Duke Lane

Well, that is all well and good, but the issue I have is if he is such a fraud, then the numerous incidents where he was attacked, stabbed et cetera point to a completely different set of circumstances, in that Roger Craig was also the victim of that as well, Craig was villified as a xxxx also, and when all the facts were on the table, it turned out that Craig had been telling the truth all along.......I also notice that you don't seem very upfront in focusing at all on that...

Impartial?

I don't think that it's appropriate to say that, if Roger Craig wasn't a xxxx (and I've never said that he was), then someone else who made similar claims therefore isn't a xxxx either. There's no "QED" in such logic.

The only "proof" of such attacks on Carr is Carr's own words, which he made under oath while telling a completely different story to the court than he'd told to either the FBI or Penn Jones, each of which was different than the other; three different stories. Which of the three stories is the true one? If it wasn't the one he told under oath - that he saw something occur on a street that he couldn't physically have seen from where he was (and which he initially said "would have been impossible" for him to have seen) - how do we know that he told the truth about being attacked?

One of the most telling aspects of his veracity (or lack thereof) is the fact that he sought out Penn Jones - called Penn after Penn was on the radio - and had Jones come out to his house, "pleading" with Jones as he left not to "get him killed" (which was not the case with Roger Craig, who didn't seek out anyone), this after Carr had had the opportunity to tell his story to the FBI during its investigation and presumably enjoy their protection since, by January 1964, there were few if any "mysterious deaths" to be concerned about becoming one of ... and I doubt he had reason to believe that the FBI would kill him!

Moreover, in his initial interviews with the FBI, Carr said that the "brown suit man" (BSM) had been on the "top" floor of the TSBD; Carr later saw him coming south on Houston Street, turning east on Commerce, and getting into a Rambler station wagon on Record Street, said Rambler being driven by a "young negro man," who drove the car away northbound on Record Street. In 1967, when he spoke with Penn Jones, Jones called the driver "a dark complected man" while noting that Carr "called him a Negro."

But by that point, BSM was no longer even in the TSBD, but behind the picket fence on the knoll; he was no longer alone, but with another man. Carr supposedly watched him run behind the TSBD and - tho' it was impossible for him to see the area - emerge from behind or out of the side of the TSBD where the Rambler was parked, no longer on Record Street behind the Old Red Courthouse, but on Houston beside the TSBD. And BSM didn't get into the Rambler, the other guy did. He saw the car "speed north on Houston Street" even though Houston Street was closed and under construction.

By 1969, BSM was back inside the TSBD, now on the fifth rather than the "top" floor. The "Negro" man was now "a Latin," conforming to the description of some of those whom Garrison had tied into the crime (this does not reflect on whether or not Garrison was correct, only that Carr changed his story to meet the DA's needs, whether by Garrison's subornation or of his own volition).

Jones, we might note, made it a point to tell Garrison in a memo that he had not told anybody at all (other than Garrison himself) about Carr. How then did Carr become known to his supposed attackers? What cause would these folks have had for attacking him when the only thing he'd told anyone - the FBI - was that he'd seen nothing of any consequence and, in fact, did not recognize the gunshots as gunshots and didn't even know that Kennedy had been shot (at) until later in the afternoon, but not while he was in Dealey Plaza? (In his testimony in Shaw, he not only reversed that claim to having "immediately" recognized gunfire at the time, but added the detail that, from a couple of hundred yards away, he saw a bullet "furrow" into the grass!)

Even if we presume his interviews with the FBI were nothing more than "CYA" activities - saw no evil, heard no evil, and wasn't going to speak no evil either! - since all there was up to the point of his Shaw testimony was unpublished FBI reports (he is not mentioned in the WCR or in any of the volumes), what brought him to the fore as a "threat" to those he'd sought to placate by his statements to the FBI such that he would have attempts made on his life?

I've also noted that there is reason to believe that Carr lied about his wartime service with the Army Rangers ... or at the very least, that there is no proof whatsoever that he actually did serve with them.

Richard Carr is not Roger Craig. Even if one chooses to believe that Craig made up some of the things that happened to him, Craig's story was at least consistent; Carr's is merely sensational. Whether or not Roger Craig told the absolute truth about everything, what Craig said has no bearing at all upon what Richard Carr said. Consequently, there is no reason for me to be "up front" about Craig's telling the truth since it has nothing at all to do with whether or not Carr told the truth.

Nothing other than the make and nomenclature of the vehicles they said they'd seen - a Rambler station wagon, one gray the other green - jibes in the two stories: Craig said the car was on Elm Street, driven by a dark-complected man (in Dallas, in 1963, one presumes that a white man would call a Negro a Negro and not pussyfoot around with "dark complexions"), while Carr's Rambler was initially on Record Street, later on Houston Street and, until 1969, was driven by a "Negro." There is no solid reason to believe that the two cars were even related ... and if the car that Carr saw was on Houston Street, we know that Carr couldn't have seen it anyway, so where'd he get the description from?

Either he made it up, "moved" the car from one place (Record) to another (Houston), or somehow knew about Craig's sighting. Or are we to presume that he lived in a vacuum and never read any of Lane, Meagher, Anson, Thompson or Weisberg, or anything in any of the periodicals, and never heard about them from anyone else?

Yup: impartial. And I'm not lending any partiality toward believing Craig's story to believing Carr's. They are completely separate considerations.

Does anyone know of a complete list of Dallas Police and Military Intel officers present in Dealey Plaza Nov 22, 1963? Rank and duties would be helpful too.

Could there ever be such a thing?

There were DPD officers who simply went to DP without reporting at the time that they were going (e.g., #87 R.C. Nelson) as well as others assigned to foot patrol along the parade route who walked there without benefit of a radio. Not every officer filed an "after-action report" of his duties that afternoon, and not all filed those correctly (e.g., once again, R.C. Nelson, who claimed to have spent "the rest of the afternoon" in DP when he is clearly heard on the radio being assigned to - and responding to - a report of a vehicle with a rifle in the back seat out along Fort Worth Drive, and then going to Oak Cliff). Many more did not testify. Several did not use radios.

There is a separate transcript of DCSO radio transmissions (in CE1973, I believe) in which several sheriff's deputies responded, as well as something from the state police. There is no similar transcript or testimony of anyone assigned to a federal function, whether FBI, ONI or otherwise, thus no way of knowing if there was anyone there who either didn't say that they were there, or who were not referred to by others who were there. This includes only those who were there in some official capacity and had no compunction against anyone knowing they were there; if there was anyone who wasn't supposed to be there, or was there for nefarious purposes, they certainly didn't report being there.

I have compiled a list of DPD patrol officers who responded to the Signal 19 call or who were later assigned to DP, but that list excludes detectives and many higher-ups who didn't have regular assignments or "beats." There were something to the tune of 88-95 cops - not counting DCSO personnel - in DP within 15 minutes of the shooting.

Interestingly, over half of them - that we know of - responded to the second Signal 19 in Oak Cliff, again not counting over 20 DCSO officers and possibly constables as well. I think this information may be posted in a thread here within the past six months: you might try the keyword "definitive" or "definitive list" in a search to find it. If I run across it on my computer, I'll forward it to you or post it here. It includes only DPD patrol officers, though.

... From They've Killed The President pages 31-32....

"Like many witnesses to the assassination, James Worrell was frightened, worried that perhaps the shooting was not over. He ran from Elm, where he had watched the motorcade, past the Depository onto Houston. He did not stop until he reached the corner of Pacific Street, a hundred yards from the Depository. As he paused to catch his breath, he saw a man burst from the back door of the Depository. From where Worrell stood the man seemed to be young, dark-haired, medium height and build, wearing light pants and a dark sports jacket. That was all Worrell could see. The man was running away."

After I wrote this, I just discovered that Anson's reference is WCH 16 H 959

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=138627

Worrell's description, its an affadavit; is actually a little more specific....

height 5'8 to 5'10, no hat, nothing in hands....

It is also kind of obvious, but WCD 1035 does not mention either of these two men getting into a car, ie the Rambler......

Dickey Worrell's time and distance estimates were all out of whack. Check his testimony to see how long (or short) it was between various events, and it's obvious that he could not keep track of time ... or worse.

The same is true of his distance estimates; see where he estimated that the limousine passed as much as 50, 75 or 100 yards in front of him ... as he stood near the southeast corner of the TSBD directly under the "sniper's nest" window. A football field's-length away? We all know better than that.

The TSBD building measures only 100' x 100' on the inside, thus if Worrell was "a hundred yards from the Depository," he was more than two blocks away. Pacific Street is directly behind the Dal-Tex Building, and would have run into the TSBD's loading dock if it continued west past Houston Street. "The corner of Pacific Street" and "a hundred yards from the Depository" has a twain that shall never meet.

More telling is the fact that a photograph was taken of that area of the TSBD moments before JFK was shot, and there is, unfortunately, nobody even remotely matching Worrell's description standing in that location.

