For those of you interested in the Not Innocentstory, I recommend starting at the beginning. The posts are displayed on the page in “most recent first” order. If you start reading at the top of the page, you’ll be reading the story backwards. To read the story in proper sequence, start here:
Not to go beyond the leaves on the proverbial limb, but as a final (for now) proposal for “restructuring government,” if we really wanted to go crazy:
The Co-Presidents Amendment
The President shall be replaced with 3 co-presidents, one elected every two years, for a single 6-year term each, along with a new Vice-President that serves for only two years unless promoted to the Junior President position during their two year term. The longest seated is the Senior President, the next longest seated is the Mid-President, and the newest seated is the Junior President. All actions, executive orders, and other core duties of the office of President shall require the agreement of all three co-Presidents.
If the Senior President retires, dies, or otherwise becomes incapable of fulling the duties of office, the Mid-President shall assume the position of Senior President, the Junior President shall assume the position of Mid-President, and the Vice-President shall assume the position of Junior President. No replacement Vice-President shall be appointed. If this happens more than once in a 2-year cycle, then the usual constitutional order of succession shall be used to fill the position of Junior President until the next 2-year election.
No person shall serve more than 6 years total in any position of President. Should any person in the line of succession be beyond that limitation, then they shall be skipped in the line of succession. Should any person exceed the 6-year limit while in the position of Junior or Mid-President, they shall retire at the end of that two year cycle and the standard order of succession shall be applied, under all circumstances. No emergency or other argument shall allow a President to serve beyond the end of the 2-year cycle in which they have completed their 6-year limit.
A President, in too many ways, is just a baby, wannabe king. It was the first baby-step away from Kingships, but the Founders still had the view that a strong nation required a single strong leader. The problem with that is that a single “strong leader” can too easily abuse the system. They rightly recognized that power needed to be split between “co-equal branches” to prevent a run-away dictatorship. What they didn’t foresee (or, rather, didn’t provide for or protect against) was a run-away one-party situation where one party controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches, and the members of the Legislative branch meekly went along with the Executive taking a wrecking ball to the East Wing …er… the government. There are other possible solutions to that situation, but the above is one off-the-sleeve idea to blunt the edge of that possibility (from happening again).
The above is not really a serious possibility, nor even necessarily the best possibility, but it’s food for thought. There are many ‘what-ifs’ and scenarios that would need to be addressed when dealing with a co-Presidential office, but nothing insurmountable. I was tempted to stipulate, for example, that only a man could be elected for the first 2-year cycle, then only a woman could be elected for the next 2-year cycle, then alternating with every 2-year cycle. It’s fun to let loose the dogs of imagination.
Next, we’ll dive into more fertile fields with Power, Immunity, and Benefits – Limits & Guarantees, for which I currently have 16 entries. By the time we get through all of those, there may be 17, 18, 19… 🙂
This one is a little less ‘flashy’, but is no less important to the sense of the United States as a Democracy (yes, a capital ‘D’). All residents of a Democracy should be treated with respect and equal rights and protections. The U.S. rules over a number of Territories and the District of Columbia, yet residents of those areas are not treated equally to residents of the States.
The Territories and Districts Amendment
Any District or Territory of the United States, with a population no less than the least populous State, may become a State by a majority vote of the District or Territory and approval of Congress or a National Referendum.
Any District or Territory of the United States, with a population less than the least populous State, may become part of an existing State by a majority vote of the District or Territory, a majority vote of the State, and approval of Congress or a National Referendum.
Beginning with the next Congress:
All Districts and Territories of the United States, with a population no less than the least populous State, shall be treated as a State for all purposes, including but not limited to full rights of representation in Congress, citizenship, rights, and responsibilities.
All Districts and Territories of the United States, with a population less than the least populous State, shall be treated as one single State for all purposes, excluding the test for least populous State, and including but not limited to full rights of representation in Congress, citizenship, rights, and responsibilities.
Considering the preceding descriptions of districts, territories, and groups of districts and territories as being treated as states:
The total number of Representatives will be 435.
The total number of Senators will be twice the number of states and group states.
All states and group states will have a minimum of one Representative and one Senator.
The remaining seats for Representatives and Senators both shall be distributed as previously done for Representatives by relative populations.
All Representatives and Senators shall have equal rights, privileges, benefits, and duties, regardless of whether they represent a State, District, Territory, or group of Districts and Territories.
The decennial census shall count all residents of each state, territory, and district, whether citizens or not, and those full counts shall be used for purposes of allocating Representatives and Senators.
The District of Columbia has a population greater than Vermont and Wyoming, and almost as great as Alaska and North Dakota, yet has no representation in Congress. Puerto Rico has voted 4 times to become a state, but the Senate has refused to vote on adding them to the U.S. as a State. Puerto Rico has no representation in Congress, and has a population greater than EIGHTEEN states. The United States was founded, in large part, because they weren’t being treated fairly by their government and had no representation in that government.
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands together have a population around 340,000. That’s more than half of the Vermont’s population, and well more than half of Wyoming’s population, but again, they have no representation in Congress.
The residents of any ground controlled by the U.S. should have constitutional rights and representation equal to what all U.S. citizens receive. Puerto Rico has repeatedly indicated, via votes, that they would like to be a State, but the Senate, heavily weighted to be “ruled by a minority”, has refused to even discuss or vote on the issue, almost certainly because that ruling minority is either afraid of Puerto Rico’s politics or are racist. I can’t see any other way to read those tea leaves.
Further, this amendment changes how Senators are apportioned among the states. It still wouldn’t be perfect, but perfect is the enemy of better. The House of Representatives is reasonably well balanced in how the Representatives are apportioned among the states, because there are enough Representatives for the slight unequalness of population-to-representative is minor. The Senate has far fewer numbers than the House, so achieving anywhere near the same equality of representation in the Senate is pretty much impossible without just turning the Senate into another House of Representatives. However, the above scheme, of every state getting ONE Senator and an equal number of Senators then being apportioned by population, would at least move the Senate closer to a balance between equal representation of PEOPLE and making sure that small STATES don’t get run over by large STATES. Again, this would move the U.S. much closer to a true Democracy, where everyone is treated equally and has equal rights and possibilities.
Gerrymandering is not allowed for any reason. Redistricting shall be done by non-partisan committees (to which political parties and individuals may make suggestions and file complaints, but shall have no decision-making power).
The non-partisan redistricting committees must be fairly balanced between interested parties. Redistricting plans shall primarily be guided by geographic features: urban, sub-urban, farmland, mountains, coastal areas, rangeland, etc., have reasonably minimized perimeters, and must be approved by a three-member panel of Federal District Court judges drawn randomly from the Judges and Senior Judges in or nearest to the districts involved.
To a large degree, geography is politics. Agricultural regions tend to lean to the Right, while cities tend to lean to the Left. Using geography as a major guide in the creation of districts allows each of these groups a chance to elect Representatives of their choice. Voters should choose their politicians. Politicians should never choose their voters.
Many locations have successfully used non-partisan panels to come up with reasonable redistricting, and there is NO reason for elected politicians to be involved in any way, other than for “both sides” to keep an eye on the panel to make sure it IS non-partisan (or at least, balanced in a partisan way).
Another major restructuring of government: breaking apart the Executive Branch to reduce the ability of the President to act with dictatorial power:
The Prosecutorial Branch Amendment
The Department of Justice shall be separated from the Executive Branch into its own co-equal PROSECUTORIAL branch of government. POLICING (physical & cyber security, military and foreign intelligence) functions shall remain part of the Executive Branch, while PROSECUTING (including investigating) functions shall be the duty of the independent Prosecutorial Branch of the government. All Inspectors General shall be part of the Prosecutorial Branch, as well as any Special Prosecutors appointed. Congress shall structure the Prosecutorial Branch by law, much as it does the Court and the Executive branches, but may not impinge upon the Prosecutorial Branch’s core duties to investigate and prosecute. The Prosecutorial Branch shall be run by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, elected as a ticket for a single 10-year term by national vote (similar to the President and Vice-President). No person shall be elected or otherwise appointed to Attorney General who has already served a total of more than 5 years in that position. The Prosecutorial Branch shall investigate CRIMES, not PEOPLE, and without Fear or Favor. The Prosecutorial Branch may call an Impeachment Court to attempt to impeach elected & appointed officials. The Impeachment Court shall consist of 9 randomly drawn Federal Appeals Court Judges. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the Impeachment Judges. Any thusly impeached official shall be tried by the Senate as if they had been impeached by the House. Cooperation and coordination between the Executive and Prosecutorial Branches is required to coordinate policing, investigating and prosecuting. However, partisan coordination and influencing between those Branches shall be an impeachable offense by the House of Representatives, and may be made a crime by an Act of Congress.
Too many times in the past (Hoover and Nixon, Bondi and Trump, as just two quick and easy examples), the President and/or members of the Administration have coordinated with the Department of Justice to spy on, harass, intimidate, and even prosecute citizens who all too often have committed no crime. Having both policing and prosecuting powers under one roof seems to beg for abuse.
The Department of Justice has, at various times in the past, had a reputable, even honorable role in the functioning of our government and our society. Members of the department have held themselves to very high standards, and have behaved according to the morals and beliefs that a strongly democratic society would wish. But, alas, it’s a tool too easily abused by those with dictatorial leanings. The best way to avoid kings and “strong men” was recognized hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, the framers of our Constitution put too much faith in the good will of those seeking office. They recognized the danger, but didn’t go far enough to avoid it.
Just as the powers of Congress are split into many (hundreds of) hands, the powers of the Executive Branch are concentrated in two few hands (usually, just two, both attached to the same body). To avoid a wannabe-king destroying our democracy, the powers of the Executive Branch should be similarly split into many (at least, a number of very independent) hands. In a few days, I’ll have more to say on this subject with one more “out there” idea for an Amendment.
Most amendments that aim to restructure our government are going to be a bit more ‘radical’ than your average, run-of-the-mill amendment. Today, we tackle the Supreme Court:
The Renewing the Supreme Court Amendment
The number of Supreme Court Justices shall be one for every twenty million residents of the States, Districts, and Territories, rounded to the nearest twenty million, that number being calculated after each decennial census. If the number grows, additional Justice(s) shall be appointed for the next annual term of the Court. If the number shrinks, the longest serving Justice(s) must retire at the end of the current annual term of the Court. The Supreme Court Justices shall be chosen from the ranks of active and Senior Federal Appellate Judges who have served at least eight years as a Federal Appellate Judge and have not already held a position as a Supreme Court Justice, and shall be selected by a series of votes by the active and Senior Appellate Judges until a nominee emerges. The President shall be able to veto the selection of a nominee if said nominee receives less than 2/3 of the votes of the Appellate judges. The Supreme Court Justices shall be ruled by and abide by the same Code of Ethics, established by the Judicial Conference and/or legislative Acts, as all other Federal judges. Reported violations of the Code of Ethics by any Supreme Court Justice shall be handled by the Judicial Conference. If the reported Justice is part of the Judicial Conference, they shall be excluded from any and all investigations, hearings, deliberations, and findings on the matter. Congress retains the ability to impeach and remove Judges and Justices.
The Chief Supreme Court Justice, from the beginning of each session until the beginning of the next session, shall be the longest serving Supreme Court Justice at the beginning of the session.
Originally, there were 6 Supreme Court Justices (in 1790), and has been as high as 10 (during the Civil War), then settled at 9 (in 1869). Meanwhile, the population of the United States has gone from 3.9 million people in 1790, to 38.5 million in 1870, to 331 million in 2020. The Federal District courts and the Appellate Courts have grown in number and size, and the Supreme Court should be adjusted reasonably to handle the much heavier case load. At one Justice per 20 million residents (rounded up, in this case), that would equate to 17 Justices as of 2020.
More Justices would support better handling of the heavier case load, and would “average out” the “philosophical differences” between the Justices, avoiding wild swings to the Left or the Right. Drawing the Justices solely from the Appellate ranks with at least 8 years experience in Appellate work would guarantee that the the Supreme Court would be ‘stocked’ with mostly very well-qualified people. Further, having them selected by the “Appellate Court” (currently 179 judges, plus some number of Senior judges), would tend to remove the politicization of the Supreme Court that happens with Presidential nominations. Allowing the President some veto power acts as a counter-balance to a runaway Appellate.
As history has shown us, being a Supreme Court Justice does not inherently mean that it guarantees moral and ethical behavior. The unenforced ‘suggestion’ of a code of ethics that was adopted in 2023 is a sham, a toothless mouse trying to gum lions into submission. Just because they’re called ‘Supreme’ does not make them “supreme beings.” They are people. They may be well educated, they may be experienced (or not…), but that doesn’t make them infallible. They often hold the future (or, at least, the near future) of our country in their hands, and those hands should certainly be slapped when they fail our country.
The Chief Supreme Court Justice has a stronger role (somewhat) than the other Justices, yet is chosen and appointed (for life) exactly the same as all the other Justices, by whatever President that happens to be in office when the current Chief dies or retires. That seems, somehow, less than appropriate. By choosing the Justice who has been on the Supreme Court bench the longest, at least the period of “greater sway” is reduced for any given Chief Justice, and greater experience is ensured. How long a Justice should serve, is the subject for a later discussion…
This one is pretty much a no-brainer for most folks:
The National Popular Vote for President Amendment
Presidential Electors and the Electoral College is abolished, and the candidates for President and Vice-President with the greatest national vote total in the General Election shall be elected.
Originally, the Electors system was set up to achieve two things: to avoid election by the general population because the general population was generally uneducated nimb-bobs (or so thought the educated, upper-class businessmen and/or slave-owning nimb-bobs who designed and wrote the Constitution), and to deal with the logistics of operating elections over great distances with no means of communication faster than a horse.
Education is now provided and available to most citizens. While many citizens are still nimb-bobs, many of our representatives are, too, so this should no longer be a valid argument for lessened levels of democracy in our government, merely an argument for wider, cheaper, and better education. As for speed of communication, we usually know the outcome of every election within hours of the polls closing, if not before. Speed, too, is no longer an argument for lessened democracy.
Either we believe that most people can be educated and trained to be responsible citizens, capable of making reasonably wise and balanced choices, or we should give up on the dream of democracy and settle for living under kings, dictatorships, and the rule of those able to grab the most reins of power.
The current Electors system favors Presidential candidates who pour all their attention and favor into a handful of swing states, ignoring all the others. In a National Popular Vote election, those candidates would need to pay attention to ALL the States and Territories, because EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT. Now, in too many states, it truly does NOT matter who you vote for in Presidential elections, as most states so heavily lean one way or the other that the outcome is pretty much pre-ordained. Without Electors, even though the candidate for one party almost always wins the “winner take all” Electors in a state, there’s still a huge chunk of voters that vote for the another party’s candidate, and a sizeable collection of “swing voters” who can be swayed. In a National Popular Vote election, those “losing voters” would still get counted and added together with numbers from other states.
I’ve grouped my proposed Amendments into three broad groups:
Restructuring Government Power, Immunity, and Benefits – Limits and Guarantees Transparency
and I’ll tackle them in that order. Any major restructuring of the government is a HUGE ask, but it’s certainly worth considering. To accomplish it (and many of the others), I think, will require the passage of this first one:
The National Initiative Petitions and Referendum Amendment:
When at least 1/2 of the states, either via legislative act or referendum or state initiative petition, request the same Amendment, or if a proposed Amendment is referred to the people by both houses of Congress via simple majority votes, that proposed constitutional Amendment shall be placed on ballots in all states during the next Presidential general election which occurs no sooner than six months thereafter, and shall pass and become part of the Constitution if at least 3/4 of the national popular vote is in favor.
When at least 1/4 of the states, either via legislative act or referendum or state initiative petition, request the same Bill, or if a proposed Bill is referred to the people by both house of Congress via simple majority votes, that proposed Bill shall be placed on ballots in all states during the next Congressional general election which occurs no sooner than six months thereafter, and shall pass if greater than 50% of the national popular vote is in favor. If the bill passes by less than 2/3rds of the vote, the President may veto the bill, in which case the bill shall be voted on again in the next general Congressional election, and if passed by 2/3rds, it will become law.
Oregon, my lifetime home state, has had initiative petitions and referendums since 1902, and while not all of the amendments and bills passed in this way have turned out to be wise and/or work well, the process has allowed for changes that would have been otherwise impossible due to recalcitrant lawmakers who almost always have their eye on re-election first and foremost, which often makes them reluctant to attempt anything too out of the norm, too daring. But the only way to improve society is to do things “outside the norm.” The ‘norm’ usually means “the way things are right now.”
I think anyone who pays much attention to politics and society would have little trouble coming up with situations where a significant majority of the U.S. population is in favor of A POLICY, but the elected politicians won’t enact A POLICY because they’re either worried about re-election in their specific district/state, or they’re taking money from lobbyists and special interests who are opposed to A POLICY. Banning assault weapons? A woman’s right to choose? Climate change? I could go on quite a while, but there’d be little point, because you (for any given one of you) probably wouldn’t agree with my entire list, and any given list is not the point. The point is that the closer the laws become to what the majority of the people want, the better the whole process will work, because we’ll be closer to a true democracy, and people will be more involved in the process.
Too many people don’t vote because they think, “Why should I? My vote doesn’t matter.” The reason they feel that way is they’re electing someone who will then go off to government and do whatever they want to do with little regard to what they PROMISED they would do. When people get to vote directly for specific laws, it gives more people a reason to vote, a feeling that they are having a direct effect on the laws and structure of society. It also encourages greater debate on specific issues
While “big money” frequently tips, toward their preferred outcome, initiative petitions and referendums, that’s not a good argument against initiative petitions and referendums, as big money is already tipping the government by pressuring/bribing our elected representatives. In fact, initiative petitions, on a national scale, could give us the opportunity to get “big money” OUT of our democracy.
The Constitution of the United States of America was great and miraculous at the time of its creation, and has been updated a few times to improve and strengthen it. Its great strength was the compromises made to bring all the States together into a unified whole. Of course, that was also its great weakness.
The periods of U.S. history are generally bookended by Constitutional crises, periods where events and social pressures run smack into the grout between the Constitution’s bricks, and the Constitution says, “Ouch.” The most painful of these frequently result in new Amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately (and, perhaps, fortunately), a great deal of pain usually is required. The people of the United States don’t move easily, but when the pain reaches a critical threshold, they can spin on a dime, and then you’d best not be standing in the way.
The last five amendments have been added during my life time, which seems close to par for the course, at least for a reasonably lengthy life. But, in my all-too-rapidly lengthening life, it’s become apparent to me that the Constitution is badly in need of some new guard rails. Too much of the Constitution has depended upon the good will and the social standards of the people elected and appointed to offices, and, as recent events have shown, that’s some weak grout.
Over the past decade or more, being of a philosophical bent, my mind has occasionally wandered (only occasionally…), thinking about how things could be improved. I’m not alone in that behavior, and better minds than mine have pondered similar subjects. But sometimes the only way to free up some space in an increasingly cluttered attic is to toss out some of the boxes.
So, over the coming weeks, I plan to write about Amendments that I think would improve the state and behavior of our constitutional government. I’m currently at 18 of them, and won’t be surprised if a few more pop into being before I write about all of them. Some will be better ideas than others. Some will be well worded, while others will be more like rambling thoughts. My goal is not so much to write them as “final drafts,” but rather more like “first drafts.” The point is, besides freeing some of my clutter, to encourage other to think about changes, too. We’re long overdue.
Much of this final chapter is memories, stories, suppositions, and opinions. I’ll attempt to keep it reasonable and not spiteful or hurtful to anyone reading this, as that’s not my goal. But, in order to try to show how this murder affected a large group of people, it’s effective to tell how people felt about it, how they reacted to it, what they thought about it.
Absolute truth is a very slippery eel. Even in math and physics, things we often think of as being absolute and true, facts must be accompanied by disclaimers and “Yeah, buts…” You might say that it’s an absolute fact that 1+1=2, whereas I could just as easily say it’s an absolute fact that 1+1=10 (in binary, base 2). If it’s true that truth is a slippery eel for the simplest of mathematical and scientific facts, what are we to make of truth when applied to human beings, history and events. The only person that knows the ‘truth’ about your life is you. You’re the only person that has lived it in its entirety, that’s been there for every moment of it. But you are a different body and a different brain every day, every moment. Our memories are built, then some are wiped away, only to have new ones built on top of them. Put ten people in a room to watch an event happen, then ask them all to write down an account of what happened. You’ll get ten different accounts, at minimum (as some people will contradict themselves, resulting in multiple accounts from the same person). And all of those accounts will be false, because all of those accounts will be incomplete. They will consist of a series of statements that, taken as a whole, strung together, will tell a story of what that person perceived or think they perceived.
About all we can really do is to say that some stories are more true than others. The newspaper stories about Ervin’s murder are more true than the “true crime” magazine stories. The police reports are more true than the newspaper stories. But none of them contain all the facts, they can’t. History only happens once, and the best we can do is create new history by telling stories about old history. We can make our stories be factually more true by trying to verify facts from multiple sources, or we can make our stories be emotionally more true by describing how people felt or imagining how they felt, by dramatizing history. No matter what we do, we will never be able to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Even the police reports are subject to error and misunderstanding. The investigators interviewed people, asking them for their memories of what happened, sometimes quite a while in the past, sometimes when they weren’t really paying good attention. Human memories have repeatedly been shown to be very unreliable. The police took notes in their little notebooks, then later, back at the office, and sometimes days later, they would transcribe those notes into reports, using their notes to trigger their memories of what the witnesses recalled of their memories. Lots of opportunities for mistakes, misunderstandings and bad memories to alter “the truth.”
But, with all that said, if you collect enough memories, enough information, it’s frequently possible to “read between the lines,” to assemble a mental picture of what might have happened, what probably happened, and what the people involved were generally like. The best I can say, as they say in the movies, is that this story is based on true events. I’ve tried to follow the “true events” as closely as possible. Hopefully, you will always keep an open – but questioning – mind.
In this book, I’ve tried to remain as objective as possible, but keep in mind that this is my story of what happened, and that I was only two years old at the time. So, my story necessarily depends upon the memories of others with their inherent lapses and biases, the written records with their inherent lapses, mistakes and the biases of those who wrote those records. It also depends upon my own views and perceptions of everything I’ve been able to gather, the things I have not been able to gather, and how I’ve chosen to present all of it. The more information you can gather, the more stories you listen to, and the more reasoning you apply to that information and those stories, the closer you may arrive to a shimmering shadow of the truth. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to talk with anyone from the Oveross family, so, while I’ve tried to remain objective and balanced in the telling of this story, that’s one large chunk of information that I’ve not been able to gather.
The jury found Cap Oveross “not guilty.” The newspapers and magazines asked when Oregon would capture the ‘real’ killer, said that the killer was still “out there,” waiting to strike again. Was Cap innocent? Did someone else kill Ervin? A number of people pointed their finger at Ervin’s brother Harvey, because Harvey had struck Ervin during a dispute the previous year and made clear that he didn’t like his brother. Then there were the “two mysterious men” in a car parked behind the Evergreen School. What about the other husbands of women Ervin had tried to romance? These are all things the jury may have considered.
But you should consider: 1) The murder weapon was proven to be one of two rifles sold by Ames Hardware in 1949. 2) The other of those two weapons was purchased and still owned by Steve Zolotoff. 3) Ames Hardware had a receipt showing Cap Oveross bought one of those rifles in 1949. 4) Multiple people swore they’d seen, borrowed, or used Cap’s 30-30 rifle between 1949 and Christmas 1954. 4) Dan Gilham placed Cap Oveross at the Gilham house less than 10 minutes after the murder, at which time Cap already knew that Ervin had been shot. 5) Cap later told the police that he had been in taverns the whole evening, had never been in the area of Ervin’s home that evening, and that he had never owned a 30-30 rifle. 6) Multiple people placed Cap or his car in the area of Ervin’s home that night.
Then, we have this: for a while after the trial, Cap said very little about it. But apparently, as some point, he realized that he was safe from “double jeopardy,” the fact that once a person has been accused of a crime, tried and acquitted, they can never be tried again. This protects citizens from being persecuted by the government, something that used to happen with some frequency, causing the framers of the constitution to include protections against that. That meant that Cap could happily go around town admitting, even bragging, that he had killed Ervin Kaser, and he would suffer no (legal) ramifications.
Harvey Kaser’s youngest son told me this story:
In 1975 or ‘76, I had a summer job at Redman, across the street from the Milltown tavern. I went into the tavern with some friends one Friday after work. I elbowed up to the bar next to an old guy sitting on a bar stool. The barkeep asked for my ID, and I happened to plunk down my driver’s license right in front of the old guy. The old guy looked at the license, looked up, and said, “Are you related to Harvey Kaser?” I told him I was his youngest son. The old guy said, “Well, I killed your uncle.” The bartender went pale and told him to shut up. The old guy turned out to be Cap Oveross. I asked my brother Jeff about this once, and he said that in later years Cap would get drunk at the Milltown Tavern and start bragging about killing Ervin.
At the trial, Ted Finlay testified, “I would say it definitely was not” Oveross’s car he saw leave the murder scene a few seconds after hearing four shots. However, Calvin Kaser later recalled:
Manny Kellerhals and Ted Finlay were scared shitless that Cap was going to come back and shoot them. I was working at the S&M Truck Line, and Ted Finlay had an electrical shop and would come down there all the time to pick up his freight. He’d say, “I knew who the hell that was, hell, that was Cap, sure as hell. I heard those shots, and I heard that car come off, and I was up in the upstairs window.” Cap drove a Ford, and they had a round deal like this right in the grill, and Ted said, “I can still see that round emblem, and hell, it was Cap’s car. I couldn’t see him, but I’d bet my life that it was Cap’s car.”
1950 Ford grill
When all the evidence is examined with an open and unbiased mind, there can be little doubt that Casper Oveross murdered Ervin Kaser. So how was he found not guilty? The answer to that, of course, is that our “justice system” is not perfect. It was intentionally set up as an ‘adversarial’ system in which the prosecutor must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12 citizens. Jurists are supposed to be objective, to judge the case based solely on the evidence presented. But, of course, they can’t. Many of them will have heard of the case ahead of time, and all of them will carry prejudices and beliefs that were shaped by their society and their experiences.
The prosecution seems to have done a poor job of presenting their case to the jury (more below). The job of defense attorneys is not to prove innocence, but rather, in any legal way possible, to prevent the prosecution from doing their job. In the case of the Oveross trial, it seems that the defense did an excellent job of throwing up smoke screens (“look at all these other jealous husbands” and “look at all these mysterious cars and men that were following Ervin Kaser around”), preventing the prosecution from entering crucial items into evidence, and painting the victim as a nasty bad-man and their client as an innocent, simple carpenter who, even if he had killed Ervin, would have been justified because of the way the nasty bad-man had broken up his marriage. You have to keep in mind that this was 1955, the time of Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best, of white bread and apple pie, a time when very few marriages ended in divorce, sex outside of marriage was verboten, and an unmarried woman getting pregnant was so shameful that she might as well burn herself at the stake before she was impaled by society’s sharpened, pointing fingers. The jury was made up of nine women and three men, and it wouldn’t take a lot to make them return a not guilty verdict. The newspapers and magazines liked to say that the murder remained unsolved. That’s a poor choice of words. There’s no doubt in my mind that the murder was solved. It’s just that no one was ever convicted.
A lawyer I know, who read a preliminary version of this book, had quite a few thoughts about the trial:
There is a rule of thumb that juries tend to come back fast with a decision if its clearly in favor of the defendant. It looks like this one took a little over a day. I would guess there were enough people on the jury that were not going to vote for conviction, and that after maybe two or three weeks of sitting through a trial, they decided it was time to go home and call it a day. It was hot; they didn’t like camping out.
I can’t tell for sure, but it looks to me like the defense on the gun was this: the Oveross expert soaked a Winchester in Pudding River water for 11 days, and it must have looked like it was in worse shape than the murder weapon, suggesting that the murder weapon was thrown in the river sometime after Oveross departed for Alaska. [EK note: Of course, soaking a gun in shallow, warm water would have a very different result than one where the barrel was buried in cold mud, where the supply of oxygen needed for rusting would be much lower. Also, Cap may have kept his rifle well-oiled, which would have protected it, whereas the test rifle may have been brand new and never oiled. So many variables…]
In the name of establishing that Oveross had left for Alaska, the defense paraded all of his family members in front of the jury, just to give the jury a look at them. The respectable school teacher, the daughters, and everyone else. My guess is that everyone in the family came across as pretty normal, decent people, whereas Ervin Kaser had some baggage.
When Ethel Oveross testified about the mysterious men, and if she was not cross-examined about it, then it casts a lot of doubt about whether it was Oveross or someone else. It looks like she was not cross-examined about it, and I would guess nobody was going to pick on her. That puts the jury in this position: why would she lie about it? Clearly, she didn’t care that much about Oveross because she was running around behind his back. It creates a lot of doubt. I do know this, though: the defense attorneys knew she was going to testify about the mysterious men and what she was going to say about it. I would guess the prosecutors had no idea that she was communicating that to the defense, somehow. Ethel was probably faced with her daughters blaming her for having their Dad put in prison or worse, so may have elaborated on the story about the mysterious men that had followed them.
Ken Brown helps blow the trial by talking about “dry gulching” Ervin, that he was “shot down, shot in the back, dry gulched, shot down like a dog without a chance to turn on his attacker.” He never should have done that.
Hindsight is 20-20, but you can really see how this trial was mishandled. I’ve been through a few of these things and lucky enough to learn a few things from some trial lawyers and judges who have been through a lot of them. After a few days the jury just shuts down and gets tired of it all. Danny Gilham and his stepmother were the strongest witnesses for the prosecution and should have been the first witnesses out of the box, not at the end of 3 weeks. Everything should have centered on the fact that Cap Oveross shows up less than 10 minutes after Ervin Kaser was shot and is talking about it (they lived 5.3 miles away, according to the police). Then, you ask the Kellerhalls to establish the time of the shooting and maybe a couple of others, but not everyone in the neighborhood. And your question to each would be this: “how did you learn about the shooting? Who did you talk to at that time? Did you call Cap Oveross?” And then everything boils down to this argument: it is undisputed that Cap Oveross knew about the shooting less than 10 minutes after it occurred. No one told him about it. The only way he could have known about it that quickly is if he did it himself.
You tend to win or lose these things based on the number of contradictions or inconsistencies the other guy creates. The more witnesses that you have, the more contradictions you will have. Stuff like who said what in taverns, or to the police, or the comings and goings of all the cars, just feeds into that. Never have or allow the same witness to testify three times.
Anyhow, I’d say Ken Brown must have been a pretty young guy at the time and he must have been really inexperienced. You can see they sort of did a methodical, “leave no stone unturned” type of approach, and it just backfired. The one thing I’ve learned about these things is that you don’t do a build up to a crescendo – you put your best witness on first.
According to Edith, for about 30 years after the murder, Harvey wouldn’t allow Ethel or Colleen and Danny into their house because he felt, rightly or wrongly, they’d lied on the stand in a way that might have contributed to Cap getting found not guilty. In order to visit with her twin sister, Edith had to go to where Ethel worked in Stayton. In the early 1980s, probably after Cap had died, the rift between Harvey and Ethel’s family was somewhat healed, but thirty years of anger had caused scars that could never be erased.
It’s hard to read the police reports, newspaper stories, and recollections and not get the impression that Cap Oveross thought he was sharp enough to out-smart the police. He proved rather foolish by going around for six months before the murder threatening to a lot of people that he would kill Ervin, including lying in a field at night with two Silverton police constables watching his (ex-)house to try to catch Ervin visiting Ethel. He tried to set up an alibi that he was in two taverns in town the whole evening, and then drove straight from the murder to the Gilham home and told Danny Gilham that, “Ervin has three slugs in him, and I was with you last night.” But then, when the police question him, he switches back to, “I was in taverns all night and no where near Ervin’s house all evening.” He got incredibly lucky at the trial.
I never knew Cap Oveross, but reading between the lines you can build an image of what his life was like. Edith once said:
Ethel had a hard life during her early marriage. Ethel and Cap lived in an old rundown house at Four Corners (where Abiqua road intersects Hwy 213) when they were first married. Our father [Fred Knight] was concerned and brought chickens, eggs, potatoes and such to Ethel because they didn’t have enough to eat. Cap drank up everything that he made. Colleen had a case of ringworm that was so bad when she was a young girl that she nearly lost all of the hair on top of her head, because they couldn’t afford to go to the doctor.
Calvin said something similar:
Ervin was running around with Ethel, but Ethel and Cap were separated. Cap, he blamed Ervin for their breakup. But, hell, they were having trouble long before that. Cap, he was a damn boozer, he drank up everything he made. Ethel was having to work to support the kids, cause he drank everything. He worked only enough to subsist on.
These memories certainly should be taken with a grain of salt, but there is evidence to back them up. Cap was well known in the taverns at the time of the shooting and was still patronizing them regularly thirty years later. He never remarried. Besides his anger at Ervin, he had also accused his neighbor Wayne Moore of “chasing around” with Ethel. I can imagine asking him shortly before he died, “What would you consider the most important moments of your life?” and I wonder how near the top of the list would be shooting Ervin Kaser. Would that have come to his mind before my two daughters? Before marrying Ethel? Before building a good life with friends and community? From a distance, it seems like a very sad life to have murder be a dominant, central feature. They say that, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” But I have to believe that, “Revenge is a dish that poisons the server as much as the served.”
I also have to think about the effects murder has on the people around it. I suspect that, in his anger and bitterness, Cap was focused on getting his revenge and didn’t think much about the affect it would have on his family, friends and neighbors. He may even have thought that he’d be viewed as a hero, we don’t know. But we can imagine how this affected the lives of those around him and Ervin.
The divorce of their parents was probably very stressful on the Colleen, 18, and Karen, 14. It’s pretty clear from the police reports that Colleen was very defensive of her father and may well have been ‘informing’ on her mother, telling her father when Ethel would go out and come home, essentially (unwittingly) helping him to learn their habits and patterns, making it easier for him to follow them and set up the murder. It seems that after the murder, Colleen was much more favorable to her father than to her mother. A neighbor girl, Charlotte Moore, told the police:
Colene was very mad and she mentioned something about Mrs. Gilham, the old biddy, being on the side of the law.
Then, the police were suspicious of her boy friend, Danny Gilham, so two of the most important people in her life seemed in danger. Of course she didn’t want to cooperate with the police. Colleen didn’t want Danny to cooperate with the police either, because that would further endanger her father. So, Danny is caught between the police and his girlfriend because his stepmother has already spoken to the police about Cap stopping at their house. He was the perfect example of being between a rock and a hard place. Then, Danny and Colleen got married, and for the rest of their lives, every family get-together that involved either of Colleen’s parents would have had this large shadow looming over all of them, impossible to evict, impossible to forget. There’s little information about how Karen reacted to these events, but one can easily imagine the day-to-day life of a 14-year old girl in a very small community who’s dad has been accused of murder, very publicly in the news and on everyone’s lips for six months.
During the trial, Ethel had to take the stand and testify. If her testimony helped convict Cap and he got sent to prison for life or executed (Oregon had the death penalty at that time), what would that do to her relationship with their daughters? And yet, her lover had been shot dead by her ex-husband. She, too, was between a rock and a hard place.
What about the victim’s family? Ervin’s mother Sarah had lost her husband Fred just a year and a half before, and now her oldest, first-born child is shot to death less than a quarter-mile away from her home. When asked how his mother took the news of the murder, Calvin said: Oh, she was a basket case. She’d want to go over to the cemetery, and you’d no more than drive into the cemetery and she’d start crying, and she’d be crying almost until we got home, unless you could get her talking and get her mind off it. But she had that stroke in the fall of ‘55, not too long after Ervin was shot, along in September, I think. I’m sure she had a pretty good idea why Ervin was shot. She never talked about it much. She never went to the trial. On one trip to the cemetery to visit Ervin’s grave, she said, “I know he wasn’t a perfect boy, but he didn’t deserve a bullet.” My mother, Wilma, said: I think that worked on her so bad, that she got so that she wouldn’t even sit in the living room in the night time. She’d sit in the hallway with just one little light in there. She figured if someone had shot Ervin, someone would come and shoot her, too. When you came in the front door, the dining room was on the right, and the living room was on the left, and right in the middle was where the furnace came up through a grate, and there was a doorway that went into the hallway. Calvin picked up the story: It wasn’t a hallway, it was a cloak room, but we called it the hallway. It had five doors going out of it, one upstairs, one into the kitchen, one into the bathroom, and one into their bedroom. It was just a small, square room. When company came, that’s where we hung their coats. It must have been an eight by ten room, and that’s where she would sit. All she had was a straight-backed chair and a card table. Then, in September, she had that devastating series of three strokes that basically ended her life, although she lay in the nursing home for five years before she died.
Ervin’s brother Harvey, who had also been Cap’s brother-in-law and neighbor, whose kids had played together for years, was also investigated by the police because he’d gotten into a fight with Ervin. People knew that Harvey and Ervin had argued. Calvin remembered it this way:
Sometime after Dad’s hop yard was pulled out, the place was sewed to grain. [Probably 1954, as Calvin’s dad Fred died in August 1953, and the murder was February 1955.] I know that’s what Ervin and Harvey got into a fight about, because they had somebody come harvest Mom’s grain, and Ervin took Mom’s grain down to the Wilco… well, it was Valley Co-op at that time, and the elevator was still there, and he put her grain in his name. That’s what he and Harvey got into it about, and that’s when Harvey poked him. Then Harvey went down and straightened it out and put that grain back in her name. That would’ve had to have been about ’53 or ’54.
So, when Ervin got shot, a number of folks told the police about the two of them getting into a fight. Of course, the police already had good evidence that Cap was the culprit, but they had to investigate and rule out any and all other possible suspects before the case could go to trial. But Harvey and Edith were also caught between a rock and a hard place: the victim was his brother, and the man accused of the murder had been married to her twin sister, up until a few months before, and was the father of their nieces.
When talking to Cleta McMorris about the murder, she said, “Oh, Mary [Ervin’s wife] just made a spectacle of herself at the funeral, she threw herself on the casket, and was hysterical.” When I mentioned this to my dad, Calvin, he said:
The only thing I remember about Mary, we were at the folks’ house after the funeral, a whole bunch of us, and she was standing in the corner over the furnace register. Nobody was saying anything, and she just blurted out, “I don’t care what any of you think, I still loved him!”
What about you? Whoever you are, you have been affected by the murder just by reading about it, whether or not you’re related to the families involved.
Hundreds of peoples’ lives were directly affected by the murder, and its effects still echo today in the lives of people who lived through it and in the lives of their descendants, knowingly or not. No story of a murder has a happy ending. No one is a complete saint, and no one is a complete villain.
By most accounts, Ervin was not the nicest man in the world. He certainly didn’t deserve to be murdered, but it’s clear he was not innocent.
At his trial, Casper Oveross received a verdict of not guilty, but it’s very clear to me that he certainly was not innocent.
And so ends my blogging of the story of the murder of Ervin O. Kaser. I’m well along in the process of completing the book form of this story, which I hope to have finished and “put to bed” by some time in February 2019, almost exactly 64 years after the murder.
This is a preliminary timeline of people and events involved in or surrounding Ervin’s murder. I’m sure I’ll be making some changes to it, but that’s going to require a careful re-reading of all the police reports and newspaper articles.
Nov 16, 1905 — Ervin Oren Kaser born Oct 1, 1911 — Casper Arnold Oveross born Dec 13, 1914 — Ethel & Edith Knight born
Apr 25, 1933 — Ervin O. Kaser & Frances L. Dixon married 1:35pm Vancouver, WA Dec 5, 1934 — Cap A. Oveross & Ethel J. Knight married 1:30pm Vancouver, WA Jan 7, 1936 — Harvey W. Kaser & Edith M. Knight married Marion County, OR Apr 24, 1936 — Colleen Marie Oveross born Oct 21, 1939 — Ervin O. Kaser & Mary L. Calavan Huntley married Salem, OR
Early 1949 — Ames Hardware buys two scarce 30-30 rifles (#1538797 and #1541417) March 5, 1949 — 30-30 rifle #1 sold to Cap Oveross by Marion Zahler at Ames Hardware March 26, 1949 — 30-30 rifle #2 sold to Steven J. Zolotoff at Ames Hardware (#1541417) November 1949 — Noah Wenger borrows Cap’s 30-30 rifle for elk hunting
November 1952 — Everett Kaser born
fall 1953 — Wayne Moore goes hunting with Cap and his 30-30 rifle
sometime 1954 — Jeff Kaser picks up 5 shell casing while Cap is target practicing Aug 6, 1954 — Mary sues Ervin for divorce Aug 20, 1954 — Cap sues Ethel for divorce ~Sep 1, 1954 — Cap, Officers DePeel & Jackson lie in field to watch Ervin at Ethel’s. ~Sep 1, 1954 — Cap states threat to Charles Hopkins that he’ll kill Ervin Mid-Sep 1954 — Cap states threat to Harvey & Edith Kaser that he’ll kill Ervin ~Aug-Oct 1954 — Calvin & Wilma Kaser sees Ervin and Ethel Oveross in Salem ~Oct 1, 1954 — Cap target shoots using 30-30 rifle with Frank Dedrick ~Oct 1, 1954 — Wayne Moore sees Cap’s 30-30 carbine rifle Oct 1954 — Cap & Ethel divorce is final Oct-Dec 1954 — Cap states threat to Robert Barnes that he’ll kill Ervin ~Christmas, 1954 — Dan Gilham sees 30-30 rifle at Cap’s cabin #6
Thurs, Feb 17, 1955 9:30-9:45am — Cap Oveross shoots a rifle at Huddleston lumber yard 12:00pm — Cap Oveross leaves work near Aurora 7:30pm — Ethel Oveross leaves home to meet Ervin 7:40-7:50pm — Cap arrives at Oveross home, visits with Colleen & Dan 7:45pm — Ervin & Ethel Oveross meet at Abiqua covered bridge 8:10pm — Cap leaves Oveross residence — Robert Barnes follows Cap north from Oveross residence — Gerald Hoyd tends bar at Town Tavern, no Cap Oveross 8:15pm — Mary Seward sees Cap at Frank’s Grocery on west Main 8:30pm — Cap buys gas from Dennis Legard, no rifle seen in car 8:40-9:05pm — Car arrives, motor running 5 minutes, at cabin #6 (picking up guns?) 9:00pm — Ray Ruscher at Shorty’s Tavern (Cap is there or arrives) 9:35pm — Rod Oster arrives at Shorty’s Tavern (Cap is there) 9:50-10:00pm — Rod Oster talks with Cap Oveross at Shorty’s Tavern 10:15-10:30pm — Rod Oster leaves Shorty’s (Cap still there) 10:30pm — Ray Ruscher leave’s Shorty’s (Cap already left) — Mannie and Connie Kellerhal go to bed. — Ethel Oveross returns home — Rod Oster arrives at Town House Tavern — Dan Gilham heads home from Colleen’s, sees Cap’s car heading north 10:35pm — Oveross girls return home from Salem skating party 10:45-10:50pm — Waldo Rue passes Ervin’s house on his way home 10:45-10:55pm — Ervin pulls into driveway at Rt 3 Box 115A. — Killer’s dark blue or black Ford sedan stops on road shortly after. — Ervin is shot. — Kellerhals see the last three muzzle flashes and the car. — Killer’s car departs heading south. — Ted Finlay hears shots, sees car pass south on highway — Edith Kaser’s pickup passes by. — Ethel Oveross hears 4 shots, car going south, Edith’s pickup — Kellerhals call Ervin, then Melvin, clock chimes 11:00pm — Melvin goes over, sees Ervin dead, calls Harley DePeel 11:00pm — Rob Riches passes on his way home — Harley DePeel notifies County Sheriff’s Office — Cloreta calls Calvin Kaser (and probably other Kaser family members) — Constable Harley DePeel arrives — Cap arrives in Gilham driveway, covers up something in back seat — Cap tells Dan Gilham Ervin is dead & Dan is his alibi, leaves. 11:05pm — Silverton officer James D. Painter informed of shooting 11:13pm — Painter notifies Sheriff Young & Silverton Chief R. R. Main 11:15pm — James Painter checks taverns for Cap Oveross, not found 11:17pm — James Painter arrives at Holland Auto Court #6 11:23pm — Sheriff Young notified 11:25pm — Deputy Sheriff Richard Boehringer arrives — Calvin and Harvey Kaser arrive at scene 11:40pm — Sheriff Young arrives in Silverton to pick up Chief Main ~11:45pm — Officers check Town House Tavern for Cap Oveross, not there
Fri, Feb 18, 1955 12:10am — Sheriff Young and Chief Main arrive at scene 12:15am — Painter, Bethschieder, Yates enter Holland #6 (no Cap, no guns in sight) 12:35am — State Police Private Robert W Dunn sent to Ervin’s. 12:45am — Gerald Hoyt sees Cap Oveross arrive at Town House Tavern 12:55am — Coroner Leston Howell arrives at scene 1:10am — Pvt Dunn arrives at scene, contacts Sheriff Young 1:20am — Cap Oveross leaves Town House Tavern, goes to cabin #6 1:30am — Rod Oster leaves Town House Tavern (no Cap Oveross) 1:55am — Cap Oveross picked up by Sheriff Young at cabin #6 (shotgun in corner) 3:30am — Cap Oveross is questioned, claims: 1) was in two taverns all evening 2) wasn’t in the area of crime anytime that night 3) never owned a 30-30 rifle 5:30am — Questioning of Oveross ends am — Harvey & Melvin notify mother Sarah Kaser of Ervin’s death 11:00am — Cap Oveross is returned to his cabin in Silverton — Deputy Boehringer takes Ervin’s car to Salem for storage — Dan Gilham takes Cap & Colleen Oveross to attorney ~7:00pm — Cap Oveross moves to brother Henry’s house 315 S Water
Sun, Feb 20, 1955 — Mary Kaser moves back into her & Ervin’s house.
Mon, Feb 21, 1955 2:00pm — Ervin’s funeral in Silverton, buried at Belcrest in Salem
Tue, Feb 22, 1955
8:05pm — Cap Oveross is arrested and his car impounded 10:00pm — Oveross is booked into Marion County Jail
Wed, Feb 23, 1955 10:00am — Oveross is arraigned in District Court
Mon, Feb 28, 1955 9:30am — Grand Jury hears testimony, Oveross released
Thu, Mar 10, 1955 — Ames ledger sheet shows sale of 30-30 to Oveross Mar 5, 1949
Sun, May 8, 1955 3:00pm — Larry Wacker pulls 30-30 rifle #1538797 from Pudding River
Tue, May 10, 1955 — Confirmed: 4 of casings from Jeff Kaser (1954) fired by murder weapon
Fri, May 13, 1955 — Confirmed: Rifle #1538797 fired the murder bullets
Mon, May 16, 1955 — Grand Jury indicts Casper Arnold Oveross for murder
Mon, May 16, 1955 5:20pm — Call from Colleen Oveross residence 468 N Winter Street phone# 38146 to Lloyd Oveross at Happy Camp, CA, finally
put through at 7:20pm on May 17th.
Fri, May 20, 1955 — Oveross located in Fairbanks, Alaska
Wed, May 26, 1955 — Sheriff Young and Deputy Hoffman leave for Fairbanks
Sun, May 29, 1955 — Young, Hoffman and Oveross return to Salem
Tue, June 1, 1955 — Oveross pleads not guilty, trial date set for June 21st
June 21, 1955 10:00am — Trial begins
July 14, 1955 5:26pm — Oveross found not guilty, released
sometime-1955 — Dan Gilham & Colleen Oveross marry
1958-1960 — Wilma & Everett Kaser encountered Cap on Silverton street corner
~1975-1976 — Cap bragged to Harvey Kaser’s youngest son that he killed Ervin
Jan 24, 1981 — Casper Oveross died (buried Valley View Cemetery, Silverton OR)
1988 — Mary (Calavan Huntley Kaser) marries Albert Cianni
Sep 30, 1998 — Ethel Jane Oveross died
Apr 4, 1999 — Mary Calavan Huntley Kaser Cianni died
Oct 5, 2013 — Colleen Oveross Gilham died (buried at Mt. Hope Cemetery)
And that’s it for a while. Now, I have to assemble, compose, write, edit and polish “the final chapter.” It will contain a few later events, thoughts by myself and others about all of this, speculation about the trial and juries and social standards, and dwell a bit upon how one action in selfish anger can have very significant effects upon the lives of hundreds of people over decades and generations to come.