The Wahpeton times. [volume] (Wahpeton, Richland County, Dakota [N.D.]) 1879-1919, 1915-11-18
STATES ATTORNE, : :,
WRITES A LETTER
To tho Times For Il To Publi.h
the Same and Correct tho Mis-
leading Facts Printed
BY LIDGERWOOD MONITOR
Which Were Copied and Publish
ed by tho Times Concerning
Case Of eige Reed

The Times through its columns
published certain facts contained
by the Lidgerwood Monitor, last
week, concerning the Bige Reed
case, and of confession by the
late Negro Bedell, who died re-
Gently at the state penitentiary, to
which States Attorney Forbes
takes to task and exception.
States Attorney Forbes in the
following letter to the Times
writes that Bedell in his confess
sion did not say that Bige Reed
did not do the shooting and that
did, but that Bedell stated that
"Bige Reed did not do the shoot
ing but l won't tell who did" The
letter is as follows:
STATES ATTORNEY CONTENDS
that articles concerning the case
OF Blge Reed are unfair and pub
llshed to create sentiment.
Mr.. Editor:
In a recent issue of your paper
and in other papers of the county
articles have appeared in which
it was stated that Earl Bedell had
confessed that he had shot Frank
kuiisek and that Bige Reed who
was convicted Of the crime was
not guilty. In the first place Earl
Bedell did NOT confess that he
did the shooting at all but has al
ways claimed that he did not com
init the crime. Bedell swore on the
trial that Reed and he went to hold
up the deceased and that in the
course of their unlawful act Reed
shot kulisek. He had reiterated
this statement many times. 1t is
true that in his alleged confess
sion he states that Reed was not
present at all but he refused to
give the name of the man who was
with him which alone throws sus-
picion on his confession. In my
opinion the new statement of Be-
dell is worthless and entitled to
no credit or faith whatever. The
evidence introduced on the trial
was and is sufficient to convince
any fair minded man beyond a
reasonable doubt that Bedell and
Reed together committed the
crime for which they were con-
vlcted. The articles in question.
SO far as l can ascertain, were in
spired by some person who ap-
pears to be interested in Reed and
is trying to create sentiment
which it is considered may help to
bring about new trial. Having an
abiding conviction that Reed is
just as guilty as Bedell, it will be
my duty to oppose his motion for
a new trial as strenuously as
can and will do SO. can not un-
derstand how any person at all
familiar with the evidence can
have any doubt as to Reeds guilt
or why such a person is interest
ed in publishing articles in his
favor. 1t is possible that with such
person the fact that decedent was
a humble Bohemian and a strang-
er in our land is sufficient reason
for his slayers going unpunished,
but as long as l am States Attor-
ney the. man who was instrument
al In bringing about his untimely
death will find me opposing every
step which is taken by him to es-
cape punishment. The trial of
Reed cost Richland County more
than 100000; the evidence in
the case amply warranted his con-
viction; Bedell's alleged state
ment is not admissible in evil
dence in Reeds favor; and l am
satisfied that new trial would
only be a large and unwarranted
expense and privilege to which
Reed is not entitled.
The matter will soon be sub
mitted to Judge Allen for his de-
cision and he can be safely de-
pended upon to do justice between
the State and Reed.
In my opinion this statement is
due the public to the end that the
insinuation of the aforesaid news
paper articles to the effect that
an innocent man was convicted |
may be dispelled and removed
from the minds of our citizens.
JOS. G. FORBES
States Attorney.