Creffield and the Holy Rollers made page one headlines from 1903 to 1907. When I was researching Holy Rollers: Murder and Madness in Oregon’s Love Cult I spent months transcribing hundreds of articles. I’m not sure why I was so obsessive. Maybe it was my way of immersing my self into a cult without joining one. Anyway, I’m posting them all for those who are really interested in the story, or are interested the history of journalism, or are interested in how a scandalous story played out in the "media" in a by gone era. Since I no doubt made typos and unconsciously corrected papers' typos, these web pages should not be cited in anything serious (e.g. your dissertation). For such projects they should only be used as starting points and you should refer to the original sources. If you want a shorter version of the story, buy my book. Enjoy.
May 11, 1906: Bail Is All Ready
Morning Oregonian (Portland) 5/11/1906 p6
Bail Is All Ready
Avenger Mitchell Finds Many Friends in
Seattle. Judge Is On Record. Defender of His Home Was Quickly Released When He
Was Brought Up for Trial Before Judge Frater.
SEATTLE, Wash.,
May 10--(Special.)-- It is significant of George Mitchell’s forthcoming trial
that he will have to appear before Superior Judge Frater who has already
expressed a judicial opinion of a man who broke up another’s home. Unless the
County Attorney secures a change of venue, Mitchell will be
tried by Judge Frater, for he sits in the criminal court.
When George
Beede found Ray McDonald recently consorting with the former’s wife, Beede lay
in wait at the rendezvous of the two. McDonald was not killed, but he hovered
between life and death for weeks. Finally he recovered and refused to
prosecute. In dismissing the case against Beede, Judge Frater delivered a
scathing denunciation of McDonald, declaring he instead of Beede ought to have
been put on trial. The judicial statements created a sensation among attorneys
at the time.
Seattle Star 5/11/1906 p1
Holy Roller Ruled by Hypnotic Power
Louis Sandell of Louis Sandell, of East
Seattle, Says Creffield’s Eye Made women Do What Ever We Wanted--Sister is With
Colony in Oregon With Her Husband.
That Edmund
Creffield, the “Holy Roller” leader who was shot by George Mitchell, held his
saw over women by hypnotic power is the firm belief of Louis Sandell, of East
Seattle. Sandell’s sister, Mrs. Frank Hurt, is a member of the sect and is now
near Corvallis, where Creffield had planned to unite his followers.
Sandell is very
closely connected with all the parties connected in the “Holy Roller” trouble. Frank
Hurt, who is the only male member of the “Holy Rollers,” married Sandell's
younger sister, and it was through his influence that she also became a member
of the sect. He also influenced Sandell’s other sister, Olive, to go to the “Holy
Roller” colony near Corvallis, Ore.
TRIED TO SAVE
THEM
When Creffield
was sent to the penitentiary two years ago, Sandell tried to get his sisters
out of Creffield’s influence and succeeded in getting Hurt to move to East
Seattle, where he has been living until Creffield began to reorganize the “Holy
Rollers.”
About two weeks
ago Hurt complained of illness and told Sandell he was going to leave for his
health. Without knowing where Hurt was really going, Sandell allowed his two
sisters to accompany him.
SYMPATHY FOR
MITCHELL
Sandell
sympathizes with Mitchell, and says that if he was place in the same condition he would have done the same. In speaking of
Creffield he says:
“I know many of
the people he had under his control, and they were perfectly rational and
strong minded people before they met him. It was through his hypnotic powers
that he got girls under his control. Creffield has a look that seemed to cast a
spell over a person, and one felt more secure the farther away from him While
Creffield was in the penitentiary, Hurt and my sister were all right, but as
soon as they had seen Creffield, I noticed a change.
LEFT TWO WEEKS AGO
“The left two
weeks ago. My other sister went with them to be a companion to my married
sister. When she left I could see that she was troubled and did not want to go.
After she came back two years ago, she told me what an immoral fellow Creffield
was, and what a terrible power he had over his followers and the girls
especially. The stories concerning their community are all true. Creffield was
a beast, and his actions at the colony were only those of a brute.
KNEW MITCHELL’S INTENTIONS
In speaking of
Mitchell, Sandell said:
“I know Mitchell
well. I saw him a week before he took Creffield’s life. Creffield ruined his
sister and when he was released from the penitentiary he again got his sisters
under he control. I saw the girl two weeks ago, and I know that she was
controlled purely by his hypnotism.
