Damage to the BOH

[Robert Harris]

nix gifs showing direction of blood splatter and fragment ....to the rear..fwtaw b

i do not know the why ?? but you must click on each of the gifs in order to activate the gif movement...does anyone know why the gifs do not post with the action any longer..i none of my gifs now post activated....many thanks b

Rather than post them as attachments, try uploading them to a website like photo bucket and then link to them.

[Bernice Moore]

RIFLE INFORMATION..

[Steve Duffy]

Jim, Bernice, your work does not go unappreciated. Thanks.

[David Von Pein]

Take note of Roger Craig's comments in the article posted by Bernice above: Craig claims he had no idea what type of gun was recovered from the boxes on the 6th Floor, even though he said he HANDLED the rifle himself (another big fat lie from Craig....and I am assuming the "RC" in that text is, indeed, referring to Roger Craig; correct, Bernice?).

Craig also talks about a Mauser being found on "the roof" of the TSBD (another ridiculous statement).

I guess Craig later decided to add his tall tale about actually seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on a rifle that was supposedly (per the above article) found ON THE ROOF, and not on the sixth floor at all.

That's the trouble with evolving lies like Roger Craig told. It's hard for the big fat xxxx to keep all of his lies straight....as we can easily see via that interview with Craig.

When was that bullxxxx article printed, Bernice? There's no date mentioned.

Edited October 10, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

...

When was that bullxxxx article printed, Bernice? ...

control yourself, xxxxx.... this is not ACJ

[David Von Pein]

More BS from Jimbo, of course.

After Roger Craig invented his bald-faced lie about seeing "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle, he always maintained that it was stamped on the rifle that Lt. J.C. Day had just lifted out of the boxes on the northwest corner of the sixth floor.

Craig never claimed to see the stamp on a rifle that had later been carried down from the roof.

Craig's 7.65 Mauser lie is exposed in this article that Bernice Moore linked to earlier (even though Bernice undoubtedly thinks that that article she posted is further proof that Roger D. Craig is the Saint to end all Saints.)

But here's the proof (in the video below) to prove for all time that Craig's lies evolved over a period of time. In the article Bernice posted, "RC" (Roger Craig) said this:

QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was pulled from the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?"

ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

But in Mark Lane's video "Two Men In Dallas" (linked below), Roger Craig specifically says that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that had just been lifted from the box stacks on the sixth floor.

The combination of that Craig interview posted by Bernice and the video below exposes Roger Craig's "7.65 Mauser" lie like never before.

But I'm sure conspiracy mongers like James DiEugenio and Lee Farley will continue to pat Roger Craig on the back and treat him as a perfectly truthful and upstanding witness when it comes to this 7.65 Mauser bullxxxx and his tale about the bullet shells being only about three-fourths of an inch to one inch apart and all facing the exact same direction (and who would even want to PLANT shells in such a silly manner anyway?), etc.

Plus, there's also the fact that Roger Craig never said a single word about seeing any rifle with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on it during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission either. Which is, of course, yet another indication that Deputy Sheriff Craig invented his "Mauser" story only after appearing before the Warren Commission.

The word "Mauser" is not mentioned once during Craig's 1964 WC session, even after David Belin said this to Craig right after Craig told the WC about the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor:

"Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't related here that you feel might be important?"

Roger Craig's answer to Belin's above question:

"No."

In addition, Craig never said a word about seeing the Mauser stamp on the sixth-floor rifle during his 1969 Clay Shaw Trial testimony either. And also contradicting the interview supplied by Bernice, Craig never mentions handling the rifle during his testimony at Shaw's New Orleans trial either.

In short -- Anyone who supports Roger Dean Craig is supporting a known xxxx.

Edited October 10, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Chris Davidson]

Would have been nice if someone asked the gunsmith "Did Oswald bring this rifle to him" for scope mounting.

Not "for a man named Oswald"

chris

Edited October 10, 2010 by Chris Davidson

[John Dolva]

Would have been nice if someone asked the gunsmith "Did Oswald bring this rifle to him" for scope mounting.