In an article entitled "Imaginary Witness," published in Deep Politics Quarterly (January 2007?), I dissected Worrell's purported movements vis a vis the President's arrival, the motorcade's route, the bus schedule and the shooting. In it, I determined it was possible for Worrell to have been in DP at 12:30, but only if the bus he got on at Love was running 10 minutes or more late, and he knew exactly where he wanted to go after getting off the bus (and that after having crossed through the crowds on Main Street to get there, i.e., bypassed the obvious parade route).

Bottom line: Dickey most likely wasn't there.

Last question, regarding the initial seconds after the assassination...isn't it true that someone testified or stated in an affidavit that they witnessed someone running parallel to the south fence around the knoll, between it and the Western portion of the TSBD, also vanishing out of sight?

Actually, this is the story that Richard Carr told to Penn Jones, after having told something different to the FBI in 1964, and before having sworn to something different yet again during the Shaw trial in 1969.

There's a correlation in there somewhere?

I talked with Bob Groden on 11/22 and he confirmed that Carr is deceased. I think he said it was in the '80s.

... I just wanted to mention that if someone can provide me with his date of death, I WILL find his obituary.

Okay, from the Social Security Death Index:

• No Richard Randolph Carrs
  
• Three Richard R. Carrs:
  • one born in 1922, died August 4, 1996 at Norton, WV, death certificate issued by the State of Georgia (SSN 259-05-1542)
    • SSN indicates issuance in Georgia
      
    • a possible hit?
      

    [*]one born in 1926, died November 13, 2004 (too late?), St. Charles, MO, issued by Missouri

    [*]other born 1941, too late to have served in WWII

  [*]301 Richard Carrs, several with different middle initials than "R" - the following death certificates were issued in Georgia or Texas:

  • b. 27 Nov 1924, d. Aug 1981 @ Fulton GA 253-46-7912
    
  • b. 24 Jan 1916, d. 16 Jul 1993 @ Bryan, TX 467-14-1013
    
  • b. 15 Mar 1921, d. Jul 1986 @ San Antonio, TX 466-18-8625
    
  • b. 29 May 1912, d. May 1987 @ McKinney, TX 450-07-9912
    

The others were born too late to have been old enough to have served in WWII, and others would have been too old (assuming a 30-year-old non-career enlistee to be about as old as the Army was taking them at the time). The Death Index can be searched through this link at Ancestry.com: http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/.

There is no certainty at this point that Carr died in either Georgia or Texas in the event that anyone wants to search some of the other names.

Yeah, maybe he could see the corner, but he couldn't see beyond it, except possibly on the sidewalk, and then not to the rear of the building:

The car he saw speed away was not on the sidewalk. He could, at best, only see what is to the left of the red line. He said himself, however, that he "could not possibly have seen" the entrance to the building from where he'd been. So, either he could or he couldn't ... and if he couldn't, as he himself said he couldn't, then he also couldn't have seen any vehicles parked on Houston.

Karl,

All that your "interpretation" shows is that MAYBE Carr could've seen some point ahead of where I was standing when I took that photo. The other photo - the one with the arrow on it pointing out the new courthouse building - was taken at the corner of the TSBD, on the sidewalk. You can only see the upper two floors of the 12-story building. Carr was not that high up - only as high as the 7th floor - so he could not have been looking over the old courthouse roof: it would have blocked his view.

Furthermore, he claimed to have seen the men emerge from either behind the TSBD or from the loading dock doorway at the rear of the present main structure. Even if he could have seen the corner as you've tried to show, he could not have seen any farther up the street, as my photos clearly show. Here's another one taken farther north on Houston Street: if you can't see the new courthouse, then nobody on the new courthouse could have seen anyone at the spot this photo was taken. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

That's utterly ridiculous.

This photo:

... disproves this photo?

From street level, on Houston Street next to the TSBD, you can't even see the new courthouse building, ergo the reverse is true as well.

Otherwise, explain why the new courthouse isn't visible "over" the old courthouse roof. Just so we're clear on the concept (and don't think that I erased the building), here's another shot from the corner of the building, where a small portion of the new courthouse building is visible:

Even if he could see over the old courthouse roof, he could not see through the Criminal Courts and Jail building between it and the Records Building. The line of sight just doesn't exist. Period.

... while Carr couldn't have seen what he claimed to have seen, there is not necessarily an incompatibility as far as Craigs' Rambler goes.

No, John, there isn't ... but because Carr couldn't have seen what he claimed to have seen, not despite it.

If Carr didn't see a gray Rambler where he claimed to because he couldn't see it even if it was there, then the Rambler he didn't see has absolutely nothing to do with any Rambler that anyone else did see.

If one was to accept they are talking about the same Rambler ....

What valid reason would there be to do that?

... Eliminating something conclusively is important in a search for the truth just as is following 'the right lead'. They go together. Already, your research here has increased knowledge on a number of issues, so it's not pointless. Progress is sometimes made of just such as this.

Just so. As Sherlock Holmes said, "when you exclude the impossible, what remains, no matter how unlikely, is the truth." Elmination is necessary so you don't go chasing endlessly and fruitlessly in hundreds of directions that lead nowhere.

Carr originally told investigators about a gray Rambler in January 1964. It was supposedly parked on Record Street facing north from Commerce, driven by a young Negro male. It could conceivably have been driven north to Elm and then west through the plaza and been the one in the photo ... if Carr was even downtown and actually saw anything at all that he claimed to have.

Given his later fabrications, there is more than enough reasonable doubt that he was.

Chief among those reasons is his failure to complete his mission of seeking a job, as well as his failing to pick up his wife and child from the hospital, where he'd taken them. Can you imagine someone dropping the wife and kid off, going downtown while the streets were packed with people, climbing up six or seven flights of stairs in search of the foreman who was on the ninth floor, then, upon hearing some sounds (which he initially said he didn't identify as gunfire) and watching people fall to the ground, he abandoned his quest, returned to ground level (which he didn't claim to have done in his later versions), and walked toward the grassy knoll to encounter a crowd so thick that he didn't think he could navigate through it (a scene that is not in evidence in any of the photos of Dealey Plaza during the immediate aftermath).

Then, after satisfying his minor curiosity, he did not return to the ninth floor to find the foreman and get a job. Instead, he said he left the area and went to his brother and friend's houses back in Oak Cliff. He was unaware of the assassination until about two o'clock. Since whatever he'd seen - if he saw anything - was not of significant importance (since he didn't realize the President or anyone else had been shot, or even shot at) and he couldn't get close enough to investigate what it was all about, why didn't he finish what he'd come downtown for in the first place?

And what happened to his wife and kid? Did he let them take the bus home? Remember that he took them to Parkland, where there was undoubtedly a lot of commotion after the shooting. He apparently just left them there to fend for themselves; he apparently did not return there to pick them up, for it would seem to me that he'd have mentioned the activity there (especially if it had hampered his ability to find his wife and kid), and more than likely would have learned about the shooting while there rather than an hour and a half later.

Instead of getting a job, he went visiting. Instead of using his time to pursue contacting the courthouse construction foreman, he went to a trailer park where he found his brother and friend not working in the middle of a sunny Friday afternoon. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they spent the afternoon drinking beers, the point being that he may well not have been the most upstanding, productive citizen of Dallas at the time, and this whole concoction of his - which is what I think it is, a concoction - was his fifteen minutes of fame.

His approach to Penn Jones and the fantastical story about two men behind the picket fence, followed by just-as-sinister-sounding testimony in Shaw, lends credence to that perspective.

I think perhaps finding an obit for this guy would prove enlightening, not because of what it might say about his military service, but rather for what it tells us about who survived him, that is, the names of his wife, children an brother. It would be as interesting to hear what they have to say about that Friday as what Dickie Worrell's relatives had to say about him.

I am reminded of Justin Hayward's words, totally unrelated to this:

When we introduce the mere possibility of things not being "normal," everything becomes mutable, nothing at all is dependable. Maybe Roger Craig's angle was such that the way the light reflected made things look different, or maybe Richard Carr was color blind so maybe he'd see green as gray if he had a certain kind of color blindness - or only certain cones in his eyes were awry, or the car was really red and both of them were color-blind! - we can arrive at any conclusion we'd like and it's always the correct solution, or at least the actual facts are, unfortunately, totally indiscernable.

But here's the important fact: since Richard Carr could not have seen more than a sliver of Houston Street between Elm and Pacific - and that only the few feet closest to Elm Street on the western corner - even if there was a Rambler there, Carr couldn't have seen it to describe it.

Why are we even concerned about what he claims to have seen since it's indisputable that he couldn't see it? If you want to know its real description, I'll tell you:

It was a late model red Herring.

It's an illusion.

If it existed, Carr had no way of knowing. Further consideration of his "gray Rambler station wagon" is nothing more or less than wishful thinking: wishing there was a way he could have seen it - and the man he associated with it - in order to provide "corroboration" of others' statements. Continued discussion about the gray Rambler or assertion of its actions - and even its mere existence! - is to accept Carr's claims on faith alone and in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

If Carr described, under oath, a vehicle that was physically impossible for him to have seen, and the actions of men he likewise couldn't have seen ... when you add in the questionable nature of his testimony about being a US Army Ranger assigned to the Fifth Ranger Battalion at Anzio (and being one of only a handful of survivors of a rout that actually involved the Third Ranger Battalion), coupled with the evolving nature of his testimony and his apparent failure to complete his mission to the courthouse (to see the foreman about a job), is there really any reason to believe that he was even in Dealey Plaza at all during the relevent time?

