Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-01-05
|OLEARY ACCUSED
!. BY MRS. K|DWELL
sJuror's Mother UphoIds Sons
J Charge That Oil Trial A.
: fidavits Were "Padded."


Mrs. Mary Pearl Kidwell, mother Of
Edward ]. Kidwell, jr., juror in the
Teapot Dome conspiracy trial. today
substantiated the charges of her son
that James J. OLeary, assistant
United States attorney. had written
into her affidavits that kidwell had
told her he suspected Harry +. Sim
clair and Edward Il. Fall were caus-
ing him to be followed for the pur-
pose of finding out il he was the
Kind OF man who would accept
brihe.
Called as witness by OLeary to
refute Kidwells own version OF what
took place at their home when the
Government prosecutor Went there TO
obtain atiidavits from her ana her
husband concerning the jury shadow
ing, Mrs. Kidwell Unexpectedly turn
ed into a witness for the six re-
sponderts in the contempt proceed
lnrs. Earlier in her testimony she
had admitted the statements IN the
affidavits as prepared by . l-eary
were substantially true. But on
cross-eXamination by George L.
Hoover. counsel for Sinclair she en-
tered a sweeping denial or many por-
tons. ,...
O'Leary is under inquiry for intimi'
dating kidwell as a witness IN the
contempt proceedings and the juror
while on the stand. charged the Gov
eminent attorney with putting state
1nents into his mothers affidavit that
were untrue.
Saws Sons Statement Rejected.
Mrs. Kidwen testified O'Leary had
not read the affidavit to her and that
she could not read it very we'll her
self. She told the court further that
her son had not been allowed to PUT
IN his own affidavit a statement that
ne did not know the men following
him during the trial were Burns de-
1ectives.
Mr.. Hoover, who questioned Mrs.
Kidwell with much consideration.
brought out the fact that the juror
in her presence never had SAID any
thing to O'Leary about Burns detec-
fiyes following him. She denied also
that her son had said the incident in
rhe Museum ground, when a man ap-
nroached him and caused him 10 leei
that Sinclair and Fall were having
him followed to find out IL he was the
kind of a man who would take
oribe and that their purpose evldehuy
was to dust up the trial.
IT IS the contention of the Govern
nent that Kidwell had mace such
statement expressing his feelings dur
ing the trial, but Mrs. kidwell during
rhe course of her testimony brougnt
,,p4 that O'Iseary on the occasion or
his visit had asked him how he felt
about it now. He Indicated that ne
did not have any OF these 1eehhgs
while he was a juror.
Concerning the visit OF Detective
John ]. O'Reilly to her home. where
he made inquiries concerning the
Jurors father. Mrs. Kidwell declared
the man had not asked about her son.
Denies "Shadowing" Story.
Mrs. Kidwell denied tina. her son,
the Juror, ever told her that he was
being Swallowed" or that he thought
that the Sinclair people would oner
him a bride If they thought he would
take It," She also denied that she had
ever told Assistant United States
Attorney O'Leary any such thing.
Edward J. Kidwell. ST., father OF
The Juror, was next called to the stand
by Government counsel. The court
recessed for 20 minutes while the
witness read over two afiidavits which
he had signed in the presence or
O'Leary. He identified his signatures
and said that he had told the nUary
public that he considered the fasts in
the aff1davits correct when he 1gned
them. On cross examination BY de-
tense counsel, however. the witness
denied a statement in one OF the
sffidavits to the effect that his Son had
said anything about the possibility OF
4 bride being offered to him. He ad.
mitted that ne had read this affidavit
hurriedly and he supposed that it was
all right because he believed Mr..
OIeary would not ask him to sign IL
unless 1t was correct. Asked to read
over aloud In court a portion OF the
affidavit. Kidweli had great difficulty
fn getting the words correct, and
admitted that he could not read very
well.
After her husband was excused,
Mrs. Kidwell was recalled 20 the stand
and was asked by Mr.. Douglas IL abe
understood all the contents In the
affidavit and replied that she did not
feel she understood 1t as well as she
should.
This opened up broad line Of ques.
tioning and Justice siddons asked her
what she meant.
Il meant / didn't understand the
meaning OF an affidavit, what an
amcavit actually meant" Mrs. Kid,
well replied
Denies Burns Prejudice.
Col James Is. Easby.Smith, who yes.
ferday testified for the Government,
devoted considerable time to an expia.
nation or his functions an member
Of the committee appointed by Justice
Tldd0ns 10 investigate possible con-
tempt action growing out Ut the Tea
pot Dome mistriai
ut has been stated TO me-" eaid Col
Easily Smith. that tho idea is pre-.
vaient in certain quarters that j should
not serve On the committee because
7here was supposed 10 be q prejudice
On my part against William j. Burns"
This prejudice was supposed 10 have
grown out OF a case in which he Sd.
peared against Burns about 20 years
ago, Col. Easby.gmjth stated, but he
mas never talked with or seen the de
tectiye since then until the contempt
proceedings started. Because Of these
insi1uhti0ns. Col Easily smith said he
took uD the matter VI his service on
the committee with his associate, John
r.. Leskey. They reached the G1ncIu.
sion that there was nothing auast,tl
1lclai in the functions of the commit
Ls@ ana conseq uenily he prepared 10
DO the bidding III the court.
To Charles j.. Douglas, attorney for
The elder Burns and his son, Col.
Easily Smith e2piained that while he
had opinions, tie had mo feelings. no
Drstudices against Burns" lie also
assured the defense attorney that he
has no snfGity against Burns" and
AE. Douglas appeared perfectly salts
fled with tie ElAtemant
-
COLD SNAP HERE BREAKS