Was Craig Rogered?

From Roger Craig's WC testimony regarding the sighting of a man leaving the TSBD whom he stated looked liked Oswald.

Was he on the money or was he telling tall stories?



Mr. CRAIG - No; we didn't find anything at that time. Now, as we were searching, we had just got over across the street, when I heard someone whistle.


Mr. BELIN - Now, about how many minutes was this after the time that you had turned that young couple over to Lemmy Lewis that you heard this whistle?


Mr. CRAIG - Fourteen or 15 minutes.


Mr. BELIN - Fourteen or 15 minutes?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.


Mr. BELIN - Was this, you mean, after the shooting?


Mr. CRAIG - After the---from the time I heard the first shot.


Mr. BELIN - All right. Your heard someone whistle?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes. So I turned and--uh-saw a man start to run down the hill on the north side of Elm Street, running down toward Elm Street.


Mr. BELIN - And, about where was he with relation to the School Book Depository Building?


Mr. CRAIG - Uh--directly across that little side street that runs in front of it, He was on the south side of it.


Mr. BELIN - And he was on the south side of what would be an extension of Elm Street, if Elm Street didn't curve down into the underpass?


Mr. CRAIG - Eight; right,


Mr. BELIN - And where was he with relation to the west side of the School Book Depository Building?


Mr. CRAIG - Right by the--uh--well, actually, directly in line with the west corner--the southwest corner,


Mr. BELIN - He was directly in line with the southwest corner of the building?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes,


Mr. BELIN - And he was on the south curve of that street that runs right in front of the building there?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes,


Mr. BELIN - And he started to run toward Elm Street as it curves under the underpass?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes ; directly down the grassy portion of the park,


Mr. BELIN - All right. And then what did you see happen?


Mr. CRAIG - I saw a light-colored station wagon, driving real slow, coming west on Elm Street from Houston. Uh-- actually, it was nearly in line with him. And the driver was leaning to his right looking up the hill at the man running down.


Mr. BELIN - Uh-huh.


Mr. CRAIG - And the station wagon stopped almost directly across from me. And--uh--the man continued down the hill and got in the station wagon. And I attempted to cross the street. I wanted to talk to both of them. But the---uh--traffic was so heavy I couldn't get across the street. And--uh--they were gone before I could---


Mr. BELIN - Where did the station wagon head? 


Mr. CRAIG - West on Elm Street.


Mr. BELIN - Under the triple underpass? 


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.


Mr. BELIN - Could you describe the man that you saw running down toward the station wagon?


Mr. CRAIG - Oh, he was a white male in his twenties, five nine, five eight, something like that; about 140 to 150; had kind of medium brown sandy hair--you know, it was like it'd been blown--you know, he'd been in the wind or something--it was all wild-looking; had on--uh--blue trousers--


Mr. BELIN - What shade of blue? Dark blue, medium or light? 


Mr. CRAIG - No; medium, probably; I'd say medium. And, a--uh--light tan shirt, as I remember it.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him?


Mr. CRAIG - No; nothing except that he looked like he was in an awful hurry. 


Mr. BELIN - What about the man who was driving the car?


Mr. CRAIG - Now, he struck me, at first, as being a colored male. He was very dark complected, had real dark short hair, and was wearing a thin white-looking Jacket---uh, it looked like the short windbreaker type, you know, because it was real thin and had the collar that came out over the shoulder (indicating with hands) like that--just a short jacket.


Mr. BELIN - You say that he first struck you that way. Do you now think that he was a Negro?


Mr. CRAIG - Well, I don't---I didn't get a real good look at him. But my first glance at him---I was more interested in the man coming down the hill---but my first glance at him, he struck me as a Negro.


Mr. BELIN - Is that what your opinion is today?


Mr. CRAIG - Well, I---I couldn't say, because I didn't get a good enough look.


Mr. BELIN - What kind and what color station wagon was it?


Mr. CRAIG - It was light colored--almost--uh--it looked white to me.


Mr. BELIN - What model or make was it?


Mr. CRAIG - I thought it was a Nash.


Mr. BELIN - Why would you think it was a Nash?


Mr. CRAIG - Because it had a built-in luggage rack on 'the top. And--uh--at the time, this was the only type car I could fit with that type luggage rack.


Mr. BELIN - A Nash Rambler-is that what you're referring to?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes; with a rack on the the back portion of the car, you know. 


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.


Mr. BELIN - Anything else about this incident that you can recall? 


Mr. CRAIG - No; not that---


Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?








And this:












Mr. BELIN - All right. Then you went back over to the Dallas Sheriffs Office? 


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.


Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?


Mr. CRAIG - Well, I think I gave a statement to Rosemary Allen over there, as did all the officers, as to what they were doing at the time, you know.


Mr. BELIN - Uh-huh.


Mr. CRAIG - And---uh---then I kept thinking about this man that had run down the hill and got in this car, so--uh--it was about, oh, I don't recall exactly the time, nearly 5 or something like that, or after, when--uh-the city had apprehended a suspect in the city officer's shooting. And--uh--information was floating around that they were trying to connect him with the assassination of the President--as the assassin.
So--uh, in the meantime, I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect.
And--uh--it was then they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz' office.


Mr. BELIN - All right.
Then what did you do?


Mr. CRAIG - I drove up to Fritz' office about, oh, after 5--about 5:30 or something like that--and--uh--talked to Captain Fritz and told him what I had saw. And he took me in his office---I believe it was his office---it was a little office, and had the suspect setting in a chair behind a desk---beside the desk. And another gentleman, I didn't know him, he was sitting in another chair to my left as I walked in the office.
And Captain Fritz asked me was this the man I saw--and I said, "Yes," it was.


Mr. BELIN - All right.
Will you describe the man you saw in Captain Fritz' office?


Mr. CRAIG - Oh, he was sitting down but--uh--he had the same medium brown hair; it was still--well, it was kinda wild looking; he was slender, and--uh-- what 1 could toll of him sitting there, he was--uh---short. By that, I mean not--myself, I'm five eleven--he was shorter than I was. And--uh--fairly light build.


Mr. BELIN - Could you see his trousers?


Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't see his trousers at all. 


Mr. BELIN - What about his shirt?


Mr. CRAIG - I believe, as close as I can remember, a T-shirt--a white T-shirt. 


Mr. BELIN - All right. But you didn't see him in a lineup? You just saw him sitting there?


Mr. CRAIG - No; he was sitting there by himself in a chair--off to one side.


Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect say?


Mr. 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."
And he was leaning over the desk. At this time, he had risen partially out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly at Captain Fritz.


Mr. BELIN - What was he wearing-or could you see the color of his trousers as he leaned over the desk?
Mr. CRAIG - No; because he never--he just leaned up, you know, sort of forward--not actually up, just out of his chair like that (indicating) forward.


Mr. BELIN - Then, did you say anything more? 


Mr. CRAIG - No; I then left.


Mr. BELIN - Well, in other words, the only thing you ever said was, "This was the man,"--or words to that effect? 


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.


