Monday, 18th August 1913: Dorsey Hammers At Frank’s Character Mother Leaves Court When Attack Is Made, The Atlanta Georgian
The Atlanta Georgian,
Monday, 18th August 1913,
PAGE 69, COLUMN 1.
PAGE 69, COLUMN 7
WOMAN DENIES BEING TOLD OF ESCAPADE OF PRISONER WITH GIRL
That Leo M. Frank rode on a street car to Hapeville with a girl the Saturday previous to the murder of Mary Phagan and repeatedly sought to persuade her to leave the car with him was the sensational testimony Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to get from Mrs. J. G. Warldaw Monday.
Anticipating the nature of the questions the Solicitor was about to ask, Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, stopped her ears with her fingers and then rushed from the room. Attorneys for Frank at first objected to the questions and the jury was excused. It was at this moment that Mrs. Frank made her dramatic exit. She was evidently fearful of repeating her outburst of a few days ago.
Mrs. Wardlaw denied that she ever knew of such a circumstance. She denied as well that she had been told of it by Harmes Stanton or H. G. Baker, street car men.
Denies Frank Looked Into Dressing Room.
Another sensation was created when the defense called to the stand Miss Emmeline Mayfield, the young woman whom the state maintains was in the dressing room when Frank looked in at one time. Miss Mayfield denied this was true.
Paving the way for the eagerly awaited statement of Frank, the lawyers for the defendant devoted Monday morning to the gathering up of the story ends of their case, most of the time being occupied with the testimony of character witnesses.
More than a score of women and girls employed in the National Pencil Company were called to tell what they knew of Frank's character and what they had observed of his conduct about the factory. All asserted that they never had known personally of any misconduct on the part of the superintendent and never had heard of any.
Explains Looking Into Dressing Room.
Mrs. Mattie Thompson proved one of the most important of the character witnesses. After testifying to Frank's good character, Mrs. Thompson declared that the girls on the fourth floor were in the habit at one time of flirting from the windows of the dressing room. She said that the practice became a matter of comment among the elder women on the fourth floor and that she finally took it upon herself to report it. Whereupon orders were issued against it.
The testimony of Mrs. Thompson was produced to provide a basis for the contention of the defense that Frank had opened the dressing room door on several occasions solely for the purpose of determining if his orders were being carried out.
Miss M. E. Fleming, a stenographer, said that she worked in Frank's office from April to December, 1912, and that she never had observed any misconduct on the superintendent's part now had seen women visiting his office.
Never Saw Women Saturday Afternoons.
Godfrey Winecoff, superintendent of the lead plant of the National Pencil Company, testified that it was his custom to visit the pencil factory office every other Saturday afternoon about 3 o'clock. He said he always found Frank or Schiff, Frank's assistant-frequently both-working in the office. He asserted he never saw any women there.
A large crowd was attracted to the courtroom by the probability that the prisoner would tell his story Monday, and the keenest expectancy prevailed. It was problematical whether there would be any cross-examination. Ordinarily, of course, the accused in a murder case merely makes his statement and the jury can believe it or discard it entirely as it chooses. It is said, however, that Frank has earnestly urged his lawyers to allow the Solicitor to cross-examine him.
When court reopened Monday Solicitor Dorsey took up the cross-examination of Harlee Branch, a reporter for The Atlanta Journal.
Branch was asked:
"Can you give any estimate of the time taken in conversation in Conley's re-enactment of the crime?" He replied that it took about fifteen minutes.
Q. You never said it was about half the total time, did you? A. I don't recall.
Attorney Arnold took the witness.
Q. You said it took about fifteen minutes to cover the time lost in conversation? A. Yes.
Q. He began at 12:18 and you left at 1:08? That would be about 50 minutes that you were there? A. Yes.
Q. How long was he writing the notes? A. Two minutes at the most. He did not write fast or slow?
Q. How long did he stay in the wardrobe? A. About one minute.
Q. Did you see Conley in the newspapermen's room here in this courthouse reading a newspaper since this trial began? A. I saw him looking at one as though he was reading it.
Mr. Branch was excused and Lou Castro, former ball player and at present fight promoter, was called as a witness by the defense to testify to time it took to walk certain distances.
Q. Did you walk from Marietta and Forsyth streets to the second floor of the pencil factory? A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you? A. Four and one-half minutes.
Q. Did you walk from the National
PAGE 70, COLUMN 1
ACCUSED DID NOT PEER INTO GIRLS' DRESSING ROOM, WORKER SAYS
Continued from Page 1.
