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

Atlanta Constitution
August 2^nd, 1913

Albert McKnight, colored, the husband of Minola McKnight, who made a startling affidavit for the police in regard to circumstances at the Frank home on the night of the murder, followed Febuary to the stand.

“What is your wife’s name?” the solicitor asked.

“Minola McKnight.”

“What does she do?”
“Cooks at Mrs. Selig’s home.”
“How long has she held that place?”

“For two years.”
“Where were you about 1 o’clock on the afternoon of April 26?”

Saw Frank April 26.

“I was at Mr. Frank’s home.”
(The Franks have been living with the Seligs, Mrs. Frank’s parents.)

“Did you see Frank?”
“Yes.”
“What did he do?”
“He went to the sideboard and then went out. The sideboard is in the dining room.”

“How long did he stay at home?”
“Five or ten minutes.”
Rosser began questioning the negro.

“Who were at home when Frank arrived?”
“Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig.”
“Where were you?”
“In the kitchen.”
“How could you see into the dining room?”
“The door was open.”
“Do you know positively that he ate nothing?”
“Yes.”
“Doesn’t the door stay closed?”

“Sometimes.”
“How could you see into the entire dining room?”
“I could look into a mirror in the dining room.”
“How long is the dining room?”
“I couldn’t tell.”

Sketch Drawn by Prisoner.

Frank, at this point of the negro’s testimony, drew a sketch to illustrate the position of the dining room and kitchen. McKnight explained, by aid of the drawing, how he could see into the dining room.

“You haven’t got a curve in your eye, have you? You can’t look a curve, can you?” Rosser asked.

Witness did not answer.

“You say Frank went to the sideboard then back to town?”
“Yes.”

“You couldn’t tell what he did at the sideboard?”
“No.”
“Who talked to you at the station?”
“Mr. Lanford, Mr. Starnes, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Dorsey.”
“That’s the day Dorsey sent Minola to jail, isn’t it?”
“Yes.”
“Did you go to see Minola in jail?”
“No.”
“Never?”
“No, sir.”
“When you got to Frank’s home, Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig were there, weren’t they?”
“I heard them talking.”
“You followed Frank from the house, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”
“Where did he go?”

Took Street Car to Town.

“He got on a Georgia avenue car at Pulliam street.”
“Are you sure?”
“Yes, sir.”
Dorsey began questioning here.

“What street is the Frank home on?”
“Georgia avenue.”
“Upon leaving his home, what did Frank do?”
“Came out of the front door and walked up Georgia avenue to Pulliam street, where he caught a car.”

“Which was nearer for him to have caught a car, at Pulliam street or Washington street?”

“Both are about the same.”
He was then called from the stand.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913, “Husband of Minola McKnight Describes Movements of Frank”, Leo Frank case newspaper articles series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal
August 2^nd, 1913

Physician Testifies at Frank Trial That Mary Phagan Met Death Half Hour After Lunch—Describes Wounds

Secretary of State Board of Health Compelled to Leave the Witness Stand on Account of Illness

In the midst of sensational testimony, Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, collapsed Friday afternoon on the witness stand and was excused until Saturday. Dr. Harris and just testified that his examination of the contents of the stomach of little Mary Phagan showed that the dinner which she had eaten before leaving home was still undigested, and he therefore concluded that he little girl was killed within thirty minutes or three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten. Part of the undigested food taken from the stomach was exhibited in the court room. It had been preserved in alcohol.

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault but there were indications of some kind of violence having been committed. He thought this violence had preceded her death five or ten minutes.

Before he finished his testimony Dr. Harris became suddenly ill, his voice became faint and he begged to be excused. He promised to return Saturday, if possible. He said he had gotten up from a sick bed to come to court. He was assisted from the court room.

Also featuring the opening of the Phagan, was the testimony given by N. afternoon session of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary V. Darley under cross-examination of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense.

Darley, according to this testimony, during his lunch hour Friday visited the factory, measured some distances and noted on his return to court many discrepancies and inaccuracies in the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had prepared for the guidance of the jury in following the testimony of the witnesses.

One of the most important inaccuracies in the chart, according to Darley, was that the drawing showed the safe in Frank’s outer office to be a great deal smaller than the door, when, according to the witness. It is about the same size and cuts off a view into Frank’s inner office when the door of the safe is open.

It is expected that the defense will use this one fact to refute one of the important points brought out by one of its principal witnesses that she, a girl employed in the factory, visited there Saturday afternoon at 12:10 o’clock to get her pay and upon entering the outer office saw no one in either of the offices. She testified that the safe door was open. This is the hour that Mary Phagan is supposed to have entered the factory and prosecution claims immediately thereafter Frank was missing from his office.

Another important development in the afternoon session was the indication from the prosecution, by holding two time slips, that it would claim the accused gave the officers a slip which was not the original taken from the clock Sunday morning.

When Attorney Reuben Arnold, attorney for the defense, was examining N. V. Darley, a state’s witness, concerning the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had made for the guidance of the jurors, Mr. Arnold asked:

“Isn’t the toilet in the basement closer to the wall than this picture shows and closer to the boiler?”

“It sets against the wall, and it seems to me that it is closer to the boiler, too.”

“Isn’t the elevator shaft closer to the first floor wall than this picture shows?”

“My impression is that the side of the elevator shaft is a part of the wall.”

“This partition here on the first floor, and the door in it which opens into the woodenware company—the partition is closer to the elevator than is shown on the diagram, is it not?”

“Yes, sir, I think so.”

“There are double doors at the top of the stairs on the second floor, instead of a single door as shown on the diagram, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, is there anything at all right about this diagram, except that it is a gen[e]ral picture of the factory?”

“That’s the way it appears to me.”

“It shows no wardrobe in Frank’s office?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a wardrobe in there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“It shows Frank’s office larger than the outer office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Which office is the larger?”

“The outer office is several feet larger.”

“This picture doesn’t show a bookcase in the outer office, does it?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a bookcase in the outer office, isn’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it half shuts off the view from Frank’s office into the outer hall, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The truth is, Mr. Darley, isn’t it, that this picture is drawn so adroitly as to open up a clear view from Frank’s office through the outer office into the factory?”

