Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Roger Craig Testimony

123 views
Skip to first unread message

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 1:55:21โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to
DVP doesn't want to accept that the WC would change, omit, or delete
testimony, but here is an example from Roger Craig as he was
interviewed by David Belin.

Combine the foregoing with the run-in I had with Dave Belin,
junior counsel for the Warren Commission, who questioned me in
April of 1964, and who changed my testimony fourteen times when he
sent it to Washington, and you will have some idea of the pressures
brought to bear.

David Belin told me who he was as I entered the interrogation
room (April 1964). He had me sit at the head of a long table. To
my left was a female with a pencil and pen. Belin sat to my right.
Between the girl and Belin was a tape recorder, which was turned
off. Belin instructed the girl not to take notes until he (Belin)
said to do so. He then told me that the investigation was being
conducted to determine the truth as the evidence indicates. Well,
I could take that several ways but I said nothing. Then Belin
said, "For instance, I will ask you where you were at a certain
time. This will establish your physical location." It was at this
point that I began to feel that I was being led into something but
still I said nothing. Then Belin said, "I will ask you about what
you *thought* you heard or saw in regard." Well, this was too
much. I interrupted him and said, "Counselor, just ask me the
questions and if I can answer them, I will." This seemed to
irritate Belin and he told the girl to start taking notes with the
next question.

At this point Belin turned the recorder on. The first questions
were typical. Where were you born? Where did you go to school?
When Belin would get to certain questions he would turn off the
recorder and stop the girl from writing. The he would ask me, for
example, "Did you see anything unusual when you were behind the picket
fence?" I said, "Yes" and he said, "Fine, just a minute."
He would then tell the girl to start writing with the next question
and would again start the recorder. What was the next question?
"Mr. Craig, did you go into the Texas School Book Depository?" It
was clear to me that he wanted only to record part of the
interrogation, as this happened many times.

I finally managed to get in at least most of what I had seen and
heard by ignoring his advanced questions and giving a step-by-step
picture, which further seemed to irritate him.

At the end of our session Belin dismissed me but when I started
to leave the room, he called me back. At this time I identified
the clothing wore by the suspect (the 26 volumes refer to a *box*
of clothing--not *boxes*. There were two boxes.)

After I identified the clothing Belin went over the complete
testimony again. He then asked, "Do you want to follow or waive
your signature or sign now?" Since there was nothing but a tape
recording and a stenographer's note book, there was obviously
nothing to sign. All other testimony which I have read (a
considerable amount) included an explanation that the person could
waive his signature then or his statement would be typed and he would
be notified when it was ready for signature. Belin did not say this to
me.

He said an odd thing when I left. It is the only time that he
said it, and I have never read anything similar in any testimony.
"Be SURE, when you get back to the office, to thank Sheriff Decker for
*his* cooperation." I know of no one else he questioned who he asked
to *thank* a supervisor, chief, etc.
I first saw my testimony in January of 1968 when I looked at the
26 volumes which belonged to Penn Jones. My alleged statement was
included. The following are some of the changes in my testimony:

* Arnold Rowland told me that he saw two men on the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15
minutes before the President arrived: one was a Negro,
who was pacing back and forth by the *southwest* window.
The other was a white man in the *southeast* corner,
with a rifle equipped with a scope, and that a few
minutes later he looked back and only the white man was
there. In the Warren Commission: *Both* were *white*,
both were *pacing* in front of the *southwest* corner
and when Rowland looked back, *both* were gone;

* I said the Rambler station wagon was *light green*.
The Warren Commission: Changed to a *white* station
wagon;

* I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a *tan*
jacket. The Warren Commission: A *white* jacket;

* I said the license plates on the Rambler were *not*
the same color as Texas plates. The Warren Commission:
Omitted the *not*--omitted but one word, an important
one, so that it appeared that the license plates *were*
the same color as Texas plates;

* I said that I *got* a *good look* at the driver of the
Rambler. The Warren Commission: I did *not* get a good
look at the Rambler. (In Captain Fritz's office) I had
said that Fritz had said to Oswald, "This man saw you
leave" (indicating me). Oswald said, "I told you people
I did." Fritz then said, "Now take it easy, son, we're
just trying to find out what happened", and then (to
Oswald), "What about the car?" to which Oswald replied,
"That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to
drag her into this." Fritz said *car*--station wagon
was not mentioned by anyone but Oswald. (I had told
Fritz over the telephone that I saw a man get into a
station wagon, before I went to the Dallas Police
Department and I had also described the man. This is
when Fritz asked me to come there). Oswald then said,
"Everybody will know who I am now;" the Warren
Commission: Stated that the last statement by Oswald
was made in a dramatic tone. This was not so. The
Warren Commission also printed, "NOW everybody will know
who I am", transposing the *now*. Oswald's tone and
attitude was one of disappointment. If someone were
attempting to conceal his identity as Deputy and he was
found out, exposed--his cover blown, his reaction
would be dismay and disappointment. This was Oswald's
tone and attitude--disappointment at being exposed!

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 1:22:54โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to
You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
Craig.

Craig, a provable LIAR without a shred of a doubt (with respect to the
"7.65 Mauser" bullshit), is not exactly the type of witness anyone
should be relying on -- unless you're a conspiracy-loving crackpot who
can't resist ANY type of "CT" talk, no matter who the source is.

Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about Oswald
jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now".

AFAIK, not a single other person, including Captain Fritz, could
verify that story of Craig's. Fritz even says that Craig never even
entered Fritz's office at all, let alone talk to Oswald. .....

Mr. BALL. Did you ever know a man named Roger Craig, a deputy sheriff?

Mr. FRITZ. Roger Craig, I might if I knew which one he was. Do we have
it here?

Mr. BALL. He was a witness from whom you took a statement in your
office or some of your men.

Mr. FRITZ. Some of my officers.

Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.

Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.

Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting
he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository
Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a
colored man.

Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.

Mr. BALL. I am stating this. You remember the witness now?

Mr. FRITZ. I remember the witness; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did that man ever come into your office and talk to you in
the presence of Oswald?

Mr. FRITZ. In the presence of Oswald?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure he did not. I believe that man did come
to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I
believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and
I let someone else take an affidavit from him. We should have that
affidavit from him if it would help.

Mr. BALL. Now this man states that, has stated, that he came to your
office and Oswald was in your office, and you asked him to look at
Oswald and tell you whether or not this was the man he saw, and he
says that in your presence he identified Oswald as the man that he had
seen run across this lawn and get into the white Rambler sedan. Do you
remember that?

Mr. FRITZ. I think it was taken, I think it was one of my officers,
and I think if he saw him he looked through that glass and saw him
from the outside because I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring
him in the office with Oswald.

Mr. BALL. You are sure you didn't?

Mr. FRITZ. I am sure of that. I feel positive of that. I would
remember that I am sure.

Mr. BALL. He also says that in that office----

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up
from his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now
everybody will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?

Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.

Mr. BALL. That didn't occur?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it didn't. That man is not telling a true story if
that is what he said.

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 3:21:35โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to
Comparison of the stenographic transcript with the final printed version
shows that the testimony of Charles Givens was also altered. He said (also
in the FBI report on Givens) that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:45,
but in the printed version, it magically becomes 11:55, thus after the lower
floor sighting at 11:50--and the WC simply ignored the later sightings on
lower floors.

Martin

<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1194155721.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Bud

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 4:52:50โ€ฏAM11/4/07
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Comparison of the stenographic transcript with the final printed version
> shows that the testimony of Charles Givens was also altered. He said (also
> in the FBI report on Givens) that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:45,
> but in the printed version, it magically becomes 11:55,

If Given saw Oz at 11:45 on the sixth floor, then what time did they
break for lunch? Givens said he went to the first floor, went to the
bathroom, and then returned to the 6th for his cigarettes.

> thus after the lower
> floor sighting at 11:50--and the WC simply ignored the later sightings on
> lower floors.

They didn`t ignore them, they just understood, in a way that kooks
are incapabale of, that the witneses provided estimates. Thus they
could arive a simple solutions that have confounded kooks for decades.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 12:08:41โ€ฏPM11/4/07
to
On 4 Nov., 09:21, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Comparison of the stenographic transcript with the final printed version
> shows that the testimony of Charles Givens was also altered. He said (also
> in the FBI report on Givens) that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:45,
> but in the printed version, it magically becomes 11:55, thus after the lower
> floor sighting at 11:50--and the WC simply ignored the later sightings on
> lower floors.
>
> Martin

The way I read the printed version, Givens told Belin [6H349-51] about
heading downstairs "about a quarter till 12" with co-workers, passing
Oswald on the fifth floor, then returning alone to sixth floor,
picking up jacket, seeing Oswald with clipboard, exchanging a few
words, then returning to first floor (again) "about 5 minutes to 12".

Am I missing something, or are you saying that "5 minutes to 12"
appears as "11:45" in the stenographer's notes?

-Mark

> <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 2:24:25โ€ฏPM11/4/07
to
In article <1194155721.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
robc...@netscape.com says...

>
>DVP doesn't want to accept that the WC would change, omit, or delete
>testimony, but here is an example from Roger Craig as he was
>interviewed by David Belin.


DVP, like all LNT'ers & trolls - can't deal with the truth.

That's one reason my 45 questions have never even been seriously attempted by
anyone.

Good post... interesting material!

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 6:05:21โ€ฏPM11/4/07
to
>>> "That's one reason my 45 questions have never even been seriously attempted by anyone." <<<

As if "The Ben 45" requires the "serious" attention of any LNer.
They're all things that have been dumped in the gutter (i.e., refuted
time and again), and for decades on end.

But, to a kook, they're ALL NEW and unrefuted again just because Ben
says so. Lovely.

And don't ya love it when a kook comes up with his own set of special
rules? ... i.e., (with credit going to Bud here, once again, for some
of these observations)? ----

"YOU LNers ARE FORCED TO ANSWER THESE FORTY-FIVE QUESTIONS TO MY
CTer SATISFACTION (WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BEGIN WITH, SINCE I'M A C.T.
MEGA-KOOK), OR ELSE I'LL STOMP MY FEET AND WHINE AND, BEST OF ALL,
I'LL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN STUPID PIECEMEAL SHIT THAT CAN NEVER BE
FORMULATED INTO ANY KIND OF A COHESIVE, REASONABLE-SOUNDING CONSPIRACY
PLOT TO MURDER PRESIDENT KENNEDY."

Don't ya love the kook mindset? I do. Mainly because it's so
incredibly hilarious.

BTW.....

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 8:56:41โ€ฏPM11/4/07
to
On Nov 4, 1:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
> Craig.
>
I thought so as he was the cop of the year in 1960 and one of the best
on the staff. I'm sure Roger would appreciate you saying that if he
wasn't killed, er, had killed himself.

> Craig, a provable LIAR without a shred of a doubt (with respect to the
> "7.65 Mauser" bullshit), is not exactly the type of witness anyone
> should be relying on -- unless you're a conspiracy-loving crackpot who
> can't resist ANY type of "CT" talk, no matter who the source is.

Who proved him to be a liar? You mean those big liars on the WC, and
the even bigger liars posing as attorneys? It was a Mauser and more
than Craig said that, in fact, Craig didn't make the ID they let
Weitzman do it since he had much more experience with rifles of all
types. I guess you don't like that he happened to look at his watch
when the news of JDT's murder came over and it was only 1:06 PM
right? Kinda throws the whole timetable out the window doesn't it?
And you don't like that he saw one of the casings left was crimped and
therefore could not have been fired that day as it wouldn't load into
the gun. Probably don't like his testimony that the police dispatcher
said over the radio that JDT was shot with an automatic weapon,
right? I can see why the WC had to make him seem like an unstable
liar. Decker was their main man in this. Craig was friends with
Ruby's sister and this was not liked as we all know Ruby had a big
mouth and was telling people all kinds of goodies.


>
> Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about Oswald
> jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now".

I don't think so as all the cops that were aroun him over the 48 hours
said he was a cool customer and did not talk much. I like the comment
about the Rambler belonging to the Paine's don't you. So her car is
there at the TBSD and the first phone "tip" about LHO was traced to
the Bell Helicopter office building where Michael Paine worked. Geez,
what a coincidence, huh?


>
> AFAIK, not a single other person, including Captain Fritz, could
> verify that story of Craig's. Fritz even says that Craig never even
> entered Fritz's office at all, let alone talk to Oswald. .....

Of course Fritz wouldn't as he was a captain and probably closing in
on retirement and didn't want to lose this. He knew how the game was
played. My big question is, why did the FBI seize control of the
investigation right away when killing a president was not a Federal
crime in 1963? Until LBJ gave them permission they should have butted
out, but they didn't. They were turning away leads and confiscating
evidence, why?

Ah, more great WC testimony. I started this post by stating that they
distorted, omitted and deleted many witnesses testimony and he gives
me more to prove that point is not true!! And I'm the kook? Oh
that's right, Dave said he was a dirty, rotten lair and I guess I
should just believe that comment at face value.

> Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
> telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
> to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
> was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.

Stuff like it wasn't LHO? What is he talking about? This was an
expierenced deputy. This is a joke. Didn't fit what we knew to be
true, how do you know what is true and not true in the first day or
two?


>
> Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting
> he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository
> Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a
> colored man.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.

My deputy is a filthy, rotten liar and that is why we keep him on the
force. We love lairs. Ball: Us too!! He is too stuping to notice a
white man running across a lawn and getting into a light green
Rambler. How stupid is this comment????


>
> Mr. BALL. I am stating this. You remember the witness now?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I remember the witness; yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did that man ever come into your office and talk to you in
> the presence of Oswald?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. In the presence of Oswald?
>
> Mr. BALL. Yes.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure he did not. I believe that man did come
> to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I
> believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and
> I let someone else take an affidavit from him. We should have that
> affidavit from him if it would help.

Boy, they are really afraid of the hurting the Paines here. Why
didn't anyone invetigate them? Their car is at the scene, they had
the supposed murder weapon at thier house, knew of his "unstableness"
yet they were never suspected of anything.


>
> Mr. BALL. Now this man states that, has stated, that he came to your
> office and Oswald was in your office, and you asked him to look at
> Oswald and tell you whether or not this was the man he saw, and he
> says that in your presence he identified Oswald as the man that he had
> seen run across this lawn and get into the white Rambler sedan. Do you
> remember that?

Here we go with the "white" Rambler again when Craig said it was light
green.

> Mr. FRITZ. I think it was taken, I think it was one of my officers,
> and I think if he saw him he looked through that glass and saw him
> from the outside because I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring
> him in the office with Oswald.

Why so defensive, doesn't he have have his officers in his office?


>
> Mr. BALL. You are sure you didn't?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I am sure of that. I feel positive of that. I would
> remember that I am sure.

Of course you would you stinking liar!!!!!!


>
> Mr. BALL. He also says that in that office----
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

What the hell is he answering to? Ball hasn't even finished his
question yet.


>
> Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up
> from his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now
> everybody will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?

This is a lie as all the officers said how cool LHO was all weekend.
He was working for the FBI and assumed they would get him out of this,
unfortunately for him, they chose to let him take the fall.


>
> Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. That didn't occur?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it didn't. That man is not telling a true story if
> that is what he said.

First he says, 'if it did happen I didn't see it' and then when
pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 10:42:26โ€ฏPM11/4/07
to
In article <1194227801....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
robc...@netscape.com says...


That factoids like this still get tossed around by trolls seems silly... this
has *LONG AGO* been destroyed:

"Captain Fritz, himself one of the most respected police officials in Dallas, at
once disputed Craig's claim that he was in Fritz's office with Oswald. In fact,
Fritz later swore to the Warren Commission that Craig absolutely was not in his
office while Oswald was there, thus making a liar out of Craig.

It was years later that Roger Craig was vindicated of Fritz's chage that he had
lied about being in the office. It came when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry
published his memoirs of the investigation. The book contains a photograph
taken through the door of Captain Fritz's office to show the interrogation of
Oswald. There, in plain view, is Roger Craig." Reasonable Doubt - Henry Hurt,
pg 125... citation to page 72 of "JFK Assassination Files" by Jesse Curry.

But, of course, DVP will ignore this proof that he's simply wrong - he has a
long history of simply lying about the facts... it would be difficult for him to
*NOT* have known this - it's been reported in a number of books for many years
now.

>Of course Fritz wouldn't as he was a captain and probably closing in
>on retirement and didn't want to lose this. He knew how the game was
>played. My big question is, why did the FBI seize control of the
>investigation right away when killing a president was not a Federal
>crime in 1963? Until LBJ gave them permission they should have butted
>out, but they didn't. They were turning away leads and confiscating
>evidence, why?
>
>Ah, more great WC testimony. I started this post by stating that they
>distorted, omitted and deleted many witnesses testimony and he gives
>me more to prove that point is not true!! And I'm the kook? Oh
>that's right, Dave said he was a dirty, rotten lair and I guess I
>should just believe that comment at face value.
>
>> Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
>> telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
>> to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
>> was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.
>
>Stuff like it wasn't LHO? What is he talking about? This was an
>expierenced deputy. This is a joke. Didn't fit what we knew to be
>true, how do you know what is true and not true in the first day or
>two?


I don't recall, off the top of my head, *ANYTHING* that Roger Craig asserted
that has been proven to be a lie. Indeed, a *number* of his assertions have had
other corroborative eyewitnesses.

>> Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting
>> he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository
>> Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a
>> colored man.
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.


There were, of course, *other* eyewitnesses to this same event.


Sadly, there's a *PHOTOGRAPH* that proves him a liar.

You know, the sort of physical evidence that LNT'ers simply love? (Except when
it goes against their precious WCR)


>> Mr. BALL. You are sure you didn't?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. I am sure of that. I feel positive of that. I would
>> remember that I am sure.
>
>Of course you would you stinking liar!!!!!!


He did indeed lie. See the photo on page 72...


>> Mr. BALL. He also says that in that office----
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
>
>What the hell is he answering to? Ball hasn't even finished his
>question yet.


The transcripts have been altered... you'll find many such tidbits scattered
here and there. Things that simply don't make sense as they are currently
written.

>> Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up
>> from his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now
>> everybody will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?
>
>This is a lie as all the officers said how cool LHO was all weekend.
>He was working for the FBI and assumed they would get him out of this,
>unfortunately for him, they chose to let him take the fall.
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.
>>
>> Mr. BALL. That didn't occur?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it didn't. That man is not telling a true story if
>> that is what he said.
>
>First he says, 'if it did happen I didn't see it' and then when
>pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?

I wonder if DVP can admit that Roger Craig WAS provably in that room, and that
Fritz actually *DID* lie on that point?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 4, 2007, 11:18:47โ€ฏPM11/4/07
to
>>> "The book contains a photograph taken through the door of Captain Fritz's office to show the interrogation of Oswald. There, in plain view, is Roger Craig." Reasonable Doubt - Henry Hurt, pg 125." <<<

Got the picture to show us, Ben? I don't recall ever having seen it.
Have you? And I'm certainly not willing to buy Hurt's tripe-filled
book to find out.

In any event, I was careful with my wording when I was talking about
Craig and the incident in Fritz' office. I never stated that Craig was
a PROVEN liar on that particular point, which is why I carefully
phrased my post this way:

"Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about
Oswald jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now"."

-- DVP

"Probably" being the key word above. Maybe Craig was in Fritz' office;
and maybe he wasn't. And even if he was there, how does that prove
Fritz is a "liar"? Answer: It doesn't. Fritz possibly just didn't
remember Craig being there. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

But Ben would rather call Fritz a liar than admit to the possibility
that Fritz was simply mistaken or that in the confusion and bedlam at
the police station the incident might have taken place while Fritz had
stepped out of his office for a minute or two.

But, since Ben is a mega-kook who believes the entire DPD was out to
hang LHO, well....what more needs to be said?

It's funny, though, that Roger Craig never received that city-wide
"We're Framing Oswald" bulletin, huh? Curious indeed. I guess some of
the deputies in Decker's Sheriff's department weren't included in the
vast conspiracy and cover-up, huh?

Plus, the Oswald-in-Fritz'-office story isn't NEARLY as important or
critical as is the main (provable) lie that was told by Craig, with
that PROVABLE lie being when he said he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on
the barrel of a rifle found on the 6th Floor on 11/22. That is a
PROVABLE lie without a doubt.

The story surrounding Fritz' office and Oswald getting mad etc. is
open to question, but I lean toward that incident never taking place
either (esp. since I know I'm dealing with a PROVEN liar like Roger D.
Craig in the "Mauser" regard).

It's certainly much easier to believe that Craig would lie about
something ELSE re. the case since we know beyond a speck of a doubt
that he lied (and boldly lied) about the "7.65 Mauser" bullshit.

Now, doesn't that make some sense -- even to a kook like you, Ben?

Anyway, it makes sense to me.

curtjester1

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 11:25:40โ€ฏAM11/6/07
to
I suppose Craig lied about the Rambler too? But that can't be so,
because that's why he got interviewed in the first place. And imagine
a guy charged with all this high crime stuff, not being cagey and
saying, "What Rambler?!, or "I didn't see any Rambler!", but after his
taxi ride and bus ride, saying, "Now, don't get Mrs. Paine involved
with this". Wow, talk about incriminating himself. Wait a minute,
"Now they will know who I am" is pretty incriminating too, almost like
saying, "He was a Patsy".

Ever want to read a great article about 'The Rambler', google Byrds,
Planes, and an Automobile, by Richard Bartholomew. Lot's of intricate
reading, free online.

CJ

> pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


curtjester1

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 11:50:57โ€ฏAM11/6/07
to
Here's a transcript of Craig at the Garrison Trial. What I thought
interesting is that when he was relating about Oswald (in Fritz's
office) about him coming down from the hill and into the Rambler, he
stated Oswald's response was, "I told you I did".

http://www.jfk-online.com/craigshaw.html

If that were true, then it would be that Oswald probably went straight
to the Texas Theater around 1 P.M. as was related by Jack Davis and
Butch Burroughs, and semi-corroborated by Julia Postal.

That would put into possible light that 'impostor Oswald' went the
taxi and bus way back to the roominghouse. It might explain the
Tippit meeting him there, the walking of the streets in a crazy manner
(peeing and stuff in public by the witness in Live By The Sword),
Tippit knowing to look for him in neighborhood streets, and the
killing of Tippit, and all the laying of incriminating evidence to the
Texas Theater where 'Rambler Oswald' was.

CJ

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 1:29:51โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to
On 4 Nov., 18:08, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 4 Nov., 09:21, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Comparison of the stenographic transcript with the final printed version
> > shows that the testimony of Charles Givens was also altered. He said (also
> > in the FBI report on Givens) that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:45,
> > but in the printed version, it magically becomes 11:55, thus after the lower
> > floor sighting at 11:50--and the WC simply ignored the later sightings on
> > lower floors.
>
> > Martin
>
> The way I read the printed version, Givens told Belin [6H349-51] about
> heading downstairs "about a quarter till 12" with co-workers, passing
> Oswald on the fifth floor, then returning alone to sixth floor,
> picking up jacket, seeing Oswald with clipboard, exchanging a few
> words, then returning to first floor (again) "about 5 minutes to 12".
>
> Am I missing something, or are you saying that "5 minutes to 12"
> appears as "11:45" in the stenographer's notes?

I was just wondering. No big deal.

Bud

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 3:18:36โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to

David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "The book contains a photograph taken through the door of Captain Fritz's office to show the interrogation of Oswald. There, in plain view, is Roger Craig." Reasonable Doubt - Henry Hurt, pg 125." <<<
>
>
>
> Got the picture to show us, Ben? I don't recall ever having seen it.
> Have you? And I'm certainly not willing to buy Hurt's tripe-filled
> book to find out.
>
> In any event, I was careful with my wording when I was talking about
> Craig and the incident in Fritz' office. I never stated that Craig was
> a PROVEN liar on that particular point, which is why I carefully
> phrased my post this way:
>
> "Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about
> Oswald jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now"."
> -- DVP
>
> "Probably" being the key word above. Maybe Craig was in Fritz' office;
> and maybe he wasn't. And even if he was there, how does that prove
> Fritz is a "liar"? Answer: It doesn't. Fritz possibly just didn't
> remember Craig being there. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

Unless the photo shows Oz, Fritz and Craig, it doesn`t resolve the
issue.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 5:15:38โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 5:51:05โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to
On Nov 4, 1:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
> Craig.
>
> Craig, a provable LIAR without a shred of a doubt (with respect to the
> "7.65 Mauser" bullshit), is not exactly the type of witness anyone
> should be relying on -- unless you're a conspiracy-loving crackpot who
> can't resist ANY type of "CT" talk, no matter who the source is.

Yeah the Mauser stuff is total bullshit, that's why the CIA was still
calling the gun a Mauser on 11/25/63. Excerpts from "THE GUN THAT
DIDN'T SMOKE", by Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew. Read and
weep:

And the cry becomes deafening when we add the fact that three days
after the assassination, a CIA report identified the gun as a Mauser.
Dated November 25, 1963, it reads:

The rifle he [Oswald] used was a Mauser which OSWALD had ordered (this
is now known by handwriting examination) from Klein's Mail Order
House, Chicago, Illinois. He had the rifle sent to a Post Office Box
which Lee OSWALD had rented. In the order for the rifle, Oswald used
the name Alex HIDELL.
OSWALD also had in his possession at the time of his arrest (after he
also killed a Texas policeman) a U.S. Selective Service Card in the
name of Alex HIDELL.(CIA Document No. 1367, declassified spring 1976;
cited in Fensterwald 443-44. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York:
Henry Holt, 1985) pp. 102-03. Evica 23.)

This seemingly authoritative report was apparently written by an
analyst who had not seen the Klein's mail order form he is writing
about, since it is an order form for a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a
Mauser. The CIA declined to comment on the report. And a CIA-
translated, Italian military report, dated six days after the
assassination reads, "The weapon which appears to have been employed
in this criminal attack is a Model 91 rifle, 7.35 caliber, 1938
modification...The description of a [6.5 caliber] `Mannlicher-Carcano'
rifle in the Italian and foreign press is in error."( Jim Marrs,
Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (New York Carroll & Graf,
1989) p. 440; hereafter cited as Marrs 440. Evica 53-55.) And then
after weeks to think it over, Wade asked the Commission if a Mauser
was German. This is an official who had prosecuted scores of gun shot
cases.( Evica 23; citing 24H (CE 2169) 829.) The cry for answers is
still deafening. The silence is still equally deafening.

Let's see what D.A. Wade said about the rifle in question:

During his testimony, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade mentioned
something about a "situation" and of course no one was interested in
what "situation." He implied the situation was the cause of unnatural
statements and events at his post-midnight press conference.

Mr. Rankin. What did you say about it?

Mr. Wade. I think I said I thought it was a Mauser or I thought -- was
one of those things I didn't know what it was. It was an Italian gun,
I think and I really thought I was giving them Italian but Mauser is a
German gun, isn't it? But I think you have that -- it was a situation,
I don't contend I was right on that because it was a situation
somebody asked me that and that is what I thought I was telling them
and I never -- all my information came from the police and actually
somebody said originally it was a Mauser but it turned out it was not.
(5H 250.)

All Wade had to say was, "I called it a Mauser. I was wrong." Instead,
he seems to refer to "a situation" in the sense that it was a
critical, trying, or unusual state of affairs -- a problem. He even
passes the buck to the police. What was the problem? This "situation"
was most likely the failure to understand the load-fire-reload cycle
when the evidential line was being set up. There is nothing inherently
sinister about an evidential line, a starting point has to be
established to keep things under control. Why is he so defensive? Even
if he was wrong, it should not have been a problem.

How about the media, what did they say about the gun? Let's see.

Also, the HSCA's explanation does not explain what happened after the
rifle was found. Over at least the next twenty-four hours, the Dallas
Police Department reported, and left uncorrected, descriptions that
remain a paradox to this day. Early news reports seemed to identify
the murder weapon as anything but a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. NBC
and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303. KLIF radio
said it was a 7.65 German Mauser. KRLD radio announced that the rifle
was "presumed to be a .25 caliber high powered Army or Japanese
rifle." Radio station KBOX reported a German Mauser or a Japanese
rifle. Dallas television station WFAA described it as three different
kinds of Mauser: a "German Mauser," a 6.5 "Argentine Mauser" with a
four-power scope, and a 7.65 "Mauser." Dallas NBC-affiliate television
station WBAP's continuous coverage between 12:56 p.m. and 5:26 p.m.
Central Standard Time (C.S.T.) reveals that the "conflicting reports"
of the rifle's make evolved from the first (British .303) to the last
(7.65 Mauser) in a very short time frame between 2:14 and 2:24.(26 H
(CE 3048) 599. Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact (New York:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1967, Vintage Books, 1976, 1992) p. 95; hereafter cited
as Meagher, Accessories 95. Sylvia Meagher, "Treasure-Hunting in the
National Archives," The Third Decade January 1986, p. 2; cited in
Sheldon Inkol, "Other Patsies," The Third Decade May 1990, p. 8.
Richard B. Trask, Pictures of the Pain (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press,
1994) p. 532; hereafter cited as Trask 532. "JFK Assassination: As It
Happened" (Arts & Entertainment Cable Network, Nov. 22, 1988, 6 hrs.)
at 1 hr..-14 min. and 1 hr.-24 min.; hereafter cited as As It Happened
1:14, 1:24.)

And what about those stupid DPD cops, and in the case of Craig, a
dirty, rotten liar. Let's see.

Despite the fact that the alleged murder weapon that allegedly
belonged to Oswald reportedly was clearly stamped "Made Italy" and
"Cal. 6.5," local authorities and the media seemed to finally agree
that it was a 7.65 German-made Mauser. Had as few as two different
descriptions continued to dominate news reports the rest of the day,
one of them being an Italian, or a clip-fed weapon, an argument could
be made for confusion. But that is not what happened. The supposed
murder weapon was not "called...most everything," as Captain Will
Fritz testified.18 Initial descriptions quickly gave way to a short-
lived consensus for a 7.65 German Mauser, not further confusion.
Probably due to the earlier conflicting reports, reporters remained
skeptical. But they asked if it was a Mauser, and were told, tacitly
at least, that it was. As different as these early descriptions seemed
from each other and from the weapon the Warren Commission finally
chose, there is one difference they all have in common. It is the one
difference from the Mannlicher-Carcano they all share. It is the key
to the conspiracy. None of them can use an ammunition clip.

You showed that dirty liar Craig, didn't you?

