Wednesday, 20th August 1913 State Closes Frank Case Near Jury Defense Begins Its Sur-rubettual. Hopes To Conclude Quickly
The Atlanta Georgian,
Wednesday, 20th August 1913.
Page 2
Solicitor Dorsey announced the close of the State's case against Leo M. Frank at 4 o'clock Wednesday afternoon. There remained only the presentation of some documentary evidence by the State before the defense would be permitted to proceed on the sur-rebuttal.
Attorney Arnold estimated that the defense would not be more than half an hour on the presentation of the sur-rebuttal in the even the cross-examination of witnesses was limited.
Judge L. S. Roan said he thought the amount of time allotted for the arguments would be practically unlimited, although he hardly regarded it so likely that either side would desire more than four or five hours. The State will open and close.
The strong probability Wednesday night was that Frank's fate would be in the hands of the jurors late Thursday or some time during Friday's session.
The close of the State's case was marked by a severe grilling of Detective J. V. Starnes by Attorney Roger. The lawyer tried to make it appear that Starnes had kept Minola McKnight locked up and had given her the third degree until she finally had signed the affidavit incriminating Frank in order to obtain her release.
Dorsey put in evidence statements of Miss Hattie Hall, Wade Campbell, Minola McKnight and other of the defense's witnesses who had sworn differently on the stand than they had at the Coroner's inquest or at his office.
The State finished the submission of its documentary evidence at 4:50 o'clock and the defense called for T. Y. Brent, who said he had heard Conductor Kenley, a State's witness, vilify Frank.
Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, was recalled in an attack on Frank's own story, at the afternoon session Wednesday.
W. T. Dobbs, a member of the city fire department, directly contradicted W. N. Matthews, one of the defense's witnesses and motorman of the car on which Mary Phagan came to town April 26, in the course of his testimony in the Frank trial Wednesday afternoon.
Dobbs testified that he saw Matthews about three days after the crime and that Matthews told him that Mary Phagan, had ridden with him that day, that she got off at Marietta and Forsyth streets, and that the Epps boy was with her.
Matthews testified when on the stand that the Phagan girl did not get off at Marietta and Forsyth streets, but rode on to Broad and Hunter streets, and that he did not see the Epps boy with her.
L. S. Kendrick, who was night watchman at the pencil factory before Newt Lee was engaged, testified that he had gone to the factory frequently on Saturday afternoon, and on occasions had seen Jim Conley as well as other negroes hanging around on the first floor. Kendrick also said he had run a tape through the time clock since the murder making a record upon it, and that it had required only three or four minutes to do it. The tape was placed in evidence.
Ivy Jones, a negro drive, testified to seeing Jim Conley between 1 and 3 o'clock the afternoon of the murder. He said that he walked with Conley toward Conley's home and left him at Hunter and Davis streets.
J. D. Reed, a tile layer, was called for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of W. T. Hollis, conductor on the car on which Mary Phagan came to town. Reed and Hollis had told him that Epps had go on that car with the girl and that the two had talked together as though they were sweethearts.
Progress in Attack On Frank's Character.
Solicitor Dorsey renewed his determined attack upon the character of Leo M. Frank Wednesday, and for the first time since the testimony of Jim Conley and the insurance man, Ashley Jones, was able to make a little progress in the introduction of this sort of testimony.
Having found the opening, the Solicitor made the most his advantage, and before the noon recess had arrived ten witnesses, most of them young girls, had arrived ten witnesses, most of them young girls, had sworn that Frank's general character was bad and that his moral character was the same.
The most sensational bit of testimony involved one of the foreladies. Two of the girls who formerly had worked in the factory, Miss Myrtice Cato and Miss Maggie Griffin, testified that they had seen Frank go into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson, who was a witness for Frank only a few days ago.
Miss Cato said she had seen the two go into the dressing room on two occasions. Miss Griffin testified it had occurred three or four times to her knowledge.
Miss Carson was called by the Solicitor and indignantly denied that such an occurrence ever had taken place.
Saw Frank Lay Hand
On Mary's Shoulder.
Of even greater importance, although of less sensational interest was the testimony of Miss Dewey Hewell, who swore that Frank was in the habit of talking frequently to Mary Phagan; that he called her by name, and that he stood close to her and laid his hand familiarly on her shoulder. She was not able to relate the subject of the conversations when she was cross-examined. She did not know but that Frank might have been talking about her work.
Miss Ruth Robinson corroborated the Hewell girl in her testimony. Miss Rawal was brought from the Home of the Good Shephard in Cincinnati to testify against Frank.
PAGE 2
DORSEY FIGHTS HARD TO BOLSTER UP DR. HARRIS' EVIDENCE
Calling of More Medical Experts by State Materially Lengthens Frank Trial
MARY PHAGAN VICTIM OF CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, SAYS DR. JNO.FUNKE ON STAND
Continued from Page 1.
Neither was able to say that there had been anything improper or unusual in Frank's talk with Mary.
N. Kelly, an employee of the street railway company, said that he stood at Forsyth and Marietta streets April 26 and took the English avenue car at 12:02 to Alabama street. He said he knew Mary Phagan and that she was not on this car from Forsyth and Marietta streets. His testimony if believed by the jury is extremely important to the State, as it supports the State's contentions in two respects"first, that Mary Phagan go off the car at Forsyth and Marietta streets, and, second, that the car was considerably ahead of time. Other street car employees testified that 11 was not unusual for the English avenue car, due at 12:07, to come in ahead of the Fair street car, which is due at 12:05.
Experts Corroborate
Harris Evidence.
Solicitor Dorsey, successful in his endeavor to re-open the question of the time Mary Phagan met her death as judged by the condition of the food found in her stomach, gathered a brilliant array of stomach and intestinal specialists Wednesday to lead in an onslaught against the testimony of the experts called by the lawyers for Leo Frank.
Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, on being asked a hypothetical question embracing the condition in which the cabbage in Mary Phagan's stomach was found, gave it as his opinion that the girl came to her death within an hour after the digestion began.
This corroborated in a measure the testimony of Dr. Harris, who estimated the time at from half to three-quarters of an hour after the cabbage had been eaten.
Dr. George M. Niles, who holds the chair of gastro-enterology at the Atlanta Medical College, swore that digestion could not have progressed more than an hour under the conditions described. He was quite positive digestion had progressed less than an hour.
Dr. John Funke, professor of pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College, testified that he had been shown sections of the organs of Mary Phagan by Dr. Harris, a circumstance which had not been made known until this point in the trial. The defense had made his experiments and analysis in secret and had consulted no other expert.
Dr. Funke later admitted that he had not made the examination until about a week ago after the charges had been made and he had been asked by Dr. R. T. Dorsey, brother of the Solicitor, to inspect the specimens.
Asserts Girl Was Cri
minally Attacked
This expert corroborated Dr. Harris in his declaration that Mary Phagan was a victim of criminal violence, but he fell somewhat short of substantiating Harris on the time the cabbage had been in the stomach before the digestive processes had been stopped by death.
Being pressed for a definite answer on this point, he said:
One can not say positively, but it is reasonable to assume that digestion probably had progressed an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.
Dr. Johnson was extremely cautious in his answers. He dictated his replies slowly and studiedly to the court stenographer and picked his words and phrases most carefully.
He said first in reply to questions by the Solicitor that it was his scientific opinion that the digestion of the cabbage and bread in Mary Phagan's stomach had stopped within an hour after they were eaten. Attorney Arnold, however, got the expert to change his answer to within an hour after digestion had begun, forcing Dr. Johnson to admit that the beginning of digestion many times is delayed by poor mastication or overdilution of the gastric fluids. The witness would not undertake to say how long it was before the first processes of actual digestion had begun in the case of Mary Phagan.
Much surprise was occasioned when it was learned that Jim Conley had been brought to the courthouse at the command of Solicitor Dorsey. It was rumored that he would go on the stand, but Solicitor Dorsey insisted that he had him brought over merely to have him identified by persons who could swear to his good character.
Defense Puts Up Hard Battle.
A lively argument over the State's proposal to call three or four prominent physicians to controvert the testimony of the defense's medical experts marked the opening of the Frank trial Wednesday.
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold vigorously fought the introduction of witnesses for this purpose in the State's rebuttal. Solicitor Dorsey maintained he had a perfect right to develop as much testimony along this line as he wished.
The defense took the attitude that all of their medical experts were called only for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, who will go down in the history of the Phagan case as the witness who professed to determine the time that intervened between the time that Mary Phagan left home and the time she was killed by the condition Umme she was killed by the condition of some undigested cabbage in her stomach.
Attorney Arnold argued that if the State had wished to obtain the testimony of other medical experts to corroborate the statements of Dr. Harris, they should have been called in the original presentation of the State's case instead of in the rebuttal.
He said that the defense had not attempted to cover any new points through the physicians they had on the stand and that these experts were questioned solely with the purpose in view of discrediting Dr. Harris.
Endless Process
Seen by Arnold.
If this is to be allowed, said Arnold, it will mean that it is to be simply an endless process. I never heard of such a thing before. If Mr. Dorsey is permitted to call all the medical experts he wishes to bolster up the testimony of Dr. Harris, I shall call back all of the experts we had on the stand.
The argument had its beginning late Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, was called to the stand just before adjournment. Rosser and Arnold entered their objections the instant that Solicitor Dorsey began questioning the witness along the same line that he had questioned Dr. Harris when the State presented its case against the defendant.
I just want to question this man in rebuttal of the defense's witnesses, insisted the Solicitor. They testified that Dr. Harris was making a wild and reckless guess when he declared that Mary Phagan was killed within three-quarters of an hour after she ate and left home. I want to prove by Dr. Johnson and the other experts that I will call that this declaration of Dr. Harris was base don scientific principles that are well known to the physicians who specialize along those particular lines.
The Solicitor said that he had plenty of authorities to uphold him in his stand on the admissibility of the testimony in rebuttal and asked the judge to adjourn until Wednesday morning so that he might have time to look them up. The Solicitor got Dr. Johnson to buy before he left the stand that Dr. Harris was premising his statement upon substantial physiological principles and that it was in no sense a wild guess. It was the plan to recall Dr. Johnson to the stand again as soon as court opened Wednesday.
Expert Permitted to
Answer State's Query.
Dr. Clarence Johnson was called the Solicitor Dorsey resumed his argument on the admissibility of evidence supporting Dr. H. F. Harris.
I have this authority, said Dorsey. It has been the well-recognized practice to follow this course. I have not been able to put my hand on a specific authority, though I have looked for it for some time. However, I think your honor will recall that it is the uniform practice to allow the State to make out a prime facie case and go into the whole thing later. It is within the discretion of the court to allow a case to be reopened even after the State and the defense have rested.
What I want to know is, said Judge Roan, If you want to reopen this whole case.
I have a right to do that, said Dorsey.
Where would this thing end? asked the judge. They would have the right to rebut.
Of course the court would not allow anything absurd.
What is more absurd, asked Arnold, than for the State to bolster up it's testimony after the matter is closed? I know some judges who have been elevated from the office of Solicitor General who would allow the State to bring in anything on rebuttal. If this is to be reopened, we are going to ask to be allowed to bring our experts to go over the rebuttal. If Dr. Harris' testimony needs bolstering, he should have put up the doctors at first.
As a matter of right, said Judge Roan, you (Dorsey) have not any. As a matter of discretion of the court you have. I will exercise that discretion in your favor, Mr. Dorsey. You may go on with the question.
Girl Died Within Hour
After Eating Cabbage.
Solicitor Dorsey had the court stenographer read the hypothetical question about the length of time the cabbage Mary Phagan ate had been in her stomach and whether a doctor could determine anything definite about the time of death or whether it would be a wild guess.
The answer was:
To answer that question under the pain I have taken I would have to know whether the pathologist was thoroughly capable and employed the most modern scientific methods.
Q. Well, assume that he was, doctor?"A. If a capable pathological found there was only combined hydrochloric acid with due consideration of other conditions as possible factors. I would express in my opinion scientifically that the digestion of the bread and the cabbage was stopped within one hour after eating.
The witness the addressed the court:
Your honor, I would like to have my answer read to me by the stenographer. The request was granted.
Q. Is every stomach a law unto itself?"A. No.
Arnold took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What are some of the other possible factors?"A. I didn't say that.
Q. What did they say then?"A. I said there were probably factors in the cut of the bead and strangulation.
Q. Well, how would that affect digestion?"A. Anything that disturbs the circulation of the blood would affect digestion.
Q. What did you mean by mechanical conditions?"A. The thickness of the stomach, the size and the general appearance.
Q. Do you consider the color test reliable?"A. Yes.
Q. It depends entirely on the eye of the man?"A. Not exactly.
Q. If a man were color blind would it affect the test?"A. Why, of course.
Says Digest
ive Juices
Disappear After Death.
Q. Now this acid has an ascending and descending scale, hasn't it?"A. Yea.
Q. What is the highest degree of activity?"A. Do you want my experience?
Q. No, the science."A. I think it varies from 30 to 40.
Q. What becomes of the pancreatic juices of the stomach after death?"A. There are no pancreatic juices of the stomach. They are in the intestines.
Q. Well, what becomes of them after death?"A. They would lose the chemical property in time, but the physical pancreatic juice would remain.
Q. What becomes of free hydrochloric acid after death?"A. When the stomach disintegrates it disappears.
Q. But tell me, doctor, what becomes of the free hydrochloric acid after death regardless of time?"A. It eventually disappears.
Q. What delays the beginning of the digestive process?"A. If mastication was not good, or rather very bad, it would be delayed.
Q. Would walking delay it?"A. Not unless it was a tiring walk.
Q. Well, when you answered Mr. Dorsey's question, you only meant one hour from the time digestion started and not how long it had been in the stomach?"A. Yes.
Q. You said, as I remember it, that digestion began within an hour and was arrested?"A. I prefer to have my answer read.
Q. The stenographer is taking every word you are saying. He will do you justice"A. It is not justice for myself I want. I want to do justice to all.
Yes, I know that, said Arnold, and, continuing:
Q. Could you tell by looking at that cabbage how long digestion had been delayed?"A. In my laboratory I could tell exactly. Here it would only be an estimate.
Witness Declines to
Guess at Anything.
Q. You mean a guess?"A. I don't guess at anything.
Q. You never made any test on Mary Phagan's stomach?"A. No.
Q. You are simply testifying what possibly might have been done?"A. I am simply testifying to scientific truth.
The witness was excused and Dr. G. M. Niles, another stomach and intestinal specialist, and a professor at the Atlanta Medical College, and also author of a book on pellagra, was summoned. Dorsey questioned him?
Q. Does science recognize that every stomach is a law unto itself?"A. Every healthy normal stomach has certain fundamental relations to all other healthy normal stomachs.
In answer to the hypothetical question embracing the case of Mary Phagan. Dr. Niles answered: In the orderly process of the course of digestion, there should be purse hydrochloric acid in the course of on hour. I am answering my question regard to any psychic or physical shock. I am not going so much by the appearance of the cabbage as the statements of the results of the laboratory tests.
Q. What have you to say about
LEO FRANK'S MOTHER
ON HER WAY TO COURT
MRS. REA FRANK.
variations of diseased stomachs? "
A. There are wide variations. Stomachs have idiosyncrasies, but where they are very marked I would not call them normal.
Q. There is nothing that differs as much as individual digestion, is there?"A. I would say that a man's temperamental view of life differs more than that.
Q. How long does it take cabbage to digest?"A. I can not answer that question absolutely.
Q. Don't you know what the books say"from four to four and one-half hours?"A. I can not answer that specifically.
Q. What is the longest time you have known cabbage to remain in a fairly normal stomach?"A. Four or five hours.
Q. You found it there in a normal stomach five hours, haven't you?"A. The remains of it.
Q. Is starch one of the carbohydrates?"A. Yes.
Cabbage Had Not Been
In Stomach Three Hours.
Q. Then the digestion should begin in the mouth?"A. That is the preliminary mechanical process.
Q. Well then, in a normal stomach, if the cabbage were not well masticated it would be there some time before the stomach started work, wouldn't it?"A. No, I would say the stomach got busy immediately.
Q. You would not say how long that cabbage was in that little girl's stomach, would you?"A. I would not.
Q. Now, look at that cabbage and tell me whether it might not have been there three hours or more.
Dr. Niles looked at the cabbage several minutes and said: No, if it had been in the stomach three hours, it would have been more pulverized.
Q. Now, if this little girl ate that cabbage bolted it down in a hurry to get to town and see the parade, would you say that the circumstance delayed digestion?"A. Well, if she was hungry and took any pleasure in eating the metal, the mastication or lack of it would not make any great difference.
Q. Then mastication does not make any great difference?"A. It certainly does.
Q. Did you make any examination of the stomach?"A. No.
Q. You made none of the tests?"A. No.
Q. Do you know that the doctor who made the examination did not save any of the contents of the stomach?"A. I read it.
Q. Did you know that he did not call any physician in to help him?"A. Yes.
Q. That he did not divulge any of the findings until he came here?"A. Yes.
Q. That he kept those findings secret?"A. Yes.
Q. That we only have his plain unsupported statement?"A. Yes.
Dr. Harris Not Guilty
Of Breach of Ethics.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. Is there any setting of ethics that prohibits those things?"A. I never heard of it.
The witness was excused and Dr. John Funke, who holds the chair pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College where he graduated twelve years ago, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him concerning an examination made of Mary Phagan's body, and then pronounced his usual hypothetical question about the cabbage. A. About the cabbage, I would not like to say positively that with the conditions found in the laboratory test taken into consideration, that the first six feet of the small intestines were clear, and if there was found 32 degrees of combined hydrochloric acid. I would say the cabbage had been there an hour, maybe a little more or less.
Arnold took the witness.
Q. When did Dr. Harris come to you in regard to this examination?"A. He didn't come to me. I was asked to look into it last Saturday.
Q. Who asked you?"A. Dr. Dorsey, the brother of the Solicitor.
The witness was excused and Dorsey tendered a telegram from Leo M. Frank to Adolf Montag, in New York, on April 28, as evidence. This telegram read:
Atlanta, Georgia, April 28, 1913. Adolph Montag, Imperial Hotel, New York. You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory. Police will eventually solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. LEO M. Frank.
O. M. Battie, manager of the Postal Telegraph Company was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Up to April 29 did either Frank or the National Pencil Company do business with you?"A. I could not say.
Q. Did Frank send a telegram through your company on April 26?"A. I have one dated April 28.
I made a mistake, said Dorsey, It was April 28. It was received April 29. I just got him up because he said he could not divulge anything except in court. The witness was excused.
W. G. Peeples of the Western Union Telegraph Company, was called.
Q. Did the Western Union Telegraph Company have any telegrams sent by Leo M. Frank on April 26, 27, or 28?"A. Yes.
Q. Did your company have any on the dates covered by the subpoena duces tecum?"A. Yes.
Q. Let me have them.
Dorsey looked at the telegrams and said:
Your honor, these are not signed by Frank and I don't care to Introduce them.
Girl Says Frank's
Character Is Bad.
Miss Myrtice Cato was the next witness called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank?"A. I am.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Company?"A. I did.
Q. When?"A. For about three and one-half years up to April 28, 1913.
Q. On what floor did you work?"A. Fourth.
Dorsey turned to Rosser.
She is with you, he said coolly.
Come down, said Rosser.
Miss Maggie Griffin was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Were you acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank prior to April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes, for two months.
Q. On what floor?"A. Fourth
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where did you work?"Dorsey interrupted to say: I haven't finished. I have another question yet.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character for lasciviousness?"That is his conduct toward women? I don't want you to answer until the judge rules. Your honor, doesn't the fact that he denies certain charges make my question admissible?
Rosser: Let the jury retire if he is going to argue this, but your honor has already ruled.
The jury left the room.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, give me some authority on that.
Dorsey: We don't need any authority for that. The defendant's own statement makes it admissible.
Dorsey looked on his table for a copy of Frank's statement, but did not find it. He continued addressing the court:
While this jury is out I want to say that I want to put up a witness who will say she saw Frank go in the dressing room on the fourth floor with a woman.
Rosser: You have already ruled on that.
Dorsey: This is a specific instance to rebut and impeach the statement of the girls on the fourth floor. We want to show that he went into that dressing room with a forelady.
Judge Roan: You can show his general character for lasciviousness. I don't know about the other. You will probably have to call the woman and put the question to her and then bark to impeach her.
The jury was called back.
Rosser"Your honor rules here on a trial for a Georgia murder that the Solicitor can ask about the defendant's character for lasciviousness?
Judge Roan"I do.
Swears Frank's Relations
With Women Are Bad.
The jury returned to the courtroom at this time. Dorsey continued the questioning.
Q. I will ask you if you are acquainted with Frank's general character for lasciviousness"his relations with women?"A. I am.
Q. What is it? Good or bad?"A. Bad.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. How many girls did you know on the fourth floor?"A. Four.
Q. Where do you work now?"A. Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills.
Q. Where do you live?"A. No. 34 Evans Drive.
The witness was excused and Miss Cato was recalled. Dorsey questioned her in regard to Frank's general character for lasciviousness and she declared that it was bad.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where do you work now? A. At Cone's drug store, Decatur and Pryor streets.
Q. Where do you live?"A. At No. 59 Tumlin street.
The witness was excused and Mrs. Marion Dunning was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Leo M. Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness"his relations with women?"A. No.
Q. When did you work at the pencil factory?"A. About two years ago.
Q. For how long?"A. Two weeks.
Not Much Acquainted
With His Character.
The witness was not cross-examined. Mrs. H. R. Johnson, of Stonewall, was called to the stand. Mrs. Johnson declared she worked at the pencil factory for two months in 1910. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness?"A. Not very well.
Dorsey"Answer yes or no.
Rosser"She has answered.
Dorsey"All right, she has said not very much.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where is Stonewall?"A. On the street car line.
Rosser"Come down.
Dorsey"Just a minute. What floor did you work on?"A. The fourth floor.
The witness was excused and Miss Marie Karst, of No. 191 Kelly street, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Have you ever worked at the pencil factory?"A. Yes. On the second floor about two years ago.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
The witness said the general character of Frank for lasciviousness was bad.
She was not cross-examined.
Mrs. L. T. Corsey was called but did not answer. It was stated that she was sick. Miss Nellie Pettus was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?"A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?"A. I didn't know him exactly, except I knew him when I saw him and know about him.
Q. Was his character good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you know his personal character for lasciviousness?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"Yea.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Was did you work at the pencil factory?"A. I didn't work there. My sister-in-law worked there. She hardly ever went there on Saturday and I went there to get her way.
Q. Who did you see there?
Rosser interposed an objection but was overruled.
I saw Mr. Frank once.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who is your sister-in-law?"A. No. 9 Oliver street.
Q. Does she work there now?"A. No; she quit working there about three weeks before the murder.
Witnesses Fail to
Answer When Called.
The witness was excused and the following were called, but failed to answer. Mrs. T. C. Harrison, Miss Pearl Dobson and Thomas Blackstock. Miss May Davis, No. 8 Louis Avenue, an employee of the pencil company and Frank's character was bad. Rosser cross-questioned her, adding but one question:
Q. Where do you work now?"A. I am not working now.
Mrs. Mary B. Wallace, an elderly woman in mourning, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes; three days.
Q. When?"A. July, 1912.
Q. Did you know Leo Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
The witness declared that Frank's general character as to lasciviousness was bad. The witness was not cross-examined.
Estelle Winkle was next called to the stand. She said that she worked at the pencil factory for one week in March 1919. She said that Frank's character was bad. On cross-examination, she said she was not working now, and gave her residence as being twelve miles from Griffin.
Miss Carrie Smith was the next witness. The rapidity with which she chewing gum created a ripple of laughter in the courtroom, and deputies were forced to rap for order. The witness testified that she worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and that Frank's character was bad. She was not acquainted with his character for lasciviousness. On cross-examination she said she resided at No. 237 Simpson, and that she worked for the factory off and on for three years, working there the last time about three weeks after Christmas.
Miss Ruth Robinson was the next witness. Dorsey questioned her.
Not Much Acquainted
With His Character.
The witness was not cross-examined. Mrs. H. R. Johnson, of Stonewall, was called to the stand. Mrs. Johnson declared she worked at pencil factory for two months in 1910. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness?"A. Not very well.
Dorsey"Answer yes or no.
Rosser"She has answered.
Dorsey"All right, she has said not very much.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where is Stonewall?"A. One the street car line.
Rosser"Come down.
Dorsey"Just a minute. What floor did you work on?"A. The fourth floor.
The witness was excused and Miss Marie Karst, of No.
191 Kelly street was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Have you ever worked at the pencil factory?"A. Yes. On the second floor about two years ago.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad
The witness said the general character of Frank for lasciviousness was bad.
She was not cross-examined.
Mrs. L. T. Corsey was called but did not answer. It was stated that she was sick. Miss Nellie Pettis was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?"Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?"A. I didn't know whim exactly, except I knew him when I saw him and knew about him.
Q. Was his character good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you know his general character for lasciviousness?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Where did you work at the pencil factory?"A. I didn't work there. My sister-in-law worked there. She hardly ever went there on Saturday and I went there to get her max.
Q. Who did you see there?
Rosser interposed an objection, but was overrated.
I saw Mr. Frank once.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who is your sister-in-law?"A. Mrs. Lillie May Pettus.
Q. Where did she live?"A. No. 9 Oliver street.
Q. Does she work there now?"A. No; she quit working there about three weeks before the murder.
Says Frank Put Hand
On Mary Phagan's Shoulder.
Q. What sort of a home is that"no, never mind that. Did you work at the National Pencil factory during February and March, 1913?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Frank talk to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. How did he act?"A. He would come to her machine and put his hand on her shoulder.
Q. What would he say?"A. He would put his face close to hers and call her Mary.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You didn't work in the metal room very long, did you?"A. About two weeks.
The witness was excused and Miss Rebecca Carson was recalled. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever go into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Mr. Frank?"A. I never did.
Dorsey-Come down.
Miss Myrtice Cato was recalled. Dorsey requested her not to answer the question he was going to put until the court ruled upon it.
Q. Did you ever see Frank go into the drawing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson?
Rosser interposed with an objection, but the witness answered Yes, before he could stop her.
That Ain't All I
Know, Says Witness.
The objection was not forced.
Q: How often did you get it?"A. Three or four times, and that ain't all I know.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who was on the floor when you saw that?"A. Several women.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. How did you see it ???"A. I was in that end of the building.
The witness was excused and Miss Maggie Griffins was recalled in rebuttal of Miss Carson's testimony. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever see the defendant and Miss Rebecca Carson go into the dressing room on the fourth floor?"A. Yes: three or four climax.
Q. How long a period did that cover?"A. Sometimes they would stay in there about fifteen minutes and sometimes about thirty minutes.
Rosser"We must oppose that.
Judge Roan"The objection is sustained.
Q. What time in the day was it?"A. Sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening.
Rosser"We are objecting to it all.
The court sustained the objection again.
Says Car Ran
Ahead of Schedule.
The witness was excused and Henry A. Hoffman, inspector for the Georgia Railway and Electric Company, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know Matthews car runs on the English avenue there?"A. Yes.
Q. Who is he under?"A. He is under me from 11:39 until he goes to dinner.
Q. For what time?"A. Thirty-seven minutes.
Q. Is there any set schedule such as 13.09 1-2?"A. None on the board.
Q. Prior to April 26, were you ever on his car when he cut off the Fair street car?"A. Yes.
Q. What was the time the Fair street car was due to arrive?"A. 12:08.
Q. At the time Matthews cut off the Fair street car, was the Fair street car on time?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever compare watches with Matthews?
Arnold objected, but said he would not argue the point. His objection was overruled.
Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Matthews when his watch was not with yours?"A. Yes.
Q. How far off was he?"A. Thirty or forty seconds.
Q. Did you ever call his attention to remaining ahead of time?"A. Yes.
Q. Do they come in ahead of time often?"A. At launch and supper nearby always.
Q. Do they come in ahead of time or often?"A. At lunch and supper, nearly always.
Three Minutes Ahead of
Time at Noon.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You don't remember whether he was ahead of time April 26, or not, do you?"A. No.
Q. Do you discharge a man for be-
Continued on page 3, column 1.
PAGE 3
WOMEN OF FACTORY SWEAR FRANK'S CHARACTER IS BAD
State Makes Headway With Testimony Hitting Standing of Prisoner
WITNESS SAYS SHE SAW
ACCUSED PLACE HAND ON
PHAGAN GIRL'S SHOULDER
Continued from page 2.
ing ahead of time?"A. Not at first.
Q. Now, did you ever catch him ahead of time at 12 o'clock? A. Yes.
Q. How much?"A. Three minutes.
Q. When was it?"A. During the spring of the year.
Q. How many times have you known him to be ahead of time?"A. Only twice, I think, in the short time he has been under me.
The witness was excused and N. Kelly, a motorman was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Where were you April 28 before 12 and 12:05 o'clock?"A. At Broad and Marietta streets.
Q. Do you know what time the English avenue car came in?"A. It was 12:03.
Q. Do you know Matthews and Hollis?"A. Yes.
Mary Phagan
Not On the Cars.
Q. Did you see them on the car?"A. Yes.
Q. At what time?"A. 12:02.
Q. Do you know Mary Phagan?"A. By sight.
Q. Was she on that car when you saw it?"A. She was not.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. How do you remember that?"A. I looked at my watch to catch a car.
Q. Did you look at it yesterday at that time?"A. I don't remember.
Q. Why did you not report about little Mary Phagan not being on that car?"A. I did not want to get mixed up in this.
Q. When did you first tell the detectives?"A. I didn't see the detectives. I told Mr. Starnes this morning.
Q. Who else was on that car?"A. I don't remember.
Q. What did you do after that?"A. I stood at Jackson & Wessels for a time and then went and caught the 12:10 car for College Park.
Q. You were not paying any particular attention to anything, were you?"A. I was watching the crews being relieved.
Q. What is the schedule of the College Park and Hapeville cars?"A. The College Park schedule is 8:20 to 8:50 and the Hapeville cars run on the hour and every twenty minutes.
Rosser"Don't tell it so fast. What's the schedule?"A. A car every ten minutes.
Says Car Often Is
Ahead of Time.
The witness was excused and W. D. Owens, a conductor on the White City line, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. What time do you get to town at noon?"A. 12:05.
Q. Do you remember seeing the English avenue and Cooper street car on April 26?"A. No.
Q. Did you ever know that car to come in there ahead of you?"A. Yes.
Q. How much?"A. Two minutes.
Q. Ever more than that?"A. I have known it to be three minutes.
The witness was excused and L. F. Ingram, a street car conductor, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you remember coming to town on an English avenue car Saturday, April 26?"A. I do.
Q. What time was it?"A. I don't remember.
Q. An English avenue car is due at Marietta and Broad streets at 12:07 o'clock: Do you remember that car ever coming in ahead of time?"A. Yes; fre
quently. Sometimes they come in ahead of time and sometimes late. I saw one of those trippers come in this morning at 8:24 when it was due at 8:30 o'clock.
Q. How much have you known the English avenue car to be off schedule?"A. Three or four minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. It's against the rules of the company to come in ahead of time, isn't it?"A. Yes.
The witches was excused and Miss Mamie Kitchens, an employee of the pencil factory on the fourth floor, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. How long have you been at the factory?"A. Two years.
Q. What floor?"A. Fourth.
Q. Were you at the factory today?"A. Yes.
Only Hearsay
About Superintendent.
Q. Do you know any woman on that, floor who was not been called as a witness here?"A. Miss Eva Jones and Mrs. Howell.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?"A. Only by hearsay, and I don't want to testify.
Q. That's all right. I won't press the question. Now were you ever in that dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Irene Jackson " when this defendant, Leo M. Frank, came in?"A. Yes.
Q. Well, just tell the jury about it."A. I was back there one day when he came back and stuck his head in the door. He laughed, and said something about us having no work to do, and then went out.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Did he ask you if you girls had any work to do?"A. Yes.
Q. Didn't he open the door and say: Haven't you girls any work to do?"A. He didn't say it that way.
Q. Who else was there?"A. Miss Ethel Stewart was in there for a time.
Q. Aren't you mistaken about Miss Jones and Mrs. Howell not being called as witnesses?"A. I only have their word for it.
Q. I am going to ask you a question we have asked every woman who works on the fourth floor. Did you ever meet Mr. Frank for any improper purpose?"A. I never did.
Dorsey: Your honor, if that question is admissible, why can't we ask Miss Wood the question we have indicated?
Judge Roan: They claim their questions are only in rebuttal of Conley.
At this time, 1 o'clock, court recessed until 2, making the longest morning session yet held in the trial.
Motorman, Recalled,
Denies Talk of Case.
The first witness called at the afternoon session was W. M. Matthews motorman, who declared that the Phagan girl came into the city on his car on the morning of the murder. Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to show that he had feeling in this case which caused him to lean toward the defense.
Dorsey"Do you know this man, W. C. Dobbs?"A. I do.
Dobbs was sent from the courtroom.
Q. Didn't you have a talk with Mr. Dobbs about three days after the murder and say that Mary Phagan and George Epps got off your car at Broad and Marietta streets?"A. I never told anyone that.
Q. Didn't you tell someone you owed a debt of gratitude to someone connected with this case?
Rosser interposed an objection. Let him give names, he said.
Dorsey"How long since were a defendant in court? A."About two years.
Q. Who defended you?"A. Mr. Moore and Mr. Branch, Mr. Colquitt and Mr. Conyers.
Rosser " You were acquitted, weren't you?"A. Yes.
W. C. Dobbs Says He
Talked With Conductor.
Q. Does Mr. Branch live anywhere near you?"A. No.
Q. Did you ever talk to me about this case?"A. One time.
Q. Did you ever talk to this man (indicating Attorney Arnold)?"A. No.
Q. No.
Q. You have no interest in this case?"A. No.
Q. What were you tried for?"A. Manslaughter.
Q. Did the jury acquit you?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and W. C. Dobbs was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Conductor Matthews about Mary Phagan and George Epps coming in on his car?"A. Yes: he told me she came in on the car and that Epps was with her.
Q. Did he say anything about where they got off?"A. Yes; at Marietta and Forsyth streets.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Are the son of Police Sergeant Dobbs who is testifying in this case are you not?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused.
J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary Phagan, was called again. He did not answer and Solicitor Dorsey said that Coleman's wife was sick and it would be necessary to send for him.
W. W. (Boots) Rogers was recalling to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you notice anything about the stairs and door that Sunday morning in the National Pencil Factory from the basement to the first floor?"A. Yes; the stairs were dirty and dusty and the door could not be lifted.
Man Says He Saw
Negro In Alleyway.
The witness was excused without being cross-examined.
