That the long simmering case would now go to court for settlement came as somewhat a relief to the embattled Temple leaders. They would now have opportunity to face their accusers and their counsel could cross-examine.
Weeks earlier Mrs. Kennedy had exercised sensible hindsight. “The only mistake Sister made in this whole terrible affair was to talk at all, to make any explanation of her disappearance, though her story was every word true,” the evangelist’s mother sighed. “Because she did tell her story, because she told exactly what happened, she was made herself a target of enemies and unbelievers. Of course, she had no way of knowing it would turn out this way. It was her faith in human nature that trapped her into this awful situation.”
At every junction of events the evangelist's sincerity and loyalty to truth kept her from adopting the expedient policy which likely would have extricated her from further harass-ments. She turned down Cline’s pressure to hire attorney Paul Skenk. She took Judge Hardy's advice rather than her mother’s and made a complete breast of her ordeal before the grand jury. And she refused to put up the $3,000 bail Lorraine Wiseman demanded. At any one of those stages she could have forestalled the eventual litigation. Her mother may have been right that Sister talked too much, but when she talked she told the truth. While Asa Keyes was preparing the criminal charges against her, she protested to her con-gregation, “As expect to meet my God in heaven, as expect to meet my friends and loyal followers, and as expect to meet my beloved husband, Robert Semple, my story is as true today as it was the first time told it.” Nothing ever shook it. And, as has been stated repeatedly, she never changed it. Furthermore, Mother Kennedy never changed her story of circumstances concerning the kidnapping, even when she came to be estranged from her daughter. Mrs. Kennedy said many unkind things about Mrs. McPherson in the years after 1927 and some things which were palpably untrue - if she really said them and they were not press misrepresentations as was sometimes claimed. But Mother never contradicted one detail of Sister's or her own testimonies concerning the disappearance and reappearance of Aimee Semple McPherson.
After the complaint was issued Mrs. McPherson and Mrs. Kennedy issued statements which sound remarkably restrained. Mother concluded hers with the sentence, “Just at this moment, facing this new experience (of prosecution), can say that we have only the kindliest feelings and best wishes for everyone, whether friend or enemy.” Mother wavered at times during the hearing from that mood of meekness, especially when she heard the transcript of her daughter's grand jury interrogation or clubbing, as her attorney denounced it. But Sister maintained her poise and magnanimity toward witnesses who tried to smear her, like Wiseman and Morris, throughout the case, though at times reflecting righteous indignation over testimony which she claimed was false or misleading.
While the Temple had excellent counsel, the nature of the proceedings dictated that an attorney more proficient in trial work be retained to handle the preliminary hearing. On September 17, before appearing to surrender over the charges and post bail, Mrs. Kennedy hired a whiz, W. |. Gilbert. That was Friday. The following Monday, Mrs. McPherson was closeted with Gilbert long enough to give a statement which filled forty pages of legal size paper double spaced. Sister detailed every phase of the case from the abduction to Mrs. Wiseman. The evangelist, thoroughly chastised for being taken in by the hoax woman against the advice and warning of her attorneys, confided her suspicion that Lorraine Wiseman had “stolen a lot of my affidavits.” One which she had particularly wanted Gilbert to see came from “a rider who saw with amazement a woman's footprints going for miles across the desert. When he went into Agua Prieta that night he reported that he had seen a woman's footprints and wondered what she was doing away off out there. He recorded it and had his affidavit, but Mrs. Wiseman evidently stole it.” During visits to the Parsonage Lorraine had been seen rummaging through drawers.
The evangelist informed Gilbert Concerning her physical stamina, “When walk outstrip everybody. am a real hiker. The people who tracked my footsteps for thirteen miles say did not circle.”
Near the middle of September another shack had been discovered in the desert some miles from Agua Prieta, which Douglas investigators assumed might be the captivity hut. Mrs. McPherson informed Gilbert about details sent to her about the shack: “The cottage they have found is about 20 miles (from Agua Prieta), and no one has lived in this house for five years. It has been absolutely vacant, and even the runners didn’t know it was there.. The owner (of the land) himself didn’t know it was there. There were tin cansinit, and everything else just right.” The Los Angeles authorities, however, would not investigate the building.
Gilbert took charge witha vengeance. On September 23 he released a statement criticizing the District Attorney's office for having been trying the case in the newspapers. He inveigied: “| am of the opinion that no District Attorney is justified in attempting to mould public sentiment and dis-qualify otherwise fair-minded jurors by the course of pro-cedure adopted in the McPherson case." And Gilbert had some pointed comments hinging collusion between the press and prosecution:
“| am not unappreciative of the fact that the newspapers — all of them — have not only advised Mrs. McPherson that their columns were open to her, but invited statements from her concerning this situation. Yet statements from her as to the details of her defense would consume pages, and she would be guilty of the great injustice of having pushed the District Attorney from the front page.
“Aside from that, am advised by Mrs. McPherson that the principal owner of one of the leading dailies called upon her at her home, dis-cussed the facts of her case with her, stated to her that his sympathies were with her, that for years, until the conviction of the guilty parties was brought about, he rested under the stigma of having dynamited his own building and of producing the death of his un-fortunate employees. Knowing the sterling integrity of this man, fee! quite certain that he will not, over his own signature, deny the statement. Yet the columns of his paper are filled daily with statements of wit-nesses prematurely released by the District Attorney.
Anyone in Los Angeles reading Gilbert’s statement in 1926 would have identified the newspaper in question as the Los Angeles Times.
The next day (September 24) Mrs. Kennedy discussed the press and the confessions:
“Surely the public can see that Mrs. McPherson was left without the protection of the authorities which as an American citizen and resident she was entitled to. Because of this and our defenseless position, we have been at the mercy of such persons as those whose alleged ‘confessions’ are appearing in the press. Surely no thoughtful person will insult our in-telligence sufficiently to believe that we would enter into any sort of agreement or conspiracy with un-identified persons coming without any references whatsoever. That alone, it seems to my mind, should upset the whole conspiracy theory.”
The preliminary. hearing - to determine whether con-spiracy charges could be tried in Superior Court - was scheduled to commence on Monday, September 27. Be-cause of rumblings about possible demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, Mrs. McPherson pleaded with her people to absent themselves from the scene of the litigation altogether, a request she relaxed only once, for the day Judge Carlos Hardy testified in her defense. Sister's state-ment explained:
“We believe it is for the best and request that none of our members or friends congregate either without or within the Hall of Justice during the pre-liminary hearing. We will know you are thinking of us and praying for us. During the grand jury investigation the group who assembled voluntarily reported a number of embarrassing circumstances. This has led us to this request.
“We understand that some sensational circum-stances are anticipated and planned; and that if Temple people are in the group they are to be at least criticized for whatever trouble may arise.
“We will be looking for our friends at the services in Angelus Temple whenever it is convenient for them to be present. And we take this occasion to thank one and all for their expressions of confidence and sympathy.”
Judge Samuel Blake gavelled the preliminary hearing to order on Monday morning. Few courtroom observers suspected the case would drag on for six weeks. Ordinarily such hearings consume a period of about fifteen minutes with the lowest men on the totem pole of the D.A.’s deputy prosecutors handling the hearing. Lately Thomas commented, “The legal battery marshalled here underscored that this preliminary hearing transcended precedent (p. 242, op. cit).
