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

Atlanta Constitution
August 3^rd, 1913

Police Chief James L. Beavers followed Dr. Hurt upon the witness stand. Mr. Rosser immediately asked him if he had been in the courtroom, as he had not been named by the state when other witnesses were named, sworn and put under the rule. He replied that he had for a short time and Mr. Dorsey explained that in the beginning of the case he had no intention of using him.

“Were you present at the National Pencil factory on the Monday following the finding of the dead girl?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“I was there not on Monday, I believe, I think it was on Tuesday,” he replied.

“Did you see the area of the floor around the girls’ dressing room?”

Mr. Rosser then arose and declared that he did not think that the court should allow Mr. Dorsey to get Chief Beavers in as a witness merely on his statement that at the time the other witnesses were sworn and put under the rule that he did not know he would need him.

After some further parley Judge Roan allowed him to go on testifying.

“Well, did you examine the area of which I asked?”
“Yes.”
“What did you see?”
“I saw spots of blood.”

“What size?”

“There was a spot about the size of a quarter and there were other and smaller spots leading towards the door.”
“Describe the blood.”
“Well, it was just ordinary blood.”
Mr. Arnold then took up the cross-examination.

“Hadn’t the spots been chipped up early Monday?”
“Well, I think that they had, but I know that I was there when they were chipped up.”
“You must have been there and seen them on Monday then, rather than on Tuesday.”

“Maybe so, I may be mistaken about the exact day.”
“Who else was present?”
“Starnes and Campbell and another man who chipped the blood spots up.”
“Do you know Mr. Barrett?”
“Well, yes, in fact, I believe he is the man who chipped up the spots but I never saw him before that day.”
The witness was then excused.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, August 3rd 1913, “Chief Beavers Tells of Seeing Blood Spots on Factory Floor,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

Mel Stanford, a sweeper and plater at the factory, was put on the stand at 12:20. He testified that he had worked there for about two years and was there on Friday, April 25, on the second floor.

“What did you do on Friday?” asked the solicitor.

“I swept up the entire floor in the metal room.”

“Were you there Monday, April 28?”

“Yes.”

“See anything at water cooler near girls’ dressing room?”

“Yes; a spot which had a white substance over it.”
“Was it there Friday?”

“It was not there when I swept the floor between 9 and 12 o’clock Friday.”

“What sort of a broom did you use?”

“A small broom.”

“Do you know anything about a large broom?”

“Yes; there were several up there.”

Stanford then went on to describe the spots in a similar manner to what Barrett had done. Court then adjourned for lunch.

Arnold Cross-Examines.

The afternoon session resumed with Stanford still on the stand. He was being examined by Attorney Reuben Arnold.

“Are your duties at the pencil factory as plater or sweeper?”

“It is my duty to sweep my side of the floor in the metal room.”

“The plant had negro sweepers employed for that work, had it not?”

“Yes.”

“Wasn’t it a negro’s duty to sweep your part of the floor.”

“I was supposed to sweep it.”

“You swept the whole metal department on Friday afternoon, April 25, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Did you sweep under Mary Phagan’s machine?”

“Yes.”

“Under the lathing machine?”

“Yes.”

“What is in the metal room to the east of the lady’s closet?”

“A lot of storage.”

“What kind of storage?”

“Barrels, boxes and cases.”

“Did you move them or sweep around them?”

“I moved them, then swept.”

Swept Entire Room.

“You swept over entire room?”

“Yes.”

“Your part of the floor was wooden, wasn’t it?”

“Only a part of it—the rest was cement.”

“Did you sweep in vicinity of the dressing room?”

“Yes.”

“You say you swept the entire room—who told you to do it?”

“Nobody.”

“Are you paid by the piece or by the hour?”

“By the hour.”

“What portion of the floor would you consider it your duty to sweep?”

“Part of the wood and part of the concrete—in the neighborhood of the spot at which I work.”

“Then, the place where alleged blood spots were found was not your territory?”

“Not exactly.”

“How long did it take you to sweep the concrete flooring?”

“Less than an hour.”

“Were you looking for spots while sweeping?”

“No.”

“Where else were there spots of any kind?”

“In some parts of the room where paint and lacquer had been spilled.”

“Will you swear there were no more than six spots in the room?”

“There were more than six.”

“You will swear that there were no spots of blood there Friday?”

“I will—around the dressing room.”

“How many girls use that dressing room?”

“Three or four.”

“While on the other side there are twelve?”

“Yes.”

“He was then called from the stand.

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

Stated That He Was Willing to Reply to Any Questions That Might Be in the Mind of the Public, and Asked to Answer Any Such That Might Be Propounded to Him.

TELLS HOW JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL AND ESCAPED DETECTION

Asserts That Very Fact That He Admitted He Had Seen Mary Phagan on the Day of the Murder, Thus Placing Himself Under Suspicion, Was Proof in Itself That He Was Innocent of Crime.

Probably the most interesting statement yet issued by Leo M. Frank in connection with the murder for which he has been sentenced to hang, is one that he has furnished to The Constitution in the form of a series of answers to questions which were propounded to him bearing on the case.

