sparky1:
Jeffro...............you are in over your head. Just accept that and move on. I have examined lots of newspapers from that era online. J.F. Rutherford , the lawyer was some sort of local celebrity. The 'preponderance of evidence' suggests (notice that I didn't say proves) that more likely than not, ILoveTTATT2 is probably making a correct assumption.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. There is hardly a 'preponderance of evidence'. There is an assertion that something might be the case because someone has the same initials as someone else. Nothing more has been established.
Rutherford was a lawyer (was never officially a judge), and that could well have afforded him some celebrity in a small town, but that does not make him a member of the Knights of Pythias. It is not impossible (or significant) that he might have been a member (or a guest speaker by virtue of his 'celebrity') at some point, but it seems quite odd that no such explicit statement seems to exist in any of this supposed 'preponderance of evidence'.