Many Witnesses Take the Stand to Refute Points of Prosecution

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 13th, 1913

Defense Calls Twenty-Two Men, Women and Boys to Give Evidence Favorable to Frank—Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Parents of Frank’s Wife, Declare That There Was Nothing Unusual in Conduct of the Prisoner on Day of Murder

CHARACTER OF DALTON IS DECLARED TO BE BAD BY DEFENSE WITNESSES

Called to Stand, He Admits Having Been Sent to Gang for Stealing Once and Having to Pay Fine on Another Occasion—Bitter Fight Is Waged Between Attorneys Over a Question Asked of Frank’s Office Boy by Solicitor Dorsey, and Threat of Motion for Mistrial Is Made

Calling upon a total of twenty two witnesses on Tuesday and making a record for the Leo M. Frank case, and possibly for any other in Georgia, the defense yesterday made at tacks on a number of points made by the prosecution earlier in the trial of the man charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.

The day was spent in all but one or two instances in a steady hammering at the prosecution or to change the simple to a ceaseless stirring up of new points so as to muddy the entire case and make the points of the state unrecognizable.

When Solicitor Hugh Dorsey, on cross examination, asked Philip Chambers, Frank’s former office boy, if the superintendent had not made improper advances to him and threatened him to fire him if he did not yield, a bitter fight was started.

Continue Reading →

Frank’s Financial Sheet Would Take 3 Hours Work to Finish — Joel Hunter

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

Joel Hunter, an expert accountant, was put on the stand to testify to the amount of work required in the compilation of the financial sheet upon which the defense declares Leo Frank worked during the afternoon Mary Phagan was murdered.

“What is your occupation?” he was asked by Mr. Arnold.

“I am a public accountant.”

“Do you hold a position with the state board?”

“Yes, I belong to the board of examiners.”

“Did you examine Leo Frank’s financial sheet?”
“Yes.”

“Did his assistant, Schiff, acquaint you with the data contained in the report?”

“Yes.”

“Did you go through all the work required to make the report?”
“Yes; but I did not make a new sheet. I only made the calculations and verifications.”

“Did you find them correct?”
“All except one item.”

The witness explained thoroughly to the jury the tedious process of compiling the financial sheet.

“What time does it take to make out this sheet?”
“I would judge about 150 to 170 minutes, and, even within that length of time it would take a man with a superior knowledge of that process of compilation.”

Mr. Hooper took the witness from cross-examination.

“You couldn’t calculate on the exact length of time, could you, inasmuch as you’re not familiar with the work yourself?”
“Not exactly.”

“You say it took you more than three hours to make this report?”
“Yes.”

“If it was made in the afternoon, then, it would take all the afternoon, wouldn’t it?”
“Yes, practically so.”

“It would hardly give time for the man who was working upon it to attend a game or baseball, would it?”
“I would not think so. I didn’t study that phase of it, however.”

“It would take all afternoon with no time to do anything else, wouldn’t it?”
“I would certainly think so.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 12th 1913, “Frank’s Financial Sheet Would Take 3 Hours Work to Finish — Joel Hunter,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

As the Very Wildest of Guessing Dr. Westmoreland Characterizes Testimony Given by Dr. Harris

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

Dr. Willis Westmoreland, former head of the state board of health, who resigned some time ago after the board gave a clean bill to Dr. H. F. Harris, the secretary, whom he had accused of “scientific dishonesty,” followed Dr. Hancock on the stand.

He also made an examination of Leo Frank, stating in answer to Mr. Arnold’s question that he had found the accused man to be normal.

He was questioned by Arnold.

“What is your calling?”

“I am a physician of twenty-right years’ experience.”

“What is your main practice?”
“General medicine and surgery.”

“Have you occupied any chairs of prominence during your career?”

Former Head of State Board.

“I formerly occupied the chair of surgery in the Atlanta College of Surgery and, at one time, was president of the state board of health.”

A number of questions of the same nature of those put to Dr. Hancock pertaining to Dr. Harris’ testimony of his opinion of the time of death and of his belief that violence had been inflicted were asked Dr. Westmoreland. His replies were substantiation of Dr. Hancock.

“Could you determine how long this wheatbread and cabbage had been in the girl’s stomach?” he was asked.

Continue Reading →

Dr. Hancock Called by Defense, Assails Dr. Harris’ Testimony

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

MADE CABBAGE DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS

Dr. T. H. Hancock, a well known Atlanta physician, was the first of three medical experts to be presented in the afternoon in behalf of the defense. Dr. Hancock is official physician of the Georgia Railway and Electric company, and is a man of twenty-two years’ experience.