Sergeant L. S. Dobbs was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see Boots Rogers try to open that door to the stairway leading from the basement in the pencil factory the Sunday morning the body was found?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Rogers recalled. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see anything by that cute?"A. Yes; a large pile of shavings.
Rogers was excused and Oxel Tillanter was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Were you at the pencil factory April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. At what time?"A. Just before 12 o'clock.
Q. Did you see anybody?"A. Yes; when I went in I saw a negro coming through a dark alleyway. I asked him the way to the office and he showed me.
Q. Have you seen this boy Jim Conley?"A. Yes.
Q. Where?"A. In his office.
Q. What was he doing?"A. Working.
Q. What did you say to him?"A. I asked him for my daughter-in-law's pay and got it.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You are not positive about its being Conley?"A. No.
Q. You say you saw a darkey come yup from ad ark alley. Where was that?"A. At the side of the factory.
Step-Father of
Dead Girl on Stand.
The witness was excused. E. K. Graham was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. On Saturday, April 26, were you at the pencil factory?"A. Yes, about 20 minutes to 12 o'clock.
Q. Did you see a negro at the entrance?"A.
Q. Have you seen Jim Conley?"Yes, I saw him this morning.
Q. Was he the man you saw there?"A. I couldn't say. I noticed a resemblance, though it seems to me that the man I saw was a little brighter.
Q. Did you say anything to him?"A. No. The man with he asked him how to get to the office.
Q. Did he show you?"A. Yes.
Q. Was he drunk or sober?"A. I didn't see any signs of drunkenness.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You say the negro you saw was brighter than Conley?"A. Is seems to me he was.
The witness was excused. J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary Phagan arrived at the courthouse at this time and was placed on the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Do you remember a conversation you had with Inspector McWorth, of the Pinkertons?"A. Yes.
Q. Did he or not exhibit an envelope found in the factory?"A. He did.
Q. What figures if any did the envelope have on it?"A. It had a figure 1 up in the corner. Then a figure 1 up in the corner. Then a figure was torn out; than a 5.
The witness was shown the envelope the detectives brought into court and he said it did not look like the one shown him.
J. M. Gantt Is
Recalled to Stand.
Rosser cross-questioned the witness.
Q. You don't know whether this is the same envelope or not, do you?"A. It might be, but the figures are not the same.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. Did you say anything about this envelope not fitting in the case?"A. yes, my wife spoke up and said"
Rosser interrupted: Never mind what your wife said.
The witness was excused. J. M. Gantt was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you ever see Leo M. Frank up the financial sheet?"A. Yes.
Q. How long would it take him?"A. If he had the data, it would not take him more than one and one-half hours.
Q. Was that time clock accurate?"A. No.
Q. How did it vary?"A. Two to three minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Did you pay off those girls by it?"A. Yes.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. How often was that clock regulated?"A. Two or three times a week.
Arnold registered an objection but was overruled.
The witness was excused and Herbert Shiff was recalled. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. How much pay did Mary Phagan draw that last week?"A. $1.80.
Q. Now I want you to show me on that book there where the $2 Frank loaned Arthur White appears."A. It appears as $4 because I advanced him $2 the next week and made the entry myself.
Q. Where is that ticket Frank made of it?"A. I tore it up.
Says He Gave Haas
All the Papers.
Q. You tore it up?"A. We always do.
Q. You were served with a duces tecum to bring to the court a paper signed by Charley Lee in regard to the injury of this man Dudley?"A. I was.
Q. Did you bring it?"A. I turned over to Mr. Haas all the papers I had.
Q. Did you ever show to Lee a written statement he had made about this accident?"A. I don't think he ever wrote a statement. It was written on a typewriter.
Q. Was it in the papers you gave Mr. Haas?"A. It had no right to be there.
Q. Did you have the same time clock at the time of the murder that you had when Gantt was there?"A. We have two time clocks.
Q. How much behind was the clock when you sent for Mr. Price to fix it?"A. I don't think that was the trouble at all. I think it was clogged with the ribbon.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You had $1,174.80 for the payroll except for the loans you were to pay out and every cent of that was in wages, was it not?
Dorsey: This is his witness. He can not lead him as though it was a cross-examination.
Rosser: What? I thought I could cross-examine him. Mr. Dorsey has brought in an entirely new matter of that time.
Judge Roan: The uniform rule has been that when one side introduces a witness, he remains their witness.
Rosser: Then, your honor, we have suffered grievously by this. (Turning to the witness) Mr. Schiff, I will now shift my method of examining you. Come down.
Negro Says He
Drank With Conley.
Ivy Jones, a negro, was the next witness. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. What do you do?"A. Drive for Walker Brothers.
Q. On Saturday, April 26, did you see Jim Conley?"A. Yes.
Q. Where?"A. At Forsyth and Hunter streets.
Q. What time was it?"A. Between 1 and 2 o'clock.
Q. Can you be more accurate than that?"A. No.
Q. Was he drunk?"A. No.
Q. Where did you go with him?"A. To a saloon.
Q. Then where?"A. Toward his home. I left him at the corner of Davis and Hunter streets about three blocks from his home.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You and he drank beer at that saloon, didn't you?"A. Yes, both of us got home.
Rosser: Come down.
Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. building, did you see any blood around the scuttle hole on the first floor, which leads to the basement?"A. No.
Rosser"This has all been gone over before and is incompetent.
Dorsey"We want to rebut. McWorth's evidence about the bludgeon and the blood.
The objection was overruled.
Q. When did the State learn of this bloody bludgeon?"A. I told you personally about it on July 15.
Further objections caused Solicitor Dorsey to change his line of questioning.
Memory Not Clear on
Finding Piece of Cord.
Q. Mr. Scott, when you were going through the basement with Mr. Frank, did you pick up a piece of cord similar to that found around Mary Phagan's neck?"A. I think I did.
Q. Did you pick it up, or Frank pick it up?"A. My memory is not clear.
Q. Did Newt Lee ever recognize that bloody shirt?"A. He did not.
Q. From whom did you learn Conley could write?"A. I got the information from my office. I was out of town when they found it out.
Q. When did you learn of it?"A. McWorth told me on Sunday"
Rosser objected and was sustained.
Q. What did you do when you discovered Conley could write?
Rosser: Then went into that on the direct.
The objection was sustained.
Q. What conversation did you have with Frank about Darley?"A. We told him we believed Darley had been going with girls in the factory. He said, No; Darley is the soul of honor. He could not know anything about it.
Q. Did Black say to you: Come on, there is nothing doing?"A. No.
The witness was excused, and L. F. Kendrick, former night watchman at the factory, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Dorsey's Questions
Met With Objections.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Holloway about swearing that Frank called you up?
Rosser interrupted: Holloway was their witness. They can not impeach him.
Rosser's objection was sustained.
Dorsey: Well, can't I show in test and feeling, then?
Judge Roan: You can only impeach Holloway on points on which he has misled you.
Dorsey: That is not the law.
Judge Roan: Then what is the law?
Dorsey: I will get you the authorities.
Judge Roan: Then I will rule later.
Q. Now during the two years you were working there, did you ever see women there on Saturday afternoons?
Rosser: You have already ruled on that.
Judge Roan: You can't ask that.
Q. Did you ever put a slip in the time clock?"A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you?"A. About two or three minutes.
Q. Could you hear that elevator running when there was hammering and knocking?"A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen Conley around the elevator on Saturday afternoons?"A. I have seen Conley there on the way back from lunch.
Roser took the witness.
Q. You have seen all the negroes around there?"A. I have seen some of them.
The witness was excused and Dorsey tendered as evidence the time slip made by the witness.
Little Girl Tells of
Visit of Reporter
Vera Epps, a little girl 11 years old, sister of George Epps, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to a Georgian reporter, Mr. John Minar, the Sunday after the murder and tell him the last time you had seen Mary Phagan was the Thursday before the murder?"A.Yes.
Q. Was your brother George Epps, there?"A. He was in the house, but he wasn't there all the time this man was there.
Q. Had your brother told you he had seen Mary Phagan on Saturday?"A. No.
The witness was excused, and C. B. Maynard was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see him go into the pencil factory with a woman?"A. Yes.
Q. When?"A. In June, or July.
Q. What time of day?"A. Between 1 and 2 o'clock.
Q. What day of the week was it?"A. Saturday.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You are sure of that?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and W.T. Hollis, conductor on the English avenue line on which Mary Phagan came to town the day she was murdered was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Didn't you have a conversation with J. D. Reid on Monday after the murder?"A. I don't know him.
Q. Didn't you tell him that you saw a little boy with her who looked like her sweetheart?"A. I did not.
Recognizes Patron
But Doesn't Know Name.
Q. You say now, like you did the other day, that if George Epps was on the car you did not know it?"A. Yes. Solicitor Dorsey had Reid brought into the courtroom. Dorsey then addressed the witness:
Q. Do you know this man?"A. He rides on my car. I don't know his name.
Q. Did you tell him anything like I have suggested?"A. I did not.
The witness was excused, and J. D. Reid was brought to the stand.
Q. On Monday, April 28, did you have a conversation with Conductor J. T. Hollis on the street car about Mary Phagan?"A. No
. I wasn't on the car with her.
A ripple of laughter ran around the room.
The witness continued: I am a little deaf: will you come a little bit closer. Will you come a little bit closer.
Dorsey moved closer to the witness and repeated his question.
"A. Yes. He told me it made him feel bad because the little girl rode on his car the last time. He said that a little boy named Epps, her sweetheart, rode in with her. He said they sat in the same seat and got off together.
Rosser did not cross-examine the witness.
City Detective Tells
Of McKnight Story.
J. M. Starnes, city detective, who has been in the courtroom with Solicitor Dorsey since the trial began, was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see any stains of blood spots near the scuttle hole on the first floor of the pencil factory when you made your examination of the building immediately after the murder?
Rosser interrupted: He answered that before.
Starnes: I did not.
Dorsey: Now we will jump to the arrest of Minola McKnight. Tell us about that, Mr. Starnes.
"A. We had information about what her husband said she knew. We took her to MR. Dorsey's office, and from there to the police station. I did not see her until the next day. We got Mr. Pickett and Mr. Craven from the Beck & Gregg Hardware Company to come up and see if they could get a statement from her. I asked Minola if she had rather make her statement to them or to us. She said to them. I said: Minola, if this is not the truth, do not make it.
When she was about half through I asked her attorney, Mr. George Gordon, to come in. I had the stenographer read over what she had said. When he had finished she signed it.
Q. Was she held by my authority?"A. She was not.
Q. Could I order you to release her?"A. You told me over the phone you could not tell me what to do.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Now, Starnes, you locked that woman up because she would not give you the kind of statement you wanted?"A. No.
Locked Her Up Because
He Was on Murder Case.
Q. Well, why did you lock her up?"A. I was working on a murder case.
Q. Answer my question."A. I am going to tell you.
Dorsey"He has a right to answer it.
Q. Well, by what authority did you lock her up?"A. By the authority of an honorable officer working on a murder case.
Rosser"That's all right. Now, who issued a warrant for that woman's arrest?"A. There was none that I know of.
Q. Who arrested her?"A. A bailiff or deputy from Dorsey's office went out and got her. He did not arrest her.
Q. Who locked her up?"A. I turned her over to the desk man.
Q. And you kept her there twenty-four hours?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and the jury retired for five minutes to take their usual afternoon soft drink.
When the jury returned to the room, Attorney Rosser stated that he was not through questioning Starnes, and the detective was recalled to the stand.
Q. Did you call Mr. Dorsey about that statement?"A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell him about it, to the best of your recollection?"A. My recollection is that I phoned Mr. Dorsey right after Minola made her statement and told him that her attorney, Gordon, would be around to see him.
Q. You just wanted to get his permission?"A. No.
Starnes was excused.
Attorney Rosser
Takes Witness Chair.
Dorsey: We want to introduce some documentary evidence. First, I want to introduce the statement of Miss Hattie Hall before the Coroner.
The Solicitor read the parts of the evidence of Miss Hall, stenographer for Montag Brothers, given before the Coroner's jury, which he offered as evidence.
Attorney Rosser climbed into the witness chair to listen.
OBJECTION TO CHARACTER
ATTACK PUTS DEFENSE
IN ANOMALOUS POSITION
By JAMES B. NEVIN
The public, that is to say that section of the public willing to be fair and wanting to be convinced according to the facts, should remember, in seeking to steady itself in considering the Frank case that as the story of Jim Conley was the climax of the State's case, so the statement of Leo Frank was the climax of the defense's case.
It should remember that both statements are to be weighed carefully and analytically"that conclusions are to be jumped at from neither.
The horror of the Conley story, coupled with its unspeakable details, temporarily swept the public mind into a seeming solidity of opinion hostile to Frank"it carried instant conviction to hundreds of minds, through the sheer force of the sinister detail it contained.
By and by, however, the public mind rebounded in a way, and it began taking counsel with itself. And then came a pause, followed by a swing back more or less to the normal.
That is the way it is with the public mind"always wanting to be just, and always sure to be just, if given time and opportunity, yet prone ever to be rushed along heedlessly in the beginning of terrible stories!
It is the immediate horror of the crime that not infrequently distorts the public's sense of proportion primarily, and makes it unfair to itself no less than to other persons concerned.
But the public in the end is just, and it is true to itself. All it asks"or all it needs"is a chance to regain its balance, after having been knocked this way or that by a stunning and unanticipated blow it was not able to ward off when delivered.
Leo Frank's remarkable statement to the jury Monday, certainly one of the most convincing statements, so far as surface indications go, that ever fell from the lips of a defendant in Georgia, still is not sufficient, and should not be sufficient, within itself to warrant the public now in rushing to the conclusion that he is innocent.
Pendulum Will Come to Rest.
And so, as in the case of Conley, while the sentiment of the public swung heavily in the direction of the State following the Conley story, and then swung back in the direction of the defense following the Frank statement, it eventually will right itself somewhere midway between the two, perhaps, and then look to the rest of the evidence as fitting the one or the other.
A woman correspondent writes me:
I have read your articles daily. Tell me, truly, are you for Frank or against him? I can not tell from what you say.
Now, in a way, I consider that something of a compliment. I am glad this correspondent does not know whether I am for or against Frank, for I am neither the one nor the other.
I merely visit the courtroom daily, and gather me a nosegay of other men's flowers; and naught but the string that binds them is mine own!
When the storm signals have seemed fair for Frank, I have to set it down. When they have seemed ominous, I have to set that down.
In all the ideas and conclusions I have transferred to paper in respect of the Frank trial, the wish never has been father to the thought"save in that I always have preferred, and always shall prefer, to see a man prove himself a gentleman rather than a scoundrel, if he can.
What I do hope to stand for, and try to stand for, and what none of us can afford NOT to stand for, is justice and right, fair play and no special favors, decency and civilization, and the supremacy of the law of the land!
I assure my correspondent that I am neither for nor against Frank, but that I am for truth and right, and in my own way and after my own fashion I undertake to stand by my ideals.
Justice the Real End.
Frank Hooper promulgated a platform all can afford to mount and fight upon, when he said, before this case came on for trial:
It is not so much a matter of finding and convincing Leo Frank, as it is a matter of finding and convicting the murderer of little Mary Phagan!
So long as you feel that way about it, you are on safe and solid ground; but once you get away from that standpoint, you begin groping and listening to the persuasive plea of your prejudices and your preconceived opinions, no
matter what they may be.
When a man is on trial for his life, you don't have to be FOR or AGAINST him"but you DO have to be in favor of a fair trial for him!
Then, when everything has been done in order and according to the best teachings of a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon civilization, even as imperfect as that yet is, the verdict finally recorded under the law will provide you a sheer anchor against error and wrong, and you then will be as right as human ingenuity and philosophy can make you right.
And after that, you should worry, I guess!
Since the Frank statement was delivered, and notwithstanding the fine impression it made upon the public, the State has succeeded in recovering a good deal of ground, nevertheless; and it probably is true today that it stands about as firm as it ever did, if not firmer.
It is conceded that the State lost heavily from a legal standpoint when the presiding judge decided on Tuesday not to admit any evidence tending to break down Frank's character in specific instances not directly connected with the murder of little Mary Phagan.
When one comes to consider the matter of public opinion, however, it may be that the defense in this won nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory, at best, and that it might have been better to let the State go ahead and prove what it could, if it could prove anything.
The Solicitor General has said all along that he was prepared to establish his allegations of gross immorality against Frank; and when Frank seemed to meet that challenge by injecting his general character in issue, the public was inclined to applaud and to say that was fair and square enough.
If the State was four-flushing"which Dorsey solemnly affirmed it was not"and the defense appeared to call its hand, the public was honest enough to grant Frank's right to do that, and to approve his dare to the State.
Effect Is Disconcerting.
When, however, the defense is permitted to enter its call, and Dorsey is then shut off on the threshold of his attempt to make good on his position, the effect naturally is somewhat disconcerting, even to those who believe Frank not guilty.
The State stands now in the position of having said unqualifiedly, that it COULD make good its charges, and then, after having been challenged to do so, of being stopped from proceeding!
In all fairness to the State and to the defense, too, for that matter"this seems rather a hardship upon it.
Frank made a brave showing of good character"he seemed to challenge the State to do to worst, if it could. And now the State is shut off, upon the defense's own motion, from undertaking to do THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE HAS VEHEMENTLY PROTESTED I COULD NOT DO.
There is not much difference to see it is having the important thing that the State COULD do good if given an opportunity and help did make good when given the opportunity.
The vital thing and the only thing, so far as public opinion is concerned perhaps is that the defense show that the State NEVER COULD MAKE GOOD IN ANY EVENT.
The court does not does not parrot the introduction of irrelevant evidence that maybe that is right, it is the law anyway"but the public does particularly when it can not see the irrelevancy of the evidence.
The attitude of Frank personally has seemed to be that of inviting the closest and total searching investigation into every phase of the charge against him "but it seems to be said in another article that the most the defense can do for Frank is to let the impression become fixed that that there are some things against which he sadly NEEDS protection.
So far, Leo Frank himself has got the very best plea that has been entered in behalf of Leo Frank!
He has boldly thrown down the gauntlet"and he says he must do instatement in his own way, after his own mind, and without even requesting his lawyers.
He delivered his defense there on stand in a most convincing manner. If it was the truth, it was given space by being simply told, and in apparent candor.
If it was an untruth, it was littered with consummate art. Only Frank and his God can know, for sure, whether it is the one or the other!
Willing To Be Cross-Examined.
He was reported willing to be cross-examined on his statement. If he might be thought repairable upon the part of the State but whether the offer actually was made there is the outspoken evidence.
Nevertheless, it probably will do Frank no good in the mind of the public to have it appear that he was professedly willing enough to let down the bars at every point but that for some reason, the bars were prevented from being let down and by Frank's own side!
The defense can not hope to get its cake and have it too"lest one is it can not hope to have worn these things unprotested. It can not just say Frank's character is above reproach and then head on the State in an attempt to prove otherwise.
It can not do that injustice to Frank, I think"and certainly not injustice to the State!
PAGE 4
FRANK ON STAND; TRIAL ENDS
FRANK DENIES THAT
HE KNEW DEAD GIRL;
DEFENDS EMPLOYEE
The end of the trial of Leo M. Frank, except for the arguments, came at 5:14 Wednesday afternoon. The State closed its case at 4:10, and as soon as certain pieces of documentary evidence had been submitted by Solicitor Dorsey, the defense began its brief sur-rebuttal.
The arguments will begin at 9 o'clock Thursday morning. Judge Roan said that he did not propose to cut the attorneys in the length of their speeches. So much evidence has been submitted that the judge did not think the attorneys should be bound.
Frank took the stand just before adjournment and made a statement to rebuttal or several of the charges of improper conduct that had been made against him in the State's rebuttal. He made positive denial that he ever had gone into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson, a forelady, defending her character, and asserted again that he did not know Mary Phagan by name.
The statement of that Turney boy is false, he declared. The testimony of two young women that they heard me call Mary Phagan by her first name is a mistake. I did not know her name and could not have called her/ - McKnight/Mary Phagan!
I may have spoken to her. I speak to most of the employees.
The statement that I entered the dressing room with Miss Rebecca Carson is utterly false. It is unfair to the young lady. So far as I know, she is a young woman of unblemished character.
The strong probability Wednesday night was that Frank's fate would be in the hands of the jurors late Thursday or some time during Friday's session.
The close of the State's case was marked by a severe grilling of Detective J. V. Starnes by Attorney Rosser. The lawyer tried to make it appear that Starnes had kept Minola McKnight locked up and had given her the third degree until she finally had signed the affidavit incriminating Frank in order to obtain her release.
Dorsey put in evidence statemetns of Miss Hattie Hall, Wade Campbell
The State finished the submission of its documentary evidence at 4:50 o'clock and the defense called for T. Y. Brent, who said he had heard Conductor Kenley, a State's witness, vilify Frank.
Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, was recalled in an attack on Frank's own story, at the afternoon session Wednesday.
W. T. Dobbs, a member of the city fire department, directly contradicted W. N. Matthews, one of the defense's witnesses and motorman of the car on which Mary Phagan came to town April 26, in the course of his testimony in the Frank trial Wednesday afternoon.
Dobbs testified that he saw Matthews about three days after the crime and that Matthews told him that Mary Phagan, had ridden with him that day, that she got off at Marietta and Forsyth streets, and that the Epps boy was with her.
Matthews testified when on the stand that the Phagan girl did not get off at Marietta and Forsyth streets, but rode on to Broad and Hunter streets, and that he did
not see the Epps boy with her.
L. S. Kendrick, who was night watchman at the pencil factory before Newt Lee was engaged, testified that he had gone to the factory frequently on Saturday afternoon, and on occasions had seen Jim Conley as well as other negroes hanging around on the first floor. Kendrick also said he had run a tape through the time clock since the murder making a record upon it, and that it had required only three or four minutes to do it. The tape was placed in evidence.
Ivy Jones, a negro drive, testified to seeing Jim Conley between 1 and 3 o'clock the afternoon of the murder. He said that he walked with Conley toward Conley's home and left him at Hunter and Davis streets.
J. D. Reed, a tile layer, was called for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of W. T. Hollis, conductor on the car on which Mary Phagan came to town. Reed and Hollis had told him that Epps had go on that car with the girl and that the two had talked together as though they were sweethearts.
Progress in Attack
On Frank's Character.
Solicitor Dorsey renewed his determined attack upon the character of Leo M. Frank Wednesday, and for the first time since the testimony of Jim Conley and the insurance man, Ashley Jones, was able to make a little progress in the introduction of this sort of testimony.
Having found the opening, the Solicitor made the most his advantage, and before the noon recess had arrived ten witnesses, most of them young girls, had arrived ten witnesses, most of them young girls, had sworn that Frank's general character was bad and that his moral character was the same.
The most sensational bit of testimony involved one of the foreladies. Two of the girls who formerly had worked in the factory, Miss Myrtice Cato and Miss Maggie Griffin, testified that they had seen Frank go into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson, who was a witness for Frank only a few days ago.
Miss Cato said she had seen the two go into the dressing room on two occasions. Miss Griffin testified it had
PAGE 5
DORSEY FIGHTS HARD TO BOLSTER UP DR. HARRIS' EVIDENCE
Ends His Case With Hard Assault On Defense; Leo Frank Testifies Again
MARY PHAGAN VICTIM OF
CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, SAYS
DR. JNO.FUNKE ON STAND
Continued from Page 1.
occurred three or four times to her knowledge.
Miss Carson was called by the Solicitor and indignantly denied that such an occurrence ever had taken place.
Saw Frank Lay Hand
On Mary's Shoulder.
Of even greater importance, although of less sensational interest was the testimony of Miss Dewey Hewell, who swore that Frank was in the habit of talking frequently to Mary Phagan; that he called her by name, and that he stood close to her and laid his hand familiarly on her shoulder. She was not able to relate the subject of the conversations when she was cross-examined. She did not know but that Frank might have been talking about her work.
Miss Ruth Robinson corroborated the Hewell girl in her testimony. Miss Rawal was brought from the Home of the Good Shephard in Cincinnati to testify against Frank. Neither was able to say that there had been anything improper or unusual in Frank's talk with Mary.
N. Kelly, an employee of the street railway company, said that he stood at Forsyth and Marietta streets April 26 and took the English avenue car at 12:02 to Alabama street. He said he knew Mary Phagan and that she was not on this car from Forsyth and Marietta streets. His testimony if believed by the jury is extremely important to the State, as it supports the State's contentions in two respects"first, that Mary Phagan go off the car at Forsyth and Marietta streets, and, second, that the car was considerably ahead of time. Other street car employees testified that 11 was not unusual for the English avenue car, due at 12:07, to come in ahead of the Fair street car, which is due at 12:05.
Experts Corroborate
Harris' Evidence.
Solicitor Dorsey, successful in his endeavor to re-open the question of the time Mary Phagan met her death as judged by the condition of the food found in her stomach, gathered a brilliant array of stomach and intestinal specialists Wednesday to lead in an onslaught against the testimony of the experts called by the lawyers for Leo Frank.
Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, on being asked a hypothetical question embracing the condition in which the cabbage in Mary Phagan's stomach was found, gave it as his opinion that the girl came to her death within an hour after the digestion began.
This corroborated in a measure the testimony of Dr. Harris, who estimated the time at from half to three-quarters of an hour after the cabbage had been eaten.
Dr. George M. Niles, who holds the chair of gastro-enterology at the Atlanta Medical College, swore that digestion could not have progressed more than an hour under the conditions described. He was quite positive digestion had progressed less than an hour.
Dr. John Funke, professor of pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College, testified that he had been shown sections of the organs of Mary Phagan by Dr. Harris, a circumstance which had not been made known until this point in the trial. The defense had made his experiments and analysis in secret and had consulted no other expert.
Dr. Funke later admitted that he had not made the examination until about a week ago after the charges had been made and he had been asked by Dr. R. T. Dorsey, brother of the Solicitor, to inspect the specimens.
Asserts Girl Was
Criminally Attacked
This expert corroborated Dr. Harris in his declaration that Mary Phagan was a victim of criminal violence, but he fell somewhat short of substantiating Harris on the time the cabbage had been in the stomach before the digestive processes had been stopped by death.
Being pressed for a definite answer on this point, he said:
One can not say positively, but it is reasonable to assume that digestion probably had progressed an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.
Dr. Johnson was extremely cautious in his answers. He dictated his replies slowly and studiedly to the court stenographer and picked his words and phrases most carefully.
He said first in reply to questions by the Solicitor that it was his scientific opinion that the digestion of the cabbage and bread in Mary Phagan's stomach had stopped within an hour after they were eaten. Attorney Arnold, however, got the expert to change his answer to within an hour after digestion had begun, forcing Dr. Johnson to admit that the beginning of digestion many times is delayed by poor mastication or overdilution of the gastric fluids. The witness would not undertake to say how long it was before the first processes of actual digestion had begun in the case of Mary Phagan.
Much surprise was occasioned when it was learned that Jim Conley had been brought to the courthouse at the command of Solicitor Dorsey. It was rumored that he would go on the stand, but Solicitor Dorsey insisted that he had him brought over merely to have him identified by persons who could swear to his good character.
Defense Puts Up
Hard Battle.
A lively argument over the State's proposal to call three or four prominent physicians to controvert the testimony of the defense's medical experts marked the opening of the Frank trial Wednesday.
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold vigorously fought the introduction of witnesses for this purpose in the State's rebuttal. Solicitor Dorsey maintained he had a perfect right to develop as much testimony along this line as he wished.
The defense took the attitude that all of their medical experts were called only for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, who will go down in the history of the Phagan case as the witness who professed to determine the time that intervened between the time that Mary Phagan left home and the time she was killed by the
condition Umme she was killed by the condition of some undigested cabbage in her stomach.
Attorney Arnold argued that if the State had wished to obtain the testimony of other medical experts to corroborate the statements of Dr. Harris, they should have been called in the original presentation of the State's case instead of in the rebuttal.
He said that the defense had not attempted to cover any new points through the physicians they had on the stand and that these experts were questioned solely with the purpose in view of discrediting Dr. Harris.
Endless Process
Seen by Arnold.
If this is to be allowed, said Arnold, it will mean that it is to be simply an endless process. I never heard of such a thing before. If Mr. Dorsey is permitted to call all the medical experts he wishes to bolster up the testimony of Dr. Harris, I shall call back all of the experts we had on the stand.
The argument had its beginning late Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, was called to the stand just before adjournment. Rosser and Arnold entered their objections the instant that Solicitor Dorsey began questioning the witness along the same line that he had questioned Dr. Harris when the State presented its case against the defendant.
I just want to question this man in rebuttal of the defense's witnesses, insisted the Solicitor. They testified that Dr. Harris was making a wild and reckless guess when he declared that Mary Phagan was killed within three-quarters of an hour after she ate and left home. I want to prove by Dr. Johnson and the other experts that I will call that this declaration of Dr. Harris was base don scientific principles that are well known to the physicians who specialize along those particular lines.
The Solicitor said that he had plenty of authorities to uphold him in his stand on the admissibility of the testimony in rebuttal and asked the judge to adjourn until Wednesday morning so that he might have time to look them up. The Solicitor got Dr. Johnson to buy before he left the stand that Dr. Harris was premising his statement upon substantial physiological principles and that it was in no sense a wild guess. It was the plan to recall Dr. Johnson to the stand again as soon as court opened Wednesday.
Expert Permitted to
Answer State's Query.
Dr. Clarence Johnson was called the Solicitor Dorsey resumed his argument on the admissibility of evidence supporting Dr. H. F. Harris.
I have this authority, said Dorsey. It has been the well-recognized practice to follow this course. I have not been able to put my hand on a specific authority, though I have looked for it for some time. However, I think your honor will recall that it is the uniform practice to allow the State to make out a prime facie case and go into the whole thing later. It is within the discretion of the court to allow a case to be reopened even after the State and the defense have rested.
What I want to know is, said Judge Roan, If you want to reopen this whole case.
I have a right to do that, said Dorsey.
Where would this thing end? asked the judge. They would have the right to rebut.
Of course the court would not allow anything absurd.
What is more absurd, asked Arnold, than for the State to bolster up it's testimony after the matter is closed? I know some judges who have been elevated from the office of Solicitor General who would allow the State to bring in anything on rebuttal. If this is to be reopened, we are going to ask to be allowed to bring our experts to go over the rebuttal. If Dr. Harris' testimony needs bolstering, he should have put up the doctors at first.
As a matter of right, said Judge Roan, you (Dorsey) have not any. As a matter of discretion of the court you have. I will exercise that discretion in your favor, Mr. Dorsey. You may go on with the question.
Girl Died Within Hour
After Eating Cabbage.
Solicitor Dorsey had the court stenographer read the hypothetical question about the length of time the cabbage Mary Phagan ate had been in her stomach and whether a doctor could determine anything definite about the time of death or whether it would be a wild guess.
The answer was:
To answer that question under the pain I have taken I would have to know whether the pathologist was thoroughly capable and employed the most modern scientific methods.
Q. Well, assume that he was, doctor?"A. If a capable pathological found there was only combined hydrochloric acid with due consideration of other conditions as possible factors. I would express in my opinion scientifically that the digestion of the bread and the cabbage was stopped within one hour after eating.
The witness the addressed the court:
Your honor, I would like to have my answer read to me by the stenographer. The request was granted.
Q. Is every stomach a law unto itself?"A. No.
Arnold took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What are some of the other possible factors?"A. I didn't say that.
Q. What did they say then?"A. I said there were probably factors in the cut of the bead and strangulation.
Q. Well, how would that affect digestion?"A. Anything that disturbs the circulation of the blood would affect digestion.
Q. What did you mean by mechanical conditions?"A. The thickness of the stomach, the size and the general appearance.
Q. Do you consider the color test reliable?"A. Yes.
Q. It depends entirely on the eye of the man?"A. Not exactly.
Q. If a man were color blind would it affect the test?"A. Why, of course.
Says Digestive Juices
Disappear After Death.
Q. Now this acid has an ascending and descending scale, hasn't it?"A. Yea.
Q. What is the highest degree of activity?"A. Do you want my experience?
Q. No, the science."A. I think it varies from 30 to 40.
Q. What becomes of the pancreatic juices of the stomach after death?"A. There are no pancreatic juices of the stomach. They are in the intestines.
Q. Well, what becomes of them after death?"A. They would lose the chemical property in time, but the physical pancreatic juice would remain.
Q. What becomes of free hydrochloric acid after death?"A. When the stomach disintegrates it disappears.
Q. But tell me, doctor, what becomes of the free hydrochloric acid after death regardless of time?"A. It eventually disappears.
Q. What delays the beginning of the digestive process?"A. If mastication was not good, or rather very bad, it would be delayed.
Q. Would walking delay it?"A. Not unless it was a tiring walk.
Q. Well, when you answered Mr. Dorsey's question, you only meant one hour from the time digestion started and not how long it had been in the stomach?"A. Yes.
Q. You said, as I remember it, that digestion began within an hour and was arrested?"A. I prefer to have my answer read.
Q. The stenographer is taking every word you are saying. He will do you justice"A. It is not justice for myself I want. I want to do justice to all.
Yes, I know that, said Arnold, and, continuing:
Q. Could you tell by looking at that cabbage how long digestion had been delayed?"A. In my laboratory I could tell exactly. Here it would only be an estimate.
Witness Declines to
Guess at Anything.
Q. You mean a guess?"A. I don't guess at anything.
Q. You never made any test on Mary Phagan's stomach?"A. No.
Q. You are simply testifying what possibly might have been done?"A. I am simply testifying to scientific truth.
The witness was excused and Dr. G. M. Niles, another stomach and intestinal specialist, and a professor at the Atlanta Medical College, and also author of a book on pellagra, was summoned. Dorsey questioned him?
Q. Does science recognize that every stomach is a law unto itself?"A. Every healthy normal stomach has certain fundamental relations to all other healthy normal stomachs.
In answer to the hypothetical question embracing the case of Mary Phagan. Dr. Niles answered: In the orderly p
rocess of the course of digestion, there should be purse hydrochloric acid in the course of on hour. I am answering my question regard to any psychic or physical shock. I am not going so much by the appearance of the cabbage as the statements of the results of the laboratory tests.
Q. What have you to say about
LEO FRANK'S MOTHER
ON HER WAY TO COURT
MRS. REA FRANK.
variations of diseased stomachs? "
A. There are wide variations. Stomachs have idiosyncrasies, but where they are very marked I would not call them normal.
Q. There is nothing that differs as much as individual digestion, is there?"A. I would say that a man's temperamental view of life differs more than that.
Q. How long does it take cabbage to digest?"A. I can not answer that question absolutely.
Q. Don't you know what the books say"from four to four and one-half hours?"A. I can not answer that specifically.
Q. What is the longest time you have known cabbage to remain in a fairly normal stomach?"A. Four or five hours.
Q. You found it there in a normal stomach five hours, haven't you?"A. The remains of it.
Q. Is starch one of the carbohydrates?"A. Yes.
Cabbage Had Not Been
In Stomach Three Hours.
Q. Then the digestion should begin in the mouth?"A. That is the preliminary mechanical process.
Q. Well then, in a normal stomach, if the cabbage were not well masticated it would be there some time before the stomach started work, wouldn't it?"A. No, I would say the stomach got busy immediately.
Q. You would not say how long that cabbage was in that little girl's stomach, would you?"A. I would not.
Q. Now, look at that cabbage and tell me whether it might not have been there three hours or more.
Dr. Niles looked at the cabbage several minutes and said: No, if it had been in the stomach three hours, it would have been more pulverized.
Q. Now, if this little girl ate that cabbage bolted it down in a hurry to get to town and see the parade, would you say that the circumstance delayed digestion?"A. Well, if she was hungry and took any pleasure in eating the metal, the mastication or lack of it would not make any great difference.
Q. Then mastication does not make any great difference?"A. It certainly does.
Q. Did you make any examination of the stomach?"A. No.
Q. You made none of the tests?"A. No.
Q. Do you know that the doctor who made the examination did not save any of the contents of the stomach?"A. I read it.
Q. Did you know that he did not call any physician in to help him?"A. Yes.
Q. That he did not divulge any of the findings until he came here?"A. Yes.
Q. That he kept those findings secret?"A. Yes.
Q. That we only have his plain unsupported statement?"A. Yes.
Dr. Harris Not Guilty
Of Breach of Ethics.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. Is there any setting of ethics that prohibits those things?"A. I never heard of it.
The witness was excused and Dr. John Funke, who holds the chair pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College where he graduated twelve years ago, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him concerning an examination made of Mary Phagan's body, and then pronounced his usual hypothetical question about the cabbage. A. About the cabbage, I would not like to say positively that with the conditions found in the laboratory test taken into consideration, that the first six feet of the small intestines were clear, and if there was found 32 degrees of combined hydrochloric acid. I would say the cabbage had been there an hour, maybe a little more or less.
Arnold took the witness.
Q. When did Dr. Harris come to you in regard to this examination?"A. He didn't come to me. I was asked to look into it last Saturday.
Q. Who asked you?"A. Dr. Dorsey, the brother of the Solicitor.
The witness was excused and Dorsey tendered a telegram from Leo M. Frank to Adolf Montag, in New York, on April 28, as evidence. This telegram read:
Atlanta, Georgia, April 28, 1913. Adolph Montag, Imperial Hotel, New York. You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory. Police will eventually solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. LEO M. Frank.
O. M. Battie, manager of the Postal Telegraph Company was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Up to April 29 did either Frank or the National Pencil Company do business with you?"A. I could not say.
Q. Did Frank send a telegram through your company on April 26?"A. I have one dated April 28.
I made a mistake, said Dorsey, It was April 28. It was received April 29. I just got him up because he said he could not divulge anything except in court. The witness was excused.
W. G. Peeples of the Western Union Telegraph Company, was called.
Q. Did the Western Union Telegraph Company have any telegrams sent by Leo M. Frank on April 26, 27, or 28?"A. Yes.
Q. Did your company have any on the dates covered by the subpoena duces tecum?"A. Yes.
Q. Let me have them.
Dorsey looked at the telegrams and said:
Your honor, these are not signed by Frank and I don't care to Introduce them.
Girl Says Frank's
Character Is Bad.
Miss Myrtice Cato was the next witness called Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank?"A. I am.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Company?"A. I did.
Q. When?"A. For about three and one-half years up to April 28, 1913.
Q. On what floor did you work?"A. Fourth.
Dorsey turned to Rosser.
She is with you, he said coolly.
Come down, said Rosser.
Miss Maggie Griffin was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Were you acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank prior to April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes, for two months.
Q. On what floor?"A. Fourth
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where did you work?"Dorsey interrupted to say: I haven't finished. I have another question yet.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character for lasciviousness?"That is his conduct toward women? I don't want you to answer until the judge rules. Your honor, doesn't the fact that he denies certain charges make my question admissible?
Rosser: Let the jury retire if he is going to argue this, but your honor has already ruled.
The jury left the room.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, give me some authority on that.
Dorsey: We don't need any authority for that. The defendant's own statement makes it admissible.
Dorsey looked on his table for a copy of Frank's statement, but did not find it. He continued addressing the court:
While this jury is out I want to say that I want to put up a witness who will say she saw Frank go in the dressing room on the fourth floor with a woman.
Rosser: You have already ruled on that.
Dorsey: This is a specific instance to rebut and impeach the statement of the girls on the fourth floor. We want to show that he went into that dressing room with a forelady.
Judge Roan: You can show his general character for lasciviousness. I don't know about the other. You will probably have to call the woman and put the question to her and then bark to impeach her.
The jury was called back.
Rosser"Your honor rules here on a trial for a Georgia murder that the Solicitor can ask about the defendant's character for lasciviousness?
Judge Roan"I do.
Swears Frank's Relations
With Women Are Bad.
The jury returned to the courtroom at this time. Dorsey continued the questioning.
Q. I will ask you if you are acquainted with Frank's general character for lasciviousness"his relations with women?"A. I am.
Q. What is it? Good or bad?"A. Bad.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. How many girls did you know on the fourth flo
or?"A. Four.
Q. Where do you work now?"A. Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills.
Q. Where do you live?"A. No. 34 Evans Drive.
The witness was excused and Miss Cato was recalled. Dorsey questioned her in regard to Frank's general character for lasciviousness and she declared that it was bad.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where do you work now? A. At Cone's drug store, Decatur and Pryor streets.
Q. Where do you live?"A. At No. 59 Tumlin street.
The witness was excused and Mrs. Marion Dunning was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Leo M. Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness"his relations with women?"A. No.
Q. When did you work at the pencil factory?"A. About two years ago.
Q. For how long?"A. Two weeks.
Not Much Acquainted
With His Character.
The witness was not cross-examined. Mrs. H. R. Johnson, of Stonewall, was called to the stand. Mrs. Johnson declared she worked at the pencil factory for two months in 1910. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness?"A. Not very well.
Dorsey"Answer yes or no.
Rosser"She has answered.
Dorsey"All right, she has said not very much.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where is Stonewall?"A. On the street car line.
Rosser"Come down.
Dorsey"Just a minute. What floor did you work on?"A. The fourth floor.
The witness was excused and Miss Marie Karst, of No. 191 Kelly street, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Have you ever worked at the pencil factory?"A. Yes. On the second floor about two years ago.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
The witness said the general character of Frank for lasciviousness was bad.
She was not cross-examined.
Mrs. L. T. Corsey was called but did not answer. It was stated that she was sick. Miss Nellie Pettus was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?"A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?"A. I didn't know him exactly, except I knew him when I saw him and know about him.
Q. Was his character good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you know his personal character for lasciviousness?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"Yea.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Was did you work at the pencil factory?"A. I didn't work there. My sister-in-law worked there. She hardly ever went there on Saturday and I went there to get her way.
Q. Who did you see there?
Rosser interposed an objection but was overruled.
I saw Mr. Frank once.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who is your sister-in-law?"A. No. 9 Oliver street.
Q. Does she work there now?"A. No; she quit working there about three weeks before the murder.
Witnesses Fail to
Answer When Called.
The witness was excused and the following were called, but failed to answer. Mrs. T. C. Harrison, Miss Pearl Dobson and Thomas Blackstock. Miss May Davis, No. 8 Louis Avenue, an employee of the pencil company and Frank's character was bad. Rosser cross-questioned her, adding but one question:
Q. Where do you work now?"A. I am not working now.
Mrs. Mary B. Wallace, an elderly woman in mourning, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes; three days.
Q. When?"A. July, 1912.
Q. Did you know Leo Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
The witness declared that Frank's general character as to lasciviousness was bad. The witness was not cross-examined.
Estelle Winkle was next called to the stand. She said that she worked at the pencil factory for one week in March 1919. She said that Frank's character was bad. On cross-examination, she said she was not working now, and gave her residence as being twelve miles from Griffin.
Miss Carrie Smith was the next witness. The rapidity with which she chewing gum created a ripple of laughter in the courtroom, and deputies were forced to rap for order. The witness testified that she worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and that Frank's character was bad. She was not acquainted with his character for lasciviousness. On cross-examination she said she resided at No. 237 Simpson, and that she worked for the factory off and on for three years, working there the last time about three weeks after Christmas.
Miss Ruth Robinson was the next witness. Dorsey questioned her.
Saw Frank Speak to
Mary About Her Work.
Q. Did you ever work at the pencil factory?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. Yea.
Q. Did you know Frank?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Frank talking to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. What were they talking about?"A. Her work.
Q. Well, how often did he talk to her?"A. Several times.
Q. What would he do?"A. Show her how to fix pencils.
Q. How would he do it?"A. Just take pencils and show her.
Q. Did you ever hear him speak to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. What did he call her?"A. Mary.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Are you sure of that?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Miss Dewey Hewell was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Where are you located now? A. In the courthouse.
Q. I mean, where were you before you came here?"Do you mean where my parents live?
Q. Yes; where do you live?"A. No. 8 Porter street.
Q. Where are you living now?"A. In Cincinnati at the Home of the Good Shepherd.
Says Frank Put Hand
On Mary Phagan's Shoulder.
Q. What sort of a home is that"no, never mind that. Did you work at the National Pencil factory during February and March, 1913?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Frank talk to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. How did he act?"A. He would come to her machine and put his hand on her shoulder.
Q. What would he say?"A. He would put his face close to hers and call her Mary.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You didn't work in the metal room very long, did you?"A. About two weeks.
The witness was excused and Miss Rebecca Carson was recalled. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever go into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Mr. Frank?"A. I never did.
Dorsey-Come down.
Miss Myrtice Cato was recalled. Dorsey requested her not to answer the question he was going to put until the court ruled upon it.
Q. Did you ever see Frank go into the drawing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson?
Rosser interposed with an objection, but the witness answered Yes, before he could stop her.
That Ain't All I
Know, Says Witness.
The objection was not forced.
Q: How often did you get it?"A. Three or four times, and that ain't all I know.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who was on the floor when you saw that?"A. Several women.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. How did you see it ???"A. I was in that end of the building.
The witness was excused and Miss Maggie Griffins was recalled in rebuttal of Miss Carson's testimony. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever see the defendant and Miss Rebecca Carson go into the dressing room on the fourth floor?"A. Yes: three or four climax.
Q. How long a period did that cover?"A. Sometimes they would stay in there about fifteen minutes and sometimes about thirty minutes.
Rosser"We must oppose that.
Judge Roan"The objection is sustained.
Q. What time in the day was it?"A. Sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening.
Rosser"We are objecting to it all.
The court sustained the objection again.
Says Car Ran
Ahead of Schedule.
The witness was excused and Henry
A. Hoffman, inspector for the Georgia Railway and Electric Company, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know Matthews car runs on the English avenue there?"A. Yes.
Q. Who is he under?"A. He is under me from 11:39 until he goes to dinner.
Q. For what time?"A. Thirty-seven minutes.
Q. Is there any set schedule such as 13.09 1-2?"A. None on the board.
Q. Prior to April 26, were you ever on his car when he cut off the Fair street car?"A. Yes.
Q. What was the time the Fair street car was due to arrive?"A. 12:08.
Q. At the time Matthews cut off the Fair street car, was the Fair street car on time?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever compare watches with Matthews?
Arnold objected, but said he would not argue the point. His objection was overruled.
Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Matthews when his watch was not with yours?"A. Yes.
Q. How far off was he?"A. Thirty or forty seconds.
Q. Did you ever call his attention to remaining ahead of time?"A. Yes.
Q. Do they come in ahead of time often?"A. At launch and supper nearby always.
Q. Do they come in ahead of time or often?"A. At lunch and supper, nearly always.
Three Minutes Ahead of
Time at Noon.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You don't remember whether he was ahead of time April 26, or not, do you?"A. No.
Q. Do you discharge a man for be-
Continued on page 3 column 1.
PAGE 6
WOMEN OF FACTORY SWEAR FRANK'S CHARACTER IS BAD
State Makes Headway With Testimony Hitting Standing of Prisoner
WITNESS SAYS SHE SAW
ACCUSED PLACE HAND ON
PHAGAN GIRL'S SHOULDER
Continued from page 2.
ing ahead of time?"A. Not at first.
Q. Now, did you ever catch him ahead of time at 12 o'clock? A. Yes.
Q. How much?"A. Three minutes.
Q. When was it?"A. During the spring of the year.
Q. How many times have you known him to be ahead of time?"A. Only twice, I think, in the short time he has been under me.
The witness was excused and N. Kelly, a motorman was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Where were you April 28 before 12 and 12:05 o'clock?"A. At Broad and Marietta streets.
Q. Do you know what time the English avenue car came in?"A. It was 12:03.
Q. Do you know Matthews and Hollis?"A. Yes.
Mary Phagan
Not On the Cars.
Q. Did you see them on the car?"A. Yes.
Q. At what time?"A. 12:02.
Q. Do you know Mary Phagan?"A. By sight.
Q. Was she on that car when you saw it?"A. She was not.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. How do you remember that?"A. I looked at my watch to catch a car.
Q. Did you look at it yesterday at that time?"A. I don't remember.
Q. Why did you not report about little Mary Phagan not being on that car?"A. I did not want to get mixed up in this.
Q. When did you first tell the detectives?"A. I didn't see the detectives. I told Mr. Starnes this morning.
Q. Who else was on that car?"A. I don't remember.
Q. What did you do after that?"A. I stood at Jackson & Wessels for a time and then went and caught the 12:10 car for College Park.
Q. You were not paying any particular attention to anything, were you?"A. I was watching the crews being relieved.
Q. What is the schedule of the College Park and Hapeville cars?"A. The College Park schedule is 8:20 to 8:50 and the Hapeville cars run on the hour and every twenty minutes.
Rosser"Don't tell it so fast. What's the schedule?"A. A car every ten minutes.
Says Car Often Is
Ahead of Time.
The witness was excused and W. D. Owens, a conductor on the White City line, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. What time do you get to town at noon?"A. 12:05.
Q. Do you remember seeing the English avenue and Cooper street car on April 26?"A. No.
Q. Did you ever know that car to come in there ahead of you?"A. Yes.
Q. How much?"A. Two minutes.
Q. Ever more than that?"A. I have known it to be three minutes.
The witness was excused and L. F. Ingram, a street car conductor, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you remember coming to town on an English avenue car Saturday, April 26?"A. I do.
Q. What time was it?"A. I don't remember.
Q. An English avenue car is due at Marietta and Broad streets at 12:07 o'clock: Do you remember that car ever coming in ahead of time?"A. Yes; frequently. Sometimes they come in ahead of time and sometimes late. I saw one of those trippers come in this morning at 8:24 when it was due at 8:30 o'clock.
Q. How much have you known the English avenue car to be off schedule?"A. Three or four minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. It's against the rules of the company to come in ahead of time, isn't it?"A. Yes.
The witches was excused and Miss Mamie Kitchens, an employee of the pencil factory on the fourth floor, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. How long have you been at the factory?"A. Two years.
Q. What floor?"A. Fourth.
Q. Were you at the factory today?"A. Yes.
Only Hearsay
About Superintendent.
Q. Do you know any woman on that, floor who was not been called as a witness here?"A. Miss Eva Jones and Mrs. Howell.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?"A. Only by hearsay, and I don't want to testify.
Q. That's all right. I won't press the question. Now were you ever in that dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Irene Jackson " when this defendant, Leo M. Frank, came in?"A. Yes.
Q. Well, just tell the jury about it."A. I was back there one day when he came back and stuck his head in the door. He laughed, and said something about us having no work to do, and then went out.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Did he ask you if you girls had any work to do?"A. Yes.
Q. Didn't he open the door and say: Haven't you girls any work to do?"A. He didn't say it that way.
Q. Who else was there?"A. Miss Ethel Stewart was in there for a time.
Q. Aren't you mistaken about Miss Jones and Mrs. Howell not being called as witnesses?"A. I only have their word for it.
Q. I am going to ask you a question we have asked every woman who works on the fourth floor. Did you ever meet Mr. Frank for any improper purpose?"A. I never did.
Dorsey: Your honor, if that question is admissible, why can't we ask Miss Wood the question we have indicated?
Judge Roan: They claim their questions are only in rebuttal of Conley.
At this time, 1 o'clock, court recessed until 2, making the longest morning session yet held in the trial.
Motorman, Recalled,
Denies Talk of Case.
The first witness called at the afternoon session was W. M. Matthews motorman, who declared that the Phagan girl came into the city on his car on the morning of the murder. Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to show that he had feeling in this case which caused him to lean toward the defense.
Dorsey"Do you know this man, W. C. Dobbs?"A. I do.
Dobbs was sent from the courtroom.
Q. Didn't you have a talk with Mr. Dobbs about three days after the murder and say that Mary Phagan and George Epps got off your car at Broad and Marietta streets?"A. I never told anyone that.
Q. Didn't you tell someone you owed a debt of gratitude to someone connected with this case?
Rosser interposed an objection. Let him give names, he said.
Dorsey"How long since were a defendant in court? A."About two years.
Q. Who defended you?"A. Mr. Moore and Mr. Branch, Mr. Colquitt and Mr. Conyers.
Rosser " You were acquitted, weren't you?"A. Yes.
W. C. Dobbs Says He
Talked With Conductor.
Q. Does Mr. Branch live anywhere near you?"A. No.
Q. Did you ever talk to me about this case?"A. One time.
Q. Did you ever talk to this man (indicating Attorney Arnold)?"A. No.
Q. No.
Q. You have no interest in this case?"A. No.
Q. What were you tried for?"A. Manslaughter.
Q. Did the ju
ry acquit you?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and W. C. Dobbs was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Conductor Matthews about Mary Phagan and George Epps coming in on his car?"A. Yes: he told me she came in on the car and that Epps was with her.
Q. Did he say anything about where they got off?"A. Yes; at Marietta and Forsyth streets.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Are the son of Police Sergeant Dobbs who is testifying in this case are you not?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused.
J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary Phagan, was called again. He did not answer and Solicitor Dorsey said that Coleman's wife was sick and it would be necessary to send for him.
W. W. (Boots) Rogers was recalling to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you notice anything about the stairs and door that Sunday morning in the National Pencil Factory from the basement to the first floor?"A. Yes; the stairs were dirty and dusty and the door could not be lifted.
Man Says He Saw
Negro In Alleyway.
The witness was excused without being cross-examined.
Sergeant L. S. Dobbs was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see Boots Rogers try to open that door to the stairway leading from the basement in the pencil factory the Sunday morning the body was found?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Rogers recalled. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see anything by that cute?"A. Yes; a large pile of shavings.
Rogers was excused and Oxel Tillanter was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Were you at the pencil factory April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. At what time?"A. Just before 12 o'clock.
Q. Did you see anybody?"A. Yes; when I went in I saw a negro coming through a dark alleyway. I asked him the way to the office and he showed me.
Q. Have you seen this boy Jim Conley?"A. Yes.
Q. Where?"A. In his office.
Q. What was he doing?"A. Working.
Q. What did you say to him?"A. I asked him for my daughter-in-law's pay and got it.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You are not positive about its being Conley?"A. No.
Q. You say you saw a darkey come yup from ad ark alley. Where was that?"A. At the side of the factory.
Step-Father of
Dead Girl on Stand.
The witness was excused. E. K. Graham was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. On Saturday, April 26, were you at the pencil factory?"A. Yes, about 20 minutes to 12 o'clock.
Q. Did you see a negro at the entrance?"A.
Q. Have you seen Jim Conley?"Yes, I saw him this morning.
Q. Was he the man you saw there?"A. I couldn't say. I noticed a resemblance, though it seems to me that the man I saw was a little brighter.
Q. Did you say anything to him?"A. No. The man with he asked him how to get to the office.
Q. Did he show you?"A. Yes.
Q. Was he drunk or sober?"A. I didn't see any signs of drunkenness.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You say the negro you saw was brighter than Conley?"A. Is seems to me he was.
The witness was excused. J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary Phagan arrived at the courthouse at this time and was placed on the stand. Dorsey questioned him. Q. Do you remember a conversation you had with Inspector McWorth, of the Pinkertons?"A. Yes.
Q. Did he or not exhibit an envelope found in the factory?"A. He did.
Q. What figures if any did the envelope have on it?"A. It had a figure 1 up in the corner. Then a figure 1 up in the corner. Then a figure was torn out; than a 5.
The witness was shown the envelope the detectives brought into court and he said it did not look like the one shown him.
J. M. Gantt Is
Recalled to Stand.
Rosser cross-questioned the witness.
Q. You don't know whether this is the same envelope or not, do you?"A. It might be, but the figures are not the same.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. Did you say anything about this envelope not fitting in the case?"A. yes, my wife spoke up and said"
Rosser interrupted: Never mind what your wife said.
The witness was excused. J. M. Gantt was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you ever see Leo M. Frank up the financial sheet?"A. Yes.
Q. How long would it take him?"A. If he had the data, it would not take him more than one and one-half hours.
Q. Was that time clock accurate?"A. No.
Q. How did it vary?"A. Two to three minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Did you pay off those girls by it?"A. Yes.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. How often was that clock regulated?"A. Two or three times a week.
Arnold registered an objection but was overruled.
The witness was excused and Herbert Shiff was recalled. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. How much pay did Mary Phagan draw that last week?"A. $1.80.
Q. Now I want you to show me on that book there where the $2 Frank loaned Arthur White appears."A. It appears as $4 because I advanced him $2 the next week and made the entry myself.
Q. Where is that ticket Frank made of it?"A. I tore it up.
Says He Gave Haas
All the Papers.
Q. You tore it up?"A. We always do.
Q. You were served with a duces tecum to bring to the court a paper signed by Charley Lee in regard to the injury of this man Dudley?"A. I was.
Q. Did you bring it?"A. I turned over to Mr. Haas all the papers I had.
Q. Did you ever show to Lee a written statement he had made about this accident?"A. I don't think he ever wrote a statement. It was written on a typewriter.
Q. Was it in the papers you gave Mr. Haas?"A. It had no right to be there.
Q. Did you have the same time clock at the time of the murder that you had when Gantt was there?"A. We have two time clocks.
Q. How much behind was the clock when you sent for Mr. Price to fix it?"A. I don't think that was the trouble at all. I think it was clogged with the ribbon.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You had $1,174.80 for the payroll except for the loans you were to pay out and every cent of that was in wages, was it not?
Dorsey: This is his witness. He can not lead him as though it was a cross-examination.
Rosser: What? I thought I could cross-examine him. Mr. Dorsey has brought in an entirely new matter of that time.
Judge Roan: The uniform rule has been that when one side introduces a witness, he remains their witness.
Rosser: Then, your honor, we have suffered grievously by this. (Turning to the witness) Mr. Schiff, I will now shift my method of examining you. Come down.
Negro Says He
Drank With Conley.
Ivy Jones, a negro, was the next witness. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. What do you do?"A. Drive for Walker Brothers.
Q. On Saturday, April 26, did you see Jim Conley?"A. Yes.
Q. Where?"A. At Forsyth and Hunter streets.
Q. What time was it?"A. Between 1 and 2 o'clock.
Q. Can you be more accurate than that?"A. No.
Q. Was he drunk?"A. No.
Q. Where did you go with him?"A. To a saloon.
Q. Then where?"A. Toward his home. I left him at the corner of Davis and Hunter streets about three blocks from his home.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You and he drank beer at that saloon, didn't you?"A. Yes, both of us got home.
Rosser: Come down.
Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. building, did you see any blood around the scuttle hole on the first floor, which leads to the basement?"A. No.
Rosser"This has all been gone over before and is incompetent.
Dorsey"We want to rebut. McWorth's evidence about the bludgeon and the blood.
The objection was overruled.
Q. When did the State learn of this bloody bludgeon?"A. I told you personally about it on July 15.
Further objections caused Solicitor Dorsey to change his line of questioning.
Memory Not Clear on
Finding Pie
ce of Cord.
Q. Mr. Scott, when you were going through the basement with Mr. Frank, did you pick up a piece of cord similar to that found around Mary Phagan's neck?"A. I think I did.
Q. Did you pick it up, or Frank pick it up?"A. My memory is not clear.
Q. Did Newt Lee ever recognize that bloody shirt?"A. He did not.
Q. From whom did you learn Conley could write?"A. I got the information from my office. I was out of town when they found it out.
Q. When did you learn of it?"A. McWorth told me on Sunday"
Rosser objected and was sustained.
Q. What did you do when you discovered Conley could write?
Rosser: Then went into that on the direct.
The objection was sustained.
Q. What conversation did you have with Frank about Darley?"A. We told him we believed Darley had been going with girls in the factory. He said, No; Darley is the soul of honor. He could not know anything about it.
Q. Did Black say to you: Come on, there is nothing doing?"A. No.
The witness was excused, and L. F. Kendrick, former night watchman at the factory, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Dorsey's Questions
Met With Objections.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Holloway about swearing that Frank called you up?
Rosser interrupted: Holloway was their witness. They can not impeach him.
Rosser's objection was sustained.
Dorsey: Well, can't I show in test and feeling, then?
Judge Roan: You can only impeach Holloway on points on which he has misled you.
Dorsey: That is not the law.
Judge Roan: Then what is the law?
Dorsey: I will get you the authorities.
Judge Roan: Then I will rule later.
Q. Now during the two years you were working there, did you ever see women there on Saturday afternoons?
Rosser: You have already ruled on that.
Judge Roan: You can't ask that.
Q. Did you ever put a slip in the time clock?"A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you?"A. About two or three minutes.
Q. Could you hear that elevator running when there was hammering and knocking?"A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen Conley around the elevator on Saturday afternoons?"A. I have seen Conley there on the way back from lunch.
Roser took the witness.
Q. You have seen all the negroes around there?"A. I have seen some of them.
The witness was excused and Dorsey tendered as evidence the time slip made by the witness.
Little Girl Tells of
Visit of Reporter
Vera Epps, a little girl 11 years old, sister of George Epps, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to a Georgian reporter, Mr. John Minar, the Sunday after the murder and tell him the last time you had seen Mary Phagan was the Thursday before the murder?"A.Yes.
Q. Was your brother George Epps, there?"A. He was in the house, but he wasn't there all the time this man was there.
Q. Had your brother told you he had seen Mary Phagan on Saturday?"A. No.
The witness was excused, and C. B. Maynard was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see him go into the pencil factory with a woman?"A. Yes.
Q. When?"A. In June, or July.
Q. What time of day?"A. Between 1 and 2 o'clock.
Q. What day of the week was it?"A. Saturday.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You are sure of that?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and W.T. Hollis, conductor on the English avenue line on which Mary Phagan came to town the day she was murdered was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Didn't you have a conversation with J. D. Reid on Monday after the murder?"A. I don't know him.
Q. Didn't you tell him that you saw a little boy with her who looked like her sweetheart?"A. I did not.
Recognizes Patron
But Doesn't Know Name.
Q. You say now, like you did the other day, that if George Epps was on the car you did not know it?"A. Yes. Solicitor Dorsey had Reid brought into the courtroom. Dorsey then addressed the witness:
Q. Do you know this man?"A. He rides on my car. I don't know his name.
Q. Did you tell him anything like I have suggested?"A. I did not.
The witness was excused, and J. D. Reid was brought to the stand.
Q. On Monday, April 28, did you have a conversation with Conductor J. T. Hollis on the street car about Mary Phagan?"A. No. I wasn't on the car with her.
A ripple of laughter ran around the room.
The witness continued: I am a little deaf: will you come a little bit closer. Will you come a little bit closer.
Dorsey moved closer to the witness and repeated his question.
"A. Yes. He told me it made him feel bad because the little girl rode on his car the last time. He said that a little boy named Epps, her sweetheart, rode in with her. He said they sat in the same seat and got off together.
Rosser did not cross-examine the witness.
City Detective Tells
Of McKnight Story.
J. M. Starnes, city detective, who has been in the courtroom with Solicitor Dorsey since the trial began, was recalled to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see any stains of blood spots near the scuttle hole on the first floor of the pencil factory when you made your examination of the building immediately after the murder?
Rosser interrupted: He answered that before.
Starnes: I did not.
Dorsey: Now we will jump to the arrest of Minola McKnight. Tell us about that, Mr. Starnes.
"A. We had information about what her husband said she knew. We took her to MR. Dorsey's office, and from there to the police station. I did not see her until the next day. We got Mr. Pickett and Mr. Craven from the Beck & Gregg Hardware Company to come up and see if they could get a statement from her. I asked Minola if she had rather make her statement to them or to us. She said to them. I said: Minola, if this is not the truth, do not make it.
When she was about half through I asked her attorney, Mr. George Gordon, to come in. I had the stenographer read over what she had said. When he had finished she signed it.
Q. Was she held by my authority?"A. She was not.
Q. Could I order you to release her?"A. You told me over the phone you could not tell me what to do.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Now, Starnes, you locked that woman up because she would not give you the kind of statement you wanted?"A. No.
Locked Her Up Because
He Was on Murder Case.
Q. Well, why did you lock her up?"A. I was working on a murder case.
Q. Answer my question."A. I am going to tell you.
Dorsey"He has a right to answer it.
Q. Well, by what authority did you lock her up?"A. By the authority of an honorable officer working on a murder case.
Rosser"That's all right. Now, who issued a warrant for that woman's arrest?"A. There was none that I know of.
Q. Who arrested her?"A. A bailiff or deputy from Dorsey's office went out and got her. He did not arrest her.
Q. Who locked her up?"A. I turned her over to the desk man.
Q. And you kept her there twenty-four hours?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and the jury retired for five minutes to take their usual afternoon soft drink.
When the jury returned to the room, Attorney Rosser stated that he was not through questioning Starnes, and the detective was recalled to the stand.
Q. Did you call Mr. Dorsey about that statement?"A. Yes.
Q. What did you tell him about it, to the best of your recollection?"A. My recollection is that I phoned Mr. Dorsey right after Minola made her statement and told him that her attorney, Gordon, would be around to see him.
Q. You just wanted to get his permission?"A. No.
Starnes was excused.
Attorney Rosser
Takes Witness Chair.
Dorsey: We want to introduce some documentary evidence. First, I want to introduce the statement of Miss Hattie Hall before the Coroner.
The Solicitor read the parts of th
e evidence of Miss Hall, stenographer for Montag Brothers, given before the Coroner's jury, which he offered as evidence.
Attorney Rosser climbed into the witness chair to listen. "M"PHAGAN"
Mr. Dorsey offered an affidavit of Wade Campbell concerning an interview with Mrs. Arthur White about seeing a negro on the first floor of the factory the day of the crime.
Attorney Rosser objected to various parts of it and the Solicitor conceded to them being stricken.
The following documents were submitted by Solicitor Dorsey as evidence: Parts of Minola McKnight's affidavit; the bloody shirt found at Newt Lee's home; a record of the jury to J. E. Duffy; affidavit of Lemmie Quinn; the records of Conley's transfer from the tower to the police station.
Is Put in Evidence.
Conley's Police Record.
Solicitor Dorsey also put in Conley's police record of punishment for thirty offenses: the handwriting of Leo Frank identified by his mother, the pay envelope found by Barrett; the affidavit of E. F. Holloway of May 12.
Rosser"We object to that Holloway affidavit! Holloway was his witness and he has not the right.
Dorsey"He entrapped me.
Judge Roan"Where he entrapped you it is admissible.
Dorsey"He entrapped me.
Judge Roan"Where he entrapped you it is admissible.
Dorsey"I also want to prevent part of the evidence of Emil Selig given before the Coroner's jury. It is contradictory with his testimony here; also the testimony of Mrs. Josephine Selig.
Judge Roan"All right.
At 4:45 o'clock Solicitor Dorsey said"We close our case, your honor.
T. Y. Brent was the first witness called by the defense in its rebuttal. Rosser questioned him.
Q. Do you know a fellow named Kenley who runs on the East Point car?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever hear him express an opinion about Frank?"A. Yes.
Q. What did he say?"A. He said that he felt about Frank like he did about those two negroes at Decatur. He said he didn't know whether the negroes were guilty, but they had to hang somebody and it might as well be them. He said Frank was nothing but a Jew and he ought to be hanged anyway He said he would help lynch him.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Why was it you left the Stevens Lumber Company? What was the charge against you and how did you settle it?
Arnold"that is absolutely inadmissible.
Judge Roan sustained the Objection.
Went Through
Factor With Owens.
Q: Are you the Brent who went through the pencil factory with Dr. Billy Owens?"Yes.
Q. Did your employment by the defense include that, too? A. No, I went there on Sunday.
Q. What part did you take in the illustration of the crime given there?"A. Jim Conley.
The witness was excused and N. E. Stahl was called to the stand. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Where do you live?"A. On Washington street.
Q. Did you ever hear this man Kenley talk about the defendant Leo Frank?"A. He said if Frank was acquitted he would be one of five or seven to get him.
The witness was exposed without cross-examination.
J. M. Auber was the next witness. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Have you ever been on a street car with a fellow named Kenly?"A. Yes.
Q. What did he say about this case?"A. He was talking very loud and discussing the Frank case and he suddenly said: The damn Jew; they ought to take him out and hang him. I took his name to report it to Mr. Ayewright. He said if there was any doubt that it should be given to the that Frank was guilty. A young man sitting in front of him disputed it and he asked him angrily: Do you work for a Jew?
Pawnbroker Says He
Had McCoy's Watch.
Dorsey did not cross-examine the witness. Nathan Sinkovits, a pawnbroker, was the next witness called. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Do you know M. E. McCoy?"A. I do.
Q. Has he ever pawned his watch to you?"A. Yes; January 11, 1912.
Q. Where was it on April 26, 1913?"A. I had it.
Q. When did he get it?"A. He gave the $10 to take it out on August .. .
Q. Did he have any other watch?"A. No; this is the same one I have been getting all the time.
Dorsey looked for the entries on the pawnbroker's book and that they be ruled out. The objection was overrated.
The witness was excused.
Arnold, addressed the court:
Your honor, we want the defendant to go on the stand in rebuttal of what has come out.
Frank took the stand. Looking straight at the jury he said:
In reply to the statement of the Turney boy about seeing me talking to Mary Phagan, it is absolutely false. In reference to the statemetns of the girls, Miss Dewell and Miss Robieson about me talking to Mary Phagan and putting my hand on her shoulder and calling her Mary, I wish to state they are mistaken. I may have spoken to Mary Phagan, but I did not put my hand on her and I did not call her Mary. With reference to the statements of the two women who said they saw me going into the dressing room, it is utterly false. It is a blemish on the character of a young woman who is a perfect lady.
