Roger Craig

[Richard J. Smith]

I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig.

Michael,

In Craig's case, the changes were more than just slight.

The Rambler:

Craig, WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not?

Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate.

Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail?

A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement.

The Rifle:

Craig, WC testimony:

Mr. CRAIG - Well, there was just--uh--of course, everybody stayed there, you know, and sort of mingled around and--uh--I then went back downstairs after the weapon was picked up. The identification man from the city of Dallas then, after he took his pictures, picked the weapon up and handed it to Will Fritz.

And I then went back downstairs and over to the sheriffs office.

Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you personally find the rifle?

A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.

Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Approximately how far?

A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.

Q: Do you recall the man who was there?

A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.

Q: What do you mean an ID man?

A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.

Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?

A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.

Early reports said the rifle recovered on the 6th floor of the Depository was a Mauser, a British .303, and “foreign make”. Craig’s interview with the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968 ."PJ" is Penn Jones.

FP: Did you handle that rifle?

RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.

But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.

FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it?

PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence.

In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his manuscript, Craig says

"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. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and 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. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. The Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and saw the notation "7.65 Mauser."

The Rambler plates were Texas plates(or same color as Texas plates), then they weren't. He didn't handle the rifle, then he did. There are many instances of complete opposite statements, not slight changes. The only reason I would tend to believe the Rambler story is because it was corroborated by other witnesses.

Another BTW, the Jack Beers photo of Craig in the Homicide office was taken on Saturday the 23rd, not Friday the 22nd.

RJS

[Michael G. Smith]

I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig.

Michael,

In Craig's case, the changes were more than just slight.

The Rambler:

Craig, WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not?

Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate.

Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail?

A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement.

The Rifle:

Craig, WC testimony:

Mr. CRAIG - Well, there was just--uh--of course, everybody stayed there, you know, and sort of mingled around and--uh--I then went back downstairs after the weapon was picked up. The identification man from the city of Dallas then, after he took his pictures, picked the weapon up and handed it to Will Fritz.

And I then went back downstairs and over to the sheriffs office.

Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you personally find the rifle?

A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.

Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Approximately how far?

A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.

Q: Do you recall the man who was there?

A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.

Q: What do you mean an ID man?

A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.

Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?

A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.

Early reports said the rifle recovered on the 6th floor of the Depository was a Mauser, a British .303, and “foreign make”. Craig’s interview with the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968 ."PJ" is Penn Jones.

FP: Did you handle that rifle?

RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.

But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.

FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it?

PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence.

In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his manuscript, Craig says

"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. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and 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. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. The Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and saw the notation "7.65 Mauser."

The Rambler plates were Texas plates(or same color as Texas plates), then they weren't. He didn't handle the rifle, then he did. There are many instances of complete opposite statements, not slight changes. The only reason I would tend to believe the Rambler story is because it was corroborated by other witnesses.

Another BTW, the Jack Beers photo of Craig in the Homicide office was taken on Saturday the 23rd, not Friday the 22nd.

RJS

Very nice work Rich! Im impressed. Ive never heard those testimonies before. There was so much confusion those first few days, and if you have ever given a deposition, or have been ordered to tetify in a case such as this one, [ I have] there is alot of pressure. Im sure he made some mistakes, and you can find many in alot of peoples testimonies, [Helen Markham for example], but all in all, I do beleive he did the best he could under the circumstances. I think the point im making here is that he really didnt sway from his basic story of what happened. Many other officers , Im sure were ordered to change their stories or to keep their moths shut, and Roger didnt. Im not going to make excuses for Roger, or continue trying to defend him, but I truly beleive he stayed with his basic story and did his job [wasnt his fault Lummie lost maybe a very important witness that day- or maybe Lummie was told to lose her! who knows??] I dont think someone would have endured what he and his family did, all those years, if he wasnt just being an honest Deputy doing what he thought was right. Alot of people would have kept their mouths shut after being threatened, or shot at the first time. He never did. He endured all of the harrassment, ridicule, lose of county job, eventually his wife, and many jobs. But he still maintained his basic story of what happened that day. If it wasnt for Penn Jones helping the Craigs out over the years, who knows what may have happened. Thats all. I dont want to keep going back and forth on this subject. You did a good job making your point and I applaud you for that. That s what is nice about this Forum, we can discuss things in a gentlemanly way, and make our points and move on. Not argue and continue to drag things out into shouting matches as some seem to do here. Just may opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty

[Evan Marshall]

I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig.

