This is the full article from the 'Kentucky New Era', published on 23 August, 1955, in which Mrs Langford comments on the possibility that someone was trying to scare her, can't think of any motive, confirms she was thinking of buying the property and is now uncertain. ...
Here are my thoughts and comments about the 23 August article ...
The photo shows Ms. Glennie pointing at a spot where a visitor allegedly fell after Lucky shot it with a shotgun. I've tried before when seeing this photo elsewhere, and I still can't convince myself where on the property this spot was located. A larger, clearer, version of this photo can be found in the D & B report, p. 17.
The article is based on a visit from a newspaper reporter and photographer on the morning of 23 August. Ms. Glennie and her daughter Mary are noted as the only residents present.
One must wonder where everyone else may be. On the one hand, one might wonder whether the absence of most residents (including the two minor boys) could have been the basis for the claim (cf. Sanders) everyone had abandoned the house within 48 hours of the incident. On the other hand, one might suggest the presence of Ms. Lankford and Mary indicates any abandonment of the house didn't occur that soon.
Alene and O. P. may well have been gone to their respective jobs.
Could the others have been occupied with some activity involving the truck that may have been borrowed from Evansville? If so - it would be interesting (and quite possibly illuminating) to know what that project may have been.
This article specifies that curiosity seekers were still driving by the house as late as 11:00 - 12:00 the previous night (the 22nd), and that state police were asked to come and help manage the traffic. This situation (both traffic and police assistance) had resumed by the time the news guys arrived that morning.
The article states the incident story had been publicized nationwide by the morning of the 23rd.
The negative rebound / blowback effects from the preceding 36 hours and publicity were all evident on the morning of the 23rd.
Some of the phrasing on the article's first page mirrors Davis' later phrasing in the D & B report - indicating Davis drew some of her report's nuanced passages from the Kentucky New Era reports.
The same can be said of Sanders - some of the phrasing in her report seems to have been copied from this article.
Ms. Lankford's statements on the article's second page are verbatim copies of her testimony in her signed statement and multiple other accounts - including Davis' report from the following year.
One slight mismatch in her otherwise verbatim comments is that she attributes her second sighting to 0300 on the 22nd rather than 0330.
This article correctly states there were 11 people at the house during the incident, but it incorrectly lists who they were. It seems to list O. P. Baker as one of three married sons of Ms. Lankford and notes Taylor as the single unattached participant.
This account states the Taylor hair-grab event occurred after the first shot had been fired from inside the house (i.e., the first living room window shooting). This sequencing seemed pretty certain from other accounts, but this article may be the only account that definitively states it.
This is the first and only account (that I've seen or recall) in which J. C. is cited as having been dismissive of the situation at first. To the best of my recollection, this represents the earliest and only clue that J. C. started the evening as an audience member rather than an active participant in any hoax or prank that may have been perpetrated.
This article - like Davis' account - makes it clear the 'No Trespassing' sign wasn't posted until Tuesday the 23rd, and the 50-cent admission sign was posted afterward.
Mary stated she was there during the incident but hadn't seen anything. Ms. Lankford added that none of the minor children had seen anything.
This implies that any panic instilled in the minor children derived from their observations of the adult's behaviors rather than any direct observations of the little men.
Ms. Lankford noted the possibility that someone had been trying to scare her, and that there'd never been any little men. To the best of my recollection this is the first and the only time she mentioned the notion she'd been pranked or the incident was a hoax.
Ms. Glennie mentions her older son Junior (living in Hopkinsville) had suggested the possibility of such a prank / hoax intended to scare her. This contrasts with claims elsewhere that the two oldest sons (Junior and Frank) had simply claimed the odd encounter(s) must have been real if their mother had said it all really happened.
Ms. Glennie said she didn't know why anyone would prank her or attempt to scare her.
This article states she had been contemplating buying the property, but was having second thoughts after the incident. This must be the original source for Sanders' almost verbatim statement of the same facts.