User:SteamWiki/Reported kidnapping: LongVersion2

This needs to be revised and reorganized for the long article Kidnapping of Aimee Semple McPherson

Reported kidnapping

Introduction

On May 18, 1926, Aimee Semple McPherson disappeared off from Venice Beach, California after going for a swim. She was found in the 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. The case generated more articles in the New York Times than the 1925 Scopes trial, claimed the lives of several individuals and also adversely affected the careers of several prominent Los Angeles law officials.

In southern California during the 1920's and 1930's; there were several known kidnapping rings . If the victim was transported over state lines, issues with local politics and coordination efforts with law enforcement across jurisdictions, worked to the perpetrators' advantage . Until a federal kidnapping statute was passed in 1932, compelling FBI investigation, "snatch rackets" were a lucrative criminal enterprise and victims ranged from the prominent to ordinary citizens .

McPherson herself steadfastly declined to publicly criticize by name any individual with rare exceptions, but those who were converted in her services were not so careful. The testimonies of former prostitutes, drug addicts and others, from stage or broadcast over the radio, frequently revealed the names and locations concerning their past illegal activities. These revelations angered many and McPherson often received hostile letters and death threats. An alleged plot to kidnap her and Mary Pickford was detailed in the Los Angeles Times was foiled in September, 1925. In the ensuing 1926 controversy, some accused McPherson of using the "snatch racket" climate to cover a faked kidnapping. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=HAST19200310.2.54 Mexican kidnap gang article US citizens kidnapped 1922 Wright, Richard P. Kidnap for Ransom: Resolving the Unthinkable p. 14,15

also http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/66559530

Disappearance from 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.

The Angelus Temple received letters and calls claiming knowledge on the missing McPherson. One message stated McPherson was gone for a much needed rest and would be back July 16. Another, given by a spiritualist, indicated, while in a trance, she saw Mrs. McPherson bound and apparently in distress in a cabin. Several ransom notes and other communications were also sent to the Angelus Temple, some of which were relayed to the police.

The ransom demands sent included a note by the "Revengers" who wanted $500,000 and another handwritten note demanding $25,000 conveyed by a blind lawyer who claimed contact with the kidnappers, though was killed in an automobile accident before his claim could be adequately investigated. His sudden death, Kennedy thought, was peculiar, occurring as it did just before he was ready to reveal some important piece of evidence. His death was considered a serious blow to McPherson's case. A lengthy ransom letter from the "Avengers" arrived around June 19, 1926, also forwarded to the police, demanded $500,000 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. One ransom note was investigated by the police as a precaution in case it was genuine. No results were forthcoming and the note dismissed as fraudulent. Mildred Kennedy regarded the notes as hoaxes, believing her daughter dead.

McPherson's children, Roberta Star Semple and Rolf McPherson; were scrutinized by suspicious news reporters trying to ascertain their degree of distraughtness. Roberta hid in the basement of her parsonage home as news reporters entered the building and began searching though McPherson's room and belongings looking for clues as to her whereabouts.Rolf, who was boarding in a remote farmhouse for the past three years had been besieged by reporters who heard a rumor he might have talked to his missing mother by telephone,

McPherson "sightings" were abundant, as many as 16 in different cities and other locations as far away as Canada; some on the same day. Others thought she might have become romantically involved and run off. For a time, Kennedy, who sincerely believed her daughter dead, to dispel the rumors, offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the return of her daughter. However, concerned the reward would attract too many false leads, Captain Kline, Chief detective of the Los Angeles Police Department, advised her to withdraw it.

Reappearance in Mexico and return to Los Angeles

Ramon and Teresa Gonzales and their son, Jorge, who live in Agua Prieta, Mexico, and appeared in court to testify that Aimee Semple McPherson staggered into their yard and was found in a state of complete exhaustion following her asserted 20-mile hike through 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. She stirred and the couple brought her inside and covered her with blankets. She claimed she had been kidnapped, drugged, tortured, and held for ransom in a shack by two men and a woman, "Steve," "Rose," and another unnamed man. A fourth person, by the name of "Felipe" stopped by for a visit. An hour later after reviving her, she drank some water and the husband, R. R. Gonzales alerted the mayor of Agua Prieta, Presendente, Ernesto Boubion to see her. Boubion stated she had grasped his wrist, trembled violently, and asked where she was. She looked ill and appeared agitated, and declined both food and drink. She was transported across the border to Douglas, Arizona, brought by the police station then and was placed in the Douglas hospital. 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. She went on about protection for her 16 year old daughter and warned her assailants had plans to make off with Mary Pickford and other celebrities. At that time no one believed she was Aimee Semple McPherson, the missing Angelus Temple pastor. A reporter heard the claims and visited the hospital. Though, as he said, she was emaciated and barely recognizable, the journalist knew her from covering past revival meetings. Once properly identified, her family and some Los Angeles authorities took a train to see her.

Her statement taken in the Douglas Hospital explained while on the beach near Los Angeles, a young couple approached and asked her to come and pray for their sick child. When she went with them and looked in on the bundle in the back seat of an automobile, they then shoved her into their car. At the same time a cloth was held over her face loaded with a sickly sweet substance; later speculated to be chloroform with an additive.

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.

After awakening, she was no longer clothed in her bathing suit and was wearing a dress. A woman named "Rose," who displayed professional nursing skills, looked after her. Held for a time in what was a boarded up room in a house that appeared to be an urban area, she was later moved to the remote shack in Mexico. Trying to elicit some personal information to prove they had her, one of her captors burned McPherson's hand with his cigar, but felt bad about it and stopped. McPherson's statement gave details on how she escaped the desert shack while her assailants were out on errands. She cut her bonds on a metal can lid, a technique she later successfully demonstrated several times before skeptical reporters; and climbed out the shack's back window. Using a mountain to navigate, she made her way north. She told how she used her garments to shield herself from the afternoon sun and carefully stepped around any shaggy bushes in her path. In the evening, lights from a town guided her to its streets. Terrified by the unexpected savagery of nearby barking dogs behind a fence, she entered the yard of a Mexican couple, R. R. Gonzales and his wife.Her story was transmitted and transcribed across telegraph and phone lines becoming front-page international news.

On the way back to Los Angeles, the train was stopped and boarded by two men who claimed to have earlier seen McPherson during the time she stated she was kidnapped. One man, realizing a mistaken identity, apologized and excused himself after seeing her. However, in a much publicized scene, the other individual; stated he saw her at a Tuscon, Arizona street corner 4 weeks earlier in May. By his own admission, he never saw the evangelist in person, only by photograph. The woman he saw in the street wore a tight, low fitting hat shading her eyes and walked in different gait than McPherson used. Yet for him it was those obscured eyes that confirmed his identification. McPherson wrote he was her first experience with such "identifications," others of which were even "more absurd;" and "all were flung to the world in newspaper headlines." Later, this witness was discarded as his sighting came at a time when McPherson was accused by Los Angeles prosecutors to have instead been in Carmel-by-the Sea, California.

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. 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.

Between 30,000 and 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.

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.

In response to a increasing undercurrent of doubt, the leadership of the Angeles Temple debated whether or not to let the matter drop or push for vindication. McPherson welcomed the opportunity for more publicity, since she saw it as a way to expose more people to her vision of Jesus Christ. Her mother, Mildred Kennedy cynically thought the controversy might get away from them and become disruptive to the Temple's activities. Judge Carlos Hardy, an influential friend of the Temple, and McPherson over the stern objections of her mother, Mildred Kennedy and lawyers hired for advice, decided to go to court and present their complaint.

Grand jury inquiries

There were several phases of Los Angeles 1926 grand jury inquiries regarding Aimee Semple McPherson, all conducted by Los Angeles District Attorney Asa Keyes. The first inquiry was about charging McPherson's kidnappers, with indictments made against Steve Doe, Rose Doe, and John Doe, convening on July 8, 1926, and adjourning on July 20, 1926. However, it became immediately apparent the evangelist was being interrogated from a viewpoint of hostile skepticism. Prosecutor Asa Keyes insinuated she was a charlatan who was run out of various cities during her revivals. Quite the contrary, they were wanting return visits and McPherson offered to show news clippings attesting to the success of her work in those locations. Annoyed, Keyes continued, focusing on the belief the the disappearance was plot to elicit money from a memorial fund commemorating McPherson's death or for promotional purposes. Her sanity was also questioned, perhaps she might have simply wandered off suffering from amnesia. The inquiry ended determining there was not enough evidence to charge neither alleged kidnappers or the McPherson group for fraud.