YoHarvey

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 7:00:42โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to

Is Jesus/Robcap claiming Kennedy was shot by a Mauser?????????

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 11:08:39โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to
In article <1194387338.8...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
muc...@gmail.com says...

>
>On 5 Nov., 05:18, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The book contains a photograph taken through the door of Captain Fritz's
>>office to show the interrogation of Oswald. There, in plain view, is Roger
>>Craig." Reasonable Doubt - Henry Hurt, pg 125." <<<
>>
>> Got the picture to show us, Ben? I don't recall ever having seen it.
>> Have you? And I'm certainly not willing to buy Hurt's tripe-filled
>> book to find out.


Although it's been snipped, I also provided the citation for where the picture
was located, in Jesse Curry's book on page 72.

So purchasing Hurt's book was *never* necessary... unless you simply wish to
make excuses.


>> In any event, I was careful with my wording when I was talking about
>> Craig and the incident in Fritz' office. I never stated that Craig was
>> a PROVEN liar on that particular point, which is why I carefully
>> phrased my post this way:
>>
>> "Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about
>> Oswald jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now"."
>> -- DVP
>>
>> "Probably" being the key word above. Maybe Craig was in Fritz' office;
>> and maybe he wasn't. And even if he was there, how does that prove
>> Fritz is a "liar"? Answer: It doesn't. Fritz possibly just didn't
>> remember Craig being there. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.


Sadly, this isn't what was said when I responded. Here's the original assertion
that someone snipped:

"AFAIK, not a single other person, including Captain Fritz, could verify that
story of Craig's. Fritz even says that Craig never even entered Fritz's office
at all, let alone talk to Oswald."

While remaining accurate to the truth - indeed, Fritz *DID* assert this - the
statement as a whole is a lie. And DVP knows it.

This bit of pretense about not knowing that this was long ago destroyed is
silly.

>> But Ben would rather call Fritz a liar than admit to the possibility
>> that Fritz was simply mistaken or that in the confusion and bedlam at
>> the police station the incident might have taken place while Fritz had
>> stepped out of his office for a minute or two.


Living in glass houses makes you look stupid.

Tell us about calling Craig a liar with no evidence....

Indeed, much of what he asserts has multiple corroborative eyewitnesses that for
the most part were never called to testify.


>> But, since Ben is a mega-kook who believes the entire DPD was out to
>> hang LHO, well....what more needs to be said?


Running from the facts isn't going to get you anywhere...

Nor is ad hominem in place of citation based refutation.


>> It's funny, though, that Roger Craig never received that city-wide
>> "We're Framing Oswald" bulletin, huh? Curious indeed. I guess some of
>> the deputies in Decker's Sheriff's department weren't included in the
>> vast conspiracy and cover-up, huh?


Only the trolls would even begin to presume that "everyone" was "in on it."


>> Plus, the Oswald-in-Fritz'-office story isn't NEARLY as important or
>> critical as is the main (provable) lie that was told by Craig, with
>> that PROVABLE lie being when he said he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on
>> the barrel of a rifle found on the 6th Floor on 11/22. That is a
>> PROVABLE lie without a doubt.

No, it's no more "provable" than the lie you told about Craig not being in
Fritz's office... sadly, there's *PHYSICAL* evidence that demonstrates that
you're a liar.


>> The story surrounding Fritz' office and Oswald getting mad etc. is
>> open to question, but I lean toward that incident never taking place
>> either (esp. since I know I'm dealing with a PROVEN liar like Roger D.
>> Craig in the "Mauser" regard).


Denial is a major tactic in the LNT'er arsenal... but you aren't convincing any
lurkers who are trying to decide one way or the other.


>> It's certainly much easier to believe that Craig would lie about
>> something ELSE re. the case since we know beyond a speck of a doubt
>> that he lied (and boldly lied) about the "7.65 Mauser" bullshit.


Sadly, he's been called a liar on too many other items that have turned out to
be 100% truth.

There comes a time when people will wonder just what sort of vendetta you have
against eyewitnesses that saw things that are supportive of a conspiracy.


>> Now, doesn't that make some sense -- even to a kook like you, Ben?


I have a picture to show you - and you *STILL* deny the facts. Who's the kook?

Speak up, Mark... are *YOU* going to let DVP lie about whether Craig has been
*PROVEN* beyond all doubt as present in Fritz's office?

Put it on the line, Mark... let's see your character...

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 11:22:50โ€ฏPM11/6/07
to
This is only the OUTER office of Homicide & Robbery, isn't it? This
doesn't constitute Fritz' private INNER office, does it? .....

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5769.jpg

Fritz admitted to seeing Craig and talking to him in the outer office/
hallway. So that photo proves absolutely nothing if the "office" we're
looking at is not Fritz' private office, which I'm pretty sure it
isn't.


WILL FRITZ -- "I believe that man {Roger Craig} did come to my office


in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I believe I
stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and I let

someone else take an affidavit from him. .... I am sure of one thing

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 3:26:07โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
Most of us have seen the photo. It was published at least by the 1970s, and
has been reprinted many times. No one doubts that it is Craig in the photo.
It shows him in the Homicide office. Oswald, at the time, was in a smaller
inner office being interviewed. The photo doesn't establish that Craig was
present during Oswald's interrogation, but it does establish that he could
have been, and was in the immediate vicinity.
His colleagues in the Sheriff's Department described him to Larry Sneed as
an honest investigator, and indicated that at least some parts of his
manuscript definitely ring true.
Obviously he was wrong about the Mauser, however.

Martin

<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194387338.8...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 3:56:26โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
On 7 Nov., 05:08, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1194387338.875671.303...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...

I think the main points are these:

1) Craig's story has never been varified.

2) The photograph doesn't prove Fritz a liar.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 4:01:38โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
On 4 Nov., 09:21, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Comparison of the stenographic transcript with the final printed version
> shows that the testimony of Charles Givens was also altered. He said (also
> in the FBI report on Givens) that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:45,
> but in the printed version, it magically becomes 11:55, thus after the lower
> floor sighting at 11:50--and the WC simply ignored the later sightings on
> lower floors.

Martin? Here's the question again, in case you missed it the first
time:

The way I read the printed version, Givens told Belin [6H349-51] about
heading downstairs "about a quarter till 12" with co-workers, passing
Oswald on the fifth floor, then returning alone to sixth floor,
picking up jacket, seeing Oswald with clipboard, exchanging a few
words, then returning to first floor (again) "about 5 minutes to 12".

Am I missing something, or are you saying that "5 minutes to 12"
appears as "11:45" in the stenographer's notes?

> Martin
>
> <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 4:46:35โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
>>> "The photo doesn't establish that Craig was present during Oswald's interrogation, but it does establish that he could have been, and was in the immediate vicinity." <<<


Which was already established by Fritz in '64 within Fritz' WC
testimony.....

"I believe that man {Craig} did come to my office in that little


hallway, you know outside my office, and I believe I stepped outside
the door and talked to him for a minute and I let someone else take an

affidavit from him. .... I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring
him in the office with Oswald." -- J.W. FRITZ

Bud

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 5:22:22โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Most of us have seen the photo. It was published at least by the 1970s, and
> has been reprinted many times. No one doubts that it is Craig in the photo.

Does anyone know if Fritz is seen in the photo?

> It shows him in the Homicide office. Oswald, at the time, was in a smaller
> inner office being interviewed. The photo doesn't establish that Craig was
> present during Oswald's interrogation, but it does establish that he could
> have been, and was in the immediate vicinity.

It doesn`t do any of the the things Ben claimed it does. It doesn`t
show what DVP said to be in wrong. It doesn`t support Craig`s claim of
being in the room during interrogations. It doesn`t show Fritz to be a
liar. Basically, this issue only shows Ben`s willingness to lie about
the evidence.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 7:22:31โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to

Sic; verified :-)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 9:39:57โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
In article <AEeYi.3127$3Z2...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, Martin Shackelford says...

>
>Most of us have seen the photo. It was published at least by the 1970s, and
>has been reprinted many times. No one doubts that it is Craig in the photo.

DVP still does.


>It shows him in the Homicide office. Oswald, at the time, was in a smaller
>inner office being interviewed. The photo doesn't establish that Craig was
>present during Oswald's interrogation, but it does establish that he could
>have been, and was in the immediate vicinity.
>His colleagues in the Sheriff's Department described him to Larry Sneed as
>an honest investigator, and indicated that at least some parts of his
>manuscript definitely ring true.
>Obviously he was wrong about the Mauser, however.

Sounds *EXACTLY* like what Tony would say.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 10:02:22โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
In article <1194425786.5...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
muc...@gmail.com says...

Many parts of his story *HAVE* been corroborated by others. And with *physical*
evidence, his assertion of being in Fritz's office has been proven beyond your
ability to defend Fritz.

>2) The photograph doesn't prove Fritz a liar.

So you're willing to take an eyewitness over a photograph? How interesting!!


I asked you to put it on the line - and you have indeed.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 10:39:15โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
On 7 Nov., 16:02, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1194425786.581855.131...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...

Were you asking for my opinion on everything he ever said?

His story about confronting Oswald in Fritz' office hasn't been
corroborated. It has been CONTRADICTED. Not the same thing.

> >2) The photograph doesn't prove Fritz a liar.
>
> So you're willing to take an eyewitness over a photograph? How interesting!!

So you think the photograph places Craig in the office where Oswald
was interrogated? How interesting!!!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 11:07:13โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
In article <1194449955.9...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
muc...@gmail.com says...

Craig's story that he was in Fritz's office was "contradicted" by Fritz. Fritz
has been proven wrong by physical evidence - and since LNT'ers always declare
the supremacy of physical evidence, it's amusing to see you run away from the
FACT that Craig has been proven truthful in this instance.


>> >2) The photograph doesn't prove Fritz a liar.
>>
>> So you're willing to take an eyewitness over a photograph? How
>> interesting!!
>
>So you think the photograph places Craig in the office where Oswald
>was interrogated? How interesting!!!


What office did Craig assert he was in?

What office did Fritz assert Craig was not?

What office does the photograph show Craig in?

(hint: the answer to all three questions is the same)

Lone

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 11:19:37โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
On 4 Nov., 07:22, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
> Craig.
>
> Craig, a provable LIAR without a shred of a doubt (with respect to the
> "7.65 Mauser" bullshit), is not exactly the type of witness anyone
> should be relying on -- unless you're a conspiracy-loving crackpot who
> can't resist ANY type of "CT" talk, no matter who the source is.
>
> Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about Oswald
> jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now".
>
> AFAIK, not a single other person, including Captain Fritz, could
> verify that story of Craig's. Fritz even says that Craig never even
> entered Fritz's office at all, let alone talk to Oswald. .....
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you ever know a man named Roger Craig, a deputy sheriff?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Roger Craig, I might if I knew which one he was. Do we have
> it here?
>
> Mr. BALL. He was a witness from whom you took a statement in your
> office or some of your men.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Some of my officers.

>
> Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
> telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
> to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
> was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.
>
> Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting
> he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository
> Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a
> colored man.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.
>
> Mr. BALL. I am stating this. You remember the witness now?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I remember the witness; yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did that man ever come into your office and talk to you in
> the presence of Oswald?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. In the presence of Oswald?
>
> Mr. BALL. Yes.
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure he did not. I believe that man did come

> to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I
> believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and
> I let someone else take an affidavit from him. We should have that
> affidavit from him if it would help.
>
> Mr. BALL. Now this man states that, has stated, that he came to your
> office and Oswald was in your office, and you asked him to look at
> Oswald and tell you whether or not this was the man he saw, and he
> says that in your presence he identified Oswald as the man that he had
> seen run across this lawn and get into the white Rambler sedan. Do you
> remember that?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I think it was taken, I think it was one of my officers,
> and I think if he saw him he looked through that glass and saw him
> from the outside because I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring

> him in the office with Oswald.
>
> Mr. BALL. You are sure you didn't?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. I am sure of that. I feel positive of that. I would
> remember that I am sure.
>
> Mr. BALL. He also says that in that office----
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up
> from his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now
> everybody will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL. That didn't occur?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it didn't. That man is not telling a true story if
> that is what he said.

DaBug, McAdamass, Will the wily Fritz: you got a foible for liars,
aren't you, van PEINLICH!
Kepp on lying with the bunch of liars you admire, van PEINLICH! That'
s your disgusting job, isn' t it?
Shame on you, old fart!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 11:56:51โ€ฏAM11/7/07
to
In article <1194452377.9...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Lone says...

>
>On 4 Nov., 07:22, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
>> Craig.
>>
>> Craig, a provable LIAR

And yet, DVP can't seem to cite anything that would *prove* Craig lied. On
*any* point.

Embarrassingly, Craig had other corroborative eyewitnesses to some of the things
that DVP will label as lies.

>> without a shred of a doubt (with respect to the
>> "7.65 Mauser" bullshit), is not exactly the type of witness anyone
>> should be relying on -- unless you're a conspiracy-loving crackpot who
>> can't resist ANY type of "CT" talk, no matter who the source is.

The DPD was also asserting that it was a Mauser... I guess we can label the DPD
liars as well...


>> Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about Oswald
>> jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now".
>>
>> AFAIK, not a single other person, including Captain Fritz, could
>> verify that story of Craig's. Fritz even says that Craig never even
>> entered Fritz's office at all, let alone talk to Oswald. .....


Of course, photos have long been available - over 30 years they've been
available... that prove this to be untrue.

And DVP knows it.


>> Mr. BALL. Did you ever know a man named Roger Craig, a deputy sheriff?
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. Roger Craig, I might if I knew which one he was. Do we have
>> it here?
>>
>> Mr. BALL. He was a witness from whom you took a statement in your
>> office or some of your men.
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. Some of my officers.
>>
>> Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.
>>
>> Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
>> telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
>> to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
>> was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.

Despite being supported by both the DPD and other eyewitnesses...

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 1:15:51โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to
On 7 Nov., 17:07, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1194449955.978903.291...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

Hint: no.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 1:53:04โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to
In article <1194459351.7...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
muc...@gmail.com says...


The efforts that LNT'ers go to avoid answering any questions about the evidence
is amusing...

Jean Davison

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 2:07:56โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194409370.5...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

> This is only the OUTER office of Homicide & Robbery, isn't it? This
> doesn't constitute Fritz' private INNER office, does it? .....
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5769.jpg

Right you are, David. It's the office of Homicide/Robbery,
just as it says on the glass window in the photo above. If I remember
correctly, there's a wider view of this scene that shows a female
employee sitting at a desk on the left. This was not the room where
Oswald was questioned.

The floor plan below shows this office as well as Fritz's adjoining
office (righthand side of the page, below "Corridor"):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0433b.htm

In the photo, Fritz's office is behind Craig, with its blinds
closed.

>
> Fritz admitted to seeing Craig and talking to him in the outer office/
> hallway. So that photo proves absolutely nothing if the "office" we're
> looking at is not Fritz' private office, which I'm pretty sure it
> isn't.
>
>
> WILL FRITZ -- "I believe that man {Roger Craig} did come to my office
> in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I believe I
> stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and I let
> someone else take an affidavit from him. .... I am sure of one thing
> that I didn't bring him in the office with Oswald."

According to Gary Mack, the photo wasn't even taken on Friday,
the day Craig claimed to be in Fritz's office. This was posted on the Simkin
forum last year:

QUOTE:
>>>>
The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer Jack
Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still survives, I
have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture.

So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by that
picture.

Gary Mack
<<<<<
UNQUOTE

It wouldn't confirm Craig's story if it had been taken on
Friday, anyway, since it shows him outside Fritz's office, which
is where Fritz said he was.
Jean


>

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 2:20:45โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to
On Nov 7, 11:56 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1194452377.917616.216...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Lone says...

>
>
>
> >On 4 Nov., 07:22, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
> >> Craig.
>
> >> Craig, a provable LIAR
>
> And yet, DVP can't seem to cite anything that would *prove* Craig lied. On
> *any* point.
>
> Embarrassingly, Craig had other corroborative eyewitnesses to some of the things
> that DVP will label as lies.

Everybody should read this article in full if they haven't as they
outline how Craig was setup to look like he was incorrect on small
stuff so no one would believe his more incriminating accusations. One
of the authors uses a system of judging light in the photos to
determine the time they were taken. It has always been asserted that
the rifle was found right after the shells were located and based on
the sunlight in the photo of the three shells it was 1:03PM. This
means 1:06 PM is highly appropriate for discovery of the gun stated by
Craig. The conspirators mistakenly believed the MC needed a clip, and
had to find one, and thus they changed the timelines so it would be
later, and they could eat up the time spent/wasted on finding a clip.

http://assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 8:44:52โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to
>>> "Of course, photos have long been available - over 30 years they've been available... that prove this to be untrue." <<<

I wonder why Holmes thinks that photo shows Craig in Fritz' INNER
OFFICE WITH OSWALD.

A curious notion.

And now Ben's saying "photos" (plural); so, I guess he's got at least
one other picture to prove his claim. Right Ben?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 8:49:57โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to

Thanks very much for the extra info, Jean.

The kooks will no doubt twist it like a pretzel (as usual). But Jean's
info is very revealing indeed.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 11:16:39โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to
Thanks for moving this over here John!

On Nov 5, 12:23 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:


> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:56:41 -0800, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 1:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
> >> Craig.
>

> >I thought so as he was the cop of the year in 1960 and one of the best
> >on the staff. I'm sure Roger would appreciate you saying that if he
> >wasn't killed, er, had killed himself.
>
> He did kill himself.

Perhaps, but there is at least one documented case where he was shot
at as well. He didn't own a rifle so this is odd by itself.

> >Who proved him to be a liar? You mean those big liars on the WC, and
> >the even bigger liars posing as attorneys? It was a Mauser and more
> >than Craig said that, in fact, Craig didn't make the ID they let
> >Weitzman do it since he had much more experience with rifles of all
> >types.
>
> Weitzman simply glanced at it.

This is the cover version but he did more than glance at it. Why was
the CIA refering to it as a Mauser three days after the shooting?

And the cry becomes deafening when we add the fact that three days
after the assassination, a CIA report identified the gun as a Mauser.
Dated November 25, 1963, it reads:

The rifle he [Oswald] used was a Mauser which OSWALD had ordered (this
is now known by handwriting examination) from Klein's Mail Order
House, Chicago, Illinois. He had the rifle sent to a Post Office Box
which Lee OSWALD had rented. In the order for the rifle, Oswald used
the name Alex HIDELL.
OSWALD also had in his possession at the time of his arrest (after he
also killed a Texas policeman) a U.S. Selective Service Card in the
name of Alex HIDELL.(CIA Document No. 1367, declassified spring 1976;
cited in Fensterwald 443-44. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York:
Henry Holt, 1985) pp. 102-03. Evica 23.)

In a letter to coauthor Richard Bartholomew, Mr. Tatro updated his
Craig research. He said, "...After I wrote `Roger Craig and 1984', his
best friend and I corresponded for years. She was amazing! From her I
learned what was true and false, who forced Roger to embellish his
original story, who were disinformation agents among us....I'm afraid
his Mauser identification is a lie....It's a complex and tragic story
and someday I'll tell it, but several dangerous individuals are still
alive and I'd rather not tangle with them."( Letter from Edgar F.
Tatro to Richard Bartholomew, October 25, 1993.) While Tatro does not
say it specifically, there is reason to believe Craig was forced to
lie about the Mauser.

The way Craig wrote about Weitzman and the tool mark
(authoritatively), and the way he spoke about it on film (slowly and
deliberately) indicates that Craig's revelation -- that the stamp said
"7.65 Mauser" -- could have had a sinister purpose. The tool stamp did
not read "7.65 Mauser." This falsehood, therefore, smacks of setting
up a straw man that can be knocked down. On these guns, the mark, if
present at all, shows the caliber without the name.( Letter from J.W.
Hughes to Walter Graf, August 22, 1994)

Gun experts say only the Argentine and Chilean models have "Mauser"
stamped on them.

Craig added "Mauser" for a reason. It could be that Craig purposely
misspoke about the stamp as a subtle message to gun experts that he
was lying. It may be a variation of the old trick whereby a person in
danger cryptically lets someone know something is wrong.

Craig died May 15, 1975 of a rifle wound to the chest. It was ruled a
suicide despite the fact that Craig did not own a rifle. A couple of
weeks earlier, in an interview with author Michael Canfield, Seymour
Weitzman had identified a man from a photograph as the one he saw
impersonating a Secret Service agent in the parking lot north of
Dealey Plaza just after the assassination.( Michael Canfield and Alan
J. Weberman, Coup d'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of
John F. Kennedy (New York: The Third Press, 1975) pp. 56-57; hereafter
cited as Canfield and Weberman 56-57) On page eight of his 1971
manuscript, Craig told of a similar encounter between himself and a
Secret Service impersonator. With Craig's death, these two
eyewitnesses to the same and similar events that Friday afternoon
never got a chance to compare their stories for the benefit of
researchers.

Craig's carefully chosen words, the oddity of that particular caliber
number, and his experience with guns support the idea that it was not
a slip of the tongue. And if it was not a slip of the tongue, what
else could it be but a lie obvious enough to be easily discredited or
draw suspicion to his motive for saying it?

Given that, what then do we make of the Mauser identifications made by
several others? Deputy Sheriff Boone said it appeared to be a 7.65
Mauser in two different assassination-day reports (Decker Exhibit
5323, pp. 507-09. Meagher, Accessories 96-98) because, according to
his testimony, Fritz identified it to him as such just after its
discovery. He said they discussed this while Day prepared to
photograph it.(3H 295 ) Twelve hours into the investigation, District
Attorney Henry Wade told a reporter it was a Mauser because, Wade
swore, the police identified it to him as such. Weitzman's sworn
affidavit -- given the next day -- corroborates both Boone and Wade's
police sources.

The Warren Report said Weitzman was the source of the error. They
based that conclusion on absolutely nothing. Weitzman never testified
before the Commission itself. Mark Lane first brought Weitzman's
November 23, 1963 affidavit to the Commission's attention on March 4,
1964.(Meagher, Accessories 96; citing 2H 46) Nowhere in that affidavit
does Weitzman say that he was Boone's source.( 24H (CE 2003, p. 63))
Perhaps that is why it is unmentioned in the Report.(Weisberg,
Whitewash 190) The Commission called Boone twenty days later. Boone
never said Weitzman was his source. After hearing Boone, all they knew
was that it started with Fritz, was officially reported twice by
Boone, then by the press, then by Weitzman the next day. Weitzman then
gave a deposition to Staff Counsel Joseph Ball on April 1, 1964,
during which he seemed to perjure himself by saying no one but him
said it was a Mauser.


Mr. Ball. In the statement 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.(7H 108)

For the full story go to: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html


> The best evidence is the film of the rifle being recovered.

Wrong, this is the not how the gun was found originally, i.e. with no
clip.

> >I guess you don't like that he happened to look at his watch
> >when the news of JDT's murder came over and it was only 1:06 PM
> >right?
>
> I'm afraid his story about that changed:

I'm afraid it was the WC who changed his story to their benefit.
Let's resume the above story:

With regard to another claim made by Craig, a 1:06 p.m. time for the
rifle discovery, we draw the reader's attention to the diagram (fig.
3) showing the results of a photogrammetric study by Richard
Bartholomew of photos of the outside of the "sniper's window" taken
from the front of the TSBD just after the assassination. Reasonably,
if there was no clip found with the rifle, it would take time to reach
the decision to replace it, and to obtain the fake clip. The ensuing
coverup would best be served by making that extra time disappear from
the chronology. One way to do that is by falsely claiming the sixth-
floor investigation started at a later moment. By all accounts, the
rifle was found shortly after the discovery of the three shell casings
on the sixth-floor. We can substantially argue that both the shells
and the rifle were found earlier than the times "established" by the
Warren Commission.

The authors then show via three photos how you can determine the time
of the picture to setup a timeframe for the discoveries. I would
recommend this article in full to all people as it really covers a lot
about the MC and the discovery of the key evidence. Let's resume:

Seeing Sheriff Decker and others down on the street, Hill opened the
sash of the east side of the arch shaped window pair and requested
them to send up the crime lab people. Murray snapped his photo of Hill
talking to them. The time, according to the shadow, was 1:03 p.m. The
Warren Report, citing Mooney's testimony as proof, says Mooney found
the shells at approximately 1:12. But Mooney put the latest time at "1
o'clock." Sawyer may indeed have found additional shells on the third
floor at 1:12 because the alleged sixth-floor shells were found ten to
fifteen minutes earlier.
Mooney testified that he left "that particular area" and joined the
search for the rifle when Fritz arrived and picked up the shells.
Mooney also said he stayed on the sixth floor "not over 15 or 20
minutes" after he found the location of the three cartridges.(3H 289)
It is therefore likely that Craig was correct about the time the rifle
was found. But whether it was found at 1:06 or 1:22, ten to fifteen
minutes are unaccounted for during the sixth-floor crime scene
investigation.

> >Kinda throws the whole timetable out the window doesn't it?
> >And you don't like that he saw one of the casings left was crimped and
> >therefore could not have been fired that day as it wouldn't load into
> >the gun.
>
> It was dented as it was ejected from the rifle.

You mean the rifle they didn't test to see if it had been fired
recently? Why aren't the other two casing dented?

> >I don't think so as all the cops that were aroun him over the 48 hours
> >said he was a cool customer and did not talk much. I like the comment
> >about the Rambler belonging to the Paine's don't you. So her car is
> >there at the TBSD
>
> No, it was not.
>
> Mrs. Paine's car was a Chevy, not a Rambler.

She had two cars and Michael had a car. Certainly you know this as
Greg Jaynes has had conversations with Richard Bartholomew about it.
Here is a good article:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/Rmblr96.FP.html

> >Of course Fritz wouldn't as he was a captain and probably closing in
> >on retirement and didn't want to lose this. He knew how the game was
> >played. My big question is, why did the FBI seize control of the
> >investigation right away when killing a president was not a Federal
> >crime in 1963? Until LBJ gave them permission they should have butted
> >out, but they didn't.
>
> The assumption was that the FBI were much more competent than the
> Dallas Police.

Poor assumption since Hoover wrapped up the case in a few hours.
>
> >They were turning away leads and confiscating
> >evidence, why?
>
> Explain this.

The DPD were getting calls pertaining to individuals and/or groups
that would bear checking out (i.e. right wing hate groups). They were
not explored as the FBI declared within a few hours they had "their
man" already.

> >Stuff like it wasn't LHO? What is he talking about? This was an
> >expierenced deputy. This is a joke. Didn't fit what we knew to be
> >true, how do you know what is true and not true in the first day or
> >two?
>
> Do you really believe the "Rambler Man" story?

Yes I do. I see no reason for Craig to lie and as the above article
shows in great detail they set Craig up to make his crediblity poor so
no one would believe anything he said about other important issues.
In your case it worked.

> Oswald was on a bus. He could not have run to get into a Rambler.

You are not entertaining the idea of two Oswalds then? Lee was a
southern chap and Harvey was born in Russia. There is more and more
evidence (i.e. writing samples) that is backing this theory up as the
CIA was very involved in creating multiple people under the same
identity. The driving issue alone shows very soundly there could be
two Oswalds as some people involved in this drama say he couldn't
drive a car and yet researchers have found quite a list of others who
saw Lee driving a car. In addition to the other Oswald there were
several people who could pass for him from a distance.

> >Boy, they are really afraid of the hurting the Paines here. Why
> >didn't anyone invetigate them? Their car is at the scene, they had
> >the supposed murder weapon at thier house, knew of his "unstableness"
> >yet they were never suspected of anything.
>
> Sorry, Mrs. Paine owned a Chevy.

It has been documented she had two cars. The DPD were still watching
the Paines as of 1/65 and they noted 4 cars belonging to them.

> >First he says, 'if it did happen I didn't see it' and then when
> >pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?
>
> Look . . Rob, you really need to consider that the secondary sources
> you have read have been badly misleading you.

Sorry John, I feel your sources have mislead you. I have read so many
things over the years and I know how to believe what makes sense. I
know there are plants in this stuff as Gary Mack shows, but when I
read the same thing by multiple researchers I tend to give it more
credence.


John McAdams

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 11:49:20โ€ฏPM11/7/07
to
On 7 Nov 2007 23:16:39 -0500, robc...@netscape.com wrote:

>Thanks for moving this over here John!
>
>On Nov 5, 12:23 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:56:41 -0800, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>> >On Nov 4, 1:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
>> >> Craig.
>>
>> >I thought so as he was the cop of the year in 1960 and one of the best
>> >on the staff. I'm sure Roger would appreciate you saying that if he
>> >wasn't killed, er, had killed himself.
>>
>> He did kill himself.
>
>Perhaps, but there is at least one documented case where he was shot
>at as well.

They post the documentation!!

Oh. I know, the only "documentation" is Craig's claim.


>He didn't own a rifle so this is odd by itself.
>

Why did you cut the URL I posted?

He did indeed shoot himself.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig_death.htm

Where did you get this "didn't own a rifle" business? I mean, what is
the *primary* source.

BTW, even if it's true, there was a rifle in the house.

>> >Who proved him to be a liar? You mean those big liars on the WC, and
>> >the even bigger liars posing as attorneys? It was a Mauser and more
>> >than Craig said that, in fact, Craig didn't make the ID they let
>> >Weitzman do it since he had much more experience with rifles of all
>> >types.
>>
>> Weitzman simply glanced at it.
>
>This is the cover version but he did more than glance at it. Why was
>the CIA refering to it as a Mauser three days after the shooting?
>

OIC. The CIA is all knowing.

Look . . . if you really believe government bureaucrats are always
well-informed, we have nothing to talk about.

Hell . . . somebody in the CIA thought Oswald was homosexual!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leegay.htm

>And the cry becomes deafening when we add the fact that three days
>after the assassination, a CIA report identified the gun as a Mauser.
>Dated November 25, 1963, it reads:
>
>The rifle he [Oswald] used was a Mauser which OSWALD had ordered (this
>is now known by handwriting examination) from Klein's Mail Order
>House, Chicago, Illinois. He had the rifle sent to a Post Office Box
>which Lee OSWALD had rented. In the order for the rifle, Oswald used
>the name Alex HIDELL.
>OSWALD also had in his possession at the time of his arrest (after he
>also killed a Texas policeman) a U.S. Selective Service Card in the
>name of Alex HIDELL.(CIA Document No. 1367, declassified spring 1976;
>cited in Fensterwald 443-44. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York:
>Henry Holt, 1985) pp. 102-03. Evica 23.)
>
>In a letter to coauthor Richard Bartholomew, Mr. Tatro updated his
>Craig research. He said, "...After I wrote `Roger Craig and 1984', his
>best friend and I corresponded for years. She was amazing! From her I
>learned what was true and false, who forced Roger to embellish his
>original story, who were disinformation agents among us....I'm afraid
>his Mauser identification is a lie....It's a complex and tragic story
>and someday I'll tell it, but several dangerous individuals are still
>alive and I'd rather not tangle with them."( Letter from Edgar F.