Michael,

In Craig's case, the changes were more than just slight.

The Rambler:

Craig, WC testimony:

Mr. BELIN - Did it have a Texas license plate, or not?

Mr. CRAIG - It had the same color. I couldn't see the--uh--name with the numbers on it. I could just barely make them out. They were at an angle where I couldn't make the numbers of the--uh--any of the writing on it. But---uh---I'm sure it was a Texas plate.

Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

Q: Can you describe the station wagon in any great detail?

A: It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion and it had out-of-state plates on it and the reason I know this is they were not the same color as ours and I couldn't read them because of the angle of the car and the traffic movement.

The Rifle:

Craig, WC testimony:

Mr. CRAIG - Well, there was just--uh--of course, everybody stayed there, you know, and sort of mingled around and--uh--I then went back downstairs after the weapon was picked up. The identification man from the city of Dallas then, after he took his pictures, picked the weapon up and handed it to Will Fritz.

And I then went back downstairs and over to the sheriffs office.

Craig, Shaw trial testimony:

Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you personally find the rifle?

A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.

Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Approximately how far?

A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.

Q: Do you recall the man who was there?

A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.

Q: What do you mean an ID man?

A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.

Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?

A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.

Early reports said the rifle recovered on the 6th floor of the Depository was a Mauser, a British .303, and “foreign make”. Craig’s interview with the Los Angeles Free Press in March 1968 ."PJ" is Penn Jones.

FP: Did you handle that rifle?

RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.

But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.

FP: A Mauser on the roof? Who found it?

PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence.

In later years, however, Craig's account changed and he adopted the version that has the Mauser found on the 6th floor. In his manuscript, Craig says

"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. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and 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. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. The Mauser on the roof, which Craig didn't claim to have seen, had become the Mauser on the 6th floor. A few years later, when he was interviewed for "Two Men in Dallas," Craig claimed to have viewed the rifle close-up and saw the notation "7.65 Mauser."

The Rambler plates were Texas plates(or same color as Texas plates), then they weren't. He didn't handle the rifle, then he did. There are many instances of complete opposite statements, not slight changes. The only reason I would tend to believe the Rambler story is because it was corroborated by other witnesses.

Another BTW, the Jack Beers photo of Craig in the Homicide office was taken on Saturday the 23rd, not Friday the 22nd.

RJS

Very nice work Rich! Im impressed. Ive never heard those testimonies before. There was so much confusion those first few days, and if you have ever given a deposition, or have been ordered to tetify in a case such as this one, [ I have] there is alot of pressure. Im sure he made some mistakes, and you can find many in alot of peoples testimonies, [Helen Markham for example], but all in all, I do beleive he did the best he could under the circumstances. I think the point im making here is that he really didnt sway from his basic story of what happened. Many other officers , Im sure were ordered to change their stories or to keep their moths shut, and Roger didnt. Im not going to make excuses for Roger, or continue trying to defend him, but I truly beleive he stayed with his basic story and did his job [wasnt his fault Lummie lost maybe a very important witness that day- or maybe Lummie was told to lose her! who knows??] I dont think someone would have endured what he and his family did, all those years, if he wasnt just being an honest Deputy doing what he thought was right. Alot of people would have kept their mouths shut after being threatened, or shot at the first time. He never did. He endured all of the harrassment, ridicule, lose of county job, eventually his wife, and many jobs. But he still maintained his basic story of what happened that day. If it wasnt for Penn Jones helping the Craigs out over the years, who knows what may have happened. Thats all. I dont want to keep going back and forth on this subject. You did a good job making your point and I applaud you for that. That s what is nice about this Forum, we can discuss things in a gentlemanly way, and make our points and move on. Not argue and continue to drag things out into shouting matches as some seem to do here. Just may opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty

while I certainly want to believe Roger Craig there are some serious discrepancies in his various versions of the truth-as someone who was assigned to Detroit Homicde twice during a 20yr career I would have to talk to him and get an explanation for the "drift" in his account. Sadly, that's not possible. I saw cops go being stars to bums over and over again and mostly it was their fault.

[William Kelly]

I dont believe he was lying, or trying to manufacture more into his story, than what it was, and what he saw. Im sure if you take just about anybodys testimonies who were witnesses [or where involved in anyway with the assassination] and look at them over the years, Im sure you will find some differences, and slight changes in their stories that I would think would happen to just about anybodies testimony. You hear it every day here on the Forum. [people claiming how people changed their stories over the years, and did so mostly for the glory of making themselves seem more important than they really were]. I truly dont beleive this was the case with Roger Craig.

.........

...There was so much confusion those first few days, and if you have ever given a deposition, or have been ordered to tetify in a case such as this one, [ I have] there is alot of pressure. Im sure he made some mistakes, and you can find many in alot of peoples testimonies, [Helen Markham for example], but all in all, I do beleive he did the best he could under the circumstances. I think the point im making here is that he really didnt sway from his basic story of what happened. Many other officers , Im sure were ordered to change their stories or to keep their moths shut, and Roger didnt. Im not going to make excuses for Roger, or continue trying to defend him, but I truly beleive he stayed with his basic story and did his job [wasnt his fault Lummie lost maybe a very important witness that day- or maybe Lummie was told to lose her! who knows??] I dont think someone would have endured what he and his family did, all those years, if he wasnt just being an honest Deputy doing what he thought was right. Alot of people would have kept their mouths shut after being threatened, or shot at the first time. He never did. He endured all of the harrassment, ridicule, lose of county job, eventually his wife, and many jobs. But he still maintained his basic story of what happened that day. If it wasnt for Penn Jones helping the Craigs out over the years, who knows what may have happened. .......

thanks-smitty

while I certainly want to believe Roger Craig there are some serious discrepancies in his various versions of the truth-as someone who was assigned to Detroit Homicde twice during a 20yr career I would have to talk to him and get an explanation for the "drift" in his account. Sadly, that's not possible. I saw cops go being stars to bums over and over again and mostly it was their fault.

EM

Hi Guys,

I have some insights in this area that I'd like to share at this point.

As Evan well knows, there are good cops and bad cops, just like any other class of any humans. In the recent case of the Boarder cops - "just doing their jobs" shooting unarmed pot runner, not reporting it to other officers who came to the scene (if he Was armed, he was still out there wounded and ready to shoot back), and they illegally disposed of their shells - threw them in a ditch.

Here in Jersey we recently had two motor vehicle cases - State police chased a teenager without lights or siren, ran a stop sign and killed two teenage girls. At first there were no charges filed against the trooper, but after family and press complained he was being treated different because he was a cop, he was given a careless (less than wreckless) ticket. Then an off duty Trenton detective, speeding, talking on cell phone, runs red light and kills old, black man, who they say was homeless, but wasn't, leaves the scene and walks back. Witness takes cell phone pic of the victim and when the detective who killed him arrives, still talking on his cell phone, says, "Honey, I gotta go, I just killed somebody." When police arrive, they take the detective away and tell the witness, "You better get out of here before I arrest your ass." No charges were filed, yet, but the newspapers now have the witness' cell phone picture.

My point is that cops usually will defend and won't go up against their own.

Now Roger Craig and Lummie Lewis are two Deputy Sheriffs who were at the scene - the Sheriff's office is right there at Dealey Plaza, and that's where they took most of the witnesses, like Jim Braden and the Tramps, and took their depositions.

The other cops didn't stick up for Craig for a reason.

And Oswald was killed before he was passed over to the Sheriff's jail, where they were taking him.

In addition, there's a lot going on inside the Sheriff's administraion than meets the eye.

Consider for example that Sheriff Bill Decker had previously arrested Braden and sent him packing - kicked out of town for being a vagrant, for living at the Turtle Creek home of Mrs. Little, widow of the founder of Magnolia Oil. (It was at a Magnolia Oil party where Oswalds met the Paines).

Also consider the role of the National Sheriff's Association in the West Virginia primary, when JFK defeated Humphrey, establishing JFK's ability to get past the Catholic issue. This was acomplished - if you believe Sly Hersh's "Dark Side of Camelot," by cash delivered and distributed by West Virginia sheriffs, via Skinny D'Amato. D'Amato, manager of Giancana's Cal-Neva Lodge, also owned the 500 Club in Atlantic City, where the National Sheriff's Association held their annual convention. Skinny got the cash from the mob and passed it on to the West Virgina sheriffs and their deputies on JFK's behalf. One of the political paybacks was the selection of Atlantic City for the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

Skinny would be the host of the coast, Sinatra would sing and JFK renominated, and all would be fine with the world. But it didn't play out that way.

Roger Craig, Lummie Lewis and Bill Decker aren't the only Sheriffs and Deputies who were players, but the game certainly got out of hand.

The good news is there is a new sheriff in town - Lupe Valdez, a Mexican-American lesbian, who doesn't play by the old rules, and a new Dalla DA - Craig Watkins, a black, liberal former defense attorney who has taken upon himself the mission of exonerating those wrongfully convicted under the old Wade, et al. machine. So far a dozen former inmates have been freed from the Sheriff's jails, mainly because of new DNA evidence.

"I'm not part of that failed system. I'm fresh and I have nothing to protect."

- Dallas DA Craig Watkins

Soon there will be an opportunity to exonerate Oswald by proving who was really responsible for the assassination of JFK and murder of JD Tippit.

BK

[Francesca Akhtar]

Interesting post this, I've always been interested in Roger Craig and even though I know there are some doubts and inconsistencies in his testimony I personally believe this may be due to the fact of his memory perhaps playing tricks on him rather than trying to wilfully mislead people. I'm not an expert on him but from what he suffered I can't think of a reason he would make it all up to be so harassed. I'm also inclined to think that because he doesn't exactly paint a pleasant picture of the goings on in the Sherrif's department that he was made a target to be discredited.

Thanks for posting the link to his autobiography whoever that was, (can't remember )very interesting.

I was wondering if anyone knew or had any ideas who the men in these photos are who are hanging around the TSBD and seen getting into the rambler?

I can't work out how to upload the photo so I'll post the link to it. It's on Larry Hancock's site:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/photos/p-ch19...o%20montage.jpg

It's the two photos on the right, of the two men.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Francesca Akhtar

[Richard J. Smith]

Interesting post this, I've always been interested in Roger Craig and even though I know there are some doubts and inconsistencies in his testimony I personally believe this may be due to the fact of his memory perhaps playing tricks on him rather than trying to wilfully mislead people. I'm not an expert on him but from what he suffered I can't think of a reason he would make it all up to be so harassed. I'm also inclined to think that because he doesn't exactly paint a pleasant picture of the goings on in the Sherrif's department that he was made a target to be discredited.

Hi Francesca,

I normally don't believe everything I read and hear simply because it adds to the conspiracy aspect. I'll check out things and dig as deeply as I can for corroboration. I was interested in Craig also, so did some digging a few years ago. I wanted to believe, but there were just too many discrepancies. I can't write it off as memory failure or misstatement. Craig contradicted himself so many times I found him to be totally unbelieveable. I hate making comments without sources, but several years ago I found or was told something pertaining to Craig's wife, who had indicated Roger was a troubled man. She said there were no attempts on his life, no shots fired at him, no car bombs, etc. Perhaps she was just playing the game, but if anyone has actual documented evidence that what Craig claimed was true, I'd like to see it.

RJS

[Bernice Moore]

Hi R.J.

Have you ever read, where Penn Jones, showed Roger Craig his testimony from his WC copy, I believe in 67 or 68 around there.

Penn said when Roger read it he pointed out 14 changes within ....they had even changed the color of the station wagon

as well as the mans jacket, and re-worded, and deleted other information....sound familiar.....

Mrs. Craig also thought she was under threat...I believe around 70, she was followed and complained to the

Police this was after she had remarried...

There is a Video called ..Two Men in Dallas, which gives the stories of JFK that day as well as Roger Craig, and is

interesting.....

Could be they worked over time to make him appear just as you have implied.....off his head..lying and changing much information....

so no one would pay

any attention to his information..as they did with others.....could be...

BTW could you please relate where the info is ,about the Beers photo being taken on Nov 23rd, it would be appreciated...

I have some documentation as well as much on him but it is not ready for posting as yet, it continually seems to grow, as much does.

...but will

when compiled and ready, till then, I keep picking away when I find some time.....so that is about it....for now..

Thanks...for the thread....

B

Edited March 4, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Michael G. Smith]

Hi R.J.

Have you ever read, where Penn Jones, showed Roger Craig his testimony from his WC copy, I believe in 67 or 68 around there.

Penn said when Roger read it he pointed out 14 changes within ....they had even changed the color of the station wagon

as well as the mans jacket, and re-worded, and deleted other information....sound familiar.....

Mrs. Craig also thought she was under threat...I believe around 70, she was followed and complained to the

Police this was after she had remarried...

There is a Video called ..Two Men in Dallas, which gives the stories of JFK that day as well as Roger Craig, and is

interesting.....

Could be they worked over time to make him appear just as you have implied.....off his head..lying and changing much information....

so no one would pay

any attention to his information..as they did with others.....could be...

BTW could you please relate where the info is ,about the Beers photo being taken on Nov 23rd, it would be appreciated...

I have some documentation as well as much on him but it is not ready for posting as yet, it continually seems to grow, as much does.

...but will

when compiled and ready, till then, I keep picking away when I find some time.....so that is about it....for now..

Thanks...for the thread....

B

Thanks Bernice! I forgot all about his statement about all of the changes they made in his statements. Great post. Im sure the Dept. was trying to discredit Roger, because of what he knew. It seemed they did that to alot of people, not just Roger. [also the FBI/CIA etc.....] Anybody who saw, heard, or knew too much, were either discredited, chased out of town, or maybe even eliminated! As you posted, his wife was also under constant pressure, and, as any married couple would admit, something of that magnitude like this going on, would certainly take its toll on any marriage. I cant remeber how many times they had to move, not only from pressure, but people would not rent to them, [because of who they were, and the pressure and stories put upon them] I really dont know how they could have gotten by, if not for the help of Penn Jones. Thanks again Bernice, you always seem to post some very good stuff! lol! I will be keeping my eye on this thread, but as I posted before, there is a seperate section of past posts about Roger Craig in our [archives?] here somewhere. Maybe John can post the correct title and location of those postings. [im not very good at that type of stuff! Im liucky I can even use this computer, let alone do something tricky!!] Just my opinion FWIW.

thanks-smitty

[Antti Hynonen]

Just my opinion. Craig probably didn't mean to confuse anyone, memory plays tricks on us all, once you get into details. If you want the closest statement to the truth, go to the early testimony and hope that it hasn't been changed by another party.

[Mark Johansson]

Hi R.J.

Have you ever read, where Penn Jones, showed Roger Craig his testimony from his WC copy, I believe in 67 or 68 around there.

Penn said when Roger read it he pointed out 14 changes within ....they had even changed the color of the station wagon

as well as the mans jacket, and re-worded, and deleted other information....sound familiar.....

Mrs. Craig also thought she was under threat...I believe around 70, she was followed and complained to the

Police this was after she had remarried...

There is a Video called ..Two Men in Dallas, which gives the stories of JFK that day as well as Roger Craig, and is

interesting.....

Could be they worked over time to make him appear just as you have implied.....off his head..lying and changing much information....

so no one would pay

any attention to his information..as they did with others.....could be...

BTW could you please relate where the info is ,about the Beers photo being taken on Nov 23rd, it would be appreciated...

I have some documentation as well as much on him but it is not ready for posting as yet, it continually seems to grow, as much does.

...but will

when compiled and ready, till then, I keep picking away when I find some time.....so that is about it....for now..

Thanks...for the thread....

B

I have the tape (DVD) in my possession and he expressly explains that the WC changed his story on numerous points, similar as they did with other witnesses.

Mark Johansson