[Carr didn't] come forward himself, he's such a braggart that someone else had to turn him in to testify to authorities. I don't put too much weight on witness testimony, but I don't discredit them or call them fakes and pretenders. Like Jack White says, they were there, I (we) you weren't. They get the benefit of the doubt.

That's not entirely true. While two other women contacted the FBI after he'd told them his story (and that after they'd told him their story, which I outlined earlier), it was Carr who contacted Penn Jones in 1967 to tell him the fantastical story about the two men behind the picket fence meeting up with a "Negro" and driving away in the Rambler.

Combined, this tells me you really didn't just want to discredit Carr, you want to discredit all of the witnesses who saw a man getting into Rambler station wagon, of which we have a photo of at Dealey Plaza, so how can you say there was no gray Rambler station wagon?

Well, I recall that the photo in question is a black-and-white image, so I'm not certain of what color it was or it wasn't. If it was indeed a gray Rambler, then it wasn't the green Rambler that Roger Craig saw, so that photo isn't the proof some claim it to be that Craig had seen what he said he'd seen. Now all we need is some degree of proof that there was a green Rambler in the plaza in a position to pick up Oswald as he ran down the embankment to Elm Street because this photo can't be a photo of both cars: it's either Carr's gray Rambler (which sped off northbound, remember?) or it's Craig's green Rambler supposedly picking up Oswald. If it's one, then it's not the other.

Well, either the Fifth Rangers were at Anzio or they weren't. There must be some explanation why some members of an in-training battalion were separated from the rest of their battalion, if in fact they were and the gravesites aren't in error. The annihilated battalion wasn't the Fifth, it was the Third. It doesn't appear as if Carr was actually a Ranger anyway, so even if any of them were there, it doesn't appear that he was.

I think it's fair to say that 99-44/100% of the participants in any battle are reluctant participants.

Carr is not, in my opinion, "a witness whose testimony coincides with the testimony and reports of others." His testimony is that of a pretender who read about others' accounts and adopted them as his own. He is a real xxxx and a fake war hero.

Duke, save your revolusion for real liers and fake war heroes. ... Find me an obit for Carr and you will answer most if not all of the outstanding questions.

You don't believe Carr, I do. What's the beef? ...

And most prosecutors believe that Lee Oswald killed Jack Kennedy alone and unaided. You don't. What's the beef? Let dead dogs lie.

... I don't think Carr is proof of conspiracy or proof of anything, he's just another witness whose testimony coincides with the testimony and reports of others that gives us a more clear, rather than muddied, idea of what went on at Dealey Plaza.

Carr is almost like the Morreman in the Street issue. The more you study it and microanayzie it, the less you really know about who assassinated JFK and why. You are pursuing answers to questions that don't really tell you anything important. ...

I am neither a Conspiracy Theorists who has a theory to propose or a LNer, I am reviewing all the available evidence to determine if it is worthwhile and admissible to a grand jury proceeding, whether it leads to new evidence or witnesses, and to try to locate living witnesses who can be called to testify before a Congressional Hearing on the JFK Act records or a Federal Grand Jury investigation into the assassination.

Carr is dead and can no longer testify, but his statements are admissible to a grand jury as hearsay, but not at a trail if the grand jury votes to indict anyone.

The only use of Carr's testimony would be to establish the fact that there are other suspects besides Lee Harvey Oswald, whose statements are also admissible as grand jury evidence, but not at a trial.

If I were a prosectuor with a grand jury ready to go I would not bother to mention Carr or Oswald, as there is much better evidence and more compelling testimony than either.

Well, why didn't you say that the only thing you really want to discuss is stuff that you find valuable for a possible grand jury proceeding? Then all you'd have had to say was "I don't care about any of this" and I could've said "okay, then let's not discuss it," and we wouldn't have had this long conversation.

What Carr's testimony and statements tell me is that he lied and didn't see any men or any Rambler on Houston Street to the east of the TSBD.

If Carr didn't see them, then he doesn't corroborate any other person's story, such as James Richard Worrell, who also wasn't there and didn't see anything of the sort he said he'd seen ... which did not include a Rambler or any other car, so there's nothing to corroborate anyway.

George Rackley and James Romack's testimony refuting Worrell, aerial maps showing construction on Houston Street, further disprove Carr's assertions.

Combined, they tell me that there was no gray Rambler station wagon or any number of white, black or Latin men involved in exiting the building and running or driving away to anywhere.

His story doesn't give us "a more clear, rather than muddied, idea of what went on at Dealey Plaza," it actually muddies it more than it already is.

If Carr didn't see it - and my photos from the earlier thread prove that he couldn't have - then there is no indication that it actually happened, and no reason to believe it did. How does that make things "more clear?"

It's like saying that Howard Brennan sitting on the wall and looking away from the TSBD, and saying he saw the gun in the window proves Oswald did it. Or maybe we should just overlook that inconvenient fact, take him at his word, and accept the Warren Report for the enlightened truth that it is, for all of the evidence that proves that Oswald didn't do it actually proves that he did. Black is white is black, and white is black is white.

If it's good enough for the LN'ers, then it darned sure ought to be good enough for the CT'ers, don't you think?

... I followed one of the Ranger web sites and came across a list of those Rangers killed in action at Casablanca or Anzio, I forget which, but the list contained a number of those identified as 5th battalion.

Well, since the 5th Bat, according to its official history, didn't get into the game until D-Day, Normandy, then Carr was a xxxx, and couldn't have been with the 5th Ranger at Casablanca or Anzio because that unit wasn't there and still in training or bonding with the lassies in Scotland.

In looking at the stories behind the Rangers at Casablanca - fighting the French Nazi loyalists, and at Anzio, where they were tragically misused as an advanced force which totally annialiated two battalions (750 men), in which only six survived, if Carr was with them, he was indeed an unrecognized hero.

I don't think he was one of the six, or fifteen as he recounts in his testimony, but he may have been there, if not as a bonified Ranger, then as a member of the USS Ranger Task Force that attacked Cassablanca, or one of the regular army at Anzio who failed to relieve the advanced Ranger units.

Well, skip the former of these because anything "USS" designates a ship, which means Navy, and while there was indeed a task force led by the aircraft carrier Ranger, it was not a "Ranger Task Force" (i.e., a task force of Rangers) nor was it even an Army operation.

You can probably eliminate the latter as well, his being "regular" Army attached to a Ranger battalion, given Carr's statement at trial: "I was a member of the Fifth Ranger Battalion in World War II." If he was simply attached to - that is, assigned to support - a Ranger battalion without being an actual Ranger, his claim to having been a Ranger - a "member" of the battalion - is a fabrication.

If - and I think it's a pretty big "if" - he was at Casablanca, Anzio, et al., then he was not there as a US Army Ranger nor as a "member" of the Fifth Ranger Battalion, so his sworn testimony remains a fabrication.

While I know of guys, like former Atlantic City mayor who exagerated his Vietnam service, and fake Medal of Honor recipients, Carr doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to lie about being a vet, or a Ranger.

He didn't notify the authorities about what he knew happened at Dealey Plaza, others reported on him, or we wouldn't even have his original statement let alone his New Orleans testimony. So he didn't try to beef up his veteran status until the issue of his familiarity with weapons and gunfire came up.

What difference does it make what the circumstances were that engendered the lie? If anything, given that the issue of his familiarity with weapons and gunfire was raised by defense counsel and therefore most likely wasn't part of his preparation for trial, it suggests his ability to conjure up an impressive-sounding lie extemporaneously.

What "kind of guy" lies? Do mayors fall within that "kind of guy?" Would the people who (thought they) knew those who lied about earning Medals of Honor and other high awards tell you that they'd thought the men who made those false claims were "those kind of guys?" How do you recognize those who are "those kind of guys," and by what measure to you exclude Carr from them? The dry transcription of his testimony does no such thing.

The history and evolution of what he'd had to say certainly does suggest to me that he is, in fact, that "kind guy" who inflates his own importance. See in the earlier thread what he had to say to Penn Jones, which is different from what he'd told both the FBI in 1964 and testified under oath to in 1969. The other option is that Penn Jones lied, or perhaps simply got the whole story wrong when he reported it to Garrison.

Remember that, in that story, Carr's "man in the window" was actually behind the picket fence and was never in a TSBD window. Is not his testimony essentially an amalgamation of his 1964 statement to the FBI coupled with what he told to Jones? One would have to be delusional to suggest that they're in any way consistent.

As far as him being able to see the TSBD from the building under construction 600 yards away, I'd view it in reverse. Instead of going to where he said he was and trying to see the TSBD windows, why not take a frame from the Secret Service reenactment film that pans out the window and down Houston and see if you can see the building under construction?

