Richard Randolph Carr

[Duke Lane]

Anyone brave enough to call?

I don't have a problem with that, but first I'd like to see what any obituary - presuming there is one - has to say before relying upon an 80-something year-old woman's fond memories. I haven't yet heard back from the UWV library if they'd found anything in the Inter Mountain News or anywhere else (that $20 fee won't be refundable, however).

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke Lane Posted Yesterday, 04:49 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Feb 3 2009, 05:25 AM)

Anyone brave enough to call?

I don't have a problem with that, but first I'd like to see what any obituary - presuming there is one - has to say before relying upon an 80-something year-old woman's fond memories. I haven't yet heard back from the UWV library if they'd found anything in the Inter Mountain News or anywhere else (that $20 fee won't be refundable, however).

Ok, great. I believe she is about 75, some 12 years younger than her deceased husband would be today. There are of course the other relatives living in the area as well, who may also prove to be good sources of information.

[Don Jeffries]

Duke,

I think you're a thorough researcher, and usually admire your work. However, I don't understand why you are spending so much time on trying to discredit the likes of Carr and Worrell. Seems like a lot of energy to expend on something that is ultimately pretty insignificant.

Neither Carr nor Worrell are around to defend themselves. I think Bernice did a fine job in pointing out your selective use of witnesses who may be no more believable than the two you are so passionately trying to discredit. I don't think you even addressed what she was saying, let alone attempted to refute her points.

I also have to say that I find your persistent referral to Worrell as "Dickey" to be a bit disquieting. I don't really know why, it just sounds demeaning and is, imo, unnecessary. I'm assuming this is what his family called him, but obviously you didn't know him personally. Why keep using this rather childish nickname when referring to him? I don't know, it just sounds disrespectful to me.

The early critics demolished the credibility of many witnesses in Dealey Plaza. If the lives of Craig, Carr and Worrell are going to be examined under a microscope by researchers like you, at some point we're going to run out of any credible witnesses to the assassination. I certainly don't mean to offend you with my comments; on the contrary, I hope you take it as constructive criticism. I respect you and find your posts informative, but I do think you're a bit off base here.

[Duke Lane]

... I also have to say that I find your persistent referral to Worrell as "Dickey" to be a bit disquieting. I don't really know why, it just sounds demeaning and is, imo, unnecessary. I'm assuming this is what his family called him, but obviously you didn't know him personally. Why keep using this rather childish nickname when referring to him? I don't know, it just sounds disrespectful to me. ...

You're right: it's what his family called him. No, I didn't know Dickey personally, but I've spend enough time visiting with people who did that it's really the only thing I know to call him that those who knew him know whom I'm referring to.

What would you have me call him instead? How many here can even properly pronounce the family's name? Wor-RELL? WORR-ell? WARL? I've been in the house he grew up in and had coffee and lunches with his mother and other family members. I don't know if that "entitles" me to anything, but "Dickey" is the guy I've come to learn about, even posthumously, from people who did know him, and so I don't feel uncomfortable calling him that, no matter whether you or anyone else has a problem with it.

It does sort of suck that I can't stand up for what he said, but I don't know anyone else (other than Mom, of course) who thinks he didn't embellish the story at least just a little, and maybe a little bit more. FWIW.

... Neither Carr nor Worrell are around to defend themselves. I think Bernice did a fine job in pointing out your selective use of witnesses who may be no more believable than the two you are so passionately trying to discredit. I don't think you even addressed what she was saying, let alone attempted to refute her points.

... The early critics demolished the credibility of many witnesses in Dealey Plaza. If the lives of Craig, Carr and Worrell are going to be examined under a microscope by researchers like you, at some point we're going to run out of any credible witnesses to the assassination. I certainly don't mean to offend you with my comments; on the contrary, I hope you take it as constructive criticism. I respect you and find your posts informative, but I do think you're a bit off base here.

We can agree to disagree.

How does one determine who a "credible witness" is? John Does claims to have "been there and seen that," which we all accept, while Jane Smith also claims to have "been there and seen something different." Since they both claim to have been there - and we have no photographic or other evidence to support either claim - are they therefore both right?

If they claim to have seen two completely different things in the same place at roughly the same time - but not to have seen what the other said happened - did both things occur, only one of them (and if so, which one), or neither of them? If in doubt and the only other known witnesses claim neither of them happened, then what? D, all of the above?

