Reluctant Polygamist: Preface

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

"Sometime last winter I became alarmed at my conduct and told him [Dr. Bennett] I did not wish his company any longer. He told me that the heads of the Church were conducting in that manner ^and specified Joseph’s name^ I think this happened last October. He said that Joseph taught and conducted in the above manner.

“He also was with Mrs. Shindle now living beyond Ramus and also with the two Miss Nymans...”

Why don't you include Melissa Schindle's affidavit where she states that Joseph Smith also wanted to have "illicit intercourse" with her?  If you are a thorough historian and journalist, you should include all documents even when they don't support your theories.

Here is her affidavit:

Quote

 

From the July 15, 1842 edition of the Sangamo Journal. (State of Illinois, ss. McDonough County.)

Personally appeared before me, Abraham Fulkerson, one of the Justices of the Peace in and for said county, Melissa Schindle, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that in the fall of 1841, she was staying one night with the widow Fuller, who has recently been married to a Mr. Warren, in the city of Nauvoo, and that Joseph Smith came into the room where she was sleeping about 10 o'clock at night, and after making a few remarks came to her bed-side, and asked her if he could have the privilege of sleeping with her. She immediately replied NO. He, on the receipt of the above answer told her it was the will of the Lord that he should have illicit intercourse with her, and that he never proceeded to do any thing of that kind with any woman without first having the will of the Lord on the subject; and further he told her that if she would consent to let him have such intercourse with her, she could make his house her home as long as she wished to do so, and that she should never want for anything it was in his power to assist her to -- but she would not consent to it. He then told her that if she would let him sleep with her that night he would give her five dollars -- but she refused all his propositions. He then told her that she must never tell of his propositions to her, for he had ALL influence in that place, and if she told he would ruin her character, and she would be under the necessity of leaving. He then went to an adjoining bed where the Widow ____ was sleeping -- got into bed with her and laid there until about 1 o'clock, when he got up, bid them good night, and left them, and further this deponent saith not.

MELISSA (her X mark) SCHINDLE. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2d day July, 1842. A. FULKERSON, J. P. (seal).

 

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Why don't you include Melissa Schindle's affidavit where she states that Joseph Smith also wanted to have "illicit intercourse" with her?  If you are a thorough historian and journalist, you should include all documents even when they don't support your theories.

If Melissa Schindle's affidavit isn't credible, why should it be included? Thorough historians don't use documents that are wholly unreliable.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

If Melissa Schindle's affidavit isn't credible, why should it be included? Thorough historians don't use documents that are wholly unreliable.

It's a legal affidavit sworn in front of and signed by an Illinois justice of the peace (in 1842). I wouldn't classify that as "wholly unreliable".  It's as credible as much of the evidence that Meg has used for her theories. That's all that I was pointing out.  We can question many sources or come up with reasons to distrust them, but they still exist. If you have nothing more than what Hales has to try to discredit Schindle, it's not convincing (for me at least, as Hales basically just states that no man would be allowed to do this in Nauvoo in 1841 and that it seems out of character for Joseph Smith along with saying that Schindle must have been illiterate).

It just seems awfully convenient to only believe the statements that support a person's theories and then to state that conflicting statements are lies or that the women involved were lying.  

Bennett is not the only one who was accused of improprieties or of possibly practicing spiritual wifery as shown by Joseph's own brother's statement (Don Carlos).

There was a great deal of confusion, secrecy and conflicting statements made regarding how polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo.  A serious historian would include all documents for discussion, IMO, when attempting to present a case against a specific woman.

The threat Melissa refers to in the affidavit did happen too ("He then told her that she must never tell of his propositions to her, for he had ALL influence in that place, and if she told he would ruin her character",  She was called a "harlot" in the Nauvoo Wasp a week after the affidavit was made public: "Who is Mrs. Shindle?  A harlot." 

I'm not saying I believe every statement that every person made, but selective use of available statements and sources is not good journalism.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LDS/wasp1.htm

.

Edited June 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

It's a legal affidavit sworn in front of and signed by an Illinois justice of the peace (in 1842). I wouldn't classify that as "wholly unreliable".

I don't know of a single serious historian that credits Melissa Schindle's story that "Joseph Smith came into the room where she was sleeping about 10 o'clock at night, and after making a few remarks came to her bed-side, and asked her if he could have the privilege of sleeping with her." Just saying.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I don't know of a single serious historian that credits Melissa Schindle's story that "Joseph Smith came into the room where she was sleeping about 10 o'clock at night, and after making a few remarks came to her bed-side, and asked her if he could have the privilege of sleeping with her." Just saying.

Do you have sources disputing the statement from serious historians (other than Hales's statements which again, I do not find convincing).

Do you believe that Melissa was lying?  Or do you believe that the justice of the peace did not record her statement correctly?  I'm Just trying to figure out who you believe was not being truthful here (and I'm not saying I believe what's in her affidavit.  However, I do believe it is a piece of evidence available to us when trying to piece together what may have been going on in Nauvoo.)

Do you agree with Meg's theories regarding Bennett and his Strikers?  Just curious....

Edited to add:

Nevo, let me be clear, I do not consider myself to be a "serious historian"....not by a long shot.  I do however, consider you to be one and enjoy reading your posts.  I don't always agree with what you conclude, but I respect your opinion.  I had not read Schindle's affidavit before now (just found it searching for info on her after reading one of Meg's posts), so I would like to know if you have anything to dispute it other than what Hale's writes.  I agree that it sounds extreme and like I said, I'm not saying that I believe it's all true.  I do think it should at least be a part of the discussion regarding Schindle, though.

 

 

.

Edited June 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

If you are using older tech, it may not edit even after refreshing the page. I can't edit a lot on my ipad, but can on my phone (unfortunately too hard to read and respond on that).

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you have sources disputing the statement from serious historians (other than Hales's statements which again, I do not find convincing).

No, I don't. But I find it telling that Melissa Schindle's name doesn't even appear in, say: 

• Martha Bradley-Evans, Glorious in Persecution: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1839–1844 (2016)
• Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (1971)
• Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005)
• Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (1997)
• Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (1981)
• Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. (1994)
• George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "But We Called It Celestial Marriage" (2008)
• Merina Smith, Revelation, Resitance and Mormon Polygamy: The Introduction and Implementation of the Principle, 1830–1853 (2013)
• Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd ed. (1989)

All of these books discuss Joseph Smith's polygamy at length, yet not one of them cites the Schindle affidavit.

Quote

Do you believe that Melissa was lying?  Or do you believe that the justice of the peace did not record her statement correctly?  I'm Just trying to figure out who you believe was not being truthful here (and I'm not saying I believe what's in her affidavit.  However, I do believe it is a piece of evidence available to us when trying to piece together what may have been going on in Nauvoo.)

If Melissa Schindle made the statement attributed to her, then, yes, I believe she was lying. I don't find it remotely credible that Joseph Smith tried to seduce her at Catherine Warren's house and, when she refused, offered her $5 to change her mind (and then climbed into bed with Catherine Warren afterward).

Quote

Do you agree with Meg's theories regarding Bennett and his Strikers?  Just curious....

I don't know exactly what Meg's theories are—I haven't got that far into her book—but I do agree that Bennett and his circle were practicing their own version of polygamy and that it posed a serious threat to Joseph Smith's program. As Gary Bergera writes: "By April 1842, Bennett had attracted a small, loosely knit group of disciples, anxious to learn—and practice—what they believed, based on Bennett's assurances, was Smith's doctrine of 'secret wives.' (Bennett positioned himself as the prophet's agent in expounding his higher teachings.) This circle of mostly young men and women included Darwin Chase, Mary Clift, Lysander Davis, Chauncey Higbee, Gustavus Hills, Lyman Littlefield, Joel Miles, Sarah Miller, Justus Morse, sisters Margaret and Matilda Nyman, William Smith, George Thatcher, and Catherine Warren" (Gary James Bergera, "John C. Bennett, Joseph Smith, and the Beginnings of Mormon Plural Marriage in Nauvoo," John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 25 [2005]: 76–77).

Edited June 25, 2016 by Nevo

[Calm]

If your core thesis is simply that Joseph was commanded to institute plural marriage with the intent of establishing a celestial family structure here on earth, there is nothing controversial about that or that the results were confusing because family can be messy.  Iirc, Bushman discusses in Rough Stone Rolling the premise of Joseph trying to recreate a celestial version of life on earth (though Bushman leaves the question of God's actual involvement open in keeping with the rest of his book).

I don't see the need to bring in the claims of specific women being seduced by Bennett's group or Emma and Joseph running their own behind the scenes investigation ring.  And neither of those claims actually supports your core thesis if I understand it correctly.

I thi k you need to either flesh out what your core thesis is or rethink how you go about exploring it.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

 I do agree that Bennett and his circle were practicing their own version of polygamy and that it posed a serious threat to Joseph Smith's program.

There is not really anything controversial or new about this idea, is there?

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

No, I don't. But I find it telling that Melissa Schindle's name doesn't even appear in, say: 

• Martha Bradley-Evans, Glorious in Persecution: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1839–1844 (2016)
• Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (1971)
• Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005)
• Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (1997)
• Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (1981)
• Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. (1994)
• George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "But We Called It Celestial Marriage" (2008)
• Merina Smith, Revelation, Resitance and Mormon Polygamy: The Introduction and Implementation of the Principle, 1830–1853 (2013)
• Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd ed. (1989)

All of these books discuss Joseph Smith's polygamy at length, yet not one of them cites the Schindle affidavit.

Thanks, Nevo, for the information.  But, how many of these authors even mention Schindle in their books?  (I only have a few of them above and I can see no mention of her in them). My point is that if Meg is going to use Schindle in her theories, she should include the affidavit if she's going to be thorough.  It is a recorded legal document and a sworn statement that she made to a justice of the peace.  Meg can dispute it (by claiming Schindle must be lying and had motives for doing so as she's done with others), but she should include it, IMO.

 

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

I don't know exactly what Meg's theories are—I haven't got that far into her book—but I do agree that Bennett and his circle were practicing their own version of polygamy and that it posed a serious threat to Joseph Smith's program. As Gary Bergera writes: "By April 1842, Bennett had attracted a small, loosely knit group of disciples, anxious to learn—and practice—what they believed, based on Bennett's assurances, was Smith's doctrine of 'secret wives.' (Bennett positioned himself as the prophet's agent in expounding his higher teachings.) This circle of mostly young men and women included Darwin Chase, Mary Clift, Lysander Davis, Chauncey Higbee, Gustavus Hills, Lyman Littlefield, Joel Miles, Sarah Miller, Justus Morse, sisters Margaret and Matilda Nyman, William Smith, George Thatcher, and Catherine Warren" (Gary James Bergera, "John C. Bennett, Joseph Smith, and the Beginnings of Mormon Plural Marriage in Nauvoo," John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 25 [2005]: 76–77)

I'm glad you're reading Meg's book.  I definitely agree with your statement above (that I put in bold).   I hope you'll post a review when you're finished.

.

Edited June 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Rain]

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Meg Stout said:

By the way, tried to edit the above to add Don Carlos' death date (September 1841), but I am asked to give a reason (fine) and when I click save nothing happens. Not sure which end the technical difficult is on, but please forgive me for uncorrected grammar errors.

Giving the reason is optional. Try to do it without giving the reaon to see if it is a glitch. When you add the date you can also add "ETA:" (edited to add) if you want.

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

It's a legal affidavit sworn in front of and signed by an Illinois justice of the peace (in 1842). I wouldn't classify that as "wholly unreliable".  It's as credible as much of the evidence that Meg has used for her theories. That's all that I was pointing out.  We can question many sources or come up with reasons to distrust them, but they still exist. If you have nothing more than what Hales has to try to discredit Schindle, it's not convincing (for me at least, as Hales basically just states that no man would be allowed to do this in Nauvoo in 1841 and that it seems out of character for Joseph Smith along with saying that Schindle must have been illiterate).

.

The fact that an affidavit has been sworn and notarized and is a legal document establishes nothing of the credibility of the affiant. There were many people who were willing to sign affidavits alleging this or that impropriety against Joseph Smith during his life time. W. W. Phelps, was one, who later recanted. Philastus Hurlbut was able to find many people that would sign affidavits attesting that Joseph was "lazy" along with the whole Smith family, but the objective and anecdotal evidence describes an industrious Joseph Smith and family?

So, just how reliable is Melissa Schindle? This affidavit was prompted by Chauncy Higbee, one of the people involved in John Bennett's "spiritual wifery" clique, against a charge of slander against Joseph Smith. The trial never came to place as Joseph was forced into hiding because of efforts to have him extradited to Missouri, thus the reliability of the witnesses were never able to be examined.

However if Melissa Schindle was the woman identified as "Mrs. Shindle" by Catherine Laur Fuller in her testimony, she was a participant in the illicit affairs, and this during the time that she was supposed to have been propositioned by Joseph at the widow's home and saw him get in bed with the widow. Catherine Fuller did not corroborate that her testimony.

Again, how reliable is Melissa Schindle???

 

Glenn

[Rain]

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 7:24 AM, ALarson said:

Why don't you include Melissa Schindle's affidavit where she states that Joseph Smith also wanted to have "illicit intercourse" with her?  If you are a thorough historian and journalist, you should include all documents even when they don't support your theories.

Here is her affidavit:

 

This looks like an article from a law journal. Is it? Or is it an actually from court? (Writing this I realize I am realize my knowledge of what an affidavit is, is an assumption. I don't have training or experience in law or history). 

If it is just an article do we have the actual legal papers in her own words or just the justice of the peace? 

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The fact that an affidavit has been sworn and notarized and is a legal document establishes nothing of the credibility of the affiant.

I haven't made this claim.  Read what I wrote carefully.

I was just stating that if Meg chooses to use Schindle to support one of her theories (where most historians don't even mention her), she should include statements made by Schindle and documents available.  Meg can dispute the statements (as she has with others), but I think a sworn statement made before a justice of the peace should be mentioned when Meg chooses to include Schindle in her book.  

Quote

This affidavit was prompted by Chauncy Higbee, one of the people involved in John Bennett's "spiritual wifery" clique, against a charge of slander against Joseph Smith

Do you have a source stating this?   Thanks (I didn't see that in any of the reading I did regarding this).

Edited June 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

If it is just an article do we have the actual legal papers in her own words or just the justice of the peace? 

It is an affidavit that a justice of the peace recorded and signed stating that Schindle had made this statement in front of them (she signs it with an "x", so I'm assuming she needed the justice of the peace for county to write it for her).  But he states that she appeared before him and he signed it, "Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2d day July, 1842. A. FULKERSON, J. P. (seal)".  It is a legal document as far as I can tell (an affidavit).  

Again, I think there are problems with it (her statement).  But, Meg uses Schindle in one of her theories, so I believe it should at least be included in the footnotes.  I don't want to derail this thread, it was just a question I asked Meg when looking into some of the names of the women she discusses in her book.

.

.

Edited June 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It is an affidavit that a justice of the peace recorded and signed stating that Schindle had made this statement in front of them (she signs it with an "x", so I'm assuming she needed the justice of the peace for county to write it for her).  But he states that she appeared before him and signed it, "Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2d day July, 1842. A. FULKERSON, J. P. (seal)".   .  

Again, I think there are problems with it.  But, Meg uses Schindle in one of her theories, so I believe it should at least be included in the footnotes.  

.

Thanks. I'm not asking in reference to whether Meg should use it.  I'm asking for my own knowledge. 

So on TV shows people typically write down and sign these (and now I remember doing this way back when I was in my early teens though I can only remember it concerned some family in a house nearby). If the person can't write it on their own is it typically not done in first person form or not typically done in first person form at the time (1842) - is it unusual not to have it in her own words?

Edited June 26, 2016 by Rain

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Thanks. I'm not asking in reference to whether Meg should use it.  I'm asking for my own knowledge. 

So on TV shows people typically write down and sign these (and now I remember doing this way back when I was in my early teens though I can only remember it concerned some family in a house nearby). If the person can't write it on their own is it typically not done in first person form or not typically done in first person form at the time (1842) - is it unusual not to have it in her own words?

Good question and I don't know (maybe an attorney on here can answer it).  This affidavit was written by the justice of the peace stating:

Quote

"  Melissa Schindle, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith..."

Then, she signs it with an "X" and Fulkerson (the justice of the peace) puts his seal on it (that her statement made "before" him):

Quote

MELISSA (her X mark) SCHINDLE. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2d day July, 1842. A. FULKERSON, J. P. (seal).

 

So, to me it looks like Melissa was her statement under oath (duly sworn) before Fulkerson and he recorded it and signed it (or at least put his name and seal on it).  I agree with Nevo that if there were lies told, they came from Melissa, not from Fulkerson.

.

Edited June 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't made this claim.  Read what I wrote carefully.

I was just stating that if Meg chooses to use Schindle to support one of her theories (where most historians don't even mention her), she should include statements made by Schindle and documents available.  Meg can dispute the statements (as she has with others), but I think a sworn statement made before a justice of the peace should be mentioned when Meg chooses to include Schindle in her book.  

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed to be implied. But here we can question each other and clarify what we mean. Unfortunately we do not have the option with people who are dead and gone.

I do not see how the Schindle affidavit is relevant to the mention of Schindle in Meg's book. Her name only comes up in connection with Catherine Laur Fuller's testimony that a "Mrs. Shindle" was one of the participants in the "spiritual wifery" affair.

Edited to add: After doing a bit of checking, it seems that the Schindle affidavit was published in the Sangamo Journal in July of 1842 as part of the smear campaign by Bennett against Joseph, accusing Joseph of doing the very things that they had been doing. I stated in an earlier post that the affidavit was in conjunction with a slander lawsuit brought by Joseph against Chauncy Higbee.

Glenn

 

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by Glenn101
clarifications

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed to be implied. But here we can question each other and clarify what we mean. Unfortunately we do not have the option with people who are dead and gone.

I do not see how the Schindle affidavit is relevant to the mention of Schindle in Meg's book. Her name only comes up in connection with Catherine Laur Fuller's testimony as one of the participants in the "spiritual wifery" affair.

I disagree on that, as I believe the other widow mentioned in Schindle's affidavit is Catherine Fuller (at least that's what some state).

Also, do you have that source supporting what you wrote above?   You stated:

Quote

This affidavit was prompted by Chauncy Higbee, one of the people involved in John Bennett's "spiritual wifery" clique, against a charge of slander against Joseph Smith

 

[Glenn101]

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree on that, as I believe the other widow mentioned in Schindle's affidavit is Catherine Fuller (at least that's what some state).

Also, do you have that source supporting what you wrote above?   You stated:

 

Okay, I think I see your point. Meg did talk about the attacks on Joseph in the Sangamo Journal by Bennett, but she did not mention the Schindle affidavit.

I do think that the "Mrs Shindle" that Catherine Laur Fuller identifies is most probably Melissa Schindler. The two affidavits seem to dovetail on that point. But there is no corroboration from Catherine Fuller concerning about Joseph.

Also, I have noted in an earlier post that the Schindle's affidavit was not in connection with the slander suit brought by Joseph against Chauncey Higbee but rather part if the smear campaign against Joseph by John C. Bennett as posted in a July edition of the Sangamo Journal.

Glenn

Edited June 26, 2016 by Glenn101

[Calm]

From MegS's own published standard earlier in the thread and in her book:

"Don’t dismiss counter-evidence without scholarly consideration"

I am thinking that what bothers A Larson is that in this case we see none of the "scholarly consideration" in play so have no clue if counter evidence was seriously considered.

[juliann]

Using sources only when they support the writer's thesis is commonplace, of course. But it may be particularly bad in the study of polygamy. I was clued into this by reading the exchanges between Quinn and Hales. Both were pointing out instances of each other doing just that. Since I do have Hales' three volumes, I checked and sure enough....he used William Law on one page affirmatively and on the next page, rejected one of his quotes as unreliable. But he acknowledged the quote. I disagree with many of Hale's conclusions but he has always, to my knowledge, not avoided the negative...although I don't think he always presents adequate evidence to dismiss it. 

I think it is quite reasonable that a particular witness would be honest at one point and lying through their teeth at another, particularly in an era where yellow journalism was acceptable. The problem is when a writer chooses one statement over another without ample corroborating evidence. We are in a culture that will invalidate all testimony if part is deemed untruthful (unless it is a politician, of course.) So if anyone is ever going to use a witness deemed unreliable they better have back-up for what they do use.

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you have a source stating this?   Thanks (I didn't see that in any of the reading I did regarding this).

"Mrs Warren is a woman of ordinary intellect, and not particularly attractive in person, though far from being ugly. She is, however, very licentious. In the fall of 1841, I saw her and Joe, the Prophet, in bed together. . . . This was at the time alluded to by Mrs. Schindle, wife of Colonel George Schindle, in her affidavit, procured by that indefatigable officer, Colonel Chauncey L. Higbee." 

— John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints; Or, an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842), 253.
 

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

"Mrs Warren is a woman of ordinary intellect, and not particularly attractive in person, though far from being ugly. She is, however, very licentious. In the fall of 1841, I saw her and Joe, the Prophet, in bed together. . . . This was at the time alluded to by Mrs. Schindle, wife of Colonel George Schindle, in her affidavit, procured by that indefatigable officer, Colonel Chauncey L. Higbee." 

— John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints; Or, an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842), 253.
 

Oh....so if John C. Bennett said it, it must be true 

Do you also believe what he stated about Joseph Smith?

If he's the only source and if Glenn has no other to support his claim, that's pretty weak, IMO.  I'm not too trusting of most (all?) of what John C. Bennett stated.

.

Edited June 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Nevo]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh....so if John C. Bennett said it, it must be true 

Do you also believe what he stated about Joseph Smith?

If he's the only source and if Glenn has no other to support his claim, that's pretty weak, IMO.  I'm not too trusting of most (all?) of what John C. Bennett stated.

No, I don't believe what he said about Joseph Smith (that he saw him in bed with Catherine Warren) but I do believe him when he says that Chauncey Higbee procured Melissa Schindle's affidavit. Higbee may even have helped draft the statement.