SEND MONEY TO
CREFFIELD
“She and several
other girls were working in Portland last winter and sending him their
earnings. There was nothing else that Mitchell could do. I saw him in the
county jail, and he told me he was glad he did the deed, as he would rather
suffer in Walla Walla alone than see his whole family ruined forever. As far as
the killing is concerned, I know several men who were after Creffield and who
would have killed him instantly.”
Sandell has not
yet heard from his sisters, but he expects that they will come back and live in
Seattle.
Morning Oregonian (Portland) 5/12/1906 p6
Mitchell Will Ask Bail
Slayer of Holy Roller to Be Arraigned
Today.
SEATTLE, Wash.,
May 11--(Special)-- George Mitchell will be arraigned tomorrow morning before
Judge Frater on a charge of murder in the first degree in killing “Joshua”
Creffield. Will H. Morris, attorney for the young man, will defer pleading
until more time has been afforded for an examination of the information, but
will at once make an application for bail. This application
will be fought by the prosecuting attorney.
If Mitchell
should be admitted to bail the security will have to
be provided by strangers, for the Mitchell family is without means. Mitchell’s attorney claims that enough
assurances of support have been given to lead him to believe there will be no
difficulty in raising any reasonable amount. Prominent business
men are said to have offered to go on the bond.
Local precedents
are plenty for allowing bail, although the laws of the state are rigid and do
not contemplate the release of homicides on bonds unless doubt exists as to
their guilt of murder in the first degree exists.
Evening Telegram
(Portland) 5/11/1906 p8
Has No Need of Manning’s Help
District Attorney’s Offer to Testify for
George Mitchell Declined.
Kenneth
Macintosh, Prosecuting Attorney for King County, has answered District Attorney
John Manning’s letter advising him of the moral character of Edmund Creffield,
the Holy Roller “prophet” in Oregon, and his request to be permitted to appear
before the grand jury or in the trial court on behalf of George Mitchell, who
shot the Holy Roller.
Commenting on
the letter, Mr. Manning said:
“Prosecuting
Attorney Mackintosh makes light of my communication to him, and winds up by
saying that he is surprised that Creffield was not punished here, omitting to
note that we sent him to the Penitentiary for one crime, and says that he had
not heard of a single recital of a specific instance in which Creffield did
wrong. This is to be expected, for the crimes committed by this man were with
simple-minded people. They were committed in secret, and the officers could not
reach him. There were no witnesses obtainable. Furthermore, the nature of his
offense were so unprintable that they have never gained publicity and
consequently Mr. Macintosh who never heard of them says so and lets it go at
that.
“If he will come
to Oregon we will relate a tale that will cause him to wonder.”
The letter
follows:
SEATTLE, Wash.,
May 10.-- John Manning, District Attorney, Multnomah
County, Portland, Or.: Dear Sir--I am in receipt of your letter of May 8 in
regard to the case of State of Washington vs. George Mitchell, in which I have
today filed an information charging the defendant with the crime of murder in
the first degree. There being no grand jury in session, it is impossible to
adopt your suggestion of appearing before such a body in order to relate what
you know about the previous conduct of Mitchell’s victim, and, as your
testimony in the trial of the case in Superior Court would be inadmissible,
being merely of a hearsay nature, the second part of your suggestion is also
impracticable. Although I am thus unable to avail myself of your knowledge of
some of the circumstances leading up to the perpetration of this murder, I wish
nevertheless to thank you for the interest you have manifested in the matter
and for your offer of assistance.
As citizens of
this country, you and I realize that the enforcement of our criminal laws is
entrusted to our courts, juries and public officers, and that lynch and mob law
and anarchy are the natural and only results of the efforts of individuals to
personally avenge real or fancied injuries. There is no security to life or
property if the individual can act as attorney, Judge, and jury, and take the
execution, not of the law, but of his passions, into his own hands and kill any
one who he may determine has wronged either himself or his family, and this,
whether his determination is the product of a sane or demented mind, and
whether his wrongs are real or merely delusions.
As officers of
the law, sworn to prosecute crime, you and I realize that it is our duty where
we are satisfied that a crime has been committed and that there is sufficient
evidence to prove the act, to honestly and vigorously prosecute the offender,
and that the moral well-being of the community which we represent is vitally
affected by the vigor or laxity with which these efforts to enforce the
criminal laws are made.
