Review of the 1919 Trial of Joseph Franklin Rutherford

Part 4a: JFR Trial – Jury Selection

Note on the Jury process: In the Watchtower Religious Court, the Judicial Committee acts as Prosecution, Jury, and Judge. The “accused” represents themselves privately before this religious court, with very limited rights, limited appeal rights, and is usually not permitted witnesses in their own behalf.

The American Civil Judicial system created a court system to end religious intolerance and governmental injustice by dividing the judicial powers into:

1. A Judge, who is supposed to be impartial, not governed by any pressures
2. A Prosecutor, whose only focus is the Truth
3. A Defense to use every means possible to defend the accused
4. The presumption of innocence, until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
5. A Jury of Peers, to assure impartiality, and independence from the government

Jury selection was initially intended to be of one’s “peers”, such that a farmer accused of a crime would be judged by fellow farmers, likely one’s neighbors, to assure that fairness was tilted toward the accused. Jurors were also required to assure the court that they were impartial and would hear all the evidence before making a finding of innocence or guilt. Over time, ‘peers’ eventually meant any citizen off of the street. The laws were changed in most states to allow the Prosecution two closings, one to state their closing arguments to the Jury, followed by the Defense closing, and then the Prosecution to make any rebuttal to the Defense. This is true of both criminal and civil trials.

The 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States directs, that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The Jury system is also secured by several state constitutions. Some States, in small civil cases, allow for a Jury of 6, instead of the customary 12. The rules established can vary greatly in different states to secure impartial juries. In general, however, disinterested officers make the selection of persons who are to serve on the jury, in most States, with the jurors being selected by lot.

Initially Jury selection was a speedy process, and in most cases is that way to this day, except in high profile cases or serious murder cases where greater debate is allowed. The Defense attorneys in the United States have developed Jury selection to an art using outside expert counselors to study prospective jurors and assist the Defense in eliminating prospective Jurors who they believe may compromise their case. Nevertheless, the questioning process used for each Juror is still short, usually 1 to 3 minutes per Juror – for a total of 15 to 30 minutes – at most for the entire panel.

Armed with this understanding, let’s see how the Rutherford Defense attorney, Mr. Sparks and Mr. Fuller treat the Jurors, and how they almost pioneer a new frontier in Jury selection. There will also be a few surprises as we see how tolerant and fair the Court is with the Defense:

Jury Selection – Trial Transcript, pages 125 – 161, Sect 375, 376: For some reason, some of the Pre-Trial questioning was not recorded, or at least not provided in the Transcript. The Prosecution and Defense had 1 hour and 30 minutes to individually question the prospective Jurors, or about 8 minutes for each juror. (sometimes called Talesman in 1918) and the Court was getting weary:

COURT: He may be excused. (Talesman, Wilson)

DEF-Sparks: Exception.

COURT: What is the exception?

DEF Sparks: To preserve our record.

COURT: You took an exception.

DEF-Sparks: The Court has excluded the juryman for cause. I take it the cause is not sufficiently made out. I take an exception.

COURT: He said he read the book. (Finished Mystery)

DEF-Sparks: That’s the reason you released him. That’s the reason I made an objection.

COURT: You took an exception, not an objection. You merely spoke up saying, Counsel takes an exception,” when no objection is made. It is not reviewable. No error is committed. The Court is entitled to know what complaint you have to a certain ruling. I am mentioning this to protect your rights in the matter if you prefer.

DEF-Sparks: I take an objection and an exception.

[Note: The court here is being fair by coaching the Defense attorney to protect the defense rights. No railroading, no stacking the deck. You will see more of this as we go along.]

Jury Selection – Trial Transcript, pages 125 – 161, Sect 381 – 383:

COURT: Is it your purpose to challenge jurors because they have relatives in the army or draft age?

DEF-Sparks: I do not.

COURT: Then why ask it?

DEF-Sparks: I want to get their feelings on that point.

COURT: What further can you get?

