The Hendricks County Grave Robberies Part 1

On Monday, September 28, 1987, Hendricks County Sheriff’s deputies followed up on a report of a recently reopened grave in a remote cemetery plot north of Plainfield, Indiana.  A hiker discovered the disturbed area near a tributary of White Lick Creek while exploring the surrounding farm fields and wooded areas.  A six foot deep hole had been dug at one grave site and the remains removed, while several inches of topsoil had been cleared from two other plots.  

The site was an old family cemetery belonging to the Carters, an early pioneer family who in 1823 settled 240 acres in that part of Guilford Township.  One grave belonged to Ruth Hadley Carter, who died at the age of 68 on April 24, 1869.  Another grave belonged to a two-month-old infant, and the third grave was unmarked.

Regarding what would motivate an individual to remove centuries old remains from a remote and obscure settler grave, there weren’t many good theories.  Hendricks County Sheriff Lt. Stephen G. Golden speculated that the robbers could have been looking for antique jewelry, or the disturbance was possibly just a sick prank.   

Christopher S. Peebles, director of the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology at Indiana University, was also uncertain of what the vandals would have found in the grave other than skeletal remains.  “I don’t know what would have been left in this case, but it all comes down to thievery, pure and simple.  It’s pretty sick for someone to dig up graves for no apparent purpose.  I suspect it’s someone with a screw loose,” Peebles said.

There was one thing investigators did know for sure, the present scene of a recently looted grave in Central Indiana was not an isolated incident.  Only a month earlier, residents of nearby Brownsburg and Greenfield, Indiana, went to clean up an ancient family cemetery near Brownsburg and discovered one of the graves dug up and the remains missing.  Walker Cemetery, as it is known, sits along 56th street near Brownsburg about a mile west of the Marion County line.  The missing remains belonged to Ann Walker, a member of one of Brownsburg’s founding families.

Whether it was someone with a screw loose, a thief in search of valuables, or some twisted, rogue member of the local historical society was anybody’s guess.  However, in 1987 there was one theory that explained a lot of grisly and macabre behavior: devil worship.  In the climate of the time, it was difficult to understand a series of grave robberies as having any explanation other than dirty deeds done in service of the dark arts.  And as the discoveries of disturbed graves and missing remains continued, and tales of strange hooded figures deepened the mystery, the spectre of Satanism spread like a fever until all became infected with its delirium.

Sources:

The Indianapolis Star

The Indianapolis News

Snapchat teachers arrested

Morgan County, Indiana public school teacher Brittany Fortinberry faces up to 10 counts of child molestation, 9 counts of dissemination of matter harmful to a minor, 6 counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and 4 counts of sexual misconduct with a minor following accusations that she forced multiple teenage boys, some as young as 13, into group sex with her.  

According to 13WTHR, court documents allege, “one of the victims, a middle school boy, accused Fortinberry of drugging him repeatedly and having sex with him when he was 13. He said Fortinberry would have him bring his friends to her house, where she would allegedly give the teens drugs and then have sex with them…Fortinberry was paying teen boys between $100 and $800 for photos of their genitals…All of the teens said Fortinberry would send them nude and explicit photos and videos on Snapchat and an app called Session.” 

FOX59 reports, “Detectives interviewed a woman who claimed to be friends with Fortinberry since 2022, court documents said.

“The woman went on to state that Fortinberry supported her as she went through a divorce by helping with her children. The woman reportedly told detectives that she noticed Fortinberry would allegedly act differently around one of her children.

“Some of Fortinberry’s alleged actions included purchasing expensive gifts for the teen, according to court documents. After observing this behavior change, the mother decided to prevent her child from interacting with Fortinberry any longer. However, she later learned that Fortinberry had reportedly added the minor on Snapchat and the two had continued communicating on that app.

“The woman went on to state her child said Fortinberry had allegedly sent him videos of her using vibrators and engaging in sexual activities with other men.

“The minor added that Fortinberry allegedly drugged him with ‘shrooms, weed, and that she would make him drink a bottle,’ when they were together.

“The victim said it tasted like alcohol and that he had difficulty remembering anything after consuming it. The victim said Fortinberry would purchase vapes and marijuana for several other victims.

“The victim added that Fortinberry allegedly forced other victims to watch her engage in intercourse if they refused to participate, court documents show.

“Detectives spoke with another victim who informed them that he was in 7th grade when he met Fortinberry.

“This victim recounted Fortinberry ‘snapping’ him all of the time after meeting her. Fortinberry is also alleged to have purchased vapes, marijuana and THC cartridges.

“Court documents show that the victim remembered Fortinberry supplying capsules containing shrooms and that it would make him feel ‘funny.’ The victim reported there were four other people there during this particular interaction.

“The victim said Fortinberry would then begin to touch him and the others inappropriately. The victim recounted another experience where Fortinberry allegedly made him watch as she had sex with another underage victim.

“In another instance, one of the victims reported that Fortinberry invited a group of teens to her home and had sex with all of them while making one wear the mask from the horror film ‘Scream.’”

Once again the Snapchat app appears to have been instrumental in enabling a predator to groom and abuse multiple victims, all of whom lived in her community.  

“All of the teens said Fortinberry would send them nude and explicit photos and videos on Snapchat” and a “victim recounted Fortinberry ‘snapping’ him all of the time after meeting her.”

If the allegations are true, a single individual was able to devastate multiple children and families and an entire community by utilizing a smartphone and a social media app.  We’re not talking about Jeffrey Epstein or a coordinated child sex ring, we’re talking about a lone public school teacher.

The scale of the damage is incredible, but if you think this is an isolated incident, representing one bad apple in the classroom, think again.

The Miami Herald reported on January 30, 2024, “Miami-Dade teacher posts inappropriate video on Snapchat…Wesly Alvarez, 45, was charged with computer pornography…The video shows him exposing himself in front of a school bathroom mirror.”

Northern News Now reported on January 2, 2025, “Former Duluth teacher charged for messaging minor over Snapchat ….  Scott Johanik, 32, of Duluth was charged with messaging a minor that related or described sexual conduct.” 

Valley News Live reported on January 16, 2025, “Snapchat data reveals communications between former Fargo teacher and minor in court….  Investigators took the stand on day three of a criminal trial against a former Fargo school teacher.

“Ashley Peterson is charged with promoting a sexual performance by a minor and contributing to the deprivation of a minor. Snapchat data was at the center of the courtroom Thursday.”

The Valley News Live site featured another pair of child predators, one of whom was employed by the local public schools, and, of course, Snapchat featured in the story.

On March 24, 2025, Valley News reported, “Former Lake of the Woods school employee and husband accused of having sex with teen….  A couple from Williams, Minnesota, is accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with a teen girl.

“Kraig and Jennifer Stokke are each charged with one count of 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct in Lake of the Woods County. According to court records, Jennifer Stokke is an employee at Lake of the Woods Public Schools….  The victim told investigators that Jennifer has gone to great lengths to hide their previous communications to include, changing phone numbers and phones and by deleting her Snapchat account.”

Fox11 reported on February 12, 2025, “Former Logan County teacher charged with soliciting student through Snapchat, records say….  A former Logan County Schools teacher has been criminally charged after being accused of sending sexually explicit messages to a student on social media, court records said.

“Charles Stephen Wallace, 32, of Chapmanville has been charged with soliciting a minor using a computer, according to a criminal complaint filed in Lincoln County Magistrate Court.

“The complaint identified the victim as a 17-year-old female from Lincoln County attending classes at Chapmanville Regional High School where Wallace worked as a choir teacher and director.”

10WBIR reported on December 9, 2024, “Former KCS teacher charged with sending sexual content to boy via Snapchat….  A former Knox County Schools teacher is accused of sending sexual material to an underage boy via Snapchat.

“A Knox County grand jury indicted Kristin M. Brown, 34, earlier this month on five counts of exploitation of a minor by electronic means. She originally was due in Knox County Criminal Court on Dec. 6; the date was changed to Dec. 11, records show.

“The crimes are alleged to have occurred between December 2023 and March 5, records state. The counts specifically state the alleged victim was under age 13 and that she exposed the boy by electronic communication to ‘material containing sexual activity’ for her own gratification.”

News12 Brooklyn reported March 3, 2025, “Ex-Brooklyn math teacher pleads guilty in student Snapchat sexting case….  A Brooklyn high school math teacher pleaded guilty to convincing students to send him sexual pictures and videos.

“Winston Nguyen, a former teacher at St. Ann’s in Brooklyn Heights, accepted the charges that included one count of inducing a minor to engage in a sexual performance, as well as five additional counts of actions that were injurious to a minor.”

A simple Google search of “Snapchat teacher” without quotes opened up this horror show.  This list only draws from the first two pages of results.  Despite the fact that the search terms don’t include any mention of “abuse” or “sex abuse” or “sex material,” these accounts are almost exclusively all that is contained in the search results as far as the eye can see.  It seems if you put “Snapchat” and “teachers” together, you’re going to get a whole lot of depraved and felonious behavior.  To be fair, if you put “coach” and “Snapchat” together, or you put “pastor” and “Snapchat” together, you’re most likely going to get similar results.  So one common denominator that makes all this deviance and perversion possible appears to be Snapchat.  It’s the perfect DIY tool for a would-be predator, streamlining all the features a predator needs into one easy-to-use app.

Granted, no one makes the news for “snapping” images of a beautiful cake they baked, so news about Snapchat is going to skew towards its worst abuses.  However, the sheer volume of instances of adults using the app to prey on minors is staggering and should cause Snapchat’s corporate leadership to take greater steps to track predators or to remove features that enable criminality to thrive on their platform.  Additionally, the app represents such a public nuisance, it should be within the scope of federal authorities to force the company to put a stop to the criminal behavior on its app.

True Crime Fiction

I recently finished Broadway Butterfly by Sara DiVello.  The novel tells the true story of the 1923 murder of Broadway flapper Anna Marie Keenan, aka Dot King, and the corrupt police investigation that followed.  While the crime remains officially unsolved, at least one character in the story stands out as the probable killer, with other prominent figures implicated in the cover up if not the actual crime itself.  As someone who has done a fair amount of research into Broadway crimes of the 1920s, I’m familiar with this case and the murders of other Broadway flappers of the era.  Sara DiVello does a masterful job of bringing the characters and the setting to life.  The story is compelling enough when experienced through the lens of old newspaper accounts, but DiVello’s storytelling animates the setting and brings a depth to the characters that is seldom found in most true crime novels.

The work is marketed as true crime fiction, but DiVello poured an enormous amount of research into the story.  She spent nearly ten years assembling 1700 pieces of research that she weaves into the tale.  It is a fascinating story and she provides a complete picture of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.  The fiction comes in when she imagines moments of private conversations that took place behind closed doors, or when she sets out the interior thoughts of the four main characters on whom the novel is focused.  While there is no way she could know everything that was said or thought by these characters, the extensive research so thoroughly backs up what is written that it becomes entirely believable that these conversations could have taken place.  

As a work of true crime fiction, all the facts are expertly assembled, and the fiction layer makes the work three dimensional, keeping the narrative moving along and the pages turning.  The fiction elements animate the characters and show them wrestling with internal conflicts that undoubtedly would have troubled them as the investigation proceeded.  This adds a layer of drama that a reader is generally not going to get from a nonfiction or journalistic approach.

However, after finishing this true crime novel, I’m left wondering, what is the difference between true crime fiction and creative nonfiction?  As a work of creative nonfiction, Dean Jobb’s A Gentleman And A Thief has come in for some criticism from this blog.  Jobb flatly asserts in his note to readers that he is presenting facts, that “all scenes and events unfolded as described,” and “an essential element of true crime, after all, is truth.”  But, as I’ve shown in previous posts, he has taken some pretty big liberties with the truth.  At best, he’s providing a version of the truth flowing from conman and thief, Arthur Barry.  At worst, he’s making a deliberate choice to ignore the facts as reported by much more reliable sources whose job it is to present the truth.  Why does Jobb get to hang a nonfiction label on his product, while DiVello’s work, which is much more thoroughly and painstakingly researched, comes in as a work of fiction?

Jobb’s approach misleads readers.  In one instance, he asserts that Noel Scaffa knowingly lies to the police on behalf of Arthur Barry regarding an alleged exchange of cash for stolen jewelry.  Setting aside the problem of taking the word of a thief and conman over that of a private investigator, where does Jobb get off portraying Scaffa as a liar without providing a shred of proof of Scaffa’s deception?  Presenting a work as nonfiction ought to require a good faith rendering of all relevant versions of the events you’re attempting to portray.  If you’re choosing to exclude relevant information or mislead the reader in order to shape a narrative, then you’re not writing nonfiction.  It’s pretty ironic that DiVello’s work of true crime fiction comes off as more truthful and honest than Jobb’s alleged work of creative nonfiction.

Queen of the Con: Buda Godman Marries Tell Taylor

Safely ensconced at convent school in Adrian, Michigan, Buda Godman was midway through her time at St. Joseph’s Academy when a group of travelling players came through town.  It was Christmas Eve and the students were allowed to give a late supper.  One of the invited guests was Mr. Tell Taylor, a young actor and aspiring songwriter from Findlay, Ohio.  He sat across the table from Buda Godman and the pair seemed to hit it off.  However, when the dinner ended, the two parted ways without any intention of continuing the friendship through future meetings or correspondence.

A few years later, a nineteen-year-old Buda Godman was out of school and back in Chicago where her family resided.  One evening in 1907, Buda attended a performance of The Girl Question, a hit musical that enjoyed a run of over a hundred performances at the Lasalle Theater.  There she recognized the man playing the part of Harold Sears as the same actor she’d met a few years earlier.  After the performance, she sent him a note and “their acquaintance was renewed.”  Buda Godman and Tell Taylor proceeded to embark on a whirlwind courtship.  “Several times during the course of the week the young couple were out together, lunching and driving, and Monday evening after dinner together at a downtown hotel Judge Arms was called to the parlor and joined them in marriage,” the Lafayette Journal and Courier reported.  Before going to the theater to catch her husband’s performance that evening, Buda called her parents and notified them of the marriage.  Buda’s father joined her at the theater and after the performance took the couple back to his house where the Godmans held a dinner for the newlyweds. 

While the Journal and Courier reported that the new bride “would not go on the stage,” Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer wrote in Chicago Confidential that Taylor got Buda work in the chorus of The Time, The Place, and The Girl.  According to Lait and Mortimer, following Buda’s performance “Chicago woke up to the discovery of a new rave, Buda Godman.  She was wooed and pursued and she fell.  Taylor tried to kill her and fired several shots at her, but missed.”

There are more than a few inaccuracies in Lait and Mortimer’s account of the life of Buda Godman, so it’s difficult to know how much, if any, of this episode actually happened.  However, one thing that is undeniable is that Tell and Buda’s relationship was stormier than a water spout off of Ohio St. Beach.  To hear Tell Taylor tell it, “I married Buda when we were both drunk and I found out she was quite incapable of loyalty to anyone.”  As Variety put it when Taylor filed for divorce from Buda in 1910, “his complaint mentioned several vaudevillians as ‘affinities.’  Their names were omitted from the final record.”

One thing that is never mentioned in the ‘love story’ of Tell Taylor and Buda Godman is the erratic behavior of Taylor himself.  Life with the songwriter wasn’t always blissful romance by the old mill stream.  Taylor did start a successful music publishing company in Chicago, and he managed to author his most famous tune “Down By The Old Mill Stream” in 1910 while still married to Buda.  However, Taylor had his own ‘affinities’ that caused him to make headlines on more than one occasion.  

In July of 1908, Taylor was fined $3 for disorderly conduct over a fight that took place at Freiberg’s Dance Hall 182 22nd street, Chicago.  In his defense, “Taylor declared to Judge Crowe that as a result of the fracas he was carrying around two highly decorated eyes as well as several and sundry abrasions on different parts of his anatomy and that he did not deserve any additional punishment,” The Inter Ocean reported.  Apparently, Taylor, Tim Jordan of the Brooklyn Superbas professional baseball team, and several other individuals were out “doing the levee” when they wandered into Freiberg’s at around two a.m.  As the Inter Ocean reported, Taylor “created a disturbance in the dance hall, and that when asked to leave he had started a row.”  He was then ejected by two waiters and later arrested when he tried to return to the dance hall.

During a separate incident in August of 1910, Tell Taylor again tangled with waiters at George Silver’s basement saloon at Clark and Randolph streets.  After Taylor made a request to cash a check, he was attacked by Silver and several waiters who “threw him to the floor” and “pounded his head with a billy.”  Silver maintained that Taylor “started the row” when he “used abusive language” and “refused to leave when ordered,” the Chicago Tribune reported.  “O, no, he wasn’t beaten up.  He was just thrown out gently,” Silver said.    

The following month, on September 13, 1910, Buda’s father, Otho Godman, died in New York City at the age of 53.  Less than two weeks later, Tell Taylor filed for a divorce.  While Taylor blamed Buda’s lack of loyalty and affinities for fellow vaudevillians as the reason for the break up, it is pretty clear that his adventures in the levee, his brawling, and public drunkenness demonstrated that he was no more committed to the marriage than Buda.  

Within a few years, Buda Godman would be deploying her theatrical skills to con rich men out of large sums of money.  How a former convent school girl managed to fall in with a highly organized gang of international blackmailers is a bit of a mystery.  She certainly could have encountered some of these characters in Chicago.  Lait and Mortimer write that “her father’s calling threw him in with shady people….”  Could Buda have come in contact with underworld figures among her father’s business associates?  Otho Godman’s obituary said he worked “at race tracks in the big cities, and his services were always in demand.”  As an expert in telegraphy, morse code and wireless communications, Otho Godman’s work at horse racing tracks would have placed him directly in the sphere of big-time gambling interests.  Was it only a matter of time before Buda Godman adopted the life of crooks and conmen?  Whatever the case may be, it appears that once the protective influence of Otho Godman had fallen away, and her marriage to Tell Taylor dissolved into ruin, Buda Godman was set free to relieve rich, philandering fat cats of their beefy bankrolls.

Before Oom became omnipotent: A needle pulling thread

Following the negative publicity surrounding the Edward Kline incident, Perry A. Baker decided a name change was in order.  Adopting the last name of his step-father, John Bernard, Baker next made headlines in January of 1898 when he conducted a demonstration of self-induced hypnosis as Professor P. A. Bernard of the San Francisco College of Suggestive Therapeutics.  Dr. Semple Turman of the college presided over the demonstration, while a Dr. D. M. McMillan assisted Bernard.  There were ten physicians and a number of reporters present to witness Bernard’s powers of mesmerism.  None of the newspapers appeared to make the connection that this was the same hypnotist who only six months earlier had used his hypnotic abilities to hold a local couple’s son captive and exploit him for financial benefit.  Instead articles painted him as a recent arrival in San Francisco from Des Moines, Iowa. 

Dressed in a flowing white robe, the white-haired Dr. Turman positioned the newspaper photographers present at the exhibition and requested soothing music from the college’s resident piano player.  “Soft music, you know, is of great assistance in putting the professor to sleep.”  The college was housed in the woman’s home at 911 Van Ness ave.  As Professor Bernard sat quietly in an easy chair, the pianist tapped out a gentle melody on the vintage piano.  Soon the mood was set and the great and powerful Oom rose to address those assembled, embarking on the next step of his journey to omnipotence.

