Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A Surprising End For SA Lester Kindell-- And The Rest Of The B&C Poll Answers

It's that time again-- time for the latest B&C Poll answers. This seemed an eclectic batch of questions, capped off with what is likely new info for almost everyone-- regarding Bureau SA Lester Kindell.

Most people knew it was Weber Wilson's car, that Buck and W. D. ran into, just prior to the gun battle where H. D. Humphrey was killed. The damning evidence Sheriff Maxey had linking Clyde and Buck to the rape and beating of Mrs. Harry Rogers, were 2 eyewitness accounts-- including one by Mrs. Rogers herself. Most curiously, Maxey cleared Clyde, thinking he didn't have time to have committed the Rogers crime-- as Clyde was witnessed paying a Dr. to examine Bonnie in Ft. Smith, at the same time Maxey believed the Rogers rape to have occurred. However, a careful analysis of the timing of the Dr's testimony, perhaps contradicts Maxey's logic. Anyway-- after The Barrow Gang including W. D. Jones exit the Ft. Smith area, Sheriff Maxey apparently had the real Hubert Bleigh in custody, and tried to pin the rape and beating of Mrs. Rogers on him. But as none of the witnesses seemingly could ID Bleigh, although the resolution of this action by Maxey is unclear-- it doesn't appear Bleigh could be implicated by Maxey-- in substituting him for Clyde. Those who have the Dallas FBI Files, will note the similarity between W. D. Jones and Hubert Bleigh-- who's mug shot appears near the end of the file.

As reported in a newspaper-- a cigar butt with small teeth marks, was the piece of physical evidence said to have been found, linking Bonnie to the Grapevine murders. According to Jim Knight, Mary O'Dare was thought to have run with The Barrow Gang for about 3 weeks. The 1st 2 way police radio was credited to Constable Frederick William Downie of the Victoria Police in Austrailia. The year of this first successful attempt at 2 way police communication, was 1923. The distinction of the first operational 2 way police radios in America, goes to the Bayonne, New Jersey Police Dept.-- who used them in 1933. So 2 way police radios "were" a reality during the time of B&C-- but not in the Southwestern U.S. Getting back to Jim Knight's research-- it took 4 days for Bonnie to receive medical treatment after the Wellington crash.

And finally the question I'm sure most are interested in. Not many know of this one, and I've never seen it published-- so this could be the first en mass release of this Lester Kindell info. According to FBI Historian Dr. John Fox-- Lester Kindell was said to have become involved with the wife of the New Orleans District Attorney, and was forced out of the Bureau in 1935-- just 1 year after his heroic work in helping to apprehend B&C. Kindell's inauspicious and early departure from the U.S. Bureau Of Investigation, may have much to do-- with information on him being so hard to come by. Little seems known, regarding what happened to Kindell after his New Orleans law enforcement years. Tres Amigos are on the hunt, for additional information regarding Bureau Special Agent Lester Kindell. So stayed tuned. Thanks as always, for your participation in the B&C Polls. Please look for new B&C Polls to be posted soon.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

hey winston, in regard to your Qestion of ""how long was mary odare with clyde and bonnie?" i know the real answer! TOO LONG!! yours truly, clyde c. barrow.

Shelley said...

You said it right, Clyde!

The infamous "washerwoman" was most definitely persona non grata amongst the Barrows. Initially tolerated by them at Raymond's request, they soon learned this was a huge mistake. She was an instigator, a drug abuser, a prostitute, and worst of all...a RAT!

Though they wisely kicked both their arses to the curb, soon they had someone else, even more diabolical to deal with -- and the rest, as they say, is history.

Anonymous said...

hello winston, the more info on mr kindell, the better. thank you!

Anonymous said...

Who was even more "diabolical"?

Anonymous said...

can anyone be a lawman and NOT be diabolical? they would have had to have been, or most of these men & women would never been caught. (or it would have took longer at the least) folks, one must understand, if not for the fed's, B&C would not have been took, the way & when it happened.

Anonymous said...

1. Of, concerning, or characteristic of the devil; satanic.
2. Appropriate to a devil, especially in degree of wickedness or cruelty.


No, I do not feel most lawmen are 'diabolical'

Hamer would have killed B&C with or without the Feds. The Feds could have never stopped B&C without Hamer.

A. Winston Woodward said...

I'm not sure it could be said that in the 1930's, lawmen were any more or less diabolical, than the criminals they pursued. There are other definitions for diabolical-- ie: diabolical - showing the cunning or ingenuity or wickedness typical of a devil; "devilish schemes"; "the cold calculation and diabolic art of some statesmen"; "the diabolical expression on his face"; "a mephistophelian glint in his eye"

Unlike today, in the '30's-- the lines between good & bad and right & wrong seemed much more blurred. And that certainly seemed true with the law, and the tactics used in dealing with the criminal element. All seemed fair game in love and crime stopping. Except within an extreme situation-- it seemed the higher ups could be persuaded to condone, or would outright encourage-- what today would be considered illegality, in order to end criminal activities.

When the head of the Texas prison system in Lee Simmons, is said to have told Hamer-- to find B&C and then shoot everyone in sight-- well that just about says it all, doesn't it?? The whole idea of a deadly ambush carried out by a 6 man posse, speaks to a more primitive reality from the Wild West. But in reality, things in the '30s "were" closer to the Wild West-- both in a proximity of years and mentality, than is true today.

That's why I always say, in considering this or any history-- you "must" consider the times, morals and sociologically accepted standards of the times being discussed. It's not right to consider aspects of morally acceptable behavior today-- and attempt to admonish people that lived in the 1930s-- who had no choice, but to be guided by moral compasses-- based on a different set of values.

Diabolical as a term used to described both the law and criminals in the '30s?? I don't see why not. Some I'm sure would attempt to describe lawmen today in a similar way. Perhaps in some instances that is true, but in most cases I would think not. There are too many laws now, to impede their carrying out the form of justice that existed decades ago. Lawmen today who would long for that kind of freedom, in doing whatever it takes to end crime-- well they were born too late. They should have been around in the '30s-- when it was acceptable to get together and plot an assassination-- carry it out in the open covered by the press-- and have their actions supported by their governments.

What a thoroughly different age it is today.

Shelley said...

I was reading an interview awhile ago with Johnny Depp. In it, he was asked questions about his new movie, "Public Enemies" - and his take on John Dillinger.

One of the questions asked was "What do you admire about him?". I really like Depp's answer:

"I admire him for being a common man who stood up against the establishment and for what he believed in". -- YES!!!!

I think this assessment could just as easily apply to Clyde Barrow. Although an outlaw, Clyde lived by an unwavering code of honor; a code that placed loyalty high on the list. In my opinion, he had more guts and integrity than many (if not most) of the lawmen who sought to bring him to "justice".

This WAS a different era, and the Old West mentality still prevailed. Clyde was unfortunately a product of an unjust system, and he rebelled against it.

t o m said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Clyde couldn't hold on to a job because the Dallas police always harassed him at work until he was fired. Clyde couldn't work and was so poor - he was forced into a life of crime. The laws finally got their way and put poor Clyde in Eastham prison; where he was abused by the guards and other inmates. After Eastham, he had no choice but to continue his criminal ways. Clyde was forced to kill when he was backed into a corner. Clyde hated killing , but had no choice. It was either kill or go back to prison. The laws chased him all over and never let him have a moments' peace. All Bonnie and Clyde wanted was to be left alone. They were ratted out by someone they trusted. If they hadn't been ratted out like that, they could have lived happily ever after and raised a family. That Hammer guy was jealous of Clyde's headlines in the papers and came out of retirement to put a stop to poor Clyde and Bonnie. Hammer and the other lawmens hid in the bushes and murdered Clyde and Bonnie without even giving them a chance. The lawmen then took what they wanted out of the car and Bonnie and Clyde's pockets. Clyde had worked hard stealing that money and would have wanted his family to have it. Clyde is a modern day Robin Hood who stole only from rich people and gave the all of the money to poor people. Hammer and the other laws should have been hung for treating Clyde so unfairly. The police and society are to blame for any wrongs Clyde may have done. Bonnie and Clyde never had a choice.

A. Winston Woodward said...

I cannot agree with so much of this last openly pro B&C comment. To me, a thoroughly skewed view of Clyde and Bonnie, portrayed as only being victims. I would politely suggest more objective reading, and a clearer more balanced realization-- that B&C History was indeed quite different, than this opinion.

Anonymous said...

You are uninformed and unenlightened if you disagree!! I suggest you get with the program quick!!

A. Winston Woodward said...

That's strange-- I feel I'm informed and pretty well enlightened. Perhaps I don't fit the mold??

It's really not good enough historically, to spout off concerning a blatantly one sided point of view, without possessing the facts in order to advance those views. As I've often stated, there are the extremist B&C lover and B&C hater views-- which not surprisingly, both contain narrowly drawn and often wrong assumptions. Then there's the more balanced centrist view, which in fairness to both polarizing arguments-- can support some elements of each, but certainly based on a "reality" which did exist-- cannot accept all key points of either cause as being true.

One thing I've learned about B&C History-- there's rarely a dull moment, in discussing these outlaws.

Anonymous said...

Well, I have been a devote follower of Bonnie and Clyde for over 40 years!! You are just a newbie newcomer to the scene! I have seen the 1967 movie 1,246 times!! even though the movie is flawed!

Anonymous said...

every book on my shelves, every picture on my walls, everything in my house has something to do with Bonnie & Clyde. My whole life revolves around Bonnie and Clyde. The highlite of my year is going to the Bonnie & Clyde Festival. I think about them every moment that I am awake and dream about them when I sleep. Therefore, my opinions about the heroic duo are facts that can not be disputed.

Anonymous said...

i'm sorry but these last few posts to me seem like someone mocking bonnie & clyde, not someone who idolizes them. i have never, ever, met anyone who admires clyde barrow ( in a strange sort of way ) like i do. but, i dont spend every waking hour of the day thinking about him and bonnie. and i find it hard to beleive that the previous poster is serious. if bonnie and clyde are the main reason for you to get up every morning, may i suggest something else to make life more happy for you? read a little more about mr john dillinger, charles pretty-boy floyd, the late great barker brothers, and some of our other "public enemies". you will enjoy life even more. remember the new icon that is sweeping america? W.W.C.D.? "what would clyde do?" good luck to you dear madam, or sir.

Anonymous said...

looks as if someone is illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Anonymous said...

ABSOLUTLY! sometimes people understand things better when you get on the same mentality level they are on. as it would seem to me that some people seem to always make a point to be absurd just for the sake of "stirring the pot" so to speak. in other words my dear sir, or madam, make a silly remark, and you get a silly answer.

Anonymous said...

I've heard every single one of those remarks made in a serious manner at different times. They do sound ridiculous and absurd; especially when strung together one after the other. Ha