Kidnapping of Aimee Semple McPherson

On May 18, 1926, Aimee Semple McPherson disappeared from off Venice Beach, California after going for a swim. She was found in Mexico five weeks later, stating she escaped from kidnappers holding her ransom there. The reported kidnapping, escape through the Mexican desert and subsequent court inquiries precipitated a media frenzy that changed the course of McPherson's career.

Kidnapping on Venice Beach

On May 18, 1926, McPherson went with her secretary to Ocean Park Beach north of Venice Beach to swim. Soon after arriving, McPherson was nowhere to be found. It was thought she had drowned.

McPherson was scheduled to hold a service that day; her mother Minnie Kennedy preached the sermon instead, saying at the end, "Sister is with Jesus," sending parishioners into a tearful frenzy. Mourners crowded Venice Beach and the commotion sparked days-long media coverage fueled in part by William Randolph Hearst's Los Angeles Examiner and a stirring poem by Upton Sinclair to commemorate the tragedy. Daily updates appeared in newspapers across the country and parishioners held day-and-night seaside vigils. One parishioner drowned while searching for the body, and a diver died of exposure.

Kenneth G. Ormiston, the engineer for KFSG, had taken other assignments around late December 1925 and left his job at the Temple.[1] Newspapers later linked McPherson and Ormiston, the latter seen driving up the coast with an unidentified woman. Some believed McPherson and Ormiston, who was married, had become romantically involved and had run off together. Several ransom notes and other communications were sent to the Temple, some were relayed to the police, who thought they were hoaxes and others dismissed as fraudulent. McPherson "sightings" were abundant, as many as 16 in different cities and other locations on the same day. For a time, Mildred Kennedy, McPherson's mother, offered a $25,000[2] reward for information leading to the return of her daughter.

The ransom demands sent included a note by the "Revengers" who wanted $500,000[3] and another for $25,000[2] conveyed by a lawyer who claimed contact with the kidnappers. The handwritten "Revengers" note later disappeared from the LA Police evidence locker and the lawyer was found dead in a possibly suspicious accident before his claim could be adequately investigated.[4][5][6] A lengthy ransom letter from the "Avengers" arrived around June 19, 1926, also forwarded to the police, demanded $500,000[3] or else kidnappers would sell McPherson into "white slavery." Relating their prisoner was a nuisance because she was incessantly preaching to them, the lengthy, two-page poorly typewritten letter also indicated the kidnappers worked hard to spread the word McPherson was held captive, and not drowned. Kennedy regarded the notes as hoaxes, believing her daughter dead.[7]

After emerging from the Mexican desert, McPherson convalesces in a hospital with her family in Douglas, Arizona 1926. District Attorney Asa Keyes stands to the far left with Mildred Kennedy (mother) next to Roberta Star Semple, middle left (daughter). On the far right Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan is alongside her son, Rolf McPherson.

Return in the Desert

Shortly thereafter, on June 23, McPherson stumbled out of the desert in Agua Prieta, Sonora, a Mexican town across the border from Douglas, Arizona. The Mexican couple she approached there thought she had died when McPherson collapsed in front of them. An hour later she stirred and the couple covered her with blankets.[8] She claimed she had been kidnapped, drugged, tortured, and held for ransom in a shack by two men and a woman, "Steve," "Rose," [9]and another unnamed man.[10][11][12] She also claimed she had escaped from her captors and walked through the desert for about 13 hours to freedom.