Huh??!!

You are admitting the Mauser ID was a lie?

>Tatro to Richard Bartholomew, October 25, 1993.) While Tatro does not
>say it specifically, there is reason to believe Craig was forced to
>lie about the Mauser.
>
>The way Craig wrote about Weitzman and the tool mark
>(authoritatively), and the way he spoke about it on film (slowly and
>deliberately) indicates that Craig's revelation -- that the stamp said
>"7.65 Mauser" -- could have had a sinister purpose. The tool stamp did
>not read "7.65 Mauser." This falsehood, therefore, smacks of setting
>up a straw man that can be knocked down. On these guns, the mark, if
>present at all, shows the caliber without the name.( Letter from J.W.
>Hughes to Walter Graf, August 22, 1994)
>
>Gun experts say only the Argentine and Chilean models have "Mauser"
>stamped on them.
>
>Craig added "Mauser" for a reason. It could be that Craig purposely
>misspoke about the stamp as a subtle message to gun experts that he
>was lying. It may be a variation of the old trick whereby a person in
>danger cryptically lets someone know something is wrong.
>

How about: he was simply a liar.

Why overinterpret this?


>Craig died May 15, 1975 of a rifle wound to the chest. It was ruled a
>suicide despite the fact that Craig did not own a rifle. A couple of
>weeks earlier, in an interview with author Michael Canfield, Seymour
>Weitzman had identified a man from a photograph as the one he saw
>impersonating a Secret Service agent in the parking lot north of
>Dealey Plaza just after the assassination.( Michael Canfield and Alan
>J. Weberman, Coup d'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of
>John F. Kennedy (New York: The Third Press, 1975) pp. 56-57; hereafter
>cited as Canfield and Weberman 56-57) On page eight of his 1971
>manuscript, Craig told of a similar encounter between himself and a
>Secret Service impersonator. With Craig's death, these two
>eyewitnesses to the same and similar events that Friday afternoon
>never got a chance to compare their stories for the benefit of
>researchers.
>

Oh, my!! Weberman and Canfield.

Do you really believe that Hunt and Sturgis were tramps?

Do you even begin to understand what was going on here?

Weitzman, who wasn't paying much attention, thought is was s Mauser,
"in a glance." And everybody else repeated that.


>For the full story go to: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html
>
>
>> The best evidence is the film of the rifle being recovered.
>
>Wrong, this is the not how the gun was found originally, i.e. with no
>clip.
>

Beautiful!!!

You are happy to blow off photographic evidence.

Where did you get the "no clip" business?

Actually, the Alyea film *shows* the rifle being recovered wihout a
clip.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg


>> >I guess you don't like that he happened to look at his watch
>> >when the news of JDT's murder came over and it was only 1:06 PM
>> >right?
>>
>> I'm afraid his story about that changed:
>
>I'm afraid it was the WC who changed his story to their benefit.
>Let's resume the above story:
>

No, you need to deal with the fact that Craig, in an LA FREE PRESS
interview in 1968, said there was a Mauser "on the roof." But he
didn't claim to see it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser


>With regard to another claim made by Craig, a 1:06 p.m. time for the
>rifle discovery,

Likewise, this contradicts what he told the LA FREE PRESS in 1968.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#tippit

>
>> >Kinda throws the whole timetable out the window doesn't it?
>> >And you don't like that he saw one of the casings left was crimped and
>> >therefore could not have been fired that day as it wouldn't load into
>> >the gun.
>>
>> It was dented as it was ejected from the rifle.
>
>You mean the rifle they didn't test to see if it had been fired
>recently? Why aren't the other two casing dented?

In the first place, there *is* no test to "see if a rifle has been
fired recently."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid1.htm


>
>> >I don't think so as all the cops that were aroun him over the 48 hours
>> >said he was a cool customer and did not talk much. I like the comment
>> >about the Rambler belonging to the Paine's don't you. So her car is
>> >there at the TBSD
>>
>> No, it was not.
>>
>> Mrs. Paine's car was a Chevy, not a Rambler.
>
>She had two cars and Michael had a car. Certainly you know this as
>Greg Jaynes has had conversations with Richard Bartholomew about it.
>Here is a good article:
>
>http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/Rmblr96.FP.html
>

Ruth Paine did not have a Rambler.

If you think she did, post a *primary* source showing that.


>> >Of course Fritz wouldn't as he was a captain and probably closing in
>> >on retirement and didn't want to lose this. He knew how the game was
>> >played. My big question is, why did the FBI seize control of the
>> >investigation right away when killing a president was not a Federal
>> >crime in 1963? Until LBJ gave them permission they should have butted
>> >out, but they didn't.
>>
>> The assumption was that the FBI were much more competent than the
>> Dallas Police.
>
>Poor assumption since Hoover wrapped up the case in a few hours.
>>
>> >They were turning away leads and confiscating
>> >evidence, why?
>>
>> Explain this.
>
>The DPD were getting calls pertaining to individuals and/or groups
>that would bear checking out (i.e. right wing hate groups). They were
>not explored as the FBI declared within a few hours they had "their
>man" already.
>

All kinds of crackpots call the cops all the time.

>
>
>> >Stuff like it wasn't LHO? What is he talking about? This was an
>> >expierenced deputy. This is a joke. Didn't fit what we knew to be
>> >true, how do you know what is true and not true in the first day or
>> >two?
>>
>> Do you really believe the "Rambler Man" story?
>
>Yes I do. I see no reason for Craig to lie and as the above article
>shows in great detail they set Craig up to make his crediblity poor so
>no one would believe anything he said about other important issues.
>In your case it worked.
>

OIC. You admit that he tells lies.

You admit that his testimony is inconsistent.

But that doesn't suggest any problem with him as a witness. It's
because *they* set him up!

You probably believe Judyth, eh?


>> Oswald was on a bus. He could not have run to get into a Rambler.
>
>You are not entertaining the idea of two Oswalds then?

????!!!!

>Lee was a
>southern chap and Harvey was born in Russia. There is more and more
>evidence (i.e. writing samples) that is backing this theory up as the
>CIA was very involved in creating multiple people under the same
>identity. The driving issue alone shows very soundly there could be
>two Oswalds as some people involved in this drama say he couldn't
>drive a car and yet researchers have found quite a list of others who
>saw Lee driving a car. In addition to the other Oswald there were
>several people who could pass for him from a distance.
>
>> >Boy, they are really afraid of the hurting the Paines here. Why
>> >didn't anyone invetigate them? Their car is at the scene, they had
>> >the supposed murder weapon at thier house, knew of his "unstableness"
>> >yet they were never suspected of anything.
>>
>> Sorry, Mrs. Paine owned a Chevy.
>
>It has been documented she had two cars. The DPD were still watching
>the Paines as of 1/65 and they noted 4 cars belonging to them.
>

Oh, my!

Four cars among only two people!!

This document shows only three:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wagon1.gif

You need to post a primary source for "four cars."

And especially *any* evidence that Mrs. Paine owned a Rambler.

But you can't do that, can you?


> > >First he says, 'if it did happen I didn't see it' and then when
>> >pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?
>>
>> Look . . Rob, you really need to consider that the secondary sources
>> you have read have been badly misleading you.
>
>Sorry John, I feel your sources have mislead you. I have read so many
>things over the years and I know how to believe what makes sense. I
>know there are plants in this stuff as Gary Mack shows, but when I
>read the same thing by multiple researchers I tend to give it more
>credence.
>
>

You just don't get it.

When you "read the same thing by multiple researchers" they are CITING
EACH OTHER!

Or perhaps, all citing one silly secondary source.

Look . . . you can't make your argument from primary sources, and
there is a reason for that. The things you believe aren't true.

If they were, they could be supported from primary sources.

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 12:03:55โ€ฏAM11/8/07
to
robc...@netscape.com wrote:
> Thanks for moving this over here John!
>
> On Nov 5, 12:23 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:56:41 -0800, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 1:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
>>>> Craig.
>>> I thought so as he was the cop of the year in 1960 and one of the best
>>> on the staff. I'm sure Roger would appreciate you saying that if he
>>> wasn't killed, er, had killed himself.
>> He did kill himself.
>
> Perhaps, but there is at least one documented case where he was shot
> at as well. He didn't own a rifle so this is odd by itself.
>

So what? Cops are shot at all the time. Comes with the territory.

>>> Who proved him to be a liar? You mean those big liars on the WC, and
>>> the even bigger liars posing as attorneys? It was a Mauser and more
>>> than Craig said that, in fact, Craig didn't make the ID they let
>>> Weitzman do it since he had much more experience with rifles of all
>>> types.
>> Weitzman simply glanced at it.
>
> This is the cover version but he did more than glance at it. Why was

No, he did not. He never got close enough to see the markings.

> the CIA refering to it as a Mauser three days after the shooting?
>

Because the CIA are a bunch of idiots, of course. Duh!
That memo talks about the Mauser Oswald ordered from Klein's.

> And the cry becomes deafening when we add the fact that three days
> after the assassination, a CIA report identified the gun as a Mauser.
> Dated November 25, 1963, it reads:
>

No, all of that can only be referring to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

> The rifle he [Oswald] used was a Mauser which OSWALD had ordered (this
> is now known by handwriting examination) from Klein's Mail Order
> House, Chicago, Illinois. He had the rifle sent to a Post Office Box
> which Lee OSWALD had rented. In the order for the rifle, Oswald used
> the name Alex HIDELL.
> OSWALD also had in his possession at the time of his arrest (after he
> also killed a Texas policeman) a U.S. Selective Service Card in the
> name of Alex HIDELL.(CIA Document No. 1367, declassified spring 1976;
> cited in Fensterwald 443-44. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York:
> Henry Holt, 1985) pp. 102-03. Evica 23.)
>
> In a letter to coauthor Richard Bartholomew, Mr. Tatro updated his
> Craig research. He said, "...After I wrote `Roger Craig and 1984', his
> best friend and I corresponded for years. She was amazing! From her I
> learned what was true and false, who forced Roger to embellish his
> original story, who were disinformation agents among us....I'm afraid
> his Mauser identification is a lie....It's a complex and tragic story
> and someday I'll tell it, but several dangerous individuals are still
> alive and I'd rather not tangle with them."( Letter from Edgar F.
> Tatro to Richard Bartholomew, October 25, 1993.) While Tatro does not
> say it specifically, there is reason to believe Craig was forced to
> lie about the Mauser.
>

Of course he was. That means it was not really a Mauser.

> The way Craig wrote about Weitzman and the tool mark
> (authoritatively), and the way he spoke about it on film (slowly and
> deliberately) indicates that Craig's revelation -- that the stamp said
> "7.65 Mauser" -- could have had a sinister purpose. The tool stamp did

There is no such stamp.

> not read "7.65 Mauser." This falsehood, therefore, smacks of setting
> up a straw man that can be knocked down. On these guns, the mark, if
> present at all, shows the caliber without the name.( Letter from J.W.
> Hughes to Walter Graf, August 22, 1994)
>

It is typical for someone who is lying to try to make up some detail
which supports that lie. Like Files with his empty cartridge he bit.

> Gun experts say only the Argentine and Chilean models have "Mauser"
> stamped on them.
>

So? If it really were a Mauser it did not have to be German.

> Craig added "Mauser" for a reason. It could be that Craig purposely
> misspoke about the stamp as a subtle message to gun experts that he
> was lying. It may be a variation of the old trick whereby a person in
> danger cryptically lets someone know something is wrong.
>
> Craig died May 15, 1975 of a rifle wound to the chest. It was ruled a
> suicide despite the fact that Craig did not own a rifle. A couple of
> weeks earlier, in an interview with author Michael Canfield, Seymour
> Weitzman had identified a man from a photograph as the one he saw
> impersonating a Secret Service agent in the parking lot north of
> Dealey Plaza just after the assassination.( Michael Canfield and Alan
> J. Weberman, Coup d'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of
> John F. Kennedy (New York: The Third Press, 1975) pp. 56-57; hereafter
> cited as Canfield and Weberman 56-57) On page eight of his 1971
> manuscript, Craig told of a similar encounter between himself and a
> Secret Service impersonator. With Craig's death, these two
> eyewitnesses to the same and similar events that Friday afternoon
> never got a chance to compare their stories for the benefit of
> researchers.
>
> Craig's carefully chosen words, the oddity of that particular caliber
> number, and his experience with guns support the idea that it was not

It is not an oddity. It is what most people would expect a Mauser to be.

> a slip of the tongue. And if it was not a slip of the tongue, what
> else could it be but a lie obvious enough to be easily discredited or
> draw suspicion to his motive for saying it?
>

Oh please. There are legions who still have not caught onto the fact
that he lied. They say things like, "Well, how could he know it was a
'7.65' Mauser if he didn't see it so stamped?"

> Given that, what then do we make of the Mauser identifications made by
> several others? Deputy Sheriff Boone said it appeared to be a 7.65
> Mauser in two different assassination-day reports (Decker Exhibit
> 5323, pp. 507-09. Meagher, Accessories 96-98) because, according to
> his testimony, Fritz identified it to him as such just after its

They merely went along with their "expert."

> discovery. He said they discussed this while Day prepared to
> photograph it.(3H 295 ) Twelve hours into the investigation, District

The rifle photographed in place between the boxes is Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.

> Attorney Henry Wade told a reporter it was a Mauser because, Wade
> swore, the police identified it to him as such. Weitzman's sworn
> affidavit -- given the next day -- corroborates both Boone and Wade's
> police sources.
>

Yeah, and various reporters and cops referred to it as a Winchester or a
..30-06. So what?

> The Warren Report said Weitzman was the source of the error. They
> based that conclusion on absolutely nothing. Weitzman never testified

Weitzman admitted that it was his mistake. Are you calling him a liar?

> before the Commission itself. Mark Lane first brought Weitzman's
> November 23, 1963 affidavit to the Commission's attention on March 4,
> 1964.(Meagher, Accessories 96; citing 2H 46) Nowhere in that affidavit
> does Weitzman say that he was Boone's source.( 24H (CE 2003, p. 63))
> Perhaps that is why it is unmentioned in the Report.(Weisberg,
> Whitewash 190) The Commission called Boone twenty days later. Boone
> never said Weitzman was his source. After hearing Boone, all they knew
> was that it started with Fritz, was officially reported twice by
> Boone, then by the press, then by Weitzman the next day. Weitzman then
> gave a deposition to Staff Counsel Joseph Ball on April 1, 1964,
> during which he seemed to perjure himself by saying no one but him
> said it was a Mauser.
>
>
> Mr. Ball. In the statement 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.(7H 108)
>
> For the full story go to: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html
>
>
>> The best evidence is the film of the rifle being recovered.
>
> Wrong, this is the not how the gun was found originally, i.e. with no
> clip.
>

Huh? The clip was still in the rifle when it was discovered. The clip
will stay in when there is a live round in the magazine.

>>> I guess you don't like that he happened to look at his watch
>>> when the news of JDT's murder came over and it was only 1:06 PM
>>> right?
>> I'm afraid his story about that changed:
>
> I'm afraid it was the WC who changed his story to their benefit.
> Let's resume the above story:
>
> With regard to another claim made by Craig, a 1:06 p.m. time for the
> rifle discovery, we draw the reader's attention to the diagram (fig.
> 3) showing the results of a photogrammetric study by Richard
> Bartholomew of photos of the outside of the "sniper's window" taken
> from the front of the TSBD just after the assassination. Reasonably,
> if there was no clip found with the rifle, it would take time to reach
> the decision to replace it, and to obtain the fake clip. The ensuing

Pure nonsense.

> coverup would best be served by making that extra time disappear from
> the chronology. One way to do that is by falsely claiming the sixth-
> floor investigation started at a later moment. By all accounts, the
> rifle was found shortly after the discovery of the three shell casings
> on the sixth-floor. We can substantially argue that both the shells

The shell casings were WCC M-C 6.5 mm cartridges. No Mauser cartridges
were found.

Tell us exactly and precisely how they would have tested the rifle to
see if it had been fired recently. You apparently know nothing about
firearms.

>>> I don't think so as all the cops that were aroun him over the 48 hours
>>> said he was a cool customer and did not talk much. I like the comment
>>> about the Rambler belonging to the Paine's don't you. So her car is
>>> there at the TBSD
>> No, it was not.
>>
>> Mrs. Paine's car was a Chevy, not a Rambler.
>
> She had two cars and Michael had a car. Certainly you know this as
> Greg Jaynes has had conversations with Richard Bartholomew about it.
> Here is a good article:
>

We're talking about station wagons, not sedans.

> http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/Rmblr96.FP.html
>
>>> Of course Fritz wouldn't as he was a captain and probably closing in
>>> on retirement and didn't want to lose this. He knew how the game was
>>> played. My big question is, why did the FBI seize control of the
>>> investigation right away when killing a president was not a Federal
>>> crime in 1963? Until LBJ gave them permission they should have butted
>>> out, but they didn't.
>> The assumption was that the FBI were much more competent than the
>> Dallas Police.
>
> Poor assumption since Hoover wrapped up the case in a few hours.
>>> They were turning away leads and confiscating
>>> evidence, why?
>> Explain this.
>
> The DPD were getting calls pertaining to individuals and/or groups
> that would bear checking out (i.e. right wing hate groups). They were
> not explored as the FBI declared within a few hours they had "their
> man" already.
>

The FBI sent out a Telex telling its agents to contact their informants
in the right-wing groups to see if any of them had information that
those groups were involved.

>
>
>>> Stuff like it wasn't LHO? What is he talking about? This was an
>>> expierenced deputy. This is a joke. Didn't fit what we knew to be
>>> true, how do you know what is true and not true in the first day or
>>> two?
>> Do you really believe the "Rambler Man" story?
>
> Yes I do. I see no reason for Craig to lie and as the above article
> shows in great detail they set Craig up to make his crediblity poor so
> no one would believe anything he said about other important issues.
> In your case it worked.
>

Of course Craig lied. The physical evidence proves that.

>> Oswald was on a bus. He could not have run to get into a Rambler.
>
> You are not entertaining the idea of two Oswalds then? Lee was a
> southern chap and Harvey was born in Russia. There is more and more
> evidence (i.e. writing samples) that is backing this theory up as the
> CIA was very involved in creating multiple people under the same
> identity. The driving issue alone shows very soundly there could be
> two Oswalds as some people involved in this drama say he couldn't
> drive a car and yet researchers have found quite a list of others who
> saw Lee driving a car. In addition to the other Oswald there were
> several people who could pass for him from a distance.
>
>>> Boy, they are really afraid of the hurting the Paines here. Why
>>> didn't anyone invetigate them? Their car is at the scene, they had
>>> the supposed murder weapon at thier house, knew of his "unstableness"
>>> yet they were never suspected of anything.
>> Sorry, Mrs. Paine owned a Chevy.
>
> It has been documented she had two cars. The DPD were still watching
> the Paines as of 1/65 and they noted 4 cars belonging to them.
>

Jeez, what kind of inflation is this? Next week you'll be claiming that
they owned 20 cars. Try to focus. STATION WAGON. NOT SEDAN.

> > >First he says, 'if it did happen I didn't see it' and then when
>>> pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?
>> Look . . Rob, you really need to consider that the secondary sources
>> you have read have been badly misleading you.
>
> Sorry John, I feel your sources have mislead you. I have read so many
> things over the years and I know how to believe what makes sense. I
> know there are plants in this stuff as Gary Mack shows, but when I
> read the same thing by multiple researchers I tend to give it more
> credence.
>

You have not been paying attention.

>

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:20:12โ€ฏAM11/8/07
to
At one point in the printed transcript, the time 11:55 appears. It was
originally 11:45.

Martin

<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194426098.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:20:12โ€ฏAM11/8/07
to
At one point in the printed transcript, the time 11:55 appears. It was
originally 11:45.

Martin

<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194426098.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:20:09โ€ฏAM11/8/07
to
At one point in the printed transcript, the time 11:55 appears. It was
originally 11:45.

Martin

<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194426098.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 4:39:02โ€ฏAM11/8/07
to
On 8 Nov., 07:20, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> At one point in the printed transcript, the time 11:55 appears. It was
> originally 11:45.
>
> Martin

Are you referring to these questions on page 352?

Belin. Now you said you saw Lee Oswald on the sixth floor around
11:55?
Givens. Right.
Belin. Did you you see Lee Oswald anywhere else in the building
between 11:55 and the time you left the building?
Givens. No, sir.

-Mark

> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 5:35:53โ€ฏAM11/8/07
to
On 7 Nov., 19:53, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1194459351.799592.187...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,

Read Jean's post if you don't believe me.

Bud

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 5:56:30โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to

Three people have taken the position that this photo doesn`t show
Craig in Fritz`s office. Ben so far has been unable to muster up the
courage to take an opposing position. LN just come right out and state
their positions, Dishonest Ben has to nibble around the edges with
innuendo. Why would the truth require this?

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 7:53:20โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to

>>> "Three people have taken the position that this photo doesn't show Craig in Fritz's office." <<<


I'll raise that number to four people by quoting directly from Dale
Myers' book "With Malice":

"A published photograph, purporting to back {Roger} Craig's
story, shows the deputy sheriff standing in the Homicide Bureau just
outside Captain Fritz's private office. Weighing both accounts, the
photograph--taken on Saturday--seems a better illustration of Captain
Fritz's contention that Craig came to the Homicide Bureau, but never
entered the inner office where Oswald was being questioned." -- Dale
K. Myers; Page 215 of "WITH MALICE" (c.1998)


This exact photo (linked below) of the outer office of the DPD's
Homicide & Robbery Bureau (which was taken by Jack Beers, who also
snapped the famous photo of Jack Ruby lunging at Lee Oswald just a
second before Oswald was killed in the DPD basement).....

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5769.jpg


.....Appears on page 214 of Mr. Myers' book "With Malice". I hadn't
recalled that photograph being published in Myers' book (I wish I had,
because I would have used it for a forum post earlier than now), but
when leafing through it today....there it was, complete with an arrow
pointing to Roger Craig and the following caption underneath the
picture:

"Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig talks to Dallas police inside the
Homicide and Robbery office on Saturday, November 23, 1963. Captain
Fritz's private office, where Oswald was being interrogated, is behind
Craig -- blinds drawn." -- Dale K. Myers; Via Photo Caption on Page
#214 of "WITH MALICE" (c.1998)

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:06:25โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to
On Nov 7, 2:07 pm, "Jean Davison"
<walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> It wouldn't confirm Craig's story if it had been taken on
> Friday, anyway, since it shows him outside Fritz's office, which
> is where Fritz said he was.
> Jean

What it does show is that he is in close proximity to the office he
said he was in with Oswald. I don't get your point as all pictures
are but a second in time, the fact that he is out of the office at
that "second" doesn't mean he was never in the office at all. That
would be a false and unprovable conclusion.

curtjester1

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:19:38โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to

I think that there had to be this tete a tete a tete because Craig's
only reason for being in the office was because he saw a suspect that
he ID'd as LHO getting in a Rambler. If he didn't say that he never
would have been in that office. So if he was in that office, he would
at least either confronted with LHO there, or Fritz would have taken
that story and confronted LHO about the Rambler. Hence there should
be some sort of dialogue with LHO speaking of a Rambler and himself in
it, or denying it.

CJ

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:44:03โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to
On Nov 8, 8:19 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think that there had to be this tete a tete a tete because Craig's
> only reason for being in the office was because he saw a suspect that
> he ID'd as LHO getting in a Rambler. If he didn't say that he never
> would have been in that office. So if he was in that office, he would
> at least either confronted with LHO there, or Fritz would have taken
> that story and confronted LHO about the Rambler. Hence there should
> be some sort of dialogue with LHO speaking of a Rambler and himself in
> it, or denying it.
>
> CJ


We also have Craig saying that the term "station wagon" came from LHO
and not him or Fritz. They said car and he said it was a station
wagon. Also, he said it belonged to Ruth Paine not the police. The
question I asked John is why would RC lie? As a CTer is more
believable to think some of the cops lied or omitted things to arrive
at the conclusion they were told to get, but from a LNer perspective
to accuse a cop of lying is inconsistent. Except when that cop says
something that doesn't support their lame theory. I think RC is the
only cop they accuse of lying, why? As I asked John, what did he
gain? It costs him his job and life eventually, why not go with the
flow? He had no reason to lie like he did, when he could have lied to
fit the WC's version and lived much better.

Jean Davison

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 9:37:57โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to

<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1194570385....@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
office at all."

Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
Jean

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 10:02:57โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to

>>> "Why would RC {Roger Craig} lie?" <<<


That's a good question indeed. And I won't pretend to know what was
going through Roger Craig's mind when he said (at some point after
April 1964) he saw the words "7.65 MAUSER" stamped on the barrel of
Oswald's Carcano rifle.

Interestingly, however, you won't find the word "Mauser" mentioned
even ONE time during Craig's semi-lengthy April 1st, 1964, session
with the Warren Commission, even after Craig was asked this open-ended
question by David Belin:

"Anything else happen up to that time {i.e., AFTER the rifle had
been found on the 6th Floor, which Craig had just described before
Belin asked this very question} that you haven't related here that you
feel might be important?"

The next word out of Craig's mouth was: "No."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

And I won't pretend to know exactly why Deputy Sheriff Craig would say
that the bullet shells that were discovered in the sniper's window
were "lying three in a row, not more than an inch apart, all pointing
in the same direction" (direct quote from Roger D. Craig via the video
program "Two Men In Dallas").

But this picture proves Craig to be just flat-out wrong with respect
to the SN bullet shells.....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm


Given the sum total of all the evidence, I feel confident in saying
with a good deal of firmness and finality that Roger D. Craig, for
whatever reason(s), DID DELIBERATELY LIE about at least one very, very
important piece of evidence (the rifle) associated with the JFK murder
case.

And there's ample information and evidence to support the notion that
Craig lied about some other things besides just the rifle as well. But
the "7.65 Mauser" comment that came out of Craig's mouth is a provable
"lie", without a shred of a doubt.

I'll also add the following remarks as an addendum to the Mauser/Craig
controversy.....

If it could be established that NO MAUSER RIFLE had ever been
manufactured (prior to November 1963) with a "7.65 MAUSER" marking on
its barrel, that fact ALONE, of course, would prove that Roger Craig
lied when he said he saw such writing printed on the barrel of the gun
that was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

I have no idea if such a thing can be proven beyond all doubt or not.
After all, a lot of "Mauser" rifles had been made up to 1963. I
certainly haven't been able to establish if ANY Mauser rifle ever made
prior to '63 was ever stamped with such a marking on its barrel. But
it's definitely some food for additional thought anyway.

Also, I'll add the following picture (provided by John McAdams'
website), which shows the similarities between a "Mauser" and a
"Carcano". I can easily see how someone could confuse the two types of
rifles if they only saw one of these types of guns from a distance, or
"at a glance".....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 10:13:36โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to
On Nov 8, 9:37 pm, "Jean Davison"
<walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > What it does show is that he is in close proximity to the office he
> > said he was in with Oswald. I don't get your point as all pictures
> > are but a second in time, the fact that he is out of the office at
> > that "second" doesn't mean he was never in the office at all. That
> > would be a false and unprovable conclusion.
>
> Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
> office at all."
>
> Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
> in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
> Jean

You're right it shouldn't be stated that way, but since he is in close
proximity to the office and it is in the time period that LHO was in
Fritz's office LNers can't say RC was lying either. The key point is
that Fritz was supposed to have called him into his office as he
claimed to see a man leaving the building shortly after the shooting
and he wanted to know if the man they had was him. This is not hard
to believe. So basically I ask again, why did RC lie? Looking at
what happened to him what did he gain by claiming these things?


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 10:27:33โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to
On Nov 8, 10:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Why would RC {Roger Craig} lie?" <<<
>
> That's a good question indeed. And I won't pretend to know what was
> going through Roger Craig's mind when he said (at some point after
> April 1964) he saw the words "7.65 MAUSER" stamped on the barrel of
> Oswald's Carcano rifle.
>
> Interestingly, however, you won't find the word "Mauser" mentioned
> even ONE time during Craig's semi-lengthy April 1st, 1964, session
> with the Warren Commission, even after Craig was asked this open-ended
> question by David Belin:
>
> "Anything else happen up to that time {i.e., AFTER the rifle had
> been found on the 6th Floor, which Craig had just described before
> Belin asked this very question} that you haven't related here that you
> feel might be important?"
>
> The next word out of Craig's mouth was: "No."

I think this is why he was tortured later in life, because for a brief
time to get along he did lie, but not the way you are saying. I think
he conformed his testimony to what all the others were saying and what
the WC wanted and he regretted this alot later in his life. Only two
countries stamped "Mauser" on the gun and they were Argentina and
Chile. Perhaps one of these versions were there or Weitzman said it
was a Mauser and that stuck with Craig. We obviously won't know for
sure either way. My main point is that Craig fared for worse for
saying what he did later on when he could have kept his mouth shut and
cruised along so I think he shouldn't be dismissed out of turn.

Do we have any sources that are not John's or Bugman's?

> And I won't pretend to know exactly why Deputy Sheriff Craig would say
> that the bullet shells that were discovered in the sniper's window
> were "lying three in a row, not more than an inch apart, all pointing
> in the same direction" (direct quote from Roger D. Craig via the video
> program "Two Men In Dallas").
>
> But this picture proves Craig to be just flat-out wrong with respect
> to the SN bullet shells.....

Of course he is as it was stated by several cops Fritz picked up the
shells and then put them back down, therefore, messing up the crime
scence before the pictures were taken. This is not allowed in almost
any case today. He messed up the neat order they initially saw the
shells in.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...


>
> Given the sum total of all the evidence, I feel confident in saying
> with a good deal of firmness and finality that Roger D. Craig, for
> whatever reason(s), DID DELIBERATELY LIE about at least one very, very
> important piece of evidence (the rifle) associated with the JFK murder
> case.