Before the witness could answer, Attorney Hooper announced that he objected to Mr. Arnold using the phrase “adroitly drawn.” The court sustained the objection.

“All right,” said Mr. Arnold, smiling. “It’s a fact, but I’ll withdraw it.”

“I object to that statement, too, your honor,” said Mr. Hooper.

“Well, I’ll withdraw it,” said Mr. Arnold. He addressed the witness again. “There’s no such wide space leading from Frank’s office to the outer office, is there?”

“No, sir; there’s a single small door.”

“Did you notice this safe over here, looking like a little B-B cap? As a matter of fact, this safe is wider than the door, is it not?”

“It’s about the same size.”

“Well, it doesn’t show up half as large as the door, does it, in the picture?”

“No, sir.”

“When the safe door is open, it shuts off the view from Frank’s office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“There are two cabinets in the outer office which are not shown in this picture, are there not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“To be exact, this is not a very accurate picture of the factory, is it?”

“No, sir.”

“It opens up Frank’s office a whole lot better than it is really opened up, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Could you see the time clock from Frank’s desk?”

“Yes, sir, I could see just the outer edge of the dial.”

“Could you see the head of the stairs from his desk?”

“No, sir.”

In the redirect examination of Darley. Solicitor Dorsey found the witness refractory. Darley returned short answers to a number of the solicitor’s questions.

“Who were some of the people who were nervous, besides Frank?”

The witness at first said he didn’t know. Then he declared that Detective Starnes was nervous.

“How did Starnes show his nervousness?” asked the solicitor.

“The best way that I can describe it is that he looked worried.”

“Why do you recall Frank’s nervousness and not the nervousness of anybody else except possibly Starnes?”

“Because Mr. Frank was so much more nervous than the others.”

“Did you notice anybody else around there, nervous on Monday?”

“Holloway and Schiff were nervous. Their hands seemed to tremble.”

“Was Frank nervous Tuesday?”

“He became very nervous when he read an extra saying that he was going to be arrested. He was arrested about fifteen minutes later.”

“Don’t you know that Schiff furnishes to Frank all the data for the financial sheet?”

“I know very little about it.”

The solicitor showed two time clock slips to the witness. On one of them was written in typewriter print the ate “April 28.”

“Could this be the slip that you all took out Sunday morning?”

After some hesitation, the witness answered that the date on that slip should have been April 26. The other slip had a date written with a pen, and the solicitor asked the witness if that was Frank’s handwriting. The witness said he couldn’t identify either slip as the one taken out of the clock Sunday morning.

“Could there have been a duplicate made of the slip Newt Lee punched?”

The witness said he didn’t know.

“Isn’t there a bar across the door leading from the metal room to the third floor?”

The witness didn’t know. Despite a rigid examination by the solicitor, the witness maintained that what he told at the morning session, under cross-examination, about the tablets and order blanks being scattered throughout the building was true.

Darley said that he had known Frank since April, 1911.

“How often in that time have you seen him as nervous as he was on Sunday morning, April 27?”

“Twice—once after he saw the street car run over a little child, and again after his fuss with Mr. Montag.”

Attorley [sic] Arnold cross-examined the witness again.

“You say that Schiff and Holloway were nervous, Monday? Was anybody else?”

“Yes, the whole factory was ‘up in the air.’ Really, we did no work that week. Miss Eula Mae Flowers, one of the foreladies, became hysterical on Tuesday.”

“Since the tragedy, have you gotten any work at all out of Christopher Columbus Barrett?”

“A little,” answered Darley.

W. F. ANDERSON CALLED.

The witness left the stand, and Officer W. F. Anderson, police call man, was summoned.

Officer Anderson told of Newt Lee calling police headquarters on the telephone, on Sunday morning, April 27, and telling the police that a white girl’s body had been found in the basement. After he went to the pencil factory, about 3:30 or before 4 o’clock, while he had Newt Lee in custody, he tried to call Frank over the telephone. In answer to questions by Solicitor Dorsey, he said he heard the connection made, and heard the phone ringing at the other end for above five minutes. After waiting five minutes, he said, he gave up the attempt, and called police headquarters and Herbert Haas and Sig Montag, officials of the pencil company.

“How long did it take you to get them?” asked the solicitor.

“Just a few minutes.”

“Did you make any other effort to get Frank over the telephone, and if so, when?”

“I tried again after I got Montag and Haas, about 4 or 4:10 o’clock.”

“What success did you have this time?”

“Just the same as before.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You didn’t get Sig Montag when you called his house, did you?”

“I got a Montag—I don’t remember his initials.”
“Did you try to get Mr. Darley?”

“He didn’t have a telephone.”

SAW NOTES BY BODY

“You saw these notes found by Mary Phagan’s body, didn’t you?”

“I saw Sergeant Dobbs pick one up.”

“When you went to the factory, you shook the front door and old man Lee came down. He wasn’t standing at the door, was he?”

“He came down the stairs.”

“And Lee told you over the telephone that it was a white girl’s body?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What sort of a lamp did that negro have?”

“He had a lantern.”

“Smoky, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you stand at the same place Lee says he stood, and look, and see Mary Phagan’s body?”

“Not that day.”

“When Lee says he saw the body, he says the lantern was on the ground, doesn’t he?”

“That’s what he told me.”

“The little girl’s clothing was such a color that it wouldn’t show up in the dark?”

“I think it was lavender.”

“When the coroner’s jury was down there, you took the lantern and set it where Lee says he set it that night, didn’t you?”

“No, sir; not then.”

“Well, didn’t you testify before the coroner’s jury that you stood with the lantern on the ground and testify I should not think it would be possible to see a body?”

“I said you might see the bulk of it, but you couldn’t tell what it was.”

“Then this is wrong, is it?”

“I said you might not be able to tell what is [sic] was.”

“You say the body was lying east and west with its head against the partition?”

“Yes.”

“You said something about there being some tracks. Where were they?”

TRACKS AROUND BODY.

“On the left hand side of the body, leading from the body to the shavings room.”

“That’s not what you said before the coroner’s jury, is it? Didn’t you say there were tracks all around the left side of the body?”

