Did Braden Make A Major Slip Of The Tongue?

[Albert Doyle]

.


In his HSCA testimony Jim Braden said:

"I recall very distinctly that he had a string
>or rope around a long barreled gun, and I definitely recall
>that."

Was this a slip of the tongue exposing Braden's having handled the Oswald Backyard Photo rifle with the rope sling?


Braden could have seen the Backyard Photo in the time period between the assassination and his HSCA testimony, however he had every equal chance to see pictures of the rifle in evidence which had a clear thick leather strap.


The rifle coming out of the Depository was photographed with a thick leather sling and no rope or string on it. How could Braden make a mistake like this?


Did Braden slip and expose the fact he handled the Backyard Photo Carcano with the rope sling as part of the conspiracy?



.

[Jack White]

Interesting catch.

Jack

[A.J. Blocker]

How or why is Jim Braden being asked anything about Oswalds rifle?

How is his opinion / comments relevant?

[Bill Kelly]

How or why is Jim Braden being asked anything about Oswalds rifle?

How is his opinion / comments relevant?

I think Braden saw them removing a rifle from the TSBD when he was coming out of the Dal-Tex building just before he was taken into custody by Lummie Lewis, pointed out by the Dal-Tex elevator operator who brought him down from the 3rd floor and didn't recognize him.

I don't know what it means.

[Albert Doyle]

Right, the statement is from Braden at his House Select Committee On Assassinations hearing. I assume the reason he is emphasizing seeing the gun being taken out of the Depository at the same time he was being taken out of the Dal-Tex Building is because he's trying to show that since the murder weapon came from the Book Depository therefore he couldn't have had anything to do with the assassination in the Dal-Tex Building. There's something screwy about this because, as far as I know, Braden was hauled-out of the Dal-Tex Building long before the Carcano was discovered and examined and eventually taken out the front of the Depository.

Braden's lawyer might argue Braden was far from the Depository and simply mistook the thick leather sling for a rope sling, however Braden was very specific about "definitely and very distinctly" seeing a rope on the rifle. The Carcano in evidence had a big leather shoulder pad on a thick strap. This reduces the chance Braden would mistake it for a rope sling. But the timing makes it unlikely he ever witnessed the Depository Carcano at all.

This is a classic example of what is wrong with the Assassination investigation. If the rifle came out long after Braden was taken out the front of the Dal-Tex Building then Braden couldn't possibly have seen it. Which means Braden was caught red-handed making-up a lie about what happened that day. Instead of being pressed on it Braden sails off un-asked. That smells to high heaven but no one asks any questions or does any follow-through, or even bothers to point it out to what is supposed to be a government investigatory committee.

Was Braden so anxious to make an alibi with the Book Depository Carcano that he slipped-up and referred to his own memory of having handled the rifle with the rope sling seen in the Backyard Photo? Was his memory of the very distinct and definite rope on the barrel one he was sure of because he saw it close-up and had no doubts?

[Albert Doyle]

Braden's lawyer could resource an easy tactic. He could simply say Braden saw one of the many police shotguns seen in front of the Depository immediately after the assassination. There's no way to disprove this.



If you look at the Purdy questioning of Braden he is very definitely leading Braden with suggestive questioning. He realizes the Carcano doesn't have a rope sling so he immediately asks Braden "Do you remember whether there was a strap on the gun?" Purdy is in on it no doubt whatsoever. If he wasn't they would have called Braden on the timing claim with the Carcano emerging from the Depository. HSCA had a problem with this claim so they dealt with it by ignoring it and hoping no one would notice, and it worked.

If you read the Purdy cross examination Braden is very clearly speaking of seeing the police officers taking the rifle out from the Depository. Since these pictures were also widely available it is possible that is what Braden was referring to. However anyone who has seen the Depository Carcano removal photos would know right away that the thick leather strap sling was clearly visible and in no way could be mistaken as a rope or string on the barrel. That's exactly why Purdy tries to lead Braden by asking him if he saw a strap.

Purdy tries to do damage control by suggesting the rifle "wasn't" one that was being carried as evidence. What he's doing there is trying to get Braden out of his quandary by planting the suggestion that Braden saw a non-evidence rifle being carried. Braden shifts to neutral in response by saying he doesn't know anything about it only that they were carrying the gun abnormally. Braden cannot recover from his mistake because he's committed himself once he determines the gun is being carefully carried by the sling as evidence. Purdy halts all possibility of further damage by stopping the questioning. HSCA then elects not to mention the glaring fact that Braden could not have possibly seen the gun according to the confirmed timing.


If Braden used the photos of the rifle being carried out of the Depository (he must have because he specifically mentions two men) how could he have missed the obvious thick leather sling shown in those same photos?

[Bernice Moore]

http://www.jfkresearch.com/Gallery_10/pa...serial.htm

JACK there was mention somewhere about two rifles being taken from the tsbd, one down the firescape by a dpd, some said shown in the Mentasena film...b