Ep. #03, The Trial
Jack Pokorny
Podcast Copyright © 2021 by Keith Reeves, Jack Pokorny, and Margaret O’Neil. All Rights Reserved. Executive Producers: Keith Reeves and Maggie O’Neil. Producer: Jack Pokorny. Narrated and Written by Jack Pokorny. Original Music by Hee Won Park and Tommy Neil. Sandbox Atlas Blog Content Editors: Ben Meader and Emily Meader. Based on the meticulously researched book, The Case That Shocked the Country: The Unquiet Deaths of Vida Robare and Alexander McClay Williams by Samuel Michael Lemon, Ed.D. (2017). The podcast was generously supported by the Lang Center for Civic and Social Responsibility and the Program on Urban Inequality and Incarceration, both at Swarthmore College; the Swarthmore Black Alumni Network (SBAN); Keller, Lisgar & Williams, LLP. The producers wish to especially acknowledge the invaluable contributions of: Mrs. Susie Carter (Alexander’s sole surviving sibling); Dr. Sam Lemon (the great-grandson of Alexander’s original attorney); Teresa Smithers (a descendant of Fred Robare, Vida Robare’s husband); Osceola Perdue (Alexander’s great-niece) and her family; Attorney Robert C. Keller; Chris Rhoads; Sean Kelley, Annie Anderson, and Sally Elk, all of Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Site in Philadelphia.
[ 30 min read, 38 minute listen ]
Sometime in the mid 1920s, roughly about five years before this case, a group of the Ku Klux Klan, carrying torches and wearing robes, visited Ridley’s house on North Olive street. And the reason why they showed up there in his backyard was they were searching for someone who had allegedly assaulted a young, white schoolgirl in Media. One of them—or someone who knew the KKK—saw my grandfather come home and go into Ridley’s house. My grandfather was married to Ridley’s only child Maud Ridley. And shortly afterwards in the backyard this group of Klansmen, carrying torches and wearing hoods, showed up. Ridley went out and talked with them. It's probably very likely that he knew at least who some of them were, and they accepted, apparently, his explanation that that wasn't who they were looking for. But I think someone also called the state police and tipped them off that there was a very dangerous situation brewing. - Sam Lemon
The the former Ridley home where the KKK came to talk to William H. Ridley.
The Klansmen left Ridley's backyard, marched down Olive Street up to Sandy Bank and they held a cross burning ceremony up there. So these were definitely very highly charged times, racially. What had prompted this visit by the KKK was that this young white girl had alleged that she had been assaulted by a person of color. She claimed that she didn't know the identity because she only saw a pair of brown hands reach from behind and choke her into unconsciousness. She was not sexually assaulted, but this resulted in groups of armed white men roaming the neighborhood looking for this assailant. And in response, some groups of armed black men preparing themselves for what very likely could have been a very ugly race war in this part of the county. So people tend to think of the North as being very progressive and very liberal. In some ways it was, in some places it wasn't. And this could have been a very ugly riot that could have resulted from this allegation. So Ridley unfortunately was trapped, you know, as a victim in a sense of these highly charged racial times. 1931 was the same year that the Scottsboro boys were arrested for again allegedly assaulting two white women on a train. [See footnote ^A] And it was an era in which blacks were not really permitted to serve on juries or even testify in many cases. In the midst of all of this you have this highly charged racial case. And I’m sure people, many people in the neighborhood—particularly in the white community—wanted this case solved as quickly as possible. - Sam Lemon
[3:54] When Alexander arrived at the Media Courthouse for his trial in December 1930, he would have seen a massive grayish-white stone building that dominated the surrounding community. He would have looked quite small as he was escorted by police officers. He was a gangly fifteen-year-old, with an open face and big eyes and mouth, weighing around 125 pounds. His life for the past four or so years would have been neatly structured at Glens Mills, surrounded by faculty like Vida as well as other children. Now he was alone, a child surrounded by men clothed in suits and the detached self-importance of those who have lived within the strict formality of the legal profession for most of their lives. Alexander was led into a building of law and order where he would soon be judged for killing.
Delaware County Courthouse
Media, Pennsylvania
The Delaware County Courthouse where Alexander was tried was completed in 1851. The building has been changed and updated many times over the years, being enlarged in 1871, 1888 and in 1913. It had a major remodel in 1920 and was renovated yet again in 1930.
