(PART 1194)


David V Pain [sic] is a poor judge of character. He truly believes that all those people working for the government were honest and interested in facts. Of course, people like him, Bugliosi, McAdams, Posner, et al. only believe that under the condition that their "facts" point to Oswald's guilt only.

They ignore witnesses that contradict their claims, and completely dismiss honest witnesses such as Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig who had no reason to lie. His honesty and refusal to change his story cost him dearly, his life included.

I would like to know what Mr. David the Pain [sic; how cute] thinks about Roger Craig's testimony.


It's truly hilarious hearing "M" defend such an "honest" witness like Roger D. Craig.

Evidently, ol' "M" doesn't even realize that Craig's lie about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle was proven to be a lie by Craig's own words — via this 1968 newspaper article ("RC" is Roger Craig).

So much for "Honest" Roger.


Where did you get that photo? Where is the original article? Who wrote it?

Show me the original newspaper clip of Craig's interview where he claims the Mauser was found [on] the roof. Otherwise, you have nothing but lies and fraudulent evidence. But what's new?

I'm looking forward to what you have to offer in the form of proof.


The photo seen below depicts a newspaper page from the March 1st, 1968, edition of the Los Angeles Free Press:

Naturally, "M" thinks the above newspaper scan is "fraudulent" and is a fake. (Gee, what a surprise.)

Here is another page from the L.A. article. The initials "PJ" in the article, btw, stand for Penn Jones, who was also being interviewed for the same article.

Also see:




Here's a PDF file for the Los Angeles Free Press article, including a picture (albeit a fuzzy one) showing Roger Craig and Penn Jones at the L.A. Free Press offices.

Is that whole newspaper a fake, "M", including the three Peanuts comic strips on page 26?




Here's Page 1 of the L.A. Free Press paper for March 1, 1968, including the name of the person who wrote the Craig/Jones article. Her name is Jeanne Morgan:

David Von Pein
January 12-13, 2014



Who is telling the truth? You judge…

Roger Craig:

Seymour Weitzman’s affidavit.

“From a glance” can you guess at the rifle caliber? Especially since most Mauser calibers were 8mm and not 7.65mm? From a glance can you know the power of the scope?

Seymour Weitzman interview---watch his body language/eye contact:

Who’s lying?


That's an easy one to answer, Brian. The liar is Roger D. Craig. Without a doubt. And here's the proof (in Craig's own words even).


If you can answer me this question, maybe I'll start rethinking this: where is this "article" from? It's not sourced, it appears in a blog. How do I know it's real? Also, why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser? Why?


You need to look at my three-page PDF file which shows more of the 3/1/68 edition of the "Los Angeles Free Press" newspaper with the Roger Craig interview. Here it is....


As for "Why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser?" -- Well, I cannot answer that, because I can't get inside Craig's mind. But the facts are pretty clear that he DID lie in the Mark Lane film "Two Men In Dallas" when he said he saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle that we see being taken off of the floor by Lieutenant J.C. Day in Tom Alyea's news film. And Craig's OWN WORDS in that 1968 newspaper article provide the proof that Craig later lied to Lane in the 1970s.

As for the L.A. Free Press being a "real" publication, there's this link about that newspaper.

But, then again, maybe Wikipedia (or its contributors) are part of a "JFK Assassination" plot too. (I'm sure some conspiracy theorists might think so. You aren't one of them, though, are you Brian?)


When I studied political science for my undergraduate work and public administration in grad school, we weren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because it's an open source encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. In other words, it isn't a trusted source of information in academia, so why should I trust it now? Is not taking an open source encyclopedia as gospel somehow inappropriate even though academics won't do it either?


Yes, Brian, I can fully agree with you about Wikipedia not always being a great source of information. But I have found it to be quite useful for quickly gathering information on some things I need to know. And within that Wikipedia article about the L.A. Free Press are OTHER sources of useful info on the given subject matter, such as the item linked below, which is a page about the "Los Angeles Free Press" that comes from the Library Of Congress website. Would you call
this site trustworthy?


John McAdams already lost all credibility in the first five minutes [of this 2009 debate against conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio] talking about the Mannlicher Carcano vs the Mauser.

Mr. McAdams, I would love to debate you on this one issue.


There is FILMED PROOF that a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser, was found in the Book Depository on 11/22/63. Here's the proof.

