The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-12-28
THE GRAND JURY REPORT


M other Interpretation can be put upon that
carefully prepared statement which ends with a
challenge to the court in its declaration that under
the conditions as they existed in the grand jury 1t
would be impossible to return any other sort
Let's examine that report carefully, for 1t is sig
hifcant and than damning
1t says that the charges made by Thomas
Adams the editor Of Vincennes, who based them
upon letter written by D. c. Stephenson former
ruler Of this State, and convict had not been
substantiated by evidence which it had heard.
But just a moment 1t says that the charges
against state officials, have not been proved"
The indicts by silence every official OF lesser
Esgree who has been investigated, and rumor has
that Investigations have been made.
And were more needed along that line, the re-
2rt in it's later language, declares that testimony
had been adduced which needs further inquiry at
be hands of the next grand jury.
And surely only upon the theory that the next
erand Jury will need this evidence, could Judge
Collins so quickly and Immediately take charge of
The evidence and put the seal of silence of his court
upon it.
1t is a. plaintve manner in which the jury says
that "no one has produced it,
1t is pitiabe in view of the fact that the prose-
cutor had but member of the police force of this
city to whom he dared to entrust subpoena with
any hope Of having it served and depended largely
commanded the services of army Of detectives.
The grand jury had to wait for some one to
produce the evidence 1t could not seek it. 1t could
not even follow the trails. 1t had one it could
trust
Pass on to the reference to the documents which
stephenson said that he could produce
And read this part carefully:
"f such documentary evidence exists it
has not been furnished to the grand jury so far
as State officials are concerned"
Why the specific reference to State officials?
Is it not fair to that there were men on that
grand jury who demanded that this limitation be
placed in the report and that there documents
furnished concerning other officials? II not, why
the wording of the report?
The people, of course, expected that
Stephenson would turn any documents which
he had received.
The existence of such documents, at least of
documents which Stephenson believed to be of high
import and very valuable to him, as he was about
enter prison cell for the rest of his life was
shown rather co1cusvely by The Times, when it
printed the statements of photographers who said
they made the photographs, by former attorney
of Stephenson who said that he had refused
their custody, by others who had admitted the Gus
tody of lock boxes.
And the failure to produce those documents
takes the public mind back to the day when the
first charges were made public by Adams.
1t may be remembered that only silence greeted
that accusation and that for than week, six
State Senators were refused admittance to the cell
of Stephenson.
1t will be remembered that the Governor of this
State refused to permit his warden to admit these
Senators any others.
1t will be remembered that the trustees of the
State prison met hurredly at the bedside of one of
its members and passed solemn resolution indors
ing such action and practically sealing the convict
in his cell.
1t will be remembered that this rule never
existed until Warden Fogarty removed just in
advance Of the reception of Stephenson.
1t will be remembered, too, that those who
interested in preventing Stephenson from delivering
any documents he may have had had free entry to
that prison while others who wanted them, in the
name of decency, were barred.
1t will be remembered that when this grand jury
sought to find L. G. Julian former business partner
and trusted confdant of Stephenson he found easy
to confer with Stephenson-and then disappear for
entire month, so completely hidden that his own
wife did not know his whereabouts or his itinerary.
1t will be remembered, too, that the girl who
trusted by Stephenson, ran from this city, hiding
away, and then as mysterously returned.
1t will be remembered that the attorney general
Of this State Arthur Gom openly and publicly
declared that Stephenson had tried blackmail his
way to Hberty-and has not yet told with what
weapon he had tried to force his freedom
Then comes the further indictment that the
jury handicapped by the flight of witnesses
and the failure Of others to tell the truth
Why did these witnesses leave the State? Why
did they refuse to tell the truth? Were they guilty
themselves they hiding and defending
others?
Men who can look other men frankly in the eye
and have no burdens upon their souls do not flee.
Nor do who not solicited and persuaded to
run and protect guilty knowledge the part of
others.
The grand jury itself furnishes the answer when
it declares "The movements and statements of such
witnesses have been of such character to invite
suspicion and seriously impede the progress Of this
Investigation"
What power was behind these witnesses and
what influenced them to act in a manner which
invited suspicion against themselves and to impede
the progress Of the grand jury?