Negro Witnesses Under Pressure

Witness Tampering, False Pretexts, Money, Jobs, Disputed Affidavits, Manufactured Confession Allegations, Witness Removal, and the Campaign to Break Jim Conley

By Arthur Daniels

Historical terminology note: The newspapers, affidavits, court papers, and testimony from 1913 and 1914 commonly used Negro, Negress, and colored. This article uses Negro in its narration for historical clarity. Source quotations preserve original wording, even when a quotation uses words or grammar I would not otherwise use.

Contents

Master Chronology at a Glance

How the Evidence Is Classified

Why the Chronology Matters

Legal Framework: Witness Tampering, Influencing Witnesses, and Subornation

MONDAY, MAY 26-TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1913 | Albert and Minola McKnight

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1913-THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1914 | Annie Maud Carter

SUNDAY, APRIL 26-SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1914 | The Carter-Conley correspondence becomes a public weapon

FRIDAY, JANUARY 19-SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 1914 | Albert McKnight

FEBRUARY-MAY 1914 | Ivey Jones

FRIDAY, MARCH 27-TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1914 | Mary Rich

MONDAY, MARCH 30-MAY 1914 | Aaron Allen

SPRING 1914 | William Calhoun, Mark Wilson, and Whatley

SPRING 1914 | Frank Reese and Fred Perkerson

SPRING 1914 | The jail network around Frank, Burke, Carter, Reese, Perkerson, and the Wrenns

SATURDAY, MAY 9-TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1914 | Annie Maud Carter is moved out of Georgia

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1914 | Carter’s later inducement allegation

SPRING 1914 | John Shields and the search for “a Negro woman”

What the Defense Itself Admitted

What the Defense Denied

The Confession Dragnet

The Affidavit Repudiation Cycle

Money, Jobs, Travel, and Economic Leverage

Poverty, Race, Imprisonment, and Vulnerability

The Negro Witnesses Who Resisted

The Pattern Across the Negro Witnesses

What Cannot Responsibly Be Claimed

What Can Responsibly Be Claimed

Was the Post-Trial Investigation Corrupt?

Conclusion

References

There is a seldom examined part of the Leo Frank case which deserves far more attention than it receives. The controversy was never only about whether Leo Frank was guilty or innocent. It was never only about whether Jim Conley was believable. It was also about what happened to Negro witnesses once Frank’s lawyers, private investigators, detectives, and associates began searching for new affidavits, recantations, confession stories, and other evidence capable of overturning his conviction.

Leo M. Frank was convicted on Monday, August 25, 1913, of murdering thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan. After the verdict, Frank’s attorneys began an extensive effort to gather new evidence capable of obtaining another trial. Jim Conley became a central target of this effort. Conley’s testimony supplied the prosecution with its account of events inside the National Pencil Company after Mary entered the factory on Saturday, April 26, 1913. Conley admitted helping move Mary’s body and writing the murder notes, but he said he performed those acts under Frank’s direction.

If Frank’s investigators could destroy Conley’s credibility, move him through time and place in ways inconsistent with his testimony, find witnesses willing to say he confessed, construct damaging character evidence against him, or persuade Conley himself to accept responsibility for Mary’s murder, a major part of the State’s case could be attacked.

Again and again, the search led to Negro witnesses.

The surviving record includes Annie Maud Carter, Albert McKnight, Ivey Jones, Mary Rich, Aaron Allen, William Calhoun, Mark Wilson, Frank Reese, Fred Perkerson, a man named Whatley, and Jim Conley himself. Kate Allen, Aaron Allen’s wife, also enters the record after her husband’s disappearance into an interstate investigative effort. Kate accused nobody of bribery, but her affidavit helps show how extensive the Allen operation became.

John Shields is not counted among the Negro witnesses because his race is not established in the sources examined here. His affidavit belongs in this study for one narrow reason. Shields said Jimmie Wrenn asked him to locate “a negro woman” willing to supply damaging testimony against Conley after Shields refused the story as false.

Minola McKnight belongs for a different reason. Her experience came from State investigators in June 1913, not Frank’s later private investigative campaign. Her arrest, interrogation, signed affidavit, courtroom repudiation, and subsequent disputed history provide an important control example. Pressure upon Negro witnesses existed on both sides of the case.

The men working around Frank’s post-trial effort included William J. Burns, Dan S. Lehon, C. W. Burke, C. A. Isom, J. W. “Jimmie” Wrenn, Dr. George Wrenn, Stiles Hopkins, and others. Their roles were not identical. Not every person belonged formally to the Burns agency. George Wrenn, for example, belongs more safely in the wider circle surrounding Frank’s investigative effort than under a simple Burns-agency label.

None of this requires treating every accusation as proved. Some witnesses changed stories. Some were prisoners. Some affidavits were met by counter-affidavits. Some accusations were denied under oath. Paying an investigator is not corruption. Paying travel expenses is not bribery. Buying a meal is not subornation of perjury. Helping a poor man seek employment does not automatically establish an improper bargain. An accusation is not a conviction.

Those qualifications make the strongest evidence more important.

One investigator admitted using a fictional railroad accident to question a Negro State witness while concealing the real purpose of the interview. The investigator directing the operation admitted preparing the resulting affidavit from notes obtained through the deception. Albert McKnight said a much better-paying Pullman job entered the effort to obtain a changed statement from him. He later accused C. W. Burke of inserting language after his signature. Mary Rich said the strongest portion of an affidavit attributed to her was false and said she refused to sign because she “could not tell a lie.” Aaron Allen said investigators pursued him for a Jim Conley confession story even though he did not know Conley, while investigator C. A. Isom preserved Allen’s statement saying the desired affidavit would be a lie.

Allen later said he did dictate and sign an affidavit, but claimed any language saying he knew Conley had been inserted afterward. Isom then swore Burns later said Allen had supplied “the very affidavit” he wanted. Two Negro jail trusties, Frank Reese and Fred Perkerson, accused George Wrenn of proposing a fabricated Conley confession in exchange for money or benefits. The same men said Conley himself was approached about taking responsibility for Mary Phagan’s murder. An illiterate Negro trusty said a prepared paper was later brought to his home for signature.

Annie Maud Carter supplied evidence useful against Conley and was then moved outside Georgia under arrangements made by men connected with Frank’s investigation. Judge Benjamin H. Hill later found her removal constituted “technical contempt” until she was returned to the court’s reach. The State accused people inside Frank’s investigative orbit of manufacturing Carter-Conley correspondence which Burns was publicly promoting as evidence of Conley’s guilt. A witness also said he was asked to locate a Negro woman willing to give damaging testimony against Conley after he himself refused because he considered the story false.

Read separately, each episode can be challenged. Read together, they form a large record of Negro witness pressure, inducement, deception, disputed papers, confession seeking, interstate witness hunting, money, employment, witness removal, and repeated claims involving testimony the witnesses themselves said was false.

1.       Master Chronology at a Glance

The dates make the pattern easier to see. The witness controversies did not appear as one isolated flare-up. They accumulated over roughly one year, with different Negro witnesses entering the record as the prosecution and defense pursued competing versions of the case.

Monday, May 26, 1913. Albert McKnight, Atlanta. Albert signs a damaging affidavit concerning events inside the Selig household. His information predates Minola McKnight’s signed statement and later becomes a road map for questioning her.

Monday, June 2, 1913. Minola McKnight, Solicitor General’s office, Atlanta. Minola is taken into custody after information attributed to Albert. Contemporary newspapers describe intense questioning, hysteria, confrontation with her husband, and a threatened habeas corpus proceeding.

Tuesday, June 3, 1913. Minola McKnight, Atlanta. Minola signs State’s Exhibit J after continued questioning. The affidavit contains damaging statements about Frank, Lucile Frank, household conversations, extra payments, a hat, and instructions to mind how she talked.

August 1913. Minola McKnight, Fulton County courthouse. Minola repudiates State’s Exhibit J at Frank’s trial. She says she signed to get out of jail and says investigators wrote material she had not supplied. Gordon, Craven, and Starnes later give evidence tending to support at least part of the original affidavit process.

Sunday, December 7, 1913. Annie Maud Carter, Fulton County Jail. Carter later says an unidentified man offered money and a vial for use in Conley’s food. No source identifies the man or substance conclusively.

January 19, 1914. Albert McKnight, Atlanta. Burke obtains a new affidavit from Albert which weakens parts of Albert’s earlier testimony. Albert later repudiates the new paper.

February 1914. Ivey Jones, Atlanta. Burke sends J. W. Wrenn to Jones. Wrenn admits using a fictitious railroad accident as a cover story. Burke later admits dictating the resulting affidavit from Wrenn’s notes.

Friday, March 27, 1914. Mary Rich, Atlanta. Frank’s extraordinary motion publicly attributes a strong alley sighting to Rich, placing Conley near the rear of the factory around 2:15.

Monday, March 30, 1914 and the weeks following. Aaron Allen, Indianapolis and Chicago. Investigators pursue Allen for information concerning a supposed Conley confession. Allen says he does not know Conley. Isom later records continued efforts to make him supply a useful affidavit.

Sunday, April 19, 1914. Albert McKnight, Atlanta. Albert publicly repudiates Burke’s affidavit. He alleges a Pullman job prospect helped Burke influence him and says substantive language was inserted after his signature. Burke denies both charges. The same article reports Albert saying Minola privately told him her original police affidavit was true.

Wednesday, April 22, 1914. Mary Rich, Atlanta. Rich’s deposition retains the lunch sale to Conley but loses the strongest directional claim involving the factory alley.

Thursday, April 23, 1914. Annie Maud Carter, Haas offices, Atlanta. Witnesses later swear they were present with Carter during an affidavit session. They say she denied receiving money or promised reward.

Saturday, April 25, 1914. Annie Maud Carter. April 25 appears as the date printed on the resulting affidavit. The difference between the April 23 session and April 25 printed date sits inside the defense record itself.

Sunday, April 26, 1914. Carter-Conley correspondence, Atlanta. Burns publicly promotes alleged Conley letters as “proof conclusive.” Their origin, content, handling, translation, and authenticity soon become disputed.

Friday, May 1, 1914. Carter correspondence, Atlanta. Newspaper reporting describes a much larger body of letters than one of Carter’s other accounts suggests. The defense ultimately offers twenty-two sheets attributed to Carter and twenty-seven to Conley.

Saturday, May 2, 1914. William Burns, Atlanta. Burns testifies Burke supplied the Carter-Conley notes and George Wrenn made the first translation. Burns also confirms an employee traveled from Chicago into Indiana to obtain Aaron Allen.

Tuesday, May 5, 1914. Negro-witness controversy erupts publicly. Atlanta newspapers report accusations involving Carter, Albert McKnight, Ivey Jones, Mary Rich, Aaron Allen, Frank Reese, Fred Perkerson, and others. The process used to create new evidence becomes a subject of evidence itself.

