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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Daughter: Roger Craig "unstable from childhood"

2,697 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Feb 29, 2012, 10:29:06 PM2/29/12
to
Back in 2008 John Simkin posted an e-mail he'd received from Michelle
Palmer, nee Deanna Craig, daughter of Roger Craig:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&st=30


<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------

John Simkin, on Jun 13 2008, 05:26 PM, said:
Email from Roger Craig's daughter:

[Quote on]

There are a few items in your article about Roger Craig you just might
want to correct for the sake of accuracy and truth in reporting. i) His
marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment or threats - unless you
count his repeated threats to end his own life. ii) The man was disturbed.
As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from
either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those last
two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling around
with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the bastard killed
himself. The husband met him at the door with that shoulder shot.

Articles like yours only serve to continue the myth. My father was a
disturbed man. I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something
different than what was reported. But let's face it, my dad didn't know a
Mauser from a whatever. He was a Wisconsin farmboy who joined the army
illegally, and was released from duty because he kept injuring himself - I
note you don't mention all the self-inflicted scars from his tour of duty.
Furthermore, it is EXACTLY this kind of dramatic license that killed my
father. It fed his disease. It fed his paranoia. And in the end, it
contributed to his self-destruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for
perpetuating this garbage.

[Quote off]

<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------


On a related note, Michelle Palmer responds to a book review that
mentioned her dad:

http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-unspeakable-review/


<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------

Book review – JFK and the Unspeakable

- by Adrian Mack

James Douglass’ book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled “Why He
Died, and Why It Matters”.

[...]

Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb
into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a “husky looking Latin.”
Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas
Police HQ, where Douglass writes, “It was too late – for both the
government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too
much.”

As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
in 1975.

<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------


<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------

One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable – book review

Michelle Palmer says:
July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK’s
actual death.

I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
their theories. You are ALL full of it.

<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------


Dave

claviger

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 12:30:12 PM3/1/12
to
> http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-...
The Roger Craig story is a sad situation that is indeed a puzzle. He
never wavered in his belief it was LHO in spite of evidence to the
contrary. If it wasn't LHO in the Nash Rambler why would The Conspiracy
care about Craig's story that only added confusion? Why would they bother
to harass him? He posed no threat whatsoever.

Assuming there was a guy who ran from the TSBD to the Rambler, then who
was he? Evidently not an employee in Truly's group. He may have worked
for another employer in the building. In reading Craig's unpublished
manuscript it seems he incurred the wrath of Sheriff Decker by having
compassion for Jack Ruby's sister. To read about Craig's Outstanding
Deputy of the Year award then his descent into depression and sickness is
heartrending. Despite all his hardships he never compromised his beliefs.
Was there more than one LHO look-a- like working in the TSBD that day?
Perhaps some guy dropping off lunch to his wife or a spectator who needed
to use the restroom right after the parade? Guess we will never know.

When Craig saw LHO under arrest he was convinced it was the same guy.
Should we give him some credit for sticking to the truth as he perceived
it? There never seemed to be any chance for financial gain in promoting
this story so what was his motivation to put his family through such
difficulty and eventually cost him a career and health?

Ace Kefford

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 12:30:42 PM3/1/12
to
> http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-...
And the cover-up continues! No, seriously, thanks for alerting us to
this. Just maybe it might help a few rational fence-sitters or those who
currently believe in a conspiracy to at least give up the Craig issues,
which were addressed way back when I was 100 pounds lighter.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 6:35:42 PM3/1/12
to
>> Book review ? JFK and the Unspeakable
>>
>> - by Adrian Mack
>>
>> James Douglass? book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled ?Why He
>> Died, and Why It Matters?.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
>> credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
>> the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb
>> into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a ?husky looking Latin.?
>> Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas
>> Police HQ, where Douglass writes, ?It was too late ? for both the
>> government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too
>> much.?
>>
>> As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
>> official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
>> refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
>> life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
>> in 1975.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>>
>> One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable ? book review
>>
>> Michelle Palmer says:
>> July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
>>
>> Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
>> childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
>> being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK?s
>> actual death.
>>
>> I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
>> their theories. You are ALL full of it.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> Dave
>
> And the cover-up continues! No, seriously, thanks for alerting us to
> this. Just maybe it might help a few rational fence-sitters or those who
> currently believe in a conspiracy to at least give up the Craig issues,
> which were addressed way back when I was 100 pounds lighter.
>
>


This controversy is idiotic. We don't need Roger Craig at all to prove
conspiracy. I simply ignore him because I know that he was a pathological
liar. And now his own daughter defends him by blaming the conspiracy
believers for feeding his mental illness? Well, I don't think Mark Lane
could possibly get down to Dallas soon enough to whisper in Craig's ear
that the rifle was a Mauser. Craig did not make that mistake. Weitzman did
and admitted it. All Craig did was lie to support a fellow cop. Loyalty is
more important than the truth.