Following her return from Douglas, Arizona, McPherson was greeted at the train station by 30,000–50,000 people, more than for almost any other personage.[13] The parade back to the temple even elicited a greater turnout than President Woodrow Wilson's visit to Los Angeles in 1919, attesting to her popularity and the growing influence of mass media entertainment.[14][15][16]

Already incensed over McPherson's influential public stance on evolution and the Bible, most of the Chamber of Commerce and some other civic leaders, however, saw the event as gaudy display; nationally embarrassing to the city. Many Los Angeles area churches were also annoyed. The divorcee McPherson had settled in their town and many of their parishioners were now attending her church, with its elaborate sermons that, in their view, diminished the dignity of the Gospel. The Chamber of Commerce, together with Reverend Robert P. Shuler leading the Los Angeles Church Federation, and assisted by the press and others, became an informal alliance to determine if her disappearance was caused by other than a kidnapping.[17][18]

Between 30,000 to 50,000 people greeted McPherson at the train station following her return from Douglas, Arizona, the town she convalesced in after stating she escaped from kidnappers.

Some were skeptical of her story since McPherson seemed in unusually good health for her alleged ordeal; her clothing showing no signs of what they expected of a long walk through the desert. This was disputed by most Douglas, Arizona, residents, the town where McPherson was taken to convalesce, including expert tracker C.E. Cross, who testified that McPherson's physical condition, shoes, and clothing were all consistent with an ordeal such as she described.[19][20][21]

Grand jury inquiries

When McPherson was interrogated in Douglas, Arizona by Prosecutor District Attorney Asa Keyes and Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan, both seemed empathetic to her story. Ryan said he could make the desert trip without scuffing or marking his commissary shoes.[22][23] McPherson therefore presented herself in court as a victim of a crime seeking redress. Pressured by various influential Los Angeles business, media, political and religious interests [18] Keyes and Ryan instead opened the grand jury inquiry with insinuating questions, implying McPherson and her mother were involved in a deception.[24]

In Los Angeles, ahead of any court date, McPherson noticed newspaper stories about her kidnapping becoming more and more sensationalized as the days passed. To maintain excited, continued public interest, she speculated, the newspapers let her original account give way to rain torrents of "new spice and thrill" stories about her being elsewhere "with that one or another one." It did not matter if the material was disproved or wildly contradictory. No correction or apology was given for the previous story as another, even more outrageous tale, took its place.[25]

A grand jury convened on July 8, 1926, but adjourned 12 days later citing lack of evidence to proceed with any charges against either alleged kidnappers or perjury by McPherson. McPherson was told they would be open to receive any evidence submitted by her should she desire to further substantiate her kidnapping story.[26][27][28][29]

The prosecution collected five witnesses who asserted to have seen McPherson at the Benedict [30] seaside cottage in Carmel-by-the-Sea, with the cottage being rented by Ormiston under an assumed name. It was pointed out that even though most of these witnesses knew of the $25,000[2] reward for McPherson's return, with her pictures prominently appearing in the newspapers, none of the five stepped forward at the time they allegedly saw McPherson to claim it.[31][32] Moreover, several other witnesses, including two the prosecution erroneously thought would testify for them, stated the woman was not McPherson.[33] Ormiston admitted to having rented the cottage but claimed that the woman who had been there with him – known in the press as Mrs. X – was not McPherson but another woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

The grand jury reconvened on August 3 and took further testimony along with documents from hotels, all said by various newspapers to be in McPherson's handwriting. These, though, were later revealed to be Elizabeth Tovey's, a woman traveling with Ormiston, whose handwriting did not at all resemble McPherson's.[34] McPherson steadfastly stuck to her story, that she was approached by a young couple at the beach who had asked her to come over and pray for their sick child, and that she was then shoved into a car and drugged with chloroform.[35]


The Carmel cottage was further checked for fingerprints, but none belonging to McPherson were recovered. Two grocery slips found in the yard of the cottage were studied by a police handwriting expert and determined to be McPherson's penmanship. While the original slips later mysteriously disappeared from the courtroom, photo-stat copies were available.[36] The defense had a handwriting expert of their own who demonstrated the grocery slips were not McPherson's but doctored to look like hers. The slips' suspicious origin was also questioned. The original slips would have been in the yard for two months, surviving dew, fog, and lawn maintenance before their discovery.[37]

