The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1926-07-31
SECTION v
Questions BAL Inclusive

SGtO wa again WGdWRS6uW 20
early afternoon. He said Doctor
been stolen from the mission check-
book and thar he aUua blamed for e.
before that he had thought He
acomId lose his place. 1 don't k1sOfe
achdt 4cas the connections. don't
kn0aC thGt he said Doctor W0na
Uas going to send him back 20
China IN disgrace. He said Doctor
had called m the police. He said
ne thought Hsie had told Wong.
Again the detectives mention WI
having taken the check from the
checkbook and that Doctor Wong
had called up the police. The
assumption that we would con.
tinue our alleged plot In face q
the fact that the police had 81,
ready been notified Is one Of the
many incredible features Of this
so-called confession. 1T was con.
fributed entirely by the detectives
and had never been even talked
of before me. Therefore lid
not know its significance but
cannot believe 1t was pure fabriea.
ton. There was surely something
back Of it. Doctor Wong actually
did call the police "Wednesday
afternoon and the nature of the
communication has never been re.
yealed by the police. But 1t Is
known that Detective Bradley
called at the mission house in re-
Spouse to a complaint from Doctor
Bradley, on the stand, said he
called on Wednesday, January 20
at p. M. but his calling card
was distinctly marked January g,
which Bradley mot at the first
trial but at the second and third
said was misdated. 1t is known
on good authority that Detective
Bradley has an unusual reputation
for accuracy in the detective bu'
reau. Was his mistake in the
written date on his card or in his
subsequent statement on the wit
ness stand?
However, it is most probable
there was some alarm given to
the police before the murder was
committed, concerning a check
torn from the checkbook, 1t is
inconceivable that Burlingame and
Kelly made up this check story
out of the air, and they certainly
never got It from me.
Is it not possible that there wa:
an extra check In the check book
properly signed BIZ DIR. Wong and
Mr.. Hsie but not filled in? Where
two signatures are required tt
checks, / am told it is not unusua
for few checks to be signed vi
for emergency purposes and to bt
filled in when needed. Is 1t moi
probable that there was such {
check in the check book and thai
it had been distracted?
That when DIR. Wong discovered
1t, he reported to the police and, as
a result, Bradley called This woulC
mean that the 5000 check was
genuinely signed tas / have always
believed, but was filled in by some
one for whom it was not intended
1t is too unbelievable that WI OF
anyone else should tear out a blank
check in sequence Ii. e., a serial
check unless there was some reason
for it.
otherwise one would certainly
take a check from the back OF
middle Of the book where it would
not be noticed. But this was cheek
No. "a, and there certainly was some
real reason for taking it, The de
tectives did not get this check story
from me, and it is too extraordi
nary for fabrication.
| If this check was signed but no
| filled in, it explains not only why
| this particular (but Otherwise tor
conspicuousl check was used. Alst
| why there was not more excitement
at the bank.
| Did such signed but nisstn D
cL@~* eseA'+nAt fe~ "th4 fSArS Rfaf