Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 1, 2022 19:22:16 GMT -5
Why Witness Domingo Benavides' Affidavit Went Missing
By Donald Willis 6/20
glocalbuzz.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FotoJet-1-850x1024.jpg
In a joint report dated 11/22/63 and signed by DPD Detectives Jim Leavelle and C.N. Dhority, it was stated that Tippit witness Domingo Benavides made out an affidavit. (With Malice, p. 449) The latter, if it still exists, has never been made public. But the joint report suggests what might have been in that missing document.
There was some confusion--even outright contradiction--in the police reports that day concerning Benavides.
In a separate Report on Officer's Duties, Leavelle wrote: "Officer [Joe] Poe told me someone had picked up two empty .38 hulls from the street and given them to him, but he did not know who it was." (CE 2003, p. 217) And although Poe refers to someone who might be Benavides in the Poe-Jez report (also 11/22), he confirms that this witness was "unidentified". Apparently neither Poe nor Jez took notes re this witness, although they apparently did take notes on another witness, Mrs. Helen Markham, called, in their report, "Helen Marsalle", "328 E. 9th Street". (With Malice, p. 487)
Poe-Jez's unidentified witness purportedly saw the suspect: "the suspect reloaded the gun as he ran across the church lawn." Again, poor note-taking, or memory, hampers the usefulness of the report. Nowhere else is anyone reported to have run across a church lawn. Poe and Jez seem to be conflating separate incidents. But a reference to "two empty hulls in an empty cigarette pack" indicates that the report did indeed refer, in part, to Benavides.
The Leavelle-Dhority report contradicts the Poe-Jez report: "Another witness who saw the officer lying in the street, but did not see the suspect, was a Domingo Benavides, 501 East Jefferson, WR 2-0559." Much better documentation here, suggesting that Leavelle and/or Dhority also talked to Benavides. In fact, in his Commission testimony, Leavelle confirms that he did talk to the witness: "When I talked to Domingo, he said he was the one [who] picked [the hulls] up and gave them to the officer." (4/7/64, p. 263)
So. Poe-Jez: "reloaded the gun as he ran across the church lawn". Leavelle-Dhority: "did not see the suspect". Four-plus months later, on 4/2/64, Benavides went with the Poe-Jez version (though without the "church"). In-between, however, neither he nor his affidavit was heard from.
Benavides, however, seems to have gone with the wrong report, and the wrong officers. Benavides testifies, "Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock... these two officers [Leavelle and Dhority] came around and asked me if I'd seen [the gunman], and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen...." (V6, pp. 451-2) Benavides' memory fails him badly. Leavelle and Dhority reported--four months earlier--that Benavides actually told them that he hadn't seen the gunman. Could Benavides have been testifying re Poe and Jez? No, he told the Commission--in answer to counsel's "When the officers came out there, did you tell them what you had seen?" --"No, sir. I left right after. I give the shells to the officer. I turned around and went back, and we returned to work. (V6, p. 451)
So Benavides testifies that he told Poe and Jez nothing--so much for the fictional Poe-Jez report, or at least the portion concerning Benavides. The latter's story fails at both ends--on 11/22 with Leavelle and Dhority, and on 4/2/64 with Poe (V7, p. 68) and Sgt. Hill (V8, pp. 48-49), who both haplessly testify that Benavides had seen the suspect running and reloading. Benavides leaves Poe and Hill and their testimony high and dry, and Leavelle and Dhority's report, in turn, leaves Benavides high and dry. And of course Sgt. Hill's 1:40 "auto .38" transmission seems to undercut Benavides, Poe, and Hill. And would have undercut them at the hearings if he had not denied sending it. Any way you cut it, Benavides clearly did not see the killer running and discarding hulls.
dcw
By Donald Willis 6/20
glocalbuzz.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FotoJet-1-850x1024.jpg
In a joint report dated 11/22/63 and signed by DPD Detectives Jim Leavelle and C.N. Dhority, it was stated that Tippit witness Domingo Benavides made out an affidavit. (With Malice, p. 449) The latter, if it still exists, has never been made public. But the joint report suggests what might have been in that missing document.
There was some confusion--even outright contradiction--in the police reports that day concerning Benavides.
In a separate Report on Officer's Duties, Leavelle wrote: "Officer [Joe] Poe told me someone had picked up two empty .38 hulls from the street and given them to him, but he did not know who it was." (CE 2003, p. 217) And although Poe refers to someone who might be Benavides in the Poe-Jez report (also 11/22), he confirms that this witness was "unidentified". Apparently neither Poe nor Jez took notes re this witness, although they apparently did take notes on another witness, Mrs. Helen Markham, called, in their report, "Helen Marsalle", "328 E. 9th Street". (With Malice, p. 487)
Poe-Jez's unidentified witness purportedly saw the suspect: "the suspect reloaded the gun as he ran across the church lawn." Again, poor note-taking, or memory, hampers the usefulness of the report. Nowhere else is anyone reported to have run across a church lawn. Poe and Jez seem to be conflating separate incidents. But a reference to "two empty hulls in an empty cigarette pack" indicates that the report did indeed refer, in part, to Benavides.
The Leavelle-Dhority report contradicts the Poe-Jez report: "Another witness who saw the officer lying in the street, but did not see the suspect, was a Domingo Benavides, 501 East Jefferson, WR 2-0559." Much better documentation here, suggesting that Leavelle and/or Dhority also talked to Benavides. In fact, in his Commission testimony, Leavelle confirms that he did talk to the witness: "When I talked to Domingo, he said he was the one [who] picked [the hulls] up and gave them to the officer." (4/7/64, p. 263)
So. Poe-Jez: "reloaded the gun as he ran across the church lawn". Leavelle-Dhority: "did not see the suspect". Four-plus months later, on 4/2/64, Benavides went with the Poe-Jez version (though without the "church"). In-between, however, neither he nor his affidavit was heard from.
Benavides, however, seems to have gone with the wrong report, and the wrong officers. Benavides testifies, "Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock... these two officers [Leavelle and Dhority] came around and asked me if I'd seen [the gunman], and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen...." (V6, pp. 451-2) Benavides' memory fails him badly. Leavelle and Dhority reported--four months earlier--that Benavides actually told them that he hadn't seen the gunman. Could Benavides have been testifying re Poe and Jez? No, he told the Commission--in answer to counsel's "When the officers came out there, did you tell them what you had seen?" --"No, sir. I left right after. I give the shells to the officer. I turned around and went back, and we returned to work. (V6, p. 451)
So Benavides testifies that he told Poe and Jez nothing--so much for the fictional Poe-Jez report, or at least the portion concerning Benavides. The latter's story fails at both ends--on 11/22 with Leavelle and Dhority, and on 4/2/64 with Poe (V7, p. 68) and Sgt. Hill (V8, pp. 48-49), who both haplessly testify that Benavides had seen the suspect running and reloading. Benavides leaves Poe and Hill and their testimony high and dry, and Leavelle and Dhority's report, in turn, leaves Benavides high and dry. And of course Sgt. Hill's 1:40 "auto .38" transmission seems to undercut Benavides, Poe, and Hill. And would have undercut them at the hearings if he had not denied sending it. Any way you cut it, Benavides clearly did not see the killer running and discarding hulls.
dcw