“I’m doing this purely for the benefit of science and I want the M.D.’s present to pay strict attention.  Of course, I ain’t doing nothing for my health, and I want to tell you right here that my classes will be opened right away.  This is business with me, and I don’t want any of you people to think that you are going to get something for nothing.  But this exhibition tonight is for the benefit of science and the M.D.’s here.  I’m going to let you do anything you want to me within reason.  You can sew me up in any style you’ve a mind to, but you can’t cut off an arm or a leg, or do any monkey business like that.  We ain’t here for monkey business nohow.  I’m here to give you the straight thing.  I’m telling you that any physician can learn how to do suggestive hypnotism if he wants to, and I’m in this town to teach it to those who want to learn it.  I will now, with your kind permission, go to sleep.”

As tranquil music flowed from the piano, Professor Bernard, again seated in his easy chair, composed himself and momentarily drifted off to sleep.  Next, Dr. McMillan invited the physicians to examine Bernard.  One by one, they poked and thumped the subject, took his pulse and peeked under his eyelids.  While there was no response forthcoming from the sleeping Bernard, the doctors remarked that he did not show signs of being under anesthesia.  Then McMillan took out a needle and thread of the variety used in surgeries.  He dipped the needle in alcohol, passed it through Bernard’s right cheek and proceeded to sew Bernard’s ear to his cheek.  Next, McMillan sewed the professor’s upper lip to his nose, and as a grand finale, ran a hat pin through the professor’s tongue.  Alas, a slick yoga move of sewing the professor’s ass to his face was, in this instance, overlooked.  Once the thread and the hat pin had been removed, McMillan revived the professor.  Despite the towel placed around Bernard’s neck being soaked in blood, the professor declared that he felt no pain.  As Bernard’s face slowly reverted back to its original form, he then demonstrated how to produce sleep in a subject using his techniques of scientific hypnotism.  

Bernard’s demonstration garnered national attention and stirred some debate among medical doctors regarding the usefulness of hypnosis as an alternative to anesthesia.  However, most physicians agreed Bernard’s techniques were of little value to medical science, and it appears the San Francisco College of Suggestive Therapeutics experienced little demand for Bernard’s course on suggestive hypnotism.  But the Great Oom was in no way discouraged and in very short order was, once again, embroiled in scandal. 

Sources:

Census records

The Chicago Tribune 

The Leon Journal-Reporter

The San Francisco Call and Post

The San Francisco Examiner

Forty Years Unsolved: The Abduction and Murder of Peggy Sue Altes

Forty years ago on November 12, 1984, eleven-year-old Peggy Sue Altes was abducted from Porter Park in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Five days later her nude body was discovered by hunters in a field off Jacobi Road in Hancock County, Indiana.  She had been sexually assaulted, brutally stabbed in the neck and left for dead.

Peggy Sue’s brother-in-law, Jerry Watkins, was wrongfully convicted and served fourteen years for her murder, despite having a solid alibi and a blood type that excluded him as her attacker.  Watkins was exonerated in 2001 when DNA evidence pointed to another man, Joseph Mark McCormick, as the man who sexually assaulted Peggy Sue.  Turns out, Joseph Mark McCormick lived across the street from the park where Peggy Sue was abducted.  

November 12, 1984 was Veterans Day and Peggy Sue had the day off of school.  She went to a neighborhood friend’s house while her mother and sister went to a church meeting.  When Peggy Sue’s friend wasn’t at home, she went to Porter Park to enjoy some play time.  At around 2:30 in the afternoon she was seen playing with two other boys who were also in the park that day.

A delivery driver in the area witnessed Peggy Sue get pulled into a black Camaro against her will.  He was able to provide an accurate description of Peggy Sue and the clothes she wore that day.  The witness described the black Camaro as having gray stripes that ran the length of the car along the door handles.  The car had rust over the rear wheel well, a blue interior, and a piece missing from a wing on the back of the car.  The witness described the driver of the Camaro as having a mustache and black curly hair that puffed out in the back.   

Additionally, information contained in Judge David Hamilton’s decision freeing Jerry Watkins revealed detectives were looking at two sets of brothers, the Munsons and the Beevers, who may have had knowledge or been involved in the abduction.  According to Hamilton, the investigator’s “notes on the Munsons and the Beavers reflect a confusing and sordid account of drug use, knives, violence, and adult men having sex with under-age girls.”

By August, 2001, Joseph Mark McCormick was sitting in the Hancock County jail charged with murder, felony murder and two counts of child abuse to which he pleaded not guilty.  At McCormick’s September, 2001, bond hearing, Kenneth Wayne Munson testified against McCormick, at one point telling the defense attorney, “I saw your client rape that baby.”  During testimony, and through conversations with investigators, Munson revealed his own involvement in the abduction and murder.  Detectives knew Munson had to have been involved because he was able to lead investigators to the exact location of the murder.

Despite the presence of McCormick’s semen on vaginal swabs taken from Peggy Sue, and a witness willing to testify against him, McCormick was allowed to plead down to child molesting and received a mere six years in prison.  For Kenneth Munson’s part, even though he was clearly involved in the kidnapping and admitted pushing Peggy Sue to the ground and stabbing her, he was allowed to plead down to conspiracy to commit criminal confinement resulting in serious bodily injury of a child.  He faced a potential 20 year sentence, but he only got six. 

The dropped charges and light sentences were contingent on McCormick and Munson testifying against William Beever, who they claimed delivered the fatal stab wounds to Peggy Sue’s neck.  However, William Beever was never brought to trial.  Prosecutors decided McCormick and Munson lacked credibility and eventually dropped the charges against Beever.  Well played, Hancock County.

I’m just a true crime dipshit who likes to read old newspapers.  I have no education, experience or training in how to build a case, bring it to trial or prosecute.  But you’ve got two suspects who are clearly involved in this crime through DNA and knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the crime itself.  While their stories don’t align on every detail, they’re mostly consistent and partially backed up by other witnesses.  It just seems like there should have been some way to hang a felony murder charge on this whole pack of scumbags, no matter who actually delivered the fatal knife blows.  How could prosecutors allow these men to escape justice for this awful crime?  Are detectives still investigating, and is there currently any effort being made to hold all involved accountable?     

It’s been forty years since Peggy Sue Altes lay in that Hancock County field dying from this savage attack.  Confused and full of fear, surrounded by monstrous figures, she could never have anticipated the evil that would come for her as she innocently played at the park on her day off from school.

“If somebody was going to stab you, wouldn’t you cry or scream?  Can you imagine a child being in fright, scared to death?” Myrlene Altes told the Indianapolis Star.

A memorial written for Peggy Sue on her Find A Grave page reads in part:

“Growing up in Indianapolis, Peggy Sue’s life was much like that of any other child in America’s heartland. She was a fifth-grader at School 48, known for her blondish-brown hair and her bright, engaging smile. Those who knew her describe a girl full of life, a child who embraced the world with the innocence and enthusiasm characteristic of her tender age.

“Though Peggy Sue’s life was heartbreakingly short, her impact transcends the years she spent on this earth. Her story, a poignant reminder of the fragility of life and the cruelty that can befall the innocent, has resonated with countless individuals. It serves as a call to protect the vulnerable in our society and to tirelessly seek justice for victims and their families.

“As we reflect on the life of Peggy Sue Altes, we are reminded of the preciousness of each moment and the enduring impact of a single life. Though she is no longer with us, her memory continues to inspire and influence those who hear her story. May her spirit find peace, and may those who loved her find solace in the knowledge that her life, though brief, will forever be remembered.”

The inscription on her grave marker reads, “I cried – He answered.”  Indeed, God answered Peggy Sue’s cries during those final terrifying moments and pulled her into His loving arms.  When are investigators going to answer her cries and bring some measure of justice and resolution to this awful case?

Predator in the Park: The Abduction and Murder of Peggy Sue Altes

Porter Park

Hidden behind working-class homes on the eastside of Indianapolis, Porter Park isn’t visible from the city streets that surround it.  If you’re driving on English Avenue by the Greater Shepherd Baptist Church, you might catch a glimpse of the park behind the church’s parking lot.  Otherwise, you could pass it everyday and never know it exists.  Maybe the city prefers it that way, because the park looks more like a municipal afterthought than a destination for fun and excitement.  Surrounded by a crooked chain link fence, the park boasts some swings, a basketball court, a jungle gym and a large open field.  The only way to access Porter Park is via the aforementioned church parking lot or the nearly hidden alleyways that split off of Hamilton Avenue or St. Paul Street.  Undoubtedly, it is a source of amusement for the neighborhood children, but it lacks a parking area, and there is little chance any area family loads up the minivan and heads out for an afternoon of laughter and thrills at Porter Park.   

But Porter Park is where 11-year-old Margaret “Peggy Sue” Altes found herself on the afternoon of Monday, November 12, 1984.  It was Veterans Day and a school holiday.  Peggy Sue had left her home at 442 St. Peter Street around 1:00 p.m. to meet a friend at a neighboring residence where the friend’s grandmother resided, while Peggy Sue’s mother and sister attended a church revival.  However, when no one answered the door at the residence, Peggy Sue did what a lot of kids did in those days, she went to the local playground to pass the time and connect with neighborhood friends.  Around 2:30 that afternoon, Peggy Sue was seen playing in the park with a couple of neighborhood boys.  Peggy Sue was a fifth-grader at School 48.  She was five foot tall with blondish brown hair.  She wore a white furry jacket, burgundy corduroys and blue tennis shoes.  A witness saw her playing on the swings.  By all accounts she was taking full advantage of time away from teachers and parents to have a carefree day of play and fun.

However, there were others in this neighborhood who were also taking the day off.  Not because they were honoring those who had nobly served their country, but because for these men of low character most days were an exercise in scoring dope and getting high, or swigging whisky and getting wasted on a weekday afternoon.  And if that is all they did and they confined their activities to the dark places, the seedy bars and grubby apartments that concealed their shabby and disordered lives, then maybe their weakness of character could be forgiven.  But men like these are not content to stay in the shadows.  They are jackals hunting the weakest prey, stalking innocent lives for their own vile and twisted pleasure.

One of these jackals was creeping through the streets surrounding Porter Park in a black Chevy Camaro.  A witness described seeing Peggy Sue enter the passenger side of the vehicle.  The witness, a delivery driver whose schedule routinely brought him to the area, said Peggy Sue was forced to get into the car.  He told authorities, “she didn’t want to get in, he grabbed her by the sleeve.”  The witness described the black Camaro as having gray stripes that ran the length of the car along the door handles.  The car had rust over the rear wheel well, a blue interior, and a piece missing from a wing on the back of the car.  The witness described the driver of the Camaro as having a mustache and black curly hair that puffed out in the back.

The parents of Peggy Sue Altes did not realize their daughter was missing until 7:00 p.m. when they received a phone call from the family of the friend she was supposed to have met that afternoon.  Peggy Sue’s family immediately began searching the area and reported Peggy Sue missing to police around 11:15 that night.  In the days that followed, the search continued with family, friends and church members joining in to search neighborhood streets and abandoned buildings.  A flier bearing Peggy Sue’s name, age and description was distributed to neighborhood businesses imploring anyone who had seen her to contact “missing persons.”  However, family members charged that the police response was nearly non-existent with Peggy’s brother James telling the Indianapolis Star, “they haven’t done all they could do.”  IPD detectives didn’t exactly dispute James’ claim, responding that they had entered Peggy Sue’s name and description into a state and a national database, which apparently constituted the extent of investigative effort for locating missing eleven-year-olds at the time.   

Peggy Sue’s nude body was discovered by hunters in a Hancock County field around 10:00 a.m. the following Saturday, November 17, 1984.  Although reports initially claimed she had been shot, it was later confirmed that she had been stabbed in the neck.  Her body was located about 100 yards off Jacobi Road just north of County Road 300S in Hancock County.  A group of hunters had parked their truck just off the road and we’re following a path on foot back to a wooded area.  About a hundred yards in they discovered the body of Peggy Sue lying face up along the path.  The four men quickly returned to their truck and drove to a nearby house where the owner immediately contacted Hancock County Sheriff’s Deputy Jim Bradbury who was a resident of the area.  

Hancock County investigators were on the scene by 11:00 a.m.  There they discovered that the path leading back to the scene was deeply rutted with tire tracks.  In some places, the ruts were more than 12 inches deep, indicating a vehicle may have become stuck in the mud at some point.  Investigators made plaster casts of the tire tracks.  They also photographed the scene extensively and recovered several items, including a thin gold bracelet.  Present at the scene were Hancock County Prosecutor Larry Gossett and Deputy Coroner Fred Counter.  Sheriff Detective Technician Bill Applegate and Captain Malcolm Grass supervised the evidence gathering.  Around 3:00 that afternoon, Counter and Applegate assisted as Peggy Sue’s body was carefully sealed in sterile wrappings and transported to Wishard Hospital in Indianapolis for autopsy.  Investigators concluded that Peggy Sue had been murdered at the scene because her hand was found to be clutching grass and weeds, and initially they thought her death had been quite recent.  While awaiting autopsy results, Hancock County Sheriff Nick Gulling told reporters, “Until we get those results, we’re operating under the assumption that we had Saturday, and that is that she died sometime Friday night or Saturday morning.”

That she may have been killed the morning of her body’s discovery seems like a pretty startling assertion.  Based on their assessment of the crime scene and the condition of the body, homicide investigators, a crime scene tech and the county coroner were of the opinion that she likely died within the previous 24 hours, maybe even a mere few hours prior to discovery.  That would mean that she had to have been held somewhere in the intervening days since her abduction Monday afternoon.  

The autopsy report would tell a different story, although it would fail to nail down conclusively when Peggy Sue Altes was slain.  Forensic pathologist Dr. John Pless would conclude that she died of knife wounds to the left side of her neck that severed a jugular vein and carotid artery.  No other wounds were indicated other than some superficial cuts.  There was evidence of rape which included the presence of semen in her vagina and a tear caused by penetration.  The time of death was estimated to be at least 48 hours prior to the discovery of her body.  

Perhaps investigators could be forgiven for being a few days off on the time of death.  After all, it was November, so cold temperatures probably made it difficult to determine with any degree of certainty.  But, in retrospect, crime scene investigators’ failure to distinguish a stab wound from a gunshot wound may have revealed a lack of experience, if not a lack of competence, and that misstep may have proven to be a rather ominous sign of investigative failures to come.  Because this is a case where poor decisions on the part of investigators and prosecutors sent an innocent man to jail and allowed guilty men to walk free, all while two grieving parents eventually went to their graves having never seen justice for their slain daughter.

Wrongful Conviction

After a year in which there seemed to be little movement in the Peggy Sue Altes murder investigation, suspicions came to rest squarely on the brother-in-law, Jerry Watkins.  Two days prior to Peggy Sue’s disappearance, Watkins was caught by his wife, Janice, molesting the girl in the couple’s living room as Peggy Sue watched cartoons.  According to his testimony at trial, it was the “second or third time” he had molested Peggy Sue, and he also admitted molesting another Altes sister on multiple occasions.  Janice moved out of their home that Saturday, but the couple reconciled the following day after Watkins made a public admission to the family that he had molested Peggy Sue.  That weekend, Watkins cut his hair and shaved his beard for the first time in several years.  He expressed an interest in attending church with Janice and appeared ready to turn his life around.  The next day, Peggy Sue went missing.  

Eventually, the timing of the Watkins’ disclosures just prior to Peggy Sue’s abduction, rape and murder would seem like too much of a coincidence to overlook for both the family and authorities.  However, other than the admissions of molestation, there was no evidence to link Watkins to Peggy Sue’s murder.  On August 14, 1985, Jerry Watkins pleaded guilty to molesting Peggy Sue.  Additional charges of assaulting a five-year-old boy were dropped as part of the plea agreement.  Watkins was sentenced to serve two years at the Indiana State Farm, but ended up serving only five months after a judge reviewed his case and released him early.

It wasn’t long after Watkins’ release from prison that he was arrested and charged with the murder of Peggy Sue.  Following the arrest, Hancock County Sheriff Nick Gulling revealed that Watkins had been the focus of authorities since “the initial stages of the investigation.”  Gulling went on to disclose that a search warrant had been served at the Watkins’ home shortly after Peggy Sue’s body was discovered.  Additionally, investigators searched Watkins’ car and drew his blood for testing and comparison. Results of testing came back negative or inconclusive.  Sheriff Gulling admitted the search netted “some evidence, but I’m not sure it was critical evidence.”  Indianapolis Police Department investigator Alda Kaiser echoed the notion that the investigation zeroed in on Jerry Watkins almost immediately.  “I’ve always felt the molesting disclosure had something to do with her murder,” Kaiser told reporters.   

Clearly, Watkins is someone investigators would want to take an intense look at due to his ongoing abuse of Peggy Sue and her sister.  But it seems like investigators went all in on Watkins to the near exclusion of other investigative leads, despite having no evidence against him.  According to Sgt. Louis J. Christ of the Indianapolis Police Department, “Our primary thought throughout the entire investigation was to try and locate physical evidence to connect the perpetrator to the crime.  From the very beginning we came to the realization that we had no real evidence to tie the perpetrator to the crime.  Anything we found we processed through the lab, but we had no identifying evidence.” 

So how were authorities able to execute an arrest on Jerry Watkins?  What was the crucial piece of evidence that dropped in their lap tying Watkins to the crime?  Enter jailhouse snitch Dennis Ackeret.  According to Ackeret, on August 14, 1985, he shared a cell with Jerry Watkins in the City-County building while Watkins awaited sentencing for his Marion County molestation conviction.  At that time, Watkins told Ackeret that he had killed a girl, slashed her throat and dumped her in some bushes in Hancock County.  This was the big break investigators had been waiting for.  They had their confession and didn’t seem to mind that it was made not to authorities, but to another inmate.

Watkins went on trial in September of 1986.  The prosecution’s case relied almost exclusively on the jailhouse confession and their ability to poke holes in Watkins’ alibi.  Dennis Ackeret was the star witness, describing for the jury a distraught Watkins so wracked with guilt that he felt compelled to unburden himself to a cellmate, Ackeret, whom he had just met.  The defense pointed out that Ackeret was a thief and a forger, and that he had previously worked as a paid police informant.  Other defense witnesses testified that Ackeret made up the story to get a reduced sentence, and that Ackeret boasted about how to become a state’s witness by researching crimes in the newspaper.

Forensic pathologist Dr. John Pless, who conducted the autopsy on Peggy Sue, testified that she died from 15-20 stab wounds to the left side of her neck.  Some of the wounds severed a jugular vein and a carotid artery.  The doctor testified that Peggy Sue had abrasions on her hands and neck, plus a bite mark on one of her breasts.  Additionally, there were other wounds that indicated a sexual assault had taken place.  Regarding time of death, Pless could be no more specific than sometime between the day of her disappearance and the day before discovery of her body.  While there was no murder weapon presented, prosecution witnesses testified that Watkins was sometimes seen carrying a knife at work and at church. 

Watkins himself took the stand.  His testimony focused mostly on denying the accusations made by other witnesses and establishing an alibi for the day of the abduction and the days that followed.  Watkins testified that he had worked from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on the day of Peggy Sue’s abduction.  His testimony was corroborated by his employer.  After work, he and his wife, Janice, moved furniture back into their house that had been removed during their brief separation.  This testimony was corroborated by Janice and Watkins’ mother.  At 7:00 p.m. the couple attended a church revival at Bethel Tabernacle 4232 S. Foltz St. Indianapolis until 10:00 p.m.  After the revival, the couple returned to Janice’s parent’s home to find out that Peggy Sue was missing and participated in the family search until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.  Subsequent days were spent searching, working and attending church revival meetings in the evenings.

During closing statements, Hancock County Deputy Prosecutor Pete Shumacker attacked the veracity of Jerry and Janice Watkins’ testimony.  “If you’re going to be a liar, you better have a good memory.  Janice doesn’t have a good memory and neither does Jerry.”  For prosecutors, the fountain of truth and virtue was Dennis Ackeret who wanted nothing for himself, but willingly gave testimony “as any human being with a soul that had information would come forward with it,” said Prosecutor Larry Gossett.  Furthermore, prosecutors would assert, Ackeret’s testimony had to be credible because he gave details that went unreported in newspaper accounts.  According to Prosecutor Gossett, newspaper articles made no mention that Peggy Sue’s jugular vein had been cut as Ackeret had testified.  In fact, Judge Richard Payne allowed newspapers to be entered into evidence to allow jurors to verify that the information could not have been gleaned from news articles.  I’m no lawyer, but this seems like a highly prejudicial move.

Despite the scarcity of evidence, Watkins was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison.  In the end, Watkins was an admitted child predator who had molested Peggy Sue and her older sister on numerous occasions, making him a wholly unsympathetic character in the eyes of the jury.  It is not hard to imagine how law enforcement, prosecutors and jurors would think he had to be the guy.  However, there are abundant reasons to believe that investigators should have known he wasn’t the guy.  First, during the investigation, he and Janice both passed a polygraph examination.  While not admissible in court, detectives used the exam to eliminate certain suspects.  Why wasn’t it used to clear Watkins?  Especially, since it lends credibility to what was a pretty solid alibi.  Second, tests on seminal fluid revealed that Peggy Sue’s attacker must have had type B blood.  Watkins was blood type O and Peggy Sue was type A.  How is this not evidence that the rape was commited by someone else?  Third, investigators had a witness that saw Peggy Sue get pulled into a black Camaro at Porter Park around 2:30 p.m. on November 12.  Not only did Jerry Watkins not own a black Camaro, his employer confirmed that he was at work at that time.  Apparently, this bit of evidence was not shared with the defense.  In the end, the exculpatory evidence is much weightier and far more credible than the evidence to convict.  On this knowledge alone, investigators should have known they were pursuing the wrong man and that the real killer or killers were still on the loose.  Although it would take several years and investigators would resist it tooth and nail, eventually DNA technology would set them straight, eliminating conclusively Jerry Watkins as Peggy Sue’s assailant and redirecting the focus onto a man named Joseph Mark McCormick.

Joseph Mark McCormick

With Jerry Watkins securely behind bars, the actual killers of Peggy Sue Altes were now free to pursue their depraved criminality without fear of having to answer for their bloody deeds.  For 16 years after committing this unspeakable act of evil, the murderous jackals continued to stalk the innocent while Peggy Sue’s blood stained their clothes and the sound of her cries and pleadings reverberated in their drug and alcohol soaked memory.  And despite the knowledge that Jerry Watkins could not have been Peggy Sue’s assailant, which included star witness, Dennis Ackeratt, recanting his testimony, Hancock County officials fought like hell to keep the wrong man behind bars.  

Eventually, on April 25, 2000, U.S. District Judge David E. Hamilton overturned Watkins’ 1986 conviction, citing DNA and additional evidence investigators and prosecutors failed to disclose to the defense at the time of Watkins’ trial.  In addition to the DNA evidence eliminating Watkins as Peggy Sue’s rapist, Judge Hamilton’s decision cited the eyewitness to Peggy Sue’s abduction at Porter Park, another suspect who had failed a polygraph, men who had admitted involvement in the crime to others and a man who was seen wearing bloody clothes the night of the murder all as evidence “that no reasonable jury would find Watkins guilty of murdering Peggy Sue Altes.”

Naturally, Myrlene Altes, Peggy Sue’s mother, was devastated.  “If you want a pervert out on the street, that’s what you’re going to get.  I’m very angry because this guy is dangerous,” Mrs. Altes told reporters.  It is certainly true that they were letting a pervert out onto the street.  Jerry Watkins had inflicted immeasurable and lasting damage on the Altes family, but he could not have been Peggy Sue’s killer.  Those degenerate monsters were still at large, slinking in the shadows between brief stretches behind bars for other criminal offenses.  

In August of 2001, the same DNA evidence that led to the release of Jerry Watkins shone a spotlight on one of the shadowy predators.  Joseph Mark McCormick was found to be a match to the crime scene DNA to a certainty of one person in 1.5 billion.  “We put the evidence through an analyzer and it mapped everything,” Indiana State Police DNA database supervisor Paul Misner told The Daily Reporter.  “All we did was use the computer to match the sample we had with anyone in the database.  Everyone arrested in Indiana on crimes against persons or serious offenses is required to provide a DNA sample that is kept on record.  We just did a cross match and found a match.”

McCormick, who investigators learned was living across the street from Porter Park at the time of Peggy Sue’s abduction, was “in the wind” at the time of his identification.  “He is on probation for a theft and burglary conviction in Marion County but has skipped out on his probation officer,” Hancock County Sheriff’s Department Captain Jim Bradbury told reporters.  After embarking on a reinvestigation of the case following the Watkins exoneration, Bradbury uncovered another interesting lead that was showing some promise.  “I had been talking with a confidential informant that was questioned when the original investigation was going on.  I talked with him and he began to tell me little bits about what he knew about the girl’s killing,” Bradbury said.  The informant was able to show investigators the precise location where Peggy Sue’s body was found, and according to Bradbury, “He told me things that only someone who was involved in the case would have known.”  Bradbury also revealed that the confidential informant was safely behind bars under protective custody.

Detectives also interviewed the young men who were then the young boys seen playing with Peggy Sue at Porter Park prior to her abduction.  “The original witnesses to the abduction, who were like 7 years old or 8 years old at the time, said there was more than one (abductor),” Hancock County Sheriff Nicholas Gulling told the Indianapolis Star.  “And the information we received subsequently indicates there was more than one.”  Here Gulling could be indicating that the confidential informant confirmed this piece of information.  Setting aside the DNA match, if all of these witnesses were questioned at the time of the original investigation, why weren’t they taken more seriously then?  Even if investigators felt that Watkins was involved, they had ample reason to believe that others participated as well.  Yet they discounted and even suppressed that information.  Nevertheless, authorities got a tip on Sunday, August 5, that McCormick was in attendance at a party in Morgan County.  Investigators rushed to the scene of the festivities, but a slippery McCormick had left the party by the time they got there.  They missed him by that much.

On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, 39-year-old Joseph Mark McCormick of Indianapolis walked into the Greenfield police station shortly before noon to turn himself in.  His long hair and bushy beard gave him the look of a survivalist or a former Manson family member.  He told police he did not have a permanent address and had been living in motels.  After learning that he was being sought by authorities, McCormick got a ride from a friend to the police station.  The friend, however, didn’t stick around to answer questions.  Despite turning himself in to the wrong law enforcement agency, the Greenfield Police held the bedraggled drifter until Hancock County Sheriff’s officials could arrive.

At an initial hearing, McCormick was charged with murder, felony murder and two counts of child abuse to which he pleaded not guilty.  Despite new suspects and solid evidence connecting Joseph McCormick to the crime, Hancock County still wasn’t finished trying to put Jerry Watkins back behind bars.  “We have seen a lot of twists and turns in the case.  The tests show that Jerry Watkins didn’t have anything to do with the sexual assault.  That doesn’t mean he didn’t kill her but it does point to McCormick,” said Hancock County Prosecutor Terry Snow, seemingly unable to decide whether to state his case emphatically or undermine it by not letting go of Watkins as a suspect.  While indicating that other arrests were possible, Captain Jim Bradbury agreed with Snow that the investigation still included Jerry Watkins.  “We are still not done yet,” Bradbury told reporters.

Indeed, they weren’t done, not by a long shot, and not letting go of Jerry Watkins as a suspect was just the beginning.  Investigators and prosecutors were just getting started on their clumsy efforts to sabotage their own case, practically ensuring that none of the men responsible for the rape and brutal stabbing of Peggy Sue Altes would do time for her murder.

Kenneth Wayne Munson

With a confidential informant in sheriff’s custody revealing details of what happened on November 12, 1984, and a suspect, Joseph Mark McCormick, whose DNA implicated him in the rape and murder of Peggy Sue Altes, investigators finally began to let go of the idea that Jerry Watkins was in any way involved in the killing.  However, from the benefit of hindsight, one has to wonder if the damage was already done.  With Hancock County authorities so sure that Jerry Watkins was the guy, and their failure to pursue anyone else during the fourteen years Watkins sat in prison, how could investigators now be perceived as credible as they began to turn their attention to other suspects?  

According to the confidential informant, several men, including himself and McCormick, were participants in the crime.  After Peggy Sue was kidnapped from Porter Park, she was transferred from a car to a van that was driven by McCormick.  After driving around, the van ends up in the Hancock County field where the murder took place and where Peggy Sue’s body would eventually be discovered.  Initially the informant attempted to distance himself from the worst aspects of the crime.  “(The informant) at first said that he and another man were dropped off at a culvert near the scene but later said he actually went there and saw what happened.  He still has nightmares about it,” Captain Jim Bradbury testified at a bond hearing. 

Naturally, McCormick’s defense attorney John Davis highlighted the confusing and constantly shifting narrative of events offered by investigators.  “I am just trying to figure out what they say happened,” Davis said, playing the simple country lawyer for reporters.  “Their informant has told seven different stories of what happened….I’m just trying to make some sense of it all.”  Even as investigators were finally starting to put the puzzle together, it was clear they were going to face an uphill battle after they’d previously worked tirelessly to ignore the truth for so long. 

At McCormick’s bond hearing in late September of 2001, another member of the murderous crew responsible for the brutal slaying of Peggy Sue Altes emerged from the shadows when former confidential informant Kenneth Wayne Munson took the stand.  Munson testified that on the afternoon of November 12, 1984, he visited the home of a friend on the southeast side of Indianapolis.  After smoking some marijuana, he, the friend and several other men went to a local liquor store in a van driven by Joseph McCormick.  However, the men did not purchase any alcohol, but drove to nearby Porter Park instead.  There they met with another group of people who had already grabbed Peggy Sue and were holding her in a Camaro.  “They had her in the back seat of their car and they pulled the car up to the side of the van and shoved her from the car into the van,” Munson testified.  Once in the van, Peggy Sue was bound with cloth and sat on a milk crate between the front seats.  Munson sat in the back on the floor of the van as McCormick drove to a park on Prospect Street.  Most likely, the park Munson referred to is Paul Ruster Park at 11300 Prospect Street, near the Marion County/Hancock County line.  According to Munson’s testimony, it was at this park where McCormick raped the girl.  “I pleaded for the girl.  I tried to get him to stop but (another man) stuck a gun in my face and told me to shut up and don’t cause no trouble….I saw your client rape that baby,” an emotional Munson told defense attorney John Davis.  The man who threatened Munson with a gun was the friend Munson visited that afternoon.  Munson testified that he was bound with duct tape.  The van continued to the Hancock County field where Munson was able to free himself from the duct tape as McCormick again raped Peggy Sue and another man attempted to.  According to Munson’s testimony, McCormick then held the girl while another man stabbed Peggy Sue.  Munson testified that as many as five men were in the field when the crime occurred and that McCormick threatened him after the crime.  “Joe wanted to shoot me.  I ran and hid for two days.”     

Investigators believed Munson’s story because he was able to provide a description of the vehicles and weapons used in the commision of the crime.  Additionally, a year earlier, Munson was able to retrace the route taken by the abductors and lead investigators to the location of the crime scene.  “He was pretty shaken up about being there,” Indianapolis Police Department Lt. Louis Christ testified at the hearing.  “There was a small deer at the corner of Jacobi Road and the lane when we drove up that day and (Munson) started to tear up.  We stood there for a while and he just cried.  He wasn’t saying much that day.”

There seems to be little doubt that Ken Munson was a witness to the horrible events of that day back in 1984.  Even if he fudged a few facts in an attempt to limit his culpability in the crime, he clearly knew things only a participant would know, and the DNA evidence against McCormick backed up his story.  Despite his career as a criminal, Ken Munson seemed genuinely affected and remorseful over the events of that day, and willingly gave his testimony even though he surely knew that he was implicating himself in serious criminality that would land him back in prison.  However, as the murder trial of Joseph Mark McCormick approached, he too would have a few things to say about the bloody crime and the vicious men involved, things that would implicate others and reveal Ken Munson to be less the unfortunate witness and more the willing participant.

William Beever

With a murder trial looming, Joseph Mark McCormick in March of 2003 secured an extraordinary deal with prosecutors in the Peggy Sue Altes murder case.  Agreeing to plead guilty to child molesting, McCormick saw the murder charges against him dropped in exchange for his cooperation and testimony against others involved in the crime.  The man whose DNA connected him to the crime would not only not face trial for murder, but was sentenced to a mere six years in prison followed by 14 years of probation.  Surely the proffer of such a sweetheart deal to the one man tied to the crime by physical evidence must have been made with the full confidence that his testimony would secure convictions against those responsible for the murder.  How could officials let a man off with only six years for raping an eleven year old girl unless they were absolutely certain that the worst monster of all was going to spend the rest of his life behind bars?

Days after McCormick’s plea, additional men were arrested for the murder of Peggy Sue Altes.  As a result of McCormick’s cooperation, the brothers Hugh Perry Munson, 44, and Kenneth Wayne Munson, 41, along with William Beever, 46, were charged March 14, 2004, with murder, felony murder and conspiracy to commit murder.  Kenneth Munson, who had been cooperating with investigators, was already being held in Marion County on a theft charge.  Hugh Munson, who was living in Florida at the time, waived extradition and was transferred to Hancock County.  William Beever was a resident of Danville, Indiana.  These three individuals were not unfamiliar to Hancock County investigators.  According to reporting by Paul Bird of the Indianapolis Star, these men were on investigators’ radar back in 1984 as their names appeared in police notes from the time.  Failure by prosecutors to disclose investigator’s suspicions of these individuals to Jerry Watkins’ defense attorneys was one of the reasons his conviction was overturned.  According to U.S. District Judge David Hamilton’s decision, “The notes on the Munsons and Beevers reflect a confusing and sordid account of drug use, knives, violence, and adult men having sex with underage girls.”  

Even as the three suspects sat in jail charged with murder, Hancock County Sheriff Nick Gulling continued to downplay how much information they had on these men at the time of the original investigation.  “We had pieces of evidence from several different sources but no real link between many of the pieces,” Gulling told the Greenfield Daily Reporter.  Gulling discounted the story of the 7-year-old boy at Porter Park who saw Peggy Sue forced into a black or dark blue Camaro at about 2:30 the afternoon she disappeared.  “The description of the car that the 7-year-old witness gave us didn’t fit a vehicle that anyone knew anything about at the time, and the description of the man with whom she was seen didn’t sound like any of the guys we were being told about.”  As for William Beever, Hugh Munson and Kenneth Munson, Gulling dismissed their significance as suspects.  “None of them had any motive.  They were just people that were mentioned who were in the park or lived in the neighborhood.”

That last quote bears repeating:  “None of them had any motive.  They were just people that were mentioned who were in the park or lived in the neighborhood.”  Again, investigator’s notes on these three men reflected “a confusing and sordid account of drug use, knives, violence, and adult men having sex with underage girls.”  I realize I’m Monday morning quarterbacking here, but I fail to see how Jerry Watkins had a stronger motive than these three losers.  Peggy Sue was raped.  How is the cover up of that crime not as strong a motive as the Jerry Watkins’ molestation motive?   Yes, Jerry Watkins could be tied directly to Peggy Sue.  But he could also be excluded as her rapist because his blood type did not match that of her attacker. Also he passed a polygraph and had a solid alibi.   So, if it’s true that these men were known around the neighborhood, known to have frequented Porter Park, and known to have sex with underage girls, then why wouldn’t these guys rank near the top of the list of suspects?  How does the word of witnesses and neighborhood residents count for less than a jailhouse snitch? 

Joseph Mark McCormick testified at a bond hearing for the three accused men on Wednesday, June 4, 2003.  His version of events matched what he’d told police and remained consistent under questioning from defense attorneys.  According to McCormick, he began the day by driving a friend to work and then visited an old girlfriend’s house to use drugs.  “We ran out of dope there, and I knew I had some at home, so I drove back,” McCormick told the court.  When he arrived home, there was a light blue van parked near his house.  McCormick testified that Kenneth Munson and William Beever were inside the van with Peggy Sue.  “They said the van wouldn’t run and wanted to use my phone to get somebody over there that could get it running.”  McCormick told the court the three men had sex with Peggy Sue at his home.  They then made plans to purchase more beer and “go out to the country to party when we could get the van running.”  After repairs were made, McCormick drove the van, which belonged to Kenneth Munson, and followed another car around the eastside of Indianapolis and into Hancock County.  “It was a black or dark blue Camaro or Firebird.  I really can’t remember, but I followed it all around the area,” McCormick testified.  According to McCormick, in addition to himself, the occupants of the van included Peggy Sue, Kenneth Munson, and the brothers William and Kenneth Beever.  At some point, the dark blue or black car disappeared and Kenneth Munson directed McCormick to a location along Jacobi Road in Hancock County.  “It was after we got to the scene that Kenny told me that they were going to kill Peggy,” McCormick told the court.  “They told me they were going to kill her because she had sex with us and was getting ready to go to court to talk about having sex with some other guy.”  McCormick testified that the dark blue or black car driven by Hugh Munson arrived at the scene just before Peggy Sue was stabbed, first by Kenneth Munson, then by William Beever.      

In many respects, the story told by Joseph McCormick matches the one told by Kenneth Munson.  Both accounts mention the dark Camaro, which is corroborated by the 7-year-old Porter Park witness.  Both accounts mention the van and driving around the eastside of Indianapolis before ending up in Hancock County.  McCormick talks about buying more beer and Munson says they went to the liquor store.  It’s hardly a surprise that Munson’s story leaves out the part where he participates in the rape and later the stabbing of Peggy Sue.  However, Munson does implicate someone other than McCormick as the individual who delivered the fatal knife wounds.  According to Judge Hamilton’s decision in the Jerry Watkins appeal, Ken Munson points the finger at William Beever as the one who fatally stabbed Peggy Sue.  While Munson also gave contradictory accounts to the police, McCormick’s testimony corroborates Munson’s assertion that William Beever was the individual who committed the fatal stabbing.

This testimony is occurring nearly 20 years after the crime.  Details are bound to become fuzzy and less relevant ones fade away altogether.  It is not surprising that McCormick and Munson’s stories don’t cleanly align, and it’s even less surprising that Munson tries to downplay his culpability.  But each of Munson’s retellings reveals more of his involvement and brings his story closer to the actual events of that day in 1984.  Joseph McCormick’s testimony largely matches Munson’s, but places “Kenny” right at the center of events.  It won’t be long, however, before Kenneth Munson puts himself there as well.

No Justice

The day before Kenneth Munson was scheduled to go on trial on June 17, 2003, prosecutors met to discuss a potential plea agreement.  Munson, who had already admitted involvement in the crime, had waived his request for a speedy trial and began working with prosecutors on a deal.  In the meantime, Hugh Munson, who Joseph McCormick identified as the driver of the dark blue or black Camaro tied to Peggy Sue’s kidnapping and slaying, was released by investigators after he passed a polygraph examination.  “We thought there wasn’t enough evidence to keep him,” said Hancock County Sheriff Nick Gulling.  “At this point, we don’t feel that witness testimony was credible.”  

As just a simple country blogger here with no legal expertise, I’m baffled as to why the sheriff would publicly undermine the credibility of potential witnesses that could be called upon to aid in the prosecution of someone for the murder of Peggy Sue Altes.  They’ve already made a deal with McCormick for his testimony.  Even if Gulling thought McCormick’s story lacked credibility, why wouldn’t he just keep his mouth shut about it?  Why is he providing ammunition for a possible defense and sewing seeds of doubt for a future jury to chew on?  And, if McCormick’s story lacked credibility, why then did prosecutors give him such a sweet deal, especially when they had him dead to rights with the DNA?

Remarkably, as prosecutors prepared for trial, Joseph Mark McCormick was serving the final months of his sentence for child molestation.  Due to good behavior, McCormick only had to serve three years of his six year sentence, and he had already been given time served for his pretrial stretch in the Hancock County Jail.  That meant, at the time of his sentencing, he had only a little over a year left to serve.  The man whose DNA proved he raped an 11-year-old girl, along with his own testimony tying him to a kidnapping and a murder, served a mere three years in prison.

On August 21, 2003, Kenneth Wayne Munson testified at a bond hearing for William Beever.  Beever’s attorney, Larry Amick, confronted Munson with an array of statements and testimony Munson had given to investigators and the courts over the years.  Munson had variously given statements omitting mention of William Beever and testimony identifying Beever as the assailant of Peggy Sue.  Munson also testified in McCormick’s bond hearing that his brother, Hugh Munson, was involved in the crime, but at this bond hearing denied his brother’s involvement.  Despite Munson’s conflicting testimonies, Joseph McCormick’s testimony corroborated the account that William Beever delivered Peggy Sue’s fatal stab wounds, and that Hugh Munson was involved with the crime, whether or not he was present at the time of the murder.  Ken Munson’s story that Beever committed the murder is cited also by Judge Hamilton in his decision freeing Jerry Watkins.  This is not a new version of events, invented to garner a plea deal, but one that had been mostly consistent over the years, and McCormick’s testimony confirmed it.       

On Thursday, September 18, 2003, Kenneth Wayne Munson agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal confinement resulting in serious bodily injury of a child.  Although he faced a potential 20 year sentence, Munson got six years.  With good behavior and time served, he would be out in as little as three years.  This is a man who admitted in court to pushing Peggy Sue to the ground and stabbing her.  But, of course, Hancock County prosecutors were playing the long game, right?  They were strategically building a case against William Beever, the man who actually delivered the fatal stab wounds, and they were going to use the testimony of McCormick and Munson to secure that conviction.  

In February of 2004, prosecutors sought a delay in the trial of William Beever because new evidence had surfaced strengthening their contention that William Beever delivered the fatal stab wounds that lead to the death of Peggy Sue Altes.  “We had some things that came out of statements (from Beever’s defense),” Hancock County Prosecutor Larry Gossett told the Daily Reporter.  “You think a case this old would be done, but new things keep coming up.”  At the time, this seemed like a very positive development.  The prosecution had two witnesses who confessed to their own involvement in the crime, and were serving prison sentences, ready to testify to Beever’s participation.  Now they had this new information.  After twenty years, the table was set to finally convict the actual perpetrator for the brutal murder of Peggy Sue Altes.  Next to the scarcity of evidence and lack of reliable witness testimony in the Jerry Watkins case, this prosecution must have seemed bullet proof. 

In April of 2004, a week before the trial of William Beever was scheduled to begin, the Hancock County Prosecutor Larry Gossett moved to drop the charges.  Prosecutors cited the need for more time to investigate.  Additionally, prosecutors were up against an April 28 deadline to bring the case to trial or the charges would be permanently dismissed.  The move to drop charges now bought them another year to investigate and refile at a later date.  Of course, prosecutors would never bring William Beever to trial for his involvement in the slaying of Peggy Sue Altes.  He would, however, be convicted for raping an 11-year-old Marion County boy and be sentenced to a 70 year prison term where he would eventually die while incarcerated.  Reportedly, Beever had threatened to kill the boy if he ever told.  But the boy, knowing Beever was securely behind bars in the Altes case, gathered up the courage to tell his story.  In the end, this brave boy did what prosecutors in Hancock County were either incapable or unwilling to do.  His courage put a very dangerous man behind bars and brought about a small measure of justice for Peggy Sue and her family over Peggy Sue’s murder.

On Veterans Day, November 12, 1984, a little girl had the day off school and desired only to spend it playing with friends.  She went to Porter Park and played with some young boys she met there.  Most likely, they talked about school and kids they each knew and teachers they disliked.  They flew high on the swings, watching their feet stretch towards the sky.  No doubt, they occasionally released their grip on the chain and felt themselves float free of their seat on the swing.  There Margaret “Peggy Sue” Altes let go and drifted weightless in the air above Porter Park, laughing, gleefully shrieking, and hovering over a bare patch in the grass where she would eventually, in due time, come to land.

“There are days when it is all I can do to hold it all together,” Myrlene Altes told the Daily Reporter in November of 2004.  “You don’t forget a child or something like this.  They say that God knows what happened.  They will have to stand before God and take his punishment.”

Sources:

The Indianapolis Star

The Indianapolis News

The Daily Reporter (Greenfield, Indiana)

Watkins v. Miller, Southern District of Indiana (2000)

Before Oom became omnipotent: The clairvoyant vagrant

While Oom the Omnipotent, Pierre Bernard, is nowadays credited with introducing yoga practices to America’s elites, his numerous other accomplishments included founding a tantra commune, managing a baseball team, and serving as a bank president.  He was a yogi, a hypnotist, an occultist, a scholar, and a lecturer.  He also dabbled in dog racing.  Indeed, there was a time when Oom the Omnipotent exerted a mesmerizing influence over some of the flakiest of America’s upper crust.  However, it wasn’t always so.  Becoming omnipotent requires a great deal of trial and error, mostly error in Bernard’s case.  Not to mention that in one’s quest for omnipotence, one is bound to run afoul of local law enforcement authorities who are often reluctant to accommodate a man on his quest for omnipotence.  For certain, in Bernard’s case chasing omnipotence was mostly accompanied by scandal, run-ins with the law, charges of fraud and unshakeable impotence. 

Oom was born Perry Arnold Baker to Erastus W. Baker and Kittie C. (Givens) Baker in Leon, Iowa in 1875.  The couple soon divorced, however, and Kittie remarried to John C. Bernard, with young Perry taking on the surname of his stepfather.  After Perry was sent to Lincoln, Nebraska to live with a cousin, he met Sylvais Hamati and became Hamati’s pupil.  The pair eventually landed in San Francisco in 1893.  Billed as Hamati’s pupil, Bernard taught hypnotism and promoted its use to treat psychological maladies.

In May of 1897, Perry A. Baker partnered with Dr. H. M. Thornton in a venture called the Pacific Hypnotic Institute at 44 Sixth street in San Francisco.  Scandal erupted when the parents of young Edward Kline complained to police that their son “has stayed away from home and been entirely under the influence of the disciples of Mesmer.”  Despite the parents’ repeated efforts to see their son, Baker and Thornton denied knowledge of Kline’s whereabouts.  However, during an interview with an officer McMurray, Perry Baker’s powers of omnipotence began to kick in and he spilled the beans on the recent activities of the young Kline.  

“He said the boy is an excellent subject and when under hypnotic influence is a great clairvoyant.  He sees wonderful things.  The lad is particularly valuable as a subject for students of hypnotism, Baker’s pupils, to practice their newly developing powers upon.  He yields readily to their influence.  In fact, of all his subjects, Baker said, Kline was the favorite.  Baker said that he pays Kline $5 a week, and gives him his board and lodging for his services, and added that the boy is worth three times as much,” the San Francisco Call and Post reported.

During a court hearing convened to determine if Edward Kline was a vagrant, Perry Baker testified that his powers of hypnotism saved the boy’s life.  According to Baker, the boy’s parents objected to his desire to marry a young girl for whom he had tender feelings.  This caused Kline to become suicidal.  “Perry explained that young Kline was saved from death by carbolic acid poisoning by hypnotic powers that were thrown upon him,” said the Call and Post.  Of course, this was all news to his mother who knew nothing of her son’s designs to marry.

But the tale became a great deal stranger when Edward Kline himself made revelations to the court so astonishing that they caused Judge Campbell to comb his whiskers vigorously with his fingers in anxious disbelief.

According to Kline, there was a club of lawyers and businessmen who met weekly on the fifth floor of the Parrot building on Monday evenings.  “The lawyers, so the lad stated, would throw him into a trance to make use of his clairvoyant powers.  They would send his mind to read the minds of their clients in order to secure more facts as to cases in hand.  They would also get him to go out on similar occult expeditions to probe the minds of opposing counsel in order to get ‘tips’ as to what their next moves would be.

“Others, the boy stated, were in search of information as to mining stocks and the probability of certain horses winning at the races.  

“From what he could learn from these seekers for inside facts the lad said he believed he gave them pretty straight ‘pointers.’”

The boy went on to testify that “he feels sure that those for whom he has been a subject will come to his rescue and try to prove that he is not a vagrant and that his mental submission to their wills is not in any way an injury to him,” the Call and Post read.

Ultimately, Judge Campbell decided there was no evidence to support the charge of vagrancy and terminated the inquiry.  He then made a rather unorthodox ruling, ordering the boy be hypnotized to “make him think he has a desire to stay with his mother, and then to send him home.”

Apparently, Judge Campbell’s solution worked because the boy returned home “and declared his intention to remain at home with his mother.”  Additionally, in a follow-up call to the Call editorial room, Baker and Thornton took full credit for young Kline’s change of heart.  “‘You remember,’ said Thornton, ‘that Kline said in court he would rather go to the reform school than go home.  Now he says that he is glad to be home, and that he intends to stay there.  That is because of the hypnotic suggestion I gave him.  The suggestion will influence him as long as I choose.’”

Free from the sinister influence of the Pacific Hypnotic Institute, Edward Kline’s mind slowly began to emerge from captivity.  As the San Francisco Examiner reported a few days later, “Young Kline refers now to the hypnotists as fakirs and declares that they used belladonna and chloroform on subjects and students.  He has not yet recovered from the effects of his stay in the studio.  His nerves are much unstrung.  His mother says that his actions at times are very peculiar.  Young Kline has many marks on his body to show where he was struck, and where pins were stuck into his flesh while he was in either a condition of hypnotism or under the influence of chloroform.”

While it is not known how the lawyers and businessmen of the Parrot building fared after their clairvoyant was returned to his family, there can be no doubt that Perry A. Baker aka Perry Bernard aka Pierre Bernard learned a valuable lesson.  Whatever hypnotic powers or occult wisdom Bernard may or may not have possessed, he certainly grew in his knowledge and ability to exert influence over others and brainwash the unsuspecting, a skill that would serve him well and he would repeatedly employ in his quest to become Oom the Omnipotent.

Sources:

Census records

The Leon Journal-Reporter

The San Francisco Call and Post

The San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Examiner

The Great Oom: The Improbable Birth of Yoga in America by Robert Love (2010)

Wales dances all night at Cosden estate

One hundred years ago this morning, September 4, 1924, Edward the Prince of Wales wearily returned to the James Burden estate after a night of gayety that included a stag dinner party followed by dancing until dawn at the home of Joshua S. Cosden. 

As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported that day, “It was another dancing party which kept Wales out all night, this time at the home of Mr. and Mrs. J. S. Cosden at Sands Point.  The party was a small but jolly one.  Other guests included Lord and Lady Mountbatten, Lord and Lady Milhaven and the Hon. Mrs. Richard Norton.”

Reporter Frank Getty was keeping close tabs on the prince that morning, writing in the Brooklyn Daily Times, “‘Please use the rear entrance,’ was the unwritten order at the James A. Burden estate today.  In one of the bedrooms in the front of the big red brick house a young man was sleeping.  He needed to.  He had been out all night for the third time in three days.  Edward, Prince of Wales, kept his fair curls tight on the pillow all morning.  Downstairs, menials and secretaries tip-toed about.  At the gates to ‘Woodsides,’ the gray-clad troopers shooed visitors around to the back door.

“Last night, after a dinner at the Piping Rock Club, the Prince, together with Lord and Lady Mountbatten and the Marquis and Marchioness of Milford Haven, went off to a dance at the Long Island home of Joshua S. Cosden.  It lasted until 5 A.M.”

The New York Daily News reported, “Before going to the Cosden manor the prince attended a stag at the Piping Rock club….  After the stag the prince went to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Joshua S. Cosden, where he danced until morning.”

Grace Robinson wrote about the morning of September 4, “Before inspecting his third Long Island sunrise from the Cosden manor, the prince had been with the Piping Rock club at a gay stag….  After the stag, the prince went to the Cosdens where he danced until morning.”

Robinson also detailed how reporters assigned to follow the prince struggled to adjust to his brutal schedule.  “The prince, having slept all of five hours, was at the private polo field of John S. Phipps promptly at noon.  Reporters who went there were amazed to find him in tan jersey and Indian polo helmet cavorting about on his favorite mare, Kitty.  He seemed fresh and eager for the sport, while the journalists were still nursing headaches following all night duty on the Piping Rock dinner and the Cosden dance.”

Following the “small but jolly’ Cosden party, there is clear consensus among reporters regarding the prince’s activities and whereabouts the previous evening and through the night until dawn.  There is no confusion, no conflicting reports coming from the gaggle of reporters assigned to follow Wales.  Nowhere in any of the contemporary accounts of the prince’s actions that night is there even a hint that Wales made a new friend at the Cosden party, and the pair motored to Broadway to go on a speak crawl.  

Yet, fast forward a hundred years and that is exactly what a former journalist and current writing professor would have us believe.  And if Dean Jobb, author of A Gentleman and a Thief, had presented his book as a work of historical fiction, he could be congratulated for authoring a damn fine story.  But he claims it’s a work of creative non-fiction.  In a note to readers, he writes,  “No quotations have been altered; no details have been added or embellished.  All scenes and events unfolded as described.  Where there were differing accounts of conversations or what happened, I relied on what was said at the time, rather than what Barry and others remembered or asserted long afterward.”

In the words of Colonel Sherman T. Potter, “Horse Hockey!”  Jobb clearly read at least some of the accounts I just presented, because he refers to the Cosden party as a “‘small but jolly’ gathering.”  Yet he ignores “what was said at the time” in favor of the much later recollections of a thief and a con man.  The book is full of these poor choices.  As a work of historical fiction, it’s a great story.  As a work of history, it’s severely lacking.

Queen of the Con: Buda Godman’s early life and first brush with the law

In 1916, Buda Godman gained national attention for her role as the lost damsel in a badger game con that garnered much fanfare after touring New York, Atlantic City and Chicago, when authorities there finally brought its run to a close.  News of a former convent school girl running with a gang of international blackmailers shocked the nation, and many believed Buda was as much a victim of the con as its mark, wealthy widower Edward R. West.  But Buda Godman was nobody’s victim, and West was not the first knight in shining armor she had taken for a ride.

Although Helen “Buda” Godman was born and raised in Chicago, her parents, Otha and Julia, both hailed from Indiana and were married in Lafayette.  Due to family ties, the Godman’s spent a great deal of time visiting relatives in Lafayette, and some newspapers report Buda’s family even resided there for a time.  It was in Lafayette that little Helen Godman had an older cousin or aunt also named Helen Godman, which may partly explain how little Helen came to be referred to as Buda.  

As a pint-sized entertainer, little Buda Godman dazzled the townsfolk of Lafayette, Indiana, dancing her way into their hearts long before embarking on her life of crime.  In September of 1898, Miss Buda Godman performed three numbers at a benefit for St. Ann’s church, 612 Wabash Avenue.  

According to the Lafayette Sunday Times, “The feature of the evening’s entertainment was a cake walk, skirt dance and contortion work by Miss Buda Godman ….  This little miss is the personification of grace, and her three numbers were greatly enjoyed and enthusiastically applauded by the large gathering present.”   

The Journal and Courier declared, “This small graceful child completely captivated the audience with her dances….  She is about 9 years old and is one of the most accomplished little dancers in the country.”

In May of 1899, little Helen Godman again delighted the people of Lafayette, singing and dancing to great acclaim at Grand Army hall.  As the Lafayette Journal gushed, “While several of the numbers were encored, the singing of Master Harry Hannagan and the singing and dancing of Little Miss Helen Godman…received the greatest favor.  Miss Helen was recalled several times and her part in the entertainment was one of the most enjoyable features of the evening.”

But it wasn’t just the local townsfolk who found Buda’s performances captivating.  Even a big city impresario became enchanted by her act.  “Little Buda, a short time ago, attracted the managerial eye of Col. John D. Hopkins of a large circuit of theatres, having houses in Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis and other cities.  The colonel offered Mr. and Mrs. Godman a very tempting sum for their daughter’s services, but the parents were opposed to her just now becoming associated with the stage,” the Lafayette Sunday Times wrote.

It seems, even at an early age, Buda Godman had already developed the power to send rich men reaching for their wallets.

It wasn’t just the townsfolk of Lafayette that delighted in little Buda’s talent and charm.  Up the road in her hometown of Chicago, she became something of a backstage celebrity among the many who turned out to catch a glimpse of the beautiful and engaging song and dance sensation.  

In Chicago Confidential, Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer report, “One of the principle theatrical hangouts was the basement table-d’hote under the Brevoort Hotel, adjoining the LaSalle Theater, and it was there the town came to peek at and gasp over Buda Godman, who was called the prettiest girl ever born and raised in the town….  Her beauty was so fearsomely fascinating that before maturity she stopped traffic on the streets.  She was petite, a wee trifle plumpish, with big steel-blue eyes, a tip-tilted nose, an oval face with a dimpled chin, a peewee mouth, and tiny hands and feet.”

Clearly, Buda possessed the power to charm the socks off of just about anyone who beheld her beauty or discerned her many talents.  But, as a race track sheet-writer, Buda’s “father’s calling threw him in with shady people.”  So, while her parents may have wished to shield her from a life of the stage and protect her from the many unpredictable and unsavory characters who inhabited her father’s profession, they likely never considered the threat that loomed almost literally inside the home. 

On July 13, 1903, a young couple was arrested by Milwaukee police at the Cream City Opera Garden, which some news reports described as a beer garden.  A 14-year-old Helen Godman of 1169 Lexington Street, Chicago was found in the company of her 20-year-old cousin Norvin Godman of 1133 Lexington Street, Chicago.  Norvin was a barber by trade and lived with his parents just down the street from his little cousin Buda.  

Accounts of how they came to be at that location together were somewhat unclear.  One said Buda had asked her cousin to take her to Milwaukee, to which he obliged.  Other versions said the pair had eloped.  What is clear is that Buda’s parents did not approve of her associating with the young barber and forbid her to see him.

The proprietor of the Cream City Opera Garden, Frank Nolan, was a friend of Norvin Godman.  It was reported the pair had planned to reside with the man.  Buda’s parents were aware of Norvin’s association with Frank Nolan and likely directed authorities to that location.  While Buda’s parents would later deny the couple planned to elope, and the whole affair was simply a misunderstanding, Buda and Norvin’s comments in the press seemed to contradict that assessment.  

According to the Chicago Examiner, Norvin Godman told detectives, “‘I love Helen,’ he said, ‘and I want to marry her.  I don’t see that this is any of your business.’”  Despite the young man’s protestations, the police made it their business, and Norvin Godman was treated to a few nights in jail. 

Buda told reporters, “Of course, I’m too young to marry, but I guess I would have married my cousin, Norvin Godman, if my father hadn’t prevented me.”  

Attempts by Buda’s parents to portray the incident as an innocent miscommunication were likely an effort to avoid additional scandal.  While it is difficult to judge whether the sordid affair contributed to Buda’s eventual pursuit of a life of crime and deception, her parents may have seen the writing on the wall.  A year later when Buda was fifteen, her parents sent her off to St. Joseph’s Academy, a Catholic girls’ school in Adrian, Michigan.