Calling All Angels

Discussions with Robert W.P. Cutler, M.D. on the Murder of Jane Stanford

By Stephen Herrick Requa

Trine Day LLC

Copyright © 2016 Stephen Herrick Requa
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-63424-034-5

Contents

Cover,
Title page,
Copyright page,
Publisher’s Foreword,
In Memoriam,
Jane Stanford – Portrait,
Foreword) The Passion of Jane Stanford,
The Mysterious Death of Jane Stanford The Mysterious Death of Jane Stanford,
Author’s Preface) Calling All Angels,
Stanford Office Memorandum – July 11, 1983,
1) The Cliff-Hanger with Stanford University Press,
Los Angeles Times – October, 10, 2003,
2) The “Gangs” at Stanford,
3) The Great Evil at the Heart of the Myth,
4) Cutler Evidence Cracks Jane Stanford Murder Justice Now for Jane Stanford?,
5) No More Excuses for Jordan’s Existence at Stanford,
Postscript) It’s Cracked!,
Timeline,
Appendix 1) The American Roots of Nazi Eugenics,
Appendix 2) Professor Julius Goebel Proved it All,
Photographs and Documents,
Contents,
Landmarks,

CHAPTER 1

The Cliff-Hanger with Stanford University Press

My intensive three year exchanges with Dr. Cutler began on July 29, 2001, starting first, with issues about Peter Sylvester who had written the Memorandum of 1983 that Cutler had found in Stanford University Archives. Robert Van Dyke, the subject of that memorandum, was our second concern. He had made the allegations about his evidence for David Starr Jordan and Darius Ogden Mills being behind the poisoning of Jane Stanford in Honolulu. Our third set of initial concerns was with the mechanics of the poisoning in Hawaii. On September 13, 2002, I got word (below) from Cutler that he had signed the contract with Stanford University Press to publish the book that had thus evolved. I could hardly believe it! I had given the chance of it being published at Stanford as almost nil. But I got the surprise of a lifetime with this:

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Subject: Jane Stanford

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:50:14 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Stephen,

Well, I’ve just signed a contract with Stanford to publish my book, so that is done.

I want to thank you for all of your support throughout this project. I will be very interested to learn how your affairs are progressing when you have the time.

Best wishes, Robert

It had indeed been a cliff-hanger for us both leading up to this, with my own rather certain expectations that somehow the university administration would ascertain what was going on with him at the Press and somehow scuttle it, or just stomp on it with all their might.

The first thing I had done was to tell Cutler, by no means, to contact Peter Sylvester, who I found had been grossly libeling me and alleged that I had been obsessed with the issue. The emails from Cutler leading up to the signing indicate the cliff-hanger feelings for both of us.

Word of a possible definite “Go” had come earlier on August 14:

To Stephen Herrick Requa 14/08/2002

Dear Stephen:

It looks like you have been busy indeed! Congratulations on orchestrating these important projects to near completion.

Last evening, Norris Pope, Editor in Chief of SU Press called me to apologize for the long delays and to inform me that my book has been approved for publication (contract still on the way – people on vacation). But it is definitely a GO. The marketing folks think the market may be restricted to the Stanford community (quite large in my view), and they are going to publish it as a cloth covered hardback in the scholarly work category. Pope thinks the market is bigger and is happy to re-issue as a trade paperback if he is proven correct. My delivery date is Sept. 15 which I can easily meet. I still know nothing about film rights, etc., but of course I haven’t signed anything.

As of now, I am pleased with the outcome. I need a better title, but I think you can refer to the book as “forthcoming.” Thanks for your support. Will keep you posted.

Best, Robert

A prior email concerning the Stanford Press had been this:

Sent: 27 July 2002 14:30:49

To: Stephen Herrick Requa (sherrickrequa@hotmail.com)

Glad to hear your documentary is moving along.

I would be most pleased to talk to someone on your crew about Mrs.

Stanford. We now have a regular telephone line and my number is (925) XXX-XXXX.

The “couple of weeks” SU Press estimated to draw up a contract is approaching two months so I will probably give them a call next week. People in academics don’t usually work very hard in the summer; hopefully the delay is no more than that.

I hope you are finding time to finish your book and also that Banner is going well.

Best, Robert

I was keeping Cutler aware of the prospect for obstruction from the Office of Development:

From: Stephen Herrick Requa

Sent: 06 June 2002 10:00:15

To: rwpcutler33@yahoo.com

Hi Robert:

I read your new chapter and found it very interesting. I’ve been meaning to reply but have been very busy lately. I’d like to read the chapter again and see if I can have anything more or less well informed to say. Has the Press made any further communication? Otherwise, any sign of the Men in Black from the Office of Development?

Regards, Stephen

Before this I had received a missive that mentioned the very important work of Professor Carnochan who had dug up decisive evidence about Professor Julius Goebel, a friend of Jane Stanford.

From: robert cutler

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Subject: Re: Hello

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:00:21 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Stephen:

I have been meaning to write to thank you for the materials on Banner. I hope that enterprise is developing in the manner you expect and deserve. I particularly hope you are finding time to work on your book – getting our two books out in the same time frame could be mutually beneficial. I have not heard from the Press, and I have given myself till the end of the month before I contact my friend C——— to see what he can learn. The book could well be making some Stanford folk nervous, or perhaps, like all publishing companies they are just slow. As you probably know, most university presses find themselves in a position of needing to make a living; subsidies from their parents are dwindling. Heretofore, Stanford Press has published “field-related” scholarly books only. Now they need to have a line the purpose of which is to make them money, and I think my book falls into that category. For that reason, I believe runs and promotion will be executed for their advantage (and ultimately mine). We’ll see. In the meantime, I am working on an extra chapter which I know will be wanted by the Press – on the case of Professor Ross. It was the mismanagement of Jordan’s firing of Professor Ross that started the serious rift between Mrs. Stanford and Jordan.

Be assured I will let you know of developments at SU.

Best regards, Robert

The first indication and news that Stanford Press had wanted to publish the book had come three weeks before:

From: Stephen Herrick Requa 01 April 2002 01:11:22

To: rwpcutler33@

Robert:

I am amazed about the Editor wanting to publish the book, considering the powerful spin doctors and fund raisers at Stanford, who would like to see this issue buried forever. It’s a testament to your medical acumen, clear thinking, judicious approach, restraint, and comprehensive research. Sylvester, who was ridiculing the idea in 1993 and using the issue to discredit me (for ulterior motives of the Office of Development and some of their donors who were involved in the schemes against Banner) will be pretty red-faced soon, as in bright red.

Congratulations indeed! It’s so good to see integrity and diligence rewarded. It’s also a good statement for the integrity of the Stanford Press. Now if I can hone my book into a final edit as judicious as yours.

Many thanks to Aaron for his library work on Isaac Requa. Again, well deserved congratulations.

Regards Stephen

Until this news, Cutler had been waiting for a review from the forensic pathologist. He notes that if his book is scuttled, I had warned him:

From: robert cutler

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Subject: Re: Reply

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:28:16 -0800 (PST)

Stephen –

Good to hear from you. I hope your financial ventures are proceeding satisfactorily. Has your writing been put on hold by these necessary activities? My son, Aaron, was happy to do the library work and wants no remuneration. Arsenic is cumulative and can poison over a long period, but it produces a severe peripheral neuropathy and a characteristic skin rash resembling a pattern of rain droplets on dusty skin.

The forensic pathologist gave my manuscript a thumbs up and a strong recommendation to publish. I just learned this about two weeks ago. We now await a review by “a Stanford historian” which should be forthcoming soon. The Editor of the Press says he wants to publish my book. Hopefully, it won’t get scuttled, but if it is, you warned me. I would like to get this done with soon. Hope everything is well.

All the best, Robert

Prior to these exchanges Cutler and I had been focusing on the more serious factual issues of the poisoning details per se in Hawaii and on the various issues of Robert Van Dyke. Cutler wondered how Van Dyke had been onto the case to start with. By July 2002, Cutler had ascertained the probability behind that as he wrote:

From: robert cutler (rwpcutler33@)

Sent: 07 July 2002 07:58:37

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Dear Stephen:

I have long wondered why Van Dyke would have regaled you with stories of Mrs. Stanford’s death in 1983, nearly 80 years after the event took place. As far as I knew, it was not the talk of the town for all of those years. I have recently learned, however, that an article published in the obscure journal, Pacific Historian, by Gary Ogle in 1981 (the first to conclude poisoning and to expose Jordan’s cover-up) was reprinted in the Pacific Commercial Advertiser in Honolulu on July 27, 1981, complete with pictures and old headlines. Possibly that is what piqued Van Dyke’s interest.

Best, Robert

Back on August 3, 2001 I had received Cutler’s word that he had received permission from Stanford Archives to send Sylvester’s memorandum to me. Again I warned him against passing on to Sylvester that we were in communication. I felt that information would surely nix the book’s publication:

03/08/2001 To rwpcutler33@

Robert:

Just a cautionary note again to advise that you tell as few people as possible about your manuscript or any publishing intentions. Obviously Sylvester was trying to curry favor with the University over this, and other people would be inclined to do the same. Another reason for getting it published outside the US and far away from Stanford. Regards,

Stephen

At the same time Cutler had got word from the archivist that he could forward me a copy of the Sylvester memorandum:

From: robert cutler

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Subject: memo

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:04:33 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Steven,

I have received the necessary permission and now attach (hopefully) the memo on the Van Dyke matter. My equipment is antiquated and I see the copier has dropped characters and distorted fonts. But I think it’s readable. My Honolulu contact is away so I have nothing to report on the Van Dyke collection, or the man himself. I certainly don’t mistrust your use of my manuscript and will send it to you fairly soon. I am awaiting a couple of pieces of information that will allow me to finish it. I warn you there is a bit of medicine in it, but I don’t think it is overwhelming. Give me another month, or longer if we find the Van Dyke files.

Best regards, Robert

A day later I added this in another email:

Your hurdle is to get it out in print, independently, without people making problems for you – which they WILL do, just to curry favor with whomever they can rile up in the University against you. That is what it appears Sylvester perhaps did to me – in alliance with those whom I was about to expose in some serious violations of securities laws.

But as time has proved, behind it was much more than securities laws violations. It was about issues at the very jugular of Stanford University ever since it was taken over by a coup in 1905, under whom in very important respects it has remained subservient as exemplified by Condoleezza Rice, a Stanford mentor and proponent of Bush’s war-profiteering agendas. Another flagrant in-your-face action along this line was Stanford’s appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as a “Distinguished Visiting Scholar” in 2007.

More to indicate the pervasive reality of Stanford having been taken over by the moneyed “elite” in 1905 after the poisoning of Jane Stanford and Isaac Requa – and Stanford remaining taken over to this day – was reflected in 1980 when Stanford President Richard Lyman retired, and then ran right off to head the Rockefeller Foundation.

“[A] great evil at the heart of the myth,” as I was quoted on the front page of the Los Angeles Times, has remained intact since Jane Stanford was poisoned in 1905. Along with a “cover up,” which called the poisoning “heart disease,” which almost everyone knew was a transparent lie, but everyone sat still for. They knew they weren’t really fooling anyone; they intimidated them into silence.

In 2001 with Cutler, our exchanges on the issues themselves about Van Dyke and the poisoning per se in Honolulu began. His first words about tracking down Van Dyke were these:

From: robert cutler (rwpcutler33@)

Sent: 05 October 2001 09:06:21

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Stephen,

Glad to hear from you. I hope your major strides include the many endeavors in which you are engaged, including, of course, your book. I am still working on mine, mostly digesting newspaper accounts at present. Here’s the status on Van Dyke (from whom I have never heard): He sold his collection of photographs and historical documents to the Bishop Estate in 1996 for $422,831. A Bishop librarian, Sigrid Southworth spent about 7 months sorting through the stuff, and an attorney, Albert Jeremiah spent further months finishing an inventory. Southworth does not remember encountering anything about Mrs. Stanford. I have written to Jeremiah but have not had a response. So, we’ll see, and I’ll certainly keep you posted.

Best wishes, Robert

His next news about Van Dyke was this:

From: robert cutler (rwpcutler33@)

Sent: 31 October 2001 08:22:41

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Hello Stephen,

It’s going ok, thank you. I don’t have the facility for writing that you seem to possess so I do it one word at a time. How is your book coming – near the publication stage? What is its title? How is it going to be received at The University?

I think since I last wrote that I have learned that the Stanford Historical Society (i.e. Nilan on the memo I sent you) did not pursue looking for Van Dyke. He apparently visited the Stanford library at least once, because the archivist knew of him.

I hope when I receive a bit more outstanding information to be able to close this project. I fear you will find it a bit dull compared to your own project. If nothing else, I hope it sets the record straight that Mrs. Stanford was murdered and that Jordan was not the hero Stanford made of him, at least in this case.

Keep me posted and best wishes, Robert

About the dovetailing of our work and information, Cutler wrote:

From: robert cutler

To: Stephen Herrick Requa

Subject: a request

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:55:55 -0800 (PST)

Dear Stephen,

I’ve been meaning to write to inquire how your mining projects are progressing. I hope the prospects are now under study and that the litigation in which you are involved is also proceeding satisfactorily.

I have essentially completed my small book. It is a factual account and shows the efforts taken by Jordan to cover things up. It includes some speculation as to why. I find I cannot bring myself to say he was covering his own ass, but readers can draw inferences. In doing some final editing today, it occurred to me the inferences could be more obvious if I could make some sort of reference to your book. I wondered how the attached endnote strikes you. If you do not approve, please do not hesitate to tell me. I do not want to steal your thunder, but on the other hand, if Stanford would publish my book, it would call attention to yours. If you do approve, I will need the title of your book and verification that “in press” is ok. My manuscript is now about 135 pages. I intend to send you a hard copy, probably next week, and when you have the time, I would be very interested in your comments.

Best regards, Robert

A week later I received an email that included leads that ten years later would be vital in my understanding, especially about Darius Ogden Mills and Whitelaw Reid. Giving credence to Van Dyke’s claims, Cutler noted that Darius Ogden Mill was “in town” and at Stanford at that time, but he didn’t “know why.”

Cutler speculated on a connection between Mills and the Requas at that time, and in fact Mills had financed the Eureka Palisade Railroad with Isaac Requa. Mills had been the richest man in California until he moved to New York City, where he became father-in-law of Whitelaw Reid. I posited, later, that Reid and Mills had hopped a train in New York making a bee-line to Stanford – arriving just in time for Jane Stanford’s demise to be announced. Cutler mentions Reid serving “later [as] Ambassador to England.” I was to ascertain, that “later” was just a few days later. Reid was appointed ambassador on March 8, 1905, the day before the Inquest and Coroner’s Verdict of death by strychnine had been announced in Hawaii.

I feel that was the last day his appointment could have been made in light of the circumstances, Reid being the “executor” to a woman who the next day would be adjudicated having been murdered. No evidence has been found as to how or why Reid might genuinely have been Jane Stanford’s executor. He lived 3,000 miles away, and there is no record of them ever having met.

Unlike Whitelaw Reid, Timothy Hopkins, a Stanford University trustee, accompanied Jordan to Hawaii to recover Mrs. Stanford’s body. While he was there the Honolulu newspapers, as covered in Cutler’s book, reported that Hopkins tried to bribe the autopsy doctors and toxicologists into dropping their verdict of strychnine poisoning.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Calling All Angels by Stephen Herrick Requa. Copyright © 2016 Stephen Herrick Requa. Excerpted by permission of Trine Day LLC.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.