Wednesday, May 6, 1914. Defense rebuttals. Marx disputes Mary Rich. George Wrenn denies the Reese and Perkerson accusations. Hopkins discusses Calhoun and the Chicago search. National newspapers carry the controversy outside Georgia.

Saturday, May 9, 1914. Annie Maud Carter, Atlanta. Judge Hill questions Carter after her interstate removal. Carter says Burns told her to go, Lehon arranged expenses, and she received five dollars in spending money.

Tuesday, May 26, 1914. Carter contempt ruling, Atlanta. Judge Hill says Burns and Lehon had been in “technical contempt of court” by removing Carter, then dismisses the rule after her return to Georgia places her again within legal process.

Wednesday, May 27, 1914. Carter, Atlanta. Carter accuses Lehon of giving her small sums and says she had been induced to swear against Conley. The accusation is reported, but no judicial finding resolving it appears in the source set used here.

This chronology matters because it shows repetition. The same kinds of problems return: a desired affidavit, a pretext, a job, money, travel, repeated questioning, a disputed signature, an alleged rewrite, a confession story, a witness removed from Georgia, a letter chain challenged as manufactured, or a substitute witness sought after refusal.

2.      How the Evidence Is Classified

A paper of this kind can become misleading if every source is treated as equally strong. I use several evidence categories.

Admissions carry the most weight when the conduct itself is disputed. Wrenn’s railroad pretext belongs here because Wrenn admitted using it. Burke’s role in directing Wrenn and preparing the Jones affidavit also comes from defense-side evidence. Burns’s statement identifying Burke as the source of the Carter-Conley notes and George Wrenn as first translator belongs here as well.

Sworn allegations deserve careful attention but do not become proved facts solely because a witness swore to them. McKnight’s job allegation, his post-signature rewrite accusation, Allen’s money account, Reese and Perkerson’s confession story, and Shields’s substitute-witness accusation fall into this category.

Corroborated allegations carry added weight when another source supports part of the machinery. Allen is the clearest example. His accusation does not stand alone because Isom independently says Allen did not know Conley, records Burns directing further pressure, and records Allen calling the desired affidavit a lie.

Newspaper reports are used for chronology, quotations, public claims, and descriptions of hearings. When a newspaper reports a sworn statement, the article is not itself a verdict. It remains a report of what a person said or what occurred in court.

Court findings are described narrowly. Judge Hill’s Carter ruling is a good example. He found technical contempt connected with removal, then dismissed the rule after Carter returned. I do not turn this limited finding into a bribery judgment.

Denials and rebuttals remain visible. Burke denied buying Albert’s affidavit. Marx disputed Rich. Burns denied paying Allen for a false story. Wrenn denied Reese and Perkerson. The defense offered handwriting evidence for the Carter-Conley papers. These rebuttals are part of the historical record.

Unresolved claims remain unresolved. Carter’s poison story, the Carter-letter forgery accusation, the alleged manufactured confession, and the post-signature rewrite allegations do not become settled facts through repetition. Their historical importance comes from their specificity, timing, overlap with admitted investigative machinery, and relationship to other witness disputes.

This method allows a strong argument without pretending every accusation ended in a conviction.

3.      Why the Chronology Matters

Chronology is not decoration in this subject. It is evidence. A witness statement can look harmless when separated from what happened a day earlier or a week later. The sequence often changes how the episode should be understood. Albert’s first affidavit matters because it existed prior to Minola’s interrogation. The April 23 Carter session matters because the resulting paper carries an April 25 date. Rich’s April deposition matters because it narrows the alley story prior to her May repudiation. Allen’s repeated denial of knowing Conley matters because continued pressure followed the denial. Carter’s return to Georgia matters because Judge Hill’s contempt ruling turned on restoration of the witness to legal process.

The same principle applies to money. A payment after an affidavit may mean something different from a promised payment used to obtain the affidavit. Employment assistance after a statement may mean something different from a job discussed as leverage during the effort to obtain a changed statement. Travel money may be innocent reimbursement, while money tied to a story a witness calls false presents a different problem.

For this reason, the article keeps dates, locations, and witness identities visible in the headings. The goal is to prevent events separated by weeks or months from being collapsed into one accusation. Clear chronology also prevents a defense denial from being detached from the allegation it answered.

4.      Legal Framework: Witness Tampering, Influencing Witnesses, and Subornation

The modern phrase witness tampering provides a useful framework for examining these events. Witness tampering generally describes improper efforts to influence, alter, suppress, manufacture, prevent, or corrupt testimony or evidence connected with a legal proceeding.

Current Georgia law calls the principal offense Influencing Witnesses. Georgia Code §16-10-93 covers benefits, rewards, corrupt persuasion, attempted corrupt persuasion, intimidation, threats, and misleading conduct used with intent to influence testimony or evidence (Georgia Code, 1). The modern statute cannot be applied retroactively as a criminal charge against people acting in 1914. It does help explain why conduct involving money for false testimony, deliberate deception, fabricated evidence, corrupt persuasion, or efforts to keep a witness away from legal process is taken seriously today.

Georgia also possessed an older legal concept directly relevant to the period. Subornation of perjury means procuring or inducing another person to commit perjury or false swearing. Georgia Code §16-10-72 traces its statutory history through Georgia’s Penal Code of 1895 and Penal Code of 1910 (Georgia Code, 2). Completed subornation requires actual perjury or false swearing. If a witness refuses to lie, the completed offense has not occurred simply because somebody tried.

This point is important with Aaron Allen, Frank Reese, Fred Perkerson, and John Shields. They described requests for evidence they considered false. They said they resisted. The historically careful description is therefore an alleged attempt to procure false testimony, or attempted subornation where a period legal source supports such wording.

I use witness tampering as an explanatory umbrella. I do not use it as a substitute for a criminal verdict.

What corruption means here

No court entered a universal finding declaring Leo Frank’s entire legal defense corrupt. I make no such claim. I use corrupt investigative conduct in a narrower sense.

If an investigator knowingly seeks false testimony, knowingly alters a signed statement, uses money or employment to purchase false evidence, deliberately creates a confession which never occurred, or attempts to manipulate a witness into supporting a predetermined story, ordinary language permits calling such conduct corrupt. Intent remains crucial.

A lawful investigator may question a witness repeatedly. A lawful investigator may challenge earlier testimony. A lawful investigator may pay legitimate expenses. A lawful investigator may search for exculpatory evidence. A lawful investigator may believe a witness lied at trial and ask for a correction. The line is crossed when the objective changes from discovering what a witness knows to producing what somebody needs the witness to say.

This article examines where the surviving record suggests such a line may have been crossed.

Recurring methods used in this article

The labels below are analytical names used to organize recurring conduct. They are not period legal terms.

The Pretext Interview means approaching a witness through a false cover story while hiding the real purpose.

The Post-Signature Rewrite describes an allegation involving substantive words added after a witness signed.

The Inflated Affidavit describes a paper containing a stronger claim than the witness later said she supplied.

Money, Employment, and Witness Expenses separates legitimate costs from alleged benefits linked to desired testimony.

The Manufactured Confession describes an alleged effort to create a confession story instead of discovering a genuine confession.

The Substitute Witness describes seeking another person after the first prospective witness refuses the desired account.

The Illiterate Signature Attempt describes the danger involved when a prepared document is presented to somebody unable to read it.

The Interstate Witness Hunt describes the paid search reaching Indiana, Chicago, Virginia, and the chain-gang system.

The Pressure Interview describes continued confrontation after a witness denies possessing the wanted information.

Removal After Cooperation describes moving Annie Maud Carter outside Georgia after she supplied evidence useful to Frank.

The Manufactured Correspondence Accusation describes the State’s formal claim involving the Carter-Conley letters.

The Confession Dragnet describes repeated efforts to locate somebody who could place a confession in Jim Conley’s mouth.

The Affidavit Repudiation Cycle describes a recurring sequence in which a paper useful to Frank appears, the supposed witness later disputes it, and Frank’s side produces further sworn evidence defending the original.

5.     MONDAY, MAY 26-TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1913

Albert and Minola McKnight

Selig residence, 68 East Georgia Avenue, and Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey’s office, Atlanta

Albert McKnight was Minola McKnight’s husband and one of the earliest sources used by investigators concerning events inside the Selig household. Minola was the Negro cook employed by Emil and Josephine Selig, where Leo and Lucile Frank lived. Albert supplied investigators with a damaging affidavit first. His account then became part of the information used while Minola was questioned.

The McKnight history cannot be understood by beginning with Minola’s arrest. It begins with Albert.

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1913

Albert McKnight’s affidavit comes first

Prior to Minola signing State’s Exhibit J, Albert had already supplied investigators with a highly damaging account concerning events inside the Selig household. The surviving Albert McKnight affidavit bears the date Monday, May 26, 1913, with an attestation associated with Monday, June 2. Minola did not sign State’s Exhibit J until Tuesday, June 3.

Albert therefore came first.

The order is critical because investigators did not begin questioning Minola with an empty page. They already possessed a detailed story from her husband. The surviving photograph of Albert’s affidavit contains physical damage, an obscured word, and a crossed-out passage. Those portions should remain identified as damaged or illegible rather than reconstructed by guesswork.

The Albert McKnight affidavit

Monday, May 26, 1913, attested prior to a Notary, June 2, 1913

I, Albert McKnight, was at Mr. Leo M. Frank’s home on East Ga. Ave. the Saturday the girl was murdered at the Pencil factory on Forsyth St. My wife Minola is cooking for Mr. Frank and has been for about two years. I was in the kitchen about 12 o’clock this same Saturday that they say the girl was murdered.

The door bell rung and my wife Minola went to the door. When she come back in the kitchen I asked her who it was at the door and she said Mr. Frank. She asked him if she must fix his dinner now and he said he did not want any. He did not go upstairs to see his wife as she asked what went with Mr. Frank.

[A short portion immediately following this sentence is crossed out in the surviving copy and is partly illegible.]

Mr. Frank left the house in about five minutes. I saw him go out of the house and catch the Georgia Avenue car. I was at the house from about 9 A.M. Saturday on until about 3 P.M.

I went back to Mr. Frank’s house the next morning Sunday. When I went in the kitchen my wife said what do you think Mrs. Frank said. Mr. Frank said he had killed somebody and that he rolled and tumbled all night and said he could see it looking at him and to give him his damn pistol and let him shoot his damn head off; what made me do it, a man like me, I must be crazy.

Mrs. Frank asked her father and mother if they thought he had really killed some one. He had been drinking, he made me get out of bed and sleep on the rug by the bed. This was told at the breakfast table Sunday morning and my wife was listening from the kitchen.

Then Mrs. Frank was only paying my wife $3.50 per week up to the Saturday of the murder and they told her if she would not talk they would pay her $7.00 per week and she would not have to work as late as she had been doing. And for her to say nothing at court but what they told her to say.

They gave her $5.00 extra the day she went to court. They are paying my wife money all along as she is buying lots of dresses and has money all the time. I can tell Mr. Frank has done something as they act strange.

Mrs. Frank tells Magnolia every day not to forget what to say if they come for her to go to court again.

Mrs. Frank had a quarrel with Mr. Frank the Saturday morning of the murder she asked Mr. Frank to kiss her good bye and she said he was saving his kisses for a [illegible word] and would not kiss her.

Magnolia also heard Mrs. Frank say she would never live with him again for she know he had killed that girl and that they had the right man and ought to break his neck.

Signed Albert McKnight

Witnessed by R. L. Craven and A. Morrison

Two different categories of information appear in Albert’s affidavit. Some portions describe events Albert claimed to have witnessed personally. Other portions repeat information he said Minola gave him. Albert therefore was not claiming firsthand knowledge of every statement attributed to Lucile Frank.

His affidavit remains crucial because investigators already possessed his version when they questioned Minola. R. L. Craven later testified:

“We questioned her first as to the statements Albert had given me.”

This fixes the direction of information. Albert’s version existed first. Minola was questioned from it.

The Atlanta Georgian of Monday, June 2, 1913 supplied contemporary confirmation, reporting:

“Information leading to the woman’s arrest is said to have come from statements made by her husband, Albert McKnight.”

The sequence is therefore not speculation. Albert supplied damaging information. Minola was then detained and interrogated (AG, 3).

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1913

Minola McKnight is taken into custody

Minola was the Negro cook in the Selig household. On Monday, June 2, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey ordered her taken into custody.

The Atlanta Georgian described the interrogation as the:

“severest sort of grilling”

and reported rapid questioning lasting roughly two hours. Her distress reportedly could be heard outside the room (AG, 3).

The Atlanta Journal of Tuesday, June 3 described questioning by Dorsey and detectives Pat Campbell and John Starnes. Minola became hysterical. As officers led her toward the police patrol, she cried:

“I am going to hang and don’t know a thing about it.”

Albert was present during part of the questioning. According to contemporary reporting, he tried to get Minola to repeat statements he said she had made to him. Minola resisted. She called Albert a liar. Attorney George Gordon was retained to represent her and considered habeas corpus proceedings (AJ, 5).

The Atlanta Constitution reported:

“LEO FRANK’S COOK PUT UNDER ARREST.”

The paper said Minola was being held:

“under a charge of suspicion.”

The circumstances were coercive in the ordinary meaning of the word. Minola was a Negro domestic servant in Atlanta in 1913. She was in custody. She faced the solicitor general and city detectives. Her husband confronted her with a damaging story she initially rejected. Her attorney was considering legal proceedings to obtain her release (AC, 4).

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1913

The questioning continues and State’s Exhibit J is signed

The questioning continued Tuesday. The Atlanta Constitution later described a:

“Gruelling Third Degree.”

The paper reported:

“She was not liberated, however, until the detectives had obtained her signature to an affidavit.”

Another heading read:

“FACED BY HUSBAND, SHE CONTRADICTS HIM.”

A further heading emphasized:

“Her Release Came After Her Attorney Had Threatened to Take Out Habeas Corpus Proceedings.”

No modern theory is required to establish pressure. Contemporary newspapers described it themselves.

State’s Exhibit J

The Georgia Supreme Court record preserves the resulting document as:

“STATE’S EXHIBIT J.”

The legal record identifies it as an:

“Affidavit executed by Minola McKnight for Solicitor Dorsey.”

The affidavit reads:

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for the above State and County, Minola McKnight, who lives in the rear of 331 Pulliam St., Atlanta, Ga., who being duly sworn deposes and says:

On Saturday morning, April 26, 1913, Mr. Frank left home about eight o’clock, and Albert, my husband, was there Saturday, too. Albert got there I guess about a quarter after one and he was there when Mr. Frank come for dinner, which was about half-past one, but Mr. Frank did not eat any dinner, and he left in about ten minutes after he got there.

Mr. Frank come back to the house at seven o’clock that night, and Albert was there when he got there. Albert had gone home that evening but he come back. I don’t know what time he got there, but he come sometime before Mr. Frank did, and Mr. Frank eat supper about seven o’clock, and when I left there that night about eight o’clock, I left Mr. Frank there.

Sunday morning I got there about eight o’clock, and there was an automobile standing in front of the house and I didn’t pay any attention to it. I saw a man in the automobile get a bucket of water and pour into it. Mr. Frank’s wife was downstairs and Mr. and Mrs. Selig were upstairs. Albert was there Sunday morning, but I don’t remember what time he got there.

I called them down to breakfast about half past eight and I found out that Mr. Frank was gone. Mr. and Mrs. Selig eat breakfast, but Mrs. Frank didn’t eat until Mr. Frank come back and then they eat breakfast together. I didn’t hear them say anything at the breakfast table.

After dinner I understood them to say that a girl and Mr. Frank were caught at the office Saturday. I don’t know who said it, Miss Lucile and Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank were standing there talking, after dinner when they said it; I understood them to say it was a Jew girl.

On Tuesday, Mr. Frank says to me, “It is mighty bad Minola, I might have to go to jail about this girl, and I don’t know anything about it.”

Sunday, Miss Lucile said to Mrs. Selig that Mr. Frank didn’t rest so good Saturday night; she said he was drunk and wouldn’t let her sleep with him, and she said she slept on the floor on the rug by the bed because Mr. Frank was drinking.

Miss Lucile said Sunday that Mr. Frank told her Saturday night that he was in trouble, and that he didn’t know the reason why he would murder, and he told his wife to get his pistol and let him kill himself.

I heard Miss Lucile say that to Mrs. Selig, and it got away with Mrs. Selig mighty bad; she didn’t know what to think.

I haven’t heard Miss Lucile say whether she believed it or not. I don’t know why Mrs. Frank didn’t come to see her husband, but it was a pretty good while before she would come to see him, maybe two weeks.

She would tell me, “Wasn’t it mighty bad that he was locked up,” she would say, “Minola, I don’t know what I am going to do.”

When I left home to go to the solicitor general’s office, they told me to mind how I talked.

They pay me $3.50 a week, but last week they paid me $4.00, and one week she paid me $6.50. Up to the time of the murder I was getting $3.50 a week and the week right after the murder I don’t remember how much she paid me, and the next week they paid me $3.50, and the next week they paid me $6.50, and the next week they paid me $4.00 and the next week they paid me $4.00.

One week, I don’t remember which one, Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but it wasn’t for my work, and they didn’t tell me what it was for, she just said, “Here is $5, Minola.”

I understood that it was a tip for me to keep quiet.

They would tell me to mind how I talked and Miss Lucile gave me a hat.

Q. “Is that the reason you didn’t tell the solicitor yesterday all about this, that Miss Lucile and the others had told you not to say anything about what happened at home there?”

A. “Yes, sir.”

Q. “Is that true?”

A. “Yes, sir.”

Q. “And that’s the reason you would rather have been locked up last night than tell?”

A. “Yes, sir.”

Q. “Has Mr. Pickett or Mr. Cravens or Mr. Campbell or myself influenced you in any way or threatened you in any way to make this statement?”

A. “No, sir.”

Q. “You make it of your own free will and accord in their presence and in the presence of Mr. Gordon, your attorney?”

A. “Yes, sir.”

(Signed) MINOLA McKNIGHT

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 3d day of June, 1913.

(Signed) G. C. FEBRUARY

Notary Public, Fulton County, Ga.

Several parallels with Albert’s earlier affidavit are obvious. Albert said Frank briefly returned home and did not eat. Minola’s affidavit placed Frank home around 1:30, said he did not eat dinner, and said he left roughly ten minutes later. Albert described information Minola supposedly gave him concerning Lucile Frank, Frank’s troubled night, drinking, a pistol, and disturbing remarks. Minola’s signed paper contained the same general account.

Albert described Minola’s normal wage as $3.50 weekly and alleged unusual payments. Minola likewise identified $3.50 as her ordinary wage and described later payments of $6.50, $4, and a separate $5. Minola interpreted the separate payment in her own words:

“I understood that it was a tip for me to keep quiet.”

State’s Exhibit J therefore contains a sworn allegation involving money, a gift, and instructions from people inside the Frank-Selig household to watch what Minola said. The allegation is serious. It was later repudiated. It therefore cannot be converted into proved witness bribery. It can be described accurately as a sworn contemporary allegation of money and pressure connected with a Negro household servant (Georgia Supreme Court, 7-9).

AUGUST 1913

Minola repudiates State’s Exhibit J at Frank’s trial

Minola entered the trial as a defense witness carrying a remarkable problem for both sides. She had signed a damaging police affidavit in June, but she now said the paper did not truthfully represent what she had said.

At Frank’s trial, Minola gave a dramatically different account. She said investigators had her husband present to:

“bulldoze me.”

She said:

“I signed it to get out of jail”

and:

“It was all written out for me before they made me sign it.”

She also testified:

“They made me sign that statement, but it was a lie.”

On redirect she said:

“None of the things in that statement is true. It’s all a lie.”

On cross-examination she acknowledged signing the paper but added:

“I didn’t tell you some of the things you got in there.”

This was direct testimony from Minola. Her coercion accusation cannot be dismissed as an argument invented by Frank’s attorneys. It came from the witness herself (Georgia Supreme Court, 10).

George Gordon, Craven, and Starnes answer Minola

Minola’s repudiation did not stand unanswered. Her own attorney, George Gordon, remembered partial assent when the affidavit was read back. Gordon testified:

“As they read it over to her, she said it was about that way.”

Gordon’s testimony does not prove every sentence originated with Minola. It does complicate any account presenting State’s Exhibit J as an entirely fabricated paper placed in front of a completely unwilling signer without any assent.

R. L. Craven testified:

“We questioned her first as to the statements Albert had given me.”

Craven said Minola initially hesitated but eventually supplied the information appearing in the affidavit. He testified:

“Minola at first hesitated, but finally she told everything that was in that affidavit.”

Detective Starnes also denied fabrication. He said he told Minola:

“Minola, the truth is all we want, and if this is not the truth, don’t you state it.”

The evidence therefore points both ways. The circumstances were coercive. Minola later accused investigators of forcing the paper. Her own lawyer remembered some assent. State witnesses denied manufacturing the story. Any fair account has to preserve all of it.

SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 1914

Albert reports Minola privately returned toward her original account

Eight months after the trial, Minola’s affidavit entered the public record again. The Atlanta Constitution of Sunday, April 19, 1914 carried a subsection headed:

“Wife’s Conflicting Stories.”

The paper reported Albert saying Minola:

“had told him after the trial that the affidavit she had signed against Frank … was true.”

This was Albert’s report. It was not another affidavit from Minola. It was not a statement Minola gave to the newspaper. Albert was describing a private conversation. His source position also deserves notice. He was publicly defending his own credibility and repudiating the later affidavit Burke had obtained from him. A claim involving Minola privately returning toward her first story supported his own position.

