Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-05
BAREs RECORDsTO
SHOW FREDER|CKS
CONCEALED CRIME
WooIWine Cites Court Documents
to Prove Official Conspira-
tor in Will Case

1.-THE offense in all its perfldy and
shamelessness," as Thomas Lee Wool
wine characterized the charges he
makes against District Attorney Fred
ericks of compounding a felony while
in office, was the subject of Mr.. Wool
wines speech in University Assembly
hall at Thirty-fifth and Wesley streets
last night. In addition Mr.. Woolwine
took up Captain Fredericks' alleged
answer In detail and dissected each
statement made by the district attor-
ney.
The audience was clearly with Mr..
Woolwine and at the close of the
speech he received one of the enthusi-
astic receptions which characterize all
his meetings. His speech is as follows:
''The speaker has had considerable
experience with persons accused Of
serious offenses, and 1t Is but natural
for any man when accused of such q
grave offense as the one of which /
am now accusing Mr.. Fredericks to
squirm and twist and try to cover up
the real issues. This he has done in
his newspaper interview. My opponent
attempts to reply in the morning
papers and also In one of the afternoon
papers, which is, in fact, no reply at
all and should not be dignified with an
answer. / will quote some portions of
his interview and answer the same, so
that 1t may be seen that he is not only
deliberately falsifying, but that his
misstatements may be proved by the
records in the court house filed in the
case.
Nov in relation to the first forged
will he has this to say:.
Since giving my interview to the
papers yesterday evening I might
add briefly, but not finally, that
when this case was brought to me
by an old client and friend there
was no claim of a crime or forgery
or thought of anything but civil
suit to break poorly drawn will.
This will was not q forgery and
was never claimed by anyone to be
a subject for criminal action, either
then or at any other time.
SIGNED BY FREDERICKS
"a sufficient answer to this false
statement is found in a paper filed in
case No. 1884, in which 1t is alleged,
over the signature of John d. Freder-
icks, as follows:
Each and all of said alterations,
additions and erasureS were made
and forged by said Lucy King, and
by some other person or persons
unknown.
at Is further alleged in the same
paper, over the signature of John d.
II
will contain material alterations, ad-
ditions and erasures, made without the
knowledge or consent of said Michael
H. King, and each and all of said al
terations, additions and erasures were
made and forged by said Lucy King
And then, referring to another codicil
to the first will, to wit, the codicil OF
date May 4, 1904, the following is al
legged, over the signature of John d.
Fredericks:
Said codicil was wholly forged
and fabricated by said Lucy King,
and by some other person or per-
sons unknown.
"And in relation to another codicil
to the Same will, and of date September
21, 1904, this language appears, over
the signature of John d. Fredericks:
Said codicil or will was wholly
forged and fabricated by said Lucy
King and by some person or per-
sons unknown.
"And in reference to a codicil to the
same will of date April 5, 1905, appears
the following allegation, over the Sig
nature of John d. Fredericks:
Said will or codicil was wholly
Continued on Page Thirteen)