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.
June 27, 1906: Mitchell Trial Held Up By Squabble
Seattle Star Slow 6/27/1906 p1
Work to Pick the Mitchell Jury
Four Changes Have Been Made and the
Attorneys Continue Their Painstaking Questions---Women Tired by the Monotony
Are Noticeably Absent Today.
Four changes in
the Mitchell jury as it stood last night, were made during the morning session
of the trial today. George Bill, who presented to the court a doctor’s
certificate of ill-health, was excused. Charles L. Sheldon was called, examined
and passed for cause in his stead. R. E. Fisher, a druggist of Seattle, and J.
Simpson, a barber of Kent were excused by the defense under the right of
peremptory challenge, and their places filled by J. C. Adams, a contractor of
Hillman City, and W. I. Evans, a farmer of Derby. The state exercised its
second peremptory challenge by excusing John Sinn Jr., a farmer of Novelty.
DOYLE IS EXCUSED
Thomas B. Doyle,
a bookkeeper for the Chiopeck Fish company, who resides at 511 Terry Av., was
called in the place of Sinn, but on examination admitted that he believed that
in certain cases an individual is justified in taking the law into his own
hands, and that one of these cases is in aggravated cases of the abuse by
another man of a man’s female relatives. He was promptly excused on a challenge
by the state. Thomas Olin was called to the vacant seat, but immediately after
he had been called the court adjourned for the noon intermission.
When the court
adjourned for the noon intermission the occupants of the jury box were: John F.
Dore, W. I. Evans, H. A. Thompson, J. C. Adams, F. M. Townsend, M. H. Ring,
Thomas Olin, Charles I. Sheldon, I. F. Jones, C. W. French, Fred Clinton, and
W. C. Howard. Of these Olin had not been passed for cause.
WOMEN ARE ABSENT
During the trial
this morning the women who had up to that time been in attendance to the number
of some 20 or 30, were conspicuous by their absence. As if by common consent or
prearrangement they did not present themselves for admission to the court room,
though there were two or three present in adjacent halls during a portion of
the morning. When the court convened Judge Frater announced that all witnesses
present would be excused until tomorrow morning.
As if to
counteract the influence on the minds of the jury of the leading questions of
the defendant’s attorney’s, Judge Miller, for the state, this morning took up
much the same line of questioning in the examination of Juror Sheldon. In the
course of the examination of the juror, Miller asked:
“If it should
develop in the course of this trial that the deceased Creffield was a leader or
center of a class of religious enthusiasts or fanatics who desired to have
re-established on earth a condition of primeval simplicity of the habits of
man, and who in the pursuit of that desire went barefoot and practiced other
peculiar rites, and that this evidence should be admitted here, would you
consider those facts except to the extent of showing their effect on the mind
of this defendant?”
ASK COUNTER
QUESTIONS
The attorneys
for the defense, when it came their turn to examine the same juror, countered
this question with another, asking:
“If it is shown
in the course of this trial that the deceased Creffield exercised such an
influence upon certain women, among them two sisters of this defendant, that
they submitted themselves to the gratification of his beastly lust under the
delusion that they were thereby serving God and purifying themselves, and,
under his instructions thereafter submitted themselves to the lust of other
men, would you take those facts into consideration in arriving at your verdict?”
DIVERSION IN
COURT
Something of a
diversion, leading to a mild demonstration in the court room, was caused by the
replies of Juror Sheldon to the question asked for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the juror had discussed the killing with anyone. Sheldon replied that
he had so discussed it, but only for the purpose of ascertaining what is meant
by the term “Holy Roller.”
“And did you
find out what it was?” asked Judge Miller for the state.
“Yes.”
“From whom?”
“One of the
attorneys in the case.”
“Which one?”
“From yourself.”
“Did I speak to
you about it?”
“No; I only
heard you in your examination of jurors in this court room.”
Whereupon the assembled
audience indulged in such a laugh that Judge Frater declared that if it were
repeated he would order the room cleared of all spectators. This threat was
repeated just prior to the noon recess, when a number of the spectators rose to
leave the room before court had been adjourned.
