The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-11-15
THE CASE OF AIMEE
MCPHERSON
BY n. ID. Cochran

Whether Aimee Mcpherson did or didn't commit
the crime she Is charged WITH whether a devout
and angelic evangelist designing vamp. she
tainly stands out very dramatic personality
Any woman who shake off two husbands, drive
into Los Angeles equipped with dilapidated fivver
and ten-dolar bill and wind up with a two-nillion-
dollar marble temple owned in her NAME is no
SLOUGH of a woman
By the way, what is the charge against Aimee?
She must have committed crme-provided,
OF course that she guilty of whatever she is charged
with. But what 1t? She Disappeared but that
isn't crime She hid out for several weeks but that
isn't a crime, either.
Even If she off with that radio operator she
didn't violate the Mann act unless she transported him
from State to another for immoral purposes for
the Mann act doesn't bar immoral commerce between
a and a woman unless it is interstate commerce.
The Of the oense is not the act itself but the
passing from one State into another to commit the
act. And then If Aimee did actually take Ormis-
ton from State to another she couldn't ndict-
ed for crime under the Mann unless she paid his
railroad fare possibly bought gasoline. for
if she took him by motor.
Aimee wasn't indicted for being kidnapped, for the
State of California is trying to that wasn't
kidnapped But being kidnapped not being kidnapped is
crime.
Evidently the law is trying to prove that Aimee
went to cottage at Carmelby- with her male
radio operators. occupied cottage there bought
groceries and had laundry DONE But there appears
be effort to prove that she committed any crime
while she living at the cottage, if Ormston
living there at the time. She is not accused
OF violating any of the Ten Commandments while liv
1t may be that of the feminine lingerie found
in the Ormiston trunk that grabbed in New York
belonged to Aimee 1t fair to that Orrnston
himself didn't 1t. even if it did belong to
Aimee, what of it? Putting her lingerie in a mans
trunk be improper, but it isn't crime. Anyhow
she wasn't indicted for putting her underwear in
mans trunk.
OF course, there is technical charge against her
for violating law, but not much has been said
about it in the hundreds of columns of newspaper
space this dramatic female evangelist. We
don't remember just what the technical charge was
1t seemed to have something to do with fooling the
public the law somebody something-some
kind of conspiracy to put something on
body. But politicians do that right along.
The point to all this is that this eminent actress
evangelist of the female persuasion appears to have
got into sort of jam that wasn't either angelic
evangestic, however human it may have been; and
the minons of the law tearing their shirts
that evangelist Aimee isn't all that evangelist
is supposed to be- but the contrary is red headed
human being who had husband of her and
went out and grabbed belonging to other
woman.
We don't know whether Aimee Mcpherson is
guilty not guilty, what she's guilty of If she's
guilty, but the reading public is certainly guilty of
intense and throbbing curiosity about Aimee's
ments and not in thousand could tell you off
handed what ofense she is charged with; and the
ofense they either hope fear she is guilty of
nothing to do with the That is, it isn't the
crime she was indicted for.
Anyhow, she's wonder, guilty not guilty; and
her tremendous congregation sticks to her like glue
and packs the temple to capacity at every perform
ance, which proves that Aimee is some evangelist