by John Hersey
“But somebody like us, the policemen there, oh, that’s beautiful when it gets in the news! They really build it up big.”
44
A NUMBNESS
1. All the Hurt
One side of Roderick Davis’s head remained numb for months. “They knocked all the hurt out of my head,” he said to me.
2. Bothering Him
“They’ve stood up well,” Eddie Temple said of his brother’s friends, “but I understand that Davis particularly was having terrible headaches, and I saw him one day—it had to be at least a month later—I just ran across him in a store, a department store. He wasn’t looking well, and I talked to him, and he told me that his head had been bothering him tremendously, where he had been hit on the head. I tried to get him to let me take him to a doctor, but he insisted he didn’t want one. I tried to get him to go see a doctor about this. Financially I don’t think he had the money.”
3. If Something Really Bad Was Wrong
“There is a difference in him,” Roderick’s mother told me. “I took him to a neurologist, but he wouldn’t go on with the treatment. The doctor wanted him to have a head X-ray, but he said he didn’t want to do it unless there was something really bad wrong, and if something really bad was wrong, he didn’t want to know what it was. He doesn’t seem to reason properly. For a time he would get these headaches and suddenly run a temperature, and his limbs would give way under him, and he would go partially blind. He was quite edgy. He was quick to think my daughter and me were talking about him. He’d accuse my daughter and me of laughing at him. He was quite shaken up. He couldn’t seem to reason; he was so much more childish. I took him twice to a neurologist, and he gave him an encephalogram. He said it showed a slowness of brain activity on the side that received the injury. He didn’t feel it was permanent; it might last quite awhile, but it would probably clear up.”
45
CONSPIRACY?
1. The People Were Ready
On Wednesday, September 27, parenthesized on his elevated bench by two American flags, Judge Frank G. Schemanske of Recorder’s Court, a man of sixty-eight years, wearing a black gown and metal-rimmed spectacles, said in a low voice, which, because of the profusion of acoustical tiles all up the walls above the courtroom’s marble wainscotting and on the ceiling, too, could hardly be heard at the four rows of heavy oaken gallery benches at the back of the room, “All right, gentlemen, let’s take our respective seats.”
Louder, the court clerk cried, “Case of the People versus Robert Paille, David Senak, and Melvin Dismukes, Conspiracy to Commit a Legal Act in an Illegal Manner.”
“People are ready,” Mr. Weiswasser said.
2. I’m Going to Be Tough
The bulk of Frank Schemanske’s career up until his election to the Recorder’s Court, eighteen years before this day, had been spent as a prosecutor. “Terribly police-prone,” one Detroit attorney said of him to me. The Free Press once accused him of boasting of having sentenced 235 criminals in one day, and he wrote the editor, affirming the sentences but denying he had crowed about it. He has often made speeches about juvenile delinquency, and in one of them he said, “We’re not going to allow any gangs of punks, hoodlums, and ruffians to run the city. We won’t let them go around insulting people and putting them in fear for their lives. As long as I am on the bench, I am going to be tough with these kids and get rid of this kind of activity.”
3. Behave like a Witness
The first witness was Michael Clark, and before he had left the stand the case had gone completely out of Prosecutor Weiswasser’s control. Michael, perhaps emboldened by the mood of the tribunal, was insolent, inconsistent, and totally indifferent to the purpose of the proceedings; and he was obviously enjoying himself.
When asked where he had obtained money to pay for his room at the Algiers, he replied, “From my mama . . . plus I had some.” Pressed to tell when he had changed rooms in the annex, he said, “I said I don’t know. If you want to know, go and ask the people that own the place.” “I don’t write it down in a diary where I go.” How many blocks did his mother live from the motel? “You count them: from Philadelphia to Oregon. Now you can go count them.” Did he recall where he ate on the evening of the 25th? “Man, I don’t even know what day the 25th was on!” Was an answer of his “Yes, sir”? “It wasn’t ‘sir,’ it was ‘yes.’ ” “I don’t know, I ain’t got X-ray eyes.” He didn’t remember a certain statement? “No, I don’t. Uh-uh. See, when the guy hit me on my head, I forget sometimes.” “You don’t have to get mad at me.” Maybe he would recover his memory of a certain fact. “It ain’t going to come back. I’m getting a headache.” Would he identify a certain gentleman (Dismukes)? “There’s a man sitting next to you. It ain’t no gentleman.”
On Thursday morning, having been instructed to appear at nine thirty because the lawyers were not through with his testimony, Michael moseyed in at 11:05 a.m., as Judge Schemanske angrily noted in the record. “Well,” Michael said when the judge rebuked him, “I wrote my mother to call me and wake me up.”
Though it took him ten weeks to hand down his decision, it was clear that Judge Schemanske had made up his mind by that second morning. At one point he openly lost his temper at Michael Clark:
THE COURT: Now just a minute; just a minute. You are in a courtroom and you will behave the way you should behave in a courtroom. And I repeat again to you that this is an Examination and counsel have a right to ask questions, and if there are any objections to come, they must come from the Prosecuting Attorney. Now, I will not repeat it again.
THE WITNESS: If he asked me a question—
THE COURT: If you don’t understand the question, you tell him that you don’t understand the question.
THE WITNESS: I understood the question.
THE COURT: But I am not going to have you rule things in this courtroom, so get that in your mind. We will conduct this courtroom the way a courtroom should be conducted. And you are a witness, and you will act like a witness.
After the lunch break, Mr. Lippitt recalled Michael, and this exchange took place:
Q. Mr. Clark, after the noon recess were you walking on St. Antoine towards Recorder’s Court from Monroe with some other people?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Who were you with?
A. Lee Forsythe, Juli, and Karen. . . .
Q. All right, and you saw me—you walked by me, didn’t you, Mr. Clark?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you tell me when I walked by you that I was going to be run over by a car?
A. No, I wasn’t talking to you.
Q. You didn’t say that?
THE COURT: What was that? . . .
Q. Did you say to me I was going to be run over by a car, Mr. Clark?
A. No, I was talking to James Sortor.
Q. Did you say that he was going to be run over by a car?
A. I said he’s going to be run over by a car.
Q. Who were you referring to?
A. James Sortor. I was talking to him. . . . Me and James, we was—we was just talking. He was by the curb and I just happened to say it at the time he came by. . . .
THE COURT: (To Mr. Lippitt.) Well, I think you ought to further the matter to the prosecuting attorney’s office. That’s where the matter should be referred for proper investigation. All right. (To the witness.) You may leave.
4. Goodness
Sortor was testifying:
A. Well, seemed like to me the ones that were doing all the hitting, like they was, you know, in a group, you know, like they had planned this or something, you know.
MR. LIPPITT [representing Paille]: Objection, Your Honor. My goodness!
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. SMITH [representing Dismukes]: Thank you, Your Honor.
5. Counsel Testifying
Warrant Officer Thomas was, to put it mildly, a malleable witness, and the defense lawyers were alert to the possibilities. Here he is under cross-examin
ation by Mr. Kohl, who represented Senak:
Q. You were the one that reported the sniping incident to start with?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As the result of which police and military personnel converged on the area?
A. That’s right.
Q. And the report that was made was, in fact, there were snipers at the Algiers Motel when you were performing your duties there?
A. When I reported it, I reported where my location was and where I thought the fire was coming from.
Q. And you reported that again in the course of your job?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That there was fire coming from the Algiers Motel?
A. Yes, sir, in that area.
Q. Gunfire coming from the Algiers Motel Annex?
A. Yes, sir. . . .
MR. WEISWASSER: I object to this line of questions. I can understand counsel has a right for cross-examination, but I do not think he can testify out of the mouth of this man which is all that he’s doing. He’s telling a story, testifying to it, and then he’s asking this man, “Am I not right?” In fact, he’s doing a ventriloquist’s act. He’s using this man as a dummy. . . .
THE COURT: I’ll permit the answers to stand.
6. Vacation
The hearing lasted three days. Judge Schemanske asked for briefs from the Prosecutor by October 9 and from the defense by October 23. He was planning an autumn vacation.
46
PADLOCKING
1. Public Nuisance
On October 3, Prosecutor Cahalan filed suit in Wayne County Circuit Court against the Algiers Motel, alleging that “said premises, the buildings thereon, and the furniture, fixtures, and contents therein are now and have been for a considerable period of time prior hereto used, leased, conducted, and maintained as a public nuisance.” The complaint charged that the motel had been used “for purposes of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution,” and that between April 24 and September 6, sixteen persons had been arrested in its rooms on narcotics charges.
2. From the Middle Ages
“This,” Samuel J. Rhodes, a lawyer, one of the owners of the motel named in the complaint, said to me, “is a proceeding in rem, with very harsh penalties, reminiscent of the Middle Ages, against an inanimate object. The extreme penalty would be padlocking of the doors, and removal and sale of the furniture. I can’t believe we’re going to come to that. As for an injunction against these alleged practices, which would come after a hearing, that would be simply declarative of existing laws. What’s to be gained by reaffirming laws that are already on the books? I’m hoping to be able to point out to the Prosecutor’s Office, which surely doesn’t want to hurt a man who has been practicing before the bar for over fifty years, that we should be given every opportunity for thoroughly effective supervision of the premises. We don’t want that kind of traffic. Every hotel and motel in the country is plagued with illicit sexual practices.”
3. Informer #8814
The suit, known in the trade as a padlocking, could not possibly be construed as anything but a punishment of a locus of shame for the police force. About a month after the Algiers incident, the Police Department moved to discredit the motel. The Narcotics Bureau ordered an investigation of the Algiers, the Rio Gran, and the Alamo, three motels that were run by the managers of the Algiers, Sam Gant and McUrant Pye. Cursory paragraphs in the report of this investigation disposed of the Rio Gran and the Alamo. The heart of the report:
“On August 22, 1967, at about 6:00 p.m., our informer #8814 was conveyed to the vicinity of 8301 Woodward, where the informant was furnished with $30.00 in money from which the serial numbers had been noted. The informer then proceeded to the Algiers Motel at 8301 Woodward, where he rented Room #17 under the name of RAY HARRIS.