Pencil Company to the corner of Whitehall and Alabama streets? A. I did.
Q. How long did it take you? A. Three minutes and twenty seconds.
Q. Did you walk from Broad and Hunter streets to the Pencil Factory? A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you? A. One and one-half minutes.
The witness was excused.
Employees of Factory Character Witnesses.
Miss M. E. Fleming was the next witness called. She is one of Frank's former stenographers. She testified on direct examination that Frank's character was good. Dorsey cross-questioned her.
Q. Were you ever there on Saturday afternoon? A. No, I was off then.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Frank work on the financial sheet Saturday mornings? A. Yes, I saw him work on it a little.
Miss Fleming was excused and Godfrey Winecoff, superintendent of the lead plant of the pencil factory, took the stand.
Q. Did you visit the National Pencil factory on Saturdays between July 1, 1912 and May 1, 1913? A. Yes.
Q. What time? A. Three to 5 o'clock.
Q. How often? A. Almost every Saturday.
Q. Did you ever see women there in Frank's office? A. No.
Q. Who was there? A. Frank, Holloway, Schiff and the office boy.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Are you sure Holloway was there at 3 o'clock? A. Yes.
The witness was excused, and Mrs. Mattie Thompson, an employee of the factory working on the fourth floor took the stand and testified as to Frank's good character. Arnold questioned her.
Q. Do you know anything about that dressing room on the fourth floor and the conduct of the girls there? A. I made a complaint about the girls flirting out of the window.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who has talked to you in the last few days about what you were to swear on the stand here? A. Mr. Haas talked to me.
Registered Complaint About Girls Flirting.
Q. What did you tell him? A. About some of those flippy girls flirting out of the window. I have talked it over with Mrs. Carson and we decided to complain to Mr. Darley.
Q. Who was flirting? A. I don't know. It was only talked about the floor.
Q. Who was talking about it? A. Several of the girls were talking about it.
The witness was excused and Miss Annie Howard, who has worked at the factory for fourteen months; Miss Lillie May Goodman, an employee on the second floor for over a year; Miss Cora Cowan, an employee for four years, and Miss B. D. Smith, an employee of four years' standing, testified to Frank's good character. Miss Jimmie Mayfield, another employee of the factory, said she was not familiar enough with Frank's character to testify.
Miss Irene Carson, a factory employee, testified to Frank's good character. She declared that she was with her sister Rebecca and saw Frank on Whitehall street Saturday, April 26. She was not cross-examined.
Miss Lizzie Word, an employee of the pencil factory; Miss Ida Holmes, who has worked at the factory more than four years; Miss Willie Hatchett, Miss Mary Hatchett, Mrs. O. Johns, an employee at the factory for four and one-half years, and Miss Georgia Denham, formerly an employee for two years, all testified as to Frank's good character.
Girl Employees Give Frank a Good Name.
Miss Bessie White also testified in behalf of Frank's character. Mrs. Lizzie Florence declared she only knew Frank by sight and was not acquainted with his character. Mrs. Zilley Spivey, an employee of the pencil factory for more than four years, said Frank's character was good as far as she knew. Mrs. Minnie Smith and Miss Grace Atherton testified to Frank's good character. Both are employees of the pencil factory.
Miss Ethel Barber, a young girl, said she had worked at the pencil factory for several years and she did not know Frank's character.
Miss Velvey Holland, a pencil factory employee, said she knew nothing of Frank's character.
Miss Marjorie Mc Cord, another employee, said Frank's character was good. Dorsey cross-examined her.
Q. What do you understand by his general character? A. He was always a perfect gentleman.
Q. Are you talking about what you heard or what you know?-I am talking about what I know.
The witness was excused and R. P. Butler, shipping clerk at the factory, was called. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Are the doors leading into the metal room of glass or wood? A. They are wooden with glass 15 by 18 inches in them.
Q. Can a man of ordinary height see through the glass? A. Yes.
Q. Is Mr. Frank's character good or bad? A. Good.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. How wide are these doors? A. Six feet.
Q. Did you measure them? A. I did.
Q. They are down a long narrow passageway with boxes on both sides, are they not? A. The passageway is 10 feet wide except at one point.
Q. Right at the door it is very dark, isn't it? A. Not so very dark.
Q. Do those doors usually stay open or closed? A. Open.
Q. If any one was to sit to the right or left of those doors he could not be seen, could he? A. A person would have to be at least 1 foot to either one side or the other.
