Sunday, 17th August 1913 Supreme Test Comes As State Trains Guns On Frank’s Character

The Atlanta Georgian,

Sunday, 17th August 1913.

Defendant Will Take the Stand Early in Week to Give His Account of His Movements on Day Mary Phagan Was Killed.

ATTORNEYS SEEKING TO PROVE A COMPLETE LIE

Believed That Case Will Stand or Fall On Efforts of Prosecution to Prove Its Charge of Immorality Against the Accused.

BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER

The third week of the Frank trial came to an end at noon Saturday.

The defense has not yet concluded it's case, but confidently expects to finish within the next day or two.

It's last card and one of it's biggest, will be the defendant's statement. This statement is scheduled for the early part of the week.

It will mark the climax of the defense's case, just as Conley's story marked the climax of the State's.

It became more and more evident as the case progressed during the past week that the defense is pitting Frank squarely against Conley - that it is to be Frank's life or Conley's life for little Mary Phagan's, snuffed out cruelly nearly four months ago in the National Pencil Factory.

Frank's statement on the stand which the law permits one to make, but not under oath, and which may be accented by the jury, either in whole or in part, in preference to all the sworn testimony, will be matched against the story the negro told so dramatically and with such frightful emphasis after the case got under way.

Into the negro's story, moreover was injected the question of Frank's general character, particularly in one unmentionable direction, and this the defense will undertake to offset completely and finally.

More than a hundred witnesses have been summoned to notify to Frank's good character, and these include men and women from every walk of life where it could be shown that such witnesses had come in contact with Frank from time to time in such wise as to be competent judges of his general character.

DALTON'S TESTIMONY IMPEACHED.

Already the one witness (Dalton) so far introduced by the State to corroborate Conley has been successfully impeached by the defense, and it is likely that others introduced to the negro also will be subjected to impeachment proceedings if the defense suspects that it may successfully inaugurate the same.

The defense seemingly has realized fully the heavy necessity of breaking down Conley's awfully story, not only in direct connection with the murder, but in every phase of it that bears upon character of the defendant.

As a primary proposition, the advantage in the situation he set up dwells within the defense.

In the first place, Frank goes to the jury with the presumption of innocence in his favor. The burden is not upon him to make out a case in behalf of himself. It is upon the State to make out a case against him.

Moreover, the only right of appeal attaching to person indicted for felonies is within the defense. Once the State loses, it is lost forever.

The State must allege and prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and fight right up to that minute.

If there remains a reasonable doubt of Frank's guilt factor, the last word has been said to the jury, Frank under the law is entitled to it, and if the trial jury fails to award it, a court of review will remedy the legal wrong thus inflicted upon him.

ALL STATE TESTIMONY SWORN.

The State, moreover, must submit every bit of its evidence to the last shred or patch under oath.

The defense, on the contrary may clear itself upon testimony not one word of which is sworn to.

The State's star witness Conley, also comes into court a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, a confessed fabricator in numerous conflicting statements as to his knowledge of and connection with the crime and accompanied by a well-established jail record fearfully and wonderfully made up.

His is a much harder story to hold up than Frank's viewing the two stories generally and in their broader personal aspects.

Even without Conley to be sure, the State still has a circumstantial case against Frank that might compel considerable attention and respect but there are few people who seemingly believe that it alone would be sufficiently strong to convict.

It probably is a realization of the State's tremendous task involved in the holding together of Conley's story, that had called

PAGE 2

DORSEY SURE OF CASE AS CRISIS COMES

Solicitor Expects to Prove That Frank Had Life Which He Hid From Relatives and Friends

The defense to train every gun squarely upon it, for Conley's story will the State be forced to stand or fail eventually.

One of the curious things about the Frank case is the way the question of his general character got into the pleadings.

Theoretically, the defense alone may put the defendant's character in issue - it being contemplated by the law that no man shall be required, without his consent, to answer more than one charge at one and the same time.

And so far as legal strategy and astuteness is concerned, the State outgenerals the defense in the matter of getting Frank's character before the jury.

Had Conley, the State's star witness, been a man, even a negro, of respectability and approximately good previous record, the necessity of attaching to Frank the charge of utter depravity might not have seemed so pressing. But Frank's previous good record seemed so well established, and his standing generally was thought to be so high, that it contrasted rather painfully with the record of the main witness of all others (Conley) set up for the defendant's undoing.

The State doubtless knew that the unspeakable portion of Conley's evidence was primarily inadmissible, but it also knew that the defense would be taking rather a long chance to move its rejection when tendered.

In that event, a sinister and certainly dangerous impression would have been left upon the mind of the jury.

So the State deliberately drew out of Conley the unmentionable charge, which, in addition to the murder charge, undoubtedly made absolutely necessary the injection of Frank's character in issue.

The defense, in not objecting to the admission of the evidence last cited when it was first offered, may have been moved by the idea that it would, in the cross-examination of Conley, so break him down that it still might save itself the necessity of pleading Frank's good character that it would even be able to make the frightful charge of perversion act as a boomerang on Conley!

Defense Objects too Late.

Seemingly, that idea, if it ever existed, was dissipated as the Conley cross-examination proceeded, however, eventually the defense DID move to strike out the evidence, but at that time it was too late.

Having walked into the trap set by the State, if it indeed was a trap, the defense could not very well extricate itself save by pleading Frank's complete good character, and thus in a sweeping way dispose of the specific charge lodged against Frank by Conley, in addition to the murder charge.

Once committed to the necessity of establishing Frank's good character, however, the defense went at it in no half-hearted way. It summoned indiscriminately every employee of the National Pencil Factory, male and female, old and new, and with unanimous voice they testified willingly and thoroughly that the defendant's general character is good.

In addition to these witnesses, business men, former college professors and classmates and dozens of others fell into line with the same line of evidence.

The State now stands, therefore where it must close up the gap between its primary allegation, dependent alone upon Conley's word so far, and the absolute proof of his sinister story.

If the State in rebuttal is able to prove conclusively that Frank is the thing Conley has labeled him, the State's case will go to the jury dangerously formidable.

If it fails to substantiate and corroborate Conley, it will go to the jury greatly weakened.

To overcome the fine showing as to Frank's good character made by the defense, the State must bring forth witnesses in rebuttal that can not be impeached.

The ingression throughout Atlanta is that to fall in the establishment and corroboration of Conley's story by witnesses of integrity and standing will be to fall in a crisis heavily important to the State now.

Liability Becomes Asset.

Strange to say - there are so many strange things to say in this surprisingly strange Phagan story - one of the State's apparent weakness is proving, in one direction, to be one of it's greatest elements of strength.

The defense's strenuous insistence that Conley's remarkable story is impossible, is one reason why a lot of people are saying that it is impossible. Conley may have manufactured it out of the whole cloth.

If it is a lie, it is a lie too devilishly cunning for a negro of Conley's limited mentality to conjure or carry in his own mind in such remarkable detail these people hold. If the negro were only less sure of everything, if he had wobbled dangerously under the terrific grilling administered by Luther Z. Rosser, if he had broken down or contradicted himself in any essential detail once he got to the witness stand, it now would be an easier thing for many people, fair-minded enough too, to believe the negro's tale a mass of lies from start to finish!

And the danger in the defense here is that if Conley's story sticks in the minds of the jury, even in fractional part, it probably just as well stick in its in entirety, so far as the hope of acquittal upon this trial is concerned.

In other words, many people are arguing to themselves that the negro no matter how hard he tried and no matter how generously he was coached, still never could have framed up a story like the one he told, unless there was somewhere in it some foundation in fact.

And if there remains the impression of even a little foundation in fact, the defense is damaged beyond repair.

And so it gets back to where it started, and to where it will end, it is Conley pitted against Frank!

The State, with the burden of proof to carry, appears to have considerably more of an uphill fight on its hands than the defense has and yet the very nature of both fights - uncompromising, and neither asking, nor giving quarter - makes it something of a toss-up, really, as to which actually, and as a matter of fact, has the harder task to perform.

Undoubtedly, the defense expects to profit much through its insistence that the time element as set up in Conley's story, constitutes a most vital and compelling factor in determining the truth or falsity of the entire story.

Rely on State Witnesses.

It is rather odd, too, that the defense should be relying upon the State's witnesses in this matter quits as much as upon it's own. It will seek to use generously the State's witnesses to the State's embarrassment - through the discrediting of Conley's story - in several different directions.

The defense is seeking to show how utterly absurd Conley's story is from Frank's point of view by setting up these incompatible things.

That Mary Phagan (according to Conley's testimony) reached the pencil factory sufficiently well in advance of Monteen Stover (according to Conley's testimony) to go up to Frank's office, get her pay, he lured to a room in the rear and killed her, notwithstanding the fact that Miss Stover (Conley's and Miss Stover's testimony) reached the factory at 12:03. And this despite the fact that Mary Phagan could not have been in the factory before 12:12. In any event, as shown by Mrs. Coleman (Mary's mother), George Epps, a motorman and a conductor.

To get around this state of things, set up for the most part by the Sate's own witnesses, the State already has suggested, by a line of examination probably to be amplified that that the car upon which Mary Phagan came into town on Saturday, April 26, was running AHEAD of scheduled time, and that the little girl did, as a matter of fact, reach the factory be fore 12:12, and that the clock in the factory, by which both Miss Stover and Conley testified as to the time was running SLOW on the day of the crime.

In other words, to meet its own, witnesses' statements, the State will move backward the time of the street car and move forward the time of the office clock!

If the State can do that, which looks like a big job, it will eliminate the dangerous time element in one direction, at least; but if it can not do that, it will find itself in a most trying position.

And whether it now can get away from its own established time element is one of the very prettiest problems involved in the entire case thus far!

Again, the defense will insist that the time element cuts in another direction most favorably in Frank's behalf, when it will show by Conley's evidence that the disposing of Mary Phagan's body began at 12:56, but that Frank was seen at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets at 1:10, waiting for a car. The latter fact is testified to by Miss Helen Curran positively, and she is unimpeachable.

The defense contends that the body of Mary Phagan could not have been disposed of, and the things done that Conley alleges were done, within the fourteen minutes of time thus allowed, between the beginning of the work, according to Conley, and the time of Frank's presence two blocks and a half away.

Conley would have been obliged to dispose of the body in the remarkable way he says he did, have written the notes, remained in the wardrobe eight minutes or more, all within the fourteen minutes.

According to the State's own witnesses, Conley was in the wardrobe eight minutes and used six minutes framing the notes. This would have consumed the entire fourteen minutes, without the dead girl's body ever having been touched.

It is admitted among lawyers generally that there is no defense so completely effective as sustained alibi - which means that the crime alleged was committed in the absence and without the knowledge of the alleged principle to it, or, more properly state, perhaps, that the crime could not have been committed by the defendant because it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have affected it, in the circumstances of it.

The past week, of course, was the defense's day in court, and it is but fair to say that it made good use of it.

Challenge to State.

It has frankly and aggressively urged Frank's character as a vital fact in his favor, and it thereby challenged the State to do it's very worst by way of breaking that character down, if it can.

This attitude upon the part of the defense undoubtedly has had a steadying effect upon the public, too, for it seems at least to have suspended judgement pending the State's rebuttal.

In addition to its insistence upon Frank's good character, the defense unquestionably has given the State serious concern in the way it has brought forward the time element, and that in two separate and distinct directions.

If it successfully maintains either one of it's time theories, it will have greatly discredited Conley's story. If it successfully maintains both theories, it will have about discredited the Conley story to the point of complete collapse.

As it was out of order to conclude at the end of the second week of the Frank trial, however, that the State had made out a case that could not be broken down, so it now is out of order to conclude that the defense has broken down the State.

The State for one thing does not appear to be particularly alarmed, either by the injection of Frank's character or by the turning of the time element against the Conley story.

The State, it must be remembered, has not yet entered or disclosed it's rebuttal, either of the character evidence or the undermining of its own witnesses as to the time elements stated.

State Seems Confident.

It is perfectly confident of it's ability to show that Frank's character is not good, despite the opinions of his friends, business associates and acquaintances, and it will insist, indeed that as in other depraved characters of the sort it claims Frank to be, his business acquaintances, his relatives and his social intimates would be the very last people of all to discover the truth concerning him.

The State, in seeking to prove Frank a dissolute character, may be forced to the summoning of dissolute characters, with whom he is alleged to have been associated in degrading practices, in order to prove its contention.

