Richard Randolph Carr

[Duke Lane]

... 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.

Ah, so the FBI was able, in February 1964, to report witnesses' statements according to whether the WC, which had only just formed its staff in late January, would or would not call witnesses? It think you give them more credit than they deserve.

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke Lane Posted Today, 02:26 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Nov 20 2008, 02:44 AM)

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?

Duke, the photos of the building on 11/22 or 11/23 look like there is a frame (I thought scaffolding9 around the building. Normally scaffolding is there so construction worers may work on the outer sections of the site, otherwise inaccessible. I may be mistaken, nevertheless, it looks like during construction the buildings outer perimiter, extended further than the finished buiding.

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Nov 20 2008, 02:44 AM)

...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 ...?

Ok, test done. From the distance I can make out some details of people walking. Those that approach and come closer to me, allow me to make note of far more details, such as the type of clothes and glasses they wear. I suspect this is what happened to Carr. A person in a window of the TSBD caught his attention. He was able to see some vague details of this person (same as in my experiment). Moments later he saw what he thought the same man moving at a rapid pace. Since at this point there was no window obstructing Carr's view and as the distance was now shorter, he was able to make out some more specific details such as the felt hat, tanned sports coat and heavy rimmed glasses. Of course Carr could have been mistaken in that the man he had observed in the TSBD window, wasn't necessarily the same man he observed moments later moving in the street. However, I do find it less likely. Why? Well, a murder took place in that area, one that wasn't properly investigated.

Therefore just about all we have is witness statements, and it just is the less likely alternative.

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.

Sorry, as you may have guessed, I can't tell apart the nationality of the passers by. However, in a few cases the race of the individuals can be distinguished quite clearly. Those of African origin do stand out, I have to say.

Having read and studied statements of many witnesses in this case, I do have to say that I find the statement of Carr quite reliable. Of course with the years gone by and therefore the different versions of Carr's statements have some discrepancies, this seems to happen to virtually all witnesses. Should we dismiss all who have differing versions, Duke?

Edited November 21, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke,

Here is a earlier posted picture & shows what I meant by the scaffolding.

Looking at this picture and considering that Carr was on the 6th or 7th floor of this construction site, it seems like he'd have no trouble at all seeing the TSBD over the old court house.

Also I believe Carr said, the man he observed was in the 3rd window, so not in the window we know as the snipers lair.

[Duke Lane]

Duke, the photos of the building on 11/22 or 11/23 look like there is a frame (I thought scaffolding9 around the building. Normally scaffolding is there so construction worers may work on the outer sections of the site, otherwise inaccessible. I may be mistaken, nevertheless, it looks like during construction the buildings outer perimiter, extended further than the finished buiding.

I see your point from the blurry picture: it looks in this like the floors below the top five extend farther out, but the aerial photos belie that. Also, it doesn't make sense to erect a frame on which to place boards you can walk on when the frame to put the boards on already exists with the building girders themselves ... which is a heckuva lot more stable than scaffolding. There is also no need to access the "outside" of a building that doesn't have an outside yet! (Just go see any large building near you that's currently under construction.)

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?

Ok, test done. From the distance I can make out some details of people walking. Those that approach and come closer to me, allow me to make note of far more details, such as the type of clothes and glasses they wear. I suspect this is what happened to Carr. A person in a window of the TSBD caught his attention. He was able to see some vague details of this person (same as in my experiment). Moments later he saw what he thought the same man moving at a rapid pace. Since at this point there was no window obstructing Carr's view and as the distance was now shorter, he was able to make out some more specific details such as the felt hat, tanned sports coat and heavy rimmed glasses. Of course Carr could have been mistaken in that the man he had observed in the TSBD window, wasn't necessarily the same man he observed moments later moving in the street. However, I do find it less likely. Why? Well, a murder took place in that area, one that wasn't properly investigated.

Therefore just about all we have is witness statements, and it just is the less likely alternative.

Wow, did you do it right where I suggested? From half-way around the world, no less! Damn! Hold on just a sec, let me look at the satellite photo to see if I can see you!! (kidding)

OK, if I understand what you've said correctly, when you saw someone from those two blocks away (hey, wait, isn't it perpetually dark there these days?!?), you could make out some details which became clearer as they approached, such that if you maybe thought they were wearing glasses in the distance, it was confirmed (or not) as they got closer ... and that the same may have been the case with Carr: he thought he saw something at a distance on this guy in the window that, when he saw the man or "a" man nearer by, the latter observation provided the details he might not have seen from afar; is that right?