This is Sam reading out the charges:
Number 91, December sessions, 1930, County of Delaware. The grand inquest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania inquiring for the County of Delaware upon the respective oaths and affirmations, do present that Alexander Williams, late of the said county, yeoman, on the third day of October in the year of Our Lord 1930, with force and arms, etc., and the body of one Vida Robare in the peace of God, then, there being feloniously, willfully and his malicious aforethought, did make an assault, and her of the said Vida Robare, then and there, feloniously willfully of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder contrary to the form of the Act of the General Assembly, in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To this indictment the prisoner Alexander Williams has pleaded not guilty and places himself on trial before God and his country of which country you are. You will therefore look upon the prisoner and hearken to his cause. - Sam Lemon
A month later on January 5, 1931, Alexander’s trial progressed with the selection of the jury, in a process that is known in the legal world as the voir dire, or preliminary questioning. [See footnote ^B] It’s a process intended to minimize any unreasonable bias, to make sure jurors are capable of performing the duties required of them. For example, if a juror has seen news coverage of a murder and made her mind up about the guilt of the defendant, this would ideally disqualify her from the pool. But prosecutors and defense attorneys in our adversarial criminal justice system often use the voir dire to their side’s advantage, and each are given a certain number of “vetoes” to disqualify jurors. A procedure that is designed to minimize juror bias is manipulated by lawyers to select who is in the jury pool based on their thinking about race, politics, and even perceptions of the police. It is a racial and political procedure even as it strives not to be.
Mr. William H. Ridley, Alexander’s defense attorney and Sam’s great-grandfather, and Mr. William James McCarter, the prosecutor, began by questioning the potential jurors, with Judge Fronefield overseeing the whole process. Because there aren’t any pictures from the time of the trial, it is impossible to say who exactly was present besides those directly involved. The trial transcript notes that Alexander’s mother was present at one point. His father, however, was not identified in the crowd, nor any of his nine siblings. It is quite likely that Alexander, his mother, and Mr. Ridley were the only African Americans present over the course of the trial proceedings. The jury was all white, as was the prosecution.
[7:33] The prosecution itself included fourteen people in all. McCarter was assisted by a young prosecutor named Louis Bloom who would eventually become a judge of Delaware County and a member of the House of Representatives. There were four detectives involved, four medical examiners or doctors, two fingerprint experts, as well as two members of Glen Mills Board.
Alexander’s defense involved only one person: his attorney, William H. Ridley.
Why didn’t Ridley bring any witnesses to the stand? How come he didn’t have any co-defense? While he was outrageously underfunded, as I’ve said earlier—the court gave him $200 in counsel fees and $10 in expenses, roughly five thousand in today’s money for a capital murder case that although short, stretched from October of 1930 until June 1931—yet he never even called a witness to testify. Did Ridley believe that his defendant was guilty, even before the trial began? It’s one of those questions that we may never know the answer to. But I hope we can find some hints in the testimony to come.
This is Sam reading from the trial transcript in the beginning of the voir dire. [In audio: When he says, “By Mr. McCarter” that's how the court recorder signified who was speaking.]
[Mr. McCarter]: Mr. Ruth, do you have any conscientious scruples against the infliction of capital punishment? [Mr. Ruth]: No sir. [Mr. McCarter]: If you were sworn as a juror in this case and the Commonwealth convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence presented that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree, could you return such a verdict and fix penalty at death? [Mr. Ruth]: I could. [Mr. McCarter]: Cross-examine. - Sam Lemon
[9:07] McCarter, from the get-go, was selecting his jurors on the basis of whether or not they would be willing to sentence Alexander to death, essentially treating him as an adult. It's startling to hear that the prosecutor was asking the jury for Alexander’s execution even before the trial began. Mr. Ridley, in preparing his defense, was interested in how lenient his jurors were regarding his defendant’s age, but more concerned with whether they would discriminate against him because he was black.
Example of a jury line up. This is a salon jury in Philadelphia, PA in 1899
[Mr. Ridley]: Mr. Ruth, in deciding this case would you take all of the elements into consideration, including that of the boy's youth, in arriving at a verdict?[Mr. Ruth]: I would.[Mr. Ridley]: You haven't any prejudice?[Mr. Ruth]: No sir.[Mr. Ridley]: Nor have you had any trouble with him?[Mr. Ruth]: No sir.[Mr. Ridley]: And you would be willing to give this boy's case the same careful consideration as you would if he were white?[Mr. Ruth]: Absolutely.[Mr. Ridley]: The juror is acceptable to the defendant.[Mr. McCarter]: The juror is acceptable to the Commonwealth.[The Court]: Let the jury be sworn. John H. Norton.[The Clerk]: Juror, look upon the prisoner, prisoner look upon the juror. Challenge or no challenge?Juror sworn examining his voir dire as follows:[Mr. Ridley]: What is your business Mr. Norton?[Mr. Norton]: Gasoline service station.[Mr. Ridley]: Where?[Mr. Norton]: Crum Lynne.[Mr. Ridley]: How long have you been in Crum Lynne?[Mr. Norton]: Two years.[Mr. Ridley]: Where did you move from before you came to Crum Lynne?[Mr. Norton]: Philadelphia.[Mr. Ridley]: Where were you born?[Mr. Norton]: Chester.[Mr. Ridley]: Married?[Mr. Norton]: No.[Mr. Ridley]: What church do you belong to?[Mr. Norton]: I don't go to any church.[Mr. Ridley]: What is that?[Mr. Norton]: No church.[Mr. Ridley]: Have you read anything about this homicide in the newspaper?[Mr. Norton]: I don't remember the case.[Mr. Ridley]: Have you any prejudices against colored people?[Mr. Norton]: Some, to a certain extent.[Mr. Ridley]: What do you mean by some? Is that what you mean?[Mr. Norton]: Yes. I have some prejudice against colored people.[Mr. Ridley]: Well the court will want to know and I will want to know what kind of prejudice is it?[Mr. Norton]: Just a personal feeling. I don't associate with them. I don't run around with them. That is what you mean isn't it?[Mr. Ridley]: Well never mind what I mean. I'm trying to get your meaning.[Mr. Norton]: Yes.[Mr. Ridley]: In other words you believe that a colored man is inferior to you and yours.[Mr. Norton]: No, not at all.[Mr. McCarter]: I object to that if the court please.[The Court]: He has answered it.[Mr. Ridley]: Now Mr. Norton, if everything was equal, I mean a colored man of equal intelligence, a colored man of equal wealth, with a white man, would you believe a colored man as readily as you would a white man?[Mr. Norton]: It is pretty hard to say. It's pretty hard to answer a question like that.[Mr. Ridley]: That is what I would want to know.[Mr. Norton]: That is the best answer I can give you.[Mr. Ridley]: What is that?[Mr. Norton]: That is just about the best answer I can give you. I don't know myself whether I would or not.[Mr. Ridley]: I challenge for cause, may it please the court.[The Court]: I'm going to sustain the challenge. The defendant is entitled to have a man's mind wide open to pass on his guilt or innocence. I sustain the challenge.[The Clerk]: Juror Number 21, Charles G. Fisher.- Sam Lemon
[12:20] It seems a brave question to ask a white jury nearly thirty years before the start of the civil rights movement. And Ridley, in so doing, I think demonstrates his social capital, almost his invincibility, because of his long-standing reputation. I think we shouldn’t forget how unique Ridley’s position was at the time, the sole African American lawyer in Delaware County.
It's interesting to read this part of the transcript in which Ridley is objecting to a juror and wants him strike—stricken, and the judge sustaining that objection. Having read this nearly 300-page trial transcript, I think this may be the only time in which I saw an objection by Ridley sustained by the court. This is an interesting case for many reasons, but one: Judge Roger Fronefield and William Ridley had known each other for many years, and were apparently actually close friends. My grandmother, who was Ridley's only child, told me that her father thought very highly of Roger Fronefield and that apparently their relationship had gone back to the days when they were both law students. - Sam Lemon
Judge W. Roger Fronefield
Walker Roger Fronefield, the presiding judge on the case, was born in November of 1864 in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. According to The National Cyclopædeia of American Biography [Vol. 37], Fronefield was educated at Worrell’s Classical and Mathematical Academy in and was being serving full terms between 1927 and 1937 presiding over many cases cases in Delaware county. Judge W. Roger Fronefield passed away at the age of 79 in Moylan, PA in 1943.
I’m not sure about Judge Fronefield, but Ridley actually never went to law school, and instead “read law”—meaning clerking for some lawyer for a couple years before passing the bar exam.
However as time went on, although a number of Ridley's fellow students and associates went on to become judges, Ridley did not. And having passed the bar in 1891, Delaware County didn't get its first black judge until 1970. So it shows you just what a pioneer William Ridley was. In these days, it was also very common to have all white juries, to either not allow or limit the kind of testimony from people of color, and certainly (as I said before) there was no black judge or district attorney of color in this county in those days. So Ridley basically was fighting a pretty much uphill battle all along.- Sam Lemon
Did Ridley take this case because of his friendship with Judge Fronefield? By the 1930s he was close to the end of his career, in his sixties, and recovering from a major gallbladder surgery. And if anyone was aware of the racial and political nature of Delaware County, it would have been him. Defending Alexander would have looked dangerous, would have brought challenges and threats, would have involved all of the Delaware County legal and law enforcement, as well as the national media coverage.
But where did his allegiances lie? Was it sympathy for Alexander or his friendship with Judge Fronefield that compelled him to take one of the most harrowing legal cases in Delaware County? I decided to ask Sam that.