In addition, more than one person saw two people in the Sixth floor windows, one of whom wore a hat and a brown sports coat, who was later seen by others leaving the back door of the TSBD and running down Houston and getting into a Rambler station wagon driven by a dark skinned man.

There are two issues here, and we shouldn't mix them up nor combine them. One is whether Carr saw someone in the windows, the other is whether he saw the activity he claimed on Houston Street. The two are not interchangable, and neither proves nor disproves the other. They have nothing to do with each other beyond evaluating Carr's veracity.

The fact that the man told three completely different stories about the same supposed incident, one under oath, does not speak well to his credibility.

It is a fact that he could NOT have seen the goings-on he claimed at trial to have seen: Houston Street beside the TSBD simply wasn't visible anywhere on the courthouse building. It doesn't matter who else may have seen something similar occur on Houston Street, the simple truth is that Richard Carr was not one of them. Even if he saw someone in any of the TSBD windows, he could not have seen anyone on Houston Street.

The fact that he claimed under oath to have seen something that it was impossible for him to have seen from where he claimed to be isn't helping.

Whether he could've seen anyone, at all, in any of the fifth, sixth or seventh floor windows doesn't appear to be an issue since it certainly seems that he could have, depending upon where on the courthouse building he may actually have been. Whether he could have seen such a person 250+ yards away with the clarity he claims to have (able to discern not only someone wearing glasses beneath a hat brim, but also that the frames were "thick") is an altogether different question, and it appears from the descriptions I'd posted from an Army artillery manual that well pre-dates even Carr's birth, that he could not have.

More likely, if he saw anything or anyone at all upstairs on any floor, he may have seen an individual dressed similarly once he'd descended to street level - as he claimed only to have done in his first iteration - and "projected" the street-level man's characteristics onto the man in the window. Not only distance would have obscured the detail of the man's glasses, but so too would have the dirty - and closed - TSBD windows.

If he didn't see the man in the brown sports coat, then how did he know that one was there? It's like Oswald's alibi, of having lunch with the two black guys in the lunch room. If he didn't, then how did he know they were there?

The difference between the two men's observations is that Lee Oswald didn't have an opportunity to read stories in the newspaper about the two black guys in the lunch room before he told anyone about them.

Do a little research on James Romack to find out more about this. Romack, together with George "Pops" Rackley, effectively blows away anyone having seen someone run from the side or back of the TSBD. Neither of them came forth and neither was known to have witnessed anything until Darwin Payne's article appeared in the paper about what Dicky Worrell was going to Washington to testify about, including his claim of seeing someone run out of the TSBD (Worrell wasn't even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder, so couldn't have seen anything anyway).

Carr didn't even claim to have seen anyone coming out of the TSBD - that we know of - until 1967, long after stories such as Worrell's began circulating, and books by Weisberg, Lane, and Meagher were in relatively wide circulation.

That is how Carr could've "known about" something he didn't actually see.

It's the combined testimony of witnesses that gives the story movement, and destroying the credibilty of Carr doesn't impeach the fact that a man in a brown sports coat was seen on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD building next to a man in a white shirt shortly before the assassination.

You're right: whatever Carr may or may not have seen has nothing to do with anything anyone else may have seen: it doesn't disprove anything, nor corroborate anything. After all, Carr never claimed to have seen a man on the sixth floor.

Now if we can find an obituary for Carr, then we will be able to find out more about his military service and whether he lied or exagerated about being a Ranger, at Cassablanca, at Anzio and Dealey Plaza.

What makes you think his obituary will be truthful? Obits are only what the family tells the funeral director or newspaper about the deceased: if he lied to his family and they had no readily available records to provide information one way or the other, they'd simply repeat the lies he told them. After all, obits usually appear within a couple of days of death, and I don't think any of us believe that they're fact-checked by anyone, do we?

Richard Carr is fast becoming the new Roger Craig, in the eyes of some researchers. I've defended Craig on this forum and on Lancer, from what I consider to unfair attacks on his character. What I question now is whether or not any witness in or around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 can survive the kind of scrutiny you've subjected Carr to. Carr certainly wouldn't be the first man to exaggerate his war record. If he did indeed lie about that, it doesn't necessarily follow that he lied about what he saw in the moments after the assassination. I don't know what he saw that day, but I don't find him less believable than the witnesses the Warren Commission used to buttress their official fairy tale.

I never suggested that it "follows" that because Carr apparently lied about his war record, he must've lied about what he'd seen. In fact, the only correlation between the two in this discussion is that someone suggested that, because he'd been an Army Ranger with an exemplary war record, he probably wasn't lying.

... We have filmed evidence that almost all attention, from bystanders and police, was drawn to the grassy knoll area just after the shots were fired. No amount of discreditation can change that. That's a good thing, because otherwise I expect we'd be having researchers suggesting that no one actually thought shots were being fired from that area. Carr, like Craig and Hill and several others, was a fallible human being. I find his account of what he saw to be in line with what others reported that day, and am not quite willing yet to throw him in with all the ridiculous apologist witnesses for the Warren Commission.

Which account, Don?

The one where he saw a man in the seventh floor windows of the TSBD, heard sounds he did not identify as gunshots, had his curiosity aroused when he saw people "hitting the ground" across the plaza, went back to ground level, walked to Commerce Street where he saw a similarly-dressed man walking quickly toward him, who then went east to Record Street and got into a gray Rambler wagon driven by a young Negro man?

... Or the one where he saw "two white men" behind the picket fence on the knoll, heard sounds that were definitely gunshots and even saw a "bullet" burrow into the grass on the plaza, then watched the men run northeasterly behind the TSBD while he (Carr) was still on the building, and then, also from on the building, saw the men and (per Penn Jones) "a colored man (he called him a Negro)," emerge from behind the TSBD (which Carr could not see from on the building), and the Negro get into the driver's seat of a Rambler station wagon on Houston Street (which Carr also could not see from there) while one of the white men got into the back seat and the other (who had a dark complexion) walked south to Commerce where he "disappeared from view?"

... Or the one he swore to under oath where he saw the man on the fifth floor of the TSBD from his perch on the new courthouse building, heard shots that he "immediately" recognized as gunfire (he "didn't think they were gunshots, [he] knew they were gunshots"), then, again without descending, saw three men emerge from behind or from the side of the TSBD on Houston Street (which Carr could not see), one of whom was now a dark-complected "Latin" rather than a "Negro," another man get into the driver's door before the "Latin" and slide across the seat, while the other man fled south on Houston ... remembering that it was and is impossible to see more than the first few feet of Houston Street east of the TSBD from the new courthouse (or vice-versa)?

Which parts are "in line with what others reported that day?"

One could conceivably conclude that Bill was "going to go along with" me, but doesn't want to relinquish the possibility of conspiracy as related by Richard Carr, just the same as "lone-nutters" cannot let loose of their conviction that Lee Oswald alone was guilty no matter what evidence to the contrary anyone else might present to them, and that no amount of doubt is "reasonable" enough to cross them over from one side to the other. One tends to cling to one's beliefs, and to whatever evidence can seemingly be shown to support it. Put that in the light of "lone nutters'" beliefs and be certain that the same obstinacy doesn't describe you.

"Conspiracy theorists," like "LN'ers," can seemingly explain away anything - or simply ignore it - if it runs counter to their personal beliefs. We reach a conclusion, credit that which supports it, and disregard that which doesn't. Both sides use the same tactics with different data to support their conclusion and debase the other's.

Since Don mentioned Roger Craig, let's look at the difference between his and Carr's "discreditation."

I can well appreciate the correlation between them, especially in light of the two Rambler station wagons - "two" because Craig's was green and Carr's was gray - and dark-complexioned men driving each of them. The correlation ends there, however, and Carr should not be "defended" on the basis of whatever might've happened with regard to some people trying to "discredit" Craig.

People tend to cling to their own beliefs. Those who've attempted to "discredit" Craig would prefer to disregard the photographic evidence that at least suggests that Craig wasn't making up stories, or interpret it in such a way that casts doubt upon Craig's veracity about what he saw versus what can be seen in photographs.

I refer, of course, to the photo (I'm sorry: I'm not good at mentally cataloging photographers and frame or photo numbers: I'm stumped beyond "Altgens 6" and "Z312!") that depicts Craig standing near the south curb of Elm Street on the central plaza, looking north toward the TSBD, with a Rambler station wagon in the photo and a bus blocking whatever is beyond it.

In this case, the "LN" point of view is that, since we can't see what's beyond the bus, we cannot accept that it may have blocked a view of Oswald scurrying down the embankment: since it can't be proved, it must be impossible, Craig "must have" lied. With two out of three data points being proved - first, that there was a Rambler station wagon (maybe driven by a dark-complexioned man?) on Elm Street; and second, that Craig was looking in the direction where the action he described would have been taking place, said action apparently involving such a Rambler station wagon; lacking only the third point, proof that Oswald was coming down the embankment behind the bus toward the wagon - the "weight of the evidence" is that nothing of the kind happened.