OREGONIANS BARRED
Throughout the
examination of jurors both sides have been especially scrupulous in asking
those examined what states they have lived in, the purpose being to avoid
admitting to the jury any persons who have recently lived in that portion of
Oregon where the influences of Creffield and his followers were felt.
At the time of
the noon adjournment there were no indications that the jury would be completed
today, and there is a probability that it may be well along toward the end of
the day tomorrow before the actual taking of evidence in the trial is begun.
TACTICS OF
ATTORNEYS
A new and
leading question was sprung by Attorney Will H. Morris in the examination of
jurors in the Mitchell murder case yesterday afternoon which throws additional
light on the nature of the defense which will be put up for the slayer of the “Holy
Roller” leader.
Up to yesterday
the questions touching on the practices of the dead leader which were asked of
the different jury men had reference to the treatment by Creffield of the
married sister of Mitchell, whom the defense will undertake to show was induced
by Creffield to abandon her husband and children and live with him in bestial
and licentious intimacy.
THE YOUNGER
SISTER
The new question
sprung yesterday touched upon the relations between Creffield and the unmarried
sister of Mitchell, who was also one of Creffield’s victims. The question was
long and involved and in it the questioned was apparently undertaking to
outline what the defense would undertake to prove of that circumstance. Attorney
Morris asked:
If testimony
should be introduced in the course of this trial proving, or tending to prove,
that the deceased Creffield had so deceived with his teachings the 17-year-old
unmarried sister of this defendant, that she fell completely under the sway of
his power; it should be proven that her relatives had caused her to be sent to
a reform school for the purpose of getting her out from under his influence; it
should be shown that Creffield, with the aid of this girl’s sister succeeded in
getting the girl away from her place of detention and had induced her to run
away with him; that he, the said Creffield, had betrayed, seduced and ruined
this girl; if it should be shown by the evidence introduced here that
immediately before the killing of Creffield by this defendant the said
Creffield had prevailed upon this girl he had ruined, to abandon her home and
go away to his camp in the mountains, and that the knowledge of this last indignity
upon his sister had come to this defendant immediately before the act of
killing Creffield; if this evidence is permitted by this court to be introduced
for your consideration, will you take it into consideration in making up your
verdict in the case?”
MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS
Another new question
on behalf of the defense was whether the jury men would take into consideration
evidence showing that mothers and daughters had been seduced by Creffield in
the presence of each other under the pretense of sanctifying their bodies in
the presence of God.
Early yesterday
afternoon the twelfth juror in the case was passed for cause, but the
prosecution asked permission of the court to ask a few questions of A. J.
Bossart, the first jury man passed, and permission was granted, brought out the
fact that Bossart had formed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. He was thereupon dismissed.
ANOTHER
DISMISSED
Further
questioning resulted also in the dismissal of J. C. Crandall, who replied that
he was not a householder, as required by law, and H. S. Compton, who confessed
to having an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. To fill these
three places required the greater portion of the afternoon, several of those
called to the box answering that they had either formed an opinion as to the
accused’s guilt or innocence or were opposed to the death penalty.
USES PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE
As the close of
the day’s session approached the state exercised the right of peremptory
challenge on C. G. Swanson. After questioning three other talisman, J. Simpson,
a barber of Kent, was passed for cause in Swanson’s place, and the day closed
with 12 jury men who had been passed for cause in the jury box and but one of
the 18 peremptory challenges having been utilized.
HEADLINES IN DIFFERENT PAPERS FOR THE SAME ARTICLE
Seattle Daily Times 6/27/1906 p1
Still
Endeavoring to Secure a Jury to Try Mitchell
Oregon Daily Journal (Portland) 6/27/1906 p8
Mitchell Trial Held Up By Squabble
Trying To Score On Mitchell Jury Men
Questioning Of Talesmen Made More Tedious
Than Usual By Attempt Of Lawyers To Produce The First Impression.
Bickerings Of Attorneys Finally Lead
Judge Frater To Call Informal Conference, But It Does Not Change Quizzes.
Prosecution And Defense Seek Prospective
Jurors’ Opinions Regarding Reports Of Orgies Conducted By Dead Man.
