Richard Carr source data

[Duke Lane]

Here's the thng, Lee, that you're missing from the prior thread: a holographic affidavit signed and initialed by Carr exists and was linked to that conversation.

It may be discounted by true believers because we don't have a further affidavit by Carr that any of it was in his own handwriting, allowing the possibility that it was faked, just like the subsequent one could have been, along with every other typed and signed affidavit in this case where we don'thave independently verifiable handwriting samples, which likewise could be forged.

Absent such a hypothesis, however, it's authentic.

There were a lot more discrepancies than the two you mentioned, which I enumerated and discussed at length in the other thread, including photographic proof that Carr could not see Houston St north of Elm from anywhere but the very top of the courts building unless authorities moved the Records building to discredit Carr: not only unlikely but impossible.

Scenario #1 is shot.

Face it: the man perjured himself in New Orleans, and simply exaggerated his misrecollections the rest of the time. As much as some would hate to acknowledge it, the FBI report is a faithful representation of what Carr *could have seen* from where he said he was. Beyond that, it's not even provable that he was ever even downtown on the side of that building, and not at all that he was there that Friday lunch hour ... during which everyone seemed to be working at the construction site. Likely? I tend to think not.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Wait a minute Duke,

I remember that thread too, and while you were the one who said Carr's military record was false, and he wasn't a Ranger as he claimed, I called his pals as his local VFW and talked with the commander who said Carr was indeed a veteran.

In addition, what he says in his first statement is significant, which is that he saw a man in the window of the top floor of the TSBD and then shortly thereafter saw him walking down the street and enter a Rambler station wagon.

How is that not significant, especially when we have other people seeing the Rambler, we have photos of the Rambler and it appears that Richard Bartholomew identified the Rambler and its owner at the time?

Richard Randolph Carr : Biography

No, Bill, it was Antti who discovered that his claimed military record was false, that the Ranger battalion that he claimed to be part of wasn't where he said it was, and that neither was Carr. I know enough about the VFW (quite a lot, actually) to know that what he told anyone there doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality other than that he had something to show that he served during a relevent time frame in a war zone.

His first statement said that he couldn't see anything other than the upper-most (7th floor) windows of the TSBD and the "grassy area" to the left. I do not recall that the Rambler was any part of his FIRST statement, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. His "identification" of a Rambler came much later, and included - under oath - events that he could not possibly have seen from his supposed vantage point, i.e., anything happening on Houston Street next to the TSBD.

Cling to what you will, but that spaghetti won't stick on any wall that's not smeared thickly with glue.

Okay Duke,

I found the original thread and rebooted it.

Antti got Carr's miltiary records that weren't destroyed in the St. Louis fire, and discovered he was dishonorably discharged for going AWOL in 1945, after serving in First Army combat at D-Day, Battle of Bulge, etc., so he lied, but was a combat veteran.

So the bottom line is Carr was at Dealey Plaza, he was in the upper floors of the under construction building, he saw a man wearing a hat in the upper floors of the TSBD, he heard three shots, he went over to that area and saw the man he saw in the upper floors of the TSBD get into a light colored Rambler station wagon and then went home. He didn't seek attention but told his wife or family what he saw and someone else called the authorities and Carr made his statement.

I also think it possibly relevant that Carr showed his VFW commander relevant documents that he was a veteran, and said that he also worked for the DIA - Defense Intl Agency, - after being dishonorably discharged - which seems to fall into the pattern of others - including Oswald, whose dishonorable discharge is used as a sort of blackmail against them to continue working for them.

Link to the "other" thread. Need less to say, there were differing points of view, there.

The thread title was, "Richard Randolph Carr" :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=655&st=105

The link I posted is to page 8 of that thread, because this was an area of the thread near where the question had been posted about the emphasis on exploration of the backgrounds and reliability of Carr and other eye witnesses, rather than an emphasis on the larger, underlying problem.

If the officials who selected the Warren Commissioners were corrupt and unethical, and the Commissioners themselves, those they appointed as WC staff, intelligences and investigative agency and police commanders, as well as some of the investigators of these agencies and police, and some of the news gathering and publishing outlet owners, editors, and "journalists" were similarly unethical and corrupt, did it matter much if some witnesses were also distorting the details of their own backgrounds and in their eyewitness statements?

