Jump to content

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?

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.

I think it's great, Duke. A major contribution. I'll still reserve the right, of course, in my way, to play a kind of devils advocate, and to have and throw in the odd, sometimes VERY odd, thought or hypothesis. (to me it's a continual pushing the frontlline (as I see it) but at least with a modicum of grasp on reality. Take it or leave it, it's all the same to me.) What's important is that it doesn't detract from your methodical modus and logic. When I first touted RRC as an oddity worth looking at some time ago in the Gladio thread that brilliant writer, GPH told me in no uncertain terms about the irresponsible dragging through the mud of everyone and anyone. I heard him. and then made my own mind up.

For the sake of a wholistic piture, what you have added to that prevously known is quite mindboggling. If only the same rigeur was used in all aspects plus free participation of detractors and supporters and fencesitters contributing in kind the whole investigation would steam ahead.

'What valid reason would there be to do that?" Depends.

Don't forget I came into this investigation, (actually believing the official hypothesis and that I can prove it (though quickly ashamed to be so fooled), when funnily enough I found it wanting, partly as a result of something tangential and then seeing something in Nix that made me look over my shoulder, to see nothing at first and then this incredible anomaly : Harry, D Holmes. So if I do have an agenda then that is tangential in the sense of coming at him from all angles. He's a true enigma. Who the f is(was) he?

(it's best LOUD in 4/1 balance fader equalised with the subkicker at the max when cruising the outback)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think Duke is right. The 5th battalion never fought in Anzio as a battalion.

However, the 4th Ranger battalion was supplemented by troops from the 2nd and 5th battalions (replacements), before Anzio. Heavy losses were incurred by the 1st 3rd and 4th battalions.

It is possible that Carr was originally a 5th battalion member, was among those who were re-assigned as replacements to the 4th, which fought in Anzio (rescuing those left of the 1st and 3rd bat). To me it is unclear if the it was the 3rd or 4th bat. which lost (dead or captured) all but 6 men in Anzio.

In fact the 6615th Ranger Force (provisional) was a unit formed of numerous Ranger battalions and 1 Parachute Infantry battalion. It was the 6615th which took part in the assault on Anzio.

If there is a complete list of names of those who took part in Anzio, and RR Carr is not present, then he probably did make up his military background. However, records have been known to be incomplete or inaccurate.... even military ones.

Some links with background on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6615th_Ranger_Force

http://www.flashman.com/Cisterna.htm

http://www.flamesofwar.com/?tabid=53&art_id=249

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:O-7hnZ...;cd=3&gl=fi

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/1...anger-Battalion

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Duke is right. The 5th battalion never fought in Anzio as a battalion.

However, the 4th Ranger battalion was supplemented by troops from the 2nd and 5th battalions (replacements), before Anzio. Heavy losses were incurred by the 1st 3rd and 4th battalions.

It is possible that Carr was originally a 5th battalion member, was among those who were re-assigned as replacements to the 4th, which fought in Anzio (rescuing those left of the 1st and 3rd bat). To me it is unclear if the it was the 3rd or 4th bat. which lost (dead or captured) all but 6 men in Anzio.

In fact the 6615th Ranger Force (provisional) was a unit formed of numerous Ranger battalions and 1 Parachute Infantry battalion. It was the 6615th which took part in the assault on Anzio.

If there is a complete list of names of those who took part in Anzio, and RR Carr is not present, then he probably did make up his military background. However, records have been known to be incomplete or inaccurate.... even military ones.

Some links with background on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6615th_Ranger_Force

http://www.flashman.com/Cisterna.htm

http://www.flamesofwar.com/?tabid=53&art_id=249

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:O-7hnZ...;cd=3&gl=fi

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/1...anger-Battalion

Anti,

At Duke's urging, I too visited the US Army Rangers history, and saw that the Fifth Rangers were still in training in Scotland at the time of Casablanca and Anzio, but then looked into those battles.

The Rangers at Casablanca went up river to capture the Vichy French ships there.

As a side note, it was Ian Fleming who was parachuted in to France with the instructions of convincing French Admiral Darlan to sail his fleet to England, but when he failed, and the French fleet fought the English, Darlan was eventually assassinated, probably by MI6.

Then at Anzio, as Carr mentions in his New Orleans court testimony, the Rangers were not used properly for special ops, but put at the head of a breakout attack from the beachhead, and got so far ahead of the regular troops they were surrounded and wipped out, almost to a man.

While the Fifth Ranger were officially not involved in either operation, in reviewing the graves of American soldiers at those sites some are listed as 5th Bat., which makes me suspect what you report, that some Fifth Rangers were assigned to other battalions.

Which makes Carr's testimony of being a Fifth Ranger at Casablanca and Anzio possible, if not plausible.

It would be most beneficial if someone could find an obituary forRichard Randolph Carr, US Ranger veteran, probably burried at a Vets cemetery.

Duke's intimidation that Carr is a purjurer is ludacrist. LBJ purjured himself when he took the oath of office to uphold the Consitution.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's utterly ridiculous.

This photo:

... disproves this photo?

From street level, on Houston Street next to the TSBD, you can't even see the new courthouse building, ergo the reverse is true as well.

Otherwise, explain why the new courthouse isn't visible "over" the old courthouse roof. Just so we're clear on the concept (and don't think that I erased the building), here's another shot from the corner of the building, where a small portion of the new courthouse building is visible:

Even if he could see over the old courthouse roof, he could not see through the Criminal Courts and Jail building between it and the Records Building. The line of sight just doesn't exist. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's utterly ridiculous.

This photo:

... disproves this photo?

From street level, on Houston Street next to the TSBD, you can't even see the new courthouse building, ergo the reverse is true as well.

Otherwise, explain why the new courthouse isn't visible "over" the old courthouse roof. Just so we're clear on the concept (and don't think that I erased the building), here's another shot from the corner of the building, where a small portion of the new courthouse building is visible:

Even if he could see over the old courthouse roof, he could not see through the Criminal Courts and Jail building between it and the Records Building. The line of sight just doesn't exist. Period.

Sorry, Carr was not looking over the roof of the majors-, he was looking over the roof of the old courthouse building. But...the line of sight IS possible! If you could DRAW a line of sight, without passing any obstacles, than that line of sight exists, IMO!

One should go to the 6th, or seventh floor of the the new courthouse- building, to prove my claim. I am pretty sure, that I am right...

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl,

All that your "interpretation" shows is that MAYBE Carr could've seen some point ahead of where I was standing when I took that photo. The other photo - the one with the arrow on it pointing out the new courthouse building - was taken at the corner of the TSBD, on the sidewalk. You can only see the upper two floors of the 12-story building. Carr was not that high up - only as high as the 7th floor - so he could not have been looking over the old courthouse roof: it would have blocked his view.

Furthermore, he claimed to have seen the men emerge from either behind the TSBD or from the loading dock doorway at the rear of the present main structure. Even if he could have seen the corner as you've tried to show, he could not have seen any farther up the street, as my photos clearly show. Here's another one taken farther north on Houston Street: if you can't see the new courthouse, then nobody on the new courthouse could have seen anyone at the spot this photo was taken. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe he could see the corner, but he couldn't see beyond it, except possibly on the sidewalk, and then not to the rear of the building:

The car he saw speed away was not on the sidewalk. He could, at best, only see what is to the left of the red line. He said himself, however, that he "could not possibly have seen" the entrance to the building from where he'd been. So, either he could or he couldn't ... and if he couldn't, as he himself said he couldn't, then he also couldn't have seen any vehicles parked on Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think it is possible to determine Carr's exact line of sight since we do not know his exact location(s) at the new court house construction site in 1969. Additionally, as this building was being constructed at the time, the pictures of the building from November 1969 show that there was some sort of scaffolding & support structure around the building.

It looks to me that it is possible that the top floors of the incomplete building were accessed via a temporary staircase and likely a temporary construction site elevator, which were most likely mounted onto the outer perimiter of the building attached to the scaffolding. These additional construction phase, temporary elements would have enabled a far better line of sight towards the TSBD and North, up Houston street.

Furthermore Carr may have been mistaken about some details, such as street names or of his descriptions with regards to North-South directions and whether the two white men he saw were on the 6th, 7th or 5th floors.

Therefore, I'm not saying Carr got it all correct, I'm saying his statement in general agrees with what other eye witnesses stated with regards to the origin of at least some of the shots (coming from the grassy knoll) and that there were more than one person on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

Considering the distance to the TSBD from the new court house it does seem unlikely that he could make out such detail as the heavy horn rimmed glasses and the type of hat worn by the 2nd man he observed at the TSBD. However, the way I have understood Carr's testimony is that moments later, when at street level, he observed what he believed to be the same man as he saw in the window (heavy horn rimmed glasses, felt hat, moving rapidly). Now being at a closer distance to this man, he was able to make out the details.

Carr also mentions a Rambler station wagon and men getting into it near the TSBD; to him it looked as if they were escaping due to their hurried departure. Other witnesses also mention a Rambler STW leaving the area.

Nevertheless, despite all the new facts discovered by Duke, I would still give Carr the benefit of the doubt, at least with regard to the statements by him that have been corroborated by other witnesses.

I just do not see any benefits from making up all these detailed statements. After all we need to keep in mind that Carr was attacked and threatened after he became a known witness. He attended the Shaw trial in a wheelchair, as he had suffered some severe injuries after an "accident". If he was seeking publicity, it sure caused him a lot of pain and grief instead of fame and fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please see this thread, start from the beginning for aerial views and photos taken on or around 11/22/1963 and then see this post #44, by Duke for a look at the street view towards the new court house. You can clearly see the support structures of the new court house as well as the staircase I mentioned earlier. Also note how much higher the new court house and the support structures extend than the old court house, which is partially blocking the view towards the TSBD.

The taller new court house construction would imo be a good vantage point for observing the top floors of the south east corner of the TSBD as well as the motorcade, once it got onto Elm.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...13647&st=40

Duke Lane

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Nov 19 2008, 08:37 AM IP: 173.64.207.198 | Post #44 |

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1013

Joined: 30-October 05

From: USA

Member No.: 3713

Warn: (0%)

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

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

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

Reduced: 32% of original size [ 2000 x 1151 ] - Click to view full image

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

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

Reduced: 50% of original size [ 1280 x 1024 ] - Click to view full image

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to get into the debate about what Richard Randolph Carr could have seen versus what he claimed he saw.

I just wanted to mention that if someone can provide me with his date of death, I WILL find his obituary.

Also, on another note, there is a person named Paul Fecteau who authored an article about several persons associated with the events in Dallas one way or another, [not, to imply conspiratorially] I believe it is called Zapruder's Step-Children.

Names in this article include.....

Shirley Martin

Karyn Kupcinet

Richard Randolph Carr

James Tague

Dr. George Bakeman

See

http://www.washburn.edu/faculty/pfecteau//zap.htm

There is also a yahoo group related to the same topic, I believe this material is in the process of being updated.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I think the obituary would indeed be the best way to proceed.

Having read about R.R. Carr, I recall that he moved to Atlanta GA, some time after the Shaw trial, probably in the late 1960's early 1970's. I would not be surprised if he stayed in the Atlanta Ga, area for the remainder of his life. By searching on the net, I found out that there is geneology data on a Carr family from the Atlanta area, and one person was actually called Richard Randolph Carr, but as I recall his d.o.b. was not what I had expected (19th century, something like 1878, a bit old to take part in WW2, no?), I'm going from memory here. This made me think that this RR Carr may have been an ancestor of our RR Carr. I mean what are the chances that someone has exactly the same name and is not related to our RR Carr? We're not exactly talking about a name like John Smith here. Sorry to all John Smith's!

This Atlanta connection, I believe is a hot one.... (I am guessing RR Carr moved there as he probably had relatives there).

One possibility would be to post onto the geneaology thread actually titled "Richard Randolph Carr". I suppose it is a long route and a long shot as one needs to register and then hope that someone will revive the old thread from 2001, I believe it was.

I did a search for Richard Randolph Carr on the Dallas Morning News website (obituaries is what I aimed for). The search produced one article, which the system claimed to be a match. All excited, I went ahead and paid for it, unfortunately it was not related to RR Carr.

The article was about the Oklahoma City bombing 1995? and it listed the names of the victims, one of whom had the last name Carr. Talk about 3 bucks going down the drain.

I would have done the same for the Atlanta area predominant news paper (The name escapes me now), however, I was unable to find a similar "search" function with that paper.

Perhaps someone else will be more successful. However, I'd focus on Atlanta GA.

Good luck!

Antti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to get into the debate about what Richard Randolph Carr could have seen versus what he claimed he saw.

I just wanted to mention that if someone can provide me with his date of death, I WILL find his obituary.

Also, on another note, there is a person named Paul Fecteau who authored an article about several persons associated with the events in Dallas one way or another, [not, to imply conspiratorially] I believe it is called Zapruder's Step-Children.

Names in this article include.....

Shirley Martin

Karyn Kupcinet

Richard Randolph Carr

James Tague

Dr. George Bakeman

See

http://www.washburn.edu/faculty/pfecteau//zap.htm

There is also a yahoo group related to the same topic, I believe this material is in the process of being updated.

Thanks for that one Robert,

I like Paul Fecteau's style.

So Gary Shaw had Carr's phone number. That's a lead to at least get a date on his obit.

But I don't think that knife welding attackers were sent by the Dealey Plaza Clean Up Squad.

And for those researchers with time on their hands, looking for something to do,

I especially like:

http://www.washburn.edu/faculty/pfecteau//zap.htm#bakeman

Dr. George Bakeman

F.B.I. Special Agents Francis X. O'Neill, Jr., and James W. Sibert attended the autopsy of President Kennedy and filed a report. In it, they list the names of all others present, the bulk of whom waited in adjoining room during the procedure. Following the list of employees from Gawler's Funeral Home who would eventually prepare the body for burial, the report notes,

Brigidier (sic) General GODFREY McHUGH, Air Force Military Aide to the President, was also present, as was Dr. GEORGE BAKEMAN, U. S. Navy.

General McHugh was in the middle of a distinguished career that would leave him with a list of decorations a mile long. Dr. Bakeman, not so much. In fact, George's career was so undistinguished that no record of him exists.

In the 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations attempted to contact all of those who witnessed the autopsy. With regard to Dr. Bakeman, Volume 7 of the proceedings notes, "The committee could not locate this person."

Could this mystery come of a simple mistake by O'Neill and Sibert? Could Dr. Bakeman be a spook?

Regardless, the "disappearing doctor" has become my favorite mysterious assassination figure, replacing the "umbrella man" who identified himself as Louis Steven Witt in 1978, explaining that he hadn't realized anyone was looking for him all those years.

Are you out there, George?

For updates and more fascinating people visit the Yahoo Group Zapruder's Stepchildren.

Edited by William Kelly
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...