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

Atlanta Georgian
August 18^th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

It is rather an extraordinary thing that on this Monday, the beginning of the fourth week of the most remarkable murder trial ever held in Georgia, the interest should be in nowiseabated or lessened, and that the opening of court to-day saw the biggest, hungriest and most insistent crowd of curious spectators yet on hand at the opening of court.

Far from letting go the Phagan mystery, the public to-day seems to be gripping it even more eagerly than ever before.

Opinion still is widely divided as to the guilt or innocence of Leo Frank, and there have been many switches of conclusion and reversals of theory, pro and con, within the past week, and no doubt there is much more of the same sort of thing to come.

People to-day believe Frank guilty who started out believing him innocent, and the rule is working right around the other way, moreover!

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 18th, 1913

That his married life has been very happy; that his office safe door was open and he could not see Mary Phagan as she spoke to him on leaving after drawing her pay; that he was in his office from 12 until just before going home to lunch.

PROFOUND IMPRESSION MADE BY PRISONER’S REMARKABLE STORY

FRANK LOOKS STRAIGHT AT JURY AND TELLS STORY DELIBERATELY

During his statement, Frank looked straight into the faces of the jurymen and talked very distinctly and deliberately. His voice was not very strong and the deputies had to rap frequently to keep down the noise.

From the lips of the man accused of the murder of Mary Phagan, came a remarkable story Monday afternoon, August 18, 1913.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 18th, 1913

The eyes of Leo Frank’s wife and his mother-in-law, Mrs. Emil Selig, were constantly upon him as he sat in the witness chair talking conversationally with the jurors. His mother seldom looked at him, maintaining her usual attitude, looking slightly downward and toward the judge’s bench.

Frank had been talking only 10 minutes when they unexpectedly was interrupted by a heated argument between the opposing attorneys over Frank’s explaining the time slips, including the one which the defense claims was taken from the time clock Sunday morning following the finding of Mary Phagan’s body.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 27th, 1913

Just four months after the murder of Mary Phagan, Leo M. Frank stands convicted of the slaying of the slaying of the 13-year-old girl in the National Pencil factory.

No recommendation for life imprisonment was made by the jurors, this circumstance making it imperative, according to the charge by Judge L. S. Roan, that a sentence of death by hanging be passed upon him. Judge Roan declined to say Tuesday the exact time when he would pass sentence.

Neither the prisoner, his relatives, friends nor any of his counsel appeared in the courtroom when the dread verdict was rendered. The sole representative of the defendant was Stiles Hopkins, a member of the firm of Rosser, Brandon, Sigton & Phillips, who was designated present and waive for Attorneys Rosser and Arnold the presence of the prisoner. A motion for a new trial will be made by Rosser and Arnold.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 28th, 1913

Solicitor Cites Prisoner’s Statement on Stand, “Now is the Time, This is the Place.”

Solicitor Dorsey was as busily engaged on the Frank case Thursday as he was any day before Leo Frank was convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan. If the factory superintendent finally succeeds in avoiding the penalty fixed it will not be because the Solicitor has not fought to the uttermost of his strength to put the rope around Frank’s neck.

Briefly but pointedly Solicitor Dorsey Thursday morning summed up his opinion of Leo Frank’s latest alleged statement concerning the trial and the Solicitor’s speech.

“Frank,” said the Solicitor in his quiet manner, “declared on the stand that now was the time and here the place, That’s all I have to say.”

The Solicitor declared that the State would ask the new Grand Jury which will be sworn in Tuesday, to indict Jim Conley immediately as an acknowledged accessory after the fact to the murder of Mary Phagan. He declared further that he had no intention of asking for a shortening of the sentence, as this was in the province of the Grand Jury and the judge.

No Vacation for Dorsey.

Although worn out as a result of the long strain, Solicitor Dorsey declared Thursday that it was his intention to keep right at work without taking a vacation. A few days of “taking it easy,” he said, will put him in excellent shape for the remainder of the summer.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16^th, 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.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16^th, 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.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 15^th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

There is nothing apparently so plain to outside observation as character—just character—and there is, strange to say, nothing so difficult at times to prove.

“They say” and “but” are the two most notorious scandalmongers in the universe—“they say” so and so’ and he or she is all right, “but!”

Character, upon which so much depends in this world, upon which civilization itself and decency and right is founded, is, nevertheless, the most elusive of all things when it comes right down to brass tacks of proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Human nature, too, for some curious and vague reason, seems rather to relish the downfall of character and the undermining of reputation—and that, moreover, the while it is vehemently and rather piously assuring itself that it does nothing of the kind!

Kind words travel on leaden feet—gossip gallops in seven-league boots!

Pessimist?

Not at all—just truthimist, that’s all!

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 14^th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

The defense in the Frank case did the expected thing when it boldly and unequivocally put Frank’s character in issue.

It indicated its confidence in the justice of the defendant’s cause in doing that, and it met thus a crisis that it hardly could have successfully overcome otherwise, if it so happen that it does overcome it eventually.

Having taken the initiative in the matter of thrashing out Frank’s character, the State will now be forced to make out an unmistakable case of bad character against Frank, or it is likely that the State’s injection of the sinister charge against him, in addition to the charge of murder, may operate as a boomerang to the State’s great hurt finally.

It is not to be wondered at that the defendant’s mother, tried and racked in spirit and pride as she surely must have been, should have let her feelings overcome her for an instant during the course of Wednesday afternoon’s hearing. I do not suppose it is even remotely possible for any person not a mother to understand all she has gone through.

Her vehement protest against the vile things being said and hinted about her boy—true or untrue, though such things always are untrue in mother love, I take it—serves to illustrate, however, how very vital to the defense now is the establishing of Frank’s good character.

I doubt that anything thus far said to the jury has so profoundly impressed it as the unspeakable thing Conley said of the defendant. The jury is only human, and it can no more dodge impressions than other people can.

Impression Must Be Erased.

The defense is up against the herculean task of removing all of that impression from the mind of the jury—the twelve minds of the jury, indeed—for it will not do to leave even a fraction of Conley’s story undemolished!

Manifestly, therefore, the defense could not, if it would get away altogether from the matter of Frank’s character. It found itself necessarily forced to the other extreme of the situation set up by the State.