Mr. BELIN - Did Captain Fritz say anything more.


Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't believe---not while. I was there.


Mr. BELIN - Did the suspect say anything more?


Mr. CRAIG - Not that I recall


Mr. BELIN - Did you say anything about that it was a Rambler station wagon there?


Mr. CRAIG - In the presence of the suspect? 


Mr. BELIN - Yes.


Mr. CRAIG - No.


Mr. BELIN - You don't know whether Captain Fritz said anything to the suspect about this incident before you came, do you?


Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't.


Mr. BELIN - Is there anything else that you can think of involving this interrogation at which you were present?


Mr. CRAIG - No. Nothing else was said after that point. I then left and give 'my name to the---uh---Secret Service agent and the FBI agent that was outside the office.


Mr. BELIN - Anything else in connection with the assassination that you think might be important that we haven't discussed here?


Mr. CRAIG - No; except--uh--except for the fact that it came out later that Mrs. Paine does own a station wagon and--uh--it has a luggage rack on top. And this came out, of course, later, after I got back to the office. I didn't know about this. Buddy Walthers brought it up. I believe they went by the house and the car was parked in the driveway.


Mr. BELIN - Anything else you can think of?


Mr. CRAIG - No. That's all. I forgot about it and went back to work. 


Mr. BELIN - Now, prior to the time we had your deposition taken, we chatted for a few minutes about some of these things--is that correct?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.


Mr. BELIN - For instance, we talked about your conversation with this young couple this Arnold Rowland and his wife?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.










Followed by this:








Mr. BELIN - Thank you very much.
One other thing before you go, Mr. Craig. We might have covered this before, but I want to doublecheck it.
When you talked to Mr. Rowland about what he saw in the window, did he say whether or not two men he saw were white or colored?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I determined that right away. I asked him whether they were white or colored and he said white.


Mr. BELIN - What else did he tell you about them? Did he tell you how much of them he saw?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes. He said they--uh--walked back and forth in front of the windows there uh--several minutes. You know, not a long time but 3, 4, 5 minutes. He did state that one of them had a rifle with a scope on it.



Mr. BELIN - Did he give you the color of the hair or the complexion or anything like that?


Mr. CRAIG - No--no; this he couldn't give.
Mr. BELIN - Could he give you the type of clothing they were wearing?


Mr. CRAIG - If I recall, he was vague on one he thought it was khakis, but the other man he wasn't sure.


Mr. BELIN - Did he tell you anything else about these people? r. CRAIG - Yes; he said he looked up a few minutes later and--uh--there was only one man up there then.






Mr. BELIN - Did he ever tell you anything about seeing any other people in any other windows?r. CRAIG - Yes; he said there were people in other windows looking over the ledges--you know, leaning up against the outside of the windows, looking out.






Mr. BELIN - Did he tell you whether any of these other people were on the sixth floor?r. CRAIG - No; these two men were the only ones he saw on that particular floor.






Mr. BELIN - Did he tell you that was the sixth floor he saw them on?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes. He said the second to the top floor--the next floor down; which would be the sixth floor.


Mr. BELIN - Did he tell you about ever seeing anyone else on the sixth floor--or did he say that he didn't see anyone else on the sixth floor? Or don't you remember?


Mr. CRAIG - Just the two men. That's all he saw on that particular floor.


Mr. BELIN - Did you specifically ask him if he saw anyone else on that floor, he say that he did not?


Mr. CRAIG - No; I asked him and he said---


Mr. BELIN - Well, what was your statement to him and what was his to you?


Mr. CRAIG - I asked him was there anybody else on the floor with these two men. And he said, "No, just the two of them."


Mr. BELIN - Did he say that he saw these two men together first?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes.


Mr. BELIN - And then he Just saw one, as I understand it?


Mr. CRAIG - A few minutes later, he looked back up there and saw just the man with the rifle.


Mr. BELIN - I believe he said earlier that he saw these men around 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived? And then a few minutes later, you say that he told you he saw only one man?r. CRAIG - Right.






Mr. BELIN - Did he then tell you that he saw no men--or what did he say about what he saw after that?


Mr. CRAIG - Well, then, I took him to Officer Lewis and turned him over to Lemmy Lewis.


Mr. BELIN - Anything else you can think of about that conversation?


Mr. CRAIG - No; there was not--I don't think there was anything else discussed except for the fact that he told me he thought--he said he thought he was a Secret Service agent--and that's why he didn't report it. 


Mr. BELIN - All right.









And finally:












Mr. BELIN - Have you discussed with Sheriff Decker the fact that when Oswald was picked up they found a bus transfer in his pocket?


Mr. CRAIG - No; I knew--uh nothing about a bus transfer.


Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon?


Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was.


Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you----



Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.




Mr. BELIN - Okay. That's it. Thank you.












This is what Rowland had to say in his WC tesimony:












Mr. SPECTER - Before you go on, let me ask you at which time was this on your return to position "V"? 


Mr. ROWLAND - This was 12:15. 


Mr. SPECTER - All right; proceed to tell us what you saw and heard at about that time? 


Mr. ROWLAND - We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr. Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window.
He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.
We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened. 


Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man? 


Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.
It was this pair of windows here at that time. 


Mr. SPECTER - All right.
Will you mark that pair of windows with a circle?
(Witness marking.)








Mr. SPECTER - What is your best recollection as to how far each of those windows were open? 


Mr. ROWLAND - To the fullest extent that they could be opened. 


Mr. SPECTER - What extent would that be? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Being as I looked half frame windows, that would be halfway of the entire length of the window. 


Mr. SPECTER - Is that the approximate status of those windows depicted here in Exhibit 356? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. 


Mr. SPECTER - In which of those double windows did you see the man and rifle? 


Mr. ROWLAND - It was through the window to my right. 


Mr. SPECTER - Draw an arrow right into that window with the same black pencil please.
(Witness marking.)








Mr. SPECTER - How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see? 


Mr. ROWLAND - All of it. 


Mr. SPECTER - You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. 


Mr. SPECTER - The barrel of the rifle? 


The CHAIRMAN - Congressman Ford, will you excuse me for just a few minutes to run across the street to my office. You conduct during my absence. 


Representative FORD - Will you proceed, Mr. Specter? 


Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the distance between where you were standing and the man holding the rifle whom you have just described?
(The Chief Justice left the hearing room.)








Mr. ROWLAND - 150 feet approximately, very possibly more. I don't know for sure. 


Mr. SPECTER - Are you very good at judging distances of that sort? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Fairly good. 


Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any experience or practice at judging such distances? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. Even in using the method in physics or, you know, elementary physics of looking at a position in two different views, you can tell its distance. I did that quite frequently. And the best r can recollect it was within 150 to 175 feet. 


Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you already have? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope. 


Mr. SPECTER - When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that? 


Mr. ROWLAND - That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import. 
































and:
































Mr. SPECTER - Was the rifle which you observed similar to, or perhaps identical with, .30-odd rifles which you have seen before? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The best I could tell it was of that size. 


Mr. SPECTER - Have you seen such .30-odd rifles before at close range which had telescopic sights? 










Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; one my stepfather has has a very powerful scope on it. 


Mr. SPECTER - And did this rifle appear similar to the one your stepfather owned? 








Mr. ROWLAND - From my distance, I would say very similar or of similar manufacture. 


Mr. SPECTER - In what manner was the rifle being held by the man whom you observed? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The way he was standing it would have been in a position such as port arms in military terms. 


Mr. SPECTER - When you say port arms you have positioned your left hand with the left elbow of your hand being about level with your shoulder and your right hand.-- 


Mr. ROWLAND - Not quite level with my shoulder, and the right hand being lower on the trigger of the stock. 


Mr. SPECTER - So the waist of the imaginary rifle you would be holding would cross your body at about a 45-degree angle. 
Mr. ROWLAND - That is correct. 


Mr. SPECTER - How long was the rifle held in that position? 


Mr. ROWLAND - During the entire time that I saw him there. 


Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him hold it in any other position? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No, I didn't. 


Mr. SPECTER - For example, was he standing at any time in a parade-rest position? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No; not to my knowledge. 


Mr. SPECTER - Describe, as best you can, the appearance of the individual whom you saw? 


Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.

Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height? 












Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective. 


Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.

Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then? 


Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian. 


Mr. SPECTER - And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No; except that it was dark, probably black. 


Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any characteristic as to quantity of hair? 


Mr. ROWLAND - It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut. 


Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing? 








Mr. ROWLAND - He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see but a small portion. 


Mr. SPECTER - You say you only saw a small portion of what? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Of his pants from his waist down. 


Mr. SPECTER - Which half of the window was open, the bottom half or the top half? 


Mr. ROWLAND - It was the bottom half. 


Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor? 


Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt. 


Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No. 


Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing? 


Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window. 


Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view. 


Mr. SPECTER - In the open part of the window? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. 


Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist. 
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment. 


Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. 





Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him? 












Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him. 


Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part. 


Mr. SPECTER - Is there anything else you observed about his appearance or his clothing or the rifle which you haven't already told us about? 


Representative FORD - Was he facing toward you directly? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. 


Representative FORD - In other words, did you get a full view of his face and his chest and the front of him? 


Mr. ROWLAND - He appeared to me as though he were looking out the window and watching the crowd in particular. 


Representative FORD - Excuse me, go ahead. 


Mr. ROWLAND - That is all right. 


Representative FORD - Was he looking toward the corner of Houston and Main? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No; I would say he was looking in the area or the general vicinity of where I was. 


Representative FORD - And you were on the sidewalk on Houston in front of the building that you have indicated? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. Now, I can't--here again I wasn't close enough to see his eyes but from the position of his head he was looking in that general area. It could have been that maybe he was--his eyes were a little bit off perspective and he was watching that corner, I don't know. 


Representative FORD - In what position did you say his hands were on the rifle? 


Mr. ROWLAND - One hand was at what is called the gun stock of the rifle, just above the trigger, it was around the rifle. The other was at the other end of the rifle about 4 inches below the end of the stock. 
Representative FORD - Was the rifle held above his waist? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The majority of it was, just a small portion of butt below his waist. 


Representative FORD - The butt or the end of the rifle, the barrel end? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The butt, the stock end, was below his waist. The barrel being pointed in the air toward the ceiling or the wall next to him. 


Representative FORD - I see. The stock was down and the barrel was up. 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. 


Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the age of that man? 


Mr. ROWLAND - This is again just my estimation. He was--I think I remember telling my wife that he appeared in his early thirties. This could be obscured because of the distance, I mean. 


Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to form any opinion as to the weight of the man in addition to the line of proportion which you have already described? 


Mr. ROWLAND - I would say about 140 to 150 pounds. 

































followed by:
































Representative FORD - And as you looked at the window subsequently did you ever see anything else in the window? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No; not in that window, and I looked back every few seconds, 30 seconds, maybe twice a minute, occasionally trying to find him so I could point him out to my wife.
Something I would like to note is that the window that I have been told the shots were actually fired from, I did not see that, there was someone hanging out that window at that time. 


Representative FORD - At what time was that? 


Mr. ROWLAND - At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think. 


Representative FORD - Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from. 


Representative FORD - I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The west, southwest corner. 


Representative FORD - And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The east, southeast corner. 


Representative FORD - Southeast corner. On the same floor? 


Mr. ROWLAND - On the same floor. 


Representative FORD - When did you notice him? 


Mr. ROWLAND - This was before I noticed the other man with the rifle. 


Representative FORD - I see. This was before you saw the man in the window with the rifle? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. My wife and I were both looking and making remarks that the people were hanging out the windows I think the majority of them were colored people, some of them were hanging out the windows to their waist, such as this. We made several remarks to this fact, and then she started watching the colored boy, and I continued to look, and then I saw the man with the rifle. 


Representative FORD - After 12:22 or thereabouts you indicated you periodically looked back at the window in the southwest corner where you had seen the man with the rifle What happened as the motorcade came along? 


Mr. ROWLAND - As the motorcade came along, there was quite a bit of excitement. I didn't look back from then. I was very interested in trying to see the President myself. I had seen him twice before but I was interested in seeing him again. 


Representative FORD - Did you notice a sedan come by with any officials in it at the outset of the motorcade? 


Mr. ROWLAND - The first car in the motorcade was, I think it was, a white- or cream-colored Ford. This appeared to be full of detectives or such as this; rather husky men, large men. I think there were four in this car.

Representative FORD - Was this an open or a closed car? 


Mr. ROWLAND - This was a sedan, the doors were closed. 





Representative FORD - What was the next car you noticed? 












Mr. ROWLAND - The next car was the President's car. 


Representative FORD - Did you notice again or did you look again during this period of time at the School Depository Building? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No. From where we were standing the motorcade came down Main, and when it turned on Houston we watched the motorcade, my wife remarked at Jackie's clothing, Mrs. Kennedy, and we made a few remarks of her clothing and how she looked, her appearance in general, and we also discussed--we didn't immediately recognize Governor Connally and his wife being in the car, we were trying to figure out who that as.
Then the motorcade turned on Elm and was obscured from our vision by a crowd, and we were discussing the clothing of Mrs. Kennedy at that time. My wife likes clothes. 


Representative FORD - You never again, after the motorcade once came into your view, looked back at the School Depository Building? 


Mr. ROWLAND - I did after the shots were fired. 


Mr. SPECTER - Had you finished telling us all about the conversation between you and your wife concerning this man? 


Mr. ROWLAND - To the best of my recollection, yes. 


Mr. SPECTER - All right.
You have described seeing someone in another window hanging out. Would you draw a circle and put an "A" beside the window where you say you saw someone hanging out. That is on Exhibit No. 356.
(Witness marking.)








Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"? 


Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man. 


Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
(Witness marking.)








Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like? 


Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him. 


Mr. SPECTER - At or about that time did you observe anyone else hanging out any window or observe any one through any window on the same floor where you have drawn the two circles on Exhibit 356? 


Mr. ROWLAND - No; no one else on that floor. 

Both were telling what they recalled. Rowland saw BRW in the SN until around 12.25. Craig's confirmation of Rowland is essentially correct given the brief time they had together and the probability of mishearing/misundertanding of some details. Two men, a rifle and the SW window. Spent some time there and one disappeared.....pretty reasonable. How would Craig be aware of any of Rowland's story if he had told no one about 2 men according to the WC?

As for Craig seeing an Oswald look alike and visiting Fritz's office. I believe him.

Or

He took a Bus and then a taxi.

...the wrong bus and a cab that left before Lee did.


I guess Rowland and every other witness was not given an opportunity to view Dougherty

Pity.
The nice 8 x 10's of West and Piper would seem irrelevant since they were ignoring any black man who could have been on the sixth floor.
Such would mean an accomplice or conspiracy.
The scared porter story was floated then canned. (Mike Howard)
Still nice pics to show no one.


Mr. BALL - And where do you usually eat your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they have got what they call a domino room in there and I usually eat it in there.
Mr. BALL - You usually eat your lunch in the domino room?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And how long do you take for lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, from 12 to 12:45.
Mr. BALL - Forty-five minutes?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you always take a full hour?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I usually do.
Mr. BALL - Now, do you remember the day of November 22, 1963; you do, don't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The day that the President was shot?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember what time you went to work that day?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes let's see--it was 12:30.

Here Dougherty gives us the time he went back to work, work he was doing up on the sixth floor, but more importantly he would be walking back and forth "getting stock" on six, as he was doing before he quit to eat lunch.

Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was about 11 o'clock-that was the last time I saw him.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing up there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, as far as I could tell, he was getting some stock---as far as I could tell.
Mr. BALL - What were you doing there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was getting some stock also.
Mr. BALL - And were there some other workmen up there at the time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Not that I know of.
Mr. BALL - Well, do you remember Shelley, Dan Arce, Bonnie Williams, Bill Lovelady, and Charlie Givens who were working up there that morning---laying floor on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; they were laying floor---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And were they there at the time you were there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes, sir; they were there---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the same time you saw Oswald?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; just about that time.
Mr. BALL - And how long were you on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, just long enough to get some stock.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I went to the fifth floor to get some stock also on the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Then, just about that time---I thought I heard---
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you go to lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I went back downstairs to eat lunch---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, it was 12 o'clock

Dougherty ate lunch from 12 - 12:30 per his testimony.

Plus all the orders on Lee's clipboard were Scott Foresman thus located on floors one and six.
Seems Lee was either making multiple trips, Dougherty @11, Floor crew @ 11:45, etc, to get books for these orders.
OR
Lee was only on six before lunch, 11:45-12 and went down to lunch not having found all the books to complete the orders yet. With the orders being Scott Foresman and needing stock from six to complete them its likely something a smart order puller would save for one trip.
I think Lee was a smart order puller.

Craig not knowing about a bus transfer is enlightening.

There is nothing tying Lee to 'that transfer'
it could be from someone else,
from anyone whom rode Cecil's bus, perhaps they found the man's transfer (via the transfer used on another bus and turned in at bus depot leading to the driver. Using a transfer is much more personal than just riding on a bus) or suitcase lady (Perhaps thru the train number and when she was trying to get to the station it was easy to figure out what train it was, perhaps she missed that train and was at the train station waiting for the next.

But more likely the transfer was taken from the booklet outright.
Its folds or creases from when the taker slipped it into a pocket.
Perhaps the "transfer" we have in evidence is nothing but a souvenir from the booklet?


Possibility it was given to any number of riders as the bus became stopped in the traffic/parade/police redirecting traffic/closed Elm at Record.
Any number of them could have asked for a transfer (ie the man) if used that transfer would be turned in. Used on another bus maybe even the Beckley Bus!
But whom was driving it or anything else about the "Other Bus" are short on documentation.
The DPD would easily be able to gather up a used transfer from the bus garage superintendent, and later the receipt and booklet would disappear, only the receipt would reappear having been taken as a souvenir.  
No questions about the booklet are asked as to its whereabouts or what happened to it once Cecil was finished with it.
ODD HUH?

Is Craig key to understanding Lee not wanting to share his transportation particulars?
Or Lee did share his transportation particulars and the various techniques mitigated that alibi....

Public transportation is anti-conspiratorial after all.

Mick can you point out how long it took Craig to report the incident of the Rambler and whistler. Is it in his statement of 11/22, if not when does it first appear in the news, reports, book etc?

Cheers, Ed

Even more damaging for JD if he was part of the floor
laying crew.....going back to work on the sixth. Was this the reason he got removed from the crew early on?

The consensus was that Oswald was likely on 5 when the elevators passed. Well that was the final version. Bet Ball and Belin were busy reconstructing things in Dallas in March. Maybe some of the players had trouble with the hasty LN script.

The Roger Craig of 1963 and 1964 was reliable and a crucial witness.

He saw Oswald leave in Ruth Paine's station wagon. The driver was probably a Cuban. From his description, Oswald must have at least changed his trousers. I realise doubts have been justifiably cast about the evidence related to 1026 North Beckley but I reckon it likely Oswald returned.

Craig was only 3 or 4 minutes out with his estimation of time. Oswald could easily have reached 1026 before 12.50.

I've tried to check if there was a route in 1963 from Elm that would lead on to the Houston Street Viaduct and I don't think there was. Whoever Tippit was waiting on at the Gloco station, he wouldn't have seen LHO.


What is particularly intriguing about Arnold Rowland's evidence is that it suggests familiarity between the man with the rifle on the 6th floor and the black employee (from Rowland's description, Eddie Piper, courtesy of the official version, BRW (shirt didn't match AR's testimony, though)). Would someone posing as a government agent but intent on killing the President really be chatting away with a worker so soon before the motorcade arrived? (Just as an aside, how would the progress of the motorcade be monitored - would the police radios below be heard on the 6th?)

To avoid suspicion from white-collar employees, I suspect that the real 6th floor shooter had to be mistaken for one of the warehouse staff. Jack Dougherty ticks a lot of boxes but Baker's affidavit certainly suggests someone else.

Craig was possibly more interested in the story of the man with the rifle and didn't fully take on board Rowland's account of the man hanging out the window.

Ed I'll check

Redfern wrote:The Roger Craig of 1963 and 1964 was reliable and a crucial witness.

He saw Oswald leave in Ruth Paine's station wagon. The driver was probably a Cuban. From his description, Oswald must have at least changed his trousers. I realise doubts have been justifiably cast about the evidence related to 1026 North Beckley but I reckon it likely Oswald returned.

Craig was only 3 or 4 minutes out with his estimation of time. Oswald could easily have reached 1026 before 12.50.

I've tried to check if there was a route in 1963 from Elm that would lead on to the Houston Street Viaduct and I don't think there was. Whoever Tippit was waiting on at the Gloco station, he wouldn't have seen LHO.


What is particularly intriguing about Arnold Rowland's evidence is that it suggests familiarity between the man with the rifle on the 6th floor and the black employee (from Rowland's description, Eddie Piper, courtesy of the official version, BRW (shirt didn't match AR's testimony, though)). Would someone posing as a government agent but intent on killing the President really be chatting away with a worker so soon before the motorcade arrived? (Just as an aside, how would the progress of the motorcade be monitored - would the police radios below be heard on the 6th?)

To avoid suspicion from white-collar employees, I suspect that the real 6th floor shooter had to be mistaken for one of the warehouse staff. Jack Dougherty ticks a lot of boxes but Baker's affidavit certainly suggests someone else.

Craig was possibly more interested in the story of the man with the rifle and didn't fully take on board Rowland's account of the man hanging out the window.

Agreed Redfern

Craig's version rings true to me. His rogue account didn't fit in with the story they were selling. Fritz simply disowned him. The Rambler story was the original lead if I am not mistaken. Curry referred to it and reporters questioned Fritz about it.

Just some quick points:

Oswald being on the 5th was the 1st version from all. During testimony, this changed into the 6th for some and the more equivocal 5th or 6th for others.

Definitely Craig reported his story before the bus ticket was "found". Curry was telling the press about it and confirmed they were looking for the driver. Can't recall which, but either later that day or the next, he was singing the bus tune to the same press and was quizzed about the car getaway. This time he dismissed it as being a wrong report.

The report of a scared porter fleeing out the building, I still believe has some basis in fact. We know for certain one did run out of the Deltex - and we also have Piper stating he ran toward the coffee making area from his alleged viewing spot on the 1st floor and confirmation from Shelley who claims to have witnessed this.

There are problems with the Piper-Shelly accounts of course because Piper claimed he started his run straight after the second shot and - and Shelley could not have possibly re-entered at that time (although I won't be surprised if someone claims it was possible!)

To point out the bleeding obvious - if it happened as stated, one or both of those men were lying about the timing and for the above reason, I nominate Piper as the liar. Piper said in his statement that the clock read 12:25 when he got to the coffee area, This was the time the motorcade was expected - not the time it arrived and someone tipped him off to that problem because he was allowed to amend it to 12:27 to 12:30 in his testimony without question. And giving it a time frame rather than an exact time makes it look more authentic as a natural memory.

To further clarify... if this run happened.... and it happened at the time Shelly re-entered... why lie about the timing unless to conceal that your run had actually started in another part of the building that you'd rather not talk about...

The sole alternative I can think of is that Shelley never witnessed it at all, but was helping Piper with an alibi. That scenario of course, also casts much doubt on Piper...

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Or

He took a Bus and then a taxi.

...the wrong bus and a cab that left before Lee did.


I guess Rowland and every other witness was not given an opportunity to view Dougherty

Pity.
The nice 8 x 10's of West and Piper would seem irrelevant since they were ignoring any black man who could have been on the sixth floor.
Such would mean an accomplice or conspiracy.
The scared porter story was floated then canned. (Mike Howard)
Still nice pics to show no one.


Mr. BALL - And where do you usually eat your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they have got what they call a domino room in there and I usually eat it in there.
Mr. BALL - You usually eat your lunch in the domino room?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And how long do you take for lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, from 12 to 12:45.
Mr. BALL - Forty-five minutes?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you always take a full hour?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I usually do.
Mr. BALL - Now, do you remember the day of November 22, 1963; you do, don't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The day that the President was shot?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember what time you went to work that day?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes let's see--it was 12:30.

Here Dougherty gives us the time he went back to work, work he was doing up on the sixth floor, but more importantly he would be walking back and forth "getting stock" on six, as he was doing before he quit to eat lunch.

Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was about 11 o'clock-that was the last time I saw him.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing up there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, as far as I could tell, he was getting some stock---as far as I could tell.
Mr. BALL - What were you doing there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was getting some stock also.
Mr. BALL - And were there some other workmen up there at the time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Not that I know of.
Mr. BALL - Well, do you remember Shelley, Dan Arce, Bonnie Williams, Bill Lovelady, and Charlie Givens who were working up there that morning---laying floor on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; they were laying floor---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And were they there at the time you were there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes, sir; they were there---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the same time you saw Oswald?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; just about that time.
Mr. BALL - And how long were you on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, just long enough to get some stock.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I went to the fifth floor to get some stock also on the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Then, just about that time---I thought I heard---
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you go to lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I went back downstairs to eat lunch---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, it was 12 o'clock

Dougherty ate lunch from 12 - 12:30 per his testimony.

Plus all the orders on Lee's clipboard were Scott Foresman thus located on floors one and six.
Seems Lee was either making multiple trips, Dougherty @11, Floor crew @ 11:45, etc, to get books for these orders.
OR
Lee was only on six before lunch, 11:45-12 and went down to lunch not having found all the books to complete the orders yet. With the orders being Scott Foresman and needing stock from six to complete them its likely something a smart order puller would save for one trip.
I think Lee was a smart order puller.

Craig not knowing about a bus transfer is enlightening.

There is nothing tying Lee to 'that transfer'
it could be from someone else,
from anyone whom rode Cecil's bus, perhaps they found the man's transfer (via the transfer used on another bus and turned in at bus depot leading to the driver. Using a transfer is much more personal than just riding on a bus) or suitcase lady (Perhaps thru the train number and when she was trying to get to the station it was easy to figure out what train it was, perhaps she missed that train and was at the train station waiting for the next.

But more likely the transfer was taken from the booklet outright.
Its folds or creases from when the taker slipped it into a pocket.
Perhaps the "transfer" we have in evidence is nothing but a souvenir from the booklet?


Possibility it was given to any number of riders as the bus became stopped in the traffic/parade/police redirecting traffic/closed Elm at Record.
Any number of them could have asked for a transfer (ie the man) if used that transfer would be turned in. Used on another bus maybe even the Beckley Bus!
But whom was driving it or anything else about the "Other Bus" are short on documentation.
The DPD would easily be able to gather up a used transfer from the bus garage superintendent, and later the receipt and booklet would disappear, only the receipt would reappear having been taken as a souvenir.  
No questions about the booklet are asked as to its whereabouts or what happened to it once Cecil was finished with it.
ODD HUH?

Is Craig key to understanding Lee not wanting to share his transportation particulars?
Or Lee did share his transportation particulars and the various techniques mitigated that alibi....

Public transportation is anti-conspiratorial after all.

Mick can you point out how long it took Craig to report the incident of the Rambler and whistler. Is it in his statement of 11/22, if not when does it first appear in the news, reports, book etc?

Cheers, Ed

G'day Ed.

not much in the way of any confirmation about the timing of Craigs visit to Fritz's office, but he does say he went to Deckers office first and then later when he heard they had got a suspect held up in the police headquarters he went on over. after obviously being on the 6th TSBD.

He is reported to have given an affidavit or report of his sighting of the Rambler/Station Wagon etc to "someone else" in at the police department according to Fritz. I can not find any such thing. I did find one FBI report CE 1993.




C E 1993 FBI Special Agent Benjamin.O. Keutzer


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_1993.pdf




"As I have earlier stated, the time was approximately 12:40 p.m. when I ran into [fellow Deputy Sheriff] Buddy Walthers. The traffic was very heavy as Patrolman Baker (assigned to Elm and Houston Streets) had left his post, allowing the traffic to travel west on Elm Street. As we were scanning the curb I heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm Street. I turned and saw a white male in his twenties running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building. A light green Rambler station wagon was coming slowly west on Elm Street. The driver of the station wagon was a husky looking Latin, with dark wavy hair, wearing a tan wind-breaker type jacket. He was looking up at the man running toward him. He pulled over to the north curb and picked up the man coming down the hill. I tried to cross Elm Street to stop them and find out who they were. The traffic was too heavy and I was unable to reach them. They drove away going west on Elm Street."
 
"I ran to the front of the Texas School Book Depository where I asked for anyone involved in the investigation. There was a man standing on the steps of the Book Depository Building and he turned to me and said, 'I'm with the Secret Service.'" ". . . He showed little interest in the persons leaving. However, he seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler.
 
[Dallas Police Captain Will] 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 Ruth Paine, don’t try and drag her into this”
 
Fritz. "No, sir; I am sure he did not, I believe that man did come to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and I let someone else take an affidavit from him."
 
Source: David B. Perry 4601 Ainsworth Circle Grapevine, Texas 76051



http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/77431.pd
 


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_1993.pdf

• at the moment when Capt. Fritz concurred with Weitzman‘s identification of the rifle, 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. Craig instinctively looked at his watch. The time was 1:06 p.m. (The Warren Commission attempted to move this time back beyond 1:15 to plausible claim Oswald had reached the Tippit murder scene in a more humanly possible time-frame than would be the case if Tippit had the encounter with his murderer any earlier.) 
  
• Later in the afternoon Craig received word of Oswald‘s arrest and that he was suspected of being involved in the Kennedy‘s murder. He immediately thought of the man running down the grassy knoll and made a telephone call to Capt. Will Fritz to gave him the description of the man he had seen. Fritz said Craig‘s description sounded like the man they had and asked him to come take a look. When he saw Oswald in Fritz‘s personal office Deputy Craig confirmed that this was indeed the man, dressed in the same way, that he had seen running down the knoll and into the Rambler. They went into the office together and Fritz told Oswald,
  

• junior counsel for the Warren Commission Dave Belin, was the man who interview Roger Craig in April of 1964. After the being questioned in what Craig recounts as a very manipulative and selective way, Belin asked “Do you want to follow or waive your signature or sign now?” Craig noted, “Since there was nothing but a tape recording and a stenographer‘s note book, there was obviously nothing to sign. All other testimony which I have read (a considerable amount) included an explanation that the person could waive his signature then or his statement would be typed and he would be notified when it was ready for signature. Belin did not say this to me.” After Craig first saw the transcript in January of 1968 he discovered that the testimony he gave had been changed in fourteen different places.
  

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig never changed his account of what he witnessed and experienced on Friday, November 22, 1963. (The passage where he describes the methodology employed by David Belin in selectively recording his testimony is highly illuminating and provides us with a glimpse of how the “W.C.” interviewed witnesses in a very controlled way.) He remained convinced, for the rest of this life, that the man entering the Rambler station wagon was Lee Harvey Oswald. He was fired from the Sheriff‘s office on July 4, 1967, and from that day forward he never again could find steady work. Multiple attempts were made on his life, his wife finally left him, and in the end, he was alleged to have shot himself to death on May 15, 1975.


Source:
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

Righto Mick!

So nothing as far as a document signed by Craig.
Nothing to confirm he did give a statement at the Sheriffs Dept to Mrs Allen(?)
Nothing from Lt. Baker about Craig's claims?
Nothing at DPD?
Nothing from 11/22
That link to CE1993, is a "Re-interview" by FBI Special Agent Benjamin.O. Keutzer
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_1993.pdf

Now where is the original 'interview' and when was that?

Is it Bookout's?

1
ROGER CRAIG, 7711 Piedmont, Apartment B, Phone Evergreen 1-4851, employed as a Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department, advised that he was standing in front of the Dallas Sheriff's Office, 505 Main Street, at the time the motorcade of President JOHN F. KENNEDY was approaching the triple underpass. He stated that he heard a shot and ran around the corner onto Houston Street and went through the parking area and briefly searched area on Elm Street. Shortly after this, approximately 3 or 4 minutes, came back across Elm Street and observed an individual run down the grass area from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository. He heard this individual whistle and a white Rambler station wagon, driven by a Negro male, pulled over to the curb and said individual got in and the car headed toward the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike.
CRAIG stated that at 5:18 PM, November 22, 1963, he was given an opportunity to observe LEE HARVEY OSWALD, in the office of Captain J. W. FRITZ in the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, and that he is positive that OSWALD is identical with the same individual he observed getting into the Rambler station wagon as mentioned above.

---

On 11/22/1963 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43
By JAMES W. BOOKOUT/cah Date dictated 11/23/63


https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0425a.htm

And rumor was Craig signed a log or register or sign in sheet, or sign out sheet at Homicide and Robbery room #317. I am thinking that if there was a log in sheet or sign out sheet it had to do with keeping track of whom was allowed in the interview room, and perhaps how long.

Cheers! Ed

I personally don't buy the conversation or questioning as reported by Craig about what Oswald said in response to Fritz's questions.

I do not believe that is what was asked or answered of Oswald.
It goes against common sense and the interrogation techniques.

From John E. Reid,  http://www.reid.com/educational_info/r_tips.html

1. Elicit a narrative account of the crime
   
2. Make questions short and brief
   
3. Phrase questions in such a way that will allow the suspect to initially give brief answers
   
4. Avoid legal or descriptive terminology
   

With these guidelines in mind when the investigator is obtaining corroborating information from the suspect after their initial admission, these 10 “Do’s and “Don’ts” should be followed. (To illustrate these points consider the case in which a suspect admits to a home break-in.)

1. Do not, during the development of corroborating details, ask leading questions which by definition are questions that suggest the answers – “You broke in through the sliding door at the rear of the residence, right?” Rather, ask open-ended questions that do not suggest the answer – “Where did you enter the house?” Another example of a leading question would be: “You entered the home through the kitchen right?” Rather, ask the open-ended question – “What room was it that you first entered?”
   
2. Do not ask questions at the outset of the confession that are too general, such as, “Tell me what happened.” Rather, begin by asking questions that develop the statement point by point, for example, “About what time was it when you entered the house?”
   
3. Do not provide crucial dependent information to the subject, such as – “You stole jewelry from the house and discarded the costume jewelry in the Constantine Cemetery right?” (when this information had never been publicly divulged and was known only to the perpetrator and the investigators.)
   
4. Do not challenge or berate a suspect who describes a memory gap during a critical time line. During this process of obtaining the details of the crime, if the suspect responds to the investigators question with: “I don’t remember”, do not retort with a challenge such as “That’s a bunch of garbage, don’t lie to me, you do remember.” Rather, do follow up with a question such as, “What’s the next thing you do remember?” The subject will be brought back to the crime time line and will be less likely to get into an argument with the investigator.
   
   
5. Do ask the suspect what he did and who he saw prior to and after the commission of the crime - this will assist in developing a crime time line and possibly additional incriminating information to confirm the veracity of the subject’s statement.
   
   
6. Do ask the suspect where he obtained the tools, weapons, keys, security code, etc.
   
   
7. Do ask the suspect to draw a sketch relating to the crime.
   
   
8. Do ask the suspect who else he told about committing the crime – this may assist in obtaining corroborating witnesses.
   
   
9. Do validate the offender’s confession by asking the suspect at the conclusion: “If you are asked these same questions at a later date, what will your answers be?” The suspect that has legitimately confessed his crime will respond: “The same.” Follow up with “Why is that?” The suspect response is generally, “Because it’s the truth.”
   
   
10. Do “size up” the suspect for intellectual capacity and emotional maturity as an appropriate guide for the investigator’s approach during the interrogation as well as a key indicator to the validity and reliability of the information obtained during a questioning session.
    

It is critical that we do not, even inadvertently, reveal all of the details of the crime to a suspect during an interrogation, including after the initial admission. Instead, we should ask questions that allow the suspect, of his or her own volition, to voluntarily reveal critical independent and dependent evidence that will effectively establish the accuracy and voluntariness of their incriminating statement.
Our goal during an interrogation is to obtain the truth by following legally acceptable practices.


PS
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/science-behind-brendan-dasseys-confession.html

http://dyingwords.net/police-interrogations-9-step-reid-technique/#sthash.0vqTQsxc.dpbs

Cheers, Ed

"As I have earlier stated, the time was approximately 12:40 p.m.


Craig in his FBI re interview, 


Fritz says an affidavit was taken by "someone else" or words to that effect. I presume that was when Craig was at Homicide and Robbery


Thanks Ed

Ed. Ledoux wrote:I personally don't buy the conversation or questioning as reported by Craig about what Oswald said in response to Fritz's questions.

I do not believe that is what was asked or answered of Oswald.
It goes against common sense and the interrogation techniques.

From John E. Reid,  http://www.reid.com/educational_info/r_tips.html

1. Elicit a narrative account of the crime
   
2. Make questions short and brief
   
3. Phrase questions in such a way that will allow the suspect to initially give brief answers
   
4. Avoid legal or descriptive terminology
   

With these guidelines in mind when the investigator is obtaining corroborating information from the suspect after their initial admission, these 10 “Do’s and “Don’ts” should be followed. (To illustrate these points consider the case in which a suspect admits to a home break-in.)

1. Do not, during the development of corroborating details, ask leading questions which by definition are questions that suggest the answers – “You broke in through the sliding door at the rear of the residence, right?” Rather, ask open-ended questions that do not suggest the answer – “Where did you enter the house?” Another example of a leading question would be: “You entered the home through the kitchen right?” Rather, ask the open-ended question – “What room was it that you first entered?”
   
2. Do not ask questions at the outset of the confession that are too general, such as, “Tell me what happened.” Rather, begin by asking questions that develop the statement point by point, for example, “About what time was it when you entered the house?”
   
3. Do not provide crucial dependent information to the subject, such as – “You stole jewelry from the house and discarded the costume jewelry in the Constantine Cemetery right?” (when this information had never been publicly divulged and was known only to the perpetrator and the investigators.)
   
4. Do not challenge or berate a suspect who describes a memory gap during a critical time line. During this process of obtaining the details of the crime, if the suspect responds to the investigators question with: “I don’t remember”, do not retort with a challenge such as “That’s a bunch of garbage, don’t lie to me, you do remember.” Rather, do follow up with a question such as, “What’s the next thing you do remember?” The subject will be brought back to the crime time line and will be less likely to get into an argument with the investigator.
   
   
5. Do ask the suspect what he did and who he saw prior to and after the commission of the crime - this will assist in developing a crime time line and possibly additional incriminating information to confirm the veracity of the subject’s statement.
   
   
6. Do ask the suspect where he obtained the tools, weapons, keys, security code, etc.
   
   
7. Do ask the suspect to draw a sketch relating to the crime.
   
   
8. Do ask the suspect who else he told about committing the crime – this may assist in obtaining corroborating witnesses.
   
   
9. Do validate the offender’s confession by asking the suspect at the conclusion: “If you are asked these same questions at a later date, what will your answers be?” The suspect that has legitimately confessed his crime will respond: “The same.” Follow up with “Why is that?” The suspect response is generally, “Because it’s the truth.”
   
   
10. Do “size up” the suspect for intellectual capacity and emotional maturity as an appropriate guide for the investigator’s approach during the interrogation as well as a key indicator to the validity and reliability of the information obtained during a questioning session.
    

It is critical that we do not, even inadvertently, reveal all of the details of the crime to a suspect during an interrogation, including after the initial admission. Instead, we should ask questions that allow the suspect, of his or her own volition, to voluntarily reveal critical independent and dependent evidence that will effectively establish the accuracy and voluntariness of their incriminating statement.
Our goal during an interrogation is to obtain the truth by following legally acceptable practices.


PS
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/science-behind-brendan-dasseys-confession.html

http://dyingwords.net/police-interrogations-9-step-reid-technique/#sthash.0vqTQsxc.dpbs

Cheers, Ed

I personally don't buy the conversation or questioning as reported by Craig about what Oswald said in response to Fritz's questions.


Nor do I.


The only thing we should believe is what was said in front of recording devices aka media mics , sound recorders cameras etc.


Everything else is suspect. He was being framed for a crime he did not commit. 


Framed most likely in part by the very people whom supplied the so called Oswald interrogation notes.


Save me, give me a break.


IMO the notes are probably a mix of truth, half truths and out right lies.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/77431.pd






I felt Fritz's recollection was best countered in J. Gary Shaw's Cover-Up. That is until I looked into it. On page twenty seven, Shaw suggests "Fritz complied [with the Warren Commission by supplying perjured testimony] that Craig had not been in Fritz's office and had not even seen Oswald. The Fritz lie, however, was unintentionally exposed when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry published his personal JFK Assassination File. A photograph on page 72 of that book shows Craig standing in the background in Fritz's office; the caption is: 'The Homicide Bureau Office under guard while Oswald is being interrogated.'" Not so fast, "perjured testimony" and "lie" is a little strong. The photograph Shaw claims is of Fritz's office during the Oswald interrogation, is not. It is of the outer office of Room 317, the Homicide and Robbery Bureau. There are two other photographs that by coincidence appear in Cover-Up on pages twenty-seven and 101. They are of the same scene but shot from different perspectives. Those photographs show at least five men, one Dallas Police Officer Gerald Hill, and a secretary. Some individuals might be conversing while drinking coffee or water. The secretary looks like she is eating a sandwich. These are hardly activities one would expect Fritz to condone while questioning the prized suspect. Oswald is nowhere to be seen. While there is no evidence that Craig wasn't in Fritz's office, Shaw's alleged photographic confirmation is no proof at all. In fact it only shows Craig was outside the office close to the spot Fritz claimed he was.

Ed. Ledoux wrote:I personally don't buy the conversation or questioning as reported by Craig about what Oswald said in response to Fritz's questions.

I do not believe that is what was asked or answered of Oswald.
It goes against common sense and the interrogation techniques.

From John E. Reid,  http://www.reid.com/educational_info/r_tips.html

1. Elicit a narrative account of the crime
   
2. Make questions short and brief
   
3. Phrase questions in such a way that will allow the suspect to initially give brief answers
   
4. Avoid legal or descriptive terminology
   

With these guidelines in mind when the investigator is obtaining corroborating information from the suspect after their initial admission, these 10 “Do’s and “Don’ts” should be followed. (To illustrate these points consider the case in which a suspect admits to a home break-in.)

1. Do not, during the development of corroborating details, ask leading questions which by definition are questions that suggest the answers – “You broke in through the sliding door at the rear of the residence, right?” Rather, ask open-ended questions that do not suggest the answer – “Where did you enter the house?” Another example of a leading question would be: “You entered the home through the kitchen right?” Rather, ask the open-ended question – “What room was it that you first entered?”
   
2. Do not ask questions at the outset of the confession that are too general, such as, “Tell me what happened.” Rather, begin by asking questions that develop the statement point by point, for example, “About what time was it when you entered the house?”
   
3. Do not provide crucial dependent information to the subject, such as – “You stole jewelry from the house and discarded the costume jewelry in the Constantine Cemetery right?” (when this information had never been publicly divulged and was known only to the perpetrator and the investigators.)
   
4. Do not challenge or berate a suspect who describes a memory gap during a critical time line. During this process of obtaining the details of the crime, if the suspect responds to the investigators question with: “I don’t remember”, do not retort with a challenge such as “That’s a bunch of garbage, don’t lie to me, you do remember.” Rather, do follow up with a question such as, “What’s the next thing you do remember?” The subject will be brought back to the crime time line and will be less likely to get into an argument with the investigator.
   
   
5. Do ask the suspect what he did and who he saw prior to and after the commission of the crime - this will assist in developing a crime time line and possibly additional incriminating information to confirm the veracity of the subject’s statement.
   
   
6. Do ask the suspect where he obtained the tools, weapons, keys, security code, etc.
   
   
7. Do ask the suspect to draw a sketch relating to the crime.
   
   
8. Do ask the suspect who else he told about committing the crime – this may assist in obtaining corroborating witnesses.
   
   
9. Do validate the offender’s confession by asking the suspect at the conclusion: “If you are asked these same questions at a later date, what will your answers be?” The suspect that has legitimately confessed his crime will respond: “The same.” Follow up with “Why is that?” The suspect response is generally, “Because it’s the truth.”
   
   
10. Do “size up” the suspect for intellectual capacity and emotional maturity as an appropriate guide for the investigator’s approach during the interrogation as well as a key indicator to the validity and reliability of the information obtained during a questioning session.
    

It is critical that we do not, even inadvertently, reveal all of the details of the crime to a suspect during an interrogation, including after the initial admission. Instead, we should ask questions that allow the suspect, of his or her own volition, to voluntarily reveal critical independent and dependent evidence that will effectively establish the accuracy and voluntariness of their incriminating statement.
Our goal during an interrogation is to obtain the truth by following legally acceptable practices.


PS
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/science-behind-brendan-dasseys-confession.html

http://dyingwords.net/police-interrogations-9-step-reid-technique/#sthash.0vqTQsxc.dpbs

Cheers, Ed

And if none of that works, Ed, then you have the suspect shot. I'm not sure what happened behind closed doors. Craig at least was there and tells us what he witnessed. We can take it with a grain of salt, not take it at all or believe the guy. I believe him simply because he couldn't make up such a lie.

Does this work for anyone?

It seems like Craig never mentioned Oswald saying anything until he appeared before the WC.

His FBI statement dated Nov 23 merely states he was given an opportunity to observe Oswald.

Fritz reported that Craig was only in the outer office but would indeed haven able to observe Oswald from there. In fact, that makes a lot more sense to me rather than dragging another body into that room needlessly. It's not like Craig was going to be allowed to interrogate Oswald. Nor did Craig claim Oswald noticed him in DP. If he had said Oswald DID notice him, it may have been a good thing to bring Craig in so they could gage Oswald's reaction.

This all kind of indicates that Craig made up being in the office where the interrogation was taking place. Moreover, he made it up for the sole purpose of being able to put words into Oswald's mouth... particularly words pegging him as a possible agent and also implicating Ruth Paine.

By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, I am sure that there would have been some speculation floating around about Oswald being an "agent" and also other rumors tying RP into it. He may have also been interviewed by early critics who convinced on both those counts and he determined to help push those views for whatever reason.

Obviously I have no problem with speculation about Oswald as "agent" (though not the term I would use) nor any issue with anyone speculating about RP's involvement - nevertheless, if Craig lied about being in that office and hearing the words he claimed, it needs to be called as such. It does not affect his actual ID of Oswald as the man he saw jump into the station wagon.

Agree Greg......wood and trees. Surely they would let Craig try and ID the suspect. The important claim is the descent into the car.....that can be corroborated.

Colin, I just noticed the FBI interview was done on Nov 22, but typed up the next day.

The difference between Craig and Baker?

On day one, Craig said in a legal document that he observed Oswald in custody and identified him as identical to the person he had observed in DP.

On day one, Baker's affidavit made no such claim about observing Oswald in custody (even though we know he did), nor correctly described or indeed even named him. Baker didn't even get the putative location right.

Another difference: Craig had multiple witnesses confirm his sighting. Baker only had Truly.

Given what we suspect about Oswald and Ruth Paine and the Rambler I'd say there is a strong case Craig maybe telling the truth and Fritz is lying. Who'd have more motive to lie?

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:Given what we suspect about Oswald and Ruth Paine and the Rambler I'd say there is a strong case Craig maybe telling the truth and Fritz is lying. Who'd have more motive to lie?

Normally you would say Fritz.. if only to protect a star witness in RP, but in the absence of Craig saying in his initial statement that Oswald made certain comments, and in the absence of any need for Craig to get face to face with Oswald for an ID when he could do it through the glass, I do lean to Fritz being the more honest in this instance.

There is plenty of reason to suspect Ruth Paine's involvement without this.

All of that said, it would hardly surprise me if it turned out I was wrong...

I find it hard to believe that Craig would have lied about Oswald's words in his Warren testimony. What could he gain by doing so?

All it would have taken was for him to popped his head through the door for ten or fifteen seconds.

The FBI report is very brief. It really concerned only Craig's identification of Oswald leaving Dealey Plaza.

He wouldn't have known who Ruth Paine was at that point.


Roger Craig was the one law enforcement officer prepared to stick his neck out.