You know you are dealing with a liar when he makes up an unnecessary
detail which is physically impossible. Like seeing the word Mauser so
stamped on the rifle. Or James Files biting on the empty cartridge he left
as his calling card.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 6:37:18 PM3/1/12
to
>> Book review ? JFK and the Unspeakable
>>
>> - by Adrian Mack
>>
>> James Douglass? book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled ?Why He
>> Died, and Why It Matters?.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
>> credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
>> the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb
>> into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a ?husky looking Latin.?
>> Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas
>> Police HQ, where Douglass writes, ?It was too late ? for both the
>> government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too
>> much.?
>>
>> As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
>> official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
>> refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
>> life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
>> in 1975.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>>
>> One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable ? book review
>>
>> Michelle Palmer says:
>> July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
>>
>> Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
>> childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
>> being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK?s
>> actual death.
>>
>> I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
>> their theories. You are ALL full of it.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> Dave
>
> The Roger Craig story is a sad situation that is indeed a puzzle. He
> never wavered in his belief it was LHO in spite of evidence to the

What evidence to the contrary? Show me evidence that it could not
possibly be Oswald.

> contrary. If it wasn't LHO in the Nash Rambler why would The Conspiracy

Even if it wasn't LHO someone could have a theory that the Nash Rambler
picked up the real shooter. Then and only then might it become important.
But first prove that he or anyone else saw a Nash Rambler picking up
anybody at the TSBD. Show me the photograph of the car on Elm Street
extension of behind the TSBD.

> care about Craig's story that only added confusion? Why would they bother
> to harass him? He posed no threat whatsoever.
>

Why shouldn't the Conspiracy harrass someone who interferes with the
cover-up story, even if the person has no weight? Hangers on have been
killed for less. At least Martin got pistol whipped and threatened for
opening his mouth. What kind of a wimpy cover-up is it if no one gets
killed? You want the bad guys to go around saying to witnesses, "You'd
better keep your mouth shut or I'll take you off my Christmas card list"?


> Assuming there was a guy who ran from the TSBD to the Rambler, then who
> was he? Evidently not an employee in Truly's group. He may have worked

Who cares?
First prove that there was a Rambler. Then prove that some guy ran from
the TSBD.

> for another employer in the building. In reading Craig's unpublished
> manuscript it seems he incurred the wrath of Sheriff Decker by having
> compassion for Jack Ruby's sister. To read about Craig's Outstanding
> Deputy of the Year award then his descent into depression and sickness is
> heartrending. Despite all his hardships he never compromised his beliefs.

Lairs rarely admit their lies immediately.

> Was there more than one LHO look-a- like working in the TSBD that day?

Maybe he saw Lovelady standing out in front of the TSBD.

> Perhaps some guy dropping off lunch to his wife or a spectator who needed
> to use the restroom right after the parade? Guess we will never know.
>
> When Craig saw LHO under arrest he was convinced it was the same guy.
> Should we give him some credit for sticking to the truth as he perceived
> it? There never seemed to be any chance for financial gain in promoting
> this story so what was his motivation to put his family through such
> difficulty and eventually cost him a career and health?
>

Pathological liars are rarely motivated by greed.
It is usually all about puffing up their ego.



Robert Harris

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 6:38:16 PM3/1/12
to
In article
<c40f440e-acd2-4365...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

> Back in 2008 John Simkin posted an e-mail he'd received from Michelle
> Palmer, nee Deanna Craig, daughter of Roger Craig:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&st=30
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> John Simkin, on Jun 13 2008, 05:26 PM, said:
> Email from Roger Craig's daughter:
>
> [Quote on]
>
> There are a few items in your article about Roger Craig you just might
> want to correct for the sake of accuracy and truth in reporting. i) His
> marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment or threats - unless you
> count his repeated threats to end his own life. ii) The man was disturbed.
> As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from
> either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those last
> two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling around
> with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the bastard killed
> himself. The husband met him at the door with that shoulder shot.
>
> Articles like yours only serve to continue the myth. My father was a
> disturbed man. I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something
> different than what was reported. But let's face it, my dad didn't know a
> Mauser from a whatever.


That is correct. As I posted in my forum last year, the L.A. Free Press
interviewed Craig, years before his claim that he saw "Mauser" stamped on
the barrel.

He told them that he had no idea what the make and model of that rifle
was.

There is certainly value in debunking the Roger Craig's and Ed Hoffman's
but it is even more important to realize there are legitimate arguments
for conspiracy that are much more significant and impossible to debunk.

It's a real shame that so many nutters choose to evade those issues.


Robert Harris

Dave Reitzes

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 6:39:02 PM3/1/12
to
On Mar 1, 12:30 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Roger Craig story is a sad situation that is indeed a puzzle.  He
> never wavered in his belief it was LHO in spite of evidence to the
> contrary.  If it wasn't LHO in the Nash Rambler why would The Conspiracy
> care about Craig's story that only added confusion?  Why would they bother
> to harass him?  He posed no threat whatsoever.
>
> Assuming there was a guy who ran from the TSBD to the Rambler, then who
> was he?  Evidently not an employee in Truly's group.  He may have worked
> for another employer in the building.  In reading Craig's unpublished
> manuscript it seems he incurred the wrath of Sheriff Decker by having
> compassion for Jack Ruby's sister.  To read about Craig's Outstanding
> Deputy of the Year award then his descent into depression and sickness is
> heartrending.  Despite all his hardships he never compromised his beliefs.
> Was there more than one LHO look-a- like working in the TSBD that day?
> Perhaps some guy dropping off lunch to his wife or a spectator who needed
> to use the restroom right after the parade?  Guess we will never know.
>
> When Craig saw LHO under arrest he was convinced it was the same guy.
> Should we give him some credit for sticking to the truth as he perceived
> it?  There never seemed to be any chance for financial gain in promoting
> this story so what was his motivation to put his family through such
> difficulty and eventually cost him a career and health?