This context does not prove invention. It explains why the claim must remain attributed to Albert (AC, 12).

The complete Minola chronology therefore has several stages. Albert supplied the original damaging account. Minola was detained. She initially rejected Albert’s accusations. She remained under questioning. She signed State’s Exhibit J. She later repudiated important portions in court. Her own attorney remembered partial assent during the read-back. State witnesses denied manufacturing her story. Albert later reported Minola privately told him the first affidavit was true.

A serious history cannot delete whichever stage proves inconvenient.

6.    SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1913-THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1914

Annie Maud Carter

Fulton County Jail and the Haas offices, Atlanta

Annie Maud Carter was a Negro woman confined in the Fulton County Jail while Jim Conley was also being held there. Her location gave her unusual access to jail conversations, prisoners, trusties, guards, and defense visitors. She later became one of the most important Negro witnesses used in Frank’s campaign against Conley. Her history touches nearly every theme in this paper: a poison allegation, disputed letters, money, George Wrenn, a defense affidavit, removal from Georgia, and a later inducement accusation.

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1913

Carter’s Poison-for-Profit allegation

Carter placed one of her most sensational stories on the first Sunday of December 1913. She said an unidentified black-haired man approached her in the jail and asked whether she wanted to:

“get rich right quick.”

According to Carter, the man produced a small vial and instructed her to put part of its contents into Conley’s food. She said money was promised. She refused.

The Atlanta Journal reported the accusation on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, describing a man Carter did not know and a small bottle. The article said the visitor told Carter to put:

“a drop or two in Conley’s food.”

The New York Times reported the episode the following day under:

“Poison Plot Against Conley?”

Carter associated the unidentified visitor with people she called the Klein boys and with Pappenheimer. She did not identify the visitor by name. No source examined here identifies the substance. No criminal judgment established a poison conspiracy.

The supportable historical statement remains narrow and severe. Carter gave sworn testimony describing an unidentified man offering money in connection with putting an unknown substance into Jim Conley’s food (AJ, 31, NYT, 32).

The allegation matters because Conley had become more than a witness to impeach. By late 1913 and spring 1914, the defense campaign revolved around discrediting him, finding confessions, relocating him in time and place, and turning jail evidence against him. Carter’s poison story belongs inside this larger environment, although no source permits assigning the unidentified visitor to a named defense agent.

APRIL 1914

Carter and the letter problem

Carter’s statements concerning correspondence with Conley contain a significant conflict.

One account reported in connection with her April 23 State-side affidavit described her as receiving only:

“two or three letters”

from Conley.

Yet The Atlanta Georgian of Friday, May 1 described Carter saying she received:

“two and three letters every day”

with some letters running six, seven, or ten pages (AG, 28).

The defense eventually offered twenty-two sheets attributed to Carter and twenty-seven attributed to Conley. The difference does not prove fabrication. It does show a substantial conflict in descriptions of the quantity and frequency of the correspondence.

Carter also denied vulgar material appeared in the original letters Conley wrote. She said if vulgar language appeared in papers attributed to him, somebody else had inserted it. This became important once the State’s forgery accusation entered the record.

THURSDAY, APRIL 23-SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1914

Carter’s affidavit session and the date printed on the paper

The Carter date problem sits inside the legal record itself.

Georgia Supreme Court page 1764 contains the sworn statement of the men present with Carter in the Haas offices. Their own statement places the session on Thursday, April 23, 1914. The Atlanta Journal independently gives April 23. Page 1765 separately carries Saturday, April 25, 1914 as the date printed on the resulting paper (Georgia Supreme Court, 24-25).

The best chronology therefore treats April 23 as the actual Haas-office session and April 25 as the date printed on the document.

The men present said Carter was asked directly whether anybody had paid her or promised her a reward. They swore she denied receiving money or promised reward.

This evidence is important because Carter later accused investigators of giving her money. The accounts need not be flatly contradictory. Carter could have received no payment for the April 23 affidavit session and received money later. Or she may have changed her account. The record does not settle every possibility.

7.     SUNDAY, APRIL 26-SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1914

The Carter-Conley correspondence becomes a public weapon

Atlanta newspapers, Fulton County Jail, and the Burns investigation

By Sunday, April 26, Burns was presenting the alleged Carter-Conley correspondence as major evidence against Conley. The Atlanta Constitution reported Burns calling the writings:

“proof conclusive.”

The defense was doing more than preserving jail letters for later examination. Burns was publicly presenting them as evidence capable of implicating Conley (AC, 26, AG, 27).

The origins and handling of those papers soon became a major controversy.

The Manufactured Correspondence Accusation

Georgia Supreme Court page 1495 contains the State’s formal response. The State accused people around Frank’s defense of presenting notes which were:

“forged and manufactured”

through a conspiracy involving George Wrenn (Georgia Supreme Court, 29).

This was an accusation. It was not a judicial finding. The defense denied fabrication and produced handwriting testimony supporting authenticity. No ruling cited here establishes forgery.

Yet surrounding evidence explains why the accusation became serious.

Frank Reese swore he saw George Wrenn and Carter speaking frequently. Reese described an occasion when Wrenn threw Carter a note and Carter carried it toward Conley’s cell wing. Reese did not know what the note contained (Georgia Supreme Court, 37).

Jail guard Willis J. Gilbert independently said Carter and George Wrenn talked:

“very frequently”

usually in the medicine room. Gilbert also said Carter asked permission to enter Conley’s cell wing. He refused (Georgia Supreme Court, 39-40).

Then Burns supplied another link. During his May 2 testimony, Burns said Burke furnished him the Carter-Conley notes. Burns said George Wrenn made the first translation (AG, 30).

None of these facts alone establishes forgery. Together they make the chain concrete.

Carter supplied evidence damaging to Conley. Wrenn had frequent contact with Carter. Reese described a paper exchange. Burke supplied the notes to Burns. Wrenn made the first translation. Burns publicly used the correspondence. The State accused Wrenn of helping manufacture it. The defense denied fabrication.

The dispute therefore involved more than interpretation. It involved the physical creation, transmission, translation, and use of purported documentary evidence against Conley.

8.    FRIDAY, JANUARY 19-SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 1914

Albert McKnight

Atlanta, C. W. Burke’s post-trial investigation, and the Pullman job controversy

Albert McKnight had already played a major role in 1913 as Minola’s husband and an early source for investigators. After Frank’s conviction, Albert himself became a target of the defense investigation. C. W. Burke sought a changed affidavit from him which weakened portions of Albert’s earlier evidence.

JANUARY 19, 1914

Burke obtains a new affidavit

Burke obtained a new affidavit from Albert which weakened portions of Albert’s earlier testimony. Albert later said Burke repeatedly pressed him. The Georgia Supreme Court material records:

“Mr. Burke keeps after me.”

When Albert insisted his trial testimony had been true, Burke allegedly answered:

“that is a damned lie.”

The profanity came from Albert’s sworn account, not from a later paraphrase (Georgia Supreme Court, 14).

SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 1914

The Pullman job allegation

The Atlanta Journal reported Albert’s explanation for signing the Burke affidavit. He said Burke raised a Pullman job paying $40 monthly plus tips, potentially producing close to $100 each month.

Albert summarized the alleged inducement:

“That was the way he got around me.”

Albert’s existing wages were reported at roughly $28 each month. The possible Pullman income was around 3.6 times his ordinary monthly pay. For a working Negro man in 1914, this was not a trivial difference (AJ, 13).

The alleged Post-Signature Rewrite

The Atlanta Constitution published Albert’s repudiation the same Sunday. Albert said:

“I signed that affidavit that Mr. Burke brought me just because I wanted to get rid of him.”

He added:

“What I said on the stand was the truth.”

Then he made a more serious accusation. The Constitution reported statements accusing Craven and Pickett of improper conduct had been:

“inserted in the affidavit after he had signed his name to it.”

If accurate, such conduct would go far beyond ordinary persuasion. Substantive words added after signature would create evidence under a witness’s name without his authorization (AC, 12).

Burke denied improper alteration. He denied a job-for-affidavit bargain. Minola McKnight swore no reward had been promised. Burns, Lehon, Dr. Thomas Hancock, Charles Phillips Jr., Fred Lynn, and others supplied evidence supporting Burke’s position. Burke did acknowledge later trying to help Albert obtain employment. He said the employment effort followed the affidavit and was unrelated to testimony (Georgia Supreme Court, 15).

This narrows the dispute. The issue is not whether Burke ever attempted to help Albert find work. Burke admitted he did. The issue is timing and purpose.

Albert said the prospect of a better job helped Burke get around him. Burke denied any bargain. Albert said words were added after signature. Burke denied improper alteration.

Albert’s episode therefore contains the full Affidavit Repudiation Cycle. A defense affidavit appeared. The witness repudiated it. The witness alleged inducement and document alteration. The defense then produced additional sworn evidence defending the original affidavit.

9.    FEBRUARY-MAY 1914

Ivey Jones

Atlanta freight work, State witness, cousin of Jim Conley, and the admitted railroad ruse

Ivey Jones was a Negro truck driver, a State witness, and a cousin of Jim Conley. His value to Frank’s investigators centered upon Conley’s movements on Saturday, April 26, 1913. C. W. Burke assigned J. W. Wrenn to locate him.

Ivey Jones provides one of the strongest examples of admitted manipulation because the core deception comes from the defense side itself.

The Atlanta Georgian identified Jones as:

“Ivey Jones, a negro and cousin of Jim Conley.”

Wrenn did not openly identify the Frank case as his purpose. He invented a railroad accident. He told Jones an injured person had supposedly identified him as a witness. The fictional accident gave Wrenn a way to question Jones concerning his movements on April 26, 1913.

Wrenn admitted:

“This pretense of looking into an accident was adopted”

because he believed Jones would speak more freely if his thoughts were removed from the Frank case (Georgia Supreme Court, 18).

The word pretense is Wrenn’s own.

Burke’s affidavit supplied the next link. Burke admitted dictating the Jones affidavit from Wrenn’s notes. This was not simply a subordinate investigator inventing a tactic in secret. Burke directed the investigation and prepared the affidavit produced from it.

Jones later repudiated the affidavit attributed to him and said it was false. The defense said Jones knowingly heard it read, corrected a point, swore to it, and signed.

The forgery dispute remains contested. The false railroad story does not.

This is admitted deception used as part of a chain leading to sworn evidence: false pretext, interview, notes, affidavit, litigation.

10.            FRIDAY, MARCH 27-TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1914

Mary Rich

Food stand near the National Pencil Company, Atlanta

Mary Rich was a Negro woman operating a food stand near the National Pencil Company. Her location made her potentially important to the afternoon timeline. A credible sighting of Jim Conley near the rear factory alley around 2:15 or 2:30 could weaken the State’s chronology.

FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 1914

The strong alley story enters Frank’s motion

Frank’s extraordinary motion contained a strong Rich story. Conley supposedly ran from the alley behind the factory around 2:15, bought a twenty-cent lunch, ate it, and returned toward the alley (AJ, 19).

This was useful evidence for Frank. It placed Conley near the rear of the factory at a time capable of complicating the prosecution theory.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1914

The story narrows

The Atlanta Journal reported Rich remembering the twenty-cent lunch and approximate time. But she did not remember where Conley arrived from or where he went afterward (AJ, 20).

This discrepancy existed prior to her dramatic May repudiation.

The strongest version appeared in Frank’s motion. The intermediate deposition retained the lunch but lost the directional claim involving the alley.

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1914

Rich repudiates the stronger account

Rich rejected the fuller affidavit. She said:

“The affidavit was not true, and I refused to sign it.”

She added:

“I could not tell a lie.”

Rich said Lucile Frank told her signing the paper could:

“take the rope from around my husband’s neck.”

Rich named Burke among the men involved. E. H. Wellborn supplied an affidavit supporting part of her account (AC, 21, Georgia Supreme Court, 22).

Rabbi David Marx gave a sharply different version. Marx swore Rich had confirmed the substance and corrected only the time, changing roughly 2:15 to 2:30. The sequence is therefore a genuine sworn conflict.

The motion carried the full alley story. Rich’s April deposition retained the lunch but not the direction of travel. Rich later denied giving the alley story. Marx said she had confirmed it except for the time.

This is another Affidavit Repudiation Cycle. A paper favorable to Frank appeared. The supposed witness challenged its most important feature. The defense produced sworn evidence defending the original.

11.  MONDAY, MARCH 30-MAY 1914

Aaron Allen

Indianapolis, Chicago, and the Burns investigation

Aaron Allen was a Negro man whom investigators believed might provide evidence involving a supposed confession by Jim Conley. Allen repeatedly denied knowing Conley. His importance grew because his accusations concerning pressure overlap with sworn evidence from C. A. Isom, one of the investigators working inside the effort.

Aaron Allen supplies one of the strongest episodes in the entire Negro-witness record because the history does not rest only on a hostile witness accusing investigators after the fact. Isom’s own affidavit preserves critical pieces of the pressure campaign.

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1914

The Interstate Witness Hunt begins

According to Allen, a man identified as O’Neal located him in Indianapolis and asked him to go to Chicago. Allen said his expenses were paid. He described spending several days in Chicago while investigators pursued information involving Conley. Burns later confirmed an employee named O’Neill had gone from Chicago into Indiana to obtain Allen while Allen was sick (AG, 30).

Allen’s account described compensation at the end of the trip. Such payment, standing alone, can have an innocent explanation as travel or time compensation. The important question is what investigators wanted from him.

They wanted evidence involving a Conley confession.

Allen said he did not know Conley.

Burns and Allen face to face

Allen’s sworn statement preserves a revealing exchange. Allen asked:

“Mr. Burns, do you want me to tell you the truth or to tell you a story?”

Burns answered:

“Mr. Allen, we don’t ask anybody to tell us lies, but the plain truth.”

This is favorable evidence for Burns and deserves inclusion. Allen then maintained he knew nothing useful about Conley (Georgia Supreme Court, 33).

If the record ended here, Burns’s answer would support a straightforward investigation. The record does not end here.

C. A. Isom enters the picture

Isom’s affidavit is unusually important because Isom was working inside the investigative effort. Isom said Burke sent him to Chicago to work on Allen. Burke paid him three dollars per day and supplied $100 for expenses.

Isom said Burke authorized:

“dinners, cigars and setting up”

and instructed him to use:

“whatever money was necessary.”

Hospitality does not prove bribery. The desired evidence makes the episode serious. Investigators wanted a Conley-confession story. Allen denied knowing Conley (Georgia Supreme Court, 35).

“You can make him come across”

Isom said he told Burns Allen did not know Conley. Burns allegedly replied:

“Go on back and talk to him again; you can make him come across.”

Isom returned. Allen said:

“I will make that affidavit, but it will be a lie.”

This evidence does not depend solely upon Allen. An investigator working for the Frank effort preserved it (Georgia Supreme Court, 34).

The language is important. Isom did not report discovering new facts from Allen. He reported Allen denying the necessary connection with Conley, then recorded an instruction to keep working on him.

The room and the cage

Isom described Allen being placed in a small rear room near another room marked “Fire Escape.” Isom also described a large cage and said a Negro Burns detective showed him how quickly the cage could be arranged to resemble a jail cage.

The surviving record does not establish anybody actually used the cage to deceive or frighten Allen. Its presence should not be exaggerated. Its inclusion in Isom’s sworn description of the Allen operation makes it part of the historical setting.

Burns confronts Allen

Isom said he reported Allen’s “it will be a lie” statement to Burns. According to Isom, Burns confronted Allen with profanity and accused him of lying and protecting Atlanta police.

Allen separately said Burns shook his finger in his face and told him:

“You know something and won’t tell.”

The contrast is sharp. Burns’s recorded words directly to Allen initially asked for truth. Isom’s account describes continued pressure after Allen denied knowing Conley.

“A lot of money in it”

Allen said Isom told him:

“there was a lot of money in it for him”

if he supplied useful information. Allen said success would be:

“a feather in the cap of each.”

Allen also said Isom suggested he could later change his affidavit, much as Conley had changed statements. Allen said he intended to tell the truth (AJ, 31).

The pile of money

Allen described another visit to Burns’s office. He said he was left in a room containing:

“a big pile of money, greenbacks and silver”

spread across a table.

Allen said:

“I looked at that pile of money and tried to figure out how much there was of it, but I never touched it.”

Allen did not say Burns explicitly offered the entire pile as payment for perjury. The cash therefore should not be described as a proved bribe.

Its significance lies in context. Investigators wanted a specific confession story. Allen denied knowing Conley. Money had allegedly been discussed. Allen was then left in a room with conspicuous cash. Burns denied the story (AJ, 31, NYT, 32).

Allen eventually signs an affidavit

Earlier summaries often stop with Allen refusing. The fuller record goes further.

Allen said Burns and a Negro detective named Bell later had him dictate an affidavit. Allen said he dictated his own account and signed it.

Then Allen added:

“If there was anything in that paper about me knowing Conley it was put in there by somebody else after I dictated and signed it.”

This is another alleged Post-Signature Rewrite.

The similarity to Albert McKnight’s separate accusation is striking. Albert said substantive language was inserted after his signature. Allen said any language claiming he knew Conley was inserted after he dictated and signed.

Neither allegation automatically proves document alteration. Both witnesses independently described the same type of problem.

Allen also said Burns ordered men to pay what had been promised and let him leave. Later, Allen said Jake Jacobs told him Burns considered the affidavit no good.

Isom says Burns got “the very affidavit” he wanted

Isom supplied another piece. After leaving Chicago, Isom traveled by train with Burns. Isom swore Burns told him Allen had:

“given him the very affidavit that he wanted.”

This creates a serious conflict. Allen said any Conley language was inserted after he dictated and signed. Isom said Burns later claimed he obtained the affidavit he wanted.

Neither statement alone proves alteration. Together they make the affidavit’s content and preparation highly relevant.

Stiles Hopkins says Allen’s evidence was useless

Attorney Stiles Hopkins later swore he went to Chicago intending to obtain an affidavit from Allen. After talking with Burns, Isom, Jacobs, and others, Hopkins concluded Allen’s evidence would not help Frank. Hopkins declined to see Allen or obtain another affidavit.

This is important defense evidence. It suggests whatever Burns had obtained from Allen was not ultimately considered useful enough for the extraordinary motion.

A fair account should say so.

Burns’s denials

Burns denied abusing Allen. He denied paying Allen for false evidence. He denied the pile-of-money story. His sworn deposition said:

“I didn’t pay Allen anything.”

The same deposition places Burns in extended personal contact with Allen. Burns referred to interviewing Allen over a period of days. The record therefore contains extensive questioning, competing accounts of money, a disputed affidavit, and an internal defense conclusion finding Allen’s evidence unhelpful.

Kate Allen

Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta

Kate Allen was Aaron Allen’s wife. Contemporary reporting identified her as a Negress. She did not accuse investigators of bribing her husband. Her importance is narrower. Aaron’s disappearance into the interstate witness hunt became serious enough for his wife to begin searching for him.

The May 5 Atlanta Journal printed an affidavit from Kate. She became concerned over Aaron’s whereabouts and sought help locating him. She went to pawnbroker Jake Jacobs, who told her he would see Aaron brought back without cost to her (AJ, 31).

Kate’s affidavit is not a manipulation accusation. It does show how far the Allen operation had expanded beyond an ordinary interview.

What Allen’s case actually shows

Allen’s case is stronger than a simple refusal story.

He denied knowing Conley. Isom corroborated his lack of connection. Isom said Burns ordered continued pressure. Allen said the desired affidavit would be a lie. Money was allegedly discussed. Allen described visible cash. He eventually dictated and signed a paper. He alleged any language connecting him with Conley was inserted afterward. Isom said Burns later claimed he had received the affidavit he wanted. Hopkins later concluded the Allen material was useless. Burns denied wrongdoing.

This full chronology makes Allen one of the most important Negro-witness episodes in the entire post-trial investigation.

12. SPRING 1914

William Calhoun, Mark Wilson, and Whatley

Chicago, Virginia, Atlanta, and the chain-gang search

These men do not all belong in the same evidentiary category. William Calhoun left evidence concerning an aggressive Chicago interview. Mark Wilson and Whatley left no known personal accusation of bribery or coercion. Their value is structural. Together they show the geographical reach and financing of the Negro-witness hunt.

William Calhoun: the Pressure Interview

Isom located William Calhoun at 4238 Wabash Avenue in Chicago. Isom said he overheard Burns questioning Calhoun and shouting:

“You are a damn liar, you bastard, you!”

Calhoun denied knowing Conley. Burns’s son later told Isom an affidavit had been obtained from Calhoun. Attorney Stiles Hopkins confirmed an affidavit from:

“a negro named Calhoun”

had been taken.

Hopkins said its contents were:

“of doubtful relevancy”

and did not use it (Georgia Supreme Court, 36).

No source examined here shows Calhoun accusing investigators of offering him money for false testimony. His case is therefore not another Allen case. It demonstrates aggressive pressure and the geographical reach of the witness hunt.

Mark Wilson and Whatley: the wider search

Isom’s affidavit shows Burke also wanted Mark Wilson and a man named Whatley located. Wilson reportedly had gone to Virginia. Whatley had been in a chain gang. Isom went looking for him after his release.

Neither man left a surviving accusation of bribery or coercion. Their importance is structural. The search for Negro witnesses extended well beyond the handful whose affidavits eventually became famous.

The operation was organized, financed, and geographically broad.

