18-04-2017, 05:00 PM
WM2 is not oblivious to the contradiction with respect to Benavides' re-arrival by different modes but makes no attempt to solve the problem. Instead it gets shunted off to a pair of circular endnotes --
The implication is that the double arrival is factual, the second's exact manner but an insignificant detail, leaving the resolution to the reader's judgment & discretion. A few possibilities follow --
1. Benavides left & returned by truck.
2. Benavides left by foot and returned by another truck.
3. Guinyard did not see Benavides arrive by truck.
4. Benavides left & returned by both foot & truck.
5. Benavides arrived by truck once witnessed by Guinyard.
#1 is implied by Guinyard but contradicted by Benavides who ought to have known if he traveled on foot or wheel. #2 fits to a degree but otherwise lacks support. #3 is curious. Why did Myers refrain from undermining Guinyard by using some cheap interviewing trick or other means? Probably because Guinyard was led by Ball into making the statement, the arrival by truck treated as established fact in the question --
#4 may be ludicrous but it's the version presented in WM2's reconstruction, an erratic fable loosely based on historical events.
#5 is what happened. Benavides was not at the scene when the shooting occurred, a bit player until appearing at the WC hearings, possibly as a last minute replacement, solving the problems of Bowley's watch & Ruby connection by adding a layer of indirection.
[489] 6H449 (WCT of Domingo Benavides April 2, 1964) [Note: although Benavides indicated that he left the scene on foot, eyewitness Sam Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Benavides drive up in his truck at about the time he would have returned to the shooting scene. (7H398)]
[518] 6H449 (WCT of Domingo Benavides April 2, 1964); 7H398 (WCT of Sam Guinyard April 2, 1964) [Note: see endnote, 489]
[518] 6H449 (WCT of Domingo Benavides April 2, 1964); 7H398 (WCT of Sam Guinyard April 2, 1964) [Note: see endnote, 489]
The implication is that the double arrival is factual, the second's exact manner but an insignificant detail, leaving the resolution to the reader's judgment & discretion. A few possibilities follow --
1. Benavides left & returned by truck.
2. Benavides left by foot and returned by another truck.
3. Guinyard did not see Benavides arrive by truck.
4. Benavides left & returned by both foot & truck.
5. Benavides arrived by truck once witnessed by Guinyard.
#1 is implied by Guinyard but contradicted by Benavides who ought to have known if he traveled on foot or wheel. #2 fits to a degree but otherwise lacks support. #3 is curious. Why did Myers refrain from undermining Guinyard by using some cheap interviewing trick or other means? Probably because Guinyard was led by Ball into making the statement, the arrival by truck treated as established fact in the question --
Mr. BALL. Were you there when the truck came up that was driven by Benavides?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He came up right after this?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he came up from the east side---going west.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He came up right after this?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; he came up from the east side---going west.
#4 may be ludicrous but it's the version presented in WM2's reconstruction, an erratic fable loosely based on historical events.
#5 is what happened. Benavides was not at the scene when the shooting occurred, a bit player until appearing at the WC hearings, possibly as a last minute replacement, solving the problems of Bowley's watch & Ruby connection by adding a layer of indirection.