Frank May Tell Story to Jury on Stand Today

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

The Atlanta Constitution
August 18th, 1913

Defense Intimates This, and Also That Statement Will Vary But Little From One Given at Inquest.

FRANK PREPARED FOR ORDEAL OF STATEMENT

Impeachment of Conley Being Prepared For, Say Lawyer-Spectators — Defense May Succeed in Ruling Out Part.

Interest in the Frank trial is heightened by the announced prospect of the defendant taking the stand sometime today in the battle for his life that has been raging for the past two weeks. Attorneys for the defense intimated strongly Sunday afternoon that Frank would go on the stand either this morning or at the afternoon session, and that his statement would vary but little from that which he related at the coroner’s inquest shortly after his arrest more than three months ago. Frank has prepared himself for this ordeal. He spent a quiet and restful day Sunday in the Tower. Scores of friends Invaded his cell, lending encouragement and strengthening him for the crisis with which he is to be confronted. Friends say he is wholIy equal to the test.                                                                      

His wife and mother visited him late Sunday afternoon, bringing food and delicacies. They have been constant visitors to the cell, and neither has missed a day in attendance upon the trial. Neither Mrs. Frank nor her daughter-in-law show outward evidence of any strain they might have suffered from the days of strain endured in the ¢ramped and tedious courtroom.

Continue Reading →

That Pinkertons Double-Crossed Police, Dorsey Tries to Prove

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 17th, 1913

With the introduction of W.D. MacWorth, the Pinkerton detective who discovered the blood spots on the first floor near the trap door and the bloody club and pay envelope nearby, came the verification of a rumor that the prosecution would try to show an attempt on the part of the Pinkertons in the employee of the National Pencil factory to double-cross the police. This came when Dorsey sought to prove that the Pinkertons had tried to conceal from the police the fact of the discovery of the club, piece of buggy whip and the pay envelope.

He was examined by Mr. Rosser.

“What is your business?”

“I am an operative with the Pinkerton Detective Agency.”

“Did you work on the Phagan case?”

“Yes, I made several searches of the factory premises.”

“Did you search the ground floor on the 15th of May? What did you find?”

“I found seven stains that resembled blood near the trap door by the elevator. Upon searching behind the radiator, I also found a piece of wrapping cord that looked as though it had been freshly cut at one end. The radiator on the side against the wall was packed with rubbish and trash. There were papers in the trash dated as early as January 13, 1913, which indicated that it had been there only a short while.”

“About six or eight inches away, I found a rolled and crumpled piece of paper. It was a pay envelope, numbered and with the letters ‘M. P.’ written on the face. In almost the same spot I found a heavy club spotted with dim stains. It was Iying in a doorway with several iron pipes”.

Not Positive About Blood.

Cross examination by Dorsey.

“Did you ever see this stick before?” He held to view a heavy butt-end of on buggy whip.”

“Yes, it was behind the front door.”

Continue Reading →

Prisoner’s Mother Questioned As to Wealth of Frank Family

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 17th, 1913

Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of Leo Frank, resumed the stand at the opening of the morning session Saturday. Under cross-examination by Solicitor Dorsey, she was forced to tell much of her business interests In Brooklyn, her home, and that of many of her relatives.

She was questioned first on direct examination by Mr. Rosser.

“Has your son, Leo Frank, any rich relatives In Brooklyn?”

“No.”

“When you opened this letter which he wrote to his uncle, where there any other papers in the envelope?”

“Yes.”

“Did you recognize the handwriting of your son?”

“Yes.”

Cross-examination by Dorsey.

“What kind of papers were in the envelope?”

Continue Reading →

Dorsey Asks Bauer Where He Spent the Dinner Recess

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

R. V. Bauer, the ex-student who was on the stand undergoing cross-examination at the adjournment of the morning session took the stand at the opening of the afternoon session.

“Who have you talked with since dinner?” he was asked by the solicitor.

“Mr. Montag, Sig Gottheimer, Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold.”