In Carr's case, we have no such directly-related photographic evidence, and what photographic evidence there is directly refutes his claims. Is there anyone here or elsewhere that will say that "the crowd was so thick" on the plaza that someone could not possibly have found their way on foot across it to wend their way to the knoll where Carr's curiosity was drawn as people fell to the ground?

It was not, after all, as if the crowd from along Main Street had flowed into Dealey Plaza after the shooting, which even people in the plaza - including Carr, by his own original accounts - didn't realize was gunfire. If someone has or even knows of a photo showing a crowd so thick that a man on foot could not possibly navigate it, I'll eat my hat.

I have never questioned whether Carr could have seen the area surrounding the "sniper's nest" window, up or down a floor; the question is whether he could have seen anything taking place on Houston Street east of the Depository. I believe that I've shown photographically, from the other end of his line of sight, that he could NOT have seen anything going on there, irrespective of whether he could've seen the fifth-, sixth- or seventh-floor windows at the southeast portion of the TSBD.

I have questioned whether he could've seen those areas with the clarity he claimed, such that at 800 feet (250+ yards) he could make out glasses on someone much less whether those were "horn-rimmed" or "thick" or anything other than possibly someone's eyes. I even posted the distances at which certain characteristics of a "target" person could be discerned from various distances according to a long-standing US Army artillery manual written long before Richard Carr was even a gleam in his daddy's eye.

Yet contrary to this, we wish to still credit Richard Carr with seeing what he claimed to have seen from where he claimed to have seen it?!?

Fine. We can take it as a matter of fact or as a matter of faith. "Fact" shows that he could not see what he claims to have seen, either because of angle or because of distance. We can maintain our faith that he did, despite evidence to the contrary, or we can disprove those facts. And - despite my bias, having established them - they are facts until and unless someone else disproves them.

In the thread "Richard Randolph Carr: The End of the Story?," we explored the details of Carr's statements regarding what he saw (or didn't) in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, from his vantage point on the west wall of the new county courthouse building at Commerce & Houston.

During that examination, we reviewed Carr's testimony during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, and speculated how the jury might have lent his testimony more weight after his saying that he was a WWII veteran of the Fifth Ranger Battalion, having been wounded several times, and one of just 12 survivors from his battalion following the battle of Anzio.

When I began the critique of Mr. Carr's testimony and prior statements, I was excoriated for "discrediting an eyewitness," to which I responded that I'd never discredited any actual eyewitness, only those who claimed to have been, but weren't.

It turns out that there's more to the "story." To me, it borders on sacrilege for it seems that Mr. Carr had no shame when it came to telling stories ... and apparently got away with it because nobody was able to check his bona fides.

Consider the veracity of his testimony in light of that about his service record.

The website www.RangerRoster.org contains a searchable database of all Army Rangers who served during WWII; Richard Carr's name is not among them. Not only not among the Fifth Ranger Battalion, but not any of the Ranger battalions serving at the time. The only Carrs in this database are Charles L., Donald F., Elmer C., James L., Omer B. and William K.

Furthermore, a NARA search of Army enlistees returns only one "Richard R. Carr," who enlisted at Atlanta, Georgia (born 1922, making him 40 or 41 in November 1963), and only two named "Richard Carr" with no middle initial, one enlisting in South Carolina and the other in Missouri (born in 1905 and 1910, 58 and 53 respectively); all others named Richard Carr have different middle initials than "R" for "Randolph." While it is possible that any of those three might be "our" Richard Randolph Carr, it is by no means certain.

Searching the Social Security Death Index (according to Bob Groden, Richard Carr is deceased), there is a Richard Carr born in 1912 who died at McKinney, Texas in 1987; one born in 1930 who died at Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1985; one born 1924, deceased 1999 at Homedale, Idaho (death certificate issued in Oklahoma); another born in 1902 deceased at Austin, Texas in 1987; another born in 1907 who died in 1973 at Houston, Texas; yet another, born in 1921, deceased at San Antonio in 1986; and another born in 1916, dead in 1993 at Bryan, Texas. (Another Richard Carr had a death certificate issued by Oklahoma, but he was born in 1955, eliminating him from our search.)

Any of these could be our man too, as could be others who died elsewhere, but none of them appear to be any of the three Richard Carrs who enlisted in the Army during WWII. A Richard Carr whose last residence was in Atlanta (born 1922) died in Missouri in 1982, and Georgia also issued a death certificate for two Richard Carrs, one born in 1922 and the other in 1924, deceased in 1996 and 1981 respectively.

Although we don't have information (that I'm aware of) as to when and where "our" Richard Carr was born, enlisted or died, it is so far impossible to show him as having been an Army Ranger, and difficult at best to show that he even enlisted in the Army at all.

Carr's sworn testimony during the Shaw trial regarding his Army experience was related to qualifying him as an "expert" able to recognize gunfire, which defense counsel had objected to his doing (he was eventually qualified as an expert to recognize gunfire, but not to be able to determine the weapon or type of weapon it may have come from). His testimony was as follows:

In searching several sites (see Google search results) that detailed information about the Fifth Ranger Battalion as well as the battle of Anzio, we find that three Ranger battalions were part of that battle, which was also known as "Operation SHINGLE:" the First, Third and Fourth ... but not the Fifth. The First and Third were surrounded by German troops and "annihilated" (to use Richard Carr's word) but not to the extent that there were only "13 men left" as Carr claimed: the official tally is 12 killed, 36 wounded and 743 captured. Only 6 men - not 13 - managed to escape and return to friendly territory. There is no indication in these histories which battalion(s) the men were assigned to, but it is certainly not the Fifth.

I wrote to the webmasters at RangerRoster.org and received this reply:

As much as I've found Carr's testimony about the events in Dealey Plaza to be questionable at the very, very best, the above information clinches for me that the man committed blatant perjury and got away with it only because there was no apparent way for anyone to verify or refute what he'd said. To this day, there is not a war veteran who cannot tell you where he or she had been during their term of service. There have been several recent cases where it's been found that men who either were not in the service or who did not see action, later represented themselves as being or doing something that they weren't or didn't do, or as having received awards that they never earned; so many and so preposterous, in fact, that it is now a federal offense to imposter one's self as a decorated veteran of the US Armed Services.

Personally, I find it deplorable when someone makes themselves out to be a hero when they are not, and to have war-related experiences and expertise that they did not have nor earn: by doing so, these despicable people trample the memory and experiences of those who fought and died by making themselves out to be as brave and heroic as the men (and now, women) who were actually there.

If Carr fabricated this experience - as the available evidence strongly suggests he did - then his account of the events of November 22 should not only be dismissed, but they - and he - ought to discarded and shunned as nothing but the basest lies of one who is bereft of all decency. If he lied about his role in the war - if he was even ever in the Armed Services! - then it lays bare and underscores his willingness to lie under oath about something he never actually even saw in order to connect a man, Clay Shaw, with "Latins" (presumably Cubans from New Orleans, who had formerly been "Negroes") who, as far as Carr even could have known, were never in Dealey Plaza.

That certainly doesn't raise his stature in my eyes. If that was what he'd done, then he is certainly among the lowest of the low, and his sworn testimony is nothing more than - and quite possibly much less than - the product of an opportunist's overly fertile imagination.

Absent verifiable proof to the contrary, it appears that Richard Randolph Carr was not an Army Ranger during WWII, was not in the Fifth Ranger Battalion, did not serve at Anzio or any of the other places he claimed, was not one of the few survivors of an "annihilated" Ranger battalion, and may not have even served in the Army or been wounded or even experienced gunfire in combat as he claimed to have done. If he did none of these things, then it is a very short leap of faith - even not in light of the evidence we've discussed elsewhere - that he did not see or hear any of the things he claimed he did in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, if he was even there ... the "proof" of which is only this man's own word, which does not appear to be worth anything.

Dissenting opinions are always welcome. I'm not prepared, however, to give this man the benefit of doubt; is anyone else?

Couldn't resist the opportunity to give this thread a bump. This from the thread called "Richard Randolph Carr," together with my responses to it:

BK: "I would put the word of a decorated US Army Ranger veteran before any debunker, and a jury would believe him." Unfortunately this is a dominant paradigm, I understand US Ranger General Walker had a few decorations as well. Not so sure about various Commanders in Ghief like Nixon, Bush and Reagan, criminals all.

John, I'm not saying he is to be believed because he is a Ranger, I'm saying that he is a bonified witness who was most definately at Dealey Plaza and that if someone wants to discredit him they can. Every witness can be and has been discredited - witness Jean Hill, Helen Markham, Brad Ayers, also a Ranger, and now Carr.

Bona fide (Latin): literally, "[in] good faith" (ablative of "bonus [good] fidelis [faith]," in implied). Faith (noun): (1) confidence or trust in a person or thing, e.g., faith in his abilities; (2) belief that is not based on proof, e.g., he had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I am in nearly absolute agreement that a decorated veteran Army Ranger's testimony would probably gain more credence than that of an average "man on the street," but it is not always so. Likewise, one is not more or less honest by virtue of one's training or background, hence, I would say, John's calling upon the memories of former US Presidents who told less than the truth and were less than completely honorable. And whose word might be given more credulity: a President or a Ranger? What if the President was also a Ranger?