These questions were prepared by a representative of The Constitution who visited Frank at the Tower last week.

“Ask me any questions you wish,” Frank told the reporter.

In accordance with that, the reporter wrote out a list of questions which, he asserted, comprised the most salient points the prosecution had brought out against him, and to each of these Frank has given an answer.

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

Question 1. Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Question 2. The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Question 3. You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of the negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Question 4. Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Question 5. You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Question 6. You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Question 7. Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Question 8. Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Question 9. Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Question 10. At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Question 11. Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Question 12. Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Question 13. When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Question 14. Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Question 15. When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Question 16. If a girl were never seen[…]

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

[…]alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Question 17. Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Frank’s Answers.

Question 1—Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Answer—Lee had been employed at the factory for but two weeks. Almost any experience, therefore, he would have had at the factory would be for the “first time.” I had on Friday, April 25, received and accepted an invitation from my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to go to the ball game on Saturday afternoon. Accordingly, on Friday night I had directed Lee to report early on Saturday, because I thought I would be absent from the factory Saturday afternoon at the ball game. But on account of the bad weather and the accumulation of work, I called off this engagement at about 1:25 p. m. Saturday when I was home to lunch. Lee, however, reported early, as directed, but as I had changed my plans and was to remain at the factory, there was no need for Lee to remain there unless he so desired. I didn’t insist on his leaving. I told him he could go if he chose, and he availed himself of this permission. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether he stayed or went; but I did insist on his returning not later than 6 o’clock to the factory.

Question 2—The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Answer—Mary Phagan may have been attacked as she went down, at the foot of the steps, in such a way that she was unable to make any outcry at all. In fact, that is my theory.

On the other hand, if she did make an outcry there were many things that would have prevented my hearing it. The head of the stairway leading from the second to the street floor was about 70 feet from where I was sitting at my desk. Half way down the stairway was a pair of heavy doors, which were kept closed. There was a thick flooring, plastered underneath, between me and the floor below. Also the elevator stood at the level of the second floor. Then the two windows in my outer office were open, allowing the noise from the street to come in. Moreover, I was immersed in my work, and, of course, was not anticipating anything out of the ordinary. Please note that Lemmie Quinn was in my office talking to me within three to five minutes after Mary Phagan left my office after receiving her pay envelope from me.

Question 3—You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of a negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Answer—The very idea of writing notes and putting them by the dead body to divert suspicion is even more characteristic of a drunken, ignorant negro than the language itself. Emphatically no. The whole dictation theory is silly. In the first place, no intelligent white man would do such a thing, either by writing himself or having another write for him. He knows that handwriting is a sure clue. It is inconceivable that any white man could have dictated those notes and it is equally as unbelievable that he could be so foolish as to leave them on the body. In the second place, please remember that it was I and none other who gave the detectives the information by which they were able to disprove Conley’s assertion that he could not write. It was I who, as soon as I heard that Conley was denying that he could write, gave the information where they could find a contract signed by him for the purchase of a watch on the installment plan. The detectives followed this clue, secured the contract, and forced Conley to admit that he could write.

Question 4—Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Answer—I told Helen Ferguson no such thing. She did not testify that I so told her. Even the state has never contended that she so testified. There is no basis for such an idea.

Helen Ferguson never got even her own pay, much less that of another, from me. I was not the paymaster. No evidence was presented at the trial to show that I was. In fact, Helen Ferguson herself testified that previous to Friday, April 25, she never asked for or received an envelope from me. She said April 25 was the first time, and she is mistaken about this. Please note that the two girls who worked in her department with her testified at the trial that they were with Miss Ferguson when she drew her money from Mr. Schiff, and that in their company she left the factory immediately and started for home. There was no mention of asking Schiff, who was paying off, or Frank, who was not at the cashier’s window, for another person’s envelope. The two girls who so testified were Miss Hicks and Miss Kennedy. Schiff, who actually paid off Helen Ferguson, swore to this fact at the trial.

Calls Gantt A Liar.

Question 5—You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Answer—What Gantt said was an unqualified falsehood. I never knew that Gantt knew Mary Phagan intimately until Halloway told me after the murder of Monday, April 28, 1913, when I went to the factory in the afternoon at about 3 o’clock.

Question 6—You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Answer—Messrs. Schiff, Stelker, Sigancke, Quinn, Darley, Campbell and Halloway were with me when I examined the alleged “blood spots.” The police had taken up only a few chips from the spot, and left the remainder of the spot, which I examined. They didn’t take away the whole spot, nor did they take up the floor.

Question 7—Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Answer—When I first phoned Mr. Schiff it was Mr. Montag’s lunch hour, and I couldn’t get Mr. Montag on the phone. Mr. Schiff was at the factory office, and, so, when Mr. Montag gave his permission to Mr. Schiff to hire detectives, he could more readily arrange an interview and receive detectives than I, who was at my residence, could. Mr. Schiff was my assistant, and naturally I had him do this work for me. I don’t see the materiality of this question. The material point is that as soon as I could I had a detective employed and put upon the case to ferret out the crime.

