From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: McLellin Collection Suppressed PT 6 of 10
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:43:50 GMT
Keywords: Tanner Nov. Newsletter/Hoffman bombings/suppresion



This is the sixth article broken down into 10 parts from Gerald
and Sandra Tanner's November "Salt Lake City Messanger" newsletter.
For those who need this info and couldn't obtain by hard-copy.
This is an FYI only production. Critique as you like.



SALT LAKE CITY MESSENGER          (Issue #83 - November 1992)
Utah Lighthouse Ministry
Po Box 1884,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110


        Mormon Leaders Suppress "Key" Item in Murder Case
  The True McLellin Documents Found in First Presidency's Vault!


A DANGEROUS GAMBLE

        In holding back the McLellin collection from
investigators, the Mormon Church was taking a real risk. As we
stressed earlier, Richard Turley admitted that the collection
included "a key item" which convinced church leaders "Hofmann was
a fraud." Moreover, Turley acknowledged that this "key item" was
"relevant to the case." This raises a very important question:
what if the suppression of the McLellin collection by church
leaders made it impossible for prosecutors to get Hofmann bound
over for trial? If prosecutors had failed to make a strong enough
case we could have had a cold-blooded murderer walking the
streets of Salt Lake City today. Although there is no way of
knowing for certain, it is reasonable to believe that Hofmann
might murder again.

        If church leaders were convinced that Hofmann was a fraud
after learning about the McLellin collection, why was Judge Grant
not allowed to see this highly significant part of the evidence?

        Richard Turley explains that the church hoped that the
prosecutors had sufficient evidence without the church revealing
the discovery of the McLellin collection: "If the prosecution's
evidence was as strong as some sources had hinted, the
preliminary hearing would almost certainly result in Hofmann's
being bound over for trial." (_Victims_, page 251) Turley,
however, tries to show that the church did not have an inside
track on what was going on in the Salt Lake County Attorney's
Office: "The cautious distance being kept between church
headquarters and investigators meant church officials remained
largely unaware of the direction the investigation was taking,
except to the extent they could piece together clues from media
reports, subpoenas, and other sources." (Ibid.)

        Turley reports that on February 6, 1986, Apostle Dallin
Oaks expressed doubts regarding the prosecution's ability to
prevail: "Dallin Oaks, who viewed the case with his extensive
legal background, began to wonder about the adequacy of the
murder case against Hofmann and about whether, even at this late
date, the prosecution had filed its charges prematurely. 'I hope
the prosecution has more evidence on the murder charges than the
newspaper speculation has hinted,' he confided in his journal."
(Ibid., page 243)

        It is certainly deplorable that church leaders would take
such a gamble with regard to a person charged with two murders
just so they could protect the church's image. On page 251,
Turley tries to justify this by making this strange statement:
"Because a preliminary hearing was not a trial to determine
ultimate guilt or innocence, state law would allow prosecutors to
try again if they failed during the first hearing to prove
probable cause." Turley seems to be hinting that if the
prosecutors did not succeed the first time around the Mormon
Church could bring forth the McLellin collection and a second
preliminary hearing could be conducted.

        Does Mr. Turley realize the implications of what he is
suggesting? The preliminary hearing extended over five weeks
causing great pain to the relatives of the victims. In addition,
it cost a great deal of money. It seems hard to believe that if
prosecutors were unsuccessful in their first attempt to bind
Hofmann over for trial, that church leaders would have stepped
forward with the McLellin collection. The church was already very
upset with the bad publicity it had received. In the _Messenger_
for September 1987, p. 8, we quoted Apostle Dallin Oaks as
saying: "In the course of this episode, we have seen some of the
most sustained and intense LDS Church-bashing since the turn of
the century.... the Church and its leaders have been easy marks
for assertions and innuendo ranging from charges of complicity in
murder to repeated recitals that the Church routinely acquires
and suppresses church history documents in order to deceive its
members and the public."