The conclusions of the WC were preordained, the Commissioners were selected not because of their integrity, but instead because of impressive titles, sanitized backgrounds, and their past records of cooperation and complicity in furthering the agenda of the right of center, political and military-industrial establishment.

[William Kelly]

I prefer to reserve judgement until after I can get a look at the first FBI report. There are two essential disconnects between his 1964 account and Clay Shaw - namely:

1. In the Clay Shaw account, he is on the 7th floor of the new courts building - observing everything, including the Elm St extension and Rambler and the twitchy character walking up Houston and then down Commerce until he is out of view. No car - pun intended. Never mentions leaving his location on the 7th floor.

2. In the FBI version, he begins on the 7th floor and ends at street level. For him to witness the man walking up Houston and down Commerce and enter a Rambler, if the man passed him on Houston walking toward him, he would have had to have followed the man.

If I had to chose, I like number 1 better - and concerning the affidavit, as mentioned here - not signed by Carr.

This may not be immediately solvable - however, despite his comments on the military records, etc., I am not inclined to lean towards trusting a 1964 FBI affidavit concerning what Carr said as being accurate, or 'unspoiled' with the insertion of true details Carr provided twisted as I said to create a different truth. I can cite Craig here in support as being just one witness to changes made in his account. If the one pager contains very little info - then it looks like it's going to need to stay unresolved.

If we were able to discount this FBI document, we'd have ONE Rambler on the Elm St extension, heading around the back of the TSBD, exiting on Houston with three men - returning within minutes, south on Elm, minus 2 passengers, to stop and pick up an Oswald look-a-like. If nothing else, finding this scenario very interesting - sorry for the crude diagram using Google Maps - anyone remember the location of the old Greyhound Bus Station?

Lee, I like you map, but I don't see the Rambler moving the way you have it going.

In the Croft photo TG posted the Rambler is facing east on Elm, parked behind a pickup truck.

I would suggest that it moved forward and made a right on Houston - and then you have it in the area where Carr and others saw it.

BK

[William Kelly]

Wait a minute Duke,

I remember that thread too, and while you were the one who said Carr's military record was false, and he wasn't a Ranger as he claimed, I called his pals as his local VFW and talked with the commander who said Carr was indeed a veteran.

In addition, what he says in his first statement is significant, which is that he saw a man in the window of the top floor of the TSBD and then shortly thereafter saw him walking down the street and enter a Rambler station wagon.

How is that not significant, especially when we have other people seeing the Rambler, we have photos of the Rambler and it appears that Richard Bartholomew identified the Rambler and its owner at the time?

Richard Randolph Carr : Biography

No, Bill, it was Antti who discovered that his claimed military record was false, that the Ranger battalion that he claimed to be part of wasn't where he said it was, and that neither was Carr. I know enough about the VFW (quite a lot, actually) to know that what he told anyone there doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality other than that he had something to show that he served during a relevent time frame in a war zone.

His first statement said that he couldn't see anything other than the upper-most (7th floor) windows of the TSBD and the "grassy area" to the left. I do not recall that the Rambler was any part of his FIRST statement, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. His "identification" of a Rambler came much later, and included - under oath - events that he could not possibly have seen from his supposed vantage point, i.e., anything happening on Houston Street next to the TSBD.

Cling to what you will, but that spaghetti won't stick on any wall that's not smeared thickly with glue.

Okay Duke,

I found the original thread and rebooted it.

Antti got Carr's miltiary records that weren't destroyed in the St. Louis fire, and discovered he was dishonorably discharged for going AWOL in 1945, after serving in First Army combat at D-Day, Battle of Bulge, etc., so he lied, but was a combat veteran.

So the bottom line is Carr was at Dealey Plaza, he was in the upper floors of the under construction building, he saw a man wearing a hat in the upper floors of the TSBD, he heard three shots, he went over to that area and saw the man he saw in the upper floors of the TSBD get into a light colored Rambler station wagon and then went home. He didn't seek attention but told his wife or family what he saw and someone else called the authorities and Carr made his statement.

I also think it possibly relevant that Carr showed his VFW commander relevant documents that he was a veteran, and said that he also worked for the DIA - Defense Intl Agency, - after being dishonorably discharged - which seems to fall into the pattern of others - including Oswald, whose dishonorable discharge is used as a sort of blackmail against them to continue working for them.

Link to the "other" thread. Need less to say, there were differing points of view, there.