Question 8—Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Answer—This is not true. At the coroner’s inquest I said: “She got there—of course, it is pretty hard to give the exact time—but I venture to say it as near as possible, between 12:10 and 12:15.” At the trial I said: “Miss Hattie Hall finished the work and started to leave when the 12 o’clock whistle blew, she left the office and returned, it looked to me, almost immediately, calling into my office that she had forgotten something, and then she left for good. . . . To the best of my knowledge, it must have been from 10 to 15 minutes after Miss (Hattie) Hall left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered by office and asked for her pay envelope.”

Let me call attention, at this point, to the fact that if I had been guilty, nothing on earth would have induced me to have revealed the fact that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan in my office a few seconds before the prosecution claims I killed her. Would the man who killed Mary Phagan have freely and voluntarily stated that he saw her and talked with her just a few moments before she was supposed to have been killed? Would not every instinct of self-preservation have caused him to conceal the fact that he had seen her at all? Why, if he were guilty should he disclose the fact that he had seen her, especially when no one had seen him talking with her, and it could not be proved that he had seen her? If I had a guilty conscience would I have freely and voluntarily stated, as I did, that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan? And if I did not hesitate to declare that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan (which was the big, important fact), what object could I have had in misstating the time that I saw her?

I stated simply the truth, and the whole truth. I gave the time to the best of my recollection.

Proof I Am Innocent.

Question 9—Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Answer—I said I was not out of my office at 12:05. I always contended that, and I still assert it. I never changed. I may have stepped to the toilet for a minute or two, but one couldn’t remember such an occurrence. I am not fully satisfied as to the accuracy of Miss Stover’s testimony. She is but a child, and may not be accurate.

Let me say, as I did in answer to the preceding question, that I always stated freely and voluntarily that I saw and talked with Mary Phagan in my office. I gave her her pay envelope. She asked me if the metal had come, and when I told her no, she departed. I did not see her alive again. Now, if I had anything to conceal about the meeting between Mary Phagan and myself, if I had been the guilty man, would I not have denied from the first that I had ever seen her at all? Would I ever have come forward freely and voluntarily and stated that I had seen and talked with her? Would I not have tried to conceal that fact? Let me say that if some other man were accused of a murder, and he were to come forward voluntarily and state, without any compulsion, that he had seen and talked with the dead person just a few moments before the killing was supposed to have occurred, I would say that the man had a clear conscience and was not guilty. For, if he had been guilty, common sense would have made him hide and conceal the fact of seeing the dead person just before the killing.

Question 10—At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Answer—At first, I said the slip was all right, as no successive numbers were skipped. Mr. N. V. Darley looked at the slip, also, and corroborated this. Later, when I studied carefully the time at which the punches occurred, I noted three lapses of one hour instead of a half hour, as they should have been. The whole matter of Lee’s punching the time clock, while a physical fact, is immaterial. There is one thing, however, that is material in this matter. When I took out of the clock the time slip that Lee punched, I wrote on it, ‘Taken out at 8:26 a. m.’ to identify it. Several of those about me at the time saw me write on the slip. This was a complete identification of this slip. Mr. Dorsey admitted, in open court, that he rubbed it out. He says he thought a detective wrote those words on it to identify it.

Question 11—Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Answer—I did not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory. I told her that if she did not wish to be locked in with the two boys at work on the fourth floor, that she would have to leave then, as I was going home to lunch, and was going to lock up the factory. I did not mention haste. As I followed her down the stairs at an interval of less than a minute, I could not have been writing as she passed, and was not writing. I may have been placing papers together preparatory to leaving, but I had nothing to wrtie [sic]. The record of the case bears me out in this.

Question 12—Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Answer—Conley came to my cell surrounded by detectives who had put themselves on record as being antagonistic to me. They were not hunting the truth; they were trying to fasten the crime on me. No matter what I would have done, if I consented to the interview, they would have used it against me. At the trial the negro never looked at me once, though my eyes were glued on him the whole time.

Question 13—When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Answer—To the police I did fail to mention Lemmie Quinn’s visit. It slipped my mind, though it was a circumstance favorable to me. But his statement, and my own, that he called and saw me in my office that day, has never been questioned. As soon as Quinn mentioned to me the fact of his visit to me the day of the murder, it refreshed my memory, and I at once remembered it.

Question 14—Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Answer—No. I told him to tell the truth. Not knowing exactly what the police were claiming (at that time), and not being a lawyer, I did not know what value Quinn’s visit could have as evidence, and I told Quinn I would report the fact to my lawyers.

Character Witnesses.

Question 15—When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Answer—My experience with Dalton, the first character witness against me, had given me and my attorneys fair warning what to expect from the so-called character witnesses. Here was a man upon whom I had never laid my eyes before he took his seat in the witness chair, and of whom I had never heard, and yet he swore solemnly to acts and doings with me that were utterly and absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation. Was not this fair warning to me and my attorneys of what they might expect from the other so-called character witnesses? There was nothing that they could truthfully testify against my character, but I had been duly warned that I could not rely upon their speaking the truth.

