Holy Rollers Button

Holy Rollers is now available as an eBook with lots of extras for a measly $4

Amazon.com

iTunes

Search edmundcreffield.com

Home    Chapters    Articles    Asylum Records    Brainwashing    Hymns    Contact

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

 

John F. MillerSeattle 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 COOLING OF WRATH

 

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 Thaw and White

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.

Holy Rollers

Buy Holy Rollers: Murder & Madness in Oregon's Love Cult as an eBook for a measly $3.99 or get an autographed paperback for $15.

Holy Rollers is a story that has everything a good read should have: sex, religious fervor, mass insanity, the downfall of prominent families, murder and sensational court trials.

And it's all true.

John Terry, the Oregonian's 'Oregon's Trails' columnist says of the book: "A dandy piece of research and a good read. Lots more stuff than I was aware of. It deserves an audience"

Amazon

Amazon
$3.99

iBook

iBook
$3.99

Nook

Nook
$3.49

Kobo

Kobo
$3.99

Scribd

Scribd
$3.99

Copia

Copia
$3.99

Holy Rollers Paper Back

Get an autographed paperback for $16.95 (that includes postage and handling for U.S. addresses)

Want to write a check instead of using a credit card? I'm trusting. e-mail that you want the book and I'll send you a copy. You don't send a check until you get the book with an invoice.

Theresa (T-) McCracken, 890 North Bayview, Loop Waldport, Oregon 97394 (541) 563-3112

***

Home    Chapters    Articles    Asylum Records    Brainwashing    Hymns    Contact

Top of Page

FBI Anti Piracy SealThe unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment.

edmundcreffield.com

Newspaper Articles about Creffield & the Holy Rollers

1897-1899:Local Lore, News Of Corvallis and Vicinity Told in Brief B. C. (Before Creffield)

1900:Holy Rollers' Lives Before Creffield

1901:Holy Rollers' Lives Before Creffield

1902:Holy Rollers' Lives Creffield

January 18, 1903: Fred Mitchell Attempts Suicide

June 10, 1903: Salvation Army Major Deserts and Joins the Holy Rollers

October 31, 1903: Zealot Worshipers Burn Furniture, Dogs & Other Things

November 2, 1903: Fanatics In Court

November 3, 1903: Had Promise of Tar and Feathers

November 4, 1903: Flight of The Apostles

November 5, 1903: Once-Esteemed Family No Longer Has the Sympathy of the Community

November 6, 1903: Rollers Take On New Life

November 7, 1903: Is Creffield Back?

November 11, 1903: “Apostle” Creffield Still Under Cover

November 24, 1903: Girl of Sixteen Almost Insane

November 25, 1903: In Pursuit of Creffield

November 27, 1903: The Lord May Starve Them

November 28, 1903: Holy Rollers Receive Unwilling Baptism

December 7, 1903: Demented Woman Suffers

December 8, 1903: Hurt Seen In Portland

December 11, 1903:Holy Rollers Roll Into Eugene Church

December 21, 1903:Holy Roller Victim Worse

December 22, 1903: Linn County Holy Rollers

December 23, 1903: Is Crazy Now

December 29, 1903: Holy Rollers’ Not Liked at the Dalles

December 30, 1903: Owner of Property Refuses to Permit Séances

January 6, 1904: Holy Rollers Tarred and Feathered

January 9, 1904: Their Welcome Departure

January 12, 1904: Editorial Comment: “Put yourselves in our place!”

January 13, 1904: Where Brooks Went

January 19, 1904: Our Brainy Contemporaries

January 25: Holy Rollers’ in Hobo Camp Life

February 1, 1904: Camp In Linn County Is Broken Up By Officers

February 6, 1904: How They Tell The Holy Roller Story In Far Off Scotland

February 11, 1904: Medium Mystify Corvallis People

March 1, 1904: The “Holy Rollers” Offend Humanity

March 16, 1904: Holy Rollers to Be Arrested on Serious Charge

March 17, 1904: Where is the Apostle?

March 21, 1904: Reward For Creffield's Capture

March 23, 1904: Fugitive Creffield

March 28, 1904: Reward is Offered

April 1, 1904: “Holy Roller” Chief Very Badly Wanted

April 18, 1904: Holy Roller High Priest Is Seen

April 29, 1904: Urania Seeley is Arrested

May 2, 1904: Frank & Mollie Hurt are Committed to the Asylum

May 4, 1904: Maud Hurt-Creffield & Sophia Hartley are Committed

May 7, 1904: Attie Bray &Rose Seeley are Committed

June 11, 1904: Attie Bray Escapes

June 17, 1904: Mae Hurt is Committed

June 29, 1904: Sarah Hurt is Committed

July 22, 1904: Holy Roller on Death Row

July 29, 1904: Creffield Found Half Dead Under Hurt’s House

July, 30 1904: Armed Guards Protect Creffield

July, 31 1904: Corvallis Could Not Raise a Mob

August 1, 1904: Creffield says, "I am Elijah"

August 2, 1904: Creffield Does Not Dislike Prison

August 4, 1904: Creffield Says He Is Entirely Purified

August 5, 1904: He Does Nothing Unless Directed by God

August 6, 1904: Creffield Believes in Satan and Eternal Punishment

August 9, 1904: No Flowers For Creffield

August 13, 1904; The Holy Rollers And The Man Who Made Them

August 16, 1904; Creffield Reward Will Be Returned

August 19, 1904: Followers in Asylum Stick To Faith

August 23, 1904: Creffield Will Fight His Own Case

August 28, 1904: Creffield Destroys His Revelations

September 16, 1904: Creffield is Guilty

September 21, 1904: Holy Rollers go in and Out of the Asylum

March 22, 1905: Prison Life Of Joshua Creffield>

April 8, 1905: Life In Corvallis Returns to Normal

December 12, 1905: Frank & Mollie Hurt Have a Baby Girl

April 24, 1906: Creffield Establishes a Camp Near Waldport

April 30, 1906: Donna Starr Leaves Children to go to Her Spiritual Love, Joshua Creffield

May 1, 1906: Creffield Takes Credit for The San Francisco Earthquake

May 3, 1906: Creffield In Fear Of His Life

May 7, 1906: Holy Roller Shot Down Like A Dog

May 8, 1906: Medal to Be Given Mitchell in Recognition of His Killing

May 9, 1906: Oregon Prosecutor Would Aid Mitchell

May 10, 1906: Shows No Emotion At Husband’s Grave

May 11, 1906: Bail Is All Ready

May 12, 1906: Mitchell Denied Bail

May 13, 1906: Creffield is Due To Rise Today

May 14, 1906: Creffield’s Widow Watches At Grave

May 15, 1906: Corvallis Starts Fund for Defense of Mitchell

May 16, 1906: Holy Rollers Starving Near Heceta Head

May 17, 1906: Public Sentiment Favors Mitchell

May 18, 1906: Creffield Railed in Vermont

May 19, 1906: Mitchell to Enter Plea of Not Guilty

May 27, 1906: Joshua Says Not to Worry

June 1, 1906: Morris Claims Mitchell Rid World of a Fiend

June 16, 1906: Prosecution and Defense are Making Last Preparations

June 19, 1906: Many Witnesses For Mitchell

June 24, 1906: Trial Will Cost Taxpayers Ten Thousand Dollars

June 25, 1906: George Mitchell on Trial For His Life

June 26, 1906: Mitchell Jury is Selected With Care

June 27, 1906: Mitchell Trial Held Up By Squabble

June 28, 1906:  Jury is Secured to Try Mitchell

June 29, 1906: Trial is Now on in Earnest

June 30, 1906: Mrs. Creffield's Testimony

July 1, 1906: Creffield’s Ghost Controls His Flock

July 2, 1906:  Esther Mitchell on Stand Refuses To Aid Brother

July 3, 1906: Hurt Tells of Debauched Wife and Debased Sisters

July 4, 1906: Creffield’s Unsavory Record Presented to the Jury

July 5, 1906: Expected Admissibility of Evidence Will Arouse Controversy

July 6, 1906: Others Testify They Wished to Kill Creffield

July 7, 1906: Insanity Expert on the Witness Stand

July 8, 1906: Plan To Revive Holy Rollerism

July 9, 1906: Killing of Judge Emory May Effect Mitchell

July 10, 1906: Mitchell Case Goes To Jury

July 11, 1906: Not Guilty

July 12, 1906: General Rejoicing at Mitchell’s Acquittal

July 13, 1906: Esther Mitchell Kills Her Brother!

July 14, 1906: Mitchell Boys Are Done With Esther

July 15, 1906: Hurt Will Come to Aid of His Daughter

July 16: 1906: Will Mortgage His Home for Daughter

July 17, 1906: Let’s Think When We Talk

July 18, 1906: Mrs. Starr’s Life Threatened

July 19, 1906: Mrs. Creffield Weeps in Jail

July 20, 1906: George Mitchell’s Attorney Offers Aid to Murderesses

July 21, 1906: Mitchell Boys to Stand by Esther

July 22, 1906: Hurt Thinks Both Women Are Insane

July 23, 1906: Frater Favors a Commission of Alienists

July 24, 1906: Mackintosh Will Oppose Calling Commission

July 26, 1906: Is Reconciled to Holy Roller Wife

July 27, 1906: Holy Rollers Seek Home in Wyoming

July 28, 1906: Mitchell Juror is Insane

July 30, 1906: Esther Will Deny Committing Murder In The 1st Degree

July 31 1906: Esther Mitchell Says Not Guilty

August 1, 1906: Relatives to Help Esther Mitchell

August 4, 1906: Creffield Greatly Hurt True Religion

August 6, 1906: Mitchell Boys in Drunken Row

August 8, 1906: St. Louis Woman Coming to Convert “Rollers”

August 12, 1906: Esther Mitchell Close to Death from Typhoid

August 13, 1906: Esther Mitchell Not Seriously Ill

September 1, 1906: Four Charged with First Degree Now in County Jail

September 10 1906: To Examine Minds of Slayers

September 12, 1906: Hurt Thinks His Daughter Insane

September 13, 1906: Esther Mitchell Objects to Help

September 14, 1906: Women Not Agitated

September 15, 1906: Mrs. Creffield’s Trial Set for Next Month

September 17, 1906: Mrs. Creffield on Stand

September 18, 1906:  Maud Creffield Anxious to Hang

September 19, 1906: Are They Sane of Insane?

September 21, 1906: Both Women May Go Scott Free

September 22, 1906: Where is This Thing to End!

September 23, 1906: Murders Must Be Tried

September 24, 1906: Must Not Deport

September 25, 1906: Judge Frater is in Very Small Business

September 28, 1906: Insanity Board Not Paid

October 1, 1906: Holy Roller Woman Dies While in Trance

November 9, 1906: Mrs. Creffield Said to Be in Very Nervous State

November 17, 1906: Maud Creffield Dies in the County Jail

November 18, 1906: Death May End a Hypnotic Spell

November 19, 1906: Reviews Findings in Examination of Brain

November 20, 1906: Mrs. Creffield Killed Herself with Poison!

November 21, 1906: Poison Is Found In The Stomach Of Mrs. Creffield

November 22, 1906: Esther Says Maud Did Not Kill Herself

December 4, 1906: Washing Dirty Linen

December 17, 1906: Sad Christmas For Holy Roller

February 21, 1907: Esther Mitchell Goes to Asylum

April 30, 1907: Esther Mitchell Still Believe in Creffield & His Return

April 6, 1909: Esther Mitchell Leaves Asylum

April 9, 1914: Esther Mitchell Marries James Berry

August 3, 1914: Esther Mitchell is Dead By Own Hand

1953 Stewart Holbrook's Murder Without Tears

1951 Startling Detective Magazine: Nemesis of the Nudist High Priest

A List of All the Articles

o-gram-e:yes;} span.GramE3 {mso-style-name:""; mso-gram-e:yes;} span.GramE11 {mso-style-name:""; mso-gram-e:yes;} -->

Newspaper Articles about Creffield & the Holy Rollers

1897-1899: Local Lore, News Of Corvallis and Vicinity Told in Brief B. C. (Before Creffield)

1900: Holy Rollers' Lives Before Creffield

1901: Holy Rollers' Lives Before Creffield

1902: Holy Rollers' Lives Creffield

January 18, 1903: Fred Mitchell Attempts Suicide

June 10, 1903: Salvation Army Major Deserts and Joins the Holy Rollers

October 31, 1903: Zealot Worshipers Burn Furniture, Dogs & Other Things

November 2, 1903: Fanatics In Court

November 3, 1903: Had Promise of Tar and Feathers

November 4, 1903: Flight of The Apostles

November 5, 1903: Once-Esteemed Family No Longer Has the Sympathy of the Community

November 6, 1903: Rollers Take On New Life

November 7, 1903: Is Creffield Back?

November 11, 1903: “Apostle” Creffield Still Under Cover

November 24, 1903: Girl of Sixteen Almost Insane

November 25, 1903: In Pursuit of Creffield

November 27, 1903: The Lord May Starve Them

November 28, 1903: Holy Rollers Receive Unwilling Baptism

December 7, 1903: Demented Woman Suffers

December 8, 1903: Hurt Seen In Portland

December 11, 1903: Holy Rollers Roll Into Eugene Church

December 21, 1903: Holy Roller Victim Worse

December 22, 1903: Linn County Holy Rollers

December 23, 1903: Is Crazy Now

December 29, 1903: Holy Rollers’ Not Liked at the Dalles

December 30, 1903: Owner of Property Refuses to Permit Séances

January 6, 1904: Holy Rollers Tarred and Feathered

January 9, 1904: Their Welcome Departure

January 12, 1904: Editorial Comment: “Put yourselves in our place!”

January 13, 1904: Where Brooks Went

January 19, 1904: Our Brainy Contemporaries

January 25: Holy Rollers’ in Hobo Camp Life

February 1, 1904: Camp In Linn County Is Broken Up By Officers

February 6, 1904: How They Tell The Holy Roller Story In Far Off Scotland

February 11, 1904: Medium Mystify Corvallis People

March 1, 1904: The “Holy Rollers” Offend Humanity

March 16, 1904: Holy Rollers to Be Arrested on Serious Charge

March 17, 1904: Where is the Apostle?

March 21, 1904: Reward For Creffield's Capture

March 23, 1904: Fugitive Creffield

March 28, 1904: Reward is Offered

April 1, 1904:“Holy Roller” Chief Very Badly Wanted

April 18, 1904: Holy Roller High Priest Is Seen

April 29, 1904: Urania Seeley is Arrested

May 2, 1904: Frank & Mollie Hurt are Committed to the Asylum

May 4, 1904: Maud Hurt-Creffield & Sophia Hartley are Committed

May 7, 1904: Attie Bray & Rose Seeley are Committed

June 11, 1904: Attie Bray Escapes

June 17, 1904: Mae Hurt is Committed

June 29, 1904: Sarah Hurt is Committed

July 22, 1904: Holy Roller on Death Row

July 29, 1904: Creffield Found Half Dead Under Hurt’s House

July, 30 1904: Armed Guards Protect Creffield

July, 31 1904: Corvallis Could Not Raise a Mob

August 1, 1904: Creffield says, "I am Elijah"

August 2, 1904: Creffield Does Not Dislike Prison

August 4, 1904: Creffield Says He Is Entirely Purified

August 5, 1904: He Does Nothing Unless Directed by God

August 6, 1904: Creffield Believes in Satan and Eternal Punishment

August 9, 1904: No Flowers For Creffield

August 13, 1904: The Holy Rollers And The Man Who Made Them

August 16, 1904: Creffield Reward Will Be Returned

August 19, 1904: Followers in Asylum Stick To Faith

August 23, 1904: Creffield Will Fight His Own Case

August 28, 1904: Creffield Destroys His Revelations

September 16, 1904: Creffield is Guilty

September 21, 1904: Holy Rollers go in and Out of the Asylum

March 22, 1905: Prison Life Of Joshua Creffield

April 8, 1905: Life In Corvallis Returns to Normal

December 12, 1905: Frank & Mollie Hurt Have a Baby Girl

April 24, 1906: Creffield Establishes a Camp Near Waldport

April 30, 1906: Donna Starr Leaves Children to go to Her Spiritual Love, Joshua Creffield

May 1, 1906: Creffield Takes Credit for The San Francisco Earthquake

May 3, 1906: Creffield In Fear Of His Life

May 7, 1906: Holy Roller Shot Down Like A Dog

May 8, 1906: Medal to Be Given Mitchell in Recognition of His Killing

May 9, 1906: Oregon Prosecutor Would Aid Mitchell

May 10, 1906: Shows No Emotion At Husband’s Grave

May 11, 1906: Bail Is All Ready

May 12, 1906: Mitchell Denied Bail

May 13, 1906: Creffield is Due To Rise Today

May 14, 1906: Creffield’s Widow Watches At Grave

May 15, 1906: Corvallis Starts Fund for Defense of Mitchell

May 16, 1906: Holy Rollers Starving Near Heceta Head

May 17, 1906: Public Sentiment Favors Mitchell

May 18, 1906: Creffield Railed in Vermont

May 19, 1906: Mitchell to Enter Plea of Not Guilty

May 27, 1906: Joshua Says Not to Worry

June 1, 1906: Morris Claims Mitchell Rid World of a Fiend

June 16, 1906: Prosecution and Defense are Making Last Preparations

June 19, 1906: Many Witnesses For Mitchell

June 24, 1906: Trial Will Cost Taxpayers Ten Thousand Dollars

June 25, 1906: George Mitchell on Trial For His Life

June 26, 1906: Mitchell Jury is Selected With Care

June 27, 1906: Mitchell Trial Held Up By Squabble

June 28, 1906: Jury is Secured to Try Mitchell

June 29, 1906: Trial is Now on in Earnest

June 30, 1906: Mrs. Creffield's Testimony

July 1, 1906: Creffield’s Ghost Controls His Flock

July 2, 1906: Esther Mitchell on Stand Refuses To Aid Brother

July 3, 1906: Hurt Tells of Debauched Wife and Debased Sisters

July 4, 1906: Creffield’s Unsavory Record Presented to the Jury

July 5, 1906: Expected Admissibility of Evidence Will Arouse Controversy

July 6, 1906: Others Testify They Wished to Kill Creffield

July 7, 1906: Insanity Expert on the Witness Stand

July 8, 1906: Plan To Revive Holy Rollerism

July 9, 1906: Killing of Judge Emory May Effect Mitchell

July 10, 1906: Mitchell Case Goes To Jury

July 11, 1906: Not Guilty

July 12, 1906: General Rejoicing at Mitchell’s Acquittal

July 13, 1906: Esther Mitchell Kills Her Brother!

July 14, 1906: Mitchell Boys Are Done With Esther

July 15, 1906: Hurt Will Come to Aid of His Daughter

July 16: 1906: Will Mortgage His Home for Daughter

July 17, 1906: Let’s Think When We Talk

July 18, 1906: Mrs. Starr’s Life Threatened

July 19, 1906: Mrs. Creffield Weeps in Jail

July 20, 1906: George Mitchell’s Attorney Offers Aid to Murderesses

July 21, 1906: Mitchell Boys to Stand by Esther

July 22, 1906: Hurt Thinks Both Women Are Insane

July 23, 1906: Frater Favors a Commission of Alienists

July 24, 1906: Mackintosh Will Oppose Calling Commission

July 26, 1906: Is Reconciled to Holy Roller Wife

July 27, 1906: Holy Rollers Seek Home in Wyoming

July 28, 1906: Mitchell Juror is Insane

July 30, 1906: Esther Will Deny Committing Murder In The 1st Degree

July 31 1906: Esther Mitchell Says Not Guilty

August 1, 1906: Relatives to Help Esther Mitchell

August 4, 1906: Creffield Greatly Hurt True Religion

August 6, 1906: Mitchell Boys in Drunken Row

August 8, 1906: St. Louis Woman Coming to Convert “Rollers”

August 12, 1906: Esther Mitchell Close to Death from Typhoid

August 13, 1906: Esther Mitchell Not Seriously Ill

September 1, 1906: Four Charged with First Degree Now in County Jail

September 10 1906: To Examine Minds of Slayers

September 12, 1906: Hurt Thinks His Daughter Insane

September 13, 1906: Esther Mitchell Objects to Help

September 14, 1906: Women Not Agitated

September 15, 1906: Mrs. Creffield’s Trial Set for Next Month

September 17, 1906: Mrs. Creffield on Stand

September 18, 1906: Maud Creffield Anxious to Hang

September 19, 1906: Are They Sane of Insane?

September 21, 1906: Both Women May Go Scott Free

September 22, 1906: Where is This Thing to End!

September 23, 1906: Murders Must Be Tried

September 24, 1906: Must Not Deport

September 25, 1906: Judge Frater is in Very Small Business

September 28, 1906: Insanity Board Not Paid

October 1, 1906: Holy Roller Woman Dies While in Trance

November 9, 1906: Mrs. Creffield Said to Be in Very Nervous State

November 17, 1906: Maud Creffield Dies in the County Jail

November 18, 1906: Death May End a Hypnotic Spell

November 19, 1906: Reviews Findings in Examination of Brain

November 20, 1906: Mrs. Creffield Killed Herself with Poison!

November 21, 1906: Poison Is Found In The Stomach Of Mrs. Creffield

November 22, 1906: Esther Says Maud Did Not Kill Herself

December 4, 1906: Washing Dirty Linen

December 17, 1906: Sad Christmas For Holy Roller

February 21, 1907: Esther Mitchell Goes to Asylum

April 30, 1907: Esther Mitchell Still Believe in Creffield & His Return

April 6, 1909: Esther Mitchell Leaves Asylum

April 9, 1914: Esther Mitchell Marries James Berry

August 3, 1914: Esther Mitchell is Dead By Own Hand

1953 Stewart Holbrook's Murder Without Tears

1951 Startling Detective Magazine, Nemesis of the Nudist High Priest

A List of All the Articles

 

***

Sample Chapters from Holy Rollers:
Murder and Madness in Oregon's Love Cult

***

The Cast of Characters
Photos and Bios of the Holy Rollers

***

Holy Rollers' Asylum Commitment Papers

***

Info for Book Groups

Book Reviews

***

1903 to 1907 Newspaper Articles About the Holy Rollers

1906 Editorial Calling for Gun Control
After Multiple Murders Involving the Holy Rollers

Stewart Holbrook Holy Rollers Article

Advertisements from 1893 to 1913

***

Oregon Insane Asylum
Where the Holy Rollers Were Committed

Creffield, Brainwashing & Thought Reform

Early Cases of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

1906 Autopsies Of Holy Rollers
Forensics Before CSI

Holy Roller Bizarre Divorce Decree
Hartley describes trying to kill his wife's lover

***

Comedians on Edmund Creffield

The Shadow Testament
A Play About The Holy Rollers

How the Fire Fell
A Movie About The Holy Rollers

***

Life in Corvallis in the early 1900s

Life in Waldport, OR in early 1900s

Heaven's Gate

Facts & Stats about 1906
And How The Holy Rollers Measured Up

Oregon State Penitentiary
Where Creffield Was Incarcerated

***

Info about Cults

Could you ever be lured into joining a cult?

Share your thoughts about, and experiences with, cults

***

Creffield's Preachings

Creffield Vs. Crefeld

The Salvation Army Opening Fire in 1886

Holy Roller Theology

Reverend Knapp's Bible Songs of Salvation & Victory
Songs Sung by the Holy Rollers

***

About the Authors

Theresa (T-) McCracken

Robert B. Blodgett

In addition to writing, McCracken is a cartoonist.

To see some of her 'toons, go to the Home of McHumor Cartoons mchumor.com

McCracken's Blog

email
email logo

Snail Mail
Theresa (T-) McCracken
890 North Bayview Loop
Waldport, Oregon 97394

(541) 563-3112

HOME of
www.edmundcreffield.com

copyright by
Theresa (T-) McCracken