Wim Dankbaar

Duke,

I regret to say I have no more time to address your discreditation of Richard Carr. I can use it better. I'm sure that whatever I post will produce another long "rebuttal" from you, which I don't care to read. You must do it with what I I've said in this thread.

Take care.

Wim

Pam,

I am VERY VERY VERY curious where that rumor is coming from. Who is your source? Care to tell? It's a very serious accusation again. Can you back it up? Or are you blabbermouthing again? Then maybe you should consider an apology? Or is that not your character?

Wim

As for me, hyper-suspiciousness and implications that so-and-so is part of some coverup conspiracy are signals to just disregard anything that person says.

Well well, Stephen, So if I fill in "Arlen Specter" for "so-and-so" you would just disregard anything I say?

Let's see how that reads:

As for me, hyper-suspiciousness and implications that Arlen Specter is part of some coverup conspiracy are signals to just disregard anything that person says.

You agree to that statement, Stephen?

Remind me Stephen, or correct me if I'm wrong, was Arlen Specter not the inventor of the single bullet theory?

And do you underscore Gary Mack's statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

Since Arlen Specter is not a member of this forum, I presume I can safely say about the honorable senator: TO HELL WITH THAT xxxx! PUT HIM IN PRISON FOR HIGH TREASON!

Wim

PS: By the way, Stephen. Good to see that you're not posting anymore as David Blackburst. I always wonder why it's necessary to post under a fake name. But I am glad to see you kicked the habit.

Well, Wim seems to believe that there is only one version of Carr's story - the one he told on the stand in N'Orleans - and the rest is bullhooey concocted by the FBI to somehow discredit him. I'm going to go along with him and analyze Carr's full testimony in that case and let the cards fall where they may. If Carr is still alive - he fought in WWII, so he's at least "older" now - I'll see if I can't manage to get ahold of him and see what he has to say.

Yes Duke, there is only on reliable version of Carr's story. The other version came from the FBI, which I do not deem reliable at all. Why do you think they didn't call him for the Warren Commission? Even how the FBI tell his story in their report, you would expect that recommendation, if it was an honest investigation. That 's also why I believe Carr if he says the FBI told him "to keep his mouth". Gee man, think, why would he even say that in a court testimony?

Carr is dead. I forgot the details but he's dead. Groden has the details. If I recall correctly he says Carr should be added to the strange dead witnesses list. Something with a motorcycle .........

Wim

Wim has become a disgruntled delusional nut ...

says the man who saw Bigfoot with his own eyes. Maybe Bill will cut to the chase and explain what is delusional about my observation that Gary Mack is XXing? Or maybe Bill can explain on behalf of Gary (since Gary won't do it himself) how the single bullet theory is possible?

Oh and Bill, if it's allowed by the forum rules to be called a delusional nut (without proof) but not a xxxx (with proof), then I prefer to be called a delusional nut (without proof).

Wim

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1626531.ece

Secrets of Woody’s hitman father

John Harlow, Los Angeles

THE bloody family secrets of Woody Harrelson, the Hollywood actor, are to be revealed in a prison memoir written by his father, a professional hitman.

Charles “Chuck” Harrelson, who died in a Colorado maximum security jail last month, left a bundle of papers to his three sons with a plea to clear him of murdering a judge. But he admits in the memoir that he was involved in dozens of killings stretching back to the early 1960s.

Woody Harrelson, who played a psychopath in Oliver Stone’s 1994 film Natural Born Killers, has not yet decided what to do with the papers, although he has already challenged the final conviction that landed his father in a “supermax” high-security prison.

His father, who wanted his life story to be published, first went to prison when Woody was seven and was jailed for life when his son was at college, but said he always hoped that one day they would have a “straight, no bull” talk about his past.

Chuck Harrelson’s death at 69 following heart trouble meant that conversation never took place. However, the papers are expected to answer questions posed both by his family and by the relatives of his many supposed victims.

