The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-02-02
KuykendalI Says They We're IL
or Is Years Old.
Complaining Witness in Rob-
berry Case on Stand.
NAMES POLICE IN HIS STORY
Declares He Knew Men, but Re-
fused to Tell
Because Officers Were Friendly
to and Aided Them.

Because he believed the police were
friendly to the defendants, w. r. Kuy-
kendall testified today in the district
court that he told the officers the night
of the robbery that he did not know the
men who took more than $500 in money
and valuables from his person. On the
witness stand today, Kuykendal said
, he had always known that Charles
Hecht and Frank Bechtelhemier robbed
him. The robbery occurred the night
of November %. 1910. in Kuykendal's
room, S25 Kansas avenue.
Kuykendal was the first witness
called today in the state case against
Hecht. Under cross-examination he
statements made by the complaining
witness continue to bob up just at the
wrong time and these things cause
more or less embarrassment. Raluc-
family Kuykendal admitted that his
room had been used more or less for
gambling purposes and that he him
self was once arrested for Sunday
gambling. Then there We're alleged
visits of ladies of questionable repute
and trips to his room by young girls
II to Is years old.
Knew Men in Dark
The witness said that one of the
windows in his room was raised the
night of the robbery. He returned
from local hotel about 10 o'clock
the night of the robbery, entered his
room and locked the door. AS he
started to turn on the lights, he said
two men grabbed him. One of them,
he said. was Frank .Bechtelheimer,
who choked and held him. Hecht, the
witness testified, went through his
pockets. He said he took $467.2O in
money, a $25 gold watch, a SIS check
and other VaIuableS to the aggregate
amount of more than $500. By the
dim light of the room he recognized
the two men. After the robbery he
became unconscious and later in the
night called the police.
Asked by the police to arrange the
room as it appeared when the robbery
occurred, Kuykendan drew both win
dow curtains. He said he did not
know who robbed him. This state
ment, he explained, was made because
he was certain that the defendants
had influential friends on the police
force. He mist0ok Lon Sauls for De-
tective Ed Xoiles, thought Voiles was
a friend of William Hutton, a member
of the force at that time, and that
Hutton was related to Hecht.
The next day Hecht was arrested.
He gave $500 bond, left Topeka and
was rearrested in Omaha.
Contradictory statements made by
Kuykendall in which he is said to have
implicated former Police officer Hut
ton as Hecht's accomplice, are relied
on by the defense. KuykendaH SEEM
ed to have talked unwisely 1t is
claimed that to police and county Off
GERS he said he either could not identi
~ the men VINO GODD0Q MN. or III
plicated men other than those under
arrest.
At the Hecht preliminary several
month ago, Kuykendall was called on
to name the second man. He named
Bechtelheim and testified that he
had known both men were guilty since
the night Of the trouble The witness
also stated that he had informed the
county attorneys office of the fact.
Bechtelheimer was not arrested until
the day of the preliminary. His trial
if held at alI-will be later He Is
to be used as one Of the witnesses for
the state in the present case.