Frank left the stand. Attorney Arnold wanted to call other girl witnesses who worked on the fourth floor but Solicitor Dorsey objected and was sustained.
Arnold"Then, your honor, we announce that we will close.
It was 3:14 o'clock.
Judge Roan (Addressing the attorneys)"Are you gentlemen willing to indicate to me how long you will want to argue?
Dorsey"I am satisfied with the amount the law allows.
Judge Roan"The law allows you two hours but with so much evidence. I don't think counsel should be restricted. Stick to the evidence and get through as quickly as you can.
Court then adjourned until 9 o'clock Thursday morning.
PAGE 8
WOMEN ARRAIGN FRANK'S MORALS
State Presents Many Witnesses to Attack Character
DORSEY SNAPPED
IN ACTION IN HOT
CLASH AT TRIAL
SOLICITOR HUGH DORSEY
HARRIS' TESTIMONY IS
CORROBORATED BY
EXPERTS FOR STATE
Here are the important developments Wednesday in the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.
Two witnesses declare that Frank knew Mary Phagan by name and frequently talked with her, one of them saying that eh put his hand on her shoulder.
State renews its attack upon the moral character of the defendant, ten witnesses testifying that it is bad.
Three eminent physicians are called to corroborate Dr. H. F. Harris in his declaration that Mary Phagan came to her death within a comparatively short time after she ate her dinner at home.
Testimony is submitted by two witnesses that they saw Frank and one of his foreladies go into the dressing room on the fourth floor of the pencil factory. One testifies that she noticed this twice. The other says it occurred, three or four times to her knowledge. Denial is made by the forelady.
Street car men testify that English avenue car on which Mary Phagan came to town frequently cut off the Fair street car an indication, according to the State that Matthews and Hollis car crew were often in town ahead of time.
Employee of street car company swears he rode on Matthews and Hollis car April 26 and that Mary Phagan was not on the car from Marietta and Forsyth streets to Broad and Hunter. This disputes the contention of the defense.
Progress in Attack
On Frank's Character.
Solicitor Dorsey renewed his determined attack upon the character of Leo M. Frank Wednesday, and for the first time since the testimony of Jim Conley and the insurance man, Ashley Jones, was able to make a little progress in the introduction of this sort of testimony.
Having found the opening, the Solicitor made the most his advantage, and before the noon recess had arrived ten witnesses, most of them young girls, had arrived ten witnesses, most of them young girls, had sworn that Frank's general character was bad and that his moral character was the same.
The most sensational bit of testimony involved one of the foreladies. Two of the girls
who formerly had worked in the factory, Miss Myrtice Cato and Miss Maggie Griffin, testified that they had seen Frank go into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson, who was a witness for Frank only a few days ago.
Miss Cato said she had seen the two go into the dressing room on two occasions. Miss Griffin testified it had occurred three or four times to her knowledge.
Miss Carson was called by the Solicitor and indignantly denied that such an occurrence ever had taken place.
Saw Frank Lay Hand
On Mary's Shoulder.
Of even greater importance, although of less sensational interest was the testimony of Miss Dewey Hewell, who swore that Frank was in the habit of talking frequently to Mary Phagan; that he called her by name, and that he stood close to her and laid his hand familiarly on her shoulder. She was not able to relate the subject of the conversations when she was cross-examined. She did not know but that Frank might have been talking about her work.
Miss Ruth Robinson corroborated the Hewell girl in her testimony. Miss Rawal was brought from the Home of the Good Shephard in Cincinnati to testify against Frank.
PAGE 9
DORSEY FIGHTS HARD TO BOLSTER UP DR. HARRIS' EVIDENCE
Calling of More Medical Experts by State Materially Lengthens Frank Trial
MARY PHAGAN VICTIM OF
CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, SAYS
DR. JNO.FUNKE ON STAND
Continued from Page 1.
Neither was able to say that there had been anything improper or unusual in Frank's talk with Mary.
N. Kelly, an employee of the street railway company, said that he stood at Forsyth and Marietta streets April 26 and took the English avenue car at 12:02 to Alabama street. He said he knew Mary Phagan and that she was not on this car from Forsyth and Marietta streets. His testimony if believed by the jury is extremely important to the State, as it supports the State's contentions in two respects"first, that Mary Phagan go off the car at Forsyth and Marietta streets, and, second, that the car was considerably ahead of time. Other street car employees testified that 11 was not unusual for the English avenue car, due at 12:07, to come in ahead of the Fair street car, which is due at 12:05.
Experts Corroborate
Harris Evidence.
Solicitor Dorsey, successful in his endeavor to re-open the question of the time Mary Phagan met her death as judged by the condition of the food found in her stomach, gathered a brilliant array of stomach and intestinal specialists Wednesday to lead in an onslaught against the testimony of the experts called by the lawyers for Leo Frank.
Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, on being asked a hypothetical question embracing the condition in which the cabbage in Mary Phagan's stomach was found, gave it as his opinion that the girl came to her death within an hour after the digestion began.
This corroborated in a measure the testimony of Dr. Harris, who estimated the time at from half to three-quarters of an hour after the cabbage had been eaten.
Dr. George M. Niles, who holds the chair of gastro-enterology at the Atlanta Medical College, swore that digestion could not have progressed more than an hour under the conditions described. He was quite positive digestion had progressed less than an hour.
Dr. John Funke, professor of pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College, testified that he had been shown sections of the organs of Mary Phagan by Dr. Harris, a circumstance which had not been made known until this point in the trial. The defense had made his experiments and analysis in secret and had consulted no other expert.
Dr. Funke later admitted that he had not made the examination until about a week ago after the charges had been made and he had been asked by Dr. R. T. Dorsey, brother of the Solicitor, to inspect the specimens.
Asserts Girl Was
Criminally Attacked
This expert corroborated Dr. Harris in his declaration that Mary Phagan was a victim of criminal violence, but he fell somewhat short of substantiating Harris on the time the cabbage had been in the stomach before the digestive processes had been stopped by death.
Being pressed for a definite answer on this point, he said:
One can not say positively, but it is reasonable to assume that digestion probably had progressed an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.
Dr. Johnson was extremely cautious in his answers. He dictated his replies slowly and studiedly to the court stenographer and picked his words and phrases most carefully.
He said first in reply to questions by the Solicitor that it was his scientific opinion that the digestion of the cabbage and bread in Mary Phagan's stomach had stopped within an hour after they were eaten. Attorney Arnold, however, got the expert to change his answer to within an hour after digestion had begun, forcing Dr. Johnson to admit that the beginning of digestion many times is delayed by poor mastication or overdilution of the gastric fluids. The witness would not undertake to say how long it was before the first processes of actual digestion had begun in the case of Mary Phagan.
Much surprise was occasioned when it was learned that Jim Conley had been brought to the courthouse at the command of Solicitor Dorsey. It was rumored that he would go on the stand, but Solicitor Dorsey insisted that he had him brought over merely to have him identified by persons who could swear to his good character.
Defense Puts Up
Hard Battle.
A lively argument over the State's proposal to call three or four prominent physicians to controvert the testimony of the defense's medical experts marked the opening of the Frank trial Wednesday.
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold vigorously fought the introduction of witnesses for this purpose in the State's rebuttal. Solicitor Dorsey maintained he had a perfect right to develop as much testimony along this line as he wished.
The defense took the attitude that all of their medical experts were called only for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, who will go down in the history of the Phagan case as the witness who professed to determine the time that intervened between the time that Mary Phagan left home and the time she was killed by the condition Umme she was killed by the condition of some undigested cabbage in her stomach.
Attorney Arnold argued that if the State had wished to obtain the testimony of other medical experts to corroborate the statements of Dr. Harris, they should have been called in the original presentation of the State's case instead of in the rebuttal.
He said that the defense had not attempted to cover any new points through the physicians they had on the stand and that these experts were questioned solely with the purpose in view of discrediting Dr. Harris.
Endless Process
Seen by Arnold.
If this is to be allowed, said Arnold, it will mean that it is to be simply an endless process. I never heard of such a thing before. If Mr. Dorsey is permitted to call all the medical experts he wishes to bolster up the testimony of Dr. Harris, I shall call back all of the experts we had on the stand.
The argument had its beginning late Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, was called to the stand just before adjournment. Rosser and Arnold entered their objections the instant that Solicitor Dorsey began questioning the witness along the same line that he had questioned Dr. Harris when the State presented its case against the defendant.
I just want to question this man in rebuttal of the defense's witnesses, insisted the Solicitor. They testified that Dr. Harris was making a wild and reckless guess when he declared that Mary Phagan was killed within three-quarters of an hour after she ate and left home. I want to prove by Dr. Johnson and the other experts that I will call that this declaration of Dr. Harris was base don scientific principles that
are well known to the physicians who specialize along those particular lines.
The Solicitor said that he had plenty of authorities to uphold him in his stand on the admissibility of the testimony in rebuttal and asked the judge to adjourn until Wednesday morning so that he might have time to look them up. The Solicitor got Dr. Johnson to buy before he left the stand that Dr. Harris was premising his statement upon substantial physiological principles and that it was in no sense a wild guess. It was the plan to recall Dr. Johnson to the stand again as soon as court opened Wednesday.
Expert Permitted to
Answer State's Query.
Dr. Clarence Johnson was called the Solicitor Dorsey resumed his argument on the admissibility of evidence supporting Dr. H. F. Harris.
I have this authority, said Dorsey. It has been the well-recognized practice to follow this course. I have not been able to put my hand on a specific authority, though I have looked for it for some time. However, I think your honor will recall that it is the uniform practice to allow the State to make out a prime facie case and go into the whole thing later. It is within the discretion of the court to allow a case to be reopened even after the State and the defense have rested.
What I want to know is, said Judge Roan, If you want to reopen this whole case.
I have a right to do that, said Dorsey.
Where would this thing end? asked the judge. They would have the right to rebut.
Of course the court would not allow anything absurd.
What is more absurd, asked Arnold, than for the State to bolster up it's testimony after the matter is closed? I know some judges who have been elevated from the office of Solicitor General who would allow the State to bring in anything on rebuttal. If this is to be reopened, we are going to ask to be allowed to bring our experts to go over the rebuttal. If Dr. Harris' testimony needs bolstering, he should have put up the doctors at first.
As a matter of right, said Judge Roan, you (Dorsey) have not any. As a matter of discretion of the court you have. I will exercise that discretion in your favor, Mr. Dorsey. You may go on with the question.
Girl Died Within Hour
After Eating Cabbage.
Solicitor Dorsey had the court stenographer read the hypothetical question about the length of time the cabbage Mary Phagan ate had been in her stomach and whether a doctor could determine anything definite about the time of death or whether it would be a wild guess.
The answer was:
To answer that question under the pain I have taken I would have to know whether the pathologist was thoroughly capable and employed the most modern scientific methods.
Q. Well, assume that he was, doctor?"A. If a capable pathological found there was only combined hydrochloric acid with due consideration of other conditions as possible factors. I would express in my opinion scientifically that the digestion of the bread and the cabbage was stopped within one hour after eating.
The witness the addressed the court:
Your honor, I would like to have my answer read to me by the stenographer. The request was granted.
Q. Is every stomach a law unto itself?"A. No.
Arnold took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What are some of the other possible factors?"A. I didn't say that.
Q. What did they say then?"A. I said there were probably factors in the cut of the bead and strangulation.
Q. Well, how would that affect digestion?"A. Anything that disturbs the circulation of the blood would affect digestion.
Q. What did you mean by mechanical conditions?"A. The thickness of the stomach, the size and the general appearance.
Q. Do you consider the color test reliable?"A. Yes.
Q. It depends entirely on the eye of the man?"A. Not exactly.
Q. If a man were color blind would it affect the test?"A. Why, of course.
Says Digestive Juices
Disappear After Death.
Q. Now this acid has an ascending and descending scale, hasn't it?"A. Yea.
Q. What is the highest degree of activity?"A. Do you want my experience?
Q. No, the science."A. I think it varies from 30 to 40.
Q. What becomes of the pancreatic juices of the stomach after death?"A. There are no pancreatic juices of the stomach. They are in the intestines.
Q. Well, what becomes of them after death?"A. They would lose the chemical property in time, but the physical pancreatic juice would remain.
Q. What becomes of free hydrochloric acid after death?"A. When the stomach disintegrates it disappears.
Q. But tell me, doctor, what becomes of the free hydrochloric acid after death regardless of time?"A. It eventually disappears.
Q. What delays the beginning of the digestive process?"A. If mastication was not good, or rather very bad, it would be delayed.
Q. Would walking delay it?"A. Not unless it was a tiring walk.
Q. Well, when you answered Mr. Dorsey's question, you only meant one hour from the time digestion started and not how long it had been in the stomach?"A. Yes.
Q. You said, as I remember it, that digestion began within an hour and was arrested?"A. I prefer to have my answer read.
Q. The stenographer is taking every word you are saying. He will do you justice"A. It is not justice for myself I want. I want to do justice to all.
Yes, I know that, said Arnold, and, continuing:
Q. Could you tell by looking at that cabbage how long digestion had been delayed?"A. In my laboratory I could tell exactly. Here it would only be an estimate.
Witness Declines to
Guess at Anything.
Q. You mean a guess?"A. I don't guess at anything.
Q. You never made any test on Mary Phagan's stomach?"A. No.
Q. You are simply testifying what possibly might have been done?"A. I am simply testifying to scientific truth.
The witness was excused and Dr. G. M. Niles, another stomach and intestinal specialist, and a professor at the Atlanta Medical College, and also author of a book on pellagra, was summoned. Dorsey questioned him?
Q. Does science recognize that every stomach is a law unto itself?"A. Every healthy normal stomach has certain fundamental relations to all other healthy normal stomachs.
In answer to the hypothetical question embracing the case of Mary Phagan. Dr. Niles answered: In the orderly process of the course of digestion, there should be purse hydrochloric acid in the course of on hour. I am answering my question regard to any psychic or physical shock. I am not going so much by the appearance of the cabbage as the statements of the results of the laboratory tests.
Q. What have you to say about
LEO FRANK'S MOTHER
ON HER WAY TO COURT
MRS. REA FRANK.
variations of diseased stomachs? "
A. There are wide variations. Stomachs have idiosyncrasies, but where they are very marked I would not call them normal.
Q. There is nothing that differs as much as individual digestion, is there?"A. I would say that a man's temperamental view of life differs more than that.
Q. How long does it take cabbage to digest?"A. I can not answer that question absolutely.
Q. Don't you know what the books say"from four to four and one-half hours?"A. I can not answer that specifically.
Q. What is the longest time you have known cabbage to remain in a fairly normal stomach?"A. Four or five hours.
Q. You found it there in a normal stomach five hours, haven't you?"A. The remains of it.
Q. Is starch one of the carbohydrates?"A. Yes.
Cabbage Had Not Been
In Stomach Three Hours.
Q. Then the digestion should begin in the mouth?"A. That is the preliminary mechanical process.
Q. Well then, in a normal stomach, if the cabbage were not well masticated it would be there some time before the stomach started work, wouldn't it?"A. No, I would say the stomach got busy immediately.
Q. You would not say how long that cabbage was in that little girl's stomach, would you?"A. I would not.
Q. Now, look at that cabbage and tell me whe
ther it might not have been there three hours or more.
Dr. Niles looked at the cabbage several minutes and said: No, if it had been in the stomach three hours, it would have been more pulverized.
Q. Now, if this little girl ate that cabbage bolted it down in a hurry to get to town and see the parade, would you say that the circumstance delayed digestion?"A. Well, if she was hungry and took any pleasure in eating the metal, the mastication or lack of it would not make any great difference.
Q. Then mastication does not make any great difference?"A. It certainly does.
Q. Did you make any examination of the stomach?"A. No.
Q. You made none of the tests?"A. No.
Q. Do you know that the doctor who made the examination did not save any of the contents of the stomach?"A. I read it.
Q. Did you know that he did not call any physician in to help him?"A. Yes.
Q. That he did not divulge any of the findings until he came here?"A. Yes.
Q. That he kept those findings secret?"A. Yes.
Q. That we only have his plain unsupported statement?"A. Yes.
Dr. Harris Not Guilty
Of Breach of Ethics.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. Is there any setting of ethics that prohibits those things?"A. I never heard of it.
The witness was excused and Dr. John Funke, who holds the chair pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College where he graduated twelve years ago, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him concerning an examination made of Mary Phagan's body, and then pronounced his usual hypothetical question about the cabbage. A. About the cabbage, I would not like to say positively that with the conditions found in the laboratory test taken into consideration, that the first six feet of the small intestines were clear, and if there was found 32 degrees of combined hydrochloric acid. I would say the cabbage had been there an hour, maybe a little more or less.
Arnold took the witness.
Q. When did Dr. Harris come to you in regard to this examination?"A. He didn't come to me. I was asked to look into it last Saturday.
Q. Who asked you?"A. Dr. Dorsey, the brother of the Solicitor.
The witness was excused and Dorsey tendered a telegram from Leo M. Frank to Adolf Montag, in New York, on April 28, as evidence. This telegram read:
Atlanta, Georgia, April 28, 1913. Adolph Montag, Imperial Hotel, New York. You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory. Police will eventually solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. LEO M. Frank.
O. M. Battie, manager of the Postal Telegraph Company was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Up to April 29 did either Frank or the National Pencil Company do business with you?"A. I could not say.
Q. Did Frank send a telegram through your company on April 26?"A. I have one dated April 28.
I made a mistake, said Dorsey, It was April 28. It was received April 29. I just got him up because he said he could not divulge anything except in court. The witness was excused.
W. G. Peeples of the Western Union Telegraph Company, was called.
Q. Did the Western Union Telegraph Company have any telegrams sent by Leo M. Frank on April 26, 27, or 28?"A. Yes.
Q. Did your company have any on the dates covered by the subpoena duces tecum?"A. Yes.
Q. Let me have them.
Dorsey looked at the telegrams and said:
Your honor, these are not signed by Frank and I don't care to Introduce them.
Girl Says Frank's
Character Is Bad.
Miss Myrtice Cato was the next witness called Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank?"A. I am.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Company?"A. I did.
Q. When?"A. For about three and one-half years up to April 28, 1913.
Q. On what floor did you work?"A. Fourth.
Dorsey turned to Rosser.
She is with you, he said coolly.
Come down, said Rosser.
Miss Maggie Griffin was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Were you acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank prior to April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes, for two months.
Q. On what floor?"A. Fourth
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where did you work?"Dorsey interrupted to say: I haven't finished. I have another question yet.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character for lasciviousness?"That is his conduct toward women? I don't want you to answer until the judge rules. Your honor, doesn't the fact that he denies certain charges make my question admissible?
Rosser: Let the jury retire if he is going to argue this, but your honor has already ruled.
The jury left the room.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, give me some authority on that.
Dorsey: We don't need any authority for that. The defendant's own statement makes it admissible.
Dorsey looked on his table for a copy of Frank's statement, but did not find it. He continued addressing the court:
While this jury is out I want to say that I want to put up a witness who will say she saw Frank go in the dressing room on the fourth floor with a woman.
Rosser: You have already ruled on that.
Dorsey: This is a specific instance to rebut and impeach the statement of the girls on the fourth floor. We want to show that he went into that dressing room with a forelady.
Judge Roan: You can show his general character for lasciviousness. I don't know about the other. You will probably have to call the woman and put the question to her and then bark to impeach her.
The jury was called back.
Rosser"Your honor rules here on a trial for a Georgia murder that the Solicitor can ask about the defendant's character for lasciviousness?
Judge Roan"I do.
Swears Frank's Relations
With Women Are Bad.
The jury returned to the courtroom at this time. Dorsey continued the questioning.
Q. I will ask you if you are acquainted with Frank's general character for lasciviousness"his relations with women?"A. I am.
Q. What is it? Good or bad?"A. Bad.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. How many girls did you know on the fourth floor?"A. Four.
Q. Where do you work now?"A. Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills.
Q. Where do you live?"A. No. 34 Evans Drive.
The witness was excused and Miss Cato was recalled. Dorsey questioned her in regard to Frank's general character for lasciviousness and she declared that it was bad.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where do you work now? A. At Cone's drug store, Decatur and Pryor streets.
Q. Where do you live?"A. At No. 59 Tumlin street.
The witness was excused and Mrs. Marion Dunning was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Leo M. Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness"his relations with women?"A. No.
Q. When did you work at the pencil factory?"A. About two years ago.
Q. For how long?"A. Two weeks.
Not Much Acquainted
With His Character.
The witness was not cross-examined. Mrs. H. R. Johnson, of Stonewall, was called to the stand. Mrs. Johnson declared she worked at the pencil factory for two months in 1910. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Are you acquainted with his general character for lasciviousness?"A. Not very well.
Dorsey"Answer yes or no.
Rosser"She has answered.
Dorsey"All right, she has said not very much.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where is Stonewall?"A. On the street car line.
Rosser"Come down.
Dorsey"Just a minute. What floor did you work on?"A. The fourth floor.
The witness was excused and Miss Ma
rie Karst, of No. 191 Kelly street, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Have you ever worked at the pencil factory?"A. Yes. On the second floor about two years ago.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character?"A. Yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
The witness said the general character of Frank for lasciviousness was bad.
She was not cross-examined.
Mrs. L. T. Corsey was called but did not answer. It was stated that she was sick. Miss Nellie Pettus was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?"A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?"A. I didn't know him exactly, except I knew him when I saw him and know about him.
Q. Was his character good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you know his personal character for lasciviousness?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"Yea.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Was did you work at the pencil factory?"A. I didn't work there. My sister-in-law worked there. She hardly ever went there on Saturday and I went there to get her way.
Q. Who did you see there?
Rosser interposed an objection but was overruled.
I saw Mr. Frank once.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who is your sister-in-law?"A. No. 9 Oliver street.
Q. Does she work there now?"A. No; she quit working there about three weeks before the murder.
Witnesses Fail to
Answer When Called.
The witness was excused and the following were called, but failed to answer. Mrs. T. C. Harrison, Miss Pearl Dobson and Thomas Blackstock. Miss May Davis, No. 8 Louis Avenue, an employee of the pencil company and Frank's character was bad. Rosser cross-questioned her, adding but one question:
Q. Where do you work now?"A. I am not working now.
Mrs. Mary B. Wallace, an elderly woman in mourning, was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes; three days.
Q. When?"A. July, 1912.
Q. Did you know Leo Frank's general character?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
The witness declared that Frank's general character as to lasciviousness was bad. The witness was not cross-examined.
Estelle Winkle was next called to the stand. She said that she worked at the pencil factory for one week in March 1919. She said that Frank's character was bad. On cross-examination, she said she was not working now, and gave her residence as being twelve miles from Griffin.
Miss Carrie Smith was the next witness. The rapidity with which she chewing gum created a ripple of laughter in the courtroom, and deputies were forced to rap for order. The witness testified that she worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and that Frank's character was bad. She was not acquainted with his character for lasciviousness. On cross-examination she said she resided at No. 237 Simpson, and that she worked for the factory off and on for three years, working there the last time about three weeks after Christmas.
Miss Ruth Robinson was the next witness. Dorsey questioned her.
Saw Frank Speak to
Mary About Her Work.
Q. Did you ever work at the pencil factory?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. Yea.
Q. Did you know Frank?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Frank talking to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. What were they talking about?"A. Her work.
Q. Well, how often did he talk to her?"A. Several times.
Q. What would he do?"A. Show her how to fix pencils.
Q. How would he do it?"A. Just take pencils and show her.
Q. Did you ever hear him speak to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. What did he call her?"A. Mary.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Are you sure of that?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Miss Dewey Hewell was called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Where are you located now? A. In the courthouse.
Q. I mean, where were you before you came here?"Do you mean where my parents live?
Q. Yes; where do you live?"A. No. 8 Porter street.
Q. Where are you living now?"A. In Cincinnati at the Home of the Good Shepherd.
Says Frank Put Hand
On Mary Phagan's Shoulder.
Q. What sort of a home is that"no, never mind that. Did you work at the National Pencil factory during February and March, 1913?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Frank talk to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. How did he act?"A. He would come to her machine and put his hand on her shoulder.
Q. What would he say?"A. He would put his face close to hers and call her Mary.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You didn't work in the metal room very long, did you?"A. About two weeks.
The witness was excused and Miss Rebecca Carson was recalled. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever go into the dressing room on the fourth floor with Mr. Frank?"A. I never did.
Dorsey-Come down.
Miss Myrtice Cato was recalled. Dorsey requested her not to answer the question he was going to put until the court ruled upon it.
Q. Did you ever see Frank go into the drawing room on the fourth floor with Miss Rebecca Carson?
Rosser interposed with an objection, but the witness answered Yes, before he could stop her.
That Ain't All I
Know, Says Witness.
The objection was not forced.
Q: How often did you get it?"A. Three or four times, and that ain't all I know.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Who was on the floor when you saw that?"A. Several women.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. How did you see it ???"A. I was in that end of the building.
The witness was excused and Miss Maggie Griffins was recalled in rebuttal of Miss Carson's testimony. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you ever see the defendant and Miss Rebecca Carson go into the dressing room on the fourth floor?"A. Yes: three or four climax.
Q. How long a period did that cover?"A. Sometimes they would stay in there about fifteen minutes and sometimes about thirty minutes.
Rosser"We must oppose that.
Judge Roan"The objection is sustained.
Q. What time in the day was it?"A. Sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the evening.
Rosser"We are objecting to it all.
The court sustained the objection again.
Says Car Ran
Ahead of Schedule.
The witness was excused and Henry A. Hoffman, inspector for the Georgia Railway and Electric Company, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know Matthews car runs on the English avenue there?"A. Yes.
Q. Who is he under?"A. He is under me from 11:39 until he goes to dinner.
Q. For what time?"A. Thirty-seven minutes.
Q. Is there any set schedule such as 13.09 1-2?"A. None on the board.
Q. Prior to April 26, were you ever on his car when he cut off the Fair street car?"A. Yes.
Q. What was the time the Fair street car was due to arrive?"A. 12:08.
Q. At the time Matthews cut off the Fair street car, was the Fair street car on time?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever compare watches with Matthews?
Arnold objected, but said he would not argue the point. His objection was overruled.
Yes.
Q. Did you ever see Matthews when his watch was not with yours?"A. Yes.
Q. How far off was he?"A. Thirty or forty seconds.
Q. Did you ever call his attention to remaining ahead of time?"A. Yes.
Q. Do they come in ahead of time often?"A. At launch and supper nearby always.
Q. Do they come in ahead of time or often?"A. At lunch and supper, nearly always.
Three Minutes Ahead of
Time at Noon.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You don't remember whether he was ahead of time April 26, or not, do you?"A. No
Q. Do you discharge a man for being ahead of time?"A. Not at first.
Continued on Page 10, Column 8.
PAGE 10
OBJECTION TO CHARACTER
ATTACK PUTS DEFENSE
IN ANOMALOUS POSITION
By JAMES B. NEVIN
The public, that is to say that section of the public willing to be fair and wanting to be convinced
according to the facts, should remember, in seeking to steady itself in considering the Frank case that as the story of Jim Conley was the climax of the State's case, so the statement of Leo Frank was the climax of the defense's case.
It should remember that both statements are to be weighed carefully and analytically"that conclusions are to be jumped at from neither.
The horror of the Conley story, coupled with its unspeakable details, temporarily swept the public mind into a seeming solidity of opinion hostile to Frank"it carried instant conviction to hundreds of minds, through the sheer force of the sinister detail it contained.
By and by, however, the public mind rebounded in a way, and it began taking counsel with itself. And then came a pause, followed by a swing back more or less to the normal.
That is the way it is with the public mind"always wanting to be just, and always sure to be just, if given time and opportunity, yet prone ever to be rushed along heedlessly in the beginning of terrible stories!
It is the immediate horror of the crime that not infrequently distorts the public's sense of proportion primarily, and makes it unfair to itself no less than to other persons concerned.
But the public in the end is just, and it is true to itself. All it asks"or all it needs"is a chance to regain its balance, after having been knocked this way or that by a stunning and unanticipated blow it was not able to ward off when delivered.
Leo Frank's remarkable statement to the jury Monday, certainly one of the most convincing statements, so far as surface indications go, that ever fell from the lips of a defendant in Georgia, still is not sufficient, and should not be sufficient, within itself to warrant the public now in rushing to the conclusion that he is innocent.
Pendulum Will Come to Rest.
And so, as in the case of Conley, while the sentiment of the public swung heavily in the direction of the State following the Conley story, and then swung back in the direction of the defense following the Frank statement, it eventually will right itself somewhere midway between the two, perhaps, and then look to the rest of the evidence as fitting the one or the other.
A woman correspondent writes me:
I have read your articles daily. Tell me, truly, are you for Frank or against him? I can not tell from what you say.
Now, in a way, I consider that something of a compliment. I am glad this correspondent does not know whether I am for or against Frank, for I am neither the one nor the other.
I merely visit the courtroom daily, and gather me a nosegay of other men's flowers; and naught but the string that binds them is mine own!
When the storm signals have seemed fair for Frank, I have to set it down. When they have seemed ominous, I have to set that down.
In all the ideas and conclusions I have transferred to paper in respect of the Frank trial, the wish never has been father to the thought"save in that I always have preferred, and always shall prefer, to see a man prove himself a gentleman rather than a scoundrel, if he can.
What I do hope to stand for, and try to stand for, and what none of us can afford NOT to stand for, is justice and right, fair play and no special favors, decency and civilization, and the supremacy of the law of the land!
I assure my correspondent that I am neither for nor against Frank, but that I am for truth and right, and in my own way and after my own fashion I undertake to stand by my ideals.
Justice the Real End.
Frank Hooper promulgated a platform all can afford to mount and fight upon, when he said, before this case came on for trial:
It is not so much a matter of finding and convincing Leo Frank, as it is a matter of finding and convicting the murderer of little Mary Phagan!
So long as you feel that way about it, you are on safe and solid ground; but once you get away from that standpoint, you begin groping and listening to the persuasive plea of your prejudices and your preconceived opinions, no matter what they may be.
When a man is on trial for his life, you don't have to be FOR or AGAINST him"but you DO have to be in favor of a fair trial for him!
Then, when everything has been done in order and according to the best teachings of a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon civilization, even as imperfect as that yet is, the verdict finally recorded under the law will provide you a sheer anchor against error and wrong, and you then will be as right as human ingenuity and philosophy can make you right.
And after that, you should worry, I guess!
Since the Frank statement was delivered, and notwithstanding the fine
TWO GIRL BRIDES WHO TESTIFIED
IN DEFENSE OF FORMER EMPLOYER
Mrs. W. B. Johnson, who before her marriage was employed at the pencil factory Mrs.
Ida
Miller.
impression it made upon the public, the State has succeeded in recovering a good deal of ground, nevertheless; and it probably is true today that it stands about as firm as it ever did, if not firmer.
It is conceded that the State lost heavily from a legal standpoint when the presiding judge decided on Tuesday not to admit any evidence tending to break down Frank's character in specific instances not directly connected with the murder of little Mary Phagan.
When one comes to consider the matter of public opinion, however, it may be that the defense in this won nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory, at best, and that it might have been better to let the State go ahead and prove what it could, if it could prove anything.
The Solicitor General has said all along that he was prepared to establish his allegations of gross immorality against Frank; and when Frank seemed to meet that challenge by injecting his general character in issue, the public was inclined to applaud and to say that was fair and square enough.
If the State was four-flushing"which Dorsey solemnly affirmed it was not"and the defense appeared to call its hand, the public was honest enough to grant Frank's right to do that, and to approve his dare to the State.
Effect Is Disconcerting.
When, however, the defense is permitted to enter its call, and Dorsey is then shut off on the threshold of his attempt to make good on his position, the effect naturally is somewhat disconcerting, even to those who believe Frank not guilty.
The State stands now in the position of having said unqualifiedly, that it COULD make good its charges, and then, after having been challenged to do so, of being stopped from proceeding!
In all fairness to the State and to the defense, too, for that matter"this seems rather a hardship upon it.
Frank made a brave showing of good character"he seemed to challenge the State to do to worst, if it could. And now the State is shut off, upon the defense's own motion, from undertaking to do THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE HAS VEHEMENTLY PROTESTED I COULD NOT DO.
There is not much difference to see it is having the important thing that the State COULD do good if given an opportunity and help did make good when given the opportunity.
The vital thing and the only thing, so far as public opinion is concerned perhaps is that the defense show that the State NEVER COULD MAKE GOOD IN ANY EVENT.
The court does not does not parrot the introduction of irrelevant evidence that maybe that is right, it is the law anyway"but the public does particularly when it can not see the irrelevancy of the evidence.
The attitude of Frank personally has seemed to be that of inviting the closest and total searching investigation into every phase of the charge against him "but it seems to be said in another article that the most the defense can do for Frank is to let the impression become fixed that that there are some things against which he sadly NEEDS protection.
So far, Leo Frank himself has got the very best plea that has been entered in behalf of Leo Frank!
He has boldly thrown down the gauntlet"and he says he must do instatement in his own way, after h
is own mind, and without even requesting his lawyers.
He delivered his defense there on stand in a most convincing manner. If it was the truth, it was given space by being simply told, and in apparent candor.
If it was an untruth, it was littered with consummate art. Only Frank and his God can know, for sure, whether it is the one or the other!
Willing To Be Cross-Examined.
He was reported willing to be cross-examined on his statement. If he might be thought repairable upon the part of the State but whether the offer actually was made there is the outspoken evidence.
Nevertheless, it probably will do Frank no good in the mind of the public to have it appear that he was professedly willing enough to let down the bars at every point but that for some reason, the bars were prevented from being let down and by Frank's own side!
The defense can not hope to get its cake and have it too"lest one is it can not hope to have worn these things unprotested. It can not just say Frank's character is above reproach and then head on the State in an attempt to prove otherwise.
It can not do that injustice to Frank, I think"and certainly not injustice to the State!
Sometimes things are done under the forms of law that are tactical and strategic mistakes, notwithstanding. There is no complaint as to feel legal righteousness, perhaps, but there may be some complaint as to their illuminating the subject matter in hand.
Perhaps the initial mistake was made when the defense permitted Conley's first unspeakable charge to go unchallenged"when it even cross-examined Conley upon it"but once that mistake was made. It may prove in the end to have been a far better policy to fight it out to the ultimate status along that line.
EFFORT TO PROVE
IMMORALITY
BLOCKED
Important testimony was given late Tuesday by George Kenley, a street car motorman, and M. E. McCoy, a painter, of Bolton both of whom swore they knew Mary Phagan and saw here at about floor on the day of the tragedy. It is the contention of the defense that Mary Phagan did not leave her street car until 12:07 and could not, therefore, have preceded Monteen Stover, who went to Frank's office at 12:05 o'clock, into the factory.