An astonishing feature of his testimony was the statement he made in answer to a question from Attorney Arnold to the effect that he had treated 14,000 surgery cases, a record hitherto unparelleled [sic] in Georgia history.

He was examined directly by Mr. Arnold.

“What is your occupation, Dr. Hancock?”
“I have been a physician and surgeon for the past twenty-two years?”
“How many cases of surgery have you treated?”
“About 14,000.”

“Have you made a physical examination of Leo M. Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Is he normal?”
“He is perfectly normal.”

Continue Reading →

Guesswork and Not Science Asserts Dr. J. C. Olmstead

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

Dr. John C. Olmstead followed Dr. Westmoreland to the stand.

He was questioned by Arnold.

“What is your occupation?”
“I have been a physician for thirty-six years, and am a graduate of the University of Virginia and the University of New York.”

“Would you characterize such an opinion as the one you have read of by Dr. Harris as being a guess or a scientific conclusion?”
“As wild a guess as I’ve ever heard.”

Continue Reading →

Schiff Admits He Kept Conley Knowing He Was Worthless

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

H. G. Schiff, Leo Frank’s assistant in the National Pencil factory, was put on the stand for a conclusion of the state’s cross examination when court convened Monday morning.

“How many books and papers were there that you say had not been worked on Friday night, and that you found completed Monday?” asked Solicitor Hugh Dorsey.

“The financial sheet and those papers I showed you Saturday,” Schiff replied.

[several words illegible] finished Friday?”
“Because when I left the office Friday I had not got up the data for them,” the witness said.

“If Frank had started to work at 8:30 o’clock Saturday morning and had worked until 10:30, then he could have done that work, couldn’t he?” the solicitor asked.

Continue Reading →

Expert Flatly Contradicts The Testimony of Dr. Harris

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

Professor George Bachman, professor of physiology in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons, and formerly a demonstrator of physiology in Jefferson Medical college, was put on the stand following Schiff.

By him the defense made a further attack on the deductions of Dr. H. F. Harris. He declared that the statements made by Dr. Harris amounted to guess work, according to his knowledge of the subject.

“What is your nationality, professor?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“I’m a citizen of Atlanta,” replied the witness.

“I mean, where were you born?”

“I was born a Frenchman,” replied Dr. Bachman.

Continue Reading →

Defense Has Best Day Since Trial of Frank Began

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 12th, 1913

AS WILD GUESSES PHYSICIANS TERM TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DR. ROY HARRIS

Assert It Is Impossible to Tell Accurately Just How Long It Takes for the Digestion of Cabbage—One Doctor Tells of Experiments He Had Made on Several Patients to Settle This Point. Doubt Value of Testimony About Violence.

OLD ROW OF DOCTORS BOBS UP IN TESTIMONY OF DR. WESTMORELAND

Declares That He Accused Dr. Harris of Scientific Dishonesty and Then Resigned From Board When It Refused to Discharge the Secretary—Joel Hunter Goes on Stand to Testify as to the Amount of Time Necessary on Frank’s Books.

When Monday’s session of the Leo M. Frank trial came to an end, it was generally conceded that it had been the best day the defense has thus far had.

True, there were no sensational developments and there was nothing particularly startling in the testimony. It was merely the drip, drip of the water on the stone which eventually wears it away—the stone in this case being the story told by Jim Conley and the statement made by Dr. H. F. Harris that Mary Phagan must have met her death within three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten her breakfast of cabbage and bread.

Continue Reading →

Jurors Have a Great Time Playing Jokes on Deputies

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 11th, 1913

Coats off and collars and ties flung carelessly on bedposts and convenient chairs the twelve jurors in the Frank case and Deputies Foster Hunter and Bob Deavours, in charge of them, were taking a comfortable afternoon rest Sunday when suddenly a woman’s voice in a plaintive key called loudly from the street, “Oh, Bob, Bob Deavours!” The deputy leaped to his feet. He was certain he had heard his wife’s voice, and though the suite of rooms in the Kimball house where the jury is quartered three floors above the street, the voice came from a window.

The deputy rushed to the window and looked in vain. As he turned back to the room the gruff voice of a man repeated the call from the hall door, he rushed over there and flung the door open, only to hear the first voice call him from the other room.

By that time Deavours was thoroughly alarmed and several of the jurymen had leaped to their feet from the beds and cots on which they had been dreamily listening to F. E. Winburn toying with the piano keys.