The 2nd inquiry, amidst frenzied publicity started on August 3 in response to new developments that suggested cohabitation with ex-employee Kenneth Ormiston in the resort town of Carmel-by-the-Sea instead of being held by kidnappers. It stalled due to the lack of evidence to and was considered ended by mid-August with its body of quarreling jurors dissolved by a judge. Later, when a defense witness, Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff, sided with the prosecution as a betrayed co-plotter, another grand jury inquiry was ordered to begin in late September. Testimony and evidence from Carmel-by-the Sea was reintroduced by the prosecution together with their new witness. Their intent was show proof of a conspiracy by the McPherson party to manufacture evidence in bolstering her kidnapping story. The McPherson's defense team, previously overshadowed much of the summer by news publicity favoring the prosecution, was able to comprehensively explain their side of the case during October until they rested their case on the 28th.

On November 3, Judge Samuel R. Blake, was to try the evangelist, her mother and several other defendants in a jury trial case with charges that amounted to perjury and obstruction of justice; set for mid-January 1927. If convicted, the counts added up to maximum prison time of 42 years. Further statements and information were taken from various witnesses ahead of the projected trial through early January, 1927.

Escape through the desert

Presidente Ernesto Boubion of Agua Prieta, Mexico; as per his translator William Appel and Aimee Semple McPherson, attempted to solicit $5000 from the evangelist in exchange for his favorable opinion of her reported kidnapping story.

The first inquiry starting on July 8, read McPherson's statement into the record. Mildred Kennedy broke down and sobbed during the reading which took most of a day to enter. Testimony continued with what happened in Mexico though the most comprehensive portions especially from the defense came later in October.

McPherson's disappearance was concurrent with Mexico transforming itself into a secular socialist state which was even violently enforcing laws prohibiting the teaching of religion in schools along with other religious restrictions that led up to the Cristero War of 1926 -1929. Mexican officials were immediate in expressing similar opinions that McPherson could not have been illegally taken onto their land. Even as the woman in the Arizona hospital was just identified as the missing evangelist; on July 23rd, the same day, Consul General of Mexico, George A. Lubert announced that McPherson could not have been taken across the border against her will. He stressed the impossibility of smuggling a person across the border since as it was patrolled with a "strict watch" by both nations.

Governor Abelardo Rodriguiz, told the Associated Press on June 24 he had assigned special police to all border towns immediately after the evangelist's disappearance; and was positive she could not have been carried by force across the border. He was certain she had not been in either Mexicali or in any other part of Lower California since her disappearance May 18.However, persons and objects being moved illegally between the US and Mexico was a known problem, with smugglers crossing guns along the length of the border.Additionally, the FBI had previously encountered cross border kidnapping rings before. One of the persons named in McPherson's statement, Felipe, was described as "a huge hulking man." In another case, the federal government was attempting to locate an "Old Felipe " of Mexico City; described as being in charge of a narcotics and a white slavery ring; corroborating that part of McPherson's testimony and the typewritten ransom note received earlier which threatened to sell the evangelist "to Old Felipe of Mexico City."

Initial, vigorous searches around Agua Prieta did not locate any kidnappers or even the shack where she was allegedly imprisoned. Presidente of Agrua Prieta, Mexico, (Mayor) Ernesto Boubion, after examining some foot tracks, expressed his belief she got out of a car 3 miles from Agua Prieta.Boubion also considered it a "national insult" that a prominent American woman could be kidnapped into his territory.

However, it was revealed, as attested to by his translator, William Appel, that Presidente Ernesto Boubion solicited McPherson for a bribe. When McPherson later returned to Mexico in early July 1926 to assist in looking for signs of her kidnappers, the Presidente wanted to see her privately. With his translator as the only other person in the room, Boubion took her aside and shut the door. He said certain individuals were willing to pay him $5000 to cast doubt on her story though he would back her statement if she paid him the money instead. McPherson wrote:

“ Here was a man making a proposition that if he was not paid so many American dollars, he would give a written statement to the effect that my experience never happened.... It was not the last time,...that an unscrupulous person wanted to exact a toll to keep from lying. I walked out of the cafe hardly dignifying the swarthy plotter with an answer. My position seemed to be a signal for every charlatan to gather, in hope of material gain. ”

A lawsuit was brought against Boubion by her lawyers for extortion.

Crowds gather at the hospital in Calumet, Arizona (near Douglas), in which Aimee Semple McPherson recuperated after her unexpected arrival in Agua Prieta, Mexico, across the border.

Criticism to McPherson's story, in the first grand jury inquiry and further explored later, assumed temperatures, As per Prosecutor Asa Keys, of 120 degrees Fahrenheit, and the inability of walking 20 miles over that territory without water. It was being reported McPherson seemed in unusually good health for her alleged ordeal; her clothing showing no signs of what was expected of a long walk through the desert. Prosecutor Asa Keys, while speaking to McPherson during a grand jury session, said; "don't you know it is practically an impossibility for anyone, particularly a woman, to walk over the desert in Mexico in the broiling sun from noon until practically midnight without water? The sheriff of Cochise County, James A. McDonald and police sergeant in Douglas, Alonzo B. Murchison, both expressed opinions about not crossing the expanse without severely damaging garments or footwear. Murchison also said “There is no woman that could make a trip like that and not be near complete exhaustion.”

In his affidavit that R.R. Gonzales gave in support of the evangelist, around 1:50 am on June 23; he found an unknown woman "lying on the ground unconscious or fainted, in the gate, with her feet inside and her head out in the street." After getting a flashlight he looked he over, "I thought she was dead at the time, she was cold." Gonzales and his wife picked her up and put her in bed. G.W. Cook, a police officer, affidavit stated "that in affiant’s opinion she was then in a state of complete physical exhaustion."

C. E. Cross, Douglas area cowboy of 20 years experience, testified on October 20, 1926; Mrs. McPherson had no wristwatch, bore marks of binding ropes and the temperature was 97 degrees on June 22nd, the day she allegedly escaped from her kidnappers. He then searched all day in Sonora desert and found her tracks 9 miles out. He put his feet up on the rail to illustrate his footwear was not scuffed nor peeled.

In the first grand jury inquiry, Prosecutor Asa Keyes also took issue was a watch visible on McPherson's wrist as seen in a photograph while she was in her Douglas hospital bed. She had not taken a wristwatch to the beach and it would be unlikely the kidnappers would let her have one. However, the Mexican couple who found her, the mayor of Agua Prieta, policemen, nurses and any other person she met with, could not recall a wristwatch being in her possession before entry into the hospital. According to McPherson, the watch was obtained sometime during her stay there.

The skepticism was disputed by most other Douglas, Arizona, area residents, 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. Cross also noted tracks consistent with McPherson's shoes near an automobile's tire prints outside Agua Prieta, and determined they had nothing to do with each other. The temperature was only 97 degrees Fahrenheit while another said it was 96 degrees as measured in Douglas on June 22nd, the day of McPherson's desert trek. Disgusted at what was happening in the Los Angeles court, Mayor A.E. Hinton, together with 22 representative citizens of Douglas, Arizona, signed a testimonial document affirming their belief in the statements McPherson made.

Several months later, Constable O. A. Ash of Douglas, Arizona, elaborated on the prison shack that could not be located in earlier searches. Together with their Native American tracker, they were able to locate her footfalls again after two miles of cattle tracks. He stated Aimee's shack was actually found on August 18, 1926, first seen by his accomplice Lieutenant Gatlitf, lieutenant of the Douglas police department. It was a miner’s cabin near the abandoned San Juan gold and copper mine, 18 miles from Douglas. Inside they saw the five-gallon oil can which had been opened with a canopener, "and we could see that the rough edge had been used to cut the bed ticking strips which apparently had bound the woman’s wrists and ankles." He also stated he saw the marks on the evangelist's wrists made by these strips; her ankles were swollen; there were holes in her stockings and one pocket was torn from her gingham dress.

Found in Mexico[OUT}

As the Angelus Temple prepared for a memorial service commemorating McPherson's death, Kennedy received a phone call from Douglas, Arizona. Her daughter was alive. The distraught McPherson was resting in a Douglas hospital across the border from Agua Prieta, Sonora, a Mexican town where she was found on June 23.

McPherson's mother, Mildred Kennedy; daughter, Roberta Star Semple; son, Rolf McPherson; and Los Angeles officials District Attorney Asa Keyes and Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan immediately took a train to go see her. From witnesses and McPherson herself, the two officials obtained her story.

On the beach, May 19, 1926, McPherson said she had been approached by a young couple who wanted prayer for their sick child. McPherson went with them to their car and suddenly was shoved inside. A cloth, presumably laced with chloroform, was held against her face, causing her to pass out. Eventually, she was moved to an adobe shack far in the desert. Two kidnappers, Steve and Rose,were her constant companions, with a third occasionally visiting. Once she also saw another person, a great hulking man, said to be Felipe, a chief from Mexico City. If sufficient ransom could not be obtained, they threatened to sell or give her to him. [ xxREMOVE? Asked about the ethnicity of the kidnappers, McPherson, was not entirely certain, though she believed them all to be from the United States.xxx] In an attempt to solicit private information they could pass on to the Temple as proof they held her, she was briefly tortured with a hot cigar held against her hand. Her captor, though, apparently feeling bad about the incident, stopped. She was treated well otherwise. When at last, all her captors were away on errands, she escaped out a window.