There are two separate issues here: the character of Roger Craig and the
Rambler episode.

After his police career ended (either due to his own unreliability or
because of the immense threat he posed to The Conspiracy -- you decide),
he became a semi-professional assassination witness for people like Penn
Jones, Mark Lane, and Jim Garrison. They helped support him financially.

Craig tried to blackmail a Garrison suspect named Edgar Eugene Bradley,
the only person Garrison charged with conspiracy in JFK's murder other
than Clay Shaw. Some people in California told Garrison that Bradley had
been involved in the assassination, then Roger Craig told Garrison he'd
seen Bradley in Dealey Plaza. He told Bradley he'd retract this claim for
money. Bradley put it this way:


<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------

There was a deputy sheriff who said that he had seen me posing as a Secret
Service agent outside the Book Depository about the time of the
assassination. Later, he phoned me twice, collect. A paper in Midlothian,
Texas [The Midlothian Mirror, Penn Jones's weekly paper], later wrote that
I was harassing him almost daily. In his last call to me, he indicated
that he needed money and would say just about anything I wanted for money.
I told him that I wouldn't give him a plug nickel because he owed it to
our country and to me to tell the truth, and that he knew he hadn't seen
me. He later committed suicide. ("Interview With Egdar Eugene Bradley:
Accused Assassin of J.F.K.," Contra Mundum, No. 6, Winter 1993.)

<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------

Garrison later quietly dropped the charges and admitted to Bradley (in an
exceedingly rare move) that he had been mistaken in filing them.

Craig told all kinds of false stories, and it looks to me like he often
told people like Garrison, Lane, and Jones what he thought they wanted to
hear; the Bradley episode is an example of this. Another example: at one
time he was claiming that a Mauser had been found on the roof of the TSBD;
but when filmed by Mark Lane years later, he supported a theory from
Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT: that the Mauser had been found on the sixth floor
-- and now he claimed he had PERSONALLY examined it:

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

So, in terms of Roger Craig's character, his daughter's description of him
only confirms what I'd already concluded on my own.

Now, the Rambler episode is a whole separate issue. It happened; Craig was
not the only person who saw it. Ten minutes after the assassination, a man
described as being in his twenties did leave Dealey Plaza in a Nash
Rambler. The question is, did this individual have anything to do with the
assassination? There's no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence
specifically against it.

It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with
some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman
racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing
blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this,
as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he
had been "off duty," so to speak.

To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem
important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing.

Dave

Jean Davison

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 10:05:24 PM3/1/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Feb 29, 9:29 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-...
Hi Dave,

Years ago CT researcher Mary Ferrell posted this on the old
Prodigy forum.

QUOTE:

I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief
that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a
very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with
some of the "stories" he told following the events of that November
weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and,
possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of
the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig.

When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that "they" prevented
him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger
did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had
"seen something or other."

I have made enemies because I have continued to say that I have never
really believed him.

Mary Ferrell
>>>>
UNQUOTE

Jean

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Mar 1, 2012, 11:20:46 PM3/1/12
to
Sure, but are you sure about the time frame and sequence?

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser
>
> So, in terms of Roger Craig's character, his daughter's description of him
> only confirms what I'd already concluded on my own.
>

Just because he was a pathological liar does not prove he was insane.

> Now, the Rambler episode is a whole separate issue. It happened; Craig was
> not the only person who saw it. Ten minutes after the assassination, a man

Prove that it happened.

> described as being in his twenties did leave Dealey Plaza in a Nash
> Rambler. The question is, did this individual have anything to do with the

Prove that it was a Nash Rambler. Show me a photo of it near the TSBD.

> assassination? There's no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence
> specifically against it.
>
> It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with
> some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman

Wow, someone could have a non-sinister reason for leaving Dealey Plaza?
Amazing. Except of course for Lee Harvey Oswald.

> racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing
> blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this,
> as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he
> had been "off duty," so to speak.
>

Sounds like a Files detail to me.
Who said it was a reporter?

> To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem
> important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing.
>

Silly. I think there was a conspiracy and I think the story is nonsense.
You just love to accuse all conspiracy believers of believing in every
conspiracy theory that comes down the pike.

> Dave
>


Dave Reitzes

unread,
Mar 2, 2012, 12:07:16 AM3/2/12
to
Thanks, Jean.

Dave

Ace Kefford

unread,
Mar 2, 2012, 9:41:54 AM3/2/12
to
On Mar 1, 6:38 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c40f440e-acd2-4365-b4d0-de64f412a...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Robert (and Tony),

I am with you, notwithstanding that I am currently quite convinced
that Oswald did it all.

