Larry Hancock

I think most everyone will be interested in this new study of records releases at the Mary Ferrell Foundation - credit goes to an immense amount of work by Rex Bradford: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_of_JFK_Releases_2021.html

Ron, I think the Carr story itself simply offers another example - and a good one with the documents - that as of Saturday morning and again on Sunday Hoover had and himself gave marching orders to "refute" or close off any lead that pointed to others than Oswald being involved in the shooting or in a conspiracy. We have many examples of that and other examples of internal memos which expose the lengths then went to in doing that, even when the WC itself asked them to investigate things like the Odio story. That is even more egregious since we can show internal memos that directly refute the report he gave to the WC identifying the individuals in question. At this point exposing major weaknesses in the FBI investigation isn't even a question. And in a few cases some of us have actually been able to take a lead further and open it up when the FBI had closed it. The real challenge gets to be doing the work they didn't do and in a few cases research has actually has been able to good leads further to make them more credible. Do I think we know all we should about the Carr story...no I don't, but I will also say we have all devoted lots of time to purported witnesses whose really sensational stories are fundamentally bogus. Jim Hicks comes to mind, I won't go into others. In regard to Carr it though it is possible to evaluate his story directly by testing - recreating his observation and evaluating his ability to see and provide the details he described that were critical to his story. I've done it on multiple occasions and failed to verify he could see those details, you described doing it as well as I recall. Even today someone could simply stand at the distance he described, and try to observe the detail he describes of a person in a window, open or closed, in the TSBD - given that you can get on the Sixth Floor and look out. If his observation at a distance could be replicated I might give more credence to his story regardless of the FBI inquiry and documents. But when I tried to do it multiple people could not duplicate his observations and that wrapped it up for me. Perhaps someone else will have a different result. But that's why I stay with a number of more solid witnesses to mysterious men in the windows - seen by witnesses close to the building - and not with Carr's story which includes connecting a specific individual from the window, to a rear exit and getting into a vehicle.

Certainly makes since he would need to be "repudiated", especially since he claims he has five other witnesses that would support his story and could confirm someone else other than Oswald was a shooter...you can see it would be a really big deal, especially if he had been able to provide names and bring them into support his claims. The problem for me is still that I can in no way see how he could have seen the detail of the man in the window from that distance that would allow him to identify him there or later on the street. I still don't see how the story goes beyond that regardless of what he claimed when??

Ron, I have to refer you to the earlier documents I posted - including the fact that Carr said he was applying for work at that bu ilding not working there and indeed dropped his story about what he supposedly saw in a job interview later. As to what what I'm doing in regard to continuing work, I think everyone should be familiar with that - one book last year (In Denial) which delved among other things into the Cuba Project and some pretty sensational information about JFK and the Bay of Pigs that got little discussion, the extensive 2020 Wheaton Leads paper, and a 2021 book (Tipping Point) already serialized, that's it. I have no further research/writing planned although I will hang around to offer occasional commentary or respond to questions. As to further research on Carr, I satisfied myself on that some time ago as I've noted so I'm afraid I have nothing more to offer.

A perfect summary Ron, and unfortunately this is all much the same as when I left it years ago. Anyone claiming to have been observing when the two women came out had to have seen them and should have remarked on them. As usual I tend to stay with anyone who can be documented as having been there and add points for anyone who saw something suspicious at the time and reported it. All of which seem to leave me at least with Worrell....and then people showing up there later for the DPD officer encounter who are really questionable. I'm not sure about coaching but we certainly have seen people insert themselves into this story well after the fact for a variety of reasons. So how would you rate Worrell at this point?

There is no doubt Carr was taken seriously at first, especially since his statement was so sensational - but as I noted earlier though, unlike Ed Hoffman who did go to the FBI or or even Lee Bowers or Sam Holland (both who brought up suspicious things and did tell their stories to law enforcement) Carr waited to bring his story up anecdotally during a job interview (so he didn't report it nor did he keep his mouth shut). There is no doubt the FBI seriously needed to deal with a self declared after the fact witness who was circulating a story contradicting Oswald as a lone actor. However that doesn't make his story true, any more than others such as Hicks. All of which leads us back to the basic question of whether he actually could have seen the details he later described in regard to a man in the TSBD window. Details which even allowed him to identify the man later, on the street.

It becomes a matter of angles as to what he could see, but beyond that its hard to get away from the issue of the level of detail he could have seen given that he claimed to be able to identify the man on the street - because of the glasses, clothing and appearance he recalled from having observed him in the TSBD window at the time of the shooting. This photo certainly does give some insight into that claim since it provides some sense of the distance involved. Beyond that there are issues with how his story surfaced and evolved - because of his sensational claims (which he did not report to the FBI) the FBI did devote some serous time to this story once they became aware of it: ptions: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file| Add to Addressbook | View Message details | View as HTML | Block Sender https://drive.google.com/file/d/15_fu14OjpkaoKcKmPGvLLZ_sq_Vu5Gft/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x5CSb_4adaqVvLCUYQiAs9l4kEa3krzZ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wABM3-FbGoLeTO2dCnrJhz7FuVhisStm/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-tQfcrREIpzozA8UUNDFPK2DXNTfnauO/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/16D4OhytmMOksvH13jWPpyaXH1hDCMQy5/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RQgEXxYUja4x8MKvA90FKvQNcbEWaI_t/view?usp=sharing

Thanks Benjamin, and I'm always ready for discussion. In fact the print version of Tipping Point has a number of additions, expansions and reworded commentary that was generated by discussion on this forum of the serialized version that has been on the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site for the last three months. The book will include an introduction and forward from Rex Bradford and Bill Simpich, with some interesting commentary and remarks from Bill on a point that caught his particular interest. Hopefully the index will make the book much more useful for in depth study and we can get into more detailed dialogs on some of the aspects that don't routinely get discussed here. The book does get pretty specific in terms of people, sources, timelines and specifically on the compartmentalized activities in Dallas. As usual I'm open to discussing that either in this forum (which is the only one I routinely visit these days), by messaging or by email. We are in the process of putting it up on Amazon now and both print and EBook versions should be available this month if things go relatively smoothly.

Thanks B.A., very much appreciated! Actually we know a good bit about Felix R; I covered his later activities across Vietnam and Latin America in Shadow Warfare. His autobiography is quite interesting though, while it goes into great detail in many areas the year 1963 is largely passed over with no comment at all. We know a bit about Carlos Hernandez during 1964/65 but he fades out of the picture at that point - David Boylan may have been able to trace him further in some detail but unlike others of the AMWORLD recruits I don't think we have been able to specifically track him on to the Congo, later to SE Asia, or to Nicaragua in the Contra era in later years. I would say one of the new names you should focus in on in Tipping Point is the potential role of Emileo Rodriquez in regard to the CIA and Lee Oswald...he may have had a seminal role in making Oswald visible to the conspiracy, he may have had a seminal role, simply by doing his day job. As an update, the index for the book version of Tipping Point has just been completed and we are closing in on publication.

Normally that sort of thing is done much more covertly and at a distance and by single overwatch observers. The last thing you want is a challenge or somebody remembering something suspicious. This sounds like something much more operational and where you had a role in mind that might require multiple people for an operational task...as well as to intimidate law enforcement if necessary. Anybody doing overwatch should have been there from before the shooting and remained well afterwards...not coming and going as described.

The one reliable (not Holt) report I am aware of of someone holding false identification (Secret Service) relates to Roy Hargraves....the details on that are in SWHT and are also cited in Tipping Point. Both Noel Twyman and I researched the report...given to the FBI...and verified it to our sataisfactions (at least). The only thing I can think of is that the mystery men were there to cover (even if by taking into custody) individuals exiting the rear of the building...but they showed up to late and the individual had already left. At that point they could easily have faded back into the crowd. Should Harkness have checked the ID....probably not a thing in 1963, a more trusting time. Of course he was not the only officer shown ID which was not really checked .e.g the encounter behind the fence with the man with ID and dirty fingernails.

Ron, there are a really good series of FBI documents on their investigation of Carr (they come from Malcolm Blunt's collection) - from his first remarks which were extremely sensational but not given to law enforcement either DPD or the FBI (unlike someone like Ed Hoffman who saw something even less sensational than Carr claimed). He expressed them in a job interview and someone there did report it because he was so positive in what he was saying. I can't link the documents directly here but if you email me I might be able to forward them... Yet when the FBI interviewed him he recanted virtually everything - yet turned around and continued to tell different versions of the story. That was making some impression so the FBI really got involved in testing it, going to the locations he described and also being unable to see what he had reported. Because he was totally contradicting the official story they put a lot of time into it. Of course he would not be the only persona to create - Jim Hicks comes to mind with a story which kept changing but ultimately had to be dropped when he admitted he had picked it up from a guy in a bar in Dallas. Did Carr see something...possibly. Did he see the details he described, I very much doubt it. Certainly he did not see a man in the window that he could identify in so much detail he would later see him on the street. But I doubt his story - like Hicks - will ever really fade away, its just too much of a good thing. Personally I think some of the reports of men in the windows (not Oswald), are much stronger and it does seem to me that one person very quickly exited the rear of the building (not Oswald). Combine that with the mysterious men that showed up to late to catch him but went away too quickly to provide any sort of rational security at the rear exits and I think we have something that points to one or more conspiracy actors inside the building - very possibly with inside assistance of some sort (very possibly either leveraged or fooled into being tools).

In my many years of leading plaza tours during the conferences I would sometimes take people down to Carr's purported location and ask them what they could see from that point - repeating his remarks. The problem was always that neither I nor anyone else could make out sort of details he described from that distance, nor get the views that he was describing. That made me very hesitant to accept his story, unlike other remarks about people in windows from observers much closer - which did seem to make sense from duplicating their locations - in the end I wasn't able to go with his story. I'd recommend it as an exercise for anyone in or going to Dallas.

