Roger Craig

[Walt Cakebread]

Whaddaya mean Craig never changed his story?

In '68, when he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press, Craig said that he didn't know what the rifle was.

In '69 at the Shaw trial, Craig was shown a Carcano and said that the rifle Boone found looked like it. He said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, even though this was the perfect time to do it.

In '71, Craig wrote "When They Kill a President."  In it, he said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, noting that it was identified by Weitzman.

Only after that, in the "Two Guns in Dallas" video, did Craig claim that he saw anything stamped in the rifle. This story is directly contradicted by what Craig said to the LA Free Press. It's also contradicted, though more subtly, by his Shaw trial testimony and his own magnum opus.

Thank you, Mitch....  I believe that you've presented an excellent rebuttal Rick Plant's post.

[Rick Plant]

There's little doubt that RC was a BS er....  Anybody who has listened to him can verify that he was a BSer.

Please show me a photo of a rifle from the TSBD that has the word "MAUSER" stamped on it.

That's only your opinion.

I don't need to show any photos of a rifle with "Mauser" stamped on it because obviously they never took a photo of a Mauser.

Why did Weitzman change his story? Why would he only "glance" at the rifle and not inspect it?     

[Rick Plant]

Whaddaya mean Craig never changed his story?

In '68, when he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press, Craig said that he didn't know what the rifle was.

In '69 at the Shaw trial, Craig was shown a Carcano and said that the rifle Boone found looked like it. He said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, even though this was the perfect time to do it.

In '71, Craig wrote "When They Kill a President."  In it, he said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, noting that it was identified by Weitzman.

Only after that, in the "Two Guns in Dallas" video, did Craig claim that he saw anything stamped in the rifLA le. This story is directly contradicted by what Craig said to the LA Free Press. It's also contradicted, though more subtly, by his Shaw trial testimony and his own magnum opus.

Craig never came out and said he never saw a Mauser after he stated that he witnessed one. So no, he didn't "change his story" just because he didn't state it again years later.   

Why did Weitzman change his story after he said he witnessed a Mauser? 

Why would a Sheriff claim to just "glance" at the possible murder weapon?  Wouldn't he fully inspect it as part of the investigation?   

[Rick Plant]

So what does "fairly familiar with rifles" mean, exactly? The lack of specificity in that statement inspires anything but confidence. And, as I've already pointed out, the "awhile" in "I was in the sporting goods business awhile" turns out to be something less than one year. And this less-than-a-year tenure was spend in the executive suite rather than the shop floor. Not a place to gain a lot of expertise regarding what a specific rifle would look like.

Someone in the sporting goods business where rifles are sold would know what merchandise he is selling. Would he not?

Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?

And a person with no knowledge of weaponry would even know what the make of the weapon is when the word "Mauser" is stamped directly on it. Isn't that correct?         

So, how could Weitzman not know that the rifle was a Mauser when the stamp on the rifle tells him what it is.

That's like someone trying to claim they don't know that it's a Ford truck when the word FORD is stamped in bold letters.     

[Walt Cakebread]

Someone in the sporting goods business where rifles are sold would know what merchandise he is selling. Would he not?

Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?

And a person with no knowledge of weaponry would even know what the make of the weapon is when the word "Mauser" is stamped directly on it. Isn't that correct?         

So, how could Weitzman not know that the rifle was a Mauser when the stamp on the rifle tells him what it is.

That's like someone trying to claim they don't know that it's a Ford truck when the word FORD is stamped in bold letters.   

Why don't you believe your own eyes ??

There are many many photos of the rifle as Detective Day retrieved and examined the---- C-A-R-C-A-N-O.......

[Mitch Todd]

Craig never came out and said he never saw a Mauser after he stated that he witnessed one. So no, he didn't "change his story" just because he didn't state it again years later.   

Why did Weitzman change his story after he said he witnessed a Mauser? 

Why would a Sheriff claim to just "glance" at the possible murder weapon?  Wouldn't he fully inspect it as part of the investigation?   

If you don't see the inherent contradiction between Craig's 1968 story ("I didn't know what it was") and his '70's videotaped interview ("stamped on the barrel was '7.65 Mauser'), it can only be because you are trying very, very, very, very, very hard not to.

If you don't at least wonder why Craig failed to mention seeing the '7.65 Mauser' stamp on the rifle in his Shaw trial testimony, it's because you simply wish to be incurious.

If you don't think twice as to why Craig didn't mention the stamp in When They Kill a President , you just don't want to think.

[Paul J Cummings]

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm