Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Randolph Carr


Duke Lane
 Share

Richard Randolph Carr: Witness or Perjuror?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it likely that Richard Carr was a WWII Army Ranger?

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      3
    • Unsure
      4
  2. 2. Do you believe that he told the truth about what he'd seen - if anything - in Dealey Plaza?

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      4
    • Unsure
      1
  3. 3. What things do you consider "likely true" among those related by Mr. Carr?

    • He was in or near Dealey Plaza
      11
    • He was applying for a construction job at the new county courthouse
      8
    • He was on the sixth or seventh floor of the building
      7
    • He was able to see a man, in detail, from 800 feet away
      5
    • The man was in a "top floor" window
      5
    • The man was in the third window from Houston Street on the FIFTH floor
      2
    • The man was behind the picket fence
      2
    • The man and a gray Rambler were somehow connected
      7
    • The car was driven by a Negro man
      2
    • The car was driven by a Latin man
      3


Recommended Posts

In the thread "Richard Randolph Carr: The End of the Story?," we explored the details of Carr's statements regarding what he saw (or didn't) in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, from his vantage point on the west wall of the new county courthouse building at Commerce & Houston.

During that examination, we reviewed Carr's testimony during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, and speculated how the jury might have lent his testimony more weight after his saying that he was a WWII veteran of the Fifth Ranger Battalion, having been wounded several times, and one of just 12 survivors from his battalion following the battle of Anzio.

When I began the critique of Mr. Carr's testimony and prior statements, I was excoriated for "discrediting an eyewitness," to which I responded that I'd never discredited any actual eyewitness, only those who claimed to have been, but weren't.

It turns out that there's more to the "story." To me, it borders on sacrilege for it seems that Mr. Carr had no shame when it came to telling stories ... and apparently got away with it because nobody was able to check his bona fides.

Consider the veracity of his testimony in light of that about his service record.

The website www.RangerRoster.org contains a searchable database of all Army Rangers who served during WWII; Richard Carr's name is not among them. Not only not among the Fifth Ranger Battalion, but not any of the Ranger battalions serving at the time. The only Carrs in this database are Charles L., Donald F., Elmer C., James L., Omer B. and William K.

Furthermore, a NARA search of Army enlistees returns only one "Richard R. Carr," who enlisted at Atlanta, Georgia (born 1922, making him 40 or 41 in November 1963), and only two named "Richard Carr" with no middle initial, one enlisting in South Carolina and the other in Missouri (born in 1905 and 1910, 58 and 53 respectively); all others named Richard Carr have different middle initials than "R" for "Randolph." While it is possible that any of those three might be "our" Richard Randolph Carr, it is by no means certain.

Searching the Social Security Death Index (according to Bob Groden, Richard Carr is deceased), there is a Richard Carr born in 1912 who died at McKinney, Texas in 1987; one born in 1930 who died at Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1985; one born 1924, deceased 1999 at Homedale, Idaho (death certificate issued in Oklahoma); another born in 1902 deceased at Austin, Texas in 1987; another born in 1907 who died in 1973 at Houston, Texas; yet another, born in 1921, deceased at San Antonio in 1986; and another born in 1916, dead in 1993 at Bryan, Texas. (Another Richard Carr had a death certificate issued by Oklahoma, but he was born in 1955, eliminating him from our search.)

Any of these could be our man too, as could be others who died elsewhere, but none of them appear to be any of the three Richard Carrs who enlisted in the Army during WWII. A Richard Carr whose last residence was in Atlanta (born 1922) died in Missouri in 1982, and Georgia also issued a death certificate for two Richard Carrs, one born in 1922 and the other in 1924, deceased in 1996 and 1981 respectively.

Although we don't have information (that I'm aware of) as to when and where "our" Richard Carr was born, enlisted or died, it is so far impossible to show him as having been an Army Ranger, and difficult at best to show that he even enlisted in the Army at all.

Carr's sworn testimony during the Shaw trial regarding his Army experience was related to qualifying him as an "expert" able to recognize gunfire, which defense counsel had objected to his doing (he was eventually qualified as an expert to recognize gunfire, but not to be able to determine the weapon or type of weapon it may have come from). His testimony was as follows:

Q:
Have you ever heard rifle fire before?

A:
Yes, I have.

Q:
Where?

A:
I was a member of the Fifth Ranger Battalion in World War II. I was qualified as an expert with a bolt-action rifle which is called a thirty-aught six, in the Army it is a 30-caliber rifle ...

Q:
Have you ever heard rifle fire in combat?

A:
Yes I have.

Q:
On how many occasions?

A:
I was in -- I landed in Casablanca, I went through North Africa, I was in two major offenses in Africa, and from there I went to Anzio beachhead and my battalion was annihilated, 13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion.

In searching several sites (see Google search results) that detailed information about the Fifth Ranger Battalion as well as the battle of Anzio, we find that three Ranger battalions were part of that battle, which was also known as "Operation SHINGLE:" the First, Third and Fourth ... but not the Fifth. The First and Third were surrounded by German troops and "annihilated" (to use Richard Carr's word) but not to the extent that there were only "13 men left" as Carr claimed: the official tally is 12 killed, 36 wounded and 743 captured. Only 6 men - not 13 - managed to escape and return to friendly territory. There is no indication in these histories which battalion(s) the men were assigned to, but it is certainly not the Fifth.

I wrote to the webmasters at RangerRoster.org and received this reply:

It is always possible but very unlikely that Carr's name was missed from the 5th Ranger Bn. A researcher has thoroughly gone through many sources to obtain and verify WWII Rangers for the RangerRoster.org database listing. It is also possible that Richard Randolph Carr is the brother/relative of another Carr who was in a Ranger Battalion. Both the 1st and 3rd Ranger Battalions had Carrs listed.

Richard Randolph Carr's knowledge of Ranger Battalions' history is not accurate. The 5th Ranger Battalion trained in Tennessee, transferred to England in late 1943, trained for and participated in the D-Day invasion at Omaha Beach in June 1944, and continued in the northern European theater during the remainder of WWII. The 5th Ranger Battalion never fought in the Italian campaigns. (The 1st, 3rd and 4th Ranger Battalions did fight in Italy, did fight at Anzio (Cisterna), and most were captured/killed at Cisterna. Shortly thereafter, after so many losses, these three Ranger Battalions were de-activated. More can be found in
Rangers in World War II
by Robert W. Black which can be found at [
].

As much as I've found Carr's testimony about the events in Dealey Plaza to be questionable at the very, very best, the above information clinches for me that the man committed blatant perjury and got away with it only because there was no apparent way for anyone to verify or refute what he'd said. To this day, there is not a war veteran who cannot tell you where he or she had been during their term of service. There have been several recent cases where it's been found that men who either were not in the service or who did not see action, later represented themselves as being or doing something that they weren't or didn't do, or as having received awards that they never earned; so many and so preposterous, in fact, that it is now a federal offense to imposter one's self as a decorated veteran of the US Armed Services.

Personally, I find it deplorable when someone makes themselves out to be a hero when they are not, and to have war-related experiences and expertise that they did not have nor earn: by doing so, these despicable people trample the memory and experiences of those who fought and died by making themselves out to be as brave and heroic as the men (and now, women) who were actually there.

If Carr fabricated this experience - as the available evidence strongly suggests he did - then his account of the events of November 22 should not only be dismissed, but they - and he - ought to discarded and shunned as nothing but the basest lies of one who is bereft of all decency. If he lied about his role in the war - if he was even ever in the Armed Services! - then it lays bare and underscores his willingness to lie under oath about something he never actually even saw in order to connect a man, Clay Shaw, with "Latins" (presumably Cubans from New Orleans, who had formerly been "Negroes") who, as far as Carr even could have known, were never in Dealey Plaza.

That certainly doesn't raise his stature in my eyes. If that was what he'd done, then he is certainly among the lowest of the low, and his sworn testimony is nothing more than - and quite possibly much less than - the product of an opportunist's overly fertile imagination.

Absent verifiable proof to the contrary, it appears that Richard Randolph Carr was not an Army Ranger during WWII, was not in the Fifth Ranger Battalion, did not serve at Anzio or any of the other places he claimed, was not one of the few survivors of an "annihilated" Ranger battalion, and may not have even served in the Army or been wounded or even experienced gunfire in combat as he claimed to have done. If he did none of these things, then it is a very short leap of faith - even not in light of the evidence we've discussed elsewhere - that he did not see or hear any of the things he claimed he did in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, if he was even there ... the "proof" of which is only this man's own word, which does not appear to be worth anything.

Dissenting opinions are always welcome. I'm not prepared, however, to give this man the benefit of doubt; is anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I basically agree with this Duke. Great research, btw. Mine has been fragmentary yet hinting at something odd.

(Now this brings one to Graig. He's also always had a clean slate. Yet again he's a dpd member and through his stance was shunned by the dpd. Could this be the emergence to a new and quite startling thought: He survived 'attempts on his life' ? (musta been a cat) and in the end perhaps he conscience got the better of him, deriding the dpd as being half kkk, thus a leak to be plugged, and plugged hewas. ie a very domestic local event driven by what Dallas was then. A closed city, ruled with an iron fist by the 100, a city of hate, and the heart of dealey plaza being the heart of dallas being the heart of texas being the heart of the confederacy where the last battle of the civil war was fought AFTER surrender and the confederates won that battle. For many the war was never over and Sherman did little to help a Union. ie as Katzenbach 'alluded', (in his much maligned memo) Lee had Confederates (literally) and their prime economic personal interest was maintaining status quo, slave to sharecropper to multimillionaire. This was what Kennedy threatened the most. Most probably couldn't spell Ho Chi Minh or Fidel. Holmes, the most 'respected' of the witnesses with most latitude out of propertion to what he ostensibly was. Odd. And his testimony which should be more accurate than anyone else in the southern half of dealey plaza contradicts RRC very much (and himslef). Talk about the first rooms being erected with lots of mirrors and smoke surrounding the filthy truth.)

apologies for the diversion.

Vote: NO! not credible

(and therefore others have their integrity impunged. It's interesting to consider who they were, and who were the four 'postal inspectors' that, the trained suspicioner, memory expert, Holmes couldn't remember who they were as they were with him at ringside watching the assassination through 'ocular(s)', who were they? I wouldn't be surprised if the person who can say that will have cracked it.)

apologies again.

The vote is there.

forget the rest.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissenting opinions are always welcome. I'm not prepared, however, to give this man the benefit of doubt; is anyone else?

It seems that nearly everyone concurs with Duke Lane's assessment of Carr's reliability as a witness.

Some members of the McAdams forum are jealous. How come you don't see researchers of Duke's caliber on their forum, they wonder.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...53a57bf4ef853b#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissenting opinions are always welcome. I'm not prepared, however, to give this man the benefit of doubt; is anyone else?

It seems that nearly everyone concurs with Duke Lane's assessment of Carr's reliability as a witness.

Some members of the McAdams forum are jealous. How come you don't see researchers of Duke's caliber on their forum, they wonder.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...53a57bf4ef853b#

Okay, now wait a minute.

I was going to go along with Duke, but then I followed one of the Ranger web sites and came across a list of those Rangers killed in action at Casablanca or Anzio, I forget which, but the list contained a number of those identified as 5th battalion.

Well, since the 5th Bat, according to its official history, didn't get into the game until D-Day, Normandy, then Carr was a xxxx, and couldn't have been with the 5th Ranger at Casablanca or Anzio because that unit wasn't there and still in training or bonding with the lassies in Scotland.

In looking at the stories behind the Rangers at Casablanca - fighting the French Nazi loyalists, and at Anzio, where they were tragically misused as an advanced force which totally annialiated two battalions (750 men), in which only six survived, if Carr was with them, he was indeed an unrecognized hero.

I don't think he was one of the six, or fifteen as he recounts in his testimony, but he may have been there, if not as a bonified Ranger, then as a member of the USS Ranger Task Force that attacked Cassablanca, or one of the regular army at Anzio who failed to relieve the advanced Ranger units.

While I know of guys, like former Atlantic City mayor who exagerated his Vietnam service, and fake Medal of Honor recipients, Carr doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to lie about being a vet, or a Ranger.