A big problem on the conspiracy end of things has been the inability
to give up arguments and evidence that have been effectively refuted
to the satisfaction of any rational person. Instead they either
ignore the refutations, claim "evidence tampering," "lying" or
"alteration," or try to keep the claim alive with a thinner slice of
the bacon that ends up having no relevant relationship to a possible
conspiracy.

I know you will never get the hard core "believers" to give up some of
their cherished nuggets, but I think on the margins it DOES help to
have those with a conspiracy belief try to sweep out some of the
nonsense. Only then can we get down to the real areas of dispute.

Ace

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Mar 2, 2012, 7:19:39 PM3/2/12
to
The big problem on the WC defender side is the reliance on cheap tricks
like accusing all conspiracy believers of believing in UFOs. Because
they can't do their homework to learn the facts of the case so they
can't debate honestly.

> to the satisfaction of any rational person. Instead they either
> ignore the refutations, claim "evidence tampering," "lying" or
> "alteration," or try to keep the claim alive with a thinner slice of
> the bacon that ends up having no relevant relationship to a possible
> conspiracy.
>

I think that instead of trying to find a sliver in the eye of the
conspiracy believer you should be removing the mote from the eye of the
WC defender.

> I know you will never get the hard core "believers" to give up some of
> their cherished nuggets, but I think on the margins it DOES help to
> have those with a conspiracy belief try to sweep out some of the
> nonsense. Only then can we get down to the real areas of dispute.
>

And YOU are going to be the one to decide what are the real areas of
dispute? No one is allowed to discuss anything unless you approve it?
What's the name of that political system again?

> Ace
>


Ace Kefford

unread,
Mar 3, 2012, 6:18:36 PM3/3/12
to
I definitely agree on the dodge of lumping all conspiracy believers as
believers in all things conspiracy, or for that matter as believers in the
far-out JFK assassination "theories" of some. That type of argument just
frustrates me because it detracts from the main points.

As for what are the legitimate areas of dispute, as with any academic or
research endeavor this is for fair-minded members of the community to work
toward determining. You're not going to get any 100% communist-style
consensus, but I think most can agree on some arguments and evidence that
should be forgotten or at least can be safely ignored unless someone comes
up with a REAL new claim or explanation. After picking off that
low-hanging fruit, it gets a little tougher. Gradually, however, I think
the focus on the actual evidence leads to genuine testing of the theories
that seek to put that evidence in a framework.

Not all will agree on what is the best explanation, but being confronted
with the evidence pushes one to think deeper about the theory and not just
in simplicities like "the Governor was seated in front of the President
and the supposed Oswald bullet was coming from right to left, so how could
a shot that went through JFK's neck exiting around the midpoint hit
Connally on the right side?" That was NOT initially a foolish thing to
wonder, but I think most now accept how simplistic an argument it was.

For me the process to a better understanding came with the idea that
"something real happened that day in Dealey Plaza." That is, it only
happened ONE WAY and I should try to figure out what that one way was.
And so, rather than probing sidelines like Clinton, Louisiana I ought to
start thinking about what the evidence shows is the one way that it
happened right there in Dealey Plaza. You know where I have ended up, but
other people will take other journeys.

marcoc...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 3:18:30 PM12/28/12
to
Officer Craig wasn't the only witness to the rifle being a mauser and the
3 gun savey witnesses signed a legal affidavit saying mauser. Pretty
weird. Carcano says made in italy, does it not? Go watch Weitzman
admitting his "mistake" offically on camera. It looks like he's having a
panic attack he's so nervous. If Craig is lying, officer of the year
suddenly turned into liar of the year, why? What is more likely is that
the witnesses were pressured into changing story (as so many witnesses in
this tragedy seem to have been. If they lived long enough to get their
stories out to the public.) Craig sure had lots of bad luck after he
refused to play ball. How do we know this really is his daughter in the
email? How do we know she isn't the disturbed one or angry at dad? Of
course Craig's testimony is one small facet of this stinky affair. There's
no doubt LHO was a secret agent/ asset of some branch. Those close to him
said as much.

claviger

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 8:35:04 PM12/28/12
to
Why would The Conspiracy complicate this ambush with two different rifles?
Not very smart in their planning are they? Doesn't sound like the kind of
dumb mistake these evil geniuses would make. How did they substitute one
rifle for the other?


mainframetech

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 10:20:17 PM12/28/12
to
It would be necessary to have a rifle that was attached to Oswald,
and no matter which rifle did the killing, they had to pin the blame
on a 'lone nut' so that there wouldn't be years of questioning, which
happened anyway. The intent was to allow the shooters to get away and
not be followed the rest of their lives. The Mauser looked like the
MC, so it could be easily replaced at a later time.

