I never did find out what made Lane the most likely candidate, though, or if he is the same Jesse Lane (1802-1881), son of Martin Lane, for whom Lanesboro was named after. Lanesboro is very close to Harmony and perhaps had the nearest post office.

http://www.susqcohistsoc.org/townships/harmony.htm

Civil authority brought up Jo. standing (as the Boys say) under the Vagrant act Jo. was condemned whisper came to Jo. off off – took Leg Bail ( or gave [Leg_Bail]) all things straight: Jo. was not seen in our town for – - – - 2 years or more (except in Dark corners) his haunt was Palmyra and Harmony (Penn.) Bainbridge (in the Dark) making a triangle – here for 2 Y. and more…

After 2 years from the time of Jos. first trial he appeared in our place bold as a Lion again Jo. was arrested examination had Jo. plead in bar Statute of Limitations. . .

Sir Jo condemned in a Justice trials Bar S of [Quinnstown?] [ ? ]at Jo cost one reprimand

The last part intrigues me because it might be a trial that Joseph attended that we don’t have. Vogel speculated in EMD 4 that possibly another Joseph Smith was involved.

Noble has his own credibility problems but at least he dismissed the Spaulding theory. He puts the 1826 trial in 1828 and I think he interprets the 1826 outcome wrong. Joseph wasn’t on leg bail because he openly married Emma afterwards in Bainbridge. An appeal to the statute of limitations was based on the expired three years a county had to prosecute a misdemeanor case. However I can see 1826 court officials putting out PR to the effect that had made a deal not to prosecute if Joseph stayed away.

I do think that Noble’s quote can be used to show that there is still some hostility in Colesville towards Joseph as far as believing he could be arrested if showed up there. If he showed up in Colesville in the dark it was because it took most of the day to travel there, making an evening arrival time. I also think that Joseph moving to Whitmers instead of the Knights, can also be best explained by Joseph being uncomfortable around Knight’s neighbors. In May 1829 they wanted to get out of Susquehanna and yet Joseph appeals to a stranger instead of the Knights, who he stayed with before, and who was already financially contributing to his productivity.

On the other hand, it is still difficult to believe that an 1829 hearing happened in Colesville without Noble being aware of it.

First there is William Hines, who seems to be a Colesville budy of justice Noble, one of the judges in the 1830 trial. Hines’s version of Newell Knight’s trial testimony is at odds with both the mormon and anti-mormon versions. Knight said he couldn’t describe what the demon that possessed him look like, yet Hines reports that Noble told him that Knight testified the demon took the shape of three different animals. Hines is also a Spaulding theorist and has low credibility in my evaluation.

Hines and Noble seem to have been tracking Joseph’s progress in 1828 when Martin Harris went to New York to get some scholarly opinion. Hines then goes on to describe Joseph and Oliver being in Colesville in 1829:

Soon I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger’s Tavern, in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith sit by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain between them.

I am not sure how much stock to put into this, but at the least, this is a second account that puts Joseph and Oliver in Colesville in April or May 1829 (more likely May). I think Bushman should have qualified his statement “There are, moreover, no mentions in other records of a visit to Colesville in May 1829″ I can’t prove that HC 5:218, the Knight Sr. account, or this Hines account reported in Deming’s 1888 expose refer to May 1829, but it is plausible they do.

I do think Bushman is more diplomatic in RSR than he was in Beginnings, but it is still clear where he stands. If he has mellowed, the same seems to be true of Porter as well; in his dissertation he used HC 5:218 as a reference to 1829, but in the quote above he has reversed his position. It is Quinn’s writing that seem the most dogmatic to me. If we ever do get further evidence that is decisive one way or the other, I think those who will have ended up having been entrenched in the wrong position could be in for some disillusionment.