Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

  1. #11
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    I wish we had descriptions of the Sorise and Timmons... From reading the articles, it sounds like the majority of his wives/harem were black.. The jet article singled out that there was one Blonde woman (British).. Think that was Kathleen LeGrand, but not positive.

    The Sorise surname is Italian... It's not very common... I find about 17 on the 1930 Census, all in NY... All white/Italian... Same with other records WWII, etc... There's a good chance she was of Italian decent.

  2. #12
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    1978 article that includes Devernon, his son Navatro and stepson Steven Straun Legrand... The sons were accused of killing two pimps:

    --------- Interesting.... Seems to have an immigration issue, when paroled...

    DIN (Department Identification Number) 77B1083
    Inmate Name LEGRAND, STEVEN
    Sex MALE
    Date of Birth 09/01/1956
    Race / Ethnicity BLACK
    Custody Status RELEASED
    Housing Releasing Facility EASTERN
    Date Received (Original) 06/22/1977
    Date Received (Current) 06/22/1977
    Admission Type
    County of Commitment KINGS
    Latest Release Date / Type (Released Inmates Only) 01/05/09 PAROLE U.S. IMMIGRATION
    Last edited by Texaskowgirl; 03-23-2010 at 03:12 PM.

  3. #13
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    Interesting... This must be the 1968 marriage to the gal that was going to testify against him and then he married.... Wonder if they were going to cross the border in El Paso or something?

    Name: Devernon Legrand
    Gender: Male
    Marriage Date: 30 Oct 1968
    Estimated birth year: abt 1925
    Age: 43
    Spouse: Kathleen M Kennedy
    Spouse gender: Female
    Spouse Est Birth Year: abt 1945
    Spouse Age: 23
    Marriage County: El Paso
    Marriage State: Texas
    Source: Texas Marriage Index, 1966-2002

  4. #14
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    1962 born Devernon also died in 2006...

    Name: Devernon Legrand
    Last Residence: 11203 Brooklyn, Kings, New York, United States of America
    Born: 29 Oct 1962
    Died: 12 Aug 2006
    State (Year) SSN issued: New York (1982-1983)

  5. #15
    lisa Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    Ok Frank Holman was the handyman who worked for the bishop and according to this article was supposed to testify that he helped. This article also says he helped perform 20,000 autopsies when he worked for a Brooklyn ME...

    It was Darryl Stewart who was persuaded to take the blame by his mother... because the bishop took them in when they were "orphans in the street"

  6. #16
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    Believe this is the son, Aaron.

    DIN (Department Identification Number) 75A0565
    Inmate Name LEGRAND, AARON
    Sex MALE
    Date of Birth 06/19/1947
    Race / Ethnicity BLACK
    Custody Status IN CUSTODY
    Housing Releasing Facility LIVINGSTON
    Date Received (Original) 02/24/1975
    Date Received (Current) 02/24/1975
    Admission Type NEW COMMITMENT
    County of Commitment NEW YORK
    Latest Release Date / Type (Released Inmates Only)

    As of 03/24/10 Crime Class
    RAPE 1ST B

  7. #17
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    2 'Nuns' Convicted By Jury in Assault; Linked to Racket
    $3.95 - New York Times - Oct 17, 1961
    The defendants, Helen LeGrand, 38 years old, known as "Sister Eva," and Bernice Williams, 23, known as "Sister Elizabeth," were found guilty of attacking ...

    2 'Nuns' Convicted By Jury in Assault; Linked to Racket
    October 17, 1961, Tuesday
    Page 41, 247 words
    Two "sisters" of a Brooklyn church that was said to have been "running a racket" were found guilty yesterday of assaulting a policewoman.

  8. #18
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    This is mostly about how the D.A. obtained papers... if legal, etc...




    Docket Number available at

    Citation Number available at

    December 24, 1975


    William Sonenshine for defendants.

    Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Neil Firetog of counsel), for plaintiff.

    Julius A. Hellenbrand, J.

    Author: Hellenbrand

    Defendants, father and son, are charged in the indictment with kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, and the lesser included sexual offenses.

    It is alleged that the crime took place August 22, 1974.

    Defendants move to suppress certain personal property consisting of notes or written or typed memoranda that were removed from a cabinet in the bedroom of an apartment and turned over to the District Attorney upon the ground that their constitutional rights have been violated.

    A hearing was held and the court finds the facts to be as follows: Prior to November 14, 1975, defendant DeVernon LeGrand and his wife, Kathleen LeGrand, together with two children and other members of their "family", which included other numerous children, resided at 222 Brooklyn Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

    On November 14, 1975, at about 1:30 p.m., the wife of defendant, DeVernon LeGrand, called the office of the District Attorney of Kings County and spoke to Henry Sobel, an Assistant District Attorney in charge of the Major Offense Bureau. She advised him of her desire to talk to him about the defendant, DeVernon LeGrand. The District Attorney made the necessary arrangements to meet with her at the office. The conversation they had and the information he received from her were substantially as follows: The wife, Kathleen LeGrand, indicated that she wanted to leave her husband and the marital residence; was concerned about the safety of herself and her two children, and if her husband learned that she contemplated leaving him, the children would be held as hostages.

    During this conversation she explained that her husband was preparing a false and perjurious defense in this case in which he was about to proceed to trial; that she had typed various transcripts or memoranda concerning prepared false testimony, as well as transcripts in question and answer form for the witnesses in two previous cases in which her husband, as a defendant, also procured false testimony. She said that certain witnesses were about to perjure themselves; that her husband, sitting in a large room with various witnesses, arranged for mock trials from a script, with persons acting out roles as Judge and lawyer; that stories were constructed and made up falsely, and that she typed the transcripts which were rehearsed. Other discussions were had relative to or concerning the two prior criminal cases in which her husband appeared as a defendant. The District Attorney was also told that her husband drank on Friday nights (this was a Friday night) and that some of his children carry guns.

    Mrs. LeGrand informed the District Attorney that these notes or memoranda were kept in a cabinet in their bedroom and that on at least 20 or 25 occasions she had taken these notes out for use during the rehearsal periods and then returned them to the cabinet in the bedroom. The cabinet was not locked. Her husband and defendant Nocanda LeGrand were present at these mock trials or rehearsals.

    Mrs. LeGrand stated that she wanted possession of her papers, her clothing, her children, and wanted to return to her house to obtain them. She requested police protection in doing so.

    On the evening of the same day, at about 6:30 p.m., Mrs. LeGrand returned to 222 Brooklyn Avenue, the marital residence, accompanied by five detective investigators from the office of the District Attorney, and present at the scene or in the vicinity was a total of 29 law-enforcement officers. They had no search warrant.

    Mrs. LeGrand entered the house accompanied by the detective investigators and went directly to the bedroom on the second floor. She entered the bedroom, took her fur coat from a cabinet or a closet, took other articles of personal property including clothing for the children, and removed several files. Eight manila folders containing the papers which are the subject of this motion were placed by her on her bed, and with her consent one of the men from the District Attorney's office picked them up and carried them out of the house when they all left. Mrs. LeGrand voluntarily turned over the folders and papers to the District Attorney.

    Without enumerating these papers in detail, it is sufficient to state that they contained the names of potential witnesses to be called by the defendants on the trial of the present indictment; names, notes and memoranda of various witnesses and transcripts of testimony concerning not only the present case but two previous cases. The notes, most of which were typed in triplicate, bear handwritten notations or comments on the evidence intended to be adduced upon the trial of this indictment.

    Defendants contend that the notes, paper and memoranda in the custody of the District Attorney are the product of unlawful search and seizure. On the other hand, the People contend that they did not conduct a search and that these notes, papers and memoranda belong to Kathleen LeGrand and are as much her property as that of her husband. The People argue that since the papers were jointly owned or possessed, the wife was equally entitled to retrieve them; to keep them and place them in the care of the District Attorney for safeguarding by and for the use of the People as they deem fit and proper.

    The court finds, based upon the credible evidence, that the property removed by the wife, specifically the notes, memoranda or transcripts concerned with this case and defendants' prior cases, was joint property, much of which was typed and prepared by the wife and used jointly by husband and wife in a matter in which they had an interest. Both husband and wife had joint control and access to the marital residence and to the bedroom and cabinet which they both shared. Both had knowledge as to where the papers were kept. The cabinet and bedroom were not under the control solely of the husband but were jointly used and controlled. Further, the papers, notes and memoranda were used by the husband and wife in concert with others in the preparation and rehearsal of witnesses for the expected proffered testimony in the various cases including this one involving the husband.

    It is settled that evidence wrongfully seized by a private person is admissible in a State criminal prosecution because neither the Fourth nor the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes private as opposed to governmental activity (People v Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378, cert den 393 U.S. 1057; People v Williams, 53 Misc. 2d 1086; People v Santiago, 53 Misc. 2d 264; People v Zalduondo, 58 Misc. 2d 326).



  9. #19
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970



    Docket Number available at

    Citation Number available at

    April 16, 1979


    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Sybil Hart Kooper, J.), entered January 4, 1979 in Kings County, which denied a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum.

    Clark Wulf Levine & Peratis (Melvin L. Wulf of counsel), for appellant.

    Joel S. Ezra for respondent.

    Henry R. Kaufman for Association of American Publishers, Inc., amicus curiae.

    Irwin Karp for Authors League of America, Inc., amicus curiae.

    Titone, J. P. O'Connor, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.

    Author: Titone


    The issue presented on appeal is whether under the circumstances, the appellant, who is an author, was justified in refusing to divulge his notes of an interview with a probable prosecution witness where the defense subpoenaed those notes for possible use for impeachment purposes.


    Appellant, Lee Hays, has written and published approximately 30 books, fiction and nonfiction, as well as several magazine articles. As an employee of CBS News, NBC News, and television station WNET on divers occasions, he has also written, produced and directed numerous documentary films and news broadcasts.

    In February, 1977 Mr. Hays contracted with Thomas Y. Crowell, Inc., now a subsidiary of Harper & Row, Inc., to write a book about the alleged crime "family" of one DeVernon Le Grand. Mr. Hays attended three trials of "family" members the ensuing year.

    During such period appellant also conducted a number of interviews to obtain information about the members of the Le Grand family and their activities. One such interview was with Willie Frank Holman, for many years a member of the Le Grand household. Holman has testified as a witness for the People at all the Grand Jury presentations and at the trial of two of the family members. He is expected to testify for the prosecution at the forthcoming trial of defendant Navatro Le Grand, who is charged with murder in the second degree. The stated purpose of the subpoena under review, issued on behalf of the defendant and served on appellant, is to obtain evidence of an impeaching nature with which to attack Mr. Holman's credibility, and for discovery and inspection of the following material: "tape [recordings] and notes of your conversations with an individual named Willie Frank Holman, which tape recordings or notes relate to the above entitled action and which notes and/or tape recordings were made by you, subsequent to the trial of the action entitled The People of the State of New York v. DeVernon LeGrand (known as the Timmons case) and prior to the commencement of the action entitled The People of the State of New York v. Aron LeGrand and Steven Straun LeGrand."

    Appellant moved at Criminal Term to quash the subpoena claiming, inter alia, that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, section 8 of article I of the New York State Constitution and section 79-h of the New York Civil Rights Law. He claims that Mr. Holman's interviews were conducted with the understanding that the information would not be revealed prior to the publication of appellant's book. To compel its disclosure, argues appellant, would be to violate his privilege as a writer.

    Criminal Term denied the motion to quash, holding that Mr. Hays was an author, not a journalist, and therefore was not protected either by the "shield law" (Civil Rights Law, 79-h) or the "freedom of the press" provisions of the United States and New York State Constitutions. It also held that Mr. Holman's information was imparted without any agreement for confidentiality. Based on such findings, Criminal Term ordered that appellant must produce his notes in the event Holman testifies at Le Grand's trial. THE "SHIELD LAW"

    Appellant contends that section 79-h of the Civil Rights Law should be read to include authors as well as journalists. Such a liberal construction, it is suggested, would fulfill the legislative intent of protecting the free flow of information necessary to maintain democracy, since appellant is reporting the same events as would the daily journalist, even though publication is deferred to offer the public a more thorough picture of the Le Grand family. I disagree with such reasoning and conclusion.

    It is clear from a reading of section 79-h of the Civil Rights Law, quoted below, that the language therein is specific in its definitions and limited as to those it is meant to benefit:

    .......... [ deleted legal/procedural references ] .............

    .......... The court defers comment at this time with respect to some future situation in which an author's role would be clearly that of an investigative journalist whose work product will be published in book form.

    Finally, my colleagues and I concur with the minimizing procedure propounded by Madam Justice Kooper at Criminal Term. So that production of appellant's notes and tape recordings will be compelled only if necessary, and no more of appellant's notes and tapes will be turned over than is required for the impeachment of Mr. Holman, it was properly ordered that:

    "1. The subpoena served upon the movant herein shall continue in full force and effect and Mr. Hays shall hold himself available for the production of his notes and tape recordings in respect of his interview with Mr. Holman.

    "2. After the direct examination of Mr. Holman is completed, Mr. Hays shall turn over to defense counsel any and all portions of his material which relate to the subject matter of the witness' testimony.

    "3. If the notes and/or tapes contain material not relevant to said testimony they are to be produced for an in camera inspection by the court, so that the extraneous matter can be segregated."


    Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 4, 1979, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

  10. #20
    Texaskowgirl Guest

    Default Re: Ann Sorise, 30, in September, 1963, and Ernestine Timmons, 30, in May, 1970

    I can't find where Lee Hays wrote the book or not... Bet he would be interesting to hear from! This is about the Navatora and Steven murder case of the 2 pimps and Lee Hay's notes...,6009514

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-04-2015, 01:55 AM
  2. Bobby Panknin , 4, Vanished 1963
    By Starless in forum COLD CASE NEWS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2011, 10:12 AM
  3. Wayne Silber, Missing 1963, California
    By Starless in forum MISSING MALES
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2011, 02:01 PM
  4. UID Female, 18-25, 1973, Phelan CA - PMI 2-20 Yrs, EDD 1963
    By Texaskowgirl in forum Unidentified Females
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 10:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts