suddenly "recall" the false event, and sometimes even add details not given in the original false account. There is also the "Mandela Effect," wherein a large number of the population would remember things in a way other than what is true. For example, a certain number of people think that "Jif" peanut butter had actually been called "Jiffy" at some point (it was always "Jif"), likely conflating "Jif" and "Skippy." Things like that. Google "Mandela Effect" for numerous examples of how people can mis-remember some things as being one way, when they were actually another.
There is nothing malicious about this sort of thing. It is just a natural occurrence that happens in some individuals who are more susceptible to that process. Bill Newman is, I think, one such individual. There was never any intentional attempt to deceive, but a susceptibility to conform one's memory to conflicting "evidence" (such as the altered Zapruder film) results in Newman's changing accounts.
Memory is a constantly reconstructed process. And I think that Newman's memory has been susceptible to that reconstruction process.