If so, I'll buy that explanation ... with the qualification that Carr could not have associated the two(?) men other than by dress ... unlike your noticing someone two blocks away, then a block away, then 25 feet away; that is, an association based upon that person approaching you continually. But hold that thought.

...Of course Carr could have been mistaken in that the man he had observed in the TSBD window, wasn't necessarily the same man he observed moments later moving in the street. However, I do find it less likely. Why? Well, a murder took place in that area, one that wasn't properly investigated.

According to everything Carr said, he was unaware of there having been a murder, and he certainly didn't know at the time that it wouldn't be properly investigated. To the extent that he might've realized that "something was wrong, but didn't know what," one wonders that he didn't stick around to make sure the police investigators were aware of the important things he'd observed, and never made contact with any such investigators until long after the assassination, and that by their initiative and not his.

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? ...

Sorry, as you may have guessed, I can't tell apart the nationality of the passers by. However, in a few cases the race of the individuals can be distinguished quite clearly. Those of African origin do stand out, I have to say.

In general, I don't disagree, but at a distance, a black man is "dark complected" as well, and Latins (Mexicans, Cubans, what-have-you ... killing words in some parts of Dallas!), like blacks, vary in their degrees of darkness. Look at Barack Obama or Colin Powell, for example: if you weren't close enough to see the details of their faces, could they not as easily be mistaken as a Latin due to their lighter shading? Likewise, I've seen Mexicans who are so dark that I'd thought they were black till we'd gotten much closer.

... Point being that a "dark complected" person need not be "Negro," but likewise to say that they were Latino can only be a guess. But we'll see soon enough that the distinction doesn't matter in this instance.

Having read and studied statements of many witnesses in this case, I do have to say that I find the statement of Carr quite reliable. Of course with the years gone by and therefore the different versions of Carr's statements have some discrepancies, this seems to happen to virtually all witnesses. Should we dismiss all who have differing versions, Duke?

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. Edited November 21, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

...

Looking at this picture and considering that Carr was on the 6th or 7th floor of this construction site, it seems like he'd have no trouble at all seeing the TSBD over the old court house.

Yes, it seems that way, but it's not so ... or not totally so. Yes, he could see the upper floors of the TSBD over the tree: here's a picture from the 7th floor southeast window of the TSBD showing the new courthouse building that was then under construction:

This image is taken from the southeast corner window and shows a good portion of the west wall, which at that time was open, not enclosed like it is today, and on which the stairway was (possibly even extending from the outside wall? We'll allow for that given that a four- or five-foot wide addition isn't going to affect the view by very much). From a couple of windows west of this view, you can see all of the upper floor of the "wide" section of the construction, so if that's the seventh floor of the new courthouse, then there is no question that the window this picture was taken from - and those to the west - could be seen by someone over there.

As to floors below this, I cannot say with certainty. Carr's original statement - which Wim has discounted and which I'll therefore lay aside for the moment - said that he saw the man in a window on the top floor, which is the 7th; he said it was the 5th floor in his Shaw testimony, but the public doesn't have access to that floor these days, so I couldn't tell you for certain if he could've seen that floor or not.

As to the Latins and the station wagon, we'll get to that later.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Wim Dankbaar]

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

[Duke Lane]

Wim Dankbar has hypothesized that statements made by Richard Randolph Carr in 1964 are bogus, concocted by the FBI or coerced from him by them, and discounts them entirely. What is more accurate, he says, is what Carr himself had to say without "benefit" of an "interpreter," under oath at the 1969 trial of The State of Louisiana v. Clay Shaw (hereinafter Shaw). Said testimony, given on February 19, 1969, can be found at this link on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website in its entirety.

Since the earlier FBI reports have been "discredited," we will eliminate them from all consideration in the following analysis of Carr's testimony, which follows the course of that testimony, and which only includes evidence on record up to the point at which it is discussed.

According to Carr's Shaw trial testimony, he and a unnamed pipefitter were standing on the seventh floor of the new county courthouse building "around the middle of the day" on November 22, in "a position where he could see the parade" honoring the President, "at the time that theparade was coming down towards Dealey Plaza."

Asked if he'd seen anything unusual, he said:

At the time the parade came down towards -- going to the School Book Depository ...

at the fifth floor of the School Book Depository I noticed a man at the third window

, this man was dressed -- he had on a light hat, and I saw this man later going down Houston Street, to the corner of Commerce, and then turned toward town on Commerce, 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 --

At this point, his testimony describing these various events at various times was interrupted to determine his expertise in being able to determine rifle fire from sidearm fire. When this question was settled, he resumed his testimony by noting that he and a pipefitter "were standing on the seventh floor of the -- on the outside of this structure of this courthouse," at which time he was again interrupted by defense counsel objecting to his reporting the other half of a conversation he'd been involved in as "hearsay."

In this testimony, Carr seems to establish that the stairway he was on was external to the girder-frame construction, attached to the girders on the outside rather than the inside the confines of the structure. This jibes with the aerial photos of Dealey Plaza taken contemporaneous to the assassination.

He went on:

He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy- rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on this glasses. ... He had on a tie, he had on a light shirt, a tan sport coat.

This is testimony to some very sharp eyesight, being able to discern the characteristics of an object 850 feet from where he was: not only the man himself (who would only appear to be a fraction of an inch tall at that distance), but also of his glasses which, at 4x2", must only have appeared as a tiny speck, if anything at all. Not only dark, heavy rimmed glasses, but with "heavy ear pieces."

The questioning turned to the gunfire ("I didn't think it was gunfire," he testified, "I knew it was gunfire," he said later) and where it had come from, which from that distance, he was able to discern that it had come from the area near the picket fence and not the TSBD. From his point of view, this represented an angle of less than 10 degrees; he was able to tell from which part of that arc the shots came, to the exclusion of any other north of him. This ability was not challenged by counsel.

(Further on in his testimony, he was able to narrow the origin of the shots to within less than a degree, that is, originating from the end of the "cement arcade" nearest the railroad tracks rather than that nearest the TSBD. While I'm jumping ahead a little in this instance, the image below shows the relative angles of what he claimed to have been able to discern in terms of the origin of the gunfire from 800 feet away.)

He said that the first shot was followed by three louder shots ("from a high-powered rifle," which characterization immediately raised an objection from defense counsel) "in succession." One of those three shots, he said, caused grass to fly up from the ground. Unless the clump of ground was substantial - for which there is no evidence - this is once again exemplifying his super-fine eyesight, being able to see a small amount of grass fly up in front of a background of ... grass.

Asked if, after the shots, he'd noticed any unusual movement of any kind, he replied in the affirmative:

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 was parked on the wrong side of the street,

next to the School Book Depository heading north

. ...

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

.

(Later, under cross-examination, clarifying what had attracted his attention after the shooting, he said:

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 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

.)

He went on, in direct testimony, to describe how one man got in front, how he'd "slid in from the driver's side over," that the Latin man had gotten in back, and how the car "was in motion before the rear door was closed."

These are all events taking place on Houston Street, to the east of the TSBD. We will recall the image from the original post in this thread which shows the view of the new courthouse building from the southeast corner of the TSBD at street level:

Whether or not Carr was high enough on the building to be able to see the street-level corner of the building is not as important as whether he would have been able to see anything else taking place to the north of this. The above image is included solely as reference since the following pictures are not as clear.

This sequence of photos is made at where the right front fender of a parked car facing the correct direction would be (at approximately five feet off the ground), first, at the northeast corner of the TSBD, then about half-way forward to the corner of the building, and then a car-length from the corner with Elm Street. In all of these, no part of the courthouse building is in view. Richard Randolph Carr could not see activity in this location if people in this location could not see him. Period.

It's clear that if Carr was unable to see a car in this area - he had no line of sight, which of necessity extends in both directions - then he could not have seen anyone exiting from any part of the TSBD, whether at the very back of the main building where the exit he described was (at that location, in the first photo, you can't even see the top of the spires of the Old Red Courthouse, much less the side of the new courthouse which only appears in the crook on the back side of the spire in the top photo), and certainly not farther back at the end of the loading dock.