Continue Reading →

Murder Evidence May Be Concluded by Next Saturday

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 11th, 1913

Trial May Have Reached the Point By End of This Week Where Lawyers Will Begin Their Argument.

FIERCE ATTACK COMING ON HARRIS TESTIMONY

The Defense Will Also Make Every Attempt to Break Down Story Told by Jim Conley, Negro Sweeper.

The main points which the defense in the case of the state against Leo Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, will place before the jury in rebuttal of the prosecution will be given this week and by Saturday it is expected that the trial will have reached the point where the lawyers will begin their arguments.

What the defense has in view, Attorneys Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold are naturally silent about, and whether or not they have something hitherto unknown that they will spring suddenly upon the state remains to be seen as the trial progresses.

At present there are three things that it is practically agreed that the defense will attempt during the next few days.

Attack on Dr. Harris.

The testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, who placed the time of the girl’s death by the condition of the contents of her stomach, the damaging story of Jim Conley, whose testimony is the only direct evidence against the defendant, and the vital issue of the time of murder, will certainly receive the fiercest attack of any other phases of the state’s case.

There are many other features of the state’s case that will be fought and there are many points for the defense which are expected to be placed before the jury between Monday and Saturday, but it is known that the defense has made extensive preparations to break down the three points above named.

Continue Reading →

Reporter Makes Denial of Charge That Reports Have Been Flavored

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

J. M. Minar, a reporter, was put on the stand by the defense after the Epps boy left. By him the defense sought to prove that the boy had talked of Mary Phagan and had not mentioned seeing her on the car.

Before he had finished cross-examining him Attorney F. A. Hooper sought to create the impression on the jury that The Georgian, for which Minar works, had instructed him to discover as much news favorable for Leo Frank as possible, and Mr. Arnold entered an objection at once.

“Did you go to the Epps’ home on Sunday afternoon, the day the dead girl’s body was found?” was Mr. Arnold’s opening question.

“Yes,” replied Minar.

“Did you see George Epps and his sister?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ask them together?”
“Yes.”
“Please state what, if anything, they answered.”

“The sister said she had last seen Mary Phagan on Thursday and the boy told he frequently rode to town with her in the mornings,” replied the witness.

Continue Reading →

Is Defense Planning Telling Blow At Testimony Given by Jim Conley?

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

Will the defense strive to show by witnesses that the pencil factory elevator was not run on April 26 as told by Jim Conley in his remarkable story?

Since a question put to General Manager Darley by Luther Rosser when Darley was placed on the tand Friday, much speculation has been created in this regard.

Although attorneys for the defense will not discuss the subject, it is the prevalent belief that an effort will be made to show by mechanicians that the elevator was not in operation at any time during that fateful afternoon.

Darley was being questioned about workmen on the third floor who, as was a Saturday afternoon custom, were oiling and repairing the machinery while it was idle during a holiday. He asked if these same workmen did not oil and clean the motor which propels the elevator.

Before the question was answered it apparently was withdrawn as though in an effort to conceal its real purpose and not show an important card in the hand of the defense.

It is rumored that a mechanic, who gave much of his time to oiling and cleaning the elevator motor about the time Conley says he and Frank were lowering Mary Phagan’s body into the basement, is ready to testify that the motor was not in operation at this time or during any time of the afternoon.

If this evidence is produced, as rumored, it will be one of the most significant and telling points submitted by the defense thus far. It will come as near breaking the testimony of the negro Conley as any contradictory evidence yet presented.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 10th 1913, “Is Defense Planning Telling Blow At Testimony Given by Jim Conley?” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Startling Testimony of Conley Feature of Trial’s Second Week

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

IMPORTANT WITNESSES HEARD

The resting by the state of the its case against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, came on Thursday and the defense is at present setting forth its evidence in rebuttal.

Since last Sunday much that is regarded as important has been introduced by both sides and a number of bitter fights have been waged over evidence.

James Conley, the negro sweeper, who makes accusations that Frank told he had struck the girl too hard, and who also told of Frank’s having women in his office for immoral purposes and also swore to alleged habits of degeneracy on the part of the superintendent, was put on the stand Monday, and it was not until during the middle of the day Wednesday that the negro was excused. He had been on the stand something like fifteen hours and had established a record for Georgia courts.

Of the time he was on the stand, he was subjected to about thirteen hours of gruelling cross-examination by Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, but despite every attack, stuck to the principal part of his charges, although he admitted he had previously lied on many occasions.

