Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Randolph Carr


Duke Lane
 Share

Recommended Posts

Under the thread "11-22-63 aerial of Dealey Plaza," I posted the following:

For something just a little different: If you'll go back to Jack White's original post in this thread, you'll notice that there is only one building under construction around Dealey Plaza, clearly visible at the right edge of the photo Jack posted (which should appear below). That building is what became the Dallas County Government Building downtown at 600 Commerce St.

This is the building on which Richard Randolph Carr had been working several floors up, from which he purportedly saw someone run from the depository and jump into a car to make good his "escape" from the TSBD.

I've heard it said that Carr could not have seen such a thing occur, this from someone who had gone into the building and looked out, and said he couldn't see what Carr claimed to have seen.

post-667-1225838151_thumb.jpg

Well, I've tried to get into the old Post Office annex without success (emphatically without success!), so haven't felt the need to try to get into any other building that I thought would pose similar problems. Then, I had a brain drizzle.

The image below was taken from the southeast corner of the TSBD looking toward the building that was under construction on November 22, 1963, the only one of sufficient height to have afforded Carr the view he claimed, and this is what there is to see:

post-3713-1227112538_thumb.jpg

The Government Center building is the white corner that shows nestled between the turrets of the Old Red Courthouse. This is the best view of the Government building that could be obtained (closest to it south, and farthest from it west; moving north on Houston or east on Elm reduced the amount of the building that could be seen) where, from the opposite view, Carr could've seen a car (yeah, yeah, I know: punny me!) ... from which Carr could've seen an automobile, okay?

You can see that Carr could only have been standing atop a very small portion of the building under construction, either on the very top girders or perhaps on the second row down, and only in a small section of the overall building; also, since the "skin" wasn't on the building, he could've been on the south side of the building looking through the uncompleted construction (it doesn't look as if any safety flooring has been laid in the aerial photo).

So, in light of this, I'd have to say that it's not impossible that Carr saw what he said he saw, but qualify that by saying that it was only possible from a very small section of the building. What, then, specifically, does Carr have to say about where he was and what he saw?

Folks who'll be in Dallas this week for the 45th might want to take a stroll along Houston as well to see if as much of the building or more remains visible such that he could've seen all that he'd claimed to have.

Robin Unger posted this frame from the Hughes film as well, showing a different perspective of the new courthouse building under construction:

post-2389-1227081771.jpg

I wanted to clarify some points after viewing reports on this question (CDs 321 and 385, available on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site).

Carr's observations first came to light on December 27, 1963, after the sister (Mary Sue Brown) of a friend of Carr and his wife's (Elsie Johnson) reported her recollection of a conversation held between them and a fifth party, Holly Jordon (possibly in conjunction with a holiday visit?). Carr had opined during this conversation that Lee Oswald had not shot Kennedy. There are some inconsistencies in this report and future ones, so I'll hit the highlights of Mrs. Brown's report to the FBI (all should be noted excerpts and that they are "according to Mrs. Brown"); the FBI report was written on January 8, 1964:

Carr was making an application for a job at a building which was under construction near the court house. He was about five hundred yards from the place where the President was assassinated and he had seen the individual who fired the gun from the TSBD and that it was not Oswald. The individual wore a hat, horn-rimmed glasses, and was of athletic build. There was a Negro man with a gray-colored car waiting for this individual after the assassination, and the man who did the shooting got into this gray car. There were four or five other steel workers on the building who likewise saw the assassination. Carr was sober when he told the story, and did not seem to be a braggart or to be joking when he told the story.

Naturally, the FBI wanted to know more, so contacted Carr and interviewed him on January 4, 1964, eight days after Mrs. Brown had been interviewed (they might've wanted to know more, but weren't in a hurry to learn it, apparently. The report of the interview was written up on January 14). In this report, Carr is said to have given the following information (once again excerpted, direct quotes so noted):

He had taken his wife and child to Parkland Hospital and left them there at about 11:30; he went downtown in search of work. The new courthouse was being built, so he went there and was informed that the foreman was on the ninth floor, so Carr began walking up the steel stairway. He had reached "approximately the sixth floor" of the building when he happened to look toward the TSBD and saw a white male, wearing a hat, a tan sportcoat, and wearing glasses, looking out of the top floor window of the TSBD.