The defendant
Mitchell, with deliberate and premeditated malice, shot Edmund Creffield in the
back and the laws of this state constitute that act murder in the first degree,
and do not accept as a justification for it the facts and circumstances which
Mitchell and his friends allege up to the shooting, even if such facts and
circumstances are true as reported by those people. Being sure that this act
was done, and that the witnesses to it are available, it became my duty to file
an information charging Mitchell with murder, and this I have done; and it will
become my further duty to prosecute the defendant fearlessly and vigorously,
which I shall do. I cannot and will not presume that a jury of 12 men of the
citizens of this county will do other than observe honestly the oaths which
they take when they are sworn to try the case, and, observing these oaths,
return a verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence, which in this
case should mean a verdict of conviction.
Knowing, as I
do, the vigor with which you direct and prosecute crime, and the moral fiber of
the citizens of Oregon, it seems remarkable to me that, if the deceased
Creffield was guilty of all these atrocious outrages of which he is now
accused, he was not prosecuted in your state and convicted. I am loath to
believe that, if the things which are now laid at this man’s
door were committed by him, your officers were unable to suppress those
acts.
There has been a
great deal said in the papers in regard to this crime, and your letter also
contains a good many generalities; but I have yet to hear the recital of any
specific act which would justify me in believing that Creffield was really
guilty of revolting crimes.
Thanking you
again for your kind offer in this case, I remain, yours truly,
KENNETH
MACKINTOSH
Lincoln County Times (Waldport) 5/11/1906 p1
A couple of Holy
Rollers, the remnant of the late Creffield’s outfit, which was camped for
awhile near Ocean View, this county, passed valley ward yesterday
morning--going home, no more to roll--let us hope.
Corvallis Gazette 5/11/1906 p4
O. V. Hurt arrives home Wednesday night from Seattle.
Lincoln County Times (Waldport) 5/18/1906 p1
The Prevailing Opinion
HARLAN, Or., May 11,/1906.
“In the death of
Creffield society has been rid of a dangerous character, and yet the manner of
his taking off was [NOT] brutal and cowardly.” If we have a “varmint” of any
kind that is preying on our sheep and goats--especially our lambs and kids--we
put the hounds on its track and run it down, and then we kill the “varmint” as
soon as we get to it. We don’t call the dogs off when we get there and let the
thing go and start to run in order that we may shoot it four or five times
before we get it killed. “The world abhors a villain; it despises a coward;”
therefore, a man who uses his brutal influence over weak-minded women, ruins
young girls and breaks up happy homes--why isn’t he the worst coyote on the
society rang? And when the law has had its inning and has done no good, and a
brother is broken-hearted over the villainous ruination and downfall of his
sisters, is it to be wondered that a man would take the law in his own hands
and put the villain out of the way? He is to be pitied in being forced to do
so. Had young Mitchell tried to escape after killing Creffield, it would have
been different; but he does not; he stands face to face with his own danger and
says: “Do what you will with me. I have only avenged the wrong done my sisters,
who are as dear to me as my own life.” Creffield was forewarned, if he had any
conscience, for his every movement was criminal; he needed no other warning. We
believe in protecting the purity of our land, and we should honor the man who
has the courage to take the chance that George Mitchell has taken, for he knows
not what the outcome may be.
“The disregard
and contempt of law” is NOT growing, if real criminals are punished as they should be. If a jury of twelve men could have convicted Creffield for
an act far worse than murder in the first degree, and a judge could have
sentenced him to the gallows, without any chance of a reprieved, it would have
saved George Mitchell the very thought of doing what he did. Men are not “blood
hungry and blood crazy”--only in the fertile brains of a very few
individuals--and even they, in some instances, handle one case very rough,
while in another they are very lenient. And now, Mr. Reporter man, up her in
our little law-abiding neighborhood George Mitchell is not considered either a
murderer or a coward; and more than that, we believe if a jury of twelve men
could be found in Oregon who would convict a man for such an act, we have a
Governor who would reprieve him, if he has the power. This is probably the
sentiment in the state of Washington, where young Mitchell “rid society of a
dangerous character” from Oregon.
A FATHER
HEADLINES IN DIFFERENT PAPERS FOR THE SAME ARTICLE
Evening Telegram (Portland) Fri 5/11/1906 p1
Mitchell May Plead Temporary Insanity.