He didn't notify the authorities about what he knew happened at Dealey Plaza, others reported on him, or we wouldn't even have his original statement let alone his New Orleans testimony. So he didn't try to beef up his veteran status until the issue of his familiarity with weapons and gunfire came up.

As far as him being able to see the TSBD from the building under construction 600 yards away, I'd view it in reverse. Instead of going to where he said he was and trying to see the TSBD windows, why not take a frame from the Secret Service reenactment film that pans out the window and down Houston and see if you can see the building under construction?

In addition, more than one person saw two people in the Sixth floor windows, one of whom wore a hat and a brown sports coat, who was later seen by others leaving the back door of the TSBD and running down Houston and getting into a Rambler station wagon driven by a dark skinned man.

If he didn't see the man in the brown sports coat, then how did he know that one was there?

It's like Oswald's alibi, of having lunch with the two black guys in the lunch room. If he didn't, then how did he know they were there?

It's the combined testimony of witnesses that gives the story movement, and destroying the credibilty of Carr doesn't impeach the fact that a man in a brown sports coat was seen on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD building next to a man in a white shirt shortly before the assassination.

Now if we can find an obituary for Carr, then we will be able to find out more about his military service and whether he lied or exagerated about being a Ranger, at Cassablanca, at Anzio and Dealey Plaza.

Nor do I understand why there are three threads running on this same topic.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

There is no doubt you're a thorough researcher, and I commend you for that.

Richard Carr is fast becoming the new Roger Craig, in the eyes of some researchers. I've defended Craig on this forum and on Lancer, from what I consider to unfair attacks on his character. What I question now is whether or not any witness in or around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 can survive the kind of scrutiny you've subjected Carr to. Carr certainly wouldn't be the first man to exaggerate his war record. If he did indeed lie about that, it doesn't necessarily follow that he lied about what he saw in the moments after the assassination. I don't know what he saw that day, but I don't find him less believable than the witnesses the Warren Commission used to buttress their official fairy tale.

The original band of critics raked the likes of Howard Brennan, Helen Markham and William Whaley over the coals. In my view, they completely discredited them as witnesses. Several newer generation researchers now consider Jean Hill to be an untrustworthy witness. Assuming Roger Craig has now also been discredited, along with Richard Carr, exactly what witness are we left with whose account can be trusted? Keeping in mind that so many researchers now reject all the witnesses who testified that the limousine either stopped or slowed down considerably during the shooting, what point is there in quoting eyewitness testimony any longer?

We have filmed evidence that almost all attention, from bystanders and police, was drawn to the grassy knoll area just after the shots were fired. No amount of discreditation can change that. That's a good thing, because otherwise I expect we'd be having researchers suggesting that no one actually thought shots were being fired from that area. Carr, like Craig and Hill and several others, was a fallible human being. I find his account of what he saw to be in line with what others reported that day, and am not quite willing yet to throw him in with all the ridiculous apologist witnesses for the Warren Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I followed one of the Ranger web sites and came across a list of those Rangers killed in action at Casablanca or Anzio, I forget which, but the list contained a number of those identified as 5th battalion.

Well, since the 5th Bat, according to its official history, didn't get into the game until D-Day, Normandy, then Carr was a xxxx, and couldn't have been with the 5th Ranger at Casablanca or Anzio because that unit wasn't there and still in training or bonding with the lassies in Scotland.

In looking at the stories behind the Rangers at Casablanca - fighting the French Nazi loyalists, and at Anzio, where they were tragically misused as an advanced force which totally annialiated two battalions (750 men), in which only six survived, if Carr was with them, he was indeed an unrecognized hero.

I don't think he was one of the six, or fifteen as he recounts in his testimony, but he may have been there, if not as a bonified Ranger, then as a member of the USS Ranger Task Force that attacked Cassablanca, or one of the regular army at Anzio who failed to relieve the advanced Ranger units.

Well, skip the former of these because anything "USS" designates a ship, which means Navy, and while there was indeed a task force led by the aircraft carrier Ranger, it was not a "Ranger Task Force" (i.e., a task force of Rangers) nor was it even an Army operation.

You can probably eliminate the latter as well, his being "regular" Army attached to a Ranger battalion, given Carr's statement at trial: "I was a member of the Fifth Ranger Battalion in World War II." If he was simply attached to - that is, assigned to support - a Ranger battalion without being an actual Ranger, his claim to having been a Ranger - a "member" of the battalion - is a fabrication.

If - and I think it's a pretty big "if" - he was at Casablanca, Anzio, et al., then he was not there as a US Army Ranger nor as a "member" of the Fifth Ranger Battalion, so his sworn testimony remains a fabrication.

While I know of guys, like former Atlantic City mayor who exagerated his Vietnam service, and fake Medal of Honor recipients, Carr doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to lie about being a vet, or a Ranger.

He didn't notify the authorities about what he knew happened at Dealey Plaza, others reported on him, or we wouldn't even have his original statement let alone his New Orleans testimony. So he didn't try to beef up his veteran status until the issue of his familiarity with weapons and gunfire came up.

What difference does it make what the circumstances were that engendered the lie? If anything, given that the issue of his familiarity with weapons and gunfire was raised by defense counsel and therefore most likely wasn't part of his preparation for trial, it suggests his ability to conjure up an impressive-sounding lie extemporaneously.

What "kind of guy" lies? Do mayors fall within that "kind of guy?" Would the people who (thought they) knew those who lied about earning Medals of Honor and other high awards tell you that they'd thought the men who made those false claims were "those kind of guys?" How do you recognize those who are "those kind of guys," and by what measure to you exclude Carr from them? The dry transcription of his testimony does no such thing.

The history and evolution of what he'd had to say certainly does suggest to me that he is, in fact, that "kind guy" who inflates his own importance. See in the earlier thread what he had to say to Penn Jones, which is different from what he'd told both the FBI in 1964 and testified under oath to in 1969. The other option is that Penn Jones lied, or perhaps simply got the whole story wrong when he reported it to Garrison.

Remember that, in that story, Carr's "man in the window" was actually behind the picket fence and was never in a TSBD window. Is not his testimony essentially an amalgamation of his 1964 statement to the FBI coupled with what he told to Jones? One would have to be delusional to suggest that they're in any way consistent.