Thus witnesses, brought out by the State to establish Frank's depravity are apt to be easier marks for impeachment proceedings than witnesses of the ordinary sort, and to that extent the breaking down of Frank's character is pregnant with difficulty.

Nevertheless, the State proposes to establish the fact of Frank's degeneracy by witnesses of sufficient credibility, particularly in the nature of the charge sought to be proved, to get by at least in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the defendant.

If the State can put up even one or two witnesses that can weather the gale of the defense's rights of impeachment, it will have put Frank in a most unenviable position before the jury. If, therefore, it puts up 50 witnesses, and 48 of them get knocked out, there still will remain the two that stood the test!

Here, then, is another pretty problem to be thrashed out: Can the State, in sustaining a charge of degeneracy against Frank, bright forth witnesses to prove it absolutely, and at the same time not bring forth witnesses so much a party to Frank's offense that they will run serious risks in testifying themselves?

A witness who is willing to swear that he saw Frank do thus and so, or was party to Frank's doing thus and so, if the thus and so is particularly reprehensible, is apt to get in pretty thin ice himself, if he isn't very careful.

The State says it can and will rebut Frank's good character. If it does, Frank is in unutterably bad shape; but if it doesn't, Frank's cause must be helped tremendously.

Girl on Stand Shouts She Would Die for Leo Frank

Employee of Pencil Factory Furnishes Dramatic Incident of Day - Dressing Room Evidence Is Brought Out.

More than one hundred witnesses had been called to testify in defense of Leo M. Frank's character when the third week of the factory superintendent's trial concluded shortly after 1 o'clock Saturday.

Character witnesses occupied most of the time during the four hours of Saturday's session. They displayed a remarkable loyalty to their employer, who is being tried on the charge of being the murderer of little Mary Phagan. Only one of the number, Miss Irene Jackson, gave testimony in any way prejudicial to the case of Frank.

The character testimony, the tale of the finding of Mary Phagan's envelope and other so-called clews on the first floor of the factory by W.D. McWorth, Pinkerton operative, and the return of Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, formed the important features of the day.

Girl Furnishes Incident.

A spectacular incident, which would have been even more amusing than it proved had it not been for the evidence sincerity and profound earnestness of the witness, came in the testimony of Miss Sarah Barnes, one of the pencil factory employees.

"I'd die for Mr. Frank if they'd let me!" she exclaimed almost the instant she had composed herself in the witness chair. Attorney Arnold had only time to ask her the formal question: "Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?" before she launched into a euglogistic description of the young factor superintendent that left her breathless at the end of five minutes."

The attorney sought to interject another of the formal questions prescribed by law but by the time she had caught her breath and was engaged in telling her willingness to lay down her life, if need be, to prove the guiltlessness of Frank.

Attorney Arnold could not stop her. The court could not damn the flood of words. She had a mind to speak and she was determined to speak without check and without interruption.

"I know Frank couldn't have committed such a terrible deed," she cried, accompanying her declaration with an emphatic brandishing of her folder fan. "I have known him ever since I have been in the pencil factory. He has always been kind to all of the employees and to the girls in particular. He never has done any of these things that have been told about him. He has always been a gentleman."

Willing to Die for Him.

"I've had to fight for him, almost, a number of times since these awful charges have been made against him. I'm willing to fight for him again. I am willing to die in his place."

At this point she turned toward the jury and said:

"You can give me any sort of a death you want. I know he is an innocent man. I just wish that I could make everyone believe in his innocence."

Attorney Arnold succeeded in the brief space of one of the moments when she paused for a fresh start to ask the remainder of the questions he desired, and then gave her to Solicitor Dorsey.

Dorsey met with the same trouble. He tried to get her to stay with whom she had talked about the testimony to which she was to swear. Disregarding his question as though it never had been asked, she continued in her encomiums of Frank until the court-room spectators were convulsed with laughter and the Solicitor filled with disgust at his inability to get the sort of answer he wanted from the girl.

Miss Irene Jackson daughter of County Policeman A. W. Jackson, was called by the defense as a character witness, but gave testimony on her cross-examination in regard to conduct by Frank which the State has construed as highly improper.

Looked in Dressing Room.

Miss Jackson said that so far as she knew the character of Frank was good and that she never had known to attempt any liberties with the factory girls. To the Solicitor she admitted, however, that she three times had been in the girls' dressing when Frank had pushed open the door and looked in.

Once Emmeline Mayfield had been in the room with her, she said: once Mamie Kitchen and once her own sister. Her sister had threatened to quit as this last operator she testified, but she had been persuaded against it.

She said that Frank merely pushed the door in, looked in, on on one occasion smiled toward Miss Kitchen and then turned around and walked away. She testified that the girls never were any further in a condition of redress than lacking their overskirt.

Solicitor Dorsey inquired of her in regard to a reported remark of N. V. Darley general manager, that "if the girls stay with us through this, they will not lose by it." She said she had overheard Darley say this.

Many Employees Called.

The following pencil company employees were called as character witnesses during the day.

Misses Mollie Blair, Ethel Stewart, Sarah Barnes, Corinthia Hall, Ida Hayes, Eula May Flowers, Elma Hayes, Minnie Foster, Obie Dickerson, Gussie Wallace, Annie Osman, Bessie Thrallkill, Allie Dunham, Rebecca Carson, Maude Wright, Irene Jackson, and Mesdames Emma Freeman and Ella Thomas.

PAGE 3

LEO FRANK IS READY TO REVEAL HIS STORY

Accused Superintendent to Appeal to Reason of the Men Who Will Decide His Fate

COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE DECLARE HE ALONE HAS PREPARED STATEMENT

Defendant Will in No Way Try to Stir Emotion of Jurors, But Will Simply Outline His Contention as to Tragedy.

Leo M. Frank's statement to the jury, delayed from last week by the swarm of character witnesses brought in at the last moment, is the main factor of interest remaining in the trial of the National Pencil Factory superintendent before the rebuttal is taken up by the two attorneys representing the State.

What this statement will be the defendant's lawyers themselves profess not to know. They have had little or no part in framing it, they say. All they know is that he proposes to make one, and that he has been preparing it piecemeal as the trial has progressed and one point after another has arisen.

Whether it will be a formal statement read verbatim, no one knows except the prisoner and possibly his immediate relatives.

If the lawyers know they are keeping it darkly a secret. They believe, they have ventured to say, that it will be more or less informal and that it will be in the nature of an address to the jury and the court based upon the notes that Frank has made from time to time during the trial.

Appeal To Reason.

That there will be little appeal to the emotions of the jurors is practically a foregone conclusion. It is the purpose of Frank, it is understood, to appeal directly to the reason and common sense of the twelve men - to outline to them as he has outlined to his own attorneys the weak points or improbabilities in the negro Conley's story.

As well as this, it is his intention to picture to them his every movement during the entire day and to represent the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime and disposed of the body as Conley describes if his alibi as set up by a score of witnesses is accepted by the jury.

The statement will embrace much to which he testified at the Coroner's inquest. But there will be much more. He will go into some things on which his own lawyers have not touched. The statement practically is certain to form a most remarkable and most import portion of the record of the trial's proceedings.

What promised to provide a sensation during the presentation of the defendant's case may collapse into nothing. This is W.H. Mincey and has startling declaration that he saw Jim Conley on the afternoon of the murder, and that Jim bragged to him that he had killed a girl that afternoon and didn't want to kill anyone else.

Appear to Doubt Mincey.

The attorneys for the defense have not been willing to say whether or not they would call Mincey. They have appeared to entertain some doubts of Mincey's credibility. Reuben Arnold said Saturday that he was not prepared to say that he would or would not call Mincey.

If Mincey's story could be corroborated it would furnish a most effective weapon in winning the battle for Frank's life. Granting it's truthfulness, it is the most definite and direct evidence of the entire case. Embracing as it does a virtual confession of murder on the part of the negro.

Mincey said he met Conley at Electric avenue and Carter street Saturday afternoon, April 26. Conley was partially intoxicated and becoming angered at Mincey's insistence that he take out an insurance policy threatened the agent and boasted of killing a girl shortly before according to the affidavit made by Mincey.

If Mincey goes on the stand his testimony will become the target for some of the State's strongest rebuttal. That and the character of Frank will divide the attention of the Solicitor. He will not bother about much else. He is content to let Conley's story, as bolstered and strengthened by the testimony of detectives and other witnesses, stand as a sufficient rebuttal for practically all of the evidence that the defense has brought out in favor of Frank. The Solicitor believes that when the arguments go before the jury the members will be willing to accept the story of the negro as against that of Frank.

After Frank's Character.

Dorsey, however, has been unceasing in his efforts to wreck Frank's character. He has branded him as a degenerate and a criminal of the worst type. The introduction of character witnesses by the defense has given him a new opening, and he proposes to take every advantage of it. His attitude is shown in a colloquy between himself and Judge Roan.

"How far do you intend to go in that line of testimony?" inquired the judge.

"Just exactly as far as your honor will let me," Dorsey replied.

Judge Roan remonstrated that the Solicitor General should not seek to introduce evidence that he knew was illegal. The Solicitor smiled.

Dorsey has about twenty witnesses he will use in an effort to destroy all of the favorable impression created by the 100 character witnesses who have testified for Frank so far in the trial. From some of them he has promised to produce testimony of the most sensational sort.

One young, Dewey Hewell, not yet out of her teens, was brought all the way from Cincinnati last Friday for the express purpose of testifying against the young factory superintendent.

PAGE 4

SUPREME TEST COMES AS STATE TRAINS GUNS ON FRANK'S CHARACTER

Defendant Will Take the Stand Early in Week to Give His Account of His Movements on Day Mary Phagan Was Killed.

ATTORNEYS SEEKING TO PROVE A COMPLETE LIE

Believed That Case Will Stand or Fall On Efforts of Prosecution to Prove Its Charge of Immorality Against the Accused.

BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER

The third week of the Frank trial came to an end at noon Saturday.

The defense has not yet concluded it's case, but confidently expects to finish within the next day or two.

It's last card and one of it's biggest, will be the defendant's statement. This statement is scheduled for the early part of the week.

It will mark the climax of the defense's case, just as Conley's story marked the climax of the State's.

It became more and more evident as the case progressed during the past week that the defense is pitting Frank squarely against Conley - that it is to be Frank's life or Conley's life for little Mary Phagan's, snuffed out cruelly nearly four months ago in the National Pencil Factory.

Frank's statement on the stand which the law permits one to make, but not under oath, and which may be accented by the jury, either in whole or in part, in preference to all the sworn testimony, will be matched against the story the negro told so dramatically and with such frightful emphasis after the case got under way.

Into the negro's story, moreover was injected the question of Frank's general character, particularly in one unmentionable direction, and this the defense will undertake to offset completely and finally.

More than a hundred witnesses have been summoned to notify to Frank's good character, and these include men and women from every walk of life where it could be shown that such witnesses had come in contact with Frank from time to time in such wise as to be competent judges of his general character.

DALTON'S TESTIMONY IMPEACHED.

Already the one witness (Dalton) so far introduced by the State to corroborate Conley has been successfully impeached by the defense, and it is likely that others introduced to the negro also will be subjected to impeachment proceedings if the defense suspects that it may successfully inaugurate the same.

The defense seemingly has realized fully the heavy necessity of breaking down Conley's awfully story, not only in direct connection with the murder, but in every phase of it that bears upon character of the defendant.

As a primary proposition, the advantage in the situation he set up dwells within the defense.

In the first place, Frank goes to the jury with the presumption of innocence in his favor. The burden is not upon him to make out a case in behalf of himself. It is upon the State to make out a case against him.

Moreover, the only right of appeal attaching to person indicted for felonies is within the defense. Once the State loses, it is lost forever.

The State must allege and prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and fight right up to that minute.

If there remains a reasonable doubt of Frank's guilt factor, the last word has been said to the jury, Frank under the law is entitled to it, and if the trial jury fails to award it, a court of review will remedy the legal wrong thus inflicted upon him.

ALL STATE TESTIMONY SWORN.

The State, moreover, must submit every bit of its evidence to the last shred or patch under oath.

The defense, on the contrary may clear itself upon testimony not one word of which is sworn to.

The State's star witness Conley, also comes into court a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, a confessed fabricator in numerous conflicting statements as to his knowledge of and connection with the crime and accompanied by a well-established jail record fearfully and wonderfully made up.

His is a much harder story to hold up than Frank's viewing the two stories generally and in their broader personal aspects.

Even without Conley to be sure, the State still has a circumstantial case against Frank that might compel considerable attention and respect but there are few people who seemingly believe that it alone would be sufficiently strong to convict.