13. SPRING 1914

Frank Reese and Fred Perkerson

Fulton County Jail, Atlanta

Frank Reese and Fred Perkerson were Negro jail trusties. Their access inside the Fulton County Jail made them potentially valuable witnesses concerning Jim Conley, Annie Maud Carter, George Wrenn, and any conversation inside the jail. Both later accused George Wrenn of proposing a false Conley-confession story involving money or benefits. Wrenn denied their accusations.

The alleged Manufactured Confession

According to Reese and Perkerson, Wrenn proposed having them enter Conley’s cell wing, later leave, and claim Conley confessed to murdering Mary Phagan.

Reese said Wrenn spoke of cigars and:

“lots of money.”

Perkerson described the same basic plan. He said the two could report a confession and receive substantial money.

Both said they refused (Georgia Supreme Court, 37, 41).

George Wrenn denied the allegations. Contemporary reporting quoted him calling the accusations lies and denying any offer of reward or any discussion involving a Conley confession.

The evidentiary conflict is direct. Two Negro trusties gave parallel accounts. Wrenn denied both. No court ruling established the alleged scheme.

The parallel nature of their stories still makes the accusations important. Both described the same target, a confession from Conley. Both described benefits. Both described refusal.

The alleged approach to Conley himself

Reese and Perkerson said the effort went beyond recruiting them.

Perkerson said Wrenn approached Conley and suggested he accept responsibility for Mary Phagan’s murder after receiving his existing sentence. According to Perkerson, Wrenn suggested Conley would receive limited extra punishment and later obtain money (Georgia Supreme Court, 42).

Reese independently described hearing Wrenn tell Conley he could take Mary’s murder upon himself and free Frank.

Wrenn denied the account.

No judicial finding proves such a proposal. If Reese and Perkerson were accurate, however, the alleged effort reached the ultimate target. The defense would no longer be searching for somebody who heard Conley confess. Conley himself would be asked to create the confession.

Frank Reese and the Illiterate Signature Attempt

Reese described another encounter after leaving jail. He said Wrenn arrived at his home carrying a long white paper.

Reese said:

“I cannot read or write.”

He refused to sign until he understood its contents (Georgia Supreme Court, 38).

Reese said Wrenn told him the paper concerned notes passed between Carter and Conley. Wrenn acknowledged seeking a statement from Reese but disputed Reese’s description of its purpose.

The episode exposes a serious power imbalance. One person possessed a prepared document. The prospective signer could not read it. Reese’s refusal prevented his name from being placed on a paper he did not understand.

Car fare and whiskey

In the fuller Reese account, he also described Wrenn offering car fare and whiskey while seeking his signature. Such items are small compared with the Pullman job alleged by Albert or the money stories involving Allen. Their importance lies in context. Reese said he could not read and did not know what he was being asked to authorize.

The central issue is therefore not the value of a streetcar fare or drink. It is an illiterate former prisoner being asked to sign a prepared statement by a man connected with the defense investigation.

14.SPRING 1914

The jail network around Frank, Burke, Carter, Reese, Perkerson, and the Wrenns

Fulton County Jail, Atlanta

Willis J. Gilbert was an inside guard at the Fulton County Jail. His sworn evidence is important because it establishes access independently of the more serious accusations made by prisoners. Gilbert did not prove a conspiracy. He did place many of the principal figures inside the same physical environment.

Gilbert said he saw Jimmie Wrenn and Burke visit Frank’s cell wing together. He saw Burke call George Wrenn aside for private conversation. He said George Wrenn visited Frank’s wing:

“very often.”

The court record identifies George as Jimmie Wrenn’s brother and Jimmie as a man assisting Burke (Georgia Supreme Court, 39-40, 43).

Gilbert also said Carter and George Wrenn talked frequently. Reese separately described Wrenn passing Carter a note. Perkerson alleged Burke, Jimmie Wrenn, and George Wrenn often conferred with Frank.

Perkerson’s claim concerning frequent conferences remains his allegation. Gilbert independently establishes access.

This is important when evaluating whether the men accused by Negro witnesses were isolated actors. They were not strangers. They occupied overlapping parts of the same investigative environment.

Burke was working on Frank’s case. Jimmie Wrenn assisted Burke. George Wrenn was Jimmie’s brother. George visited Frank’s cell wing frequently. Carter and George spoke frequently. Reese and Perkerson later accused George of trying to create confession evidence against Conley.

These contacts do not prove every accusation. They show opportunity and connection.

15. SATURDAY, MAY 9-TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1914

Annie Maud Carter is moved out of Georgia

Atlanta, Union City, Montgomery, New Orleans, and Chicago

After Carter supplied evidence useful against Conley, her handling became a courtroom controversy in its own right. She did not simply leave Atlanta on her own. She said Burns told her to go, a defense operative traveled with her, and Lehon arranged expenses.

On Saturday, May 9, Judge Hill questioned Carter. Asked why she left Atlanta, Carter answered:

“Mr. Burns told me to go.”

She said a Burns operative traveled with her. She said Lehon agreed to pay expenses. She said she received:

“five dollars to spend.”

Her route took her through Union City, Montgomery, New Orleans, and Chicago (AJ, 44).

Judge Hill summoned Burns and Lehon to explain why a witness connected with pending litigation had been moved beyond his jurisdiction.

The defense said Carter needed protection from Atlanta authorities. Minola McKnight’s experience shows such concern was not automatically unreasonable. Yet Carter was still a witness carrying evidence useful to Frank. She was moved after cooperation. Her movements were financed. A judge intervened.

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1914

Judge Hill finds technical contempt, then dismisses the rule after Carter’s return

The contempt issue did not disappear. On May 26, Judge Hill concluded Burns and Lehon had been in:

“technical contempt of court”

for removing Carter.

Carter had been returned to Georgia and was again subject to legal process. Judge Hill therefore found the respondents had:

“purged themselves of contempt”

and dismissed the rule (AJ, 45).

This is more precise than saying they were simply accused. A court made a finding concerning the witness removal. The contempt was then cured by returning Carter.

16.WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1914

Carter’s later inducement allegation

Atlanta

Carter later accused Lehon of giving her small sums of money and said she had been:

“induced to swear against Jim Conley.”

No source examined here establishes a judicial finding resolving this accusation. The unrelated licensing fine from the same general period has no bearing on whether Carter was induced and is outside this paper.

The important chronology is straightforward.

Carter denied payment or promised reward at the April 23 affidavit session. She later left Georgia under arrangements made by defense-associated figures. Her expenses were paid. She received spending money. Judge Hill found the removal technically contemptuous until she returned. Carter then accused Lehon of giving her small sums and inducing her testimony.

These stages do not automatically cancel one another. They make Carter’s witness handling unusually complex.

17. SPRING 1914

John Shields and the search for “a Negro woman”

National Pencil Company and Atlanta

John Shields’s race is not established in the sources examined here, so he is not counted as a Negro witness. His sworn statement belongs in this paper because it directly describes an alleged effort to locate a Negro woman after Shields himself refused a damaging accusation against Conley.

Shields said Jimmie Wrenn repeatedly tried to obtain an affidavit accusing Conley of a degrading sexual act.

Shields said:

“I refused every time because it was a lie.”

According to Shields, Wrenn offered to:

“dress me up and send me to Cincinnati or anywhere else I wanted to go.”

Shields refused.

Then, according to Shields, Wrenn asked whether he knew:

“a negro woman”

who could supply similar testimony (Georgia Supreme Court, 46-47).

Shields said he did not. Wrenn denied both accusations.

The structure of Shields’s allegation is what makes it important. The desired accusation existed. The first witness refused because he called it false. According to him, the investigator then sought another witness capable of carrying the same accusation.

If accurate, this is a Substitute Witness search. The desired evidence comes first. The search for a willing witness follows.

18.  What the Defense Itself Admitted

The strongest case against questionable witness handling does not depend entirely upon accusations from Negro witnesses. A large part of the investigative machinery is admitted by people working for Frank.

Burke directed Wrenn to Ivey Jones.

Wrenn admitted the fictional railroad-accident pretext.

Burke admitted preparing Jones’s affidavit from Wrenn’s notes.

Burns acknowledged an employee went from Chicago into Indiana to obtain Allen.

Isom acknowledged being paid while locating Negro prospective witnesses.

Burke authorized expenses during the Allen effort.

Hopkins acknowledged affidavits were taken in Chicago.

Burke acknowledged later trying to help Albert McKnight find employment, while denying any job-for-affidavit bargain.

George Wrenn acknowledged seeking a statement from Reese.

Burke furnished Burns the Carter-Conley notes.

Burns said George Wrenn made the first translation.

Carter was deliberately moved outside Georgia.

Her expenses were covered.

Judge Hill found technical contempt associated with the removal.

Gilbert established repeated jail access among Burke, the Wrenns, Carter, and Frank.

None of these admissions proves criminal intent. Together they provide the machinery surrounding the disputed accusations.

This is why the admitted conduct deserves greater weight than unsupported rumor. A critic may reject McKnight’s job allegation. A critic may reject Allen’s money story. A critic may reject Reese and Perkerson. A critic may reject the State’s forgery accusation involving Carter’s letters. None of those rejections erases Wrenn’s admitted pretext, Burke’s role in preparing the resulting affidavit, Burns’s admitted interstate pursuit of Allen, the paid witness hunt, the jail access, or Carter’s funded removal.

The machinery existed.

The historical dispute concerns what the machinery was used to accomplish.

19.  What the Defense Denied

The defense side also supplied substantial rebuttal evidence.

Burns said he wanted truth from Allen. He denied buying Allen’s testimony. He denied the pile-of-money story.

Burke denied purchasing Albert McKnight’s affidavit. He denied tying employment to testimony. Minola and other witnesses supported Burke’s account concerning Albert.

Rabbi Marx disputed Mary Rich and said Rich had confirmed the essential story.

George Wrenn denied the Reese and Perkerson allegations. Wrenn denied trying to recruit Shields or a Negro woman.

Defense witnesses said Carter denied receiving money or promised reward at the Haas-office session.

Handwriting evidence was presented in support of the Carter-Conley correspondence.

Hopkins concluded Allen’s evidence was not useful enough for the extraordinary motion.

These rebuttals belong in the article. A documentary argument becomes weaker when contrary evidence is hidden.

The point is not to stack accusations on one side and suppress denials on the other. The point is to show what remains after both sides are placed together.

A recurring pattern still survives.

20. The Confession Dragnet

One objective links several otherwise separate episodes.

A confession from Jim Conley.

Carter became connected to statements attributed to Conley in jail. The Carter-Conley letters were used as evidence against him. Aaron Allen was pursued because investigators wanted a Conley confession story. Allen denied knowing Conley. Reese and Perkerson said they were asked to manufacture a confession. They also said Conley himself was asked to accept responsibility.

A genuine confession would have been legitimate and enormously important evidence. The historical problem begins once prospective witnesses say the confession did not happen.

Allen said he did not know Conley. Isom agreed. Yet pressure continued.

Reese and Perkerson said the proposed confession was to be invented. According to them, Conley himself later became the target.

