11-03-2019, 03:13 PM
Attached Item 01.pdf dated 5/7/76 (postdates Item 16.pdf 3/29/76) expresses Weisberg's contradictory opinion, "This also supports my analysis of when Bowley (I presume) broke in after BENAVIDES."
This conclusion is inexplicable unless Weisberg mixed up the names, although his desire to afford precedence to Benavides may have warped his judgment. One suspects another pitfall that befell his analysis may have been ignorance of Benavides' "lost" DPD affidavit. It disappeared for a reason, probably because its content precluded subbing him in for Bowley when the LN planners worked out the details of how to dupe the WC. IOW it said little more than indicated in Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report: "Another witness who saw the officer lying in the street, but did not see suspect, was a Domingo Benavides, 509 East Jefferson, WH 2-0559." Surely if Weisberg had read this he would have realized how foolish it was to attribute the 1:16 "a police officer, 510 E. Jefferson" transmission to Benavides, but it was no less foolish to reverse names and attribute it to Bowley.
This conclusion is inexplicable unless Weisberg mixed up the names, although his desire to afford precedence to Benavides may have warped his judgment. One suspects another pitfall that befell his analysis may have been ignorance of Benavides' "lost" DPD affidavit. It disappeared for a reason, probably because its content precluded subbing him in for Bowley when the LN planners worked out the details of how to dupe the WC. IOW it said little more than indicated in Leavelle's Supplementary Offense Report: "Another witness who saw the officer lying in the street, but did not see suspect, was a Domingo Benavides, 509 East Jefferson, WH 2-0559." Surely if Weisberg had read this he would have realized how foolish it was to attribute the 1:16 "a police officer, 510 E. Jefferson" transmission to Benavides, but it was no less foolish to reverse names and attribute it to Bowley.