Hadn't Thought It Important.
McCoy said that he saw the girl not more than three or four minutes after 12 as he was walking south of Forsyth street. He testified that it might have been a little earlier than this. He said he had looked at his watch only a short time before.
He admitted on cross-examination that although he had had this information in his possession all of the three and a half months during which the authorities have been searching for some one who saw the girl just before she entered the factory he had not revealed it until about a week and a half ago. He explained that he hadn't thought it of any account.
Kenley, the motorman, declared that he saw Mary Phagan just as she was coming off the viaduct on her way to the pencil factory. He testified that he was on a street car due at that point at about noon and that this was the way he determined the time it was when he saw her. He said on cross-examination that he was not positive that the car he was on was on schedule, but he thought it was.
Attorney Rosser asked him what time Mary Phagan could have arrived in town if she had taken a car at Lindsay street, on which she lived at 11:50. Kenley estimated that if would be 12.10 or 12:05 at the earliest. It has been accepted by both the State and the defense that 11:45 is the approximate time that Mary Phagan left home and 11:50 that she took the car.
Rosser asked Kenley if it was not true that he had made himself a nuisance on his car by his continual vilification of Frank and if he had not on several occasions declared that in the event Frank was freed he would be one of the first to join a lynching party. This witness denied this even though the names of persons to whom he was said to have made his statements were read to him.
Tells of Frank and Mary Phagan.
Will Turner, a 18-year-old lad who formerly worked at the pencil factory testified that he saw Mary Phagan backing away from Frank one day in March when he entered the metal room unexpectedly.
He said that Frank appeared to be trying to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl, who was seeking to evade him and get back to work. Solicitor Dorsey interpreted this alleged circumstance as strongly indicative of Frank's attitude toward the murdered girl and almost conclusive of his acquaintance with her, although he has persistently declared he knew her only as one of the girls in his factory and not by name.
The Solicitor in an address to the court on the admissibility of the boy's evidence announced it as his opinion that Frank's efforts on this occasion to talk to Mary Phagan were the beginning of a series of events which culminated in the crime.
Frank's attorneys represented to the court that the testimony was immaterial as it indicated. If it were true"and they doubted it seriously"nothing more than that Frank was talking to her as he would to any of his employees. There was nothing in the boy's testimony, they said, which went to disprove Frank's declaration that he did not know the girl by name. Judge Roan, after a large amount of argument on both sides, let the testimony go in.
Decisive Defeat for State.
The day was marked by one of the most decisive and important defeats that the State has suffered since the beginning of the trial. Solicitor Dorsey started his threatened attack upon the character of Frank as soon as the defense rested early in the forenoon session, but he had barely asked the first question that gave promise of sensational testimony before he was stopped by a sharp objection by the defense and a few minutes later by the decision of Judge Roan that this sort of testimony should be excluded.
Dorsey had a number of witnesses on hand who were to testify to particular acts of alleged immorality on the part of Frank. By the judge's ruling none of them will be permitted to tell of the grossly improper conduct with which the young superintendent is charged by the State.
Every effort of the Solicitor along this line collapsed throughout the day. In the afternoon he called Miss Nellie Wood, who testified to the Coroner's inquest. She was expected to tell, said the Solicitor in his address to the court, of improper advanced made to her by Frank. She was prevented from testifying in this respect, the attitude of the court being that Frank was being tried on the charge of murder and not for any other act.
The Solicitor was unable even to get from the witness the general assertion that Frank's character was bad.
PAGE 11
GIRLS SWEAR FRANK'S CHARACTER IS BAD
Defense Refuses to Question Witnesses
LEO FRANK'S MOTHER
ON HER WAY TO COURT
MRS. REA FRANK.
EXPERTS CALLED BY
STATE CORROBORATE
HARRIS' TESTIMONY
Miss Myrtice Cato, for three years and a half an employee of the National Pencil Factory, was the first of a number of witnesses called by this State Wednesday to testify against Leo Frank's character. She swore Frank's character was bad.
Miss Maggie Griffin was the second. She made the same declaration. She was asked if she knew of Frank's relations with women. She said she did. Attorney Rosser objected and the jury was excused.
Solicitor Dorsey, successful in his endeavor to re-open the question of the time Mary Phagan met her death as judged by the condition of the food found in her stomach, gathered a brilliant array of stomach and intestinal specialists Wednesday to lead in an onslaught against the testimony of the experts called by the lawyers for Leo Frank.
Dr. George M. Niles, who holds the chair of gastro-enterology at the Atlanta Medical College, swore that digestion could not have progressed more than an hour under the conditions described. He was quite positive digestion had progressed less than an hour.
Dr. John Funke, professor of pathology and
bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College, testified that he had been shown sections of the organs of Mary Phagan by Dr. Harris, a circumstance which had not been made known until this point in the trial. The defense had made his experiments and analysis in secret and had consulted no other expert.
Dr. George M. Niles, who holds the chair of gastro-enterology at the Atlanta Medical College, swore that digestion could not have progressed more than an hour under the conditions described. He was quite positive digestion had progressed less than an hour.
Dr. John Funke, professor of pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College, testified that he had been shown sections of the organs of Mary Phagan by Dr. Harris, a circumstance which had not been made known until this point in the trial. The defense had made his experiments and analysis in secret and had consulted no other expert.
Dr. Funke later admitted that he had not made the examination until about a week ago after the charges had been and he had been asked by Dr. R. T. Dorsey, brother of the Solicitor, to inspect the specimens.
This expert corroborated Dr. Harris in his declaration that Mary Phagan was a victim of criminal violence, but he fell somewhat short of substantiating Harris on the time the cabbage had been in the stomach before the digestive processes had been stopped by death.
Being pressed for a definite answer on this point, he said:
One can not say positively, but it is reasonable to assume that digestion probably had progressed an hour, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.
Dr. Johnson was extremely cautious in his answers. He dictated his replies slowly and studiedly to the court stenographer and picked his words and phrases most carefully.
He said first in reply to questions by the Solicitor that it was his scientific opinion that the digestion of the cabbage and bread in Mary Phagan's stomach had stopped within an hour after they were eaten. Attorney Arnold, however, got the expert to change his answer to within an hour after digestion had begun, forcing Dr. Johnson to admit that the beginning of digestion many times is delayed by poor mastication or overdilution of the gastric fluids. The witness would not undertake to say how long it was before the first processes of actual digestion had begun in the case of Mary Phagan.
Much surprise was occasioned when it was learned that Jim Conley had been brought to the courthouse at the command of Solicitor Dorsey. It was rumored that he would go on the stand, but Solicitor Dorsey insisted that he had him brought over merely to have him identified by persons who could swear to his good character.
A lively argument over the State's proposal to call three or four prominent physicians to controvert the testimony of the defense's medical experts marked the opening of the Frank trial Wednesday.
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold vigorously fought the introduction of witnesses for this purpose in the State's rebuttal. Solicitor Dorsey maintained he had a perfect right to develop as much testimony along this line as he wished.
The defense took the attitude that all of their medical experts were called only for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, who will go down in the history of the Phagan case as the witness who professed to determine the time that intervened between the time that Mary Phagan left home and the time she was killed by the condition Umme she was killed by the condition of some undigested cabbage in her stomach.
Attorney Arnold argued that if the State had wished to obtain the testimony of other medical experts to corroborate the statements of Dr. Harris, they should have been called in the original presentation of the
PAGE 12
DORSEY FIGHTS HARD TO BOLSTER UP DR. HARRIS EVIDENCE
Calling of More Medical Experts by State Materially Lengthens Frank Trial
MARY PHAGAN VICTIM OF
CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, SAYS
DR. JOHNSON ON STAND
Continued from Page 1.
State's case instead of in the rebuttal.
He said that the defense had not attempted to cover any new points through the physicians they had on the stand and that these experts were questioned solely with the purpose in view of discrediting Dr. Harris.
Endless Process
Seen by Arnold.
If this is to be allowed, said Arnold, it will mean that it is to be simply an endless process. I never heard of such a thing before. If Mr. Dorsey is permitted to call all the medical experts he wishes to bolster up the testimony of Dr. Harris, I shall call back all of the experts we had on the stand.
The argument had its beginning late Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, was called to the stand just before adjournment. Rosser and Arnold entered their objections the instant that Solicitor Dorsey began questioning the witness along the same line that he had questioned Dr. Harris when the State presented its case against the defendant.
I just want to question this man in rebuttal of the defense's witnesses, insisted the Solicitor. They testified that Dr. Harris was making a wild and reckless guess when he declared that Mary Phagan was killed within three-quarters of an hour after she ate and left home. I want to prove by Dr. Johnson and the other experts that I will call that this declaration of Dr. Harris was base don scientific principles that are well known to the physicians who specialize along those particular lines.
The Solicitor said that he had plenty of authorities to uphold him in his stand on the admissibility of the testimony in rebuttal and asked the judge to adjourn until Wednesday morning so that he might have time to look them up. The Solicitor got Dr. Johnson to buy before he left the stand that Dr. Harris was premising his statement upon substantial physiological principles and that it was in no sense a wild guess. It was the plan to recall Dr. Johnson to the stand again as soon as court opened Wednesday.
Expert Permitted to
Answer State's Query.
Dr. Clarence Johnson was called the Solicitor Dorsey resumed his argument on the admissibility of evidence supporting Dr. H. F. Harris.
I have this authority, said Dorsey. It has been the well-recognized practice to follow this course. I have not been able to put my hand on a specific authority, though I have looked for it for some time. However, I think your honor will recall that it is the uniform practice to allow the State to make out a prime facie case and go into the whole thing later. It is within the discretion of the court to allow a case to be reopened even after the State and the defense have rested.
What I want to know is, said Judge Roan, If you want to reopen this whole case.
I have a right to do that, said Dorsey.
Where would this thing end? asked the judge. They would have the right to rebut.
Of course the court would not allow anything absurd.
What is more absurd, asked Arnold, than for the State to bolster up it's testimony after the matter is closed? I know some judges who have been elevated from the office of Solicitor General who would allow the State to bring in anything on rebuttal. If this is to be reopened, we are going to ask to be allowed to bring our experts to go over the rebuttal. If Dr. Harris' testimony needs bolstering, he should have put up the doctors at first.
As a matter of right, said Judge Roan, you (Dorsey) have not any. As a matter of discretion of the court you have. I will exercise that discretion in your favor, Mr. Dorsey. You may go on with the question.
Girl Died Within Hour
After Eating Cabbage.
Solicitor Dorsey had the court stenographer read the hypothetical question about the length of time the cabbage Mary Phagan ate had been in her stomach and whether a doctor could determine anything definite about the time of death or whether it would be a wild guess.
The answer was:
To answer that question under the pain I have ta
ken I would have to know whether the pathologist was thoroughly capable and employed the most modern scientific methods.
Q. Well, assume that he was, doctor?"A. If a capable pathological found there was only combined hydrochloric acid with due consideration of other conditions as possible factors. I would express in my opinion scientifically that the digestion of the bread and the cabbage was stopped within one hour after eating.
The witness the addressed the court:
Your honor, I would like to have my answer read to me by the stenographer. The request was granted.
Q. Is every stomach a law unto itself?"A. No.
Arnold took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What are some of the other possible factors?"A. I didn't say that.
Q. What did they say then?"A. I said there were probably factors in the cut of the bead and strangulation.
Q. Well, how would that affect digestion?"A. Anything that disturbs the circulation of the blood would affect digestion.
Q. What did you mean by mechanical conditions?"A. The thickness of the stomach, the size and the general appearance.
Q. Do you consider the color test reliable?"A. Yes.
Q. It depends entirely on the eye of the man?"A. Not exactly.
Q. If a man were color blind would it affect the test?"A. Why, of course.
Says Digestive Juices
Disappear After Death.
Q. Now this acid has an ascending and descending scale, hasn't it?"A. Yea.
Q. What is the highest degree of activity?"A. Do you want my experience?
Q. No, the science."A. I think it varies from 30 to 40.
Q. What becomes of the pancreatic juices of the stomach after death?"A. There are no pancreatic juices of the stomach. They are in the intestines.
Q. Well, what becomes of them after death?"A. They would lose the chemical property in time, but the physical pancreatic juice would remain.
Q. What becomes of free hydrochloric acid after death?"A. When the stomach disintegrates it disappears.
Q. But tell me, doctor, what becomes of the free hydrochloric acid after death regardless of time?"A. It eventually disappears.
Q. What delays the beginning of the digestive process?"A. If mastication was not good, or rather very bad, it would be delayed.
Q. Would walking delay it?"A. Not unless it was a tiring walk.
Q. Well, when you answered Mr. Dorsey's question, you only meant one hour from the time digestion started and not how long it had been in the stomach?"A. Yes.
Q. You said, as I remember it, that digestion began within an hour and was arrested?"A. I prefer to have my answer read.
Q. The stenographer is taking every word you are saying. He will do you justice"A. It is not justice for myself I want. I want to do justice to all.
Yes, I know that, said Arnold, and, continuing:
Q. Could you tell by looking at that cabbage how long digestion had been delayed?"A. In my laboratory I could tell exactly. Here it would only be an estimate.
Witness Declines to
Guess at Anything.
Q. You mean a guess?"A. I don't guess at anything.
Q. You never made any test on Mary Phagan's stomach?"A. No.
Q. You are simply testifying what possibly might have been done?"A. I am simply testifying to scientific truth.
The witness was excused and Dr. G. M. Niles, another stomach and intestinal specialist, and a professor at the Atlanta Medical College, and also author of a book on pellagra, was summoned. Dorsey questioned him?
Q. Does science recognize that every stomach is a law unto itself?"A. Every healthy normal stomach has certain fundamental relations to all other healthy normal stomachs.
In answer to the hypothetical question embracing the case of Mary Phagan. Dr. Niles answered: In the orderly process of the course of digestion, there should be purse hydrochloric acid in the course of on hour. I am answering my question regard to any psychic or physical shock. I am not going so much by the appearance of the cabbage as the statements of the results of the laboratory tests.
Q. What have you to say about variations of diseased stomachs? "
A. There are wide variations. Stomachs have idiosyncrasies, but where they are very marked I would not call them normal.
Q. There is nothing that differs as much as individual digestion, is there?"A. I would say that a man's temperamental view of life differs more than that.
Q. How long does it take cabbage to digest?"A. I can not answer that question absolutely.
Q. Don't you know what the books say"from four to four and one-half hours?"A. I can not answer that specifically.
Q. What is the longest time you have known cabbage to remain in a
DORSEY IN ACTION IN
CLASH OVER EVIDENCE
SOLICITOR HUGH DORSEY
fairly normal stomach?"A. Four or five hours.
Q. You found it there in a normal stomach five hours, haven't you?"A. The remains of it.
Q. Is starch one of the carbohydrates?"A. Yes.
Q. Then cabbage is a carbohydrate?"A. Yes.
Cabbage Had Not Been
In Stomach Three Hours.
Q. Then the digestion should begin in the mouth?"A. That is the preliminary mechanical process.
Q. Well then, in a normal stomach, if the cabbage were not well masticated it would be there some time before the stomach started work, wouldn't it?"A. No, I would say the stomach got busy immediately.
Q. You would not say how long that cabbage was in that little girl's stomach, would you?"A. I would not.
Q. Now, look at that cabbage and tell me whether it might not have been there three hours or more.
Dr. Niles looked at the cabbage several minutes and said: No, if it had been in the stomach three hours, it would have been more pulverized.
Q. Now, if this little girl ate that cabbage bolted it down in a hurry to get to town and see the parade, would you say that the circumstance delayed digestion?"A. Well, if she was hungry and took any pleasure in eating the metal, the mastication or lack of it would not make any great difference.
Q. Then mastication does not make any great difference?"A. It certainly does.
Q. Did you make any examination of the stomach?"A. No.
Q. You made none of the tests?"A. No.
Q. Do you know that the doctor who made the examination did not save any of the contents of the stomach?"A. I read it.
Q. Did you know that he did not call any physician in to help him?"A. Yes.
Q. That he did not divulge any of the findings until he came here?"A. Yes.
Q. That he kept those findings secret?"A. Yes.
Q. That we only have his plain unsupported statement?"A. Yes.
Dr. Harris Not Guilty
Of Breach of Ethics.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. Is there any setting of ethics that prohibits those things?"A. I never heard of it.
The witness was excused and Dr. John Funke, who holds the chair pathology and bacteriology at the Atlanta Medical College where he graduated twelve years ago, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him concerning an examination made of Mary Phagan's body, and then pronounced his usual hypothetical question about the cabbage. A. About the cabbage, I would not like to say positively that with the conditions found in the laboratory test taken into consideration, that the first six feet of the small intestines were clear, and if there was found 32 degrees of combined hydrochloric acid. I would say the cabbage had been there an hour, maybe a little more or less.
Arnold took the witness.
Q. When did Dr. Harris come to you in regard to this examination?"A. He didn't come to me. I was asked to look into it last Saturday.
Q. Who asked you?"A. Dr. Dorsey, the brother of the Solicitor.
The witness was excused and Dorsey tendered a telegram from Leo M. Frank to Adolf Montag, in New York, on April 28, as evidence. This telegram read:
Atlanta, Georgia, April 28, 1913. Adolph Montag, Imperial Hotel, New York. You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory. Police will eventually solve it. A
ssure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. LEO M. Frank.
O. M. Battie, manager of the Postal Telegraph Company was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Up to April 29 did either Frank or the National Pencil Company do business with you?"A. I could not say.
Q. Did Frank send a telegram through your company on April 26?"A. I have one dated April 28.
I made a mistake, said Dorsey, It was April 28. It was received April 29. I just got him up because he said he could not divulge anything except in court. The witness was excused.
W. G. Peeples of the Western Union Telegraph Company, was called.
Q. Did the Western Union Telegraph Company have any telegrams sent by Leo M. Frank on April 26, 27, or 28?"A. Yes.
Q. Did your company have any on the dates covered by the subpoena duces tecum?"A. Yes.
Q. Let me have them.
Dorsey looked at the telegrams and said:
Your honor, these are not signed by Frank and I don't care to Introduce them.
Girl Says Frank's
Character Is Bad.
Miss Myrtice Cato was the next witness called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Are acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank?"A. I am.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Company?"A. I did.
Q. When?"A. For about three and one-half years up to April 28, 1913.
Q. On what floor did you work?"A. Fourth.
Dorsey turned to Rosser.
She is with you, he said coolly.
Come down, said Rosser.
Miss Maggie Griffin was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Were you acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank prior to April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Was it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Q. Did you work at the National Pencil Factory?"A. Yes, for two months.
Q. On what floor?"A. Fourth
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Where did you work?"Dorsey interrupted to say: I haven't finished. I have another question yet.
Q. Are you acquainted with Frank's character for lasciviousness?"That is his conduct toward women? I don't want you to answer until the judge rules. Your honor, doesn't the fact that he denies certain charges make my question admissible?
Rosser: Let the jury retire if he is going to argue this, but your honor has already ruled.
The jury left the room.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, give me some authority on that.
Dorsey: We don't need any authority for that. The defendant's own statement makes it admissible.
Dorsey looked on his table for a copy of Frank's statement, but did not find it. He continued addressing the court:
While this jury is out I want to say that I want to put up a witness who will say she saw Frank go in the dressing room on the fourth floor with a woman.
Rosser: You have already ruled on that.
Dorsey: This is a specific instance to rebut and impeach the statement of the girls on the fourth floor. We want to show that he went into that dressing room with a forelady.
Judge Roan: You can show his general character for lasciviousness. I don't know about the other. You will probably have to call the woman and put the question to her and then bark to impeach her.
The jury was called back.
PAGE 13
OBJECTION TO CHARACTER
ATTACK PUTS DEFENSE
IN ANOMALOUS POSITION
By JAMES B. NEVIN
The public, that is to say that section of the public willing to be fair and wanting to be convinced according to the facts, should remember, in seeking to steady itself in considering the Frank case that as the story of Jim Conley was the climax of the State's case, so the statement of Leo Frank was the climax of the defense's case.
It should remember that both statements are to be weighed carefully and analytically"that conclusions are to be jumped at from neither.
The horror of the Conley story, coupled with its unspeakable details, temporarily swept the public mind into a seeming solidity of opinion hostile to Frank"it carried instant conviction to hundreds of minds, through the sheer force of the sinister detail it contained.
By and by, however, the public mind rebounded in a way, and it began taking counsel with itself. And then came a pause, followed by a swing back more or less to the normal.
That is the way it is with the public mind"always wanting to be just and always sure to be just, if given time and opportunity, yet prone ever to be rushed along heedlessly in the beginning of terrible stories!
It is the immediate horror of the crime that not infrequently distorts the public's sense of proportion primarily, and makes it unfair to itself no less than to other persons concerned.
But the public in the end is just, and it is true to itself. All it asks"or all it needs"is a chance to regain its balance, after having been knocked this way or that by a stunning and unanticipated blow it was not able to ward off when delivered.
Leo Frank's remarkable statement to the jury Monday, certainly one of the most convincing statements, so far as surface indications go, that ever fell from the lips of a defendant in Georgia, still is not sufficient, and should not be sufficient, within itself to warrant the public now in rushing to the conclusion that he is innocent.
Pendulum Will Come to Rest.
And so, as in the case of Conley, while the sentiment of the public swung heavily in the direction of the State following the Conley story, and then swung back in the direction of the defense following the Frank statement, it eventually will right itself somewhere midway between the two, perhaps, and then look to the rest of the evidence as fitting the one or the other.
A woman correspondent writes me:
I have read your articles daily. Tell me, truly, are you for Frank or against him? I can not tell from what you say.
Now, in a way, I consider that something of a compliment. I am glad this correspondent does not know whether I am for or against Frank, for I am neither the one nor the other.
I merely visit the courtroom daily, and gather me a nosegay of other men's flowers; and naught but the string that binds them is mine own!
When the storm signals have seemed fair for Frank, I have to set it down. When they have seemed ominous, I have to set that down.
In all the ideas and conclusions I have transferred to paper in respect of the Frank trial, the wish never has been father to the thought"save in that I always have preferred, and always shall prefer, to see a man prove himself a gentleman rather than a scoundrel, if he can.
What I do hope to stand for, and try to stand for, and what none of us can afford NOT to stand for, is justice and right, fair play and no special favors, decency and civilization, and the supremacy of the law of the land!
I assure my correspondent that I am neither for nor against Frank, but that I am for truth and right, and in my own way and after my own fashion I undertake to stand by my ideals.
Justice the Real End.
Frank Hooper promulgated a platform all can afford to mount and fight upon, when he said, before this case came on for trial:
It is not so much a matter of finding and convincing Leo Frank, as it is a matter of finding and convicting the murderer of little Mary Phagan!
So long as you feel that way about it, you are on safe and solid ground; but once you get away from that standpoint, you begin groping and listening to the persuasive plea of your prejudices and your preconceived opinions, no matter what they may be.
When a man is on trial for his life, you don't have to be FOR or AGAINST him"but you DO have to be in favor of a fair trial for him!
Then, when everything has been done in order and according to the best teachings of a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon civilization, even as imperfect as that yet is, the verdict finally recorded under the law will provide you a sheer anchor against error and wrong, and you then will be as right as human ingenuity and philosophy can make you right.
And
after that, you should worry, I guess!
Since the Frank statement was delivered, and notwithstanding the fine TWO GIRL BRIDES WHO TESTIFIED
IN DEFENSE OF FORMER EMPLOYER
Mrs. W. B. Johnson, who before her marriage was employed at the pencil factory Mrs.
Ida
Miller.
impression it made upon the public, the State has succeeded in recovering a good deal of ground, nevertheless; and it probably is true today that it stands about as firm as it ever did, if not firmer.
It is conceded that the State lost heavily from a legal standpoint when the presiding judge decided on Tuesday not to admit any evidence tending to break down Frank's character in specific instances not directly connected with the murder of little Mary Phagan.
When one comes to consider the matter of public opinion, however, it may be that the defense in this won nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory, at best, and that it might have been better to let the State go ahead and prove what it could, if it could prove anything.
The Solicitor General has said all along that he was prepared to establish his allegations of gross immorality against Frank; and when Frank seemed to meet that challenge by injecting his general character in issue, the public was inclined to applaud and to say that was fair and square enough.
If the State was f
our-flushing"which Dorsey solemnly affirmed it was not"and the defense appeared to call its hand, the public was honest enough to grant Frank's right to do that, and to approve his dare to the State.
Effect Is Disconcerting.
When, however, the defense is permitted to enter its call, and Dorsey is then shut off on the threshold of his attempt to make good on his position, the effect naturally is somewhat disconcerting, even to those who believe Frank not guilty.
The State stands now in the position of having said unqualifiedly, that it COULD make good its charges, and then, after having been challenged to do so, of being stopped from proceeding!
In all fairness to the State and to the defense, too, for that matter"this seems rather a hardship upon it.
Frank made a brave showing of good character"he seemed to challenge the State to do to worst, if it could. And now the State is shut off, upon the defense's own motion, from undertaking to do THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE HAS VEHEMENTLY PROTESTED I COULD NOT DO.
There is not much difference to see it is having the important thing that the State COULD do good if given an opportunity and help did make good when given the opportunity.
The vital thing and the only thing, so far as public opinion is concerned perhaps is that the defense show that the State NEVER COULD MAKE GOOD IN ANY EVENT.
The court does not does not parrot the introduction of irrelevant evidence that maybe that is right, it is the law anyway"but the public does particularly when it can not see the irrelevancy of the evidence.
The attitude of Frank personally has seemed to be that of inviting the closest and total searching investigation into every phase of the charge against him "but it seems to be said in another article that the most the defense can do for Frank is to let the impression become fixed that that there are some things against which he sadly NEEDS protection.
So far, Leo Frank himself has got the very best plea that has been entered in behalf of Leo Frank!
He has boldly thrown down the gauntlet"and he says he must do instatement in his own way, after his own mind, and without even requesting his lawyers.
He delivered his defense there on stand in a most convincing manner. If it was the truth, it was given space by being simply told, and in apparent candor.
If it was an untruth, it was littered with consummate art. Only Frank and his God can know, for sure, whether it is the one or the other!
Willing To Be Cross-Examined.
He was reported willing to be cross-examined on his statement. If he might be thought repairable upon the part of the State but whether the offer actually was made there is the outspoken evidence.
Nevertheless, it probably will do Frank no good in the mind of the public to have it appear that he was professedly willing enough to let down the bars at every point but that for some reason, the bars were prevented from being let down and by Frank's own side!
The defense can not hope to get its cake and have it too"lest one is it can not hope to have worn these things unprotested. It can not just say Frank's character is above reproach and then head on the State in an attempt to prove otherwise.
It can not do that injustice to Frank, I think"and certainly not injustice to the State!
Sometimes things are done udner the forms of law that are tactical and strategic mistakes, notwithstanding. There is no complaint as to feel legal righteousness, perhaps, but there may be some complaint as to their illuminating the subject matter in hand.
Perhaps the initial mistake was made when the defense permitted Conley's first unspeakable charge to go unchallenged"when it even cross-examined Conley upon it. It may seem in the end to have been a far better policy to fight it out to the ultimate status along that line.
EFFORT TO PROVE
IMMORALITY
BLOCKED
Important testimony was given late Tuesday by George Kenley, a street car motorman, and M. E. McCoy, a painter, of Bolton both of whom swore they knew Mary Phagan and saw here at about floor on the day of the tragedy. It is the contention of the defense that Mary Phagan did not leave her street car until 12:07 and could not, therefore, have preceded Monteen Stover, who went to Frank's office at 12:05 o'clock, into the factory.
Hadn't Thought It Important.
McCoy said that he saw the girl not more than three or four minutes after 12 as he was walking south of Forsyth street. He testified that it might have been a little earlier than this. He said he had looked at his watch only a short time before.
He admitted on cross-examination that although he had had this information in his possession all of the three and a half months during which the authorities have been searching for some one who saw the girl just before she entered the factory he had not revealed it until about a week and a half ago. He explained that he hadn't thought it of any account.
Kenley, the motorman, declared that he saw Mary Phagan just as she was coming off the viaduct on her way to the pencil factory. He testified that he was on a street car due at that point at about noon and that this was the way he determined the time it was when he saw her. He said on cross-examination that he was not positive that the car he was on was on schedule, but he thought it was.
Attorney Rosser asked him what time Mary Phagan could have arrived in town if she had taken a car at Lindsay street, on which she lived at 11:50. Kenley estimated that if would be 12.10 or 12:05 at the earliest. It has been accepted by both the State and the defense that 11:45 is the approximate time that Mary Phagan left home and 11:50 that she took the car.
Rosser asked Kenley if it was not true that he had made himself a nuisance on his car by his continual vilification of Frank and if he had not on several occasions declared that in the event Frank was freed he would be one of the first to join a lynching party. This witness denied this even though the names of persons to whom he was said to have made his statements were read to him.
Tells of Frank and Mary Phagan.
Will Turner, a 18-year-old lad who formerly worked at the pencil factory testified that he saw Mary Phagan backing away from Frank one day in March when he entered the metal room unexpectedly.
He said that Frank appeared to be trying to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl, who was seeking to evade him and get back to work. Solicitor Dorsey interpreted this alleged circumstance as strongly indicative of Frank's attitude toward the murdered girl and almost conclusive of his acquaintance with her, although he has persistently declared he k
new her only as one of the girls in his factory and not by name.
The Solicitor in an address to the court on the admissibility of the boy's evidence announced it as his opinion that Frank's efforts on this occasion to talk to Mary Phagan were the beginning of a series of events which culminated in the crime.
Frank's attorneys represented to the court that the testimony was immaterial as it indicated. If it were true"and they doubted it seriously"nothing more than that Frank was talking to her as he would to any of his employees. There was nothing in the boy's testimony, they said, which went to disprove Frank's declaration that he did not know the girl by name. Judge Roan, after a large amount of argument on both sides, let the testimony go in.
Decisive Defeat for State.
The day was marked by one of the most decisive and important defeats that the State has suffered since the beginning of the trial. Solicitor Dorsey started his threatened attack upon the character of Frank as soon as the defense rested early in the forenoon session, but he had barely asked the first question that gave promise of sensational testimony before he was stopped by a sharp objection by the defense and a few minutes later by the decision of Judge Roan that this sort of testimony should be excluded.
Dorsey had a number of witnesses on hand who were to testify to particular acts of alleged immorality on the part of Frank. By the judge's ruling none of them will be permitted to tell of the grossly improper conduct with which the young superintendent is charged by the State.
Every effort of the Solicitor along this line collapsed throughout the day. In the afternoon he called Miss Nellie Wood, who testified to the Coroner's inquest. She was expected to tell, said the Solicitor in his address to the court, of improper advanced made to her by Frank. She was prevented from testifying in this respect, the attitude of the court being that Frank was being tried on the charge of murder and not for any other act.
The Solicitor was unable even to get from the witness the general assertion that Frank's character was bad. She declared she did not know his general character, as she had been at the factory only two days. Dorsey claimed that he had been misled and trapped.
George Gordon, who figured as the mysteriously silent attorney for Minola McKnight, the negro cook at the Selig home, when she was locked up for the purpose of getting from her an affidavit against Frank, testified that he was not present when she put her signature to the document. He said that Dorsey would not order her release for fear of getting in bad with the detectives. He charged that she was held illegally and without a warrant.
PAGE 14
CLASH OVER EXPERT EVIDENCE
TWO GIRL BRIDES WHO TESTIFIED
IN DEFENSE OF FORMER EMPLOYER
Mrs. W. B. Johnson, who before her marriage was employed at the pencil factory Mrs.
Ida
Miller.
DORSEY BATTLES TO
HAVE DOCTORS PROVE
TESTIMONY OF HARRIS
By a ruling of Judge Roan Wednesday permitting the State to bolster up Dr. H. F. Harris expert testimony the Frank that was lengthened considerably. Attorney Reuben Arnold declared that if the State were permitted to go over that evidence again the defense would insist that they be allowed to call their experts to sur-rebuttal.
A lively argument over the State's proposal to call three or four prominent physicians to controvert the testimony of the defense's medical experts marked the opening of the Frank trial Wednesday.
Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold vigorously fought the introduction of witnesses for this purpose in the State's rebuttal. Solicitor Dorsey maintained he had a perfect right to develop as much testimony along this line as he wished.
The defense took the attitude that all of their medical experts were called only for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, who will go down in the history of the Phagan case as the witness who professed to determine the time that intervened between the time that Mary Phagan left home and the time she was killed by the condition Umme she was killed by the condition of some undigested cabbage in her stomach.
Attorney Arnold argued that if the State had wished to obtain the testimony of other medical experts to corroborate the statements of Dr. Harris, they should have been called in the original presentation of the State's case instead of in the rebuttal.
He said that the defense had not attempted to cover any new points through the physicians they had on the stand and that these experts were questioned solely with the purpose in view of discrediting Dr. Harris.
Endless Process
Seen by Arnold.
If this is to be allowed, said Arnold, it will mean that it is to be simply an endless process. I never heard of such a thing before. If Mr. Dorsey is permitted to call all the medical experts he wishes to bolster up the testimony of Dr. Harris, I shall call back all of the experts we had on the stand.
The argument had its beginning late Tuesday afternoon when Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known Atlanta specialist, was called to the stand just before adjournment. Rosser and Arnold entered their objections the instant that Solicitor Dorsey began questioning the witness along the same line that he had questioned Dr. Harris when the State presented its case against the defendant.
I just want to question this man in rebuttal of the defense's witnesses, insisted the Solicitor. They testified that Dr. Harris was making a wild and reckless guess when he declared that Mary Phagan was killed within three-quarters of an hour after she ate and left home. I want to prove by Dr. Johnson and the other experts that I will call that this declaration of Dr. Harris was base don scientific principles that are well known to the physicians who specialize along those particular lines.
The Solicitor said that he had plenty of authorities to uphold him in his stand on the admissibility of the testimony in rebuttal and asked the judge to adjourn until Wednesday morning so that he might have time to look them up. The Solicitor got Dr. Johnson to buy before he left the stand that Dr. Harris was premising his statement upon substantial physiological principles and that it was in no sense a wild guess. It was the plan to recall Dr. Johnson to the stand again as soon as court opened Wednesday.
Important testimony was given late Tuesday by George Kenley, a street car motorman, and M. E. McCoy, a painter, of Bolton both of whom swore they knew Mary Phagan and saw here at about floor on the day of the tragedy. It is the contention of
PAGE 15
COURT BLOCKS EFFORT
TO PROVE IMMORALITY
Continued from Page 1.
the defense that Mary Phagan did not leave her street car until 12:07 and could not, therefore, have preceded Monteen Stover, who went to Frank's office at 12:05 o'clock, into the factory.
