Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 24th, 1913
“What I had to say yesterday,” began Mr. Dorsey at the opening of Saturday morning’s session, “with references to character, I think I have demonstrated by law to any fair-minded man that the defendant is not a man of good character.”
“In failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies who claim his character was bad, is proof, of itself, that if he had character that was good, no power on earth would have kept him and his counsel from plying countless questions in his behalf.”
“That’s common-sense, gentlemen, a proposition that is as fair and a proposition which I have already shown you by law that they had a perfect right to delve into his character. Also, you have seen their failure to cross-question these witnesses.”
“Whenever any man has evidence in possession and fails to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would he hurtful if they did produce it. Failure to present such evidence is a glaring Indictment. You need no law book to tell you that.”
“You know the reason, his able counsel did not ask these ‘hare-brained fanatics’ questions of the evidence they had presented against their client. You know it too well, they know it—they know it better than you. That’s why they did not question.”
“You tell me those good people from Washington Street came and said they never heard anything against Frank. Many a man has gone through life, without even his wife knowing his misfortune. It takes the valley to know a man’s life.”
Continue Reading →