[OUTxxxSome newspapers and later biographers nicknamed the woman "Mexicali Rose."[not finding McPherson, in HER statements, referring to the woman as "Mexicali Rose." The term is seen in some biographies and news articles but nothing contemporary to the 1926 case nor the first instance of use found. Private detectives hired by Kennedy did attempt to follow up on a rumor of a "Rose," in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico however. XXwho acquired the nickname of "Mexicali Rose,"XX] ]

Using a mountain as a landmark, she traveled through the desert for approximately 11-13 hours across an estimated distance of 20 miles. Around 1:00 am she reached Agua Prieta, Sonora, a Mexican town and collapsed near a house. 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 and gave her water. After she revived, Presidente(Mayor)of Agua Prieta Ernesto Boubion was alerted and came over to see her. He stated she grasped his wrist, trembled violently, and asked where she was. She looked ill and appeared agitated, and declined both food and drink .

She was further assisted by the residents and finally taken across the border to adjacent Douglas, Arizona. The cab driver, John Anderson, noted her clothing was frayed and soiled . Though she identified herself, no one believed she was the missing evangelist. Authorities thought she might have been inebriated from a visit to an Agua Prieta saloon. Officer George W Cook, however, did not smell anything constant with alcohol and instead said she had "constipated breath," something he notices when a person is upset.

She agreed to be taken to the Douglas Hospital where a reporter, who knew McPherson from a story he did during one of her revival meetings, at last identified her Cox, p79</ref>. When Los Angeles officials arrived with reporters and her family; her physical condition and appearance was very much improved.

Expressing every confidence in McPherson's story, Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan went out briefly with searchers to find signs of the kidnappers or their prison shack. Neither was found at the time. Though Ryan did not follow them, tracks consistent with McPherson's shoes were found further out in the desert. After looking over the terrain and posing for some photographs, he returned commenting he could make McPherson's desert trip without scuffing or marking his commissary shoes.

Return to Los Angeles

After leaving Douglas, Arizona, McPherson was greeted at the Los Angeles train station by 30,000–50,000 people, more than for almost any other personage. The parade back to the Angelus Temple even elicited a greater turnout, around 200,000; more than President Woodrow Wilson's visit to Los Angeles in 1919, attesting to her popularity and the growing influence of mass media entertainment. Aircraft flew low overhead, dropping roses, which drifted around McPherson as she stood surrounded by white-robed flower girls from Angelus Temple

The fire department was out in their parade uniforms and high ranking Los Angeles officials formally greeted her return. 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.

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.

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.

The story received continued nationwide coverage. Her mother, Mildred Kennedy was very cynical of the increased newspaper scrutiny and McPherson's lawyer advised against pursuing the matter further. Since McPherson was the injured party and sole witness to the crime, if she chose not to press her complaint, ignoring the court subpena, the case would have to be closed. McPherson, on the advice a longtime family friend, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carlos Hardy, decided for vindication and presented her complaint in court.

Grand jury inquiries

The two grand jury inquiries adjourned and reconvened, holding sessions through the summer of 1926. After the 1st grand jury was dissolved in the first week of August, a 2nd grand jury was convened with testimony and evidence continued to be presented during the months of September [17, 27, 30,] and October [11,13,14,15,22,25,26,and 28.] The first inquiry, starting July 8, 1926, and was accompanied by intense media interest. Its purported intent was to determine if enough evidence could be found to indict any kidnappers. Indictments were made against Steve Doe, Rose Doe, and John DoeHowever, pressured by various influential community groups, the court instead intensely investigated McPherson, her family and acquaintances to determine if the kidnapping was fabricated. District Attorney Asa Keyes led the prosecution against her. He was known for winning convictions, but six of his imprisoned were found to be innocent and pardoned by the state governor.

Asa Keys had once spoken at the Angelus Temple as did many other civic leaders and McPherson thought he was a fair and just man. Any earlier empathy conveyed by Keyes or Ryan in the Douglas hospital in June while getting the evangelist's story was now absent. McPherson was therefore shocked by his insinuating questions, implying she and her mother were involved in some sort of a deception.

The inquiry 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. Her friend, Judge, Carlos Hardy, advised McPherson to hire private detectives for assistance. In his view, law enforcement officials were making no effort to find any substantiating evidence of a kidnapping and were only interested in taking apart her her story. In the meantime, Rev Robert P. Shuler called for more official activity on investigating the disappearance.[citation needed]

Search for evidence

[combine with following skepticism and response section? Avoid duplicate information.]

Looking for evidence to support their side of the story, Mildred Kennedy, aided by Judge Carlos Hardy, hired the Burns Detective agency. Since Burns did not want to report to a woman, Judge Hardy handled the details of the investigation. Rumors about several sets of "Steves" and "Roses" associated in criminal activities quickly turned up. p.1092. One initially promising lead came from a convict who overheard fellow prisoners talk about the kidnapping as an actual event and involving a specific Steve, Rose and Frank who indicated a lot of money could be made kidnapping and ransoming McPherson. However, that particular Rose was discovered to have been dead and Steve in prison prior to McPherson's disappearance. "Frank" was still at large. The shack was still being searched for and McPherson made several trips to the Arizona-Mexico area in an effort to locate it.

Another lead involved McKinley, a blind lawyer who alleged contact with the kidnappers who trusted him because he was blind. He promised to obtain information which would prove to the court kidnappers had indeed held her during the disappearance. Since McKinley had a good reputation,Kennedy and McPherson thought his story might be true. McKinley was given $2000 by McPherson to aid in his transactions with the two men claiming to have been her captors. But before McKinley could release any promised evidence, a car accident in August claimed his life; which was a huge blow to the McPherson side. The evangelist said statements by the two men to her, as relayed by McKinley; corroborated with some of the conversation she overheard from the kidnappers. Since McKinley was now dead his story could not be otherwise corroborated, some speculations proffered the two men never existed, or might have simply inserted themselves into the case to defraud McPherson through McKinley. The prosecution floated the idea the two men were actually sent by McPherson, Kennedy and Ormiston to deceive McKinley as part of a plot to lend credibility to the kidnapping story.

No one was ever actually accused of, or confessed to being a kidnapper in McPherson's abduction, however a mercenary was noncommittal regarding the issue. 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 was always looking for money to finance one military operation or another. He was just recently cleared by a Mexican judge as a suspect in the earlier February 6, 1926 theft of Pancho Villa's head. His response concerning McPherson was ambiguous, "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.

---

move to another section or delete---

In the meantime, more evidence against McPherson was found, this time by news reporters in Carmel-by-the Sea, a resort town where no previous sightings had ever been reported; and the grand jury reconvened on August 3. An initial prosecution witness who stated he saw McPherson with a hat pulled low over her head across the street in Tuscon, Arizona; was discarded in favor of the Carmel witnesses that were suddenly emerging. Their identifications fell across the same time frame as the Tuscon sighting and Prosecutor Keyes calculated reasonably McPherson could not be in both cities at the same time. witnesses that were now forthcoming who stated they saw her over that same time period. As per California law, the proceedings were secret, the Los Angeles court appeared to freely leak information about it to the newspapers. Issues of trial by media and court of public opinion were apparent as much of the proclaimed evidence against McPherson came from reporters who featured it in their news articles and passed it on to the police. The leaks contributed to the eventual dissolving of the first grand jury by a judge. Newspapers profited immensely from the story and with each sensational discovery and release of dramatic evidence, circulation rose. McPherson also eschewed secrecy and freely used her radio station to broadcast her side of the story. Evidence and testimonies were hotly debated by an evenly divided public.

The defense rested its case on October 28. Though many pages of scandalous news reading gave the idea proof was actually discovered there, Asa Keys stated the evidence from Carmel was too vague for a successful prosecution. The case appeared to be on its way to dismissal then a defense witness turned states evidence. With this new testimony directly implicating McPherson and her mother Kennedy a judge, on November 3, bound the defendants over for a jury trial case in Los Angeles, set for mid-January 1927. The defendants were named as Aimee Semple McPherson, her mother Minnie Kennedy, Lorraine Wiseman-Seilaff, the witness; Kenneth G. Ormiston, McPherson's purported lover; John Doe, Richard Roe and Sarah Moe; as of yet unidentified accomplices. 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. Bail was set at $2,500 each.

Various speculations were proffered by the news media and prosecution as to the reason for McPherson's disappearance. 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. McPherson's near death medical operation in 1914, 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. 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.