Only Way Necessary Testimony Can Be
Introduced Says Mackintosh. He Talks to No One. Answer to District Attorney’s
Letter Sent to That Official in Portland.”
Prosecuting Attorney Mackintosh Says That Is Best Defense.
Seattle Post Intelligencer 5/11/1906 p5
Insanity May Be Mitchell’s Plea
[Telegram Coast
Special]
If the
predictions of Prosecuting Attorney Mackintosh prove true, George Mitchell will
plead temporary insanity in the superior court when he is arraigned on a charge
of murder in the first degree for killing Franz Edmund Creffield in this city a
few days ago. Mr. Mackintosh holds that by making this plea it will be possible
for the defendant to get the testimony before the jury which
he declares necessary if the young man is to have even the slightest
chance of escaping the penalty for his crime. He declares that under the law testimony
bearing on the former character or condition of the dead man is not generally
admissible, and that in order for it to be placed before the jury a plea of
temporary insanity will be necessary. More than this the prosecutor asserts
that he is certain that this is the plea that will be put before the court and
upon which the case will be fought.
Mitchell still
remains silent and talks only thru his attorney concerning the case.
An
information was filed
in the superior court yesterday by the prosecuting attorney charging Mitchell
with murder in the first degree.
Attorney
Mackintosh yesterday addressed a letter to District Attorney John Manning of
Portland, in Answer to one received by him from that official on the previous
day. In it he says:
CAN BE NO
SECURITY TO LIFE
“As citizens of
this country, you and I realize that the enforcement of our criminal laws is
entrusted to our courts, juries and public officers, and that lynch an mob law
and anarchy are the natural and only results of the efforts of individuals to
personally avenge real or fancied injuries. There is no security to life or
property if the individual can act as attorney, judge and jury and take the
execution, not of the law, but of his passions, into his own hands and kill
anyone who he may determine has wronged either himself or his family, and this,
whether his determination is the product of a sane or demented mind, and
whether his wrongs are real or merely delusions.
“The defendant
Mitchell, with deliberate and premeditated malice, shot Edmund Creffield in the
back, and the laws of this state constitute that act murder in the first degree
and do not accept as a justification for it the facts and circumstances which
Mitchell and his friends allege led up to the shooting, even if such facts and
circumstances are true as reported by these people. Being sure that this act
was done, and that the witnesses to it are available, it became my duty to file
an information charging Mitchell with murder, and this I have done, and it will
become my further duty to prosecute the defendant fearlessly and vigorously,
which I shall do.
WOULD MEAN
CONVICTION
“I cannot and
will not presume that a jury of twelve men of the citizens of this county will
do other than observe honestly the oaths which they take when they are sworn to
try the case, and, observing those oaths, return a verdict in accordance with
the law and the evidence, which in this case should mean a verdict of
conviction.
“Knowing as I
do, the vigor with which you detect and prosecute crime, and the moral fiber of
the citizens of Oregon, it seems remarkable to me that, if the deceased
Creffield was guilty of all these atrocious outrages of which he is now
accused, he was not prosecuted in your state and convicted. I am loath to
believe that if the things which are now laid at this man’s door were committed
by him, your officers were unable to suppress those acts.”
Seattle Daily Times 5/11/1906 p1
Mitchell To Be Arraigned At Once
Young Man Whom Prosecuting Attorney
Insists Committed Murder in First Degree to Be in Court Tomorrow. Application for Bail to Be Made by Will H. Morris, Trusting to
Seattle Sympathizers to Provide the Bonds. Boy’s Family and Friends
Intimate Friends Own No Realty in the County and His Freedom Depends on
Strangers.
George Mitchell
will be arraigned tomorrow morning before Judge Frater on a charge of
committing murder in the first degree in killing “Joshua” Creffield. Will H.
Morris as attorney for the young man, will defer the pleading until more time
has been afforded for an examination of the information, but will at once make
an application for bail.
This application
will be fought by the prosecuting attorney, but that is should be granted no
one who has seen George Mitchell or who has heard him tell the story of how his
sisters were ruined by this man whom he has removed from the community in which
he was a danger to almost every weak-minded woman with religious tendencies
doubts for a moment.
George Mitchell’s
family owns no real estate in King County. Indeed, they own little property and
have less ready money. They are not the class of
people who deal in stocks and bonds. Creffield did not find his victims among
the wealthy or among those whom the world classes as “our best citizens.” He
chose them among the poorer residents of little Oregon towns in which his
predatory efforts were employed.