Not "for a man named Oswald"

chris

And, being a gunsmith he should have been able to say what type the rifle was. ? There must be followups and perhaps an ID of the gunsmith. It'd be nice to hear what he has/d to say about that.

[David Von Pein]

I wouldn't believe a single thing uttered by Roger Dean Craig under any circumstances.

I just proved above that Craig lied like a cheap rug re the 7.65 Mauser BS.

But Craig's obvious lies don't bother CT monger Jim Di. in the least. And that's because R.D. Craig was a conspiracy nut....and that makes his stories okay in Jimmy DiEugenio's book.

And note how DiEugenio totally ignores the timing for when Craig says he saw the "7.65 Mauser" stamp. Craig said he saw it just after Day took it from between the boxes on the sixth floor.

So as far as his 7.65 Mauser lie is concerned, what difference does it make exactly WHEN Craig got to the sixth floor?

And also note how DiEugenio actually seems to believe Craig about there being another rifle "brought down" from the roof.

Of course, as we all know, there was no other rifle to be brought down from the rooftop, because no rifle (Mauser or otherwise) was found on the roof of the Depository. And Jimmy Boy knows this. He just likes the idea of supporting a Big Fat xxxx like Roger D. Craig. Pathetic.

Roger Craig lied. And he lied about multiple important things associated with the JFK murder case. And DiEugenio has to know he was a xxxx. But Jimmy just doesn't give a damn, as long as he can support another ABO conspiracy monger.

Edited October 10, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Steve Duffy]

David, do you have a scale for particular liars, like say Roger Craig at 3 out of 10, and someone like Gerald Ford, at what? 9? 10? What about Hoover during his career, for e.g? Would you give a sum per lie, or just a rounded up figure for lies all told?

[David Von Pein]

David, do you have a scale for particular liars, like say Roger Craig at 3 out of 10, and someone like Gerald Ford, at what? 9? 10? What about Hoover during his career, for e.g? Would you give a sum per lie, or just a rounded up figure for lies all told?

Roger Craig was a 10 on the xxxx Scale. No doubt.

Gerald Ford was a 0, of course. He didn't lie about a damn thing, including the back wound.

J. Edgar was probably about a 2 or 3 (for his career). For the JFK case, however, he was a 0. He was just plain stupid and ignorant about a lot of the evidence in the early going of the JFK investigation. But he wasn't a xxxx.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html

(Awaiting the roars of laughter from all the lifelong "Hoover Was The Devil In Disguise" CT fanatics.)

Edited October 10, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Bernice Moore]

Jim, Bernice, your work does not go unappreciated. Thanks.

Your very welcome Steve...b

[Bernice Moore]

...

When was that bullxxxx article printed, Bernice? ...

control yourself, xxxxx.... this is not ACJ

DVPITA...open your eyes and read, the date is on the article in fact twice...b

[Bernice Moore]

Philadelphia attorney Vincent J. Salandria, one of the earliest critics of the Warren Commission, wrote in 1971: "I have long believed that the killers actually preempted the assassination criticism by supplying the information they wanted revealed and also by supplying the critics whom they wanted to disclose the data. Does it not make sense that if they could perpetrate a coup and could control the press, they would have endeavored to dominate likewise the assassination criticism?" The facts reveal that one of those compromised sources of information was Roger Craig.⁸⁸

In his 1971 unpublished manuscript, When they Kill a President, former deputy sheriff Roger Craig revealed new details about the discovery of the rifle. On page ten of his original manuscript he wrote:

Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly then handed it to Capt. Fritz, who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman a deputy constable was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons, being in the sporting goods business for many years he was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a

close

examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser, Fritz agreed with him....At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instictively [sic] looked at my watch and the time was 1:06 P.M. [emphasis in original]

In a 1974 videotaped interview, Craig described Weitzman as a "gun buff." Craig added that Weitzman "had a sporting goods store at one time. He was very good at -- with weapons. And he said, 'It looks like a Mauser.' And he walked over to Fritz. And Captain Fritz was holding the rifle up in the air. And I was standing next to Weitzman -- who was standing next to Fritz. And we weren't more than six to eight inches from the rifle. And stamped right on the barrel -- of the rifle -- was 7.65 Mauser. And that's when Weitzman said, 'It is a Mauser,' and pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamp on the barrel." That interview was conducted in April 1974 by Lincoln Karle and can be seen in a videotape called Two Men in Dallas: John Kennedy and Roger Craig (Alpa Productions, 1977). In that interview, Craig speaks very slowly and deliberately when he says the words "seven-point-six-five Mauser." In the space of a few sentences the word Mauser is used four times and the caliber is given twice.

On February 8, 1975, thirteen weeks before Craig's untimely death, Massachusetts high school teacher Edgar F. Tatro wrote his first of several letters to Craig. In an article Tatro later wrote detailing that correspondence, he said, "Roger Craig's second letter to me contained a shocker, something I had never seen attributed to him in print before. He had written that the rifle was `a 7.65 Mauser so stamped on the barrel'. If this was accurate, it was new information, to my knowledge, and crucial to a new investigation."⁸⁹

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."⁹⁰ 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.⁹¹

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."⁹² 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.⁹³

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.⁹⁴

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.⁹⁵ 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 reports⁹⁶ 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.⁹⁷ 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, 1964.⁹⁸ Nowhere in that affidavit does Weitzman say that he was Boone's source.⁹⁹ Perhaps that is why it is unmentioned in the Report.¹⁰⁰ 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.

¹⁰¹

Weitzman was not asked nor did he volunteer whether he was the source of Boone's reports dated the day before Weitzman's police affidavit. The vagueness of this exchange, as well as the question of perjury made it more important than ever for the Commission to question Weitzman -- especially if they suspected he was the original source of the Mauser identification; but they never called him to testify.

On April 22, 1964, the Commission instead questioned Curry, Fritz and Day. Strangely, Police Chief Jesse Curry and Commissioner McCloy, who with Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin was questioning Curry, both stated they knew of no police reports or records identifying the weapon as a Mauser -- again raising the question of perjury.¹⁰² In 1976, Curry told the Detroit News that "it's more than possible" the rifle could have been switched and that due to lack of security anyone wanting to do so "could have gotten away with it at the time."¹⁰³ Fritz denied he called it a 7.65 caliber but did not deny he called it a Mauser.¹⁰⁴ The November 23, 1963, New York Times, however, quoted him saying it was "of unusual, undetermined caliber."¹⁰⁵ That certainly applies to the ancient 7.65, Paul Mauser's original 1890s design, long replaced by the 7.92 Mauser.

Day said, "I didn't describe the rifle to anyone other than police officers." Commission Counsel David Belin's question to Day had been, "Did you ever describe the rifle as anything but a 6.5-caliber with regard to the rifle itself?" Day therefore did not answer the question. Belin pressed him: "Is the description that you used with the police officers the same that you dictated here into the record from your notes?" Day answered, "Yes, sir."¹⁰⁶ No such dictation was made,¹⁰⁷ or made public, however.

On June 8, 1964, Wade testified that, "...all my information came from the police and actually somebody said originally it was a Mauser but it turned out it was not."¹⁰⁸ So on June 8th the Commission knew Fritz was first with the Mauser identification; then it appeared in Boone's sheriff department reports; followed by radio and TV reports; then twelve hours after the assassination -- after Wade saw "some officer wave that gun around" and "saw somebody take it through homicide and give it to the FBI"-- Wade's police sources, who got their information from Day, told Wade it was a Mauser. Only after all this did Weitzman, knowing the penalty for perjury, make his identification in a sworn affidavit the day after the assassination; bringing the minimum time of this ludicrous misidentification to twenty-four hours.

The next and most important parts of this chronology make it impossible to deny there was a deliberate attempt to pass this rifle off as a Mauser. Three full days after the assassination, a CIA report identified the gun as a Mauser. This report did not surface until 1976.¹⁰⁹

And a CIA translation of an Italian military intelligence document dated six days after the assassination, also suppressed until 1976, reads, "2. The weapon which appears to have been employed in this criminal attack is a Model 91 rifle, 7.35 caliber, 1938 modification... 3. The description of a `Mannlicher-Carcano' rifle in the Italian and foreign press is in error."¹¹⁰

This later CIA description came from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service (S.I.F.A.R.). As Evica says, "...the 91 series was made up of 6.5 mm. rifles, but the original 38 model was a 7.35 mm. Encountering difficulties, the Italians `began producing many of these rifles as 6.5-millimeter caliber rifles, known as the 6.5-millimeter Model 91/38.' Warren Commission Exhibit 139 (CE 139) is one of those 91/38s, originally a 7.35 mm. rebarreled to 6.5 mm." It was the description of an originally-barreled 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the Italian and foreign press (and everywhere else) that was in error. The November 28, 1963, Italian S.I.F.A.R. document, shared with the FBI in Rome, ending up at CIA headquarters in the U.S. within hours, raised these important questions, posed by Evica: "If the rifle allegedly discovered by Weitzman and Boone had a Mauser-type bolt action, and if it looked like an American caliber 30.06 or foreign 7.65 mm., why not simply say so? Why not tell the truth before the truth no longer would be believed?...a one millimeter mistake is not so bad...For almost a week, local and national papers remained confused about the precise identity of the rifle. What could have motivated the Dallas Police, the F.B.I., the Secret Service, and even the C.I.A....to keep silent through the thunder of misinformation?"¹¹¹ A one millimeter mistake is not so bad. But the original, too-prolonged mistake of a clip-fed rifle for a non-clip-fed rifle, which is unavoidable in this "7.65 Mauser" debate, is incredibly bad. To maintain the conspiracy, the clip debate must, even today, be desperately avoided, or confused.

The point of this analysis of Roger Craig's statements is that by the time Craig came around to talking about the rifle, the name Mauser and the 7.65 caliber were old news. Craig added only two new facts. First was his belated eyewitness account of Weitzman as the first person to identify the rifle. And how did Weitzman make this identification? From Craig's second new fact: the "7.65 Mauser" tool mark on the barrel. Craig's statements then became the first and only evidence supporting the Warren Report's claim that Weitzman was the original source of the Mauser misidentification. Those who forced Craig to say this probably knew that the "Mauser" tool mark never existed. Thus, since the "Commission could not accept important elements of Craig's testimony" on other matters,¹¹² it was again possible to prove him wrong where it counted most, and stick to their story that Weitzman was mistaken, having only glanced at the gun before it was removed from its hiding place. Craig's cryptic call for help, if that is what it was, therefore failed.

It should be reemphasized here that before Craig made his claims about the discovery of the rifle, the Commission revealed absolutely nothing to support its claim that Weitzman was the original source for the Mauser identification. The evidence showed (and still shows) that everyone took their cues first from Fritz and then from Day. (Boone did not handle the rifle and his two "Mauser" reports followed both Fritz's and Day's examination at the scene.)

J.W. Hughes did inform the authors of the eyewitness account of WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea which, if true, partially corroborates Craig's and the Commission's claim that the word Mauser was first uttered by Weitzman. That is a long way, however, from a Mauser identification. And if this was the Commission's "source" evidence, they did not reveal it publicly. Perhaps that was because it did not tell exactly the story they wanted told.

According to Hughes, "The type of action `mauser' was the comment that Weitzman said he thought it was and Fritz concurred.

"Tom Alyea and I have talked about this several times. Tom was standing there next to Fritz when Weitzman stated that it was a Mauser rifle and that they saw 7.65 stamped on the action.

"Mannlicher-Carcano does have a 7.35 mm. In the heat of the `find' Weitzman stated `Mauser' and everyone simply agreed. It wasn't until Day was showing the rifle off at the Police Station that it was properly identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano."¹¹³

Although properly identified, it was officially reported to be a Mauser for the next twenty-four hours without an official correction. The point here is that this eyewitness account seems to confirm that there was no Mauser, and that Weitzman, imagining a "7" and a decimal point where there was none, somehow inspired the others present, including Fritz, the ranking officer in charge of the crime scene, to call it something it was not; and as discussed above, even something bizarre.

Given Alyea's film of this event, it seems that is probably what happened. The unnecessary complications involved in reenacting this scene make Alyea's claim even more plausible. There is no such thing as a 7.65 Mannlicher-Carcano. If "they saw 7.65 stamped on the action" it was some strange rifle. And if Weitzman misread the caliber on a 7.35 Mannlicher-Carcano, it was also another rifle. The question this raises is the same one we began with: Why in the world would the crime scene investigators enter into a criminal conspiracy to call a weapon easily linked to their suspect something else? Of course, it seems the other confirmation from Alyea's film is that there was no clip seen or handled on the sixth floor.

There is some justification that the word "Mauser," in its earliest use in Dallas, was a redundant generic term for what in effect were nearly all bolt-action rifles. Since "bolt action" would exclude just about all semi-automatic and automatic weapons, there is some justification that the redundancy was used to emphasize that very exclusion. It could even be argued that the redundant use of the word "Mauser," in addition to deflecting attention from clip-fed weapons, served the purpose of deflecting attention from early reports of automatic gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Later, Commission attorney Joseph Ball was particularly careful to refer only to "Mauser bolt action" rather than an actual Mauser rifle in his questioning of Weitzman on April 1, 1964.¹¹⁴

But within hours of the assassination, and certainly within months, the trend seemed to focus attention on an actual Mauser, a second rifle.¹¹⁵ This trend was the reverse of what one would expect. One would think, at the later stage, investigators would endeavor to establish that the initial use of the word "Mauser" was one of those inadvertent, honest mistakes: that the word was used loosely. But no. The Warren Commission was, and especially Gerald Ford and staff attorneys Ball and Liebeler were, apparently trying to lend weight to the initial use of the word, even adding the word "German." Even the Commission's earliest and most vocal critic, Mark Lane, helped his professed adversary strengthen the link between "German" and "Mauser," further undermining any chance for a more correct generic interpretation of Weitzman's description.¹¹⁶ Gun experts, of course, know the Mauser 7.65 was anything but solely German. One wonders if those who initiated use of that term for the rifle realized how wrong the usage was.

Two primary sources for the later references to an actual Mauser were Mark Lane and Roger Craig. It is reasonably suspected that Craig was forced to lie. Similar, and earlier, influence over Lane cannot be ruled out. It was Lane who first embellished this trend with the liberal use of the word "German."¹¹⁷ An influential stockholder in Holt, Rinehart and Winston, the publisher of Lane's 1966 book, Rush To Judgment, was Dallas oilman Clint Murchison, suspected by several sober JFK researchers of being a conspirator in the assassination and coverup. Two years before Lane's book was published, Murchison helped arrange a large monetary advance and travel expenses for another author whose book on the assassination was never published. The would-be author was Dallas Judge Joe Brown, dismissed from presiding over Jack Ruby's trial because of that book deal.¹¹⁸ It was not just Lane and Craig, however. Concerted effort was made in the direction of establishing an actual gun of Mauser make. But the possibly unintended result of this direction was the creation of the specter of a second rifle. Why was attention directed down this avenue? Were they so concerned with the prolonged Mauser misidentification in connection with the clip? Were they so concerned that they were willing to sacrifice the one-assassin/one-rifle scenario by offering a second rifle as a rationalization? After all, the too-prolonged Mauser misidentification was crying for an explanation that eventually had to be met. The idea of a second rifle was therefore the apparent lesser of two evils. Conversely, feeling it necessary to go to such lengths as to entertain the idea of a second rifle, shows the seriousness they attached to the initial problem of explaining the prolonged misidentification. From the conspirators' point of view, a conspiracy that can never be proved (i.e., Mauser switch) was far safer than one that could (i.e., fake clip). The benefit to the conspirators in choosing the lesser evil can be judged by the result: a thirty-year debate over a non-existent second rifle, and no debate whatsoever over an all too real, grossly out of place clip.

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

[Bernice Moore]

The WCR altered Craig's deposition to hide the true facts & to concoct the LN rubbish. Craig writes:

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!

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html