Prosecutors said Harrelson, a violent thief and killer for hire in his twenties, was unusual because he used a sniper rifle rather than a handgun. “Charles Harrelson damaged everyone he came in contact with,” said the prosecutor at his last trial.

Harrelson even boasted — probably to impress potential employers — that he had shot President John F Kennedy in Dallas in 1963. He claimed to have been one of three men dressed as tramps on the grassy knoll close to the Kennedy cavalcade and said that Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumed assassin, was too far away from the president to get a clear shot.

If the grassy knoll story was a self-promoting fabrication, it seems to have worked. In 1979 he was allegedly paid $250,000 to shoot a Texas judge preparing to sentence a drug dealer. The plot backfired. The judge died but the dealer was arrested and claimed to have hired Harrelson, who received two life sentences.

In 2003 the dealer recanted, saying someone else had shot the judge. Woody Harrelson stepped up pressure for a retrial, but his father died before lawyers could get him out of jail. “My father was no saint, but a lot of sources led me to believe it was not a fair trial,” he said recently.

Woody Harrelson, 45, who rose to fame as the slow, sweet-natured barman Woody Boyd in the TV comedy Cheers, has generated more recent headlines with political stunts. He scaled the Golden Gate bridge to unveil an antilogging banner and, as a vegan, has protested against factory farming.

He will appear next in a film called Battle in Seattle, set amid violent protests against the World Trade Organisation summit in 1999. “It’s to make up for not being there myself,” he joked.

Harrelson has had his own misadventures. He once admitted to “sex addiction” and in the early 1980s was fined after dancing in traffic and jumping out of a moving police van. He remains unsure how his life was influenced by his father’s criminal career.

“I suspect it’s a mixed influence — it made me think outlaw, but I would not want to hurt anyone,” he said.

Chuck Harrelson revealed his literary ambitions to Kenny Gallo, a convicted mafia “associate” in the FBI witness protection programme. “He wrote to me saying he was writing the book that exposed all the lies written about him over the years,” Gallo said.

He denied that Harrelson had killed 50 people: “He may have been involved in that many killings, maybe driving the car or something, but he only carried out maybe six killings himself.”

America no longer produced assassins like Harrelson, he added. “Today, you want someone killed, you call in a Russian or an Israeli. I don’t know how Woody feels about his father, but Harrelson was probably the last of a killing breed.”

Dear Annti,

In my view it doesn't make sense to moderate a post like this.

In a vain attempt to maintain credibility Gary will admit that the single bullet theory is "unlikely", but never "impossible". Why not? Because as soon as he admits that, he admits to a conspiracy, which for some hidden reason he cannot do. However, I dare to state that being the intelligent knowledgeable researcher that he is, he is very cognizant of all the availabe evidence that has proven the single bullet IMPOSSIBLE beyond any reasonable doubt. That permits the inescapable conclusion that Gary knows he is lying when he claims the single bullet theory is not impossible. And that is a XXX for an evil and undemocratic cause, namely keeping the truth muddied up and away from the American people. He keeps that XXX in tact by leaving out the details that prove his theories a XXX.

Everyone can still deduct what the word XXX was, thus my statements do not lose any strength or seriousness. But the real issue is that I say that if Gary claims that the single bullet theory is possible, it is a XXX. If one can prove it a XXX, I don't see how that is violating forum rules. Why am I not allowed to prove something important like that? And why is Gary not capable to address my charge, while he is man enough to XXX to the American public on national TV?

Let Gary state himself why it is not a XXX! Let him explain why he's not buying the autopsy reports (made by FBI agents) that clearly state that no bullet traversed through Kennedy's body. Let him explain that it is possible that a bullet can emerge like CE399 after making 7 wounds, shattering ribs and wrists! Let him explain how one bullet doing all that damage, can emerge in the condition of CE399 and the other bullet from the same rifle explodes in 1000 pieces, hardly a trace to be found. Let him explain why we should still buy crap like that! Let him explain why he's still defending the essence of the Warren Report! Untill then, I refuse to be taken for a sucker by him, and so should the rest of his audience. I will speak!