As far as him being able to see the TSBD from the building under construction 600 yards away, I'd view it in reverse. Instead of going to where he said he was and trying to see the TSBD windows, why not take a frame from the Secret Service reenactment film that pans out the window and down Houston and see if you can see the building under construction?

In addition, more than one person saw two people in the Sixth floor windows, one of whom wore a hat and a brown sports coat, who was later seen by others leaving the back door of the TSBD and running down Houston and getting into a Rambler station wagon driven by a dark skinned man.

There are two issues here, and we shouldn't mix them up nor combine them. One is whether Carr saw someone in the windows, the other is whether he saw the activity he claimed on Houston Street. The two are not interchangable, and neither proves nor disproves the other. They have nothing to do with each other beyond evaluating Carr's veracity.

The fact that the man told three completely different stories about the same supposed incident, one under oath, does not speak well to his credibility.

It is a fact that he could NOT have seen the goings-on he claimed at trial to have seen: Houston Street beside the TSBD simply wasn't visible anywhere on the courthouse building. It doesn't matter who else may have seen something similar occur on Houston Street, the simple truth is that Richard Carr was not one of them. Even if he saw someone in any of the TSBD windows, he could not have seen anyone on Houston Street.

The fact that he claimed under oath to have seen something that it was impossible for him to have seen from where he claimed to be isn't helping.

Whether he could've seen anyone, at all, in any of the fifth, sixth or seventh floor windows doesn't appear to be an issue since it certainly seems that he could have, depending upon where on the courthouse building he may actually have been. Whether he could have seen such a person 250+ yards away with the clarity he claims to have (able to discern not only someone wearing glasses beneath a hat brim, but also that the frames were "thick") is an altogether different question, and it appears from the descriptions I'd posted from an Army artillery manual that well pre-dates even Carr's birth, that he could not have.

More likely, if he saw anything or anyone at all upstairs on any floor, he may have seen an individual dressed similarly once he'd descended to street level - as he claimed only to have done in his first iteration - and "projected" the street-level man's characteristics onto the man in the window. Not only distance would have obscured the detail of the man's glasses, but so too would have the dirty - and closed - TSBD windows.

If he didn't see the man in the brown sports coat, then how did he know that one was there? It's like Oswald's alibi, of having lunch with the two black guys in the lunch room. If he didn't, then how did he know they were there?
The difference between the two men's observations is that Lee Oswald didn't have an opportunity to read stories in the newspaper about the two black guys in the lunch room before he told anyone about them.

Do a little research on James Romack to find out more about this. Romack, together with George "Pops" Rackley, effectively blows away anyone having seen someone run from the side or back of the TSBD. Neither of them came forth and neither was known to have witnessed anything until Darwin Payne's article appeared in the paper about what Dicky Worrell was going to Washington to testify about, including his claim of seeing someone run out of the TSBD (Worrell wasn't even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder, so couldn't have seen anything anyway).

Carr didn't even claim to have seen anyone coming out of the TSBD - that we know of - until 1967, long after stories such as Worrell's began circulating, and books by Weisberg, Lane, and Meagher were in relatively wide circulation.

That is how Carr could've "known about" something he didn't actually see.

It's the combined testimony of witnesses that gives the story movement, and destroying the credibilty of Carr doesn't impeach the fact that a man in a brown sports coat was seen on the Sixth Floor of the TSBD building next to a man in a white shirt shortly before the assassination.
You're right: whatever Carr may or may not have seen has nothing to do with anything anyone else may have seen: it doesn't disprove anything, nor corroborate anything. After all, Carr never claimed to have seen a man on the sixth floor.
Now if we can find an obituary for Carr, then we will be able to find out more about his military service and whether he lied or exagerated about being a Ranger, at Cassablanca, at Anzio and Dealey Plaza.
What makes you think his obituary will be truthful? Obits are only what the family tells the funeral director or newspaper about the deceased: if he lied to his family and they had no readily available records to provide information one way or the other, they'd simply repeat the lies he told them. After all, obits usually appear within a couple of days of death, and I don't think any of us believe that they're fact-checked by anyone, do we?
Richard Carr is fast becoming the new Roger Craig, in the eyes of some researchers. I've defended Craig on this forum and on Lancer, from what I consider to unfair attacks on his character. What I question now is whether or not any witness in or around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 can survive the kind of scrutiny you've subjected Carr to. Carr certainly wouldn't be the first man to exaggerate his war record. If he did indeed lie about that, it doesn't necessarily follow that he lied about what he saw in the moments after the assassination. I don't know what he saw that day, but I don't find him less believable than the witnesses the Warren Commission used to buttress their official fairy tale.
I never suggested that it "follows" that because Carr apparently lied about his war record, he must've lied about what he'd seen. In fact, the only correlation between the two in this discussion is that someone suggested that, because he'd been an Army Ranger with an exemplary war record, he probably wasn't lying.
... We have filmed evidence that almost all attention, from bystanders and police, was drawn to the grassy knoll area just after the shots were fired. No amount of discreditation can change that. That's a good thing, because otherwise I expect we'd be having researchers suggesting that no one actually thought shots were being fired from that area. Carr, like Craig and Hill and several others, was a fallible human being. I find his account of what he saw to be in line with what others reported that day, and am not quite willing yet to throw him in with all the ridiculous apologist witnesses for the Warren Commission.
Which account, Don?

The one where he saw a man in the seventh floor windows of the TSBD, heard sounds he did not identify as gunshots, had his curiosity aroused when he saw people "hitting the ground" across the plaza, went back to ground level, walked to Commerce Street where he saw a similarly-dressed man walking quickly toward him, who then went east to Record Street and got into a gray Rambler wagon driven by a young Negro man?

... Or the one where he saw "two white men" behind the picket fence on the knoll, heard sounds that were definitely gunshots and even saw a "bullet" burrow into the grass on the plaza, then watched the men run northeasterly behind the TSBD while he (Carr) was still on the building, and then, also from on the building, saw the men and (per Penn Jones) "a colored man (he called him a Negro)," emerge from behind the TSBD (which Carr could not see from on the building), and the Negro get into the driver's seat of a Rambler station wagon on Houston Street (which Carr also could not see from there) while one of the white men got into the back seat and the other (who had a dark complexion) walked south to Commerce where he "disappeared from view?"