California grand jury members are bound by law not to discuss the case to protect the integrity of the process in determining if there is sufficient cause for a formal juried trial. The Reverend Robert P. Shuler was told as much by a newspaper in response to an open demand he made for more disclosure in the ongoing inquiry.[38] In the McPherson case, proceedings became quite public, as observed by journalist H. L. Mencken. A vocal critic of McPherson,[39] Mencken wrote of her, "For years she toured the Bible Belt in a Ford, haranguing the morons nightly, under canvas. It was a depressing life, and its usufructs were scarcely more than three meals a day. The town [he refers to Los Angeles] has more morons in it than the whole State of Mississippi, and thousands of them had nothing to do save gape at the movie dignitaries and go to revivals" (from The American Mercury, 1930). Mencken had been sent to cover the trial and there was every expectation he would continue his searing critiques against the evangelist. Instead, he came away impressed with McPherson and disdainful of the unseemly nature of the prosecution.[40]

The defense rested its case on October 28 and the judge, on November 3, decided enough evidence had been garnered against the evangelist and her mother for a jury trial case in Los Angeles, set for mid-January 1927. The charges were a criminal conspiracy to commit acts injurious to public morals, to prevent and obstruct justice, and to prevent the due administration of the laws, and of engaging in a criminal conspiracy to commit the crime of subordination of perjury. If convicted, the counts added up to maximum prison time of forty-two years.[41][42][43]

Regardless of the court's decision, months of unfavorable press reports fixed in much of the public's mind a certainty of McPherson's wrongdoing. Many readers were unaware of prosecution evidence having become discredited because it was often placed in the back columns while some new accusation against McPherson held prominence on the headlines. In a letter he wrote to the Los Angeles Times a few months after the case was dropped, the Reverend Robert P. Shuler stated, "Perhaps the most serious thing about this whole situation is the seeming loyalty of thousands to this leader in the face of her evident and positively proven guilt."[44]

Some supporters thought McPherson should have insisted on the jury trial and cleared her name. The grand jury inquiry concluded while enough evidence did not exist to try her, it did not indicate her story was true with its implication of kidnappers still at large.[45] Therefore, anyone could still accuse her of a hoax without fear of slander charges and frequently did so. McPherson, though, was treated harshly in many previous sessions at court, being verbally pressured in every way possible to change her story or elicit some bit of incriminating information.[46] Moreover, court costs to McPherson were estimated as high as US $100,000 dollars.[47][48] A jury trial could take months. McPherson moved on to other projects. In 1927 she published a book about her version of the kidnapping: In the Service of the King: The Story of My Life.

Controversies with the inquiries

H.L. Mencken

H. L. Mencken determined the evangelist was being persecuted by two powerful groups. The "town clergy" which included Rev. Robert P. Shuler, disliked her, for among other things, poaching their "customers" and for the perceived sexual immorality associated with Pentecostalism. Her other category of enemies were "the Babbits", the power elite of California. McPherson's strong stand on bible fundamentalism was not popular with them, especially after taking a stand during the 1925 Scopes trial which gave "science a bloody nose." In addition McPherson was working to put a bible in every public school classroom and to forbid the teaching of evolution. The Argonaut, a San Francisco newspaper, warned these actions made her a threat to the entire state which could place "California on intellectual parity with Mississippi and Tennessee."Mencken later wrote: "The trial, indeed, was an orgy typical of the half-fabulous California courts. The very officers of justice denounced her riotously in the Hearst papers while it was in progress."[39] To combat the bad newspaper publicity, McPherson spoke freely about the court inquiries on the air during her radio broadcasts.[49]

Theories

Theories and innuendo were rampant: that she had run off with a lover, had gone off to have an abortion, was taking time to heal from plastic surgery, or had staged a publicity stunt. Two-inch headlines called her a tart, a conspirator, and a home-wrecker.[50] McPherson's near death medical operation in 1914,[51] which prevented her from having more children, was already part of the public record. When challenged about the abortion claim with a request to pay for the medical exam to prove it, the newspaper which printed the story backed down. Some prosecutor witnesses stated when they saw McPherson in Carmel, she had short hair, and furor ensued she was currently wearing fake hair swatches piled up to give the impression of longer tresses. McPherson, as requested by her lawyer, stood up, unpinned her hair, which fell abundantly around her shoulders, shocking the witnesses and others into embarrassed silence.[50] McPherson learned that in a celebrity crazed-culture fueled by mass media, a leading lady could become a villainess in the blink of an eye.[52]

Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff

The chief witness against McPherson was now Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff. She first stated she was in Carmel as a nurse for Ormiston's mistress; and because she somewhat physically resembled McPherson, it was her that people were misidentifying as the evangelist. Later, after the Angelus Temple refused to post her bail when she was arrested for passing a bad check, Wiseman-Sielaff said McPherson paid her to tell that story. Her testimony was fluidly inconsistent, and it changed significantly yet again in late December, 1926. Prosecutor Asa Keyes eventually concluded Wiseman-Sielaff's story was not true and a "grievous wrong had been done."

Morover, on January 2, 1927, Kenneth Ormiston testified that Elizabeth Tovey, a nurse from Seattle, Washington, was his female companion and the woman who stayed with him at the seaside cottage on May 19-29 in Carmel-by-the Sea. Afterwards, Ormiston took her to a hotel where they quarreled and he left there. The hotel proprietor stated on the evening of May 29, that the woman who accompanied Ormiston registered as "Elizabeth Tovey," and was not the evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson. [53][54] The Examiner newspaper reported that Los Angeles district attorney Asa Keyes had dropped all charges against McPherson and associated parties on January 10, 1927.[55][56][57]

Aftermath

The 1926 grand jury case, the largest of its kind in California, had hundreds of reporters looking for discrediting evidence against McPherson. Almost $500,000[58] was spent[59] (most by newspapers assisting in the investigation), 3,600 pages of transcripts generated,[60] and agencies, officials and others continued to investigate, even years later, but were unable to prove her kidnapping story false.[61][62] In 1929, after a failed request by the state senate to reopen the older 1926 case,[63] Journalist Morrow Mayo noted it was the last chance in California to "ruin that red-headed sorceress", and "she is free to serve the Lord until the Marines are called out." [64]

The tale was later satirized in a song performed by [Pete Seeger]] called "The Ballad of Aimee McPherson," with lyrics claiming the kidnapping had been unlikely because a hotel love nest revealed "the dents in the mattress fitted Aimee's caboose."

The Court of Historical Review and Appeal in San Francisco, which holds no legal authority, is made up of members of the bench who examine and retry historical cases and controversies. In April 1990, a decision was handed down regarding the matter of McPherson's kidnapping story. George T. Choppelas, the then presiding judge of the San Francisco Municipal Court, ruling for the Court of Historical Review, found the issues involved both serious and fascinating. He concluded that "there was never any substantial evidence to show that her story was untrue. She may not have been a saint, but she certainly was no sinner, either."[65]

References

  1. ↑ Cox, Raymond L. The Verdict is In, 1983. pp. 37–38. Note: Ormiston presented himself to the police headquarters May 27 to deny that he "went into hiding;" he also indicated his name connected to the evangelist was "a gross insult to a noble and sincere woman." He gave a detailed description of his movements since May 19, 1926, but did not mention Carmel.
  2. 1 2 3 about US $315,000.00 in 2012 dollars
  3. 1 2 about US $6.3 million in 2012
  4. ↑ Lately, Thomas The Vanishing Evangelist: the Aimee Semple McPherson Kidnapping Affair (Viking Press, 1959) p. 26
  5. ↑ Cox, pp. 17–18
  6. ↑ Epstein, pp. 295, 312
  7. ↑ Cox, pp. 41–42
  8. ↑ Cox, p. 70
  9. ↑ McPherson, Aimee Semple, In the Service of the King: The Story of My Life (Boni and Liveright, New York, 1927), p.16. NOTE: McPherson's statements as well as most period newspapers and most biographers (i.e. Mavity, p. 122; Thomas, p. 58; Sutton, p. 99; and Blumhofer, p. 288), referred to the woman as "Rose." Some other articles and biographers (i.e. Epstein, p. 297) nicknamed the woman "Mexicali Rose." Private detectives hired by Mildred Kennedy did attempt to follow up on a rumor of a "Rose," in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico, however(Hardy Impeachment Trial, p. 218).
  10. ↑ "American Experience . Sister Aimee". PBS. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  11. ↑ Cox, p. 58. Note: Epstein refers to the third man as "Jake," Sutton's account does not name the 3rd individual. When asked the ethnicity of the kidnappers, McPherson, though not entirely certain, believed them all to be from the United States.
  12. ↑ Shuler, Robert, Fighting Bob Shuler of Los Angeles Dog Ear Publishing, 2012 p. 178. Note: Indictments were made against Steve Doe, Rose Doe, and John Doe
  13. ↑ Melton, J. Gordon The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena, (Visible Ink Press, 2007) p. 218
  14. ↑ Sutton, p. 103
  15. ↑ "President Wilson visits L.A. - Framework - Photos and Video - Visual Storytelling from the Los Angeles Times". Framework.latimes.com. 2011-06-20. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  16. ↑ Melton, J. Gordon The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena, (Visible Ink Press, 2007) p. 218
  17. ↑ Epstein, p. 301
  18. 1 2 Sutton, pp. 120–122
  19. ↑ Modesto Bee And News-Herald 20 October 1926, Page 1
  20. ↑ Thomas, Vanishing Evangelist pp. 285-286, 291
  21. ↑ Cox, pp. 85, 209–211. Note: persons who recovered and drove McPherson to the hospital in Douglas, Arizona, describe she showed much signs of stress. She was emaciated to the point of being unrecognizable by many who saw her. Her shoes were white with desert dust and her hands were covered with grime. A nurse picked some cactus spines from her legs and rubbed some preparation on the toe where a blister had broken. (Cox, pp. 71–72).
  22. ↑ Thomas, Vanishing Evangelist, p. 125
  23. ↑ Cox, p. 68
  24. ↑ Thomas, Vanishing Evangelist p. 123
  25. ↑ McPherson, Aimee Semple, In the Service of the King: The Story of My Life (Boni and Liveright, New York, 1927) p. 54
  26. ↑ Sutton, p. 107
  27. ↑ "History of the FBI". Policyalmanac.org. Retrieved 2013-11-14.Note: Except as an limited resource to local authorities. The FBI did not actively investigate possible kidnappings until 1932; when Congress passed a federal kidnapping statute.
  28. ↑ Thomas, Vanishing Evangelist, pp. 101, 176. Note: After evaluating the numerous newspaper reports, one Los Angeles Superior Court judge, Carlos Hardy, informally advised McPherson to hire private detectives to assist her. In his view, law enforcement officials were making no effort to find any substantiating evidence of a kidnapping and were only interested in breaking down her end of the story.
  29. ↑ Cox, pp. 184, 214. Note: Tracks matching the shoes McPherson wore were found as far out as 15 to 18 miles in the remote desert and reported on in some newspapers, but the location of the desert shack McPherson was held in could not be conclusively found at that time. A hidden shack was discovered later in September by Douglas, Arizona authorities, which fit closely the description McPherson provided, however, the Los Angeles police, declined to investigate. It was later reported that McPherson's attorneys would establish the fact that the prison shack is 21 miles below Douglas, Az. The evangelist herself was to be one of the witnesses, identifying photographs of the building (Emporia Gazette, - October 22, 1926, newspaper, Emporia, Kansas, p. 1) (The Miami News - Oct 21, 1926 (Associated Press, Los Angeles, Oct 11)).
  30. ↑ http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=d&d=CDS19260929.2.21&e=--------20--1-----all----
  31. ↑ Sutton, p. 124
  32. ↑ Epstein, p .308
  33. ↑ Cox, pp. 3, 194–195, 197. Note: The prosecution aided by Joseph Ryan, Deputy District Attorney, obtained the Five Carmel witnesses by first looking for people who at least got a brief glimpse of the woman with Ormiston. Ryan would take a sheath of photographs taken of McPherson, as provided by the newspapers and then show them to the prospective witnesses one photograph at a time. Once the witness finally agreed that a photo resembled the woman with Ormiston, Ryan would have his "identification" that McPherson was seen in Carmel, with Ormiston. This photo-stack trick did not work on people who had actually gotten a closer look at the mystery woman, such as the landlord, H C Benedict, who rented the cottage to the couple. Benedict testified Ryan tried very hard to get him to identify the woman in his rented cottage as McPherson, but "I said I could not." When asked about the photos of McPherson, he answered, "he had a whole squad of them up there...and they been pulling these photographs and saying "do you recognize this" and another one "Do you recognize this?""(Cox, pp. 150, 166)
  34. ↑ Cox, p. 160
  35. ↑ McPherson, Aimee Semple, In the Service of the King: The Story of My Life (Boni and Liveright, New York, 1927) p. 265.
  36. ↑ Thomas, Vanishing Evangelist, p. 284
  37. ↑ Cox, pp. 151, 152
  38. ↑ Shuler, Robert, Fighting Bob Shuler of Los Angeles Dog Ear Publishing, 2012 p. 179
  39. 1 2 "Isadora Duncan, Aime Semple McPherson - H. L. Mencken". Ralphmag.org. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  40. ↑ Sutton, pp. 120–121.
  41. ↑ Sutton, pp. 133–134
  42. ↑ Epstein, p. 312
  43. ↑ The People vs.Aimee Semple McPherson, et al., Case CR 29181, 10 January 1927, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, County records and Archives
  44. ↑ Shuler, p. 188. Note: Los Angeles Times, June 1927
  45. ↑ Meed, Douglas V. "Soldier of Fortune--Adventuring in Latin America and Mexico with Emil Lewis Holmdahl," Halcyon Press Limited, 2003 p. 191. Note: No persons fitting the description of the kidnappers were identified, though, on June 29, 1926, an El Paso Herald reporter asked Emil Lewis Holmdahl, an American infantryman turned soldier of fortune, if he had been involved in the alleged kidnapping of famous California evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson. Holmdahl, who fought extensively in earlier Latin American turmoil wars and was cleared by a Mexican judge as a suspect in the February 6, 1926 theft of Pancho Villa's head, enigmatically replied regarding McPherson, "Well, maybe I did and maybe I didn't." In contrast, unless intoxicated, he always emphatically denied participating in a grave robbery that stole Villa's head.
  46. ↑ Epstein, pp. 313–314
  47. ↑ about US $1,300,000 in 2013 dollars
  48. ↑ Epstein, p. 308
  49. ↑ Sutton, p. 135. Note: McPherson's preaching and radio delivery style largely avoided judging or accusing others directly. When she announced a sermon, advertised even in the New York Times, to name "the biggest liar in Los Angeles", reporters thought at last she would openly criticize Prosecutor Keys, self-styled religious enemy Reverend Schuler, or perhaps the key witness against her, Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff. The Angelus Temple was packed with reporters and others awaiting her scathing attack. The biggest liar in LA was none other than the Devil himself.
  50. 1 2 Epstein, p. 309
  51. ↑ Epstein, p. 74
  52. ↑ Sutton, p. 176
  53. ↑ The Coshocton Tribune; Coshocton, Ohio January 3, 1927· Page 8
  54. ↑ Havre Daily News January 2, 1927 Page 1
  55. ↑ Sutton, p. 136. Note: The newspaper, the Record indicated "the McPherson sensation has sold millions of newspapers, generated fat fees for lawyers, stirred up religious antagonism... advertised Los Angeles in a ridiculous way." Keyes added his office was through with perjured testimony, fake evidence and ...he had been duped and a (juried) trial against McPherson would be a futile persecution.
  56. ↑ It is frequently conveyed by contemporary commentators that the charges were dropped "allegedly because McPherson came up with $30,000 (about US$390,00 in 2013) to appease law enforcement officials.""Popular evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson disappears — History.com This Day in History — 5/18/1926". History.com. Retrieved 2013-11-14. Author Anthony J. Rudel even asserts "it came to light that McPherson had acquired a hush fund of $800,000 (about US$10.5 million in 2013) some of which had been used to pay off participants in the 1926 hearings including District Attorney Keyes." (Hello, Everybody!: The Dawn of American Radio; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008 p. 196). No mention of the $800,000 is given by biographers of McPherson to include Thomas, Blumhofer, Sutton, Cox, or Epstein. No evidence for the commonly quoted lower figure of $30,000 is found, details and the source of the rumor ambiguous.
  57. ↑ Author Stephen J. Pullum, conveys, "...some have suggested that he [Keyes] may have been party to a $30,000 bribe." (Foul Demons, Come Out! Praeger Pub Text, Westport, Conn., 1999). In late 1928, the Los Angeles County Grand Jury began looking into the possibility that Keyes had been bribed to drop charges against McPherson. An investigation was started and Keyes was acquitted (Shaefer, Silvia Anne; Aimee Semple Mcpherson, Infobase Publishing, New York, 2004; p. 71). A November 13 United Press dispatch from London quotes the evangelist as saying: "I never paid a penny. The reason I was freed was that the woman who made the charges confessed she had lied and had been hired to tell the story. With her confession, I was automatically released." Journalist Rodger M. Grace comments the reality was more complex, Keyes because of inconsistencies in Wiseman-Sielaff’s account, could not vouch for the truthfulness of her testimony, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Albert Lee Stephens Sr. dismissed the charges. Roger M. Grace. "Keyes Drops Prosecution of McPherson After She's Bound Over for Trial". Metnews.com. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  58. ↑ about US $6.4 million in 2013
  59. ↑ Epstein, p. 289
  60. ↑ Thomas, Vanishing Evangelist, p. vii, NOTE Sutton writes 36,000, p. 133
  61. ↑ Sutton, p. 143
  62. ↑ Epstein, pp. 298–299, 309, 314
  63. ↑ Sutton, p. 140; Epstein, p. 332. NOTE: In 1929 the California state senate conducted an impeachment trial of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carlos S. Hardy for providing legal aid to McPherson, violating the rules of office. McPherson was called to testify, but little interest was shown in prosecuting Hardy. The same witnesses and other persons from the earlier 1926 grand jury trial appeared; and McPherson was again in the headlines, being investigated. The impeachment trial cost another $50,000,(About US $660,000 in 2012) presumably borne largely by the Los Angeles Times, with the exception of the $25,000(About US $330,000 in 2012) taxpayer money it cost to print the 1,300 page trial transcript. McPherson had to endure the same humiliation she had endured in the 1926 trial, when the discussion was primarily about her hair, legs, and morals. Charges against Hardy were dropped and the state assembly instead called for Los Angeles prosecutors to reopen the case to criminally charge McPherson. The Los Angeles offices declined.
  64. ↑ Sutton, p. 141
  65. ↑ "Faithful of 'Sister Aimee' Say Mock Court Has Redeemed Her - Los Angeles Times". Articles.latimes.com. 1990-10-09. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, March 20, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.