The most prominent American reporter assigned to the Van Waters case was James J. Delaney, whose name popped up in the recent hearing before McDowell. Dr. Van Waters' attorney, Claude B. Cross, accused Delancy of obtaining the name and address of an indentured inmate from the Commissioner's office, and attempting to interview and photograph her under false pretenses. It was an interesting instance of the American' journalistic methods, and for a lot of people, it made the odor of the Hearst tabloid's earlier effort at "exposes" with the Dwyer report more pungent.

Homosexuality wasn't the only feature of the Post-American stories, although it was certainly the most outstanding. As quoted by these papers, the Dwyer report made a great point of special therapy for individual inmates, which was termed "favoritism." The administration had its special pets, Dwyer had apparently discovered, and allowed them comparative freedom, a dangerous departure from standard prison routine. The charge that some Reformatory officials had prison records was supposed to be damning, but as it was later pointed out, if the state of Massachusetts refused employment to "ex-convicts," private business might be inclined to follow suit.

The activities of Dwyer and LoPresti built up a tremendous furor by the end of the year. After first denying reports that he planned to fire Dr. Van Waters, Commissioner McDowell advised the press that he would make a decision on December 27. On that day, he conferred with Governor Bradford, and announced that he would dismiss Dr. Van Waters when Dever took office. When reporters inquired if he had informed her of his intention, he said: "I guess she will find out when you fellows print your papers."

The notice of dismissal came on January 7. Dr. Van Waters immediately demanded a hearing, which began six days later in a highly partisan atmosphere. Dr. Van Waters was applauded each time she entered the auditorium in the State House; McDowell was frequently hissed. The charges trotted out by the prosecution were staggering, but the evidence introduced was not. The prosecutors brought up only three overt instances of homosexuality; two of these were never reported to responsible officials. The third instance was handled quickly and with the best psychiatric advice.

The defense proved on the other hand that Framingham's record on morality was a good as anyone could expect. Almost all of the technical law-breaking was done under previous Commissioners, who had approved Dr. Van Waters' actions in full. On all else, McDowell was left with a handful of questionable instances. Dr. Van Waters never had her subordinates take an oath of office. One inmate had possessed a key in violation of the law, although testimony brought out the fact that she was working in apart of the institution where she needed the key in order to got into the bathroom. But the Commissioner evidently felt that he did have "just cause" for dismissing Dr. Van Waters. At the end of the hearing, he dropped only a few of his charges.

The case thus far rests on technicalities. Public feeling does not however, and if the decision of the Griswold Commission is against Dr. Van Waters, unless important now evidence in introduced, most of Massachusetts is going to be ashamed and sorry to lose her