It probably is a realization of the State's tremendous task involved in the holding together of Conley's story, that had called

PAGE 5

DORSEY SURE OF CASE AS CRISIS COMES

Solicitor Expects to Prove That Frank Had Life Which He Hid From Relatives and Friends

the defense to train lie every gun squarely upon it, for Conley's story will the State be forced to stand or fail eventually.

One of the curious things about the Frank case is the way the question of his general character got into the pleadings.

Theoretically, the defense alone may put the defendant's character in issue - it being contemplated by the law that no man shall be required, without his consent, to answer more than one charge at one and the same time.

And so far as legal strategy and astuteness is concerned, the State outgenerals the defense in the matter of getting Frank's character before the jury.

Had Conley, the State's star witness, been a man, even a negro, of respectability and approximately good previous record, the necessity of attaching to Frank the charge of utter depravity might not have seemed so pressing. But Frank's previous good record seemed so well established, and his standing generally was thought to be so high, that it contrasted rather painfully with the record of the main witness of all others (Conley) set up for the defendant's undoing.

The State doubtless knew that the unspeakable portion of Conley's evidence was primarily inadmissible, but it also knew that the defense would eb taking rather a long chance to move its rejection when tendered.

In that event, a sinister and certainly dangerous impression would have been left upon the mind of the jury.

So the State deliberately drew out of Conley the unmentionable charge, which, in addition to the murder charge, undoubtedly made absolutely necessary the injection of Frank's character in issue.

The defense, in not objecting to the admission of the evidence last cited when it was first offered, may have been moved by the idea that it would, in the cross-examination of Conley, so break him down that it still might save itself the necessity of pleading Frank's good character that it would even be able to make the frightful charge of perversion act as a boomerang on Conley!

Defense Objects too Late.

Seemingly, that idea, if it ever existed, was dissipated as the Conley cross-examination proceeded, however, eventually the defense DID move to strike out the evidence, but at that time it was too late.

Having walked into the trap set by the State, if it indeed was a trap, the defense could not very well extricate itself save by pleading Frank's complete good character, and thus in a sweeping way dispose of the specific charge lodged against Frank by Conley, in addition to the murder charge.

Once committed to the necessity of establishing Frank's good character, however, the defense went at it in no half-hearted way. It summoned indiscriminately every employee of the National Pencil Factory, male and female, old and new, and with unanimous voice they testified willingly and thoroughly that the defendant's general character is good.

In addition to these witnesses, business men, former college professors and classmates and dozens of others fell into line with the same line of evidence.

The State now stands, therefore where it must close up the gap between its primary allegation, dependent alone upon Conley's word so far, and the absolute proof of his sinister story.

If the State in rebuttal is able to prove conclusively that Frank is the thing Conley has labeled him, the State's case will go to the jury dangerously formidable.

If it fails to substantiate and corroborate Conley, it will go to the jury greatly weakens.

To overcome the fine showing as to Frank's good character made by the defense the State must bring forth witnesses in rebuttal that can not be impeached.

The ingression throughout Atlanta is that to fall in the establishment and corroboration of Conley's story by witnesses of integrity and standing will be to fall in a crisis heavily important to the State now.

Liability Becomes Asset.

Strange to say - there are so many strange things to say in this surprisingly strange Phagan story - one of the State's apparent weakness is proving, in one direction, to be one of it's greatest elements of strength.

The defense's strenuous insistence that Conley's remarkable story is impossible is one reason why a lot of people are saying that it is impossible. Conley may have manufactured it out of the whole cloth.

If it is a lie, it is a lie too devilishly cunning for a negro of Conley's limited mentality to conjure or carry in his own mind in such remarkable detail these people hold. If the negro were only less sure of everything, if he had wabbled dangerously under the terrific grilling administered by Luther Z. Rosser, if he had broken down or contradicted himself in any essential detail once he got to the witness stand, it now would be an easier thing for many people, fair-minded enough too, to believe the negro's tale a mass of lies from start to finish!

And the danger in the defense here is that if Conley's story sticks in the minds of the jury even in fractional part, it probably just as well stick in its in entirety, so far as the hope of acquittal upon this trial is concerned.

In other words, many people are arguing to themselves that the negro no matter how hard he tried and no matter how generously he was coached, still never could have framed up a story like the one he told, unless there was somewhere in it some foundation in fact.

And if there remains the impression of even a little foundation in fact, the defense is damaged beyond repair.

And so it gets back to where it started, and to where it will end -it is Conley pitted against Frank!

The State, with the burden of proof to carry, appears to have considerably more of an uphill fight on its hands than the defense has and yet the very nature of both fights - uncompromising, and neither asking nor giving quarter -makes it something of a toss-up, really, as to which actually, and as a matter of fact, has the harder task to perform.

Undoubtedly, the defense expects to profit much through its insistence that the time element as set up in Conley's story, constitutes a most vital and compelling factor in determining the truth or falsity of the entire story.

Rely on State Witnesses.

It is rather odd, too, that the defense should be relying upon the State's witnesses in this matter quits as much as upon it's own. It will seek to use generously the State's witnesses to the State's embarrassment - through the discrediting of Conley's story - in several different directions.

The defense is seeking to show how utterly absurd Conley's story is from Frank's point of view by setting up these incompatible things.

That Mary Phagan (Conley's testimony) reached the pencil factory sufficiently well in advance of Monteen Stover (Conley's testimony) to go up to Frank's office, get her say, he lured to a room in the rear and killed, notwithstanding the fact that Miss Stover (Conley's and Miss Stover's testimony) reached the factory at 12:03. And this despite the fact that Mary Phagan could not have been in the factory before 12:12. In any event, as shown by Mrs. Coleman (Mary's mother), George Epps, a motorman and a conductor.

To get around this state of things, set up for the most part by the Sate's own witnesses, the State already has suggested, by a line of examination probably to be amplified that that the car upon which Mary Phagan came into town on Saturday, April 26, was running AHEAD of scheduled time, and that the little girl did, as a matter of fact, reach the factory be fore 12:12, and that the clock in the factory, by which both Miss Stover and Conley testified as to the time was running SLOW on the day of the crime.

In other words, to meet its own, witnesses' statements, the State will move backward the time of the street car and move forward the time of the office clock!

If the State can do that, which looks like a big job, it will eliminate the dangerous time element in one direction, at least; but if it can not do that, it will find itself in a most trying position.

And whether it now can get away from its own established time element is one of the very prettiest problems involved in the entire case thus far!

Again, the defense will insist that the time element cuts in another direction most favorably in Frank's behalf, when it will show by Conley's evidence that the disposing of Mary Phagan's body began at 12:56, but that Frank was seen at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets at 1:10, waiting for a car. The latter fact is testified to by Miss Helen Curran positively, and she is unimpeachable.

The defense contends that the body of Mary Phagan could not have been disposed of, and the things done that Conley alleges were done, within the fourteen minutes of time thus allowed, between the beginning of the work, according to Conley, and the time of Frank's presence two blocks and a half away.

Conley would have been obliged to dispose of the body in the remarkable way he says he did, have written the notes, remained in the wardrobe eight minutes or more, all within the fourteen minutes.

According to the State's own witnesses, Conley was in the wardrobe eight minutes and used six minutes framing the notes. This would have consumed the entire fourteen minutes, without the dead girl's body ever having been touched.

It is admitted among lawyers generally that there is no defense so completely effective as sustained alibi - which means that the crime alleged was committed in the absence and without the knowledge of the alleged principle to it, or, more properly state, perhaps, that the crime could not have been committed by the defendant because it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have affected it, in the circumstances of it.

The past week, of course, was the defense's day in court, and it is but fair to say that it made good use of it.

Challenge to State.

It has frankly and aggressively urged Frank's character as a vital fact in his favor, and it thereby challenged the State to do it's very worst by way of breaking that character down, if it can.

This attitude upon the part of the defense undoubtedly has had a steadying effect upon the public, too, for it seems at least to have suspended judgement pending the State's rebuttal.

In addition to its insistence upon Frank's good character, the defense unquestionably has given the State serious concern in the way it has brought forward the time element, and that in two separate and distinct directions.

If it successfully maintains either one of it's time theories, it will have greatly discredited Conley's story. If it successfully maintains both theories, it will have about discredited the Conley story to the point of complete collapse.

As it was out of order to conclude at the end of the second week of the Frank trial, however, that the State had made out a case that could not be broken down, so it now is out of order to conclude that the defense has broken down the State.

The State for one thing does not appear to be particularly alarmed, either by the injection of Frank's character or by the turning of the time element against the Conley story.

The State, it must be remembered, has not yet entered or disclosed it's rebuttal, either of the character evidence or the undermining of its own witnesses as to the time elements stated.

State Seems Confident.

It is perfectly confident of it's ability to show that Frank's character is not good, despite the opinions of his friends, business associates and acquaintances, and it will insist, indeed that as in other depraved characters of the sort it claims Frank to be, his business acquaintances, his relatives and his social intimates would be the very last people of all to discover the truth concerning him.

The State, in seeking to prove Frank a dissolute character, may be forced to the summoning of dissolute characters, with whom he is alleged to have been associated in degrading practices, in order to prove its contention.

Thus witnesses, brought out by the State to establish Frank's depravity are apt to be easier marks for impeachment proceedings than witnesses of the ordinary sort, and to that extent the breaking down of Frank's character is pregnant with difficulty.

Nevertheless, the State proposes to establish the fact of Frank's degeneracy by witnesses of sufficient credibility, particularly in the nature of the charge sought to be proved, to get by at least in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the defendant.

If the State can put up even one or two witnesses that can weather the gale of the defense's rights of impeachment, it will have put Frank in a most unenviable position before the jury. If, therefore, it puts up 50 witnesses, and 48 of them get knocked out, there still will remain the two that stood the test!

Here, then, is another pretty problem to be thrashed out: Can the State, in sustaining a charge of degeneracy against Frank, bright forth witnesses to prove it absolutely, and at the same time not bring forth witnesses so much a party to Frank's offense that they will run serious risks in testifying themselves?

A witness who is willing to swear that he saw Frank do thus and so, or was party to Frank's doing thus and so, if the thus and so is particularly reprehensible, is apt to get in pretty thin ice himself, if he isn't very careful.

The State says it can and will rebut Frank's good character. If it does, Frank is in unutterably bad shape; but if it doesn't, Frank's cause must be helped tremendously.

Girl on Stand Shouts She

Would Die for Leo Frank

Employee of Pencil Factory Furnishes Dramatic Incident of Day - Dressing Room Evidence Is Brought Out.

More than one hundred witnesses had been called to testify in defense of Leo M. Frank's character when the third week of the factory superintendent's trial concluded shortly after 1 o'clock Saturday.

Character witnesses occupied most of the time during the four hours of Saturday's session. They displayed a remarkable loyalty to their employer, who is being tried on the charge of being the murderer of little Mary Phagan. Only one of the number, Miss Irene Jackson, gave testimony in any way prejudicial to the case of Frank.

The character testimony, the tale of the finding of Mary Phagan's envelope and other so-called clews on the first floor of the factory by W.D. McWorth, Pinkerton operative, and the return of Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, formed the important features of the day.

Girl Furnishes Incident.

A spectacular incident, which would have been even more amusing than it proved had it not been for the evidence sincerity and profound earnestness of the witness, came in the testimony of Miss Sarah Barnes, one of the pencil factory employees.

"I'd die for Mr. Frank if they'd let me!" she exclaimed almost the instant she had composed herself in the witness chair. Attorney Arnold had only time to ask her the formal question: "Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?" before she launched into a euglogistic description of the young factor superintendent that left her breathless at the end of five minutes."

The attorney sought to interject another of the formal questions prescribed by law but by the time she had caught her breath and was engaged in telling her willingness to lay down her life, if need be, to prove the guiltlessness of Frank.

Attorney Arnold could not stop her. The court could not damn the flood of words. She had a mind to speak and she was determined to speak without check and without interruption.

"I know Frank couldn't have committed such a terrible deed," she cried, accompanying her declaration with an emphatic brandishing of her folder fan. "I have known him ever since I have been in the pencil factory. He has always been kind to all of the employees and to the girls in particular. He never has done any of these things that have been told about him. He has always been a gentleman."

Willing to Die for Him.

"I've had to fight for him, almost, a number of times since these awful charges have been made against him. I'm willing to fight for him again. I am willing to die in his place."