The thread title was, "Richard Randolph Carr" :

http://educationforu...opic=655&st=105

The link I posted is to page 8 of that thread, because this was an area of the thread near where the question had been posted about the emphasis on exploration of the backgrounds and reliability of Carr and other eye witnesses, rather than an emphasis on the larger, underlying problem.

If the officials who selected the Warren Commissioners were corrupt and unethical, and the Commissioners themselves, those they appointed as WC staff, intelligences and investigative agency and police commanders, as well as some of the investigators of these agencies and police, and some of the news gathering and publishing outlet owners, editors, and "journalists" were similarly unethical and corrupt, did it matter much if some witnesses were also distorting the details of their own backgrounds and in their eyewitness statements?

The conclusions of the WC were preordained, the Commissioners were selected not because of their integrity, but instead because of impressive titles, sanitized backgrounds, and their past records of cooperation and complicity in furthering the agenda of the right of center, political and military-industrial establishment.

After re-reading Carr's Shaw trial testimony, I must agree that it is of little if any use and should be just discarded, for a number of reasons.

For one, as Tom points out, the lawyers involved have their own agendas, and with Carr on the stand, they were not interested in determining what valid information he can add, but rather in making their own points.

Garrison himself does not question Carr properly, and the defense attorney tries to keep him from drawing information out of Carr.

Most significantly, Carr does change his story, after originally saying he heard one shot that sounded like a backfire, then two quick reports, he didn't learn they were gunshots until he got home and learned JFK was killed from the TV.

At the Shaw trial he hears one report, and then three quick ones, the first sounding like a pistol shot, and now he actually sees a missed shot hitting the grass.

It is during Shaw trial testimony that he says he was with the Rangers at Anzio, and mentions the regiment that was pretty much completely wiped out - only a few men surviving, and those who did survive did so as POWs, Carr not among them.

I think that what Carr originally said is important, and in the CD 385, an earlier, January 1964 statement to the FBI is referred to and quoted.

As someone originally asked, where is that original Carr statement? Has anybody actually read it? Does Armstrong have it?

BK

[William Kelly]

Wait a minute Duke,

I remember that thread too, and while you were the one who said Carr's military record was false, and he wasn't a Ranger as he claimed, I called his pals as his local VFW and talked with the commander who said Carr was indeed a veteran.

In addition, what he says in his first statement is significant, which is that he saw a man in the window of the top floor of the TSBD and then shortly thereafter saw him walking down the street and enter a Rambler station wagon.

How is that not significant, especially when we have other people seeing the Rambler, we have photos of the Rambler and it appears that Richard Bartholomew identified the Rambler and its owner at the time?

Richard Randolph Carr : Biography

No, Bill, it was Antti who discovered that his claimed military record was false, that the Ranger battalion that he claimed to be part of wasn't where he said it was, and that neither was Carr. I know enough about the VFW (quite a lot, actually) to know that what he told anyone there doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality other than that he had something to show that he served during a relevent time frame in a war zone.

His first statement said that he couldn't see anything other than the upper-most (7th floor) windows of the TSBD and the "grassy area" to the left. I do not recall that the Rambler was any part of his FIRST statement, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. His "identification" of a Rambler came much later, and included - under oath - events that he could not possibly have seen from his supposed vantage point, i.e., anything happening on Houston Street next to the TSBD.

Cling to what you will, but that spaghetti won't stick on any wall that's not smeared thickly with glue.

Okay Duke,

I found the original thread and rebooted it.

Antti got Carr's miltiary records that weren't destroyed in the St. Louis fire, and discovered he was dishonorably discharged for going AWOL in 1945, after serving in First Army combat at D-Day, Battle of Bulge, etc., so he lied, but was a combat veteran.

So the bottom line is Carr was at Dealey Plaza, he was in the upper floors of the under construction building, he saw a man wearing a hat in the upper floors of the TSBD, he heard three shots, he went over to that area and saw the man he saw in the upper floors of the TSBD get into a light colored Rambler station wagon and then went home. He didn't seek attention but told his wife or family what he saw and someone else called the authorities and Carr made his statement.

I also think it possibly relevant that Carr showed his VFW commander relevant documents that he was a veteran, and said that he also worked for the DIA - Defense Intl Agency, - after being dishonorably discharged - which seems to fall into the pattern of others - including Oswald, whose dishonorable discharge is used as a sort of blackmail against them to continue working for them.

