Richard Randolph Carr

[Duke Lane]

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.

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

There's an old saw about people who speak two languages being "bilingual," people who speak three being "trilingual," and those who speak but one being "American." You are clearly at least bilingual, which presents the automatic defense of English not being one's "first" language, and therefore one's understandings or statements might not be entirely clear.

Looking back on the first post of this discussion, my first "claim" seems to have been:

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?

[emphasis in original]

Of course, the last question led me to Carr's original statements to the FBI, which you rejected out of hand and in full because, well, you know how the FBI was about all of this, making people change statements and so forth.

Based on Carr's original statements - his handwritten statement quoted in the February 3 FBI report reads exactly as quoted, as I will show when a copy arrives in the mail - I had no difficulty with his claims of seeing someone in the "top floor" of the TSBD or his seeing, from ground level as he then purported, a man hurrying from the TSBD direction to a car "driven by a young negro man" parked at Commerce and Record. All perfectly do-able; thought so, and still think so.

In fact, unbeknownst to you, I was shooting down someone else's claim of having "been to where Carr claims he was" and not being able to see the TSBD.

But you didn't like his 1964 statements because the FBI took them and presumably mucked them all up; "he never said the driver was a negro," I think your words were, which were either wrong (the reports say that he did) or omniscient (you know the FBI changed his words and just which ones they changed).

As "proof" of what he "never" said, you offered his statements under oath in the Shaw trial, from which emerged a completely different story than he told to the FBI. You are of the opinion that someone would never lie under oath; I disagree, especially when at the time it was not possible to determine what he did say to the FBI because the Commission Documents set hadn't been generally available, and nobody could have challenged his statement against what he'd said earlier.

The defense clearly didn't have his FBI story, and I'm willing to allow that Garrison didn't either and thus did not suborn the perjury. I'm confident that what Carr said on the stand is probably pretty close to what he originally told Garrison (however it was that their meeting came to pass), with the possible exception of Garrison's coaching him to determine that the "real dark complected" guy(s) he saw were not Negro, but Latin, more closely fitting the anti-Castro Cubans in Nawlins who were conceivably a part of the conspiracy Garrison sought to uncover.

In his sworn testimony, Carr stated that, before the shooting, he had seen a white man dressed in jacket, tie and hat in the third window from the southeast corner of the TSBD. I pointed out that these were the windows occupied by Norman, Jarman and Williams, none of whom had mentioned seeing this guy (the same would not have been the case in the top-most windows of the seventh floor). In the event that he might've mistaken the fifth floor for the sixth, I also pointed out that prior to the shooting and his going to the fifth floor, Bonnie Ray Williams had been behind the (closed) third window from the corner of the sixth floor, and he likewise didn't see Carr's guy or - according to his testimony, about which I also have doubts - anyone else.

I also pointed out that the seventh floor windows were indeed possible to have been seen anywhere on the face of the west side of the courthouse building, but I couldn't say with certainty about the fifth or sixth floors; as it appears, they are indeed visible. I never said that they weren't.

I did express doubt that, since all of the "third windows" on the fifth, sixth and seventh floor windows were closed before and immediately after the shooting, he would have been able to see such details as he made of the man through the glass, and especially over an 850-foot distance.

However, Carr's testimony about seeing anything happen on Houston Street is a clear impossibility, and that is where the Rambler and the "real dark complected" guy (be he Latin, Negro or a George Hamilton wanna-be-in-training) found themselves in his new story. Even if it wasn't a new story, and he'd told the same thing to the Feds the first time around, the fact still remains that he couldn't see that portion of Houston Street at all from where he was (which also changed between the two stories).

So, then, let's be clear:

My "claim" nothing more or less than that he could not see the events he described on Houston Street if he was on the west wall of the courthouse building; it is physically impossible for him to have. He could not have seen anyone exit from the side or the back, he couldn't have seen the Rambler, and he couldn't have seen any "real dark complected" man or men come out of the building or get into said Rambler, much less "slide across the seat" from location on the fifth, sixth or seventh floor on the west wall of the courthouse building, nor would he have been able to see those activities from ground level, which in his testimony he did not claim to have descended to.