Some persons, particularity those called "flappers," modern women who themselves were forcing the edges on traditional gender roles and expected behavior, were concerned the inquiry was more about McPherson being punished as a woman for her success in religion and politics; traditional domains of men; rather than the vague charges regarding the accused tryst. A newspaper editorial crossed the boundaries of publication decency when 78 year old Patterson wrote a lurid column about the evangelist who "could not keep her legs closed." He was arrested, though acquitted, however two newspaper vendors selling the banned publication paid fines (FIND their penalty). In an effort to silence McPherson's influential wide reaching radio station, a state senator promoted a bill forbidding broadcasters from discussing current court cases. It was defeated.

Overt sexism was apparent throughout the inquiry. The manager of the William J. Burns international Detective Agency, J.w. Buchanan, hired by Mrs. Kennedy, did not want to report to a woman, and so Judge Hardy volunteered to take any reports he gave. Arizona Douglas policeman Alonso B. Murchison testified it was a physical impossibility for Mrs. McPherson , or any other woman, to make a 20 mile desert trek under the conditions she described in telling of her escape from her alleged kidnappers. DA Asa Keyes apparently expounded upon this by stating to McPherson in court, "it is practically an impossibility for anyone, particularly a woman to walk over the desert in Mexico in the broiling sun from noon until practically midnight without water."

Reflecting on that period in his memoirs, Former attorney general of California Robert W. Kenny stated "nothing ever sold more newspapers in Los Angeles than the Aimee affair" and Aimee's only real crime "was that of minding her own business, but that was more than our local bigots could bear."

[include?]

The contention of such a desert trek being an impossible certainty was picked up by the papers. An article by Louis Adamic states: "The only way she can convince me that she made that fifteen or twenty-mile hike across the desert without a drink of water and without getting sunburned, without wearing out her shoes and tearing her clothing, is to do it all over again, and let me ride behind her in an automobile equipped, among other things, 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." .

Skepticism and defense response

Two prominent defendants

Several defendants were charged as a result 1926 grand jury inquiries, among them Aimee Semple McPherson, Mildred Kennedy, Kenneth G. Ormiston, and Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff. Another was about to be questioned, Dr. A. M. Waters, who was implicated by Wiseman-Sielaff as being involved in McPherson's alleged Carmel coverup; and committed suicide when he learned of the grand jury's interest in him.

Kenneth G. Ormiston, and Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff stood out as being the least questioned and the most questioned persons by the grand jury inquiry, each nevertheless receiving headlines and huge amounts of publicity. Ormiston shunned the spotlight and Wiseman-Sielaff craved it, inserting herself into the McPherson grand jury inquiry at a time when it stalled and prosecutor Asa Keyes was ready to drop it.

Kenneth Ormiston

Kenneth G. Ormiston, former Angelus Temple radio operator.

In that he was McPherson's accused lover, allegedly assisting in the kidnapping fraud, Kenneth G. Ormiston was a prominent defendant in the 1926 grand jury inquiry. He had been McPherson's radio operator and was crucial in getting her programs on the air. He was described as about 5 feet, 11 inches tall, bald, slender, and good-natured with a wonderful disposition.He also had a distinctive limp that frequently identified him more than any other feature. During the time of McPherson's disappearance, newspapers freely speculated about him and the Los Angeles DA office initiated various manhunts accompanied by front page headlines, searching for the elusive radioman. Though the Los Angeles prosecution and two city newspapers spent lavishly to romantically connect McPherson with Ormiston, citing questionable circumstances, no conclusive evidence attesting to them being lovers could be uncovered. To some law enforcement officials outside of Los Angeles, the pursuit of Ormiston was done for publicity.

McPherson appeared to be friendly with Ormiston and it was insisted their relationship was strictly professional. Marital problems with his jealous wife led to marriage counseling conducted by McPherson. Around late December, 1925, he left his job at the Angelus Temple then disappeared, prompting his wife to report him missing in January, 1926. Some rumors placed him in Europe with McPherson, however, during that time, he called the Angelus Temple from Washington State in March where he was employed as a car salesman. McPherson's daughter, Roberta, joined her there in Europe to prevent further gossip.

McPherson's May 18 disappearance coincided with Ormiston taking possession of a cottage he rented for three months in a seaside resort town of Carmel-by-the Sea. Rumors developed his companion, that he had been seen elsewhere with, was the missing McPherson, and police sought Ormiston. He immediately turned himself into authorities on May 27, denying that he "went into hiding;" and stated his name connected to the evangelist was "a gross insult to a noble and sincere woman." Though he did not mention Carmel to head off unwanted attention there, he gave details of his previous movements. Since his name was now inserted into the McPherson case, Ormiston was worried about being followed around.

His concerns materialized two days later. On the evening of May 29, near Santa Barbara, a reporter tracked Ormiston's blue Chrysler sedan coupe, and flagged it down. After examining the driver and his female passenger, the reporter determined while the man was Ormiston, he could not identify the woman, "Miss X," as McPherson. As the result of the incident, a Santa Barbara Morning Press article headline later read: Road Watched for Ormiston and Evangelist.

Kenneth G. Ormiston's blue Chrysler sedan located in an Oakland, CA storage garage and searched for evidence.

To escape further media attention, Ormiston vacated his Carmel-by-the-Sea cottage and placed his blue sedan in a storage garage. After arguing with "Miss X," he left her in a hotel, abandoned California and traveled to Colorado, Illinois, New York, Philadelphia and other locations. The hotel operator and a garage employee were later able to identify Ormiston as the man who patronized their respective establishments. Both persons were certain the woman with him was not McPherson. The garage employee remarked the woman did, though, have a striking resemblance to the evangelist.

In late July, reporters and police received information a person who fit Ormiston's description had rented a Carmel-by-the-Sea cottage in May. In response to the intense news coverage of a half a dozen or more witnesses suddenly alleging they saw McPherson there, Prosecutor Asa Keyes launched another manhunt for Ormiston. McPherson herself pleaded through the papers for Ormiston to clear the matter up. Annoyed, Ormiston sent a letter from New York to Asa Keyes denouncing the treatment received from newspapers and officials as “nasty publicity and subsequent persecution by self-styled investigators," and that he had no intention of appearing before the Los Angeles grand jury. He released a lengthy statement to the police and several newspapers. Affirming "Miss X" was not McPherson, he added his companion had "the same general build and brown hair color as the evangelist."

Along with insufficient evidence acquired at Carmel, Ormiston's affidavit was believed to have influenced the discontinuance of the second grand jury investigation of the McPherson case around August 11. However, developments occurred with a new prosecution witness, Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff; and renewed efforts were made by Los Angeles authorities to bring Ormiston back to Los Angeles.

On October 29, after the defense rested its case, the next day, District Attorney Asa Keyes announced the September discovery of a large blue steamer trunk allegedly owned by Ormiston and thought to be full of McPherson's clothing. On Nov 8, 1926, a Kansas City private detective, described as a "go between" for Ormiston, transmitting him money and messages; stated the trunk was a "fake." Ormiston, who was still eluding authorities to avoid being pressured to reveal Miss X's true name; on November 19, said the "trunk is bunk." Some of the clothing was found to be the wrong size for the evangelist. The trunk became an object of jokes, in reference to anything unwanted, unknown, or lost as being laid away in that big blue trunk.

Detectives carry a large, blue trunk purportedly owned by fugitive Kenneth Ormiston and confiscated by police from a hotel in New York. Its contents were inventoried and featured in a New York Times article. Inside were filmy, perfumed garments, alleged clothing of the mysterious "Miss X," Ormiston's unidentified companion at Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Ormiston relayed a message, "the trunk is bunk," denying his connection to the container.

In December, Ormiston was found living quietly in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, tracked there by newsmen. Papers describe him being taken without resistance by police while sitting at a typewriter. A Harrisburg detective characterized the affair as a "publicity stunt," but decline to elaborate. Among Ormiston's personal effects were found five diplomas from five radio schools and letters implying he had a wife in Brazil. He was escorted to Chicago, Illinois with intent to be transported to Los Angeles. Asa Keyes made statements to “do everything in his power” to extradite Ormiston. However, he did not stop in Chicago to pick him up though he traveled near there on his way to and from Washington, D.C; conveying Ormiston was a "sidelight" to the investigation. The Chicago police chief denounced Keyes for "yelling to high heaven for his apprehension" and when the fugitive Ormiston was "within reach," he is now described by Keyes as being of minimal importance. The Chicago police chief lacked proper documents for further action and to the annoyance of Los Angeles officials, Ormiston was released. When the warrant was finally obtained; Chicago police were ready to transport their expected prisoner, Ormiston, to Los Angeles In the meantime, Ormiston appeared in Los Angeles surrounded by newsman and was greeted by the entire prosecution staff. Affably, amidst the flashbulbs of photographers, Ormiston accepted his served warrant. His bond was set at $2,500.

Ormiston declined to answer any questions from the numerous reporters, stepped into Keyes office and typed out his statement. He desired not to complicate the situation since "intrigue and hokum were as thick as San Fransisco fog." He maintained he was not at Carmel-by-the-Sea with Mrs. McPherson, stated he violated no conspiracy laws and was not afraid to face trial. In early January, 1927, Ormiston testified and gave the name of Elizabeth Tovey, a nurse from Seattle, Washington, as the person who was "Miss X" and his female companion and the woman who stayed with him at the seaside cottage on May 19–29 in Carmel-by-the Sea.

Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff

Lorraine Wiseman-Seilaff.

Keyes was about to drop the inquiry in mid August when fingerprints belonging to McPherson could not be found at the Camel-by-the Sea cottage. He determined other evidence at Carmel was too vague for a successful perjury prosecution against the defendants. An unexpected opportunity, though, invigorated the case when a defense witnesses appeared to flip. Keyes thought he now had a direct eye-witness account of the conspiracy conducted by McPherson, Kennedy, and Ormiston to defeat justice by manufacturing false evidence. The chief witness against McPherson was now Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff. Based on her testimony, Keyes ordered a new grand jury investigation.

Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff introduced herself to McPherson and declared she was in Carmel as a nurse for her twin sister who was Ormiston's mistress; and because they somewhat physically resembled McPherson; were being misidentified as the evangelist. McPherson embraced Wiseman-Sielaff as an important witness who would exonerate her and for a time she was a guest at the Angelus Temple parsonage. Kenneth Ormiston also signed a letter around September 8 that his companion was a sister of Wiseman-Seilaff, confirming her initial story. Later, Wiseman-Sielaff's was caught for passing bad checks and blamed it on her her twin sister. When her story became untenable, she requested that the Angelus Temple post her bail, but they refused. Wiseman-Sielaff then said McPherson paid her to tell that story about what happened at Carmel-by-the-Sea and assist in hiring someone to pose as "Miss X." She was charged as a defendant in the case in November because she admitted her alleged role as an alibi for McPherson at Carmel and sided with the prosecution for immunity.

Harry Melosh and his wife, "Babe" Daniels, who was another "Miss X" in the McPherson case.

As the grand jury inquiry progressed, Wiseman-Sielaff implicated one of McPherson's lawyers for inappropriate conduct when they lived in another state where she said they went to school together. The accusations forced the lawyer from the case. Eventually it was proven Wiseman-Sielaff lied about the relationship, the lawyer gave evidence he had not met Wiseman-Sielaff until August 15, 1926. Wiseman-Sielaff and Vira Kimball, her twin sister, according to this lawyer and a judge present in an office at Salinas; with a cab driver confirming the presence of the two women there; signed an affidavit on August 15 attesting that she and her sister were at Carmel-by-the-Sea with Kenneth Ormiston. It was purported by the defense Kimball might have been Ormiston's "Miss X." On May 19, the date Ormiston and the mystery woman appeared at the cottage, it was confirmed Kimball was at nearby Alameda County filing for divorce. Kimball, however stated she did not sign any such affidavit and threatened to sue McPherson if she were drawn into "this horrible case." Wiseman-Sielaff inserted yet another sister as "Miss X" into the inquiry, Rachel Wells of Philadelphia, as the person who actually signed the affidavit.

In the meantime, another woman came forward, Babe Daniels, 20; of Chicago, IL; stating she was "Miss X" at Carmel; giving some the impression the prosecution was now awash in "Miss X's." Later, she claimed being in on McPherson plot working with Wiseman-Sielaff with the promise of never having to worry about money again. Prosecutor Keyes rejected Daniels' story "as a tissue of lies" and cut her loose with a stern rebuke to anyone else attempting such a fraud would be exposed by his office." Criticism erupted and a news columnist wrote:

“ Why not prosecute all perjurers, instead of devoting all his attention to one whom every attendant circumstance suggests isn't a perjurer at all, but simply telling the truth and making the prosecution ridiculous? ”

Wiseman-Sielaff declared she made a note in her memorandum book regarding money sent, on behalf of McPherson, to Rachel Wells on August 4. However, when asked to produce the memorandum book for examination, Wiseman-Sielaff said she had destroyed the book. Her testimony became more inconsistent as she was further queried in December. It was revealed that Wiseman-Sielaff once spent time in a Utah mental institution.

Keyes, whose case relied totally on this witness to prove the alleged conspiracy, realized Wiseman-Sielaff was giving false testimony against Mrs. McPherson. Keyes briefly considered charging Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff, with perjury, as her testimony kept the inquiry going for another six weeks, costing $100,000 and yielded nothing, However, for all defendants, he submitted to the judge for case dismissal.

Problems of evidence

 evidence mishandled

[ bracketed [xxx] items are FYI and probably will not be included in the article]

The McPherson reported kidnapping incident of 1926 introduced several issues regarding grand jury conduct conduc;, and legal and civil rights concern regarding interviewing witnesses, collection of evidence, and its subsequent mishandling when in custody.

--After McPherson was reported missing, her daughter, Roberta Star Semple hid in the basement as news reporters entered their parsonage building home and began searching though McPherson's room and belongings looking for clues . [ FYI true or false ??In a modern context if any evidence was so discovered, it might be inadmissible in court.?? ]

--The handwritten "Revengers" note later disappeared from the LA Police evidence locker

[--A pair of grocery slips said to be in McPherson's handwriting had a suspicious origin, surviving as lawn litter at the Carmel cottage through 2 months of dew and yard maintenance before being found. In court, the original slips were accidentally flushed down the restroom toilet by a careless juror. Photostats of the slips could not conclusively be proven they were in McPherson's handwriting.]

--A pair of grocery slips said to be in McPherson's handwriting had a suspicious origin. Between the time Ormiston left the Carmel cottage on May 29 and when the premises were searched by the police and news reporters, the slips would have to survive as litter at the Carmel cottage for 2 months through dew and cottage cleaning and yard maintenance before being found. In court, the original slips were accidentally flushed down the restroom toilet by a careless juror. Photostats of the slips could not conclusively be proven they were in McPherson's handwriting.

[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. 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.]

-- Judge Keetch was shocked and indigent when the story of the lost grocery slips together with the accusation against the juror appeared in the papers two days later. The accusation without proof, he considered, was monstrously unjust to that juror. An investigation commenced and the loss of the slips in the restroom toilet was determined to be an accident. News leaks and ongoing internal conditions led to the dissolving of the first grand jury with recommendations any future business be referred to yet another grand jury.

[ The discharge of that grand jury, however, coincided with Asa Keyes suspending any further investigation in Carmel citing evidence deputy DA Ryan and Captain Cline having secured at Carmel was absolutely too vague to successfully prosecute anyone on a perjury charge. ]

[At first it was thought the juror might have been associated with the Foursquare Church and destroyed the slips, but there was no affiliation, the loss of the slips was an accident.]

--According to one witness, McPherson's shoes, looked in better condition in court than they were in Arizona. Present when her shoes were taken into evidence, expert tracker, C.E. Cross stated those shoes, since their recovery, appeared to have been cleaned and polished.

--The police started to check the Carmel cottage for fingerprints, however did not take any samples from McPherson during the time of her induction into the court system for comparison. When later the fingerprints were asked to be supplied, her lawyers refused, stating legally she could not be compelled to give them.[ This was one of several examples of the case formally pushing the boundaries in regards of the defendant rights.] The Carmel cottage was checked for fingerprints. Ultimately, none belonging to McPherson could be found.

--the news reporters at the Carmel cottage was in itself an issue. The activities of numerous investigative reporters contaminated the crime scene with their own fingerprints.

--Assistant District attorney Ryan and his police squad, as described by a witness, H.C. Benedict, owner of the Carmel cottage, used a stack of pictures of McPherson photographed from numerous angles as supplied by the newspapers. No other person was included in the stack. The prospective witness was shown one photograph at a time, and asked "do you recognize this" and another would be shown "Do you recognize this?" Once the witness finally agreed that a photo resembled the evangelist, Ryan would have his identification that McPherson was in Carmel. By contrast, to avoid false identifications, modern police departments looking for witnesses are encouraged to use "fillers," persons who physically resemble the suspect, in police lineups or photograph stacks. These methods avoid false identifications and prejudicing witnesses.

--Captain Kline was the Los Angeles Police Department Chief of Detectives and involved with investigating the disappearance of McPherson at the start. He advised Mildred Kennedy, then was active in the subsequent police investigation against her and McPherson. On July 27, Herman H. Cline proclaimed that the case had been solved and evidence was “conclusive” that the kidnapping was a ruse. Keyes called for a reopening of the Grand Jury’s inquiry. Captain Kline became involved in a one car accident and it was discovered he was drunk. This was especially a problem for an officer of the law during Prohibition. Kline was removed from the case and forced into early retirement.

