(PART 1059)


I would like to correct something that I posted to this forum last July, about Tippit shooting witness Domingo Benavides.

I said then that Domingo Benavides' brother Lee Roy Benavides died a homicide victim in 1964. But I have found no evidence that Lee Roy died then, and some evidence that he was still living in Texas in 1996.

Anyone who would like to repeat the claim that Domingo Benavides' brother was murdered to coerce Domingo to identify Oswald to the Warren Commission as Tippit's killer is welcome to supply primary evidence (not from conspiracy literature) of the brother's name, and of his place, date and cause of death.


"Lee Roy" isn't the person who died suddenly in 1964 [sic]*. It was Domingo's brother Edward (Eddy) who died as a result of being shot.

Here's a quote regarding Edward Benavides from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"The [conspiracy] buffs are so silly that in addition to President Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit, they even have people like Abraham Zapruder (heart attack, 1970), J. Edgar Hoover (heart attack, 1972), Lyndon Baines Johnson (heart attack, 1973), and Earl Warren (heart attack, 1974) on their mysterious-death lists. .... So silly that when Edward Benavides, who the buffs say resembled his brother, Warren Commission witness Domingo Benavides, was shot to death in a Dallas bar in February 1964 [sic], they allege that it was a case of mistaken identity, Domingo probably being "the intended victim," and list Edward's homicide as "mysterious" and, by implication, unsolved. Actually, he was shot by a drinking companion, who confessed to the killing and served twenty months for manslaughter. It should be recalled that Domingo Benavides, who saw Officer Tippit being murdered, never identified Oswald as the killer. He only said Oswald "resembled" the man and refused to make a positive identification [DVP INTERJECTION: until 1967 on CBS-TV, that is]." -- Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History"

Bugliosi has one source note for the above excerpt regarding Edward Benavides' death. The source is this one:

"[Charles] Roberts, Truth about the Assassination, p.96." *

* See page 96 of Roberts' book below. Click the image for a bigger view. And take note that Roberts has the correct date for Eddy's death--February 1965--not 1964. And Roberts' book was published way back in 1967....


Thanks, but I had all the information, and even gave that reference to Roberts, a secondary source, in my post last July. That is why I specified that I was looking for any "primary" source (e.g, birth certificate, death certificate, newspaper article, police report, witness).

According to the Texas birth index, 1903–1997, Domingo Benavides (1937–2005) had siblings:

1. Lee Roy Benavides (b. 1 July 1933, Falls County, Texas).
2. T.J. Benavidez (sic) (male) (b. 5 March 1944, Dallas County, Texas).
3. Shelby Ann Benavides (b. 11 May 1945, Dallas County, Texas).

Their parents were Domingo Benavides (Sr.) and Elvis Clark (yes, her first name was Elvis).

The following males surnamed Benavides died in Texas between 22 November 1963 and 2 April 1964, when Domingo Benavides gave his WC testimony:

1. Jesse Abrego Benavides died in Nueces County, Texas on 27 November 1963.
2. Eracido Benavides died in Hidalgo County, Texas on 10 January 1964.
3. Raymond Benavides died in Tarrant County, Texas on 1 February 1964.
4. Isidro Benavides died in Medina County, Texas on 15 February 1964.


So, Steven, according to your information, Domingo had no brother named Edward at all, eh?


I know conspiracy theorists are fond of inventing stories out of thin air, but it's hard for me to believe that "Eddy" didn't exist at all.

Quoting David Welsh in the November 1966 edition of "Ramparts" magazine:

"Domingo Benevides [sic], a dark, slim auto mechanic, was a witness to the murder of Officer Tippit who testified that he "really got a good view" of the slayer. He was not asked to see the police lineup in which Oswald appeared. Although he later said the killer resembled newspaper pictures of Oswald, he described the man differently: "I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off...it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back." Domingo reports that he has been repeatedly threatened by police, and advised not to talk about what he saw.

In mid-February 1964, his brother Eddy, who resembled him, was fatally shot in the back of the head in a beer joint on Second Avenue in Dallas. Police said it was a pistol shot, wrote up a cursory report and marked the case "unsolved".