DEF-Sparks: I might ask the question, and if it indicated to me the mere charge the Government made might prejudice them –

COURT: Why don’t you ask them that?

DEF-Sparks: I did not get to that.

COURT: We won’t spend any more time asking about relatives of draft age. Have you inquired of each juryman?

DEF-Sparks: On that point?

COURT: On any point?

DEF-Sparks: Separately on all questions I want to ask them?

COURT: yes.

DEF-Sparks: No.

COURT: Is there any juryman of whom you have not asked any questions?

DEF-Sparks: I think I have asked each juryman some questions.

COURT: We won’t ask any more. Your inquiry of them individually has ceased. We have taken an hour and a half with these twelve men. That is an hour and a quarter too much.

DEF-Sparks: Am I instructed –

COURT: Have you inquired of them each? I am not going to allow you to question each of them again.

Comments: As noted above, the individual questioning of each juror of the original panel, during the preceding hour and a half, was not recorded in the Transcript. However, the Court allowed the Defense more time to individually question alternative jurors, and to question the collective panel. Sometimes the Defense questioning was so strained that the Court had to rephrase questions so the jurors could make a sensible answer.

Part 4b will get into some of this questioning, the reasonableness of the Court, and a point in fact that surprised me, and maybe will surprise you too.

 

Part 4b: JFR Trial – Jury Selection, Cont’d

Trial Transcript, Pages 128 – 134, Sections 383 – 402:

DEF-Sparks questions prospective Jurors. The Court at times rephrases questions to help out Mr. Sparks. Note: The Defense already had 1½ hours to question each Juror. The Court stopped him, and required Sparks to now collectively question the prospective Jury panel. Sparks attempts to still question each Juror. The Court continues to show fairness and flexibility to the Defense:

Sparks. Do you think that a person who under the draft … would bias you against him in considering him on the testimony of his guilt or innocence?

Juror. I don’t think so.

Sparks. If you do not think him a good American citizen, don’t you consider that bias?

COURT to Juror: Can you sit down and listen to the evidence in the case, the charge of the Court as to the law, and decide that case on the evidence, leave out your prejudice?

Juror: Certainly.

Sparks. Would you carry into the jury room with you the fact, in your mind –

COURT: We won’t go in to find out how his mind operates.

Sparks to Court: I take an exception to your Honor’s interruption to my question.

Sparks to Juror: Would you carry into the jury room a prejudice against a person who made such a claim?

COURT: That may be excluded, already answered.

Sparks to Court: Exception.

Sparks to Juror: Mr. Enos, how do you feel about that?

COURT: Gentlemen of the Jury, are any of you gentlemen so prejudiced on any of these questions you cannot try this case on the evidence given you from the witness stand here in Court, and decide it on that evidence, decide it fairly, impartially? What do you say to that? All say you can?

(No negative answer)

COURT: That satisfies the rule of law, does it not?

Sparks to Court: No.

COURT: Why?

Sparks to Court: I have the right to examine and exhaust it and not have the Court put a question of that kind in that inclusive way and prevent me, and cut me off from developing what the Juror actually has in mind when he already has answered to one question and said he had an objection. Your Honor forecloses me to that right.

COURT to Sparks: You ought to be foreclosed if you interrogated each of these Jurors for an hour. I am not going to let you pursue this to almost endless. If you have any question bearing –

Sparks to Court: Then, your Honor directs me to desist from asking the question about to be asked?

COURT: You may ask it. I will exclude it. You may take an exception. Your are not going to take much more time in examining this jury.

Sparks to Court: This is an important case to eight men.

COURT: This case is no more important than any other case involving this charge, tried the same way as any other case, tried the same as for the most humble and unheard of person.

Sparks to Courts: If your Honor directs me to stop –

COURT: No; I don’t direct you to stop. You ask your question; I will exclude them.

Sparks to Court: If I am not permitted to examine this jury in the way I think I ought to in justice to my clients, I shall have to retire from the case.

COURT: You may retire any time you desire or want to. You may retire, Mr. Counsel; that threat will not be controlling. That is a right you have any time, but it is not a right you have to control the impaneling of this jury, and it will be just as well, just as good practice, to omit such threats.

Sparks to Court: It is not a threat, simply a statement that I cannot examine this jury under the limitations your Honor has put upon me.

COURT: You will have to take your exceptions. I am not going to allow you to pursue to an endless conclusion –

Sparks to Court: I don’t consider I am so doing.

COURT: Very well, I think you are. This jury should have been impaneled long ago.

DEF-Fuller to Court: Would your Honor pardon me just a moment?

COURT: The Court was quite willing for counsel to take their own course in examining this jury. You have taken this –

Sparks to Court: Your Honor make this statement about an hour and a quarter examining this jury when Judge Oeland took up most of that time. [Judge Oeland is the Govt. Prosecutor in this case.]

COURT: I hardly think he did. You should profit from some by the questions he asked.

DEF-Fuller to the Court: Without wasting a single minute of the time of the Court and jury, it is our conception, we have a conception –

COURT: Ask these jurors collectively, not individually.

DEF-Fuller: Upon two matters, one possible bias towards a certain quality of man –

COURT: Why don’t you ask them collectively?

Sparks to Court: I did. Two spoke up and said they has bias, and I proceeded to ask those two when I was stopped by your Honor. My Meyer said he did not consider such a person a good American citizen. I am shut off in inquiring further by asking what he meant by that, and then accused of taking too much time. We told the Court yesterday it would take a long time and the Court entered upon the trial with that understanding, that the drawing of this jury was going to take a long time.

COURT: If you have any more questions to ask, ask them.

Sparks to Court: Your Honor has excluded that question?

COURT: “The good American citizen,” I will exclude, the juror said he could try –

Sparks to Court: How can I tell whether I can exercise a peremptory challenge unless I am permitted to know what he means by that, aside from the questions of the case.

COURT: Now, you stand back this way and ask these questions so the Court can hear them.

Sparks to juror: Mr. Eno, would you enter the box with any prejudice against a person who claimed he had conscientious objections against war, and therefore, under the Selective Service Act asked for deferred classification?

Juror: I don’t know. I think I might be a little that way.

Sparks to juror: You think you might be biased?

Juror: I imagine I would.

Sparks to Court: Then, we submit a challenge for cause against Mr. Eno.

COURT to juror: Notwithstanding what you say, what you think might be, couldn’t you hear the evidence here and try the case, lay aside your bias and prejudice, and give the Government and the Defendants a fair trial, decide the case on the evidence and the law of the land?

Juror: As you put the question to me, I can.

COURT: That’s what the law requires.

Juror: Counsel asks me if a conscientious objector stated his objection would I take it that way.

COURT: You think you can do that?

Juror: The way the question is put to me, yes.

COURT: That is the law, isn’t it, to qualify a juryman. Of course, we all have prejudice, bias, likes and dislikes. I hardly think you can get a jury composed of men free from all bias and prejudice. Now, the juryman being conscious he might have a little bias, makes him a safe juryman. A person who is prejudiced and knows it, there is not much danger from him. It is those of us who are prejudiced and don’t know it, who are liable to do damage. So in view of what he says the Court will decline to excuse this juryman for cause.

Sparks to court: Exception.

Sparks to jurors: Is there any other juror sitting in the box who has any bias against a person who makes a claim for deferred classification under the Selective Service Act on the ground of conscientious objections against war?

COURT to jurors: That is, you can try the case fairly and impartially, notwithstanding the person a witness or defendant, who has made such claim and taken such position, you would judge him on the evidence against him or for him, and on the law of the land each one of you feel sure you can do that, do you, each one of you gentlemen?

Sparks to juror: Mr. Meyer, do you think a man has any right to make a claim on the ground he is a conscientious objector?

COURT: The Court will exclude that question, as a matter of discretion. In view of all the questions you have asked this juryman and in view of the answers that the juryman has given as to his ability to give a fair and impartial trial, the Court will exclude that, and feels it is a matter of discretion – the Court realizes it is a matter of discretion, in view of the length of examination made by the Government and the Defense. Proceed please.

Sparks to Court: I take exception.

COURT: Yes, exception.

Sparks to Jurors: Id there any other juror in the box who has formed an opinion as to the right of any person to make a claim for deferred classification on the grounds of conscientious objection? I take it by your silence nobody has.

Sparks to jurors: I ask you if you all think a person who is legally entitled to make a claim for deferred classification upon the ground of conscientious objections has the right to do so? That requires an affirmative answer. I take it by your silence you answer that question in the affirmative for me. Is that correct, and do you so understand that question, Mr. Meyer? Will you all give me an affirmative answer as a body to my last question – do you think a person who is legally entitled to deferred classification upon the ground that he is a conscientious objector under the law, as the law defines it, that he has a right to make that claim?

COURT: As that question is put he would have the right to make that claim, and the jury is to decide the facts in the case, and the law is for the Court. So how does that become material? The Court would charge them that was the law. They are not judges of the law, judge of facts.

[Note: The indictment is not about Bible Students claiming conscientious objection, because they were not a recognized religion that had such a creed imposed on its members. The issue in the Indictment is about the Society and its officers actively inducing members of the Armed forces to insubordination, refusal of duty, disloyalty, and mutiny. The Defense is trying to turn this into a matter of conscientious objection … and the Court is setting this straight.]

Sparks to Jurors: Would you have any bias against any person who exercised that right?

COURT: Haven’t you asked them that?

Sparks to Court: I don’t think so.

COURT to jurors: What do you say, would you try him fairly and impartially, give him the rights the law requires, give him that cheerfully, justly and with full measure?

(Several affirmative answers came from the Jury box.)

COURT to Jurors: Then, you all say you would do that; that would be good jurymen.

In part 4c, there is a debate again between the Court and Sparks regarding criticizing the Government … it is very revealing how fair this Judge is … already above, the Judge has shown great understanding and flexibility. Also, we will see how the defense gets an advantage with the jury …

 

Part 4c: JFR Trial ... Criticizing the Government

Trial Transcript, page 135 - 137 Sect. 405 – 411

COURT to jurors: In the trial of this case the questions of fact are for you to decide. Questions of law are for the Court to decide. Would you take the law of the case as given you by the Court and follow instructions and directions of the Court, regardless of your own opinions what the law is or should be? I might say, if the Court makes a mistake in its rulings on the law, the defendants have the right to take exception, take the case to a higher court, and have the error corrected. If you should take your own views of the law as your guide there would be no way an error you might make could be corrected, so the rights of the party is saved by a right of appeal if the Court makes a mistake on the law, and it becomes manifestly your duty to follow the law as given by the Court. Would you all do that?

(Several affirmative answers come from the jury box.) Note: The judge is obviously trying very hard to continue to preserve the rights of the defense, both in earlier comments to help Mr. Sparks, and in its comments to the Jury.

COURT to Sparks: Isn’t that sufficient?

Sparks to the Court: It is in a way, but I want to know whether any juror has an opinion as to the right of an individual to criticize the Government for its action in going into the war?

COURT: How is that liable to become material in this case? They are not charged with criticizing the Government. They are indicted for attempting to cause insubordination, obstructing the recruiting service, etc., not for criticizing the Government.

Sparks to the Court: That is so closely connected with the Draft Act and the entry in the war –

COURT: I don’t think so.

Sparks to jurors: Do you think a person has a right to criticize the Government for passing what is commonly known as the Selective Service law?

COURT to Sparks: On that question you take the law from the Court. They say they would take the law from the Court on all these questions, why should we interrogate them on their views?

Sparks to the Court: I am trying to find out if the gentlemen in the box have any opinion as to whether a person has the right to criticize because some of th4e articles the Government will introduce in evidence here they will try to construe as a criticism of the Government in passing the Draft Act. I have a right to know whether any of these gentlemen believe we have that right.

COURT: You want to turn the jurymen into lawyers then. Suppose they have that opinion?

Sparks: I want to know it then, so I may examine further, and possibly use some challenges on the question; that is the object of my questions.

COURT: Well, this is a new way of finding out if men will make good jurymen to me. It is strange if they hadn’t some notions of their own as to these various things.

Sparks: May I ask to have the questions answered?

COURT: Do you contend there is any law in the land that prevents criticism of the Government?

Sparks to the Court: I say there isn’t. Of course, I say there isn’t. I want to find out from these jurors whether they think it is wrong for a person to stand up and criticize the Government in such times.

COURT to Sparks: If there is nothing shown against these defendants except criticizing the Government, the Court will discharge them, and order a verdict of not guilty. How is that material? If there is no evidence to show they committed the offense charged the Court will order them discharged.

Sparks to the Court: I take an exception, and will pass on to something else.

Clearly, the Court is being very fair, and is still allowing Mr. Sparks to question the prospective jurors. The next installment will deal with this more ... and get to the surprise I noted ... and be that last on the Jury Selection issues ... following that I will get into the cross examination phase.

 

Part 4d: JFR Trial – The Surprise

Trial Transcript, pages 138 – 140, Sect. 414 – 419

Excusing: After lengthy questioning of the prospective jurors, the Prosecution excuses Juror No. 6 and 11 and the Defense excuses Juror No. 1 and 11. So, contrary to the “Railroad Job” that the Watchtower Society claims, their Defense Attorneys were allowed to take far more than the customary time to challenge jurors, and excuse those they do not want.

The Surprise: Four new prospective jurors are called to replace the excused jurors. The Judge asks these jurors much the same types of questions about being fair, impartial, following the law, and base their decision on the evidence. After this the Judge asks a rather unique question:

COURT to new jurors: Are any of you four gentlemen acquainted with any of the defendants?

(No Answer)

COURT: Have any of you read any literature they published?

(No Answer)

COURT: Are any of you acquainted with Counsel for the defense?

Talesman (juror) Sauze: I know Mr. Fuller. I also know Mr. France.

[Note: Mr. Fuller is the second Defense attorney working with Mr. Sparks, and Mr. France is the US Attorney who signed the actual Indictment.]

COURT: Is that acquaintance a chance one?

Talesman Sauze: No, Sir.

COURT: Long standing?

Talesman Sauze: I have known them several years, since I was a boy.

COURT: Any business relation?

Talesman Sauze: No, sir.

COURT: How about the other jurymen just called?

Juror No. 10: I know Mr. France. That question was not asked before.

COURT: You were asked that before?

Juror No. 10: No; wasn’t asked.

COURT: Would this have any influence on your emotions, consciously or unconsciously – you want to try this case on the evidence given in Court, not because you know the parties.

Talesman Sauze: I have been a resident of this town fifty years. How could it be possible not to know these men?

COURT: Any questions the defendants desire to ask? I am not going to allow the Government to ask any questions without having some special question that has some special significance.

[Note: Basically, what the Judge is doing here is cutting the Government off, but allowing the Defense to have more leeway as to what they want to do with these new jurors. How anyone could charge the Court with a railroad job is beyond me.]

Sparks to juror Stewart: Mr. Stewart, have you any sons?

Stweart: Yes, twenty-three years old.

COURT: Have you other three gentlemen any sons of draft age?

(All answer in the negative)

[Note: The questioning continued on with several more jurors, with the Defense excusing several more and the Government excusing two more. BUT, the Surprise: Juror No. 1, Mr. Sauze, who is a lifelong friend of the Defense attorney, Mr. Fuller, was never excused, and remained on the jury. Another juror, No. 5, Mr. Stewart, who knew a couple of Government attorneys, was also never excused ... the Defense let him stay.

The issue here is that the Defendants, Rutherford and Company were NOT railroaded by the Government. Rather, they were even allowed to keep a close friend of Defense Attorney on the jury. Also, as you follow the next phase, the Cross Examination, you will see that Mr. Fuller is very sympathetic of the Bible Students beliefs, suggesting to me that he may have also been a Bible Student.

In Criminal Trials: It only takes “one” juror to deadlock a jury, and given Mr. Sauze’s presence on the Jury, he would of anyone have cause to be more sympathetic to his friend, Defense Attorney, Mr. Fuller. It would be very hard to set that sympathy aside.

Next: Part 5: Cross Examination ... this will be many sub-parts, but there is too much really good material to leave it out.

 

Part 5a: JFR Trial – 1st Witness

Note: The opening statements to the Jury by the Government prosecutor and defense attorneys was not recorded in the Trial transcript, other than a note to that effect. Typically the prosecution opens its case first to prove its position that the defendants are guilty. The defense then rebuts and puts on their case to prove the defendants either innocent, or to substantiate ‘reasonable doubt.’ Thus the basis is laid by the defense for the Jury to either rule “Not Guilty” or to “Acquit” based on insufficient evidence – hence, reasonable doubt.

Trial Transcript, Pages 162 – 193 Sect. 484 – 579

Walter A. Conkey was called as a witness for the Government. He is the book printer located at the time in Hammond, Indiana who printed material for the Society. He testified that he printed “The Finished Mystery” book under contract with the Watchtower Society. ALL of the contracts were identified as being written and signed by Joseph F. Rutherford.

DEF-Sparks objected to these contracts being introduced into evidence, saying that they do not prove a conspiracy. The Court asked if he had read them, to which he admitted he did not, but he knew the dates preceded the period cited for the conspiracy to start ... but the Prosecutor should that the first items was a ‘proposal from June 22, 1917, well within the time of when the alleged conspiracy commenced, and all the contracts signed were dated “after” that date. Sparks accused the Prosecution of concealing the first contract dated prior to the start of the conspiracy. The Prosecution rebutted that he did not include the first contract at the request of the defense because ti predated the conspiracy ... so he started with the ‘proposal’ dated after the start of the conspiracy and used the contracts from that time forward. Note: The commencement of the Conspiracy date in the Indictment is June 15th, 1917.

Sparks objected again because the contracts did not bear the signatures of the other defendants. The Prosecution countered that they are only establishing the dates for the record that the Watchtower Society contracted the printing and offered to back off on any further use. The Court accepted this, and instructed the Jury to ignore these contracts except to their use for dates of contracts.

The Court only allow these printings and bindings to be placed against one defendant (presumably Joseph Rutherford) as a compromise to the defense, and the Judge places the burden on the Government. After the prosecution completes it examination of Conkey, with many objections by Sparks that seem minor, the prosecution ends its direct examination of Conkey.

The defense cross-examines Conkey. Mr. Sparks spends considerable time trying to establish that the original manuscript of “The Finished Mystery” was received ‘prior’ to June 15th, 1917 ... but testimony shows that the complete manuscript was received no earlier than June 19th, 1917. [The June 15th date is the time when Congress passes the Selective Service Act along with being in a ‘state of war’ with the Imperial German Government. The defense want to establish that if the manuscript were received prior to that date, then there could be no conspiracy to violate a law not yet enacted.

Sparks keep asking the same question of Conkey about when the manuscript was received, and he states as president of the company, he personally does not know as this was handled by his employees ... and whatever dates they say is what should be used.

The Court allows Sparks to keep hammering away at Conkey, and then finally interrupts to ask the prosecution if the Government claims in its charges that the manuscript must have been received by the printer on a certain date, to which the Government say nothing was establish. The issue for the Government was the 97 pages added by the Watchtower Society to the book after the date ... The Court asks the prosecution if they can concede this point, to which the Government says they may. The defense and prosecution compromise at the defense request that the original manuscript was received June 9th, 1917 ... prior to the war act, and that the 97 additional pages in question were received after June 15th, 1917, possibly by June 30th, 1917.

However, Mr. Sparks keeps objecting, and arguing finer points of dates. He wants it stipulated in the Court record that the receipt and commencement of manufacture of the book begin prior to June 16th, 1917. The prosecution agrees that the original manuscript and manufacture process commenced prior to that date. Both Sparks and Fuller fight with the Court over certain portions of book being in evidence ... they only want the pages in question, and not the entire book ... to which the Court agreed, and promised to protect the defense on this issue.

The Government complies: After the Government agreed to stick strictly with the pages in question, they attempt to intr4oduce this into evidence according to the defense stipulations. But Sparks objects again, stating that these cannot be introduced because defendant DeCecca is not involved in the pages. Mr. Fuller makes the same objection for his defendants. Fuller argues that Sparks defendants, Rutherford and Woodworth are involved. The Government shows that they will connect at least four defendants, so the Court allows the government to proceed on this phase of the matter with four defendants, Rutherford, Woodworth, MacMillan, and Van Amburgh.

The Issue of Importance: The prosecution contends that Rutherford and company conspired together on or after June 15th 1917 to publish material that violated the espionage act, and that their submission of additional pages after that date, their signing contracts for printing after that date, and their working together or by separate acts all accomplished the purpose of violating the law. The prosecution promises the Court that they will connect all the defendants to the conspiracy charge. The defense is trying to say that to prove a conspiracy, the prosecution must show they conspired together, acted together, and did everything after June 15th, 1917.

The Witness, Walter Conkey: testified that Rutherford, Macmillan, Woodworth and Martin all showed up at his printing factory after June 30th, 1917 and on subsequent occasions, to review “Proofs” of the book, and were given office space to meet and review the material and make any noted changes. While not conclusive, because Mr. Conkey did not hear much of the conversations between the Watchtower officials, his placing them together in the same office to review the ‘Proofs” was at least enough to show they acted together.

The Court Rules: After hearing arguements about stipulations from the prosecution and the defense on this matter, the Court rules that it is acceptable to prove conspiracy by separate acts as long as this can be shown to work together for a singular purpose. Rutherford and Woodworth write the book manuscript, Rutherford negotiates printing contracts, Van Amburgh signs checks for deposit on the contract, etc. ... and that several of these men show up at the printing factory to review and discuss “Proofs” and approve continued printing work. The Court lets the prosecution move forward.

Prosecution now reads Preface to the book:“It seemed pleasing to the Lord that Brothers C.J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher should prepare the 7th volume under the direction of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. While both residing in the same city, they have worked separate and apart from each other, not even comparing notes. The reader will be able to judge how fully the work of each harmonizes with that of the other and with the Divine Plan, thus giving further evidence of the Lord’s direction in this matter.”

FAMOUS PAGES IN QUESTION: The Finished Mystery book, in its original publication contained more pages than what was later revised after Rutherford and company were sent to prison. But the pages read in Court may not be the same as copies some now have in their libraries, but they are as follows: [b]Pages 247-253, 289, 406, Sub-title, “They have blown the Trumpet” ... , page 407, and 469. Then ...

They prosecution and both defense attorneys debate the meaning and interpretation of Ezekiel 19:7 and 23:31, and argue over splitting up sentences ... and whether the book quotes the Bible or is interpreting the Bible. Rather interesting procedure for a Court trial. They continue to debate times and dates of printing, and whether the act of Rutherford and company showing up to review the “Proof” is part of the conspiracy to also “Distribute’ the book.

This ends the testimony of Walter Conkey, but he is reserved in case either party wished to call him at a later time.

Next, will be the testimony of Mr. Hitchcock as a witness for the Prosecution. ... stay tuned ...