Roger Craig

[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

[Mitch Todd]

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.   

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

Someone in Weitzman's position would certainly be expected to  know how much a particular item cost to purchase, how much it sold for, the customer base for the item, how well it sold, and how many were in stock. Beyond that, I wouldn't count on anything.


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

I would hope they would know something about firearms, but I wouldn't expect any randomly-selected officer to be able to determine --on sight-- the manufacturer and caliber of any gun they might see.


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?         

I would expect that someone who saw the word "Mauser" on the rifle would have said so from the get-go. I would not expect for them to spend the next ten years spewing out a number of contradictory stories about the rifle. 


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.

This begs the question of if the word FORD was on the truck in the first place. Especially when there is film showing that the truck is a FIAT.