Kelly / Hopkinsville (Kentucky) 'Goblins' Incident (1955)

[Lb8535]

Patience is a virtue; a little bit won't hurt you ...

I'm trying to assemble some summary documentation to illustrate certain aspects of the incident.

never let the perfect be the enemy of the good

 

[Comfortably Numb]

NOTE: Click on the attachment filename to download and open the PDF file.

Downloaded perfectly here.

It's a tremendous achievement and immensely helpful.

There are related bits 'n pieces I have been trying to place in context and this timeline will be invaluable.

One such aspect is the question of warning shots being fired. As we all well know by this point, nothing is straightforward! Shall obviously see if I can add anything of possible further clarification.

In Geraldine Sutton's book, the story of how events unfolded is significantly different. How much of her published account is reliable, even though heard directly from her father, 'Lucky' Sutton, when she was old enough to understand, is typically uncertain.

However, your most earnest endeavours at least now allow a comparison.

The most striking outcome here is of course that we have relatively few shots fired, as documented therein and nothing like the amount claimed overall.

Geraldine states that daylight was welcome as "they were about out of ammunition".

There's also a 1957 newspaper article in which Chief Greenwelll recollects events and although not attriuted as a direct quote, the article states "the fighting raged for four hours until Taylor and Sutton ran out of ammunition".

It will naturally take a while to digest what you might have revealed in the overall perspective. Great work.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Thanks ...

The data compilations for these two accounts (particularly the detailed D & B report) illustrate how a tally of circa 6 events (or relatively substantial events) correlates with the documentation left to us and the reported claims of a half-dozen visits during the night.

Whether - and to what extent - there was additional shooting throughout the night is a separate matter. The events listed in the summaries I created don't necessarily translate into a lot of spent ammunition (certainly not any 200 rounds of .22 ammo).

With the exception of the Frank Edwards mess I can't find another account that clearly describes more than a few of the specific events enumerated in the D & B report. Multiple of the news reports blur some or all these events together - sometimes at the expense of omitting all mention of one or more of the most widely cited and significant individual events.

Even if there's no point in generating any additional such summaries for what are essentially only partial records of the night's events, these two are sufficient to serve as an initial basis for discussing what I consider the most crucial issue - how many, and which, individuals are documented as actually witnessing any of the visitors.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

In Geraldine Sutton's book, the story of how events unfolded is significantly different. How much of her published account is reliable, even though heard directly from her father, 'Lucky' Sutton, when she was old enough to understand, is typically uncertain.

However, your most earnest endeavours at least now allow a comparison.

From the book:

JC: One shot fired through the front window.

LS: One shot fired at creature on roof.

BT: One shot fired through the front window.

LS & BT: Both fire at creature in the maple tree.

LS: One shot fired at creature coming around the corner.

LS: One shot fired at creature on fence.

They all retreat indoors and hear scratching on the roof. LS goes outside.

LS: One shot fired at creature on roof.

He returns to the farmhouse, they wait awhile and then leave for the police station.

How many shots is that in total then..

Eight... five of which are by Lucky Sutton.

Geraldine makes no mention whatever of any shots being fired after Lucky Sutton returns to the farmhouse and they wait there until deciding to exit.

Why, again, no details of the perceived attack being repelled a further six times?

Unless... some confusion here, that never happened and it actually relates to the incidents above, each one repelling an attack?

Just a passing thought, for now.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The first roof shot is consistently reported as having happened after the living room window incident (a side, rather than the front, window next to the fireplace). I've never seen any account that suggests Lucky shot at anything on the roof during the same relative timeframe when J. C. and Taylor were shooting at the living room window.

According to the D & B report, the only shots fired at a fence occurred after the kitchen roof shot(s). The creature shot off the kitchen roof "floated" over to the back fence and further shots were fired at it, whereupon it fell to the ground and retreated.

The former / first roof shot was fired from the front yard. The latter roof shots were fired from the back yard.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Unless... some confusion here, that never happened and it actually relates to the incidents above, each one repelling an attack?

This is the relevant extract from
Isobel Davis:

There's no indication here that the "creatures cane up to the house six times', is other than the incidents we know of.

This is an extract from the 'Madisonville Messenger', on 22 August:

I don't see why it isn't also a misconstrued reference to the same thing and not how the creatures returned a further six times after those initial encounters.