“I said the tracks led into the shavings room. I went into the shavings room to see if I could any lady’s tracks there.”

“You called up Frank first?”

“Yes.”

“When did you call Mr. Haas and the others?”

“About 4 o’clock.”

“Do you remember their telephone numbers?”

“No, sir, I don’t keep telephone numbers in my mind. I get ’em out of the book.”

“Your testimony at the coroner’s inquest was taken down by the stenographer, wasn’t it?”

“I guess it was.”

“What side of the body did the police come up on?”

“The right side.”

“The tracks were on the left side?”

“Yes.”

“Which side did you come up on?”

“The right side.”

“You found a pencil down there, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How far was it away from the body?”

“About eight or ten feet.”

“There were a great many pencils in the basement, were there not?”

“Yes.”

“The basement is ragged and dirty, with cinders and all sorts of trash down there?”

“Yes, the basement’s dirty. There were some cinders and trash by the boiler.”

POLICE TEST.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness again.

“Did you make any tests down in the basement on your own account?” inquired the solicitor.

“Yes. About 10 o’clock one night shortly after the murder we went down there with a lantern. We fixed up a box and threw some sacks over it in the place where the girl’s body was lying. Then we took the lantern and set it down where the negro said his lantern was sitting when he saw the body.”

“Could you see anything?”

“Yes, we could make out the bulk.”

Attorney Rosser questioned the witness.

“You made an investigation for the coroner, did you not?”

“Yes, but I didn’t have a lantern.”

“Well, what did you have?”

“This.” The witness produced one of the electric searchlights carried by policemen, and flashed it across the court room.

“You didn’t use the lantern?”

“No, there was a lantern along, but I didn’t use it. I knew I could see that far with a searchlight.”

“Did you see the place where they said the body was dragged?”

“No.”

STENOGRAPHER CALLED.

Anderson was excused, and Solicitor Dorsey requested H. L. Parry, the court stenographer, to take the stand. The solicitor inquired if he had reported the evidence at the inquest held by the coroner.

“Part of it,” replied the witness.

“Did you report the evidence given by Frank?”

“Some of it. I don’t know whether I reported all of it or not.”

“Well, examine the records here and tell us whether you did or not.”

The witness examined the record.

“Yes, I reported Frank’s testimony,” said Parry.

“Is it correctly reported?”

“To the best of my ability,” responded Parry.

“You are an expert stenographer?”

“I am considered such.”

“What has been your experience?”

“Between twenty-five and thirty years.”

“You are reporting this case?”

“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Rosser arose.

“I’ll get you to say whether or not you took the testimony of Officer Anderson, Mr. Parry?” asked Mr. Rosser.

The witness examined the record and replied that he did not.

“Did you take the negro Lee’s testimony?”

The witness examined the record again and answered, “Yes, sir.”

“Did you take it correctly?”

“To the best of my ability.”

“Well, it was correctly taken, was it not?”

“I can’t say that I’m infallible.”

“Then you are not prepared to say that any record you take is accurate?”

“I said I took them as nearly accurately as possible.”

“Well, are you prepared to say that this record you took of Newt Lee’s testimony is a correct one?”

“In the common acceptation of the term, yes.”

“I want to know, now, if you took Frank and Lee’s statements correctly.”

“I took down and wrote Lee’s and Frank’s words as I heard them. I may have misunderstood some few things, although I was in a good position to hear.”

“And you took down correctly what you did hear?”

“Yes.”

RECORD COMPARED.

Witness, who had been examining closely into the record which he held, looked up at this point and said: “It appears that Lee had been on the stand once before and that the testimony I took was on his recall. Frank’s testimony indicates that he had just been sworn. It begins with the question, ‘What’s your name?’ That of Lee’s which I took begins: ‘Now, Newt, state to the jury,’ indicating that he had been on the stand before.”

Mr. Rosser, referring to his own copy of the testimony given at the coroner’s inquest, walked over to where the witness sat and requested him to turn to that place in his record where certain questions were asked of Lee. Lee’s questions he read from his record, and asked the stenographer to compare them with the record which he held.

“This portion of Lee’s testimony concerned the length of time it required Frank to put a new slip in the time clock. It also quoted Lee as to the length of time it had taken Frank on a previous occasion to put in a slip. With but one or two minor discrepancies, the records, taken by different stenographers, corresponded.

After considerable discussion, Solicitor Dorsey stated that he would defer for a time any effort to put in evidence a portion of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury. He would take the matter up later, he said.

Mr. Dorsey started the discussion by offering in evidence all of Frank’s testimony before the coroner. The defense objected immediately. At first Attorney Arnold seemed to take the position that none of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury was admissible. Later, however, he said that if the solicitor wanted to put in evidence the whole of Frank’s testimony before the coroner’s jury, representing some four hours of examination, he would offer no objection. It would be manifestly unfair to put in evidence a part of anybody’s testimony.

The argument followed over whether Frank’s evidence was given with the consent of his counsel, the defense contending that the state had never proven that at that time Frank had any counsel employed, although Mr. Rossed [sic] admitted having sat in the room during the inquest.

Dr. H. F. Harris was called to the stand. He is secretary of the Georgia state board of health. He has been a practicing physician since 1889. He graduate then from the Jefferson medical college. He was a professor of chemistry in the Southern Medical college and also in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons later. He mentioned other positions which he had filled. He resigned three years ago from the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons. He had been connected with the state board of health since 1903.

Solicitor Dorsey’s first question was: “Did you make an examination of the body of Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, I made an examination. I think it was on May 5.”

“What wounds or marks did you find on her body?”

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

“There were several abrasions. One or two were on her face, one on her forehead, one on her left arm, one on her left leg, one on her right leg at the ankle, and her right eye was discolored. On the back of her head, somewhat toward the left side, there was a wound one and half inches long. This looked as if it had been made by an upward blow. There was no actual break in the skull, but there was a small hemorrhage inside the skull and directly beneath the wound, showing that the blow that were marks of a cord on her neck which caused it must have been severe enough to make her unconscious for some time.”

“Could this have caused her death?”

“I think not. In fact I am sure not.”

“What did cause her death?”

“When I examined her body, there were marks of a cord an [sic] her neck which had cut into the flesh. I think beyond the question of a doubt that this cord around her neck caused her death.”

KILLED EARLY AFTER LUNCH.

“Were the injuries to her eye and scalp made before her death?”

“Unquestionably.”

“Did you make an examination of her stomach, doctor?”

“Yes.”

“What did you find in it?”

“Cabbage and biscuit—that is, I guess it was biscuit. It was wheaten bread, anyway.”

“How far had it progressed toward digestion?”

“Very slightly.”

At this time Dr. Harris took a bottle from the suitcase that he carried to the witness stand with him, and said, “I have a sample of the cabbage here, if I am permitted to show it.”

“Yes, you can show it to the jury,” said the solicitor.

“Was this the condition of the cabbage when it came from Mary Phagan’s stomach?”

“Yes.”

“How long would you say the cabbage had been in her stomach?”

THIRTY MINUTES AFTER LUNCH.

“It is impossible to say exactly. I am confident, however, that it could not have been there more than half an hour.”

Dr. Harris brought two more bottles from his suitcase. “I have two samples of cabbage taken from the stomach of normal persons after one hour.” He showed the bottles to the court and the jury. Their contents were pesty—in contrast with the other sample from Mary Phagan’s stomach, which could be recognized immediately as cabbage and was almost intact.

“Dr. Harris, did you ever examine the vital organs of her body?”

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault, but there were indications that violence of some sort had been done. He said that some of the blood vessels were dilated.

“What did the dilation of these blood vessels indicate?”
“It indicated that violence of some sort had been done a little time before death.”

“How long before death was this violence done?”

Possibly five or ten minutes, replied the witness. The blood vessels were dilated, and it takes an appreciable time for inflammation to begin. Judging from the character of the inflammation, said the witness, he did not think the interval between violence and death was more than five or ten minutes.

“Doctor, how long after death does rigor mortis begin?”

“It varies so much, that it is impossible to say. I don’t think that would be of importance, in determining the time of death, because as I say it varies in different cases.”

“Is there any standard with reference to strangulation cases?”

“No, sir. I have seen rigor mortis begin within a very few minutes after death.”

“Does it ever begin before death?”

“No, sir. It may be delayed for many hours. I have seen persons dead for hours in whom rigor mortis had not set in. It begins with the eyelids and goes down, and goes off in the same way.”

“Can you state how long Mary Phagan was dying?”

“No, I could not exactly.”

“How long after she had eaten the cabbage and bread was it before death occurred?”

“To the very best of my opinion, she must have lived between one-half and three-quarters of an hour after eating.”

At this point the witness stopped, and appeared to be very faint. In a weak voice: “I’ll have to ask you to excuse me. I cannot go on further. I am very weak.”

“Just one more question, doctor,” asked the solicitor.

“How much blood did Mary Phagan lose before she died?”

“I couldn’t tell that.”

“When can you come back, doctor?”

“I’ll try to come back tomorrow. I’ve been in bed three days and I got up to come down here. I am utterly exhausted.”

Dr. Harris was very pale and appeared quite. He was assisted from the stand and out of the court room by one of the deputy sheriffs. Early during his testimony he had paused and asked for a glass of water, and with it had taken a dose of some medicine.

FEBUARY CALLED.

G. C. Febuary, stenographer to Chief of Detectives Lanford, was called to the stand and identified a report of a conversation between Frank and Lanford on Monday, April 28, in Lanford’s office. The defense let it go in without objection, after some discussion. That report later on was read to the jury in its entirety, by Assistant Solicitor Stephens. It was a short statement of Frank’s movements from about 11 o’clock, April 26, till the next morning.

The part which it was assumed the state was most anxious to get in was Frank’s statement that Mary Phagan arrived at the factory between 12:05 o’clock and 12:10, perhaps about 12:07. The rest of the statement detailed in Frank’s language his movements during the rest of the day. The statement quoted Frank as saying that he took a bath Saturday night and was wearing then different under clothes than the ones he wore on the day of the tragedy. Attorney Rosser examined Febuary and convulsed the court by his opening question:

“Have you got a dictograph on you?”

Attorney Rosser questioned Febuary specificically [sic] about Frank allowing Lanford to examine his clothing. He has been chief of police for a number of years, hasn’t he?”

The witness answered, “I don’t know that he ever has been chief of police.”

“Well,” said Ros[s]er, “chief of detectives, then—that’s worse.”

Before the witness could answer, Mr. Rosser turned to Chief Lanford, sitting in court and pointed out “this handsome man here” as the one he meant.

SAW FRANK SATURDAY.

Albert McKnight, negro, husband of Minola McKnight (the woman being the cook at the Selig residence), was called to the stan[d].

“How long has your wife been employed by Mrs. Selig?”

“A year or two years—something like that.”

“Where were you between 1 and 2 o’clock on Saturday, April 26?”

“At Mr. Frank’s house.”

“Did you see Mr. Frank?”

“Yes, about 1:30 o’clock.”

“What did he do?”

“He went into the dining room and went to the sideboard.”

“How long did he stay in there?”

“About five or ten minutes.”

The solicitor turned the witness over to the defense.

“Who was there, besides you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank’s wife. I was sitting in the kitchen.”

“How do you know that Mr. Frank didn’t stop to eat? You can’t see through from the kitchen to the dining room, can you?”

“Yes, sir, you can see through.”

“Don’t you know it is impossible to see through the swinging doors?”

“The swinging door was open and you can look into a mirror in the corner of the dining room and see the room.”

“And Mr. Frank went to the sideboard? You don’t know what he did there.”

“No, sir.”

“Oh, you couldn’t see the sideboard from the mirror?”

“No, sir.”

“How big is the kitchen?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, about how big?”

The negro couldn’t answer definitely, and the question was waived.

“How big is the dining room?”

The negro couldn’t describe that, either.

“Have you ever been in the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

“What kind of furniture is in there?”

“I don’t know.”

“What kind is in the kitchen?”

“Well, there’s a safe and a stove and a table.”

“Where did you sit in the kitchen?”

“At the side of the back door.”

“Were you sitting right in front of the little hall betwe[e]n the dining room and the kitchen?”

“No, sir, not exactly.”

“Wait a minute till I look at a diagram of the house I’ve got here,” said Mr. Rosser. Then he put this question:

Well, don’t you know it’s impossible to sit in the kitchen and look through this little hall into the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

Mr. Rosser called the negro from the stand to explain to the jury, on the diagram of the Selig-Frank home, how he could sit in the kitchen and see all over the dining room. The negro insisted merely that he could sit in the kitchen and see into the dining room, and that in a mirror there he could see a reflection of almost all parts of the dining room.

“You haven’t got a curve to your eyesight, have you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir,” said the witness.

“You can’t look a curve, can you?”

“No, sir.”

“Where was Minola?”

“She was in the kitchen.”

“Didn’t she go into the dining room?”

“Yes, sir, she went in once.”

“How long did she stay?”

“About two minutes.”

“Do you know whether Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig ate anything?”

“No, sir; I didn’t see them eating.”

HEARD THEM TALKING.

“You never saw Mr. Selig at all?”

“No, sir.”

“Where did you go from to the Selig residence?”

“I went from home.”

“What time did you get there?”

“Some time after 1 o’clock.”

“You saw Mr. Frank come in and go to the sideboard?”

“Yes.”

“He walked up to the sideboard, walked out, and went to town?”

“He went back into the sitting room, where Mr. Selig was.”

“I thought you said you didn’t see Mr. Selig?”

“I didn’t, but I heard him talking back there.”

Mr. Rosser held up the diagram in front of the negro again. He asked the negro how it was he could sit back in the kitchen and hear them talking in the sitting room or the hall. The negro reiterated that he heard them.

“And you never moved away from the door until you left to go home?”

“No, sir.”

“Did Minola go with you?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you first tell this tale after the 26^th of April?”

“After I came back from Birmingham.”

“To whom did you first tell it?”

“Mr. Craven, the boss of the plow department at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Co.”

“Was that before or after they got Minola?”

“Two or three days before.”

“You never told any others?”

“Yes, sir, later I told Detective Starnes, Detective Campbell, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorsey.”

“That’s the time Mr. Dorsey had Minola sent to jail, was it not?”

“I don’t know whether he did or not.”

“He said, ‘Take her on down,’ didn’t he?”

“I don’t know, sir. I guess so.”

Solicitor Dorsey entered an objection. “I did nothing of the kind,” said he.

SAW FRANK TAKE CAR.

“They brought Minola out of Mr. Dorsey’s office while you were there didn’t they?”

“No, sir.”

“You didn’t go to the jail with Minola?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you go to see her when she was locked up down at police barracks?”

“I didn’t know she was locked up till I got home from work that night.”

“You say it was about 1:30 o’clock when Mr. Frank came home to lunch?”

“Yes, sir, it was about that time, but I can’t say for certain.”

“And you didn’t see Mr. and Mrs. Selig or Mrs. Frank?”

“No, sir.”
“What car did Mr. Frank catch to come back to town?”

“He caught the Georgia avenue car at Pulliam street.”

“How do you know? You were still sitting in the kitchen, weren’t you?”

“No, sir, I was on my way home and came up Georgia avenue behind him.”

Solicitor Dorsey took up the redirect examination of the witness. The solicitor caused the negro to repeat emphatically that from the point where he sat in the kitchen he could see Mr. Frank and did see him.

COURT ADJOURNS.

Judge Roan had the jury sent to its room, and stated that the jurors had expressed a request that some magazines be sent to them, that they be allowed to write notes to their wives, and that they be permitted to get fresh linen. Solicitor Dorsey said he had no objection if the magazines were censored properly by the sheriff and any notes received or sent by the jurors were censored also. The defense had no objection.

Judge Roan adjourned court at 5:02 until 9 o’clock Saturday morning.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 28^th, 1913

Negro Cook in the Selig-Frank Home Repudiates Affidavit She Swore to Against Frank, Will Refuse to Swear to the Paper, She Says

Minola McKnight, the negro cook, who signed an affidavit which is to be used by the prosecution against Leo M. Frank, said Monday morning that the police, by three hours’ sweating, forced her to sign this affidavit, and that when she is called as a witness that she will refuse to testify to the statements set forth in it.

The substance of the affidavit was that, on the morning following the murder of Mary Phagan, Mrs. Frank came downstairs at the home of her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, with whom she and Frank made their home, and said that Frank had asked for a pistol with which to kill himself.

At the time the negro cook signed this written statement of what is said in the affidavit to have happened at the Selig residence on the day following the murder, she was confined at police station.

She declares now that the signing of the affidavit followed hours of “sweating” by the police, and that at the time she actually signed the paper she was not aware of what she was doing.

When the names of witnesses were called Monday it was found that her husband, Albert McKnight, who had been summoned by the prosecution, was missing.

Through statements which he made, the police came to cross-examine his wife, and he was summoned as a witness to testify to what she is said to have told him.

When Solicitor General Dorsey found that the negro McKnight was not among the witnesses, he questioned Minola McKnight, the negro’s wife. She said that her husband left home that morning as usual to go to work.

“Do you think he has left town?” the solicitor asked her.

“No,” she said.

Immediately afterward court officers were sent to arrest the missing witness.

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

Atlanta Constitution

Thursday, June 5^th, 1913

Sensational Affidavit Made for the Police by Minola McKnight, Servant in Leo Frank’s Home.

Fully as startling as the recent confession of James Conley, an affidavit purporting to have been sworn to by Minola McKnight, the servant girl of the Frank household, was given out to the newspapers yesterday afternoon by Chief Lanford. The detectives assert it is the “final straw” in the mass of evidence they boast of having accumulated.

Attesting to a statement that Frank was nervous and excited on the tragedy night, the negress swears Mrs. Frank told of having to sleep on a rug in the bedroom and of her suspicion that her husband was drunk. The servant girl also declares that Mrs. Frank had stated that Frank asked for a gun with which to kill himself, and that he asked, “Why could I be guilty of murder?”

