The Flip Side of History. Steve Silverman
admitted to his part in the crime. He named Thompson as his co-conspirator, but Thompson steadfastly denied any involvement. Thompson admitted that he had been drinking and that he had given Suits flying lessons earlier in the day, but said he knew nothing about the bank robbery.
Suits told investigators that the robbery had been planned for several weeks. Fort Meade was chosen because it was a small town with a small police force. After the gun battle in Fort Meade, the two had flown to Plant City to ditch the Aeronca. They then piloted the smaller Cessna to an abandoned airstrip on Boca Grande Island, where they hid the loot. From there, they flew to Peter O. Knight Airport in Tampa, where Suits got out. Thompson refueled and then lifted off for Tampa International Airport to return his boss’s airplane. Suits crashed the car while he was driving to Tampa International to pick up Thompson and complete the final step in their grand escape.
When asked about the location of the loot, Suits stated, “I was so drunk at the time that I really am a little hazy about the entire matter. I don’t know whether or not I can take you to where those suitcases are.” On Friday, October 25th, two Coast Guard helicopters flew the search party and Suits to Boca Grande, and the hunt began. Twenty-five hours after the robbery had occurred, the two suitcases were located. One contained a pillowcase stuffed with the cash, while the other contained .32-caliber ammunition, a pair of coveralls, and a pair of shoes. All but $69 of the $26,657 stolen (over $240,000 today) had been accounted for.
And yet, Bugs Thompson stood by his story. He insisted that he had nothing to do with the crime. It was only after being confronted with all of the evidence gathered by investigators that he finally admitted to his role in the holdup on Saturday. Now that both men had confessed to the crime, they were asked to escort officers to the location where they had discarded Constable Godwin’s gun. As they left the jail, Thompson reportedly snapped at Suits, “Why did you tell them where the money was? You could have told them anything but that. That’s what we did it for—the money.”
The two were hauled into court on Tuesday, October 29, but declined to enter a plea until they had consulted with a lawyer. Suits told Judge Roy H. Amidon, “If I can ever be given another chance I swear there will never be another drop of alcohol in my house. I vow that before God.” He added, “I want to apologize to everyone for the trouble I’ve caused—the way I let my wife down and to my folks and to everyone concerned.”
On November 25, 1957, both pleaded guilty to the charges. Suits’ attorney J. H. Willson requested leniency, pointing out that his client had “freely admitted his guilt” and that he had helped investigators recover all of the money. Judge Amidon wasn’t buying any of this. “I am really sorry for your situation,” he told the defendants. “You have the potentialities of making good citizens, and you have shown a good attitude. We don’t need men like you in the penitentiary.” However, he added that they “chose a crime which requires a stiff penalty.”
He sentenced Suits and Thompson to fifteen years each in state prison for the bank robbery, plus an additional fifteen each for robbing Constable Godwin of his car, gun, and watch. Both sentences were to be served concurrently. Two days later, the two were in federal court where US District Judge Barker added on another fifteen years to each of their sentences, to be served in tandem with their state sentence.
While in prison, Irvin Urton Suits divorced his first wife. Upon his release, he remarried two additional times. He passed away on July 10, 1998, at sixty-seven years of age.
Donald Jerome Thompson would see a more tragic end. He was training Dr. Paul D. Cope to fly the night of October 23, 1971, when Cope’s twin-engine Beechcraft Baron crashed while taking off from St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport at around 7:30 p.m. Thompson, his wife Barbara, Dr. Cope, and his son Charles, all lost their lives that evening.
PART 2 Entrepreneurs & Daring Minds
1938
Today, we take for granted the fact that women can wear slacks any day and everywhere. Helen Hulick was one of those women who fought for their right to do so.
On Wednesday, November 9, 1938, twenty-eight-year-old kindergarten teacher Helen Hulick was in Los Angeles Municipal Court testifying against two men accused of burglarizing her home. As she waited to be called, Judge Arthur S. Guerin summoned Detective Lieutenants William G. Baird and G. W. Sullivan to the bench and told them that Miss Hulick would need to change into clothing more appropriate for a courtroom.
The problem was that Hulick had chosen to wear blue flannel slacks that day. It wasn’t the blue color that the judge found offensive. It was the slacks themselves. She dared to wear, as the judge stated, “pants” in his courtroom.
A bail bondswoman generously offered to loan her a skirt, but Hulick refused. She stated, “Certainly not. I’m properly clothed. No judge can tell me to wear a skirt. I like slacks. They’re comfortable. It is my constitutional right to wear ’em.”
Judge Guerin was visibly annoyed by the young teacher’s indignant attitude. “I don’t set styles. But costumes acceptable at the beach are not acceptable in formal courtroom procedure. Slacks are not the proper attire in court. It’s tough sometimes to be a judge.”
It was not in their clients’ best interest to have an angry judge and an uncooperative witness, so the defense motioned to postpone the hearing. The judge agreed and rescheduled the hearing for November 14th. He stated, “When the young woman returns, then I’ll be prepared to test just how far I can go in maintaining the dignity in my courtroom.”
When Monday rolled around, Hulick again refused to obey and strolled into the courtroom donning a pair of orange-and-green slacks. She was accompanied by her attorney, William Katz, who lugged in four thick law books containing citations relevant to his client’s right to dress as she pleased.
November 14, 1938, image of Helen Hulick wearing slacks to court.
Judge Guerin was outraged. “The last time you were in this court dressed as you are now and reclining on your neck on the back of your chair, you drew more attention from spectators, prisoners, and court attaches than the legal business at hand. You were requested to return in garb acceptable to courtroom procedure.”
“Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court and its duties to conduct judicial proceedings in an orderly manner. It’s time a decision was reached on this matter and on the power the court has to maintain what it considers orderly conduct.”
“The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will not be prevented from testifying because that would hinder the administration of justice. But be prepared to be punished according to the law for contempt of court.”
As Hulick exited the courtroom, she told the press, “Listen. I’ve worn slacks since I was fifteen. I don’t own a dress except a formal. If he wants me to appear in a formal gown that’s okay with me.” She added, “I’ll come back in slacks and if he puts me in jail I hope it will help to free women forever of anti-slackism.”
Fast forward twenty-four hours and Hulick was seated directly across from the two men who had robbed her. As she removed her brown-and-gray plaid coat, it was immediately clear that she had once again gone against the judge’s request. Underneath, she was wearing a pair of gray-green slacks with a red-and-white blouse.
As the saying goes, three strikes and you’re out. This was clearly not going to end well. One could hear a pin drop as those in the courtroom awaited Judge Guerin’s entrance. Surprisingly, he said nothing about Hulick’s appearance as she gave her testimony, which resulted in the two men being bound for trial.
And then the judge let loose on Helen Hulick. He was fully prepared, with seven typewritten pages outlining her offense against