The repeated objective is impossible to miss. Investigators were not simply collecting random information. They repeatedly sought evidence capable of placing the murder in Conley’s mouth.

This does not prove a single unified criminal plan. It does show a strong strategic objective. Once a strategic objective becomes strong enough, investigators face a danger. They may stop asking, “What happened?” and begin asking, “Who can give us the story we need?”

The Allen, Reese, Perkerson, Carter, and Conley episodes deserve to be read together for this reason.

21.  The Affidavit Repudiation Cycle

A second pattern runs through the record.

A defense affidavit appears.

The supposed witness later challenges it.

The defense then produces new testimony defending the original affidavit.

Albert McKnight fits this pattern. He signed a defense affidavit and later said a job prospect helped induce it. He also alleged words were inserted after signature. Burke denied both accusations and produced supporting testimony.

Ivey Jones fits the pattern. He became the source of an affidavit after an admitted deceptive interview. Jones later rejected the paper. The defense said he knowingly heard and signed it.

Mary Rich fits the pattern. The strong alley story entered Frank’s motion. Her later deposition preserved only the lunch and approximate time. She later rejected the stronger story. Marx said she had confirmed it.

Aaron Allen may fit an even more serious variation because he said he dictated and signed his own account but claimed language involving Conley was inserted afterward. Isom then said Burns later claimed he had received the affidavit he wanted.

Carter’s evidence developed disputes over payment, dating, travel, correspondence, and inducement.

The resulting legal struggle became a battle over how evidence itself had been created.

Who wrote the affidavit?

Who supplied the words?

Could the witness read it?

Was it read aloud?

Was a benefit discussed?

Was the witness threatened?

Was a false pretext used?

Were words added after signature?

Did the witness later repudiate?

Did the repudiation itself result from pressure?

The process used to gather and defend evidence became evidence in its own right.

22. Money, Jobs, Travel, and Economic Leverage

Money appears often in this history. The subject needs discipline.

Investigator salaries are not bribes.

Travel expenses are not bribes.

Meals are not bribes.

Witness subsistence is not automatically improper.

The serious category involves economic benefits allegedly connected with a desired statement.

Albert McKnight’s Pullman-job story belongs here. He said the opportunity could raise his income from roughly $28 monthly to close to $100. He explained:

“That was the way he got around me.”

Allen’s account belongs here because he said money was discussed while investigators pursued a confession story he said was false.

Reese and Perkerson belong here because both described money as part of the alleged fabricated-confession proposal.

Carter belongs here because she later accused Lehon of small payments and inducement.

The proper historical question is not, “Did money exist?”

The question is, “What was the money for?”

This is why ordinary expenses must remain separate from alleged payments linked to testimony. Conflating the two would make the paper easier to attack.

23. Poverty, Race, Imprisonment, and Vulnerability

Many of the people in this record lacked social power.

Some were prisoners.

Some were domestic servants.

Some were laborers.

Some were poor.

One could not read or write.

Some depended upon employers.

Some were questioned far from home.

Some faced police.

Some faced famous private detectives.

Some faced lawyers.

Some sat in jail.

Those circumstances do not prove corruption. They do affect how investigators’ conduct should be evaluated.

A job prospect capable of multiplying a poor worker’s income has a different practical force from the same offer made to a wealthy professional.

A prepared paper presented to an illiterate prisoner creates a different risk from a contract given to a lawyer.

Traveling a Negro witness hundreds of miles from home creates a different dependency from interviewing him on his own street.

Moving a jail witness across state lines while litigation remains active creates a different legal problem from paying for an ordinary hotel room.

The historical context makes the methods more important, not less.

24. The Negro Witnesses Who Resisted

The most important voices may be the people who said no.

Minola initially called Albert a liar. She later repudiated State’s Exhibit J.

Albert later repudiated Burke’s affidavit.

Mary Rich said:

“I could not tell a lie.”

Allen said the desired affidavit would be a lie.

Reese refused to sign a paper he could not read.

Perkerson said he rejected the alleged confession proposal.

Shields said:

“I refused every time because it was a lie.”

Conley, according to Reese and Perkerson, rejected the alleged proposal to accept Mary Phagan’s murder.

Carter said she rejected the unknown man’s alleged vial and money.

These witnesses were not passive props. Their resistance created much of the historical record.

Without McKnight’s repudiation, the Burke affidavit might have stood without public challenge.

Without Rich’s refusal, the alley story might have survived without her denial.

Without Allen’s resistance, investigators might have gained a clean confession witness.

Without Reese’s refusal, another paper might have circulated under the name of a man unable to read it.

Without Shields’s refusal, another damaging accusation against Conley might have gained a witness.

Resistance is part of the evidence.

25. The Pattern Across the Negro Witnesses

When the individual episodes are placed side by side, several recurring features appear.

A Negro witness said a better job accompanied the pursuit of a changed affidavit.

The same witness alleged language was inserted after signature.

Another Negro witness was questioned through an admitted fictional accident.

The investigator’s superior then prepared the resulting affidavit.

A Negro woman’s strongest story weakened in a later deposition and was then repudiated.

A Negro man was transported across state lines for a confession story despite denying any connection with Conley.

An investigator working inside the operation recorded Burns saying the man could be made to “come across.”

The same investigator recorded Allen saying the wanted affidavit would be a lie.

Allen later alleged language involving Conley was inserted after he dictated and signed his own affidavit.

Two Negro jail trusties independently described an alleged plan involving a fabricated confession.

They described money.

They said Conley himself was approached.

An illiterate Negro trusty refused a prepared paper.

A Negro woman supplying useful evidence was moved outside Georgia.

A judge found the removal technically contemptuous until she returned.

The State accused people around Frank’s investigation of manufacturing correspondence already being promoted publicly as evidence against Conley.

A witness said an investigator sought a Negro woman willing to give testimony he himself called false.

No single episode proves every other episode.

The cumulative pattern remains large.

26. What Cannot Responsibly Be Claimed

A strong paper needs limits.

No evidence examined here permits saying every member of Frank’s legal team personally approved every disputed method.

No evidence proves Frank personally ordered Burke to alter McKnight’s affidavit.

No evidence proves Frank personally ordered Burns to buy Allen’s testimony.

No judicial finding proves George Wrenn forged the Carter-Conley letters.

No judgment proves Wrenn offered Reese and Perkerson money for a fabricated confession.

No judgment proves Carter was bribed.

No evidence identifies the man in Carter’s poison allegation.

Calhoun did not accuse investigators of bribing him.

Wilson and Whatley left no surviving manipulation accusation.

Minola’s State affidavit cannot be treated as settled truth because she later repudiated it.

Her repudiation cannot be treated as the final uncontested word because Gordon, Craven, Starnes, and Albert supplied contrary evidence.

These limits make the paper defensible.

27.  What Can Responsibly Be Claimed

The defense investigation used admitted deception with Ivey Jones.

Burke directed the operation.

Burke prepared the affidavit produced from it.

Albert McKnight made specific contemporary allegations involving employment and post-signature alteration.

Mary Rich made a specific contemporary allegation involving a false affidavit.

Allen’s allegations overlap materially with Isom’s sworn account from inside the operation.

Allen said any Conley language in his signed affidavit was added afterward.

Isom said Burns later claimed Allen had supplied the affidavit he wanted.

Reese and Perkerson gave parallel sworn accounts of an alleged fabricated-confession proposal.

Carter was moved outside Georgia under defense arrangements.

Judge Hill made a technical-contempt finding concerning her removal.

The Carter-Conley correspondence passed through Burke and George Wrenn prior to Burns using it publicly.

The State formally accused Wrenn of manufacturing it.

Shields gave a sworn account involving a substitute Negro witness sought after he refused an accusation as false.

These are historical facts about the record even where the underlying accusations remain disputed.

28. Was the Post-Trial Investigation Corrupt?

A universal claim involving every lawyer and investigator would go farther than the sources support.

A narrower conclusion is much stronger.

Frank’s post-trial investigative operation contained admitted deception and repeatedly generated sworn allegations of false affidavit construction, economic inducement, post-signature alteration, manufactured confession efforts, misleading approaches, witness control, substitute-witness searches, and disputed documentary evidence.

In several instances, people working inside the operation corroborated important parts of the machinery surrounding those accusations.

Wrenn admitted the Jones pretext.

Burke admitted directing Wrenn and dictating the affidavit.

Isom said Allen did not know Conley.

Isom recorded Burns directing continued pressure.

Isom recorded Allen saying the wanted affidavit would be a lie.

Isom later recorded Burns claiming he obtained the affidavit he wanted.

Burke admitted later assisting Albert with employment, while denying any bargain.

Burns admitted Burke supplied the Carter-Conley notes.

Burns admitted George Wrenn made the first translation.

Carter’s removal is established.

Judge Hill’s contempt finding is established.

The jail access connecting Burke, Jimmie Wrenn, George Wrenn, Frank, Carter, and the disputed evidence is established.

Around this admitted framework sit the contested allegations.

The historical case does not depend upon calling every accusation true.

It depends upon recognizing how often the same kinds of accusations appeared around the same investigative network.

29. Conclusion

Negro witnesses deserve a central place in any history of Leo Frank’s post-trial defense.

The record extends far beyond Jim Conley.

Frank’s defense needed evidence capable of breaking Conley’s story.

Negro witnesses could relocate him.

They could say he confessed.

They could attack his character.

They could weaken previous testimony.

They could provide material for a new trial.

They could create doubt about the State’s chronology.

Frank’s attorneys had every right to investigate. They had every right to locate genuine witnesses. They had every right to challenge Conley. They had every right to correct false testimony. They had every right to pay legitimate expenses. They had every right to investigate police coercion.

The historical problem begins where investigation crosses into manipulation.

Albert McKnight’s original 1913 affidavit belongs in this history because investigators used his accusations while questioning Minola.

Minola’s State’s Exhibit J belongs because it contains allegations involving money, gifts, and instructions to keep quiet.

Her trial repudiation belongs beside it.

Gordon, Craven, and Starnes belong beside her repudiation.

Albert’s later report concerning Minola’s private statement also belongs in the chronology.

Albert’s own post-trial experience with Burke belongs because he later accused Frank’s investigator of using employment pressure and altering a signed paper.

Ivey Jones belongs because Wrenn admitted deceiving him.

Burke belongs in the Jones story because Burke directed Wrenn and wrote the resulting affidavit from Wrenn’s notes.

Mary Rich belongs because the strongest version attributed to her weakened and was later repudiated.

Aaron Allen belongs because investigators pursued him for a confession story despite his denial of knowing Conley, and because Isom’s own sworn account supports critical portions of Allen’s complaint.

Allen’s signed affidavit belongs because he alleged Conley language was inserted afterward.

The pile of money belongs as context, but not as a proved bribe.

William Calhoun belongs because his experience shows the pressure and geographical reach of the witness hunt.