You can argue about scaffolding, you can tout the fact that the windows on the front of the building at any point not obstructed by the trees were visible to him from where he claimed to have been, or that he had great eyesight and the windows were just cleaned ... they are all minor points that have nothing whatsoever to do with what he could see on Houston Street. It likewise doesn't matter about whether the men he claimed to see where "real dark" complected Latins or Negroes because he couldn't see them. He clearly, demonstrably and provably did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the stand. For that, I offer no apologies.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Duke Lane

[John Dolva]

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.

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

There's an old saw about people who speak two languages being "bilingual," people who speak three being "trilingual," and those who speak but one being "American." You are clearly at least bilingual, which presents the automatic defense of English not being one's "first" language, and therefore one's understandings or statements might not be entirely clear.

Looking back on the first post of this discussion, my first "claim" seems to have been:

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?

[emphasis in original]

Of course, the last question led me to Carr's original statements to the FBI, which you rejected out of hand and in full because, well, you know how the FBI was about all of this, making people change statements and so forth.

Based on Carr's original statements - his handwritten statement quoted in the February 3 FBI report reads exactly as quoted, as I will show when a copy arrives in the mail - I had no difficulty with his claims of seeing someone in the "top floor" of the TSBD or his seeing, from ground level as he then purported, a man hurrying from the TSBD direction to a car "driven by a young negro man" parked at Commerce and Record. All perfectly do-able; thought so, and still think so.

In fact, unbeknownst to you, I was shooting down someone else's claim of having "been to where Carr claims he was" and not being able to see the TSBD.

But you didn't like his 1964 statements because the FBI took them and presumably mucked them all up; "he never said the driver was a negro," I think your words were, which were either wrong (the reports say that he did) or omniscient (you know the FBI changed his words and just which ones they changed).

As "proof" of what he "never" said, you offered his statements under oath in the Shaw trial, from which emerged a completely different story than he told to the FBI. You are of the opinion that someone would never lie under oath; I disagree, especially when at the time it was not possible to determine what he did say to the FBI because the Commission Documents set hadn't been generally available, and nobody could have challenged his statement against what he'd said earlier.

The defense clearly didn't have his FBI story, and I'm willing to allow that Garrison didn't either and thus did not suborn the perjury. I'm confident that what Carr said on the stand is probably pretty close to what he originally told Garrison (however it was that their meeting came to pass), with the possible exception of Garrison's coaching him to determine that the "real dark complected" guy(s) he saw were not Negro, but Latin, more closely fitting the anti-Castro Cubans in Nawlins who were conceivably a part of the conspiracy Garrison sought to uncover.

In his sworn testimony, Carr stated that, before the shooting, he had seen a white man dressed in jacket, tie and hat in the third window from the southeast corner of the TSBD. I pointed out that these were the windows occupied by Norman, Jarman and Williams, none of whom had mentioned seeing this guy (the same would not have been the case in the top-most windows of the seventh floor). In the event that he might've mistaken the fifth floor for the sixth, I also pointed out that prior to the shooting and his going to the fifth floor, Bonnie Ray Williams had been behind the (closed) third window from the corner of the sixth floor, and he likewise didn't see Carr's guy or - according to his testimony, about which I also have doubts - anyone else.

I also pointed out that the seventh floor windows were indeed possible to have been seen anywhere on the face of the west side of the courthouse building, but I couldn't say with certainty about the fifth or sixth floors; as it appears, they are indeed visible. I never said that they weren't.

I did express doubt that, since all of the "third windows" on the fifth, sixth and seventh floor windows were closed before and immediately after the shooting, he would have been able to see such details as he made of the man through the glass, and especially over an 850-foot distance.

However, Carr's testimony about seeing anything happen on Houston Street is a clear impossibility, and that is where the Rambler and the "real dark complected" guy (be he Latin, Negro or a George Hamilton wanna-be-in-training) found themselves in his new story. Even if it wasn't a new story, and he'd told the same thing to the Feds the first time around, the fact still remains that he couldn't see that portion of Houston Street at all from where he was (which also changed between the two stories).