--Los Angeles officials and police officers operated beyond their jurisdiction. When no one was there, and no officer of Monterey County was present, they made a forcible entry at the Benedict home. A medicine bottle was taken. It had the date May 25, one of the days McPherson was rumored to have been in Carmel. Without a warrant, Los Angeles officials then demanded a prescription file from the druggist. The medicine bottle was discovered not to have belonged to any previous tenant of interest, but to the property owner, H.C. Benedict. Chief of police of Montery, W.A. Gabielson. declared that deputy DA Ryan's conduct of the case was most unethical. and

--As released by the newspapers, an identification witness stated he saw three physicians leaving the Carmel cottage. The names of the three doctors, prominent citizens of Carmel, were published. Described by the defense as a thoughtless and false statement, the article created the belief these prominent citizens of Carmel made an unprofessional call and participated in felonious conduct.

--The edge of publication sensibilities were challenged. The San Diego Herald published an attack on McPherson that was so objectionable it was considered "obscene literature." Though the writer of the article escaped prosecution, 4 persons distributing the objectionable newspapers were sentenced initially sentenced to prison, though immediately each were fined $100. (Cox, p. 170; "The Jacksonville Daily Journal," (Jacksonville, Illinois)(AP) August 14, 1926 p. 4 )

[ include any Specifics on captain Kline's conduct during the inquiry up to the point of his dismissal?]

--It was pointed out that Assistant DA Ryan knew of the tracks in the Mexican desert but made no effort to investigate. This testimony was disregarded, as it might cause problems for the court inquiry if perjury by one of its own investigatory members was implied. Because of ongoing issues Assistant DA Ryan was causing with the investigation, he was ultimately removed from the case.

[discard once done]

to offer the $25,000 reward for McPherson's return. The reward would attract too many false leads, and so he later advised Kennedy to withdraw it. The offer and withdrawal of the reward was later used by Keyes as a point of suspicion in the inquiry against McPherson.

The site at Carmel yielded pieces if physical evidence.

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. 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.

The Carmel cottage was further checked for fingerprints, but none belonging to McPherson were recovered.

The strongest appeared to have been a pair of grocery slips determined by a police handwriting expert to be McPherson's penmanship.

described the method of how Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan obtained his witnesses. Ryan had a stack of photographs depicting McPherson and no one else, shot at different angles. He presented the pictures to Benedict one at a time trying hard to get him to agree that the woman he saw in his Carmel cottage living room was the evangelist. Benedict insisted there was nothing about "Miss X" who resembled the person in the photographs.

Assistant District attorney Ryan apparently gathered witnesses from Carmel and elsewhere against McPherson with a stack of photographs given by the newspapers of the evangelist, photographed at different angles.

By contrast, more modern suspect identification methods used by police looking for witnesses strongly suggest the use of "fillers," persons who physically resemble the suspect, to be inserted into police lineups or photograph stacks. These methods avoid false identifications and prejudicing witnesses.

Such methods of police witness collection H.C. Benedict described are known to inappropriately prejudice witnesses.

Modern police departments, when searching for suspects are trained to use The practice of using "fillers" and not identifying the suspect beforehand in the photostack helps to

The witness, H.C. Benedict, owner of the Carmel cottage described how Ryan shown him the pictures, one at a time, asking him if he had seen that person, then presenting him with another, "how about this"

---

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?"

---

The cottage nevertheless was dusted for prints, however so many reporters and curiosity seekers had visited the premises that any usable prints could not be found.

The Carmel cottage was checked for fingerprints. However, .

Intro for unspecified section

The defense rested its case on October 28. With one of the critical defense witnesses, Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff, turning state's evidence, on November 3, the judge decided to try the evangelist, her mother and several other defendants in a jury trial case in Los Angeles, set for mid-January 1927.

In December, however, the prosecution determined their new star witness Wiseman-Sielaff, was giving "known perjured testimony;" and could not longer be a considered a credible witness. Without her, District Attorney Asa Keyes considered other evidence found insufficient in continuing to prosecute the case. Since McPherson's fingerprints, for example, could not be found at the Carmel-by-the-Sea cottage, he considered the case "had blown up."

Keyes briefly considered charging Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff, with perjury, as her testimony kept the inquiry going for another six weeks, costing $100,000 and yielded nothing, However, for all defendants, he submitted to the judge for case dismissal On January 10, 1927, all charges against McPherson and other defendants were dropped for insufficient evidence.

Misleading news coverage

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.

A newspaper editorial crossed the boundaries of publication decency for U.S. Postal Inspectors when 75 year old Abraham. R. Sauer, of the San Diego Herald, wrote a lurid column about the evangelist and her purported “ten days in a love shack." He was charged with sending obscene literature through the mails. Though acquitted, four newspaper vendors selling the banned publication paid fines. Another publisher who reprinted and mailed the July 29 edition of the Herald was sentenced to two years in Leavenworth Federal Prison.

Grocery delivery boy Ralph Swanson was a prosecution witness and stated Aimee Semple McPherson answered the door when he delivered groceries to a home there. He noted the large brilliant and compelling eyes; and thick ankles of the woman at the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California cottage. As with all other witnesses who likewise said they saw the evangelist at Carmel, he did not make any attempt to claim the $25,000 offered for her return.

Prosecution witness grocery delivery boy Ralph Swanson stated McPherson answered the door when he delivered groceries to a home there. In an interview, as released by a newspaper, he stated seeing three physicians leaving the Carmel cottage late one night. The names of the three doctors, prominent citizens of Carmel, were published. A defense lawyer stated this gave weight to rumor that the ten day visit was for an abortion. The news article created the belief the three prominent citizens of Carmel made an unprofessional call and participated in felonious conduct. The office records of a San Fransisco physician suspected of being an abortionist were also ransacked by newspaper representatives. The defense chided the witness as an inexperienced youth giving a thoughtless and false statement. McPherson's near death medical operation in 1914, 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.

Prosecution witness retired engineer Ralph Hershey, was described in some papers as a star witness for the state, however, different testimony in court was given than what was reported he would give. As published in various papers, Hershey said he was driving along a narrow lane in Carmel-by-the-Sea when two persons, whom he recognized as Mrs McPherson and Ormiston came along the path. He was forced to stop his machine until they walked around.

When he got to court in September, however, his story did not include Ormiston or stopping his car. Hershey explained while driving, he saw a woman approximately 100 feet away near a street corner wearing a tight, low hat. He later visited a friend and they agreed the woman was a local resident; who sold that friend his house. Hershey spelled the name of the local woman for the lawyer cross-examining him. Two and a half months later, after a newsman interviewed him, Hersey decided instead the woman was the evangelist. To confirm his identification, on August 8, he traveled to the Angelus Temple and at a distance of around 100 feet, he saw Mrs. McPherson. Hersey explained it was the large, open, brilliant eyes which clenched the identification for him. The lawyer asserted, without a demonstration, he did not think it was possible at that distance for Hershey "to have seen the shape of her eyes, little less their color, peculiar or otherwise."

Mollifying taxpayers over failure to bring the case to trial in spite of considerable expense; prosecutor Asa Keyes, in his closing statement, made it clear that the investigation was assisted and largely underwritten by the area newspapers. Though many thought the newspaper investigations exposed McPherson was in Ormiston's company at Carmel-by-the Sea during the period of her disappearance; Keyes stated evidence collected there was too vague and inconclusive to pursue further action against anyone on a perjury charge.

C. N. Wright, secretary to Herman Cline, and Deputy Lieutenant W. C. Allen of the Missing Person's Detail, examining clothing worn by Aimee Semple McPherson when she reappeared at Agua Prieta, Mexico, after walking 20 miles to escape alleged kidnappers. Witnesses for McPherson later gave evidence that such a desert trip would not damage garments and shoes as much as the prosecution contended.

Shortly after the dismissal of the case, on January 18, 1927, Constable O. A. Ash of Douglas, Arizona was interviewed by a special staff correspondent of the San Bernardino Dally Sun. Constable Ash maintained the press withheld important facts from the public and even gave deliberate misinformation regarding the evangelist's kidnapping story. The papers denied, he said, there being bind marks from the kidnapper's restraints on the evangelist's wrists, though he saw the marks himself. The country, where he back trailed McPherson's 20 mile trip through, he described as grassy and ideal pasture land with plenty of springs of water. He conveyed the maximum temperature was around 96 degrees. The scorching sands, described in many papers, and brush that would tear clothes and scratch shoes, the constable said, was not present in the region McPherson traversed. He described the papers reporting alleged testimony by witnesses even before they took the stand. Ash stated he knew little concerning the pastor and her work and said she was a " victim of much misrepresentation."

Judge Arthur Keetch of the Los Angeles Superior Court, who presided over one of investigating grand jury bodies he later dissolved, stated on a later date, he thought the papers "were running pretty wild at that time." He was annoyed that secret proceedings of his grand jury was being divulged to the public through the press 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.

Reflecting on that period in his memoirs, Former attorney general of California Robert W. Kenny stated "nothing ever sold more newspapers in Los Angeles than the Aimee affair" and Aimee's only real crime "was that of minding her own business, but that was more than our local bigots could bear."