The second definition is the more apropos: Carr's story is one that many of us choose to believe, but not because there is proof of it.

Still, Carr seeing what he likely could NOT have seen ...

That's Larry Hancock and two photographers and others going to the place where they believed Carr said he was at the time of the assassination and not being able to see the 6th floor of TSBD clearly. What I'm saying is that because he says he saw somethings in the windows that other people who were at other locations also saw - tells ME - that whereever Carr was he saw the same thing - or as you implied, he conspired with others to lay what you call "a false trail" after the fact, which we know didn't happen. So MY conclusion is that Larry and others who have tried to verify Carr's position, did not go to where ever Carr was at the time.

Frankly, nobody can go to where Carr was at the time because he was on a staircase built on the outside of a steel structure over which a wall of windowless stone was placed. The only ways someone could get there now is to rappel down from the top of the building, climb up the wall from below, or be lowered in something like a window-washer's gondola.

Carr did not claim to have seen anyone in the sixth floor window. He first claimed it to have been a window in the "top floor," which must be the seventh floor, mustn't it? Second or third window from Houston Street, as a matter of fact. Later, he changed it to the fifth floor, third window in. Never did he say sixth floor.

... supporting others statements is curious. Does it mean he lends them credibility or is it indicative of the other witnesses and him conspiring to create a false trail? If so, they did a good job of engaging numerous researchers for almost half a century in a wander through a room chockablock full of smoke and mirrors.

I don't think Carr is part of the crew that has led researchers wander thorugh a room chockablock full of smoke and mirrors. They're the bad guys, trained in psych-war smoke and mirror techniques. They're the ones who tried to kill Carr.

Carr's statements support the living testimony of others who saw the man in the brown sports coat, and makes their testimony more believable. I don't think Carr's statements make things muddier, I think they make things much more clear, at least as far as leading investigators to the Man in the Brownsports Coat and the Rambler station wagon. Those who don't want to go there don't have to.

Carr is most likely not part of any kind of "team" of any sort; my estimation is that he's very simply just a wannabe: someone who simply wanted to be important and thus created a story based upon bits of what he knew of others', thus giving him his own 15 minutes of fame.

How might he have come to this information if he hadn't seen it himself? Simply by reading the newspapers. James Worrell's story was printed in the Dallas Morning News on December 5, 1963, for example, mentioning a man running from the TSBD in a sports coat; Carr didn't come to anyone's attention until after Christmas 1963, December 27, to be exact. No need to "conspire" here, nor any need for any of them to even know each other.

So the two of them claimed to have seen someone in a brown (or tan) sports coat; two people seeing him must make him real. Trouble is that Worrell claimed to have seen the man run out of the building, across Houston Street, then east and out of sight on Pacific. Carr, on the other hand, claimed to have seen this guy two blocks south, on Houston at Commerce. So two people see a man dressed alike in two different places doing two different things equates to the two men's sightings being of the same man simply because they were dressed alike? One ran north, one ran south, and it's the same guy?

(Of the two of them, it's probably more likely that Carr was at least in the area; Worrell definitely wasn't.)

Ditto the Rambler: Carr's was gray; Roger Craig's was green. But because they were both Ramblers, they're the same car, right? And it might've been Ruth Paine's, too, because Oswald supposedly said to "leave her out of this." Doesn't matter that she drove a Chevy: it was a station wagon, ergo it further substantiates the others. The green-gray Chevy-Rambler: one car.

The only proof we have, by the way, of Carr's being shot at, etc., is his own word. Granted it was under oath, but almost everything else he said (excluding "the" and "a") was perjury, so why should we take him at his word?

But here's the key:

What I'm saying is that because he says he saw somethings in the windows that other people who were at other locations also saw - tells ME - that whereever Carr was he saw the same thing - or as you implied, he conspired with others to lay what you call "a false trail" after the fact, which we know didn't happen.

As John Dolva said: "Do we? "I think" or "I believe" does not equal "it is". I know you know that because I know from your postings that you are not stupid." I happen to agree with him on all three points.

What follows is fact, and it goes to show you that no, we don't know. In fact, my suspicion is that, when people have read this, Richard Carr will no longer be "a witness," but "part of the plot." Here's the short version of the deal:

Carr's story came to light on December 27, 1963, when one Mary Sue Brown contacted the FBI to tell them what he'd said, albeit not entirely accurately. No matter. Mary Sue's sister was one Elsie Johnson (both nee Barnes), who had also been present - along with a Holly Jordon - when Carr told them his story. Carr's story may simply have been one-upmanship, given that the conversation had started about how the two (former) Barnes girls had supposedly been interviewed regarding their relationship with Jack Ruby.

Well, it turns out that they did know Ruby, but largely through Eva Grant, his sister. In fact, they'd known Eva since 1944 or 1945 and were apparently fairly close friends with her and her brothers (plural) for several years: Elsie had actually lived with Eva for several weeks in a house in the neighborhood of Bishop and Melba Streets in Oak Cliff. This is approximately three blocks west of Beckley Street and north of Jefferson, but it was, as noted, several years before the assassination. She had also once been a commercial artist, but ended up working with Sam Ruby "in the building business" in Dallas for several years.

Mary Sue had also stayed with Eva on and off, generally for short periods of time, during the same timeframe in the same residence which, it may be noted, is within a half-mile of Richard Carr's home at 728 North Bishop. The last time she'd stayed with Eva, a 1/3-carat diamond went missing, apparently pried out of a ring belonging to Eva which her mother had given her (the girls told a different story, that Eva had made the whole thing up to collect insurance money). Prior to that, Mary Sue had also worked in one of the clubs that Eva operated for Jack as a "singer and songwriter." The girls were close enough to Eva that they would all ride together in Elsie's car to visit Mrs. Barnes, the girls' mother, somewhere "in the country" outside of Dallas at least once a year.

Mary Sue had been to Jack's various apartments from time to time, noticing "several times" that he'd have rolled-up bundles on his table that looked very curious to her. One time she asked him what was in them, and he'd told her it was his laundry. One gets the impression that she thought it was suspicious, at least after he'd killed Oswald, sort of like the neighbor who finds that the "really nice and quiet" guy next door is actually a serial killer, and now remembers all sorts of "signs" that he should've picked up on, but "who'd ever have guessed?"

In December 1963, the girls were living at 6101 Singing Hills, in southeast Oak Cliff (which, incidentally, is within six blocks of the home of another witness in the saga who also used to work for Jack Ruby). In March, Elsie (and possibly Mary Sue) had apparently moved to 1125 North Bishop, which address she had given to the FBI when she had "telephonically advised" them that she was going to be subscribing to The Worker, but wanted to let them know that she wasn't a communist or communist sympathizer. Seems like she may have turned into something of an assassination buff, doesn't it? And who can blame her when you consider this:

The FBI also interviewed a woman whose name had been found in Ruth Paine's personal address/phone book who indicated that she was "casually acquainted" with Ruth, but being a member of the ACLU (at a meeting of which she had first met Ruth in May 1963) and the First Unitarian Church of Dallas, she was much better acquainted with Michael Paine, whom she saw frequently at both. The woman's name? Elsie Johnson.

All of that said, how clear is it now that we "know" that any collaboration between Richard Carr and unknown third parties "didn't happen?"

If the assassination were to happen today, they would waterboard Ruth Paine.

A cooperative witness? You think? Amos Euins, Arnold Rowland, James Tague, Roger Craig ... sure, I'll buy that. But Ruth Paine?!? I can't imagine.

In your list, you forgot to include Eddie Benavides, a true "cold case."

Bill, on the surface I can't imagine #4, LHO, as being the victim in an unsolved homicide. His murder was eyewitnessed by millions on TV, and the shooter was apprehended immediately after the act. While we may never know Ruby's true motive in the murder, the case would be considered "solved" by any Perry Mason standard of guilt or innocence. Could you possibly clarify your reasoning on labeling this one "unsolved?"

Hey Mark, I see your point, though a jury failed to convict him. If elimantation is the motive to kill LHO, as it was with JFK, then there's most certainly to it, and more guilty parties than just the triggerman. Of those on the list, it isn't one that has much chance of seeing court proceedings again.

Jack Ruby was convicted. The conviction was set aside, but it was made.

It strikes me that what Bill is saying is that, if there is any possibility of someone being behind a murder, then we shouldn't convict the actual murderer until and unless they are willing to implicate someone else if we suspect someone else is involved.

If we don't know who that "someone" is, then because we suspect that there is a "someone," all available resources should be assigned to determine who might be involved and build up cases against as many of them as possible, but to never let any of them off the hook.

If the actual murderer denies anyone else being involved - as Ruby did - and provides his own motive for a murder - as Ruby did - if we think someone else is involved, then we should decline to prosecute the actual murder just in case - as we suspect - he is lying.