These are all requirements for the single bullet theory to be possible, and that is what Gary says. And I say it is a willfull XXX!

Or let him do an exact re-enactment in his next propaganda piece, and show the bullets, if he dares! I bet he does not even dare to show the bullets fired at that dummy head.

Gee, when someone claims that Jews need to be extermined, I cannot say it's a XXX?

Slander is not slander when it is true!

Wim

Chris,

Point taken.

Whether you or I agree with everything or anything Gary Mack says is irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't agree with everything we say, either.

I respectfully disagree again, for the following reason: Gary Mack has a job and a position that brings a responsibility. Namely telling the truth to the public. That's the difference between Gary Mack and you and me.

I believe you will agree that the Warren Commission also had that responsibility. If it can be proven (and I say it was already proven) that the Warren Commission perpetrated a hoax on the American public, deliberately, I say that's very significant.

Here's a definition of propaganda:

"To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil. They look on the propagandist as a person who is deliberately trying to hoodwink us, who uses half-truths, who lies, who suppresses, conceals, and distorts the facts. According to this idea of the word, the propagandist plays us for suckers."

I say that applies to the Warren Commission (by the way they were all nice, civil and honoroble men, at least in the eyes of the public)

If a President takes a nation to war based on a lie, it is NOT irrelevant whether we agree or agreed with him. I will give Vincent Bugliosi a hand on that.

That is why I also find it significant to determine whether Gary Mack fits the above definition.

Wim

I would appreciate assistance in getting contact data for Donald Freed. Or if someone else knows how to get in touch with him, that's fine too. I have been unsuccesful over the last few weeks. My questions are rather simple:

1) Did the name of James Sutton/Files indeed come up in the 1977 investigation of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) as "a black operative and close friend to Wilson and Townley"? And was he questioned by the FBI regarding this case (assassination of Orlando letelier)?

2) If so, who could give me some provable record of that?

3) Who was the author of this piece and which year was it written? http://jfkmurdersolved.com/blackops.htm

4) If it was the highly respected Donald Freed, why was the specific information about James Files sanitized from his book Death in Washington?

James Files confessed in 1993 that he was the grassy knoll shooter, delivering the final headshot to John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza 11/22/1963. The hardest thing to prove is that he was a black operative for the CIA, because he claims the CIA erased his files. He says this was arranged by his controller David Atlee Phililips. I trust you will see why it would be significant to prove that his name came up as a CIA operative in another political assassination as early as 1977 and long before his story on JFK came out.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/discredit.mp4

Raymond, since you can respond on behalf of Gary Mack, kindly ask him if he is aware of this document:

"Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile had entered at a downward position for 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit."

If so, why does Gary Mack not accept the observations in that document as factual?

I think every truthseeker is entitled to an answer from the man that tells America that the single bullet theory is not impossible.

Also, please ask him since when he changed his position on this:

I think every truthseeker is entitled to an answer from the man that co-creates TV shows which conclude that no shot was fired from the grassy knoll.

Wim

Ernst Kaltenbrunner was a top nazi condemned at Nurenburg. A few days later Wim Dankebaar starts a new thread comparing Gary to another nazi, Goebells. Wim Dankebaar is only interested in the "truth", not in vitriolic personal abuse.

Kaltenbrunner was a mass murderer. I did not say that about Gary Mack. It wasn't intended to refer to Mack. It was merely to illustrate that respect can be a function of time and circumstances because people are being duped. What people are often forgetting in their condemnation of evil is that they allowed that evil to rise to power. It shows that propaganda works!

As for Goebbels, You may have noticed that I changed it for something else. That's because I knew that it was going to meet with objections and people would find it "over the edge".

Gary Mack offers himself as a tool to national media to brainwash a people with propaganda about one of the greatest anti-democratic crimes perpetrated on that people. Knowingly! If you want me to apologize then show me where the big difference is, Raymond. Truth is not defined as the perception that a majority accepts as allright as a result of such propaganda. If that were the case, this planet is only a ball since 500 years.