So why would Judge Fronefield appoint his friend, William H. Ridley? - Jack PokornyI think it was a practical matter that Ridley—being the only attorney of color who was available to represent Alexander—would have been appointed by Fronefield to represent him. Everybody else involved in the case was white. The judge was white, the investigators were white, the school administration was white, the jury was white. There was really no one else to represent Alexander. - Sam LemonYou talk about that a matter of practicality, but what that occurs to me is Judge Fronefield having no idea—I mean that's a fairly new idea, that you'd give an African American defense by an African American attorney. I mean relatively—from, compared with the 1930s. I’m not sure Fronefield would actually have that level of sensitivity. - Jack PokornyI don't see it so much as sensitivity, as expeditious. I would imagine that few white attorneys would have jumped at the chance to represent this black teenage—you know—alleged murder. I think they would have thought it was beneath them or that they would have automatically sided with the prosecution. So I think it was a matter of—you know, being the 1930s, being a time of, you know, extreme racial segregation, racial prejudice. Much like traveling musicians can only stay at, you know, black hotels and things like that. So I think that this would have been not so much an act of enlightenment, but an act of, you know, normality given the particular times of the case. I think it was a matter of, "Geez," you know, "who's going to represent this black kid? We'll have to get a black attorney of course." I think that's kind of how it went. - Sam Lemon
[17:22] Rob Keller is a criminal defense attorney that has worked with Sam in bringing Alexander’s story back into the spotlight, but he thinks about Ridley’s role in this case quite differently from Sam. Rob also unknowingly became involved in the case long before he had ever heard of Alexander. This is Rob talking about what compelled him to become a lawyer after growing up in Chester, which is only a few miles from the Glen Mills school:
I just—I always liked to debate and thought that that would be an interesting profession. My grandmother was very close to a judge by the name of Louis Bloom. And what's so interesting about this McClay case—Williams case—is Louis Bloom was actually in the D.A.'s office, a young prosecutor. And his name is on some of these documents. And so it’s just kind of bizarre fate that Louis Bloom—who is a judge and actually made a recommendation for me to help me get into law school—and then I and then I find out that he was actually a young prosecutor on this case. And his involvement was pretty peripheral, but it's just funny that I knew an actual lawyer who became a judge of our county. He was actually part of this case. So I knew Louis Bloom—Judge Bloom. And I think—because of my upbringing and seeing discrimination and anti-Semitism and I just wanted to have a voice—so I think that was part of the drive to go to law school and become a lawyer. - Rob Keller
Louis A. Bloom
Assistant Prosecutor — Louis A. Bloom was born in Russia in 1947. He went to Wharton School in 1922 and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1925. Louis was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for Delaware County, he served from 1947-1952.
Rob found Mr. Ridley’s position—alone in Alexander’s defense—quite disturbing. In reviewing the case, he dug into how similar capital murder cases were defended at the time.
So who appoints the public defender in a case? You said it was court appointed, was that the judge? - Jack PokornyYes, so it’s not a public defender in this case, back in 1931. The president judge opted to appoint a private lawyer to represent Mr. Williams. And so, I wasn't—I'm not even sure if the public defender's office back then were doing homicide cases. So it may have been typical for the court to appoint a lawyer in a murder case, so that's what was done here. And coincidentally they appointed the only African-American lawyer who is a member of the bar. So what I wanted to do—but to be fair to Mr. Ridley and to get an understanding of how lawyers were lawyering back then—and so I did look up. And all these books are—all the cases that have been appealed, especially death penalty cases—you can look at them, you could read them, you just go back—and see what I was trying to do, is pick cases that were right around that time period in 1930-31, 1932. And so there were some horrendous, horrific cases, homicide cases, capital cases. And a lot of those cases there were investigators, there were forensics, there were experts used and defenses presented, that just weren't utilized here. So I can't explain it. We didn't have like, Miranda warnings—I mean advising people about the right to remain silent. But the Constitution was in effect, the amendments were in effect for the amendment rights, and you know right to confront witnesses—I mean all the, you know, all the constitutional protections were there. They just weren't codified specifically as they are now. But all those defenses could have been presented but for some reason they weren't. - Rob Keller
Why Mr. Ridley took this case, his motives, are lost to history probably. We can guess—given his actions that are still recorded in the transcript—but we don’t know his thoughts or feelings. It’s frustrating wishing you could question people who died a long time ago. Alexander’s story is both so near and so distant. Judge Louis Bloom was alive until 1988. What could he have told us about the motives and feelings of the attorneys in what must have been one of his first cases as a prosecutor? How would he have described Alexander sitting with his attorney, surrounded by the people who believed he stabbed a young woman to death?
By the end of the jury selection it was the early afternoon around 2 p.m.; and the afternoon light probably slanted into the courtroom from the windows on both sides, glancing off the dark wood benches such that they resembled pews in a small church. A brief recess was taken after the final juror was selected while Alexander, Ridley, and McCarter waited for the next session to begin.
William J. McCarter
Lead Prosecutor —William J, McCarter was born to immigrant parents in 1874. His father was born in Ireland and his mother France. He started his career as a real estate broker and was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1908. He served as the lead prosecutor in the case of Vida Robare.