That crap about a "right to a speedy trial" and all those other Constitutional "protections" clearly don't apply when we "know" there's more than meets the eye.

Shades of Guantanamo, works for me! We don't need that pesky document anyway, or the legal system that goes with it. I mean, seriously: whoever thought of that anyway? We oughta string that S.O.B. up ... provided everyone agrees, of course, that nobody else was behind it.

Dallas police have, "for the first time in its history," instituted a new policy regarding showups and witness identification of suspects. The original article can be found here on DallasNews.com. The only thing that would have made this policy more - is the word "ironic?" - is if they'd begun abiding by it nine days later!

New witness ID policy implemented

By JENNIFER EMILY, Staff Writer (jemily@dallasnews.com)

The new policy – instituted last month but announced to the public on Tuesday – limits and regulates how and when such identifications can be done and requires supervision.

Showup identifications typically occur when a suspect is found close to the scene of a recent crime. They can be conducted in person or with a photo shown to the witness. Although legal, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the practice highly suggestive in a 1967 decision.

Portions of the policy were developed after a Dallas Morning News investigation in October into faulty eyewitness identification involving 18 of 19 DNA exonerations in Dallas County. The News showed that three of the wrongful convictions were the result of showups.

Dallas police conducted a review of six months of showups after the newspaper's series ran, and the review showed that more than half of the showups conducted during that period were not necessary to make an arrest.

The new policy – instituted last month but announced to the public on Tuesday – limits and regulates how and when such identifications can be done and requires supervision.

Showup identifications typically occur when a suspect is found close to the scene of a recent crime. They can be conducted in person or with a photo shown to the witness. Although legal, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the practice highly suggestive in a 1967 decision.

Portions of the policy were developed after a Dallas Morning News investigation in October into faulty eyewitness identification involving 18 of 19 DNA exonerations in Dallas County. The News showed that three of the wrongful convictions were the result of showups.

Dallas police conducted a review of six months of showups after the newspaper's series ran, and the review showed that more than half of the showups conducted during that period were not necessary to make an arrest.

Gary Wells, a nationally recognized expert on eyewitness identification and an Iowa State University psychology professor, said DPD's new policy is "right out in front with the very best in the country."

"Someone did their homework well," Dr. Wells said.

Although the policy became official late last month, officers began abiding by it on Nov. 13.

Since then, police have conducted at least four showups, said police Lt. David Pughes. And one of those showups led to an early change in the policy, he said.

Officers initially did not ask suspects if they would go to the police station voluntarily for a photo lineup that includes at least five other photos. Now they do, and that change could lead to even fewer showups, Lt. Pughes said.

Other changes instituted by the policy include:

• A sergeant must respond to the scene and supervise, but all showups must be approved by the watch commander.

• The suspect must be located near the crime scene and detained no more than 30 minutes before the showup is conducted, and no longer than two hours after the crime occurred.

• The witness, when possible, should be taken to the suspect. And the witness should be advised that the person they are looking at may or may not be the offender.

The policy also requires the observing supervisor to document the process. Then, Lt. Pughes said, the showup is reviewed.

"We critique it," he said. "We look at it and see what was done – was it according to policy and if there's anything in the policy we should tweak."

One wonders: what, if any, difference would this have made 45 years ago?

I knew you couldn't not copy the entire post all over again!

Ah Ha, So you don't really want to discuss Tippit and whether his murder was connected to Dealey Plaza, you want to know who MY suspects are when a grand jury begins proceedings. The DA who convenes the grand jury desides who witnesses will be, but he doesn't have to have a suspect, just a crime that's yet to be solved, and the witnesses and the evidence lead him to the suspects.

Ultimately, that's true, but as I've said, the trail leading to most individual suspects has grown cold. If Carr's man did exist, Carr's not around to identify him, and any description he could give (if he were alive) probably doesn't even begin to match said suspect if he were alive (and existed in the first place). And then there are the red herrings, like Carr's guy and one-Negro-driver-cum-two-Negroes-cum-two-Latins, Hoffman's "Suit Man," an unidentified and possibly non-existent "Badgeman," and so forth.

I fear that, while what you say is true of grand juries in general, there's not much of a chance that any prosecutor anywhere at any level is going to convene one to start with a clean slate and every imaginable suspect out there.

Nowhere have I ever asked who "your" witness(es) might be; I've only said that, to garner a prosecutor's interest, you've got to have real, identifiable people as potential suspects. I think I've said a hundred times over that Tippit's murder was absolutely connected to the downtown shooting.

...Why make up stuff like that when real life scenarios are far more tantalizing. Like JD Tippitt really did work weekends at a barbeque restaurant owned by a Bircher whose business partner was the same guy who was business partners with Jack Ruby, and who reportedly had dinner with Ruby at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination. - Now that's a scenario that does tie Tippit to the events of Dealey Plaza.

That's a scenario, if true, that would tie Tippit's murder to the events in the plaza, but it doesn't necessarily tie Tippit himself to anything at all. The question is, is it true?

Ralph Paul was Ruby's benefactor and, according to one source, "the closest thing to a friend" that Ruby had. He was a semi-silent partner in Jack's businesses, all or most of which Paul described in detail during his depositions, of which there were two. Strangely - since I can't see the relevance - he was asked about businesses he'd been involved in with other people, not just Ruby, and he spoke freely of them. The names of Austin Cook and Austin's Barbecue were not among any of those discussed, and of course, Cook himself was not interviewed about anything other than his general impression of JD Tippit and the fact he'd worked for Cook.

The HSCA did discover an indirect relationship between Paul and Cook, through Cook's former business partner Bert Bowman. Austin's Barbecue was originally called "The Bull Pen," Cook changing its name after Bowman left. Bowman kept the name "The Bull Pen," which was also the name of Paul's restaurant in Arlington. In 1978, Cook expressed the opinion that Paul bought Bowman's restaurant "about 8 or 10 years ago," which would have been 1968 or 1970. Paul, however, owned "The Bull Pen" in Arlington as the sole stockholder in a corporation called "Bappo, Inc."

Ralph Paul was living in Bowman's home, also in Arlington, in 1963 and 1964, prior to his building his own home in that town. It is entirely possible that he used the same as Bowman had "kept" when dissolving his partnership with Austin Cook, and completely legal because both (1) "The Bull Pen" was no longer operating in Dallas, and (2) Paul's "Bull Pen" was located in a different county and operating under what's alternately called a "business alias," or a "d.b.a." (doing business as), the name search for those being limited to other businesses in the same county (Dallas is in Dallas County, Arlington is in neighboring Tarrant County).

Cook himself didn't make any reference to Ralph Paul in connection with his - or his and Bowman's - businesses, but his ex-wife told HSCA investigators that Paul "was a mutual friend of the Cooks and Bert Bowman." Given Paul's residence at the time in the Bowmans' house at the time, the latter seems a given; Bowman's wife (widow?), however, did not mention Austin Cook or any relationship between Cook and Paul when she was interviewed.

So, inasmuch as there was at least a mutual acquaintance between Cook and Paul, it does not appear as if he was Cook's "business partner" in any way, and that the indirect relationship between the two apparently ended with Bowman's disenfranchisement with Cook in 1958. Tippit, we will recall, only worked at Austin's Barbecue for two or three years, beginning no earlier than two years after Cook and Bowman had ceased being partners.

Is that "a scenario that does tie Tippit to the events in Dealey Plaza?" Only vaguely, in my opinion. If Tippit were a partner in Austin's Barbecue, I would perhaps see a greater significance in it, but he wasn't, so I don't.

Duke, You answered my question by making my head spin. Can't you try to make things more clear instead of more confusing?

I'll make a deal with you: I'll be more concise when you stop quoting everything I said that confuses you so everyone else gets to read it twice (and thus become twice as confused?) in the very next message. Let me save you the trouble this time:

Duke, You answered my question by making my head spin. Can't you try to make things more clear instead of more confusing?

I'll make a deal with you: I'll be more concise when you stop quoting everything I said that confuses you so everyone else gets to read it twice (and thus become twice as confused?) in the very next message. Let me save you the trouble this time:

Duke, You answered my question by making my head spin. Can't you try to make things more clear instead of more confusing?

I'll make a deal with you: I'll be more concise when you stop quoting everything I said that confuses you so everyone else gets to read it twice (and thus become twice as confused?) in the very next message. Let me save you the trouble this time:

Boring, isn't it?

Duke, You answered my question by making my head spin. Can't you try to make things more clear instead of more confusing?

I'll make a deal with you: I'll be more concise when you stop quoting everything I said that confuses you so everyone else gets to read it twice (and thus become twice as confused?) in the very next message. Let me save you the trouble this time:

How about now?

Duke, You answered my question by making my head spin. Can't you try to make things more clear instead of more confusing?

I'll make a deal with you: I'll be more concise when you stop quoting everything I said that confuses you so everyone else gets to read it twice (and thus become twice as confused?) in the very next message. Let me save you the trouble this time:

Have I made my point yet?

Fair enough?