ATTORNEYS GROW
ANGRY AND COURT ADJOURNS TO AWAIT
It was a day of
legal squabbling in the Mitchell murder trial. Will H. Morris, counsel for the
young man who killed Creffield became indignant early in the day and fought the
efforts of the prosecuting attorney to question talesmen along lines tending to
bring out whether they would take into consideration the crime of adultery and
whether they believed that any man had a right to take the law into his own
hands.
It reached a
climax when Morris declared that he was there to defend his client and was
going to do it, regardless of the ideas of the prosecution or the court. Mr.
Mackintosh grew sarcastic, Mr. Miller expounded the law and Mr. Shipley punched
the air full of holes with his yellow pencil.
The result was
that Judge Frater excused the jury and summoned the four attorneys to a
secluded formal conference like a group of boys who had acted badly in school. He
endeavored to persuade them to reach an agreement by which the examination of
the talesmen could be limited to a more usual line of questioning and thus
avoid the constant fire of objections, arguments and more or less personal
remarks between the opposing sides.
CONTINUE THE
FIREWORKS
But he could
not. Mr. Morris remarked as the jury filed back into the box that he would
fight until a certain warm locality was annexed to the frigid zone and Mr.
Mackintosh replied: “Let the fireworks go on.” and it did.
Meantime, young
Mitchell sat in his chair pushing his chin still further into the palm of his
hand. He was the one over whom they were making all the fuss, but he wasn’t
even sure what it was all about. Few of the spectators were. He only wished
that they would hurry up and get twelve fair minded men into that box where the
faces of the talesmen have been shifting before his eager eyes for three days,
and get it over with. He believes he will go free, but he thinks they are
taking an awfully long time about it.
The defense
states that the trouble was started by improper questions asked by the
prosecution tending to fix in the minds of the jury the idea that the shot was
fired because of a crime for which Creffield had already been punished by a
term in the penitentiary. They protested that these questions were unfair and
were overruled. Yesterday afternoon the defense retaliated with a series of
questions which became addressed to the jury, and both attorneys rose to the
heights of oratory. In these questions they outlined much of the charges of
disgraceful orgies practiced by the Holy Rollers, some of which evidently
amazed the men in the jury box who had read little or nothing of the case. The
face of more than one honest, simple farmer clouded as he listened and
prosecution became uneasy and finally protested.
QUESTIONS
RESEMBLE SPEECHES
The defense
replied that they were only exercising a privilege of latitude which had been
granted to the prosecution and the questions were allowed, with the amendment
that this evidence if introduced was to be considered by the juror under
examination, only as to its probable influence upon the mental condition of the
defendant at the time he fired the fatal shot.
Mr. Miller tried
another tack. After a lengthy question from Mr. Morris, in his best jury manner
which ended with the question: “Would you consider that?” Mr. Miller objected
on the ground that it was a speech and not a question. The court remarked that
the juror could answer if he could remember what it was about. It seemed,
however, that the juror did.
This battle for the
privilege of planting the first idea in the minds of prospective jurors has
gone on ever since with no prospect of cessation. It is merely an indication of
the intense earnestness of both sides. Mr. Mackintosh and Mr. Miller are
determined that Mitchell shall be punished and are fighting hard against the
odds of public opinion and natural sentiment, which they fully recognize, for a
conviction. Mr. Morris and Mr. Shipley are just as firmly determined that the
young man should go free and are fighting with a determination to secure his
acquittal before this jury or to so safeguard the legal status of the case that
the supreme court may be invoked to order a rehearing.
SELECTION OF THE
JURY DRAGS
So they fight
and bicker over every new phase of the case and then ostentatiously explain to
each other that their heated words are merely professional necessities and that
they are personally just as good friends as ever.
Meanwhile the
work of selecting a jury drags. At the adjournment of court for the noon recess
there were but two of the original twelve men left in the jury box and one of
these will probably be challenged before the panel is passed. But three
peremptory challenges out of the eighteen allowed had been used up to that time
and half a dozen men now sitting in jurors’ chairs will probably never hear the
evidence.
Yesterday
afternoon Mr. Miller, in what seemed to be an effort to remove a danger of
reversal on error, went back over ground upon which the defense had been
overruled on Monday sand secured the rejection of A. J. Bussert, of Black
River, who stated that he was convinced that Mitchell killed Creffield. As
there has been no evidence introduced to show this, it was held to be an
opinion in the case.
Jesse G. Crandall
was further questioned by the defense, who were not satisfied that the man was
antagonistic to them. To save a peremptory challenge, Mr. Morris developed the
fact that Mr. Crandall was neither a free-holder or the head of a family, and
because the prosecution did not resist, the court sustained the challenge.
MANY HAVE
OPINIONS
David Myers of
Seattle, a retired banker, was the last man of the first twelve in the box to
be examined. He had an opinion in the case and was excused. This chair was
filled by W. C. Howard, a young saloon keeper in the lower part of the city who
was passed.
Bossart’s chair
was filled by John F. Dore, a Seattle newspaper man, after Mark Holmboe of
Seattle and John Platt, a farmer of Novelty, had been excused because of fixed
opinions and James O. Cass, a farmer of Maple Valley, because he had scrupled
against capital punishment.
In the effort to
fill Crandall’s chair, C. W. Frankland, a printer, was called. He had an
opinion in the case and E. S. Moulton, a farmer of Juanita, was also excused
for a similar reason. H. C. Thompson, an old man whose resemblance to John d.
Rockefeller startled the whole courtroom, was next called and was passed for
cause.
When the state
first called upon to exercise its first peremptory challenge, Mr. Mackintosh
excused C. G. Swanson, who had been passed on Monday. Mr. Mackintosh evidently
feared that he had somehow offended Mr. Swanson by some of his questions.
It required a
long time to refill this place yesterday and that proved to be only for over
night. C. A. Newman and R. J. Faney of Seattle were excused because of fixed
opinions. Ole Thompson was opposed to capital punishment and M. c. Madson of
Seattle and J. a. Lydell of Novelty, who followed were excused because of
opinions they had formed. J. Simpson, a barber of Kent, was finally passed.
Charles L.
Sheldon was the first talesman examined this morning after George Bill, the
quarter-breed Siwash, had been excused by an agreement of both sides, it being
feared that his understanding of the English language was scarcely broad enough
to comprehend the ponderous diction of legal practices. Mr. Sheldon was passed
after a wordy conflict along the lines previously indicated.
PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES
The first
peremptory challenge of the defense removed R. E. Fisher, a Seattle druggist,
from the box. The defense did not exactly fancy his apparently firm convictions
upon the subject of the enforcement of the law. J. C. Adams, a contractor, of
Hillman City, was chosen to take his place.
Upon its second
peremptory challenge, the defense excused Simpson, who had been chosen
yesterday. A seeming cold-blooded indifference in his demeanor was the cause. He
didn’t appear to be a man of much capability of emotion and being a young man,
Messrs. Morris and Shipley removed a possible danger to their case.
W. I. Evans, a
farmer, of Derby, was called in his place. He said that he was born in
Liverpool, England, and came to this country when a youth. He has lived at
Derby for twenty-five years and has five sons and seven daughters. He was
passed for cause.
It was then the
prosecution’s turn, and Mr. Mackintosh excused J. J. Sinn, a German who was in
the first twelve. To fill his place, Thomas B. Doyle of 511 Terry Avenue, a
bookkeeper, was called. After a scathing examination by Mr. Mackintosh, he still
insisted that in his belief there were circumstances which justified one man in
taking the life of another, and he was excused.
From indications
at this hour, it is doubtful if a jury can be secured before tomorrow noon at
the earliest.
Seattle Post Intelligencer 6/27/1906
p1
Mitchell Trial Advances
Slowly
Proceedings Of Yesterday Reveal New
Tactics On Part Of Defense
Lawyers Crafty Battle
Second Day Of Trial Ends With But One
Peremptory Challenge.
It became more
and more apparent yesterday that the cue of the defense in the trial of George
Mitchell, charged with the murder of Edwin Creffield, “Holy Roller,” May 7, is
partly to influence the minds of the jurors by disclosure of the awful charges
laid against the deceased, and partly to take advantage of every possible
chance that may be allowed to secure a rehearing in case a conviction should be
secured. Even at the preliminary stage of the selection of jurors, the battle
that is being waged between the state’s attorney, Kenneth Mackintosh, and John
f. Miller, on the one hand, and Will H. Morris and Silas M. Shipley on the
other, is one involving a technique which at times is beyond the ordinary
spectator’s comprehension, tho well appreciated by
practical lawyers.
One of the
comments commonly heard among those who have seen trials for murder is the
strange reversal of the positions in the present case. Ordinarily counsel for
the state is willing to leave the case in the hands of jurors who may have
formed some slight conviction as to the guilt or innocence of the man accused. In
the Mitchell case, it is the counsel for the defense that is so willing, while
counsel for the state seeks to secure men who have not heard or read much, if
any, about the case.
JURY BOX FULL
The second day
of the proceedings ended with the jury box full after the examination “for
cause” had been completed, and with the exercise of but one peremptory
challenge by the prosecution. Today the defense will have the right to exercise
peremptory challenge twice, then the prosecution again once, and so on until
the six challenges by the prosecution and the twelve by the defense are
exhausted.
Perhaps the
feature of the day’s proceedings was the change of tactics assumed by the
defense as soon as the twelfth juror had been “passed up to court.” all the
talesmen subpoenaed for the case were in court. The prosecution had been asking
questions of each man as he was questioned in turn regarding his possible
attitude towards evidence introduced with the object of proving
insanity--evidence that Creffield had been confined to the penitentiary on
charge of adultery and even that his actions had been such that the whole
community in which he lived had been moved against him. Then Attorney Morris
cam back with the question as to the possible attitude of the talesmen toward
evidence that tended to show that mothers had been debauched in the presence of
their daughters, that Esther Mitchell, sister of the accused man, had been
driven insane by the teachings of the deceased, and many other allegations
which have become public matter thru the press.
The question
was, of course, objected to, but the sudden quiet which ensued in the court room showed that the drift of the interrogatories was
apparent.
EXCUSED JUROR
ALREADY PASSED
Another portion
of the day’s proceedings which attracted attention was
in connection with the excusing of A. J. Bossart, of
Black River, who was the first juror to be passed the preceding day. Mr. Morris
on Monday, following out the apparent intention of the defense to introduce
error as quickly as possible into the proceedings, has been very careful in
questioning Bossart as to whether he had formed an
opinion which would affect his bringing in a verdict for murder in the first
degree. He had defined the technical meaning given to “purpose,” “deliberation,”
and “premeditation,” necessary on the part of the homicide before murder in the
first degree can be established. Yesterday, after the panel was full Mr. Miller
asked leave to question this man again.
“Mr. Bossart,” he questioned in substance, “did the attorneys
understand you correctly yesterday as stating that you had a fixed opinion
respecting the different elements of murder in the first degree?”
The juror stated
he did not think he had so stated, and there followed a series of close
questions by Mr. Miller. He passed the juror and the defense again took him in
hand and secured answers which led the attorney to
again stand upon the objection which had been overruled the day before. The
court suggested that there might be a doubt as to the juror understanding the
questions as put by the defense, but Mr. Miller stated he was convinced that Bossart had and the objection stood.
SAVED A
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
The second of
the men who had been selected the day before was J. G. Crandall of Seattle. Leave
to question him again was granted to the defense which soon elicited the information that Crandall is not a householder or a
freeholder, tho he was a month ago when he had been
chosen to act as a talesman in June. In this manner the defense was saved a
peremptory challenge.
One of the most
tedious battles of the day was over the street car conductor, H. S. Compton, who was being examined as court adjourned Monday
evening. It took Mr. Shipley tow hours before he was able to gain an admission
from the juror that he had an opinion in regard to this case
which would require evidence to remove, but finally the man was excused.
Compton occupied
the ninth chair in the jury stand. His place was filled by L.
F. Jones, a farmer of of Enumclaw, who qualified.
His neighbor is C. W. French, a craftsman, also of Enumclaw.
For the eleventh
position Fred Clinton of Vashon, recently a cook on the steamer Bertha, was passed to the court. Over the last chair there
was more trouble. David Meyers, of Seattle, a retired banker, had an opinion on
the case. He was challenged by the defense, and his place was
taken by W. C. Howard, a saloon man, of Seattle, who qualified.
MEN OF DIFFERENT
MINDS
The excusing of Bossart led to the examination of Mark Holmboe,
of Seattle, who proved to have a fixed opinion in the case; of John Platt, a
farmer of Novelty, who was of a similar mind; of James O Cass, a farmer of
Maple Valley, who is opposed to capital punishment, and finally of John F.
Dore, a newspaper man of Seattle, who said that if he were to trade places with
Mitchell he would rather have a more partial juror than he himself was likely
to prove. Mr. Dore occupied the chair when the court adjourned.
After Crandall
was excused, C. W. Frankland, of Seattle, asserted he
had an opinion on the case; E. S. Moulrton, a farmer
of Juanita, had one, too; and finally H. C. Thompson, an ex-soldier, was
passed. Thompson declared he was not able to read, and that all he had heard of
the story of Creffield’s death was from what his wife read to him after his day’s
work was done. He occupies the third chair.
The state
exercised its right of peremptory challenge on C. G. Swanson, C. A. Newman and
R. J. Fahey, both of Seattle, were soon disposed of as having an opinion on the
case. they were followed by Ole Thompson, who is
opposed to capital punishment, and by R. s. Madson,
of Seattle, and J. A. Lydell, of Novelty, who gave
place on account of their convictions, to J. Simpson, a barber of Kent, who, in
spite of having talked of the case, qualified as a juror.
The fourth,
fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth chairs of the jury are occupied tonight, as
last night.
Daily Oregon Statesman (Salem) 6/28/1906 p1
Much Squabbling in Mitchell Trial
Judge Frater Becomes Exasperated and
Attempts by Conference With Attorneys to Agree Upon Line of Questioning Jurors---Defendant
Becomes Confused at Fight of Lawyers---Slow Progress
SEATTLE, June 27.--The fight for a jury in the case of George Mitchell,
accused of the murder of Edmund Creffield, leader of the Oregon “Holy Rollers,”
continued today. Judge Frater, exasperated by the continued speeches of the
attorneys to the jurors, dismissed those already empaneled,
and attempted by conference with the lawyers to agree upon a line of
questioning, but none of the attorneys would yield anything. The fight that was
going on about him seemed to confuse young Mitchell, and he sat through the day
with an air of bewildered amazement at the struggle. His attorneys have tried
to crowd into their questions to the jury much of the story of the “Holy
Rollers” orgies.
Will H. Morris,
counsel for the young man who killed Creffield, became indignant early in the
day and fought the efforts of the prosecuting attorney to question talesmen
along lines tending to bring out whether they would take into consideration the
crime of adultery and whether they believed that any man had a right to take
the law into his own hands.
It reached a
climax when Morris declared he was there to defend his client and was going to
do it, regardless of the ideas of the prosecution or the court. The result was
that Judge Frater excused the jury and summoned the four attorneys to a
secluded formal conference. Morris remarked, as the jury filed back into the
box, that he would fight until a certain warm locality was annexed to the frigid zone, and Mr. Mackintosh replied, “Let the fireworks
go on.” And it did.
Mitchell sat in
his chair, pushing his chin further into the palm of his hand. He was the one
over whom they were making all this fuss, but he was not sure what it was all
about. He believed he will go free, but he thinks they are taking an awfully
long time about it.
The defense states the trouble was started by improper questions asked by the prosecution, tending to fix in the minds of the jury the idea that the shot was fired because of a crime for which Creffield had already been punished by a term in the penitentiary. They protested that these questions were unfair and were overruled.
Chapter 18: The Trial
***
June 26, 1906: Mitchell Jury is Selected With Care
June 28, 1906: Jury is Secured to Try Mitchell
***
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)