Wim

I agree with Antti regarding the reliability of his Shaw testimony ... when it stands alone, and there is nothing that might contradict it. When, after the testimony is given, we find a contradictory and contemporaneous document signed by him that contravenes that testimony, I begin to rightly question that reliability.

Well then, all you need to know that is that the other bullxxxx came from the FBI, which was controlled by LBJ's pal and co Kennedy hater Hoover.

Wim

A convenient catch-all line of bull that's only designed or intended to slough off contradictory evidence: whatever you say is true because anything that contradicts what you have to say has been fabricated.

Ummm ... how is it that you're so sure the New Orleans transcripts haven't been faked since everything else has been? I mean besides the fact that they fit your hypothesis?

Big difference, Duke. The transcripts are from the court and Carr's own words. Where did I say that everything else was faked? That's putting words in my mouth. The FBI reports were what they were: FBI reports. They contradict Carr's own words, don't they? You come with a signature? Don't let me laugh. But if you want to believe what the FBI said about witnesses that were not called for the WC, then maybe I am wasting my time anyway.

Mr. Dankbaar:

Gary Mack doesn't need my "personal sympathy" - but he is entitled to be treated with a level of respect due to any human being. As I also accord you such respect, I respectfully disagree with you about the "vitriolic personal abuse". That is my opinion, to which I am also entitled - or are you suggested that it is your way, or no way?

Chris Scally.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. We both stated them now. And as you noted, we respectfully disagree.

Wim

But I don't think Gary is any more or less intellectually dishonest than you, Wim.

Regardless of the base for that statement, if you think that I am intellectually dishonest, you would not want me in the place of Gary Mack. My point is that in that position you would want an intellectually honest man, not a man that is contradicting himself or advocating theories that have been proven false or not in line with his personal beliefs. Not if it is about the murder of a democraticly elected President.

Wim

Chris Scally,

Gary Mack's overall stance on the JFK assassination that he feeds to the public through mainstream media, is a little more important than your personal symphaty for him, especially if his position is one that carries a responsibility and especially if he applies that position to knowingly promote something else than the truth. That is what this whole case has always been is about. About people in responsible positions not telling the public the truth. Shutting down such a discussion would be shutting down a discussion about the heart of the matter.

I don't want to read in Ford's memoirs: "I've sat around the dinner table with Dad many times, and he'd be the first to tell you they couldn't rule out a conspiracy, but there was no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone."

He should have said that when it mattered! In public, not in private!

I'm sure that Ford was also liked by many.

That has nothing to do with vitriolic personal abuse.

Wim

Your whinning about Gary and his excuses for not posting, is simply, foolish, if he can appear on national and local broadcast and cablecast television, radio and local media events. he can respond here. Providing a third grade cover for him simply supports the notion, .......... Now THAT friends and neighbors, is delusional! Truly delusional.

Thank you David! Nothing to add to that.

Bill, you're working yourself in a twist here. If Gary's personal view is that a shot came from the knoll (your words) , why does he always and consequently say on national media that all those witnesses were probably mistaken by the echoes of the "canyon" that Dealey Plaza represents? I guess the American Public needs Gary Mack to decide that witnesses were mistaken! They were mistaken about the puff of smoke and footprints behinde picket fence too!

You know why these 'great respected researchers" are never home when they are challenged to make their case in an uncontrolled environment? Because they are unarmed in a battle of wits and hate to see their lies exposed!

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/epstein.wav

Well Bill, I leave you to your own beliefs about Files, as well as Bigfoot. However, I do note that you never bring a shred of evidence to the table that proves the Files confession untrue. You keep hanging in vague dismissals based on the usual supsects disinfo. Does that hurt, Bill? Then prove me wrong. Hit me!

Shifting to your diatribe and devil's praise, I see that you acknowlegde my basic point: That Gary and promoting false information because of the job he has.

If you feel that "Gary Mack believes there was a conspiracy at some level", why does he never say that? Why is that judgement only reserved for some private circle that you apparently count yourself too? Why can he not say that on a national TV program?