... Or the one he swore to under oath where he saw the man on the fifth floor of the TSBD from his perch on the new courthouse building, heard shots that he "immediately" recognized as gunfire (he "didn't think they were gunshots, [he] knew they were gunshots"), then, again without descending, saw three men emerge from behind or from the side of the TSBD on Houston Street (which Carr could not see), one of whom was now a dark-complected "Latin" rather than a "Negro," another man get into the driver's door before the "Latin" and slide across the seat, while the other man fled south on Houston ... remembering that it was and is impossible to see more than the first few feet of Houston Street east of the TSBD from the new courthouse (or vice-versa)?

Which parts are "in line with what others reported that day?"

One could conceivably conclude that Bill was "going to go along with" me, but doesn't want to relinquish the possibility of conspiracy as related by Richard Carr, just the same as "lone-nutters" cannot let loose of their conviction that Lee Oswald alone was guilty no matter what evidence to the contrary anyone else might present to them, and that no amount of doubt is "reasonable" enough to cross them over from one side to the other. One tends to cling to one's beliefs, and to whatever evidence can seemingly be shown to support it. Put that in the light of "lone nutters'" beliefs and be certain that the same obstinacy doesn't describe you.

"Conspiracy theorists," like "LN'ers," can seemingly explain away anything - or simply ignore it - if it runs counter to their personal beliefs. We reach a conclusion, credit that which supports it, and disregard that which doesn't. Both sides use the same tactics with different data to support their conclusion and debase the other's.

Since Don mentioned Roger Craig, let's look at the difference between his and Carr's "discreditation."

I can well appreciate the correlation between them, especially in light of the two Rambler station wagons - "two" because Craig's was green and Carr's was gray - and dark-complexioned men driving each of them. The correlation ends there, however, and Carr should not be "defended" on the basis of whatever might've happened with regard to some people trying to "discredit" Craig.

People tend to cling to their own beliefs. Those who've attempted to "discredit" Craig would prefer to disregard the photographic evidence that at least suggests that Craig wasn't making up stories, or interpret it in such a way that casts doubt upon Craig's veracity about what he saw versus what can be seen in photographs.

I refer, of course, to the photo (I'm sorry: I'm not good at mentally cataloging photographers and frame or photo numbers: I'm stumped beyond "Altgens 6" and "Z312!") that depicts Craig standing near the south curb of Elm Street on the central plaza, looking north toward the TSBD, with a Rambler station wagon in the photo and a bus blocking whatever is beyond it.

In this case, the "LN" point of view is that, since we can't see what's beyond the bus, we cannot accept that it may have blocked a view of Oswald scurrying down the embankment: since it can't be proved, it must be impossible, Craig "must have" lied. With two out of three data points being proved - first, that there was a Rambler station wagon (maybe driven by a dark-complexioned man?) on Elm Street; and second, that Craig was looking in the direction where the action he described would have been taking place, said action apparently involving such a Rambler station wagon; lacking only the third point, proof that Oswald was coming down the embankment behind the bus toward the wagon - the "weight of the evidence" is that nothing of the kind happened.

In Carr's case, we have no such directly-related photographic evidence, and what photographic evidence there is directly refutes his claims. Is there anyone here or elsewhere that will say that "the crowd was so thick" on the plaza that someone could not possibly have found their way on foot across it to wend their way to the knoll where Carr's curiosity was drawn as people fell to the ground?

It was not, after all, as if the crowd from along Main Street had flowed into Dealey Plaza after the shooting, which even people in the plaza - including Carr, by his own original accounts - didn't realize was gunfire. If someone has or even knows of a photo showing a crowd so thick that a man on foot could not possibly navigate it, I'll eat my hat.

I have never questioned whether Carr could have seen the area surrounding the "sniper's nest" window, up or down a floor; the question is whether he could have seen anything taking place on Houston Street east of the Depository. I believe that I've shown photographically, from the other end of his line of sight, that he could NOT have seen anything going on there, irrespective of whether he could've seen the fifth-, sixth- or seventh-floor windows at the southeast portion of the TSBD.

I have questioned whether he could've seen those areas with the clarity he claimed, such that at 800 feet (250+ yards) he could make out glasses on someone much less whether those were "horn-rimmed" or "thick" or anything other than possibly someone's eyes. I even posted the distances at which certain characteristics of a "target" person could be discerned from various distances according to a long-standing US Army artillery manual written long before Richard Carr was even a gleam in his daddy's eye.

Yet contrary to this, we wish to still credit Richard Carr with seeing what he claimed to have seen from where he claimed to have seen it?!?

Fine. We can take it as a matter of fact or as a matter of faith. "Fact" shows that he could not see what he claims to have seen, either because of angle or because of distance. We can maintain our faith that he did, despite evidence to the contrary, or we can disprove those facts. And - despite my bias, having established them - they are facts until and unless someone else disproves them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, save your revolusion for real liers and fake war heroes.

Carr said he was with the Fifth Rangers at Casablanca and Anzio. Since the official Fifth Rangers were't officially there, he's a lier. Well I went to the Rangers at Casablanca and Anzio web sites, and they are two really significant battles, the first against the French who stayed loyal to the Nazis and the other leading the failed breakout from the Anzio beachhead. Although the Fifth Rangers were suppose to be in training at the time, there are gravesites that lists the dead Rangers and among them are 5th Bat.

I think Carr was there, at both battles, and though he wasn't one of the six who survived the failed Anzio breakout, he certainly knew about it, and seemingly as a reluctant participant.

You ask why bother reading obituaries since they are written by the dead's kin? Well the obits do tell a lot of truth, like date and place of birth, living family, pall barers, jobs, military service and place of death and burrial.

Find me an obit for Carr and you will answer most if not all of the outstanding questions.

You don't believe Carr, I do. What's the beef?

Every witness can be discredited, especially after they've left the scene.

I don't think Carr is proof of conspiracy or proof of anything, he's just another witness whose testimony coincides with the testimony and reports of others that gives us a more clear, rather than muddied, idea of what went on at Dealey Plaza.

Carr is almost like the Morreman in the Street issue. The more you study it and microanayzie it, the less you really know about who assassinated JFK and why. You are pursuing answers to questions that don't really tell you anything important.

Duke wrote;

One could conceivably conclude that Bill was "going to go along with" me, but doesn't want to relinquish the possibility of conspiracy as related by Richard Carr, just the same as "lone-nutters" cannot let loose of their conviction that Lee Oswald alone was guilty no matter what evidence to the contrary anyone else might present to them, and that no amount of doubt is "reasonable" enough to cross them over from one side to the other. One tends to cling to one's beliefs, and to whatever evidence can seemingly be shown to support it. Put that in the light of "lone nutters'" beliefs and be certain that the same obstinacy doesn't describe you.

"Conspiracy theorists," like "LN'ers," can seemingly explain away anything - or simply ignore it - if it runs counter to their personal beliefs. We reach a conclusion, credit that which supports it, and disregard that which doesn't. Both sides use the same tactics with different data to support their conclusion and debase the other's.

I am neither a Conspiracy Theorists who has a theory to propose or a LNer, I am reviewing all the available evidence to determine if it is worthwhile and admissible to a grand jury proceeding, whether it leads to new evidence or witnesses, and to try to locate living witnesses who can be called to testify before a Congressional Hearing on the JFK Act records or a Federal Grand Jury investigation into the assassination.

Carr is dead and can no longer testify, but his statements are admissible to a grand jury as hearsay, but not at a trail if the grand jury votes to indict anyone.

The only use of Carr's testimony would be to establish the fact that there are other suspects besides Lee Harvey Oswald, whose statements are also admissible as grand jury evidence, but not at a trial.

If I were a prosectuor with a grand jury ready to go I would not bother to mention Carr or Oswald, as there is much better evidence and more compelling testimony than either.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, either the Fifth Rangers were at Anzio or they weren't. There must be some explanation why some members of an in-training battalion were separated from the rest of their battalion, if in fact they were and the gravesites aren't in error. The annihilated battalion wasn't the Fifth, it was the Third. It doesn't appear as if Carr was actually a Ranger anyway, so even if any of them were there, it doesn't appear that he was.

I think it's fair to say that 99-44/100% of the participants in any battle are reluctant participants.

Carr is not, in my opinion, "a witness whose testimony coincides with the testimony and reports of others." His testimony is that of a pretender who read about others' accounts and adopted them as his own. He is a real xxxx and a fake war hero.

Duke, save your revolusion for real liers and fake war heroes. ... Find me an obit for Carr and you will answer most if not all of the outstanding questions.

You don't believe Carr, I do. What's the beef? ...

And most prosecutors believe that Lee Oswald killed Jack Kennedy alone and unaided. You don't. What's the beef? Let dead dogs lie.
... I don't think Carr is proof of conspiracy or proof of anything, he's just another witness whose testimony coincides with the testimony and reports of others that gives us a more clear, rather than muddied, idea of what went on at Dealey Plaza.

Carr is almost like the Morreman in the Street issue. The more you study it and microanayzie it, the less you really know about who assassinated JFK and why. You are pursuing answers to questions that don't really tell you anything important. ...

I am neither a Conspiracy Theorists who has a theory to propose or a LNer, I am reviewing all the available evidence to determine if it is worthwhile and admissible to a grand jury proceeding, whether it leads to new evidence or witnesses, and to try to locate living witnesses who can be called to testify before a Congressional Hearing on the JFK Act records or a Federal Grand Jury investigation into the assassination.

Carr is dead and can no longer testify, but his statements are admissible to a grand jury as hearsay, but not at a trail if the grand jury votes to indict anyone.

The only use of Carr's testimony would be to establish the fact that there are other suspects besides Lee Harvey Oswald, whose statements are also admissible as grand jury evidence, but not at a trial.

If I were a prosectuor with a grand jury ready to go I would not bother to mention Carr or Oswald, as there is much better evidence and more compelling testimony than either.

Well, why didn't you say that the only thing you really want to discuss is stuff that you find valuable for a possible grand jury proceeding? Then all you'd have had to say was "I don't care about any of this" and I could've said "okay, then let's not discuss it," and we wouldn't have had this long conversation.

What Carr's testimony and statements tell me is that he lied and didn't see any men or any Rambler on Houston Street to the east of the TSBD.

If Carr didn't see them, then he doesn't corroborate any other person's story, such as James Richard Worrell, who also wasn't there and didn't see anything of the sort he said he'd seen ... which did not include a Rambler or any other car, so there's nothing to corroborate anyway.

George Rackley and James Romack's testimony refuting Worrell, aerial maps showing construction on Houston Street, further disprove Carr's assertions.

Combined, they tell me that there was no gray Rambler station wagon or any number of white, black or Latin men involved in exiting the building and running or driving away to anywhere.

His story doesn't give us "a more clear, rather than muddied, idea of what went on at Dealey Plaza," it actually muddies it more than it already is.

If Carr didn't see it - and my photos from the earlier thread prove that he couldn't have - then there is no indication that it actually happened, and no reason to believe it did. How does that make things "more clear?"

It's like saying that Howard Brennan sitting on the wall and looking away from the TSBD, and saying he saw the gun in the window proves Oswald did it. Or maybe we should just overlook that inconvenient fact, take him at his word, and accept the Warren Report for the enlightened truth that it is, for all of the evidence that proves that Oswald didn't do it actually proves that he did. Black is white is black, and white is black is white.

If it's good enough for the LN'ers, then it darned sure ought to be good enough for the CT'ers, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke: Carr is not, in my opinion, "a witness whose testimony coincides with the testimony and reports of others." His testimony is that of a pretender who read about others' accounts and adopted them as his own. He is a real xxxx and a fake war hero.

Duke, you can believe that if you want to and it doesn't bother me. I would like more facts before I call a veteran a fake war hero. He never said he was a war hero, he said he was a Ranger in the Fifth batallion and knew rifle fire when he heard it. Nor did he come forward himself, he's such a braggart that someone else had to turn him in to testify to authorities. I don't put too much weight on witness testimony, but I don't discredit them or call them fakes and pretenders. Like Jack White says, they were there, I (we) you weren't. They get the benefit of the doubt.

Duke: And most prosecutors believe that Lee Oswald killed Jack Kennedy alone and unaided. You don't. What's the beef? Let dead dogs lie.

I don't need most prosecutors, all I need is one. And no, screw sleeping dogs. When a grand jury, local, state or federal, is finally conveined to investigate the JFK assassination, the sleeping dogs will wake up all right.

Duke: Combined, they tell me that there was no gray Rambler station wagon or any number of white, black or Latin men involved in exiting the building and running or driving away to anywhere.

Combined, this tells me you really didn't just want to discredit Carr, you want to discredit all of the witnesses who saw a man getting into Rambler station wagon, of which we have a photo of at Dealey Plaza, so how can you say there was no gray Rambler station wagon?

You believe what you want to believe, and follow the leads you think are significant, but don't be telling me what and who to believe, and to let sleeping dogs lie.

Just come up with an obit of Carr and you get a feather for your cap, regardless of what it says.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Carr didn't] come forward himself, he's such a braggart that someone else had to turn him in to testify to authorities. I don't put too much weight on witness testimony, but I don't discredit them or call them fakes and pretenders. Like Jack White says, they were there, I (we) you weren't. They get the benefit of the doubt.
That's not entirely true. While two other women contacted the FBI after he'd told them his story (and that after they'd told him their story, which I outlined earlier), it was Carr who contacted Penn Jones in 1967 to tell him the fantastical story about the two men behind the picket fence meeting up with a "Negro" and driving away in the Rambler.
Combined, this tells me you really didn't just want to discredit Carr, you want to discredit all of the witnesses who saw a man getting into Rambler station wagon, of which we have a photo of at Dealey Plaza, so how can you say there was no gray Rambler station wagon?
Well, I recall that the photo in question is a black-and-white image, so I'm not certain of what color it was or it wasn't. If it was indeed a gray Rambler, then it wasn't the green Rambler that Roger Craig saw, so that photo isn't the proof some claim it to be that Craig had seen what he said he'd seen. Now all we need is some degree of proof that there was a green Rambler in the plaza in a position to pick up Oswald as he ran down the embankment to Elm Street because this photo can't be a photo of both cars: it's either Carr's gray Rambler (which sped off northbound, remember?) or it's Craig's green Rambler supposedly picking up Oswald. If it's one, then it's not the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'If it was indeed a gray Rambler, then it wasn't the green Rambler that Roger Craig saw' .... it may very well be green that Craig saw, under the conditions in which he saw it, and indeed it may have been a green correctly more of the greyishgreen variety, better identified in other conditions. The darker, the more greyish.

There are different ways of getting a 'green' color. It may range from a black/blue to a blue/yellow green. Further, surrrounding colors, depending how they might reflect onto the green, results in different hues. So a gray Rambler and a green Rambler are not necessarily incompatible. The gist of it, or so it seems to me, is Carr seeing things that he couldn't have and oddly what he doesn't see is perhaps compatible with Craig. Why? Duke presents reasonable arguments. However, should one consider them in cohorts, directly or indirectly, and lets say the rambler was of the grayish green variety, then Craig may have seen the green amplified due to conditions, whereas Carr may have somehow known the actual hue without having seen it, and for some reason he became picked as someone to bolster, with a slipup, Craigs testimony? Whatever, it muddied the water, and that initself could be a good thing for the conspirators, ie the first rooms of smoke and mirrors were just that, riddled with obfuscation. (Add to that such things as degrees of color blindness and it's a different ballgame again.) Water can appear gray, green, blue, azure, turcoise, and so on depending on the color of the sky and the angle from which it is viewed. The blending of color from an object and color reflected onto it makes things look different. Also, the luminance is an issue as to human eye color perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of Justin Hayward's words, totally unrelated to this:

Cold-hearted orb that rules the night

Removes the colors from our sight

Red is grey and yellow white

But we decide which is right

And which is an illusion

When we introduce the mere possibility of things not being "normal," everything becomes mutable, nothing at all is dependable. Maybe Roger Craig's angle was such that the way the light reflected made things look different, or maybe Richard Carr was color blind so maybe he'd see green as gray if he had a certain kind of color blindness - or only certain cones in his eyes were awry, or the car was really red and both of them were color-blind! - we can arrive at any conclusion we'd like and it's always the correct solution, or at least the actual facts are, unfortunately, totally indiscernable.

But here's the important fact: since Richard Carr could not have seen more than a sliver of Houston Street between Elm and Pacific - and that only the few feet closest to Elm Street on the western corner - even if there was a Rambler there, Carr couldn't have seen it to describe it.

Why are we even concerned about what he claims to have seen since it's indisputable that he couldn't see it? If you want to know its real description, I'll tell you:

It was a late model red Herring.

It's an illusion.

If it existed, Carr had no way of knowing. Further consideration of his "gray Rambler station wagon" is nothing more or less than wishful thinking: wishing there was a way he could have seen it - and the man he associated with it - in order to provide "corroboration" of others' statements. Continued discussion about the gray Rambler or assertion of its actions - and even its mere existence! - is to accept Carr's claims on faith alone and in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

If Carr described, under oath, a vehicle that was physically impossible for him to have seen, and the actions of men he likewise couldn't have seen ... when you add in the questionable nature of his testimony about being a US Army Ranger assigned to the Fifth Ranger Battalion at Anzio (and being one of only a handful of survivors of a rout that actually involved the Third Ranger Battalion), coupled with the evolving nature of his testimony and his apparent failure to complete his mission to the courthouse (to see the foreman about a job), is there really any reason to believe that he was even in Dealey Plaza at all during the relevent time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of Justin Hayward's words, totally unrelated to this:

Cold-hearted orb that rules the night

Removes the colors from our sight

Red is grey and yellow white

But we decide which is right

And which is an illusion

When we introduce the mere possibility of things not being "normal," everything becomes mutable, nothing at all is dependable. Maybe Roger Craig's angle was such that the way the light reflected made things look different, or maybe Richard Carr was color blind so maybe he'd see green as gray if he had a certain kind of color blindness - or only certain cones in his eyes were awry, or the car was really red and both of them were color-blind! - we can arrive at any conclusion we'd like and it's always the correct solution, or at least the actual facts are, unfortunately, totally indiscernable.

But here's the important fact: since Richard Carr could not have seen more than a sliver of Houston Street between Elm and Pacific - and that only the few feet closest to Elm Street on the western corner - even if there was a Rambler there, Carr couldn't have seen it to describe it.

Why are we even concerned about what he claims to have seen since it's indisputable that he couldn't see it? If you want to know its real description, I'll tell you:

It was a late model red Herring.

It's an illusion.

If it existed, Carr had no way of knowing. Further consideration of his "gray Rambler station wagon" is nothing more or less than wishful thinking: wishing there was a way he could have seen it - and the man he associated with it - in order to provide "corroboration" of others' statements. Continued discussion about the gray Rambler or assertion of its actions - and even its mere existence! - is to accept Carr's claims on faith alone and in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

If Carr described, under oath, a vehicle that was physically impossible for him to have seen, and the actions of men he likewise couldn't have seen ... when you add in the questionable nature of his testimony about being a US Army Ranger assigned to the Fifth Ranger Battalion at Anzio (and being one of only a handful of survivors of a rout that actually involved the Third Ranger Battalion), coupled with the evolving nature of his testimony and his apparent failure to complete his mission to the courthouse (to see the foreman about a job), is there really any reason to believe that he was even in Dealey Plaza at all during the relevent time?

'no way of knowing'? He doesn't necessarily have to see it to 'know' it. There's nothing 'wishful' about exploring it. However, the fact remains that different hues of different colors are affected by the conditions they are viewed under and the point being that while Carr couldn't have seen what he claimed to have seen, there is not necessarily an incompatibility as far as Craigs' Rambler goes.

If one was to accept they are talking about the same Rambler, ( which Carr couldn't have seen ), then either he's regurgitating someone elses story and that person perhaps knew it as grayish and Craig saw it as green. Therefore given the possibility of a color looking more green with the sun reflecting obliquely off the grass, then the gray description could be more correct while it remains the same Rambler. Thus arises the question of who saw this suggested correct color description. Quite possibly it is a red herring, that's what I've been suggesting, though perhaps not in the way you suggest. The same red herring from one apparently credible witness and from a dubious one, does have some interesting implications. Whether the suggestion of some kind of alliance (directly or indirectly), and all that that implies, between the two, is a viable avenue to explore. Who knows? I don't, I haven't, has anyone?

One thing about hypthesis is that after the forming of it, unlooked-for supportive evidence has a particular 'evidentiary' role. So exploring this (and numerous other anomalies throughout the case) may, or may not, bear fruit. So what? Eliminating something conclusively is important in a search for the truth just as is following 'the right lead'. They go together. Already, your research here has increased knowledge on a number of issues, so it's not pointless. Progress is sometimes made of just such as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... while Carr couldn't have seen what he claimed to have seen, there is not necessarily an incompatibility as far as Craigs' Rambler goes.
No, John, there isn't ... but because Carr couldn't have seen what he claimed to have seen, not despite it.

If Carr didn't see a gray Rambler where he claimed to because he couldn't see it even if it was there, then the Rambler he didn't see has absolutely nothing to do with any Rambler that anyone else did see.

If one was to accept they are talking about the same Rambler ....
What valid reason would there be to do that?
... Eliminating something conclusively is important in a search for the truth just as is following 'the right lead'. They go together. Already, your research here has increased knowledge on a number of issues, so it's not pointless. Progress is sometimes made of just such as this.
Just so. As Sherlock Holmes said, "when you exclude the impossible, what remains, no matter how unlikely, is the truth." Elmination is necessary so you don't go chasing endlessly and fruitlessly in hundreds of directions that lead nowhere.

Carr originally told investigators about a gray Rambler in January 1964. It was supposedly parked on Record Street facing north from Commerce, driven by a young Negro male. It could conceivably have been driven north to Elm and then west through the plaza and been the one in the photo ... if Carr was even downtown and actually saw anything at all that he claimed to have.

Given his later fabrications, there is more than enough reasonable doubt that he was.

Chief among those reasons is his failure to complete his mission of seeking a job, as well as his failing to pick up his wife and child from the hospital, where he'd taken them. Can you imagine someone dropping the wife and kid off, going downtown while the streets were packed with people, climbing up six or seven flights of stairs in search of the foreman who was on the ninth floor, then, upon hearing some sounds (which he initially said he didn't identify as gunfire) and watching people fall to the ground, he abandoned his quest, returned to ground level (which he didn't claim to have done in his later versions), and walked toward the grassy knoll to encounter a crowd so thick that he didn't think he could navigate through it (a scene that is not in evidence in any of the photos of Dealey Plaza during the immediate aftermath).

Then, after satisfying his minor curiosity, he did not return to the ninth floor to find the foreman and get a job. Instead, he said he left the area and went to his brother and friend's houses back in Oak Cliff. He was unaware of the assassination until about two o'clock. Since whatever he'd seen - if he saw anything - was not of significant importance (since he didn't realize the President or anyone else had been shot, or even shot at) and he couldn't get close enough to investigate what it was all about, why didn't he finish what he'd come downtown for in the first place?

And what happened to his wife and kid? Did he let them take the bus home? Remember that he took them to Parkland, where there was undoubtedly a lot of commotion after the shooting. He apparently just left them there to fend for themselves; he apparently did not return there to pick them up, for it would seem to me that he'd have mentioned the activity there (especially if it had hampered his ability to find his wife and kid), and more than likely would have learned about the shooting while there rather than an hour and a half later.

Instead of getting a job, he went visiting. Instead of using his time to pursue contacting the courthouse construction foreman, he went to a trailer park where he found his brother and friend not working in the middle of a sunny Friday afternoon. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they spent the afternoon drinking beers, the point being that he may well not have been the most upstanding, productive citizen of Dallas at the time, and this whole concoction of his - which is what I think it is, a concoction - was his fifteen minutes of fame.

His approach to Penn Jones and the fantastical story about two men behind the picket fence, followed by just-as-sinister-sounding testimony in Shaw, lends credence to that perspective.

I think perhaps finding an obit for this guy would prove enlightening, not because of what it might say about his military service, but rather for what it tells us about who survived him, that is, the names of his wife, children an brother. It would be as interesting to hear what they have to say about that Friday as what Dickie Worrell's relatives had to say about him.

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...