Post by curtjester1 Post by John McAdams Post by curtjester1 Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
No, no, and no, in that order. :-) Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind. That was Craig's spin only. Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake. As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance." The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action." Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony. Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job. As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles. how much? We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped. Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when. It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks. Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
Interesting. You could have fooled me then. In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black). A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
it, here it is:Loading Image...
I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
Why did Craig lie? If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter. Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was. I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself. Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
the daughter against Simkin:
"My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
Here's a link for that part of the case:
Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig: "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin: "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office. Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
What we have is a typical 'pecking party'. When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death. For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place. Why wasn't that seen? Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
You think the cops were dumb? How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window? And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing? The Three Stooges?
I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found. I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that. But I'm flexible on that point.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
I agree. As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted. And of
course, I've never said it was planted. I can't think of any reason to
pant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin. Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did. So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him. If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting. That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
Nope. Won't do. Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington. And other people that saw the Rambler
and the man getting into it were Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper:
Once again Craig is corroborated.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening. I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat. It's been while though and I
don't have the details anymore. Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt. What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street? That there was NO other guy with
Oswald? Could be. If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses. That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though. His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot. Was that just in the Movie, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris? MC or Mauser?
I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation. One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over? In the Alyea film I
se someone holding out a rifle without a clip. Is that the one you want
to identify? I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.