The bad publicity about its pastor didn’t hurt attendances at Angelus Temple. Mrs. McPherson ministered to record crowds at virtually every service, and these came often, for her speaking schedule usually included three meetings on Sundays, two on Wednesdays, and at least one every other day except Monday. The main auditorium seated 5,300, and sometimes more than 7,000 crowded in, plus overflows in other smaller auditoriums upwards of 1,800. Often people sat on the platform floor around the evangelist, as well as standing along the walls and sitting on the stairs in the aisles of the two balconies.
In the summer of 1926 public opinion leaned in favor of the evangelist in spite of the newspapers’ harangues and the attacks of certain other clergymen. The distinguished flocked to the services. On the Sunday before the grand jury voted to return no indictments, Senator and Mrs. William H. King of Utah attended, as well as an old friend of the Temple, the widow of William Jennings Bryan who had preached from Mrs. McPherson's pulpit before his passing.
Meanwhile, Long Beach's blind attorney McKinley wormed his way back into the case. “Wormed” may be the wrong word, because it’s remotely possible his intentions were honorable and his efforts sincere. To accept that conclusion you almost have to discount completely the testimony of his secretary, Bernice Morris, after the lawyer's tragic death. If her allegations were true — namely, that her employer from the beginning disbelieved Mrs. McPherson's account of kidnapping and assumed her disappearance was completely voluntary — then McKinley's efforts to secure remuneration for his services from the Temple were a veritable rip-off, nothing short of extortion or obtaining money under false pretences.
It's possible — perhaps probable — that McKinley talked out of both sides of his mouth, pretending to credit the evangelist’s story when conversing with her and her mother and scouting that same story when talking to Miss Morris and others. However, one of McKinley's bosom buddies, Mr. C.C. Patterson of Pomona, insisted that the lawyer told him he believed every word that Mrs. McPherson had said in regard to her being kidnapped. McKinley assured Patterson that he was confident he was in contact with the veritable kidnappers. Patterson was accustomed to visiting McKinley in his Long Beach office. On the day the attorney protested his faith in the evangelist, McKinley had asked Patterson whether there was anything about the case in the newspaper, and when advised affirmatively the attorney requested his friend to read it to him. Patterson often read various items to Mckinley.
The blind attorney evidently had no further contact with the Temple after receiving the questions Mrs. Kennedy submitted to be passed on to Wilson and Miller, the purported kidnappers, until the night before the grand jury hearing commenced. He came to the Administration Building, now serving as a parsonage, very late, but Sister and Mother refused to admit him, perhaps on the advice of counsel. “We were afraid to see him because people would say he was a witness and we had seen witnesses,” the evangelist said concerning this attempted contact. “We told him to come back after the grand jury.”
McKinley next approached Judge Carlos Hardy, but Hardy was hazy, when questioned three months later about the visits, as to whether this was before or after the grand jury session. The judge's best recollection placed the contact “in early July.”
If McKinley was pretending his faith in Mrs. McPherson and his sincerity in dealing with the professed kidnappers, he completely snowed Judge Hardy. Hardy would later swear in court, “I believed the story that he (McKinley) told me in its entirety.” Hardy insisted, “I believed he was acting sincerely.” The two men conducted a considerable discussion in which McKinley supported the evangelist's story.
The first time or two Hardy saw the lawyer in July, McKinley came to the judge’s chambers. McKinley rehearsed his original encounters with Wilson and Miller, which Hardy already knew from late May when Mrs. Kennedy informed him. But now the attorney had another encounter to report. He told Hardy about a visit from Wilson subsequent to the evangelists reappearance, “McKinley, well, our plans failed, didn’t they?” Wilson commenced. “They have got your woman ina hell of ashape.” McKinley told Hardy he replied, “Yes, it seems so. Can't you help her out of it?" Wilson replied, “Well, think could, probably.” He recommended that McKinley see Miller and make arrangements.