If he could not see the car or the people exiting, he could not see two men getting into the station wagon that he couldn't see, and certainly not well enough to know the complexions of those men, much less whether their "real dark complexions" were those of "Latins" - whether Spanish, Cuban or Mexican or even South American - rather than of black men.

If he could not see the car at the curb, then he could not have seen it drive off "north on Houston" because, on crossing to the northbound side of the street, the car would have been even more obscured - simply not visible, actually, which it already wasn't - by doing so.

Furthermore, if the car had gone north on Elm, it had nowhere to go since the street - according to the testimonies of George "Pops" Rackley (6H273ff) and James Romack (6H277ff) - was under construction and blocked off by barricades. In addition, Romack stated in his testimony that he had watched the side and back of the TSBD from the time he first heard shots and until more police had arrived in the area, and at no time did he see anyone emerge from either the side or the back of the building.

Thus ... with photographic evidence that there was no line of sight between where a car could be parked on the west side of Houston Street or any point farther north or east along the street, including the loading dock exit or the back of the building beyond the dock, and with testimony from a man who said that nobody came out onto Houston Street from either location by a man who was watching that area for several minutes after the shooting, and with evidence that a car could not have driven north on Houston Street whether or not it was seen by Carr ... how can this claim made under oath in New Orleans be considered "reliable?"

Let us turn to the man whom Carr had described as being "at the fifth floor of the School Book Depository," more specifically "in this window which would have been one, two, the third window over here." The windows next to it, at the time of the shooting were occupied by Bonnie Ray Williams, Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Depending upon the exact time of their arrival there, would they not have seen this man standing there? Yet if so, they made statements both to the effect that nobody else was on the floor when they arrived, and that they had seen no strangers in the building that day.

Before the shooting, the windows above that which Carr claimed to have seen the man - the third window from Houston on the sixth floor - had been occupied by Bonnie Ray Williams. Is it possible that the man Carr saw - if he saw one - was in fact a black man rather than a white man, who wore no glasses rather than "heavy horn-rimmed" ones with "heavy ear pieces," no hat rather than a tan one, no jacket rather than a sport jacket, and no tie rather than any kind of tie, and that either his eyes or his five-year-old memory were playing tricks on him? After all, those windows were closed at the time of the shooting, so Carr could only have seen the man through the glass, so distortion is a distinct possibility, is it not? If so, would he still have been able to distinctly see glasses and a hat on the man (if he could see distinctly at all across 850 feet)?

If the man was in neither window, where was he that Carr could've seen him in the School Book Depository?

Let us consider his powers of observation.

He was asked about his recollections of the motorcade itself, of which he had little: he remembered, for example, just three cars:

At the time it [the shooting] happened I had only seen three, part of them were on back had not got to that point yet ... the commotion was so great that everybody stopped there, there were a lot of people on the streets, on both sides, there were people up here, spectators, there were people everywhere along that route, all over there.

Three cars. Would they have been Curry's car, the limo, and the Queen Mary? It wouldn't seem so since "part of them [the three cars he'd seen] were on back had not got to that point yet." So what three cars had he seen, and how far "on back" were the rest of the three? And where were the rest of the cars in the parade?

Carr stated under cross-examination that he had heard what he "knew" to be gunfire, from which he was able to conclude that "someone had been shot or shot at." After that, he "detected the vehicles gathering speed and moving on," which he thought was "very unusual." Despite that, when he was asked "when you saw the Presidential vehicle accelerate, did that attract your attention?" he replied:

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 ...

So we learn that he knew the President was passing nearby, he was sure he heard gunfire, knew "someone had been shot or shot at," saw the cars "gathering speed," but did not draw any conclusion that it might've been the President who was "shot or [being] shot at," and instead, as the limo was accelerating, he turned to watch men (whom he couldn't see) depart the building and drive away up a street that was closed in both directions.

Since these men were able to get downstairs after shooting the President - before the limo had even left the plaza! - does this prove that Oswald only needed two or three seconds to reach the second floor lunchroom?

Wasn't he interested in knowing what was causing the commotion, defense counsel wanted to know? Carr "would like to have known, but I could not have got through the crowd to find out if I had to," he responded. "You had a pretty good spot from which to look, didn't you?" counsel asked next, and Carr responded affirmatively. He was "looking to see why all of the commotion down here and why these people were running," and at the same time, defense counsel asked, wasn't he "looking up towards the Texas School Book Depository seeing three men come out from behind it?" Carr said that he was.

Thus, all of this activity so far described - the gunfire, the accelerating cars, the men coming out of the TSBD and getting into a car, and a man hurrying away from the TSBD south on Houston - all took place while Carr enjoyed the vantage point of being on the staircase at the seventh floor of the new courthouse two blocks from the scene of all of this activity, all according to Carr's own testimony.

We further know this because, if he had gone to ground level in the time it took between the vehicles' acceleration and the men to emerge from the TSBD or from behind it, he would not have been able to discern that activity from the street and through the remaining vehicles of the motorcade (including a tour bus) and the crowds lining the streets.

That being so, the man that he must've seen through glass - whether on the fifth, six or seventh floors of the TSBD - dressed as Carr described was next seen not just 850 feet away, but seven stories below as well (someone else can figure out the hypotenuse of that triangle!). Although having been first seen through glass, Carr instantly recognized the man on the street as having been the same one he'd seen upstairs in the TSBD only seconds before, and "confirmed" in clear daylight the details he'd earlier only been able to see through the glass, and realized they were the same man although, at best, Carr could only have seen the man walking from the general vicinty of the TSBD's southeast corner since he couldn't have seen him emerge from the building.

We are obliged, in evaluating this testimony, to not consider any of the previous information derived from those faked FBI reports, whether or not it dovetails with anything Carr swore to in court, since "fabricated" reports cannot, by their very nature, corroborate anything. This testimony, according to the post directly preceding this one, is the "only reliable version of Carr's story."

As a final note and query, CD385 purports to be a typed report of a statement made in writing on February 3, 1964, by one Richard Randolph Carr, and witnessed on the same day by Special Agent Paul L. Scott. If that is so - that Carr wrote out a statement which he gave to the FBI - will that be deemed also "reliable" since it is in his own hand, or shall it be deemed to have been "coerced?" (One wonders why the FBI would have him write a statement and then tell him to "keep his mouth shut" afterward. But of course, despite the fact that he swore to have seen something that it was impossible for him to have seen from where he was - or claimed to have been - we know it to be true that the FBI did tell him to "keep his mouth shut" because he so stated under oath in a court of law.)

The question that is left, then, based on the things that Carr didn't know that are verifiable - how many cars were in the plaza as part of the parade, for example - and his testimony about seeing things he couldn't have seen, is whether or not Richard Randolph Carr was even anywhere near Dealey Plaza at the time of his shooting.

[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

Edited November 21, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[William Kelly]

Well we've now sucessfully discredited every single eyewitness to the assassination, and if we can just forget what they had to say, we'd know what really happened.

BK

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Heres a picture with scaffold clearly visible for what it's worth.

Steve

[Duke Lane]

Heres a picture with scaffold clearly visible for what it's worth.

Good catch on that, Steve. I can't tell how many stories are visible, but certainly some of them are!

Well we've now sucessfully discredited every single eyewitness to the assassination, and if we can just forget what they had to say, we'd know what really happened.

Now, Bill, I haven't discredited a single eyewitness ... only those who claim to have been but who were not! How does it help to know what happened if people are telling us about things that didn't happen? Adding falsehood to the reality might make it a more interesting story, but it doesn't lead toward what happened.

If you think it will add to the knowledge base, I will gladly tell you what I saw from the south knoll that day!

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke,

I think you are over-analyzing many of these witness statements. They are just what they are; the best recollections of those indivduals who were at the location.

Everything doesn't have to be so sinister. Nevertheless, I wish you success with your line of analysis.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Steve,

Many thanks for that photo. FWIW? A picture says more than Duke's thousand words.

Duke,

You would grow on me if you could withdraw your allegation that Carr could not have seen the windows of the 6th floor.

And maybe a posthume apology to the man?

The rest of your allegations may stay up for debate, but I think it's fair to admit that this one has been discounted.

