593 Page – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Here is the translated text as follows:

ORRIN DE WOLF. Bel

Orrin De Wolf's confession was witnessed by the sheriff and jailer and subsequently presented to the attorney. The defendant was informed that his confession would not benefit him as it did not provide evidence against others implicated in the statement. The prisoner further stated that the part of his confession relating to Mrs. Stiles was untrue. He admitted to the illicit intercourse and claimed that Stiles was a diseased and intemperate man whose wife wished him dead. De Wolf confessed that he had procured poison for Mrs. Stiles to administer to her husband, but she was afraid to do so. He then agreed, at her request, to give Stiles the poison himself. De Wolf obtained arsenic for this purpose, having been instructed by Mrs. Stiles to mix it with hot sling before administering it to the deceased. Under these circumstances, the document containing the confession is admissible as evidence.

Now, gentlemen, the question for you to determine is how far all the circumstances in this case, taken in conjunction with the confession itself, go to establish proof of a murder committed by the prisoner. Although he states in the confession that the act was not done by himself but by another, the jury must consider the confession as it is, rejecting what seems to be untrue or uncorroborated and accepting as evidence what appears to be substantiated by the testimony that has been introduced.

Returning to the question of whether this crime was influenced by external factors, slight or significant, if you are satisfied that these influences were employed by the defendant, then he is guilty of the charge; if not, he is not guilty. If this death was caused by violence on the part of De Wolf, then it is a homicide.

Now, gentlemen of the jury, was there a motive? This depends on the evidence, partly derived from his confession and partly from other evidence. Although the confession does not admit that he committed the act, it does acknowledge that he arranged for it to be done. The guilt would be the same as if the crime had been committed by his own hand, with him present, aiding and abetting. In making a confession, he might have assumed...