Later that July, McKinley communicated with Hardy again, advising that Wilson had decided not to cooperate in helping the evangelist, but that Miller was willing to furnish information concerning the first house where Mrs. MoPherson had been held captive. Wilson suggested McKinley meet with Miller in San Francisco the following week. Wilson warned, “You can’t bring anybody with you, because if you do, we'll kill 'em."
Hardy remonstrated against the contact. “Mack, that is all foolishness. You cannot go to San Francisco. You can't go up there alone, a blind man. There is no use going up there anyway, because you could not deal wth the men up there. They will probably ask you for money and you can't give them any money, and the whole thing will be futile.” Later Hardy agreed that McKinley keep an appointment Miller requested at the St. Francis Hotel.
Meanwhile, McKinley was in contact with Mrs. McPherson and Mrs. Kennedy. By this time the Temple leaders were having stenographers monitor such meetings. Mae Waldron took down the proceedings in shorthand. McKinley proposed an interview with Mrs. McPherson in private, but Mother nixed that idea decisively. Then the lawyer launched into a lengthy statement:
“There are people, even those pretty high up, who would not stop at anything in this matter, and fire has to be fought with fire.
“Some time ago, though will not mention the date, and have witnesses to the truth of this — was approached by two men from the Los Angeles Times.”
The blind attorney, of course, had no way of checking whether these men actually represented that newspaper or just were pretending the association. He continued:
“They came to my home and said they had had a tip from somebody that this story had given out was simply a ruse of mine put forth as a trap for you. They were, of course, opening themselves up for the story they wanted to tell me.
“They suggested give the Times a regular story and come out with the fact that there never was any questions given to me and that if would come out with that sort of a story they had everything they needed for a complete routing of your forces. Of course, they assured me if would do that would be broadcasted in such a way my future would be made.
“That is to give you an idea of how far they will deviate from the truth and the right if occasion commands it. That would be quite a slap in the face of this other (presumably the Carmel identifications which were just breaking).”
McKinley told the Temple leaders that he declined the offer, but the pair pressed him. They returned to his office the next night and continued their pitch. “On both occasions they were turned down flat,” the lawyer professed, assuring that he gave “no consideration” to the offer. “Whether it be the Times or Ryan, there is no step to which they would not go,” he warned Sister and Mother. He continued:
“In the practice of criminal law we find many times evidence is dug up out of whole cloth. Person ally, felt sure of their motive. They urged that the benefits that would come (to me) from such a story would be many.
“Anidea, to some people, is sufficient, and they pro-duced the idea.
“When went before the grand jury told the same story told you. In giving testimony they asked me for an opinion. refused to give it. They are to form their own.
“Personally want you to know and feel am steadfastly in your favor. Many, however, do not know that, but there are times when it is wise to speak and greater assistance can be given by me in the psycho- logical moment than running to the newspapers.”
Mrs. McPherson here interrupted, “Do you feel you know the kidnappers or how they can be reached?” Mae Waldron notes, “Mr. McKinley hesitated before replying,” whereupon Mrs. Kennedy commented, “I know Mrs. McPherson has every confidence in Judge Hardy and think the thing to dois to see the Judge while he is in town and have atalk with him.” Hardy was then preparing to leave Los Angeles for a vacation. Mother remarked, “You are both lawyers and could understand each other better. believe the proper thing for you to do, Mr. McKinley, would be to have a talk with Judge Hardy.”
After elaborating on that recommendation, Mrs. Kennedy terminated the interview and, according to the stenographic report, “called in Dr. Howard to talk with Mr. McKinley on matters not pertaining to this case. Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. McPherson both left the room.”
Since Dr. Howard was a Baptist pastor from Douglas, Arizona, it is probably that the “‘matters not pertaining to the case" pertained to the lawyer's soul. The minister likely witnessed to McKinley concerning conversion to Christ.
This interview occurred about 3 p.m. on July 27. The transcript clearly demonstrates that McKinley oozed sincerity and protested his faith in Sister's story when closeted with the Temple leaders and their stenographer. Was he faking? Or was he honest?