“A short time later, the informer met a Negro Male, 24, 5′ 10″, 150 lbs., who gave his name as ‘James.’ This subject invited the informer to his room, Unit #22, to meet a couple of girls. The informer was introduced to two white females, @ Gloria, W/F, 5′ 4″, 110 lbs., 18 to 20 years old, and @ Judy, W/F, 5′, 100 lbs., 18 to 20 years old. James told the informer that if he wanted a girl or something to drink, all he had to do was call the office on the house phone. The informer then stated that he and James went back to Unit #17 where James called the office and ordered a pint of Teachers Scotch. The bottle was delivered to the informer by a Negro Female, who had previously checked the informer into the motel. The informer then paid this person $5.00 for the bottle. The contents of the bottle were then consumed by the informer and @ James. . . .
“On August 24, 1967 at about 9:00 p.m., the informer introduced himself to the person occupying Unit 18. The subject gave the informer his name as ‘Fast Eddie.’ The informer states that ‘Fast Eddie’ asked him if he would like to get ‘high.’ The informer said he would and was invited into Unit #18. Fast Eddie then told the informer he had some good cocaine he would sell for $5.00 a capsule. The informer then gave Fast Eddie $10.00 for two capsules. The informer used one capsule and attempted to leave with the remaining capsule, but was told by Fast Eddie, he had to use both capsules. The informer then used the remaining capsule and left the unit. Fast Eddie is described as Negro Male, 30, 6′, 180 lbs., medium brown skin, long black hair. The informer stated that Eddie checked out of the motel sometime early on August 25, 1967.
“On August 26, 1967, at about 12:30 a.m., the informer met a man who introduced himself as ‘Frank,’ described as being Negro Male, 23, 5′ 9″, 145 lbs., medium complexion, occupying Unit #10. Frank asked the informer if he would like to buy some pills. The informer then went to Unit #10, where @ Frank gave the informer 12 capsules wrapped in toilet paper, 11 white capsules and one orange capsule, for which the informer paid $5.00. The informer then left #10 and returned to his unit and went to bed. At about 3:00 a.m., the informer was awakened by a knock at his door. When the informant opened the door, he was confronted by four uniformed officers who stated they had received a radio run to the motel, Unit 17, a report of a dead man in the room. The officers searched the room and left the premises. A check of the dispatcher’s records disclosed that on August 26, 1967 at 2:47 a.m., Scout 13-11 and 13-70 received a run to the motel as described above. The informer then got dressed and left the motel for the remainder of the night.
“On August 26, 1967 at about 9:30 a.m., the informer appeared at the Narcotics Bureau where he turned over to Detective Conrad the 12 capsules purchased earlier from @ Frank. The capsules were placed in evidence folder #10682 and conveyed to the Scientific Bureau for analysis. The 11 capsules were found to be negative and the orange capsule, a derivative of barbituric acid.
“On August 26, 1967, at about 9:00 p.m., the informer was invited to Unit #8 by a Negro Male, 35, 5′ 10″, 140 lbs., who gave his name as ‘Will.’ Will asked the informer if he wanted to shoot dice. The informer states that ‘Will’ said he runs a game at the motel every Saturday night in one of the units. The informer stated that several persons, both male and female, were at the game. The informer further stated he purchased whisky at the dice game from @ Will.
“On August 27, 1967, the informer appeared at the Narcotics Bureau where he met Detective Conrad. At this time, it was deemed advisable to remove the informer from the motel in view of the fact that officers of the Thirteenth Precinct had received a radio run to his unit, indicating that the informer may have been recognized as such by one of the known narcotic dealers.”
After the brief paragraphs on the other motels, the report said: “It is the conclusion of the reporting officers that there is no organized narcotic activity at the motels mentioned in this investigation at the present time. It would appear that most of the activity evolves around prostitution, liquor, and gambling.”
4. Three of Seven
In September the Police Department compiled a chronological list of all arrests made during 1967 in and around the Algiers. There were altogether fifty-seven arrests, of which sixteen were for Robbery Armed, sixteen were for Vi
olation State Narcotics Law, and the rest were scattered over the whole range of human misery and mischief; there was no mention, however, of the arrests of two policemen for alleged murders on the premises on the night of July 25–6.
Seven of the cases were eventually chosen for use in the padlocking case. It could hardly have been a coincidence that three of the seven involved witnesses of the incident: Michael Clark, arrested, as we have seen, on a narcotics charge on July 10; Karen Malloy, Juli Hysell (under the alias Beverly Griffith, according to the police report), and Nancy Stallnaker (alias Janice McCoy), arrested along with seven others at an alleged marijuana party in room 35 of the Algiers on July 17; and Juli Hysell, arrested, as we have seen, for prostitution on September 13. The Department made the mistake of including one narcotics arrest of three people on July 12, which had to be thrown out of court; in red ink on the Narcotics Bureau disposition slip was written, “Illegal search!!!”
47
A CUTTING
1. Senak’s Version
“The reason I got in trouble all over again,” David Senak told me, “was because I was overzealous. It was my instinct of a police officer—even though I was suspended.