Let's now see the silly conspiracists claim that Tom Alyea's film has been faked.


What does that prove? We're talking about a cover up. How did Weitzman mistakenly identify the brand of rifle because he "glanced" at it, but he was able to identify the caliber as 7.65mm? How do you glance at the caliber? This is especially interesting because most Mausers were 8mm and not 7.65mm.

Once more, how did he identify the magnification of the scope (4x18) by––again––merely glancing at it? I'm a gun enthusiast, and I don't find his claim reasonable.

Weitzman swore on a notarized affidavit that it was a 7.65mm Mauser with a 4/18 scope. How do you do that merely glancing at the gun? Especially when Weitzman used to own a store where he sold guns?


Weitzman's detailed affidavit IS, indeed, very strange. I cannot deny its strangeness.

But do you REALLY think Weitzman was lying in my "Mauser Or Carcano?" video? He admits he was mistaken about the rifle type. And, btw, Eugene Boone, who was the very first police officer to see the rifle in the Book Depository on November 22nd, also admitted later that he was mistaken when he too originally said he thought the rifle was a Mauser. [See Boone's testimony at the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", below.]

Plus, also see Tom Alyea's film, which many gun experts have analyzed and have determined from the markings on the rifle that Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz are handling a Mannlicher-Carcano weapon in the Alyea footage, not a German-made Mauser weapon.



So what time did the camera roll on the sixth floor? 1:22 PM? Or sometime after that? Did the press follow the police upstairs and tag along as they went over the crime scene???


Yes, Brian, that is exactly what happened. Two newsmen (Kent Biffle and WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea) got into the Depository before the police had sealed it off, and for some idiotic reason, Alyea was permitted to go up to the sixth floor and start filming everything that was going on.

Some job of a "cover-up" there by Will Fritz and his DPD police force, huh? They just let a TV news cameraman take a film of all of the (alleged) conspiratorial and sinister activity that the Dallas Police Department was engaging in right after the President's assassination. (At least there are many conspiracy theorists who think the cops were up there on the sixth floor tampering with all the evidence.)


I don't think you're getting my point. We have two "lies" going on here. One that involves a discrepancy between a sworn––signed––and notarized affidavit and a CBS interview where Weitzman appeared under duress, and a second "lie" where Roger Craig is said to have lied by corroborating Weitzman's original testimony, although he appears completely comfortable when delivering his account of what happened.

In the first discrepancy I have given you facts that can't be refuted that call Weitzman's changed account of the rifle first found into question (i.e. 7.65 vs 8mm Mauser & scope magnification). The only thing you've given me to support Weitzman's CHANGED testimony––where he couldn't even look the interviewer in the eye when asked when he first saw the rifle––is what you said about the film and the newspaper article.

The problem with the former deals with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because the footage was taken after the rifle was found doesn't mean it's the rifle which shot JFK. The problem with the newspaper article wouldn't be so much of an issue if we were talking about a low level crime, but when we're talking about a successful cover up of the assassination of a president, and the forces that have been at work for half a century to cover it up, a poorly scanned article with no name of its author doesn't quite satisfy my curiosity. I don't care if the Library of Congress can somehow substantiate a now defunct "news" publication, especially when Operation Mockingbird is a matter of record.

So we're back to my original inquiry. Does it seem reasonable that Seymour Weitzman is telling the truth when he contradicts his sworn affidavit? The answer is no because I have reasonably demonstrated that he couldn't have possibly identified certain characteristics at a "glance".

If he mistook the Carcano for a Mauser, and if he didn't see 7.65 as stated by Roger Craig, then why would he provide 7.65 in his affidavit when Mausers sold in the U.S. and Germany were 8mm? Why would he provide such additional specificity like the 4/18 power objective lens of the scope? Neither of those things could have possibly been seen at a glance, yet they were stated in the affidavit.

I know guns, and I defy anyone to show me how that kind of mistake could happen, especially when another police officer is corroborating what was said in the affidavit. What are the chances? It's not like Roger Craig made up some hairbrained BS account of what they found, it's backed up by Weitzman's affidavit, and Weitzman clearly looks nervous as heck on video compared to the calm and cool policeman of the year Roger Craig. Wouldn't you agree? 


There is filmed proof that the rifle being lifted up by Lt. Day is a Carcano, not a Mauser. Isn't that enough?

Or do you think there were TWO rifles placed in the Depository that day in order to frame Lee Oswald? (Not very smart of the plotters to do that, was it?)

A Mauser looks like a Carcano. No question about it. Take a look:

Both Boone and Weitzman later said they were mistaken. The Alyea film shows a Carcano, not a Mauser. Lieutenant Day took ONE rifle from the building on 11/22/63 -- a Carcano. The HSCA examined the photos of Day carrying the rifle and determined that CE139 (Oswald's Carcano) was the same weapon being taken out of the building by Lt. Carl Day of the DPD.

Captain Fritz never mentioned a SECOND rifle being found in the Depository either. Nor did ANYONE else who was there.

So, what does the sum total of evidence tell a reasonable person, Brian? Does that sum total add up to both a Mauser and a Carcano being found in the TSBD (which would mean we've got many more lying police officers that just Seymour Weitzman)?

Or does the sum total add up to a Mannlicher-Carcano ONLY being found in the building, with a few policemen being mistaken about the exact make and model of the gun?

Guess which option I'm going to choose.


You should have read that first Google Newsgroup link I gave you a little more closely, because in that link I provided another link to Page #1 of the L.A. Free Press newspaper for March 1, 1968, including the name of the person who wrote the article featuring Roger Craig and Penn Jones. Her name is Jeanne Morgan.


Was Roger Craig in the [Alyea] video? I noticed you didn't answer my question about what time the video was taken. .... I mentioned 1:22pm, that was the time on the affidavit that Weitzman said they found the gun. Was the camera up there five minutes later? Ten? 20? A half-hour? An hour?


I agree. At a "glance", they [a Carcano and a Mauser] do look similar. Upon closer inspection, however, a guy who used to own a sporting goods store would know. He'd also look close enough at the weapon that killed the President to know it was a 7.65 Mauser with a 4X18 scope. He would not, however, know that if he only glanced at the rifle.

A guy interested in sporting arms would have wanted to take a good look at that gun, and the specificity in the affidavit supports that, and it also supports Roger Craig. It does not, however, support looking at the weapon and misidentifying it at a glance.


I have no idea why Weitzman thought the Carcano was a Mauser of exactly "7.65 mm". But, as you correctly pointed out earlier, Deputy Weitzman WAS a gun buff who had a sporting goods store. Ergo, he would be JUST the type of informed and knowledgeable "gun enthusiast" to KNOW that there were not just "8 mm" Mausers, but also "7.65 mm" Mausers too.

As for why he chose to place in his affidavit the detail about "7.65 Mauser", I cannot hazard a guess---other than to speculate that his familiarity with guns afforded him the luxury of GUESSING as to the exact "7.65 mm" size of the weapon that he assumed was a Mauser (but it wasn't). Couldn't that be a possible explanation, Brian?

As for the remainder of the details in Weitzman's affidavit -- Well, those things are accurate as far as OSWALD'S 6.5-millimeter Carcano are concerned. It DID have a 4-power scope on it, and it DID have a "thick leather sling" attached to it. So there's no problem there that I can see. Weitzman merely observed the correct scope and sling details, but he guessed wrong on the make and model.

As for when Tom Alyea took his film of the rifle being lifted from its hiding place by Lt. Day --- No, of course it wasn't as early as 1:22 PM. The gun wasn't even first discovered until that exact minute--1:22 PM CST. So, obviously, Alyea filmed the rifle a little bit later, probably about ten or fifteen minutes later, I would guess, because J.C. Day and Will Fritz had not yet arrived on the sixth floor as of 1:22. So it took them a little while to get up there after the gun was found.

But what difference does it really make WHEN Alyea filmed his footage? We know he did film it, and he then had to toss the undeveloped film out of a Depository window in order to get it to a co-worker on the street so it could then be quickly processed and put on the air in a "wet" form on WFAA-TV a short time later. (See my WFAA-TV video series if you want to see the initial airing of Alyea's film on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.)


You have a serious problem to contend with. I submit that they were able to ultimately coerce Weitzman to change his testimony.

They weren't, however, able to change the mind of one of Dallas' finest (literally). And that is what brought us to this discussion. Everything Roger Craig said about the weapon itself is consistent with both Weitzman and Boone's original observations. Both men made the mistake?

At least three people identified the weapon as an obscure 7.65 Mauser, and that's a problem, especially when both Boone and Craig met with an untimely death. 


The way I see it, Brian, you have an even bigger problem to contend with when it comes to the subject of the identification of the rifle. Because you've got to believe that not only were Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone liars when they each later said they were mistaken about their initial remarks about the TSBD rifle being a Mauser --- but you've got to ALSO believe that several other police officers also lied their eyes out in their official reports and in their subsequent testimony in front of the Warren Commission, including Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz and Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD's Identification Bureau.

Neither Capt. Fritz nor Lt. Day ever said a word about there being TWO rifles seen in the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63. Many conspiracy theorists like to use Captain Fritz, however, to bolster their claims that a Mauser really was found in the building, because according to those conspiracy theorists, Fritz made a comment shortly after seeing the rifle to the effect that he too thought it looked like a Mauser.

As for Boone and Weitzman both saying the rifle was a "7.65" Mauser, my guess on that would be that one of those officers simply heard the other officer casually mention that he thought it looked like a "7.65 Mauser", and therefore the second officer agreed and started referring to it by that exact (inaccurate) description himself. A follow-the-leader type of thinking.

And Roger Craig--who was a proven liar, as I demonstrated previously via his 1968 newspaper interview--had plenty of time (about TEN YEARS) to rearrange his tall tale about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the gun. By the time Craig told his bald-faced lie in Mark Lane's film in the early 1970s, he undoubtedly had studied the affidavit of Seymour Weitzman carefully, and therefore he crafted a large part of his "7.65 Mauser" lie around Weitzman's 11/23/63 affidavit.

Ergo, Craig's story in the 1970s is not really corroborative of Weitzman's affidavit in the slightest---particularly since we have Craig's own words from the 1968 Los Angeles Free Press article, where he says these words about the rifle that was found between boxes on the sixth floor of the Book Depository --- "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

There were several mistakes made by various people (including police officers and the news media) immediately after President Kennedy's assassination, and one of the most widespread, and somewhat diverse, errors that spread throughout the world on television and radio on 11/22/63 was the topic we're discussing now—i.e., the question of "What kind of rifle was found in the Depository?"

And the errors regarding the rifle's identification weren't limited to just "German Mauser" either. As you can see in the above video, there were a lot of other erroneous reports concerning the make and model of the rifle, with some reporters referring to it as a gun made in Japan or Argentina or in Great Britain. The identifications were all over the map on Day 1. But they can't ALL be correct, can they? And somebody must have been supplying the news media with all of those false reports.


Fritz also denied that Roger Craig was at the [police] station when they interrogated Oswald, but a picture later emerged that showed he was there.


But the photos of Roger Craig don't show him inside Captain Fritz' office. Craig (or someone who looks like Craig) is seen in the outer office of the Homicide & Robbery Bureau. Big difference. Oswald was being interrogated INSIDE Fritz' private inner office. There is no corroboration of Craig having been in that inner office where Lee Oswald was.

And, again, the best evidence (by far) for the rifle being a Carcano is Tom Alyea's film, which you evidently want to pretend was taken at some much LATER time, even though we can see Carl Day picking the rifle up off the floor in the film.

[Photo from the Alyea Film:]

In other words, the rifle had not been touched by anyone prior to Alyea shooting that section of his film. If you want to think otherwise, have at it. But don't expect to drag me down that murky "Everything's Fake And Phony" rabbit hole with you.

I guess you must believe Bob Groden's tale about Alyea filming a "re-creation" of the rifle being found--after the rifles were switched, right?

So that means more fakery, and more collusion, and more covering up. Heaps of alleged plotters, but no proof by any of the conspiracy theorists of the world. Merely unsupportable speculation. Like always.

In the final analysis, there is just too much evidence (including the important Alyea Film) which indicates that just ONE RIFLE was found in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, and that gun was a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.

David Von Pein
September 2014
October 2016



Why would Roger Craig lie?


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

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

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

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

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

But this picture proves Craig to be just flat-out wrong with respect to the sniper's-nest bullet shells:

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

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

David Von Pein
November 8, 2007



The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired.


A man almost certainly did get in a Rambler around 12:40 on Elm Street. But that man could not possibly have been Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not physically possible for that man to have been Oswald, given his known whereabouts several blocks east of the building (getting on a bus) at that very same time.


This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything.


It's pure mush and balderdash when you ask yourself the key question of: COULD RAMBLER MAN HAVE REALLY BEEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

And one of your "Rambler" witnesses--Roger D. Craig--is a known liar when it comes to at least one other major ("7.65 Mauser") issue connected with this same murder case. A great guy for CTers to trust for sure.

David Von Pein
March 20, 2008



Roger Craig testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine.


You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st, 1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. ....

DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect [Lee Harvey Oswald] say?"

ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now.""


I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 Warren Commission testimony is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later accounts of what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on 11/22/63....all EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC that it was, indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the station wagon, and not Oswald.

And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it was testimony being given just a little over four months after the assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words "station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later however.

BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out by Will Fritz, wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man [Craig] or to me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember it." ....

"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald leaving the building. I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember it. There were other officers in my inner office at the time, and I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked about." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)


A related note about Craig and Oswald:

I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) --- "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)

It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know, via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office, which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22) comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.

All the way up through the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT."

And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight press gathering) certainly seems to know what the situation is all about, via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences --- "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald. And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz' office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might very well have been in that office with Oswald.)

But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And no conspiracy theorist alive can ever change those two basic facts.

David Von Pein
November 13, 2007





Roger D. Craig was one of the few people connected with the JFK murder case who I am very confident referring to as a "liar". Without any doubt whatsoever. (Another one being Jean Hill.)

It can be proven that Roger Craig was a liar by typing out just the following words:


Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him a liar. And there's NOTHING that any conspiracist can do to UNDO Deputy Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

And Craig also told another whopper of a lie when he said that the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than "an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by the police.

This is hilarious silliness on the part of the plotters who supposedly planted this evidence, isn't it? I guess they WANTED people like Craig to immediately think the shells were planted, so they arranged them in a nice, neat little row.

Here's what author Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Roger Craig's little
shell game:

[VB Quote On:]

"In their bid to exonerate Oswald, critics have [suggested] that the three cartridge cases were neatly planted to frame the hapless ex-marine. The suggestion that there might have been hanky-panky with the three hulls arose during a 1968 interview with former Dallas deputy sheriff Roger Craig, who told the 'Los Angeles Free Press', "The shells found on the floor in front of the window—I saw 'em—they were laying, all the shells were facing the same direction—there was not one of them more than 3/4 of an inch apart, and I've fired many a bolt action rifle and I have never had two shells land in the same place."

Craig embellished the tale further in his unpublished 1971 manuscript, "When They Kill a President ": "Luke Mooney and I reached the southeast corner at the same time. We immediately found three rifle cartridges [actually, cartridge cases] laying in such a way that they looked as though they had been carefully and deliberately placed there—in plain sight on the floor to the right of the southeast corner window. Mooney and I examined the cartridges very carefully and remarked how close together they were, the three of them no more than one inch apart and all facing the same direction, a feat very difficult to achieve with a bolt action rifle—or any rifle for that matter."

Roger Craig's embellishments could have easily been exposed early on had anyone bothered to look at his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964. When asked whether he saw the cartridge cases at the time they were found, Craig said that he was at the far north end of the building when someone yelled across the room, "Here's the shells!" Craig said that after "a couple of minutes" he went over to the sniper's nest and saw three shells lying about a foot away from the window. Craig said that he didn't get "too close" and went back to where he was because he didn't want to bother the area. Asked if he recalled any of the shells being up against the wall, Craig replied, "No, I don't. I didn't look that close."

So much for Craig's immediate discovery and careful examination of the shells. It should be added that when the FBI conducted tests to see where shells ejected from the Carcano at the window would land, the test landings were found to be "consistent" with where the three shells were found after the assassination, all at right angles from the ejection port on the rifle and all ricocheting in a random pattern within a forty-seven inch circle. And Luke Mooney, the Dallas deputy sheriff who first discovered the shells, said they "appeared as though they had been ejected from the rifle and had possibly bounced off the cartons of the books to the rear.""

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 805-806 of "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein
April 13, 2010
October 22, 2016



Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was searching the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, when a rifle was discovered. Craig wrote, “...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 instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 PM.”


The above info regarding Roger Craig only further shows what a liar Craig was concerning various aspects of this murder case (assuming, that is, that John Armstrong has quoted Craig accurately). Just have a look at this other version of Craig's story pertaining to how he first found out about the shooting of Officer Tippit (which totally contradicts what Armstrong quoted above). The excerpt below comes from the 1968 L.A. Free Press article ("RC" is Roger Craig)....

David Von Pein
January 1, 2019