Is there in fact any evidence that the creatures returned again and were fired upon?

Geraldine Sutton's account is one where the incidents we know of were in truth the only 'gun battle', it occurred over an approximate two hour period, then they all waited for a respite before it was decided they should reach for help.

If this is the actual set of circumstances, it does of course beg the question, how to account for all the circa 200 rounds JC Sutton supposedly claimed he fired. Did he really say that though - there's no direct quote from him and it's never made sense anyway.

Thoughts on all of the above are most welcome - it's just an idea at present - am I missing something here, which rules out this explanation?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I've never seen any account that suggests Lucky shot at anything on the roof during the same relative timeframe when J. C. and Taylor were shooting at the living room window.

As noted, Geraldine's account has to be seen as potentially unreliable as regards specific detail. However, your groundwork has enabled a comparison and it's maybe not so far removed.

It's also resulted in my above thoughts about what seemed to be a large gap in the shooting and maybe isn't. I will obviously be interested to see what you make of same.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... If this is the actual set of circumstances, it does of course beg the question, how to account for all the circa 200 rounds JC Sutton supposedly claimed he fired. Did he really say that though - there's no direct quote from him and it's never made sense anyway.

Here are the ammo consumption claims from the earliest or most detailed documented accounts ...

Deputy Sheriff Batts said the men told him that in all they fired up about four boxes of .22 pistol shells. ...

Kentucky New Era (Hopkinsville newspaper), 22 August. This was based on conversations with the residents the night of the incident and the following morning, and it doesn't attribute either the information or the ammo usage to any particular resident(s).

---

There's the 22 August Madisonville Messenger passage you (CN) posted above, which attributes the claim and the ammo usage to J. C. Sutton alone. Sutton was one of the 3 men who traveled to or through Madisonville on the 22nd. Taylor was not involved in the trip on the 22nd.

---

Taylor reportedly fired about four boxes of .22 shells. The battle went on for some time before the terrified occupants of the house saw their chance to escape to the cars and go for help.

Jacqueline Sanders (Saucerian Review). She gathered her info some days or weeks after the incident, and apparently only from law enforcement folks who'd responded that night or investigated the following day.

---

The D & B report (interviews conducted June 1956) alludes to the ammo consumption by referring to " ... a widely-quoted statement by J.C. Sutton that he used up four boxes of ammunition (200 shells) ..." (p. 69)

---

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I don't see why it isn't also a misconstrued reference to the same thing and not how the creatures returned a further six times after those initial encounters.
Is there in fact any evidence that the creatures returned again and were fired upon?

In the earliest accounts there's no support for the notion of ongoing shooting except for very vague statements about (e.g.) "fighting them for hours", which still leaves open the possibility the alleged ongoing shooting spree represents something wholly or partially identical with the particular events we've enumerated.

One of the only mentions indicating shooting above and beyond the specific events is something I see in my notes from watching Geraldine's videos. As I understood her, the 0330 shot Lucky fired through Ms. Lankford's bedroom (i.e., the living room) window led to ongoing sporadic shots being fired until circa 0515 on the 22nd. Multiple accounts cite 0515 on the 22nd as the time the visitors ceased coming to the house, but this is the only one I recall that claims there continued to be shooting after 0330.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

One of the only mentions indicating shooting above and beyond the specific events is something I see in my notes from watching Geraldine's videos.

This will now help, as it all begins to make at least some sense, at last.

As I suggested, it is seemingly becoming quite clear that a reference to the initial incidents, such as this from the 'Madisonville Messenger'...

"The passengers, described as "little men three or four feet tall," were reportedly chased off six times with both a shotgun and a .22 caliber pistol before the earth people summoned enough courage to run to their cars, and drive to Hopkinsville for help".

... become misconstrued in the aforementioned article as relating to the creatures returning a further six times after those incidents.

Although none of the participants actually ever said that happened, it has become part of folklore attached to the case.

This is also a key extract from Geraldine's book and ties in.

I am not at all persuaded that except for another single shot through the window, a further 'gun battle erupted'. However, need to consider further and revisit evidence of our creature(s) reappearance.