The affidavit further states that Frank arrived home on the crime date about 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon, and, without eating dinner, left within less than ten minutes. He returned at 7 o’clock at night, the negress swears. Also, she declares that her name was attached to the document of her own free will and accord, and that she was not threatened or persuaded in any form.

Stands Sponsor for Woman.

She was released from prison on an agreement between her counsel, George Gordon, and Chief Lanford. Gordon offered to produce her at the trial, the detective chief declares, if she would be given freedom, and would stand sponsor for her presence. As long as she reports daily to police headquarters and shows no inclination to leave, Lanford says, she will not be molested. Otherwise, she will be returned to prison and held until the courts take up the case.

Attorney William M. Smith, counsel for James Conley, the negro sweeper, was asked Wednesday afternoon if he had formulated the line of defense to be presented by his client in case Conley was accused by Frank’s defense of the murder, as is the present outlook. He answered:

“Conley will need no defense. By the time he is accused, if he is, Frank will have been convicted of the crime.”

It was announced from Solicitor Dorsey’s office Wednesday that he Phagan case will go before the courts during the week of June 30 instead of the 23d, as has been predicted. No definite decision has been reached, however. It is understood that Dorsey will be ready for the prosecution at the later date, and that unless there are reasons for delay on the part of the defense, the case will proceed expeditiously.

The servant girl’s affidavit follows in full:

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 351 Pulliam street, Atlanta, Ga., who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Saturday morning, April 26, 1913, Mr. Frank left home about 8 o’clock, and Albert, my husband, was there Saturday, too: Albert got there, I guess, about a quarter after 1, an[d] 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 came back to the house at 7 o’clock that night, and Albert was there when he got there. Albert had gone home that evening, but he come back, but I don’t know what time he got there, but he come some time before Mr. Frank did, and Mr. Frank eat supper that night about 7 o’clock, and when I left about 8 o’clock I left Mr. Frank there.

Sunday morning I got there about 8 o’clock, and there was an automobile standing in front of the house, but I didn’t pay any attention to it, but I saw a man in the automobile get a bucket of water and pour into it. Miss Lucille (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. When I called them down to breakfast about half-past eight I found that Mr. Frank was gone. Mr. and Mrs. Selig eat breakfast and Miss Lucille didn’t eat until Mr. Frank come back and they eat breakfast together. I didn’t hear them say anything at the breakfast table, but 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, but Miss Lucille and Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank were standing there talking after dinner. I didn’t know the girl was killed until Monday evening. I understood them to say it was a Jew girl, and I asked Miss Lucille, and she said it was a Gentile.

Frank Said It Was Bad.

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.”

I heard Mrs. Rausin, Mrs. Frank’s sister, tell Miss Lucille that it was mighty bad, and Miss Lucille said, “Yes, it is. I am going to get after her about it.” I don’t know what they were talking about.

Sunday Miss Lucille said to Mrs. Selig that Mr. Frank didn’t sleep 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 he was drinking. Miss Lucille said Sunday that Mr. Frank told her Saturday night that he was in trouble; 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 Lucille say that to Mrs. Selig. It got away with Miss Selig might bad: she didn’t know what to think. I haven’t heard Miss Lucille 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 come to see him, maybe two weeks. She would tell me, “Wasn’t it mighty bad that he was locked up?” and she said: “Minola, I don’t know what I am going to do.”

Told Her to Mind.

When I left home to go to the solicitor general’s office, they told me to mind what I said. They paid me $3.50 a week, but last week she paid me $4, and one week she paid me $6.50. But at the time of this murder I was getting $3.50 a week, and the week right after the murder I don’t remember how much they paid me. The next week $4, and the next week $4. One week Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but it was not for my work, and they didn’t tell what it was for. They just said, “Here is $5, Minola,” but of course I understood what they meant, but they didn’t tell me anything at the time. I understood it was a tip for me to keep quiet. They would tell me to mind how I talked, and Miss Lucille would give me a hat.

Question: “Was that the reason you didn’t tell the solicitor yesterday all about this—that Miss Lucille and the others had told you not to say anything about what happened out there?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question: “Is that true?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question: “And that is the reason why you would rather have been locked up last night than tell this?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question: “Has Mr. Pickett or Mr. Cravens or Mr. Campbell, or myself (Detective Starnes, evidently), influenced you in any way or threatened you in any way to make this statement?”

“No, sir.”

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

“Yes, sir.”

(Signed) MINOLA MCKNIGHT.

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

(Signed) G. C. FEBUARY.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, June 4th 1913, “Frank Wanted Gun to Take His Life, Says Negro Cook,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, June 4^th, 1913

While police activities have been turned to this line of investigation, the negro sweeper, Jim Conley, has been given a rest. Chief of Detectives Lanford stated that the negro would be quizzed no more.

Cook Counted on by Defense.

“If he has not told the whole truth,” said the Chief, “he will send for me within the next few days, I believe.”

The cook is one of the five witnesses upon whom the defense has relied to prove that Frank returned home for luncheon at 1:20 o’clock the Saturday afternoon of the murder and that he therefore could not have been in the office dictating the notes at the time James Conley, the negro sweeper, set in his affidavit.

Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig and Mrs. Frank will be three of the other witnesses called by the defense to prove the time Frank arrived home from the factory on the fatal day. An acquaintance will tell of seeing Frank on the street car that day, and another will relate riding back to town with Frank.

The detectives attached the greatest importance to her affidavit. In the hope of breaking her down, Ernest H. Pickett, of 295 Rawson Street, and Roy L. Craven, 11 Campbell Street, both employees at the Beck & Gregg hardware store, were sent into the room with her to fire questions at her.

Albert McKnight, husband of Minola, also works for the Beck & Gregg concern, and is said to have told Pickett and Craven that his wife had confided to him that Frank did not arrive home at the time he testified before the Coroner’s jury. The two men informed the officers of McKnight’s statement, and as a result the woman was arrested. She was taken first before Solicitor Dorsey, where she hysterically denied that she ever had made such remarks to her husband. She declared that she had a “fuss” with her husband, and that he was taking this means to get her into trouble.

Alibi Big Obstacle.