On Wednesday, also, the court refused finally to strike from the records the negro’s testimony in regard to Frank’s alleged habits and also in regard to his previous actions with women before the Saturday of the murder.

Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of the murdered girl, was also recalled to the stand and told of having cooked cabbage for Dr. H. F. Harris to experiment upon. At her departure the physician was again put on the stand and he continued his statement, in which he declared that the girl met death within about 45 minutes after eating the cabbage and bread she is said to have had about 11:30 o’clock Saturday of the murder.

Continue Reading →

Frank A. Hooper Is Proving Big Aid to Solicitor Dorsey

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

ROSSER CALLS HIM BEAU BRUMMEL OF BAR

By Britt Craig.

He has a kind and genial face that makes you feel he is the friend of everybody in the world, but in the midst of a big trial he might be compared with a Gatling gun, except for the fact that there doubtless are witnesses who would prefer facing the Gatling.

There is a liberal sprinkling of gray in his hair, and Luther Rosser has often truthfully, although sarcastically, referred to him as the Beau Brummel of the bar.

You would never suspect that he was a lawyer. Your first impression would be that he was an author, an actor or lecturer.

That he would work as untiringly and persistently to hang a man as Culumbus worked to find America, would never enter your mind, and you would dispute the word of your most verarious friend on the subject.

Dorsey Secures Hooper.

When Solicitor Hugh Dorsey faced the task of prosecuting Leo M. Frank he set about to find a colleague worthy of the undertaking. He selected Frank Hooper, a well-known corporation attorney.

Continue Reading →

Introduction by Defense of Host Of Character Witnesses Probable

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

The introduction of character testimony in behalf of Leo Frank at present seems very probable. It is not thought, however, that witnesses of this nature will be put on the stand until the middle of the week.

Attorneys for the defense, as in the past, who have withhold their plans until the exact moment of performance, have refused to discuss whether or not character witnesses will be called. It is the general impression, however, that a wealth of this evidence will be presented—more, in fact, than has been produced in any trial in the state.

At the opening of the case the roll of witnesses named by the defense included some of the city’s foremost business figures, who, it was freely stated, had been called only in defense of the accused man’s character.

The solicitor has never intimated whether or not he has evidence to produce in rebuttal of character testimony in case it is presented. Such evidence, however, can never be produced by the prosecution unless the issue is opened by the defense.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 10th 1913, “Introduction by Defense of Host of Character Witnesses Probable,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Epps Boy Denies Trying to Avoid Being Called to the Stand Again

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

C. B. Dalton, who was used by the state to corroborate some of Jim Conley’s testimony against Leo Frank, was the first witness called by the defense Saturday morning. He did not respond and George Epps, the newsboy who claims to have ridden to town with Mary Phagan the day she met death, was next called.

The lad, who could not be found Friday, was present and took the stand. State and defense clashed over the lad as Solicitor Hugh Dorsey stated that Attorney Reuben Arnold had tried to give the impression Friday that he had fled from the court and could not be got to testify for the defense.

“Do you remember the Sunday on which Mary Phagan’s body was found?” Mr. Arnold asked the lad.

“Yes, sir.”

“Did Mr. J. M. Minar, a reporter, come to your house that afternoon?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did he ask you and your sister when was the last time either of you had seen Mary Phagan?”
“I heard that he asked sister: he didn’t ask me.”
“Didn’t your sister say she hadn’t seen her since the previous Thursday and didn’t you stand there and say the same thing?”
“No, sir; I’d gone to get a wrap for her.”
Mr. Dorsey then took the witness.

“George, did you try to hide from this court?”
“No, sir.”
“You weren’t here yesterday, were you?”
“No, sir; I wasn’t here; I got tired of hanging around here and you told me I could go home and you’d send for me when I was wanted, and yesterday when they came for me I was out playin’ ball.”

“Didn’t you call me up last night and ask if you were wanted?”
“Yes, sir.”

At this point Mr. Arnold objected, saying that these remarks had nothing to do with the case.

“Well, your honr, Mr. Arnold tried to give the impression yesterday that this witness was hiding out rather than testify when the defense wanted him,” said Mr. Dorsey, “and I wanted to show that this was not the case.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 10th 1913, “Epps Boy Denies Trying to Avoid Being Called to the Stand Again,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Defense Will Renew Attack Upon Dr. Harris’ Testimony

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

That the defense in the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, will continue its attack upon the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, who made a postmortem examination of the body and declared the girl must have died at about 12:10 in the afternoon, was the information secured Saturday.