McKinley initiated further communication with Superior Court Judge Carlos Hardy. On one visit to the jurist's office the lawyer took with him former United States Senator Perkey and suggested that Perkey might accompany him to San Francisco for the proposed rendezvous with kidnapper Miller.
McKinley suggested to Hardy how he proposed to determine whether his contacts were the abductors or frauds. He explained, “If they were genuine they could furnish information as to where they stayed the first few days and that probably could be verified; they need not go further than that if they don’t want to disclose it, and we might be able to establish the story up to that point.” McKinley also confided,
“Miller says that he will furnish all the information that the state wants to establish the fact that he had Mrs. McPherson.”
Meanwhile, McKinley collected monies for expenses from the Temple, plus a $1,000.00 retainer for his services in trying to get the kidnappers to prove they had abducted the evangelist. Bernice Morris, the lawyer's “eyes” and secretary professed that McKinley never confided to her his collection of the fee. But Mother Kennedy had a receipt signed by the attorney.
On August 15, McKinley and Morris went to San Francisco, professedly to meet Miller at the St. Francis Hotel. Miller didn’t show up. Or if he did, the Long Beach pair didn't admit it. Possibly the accompaniment of the secretary who could identify him kept Miller at bay.
Meanwhile, if Bernice Morris is to be believed, McKinley was laughing up his sleeves at the Temple leaders. Actually, there seems to be no firm evidence of McKinley's duplicity except the testimony of Bernice Morris which she did not make public until after her employer's death when he could not contradict her, if contradiction was in order. If the secretary told the truth that she and McKinley disbelieved the kidnapping story, then she and the lawyer were openly engaging in fraud, for they pretended to be trying to help the evangelist. It's possible to give McKinley the benefit of the doubt only by discounting Miss Morris’ testimony. If she told the truth, then McKinley was a liar and she his accomplice in dealings with Mrs. McPherson and her mother. Bernice Morris later certainly misrepresented her dealings with the Temple subsequent to her employer's death.
Meanwhile, McKinley was keeping in touch with Sister and Mother, continuously assuring them, "I know can getin touch with these people (the purported kidnappers) because keep their confidence because am blind.” McKinley confided what he said Wilson and Miller had told him con-cerning the nature of the anaesthetic used on the evangelist when they snatched her at the beach and reported, “It is something more simple than chioroform.”
The blind lawyer, in one of his last visits to the Temple parsonage, accepted a set of questions prepared by the evangelist, inquiring about details of the first captivity house. McKinley agreed to get these to Wilson and Miller. Mrs. Kennedy also had pieced together what she supposed was a fairly accurate route of the move from that first house to the shack in Mexico. She based this route on reports received at the Temple from people who saw or thought they saw the abductor's auto along the route. Sister and Mother asked McKinley to have the kidnappers sketch such a map with which they could compare their ideas. Sister also asked if McKinley could get photographs of the kidnappers and perhaps arrange for Steve - presumably Miller - to telephone her. She didn't expect she could recognize Wilson's voice - if it was really Wilson - because he had spoken but little in her presence during captivity.
People reading Lately Thomas’ "Vanishing Evangelist” very easily could get the wrong idea where that author portrays McKinley and Miss Morris’ question alludes to “the toilet that was supposed to be in the first house,” McKinley's alleged answer, “Yes, there would have to be a toilet in it, because she said in the grand jury there was a toilet that flushed in this shack” (p.I92). But the first place was not the shack, but the house. Thus the misrepresentation - that the shack in Mexico had a flushing toilet, a claim the evangelist never once made - so humorously proclaimed in the poem on page 106 (op. cit.) - seems compounded. This misrepre-sentation of Mrs. McPherson's story has kept on being reported down through the years, that a sizeable segment of the public teally believes she made that statement, but a scrutiny of her transcribed story shows absolutely that she said from the beginning that there was no toilet in the shack in Mexico, just in the first house of captivity.
