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 →
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.”
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.
* * *
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.”
* * *
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.”
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.”
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913
MOTHER IDENTIFIES LETTER FRANK HAD WRITTEN TO UNCLE ON MEMORIAL DAY
Testimony Used by Defense to Show That the Prisoner Could Not Have Written This Letter, Which Was of Considerable Length, Had He Been Laboring Under Stress of Excitement Which Would Have Followed the Murder of Mary Phagan.
PENCIL FACTORY GIRLS SWEAR CONLEY CALLED FRANK AN INNOCENT MAN
Witness After Witness Declare That They Never Saw Women in Office of Superintendent—The State Brings Girl Back From Home of Good Shepherd in Cincinnati to Give Evidence Against Prisoner—Her Testimony Is Kept a Secret.
The defense played one of its strong cards Friday, when, at the heel of the day’s session, Mrs. Rae Frank was placed on the stand to identify a letter which Leo M. Frank, on Memorial day, and which was read in her presence at the Hotel McAlpin, New York, Monday following the murder.
The letter was one of some length, and contained a price list which M. Frank had requested his nephew to send him.
The time element, which is playing an important part in the trial, was made more important by this letter. The defense will attempt to show that the letter could not have been written had Frank been guilty of the murder, or had he been laboring under stress of excitement.
Mrs. Frank was perfectly composed while on the stand and answered the questions of Luther Rosser in a clear, distinct voice.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Journal
August 16th, 1913
Lamar Rucker and Max Swain, Reporter, “Scrap” Adjoining Court Room
A fight between Lamar Rucker, an attorney from Athens, and Maxwell Swain, representative of the Atlanta Star, at the trial of Leo M. Frank, badly damaged the six-foot long model of the pencil factory introduced by the defense and scanned by numerous witnesses on the stand in illustrating their stories.
The model had been stored in the press room, adjoining court.
Mr. Rucker, who formerly lived in Atlanta, and Mr. Swain were total strangers to each other until the encounter introduced them.
Mr. Swain insisted that Mr. Rucker had attempted bowdaceously to cut off his, Swain’s mustache—which, incidentally, is a mustache among mustaches.
Mr. Rucker did not explain his side of the disagreement.
In their struggle, Mr. Rucker to cut the mustache, and Mr. Swain to compel a desistance, they sat down upon the model, whereupon a report started among the facetious newspaper men that Mr. Swain had attempted to chuck Mr. Rucker down the elevator shaft.
Other newspaper men interfered, and all policing duties had been performed when one of the deputy sheriffs attached to the trial poked his head in the door and grinned.
* * *
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Journal
August 16th, 1913
By Asking Pencil Factory Forelady If She Saw Frank Talking to Mary Phagan, Solicitor Dorsey Indicates That He Has Witnesses Who May Furnish Further Sensational Testimony Along This Line
Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of Leo M. Frank, the accused factory superintendent took the stand Friday afternoon in defense of her boy and was on the stand when trial adjourns, at 5:45 o’clock until 9 o’clock Saturday. Mrs. Frank testified as to a letter which was written by her son on the day of the murder of Mary Phagan, addressed to M. Frank, the accused’s uncle, and received in New York several days later. The letter was admitted as evidence but was not read to the jury. Its contents told of the Memorial Day parade and of grand opera closing in Atlanta. A striking paragraph in the letter was the accused’s comment that nothing startling had happened in Atlanta since his uncle left.
Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense announced after court adjourned that the defense would put up about 100 more witnesses and that it would require at least two more days for it to conclude its evidence. This is taken to mean that the accused will not occupy the witness stand until possibly Wednesday.
By one question asked of Miss Mary Burton, forelady of the polishing room, Solicitor Dorsey Friday afternoon indicated that he had witnesses who would testify, if permitted, that Frank made advances to Mary Phagan, the murdered girl, two weeks before the crime. He asked the witness, “Did you ever hear that Frank got Mary Phagan in a corner two weeks prior to the murder and she was begging him to let her get away?” Miss Burton answered, “No.” If the solicitor has such witnesses he can put them on the stand and ask if they know the character of the accused and the witness can only answer as to whether it is good or bad, but if the defense asks the witnesses to give their reasons for their opinion and state a specific instance, then the alleged testimony against Frank’s character can get before the jury.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Journal
August 16th, 1913
MISS IRENE JACKSON DECLARES FRANK LOOKED INTO DRESSING ROOM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
Daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson Testifies That Frank Opened the Door of Dressing Room and Looked in While Young Lady Was Dressing and That a Complaint Was Registered With a Forelady, Miss Cleland, About It
NEWSPAPER MAN TELLS OF JIM CONLEY’S PANTOMIME RE-ENACTMENT AT FACTORY
Solicitor Dorsey Attacks the Pinkertons, Charging That They Failed to Report Their “Finds” to Police—Many Young Women Employed at the Factory Testify to Frank’s Good Character—Court Adjourns Until Monday Morning
With Harllee Branch, a reporter for The Journal, on the witness stand where he had just described Conley’s pantomime re-enactment of his alleged part in the disposal of the body of Mary Phagan, witnessed by him as a newspaper man, the trial of Leo M. Frank was adjourned at 1:05 o’clock Saturday afternoon until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. Mr. Branch, summoned by the defense to testify in regard to an interview with Jim Conley at the tower, over the protest of Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, was permitted by the court to describe Conley’s pantomime re-enactment when requested to do so by the solicitor.