Unless the State is able to break down the alibis furnished by Frank in the manner attempted on the McKnight woman, the factory superintendent’s movements will be accounted for practically every moment on the day of the tragedy.

Mary Phagan entered the factory at about 12:05 in the afternoon. It is to be presumed that it was about 12:10 by the time he had received her pay envelope and had made the inquiries about the metal. Five minutes later Lemmie Quinn cam in the building. He went to the second floor, walked into the office and talked to Frank. The circumstance, the defense will be able to maintain precludes the possibility that Frank could have committed the crime up to this time. Mary Phagan was not in the office at the time and the natural presumption would be that he had left and had gone downstairs.

Quinn left about 12:20. Half an hour later Frank was on the fourth floor talking to Harry Denham and Arthur White. This half hour is the only time of length that is unaccounted for in the movements of Frank during the time it is the theory that Mary Phagan was killed. And if Frank committed the deed at this time it would have been necessary for him to have her in hiding meantime.

After letting Mrs. White out of the building at a few minutes of 1 o’clock, Frank’s testimony is that he left the building himself at 1 o’clock, locking the door behind him. At 1:20 he was at home, according to the testimony of witnesses.

Mystery in Staple.

The theory of the defense, as outlined previously, is that Conley, lying in wait on the first floor, saw Mary Phagan coming down the stairs alone and attacked her. He is believed by those interested in the defense of Frank to have dropped the body of the stunned girl down the elevator shaft to the basement, where he completed his crime.

By the time he had disposed of the body and came back upstairs Frank had gone and locked the door, the contention will be. The negro was locked in the building with his crime if this theory is correct. His natural course would have been to run down into the basement again, pull the staple from the rear door and make his escape.

No plausible explanation has been offered for the removal of the staple from the basement door in any of the affidavits of the negro. By his own story, he and Frank returned to the second floor, wrote the notes and departed, Frank going out, so far as he knew, by the front door. There was no reason for him to go out any other way, if the negro’s story is true.

Accepting the affidavits of Conley, the detectives were at loss for a time to explain the pulling of the staple. Then came the affidavit of the woman, Mrs. Mima [sic] Fo[r]mby, and the theory soon was evolved that Frank had pulled the staple later in the day so that he might remove the dead body from the building, place it in a cab and take it to the house of Mrs. Fo[r]mby, so that suspicion might be directed away from him.

Counsel Obtained.

The theory of the police is made to appear improbable by the fact that such an action, if Frank was guilty of the crime, would only have served to direct suspicion more certainly at him. The theory presumes that Frank first virtually took Conley into his confidence by getting Conley’s aid in disposing of the body when there was no reason he could not have done it alone. Then it presumes that Frank proposed to run the risk of discovery by Newt Lee, who would have been aware, at least, of the damaging circumstances that Frank was in the factory after 6:30 o’clock in the evening at the time Frank swore he was home. On top of all this Frank would have had to taken a cab driver into his confidence, then Mrs. Fo[r]mby and any others who happened to be at her house, where they could observe the bringing of the dead body.

Both Conley and Minola McKnight, the servant girl, have obtained counsel. William M. Smith is acting in behalf of Conley, and George Gordon has been selected to represent the negress.

It became known Wednesday that Leo M. Frank would be placed on trial during the week beginning June 30. For several days Solicitor Dorsey has been busy preparing the State’s case against the pencil factory superintendent and it is understood now that he will be ready for trial at that time.

The case was expected to go to trial during the week of June 23, however developments have sprung up so rapidly of late that the postponement was made. If the defense is ready when the case is called, there is little doubt but that Frank will go into court before the end of the current month.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 4th 1913, “Frank’s Cook Was Counted Upon as Defense Witness,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, June 4^th, 1913

In This Affidavit Minola Tells of Conversation That Occurred Between Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig, In Which Mrs. Frank Is Alleged to Have Said Frank Was Drinking on Night of Tragedy, and That He Wanted a Pistol to Kill Himself

MRS. FRANK SAID, SO NEGRO COOK SWEARS, THAT FRANK MADE HER SLEEP ON THE FLOOR THAT NIGHT

Negro Says Further That Frank Came Home at 1:30 o’Clock on Fatal Saturday, but Remained Only About Ten Minutes, and That He Left Without Eating His Dinner—Affidavit Is Vague and Confused—It Is Given Here In Full

An affidavit, sworn to by Minola McKnight, the negro servant at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, where Leo M. Frank and his wife live, was made public by Chief of Detectives N. A. Lanford Wednesday afternoon. In the affidavit Minola McKnight tells of alleged conversations at the Selig home in which Mrs. Frank is quoted as having said that Frank was drunk on Saturday night, April 26, and that he made her sleep on a rug. The negro quotes Mrs. Frank further as saying that Mr. Frank couldn’t understand how he could be guilty of murder, and that Frank had begged her for a pistol that he might shoot himself.

The negro says in her affidavit that she has been kindly treated and gives this as the reason for not having made her statement sooner. She swears that the affidavit is made of her own free will.

The affidavit is nearly all hearsay evidence, and therefore inadmissible in court.

The affidavit follows in full:

TEXT OF AFFIDAVIT.

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 351 Pulliam street, Atlanta, Ga., who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Saturday morning, April 26, 1913, Frank left home about 8 o’clock, and Albert, my husband, was there Saturday too; Albert got there I guess about a quarter after 1 and 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 7 o’clock that night, and Albert was there when he got there. Albert had gone home that evening but he come back, but I don’t know what time he got there, but he come some time before Mr. Frank did, and Mr. Frank eat supper that night about 7 o’clock, and when I left about 8 o’ clock I left Mr. Frank there.

Sunday morning I go there about 8 o’clock, and there was an automobile standing in front of the house, but I didn’t pay any attention to it, but I saw a man in the automobile get a bucket of water and pour into it. Miss Lucille (Mr. Frank’s wife), was down stairs, and Mr. and Mrs. Selig were up stairs. Albert was there Sunday morning, but I don’t remember what time he got there. When I called them down to breakfast about half past eight I found that Mr. Frank was gone. Mr. and Mrs. Selig eat breakfast and Miss Lucille didn’t eat until Mr. Frank come back and they eat breakfast together. I didn’t hear them say anything at the breakfast table, but 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, but Miss Lucille and Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank were standing there talking after dinner. I didn’t know the girl was killed until Monday evening. I understood them to say it was a Jew girl, and I asked Miss Luc[i]lle, and she said it was a Gentile.

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.”

I heard Mrs. Rauzin, Mrs. Frank’s sister, tell Miss Lucille that it was mighty bad, and Miss Lucille said, “Yes, it is. I am going to get after her about it.” I don’t know what they were talking about.

WANTED TO KILL HIMSELF.

Sunday Miss Lucille said to Mrs. Selig that Mr. Frank didn’t sleep 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 he was drinking. Miss Lucille said Sunday that Mr. Frank told her Saturday night that he was in trouble, 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 Lucil[l]e say that to Mrs. Selig. It got away with Mrs. Selig mighty bad, and didn’t know what to think. I haven’t heard Miss Luc[i]lle 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 come to see him, maybe two weeks. She would tell me, “Wasn’t it mighty bad that he as locked up,” and she said “Minola, I don’t know what I am going to do.”

HER WAGES INCREASED.

“When I left home to go to the solicitor general’s office, they told me to mind what I said. They paid me $3.50 a week, but last week she paid me $4, and one week she paid me $6.50. But at the time of this murder I was getting $3.50 a week, and the week right after the murder I don’t remember how much they paid me. The next week $4, and the next week $4. One week Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but it was not for my work, and they didn’t tell what it was for. They just said, ‘Here is $5, Minola,’ but of course I understood what they meant, but they didn’t tell me anything at the time. I understood it was a tip for me to keep quiet. They would tell me to mind how I talked, and Miss Lucille would give me a hat.”

Question: Was that the reason you didn’t tell the solicitor yesterday all about this,—that Miss Lucille and the others had told you not to say anything about what had happened out there?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question: “Is that true?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question: “And that is the reason why you would rather have been locked up last night than tell this?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question: “Has Mr. Pickett or Mr. Cravens or Mr. Campbell or myself (Detective Starnes, evidently), influenced you in any way or threatened you in any way to make this statement?”

“No, sir.”

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

“Yes sir,”

(Signed) “MINOLA M’KNIGHT.”

“Sworn to and subscribed before me, this third day of June, 1913.

([S]igned), G. C. FEBUARY.”

* * *

 Atlanta Journal, June 4th 1913, “Sensational Affidavit Made by Minola M’Knight, Negro Cook at Home of L. M. Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, June 3^rd, 1913

George Gordon Represents Minola McKnight as Attorney and May Seek Habeas Corpus During Afternoon

NEGRESS DECLARES HER HUSBAND HAS LIED

She Swears Leo M. Frank Was at Home at Time He Testified Before the Coroner’s Inquest

It became known Tuesday morning that Attorney George Gordon had been retained to represent Minola McKnight, the negro cook employed by Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, parents-in-law of Leo M. Frank, held for the murder of Mary Phagan.

Who employed the lawyer could not be learned, but the fact remains that Mr. Gordon is representing the negress, whose arrest Monday by city detectives, followed a questioning by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

It is also understood on good authority that Mr. Gordon is seriously considering the matter of seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the McKnight woman and further developments along this line are expected during the afternoon.

WOMAN QUESTIONED.

Shortly after noon Tuesday the McKnight woman was taken from her cell on the first floor at police headquarters by Detectives tSarnes [sic] and Sampbell [sic], who led her to a private room adjoining the detective department on the third floor. Two unknown white men and a negro man, supposed to be the woman’s husband, were left alone with her for about an hour and a half, when the detectives were called in.

After talking with the woman for a few minutes Detective Starnes came out of the room, gathered up a pen, ink and paper and went back. It is presumed that she has made some kind of a statement which the detectives consider significant and which they desire to take down in the form of an affidavit.

Attorney George Gordon was outside in the detective department for a portion of the time the woman was being questioned.

The hysteria which marked her demeanor when she first was arrested, has subsided, and Minola McKnight, the negro cook for Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, of 68 East Georgia avenue, home of Leo M. Frank, still sticks to the story she hysterically shouted throughout police headquarters Monday afternoon.

The negress was arrested at the Selig residence shortly after noon Monday upon the order of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

She was carried to the solicitor’s office and that official with Detectives Campbell and Starnes examined her for more than an hour. The woman grew hysterical during the vigorous examination, and finally was led from the solicitor’s office to the police patrol, weeping and shouting: “I am going to hang and don’t know a thing about it.”

Later it developed that [t]he woman’s husband, Albert McKnight, had been in the room with the officers.

The husband, it is said, reported to the police officials that Minola told him that Mr. Frank returned to the Selig residence about noon of the Saturday Mary Phagan was murdered and went back to the office at 1 p. m. The husband further quotes his wife as saying that on the Sunday morning after the tragedy Mrs. Frank complained that she did not sleep during the night because of the nervousness of Mr. Frank.

Albert McKnight, in the room with the solicitor and the two detectives, is said to have attempted to induce his wife to repeat the statements which he claimed she had made to him. She refused, however, calling her husband a liar, and saying that she never made any statements faintly resembling those attributed to her.

At variance with the allegations of her husband, the negress declares that Frank arrived at the residence on the Saturday of the tragedy about 1:20 or 1:30 o’clock, that he ate his luncheon and then lay down on a couch in one of the rooms. He went downtown later, she says, and returned about 6:30 o’clock. She says that she is certain that he was at the residence at about 7:45 or 8 o’clock that evening, for at that time he gave her a week’s wages, five $1 bills, and she left the Selig residence for her own home in the rear of 351 Pulliam street.

Minola declares that she will stick to her story despite the efforts of her husband to induce her to change it.

Minola declares that some time ago she had a fuss with her husband, and this quarrel, she avers, must have led him to tell the police “lies” about her.

During the first hours of her incarceration the cook shouted continually that she was going to hang, although innocent; and frequently she shouted, too, that Frank is innocent.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, June 3rd 1913, “Attorney Retained for Negro Servant at Frank’s Home,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)