At this point she turned toward the jury and said:

"You can give me any sort of a death you want. I know he is an innocent man. I just wish that I could make everyone believe in his innocence."

Attorney Arnold succeeded in the brief space of one of the moments when she paused for a fresh start to ask the remainder of the questions he desired, and then gave her to Solicitor Dorsey.

Dorsey met with the same trouble. He tried to get her to stay with whom she had talked about the testimony to which she was to swear. Disregarding his question as though it never had been asked, she continued in her encomiums of Frank until the court-room spectators were convulsed with laughter and the Solicitor filled with disgust at his inability to get the sort of answer he wanted from the girl.

Miss Irene Jackson daughter of County Policeman A. W. Jackson, was called by the defense as a character witness, but gave testimony on her cross-examination in regard to conduct by Frank which the State has construed as highly improper.

Looked in Dressing Room.

Miss Jackson said that so far as she knew the character of Frank was good and that she never had known to attempt any liberties with the factory girls. To the Solicitor she admitted, however, that she three times had been in the girls' dressing when Frank had pushed open the door and looked in.

Once Emmeline Mayfield had been in the room with her, she said: once Mamie Kitchen and once her own sister. Her sister had threatened to quit as this last operator she testified, but she had been persuaded against it.

She said that Frank merely pushed the door in, looked in, on on one occasion smiled toward Miss Kitchen and then turned around and walked away. She testified that the girls never were any further in a condition of redress than lacking their overskirt.

Solicitor Dorsey inquired of her in regard to a reported remark of N. V. Darley general manager, that "if the girls stay with us through this, they will not lose by it." She said she had overheard Darley say this.

Many Employees Called.

The following pencil company employees were called as character witnesses during the day.

Misses Mollie Blair, Ethel Stewart, Sarah Barnes, Corinthia Hall, Ida Hayes, Eula May Flowers, Elma Hayes, Minnie Foster, Obie Dickerson, Gussie Wallace, Annie Osman, Bessie Thrallkill, Allie Dunham, Rebecca Carson, Maude Wright, Irene Jackson, and Mesdames Emma Freeman and Ella Thomas.

PAGE 6

LEO FRANK IS READY TO REVEAL HIS STORY

Accused Superintendent to Appeal to Reason of the Men Who Will Decide His Fate

COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE DECLARE HE ALONE HAS PREPARED STATEMENT

Defendant Will in No Way Try to Stir Emotion of Jurors, But Will Simply Outline His Contention as to Tragedy.

Leo M. Frank's statement to the jury, delayed from last week by the swarm of character witnesses brought in at the last moment, is the main factor of interest remaining in the trial of the National Pencil Factory superintendent before the rebuttal is taken up by the two attorneys representing the State.

What this statement will be the defendant's lawyers themselves profess not to know. They have had little or no part in framing it, they say. All they know is that he proposes to make one, and that he has been preparing it piecemeal as the trial has progressed and one point after another has arisen.

Whether it will be a formal statement read verbatim, no one knows except the prisoner and possibly his immediate relatives.

If the lawyers know they are keeping it darkly a secret. They believe, they have ventured to say, that it will be more or less informal and that it will be in the nature of an address to the jury and the court based upon the notes that Frank has made from time to time during the trial.

Appeal To Reason.

That there will be little appeal to the emotions of the jurors is practically a foregone conclusion. It is the purpose of Frank, it is understood, to appeal directly to the reason and common sense of the twelve men - to outline to them as he has outlined to his own attorneys the weak points or improbabilities in the negro Conley's story.

As well as this, it is his intention to picture to them his every movement during the entire day and to represent the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime and disposed of the body as Conley describes if his alibi as set up by a score of witnesses is accepted by the jury.

The statement will embrace much to which he testified at the Coroner's inquest. But there will be much more. He will go into some things on which his own lawyers have not touched. The statement practically is certain to form a most remarkable and most import portion of the record of the trial's proceedings.

What promised to provide a sensation during the presentation of the defendant's case may collapse into nothing. This is W.H. Mincey and has startling declaration that he saw Jim Conley on the afternoon of the murder, and that Jim bragged to him that he had killed a girl that afternoon and didn't want to kill anyone else.

Appear to Doubt Mincey.

The attorneys for the defense have not been willing to say whether or not they would call Mincey. They have appeared to entertain some doubts of Mincey's credibility. Reuben Arnold said Saturday that he was not prepared to say that he would or would not call Mincey.

If Mincey's story could be corroborated it would furnish a most effective weapon in winning the battle for Frank's life. Granting it's truthfulness, it is the most definite and direct evidence of the entire case. Embracing as it does a virtual confession of murder on the part of the negro.

Mincey said he met Conley at Electric avenue and Carter street Saturday afternoon, April 26. Conley was partially intoxicated and becoming angered at Mincey's insistence that he take out an insurance policy threatened the agent and boasted of killing a girl shortly before according to the affidavit made by Mincey.

If Mincey goes on the stand his testimony will become the target for some of the State's strongest rebuttal. That and the character of Frank will divide the attention of the Solicitor. He will not bother about much else. He is content to let Conley's story, as bolstered and strengthened by the testimony of detectives and other witnesses, stand as a sufficient rebuttal for practically all of the evidence that the defense has brought out in favor of Frank. The Solicitor believes that when the arguments go before the jury the members will be willing to accept the story of the negro as against that of Frank.

After Frank's Character.

Dorsey, however, has been unceasing in his efforts to wreck Frank's character. He has branded him as a degenerate and a criminal of the worst type. The introduction of character witnesses by the defense has given him a new opening, and he proposes to take every advantage of it. His attitude is shown in a colloquy between himself and Judge Roan.

"How far do you intend to go in that line of testimony?" inquired the judge.

"Just exactly as far as your honor will let me," Dorsey replied.

Judge Roan remonstrated that the Solicitor General should not seek to introduce evidence that he knew was illegal. The Solicitor smiled.

Dorsey has about twenty witnesses he will use in an effort to destroy all of the favorable impression created by the 100 character witnesses who have testified for Frank so far in the trial. From some of them he has promised to produce testimony of the most sensational sort.

One young, Dewey Hewell, not yet out of her teens, was brought all the way from Cincinnati last Friday for the express purpose of testifying against the young factory superintendent.

PAGE 7

FRANK'S COUNSEL BIT BY BIT BUILDS STRUCTURE TO CRUSH CONLEY STORY

Intricate Mass of Circumstantial Evidence Is Assembled to Disprove Direct Testimony of Negro and Corroboration Theories of State

DEFENDANT'S MORALS TO BE NEXT BATTLE GROUND

An intricate structure is being raised by Leo Frank's lawyers as his defense against the formidable case made out by the prosecution. Little by little it's parts were laid all during last week's period of the trial, with no less than 50 witnesses as agents.

No one of the many witnesses for the defense has given testimony that in itself was essentially significant. But each one has embodied an attack on the State's case, testifying against the character of a damaging anti-Frank witness, or to Frank's good character, or as to the likelihood of expert testimony that the State drew forth.

The case of the defense, as it was made out with the close call the week's session, is a structure of little bits. It is an attempt to overcome a long line of circumstantial evidence and the direct testimony of a single witness Jim Conley - with another long line of circumstances. In this case as the week has revealed, the State is truly the aggressive, the defense truly the defensive.

Arnold Charges Scheme.

Most strenuous of the attempts by the defense has been that to prove the examination of witnesses along the lines of Frank's alleged immoral conduct. Time and again Solicitor Dorsey has asked witnesses if they have heard of certain actions by Frank in connection with young girls. Each time a heated objected had come from Reuben Arnold, Frank's attorney, who has charged that the questions are without foundation and that they are framed merely to set the prisoner up in an evil light before the jury.

To Lawyer Arnold's objection was added the protest of the prisoner's mother in a startling dramatic manner. Plainly overwrought bordering on the hysterical Mrs. Frank rose from her seat after Dorsey asked J. Ashley Jones if he had heard of Frank's immoral behavior with a little girl.

Mrs. Frank trembling and pale-faced. She advanced toward the Solicitor and pointed a finger at him.

"No, he hasn't heard" she cried, her voice almost a shriek. "Nor you either."

The situation was doubly dramatic coming as it did unexpectedly. Mr. Frank has been apparently the calmest and coolest and most courageous person in the courtroom since the trial began, not a quiver of her face betokening lack of composure. No one expected the outburst from her.

Dorsey's Look Triumphant.

To all the protests of the however, Solicitor Dorsey declared that the State can prove the charges of gross immoral conduct against Frank, and will bring witnesses to that effect on rebuttal. There was something triumphant in the Solicitor's bearing when Frank's attorneys introduced testimony to prove the good character of the prisoner.

This lets down the bars. The prosecution now may produce witnesses in rebuttal to attack Frank's character and his behavior in case they have such evidence in hand. The Solicitor announces that he has this evidence and will produce it.

At one time, during the week's course of the trial, it was hinted that forty or fifty witnesses will be called by the State when the case again comes into its hands in reply to the testimony for the defense. In that event, the trial will be prolonged through the greater part of week. Several days undoubtedly will be required for the lawyers' arguments of the case which has become one of the most complicated and tangled of Georgia's legal history. And though it is not unlikely that the last week of the month will come before the verdict of the jury is announced.

Testimony on which the defendant relies most was produced in that of/for several medical experts - Dr. George Bachman, Dr. T.H. Hancock, Dr. Willis Westmoreland, Dr. W.S. Kendrick, and Dr. William Owens. All these men were called to reply to the statement of Dr. Harris of Fulton (or Atlanta?) Board of Health whose testimony is

PAGE 8

MORAL CONDUCT OF FRANK NOW IS BATTLE GROUND

Solicitor General Apparently Welcomes Arnold's Putting Defendant's Character in Issue.

Continued from Page 1

believed to be hurtful to the defense.

He had declared that the undigested bills of cabbage in Mary Phagan's stomach proved she was killed within a short period after her midday meal. The whole contention of the State is that Frank killed Mary Phagan before 12:30 o'clock on the afternoon of April 26, and the fact has been established that she ate dinner less than an hour before that time.

But the experts called by the defense were almost unanimous in declaring that Dr. Harris could have been mistaken, however positively he stated his opinion. A bitter fight developed on cross-examination of each of the experts.

Bitter also was the fight that came over the testimony of Dr. William Owens. It was he who timed the actions of mimics when they rehearsed pantomime Conley's version of the death of Mary Phagan some time after his arrest. Eighteen and a half minutes were taken up by the incident, a length of time which seems to offset the State's theory that the murder was done and the body disposed of within a short time. Solicitor Dorsey objected to the introduction of the testimony, but Judge Roan allowed it to be entered, with the remark that he would study the arguments for and against and announce later a judgement as to its admissibility.

The hope and belief of the defense that the commission of the crime may be laid on the shoulders of Jim Conley was revealed in the course of the Owens examination, when Lawyer Arnold made a heated statement.

Arnold Accuses Conley.

Solicitor Dorsey was objecting to the admission of the evidence concerning the murder in pantomime, and spoke sarcastically of its features.

"Your honor," he protested to Judge Roan, "you're surely not going to allow a thing lie this."

"I don't know what I am going to do." Replied Judge Roan.

The Solicitor turned to the Judge at this accusation of Conley.

"Now, your honor," he said, "that won't do".

"Judge Roan agreed with him, and the examination proceeded.

Following the examination of the expert witnesses the defense produced men who were classmates and associates of Frank in college to testify to his good character. It was at this juncture that the hearing of the Solicitor plainly revealed triumph. He had contended all during the trial that he would produce evidence of Frank's immoral behavior if an opening were given him. This was the opening.

The first four character witnesses were A.K. Lane and R.A. Knight of Brooklyn and Philip Nash of Greenwood. N. J. and J. Ashley Jones, an insurance man of Atlanta. Others, the defense was announced will be brought forth. The attitude of Frank's lawyers is that of defying the prosecution to attack the prisoner's moral character.

PAGE 9

FACTORY GIRL ACCUSES FRANK

Irene Jackson, pictured below, is an 18-year-old ex-employee of the Pencil Company. On the stand yesterday she testified as follows:

"Emily Mayfield and I were in the ladies' dressing room of the factory one morning when the door opened suddenly and Frank came in. I was fully dressed, but Emily stood in her underskirt. Frank said nothing and walked out. Another time I was in the dressing room with my sister, who as lying down. Frank came in, but walked out again, saying nothing. The third time, I was in the dressing room with Mamie Kitchens when Frank came in. I was not dressed. He pushed open, the door without knocking, looked at us, and then left."