I tend to agree Oswald went out the front....to a large extent because I don't think he was involved in the shooting. Which does not mean somebody else in the building was and prepared to get down and out very quickly. Which is by the way why hostage rescue teams often succeed - because they are so totally prepared that they move before other people can react. Of course it would be best if such a person actually worked in the building. Not totally necessary but helpful in the event someone asks questions...would apply to any employee coming out the back door. Which of course still leaves us with the mystery "officers" who show up and then just fade away....still having a hard time thinking they were legitimate. But if not, were they "late" or did something that was planned just not happen...

So basically the unidentified man running away came out of the building almost instantly after the shooting, there were no other people there then but the unidentified individuals who never showed any ID were there within minutes and then faded away fairly quickly, apparently not being there when the women exited? Good work in the timing Ron, very important. Just by itself it seems to suggest somebody left extremely quickly and before the others arrived and then they left - maybe no longer caring or wanting to be seen. Everything else that happened occurred later - and I'm guessing these times may be quicker than they were in reality, people often seem to think events happen quicker than they really do. So does it boil down to someone (how could it be Oswald if he were on the sixth floor) coming out of the rear extremely fast and the unknown people arriving to late to intercept him and then leaving - not caring about anyone else? Its an interesting discussion and all driven by the actual timeline which too often does not get parsed out like you have here.

Amazing, no idea that he had gone on to punk rock although I can certainly see him as an earlier driver for surf rock sounds (a much neglected genre in my own view).

Out on lunch hour, just piddling around, clear view of all the crowds on the motorcade route but just stayed piddling around where he was - not much curiosity. But enough so to somehow deduce and take over watching the back of the TSBD for an officer he only saw at a distance. We don't know who that officer might have been and certainly no record of anybody running back there immediately after the shooting... It all reminds me of when I first read his statements...just had a really hard time taking him seriously...

Ron's point on perspective is a good one and Pat's diagrams are extremely helpful. Unfortunately the basic witness reports are the same as it was when I first looked at this a couple of decades ago. I do believe that someone with fresh eyes could take it another step by creating a timeline of the purported witnesses, how long each observed, their locations and what they could and could not see as far as the dock and the two stairs. I would suggest referencing all of them again the exit of the two women (which should have been noted by anyone watching). If they did not see them and were supposedly watching at the time of their exit that raises some real questions. That sort of timeline would represent a type of control for evaluating the witnesses - as well as determine who was really observing the rear for what period of time. Assuming anyone really trying to get out as quickly as possible would have exited out the back before the women it would also suggest whether truly suspicious figures were observed. Just a thought ...

Seems impossible to verify Worrell but it that were true it is hard not to see anything going on there as a diversion/frame.

And of course from the standpoint of a concealed shooter there would be no reason at all to expose yourself in that fashion......makes a lot of sense if you are just trying to draw attention to the location as part of a frame though. As to the barrel length my old .22 has a ten inch barrel beyond the stock, perhaps a carbine of some sort...or a BB gun..

Well done Ron, if only the investigators had been using these sorts of diagrams to show where the purported witnesses where and where they saw people - and their movements - it would eliminate so much of the guess work we have to do. Still I suspect some folks here may be surprised about the actual nature of the rear of the building, the multiple doors, stairs etc....good stuff.

Unfortunately these are the same loose ends we have had for decades now, which leaves us with people (including two women and possibly Oswald or somebody else who just walked down Houston) who came out the back that Romack didn't see or notice - so was he really watching and when did he really start? And two or more mysterious people handing out at the rear who weren't Secret Service, Police or FBI...and who weren't positioned to watch for someone escaping the building but doing something more like shielding it from actual law enforcement officers - strangely reminiscent of the mystery guys behind the fence who turned officers away early on in the parking area. The only people missing from quickly sealing the rear entrance and intercepting potential attackers appear to have the DPD.

Ron, if you look about 80% though Pat's excellent piece that I linked to you will find he has laid out two photos of the rear which he mapped to the building plan, the elevated loading dock was completely across the rear and had built in steps both on Houston street and on is other side as well. Which is why its hard for me to see a witness not mentioning the dock, the steps etc at all. The rear is not at all like it is now and was built up on the south side as well...there are some good photos of that online as well. I always had to show photos of the the back and south when I did tours because without them you really don't get an accurate picture...

Thanks Pat, it always drives me nuts when the cops did interviews and didn't even take the trouble to record positions on maps such as this....a second question, did anyone testify or talk about seeing the two women come out the back? I've been told Frazier talked about seeing Oswald come out the back, go down Houston and then off to the bus station - the timing on that troubles me but does he or anyone else talk about seeing the two women come out?? This is an area I have not visited for a very long time. I'm rereading Pat's section 4; if you have not you can find it at: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A"theso-calledevidence"

Worrell's statement is a good example of why I always wonder about the descriptions that don't mention the loading dock, its not like you could run directly out a door and away....I recall that other story as well although I've never seen anything to corroborate it and why a policeman would assign a civilian to do that escapes me...especially since there is no record of it nor any sign that the officer checked back later (did he expect the civilian to tackle an armed shooter running out the door or just point out which direction he had run off?). Both of these are examples of why what might or might not have happened at the rear of the building remains so frustrating.