Monday, 18th August 1913: Frank Takes Stand, The Atlanta Georgian
The Atlanta Georgian,
Monday, 18th August 1913,
PAGE 43, COLUMN 1.
LEO M. FRANK AS HE TOLD HIS STORY ON WITNESS STAND
Frank appeared perfectly calm and collected as he went to the witness chair in his own behalf. He apparently welcomed the opportunity to tell of the famous crime from his view-point.
The accused man urged his lawyers to let the Solicitor and his aides cross-question him freely.
PAGE 43, COLUMN 1
FRANK TAKES STAND
PAGE 43, COLUMN 3
TELLS HIS STORY TO MEN WHO HOLD FATE
In a courtroom held silent by the thrill of expectancy, Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, began Monday afternoon, with a striking calmness that gave added weight to his words, his own defense.
Step by step he took up his movements that tragic April 26 and talking slowly and distinctly he sought to impress upon the jury the falsity of every charge against him and the utter impossibility of his having any connection with the attack and strangulation of the brave little worker whose fate stirred Georgia as it has seldom been stirred before.
To the twelve jurors who have his fate in their hands, Leo M. Frank, accused of slaying Mary Phagan, made his appeal for life and liberty.
It was a dramatic close to the presentation of the case in Frank's behalf. The statement was the crowning point of the entire trial and was hoped by the defendant's lawyers to clinch and strengthen all of the favorable testimony that had gone before.
With scarcely a sign of emotion on his features, he began his story fraught with importance and interest. Just before, he unconcernedly had assisted his attorneys in picking out a number of documents to be identified in the record of the case. The momentous import of the occasion did not appear to weigh upon him heavily.
Outside a large crowd clamored for admission. They resembled nothing so much as the spectacle before a theater at a popular-priced matinee where hundreds are waiting to purchase their gallery seats.
The throng formed itself into two lines extending in both directions from the front doors of the courthouse around the building into the alley on one side and the whole length of the courthouse on Hunter street on the other side.
His Mother a Tense Listener.
The courtroom filled up with a rush as soon as the doors were opened. After that only three or four at a time were permitted to push their way through the doors. The others waited patiently in the hot sun through the long afternoon.
Mrs. Rae Frank, who rushed from the courtroom, her fingers in her ears earlier in the day when she anticipated another attack upon her son's character by the Solicitor, was present when he went to the stand. The younger Mrs. Frank had been in court all day.
While outwardly calm, the two women were evidently under great nervous tension as the crisis of the trial was reached. A big law book dropped, hitting a cuspidor with a clatter. The defendant's young wife jumped as though she had been struck.
Frank started his appeal at 2:05 o'clock in rather low but distinct tones. Aside from a preparatory clearing of his throat and a scarcely perceptible catch in his voice as he began his story, he displayed no signs of nervousness or agitation.
Before Arnold started the questioning, Judge Roan said to Frank:
"I want to read you the law," and read:
"In all criminal trials, the defendant has the right to make any statement he sees fit. He is not under oath. He does not have to submit to any cross-examination and can decline to answer any question. He can say as much or as little as he pleases."
"Mr. Frank," continued Judge Roan, "make your statement."
Hapeville Episode Hinted by State.
That 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. Wardlow 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.
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 know 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 nor had seen women visiting his office.
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
PAGE 44, COLUMN 1
MOTHER LEAVES COURT TO KEEP FROM HEARING QUERIES
Great Crowd Is Again at Trial Expecting to Hear Leo Frank Testify
ACCUSED DID NOT PEER INTO GIRLS' DRESSING ROOM, WORKER SAYS
Continued from Page 1.
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.
Took Conley 15 Minutes To Tell Crime Details.
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 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 R. 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 passage way 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 one 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.
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.
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.
Solicitor Dorsey Hammering Down Point for State
Dorsey has shown remarkable all-round ability.
HUGH DORSEY.
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 Harilee 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.
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, but the testimony which followed was distinctly favorable to the defense.
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.
Other papers introduced were the testimony of Harry Scott before the Coroner's inquest and the report of Scott to the Pinkerton detective agency on Monday, April 28. In introducing this, Attorney Rosser said that he wanted to introduce it for the purpose of showing that in his first interview with Frank that Frank stated in reply to an inquiry regarding the metal's arrival: "No," and that on the stand Scott quoted Frank as saying "I don't know" in reply to the same question. That part of Scott's testimony in which he said he was working for the pencil factory to ferret out the murderer and his evidence regarding the interview Frank had with Newt Lee at the police station Tuesday, April 29, was tendered; also the proceedings under which Jim Conley was released from the county jail; the testimony of Policeman Anderson about seeing the girl's body from where Newt Lee was sitting in the basement.
Lee's Testimony About Tape Submitted.
The testimony in which Newt Lee declared that it took Frank twice as long to put the tape in the time clock the Sunday morning the body was found that it did the first time he was seen to put it in, together with Lee's testimony on the same point before the Coroner, was also tendered. The defense submitted the plats, the one in which the Selig home is shown and a diagram of all floors of the National Pencil Company building, and the plat from which the measurements for the paper model were taken, together with photographs of the Selig home. All went in without objection on the part of the State.
The personal check book of the defendant was introduced to show that Frank did not have $200 in his possession the day of the crime. Dorsey objected on the ground that the check book would not prove that fact and that the book had not been identified. Attorney Rosser announced he would have to call witnesses to identify it after the noon recess.
Court then adjourned until 2 o'clock.
Shadow of Death on Mary Phagan's Home.
The shadow of death was on the home of Mary Phagan Monday morning. Her grandmother, Mrs. A. E. Benton, of Marietta, died late Sunday night after having a vision in which she saw the slain girl alive and happy. Mrs. Benton had been visiting the Coleman home, No. 704 Ashby street since the trial of Leo Frank began. She was confined to bed the second day of the trial when the details of the finding of the body were rehearsed.
"After my mother was confined to her bed her one hope was that she would live until the end of the trial," said Mrs. Coleman. Poor little Mary was her favorite grandchild and she never ceased talking about her."
Mrs. Benton is survived by two daughters, Mrs. J. W. Coleman and Mrs. J. W. Barmore, of Marietta, and four sons, Jack Benton, of Riverside, and Hardy, Thomas and Durell Benton, of Atlanta. The funeral arrangements have not been completed.
Phagan Jurors Dwell Together in Harmony.
The jury in the Frank case is an ideal one so far as their personalities are concerned, according to Chief Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner.
"These men are considerate of each other and there has not been a single kick yet," said the deputy. "They retire at practically the same time and arise in the same manner. This is different from most juries, on which there are oftentimes cranks. One man will retire at 7 and the next one at 1 o'clock. One man will want a room on the first floor and the other one will want to sleep on the roof.
"They are a cheerful lot, and there is never any discussion as to what they will do. If one wants to go for a walk, all are ready. There has been no kick on the food or the censorship of their mail and reading matter. If these men are as ideal at home as they are on the jury, all must have happy homes."