SUPREME TEST COMES AS STATE TRAINS GUNS ON FRANK'S CHARACTER

Defendant Will Take the Stand Early in Week to Give His Account of His Movements on Day Mary Phagan Met Death in Pencil Factory.

ATTORNEYS SEEKING TO ESTABLISH COMPLETE ALIBI

Believed That Case Will Stand or Fall On Efforts of Prosecution to Prove Its Charge of Immorality Against the Accused --- Many Witnesses Called.

TRIAL TO LAST THROUGH WEEK, LAWYERS THINK BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER

The third week of the Frank trial came to an end at noon Saturday.

The defense has not yet concluded it's case, but confidently expects to finish within the next day or two.

It's last card and one of it's biggest, will be the defendant's statement. This statement is scheduled for the early part of the week.

It will mark the climax of the defense's case, just as Conley's story marked the climax of the State's.

It became more and more evident as the case progressed during the past week that the defense is pitting Frank squarely against Conley - that it is to be Frank's life or Conley's life for little Mary Phagan's, snuffed out cruelly nearly four months ago in the National Pencil Factory.

Frank's statement on the stand which the law permits one to make, but not under oath, and which may be accented by the jury, either in whole or in part, in preference to all the sworn testimony, will be matched against the story the negro told so dramatically and with such frightful emphasis after the case got under way.

Into the negro's story, moreover was injected the question of Frank's general character, particularly in one unmentionable direction, and this the defense will undertake to offset completely and finally.

More than a hundred witnesses have been summoned to notify to Frank's good character, and these include men and women from every walk of life where it could be shown that such witnesses had come in contact with Frank from time to time in such wise as to be competent judges of his general character.

DALTON'S TESTIMONY IMPEACHED.

Already the one witness (Dalton) so far introduced by the State to corroborate Conley has been successfully impeached by the defense, and it is likely that others introduced to the negro also will be subjected to impeachment proceedings if the defense suspects that it may successfully inaugurate the same.

The defense seemingly has realized fully the heavy necessity of breaking down Conley's awfully story, not only in direct connection with the murder, but in every phase of it that bears upon character of the defendant.

As a primary proposition, the advantage in the situation he set up dwells within the defense.

In the first place, Frank goes to the jury with the presumption of innocence in his favor. The burden is not upon him to make out a case in behalf of himself. It is upon the State to make out a case against him.

Moreover, the only right of appeal attaching to person indicted for felonies is within the defense. Once the State loses, it is lost forever.

The State must allege and prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and fight right up to that minute.

If there remains a reasonable doubt of Frank's guilt factor, the last word has been said to the jury, Frank under the law is entitled to it, and if the trial jury fails to award it, a court of review will remedy the legal wrong thus inflicted upon him.

ALL STATE TESTIMONY SWORN.

The State, moreover, must submit every bit of its evidence to the last shred or patch under oath.

The defense, on the contrary may clear itself upon testimony not one word of which is sworn to.

The State's star witness Conley, also comes into court a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, a confessed fabricator in numerous conflicting statements as to his knowledge of and connection with the crime and accompanied by a well-established jail record fearfully and wonderfully made up.

His is a much harder story to hold up than Frank's viewing the two stories generally and in their broader personal aspects.

Even without Conley to be sure, the State still has a circumstantial case against Frank that might compel considerable attention and respect but there are few people who seemingly believe that it alone would be sufficiently strong to convict.

It probably is a realization of the State's tremendous task involved in the holding together of Conley's story, that had called

PAGE 10

DORSEY SURE OF CASE AS CRISIS COMES

Solicitor Expects to Prove That Frank Had Life Which He Hid From Relatives and Friends

INTEREST CENTRES ON ATTACK ON CHARACTER

Continued from Page 1.

The defense to train lie every gun squarely upon it, for Conley's story will the State be forced to stand or fail eventually.

One of the curious things about the Frank case is the way the question of his general character got into the pleadings.

Theoretically, the defense alone may put the defendant's character in issue - it being contemplated by the law that no man shall be required, without his consent, to answer more than one charge at one and the same time.

And so far as legal strategy and astuteness is concerned, the State outgenerals the defense in the matter of getting Frank's character before the jury.

Had Conley, the State's star witness, been a man, even a negro, of respectability and approximately good previous record, the necessity of attaching to Frank the charge of utter depravity might not have seemed so pressing. But Frank's previous good record seemed so well established, and his standing generally was thought to be so high, that it contrasted rather painfully with the record of the main witness of all others (Conley) set up for the defendant's undoing.

The State doubtless knew that the unspeakable portion of Conley's evidence was primarily inadmissible, but it also knew that the defense would eb taking rather a long chance to move its rejection when tendered.

In that event, a sinister and certainly dangerous impression would have been left upon the mind of the jury.

So the State deliberately drew out of Conley the unmentionable charge, which, in addition to the murder charge, undoubtedly made absolutely necessary the injection of Frank's character in issue.

The defense, in not objecting to the admission of the evidence last cited when it was first offered, may have been moved by the idea that it would, in the cross-examination of Conley, so break him down that it still might save itself the necessity of pleading Frank's good character that it would even be able to make the frightful charge of perversion act as a boomerang on Conley!

Defense's Delay Gives State Victory.

Seemingly, that idea, if it ever existed, was dissipated as the Conley cross-examination proceeded, however, eventually the defense DID move to strike out the evidence, but at that time it was too late.

Having walked into the trap set by the State, if it indeed was a trap, the defense could not very well extricate itself save by pleading Frank's complete good character, and thus in a sweeping way dispose of the specific charge lodged against Frank by Conley, in addition to the murder charge.

Once committed to the necessity of establishing Frank's good character, however, the defense went at it in no half-hearted way. It summoned indiscriminately every employee of the National Pencil Factory, male and female, old and new, and with unanimous voice they testified willingly and thoroughly that the defendant's general character is good.

In addition to these witnesses, business men, former college professors and classmates and dozens of others fell into line with the same line of evidence.

The State now stands, therefore where it must close up the gap between its primary allegation, dependent alone upon Conley's word so far, and the absolute proof of his sinister story.

If the State in rebuttal is able to prove conclusively that Frank is the thing Conley has labeled him, the State's case will go to the jury dangerously formidable.

If it fails to substantiate and corroborate Conley, it will go to the jury greatly weakens.

To overcome the fine showing as to Frank's good character made by the defense the State must bring forth witnesses in rebuttal that can not be impeached.

The ingression throughout Atlanta is that to fall in the establishment and corroboration of Conley's story by witnesses of integrity and standing will be to fall in a crisis heavily important to the State now.

Liability Becomes Asset.

Strange to say - there are so many strange things to say in this surprisingly strange Phagan story - one of the State's apparent weakness is proving, in one direction, to be one of it's greatest elements of strength.

The defense's strenuous insistence that Conley's remarkable story is impossible is one reason why a lot of people are saying that it is impossible. Conley may have manufactured it out of the whole cloth.

If it is a lie, it is a lie too devilishly cunning for a negro of Conley's limited mentality to conjure or carry in his own mind in such remarkable detail these people hold. If the negro were only less sure of everything, if he had wabbled dangerously under the terrific grilling administered by Luther Z. Rosser, if he had broken down or contradicted himself in any essential detail once he got to the witness stand, it now would be an easier thing for many people, fair-minded enough too, to believe the negro's tale a mass of lies from start to finish!

And the danger in the defense here is that if Conley's story sticks in the minds of the jury even in fractional part, it probably just as well stick in its in entirety, so far as the hope of acquittal upon this trial is concerned.

Whole Story Must Be Torn Asunder.

In other words, many people are arguing to themselves that the negro no matter how hard he tried and no matter how generously he was coached, still never could have framed up a story like the one he told, unless there was somewhere in it some foundation in fact.

And if there remains the impression of even a little foundation in fact, the defense is damaged beyond repair.

And so it gets back to where it started, and to where it will end -it is Conley pitted against Frank!

The State, with the burden of proof to carry, appears to have considerably more of an uphill fight on its hands than the defense has and yet the very nature of both fights - uncompromising, and neither asking nor giving quarter -makes it something of a toss-up, really, as to which actually, and as a matter of fact, has the harder task to perform.

Undoubtedly, the defense expects to profit much through its insistence that the time element as set up in Conley's story, constitutes a most vital and compelling factor in determining the truth or falsity of the entire story.

Rely on State Witnesses.

It is rather odd, too, that the defense should be relying upon the State's witnesses in this matter quits as much as upon it's own. It will seek to use generously the State's witnesses to the State's embarrassment - through the discrediting of Conley's story - in several different directions.

The defense is seeking to show how utterly absurd Conley's story is from Frank's point of view by setting up these incompatible things.

Time Element Again Enters Case.

That Mary Phagan (Conley's testimony) reached the pencil factory sufficiently well in advance of Monteen Stover (Conley's testimony) to go up to Frank's office, get her say, he lured to a room in the rear and killed, notwithstanding the fact that Miss Stover (Conley's and Miss Stover's testimony) reached the factory at 12:03. And this despite the fact that Mary Phagan could not have been in the factory before 12:12. In any event, as shown by Mrs. Coleman (Mary's mother), George Epps, a motorman and a conductor.

To get around this state of things, set up for the most part by the Sate's own witnesses, the State already has suggested, by a line of examination probably to be amplified that that the car upon which Mary Phagan came into town on Saturday, April 26, was running AHEAD of scheduled time, and that the little girl did, as a matter of fact, reach the factory before 12:12, and that the clock in the factory, by which both Miss Stover and Conley testified as to the time was running SLOW on the day of the crime.

In other words, to meet its own, witnesses' statements, the State will move backward the time of the street car and move forward the time of the office clock!

If the State can do that, which looks like a big job, it will eliminate the dangerous time element in one direction, at least; but if it can not do that, it will find itself in a most trying position.

And whether it now can get away from its own established time element is one of the very prettiest problems involved in the entire case thus far!

Again, the defense will insist that the time element cuts in another direction most favorably in Frank's behalf, when it will show by Conley's evidence that the disposing of Mary Phagan's body began at 12:56, but that Frank was seen at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets at 1:10, waiting for a car. The latter fact is testified to by Miss Helen Curran positively, and she is unimpeachable.

Every Second Has Important Bearing.

The defense contends that the body of Mary Phagan could not have been disposed of, and the things done that Conley alleges were done, within the fourteen minutes of time thus allowed, between the beginning of the work, according to Conley, and the time of Frank's presence two blocks and a half away.

Conley would have been obliged to dispose of the body in the remarkable way he says he did, have written the notes, remained in the wardrobe eight minutes or more, all within the fourteen minutes.

According to the State's own witnesses, Conley was in the wardrobe eight minutes and used six minutes framing the notes. This would have consumed the entire fourteen minutes, without the dead girl's body ever having been touched.

It is admitted among lawyers generally that there is no defense so completely effective as sustained alibi - which means that the crime alleged was committed in the absence and without the knowledge of the alleged principle to it, or, more properly state, perhaps, that the crime could not have been committed by the defendant because it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have affected it, in the circumstances of it.

The past week, of course, was the defense's day in court, and it is but fair to say that it made good use of it.

Evidence Really Challenge to State.

It has frankly and aggressively urged Frank's character as a vital fact in his favor, and it thereby challenged the State to do it's very worst by way of breaking that character down, if it can.

This attitude upon the part of the defense undoubtedly has had a steadying effect upon the public, too, for it seems at least to have suspended judgement pending the State's rebuttal.

In addition to its insistence upon Frank's good character, the defense unquestionably has given the State serious concern in the way it has brought forward the time element, and that in two separate and distinct directions.

If it successfully maintains either one of it's time theories, it will have greatly discredited Conley's story. If it successfully maintains both theories, it will have about discredited the Conley story to the point of complete collapse.

As it was out of order to conclude at the end of the second week of the Frank trial, however, that the State had made out a case that could not be broken down, so it now is out of order to conclude that the defense has broken down the State.

The State for one thing does not appear to be particularly alarmed, either by the injection of Frank's character or by the turning of the time element against the Conley story.

The State, it must be remembered, has not yet entered or disclosed it's rebuttal, either of the character evidence or the undermining of its own witnesses as to the time elements stated.

Dorsey Seems All Confidence.

It is perfectly confident of it's ability to show that Frank's character is not good, despite the opinions of his friends, business associates and acquaintances, and it will insist, indeed that as in other depraved characters of the sort it claims Frank to be, his business acquaintances, his relatives and his social intimates would be the very last people of all to discover the truth concerning him.

