Testimony began on a sweltering morning made worse by the temperature having soared a full twenty degrees over the previous five days. McParlan—the only man other than those under indictment (and William Gavin, who had fled) to have attended the June 1 meeting—immediately took the witness stand. By now his story was well-known to anybody who could read a newspaper, but he told it again, slowly, succinctly, and in detail, not leaving the stand until the fourth day of a five-day trial. Despite efforts by the defense to prevent testimony about the secrets of the AOH, the criminal acts discovered by McParlan, and the methods of assigning and trading “jobs,” all of it was introduced, as was his usual background information and a comprehensive account of his discovery and eventual flight.12
A powerful new element of McParlan’s testimony put Kehoe in a less-than-favorable light. McParlan testified that after traveling to Girardville two days before the convention was held he found a pair of doctors at Kehoe’s house, because his wife had recently given birth and the baby had a harelip. Refusing to be distracted by family problems, Kehoe asked McParlan and John Reagan, the St. Clair bodymaster, “if we had any good men in our division, good men that were good on the shoot.”13
Although the defense counsel suggested that it was actually McParlan who initiated the murderous plan and that the story about the visit was fabrication, McParlan denied it, and although neither doctor remembered seeing him, they could not testify with certainty because they had been preoccupied.14 Ultimately, the image McParlan created of Kehoe—a monster who thought only of murder even when medical help was needed for his baby—must have weighed heavily on the jury as its members formed an opinion about what kind of man Kehoe really was.
The key prosecution question—whether McParlan’s testimony alone would have been enough to convict the conspirators—became a moot point late in the trial, when the twenty-year-old McHugh suddenly turned state’s evidence in the hope of receiving a lighter sentence.15 McHugh had been called into the convention to obtain some paper. When he returned with it, he handed it to Gavin. “He was county secretary, and I do not remember whether it was him or McParlan that said I should do the writing, but it was either one of them. All the writing that I done was that the meeting was called to order by Kehoe and to put down the date.”16 McHugh left his document behind, so there was no official record. Several times during his testimony he stated that he could not remember details, but, although his tale differed from McParlan’s in a few specifics, it generally corroborated the detective’s account.
The defense suffered a second surprise when the prosecution called George Beyerle, the warden of the county jail, who recounted a conversation he had with Kehoe during the Yost murder trial. “I said it would go pretty rough with them,” Beyerle recalled. “He said, ‘I think it will go rough with us too. I do not think we will get justice.’ He said, ‘If we don’t get justice, I don’t think the old man at Harrisburg will go back on us.’”17
Gasps could be heard throughout the courtroom, because a rumor already existed that Republican governor John F. Hartranft was indebted to the AOH for helping elect him, and he might issue pardons in return.18 The defense moved that the testimony be stricken, but Gowen called it “equivalent to an admission of guilt. . . . [I]t is evidence he believes himself guilty, and that he cannot be acquitted.”19 Judge Walker determined that the testimony would remain in the record, a major triumph for Gowen, because it became politically impossible to issue pardons to those convicted.
The defense, as Pottsville attorney Samuel A. Garrett commented in his opening remarks, now faced a peculiar position, “almost without any defense whatever. That the majority of these defendants attended a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hibernians on the 1st of June we cannot deny. What took place there it is impossible for us to prove to you . . . [because] the mouths of all the parties who were present at that meeting are entirely closed, and the defendants are left without being able to prove anything.”20
The problem for the defense was that defendants had long been disqualified from testifying on their own behalf under American common law, because they were considered to have an interest in the outcome, so their testimony was deemed untrustworthy. This was particularly true in criminal law, in which the “old common law shuddered at the idea of any person testifying who had the least interest.”21 However, in 1864, Maine had passed the first statute in the English-speaking world making criminal defendants competent witnesses. Most U.S. states followed suit within two decades, and a federal statute was adopted in 1878. Pennsylvania, however, did not enact such statutes until 1885, so during the Molly Maguire trials, defendants still could not normally testify on their own behalf.22
With such constraints, the defense’s only hope was to break McParlan’s story. Garrett started immediately, laying out the defense’s basic proposition:
[W]hether this man McParlan did or did not assist in the perpetration of this crime, he, nevertheless, went to that meeting when it was conceived; he helped to perfect the plan, and he went with the men on this mission of crime; and even if he did not take any part in the actual perpetration of the offence, there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that he adopted any means to prevent its commission. On the other hand, the evidence is clear that he was always first to advise and counsel outrages, see to their execution, and never in the slightest manner adopted any means for the prevention of the same. In this way he became the main instrument in the commission of all these crimes. During all this time he was careful that no crime which he proposed should be carried out; but his conduct and acts taken together show very clearly his character, and that these crimes in their boldness, arose from his example.23
The defense thereafter cited the differences between McParlan’s current tale and that given at the habeas corpus hearing, tried to disqualify McHugh’s support by noting his inconsistencies, argued that McParlan had made no efforts to warn Thomas, and admonished him for permitting Hurley, Doyle, and even McCann—the confessed killer of George Major—to escape. L’Velle and Ryon continued this throughout their closing statements, with the latter insisting that “of all the men that deserve punishment this man McParlan deserves twice what anybody charged with crime in this county deserves; if it is true that anybody deserves hanging, this man McParlan ought to be hanged twice; because, if there is an author to this mischief and this deviltry anywhere, McParlan is the man.”24
It must have been a bit of a surprise when that genius of oratory, Franklin Gowen, addressed the jury in the first closing statement rather than waiting until the end. Although he did not equal his previous masterpiece, he defended McParlan, accused the AOH of resorting to terror, and, in a masterful statement of twisted logic, insisted that any discrepancies between the testimony of McParlan and McHugh actually proved both were true.25 Gowen then singled out Kehoe as “the chief conspirator, murderer and villain,” adding that, “There is a crime which in its magnitude far transcends and exceeds any [other] crime known . . . and this is the crime not of the killing of the body, but the crime of the killing of the soul. How many young men, brought up by good parents, in good churches, and by pious priests, have been led from the path of rectitude and honesty by the influences of this society and of its leader, Jack Kehoe?”26
The final summation, by Kaercher, was precise, based on evidence, and unemotional. In this way it was almost the antithesis of the defense arguments, which demonized McParlan. And yet, what else could the defense attorneys do? They did not have a great deal of evidence on their side, and they could not call their clients to the stand. So they followed a time-tested tactic: attempting to get the jury members—who, like many on juries in trials for heinous crimes, felt the need to punish someone—to concentrate their anger on anyone other than the defendants. By expounding the thesis that McParlan was an agent provocateur, the real leader in these crimes, and a fiend of unequaled immorality and evil, the defense hoped to shift the need to blame and punish someone
onto him. That the general strategy was a good one is shown by its appearance time and again throughout legal history, and that the specific argument was powerful is proven by its adoption by apologists for the Molly Maguires.27 Sadly for the men in the dock, the jury did not buy it. After only twenty minutes of deliberation they returned with a guilty verdict against each prisoner, with a recommendation of mercy for McHugh.28
• • •
The floodgates had now opened, and a series of quick but successful trials followed in Pottsville. Only two days after Kehoe and company were found guilty, all of them other than McHugh, Morris, and Gibbons were back in the courtroom, facing charges for conspiracy to kill William and Jesse Major. The defense protested that this was the same conspiracy for which the men had already been convicted, but the trial went ahead, and on the third day, the defendants were again found guilty.29
On the very next day, Roarity, Donnelly, Donahue, and O’Brien were dragged back into court, along with three others—Patrick Dolan, Frank O’Neil, and Patrick Butler—for aiding and assisting in the rewarding of Hurley for the murder of Gomer James. These men had all been at the August 25, 1875, convention at which Hurley had pressed his claim. Three others who had been there were fugitives from justice, and the prosecution decided to postpone the trial of Kehoe.
The star of the show was again McParlan, but the major change in the process came when, for the first time—with prosecution permission—the defendants were called to the stand. Unlike McParlan, these were not men practiced or naturally gifted in the intricate arts of trial testimony, and Kaercher soon made them regret the decision. “Donnelly left the stand after receiving an awful raking,” reported the Daily Herald.30 Shortly thereafter it turned from bad to disastrous for the defense.
Without the knowledge of Ryon or L’Velle, Patrick Butler, the Lost Creek bodymaster, had already agreed to confess, which explains why the prosecution allowed the defendants to testify.31 During cross-examination by Kaercher, Butler suddenly admitted that leaders of the AOH had proposed many crimes, including when Dennis “Bucky” Donnelly had ordered him and a man named Pat Shaw to murder Sanger. He also told of Hurley’s plans to murder Gomer James, Hurley’s subsequent claims, and Kehoe’s decision for him and McParlan to investigate.32
The unexpected and complete nature of the confession was stunning. “Frank O’Neil actually rubbed his eyes to make sure he wasn’t dreaming . . . Mike O’Brien suddenly became actually ghostly through terror and astonishment. . . . Roarity actually gave his front teeth a rest and forgot to chew. . . . ‘Yellow Jack’ gave up the attempt to take matters coolly, for it was too much, more than a man could be expected to bear calmly.”33 Any hope of an acquittal was gone, and the next day, after fifteen minutes of deliberation, all the defendants were found guilty.34
A couple of weeks later, Gowen’s reappearance with the prosecution showed the significance of Thomas Duffy’s separate trial for the murder of Yost. This time Kerrigan was the star witness, testifying for three days and covering how he and Duffy had been beaten up by Yost and McCarron, and how Duffy had sworn revenge and offered Roarity ten dollars to kill Yost.35 So much for the motive, although it came from a notorious liar who contradicted his earlier testimony. Even so, no participation by Duffy in the murder itself could be proven, and the most damaging evidence was that he spent the night at Carroll’s to provide an alibi.
Although McParlan testified for two days, his evidence was by far the weakest he had yet presented, as he did not know Duffy and had never seen McGehan and Duffy together.36 The prosecution included McParlan’s usual testimony, but even this lacked its previous effectiveness, as shown by the defense’s lackadaisical attitude. When Gowen proposed reading the “goods” into the record from McParlan’s reports—long objected to by the defense—Ryon simply said, “It makes no difference to us.”37
When the case went to the jury it seemed far from proven, and Judge Walker’s instructions “leaned toward the side of mercy. . . . [H]ardly a soul in the courtroom but was satisfied Duffy’s chances of acquittal were more than even.”38 Nevertheless, early the next morning Duffy was pronounced guilty of first-degree murder.
• • •
Duffy’s conviction was announced on a Wednesday morning. Before the end of the following Wednesday, another thirteen people had appeared in Pottsville court. Four—James Duffy, Bridget Hyland, Kate Boyle, and Barney Boyle—were found guilty of perjury for giving false alibis.39
Meanwhile, McParlan’s claims were also shown to be fallible on occasion, as he admitted that Charles McAllister, in jail since February for the murder of Sanger and Uren, was the wrong suspect, and that it should have been his brother James, who looked similar. Charles was released but immediately rearrested and charged for the attempted murder of James Riles in August 1875.40
That same day, Muff Lawler was tried as an accessory after the fact in the Sanger murder. McParlan testified that his old chum took several guns to hide for the killers when they came to his saloon after the murder, and added that, “I know that he knew of crimes before they were committed, because before these men came back he said he wondered how the boys got along, and he said he knew Friday O’Donnell would make a clean job of it.”41 Lawler quickly admitted his role and turned state’s evidence by corroborating information about other crimes, but the jury was unable to arrive at a unanimous verdict, after voting 10–2 for acquittal.
While that jury was still debating, four men were brought before another hastily assembled one in the same courtroom. Charged with conspiracy to kill the Majors, all had been implicated by Kerrigan in the first Major trial. Two, John Slattery and Charles Mulhearn, joined the ever-lengthening list of those who turned state’s evidence, but despite their testimony and that of McParlan, Kerrigan, and McHugh, John Stanton became the first man in the trials to be found not guilty.42
As the trials raced on, McParlan testified against former constable Ned Monaghan, who had earlier tried to undermine him, and then Thomas Donohue, both for involvement in the attack on Thomas. Monaghan had no chance, as he had claimed in the Munley trial to have attended the meeting at which men had been selected to kill Bully Bill, whereas Donohue’s entire trial lasted only a couple of hours.43
Almost immediately after Donohue’s trial, “McParlan and his guards left town. . . . They have ended their labors here for a little while, but they will not be gone for long.”44 Where McParlan went during this period is unknown, but it is probable that his younger brothers Charles and Edward—about twenty-six and twenty-four years old, respectively—accompanied him, after having been initially brought over from Ireland by Pinkerton or Gowen at his request in order that he have people he could trust around him during the later stages of his testimony.45
• • •
After a month spent recovering from the stresses of almost constant testimony, McParlan was back in Mauch Chunk in late October. Charles Mulhearn, while giving state’s evidence, had indicated that he had been with “Yellow Jack” Donahue and Matt Donahue when they had murdered Morgan Powell in 1871. Mulhearn also stated that “Yellow Jack” had been promised one hundred dollars by Thomas Fisher, then the Carbon County delegate, to kill Powell. Fisher had become involved at the request of Summit Hill bodymaster Patrick McKenna, who had been asked by Alexander Campbell to have Powell killed because the foreman had denied him a mining job.
A series of trials for the murder of Powell now followed, in which Mulhearn, Slattery, Kerrigan, and McParlan were key witnesses. As the murder took place before McParlan came to the anthracite region, he did not have a great deal to add in a couple of the trials, but he did testify that in July the previous year, Jack Donahue—again with no one else present—admitted that he had made a clean job of it—going to Summit Hill with two men, shooting Powell, and then laying down in the bush until things were quiet.46 McParlan also told how, while visiting Campbell one evening, his host had “stated that there was no
doubt but that they would try to convict them [the murderers of Jones] very hard on account that Powell the previous superintendent had been murdered there. Campbell laughed and said that John Donahue was the man that done that job.”47
Donahue, Fisher, and Campbell were sentenced to hang, while McKenna was given nine years in prison. Lead attorney Francis Hughes acknowledged McParlan’s role—which was perhaps most significant, because the other primary witnesses were confessed criminals turned informer and he gave the cases more credibility—by stating: “Like pure gold, the harder he’s rubbed the brighter he shines. If a spot of tarnish could be placed on the escutcheon of his character, the gentlemen representing the defendant . . . would have placed it there.”48
McParlan returned briefly to Pottsville in the midst of these trials for the second prosecution of Muff Lawler. Having not succeeded with the earlier case, the prosecution used the same information but changed the charge from accessory for the murder of Sanger to that of Uren. After Kaercher led McParlan through “the story once so painfully new, now so painfully old, of how the Mollies did their work,”49 the detective recalled the morning in Lawler’s saloon where the five killers confessed, and Lawler had offered to keep their guns for them. The next day the defense pointed out that McParlan had previously stated that he was afraid to do anything in advance about the murder, and that had seemed acceptable, but Lawler was simply too afraid to do anything after the murder, yet was being treated differently. It was a clever—and fair—argument, but it failed nonetheless, and Lawler was found guilty.50
Throughout the period of the Powell trials Linden continued his detailed investigations into other old murder cases attributed to the Molly Maguires. The most important of these was the killing of Frank Langdon in 1862. Although McParlan did not play a significant role in these trials, they resulted in two second-degree murder convictions, with long sentences being passed down to Neil Dougherty and John Campbell. More important to the prosecution was the January 1877 trial of Kehoe for the same charge. The man considered the leader of the Molly Maguires already faced two seven-year sentences, but Kaercher, Albright, Hughes, and Farquhar hoped to eliminate the possibility of him ever leaving prison by putting a rope around his neck. They were successful, as he was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to be hanged.51
Pinkerton’s Great Detective Page 20