So, then, let's be clear:

My "claim" nothing more or less than that he could not see the events he described on Houston Street if he was on the west wall of the courthouse building; it is physically impossible for him to have. He could not have seen anyone exit from the side or the back, he couldn't have seen the Rambler, and he couldn't have seen any "real dark complected" man or men come out of the building or get into said Rambler, much less "slide across the seat" from location on the fifth, sixth or seventh floor on the west wall of the courthouse building, nor would he have been able to see those activities from ground level, which in his testimony he did not claim to have descended to.

You can argue about scaffolding, you can tout the fact that the windows on the front of the building at any point not obstructed by the trees were visible to him from where he claimed to have been, or that he had great eyesight and the windows were just cleaned ... they are all minor points that have nothing whatsoever to do with what he could see on Houston Street. It likewise doesn't matter about whether the men he claimed to see where "real dark" complected Latins or Negroes because he couldn't see them. He clearly, demonstrably and provably did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the stand. For that, I offer no apologies.

good.

____________

What were the building codes in Dallas when the building was approved. What were the codes followed. What were the safety codes. What was RRC's actual job. As a vet, what was his physical condition. Are we seeing girders or scaffolding. Safety scaffolding? Would RRC venture out on a girder to see what Holmes meters to his left (east) with a straight-on view of the sixth floor, with binoculars, as the limo diosappeared behind trees etc., did not. Why did RRC not see the headshot but Holmes gives perhaps the most graphic view/testimony. Why was FLB's pre post Pres. Comm. reports ignored. What did the prisoners see that led to the first investigation re sots(over in moments) by ringing Holmes ("the agencies" ??? ) and him having the power to halt that by a simple questioning of staff say no there were no shots from the PO and the agencies accepting that totally. Why did Holmes state there was no suspicious acts or persons anywhere near the TSBD building. ????

Edited November 29, 2008 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

addendum:

the first floor is presumably the ground floor unlike in other countries.> as the PO and a map indicates the flooring... . re hypotenuses, did RRC have any arc tans?

[Duke Lane]

What were the building codes in Dallas when the building was approved. What were the codes followed. What were the safety codes. What was RRC's actual job. As a vet, what was his physical condition. Are we seeing girders or scaffolding. Safety scaffolding? Would RRC venture out on a girder to see what Holmes meters to his left (east) with a straight-on view of the sixth floor, with binoculars, as the limo diosappeared behind trees etc., did not. Why did RRC not see the headshot but Holmes gives perhaps the most graphic view/testimony. Why was FLB's pre post Pres. Comm. reports ignored. What did the prisoners see that led to the first investigation re sots(over in moments) by ringing Holmes ("the agencies" ??? ) and him having the power to halt that by a simple questioning of staff say no there were no shots from the PO and the agencies accepting that totally. Why did Holmes state there was no suspicious acts or persons anywhere near the TSBD building. ????

Who's "FLB?"

Carr said - in his statement to the FBI in 1964, not in his 1969 Shaw testimony - that he'd gone downtown in search of work, so he apparently didn't have an actual job at the courthouse building. According to these statements, he went to the courthouse and asked to speak to the foreman. He was directed to the ninth floor where the foreman was supposed to have been. On his way upstairs, he heard the shots, saw people hitting the ground, and went back down to investigate ... without having seen the foreman.

He originally said that he'd seen a man hurrying from the direction of the TSBD when he, Carr, was on the ground; he thought the man was the same one he'd seen on the top floor of the TSBD. The man was hurrying southward, turned east on Commerce, walked up a block and got into a Rambler driven by "a young Negro man," who then drove away going northward on Record Street. This is substantially different than what he said in 1969, which did not include returning to the ground level and which no longer had a Rambler on Record Street, but on Houston, next to the TSBD. His 1964 statements also did not include any "Latin" men, while his 1969 testimony did not include any Negro man.