Link to the "other" thread. Need less to say, there were differing points of view, there.

The thread title was, "Richard Randolph Carr" :

http://educationforu...opic=655&st=105

The link I posted is to page 8 of that thread, because this was an area of the thread near where the question had been posted about the emphasis on exploration of the backgrounds and reliability of Carr and other eye witnesses, rather than an emphasis on the larger, underlying problem.

If the officials who selected the Warren Commissioners were corrupt and unethical, and the Commissioners themselves, those they appointed as WC staff, intelligences and investigative agency and police commanders, as well as some of the investigators of these agencies and police, and some of the news gathering and publishing outlet owners, editors, and "journalists" were similarly unethical and corrupt, did it matter much if some witnesses were also distorting the details of their own backgrounds and in their eyewitness statements?

The conclusions of the WC were preordained, the Commissioners were selected not because of their integrity, but instead because of impressive titles, sanitized backgrounds, and their past records of cooperation and complicity in furthering the agenda of the right of center, political and military-industrial establishment.

After re-reading Carr's Shaw trial testimony, I must agree that it is of little if any use and should be just discarded, for a number of reasons.

For one, as Tom points out, the lawyers involved have their own agendas, and with Carr on the stand, they were not interested in determining what valid information he can add, but rather in making their own points.

Garrison himself does not question Carr properly, and the defense attorney tries to keep him from drawing information out of Carr.

Most significantly, Carr does change his story, after originally saying he heard one shot that sounded like a backfire, then two quick reports, he didn't learn they were gunshots until he got home and learned JFK was killed from the TV.

At the Shaw trial he hears one report, and then three quick ones, the first sounding like a pistol shot, and now he actually sees a missed shot hitting the grass.

It is during Shaw trial testimony that he says he was with the Rangers at Anzio, and mentions the regiment that was pretty much completely wiped out - only a few men surviving, and those who did survive did so as POWs, Carr not among them.

I think that what Carr originally said is important, and in the CD 385, an earlier, January 1964 statement to the FBI is referred to and quoted.

As someone originally asked, where is that original Carr statement? Has anybody actually read it? Does Armstrong have it?

BK

[Duke Lane]

After re-reading Carr's Shaw trial testimony, I must agree that it is of little if any use and should be just discarded, for a number of reasons.

... Most significantly, Carr does change his story, after originally saying he heard one shot that sounded like a backfire, then two quick reports, he didn't learn they were gunshots until he got home and learned JFK was killed from the TV.

At the Shaw trial he hears one report, and then three quick ones, the first sounding like a pistol shot, and now he actually sees a missed shot hitting the grass.

It is during Shaw trial testimony that he says he was with the Rangers at Anzio, and mentions the regiment that was pretty much completely wiped out - only a few men surviving, and those who did survive did so as POWs, Carr not among them.

I think that what Carr originally said is important, and in the CD 385, an earlier, January 1964 statement to the FBI is referred to and quoted.

As someone originally asked, where is that original Carr statement? Has anybody actually read it? Does Armstrong have it?

Glad to see you've reached the same conclusion as I had, and largely for the same reasons.

The original Carr report - and it appears that it was only a report and not a signed statement (that is what the "re-interview" and "clarification" was apparently for) - is contained in the same report as that of Mary Sue Brown's initial contact with the Feebs. It is on the MFF site at this link. It does not differ substantially from his later signed statement.

In this January 9 report, Carr says that "it would have been impossible" for him to have seen the southeast corner windows of the TSBD from his perch at the 6th floor of the courts building then under construction, and he made no claim either (and consequently) about seeing a Rambler on Houston Street on the east side of the TSBD, which he could not by his own words have seen.

This observation was confirmed by the "personal observation of Bureau agents" who went to the construction site. They couldn't even see the SE roof or 7th floor of TSBD until they had gotten as high as the 9th floor of the courts building, and at that point neither the 6th floor window nor the "lower portion" of the TSBD could be observed. This further eliminates the Rambler on Houston St., just as my reverse-perspective photo also showed.

What we are left to wonder is why Carr happened to notice someone in a building two blocks away when that building hadn't gained any notoriety yet, and there were plenty of other things to draw his attention on his way to the construction site, and why, when he didn't realize that the sounds he'd heard were shots (and wouldn't for a couple of hours), did he not only notice that man out of the crowd, but also see fit to pay attention to where he went and what he did, including the type of car he got into and a description of the driver.