Hadn't Considered
Evidence Important.
McCoy said that he saw the girl not more than three or four minutes after 12 as he was walking south of Forsyth street. He testified that it might have been a little earlier than this. He said he had looked at his watch only a short time before.
He admitted on cross-examination that although he had had this information in his possession all of the three and a half months during which the authorities have been searching for some one who saw the girl just before she entered the factory he had not revealed it until about a week and a half ago. He explained that he hadn't thought it of any account.
Kenley, the motorman, declared that he saw Mary Phagan just as she was coming off the viaduct on her way to the pencil factory. He testified that he was on a street car due at that point at about noon and that this was the way he determined the time it was when he saw her. He said on cross-examination that he was not positive that the car he was on was on schedule, but he thought it was.
Attorney Rosser aske
d him what time Mary Phagan could have arrived in town if she had taken a car at Lindsay street, on which she lived at 11:50. Kenley estimated that if would be 12.10 or 12:05 at the earliest. It has been accepted by both the State and the defense that 11:45 is the approximate time that Mary Phagan left home and 11:50 that she took the car.
Rosser asked Kenley if it was not true that he had made himself a nuisance on his car by his continual vilification of Frank and if he had not on several occasions declared that in the event Frank was freed he would be one of the first to join a lynching party. This witness denied this even though the names of persons to whom he was said to have made his statements were read to him.
Meeting Mary Phagan
Boys Tell of Frank.
Will Turner, a 18-year-old lad who formerly worked at the pencil factory testified that he saw Mary Phagan backing away from Frank one day in March when he entered the metal room unexpectedly.
He said that Frank appeared to be trying to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl, who was seeking to evade him and get back to work. Solicitor Dorsey interpreted this alleged circumstance as strongly indicative of Frank's attitude toward the murdered girl and almost conclusive of his acquaintance with her, although he has persistently declared he knew her only as one of the girls in his factory and not by name.
The Solicitor in an address to the court on the admissibility of the boy's evidence announced it as his opinion that Frank's efforts on this occasion to talk to Mary Phagan were the beginning of a series of events which culminated in the crime.
Frank's attorneys represented to the court that the testimony was immaterial as it indicated. If it were true"and they doubted it seriously"nothing more than that Frank was talking to her as he would to any of his employees. There was nothing in the boy's testimony, they said, which went to disprove Frank's declaration that he did not know the girl by name. Judge Roan, after a large amount of argument on both sides, let the testimony go in.
The day was marked by one of the most decisive and important defeats that the State has suffered since the beginning of the trial. Solicitor Dorsey started his threatened attack upon the character of Frank as soon as the defense rested early in the forenoon session, but he had barely asked the first question that gave promise of sensational testimony before he was stopped by a sharp objection by the defense and a few minutes later by the decision of Judge Roan that this sort of testimony should be excluded.
Dorsey had a number of witnesses on hand who were to testify to particular acts of alleged immorality on the part of Frank. By the judge's ruling none of them will be permitted to tell of the grossly improper conduct with which the young superintendent is charged by the State.
Every effort of the Solicitor along this line collapsed throughout the day. In the afternoon he called Miss Nellie Wood, who testified to the Coroner's inquest. She was expected to tell, said the Solicitor in his address to the court, of improper advanced made to her by Frank. She was prevented from testifying in this respect, the attitude of the court being that Frank was being tried on the charge of murder and not for any other act.
The Solicitor was unable even to get from the witness the general assertion that Frank's character was bad. She declared she did not know his general character, as she had been at the factory only two days. Dorsey claimed that he had been misled and trapped.
George Gordon, who figured as the mysteriously silent attorney for Minola McKnight, the negro cook at the Selig home, when she was locked up for the purpose of getting from her an affidavit against Frank, testified that he was not present when she put her signature to the document. He said that Dorsey would not order her release for fear of getting in bad with the detectives. He charged that she was held illegally and without a warrant.
TWO GIRL BRIDES WHO TESTIFIED
IN DEFENSE OF FORMER EMPLOYER
Mrs. W. B. Johnson, who before her marriage was employed at the pencil factory Mrs.
Ida
Miller.
PAGE 16
OBJECTION TO CHARACTER
ATTACK PUTS DEFENSE
IN ANOMALOUS POSITION
By JAMES B. NEVIN
The public, that is to say that section of the public willing to be fair and wanting to be convinced according to the facts, should remember, in seeking to steady itself in considering the Frank case that as the story of Jim Conley was the climax of the State's case, so the statement of Leo Frank was the climax of the defense's case.
It should remember that both statements are to be weighed carefully and analytically"that conclusions are to be jumped at from neither.
The horror of the Conley story, coupled with its unspeakable details, temporarily swept the public mind into a seeming solidity of opinion hostile to Frank"it carried instant conviction to hundreds of minds, through the sheer force of the sinister detail it contained.
By and by, however, the public mind rebounded in a way, and it began taking counsel with itself. And then came a pause, followed by a swing back more or less to the normal.
That is the way it is with the public mind"always wanting to be just, and always sure to be just, if given time and opportunity, yet prone ever to be rushed along heedlessly in the beginning of terrible stories!
It is the immediate horror of the crime that not infrequently distorts the public's sense of proportion primarily, and makes it unfair to itself no less than to other persons concerned.
But the public in the end is just, and it is true to itself. All it asks"or all it needs"is a chance to regain its balance, after having been knocked this way or that by a stunning and unanticipated blow it was not able to ward off when delivered.
Leo Frank's remarkable statement to the jury Monday, certainly one of the most convincing statements, so far as surface indications go, that ever fell from the lips of a defendant in Georgia, still is not sufficient, and should not be sufficient, within itself to warrant the public now in rushing to the conclusion that he is innocent.
Pendulum Will Come to Rest.
And so, as in the case of Conley, while the sentiment of the public swung heavily in the direction of the State following the Conley story, and then swung back in the direction of the defense following the Frank statement, it eventually will right itself somewhere midway between the two, perhaps, and then look to the rest of the evidence as fitting the one or the other.
A woman correspondent writes me:
I have read your articles daily. Tell me, truly, are you for Frank or against him? I can not tell from what you say.
Now, in a way, I consider that something of a compliment. I am glad this correspondent does not know whether I am for or against Frank, for I am neither the one nor the other.
I merely visit the courtroom daily, and gather me a nosegay of other men's flowers; and naught but the string that binds them is mine own!
When the storm signals have seemed fair for Frank, I have to set it down. When they have seemed ominous, I have to set that down.
In all the ideas and conclusions I have transferred to paper in respect of the Frank trial, the wish never has been father to the thought"save in that I always have preferred, and always shall prefer, to see a man prove himself a gentleman rather than a scoundrel, if he can.
What I do hope to stand for, and try to stand for, and what none of us can afford NOT to stand for, is justice and right, fair play and no special favors, decency and civilization, and the supremacy of the law of the land!
I assure my correspondent that I am neither for nor against Frank, but that I am for truth and right, and in my own way and after my own fashion I undertake to stand by my ideals.
Justice the Real End.
Frank Hooper promulgated a platform all can afford to mount and fight upon, when he said, bef
ore this case came on for trial:
It is not so much a matter of finding and convincing Leo Frank, as it is a matter of finding and convicting the murderer of little Mary Phagan!
So long as you feel that way about it, you are on safe and solid ground; but once you get away from that standpoint, you begin groping and listening to the persuasive plea of your prejudices and your preconceived opinions, no matter what they may be.
When a man is on trial for his life, you don't have to be FOR or AGAINST him"but you DO have to be in favor of a fair trial for him!
Then, when everything has been done in order and according to the best teachings of a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon civilization, even as imperfect as that yet is, the verdict finally recorded under the law will provide you a sheer anchor against error and wrong, and you then will be as right as human ingenuity and philosophy can make you right.
And after that, you should worry, I guess!
Since the Frank statement was delivered, and notwithstanding the fine impression it made upon the public, the State has succeeded in recovering a good deal of ground, nevertheless; and it probably is true today that it stands about as firm as it ever did, if not firmer.
It is conceded that the State lost heavily from a legal standpoint when the presiding judge decided on Tuesday not to admit any evidence tending to break down Frank's character in specific instances not directly connected with the murder of little Mary Phagan.
When one comes to consider the matter of public opinion, however, it may be that the defense in this won nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory, at best, and that it might have been better to let the State go ahead and prove what it could, if it could prove anything.
The Solicitor General has said all along that he was prepared to establish his allegations of gross immorality against Frank; and when Frank seemed to meet that challenge by injecting his general character in issue, the public was inclined to applaud and to say that was fair and square enough.
If the State was four-flushing"which Dorsey solemnly affirmed it was not"and the defense appeared to call its hand, the public was honest enough to grant Frank's right to do that, and to approve his dare to the State.
Effect Is Disconcerting.
When, however, the defense is permitted to enter its call, and Dorsey is then shut off on the threshold of his attempt to make good on his position, the effect naturally is somewhat disconcerting, even to those who believe Frank not guilty.
The State stands now in the position of having said unqualifiedly, that it COULD make good its charges, and then, after having been challenged to do so, of being stopped from proceeding!
In all fairness to the State and to the defense, too, for that matter"this seems rather a hardship upon it.
Frank made a brave showing of good character"he seemed to challenge the State to do to worst, if it could. And now the State is shut off, upon the defense's own motion, from undertaking to do THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE HAS VEHEMENTLY PROTESTED I COULD NOT DO.
There is not much difference to see it is having the important thing that the State COULD do good if given an opportunity and help did make good when given the opportunity.
The vital thing and the only thing, so far as public opinion is concerned perhaps is that the defense show that the State NEVER COULD MAKE GOOD IN ANY EVENT.
The court does not does not parrot the introduction of irrelevant evidence that maybe that is right, it is the law anyway"but the public does particularly when it can not see the irrelevancy of the evidence.
The attitude of Frank personally has seemed to be that of inviting the closest and total searching investigation into every phase of the charge against him "but it seems to be said in another article that the most the defense can do for Frank is to let the impression become fixed that that there are some things against which he sadly NEEDS protection.
So far, Leo Frank himself has got the very best plea that has been entered in behalf of Leo Frank!
He has boldly thrown down the gauntlet"and he says he must do instatement in his own way, after his own mind, and without even requesting his lawyers.
He delivered his defense there on stand in a most convincing manner. If it was the truth, it was given space by being simply told, and in apparent candor.
If it was an untruth, it was littered with consummate art. Only Frank and his God can know, for sure, whether it is the one or the other!
Willing To Be Cross-Examined.
He was reported willing to be cross-examined on his statement. If he might be thought repairable upon the part of the State but whether the offer actually was made there is the outspoken evidence.
Nevertheless, it probably will do Frank no good in the mind of the public to have it appear that he was professedly willing enough to let down the bars at every point but that for some reason, the bars were prevented from being let down and by Frank's own side!
The defense can not hope to get its cake and have it too"lest one is it can not hope to have worn these things unprotested. It can not just say Frank's character is above reproach and then head on the State in an attempt to prove otherwise.
It can not do that injustice to
LEO FRANK'S MOTHER
ON HER WAY TO COURT
MRS. REA FRANK.
Frank, I think"and certainly not injustice to the State!
Sometimes things are done under the forms of law that are tactical and strategic mistakes, notwithstanding. There is no complaint as to feel legal righteousness, perhaps, but there may be some complaint as to their illuminating the subject matter in hand.
Perhaps the initial mistake was made when the defense permitted Conley's first unspeakable charge to go unchallenged"when it even cross-examined Conley upon it"but once that mistake was made. It may prove in the end to have been a far better policy to fight it out to the ultimate status along that line.
PAGE 17
NEW WITNESSES CALLED AGAINST FRANK
Former Employee Testifies Accused Knew Mary Phagan
PRETTY FACTORY WORKERS TELL
JURY OF FRANK'S GOOD CHARACTER
Miss Lena McMurty, Monday on Stand for Frank
Miss Magnolia Kennedy, below.
Mrs. W. R. Johnson, bride, who testified for Frank
INDRECT TESTIMONY
AGAINST PRISONER
FORBIDDEN BY JUDGE
Here are the important developments Tuesday in the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with murder of Mary Phagan:
Judge Roan rules out all testimony bearing on particular acts of immorality which the State has been endeavoring to prove against the defendant.
Will Turner, former pencil factory employee, testifies he entered the metal room shortly before noon one day near the middle of March and saw Frank seeking to engage Mary Phagan in conversation. He says he cannot recall any other person he (Turner) knew in the factory.
Solicitor Dorsey devotes larges part of forenoon in an endeavor to bolster the character of C. B. Dalton, a State's witness, and tear down that of Miss Daisy Hopkins, who was called by the defense.
George Gordon, called by the Solicitor, swears that the sensational affidavit of Minola McKnight, negro cook at the Selig home, was signed in his absence and that Solicitor Dorsey refused to order her release, saying he would get in bad with the detectives if he did.
Leo Frank found himself again the target for the attacks of Solicitor General Dorsey when the State took up its rebuttal Tuesday in the trial of the National Pencil Factory superintendent charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.
By far the most damaging testimony brought out against Frank was that of Will Turner, who testified that he had entered the metal room and come upon Frank seeking to press his attentions upon the Phagan girl only a few weeks before the crime.
When Turney was put under the raking fire of Luther Rosser's cross-examination, the weight of his testimony suffered con
siderably. The youth, who admitted he had worked at the factory only a brief time, was unable to describe Mary Phagan and was unable to tell the name of any other girl in the entire factory.
Tells of Frank Speaking to Girl.
I went into the rear room on the second floor one day with some pencils. Said Turner. It was about the middle of March. Frank was walking from his office toward the rear of the factory. Mary Phagan was coming toward her machine. He told her to wait a minute, that he wanted to talk to her. She said she had to go to work.
He said: I'm superintendent of the pencil factory and I want to talk to you.' She repeated that she had to go to work and he followed her as she backed away from him. A couple of girls came into the room and I asked them where to put the pencils and then I left. I didn't see any more.
On cross-examination young Turner admitted he did not know whether there were other girls around at the time or not. He did not know the names of the two girls, he said, who entered the room while Frank was trying to talk to Mary Phagan. The extent of his description of Mary Phagan was that she had light hair. The questions of the admissibility of this evidence caused a long wrangle between the attorneys.
Rosser and Arnold objected on the ground that it was not at all material, proving absolutely nothing. They denied Dorsey's contention that it established that Frank had known Mary Phagan, in spite of his declarations that he did not know her. The lawyers said that it did not show that he knew her by the name or that he was conversing with her on any other subject than her work.
Charges It Was First Step to Murder.
We contend that Mary Phagan was killed right on that second floor. Retorted the Solicitor. We contend that Mary Phagan and Frank were the only persons in the metal department at the time that this incident took place, and that she was backing away and protesting that she had to go back to work. We contend that it was the beginning of the transaction which ended in the little girl's death. It should go in as contradicting Frank's statement that he did not know her.
Turner was allowed to tell his story.
That Solicitor Dorsey refused to take any step toward the liberation of Minola McKnight, cook at the Selig home, who was imprisoned until she made her sensational affidavit against Frank, on the ground that it would get him in bad with the detectives, was the unexpected and highly interesting statement made by Attorney George Gordon late in the forenoon session.
Gordon was called by the State, but proved as good a witness for the defense. He declared that the affidavit made by the cook was signal in his absence, although the last paragraph stated that
PAGE 18
LEO FRANK SKETCHED AS HE TOLD HIS OWN STORY TO JURY
During the greater part of his story Frank was as calm and statistical as an accountant discussing an audit. In telling of his dealings with the police and Chief of Detectives Lanford, Frank waxed sarcastic in a quiet yet bitter way. But he never let loose his emotion or lost his poise. At times Frank would lose his air of complete repression and his face for a moment would take on an aspect of deep feeling. He would, how-ever, quickly resume his nor-mal expression of stoicism.
WITNESSES GIVE
DALTON GOOD
REPUTATION
Once Bad Man, but He Has Re-
formed, Old Acquaintances
Testify for State.
Continued from Page 1.
it was signed in his presence.
He said that he had told Solicitor Dorsey that the negro woman was being held illegally, but that Solicitor had replied that it was necessary sometimes to do things of this sort in order to get the information wanted. He told of going to the police station and finding Minola crying and hysterical in her cell.
The attorney for the colored woman said that he had not been permitted to enter the room where his clients was being interrogated by the detectives and Ray Pickett and Arthur Craven, the latter two being employees of the Beck & Gregg Hardware Company. He was present, he said, when part of the notes were being read by G. C. Febuary, but was not there when the affidavit was signed.
The McKnight affidavit told of alleged conversations at the Selig home of a nature very incriminating to Frank. The McKnight woman denied all the statements in the affidavit to a Georgian reporter the night that she was liberated.
A crushing blow was dealt the State by the refusal of Judge Roan to admit, either while the defense was completing its case or after the State had taken up the rebuttal, any evidence not directly and at first hand hearing upon the specific acts charged against the factory superintendent.
The ruling was sweeping victory for the defense. It gave Frank's case, which had been aided materially the day before by the defendant's own statement, an added strength and heightened the prospects in Frank's favor.
Solicitor Dorsey tried first to cross-question Daisy Hopkins, one of the defense's witnesses, as to conversations she was supposed to have had in regard to incidents at the pencil factory in which she and a man undesignated except as her foreman were involved. Frank's name was not mentioned in the indicated charges. The conversation was about a foreman.
The Hopkins woman denied again that she ever had made visits to the factory for improper purposes or that she had had the conversations referred to by the Solicitor.
Dorsey encountered the same stone wall when he tried to draw testimony against the moral character of Frank his own witnesses. From W. P. Merck and J. P. Floyd the Solicitor had expected to obtain a recital of the stories of happenings which they said had been related to them.
Merck, however, had mysteriously disappeared from the courthouse when his name was called, and Floyd was not permitted to go into the details of the testimony the Solicitor had hoped to bring out.
The Solicitor thereafter confined his efforts to bolstering up the character of C. B. Dalton, the State's witness who testified to seeing women in Frank's office, and attacking that of Diasy Hopkins. He called a number of witnesses, one them cousin of Hopkins woman, who swore that her character for truth and veracity was had and that they wouldn't believe her on oath.
Swear Dalton's
Character Is Good.
Other witnesses testified that Dalton's character was good. They were asked by Attorney Rosser if they were acquainted with his court and chain-gang record. They replied, for the most part, that they were not.
The brown suit worn by Frank April 26 was identified by Mrs. Emil Selig, his mother-in-law, at the opening of court in the forenoon and the suit was placed in evidence.
The defense prepared to show oy Wiley Roberts, inside jailer at the Tower, that Jim Conley had been reading since his incarceration there, but the Solicitor objected on the ground that no basis had been laid for the testimony.
Daisy Hopkins then was called and questioned after which the State began its rebuttal, the defense having closed its case.
While waiting for a witness Solicitor Dorsey arose and made the unexpected announcement that he himself had erased the identification. Taken out at 8:26 on the time slip taken from the clock in the factory. Frank had made the charge he had written words as an identification of the slip and that they had been erased. The Solicitor declared that he thought the detectives had made the identification.
Frank did not know who made the erasure, said Attorney Reuben Arnold.
The Solicitor had announced earlier that his first witnesses in rebuttal would be called to support C. B. Dalton and impeach Daisy Hopkins who declared she had never visited the factory with Dalton or that he had ever introduced Dalton to the factory superintendent.
When Roberts was asked:
Q: Has Jim Conley been in your custody during the trial?"A. Yes.
Q. Has he ever asked for newspapers?"A. Yes.
Dorsey interrupted.
Your honor, he said, I thi
nk the witness. Jim Conley, ought to have the privilege of denying or affirming that before he can be impeached.
Conley said that he could only read certain words, said Arnold, but probably Mr. Dorsey is right. I will have to call Jim Conley back again. Mr. Rosser will be back in a minute and we will close.
Daisey Hopkins Is
Recalled by Dorsey.
The witness was excused and Dorsey made the announcement that four doctors of the following five would be called by the prosecution:
Drs. G. C. Mizell, F. L. Eskridge, Clarence Johnson, John Funke, S. E. Benedict of Athens, and J. C. Cramer of Macon, the latter two president and vice president of the State Board of Health.
Solicitor Dorsey asked that Daisy Hopkins be returned to the stand so that he might continue his cross-examination of her.
The witness took the stand.
Q. You say you knew nothing of the cot in the basement of the National Pencil Factory?"A. No.
Q. Do you know anything at all of the basement?"A. No.
Q. Are you acquainted with A. R. Floyd, of Redan, Georgia ?"A. Yes.
Q. Have you known him for a long time?"A. Yes.
Q. Haven't you been to his house to get milk?"A. I don't think I have since the murder.
Q. Didn't you go to the home of Floyd to get milk and tell him about that cot in the basement of that National Pencil Factory?"A. No.
Q. Do you know Bob Goddard?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Mr. Smith, superintendent of the Nunnally-McRae Company?"A. On Mitchell street?
Q. Yes."A. yes, I know him.
Q. Do you know Walter P. Merck?"A. Where does he live?
Met Merck on
Peachtree Street.
Q. You met him first at Stone Mountain, then you met him on Walker street?"A. I met him at Redan. They used to live down there.
Q. You said something about being married. Have you two living husbands?"A. No; only one.
Q. Have you seen him since the murder?"A. Yes; at Redan.
Q. Do you remember meeting Walter P. Merck one Saturday afternoon on Whitehall street?"A. I met him on Peachtree.
Q. Didn't you tell him that afternoon that you were going to the National Pencil Factory?"A. No; I told him. I had just left the factory.
Q. Didn't he make an arrangement with you to go to the factory?"A. No
Rosser objected, declaring that a female witness could not be attacked in that way.
Your honor, said Dorsey, I want to show by Merck that this woman did make an engagement with him that afternoon.
I understand, replied Rosser, that when an argument of this kind is to be made the jury is to retire.
It would be better to have the ladies retire also, said Dorsey, I don't want to embarrass them.
Jury and Women
Retire From Room.
The jury retired, and after a hurried conference, Frank's wife and mother also left the courtroom at the request of Attorney Arnold.
This is their witness, said Dorsey. We want to show that this man Merc had her Saturday afternoon, and she said she was going to the National Pencil Factory. It was cold weather. We want to show that he saw her that night and what she told him.
The witness interrupted:
It was summer time, she said partly.
She has denied, said Dorsey, in the impeachment of Dalton that she ever went to the pencil factory for any improper purpose.
We object, said Rosser.
I want to show that she told Merck about meeting her foreman at the factory, said Dorsey.
Then the Solicitor repeated a conversation involving the foreman, which is unprintable, which he wanted to get before the jury.
He does not mean to charge Frank is the foreman, said Arnold. He is frank enough to state that.
Merck in an affidavit, said Dorsey, said foreman. He didn't say Mrs. Hopkins said her superintendent or that she named any names. I mean to let the jury draw its own conclusions.
I knew when your honor refused to rule out the charges of Conley and Dalton, said Arnold, taking up the argument, that you were opening the doors for new issues that would obscure the charge of murder. I knew it would lead to a situation in impeachment bringing us to the point where woe would hardly know who we were trying. This woman never would have been put up as an original witness except for the aspersions cast on her by Conley and Dalton. Look how far afield we have wandered. Now, he wants to impeach this witness on something with which the defendant has no connection.
You can rebut any of their direct testimony, said Judge Roan. You can not bring any new criminal charge against the defendant. If it is against someone else, it is irrelevant.
Your honor, said Dorsey, I want to ask a question to let the jury hear that you rule it out.
No; we object, said Rosser That's just why the jury was sent out.
I'll let you assume that you ask it, said the court to Dorsey.
Why, your honor, replied Dorsey, it puts us in the position of not even trying to prove what we have indicated we would.
I can not permit the question, said Judge Roan.
Very well, said Dorsey, adding, in an undertone, That shuts me off; that shuts me off.
Dorsey continued the examination:
Q. Didn't you meet Merc during the afternoon after working hours and tell him you were going to the pencil factory?"A. No.
Q. Didn't he come to see you that night?"A. No.
Q. Didn't you tell him that you had been to the factory that afternoon?"A. No.
Men Say Woman's
Character Is Bad.
Miss Hopkins was excused, and J. R. Floyd of Redan, Gerogia, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know Daisy Hopkins?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many husbands she has?
Rosser: I object, your honor. I don't care if she has three hundred husbands.
The objection was sustained.
Q. Would you believe her under oath?"A. I would not.
Q. Did you ever hear her say anything about a cot in the basement of the pencil factory?"A. I would not.
Q. Would you believe her under oath?"A. I would not.
Q. Did you ever hear her say anything about a cot in the basement of the pencil factory?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused. Bob Goddard, brother of C. M. Goddard, who was shot to death a few months ago by Elmer F. Darden, was the next witness called in rebuttal. Goddard resides near Redan. Dorsey questioned him.
Goddard testified to the bad character of Daisy Hopkins, and declared he would not believe her under oath.
Henry Carr, of Stone Mountain; N. J. Ballard, a second cousin of Daisy Hopkins, and J. L. Rice all followed each other in rapid succession and testified that they would not believe the Hopkins girl under oath.
Dorsey then addressed the court.
Your honor, he said, we want to offer indictments against Daisy Hopkins and also a bond forfeiture.
Rosser: Your honor, they objected to the introduction of an indictment against Dalton and they objected rightly. An indictment is nothing against one's character.
Dorsey: Dalton denied any knowledge of an indictment. This is a bond forfeiture.
Judge Roan: I rule it out.
Dalton's Recent Past
Good, Says J. T. Hearn.
Glenn Smith, superintendent of the Nunnally-McRae Company testified that Daisy Hopkins' character was bad and that he would not believe her on oath.
J. T. Hearn, of Walton County, said he had known C. B. Dalton since 1890. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Is his character good or bad?"A. The first part of his life was bad. The last part has been good.
Q. Would you believe him on oath?"A. Yes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. When was the last time you knew Dalton?"A. 1903 or 1904.
Q. Did you hear about him being indicted for selling whisky in 1906?"A. Yes, but he had joined the church about 1904 and I understood was leading a good life.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. Do you know the instance of his being indicted for stealing years ago?"A. Yes.
Rosser: We object. He can't go into that.
Judge Roan sustained the objection.
Dorsey: When they go into specific acts, can't I?
Ju
dge Roan: No.
R. V. Johnston, another Walton County citizen was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. When were you approached in regard to testifying to the character of C. B. Dalton?
Rosser interposed with an objection, but was overruled.
Last Friday, a week ago.
Q. Who approached you?"A. Harry Gottheimer.
Rosser again objected, and was sustained.
Q. Are you acquainted with the character of C. B. Dalton?"A. Yes.
Q. Would you believe him on oath?"A. I would.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You never heard that he was indicted for stealing and selling whiskey"A. No.
The witness was excused, and W. M. Cook, of Social Circle, Gerogia, a dairyman and farmer, testified as to Dalton's good character, and declared that he would believe him on oath.
W. J. Elder, of Decatur, followed Cook on the stand, and said that Dalton came to Decatur about five years ago and worked for him as carpenter. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Are you acquainted with Dalton's general character?"A. I don't know as I am.
Q. That means what people say about him?"A. Yes.
Q. Is his character good or bad?"A. Good.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. Why did you say just now that you didn't know?"A. I didn't know as I did.
Q. You said you didn't know because you didn't know yourself?"A. Yes.
The witness were excused, and A. B. Houston, of Decatur a farmer, who has lived there (?)1 years, was called. The witness said that he had known Dalton for eight years and that his character was good and that he would believe him under oath.
J. T. Borne, who formerly lived at Ingleside, in DeKalb County, and who now operates a cigar and soda fountain at Decatur, said he knew Dalton and would believe him on oath.
W. M. Wright, of Atlanta, general manager of the Independent Transfer Company, testified in behalf of Dalton's good character and declared that he would believe him on oath.
W. C. Hale, of No. 88 Kirkwood avenue, Atlanta, formerly of Walton County, testified to Dalton's good character and said he would believe him under oath.
L. L. Boyce, a city policeman, formerly of Walton County, testified that nineteen or twenty years age Dalton's character was bad, but that now I was better and that he had heard nothing bad about him recently.
M. Gordon Coldwell, of Atlanta: J. W. Hust, of No. 18 Trinity avenue, and W. P. Patrick of Atlanta, a member of the police force, testified to Dalton's good character and said that they would believe him under oath.
J. E. Dudley, a former employee of the pencil company, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Were you working at the National Pencil Factory about October 1912?"A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you remember a machine named Charley Lee?"A. Yes, he was working there.
Q. Were you hurt there?"A. Yes.
Q. Where?"A. Yes, he was working there.
Q. Were you hurt there?"A. Yes.
Q. Where?"A. On the second floor, the office floor.
Q. Just where were you hurt?"A. On a metal machine. I hurt the forefinger of my left hand.
Mashed Finger Butt
Kept Blood Off Floor.
Q. How were you hurt?"A. This fellow Lee had put the metal on the machine. It dropped off. I picked it up and in putting it back I mashed my finger.
Q. What did you do then?"A. There was some cotton waste there, which I put around my hand.
Q. Did any blood drop on the floor?"A. A few drops.
Q. Did any blood droop near the ladies dressing room?"A. None.
Q. How long after this accident did you work?"A. I quit then.
Q. What does this fellow Lee do besides working at this trade?"A. I don't know.
Q. What did you do then?"A. I went to the office to get it dressed, then went to the Atlanta Hospital.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. How badly were you hurt?"A. Not very bad.
Q. You bled pretty freely?"A. Yes, but I had my hand in the cotton waste.&. You didn't notice whether any blood was on the floor or not?"A. Yes; none of it dropped except at the machine where I was working.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. Was your finger outside of the cotton waste until you got to the
office?"A. No.
The witness was excused, and the witness Merck was called, but failed to answer. Willie Turner, of Sandy Springs, the 16-year-old son of E. M.
Continued on Page 6, Column 1.
PAGE 20
FACTORY BOY SWEARS HE SAW FRANK ACCOST MARY PHAGAN
Dorsey Feared He'd Get in Bad' with Detectives, State Witness Says
INDIRECT TESTIMONY
AGAINST PRISONER IS
FORBIDDEN BY JUDGE
Continued from Page 2.
Turner, a farmer, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. About March, of this year, where did you work?"A. At the pencil
factory.
Q. Do you know this man? (pointing to Frank) A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. When I saw her.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Frank talking to Mary Phagan?"A. Yes; on the second floor.
Q. What time was it and how long before the murder?"A. About the middle of March.
Q. Where was it?"A. In the back part of the building.
Q. What time of day was it?"A. Just before dinner.
Q. Who was in the room besides them?"A. No one else. Two girls came down after I did.
Q. What was said?"A. I heard her say she had to go to work.
Q. What did he say?"A. He said he was the superintendent of the factory"
Rosser: We object and we want to argue this without the jury.
The jury was sent out.
Dorsey"Let the witness tell what it is.
Turner"Mr. Frank told the girl he was superintendent of the factory and wanted to talk to her. She told him she had to go back to work. Mr. Frank then went off.
Mary Backed
Away From Frank.
Q. How was she acting?"A. She backed off from and he walked toward her.
Q. How far did she back?"A. Three or four feet. That was all I heard. Mr. Frank turned away.
Judge Roan"You can go into this to this extent. You can show whether he knew Mary Phagan.
Rosser"This other has nothing to do with it.
Hooper"If my brother will just keep still a little bit, we may be able to proceed further. This has another value. It shows familiarity or a desire for familiarity.
Rosser"If your honor is with us, I don't want to argue.
Judge Roan"The question is whether it can be shown just how this conversation took place.
Rosser"That is not the purpose of this evidence"
Hooper"Your honor"
Judge Roan"Sit down, Mr. Hooper. The question is whether this will show whether he knew her well enough to know her name.
Rosser"This evidence doesn't show that.
Dorsey"Your honor, this witness says this meeting occurred in the same place and near the same spot where we have contended the murder occurred. It is the basis for further evidence.
Arnold"That last statement let the cat out of the bag. They want to bring out another charge. This whole case has been beclouded with every charge that could be imagined. We have gotten away from the charge of murder and have been made to answer every conceivable charge.
Hooper"I object to that, first because it is not true and second because it is not the point at issue.
There was smothered applause.
There is another disturbance of some sort, shouted Arnold.
Judge Roan rapped for order and directed that the jury be brought in. He addressed Solicitor Dorsey.
You may put your question and let him tell what he knows, said Judge Roan.
Q. What did you see? Tell it in your own way, telling everything that you saw."A. They were back in the rear of the building near the entrance. She was coming to her work just before dinner. Mr. Frank met her and said: I want to speak to you.' She said: I have got to go to work.' He said: I am the superintendent of the pencil factory and I want to speak to you.' She backed off and he walked toward her.
Q. Is this all?"A. Yes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What time was it?"A. Just before dinner.
Q
. How was it she was just going to work?"A. She was returning to her work at the machine. It was just before the whistle blew.
Q. Lemmie Quinn's office was there, wasn't it?"A. Yes.
Q. There were ten or twelve women there in the polishing department?"A. I don't know.
Q. Well, what about those two girls in there?"A. They came back and told me where to put the pencils.
Q. Do you know who they were?"A. No.
Motorman Hits
Daisy Hopkins' Character.
Q. They came back at the time this thing was going on?"A. Yes.
Q. What kind of a looking girl was Mary Phagan?"A. She had light hair.
Q. What else?"A. I can't describe her.
Q. Do you really know her?"A. Yes.
Q. How?"A. Some boy who worked on the fourth floor pointed her out to me one morning when she came to work.
Q. Do you know any one else at the factory?"A. No.
The witness was excused and Walter T. Merck was called.
Dorsey questioned him.
Q. What is your business?"A. A street car motorman.
Q. Do you know Daisy Hopkins?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever meet her on Saturday afternoons at the corner of Whitehall and Alabama streets?"A. Yes.
Q. What did she say?"A. I asked her where she was going and she said she was going to the pencil factory.
Q. Did you see her any more?"A. Yes. I made an engagement to go to her room.
Q. Did you see her?"A. Yes, about 8:30 o'clock in a room upstairs at the corner of Walker and Peters streets.
Q. Did she say where she had been?"A. To the National Pencil Factory.
Q. Do you know her character?"A. yes.
Q. Is it good or bad?"A. Bad.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Does the company know your character? It's a beauty according to your own admission, isn't it?
Dorsey interposed with an objection and was sustained.
Rosser: Come down, come down, come down.
McKnight Woman's
Lawyer Called.
