I
think most people in Los Angeles in 1926 thought the L.A. District
Attorney Asa Keyes' case rested on Lorraine Weiseman-Sielaff . It was
a shaky foundation, because the lady was unstable. She was under the
care of a psychiatrist, and had spent time in a sanitarium. When no
one came forward to bail her out of jail, and confronted with proof
she'd been passing bad checks in L.A. during the last week of
May, the very week her affidavit swore she'd been in
Carmel-by-the-Sea, nursing the mysterious “Miss X”, companion to
the limping bald playboy radio engineer Kenneth Ormiston, Lorraine
changed her story. Now she claimed to have been promised $5,000 for
signing the false affidavit, and perhaps more for convincing her twin
sister to claim being the mysterious “Miss X” . This lady had
more stories than Mother Goose.
But
the prosecution had much more. There was Walter Lambert, the owner of
a shirt store on Hill Street in downtown L.A., across from the Hotel
Clark, and the hotel's doorman Thomas Melville, both of whom saw Sister
Aimee entering the 12 story hotel at about ten on the morning of 18,
May - the day of her drowning. She only stayed 30 minutes. Kenneth
Ormiston had been staying at the hotel since leaving his wife in
January - the same time he left the Angelus Temple. In an experiment,
detectives left Venice Beach at about three in the afternoon (the
time of Aimee's drowning) and drove the 300 miles north to the “love
nest” cottage in Carmel-by-the-Sea. They arrived at just about
one-thirty the next morning, the same time Ormiston had admitted
arriving there on 19 May in the company of the mysterious “Miss
X”.
There
were half a dozen witnesses from Carmel who had seen and/or spoken
with a woman they recognized as Aimee, or said “resembled”
McPherson. There was Dennis Collins and Louie Mandrillo, graveyard
shift mechanics at a Salinas garage. They testified that the owner
of a Studebaker sedan, left for a refuel and fluid check, had picked
up his car at two on the morning of 29 May. The man signed the
receipt as Kenneth Ormiston (above), and he was accompanied by a woman
wearing a heavy black veil on a very dark night.
And
then there was the testimony of Bernice Morris, secretary to a lawyer
named Russel McKinley, who worked for Sister Aimee. Morris had not
been an intimate of the full conspiracy, but she had come to suspect
that the kidnapping story had actually been concocted to fool Aimee's
mother. At one point in a conversation at the Angelus Temple with the
two women (above), Morris had announced without warning, that her boss wanted
to remind Aimee (left) one of the kidnappers had rubbed Aimee's neck to
relieve a headache. In fact Morris had just made the incident up. But
Sister Aimee immediately turned to her suspicious mother and said,
“Why mother, I do remember that perfectly. I forgot to tell you
that. You know I’m always having trouble with my neck.” Morris
added she did not think Mrs. Kennedy (right) believed her daughter. A few
days later, lawyer McKinley was killed in an automobile accident, and
the plans he and Aimee had laid out were dropped. That was damning.
But,
to my mind, the case against Aimee McPherson rested on a single
question D.A. Keyes asked her in front of the August grand jury. He
admired her watch, and then pointed out, “I seem to have observed a
photo of you wearing that wrist watch which was taken in Douglas,
five weeks after you went bathing on the beach. You are sure you did
not have it with you?” Aimee could only reply, “I guess the
watch must have been brought to me in Douglas by my mother.” A few
minutes later, the hearing was interrupted when Aimee fainted. But
here, in open court, Keyes would not have a chance to ask that
question, because at least in this preliminary hearing, Aimee would
never have to take the stand.
On
the other hand there was Arthur Betts, a bell boy at the Hotel Clark who was supposed to identify Aimee as having entered
Ormiston's room, but on the witness stand he suffered a total memory
loss. Two of the prosecution witnesses suffered such a memory failure under
oath. And there was another problem, which the defense brought up in
cross-examination with all the witnesses from Carmel. If they were
so certain the woman in the “love nest” had been the famous
evangelist, why had none of them claimed the rewards offered
by newspapers for information on Aimee's whereabouts..
Then
there was the lack of physical evidence. The Carmel “Love Nest”
produced lots of fingerprints, but none belonging to Aimee Semple
McPherson. And the grocery lists, recovered from the back yard, and
identified as being written in Aimee's handwriting, had gone missing. Photo-stats remained (above), but the defense never ceased in pointing out
prosecution experts were now only working from copies. Besides, they
had their own experts who insisted, it was not Sister Aimee's
handwriting.
Aimee's kidnapping story was always a problem for Aimee's lawyers. Her escape from the kidnappers was just not believable. As
D.A. Asa Keyes put it, “That was 20 miles in blistering, 120-degree
sun…and yet she wasn’t blistered. Her clothes weren’t soiled.
She wasn’t perspiring. Her heels weren’t broken. She didn’t ask
for water. Taken to a hospital in Douglas, Arizona...she
wasn’t dehydrated." Author Louis Adamic argued, “The only way she
can convince me that she made that... hike across the desert...is to
do it all over again, and let me ride behind her in an automobile
equipped...with a huge canteen of water; and if
she asks me for a single drink or a lift, I’ll give it to her and
then laugh right in her face. “
Still
Aimee's version of events never varied by an inch or an instant, under oath or from the pulpit. When challenged Aimee (above) would always say with a beatific smile, “That's
my story, and I'm sticking to it.” She repeated that line so often
it was eventually used with great effect by vaudeville and movie star
Mae West, whose entire career was a parody of "the world's most
pulchritudinous evangelist", Sister Aimee McPherson..
On
Wednesday, 3 November, Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Samuel Blake
concluded the hearing by telling the small courtroom (above) he found ample evidence that Aimee Semple
McPherson, her mother Mildred Kennedy, and Mrs. Lorraine
Weiseman-Sielaff. were indeed involved in a “criminal conspiracy
to commit acts injurious to public morals and to prevent and obstruct
justice.” It was assumed Weisman-Sielaff would at some point plead
guilty to a lesser crime, in exchange for her testimony against the
other two . Aimee and Mildred were facing a possible 42 years in
prison, each. In Spartenburg, South Carolina, humorist Will
Rogers was traveling with Queen Marie, of Rumania. Wrote Rogers,
“Bless her heart. America owes her a debt of gratitude
for running...Aimee McPherson back among the want ads.”
And
then, while the shock waves were still roiling back and forth across
Los Angeles' culture, the unstable Lorraine Weisman-Sielaff (above) changed
her story again.
You should get and read
ReplyDeleteCox, Raymond L. The Verdict is In, (1983)
A comprehensive account, a tedious read at times, though very informative
Another that you can read right away is found here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19761120&id=4GszAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mjIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=3833,2151220:
For example, concerning Dennis Collins the garage man who "identified McPherson."
Santa Cruz Evening News from Santa Cruz, California July 16, 1926 · Page 1
GARAGE MAN OUT WITH DENIAL OF RYAN'S REPORT SALINAS, Calif., July 16. (JP) Dennis Collins, an attendant at a Salinas garage today denied that he had told anyone that he positively identified Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson as a visitor to the garage following her disappearance. He said was shown a photograph of Mrs. McPherson; but told Assistant District Attorney Joseph Ryan, of Los Angeles, he could not identify the photograph as that of the garage visitor. Collins stated the woman who came to the garage seemed younger than the woman the photograph, although there was a marked resemblance. Collins, though, identified Kenneth Ormiston as the man who accompanied the woman to the garage. Ormiston is now sought.
Dennis Collins ended up being a witness for the defense, who used his story along with others that Ormiston was traveling with another woman (not McPherson) The Collins incident was embarrassing to Ryan and his boss, District Attorney Asa Keyes. who eventually removed Ryan from the case.
Also the watch implication is not consistent with evidence of of McPherson's shoeprints found far out in the desert (also in that article above):
--T. F. Sims, deputy U. S. marshal for Arizona, Harold L. Henry, newspaperman of Douglas, Leslie Gatliff, police officer of Douglas, corroborating the other's testimony dealt with footprints believed to have been made by the evangelist in her reported flight from kidnapers, which they found as far as 15 miles distance in the desert in Mexico, from Douglas. (The Independent Record from Helena, Montana · October 23, 1926 Page 1) (The Gaffney Ledger from Gaffney, South Carolina · October 26, 1926 Page 5)
From what we know, the first appearance of the watch was when McPherson was photographed in the hospital and Keyes brought it up in court during his questioning.
Do we know that it was inventoried on her person when she was first recovered in Mexico? I can find no reference stating such.
Hence, McPherson could have been given that watch by her mother or some other person at the hospital. McPherson also had the habit of borrowing watches from people. Many persons did stop and give her gifts once they realized the distraught and exhausted woman was the evangelist.
HL Mencken(an ideological enemy of McPherson, opposite each other in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial) also reviewed McPherson's book. He thought she made a good case for herself in the 1926 reported kidnapping incident. He also wrote that since many of that town's residents acquired their ideas "of the true, the good and the beautiful" from the movies and newspapers, "Los Angeles will remember the testimony against her long after it forgets the testimony that cleared her."