"A few minutes later," he heard sounds that he thought were backfires and looked toward the triple underpass, where he noticed people "falling to the ground." He advised that he "did not look at the TSBD again and immediately proceeded down the staircase with the intention of going over to the triple underpass to see what had happened." Once on the ground, he proceeded to Houston and Commerce at which time he "observed an individual who he believed to be the person he saw earlier on the top floor of the TSBD building." He did not walk over to the triple underpass area because of the large crowd there.

He also noted that "from his position on the steel structure of the new court house building, it would have been impossible for him to observe the lower floors and entrance to the TSBD," and that he could only see "the top floor and roof of the TSBD" and the grounds around the underpass. He "denied making any statement to the effect" of seeing anyone fire a gun, and likewise "denied observing anyone leaving the entrance of the TSBD and getting into a gray car."

Some points of note in this summary: although it's difficult to make out the number of floors with the bare girders, it appears from present-day images that there are nine floors to the "main" or lower part of the building, and three more in the narrower, upper part of the building. It appears from the aerial that the staircase was outside the west wall of the building, which is of course impossible to duplicate exactly today, and if it was inside, it's likewise impossible to view from given that there are no windows to look out from. So if ever we hear that someone "looked from where Carr was," it can't be so.

Coupled with the image above (taken from Elm & Houston) and using Google Maps' "Street View," the images below are "shots" from about the middle of Elm Street toward the new courthouse building, the top one from a point about even with the southwest corner of the TSBD and the bottom one about even with where the Newmans had dropped to the ground, we can extrapolate the area that would have been visible from Carr's location on the side of the building; ground level farther east toward Houston would've been obscured by trees even if the angle is otherwise okay. We can see both the sixth and ninth floor areas of the new courthouse building from this area (he upper shot below may or may not have been partially obscured by a tree, as it is today, depending upon how tall the tree was 45 years ago).

post-3713-1227115656_thumb.jpg

One question that's hard to discern - at least thus far - is on what floor Carr had been. He said he was at "approximately the sixth floor" when he noticed the "roof and top floor" of the TSBD where he'd seen the man in the hat, and "a few minutes later" heard the reports and saw people falling, whereupon he "immediately" went back down the stairs. Had he reached the ninth floor in this "few minutes?" Had he found the foreman? Was Carr still looking for him? Had they already met and Carr found out that no work was available?

It's a curiosity if he'd climbed up that far in search of work and went back down simply on account of hearing backfires and seeing people hit the ground without finding out if work was available; he did not mention in this or a subsequent report (below) having gone back to the building to complete his mission, and we will find that he wasn't aware of the shooting even after arriving at the corner of Houston & Commerce or until some time later in the afternoon. On February 3, 1964, the FBI re-interviewed Carr "to clarify information previously furnished:"

He reiterated that he'd learned the foreman was on the ninth floor, clarified that the "steel stairway" was on the west side of the building, and that he'd gotten to "approximately the sixth floor" when he looked toward the TSBD and saw the man "looking out of a window of the top floor," a heavy-set man wearing a hat, tan sport coat and horn-rimmed glasses, "not in the end window next to Houston Street, but ... in the second window over from Houston Street." He "continued on up the stairway and a minute or so later" heard what he thought was a car backfire "or a firecracker."

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 then went back to his car [and didn't return to the new courthouse, apparently] and drove to "the residence of my brother and then to Pete Cates, All State Trailer Park, Zangs Boulevard and Clarendon Street." His "sister-in-law was watching TV and she come and told me the President had been shot and Pete Cates and I then watched TV until it was announced that the President had died." This was the first time he realized that the noises he'd heard on the new county courthouse had been gun shots.

He went on to emphasize that he did not see a gun in the man's hands or in the TSBD, did not see the assassination, and didn't tell anyone he had; that his opinions about Oswald not being the shooter were based on "various statements I had heard on radio and TV concerning the assassination and how it was supposed to occurred, and various other disclaimers.