The witness was excused, and George Gordon, who said he practiced law for thirteen years, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Were you present at the police station when Minola McKnight was brought there?"A. Yes; or, rather, I was on the outside a part of the time. I went there in connection with getting a habeas corpus proceedings for her release. The detectives told me I could not go in just then. I decided to make a demand to see her, and it was granted. I went in and Stenographer Febuary read a statement to her from his notes, then went out to write it. Detectives Starnes, Campbell and Lanford, Chief Beavers and two men from Beck & Greggs' were there when the stenographer went out. I said that I didn't think that she ought to be held. They told me they could do nothing unless I got your (Dorsey's) permission. So I went to see you, and you told me that you not let the woman go, because it would put you in bad with the detectives.
Q. Didn't I say that I had no right to hold her?"A. No: you said you would not release her without a habeas corpus.
Q. Why did you not wait until she signed that paper?"A. I went up to see you.
Q. Did you hear her say anything about the statement? Read over the notes and then answer the question."A. That is the substance of the notes that Febuary read over to her.
Q. What did she say? Did she deny or admit them?"A. She said she believed that was about right.
Dorsey Feared He'd
Get in Bad.
Q. I told you I didn't have anything to do with locking her up, and that it would be meddling for me to order her release."A. You said you would not interfere because you would get in bad with the detectives. That is what my recollection is, Mr. Dorsey.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You knew that she had been to Mr. Dorsey's office and had been taken away screaming?"A. Yes, I heard that.
Q. That Mr. Dorsey, and officer of the peace, let the police take that woman away screaming?
Dorsey interrupted. You say you know that? he asked the witness.
Rosser: Wait until I get through.
Then he continued his question.
Q. Did you ever find out what charges they had against her?"A. I had a habeas corpus to get her release, but could not get to her.
Q. They just held her because she would not give a statement to the police that Mr. Dorsey wanted?
Dorsey interposed an objection.
Rosser"I submit to this jury that the evidence in this case proves it is true.
Dorsey"I submit it is not true. I don't care what you argue to this jury.
Rosser"And you didn't care what you did to that poor negro woman.
Dorsey"I didn't do anything to that negro woman.
Judge Sustains
Dorsey's Objection.
Judge Road sustained Dorsey's objection. Rosser asked Dorsey for the affidavit that Minola made in Dorsey's office. He asked the witness if he had ever seen it before, and the witness answered, No.
Q. Who was guilty of false imprisonment"was it Starnes or Beavers?"A. Beavers said he knew about it, but that he could not let her out unless Dorsey ordered it.
Q. Did he have a warrant?"A. No.
Q. Then they let her out the next day?"A. yes.
Q. Did you see her?"A. I saw her that first evening. She was in a cell and crying hysterically I asked Chief Beavers to let her out in the corridor and I guess he did.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. Didn't I tell you that I had absolutely no rights in the matter?"A. Something like that, but if you will pardon me, Hugh, I will tell you exactly what was done. I went to you when the police told me they could not let the woman go without an order from you. You told me you had not had the woman arrested and was not having her held.
Q. Now, didn't Febuary read over to you a portion of that affidavit?"A. Yes, he read something.
Q. Now, didn't he read a part of the statement, and she added to it the part about the money?"A. She said something about money.
Q. Now, what else did she say?"A. I don't recall.
Q. Didn't you question her yourself?"A. I asked one or two little questions.
Q. What about?"A. She said something about a bucket of water that was not very plain, and I questioned her about it.
Rosser took the witness again.
Q. You don't know what happened behind those doors?"A. No.
At this point court adjourned until 2 o'clock.
President of State
Board of Health Testifies.
When the afternoon session started Solicitor Dorsey announced that on account of some of the State's witnesses being out of the city he would vary his program. He could Dr. S. E. Benedict, of Athens, president of the State Board of Health, and a member of the faculty of the University of Georgia for 32 years, to the stand.
On the first question asked him, Attorney Arnold made strenuous objection and precipitated a long argument. The question was:
Were you present at the meeting of the State Board of Health when Dr. Westmoreland preferred charges against Dr. Harris?
We object to going into that, said Mr. Arnold. We would have to get the minutes of the board and all of that.
I am not going into the matter further than to disprove Dr. Westmoreland's statement, said Mr. Dorsey, that the State board found Dr. Harris guilty of scientific dishonest.
You can go into the question of the feeling of the witness, said Judge Roan.
Suppose, said Rosser, sarcastically, Mary had a little lamb, it's fleece was white as snow, would that have anything to do with this case?
I am not going into it further than to disprove Dr. Westmoreland's statement, insisted Dorsey.
Well, I am going into it, said Arnold, if you don't. I am going to ask him about a letter he wrote Dr. Westmoreland.
Go ahead, Mr. Dorsey, said Judge Roan.
Q. Were you present when Dr. Westmoreland preferred charges against Dr. Harris?"A. Yes.
Q. Were those charges substantiated?
Arnold"Your honor, the minutes are the best evidence.
Dorsey"All right: take the minutes.
The minute book of the State Board of Health was handed the witness.
Q. Look at pag
e 128 and tell me if that is a correct report of that meeting?"A. Yes.
Q. Now, doctor, I want to know whether those charges were found to be true.
Arnold"The minutes are the best evidence.
Judge Roan"Are those charges on the minutes?
A. I don't see them.
Q. Well, what was the vote?"A. I think it was unanimous.
Arnold"Doctor, where are the charges?"A. I suppose they are in the possession of the secretary, somewhere in his office.
Arnold"Dr. Harris, then, has the charges preferred against him? And while the defense is on the minutes, charges are not?"A. You misunderstood me. Neither the charges nor the defense are on the minutes. Only the action of the board.
Judge Roan"Didn't Dr. Westmoreland in his testimony say that he preferred charges of scientific dishonesty against Dr. Harris and because the board would not dismiss Dr. Harris that he resigned?
Rosser Says Record
Speaks for Itself.
Arnold: No; Dr. Westmoreland's version was that the board found him guilty but refused to dismiss him, and he (Dr. Westmoreland) resigned.
Dr. Benedict: That is not true.
Rosser: Never mind; the record speaks for itself.
Dorsey: I will ask you if you are familiar with the business and professional life of Dr. Harris?
We object, said Rosser, and the objection was sustained.
Dorsey: Doctor, what is the condition of the board now?
Rosser objected again, and was sustained.
Attorney Arnold took the witness.
Q. Doctor, I want to ask you about a letter you wrote Dr. Westmoreland.
Dorsey: We object to that. It is irrelevant.
Arnold: I haven't the letter here, but will have it long before the doctor's train leaves.
Judge Roan: I will wait until I see the letter.
Dorsey offered part of the minutes of the State Board of Health as documentary evidence.
Arnold: I don't think any of this should go in on the ground that is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.
Judge Roan: I will let it in for what it is worth.
The defense asked that their objection be recorded.
Dorsey: I would like to know if the letter of the fourth to the Governor on the subject was admissible.
Rosser: it is as admissible as any of the other minutes, but we object to it all.
Judge Roan: I will rule the letter out.
Recalls Examination
Of Minola McKnight.
Roy Craven, salesman at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Company, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you know Minola McKnight?"A. Yes.
Q. When did you see her last?"A. At the police station.
Q. How did you come to be there?"A. Her husband worked at the same place I do and asked me if I would not go down to the police station and try to get her out.
Q. Were you there when this statement was signed?"A. Yes.
Q. Why did you go there?"A. Yes.
Q. Who was with you?"A. Pickett and her husband.
Q. Why did you go there?
Q. Why did you go there?
Rosser interposed an objection and was sustained.
Q. Did you go either at the request of the Police Department or myself?"A. No.
Q. Now, give me the best recollection of the time, if you can?
Rosser objected, but was overruled.
Q. Give me the day?"A. It was the middle part of May.
Q. Now, tell what this woman, Minola McKnight, said when she made that affidavit at the police station?"A. Well, she would not like at first, but we told her what Albert had said.
Q. What was it that Albert had said?
The witness gave the substance of the Minola McKnight affidavit.
Q. Then what did Minola say?"A. She was somewhat reluctant to talk at first, but when we told her what Albert had said she gave us the affidavit without stopping.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Didn't you know that she was in jail because she would not give the sort of a statement they wanted?"A. I did not.
Rosser Objects to
Servant's Affidavit.
Q. Why did you think they had her in jail?
Dorsey: We object to what he thinks. Stick to the statements.
Q. Did you go to Mr. Dorsey's office before you heard Minola make her statements?"A. Yes.
Q. Why did you go there?"A. To try to get her out.
Q. It wasn't any trouble to get her out after she made a good statement was it?"A. I wasn't there when she got out.
Q. Why didn't you stay there?"A. I didn't want to.
Q. You got a statement agreeing with what her husband had told you then you left her in jail?"A. I went on out and left her with her husband.
Q. Didn't you try to get Mr. Dorsey to get her out?"A. I went to see what I could do.
Q. What did he say?"A. He said he would do what he could. He said for me to go to see Mr. Starnes or Mr. Campbell.
Q. Did you go?"A. Yes.
Q. How long did you stay?"A. About three hours.
Q. Did you ask them to let her out? A. No.
Q. You don't know what happened before you got there, do you?"A. No, I am not a mind reader.
Dorsey: Now I want to tender this affidavit of Minola McKnight is evidence.
Rosser: All in the world that affidavit can show is the treatment that poor woman received at the hands of the police. It is inadmissible.
Crowd Roars When
Sheriff Sits on Floor
Dorsey: Every word of it is admissible, because it is a flat and positive repudiation of Minola's sworn statements on the stand.
Judge Roan: Let me read it. I will rule on it later.
The witness was excused, and E. H. Pickett, also an employee of Beck & Greggs Hardware Company, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him. He was given the Minola McKnight affidavit to read. Sheriff Mangum, in an attempt to stop talk in the courtroom, met with a little accident that rent a ripple of merriment throughout the room. While Pickett was reading the affidavit, the Sheriff arose from his seat beside the witness stand.
You people over to the right are talking too much, and if you don't stop I will have to put you out, he said. When he turned to resume his seat he missed the chair and sat down upon the floor with a red expression on his face. The crowd in the courtroom fairly roared.
Pickett read the affidavit, the Dorsey questioned him.
Q. You were present when that paper was signed, were you not?"A. Yes; that is immediately before Minola signed it.
Q. Who else was there?"A. Minola's lawyer, Roy Craven, one or two detectives and myself.
Q. What statement was made before she signed it?"A. Albert McKnight said she had made certain statements. She then admitted it a little bit at a time.
Q. What did she say first?"A. That she had been cautioned not to talk.
Q. Then what?"A. She admitted she got a little more money.
Q. Did she say everything shown in this affidavit?"A. Not the first part. She didn't make those statements in my presence.
Didn't Appear Willing
To Talk Then.
Q. Was she willing to talk?"A. No. She said she would talk to me, but she would not talk to the detectives. Before the detectives left she said her husband was a liar.
Q. Did the detectives leave?"A. Yes.
Q. Then you questioned her?"A. Yes
Q. Then you questioned her?"A. Yes, but we, Craven and myself, could not write shorthand, and sent for the stenographer.
Q. Who was there when she made the statement about Mrs. Frank making certain remarks to her mother?"A. Starnes, Campbell, her lawyer, the stenographer, Lanford, Craven and myself.
Q. Well, tell the jury what she said.
Rosser: The affidavit is the best evidence.
Dorsey: But you are objecting to the affidavit.
Judge Roan: I am going to let in that affidavit with the exception of the part that could not be put in regularly. For instance, that part where she quotes the conversation she overheard.
Dorsey: May I or not, without considering the affidavit, ask him all relevant point of Minola McKnight's statement?
Judge Roan: You can take the affidavit and ask him about all about relevant points.
Dorsey: Mr. Pickett what did the woman say about F
rank eating dinner?" A. First she said he ate dinner. Finally she said he did not.
Q. What did she say first about her husband, Albert, being there?"A. At first she said he was not there, finally she said he was.
Q: What did she say about being told to keep her mouth shut?"Rosser: Unless he wants to show that Frank told her that, it is irrelevant.
Counsel in
Another Wrangle.
Dorsey: It is relevant to impeach the negro.
Roan: It is relevant, I think.
Rosser: You could not impeach Mr. Selig on such a statement. Certainly it is inadmissible to impeach Minola McKnight.
Rosser dictated his objections to the court stenographer.
Dorsey: Answer the question, Mr. Pickett.
At first she denied it, then she said Mrs. Selig told her to keep quiet.
Rosser continued to object.
Hooper: This witness can be put on the stand and impeach half a dozen witnesses.
Roan: You understand it must be relevant to some issue in this case.
Hooper continued to argue that the question should be admitted.
Judge Roan: If you insist. I will let it in.
Q. What did Minola say with reference to what was said to her about talking?"A. She said she was cautioned not to talk.
Q. What did she say at last about receiving a higher or lower wage?"A. She said her wages were increased after the crime.
Q. What did she say first about that hat?"A. She only made one reference to it.
Q. Did anybody suggest anything about the hat, before anyone asked her about it?"A. Yes.
Q. Now who was in there before you went to the door and called the detectives?"A. Alfred McKnight, Craven and myself.
Offered to Free Her
If She Made Statement.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Now why didn't you believe her first statement?"A. Because we thought different.
Q. You kept her there two or three hours didn't you?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you give her the third degree?"A. We didn't call it that.
Q. Did you see Dorsey?"A. Yes; we saw him before we went to the police station for us to see her, and that we might arrange to get her out.
Q. Did you tell Minola that you had come down to get her out?"A. We did tell her we wanted to get her out if we got a statement.
Q. Well, why didn't you get her out?"A. She left the station house before we did.
Q. After she gave that statement they let her out?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you know she left there before you did?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you know she left there before you did?"A. No, but the detectives said she had.
Q. You didn't know she had been there twelve hours when you got there?"Yes.
Q. You know she was there because she would not give the statement the detectives wanted, didn't you?"A. No.
Q. You know she was there because she would not give the statement the detectives wanted, didn't you?"A. No.
Q. You went there to make her give the statement the detectives wanted, didn't you?"A. Not that. I thought it was my duty as a good citizen to aid in getting at the truth.
Rosser (very angrily and with contempt in his voice)"Let him come down; let him come down.
Negro McKnight
Called to Stand.
The witness was excused, and Albert McKnight, husband of Minola McKnight, was called to the stand. Hooper questioned him, and had the negro step down from the witness chair and stand before the jury while he displayed a blueprint of the Selig home and a diagram of the dining room and the sideboard mirror, through which Albert said he observed Frank during lunch at the Selig home on Saturday, April 26.
Q. Where were you sitting in the kietchen on that day?
Rosser"I object: you went over all this on the direct examination.
Hooper"We had no diagram then, that was brought in by the defense.
Judge Roan"The witness may explain the diagram.
Hooper"I want to show by this witness that the sideboard has been moved so as to change the angle of vision.
Q. How is the location of the sideboard to what it was when you saw it?"A. It has been pushed around.
The witness pointed out the change to the jury on the diagram.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. How do you know this has been changed? Were you there when it was changed?"A. No, sir, but I can tell by looking at the diagram.
Girl Called to
Stand by Dorsey.
Miss Nellie Wood, a former employee of the National Pencil Factory, was called to the stand by Solicitor Dorsey. Attorney Rosser, anticipating the character of her testimony, announced that he would like a definite ruling at once regarding the introduction of certain character evidence. The jury retired.
Frank's wife and mother left the courtroom by request. Dorsey addressed the court. We want to show by this witness actual specific misconduct on the part of this defendant. We want to show that Frank made an indecent proposal to this lady. It shows his conduct and his character; and I submit that it is material.
Rosser: Your honor, they have no right in the world to put that testimony in. We have never put any evidence in that would allow the introduction of this testimony in rebuttal. We insist that you rule definitely. All the evidence we have put in to show Frank's conduct was (in rebuts) to the statements of Conley.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, tell me how you can get around the statutes that you cannot ask specific instances on one's character except on cross-examination.
Dorsey: What about the questions of Mr. Arnold to the woman who worked on the fourth floor or the National Pencil Factory?
Judge Roan: To my mind it is not debatable.
Dorsey: Then we are shut out.
Judge Roan: The law shuts you out. On the principle you advance you could put a man on trial at this time for everything he ever did in his life.
Dorsey: I don't want to send jury out any more. I have witnesses to prove other things. Can I prove
Continued on Page 5, Column 1.
PAGE 21
WITNESS GIVE
DALTON GOOD
REPUTATION
Continued From Page 4.
that a girl saw Frank with another woman in the dark?
Judge Roan: No.
Dorsey: Can I show his conduct"slapping girls as he passed through the factory?
Judge Roan"You can show a bad character by this woman or any other: but you can't show a specific act.
The jury was recalled.
Dorsey Says
Witness Mislead Him.
Dorsey questioned the witness.
Q. Do you know the character of Leo M. Frank?"A. No, I only knew him two days.
Q. I mean what people said about him; say yes or no.
Rosser"She has answered the question; that should end it.
Judge Roan"Do you know his character: answer yes or no"A. No.
Dorsey addressed the court.
Your honor. I have been misled by this witness.
Rosser"I don't care anything about that.
Judge Roan"She hasn't sold anything to hurt you, and you can not proceed as though you were entrapped.
Dorsey"Miss Wood, do you remember a conversation with me"(Rosser interrupted.)
Rosser"Now that is absolutely inadmissible.
Judge Roan"I sustain you.
Dorsey"Come down.
J. H. Kendricks, a street car motorman, followed Miss Wood on the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Were you running a street car on April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you know a man named Matthews?"A. No.
Q. What route were you on April 26?"A. Marietta street to the stock yards.
Q. Is that a portion of the English avenue and Copper street line?"A. Yes.
Declares Cars Run
Ahead of Time Often.
Q. What time did you get to town that day about noon?"A. I can not remember exactly, but I never get there any later than 12:06.
Q. Did the English avenue car with Matthews and Hollis running it ever get to that corner ahead of time?"A. It certainly did.
Q. Do you know what time they got relieved for dinner at Marietta and Broad streets?"A. At 12:07.
Q. About April 26, and prior to that time, did Matthews and Hollis ever get to that corner ahead of time, and if so how much?"A. Two to three minutes.
Q. When Hollis would be at the corner of Broad and Marietta, and your car was on time, what would Hollis do about going to dinner?"A. He would go on my car.
The witness was excused and J. C. McEwen, another motorman was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you run on the Cooper street line prior to April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall what time the Cooper street car would arrive at Broad and Marietta streets with reference to your car?"A. My car got there at 12:10.
Q. What time would the car Matthews and Hollis were on get there, if the car was on time?"A. 12:07.
Q. What time does the White City car get there?"A. At 12:05.
Q. Did the English avenue or Cooper ever cut off the White City care and come in ahead of it?"A. Very often.
Q. Do you know the car that Matthews and Hollis run?"A. I know their schedule.
Q. Has their car ever cut off the White City car?"A. Their schedule has. I don't know who was on it.
Q. Have you ever come in ahead of time?"A. Yes.
Q. Frequently?"A. Yes; when coming in on a relief trip.
Q. How much was the most you ever came in ahead of time?
Rosser objected and was sustained.
The witness was excused and J. C. McEwen, another motorman was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you run on the Cooper street line prior to April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that time the Cooper street car would arrive at Broad and Marietta streets with reference to your car?"A. My car got there at 12:10
Q. What time would the car Matthews and Hollis were on get there, if the car was on time?"A. 12:07.
Q. What time does the White City car get there?"A. At 12:05.
Q. Did the English avenue or Cooper ever cut off the White City care and come in ahead of it?"A. Very often.
Q. Do you know the car that Matthews and Hollis run?"A. I know their schedule.
Q. Has their car ever cut off the White City car?"A. Their schedule has. I don't know who was on it.
Q. How much is the most you ever knew the English avenue line car to come in ahead of time"A. Three or four minutes.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. When was that?"A. I don't remember the exact date.
Q. You don't know whether Matthews and Hollis were on schedule on April 26 or not, do you?"A. No.
Witness Says He Saw
Girl at About 12 O'Clock.
Q. Isn't it as feasible for the White City car to be blocked by the English avenue car because the White City car is late as because the English avenue car is ahead of time?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused.
M. E. McCoy, a painter and farmer of Bolton, Georgia, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
A. Yea; I saw her in front of No. 12 Forsyth street going toward Alabama street.
Q. Did you see her on April 26?"A. Yes.
Q. What time was it?"A. About 12 o'clock.
Q. How near 12 o'clock?"A. Well, I left Walton and Forsyth streets at 12 o'clock.
Q. How long afterward was this?"A. Three or four minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. How long afterward was this?"A. Three or four minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross examination.
Q. When was the first time you told this?"A. I think it was a week ago, last Saturday.
Q. Was that the first time you ever told it?"A. It was the final time I ever told an officer. I don't know about anybody else.
Q. You didn't know everything was being done to find out about her?"A. Well, I didn't know it was very important and I didn't want to get mixed up in it. Then I saw the statement of the motorman that she got off the car at Broad and Hunter streets and I knew that was wrong.
Q. You saw by George Epps' statement too, didn't you?"A. I don't remember about that.
Q. How do you know it was 12 o'clock?"A. I looked at my watch.
Q. Where were you yesterday at 12 o'clock?"A. At Buckhead.
Q. Did you look at your watch?"A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Cleo Henley, a street car motorman, was called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?"A. Yes.
Q. Did you see her on April 26?"A. yes.
Q. What time was it?"A. About 12 o'clock.
Q. Which way was she going?"A. Going south on Forsyth street. She had just stepped off the viaduct.
Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What time did you get off that day?"A. At 11:40 O'clock.
Q. What had you done between that time and noon?"A. I went down to Hastings' seed store on Mitchell street and then caught a car back.
Q. What time did the car get back?"A. Its schedule is 12 o'clock.
Q. Who else did you see that you knew that day?"A. I saw lots of people.
Q. Name one?"A. I can't say. When I saw in the papers about this girl I remembered seeing her.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. You are not mistaken about seeing Mary Phagan?"A. No.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. Haven't you been vilifying this defendant on the street cars until you have made yourself a nuisance?
Dorsey objected and Judge Roan overruled him.
A. No.
Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Brent that you knew Frank was guilty?"A. No.
Q. When did you tell this first?"A. About the day after.
Q. Who did you tell?"A. Lots of people.
Q. Name one?"A. Mr. Means, for one.
Q. Why didn't you go down and tell the Coroner's jury about this?"A. No one asked me to.
Q. You are a good citizen? Why did you keep this secret locked up in your bosom?"A. did not.
Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Brent that Frank's children told your children?"A. No.
Q. Didn't you, in the presence of Mrs. Haas on the College Park car, vilify Frank?"A. No.
Q. Haven't you just been blowing and making yourself a nuisance on the cars? And didn't you say that if he was released, you would join a party to lynch him?"A. No; let me explain.
Q. No: answer my question"A. No.
Dorsey"Is it right, your honor, to ask this man that question without first putting the witnesses on the stand?
Judge Roan"He is your witness"he is only trying to show interest.
Rosser-Answer my question, then"A. No.
Q. When did you first tell the detectives about all of this?"A. About a week ago, when the detectives came to me.
Q. Now, when did you tell that fellow Means about it?"A. It was right after the first day.
Q. What did you tell me right at the first?"A. That it was about 12 o'clock.
Q. You didn't look at your watch, did you?"A. No.
Q. Well, it might have been 12:10?
A. No, it was very near 12 o'clock.
Q. Starting from Lindsay street at 10 minutes to 12, what is the earliest time she could have got to town?
A. 12:50.
Q. Will you swear it was as early 12:05 o'clock that you saw her?"A. Yes.
Q. Give me the number of your car. A. 1465.
The witness was excused and Dr. Clarence Johnson, a specialist on the stomach and intestines, was called.
Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Doctor, what is pathology?"A. A pathologist is one who makes a special research or diseased conditions.
Q. What are the subjects?"A. The dead or fluids supposed to be dead.
Q. What is a physiologist?
Rosser: We must object to all of this. We think we know grammar, yet you might entrap us. I may know what a participle is, but I couldn't swear it to save my life.
There isn't a branch of business, profession or trade in the world that hasn't got cranks or fools in it, added Rosser.
Hits Evidence
Of Dr. Hancock.
Judge Roan: It is a matter for the jury.
A. A physician of the actions of the human body and health.
Q. What position have you ever held with local colleges?"A. I was once professor of physiology and pathology. Now I hold the chair of stomach and intestine diseases.
Q. Who succeeded you?"A. Dr. Harris as head of the department of pathology.
Q. When did Dr. Bachman come in?"A. Several years ago.
Dorsey showed the witness specimens of the cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan: also specimens taken from the stomachs of ot
her persons.
Q. If you gave a person cabbage three or four hours after they had drank a chocolate milk and if the cabbage was taken out of the stomach 40 minutes later and showed chocolate coloring, was it a normal stomach?"A. That quantity of stuff taken from a stomach 20 minutes after eating would show an abnormal stomach.
This was a sample that had been exhibited by Dr. Hancock, a witness for the defense. The witness also said that another of Dr. Hancock's specimens of tomato was taken from an abnormal stomach. To a hypothetical question from Solicitor Dorsey as to the time a specimen of cabbage was in Mary Phagan's stomach before death, Attorney Arnold objected.
Arnold"if this is allowed, we will bring back all our experts.
Dorsey"That is not so terrifying to us. It is now almost 8 o'clock. This is very important to the State. Will the court allow me to cite some authorities tomorrow?
Judge Roan"I will.
Court then adjourned until 9 o'clock Wednesday morning.
PAGE 19
FRANK'S STATEMENT IS
BEST PLEA PRESENTED
IN HIS DEFENSE SO FAR
By JAMES B. NEVIN
So far, unquestionably, to my way of thinking Leo Frank himself has made the best and most appealing plea in behalf of Leo Frank. His statement in the recital thereof was as clean cut, as dignified, as dispassionate and as convincing as any statement I ever heard from the witness stand, and I have heard hundreds.
Regardless of its merits"or, at least, aside from that"the defendant acquitted himself with credit, and that much may be said of him ungrudgingly and in the frankest fairness to all parties concerned.
Of course, had Frank been nervous, hesitating, fidgety, or seemingly in any wise disconcerted, there would be those, perhaps, who would have seen in that great evidence of hi guilty"and aby the same token, in that he was calm, poised, self-possessed, even smiling at intervals, there will be those who see in that evidence of a monstrous coldness and unfeeling design.
The vast majority of those who heard that remarkable statement, however, must have been impressed by, at least, the apparent sincerity of it and the seeming inclination in the defendant to hold back nothing.
In its recital the statement of Leo Frank was wonderful"in its written form, stripped of the man's personality, it still is a human document of intense and absorbing interest.
It impressed me, too, as being a many ways characteristic of Frank as I have come to know him of late"and I never spoke one word to him in all my life.
I have come to know him as the prisoner sitting over there between the two women in the courtroom"the alight, spectacled party, a seat or two beyond Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold.
I have come to know him, in my way of knowing persons charged with grave crimes, not by the way of personal touch so much as by constant observation of him under fire.
Repression Makes the Story.
All that was dramatic in Frank's statement was repressed"the dramatic touch was there, to be sure, but the red fire and the usual accompanying stage tricks were not.
If Frank should undertake to sell me a gross of pencils, I should expect him to tell me the truth about the pencils, and nothing but the truth"but I should expect him nevertheless to sell me the pencils at a profit.
His statement of Monday seemed to me a recital much after the fashion I should expect from him in the pencil transaction.
To me, it seemed that Frank was undertaking to tell the truth and"but I should expect him nevertheless to sell me the pencils at a profit.
His statement of Monday seemed to me a recital much after the fashion I should expect from him in the pencil transaction.
To me, it seemed that Frank was undertaking to tell the truth nothing but the truth of the Mary Phagan murder, as he knows the truth"and to tell it at a profit to himself.
That is the best and the worst that I can say of Leo Frank's statement, as it appealed to me.
True, in a transaction involving a mere gross of pencils, there would be lacking all the great elements that entered into the statement Frank made on Monday"and yet, at that, neither subject matter is, in its final analysis, anything more or less than something about which the simple truth should be told.
Frank looked the jury fairly and squarely in the eye when he was making his statement"and not once did he hesitate or falter in stating his plea.
Contrast the statement of the defendant with the statement of the negro"the star witness summoned against him.
Frank's Day in Court.
Now, Monday was Frank's day in court, and it is square and right that Frank's showing should be criticized freely and frankly"it is right that his statement should be praised, if it seemed to deserve praise, just as it should be condemned, if it seemed to merit that melancholy fate.
Contrast it, therefore, with the statement of Conley!
Argue the matter with yourself.
Certainly, Frank has behind him a long period of decent life, good reputation, business integrity, and home happiness"and Conley has, what?
Take the two stories"and upon these two stories the verdict in the Frank case must turn eventually"and weigh them, side by side, honestly, without prejudice, and in the light of a clean conscience.
What is your answer?
What will be the jury's answer?
The field of speculation thus opened is most engaging, and it will, if one but undertake to enter it seriously and with open mind, be well worth the entering.
In the matter of his character, Frank said little. He entered simple denials to some few things cited against him.
In the matter of his character, Frank said little. He entered simple denials to some few things cited against him.
He was willing to be cross-examined on his statement. He himself insisted that his general character be put in issue. He furnished the State with the first information it ever had that Conley could write.
All the way through, his statement rang with confident challenge, and a dare to the State to prove anything vile in him whatever!
Now, then, people will differ as to the EFFECT Frank's statement will and ought to have on the jury.
Maybe it is a clever evasion of grave issue"maybe it is possible of rebuttal, and maybe it will be broken down.
Impressively Delivered.
The fact remains that it was most impressively delivered, and carried with it every emphasis of apparent truth and straight forwardness!
It is my opinion now that State has in Frank's statement the hardest thing to get away from that yet has been tendered to it.
It contradicts the State at points that the defense has been able to fortify abundantly with facts.
It makes more necessary than ever before the complete success of the State's efforts to break down Frank's good name.
For I think it safe to predict that unless the State DOES demolish Frank utterly, the wonderful statement he made on Monday more than likely will serve in connection with the other things set up"to clear him of the charge of murdering Mary Phagan!
It matters not, so far as this article is concerned, moreover, whether the statement ought to clear him"the prospect is that it WILL clear him unless the State can batter it down and collapse it entirely!
The defendant touched upon every phase of this State's case against him"the happiness of his home, his nervousness on the morning of the murder, his movements on the day of the crime, and the day before, and the day after, his family's financial resources, his disinclination to talk to Conley, although he at first talked freely to the police officers, his alleged peeping into the girl's dressing room, his lack of knowledge of or acquaintance with the impeached Dalton, his non-association with loose characters, male and female.
Is there a gap that Frank MIGHT let down that he has FAILED to let down?
Is there a point involved that Frank has not invited investigation of?
Hard to Find Gaps.
It is rathe
r hard to locate any such gaps or points, if they are there.
And yet they may be there! That is for the State yet to demonstrate!
The State has the full right of rebuttal, as applied to Frank's statement, that it enjoys in respect of other evidence. There may be weak points in his story"just as there are weak points in Conley's.
The point is that they are not nearly so apparent upon the surface of things in the Frank statement.
For one thing, Conley made four sworn statements, all contradictory, before he got one finally landed, and Conley admitted freely from the stand that he had lied time and again.
On the other hand, Frank's statement is the first and only sustained and sequenced utterance as to the details of his story yet falling from his lips.
It must stand in its entirely or fail in its entirety.
Whatever may be the effect of that statement in the end, it will go down in the criminal history of Georgia as on the most remarkably clear and apparently convincing statements ever falling from a defendant's lips.
When the State gets through with it, the statement may be shot to pieces and rendered utterly ineffective.
As it stands today, however, I hardly think a dozen people who heard it will deny the profound impression it made, and the present probability of its determining effect upon the minds of the jury.
The defense has played its best card in Leo Frank's statement.
It remains yet to be seen, however, whether that card is sufficient to win the case!
Mother of Leo Frank
Mrs.
Rae
Frank.
Wife at Last Breaks Down,
Overcome by Frank's Story
After having braved every trying courtroom ordeal and faced every horrible charge hurried at her husband with a stoicism almost as unflinching and imperturbable as his, Mrs. Leo Frank gave away completely to her emotions and sobbed unrestrainedly as Frank said the last words of his wonderful and most impressive address to the jury Monday.
It was the final dramatic touch to a situation that had held a courtroom full of spectators in an irresistible thrall through four long hours of the afternoon.
The spell that had been cast over the room by the quiet but earnest words of the slight young factory superintendent was broken by the tones of the deputies, who shouted the moment Frank rose to leave the witness chair!
Keep your seats, gentlemen, while the jury passes out.
Frank Rushes to Wife.
In the confusion that followed some did not notice that Frank rushed right to the side of his wife who had thrown her head in her arms and was shaking with pitiful sobs as she moaned his name again and again.
The woman who had steeled herself against the accusations and innuendoes of the Solicitor General during the three long weeks of the trial collapsed when her husband himself took the stand to declare his innocence.
Many who had rushed into the enclosure to give their congratulations to Frank caused as they observed the piteous figure.
The jurors, already deeply impressed by the talk of Frank, were freshly touched by this exhibition of emotion. They had arisen to file over to the Kimball House. Juror Johening, at the head of the line, stood for several minutes with tears running down his cheeks, oblivious of the fact that he was blocking the rest of the jurors and that three deputies were waiting to take them on their way.
Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor leaned against the railing of the enclosure. There was a suspicious moisture in his eyes, which have grown accustomed to many tragic and affecting spectacles.
Troublesome Lump Rises.
Very few in the courtroom had much to say until they had managed to subdue that troublesome lump that persisted in rising in their throats.
Rube, that boy put it all over you and me, muttered massive Luther Rosser, huskily, to Reuben Arnold, his partner in the case.
For many minutes after the packed courtroom had emptied itself a little group of persons remained in front of the judge's bench. Mrs. Frank, the wife of the man accused of the revolting murder, and the elder Mrs. Frank, his mother, were weeping hysterically, overcome by the appeal that had been made. Relatives surrounded them. Frank talked comfortingly to them for several minutes, and then, feeling in danger of breaking down himself signaled Sheriff Mangum and returned to his cell in the Tower.