Now we must tackle the hardest hurdle in the way of giving McKinley himself the benefit of the doubt regarding the question of his sincerity and honesty in dealing with the Temple leaders. For apparently the attorney did participate in a ruse about a picture. He did take this picture to Angelus Temple a few days before his death. Miss Morris claimed he returned to his office and reported that Mrs. McPherson positively identified the man as “Steve.”
But the man was not Steve, but Joe Watts. And both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. McPherson denied that the evangelist had made any identification.
McKinley apparently connived in a sordid trick master-minded by Miss Morris who served as photographer. The only possible plea which could be made in defense of his seemingly tarnished sincerity would be that he participated in the scheme to test Mrs. McPherson’s sincerity - to determine whether she was so gung ho to identify a kidnapper that she would identify any stranger whose picture he showed. Miss Morris could have lied when she alleged her employer reported that Sister identified Joe Watts’ photo as a kid-napper. Or McKinley could have lied to that effect when he reported the incident to his secretary. Evidently the claim that the evangelist identified the picture rests on the unsupported word of Bernice Morris and would seem to be at best “heresay evidence.” At any rate, Bernice Morris took the picture of sometimes process server Joe Watts, and McKinley showed it to Sister.
Bernice Morris “confessed” also concerning an alleged telephone identification of a kidnapper. The evangelist had given McKinley phone numbers where she could be reached around the clock. Lately Thomas, replying on the secretary, relates that McKinley proposed, "We'll have Joe Watts talk to her over the phone.” Miss Morris afterwards asked, “Well, Joe, did you talk to Aimee?” Watts answered, “Sure did.” The secretary inquired, “What did she say?” “Oh, she recognized me allright,” Joe replied. “She said, ‘My God, is it really you?'” cf. “Vanishing Evangelist,” pp. 192-193).
Lately Thomas does not report what the Los Angeles Times of September 17, 1926 revealed on page 2 of Section |, that in a face to face confrontation with Bernice Morris in the private office of District Attorney Asa Keyes, Joe Watts denied absolutely making the telephone call to Mrs. McPherson and impersonating the voice of her kidnapper. He did admit posing for the photo which Mckinley delivered to the Temple. But Watts averred that he did not know for what use the photo was taken.
Whether Watts made the phone call or not - andit seems significant that he was not called to testify about the matter at the preliminary hearing, so the District Attorney likely accepted Watts’ denial - somebody did phone Mrs. McPherson and pretend to be a kidnapper. But witnesses in the room during the phone call insisted the evangelist did not respond, “My God, is it really you?” Mrs. Herbert Price quoted Sister as saying, “It sounds something like it, but cannot be sure.” Mrs. Price was the daughter of Elizabeth Frame, in whose house at Santa Monica beach the phone call came. Those who knew Mrs. McPherson immediately realized that the alleged response, “My God, is it really you?” would be completely out of character for the evangelist who would regard such an exclamation as profanity.
R.A. McKinley didn't know it, but he was nearing the end of his connection with the case. The very same night of August 25 - on the morning of which Bernice Morris claimed Joe Watts made the trick call Watts denied - the blind lawyer attended a lodge meeting. He left the meeting in a car with James Law and L.O. Miller. The driver missed a sharp turn at a detour marker and plunged into the mire near the viaduct being built at Wilmington Boulevard. All three men were killed when the car overturned. Some wonder whether foul play might have been involved, whether the marker had been temporarily removed by persons involved in the kidnapping in order to booby-trap the blind lawyer. But no evidence substantiated such suspicions.
When investigators arrived at the accident scene they found on McKinley’s body the set of questions Sister had submitted to be passed on to the kidnappers. This circum-stance gave the public the first inkling of that the lawyer was still involved. The Los Angeles Times reported, “Although Mr. McKinley had figured prominently during the early part of the evangelist’s disappearance when he announced that two men had come to him because of his blindness and told him that they had kidnapped Mrs. McPherson, it was not known until after his death that the attorney was still working on the case" (part Il, page 1, August 27, 1926).
Mrs. McPherson and her mother regarded McKinley's death as a severe blow. They drove to Woods Undertaking Parlor to pay their respects, then proceeded to McKinley's office to enlist Bernice Morris to try to continue the efforts to contact Wilson and Miller.
From this point on ensues an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony. Eventually Bernice Morris made a “con-fession” alleging that Mrs. McPherson and her mother endeavored to enlist her efforts to manufacture false evidence. The Temple leaders denied emphatically they had done anything of the kind. They insisted that they acted in good faith, expecting that the secretary might possibly be able to continue carrying on negotiations with Wilson and Miller.
Miss Morris had felt no qualms about manufacturing fake evidence in the matter of the Joe Watts picture. With a relish she had pulled that deceit off. She seemed almost proud of her feat when she confessed how she disguised Watts’ face with paint and powder before she snapped the shutter of her Brownie camera. But now she professed her conscience was bothering her. She had to make a full and complete breast of the matter. a
The story Mrs. McPherson and Minnie Kennedy told about their contacts with the late lawyer's secretary differed materially from Miss Morris’. It seems noteworthy that the secretary strung Sister and Mother along until after the “hoax woman,” Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff, issued her first “con-fession” after being jailed for a bad check charge when the Temple refused to put up the money for her bail.
The women drove attorney Wooley's vehicle when they called at McKinley's office the morning after his death. Miss Morris seemed eager to carry on her late employer's contacts with Miller and Wilson. But she did object to one paragraph in a statement Mrs. Kennedy prepared for release that day. She asked Mother to omit the section which read:
“At this time Mr. McKinley gave us certain other points of information regarding the persons (kidnappers), and including the location of the first house in which Mrs. McPherson was held. (He had said it was in Indio.} He outlined the route followed and, more important still, the peculiar form of anesthetic used which we had never thought of.”
The typewritten document of the entire statement, filling almost three sheets of legal size paper, double-spaced, has this paragraph encircled in pencil, with the word “out” before the first sentence, and “omit” after the last sentence. Mrs. Kennedy must have been most desirous to obtain Miss Morris’ cooperation, for she wasn't the type to yield to sucha request otherwise.
Lately Thomas misconstrued the statement Mrs. Kennedy made, attributing to her an announcement that “Sister had spoken to them (the kidnappers) on the telephone” (p. 332, op.cit.). Mother said nothing of the kind. Her exact words in the press statement were, “While we were visiting at the Beach we received a call from Mr. McKinley and after speaking with Mrs. McPherson a moment the other voice came on the wire and said a few words. |’m not at liberty to say more regarding this matter now.” If Lately Thomas’ source reported a telephone identification, that source misrepresented what Minnie Kennedy said.
Bernice Morris made several trips to the Temple in the next two weeks. On August 29, in the presence of Attorney Wooley, she signed a document which read:
“Miss Bernice Morris, secretary of the late Russell A. McKinley, attorney at Long Beach, California, when pressed for a statement for the press concerning Mr. McKinley's contact with the kidnappers of Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson, made the following statement:
“Yes, it is true that as secretary to Mr. Russell A. McKinley, attorney at Long Beach, California, that as announced by Mr. McKinley know he was in direct contact with two men who stated that they were the persons who kidnapped Aimee Semple McPherson. recently accompanied Mr. McKinley on a trip to San Francisco, California, in connection with this matter. can say nothing further at this time as the information received by me is a professional secret. His death coming in as it did is a great tragedy. am sorry cannot tell what know. Mr. McKinley was working hard to solve the kidnapping and bring harm to no one; and it is my hope to be instrumental in finishing the work he started. trust the newspapers will give their support. want to be fair to every one, but ask for people to be patient for the time being. Mr. McKinley's policy was one of silent and unquestionable loyalty to his clients, and want to emulate him as far as possible. can state nothing further at this time.”
On the witness stand at the preliminary hearing Bernice Morris admitted that she signed this statement, though she professed she had done so reluctantly. The District Attorney's office tried to whitewash her and palm her off asan inexperienced novice who did not know what she was doing, a role the woman indeed tried to affect. However, Bernice
Morris had been serving as both “eyes” and secretary toa lawyer whose clientele mostly was the underworld, es-pecially bootlegging interests. Moreover, she was studying law with a goal to be admitted to the California State Bar. Indeed, from her own mouth she contradicted the image of inexperience, for she testified in court that she responded to Mrs. McPherson's caution, “! want to be sure before this thing is presented to the public (the evidence Miller was to submit) that every detail is checked,” with a virtual guarantee. “I told her she could be absolutely sure that if had anything to do with it, it would be airtight before got through with it, because was studying to pass the bar examination. didn’t want to ruin my chances.” Does that sound like an inexperi-enced child? Bernice Morris was no novice, as subsequent disclosures exposed. Indeed, her eventual “confession” unmasked her as a fraud, for it was the same Bernice who faked the kidnapper’s picture who professed in the statement she signed on August 29, “| am sorry cannot tell what I know. Mr. McKinley was working hard to solve the kidnapping and bring harm to no one; and it is my hope to be instrumental in finishing the work he started... want to be fair to every one, but ask for people to be patient for the time being. Mr. McKinley's policy was to one of silent and unquestionable loyalty to his clients, and want to emulate him as far as possible!”
So Bernice Morris seems striped as a perjurer-either when she signed that statement or when she blurted her “confession.”
But that confession would not come until September 15, five days after a very tense meeting at the Angelus Temple parsonage. Mrs. McPherson, Mrs. Kennedy, and Mae Waldron saw the secretary who said she came to enlist the evangelist to write a letter to cheer up a young man in deep trouble, Mr. Coy Halbert. Sister dictated to stenographer Waldron a brief note expressing sympathy for him in his sorrow and telling him to look to the Lord, who is a very present help in time of trouble. Mrs. McPherson volunteered to pray for the man that he might be freed from the criminal charge, “if, as Miss Morris has said, it was a false accu-sation.”
Miss Morris also alluded to the kidnappers, advising that they had been out of town, but now had returned and would prepare the map the evangelist had requested, outlining the route between the first captivity house and Mexico. Miss Morris volunteered that she felt the men should have $1,500 for their services.
Mother Kennedy exploded, “Absolutely not. gave Mr. McKinley $1,000 and have received nothing of tangible value in return. If these are thé men they should be glad to prove it and it will be to their advantage to get the reward offered. They must provide the map and locate the house, and then we will send investigators, including public officials, down to the neighborhood and from those who live in the vicinity seek to verify or to disprove their story.”
Bernice Morris reacted in surprise, exclaiming that she thought Sister and Mother were already convinced that Miller and Wilson were the right men. When pressed, “Why should you think we're convinced when no absolute evidence has been forthcoming,” Miss Morris blurted, “Why, the photo-graph. Didn't Mrs. McPherson identify it?” Both the evangelist and Mrs. Kennedy denied any identification. “Nobody could identify it,” Mother fumed. “You could merely see the outline of a man's figure, but no features clearly whatever, and his hands were hidden behind him. The Kodak picture was absolutely worthless.”
All the ensuing protestations by Mrs. McPherson that she did not identify the picture could not silence the effect of Bernice Morris’ hearsay testimony that she did — if actually McKinley communicted that information to his secretary at all. Sister, Mother, and Mae Waldron knew no identification was made. Miss Morris then professed to communicate information allegedly from the kidnappers concerning an incident during the captivity. She asked Mrs. McPherson whether she remembered the day she complained about a crick in her neck and how Rose had rubbed it all afternoon. Such ministration sounds out of character for Rose. Sister answered, “No, do not recall that.”
Bernice Morris kept lowering her financial demands to cover the kidnapper’s expenses in providing the desiderated information. At last the figure of $100 was agreed upon. “Mrs. McPherson then handed to Miss Morris, in my presence,” Mae Waldron swore, “one hundred dollars in cash, saying that was to take care of their expenses until such time as the map was produced and checked on. Miss Morris accepted the money and thanked her and said that they would have the map shortly.” But Bernice Morris refused to sign the receipt Mrs. Kenedy requested, acknowledging the transaction.
This was on September 10, 1926. On September 15th Bernice Morris’ “confession” that Mrs. McPherson had “coached” her to produce manufactured evidence made headlines in the Los Angeles Times, scooping the other metropolitan dailies. What consideration the newspaper offered for the tale remains unknown.
Miss Morris made much of Mrs. McPherson's solicitation of specific details of the first captivity house, alleging that the evangelist was making prerequisites for the identification. Mrs. Kennedy, when she learned of the “confession,” snorted, “The statements that Mrs. McPherson ‘coached’ Miss Morris concerning the furnishings of the house is untrue. The fact of this is that Mrs. McPherson's former public statement covered this matter in such detail that almost anyone could ‘set up’ such a house and we would not accept that alone as evidence. We did feel, however, that if the house was produced, that the people of the vicinity near it would know something about the strange parties who had recently occupied it.”
Bernice Morris’ abandonment distressed the Temple leaders. They had good reason to be skeptical of the entire
McKinley-Morris negotiations. They reviewed the late lawyer's profession of loyalty. Mae Waldron's stenographic record of McKinley's visit to the parsonage on July 27 reported the attorney's assurance, “Personally want you to know and feel am steadfastly in your favor.” Judge Hardy had communicated to Sister and Mother that McKinley had expressed to him his complete belief in Sister's story of the kidnapping. And the judge had shared with the women aletter from McKinley, dated July 29, in which the lawyer, after listing personal expenses he had incurred in the investigation, repudiated any “intention to endeavor to capitalize” on “the part have accidentally played in this matter,” adding, “| am willing to cooperate with you and them (Sister and Mother) in any way, looking toward a satisfactory ending of this monumental attempt to besmirch the character of as fine a woman as it has ever been my good fortune to meet.” Was that the real McKinley?
The Temple leaders were in a quandry, whether to believe McKinley was sincere, or a fraud. They wanted to believe in him, because he afforded the only known link to men who claimed to be kidnappers. Judge Hardy's con-fidence in the blind Long Beach lawyer had put them at ease. But now Bernice Morris was blatting that McKinley never believed the evangelist was kidnapped. Mrs. Kennedy offered a terse observation concerning the attorney, “If he was wrong, he fooled Judge Hardy, because it was only after Judge Hardy had declared his belief that the man had been approached by the actual kidnappers that we retained him.”
Soon after Miss Morris' confession startled the South-land, derogatory material concerning her commenced to surface. A Miss McTaggart of Long Beach notified the Temple that Evangelist Merton in the Methodist Church South stated that Miss Morris buried some papers with Mr. McKinley, slipping them into the casket just before it was lowered. Then it came to light that Bernice was not just Miss Morris, but Mrs. Bernice Morris Alicorn Simpson!
On September 26, Mr. Francis M. Darter of the Southern Pacific Engineering Department, a resident of Long Beach, made a statement in which he hinted the secretary had homosexual connections, in addition to being “loose in character." Darter attributed the accusation to a prominent Long Beach attorney.
Living with Bernice Morris at this time was a girl who passed herself off as the secretary's sister. Darter declared, “Miss Morris’ supposed sister is not her sister, but is a Miss Billie Hensen, sometimes called Eloise Hensen.” He alleged the girl suffered from syphilis and had served time in some Los Angeles reform school. Billie was then about eighteen and quite attractive.
Another report came by an anonymous phone call to Attorney Wooley’s office. The caller, according to the lawyer, reported that “Miss Morris had been trapped by a detective in an embarrassing position and that this was being held over her head and that she was being forced to make a public refutation of" Mrs. McPherson. Otherwise she would be publicly embarrassed herself.
When Wooley reported the information to the Temple, Sister and Mother declared jointly, “Our dealings with Mr. McKinley and with Miss Morris have been absolutely regular at all times. There is no doubt in our mind that coercive methods have been used upon Miss Morris; because she knows in her own heart that these charges against us are untrue.”