The photos I took on Houston Street show that the portion of the street east of the TSBD could only be seen from a very small portion of the very upper floors of the courthouse building, which goes up some 12 or 14 stories. Carr did not claim to be that high. Anything below it was and is invisible from the lower floors, especially as one move north along the street ... which in any case was closed by construction beyond the TSBD, and Carr's supposed "getaway car" - which he could not have seen - also could not have gone north on Houston Street past the TSBD like Carr said it did because of the road's closure.

The story's bogus, with or without scaffolding.

[Duke Lane]

Here's some more information just received from a friend by mail:

May 18, 1967 (Dictated & Transcribed)

TO: JIM GARRISON, District Attorney

FROM: PENN JONES

RE: INVESTIGATION

----------------------

I was on a radio show in Dallas, Texas about 4 months ago. A couple of days after the show a man by the name of RICHARD CARR contacted me by telephone and said he just had to talk to me. I went to Mr. CARR's home and spent about 3 hours with him.

On November 22, 1963 he was on the construction elevator of the new Dallas County Courthouse, 7 floors above the ground, from which location he had a good view of the assassination scene. He reported to me that he saw 2 white men run from behind the wooden fence, that location being the one which we claim some of the shots came from which killed President Kennedy. CARR stated that the 2 men ran in a Northeasterly direction behind the School Book Depository Building, and while they were out of signt they were joined by a colored man (he called him a Negro). The colored man got in the driver's seat of a gray Rambler Station Wagon. One white man got in the rear seat on the left-hand side and the car drove North on Houston, turning to the right on Pacific. The other man, a dark complexioned white male, about 5'8", heavyset, wearing dark rimmed glasses, brown hat and brown coat, walked South on Houston Street and turned to the left up Main Street where he disappeared from view.

CARR further stated that while the shots were being fired he saw one bullet hit the ground behind the President's car.

Mr. CARR not only is a "rifle buff", having a beautiful rifle case with several rifles on the wall of his home, he was an enlisted man in the 5th Ranger Batallion during World War II, and was wounded in combat three times. His occupation at this time is steel worker and he was on the Courthouse side that day applying for a job. He has a wife and 3 children, and as I left his home he begged me to to get him killed. I have never released his statement or name to anyone except Mr. Garrison.

Within 2 or 3 days after the assassination, the F.B.I. visited him in his home. They were very brusque and insulting in their manner, and they told Mr. CARR if he did not see OSWALD shoot out of the 6th floor window he had better keep his mouth shut.

Of course, some of this information may be in error due, perhaps, to misinterpretation or misremembrance on Penn Jones' part (although my impression is that he was an excellent chronicler of facts, if not necessarily a terrific interpreter of them) but I nevertheless find it interesting to note the metamorphosis of Carr's story.

In the version of events described by Penn Jones, Carr was on "the construction elevator" of the courthouse, while in the other versions he was on a staircase. He was, in Penn's version, "applying for a job," although in his 1964 version he was going up to the ninth floor to see the foreman, and in no version did he ever climb that high in or on the building; in his original version, he went home after having climbed back to ground level and crossed to Dealey Plaza, apparently without having ever spoken with the foreman.

Also in his original version, Carr described going back downstairs to the corner of Commerce & Houston where he saw the man that he'd thought he'd seen in the TSBD (in the windows of the top floor in the first telling, in the windows of the fifth floor in his 1969 version) hurrying toward him from the direction of the TSBD, turning east on Commerce and walking to Record, where he got into a gray Rambler station wagon and drove north on Record Street. In this version, Carr saw the man hurrying to only to Main Street where he turned east, from the vantage point of the seventh floor (or maybe eighth ... seven floors "above the ground?"); in 1969, it was again Record Street, but still from several stories up.