Why would he be the one held accountable for this? He was not the
rifle expert Weitzman was, why are you pinning the misidentification
on him? Fritz was in charge and I always thought that the person in
charge should take the blame. As I posted earlier, there were 18
announcements in the media saying it was a Mauser. This can't be
pinned on Craig as he was going along with what was said by someone
who supposedly knew guns.


>
> And there's ample information and evidence to support the notion that
> Craig lied about some other things besides just the rifle as well. But
> the "7.65 Mauser" comment that came out of Craig's mouth is a provable
> "lie", without a shred of a doubt.

First of all, Mauser is generic term that applies to the 7.65 size, it
means nothing. Many people associate it with the Germans, but it was
a common, international gun in 1963. The Germans had upgraded their
WWII guns to 7.92mm. It came out of his mouth, but he wasn't the only
one saying that as he did not talk to the press on the day of the
assassination, that was Fritz's and Curry's job. Why aren't you
blaming them for passing on inaccurate info? RC was repeating what he
was told.


>
> I'll also add the following remarks as an addendum to the Mauser/Craig
> controversy.....
>
> If it could be established that NO MAUSER RIFLE had ever been
> manufactured (prior to November 1963) with a "7.65 MAUSER" marking on
> its barrel, that fact ALONE, of course, would prove that Roger Craig
> lied when he said he saw such writing printed on the barrel of the gun
> that was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

Not true, I just said two countries did stamp Mauser on the gun
(Argentina and Chile). We know the CIA was very active in these areas
so perhaps the 7.65 found was indeed from one of these countries.


>
> I have no idea if such a thing can be proven beyond all doubt or not.
> After all, a lot of "Mauser" rifles had been made up to 1963. I
> certainly haven't been able to establish if ANY Mauser rifle ever made
> prior to '63 was ever stamped with such a marking on its barrel. But
> it's definitely some food for additional thought anyway.
>
> Also, I'll add the following picture (provided by John McAdams'
> website), which shows the similarities between a "Mauser" and a
> "Carcano". I can easily see how someone could confuse the two types of
> rifles if they only saw one of these types of guns from a distance, or
> "at a glance".....

And when the M-C didn't have its clip, which it did not at the time of
discovery.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg


David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 11:31:58โ€ฏPM11/8/07
to

>>> "Only two countries stamped "Mauser" on the gun, and they were Argentina and Chile." <<<


Any source for this information?

And: Even if ONLY the single word "Mauser" was normally stamped on
some Mauser rifles, it still wouldn't make Craig any less of a
liar....because Craig specifically said he saw "7.65 Mauser" printed
on the gun. Not just the word "Mauser".

Did Chile or Argentina ever print "7.65" on the barrel too (along with
the word "Mauser", as you claim)?

Some verification of your claim that just "Mauser" was stamped on some
guns would be appreciated as well.


>>> "Do we have any sources that are not John's or Bugman's?" <<<


Gobs. I am constantly citing the WCR and the 26 volumes of exhibits
and testimony. Naturally, though, you (being an "Anybody But Oswald"
kook) must disregard everything connected with the Warren Commission.

That's what gives you free reign to be a kook 24/7....because you can
always fall back on the CT-Kook's motto of: "The Warren Report is
useless and worthless".

Nice tactic. If you're a nutcase, that is.

>>> "He {Saint Roger Craig} was not the rifle expert, Weitzman was. Why are you pinning the misidentification on him {Saint Craig}?" <<<


You aren't REALLY this stupid, are you Robby?

I'm not "pinning the misidentification" only on Roger Craig. I know
that both Boone and Weitzman initially said they thought Oswald's
rifle was a Mauser too.

What I'm "pinning" on Craig is the PROVABLE LIE that Craig told when
he said he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle, because that is
simply not true. No way. No how. No other officer said they saw "7.65
Mauser" stamped on the rifle's barrel. Only Craig made this outrageous
claim.

Boone and Weitzman, in fact, both fully retracted their statements
about the rifle being a "Mauser", with both of those officers later
admitting that they were definitely mistaken about their initial
"Mauser" identification. .....

VINCENT BUGLIOSI (While questioning Deputy Sheriff Boone during the
1986 TV Docu-Trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD") -- "Mr. Boone, did
the FBI ever show you a rifle which they said was the rifle found on
the sixth floor?"

EUGENE BOONE -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what did you say when you looked at that rifle?"

MR. BOONE -- "It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor
of the School Book Depository."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, didn't you just tell Mr. Spence that you could
not identify it?"

MR. BOONE -- "I could not identify it positively because I did not
have an identifying mark on the weapon."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. But it appeared to be the same rifle?"

MR. BOONE -- "It appeared to be the same weapon."

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91

===============

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN (During a CBS-TV interview in 1967) -- "Mr. Boone was
climbing on top and I was down on my knees looking. And I moved a box
and he moved a carton, and there it was. And he, in turn, hollered we
had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

MR. WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a
Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at
a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came
out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian
type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I
saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my
statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae

===============

But Roger Craig not only wouldn't retract his "Mauser" statement, he
decided to go one step further into fantasyland by adding the provable
lie of physically SEEING THE WORDS "7.65 Mauser" printed on the rifle
picked up by Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz....even though it was proven
beyond ALL doubt that the VERY SAME RIFLE that was being hoisted in
the air by Day and Fritz on 11/22/63 was a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle,
which had all the appropriate markings on it to show it was an Italian
1940 carbine, made in "Terni", with the unique Carcano serial number
of "C2766".

Roger Craig seemingly manifested "Paul O'Connor Disease" -- i.e., one
untruth/lie seemed to feed and sprout additional untruths and
distortions regarding the things that each man saw in 1963.

O'Connor was THE ONLY WITNESS who claimed to see ALL FOUR of these
things in tandem (you won't find a single other witness who believes
in this "Fantastic Four of JFK Fantasy"):

1.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a cheap "shipping" casket.

2.) JFK was wrapped in a "body bag" at Bethesda.

3.) JFK had a great-big hole in the back part of his head.

4.) JFK had NO BRAINS in his head at all when he arrived at Bethesda.

And Roger Craig is similar to O'Connor (except in Craig's case, it
involves different lies/distortions and different pieces of evidence):

1.) Craig sees "7.65 Mauser" stamped on Oswald's rifle.

2.) Craig sees the three bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest "lying no
more than an inch apart".

3.) Craig is positive that the man he saw getting into a Rambler on
Elm St. at approx. 12:40 PM on Nov. 22 was Lee Harvey Oswald.

4.) Craig says that he was in Fritz' office and saw Oswald jump up,
get mad, and shout "Everybody will know who I am now".*

* = Which, when you think about it for a minute or two, is really a
rather strange thing for Oswald to say in the first place. Because,
unless Oswald was truly a COMPLETE MORON with no brains in HIS head
either (a la O'Connor's similar observation re. JFK), Oswald would
surely HAVE to realize that the world probably ALREADY KNEW who he was
by the time he supposedly made such a statement in front of Craig (or
that the world would very soon know who he was).

Oswald had been arrested for murder, so he certainly should have known
his identity and personal info were going to be revealed to the
waiting press in a fairly-short amount of time anyway.

So, when put in this context, the statement that Roger Craig
attributes to Lee Oswald actually makes very little (common) sense at
all.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 5:26:29โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to
On Nov 8, 11:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Only two countries stamped "Mauser" on the gun, and they were Argentina and Chile." <<<
>
> Any source for this information?

Coauthor Walter Graf discovered that "Mauser" existed in the tool
stamp on the Chilean Mauser. He also discovered a 6.5 mm. Argentine
Mauser, mentioned by Trask as one of the descriptions broadcast the
day of the assassination. British researcher Chris Mills learned that
the Argentine carbine has "Mauser" in its tool stamp. But these two
rare tool marks are even more problematic to Craig's honesty:

M1895 rifles, short rifles and carbines known as "Boer Models" made by
Loewe Co. and DWM were distributed to China, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Orange Free State, Persia, Paraguay,
the South African Republic (Transvaal), Serbia, Sweden, Venezuela and
Uruguay, as well as to Chile. Those ordered by the Orange Free State
were marked "O.V.S." Those ordered by the Transvaal had no "special
markings." Those ordered by Chile from the Loewe Co. had a tool stamp
on the barrel which read, "MAUSER CHILENO MODELO 1895 MANUFACTURA
LOEWE BERLIN."( Paul Scarlata, "Classic Commando Weapon," Fighting
Firearms Winter `95, pp. 56-61, p. 58: photos, p. 60 (cols. 1, 3), p.
61 (photo)). This Chilean Mauser can be categorized in a Mauser group
-- the M1893 and M1895, Boer, or Spanish Mauser, which was mostly 7
mm. but also 6.5 mm. and 7.65 mm. -- that definitely does not include
a Carcano look alike.(Letter from Walter F. Graf to Richard
Bartholomew, March 1996)

Chris Mills confirmed this during a visit to the "Pattern Room" at the
British Royal Ordnance Factory. He examined an example of every 7.65
Mauser that has been made. He learned that there were only three that
could have been remotely confused with the Carcano: the Belgian 7.65
carbine and the Argentine 7.65. Supposedly one could include the
Turkish version, which is visually similar to the Argentine, but it is
clearly marked in Arabic script. According to the "Pattern Room"
Curator, none of the Mausers had the caliber stamped on the barrel at
the point of manufacture, and none of the examples Chris saw had such.
The Curator explained that it may have been possible, but rather
unlikely, that the caliber was stamped on later if the guns were
resold on the U.S. market. This could have been done so that 7.62
ammunition was not used by mistake. One model had the word "Mauser" in
its tool stamp: the Argentine carbine. The accompanying text on the
engraving, however, was obviously Spanish. Also, the sitting of the
word "Mauser" on the weapon is most problematic to Craig's assertions.
The weapon reportedly seen by Craig had a scope mounted. The mounting
bracket of the scope would have fitted directly over the position of
the "Mauser" engraving and none of the wording would have been visible
until the scope was removed.( E-mail from Chris Mills to Richard
Bartholomew, 8:59 p.m., Oct. 2, 1996)

> And: Even if ONLY the single word "Mauser" was normally stamped on
> some Mauser rifles, it still wouldn't make Craig any less of a
> liar....because Craig specifically said he saw "7.65 Mauser" printed
> on the gun. Not just the word "Mauser".

He got this from Weitzman who said the 7.65 was stamped on the gun.
He was just repeating what he was told.


>
> Did Chile or Argentina ever print "7.65" on the barrel too (along with
> the word "Mauser", as you claim)?

Don't know for a fact, but again RC claimed it was Weitzman that used
the terms "Mauser" and either "7.65 or 6.5". RC may have converted it
to a 7.65mm I can't remember which one Weitzman said for sure.

> >>> "Do we have any sources that are not John's or Bugman's?" <<<
>
> Gobs. I am constantly citing the WCR and the 26 volumes of exhibits
> and testimony. Naturally, though, you (being an "Anybody But Oswald"
> kook) must disregard everything connected with the Warren Commission.

Of course, one lie means there are more and it has shown without a
doubt there are lies in the WCR.


>
> That's what gives you free reign to be a kook 24/7....because you can
> always fall back on the CT-Kook's motto of: "The Warren Report is
> useless and worthless".

It is. It is full of incorrect and biased testimony and evidence.
That is why you don't come up with a scenario first and then have your
investigation prove this scenario to the exclusion of all others.


>
> Nice tactic. If you're a nutcase, that is.

I think you are nutcase to believe something that has been shown to be
so full of distortions, ommissions and lies, so I feel totally normal.


>
> >>> "He {Saint Roger Craig} was not the rifle expert, Weitzman was. Why are you pinning the misidentification on him {Saint Craig}?" <<<
>
> You aren't REALLY this stupid, are you Robby?
>
> I'm not "pinning the misidentification" only on Roger Craig. I know
> that both Boone and Weitzman initially said they thought Oswald's
> rifle was a Mauser too.
>
> What I'm "pinning" on Craig is the PROVABLE LIE that Craig told when
> he said he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle, because that is
> simply not true. No way. No how. No other officer said they saw "7.65
> Mauser" stamped on the rifle's barrel. Only Craig made this outrageous
> claim.

No I'm not that stupid and you aren't either Dave. If you are
acknowledging that RC got the intial ID from those guys, why is a
reach to think he was told it was stamped on the gun by those same
guys? He may have said, "What kind of gun is it?" and Fritz or
Weitzman said, "Its a Mauser 7.65mm". Is it unbelievable for a cop to
ask a question for confirmation (I mean this is how they do their
jobs) like, "How do you know that for sure?". One of them, or both of
them, may have said, "It is stamped on the gun." If you are admitting
the first part happened why not the second part? Why would RC make
the second part up? What is his motive?

Boone and Weitzman, in fact, both fully retracted their statements
> about the rifle being a "Mauser", with both of those officers later
> admitting that they were definitely mistaken about their initial
> "Mauser" identification. .....

Well, why not make sure before you go announcing anything?

It has been stated before the similarity between the "Mauser" and M-C
if you don't know firearms well, so this testimony proves nothing
really other than Boone didn't know rifles real well.


>
> But Roger Craig not only wouldn't retract his "Mauser" statement, he
> decided to go one step further into fantasyland by adding the provable
> lie of physically SEEING THE WORDS "7.65 Mauser" printed on the rifle
> picked up by Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz....even though it was proven
> beyond ALL doubt that the VERY SAME RIFLE that was being hoisted in
> the air by Day and Fritz on 11/22/63 was a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle,
> which had all the appropriate markings on it to show it was an Italian
> 1940 carbine, made in "Terni", with the unique Carcano serial number
> of "C2766".

I wasn't there and you weren't there so we won't know for 100%, but he
could have been told it was on the gun. More to the point, how do you
know it wasn't on the gun? No one has seen this "Mauser" have we?
They just showed us a M-C, what if there was a stamped "Mauser" and
the M-C? We know why they wouldn't show us the "Mauser" as that would
mean two shooters, so maybe RC is right.


>
> Roger Craig seemingly manifested "Paul O'Connor Disease" -- i.e., one
> untruth/lie seemed to feed and sprout additional untruths and
> distortions regarding the things that each man saw in 1963.

Yeah, but in this case lying against the WC/FBI/DPDs' LHO did it
theory was dangerous for your health, so you still haven't proved why
these guys would lie. What did they gain? From what I have read,
nothing.

> O'Connor was THE ONLY WITNESS who claimed to see ALL FOUR of these
> things in tandem (you won't find a single other witness who believes
> in this "Fantastic Four of JFK Fantasy"):

We are talking about Roger Craig right now.

> And Roger Craig is similar to O'Connor (except in Craig's case, it
> involves different lies/distortions and different pieces of evidence):

Roger Craig was a police officer who is used to investigations, why do
you think he would make up stuff? Especially when it cost him his
job.


>
> 1.) Craig sees "7.65 Mauser" stamped on Oswald's rifle.

And it could have been, a second rifle we haven't seen for obvious
reasons.


>
> 2.) Craig sees the three bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest "lying no
> more than an inch apart".

Planted, as an ejected shell wouldn't be so neat. Why LHO wouldn't
picked them is another question that should be asked.


>
> 3.) Craig is positive that the man he saw getting into a Rambler on
> Elm St. at approx. 12:40 PM on Nov. 22 was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Nobody I know of has proved it wasn't. The whole bus/cab thing is
still open for debate. There could have been two Oswalds too.

> 4.) Craig says that he was in Fritz' office and saw Oswald jump up,
> get mad, and shout "Everybody will know who I am now".*

He may have, you have very shaky testimony by Fritz saying it didn't
happen listed in a source that has been shown to have many mistakes.


>
> * = Which, when you think about it for a minute or two, is really a
> rather strange thing for Oswald to say in the first place. Because,
> unless Oswald was truly a COMPLETE MORON with no brains in HIS head
> either (a la O'Connor's similar observation re. JFK), Oswald would
> surely HAVE to realize that the world probably ALREADY KNEW who he was
> by the time he supposedly made such a statement in front of Craig (or
> that the world would very soon know who he was).

Or he was an agent that knew he was being setup and was frustrated.


>
> Oswald had been arrested for murder, so he certainly should have known
> his identity and personal info were going to be revealed to the
> waiting press in a fairly-short amount of time anyway.

He may have been arrested for murder but he wouldn't have been
convicted (unless it was a rigged trial like Bugman's) with the
evidence they had against him.


>
> So, when put in this context, the statement that Roger Craig
> attributes to Lee Oswald actually makes very little (common) sense at
> all.

As does the reason for him to lie, he gained nothing.


curtjester1

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 6:03:15โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to

And 5) If you haven't seen enough already, there is some from John S.
Craig's account from his article The Guns Of Dealey Plaza

Oswald told his inquisitors that he had seen a Mauser in the Texas
School Book Depository. On November 20th, Warren Carter, an employee
of Southwestern Publishing Company that occupied part of the second
floor in the Depository, brought a Mauser rifle and a .22 calibre
rifle for his fellow employees to look at, a fact that was verified by
numerous Depository employees. [30]


Curiously, Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano clearly has "MADE ITALY" and
"CAL 6.5" stamped on the side of the barrel. Though Oswald's rifle was
clearly marked, Boone, Weitzman, Craig, and Fritz at one time stated
they thought the gun was a Mauser, and Lt. Day's report is not
available. Weitzman's description includes the exact calibration of
the scope and the color of the sling. Though it is very clear that
what the officers thought they had found was a Mauser, the Warren
Commission explained away this problem by stating"Weitzman did not
handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range... thought it
was a Mauser ... [and eventually] police laboratory technicians
subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5
Italian rifle." [31]


But what the officers found may very well have been a Mauser
considering what Frank Ellsworth saw in the Depository that day.
Ellsworth was an agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency
and was in his office not far from the Depository when he was told of
the shooting. He ran to the Depository and entered the building with
Captain Will Fritz. Ellsworth claims he found the sniper's nest on the
sixth floor, but the "gun was not found on the same floor as the
cartridges, but on a lower floor by a couple of city detectives... I
think the rifle was found on the fourth floor." [32] Ellsworth
participated in a second search of the Depository after 1:30 p.m. on
November 22, 1963. The gun that was found was an Italian Mannlicher-
Carcano hidden behind boxes near the "stairwell back in the northwest
corner ... I have the recollection that the position it was in, and
where it was found, led to conjecture that as Oswald came down the
stairs he probably pitched it over behind these books." [33] Ellsworth
has stood by his original assessment of where the Mannlicher-Carcano
was found in a 1993 interview with authors Ray and Mary LaFontaine.


The HSCA investigated the misidentification of the rifle and concluded
that "many bolt-action rifles are so similar in profile that
misidentification may occur." [34]


Jim Garrison investigators interviewed David Kroman, a prisoner of
Leavenworth Penitentiaryand an acquaintance of Richard Case Nagell,
the ex-C.I.A. agent who has been linked to the assassination through
researcher Dick Russell. According to the Garrison investigators,
Nagell told Kroman that a right-wing extremist group financed by H.L.
Hunt and some Bastista sympathizers had plotted to assassinate Kennedy
in Miami in December 1962. As Nagell had told author Dick Russell, the
intent of the assassination would be to rationalize an attack on Cuba.
Kroman claimed Nagell told him that the plot moved to Dallas where
seven men were involved. Oswald was told to bring a Mauser to the
Texas School Book Depository on November 21st and leave it at the site
of the shooting. To complicate the plot, Oswald was to hand the
dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to a contact on the third floor
and leave the building. [35]

CJ

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 7:49:24โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to
A couple quick points- excellent job by Rob and CJ by the way1. A Mauser
could have been hidden in the book boxes right after the shooting, or
switched in some manner. 2. There's a helluva lot of suspicious stuff in
this case that had nothing to do with Langley as far as we know and
everything to do with the dallas police...

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 8:49:49โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to
>>> "He {Saint Craig} got this from Weitzman who said the 7.65 was stamped on the gun. He was just repeating what he was told." <<<


You're full of shit. Weitzman never said any such thing about seeing a
"STAMP" on the gun. Those are CRAIG'S words. Craig falsely claimed
that Weitzman "pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamp on the barrel". But
Weitzman never did any such thing; because if he had, Fritz and Day
and Boone and probably several others who were there would have also
obviously seen the "7.65" stamp on the gun. And nobody else saw it or
reported any such markings....and that's because the gun was a
Carcano, not a Mauser.

Roger Craig was FULL OF SHIT. Period.

Just watch Craig say that HE HIMSELF saw the "7.65 Mauser" markings.
Here's the video (it's 4:50 into this pack of lies being uttered by
Craig)......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 9:42:24โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 8:49 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He {Saint Craig} got this from Weitzman who said the 7.65 was stamped on the gun. He was just repeating what he was told." <<<
>
> You're full of shit. Weitzman never said any such thing about seeing a
> "STAMP" on the gun. Those are CRAIG'S words. Craig falsely claimed
> that Weitzman "pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamp on the barrel". But
> Weitzman never did any such thing; because if he had, Fritz and Day
> and Boone and probably several others who were there would have also
> obviously seen the "7.65" stamp on the gun. And nobody else saw it or
> reported any such markings....and that's because the gun was a
> Carcano, not a Mauser.

I can always tell when I have hit a nerve of truth because Dave loses
it and shows his real self. It is not bullshit as you weren't there
so how can you say anything didn't happen? You going by a source
(WCR) that has been shown to be full of lies and mistakes. Craig may
have said them but my guess is there was either a second gun (highly
probable) or Weitzman said it as he was the gun expert. Craig was
honorable as he could have said this but he didn't sell a co-worker
down the river like you would. I love how you say "Weitzman never
said anything such thing" like you were there. It is hilarious!!! I
love it. The other ones either weren't heard saying this or lacked
the honesty of a Craig to mention there was a second gun found. Like
you know what was found because you were there right?


>
> Roger Craig was FULL OF SHIT. Period.

He was a honest cop who told us what was found. Probably 2-3 guns.
According to other non-DPD search team members the Carcano was found
on the 5th floor not the 6th, so that could be even more proof of LHO
being framed.


>
> Just watch Craig say that HE HIMSELF saw the "7.65 Mauser" markings.
> Here's the video (it's 4:50 into this pack of lies being uttered by
> Craig)......

Of course he saw it as the other gun had this on it, but the Carcano
didn't. That is why they tried to make him seem like a liar as he was
telling people they found more than the Carcano there and that
couldn't be allowed.

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:34:45โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to
>>> "He {Saint Craig} was a{n} honest cop who told us what was found." <<<

He was a bald-faced liar. Period. And you're a kook for believing him
after seeing the wealth of evidence that shows Craig to be a liar. (Or
HAVE you looked at that wealth of "It Was A Carcano" evidence? Prob'ly
have, but you've just ignored it, right?)


>>> "Probably 2-3 guns. According to other non-DPD search team members the Carcano was found on the 5th floor not the 6th, so that could be even more proof of LHO being framed." <<<


Great Patsy Plot you've got there....they frame Patsy Oswald by
planting SEVERAL rifles all over the building, even on a floor where
the shooting never took place. Lovely.

You're getting kookier with each passing post.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:47:22โ€ฏPM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 10:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He {Saint Craig} was a{n} honest cop who told us what was found." <<<
>
> He was a bald-faced liar. Period. And you're a kook for believing him
> after seeing the wealth of evidence that shows Craig to be a liar. (Or
> HAVE you looked at that wealth of "It Was A Carcano" evidence? Prob'ly
> have, but you've just ignored it, right?)

What did this guy do to you? Your anger at him is a good sign for us
CTers as it shows how important this guy is to the real story. There
were multiple guns found, I'm sure of it. Multiple guns equal
multiple shooters which means a conspiracy. I haven't seen anything
that shows me he was liar, certainly not a bald-face liar to boot. You
haven't disproved a single thing he said.


>
> >>> "Probably 2-3 guns. According to other non-DPD search team members the Carcano was found on the 5th floor not the 6th, so that could be even more proof of LHO being framed." <<<
>
> Great Patsy Plot you've got there....they frame Patsy Oswald by
> planting SEVERAL rifles all over the building, even on a floor where
> the shooting never took place. Lovely.

Oswald was framed period. The guns had nothing to do with him but
rather show how many real assassins there were. I just repeating what
local ATF guy said when he assisted in the search, he claimed it was
on the 5th floor. It really didn't matter where they planted the gun
as the officials involved in the coverup would make everything gel
later on as we saw. Planting shells and all that good stuff.


>
> You're getting kookier with each passing post.

No, I'm getting to the truth, that is why you are getting so pissed.


Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 1:51:26โ€ฏAM11/10/07
to

>>> "Your anger at him {Saint Craig} is a good sign for us CTers, as it shows how important this guy is to the real story." <<<


Yeah, that sounds like the basic way you kooks go about solving the
case.


>>> "There were multiple guns found, I'm sure of it." <<<


You were on the sixth floor on 11/22, eh? Are you visible in the Alyea
film, too?

>>> "I haven't seen anything that shows me he {Pope Craig} was {a} liar." <<<


That's because you're a kook.

>>> "You haven't disproved a single thing he {President Craig} said." <<<


I've disproved EVERY single crackpot thing Craig said. .....

1.) It's not possible for Craig to have seen Oswald get in a Rambler
on Elm at 12:40.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0499b.htm

2.) It's not possible that Craig saw a "7.65 Mauser" being held up by
Fritz/Day.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg


3.) It's not possible that Craig saw the bullet shells just "an inch
apart" beneath the Sniper's-Nest window.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm

4.) It's not possible for Craig to be correct about Tippit being shot
at "1:06 PM", because Lee Harvey Oswald (beyond all doubt) is the
person who shot Officer Tippit.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0110a.htm


5.) The best evidence is that Craig was not inside Will Fritz' private
office on 11/22/63, and did not hear Lee Oswald shout out any remarks
in an angry manner. (The "Everybody will know who I am now" statement
attributed to Oswald by Craig doesn't even make any sense. It's
just....dumb.)

J. WILL FRITZ SAID -- "I am sure of one thing...I didn't bring him
{Lord Craig} in the office with Oswald."

>>> "Oswald was framed, period. The guns had nothing to do with him, but rather show how many real assassins there were." <<<


And if there's one thing that the patsy-framers CERTAINLY wanted to do
on 11/22/63, it was to leave behind gobs of evidence in the Depository
to "SHOW HOW MANY REAL ASSASSINS THERE WERE".

Right, Mega-Kook?

[ROFL Break.]


>>> "It really didn't matter where they planted the gun, as the officials involved in the coverup would make everything gel later on, as we saw. Planting shells and all that good stuff." <<<


Yeah, the patsy-framers who were involved in the PRE-ARRANGED framing
and setting up of JUST Oswald somehow KNEW that the rotten, evil
Government AND the rotten, evil Dallas Police Department AND the
rotten, evil Dallas County Sheriff's Department would be WANTING TO
FRAME THE EXACT SAME PATSY THAT THE PRE-NOVEMBER 22 PLOTTERS WERE
TRYING TO FRAME.

Right, Super-Mega-Kook?

Rob makes this so easy. Can't anyone stop him from making his daily
fool of himself? Surely there's some LAW on the books about the
"Prevention Of Self-Implosion"...or SOMETHING similar. Isn't there?

(I hope not, though. Because this is too much fun.)

aeffects

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 3:14:28โ€ฏAM11/10/07
to
On Nov 9, 10:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Your anger at him {Saint Craig} is a good sign for us CTers, as it shows how important this guy is to the real story." <<<
>
> Yeah, that sounds like the basic way you kooks go about solving the
> case.

sounds like your panicing Dave..... what the hell is up with THAT?
Remember, it's a simple murder investigation, what makes it
complicated is Lone Nut KOOKS that clutter up the scenery...

appears robcap has you pegged to a "t".... relax son.....

Jean Davison

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 1:41:15โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to

<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1194578016.1...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 8, 9:37 pm, "Jean Davison"
> <walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> > What it does show is that he is in close proximity to the office he
>> > said he was in with Oswald. I don't get your point as all pictures
>> > are but a second in time, the fact that he is out of the office at
>> > that "second" doesn't mean he was never in the office at all. That
>> > would be a false and unprovable conclusion.
>>
>> Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
>> office at all."
>>
>> Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
>> in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
>> Jean
>
> You're right it shouldn't be stated that way, but since he is in close
> proximity to the office and it is in the time period that LHO was in
> Fritz's office LNers can't say RC was lying either.

Again, nobody claimed the photo means that Craig lied. The
point, once more, is that the photo does not vindicate Craig or show
him in Fritz's office as many conspiracy theorists have claimed,
in this thread and elsewhere.

>The key point is
> that Fritz was supposed to have called him into his office as he
> claimed to see a man leaving the building shortly after the shooting
> and he wanted to know if the man they had was him. This is not hard
> to believe.

Fritz pointed out that Craig wouldn't need to enter his office to
view Oswald -- he could've seen him through the glass in the door.

>So basically I ask again, why did RC lie? Looking at
> what happened to him what did he gain by claiming these things?

IMO, it's pointless to ask why he would lie -- the question
calls for speculation or mind reading. Craig's story either checks out or
it doesn't. And for the most part, Craig's story doesn't check out. He saw
someone who resembled Oswald get into a station wagon -- that much is
corroborated. Most of the rest of what he said is uncorroborated
or contradicted by other evidence.

For instance, he claimed that the rifle found by Boone near the
6th floor stairwell, the one Day retrieved, was stamped with the name
"Mauser". But the Alyea film shows that it was an M-C.

Jean

>
>

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 5:55:36โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
On Nov 10, 1:51 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Your anger at him {Saint Craig} is a good sign for us CTers, as it shows how important this guy is to the real story." <<<
>
> Yeah, that sounds like the basic way you kooks go about solving the
> case.

Yes, it is how you work. Lighten up on yourself though, you can't
help you're a kook.


>
> >>> "There were multiple guns found, I'm sure of it." <<<
>
> You were on the sixth floor on 11/22, eh? Are you visible in the Alyea
> film, too?

Of course I am, I'm the smart one with the sign that says, "DVP is a
kook!"


>
> >>> "I haven't seen anything that shows me he {Pope Craig} was {a} liar." <<<
>
> That's because you're a kook.

Unfortunately for you it means just the opposite. I can see through
your lies.


>
> >>> "You haven't disproved a single thing he {President Craig} said." <<<
>
> I've disproved EVERY single crackpot thing Craig said. .....

No you haven't and you haven't given a single motive for him to
destroy his career and life to make up these things. He was an honest
man trying to serve his country, but he was up against evil forces who
didn't want the truth to be known.


>
> 1.) It's not possible for Craig to have seen Oswald get in a Rambler
> on Elm at 12:40.