        If church leaders had come forth with the McLellin
collection after an unsuccessful preliminary hearing, it would
have caused a far greater outcry than they encountered during the
early investigation of the bombings. The church would have been
accused of covering up and protecting a murderer to save face
with the public. A second preliminary hearing would have probably
taken a good deal of time to schedule and complete. In the
meantime a murderer would have been running loose. Furthermore,
investigators and prosecutors would have been incensed at church
leaders who had hidden a "key item" from them. Many of them were
already upset with the church's lack of cooperation. Fortunately,
Judge Grant did find there was enough evidence to warrant a
trial.

        Richard Turley makes this peculiar statement regarding
the period after the hearing: "When the curtain closed on the
preliminary hearing, church officials... anticipated a long
intermission before the next acts began in the legal drama. While
waiting for the curtain to rise again, they continued to
cooperate with investigators and prosecutors gathering evidence
in the case." (_Victims_, page 307) How Turley can convince
himself that the church was cooperating when they were
withholding one of the most important pieces of evidence is very
difficult to understand. That church leaders would continue to
hide this vital information from investigators is almost beyond
belief.

THE PLEA BARGAIN

        The new information about the suppression of the McLellin
collection also raises questions regarding the plea bargain which
finally ended the Hofmann case without a trial. It seems obvious
that church leaders did not want the case to go to trial and were
hoping that some kind of agreement could be reached. Although
President Hinckley managed to maneuver his way out of testifying
at the preliminary hearing, he probably would have been called as
a witness at the trial. Hinckley would have been very
uncomfortable testifying concerning the McLellin collection when
he knew that it was being suppressed in the First Presidency's
vault. Furthermore, Glenn Rowe knew about the rediscovery and it
seems likely that he would be called as a witness.

        If prosecutors had an airtight case they probably would
have sought the death penalty and would not have agreed to
the type of plea bargain they entered into. Although we may
never know for certain, the fact that the church refused to
provide important evidence it had in its possession may have
made the prosecutors more willing to accept the agreement
and cancel the trial.

SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS

        The suppressive actions of the top leaders of the Mormon
Church have done more damage to the church than the "enemies of
the church" could have done in many years. It is going to be very
difficult to sweep this matter under the rug. Their actions will
undoubtedly haunt the church for many years to come.

        As stated earlier, in 1908 Joseph F. Smith, the sixth
prophet of the church, ordered that the McLellin collection be
purchased by the church to keep it "from falling into unfriendly
hands." If President Smith had made the collection available to
researchers instead of suppressing it, its contents would have
been known by researchers and Mark Hofmann never could have
claimed to have the collection because scholars would have known
that it was in the church archives. Consequently, Steven
Christensen would not have become involved in trying to obtain
the collection from Hofmann and Christensen and Kathleen Sheets
would probably be alive today.

        In trying to keep Hofmann's purported McLellin collection
from falling into unfriendly hands, Hugh Pinnock followed in the
footsteps of President Smith and opened the way for the tragedy
when he arranged a loan of $185,000 for Hofmann to purchase the
imaginary collection.

        As if this is not bad enough, when church leaders
discovered the real collection, they were so embarrassed that
they kept it hidden from investigators. This conspiracy of
silence forced investigators to spend untold hours trying to pin
down the truth about the collection. If the church had been
forthright about the matter, investigators could have spent this
time in pursuing more profitable areas. The church's silence
concerning this matter definitely hurt prosecutors and left them
with a weaker hand in their dealings with Hofmann's lawyers.

        While it is true that the General Authorities of the
Mormon Church have preached openness, honesty and trust in God
from the pulpit, when it came right down to it some of the very
highest leaders of the church were unable to live up to the lofty
teachings they have set forth. They apparently did not believe
that the God they serve was able to handle the embarrassing
situation the church found itself in. Therefore, they proceeded
to protect the church with their own strategy. In their attempt
to save the church, they gave an advantage to a man whom they
knew was a desperate criminal who was charged with murder. Their
behavior with regard to this matter did not match up with their
twelfth Article of Faith: "We believe in being subject to kings,
presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and
sustaining the law."

        While it is true that they did not receive a subpoena for
the McLellin collection, it was only because they kept its
existence well hidden from the prosecution. Now that this
information has come to light, the actions of these leaders speak
louder than their words. The message seems to be that the
church's image is more important than the truth, even to the
point of withholding key evidence in a murder investigation! We
feel that this is a terrible example to set before the youth of
the church.