"The only thing I've ever said about Benavides is that he uses the name Oswald in his testimony. I do not rely on him as a witness in an attempt to prove Oswald's guilt. All over the internet, I have listed the witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the cop-killer and I never include Benavides on that list." Bill
so you have never offered a statement from Benavides (as his identification of Oswald ) made quite a few years after the fact ? .
you were on robert harris forum . in discussion lets say with a new member who from memory was relatively new to study of this case . and you most certainly did try to use Benavides statements (his 1964 testimony in which he merely mentioned Oswald by name and in no way as an identification , and also his several years later statement not under oath that contradicted his testimony ) as an IDENTIFICATION of Oswald as tippits killer .you may not use his testimony / statements now but you certainly attempted to back then .
and the problem is not so much that you attempted it , all be it from my own point of view i would find it a bit dishonest . the problem is that your own stance (certainly then , perhaps its changed now ? ) was that you would not accept later statements made from anyone , certainly not those made years after the fact . as i said you even heavily disputed Earlene roberts statement about seeing a police car outside because she only mentioned it about a week after the fact . its the inconsistency , or hypocrisy if you will . but i am happy to see that you dont rely on mr benavides years later contradictory statement . not because it was years later but because it was contradictory .