Why not, several other witnesses did and you're not calling them
kooks, why? Photos have shown a Nash Rambler at that time so how can
you make the statement above?

> 2.) It's not possible that Craig saw a "7.65 Mauser" being held up by
> Fritz/Day.

I'm sure he did, we were never showed the gun though as it would mean
another shooter. McAdams stuff is as worthless as WCR stuff.

> 3.) It's not possible that Craig saw the bullet shells just "an inch
> apart" beneath the Sniper's-Nest window.

Why not? How do you know what is possible and not possible?

> 4.) It's not possible for Craig to be correct about Tippit being shot
> at "1:06 PM", because Lee Harvey Oswald (beyond all doubt) is the
> person who shot Officer Tippit.

Sorry, these are assumptions by people who set out to prove LHO guilty
and not conduct a real investigations. You have nothing but
allegations, no facts here. To bad RC isn't here to sue you for
defamation of character.

> 5.) The best evidence is that Craig was not inside Will Fritz' private
> office on 11/22/63, and did not hear Lee Oswald shout out any remarks
> in an angry manner. (The "Everybody will know who I am now" statement
> attributed to Oswald by Craig doesn't even make any sense. It's
> just....dumb.)

Wrong, I see him in a photo right outside the office taken around the
time he said he was called in. Why is it so hard to believe he was in
there at some point? You don't make any sense on this one.


>
> J. WILL FRITZ SAID -- "I am sure of one thing...I didn't bring him
> {Lord Craig} in the office with Oswald."

I like how you have shortened his answer from the stuttering mess it
was. He was flat out lying to save his pension.

> >>> "Oswald was framed, period. The guns had nothing to do with him, but rather show how many real assassins there were." <<<
>
> And if there's one thing that the patsy-framers CERTAINLY wanted to do
> on 11/22/63, it was to leave behind gobs of evidence in the Depository
> to "SHOW HOW MANY REAL ASSASSINS THERE WERE".

They knew (rightfully so) it would be taken care of by the police.
They knew the patsy would be framed and they couldn't go running out
of the building with rifles could they?
>
> Right, Mega-Kook?

You wish, it would make it so easy to believe all 85% of us who don't
believe your crazy theory are kooks. I believe in provable stuff,
none of the key parts of your theory could have been proven in a court
of law. Even Hoover admitted as much, thus the necessary shooting of
LHO. Nothing like lynch justice in Texas, huh?

LOL.... You are always laughing like a kook DVP.

> [ROFL Break.] Nutjob!


>
> >>> "It really didn't matter where they planted the gun, as the officials involved in the coverup would make everything gel later on, as we saw. Planting shells and all that good stuff." <<<
>
> Yeah, the patsy-framers who were involved in the PRE-ARRANGED framing
> and setting up of JUST Oswald somehow KNEW that the rotten, evil
> Government AND the rotten, evil Dallas Police Department AND the
> rotten, evil Dallas County Sheriff's Department would be WANTING TO
> FRAME THE EXACT SAME PATSY THAT THE PRE-NOVEMBER 22 PLOTTERS WERE
> TRYING TO FRAME.

I never said the whole government was involved, but yes they knew the
rest would be taken care of. Tippit was supposed to shoot LHO
according to alot of research, but we know that didn't happen since
another gunman got him while LHO was at the theater. I don't know what
you mean by the last part as agent Bolden said they had a different
patsy setup for Chicago if it had gone down up there and I'm sure they
had someone setup for Miami as well.

> Right, Super-Mega-Kook?

The more truth I convey the more titles I get.


>
> Rob makes this so easy. Can't anyone stop him from making his daily
> fool of himself? Surely there's some LAW on the books about the
> "Prevention Of Self-Implosion"...or SOMETHING similar. Isn't there?

I doubt it as you have been self-imploding for years on here and no
one has stopped you.


>
> (I hope not, though. Because this is too much fun.)

That's what I say everytime I read one of your nutjob, Archie, Herr
Goebbles posts. Carry on nutter!!


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 6:12:32โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 1:41 pm, "Jean Davison"
<walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >> > What it does show is that he is in close proximity to the office he
> >> > said he was in with Oswald. I don't get your point as all pictures
> >> > are but a second in time, the fact that he is out of the office at
> >> > that "second" doesn't mean he was never in the office at all. That
> >> > would be a false and unprovable conclusion.
>
> >> Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
> >> office at all."

Jean, you seem like a nice person (I am assuming and could be wrong)
unlike the nutjob DVP, but if you read before mentioned nutjob's posts
you will see he has claimed exactly this. He said he wasn't in there.
That's the point LNers make.


>
> >> Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
> >> in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
> >> Jean

Well that is not totally true Jean, because initially in years past
before this picture was found the first allegation by LNers was he was
never at the station at the time he said. Then, lo and behold this
picture was found and then they said well see he is not in the
office. My contention is that he is proven to be at the station when
he said he was (which LNers called him a liar for) so if he wasn't
lying about that why believe he lied about the other part? Why
believe Fritz so readily? This guy made statements and then changed
most of them before the WC, so if anybody has a track record of lying
it is him.


>
> > You're right it shouldn't be stated that way, but since he is in close
> > proximity to the office and it is in the time period that LHO was in
> > Fritz's office LNers can't say RC was lying either.
>
> Again, nobody claimed the photo means that Craig lied. The
> point, once more, is that the photo does not vindicate Craig or show
> him in Fritz's office as many conspiracy theorists have claimed,
> in this thread and elsewhere.

You obviously aren't reading the LNers posts (nutjob DVP in
particular). My point again is that if he was shown to be truthful
about being there, why not believe the rest of his story. Why would
he lie? No one has answered this question fully since it costs him
his career and life eventually.


>
> >The key point is
> > that Fritz was supposed to have called him into his office as he
> > claimed to see a man leaving the building shortly after the shooting
> > and he wanted to know if the man they had was him. This is not hard
> > to believe.
>
> Fritz pointed out that Craig wouldn't need to enter his office to
> view Oswald -- he could've seen him through the glass in the door.
>

I'm appealing to your sense of reason Jean, does this make sense? We
all watch cop shows and while they may not be anywhere near 100%
accurate regarding the harder parts of the investigation process, have
you ever seen a captain motioning someone to ID a person through glass
without forewarning? You may need to ask the officer questions, how
do you do this through glass? Sign language? Besides, all authority
figures like close contact with subordinates to convey their power and
through glass isn't as successful.

> >So basically I ask again, why did RC lie? Looking at
> > what happened to him what did he gain by claiming these things?
>
> IMO, it's pointless to ask why he would lie -- the question
> calls for speculation or mind reading. Craig's story either checks out or
> it doesn't. And for the most part, Craig's story doesn't check out. He saw
> someone who resembled Oswald get into a station wagon -- that much is
> corroborated. Most of the rest of what he said is uncorroborated
> or contradicted by other evidence.

No it isn't as it goes to motive. In any crime or wrongdoing motive
is the first thing that has to be established. In your life has
anyone lied about you or to you? You're first normal question (for
most of us anyway, save nutjob DVP) is why would they say that? That
is motive. Who's doing the "checking out" is vital also and you must
be able to believe they will tell the true version of events, are you
telling me you believe the WCR? I certainly can't say that as they
showed they would delete, falsify, edit or flat out lie to make things
fit their preconceived idea that LHO did it alone. So again, who
checked RC's story out? A bunch of people with an agenda that his
testimony didn't fit into, that's who. So based on that, how do you
say honestly he lied? There are witnesses other than him for almost
all he claimed, but these people either changed their story to fit
what was wanted or they weren't called. Period.


>
> For instance, he claimed that the rifle found by Boone near the
> 6th floor stairwell, the one Day retrieved, was stamped with the name
> "Mauser". But the Alyea film shows that it was an M-C.

Two points here. Firstly, he simply could have been repeating what
Weitzman said it was as Liebeler (Senior attorney for WC) testified
before the HSCA that Weitzman said it was a "Mauser" to pay back the
Germans because he was Jewish. Seconly, there probably was a second
gun that was a Mauser but we never saw it because it would mean
another shooter. Thirdly, movies and photos are firm evidence by
themselves as the evidence can be staged before they are taken meaning
you are not seeing what really happened.

Bud

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 6:58:37โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to

robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:41 pm, "Jean Davison"
> <walter.jeffriesZAPT...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > What it does show is that he is in close proximity to the office he
> > >> > said he was in with Oswald. I don't get your point as all pictures
> > >> > are but a second in time, the fact that he is out of the office at
> > >> > that "second" doesn't mean he was never in the office at all. That
> > >> > would be a false and unprovable conclusion.
> >
> > >> Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
> > >> office at all."
>
> Jean, you seem like a nice person (I am assuming and could be wrong)
> unlike the nutjob DVP, but if you read before mentioned nutjob's posts
> you will see he has claimed exactly this. He said he wasn't in there.

Wasn`t "where", idiot?

> That's the point LNers make.

Quote DVP saying Craig wasn`t "there", idiot. You aren`t saying
anything unless you are addressing something DVP said. And those
comments belong under where DVP make his comments, not vaguely
referenced to another poster.

> > >> Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
> > >> in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
> > >> Jean
>
> Well that is not totally true Jean, because initially in years past
> before this picture was found the first allegation by LNers was he was
> never at the station at the time he said.

What other people may or may have said or not said on this issue
has what to do with what the people have said in this discussion,
idiot?

> Then, lo and behold this
> picture was found and then they said well see he is not in the
> office. My contention is that he is proven to be at the station when
> he said he was (which LNers called him a liar for) so if he wasn't
> lying about that why believe he lied about the other part? Why
> believe Fritz so readily? This guy made statements and then changed
> most of them before the WC, so if anybody has a track record of lying
> it is him.

Again, this discussion revolved around whether that photo,
represented by Ben Holmes to show Craig in Fritz`s ofice actually did
what Ben claimed. It didn`t, in case you didn`t notice.

> > > You're right it shouldn't be stated that way, but since he is in close
> > > proximity to the office and it is in the time period that LHO was in
> > > Fritz's office LNers can't say RC was lying either.
> >
> > Again, nobody claimed the photo means that Craig lied. The
> > point, once more, is that the photo does not vindicate Craig or show
> > him in Fritz's office as many conspiracy theorists have claimed,
> > in this thread and elsewhere.
>
> You obviously aren't reading the LNers posts (nutjob DVP in
> particular). My point again is that if he was shown to be truthful
> about being there, why not believe the rest of his story.

I`ll dumb it down for you. Fritz said Craig was at the station.
The photo shows Craig at the station. Craig said he was in Fritz`s
office while Oswald was being interrogated. Fritz said he wasn`t in
his office while Oswald was being interrogated. Do you understand the
point of contention, and how this photo does nothing to resolve this
point of contention?

> Why would
> he lie?

Why do you assume he is telling the truth if you can`t determine
the answer to this?

>No one has answered this question fully since it costs him
> his career and life eventually.

Have you established his suicide had anything to do with the
assassination? Sounds like the pain from his gunshot wound was more
than he could stand.

> > >The key point is
> > > that Fritz was supposed to have called him into his office as he
> > > claimed to see a man leaving the building shortly after the shooting
> > > and he wanted to know if the man they had was him. This is not hard
> > > to believe.
> >
> > Fritz pointed out that Craig wouldn't need to enter his office to
> > view Oswald -- he could've seen him through the glass in the door.
> >
> I'm appealing to your sense of reason Jean, does this make sense? We
> all watch cop shows and while they may not be anywhere near 100%
> accurate regarding the harder parts of the investigation process, have
> you ever seen a captain motioning someone to ID a person through glass
> without forewarning? You may need to ask the officer questions, how
> do you do this through glass? Sign language? Besides, all authority
> figures like close contact with subordinates to convey their power and
> through glass isn't as successful.

Fritz said he stepped out into the hall to talk with Craig. You
should try reading what DVP writes, you might learn something. Idiot.

> > >So basically I ask again, why did RC lie? Looking at
> > > what happened to him what did he gain by claiming these things?
> >
> > IMO, it's pointless to ask why he would lie -- the question
> > calls for speculation or mind reading. Craig's story either checks out or
> > it doesn't. And for the most part, Craig's story doesn't check out. He saw
> > someone who resembled Oswald get into a station wagon -- that much is
> > corroborated. Most of the rest of what he said is uncorroborated
> > or contradicted by other evidence.
>
> No it isn't as it goes to motive. In any crime or wrongdoing motive
> is the first thing that has to be established.

Not true, of course. Motive is irrelevant, what people did or didn`t
do is what can be examined. Like most kooks, you want what is
unavailable before you can come to a conclusion. Try looking at what
is supportable (of course if you did that, you wouldn`t be a kook).

> In your life has
> anyone lied about you or to you? You're first normal question (for
> most of us anyway, save nutjob DVP) is why would they say that? That
> is motive.

And when when person says something happened, and another person
gives a completely different version of the same event, what then? The
only reasonable course is to see which of the two versions can be
supported. Idiots can scratch their heads for decades how there came
to be two different accounts.

> Who's doing the "checking out" is vital also and you must
> be able to believe they will tell the true version of events, are you
> telling me you believe the WCR? I certainly can't say that as they
> showed they would delete, falsify, edit or flat out lie to make things
> fit their preconceived idea that LHO did it alone.

Thats a vague assortment of kook claims.

> So again, who
> checked RC's story out?

There have been links given to examinations of what Craig said. You
didn`t read them, and remain ignorant.

> A bunch of people with an agenda that his
> testimony didn't fit into, that's who. So based on that, how do you
> say honestly he lied?

Did Jean say Craig lied? If you can`t get simple things like this
correct, why should you be listened to on more complex issues?

> There are witnesses other than him for almost
> all he claimed, but these people either changed their story to fit
> what was wanted or they weren't called. Period.

Then quote them, and show how they support aspects of Craig`s
account. Idiot.

> > For instance, he claimed that the rifle found by Boone near the
> > 6th floor stairwell, the one Day retrieved, was stamped with the name
> > "Mauser". But the Alyea film shows that it was an M-C.
>
> Two points here. Firstly, he simply could have been repeating what
> Weitzman said it was as Liebeler (Senior attorney for WC) testified
> before the HSCA that Weitzman said it was a "Mauser" to pay back the
> Germans because he was Jewish. Seconly, there probably was a second
> gun that was a Mauser but we never saw it because it would mean
> another shooter.

No, it would mean a second rifle. Idiot.

> Thirdly, movies and photos are firm evidence by
> themselves as the evidence can be staged before they are taken meaning
> you are not seeing what really happened.

<snicker> Yah, throw out all the evidence. Why didn`t the Warren
Commission think of this?

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 7:49:46โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 6:58 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> > > >> Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
> > > >> office at all."
>
> > Jean, you seem like a nice person (I am assuming and could be wrong)
> > unlike the nutjob DVP, but if you read before mentioned nutjob's posts
> > you will see he has claimed exactly this. He said he wasn't in there.
>
> Wasn`t "where", idiot?

Dud is too stupid to follow the thread of posts, but he still calls me
idiot. Typical nutjob LNer. In Fritz's office moron.


>
> > That's the point LNers make.
>
> Quote DVP saying Craig wasn`t "there", idiot. You aren`t saying
> anything unless you are addressing something DVP said. And those
> comments belong under where DVP make his comments, not vaguely
> referenced to another poster.

Aw, Dud is protecting DVP's honor, something butt buddies do in
prison. Read for yourself moron, DVP claims Craig was never in
Fritz's office.


>
> > > >> Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
> > > >> in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
> > > >> Jean
>
> > Well that is not totally true Jean, because initially in years past
> > before this picture was found the first allegation by LNers was he was
> > never at the station at the time he said.
>
> What other people may or may have said or not said on this issue
> has what to do with what the people have said in this discussion,
> idiot?

If you can't follow a simple thread of posts, why should I waste
keystrokes explaining to you Dud?


>
> > Then, lo and behold this
> > picture was found and then they said well see he is not in the
> > office. My contention is that he is proven to be at the station when
> > he said he was (which LNers called him a liar for) so if he wasn't
> > lying about that why believe he lied about the other part? Why
> > believe Fritz so readily? This guy made statements and then changed
> > most of them before the WC, so if anybody has a track record of lying
> > it is him.
>
> Again, this discussion revolved around whether that photo,
> represented by Ben Holmes to show Craig in Fritz`s ofice actually did
> what Ben claimed. It didn`t, in case you didn`t notice.

Well Dud, you haven't been reading the posts Jean and I have made as
we took it a little further. I recommend you get up-to-date before you
shoot your big stupid mouth off next time. Quit coming in here making
trouble and go back to your current issue of "Mad" magazine.


>
> > > > You're right it shouldn't be stated that way, but since he is in close
> > > > proximity to the office and it is in the time period that LHO was in
> > > > Fritz's office LNers can't say RC was lying either.
>
> > > Again, nobody claimed the photo means that Craig lied. The
> > > point, once more, is that the photo does not vindicate Craig or show
> > > him in Fritz's office as many conspiracy theorists have claimed,
> > > in this thread and elsewhere.
>
> > You obviously aren't reading the LNers posts (nutjob DVP in
> > particular). My point again is that if he was shown to be truthful
> > about being there, why not believe the rest of his story.
>
> I`ll dumb it down for you. Fritz said Craig was at the station.
> The photo shows Craig at the station. Craig said he was in Fritz`s
> office while Oswald was being interrogated. Fritz said he wasn`t in
> his office while Oswald was being interrogated. Do you understand the
> point of contention, and how this photo does nothing to resolve this
> point of contention?

That is not the original scenario Dudman, initially you LNers tried to
say Craig was never in the station when Oswald was there, then this
photo showed you guys as a pack of liars. Then you defended the
finding of the picture by saying, "...well it doesn't prove he was in
Fritz's office when LHO was in there". Jean and I were discussing the
picture so but out moron. I understand you are an expert at "dumbing
down" stuff but we don't need your help.


>
> > Why would
> > he lie?
>
> Why do you assume he is telling the truth if you can`t determine
> the answer to this?

I know the answer to the queston. Craig was in Fritz's office with
LHO just like he said.


>
> >No one has answered this question fully since it costs him
> > his career and life eventually.
>
> Have you established his suicide had anything to do with the
> assassination? Sounds like the pain from his gunshot wound was more
> than he could stand.

Yes, read what his friends and family said. He was tortured by the
assassination. He also didn't own a rifle and I have not heard about
who leant him a rifle to kill himself with. I think he may have been
murdered.

> > > >The key point is
> > > > that Fritz was supposed to have called him into his office as he
> > > > claimed to see a man leaving the building shortly after the shooting
> > > > and he wanted to know if the man they had was him. This is not hard
> > > > to believe.
>
> > > Fritz pointed out that Craig wouldn't need to enter his office to
> > > view Oswald -- he could've seen him through the glass in the door.

This is lame. Why wouldn't Fritz want him in his office? Please.


>
> > I'm appealing to your sense of reason Jean, does this make sense? We
> > all watch cop shows and while they may not be anywhere near 100%
> > accurate regarding the harder parts of the investigation process, have
> > you ever seen a captain motioning someone to ID a person through glass
> > without forewarning? You may need to ask the officer questions, how
> > do you do this through glass? Sign language? Besides, all authority
> > figures like close contact with subordinates to convey their power and
> > through glass isn't as successful.
>
> Fritz said he stepped out into the hall to talk with Craig. You
> should try reading what DVP writes, you might learn something. Idiot.

I would learn the truth like you obviously have butt buddy. When
people are in love like you their perspective is foggy. The whole
reason Craig was called to the station at that time was to ID LHO as
the man Craig saw leaving the scene in the Rambler, so why would he
step out into the hall and make him ID LHO through a window? You are
dumber than a turnip! LOL!!


>
> > > >So basically I ask again, why did RC lie? Looking at
> > > > what happened to him what did he gain by claiming these things?
>
> > > IMO, it's pointless to ask why he would lie -- the question
> > > calls for speculation or mind reading. Craig's story either checks out or
> > > it doesn't. And for the most part, Craig's story doesn't check out. He saw
> > > someone who resembled Oswald get into a station wagon -- that much is
> > > corroborated. Most of the rest of what he said is uncorroborated
> > > or contradicted by other evidence.
>
> > No it isn't as it goes to motive. In any crime or wrongdoing motive
> > is the first thing that has to be established.
>
> Not true, of course. Motive is irrelevant, what people did or didn`t
> do is what can be examined. Like most kooks, you want what is
> unavailable before you can come to a conclusion. Try looking at what
> is supportable (of course if you did that, you wouldn`t be a kook).

Dud, you have no understanding of criminal investigations by this
statement. Motive is the starting point for every investigation. The
court requires a reasonable motive to even issue a indictment. I am
convinced a turnip is smarter than you. I know of research going on
in the upper midwest on this topic too. LOL!! Nothing in this case
is supportable 100% as there was no formal investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!
What part of that don't you get?


>
> > In your life has
> > anyone lied about you or to you? You're first normal question (for
> > most of us anyway, save nutjob DVP) is why would they say that? That
> > is motive.
>
> And when when person says something happened, and another person
> gives a completely different version of the same event, what then? The
> only reasonable course is to see which of the two versions can be
> supported. Idiots can scratch their heads for decades how there came
> to be two different accounts.

Then you investigate to determine what is the accurate portrayal of
events, but the party doing this has to be trustworthy (I think I
addressed this in my response to Jean, but as usual you can't read)
and not shaky like the WC. They had their own agenda to show LHO did
it alone and nothing else would be accepted.


>
> > Who's doing the "checking out" is vital also and you must
> > be able to believe they will tell the true version of events, are you
> > telling me you believe the WCR? I certainly can't say that as they
> > showed they would delete, falsify, edit or flat out lie to make things
> > fit their preconceived idea that LHO did it alone.
>
> Thats a vague assortment of kook claims.

When a sound statement like this is made and you interpret it as "kook
claims" clears up for all reading your dumb posts why you are so
clueless. Pure sound logical reasoning goes over your pointed head.


>
> > So again, who
> > checked RC's story out?
>
> There have been links given to examinations of what Craig said. You
> didn`t read them, and remain ignorant.

Links to biased "investigations" with a preconceived notion of Craigs
guilt just like they did to LHO. I'm talking about impartial
investigations dumbass.


>
> > A bunch of people with an agenda that his
> > testimony didn't fit into, that's who. So based on that, how do you
> > say honestly he lied?
>
> Did Jean say Craig lied? If you can`t get simple things like this
> correct, why should you be listened to on more complex issues?

Again, if you could read and comprehend what is written, you would
know I never accused Jean of lying, but rather your butt buddy DVP.
You rode in on a white horse to defend him, how cute.


>
> > There are witnesses other than him for almost
> > all he claimed, but these people either changed their story to fit
> > what was wanted or they weren't called. Period.
>
> Then quote them, and show how they support aspects of Craig`s
> account. Idiot.

I already have in this thread and others, go do some checking before
you continue to show everyone how dumb you are.


>
> > > For instance, he claimed that the rifle found by Boone near the
> > > 6th floor stairwell, the one Day retrieved, was stamped with the name
> > > "Mauser". But the Alyea film shows that it was an M-C.
>
> > Two points here. Firstly, he simply could have been repeating what
> > Weitzman said it was as Liebeler (Senior attorney for WC) testified
> > before the HSCA that Weitzman said it was a "Mauser" to pay back the
> > Germans because he was Jewish. Seconly, there probably was a second
> > gun that was a Mauser but we never saw it because it would mean
> > another shooter.
>
> No, it would mean a second rifle. Idiot.

You don't even make sense moron. I said if one gun was found it was
ID as a "Mauser" by Weitzman, but my guess is there were at least two
guns (Mauser and MC). Look, I don't have time to spoon feed you all
this stuff, so either read and comprehend or stay out of my posts Dud.


>
> > Thirdly, movies and photos are firm evidence by
> > themselves as the evidence can be staged before they are taken meaning
> > you are not seeing what really happened.
>
> <snicker> Yah, throw out all the evidence. Why didn`t the Warren
> Commission think of this?

They did moron and practiced it quite a bit!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

aeffects

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 8:59:40โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
On Nov 7, 5:49 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thanks very much for the extra info, Jean.
>
> The kooks will no doubt twist it like a pretzel (as usual). But Jean's
> info is very revealing indeed.

Gary Mack's info you moron.....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 9:16:30โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
JEAN DAVISON SAID:

>>> "Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the office at all." " <<<

ROB THE KOOK THEN SAID:

>>> "Jean, you seem like a nice person (I am assuming and could be wrong) unlike the nutjob DVP, but if you read before-mentioned nutjob's posts you will see he has claimed exactly this." <<<

DVP NOW SAYS:

Yeah, that must be why I specifically said this just 7 days ago, right
Robert?......

===================================================


"I was careful with my wording when I was talking about Craig
and the incident in Fritz' office. I never stated that Craig was a
PROVEN liar on that particular point, which is why I carefully phrased
my post this way: "Craig also probably completely fabricated the story
about Oswald jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am
now"."

" "Probably" being the key word above. Maybe Craig was in Fritz'
office; and maybe he wasn't. And even if he was there, how does that
prove Fritz is a "liar"? Answer: It doesn't. Fritz possibly just
didn't remember Craig being there. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

"But Ben would rather call Fritz a liar than admit to the
possibility that Fritz was simply mistaken or that in the confusion
and bedlam at the police station the incident might have taken place
while Fritz had stepped out of his office for a minute or two." --
DVP; 11/04/07

===================================================

Full November 4 post:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/52768e3e7e8cc08b

Try learning how to read, Rob.

aeffects

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 9:50:57โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to

Dave,

In order for you to change minds, overwhelm us with your brilliance,
you've got to get beyond your Lone Nut encyclopedic mind/nonsense....
You're winning no hearts and monds here, Dave and you haven't for
years....

So settle down, breath deeply, say: Vince you cranked out a loser, I'm
done with ya, it's time to move on -- I Love Lucy Re-runs are the next
best thing to over-the-hill Lone Nut has-been writers....

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 10:30:51โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 9:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Fritz is a liar, how could he ask Craig if he was the man he saw and
yet not remember him in his office? How did he make captain with a
Alzheimers type memory? You were disputing him being in the office at
one point, but I don't have the energy to read through all these
posts. I know that is why Ben got in the loop.

You have called RC a liar, so now all of a sudden you are mister
diplomat? Please.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 10:59:56โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to

>>> You were disputing him {Pope Roger The First} being in the office at one point..." <<<

Sure. And I still dispute it. But I was careful with my verbiage
regarding the specific "Craig In Fritz' Office" point. Hence, the word
"probably" being used in my posts in this regard.

>>> "You have called RC a liar, so now all of a sudden you are mister diplomat?" <<<

Craig definitely was a liar with respect to any "7.65 Mauser" stamp
being on the gun found in the TSBD. He lied about that. No doubt about
that.

And since he was freely willing to tell a huge blatant lie about the
rifle, it makes it much easier to believe that he MIGHT lie about some
other things too.

The same goes for Lee Oswald -- We KNOW he lied about several critical
facts associated with the assassination evidence. He was definitely
trying to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE TWO MURDER WEAPONS (the MC rifle
he used on JFK and the .38 S&W revolver that he used to kill Tippit).

Hence, it seems reasonable to think that since Oz was willing to lie
about certain important things, he would therefore possibly tell other
lies as well.

I'm not saying that Craig or Oswald lied CONSTANTLY. Because that's
certainly not the case at all. Oswald told some truths. But he only
told the truth when he didn't feel THREATENED BY THE EVIDENCE. In
every question he was asked which could possibly connect him to the 2
murders he was charged with, he distanced himself from that
evidence....every time.

But when asked more benign questions, Oswald didn't NEED to lie to
save his murdering hide, so he didn't.

As for Roger Craig, I do think he saw someone who might have resembled
Oswald get into a station wagon on Elm St. around 12:40 PM on November
22. This observation is backed up by additional witnesses as well. But
that person getting into that Rambler was positively not Lee Harvey
Oswald.

Furthermore, it COULD NOT have been Oswald. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
for it to have been Oswald, because Oswald was several blocks east of
the Book Depository at that precise moment getting on a bus on Elm
Street. That's a proven fact. The bus transfer in Oswald's pocket plus
the observations of Mary Bledsoe prove beyond all doubt that LHO could
not have gotten into a car on Elm at 12:40.

Plus, Oswald told us (via the police) that he did, indeed, get on a
bus after leaving the TSBD. And here we have an instance where Oswald
didn't feel he had to tell a lie, so he didn't tell a lie....because
his getting on a bus doesn't make him guilty of shooting a gun at the
President. Same with the cab ride. So he admitted to that too.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 11:15:09โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 10:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> You were disputing him {Pope Roger The First} being in the office at one point..." <<<
>
> Sure. And I still dispute it. But I was careful with my verbiage
> regarding the specific "Craig In Fritz' Office" point. Hence, the word
> "probably" being used in my posts in this regard.
>
> >>> "You have called RC a liar, so now all of a sudden you are mister diplomat?" <<<
>
> Craig definitely was a liar with respect to any "7.65 Mauser" stamp
> being on the gun found in the TSBD. He lied about that. No doubt about
> that.

But the ID of the gun was done by Weitzman and Fritz, not Craig, so he
was simply repeating what he was told - that they found a Muaser
before they located the MC!!


>
> And since he was freely willing to tell a huge blatant lie about the
> rifle, it makes it much easier to believe that he MIGHT lie about some
> other things too.

This has not been proven to be a lie as others have stated a Mauser
was found also, it is obviously been hidden from us.


>
> The same goes for Lee Oswald -- We KNOW he lied about several critical
> facts associated with the assassination evidence. He was definitely
> trying to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE TWO MURDER WEAPONS (the MC rifle
> he used on JFK and the .38 S&W revolver that he used to kill Tippit).

How about all the lies the WC told or the lies they made witnesses
tell. There were far more lies told to protect the lone gunman
scenario than not to. You like to conveniently forget these lies
though. They are all over this case.


>
> Hence, it seems reasonable to think that since Oz was willing to lie
> about certain important things, he would therefore possibly tell other
> lies as well.

What did he lie about? He said he shot no one and he didn't. Like it
or not you have no physical evidence tying him to either murder that
would have withstood cross. That is the way it is. He was just a
primary suspect, but it the investigation had been done, there would
have been many more.


>
> I'm not saying that Craig or Oswald lied CONSTANTLY. Because that's
> certainly not the case at all. Oswald told some truths. But he only
> told the truth when he didn't feel THREATENED BY THE EVIDENCE. In
> every question he was asked which could possibly connect him to the 2
> murders he was charged with, he distanced himself from that
> evidence....every time.

That is because he was innocent, but if we argue your side, wouldn't
you deny killing two people? That is why the burden of proof is on
the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did these
crimes, and based on what I have read, they didn't stand a chance.


>
> But when asked more benign questions, Oswald didn't NEED to lie to
> save his murdering hide, so he didn't.

Or maybe he was an honest man who didn't lie on those other questions,
but because they were not the answers that fit a preconceived scenario
he was accused of lying. In all seriousness, any criminal today
charged with murder would love to have the "evidence" against him that
LHO had as they know they would be walking.


>
> As for Roger Craig, I do think he saw someone who might have resembled
> Oswald get into a station wagon on Elm St. around 12:40 PM on November
> 22. This observation is backed up by additional witnesses as well. But
> that person getting into that Rambler was positively not Lee Harvey
> Oswald.

There are no positives in this case Dave, period. Two witnesses
beyond Craig said he looked like LHO's twin. Sounds suspicious to
me. Why did LHO reference Ruth's car? What made him mention that?


>
> Furthermore, it COULD NOT have been Oswald. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
> for it to have been Oswald, because Oswald was several blocks east of
> the Book Depository at that precise moment getting on a bus on Elm
> Street. That's a proven fact. The bus transfer in Oswald's pocket plus
> the observations of Mary Bledsoe prove beyond all doubt that LHO could
> not have gotten into a car on Elm at 12:40.

The testimony of the cab driver is shaky and except for a bus pass
there is nothing tying LHO to the bus either. Now, it may have
happened as Harvey needed to leave and couldn't drive. Lee could have
gotten into the Rambler. Lee was the violent one according to the
researchers who have studied this. The problem with bus transfers is
they can be planted, anyone could have bought that transfer and linked
it to LHO just like the gun and the alias card.


>
> Plus, Oswald told us (via the police) that he did, indeed, get on a
> bus after leaving the TSBD. And here we have an instance where Oswald
> didn't feel he had to tell a lie, so he didn't tell a lie....because
> his getting on a bus doesn't make him guilty of shooting a gun at the
> President. Same with the cab ride. So he admitted to that too.

Or he was protecting the people tied to the operation. One theory I
have read said he assumed the FBI (who he was working for) would get
him out of this in the beginning. Sometime on Saturday he realized he
was the "patsy".

Bud

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 11:55:19โ€ฏPM11/11/07
to

robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 11, 6:58 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> Nobody claimed that the photo proves that Craig was "never in the
> > > > >> office at all."
> >
> > > Jean, you seem like a nice person (I am assuming and could be wrong)
> > > unlike the nutjob DVP, but if you read before mentioned nutjob's posts
> > > you will see he has claimed exactly this. He said he wasn't in there.
> >
> > Wasn`t "where", idiot?
>
> Dud is too stupid to follow the thread of posts, but he still calls me
> idiot. Typical nutjob LNer. In Fritz's office moron.

I can follow it well enough to know you and Ben are trying to use
Fritz`s office interchangably with the homicide department, which is
why I wanted you to specify. It`s a necessary step when dealing with
dishonest people.

> > > That's the point LNers make.
> >
> > Quote DVP saying Craig wasn`t "there", idiot. You aren`t saying
> > anything unless you are addressing something DVP said. And those
> > comments belong under where DVP make his comments, not vaguely
> > referenced to another poster.
>
> Aw, Dud is protecting DVP's honor, something butt buddies do in
> prison.

Is that what they did for you there? I wouldn`t know about it. I
did notice you lying about what DVP said, so I decided to call you on
it. I notice you didn`t couldn`t quote him saying what you claimed he
had said, thus confirming my suspicion.

> Read for yourself moron, DVP claims Craig was never in
> Fritz's office.

DVP wasn`t there. Fritz was, and he said Craig was never in his
office.

> > > > >> Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the photo shows Craig
> > > > >> in Fritz's office. It doesn't. That's the point.
> > > > >> Jean
> >
> > > Well that is not totally true Jean, because initially in years past
> > > before this picture was found the first allegation by LNers was he was
> > > never at the station at the time he said.
> >
> > What other people may or may have said or not said on this issue
> > has what to do with what the people have said in this discussion,
> > idiot?
>
> If you can't follow a simple thread of posts, why should I waste
> keystrokes explaining to you Dud?

To show that you could. You should start supporting some of the
things you say before people lose interest in engaging you in
discussion.

> > > Then, lo and behold this
> > > picture was found and then they said well see he is not in the
> > > office. My contention is that he is proven to be at the station when
> > > he said he was (which LNers called him a liar for) so if he wasn't
> > > lying about that why believe he lied about the other part? Why
> > > believe Fritz so readily? This guy made statements and then changed
> > > most of them before the WC, so if anybody has a track record of lying
> > > it is him.
> >
> > Again, this discussion revolved around whether that photo,
> > represented by Ben Holmes to show Craig in Fritz`s ofice actually did
> > what Ben claimed. It didn`t, in case you didn`t notice.
>
> Well Dud, you haven't been reading the posts Jean and I have made as
> we took it a little further.

No, Jean took it to exactly where I placed it. She disputed Ben`s
claim that that particular photo supports Craig`s claim of being in
Fritz`s office while Oz was being interrogated. It doesn`t, in case
you missed that.

> I recommend you get up-to-date before you
> shoot your big stupid mouth off next time. Quit coming in here making
> trouble and go back to your current issue of "Mad" magazine.

> > > > > You're right it shouldn't be stated that way, but since he is in close
> > > > > proximity to the office and it is in the time period that LHO was in
> > > > > Fritz's office LNers can't say RC was lying either.
> >
> > > > Again, nobody claimed the photo means that Craig lied. The
> > > > point, once more, is that the photo does not vindicate Craig or show
> > > > him in Fritz's office as many conspiracy theorists have claimed,
> > > > in this thread and elsewhere.
> >
> > > You obviously aren't reading the LNers posts (nutjob DVP in
> > > particular). My point again is that if he was shown to be truthful
> > > about being there, why not believe the rest of his story.
> >
> > I`ll dumb it down for you. Fritz said Craig was at the station.
> > The photo shows Craig at the station. Craig said he was in Fritz`s
> > office while Oswald was being interrogated. Fritz said he wasn`t in
> > his office while Oswald was being interrogated. Do you understand the
> > point of contention, and how this photo does nothing to resolve this
> > point of contention?
>
> That is not the original scenario Dudman, initially you LNers tried to
> say Craig was never in the station when Oswald was there,

Quote someone in this discussion making that claim, idiot.

>then this
> photo showed you guys as a pack of liars.

LN have always been aware that Fritz testified to talking to Craig
outside his office. That puts Craig in the station long before that
photo surfaced.

> Then you defended the
> finding of the picture by saying, "...well it doesn't prove he was in
> Fritz's office when LHO was in there".

That has been the argument ever since Ben brought up the photo. He
claimed it did something it does not do, confirm Craig`s account.

> Jean and I were discussing the
> picture so but out moron.

Jean was defining the argument so you could understand it. You
still don`t grasp it despite her efforts, and mine.

> I understand you are an expert at "dumbing
> down" stuff but we don't need your help.

You need all the help you can get.

> > > Why would
> > > he lie?
> >
> > Why do you assume he is telling the truth if you can`t determine
> > the answer to this?
>
> I know the answer to the queston. Craig was in Fritz's office with
> LHO just like he said.

Idiots often claim to just "know" stuff.

> > >No one has answered this question fully since it costs him
> > > his career and life eventually.
> >
> > Have you established his suicide had anything to do with the
> > assassination? Sounds like the pain from his gunshot wound was more
> > than he could stand.
>
> Yes, read what his friends and family said. He was tortured by the
> assassination. He also didn't own a rifle and I have not heard about
> who leant him a rifle to kill himself with. I think he may have been
> murdered.

There is better evidence supporting the idea that you are an idiot.

> > > > >The key point is
> > > > > that Fritz was supposed to have called him into his office as he
> > > > > claimed to see a man leaving the building shortly after the shooting
> > > > > and he wanted to know if the man they had was him. This is not hard
> > > > > to believe.
> >
> > > > Fritz pointed out that Craig wouldn't need to enter his office to
> > > > view Oswald -- he could've seen him through the glass in the door.
>
> This is lame. Why wouldn't Fritz want him in his office? Please.

Fritz didn`t act as you think he should have? Wow, thats
meaningless.

> > > I'm appealing to your sense of reason Jean, does this make sense? We
> > > all watch cop shows and while they may not be anywhere near 100%
> > > accurate regarding the harder parts of the investigation process, have
> > > you ever seen a captain motioning someone to ID a person through glass
> > > without forewarning? You may need to ask the officer questions, how
> > > do you do this through glass? Sign language? Besides, all authority
> > > figures like close contact with subordinates to convey their power and
> > > through glass isn't as successful.
> >
> > Fritz said he stepped out into the hall to talk with Craig. You
> > should try reading what DVP writes, you might learn something. Idiot.
>
> I would learn the truth like you obviously have butt buddy.

Then you should start with learning what the people who were there
at the time said. You are talking about talking through glass, or
whatever other idiotic thought that pops into your head, when DVP
supplied you with Fritz`s account about stepping out into the hallway.
All you needed to do to cure your ignorance was to read the pertinent
information he presented, and you wouldn`t have come off like an
idiot.

> When
> people are in love like you their perspective is foggy. The whole
> reason Craig was called to the station at that time was to ID LHO as
> the man Craig saw leaving the scene in the Rambler, so why would he
> step out into the hall and make him ID LHO through a window? You are
> dumber than a turnip! LOL!!

In what real way have you ruled out that this isn`t what was done?

> > > > >So basically I ask again, why did RC lie? Looking at
> > > > > what happened to him what did he gain by claiming these things?
> >
> > > > IMO, it's pointless to ask why he would lie -- the question
> > > > calls for speculation or mind reading. Craig's story either checks out or
> > > > it doesn't. And for the most part, Craig's story doesn't check out. He saw
> > > > someone who resembled Oswald get into a station wagon -- that much is
> > > > corroborated. Most of the rest of what he said is uncorroborated
> > > > or contradicted by other evidence.
> >
> > > No it isn't as it goes to motive. In any crime or wrongdoing motive
> > > is the first thing that has to be established.
> >
> > Not true, of course. Motive is irrelevant, what people did or didn`t
> > do is what can be examined. Like most kooks, you want what is
> > unavailable before you can come to a conclusion. Try looking at what
> > is supportable (of course if you did that, you wouldn`t be a kook).
>
> Dud, you have no understanding of criminal investigations by this
> statement.

Was Craig`s actions being criminally investigated, idiot?

> Motive is the starting point for every investigation.

Of course this isn`t true. Gathering of information is the starting
point of an investigation.

> The
> court requires a reasonable motive to even issue a indictment.

You are full of shit. Are you saying I can kill someone, and as
long as I keep my motivation to myself, I can`t be tried? You are an
idiot. You only have to show the person did the crime in question, the
why is unnecessary to obtain a conviction.

> I am
> convinced a turnip is smarter than you. I know of research going on
> in the upper midwest on this topic too. LOL!! Nothing in this case
> is supportable 100% as there was no formal investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!
> What part of that don't you get?

If the whole case is mush, then none of it can be used to support a
conspiract conclusion either, right idiot?

But the case isn`t mush, and your attempts to nullify information
is so you can pretend all things are equal. They aren`t.

> > > In your life has
> > > anyone lied about you or to you? You're first normal question (for
> > > most of us anyway, save nutjob DVP) is why would they say that? That
> > > is motive.
> >
> > And when when person says something happened, and another person
> > gives a completely different version of the same event, what then? The
> > only reasonable course is to see which of the two versions can be
> > supported. Idiots can scratch their heads for decades how there came
> > to be two different accounts.
>
> Then you investigate to determine what is the accurate portrayal of
> events, but the party doing this has to be trustworthy (I think I
> addressed this in my response to Jean, but as usual you can't read)
> and not shaky like the WC. They had their own agenda to show LHO did
> it alone and nothing else would be accepted.

Instead of griping about the WC, why not do better yourself?
Investigate it, and resolve the issue. Links were given to work done
by people who looked into Craig`s claims and found problems with some
of what he had to say. If you don`t like the status of this issue as
it stands today, by all means, resolve it yourself.

> > > Who's doing the "checking out" is vital also and you must
> > > be able to believe they will tell the true version of events, are you
> > > telling me you believe the WCR? I certainly can't say that as they
> > > showed they would delete, falsify, edit or flat out lie to make things
> > > fit their preconceived idea that LHO did it alone.
> >
> > Thats a vague assortment of kook claims.
>
> When a sound statement like this is made and you interpret it as "kook
> claims" clears up for all reading your dumb posts why you are so
> clueless. Pure sound logical reasoning goes over your pointed head.

You presented no sound logical reasoning, you presented an
assortment of kook claims.

> > > So again, who
> > > checked RC's story out?
> >
> > There have been links given to examinations of what Craig said. You
> > didn`t read them, and remain ignorant.
>
> Links to biased "investigations" with a preconceived notion of Craigs
> guilt just like they did to LHO.

You want Craig`s words accepted without critical examination.

> I'm talking about impartial
> investigations dumbass.

You`re talking about findings that coincide with your own opinions.

> > > A bunch of people with an agenda that his
> > > testimony didn't fit into, that's who. So based on that, how do you
> > > say honestly he lied?
> >
> > Did Jean say Craig lied? If you can`t get simple things like this
> > correct, why should you be listened to on more complex issues?
>
> Again, if you could read and comprehend what is written, you would
> know I never accused Jean of lying, but rather your butt buddy DVP.
> You rode in on a white horse to defend him, how cute.

<snicker> You are an idiot. I didn`t say that you said Jean lied. I
said "Did Jean say that Craig lied?" You asked how Jean could
honestly say that Craig lied. First, you need to show where she
actually took the position that Craig lied. Idiot.

> > > There are witnesses other than him for almost
> > > all he claimed, but these people either changed their story to fit
> > > what was wanted or they weren't called. Period.
> >
> > Then quote them, and show how they support aspects of Craig`s
> > account. Idiot.
>
> I already have in this thread and others, go do some checking before
> you continue to show everyone how dumb you are.

Like the six people who saw multiple gunmen in the Tippit murder?

> > > > For instance, he claimed that the rifle found by Boone near the
> > > > 6th floor stairwell, the one Day retrieved, was stamped with the name
> > > > "Mauser". But the Alyea film shows that it was an M-C.
> >
> > > Two points here. Firstly, he simply could have been repeating what
> > > Weitzman said it was as Liebeler (Senior attorney for WC) testified
> > > before the HSCA that Weitzman said it was a "Mauser" to pay back the
> > > Germans because he was Jewish. Seconly, there probably was a second
> > > gun that was a Mauser but we never saw it because it would mean
> > > another shooter.
> >
> > No, it would mean a second rifle. Idiot.
>
> You don't even make sense moron. I said if one gun was found it was
> ID as a "Mauser" by Weitzman, but my guess is there were at least two
> guns (Mauser and MC). Look, I don't have time to spoon feed you all
> this stuff, so either read and comprehend or stay out of my posts Dud.

No only don`t you understand what I say, you don`t even understand
what you said. You said a second rifle would mean a second shooter. I
pointed out that that didn`t follow, and that a second rifle (if there
was one) only meant a second rifle, not necessarily a second shooter.
Try standing on a dictionary, maybe these things won`t go flying over
your head as much.

> > > Thirdly, movies and photos are firm evidence by
> > > themselves as the evidence can be staged before they are taken meaning
> > > you are not seeing what really happened.
> >
> > <snicker> Yah, throw out all the evidence. Why didn`t the Warren
> > Commission think of this?
>
> They did moron and practiced it quite a bit!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Really? They sat around saying "we better not trust this evidence,
it could be staged"? Sound like something an idiot would say to me.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 12:52:52โ€ฏAM11/12/07
to
On Nov 11, 11:55 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> > > Wasn`t "where", idiot?
>
> > Dud is too stupid to follow the thread of posts, but he still calls me
> > idiot. Typical nutjob LNer. In Fritz's office moron.
>
> I can follow it well enough to know you and Ben are trying to use
> Fritz`s office interchangably with the homicide department, which is
> why I wanted you to specify. It`s a necessary step when dealing with
> dishonest people.

Yeah, I know, if we don't say LHO did it all by himself we are all
liars in your book. I never said that, I said there is a picture of
him right near Fritz's office and his primary reason for even being
there was because he was called in to ID the man they arrested to see
if he was the same man that Craig saw get into the Rambler. Clear
enough for you?


>
> > > > That's the point LNers make.
>
> > > Quote DVP saying Craig wasn`t "there", idiot. You aren`t saying
> > > anything unless you are addressing something DVP said. And those
> > > comments belong under where DVP make his comments, not vaguely
> > > referenced to another poster.

I know Dave has said Craig wasn't in Fritz's office as that is why Ben
mentioned the picture, then DVP backpeddled and said he "probably"
wasn't in his office.


>
> > Aw, Dud is protecting DVP's honor, something butt buddies do in
> > prison.
>
> Is that what they did for you there? I wouldn`t know about it. I
> did notice you lying about what DVP said, so I decided to call you on
> it. I notice you didn`t couldn`t quote him saying what you claimed he
> had said, thus confirming my suspicion.
>

Now, now Dud, we understand. Denial is not needed here. It's nice of
you to leap to DVP's defense, it is a shame you don't care about all
the lies the LNers make here everyday.

> > Read for yourself moron, DVP claims Craig was never in
> > Fritz's office.
>
> DVP wasn`t there. Fritz was, and he said Craig was never in his
> office.

Thanks for the clarification as Dave usually says things like he was
there. It's nice for once he admits he wasn't. Fritz is a liar. He
has been shown to change his story quite a bit too.

> > > What other people may or may have said or not said on this
issue
> > > has what to do with what the people have said in this discussion,
> > > idiot?

Boy, for someone so stupid you throw the word idiot around a good bit.
It has everything to do with this discussion because you LNers claim
Craig is the liar, but here is proof that LNers are the liars. LNers
swore up and down Craig lied when he said he was in Fritz's office
with LHO because you guys claimed he wasn't at the station. Once this
picture was presented then you used a different attack, just like the
WC.


>
> > If you can't follow a simple thread of posts, why should I waste
> > keystrokes explaining to you Dud?
>
> To show that you could. You should start supporting some of the
> things you say before people lose interest in engaging you in
> discussion.

Like you do? When have you shown any "proof" for what you say?
Believe me I'll live if you don't talk with me.

> > > Again, this discussion revolved around whether that photo,
> > > represented by Ben Holmes to show Craig in Fritz`s ofice actually did
> > > what Ben claimed. It didn`t, in case you didn`t notice.

I don't remember what Ben said, you are attacking me and calling me an
idiot and I never claimed the photo showed him in Fritz's office. If
you have a problem with the statement go discuss it with Ben.


>
> > Well Dud, you haven't been reading the posts Jean and I have made as
> > we took it a little further.
>
> No, Jean took it to exactly where I placed it. She disputed Ben`s
> claim that that particular photo supports Craig`s claim of being in
> Fritz`s office while Oz was being interrogated. It doesn`t, in case
> you missed that.

Yes, she did and I said a photo is but one second in time and there is
no proof he never entered the office. The photo showing that one
second can neither confirm he was in Fritz's office or he wasn't at
any time, but it does back up what Craig said so many years ago,
namely he was called to the station to ID LHO. You guys said he lied
about this part. I'm saying that part was vindicated by the photo, so
why not believe he was in the office like he said?

> > That is not the original scenario Dudman, initially you LNers tried to
> > say Craig was never in the station when Oswald was there,
>
> Quote someone in this discussion making that claim, idiot.

Not this discussion as the photo as been around for awhile, but before
the photo was found it was considered by LNers that Craig lied about
that. He didn't and you still have nothing showing he ever lied so why
not believe he was in Fritz's office? Fritz is the one who was not
consistent with the events, which should indicate some lying to me.

> LN have always been aware that Fritz testified to talking to Craig
> outside his office. That puts Craig in the station long before that
> photo surfaced.

Why would he talk with him outside his office? Did Craig have B.O.?
This makes no sense. You bring a primary investigator in to ID someone
and then you make them do it through glass? Crazy.

> > Then you defended the
> > finding of the picture by saying, "...well it doesn't prove he was in
> > Fritz's office when LHO was in there".
>
> That has been the argument ever since Ben brought up the photo. He
> claimed it did something it does not do, confirm Craig`s account.

I think it shows he was in very close proximity to Fritz's office and
why no one would believe he entered Fritz's office is beyond me. He
had to stop investigating the biggest murder of our country's history
to come in and make an ID and Fritz won't let him in his office? Did
Fritz let anyone into his office besides suspects?

> > Jean and I were discussing the
> > picture so but out moron.
>
> Jean was defining the argument so you could understand it. You
> still don`t grasp it despite her efforts, and mine.

I grasp it, you are the one who doesn't get the photo shows he was
were he said. Yes he is a few feet off but he is basically where he
said he was and it is ridiculous to think he wouldn't have been
allowed into the office. I can see Fritz briefing in the hall before
they went in, but to say they never went in is nuts.

> Idiots often claim to just "know" stuff.

Yes, they do and you're proof of that fact.

> > > Have you established his suicide had anything to do with the
> > > assassination? Sounds like the pain from his gunshot wound was more
> > > than he could stand.

You obviously haven't read anything about the man beyond the fact that
he was a liar according to the WC.

> There is better evidence supporting the idea that you are an idiot.

Sure there is. I think a person who believes in someone's guilt
without proof is the real idiot and you did this for both LHO and
Craig.

> Fritz didn`t act as you think he should have? Wow, thats
> meaningless.

It has nothing to do with what I think is correct, it is not normal
behavior for a captain of a police force. Usually they have bigger
offices so people can fit into them, not stand in the hallway to
discuss case business and make ID's.

> > I would learn the truth like you obviously have butt buddy.

Come up with something original baloney smuggler. Let's not steal my
stuff ass wrangler.


>
> Then you should start with learning what the people who were there
> at the time said. You are talking about talking through glass, or
> whatever other idiotic thought that pops into your head, when DVP
> supplied you with Fritz`s account about stepping out into the hallway.
> All you needed to do to cure your ignorance was to read the pertinent
> information he presented, and you wouldn`t have come off like an
> idiot.

Oh my God, forgive me, I didn't realize DVP's word was gospel...that
changes everything!! Get a life and quite worshiping DVP's ass.

> In what real way have you ruled out that this isn`t what was done?

Based on the fact that Fritz wouldn't leave LHO alone in his office.
I don't think anyone was there besides LHO when Craig said he came in
so you're saying Fritz would leave his office and let LHO be in there
unwatched?

> > > Not true, of course. Motive is irrelevant, what people did or didn`t
> > > do is what can be examined. Like most kooks, you want what is
> > > unavailable before you can come to a conclusion. Try looking at what
> > > is supportable (of course if you did that, you wouldn`t be a kook).
>
> > Dud, you have no understanding of criminal investigations by this
> > statement.
>
> Was Craig`s actions being criminally investigated, idiot?

They must have been that is why the WC determined he was a liar.
Motive is important in any investigation and they assumed he was lying
without defining his motive for doing so.


>
> > Motive is the starting point for every investigation.
>
> Of course this isn`t true. Gathering of information is the starting
> point of an investigation.

You are as dumb as YoHarvey and Little Puppy, you must be the same
idiot. How do you know who to gather information on without
identifying who had motive? Do you start with a list of 10, 20, 30
people or do you narrow it down by using motive? I know you are dumb
enough to start with 30 people and get nowhere.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 1:48:09โ€ฏAM11/12/07
to
>>> "I can see Fritz briefing in the hall before they went in, but to say they never went in is nuts." <<<

And nobody is saying that Craig positively wasn't in Fritz' inner
office. That's why you're a kook. You cannot assess the info being
provided.

In fact, I specifically chose my words carefully re. this matter when
I said this a week ago when this topic of Roger Craig first re-
surfaced here:

"Maybe Craig was in Fritz' office; and maybe he wasn't. And even
if he was there, how does that prove Fritz is a "liar"? Answer: It
doesn't. Fritz possibly just didn't remember Craig being there. Who