But Judge Blake followed closely the routine policy of such hearings, as outlined on page nine of this volume. Accordingly, the prosecution was given the benefit of any doubt, just the opposite policy from Superior Court trials where the defendants are supposed to get the benefit of any doubts.
Usually the prosecution exposes just enough evidence to get the defendant bound over for trial, reserving the rest of the evidence for the jury. Asa Keyes announced, however, that he was presenting his full case. It would have required only Lorraine Wiseman's testimony to bind over Sister and Mother for trial, but Keyes unloaded his total evidence, appearing personally in the case, an almost unheard of action for a District Attorney in Los Angeles, and associating with himself his two top deputies, Murray and Denison.
Quite often at preliminary hearings the defense doesn't bother to present any case, because it is virtually impossible in real life courts to prevent binding over a defendant for trial. When the defense does present evidence, the court usually disregards it,.preferring to let a jury decide concerning conflicts of testimony. In this case, however, Attorney Gilbert presented considerable evidence, not with much hope of getting a favorable decision from Judge Blake, but because the Temple felt that the reputation of the church required an airing of testimony confirming the evangelist’s story.
Asa Keyes opened the proceedings with a statement of what he proposed to prove. The following year, after resigning as a deputy, Joe Ryan claimed that Keyes never drewa sober breath during this preliminary hearing. If this was true -and not just sour grapes over resentment about being dropped from the case's prosecution - Ryan's charges in-dicate that the chief law enforcement officer of Los Angeles County was breaking the law every day and appearing in court laced with bootleg liquor!
Keyes’ case unfolded, as Mrs. McPherson later de-scribed it, like a “three-legged stool.” On the basis of the Carmel identifications, the conspiracy “confessions” of Morris and Wiseman, and alleged “desert evidence” claiming the evangelist could not have made the trek she claimed, the District Attorney endeavored to prove his allegations against Sister, Mother, and Ormiston who was being arraigned in absentia. \f the authorities had worked as hard to find the kidnappers as they did to locate the missing radio operator, they might have apprehended Steve and Rose and the other accomplice.
Keyes buttressed his three main lines of accusations by introducing handwriting testimony pertaining to Carmel and the conspiracy confessions, and also with a battery of innuendo regarding hotel registrations where the evangelist always registered under her own name and Ormiston allegedly used aliases. The honest registrations by Sister ought to have laughed the idea of get-togethers by the two clear out of court!
The District Attorney began by questioning five witnesses who testified they recognized Aimee Semple McPherson as being the Mrs. George Mcintire they saw at Carmel the previous May. Not one of these witnesses had made the association before Joe Ryan flashed his sheaf of photos and gave them his pitch prompting the identifications. Presumably he badgered them, as Mr. Benedict stated Ryan pressured him. Not one of these five entered a claim for the reward of $25,000 offered for the finding of Mrs. McPherson during her disappearance, though most of them conceded that they had read about the reward in the press. Not one of them had ever seen the evangelist prior to the May dates. Only one of them saw her in the interval between May 29 and the opening of the preliminary hearing on September 27 when they identified her. This one exception made a trip to the Temple on Sunday, August 8, stood out in the lobby at a door entering the auditorium, and said he could identify the evangelist as a lady he’d seen in Carmel on May 25 by her eyes!
This witness was Ralph Hersey, a retired engineer residing in Santa Barbara. He testified that he was driving west.on Ocean View Avenue in Carmel and saw a woman standing on the corner of Ocean View and San Antonio Street. Hersey stared at Sister, who was sitting beside Attorney Gilbert, and announced she was the woman he'd seen on that occasion.
When Anne George of Hollywood, California, read in the evening papers the account of Hersey's identification, she fired a letter to Mrs. McPherson in which she alluded to Hersey's testimony concerning the detail that “he was driving westward at 4:30 in the afternoon.” Anne George declared, “I know that at that time in the afternoon the sun shines directly on the windshield, making such a glare as to incapacitate a person with normal eyesight from seeing things clearly.” This was before the days of tinted glass, and the visors cars sported in the 20's would have helped little to dispel the glare at the hour in question. Moreover, there was some doubt concerning Hersey’s eyesight. Cross-examination brought out the fact that the witness had worn glasses for twelve years and the admission that he suffered from, as he put it, “Stigmatism” (p. 17, Preliminary Hearing transcript).
Lately Thomas misrepresents the matter - or perhaps he didn't read the entire transcript of Hersey's interrogation -when he reports concerning Gilbert's cross-examination that this witness “remained unruffled and unshaken” (p. 243, op. cit.). As a matter of fact, Gilbert virtually destroyed Hersey as a credible witness when, apparently accidently, the attorney elicited a damaging admission. In asking Hersey his move-ments after seeing the woman on the corner, Gilbert elicited the information that Hersey had driven to the nearby home of a friend, Paul Compton. Gilbert inquired concerning Compton's attire, then proceeded, “Now what did you say to him and what did he say to you?” The answers that ensued included the statement, “I said, ‘Paul, think have just seen Mrs. Liston, who purchased your house when we were here last time.’ " Hersey reported Compton's response as the question, “Where did you see her?” Hersey answered, “Up on the corner.”
Gilbert interrupted, “Mrs. who?” The witness answered, “Liston,” and then spelled the name. “All right; go ahead,” Gilbert encouraged. “That was not the woman you thought was Mrs. McPherson, was it?” Hersey answered, “Abso-lutely.”
Gilbert and Sister could hardly believe their ears. The cross-examination had hit pay dirt. The witness was ad-mitting that at the time he identified the woman on the street car as a person he had met! Gilbert suppressed excitement from his voice and continued, “You thought, when you first saw this woman, you thought it was Mrs. Liston?”
Hersey apparently realized the damage he had done to his testimony and evaded, “I did not know who it was.” Gilbert pounced, “That is not what asked: asked if you thought it was Mrs. Liston. Didn't you just finish telling me that you told your friend you saw Mrs. Liston, who had purchased his house?” Hersey admitted the fact and estimated he made the statement to Compton within ten minutes of seeing the woman. This exchange between Gilbert and Hersey appears on pages 37 and 38 of the transcript of the hearing.
Meanwhile, at the time, according to the witness, Compton told him he must be mistaken, since Mrs. Liston was out of town. Gilbert wrung from Hersey that he read inthe San Francisco Chronic/e within an hour and a half of seeing the woman at Carmel one of the dispatches pertaining to the disappearance of Mrs. McPherson, but that he made no connection at that time between the woman on the corner and the evangelist. Hersey further admitted that he saw photos of Sister periodically in the press in subsequent days and weeks, but again they did not remind him of the woman he'd initially idientified as Mrs. Liston in Carmel.
Gilbert would have scored handsomely with the question, “In other words, if you had not had this talk with Mr. Compton, why, you probably would not be a witness here, would you?”, if the Court had not sustained Keyes’ objection that the question “is argumentative, not cross-examination” ({p. 45, transcript).
Gilbert was curious about the time Hersey began to believe he had seen Mrs. McPherson at Carmel. The witness got this idea, he testified, “two months and a half” after the May 25 sighting. Then on August 8 he went to the Temple to see Sister. He estimated that where he stood at the door was about I50 feet from the evangelist, though the actual distance was in fact somewhat fess. Hersey’s bias against Mrs. McPherson may have surfaced in his description of this excursion. He said, “| made a trip to the Temple, so-called, to see Mrs. McPherson.” Gilbert pounced on that statement as indicative of the witness’ hostile frame of mind. If there had been ajury, the damage would have been done. Hersey tried to extricate himself with the profession, “There was no disparaging remark intended” (p. 52, transcript). Gilbert gave him the benefit of the doubt and did not pursue the matter. He had more promising waters in which to fish.
The cross-examiner inquired as to what circumstances prompted Hersey to begin believing the Carmel woman on May 25 was Mrs. McPherson after an interval of about 75 days from the sighting. Hersey explained that “Mr. Moore of the Morning Press called on me at the Santa Barbara Club, and we discussed this matter.” Gilbert pressed, “What suggestion did Mr. Moore make to you that would suddenly cause you to give birth to the fixed idea that the woman you saw some six weeks before that on a corner was Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson?”
A heated exchange ensued between Gilbert and the District Attorney as Keyes objected strenuously. Gilbert pleaded in behalf of his question, “This man has sworn to a story that is entitled to the closest scrutiny one way or the other. don't want to charge any witness with anything, but! certainly, in defense of my client, have a right to find out a few things about the working of this man’s mind who can travel past a woman at 15 miles an hour and make up his mind six weeks later she is a certain woman and before that thought she was another woman” (pp. 54-55, transcript). Judge Blake asked to hear the question read, then sustained Keyes’ objection.
The wrangling between counsel during the hearing included mock professions of humility, like Gilbert's, “I don’t expect, your Honor, to measure up to Mr. Denison (the Deputy D.A.). have to explain that am not a good lawyer like he is” (p.48, transcript). And later in another exchange with the same deputy during Hersey's cross-examination, Temple terminology intruded, as Gilbert cautioned, “Now, Brother Denison, you possess yourself with patience” (p. 63). At one point Keyes had to summarize Hersey’s testimony, “He stated he commenced to read along about the middle of July in the public press accounts of Mrs. McPherson having been or alleged to have been in the city of Carmel, and that at that time he commenced to wonder if this woman who had been seen by him on the street might not have been she.” Gilbert asked the witness, “Do you accept that as your statement?” and Hersey agreed, “I do" (p. 59, transcript).
The cross-examination inquired concerning what Hersey saw at the Temple on August 8 that convinced him Mrs. McPherson was the person he first thought was Mrs. Liston. “Il found very unusual eyes,” was his major answer (p. 72, transcript). He couldn't tell Gilbert the color and he admitted he was 100 feet or more from the evangelist at that time. He also mentioned a “large mouth.” But it was the “large, open, brilliant” eyes which clinched the identification! Hersey volunteered he had never seen eyes quite like that before.”
Gilbert dismissed this witness with contempt, snorting the challenge, “! will ask, if your honor please, that sometime during the examination, to have this witness with the court and counsel find out the door where he claims to have stood and seen Mrs. McPherson and ask someone to stand where she was for the purpose of showing that it was a physical impossibility for him to have seen the shape of the eyes, little less their color, peculiar or otherwise. Thatis all.” Neither the Court or the District Attorney would agree to this test. In fact, the authorities in every known case refused challenges which could tend to confirm Sister's story. And when the press proposed challenges which she accepted - as in the case of the examination by a physician to ascertain about an alleged abortion - the challengers usually backed off.
Asa Keyes called Jeanette Parkes as his second “identification” witness. She lived next door to Benedict's Carmel cottage. Mrs. Parkes, under direct examination, testifed that Mrs. McPherson “looks like” Mrs. Mctntire. Under cross-examination she tightened her testimony and blurted, “I am sure of it.” Her husband, Percy, was “cocksure and self-righteous,” as Lately Thomas described him (p. 244, op. cit.), in identifying, “This is the woman.” But both the Parkes admitted that they had caught only passing glimpses of Mrs. McIntire from distances never closer than twenty-five feet and that they never saw the woman without goggles! Of course, they had never seen Sister before and had not seen her in the interval between May and the preliminary hearing. They had read newspaper reports of her disappearance and seen photos in the press, but never connected the dis-patches with the woman next door nor contemplated claiming the reward of $25,000 for her return.
Ralph Swanson testified about delivering groceries to the cottage and claimed Mrs. McPherson was the woman he met there, But Gilbert forced the admission that nothing unusual had happened in these transactions to fix them in his mind and that during the same and subsequent periods he made many such deliveries to strangers, details of which he could not remember at all. He knew about the evangelist being missing, but made no connection with Mrs. Mcintire until Ryan arrived with his pictures.
Ernest Renkert swore he saw the evangelist on May 25 when he delivered a truck load of wood to the cottage. But when Gilbert cross-examined him about his description of Mrs. Mcintire, he betrayed indecision about the color of her hair. He had stated that Mrs. Mclntire’s hair was “blonde” - a color on which several witnesses agreed. But Mrs. McPherson sat in court with her auburn hair. Renkert voiced vaguely, “Blonde or auburn or whatever you call it, brunette, they are all alike to me.” Renkert admitted he'd seena picture of Sister in the San Francisco Bulletin a few days before the delivery and that he had read about the $25,000 reward. He did not claim the reward, indeed, did not connect Mrs. Mcintire with Mrs. McPherson until Ryan brought his photo-graphs.
Asa Keyes had other witnesses he expected to identify the evangelist, but four disappointed him. He should have expected Benedict's testimony because the cottage owner had told him decisively a few weeks ago that he was positive the woman at Carmel was not Sister. And while the photos on which he wrote similar disclaimers were established by the State to have been five years old or so, the photos Ryan flashed when, as Benedict put it, “Ryan did his damndest” to get him to identify Sister, badgering him for a whole halt hour, were 1926 vintage and thereabouts. Benedict's testimony, however, hurt Lorraine Wiseman, as it discredited her.
Another prosecution witness, Jesse Williams, had de-livered a telegram to Mrs. McIntire, for which she had signed. Williams surprised Keyes by denying Mrs. McPherson was the woman he met at the cottage. The D.A. had expected an identification.
Keyes, Denison, and Ryan were counting most on the testimony of William McMichaels. Up to this time their witnesses were people with only sketchy contacts with Mrs. Mcintire at best. But McMichaels, a stone mason, had worked on the property line of the cottage every day the mystery couple was residing there. He had seen Mrs. Mcintire several times and at close range.
The prosecution asked McMichaels if he recognized Mrs. McPherson as the woman he had seen. The stone-mason asked that the evangelist remove her hat. Sister complied. The witness looked her over carefully, then replied negatively, that she definitely was not Mrs. Mcintire. He later affirmed, during cross-examination, that his glimpses of Sister in court that day was “the first time ever saw this lady in my life.”
“The first time you ever saw this little woman in your life?” Attorney Gilbert repeated. McMichaels nodded assent. Then Gilbert taunted the District Attorney, “Is that plain, Brother Keyes?” McMichaels was a prosecution witness, and the prosecution in Superior Court would have been bound by his testimony. Perhaps Gilbert was licking his chops in anticipation of that debacle for the State.
Wallace Moore, the Santa Barbara newsman who had let Ormiston and his mystery woman slip through his fingers on May 29, didn't help Keyes either. The State expected Moore to reverse his previous verdict, carried in the Morning Press on May 30, that the woman with Ormiston was not the evangelist. But Moore disappointed Keyes by refusing to identify Sister as Ormiston’s companion. Some have blamed pressure from Judge Carlos Hardy for keeping Moore from changing his tune. Still it took W. |. Gilbert seven minutes on cross-examination to get Moore just to admit that he had gone back to his newspaper and stated definitely that the woman with Ormiston was not Mrs. McPherson. In Fresno,
Moore had spent perhaps 20 hours in Sister's meetings, so he should have known what he was talking about when he reported that the evangelist was not in Ormiston’s car.
Wallace Moore, however, probably was the Moore from the Morning Press who prompted Ralph Hersey to com-mence wondering whether “Mrs. Liston” wasn't really Mrs. McPherson. Possibly Moore, by this time, believed the evangelist really had been in Carmel and must, therefore, have been the woman in the car with Ormiston, even though his original investigation convinced him she was not. But Moore on the witness stand eventually admitted that he had concluded Ormiston’s companion was somebody else. His testimony in 1926, connected with the report he took to his Paper in May, must outweigh his reversal some years later when he announced that by then he thought the woman was Sister. Mrs. McPherson Suspected that tremendous pressures were applied on Moore to force his change of story. Certainly as experienced a reporter as Wallace Moore would never have let Ormiston proceed if he had even faintly believed that the woman was the missing evangelist. This consideration seems absolutely decisive. Moore was young, but not a novice.
At any rate, the prosecution's eyewitness identification testimony was contradicting itself. Observers recalled Keyes’ pessimistic statements of about August 1 to the effect that the evidence from Carmel was collapsing, was never as strong as the press reported. The District Attorney's best identification witnesses were denying Mrs. McPherson was Mrs. McIntire. Keyes didn't bring Dennis Collins down from Salinas. Collins was ready to swear the woman Ormiston brought to his garage was younger than the evangelist and did not resembie her, though Ryan had lied to the grand jury that Collins identified that woman as Sister. Ormiston had a different woman with him in Salinas and Santa Barbara than the evangelist. That muchis virtually incontrovertible. And no one claims the radio man was carting a harem around with him!
The prosecution had the grand jury testimony of Aimee Semple McPherson read into the record. This recitation filled about 200 pages of transcript. Mother Kennedy collapsed in the courtroom when she heard how brutally her daughter had been interrogated. After the session, when she had re-covered, she launched a broadside attacking the District Attorney's methods. “To really realize that Asa Keyes, the man whom we helped elect to office and let speak over our radio, believing him to be a fair man - that was what got me,” she complained. “i wouldn't use a dog as they have used my daughter.” Mother concluded, “As see it in their questions this morning and what they aimed to do, if they had stood her up against a wall when she came into Douglas and fired upon her, it would have been more merciful compared with what they are doing.”
Gilbert didn't wait until court was out of session to assert his disgust. He thundered, “I have been here at the bar 25 years, and have heard something today enough to turn everybody's hair gray. The District Attorney with Mrs. McPherson before the grand jury and clubbing her while she was there.” Gilbert glared at the State's attorneys and snorted, “Smoke that in your pipe.”
Since an interruption in the reading of the grand jury transcript would inconvenience no witness, Gilbert kept demanding, over prosecution objections, that a Carmel defense witness, the Town Marshall (sort of police chief), August England; be permitted to testify out of turn, so that he could return to his duties in the north. Eventually Judge Blake ruled England might testify.:
August England had served for ten years as Carmel's town marshail and tax collector. He testified that his duties included patrolling the town generally and looking after properties. He answered, “Yes, sir,” to Gilbert's question, “Have you had any instructions or any suggestions from Mr. Benedict to look after his cottage while he was away?” The defense attorney then inquired, “Directing your attention to the time between the 19th of May and the 29th of May of this year, did you have occasion to patrol that street and look after and watch this particular piece of property (Benedict's) with others?” Again England answered, “Yes, sir.”
Gilbert asked, “Were you at the Benedict house during that period of time, and if so, how often?” The marshall replied, “| passed - patrolled there twice a day every day.” “Sir? Twice a day every day?” the attorney emphasized. And England affirmed, “Every day."
“Now, beginning after the 19th, did you see anybody in the Benedict cottage?” the question followed, “Yes, sir. passed by and saw a gentleman and lady outside the garage door,” the police chief testified. “How often did you see that lady around the house?” Gilbert asked. “Well, saw her after that in the garden one time, and! met her onthe lane, what they call Scenic Drive, between Benedict's house and the Ocean Avenue,” England answered.
; “She was walking on the street?” the defense lawyer inquired. The witness responded, “Walking, yes, in the afternoon.” “That was three times, at least, you saw her?” queried Gilbert. Again a “Yes, Sir,” ensued. “How close were you when you saw her at the house? How close were you to her?” the lawyer asked. England replied, “Eight to ten feet.” The witness indicated the time as 8:30 in the morning. Gilbert inquired concerning when the next two sightings occurred, and England located them a few days later.
“Now did she have any goggles on at any one of the times you saw her?” the lawyer inquired. “No, sir,” the witness answered. He related that she was not wearing a hat at any time either. The succeeding testimony is lifted exactly as printed in the transcript:
Q. Have you seen Mrs. McPherson since you came down this time at my suggestion?”
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recognize Mrs. McPherson here in the courtroom here now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. wili get you to tell the court whether or not Mrs. McPherson was the woman who was there with that man in that place.
A. Positively not that woman.
Q. By “that woman” you mean Mrs. McPherson?
A. Yes, sir. (All quotes from transcript, pages 515-519)
Gilbert smiled at the State's attorneys and chirped, “Cross-examine.” Keyes gave Denison the difficult assign-ment, but not once did Denison question the witness about his statement that Mrs. McPherson was not the woman at Carmel. Earlier that day, in objecting to the appearance out of order of August England, Denison had stated to the court, “We know what his testimony will be.” But he did not try to shake it or challenge it when he had a chance on cross-examination. It was almost as if the prosecution conceded England's authority and veracity. The cross-examination inquired concerning other statements the policeman had made to other parties. England volunteered that an officer listens a lot, but doesn't need to say much.
The Defense relied so strongly on August England's testimony that Gilbert did not bother to put other Carmel witnesses, like Fred Horton and John Considine, on the stand. He held them in reserve in case a jury trial followed. The gist of Horton's and Considine's testimonies, had they been needed, appears on page 162 of this volume.
The State called Emma Schaeffer, Sister's secretary, as awitness against her employer. But Emma decisively upheld the evangelist's story. Perhaps the most dramatic moment in the whole preliminary hearing came during Miss Schaeffer's testimony as Denison interrogated her closely concerning Sister's hair. The deputy prosecutor tried to get the secretary to admit that much of Mrs. McPherson's hair was false. Denison betrayed disbelief of Emma's denial and of her statement that Sister's hair was short and thick, coming down only to her shoulders.
As the interrogation continued, Gilbert ordered his client, “Take it down.” "Take what down?” Mrs, McPherson asked. “Take your hair down,” the attorney instructed. Sister objected, “Why, Mr. Gilbert, right here in the courtroom?” He insisted, “Yes, take it down.” Denison protested, “Oh, no, that isn't necessary,” but Gilbert thundered, “Yes, it is necessary. There has been enough of this innuendo. Anything we can prove, we will prove right here and now.”
The evangelist removed several hairpins, then shook her tresses down. in a few seconds she gave the lie to reports that she hired a hairdresser to come in daily and take two hours to comb her hair. Without a mirror, she took down and put up again her hair in open court in two and one-half minutes! The hair proved to be all her own and tumbled just to her shoulders, as Emma had testified. This demonstration completely overthrew that part of Lorraine Wiseman’s “con-fession” which claimed Sister's hair was gray and that much of it was false. Lorraine had volunteered that the evangelist, in Coaching her, had shown her this to be a fact!
Probably the most upsetting line of testimony to Mrs. McPherson was Asa Keyes’ attempts to synchronize her appearance at hotels with those of Kenneth Ormiston. Sister fairly bristled in issuing denials. Walter Lambert testified that just after 10 a.m. on May 18, the day of the evangelist's disappearance, he saw Sister, carrying a briefcase with the name, “Aimee Semple McPherson,” engraved on the out-side, nearing the Clark Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Lambert said a man with a limp walked inside shortly thereaiter.
Mrs. McPherson told Gilbert, “i never had a briefcase with my name on it in my life.” Her attorney, on cross-examination, tested Lambert's vision by holding up a brief-case at the same distance the witness claimed he was to the alleged. woman and demanded him to read the initials. Lambert studied the gold letters, then said, “A.E.W.” With a flourish, Gilbert demonstrated that the initials were "A.L.V." instead. It was his colleague Veitch’s case.
The Temple would later counter Lambert's and another's testimony about the Clark hotel identification by putting May Dutton on the stand to swear that for some time at the period mentioned Mrs. McPherson was in her presence at Bullocks Department Store where she was a saleslady. In addition, Mrs. Irene Levitt, a woman often mistaken as the evangelist, offered a statement that she had entered the Clark Hotel to telephone at about the time in question on May 18. Probably it was she whom Lambert and the hotel doorman, Thomas Melville, saw. Mrs. Levitt's movements were reported in the Los Angeles Times (part tl, Page 2, October 7, 1926). But she was not carrying a briefcase engraved AIMEE SEMPLE McPHERSON.
Really, this attempt to insinuate a rendezvous between the evangelist and the radio man at the Clark Hotel on that fateful Tuesday morning is too ridiculous to command serious consideration. If Mrs. McPherson had been there for that purpose, she would not have advertised her presence by an engraved briefcase!
The other innuendoes of rendezvous likewise collapsed. Agnes Callahan of the Ambassador Hotel staff testified she saw a man approach the door to Mrs. McPherson's room there, to be sure, but a member of the Temple was staying across the hail and countered that the evangelist usually left her door unlocked and that she burst in on her at times. Those are quite unlikely circumstances for a tryst! Indeed, if the evangelist had wanted to get together with someone, she would have avoided public hotels where she registered under her own name! Florence Underwood, who occupied the room across the hall from Sister's 330, was acquainted with Agnes Callahan and stated that the hotel employee never once told her about a man visiting Mrs. McPherson in the Ambassador room.
When Asa Keyes proposed to read into the preliminary hearing record the transcript of Mrs. Kennedy's grand jury testimony, Gilbert exploded, charging the District Attorney with hailing the Temple leaders before that panel to trump up a foundation for Prosecuting them, not kidnappers. “You were not looking for any kidnappers,” Gilbert lectured Keyes. “You were trying to get testimony before the grand jury to base this complaint on.” Mother's testimony was read into the record,
Next to Lorraine Wiseman, Deputy District Attorney Joe Ryan, now removed from the case, was Keyes’ main witness, The testimony of “Lyin’ Ryan,” as some of Sister's bitter Supporters dubbed him, droned on through 299 pages of transcript. On page 1048 of the transcript, Ryan declared that “all you had to do was look at Mrs. McPherson first of all” (when he saw her at Douglas), to know she could not have suffered the desert ordeal she claimed! On page 953 Ryan claimed, “Her Physical appearance at that time was no different than a person under ordinary circumstances.” A host of defense witnesses from Douglas would testify com-pletely to the contrary. Ryan’s testimony before the pre-liminary hearing lends credence tothe claim by his next-door neighbor that he had gone to Douglas to “get” the evangelist.
Ryan's bias was betrayed unmistakably throughout his testimony, but especially when he castigated Mrs. McPherson from the witness stand as “a fake and a hypocrite,” an attitude which developed according to his own statement from his first glimpse of Sister at Douglas. But why did he pretend for days that he believed her story?
The only witness from Douglas called by the prosecution was policeman Alonzo B. Murchison, Keyes would have liked to have produced Agua Prieta’s police chief Villa, but he dared not enter the United States because he was wanted on a criminal warrant. Murchison claimed that in tracking the Mexican desert he found no evidence at all to support Mrs. McPherson's account of her desert trek. He charged that all her meanderings were within three miles of Agua Prieta. Thus i reports of her footprints up to fifteen miles away pepe ony other Douglas witnesses, testifying later for the defense, would contradict Murchison’ 's sg some of the witnesses being his colleagues within the Douglas police department. Meanwhile, Police Chiet ‘ian Bowden was remaining staunchly as a believer in Sister's mae Wiseman's testimony continued for a week, es third week of the hearing. Lately Thomas assessed, ae state admitted she was their prize package; in fact conspiracy case pivoted on her testimony” (p. 273, op. cit.). Because this whirlygig of lying changed her eg ok several times in the days and weeks to come, her la Pe “confessions” contradicting details and charges in i earlier models, there is no need to rehash here what she the court. The testimonies of Emma Schaeffer, Judge Har dy, Elizabeth Frame, and others contradicted every salient point of the hoax woman's disclosures, but Lorraine’ Ss own tA tractions and new allegations did a far more effective ae discrediting her as a witness. Neither the press nor District Attorney's office evidently were able to keep up wii ine’s changes of stories. pag tl eae probably to Mrs. McPherson's advantage that Judge Blake overruled Defense Attorney Gilbert's objection to the appearance of Mrs. Wiseman onthe witness stand, an objection based upon a certified copy ea insane asylum in Utah where Lorraine had been confine: ungovernabletying. The hoax woman’s 1926 lying destroye " case. a gist Seniec: Attorney interrupted Mrs. Wiseman $s interro-gation in order to introduce the affidavit Ormiston had him from Chicago at the end of July. This affidavit absolutely denied Mrs. McPherson’s involvement in the Carmel caper and would seem to have weakened Keyes’ case. Ormiston swore: “Miss X resembles Mrs. McPherson in that she is of usd nae general build and has brown hair..
“| have not seen Miss X since the ni 29th, but have Corresponded with her. feed ig true name and her present whereabouts. She has in-Sisted that make this statement. She is a trained nurse by profession.
“It must be remembered that at the tim Mrs. Benedict saw Miss X in Carmel, at the valde grocery boy saw her, the Salinas garage man, the Santa Barbara reporter, etc., there was a reward standing of $25,000 for information leading to Mrs. McPherson's safe return to the Angelus Temple. Also that Mrs. McPherson's photograph appeared almost daily in all newspapers. Yet the only identification made Was @ Negative one by the reporter. Positive identification two months later by these people are hardly substantial. have Sufficient confidence in Miss
X to state that am of the opinion that before any get should befall Mrs, McPherson, who is ntirely innocent of the matter and ‘et ul to defend herself, that Miss X will ras mi
Supporting mine.”
The problem, of Course, was that the m icati f 5 ere publication of the charges harmed the evangelist. After the first of the year, while the jury trial against Sister was still pending, Ormiston did divulge Miss X's name - Elizabeth Tovey (New York nes January 2, 1927 - 28:3), but the dismissal of the case y Keyes made unnecessary, in the illicit couple's view, sal Joe Coming forward, if that was indeed her real ime. Following the affidavit, Mrs. Wisem: i! spinning her yarn for days. were Bernice Morris made a better witness for Keyes
Seemed that Judge Blake cut Off every effort of Gilb d ert to into the shenanigans of Miss Morris and her employer, tha late blind lawyer McKinley - if in fact he participated in shenanigans. A case in point was Gilbert's efforts to question Miss Morris about what she and McKinley did when they went to San Francisco in mid-August. The blind lawyer told the Temple he was going there to negotiate with kidnapper Wilson. The court sustained Denison's objection. A long exchange ensued as Gilbert tried to get testimony about this trip into the record. The judge blocked the defense attorney on every point, but did permit him to make a statement as to why he wanted Bernice to testify about the trip:
“For the purpose of showing the credibility of the witness and for the purpose of showing that so far as. this — her testimony is concerned, that she and this man McKinley were engaged in a scheme to filch some money from the Temple people, and can de-velop that by cross-examination if am permitted to go into the proper — as conceive, the proper under-standing of cross-examination, to show the weight-to be given to the testimony of the witness or credibility to be attached to her interest in the case. These are my reasons for it'’ (the question) (pp.2449-2450 of the transcript).
Denison immediately renewed his objection, claiming, “This is neither the time nor the place for such an exami-nation.” Gilbert disagreed, “It goes to the credibility of this witness, if your Honor please. am utterly unable to under-stand any rulé of cross-examination which deters counsel from striking at the hidden motives of a witness. That is the object of cross-examination."” But Judge Blake remained adamant. He would not allow Gilbert to inquire about anything Miss Morris and McKinley did, said, or saw during the San Francisco trip.
The Judge and State's attorneys also forestalled Gilbert's efforts to get McKinley's grand jury testimony read into the record in connection with Bernice’s testimony.
Gilbert had not been able even to see a copy of this testimony, so he had no way to check whether McKinley told the Temple leaders the truth when he claimed he gave the grand jury the same story he gave Sister and Mother. Probably, however, he did, because if McKinley's testimony before the grand jury could have injured the Temple leaders the prosecution very likely would have read the transcript into the preliminary hearing record, as they did Mrs. McPherson's and Mrs. Kennedy's, Judge Blake pleaded he was helpless to secure the McKinley transcript, and the prosecution refused to produce it, indeed in effect told Gilbert that it was none of his business. Bernice Morris unfolded a sto! Claiming Si Mother coached her to fabricate silence Mewes under oath her previous Statement, which Joe Watts denied that Watts phoned Sister, pretended to be her kidnapper, and reported her response, “My God, is it really you?” Joe Watts’ name appeared on Keyes’ list of witnesses but he was not Called to testify, probably because he was sticking to his denial of making that call. Judge Blake probably should not have allowed Bernice to quote Watts’ alleged report of the conversation since that report, had it been true, would have been sheer hearsay. But the Court let hearsay in favor of the prosecution in and kept hearsay in favor of the defense Out, not Probably from any bias, but because it was a foregone Conclusion that the pretiminary hearing would terminate in the binding over of the defendants, as usually happens in such proceedings. Blake's relative inexperience as a jurist may also have been a factor. At any rate, Sister had no trouble Producing witnesses who heard what she actually said during the phone call from whoever pretended to be a kidnapper, and her words definitely weren't what Bernice Morris’ hearsay testimony reported, Bernice Morris related how she gave the Los Angeles Times the negative of the Joe Watts “kidnapper” picture, which Mrs, McPherson denied ever identifying. She read the document taken from McKinley's body, containing questions Sister thought she was sending to the kidnappers about the first captivity house. This ended with a firm demand for proof, which would satisfy the evangelist “that am in contact with the same people (the kidnappers). promise not to prosecute or betray you to police, but must be absolutely convinced and able to convince world as to your actual sincerity” (p. 2350 of transcript). Those who give McKinley the benefit of the doubt - assuming he actually was trying to negotiate with Miller and Wilson in a bona fide manner - regard the presence of this document on his body as indication that he was in fact working on the case that day or night, or intended to do so after returning from the lodge meeting. Otherwise he would have left the letter in his office, or ditched it if he was perpetrating a hoax.
Bernice Morris’ testimony concerning interviews with Temple leaders contradicted materially the stenographic record of those meetings kept by Mae Waldron and the stenographer’s personal recollection of conversations. Bernice stoutly denied that McKinley told her the Temple had paid a $1,000 retainer, but allowed that she must have banked it herself, since the Temple had McKinley's receipt, and she banked the money. Gilbert almost trapped this witness with the question, “Do you remember having said to Mrs. McPherson and Mrs. Kennedy that you only had $100 left of the $1,000 that was given by them to Mr. McKinley?" “No, sir,” Bernice retorted, “| did not say that.” Then she hedged, “| might have said a certain amount we had left when Mr. McKinley died, but never mentioned that they gave him $1,000.” She denied ever asking on her own for any specific sum from the Temple, but Sister and Mother and Mae recalled requests dropping from an initial $1,500 to the finally paid $100, for which Bernice refused to sign a receipt. She took the money to pass on to the kidnappers. Her own fraud here should discredit her whole “confession.” If the evangelist were conspiring, more than $100 would have been tendered! The exchange between Gilbert and Morris about the retainer extends from Page 2423 to 2425 of the transcript.
Gilbert denounced Bernice's testimony with the out-burst, “This lady has testified she was engaged with Judge Mckinley in the perpetration of a hoax, and that is, as understand, the sum and total of her testimony this morning” (p. 2403). He appealed to the Temple's authorization of the San Francisco trip as proof of Sister's and Mother's good faith in the dealings with McKinley.
During the cross-examination, Denison interrupted with a harangue against Gilbert's attempts to show a connection between McKinley and the kidnappers. In part the deputy deciared: “The testimony is between the 19th day of May, 1926, it is undisputed and Standing ‘uncontradicted in this record between the 19th day of May at 4 o'clock in the morning and the 29th day of May inthe evening, when Aimee Semple McPherson fled from the Carmel cottage, that she had been there for ten days, and all this hoax of kidnappers is absolutely disproved by that statement” (p. 2414). Denison must have not been listening when three prosecution witnesses, Benedict, Williams, and McMichaels swore the woman at Carmel was not the evangelist and when August England testified similarly for the defense! All four of those witnesses contradicted and disputed the presence of Mrs. McPherson in Carmel.
There is a real problem in litigation that the opposing Counsel often are more interested in winning a case than uncovering the truth. But here, documented from Deputy District Attorney Denison’s own mouth, is a bold-face falsehood,
Throughout his direct examination, Denison had re-ferred to Miss Morris as “This little girl” (cf. p.2416 when Deputy Murray used the expression to protest Gilbert's intense cross-examination). Gilbert satirized, “Of course, your honor, we do not want to be put in the attitude of having
» perpetrated a fraud upon a child with two divorced husbands. But she is here as a witness, 23 years old.” Bernice Morris Allcorn Simpson winced. Fortunately for the Temple leaders, they and another witness could contradict Bernice’s con-spiracy allegations and they had stenographic records to document their good faith in dealing with her. These likely would have been entered as exhibits if the case had gone to jury trial.
The prosecution's final witness, handwriting expert Milton Carlson who worked for the police, testified that the handwriting on the Carmel grocery slips matched that of the evangelist. He was working, of course, from photostats since the originals had disappeared in the grand jury room. The prosecution hinted that Juror Holmes flushed them down a toilet - for what reason the authorities could never explain, while Mother Kennedy came within a hair of accusing Joe Ryan of being responsible. The defense had a handwriting expert of his own who testified and demonstrated that the grocery slips’ handwriting had been doctored. Hence they were worthless for identification.
The State rested its case on October 19 - on page 2583 of the transcript. After a five minute recess the Defense commenced its presentation. Gilbert called as his first witness C. E. Cross from Douglas, Arizona. Cross’ testimony constituted the keystone in Gilbert's construction of what he hoped would be a massive confirmation of Sister's story about her desert trek after her escape. And Cross came through as expected. He denied decisively rumors that he had doubted the evangelist’s account - innuendoes that Lately Thomas echoed without taking the trouble to report Cross’ denial under oath.
Cross qualified himself, under Gilbert's questioning, as an expert desert tracker. He had spent the last 20 years in Arizona where he worked as an officer and a cowboy much of the time. He did considerable tracking in Mexico, Gilbert proceeded, "Mr. Cross, have you traveled in the desert and On foot in the summer months in theregion of Agua Prieta and Douglas, Arizona and in that surrounding country?” When the witness answered affirmatively, Gilbert inquired, “What, in a general way, do you know of the ability of anyone to travel 15 or 20 miles without water, based on your own experience.” Cross answered, “Well, it can be done, have done it.” After a barrage of objections protesting the next question asking Specific incidents was overruled, Cross reported several trips of twelve hours or longer without water in that desert, “| remember one time walked twenty-two miles when the horse fell with me on the range, just a few miles west of where Mrs. McPherson was,” he testified. The hike began about noon and ended about ten that night. worked the next day. Did not feel any bad effects from it.” Gilbert wondered, “To what extent did you suffer from the lack of water?” Cross conceded, “I wanted water, Sure, but could not get it.” The witness also described a hike in May 1914 or 1915, was a peace officer within three miles of where we found her (Mrs. McPherson’s) tracks. On this trip and the sheriff trailed a Mexican from on the Arizona side across into Sonora, Mexico, and south, and on that trip we walked from7 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night without water.” “What was your condition?” defense counsel inquired. Cross replied, “We went home the next day and trailed the man just the same, trailed him 70 miles south of Agua Prieta before we caught him.” Cross testified his feet were not bleeding nor were his eyes bloodshot or lips cracked” (quotations from Pages 2605 to 2612 of transcript).
According to the Los Angeles Times, Cross “caused a ripple of laughter when he Said that Deputy District Attorney Ryan was not looking for tracks when he went out into the desert” ostensibly to follow Sister's footprints. “He got out of the car once and had his picture taken,” this witness stated (part Il, page 1, October 20, 1926). Cross reflected contempt for tenderfoot trackers like Cline and Ryan. He contradicted Murchison’s previous testimony materially and insisted that the evangelist’s condition as he saw her in erg ge shoes and her clothing, were all Saeed ti i i te es; such as she described. He inspec’ ‘McPherson wore in from the desert and declared, These shoes could have been walked 25 miles and gomeditgene there on the soles there any more than they are be et i " (p. 2618). He displayed his ow uppers in that country” (p. A 7 porte ee hich had covered more territory i i is saw they were not noticably yoo pied a insi oes sho mined, Cross insisted, “These s wea” He declared, “They show that they have been ee on the soles.” Then Cross unleashed a blockbuster, oc they look to me like they had been oe Sb ene had a little r n them. It seems to me that they eee on those soles when first saw them than they fave now” (pp. 2670-2671). Dennison didn't ges that ri ioning in trouble. Cross al of questioning any further. He was in testified that the nature of the desert was not such as would ct shoes and dress. i; sid Gilbert interrupted the examination of the witness Cross to put Florence Underwood on the stand. Her testimony concerning Mrs. McPherson's routine when occupying pe 330 across the hall from her at the Ambassador ral decisive that the prosecution asked not one questi cross-examination. The nurse told of entering the na ie list’s room on several occasions and noting a i books laid out for study. The two women visited cin al forth across the narrow hallway “often, Mrs. Uni ae recalled. She never gave Sister notice of her visits. came in, the door never was locked” (p. 2698). Gilbel inquired, “Did you at any time all of that period of sn emt... or any man so far as strange man enter her room bal “4 sa Ibert asked about the ncerned?” The nurse said, “No.” Gi rn Agnes Callahan, who thought she oe eddie i Id articulate its room. Before the prosecution cou > the witness stated that Mrs. Callahan never mentioned ay rn ro og go into the evangelist's room.
; was the first of a parade of witn Arizona-Sonora, Mexico border area Siete and a list's Story. Douglas police officer C.E. Patterson stout denied statements attributed to him doubting Sister's dane, trek. He had never told anyone that no woman could hav made the hike and arrive in the condition he found Aes McPherson in when the taxi deposited her at the police station. Patterson reported she was thoroughly exhausted He also told of finding a woman’s footprints some eight il; away from Agua Prieta. aaa
Merchant patrotman Geor le W. C i colleague Patterson's Story ae ita ee arp upon arrival in Douglas. He described her as “all in a testimony afforded dramatic confirmation that the emple pastor could very well have made the hike she claimed, After testifying that her ankles turned and she had be supported when attempting to enter the hospital, Cook reported welts on Sister's wrists - “from friction la surmised, where a rope or thong had bound them, eit is asked whether Cook himself ventured out onto Mexican desert to investigate the country. The officer fetus na ie wife, his eleven year old daughter, and ir aby” went out “about ei ine mi and left our car and walked from iteduaeinieti ee crossed the International fence, crawled through it, and went over behind Niggerhead mountain, a distance of Probab! aS hee Peg The trip took about three hours, and the, ly. Coo! related that the baby was dre: i serbtts Lene se i The child walked are all mile of hiking when Cook carri ie What was the Condition of the little baby's pine ‘ene foe slippers?" the lawyer asked. Cook E juld ni i i dee ae anything on them at all - no Gilbert showed Cook the Evangelist's shoes and in- quired whether a person could traverse territory like his family hiked and cover ‘15 or 18 miles and leave the shoes in the condition that those are in now?” Cook answered an emphatic, “Yes, sir.” Gilbert asked, “Your baby’s shoes, assume, were lighter than these shoes?” The policeman replied, “Much lighter.” Besides they were black which would mark up easier. When Dennison cross-examined he got smart. Referring to Cook’s initial introduction to the evangelist, he sneered, “You knew you were beholding the great Bernhart of the pulpit, didn't you?” Cook conceded, “I realized she was quite a factor in the pulpit.” Dennison pressed, “You realized you were in the presence of a great dramatic artist, didn't you?” Gilbert sputtered a protest: “Your honor, object to that, and if this gentleman had any refinement he would not'ask such a question” (p.2751). The court sustained the objection. Dennison got nowhere in trying to undermine Cook's de-scription of Sister's state of “total collapse”, as he put it, upon her arrival in Douglas. And his cross-examination con-cerning the Cook child's desert hiking only served to intensity the force of the testimony favorable to Sister.
The Gonzales' from Agua Prieta related Sister's collapse on their property. Ramon told his wife, “I think this lady is dead.” Theresa, according to Lately Thomas, “volunteered that Mrs. McPherson did not ask for water until an hour after her appearance at their house” (p. 266, op. cit.). This seems to be a deliberate distortion, for Mrs. Gonzales reported, “She asked for water” as soon as she recovered from un-consciousness. She could hardly have made the request in the long period she was unconscious!
Deputy United States Marshal for Arizona, T. F. Sims, described his search for tracks the day after the evangelist reappeared. With Constable Ash and Police Lieutenant Gatliff of Douglas and a reporter, Harold Henry, he located Mrs. McPherson's tracks as far as fifteen miles from Agua
Prieta. Then Gilbert offered in evidence a copy of the Douglas
Dispatch which reported that Joe Ryan had “complete knowledge and full inforaiatiok as to ieeerene that he knew all about them before he came back from Douglas, Arizona, and that no attempt whatever was made by him to trace these tracks” (P. 2920). Cross had testified that Ryan really wasn't looking for tracks. The newspaper con-firmed it. But Judge Blake sustained Murray's objection to tae the Paper in evidence, though conceding the paper ae @ binding on him as impeachment” (on Ryan; p. Sims described the country Sister traversed as “in places a little sandy, and in places it is hard,” with “very little” cactus and Catsclaw or things that would tear or destroy shoes. Gilbert asked, “What effect did it have on your clothing walked through there?" Sims Said, “None at all” (p.; On cross-examination Dennison inquired, “In your opinion would you think a person walking through there with low vici shoes On, do you think the rocks would scuff up or cut the shoes in any way?” Sims answered, “I do not” (p.2934). Why is it that the sensational rehashes of this case never rehearse testimony like this which attests the evangelist could have made the trek she claimed? The authors usually just dismiss the whole idea as impossible. But it could have happened according to Cross, Cook, Patterson, Sims, plus Gatliff, Ash, and Henry who were yet to testify. The Siegen ale only Murchison from Douglas to scout sibility, and the i i i a et y, other witnesses contradicted him Reporter Harold Henry testified to seei footprints fifteen to dightesr niles from Aedes pees Over strenuous objections by Dennison, the Court permitted Gilbert to ask Henry a question impeaching Murchison’s testimony. Gilbert inquired whether Mr, Murchison told Henry that the tracks found along the road outside of Agua Prieta Could not at all be connected with the turning of the automobile,” whose tire marks were found the day after Sister's trek. “He did, yes, sir,” the newsman confirmed. Murchison at that time denied any connection, as also did Cross. But Cross did not change his story.
Douglas Police Lieutenant Leslie Gatliff testified to seeing a woman's tracks fourteen to sixten miles from Agua Prieta when he investigated the desert. Gatliff displayed the shoes he wore, and they showed no noticeable wear. And Constable O. A. Ash of Douglas described the area as “grazing country rather than desert” (p. 3240) through which the evangelist traveled.
Undeniably the preponderance of the desert testimony favored Sister's story, as for that matter did the evangelist’s physical stamina, for she was used to strenuous exercise. The ordeal of captivity did not completely rob her of her endurance.
Gilbert kept Carlos Hardy, a Superior Court Judge since January 1923, on the witness stand for a long interrogation. The jurist swore to the Temple's good faith in dealing with McKinley and read a letter from the jate blind lawyer protesting his belief in Mrs. McPherson's account of her kidnapping. His testimony contradicted Bernice Morris’ in minor points and Lorraine Wiseman's in major points. The prosecution had subpoenaed him as a witness, but did not call him to the stand. The Judge, whose career would collapse in ruin later when the press learned that he had accepted a love offering type of contribution from the Temple to help finance his August vacation - Mrs. Hardy had hinted it would be helpful - staunchly defended Mrs. McPherson and swore he believed her account of the kidnapping.
After the judge’s testimony, Mrs. Kennedy and Sister showed elation. The evangelist felt Hardy proved McKinley had made areal effort to find her abductors. Mother declared, “Now you can see there was no conspiracy on our part, and that the only conspiracy there was existed in the minds of the District Attorney's office.”
Another Douglas witness, photographer M. E. Irwin, supported Sister's story. And handwriting expert Douglas Swan discredited the Carmel grocery slips by proving that they had been “altered, patched, erased, rewritten, over-written, and otherwise strengthened” before the photos, which were all that survived after the originals disappeared from the grand jury chamber, Mother stuck by her guns that Ryan had a hand in the disappearance of the originals. Did he have a hand in their doctoring?
Two days before the defense rested its case on October 28th, after five weeks of the hearing, O. L. Shadford, a Partner inthe Kimball Sales Company at Broadway and Fourth in Los Angeles, addressed a letter to Attorney Gilbert. The single Paragraph advised, “Gene Ross, the dark picture artist of the Examiner, told some parties last night that she talked with the leading reporters of the Examiner and at the trial and they were sure now that Mrs. McPherson was not at Carmel but they had to get her out of the Temple or every one would be going there.” Gilbert passed the letter on to his clients.
The prosecution and defense filed briefs on Monday, November 1. On the 3rd, Judge Blake bound the defendants over for trial in Superior Court. Sister dictated a statement welcoming the opportunity to be tried before a jury. Atthe end she added in her own handwriting the confidence, “There can be no doubt as to the ultimate outcome of this out-rageous persecution. it is against all law and order and the District Attorney in his own heart knows this to be a fact.”
One thing is sure: within a few days the District Attorney knew in his own heart that he had no hopes of convicting the evangelist, for his star witness, Lorraine Wiseman, went on a rampage of retractions and changes in her testimony. The hoax woman, Keyes complained, after the preliminary hearing “changed her story almost daily.” And what whoppers she whelped! One accused Attorney Wooley, who always had abominated her as “fire”, as being the real brains behind her coaching. Keyes grilled Wooley brutally before giving him a clean bill of heaith.