Issues with the prosecution

The grand jury investigation against Aimee Semple McPherson adversely affected the careers of several Los Angeles officials including District Attorney Asa Keyes, Assistant Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan, and Chief of Detectives Captain Cline. All three were already rumored to have inappropriate connections to the local underworld, with Ryan receiving an affidavit regarding his role in helping to facilitate protection rackets by acquitting defendants. Vice in general was readily flourishing under Keyes and he legalized slot machines which was later rescinded by his successor. Keyes was also known as a "secret drinker" in Prohibition Los Angeles, patronizing a back room in the tailor shop of Ben Getzoff who had a steady supply of liquor. Keyes also had other issues going on in the middle of the inquiry; in another case he was charged with, and cleared of embezzlement. It has been suggested by sources within the Foursquare Gospel Church, McPherson's work grated contrary to their corrupt police interests and in part may have been a motivating factor in the prosecution's unconventional handling of the grand jury inquiry.

Assistant Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan

Deputy District Attorney Joe Ryan examining Aimee Semple McPherson's shoes from her alleged walk through the desert. The shoes were controversial in that the prosecution contended more wear should should have been apparent. Ryan himself earlier said he could make the 20 mile trek "without scuffing his commissary shoes." Another witness, C. E. Cross stated the shoes looked polished and cleaned up from when he first saw them.

In the Douglas hospital, as he helped to question the convalescing evangelist, Assistant Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan enthusiastically professed his faith in McPherson's story. He even said he could make the desert trip without scuffing or marking his commissary shoes. Later, in Los Angeles, Ryan testified though, he knew McPherson was a "fake and a hypocrite" the first time he saw her in the hospital. Ryan was assistant to District Attorney Asa Keyes, and essentially did much of the legwork in building the case against McPherson. The defense contended both Ryan and his father-in-law, Captain Herman Cline, neglected their duty by disregarding evidence unearthed by border authorities that substantiated the evangelist’s version of her re-appearance. The declaration by W. A. Gabrielson, chief of police of Monterey, said that "Mr. Ryan's conduct of this case was most unethical" referring to the methods Ryan used, among them entering the cottage in Carmel-by-the-Sea; without a warrant, and without any local official present. Of particular interest among the seized pieces of evidence was a medicine bottle; because it was dated May 25, 1926 and inside the timeframe Ormiston and "Miss X" occupied the cottage. Again without warrant, demands were then made of the druggist and prescribing doctor about the medicine's user. As it turned out, the bottle belonged to the landlord, H. C. Benedict, and contained a "commonplace preparation." Keyes, thought all the evidence obtained at Carmel-by-the-Sea was too vague for a successful prosecution for perjury and was ready to quit the case. Ryan met with his superior Prosecutor Keyes and presented his "ace in the hole evidence" for continuance at Carmel-by-the-Sea. What Ryan offered was in the form of a receipt for a telegram said by him to be in McPherson's handwriting, signed by her at the Carmel cottage with two related witness identifications.

Without fingerprints, Keyes was unconvinced there was sufficient evidence; and early August, ordered witness subpoenas to be suspended along with any further investigation at Carmel-by-the Sea. However, Ryan went over the head of his superior, and announced the mystery solved and the case over, that the kidnapping was a ruse It was then expected more would be done with the inquiry. Tension between the Ryan and Keyes increased; and Ryan was out, sent back to prosecute pickpockets and other common criminals. The two witnesses, the telegram messenger and a Salinas garage-man, contrary to what Ryan contended; later denied "Miss X" was the evangelist.

Chief of Detectives Captain Herman Cline

Chief of Detectives Herman Cline

A woman who ran an illegal bootlegging saloon boasted of being the sweetheart of Chief of Detectives Captain Herman Cline. Father-in-law to Deputy District Attorney Joseph Ryan, Captain Cline was in on the investigation from the time of McPherson's disappearance. Cline like Ryan initially professed faith in McPherson's account of abduction and escape, earning the headlines Cline Believes.The description of the shoes when taken from McPherson was cataloged "uppers showed slight wear and the soles were scuffed; leather in the insteps was bright and bore markings like grass stains." Cline, however, was quoted as stating to Ryan, "You saw those shoes, the grass stains on the instep, what is so rare as a blade of grass on the desert in June?" Lore developed of there being no grass in the desert. However; McPherson had been photographed ankle deep in scrub grasses while looking for her tracks; and the area was host to cattle drives. McPherson's statement, published in the papers; included approximate weight, height, age, eye and hair color; complexion and mannerisms of each of her captors. In later remarks attributed to Cline, he expressed skepticism, for example stating only having limited success in getting get any details from her regarding the kidnappers' appearance. In late July, Captain Cline together with deputy DA Joseph Ryan, canvassed Carmel-by-the-Sea for witnesses alleging they saw McPherson there. On August 22, Cline was jailed for drunk driving after running into another car with his police vehicle. Considering his role in the grand jury inquiry, that he should be found in such a condition during Prohibition, was especially disconcerting to the Angelus Temple. Their complaints forced the Los Angeles police department to act and Cline was removed from the case. A period author scolded the Temple for their reaction. Nancy Barr Mavity, an early McPherson biographer; wrote of the drunk driving incident "an error not altogether unprecedented to members of the police departments as to other human beings."

District Attorney Asa Keyes

Scene in Judge Blake's courtroom during the hearing of Aimee Semple McPherson. District Attorney Asa Keyes in foreground at right.

District Attorney Asa Keyes led the prosecution. He was once a featured speaker at the Angelus Temple and at the time Mildred Kennedy, McPherson's mother; considered him a fair and just man. Overall, McPherson enjoyed a favorable relationship with law enforcement and after the 1926 grand jury investigations were over, police were directing destitute people to the Angelus Temple's commissary for help. That she should have become a target, as she saw it, of such an intense legal smear puzzled her, and she framed it in the context that the Los Angeles prosecution was being controlled by diabolical forces seeking to bring herself and the Angelus Temple to ruin. Biographer Daniel Mark Epstein explained Keyes was a public servant, responding to the pressures of many in the Los Angeles constituency who thought McPherson was making their city a laughingstock.

Sources in the Temple as per Raymond Cox, his own opinion and those of her lawyers, was that Keyes sought to elevate himself as an invincible prosecutor. Keyes conducted the grand jury inquiry in such a way that afforded the evangelist most detrimental public exposure possible, including releasing details of a prosecution witness's testimony to the press; while honoring the code of grand jury secrecy only when it came to the defense side. He was known for winning convictions, but six persons he sent to prison were found to be innocent and pardoned by California's state governor, Friend Richardson. The governor reminded prosecutor Keyes it was his duty to seek justice not convictions, as currently the prosecution office seemed more interested in making a record than they were in acquitting the innocent. Richardson understood pardons for the same district attorney could occur once or even twice under an administration but six times was inconceivable.

District Attorney Asa Keyes

After months of testimony and investigation Keyes lacked evidence he so earnestly sought to successfully prosecute the McPherson party in a jury trial. Therefore, on January 1927, he asked for case dismissal. He said, referring to his own side, he was through with perjured testimony, fake evidence and ...he had been duped and a (juried) trial against McPherson would be a futile persecution. After so much media buildup, it was wondered by some what McPherson did to force the abandonment of the "airtight" case against her. Keyes himself came under scrutiny.

Alternate theories circulated about the real reason for the dismissal. One story, purportedly from a secret FBI file, conveyed newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, was blackmailed by the evangelist who threatened to publicize a story she heard about him murdering movie producer Thomas H. Ince in 1924; and for being in an adulterous affair with actress Marion Davies. Hearst, fearing that such stories could damage his reputation, then pressured Keyes to drop the case. Thomas Ince reportedly died of by heart failure brought on by acute indigestion and already there was a run of news gossip concerning suspicious circumstances surrounding his death. Davies was a companion to Hearst since 1917 previously enduring publicized scandals about it. Moreover, such scheming was contrary to McPherson's previously known behavior as attested to by others. Guido Orlando a promoter who made Greta Garbo a legend, wrote of McPherson; "She was not a bigot, she did not pry into people's private lives,... She was in all the time I knew her incapable of malice toward anyone." Other rumors spread that she simply bribed Keyes to flush the case with "hush" monies amounting from $30,000 to as much as $800,000. Details and the sources of the various rumors were ambiguous, with little evidence forthcoming to establish credibility.

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. In another case where Asa Keyes appeared as a witness, he again was asked about the dismissal. Keyes reiterated that it was because of Lorraine Wiseman-Seilaff; stating no prosecutor has the right "to defile the courts" with known perjured testimony so absolutely unreliable as Wiseman-Seilaff gave. Any further effort to prosecute "could not be done with honor or with any reasonable hope of success." Judge Albert Lee Stephens granted the request for case dismissal.