All of this leaves for some confusing testimony. We might first ask what had become of Carr's wife and child at Parkland: they might have made alternate arrangements for returning home after whatever they were doing at the hospital, including by bus, since Carr was off in search of employment. It's odd, however, that Carr didn't report having actually made application for work at the new courthouse, or even of speaking with the foreman, but instead went "immediately" back downstairs after seeing the people hit the ground and, before going all the way to where this major curiosity had drawn his attention, he decided not to investigate it further because of the "large crowd" (which was not even close to "elbow-to-elbow"), even despite it having apparently distracted him from actually trying to get a job.

Then, upon seeing another curiosity - the man hurrying away from a building that had no real significance to him at that point in time since he was unaware that the noises were gun shots or that the President had been shot - he then went back to his car and drove home without looking for any other employment, and certainly not returning to the new courthouse to talk to the foreman if he hadn't already. Curious.

Also curious is his ability to recognize someone as far away as he was from him: according to Google Earth's "Ruler" function, the distance from where Carr was (based upon the approximate position of the steel staircase per the aerial photo) and the approximate position of the second window in from Houston Street on the TSBD was approximately 815 feet, 271 yards, or almost three football fields long, per this image:

post-3713-1227118914_thumb.jpg

It is curious that he could not only believe that the man who passed near him on the ground was "identical to" the man he'd seen upstairs in the TSBD, but moreover to credit his ability to describe the so precisely from so far away, right down to his wearing glasses! (If glasses are two inches tall and six inches across, how big would they appear from 800 feet away? Someone else can do the math, but my guess would be less than a nanometer, relatively speaking! The hat couldn't have been much bigger.)

So, while the statements I'd credited him with making weren't quite accurate (seeing someone come out of the TSBD and run to a car), we are still left with the question of the overall credibility of this man Richard Randolph Carr given all of the details that he'd provided and those he'd not provided.

Anyone want to weigh in on this?

Two last things:

First, whether Carr could've seen "the roof and the top floor" of the TSBD from his location somewhere between the sixth and ninth floors on the southwest side of the new courts building can be readily discerned by someone shooting a photo toward the courts building from the SE 7th floor window to see what of the courts building is visible (can anyone say "hey, Gary Mack?").

Second, this post is long enough without everyone reproducing it in their posts, so how about we try to refrain from quoting the whole thing in each new post? Please?

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Duke, You have the story on Carr wrong on several occasions. That's because you draw from second hand stories. Lot of misinfo on the internet. The real testimony of Carr is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Nowhere did Carr say that one man was a negro. Neither did he say this:

There was a Negro man with a gray-colored car waiting for this individual after the assassination, and the man who did the shooting got into this gray car.

I suggest you read this to know exactly what Carr said:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/pdf/carr.doc

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, what can I say, Wim? The FBI obviously lied three times. I cited the docs, even if everything wasn't a direct quote, just as I said it wasn't.

One citation of a "Negro" was the second-hand report from Mary Sue Brown, in which she advised that "Carr told them that there was a Negro man with a gray-colored car waiting for this individual after the assassination." The rest of the sentence you quoted above is also from Mrs. Brown's second-hand statement.

The other is a quoted, presumably hand-written statement purportedly signed by Carr, which states that "the station wagon, which had Texas license and was driven by a young negro [sic] man, drove off in a northerly direction.

Deal with it ... but thanks for the additional information. I'll dissect the obvious bull later, but three things jump out at me just from cursory reading:

1) He was on the seventh floor in his 1967 testimony, the sixth in his 1964 statement, when he looked over to the TSBD;

2) In 1967, he heard one shot followed by two more; in 1967, he heard one shot followed by three more; and

3) In 1967, he added the detail of "large ear-pieces," which he could not only see 275 yards away, but behind the guy's ears as well.

Besides the "obvious" claim of the FBI mis-reporting, what other explanation do you have for this? Do you swallow everything whole, without even chewing on it, before regurgitating it as god-given fact?

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, it's just funny that you label the EXACT testimony of Richard Carr as "obvious bull" before even reading it! (by your own admission)

It's further funny that you can't consider the possibility that the FBI lied or altered statements. That's real funny, especially for a researcher of this case.