"Gary feels the the acoustic evidence is good and that a shot came from the knoll." Hahaha! That must have been the reason he was the star of last weekend's show!

"Gary Mack also believes that he and Jack's Badge Man study was good one and has yet to see any evidence that shows that it has been debunked."

Start here: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm

"This is the Gary Mack 'personal view' side of things. Because Gary is a stickler for accuracy"

With such accuracy and friends, you don't need enemies to block you from ever seeing the light.

My personal view is the same as my official view!

Shame on who?

Wim

Then the officer goes, “Mr. Files is not here for Kennedy; he’s here for shooting a cop that was trying to kill him.”

Correction: Mr Files didn't shoot the cop. His partner Dave Morley did.

Was that an officer of the prison? Then she or he might get in trouble by your placing this letter on the Internet.

Pam, Here's a suggestion to write back:

Jimmy honey, light of my life, I love you and you love me. Please give Wim what he wants so I can have my books back and run off with the monies he gave me. That is, if you truly love me. xxxx, he could even come after me for the money I owe him.

It's really a mute point, sweetheart. Wim showed me the releases you already signed and he has mailed them to you as well. They clearly state your consent for film purposes and re-enactments. The only reason he asks you to sign the proposed release is to exclude all possibilities that I will be in a pain in his ass by making baseless claims IF he would ever decide to make a feauture film about your story. You see honey, he just wants to avoid that he needs to waste more money on lawyers if I decide to be rabble rouser again in such event. That's the only reason why he wants to have it even more ironclad than it already is. Wim, being the stubborn hardheaded SOB that he is, is not going to bow down. He holds the cards, baby. There's nothing to gain for him from a new deal with me. Sweetheart, if you love me, think with the right head and just do it for me, okay?

On the interview, I suggest we concentrate solely on the new information and not ask you questions that you answered over and over again. Now that Wim has found the identity of The Raven and you're willing to give us more information , it's very important that we can give the public something to hang a hat on. Hopefully now we can prove beyond any doubt that you're telling the truth with the identity and background of The Raven. I hope that his history is verifiable, with all this boneheads trying to rip your story apart. Darling, you know how important it is to me to prove that you have been truthful all along and was just trying to protect some people. People also want to know why you gave the info on Lansdale behind the fence with you not right away. You talked about David Atlee Phillips, so why not about Lansdale? That's what they wanna know, along with Lansdale's role that day.

The queen of your hearts,

Pammie

I agree with Antti regarding the reliability of his Shaw testimony ... when it stands alone, and there is nothing that might contradict it. When, after the testimony is given, we find a contradictory and contemporaneous document signed by him that contravenes that testimony, I begin to rightly question that reliability.

Well then, all you need to know that is that the other bullxxxx came from the FBI, which was controlled by LBJ's pal and co Kennedy hater Hoover.

Wim

Let me drive the point home: Gary Mack will NOT say that the single bullet theory has been proven to be impossible, because he KNOWS that the single bullet theory is the SINE QUA NON for the lone assassin theory (= Lee Harvey Oswald). As my hero Cyril Wecht so rightfully says: "Without the single bullet theory, you cannot have a lone assassin!" Without a lone assassin, you have MORE assassins, THUS a conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQLQEYWNOiE

In a vain attempt to maintain credibility Gary will admit that the single bullet theory is "unlikely", but never "impossible". Why not? Because as soon as he admits that, he admits to a conspiracy, which for some hidden reason he cannot do. However, I dare to state that being the intelligent knowledgeable researcher that he is, he is very cognizant of all the availabe evidence that has proven the single bullet IMPOSSIBLE beyond any reasonable doubt. That permits the inescapable conclusion that Gary knows he is lying when he claims the single bullet theory is not impossible. And that is a XXX for an evil and undemocratic cause, namely keeping the truth muddied up and away from the American people. He keeps that XXX in tact by leaving out the details that prove his theories a XXX.

