Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-12-23
O'LEARY BATTLES
HOWELL CHARGES
OF INTIMIDATION
Continued from First Page,

him. kidwell clunc tenaciously In his
charge of yesterday that the affidavit
made out by his father and duly sworn
tn before notary on December . was
actually signed by his father in the
district attorneys Office only last
Tuesday.
/, was through this charge that tho
court obtained it's first knowledge chat
kidwell had talked To his father about
the signing of the paper in violation
Of Justice Siddons' strict injunction
io kidwell not to talk with any one
about the case.
In the maze Of confusing answers
elected from kidwell and the equally
confusing questions put him. the wit
ness refused 10 admit that he had
seen his father sign this affidavit in
his barber shop on December q when
he accompanied OLeary there from
his home.
Admits Signing Statements.
Testimony that he signed two NJ.
fidavits which all hut positively
identified by name two Burns de-
tectivcs as persons who approached
him during the Teapot Dome trial.
which statements were inserted by
oLcary. who told me tn sign them. ="
was the high point III kidweIis ex.
animation on the stand yesterda y
afternoon
Mr.. oI.earv told me tn do MS he
said. ms all these high.priced lawyers
are going to make me the underioc
and he did not want Ia see them
do that. so do as tell vou." Kid.
we'll declared In explanation of sign.
ing and swearing 10 something he did
not agree with.
The affidavit ri December IS con.
tained two paragraphs. the first of
which was composed by kidwell, AMI
the second. the witness said by
OLeary The first paragraph told
of kidwell being approached bv "A
man during the Teapot Dome trial,
who asked. What do YOU think nf the
trial. and the second paragraph
read.
Burns Man Named.
Since the trial Of this contempt
case has been going on | have had
an opportunity To get q good look at
Burns Detective O'ReilIy. the witness
who testified in the contempt case
yesterday. and now wish to maxi.
this statement: While am not nh.
soluieiy positive. think that O'Reillv
is the man who thus spoke tn me
during The trial. lie looks like the
man. He answers the description ~
the man. lie talks like the mar,
According In the best of my rcco,.
lections. O'Rellly IL the man
kidwell maintained In swearing ~
the affidavit he sWnre tn only the
first paragraph. which he had die.
tated. and not the second. He said
while the document was being pre-.
pared he told OI.eary he WASH
"ir" oReiilv was the man" but. he
testified To OLeary on the stand,
You told SwortZ uhe stenocrapher,
4" PIT II that way. | told YOU all
along | wasn't sure II was O'Reiliv."
Denial In Testimony.
Turning 10 the second affidavit
which set forth kidwell~ approach
by msn In the Smithsonian Insti.
tuition grounds the second paragraph
~ which named Detective stewart
M The person in question. although
not positively the witness satd h..
read II over and felt the last para
graph was another way If saving !
recognized The man but wasn't s,,rs
~ II. hut YOU tried ~ make me sa,
lie was the man, The second para.
graph. supplied h, oLearN. according
Ia kid@"il. read While I am not
absolutely positive. my hest recoilec
ton II that this Detective Stewart IL
The same man that approached me
ana talked In me ht the Smithsonian
grounds -
on the stand he testified II siu not
think that lie Steward Ia. although
] an not Airc.'
At The time Won signed the ain
,laNil dtd YOU believe II contained u
false statement" asked pI,eurv.
\ knew all the statements nat