Roger Craig

[Mitch Todd]

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
Mr. BALL - What branch of service were you in?
Mr. WEITZMAN - U.S. Air Force.
Mr. BALL - Did you handle rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.
Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?

   What you see is what you get.

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.

[Mitch Todd]

I agree completely,  Mitch..... But something I've read, Leads me to believe that Seymour Weitzman was familiar wit a 7.65 Mauser and the Carcano does resemble a 7.65 Mauser, thus it was an honest mistake when he speculated that the rifle they saw on the floor beneath the pallet of books was a mauser.    The problem arose when Roger Craig's ego got in the way....

I don't think it was Craig's ego. More like, his need for money. He fell into the Penn Jones orbit, which resulted in Craig losing his job as a Deputy. He never found a steady gig after that.

[Mitch Todd]

[...]
Roger Craig identified the rifle as a Mauser due to the stamp embedded on the rifle. That is a solid eyewitness account.

Weitzman also agreed it was a Mauser as well. He was an owner of a sporting goods store so he was familiar with rifles. When he testified later, he changed his story and claimed he only "glanced" at the rifle.

That's an absurd statement to make. Why would a Sheriff just "glance" at the potential murder weapon that just killed Kennedy? He would give it a thorough inspection.         

Weitzman changed his story and Roger Craig never did.

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.
 

[Jerry Freeman]

So what does "fairly familiar with rifles" mean, exactly? 

Apparently something you know nothing about.

[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.