In the 1964 version, the Rambler, parked on Record Street, was driven "by a young Negro man." In 1967, it was "colored man (he called him a Negro)," while in 1969 it was a "Latin man." In 1964, the only person who got into the Rambler was the man with the hat and glasses; in 1967, there became two white man, whom he'd seen not in any of the TSBD windows, but instead having come "from behind the wooden fence" who "ran in a Northeasterly direction" behind the TSBD, where one colored ("Negro") man joined the two white men, one getting into the back seat of the Rambler which the colored man drove, the other walking south toward Carr's location. This man, unlike any of the other versions of Carr's story, was "a dark complexioned white male."

By 1969, the flight from "behind the wooden fence" was forgotten in favor of the man in the hat being seen again in the TSBD windows, two floors below where Carr had originally claimed to see him. The second white man was also forgotten and became a second dark-complected "Latin" man ... or else the "dark complexioned white male" who hurried away from the TSBD on Houston in the 1967 version became the second "Latin" man, and the other white man instead hurried down Houston, going to Commerce Street as in the 1964 version rather than just to Main, as in the 1967 version.

In 1964, the story is that Carr and his wife had visited some friends around Christmas and told an "Oswald didn't do it" tale, which the friends thought the FBI should know about. They contacted Carr on January 4 and again on February 3 for clarifications. In 1967, Carr indicated that the FBI visited him "within 2 or 3 days after the assassination" without any indication of how they knew he'd seen anything at all since at no point, in any version, does he say that he'd reported what he'd seen to anybody.

Confused yet? I'll try to put it into some sort of "table" format:

1964

: 1 white man,

top floor TSBD

; hat, glasses, sport coat, tie; hurries

Houston to Commerce to Record

; gray Rambler wagon, "young Negro" driver, drives north on Record; viewed from

ground

. Saw

grass fly up on plaza

(from bullet?) during shooting witnessed from

5th floor of courthouse

on

stairs

1967

: 2 white men,

picket fence

, ran behind TSBD, meet "colored man (Negro)", emerge Houston; gray Rambler, "colored" driver, white passenger, goes north on Houston to Pacific; "dark" white man in hat, glasses, sport coat hurries

Houston to Main and disappears

; viewed from "

7 floors above the ground

" on courthouse

elevator

. Saw bullet "hit the

ground behind the President's car

."

1969

: 1 white man,

fifth floor TSBD

; hat, glasses, sport coat, tie; exits TSBD with two "Latins" who get in gray Rambler, goes north on Houston; white man hurries

Houston to Commerce and disappears

; viewed from

7th floor of courthouse

on

stairs

. (No mention of bullet strike, but wasn't asked.)

What can we make of all this? Which if any version is the truth? Did everyone misrepresent Carr's story? Change it to discredit him? The FBI and Penn Jones both? How do we reconcile these different stories such that they cohere into a viable truth? Is it possible? Is the final version he told the true version that everyone else got wrong even though it was not possible for for him to see most if not all of Houston Street north of Elm, and certainly not Pacific?

As much as I love a good conspiracy, this is beginning to look like more of a crock. "Beginning to?" Who am I kidding?! It looks to me like the man played to his audience.

I've also received a seven page handwritten report that reads verbatim to the February 3, 1964, FBI report. It is signed and initialled "Richard Randolpl Carr" [sic] and "RRC," but I have no way of knowing if it is indeed his handwriting.

[Jack White]

I tend to believe Penn Jones' version of what Carr said. That is, Penn

is telling what Carr told him, which seems more accurate than other

versions. The apparent discrepancies make it hard to know the exact

story. I suspect that Carr saw what he reported, but elaborated on it

over time, changing some of the details.

Jack

[John Dolva]

"_Mr. CARR not only is a "rifle buff", having a beautiful rifle case with several rifles on the wall of his home, he was an enlisted man in the 5th Ranger Batallion during World War II, and was wounded in combat three times."

___________________

good Question : who is/was Fay Leon Blunt???

Hands up those whose dad came back with a souvenir from WWII. Cartridges? Rifles?... Walker was a ranger. Carr a survivor of that small portion of the Rangers that fought in North Africa and then in Italy, landing in Anzio (while Walker was nearer to Cassini.).

Edited December 1, 2008 by John Dolva

[Duke Lane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But here's the key:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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