Would you rather have no response at all on behalf of dead witnessess? So that the mud sticks on the wall? Is that your idea of research?

Show me Carr's exact words where he said what you claim he said. Maybe a document? An affidavit? A testimony transcript? Show me who put out the "obvious bull". You or me?

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave you the citations, Wim: CD 329 and CD 385. Unless you think Rex Bradford is also "part of the conspiracy," I'll consider what's on History Matters and Mary Ferrell to be legitimate copies of the actual documents. Go ahead and look them up.

His testimony from the 1967 Garrison deal - at least, as much of it as you'd originally posted before putting in the link to your site - is diametrically opposed to what he told the FBI in early 1964. Go ahead and re-post it and let other people make the comparison; it's not copyrighted material, after all. Better yet, I will, below.

The simple fact is that one of the two sources is lying, misremembering or misreporting: it's either the FBI or Mr. Carr.

I'll give you one more bit of errata: in his Shaw trial testimony, he said that the Rambler was parked next to the TSBD, on the "wrong" side of the street and facing the wrong direction (i.e., northbound on a southbound-only street ... which makes either side of the street the "wrong" side!).

I have already shown that, as high up as Carr claimed to go (six floors in 1964, seven in 1967, and neither, apparently, to the ninth to talk with the foreman), he could not have seen Houston Street in the vicinity of the TSBD. The intervening buildings haven't changed, so neither has the view. (I took the picture, so I'm satisfied that it's accurate. I also looked back from the "museum" section of the building - the old loading dock area - and the view wasn't much changed; you'll just have to take my word for that or go look for yourself. The man simply could not have seen that portion of the street from where he claimed to be.)

Furthermore, after his 1967-version Rambler took off going north on southbound Houston, did you know that he had nowhere to go? That's right, he took off northward, hit the construction barricades and vanished, poof, just like that ... because that was his only option.

You might also wish to review the testimony of "Pop" Rackley and James Romack in the 6th WC Hearings volume, witnesses on Houston Street behind the TSBD and compare it below.

Yes, someone had a colored version of the truth. The question is whether it was Mr. Carr or other witnesses and the FBI.

A: 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.

Q: Which way was the station wagon facing?

A: It was parked on the wrong side of the street, next to the School Book Depository heading north.

Q: North being the top of the photomap, north is the top as you have indicated?

A: North is the top, and it was headed in this direction towards the railroad tracks, 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.

Q: Now, Mr. Carr, did you have occasion to give this information to any law enforcement agencies?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did anyone tell you not to say anything about this?

A: Yes.

MR. DYMOND: I object to what anyone told him, Your Honor, on the grounds it's hearsay.

THE COURT: A moment ago you asked Mrs. Parker if anybody threatened her. Is it your question, Mr. Garrison, whether or not Mr. Carr was threatened by someone? Is your question to the witness a question of whether or not anyone threatened Mr. Carr?

MR. GARRISON: I will rephrase it.

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q: Did anyone threaten you?

MR. DYMOND: At this time we object to the Court's suggesting questions to Counsel for the State. The suggested question is completely different from the question previously propounded by the State. This is not the function of a Trial Judge in any trail.

MR. GARRISON: May it please the Court, I will phrase my own questions on this.

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q: Mr. Carr, did you talk to any FBI agents about this incident?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Did they tell you to forget about it?

MR. DYMOND: I object to that as hearsay.

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q: Were you threatened in any way --

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. You cannot tell us the words used by someone who spoke to you because of hearsay; however, you can state that you had conversations with them and what did you do as a result of the conversation, I will permit that.

BY MR. GARRISON:

Q: As the result of the conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what did you do?

A: I done as I was instructed, I shut my mouth.

Q: Were you called to testify before the Warren Commission?

A: No, sir.

**********

A: No, sir, not so much as I turned and looked back, as I told you before, I saw these people come out from behind the School Book Depository and I am going to try to make this clear to you so where you can understand it, from where I was at I could not tell whether they came out this side entrance here, there is a side entrance to the School Book Depository, or whether they came from behind it, but they came either from the side entrance or they came from behind it, and got into this station wagon.