Therefore it is no wonder that Gary Mack appears as the "star expert" in every major JFK TV or radio show to shove the 45 year XXX through the American people's throat again and again. Throughout history lies and evil have only prevailed because people condoned, ignored or approved them too long.

Can't wait for Bob Harris do some analysis of the show that was on last Sunday

Wim

And by all means, if you can , don't hesitate to point out the fallacies in the above reasonings.

Post edited by moderator due to violation of Forum rules.

Oh great, another confused bonehead slandering. I will only dignify two lies with a repsonse:

Wim Dankbaar does not answer any of the statements on his trouble with the law. NOTICE IT WELL.

NOW THAT IS NOT CONFUSING AT ALL.

Very confusing, cause you fail to mention that I was not even charged let alone prosecuted for what they hoped to have against me. I was picked up for questioning, they held me at a police station, which is something entirely different than jail. It was an intimidation effort to make me stop prying into the falsification of evidence by the highest authorities as result of which an innocent man was sentenced to 12 years prison for murder. They didn't succeed in intimidating me, and sooner or later they will find that out too!

What you do not know is Wim in a fit of anger broke a person window and NEVER Paid for it in Holland.

That was because I drove 200 miles with Judyth to the house of some lowlifes that refused to give back Judyth's belongings. When they didn't open the door and left me ringing, while I knew the cowardly thieves were hiding inside, that's when I broke the window. And that's when they opened the door and let us load the goods in my car. When Judyth had not brought some muscle, she would now still be begging for her properties. No shame or regret whatsoever! Or it must be that upon leaving I threw them a hundred bill to have their window fixed . Hence you're lying or your sources are lying!

Wim

Gary Mack is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable researcher on this forum, arguable in the world. Because he only deals in facts and not wild theory and exposes poor research and outright lies he has naturally made many enemies. Wim, dont kid yourself, if Gary ever went head to head with you he would pull your James Files nonsense to pieces. Just hope he never takes you up on your offer.

Don't worry, Denis, I think your hope is not idle.

But ahh, if Gary Mack, arguably the most knowleadgeable researcher in the world (your words) has not pulled "my James Files nonsense" to pieces yet, how do you know it's nonsense? Or maybe I should say, which part is the nonsense? Where does the nonsense begin and end? Does it begin with being the protegé of Nicoletti? I would say that the James Files nonsense is a lot more corroborated by the facts and witness testimony as we know them, than Gary's recently re-inforced thesis that there was no shot from the knoll. Is that a fair statement?

How is Gary's statement that the single bullet theory is possible, dealing with the facts? How is that dealing with facts instead of wild theories, if the facts show that no bullet pierced Kennedy's torso? How is that dealing with facts instead of wild theories, if the facts show that no matter how many tests were done, no one succeeded in having a bullet emerge undamaged like the magic bullet, not even with bullets peircing less tissue and bones than the magic bullet allegedly did? How is that dealing with facts if - to use a statement of Gary Mack himself - "no witness at any time has EVER described the assassination as having happened THAT way"?

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/discredit.mp4

P.S. Can you and Pam keep your mud slinging to yourselves, no one here is really interested.

I agree totally! However, if I were to state on this forum that you're a child molestor, you would react, right?

Wim

and obviously terribly confused as well.

kjkjbn 9403u5 .r3v'0irgbv/ 3rtp[0ertv wedvf-o45g /rfv[poj3rtv/]0ifv/rv]-k

You may as well try to make sense of that!

Wim

Soo, if we may rely on Craig and Carr, we are looking for

- a very dark complected, Latin-looking man with black wavy hair, very muscular, with a bull neck and very strong face,

- that knew Lee Harvey Oswald,

- was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK

- was most likely a CIA assassin of some repute and a shooter on the 6th floor (as he fled the TSBD)

I can think of only one man who fits all the criteria of the descriptions, was a side kick of David Atlee Phillips, and reportedly said of JFK: "We took care of that bastard, didn't we?"

Wim

Duke, the quote below (from the FBI Report) is a totally distorted version of what Carr said himself in his testimony of the Shaw trial.