Wilson and Whatley belong because their pursuit reveals the size of the search, even though neither left a bribery accusation.

Reese and Perkerson belong because both described a paid fabricated-confession proposal.

Conley belongs because, according to them, the alleged effort eventually reached him personally.

Reese’s illiteracy and refusal to sign belong because prepared papers were central to the campaign.

Carter belongs because her evidence became tied to money allegations, disputed letters, interstate removal, and a judicial contempt finding.

The Carter-Conley correspondence belongs because the State accused the defense of manufacturing evidence while Burns publicly promoted the papers as proof against Conley.

Shields belongs because he said a substitute Negro woman was sought after he rejected a false accusation.

Most of all, the Negro witnesses’ own words belong.

“I could not tell a lie.”

“I will make that affidavit, but it will be a lie.”

“I refused every time because it was a lie.”

Those sentences cut through more than a century of argument.

They show people under pressure drawing lines of their own.

The post-trial campaign to overturn Leo Frank’s conviction was not simply a search through forgotten evidence. It became a struggle over the creation of evidence itself.

Who wrote the affidavits?

Who supplied the words?

Who paid the expenses?

Who offered employment?

Who controlled the witness?

Who moved the witness?

Who translated the letters?

Who passed notes in jail?

Who wanted a confession?

Who said the confession never occurred?

Who refused to sign?

Who signed and later claimed the paper had been changed?

Who repudiated?

Who answered the repudiation with another affidavit?

Once all of these episodes are placed together, the central question becomes unavoidable.

Were Frank’s investigators always discovering what Negro witnesses knew?

Or, in some episodes, were they trying to produce what Frank’s defense needed Negro witnesses to say?

The surviving record does not answer every accusation with a conviction.

It does something historically more useful.

It preserves the witnesses, the investigators, the papers, the money, the journeys, the denials, the admissions, the repudiations, and the refusals.

And again and again, Negro witnesses said the evidence being sought from them was not true.

30.           References

Georgia Code, 1. Georgia Code §16-10-93. “Influencing Witnesses.”

www.law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-10/article-5/section-16-10-93/

Georgia Code, 2. Georgia Code §16-10-72. “Subornation of Perjury or False Swearing.” Statutory history includes Penal Code 1895 §§260-261 and Penal Code 1910 §§263-264.

www.law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-10/article-4/section-16-10-72/

AG, 3. The Atlanta Georgian. Monday, June 2, 1913. “Negro Cook at Home Where Frank Lived Held by the Police.”

www.maryphagan.com/1913-06-02-negro-cook-at-home-where-frank-lived-held-by-the-police-the-atlanta-georgian/

AC, 4. The Atlanta Constitution. Tuesday, June 3, 1913. “Leo Frank’s Cook Put Under Arrest.”

www.maryphagan.com/pdf-files/archive-atlanta-constitution/atlanta-constitution-june-03-1913-tuesday-16-pages-combined.pdf

AJ, 5. The Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, June 3, 1913. “Attorney Retained for Negro Servant at Frank’s Home.”

www.maryphagan.com/1913-06-03-attorney-retained-for-negro-servant-at-franks-home-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 6. The Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, June 4, 1913. “Sensational Affidavit Made by Minola M’Knight, Negro Cook at Home of L. M. Frank.”

www.maryphagan.com/1913-06-04-sensational-affidavit-made-by-minola-mknight-negro-cook-at-home-of-l-m-frank-the-atlanta-journal/

Georgia Supreme Court, 7. State’s Exhibit J, Minola McKnight, slide 1288.

www.maryphagan.com/1288-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 8. State’s Exhibit J continued, slide 1289.

www.maryphagan.com/1289-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 9. State’s Exhibit J continued, slide 1290.

www.maryphagan.com/1290-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 10. Minola McKnight trial repudiation, slide 1141.

www.maryphagan.com/1141-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

AJ, 11. The Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, August 19, 1913. “Attorney Swears That Witness Was Held Illegally.”

www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-19-attorney-swears-that-witness-was-held-illegally-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 12. The Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Testimony He Gave at Trial Was True, Declares M’Knight,” p. 1, col. 6.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-19-testimony-he-gave-at-trial-was-true-declares-m-knight-the-atlanta-constitution/

AJ, 13. The Atlanta Journal. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Albert M’Knight Now Repudiates His Recent Story,” p. 1, col. 6.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-19-albert-m-knight-now-repudiates-his-recent-story-the-atlanta-journal/

Georgia Supreme Court, 14. Albert McKnight sworn statement concerning Burke, p. 1600.

www.maryphagan.com/1600-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 15. Burke and Minola McKnight rebuttal affidavits concerning Albert, p. 1741.

www.maryphagan.com/1741-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Legacy Project, 16. Albert McKnight affidavit and Burke chronology. “Captain Burke, Train Conductor: The Derailment and Train Wreck of the Leo Frank Defense, April 19, 1914.”

www.maryphagan.com/captain-burke-train-conductor-the-derailment-and-train-wreck-of-the-leo-frank-defense-april-19-1914/

AG, 17. The Atlanta Georgian. Friday, March 27, 1914. “3 Swear to Alibi for Frank,” p. 6.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-27-3-swear-to-alibi-for-frank-the-atlanta-georgian/

Georgia Supreme Court, 18. C. W. Burke and J. W. Wrenn affidavits concerning Ivey Jones, p. 1761.

www.maryphagan.com/1761-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

AJ, 19. The Atlanta Journal. Friday, March 27, 1914. “Frank’s Motion Is Made Public: Many of State’s Witnesses Change Their Testimony,” p. 1, col. 2.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-27-frank-s-motion-is-made-public-many-of-state-s-witnesses-change-their-testimony-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 20. The Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, April 22, 1914. “Frank Hearings Postponed; Burns Says Conley Guilty.”

www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-22-frank-hearings-postponed-burns-says-conley-guilty-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 21. The Atlanta Constitution. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Return of Negress Ordered by Judge Monday Morning,” p. 1, col. 5.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-05-return-of-negress-ordered-by-judge-monday-morning-the-atlanta-constitution/

Georgia Supreme Court, 22. Mary Rich and E. H. Wellborn affidavits, p. 1627.

www.maryphagan.com/1627-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

AJ, 23. The Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, May 6, 1914. “Judge Hill Denies Motion as Defense Closes Arguments,” pp. 1, 3.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-06-judge-hill-denies-motion-as-defense-closes-arguments-the-atlanta-journal/

Georgia Supreme Court, 24. Witnesses to Annie Maud Carter’s Haas-office affidavit session, p. 1764.

www.maryphagan.com/1764-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 25. Annie Maud Carter affidavit continuation carrying the April 25 printed date, p. 1765.

www.maryphagan.com/1765-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

AC, 26. The Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, April 26, 1914. “Says Love Letters Written by Conley Prove Him Guilty.”

www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-26-says-love-letters-written-by-conley-prove-him-guilty-the-atlanta-constitution/

AG, 27. The Atlanta Georgian. Sunday, April 26, 1914. “New Conley Notes Prove Him Guilty, Says Burns.”

www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-26-new-conley-notes-prove-him-guilty-says-burns-the-atlanta-georgian/

AG, 28. The Atlanta Georgian. Friday, May 1, 1914. “Evidence Is Recorded Against Conley.”

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-01-evidence-is-recorded-against-conley-the-atlanta-georgian/

Georgia Supreme Court, 29. State counter-showing concerning the Carter-Conley correspondence, p. 1495.

www.maryphagan.com/1495-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

AG, 30. The Atlanta Georgian. Saturday, May 2, 1914. “Detective on Stand, Tells of Probe.”

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-02-detective-on-stand-tells-of-probe-the-atlanta-georgian/

AJ, 31. The Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Many Sensations Sprung by Dorsey at Frank Hearing,” p. 1, col. 7.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-05-many-sensations-sprung-by-dorsey-at-frank-hearing-the-atlanta-journal/

NYT, 32. The New York Times. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Frank Affidavits False, Says Dorsey,” p. 4.

www.maryphagan.com/the-new-york-times-1914-may-5-frank-affidavits-false-says-dorsey-the-new-york-times-p-4/

Georgia Supreme Court, 33. Aaron Allen sworn statement, p. 1674.

www.maryphagan.com/1674-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 34. C. A. Isom affidavit concerning Aaron Allen, p. 1732.

www.maryphagan.com/1732-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 35. C. A. Isom affidavit concerning Burke’s instructions, Allen, Calhoun, Wilson, Whatley, pay, and Chicago expenses, p. 1731.

www.maryphagan.com/1731-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 36. C. A. Isom affidavit concerning Burns and William Calhoun, p. 1733.

www.maryphagan.com/1733-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 37. Frank Reese affidavit concerning George Wrenn, p. 1661.

www.maryphagan.com/1661-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 38. Frank Reese affidavit continued, p. 1662.

www.maryphagan.com/1662-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 39. Willis J. Gilbert jail affidavit, p. 1663.

www.maryphagan.com/1663-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 40. Willis J. Gilbert jail affidavit continued, p. 1664.

www.maryphagan.com/1664-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 41. Fred Perkerson affidavit concerning George Wrenn, p. 1724.

www.maryphagan.com/1724-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 42. Fred Perkerson affidavit concerning Wrenn and Jim Conley, p. 1725.

www.maryphagan.com/1725-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 43. George Wrenn identified as Jimmie Wrenn’s brother and Jimmie Wrenn connected with Burke, p. 1723.

www.maryphagan.com/1723-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

AJ, 44. The Atlanta Journal. Saturday, May 9, 1914. “Burns and Lehon Are Summoned on Contempt Charge,” p. 1, col. 7.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-09-burns-and-lehon-are-summoned-on-contempt-charge-the-atlanta-journal/

AJ, 45. The Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, May 26, 1914. “Burns’ Men Fight Effort to Shut Up Offices in Atlanta,” p. 1, col. 1.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-26-burns-men-fight-effort-to-shut-up-offices-in-atlanta-the-atlanta-journal/

AC, 46. The Atlanta Constitution. Wednesday, May 27, 1914. “Lehon Is Fined $100 and Costs and Bound Over.” Carter’s inducement accusation is reported in the article. The licensing conviction is not used as proof of bribery in this paper.

www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-27-lehon-is-fined-100-and-costs-and-bound-over-the-atlanta-constitution/

Georgia Supreme Court, 47. John Shields affidavit, p. 1666.

www.maryphagan.com/1666-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

Georgia Supreme Court, 48. John Shields affidavit continued, p. 1667.

www.maryphagan.com/1667-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

NYT, 49. The New York Times. Wednesday, May 6, 1914. “May Call Burns Before Grand Jury.”

www.maryphagan.com/the-new-york-times-1914-may-6-may-call-burns-before-grand-jury-the-new-york-times/

Legacy Project, 50. Chapter material concerning Annie Maud Carter and the Fulton County Jail.

www.maryphagan.org/chapter-6-sentencing-and-aftermath/