***********

Q: And what was going on around the Presidential vehicle and in the motorcade, right?

A: No, sir, I was watching that man at that time, and I watched him until I could see him no longer, but that man acted as if he was in a hurry and someone was following him, and I would know that man if I ever saw him again.

Q: And right before the three successive shots you saw a bullet hit in the middle of Dealey Plaza, is that correct?

A: Repeat that, please.

Q: Right before hearing the three successive shots you saw a bullet hit in the middle of Dealey Plaza, right?

A: No, sir, upon hearing the three successive shots, sir, I saw one, one of those three hit in Dealey Plaza in the grass.

And try not to forget: what he claims to have seen was three football fields' length away from him. Would you care to attest to the superior power of his vision, even with glasses?

I also told you that of what I'd read so far, it was baloney, so don't give me this "you didn't even read it, Duke" crap. This is really pretty amazing tripe coming from a guy who writes his own Wikipedia entry and then cites it to prove that what he wrote isn't "just his own opinion."

This is not Dave Perry's website and I'm not Dave Perry, so don't play those silly "nibbling around the edges" games with me, with a constant stream of objections when your first ones are obliterated, thus proving that they're all valid because you always had a new one and didn't outright agree the others had been demolished. I don't have the time and won't play with you.

On the whole, both sets of statements are incompatible. One is full of "facts" that are demonstrably not facts. I will tend to rely on those statements that are not demonstrably false. If there are some weak spots in there, so be it, but there are fewer in the FBI's reports than Carr's sworn testimony. I feel sorry for people like him who so desperately need the attention. Pity defense counsel wasn't ready for him with his then-unpublished statements, cuz he, like William Whaley, would've been "taken apart." If you feel otherwise, please feel free to defend each of his later statements vis-a-vis his earlier ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wise choice.

On reflection, I think the only reason he was able to get away with this testimony - or to be more generous, the only reason it was not challenged by opposing counsel - is that the Commission Documents hadn't been released and nobody knew what was in them. He could've said that he'd contacted the FBI and they refused to talk with him and it would've been unverifiable and all that much more dramatic. Keeping his mouth shut "like he was told" was a deft touch, tho'.

Conversely, one would have to believe that the FBI covered its butt by first creating a report from a person who didn't exist in order to have a reason in the first place to contact Carr. Why not just say he called them himself? His word against theirs, after all, so why fabricate someone whose existence might be questioned or who might be found?

... And then put together such a pitiable story that he brought his wife and kids to the hospital and left them there, went to apply for a job but didn't talk to the foreman he'd gone to see (after walking up six flights of stairs!), and got so distracted by what he thought were backfires that he left the jobsite without talking to the foreman and didn't bother returning to talk to him again later!

... And finally, burying all of this fabricated "evidence" in a file they never expected anyone to see in the first place for the next 75 years. An exercise in futility or incredible foreplanning; which might it be?

I actually was leaning toward believing the guy until I got your message and read the (partial) testimony. When I've got time, I'll see what else got left behind. I wouldn't stake my reputation on this guy, tho', if I were you, Wim.

I can't confirm or deny any role - including that of Devil's Advocate - in the beatification of Mother Teresa under threat of excommunication. Sorry. Nice fishing trip, tho'!

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to interject with some 3 cents, (inflation you know).

Here's Carr's Shaw testimony:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm

I considered a couple of things when I read Richard R Carr's testimony. Among them a few I'd like to share with you here.

First, the construction site was surrounded by scaffolding, which extended further out than the actual finished building. Mr. Carr may have actually been climbing up the stairs on the scaffolding section of the site which allowed him to see what he claimed to have seen.

Second, as in many cases, I don't see any valid reasons (e.g. personal gain) in inventing a story and then providing investigating authorities with something that is based on pure imagination.

Third I don't think it is in any way significant whether he was on the 6th or 7th floor of the construction site, due to a number of reasons, especially under the light of what I stated in the earlier paragraphs.

I do agree with the fact that the distance is fairly long, and that Carr probably could not have made out all these details from this distance (Duke said it was some 500 yrds.).

However, as Mr. Carr explained, he was rather certain that the same man he observed in the window of the TSBD at a long distance, was the same man he observed at a closer distance shortly later, when this man was at street level getting into a Rambler.

The way I understood Carr's testimony is that he made note of a man in the window of the 5th floor of the TSBD, he first suspected that this man was FBI or Secret Service or something, made out some details like the tan sports coat and hat, then later saw what he thought to be the very same man moving rapidly to the Rambler with the latin person and the other man (or men). Due to the fact that he saw this man at a closer distance immediately after the shooting, he was able to give the more detailed description of the alleged suspect.

I have never considered Carr's testimony anything but reliable. While I'm at it, I might mention that I do give a lot of creedence to the observations of Roger Craig, who, I might add, also observed a Rambler station wagon picking up a person of interest in the area, following the shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Well, Wim, one is certainly a distortion of the other, there's no doubt about that.

I will have to try to get the original, presumably handwritten statement given to the FBI in February by Carr. Presuming its availability, let me ask you: if it is indeed handwritten over Carr's signature, and reads exactly as the February 14 report states, would you postulate that the Feebs sat him down, put a pen in his hand and told him exactly what to write? And he did as ordered?

There have been plenty of instances where people have said that authorities ignored them, said that they "didn't" hear or see what they thought ("if you didn't hear three shots, your information is wrong"), or misinterpreted or misreported what they'd said, but I can't recall a single instance where anyone claimed to have been forced to write something that was patently opposite of what they believed, or who claimed that the anyone forged a statement that they did not make ("that's not my handwriting!"). Will you claim Carr as the first?

Your exchange below is not based on the actual documents I've cited, Wim; they're based on the synopsis I wrote previously, and only on the initial, second-hand report made by FBI agents and not that submitted by Carr himself.

You have also ignored - and probably will continue to do so - the fact that there was nowhere to go on Houston Street in a northerly direction from the TSBD.

It was physically impossible for any car to have sped off that way without first breaking through barriers, being seen doing it and leaving debris behind, and then gone bouncing over a torn-up roadway that was itself littered with broken road debris. Funny he missed that, and that Richard Romack missed him. This minor little detail invalidates his story, which seems to have "improved with age."

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.

As to personal gain: fifteen minutes of fame on the stand, going down in history as an "important but ignored witness" (even if he wasn't ignored!), a free trip to The Big Easy? This guy found jobs where he could and lived in a trailer park; how many opportunities as this often presented themselves?

The fact that he claims to have gone downtown to search for a job, went to a jobsite, found out where the foreman was, didn't talk with the foreman either before going to Dealey Plaza or after, then simply went home without ever accomplishing his stated purpose for being there in the first place, makes me wonder if he was ever really downtown in the first place.

Roger Craig's Rambler was green, by the way, not gray. Carr did mention the color in his statement to the FBI if not in his testimony. That's hardly corroboration, any more than the cars that Lee Bowers described "corroborated" the three different - and different-colored - cars that Ed Hoffman claims to have seen.

As I'd suggested, review the testimonies of Pop Rackley and Richard Romack, and then tell me all about the testimony the FBI and WC changed in order to discredit this particular individual's future claims. I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to interject with some 3 cents, (inflation you know).

... the construction site was surrounded by scaffolding, which extended further out than the actual finished building. Mr. Carr may have actually been climbing up the stairs on the scaffolding section of the site which allowed him to see what he claimed to have seen.

You'll forgive me, I hope, for noting that, as hard as I look at any of the aerials, there is no evidence of scaffolding (except perhaps the blurry frame from Hughes, which is only interpretation). Would you be so kind as to point it out to me?

Also, please explain why scaffolding would even be necessary or desirable on a building that is nowhere near completion; why, in essence, would someone put a small aluminum or thin steel frame around an empty building frame made of much large I-beams? The only purpose I'm aware of for scaffolding is to be able to walk around where it is not possible otherwise to. Why would people either need or want to walk around the outside of a building that doesn't even have much inside yet? What did they need to access outside of the structure?

...I do agree with the fact that the distance is fairly long, and that Carr probably could not have made out all these details from this distance (Duke said it was some 500 yrds.).
275 yards, wasn't it? 850 feet? Something like that.

Let's do something: since you're in or near Helsinki, there appears to be a couple of intersections in what I guess is "downtown," the streets of Etalaesplanadi and Mannerheimintie and Kalevankatu. The distance along Mannerheimintie from Etalaesplanadi to Kalevankatu appears to be 815 feet, east corner to east corner (they all run at the diagonal; the distance is about 35 feet less than what Carr claims to have seen). I cannot tell how busy the streets are, but if you were to stand at one intersection, can you tell me if you can recognize glasses on people that far away? If they are horn-rimmed glasses or metal frames, or if they're sunglasses? If the earpieces are large or small. How well can you make out colors?

If you can, we will presume Carr could have. If not ...?

However, as Mr. Carr explained, he was rather certain that the same man he observed in the window of the TSBD at a long distance, was the same man he observed at a closer distance shortly later, when this man was at street level getting into a Rambler.
And there's more of the problem with this "reliable" evidence!

According to Carr's testimony - the printed version by Dietrich & Pickett, Inc. - he says that three men emerged from the TSBD, two of them got into the Rambler station wagon that drove away northbound on Houston, and that this man walked to Commerce and turned toward town; he does not mention the man getting into any Rambler in his testimony, nor anything about what the man did after turning toward town on Commerce!

Furthermore, in his testimony, Carr never discusses his having gone to street level, only the other three men having done so, and only one of them - the one he claims to have been able to see 275 yards away in the window - walked on the street.

The others, as I've already said, sped north on Houston, which was closed and barricaded just north of the TSBD. They couldn't go anywhere!

Now, let's get back to this "reliable" testimony:

The way I understood Carr's testimony is that he made note of a man in the window of the 5th floor of the TSBD, he first suspected that this man was FBI or Secret Service or something, made out some details like the tan sports coat and hat, then later saw what he thought to be the very same man moving rapidly to the Rambler with the latin person and the other man (or men). Due to the fact that he saw this man at a closer distance immediately after the shooting, he was able to give the more detailed description of the alleged suspect.

I have never considered Carr's testimony anything but reliable. ...

"The FBI" was not unknown to the average "man on the street" in 1963: leaving aside all the stuff about the Chicago hoodlums and "the Untouchables," there were plenty of TV programs, etc., that depicted the vaunted FBI agent. None of them depicted men in tan sports coats. They wore dark suits, white shirts, ties and hats; they did not wear tan. But okay, Carr didn't watch TV, didn't follow any of that, and wouldn't have known.

From 850 feet away, he saw men who were "dark complected," could not(?) have been Negro, but were "Latin." This means that he could have seen the details of their faces as well, to be able to differentiate between a black man and a Latino, doesn't it? We'll leave aside the fact that he originally said that the man driving the car was "a young negro man," and the fact that the trial was taking place in New Orleans with a district attorney who could potentially place his suspect with Latinos (and where there were plenty of Cubans as well): while you're out there at Mannerheimintie and Kalevankatu, please let me know how many Danes and Swedes - as differentiated from Finns - you see down there at Etalaesplanadi.

We will also ignore the fact that the man in the window (5th floor in his testimony, "top floor" in his earlier statements) did one thing in his testimony and another in his statements, just like the Rambler did (sped away on a closed street that was under construction vs. picked up the man who'd walked to Commerce).

And, oh, did you notice in his testimony that he'd specified that the man he'd seen was on the "fifth floor, third window from Houston?" My guess is that he was using Bonnie Ray Williams and Hank Norman as camouflage since "immediately before the shooting" it was they who were there and not some white guy in a sports coat.

But, oh, nevermind. I forgot that the FBI doctored everything, got people to lie, fake photographs taken, substituted testimony (except Carr's in the Shaw trial), made up statements, forced people to write things, forged them and so on. I find myself more and more thinking that that must be possible rather than that someone is telling us a few mistruths about what he did and saw.

When I return, we'll see why it is impossible for Carr to have seen what he claims to have seen. Note the verb: "see."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...