CONFINED WITH
CRIMINALS
If George
Mitchell is freed from the confinement which now makes him an associate of
criminals and men with whom he has nothing whatever in common it will be by the
friendly act of some man or set of men in Seattle who will back up their
oft-spoken sympathy by the substantial although technical backing of a lien
upon some of their real estate.
It is the desire
of Mitchell’s relatives and friends and his attorney that he be released from a
confinement in which they in common with a majority of the people of Seattle
believe to be unjust. The bond required will be far beyond their means and the
application for bail will be made solely with the idea that there are men in
Seattle who are willing to take an honest look in the boy’s face as security
for the temporary obligation upon their property.
Newspaper men,
deputy sheriffs and police officers used to judging the character of men from
their appearance in such crises as land them behind steel bars, are united in
their declarations that, whether Mitchell be guilty of murder or not, he is at
least a young man who believes he has done right and is willing to take
whatever punishment technical jugglers with the law may be able to impose upon
him.
The measure of
that punishment cannot be taken for may weeks. In the meantime
it rests mainly upon the people of Seattle whether Mitchell remains a silent
prisoner in the county jail or enjoys his freedom until his trial for a defense
of his sisters, which the law terms a crime, shall have been concluded.
OLD COUPLE CALL ON HIM
As an instance
of Mitchell’s character, according to men who have known him all his life, an
old man and woman who happened to be in Seattle on a journey, read in the
newspapers of the Creffield case and called at the county jail last night to
make sure that the George Mitchell was the boy they knew in Illinois years ago.
It was the same
boy, and after a short talk with him the old people declared to the jailers
that they had known him before he came to Oregon with his family and that the
boy, his father and his mother were of the highest character and generally
respected in the farming community in which they lived. They extended their
sympathy to the young man and offered him such aid as is within their means.
This bond which will be required will run into the thousands of
dollars. It may be as high as $20,000. It might be as low as $5,000. either of these figures is beyond the reach of Mitchell’s
intimates. The men who knew him best are not financially equal to such an
emergency. Perhaps no one stranger would be willing to furnish the security for
the entire amount, but there should be enough men of property in Seattle to
make up the amount which this boy’s act in a matter in which most men of right
ideas of living would have done the same has made necessary.
Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney John F. Miller will strenuously oppose the application for
bail. He declares that Mitchell is not entitled to liberty. His view of the law
leads him to the position that this boy is a murderer pure and simple and
entitled to no sympathy. He admits, however, that the motive, if it be properly
brought out, may have some weight when the case comes to trial, but believes that
the duty of the prosecutor is to leave the verdict to the jury and to present
the case in the best possible shape on behalf of the law, which forbids the
taking of a human life save by a legalized executioner.
“Mitchell will
know he has been tried, at least, when he gets through with this,” he said.
WILL ARGUE FOR
BAIL
Mr. Morris, on
the other hand, says that he cannot believe bail will be refused in such a
case, and will argue the provisions of the constitution which he alleged entitle
his client to his freedom to the utmost. He has at present no idea where the
bond is to come from, but will proceed with the idea that there are men in
Seattle who will not allow young Mitchell to remain in jail a day longer than
is necessary.
Rev. Myron W.
Haynes, pastor of the First Baptist Church, whose argument concerning passed
over railroads in the removal of his family to Seattle has made perhaps even
better known than the ordinary minister of prominence, has injected his
personality into the case by telephoning to Prosecuting Attorney Mackintosh his
assurances off support on the side of the law. Dr. Haynes will preach a sermon
on his idea of the case by telephoning to Prosecuting Attorney Mackintosh his
assurances of support on the side of the law. Dr. Haynes will preach a sermon
on his idea of the case Sunday night. He considers the taking of a human life
unjustifiable in any extreme. In this instance it is a case of a minister of
the gospel agreeing with the administrators of the technical law.
Mr. Mackintosh
says that other men have sent him similar messages of support, but the talk of
the streets and in the homes where neighbors gather continues to favor
Mitchell.
(Next to this is
an article “Women To Fight For Right To Ballot, Campaign Will Be Made Before
the Next Legislature to Secure Passage of Law Extending Suffrage.”)
SAME ARTICLE
REPRINTED
Corvallis Gazette 5/11/1906, 5/18/1906, p3 5/22/1906 p4,
5/25/1906 p4, 5/29/1906 p4
To Assist Mitchell.
Seattle Daily Times 5/15/1906 p1
Throughout the states of Oregon and
Washington there is an intense feeling of sympathy for and endorsement of the
action of George Mitchell in slaying Edmund Creffield. Mr. Mitchell is a poor
young man and he needs financial assistance. Many of our prominent citizens are
taking the initiative and are contributing.
“The Gazette” will receive contributions
and receipt for the same.
Help the boy in his trouble.
Corvallis Gazette 5/18/1906 p3
In response to
the above appeal for contributions for the assistance of George Mitchell the
Gazette is in receipt of $67, contributed as follows:
Harry Pritchard
...........................$1.00
B. W. Johnson
... ...........................5.00
Cottage Grove
Party ..................45.00
W. H. Rickard
.................................1.00
Frank W. Hughes,
Canyonville ...1.00
I. L. Finlav
........................................1.00
A. B. Alexander
............................. 1.00
John Doe
....................................... 1.00
T. H. Davis
..................................... 1.00
E. E. Wilson
................................... 5.00
I.D. Bodine
..................................... 1.00
S. H. Horton
.................................. 1.00
Thos. Bonlden ..............................
1.00
George W. Smith
......................... 1.00
John Doe ....................................... 1.00
Chapters of Holy Rollers where these articles are some of the sources:
Chapter 15: I Got My Man
Chapter 16: The Widow Creffield
***
May 10, 1906: Shows No Emotion At Husband’s Grave
May 12, 1906: Mitchell Denied Bail
***
Newspaper Articles about Creffield & the Holy Rollers
1897-1903: B.C. (Before Creffield)
October to December 1903:Holy Rollers Burn Furniture & Pets
January to March, 1904: Holy Rollers Tarred and Feathered
April to June 1904: Holy Rollers are Committed to the Asylum
July 1904: Creffield is Found & Arrested
September 1904: Creffield's Trial
April 1906: Men are Gunning For Creffield
May 1906: Creffield is Murdered, Murderer is Considered a Hero
May 1906: Holy Rollers Found Starving Near Heceta Head
June 1906: George Mitchell's Trial Begins
July 1906: Hurt Testifies of Debauched Wife and Debased Sisters
July 1906: Esther Mitchell Kills Her Brother
August to October 1906: Seattle Prepares for another Big Trial
November 1906: Maud Hurt Creffield Commits Suicide
April 1909-August 1914: Esther Leaves the Asylum
1953 Stewart Holbrook's Murder Without Tears
1951Startling Detective Magazine, Nemesis of the Nudist High Priest
***
Chapters from
Holy Rollers: Murder & Madness in Oregon's Love Cult
Part 1: The Seduction
Chapter 1: Trust Me, Brothers And Sisters
(Life Before Creffield [B.C.])
Chapter 2: God, Save Us From Compromising Preachers
(Creffield's Preachings)
Chapter 3: The Flock
(Profiles of the Holy Rollers Were)
Chapter 4: The Holy Rollers
(Things Start to Get Wild on on Kiger Island)
Chapter 5: Housecleaning
(There's a Sacrificial Bonfire)
Chapter 6: Community Concerns
(Officers Visit)
Chapter 7: Esther, The Chosen One
(Creffield Plans to Marry 16-Year- Old)
Chapter 8: Tar and Feathers
(The Men of Corvallis Act)
Chapter 9: Sane People Don’t Go Bareheaded
(Holy Rollers are Committed to the Asylum)
Chapter 10: More Beast Than Man
( Creffield is Arrested)
Chapter 11: God Will Plead Creffield's Case
(Creffield in Court)
Chapter 12: Scandal
(Shocking Testimony at the Trial)
Chapter 13: Calm Before the Storm
(The Holy Rollers Resume their Lives)
Chapter 14: Giving Up The Ghost
(Men are Gunning for Creffield)
Part Two: The People V. Creffield
Chapter 16: The Widow Creffield
Chapter 19: An Inherited Streak of Insanity
Part Three: The Madness
Chapter 23: Seeking Reconciliation
Chapter 24: Another Holy Roller Page One Murder
Chapter 25: What Can Papa Do For You?
Chapter 26: Human Life is Too Cheap In This Community
Chapter 30: The Final Chapter
(What Happened to Everyone Afterwards)
The Epilogue
(Heaven's Gate)