A very distant cousin hitchhiked his way to Colorado from Wisconsin
in March of 1939. Why was a young husband of less than a year
hitchhiking to Colorado? Was he going to visit his mother's family?
Was he looking for work? Why wasn't his bride with him?
Somewhere
near Akron, Colorado, the young hitchhiker was picked up by a
salesman. The two argued, possibly scuffled, and the driver was shot in
the head with the young man's pistol. Was it an accident? Was it
premeditated murder and robbery? Was it really the young man's pistol?
The
newspaper accounts of the tragic event have been interesting in their
reporting. Newspapers all over the United States picked up the story.
I found it fascinating to read all of the 'confessions' and facts as described and quoted in the papers.
- The pistol confiscated by the Denver police when he was picked up
(and released) for hitchhiking matched the bullet found in the victim.
- He confessed. His confessions consisted of:
- 'in a jam in Colorado'
- Argued with the victim and struck him over the head with a pistol; denied shooting victim
- 'having some trouble with a salesman who gave me a lift'
- didn't get rid of gun because "...after all when a man commits a
crime, what's the use of throwing the gun away. They will get you
sooner or later."
- When asked if he shot the man, he replied, "Yes, I did. I lost my
head. ....I wanted to go one way and he wanted to go another."
- He told the sheriff, "I know the laws in Colorado and it could be death."
- He was identified by photographs as having been in the car with the victim.
- He admitted he rode with the victim and after the shooting drove the automobile to Denver where it was abandoned.
The Colorado District Attorney believed the young man's
statement of 'having some trouble with a salesman' was enough direct
evidence to impose the death penalty. I am hoping the police had more
than that to justify asking for the death penalty.
Within
three months the articles were reporting the victim was shot AND
beaten. Sometimes the articles reported one shot and sometimes it was
multiple shots. Sometimes the victim was tortured. The consistent report
of physical harm (other than being shot) described the left arm
wrenched out of its shoulder socket.
The young man
testified he had no intention of harming the victim. The two men ended
up in the school building garage because of impeding weather and the
victim wanted the young man to get out of the car as the car belonged to
his employer and it was against company policy to pick up hitchhikers.
It was an accidental shooting according to the young man. Eventually
the newspapers reported (in 1953) the young man paid for gas which is
why he protested being ordered out of the car. The owner of the gun was
a point of confusion and contention in the articles even though the
first trial supposedly proved it belonged to the young man, not the
victim.
The jury verdict of first degree murder
was unexpected by the young man. According to one article he claimed he
would home eating a chicken dinner with his parents and wife the next
day. Instead, he was given a life sentence and had a jail house
dinner.
The next legal step for the young man was to
seek a new trial. Because it was overruled, the defense attorney
requested the right to appear before the Colorado Supreme Court to
appeal the conviction.
Requests for financial help for an
appeal were denied. The Colorado Supreme Court (CSC) was approached
for permission to file appeal briefs and abstract with a waiver of the
appeal docket fee. The family savings were gone having paid for his
defense in the first trial. Permission was granted.
In
1940 the new documents placed before the CSC claim the young man was
"coerced' into withholding facts during his first trial. The defense
attorney at that time was also the county attorney in the county where
the trial was held. He used a fear of a sentence of execution to
manipulate the defendant. The CSC in a 4-1 decision denied a new
trial. One justice dissented and two did not participate in the
ruling. No explanation given.
Sometime between 1940 and 1942 the young bride divorced the prisoner and moved on with her life.
The
young defendant stayed out of the newspapers (at least the ones
available to me) for the next twelve years. In 1952 he married to his
cousin's former wife. Yes, married. Their story made headlines across
the nation. His bride, a former war bride from Australia, married the
'lifer' and vowed to wait for him forever.
The new
bride met her husband through letters. She first married his cousin
when the cousin was stationed in Australia. That marriage started
falling apart. She claimed it was breaking up before 'meeting' the
prisoner. She started writing the prisoner when she heard about him
from one of his aunts. At first she asked for help in straightening out
her marriage to his cousin and eventually the letters became romantic.
She moved to his prison town and started visiting him once a week. She
divorced her first husband and the new couple requested permission to
marry nine years after first corresponding. The state attorney had to
give permission and he did. The first time they had ever touched each
other was at the wedding where they held hands and kissed. Their
honeymoon was a two hour conversation in the visiting room of the prison
with a wire screen between them.
The prisoner's
lawyers were working to get the life sentence commuted. This would
create the possibility of parole. In the meantime, the prisoner had
become a 'model prisoner' as described by the warden. The prisoner had a
watch repairing business and manufactured jewelry within the prison
walls. He also received a degree in religious training and dentistry.
He was moved from the state prison to a reformatory where he was a
dental technician.
Not to be unexpected, the widow of
the murdered salesman opposed clemency for the murderer. She said the
murderer was turned down in 1953 by the then governor, and she hoped the
current 1956 governor would do the same.
The governor
met with the widow in 1956. He later stated the prisoner was lying
about his part in the murder and denied clemency. The governor said the
prisoner had a fair trial and went on and on about the prisoner lying
and showing no remorse.
The wife of the prisoner was
angered by the governor's letter. Along with all of the other judgments
by the governor, he accused the prisoner of breaking up his cousin's
marriage. He described it as "treachery and disregard for decency."
She worked to compose a reply and said she would release it to the
press. If she did, I have not been able to find it.
Apparently
one of the items the wife asked for in her letter was an interview for
her husband with the governor. Surprisingly, he said he would. At the
same time he claimed his disgust over the penal sentence for allowing
the wife to be with her husband when he received word about the denied
clemency. "A convict under a life sentence at hard labor gets married
and serves that sentence as a family man." (This governor makes inane
remarks that make me think of the current Kansas governor.) Whatever
happened at that interview, if that interview ever happened, has not
been found in any of my sources.
The next information I
can find about the prisoner is in 1958. He filed a petition in the US
District Court asking to be released from a life sentence. His attorney
charged the prisoner was denied his full rights at the 1939 trial.
In Jan of 1959 the Supreme Court refused a hearing.
More
legal maneuvering continued in 1959 and 1960 which did not produce the
results the prisoner was after. The prisoner requested a record of the
proceedings. By July 14 the case would be heard in the US District
Court. The transcript of his first trial was not available which did
not allow the higher courts to adequately review his trial. News
reports claim the trial notes vanished and the court reporter at the
original trial passed away. The attorney general felt the prisoner
should get a new trial if the court officials were unable to find the
transcript of his first trial.
During the summer of
1960 an US District Judge told the state they had to provide the
prisoner a transcript, or grant a new trial, or release the prisoner.
The judge gave the state eight months to comply. By March of 1961 the
newspapers report the state attorney general's
office was obstructing justice according to the prisoner's attorney. In
a written argument he stated, "We think the time has come when justice
can no longer be subject to the changing whims and afterthoughts of each
new assistant attorney general assigned to this case."
I
am unable to find any documents or articles stating when the prisoner
was released, but a reliable family tree on Ancestry has him released
Dec 24, 1961. He eventually moved out of the state and lived the rest
of his life with his wife. He no longer used his first name.
His mother lived long enough to see him out of prison. His father died two years before he was released.