Rabbi Marx Recalled But Not Questioned.
The witness was excused and Rabbi David Marx was recalled to the stand to explain the functions of the B'nai B'rith. After conferring with the attorneys for the State, Mr. Arnold said he knew the evidence was irrelevant and he would send the jury out if the State desired.
The State objected.
Hooper: "To relieve Mr. Arnold's mind, I will state that it is already definite that it is a charity organization."
Judge Roan ruled that the details of the organization were inadmissible. Attorney Rosser, with the consent of Solicitor Dorsey, then dictated to the stenographer without the jury hearing what he wanted to prove by Dr. Marx. Dr. Marx was then excused.
Mrs. S. A. Wilson testified that Frank's character was good. On cross-examination she stated that she had never heard anything against him.
Miss Lena Mc Murtrey, a girl in short dresses, said she had only worked at the factory for a short time and did not know Frank's character.
Mrs. Mary Bolton said she worked at the factory for six months about four years ago and that she had found Frank to be a perfect gentleman. She returned to work at the factory June 1.
Attorney Arnold remarked that he did not think the witness entirely qualified.
Mrs. J. Johnson testified to Frank's good character. Charles Lee, a young man employed in the factory, said Frank's character was good. Lee said he had heard nothing against him.
Dorsey cross-examined him.
Young Man Denies He Signed Statement.
Q. You said the other day you gave a written statement about Duffy getting hurt? A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen that statement to refresh your memory? A. Yes.
Q. You signed it? A. I never said I signed it.
Q. Did you give a written statement and never signed it? A. It was written on a typewriter.
Q. What did you tell them that they put in that statement? A. I told them how he got cut on the right forefinger.
Q. Was there anything in the statement about him getting cut while putting on a brass roll? A. No, because I put that on myself.
Mrs. J. G. Wardlaw, formerly Miss Lula Mc Donald, an employee in the pencil factory for four years, testified to Frank's good character.
Dorsey-I want to ask this lady some questions which counsel for the defense have already indicated they object to.
The jury was sent from the courtroom. Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, held her hands over her ears to keep from hearing. After the jury went out she also retired. Mrs. Leo Frank retained her seat by her husband.
Never Heard of Frank On Car With Girl.
Q. You say you have never heard anything bad about Mr. Frank? A. No.
Q. You're sure you never talked to H. Stanton and H. M. Baker, in charge of a car, that Frank had a little girl with him and tried to get her to get on the car with him, and that he had his arm around her? A. No.
Judge Roan ruled the questions were admissible, and when the jury returned Solicitor Dorsey repeated the questions and received the same reply. The witness was excused.
Frank Siganke, an employee of the pencil company; N. V. Darley, assistant superintendent, and E. F. Holloway, the day watchman, testified to Frank's good character.
Miss Emmeline Mayfield, one of the girls who was said to have been in the dressing room at the time Frank looked in, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned her.
Q. Were you ever in the dressing room when Mr. Frank came in and looked at you? A. No.
Q. Were you ever in there undressed when he came in? A. No.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Do you know Miss Mamie Kitchens? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Miss Irene Jackson? A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall Frank coming into the dressing room one day when either one of these young ladies were in there with you? A. No.
The witness was excused, and the defense then introduced documentary evidence, including the financial sheet and the model of the pencil factory. Attorney Arnold stated to a Georgian reporter that as soon as this was introduced Frank would go upon the stand.
Much Documentary Evidence Offered.
The following documentary evidence was offered: All of the financial sheets of the National Pencil Company from June 1, 1912, to April 24, 1913; the letter from Leo Frank, dated April 26, 1913, to his uncle, M. Frank, in New York; the data from which the financial sheet of April 26 was made; twelve requisitions identified by Herbert Schiff as being made out in the handwriting of Leo Frank; ten orders dated April 26; ten carbon copies identified by Miss Hattie Hall as having been taken down and written by her Saturday morning, April 26; eleven orders recorded on the house order book April 26; page 195 of the cash book of the National Pencil Company, covering entries from April 21 to April 26, 1913; four affidavits of Jim Conley; specimens of cabbage presented by Dr. Hancock; records of various convictions of C. B. Dalton. (The indictment pending against him was ruled out on the protest of Solicitor Dorsey.) Part of the testimony of Newt Lee before the Coroner when he explained the meeting between Gantt and Frank on the afternoon of the murder.
Dorsey Plans To Use Defense's Witnesses.
Solicitor Dorsey, successful Saturday in introducing testimony as to the actual time it required for Jim Conley to enact his story of the disposal of Mary Phagan's body at the National Pencil Factory, prepared Monday to continue his examination of the defense's own witnesses along this line and later to put on witnesses for the State further to discredit the reliability of the test made by Dr. William D. Owens and three other men.
The Solicitor made a hard fight to get the evidence in. He made as hard a fight to keep out the testimony of Dr. Owens, but failed. When Harllee Branch, one of the newspaper men who made the trip through the factory with Conley, was called to the stand by the defense to testify in regard to an interview with the negro, Dorsey, as soon as the direct examination was concluded, started to question the witness as to his estimate of the time it required Conley to go through the factory May 30 and illustrate his version of the manner in which the Phagan girl's body was taken into the basement.
Solicitor Dorsey Hammering Down Point for State
Dorsey has shown remarkable all-round ability.
HUGH DORSEY.
An instant and strenuous objection came from the lawyers for the defense. They protested taking the time that it required Conley to go through with the details he had described on the ground that he, knowing the possibility that he might later be charged with the crime itself, might probably have hurried through with it so as to leave the impression that the deed could have been done within the time that Frank was in the factory between 12:56 and the time he left for home.
Dorsey argued that the judge had let in an experiment by persons who knew of the alleged events of the day only by hearsay, so why not let in an experiment by a person who actually had taken a part in them. His argument won.
Victorious in this legal skirmish, the Solicitor was ready to press his advantage when court reopened Monday for the fourth week in the trial of Leo M. Frank on the charge of murdering the Phagan girl. His main endeavor was to show the unreliability of the estimate of Dr. Owens and his associates in the experiment by the defense. He also wanted to approximate as nearly as possible the actual time that it took Conley to reproduce the events, which the State claims were a part of the tragedy.
Tests Seem Fair To Neither Side.
So far as the testimony has developed along this line the time required for the enacting of Conley's story does not appear to be a fair test either for the State or the defense. The testimony already in is to the effect that the elapsed time from the moment Conley entered the factory building in charge of the officers until he went from second floor to basement and back again was about 47 minutes.
This estimate is evidently unfair of the State, as Conley was stopped several times in his narrative and was asked on other occasions to stop and illustrate the position of the dead girl's body. The interruptions served to lengthen the time that the negro took in going through the impressive drama.
The Solicitor from the witnesses yet to be examined will seek to show that these interruptions consumed an exceedingly large share of the time, and that the time occupied in the actual reproduction of the events of the day of the tragedy was comparatively brief.
A number of character witnesses were still to be called by the defense. If Frank's lawyers still were of the intention to omit no one who might help the case of the accused man, it was certain that most of the day would be taken up with the testimony of the character witnesses who had not as yet been examined.
The defense also had planned to go into a number of interviews that were published during the progress of the investigation into the murder mystery in an effort to show that the detectives from the first have been obsessed with the idea that no one else than Frank could have been guilty of the crime, and that they have refused to entertain any other theory or follow out the possibility of the guilt of any other person.
If this phase of the investigation is developed, it is likely that Chief of Detectives Lanford will be called to the stand and asked concerning his attitude throughout the search for the murderer.
The State has more than a score of character witnesses to be used in the rebuttal of the testimony given by persons who have sworn to the good character of the young factory superintendent. It is known that a number of them have sensational stories to disclose. What part of their testimony will be permitted to go on the record is problematical.
The defense has fought strenuously the introduction of testimony by which the State has sought to show that Frank has been guilty of grossly immoral conduct.
Frank's lawyers brand these stories as slanderous and untrue. They are able to refute them, they say, by the word of scores of reputable citizens but they assert that Frank is not being tried on any other charge than that of murder and that, therefore, the testimony in regard to alleged acts of immorality is utterly irrelevant, immaterial and illegal.
Doors Closed on Specific Instances.
Since the ruling of Judge Roan, closing the doors to the introduction by the State of evidence relating to particular incidents of alleged misconduct, Solicitor Dorsey has been unable to get substantiation of his charges of immorality before the jurors. The sole exception to this was in the cross-examination of Miss Irene Jackson, one of the defense's witnesses. Frank, according to Miss Jackson, three times to her knowledge came to the girl's room, opened the door and looked in upon the girls there and then turned and walked away.
The State will construe this as one of the indications of Frank's attitude toward his young women employees. The defense will set forth that the young women were supposed to be at work at 7 o'clock and Frank looked into the room fifteen minutes later to see whether they had arrived or not.