Just before court adjourned, Judge Roan addressed a few words to the jury, expressing regret that it was necessary to keep them away from their families another Sunday but stating that he sincerely hopes this would be the last Sunday that they would have to held together.
Unexpected testimony for the state was drawn from Miss Irene Jackson, daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson, a former employe of the factory, who had been summoned as a defense witness. On cross-examination Solicitor Dorsey developed testimony to the effect that the girls in the factory were somewhat afraid of Frank, that on one occasion Frank had looked into the dressing room while Miss Emily Mayfield was partly dressed and that Miss Mayfield had complained to a forelady, Miss Cleland. She told of other occasions on which the superintendent is alleged to have pushed the door of the dressing room open while the girls were in there dressing. She admitted on cross-examination that the occurrence to which she testified occurred last summer, but that she had […]
when her father made her leave. She also admitted that there had been complaint of the girls flirting through the windows of the dressing room and that Frank had spoken to her forelady about it.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913
By L. F. WOODRUFF.
Every human emotion has been paraded during the long three weeks of the Frank trial.
There has been pathos. Comedy has opposed tragedy. Science has met sympathy. Truth has been arrayed against fiction. Negro has conflicted with white.
The erudite Arnold has matched wits with the thick-lipped, thick-skulled Conley. Luther Rosser, stern, determined and skillful, has had to try to meet the machinations of a brain of a cornfield negro, Newt Lee.
Hugh Dorsey, young and determined, Frank Hooper, smiling and ambitious, have breast to breast encountered the battles of Rosser and the rapier of Arnold.
There remained but one thing—the dramatic touch that sends the violins trembling a high crescendo and the hearts of the audience beating a long roll in double time.
It was furnished during the past week.
The Mother’s Part.
It was furnished by the person that a Belasco would have picked for the part. The touch was added by the person to whom the trial means more than a seat in high heaven—a woman whose son is on trial for his life.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913
Nearly half a hundred witnesses testified in behalf of Leo M. Frank Friday. As a climax to the day’s proceedings in Judge Roan’s court the defendant’s mother, Mrs. Rae Frank, went on the stand to add her testimony to that which she hoped would save her son from the gallows.
Virtually all who were called were character witnesses. Near the close of the day Reuben Arnold announced that he proposed to call every woman and girl employed on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, as well as many from the other floors, to testify to Frank’s conduct about the factory and his attitude toward the girls in his employ.
He called three before the close of the day and explained to them in advance that he was going to ask them questions which he planned to direct at every girl employee called. He then asked them if they ever had had any part in the gay parties that the State has said took place in Frank’s office either during or after factory hours. He asked them if they ever had drunk beer in Frank’s office or ever were there for a questionable purpose. All of the witnesses denied knowing of or participating in any such parties.
Frank’s lawyer said that he would continue this line of questioning with all of the women he called from the factory. The testimony was obtained to discredit the stories of some of the State’s witnesses charging that Frank was in the habit of entertaining women in his office.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913
By JAMES B. NEVIN.
The defense is nearing its end in the Frank case.
A few more character witnesses—there seems to have been no difficulty whatever in securing character witnesses by the score to testify in behalf of the defendant—the statement of Frank, and the defense will rest.
The State will soon introduce its witnesses in rebuttal of the defense’s character witnesses, and along other lines. Not improbably, the State will undertake to rebut in a measure the defendant’s personal statement.
The entire case should go to the jury Monday or Tuesday—meaning by that that the argument should begin then.
The State has been all along much more sensational and spectacular than the defense. That generally is the way these cases go, and in respect of that, therefore, the Frank case has not been particularly remarkable.
In the length of time required to develop fully both sides, however, the case is in a class by itself, so far as Georgia is concerned.
The Frank case has been noticeable, too, because of the fact that women have been excluded from the courtroom practically from the beginning of the trial—and yet in the main there hasn’t been a great deal said in the courtroom that might be called particularly offensive, as those things go.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913
Two factory girls, one of them defending Leo M. Frank with all the eloquence at her command, and the other admitting that she had known of the factory superintendent opening the door to the girls’ dressing room on three different occasions and looking in, formed the center of interest among the score of witnesses who were called Saturday by the defense. They were Miss Irene Jackson and Miss Sarah Barnes.
Miss Jackson, daughter of County Policeman Jackson, testified on direct examination that she never had known of any improper conduct on the part of Frank, and that his character was good. Cross-questioned by Solicitor Dorsey she admitted that she had been in the room where the girls change from their street to their working clothes and had witnessed Frank open the door, look in and then turn around and leave. Once she said, Miss Emmeline Mayfield was in the room with her. On another time her sister was there, and on a third occasion, she said Miss Mamie Kitchen was the other girl in the room.
She said that her sister had started to quit at the time Frank opened the door when she was in the dressing room. The witness also was asked if N. V. Darley, general manager of the factory, ever had made the remark at the time several girls were thinking of quitting the factory directly after the murder that “if the girls stick by us through this, they won’t lose anything by it.” Miss Jackson said she had heard Darley say this. Miss Jackson quit work the day after the body was found.
Continue Reading →
by Ron Unz
About a week ago both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal devoted considerable space to the coverage of “Parade,” the revival of a 1998 Broadway musical on the 1915 killing of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager in Atlanta, Georgia, arguably the most famous lynching in American history.
Frank had been convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl in his employ and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was founded in an effort to save his life. After numerous legal appeals failed, the state’s governor eventually commuted Frank’s sentence and a group of outraged citizens responded by hanging Frank. The incident was portrayed in both the musical and the associated media coverage as a particularly horrifying example of American anti-Semitism.
However, the actual facts of that case were quite different than that and in 2018 I’d discussed them at considerable length as part of a longer article. Given the recently renewed spotlight on the issue and the fascinating implications of the true story, I’ve decided to extract and republish my analysis in hopes of bringing it to wider current attention.
Continue Reading →
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913
Following Mrs. E. A. Marcus, eight character witnesses were placed on the stand. They were V. H. Kriegshaber, Max Goldstein, Sidney Levy, Rabbi David Marx, D. I. McIntyre, and insurance man and member of the firm of Haas & McIntyre, Dr. B. Wildauer, a dentist, and John Findley, superintendent for Dittler Brothers and formerly master mechanic for the National Pencil company.
“Do you know Frank?” asked Mr. Arnold of Mr. Kriegshaber, who was first called to the stand.
“Yes.”
“Is his character good or bad?”
“It is good.”
“How often have you come into contact with Frank?” asked Mr. Dorsey on cross-examination.
“Not frequently,” replied the witness.
“He is a young man, isn’t he?”
“Yes.”
“And you a rather old man?”
“Yes, I suppose you’d call me old.”
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913
Charles F. Ursenbach, husband of Mrs. Leo Frank’s sister was put on the stand following Miss Dula May Flowers. He was used by the defense to show what Leo Frank had broken the baseball engagement early on Saturday morning. He also testified to Frank’s demeanor after the crime and was asked a number of questions about lending Frank his raincoat Sunday afternoon. What the importance of the raincoat was, neither side would say, but each asked a large number of questions about it.
“Did you see Frank on Sunday?” asked Mr. Arnold.
“I did.”
“Did you telephone Frank Friday afternoon about going to the Saturday ball game?”
“I did.”
“What did he say?”
“He said he would let me know later.”
“Did he?”
“Yes, when I got home at lunch Saturday I found a message from him saying he could not go.”
“Did you see any scratches on his face Sunday?”
“No, none at all.”
“What was his manner?”
“He appeared a little disturbed.”
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913
Milton Klein, a wholesale lumber dealer, a frequent visitor of Frank’s while he was in the tower, was the last witness of the day. He was cross-examined at length by Solicitor Dorsey, whose object apparently was to show that it was Klein who prevented the detectives confronting Frank with Jim Conley.
The direct examination of Klein by Attorney Arnold was as follows:
“How long have you known Frank?”
“Ever since he came here.”
“Was his character good or bad?”
“It was good.”
“When was the last time you saw Frank?” asked Solicitor Dorsey on cross-examination. “Did you see him last Thanksgiving day?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Where did you see him?”
“At a dance at the orphan’s home. I also saw him in the afternoon about 6 o’clock of that day.”
“What was the dance for?”
“It was for the benefit of the B’nai B’rith. Frank had charge of the arrangements, and I assisted him.”
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913
Henry Smith, a mechanic in the pencil factory, who admitted on cross-examination that he had received a raise in salary in the past two weeks, went upon the stand to tell of Barrett’s attitude in the case.
“What department do you work in?”
“The metal department.”
“Do you know of a man named Barrett who used to work there?”
“Yes.”
“Ever hear of him getting a reward if Frank was convicted?”
“I’ve heard him talk of it.”
“Did he ever go through the motions of counting money?”
“Yes, he used to go by me and laugh and make motions like counting bills.”
Cross-examination by Hooper.
“This man Barrett was a sensible fellow, wasn’t he?”
Arnold objected, but was overruled.
“Yes.”
* * *
Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.
Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913
Harry Denham, an employee of the National Pencil company, was put on the stand after the Pittsburg man had testified to the character of the defendant.
Denham was asked a number of questions about what happened in the building on the day of the murder and through him the defense made the point that the elevator made a loud noise when it ran. Denham swore that the elevator shook the entire building when it stopped and when it started.
“Were you at the factory on Friday, April 25?” he was first asked.
“Yes.”
“Were you there Saturday, the following day?”
“Yes.”
“What did you do there that day?”
“I worked on the machinery, repairing it.”
Was Using a Hammer.
“What kind of work did you do between 12 and 1?”
“I was using a hammer.”
“How late did you stay there that day?”
“I left about 3:15 o’clock in the afternoon.”
Continue Reading →