The State, in seeking to prove Frank a dissolute character, may be forced to the summoning of dissolute characters, with whom he is alleged to have been associated in degrading practices, in order to prove its contention.

Thus witnesses, brought out by the State to establish Frank's depravity are apt to be easier marks for impeachment proceedings than witnesses of the ordinary sort, and to that extent the breaking down of Frank's character is pregnant with difficulty.

Nevertheless, the State proposes to establish the fact of Frank's degeneracy by witnesses of sufficient credibility, particularly in the nature of the charge sought to be proved, to get by at least in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the defendant.

If the State can put up even one or two witnesses that can weather the gale of the defense's rights of impeachment, it will have put Frank in a most unenviable position before the jury. If, therefore, it puts up 50 witnesses, and 48 of them get knocked out, there still will remain the two that stood the test!

Here, then, is another pretty problem to be thrashed out: Can the State, in sustaining a charge of degeneracy against Frank, bright forth witnesses to prove it absolutely, and at the same time not bring forth witnesses so much a party to Frank's offense that they will run serious risks in testifying themselves?

A witness who is willing to swear that he saw Frank do thus and so, or was party to Frank's doing thus and so, if the thus and so is particularly reprehensible, is apt to get in pretty thin ice himself, if he isn't very careful.

The State says it can and will rebut Frank's good character. If it does, Frank is in unutterably bad shape; but if it doesn't, Frank's cause must be helped tremendously.

Frank Really Combats 2 Charges.

It is markedly unique in the annals of judicial procedure in Georgia, as it is contrary to the entire theory of the law, that Leo Frank should be engaged now in combating at one and the same time two of the gravest crimes in the catalogue of crime, when he has been indicted for only one.

As extraordinary as the Frank case is in so many of its ramifications, it is extraordinary in nothing more than in that!

And yet, which is additionally unique, the fact that he is answering two charges simultaneously is largely the fault or the misfortune of his own lawyers!

Judge Roan virtually admitted that had the more sinister charge of Conley been objected to by the defense at the proper time, he would not have admitted it. It was not objected to, however, and it therefore, was left in the record. So, in a way, if not technically. Frank is answering the two charges of his own voluntary motion!

Apparently neither the State nor the defense has hesitated to suggest things calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury whenever either could.

For instance, the examination of Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, as to the extent mother, as to the extent of her wealth and many details of her private life, and the suggestion that for some reason or other Mrs. Leo Frank refrained from visiting her husband in jail for two weeks or more after his arrest, seemingly were injected more by way of arousing some vague suspicion in the minds of the jury, rather than by way of proving anything definite.

On the other hand, the defense has not hesitated to suggest, wherever it could, that the entire charge against Frank is a police and detective "frame-up," and that Conley has been used merely as a cat's paw to convict Frank: the presumption being that the big rewards offered for the arrest and conviction of Mary Phagan's murderer may later be distributed among these officials.

This suggesting seems to have been thrown out largely in the hope that the jury would assimilate enough of it to throw discredit over the entire case of the State.

Most Bitterly Fought Case in State.

There never has been in this State a case fought so bitterly and so uncompromisingly as this one of the State vs. Leo Frank.

Besides the life and liberty of Leo Frank, the preservation of his home and family circle, the restoration of his erstwhile good reputation, there are big fees at stake, big reputations to be preserved, big prejudices either to combat or pander to - and there is even some politics involved!

All in all, however, the public seems impressed with the idea that the trial has been as fair and square thus far as human ingenuity can make it, and that neither side has been given any undue advantage over the other in any quarter.

Much of the bitterness that has crept into the trial has been occasioned, of course, by reason of the fame and tremendous significance of the case, it is a battle to an everlasting finish, and both sides are pressing it on that exact theory.

Despite the fact that the case now is entering it's fourth week, with the end not yet in sight, public interest still is at fever heat over it. No topic is talked so exhaustively about the streets, in the cafes and hotel lobbies, and even in the homes, as the now celebrated Phagan case.

Great crowds throng the stuffy little courtroom daily, and the hours have been few when admission could be obtained without extreme difficulty.

It is not thought likely that the arguments will begin before the end of this week, and probably not until next. It is anticipated that it will require not less than three days for the lawyers to finish their discussion of the case before the jury. Nobody looks for verdict within the present week, unless the unforeseen happens.

Speculation as to the outcome of the trial is varied and general. The most widespread impression is that the case likely is headed for a mistrial, although there are many people who believe the jury will make a verdict before dissolving.

Newt Lee Falls Into Lazy Ways in Prison.

Newt Lee should worry. Being a prisoner is not the most undesirable occupation in the world for the old negro. There is no work to do, and now that he is safely beyond suspicion in this Mary Phagan case there is nothing for him to bother over.

Altogether, being in jail all day, alternately sleeping and dawdling from meal to meal, never leaving his cell, seems to suit the factory night watchman. Newt Lee has fallen into lazy ways there in the Tower.

The negro has been assigned to a cell almost directly above that of Frank, on the third floor south. He grumbles a bit at the monotony and scantiness of the prison fare, but there it comes safe and certain twice a day.

No More Fat of the Land for Jim Conley.

Time was when Jim Conley lied on the fat of the land. This was when prisoner in Georgia, the vital witness in the case of the State against Leo M. Frank. None of your prisoner fare for him! They brought his breakfast of thick steaks and chops to his cell. Lawyers were considerate of the negro, and Jim experienced for days, indeed for a little while.

But "sic transit gloria" Jim Conley. The sad fact comes that he is about to be forgotten at the jail. No more are his meals brought to him, and like the other "niggers." Who never even got their names in the paper, he must subsist on prison fare - two meager meals a day.

Jim Conley, in his cell on the first floor north, sulks a little because of the unkind fate that has sent him back to grits and bread and water for breakfast. And he has taken no bath since.

FRANK'S MOTHER DENIES FAMILY IS WEALTHY

WE are not wealthy and Leo has no rich relative in Brooklyn. My husband is broken in health and has retired from business. We have about $20,000 which is loaned out at 6 per cent. We live on that income. Our home, which we own, has a $6,000 mortgage on it. I have a sister, Mrs. Bennet, whose husband clerks for my brother-in-law. I also have one son-in-law who is in the retail cigar business. I don't know much about my other relatives. I have enough to do to keep up with my own affairs. - Testimony of Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of Leo M. Frank, on the witness stand yesterday.

PAGE 11

GIRL EMPLOYEE SHOUTS SHE'D DIE FOR FRANK

Another Tells How Defendant Peered Into Room Where Women Dressed in Factory

LAWYERS FALL TO HALT PRAISE OF THE ACCUSED

Dramatic Incident Comes Witness Heaps Encomiums on

Superintendent on Trial.

More than one hundred witnesses had been called to testify in defense of Leo M. Frank's character when the third week of the factory superintendent's trial concluded shortly after 1 o'clock Saturday.

Character witnesses occupied most of the time during the four hours of Saturday's season. They displayed a remarkable loyalty to their employer, who is being tried on the charge on being the murderer of little Mary Phagan. Only one of the number, Miss Irene Jackson, gave testimony in any way prejudiced to the case of Frank.

The character testimony, the tale of the finding of Mary Phagan's envelope and other so-called clews on the first floor of the factory by W.D. McWorth, Pinkerton operative, and the return of Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, formed the important features of the day.

Girl Furnishes Incident.

A spectacular incident, which would have been even more amusing than it proved had it not been for the evident sincerity and profound earnestness of the witness, came in the testimony of Miss Sarah Barnes, one of the pencil factory employees.

"I'd die for Mr. Frank if they'd let me!" she exclaimed almost the instant she had composed herself in the witness chair. Attorney Arnold had only time to ask her the formal question: "Do you not know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?" before she launched into an eulogistic description of the young factory superintendent that left her breathless at the end of five minutes.

The attorney sought to interject another of the formal questions prescribed by law, but by this time she had caught her breath and was engaged in telling her willingness to lay down her life, if need be to prove the guiltlessness of Frank.

Attorney Arnold could not stop her. The court could not dam the flood of words. She had a mind to speak and she was determined to speak without check and without interruption.

"I know Frank couldn't have committed such a terrible deed," she cried, accompanying her declaration with unemphatic brandishing of her folded fan. "I have known him ever since I have been in the pencil factory. He has always been kind to all of the employees and to the girls in particular. He never has done any of these things that have been told about him. He has always been a gentleman."

Willing to Die for Him.

"I've had to fight for him, almost, a number of times since these awful charges have been made against him. I'm willing to fight for him again. I am willing to die in his place."

At this point she turned toward the jury and said.

"You can give me any sort of a death you want. I know he is in innocent man. I just wish that I could make everyone believe in his innocence."

Attorney Arnold succeeded in the brief space of one of the moment's when she paused for a fresh start to ask the remainder of the questions he desired, and then gave her to Solicitor Dorsey.

Dorsey met with the same trouble. He tried to get her to say with whom she had talked about the testimony so which she was to swear. Disregarding his question as though it never had been asked, she continued in her encomiums of Frank until the courtroom spectators were convulsed with laughter and the Solicitor filled with disgust at his inability to get the sort of answer he wanted from the girl.

Miss Irene Jackson, daughter of County Policeman A.W. Jackson, was called by the defense as a character witness, but gave testimony on her cross-examination in regard to conduct by Frank which the State has construed as highly improper.

Looked in Dressing Room.

Miss Jackson said that so far as she knew the character of Frank was good and that she never had known him to attempt any liberties with the factory girls. To the Solicitor she admitted, however, that she three times had been in the girls' dressing room when Frank had pushed open the door and looked in.

Once Emmeline Mayfield had been in the room with her, she said; once Mamie Kitchen and once her own sister. Her sister had threatened to quit on this last occasion, she testified, but had been persuaded against it.

She said that Frank merely pushed the door open, looked in, on one occasion smiled toward Miss Kitchen, and then turned around and walked away. She testified that the girls never were any further in a condition of undress than lacking their overskirt.

Solicitor Dorsey inquired of her in regard to a reported remark of N.V. Darley general manager, that "if the girls stay with us through this, they will not lose by it." She said she had overheard Darley say this.

Many Employees Called.

The following pencil company employees were called as character witnesses during the day.

Miss Mollie Blair, Ethel Stewart, Sarah Barnes, Corinthia Hall, Ida Hayes, Eula May Flowers, Elma Hayes, Minnie Foster, Obie Dickerson, Gussie Wallace, Anni Osman, Bessie Thrallkill, Allie Denham, Rebecca Carson, Maude Wright, Irene Jackson, and Mesdames Emma Freeman and Ella Thomas.

Frank Ordered Flirting Stopped.

Attorney Arnold in his redirect examination of Miss Jackson asked if it were not true that girls had been caught flirting from the dressing room windows, which front on Forsyth street, and that Frank had given orders that this should be stopped. She said that this had occurred.

"Might not Frank have been looking in to see if his orders were being carried out?" asked his attorney but his interrogation was ruled out as leading to a conclusion on the part of the witness.

Miss Obie Dickerson, another of the character witnesses, appeared somewhat perturbed when asked by the Solicitor in regard to her movements on the Saturday night of the murder. She was requested to tell if she was not in the company of N.V. Darley Wade Campbell and Miss Louise Gresham at the Bijou that evening. She replied that she could not remember, and the question later was ruled out as irrelevant and immaterial, on the objections of Attorneys Rosser and Arnold.

The testimony of W.D. McWorth, a Pinkerton operative, provided one of the sensations of the day, and at the same time provoked a lively wrangle among the attorneys over the manner in which the Solicitor persisted in questioning him.

McWorth testified that he found on May-15, on the first floor near a radiator, a piece of pay envelope bearing the name of Mary Phagan, her number, 186, and the amount due her, $1.20. He said that he found at the same time several pieces of cord similar to that found around the neck of the slain girl a club and part of buggy whip. He described splotches near the trapdoor leading into the basement which he thought at the time might be bloodstains.

Neither side brought out what the real value of McWorth's testimony might be. The defense submitted it without asking whether the spots had proved to be blood, and the Solicitor also failed to question him on this point.

Dorsey's main attack was contained in his charge that the Pinkerton operatives had "played double with the city detectives and, while processing to "go down the road with the road" with the city department, in reality branched off, discovered clews very material if they were genuine and kept their discovery a secret from the city detectives in spite of the agreement to work hand in hand.

Dorsey tried to find out from the witness under whose instructions he had withheld this information from the police while pretending to work with them. Rosser objected to work with them. Rosser objected on the ground that Frank should not bee bound by anything a detective did. While the point was being debated with some acrimony, Rosser, shouted, referring to Dorsey:

"The State of Georgia ought to be represented in this case with decency, your honour, and not in the manner in which the Solicitor General is conducting the prosecution."

Dorsey charged that the Pinkertons, when Detective John Black had come to inspect the new evidence, showed him the buggy whip found behind the front door of the factory and did not show him the club which was produced in evidence at the trial. The Solicitor failed in his effort to show that McWorth and his fellow operative L. P. Whitfield, did all this at the direction of Superintendent H. B. Pierce.

Time Element Again.

Interesting testimony, which may prove oof considerable importance in the development of the time element in the case, was given by Knox Thomas, a civil engineer.

From the intersection of Marietta and Forsyth streets to the pencil factory, Thomas testified the distance was 1,016 feet, and that it required him 4 minutes to walk it at a fairly brisk pace. This is the walk which the State contends Mary Phagan made Saturday, April 26, to get to the factory from her car. The car was due at this corner about 12:07. This would have brought her to the factory at about 12:11 . A conduct is found here in the State's own theory, as the Solicitor believes Mary Phagan entered the factory before Monteen Stover, who glanced at the clock and saw that it was 12:05 o'clock.

This obstacle is overcome by accepting as the truth the possibility that the car may have been running about five minutes ahead of time and that the clock at the factory was several minutes slow.

Thomas said that the distance from the pencil factory to Whitehall and Alabama streets, where Miss Helen Curran declared she saw Frank awaiting a car, was 321 feet, and that it required him 3 minutes to walk it.

The distance from Broad and Hunter streets to the pencil factory, the route the defense contends the Phagan girl took to the factory the day she went after her pay, the witness said was 333 feet, and that it took him 1 2-4 minutes to walk it.

Frank's Mother Recalled.

Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, who testified briefly at Friday's session of court, was recalled to the stand when the trial resumed Saturday. The defense sought to show that Frank would have been most unlikely to make any remark to Jim Conley about having "wealthy folks in Brooklyn" by proving that, as a matter of fact, his Brooklyn relatives were of only ordinary means.

The witness became somewhat exasperated on cross-examination when the Solicitor insisted on going into every source of income, as well as the financial resources of her husband. She said that she and her husband were living on the interest of $20,000 which was lent to different persons at an average of 6 percent interest. She said that this constituted all of the wealth of her husband and herself, except for the home in which they lived. On this she said there was a $5,000 mortgage.

Lanford Takes Day Off

To Go To Camp Meeting.

Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford, under whose guidance the State's evidence was seeded against Leo M. Frank, wants a day's complete respite and will spend Sunday at Sandy Springs, Georgia, where a Methods camp meeting is in progress.

Chief Lanford's activities in the case ended when the trial began, but he has been daily in the courtroom sitting close to Solicitor Dorsey whispering information about the various witnesses. The Chief will return to Allah's Monday morning in time for the opening of Monday's session of the trial.

TELLS OF FINDING CLUB AND ENVELOPE

BEHIND a radiator on the ground floor near the elevator shaft I found a piece of heavy cord, one end of which looked as if it had been freshly cut. There was also a piece of pay envelope folded up. The number 186 was marked on it, and the initials "M. P." I also found a big stick lying nearby, which had stains on it resembling blood. I also found stains resembling blood - six or seven of them - around the cubby hole on the first floor. I was looking for the girl's mesh bag when I found these things.- From testimony of Pinkerton Detective W.D. McWorth.

PAGE 12

LEO FRANK IS READY TO REVEAL HIS STORY

Accused Superintendent to Appeal to Reason of the Men Who Will Decide His Fate

LAWYERS SAY THEY HAVEN'T ADVISED HIM

Defendant Will in No Way Try to Stir Emotion of the Jurors.

Leo M. Frank's statement to the jury, delayed from last week by the swarm of character witnesses brought in at the last moment, is the main factor of interest remaining in the trial of the National Pencil Factory superintendent before the rebuttal is taken up by the two attorneys representing the State.

What this statement will be the defendant's lawyers themselves profess not to know. They have had little or no part in framing it, they say. All they know is that he proposes to make one, and that he has been preparing it piecemeal as the trial has progressed and one point after another has arisen.

Whether it will be a formal statement read verbatim, no one knows except the prisoner and possibly his immediate relatives.

If the lawyers know they are keeping it darkly a secret. They believe, they have ventured to say, that it will be more or less informal and that it will be in the nature of an address to the jury and the court based upon the notes that Frank has made from time to time during the trial.

Appeal To Reason.

That there will be little appeal to the emotions of the jurors is practically a foregone conclusion. It is the purpose of Frank, it is understood, to appeal directly to the reason and common sense of the twelve men - to outline to them as he has outlined to his own attorneys the weak points or improbabilities in the negro Conley's story.

As well as this, it is his intention to picture to them his every movement during the entire day and to represent the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime and disposed of the body as Conley describes if his alibi as set up by a score of witnesses is accepted by the jury.

The statement will embrace much to which he testified at the Coroner's inquest. But there will be much more. He will go into some things on which his own lawyers have not touched. The statement practically is certain to form a most remarkable and most import portion of the record of the trial's proceedings.

What promised to provide a sensation during the presentation of the defendant's case may collapse into nothing. This is W.H. Mincey and has startling declaration that he saw Jim Conley on the afternoon of the murder, and that Jim bragged to him that he had killed a girl that afternoon and didn't want to kill anyone else.

Appear to Doubt Mincey.

The attorneys for the defense have not been willing to say whether or not they would call Mincey. They have appeared to entertain some doubts of Mincey's credibility. Reuben Arnold said Saturday that he was not prepared to say that he would or would not call Mincey.

If Mincey's story could be corroborated it would furnish a most effective weapon in winning the battle for Frank's life. Granting it's truthfulness, it is the most definite and direct evidence of the entire case. Embracing as it does a virtual confession of murder on the part of the negro.

Mincey said he met Conley at Electric avenue and Carter street Saturday afternoon, April 26. Conley was partially intoxicated and becoming angered at Mincey's insistence that he take out an insurance policy threatened the agent and boasted of killing a girl shortly before according to the affidavit made by Mincey.

If Mincey goes on the stand his testimony will become the target for some of the State's strongest rebuttal. That and the character of Frank will divide the attention of the Solicitor. He will not bother about much else. He is content to let Conley's story, as bolstered and strengthened by the testimony of detectives and other witnesses, stand as a sufficient rebuttal for practically all of the evidence that the defense has brought out in favor of Frank. The Solicitor believes that when the arguments go before the jury the members will be willing to accept the story of the negro as against that of Frank.

After Frank's Character.

Dorsey, however, has been unceasing in his efforts to wreck Frank's character. He has branded him as a degenerate and a criminal of the worst type. The introduction of character witnesses by the defense has given him a new opening, and he proposes to take every advantage of it. His attitude is shown in a colloquy between himself and Judge Roan.

"How far do you intend to go in that line of testimony?" inquired the judge.

"Just exactly as far as your honor will let me," Dorsey replied.

Judge Roan remonstrated that the Solicitor General should not seek to introduce evidence that he knew was illegal. The Solicitor smiled.

Dorsey has about twenty witnesses he will use in an effort to destroy all of the favorable impression created by the 100 character witnesses who have testified for Frank so far in the trial. From some of them he has promised to produce testimony of the most sensational sort.

One young, Dewey Hewell, not yet out of her teens, was brought all the way from Cincinnati last Friday for the express purpose of testifying against the young factory superintendent.

She was in the Home of the Good Shepherd to which she was sent from Atlanta.

The defense is expected to close it's case by Monday night or Tuesday noon if the cross-examination of its witnesses is note extended. The rebuttal of the State will not last more than a day and a half, or two days at the most, according to the estimates made by lawyers connected with the case. This will bring the closing arguments some time "Thursday." It is not improbable that the judge's charge will be made before court adjourns Thursday night.

Arguments Are Awaited.

The true strength of the defense and the prosecution will not the developed until the closing arguments. Much of the significance of important bits of evidence has been obscured and passed over lightly as the case progressed. The lawyers have been willing that the jurors as the spectators, did not see the full import of certain pieces of testimony at the time it was given. They have been just as willing that no one understood the particular part it was to play in purpose was to get it clearly and unmistakably on the record.

When the arguments begin, these apparently disconnected and dissociated fragments of evidence will assemble themselves magically. Their significance will dawn forcible on the minds of the jurors under the spell of the eloquence and logic of four shrewd and capable lawyers.

As the Frank trial has surpassed all other criminal cases in the history of Georgia in the amount of testimony that has been transcribed, so will it surpass all others, it is very likely, in point of eloquence and masterly argument.

Both sides are determined. That there will be bitterness and rancor in the arguments is inescapable. If the attitude of the Solicitor has been forecast at all truly in his remarks during the progress of the trial, his address to the jury will be charged with as terrible and denunciatory invective as ever heard in an Atlanta court. If the prisoner at the bar, innocent or guilty, can save himself from cringing or from the least sign of emotion during the argument of the Solicitor General, he will have earned his title of iron man, indeed.

Alibi Built Up.

The two lawyers for the defense. Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, have built up an alibi for the accused man which they believe is indestructible. At the same time, from this witness and that one, they have obtained testimony supporting their theory that the crime was done by the negro, Jim Conley, and that the negro's story is a product of his imagination evolved for the sole purpose of saving his own neck.

This theory has been suggested from time to time during the trial, but little attempt has been made to develop it in the minds of the jurors through the medium of the supporting testimony.

The two lawyers will marshal -probably already have marshalled - the evidence in its proper sequence and will then present it to the jury as the most convincing argument that the crime was the dead of the negro and not of Leo Frank.

Frank Follows

Schedule in Jail Life.

Leo Frank is living a sane and rational life as a prisoner in the Tower - a life of scrupulous dumbbell exercises, daily cold baths, chats with many visitors, chess playing and reading.

Always an energetic man, Frank is himself even in jail. Each morning he arises at 6 o'clock and dives for his dumbbells. Following a brief exercise he takes a cold bath, and then relaxes until breakfast is brought him.

Usually his breakfast is sent from his home. Before the time of the trial he ate in his cell. Now, however, coming daily to the courtroom he gets his breakfast in the witness room of the courthouse, and his wife is there to talk with him during the meal.

At 5 o'clock in the evening he has dinner. The meal usually is brought to the jail from a downtown restaurant or hotel, occasionally from his home, and always Frank's friends come to sit with him while he eats. Later they stay on to talk, leaving about 9 o'clock. Then there are papers to read, magazines to look over and an occasional book or two, which keeps Frank up until about 10:30 o'clock, the hour of his retirement each night.

Lawyers In Frank Trial

All Georgia College Men.

Thomas W. Connally, the well-known attorney, has gathered some interesting facts about principal lawyers in the Frank case.

All of the lawyers, Mr. Connally finds, are college men. Luther Z. Rosser and Hugh M. Dorsey are charter members of the University Club, of which Mr. Connally is secretary.

Mr. Rosser is a graduate of Emory in the class of 1878. In spite of the fact that hew as nearly blind during part of his college course caused by an attack of measles, he was able by listening to his roommates study aloud to master the work so thoroughly that he took an honor in his class. For years he was an alumni trustee of Emory.

Hugh Dorsey is a graduate of the University of Georgia in the class of 1893, and afterward studied law at the University of Virginia.

Reuben Arnold was at the University of Georgia in the class of 1888.

Frank A. Hooper was a student at the Southwest Georgia Agricultural College before he entered Mercer, where he graduated with the A. B. degree in 1885. In 1888 his alma mater conferred an honorary A. M. degree.

E. A. Stephens, assistant to Solicitor Dorsey, is an Emory man of the class of 1891.

Mr. Rosser and Mr. Stephens are members of the Chi Phi Fraternity. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Hooper are Phi Delta Thetas. Mr. Dorsey is a Kappa Alpha.

Luther Z. Rosser, Jr. and L. S. Hopkins, Jr., from Rosser's office, have assisted him. Young Rosser is a Tech man, an Emory man and graduated from the law department of Mercer in 1909. Mr. Hopkins is an A. B. graduate of Emory, 1901, graduate of the law department of the University of Georgia in 1904, and L. B. from Yale University in 1905. Mr. Rosser is a Chi Phi and Mr. Hopkins is a member of Phi Delta Theta and the Phi Delta Phi legal fraternity.

Luther Z. Rosser, Jr., and Hugh Dorsey are brothers-in-law and C. B. Shelton, Rosser's brother-in-law, is a law partner of Dorsey's two brothers, Cam and E. Roy Dorsey.

Jurors' Wives Find

Solace in Union.

None of your clinging wives are the eleven women who, the wives of jury members, are made widows for the while by the trial of Leo Frank. They are not women to stay at home and weep in weeds. With their "Club for Temporary Widows" they are making the beat of a bad situation, and even finding some real fun.

Mrs. W. M. Jeffries, one of the wives made widows because her husband must serve on the jury, wandered about disconsolately the first two or three days. Then she became nervous and from nervousness she drifted into a spell of the blues.

Blues is the mother of invention, as all the world knows. With the tears not far from eyelashes one afternoon she was seized with an idea that sent the tears back and that made her hurry to the telephone. One by one she located them, the other wives who were widows, and unfolded her plans for an organization.

"And then we should worry," she told each one.

The idea found favor with them all. Eleven woman who didn't know each other before were drawn together, and now they can be seen sallying forth, consoled by their own numbers, and even gay, to the courthouse of an afternoon.

Time was when the trial started that their greetings were waved to their husbands with handkerchiefs wet with tears. But now the signal is gay. The widows have found in their common grief something to laugh at.

And the jurymen themselves don't worry about the folks at home so much now. They smile, too, when they leave the courtroom and catch the cheery greetings. All except C.J. Bosshardt, the lone unmarried member. There is no one to greet him, but they do say -

TIME A BIG FACTOR IN FRANK TRIAL

The time element plays the most important part in the trial of Frank. The State has built up an elaborate case to show that Frank had the opportunity to kill Mary Phagan. The defense, on the other hand, is building up just as elaborate a case to show that Frank could not have had the time to do the things charged against him. The principal time elements brought out so far follows:

THE STATE'S TIME-TABLE

8:30 - Conley and Frank met at the factory.

9:00 - Conley left to see his mother at the Capital City Laundry. Frank admonishing him to return in 40 minutes and meet him at Montag Bros., Nelson, and Forsyth streets.

9:30 Miss Mattie Smith left.

10:30 Conley met Frank at Nelson and Forsyth streets. Frank told the negro to wait a few minutes while he went into Montag Bros.

10:50 Frank came out and went back to the factory with Conley.

10:55 Frank stationed Conley on the first floor. Frank said there would be a girl there soon, and he wanted Conley to lock the door when he stamped and unlock it when he whistled.

11:30 N. V. Darley left.

11:45 Holloway left.

11:50 Lemmie Quinn entered the factory.

11:55 Lemmie Quinn left.

12:05 Mary Phagan entered. The State contends that although the car schedule would have brought her to Forsyth and Marietta streets at 12:07, it might have been five or six minutes ahead of time, giving Mary ample time to get to the factory by about 12:05. The State also has to discard the testimony of George Epps, who swore that he rode with Mary to town and got off the car with her 12:07 o'clock.

12:08 to 12:10 Monteen Stover entered the factory; was seen by Conley; went to Frank's office and found him absent.

12:13 to 12:15 Monteen Stover left.

12:20 Frank returned to his office, leaving the body in the metal room.

12:25 Conley dropped asleep.

12:30 Frank was startled by the arrival of Mrs. Arthur White

12:50 Frank went to the fourth floor and told Mrs. White, her husband and Harry Denham that they would have to be locked in the building if they did not leave, as he was going to lunch.

12:52 Mrs. White left.

12:54 Conley was awakened by Frank stamping on the floor. He locked the door and a minute later unlocked it when he heard Frank whistling. Conley was directed to go to the metal room to get a girl whom Frank "had struck too hard."

12:56 Conley and Frank carried the body of the girl downstairs.

1:03 They completed their task and returned to Franks' office. Conley hid in a closet five minutes while two women were in Frank's office.

1:15 Conley left the factory.

1:18 Frank left the factory.

1:20 Frank caught his car.

1:30 Frank arrived home, but hastily returned to town.

THE DFENSE'S TIME-TABLE

8:25 A. M. Frank arrived at factory. Met Holloway, day watchman, and Alonzo Mann, office boy.

8:50 A. M. Employees began coming for pay envelopes. Mattie Smith among them. N. V. Darley arrived.

9:40 A. M. Miss Smith and Darley left.

10:00 A. M. Frank went to Montag bros., Nelson and Forsyth streets.

11:00 A. M. Returned alone to pencil factory.

11:45 A. M. Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Freeman left factory after entering to get Mrs. Freeman's coat.

12:02 P. M. Miss Hattie Hall, the stenographer, left.

12:05 P. M. Miss Monteen Stover entered.

12:10 P. M. Miss Monteen Stover left.

12:12 P. M. Mary Phagan received pay envelope from Frank. Frank testified at coroner's inquest that she left his office in two or three minutes and that he thought he heard her talking with another girl and then heard their footsteps dying away.

12:20 P. M. Lemmie Quinn visited Frank's office.

12:22 P. M. Holloway left.

12:30 P. M. Mrs. Arthur White entered Frank's office and then went to the fourth floor to see her husband.

12:50 P. M. Frank went to the fourth floor and saw Mr. and Mrs. White and Harry Denham. HH eyed about two minutes.

1:05 P. M. Frank left for his luncheon. He walked up Forsyth street to Alabama and down Alabama to Whitehall.

1:10 P. M. Miss Helen Curran saw Frank waiting at Alabama and Whitehall streets for his car. It is the contention of the defense that Frank could not have been there at this time if Conley's story is true.

1:20 P. M. Mrs. A. P. Levy saw Frank enter the home of Emil Selig, with whom he lived at 68 East Georgia avenue. Frank sat down and ate with his father-in-law. The servant, Minola McKnight, saw him when he arrived home.

1:50 P. M. Left home for factory. Saw Mrs. M. J. McMichael, his wife's aunt, Jerome McMichael, Julian Loeb and others.

2:00 P. M. Caught car at Glenn and Washington streets. Met J. G. Leob on car.

2:10 P. M. Car was blocked at Hunter street by Memorial day crowds. Frank was seen by H. J. Hinchey who was riding by in his automobile. Frank left the car and walked on Hunter street to Whitehall.

2:20 P. M. Watched parade. Met Miss Rebecca Carson in front of Rich's store.

2:40 P. M. Was seen by Miss Carson to go in Jacobs' Pharmacy, Whitehall and Alabama streets.

3:00 P. M. Arrived at the pencil factory. Went to fourth floor to see Denham and White.

3:08 P. M. Denham and White left.

12:08 to 12:10 Monteen Stover entered the factory; was seen by Conley; went to Frank's office and found him absent.

12:13 to 12:15 Monteen Stover left.

12:20 Frank returned to his office, leaving the body in the metal room.

12:25 Conley dropped asleep.

12:30 Frank was startled by the arrival of Mrs. Arthur White

12:50 Frank went to the fourth floor and told Mrs. White, her husband and Harry Denham that they would have to be locked in the building if they did not leave, as he was going to lunch.

12:52 Mrs. White left.

12:54 Conley was awakened by Frank stamping on the floor. He locked the door and a minute later unlocked it when he heard Frank whistling. Conley was directed to go to the metal room to get a girl whom Frank "had struck too hard."

12:56 Conley and Frank carried the body of the girl downstairs.

1:03 They completed their task and returned to Franks' office. Conley hid in a closet five minutes while two women were in Frank's office.

1:15 Conley left the factory.

1:18 Frank left the factory.

1:20 Frank caught his car.

1:30 Frank arrived home, but hastily returned to town.

Could You Qualify as Juror in Case Hinging on Circumstantial Evidence?

By O. B. KEELER

Putting it somewhat abruptly

Would you hang a man on circumstantial evidence?

This is with some small reference to the Frank trial. Nearly everything has a Frank trial trend these days. And the trial itself is working around to where that problem is beginning to press on the twelve good men and true.

Also it is pestering the courtroom regulars.

It always does at a big murder trial. Probably more friendships have ceased over the question of hanging on circumstantial evidence than over the proposition that all men are born free and equal, or the world's series or the age of Ann.

You Either Would or Wouldn't.

Probably you have a pretty well fixed idea as to the ultimate value of circumstantial evidence.

Either you would hang a man on it or you wouldn't.

If you wouldn't, you couldn't have got on the Frank jury. Not honestly.

Because there is no direct evidence in the case.

In the first place it would be pretty tough if everybody in the world shared the conviction that no man should be convicted on circumstantial evidence.

If that were the case the potential murderer could use a little intelligence and a bit of care in arranging the stage setting for his crime and get by with it comfortably enough. He would just provide that nobody should see him when he let his victim have it under the fifth rib, or swung the well known blunt instrument, or pulled the trigger of the equally celebrated smoking revolver.

Then the fact that the knife had been in his possession for years, or he had been seen extracting the club from a lumber pile, or purchasing the revolver from a pawnbroker, would be valueless in default of some open-faced person who would take his stand upon the witness chair and assert dramatically:

"I seen him when he done it!"

Moreover, what are you going to do with that most monstrous of all murderers, the prisoner? It is the rarest thing in the world for a witness to be present when he offers his victim the fatal capsule and remarks:

"This is a little slut of strychnine."

If he didn't say what it was, there wouldn't be any direct evidence that it wasn't quinine, you see.

So it does look as if some people in this world are well justified in their belief that there can be circumstantial evidence strong enough to hang a man.

Value of Direct Evidence.

It looks like a good thing, if only to bear the murder market.

Now, let's look over the value of direct evidence. And there's an odd thing about it's actual face value, too.

Just at first sight it seems nothing could be clearer and more convincing. Here's a man, right on the spot. He sees all that occurs. All he has to do is to tell about it. In words of one syllable, if he likes it just a round, unvarnished tale.

The trouble is, there frequently is another man who was right on the spot, and also saw all that occurred.

When it comes to telling about it, those two men, like or not, will each tell an honest and straightforward story.

But the stories may not agree.

Both May be Honest, Too.

And both witnesses may be perfectly honest.

There was a professor of psychology or something, and he got all worked up over amazing proposition that several intelligent persons could see a tragedy enacted and tell several and radically different stories of how it happened.

So he framed up a little game on his class of 40 students, or 60 students, or whatever number it was all bright young college men, well above the average direct witness who just happened to be there when it happened.

The class was hearing him lecture one day, and, presumably, thinking of nothing else in the world, when one door of the room burst open and a pop-eyed man rushed in, followed closely by two others. The first man ran halfway across the room, wheeled and shouted:

"Stand back!"

His nearest pursuer leveled a paper cap pistol at him and replied:

"I'll settle you right now!"

The companion waved his arms and yelled:

"Down with the traitor!"

Then the first man ducked, ran for the door and disappeared, with the others after him.

Just Like a Regular Tragedy.

It was all unexpected, just like any regular tragedy. And it was all very sudden. It only took about ten seconds for the whole performance.

The class was surprised. That was rather natural. But the professor calmed the students and told them what it was all about. He wanted to see how accurate their powers of observation were under actual test. Had the young gentlemen seen and heard all that passed?

The young gentlemen had.

Then would the young gentlemen kindly write out each a full account of the proceeding, with the same care that would be used in testifying to the happening in a case that involved life and death?

The young gentlemen would.

And you can take it from the professor there was something to ponder in the "testimony."

A few samples will explain it.

How They Told of It.

One young gentleman testified that the foremost pursuer held a shotgun and cried, "Sic semper tyrannis!" Another was positive the weapon was a long dagger, and that the wielder said something about revenge for the invasion of his home, while his companion shouted, "Let me get at him!"

One eyewitness was sure the pursued man had dropped on his knees and lifted his hands in supplication: also that he had red whiskers: while another said he was clean shaven and held a revolver.

And that is a fair sample of the contradictory "evidence" given by eyewitnesses in the last case.

Not one single student gave an absolutely correct account of the affair, which had been worked out and rehearsed carefully by the actors.

Believe Half You See.

And in a great many cases of direct evidence it is a pretty good plan to believe only half what you see.

And by arguing around in a circle it would seem that there is a good deal to be said in favor of circumstantial evidence if only because it is sought intelligently and considered in cold blood, in place of the usual goggle-eyed mental condition of the witness suddenly confronted with a raw and ugly situation, entirely at variance with anything else he ever had encountered before.

And now could you qualify as juror in a circumstantial evidence case?