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_01.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_02.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_03.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_04.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_05.jpg

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_06.jpg

 

[maximus otter]

According to the @Comfortably Numb analysis, Sutton fired five rounds, yet is reported to have said that he fired four boxes, i.e. 200 rounds. The simplest explanation that occurs to me is that Sutton’s memory was at fault, and that he recalled 5 shots as 4, then either the press or the police misheard/misinterpreted/exaggerated for dramatic effect 4 rounds as 4 boxes.

This would also tie in far better with the awkward fact that police investigators only found two spent .22 cartridge cases.

maximus otter

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I am not at all persuaded that except for another single shot through the window, a further 'gun battle erupted'. However, need to consider further and revisit evidence of our creature(s) reappearance.

Geraldine Stith makes several references in her book to Isobel Davis' 'Close Encounters' publication.

If you compare them both, even though the start time varies, Geraldine's account of the second incident and ensuing 'battle' looks like it has come from Isobel Davis' publication.

Which, if so, apparently leaves us with only one source and that is when Isobel Davis writes:

The Second Visit: Monday, 2:30 a.m. to Daybreak

We have less information about the return of the creatures than about the hours when they were first at the farmhouse, but it was during this period that Mrs. Lankford saw the little man with his hands on the window screen. She had gone to bed. All the lights were off (the investigators had reassured the family to that extent). Her head was toward the window and she was trying to go to sleep, when she became aware of a glow at the window. The creature seemed to have come around the chimney to stand there; it put its little clawy hands up on the screen and stared silently into the room.

Throughout the night Mrs. Lankford had been the most self-possessed and observant of those present. It was she who mentioned that the creatures always approached the house slowly, with raised hands, as if they were trying to reassure their hosts or even communicate with them. Had she been able to control the situation, the shooting might have stopped. "I kept telling them to come into the house and shut the doors," she said to me. "The things weren't doing us any harm."

Now she looked away and back again, three times, because she thought perhaps her eyes were fooling her. But each time she looked at the window again, the creature was still standing there.

She called quietly to the rest of the family to come and look; Lucky, across the room/ was on his feet at once. He lifted his gun. "I'm going to shoot," he said.

"For God's sake, don't!" his mother answered (probably trying to prevent a repetition of the terrified excitement of the earlier visit). Lucky was not persuaded. "Mama, I'm goin' to shoot that little man," he said, and fired. This shot may have been the one that damaged the window frame; in any event, it had no effect on the visitors. None of the shots fired during the second visit injured the creatures any more than the earlier ones had done.

The last time that a creature was seen that night was approximately half an hour before sunrise, which took place about 5:15 that Monday morning, August 22.
(End)

This is obviously the key claim:

"None of the shots fired during the second visit injured the creatures any more than the earlier ones had done".

Did Glennie Langford actually tell her that, or is Isobel Davis presuming this happened?

Isobel notes, "We have less information about the return of the creatures...".

In fact, the only information seems related to that one shot.

Is that because nothing otherwise occurred?

 

[EnolaGaia]

According to the @Comfortably Numb analysis, Sutton fired five rounds, yet is reported to have said that he fired four boxes, i.e. 200 rounds. The simplest explanation that occurs to me is that Sutton’s memory was at fault, and that he recalled 5 shots as 4, then either the press or the police misheard/misinterpreted/exaggerated for dramatic effect 4 rounds as 4 boxes. ...

Some clarification is in order ... There were three men total, including two Suttons, armed and shooting that night:

- Elmer (Lucky) - Consistently cited as using the 12 gauge shotgun; never cited as using a .22, and ...

- John (J. C.) - Cited as using the 20 gauge shotgun once (1st living room window shot) and a .22 pistol an indeterminate number of times.

In addition there was Taylor, who was consistently cited as using a .22 caliber weapon (the rifle and / or the pistol).

To the extent the claims were ever specific the "4 boxes" bit referred only to the .22 ammo that was allegedly expended.

If J. C. and Taylor were using both the known .22 rifle and the alleged-but-never-verified .22 "target pistol" it's conceivable they could have accounted for significantly more rounds than were fired from the shotguns.

As I mentioned earlier ... If the .22 weapons used clips / magazines (entirely possible at the time) the figure of four "boxes" might well have originated as an allusion to four clips.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I found a minor error in my table summarizing the D & B version of the shooting events, relating to the item I labeled "7?" (kitchen roof / back yard / fence event). Owing to a partially lost portion of a printed numeral I misread page number 28 in the D & B file as 23. The cited page numbers for D & B's description of this event have been corrected. Here is the corrected V2 of the file.

 

[EnolaGaia]

RE: Lucky Sutton: Number of shots fired ...

According to the @Comfortably Numb analysis, Sutton fired five rounds ...

The number of Lucky's shots taken is probably (though not certainly) seven (documented; total). This is because there were two shooting events in which Lucky and whoever-else was involved are described as firing twice. This would add two more shots to Lucky's tally.

One such incident concerns the visitor in the tree in the front yard.

"There's one up in the tree, too," Billy Ray said— it was on the limb of the maple tree to the right as you leave the house. Both Lucky and Taylor shot at that one, knocking him off the limb; he floated to the ground, they shot at him again, and he too scurried off into the weeds.

D & B report, p. 25

In this case there were only two shooters in the front yard (Lucky and Taylor). The reference to "they" firing a second shot can only mean they both fired. Add a shot to Lucky's tally.

The other such incident concerns the vaguely-described kitchen roof / fence encounter in the back yard.

A scraping or tapping noise was heard on the kitchen roof, and the men went into the back yard to see a creature moving up that roof. They shot at it and knocked it from the roof; then it "floated" to the back fence-- a distance of some 40-odd feet--where it seemed to perch; they shot again, knocked it off the fence, and this time it scurried off into the weeds in the "all-fours" position.

D & B report, pp. 28 - 29

This second case is more ambiguous because the shooters are described only as "the men", and "they" fired twice. CN notes Lucky is cited in Geraldine Stith's book as having fired a shot at a visitor on a fence. This is the only shooting event described as involving a creature perched on a fence. Assuming Lucky was one of the "they" who fired twice, another shot has to be added to his tally.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I mentioned earlier ... If the .22 weapons used clips / magazines (entirely possible at the time) the figure of four "boxes" might well have originated as an allusion to four clips.

A 'what if' scenario...

Supposing there was another episode of shooting after that figure appeared at the bedroom window around 3:30 a.m.

Mrs Langford is statedly in bed, as are presumably most of the others, so they might not have seen what transpired - hence we have no detailed account from Mrs Langford.

It could explain why the ammunition claims do not equate with the number of shots we can account for.

It might also explain why we have that aforementioned visitor's recollection of ceiling damage being visible next day, as if shots had been fired from inside the farmhouse, at something on the roof which had terrified.

The police would only have found cartridges from the first incident and no ceiling damage would have existed then.

The following day's newspaper reports are all about the first incident, because that's the one reported to the police.

However, when they interview JC Sutton, he tells reporters how many cartridges he fired overall, without clarification it covered two separate periods.

The difficulty with this scenario is, of course, there must have been a vast amount of shooting next time around.

I'm still trying to locate that other mention I came across of ceiling damage and if I can, it may help.

At present, merely thoughts from down the rabbit hole...

 

[EnolaGaia]

A 'what if' scenario...
Supposing there was another episode of shooting after that figure appeared at the bedroom window around 3:30 a.m. ...

Some miscellaneous comments about such a revived shooting-fest in the pre-dawn hours ...

If there had been additional shooting within or around the house from circa 0330 onward, it could hardly have escaped the notice of the residents who were attempting to sleep - especially if there had been any shotgun blasts after Lucky's last documented shot through the window. In other words, the more probable issue concerns what everyone else heard rather than what they may have seen.

There is one substantive note in the D & B report about the period following the 0330 visit / shot:

The last time that a creature was seen that night was approximately half an hour before sunrise, which took place about 5:15 that Monday morning, August 22.

This implies there was at least one sighting after the 0330 event. It does not necessarily mean there were additional shots fired.

Also ... If Davis' claim that sunrise indeed occurred circa 0515 on the 22nd is accurate:

- it means the encounters ended circa 0445 rather than 0515, as most accounts claim, and ...
- it means the total timeframe for any encounter(s) following Lucky's bedroom shot was on the order of only one hour.

If there'd been more encounters this extended 'combat' would seemingly clash with the men's reported activities once the sun was up.

Lucky, J. C., and Baker left soon after sunrise on their trip to Evansville to borrow a truck - either to carry furniture back or to borrow the truck for hauling furniture (D & B report, p. 39).

Bill Thomas claimed Lucky came to the diner on the morning of the 22nd, which doesn't seem right in the context of Lucky and the other two men setting out on a long day trip heading in the opposite direction. Though not mentioned in any account I've seen, it would make a lot more sense for the men to have had breakfast at the house before leaving on the planned trip.

Taylor is reported to have gone hunting first thing on the morning of the 22nd.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... It might also explain why we have that aforementioned visitor's recollection of ceiling damage being visible next day, as if shots had been fired from inside the farmhouse, at something on the roof which had terrified.
The police would only have found cartridges from the first incident and no ceiling damage would have existed then. ...

I'm not sold on the idea of interior ceiling damage.

The Bill Thomas reminiscence 65 years after the incident is the only account I've seen that alleges ceiling damage. Except for the damage to the living room window screen and screen frame (abutting the wall alongside the window) I don't recall any other account alleging gunfire damage to the house's walls or ceilings.

The D & B report specifically states that when investigators returned the following day (the 22nd) they examined the roof and found nothing - not even any scratches or other evidence of anything substantial moving around on the roof.

According to Ledwith there was at least one heavy rain shower on the 22nd, yet there's no mention of the roof leaking from recent gunshot penetration(s).

The vaguely documented kitchen roof (tapping / scratching) event occurred before the investigators were summoned on the night of the 21st. If there had been any shooting into the ceiling it had to occur after the investigators left circa 0100 - 0200 (accounts vary if they cite a departure time at all).

If there'd been additional shooting events with ceiling damage, why isn't it mentioned by any of the investigators (including Ledwith) or reporters who came to the house in droves the following day?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The Bill Thomas reminiscence 65 years after the incident is the only account I've seen that alleges ceiling damage.

That's the other one I was looking for - post #364. It states:

"A few days later, Bill went out to the Sutton Place. He says he saw the evidence. ...There were holes in the roof and door. The windows were shot out. And there were peculiar scratches near the windows and on the front of the house".

So, he doesn't actually say it was damage inside the house and I agree it seems unsupported that shots were fired through the ceiling.

 

[EnolaGaia]

www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_05.jpg
www.forteanmedia.com/Geraldine_06.jpg

These pages claim Ledwith interviewed both the 3 women and the men individually, then marveled at how consistent these separately gathered descriptions of the visitors were. Her account attempts to amplify the apparent value of the sketches by virtue of their having originated as matching separate witness inputs.

This isn't true.

Read Ledwith's own detailed account of his visit to the house on the 22nd (D & B report, pp. 42 ff.). He interviewed both the women and the men collectively (in the case of the men, with one or another coming / going during the process) and progressively refined his sketches in response to their collective feedback.

The only adult witness interviewed in isolation was Taylor, and then only after Ledwith passed him off to Hodson.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

One of the bullets got so close that it whizzed by their heads and hit Bill’s girlfriend’s house.

Surely any stray shots could never have travelled that far?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Surely any stray shots could never have travelled that far?

Bill says his girlfriend's house was close enough (to the Sutton / Lankford house) to allow them to hear residents' utterances (probably Lucky, etc., shouting). This would be close enough for either shotgun pellets - or especially .22 bullets - to conceivably reach.

The alleged proximity to the house is not the problem here. The problem I have is figuring out which shot(s) it may have been that could have reached a nearby house. As I mentioned earlier, it would seem most probable the cousin's and the girlfriend's homes were south of the Sutton / Lankford house. However, there's no documented shooting event that clearly implies a shot fired southward.

I'd love to know where the girlfriend's house was located relative to the Sutton / Lankford house. If we knew which shot(s) could have hit this other house it would help in determining the timeline of Thomas' activities and exit from the vicinity.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Read Ledwith's own detailed account of his visit to the house on the 22nd (D & B report, pp. 42 ff.). He interviewed both the women and the men collectively (in the case of the men, with one or another coming / going during the process) and progressively refined his sketches in response to their collective feedback.

There are, unfortunately, two key moments when impartiality is arguably comprised.

Having completed his first sketch, as depicted by the women (minus Mrs Taylor, who had not seen the small creatures), Ledwith explains:

WE RETURNED TO THE HOUSE, AND ABOUT 1:45 BILLY RAY TAYLOR WALKED IN, GUN IN HAND, RETURNED FROM HIS HUNTING TRIP. I QUIETLY LAID THE WOMEN'S DRAWING ON THE BED NEXT TO WHICH I WAS STANDING, AND MOVED AWAY. BILLY RAY CAME INTO THE ROOM, GLANCED AT THE BED, SAW THE DRAWING, RAN OVER AND PICKED IT UP, AND GAVE US ALL THE COLD CHILLS BY DECLARING, "THAT'S IT,BTHAT'S IT, THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE IT!" I THEN ASKED HIM INTO THE OTHER ROOM (THE BEDROOM) AND WE STARTED TO DRAW A SECOND PICTURE, USING THE FIRST AS A BASIS.
(End)

So, Billy Ray already knows what the women believe is accurate.

Then later, as Ledwith records:

THIS WAS THE SCENE AND TEMPER OF THE PEOPLE WHEN LUCKY DESCENDED AT 3:30. ...JUST BEFORE HIS ARRIVAL WE HAD GONE INTO THE BEDROOM, WHERE BILLY RAY TAYLOR WAS TALKING TO HODSON. THE DOOR WAS THROWN OPEN, AND IN STRODE LUCKY, SCOWLING. "WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?" I FELT THAT HIS MOTHER HAD MET WITH HIM IN THE FRONT YARD AND HAD BEGGED HIM TO REMOVE ALL SIGHTSEERS FROM THE HOUSE AND SURROUNDINGS, AND HE WAS ABOUT TO START WITH US. HOWEVER, BEFORE HE DID ANYTHING ELSE, HIS EYES DROPPED TO THE TABLE WHERE THE WOMEN'S DRAWING LAY. WITHOUT SAYING ANOTHER WORD, HE SAT DOWN, AND WE KNEW WE HAD STRUCK HOME WITH THAT PICTURE. HE LOOKED IT OVER, STARTED TO SHAKE HIS HEAD, AND SAID, "NO, THE FACE IS ALMOST ROUND, IT DOESN'T COME TO A POINT." THE OTHER TWO MEN HAD NOW COME INTO THE BEDROOM, TOO, AND WE GOT RIGHT TO WORK ON THEIR DRAWING, USING THE WOMEN'S AS A GUIDE AND MAKING CHANGES AS THE MEN INDICATED.
(End)

Once more, the men are presented with a fait accompli.

Although in both cases changes were made to the sketches which had been seen, in neither were sketches compiled from scratch, based on the witness descriptions.

When Taylor is given an opportunity to effectively start from the beginning and Pt. Hodson's artist draws a separate sketch based on this, Ledwith puts the variance between his drawing and the other as Taylor 'elaborating'.

How could he be sure the other sketch wasn't in fact more reliable?

Would it be reasonable to conclude that given the lighting conditions, perhaps none of them are.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The point is that there wasn't a control for bias or influence among the witnesses being interviewed. As you noted, the women's sketch was seized upon by Taylor and served as the starting point / seed for interviewing the other men. (See the D & B report, pp. 43 - 46)

Given this potentially influential role of the women's sketch, it's all the more important to consider the three women's participation in the sketching exercise and their validation / approval of Ledwith's final product.

One of these three women (Ms. Lankford) is noted as having been different from the other two in relation to these factors. For example:

- When Ledwith arrived she was sitting alone outside, joining with the other two only after agreeing to be interviewed;

- It's unclear which or how many of the women contributed to guiding Ledwith's sketch development at any given point or concerning any given feature;

- Once the basic shape and head had been sketched in Ms. Lankford left the room and went back outside, saying she wasn't going to look at it any more;

- When Ledwith finished the sketch with the other two he took it outside to show Ms. Lankford, who gave it cursory approval and said she didn't want to look at it any more.

Ms. Lankford basically walked out of the interview, and she stated an aversion to and / or disinterest in the visitors' appearance at the point she left and once again later. Recall that her descriptions of the visitors from her own two sightings didn't exactly match what the women's sketch finally portrayed, starting with the most fundamental elements - i.e., the overall body form and relative length of the limbs.

As Ledwith produced the first visual representation of what others said they'd seen Ms. Lankford could not help but realize their descriptions were far more detailed and substantially different than her own - as recorded in her signed statement of the preceding night. She'd never said she could make out any facial features. She only mentioned a smaller piece or part atop a larger / broader main body. She never mentioned the arms and hands at all in describing her first sighting, and for the second sighting she only mentioned hands on the window screen without describing how they were attached to the rest of the visitor.

Whether it was the difference in level of detail or the differences in general form, Ms. Lankford's documented version of a visitor certainly didn't end up being reflected in Ledwith's sketch. Ledwith's sketch is predominantly a product of what he gathered from Vera and / or Alene Sutton.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Surely any stray shots could never have travelled that far?

Consider this ...

A .22 LR bullet is capable of traveling 2,000 yards (1,800 m), which is more than 1 mile (1.6 km)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I remain uncertain about the following; Isobel Davis writes:

Understandably, the sequence of events was and remains confused. No one was keeping a log. Mrs. Lankford, for example, when interviewed by Mr. Andre in 1959, thought the incident of Taylor's hair being touched occurred about 10:30 p.m. She said that at first she did not pay any attention to the boys, thinking they were only joking and shooting for the fun of it. She and the other women were busy with the supper dishes and putting the children to bed. "We thought the boys were only kidding, although they were coming into the house and telling about seeing and shooting at the things.

"I did not take them seriously until about 10 o'clock, when Alene came in terrified, white, nervously shaking, saying that she had seen one of the little men. She was terribly upset and her nervousness continued for several days. I suggested to the boys that we turn the lights out, which we did. I decided then to see just what it was they were seeing. I went out in the hallway and crouched down next to Billy and asked him, 'Now just what have you been seeing?' He replied, 'Wait and you'll see.'

"We remained crouched down about three feet from the screen door (the front door) for about 20 minutes, when I saw one approaching the door. Billy and I remained crouching until it came right up to the screen. It looked like a five-gallon gasoline can with a head on top and small legs. It was a shimmering bright metal like on my refrigerator.

"I tried to get up from my crouched position to move back farther from the door. I did not make it, as I am heavy and my legs had become stiff from remaining in a crouched position a long time; and being in the dark I lost my balance and fell flat on the floor, making a thud-like noise and letting out a shriek.

At the same time the thing jumped back into the yard and Billy shot at it right through the screen.

"It then jumped up, we thought, right on the roof of the house. As Billy went out the door to get another shot at it, the thing's clawy hands snatched at Billy's head. By that time Alene had come to the door; she grabbed Billy's arm and snatched him back into the house. By then, my son, Lucky, who had been guarding the other doorway (the back door) had also arrived at the front door, coming through the house.

He pushed out the door past Billy and Alene and shot at the thing while it was still on the overhang above the front door."

Several times, apparently, the men thought they had driven the creatures off for good, only to have them return after an interval. This is indicated by Lucky's statement, quoted in one newspaper, that the creatures "came up to the house six times," and also by the fact that the family waited so long before going for help.

But as their invulnerable visitors returned again and again, matters got worse. Mrs. Lankford did not panic ("I kept trying to get him to come in the house and shut the door. The things weren't doing us any harm"), but the other women were increasingly terrified. The children were frightened too, in spite of efforts to reassure them and even to prevent them from seeing the creatures at all. But they could not be kept in bed. At least once, one child was in the front yard when a creature was seen and fired at; and by the time the family left the house, one child was screaming with fear and had to be carried to the car.

It was about 11 o'clock when the Suttons got into the two automobiles and headed at top speed for the Hopkinsville police station.
(End)

Is all of the above from Andre's 1959 interview?

It's a different scenario, where 'the boys' were, "coming into the house and telling about seeing and shooting at the things".

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Whether it was the difference in level of detail or the differences in general form, Ms. Lankford's documented version of a visitor certainly didn't end up being reflected in Ledwith's sketch.

Absolutely so.

In the sketch, we have this depiction of large, 'oversize hands with talons'.

The closest and longest observation might be the one Mrs. Langford had, during that second episode.

It's crucial here to keep in mind that the windows were low down, as Isobel Davis explains:

"Except in the kitchen, all the windows go almost to the floor and their bottom sills are not more than 18 inches above the ground".

What does this closest of encounters, possibly reveal about the true nature of our little entities.

Isobel Davis takes up the story:

She had been describing how she saw one of the creatures during their second visit, at about 3:30 in the morning. She was lying on her bed in the living room, trying to go to sleep, when it came up to the window beside the fireplace, seeming to have come around the chimney.

"I turned my head three different times, because I thought maybe my eyes were fooling me. But every time I turned my head back, there he was".

"How far away was he?", I asked. "How close to the screen did he come?".

She waited a minute before she answered. It was not an uncertain pause nor a pause to create suspense; it was more as if she were seeing the picture again in her mind's eye.

"Close enough to put his little clawy hands up on it", she said.

No need really to attach a suggested matching photo, I would presume.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Is all of the above from Andre's 1959 interview?
It's a different scenario, where 'the boys' were, "coming into the house and telling about seeing and shooting at the things".

Yes - my interpretation is that this entire description of Ms. Lankford's first sighting (D & B, pp. 30 - 31) comes from the Albert Andre letter to NICAP (where he was a regular contributor and very active member).

This is the alternate version I labeled as '6-X' in my Davis & Bloecher tabular summary. This version agrees with Ms. Lankford's own description (Item '6') of the event in terms of timeframe. However, it conflicts with her own description in claiming this incident happened at a different door and adding details about Taylor's involvement, a shot being fired, and her falling down.

Furthermore, it conflicts with Davis' own timeline (such as it is ... ) in claiming this event occurred immediately preceding the front door / hair grab / 1st roof shot / tree shot sequence.

Davis' overall account has this extended sequence occurring early on, following the 1st sighting / shooting and the 1st living room window shooting events. If she'd adopted the Andre version and accepted Ms. Lankford's statement's estimate of the timeframe she doesn't claim having done so *and* it seriously screws up other sections of her report.

For example, Davis accepts Ms. Lankford's signed statement version of her first sighting in depicting the location (on both house diagrams) as the back door, not the front door cited in the Andre version.

On the other hand ... Andre's version has the advantage of changing the whole timeline so that it portrays a rapidly unfolding flurry of activity from circa 2230 onward - after which they jumped in the two cars and fled immediately rather than waiting until they thought things had calmed down. The estimated time of departure for Hopkinsville was circa 2245.

 

[EnolaGaia]

About the Albert Andre documentation Davis cited ...

Andre was a very active investigator / correspondent in NICAP during the late 1950s. He was based in Tennessee as of 1959, though other NICAP documentation mentions him in New York.

Andre's interview(s) with Ms. Lankford occurred in January 1959 - 2.5 years after Davis' interview with her.

Andre apparently wrote up his report and forwarded it as private correspondence to NICAP at some unknown time. I've checked the NICAP archives (now held by CUFOS), and there's no trace or mention of it in the NICAP newsletter (The UFO Investigator) from 1959 through the first issue in 1961. Neither could I find it anywhere among the other documents / directories in the archive.

My guess is that NICAP never published or distributed Andre's report in any form. This isn't all that surprising, because NICAP had a reputation / policy for avoiding stories of direct encounters / interactions with UFO occupants.

As far as I can tell, Andre's report wasn't published anywhere. I rummaged through the CUFOS archives (in case CUFOS had done something with it much later) but couldn't find any trace of it.

 

[EnolaGaia]

While rummaging through the CUFOS archives for Andre's report (or any mention of it) I stumbled across the following compendium of historical UFO notes. This was apparently a bin for storing random tidbits that might be inserted into CUFOS historical summaries. This compendium (available as a PDF file) contains a lot of tidbits about the Kelly / Hopkinsville incident, much of which is excerpted from Davis' report.

THE FIFTH HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE
UFOS: A HISTORY
1955 July-September 15th
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
By
Loren E Gross Copyright © 2002 Fremont CA

"Supplemental Notes" consist of material under consideration for any revision of the original UFO history volume covering this time period

http://www.cufos.org/UFO_History_Gross/1955_07_09-15th_HistorySN.pdf

Edit to Add:

Among other things, this compendium includes extended passages of severely critical comments from Deputy Sheriff Batts (on the scene both the 21st and 22nd) and state trooper Russell Ferguson. The latter of these are probably the same, or same sort of, Ferguson comments Comfortably Numb declined to post earlier.