Domingo's father-in-law, J.W. Jackson, was so unimpressed with the police investigation of Eddy's death that he launched a little inquiry of his own. Two weeks later, Jackson was shot at in his home. The assailant secreted himself in the carport, fired once into the house, and when Jackson ran outside, fired one more time, just missing his head.

As the gunman clambered into an automobile in a nearby driveway, Jackson saw a police car coming down the block. The officer made no attempt to follow the gunman's speeding car; instead, he stopped at Jackson's home and spent a long time inquiring what had happened. Later, a police lieutenant advised Jackson, "You'd better lay off of this business. Don't go around asking questions; that's our job." Jackson and Domingo are both convinced that Eddy's murder was a case of mistaken identity and that Domingo, the Tippit witness, was the intended victim."



I will further add that there is nothing in the Dallas Morning News from 22 November 1963 through 1964 about anyone named Benavides (Benevides, Benavidez, Benevidez) getting shot in a bar (or anywhere else). No obituary for any of Domingo's siblings either.

No birth certificate, no death certificate, no newspaper story, no obituary.


A couple sources....

http://jfk.hood.edu/TIME Magazine (Nov. 11, 1966)


I spent about an hour surfing Benavides genealogy sites. Found one person who seemed possible for one of Domingo's kids (age and location seemed right, and Domingo told the WC that he had 2 children, with one on the way). This might be your best bet for cracking the mystery, contact a relative. Maybe Facebook.



Per the Time magazine article, Eddy Benavides died in February 1965, not 1964. Ten months *after* Domingo Benavides gave his testimony to the Warren Commission.

The Texas death index does have an Edward Benavidez (sic) who died in Dallas County on 16 February 1965.


Well, keep digging [Steven], because I don't think it's possible that conspiracy mongers have been repeating a story for years and years that has no real basis. [~wink, wink~]

If you Google "Eddy Benavides Look-Alike", you'll find many, many conspiracy sites repeating this story, so there has to be something to
it, right? [~another wink~]


Here's a link to a Dallas Morning News article about his death, February 17, 1965, p. 10:


Benavides testified on April 2, 1964, as you say, well before his brother was shot. I don't know who first moved Edward's death back to February 1964 and put a sinister spin on it, but this myth turns up repeatedly in conspiracy books.

For instance, Harry Livingstone wrote, "Three months after the assassination, Benavides' brother Edward was murdered, and Domingo then changed his story and gave the testimony the government wanted." (p. 42, "The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy")

The same incorrect date is given by Penn Jones, Jim Marrs, and many others.

One might think that a site named "Spartacus Educational" would do a little fact checking. But no.


Damn you're good!

I've known about Newsbank for years, but I never thought to check it since my students have scoured the February 1964 issues of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS and the DALLAS TIMES HERALD.

I guess it's best not to accept *anything* that conspiracy books tell you.

I also tell my students to search for variations of names, but I'm not sure I would have come up with "Benavidez." Seems like one brother anglicized the name, and the other didn't.

It would, I suppose, be too much to expect conspiracy authors to spell Edward's name correctly.

Now that Jean has nailed down the date of the death, finding a good primary source might be more likely.

I'm inclined to say that I would use Roberts as a source, since I consider something written by a reputable journalist to be close to a "primary source."
If the same journalist wrote a story for a daily paper, that story would be considered a primary source.

Still . . . I would love to see the police report on that incident.


Now all we need to do is prove that Edward Benavidez [with a Z at the end of his name] was really the brother of Domingo Benavides [with an S]. Has anyone ever confirmed that he was?

According to the "sibling" list provided by Steven Dhuey earlier, Domingo did not have a brother named Edward (or a brother with an "E" as an initial either, or a brother who would have been 29 years old in February 1965, as Edward Benavidez was):

1. Lee Roy Benavides (b. 1 July 1933, Falls County, Texas)
2. T.J. Benavidez (male) (b. 5 March 1944, Dallas County, Texas)
3. Shelby Ann Benavides (b. 11 May 1945, Dallas County, Texas)

You don't suppose the conspiracy kooks like Jim Marrs (et al) have given Domingo a brother that he never really had, do you? That wouldn't really surprise me too much if the kooks had done that. But, as I said in an earlier post, it would surprise me to hear that the conspiracy theorists have literally CREATED a person out of thin air who never actually existed at all, which we can now confirm they did not do in the case of Edward Benavidez/Benavides, thanks to Jean Davison's fine research--yet again.

Of course, when thinking about this "Mystery Death" silliness a little more, it becomes quite obvious that even if a conspiracy plot did exist to kill JFK, the conspirators would have had no reason under the moon for wanting to knock off Domingo Benavides.

Benavides was a pretty good "LN" [Lone Nut] type of witness, overall. He didn't positively I.D. Oswald as Tippit's killer until 1967 on CBS-TV, that's true; but as far as I know he never ever said that Tippit's killer was positively NOT Lee Oswald. Domingo said that the killer "resembled the guy" (Oswald).

So there is no logical reason (or need) for any plotters to want to rub out Mr. Benavides. It's just silly. The same way it's totally silly for any conspirators to have wanted to rub out cab driver William Whaley. For Pete sake, Whaley positively identified Oswald in a police lineup! And yet Whaley is listed on Jim Marrs' "Mystery Death" list. It's ridiculous! (Even for Jim Marrs.)


Here is the death notice, also from the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. It gives a list of relatives, and apparently some anglicized their last names, and some did not:


The death notice of Edward Benavidez lists his survivors, and confirms that he was the brother of Domingo Benavides, and the son of Domingo (Sr.).

Perhaps Edward was born outside Texas, hence he is not in the Texas birth index.

I also find Edward living with his parents in a Dallas city directory from the 1950s.

Even Bugliosi has the wrong year (February 1964) for Edward's death in "Reclaiming History". Just proves one more time: always look for *primary* sources, not only secondary sources.


I would suspect that Vince wasn't overly concerned about confirming the precise date, and that's because it's connected to a theory about Edward's death that is ridiculously silly and far-fetched to begin with. And Vince B. doesn't waste too much time with such really silly things (although he did spend 15 pages in his book attacking one of the silliest theories of all-time--John Armstrong's "Two Oswalds" garbage; but perhaps Vince spent that much time on Armstrong just for the kicks of berating such an obviously idiotic theory).


OK, but I'm willing to say that Jean is simply a better researcher than Vince.


Jean Davison is the God (Goddess) of online researchers, IMO. No question about it.

I think part of the problem a person has who is stuck in the "19th century" (like Vince Bugliosi says he is with respect to computers and computer technology) is the fact that he doesn't have the fabulous "Information Super Highway" at his instant disposal the way all of us Internet users do.

Vince, to this day (although I've tried to tell him otherwise via e-mails to his secretary), doesn't seem to realize that every page of every volume of the Warren Commission and HSCA (and most other JFK-related material) is available for free online.

Vince gets some Internet stuff sent to him by his secretary, Rosemary Newton, but that really cannot begin to compare with Vince having 24/7 Internet access himself and being able to utilize the extremely helpful "Word Find" tools that can be found in any Internet browser. Without that "Find" tool, it would be hell to try and find a particular quote that is buried among hundreds of pages of testimony, etc.

So, Mr. Bugliosi was at a distinct disadvantage right from the get-go when he wrote his book "Reclaiming History". He had to get copies of the actual documents at either the National Archives or at various libraries.

Plus, if he needed to find a particular passage in the Warren Commission or HSCA testimony, he had to actually read through every word of the text in the physical volumes that he owns, which IMO would be torture in many instances when searching for something small and/or SPECIFIC.

But, then too (to be fair), when Mark Lane wrote his first book which came out in 1966 ("Rush To Judgment"), he certainly didn't have the Internet at his side either. Lane had to research the "old fashioned" way, like Vince did, without the aid of the great websites we have today, such as History Matters and the
Mary Ferrell site.

In fact, when Jean Davison wrote her excellent book ("Oswald's Game"), which was first published in 1983, she didn't have the World Wide Web to help her either. The Internet was still about a decade away from becoming a reality when Jean researched and wrote her book.

Anyway, I admire BOTH Jean Davison's work and Vincent Bugliosi's "old school" way of researching. And I owe a great debt of gratitude to Jean for pointing out the very key significance of one particular Warren Commission document -- CE903 -- which is an exhibit that almost all conspiracy theorists hate with a passion (or the CTers try to dismiss the exhibit as being "misleading" or they think it's nothing but a crock of Specter-authored bullshit, etc.).

I've kind of grabbed the CE903 baton from Jean Davison and have run with it many times in my own Internet articles, in order to illustrate the key point that Jean was making when she said what she said about CE903 at John Simkin's Education Forum in late December 2006 and early January 2007 --- with that key point being:

The Warren Commission (and Arlen Specter) certainly DID NOT require President Kennedy's upper-back wound to be "moved" up into the "neck" in order to support the Single-Bullet Theory. And Warren Commission Exhibit No. 903 demonstrably proves that fact for all time.


I'm wondering if "Donnie" in the death notice could be our Domingo? According to Bugliosi, a suspect "confessed and served twenty months for manslaughter," but I can't find a primary source for that.


Not necessarily convinced by these new claims. Any actual documents supporting them?


What actual documents did you see when you decided to believe the claim that Domingo's brother Eddy was killed because he was mistaken for Domingo, or to influence Domingo's testimony?

You were provided with a newspaper account of a man named Edward Benavidez killed in a bar on Second Avenue in Dallas in 1965. This you are skeptical about, but for years you were buying the whole "Benavides's brother's murder has something to do with the assassination" nonsense without applying any critical appraisal of the information whatsoever.

You never saw a photo of "Eddie", to see if he actually looked like Domingo, you never saw a police report or death certificate (suddenly these are requirements), the idea just appealed to you and you believed it. Just like the idea that Oswald was railroaded appeals to you.


FWIW, here are my thoughts on this (after looking at that death/funeral notice):

Edward H. Benavidez of Garland, Texas, was certainly the brother of Tippit murder witness Domingo Benavides, and the 2/18/65 newspaper clip pretty much confirms that fact. And the confirmation, IMO, is the fact that the death notice lists Edward Benavidez' father as "Mr. DOMINGO Benavidez"....

And Steven Dhuey's research on this matter indicates this:

"Their parents were Domingo Benavides (Sr.) and Elvis Clark (yes, her first name was Elvis)." -- Steven Dhuey; April 1, 2010

Plus, there's the fact that one of Edward's surviving sisters is named "Shelby", which aligns perfectly with the information that Steven supplied earlier about Domingo's siblings.

The brothers of Edward don't align themselves perfectly with Dhuey's data, however, with the newspaper clipping saying that Edward had a brother named "Thomas P. Benavidez"; whereas, Dhuey's data shows a "T.J. Benavidez". But, perhaps that is merely an error with the middle initial only that was made in one of those two documents. The "T" and "Thomas" would certainly line up, however.

And there's no third brother (Lee Roy) listed in the newspaper death notice. And Steven had earlier mentioned that Domingo definitely had a brother named Lee Roy, and that Lee Roy was still alive as recently as 1996.


So, there's still some rough edges around this whole "Eddy/Domingo" thing, but that death notice that appeared in a Dallas paper in February 1965 has enough "Benavidez" information in it to convince me that Edward and Domingo Jr. were indeed brothers. (Despite the different spellings of their last names, which is undoubtedly quite common for a name such as that.)


As for "Benavidez," [in] the death notice, you'll see that some members of the family seem to have anglicized their names, and others not.


That's not correct, John. In the 2/18/65 death notice you posted [shown again below], the last name is spelled "Benavidez" (with a Z) every single time.

But, IMO, that's not overly important, because that death notice is obviously talking about the death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Edward. And Domingo and Eddy both had a father named DOMINGO Benavidez Sr.


You are right. I had trouble distinguishing the "s" and "z" at the end.

One possibility is that [the] funeral home people simply misspelled "Benavides."

I suppose another is that JFK researchers have been misspelling "Benavidez," but I do tend to go with the WC on these things.

If the funeral home people misspelled "Benavides," then it's true that the newspaper misspelled the name in the short article Jean posted.

This is plausible. Somebody hearing "Benavides" could easily think it's "Benavidez."


Domingo Benavides said in his WC testimony [at 6 H 445] that he was born in Dallas, and that he would be turning 27 years old on 9 April 1964 (thus, he was born on 9 April 1937). The Texas birth index, 1903-1997, says that Domingo Benavides was born to Domingo Benavides and Elvis Clark in Dallas County on 9 April 1937. That same index says that Shelby Ann Benavides was born to Domingo Benavides and Elvis Clark Osuna in Dallas County in 1945.

The death notice of Edward Benavidez in the Dallas Morning News (18 February 1965) says that his parents were Mr. and Mrs. Domingo Benavidez, one of his brothers was Donnie Benavidez, of Dallas, another brother was Thomas Benavidez, and one of his sisters was Mrs. Shelby Harrison.

Domingo Benavides (Sr.) died on 19 March 1974, residing in Dallas. His death notice in the Dallas Morning News (21 March 1974) says that he was survived by his wife Elvis C. Benavides, his sons Donnie J. Benavides and Thomas Benavides, and daughters Mrs. Kenneth ... (and there my free view of the death notice ends, and I'm not paying $10 to read the rest).

Elvis Clark Benavides died on 28 September 1974, residing in Dallas (death notice 30 September 1974).

Perhaps those with free access to the archives of the Dallas Morning News could look up those death notices and see the family members listed.


Excellent, Steven.

Thank you.


When I was good, I noted that McAdams' students had found nothing re Eddy's death in 2/64. When I was bad, I didn't note that. Yes, sometimes I was bad. We were all going on that '64 date--me, McAdams, Bugliosi. Wonder how that started.


Probably one person said it and a lot of people repeated it, never bothering to check it out because it sounded good to them. And the reality is that there is a lot greater effort by the conspiracy industry to create these myths than there is in the LNer community to correct the record, only a handful of people even bother. Luckily a few of them post here, so I can benefit from their work by rubbing your nose in your mistakes.

There are a lot of these "soft" versions of information around, accepted by conspiracy "folks" (you know what I want to call them), but never really looked into by them because the information is good to them where it stands, suspicious sounding. The supposed assassination set-ups in Chicago and Tampa are like this, conspiracy "folks" don't really critically appraise the sources or the information, it is accepted [at] face value because it confirms what they want to believe as it stands.


You confuse newspaper ads with primary documents.


You think the Benavides/z family had to PAY for that death notice in the Dallas Morning News, Tony?

Why in the world do you consider a newspaper death notice to be an "ad"? That's crazy.

A death announcement in a newspaper is definitely a PRIMARY source, without doubt, in my view.

In fact, I'd consider an announcement like this one to contain about as good and solidly FACTUAL information as anything I can think of.

It's certainly much better than anything you'd see second-hand in a conspiracy book (or even a lone-assassin book). It amounts to an OFFICIAL notice of a person's death, with supplemental information contained therein regarding the dead person's family, etc.

Other than the death certificate itself, I don't see how anything could be considered more factual (or "primary") than a newspaper's death notice.


It [the 2/18/65 death notice of Edward H. Benavidez in the Dallas Morning News] is not an official document. It is ONLY a paid ad from the funeral home.

So, your position is that it is 100% accurate and every family member is named Benavidez with a "z"? Which family member in that ad is spelled with an "s"? None of them. Everyone is spelled with a "z", including Domingo. So this can't be our guy.


Sure it can. The information supplied by the funeral home (which, of course, obviously would have been information that came directly from the dead man's family) shows that the dead man's last name was spelled "Benavidez" (with a Z).

So, quite naturally, the other family members who have the same last name are going to be spelled the EXACT SAME WAY in that 2/18/65 DMN death notice (even though it's quite possible that some of those family members spelled their last name with an S, instead of a Z).

I think it's logical to assume that neither the newspaper nor the funeral home would have asked the family the following question --- Do all of the Benavidez family members spell their last names the exact same way?

Why on Earth would the Dallas Morning News have asked such a question? And, for that matter, why would the funeral home ask such a thing of the family either?

But, Tony, when you say "this can't be our guy", you are totally ignoring the fact that the death notice shows Edward's father to be named "DOMINGO", and the fact that one of Edward's sisters was named "SHELBY" -- which perfectly match the names of Domingo Benavides' father and sister.

Just a coincidence I suppose, huh Tony?


So when Domingo Benavides testified before the Warren Commission he lied about his name because it was really spelled Benavidez?


Domingo didn't SPELL OUT his last name, letter-by-letter, when he gave his Warren Commission testimony. Perhaps everybody has been misspelling Domingo's last name for 46 years. Maybe he really did spell it with a Z. Who knows? Did anybody ever ask him? Or has anybody ever seen a signed document in Domingo's handwriting to confirm how he spelled his last name? I sure haven't.

I will say that it would surprise me if the Warren Commission misspelled Domingo's last name. It's quite likely that somebody connected with the Commission confirmed via Domingo the correct spelling of his name prior to the printing of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. As far as I have been able to tell, the Commission did a very good job when it came to spelling the names of people accurately.


What death notice? What was uploaded is not a legal document. It is an ad from the funeral home. You can't tell an ad from a primary document? That explains a lot.


Here we are treated to another example of Tony Marsh electing to argue with someone about a subject which couldn't be any clearer -- i.e., Edward H. Benavidez was the brother of Tippit murder witness Domingo Benavides, and Edward was shot and killed in February 1965 (not 1964).

Let me predict what the "new wave" of Benavides arguments will be from the Jim Marrs-like researchers in the future:

The conspiracy kooks who recognize the rock-solid FACT (thanks to the Dallas Morning News clippings provided by Jean Davison and John McAdams) that Eddy Benavidez died in 1965 and not 1964 will now start claiming that Eddy's death is still to be considered "suspicious", and that Eddy's death was the motivating factor that prompted Domingo to POSITIVELY identify Lee Harvey Oswald as J.D. Tippit's killer two years later during a 1967 CBS-TV documentary.

After all, Jim Marrs wouldn't want to have to scratch Eddy's name off of his "Mystery Deaths" list, would he? (I doubt it.)


It's an ad.



An ad? What are they selling, dead people?

It's an announcement.


But we've already seen that the newspaper ad got it wrong and the Texas birth index got it wrong. Is this a contest to see who will get it the MOST wrong?


Keep ignoring the forest for the trees, because it has now been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Tippit shooting witness Domingo Benavides' brother was shot long *after* Domingo's WC testimony, not before it.

This is the point at which it is obvious you [Anthony Marsh] have nothing better to do but hector for hectoring's sake on trivialities to show everybody how smart you are.


There is nothing wrong with changing your name, but usually that has to be done legally in a court and court records need to exist to prove it.


A lot of times these things happen when some clerk puts the name one way or another on a form, and it becomes easier to keep that spelling than trying to change it.


Sure, then maybe you can show me what clerk did it when in what record. But don't cite one newspaper ad as evidence that this is what happened in this example. That doesn't explain the Texas birth record.


But it does explain that Domingo's brother being shot had nothing to do with what Domingo testified to, which is the only real point to this whole affair.

You can try to draw people's attention from this by squawking about a "z' instead of an "s", but this [is] going to distract focus from the fact that another CTer claim has gone down in flames.


But, Tony, when you say "this can't be our guy", you are totally ignoring the fact that the death notice shows Edward's father to be named "DOMINGO", and the fact that one of Edward's sisters was named "SHELBY" -- which perfectly match the names of Domingo Benavides' father and sister.


I wasn't serious. I was making fun of John's pretending to believe that the funeral home notice was 100% accurate and qualifies as an official document.


Show me his [Domingo Jr.'s] birth certificate spelled with a "z." Or his work record. Anything from his childhood with a "z." Record of baptism?


I can't show you anything of his spelled with an "S" either.

So, it's a wash.

And a newspaper death notice is certainly a PRIMARY source to confirm a person has DIED. To believe it isn't, you've got to be a fool.


Is a wedding announcement an official document to prove a couple is married? Would that hold up in court?


That's completely different. The bride or groom could back out and decide not to go through with the wedding. But I kinda doubt a dead man is going to suddenly start living again.


The bone of contention is not that he died. Obviously he died.


But why would you (of all people) be willing to jump to that wholly unwarranted assumption, Mr. William Anthony Marsh?

According to your own beliefs, you haven't seen anything that remotely resembles a "primary" document to confirm Edward Benavidez' death. So how do you know Eddy died at all, since you're unwilling to accept the 2/18/65 Dallas Morning News death notice as "primary" documentation?


My Uncle Lee Roy [Benavides] was killed in a single car accident on his way back from a trip to Oklahoma around 1965.

My uncle Eddie was shot in the back of the head at a bar in Dallas. Lee Roy and Eddie were best friends according to their younger brother, my father, Thomas Benavides.

My uncle Eddie was living with my grandmother, Elvis Benavides, and was wearing my Uncle Domingo's work shirt that had the name "Donnie" on the name tag on the day he was killed. They looked very similar, that is why Donnie moved to California directly after Eddie was killed, only returning a few times in my life before passing away in 2008 [this source, however, says Domingo died in 2005]. He lived most of his life in fear for his life for what he witnessed. He was a good man and I believe everything he said.


Thank you, Brandon, for the additional information.

If your Uncle Lee Roy died prior to February 16, 1965, which could certainly be the case if the "around 1965" date in your above post is correct, that would explain why Lee Roy was not mentioned in the 2/18/65 Dallas Morning News death notice for Edward Benavidez.


Have an idea. Send someone in Dallas down to the Laurel Land cemetery with a camera. Take a picture of the Edward Benavides headstone. It would probably be accurate as to year, spelling, etc.


Good idea, Don.

Here is Eddy Benavidez' gravestone:

FindAGrave.com/Edward H. Benavidez (1935—1965)


I just can't believe contemporary writers like Penn Jones, Jr. and Sylvia Meagher couldn't get his date correct. That is what we are asked to believe if we accept Eddy Benavides was shot in 1965. It also calls for us to think it was NO big deal that Domingo Benavides would NOT I.D. LHO, but face no reprisal like others in this case did.


So, Rob, do you think the death certificate pictured below, dug up recently by Chris Simondet, is a fake too? Even though it's got all types of different 1965 dates all over it---in stamped form and handwritten form and typewritten form. ALL of those dates really SHOULD say 1964, per Robert Caprio. (I love the level of a conspiracy clown's denial. It's great.)

Click to enlarge:

In addition, I wonder how likely it would be that the man named Edward Benavidez (with a father named Domingo and a sister named Shelby) is NOT the same man that JFK researchers have been calling Eddy Benavides (who has a father named Domingo and a sister named Shelby)? Especially when we also factor in the circumstances of the death -- i.e., being shot in the head in a saloon/bar.

Even Jim Marrs and other conspiracy theorists seem to think that the cause of Eddy's death was, indeed, a "gunshot wound to the head" during a scuffle in a bar. The only thing the CTers have wrong is the date. They think he was killed in 1964, but as all the official records prove, it was really 1965, which was a full year AFTER Domingo gave his Warren Commission testimony.


Why did it take 45 years [sic] to straighten this out? And why must we rely on a newspaper ad to prove a fact?


We no longer have to rely only on the newspaper announcements. We've got the official death certificate for Edward H. Benavidez now, too. Here it is.

And, just for good measure, here's another newspaper clipping (below), this one from the Associated Press, which matches the information in the 2/17/65 Dallas Morning News article, including the part about Edward Benavidez dying on "Tuesday night", which also perfectly aligns with Eddy's death certificate. The death certificate shows the "Date of Death" as February 16, 1965, which was, indeed, a Tuesday....


A side note to all this "Benavides" talk....

It's kind of interesting for me (as a baseball fan in general and as a fan of the Cincinnati Reds in particular) to take note of the fact that the Reds had an infielder named Freddie Benavides play for them for two years in 1991 and 1992.

Freddie, just like most of the people named Benavides (or Benavidez) mentioned in this discussion, was born in the state of Texas (he was born in Laredo, Texas, in April 1966).

If I were a betting man, I'd wager to say that former major league shortstop Alfredo "Freddie" Benavides of Laredo, Texas, is related in some fashion to J.D. Tippit murder witness Domingo Benavides.

David Von Pein
April 1-5, 2010
July 30, 2014
October 30-31, 2015