Asa Keyes, went on though, to be convicted of bribery in an entirely unrelated case. There were witnesses, diaries and ledgers with handoffs recorded; evidence Keyes could not defend against. Involving Ben Getzoff and his tailor shop backroom transactions, Asa Keyes was charged with accepting gifts and cash to secure acquittals for several individuals; and sentenced in 1929. McPherson later visited him in San Quentin Penitentiary to wish him well.

TEST

Ransom demands

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. For a time, Mildred Kennedy, McPherson's mother, offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the return of her daughter.

The ransom demands sent included a note by the "Revengers" who wanted $500,000 and another for $25,000 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. A lengthy ransom letter from the "Avengers" arrived around June 19, 1926, also forwarded to the police, demanded $500,000 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.She set herself about the task of continuing to raise money for a needed church building expansion which was renamed into a memorial fund commemorating the evangelist's death.

Click for Image http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics10/00024582.jpg Title(s) McPherson ransom letter [graphic] Order Number 00024582 Filing Information Herald-Examiner Collection HE box 1712-McPherson, Aimee Semple. Date 1926 Description 1 photograph : b&w Notes LAPL00024582 Summary Aimee Semple McPherson kidnapping ransom letter sent to her mother, Mrs. Minnie Kennedy. Subject(s) Kidnapping. Genre/Format Herald-Examiner Collection photographs. Other Entries McPherson, Aimee Semple,

Grand jury inquiries

There were several phases of Los Angeles 1926 grand jury inquiries regarding Aimee Semple McPherson, all conducted by Los Angeles District Attorney Asa Keyes. The first inquiry was about charging McPherson's kidnappers, as she described them, convening on July 8, 1926, and adjourning on July 20, 1926. However, it focused primarily on the prosecution's belief the McPherson party engineered the disappearance as plot to elicit money from a memorial fund commemorating McPherson's death or for promotional purposes. It determined there was not enough evidence to charge neither alleged kidnappers or the McPherson group for fraud.

The 2nd inquiry, amidst frenzied publicity started on August 3 in response to new developments that suggested cohabitation with ex-employee Kenneth Ormiston in the resort town of Carmel-by-the-Sea instead of being held by kidnappers. It stalled due to the lack of evidence to and was considered ended by mid-August with its body of quarreling jurors dissolved by a judge. Later, when a defense witness, Lorraine Wiseman-Sielaff, sided with the prosecution as an outed co-plotter, another grand jury inquiry was ordered to begin in late September. Testimony and evidence from Carmel-by-the Sea was reintroduced by the prosecution together with their new witness. Their intent was show proof of a plot by the McPherson party to manufacture evidence in bolstering her kidnapping story. The McPherson's defense team, previously overshadowed much of the summer by news publicity favoring the prosecution, was able to comprehensively explain their side of the case during October until they rested their case on the 28th.

On November 3, Judge Samuel R. Blake, was to try the evangelist, her mother and several other defendants in a jury trial case with charges that amounted to perjury and obstruction of justice; set for mid-January 1927. If convicted, the counts added up to maximum prison time of 42 years. Further statements and information were taken from various witnesses ahead of the projected trial through early January, 1927.

Escape through the desert

The first inquiry in July, read McPherson's statement into the record. Mildred Kennedy broke down and sobbed during the reading which took most of a day to enter. Afterwards there was testimony primarily concerning what happened in Mexico though the most comprehensive portions from the defense came later in October.

McPherson's disappearance was concurrent with Mexico transforming itself into a secular socialist state which was enforcing laws prohibiting the teaching of religion in schools along with other religious restrictions that led up to the Cristero War of 1926 -1929. Mexican officials were immediate in expressing similar opinions that McPherson could not have been illegally taken onto their land. Even as the woman in the Arizona hospital was just identified as the missing evangelist; on July 23rd, the same day, Consul General of Mexico, George A. Lubert announced that McPherson could not have been taken across the border against her will. He stressed the impossibility of smuggling a person across the border since as it was patrolled with a "strict watch" by both nations. Governor Abelardo Rodriguiz, told the Associated Press on June 24 he had assigned special police to all border towns immediately after the evangelist's disappearance; and was positive she could not have been carried by force across the border. He was certain she had not been in either Mexicali or Tuscan or in any other part of Lower California since her disappearance May 18.However, persons and objects being moved illegally between the US and Mexico was a known problem, with smugglers crossing guns along the length of the border.Additionally, the FBI had previously encountered cross border kidnapping rings before. One of the persons named in McPherson's statement, Felipe, was described as "a huge hulking man." In another case, the federal government was attempting to locate an "Old Felipe " of Mexico City; described as being in charge of a narcotics and a white slavery ring; corroborating that part of McPherson's testimony and the typewritten ransom note received earlier which threatened to sell the evangelist "to Old Felipe of Mexico City."

Initial, vigorous searches around Agua Prieta did not locate any kidnappers or even the shack where she was allegedly imprisoned. Presidente of Agrua Prieta, Mexico, (Mayor) Ernesto Boubion, after examining some foot tracks, expressed his belief she got out of a car 3 miles from Agua Prieta.Boubion also considered it a "national insult" that a prominent American woman could be kidnapped into his territory.

Presidente Ernesto Boubion of Agua Prieta, Mexico; as per his translator William Appel and Aimee Semple McPherson, attempted to extort a bribe from the evangelist for $5000 in exchange for his favorable opinion of her reported kidnapping story.

However, it was revealed, as attested to by his translator, William Appel, that Presidente Ernesto Boubion solicited McPherson for a bribe. When McPherson later returned to Mexico in early July 1926 to assist in looking for signs of her kidnappers, the Presidente wanted to see her. With local translator William Appel as the only other person present in the room, Boubion took her aside and shut the door. Boubion said certain individuals were willing to pay him $5000 if he cast doubt on her desert experience story. Since he had no desire to cause her harm, Boubion offered to back her statement if she paid him the money. McPherson refused. Afterwards Boubion released his threatened skeptical affidavit against McPherson's story. A lawsuit was brought against Boubion by her lawyers for extortion.

Criticism to McPherson's story, in the first grand jury inquiry and further explored later, assumed temperatures of 100 to 120 degrees and the inability of walking 20 miles over that territory without water. It was being reported McPherson seemed in unusually good health for her alleged ordeal; her clothing showing no signs of what was expected of a long walk through the desert. Prosecutor Asa Keys, while speaking to McPherson during a grand jury session, said; "don't you know it is practically an impossibility for anyone, particularly a woman, to walk over the desert in Mexico in the broiling sun from noon until practically midnight without water? The sheriff of Cochise County, James A. McDonald and police sergeant in Douglas, Alonzo B. Murchison, both expressed opinions about not crossing the expanse without severely damaging garments or footwear. Murchison also said “There is no woman that could make a trip like that and not be near complete exhaustion.” Prosecutor Asa Keys, while speaking to McPherson during a grand jury session, said; "don't you know it is practically an impossibility for anyone, particularly a woman, to walk over the desert in Mexico in the broiling sun from noon until practically midnight without water?

In his affidavit that R.R. Gonzales gave in support of the evangelist, around 1:50am on June 23; he found an unknown woman "lying on the ground unconscious or fainted, in the gate, with her feet inside and her head out in the street." After getting a flashlight he looked he over, "I thought she was dead at the time, she was cold." Gonzales and his wife picked her up and put her in bed. G.W. Cook, a police officer, affidavit stated "that in affiant’s opinion she was then in a state of complete physical exhaustion."

In the first grand jury inquiry, Prosecutor Asa Keyes also took issue was a watch visible on McPherson's wrist as seen in a photograph while she was in her Douglas hospital bed. She had not taken a wristwatch to the beach and it would be unlikely the kidnappers would let her have one. However, the Mexican couple who found her, the mayor of Agua Prieta, policemen, nurses and any other person she met with, could not recall a wristwatch being in her possession before entry into the hospital. According to McPherson, the watch was obtained sometime during her stay there.

The skepticism was disputed by most other Douglas, Arizona, area residents, 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. Cross also noted tracks consistent with McPherson's shoes near an automobile's tire prints outside Agua Prieta, and determined they had nothing to do with each other. Disgusted at what was happening in the Los Angeles court, Mayor A.E. Hinton, together with 22 representative citizens of Douglas, Arizona, signed a testimonial document affirming their belief in the statements McPherson made.

Several months later, Constable O. A. Ash of Douglas, Arizona, elaborated on the prison shack that could not be located in earlier searches. He stated Aimee's shack was actually found on August 18, 1926, first seen by his accomplice Lieutenant Gatlitf, lieutenant of the Douglas police department. It was a miner’s cabin near the abandoned San Juan gold and copper mine, 18 miles from Douglas. Inside they saw the five-gallon oil can which had been opened with a canopener, "and we could see that the rough edge had been used to cut the bed ticking strips which apparently had bound the woman’s wrists and ankles." He also stated he saw the marks on the evangelist's wrists made by these strips; her ankles were swollen; there were holes in her stockings and one pocket was torn from her gingham dress.