“Where?”
“In Mr. Arnold’s office.”

“How long did you talk with him?”
“Two or three minutes.”

“What did they ask you?”
“Nothing but the facts I’ve already told you.”

“On the third Saturday in January, who did you see at the pencil factory?”
“Nobody except those I’ve been accustomed to seeing.”

“Did you see Frank?”
“Yes, he was at work at his desk.”

“Was anybody with him?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Who did you see on the fourth Saturday?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Did you see Frank?”
“Yes, he was working at his desk at usual.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Dorsey Asks Bauer Where He Spent the Dinner Recess,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Says Frank Broke Baseball Date Shortly After Girl Was Killed

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Annie Hicks, a maid in the home of Charles Ersenbach, testified to having received a telephone call from Frank to Ersenbach, breaking a ball game engagement for the afternoon of April 26.

“Do you recall Memorial day?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you get a telephone message from Mr. Frank?”
“Yes, he called at 1 o’clock and said tell Charles Ersenbach that he couldn’t go to the ball game that afternoon. He stopped for a minute and said, to somebody beside him, ‘Hush, honey,’ and I supposed he was talking to his wife.”

Dorsey on cross-examination.

“How long have you been working at the Ersenbach home?”
“For two years.”

“Frank and his wife came over to the Ersenbach residence the Sunday morning after the murder?”
“Yes, sir—he came into the dining room where I was and asked me if I could get him a drink of cool water.”

“Did you hear him talk any?”
“Yes, they all talked and laughed.”

“Was he nervous?”

“No, I’ve been knowing him for a long time and I never have seen him nervous.”

“Weren’t they laughing about the little girl being murdered?”

“I don’t know.”

“You and Minola McKnight are great friends?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Has Minola ever talked to you about this affair?”
“No, I just asked her why they locked her up and she said she didn’t know.”

“When was the last time you saw Minola?”
“This morning at Mrs. Selig’s where I had dinner.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Says Frank Broke Baseball Date Shortly After Girl Was Killed,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Still Another Office Boy Swears He Never Saw Women With Frank

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

B. J. Nix, of Marietta, an office boy for Leo Frank from April to October, 1912 was the first witness, outside of those testifying to character, who was put on the stand Friday. The lad who gave his age as 19 swore that he had never seen Frank having women in his office. He stated that he left the office at 1 o’clock every other Saturday during the summer months.

“Were you ever an office boy for the National Pencil company?” was Mr. Arnold’s first question.

“Yes, sir.”

“When?”
“From April to October of last year.”

“Did you have any agreement about getting off on Saturdays?” Mr. Arnold continued.

“Yes, sir, on every other Saturday I got off at 1 o’clock and on the Saturdays between I stayed to 4 o’clock and sometimes as late as 6 o’clock.

“Were you sent out of the office much?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see Mr. Frank have women in his office?”

“No, sir.”

“Ever see him have beer in his office?”
“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Dorsey took up the cross-examination.

“Most of the Saturdays on which you did not get off at 1 o’clock you got off at 4 o’clock, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir, most of the time.”

“You don’t undertake to say do you that that on the days you were off that Frank did not have women and beer in his office?”
“No, I can’t say that.”

“That’s all,” said the solicitor.

The witness was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Still Another Office Boy Swears He Never Saw Women With Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Frank as Innocent as Angels Conley Told Her, Says Witness

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Miss Julia Fuss, a girl about 16 years old, and an employee at the National Pencil factory took the stand to testify as to Frank’s character. She not only testified that she believed the defendant’s character to be good, but that she had heard Jim Conley declare that Mr. Frank was as innocent as the angels in heaven.

Mr. Arnold asked Miss Fuss whether she had ever been in Frank’s office when anything immoral took place.

She replied that she had not.

“Do you know Jim Conley?”
“Yes.”

“Did you talk with him after the murder?”
“Yes. On Tuesday and Wednesday.”

“What conversation took place between you and Jim Conley?”

Wanted to See Newspaper.

Jim asked me to let him see a newspaper which I had there. I asked him what he thought about the case but before he answered or saw the paper he was called by Mr. Darley or somebody. On the next day he came to me again and asked me let him see the paper. This time I asked him again, ‘Jim, what do you think about the case? Do you think Frank did it?’ He said Mr. Frank is as innocent as the angels in heaven.”

Continue Reading →

Maid in Schiff Home Tells of Phone Message From Frank

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Emma Hill, a maid in the Schiff home was called to tell of a telephone message for Herbert Schiff, made by Frank on the morning of the tragedy.

“Do you remember anybody trying to call Schiff on the 26th of April?”

“Yes, sir. Somebody who sounded like a boy, rang the phone and said tell Mr. Schiff that Mr. Frank wanted him at the office to do some work.”

“What time was it?”

“It was about 11 o’clock. I woke Mr. Schiff and he said tell whoever it was at the phone that he would be there when he got up. He went back to sleep.”

Cross-examination by Mr. Dorsey.

“How long have you been at the Schiff home?”

“Seven years.”

“Why do you remember this especial Saturday?”
“Because it was Memorial day—everybody knows Memorial day.”

“Who did you first tell about this phone conversation?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Who first saw you about it?”
“Nobody but the lawyer.”

“What lawyer?”
“Herbert Haas.”

“And you never mentioned a word of it to a soul before that?”
“No, sir.”

“What did Haas say to you?”
“Nothing. He just gave me the subpoena to court.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Maid in Schiff Home Tells of Phone Message From Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Traveling Salesman for Montag’s Tells of Conversation With Frank

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Harry Gottheimer, a traveling salesman for the Montag firm and the pencil factory, took the stand to tell of an engagement he had made with Frank on the afternoon of the murder.

“Do you remember seeing Frank on April 26?” he was asked by Arnold.

“Yes, I saw him at Montag’s about 10 o’clock that morning.”

“Did you talk with him?”
“Yes, I was at the desk in the office and he came over to speak to me. I asked him of two important orders which had been forwarded and he said that if I would come at 2 o’clock that afternoon he would see about them.”

Mr. Hooper arose to voice an objection on the grounds that the statement was self-serving and that a similar statement made relative to words of Mary Phagan had been ruled out previously by the judge.

After an argument by Mr. Rosser and his colleague, however, Judge Roan ruled that the evidence was admissible and overruled the state.

“Did you go to see Frank?”
“Not that afternoon.”

Dorsey on cross-examination:

“When was it you recalled this talk with Frank?”
“Immediately upon hearing of the tragedy.”

“Did you tell him you would come over that afternoon?”

“No.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Traveling Salesman for Montag’s Tells of Conversation With Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Mother of Frank Takes Stand to Identify Letter Son Wrote

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

The more or less listless curiosity of the courtroom spectators was scarcely aroused during the afternoon until the last witness was called who was Mrs. Rae Frank of Brooklyn, N. Y. The mother of Leo M. Frank.

Not the slightest intimation had been given that Mrs. Frank would be called to the stand and a whisper of surprise spread over the room as the leaden-eyed mother, weary with the many days through which she has patiently sat and heard every conceivable blight cast at the name of her son slowly ascended the stand.

As she held up her hand to take the oath there was a glimmer of the hope in her eyes that now she might be able to say some word which might help or at least comfort her son.

Mr. Rosser questioned her.

“Are you the mother of Leo Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Where do you live?”
“In Brooklyn.”

“Where did you move from to Brooklyn?”
“New York city.”

Continue Reading →

Miss Mary Perk Tells Jurymen She Believes Conley Is Guilty

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Miss Mary Perk, a forelady in the polishing department of the pencil factory followed Mrs. Carson to the stand.

“Do you know Frank and his general character?” she was asked by Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, for five years.”

“Is it good or bad?”
“Good.”

“Do you know Jim Conley?”

“I saw him Monday. I accused him of the murder and he tucked his head and walked away.”

“Is his character good or bad?”
“Bad.”

Mr. Dorsey on cross-examination.

“You reported your suspicion of Conley to Frank on Monday, didn’t you?”
“No.”

“What made you suspect Jim?”
“He acted like he was guilty.”

“To whom did you first report your suspicion?”
“To Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold.”

“Can you explain why you didn’t tell of your suspicion to Frank when you saw he had Pinkerton detectives at work on the case?”
“I just didn’t think it best.”

“Have you ever known of Frank being accused immorality?”
“No.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”
“Yes.”

“Ever see Frank go over and call her off to one side?”
“No.”

“Ever see Frank scuffling with her?”
“No.”

“Ever hear of Frank slapping girls?”
“No.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Miss Mary Perk Tells Jurymen She Believes Conley Is Guilty,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Never Saw Any Women in Office of Frank Says Negro Witness

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Walter Pride, a negro employee in the National Pencil factory, who is named in Jim Conley’s story, was put on the stand in the middle of the afternoon.

“Where do you work on Saturdays?” he was asked by Arnold.

“I work every where anything is to be done on the machinery.”

“Have you missed a single Saturday since May?”
“No.”

“What floors do you work on on Saturdays?”
“From basement to the roof.”

“What do you do on the office floor?”
“Work on the toilets.”

“What time do you generally leave on Saturdays?”
“4:30 o’clock.”

Continue Reading →

Leo Frank Innocent, Said Conley, According to a Girl Operator

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Mrs. Dora Small, a machine operator for the pencil factory, was the last witness of the afternoon session.

“How long have you been working with the factory?” she was asked by Arnold.

“For five years.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”
“Only when I saw her.”

“Did you know Jim Conley?”
“Yes, I saw him the week after the murder.”

“Did you see him with newspapers?”
“Yes, he borrowed money from me to get them with.”

Continue Reading →

Host of Witnesses Declare Frank’s Character to Be Good

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

The greater part of the time Friday was taken up by the defense in producing witnesses to swear to the good character of Frank. One witness placed on the stand, F. F. Gilbert, an employee of Montag Mros. [sic], swore that he did not know Frank well enough to testify to his character.

The witnesses who were used solely to attest his good character were: Dr. and Mrs. J. E. Sommerfield, of 300 Washington street; F. Schiff, of 18 West Fair street; Joseph Gershon, of 390 Washington street; P. D. McCarley, of 24 Hemphill avenue, in charge of the oil business of M. Frank, Leo Frank’s uncle; Mrs. M. W. Myers, of Washington street; Mrs. David Marx, wife of Rabbit Marx, of 354 Washington street; Mrs. R. I. Harris; Al Guinman, of 479 Washington street; M. S. Rice, who formerly boarded at the same place with Frank; Mrs. B. Giogowski, with whom Frank once boarded; Mr. and Mrs. L. H. Moss, Mrs. Joseph D. Brown; E. E. Fitzpatrick, of 105 Sinclair avenue, foreman of the shipping and receiving department of Montag Bros.; Emil Dittler, William Bauer, Miss Helen Loeb, J. C. Mathews, of 86 Sinclair avenue, employee of Montag Bros.; Al Fox, Mrs. Adolph Montag, who said Frank had been discussed by Mrs. Myers, his landlady, who had said how attentive to her wants he was to her when her husband was out of town, and F. F. Gilbert, an employee of Montag Bros., who swore he did not know Frank well enough to tell of his character.

Mrs. Martin May on Stand.

Mrs. Martin May, a petite and stylishly dressed brunette, followed. As she took the stand she bowed and smiled to Mr. and Mrs. Frank. She testified that the defendant’s character was good and was not cross-examined.

Continue Reading →

Every Girl on Fourth Floor of Factory Will Go on Stand

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Mrs. E. H. Carson, mother of Rebecca Carson, and a forewoman in the pencil factory, was put on the stand late in the afternoon.

“How long have you been employed by the pencil factory?”

“Three years.”

“Did you ever see blood spots around the dressing rooms?”

“Yes.”

“When did you see Jim Conely last?”

Continue Reading →

Dorsey Questions Witness About Alleged Fund for Frank’s Defense

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

A. D. Greenfield, one of the owners of the building occupied by the National Pencil company, of which Frank is superintendent, followed the former office boy to the stand. He was questioned about the occupancy of the building by the Clark Woodenware company, and also about Frank’s character.

“How long have you been one of the owners of the building occupied by the National Pencil company?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“Since 1900.”

“Has any new flooring ever been put in on the second floor since you became part owner of the building?”
“No.”

“Do you know Leo Frank?”
“Yes.”

“How long have you known him?”
“For four or five years.”

Continue Reading →

Aged Negro Drayman Called As a Witness Against Conley

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Truman McCrary, an aged negro drayman, who once was an employee of the pencil factory, was put on the stand during the afternoon session.

“Where do you work at present?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“I run a street dray.”

“Where did you work up to May?”

“At the pencil factory.”

“Did you work there on Saturdays?”
“Every Saturday for a year or more.”

“How late in the afternoons?”
“Sometimes until 3 o’clock and sometimes as late as 5.”

“On any Saturday afternoon did you ever see the front door locked?”
“No, sir.”

“Ever see Conley around the front door?”
“No, sir.”

“What would Frank and Schiff be doing upstairs?”
“Working on their books.”

“Did you see Jim Conley around on April 26?”

“No, sir.”

“Then you didn’t advise him to go into the basement that afternoon?”
“No, sir.”

He was only asked a few words in cross-examination.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Aged Negro Drayman Called as a Witness Against Conley,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Both Wife and Phone, He Says, Are Expensive and Necessary

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Ike Haas, well-known manufacturer, was put on the stand during Friday afternoon.

“How long have you been in Atlanta?”
“Four years.”

“What is your business?”

“I am a manufacturer.”

“Do you know Leo M. Frank and his general character?”

“Yes.”

“Is it good or bad?”

“Very good.”

“Did you hear your telephone bell ring on the morning of April 27?”

“No, but I heard my wife answering it.”

Hooper on cross-examination:

“Your wife woke you up?”
“Yes.”

“There is some little difference between a wife and a telephone, isn’t there, Mr. Haas?”
“Yes; but both are expensive and necessary.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Both Wife and Phone, He Says, are Expensive and Necessary,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Credit Man is Put on Stand to Identify Frank’s Writing

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

M. O. Nix, credit man for Montag Bros., of whom Sig Montag is general manager of the National Pencil company, followed A. D. Greenfield to the stand.

He identified Leo Frank’s handwriting on a number of the financial sheets and on the one that he claims to have made up on April 26. When shown a sample of writing Frank did for the police when they desired to compare his writing with that on the murder notes, Nix said it looked like Frank’s, but he refused to swear to it.

“Previous to April 26 did you often see Leo Frank’s handwriting?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“Yes.”

“By what means?”
“By seeing the payroll slips and various notes he would write to the office.”

“Ever see one of the financial sheets he made out?”
“No.”

“How long have you been seeing his handwriting?”
“About four or five years.”

Continue Reading →

Factory Employee’s Testimony Causes Laughter in Court Room

Posted on by

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Joseph Stelker, an employee of the National Pencil company, followed the Montag’s credit man to the stand.

Stelker was questioned closely about conditions at the factory, and while he was on the stand both sides again took up the much-discussed question of whether or not Frank had a raincoat with him on the day of the murder. Stelker, in his testimony, made the spectators laugh when he told of how Jim Conley had swindled him out of a half a can of beer. He also remarked that he thought Jim was a better negro for having served in the city chaingang.

“Where were you on the day the little girl was killed?” asked Mr. Arnold on direct examination.

“I was at home.”

“Did you see the spots said to be blood and also the white stuff partly covering them?”
“Yes.”

Continue Reading →