Connect with us

News

As a young hitchhiker, he survived a ride with a serial killer. Now he’s telling his story | CNN

Published

on

As a young hitchhiker, he survived a ride with a serial killer. Now he’s telling his story | CNN



CNN
 — 

Steve Fishman was still in his teens when he came face-to-face with a serial killer.

At 19, he was hitchhiking from a friend’s place in Boston to Norwich, Connecticut, where he was an intern at a newspaper.

Fishman was not far from his destination and sticking out his thumb when a man pulled over in a green Buick sedan, said his name was “Red,” and told him to hop in. The man appeared friendly and had a balding head with wispy patches of red hair, likely the reason for his nickname.

But as Fishman would learn later, the man harbored a dark secret: His name was Robert Frederick Carr III, and he was a serial killer who preyed on young hitchhikers.

Advertisement

Three years earlier, Carr had raped and strangled two 11-year-old boys and a 16-year-old girl who’d hitched a ride with him in the Miami area. When he gave Fishman a ride, he was on parole after serving time for a rape in Connecticut.

Fishman’s ride lasted only about 15 minutes — Carr dropped him off unharmed — but his memories of that fall 1975 encounter have haunted him for decades.

About six months later, Carr was arrested for an attempted rape of a hitchhiker in the Miami area and then startled detectives when he confessed to kidnapping and raping more than a dozen people and killing four of them. Edna Buchanan, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Miami police reporter who wrote a book about Carr, once said: “He was about the most evil person I ever met.”

Fishman was stunned when he saw Carr’s picture on a breaking news alert. He recognized him instantly as the talkative man who’d given him a ride.

In retrospect, Fishman said, he missed several major red flags that day. First, the sedan’s door latch on the passenger side was jammed and Fishman had to roll down the window and open it from the outside. And Carr had casually mentioned he had just got out of prison.

Advertisement

“I’m an intern at a local newspaper. And I’m thinking, ‘Wow, that could be a good story about a guy getting out of prison, trying to reintegrate into the community,” Fishman told CNN. “I really didn’t stop to think or ask him what the crime was. I didn’t have any idea.”

Nearly five decades later, Fishman and Carr’s daughter, Donna, are unraveling lingering questions about the pedophile and killer in a new season of the “Smoke Screen” podcast titled, “My Friend, the Serial Killer.”

In the podcast, they explore Carr’s brutal crimes and and deceptions by digging through confession tapes, a box of his personal items from prison and hours of interviews with detectives.

Although her father died in a Florida prison in 2007, Donna continues to struggle with her family’s dark past. And Fishman still wonders how he made it out of Carr’s sedan alive.

In the 1970s, hitchhiking was considered a safe way to get from point A to B.

Advertisement

“It was a pretty regular mode of transportation back then,” said Fishman, who as an intern constantly relied on random strangers to drive him where he wanted to go.

“Depending on where you lived, we hitchhiked a lot. It was so safe, there were moms who picked me up hitchhiking, with their kids in the backseat with groceries,” he said.

Carr may have played on this belief to carry out his crimes, which mostly targeted hitchhikers.

A TV repairman and car salesman, Carr lived in Norwich with his wife and two kids: Donna and her younger brother. But he traveled nationwide for work and used that opportunity to prey on underage children. Nearly all his crimes, which occurred in the 1970s, involved children under age 18.

In 1972, Carr picked up two 11-year-old hitchhiking friends, raped and strangled them, then buried them in Louisiana and Mississippi.  He also picked up a 16-year-old girl and drove her from Miami to Mississippi before he strangled her. He strangled his fourth victim, Rhonda Holloway, 21, not long after his encounter with Fishman and buried her in Connecticut.

Advertisement

Carr would later take investigators on a cross-country trip to show them where he’d buried his victims.

“What he did to those children was truly unprintable,” David Simmons, a detective involved in his arrest, said in a 2007 interview. “In my 33-year career in law enforcement, Carr ranks as the most dangerous child sexual predator-murderer I ever investigated.”

A daughter changes her last name to escape her father’s shadow

Five decades later, Donna is still living in the shadows of her father’s horrific legacy. She is married, with another last name, and asked CNN to withhold her full name for safety reasons.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Donna tearfully described an adolescence filled with bullying and jokes about having a serial killer dad. She barely looked people in the eye as a child, she said. Those who knew who she was pointed and talked about her father in hushed tones.

Donna said she first learned about her father’s murderous rampage when she was 12. But she didn’t believe he was the monster he was portrayed to be until he led police on a road trip to unearth his buried victims in Louisiana, Mississippi and Connecticut.

Advertisement

“When he agreed to take the detectives on the search for the bodies, the denial could no longer be. Just every range of emotions you could possibly think of for a 12-year-old girl to go through,” said Donna, 60, who now lives in West Virginia. “And that’s when I started to withdraw.”

Today Donna has a 27-year-old daughter and worries that a public connection to her father could lead to a new wave of harassment for them. She dropped her father’s last name years ago in favor of her married name, and has told her daughter about his history.

“Sometimes in life, his name can come up on things like background checks for employment, and so on,” Donna said. “I raised my daughter to be very mature and to understand things. I didn’t want to lie to her.”

Donna said she wishes people would show more compassion for relatives of convicted killers. They grieve too, but dare not verbalize their loss, she said.

“No one sees what’s happening in the lives of those people just by hearing about a news story,” she said. “They’re humans and they have feelings and they get hurt, and they suffer trauma. And they are very much victims, too, but in a different sense.”

Advertisement

After her father’s crimes became public, Donna spent much of her adolescence holed up inside their Norwich home with her mother. But one day Fishman, still an intern at the newspaper, knocked on their door after her father’s arrest. He pleaded with Donna’s mother to let Carr know that the guy whose life he’d spared months earlier would like to visit him in jail for an interview.

Fishman finally got a chance to interview Carr in prison in the mid-1970s after numerous attempts.

In hours of recorded jailhouse interviews, Carr never pretended to be a saint, Fishman said. He talked about how he stole cars and offered sex to men for money when he was younger. He confessed to killing his victims and sounded not the least bit remorseful, Fishman said.

“One of the questions that I had for him was, ‘Why not me?’ And that feels like a really bizarre question to ask. But I did. And he basically shrugged and said, ‘I thought you were too big,’” Fishman said.

Fishman’s paper published his interview with Carr. But as Fishman grew up, got married and became a dad, he started rethinking the tone of his coverage.

Advertisement

“An interview with a serial killer was a big story. It was a big journalism scoop that really kind of sent me on the path to be a journalist. And yet, it was a story that I didn’t really like to think about because I did it when I was 19 and 20, and I was really afraid of what my focus had been,” Fishman said.

Fishman said he believes his friendly conversation with Carr during the ride may have clouded his perspective and humanized the killer a little too much.

“I was really afraid that I had gotten the story wrong, that I somehow didn’t understand or appreciate the horror of the story,” he said. “Back then, I looked at it as a societal problem of how do we treat criminals? How do we rehabilitate rapists? And the utter depravation of it kind of slipped by me.”

That is partly why Fishman is excavating the story in his podcast. He hopes that by understanding Carr better, he can correct the record from a more mature and nuanced viewpoint.

“I’m a father now a few times over. I think about crime and victims differently,” Fishman said. “And that’s kind of why I went to look for Donna.”

Advertisement

After deciding to make the podcast, Fishman sent Donna a Facebook message introducing himself. “She immediately responded with, ‘I’ve been wondering what happened to you,” Fishman said.

Turns out, Donna had spent her lifetime trying to understand her father. She’d wondered: Did he kill people because he was mentally ill and had no access to psychiatric treatment — as Fishman had once written? Or was he just an inherently evil person?

She’d tried reaching out to Fishman over the years and even had called the Norwich paper.

But the decision to be a part of the podcast was not easy.

“I was hesitant, because I really have not spoken much about it. Very few people know that part of my life,” she said. “It took me a little while to make that decision, and then I decided if I was going to do it with anyone, it was going to be Steve.”

Advertisement

Donna said she believes her father had manipulated Fishman, like he did with everyone in his life. So she and Fishman agreed to meet at her West Virginia farm to understand the complexities of the story from a new point of view.

They looked through boxes stuffed with Carr’s items from prison, including letters Donna had sent him at age 15.  “Dear Dad, I love you. I’m sorry I haven’t written in so long,” one said.

Her father responded with letters urging her to find Jesus. He claimed he had found Jesus, too. But he also sent her sexually suggestive letters, leading her to cut off communication with him.

Donna told CNN that she knew her dad was a monster, but she was holding on to the childhood dream of having a nuclear family. In between her flashes of terror and anger, there were happy memories of family camping trips and the Christmas when her father unwrapped a large stereo he’d bought for the family.

Donna said the inappropriate letters from her father finally gave her the strength to severe ties with him. But they were so unnerving that she said she constantly called the prison to make sure he had not been released on parole.

Advertisement

One day in the summer of 2007 she found out he was no longer listed as being in prison and had a brief moment of panic, thinking he’d been set free.

But a call to the prison confirmed that her father had died of prostate cancer. He was 63.

Only after his death did her sense of peace slowly start creeping back.

Donna said that despite her initial reluctance, working on the podcast has been a therapeutic experience that has given her a better sense of who her father was.

“As many diagnoses as my father had as far as his mental state — and there were a lot — I believe he was just born evil,” she said. She’s in counseling and hopes to keep making steps toward healing.

Advertisement

“I kept everything boxed in for so many years. I would just push everything down,” she said.  “It was nice to finally talk about it freely.”

News

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

Published

on

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

When Stuart Sepulvida arrives at St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Parish in Tucson, Ariz., for Mass, which he attends most mornings, he passes a display honoring local soldiers and encouraging parishioners to pray for their safety. Hundreds of small cards record their names: Robles, Arenas, Grajeda. A portrait of Pope Leo XIV hangs across the lobby.

Mr. Sepulvida, 81, is a Vietnam veteran whose patriotism and Catholicism are deeply intertwined. He voted for President Trump three times but has never felt more betrayed by an American president than when Mr. Trump denounced Pope Leo as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.”

“It was very disturbing to me to hear both of them clashing like they did,” Mr. Sepulvida said, standing outside the church one morning this week. Now, he is reconsidering whether he will vote Republican this year.

The Republican Party is struggling to hold onto the support from Hispanic voters who helped propel Mr. Trump back into the White House in 2024. Yet as many party leaders have acknowledged the urgent need to stop the backsliding among Latinos, the president has enraged many of even his strongest supporters by clashing with the pope.

On Easter Sunday, Pope Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff, spoke of the need to “abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars.” Within days, Mr. Trump, who has led the United States into a war with Iran, said the pope was “catering to the radical left” and posted an AI-generated image portraying himself as a Jesus figure. Mr. Trump later deleted the image, saying he thought it depicted him as a doctor.

Advertisement

“It just isn’t what a president should do,” Mr. Sepulvida said. “The pope speaks for his people. He is beyond politics.”

Mr. Trump won 55 percent of Catholic voters in the 2024 election, compared to 43 percent who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Pew Research Center. The most sizable gains came from Hispanic Catholics. While Joseph R. Biden Jr. won their votes by a 35-point margin in 2020, the Democratic advantage shrunk to 17 points in 2024. Now, just 18 percent of Hispanic Catholics said they support most or all of President Trump’s agenda, according to a poll from Pew released earlier this year.

If the president’s quarrel with the pope sours more Latinos on the Republican Party, it could affect midterm races across the country, including in South Florida and South Texas, where Republicans have notched important victories in predominantly Hispanic districts in recent years.

In Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from north of Tucson to the Mexican border, voters were still grappling with the fallout this week.

The district is roughly evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and independent voters. Nearly a third of the district is Hispanic, and there is a significant population of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as a large Catholic community with deep history in the region. It also has one of largest numbers of military veterans of all congressional districts in the country.

Advertisement

“The president is looking for a lot of attention from everything,” said Maria Ramos, 60, who regularly attends weekday Mass at St. Francis. A registered independent, she usually votes for Democrats but often declines to cast a ballot if she views a candidate as too liberal. “He believes he can put God in his place. He’s meddling in countries that he’s not in control of — he wants to control the world.”

“It is not just a very serious lack of respect — it is a mortal sin,” she said, shaking her head. One word comes to her mind again and again, she said: disgust.

Like so many others in southern Arizona, Ms. Ramos has several relatives who serve in the military — a path they saw to both serve the country and as an entry into the stable middle class. Many of them, she said, voted for Mr. Trump for president.

The Tucson district is now widely seen as one of the most competitive in the country. Republican Juan Ciscomani narrowly won the district in 2022, in part by emphasizing his biography as a Mexican immigrant and a devoted father of six children. He is also an evangelical Christian, a group that has driven much of the growth among Hispanic Republican voters in recent years.

Mr. Ciscomani declined a request for an interview, but when a local radio host asked Mr. Ciscomani what he thought of Mr. Trump’s comments “as a man of faith,” the congressman declined to criticize the president but said, “You can trust that you won’t see any meme like that coming out of my account.”

Advertisement

JoAnna Mendoza, the Democrat challenging Mr. Ciscomani this fall, has made her 20-year career in the U.S. Navy and Marines a key aspect of her story on the campaign trail. While she rarely speaks about her religious background and no longer considers herself a practicing Catholic, she said she briefly considered becoming a nun as a teenager. She criticized Mr. Ciscomani for not condemning the president’s remarks.

“You can’t make faith a central part of your campaign and then allow this to stand,” she said in an interview.

Across Tucson, Latino Catholics, regardless of their past voting preferences, were similarly quick to condemn the president’s remarks.

When Cecilia Taisipic, 71, heard about it, she said, she winced with shame about her vote for him in 2024.

“I thought he would make the country better, but apparently it’s the opposite,” she said as she left Mass at St. Francis earlier this week. She is so fed up with politics, she said, that she is unlikely to vote at all this year. “When it comes to my faith, I don’t like anybody to challenge it. Now I don’t want to hear anything on the news. I just want to pray.”

Advertisement

Matilde Robinson Bours, 63, teaches a weekly Spanish Bible study class at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, and like nearly all of the women in her class, she immigrated from Mexico decades ago. She has voted for Republicans in nearly every election since she became a citizen. Though she has never liked President Trump, she said, his comments about the pope enraged her more than anything else he has said or done in the past.

“This surpassed everything, every social and political norm — this is personal to all Catholics,” she said. “The arrogance and ego is disgusting. To think that he is God? The pope has every right and responsibility to talk about peace.”

Still, Ms. Robinson Bours said, nothing will stop her from supporting Republicans again this year. She has been delighted that her adult children have stopped supporting Democrats in recent elections.

“Almost everyone I know thinks the way I do,” she said.

Patricia Martinez, 86, who has attended the same Bible study as Ms. Robinson Bours for years, shook her head in disagreement. She said she cannot imagine voting for a Republican who supports Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

“This is different — this shows he is out of his mind,” said Ms. Martinez. “We have to have basic respect and teach that to people in this country.”

Patrick Robles, a 24-year-old native of Tucson, spent years alienated from the Roman Catholic Church, but returned to his faith more recently. “The craziness of the world sort of caused me to seek some sort of answers,” he said. Now, he attends Mass at the St. Augustine Cathedral in downtown Tucson, a few blocks from the office where he works as an aide to Representative Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat.

Mr. Robles said he saw Mr. Trump’s battle with the pope as both a personal affront and a political opportunity.

“The president is basically trying to draw a line between Catholics and what we perceive to be patriotism,” he said. “I believe we can be both.”

Last week, he texted one of his uncles who has supported Mr. Trump in every election asking him what he thought.

Advertisement

“I’m afraid we need divine intervention,” the uncle replied.

Continue Reading

News

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Published

on

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., takes questions at a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Speaker Mike Johnson, R.-La., is forging ahead with his latest proposal to renew a key American spy power. His bill, revealed Thursday, is largely unchanged from a previous plan which failed in a series of overnight votes earlier this month.

The program at center of the debate, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is set to expire on April 30.

FISA 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals located outside of the United States. Some of the nearly 350,000 foreign targets whose communications are collected under the provision are in touch with Americans, whose calls, texts and emails could end up in the trove of information available to the federal government for review.

Advertisement

For almost two decades, privacy-minded lawmakers from both parties have sought to require specific court approval before federal law enforcement can conduct a targeted review of an American’s information gathered through the program. The lack of any such warrant requirement helped sink an effort last week to extend the program for 18 months, as well as a separate vote on a five-year renewal. 

Trump officials, like those in past administrations, have argued that such a warrant requirement would overburden law enforcement and endanger national security. Johnson’s latest proposal would reauthorize the program for three years, but does not include a warrant requirement. Instead, the bill calls for the FBI to submit monthly explanations for reviews of Americans’ information to an oversight official as well as criminal penalties for willful abuse, among other tweaks.

“I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country,” the president wrote on Truth Social last week, advocating for the program to be extended without changes. “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks. It has already prevented MANY such Attacks, and it is very important that it remain in full force and effect.”

Glenn Gerstell, who served as general counsel at the National Security Agency during the Obama and first Trump administration, says Johnson’s reforms look like an attempt to find a middle ground.

“There’s not a lot of really substantive changes to the statute, but some gestures are made to people who are worried about privacy and civil liberties,” Gerstell said. “It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise that is going to be satisfactory to the national security agencies and yet at the same time represents some gesture to the privacy advocates.”

Advertisement

“This is not a reform bill and it’s not a compromise,” Elizabeth Goitein, a privacy advocate and senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, wrote on X. “It’s a straight reauthorization with eight pages of words that serve no serious purpose other than to try to convince members that it’s NOT a straight reauthorization.”

A bipartisan reform deal is still out of reach

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, told NPR on Wednesday, before the release of Johnson’s new proposal, that lawmakers were working on a bipartisan solution. He said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was in touch with Johnson on the issue.

“There’s a lot of work being done here,” Himes said. “We’re sort of working out a process that will be inclusive rather than exclusive.” Himes said he was negotiating with Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional law scholar, on a reform proposal they hoped could preserve and reform the program — reauthorizing it with bipartisan support.

But Johnson’s new bill appears to fall short of the inclusive approach Himes hoped for.

NPR obtained a memo written by Raskin to his colleagues urging them to oppose the bill, which he said “continues the disastrous policy of trusting the FBI to self-police and self-report its abuses of Section 702 and backdoor searches of Americans’ data.”

Advertisement

“FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin wrote.

FBI agents must receive annual training on FISA and are generally barred from searching for information about people in the U.S. if the goal of the search is to investigate general criminal activity, rather than find foreign intelligence information, and those searches need approval from a supervisor or an attorney. 

Republican hardliners — who sunk Johnson’s last reauthorization attempt — also don’t all appear to be on board for Johnson’s latest revision. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a past chair of the Freedom Caucus, said “we’re not there yet” in a video he shared to X on Thursday.

“I didn’t take an oath to defend FISA, I didn’t take an oath to defend the intelligence community,” Perry said. “We can’t have them spying on American citizens and, when they do, there has to be accountability and I haven’t seen any that I’m satisfied with yet.”

The House Rules committee meets Monday morning, the first step toward advancing the renewal bill toward a vote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending