A holiday mood prevailed throughout Douglas, Arizona on June 23, 24 and 25, the three days Sister spent in the city after her escape from Mexican captivity. Many townspeople took one or more of the days off, either in order to celebrate her reappearance or to bask in their hometown’s sudden fame, or both.
The story made extra good business for the telephone and telegraph companies. The Rocky Mountain Telephone Company did the largest business in long distance calls in its history, logging 500 calls to Los Angeles alone, at an average cost of $10.00 each. Western.Union, meanwhile, flashed more than 95,000 words from Douglas to Los Angeles newspapers, including one transmission of 7,000 words — Mrs. McPherson's detailed statement made to Captain Cline and Deputy District Attorney Ryan — which the Examiner described as “believed to be the longest legal statement ever sent by telegraph in the history of Western Union” (p. 2, June 28, 1926). That newspaper boasted that this transmission had been addressed to it, but evidently the Examiner couldn't get an exclusive, for the Times printed most, if not all, of ittoo.
Los Angeles Evening Express had the best of it on the first day, and the editors didn’t hesitate to publicize their feats. “Express Scores Great M’Pherson Story Beat” captioned an article which crowed:
“It may not be modest, and we hate to make the opposition feel any worse than they do now if that is possible — but the news ‘scoop’ or ‘beat’ of the Evening Express today upon the discovery of Aimee Semple McPherson, missing evangelist, was so com-plete and outstanding that it really commands some comment.
“The Evening Express was on the streets of Los Angeles in the hands of newsboys almost two hours before any other afternoon paper was being sold on the downtown streets...
“Not only that, but the first Evening Express extra was on the streets more than half an hour before an extra issued by a morning paper that had the ad-antage of a staff that had been on duty several hours and were in their best shape to handle an extra, was out...
“Thus, once again it is demonstrated that in get-ting ALL THE NEWS, all the news FIRST and ALL THE NEWS FIRST ALL THE TIME, the Evening Express is in a class by itself, far ahead of any competitors.” (p. 2, June 23, 1926).
The same newspaper boasted that its representative was the “first and only reporter in the house (parsonage beside the Temple) and in conversation with Mother Kennedy for almost an hour after the first report (of the reapppearance) came in” (ibid.). But the Evening Express wasn't averse to printing a misrepresentation, if not a bold-faced lie, for the paper proclaimed that ‘news of the discovery” of the evangelist alive “was personally taken to her (Mother Kennedy) by an Evening Express reporter”
(ibid.). Actually it was Police Captain Herman Cline who broke the news to Mrs. Kennedy.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Record captioned its counter-claim, “THE TRUTH — QUICK!” and rationalized:
“Today as usual the Record was the Los Angeles newspaper to give the public the first accurate, detailed, and complete story of the finding of Aimee Semple McPherson alive.
“Rival newspapers which ran neck and neck with the Record in the race to put extra editions on the downtown streets did NOT carry sufficient facts to establish the truth of the astounding news.
“One afternoon rival, which arrived on the streets from half-an-hour to an hour later than the Record, did not carry a verified report of the story.
“The Record, via airplane, long-distance telephone and telegraph, will continue to provide The Truth Quick and first, regarding Aimee Semple McPherson's thrilling escape from kidnappers” (p. 2, June 23, 1926).
On the front page of the same issue — bannered in big letters 5th EXTRA — the information “Record Sends Reporter and Cameraman By Air,” captions about eight column inches of copy. Jack Carberry and E.E. McDowell chartered a plane named “King Tut” which took off from Clover Field.
However, the Record was counting its chickens before they hatched. The next day a rival’s headline’s blared, “EXPRESS WINS AIRPLANE RACE FOR AIMEE PHOTOS.” A picture five columns wide and four inches deep showed Mrs. McPherson on a hopital bed in Douglas with the Mayor of Douglas, A.E. Hinton, sitting to the right of her bedside. The article claimed that the Evening Express had “scored the ‘scoop’ of the year over all other Southern California newspapers” when it won “one of the most thrilling” races to “obtain pictures and a complete story of Aimee Semple McPherson for the public of Los Angeles.” The Express claimed it “issued an extra containing the first photographs of the evangelist to be shown since her rescue” and touted the story its reporters wired back, “It reads like a novel and is replete with thrills, a tale of newspapermen and their work in the raw” (p. 1, June 24, 1926).
Probably the reason why the Express scooped the competition had to do with its Associated Press connections. No other Los Angeles aftérnoon daily subscribed to AP, and that association got the story out one hour ahead of any other wire service. And Associated Press did not hesitate to brag about its speed either!
Accustomed as people are today to get the latest news, not from the press but over radio and television, it is hard for many who never heard paper hawkers screeching, “Extree! Extree! Read all about it!”, to realize the fierce competition which used to involve the press in newspaper wars and no-holds-barred struggles to increase circulation at the expense of rivals.
Mother Kennedy refused to believe the good news that her daughter was alive. So completely committed was she to the drowning theory that not even the voice of Mrs. McPherson over the telephone wire convinced her at first. She fired about twenty questions concerning matters no one but the evangelist could have easily explained before being fully persuaded. That night she and her grandchildren took the Sauthern Pacific train for Douglas. Cline and Ryan rode the same train.
Meanwhile, back in the Arizona.city, reporters from less distant cities than Los Angeles commenced checking out the evangelist’s story. The initial reports from Douglas described Mrs. McPherson as in considerably less favorable condition physically than would be printed in weeks to follow. Some accounts proved contradictory. The Los Angeles Evening Express may have gotten out the news first, but it erred in reporting that Sister was “covered with mud” when she “staggered into Agua Prieta” wearing a ‘mud stained garment” (June 23, 1926, p. 2). There was, of course, no mud.
Later accounts would emphasize that the clothing the evangelist wore was not noticeably soiled and that her shoes showed little or no wear. However, John Anderson, the taxi-driver who transported her from Agua Prieta to Douglas, told reporters that when he picked her up her clothing was “frayed and soiled,” as the Los Angeles Herald reported (June 23, 1926).
But by June 24 doubts were being expressed that the evangelist could have made her desert trek without shoes and dress showing more wear. The Record had reported the shoes “scuffed,” and Douglas Police Chief Percy Bowden noticed that Sister's feet were “blistered and she was exhausted” (p. 2, June 23, 1926). But that didn't muzzle the skeptics. Mrs. Kennedy would attempt to counter the doubts on Friday the 25th by calling to reporters attention the condition of the dress and shoes her daughter had worn out onto the desert in search of the captivity shack that morning. The white poplin silk dress was “barely soiled," Mrs. Kennedy pointed out when her daughter stood and turned about for the benefit of reporters present. “You can see that it isn’t torn, and also that her shoes are not badly scratched or marred.”
On the other hand, the Los Angeles Record stated, concerning the shoes Sister wore in from the desert, that the “uppers were as good as new, while the soles were badly scarred and stained with juices from weeds and grass,” but made that concession at the tag end of a dispatch captioned, “Aimee Shoes in Good Shape: Fail to Show Effect of Travel in Desert, Ariz. Sheriff's Claim” (May 24, 1926). Throughout the case the evangelist complained that news favorable to her was usually buried at the end of the articles while statements skeptical of her Story were featured in the leads. Actually she had less to resent in the Record than any other Los Angeles daily because that paper at least professed to handling the story objectively. The other newspapers openly scouted her account.
The Sheriff who frankly told the evangelist, on the basis of her shoes and Clothing, that he did not believe her story was James A. McDonald of Cohise County, Arizona, who lost his bid for re-election tater that year, some observers assessed, because of his constituent's displeasure with the Position he took against Mrs. McPherson. C.E. Cross, an Opponent who favored Mrs. McPherson but a man little known publicly, also fost out in that contest.
; The issue of the evangelists’s clothing and shoes would simmer for months, all the way into the last days of the preliminary hearing when expert witnesses from the Arizona desert would appear to confirm that they had made comparable treks without their clothes or shoes showing any ates or soiling than did Sister's. But that was late On June 23, investigators interviewed individuals who Saw the evangelist from the outset of her return. They learned from Officer George W. Cook that he had inspected the red welts on her wrists which she attributed to the rope which had tied them. Cook saw Nothing to make him doubt that the splotches had developed otherwise. He had smelled her breath for liquor and commented, “I don’t know whether you call it a constipated breath, but like my own breath when my stomach is empty or a person is upset.”
The seeming discrepancies between reports of witnesses who saw Mrs. McPherson a few hours after her return and reported how badly she looked, and witnesses who Saw her several hours later and noted her condition as surprisingly good, may be reconcilable on the theory of her demonstratedly rapid recovery Proclivities. Once she had talked to her family she improved immeasurably.
Yet, still several hours after that telephone reunion, Maude J. Robinson saw the evangelist and could not believe it was the same woman whose ministry she had followed for years. Mrs. Robinson and her thirteen year old daughter, Mary Ellen, were on the Southern Pacific train which stopped at the Douglas, Arizona depot about 4 p.m. on June 23. While the train stood in the station, Mrs. Robinson saw headlines on the Douglas Dispatch heralding the evangelist’s reappearance. Hastily she arranged a stop-over and hurried to the hospital to see the evangelist, “not out of curiosity but with a desire to help.” The authorities would not permit Mrs. Robinson to see Sister. She thereupon contacted the Douglas reporter who had written the story in the Dispatch. He obtained permission for Mrs. Robinson, who lived at 604 Glenwood Road in Glendale, California, to visit the evangelist. She reported, “Because of the emaciated condition in which found Mrs. McPherson in the Douglas
Hospital, it was difficult for me to recognize her as the same person, and found myself questioning as to whether or not it was not some other person, impersonating Mrs. McPherson.” When those doubts dispelled, Mrs. Robinson declared, “Her physical condition when saw her in Douglas, Arizona showed Clearly that she had undergone a severe strain of nervous energy.” Sister had a “hunted” look about her eyes, indicating to me that she had suffered extreme fear recently.” Mrs. Robinson, whose statement was witnessed by Edna A. Thatcher, would have been one of the witnesses called by the defense at the jury trial, had the case against Mrs. McPherson been prosecuted, to testify concerning the evangel-ist's actual appearance and condition after arrival in Douglas, countering some who pretended she looked like the picture of health! But, of course, District Attorney Keyes dismissed the case against the evangelist, conceding that he could not hope to secure a conviction with the evidence in the state it was.
Hours before Mrs. Robinson saw Sister, during recital of her ordeal to some of the first interviewers, Mrs. McPherson, according to the Evening Express extra, “lapsed many times into a stupor, the result of exhaustion” (p. 2, June 23, 1926). Even three days later her face still showed signs of strain. The Sunday Examiner published a picture taken soon after she arrived back in Los Angeles on Saturday. The caption included, “This picture clearly reveals the fatigue that has touched her features with new and sharp lines.”
Meanwhile, investigators were trying to trace origin of the clothing the evangelist had worn in from the desert. It did not take long to ascertain that the dress had been purchased at Levy Brothers on or after June 14 during a special sale which offered this particular “sleazy” costume at $1.00. Salesmen in the store on G Avenue in Douglas recalled seeing a man and woman fitting Mrs. McPherson’s descriptions of Steve and Rose making purchases in the store during that period.
Efforts were also made to trace the origin of the Bon Ton corset numbered 728, carrying a factory number of 24632, and the size 6% shoes with New Era heels number 54-761 which, because they were too large, raised blisters on the evangelist's feet. She said they belonged to Rose. Eventually Joe Ryan learned that this particular style was about ten years old. The proprietor of Bechtel’s dry good store in San Pedro told him that the only place where this number was available was a certain store in San Diego. The shoes were never traced either.
And so the news wires hummed with facts and fables and fantasies.