Jump to content

Vogel'S Video On 1826 Trial


Recommended Posts

Nothing new here Dan. You place a lot of faith in two witnesses who were not even noted as being at the proceeding and dismiss Dr. Purples memory as being deficient after fifty years, but you advise us that Dr. Purple took notes at the examination, which would be far more reliable than memory, I would say.

Also, you assert that Dr. Purple's recitement of Josiah Stowell's testimony provides proof that Joseph could have been found guilty under the laws of New York at the time. However, that is apparently not the case, as the wording of the law reads "pretending" in reference to the charges. Josiah Stowell's assertion that “do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true.” takes Joseph's activities out of the realm of pretending.

Here is the complete testimony that Dr. Purple recorded of Josiah Stowell's testimony.

"The next witness called was Deacon Isaiah Stowell. He confirmed all that is said above in relation to himself, and delineated many other circumstances not necessary to record. He swore that the prisoner possessed all the power he claimed, and declared he could see things fifty feet below the surface of the earth, as plain as the witness could see what was on the Justices’ table, and described very many circumstances to confirm his words. Justice Neeley soberly looked at the witness, and in a solemn, dignified voice said: “Deacon Stowell, do I understand you as swearing before God, under the solemn oath you have taken, that you believe the prisoner can see by the aid of the stone fifty feet below the surface of the earth; as plainly as you can see what is on my table?” “Do I believe it?” says Deacon Stowell; “do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true.”

It would be helpful if you would also post a transcript of your video. It is very difficult to go back and search a video and respond to the various points that you presented.

Glenn

Link to comment

Nothing new here Dan. You place a lot of faith in two witnesses who were not even noted as being at the proceeding and dismiss Dr. Purples memory as being deficient after fifty years, but you advise us that Dr. Purple took notes at the examination, which would be far more reliable than memory, I would say.

Also, you assert that Dr. Purple's recitement of Josiah Stowell's testimony provides proof that Joseph could have been found guilty under the laws of New York at the time. However, that is apparently not the case, as the wording of the law reads "pretending" in reference to the charges. Josiah Stowell's assertion that “do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true.” takes Joseph's activities out of the realm of pretending.

Here is the complete testimony that Dr. Purple recorded of Josiah Stowell's testimony.

"The next witness called was Deacon Isaiah Stowell. He confirmed all that is said above in relation to himself, and delineated many other circumstances not necessary to record. He swore that the prisoner possessed all the power he claimed, and declared he could see things fifty feet below the surface of the earth, as plain as the witness could see what was on the Justices’ table, and described very many circumstances to confirm his words. Justice Neeley soberly looked at the witness, and in a solemn, dignified voice said: “Deacon Stowell, do I understand you as swearing before God, under the solemn oath you have taken, that you believe the prisoner can see by the aid of the stone fifty feet below the surface of the earth; as plainly as you can see what is on my table?” “Do I believe it?” says Deacon Stowell; “do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true.”

It would be helpful if you would also post a transcript of your video. It is very difficult to go back and search a video and respond to the various points that you presented.

Glenn

The trial transcript is the most reliable source. Next, Benton and Noble. Benton could have been there, but both were involved in JS’s 1830 trials in South Bainbridge and Colesville, which were related to the 1826 trial. Purple took notes, but he doesn’t claim to be using them in his 1877 account. If he were using notes, one would expect that he would have at least got the date right. It was 20 March 1826, but he says in February.

The law assumed that all those who practiced “like crafty science” were pretending. Hence, as I explained, Neely used “pretending” even when recording Smith’s and Stowell’s testimonies. Obviously, Neely wasn’t buying Smith’s argument and therefore notified two other justices for a Court of Special Sessions. Note that no one testified to Smith’s finding anything of value. It doesn’t matter if Stowell believed the treasures slipped away through the ground. At any rate, it is not good historical practice to give Purple’s version priority over the trial record and two well-informed earlier sources. Besides, Purple’s version doesn’t fit the charges both Neely and DeZeng listed of preparing for a Court of Special Sessions.

Link to comment

I assure you that it is a serious attempt to understand the historical sources.

It's kind of like proving your doctrinal point by quoting scripture. You can prove either side depending on what scriptures you choose to quote. Depends on bias.

Edited by ERayR
Link to comment

Glen,

Dan, There is only a purported trial record. We do not know how accurate that supposed transcript is, or even if it was a transcript. That there was some sort of record is not in dispute, but just exactly what the record was is not known, or if there had been any alterations in it.

You are just playing games when you refer to it as “purported”. No one can seriously doubt the authenticity of the published transcription. Yes, it’s a transcription, obviously, evidently made from Purple’s notes. There is no evidence that it was altered. The only reason you question it is because you don’t like what it says about Joseph Smith. Your statement is an argument from ignorance: we don’t know [whatever], therefore there is a possibility that [whatever you imagine]. I’m afraid historically speaking you are stuck with the documents as they are.

King's testimony is completely hearsay. He was not at the 1826 trial. You cannot just assume that A.W. Benton was at the trial. He does not in fact, make that claim. Of all of the people who have weighed in on this event, Dr. Purple is the only one to claim that he was at the proceeding.

Benton might have been there, but he doesn’t have to be to know the facts since he was at the first 1830 trial where JS pled statute of limitations, according to Noble. Wouldn’t Noble, before whom JS appeared in the second 1830 trial, have to know the facts of the previous trial in South Bainbridge as well as the original 1826 case? The same for Benton, who was likely the Benton JS mentioned as filing the warrant against him in the first 1830 trial. Calling it hearsay doesn’t automatically disqualify their accounts either. You have to admit that although hearsay, these men were in a good position to know what they were talking about. And they are supported by the trial record itself.

You say that if Purple had been using his notes that he would have at least got the date right. If Benton's recollection of the event were so good, maybe he should have been able to at least pinpoint the year, but his actual statement as recorded in 1831 says "This was four or five years ago." At least Purple got the year right, in 1877.

This argument is a red herring since it has nothing to do with your assertion that Purple was using notes in 1877, which you said was better than Benton or Noble using memory. Purple had no notes, so we are dealing with 50-year-old memory—which as it turns out differs from all the other evidence we have.

It is interesting that Isaac hale never mentioned any such conviction in his affadavit taken in 1834. It hardly seems likely that Isaac Hale would have been unaware of any conviction and subsequent banishment from the region, the "leg bail". I have not been able to find any record of just how long Joseph stayed in the area after the March 1826 proceedings. Dr. Purple said "a few weeks." All in all, though, there is no evidence of any hurried exit from the Bainbridge area, or fear of returning.

How would Hale know what happened three counties north? I think you missed the point I made about two arrests, that Constable DeZeng’s bill mentions that he went “10 miles with mittimus to take him” and return him to South Bainbridge. I suggested that an off-the-record agreement was made and that possibly JS as a non-resident was asked to stay away for 6 months. He could therefore return eight months later without fear of being arrested, that is, not until he claimed to translate the BOM by the same means as he hunted buried treasure.

It may be of note that Joseph and Emma were married by one Squire Tarble, who lived in South Bainbridge. Tarble was one of the four justices who resided in Chenango County at the time.

I guess you didn’t watch the whole video as I discuss this.

Your explanation that DeZeng bill for a mittimus and travel ten miles "to take him" is in response to Joseph taking illegal flight after being released upon his own recognizance is not very persuasive. It seems that the nineteen cent charge is for a pretrial confinement for lack of bail. Initially a warrant would have been issued for Joseph's arrest. Charge noted in DeZeng's bill. Constable brings Joseph before justice of the peace. Joseph cannot make bail. Justice issues a mittimus to incarcerate Joseph until date of examination. We do not have the actual mittimus itself, so we do not really know what it said, but there is a charge of 19 cents that De Zeng billed to "take him" to jail, and then the charge to hold him for two days and one night. That would coincide with Neely being the one to issue the mittimus.

Again, you missed my discussion. Madsen rejected Walters’ interpretation that “to take him” meant to jail since jail was 25 miles away. Madsen instead argues that “to take him” means arrest him. You still need to explain why a mittimus was issued but JS wasn’t taken to jail, and why two justices were notified for a Court of Special Session but not held.

If Neely had indeed found cause to bind Joseph over, it would have more than likely been for the next court of General Sessions. Neely would have to have issued a second mittimus for this. There is no record of a second mittimus.

I don’t believe a second mittimus was needed. Neely listed a “Recognizance 25 [cents],” evidently for JS, and “Recognizances 75 [cents]” for three witnesses to appear at the forthcoming Court of Special Sessions.

There seems to be no provision in the laws of New York of that period for a person not of the area to be released on their own recognizance. People arrested that were from out of town were required to post some type of surety for their appearance, or to be held until the next court session.

We don’t have the form of the recognizance so we don’t know the terms.

Even if DeZeng designedly allowed Joseph to escape and thus did not include in his bill that second mittimus, Neely's bill should have done so. It is hardly likely that another justice of the peace issued the warrant,

Second mittimus not needed.

It is apparent from the revised laws of New York of 1827 and 1828 that Neely probably would have concluded that a Court of Special Sessions would not have been appropriate for the misdeamor case that this turned out to be. I do not know how much the laws chnaged between 1826 and 1827, but the following are types of cases heard by Courts of Special Sessions after 1826.

The statute dealing with disorderly persons in the 1813 laws gave Neely authority to convict, but required that a Court of General Sessions review such cases, which I discussed. I also mentioned that the Court of Special Sessions had authority in misdemeanor cases, according to the same laws. Neely perhaps hesitated due to the unusual nature of JS’s case. Regardless, Neely recognized JS and three witnesses and had DeZeng notify two other justices. I think that’s very clear.

Whatever theories may abound about "guilty", condemnation, etc, it is clear that Joseph walked away a free man and was free to come and go as he pleased around that area afterwards, even to the point of going back there to get married by a local Justice of the Peace early the next year. Whatever conclusions about "leg bail", designedly allowed to escape, or being bound over for trial in any court does not square with the history of Joseph's movements in the ensuing weeks and months. No hue and cry for his recapture. Nothing from the plaintiff. Oh well, maybe next time. Maybe in the next thirty-six or so times. Maybe not.