This is not to say that he didn't notice and observe that one individual in that one building, even down to the details of what he wore, but only to wonder why he apparently did.

Of course, the agents' observation that Carr "couldn't have" observed the assassination simply because he couldn't see the SE 6th floor window points to exactly the observation Tom Scully made.

[William Kelly]

After re-reading Carr's Shaw trial testimony, I must agree that it is of little if any use and should be just discarded, for a number of reasons.

... Most significantly, Carr does change his story, after originally saying he heard one shot that sounded like a backfire, then two quick reports, he didn't learn they were gunshots until he got home and learned JFK was killed from the TV.

At the Shaw trial he hears one report, and then three quick ones, the first sounding like a pistol shot, and now he actually sees a missed shot hitting the grass.

It is during Shaw trial testimony that he says he was with the Rangers at Anzio, and mentions the regiment that was pretty much completely wiped out - only a few men surviving, and those who did survive did so as POWs, Carr not among them.

I think that what Carr originally said is important, and in the CD 385, an earlier, January 1964 statement to the FBI is referred to and quoted.

As someone originally asked, where is that original Carr statement? Has anybody actually read it? Does Armstrong have it?

Glad to see you've reached the same conclusion as I had, and largely for the same reasons.

The original Carr report - and it appears that it was only a report and not a signed statement (that is what the "re-interview" and "clarification" was apparently for) - is contained in the same report as that of Mary Sue Brown's initial contact with the Feebs. It is on the MFF site at this link. It does not differ substantially from his later signed statement.

In this January 9 report, Carr says that "it would have been impossible" for him to have seen the southeast corner windows of the TSBD from his perch at the 6th floor of the courts building then under construction, and he made no claim either (and consequently) about seeing a Rambler on Houston Street on the east side of the TSBD, which he could not by his own words have seen.

This observation was confirmed by the "personal observation of Bureau agents" who went to the construction site. They couldn't even see the SE roof or 7th floor of TSBD until they had gotten as high as the 9th floor of the courts building, and at that point neither the 6th floor window nor the "lower portion" of the TSBD could be observed. This further eliminates the Rambler on Houston St., just as my reverse-perspective photo also showed.

What we are left to wonder is why Carr happened to notice someone in a building two blocks away when that building hadn't gained any notoriety yet, and there were plenty of other things to draw his attention on his way to the construction site, and why, when he didn't realize that the sounds he'd heard were shots (and wouldn't for a couple of hours), did he not only notice that man out of the crowd, but also see fit to pay attention to where he went and what he did, including the type of car he got into and a description of the driver.

This is not to say that he didn't notice and observe that one individual in that one building, even down to the details of what he wore, but only to wonder why he apparently did.

Of course, the agents' observation that Carr "couldn't have" observed the assassination simply because he couldn't see the SE 6th floor window points to exactly the observation Tom Scully made.

Thanks for that link Duke.

The problem that I have is Carr's observations of a man in the TSBD with a hat, glasses and brown sports coat is supported by others, as is the fact that there was a light colored Rambler station wagon driven by a black or latin man, that picked up people, including the man in the brown sports coat and a person who resembled Oswald.

Carr's original statement on the order of the shots - one alone followed by two together is what pretty much everybody else heard too.

So he was an ear witness to the assassination, and he somehow, where ever he was at - saw the man in the brown sports coat in the window who others also saw, and later on the street. He says in his original statement that he was approximately on the sixth floor of the building under construction, and that later changes to seventh floor, but where ever he was, he saw things that others also saw, others whose reports did not make the news or circulate among those who Carr talked to, so he is a corroborating witness to these events.

And I agree with Duke that Carr's entire Shaw trial testimony is hogwash.

BK

[Lee Forman]

sigh...guess I should spend some more time reading through the original post - and thanks Duke, Bill, Greg, Tom etc..

Still a troubling sequence - concerning this FBI report of 1/64

11/22/63 - JFK assassinated

11/30/63 - FBI has a one page report of some kind as per the RIF

1/9/64 - Denies making statements about having seen anyone exit the TSBD and get into a grey car. Would need to understand what statement Carr is denying. In this account he moves quickly to ground level.

2/4/64 - has the bit about the suspect he witnessed on 6 walking to a Rambler parked on Record st - nothing about TSBD exit and Rambler parked there.

2/19/69 - Clay Shaw trial - seeming reversal

If he is denying having had made statements in Jan of 1964, than logically there should be a record of a statement which would precede that date.

[William Kelly]

sigh...guess I should spend some more time reading through the original post - and thanks Duke, Bill, Greg, Tom etc..

Still a troubling sequence - concerning this FBI report of 1/64

11/22/63 - JFK assassinated

11/30/63 - FBI has a one page report of some kind as per the RIF

1/9/64 - Denies making statements about having seen anyone exit the TSBD and get into a grey car. Would need to understand what statement Carr is denying. In this account he moves quickly to ground level.

2/4/64 - has the bit about the suspect he witnessed on 6 walking to a Rambler parked on Record st - nothing about TSBD exit and Rambler parked there.

2/19/69 - Clay Shaw trial - seeming reversal

If he is denying having had made statements in Jan of 1964, than logically there should be a record of a statement which would precede that date.

Lee, here's a Jan. 9 FBI report that Duke passed on.

FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 6

FBI Oswald Headquarters File (105-82555)

[John Dolva]

A thought occurs. Is there ANY way that Carr had a connection to Holmes or any of the four or five other USPO PIs with him?

re photo (c/o Dean post)

[William Kelly]

There is a possible variable that we are failing to discuss regarding Richard Randolph Carr.

I can't work out the answer to Lee Forman's question concerning the document from 11/30/63 insofar as where this document is located and how he was the subject of an FBI record at the end of November because it looks like the FBI were trying to make it appear as though Carr first came to their attention through Mary Sue Brown at the end of December.

Brown was interviewed on December 27, 1963 and she relays to SA W. Harlan Brown the conversation that she was a part of when Carr made statements that Oswald did not assassinate the President.

The interesting part of the Mary Sue Brown report by Harlan Brown is that it states that "CARR told Mrs. Brown and others [Mrs. Brown's sister Elsie Johnson and a friend named Holly Jordan] that there were four or five other steel workers on the building under construction near the place where the President was assassinated and that they likewise saw the assassination. Carr said that one of them had been interviewed by the FBI." This report, by Harlan Brown, was typed up on the same day, 12/27/63, and was later reproduced as a report dated January 9, 1964, acting as back-story for the interview with Carr, and this January FBI report omits the line, "Carr said that one of them [four or five steel workers who likewise saw the assassination] had been interviewed by the FBI."

Why would they want this line deleted from Mary Sue Brown's original statement that was written into the December 27th report?

The thing that we are not discussing here, leaving the alleged contradictions in Carr's New Orleans testimony aside for a moment, is how aggressively the FBI went after Carr once they began investigating him.

On January 15th, eleven days after Carr was interviewed due to Mary Sue Brown contacting the FBI, an airtel was sent from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Gordon Shanklin in Dallas. It states:

"Information…relating to alleged observations of Richard Randolph Carr.

The purpose of submitting a letterhead memorandum in this matter is not clear. It would appear this inquiry should be handled as a regular investigative development under the above caption [he means a miscellaneous JFK assassination header rather than under the header of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, aka. IS – R – CUBA] and not under the caption of referenced airtel.

Prior to considering this matter resolved, the allegations made by Carr should be specifically repudiated. It is noted one of the original allegations is that Carr stated Oswald did not assassinate the President and that he and four or five other steel workers witnessed the assassination and presumably they could substantiate Carr's statements.

Carr should be recontacted and an appropriate signed statement taken regarding his observations. He should be confronted with the inconsistencies noted, particularly those based on personal observation by Dallas Agents. You should also be alert to any violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001.

When the investigation is completed, it should be appropriately reported bearing in mind the Presidential Commission is being furnished copies of the investigative reports. A letterhead memorandum need not be submitted."

This is strange to me because Hoover's airtel from January 15th followed from Carr's statements on January 4th. Carr was then interviewed again on February 3rd and gave a written and signed statement. He was not pressed concerning his allegations of other workers seeing/hearing the assassination even though Hoover wanted answers to what he described as "contradictions" in the statement. Carr does address the issue of why he said Oswald was not the assassin but doesn't mention anything about the other worker being interviewed by the FBI who could "substantiate his statements." The reason it is strange is because Hoover is basically requesting his agents to threaten Carr with Title 18, Section 1001 - furnishing false evidence to a Federal officer.

I cannot understand why in the January 9th FBI report it states that "Carr denied making any statements to the effect he had [observed] anyone leaving the entrance of the TSBD and getting into a gray car" because in the February 3rd signed and written statement he does state that very thing. He says, "This man, walking very fast, proceeded on Houston St., South to Commerce St., then East on Commerce St., to Record St. which is one block from Houston St. This man got into a 1961 or 1962 Grey Rambler Station Wagon which was parked just north of Commerce on Record St. The Station Wagon, which had Texas license and was driven by a young Negro man, drove off in a northern direction."

http://contentdm.bay...PTR=33901&REC=3

Above link is to John Armstrong's file on Richard Randolph Carr and contains his February 3rd written and signed statement on pages 16-21 as well as the various FBI reports [absent the November report alluded to by Lee Forman].

If Carr was making this up and Hoover was requesting his agents to pressure Carr with Title 18, Section 1001, then why didn't they prosecute him if they could prove he was supplying false information to a Federal Officer?

The whole thing makes no sense to me and makes me put a little bit more faith in Carr and his recollections. As far as the FBI report is concerned that suggests the seventh floor and roof of the TSBD could only be seen from the Ninth Floor of the steel structure, what other evidence do we have of this other than the agents say so? Do we have photographs?

In a 1967 memo from Penn Jones to Jim Garrison, Jones states that "within 2 or 3 days after the assassination the FBI visited him [Carr] in his home. They were very brusque in their manner, and they told Mr. Carr if he didn't see Oswald shoot out of the 6th floor window he had better keep his damn mouth shut."

I'm beginning to believe him because there is something not quite right with these reports and I'm struggling to buy the reason the FBI went after Carr was because Mary Sue Brown contacted them on December 27th. I think he was contacted prior in November and I think he was threatened.

In a 1977 newpaper article Carr states, "On January 2nd, 1964, police, claiming to have a search warrant, barged into his house and turned the place upside down. Two shotguns were aimed at him and his wife. The policeman, Carr claims, dared them to move. Carr and his son were taken to the police station, where Carr was detained overnight. The following day, his family started receiving anonymous telephone calls threatening death if they didn't get out of Texas.

Terrified, Carr moved to Montana. Within weeks three men, one of them matching the description of the man Carr saw leaving the TBSD came looking for him at his home while he was at work.

Suspicious, Carr started checking his automobile. Once he found three sticks of dynamite wired to the ignition.

In 1968, Carr agreed to appear as a witness at the Clay Shaw hearings in New Orleans. But 15 days before he was scheduled to appear, police in Billings, Montana, arrested a man just as he was about to shoot Carr.

In July of 1969, while visiting relatives in Atlanta, Georgia, Carr was attacked on a city street and stabbed in the back and arm by two men. Carr, who was carrying a gun by this time, shot one of his assailants three times.

The threats on his life continued and in 1975 his marriage fell apart. Then Carr disappeared.

However, an independent Kennedy assassination researcher found him recently. He had changed his naem and remarried. But he was still suffering the wounds of his ordeal, both physical and mental."

Lee, can you provide a link to the newpaper article or provide the text in full?

Thanks,

BK

[William Kelly]

A thought occurs. Is there ANY way that Carr had a connection to Holmes or any of the four or five other USPO PIs with him?

re photo (c/o Dean post)

Thanks for that photo John,

It's apparent that if Carr couldn't see in the sniper's window, the sniper could probably see him.

BK

[Duke Lane]

... It's apparent that if Carr couldn't see in the sniper's window, the sniper could probably see him.

Could ... or couldn't? As written, it makes no "apparent" sense: "if I cannot see you, you can probably see me?"

[William Kelly]

... It's apparent that if Carr couldn't see in the sniper's window, the sniper could probably see him.

Could ... or couldn't? As written, it makes no "apparent" sense: "if I cannot see you, you can probably see me?"

If you look at the photo taken from the view of the sniper's window posted above, you can clearly see the building under construction - so therefore the sniper, whoever he was, could have seen Carr going up the steps on the side of the building under construction.

Whether or not Carr could have seen anyone in the windows of the TSBD is up to you.

[John Dolva]

What construction stairs. The image, to me, shows you have to be on the 9th plus floor to see one way or the other. Big Red's in the way.