Chris



mainframetech

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 10:29:28 PM12/28/12
to
I've heard this baloney before about Craig being nuts. It just ain't
so. Go look at a page from the Education Forum where the daughter wrote
in to remove her name and that her father was crazy. You will also see on
the same page the statement of the nephew, Jerry Craig, saying that the
daughter and wife were both crazy and paranoid. Jerry is a member of the
forum. This sounds more like the truth because Craig was made "cop of the
year" as noted above, and was promoted 4 times while in the sheriffs
department. As well, when a guy has such a good record, and then sticks
with his statement when there is obviously pressure to change it, it's his
principles, not insanity. As well, John Simkin the forum admin maede the
comment that the daughter seemed to him to be 'disturbed'.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&st=30

Jerry Craig also spoke up here about Roger:
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=124;area=showposts


John McAdams

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 10:37:30 PM12/28/12
to
On 28 Dec 2012 22:29:28 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Are you aware that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano being
recovered on the sixth floor, and not a Mauser?

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

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

Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/

You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
factoids you have been spouting.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 28, 2012, 10:45:13 PM12/28/12
to
No bullets were fired from a Mauser. Have you ever looked at the sabot
theory?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 12:46:21 AM12/29/12
to
None of that matters to the alterationists. They can just claim that the
Alyea film is fake and even the TSBD is fake or that it was staged on a
different day.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>
> Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
> on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
> he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/
>
> You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
> factoids you have been spouting.
>

I don't think we'll live long enough to see that.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>


mainframetech

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 11:49:12 AM12/29/12
to
On Dec 28, 10:37 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2012 22:29:28 -0500, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=124;area=showp...
>
> Are you aware that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano being
> recovered on the sixth floor, and not a Mauser?
>
Yep. We don't know that the Mauser was better hidden, and when the
MC was found, they thought they had what they needed. The Mauser (if
there was one) could have been anywhere. Just hidden better.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>
> Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
> on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
> he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.
>
It was clear that Craig depended on Weitzman's judgement on the
'Mauser 7.65' business. He says as much in his 'recollections' in
"When They Kill A President".

> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/
>
> You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
> factoids you have been spouting.
>
John, I don't read those things, and haven't read a serious book on
the subject since David Lifton ("Best Evidence"), who presented his
case in an organized fashion and very detailed. The more I've looked
into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
this day.

I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.

I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
almost any part of the case. No one has come up with anything that
has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
up from complaining that a coup took place. I'm sure I haven't
convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.

It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.
We may not like what we hear from each other, but as long as I can
take the insults that have come my way so far, I'll keep on in as
proper a fashion as I can.

If we didn't have varying viewpoints, we'd have nothing to talk
about.

Chris



mainframetech

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 11:49:18 AM12/29/12
to
> No bullets were fired from a Mauser. Have you ever looked at the sabot
> theory?

You have absolutely NO proof that 'no bullets were fired from a
Mauser' or other type of rifle. A Mauser may well have been hidden
better than the MC, and not found. It would be disposed of later if
that were the case.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 11:49:25 AM12/29/12
to
On Dec 29, 12:46 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/28/2012 10:37 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Dec 2012 22:29:28 -0500, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>
> >>http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=124;area=showp...
>
> > Are you aware that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano being
> > recovered on the sixth floor, and not a Mauser?
>
> None of that matters to the alterationists. They can just claim that the
> Alyea film is fake and even the TSBD is fake or that it was staged on a
> different day.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>
> > Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
> > on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
> > he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.
>
> >http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/
>
> > You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
> > factoids you have been spouting.
>
> I don't think we'll live long enough to see that.
>
And we may not ever live long enough to see the end of support for
the WCR and it's theories. Yet it gives us things to do in our
leisure time...:)

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 2:41:11 PM12/29/12
to
We already have. About 80% of the public does not support or believe in
the WCR and its [sic] theories. That is largely due to the efforts of
the conspiracy believers searching for the evidence and making a strong
case. The alterationists detract from that effort.


>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 2:41:48 PM12/29/12
to
This is called "walking back" your claims. So now you admit that it was
really Oswald's Carcano they found in the TSBD and not a Mauser. But for
some reason you still want a Mauser to have been used, but then hidden.
I suggest that you watch the movie Winter Kills. I repeat, no evidence
was found suggesting that a Mauser was shot that day in Dealey Plaza. No
bullet, no fragments. Now, just for fun you could try rerunning the
acoustical evidence to identify a muzzle velocity typical of a Mauser
instead of a Carcano. Tell everyone what the typical muzzle velocity of
a Mauser is.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 2:44:18 PM12/29/12
to
On 12/29/2012 11:49 AM, mainframetech wrote:
Let me stop you right there. Lifton's Best Evidence is not a serious
book. And you keep spouting all types of nonsense from other books like
Horne's but then you didn't have the common courtesy to actually read
them? Then how can you be sure you got their theories right?
Even I have to read books that I don't like just to verify what they
lied about and know what to attack, like Posner or Bugliosi. And as I
said before Mortal Error is pure nonsense, but it has excellent graphics.

> case in an organized fashion and very detailed. The more I've looked
> into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
> conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
> this day.
>

We were saying it was a conspiracy long before Lifton's book came out.
Before ANY book came out 50% of Americans said it was a conspiracy.

> I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
> long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.
>

Someone can assert with logic and common sense that the Earth is flat.
Scientific evidence says it is not. Go with the scientific evidence or
worry about falling over the edge.

> I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
> almost any part of the case. No one has come up with anything that
> has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
> up from complaining that a coup took place. I'm sure I haven't

Yes, I have. I proved that the reason for the cover up was to prevent
WWIII because everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was a contract
killer working for Castro.

> convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
> as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.
>

Wrong. It detracts from the efforts of serious researchers and provides
fodder for the WC defenders to dismiss conspiracy notions.

> It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
> speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.

The WCR disproves itself. It has since Day One.

> We may not like what we hear from each other, but as long as I can
> take the insults that have come my way so far, I'll keep on in as
> proper a fashion as I can.
>

But you can't take the insults. You beg for mercy.

> If we didn't have varying viewpoints, we'd have nothing to talk
> about.
>

Even people who are on the same side and agree 99% still have things to
talk about. Groden did not know about the dent of the rearview mirror.
He did not know that I corrected the HSCA map. He did not know about the
Skaggs photo proving that the cop seen in the Mentasana film is holding
his shotgun, not a rifle. As I said before, the research community is so
diverse that each member can make unique contributions that someone else
can not. I sent my map to another research who was able to scan it in on
a large scanner.

> Chris
>
>
>


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 10:35:50 PM12/29/12
to
Which goes to show just how much information they needed to come to that
conclusion: next to none.

And then after they've the books of someone like Mark Lane, they actually
know *less* than nothing, because now they think they know many things
that are demonstrably false.

/sandy



marcoc...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 10:37:36 PM12/29/12
to
Why assume the JFK killers were perfect evil geniuses? CIA didn't have
control of investigation until they stepped in and took it over from
Dallas cops. Hence the recanting of finding a Mauser. From witness
testimony there were 2 gunmen on 6th floor. Maybe the mauser wasn't meant
to be found before the carcano. Not sure what happened up there. The
filmed version is a restaging for the records. Hence we see carcano. If
Craig was so unstable, the fact Dallas made him cop of the year needs to
be addressed. He seems sincere and solid as a rock in all his interviews.
Maybe he suffered depression, lots of people do. Especially when people
are trying to voilently shut them up.

marcoc...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 10:38:29 PM12/29/12
to
Isn't Aleya film understood to be a restaging of the find for the cameras?
So it isn't the mauser in the film. WC says fritz ejected a cartridge from
the rifle and picked up one fo the shells. That isn't in the Aleya film,
why?

marcoc...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 10:39:19 PM12/29/12
to
I want to hear lone nut theorists explain why Craig would lie. He lost his
friends at work, his job, people tried to kill him (happened to many
people in this case) and probably succeeded in the end. He ruined his life
for what? To start a conspiracy theory and become a book author? Come on.
It's contrary to human psychology. Isn't it more in keeping with reality
that cop of the year was somebody who refused to tell a lie in a murder
case, no matter what later investigators told him his eyes had been
mistaken?

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 10:48:18 PM12/29/12
to
It would be nice if everything would sit right where it was put an we
could depend on it all our days. But things won't do that. And in a case
like this sometimes I've seen things change very quickly. We have to be
mercurial enough to move with the situation and deal with the new
circumstances it presents. The concern for the "alterationists" is only
that they find ways to move things from where you thought they ought to
be. The trouble with not following their thinking and validating (or
invalidating) it is a mistake of mouldering in one place. Shift with the
tide.

The usefulness of "alterationists" is that they reach out for new
information and circumstances and sometimes come upon a new understanding
of a particular item of evidence. For someone to be the first to discover
that the round nosed bullet used to be a pointy nosed bullet might carry
some significance as to whether that item of evidence can be
trusted/believed, or needs a fuller understanding as to why it was there,
and why it changed in a witness's mind.

Like the evidence we saw and learned about in the Newtown, CT case
that was wrong from the beginning and only now is clearing up more to the
true picture, the JFK case came out with a scenario very soon in the
scheme of things, I think in a day or two. That first picture has to now
be corrected and a fuller understanding of what happened has to be
learned. The difference with the Newtown case is that there was no one
trying to hide information after the original efort of breaking up a
computer disk. The perpetrator has no conspirators and soon ceased doing
anything that might muddy the waters and change viewpoints and beliefs.
So it was much sooner that truth began coming out. In a case like the JFK
murder, there are still (in my belief) those that need to cover up their
doings from day 1 until now. In time it will all come out, but only if we
keep on doing what we're doing. Rant #56,381 :)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 10:49:06 PM12/29/12
to
No, the evidence says Mauser and a switch at a later time. I have no
problem entertaining other scenarios though. We have 2 Dallas lawmen
swearing that it was a Mauser 7.65 (why say 7.65?) on first blush. Only
overnight did one of them change his mind, while the other (to his own
detriment, it would seem) stayed with his sworn word for years after.

Yes, I said the Mauser could have been hidden better, but thinking over
your good catch of my words, that's not possible. So I'll have to go with
my original belief, and not be so swift to go along with other scenarios.

Did they find the Mauser the same day and say nothing about it? Was the
Mauser found and then taken out and switched outside? Was the MC nearby
and found later? Too many possibilities.

In a case where the POTUS is the victim, getting things right would
seem to be important to the people entrusted with finding and holding the
killer. No one wanted to be the person that made a mistake in the
president's murder and have it told across the networks and the papers.
I expect that the 2 men that swore that it was a Mauser 7.65 were smart
enough to think of that. Yet they were sure enough to name the rifle and
swear to it. Even though Weiotzman's first statement was that it was a
Mauser ('7.65') and he later changed his mind, if I take a note from Marsh
and his 'friend' Loftus', then the first statement is usually the most
true.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 29, 2012, 11:28:17 PM12/29/12
to
This medium doesn't allow you to stop me anywhere from doing anything.
You really shouldn't use such a tone or choice of words. Many people would
find it insulting. I'm sure you can figure out what it implies, and it
doesn't do you well. I know your opinion of both Lifton and of Douglas
Horne who thinks well of Lifton. You are not the person whom I rely on
for good book reviews. Your constant insult that I purvey only "nonsense"
is tiresome, but go on with it if it warms you up. I can handle it for as
long as you can type it. Just keep in mind each time you put out such
insults, I'm think ing the same in response. And since the moderators
find it acceptable, then my saying the same to you is also acceptable.
Consider it said every time you use the word yourself.

Now, let's clear up your latest mistakes and errors. I have not quoted
from books by Horne, but I have quoted from internet articles by him, and
when I do I put the source right after the quote. I wish you would do the
same, but I've learned your style now and can handle what it implies. I
do not have a copy of the 5 volumes Horne wrote up, but one day I will.
Also, your thinking is that I have to buy a book to show "common
courtesy", but that's only YOUR thinking, not mine. If I find it on the
internet, and I think it has merit, I will quote it and point to it as
I've done right along, and I feel no need to buy a book because I quoted
from their work. Further on that, Since most books aren't online in their
entirety yet, I don't read them. Only articles, which tell me all I need
to know. I expect YOU to tell me when you think I've missed something or
misinterptreted a thought from a writer, and you've tried to do that job
to the degree you're able. Thanks for your book suggestions, but no
thanks...:)



> > case in an organized fashion and very detailed.  The more I've looked
> > into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
> > conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
> > this day.
>
> We were saying it was a conspiracy long before Lifton's book came out.
> Before ANY book came out 50% of Americans said it was a conspiracy.
>
I'm happy for you being so early with the thought. Did you then
applaud Lifton for voicing your thoughts?

> >     I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
> > long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.
>
> Someone can assert with logic and common sense that the Earth is flat.
> Scientific evidence says it is not. Go with the scientific evidence or
> worry about falling over the edge.
>
You use your methods and I'll use mine. I find nothing wrong with
science, but it also can be misused, as in the JFK autopsy. This case is
very good for learning what evidence can be fooled around with and used to
give a wrong impression. Only after years has contrary evidence come out
showing what was done wrong with the original evidence. An example might
be dragging out the condition of the MC rifle when the FBI wanted to test
it. UIt wasn't generally known that it was in terrible condition and th
scope was misaligned and the bolt was stricku andit was 'worn andcorroded'
as per Frazier. This makes th eMC less likely to be the killing weapon,
and forcing us to look elsewhere for a rifle and possibly a shooter.

> >     I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
> > almost any part of the case.  No one has come up with anything that
> > has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
> > up from complaining that a coup took place.  I'm sure I haven't
>
> Yes, I have. I proved that the reason for the cover up was to prevent
> WWIII because everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was a contract
> killer working for Castro.
>
Nope. Won't do. You SAID that, you didn't prove it, at least not to
me. I told you that I doubted very much that WW3 would start over us
accusing another country of killing JFK. And I continue to nelieve
that. Poll the other folks and se what you get.

> > convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
> > as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.
>
> Wrong. It detracts from the efforts of serious researchers and provides
> fodder for the WC defenders to dismiss conspiracy notions.
>
Right. Do you consider yourself a "serious researcher"? And my
experience of WCR denialists is that they would go after any one they see
that doesn't hold to their beliefs. If a "Serious researcher" goes to a
public forum and begins to spout all the most recent things he has
discovered about the JFK murder (other than the WCR theories), he'd be
drummed out of the forum he was in, if it wasn't a JFK forum. ANY mention
of other than WCR theories is CT to most people. Don't try to separate
yourself from others here who just listen and converse.

> >     It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
> > speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.
>
> The WCR disproves itself. It has since Day One.
>
Of course, tell the world and see how far you get without something
major to let out. When you get a Lifton or Horce douing it, they seem to
get noticed more than you or I. Of course they put in a lot more work
with their books than we put into our debating.

> > We may not like what we hear from each other, but as long as I can
> > take the insults that have come my way so far, I'll keep on in as
> > proper a fashion as I can.
>
> But you can't take the insults. You beg for mercy.
>
Oh, give it up. I'm surprised that John hasn't pulled half your posts
by now with that sort of stuff in them. We're debating the subjects, not
the persons. Now that I've tried to correct your manners, please bring
out any copies of me begging anyone for anything here.


> >    If we didn't have varying viewpoints, we'd have nothing to talk
> > about.
>
> Even people who are on the same side and agree 99% still have things to
> talk about. Groden did not know about the dent of the rearview mirror.
> He did not know that I corrected the HSCA map. He did not know about the
> Skaggs photo proving that the cop seen in the Mentasana film is holding
> his shotgun, not a rifle. As I said before, the research community is so
> diverse that each member can make unique contributions that someone else
> can not. I sent my map to another research who was able to scan it in on
> a large scanner.
>
Well, we have something to talk about. I'm not convinced that there is a
'ding' on the mirror. It doesn't make a lot of sense for how it got where
you say it is. In a very good close up, I looked carefully, and I didn't
see anything except a smudge in the middle of the back of the mirror. It
appears like somrthing that belongs there. The ends were both fine.
AFTER the shooting. You have to be careful talking about things like that
because the CTs will pick it up and blat it all over.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 3:01:17 PM12/30/12
to
You mean like the reporter who kept getting Oswald's name wrong? Or the
cops in Newtown who announced the wrong brother as the shooter?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 3:01:29 PM12/30/12
to
No, they don't. The make up crap.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 3:02:18 PM12/30/12
to
All they needed to do was see Ruby kill the accused shooter while he was
in police custody. Ralph Salerno, the expert on the Mafia, points out that
this is a typical pattern with a conspiracy that the shooter is himself
quickly killed so that he can't reveal the conspiracy.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 10:08:40 PM12/30/12
to
It happens in the real world all the time. One little lie will ruin a
person's life.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 10:09:04 PM12/30/12
to
Some of Alyea's film was cut out and thrown away. He has written about
this.


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 10:14:04 PM12/30/12
to
Yes, that's all they needed to jump to that conclusion. And it was
indeed a logical suspicion. But it was erroneous nonetheless.

/sandy

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 10:19:30 PM12/30/12
to
There will always be errors in reporting. And as with the JFK
case, it may take some time, but the truth will come out some day.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 10:20:00 PM12/30/12
to
Well, that's your opinion. I have expressed mine.

mainframetech

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 10:20:13 PM12/30/12
to
Ah! Good call. Sounds like that may have been the case in the JFK
murder...:)

Chris

paulson...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 21, 2015, 10:39:19 PM1/21/15
to
It is pathetic that anybody would bash Roger Craig when he isn't around to
defend himself. I believe his story as it appears he was proven to be
truthful by various photographs sited years after his statements were
made. There is no reason for anybody to bash and attempt to discredit his
character - particularly since they weren't there to be a fair and
objective judge. It's no coincidence that so many of the witnesses died
under questionable circumstances. Roger Craig may have become paranoid,
but I would too if I were harassed unmercifully for telling my version of
the truth.

Furthermore, he may have believed he could be paid for statements, but
regardless, that is no crime. He obviously didn't profit from his truth,
in fact, quite the opposite. He suffered and died instead. His truth
never changed.

His daughter, honestly, looks to be a sorry person for disrespecting her
father in such a vicious way for his frailties and problems which arose
from circumstances spinning out of control. And the woman who stated he
NEVER wanted to work, come on! From such lofty accolades for outstanding
service to unstable employment. Life is in flux, and nobody's life is
perfect. Give him some credit!!!! PLEASE!


On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 11:30:12 AM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> On Feb 29, 9:29 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Back in 2008 John Simkin posted an e-mail he'd received from Michelle
> > Palmer, nee Deanna Craig, daughter of Roger Craig:
> >
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&st=30
> >
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> >
> > John Simkin, on Jun 13 2008, 05:26 PM, said:
> > Email from Roger Craig's daughter:
> >
> > [Quote on]
> >
> > There are a few items in your article about Roger Craig you just might
> > want to correct for the sake of accuracy and truth in reporting. i) His
> > marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment or threats - unless you
> > count his repeated threats to end his own life. ii) The man was disturbed.
> > As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from
> > either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those last
> > two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling around
> > with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the bastard killed
> > himself. The husband met him at the door with that shoulder shot.
> >
> > Articles like yours only serve to continue the myth. My father was a
> > disturbed man. I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something
> > different than what was reported. But let's face it, my dad didn't know a
> > Mauser from a whatever. He was a Wisconsin farmboy who joined the army
> > illegally, and was released from duty because he kept injuring himself - I
> > note you don't mention all the self-inflicted scars from his tour of duty.
> > Furthermore, it is EXACTLY this kind of dramatic license that killed my
> > father. It fed his disease. It fed his paranoia. And in the end, it
> > contributed to his self-destruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for
> > perpetuating this garbage.
> >
> > [Quote off]
> >
> > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> >
> > On a related note, Michelle Palmer responds to a book review that
> > mentioned her dad:
> >
> > http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-...
> >
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> >
> > Book review - JFK and the Unspeakable
> >
> > - by Adrian Mack
> >
> > James Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled "Why He
> > Died, and Why It Matters".
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
> > credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
> > the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb
> > into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a "husky looking Latin."
> > Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas
> > Police HQ, where Douglass writes, "It was too late - for both the
> > government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too
> > much."
> >
> > As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
> > official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
> > refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
> > life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
> > in 1975.
> >
> > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> >
> > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> >
> > One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable - book review
> >
> > Michelle Palmer says:
> > July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
> >
&g