Making Murder Ordained

     Early in 1986 several stories were published about Tom, Lorna and the deaths of their spouses. Calvin Trillin wrote a mostly factual story in the New Yorker. The Kansas City Star carried a two-part series in its magazine section (the story, titled “The Preacher and the Spider Lady” won a Ball State University National Journalism Writing Award for its author, Bill Norton). Supermarket tabloids and detective magazines published their sordid sensationalized versions.

     The first edition of Joan Baker’s three-part KS Magazine series appeared in February 1986. Virginia Bird wrote of Tom’s reaction to the Baker article:

      “Tom calls and is upset because he hears of the KS Magazine article that came out written by Baker that points him out as such a monster. This article which contains incidents told by Lorna A. [includes]… the words supposedly screamed and begged by Sandy as she came to her violent death. [Lorna claimed to have nothing to do with Sandy’s death, yet she told Baker about the words Sandy shouted out while being murdered. How did she know?]

      “How horrible to depict this gentle Tom as such a harsh killer, when he could never do such a thing to the Sandy he always loved.

      “These character assassinations by newsprint just seem to keep on and on and we are powerless to do anything about it. Tom speaks of giving up hope for his appeal and saying he will be convicted again by the news media before anyone ever gets a chance to exonerate him in the appeals court.”

      Even with all this exposure, it took Scott Kraft’s Los Angeles Times story to really catch Hollywood’s attention and penchant for making merchandise of the latest real life tragedy.

      So sick of the lies and distortions as he had become, Tom hoped that a movie about his life and legal travails could set the record straight. The Bird’s asked Robert Hecht, Tom’s attorney in the murder trial, to help them sort through all the offers that they received. In case Tom signed a contract, Hecht hoped to establish a trust fund for the children to be funded by income from the sale of Tom’s story. Tom wrote furiously on his own book, thinking he was the only person who could accurately tell his side of the story.

      Eleven companies contacted Tom vying for his story rights.

      Responding to this Hollywood courtship and the very idea that a criminal might sell his story, two Kansas lawmakers introduced a bill to stop criminals from profiting by their crimes. Republican Representatives Martha Jenkins of Leavenworth, and Clint Acheson of Topeka, spurred on by the quick-paced tempo set by Hollywood, introduced their bill on March 24, a week after the Kraft article appeared in The Times. Congress had earlier passed a similar law when John Hinkley Jr. made public his plan to write a book about his attempt to kill President Ronald Reagan. The infamous New York murderer, Son of Sam, had published his story and gained an infamous notoriety that set off debates in state legislatures across America. Kansas decided to join 22 other states that had already passed such laws.

     Governor John Carlin signed the new law on April 21, less than a month later. “The law, which goes into effect July 1, is directed at Thomas P. Bird, a former Emporia pastor convicted of murder, and former state Senator Paul Hess, who fled the country...” reports stated. The article failed to mention Lorna, who had at least one signed contract with an author, negotiated with movies companies and planned a few books of her own.

     Trillin, one of the few writers Tom allowed to interview him, offered him $1,000 for the rights to his story.

      David Hacker, deep into the process of marketing his book about Lorna, also dickered with some movie producers.

      Dick Clark Productions sought to make an NBC movie. Clark signed an agreement with Jane Grismer. “We could not, in good conscience, tell the story from their [Tom and Lorna] point of view. And, we respect and applaud the Kansas State law which forbids a criminal from profiting from his or her crime. We are working with the Grismer family … to depict a moving account of the tragic story which we plan to present responsibly and sensitively,” Clark wrote to the Emporia Gazette. Clark decided Tom’s point of view was without merit.

     Henry “The Fonz” Winkler sought the story rights. Tom felt he presented the best case for fairness and planned to produce a movie for ABC. Winkler signed a contract with both Tom and Lorna on June 26, just days before the law became effective that banned such agreements. Tom saw in this agreement the potential to raise money from a movie to set up a trust for his children.

     Before all the dust cleared, as many as three dozen companies fought for the story. CBS beat them all.

      Mike Robe led the CBS effort to do a movie originally titled Kansas Gothic, then Broken Commandments, and finally Murder Ordained. Robe’s grandfather had run an Emporia hardware store, his father attended college in Emporia and he still had relatives living there. Robe represented Interscope Communications, directed the movie and co-wrote the script. “Because it happened in an area that has always seemed like home to me, I really wanted to do the story. I wanted to try to find out how those things could happen and why they happened. Additionally, I think I wanted to make sure that it was done in a way that was fair to Kansas.”

      Kathleen Cromley, another Interscope employee who worked on the movie, had relatives in Emporia and the nearby town of Olpe. At the beginning of the production, CBS took great care to salve the sensitivities of Emporians, and Cromley helped ease their way. “We do not want to dwell on the early [sexual] events at all. We’re interested in unraveling how it happened, who was involved in bringing these two to justice.”

      Robe won the support and imagination of most Emporians. He waged and lost one battle, though, trying to find a church willing to be used as the set for Faith. The public debate got ugly and Robe threatened to move the shoot out of Emporia altogether. The mere thought of losing the notoriety and the $10 million the community hoped to earn from the movie caused the Gazette to gag. Ray Call wrote a “Classified Ad” begging some understanding church to realize how important the movie was to the community’s economy and release their building as a movie set. The churches united and refused to cooperate stating that their mission was to spread the Gospel, not the filthy lucre of a Hollywood movie.

      Eventually a church in Lawrence signed on. Aware of the centuries old division between the Lutheran and Catholic churches, Robe snidely scripted the church as St. Mary’s Lutheran.

 Emporia finds life as Tinsel Town

       Emporia came alive. The town’s spirit was captured in an April 1, 1986, letter to the editor written by Kay Little “and unnamed cohorts.”

      “A bunch of us were sitting around Saturday evening discussing the major issues of our fair community…when we decided what this town needs is a movie based on the lives and loves of our most famous (infamous?) couple, Tom and Lorna.

      “It seems highly probable that there will be a movie, so why not make it here where everything really happened. Our ailing economy would benefit greatly by all those movie people coming to town. Motels and restaurants and bars would be full again, and they could probably use any number of us locals as extras.”

       Ms. Little suggested various actors to play lead roles in the movie, picturing Jack Nicholson as Tom and Jessica Lange as Lorna. For Danny and Darrel, she debated between “Don Johnson, Burt Reynolds, Tom Sellack and Dom Deluise.” Little believed such a movie could win an Emmy.

      Ms. Little forgot that Tom’s court appeal was, at that time, headed for the Kansas Supreme Court, and if she did know, she may not have cared. Emporia, the sleepy commercial town suffering from an economic downturn, would win money, jobs, and notoriety.

      Jake Thompson wrote in the Kansas City Star, quoting Janis Ralston from the Emporia Chamber of Commerce. “I think it’s unfortunate this whole scandal happened. But if we’ve already had the negative publicity, we might as well get something positive back.”

      The “something” she referred to meant money for Emporia’s businesses. Thompson knew that the Kansas Film Board stood to make millions off such a production.

      A Tom Bird movie meant an economic boost for everyone.

      On August 12, 1986, The Los Angeles Times ran a special story about the movie’s progress, but Emporians took offense at the way it pictured them. The Gazette wanted to deflect the Times’ perception of Emporia as a backwoods town and in an editorial, Ray Call wrote:

      “It is clear that writers and television reporters arrive in town with a pre-conceived notion of what Emporia is like. Usually their descriptions seem to fit the old visions that city dwellers have of heartland America; a place where life is stuck in a Leave-It-to-Beaver time frame.

      “Emporia City Commissioner Leonore Rowe makes a good point when she is quoted… ‘We’re really not a backwoods town.’

      “A careful reporter would find that most Emporians DO NOT depend on cable television to keep in touch with the outside world. Many Emporians are well-traveled. Indeed, there is a good chance that the ratio of world-travelers is greater in Emporia than it is in Los Angeles.

      “Mayor William Jenks commented. ‘I don’t want to sound inhuman, but we do need income (from a TV production). But we need that kind of publicity like a hole in the head.’

      “Chamber of Commerce president Dale Stinson said, ‘We wish it had never happened…but we’re going to make the most of it.’ ”

      The battle for Emporia’s pride even drew barbs from other Kansas towns. The Gazette reacted to a story written in Hays. The writer warned Emporia to shed its naiveté about how Hollywood would tell the story. She saw Tinsel Town as totally uninterested in accuracy, only caring about sensationalism. The Gazette acknowledged this, but chastised the writer for this quote: “Probably, Emporians won’t much care. They seem more interested in the money that’s to be made by cooperating with the vultures…”

      The Gazette retorted, “Most of the folks who agreed to help with the film were motivated more by the desire for accuracy than by greed. These Emporians and members of Sandy Bird’s family, signed on as consultants to help the filmmakers tell the story right. They will work for their money. They also will be paid for allowing the film makers to portray them in the film.”

      The Gazette didn’t realize the bias this story revealed, or if it did, it totally discounted Tom’s side of the story. Mentioning Sandy’s family as consultants sent a clear signal to the Birds: Jane’s version of events would set the movie’s tone. Without the Birds to counter her clouded recollections, it left little hope for accuracy.

      What Emporians might profit from the movie?

      Trooper John Rule became the highest paid of the local consultants. While still on the Kansas Highway Patrol payroll, he signed a contract paying him $75,000, plus $1,000 a day for his work on the movie.

      Dennis Arb testified in Tom’s second trial and was a cousin of Sheriff Dan Andrews. He wrote to the Gazette on October 30, 1986:

      “Were you on the bridge July 17, 1983? Did you see the fine investigative work of our Highway Patrolman? Several citizens did. We found blood that he wanted to push aside as ‘fish-bait blood,’ the same samples that were used as evidence in the trial. And what about the other evidence—the party cups. Why were no fingerprints established? Our patrolman let the cups sit at the murder scene over half a day to be fingered by all onlookers, including himself.

      “I, myself, went back that afternoon. No one was around, but there sat those cups. It was easy to see that foul play was involved, but for some reason blood samples were filed away and another life had to be lost before our Highway Patrolman came forward and said he had it figured out all along.

      “If it took $75,000 for a lie to become a true story, what is the truth worth? A little peace of mind, a bit of satisfaction, and a little less respect for the law enforcement and reporters just doing their job.”

       Arb said Andrews, and later Agent Humphrey, actually kept the investigation going. It rankled Arb that Rule became the movie’s hero and its highest paid consultant. Rule’s big payday rankled others too, who thought Kansas law prevented these types of payments to government employees. Rule eventually received a promotion and a transfer out of town. Arb said it was the result of bad feelings by other local police toward him because of the money and credit that he received.

      Gazette reporters Horst and Birk also got paid. They were portrayed in the movie as duel heroines for forcing local and state authorities to pursue the investigation into Sandy’s death. Humphrey became a consultant.

      The Kansas film board received $3 million from the producers for helping stage the movie.

      Kansas made money. Emporia made money. Officials made money. Robe made a lie.

      On June 11, Terry Smith called Ralph and Virginia about a Topeka TV news story. “Channel 13 had a news item about the people in Tom’s case signing with the movie companies and in the background the TV coverage of the trial was shown again picturing Ralph and me, etc. Lorna A. has signed with HBO (ye gods!).”

      Virginia wondered, since so many of the investigators, reporters, and Jane received offers from production companies, why she and Ralph were ignored. “It’s funny, but no one has asked us for a contract as yet. I don’t think they are interested in Tom’s true story or ours.”

      CBS began filming on November 3, 1986. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Tom’s appeal of his murder conviction four days earlier, on October 30.

  Return to Excerpts Page