He did not think that he'd looked back toward the TSBD after hearing three reports. He reiterated that he'd "immediately proceeded down the stairway," and had walked to Houston & Commerce when he'd reached the ground. At the corner, he saw a man who he "believed was identical" with the man on the top floor of the TSBD, who was "walking very fast," proceeded south on Houston to Commerce, then east on Commerce to Record (a block away), where he "got into a 1961 or 1962 Grey Rambler Station Wagon" parked "just north" of Commerce Street. The car had Texas plates and was driven by "a young negro man," and "drove off in a northerly direction," apparently out of site behind the Old Red Courthouse.

He did not think that he'd looked back toward the TSBD after hearing three reports.

At the Shaw trial: and at that time before this happened I heard a single shot which sounded like a small arms, maybe a pistol, and I immediately, immediately there was a slight pause and immediately after that I heard three rifle shots in succession, they seemed to be fired from an automatic rifle and they came --

Wim: That's four reports, not three.

the man on the top floor of the TSBD, who was "walking very fast," proceeded south on Houston to Commerce, then east on Commerce to Record (a block away), where he "got into a 1961 or 1962 Grey Rambler Station Wagon" parked "just north" of Commerce Street.

At the Shaw trial: came across the street, he came down, coming towards the construction site on Houston Street, to Commerce, in a very big hurry, he came to Commerce Street and he turned toward town on Commerce Street and every once in a while he would look over his shoulder as if he was being followed. *****

The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out from behind the School Book Depository, got in the station wagon, one man crossed the street and then came down this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street.

Wim: Hence, the man did not enter into a stationwagon, he simply turned onto Commerce where Carr lost sight of him. Neither was there a stationwagon parked on Record Street. The stationwagon was parked on Houston, facing north, next to the TSBD.

The car had Texas plates and was driven by "a young negro man," and "drove off in a northerly direction,"

At the Shaw trial: and immediately after the shooting there was three men that emerged from behind the School Book Depository, there was a Latin, I can't say whether he was Spanish, Cuban, but he was real dark-complected, stepped out and opened the door, there was two men entered that station wagon, and the Latin drove it north on Houston. The car was in motion before the rear door was closed, and this one man got in the front, and then he slid in from the -- from the driver's side over, and the Latin got back and they proceeded north and it was moving before the rear door was closed, and the other man that I described to you being in this window which would have been one, two, the third window over here came across the street, he came down, coming towards the construction site on Houston Street, to Commerce, in a very big hurry, he came to Commerce Street and he turned toward town on Commerce Street and every once in a while he would look over his shoulder as if he was being followed.

Wim: Thus the driver was not "a young negro man" but "a Latin, I can't say whether he was Spanish, Cuban, but he was real dark-complected". The color of the car is never mentioned by Carr, the brand is: "At this point right here, at this School Book Depository there was a Rambler Station Wagon there with a rack on the back, built on the top of this."

It is highly unlikely that Carr would have mentioned a wrong color and not the brand to the FBI.

As Antti pointed out, the description of the car as well as the driver is cooroborated by the testimony of Roger Craig:

As we were scanning the curb I heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm Street. I turned and saw a white male in his twenties running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. A light green Rambler station wagon was coming slowly west on Elm Street. The driver of the station wagon was a husky looking Latin, with dark wavy hair, wearing a tan wind breaker type jacket. He was looking up at the man running toward him. He pulled over to the north curb and picked up the man coming down the hill.

Q: Could you give us a description of that individual?

A: Very dark complected, Latin-looking with black hair. He was very muscular, had a bull neck and very strong face.

So..... the dark Latin was the man behind the wheel, driving the Rambler away from the crimescene. You don't have to be a statistician to conclude that the same man was the driver of the Rambler, that picked up Lee Oswald some 10 minutes later. The more so since Roger Craig's description matched.

By the way, Craig too complained that his statements to the FBI were altered in the their report. Among othres things they made the color of the station wagon white, while he is adamant he said green.