Please explain to me how using ALL known witnesses to the events beside and behind the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting is "selective." I can only say that out of Carr, Worrell, Rackley, Romack and Pate, the last three of them generally corroborate one another, even to the extent of identifying each other by name, description or action. Can you say the same about either of the others? Can you show me a single photograph immediately before the shooting that puts Dickey - er, excuse me: James Worrell, which nobody called him - in front of the TSBD directly beneath the SE windows? Just one, that's all I want. If he was there, surely it must've been recorded, eh?

The fact that Richard Carr is on record as telling three completely different stories about what he'd seen should be enough to destroy his credibility with any but the most ardent of the faithful, who - as the sobriquet implies - take things on faith rather than on fact, and whose faith can't and won't be shaken by contrary facts. Yet you'd rather tell me that I'm "a bit off base here" when all I've dealt with are the facts?!?

I suppose I should be grateful that I'm not writing on The Christianity Forum. and hypothesizing that Holy Blood, Holy Grail probably got it right!

You don't have to like what I've got to say. You don't have to agree with me. But honestly, don't you think it would be better and more intellectually honest to refute what I have to say with different and better facts than mere feelings and disgruntlement?

I realize that I'm probably undermining something of a religion, but I thought we were dealing with a murder here, not merely mythology. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist who doesn't want to rely upon ideology to make my point. Do you have a better way of describing it?

I certainly don't mean to offend you with my comments; on the contrary, I hope you take it as constructive criticism.

... Maybe even as a challenge: being "politically correct" is not the same thing as being correct. Prove me wrong. I welcome it. Do better research than I have, prove your point with evidence, and you can beat me up like an ugly stepchild all you want. Until then, please don't whine at me for tearing down false idols that some people might worship. It's not my fault that there can only be one God, is it?

I mean, after all, if there is only one ...!

There are only so many "credible witnesses to the assassination," and those are the ones whose credibility withstands scrutiny. Do you think I'm wrong about that? Or is everyone "credible" until some jerk like me irresponsibly attempts to prove their incredibility, much to everyone's dislike and chagrin?

[Duke Lane]

Sorry.

What I meant to say was, "beat me up with facts, not just your opinion."

[Antti Hynonen]

Duke says:

The fact that Richard Carr is on record as telling three completely different stories (emphasis mine) about what he'd seen should be enough to destroy his credibility with any but the most ardent of the faithful, who - as the sobriquet implies - take things on faith rather than on fact, and whose faith can't and won't be shaken by contrary facts. Yet you'd rather tell me that I'm "a bit off base here" when all I've dealt with are the facts?!?

Sure, Carr didn't parrot the exact same facts at each deposition, agreed, but 3 completely different stories?

How about 3 somewhat inconsistent stories, instead?

Carr could have been wrong about being on the 7th floor of the new court house. After all you have demonstrated how he seemed to change details over time (probably because he didn't remember exactly or because he didn't pay attention to the level he was on). Carr could have actually been on the 6th floor or the 8th or 9th floor, just as well.

Does this make him a perjuror?

I think not, he deposed each time as well as he could remember. You have seen and I have seen that time and time again, witness statements tend to change slightly over time - nothing new about that. Of course statements made by others, and heard by a witness may affect this witness' statements as well, this also is quite common. However, it does not make a witness' statement a "completely different story" necessarily.

You can compare Carr's testimony to that of many of those who claimed to have seen the assassin on the "5th floor" or the "7th floor". Whereas the official record claims that the assassin was on the 6th floor. Not many agreed that the assassin was on the 6th floor.

You have also shown (recently on a different thread) how it is not possible for Carr to have seen what he has claimed to have seen from the 7th floor of the new court house as it stands as a finished building, today. As I have said earlier, Carr's precise location on 11/22/1963 at the unfinished new courthouse does not necessarily exist today, as he may have been standing on part of a temporary frame/staircase extending beyond the location of the finished building as it stands today.

I would say that it is not possible to determine Carr's line of sight precisely from the existing photos of today.

Additionally Carr was at street level after he had witnessed the shooting, this is where he made further observations.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...13705&st=20

Duke says #38 (in the link above):

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

Do you see how your opinion changes as well?

Please see also post #25 (same thread, above) here for the visual from the TSBD south east corner of the 6th floor to the new courthouse under construction.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

In post #1 (this thread, link here above) you expressed doubts about R.R. Carr's enlistment in the military. You also stated that he may not have been a Ranger at all. In post #40 of this thread I showed you his enlistment data.

Duke says: #1

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.

In my mind all you have proven is that Carr was no better as a witness than the other witnesses, his statements varied somewhat as time went by but we are still a long way away from showing he was a perjuror, which in my opinion is futile anyway.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas Graves]

[...] There are only so many "credible witnesses to the assassination," and those are the ones whose credibility withstands scrutiny. [...}]

__________________________________________________________

So which witnesses to the assassination do you consider to be credible, "Dukie?" Or is it just Dukie withoiut the apostrophes?

That's what your relatives call you, right? I don't mean to sound demeaning.

Oh, I'm sorry to be so off topic. lol

--Thomas

__________________________________________________________

Edited February 5, 2009 by Thomas Graves

[Duke Lane]

Thomas, if you "knew" me through my relatives, as many people do, I have no discomfort in your calling me what my relatives call me. "Dickey," insofar as his family is concerned, is his name, and that which he answered to. There's nothing demeaning about using it. I know two other Texans who go by Dickey, one who's in his 60s, the other in his 30s. I'm sorry if it offends you, but it doesn't offend them, and apparently didn't offend Dickey Worrell.

How does anyone - including a beat cop - decide who's credible and who's not? If their story checks out, they're credible, right? They might "not" be, to the beat cop I suppose, if they don't agree with the beat cop's POV, but that doesn't prevent their story from checking out. OTOH, no matter how much we want to believe someone, if their story doesn't hold up, then we've got a problem.

The thing people seem to lose sight of is that the story that Carr originally told the FBI in 1964 does hold up.

[Duke Lane]

Duke says:

The fact that Richard Carr is on record as telling three completely different stories (emphasis mine) about what he'd seen should be enough to destroy his credibility with any but the most ardent of the faithful, who - as the sobriquet implies - take things on faith rather than on fact, and whose faith can't and won't be shaken by contrary facts. Yet you'd rather tell me that I'm "a bit off base here" when all I've dealt with are the facts?!?

Sure, Carr didn't parrot the exact same facts at each deposition, agreed, but 3 completely different stories?

How about 3 somewhat inconsistent stories, instead?

OK, let's go with "somewhat inconsistent."

First, on what he heard:

• In January and February of 1964, Carr said that he was on the building and heard "backfires" that he didn't realize were gunshots until he'd gotten home and his wife or sister-in-law told him that the President had been shot, at which point he put two and two together and realized what the sounds were.
  
• In February 1969, he not only recognized the sounds as gunfire "immediately," he also watched a bullet furrow into the ground on the plaza.
  

Then on where he saw "sport coat man:"

• In 1964, on the "top" floor of the TSBD, noting that "it would have been impossible" for him to have observed "the lower floors and entrance" to the TSBD, a fact corroborated by FBI agents who went onto the building to where Carr said he was and made the same observation, also noting that the sixth floor could not be seen from there;
  
• In 1967, it was behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll with another man;
  
• In 1969, the man was in the fifth floor, which has floors above it and is not the "top" floor (this is not a question of counting windows from the ground). What "would have been impossible" for him to see in 1964 - and what FBI agents confirmed couldn't be seen - became visible to him.
  

When he next saw someone looking like "sport coat man:"

• In 1964, it was after he'd returned to the ground level and walked out to Commerce & Houston;
  
• In 1967, it was from on the building;
  
• In 1969, it was from on the building. Climbing back down seven flights of stairs is an easy thing to forget.
  

Knowing whether you saw someone eye-level to eye-level or saw them from seven stories up is a similar perspective, hard to distinguish one from the other.Where he next saw "sport coat man" after his being in the window:

• In 1964, it was at the corner of Commerce & Houston, alone;
  
• In 1967, the man wasn't in any window, but was behind the picket fence with another man. Carr watched him go behind the TSBD and then emerge from behind it with a third man;
  
• In 1969, it was coming out of the back of the TSBD with two other men after being in the window, alone.
  

One man, two men, three ... corner of Commerce, corner of Elm, hey, it was all Houston Street, so what's so inconsistent about that?

Where the Rambler was:

• In 1967, it was parked on Record Street just north of Commerce, behind the Old Red Courthouse;
  
• In 1967, he doesn't say where the car was parked, only that it drove off north on Houston and turned on Pacific;
  
• In 1969, the car was parked facing the wrong way on the left side of the street next to the Depository.
  

The three blocks between Elm & Houston and Commerce & Record appeared small from seven stories up, and the difference was hard to distinguish, hence the slight inconsistency.

Who drove the Rambler:

• In 1964, it was a "young negro man" who was waiting in the car;
  
• In 1967, "colored man (he [Carr] called him a Negro)," got into the car after coming out of the rear of the TSBD;
  
• In 1967, a "Latin" got into the car after coming out of the rear of the TSBD.
  

Where the car went:

• In 1964, it drove north on Record Street;
  
• In 1967, it drove north on Houston Street and turned on Pacific;
  
• In 1969, it sped north on Houston Street out of sight.
  

Houston Street and Record Street are both paved with black macadam and run parallel, and thus are easy to confuse. One is directly ahead, the other is to the right, which are very close to each other when you're seven stories up in the air, or, for that matter, when you're at ground level (depending upon how consistent his whereabouts might be judged to be).

"Sport coat man's" observed movements:

• In 1964, he was unseen until he appeared out of the crowd at Houston & Commerce, and then turned east on Commerce and walked a block to Record Street where he got into a Rambler station wagon;
  
• In 1967, he was observed walking "south on Houston Street and turned left up Main Street where he disappeared from view," the Rambler already having left from Houston Street some time before;
  
• In 1969, he was "going down Houston Street, to the corner of Commerce, and then turned toward town on Commerce," more specifically he "crossed the street [at the TSBD] and then came down this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street," while Carr was "watching that man at that time, and I watched him until I could see him no longer." The Rambler had left the wrong side of Houston Street and disappeared from view at some time prior.
  

You are correct that these variations are only "somewhat" inconsistent. After all, a car parked on Record Street at Commerce makes a lousy getaway car for three men, so if he changed it to Houston Street, it was only because it made better sense for two men to get in it there while the one man who'd gotten into it previously clearly had no need to get into it at Record Street. That there were no "two other men" in 1964 does not preclude their existence in 1967 or 1969, especially when they didn't accompany "sport coat man" down Houston and into the Rambler on Record Street when the car wasn't on Record Street for "sport coat man" to have gotten into.

That is certainly not a detail one would expect someone to remember clearly after only two or three months: it takes time to assimilate events properly. Undoubtedly, he was nervous when talking to the FBI, and screwed everything up not once, but twice, and one of those in writing. It takes years for people's memories to come back to them cohesively; in the meanwhile, one should expect some minor inconsistencies.

Before taking it any further, what floor or range of floors would you stipulate Carr to have been at on the new courthouse building. He said that he was on his way up to the ninth to see the foreman and had reached either the sixth or seventh, but you suggest that he could have gotten all the way up to the ninth where the foreman was (and, being so close to a job interview, did he decide to go back down to the ground level without seeing the foreman or not?); do you think he might've maybe gone to the tenth? Eleventh? All the way to the top of the building? Climbing six flights of stairs can easily be confused with climbing ten ("somewhat" inconsistent), but I'm curious how many additional flights you're willing to allow him to have climbed in order to see what he claimed to have seen.

... I would say that it is not possible to determine Carr's line of sight precisely from the existing photos of today. ... Duke says ...:

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

Do you see how your opinion changes as well?

Please see also post #25 (same thread, above) here for the visual from the TSBD south east corner of the 6th floor to the new courthouse under construction.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0 ....

Yes, please: count how many of the upper floors of the courthouse building can be seen in that photo: three. That would be 10, 11 and 12. Now, I grant you that there's only about 10 feet per story, meaning that the 9th floor would be 10 feet below what you can see here, the 7th floor only 30 feet below what we see here, so there's no real reason to consider that distance.

The fact that you can't see the 7th floor of the courthouse from the 6th floor of the TSBD certainly doesn't mean that you couldn't see the 6th - or 5th - floor of the TSBD from the 7th floor of the courthouse, now, does it. In fact, who's to say that the Old Red Courthouse, completed during the late 19th century, was as high as it is today back in 1963? It might also have moved. Or maybe the foreman wasn't on the ninth floor, but maybe on the 11th. Whatever it takes to show that these "somewhat" inconsistent recollections are nevertheless accurate ....

Undoubtedly, that narrow staircase you see in the aerial was actually 10 or 20 yards wide to enable someone on them to have been seen out beyond the buildings that today block one's view. The photos that makes the stairs look narrower than that have obviously been altered.

The fact that you can't see any of the courthouse building today from Houston Street, and only the top couple of floors from the corner of the TSBD, clearly does not prove what someone looking from the other direction can see: just because there are buildings keeping you from seeing me doesn't mean that those buildings block my view of you, now does it.

In post #1 (this thread, link here above) you expressed doubts about R.R. Carr's enlistment in the military. You also stated that he may not have been a Ranger at all. In post #40 of this thread I showed you his enlistment data.

Right. Since it doesn't include the word "Ranger" anywhere in that data, how have you proved he was a Ranger?

Once you've done so, I recommend getting in touch with the Rangers at Fort Benning so they can properly include him in their records. I'm sure they'll appreciate it, especially when you show them his sworn testimony that he was one of them, and since he's no longer alive to be called to task, they should just go ahead and add him to their roster. I can't imagine they'd want (or have) better proof than that, can you? And if they don't, why should we demand any better? After all, he was in the Army, so at worst, he's only "somewhat" wrong about being a Ranger.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

Dear Detective Lane,

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the only way Carr was able to discern that the man in the window was wearing any kind of glasses at all was because he (the man) was wearing glasses with frames sufficiently thick and dark-colored as to make them visible to an observer some 250 yards away? The sort of glasses that Richard Cain was known to wear, for example?

I am, as always, totally subservient to you sir as I am, well let's face it, just a lowly "beat cop" and well, you do far outrank me. Sir. LOL -- Thomas Graves

Oh, by the way, I wonder what kind of glasses Malcolm (Mac) Wallace was wearing in the Fall of 1963?

I wouldn't know about the "rank" thing since USAF SPs and OSI aren't real cops anyway and wouldn't have any valid investigatory experience. I bow to the "lowly" beat cop every time.

Which floor were both(?) Mac Wallace and Richard Cain on, the "fifth" or the "top" floor? I can't remember, but they were on one of those two floors based on the keen observations of Mr. Carr. If you're going to claim that they were on the sixth floor, then it wasn't either of them that Carr saw.

... I am now convinced that Richard Randolph Carr is indeed the man born in Georgia in 1922, enlisted in the Army in 1942 and passed away in West Virginia in 1996. That is, I'm 90% sure he is also the man who witnessed the JFK assassination. ...

The Inter Mountain News had a brief announcement of the death of Richard R. Carr on August 5, 1996, followed by a longer one (2-3 paragraphs) on August 6. He died in a Veterans Hospital in Clarksburg, WV, which, it being a US Government facility, might explain the issuance of a death certificate by the State of Georgia (if that info is correct in SSDI). Said Richard R. Carr was born in Fulton, GA; I do not know if it indicated whether he ever lived in Dallas. A "long list" of his survivors is to be found in the longer article. The article also indicates that he served during WWII, but I don't yet know any additional details.

These should reach me in the next couple of days. I'll post what they have to say - or scan them - when I've received them. After that, if the article doesn't say, we'll find out if he and Richard Randolph Carr of Dallas fame are one and the same man.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Duke Lane

[John Dolva]

Dear Detective Lane,

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the only way Carr was able to discern that the man in the window was wearing any kind of glasses at all was because he (the man) was wearing glasses with frames sufficiently thick and dark-colored as to make them visible to an observer some 250 yards away? The sort of glasses that Richard Cain was known to wear, for example?

I am, as always, totally subservient to you sir as I am, well let's face it, just a lowly "beat cop" and well, you do far outrank me. Sir. LOL -- Thomas Graves

Oh, by the way, I wonder what kind of glasses Malcolm (Mac) Wallace was wearing in the Fall of 1963?

I wouldn't know about the "rank" thing since USAF SPs and OSI aren't real cops anyway and wouldn't have any valid investigatory experience. I bow to the "lowly" beat cop every time.

Which floor were both(?) Mac Wallace and Richard Cain on, the "fifth" or the "top" floor? I can't remember, but they were on one of those two floors based on the keen observations of Mr. Carr. If you're going to claim that they were on the sixth floor, then it wasn't either of them that Carr saw.

... I am now convinced that Richard Randolph Carr is indeed the man born in Georgia in 1922, enlisted in the Army in 1942 and passed away in West Virginia in 1996. That is, I'm 90% sure he is also the man who witnessed the JFK assassination. ...

The Inter Mountain News had a brief announcement of the death of Richard R. Carr on August 5, 1996, followed by a longer one (2-3 paragraphs) on August 6. He died in a Veterans Hospital in Clarksburg, WV, which, it being a US Government facility, might explain the issuance of a death certificate by the State of Georgia (if that info is correct in SSDI). Said Richard R. Carr was born in Fulton, GA; I do not know if it indicated whether he ever lived in Dallas. A "long list" of his survivors is to be found in the longer article. The article also indicates that he served during WWII, but I don't yet know any additional details.

These should reach me in the next couple of days. I'll post what they have to say - or scan them - when I've received them. After that, if the article doesn't say, we'll find out if he and Richard Randolph Carr of Dallas fame are one and the same man.

FWIW This is from memory. Recently read, glossed over and neglected to save link. (I think it was a mil site). By the time the various ranger battalions were entering italy they were regrouped as >somethng like< 1164 unit.

[Denis Pointing]

Duke,

I think you're a thorough researcher, and usually admire your work. However, I don't understand why you are spending so much time on trying to discredit the likes of Carr and Worrell. Seems like a lot of energy to expend on something that is ultimately pretty insignificant.

Neither Carr nor Worrell are around to defend themselves. I think Bernice did a fine job in pointing out your selective use of witnesses who may be no more believable than the two you are so passionately trying to discredit. I don't think you even addressed what she was saying, let alone attempted to refute her points.

I also have to say that I find your persistent referral to Worrell as "Dickey" to be a bit disquieting. I don't really know why, it just sounds demeaning and is, imo, unnecessary. I'm assuming this is what his family called him, but obviously you didn't know him personally. Why keep using this rather childish nickname when referring to him? I don't know, it just sounds disrespectful to me.

The early critics demolished the credibility of many witnesses in Dealey Plaza. If the lives of Craig, Carr and Worrell are going to be examined under a microscope by researchers like you, at some point we're going to run out of any credible witnesses to the assassination. I certainly don't mean to offend you with my comments; on the contrary, I hope you take it as constructive criticism. I respect you and find your posts informative, but I do think you're a bit off base here.

Don, I'm having trouble understanding why Duke's getting so much criticism on this thread. The main problem with researching this murder has always been that there's far too many witnesses all claiming to have witnessed totally differant scenarios. Liars, cranks and phoneys all creating a situation where its impossible to be able to see the wood for the trees. If Duke or any other researcher, yes including Macadam, can show any of those to be false or unreliable witnesses..great. Lets be grateful that the trees are getting cleared so at long last we can see the wood. And if that means we "run out of any credible witnesses to the assassination" so be it. No one here has to agree with Duke's conclusions, I for one, very often dont, I'm sure were all old enough and wise enough to make the ultimate decision for ourselves as to whether or not the witness is reliable or not, but its only after reading this type of critical research that we are truly in a position to judge. Just my opinion FWIW.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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 [

this site

].

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?

Always nice when a "non-military" oriented person can see through the smoke and BS of the wannabee's.

Of course, there has been more than sufficient practice on this forum in that regards.

Just perhaps, someone convinced Carr to "blow" the smoke.

Tom

[Duke Lane]

Just because my photo shows me in a tux rather than a beret, and because I didn't stick around long enough to retire doesn't make me "'non-military' oriented!" I probably started earlier and stayed longer than most, including association with the Civil Air Patrol as early as about seven years old (through my parents, who started what would become a huge CAP squadron, which I joined and later commanded myself) not to mention active duty USAF OSI.

From a trial perspective, it's difficult to imagine anyone advising a witness to lie through his teeth, but I certainly can imagine someone deciding during prep that military service is something you should emphasize, and the more distinguished it is, the more you should emphasize it.

I can also imagine a discourse something like this leading to the identification of the driver of the Rambler:

Q:

You say there was a "Negro" driving the car? Did you see him well enough to recognize him as someone of African descent, or was that merely your impression based on his dark complexion?

A:

He seemed as if he was a Negro, yes.

Q:

He had dark skin?

A:

Yes.

Q:

Could you see his hair?

A:

Yes, it was dark and short.

Q:

Was it straight or kinky? Did he have a crew cut?

A:

I didn't see him that well. It could have been either.

Q:

So, he

could

have been, say, Mexican or Cuban or Latin?

A:

He

could

have been, but I think he was a Negro.

Q:

But you can't say for absolutely certain?

A:

No.

Q:

So he

could

have been a Latin?

A:

Yes, he

could

have been.

Q:

Fine. So since you can't say for sure, then it's just as fair and accurate, insofar as you can state with certainty, that he was a Latin as to say he was a Negro?

A:

Well, I couldn't say for 100% certain he was Negro, no.

Q:

Okay, then, we can refer to him as being Latin ....

Likewise, eliminating even the last question, I can imagine a witness being prepped in this manner coming to the conclusion that counsel wanted him to say the man was "a Latin," even if counsel didn't quite say that's what he wanted to hear.

Outside of such possibilities, who else might have convinced Carr to blow smoke, and why?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Just because my photo shows me in a tux rather than a beret, and because I didn't stick around long enough to retire doesn't make me "'non-military' oriented!" I probably started earlier and stayed longer than most, including association with the Civil Air Patrol as early as about seven years old (through my parents, who started what would become a huge CAP squadron, which I joined and later commanded myself) not to mention active duty USAF OSI.

From a trial perspective, it's difficult to imagine anyone advising a witness to lie through his teeth, but I certainly can imagine someone deciding during prep that military service is something you should emphasize, and the more distinguished it is, the more you should emphasize it.

I can also imagine a discourse something like this leading to the identification of the driver of the Rambler:

Q:

You say there was a "Negro" driving the car? Did you see him well enough to recognize him as someone of African descent, or was that merely your impression based on his dark complexion?

A:

He seemed as if he was a Negro, yes.

Q:

He had dark skin?

A:

Yes.

Q:

Could you see his hair?

A:

Yes, it was dark and short.

Q:

Was it straight or kinky? Did he have a crew cut?

A:

I didn't see him that well. It could have been either.

Q:

So, he

could

have been, say, Mexican or Cuban or Latin?

A:

He

could

have been, but I think he was a Negro.

Q:

But you can't say for absolutely certain?

A:

No.

Q:

So he

could

have been a Latin?

A:

Yes, he

could

have been.

Q:

Fine. So since you can't say for sure, then it's just as fair and accurate, insofar as you can state with certainty, that he was a Latin as to say he was a Negro?

A:

Well, I couldn't say for 100% certain he was Negro, no.

Q:

Okay, then, we can refer to him as being Latin ....

Likewise, eliminating even the last question, I can imagine a witness being prepped in this manner coming to the conclusion that counsel wanted him to say the man was "a Latin," even if counsel didn't quite say that's what he wanted to hear.

Outside of such possibilities, who else might have convinced Carr to blow smoke, and why?

Not unlike much of the New Orleans issues, one could say that it was possibly "all in the family".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggoner_Carr

Carr testified that Oswald was working as an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and received $200 a month from September 1962 until his death in November 1963. However, the Warren Commission preferred to believe Director J. Edgar Hoover, who denied Carr's affirmations.

How about a little bit of fuel onto the fire!

And, merely because one is born in Texas, does not mean that they do not necessarily have good ole southern Georgia roots.

Name: Zachery Taylor CARR

Sex: M

Birth: 27 MAY 1848 in Floyd Co., GA

Death: 1944 in Commerce, TX

=============

Children

Vincent NMI CARR b: 16 NOV 1892 in Commerce, TX

Children

Vincent Waggoner CARR b: 1 OCT 1918 in Farlie, TX

==============================

If, and when, one comes to accept that the Clay Shaw trial was nothing more than an additional means to obscure the facts and truths while protecting the New Orleans crowd, then much of this charade comes into perspective.