I've never been accused of using a sentence when I had a whole page to work with. I've also never been accused of arguing a point with someone by pointing out the same argument I've used against them on another day in another place as if I thought arguing the point again today would make it a valid argument, at least in the other person's mind, to wit Carr's "Sportcoat Man."

I just want to know exactly who you expect a DA convene a grand jury toward bringing an indictment against. "Suitcoat Man" just ain't gonna cut it. Nor are any of the other nebulous men who were seen but can't be described and aren't even vaguely known.

The trail of these unknown persons is cold, cold, cold, whether or not any interest in the case is or isn't. The least any taxpayer should expect is a target, not just an open-ended investigation that will remain forever open-ended until every grand juror becomes a Poirot or Marples in order to solve over the short term what you and I have spent years upon years looking into.

Absent the "named conspirator" - a target - nothing at all is going to happen. Grand Juries aren't convened simply to declare someone innocent of a crime they were never convicted of, but rather with an intent toward convicting someone. Give me a "someone." By name. Who's alive.

Then, I'll put my imaginary staff on it, tût suite. Promise.

And in due course, I'll post those six names, too. Promise.

... Y'might say that the trail's gone cold by now.

In your mind maybe, but from where I am sitting, it's seems like the case is hotter than ever, and getting hotter.

Bill, I never said anything about the case; I only commented on the trail of any perpetrator(s) of the crime.

It's like you having done it. I say to the cops, "well it was some guy wearing a pork-pie hat, might've been blone, might've been gray, but he was definitely white, casually dressed." Well, if maybe I said that yesterday and the cops start looking for you tomorrow, you might still be alive, might still wear a pork-pie hat, and oh, did I mention he wears glasses? Great: gotcha. "Mr. Kelly, where were you on the 9th of December, 2008? Can you prove it?" Maybe I'll getcha, maybe I won't, but I've got something to work with.

Contrast that with "well, 45 years ago, as I think I told a cop, but it might've been an FBI agent, and I don't really remember if it was the same day or the next, but it seems to me that I said the guy was white, had some sort of hat, maybe wore glasses, but I'm not so sure about that, but if I saw him again (and if he looked the same), I'm sure I'd recognize him." Is that going to set your team of investigators hot on the trail of whomever it is you might've seen?

A more solid question is what you do about witnesses such as Richard Carr: two months after the fact, his claim came to the attention of your investigators, they said that he said that he saw a man in a hat in the 7th (top) floor window in a sport coat, jacket, tie and hat, wearing glasses with "thick earpieces" from 850 feet away, but didn't see a gun and sure didn't see any gunshots, but at ground level he also saw a guy trotting up Commerce Street to Record to get into a Rambler driven by a "young Negro man" and drive away. Not an actual "witness," right?

Then, three years later, he tells an independent investigator (Penn Jones) that he saw a man similarly dressed not in the 7th floor window, but behind the picket fence, who then ran "behind" the TSBD where he was joined by "colored men (he said 'Negro')," the latter of whom got into a Rambler, now on Houston Street, and drove away while the white guy came south on Houston to Commerce, turned east and went out of sight, no Rambler involved with him, and all this viewed not from street level, but from the 7th or 8th floor of the new courthouse building.

Then, two years after that, the man was not on the "top" floor, nor "by the picket fence," but now in the "third window from the SE corner" of the fifth floor of the TSBD, which we all know was occupied by "the three blind mice," Williams, Jarman and Norman. And, while dressed the same throughout, he didn't - and couldn't have - run "behind the TSBD" from "by the picket fence," but instead came out a side door or maybe from behind the building - neither of which sites were visible from the upper floors of the new courthouse where he claimed to have been this time - and was joined not by two "Negro" men, but by two Latin men of dark complexion.

Given these very exacting descriptions, will you please provide for me the descriptions of the men you now want my investigators to find and question forty-five years later. Height, weight, clothing, other identifying characteristics so I don't bring half of Dallas into a showup and ask your witness if any of those 45,000 men was the one he'd seen on any of those several occasions under so many circumstances. I need to pick up a suspect! Who shall it be?

What about Ed Hoffman's guy? I need a similar description. We know where James Files is, as well as Chauncey Holt, Charles Harrelson, E. Howard Hunt, and a host of others are ... and they're already, to various extents, "confessed" conspirators. Shouldn't my guys investigate them first, if they're not already dead? And what if they are? What are they going to tell me about who else they might've worked with to pull off the deal? Let's not even go where we can do anything with the guys that Lee Bower saw, because beyond what's on record - which isn't very much - we couldn't identify them out of a showup since, after all, Bowers isn't about to tell us who they are now.

Jim Leavelle is one of the few people I've seen lately that even resembles who he was 45 years ago, but his fellow officers aren't. And if someone was asked which of these former officers on stage here was the other one who'd been 'cuffed to Oswald when Oswald got shot, I daresay there's not even a reporter who was there who could do that today ... presuming the others are alive, which at least one of them is not.

So, given all of these factors - and probably more - exactly whom would you like me to make a case against based on the data we've got here? A white guy who might've worn a tan suit and hat and maybe worn glasses who also says that he was in New York City that Friday but, gee whiz, 45 years later, no longer has the documentation to prove it either way now, but can prove he was a resident of Seattle, Washington or Paris, France at the time?

And exactly how many of these men do you want me to identify, find and question before bringing an indictment against one or more of them?

Certainly you don't expect me to convene a grand jury just to declare that Oswald - who was never judicially declared guilty, which is my sole jurisdiction - was de facto innocent even while never guilty de jure, do you? Oh, and by the way, while we know who didn't do it, we still don't know who did ... and even if we think we know who did, he is dead, unidentifiable or possibly imaginary.

If I were an elected district attorney, I would pursue that only as a lame duck in my final weeks of tenure, knowing full well that my legacy will be that of "kook" and being perfectly comfortable with that, and then only to say that I'd "tried" to solve the crime.

If you were in "my" prosecutorial shoes, how might you do it differently? (I don't usually get answers to such questions, maybe this time you'll be the first.)

Well, Bill, I always make the case that people should "adhere to" my opinions, otherwise I'd have someone else's!

My point was that nobody at the time gave an exact description of whomever they saw, thought they saw, or claimed to have seen. Do you think someone should try to get a prosecutor to open a case on "a white guy with glasses and a hat," or "a black man with a white spot on his head" that you didn't see and can't describe any better than that, not to even mention that the suspect is now 45 years older and maybe even dead? Ditto the person or persons who did see these men.

On the other side of the coin, to say "Bill Kelly, who at the time lived here and did that, very well may have been involved by doing such-and-such" might actually get a response. To merely say that "Oswald didn't do it, I can prove it; therefore, somebody else did, and it was a white guy, so go find him" isn't likely to elicit much interest on anyone's part. Y'might say that the trail's gone cold by now.

Why "named conspirators"? Why not just OTHER SUSPECTS, of which there are plenty. For starters, in the Sixth Floor, there's the Man in the White Shirt with a bald spot and a rifle who was seen lining up a shot, and the Man in the Brown Sportscoat, who was seen standing beside him and later seen leaving the TSBD back door and run around the corner and get into the Rambler station wagon. And then there's the Man in the White Shirt on the Grassy Knoll, and Badgeman.

Now you say there are six suspects other than Oswald in the Tippit murder. That tells me there are other suspects out there worth investigating.

For the last time (well, probably not ... sigh!): no man was seen on the sixth floor wearing a brown sportscoat who was later seen leaving from behind the TSBD and getting into a Rambler. This does not even fit Richard Carr's supposed "Sportscoat Man," who was neither on the sixth floor (he was alternately on the fifth and "top" floors ... oh, and let's not forget that he was also behind the picket fence!) nor seen getting into a Rambler (except in his original story, and that Rambler was on Record Street driven by a "young Negro male;" later, the story morphed so that a Rambler supposedly somehow connected with the same man was (not) seen on Houston Street beside the TSBD, and it was two dark-complected Latin men who got into the car while "Sportscoat Man" walked south on Houston. Carr did not say that he'd seen any other man or men with "Sportscoat Man" in any upper windows. Carr's story is bullspit. He made it up and embellished it and couldn't even keep it straight from one telling to the next. See the "Richard Randolph Carr" thread for more info.

Amos Euins said that he never said that the man he'd seen was bald, despite police including that description in his affidavit. Arnold Rowland said he saw someone in the southwest window, but not with a sport coat.

"Named suspects" are important because, 45 years after the fact, we can't exactly be expecting someone to go looking for someone neither we nor they ever saw, and whose descriptions probably fit some 100,000 men in the city of Dallas at that particular time. Those are just specters without any substance, even if they did exist. How tall were any of them? Heavy or muscular or slim? Color hair? Facial hair? Complexion ruddy, light, medium? Big nose, little nose, pug or hawk or Bob Hope "ski jump?" Age? Weight? C'mon, to be a "suspect," shouldn't we at least be able to give investigators something to go on?

Is Tatum still around Oak Cliff? Maybe he can tell us if he took any pictures of the motorcade. ....

Why not check here and let us know what you find out? This isn't difficult ....