Dr. Willie Westmoreland, Dr. J. N. Ellis and Dr. T. H. Hancok are expected to be the physicians placed upon the stand to refute this declaration made by Dr. Harris. The defense has already made an attack upon the state’s claim that Mary Phagan was already dead at 12:10 o’clock when Monteen Stover says she entered Frank’s office and did not find him there and through the statements of two street car men they sought to show that the girl never left the street car until that minute and must have reached the factory after Miss Stover had come and gone.

Dr. Harris based his statement about the time of death upon the condition of the contents of the girl’s stomach, declaring that the amount of digestion that had taken place in the cabbage there showed that she must have met death within something like 45 minutes from eating the cabbage. Her mother swore that she took this meal at 11:30 or just a few minutes earlier.

Neither side would make any statement last night. Both indicate that they were well pleased with the day in which things are going, but lawyers on both sides declined to make any statement in regard to the future course of action.

That the defense will take the greater part, or all, of this week for the presentation of their side, and even longer should they place Frank’s character on record, has already been known for several days and from present indications the arguments of counsel will begin a week from tomorrow.

When court convenes Monday morning H. G. Schiff, one of Frank’s assistants in the factory, will again go on the stand for further cross-examination by the state. Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey had started upon this when court adjourned Saturday.

* * *

Alanta Constitution, August 10th 1913, “Defense Will Renew Attack Upon Dr. Harris’ Testimony,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Schiff Put on Stand to Refute Conley and Dalton Testimony

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

HIS STATEMENTS HELP DEFENSE

Herbert G. Schiff, assistant to Leo M. Frank at the National Pencil factory, followed J. H. Minar on the stand Saturday. His testimony was used by the defense in an ef[f]ort to refute the stories of Jim Conley and C. B. Dalton to the effect that Frank frequently had women in the office on Saturdays and holidays and he also went into great detail and testified to the complexity of the financial sheet and the large amount of work necessary to complete it.

He was being cross-examined by the state when court adjourned at 12:30 o’clock until 9 o’clock Monday morning. At the time of adjournment the solicitor was trying to show by cross-questions that the witness had exaggerated the amount of work and the time required upon the financial sheet which it is claimed Frank made out on the Saturday before the murder was discovered.

“Do you have anything to do with keeping the books and getting up the financial statement?” Mr. Arnold began.

“Yes, I do.”

“Who went to work for the factory first, you or Mr. Frank?”
“Mr. Frank.”

“What sort of work did you first do?”
“I assisted in the office work of the factory and early in January was promoted and went on the road, then the office force got short and I offered my services in the office again and returned to help Mr. Frank.”

Continue Reading →

Schiff Testimony Contradicts That Given by Dalton and Negro Conley

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

Saturday by Far the Best Day for the Defense Since Start of the Frank Trial Two Weeks Ago.

SAYS WOMEN DID NOT VISIT FRANK’S OFFICE

Lawyers for State and Defense in Frequent Clashes During the Testimony of Frank’s Assistant at the Factory.

By far the best day the defense in the Frank trial has had came to a close Saturday afternoon at 12:30 o’clock when a recess was taken until 9 o’clock Monday morning, at which time Herert Schiff, assistant to Leo M. Frank, will again be on the stand to undergo a thorough cross-examination at the hands of Solicitor Dorsey.

Schiff’s direct testimony Saturday was of a convincing nature and the defense will largely bank on it to disprove the idea that Frank could have committed the murder and afterward done the intricate mathematical work he claims to have done during the afternoon of Memorial day. Just how Schiff’s testimony will stand up under the cross fire of Solicitor Dorsey is a question which Monday alone will answer. Thus far his testimony has been the most convincing of any that has been introduced by the defense. He is an extremely bright young man, ready with his answers and he possesses a good memory. When court adjourned Saturday Solicitor Dorsey had failed to shake him on any material testimony or point.

Continue Reading →

Witness Admits Discrepancies in Model of Pencil Factory

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 9th, 1913

T. H. Willet, a pattern maker, who built the model of the pencil factory, was next called by the defense. Under the cross-examination of Mr. Hooper he frequently admitted discrepancies in the pasteboard structure submitted by Frank’s counsel.

“What is your occupation?” he was asked by Mr. Arnold.

“Pattern maker.”

“Did you make an inspection of the National Pencil factory?”
“Yes.”

“In making this model, as to its dimensions and proportions, you have followed exact figures of blue prints?”
“Yes.”

Continue Reading →