Guilt or conviction doesn’t prove anything about the reality of his claims to see treasures with the same stone he translated the BOM with. I don’t care a fig about that. I just want the most accurate history as possible.

Any way, thanks for taking the time to respond. You brought up some interesting points. No one should think this is easy to work out.

Link to comment

Ray,

Some do quote historical sources like proof-texting the scriptures, but I hope you can distinguish that from those who try to use more reasoned and rigorous methodology.

I thought Glen did a pretty good job.

Link to comment

I remember receiving a letter from a excited Walters when he found the documents. I understand the county office was closed at the time and hedecided to take themk them away to show Mormon historian Dan Backman and I think to also to Yale University. Walters was told by the county to return the documents immediately. Some Mormons had accused him of stealing the documentsand possibly altering them. I thank Dan of informing us of changes in Walter's interpretations. Noone gets everything right all the time. What was Peter Bridgemans motive in bringing this against Smith. Family loyalty? Maybe he felt his Uncle in his opinion was getting fleeced of his money?

Link to comment

I guess you didn’t watch the whole video as I discuss this......Again, you missed my discussion.

Since you put so much weight on our responsibility to follow all of the details in your video, perhaps you should realize that you have the responsibility to create a transcript. Your complaints are rather hollow and you are adding an burden to our side of the discussion.

Link to comment

Ray,

I thought you were asserting that all historical analysis was the same, or an exercise in bias selection. My response was to that assertion generally, not an assessment of Glen's approach.

I was saying I thought Glen did a good job of pointing out the flaws in your approach to the topic.

Edited by ERayR
Link to comment

C. Dowis,

Since you put so much weight on our responsibility to follow all of the details in your video, perhaps you should realize that you have the responsibility to create a transcript. Your complaints are rather hollow and you are adding an burden to our side of the discussion.

These items weren’t details but complete topics that were missed, which made me wonder if Glen watched the whole thing. I’m holding on to a text of all my videos for future publication, although most have been published in earlier versions. You can read an earlier version of this video at

“Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision.” http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp

Link to comment

OK... to me, this whole 1826 trial thing is a tired, old, shriveled irrelevant argument, made much more boring by this video.

So...Glen101, ERayR, and cdowis... what, to you, is the fascination? I am curious not so much about the trial and all that but why it is interesting to you guys.

Link to comment

OK... to me, this whole 1826 trial thing is a tired, old, shriveled irrelevant argument, made much more boring by this video.

So...Glen101, ERayR, and cdowis... what, to you, is the fascination? I am curious not so much about the trial and all that but why it is interesting to you guys.

It gets trotted out over and over again and I feel the desire to respond to some of the points. I know, I know, I am obsessed. I should have just left it with the "nothing new here" comment. Do you know a good psychiatrist. The one I was using is no longer practicing.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
Link to comment

OK... to me, this whole 1826 trial thing is a tired, old, shriveled irrelevant argument, made much more boring by this video.

So...Glen101, ERayR, and cdowis... what, to you, is the fascination? I am curious not so much about the trial and all that but why it is interesting to you guys.

I guess it is a little fascinating that Vogal continues to repackage his stale, refuted claims and thinks he will catch everybody asleep so they will just role over and say your right.

Edited by ERayR
Link to comment

It gets trotted out over and over again and I feel the desire to respond to some of the points. I know, I know, I am obsessed. I should have just left it with the "nothing new here" comment. Do you know a good psychiatrist. The one I was using is no longer practicing.

Glenn

If you find one let me know.

Link to comment

It gets trotted out over and over again and I feel the desire to respond to some of the points. I know, I know, I am obsessed. I should have just left it with the "nothing new here" comment. Do you know a good psychiatrist. The one I was using is no longer practicing.

I wasn't being critical of your interest... I was wondering if there was something I was missing.

Link to comment
I assure you that it is a serious attempt to understand the historical sources.

Now there's a Tui Billboard moment.

The useful thing about a video, like a podcast, is that it can't be readily excerpted and doesn't have footnotes. IOW, it's ideal for propagating a POV, and has the added advantage of not making examination of its claims too easy.

If you really had confidence in the strength of your argument, I'm sure we'd see it in print.

Just so you know: the 1826 "trial" was a preliminary hearing, not a trial, and Joseph wasn't convicted, he was acquitted.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

C. Dowis,

These items weren’t details but complete topics that were missed, which made me wonder if Glen watched the whole thing. I’m holding on to a text of all my videos for future publication, although most have been published in earlier versions. You can read an earlier version of this video at

“Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision.” http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp

If you could supply a transcript as standard with more of your videos it would be really helpful. I'm not really much into videos and podcasts and much prefer to read peoples research. I'm still a little old fashioned like that.

I've tried to watch a few of your videos as you seem to do some interesting stuff. But it's just a little challenging to follow in video form.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...