can know for sure? Nobody can. .... The story surrounding Fritz'
office and Oswald getting mad etc. is open to question, but I lean
toward that incident never taking place either (esp. since I know I'm
dealing with a PROVEN liar like Roger D. Craig in the "Mauser"
regard). It's certainly much easier to believe that Craig would lie
about something ELSE re. the case since we know beyond a speck of a
doubt that he lied (and boldly lied) about the "7.65 Mauser"
bullshit." -- DVP; Nov. 4, 2007

~~~~~

It's also worth re-posting the following words from author Dale K.
Myers (which is the caption for the controversial photo of Craig in
question). In the caption, Myers is telling his readers that the
picture wasn't even taken on the day of the assassination; instead,
it's a picture showing Craig in the Homicide OUTER offices the NEXT
DAY (11/23).

But many CTers like to prop that photo up as some kind of "proof" that
Craig was in Fritz' inner office with Oswald on Nov. 22. It doesn't
mesh, and only goes to show the desperation that certain CTers
exhibit.....


"Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig talks to Dallas police inside the
Homicide and Robbery office on Saturday, November 23, 1963. Captain
Fritz's private office, where Oswald was being interrogated, is behind
Craig -- blinds drawn." -- Dale Myers; Via Photo Caption; Page 214 of
"WITH MALICE"


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bbce3cbb27248a18

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 2:46:22โ€ฏAM11/12/07
to
>>> "But the ID of the gun was done by Weitzman and Fritz, not Craig, so he was simply repeating what he was told - that they found a Mauser before they located the MC!!" <<<


Please quote Weitzman or Fritz saying that they saw the words "7.65
Mauser" stamped on the rifle.

The only person who ever said that was your hero--the wonderful, ever-
truthful Roger Dean Craig.

And there was never a SECOND rifle found on the sixth floor (or the
fifth floor), Mr. Kook.


>>> "Others have stated a Mauser was found also, it was obviously being hidden from us." <<<


Yeah, either that or maybe the officers who offered up the kneejerk
initial comments about the MC being a Mauser were incorrect in that
kneejerk initial reaction AND SAID SO LATER ON (which they
did....except for your pal Mr. Craig, of course). But, I guess Roger
was the only truthful one in the bunch, huh?

>>> "How about all the lies the WC told or the lies they made witnesses tell." <<<


How about you proving to the masses that the WC "lied" and proving
that the WC made witnesses lie. Can you do that? Should I hold my
breath waiting for your proof to support both of those idiotic
contentions?

>>> "What did he {Oswald} lie about?" <<<


Good God. How can anyone be this stupid?

Here's a Starter List of 39 Oswald lies (there are plenty more too):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d


>>> "That is because he {LHO The Great} was innocent..." <<<


And nuns can fly too.

It's nice believing in fantasies, ain't it?


>>> "Wouldn't you deny killing two people?" <<<


Sure I would. Because I didn't kill two people in Dallas in 1963.
Oswald, on the other hand, did kill two people. And denying guilt
after a killer has been caught is certainly not uncommon. In fact,
it's expected.


>>> "That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did these crimes, and based on what I have read, they didn't stand a chance." <<<


That's because you are buried in pro-conspiracy books and theories and
you cannot assess information properly.

And then there's the fact that you're an idiot and an Anybody-But-
Oswald kook too. Those two things don't exactly help your case either.

>>> "There are no positives in this case Dave, period." <<<


I'm positive you're a Mega-Kook. (Does that count?)

>>> "Two witnesses beyond Craig said he {Rambler Man} looked like LHO's twin. Sounds suspicious to me." <<<


Not to a reasonable non-kook who can assess information properly (and
chronologically). Oswald was proven to be ELSEWHERE at the time when
Craig places him in a Rambler at 12:40.

Maybe Elizabeth Montgomery and her mother, Endora, whipped up a second
Oswald at just the right moment, huh? Why not try that "Bewitched"
theory. It should work as well as all your other kooky ones have.


>>> "Why did LHO reference Ruth's car? What made him mention that?" <<<


There's no corroboration whatsoever (beyond your hero named Roger)
that Oswald said any such thing in Fritz' office.

Plus, as has been pointed out to you several times now, the station
wagons don't mesh -- i.e., Craig is sure he saw a "Nash Rambler"; Mrs.
Paine owned a different model station wagon.

So if you want to believe Craig AND Oswald in this "station wagon"
regard, how is it that Oswald was able to get into a "Rambler" owned
by Ruth Paine when Paine didn't own a Rambler at all?


>>> "The testimony of the cab driver is shaky..." <<<


Bullshit.

William W. Whaley positively placed Lee Oswald in his cab.

Why not try reading some of the things these witnesses ACTUALLY SAID,
instead of trying to place this huge cloud of DOUBT and MYSTERY over
the whole case?

And believing that every witness who gave incriminating testimony
against LHO was being coerced or forced into so doing is just plain
stupid. But, being a kook, you probably believe that William Whaley
was telling a lie in his testimony shown below, right Mr. K?.....


Mr. BELIN. Was the man in connection with the Ruby matter with the two
detectives, did it have his name in the paper as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Was his name in the paper then when you saw his picture?

Mr. WHALEY. Well, I don't think they had it that way. I think they
just had it Oswald. I am not sure what they had under it. I am not for
sure, but I did see the picture.

Mr. BELIN. Was that the same man you carried in your cab on Friday?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Was that the man you identified at the police station?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley3.htm

>>> "And except for a bus pass there is nothing tying LHO to the bus either." <<<

<sigh>

Bullshit (again).

Mary E. Bledsoe (do you know who she was?) ..... she KNEW OSWALD ON
SIGHT, and she was on the same bus Oswald boarded at about 12:40 on
11/22/63. Bledsoe had rented a room to Oswald just one month prior to
the assassination, and after one week she, in effect, kicked him out,
because she didn't like him. So she HAD A REASON TO NOTICE WHO HE WAS
ON NOVEMBER 22.

Is Mary telling tales out of school here too, Robby? (These are
excerpts from Bledsoe's 11/23/63 official affidavit.).....

"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the
President. .... I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go
home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and
made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. .... Due
to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him
again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from
October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963."

Signed,
Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm


>>> "Now, it may have happened as Harvey needed to leave and couldn't drive..." <<<


Harvey Korman from "The Carol Burnett Show"? I love him! He's
hilarious. (But not nearly as funny as a kook named Robert Caprio,
though.)


>>> "Lee could have gotten into the Rambler." <<<


Oh goodie! An Armstrong-like, made-up-from-bullshit "Double Oswald"
007 plot! I love these!


>>> "Lee was the violent one according to the researchers who have studied this." <<<

And "Harvey" was just a....rabbit....right? He'd never even hurt Jimmy
Stewart, right? (Correct me if I've got it wrong. I'd hate to spoil a
kook's fantasy by getting something askew here.)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0042546

>>> "The problem with bus transfers is they can be planted..." <<<


Of course. And so can guns, and shells, and fingerprints, and
stretcher bullets, and paper bags, and everything else east of the
Rockies in order to frame poor innocent Lee. Or is it "Harvey" being
framed today? I forget.

Or maybe we're back to Korman again. Or perhaps Jerry Lewis and Keenan
Wynn, two of the stars of this fine feature flick (which would have
been an ideal motion-picture vehicle for Patsy Oswald too).....

http://imdb.com/title/tt0058456

>>> "Anyone could have bought that transfer and linked it to LHO, just like the gun and the alias card." <<<


And the shells in the SN, and the shells on 10th Street, and the
revolver in Oswald's pocket, and CE399 in Parkland Hospital, and the
two large bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limo (which,
like CE399, were linked to LHO's MC rifle to the exclusion of every
other weapon ever made), and the LHO prints on the two boxes in the
SN, and the LHO palmprint on the MC rifle, and the order form for the
MC rifle (which was in LHO's handwriting), and the money order for the
MC rifle (which was in LHO's handwriting)....

And:

The clothing fibers wedged in the butt plate of the MC rifle (which
matched LHO's arrest shirt), and the paper bag found in the SN, and
the two LHO prints on the paper bag found in the SN, and the fibers
found inside the paper bag which matched the blanket in Paine's
garage, and the jacket that Oswald shed on Nov. 22 (if the Texaco
jacket wasn't his, whose was it and where did LHO's jacket disappear
to at the very same time?), and the backyard photographs (which Marina
admitted to taking, one of which turned up among George
DeMohrenschildt's possessions in 1977 with LHO's signature on the
back, which was proven to be the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald)....

And:

Oswald's own guilty-like actions were probably just a clever "ruse"
too. LHO was probably given some kind of "I FEEL LIKE ACTING LIKE A
GUILTY PERSON" drug by the plotters before noon on November 22nd, so
that he would go around Dallas acting like a guilty person after the
President's murder....

And:

All of the witnesses could have been "coerced" or "bribed" or
"drugged" to tell one "IT WAS OSWALD" lie after another....witnesses
such as Howard Brennan, Helen Markham, Jack Tatum, William Scoggins,
Ted Callaway, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Warren Reynolds, Mary
Brock, Johnny Brewer, Domingo Benavides, and many others.

Whew! That's a lot of Patsy-framing going on there.

Good luck proving all of that stuff above was just a "Patsy-Framing
Ruse".

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 3:30:51โ€ฏPM11/12/07
to
On Nov 12, 1:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I can see Fritz briefing in the hall before they went in, but to say they never went in is nuts." <<<
>
> And nobody is saying that Craig positively wasn't in Fritz' inner
> office. That's why you're a kook. You cannot assess the info being
> provided.

I think Dud is asserting he never went into Fritz's office, why don't
you read your fellow nutjob's posts.

> In fact, I specifically chose my words carefully re. this matter when
> I said this a week ago when this topic of Roger Craig first re-
> surfaced here:
>
> "Maybe Craig was in Fritz' office; and maybe he wasn't. And even
> if he was there, how does that prove Fritz is a "liar"? Answer: It
> doesn't. Fritz possibly just didn't remember Craig being there. Who
> can know for sure? Nobody can. .... The story surrounding Fritz'
> office and Oswald getting mad etc. is open to question, but I lean
> toward that incident never taking place either (esp. since I know I'm
> dealing with a PROVEN liar like Roger D. Craig in the "Mauser"
> regard). It's certainly much easier to believe that Craig would lie
> about something ELSE re. the case since we know beyond a speck of a
> doubt that he lied (and boldly lied) about the "7.65 Mauser"
> bullshit." -- DVP; Nov. 4, 2007

But didn't Fritz testify that he was not in the office with Craig when
LHO was present? This is what we are discussing, not whether Craig
was ever in Fritz's office. He is not a proven liar to most people
just people foolish enough to believe a source that has been shown to
lie more than any witness in this whole case. Talk about relying on
faulty evidence.

> ~~~~~
>
> It's also worth re-posting the following words from author Dale K.
> Myers (which is the caption for the controversial photo of Craig in
> question). In the caption, Myers is telling his readers that the
> picture wasn't even taken on the day of the assassination; instead,
> it's a picture showing Craig in the Homicide OUTER offices the NEXT
> DAY (11/23).

Look at this exchange and see how a defense attorney makes the
difference on speculation and lies. It is a shame LHO never got this
benefit. This is from the Garrison Shaw trial.

Q: Did you have occasion to go into Captain Fritz's Office at the time
Lee Harvey Oswald was in there?

A: Yes, sir, Captain Fritz showed me into his office where the two
gentlemen were sitting.

Q: Did you have occasion to confront or speak to Lee Harvey Oswald on
this occasion?

A: I did not, Captain Fritz did.

Q: Were you there when he made any responses to anything Captain Fritz
asked him?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: What did he say?

A: Captain Fritz, this man was --

"MR. DYMOND: I object to what Captain Fritz said." Defense attorney

THE COURT: You can't say what Captain Fritz said but just what Lee
Harvey Oswald said. (Too bad the WC didn't enforce this rule with
their "witnesses")

THE WITNESS: I made an identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man
I saw running down the grassy knoll.

BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Did he say anything else?

A: Yes.

Q: What was that?

A: I can't testify in answer to Captain Fritz's comments' cause it was
in response --

Q: I am afraid you can't give us what Captain Fritz said 'cause that
would be hearsay but what if anything did Lee Harvey Oswald respond to
the question of of Captain Fritz? (Hearsay? Did the WC even know what
this term meant?)

A: He said that the station wagon belonged to Mrs. Paine, but "Don't
try to drag her in this."

Q: Did he make any other responses?

A: He leaned back in his chair and said "Everybody will know who I am
now." ( It thought you said he said LHO leapt out of his chair when he
said this, doesn't sound like Craig said this to me.)

> But many CTers like to prop that photo up as some kind of "proof" that
> Craig was in Fritz' inner office with Oswald on Nov. 22. It doesn't
> mesh, and only goes to show the desperation that certain CTers
> exhibit.....

We aren't the desperate ones Dave, you have a ship that is half sunk
and going down fast.


>
> "Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig talks to Dallas police inside the
> Homicide and Robbery office on Saturday, November 23, 1963. Captain
> Fritz's private office, where Oswald was being interrogated, is behind
> Craig -- blinds drawn." -- Dale Myers; Via Photo Caption; Page 214 of
> "WITH MALICE"

I want corraboration of this beyond Myers's say so as I don't trust
him.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 4:21:22โ€ฏPM11/12/07
to
On Nov 12, 2:46 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "But the ID of the gun was done by Weitzman and Fritz, not Craig, so he was simply repeating what he was told - that they found a Mauser before they located the MC!!" <<<
>
> Please quote Weitzman or Fritz saying that they saw the words "7.65
> Mauser" stamped on the rifle.

Forgive My Grief Vol. III, author Penn Jones

What of Roger Craig's assertion that the weapon found on the sixth
floor of the TSBD was not a Mannlicher-Carcano, but a Mauser? While
there does not seem to be anything in the Commission's published
record showing Craig made that claim in November 1963, or even to the
Commission a few months later, others did make--and the Commission
published, but then ignored, their statements.

In the "Speculations and Rumors" section of the Warren Report
(Appendix 12), the Commission states, "Speculation: the rifle found on
the sixth floor of the TSBD was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man
who found it, Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman." This is not
speculation but fact--the rifle was identified, at first, as a Mauser.
Not only Weitzman, who signed a notarized affidavit to that effect on
November 23, but Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone identified the weapon as
a 7.65 Mauser--Boone in two written reports dated November 22.

In its Report the Commission tried to downplay this identification. It
states that Weitzman "only saw the rifle at a glance," although his
notarized statement describes the weapon in some detail. As for Boone,
while the Report acknowledges he was one of the men who found the
hidden rifle, it does not disclose that he, like Weitzman, identified
it as a Mauser.

In short, the weapon found on the sixth floor of the TSBD less than an
hour after the assassination was reliably reported to be a Mauser--and
that, in the final analysis, is the critical point.

Therefore, the rifle identified by Weitzman to be a Mauser probably
did have "7.65" stamped on it, but we won't ever see that gun, will
we?

> The only person who ever said that was your hero--the wonderful, ever-
> truthful Roger Dean Craig.

Not true, see above.


>
> And there was never a SECOND rifle found on the sixth floor (or the
> fifth floor), Mr. Kook.

Really, then why are there notarized statments saying there was a
"Mauser" found?


>
> >>> "Others have stated a Mauser was found also, it was obviously being hidden from us." <<<
>
> Yeah, either that or maybe the officers who offered up the kneejerk
> initial comments about the MC being a Mauser were incorrect in that
> kneejerk initial reaction AND SAID SO LATER ON (which they
> did....except for your pal Mr. Craig, of course). But, I guess Roger
> was the only truthful one in the bunch, huh?

Notarized statements are pretty good evidence. As usual your beloved
hero worship of the WC blinds you to the fact they failed to make
these available for everyone to view, why? I thought they were after
the truth? Sure.


>
> >>> "How about all the lies the WC told or the lies they made witnesses tell." <<<
>
> How about you proving to the masses that the WC "lied" and proving
> that the WC made witnesses lie. Can you do that? Should I hold my
> breath waiting for your proof to support both of those idiotic
> contentions?

Sure can, read Harold Weisberg's, Mark Lane's, Anthony Summer's and
Sylvia Meagher's work to start with. They break down the voluminous
26 volumes and show all the inaccuracies and lies in all their glory.


>
> >>> "What did he {Oswald} lie about?" <<<
>
> Good God. How can anyone be this stupid?

Yes, you are in believing a fairy tale story of unbelievable
markmanship with a shoddy rifle in too little time. This alone sounds
like a lunatic explanation of the events and I didn't even mention the
absurd (and insult to intelligence) SBT scenario. You have to be the
craziest people of all time to believe this lunacy.


>
> Here's a Starter List of 39 Oswald lies (there are plenty more too):
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d

I'll look at these now.


>
> >>> "That is because he {LHO The Great} was innocent..." <<<
>
> And nuns can fly too.

Nuns flying have nothing to do with this case. You have no concrete
proof, not even circumstantial, evidence against LHO. Get over it.


>
> It's nice believing in fantasies, ain't it?

You tell me as you have believed in one for years.


>
> >>> "Wouldn't you deny killing two people?" <<<
>
> Sure I would. Because I didn't kill two people in Dallas in 1963.
> Oswald, on the other hand, did kill two people. And denying guilt
> after a killer has been caught is certainly not uncommon. In fact,
> it's expected.

Makes no sense. No one kills a president and then denies it. You
kill someone that high up you want credit for your cause.


>
> >>> "That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did these crimes, and based on what I have read, they didn't stand a chance." <<<
>
> That's because you are buried in pro-conspiracy books and theories and
> you cannot assess information properly.

No, last time I look LHO was never convicted in a court of law so we
are still in the preparatory stage for a trial and always will be. I
am not conceeding LHO's guilt based a phony and rigged WC report. It
is not the same thing.


>
> And then there's the fact that you're an idiot and an Anybody-But-
> Oswald kook too. Those two things don't exactly help your case either.

I can you are looking at different "evidence" than me, because I see
nothing the defense couldn't have rebutted or refuted with ease.


>
> >>> "There are no positives in this case Dave, period." <<<
>
> I'm positive you're a Mega-Kook. (Does that count?)

You can throw the word out as much as you want, you have no sound
proof supporting your case. That is why LHO was shot and the WC was
setup in the first place as they didn't want a trial for two reasons.
One, too much info on the plotters would have been uncovered and two,
they couldn't get a conviction with that horrible evidence.


>
> >>> "Two witnesses beyond Craig said he {Rambler Man} looked like LHO's twin. Sounds suspicious to me." <<<
>
> Not to a reasonable non-kook who can assess information properly (and
> chronologically). Oswald was proven to be ELSEWHERE at the time when
> Craig places him in a Rambler at 12:40.

No, you are the kook as you rely on a source that did not publish all
the testimony and evidence if it didn't suit their scenario. Let's
resume with Penn Jones Jr.'s research:

Then what of Roger Craig's sighting of a man later identified as
Oswald fleeing in a Rambler station wagon driven by a second man?

In Case Closed, Gerald Posner dismisses Craig's story as a "tale of a
getaway car at Dealey Plaza," though he does not provide any
information beyond this fleeting reference. Readers who know little of
the JFK case beyond Posner's book might be surprised to learn there is
strong evidence to corroborate the former Deputy's "tale." (DVP's term
too, I guess all misinformation specialist use this term.)

A photograph turned up a few years after the assassination showing the
TSBD about ten minutes after the shooting. The Hertz clock on the roof
reads 12:40. That photograph shows what appears to be a Rambler
station wagon in the traffic on Elm--lending support Craig's story.

Much stronger, however, is Commission Document 5, which according to
author Henry Hurt "was omitted from the twenty-six volumes of Warren
Commission exhibits. It finally was discovered years later in
documents housed in the National Archives." (Notice another omission,
geez, what a shocker! And you rely on this for the whole story? You
are a super, mega-kook.)

Hurt's account of CD 5:

Soon after the shooting, Marvin C. Robinson was driving west along Elm
Street in heavy traffic. According to an FBI report dated the next
day, just as Robinson crossed the Elm and Houston intersection, he saw
a "light-colored Nash station wagon" stop in front of the Book
Depository. A white man walked down the grassy incline from the
building, got into the Nash, and the car moved off in the direction of
Oak Cliff. Robinson was unable to provide any additional information.

There are also the statements of Richard Randolph Carr, a steelworker
who also said he saw a Rambler in Dealey Plaza. Carr was on an upper
floor of a building that was under construction on November 22. From
his position he could see into the sixth floor of the TSBD, where just
before the motorcade arrived he saw a stocky man wearing a hat,
sportcoat, and glasses. When the shooting stopped Carr descended to
ground level, where he again saw the man in the sportcoat. Carr said
he followed him for about a block and saw him get into a Nash Rambler
driven by a dark-complected man.

To this account, Henry Hurt adds:

It should be noted that over the years Carr's testimony has been
somewhat inconsistent. And, for whatever reason, he has been seriously
intimidated since originally offering his account to officials. He has
been shot at and has found sticks of dynamite wired to his
autobmobile's ignition switch. Still, Carr's earliest reports to
officials are consistent on his sighting of the Nash Rambler.
(Intimidation? Why, it was one lone nut, right? I'm sure he imagined
the sticks of dynamite wired to his car's engine as this is a quite
common occurence, right?)

They are also consistent with the accounts of Marvin Robinson and
Roger Craig.

> Maybe Elizabeth Montgomery and her mother, Endora, whipped up a second
> Oswald at just the right moment, huh? Why not try that "Bewitched"
> theory. It should work as well as all your other kooky ones have.

Make fun of the truth all you want, but just a few years after the
assassination research began in this area and there is more and more
evidence that there were two LHO's. The CIA was running this type of
program for awhile.

> >>> "Why did LHO reference Ruth's car? What made him mention that?" <<<
>
> There's no corroboration whatsoever (beyond your hero named Roger)
> that Oswald said any such thing in Fritz' office.

Why would RC bring this up? Did he even know of Ruth Paine's
existence on 11/22/63? You make no sense. The only one of the three
that should have known of RP's existence then is LHO, if not, then you
are admitting there was a conspiracy. Gotcha!!!


>
> Plus, as has been pointed out to you several times now, the station
> wagons don't mesh -- i.e., Craig is sure he saw a "Nash Rambler"; Mrs.
> Paine owned a different model station wagon.

The DPD was still watching RP in 1965 and they noted she and Michael
had four cars. She definitely could have had a Rambler. I'll update
you on this as I'm reading some articles now as the one that was seen
at the crime scene may have been located in 1994 at Univ. of Texas.


>
> So if you want to believe Craig AND Oswald in this "station wagon"
> regard, how is it that Oswald was able to get into a "Rambler" owned
> by Ruth Paine when Paine didn't own a Rambler at all?

Says you, she had multiple cars in 1963 and one of them could have
been lent to someone to cover it, besides the Paine's have been
protected since the assassination as researchers have tried to get
their tax returns and DMV records and it is denied, why? What is so
special about them?


>
> >>> "The testimony of the cab driver is shaky..." <<<
>
> Bullshit.

Bullshit right back.


>
> William W. Whaley positively placed Lee Oswald in his cab.

Sure, which one? Was his ID as positive as Markham's?


>
> Why not try reading some of the things these witnesses ACTUALLY SAID,
> instead of trying to place this huge cloud of DOUBT and MYSTERY over
> the whole case?

I have and that is why there is Doubt and Mystery over the whole
case. Here's a newsflash for you, try reading what these people tell
independent researchers instead of what they "supposedly" told the WC.


>
> And believing that every witness who gave incriminating testimony
> against LHO was being coerced or forced into so doing is just plain
> stupid. But, being a kook, you probably believe that William Whaley
> was telling a lie in his testimony shown below, right Mr. K?.....

I don't believe that. IF the witness was too tough or couldn't be
coerced they didn't show up in the final volumes. That is how you
windup with one witness "seeing" LHO shoot JDT when you started with
12.


>
> Mr. BELIN. Was the man in connection with the Ruby matter with the two
> detectives, did it have his name in the paper as Lee Harvey Oswald?
> Was his name in the paper then when you saw his picture?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. Well, I don't think they had it that way. I think they
> just had it Oswald. I am not sure what they had under it. I am not for
> sure, but I did see the picture.

Wow, so definitive! What is the Ruby matter? I assume he is refering
to the shooting but it would be nice to have this spelled out for
clarity.


>
> Mr. BELIN. Was that the same man you carried in your cab on Friday?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

So, there were two of them for starters and secondly, how do we know
this is an honest answer?


>
> Mr. BELIN. Was that the man you identified at the police station?
>
> Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

Now I really know it is full of shit as it is on John's site.

> >>> "And except for a bus pass there is nothing tying LHO to the bus either."

> Bullshit (again).

Again, let's resume Penn Jones Jr.'s article:

They have him boarding a bus "seven short blocks east of" the TSBD,
and use the identification of a former landlady, Mary Bledsoe, to
support that. But Oswald's presence on the bus is actually rather
difficult to establish, a bus transfer being the only hard evidence
that he might have been there. Cecil McWatters, the bus driver, was
unable to identify him, and he had no memory of Bledsoe getting on the
bus.

Bledsoe's own testimony is also uncertain. There is no corroborating
testimony that places Oswald on the bus. Bledsoe ID'd him in part by
the shirt she said he wore; her description generally matches the
brownish, heavy-textured shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested.

But according to a report on Oswald's interrogation written by Captain
Fritz, Oswald said he "changed both his shirt and trousers before
going to the show," that is, to the Texas Theater where he was
arrested. Then how could Bledsoe have seen that heavy brown shirt?

The Commission writes that "the evidence indicates that he continued
wearing the same shirt which he was wearing all morning and which he
was still wearing when arrested." That seems to support Bledsoe's
testimony, but it doesn't square with a statement given on November 22
by Howard Brennan, who became a prized Warren Commission witness. He
described the man he saw in the TSBD as wearing "light colored
clothing." I can only conclude that Bledsoe's testimony must be called
into question, and the issue of whether Oswald ever got on a bus ten
minutes after the assassination called into doubt.

See how much you learn when you rely on real investigatory work and
not the WC's crock of shit?

> Mary E. Bledsoe (do you know who she was?) ..... she KNEW OSWALD ON
> SIGHT, and she was on the same bus Oswald boarded at about 12:40 on
> 11/22/63. Bledsoe had rented a room to Oswald just one month prior to
> the assassination, and after one week she, in effect, kicked him out,
> because she didn't like him. So she HAD A REASON TO NOTICE WHO HE WAS
> ON NOVEMBER 22.

See above.


>
> Is Mary telling tales out of school here too, Robby? (These are
> excerpts from Bledsoe's 11/23/63 official affidavit.).....

Of cours as they need a witness to confirm the made up story.


>
> >>> "Now, it may have happened as Harvey needed to leave and couldn't drive..."

> Harvey Korman from "The Carol Burnett Show"? I love him! He's
> hilarious. (But not nearly as funny as a kook named Robert Caprio,
> though.)

No, the other Oswald. The patsy one.


>
> >>> "Lee could have gotten into the Rambler." <<<
>
> Oh goodie! An Armstrong-like, made-up-from-bullshit "Double Oswald"
> 007 plot! I love these!

How is that crazier than a bullet hitting two men, causing 7 wounds,
breaking heavy bones and coming out virtually intact? Please, nothing
tops that whopper!!


>
> >>> "Lee was the violent one according to the researchers who have studied this." <<<
>
> And "Harvey" was just a....rabbit....right? He'd never even hurt Jimmy
> Stewart, right? (Correct me if I've got it wrong. I'd hate to spoil a
> kook's fantasy by getting something askew here.)

Laugh all you want, but there is substantial handwriting samples out
there and Jack White showed how two pictures (one of Lee and one of
Harvey) merged to make the military ID and drivers licenses.

> >>> "The problem with bus transfers is they can be planted..." <<<
>
> Of course. And so can guns, and shells, and fingerprints, and
> stretcher bullets, and paper bags, and everything else east of the
> Rockies in order to frame poor innocent Lee. Or is it "Harvey" being
> framed today? I forget.

Thank for summing up the frame for me. When someone is framed of
course stuff is planted.

> >>> "Anyone could have bought that transfer and linked it to LHO, just like the gun and the alias card." <<<
>
> And the shells in the SN, and the shells on 10th Street, and the
> revolver in Oswald's pocket, and CE399 in Parkland Hospital, and the
> two large bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limo (which,
> like CE399, were linked to LHO's MC rifle to the exclusion of every
> other weapon ever made), and the LHO prints on the two boxes in the
> SN, and the LHO palmprint on the MC rifle, and the order form for the
> MC rifle (which was in LHO's handwriting), and the money order for the
> MC rifle (which was in LHO's handwriting)....

The only thing linked was the revolver because he had it on him, but a
FBI report said it had a bent firing pin. None of the other stuff has
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to link LHO to the crimes.
>

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 5:25:19โ€ฏPM11/12/07
to
Rob feels comfortable dismissing virtually every scrap of "LHO IS
GUILTY" evidence I talked about in the last few paragraphs of my last
post. And that's a considerable amount of stuff too.

Rob The K-Work actually doesn't feel the slightest bit silly when he
completely disregards what amounts to the ENTIRE CASE FOR THE
PROSECUTION (had LHO stood trial).

To Robby-boy, EVERY last piece of evidence is to be looked at sideways
and is to be considered possibly (or PROBABLY) "faked" in some
manner....right down to the revolver Oswald had on him when arrested I
guess, since I'm sure Robby-boy doesn't think that gun was used to
harm anyone on 11/22, due to that supposedly "bent firing pin" (even
though we know four bullets came out of that gun to kill Tippit).

But, what can you expect from some of these self-appointed Super
Sleuths called "CTers" who think they are doing the "research
community" a grand favor by taking all of the evidence and throwing it
in the garbage disposal?

I'll have to agree with Vince once again......

"The conspiracy community regularly...treats rumors, even
questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule
of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the
failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is
explained. .... Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth
is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." --
Vince Bugliosi

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 5:46:04โ€ฏPM11/12/07
to
On Nov 12, 5:25 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob feels comfortable dismissing virtually every scrap of "LHO IS
> GUILTY" evidence I talked about in the last few paragraphs of my last
> post. And that's a considerable amount of stuff too.
>
> Rob The K-Work actually doesn't feel the slightest bit silly when he
> completely disregards what amounts to the ENTIRE CASE FOR THE
> PROSECUTION (had LHO stood trial).

You are so off base it is not funny. I already addressed all of that
and more in my "LHO is innocent at last" posts. All of it is easily
refuted. There is no real prosecutorial case against LHO, that is why
he was gunned down.

> But, what can you expect from some of these self-appointed Super
> Sleuths called "CTers" who think they are doing the "research
> community" a grand favor by taking all of the evidence and throwing it
> in the garbage disposal?

At least we read things newer than 1963/64, and even though lame
people you read (Posner, Bugman, Myers, etc... use the same lame
stuff) use the same old and out of date material to make their cases.
They also copy the pattern the WC created, if it don't fit, then
omit.

> I'll have to agree with Vince once again......

You are about the only one.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 6:19:10โ€ฏPM11/12/07
to
>>> "You are so off base it is not funny. I already addressed all of that and more in my "LHO is innocent at last" posts. All of it is easily refuted. There is no real prosecutorial case against LHO, that is why he was gunned down." <<<

And since we have the tablets brought down from Mount Kook by Rob
Heston via his "LHO Is Innocent" thread, the LNers can close up shop
and go home whimpering....is that it?

Somebody get a net for this kook. He'll be escaping soon if we don't.

>>> "At least we read things newer than 1963/64..." <<<

Yeah, like John Armstrong, right? And Fetzer. And Groden. And Stone/
Garrison. And Mellen, who's attempting to resurrect Garrison yet again
with yet another book on that Mega-Kook (a full bio on his
life).

You CTers build your foundation of CTism on quicksand, and then you
keeping adding more kookshit from more kook authors with no solid
evidence at all, and yet you still expect to remain afloat. Go figure.

>>> "...And even though lame people you read (Posner, Bugman, Myers, etc) use the same lame stuff." <<<

Yeah, such as THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN THIS WHOLE
CASE (which ALL points toward your secret lover--L.H.O.).

IMAGINE my actually having the gall to use the evidence against Oswald
as a reason to think Oswald shot some people. *I* should be shot too!

Time for an additional Reality Jolt from VB.......

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is
that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because
the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was
not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of
law. ....

"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much
of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
admissible.

"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Via
"RH"

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 5:22:38โ€ฏPM11/13/07
to
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You are so off base it is not funny. I already addressed all of that and more in my "LHO is innocent at last" posts. All of it is easily refuted. There is no real prosecutorial case against LHO, that is why he was gunned down." <<<
>
> And since we have the tablets brought down from Mount Kook by Rob
> Heston via his "LHO Is Innocent" thread, the LNers can close up shop
> and go home whimpering....is that it?

Look who is talking!! I made a great point and got you dead to rights
on it and you just avoided it. RC testified that LHO mentioned the
station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine and you said he
was a liar. Did RC or Fritz know Ruth Paine on 11/22/63? IF so, what
does this mean? IF not, how could anyone but LHO mention her? This
would corraborate the rest of his story. Dude, your shop was closed a
long time ago as the the three basics of your case (as put forth by
WCR) were proven to be incorrect years ago thus their finding is
incorrect.


>
> Somebody get a net for this kook. He'll be escaping soon if we don't.

You wish you could lock us sane people up so you can pass this nutty
fairytale off to those nutjobs left so much easier.


>
> >>> "At least we read things newer than 1963/64..." <<<
>
> Yeah, like John Armstrong, right? And Fetzer. And Groden. And Stone/
> Garrison. And Mellen, who's attempting to resurrect Garrison yet again
> with yet another book on that Mega-Kook (a full bio on his
> life).

All good CT books and research start with the WCR but just to show how
wrong it is and then they present new information that is dated after
1964.


>
> You CTers build your foundation of CTism on quicksand, and then you
> keeping adding more kookshit from more kook authors with no solid
> evidence at all, and yet you still expect to remain afloat. Go figure.

Only people who have no logic would ever put their faith in the WCR as
they can't even support their own claims.


>
> >>> "...And even though lame people you read (Posner, Bugman, Myers, etc) use the same lame stuff." <<<
>
> Yeah, such as THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IN THIS WHOLE
> CASE (which ALL points toward your secret lover--L.H.O.).

Come on Dave, their is no evidence that points to LHO other than the
stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty.


>
> IMAGINE my actually having the gall to use the evidence against Oswald
> as a reason to think Oswald shot some people. *I* should be shot too!

I'm all for it!!! We get a bunch of guys with M-C's to shoot at you,
oh forget it.


>
> Time for an additional Reality Jolt from VB.......

He equals "reality" on to nutjobs in asylums.


>
> "An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is
> that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because
> the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was
> not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of
> law. ....

Absolutely true, O.J.'s case had far fewer issues and he got off.


>
> "The first observation I have to make is that I would think
> conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
> not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

He didn't as the death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he
died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low
velocity carbine. That in and of itself shows it couldn't have been
LHO by himself (even if he fired the M-C he hit nothing) or at all.


>
> "Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much
> of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
> large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Please, this guy is a nutjob of the highest level. No problem? Oh
that's right, there wasn't "a" problem but many problems so I guess
technically he is right.


>
> "Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
> practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
> ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
> believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
> admissible.

Who said there was such a practice? It is ripe to be torn to shreds
when there is a poor chain of custody and it was no where near 20% in
this case in most areas. The defense team would have ripped all of
this to shreds.


>
> "I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
> at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
> exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
> is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
> admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
> "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
> jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Via
"RH"

I'm not disputing any of what he says, but the lower the percentage of
custody chain the weaker the evidence is. Look at all the "evidence"
they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very
good certainty for the jury. O.J. walked free and they have a way
weaker case against LHO so he would have walked free too.


David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 9:38:59โ€ฏPM11/13/07
to
>>> "RC {Roger Craig} testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine..." <<<


You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. .....


DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and
what did the suspect {Lee Oswald} say?"

ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he
said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him
and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is
what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do
with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can
remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and
this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again
interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--
uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody


will know who I am now."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm


I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 WC testimony
is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later accounts of
what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on 11/22/63....all
EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC that it was,
indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the "station wagon",
and not Oswald.

And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it
was testimony being given just a little over four months after the
assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words
"station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session
with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later
however.


BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out
by Will Fritz (wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember
anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or
gestures to this man {Craig} or to me at this time, and had I brought
this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember
it". .....

"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man
coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling
me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a
minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald
leaving the building.

"I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I
turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was
in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey
Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to
me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I
feel sure that I would remember it.

"There were other officers in {my} inner office at the time, and
I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked
about." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz2.htm


A related note re. Craig and Oswald.....

I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)

It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know,
via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office,
which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22)
comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.

All the way up through the "Midnight Press Conference" on Friday
night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT".

And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight
press gathering) certainly seems to know "what the situation is all
about", via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald.
And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz'
office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might
very well have been in that office with Oswald.)

But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's
statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of
Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And
no CTer alive can ever change those two basic facts.

>>> "Come on Dave, there is no evidence that points to LHO, other than the stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty." <<<


Which would encompass, of course, EVERY LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE....e.g., all the bullets, all the bullet shells,
all the guns (the MC rifle and the S&W revolver), the empty paper bag
with Oswald's prints on it, the other prints of LHO's that indicate he
handled both the Carcano AND the boxes that were used to construct the
Sniper's Nest, the fibers in the paper bag, and the fibers stuck in
the Carcano's butt plate.

Every bit of that stuff was "manufactured", eh?

If you believe that all of that evidence is fake, I've got a "K" word
that's just itching to be re-typed on my keyboard.

>>> "The death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he {JFK} died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low velocity carbine." <<<


Technically-speaking, the "low-velocity" statement is true. And the
FBI's Robert Frazier even acknowledged that very fact in his WC
testimony. But he also acknowledged something else, which is just as
important (if not more important).....

"This {Carcano} has a low velocity, but has very adequate
killing power with reference to humans, because it is an established
military weapon." -- Robert A. Frazier; Firearms Identification
Expert; FBI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano

>>> "There is a poor chain of custody. .... The defense team would have ripped all of this {LHO-Did-It evidence} to shreds. .... Look at all the "evidence" they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very good certainty for the jury." <<<


This is complete bullshit.

Only in the "courtroom" of your own CT-infested mind could such a
thing happen, or even be suggested as having actually happened.
Because a jury that includes some people with a few brains in their
heads (the O.J. jury is excluded because of this prerequisite) knows
that it takes a LITTLE more than just some nutcase defense lawyer (or
a conspiracy-loving kook typing continuous strands of unsupportable
bullshit into his computer) to "prove" that evidence in a murder case
has been mishandled.

Moreover, it's going to take a whole lot more than what CTers have
offered up to date as "proof of evidence-planting" to convince a
reasonable jury that evidence WAS, in fact, "planted" at the various
MULTIPLE crime scenes associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.

Such extraordinary allegations suggesting such highly-unlikely covert
activity require equally EXTRAORDINARY PROOF to support the notion
that such "planting" actually did occur in the JFK case.

A kook who has a feeling or an inkling that something's not quite
right with a HUGE amount of evidence in a particular case is not going
to get very far with a good and REASONABLE jury.

At SOME point in time, the kook who is spouting "It's all planted and
fake!" is going to have to (as Vince Bugliosi likes to say) pay the
piper. At some point, the kook is going to have to step up to the
plate and PROVE THAT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS
FAKED AND/OR PLANTED.

And, thus far, the CTers in the "Everything Was Planted" club haven't
PROVED that a single piece of evidence in the JFK case was planted.
The kooks only have their suspicions and "inklings".

Is an "inkling" equal to "proof"? Last time I checked, those two words
are not even close to being synonymous. But to certain CTers, the two
words are apparently identical in meaning.

And, btw, "mishandling" evidence is a long, long way from "planting"
it. Perhaps certain conspiracy theorists in the "Everything Was
Planted" club should learn the significant difference between those
two words as well.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 10:19:23โ€ฏPM11/13/07
to
On Nov 13, 9:38 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "RC {Roger Craig} testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine..." <<<
>
> You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
> Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
> 1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
> WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
> telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. .....

This goes to the only time he fibbed, and I admitted it before, he
fibbed to the WC to conform his story in some respects to what they
wanted. He started off playing the game as all the cops did, but
later he started to get into this again and it cost him his job. He
then went on to assist Garrison in some things. He regretted no
telling the true version of what happened and what he saw the rest of
his life.


>
> A related note re. Craig and Oswald.....
>
> I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
> out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
> live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
> "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

It is, but my question is why would LHO reference Ruth Paine at all?


>
> That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
> we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)
>
> It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know,
> via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office,
> which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22)
> comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.

I think he was told what to say in most regards to the cameras. I
just see no reason for him to mention RP, especially if he didn't want
her tied into it.


>
> All the way up through the "Midnight Press Conference" on Friday
> night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT
> THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT".

Well, he have to be a moron not to know what all this was about.
Craig claimed to see him leaving the TBSD shortly after the shooting
of the president so he could put 2 and 2 together. Also, since he was
part of the group as a FBI informant he had an idea of some things as
well.


>
> And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight
> press gathering) certainly seems to know "what the situation is all
> about", via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences ---
> "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

LHO could have been saying she wasn't the one picking him up as he
knew anyone doing so could be an accomplice if he was charged and I'm
sure he knew he was going to be. I think that became crystal clear in
the Texas theater to him.


>
> I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald.
> And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz'
> office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might
> very well have been in that office with Oswald.)
>
> But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's
> statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of
> Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And
> no CTer alive can ever change those two basic facts.

They aren't facts Dave. They were never proven in a legal setting.
LHO had no representation at the station and certainly had no one
helping him with the WC. This is not how the legal system works in
the U.S. There is also no reason to assume the two murders were
connected either. Obviously they are, but the WC acted from the
beginning without an investigation that they were and they didn't have
to be.


>
> >>> "Come on Dave, there is no evidence that points to LHO, other than the stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty." <<<
>
> Which would encompass, of course, EVERY LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL
> EVIDENCE IN THE CASE....e.g., all the bullets, all the bullet shells,
> all the guns (the MC rifle and the S&W revolver), the empty paper bag
> with Oswald's prints on it, the other prints of LHO's that indicate he
> handled both the Carcano AND the boxes that were used to construct the
> Sniper's Nest, the fibers in the paper bag, and the fibers stuck in
> the Carcano's butt plate.

What of the package found in an Irving post office weeks after the
assassination addressed to Lee Oswald with no sender's address? You
know what was in it? A brown paper bag. What was the purpose of
this? The sender sent it to the wrong address that is why it sat
there. The WC makes no mention of it and it was not known to
researchers until 1967 when it was discovered at the National
Archives. What was the purpose of this? Why was it not investigated
by the WC? Most of that stuff would have been destroyed on cross and
in the defense's case.


>
> Every bit of that stuff was "manufactured", eh?

Yeah. The word planted comes to mind.


>
> If you believe that all of that evidence is fake, I've got a "K" word
> that's just itching to be re-typed on my keyboard.

I know, poor little Dave doesn't believe his government would do this
kind of stuff or any police department (especially Dallas which was
one of the most corrupt in the country at the time), but unfortunately
these things do happen all the time (usually not to this level
though).


>
> >>> "The death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he {JFK} died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low velocity carbine." <<<
>
> Technically-speaking, the "low-velocity" statement is true. And the
> FBI's Robert Frazier even acknowledged that very fact in his WC
> testimony. But he also acknowledged something else, which is just as
> important (if not more important).....
>
> "This {Carcano} has a low velocity, but has very adequate
> killing power with reference to humans, because it is an established
> military weapon." -- Robert A. Frazier; Firearms Identification
> Expert; FBI

Duh! Of course all carbines can kill, but in the right situation and
the scenario in Dallas is not the right one for that gun. Besides, it
is a low velocity gun (2,000 fps) and the bullets were determined to
be from a high powered gun, period. You can't change that.

> >>> "There is a poor chain of custody. .... The defense team would have ripped all of this {LHO-Did-It evidence} to shreds. .... Look at all the "evidence" they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very good certainty for the jury." <<<
>
> This is complete bullshit.

It is a shame we can't prove it, because there are too many
inconsistencies with the custody of key evidence and good indication
of tampering in quite a few as well.


>
> Only in the "courtroom" of your own CT-infested mind could such a
> thing happen, or even be suggested as having actually happened.
> Because a jury that includes some people with a few brains in their
> heads (the O.J. jury is excluded because of this prerequisite) knows
> that it takes a LITTLE more than just some nutcase defense lawyer (or
> a conspiracy-loving kook typing continuous strands of unsupportable
> bullshit into his computer) to "prove" that evidence in a murder case
> has been mishandled.

Bullets from a high powered gun killed JFK, yet the supposed murder
weapon could not fire them, this is nothing? No fingerprints besides
a smudged palm print (and this only after the DPD and FBI initially
found nothing) on a murder weapon when the shooter wore no gloves?
This is nothing? Shooting sequence impossible in time given (5.6
seconds - this is setup by the WC) because the bolt of the supposed
murder weapon took longer than that to work it (if you wanted to aim
that is). This is nothing? There is much more but that proves my
point. I think you are more guilty than LHO.


>
> Moreover, it's going to take a whole lot more than what CTers have
> offered up to date as "proof of evidence-planting" to convince a
> reasonable jury that evidence WAS, in fact, "planted" at the various
> MULTIPLE crime scenes associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.

I think it would be quite easy to show tampering, evidence planting
and very poor chain of evidence custodianship in this case.


>
> Such extraordinary allegations suggesting such highly-unlikely covert
> activity require equally EXTRAORDINARY PROOF to support the notion
> that such "planting" actually did occur in the JFK case.

Not really, all you have to do is show LHO didn't do it and the
planting/frameup takes shape rapidly.


>
> A kook who has a feeling or an inkling that something's not quite
> right with a HUGE amount of evidence in a particular case is not going
> to get very far with a good and REASONABLE jury.

And it can be pointed out all this evidence was rounded up in just 48
hours time. Modern criminalogy has never seen such expedient work
before!! Jury, do you think all this proof could be found in 48 hours
especially when the jurisdiction on the most important evidence, the
phyical body, was illegally taken from Texas to Bethesda?


>
> At SOME point in time, the kook who is spouting "It's all planted and
> fake!" is going to have to (as Vince Bugliosi likes to say) pay the
> piper. At some point, the kook is going to have to step up to the
> plate and PROVE THAT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS
> FAKED AND/OR PLANTED.

I think I have already done this, and more to the point for has been
VB, all that has to be done is cause reasonable doubt to the
authenticity of the evidence.


>
> And, thus far, the CTers in the "Everything Was Planted" club haven't
> PROVED that a single piece of evidence in the JFK case was planted.
> The kooks only have their suspicions and "inklings".

No, I think you just prefer to stay ignorant.


>
> Is an "inkling" equal to "proof"? Last time I checked, those two words
> are not even close to being synonymous. But to certain CTers, the two
> words are apparently identical in meaning.

Who's saying an inkling, it is very possible to show the official
theory "evidence" is bogus in almost all cases.


>
> And, btw, "mishandling" evidence is a long, long way from "planting"
> it. Perhaps certain conspiracy theorists in the "Everything Was
> Planted" club should learn the significant difference between those
> two words as well.

Not in a court's mind (or a jury's) as "mishandling" can be linked to
planted rapidly. That is why chain of custory custodianship is so
important in crime scenes.


David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 13, 2007, 10:30:46โ€ฏPM11/13/07
to
>>> "It {Sweet Lee's MC rifle} is a low-velocity gun...and the bullets were determined to be from a high-powered gun, period." <<<


Bullshit (as per usual).

The ONLY bullets and bullet fragments connected with JFK's murder or
John Connally's injuries are either positively linked to Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano (#C2766) or are consistent with WCC/MC ammunition
(i.e., consistent with having been fired from Rifle C2766).

And YOU cannot change those ballistics facts, Mr. Kook. Although
you'll try to change them, no doubt.

But, luckily, a CTer's non-stop kookshit flushes just as easily as
regular human feces.

muc...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 10:47:15โ€ฏAM11/14/07
to
On 8 Nov, 10:39, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8 Nov., 07:20, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > At one point in the printed transcript, the time 11:55 appears. It was
> > originally 11:45.
>
> > Martin

Not fair of me to ask you to be more specific, I guess. Won't happen
again.

> Are you referring to these questions on page 352?
>
> Belin. Now you said you saw Lee Oswald on the sixth floor around
> 11:55?
> Givens. Right.
> Belin. Did you you see Lee Oswald anywhere else in the building
> between 11:55 and the time you left the building?
> Givens. No, sir.
>
> -Mark
>
> > <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1194426098.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 4 Nov., 09:21, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> Comparison of the stenographic transcript with the final printed version
> > >> shows that the testimony of Charles Givens was also altered. He said
> > >> (also
> > >> in the FBI report on Givens) that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor at
> > >> 11:45,
> > >> but in the printed version, it magically becomes 11:55, thus after the
> > >> lower
> > >> floor sighting at 11:50--and the WC simply ignored the later sightings on
> > >> lower floors.
>
> > > Martin? Here's the question again, in case you missed it the first
> > > time:
>
> > > The way I read the printed version, Givens told Belin [6H349-51] about
> > > heading downstairs "about a quarter till 12" with co-workers, passing
> > > Oswald on the fifth floor, then returning alone to sixth floor,
> > > picking up jacket, seeing Oswald with clipboard, exchanging a few
> > > words, then returning to first floor (again) "about 5 minutes to 12".
>
> > > Am I missing something, or are you saying that "5 minutes to 12"
> > > appears as "11:45" in the stenographer's notes?
>
> > >> Martin
>
> > >> <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1194155721.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > DVP doesn't want to accept that the WC would change, omit, or delete
> > >> > testimony, but here is an example from Roger Craig as he was
> > >> > interviewed by David Belin.
>
> > >> > Combine the foregoing with the run-in I had with Dave Belin,
> > >> > junior counsel for the Warren Commission, who questioned me in
> > >> > April of 1964, and who changed my testimony fourteen times when he
> > >> > sent it to Washington, and you will have some idea of the pressures
> > >> > brought to bear.
>
> > >> > David Belin told me who he was as I entered the interrogation
> > >> > room (April 1964). He had me sit at the head of a long table. To
> > >> > my left was a female with a pencil and pen. Belin sat to my right.
> > >> > Between the girl and Belin was a tape recorder, which was turned
> > >> > off. Belin instructed the girl not to take notes until he (Belin)
> > >> > said to do so. He then told me that the investigation was being
> > >> > conducted to determine the truth as the evidence indicates. Well,
> > >> > I could take that several ways but I said nothing. Then Belin
> > >> > said, "For instance, I will ask you where you were at a certain
> > >> > time. This will establish your physical location." It was at this
> > >> > point that I began to feel that I was being led into something but
> > >> > still I said nothing. Then Belin said, "I will ask you about what
> > >> > you *thought* you heard or saw in regard." Well, this was too
> > >> > much. I interrupted him and said, "Counselor, just ask me the
> > >> > questions and if I can answer them, I will." This seemed to
> > >> > irritate Belin and he told the girl to start taking notes with the
> > >> > next question.
>
> > >> > At this point Belin turned the recorder on. The first questions
> > >> > were typical. Where were you born? Where did you go to school?
> > >> > When Belin would get to certain questions he would turn off the
> > >> > recorder and stop the girl from writing. The he would ask me, for
> > >> > example, "Did you see anything unusual when you were behind the picket
> > >> > fence?" I said, "Yes" and he said, "Fine, just a minute."
> > >> > He would then tell the girl to start writing with the next question
> > >> > and would again start the recorder. What was the next question?
> > >> > "Mr. Craig, did you go into the Texas School Book Depository?" It
> > >> > was clear to me that he wanted only to record part of the
> > >> > interrogation, as this happened many times.
>
> > >> > I finally managed to get in at least most of what I had seen and
> > >> > heard by ignoring his advanced questions and giving a step-by-step
> > >> > picture, which further seemed to irritate him.
>
> > >> > At the end of our session Belin dismissed me but when I started
> > >> > to leave the room, he called me back. At this time I identified
> > >> > the clothing wore by the suspect (the 26 volumes refer to a *box*
> > >> > of clothing--not *boxes*. There were two boxes.)
>
> > >> > After I identified the clothing Belin went over the complete
> > >> > testimony again. He then asked, "Do you want to follow or waive
> > >> > your signature or sign now?" Since there was nothing but a tape
> > >> > recording and a stenographer's note book, there was obviously
> > >> > nothing to sign. All other testimony which I have read (a
> > >> > considerable amount) included an explanation that the person could
> > >> > waive his signature then or his statement would be typed and he would
> > >> > be notified when it was ready for signature. Belin did not say this to
> > >> > me.
>
> > >> > He said an odd thing when I left. It is the only time that he
> > >> > said it, and I have never read anything similar in any testimony.
> > >> > "Be SURE, when you get back to the office, to thank Sheriff Decker for
> > >> > *his* cooperation." I know of no one else he questioned who he asked
> > >> > to *thank* a supervisor, chief, etc.
> > >> > I first saw my testimony in January of 1968 when I looked at the
> > >> > 26 volumes which belonged to Penn Jones. My alleged statement was
> > >> > included. The following are some of the changes in my testimony:
>
> > >> > * Arnold Rowland told me that he saw two men on the
> > >> > sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15
> > >> > minutes before the President arrived: one was a Negro,
> > >> > who was pacing back and forth by the *southwest* window.
> > >> > The other was a white man in the *southeast* corner,
> > >> > with a rifle equipped with a scope, and that a few
> > >> > minutes later he looked back and only the white man was
> > >> > there. In the Warren Commission: *Both* were *white*,
> > >> > both were *pacing* in front of the *southwest* corner
> > >> > and when Rowland looked back, *both* were gone;
>
> > >> > * I said the Rambler station wagon was *light green*.
> > >> > The Warren Commission: Changed to a *white* station
> > >> > wagon;
>
> > >> > * I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a *tan*
> > >> > jacket. The Warren Commission: A *white* jacket;
>
> > >> > * I said the license plates on the Rambler were *not*
> > >> > the same color as Texas plates. The Warren Commission:
> > >> > Omitted the *not*--omitted but one word, an important
> > >> > one, so that it appeared that the license plates *were*
> > >> > the same color as Texas plates;
>
> > >> > * I said that I *got* a *good look* at the driver of the
> > >> > Rambler. The Warren Commission: I did *not* get a good
> > >> > look at the Rambler. (In Captain Fritz's office) I had
> > >> > said that Fritz had said to Oswald, "This man saw you
> > >> > leave" (indicating me). Oswald said, "I told you people
> > >> > I did." Fritz then said, "Now take it easy, son, we're
> > >> > just trying to find out what happened", and then (to
> > >> > Oswald), "What about the car?" to which Oswald replied,
> > >> > "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to
> > >> > drag her into this." Fritz said *car*--station wagon
> > >> > was not mentioned by anyone but Oswald. (I had told
> > >> > Fritz over the telephone that I saw a man get into a
> > >> > station wagon, before I went to the Dallas Police
> > >> > Department and I had also described the man. This is
> > >> > when Fritz asked me to come there). Oswald then said,
> > >> > "Everybody will know who I am now;" the Warren
> > >> > Commission: Stated that the last statement by Oswald
> > >> > was made in a dramatic tone. This was not so. The
> > >> > Warren Commission also printed, "NOW everybody will know
> > >> > who I am", transposing the *now*. Oswald's tone and
> > >> > attitude was one of disappointment. If someone were
> > >> > attempting to conceal his identity as Deputy and he was
> > >> > found out, exposed--his cover blown, his reaction
> > >> > would be dismay and disappointment. This was Oswald's
> > >> > tone and attitude--disappointment at being exposed!

curtjester1

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 11:40:13โ€ฏAM11/14/07
to
On Nov 13, 10:19 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:38 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "RC {Roger Craig} testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine..." <<<
>
> > You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
> > Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
> > 1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
> > WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
> > telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. .....
>
> This goes to the only time he fibbed, and I admitted it before, he
> fibbed to the WC to conform his story in some respects to what they
> wanted. He started off playing the game as all the cops did, but
> later he started to get into this again and it cost him his job. He
> then went on to assist Garrison in some things. He regretted no
> telling the true version of what happened and what he saw the rest of
> his life.
>
>
>
> > A related note re. Craig and Oswald.....
>
> > I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
> > out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
> > live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
> > "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
>
> It is, but my question is why would LHO reference Ruth Paine at all?
>
>
I think he knew then as in lightbulb going off that he was being set
up to be the patsy. It wouldn't make any sense to finger himself with
relation to the Rambler. And if he didn't know his double was getting
in the Rambler, he shouldn't have even known anything about it to make
a statement such as that. He was trying to put some pressure on, so
the case wouldn't just point at him, or if I'm guilty, you're going to
have to find other people guilty.

CJ

> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 5:13:52โ€ฏPM11/14/07
to
On Nov 13, 10:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "It {Sweet Lee's MC rifle} is a low-velocity gun...and the bullets were determined to be from a high-powered gun, period." <<<
>
> Bullshit (as per usual).
>
> The ONLY bullets and bullet fragments connected with JFK's murder or
> John Connally's injuries are either positively linked to Oswald's
> Mannlicher-Carcano (#C2766) or are consistent with WCC/MC ammunition
> (i.e., consistent with having been fired from Rifle C2766).

You are discussing a 6.5mm ammo, right? According to a letter sent to
Stewart Galanor ("Rush to Judgement", Appendix VIII, p. 411) from
Winchester-Western they state all production for the 6.5mm ammunition
was stopped in 1944, so any current (July 14, 1965) ammunition was
from that time period and was surplus. Why would someone want to use
19 year old ammo for a killing this complex? There is also nothing
knows as M-C bullets either as that is the gun, the companies that
made 6.5mm were different, this is important because the WC constantly
said M-C bullets. The WC stated that the fragments from JBC's wrist,
JFK's brain and the limo were "...all very likely fragments from M-C
bullets." As is pointed out in "High Treason" pp. 62-65) this is
absurd. In ballistics there is no such thing as "very likely" as the
molecular structure of the metal either matches or it doesn't. They
further (Groden & Livingstone) point out that the WC's statement
leaves loopholes in regards tot the fragments came from some bullet,
but not necassarily the ones the WC indicated: "It was also found that
there was only two bullets among all the specimans tested -" (much of
the evidence was found to be missing). The WC further states, "the
fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery were
very likely from the almost whole bullet found on the stretcher at
Parkland Hospital, and the fragments removed from the President's
brain during the autopsy very likely matched bullet fragments found in
the limousine." As has been pointed out by many sources, including
Dr. Pierre Finck, the is impossible because there were more fragments
in JBC's wrist than missing from CE399. Also the fragmentation the WC
and HSCA claimed happened to the 6.5mm military jacketed ammo would
not have occured when the bullet hit JFK's head as it was designed not
to do this. The "pristine" bullet was missing only 1.4 to 2.4 grains
and there was more than 3 grain found in JBC's wrist alone.

The authors also refer to a secret letter to the WC, dated July 8,
1964, from Hoover concerning the spectrographic analysis, said that
there were "minor variations" between the fragments. As the authors
point out, **any variation** indicate that different bullets were
involved.This of course was kept secret and the question of why needs
to be asked.

As for the limo fragments, how can it be determined they were fired
from the supposed "LHO gun" or anywhere else? It can't according to
the authors. There is certainly no way to determine those fragments
were fired from the 6th floor "Oswald" window.

> And YOU cannot change those ballistics facts, Mr. Kook. Although
> you'll try to change them, no doubt.

No I can't and that is okay because they are in the favor of CT land
already.

curtjester1

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 6:11:46โ€ฏPM11/14/07
to

robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You picked a great guy to prop up on a pedestal -- Roger "7.65 Mauser"
> > Craig.
> >
> I thought so as he was the cop of the year in 1960 and one of the best
> on the staff. I'm sure Roger would appreciate you saying that if he
> wasn't killed, er, had killed himself.
>
> > Craig, a provable LIAR without a shred of a doubt (with respect to the
> > "7.65 Mauser" bullshit), is not exactly the type of witness anyone
> > should be relying on -- unless you're a conspiracy-loving crackpot who
> > can't resist ANY type of "CT" talk, no matter who the source is.
>
> Who proved him to be a liar? You mean those big liars on the WC, and
> the even bigger liars posing as attorneys? It was a Mauser and more
> than Craig said that, in fact, Craig didn't make the ID they let
> Weitzman do it since he had much more experience with rifles of all
> types. I guess you don't like that he happened to look at his watch
> when the news of JDT's murder came over and it was only 1:06 PM
> right? Kinda throws the whole timetable out the window doesn't it?
> And you don't like that he saw one of the casings left was crimped and
> therefore could not have been fired that day as it wouldn't load into
> the gun. Probably don't like his testimony that the police dispatcher
> said over the radio that JDT was shot with an automatic weapon,
> right? I can see why the WC had to make him seem like an unstable
> liar. Decker was their main man in this. Craig was friends with
> Ruby's sister and this was not liked as we all know Ruby had a big
> mouth and was telling people all kinds of goodies.

> >
> > Craig also probably completely fabricated the story about Oswald
> > jumping up and saying "Now everybody will know who I am now".
>
> I don't think so as all the cops that were aroun him over the 48 hours
> said he was a cool customer and did not talk much. I like the comment
> about the Rambler belonging to the Paine's don't you. So her car is
> there at the TBSD and the first phone "tip" about LHO was traced to
> the Bell Helicopter office building where Michael Paine worked. Geez,
> what a coincidence, huh?
> >
> > AFAIK, not a single other person, including Captain Fritz, could
> > verify that story of Craig's. Fritz even says that Craig never even
> > entered Fritz's office at all, let alone talk to Oswald. .....
>
> Of course Fritz wouldn't as he was a captain and probably closing in
> on retirement and didn't want to lose this. He knew how the game was
> played. My big question is, why did the FBI seize control of the
> investigation right away when killing a president was not a Federal
> crime in 1963? Until LBJ gave them permission they should have butted
> out, but they didn't. They were turning away leads and confiscating
> evidence, why?
>
> Ah, more great WC testimony. I started this post by stating that they
> distorted, omitted and deleted many witnesses testimony and he gives
> me more to prove that point is not true!! And I'm the kook? Oh
> that's right, Dave said he was a dirty, rotten lair and I guess I
> should just believe that comment at face value.
>
> > Mr. BALL. He is a deputy sheriff.
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was
> > telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk
> > to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he
> > was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true.
>
> Stuff like it wasn't LHO? What is he talking about? This was an
> expierenced deputy. This is a joke. Didn't fit what we knew to be
> true, how do you know what is true and not true in the first day or
> two?
> >
> > Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting
> > he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository
> > Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a
> > colored man.
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.
>
> My deputy is a filthy, rotten liar and that is why we keep him on the
> force. We love lairs. Ball: Us too!! He is too stuping to notice a
> white man running across a lawn and getting into a light green
> Rambler. How stupid is this comment????
> >
> > Mr. BALL. I am stating this. You remember the witness now?
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. I remember the witness; yes, sir.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. Did that man ever come into your office and talk to you in
> > the presence of Oswald?
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. In the presence of Oswald?
> >
> > Mr. BALL. Yes.
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure he did not. I believe that man did come
> > to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I
> > believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and
> > I let someone else take an affidavit from him. We should have that
> > affidavit from him if it would help.
>
> Boy, they are really afraid of the hurting the Paines here. Why
> didn't anyone invetigate them? Their car is at the scene, they had
> the supposed murder weapon at thier house, knew of his "unstableness"
> yet they were never suspected of anything.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. Now this man states that, has stated, that he came to your
> > office and Oswald was in your office, and you asked him to look at
> > Oswald and tell you whether or not this was the man he saw, and he
> > says that in your presence he identified Oswald as the man that he had
> > seen run across this lawn and get into the white Rambler sedan. Do you
> > remember that?
>
> Here we go with the "white" Rambler again when Craig said it was light
> green.
>
> > Mr. FRITZ. I think it was taken, I think it was one of my officers,
> > and I think if he saw him he looked through that glass and saw him
> > from the outside because I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring
> > him in the office with Oswald.
>
> Why so defensive, doesn't he have have his officers in his office?
> >
> > Mr. BALL. You are sure you didn't?
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. I am sure of that. I feel positive of that. I would
> > remember that I am sure.
>
> Of course you would you stinking liar!!!!!!
> >
> > Mr. BALL. He also says that in that office----
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
>
> What the hell is he answering to? Ball hasn't even finished his
> question yet.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. After he had said, "That is the man," that Oswald got up
> > from his chair and slammed his hand on the table and said, "Now
> > everybody will know who I am." Did that ever occur in your presence?
>
> This is a lie as all the officers said how cool LHO was all weekend.
> He was working for the FBI and assumed they would get him out of this,
> unfortunately for him, they chose to let him take the fall.
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. If it did I never saw anything like that; no, sir.
> >
> > Mr. BALL. That didn't occur?
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; it didn't. That man is not telling a true story if
> > that is what he said.
>
> First he says, 'if it did happen I didn't see it' and then when
> pressed he all of sudden says it nevered happened. Which is it liar?

Ol Fritzy may have been hiding something if John Armstrong's evidence
portrayed has any merit.

>From the intro of his 99' Speech:

John Armstrong's University of Minnesota Speech
Minneapolis--May 15, 1999

PART I

My presentation is based upon documentation and photographs which will
be displayed on these two screens. These slides are presented as
visual aids and show relevant portions of documents that are often too
large to be depicted in full. They show the documentary evidence
behind this presentation.

For 35 years critics have called Kennedy's assassination a conspiracy.
But long before the critics, the book writers, and the various
government agencies that were established to investigate Kennedy's
murder, there was one man who called the assassination a conspiracy.
He was the first and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald told
Dallas Police Captain Fritz there was a conspiracy--months before...
MONTHS BEFORE the word "conspiracy" was ever used publicly. Within 48
hours Oswald was killed--the first of over a hundred assassination
related witnesses to die.


Anybody have his book for a citation?

It also if true, would give the idea that Judyth Baker espouses, that
LHO was infilltrating in an effort to thwart the conspiracy making
some sense.

CJ

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2007, 11:08:26โ€ฏPM11/14/07
to
On Nov 14, 6:11 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anybody have his book for a citation?
>
> It also if true, would give the idea that Judyth Baker espouses, that
> LHO was infilltrating in an effort to thwart the conspiracy making
> some sense.
>
> CJ

I don't know for sure if he has a book, but this is where his articles
are:

Citizens for Truth in the Kennedy Assassination (PROBE, Vol. 4, No. 6,
and Vol. 5, No. 1).

I don't know if they still publish this or not but perhaps they sell
back copies.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages