The Last Fair Deal Going Down. David Rhodes
Читать онлайн книгу.
told him to call the hospital, that a gun his wife was shooting had exploded, and ran outside.
The police held an investigation and reporters took pictures of the room in which the calamity took place. The paper wrote “A HORRIBLE ACCIDENT.” But John Charles was not out dancing in the streets. He was sitting in an uncleaned corner of Dirty John’s drinking bourbon and raving internally. He wanted nothing but to go back to his basement and reconstruct the act again and again, and vomit till exhaustion came over him. But he was hiding from the reporters — it was all he could do to be coherent enough to telephone Alice and tell her what had happened, and that didn’t take much.
But Hermie’s death was not an accident of that kind, and it was a short time before the investigators noticed that no shot could be found in the walls, and that no Nitro Long Range Express No. 4 Shot known could blow holes in water pipes from six feet away, holes in concrete. More careful inspection showed the missing shot lying in the bottom of the toilet, its weight too heavy to be moved by the force of the water. The sheriff was notified and he brought John Charles to the St. Louis station house for questioning.
Thirty-six hours later, without sleep, the sheriff again reconstructed the supposed murder for John Charles who still sat in his chair saying: “No . . . No . . . That isn’t true.... Give me a cigarette, you bums.” But this time the sheriff brought in a blown-up picture of his wife after the explosion, severed fingers and eye-gell in perfect focus, and John C. gave up. He confessed putting the dynamite in the shotgun, getting his wife to shoot it, and wished he had died with her. The sheriff let him go back into a cell, where he fell asleep and slept for three hours, when he was awakened to retell the story to the County Attorney.
The stupidity of the shot in the toilet, of removing the shot at all, and the confession afterward were not grossness or even depravity. John Charles was not a killer by any estimation or in any extent except that he had killed his wife — an accident within his mind, a slight oversimplification that he might have avoided if he had only stayed in bed later one morning or had a little less to drink some afternoon. If only he hadn’t thought about it, the killing. If only he hadn’t killed Hermie. And I must remind myself again in order to get through this next part, he did kill Hermie.
On September 3, 1939, Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney for St. Louis County, filed the County Attorney’s True Information statement at the State Court House, wording the charge as follows: “That John Charles Sledge, in the County and State aforesaid did on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, A.D., unlawfully, feloniously, and with the intent thereof, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.” John Charles was brought into court and asked by Judge Garnold if he had legal representation; to this he answered no. Asked then if he wished legal representation; to this he answered yes. Asked if he had preference he answered no. Asked if Wayne B. Hanek met with his approval and he answered yes. Newspaper reporters asked Wayne B. Hanek if there was a special reason he had been chosen and he answered no, that it was not in his power to refuse to act as legal counsel when appointed to do so by the court. Asked to make further comments on the “dynamite murderer” and he declined.
Two days later John Charles was in court with his lawyer. He sat on a wooden chair, highly varnished, and listened to Howard Vendermarken’s motion to change the wording of the County Attorney’s True Information by inserting the words “willfully and deliberately.” Wayne B. Hanek stated that the proposed wording established a degree of crime that was hitherto unsubstantiated by legal procedure. The Clerk wrote: “Comes now Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney of St. Louis County, Missouri, and for and in behalf of the State moves the Court to permit him to file an amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information filed here on September 3 so as to correct errors and omissions therein and he attaches hereto a copy of said proposed amendment. Then comes Wayne B. Hanek speaking for and in behalf of the defendant John Charles Sledge and opposes aforesaid amendment on the grounds that the newly proposed wording is not fully implied by previous evidence acquired by lawful procedure. Judge M. Garnold sets date of September 10, 1939, to decide on ruling.”
On September 10, 1939, John Charles was again in court. The County Attorney, his first amendment being overruled, offered a new amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information which included the words “specific intent to kill.” Wayne B. Hanek objected to this amendment on the grounds that it established a degree of crime not yet substantiated by lawfully begotten evidence. Judge M. Garnold set the date September 11, 1939, to decide on the ruling. County Attorney Vendermarken then moved that a special assistant, Peter Lynch, be appointed to help compile evidence for the County of St. Louis. Wayne B. Hanek objected on the grounds of non-impartial treatment but was overruled.
“September 11, 1939. Comes now Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney of St. Louis County, Missouri, and for and in behalf of the State moves the court to permit him to file an amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information filed here September 3 so as to correct errors and omissions therein, proposing that the words ‘specific intent to kill’ be inserted after the second ‘with’ in County Attorney’s True Information, omitting the words ‘intent’ and ‘thereof,’ thus allowing the County Attorney’s True Information to read: ‘. . . did on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, A.D., unlawfully, feloniously, and with the specific intent to kill, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.’ ” Wayne B. Hanek objected to this amendment on the grounds that it was not substantiated by legally begotten evidence and the objection was sustained.
All of this is necessary — important to see precisely how these men go about their living — how they do what they do.
“September 12, 1939. Comes now Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney of St. Louis County, Missouri, and for and in behalf of the State moves the court to permit him to file an amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information filed here on September 3 so as to correct errors and other omissions therein, proposing the words ‘designedly and with malice aforethought’ and a comma (,) between the words ‘designedly’ and ‘and’ be inserted into the County Attorney’s True Information, thus allowing the said statement to read: ‘. . . did on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, A.D., unlawfully, feloniously, designedly, and with malice aforethought and with the intent thereof, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.’ ” Wayne B. Hanek violently objected to the above amendment on the grounds that the particular wording was in no way a description of a crime as stated specifically by the Missouri Penal Code. Judge M. Garnold overruled this objection and passed the amendment, after which Hanek, reading from a piece of paper extracted from his briefcase, demanded (in behalf of his client, John Charles Sledge) that the County Attorney acting for and in behalf of the State of Missouri:
1. Show how the defendant did, on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.
2. Show how the defendant did murder feloniously.
3. Show how the defendant did murder with the intent thereof.
4. Show how the defendant did murder designedly.
5. Show how the defendant did murder with malice aforethought.
6. Show how the defendant did murder unlawfully.
7. Show how the defendant, if guilty of the above, has specifically committed an act in violation of the Missouri Penal Code.
Two days later John Charles stood before the court and in counsel with his lawyer asked to be allowed to stand on a demurrer. Judge Garnold denied this and asked John Charles for his plea. John C. again stood on a demurrer and was taken back to his cell under a bond of twenty-five thousand dollars. Asked by the press what this meant, Hanek answered: “Standing on a denied demurrer is essentially a plea of guilty, though not necessarily.”
The trial was set for November 3, 1939. John Charles requested a guitar brought to his cell which he played and sang to himself. The St. Louis Daily was allowed an interview with him and he consented to pose with his guitar. “I’ve been in hard scrapes before,” he said. John Charles seemed to be winning.
On October 15, 1939, “the defendant was served with a Notice of Additional Testimony in criminal case Number 1131 by the County Attorney, consisting of forty-three typewritten, single-spaced, legal-sized