[22:01] The jury was reassembled and polled, and the first witness was brought before the stand as evidence for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
[Mr. McCarter]: Mr. Robare, your full name is Frederick Lewis Robare?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what was your wife's name?[Mr. Robare]: Vida Beatrice Robare.[Mr. Ridley]: I didn't get the first name.[Mr. Robare]: Vida.[Mr. McCarter]: V-I-D-A. And you were married when, Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: January 29th. Fifteen years this 29th of January.[Mr. McCarter]: Did you have any children?[Mr. Robare]: Three.[Mr. McCarter]: And on October 3rd of 1930, where did you live?[Mr. Robare]: At Glen Mill School for Boys.[Mr. McCarter]: And what position did you hold there Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: Officer.[Mr. McCarter]: You had been at Glen Mill School for Boys for how long?[Mr. Robare]: A little over four years.[Mr. McCarter]: And your wife was employed there?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what was her position there?[Mr. Robare]: Matron.[Mr. Ridley]: What was that, matron?[Mr. Robare]: Matron.[Mr. McCarter]: Matron. And where did you and your wife live at Glen Mills School?[Mr. Robare]: Cottage Number Five.[Mr. McCarter]: And who lived in this cottage besides you and your wife?[Mr. Robare]: My son Dale. D-A-L-E.[Mr. McCarter]: How old is your son?[Mr. Robare]: He's ten years old.[Mr. McCarter]: Now do you know the defendant Alexander Williams?[Mr. Robare]: I do.[Mr. McCarter]: And how long have you known him?[Mr. Robare]: Pretty near four years.[Mr. McCarter]: Was he at any time an occupant of Cottage Number Five?[Mr. Robare]: For pretty near four years.[Mr. McCarter]: And on October 3rd of 1930, was he an inmate of Cottage Number Five?[Mr. Robare]: No sir.[Mr. McCarter]: Do you know what cottage he lived in?[Mr. Robare]: Number three.[Mr. McCarter]: How long, prior to October 3rd 1930, had he been transferred to Cottage Number Three?[Mr. Robare]: I don't remember just how long. It was at the time of the fire, of the last fire. [See Footnote ^C][Mr. McCarter]: Can you give us any idea?[Mr. Robare]: I think it was in the springtime.[Mr. McCarter]: That would be the spring of 1930?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: Now on October 3rd of 1930, do you remember the day of the week that was, Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: Friday.- Sam Lemon
If Fred’s testimony is to be believed, Alexander was not living with him and Vida on the day of the murder, but rather two cottages over. It is also interesting to think that he moved because of a fire in cottage five. Would Alexander have a reason for leaving Vida Robare? Might he have started another fire?
[24:41] [Mr. McCarter]: And what time did you and your wife arise that morning?[Mr. Robare]: 5:30.[Mr. McCarter]: And what time did you, Mr. Robare, leave the cottage on that day?[Mr. Robare]: In the morning or afternoon?[Mr. McCarter]: Well. We’ll take first, in the morning.[Mr. Robare]: 7:00.[Mr. McCarter]: And did you return?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: What time did you return?[Mr. Robare]: About 7:30.[Mr. McCarter]: I see. And you remained in the cottage for how long?[Mr. Robare]: All forenoon.[Mr. McCarter]: Until forenoon?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what time did you leave the cottage again?[Mr. Robare]: About quarter after eleven.[Mr. McCarter]: And what time did you return?[Mr. Robare]: 11:30.[Mr. McCarter]: And then you remained in the Cottage Number Five from 11:30 until what time?[Mr. Robare]: Until a quarter to one.[Mr. McCarter]: And did you leave at quarter to one?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what time did you return?[Mr. Robare]: About 1:00[Mr. McCarter]: And then you remained in the cottage from 1:00 until what time?[Mr. Robare]: Until 1:25.[Mr. McCarter]: And then where did you go?[Mr. Robare]: Went to the boys to detail.[Mr. McCarter]: What time did you return?[Mr. Robare]: 5 o'clock.[Mr. McCarter]: Now when you left the cottage at 1:25. Where was Mrs. Robare at that time?[Mr. Robare]: In her bedroom.[Mr. McCarter]: In her bedroom, and how was she dressed, Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: She had a shirt and bloomers and stockings on.[Mr. McCarter]: And what did she do at that time?[Mr. Robare]: When I left the room, she was sitting on the edge of the bed looking in a little can for a policy—automobile insurance policy.[Mr. McCarter]: And when you left the cottage, about 1:25, were there any other persons in the cottage at that time except for your wife and yourself?[Mr. Robare]: Nobody.[Mr. McCarter]: Where is the bedroom? Where was your bedroom in the cottage, Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: In the front of the cottage on the second floor.[Mr. McCarter]: Now—so that the court and the jury may understand—what is on the first floor of that cottage?[Mr. Robare]: There is a kitchen, a dining room, assembly room, and the front room for the officers.[Mr. McCarter]: What is on the second floor?[Mr. Robare]: A dormitory for the boys and my wife's bedroom.[Mr. McCarter]: And what separates, if anything, the dormitory from the bedroom of your wife and yourself?[Mr. Robare]: A wall and a door.[Mr. McCarter]: Was that door kept locked?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And is there a third floor to the cottage?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what is on the third floor?[Mr. Robare]: A dormitory and another bedroom.[Mr. McCarter]: And who occupied the other bedroom?[Mr. Robare]: My son Dale.[Mr. McCarter]: Is there anything that divides a dormitory on the third floor from the bedroom on the third floor?[Mr. Robare]: A wall and a door.[Mr. McCarter]: Who kept, Mr. Robare, the keys to the cottage?[Mr. Robare]: I didn't get that.[Mr. McCarter]: Who kept the keys to the cottage?[Mr. Robare]: I had a bunch of my own and she had a bunch of her own.[Mr. McCarter]: When you say ‘she’ you mean Mrs. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: Mr. Robare, I show you some keys on a ring, do you know what keys these are?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what keys are they?[Mr. Robare]: Those are my wife's keys.[Mr. McCarter]: Were they the keys to the various doors in the cottage?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: What time was it, Mr. Robare, that you returned to the cottage?[Mr. Robare]: Five o'clock in the evening.[Mr. McCarter]: And when you returned, what did you do, if anything?[Mr. Robare]: I came to the cottage with the boys down in the basement, waited until the boys got ready to go upstairs, and then I went upstairs ahead of them and they followed me. I went to the front part of the house and sat down while the boys was waiting for their supper. I waited a while. I sat down. I waited a while thinking my wife would be down. Instead of that, I didn't hear any noises and I went up, thinking that she had to lay down and take a nap and sleep. And I went into the room, I opened the door, and I see this awful mess.[Mr. McCarter]: Now when you went into the room, what did you notice, Mr. Robare, that attracted your attention?[Mr. Robare]: Blood on the bed.[Mr. McCarter]: And where was the blood on the bed?[Mr. Robare]: On the spread.[Mr. McCarter]: And what quantity was it?[Mr. Robare]: It looked like ten barrels to me.Mr. Ridley objects.[Mr. Ridley]: That is objected to and I move that it be stricken out—may it please the court.[Judge Fronefield]: Yes, he can tell the size of it. Let it go out.[Mr. McCarter]: How ‘bout if you can tell us in feet or inches, about how large a spot is on the bed?[Mr. Robare]: Why, it looked to me as if somebody just poured blood all over the bed.[Mr. Ridley]: Just a moment, may it please the court, I object to that, 'looks to him.' I have no objection to him describing fully the condition of that bed. I object to him speculating as to the amount of blood.[Judge Fronefield]: He can tell us how large it was.[Mr. Ridley]: Yes sir, I didn’t object to that. But he said that 'it looked like someone had poured it.' I object to that.[Mr. McCarter]: About how large a space, Mr. Robare, would you say was covered on the counterpane or sheets of the bed?[Mr. Robare]: Well about three foot square.[Mr. McCarter]: About three foot square. And what else attracted your attention?[Mr. Robare]: The floor lamp.[Judge Fronefield]: What?[Mr. Robare]: The floor lamp.[Mr. McCarter]: What did you notice about the floor lamp?[Mr. Robare]: It was tipped over.[Mr. McCarter]: And in what position was it when you saw it?[Mr. Robare]: The stand of the lamp was leaning toward the bed and the head of it toward the wall.[Mr. McCarter]: When you left the cottage about 1:25 that day, where was the lamp?[Mr. Robare]: Standing about a foot from the wall.[Mr. McCarter]: And which wall, Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: The wall that faces the stairs.[Mr. McCarter]: What else attracted your attention?[Mr. Robare]: My wife.[Mr. McCarter]: And where was she?[Mr. Robare]: Lying on the other side of the bed on the floor.[Mr. McCarter]: And in what position was she lying?[Mr. Robare]: On her back.[Mr. McCarter]: What else attracted you. What else attracted you about her?[Mr. Robare]: Blood all over her.[Mr. McCarter]: What did you do Mr. Robare then?[Mr. Robare]: I touched her on the leg thinking she had fainted.[Judge Fronefield]: I didn't catch that.[Mr. McCarter]: Thinking she had fainted—and what did you do?[Mr. Robare]: Then I run downstairs.[Mr. McCarter]: In what manner did you run down?[Mr. Robare]: Sir?[Mr. McCarter]: And what manner did you run down?[Mr. Robare]: I run.[Mr. McCarter]: I see. Did you say anything or do anything?[Mr. Robare]: Yes I helloed.[Mr. McCarter]: And what did you hello?[Mr. Robare]: I just helloed, 'Oh help! Oh help!'[Mr. McCarter]: How was your wife dressed when you saw her lying on the floor?[Mr. Robare]: She had a shirt and a pair of stockings on.[Mr. McCarter]: You say she had a shirt and a pair of stockings.[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: Was that the only clothing she had on?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And where was the shirt? What position was it in Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: Well I didn't pay much attention, but it didn't cover her.[Mr. McCarter]: You say it didn't cover her?[Mr. Robare]: No.[Mr. McCarter]: About how far down did the shirt come?[Mr. Robare]: Just below her waistline.[Mr. McCarter]: Now when was it next you saw your wife Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: I think it was about a half past an hour afterward.[Mr. McCarter]: And where was she at the time?[Mr. Robare]: The same place.[Mr. McCarter]: Was she dead at that time?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: The lady that you saw at 1:25. That was your wife alive. Was that the same person that you saw dead around 5 o'clock?[Mr. Robare]: Yes Sir.[Mr. McCarter]: I show you Exhibit 17 and ask you to describe that.[Mr. Robare]: That's the dresser in the kitchen.[Mr. McCarter]: Of what cottage?[Mr. Robare]: Cottage Five.[Mr. McCarter]: Now Mr. Robare, have you seen this instrument before?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what is that?[Mr. Robare]: Ice pick.- Sam Lemon
Ice Pick
Though Vida was stabbed 47 times over with this ice pick, it is important to remember that she also had a fractured skull and two broken ribs. [See Footnote ^D]
The photo on the right is of the ice pick that was used in the murders being held by McCarter.
[Mr. McCarter]: And where have you seen that before?[Mr. Robare]: I seen my wife buy that in Philadelphia.[Mr. McCarter]: And where was that ice pick kept, if you know, in Cottage Number Five?[Mr. Robare]: I don't know.[Mr. McCarter]: Have you ever seen that ice pick before?[Mr. Robare]: Yes sir.[Mr. McCarter]: And what is that Mr. Robare?[Mr. Robare]: Knife sharpener. They called a 'steel.'[Mr. McCarter]: And where did that belong if you know?[Mr. Robare]: In the kitchen.[Mr. McCarter]: Of what?[Mr. Robare]: Cottage Number Five. Cottage Number Five.[Judge Fronefield]: Mr. McCarter, in your opening you said something about a knife opener, I think, and then you said a knife sharpener.[Mr. McCarter]: If I said a knife opener, your honor, I meant a knife sharpener.[Judge Fronefield]: That is what I call a steel.[Mr. McCarter]: Now Mr. Robare, when the defendant lived in your Cottage Five, did you or your wife have any difficulty with him?[Mr. Ridley]: That is objected to, may it please the court. He had been an inmate of that cottage for four years. That is objected to.[Judge Fronefield]: What was it that you said, he had been an inmate or what?[Mr. Ridley]: He said, I think, in his testimony, this boy had been an inmate of that cottage for some three or four years.[Judge Fronefield]: Yes he said that, he said that in his opening. What is your purpose Mr. McCarter?[Mr. McCarter]: To show motive your honor, motive of why the attack was made on Mrs. Robare.[Judge Fronefield]: I overrule your objection. If it doesn't show a motive make a motion to strike it out, and I will strike it out and say so to the jury.[Mr. Ridley]: I thank you. The court will now note me an exception?[Judge Fronefield]: Yes.[Mr. McCarter]: Will you answer that Mr. Robare, please?[Mr. Robare]: Will you ask me again please?[Mr. McCarter]: While the defendant Alexander Williams was an inmate of Cottage Five, did you or your wife have any difficulty with him?[Mr. Robare]: I did.[Mr. McCarter]: And how long before October 3rd of 1930 was that.[Mr. Robare]: That was right after the fire. A few days after the fire. I just don't remember when the fire was.[Mr. McCarter]: I believe you said the fire was in the spring of 1930.[Mr. Robare]: In the springtime. I just don't know what month it was in.[Mr. McCarter]: And how long after you had difficulty with Alexander Williams, was he transferred from Cottage Five to Cottage Three?[Mr. Robare]: That same day.[Mr. McCarter]: How many times did you have difficulty with him?[Mr. Robare]: I don't remember.[Mr. McCarter]: More than once?[Mr. Robare]: Well I think I reported him more than once. Yes.[Mr. McCarter]: Mr. Robare, I’ve shown you a counterpane, bloomers, a shirt, stockings—are they now in the same condition as they were when you left the cottage on October 3rd about 1:20?[Mr. Robare]: No.[Mr. McCarter]: And what is the difference?[Mr. Robare]: The difference is the blood on them.[Mr. McCarter]: Cross examine.- Sam Lemon
[35:57] Fred’s testimony comes to an end with Mr. Ridley cross-examining him, with similar results to those questions posed by McCarter. [See footnote ^E] Overall, Fred’s testimony is unsurprising. He is straightforward, even boring, and I feel like I am talking to a 1940s dad who is too prim and proper to talk about any of the grit in his life. The kind of person who would put soap in my mouth if I said a swear word. Yet, months after Vida’s death, Fred is able to answer all of the questions put to him about his whereabouts down to the minute, which I suppose is actually kind of surprising in its own right. He is, at least, well-rehearsed.
But I do know that Fred was unforthcoming about one particularly horrific aspect of Glen Mills. What did reformation really mean for the administration of Glen Mills School in the 1930s? Alexander will speak about that, next time on The Arc Towards Justice. Stay with us.
Footnotes:
A. On the Scottsboro Boys: The Scottsboro Boys were a group of nine African-American teenagers who were accused of allegedly raping two white women in Alabama in 1931 on a train. Their names were Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Andrew Wright, Roy Wright, Charles Weems, Haywood Patterson, Eugene Williams, Olen Montgomery and Willie Roberson—all between the ages of 12 and 19. In the first trials, these young men were given poor representation, rushed legal proceedings, and were judged by all-white juries. All but the youngest were sentenced to death by electric chair. With the help of the NAACP and the CPUSA, their cases were appealed. In 1932, with the trial Powell vs. Alabama, new trials were granted and all nine were able to escape death row. All of them remained in the system for some time to come.
Ozie Powell had a row with a prison officer which resulted in him being charged was assault. The rape charges were dropped after he agreed to plead guilty to the officers assault and was sentence to 20 years. Ozie was paroled in 1946. Clarence Norris was convicted of the rape and sentenced to death. In 1938 his sentence was commuted to life in prison, and he was paroled in 1946. He received a pardon in 1976 by governor George Wallace and would go on to write, The Last of the Scottsboro Boys: An Autobiography. Andrew Wright was convicted of the rape and sentenced to 99 years. After an initial parole violation he was paroled again and left prison in 1950. Charles Weems was convicted of rape and sentenced to 105 years in prison. He was paroled in 1943. Haywood Patterson was convicted for the rape and sentenced to 75 years. He was later convicted of manslaughter after a barfight and died in prison of cancer in 1952. Before his death, Patterson would write his view on the case in the book Scottsboro Boy. The State of Alabama dropped the charges against Eugene Williams, Olen Montgomery, Willie Roberson, and Roy Wright after they had already spent 6 years in prison on death row.
B. On voir dire: Voir dire is a preliminary examination of a witness or juror that supposedly aims to help enable impartiality and fairness to a trial. By examining the individuals’ predispositions, this process also enables lawyers to better understand potential group dynamics and to foster trust between jurors and attorneys. The attorneys for the defense and the prosecution both take part to assess any bias and/or prejudice that need to be addressed. This process can be quite strategic, and it inevitably has an effect on the tenor of the trial.
C. On the “fire” at Glen Mills: A fire is mentioned in the spring of 1930, though other records recall a large fire on the Glen Mills property in March 1929. The Hanover Evening Sun reported on the 29th of March 1929, “Fire at the Glen Mills Reformatory for Boys, at Glen Mills, near Media, Delaware County, yesterday afternoon partly destroyed a three-story structure, known as the Mechanical Arts Building, with a loss of $85,000.” Though this fire doesn’t fit the timeline of Fred’s testimony, it is interesting to note that multiple significant fires seems to happen on the Glen Mills property within a year of each other. With more research, it would be interesting to investigate whether or not “fires” were more likely to be commonly associated with accidental events, or if they were more apt to be considered anomalous instances of potential arson.
D. On evidence presentation and omission: The initial recorded opinions of the case detectives and coroners—as presented by the media—were notably different than the evidence presented in the trial. Multiple papers reported that the intensity of the crime most likely would have had to have been done by an adult man. Coroner George B. Frankenfield said he believed the murder was committed by a maniac in a frenzy or a rage. O.N. Smith, the County Detective, was quoted as saying. “This is not the work of a boy.” Smith also believed that Vida, having an athletic build, would have been able to fight off a boy.
The ice pick as a murder weapon was suspected early on, but the severity of her body’s many other traumas seem to fall out of view as the case progresses. She had two broken ribs and a fractured skull—Alexander doesn’t mention the using blunt force implements during his later confession. Also, he describes using the ice pick to stab Vida her “between 20 and 25 times,” when in reality was she was stabbed 47 times. Though misremembering is a possibility, Alexander’s confession only partially describes Vida’s inflicted wounds—perhaps enough omission to speculate about the veracity of his confession.
E. On McCarter’s examination: McCarter’s questioning of Fred Robare may seem simplistic at first glance, but it is a skillful example of narrative building in the courtroom environment. It is important to remember that the job of a lawyer is to convince the jury of their client’s case. Mr. McCarter constructs a clear and concise narrative. His questions to Fred are simple but seem exacting and particular, regardless of each detail’s relative pertinence as evidence. Fred responds easily and demonstrates a consistent manner that makes him appear both sympathetic and trustworthy. Although Alexander is not explicitly villainized at this stage, McCarter plants the seed of familiarity between the witness (Fred), the victim (Vida), and the alleged murderer (Alexander). This may, perhaps, make the associative leap of Alexander’s guilt more digestible later on.
It is also worth noting where Mr. Ridley offers objections—these highlight some of the places where McCarter pulls more strident, suggestive details out of his witness. Fred describes buckets of blood; he says it looks to him like someone poured blood all over the bed. Ridley’s other objection is McCarter’s jump in questioning—when he asks Fred if he and Vida ever had a problem with Alexander. This seems like a straightforward question, but it is somewhat of a logical non-sequitur—he had just been asking Fred about the ice pick. But probing for motive here works effectively in the prosecutorial narrative, some jurors may make associative leaps between the ice pick and Alexander. Ridley mentions the broader context of the question, therefore, that Alexander had lived with them for four full years.