Wim

[Duke Lane]

I think you are over-analyzing many of these witness statements. They are just what they are; the best recollections of those indivduals who were at the location. Everything doesn't have to be so sinister. Nevertheless, I wish you success with your line of analysis.

I think it is very difficult to "recall" so exactly - the men sliding into the driver's side and the "fact" that they were Latin as opposed to any other "real dark complected" race - something that you could not see. Sinister? Probably not. A "memory" he'd told so many times that he believed it himself? Very probably ... especially when you consider the completely different story he told the FBI in 1964 ... and gave to them in his own handwriting, not merely by their ex parte reporting.

Steve,

Many thanks for that photo. FWIW? A picture says more than Duke's thousand words.

Duke,

You would grow on me if you could withdraw your allegation that Carr could not have seen the windows of the 6th floor. And maybe a posthume apology to the man?

The rest of your allegations may stay up for debate, but I think it's fair to admit that this one has been discounted.

Wim, I did not say that Carr could not have seen the sixth floor windows, so I've got nothing to retract or apologize for. I did say:

This image is taken from the southeast corner window [of the 7th floor of TSBD] and shows a good portion of the west wall [of the new courthouse], which at that time was open, not enclosed like it is today, and on which the stairway was (possibly even extending from the outside wall? We'll allow for that given that a four- or five-foot wide addition isn't going to affect the view by very much). From a couple of windows west of this view, you can see all of the upper floor of the "wide" section of the construction, so if that's the seventh floor of the new courthouse, then there is no question that the window this picture was taken from - and those to the west - could be seen by someone over there.

As to floors below this, I cannot say with certainty

. Carr's original statement - which Wim has discounted and which I'll therefore lay aside for the moment - said that he saw the man in a window on the

top

floor, which is the 7th; he said it was the 5th floor in his

Shaw

testimony, but the public doesn't have access to that floor these days, so I couldn't tell you for certain if he could've seen that floor or not.

So we learn that the courthouse building is visible from the sixth floor floor by this photograph. You can see the girders of the building, but you can't see actual scaffolding (which the girders can loosely be described as; see the image below for what I'm referring to as "scaffolding"), but the clarity through the dirty window is not sufficient to see more detail ... including which floors were visible. The fifth floor remains a question.

Scaffolding used on the outside of a building

Carr's story - and all it is, is a story - does not support or detract from Roger Craig's sighting of a light green Rambler coming down Elm Street since Carr's was a gray Rambler and left "going north on Houston." One has nothing to do with the other, other than being of similar manufacture. Ramblers, while rare today, were pretty ubiquitous back then as I recall (having been alive back then in the US and for several years since).

When I have the handwritten report by Mr. Carr - probably this week - I'll scan it and post it. I'm confident that some people will claim it to be either a forgery or coerced, tho' I have difficulty imagining how short of putting a gun to someone's head, anyone can be made to write four pages of false statements ... which were never considered or deemed "false," by the way.

In 1964, Carr had said that he'd seen a man dressed in a suit or sportcoat in the top (7th) floor windows, which were all closed. He did not claim that the man had a gun, nor did he claim to have seen anyone who did have one. He later saw a man who appeared to be the same man who'd been on the 7th floor on the street, walking toward Commerce Street, then east on Commerce to Record, which is where he claimed the man got into the Rambler, which was facing north on that street.

In his 1969 version, the man did not get into the Rambler, two other men did, and the Rambler was not on Record, but on Houston. The man walked down to Commerce and then east on Commerce, but Carr did not claim to have seen him after that, nor did he claim that the man got into any Rambler or any other car facing any direction.

We know that the modus operandi of the FBI at the time, in connection with this case, was to take statements from people and then to discredit them. They had not been in the business of telling people what to write or say, even if they didn't always report what people said in full or necessarily accurately. If that were the case, the whole Odio incident would never have been an issue: they would simply have told her to write that the man who came to her door simply didn't look anything like Oswald.

[Wim Dankbaar]

I've made no false allegations anywhere; if you can prove that Carr saw the unseeable, then you're certainly welcome to disprove my analysis. So far, you've only "disproved" something I'd never said.

Wel, you started this thread with the claim (or at least the allegation) that Carr could not have witnessed what he describes from his position.

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."

I think the picture that Steve posted proves that claim wrong.

Wim

Edited November 24, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar