Not only did Craig change his story, but these different stories were mutually exclusive of his claim to have seen "Mauser" on the rifle. As I've already mentioned, in '68 he said that he didn't know what the rifle was. That simply can't be true if he'd seen "Mauser" stamped into the rifle barrel, as he later claimed. The next year, he was shown a Carcano at the Shaw trial and testified under oath that it looked like the TSBD rifle. No mention of seeing the word "Mauser" anywhere, even though this is exactly the kind of story that the prosecution (for which Craig was a witness) was looking for. And, what better place for Craig to bring up the Mauser stamp than in is poison pen expose of the Dallas authorities? So why does Craig not mention it?
Was Craig asked about the Mauser stamp? No. Witnesses directly answered the questions they were asked under oath.
That's not true. In 1968, Criag stated there was a Mauser. So, how is that "changing his story"?
Craig didn't mention the stamp until the early 1970s. The rifle isn't mentioned in his DCSD affidavit, nor in any of the FBI interviews that followed. In his WC testimony, the make and model of the rifle were never mentioned. In '68, he said he didn't know what kind of rifle it was. In '69, it looked like the Carcano he was shown on the stand. It became a Mauser in '71, but only because that's what Weitzman said it was. Only after that did Craig mention that he'd seen the word "Mauser" on the rifle.
And Craig said he was fired for "knowing too much" and said "he was under a lot of pressure".
How do you know he wasn't told to "shut up about it" and waited to tell his story when he had the opportunity to?
The fact is we have two law enforcement officers who both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Weitzman changed his story.
As for Weitzman, he was simply wrong, as he has said he was.
Wrong with a Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle? He changed his story.
Weitzman was "general manager" of a "discount operation" that was a chain of stores spread out from Louisiana to New Mexico. He worked in what we would now call the "C-Suite." He wasn't a gun salesman, and never claimed to have been. Somehow, you've managed to demote the poor guy in an attempt to give him expertise that he never claimed.
You're trying to turn Weitzman into a bumbling fool who had no idea what he was selling.
A law enforcement officer who handled these weapons in his own business would have a good idea of the rifles he was selling.
Being a law enforcement officer does not make one an expert in firearms identification. Again, this level of qualification is nothing more than an empty assertion on your part.
You're begging the question here.
Weitzman had an advantage over other law enforcement officers by handling these types of rifles in his business.
No, you're trying to make us believe that Weitzman and law enforcement officers are like The Three Stooges and have no idea what they are doing.
Again, Craig didn't claim that the rifle was a Mauser until 1971. That was at the tail end of a trail of tales that turn out to be mutually contradictory.
As for Weitzman, he realized he was wrong, and had the sense to admit it. You would do well to follow his example. I'm not holding my breath.
Did two law enforcement officers state they witnessed a Mauser? Yes they did.