- Monday, 28th April 1913 10,000 Throng Morgue to See Body of Victim [Last Updated On: June 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 18th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 12-Year-Old Girl Sobs Her Love for Slain Child [Last Updated On: February 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 9th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 3 Youths Seen Leading Along a Reeling Girl [Last Updated On: February 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 10th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Arrested as Girl’s Slayer [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 31st, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Body Dragged by Deadly Cord After Terrific Fight [Last Updated On: February 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 8th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Chief and Sleuths Trace Steps in Slaying of Girl [Last Updated On: February 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 7th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 City Chemist Tests Stains For Blood [Last Updated On: February 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 6th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Gantt Was Infatuated With Girl; at Factory Saturday [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 5th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Girl and His Landlady Defend Mullinax [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 4th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Girl to Be Buried in Marietta To-morrow [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Girl’s Grandfather Vows Vengeance [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 2nd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Horrible Mistake, Pleads Mullinax, Denying Crime [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 1st, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 “I Could Trust Mary Anywhere,” Her Weeping Mother Says [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 11th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Incoherent Notes Add to Mystery in Strangling Case [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 8th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Lifelong Friend Saw Girl and Man After Midnight [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 30th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Look for Negro to Break Down [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 29th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Mullinax Blundered in Statement, Say Police [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 28th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Negro is Not Guilty, Says Factory Head [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 27th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Neighbors of Slain Girl Cry for Vengeance [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 26th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Pinkertons Take Up Hunt for Slayer [Last Updated On: March 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 25th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Playful Girl With Not a Bad Thought [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Police Question Factory Superintendent [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 24th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Slain Girl Modest and Quiet, He Says [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 23rd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Soda Clerk Sought in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 22nd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Story of the Killing as the Meager Facts Reveal It [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 21st, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Suspect Gantt Tells His Own Story [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 20th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Where and With Whom Was Mary Phagan Before End? [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 19th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Bartender Confirms Gantts Statement [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 16th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Charge is Basest of Lies, Declares Gantt [Last Updated On: March 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 15th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Factory Employee May Be Taken Any Moment [Last Updated On: September 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 14th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Factory Head Frank and Watchman Newt Lee are Sweated by Police [Last Updated On: March 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 13th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Former Playmates Meet Girl’s Body at Marietta [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 12th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Guilt Will Be Fixed Detectives Declare [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 11th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 I Feel as Though I Could Die, Sobs Mary Phagans Grief-Stricken Sister [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 17th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Is the Guilty Man Among Those Held? [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 10th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Keeper of Rooming House Enters Case [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 9th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Loyalty Sends Girl to Defend Mullinax [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 15th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Negro Watchman is Accused by Slain Girl’s Stepfather [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 14th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Nude Dancers Pictures Upon Factory Walls [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 13th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Pastor Prays for Justice at Girls Funeral [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 12th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Seek Clew in Queer Words in Odd Notes [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 11th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Slayers Hand Print Left On Arm Of Girl [Last Updated On: March 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 10th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Boy Sweetheart Says Girl Was to Meet Him Saturday [Last Updated On: March 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 20th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 City Offers $1,000 as Phagan Case Reward [Last Updated On: March 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 19th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Clock Misses Add Mystery to Phagan Case [Last Updated On: March 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 31st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Confirms Lee’s Story of Shirt [Last Updated On: March 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 1st, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Girl’s Death Laid to Factory Evils [Last Updated On: March 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 4th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Great Crowd at Phagan Inquest [Last Updated On: March 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 3rd, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Handwriting of Notes is Identified as Newt Lees [Last Updated On: March 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Leo Frank’s Friends Denounce Detention [Last Updated On: March 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 30th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Looks Like Frank is Trying to Put Crime on Me, Says Lee [Last Updated On: March 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 24th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Machinist Tells of Hair Found in Factory Lathe [Last Updated On: March 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 22nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Mother Prays That Son May Be Released [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 29th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Net Closing About Lee, Says Lanford [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 23rd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Newt Lee on Stand at Inquest Tells His Side of Phagan Case [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 7th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Newt Lees Testimony as He Gave It at the Inquest [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 6th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Policeman Says Body Was Dragged From Elevator [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 5th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Reward of $1,000 Urged by Mayor [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 18th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Sergeant Brown Tells His Story of Finding of Body [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 28th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Sisters New Story Likely to Clear Gantt as Suspect [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 16th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Tells Jury He Saw Girl and Mullinax Together [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 25th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Tells of Watchman Lee Explaining the Notes [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Went Down Scuttle Hole on Ladder to Reach Body [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 2nd, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Witness Saw Slain Girl and Man at Factory Door [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Writing Test Points to Negro [Last Updated On: March 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 17th, 2022]
- Thursday, 1st May 1913 State Enters Phagan Case; Frank and Lee are Taken to Tower [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 9th, 2022]
- Thursday, 1st May 1913 Terminal Official Certain He Saw Girl [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 8th, 2022]
- Friday, 2nd May 1913 Dorsey Puts Own Sleuths Onto Phagan Slaying Case [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 7th, 2022]
- Friday, 2nd May 1913 Police Still Puzzled by Mystery of Phagan Case [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 6th, 2022]
- Saturday, 3rd May 1913 Analysis of Blood Stains May Solve Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 5th, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Dr. John E. White Writes on the Phagan Case [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 1st, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Gov. Brown on the Phagan Case [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 4th, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Grand Jury to Take Up Phagan Case To-morrow [Last Updated On: April 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 3rd, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Old Police Reporter Analyzes Mystery Phagan Case Solution Far Off, He Says [Last Updated On: April 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 2nd, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Slayer of Mary Phagan May Still be at Large [Last Updated On: April 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 30th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Coroners Jury Likely to Hold Both Prisoners [Last Updated On: April 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 24th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Crowds at Phagan Inquest [Last Updated On: April 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 29th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Frank on Witness Stand [Last Updated On: April 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 26th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Judge Charges Grand Jury to Go Deeply Into Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 28th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Judge W. D. Ellis Charges Grand Jury to Probe into Phagan Slaying Mystery [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 27th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Phagan Girl’s Body Exhumed [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 25th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Bowen Still Held by Houston Police in the Phagan Case [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 22nd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Brother Declares Bowen Left Georgia in August [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 21st, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Frank’s Testimony Fails to Lift Veil of Mystery [Last Updated On: April 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 18th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 How Frank Spent Day of Tragedy [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 20th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Newest Clews in Phagan Case Not Yet Public [Last Updated On: March 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 23rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Phagan Case and the Solicitor Generals Power Under Law—Dorsey Hasnt Encroached on Coroner [Last Updated On: April 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 19th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Employee of Lunch Stand Near Pencil Factory is Trailed to Alabama [Last Updated On: April 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 16th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Lee is Quizzed by Dorsey for New Evidence [Last Updated On: April 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 15th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Phagan Girls Body Again Exhumed for Finger-Print Clews [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 14th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Solicitor Dorsey Orders Body Exhumed in the Hope of Getting New Evidence [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 17th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Another Clew in Phagan Case is Worthless [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 5th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Black Testifies Quinn Denied Visiting Factory [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 31st, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Boots Rogers Tells How Body Was Found [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 10th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Didnt See Girl Late Saturday, He Admits [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 11th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Frank Answers Questions Nervously When Recalled [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 3rd, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Frank of Nervous Nature; Says Superintendent Aide [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 1st, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Girl Employe on Fourth Floor of Factory Saturday [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 6th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Grand Jury to Sift the Evidence in the Phagan Case Within the Next Few Days [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 9th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Inquest Scene is Dramatic in its Tenseness [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 13th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Lee Repeats His Private Conversation With Frank [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 30th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Leo Frank is Again Quizzed by Coroner [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 4th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Pinkerton Detective Tells of Call From Factory Head [Last Updated On: April 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 2nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Police Still Withhold Evidence. Frank To Be Examined on New Lines [Last Updated On: April 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 12th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Quinn, Foreman Over Slain Girl, Tells of Seeing Frank [Last Updated On: April 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 8th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Stenographer in Factory Office on Witness Stand [Last Updated On: April 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 7th, 2022]
- Friday, 9th May 1913 Best Detective in America Now is on Case, Says Dorsey [Last Updated On: April 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 29th, 2022]
- Saturday, 10th May 1913 Guard of Secrecy is Thrown About Phagan Search by Solicitor [Last Updated On: April 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 28th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Caught Frank With Girl in Park, He Says [Last Updated On: April 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 25th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Frank is Awaiting Action of the Grand Jury Calmly [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 24th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Mary Phagans Death Only Assured Fact Developed [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 26th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Weak Evidence Against Men in Phagan Slaying [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 27th, 2022]
- Monday, 12th May 1913 Burns Called into Phagan Mystery; On Way From Europe [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 23rd, 2022]
- Monday, 12th May 1913 Phagan Case is Delayed [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 22nd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 13th May 1913 Frank’s Life in Tower [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 20th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 13th May 1913 Mother Thinks Police Are Doing Their Best [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 19th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 13th May 1913 New Theory is Offered in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: April 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 14th May 1913 Friends Say Franks Actions Point to Innocence [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 17th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 14th May 1913 Secret Hunt by Burns in Mystery is Likely [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 18th, 2022]
- Thursday, 15th May 1913 Burns Investigator Will Probe Slaying [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 16th, 2022]
- Friday, 16th May 1913 $1,000 Offered Burns to Take Phagan Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 13th, 2022]
- Friday, 16th May 1913 Burns Hunt for Phagan Slayer Begun [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 15th, 2022]
- Friday, 16th May 1913 Secret Probe Began by Burns Agent into the Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 14th, 2022]
- Saturday, 17th May 1913 New Phagan Witnesses Have Been Found [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 18th May 1913 Burns, Called in as Last Resort, Faces Cold Trail in Baffling Phagan Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 18th May 1913 Burns Sleuth Makes Report in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2022]
- Sunday, 18th May 1913 Greeks Add to Fund to Solve Phagan Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2022]
- Monday, 19th May 1913 Burns Agent Outlines Phagan Theory [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 19th May 1913 Burns Eager to Solve Phagan Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 8th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 20th May 1913 Cases Ready Against Lee and Leo Frank [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 6th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 21st May 1913 T. B. Felder Repudiates Report of Activity for Frank [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 5th, 2022]
- Thursday, 22nd May 1913 Grand Jury Wont Hear Leo Frank or Lee [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 4th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Dictograph Record Used Against Felder [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 28th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Felder Denies Phagan Bribe; Calls Colyar Crook and Liar [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 30th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Felder Denies Phagan Bribery; Dictograph Record Used Against Felder [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 2nd, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Frank Feeling Fine But Will Not Discuss His Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 1st, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Here is Affidavit Charging Bribery [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 29th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Indictment of Both Lee and Frank is Asked [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Beavers Says He Will Seek Indictments [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 16th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Blease Ironic in Comments on Felder Trap [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 17th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Colyar Called Convict and Insane [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Colyar Held for Forgery [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 26th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Dictograph Catches Mayor in Net [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 27th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Dictograph Record Alleged Bribe Offer [Last Updated On: April 25th, 2024] [Originally Added On: December 2nd, 2020]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Felder Charges Police Plot to Shield Slayer [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 21st, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Felders Fight is to Get Chief and Lanford Out of Office [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 15th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Frame-Up Aimed at Burns Men, Says Tobie [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Jones Attacks Beavers and Charges Police Crookedness [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 25th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Mayor Admits Dictograph is Correct [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 24th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Miles Says He Had Mayor Go to Room [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 22nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Plot on Life of Beavers Told by Colyar [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 23rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Strangulation Charge is in Indictments [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 19th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Attorney, in Long Statement, Claims Dictograph Records Against Him Padded [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Colyar Arrest Proper End to Plot of Crook [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 10th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Colyar, Held as Forger, is Freed on Bond; Long Crime Record Charged [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Dorsey to Present Graft Charges if They Stand Up [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 9th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Ill Indict Gang, Says Beavers [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 14th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Long Criminal Record of Colyar is Cited [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 11th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Accuses Tobie of Kidnaping Attempt [Last Updated On: April 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 3rd, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Evidence Against Frank Conclusive, Say Police [Last Updated On: April 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 5th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Lay Bribery Effort to Franks Friends [Last Updated On: April 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Mason Blocks Attempt to Oust Chief [Last Updated On: April 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 1st, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Mayor Eager to Bring Back Tenderloin, Declares Chief [Last Updated On: April 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 6th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Mayor Gives Out Sizzling Reply to Chief Beavers [Last Updated On: April 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 4th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Pinkerton Man Says Frank is Guilty [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Will Take Charge of Graft to Grand Jury for Vindication [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 8th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 Burns Man Quits Case; Declares He Is Opposed [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 30th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 Felder Aide Offers Vice List to Chief [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 29th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 State Faces Big Task in Trial of Frank as Slayer [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 28th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 Suspicion Turned to Conley; Accused by Factory Foreman [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 31st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Chief Beavers to Renew His Vice War [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 24th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Conley Says Frank Took Him to Plant on Day of Slaying [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Conley Was in Factory on Day of Slaying [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Woman Writes in Defense of Leo M. Frank [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Burns Joins in Hunt for Phagan Slayer [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 23rd, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Conley Re-enacts in Plant Part He Says He Took in Slaying [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 21st, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Felder Bribery Charge Expected [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 22nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Negro Conleys Affidavit Lays Bare Slaying [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Ready to Indict Conley as an Accomplice [Last Updated On: April 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 19th, 2022]
- Friday, 30th May 1913 Negro Conley Now Says He Helped to Carry Away Body [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Conley Star Actor in Dramatic Third Degree [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 15th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Plan to Confront Conley and Frank for New Admission [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 16th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Silence of Conley Put to End by Georgian [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 17th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Special Session of Grand Jury Called [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 14th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Confession of Conley Makes No Changes in States Case [Last Updated On: February 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Conley is Unwittingly Friend of Frank, Says Old Police Reporter [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Conleys Story Cinches Case Against Frank, Says Lanford [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Dorseys Grill Fails to Make Conley Admit Hand in Killing [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Today is Mary Phagans Birthday; Mother Tells of Party She Planned [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 10th, 2022]
- Monday, 2nd June 1913 5 to Testify Frank Was at Home at Hour Negro Says He Aided [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 8th, 2022]
- Monday, 2nd June 1913 Beavers to Talk Over the Felder Row With Dorsey [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 2nd June 1913 Negro Cook at Home Where Frank Lived Held by the Police [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 3rd June 1913 Bitter Fight Certain in Trial of Frank [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 4th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 3rd June 1913 Felder Says He Will Lay Bare Startling Police Graft Plans [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 5th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 4th June 1913 Cooks Sensational Affidavit [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 3rd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 4th June 1913 Fain Named in Vice Quiz as Resort Visitor [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 2nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 4th June 1913 Franks Cook Was Counted Upon as Defense Witness [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 1st, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 Challenges Felder to Prove His Charge [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 31st, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 Cook Repudiates Entire Affidavit Police Possess [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 27th, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 I Know My Husband is Innocent, Asserts Wife of Leo M. Frank [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 29th, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 Mother Here to Aid Frank in Trial [Last Updated On: May 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 30th, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 New Conley Confession Reported to Jury [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 28th, 2022]
- Friday, 6th June 1913 Chief Says Law Balks His War on Vice [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 26th, 2022]
- Friday, 6th June 1913 Report Negro Found Who Saw Phagan Attack [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 25th, 2022]
- Saturday, 7th June 1913 Defense Bends Efforts to Prove Conley Slayer [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 7th June 1913 Defense Digs Deep to Show Conley is Phagan Girl Slayer [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2022]
- Saturday, 7th June 1913 Mrs. Frank Attacks Solicitor H. M. Dorsey in a New Statement [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 23rd, 2022]
- Sunday, 8th June 1913 Fair Play Alone Can Find Truth in Phagan Puzzle, Declares Old Reporter [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2022]
- Monday, 9th June 1913 Foreman Tells Why He Holds Conley Guilty [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2022]
- Monday, 9th June 1913 Rosser Asks Grand Jury Grill for Conley [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 17th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 10th June 1913 Eyewitness to Phagan Slaying Sought [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 19th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 10th June 1913 Indictment of Felder and Fain Asked [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Asks Beavers to Investigate Affidavit [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 14th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Felder Returns Phagan Fund to Givers [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 16th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Plot Exposed, Says Felder, But Lanford Doubts Affidavit [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 13th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Police Hold Conley By Courts Order [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 15th, 2022]
- Thursday, 12th June 1913 Face Conley and Frank, Lanford Urges [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 12th, 2022]
- Friday, 13th June 1913 Judge Roan to Decide Conleys Jail Fate [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2022]
- Friday, 13th June 1913 Negro Freed But Jailed Again On Suspicion [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 11th, 2022]
- Saturday, 14th June 1913 Sheriff Mangum Near End, Says Lawyer Smith [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 14th June 1913 State Takes Advantage of Points Known [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 8th, 2022]
- Monday, 16th June 1913 Colyar Returns Promising Sensation [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 5th, 2022]
- Monday, 16th June 1913 Dorsey Aide Says Frank Is Fast In Net [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 17th June 1913 Sensations in Phagan Case at Hand [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 4th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 18th June 1913 Rush Plans for Trial of Leo Frank [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 7th, 2022]
- Thursday, 19th June 1913 Blow Aimed at Formby Story [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 3rd, 2022]
- Friday, 20th June 1913 Frank Trial Will Not Be Long One [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 2nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 21st June 1913 Justice Aim in Phagan Case, Says Hooper [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 1st, 2022]
- Sunday, 22nd June 1913 Arnold to Aid Frank [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 30th, 2022]
- Sunday, 22nd June 1913 Jurors, Not Newspapers, To Return Frank Verdict, Declares Old Reporter [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 29th, 2022]
- Monday, 23rd June 1913 State Ready for Frank Trial on June 30 [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 28th, 2022]
- Monday, 23rd June 1913 Venire of 72 for Frank Jury Is Drawn [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 27th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 24th June 1913 Both Sides Called in Conference by Judge; Trial Set for July 28 [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 25th June 1913 Conley, Put on Grill, Sticks Story [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 26th June 1913 Stover Girl Will Star in Frank Trial [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 24th, 2022]
- Friday, 27th June 1913 Lanford and Felder Are Held for Libel [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 23rd, 2022]
- Friday, 27th June 1913 New Frank Evidence Held by Dorsey [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 22nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 28th June 1913 Gov. Slaton Takes Oath Simply [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 20th, 2022]
- Saturday, 28th June 1913 State Secures New Phagan Evidence [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 21st, 2022]
- Sunday, 29th June 1913 Brilliant Legal Battle Is Sure as Hooper And Arnold Clash in Trial of Leo Frank [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 18th, 2022]
- Sunday, 29th June 1913 Many Experts to Take Stand in Frank Trial [Last Updated On: May 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 19th, 2022]
- Monday, 30th June 1913 Conley Tale Is Hope of Defense [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 17th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 Colyar Indicted as Libeler of Col. Felder [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 13th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 Colyar Not Indicted On Charge of Libel [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 15th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 Frank Is Willing for State to Grill Him [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 12th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 May Indict Conley as Slayer [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 16th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 May Indict Conley in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: May 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 14th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 “No” Bill Is Returned Against A. S. Colyar [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 11th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 2nd July 1913 Findings in Probe are Guarded [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 10th, 2022]
- Thursday, 3rd July 1913 Attempt by Colyar To Disbar Felder Is Halted; Tries Again [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 9th, 2022]
- Thursday, 3rd July 1913 Writ Sought In Move to Free Negro Lee [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 8th, 2022]
- Friday, 4th July 1913 New Testimony Lays Crime to Conley [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 7th, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Application for Lee’s Release Delayed [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 5th, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Drop Ninth in Police Scandal [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 6th, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Liberty for Newt Lee Sought [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 3rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Unbiased in the Flanders Case, Says Slaton [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 4th, 2022]
- Sunday, 6th July 1913 Application to Release Lee is Ready to File [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 1st, 2022]
- Sunday, 6th July 1913 New Move in Phagan Case by Solicitor [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 31st, 2022]
- Sunday, 6th July 1913 Phagan Case Centers on Conley; Negro Lone Hope of Both Sides [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 7th July 1913 Lee’s Attorney is Ready for Writ Fight [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 30th, 2022]
- Monday, 7th July 1913 Operations of Slavers in Hotels Bared [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 29th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Attitude of Defense Secret [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 24th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Girl Tells of Life in Slavers’ Hands [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 23rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Grants Right to Demand Lee’s Freedom [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 27th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Police Hunt Principals in Expose [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 28th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Refused by Brown, Mangham Now Asks Slaton for Pardon [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 25th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 State Sure Lee Will Not Be Released [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 9th July 1913 Girl Springs Sensation in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 22nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 9th July 1913 New Evidence in Phagan Case Found [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 9th July 1913 Sensations in Story of Girl Victim [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Beavers in Speech Warns Policemen to Keep Out of Dives [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 17th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Beavers’ War on Vice is Lauded by Women [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Chief Expects Arrests in Vice Probe [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 19th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Says Conley Confessed Slaying [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2022]
- Friday, 11th July 1913 Girl Tells Police Startling Story of Vice Ring [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 14th, 2022]
- Friday, 11th July 1913 Mincey’s Story Jolts Police to Activity [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 13th, 2022]
- Friday, 11th July 1913 Slaying Charge for Conley Is Expected [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Conley Kept on Grill 4 Hours [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Dragnet for ‘Slavers’ Is Set [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Five Caught in Beavers’ Vice Net [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Parents Are Blamed for ‘Slavery’ [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 11th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Says Women Heard Conley Confession [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 13th July 1913 Affidavits to Back Mincey Story Found [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2022]
- Sunday, 13th July 1913 Indictment of Conley Puzzle for Grand Jury [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 5th, 2022]
- Sunday, 13th July 1913 Seek Negro Who Says He Was Eye-Witness to Phagan Murder [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Girl Bares New Vice System [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Mincey’s Own Story [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Prosecution Attacks Mincey’s Affidavit [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Vice Pickets Posted at Hotels [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 Holloway Corroborates Mincey’s Affidavit [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 Police Close 2 Rooming Houses [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 White Men Fined in War on Negro Dives [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 Woodward Aids Chief in Vice Crusade [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 16th July 1913 Dorsey Adds Startling Evidence [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 16th July 1913 State to Fight Move to Indict Jim Conley [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Dorsey Blocked Indictment of Conley [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 24th, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Mayor and Broyles in War of Words [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 23rd, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Mayor Asked to Probe Action of Police [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 21st, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Woodward Enemy to Society, Says Recorder Broyles [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Youth Accused in Vice Ring on Trial [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 22nd, 2022]
- Friday, 18th July 1913 Detectives Working to Discredit Mincey [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 19th, 2022]
- Friday, 18th July 1913 Woodward-Broyles Breach Widens [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 19th July 1913 Dorsey Resists Move to Indict Jim Conley [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 17th, 2022]
- Saturday, 19th July 1913 Natural Crank, Mayor’s Shot at Broyles [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 16th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Attorney for Conley Makes a Statement [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Counsel of Frank Says Dorsey Has Sought to Hide Facts [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 15th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Dorsey Fights Movement to Indict Conley [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Mincey Ready to Tell Story to Grand Jury [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Mincey Story Declared Vital To Both Sides in Frank Case [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 14th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Doctor And Girl Are Taken On Vice Charge [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 8th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Four Women Caught In Vice Net Escape From Martha Home [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 10th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Grand Jury Meets to Consider Conley Case [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Protest of Solicitor Dorsey Wins [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 9th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 22nd July 1913 Defense Asks Ruling on Delaying Frank Trial [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 22nd July 1913 Grand Jury Defers Action on Conley [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 5th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 22nd July 1913 Story of Phagan Case by Chapters [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 4th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 23rd July 1913 Conley is Confronted with Lee Dorsey Grills Negroes in Same Cell at Jail [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 3rd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 23rd July 1913 Lanford Ridicules Bludgeon Evidence [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 1st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 23rd July 1913 Second Chapter in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 2nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Frank Trial Delay up to Roan [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 28th, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Let the Frank Trial Go On [Last Updated On: May 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Third Chapter in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 29th, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Veneir is Drawn to Try Leo M. Frank Monday [Last Updated On: September 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 30th, 2022]
- Friday, 25th July 1913 Witnesses for Frank Called [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 27th, 2022]
- Saturday, 26th July 1913 Chapter 5 in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 24th, 2022]
- Saturday, 26th July 1913 Pinkerton Chief Scored by Lanford [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 26th, 2022]
- Saturday, 26th July 1913 Present New Evidence Against Frank [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 25th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Brewster Denies Aiding Dorsey in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Defense Claims Conley and Lee Prepared Notes [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 18th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Every Bit of Evidence Against Frank Sifted and Tested, Declares Solicitor [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 19th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Frank Fights for Life Monday [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 22nd, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Frank Watches Closely as the Men Who are to Decide Fate are Picked [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Phagan Case of Peculiar And Enthralling Interest [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 16th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Pinkerton Men Brand Lanford Charges False [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 23rd, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Prominent Atlantans Named On Frank Trial Jury Venire [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 20th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Public Demands Frank Trial To-morrow [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 17th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 State Bolsters Conley [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 21st, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Trial to Surpass in Interest Any in Fulton County History [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 15th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Venire Whipped Into Shape Rapidly; Negro Is Eligible [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Work of Choosing Jury for Trial of Frank Difficult [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 14th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Frank, Feeling Tiptop, Smiling and Confident, is Up Long Before Trial [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 9th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Frank Jury [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Jury Complete to Try Frank [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 10th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Mary Phagan’s Mother Testifies [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 8th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 After Rosser’s Fierce Grilling All Negro, Newt Lee, Asked for Was Chew or Bacca-AnyKind [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 3rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 Defense Wins Point After Fierce Lawyers’ Clash [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 Lee’s Quaint Answers Rob Leo Frank’s Trial of All Signs of Rancor [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 Tragedy, Ages Old, Lurks in Commonplace Court Setting [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Defense Plans Sensation, Line of Queries Indicates [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Flashes of Tragedy Pierce Legal Tilts at Frank Trial [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 28th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Frank’s Mother Pitiful Figure of the Trial [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Gantt Has Startling Evidence; Dorsey Promises New Testimony Against Frank [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Rosser’s Examination of Lee Just a Shot in Dark; Hoped to Start Quarry [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 1st, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Collapse of Testimony of Black and Hix Girl’s Story Big Aid to Frank [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Crimson Trail Leads Crowd to Courtroom Sidewalk [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 22nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Holloway Accused by Solicitor Dorsey of Entrapping State [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 21st, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Red Bandanna, a Jackknife and Plennie Minor Preserve Order [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Scott Trapped Us, Dorsey Charges; Pinkerton Man Is Also Attacked by the Defense [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 State Balloon Soars When Dorsey, Roiled, Cries ‘Plant’ [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 23rd, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Conley Takes Stand Saturday [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Defense Not Helped by Witnesses Accused of Entrapping the State [Last Updated On: June 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 17th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Dorsey Unafraid as He Faces Champions of the Atlanta Bar [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 16th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Girl Slain After Frank Left Factory, Believed to be Defense Theory [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Sherlocks, Lupins and Lecoqs See Frank Trial [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Defense Threatens a Mistrial [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 14th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Frank Juror’s Life One Grand, Sweet SongNot [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Roan Holding Scales of Justice With Steady Hand [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 11th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 State Hopes Dr. Harris Fixed Fact That Frank Had Chance to Kill Girl [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Will 5 Ounces of Cabbage Help Convict Leo M. Frank? [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 3rd August 1913 Conley to Bring Frank Case Crisis [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 8th, 2022]
- Sunday, 3rd August 1913 First Week of Frank Trial Ends With Both Sides Sure of Victory [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 9th, 2022]
- Sunday, 3rd August 1913 Leo Frank’s Eyes Show Intense Interest in Every Phase of Case [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Boiled Cabbage Brings Hypothetical Question Stage in Frank’s Trial [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Conley’s Story In Detail; Women Barred By Judge [Last Updated On: June 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 5th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Dorsey Tries to Prove Frank Had Chance to Kill Girl [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 28th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Dramatic Moment of Trial Comes as Negro Takes Stand [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 29th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Envy Not the Juror! His Lot, Mostly, Is Monotony [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Frank Calm and Jurors Tense While Jim Conley Tells His Ghastly Tale [Last Updated On: September 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 30th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Frank Witness Nearly Killed By a Mad Dog [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 1st, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Jim Conley’s Story as Matter of Fact as if it Were of His Day’s Work [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 4th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Jurors Strain Forward to Catch Conley Story; Frank’s Interest Mild [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 31st, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Ordeal is Borne with Reserve by Franks [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 27th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Rosser’s Grilling of Negro Leads to Hot Clashes by Lawyers [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Conleys Charge Turns Frank Trial Into Fight To Worse Than Death [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 25th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Many Discrepancies To Be Bridged in Conleys Stories [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 23rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Mrs. Frank Breaks Down in Court [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 26th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Rosser Goes Fiercely After Jim Conley [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 22nd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Traditions of the South Upset; White Mans Life Hangs on Negros Word [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 24th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Accuser of Conley is Ready to Testify [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 19th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Can Jury Obey if Told to Forget Base Charge? [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Conley Swears Frank Hid Purse [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 20th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Crowd Set in Its Opinions [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 18th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Dorsey Accomplishes Aim Despite Big Odds [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 17th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Judge Will Rule on Evidence Attacked by Defense at 2 P.M. [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 16th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Jim Conley, the Ebony Chevalier of Crime, is Darktowns Own Hero [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 14th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Roans Ruling Heavy Blow to Defense [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 12th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 State Ends Case Against Frank [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 15th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Trial as Varied as Vaudeville Exhibition [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 13th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Trial Experts Conflict on Time of Girls Death [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 11th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 Bits of Circumstantial Evidence, as Viewed by State, Strands in Rope [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 7th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 Scott Put Conleys Story in Strange Light [Last Updated On: June 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 8th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 State, Tied by Conleys Story, Now Must Stand Still Under Hot Fire [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 9th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 Witnesses Attack Conley Story [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Absence of Alienists and the Hypothetical Question Distinguishes Frank Trial [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 5th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Confusion of Holloway Spoils Close of Good Day for the Defense [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 3rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Daltons Testimony False, Girl Named on Stand Says [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 6th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Exposure of Conley Story Time Flaws is Sought by Defense [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 1st, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Heres the Time Clock Puzzle in Frank Trial; Can You Figure It Out? [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 4th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 State Attacks Frank Report [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 2nd, 2022]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Case Never is Discussed by Frank Jurors [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 28th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Conley, Unconcerned, Asks Nothing of Trial [Last Updated On: June 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 27th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Dalton Sticks Firmly To Story Told on Stand [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 24th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Frank or Conley? Still Question [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 31st, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Frank Struggles to Prove His Conduct Was Blameless [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 29th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Interest in Trial Now Centers in Story of Mincey [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 26th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Mary Phagans Mother to be Spared at Trial [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 23rd, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 One Glance at Conley Boosts Darwin Theory [Last Updated On: June 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 22nd, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Phagan Trial Makes Eleven Widows But Jurors Wives Are Peeresses Also [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 25th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Study of Frank Convicts, Then It Turns and Acquits [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 30th, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Defense Bitterly Attacks Harris [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 21st, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Deputy Hunting Scalp Of Juror-Ventiloquist [Last Updated On: June 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 20th, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Grief-Stricken Mother Shows No Vengefulness [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 19th, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Interest Unabated as Dramatic Frank Trial Enters Third Week [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 18th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 Attacks on Dr. Harris Give Defense Good Day [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 15th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 Frank Trial Witness is Sure, At Least, of One Thinga Good Ragging [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 16th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 Peoples Cry for Justice Is Proof Sentiment Still Lives [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 14th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 State Charges Premeditated Crime [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 17th, 2021]
- Wednesday, 13th August 1913 Both Sides Aim for Justice in the Trial of Frank [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 12th, 2021]
- Wednesday, 13th August 1913 Franks Mother Stirs Courtroom [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 13th, 2021]
- Wednesday, 13th August 1913 State Calls More Witnesses; Defense Builds Up an Alibi [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 11th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 Defense Slips Load by Putting up Character of Leo Frank as Issue [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 8th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 State Fights Franks Alibi [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 6th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 State Wants Wife and Mother Excluded [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 10th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 States Sole Aim is to Convict, Defenses to Clear in Modern Trial [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 9th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 Steel Workers Enthralled by Leo Frank Trial [Last Updated On: June 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 7th, 2021]
- Friday, 15th August 1913 Frank Prepares to Take Stand [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 22nd, 2023]
- Friday, 15th August 1913 Testimony of Girls Help to Leo M. Frank [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 20th, 2023]
- Friday, 15th August 1913 What They Say Wont Hurt Leo Frank; State Must Prove Depravity [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 21st, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Girls Testify For and Against Frank [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 19th, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Many Testify to Franks Good Character [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 17th, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Mothers Love Gives Trial Its Great Scene [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Statement by Frank Will Be the Climactic Feature of the Trial [Last Updated On: July 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2023]
- Sunday, 17th August 1913 Supreme Test Comes As State Trains Guns On Frank's Character [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 11th, 2023]
- Monday, 18th August 1913 Leo Frank Testifies [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 2nd, 2023]
- Tuesday, 19th August 1913 Jim Conley To Be Recalled [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2023]
- Thursday, 21st August 1913 Mass Of Perjuries Charged By Arnold Centers Hot Attack On Conley. Ridicules Prosecution Theory [Last Updated On: September 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 23rd, 2023]
- Friday, 22nd August 1913 Rosser Begins Final Plea [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 2nd, 2023]
- Sunday, 24th August 1913 Dorsey Demands Death Penalty For Frank In Thrilling Closing Plea [Last Updated On: August 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 29th, 2023]
- Monday, 25th August 1913 Frank Case To Jury Today Leo, Frank On His Way From Jail To Court [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 3rd, 2023]
- Tuesday, 26th August 1913 Frank, Guilty On First Ballot [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 27th August 1913 Fight Begun To Save Frank Motion For New Trial Follows Death Sentence [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2023]
- Thursday, 28th August 1913 Reply Made To Frank's Attack [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 17th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 16th September 1913 No Judge To Try Fulton Docket [Last Updated On: April 25th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2024]
- Wednesday, September 17, 1913, Conley To Fight Felon Charge Bitterly. The Atlanta Georgian. [Last Updated On: April 25th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2024]
- Wednesday, 17th September 1913 Say Partee Shot In Self-defense [Last Updated On: April 25th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 17th, 2024]
- Monday, 22nd September 1913 Judge Roan Not To Hear Frank Trial Motion [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2024]
- Wednesday, 24th September 1913 Detective Black Not Blamed For Fighting [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2024]
- Thursday, 25th September 1913 Recall To Apply To All Big Offices [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2024]
- Friday, 26th September 1913 Judge Roan To Hear Arguments Asking Retrial For Frank [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Sunday, 28th September 1913 Judge Hill May Hear Frank Case [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Monday, 29th September 1913 Delay On Frank Hearing Seems Unavoidable [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Tuesday, 30th September 1913 Frank Ready For New Fight Rosser Ready. Roan Will Hear Frank Argument [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Sunday, 5th October 1913 Indefinite Respite Is Given Frank As Juror Charges Flood [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]