My lawyers decided that if they cross-examined those character witnesses, it would allow these hostile people to tell all they heard about me in the way of vile slander—not what they knew. They felt that these witnesses had been loaded with slanders about me just for the purpose of telling them on cross-examination. They did not want to give them the chance to repeat malicious tales against me which they had no opportunity to investigate or answer.

Question 16—If a girl were never seen alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Answer—If the only facts known were what you state, then it would not be surprising that such a man should be arrested, and if subsequent developments indubitably pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime, that he should be vigorously prosecuted. But if, after this man’s arrest, a negro brute is discovered, who admits a knowledge of the crime, who admits writing the very notes found by the body, though, at first, steadfastly denying he could write at all, and who, after repeated visits and promptings from the detectives and the solicitor, finally invents a preposterous and unbelievable tale, putting the crime on the man arrested in order to save his own neck—then I would say that the further prosecution of this man is persecution, indeed!

Question 17—Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Answer—Not prior to the time that another was shown to have had the opportunity to commit the crime.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, March 9th 1914, “Leo Frank Answers List of Questions Bearing On Points Made Against Him,” 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

Monday, June 2^nd, 1913

Mary Phagan Met Death on First Floor, Is Claim

Defense Will Endeavor to Show That Conley Struck Her in Head and Threw Her Down Elevator Shaft

ELEVATOR WAS NOT MOVED APRIL 26, IT IS CONTENDED

Blood Spots on Second Floor Explained by Fact That Employes Frequently Cut Fingers—Theory in Detail

From apparently reliable authority it was learned Monday that the theory to be advanced in defense of Leo M. Frank, the pencil factory superintendent, who has been indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan, will be that James Conley, the negro sweeper, and he alone, killed the girl and hid her body in the factory basement.

Notwithstanding Luther Z. Rosser, chief counsel for Frank, maintains his sphinxlike attitude and declines to discuss the theory of the defense, it is understood that the arguments in Frank’s favor will be based upon the idea that Conley was without assistance in the commission of the crime and that Frank had no knowledge whatever of it.

The defense will, it is said, take the position that Mary Phagan was killed on the first floor of the factory at the foot of the stairs where the negro admits he was in hiding. The suggestion of the girl having been killed on the second floor, as declared by Conley in his affidavit of confession, will, it is said, be ridiculed.

It will be contended that Conley was in hiding on the first floor from about 9 o’clock in the morning, most probably with the intention of robbing some of the women employes who came for their pay.

It will be shown that many of the incidents which the negro swears happened while he was secluded among the boxes by the stairs occurred before Frank went over to Nelson street, and therefore, the negro must be lying when he says that he met the superintendent at the corner of Nelson and Forsyth streets and followed him back to the factory sometime between 10:30 and 11 o’clock.

The several different versions of the negro’s story will be cited to show that he began by lying and only made admissions that he had knowledge of the crime when he was caught in lies. The claim will be set up that the negro is very cunning, had a perfect knowledge of the pencil factory and its operations, and has kept thoroughly posted on everything that has been published about the murder. This will be urged to substantiate the allegation that he has endeavored to make his “confession” fit the facts so far revealed.

ELEVATOR DIDN’T RUN.

But it will be insisted that despite the negro’s cunning he has made many palpable misstatements of facts. Not only will it be claimed that the negro was in the factory in hiding long before Frank went to Nelson street, as is indicated by certain incidents described in detail, but it will be contended that contrary to the negro’s statement the elevator did not run on Saturday, April 26.

Just how the defense will show this is not known, but that it feels that it can make such a showing and one that will be convincing is admitted by the close friends of Frank.

The negro’s statement that he obtained from the cotton room on the second floor a large piece of gunny sack which he tied about the girl’s body will be challenged and evidence will be submitted to show that on the fatal Saturday there were no empty gunny sacks in the cotton room, that the only sacks there were filled with cotton and that these were still in place on the following Monday.

To further substantiate this allegation it will be pointed out that the gunny sack which the negro said he tied about the body and which he declares he threw on the trash pile by the boiler along with the girl’s hat and one of her shoes has never been found.

The hat and shoe were discovered on this trash pile a short while after the body was found, but there was no gunny sack there.

THEORY OF KILLING.

The theory of the defense will be, it is said, that after Mary Phagan got her pay envelope she immediately left the office on the second floor and proceeded down the stairs toward the street; that just as she reached the bottom, the negro, who was in hiding and who had seen her swinging a mesh handbag, stepped out from behind the boxes and struck her a blow on the head with a stick.

Attention will be called to the fact that the big doors leading to the street were closed, and it was entirely possible for the girl to have been felled without anyone outside on the street or anyone upstairs in the office being any the wiser.

Having knocked the girl down and rendered her unconscious, it will be contended, it is said, that the negro quickly pushed her through the elevator shaft, which was but six or eight feet to his left. Fearing that the girl may have recognized him and apprehending that she was not dead, the negro climbed down the ladder through the cubby hole and quickly tore off the hem of her underskirt, which he knotted around her neck, it being the most available instrument to check any possible outcry; after which he hunted around the basement and found a length of cord, which abounds in all parts of the factory.

Looping this cord around the girl’s neck so that when it was pulled the knot would tighten, the negro dragged her back to the sawdust bin in the rear of the basement, where her body was found, it will be contended.

When he went back to the elevator shaft he found her hat and her purse, it will be argued. He placed the purse in his pocket, took the hat and started back toward the rear of the basement. On the way he picked up one of the girl’s slippers, which had come off while she was being dragged. The hat and the slipper he tossed on the trash pile by the boiler.

In the darkness of the elevator shaft he overlooked the parasol, which he had tossed down with the girl’s body.

OBJECT OF NOTES.

With a view, it is said, to directing suspicion to the other negroes employed in the factory, Conley wrote the two notes found near the body. The tablet paper upon which these were written, it will be asserted, can be found in all parts of the factory. One of them, the yellow order blank book, it will be claimed, belonged to an old discarded series and was morel likely to be on the trash pile than in the office.

The suggestion will, it is said, be advanced that the negro first wrote the two line note which simply stated: “That long, tall black negro did it by his self.” Conceiving the idea that a note directed to the girl’s mother might further lift suspicion from him the negro then wrote the second, in which he referred to the long, tall black negro and the night watchman.

When the negro got ready to leave the factory it will be asserted he found that Frank had gone to lunch and had locked the front doors. Then there was nothing left for him to do but pull the staple from the back basement door and make his escape from the factory through it.

BLOOD SPOTS EXPLAINED.

Little credence will, it is said, be placed by the defense in the alleged blood spots found near the dressing room door in the metal room on the second floor. It will be argued that these spots may or may not be blood. And to explain them if they are blood it will be shown that several times each week the employes cut their fingers and hands and the wounds frequently bleed on the floor.

It will be asserted by witnesses, it is said, that large quantities of anilines, and paints resembling blood are used at the factory and that possibly the spots at the dressing room door are nothing more than paint.

To further strengthen this idea it will be pointed out that the negro claims to have first found the girl’s body in the little alleyway near the women’s lavatory, some fifty or seventy-five feet from the alleged blood marks, and yet not a sign of blood can be discovered there, although if the negro’s story is true the body must have lain there for some time. Even admitting the truth of the negro’s statements the defense will, it is claimed, call attention to the fact that the body remained at the dressing room door, where the negro says he dropped it, only so long as it required him to rush up to the front and call Frank to help him to the elevator with it. Therefore, it will be insisted if there was to have been any blood on the floor it would most likely have been at the spot where the body first fell and where it lay for so long.

Of course the above may not be the complete theory of the defense, but it is understood that the points set out will form the portions of the theory.

Frank Keeps Cheerful, Confident of Acquittal

Friends of Superintendent Leo M. Frank, who called upon him at the Fulton county jail Sunday, declare that they found him in excellent spirits. He patted several of his most intimate friends on the shoulder and advised them not to worry, declaring that everything would come out all right.

The indicted superintendent seemed to feel, it is said, that the affidavit of confession made by James Conley, the negro sweeper, sheds the first real light on the pencil factory tragedy, and he entertains the confident hope, it is said, that Conley will, under continued gruelling by the detectives, clear up every element of mystery surrounding the murder. When this is done Superintendent Frank expects, it is said, to be exonerated from all participation in or knowledge of the crime.

Frank reminded his friends that he had without reservation or evasion answered every question which had been put to him by the detectives and the coroner, and that up to date not a statement he made had been disproven.

He called the attention of his friends to the fact that after he returned to the factory at 3 o’clock on the afternoon of the murder he worked for hours making out a financial statement and asked them if they believed it possible for him to have gotten his mind on figures and calculations if he had even known there was a dead body in the basement, to say nothing of what would have been his state of mind if he was burdened with the guilt of a murder.

Conley Sticks to Story; To Be Questioned Again

For the first time since his arrest, three days after the murder of Mary Phagan, James Conley, the negro sweeper, was provided with clean clothing Monday morning. His wife brought the clothing to police headquarters. The negro asserts that this is the first change of clothes he has made since Friday, April 25.

Conley still sticks to his confession. He insists that he has told the full truth, and that all he had to do with the murder of the girl was to assist Frank in taking her body to the factory basement and to write the two alibi notes, which, he says, he wrote at Frank’s dictation.

The negro continues to assert that he would like to face Frank and tell his story face to face with the indicted superintendent. Both Chief of Police Beavers and Chief Lanford are anxious that Frank be confronted with the negro.

Monday morning Chief Beavers telephoned the office of Luther Z. Rosser, chief counsel for Frank, it being his purpose to make formal request of Mr. Rosser for a meeting between Frank and the negro. Mr. Rosser was engaged at the court hours and Chief Beavers announced that later in the day he would probably call upon Mr. Rosser in person and ask that the meeting be arranged.

The detectives hold to the opinion that Conley has told the truth in his confession, but Chief Lanford says that he will not discontinue his efforts to get further information from the negro.

“We will continue to question him from time to time,” said the chief. “While we credit the negro’s story as related in his affidavit we do not propose to rest upon our oars. What we want is the truth about this crime. We do not wish that an innocent man shall be prosecuted or punished, and if it could be shown to my satisfaction that Frank had nothing to do with the murder I would not hesitate to say so, regardless of public sentiment or my previous conclusions.”

Detectives Seek Purse Carried by Girl

The detectives are continuing a vigorous search for the pocketbook of Mary Phagan, no trace of which has been found in the weeks which have passed since her murder on April 26.

It was learned Monday that detectives have carefully and systematically searched the home of James Conley, the negro sweeper, without finding the pocketbook nor the hat ribbon which is missing.

The detectives received reports that factory employes found the purse in the elevator a short time after the tragedy, but so far as can be learned these reports are without foundation.

INDICTMENT NOT LIKELY.

It has been reported that efforts will be made to indict Conley as an accessory after the fact of the murder at the special meeting of the Fulton county grand jury, which will be held on Tuesday. This is extremely improbable, as there is little chance of any court action on Conley’s case until after the trial of Superintendent Frank.

Chief of Detectives Lanford declares that he is not worried over the disappearance of Mrs. Nina Formsby [sic], the woman who made an affidavit to the effect that Frank called up her house a number of times between 6 and 10 p. m. on the evening of the tragedy.

Mrs. Formsby alleged that the factory superintendent wanted to secure a room.

Chief Lanford states that he will be able to produce the woman if she is needed. Mrs. Formsby is out of the city visiting friends, it is said.

* * *

Source: Atlanta Journal, June 2nd 1913, “Frank’s Defense is Outlined,” 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

Tuesday, May 6^th, 1913

Body of Slain Girl Exhumed and Bloodstains on Factory Floor Analyzed.

NEW THEORY ANNOUNCED

Solicitor Believes Victim May Have Been Thrown, Still Alive, Down Elevator Shaft.

Solicitor General Dorsey, Chief of Detectives Lanford, Chief of Police Beavers, and all men working under them in the Phagan case seem thoroughly satisfied with the progress they are making in the great mystery. They are actively engaged in many unknown directions—as they say, “piling up evidence to strengthen the case.”

What evidence the officials have other than that which has already been made public they refuse to divulge. Solicitor Dorsey declines to make public his case in the newspapers. He is investigating every phase of the matter through trusted men working under this own direction.

It is perfectly proper for the chief prosecuting officer to withhold any and all evidence until such time as he may present his case to the Grand Jury.

That there is new and startling evidence seems true, but just what it indicates the officials refuse to say, and the newspaper reporters, therefore, are merely guessing at what may be, or may not be, the actual facts.

Solicitor is Reticent.

Solicitor Dorsey was reticent about the nature of the most recent discoveries, but his guarded statements indicated that he considered the disclosures which have been made by the force of detectives, physicians and chemists working under his direction as having a most important bearing on the solution of the crime.

Mr. Dorsey issued this statement:

I see in an interview attributed to Quinn that I asked him if he was not paid by counsel for Frank to protect Frank.

This statement, so far as I am concerned, is absolutely false. Throughout my talk with him I did not mention the name of counsel nor did I intimate that counsel had been guilty of any such conduct.

It is known that a more thorough and minute examination of every locality and every article having any connection or possible connection with the slaying of Mary Phagan is being made now than was undertaken in the first few days of the mystery.

Blood Stains Analyzed.

Under the direction of Solicitor Dorsey, chemists have made a new analysis of the blood found on the factory floor, where the Phagan girl evidently struggled with her assailant.

Dr. H. F. Harris, director of the State Board of Health, is making a second examination of the body of the slain girl, which was taken from the grave in the cemetery at Marietta.

Whether it was from any one of the sources that Solicitor Dorsey obtained his new lead in tracking down the slayer, he would not say. He would only repeat that every clew that offered the slightest ray of hope would be followed to the end.

May Have Been Hurled Down Shaft.

A startling theory announced by the Solicitor is that the body of Mary Phagan was thrown, alive, down the elevator shaft from the second floor to the basement. He has found that the soil at the bottom of the shaft is soft and that the girl might not have been seriously injured by a fall of this distance. He would not be surprised if subsequent developments proved that the girl was slain not on the second floor of the factory, but in the basement at just about the spot where the body was found.

To insure that not the smallest particle of evidence is overlooked, Solicitor Dorsey is continuing his rigid investigation of the factory itself. Electric lights have been strung in every nook and corner of the basement, where before it was black and gloomy. T[h]e dirt and trash covering the floor is being searched painstakingly in the hope that some tell-tale clew may be discovered—that the girl’s missing purse may be found, or that some article disclosing the identity of the slayer may be turned up.

[The report of Dr. Harris probably will not be made public until Thursday, when the inquest resumes. Meanwhile, the Solicitor is working on the information that he receives from time to time from Dr. Harris; from the chemists who have analyzed the bloodstained chips of wood taken from the factory floor, and from Dr. Claude A. Smith, city bacteriologist, who has analyzed the bloodstains on the shirt found at the home of Newt Lee.

Solicitor Dorsey telegraphed to Newt York Tuesday to verify a statement concerning Frank contained in an unsigned letter. The Solicitor said that the Pinkerton detectives would not be admitted to his conferences with the city police.

The Grand Jury will meet Friday and probably will take up the case then if a verdict has been rendered by the Coroner’s jury. — Addition from “Extra” on May 6th — Ed.]

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 6th 1913, “Newest Clews in Phagan Case Not Yet Public,” 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

Saturday, May 3^rd, 1913

Three Former Employees at Pencil Factory Are Summoned to Testify. Expected That Frank and Watchman Will Be Questioned Further.

It was reported to-day that three young women, former employees of the National Pencil Factory, will be important witnesses for the Coroner’s jury in the Phagan case on Monday.

Dr. Claude Smith, city bacteriologist, was asked by the police to-day to make a chemical analysis of the bloodstains on the shirt found in the back yard of the home of Lee.

The garment was given to Dr. Smith by Detective Rosser. The detectives are hopeful that by scientific tests and comparisons it will be determined whether the garment was a ‘plant’ or not. Dr. Smith said that he could not make his examination until some time next week.

Solicitor Dorsey and Chief of Detectives Lanford were closeted for two hours to-day in a discussion of the cases. At the conclusion neither would make a public announcement.

$1,000 Fund is Rumored.

It was said that an effort would be made to have the county appropriate $1,000 for a private investigation.

The inquest will be resumed at 2 o’clock. Leo M. Frank has not yet given any testimony before the Coroner’s jury, and it is planned for him to be heard on Monday. It is also likely that Lee, the night watchman, will be examined further.

The police and detectives are still busily at work on the case, but so far as is known they have secured nothing of importance.

Await Coroner’s Verdict.

When the Coroner’s jury verdict is rendered the case automatically goes to the Grand Jury. Solicitor Dorsey and the Grand Jury will not take up the case officially until the Coroner’s jury has concluded its investigation.

Many wild reports, absolutely without basis in fact, are in circulation. It is emphatically declared by the police that no confessions have been made by anybody in the case. This should put an end to the report that Lee has confessed and implicated Frank.

It is not likely that the body of the unfortunate girl will be exhumed. County Physician Hurt says that no further examination is necessary, and the evidence on this point is very clear and exact.

Visitors Are Barred.

Visitors are not allowed to see either Frank or Lee, although counsel has full access to the Tower to confer freely with the men.

A score of employees of the factory are under subpoena to testify before the Coroner’s jury, but their testimony is not considered likely to be of great importance.

The release of Arthur Mullinax and J. M. Gantt indicates that the detectives have abandoned the theory that the girl left the pencil factory after receiving her pay on Saturday. The detectives now are of the opinion that she was not seen on the streets again after she entered the factory.

May Be Held for Jury.

Without seeming to forecast what the Coroner’s jury will do, it is more than likely that both Frank and Lee will be held for the Grand Jury, where the testimony or evidence will be weighed carefully under the supervision of Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey.

The only statement that the lawyers for Frank make is that he is still vehement in the declaration that he knows nothing whatever about the crime.

Mr. Rosser says that not a word of evidence had been produced against his client.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 3rd 1913, “Analysis of Blood Stains May Solve Phagan Mystery,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

At the left top is Detective Black, of the city, and at the right Detective Scott, of the Pinkertons. Below is a scene of the inquest. At the bottom is a sketch by Henderson of the negro, Newt Lee, whose straightforward story at the inquest has tended to lift suspicion from him.

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

Atlanta Constitution

Thursday, May 1^st 1913

Mary Phagan Was Growing Afraid of Advances Made to Her by Superintendent of the Factory, George W. Epps, 15 Years Old, Tells the Coroner’s Jury.

BOY HAD ENGAGEMENT TO MEET HER SATURDAY BUT SHE DID NOT COME

Newt Lee, Night Watchman, on Stand Declared Frank Was Much Excited on Saturday Afternoon—Pearl Robinson Testifies for Arthur Mullinax—Two Mechanics Brought by Detectives to the Inquest.

LEO FRANK REFUSES TO DISCUSS EVIDENCE

When a Constitution reporter saw Leo M. Frank early this morning and told him of the testimony to the effect that he had annoyed Mary Phagan by an attempted flirtation, the prisoner said that he had not heard of this accusation before, but that he did not want to talk. He would neither affirm nor deny the negro’s accusation that never before the night of the tragedy had Frank phoned to inquire if all was well at the factory, as he did on the night of the killing.

Evidence that Leo M. Frank, superintendent of the pencil factory in which the lifeless body of Mary Phagan was found, had tried to flirt with her, and that she was growing afraid of his advances, was submitted to the coroner’s jury at the inquest yesterday afternoon, a short time before adjournment was taken until 4:30 o’clock today by George W. Epps, aged 15, a chum of the murdered victim.

George rode with Mary to the city Saturday morning an hour before she disappeared at noon. He testified late Wednesday afternoon that the girl had told him of attempts Leo Frank had made to flirt with her, and of apparent advances in which he was daily growing bolder.

“She said she was getting afraid,” he told at the inquest. “She wanted me to come to the factory every afternoon in the future and escort her home. She didn’t like the way Frank was acting toward her.”

Waited Two Hours For Girl.

George had an engagement to meet the girl Saturday afternoon at 2 o’clock, he said. They were scheduled to watch the Memorial parade and tour the picture shows. He waited two hours for her. She had disappeared. The next known of her was when the lifeless form was found in the factory basement.

Frank was not present during the investigation but once. Detectives brought him before the jury for identification by E. S. Skipper, the man who saw the mysterious sextette of youths and girls Saturday night at Whitehall and Trinity. He remained but a moment.

Sensational developments were predicted shortly after the inquest was resumed at 2:15 o’clock, when Coroner Donehoo ordered detectives to bring to police headquarters the two mechanics who were in the factory building with Frank during the early part of Saturday afternoon.

They are Harry Denham and Arthur White, two youths who have been connected with the plant for several years. Detective Scott found them at work in the factory and escorted them to the inquest. They left the police station immediately after being examined.

A mystifying phase was added to the progress of the inquest when Edgar L. Sentell, a clerk in Kamper’s grocery, declared positively that he had seen Mary Phagan with Arthur Mullinax at midnight Saturday as they crossed the corner of Hunter and Forsyth streets a few yards distant from the pencil factory.

Sentell had known the dead girl since early childhood. They were intimate friends, he said. Asserting that he had spoken to her, he stoutly maintained that she had answered his greeting.

J. L. Watkins, a neighbor to the home to which Mary lived, also testified that he had seen her Saturday afternoon when she crossed Ashby street at Bellwood. She presumably was on her way home, he stated.

George Epps is a bright, quick-witted chap and proved an eager witness. He was brought before the inquest following the examination of Pearl Robinson, the sweetheart of Arthur Mullinax, who testified in that youth’s behalf.

“How old are you son?” was the first question asked him.

“Fifteen—going on sixteen,” he answered with alacrity.

“Do you work or go to school?”

“I work at a furniture store. In the afternoon I sell papers.”

His answers were clear and brief. He made a pleasing impression.

Lives Near Phagan Girl.

“How far do you live from 136 Lindsay street—the home of Mary Phagan?”

“Just around the block.”

“Did you know Mary?”

“Yes, sir, I certainly did. We were good friends.”

“When did you last see her alive?”

“Saturday morning, just before dinner when we came to town together on a street car.

“Did you arrange to meet her that afternoon?”

“Yes, sir. We were to have met at 2 o’clock in Elkin & Watson’s drug store at Five Points. We were going to see the parade and go to the moving picture shows.”

“How long did you wait for her when she failed to show up?”

“Until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. I stuck around two hours waiting for her. Then I had to go and sell my papers.”

“Did you inquire for her?”

“Yes. I went to her house when I got through with my papers. She hadn’t got back. The folks were looking for her.”

“When you and Mary were riding to town, did you talk any?”

She Wanted Money Mighty Bad.

“We talked a whole lot. She said she was going to the pencil factory to draw the wages due her. She said she didn’t have but $1.60 coming to her, but wanted that mighty bad.”

“How was she dressed?”

“She had on a blue dress and a dark blue hat. I remember that hat mighty well because I asked her why didn’t she buy a stylish lid? ‘Umph,’ she said, ‘I’m no stylish girl. I don’t need one.’”

“Did you both get on the car at the same time?”

“No. She was on first. When I got on she motioned for me to come and sit beside her. While we were coming to town she began talking about Mr. Frank. When she would leave the factory on some afternoons she said Frank would rush out in front of her and try to flirt with her as she passed.

She told me that he had often winked at her and tried to pay her attention. He would look hard and straight at her she said and then would smile. She called him Mr. Frank. It happened often she said.”

“How was the subject of Mr. Frank brought up?”

“She told me she wanted me to come down to the factory when she got off as often as I could to escort her home and kinder protect her.”

“When did you hear she was killed?”

“Sunday.”

Positive that he had seen Mary Phagan at midnight Saturday, Edgar L. Sentell offered to swear that it was the pretty victim whom he encountered with the suspected Mullinax at Forsyth and Hunter streets. He was the first witness during the afternoon session.

“I met Mary Phagan and Mullinax at Hunter and South Forsyth streets either between 11:30 and 12, or a little later. I am not positive which,” he stated.

“Were they standing together?” he was questioned.

“No. They were walking along.”

“Are you confident you knew both Mullinax and Mary?”

“I knew Mullinax at the car barns. I had known Mary all my life. I was born and raised with her.”

“When was the last time you saw her?”

“One week previous to Saturday night.”

“Did you speak to her?”

“I did. I said, ‘Hello, Mary.’”

“Did she reply?”

“She did. She said, ‘Hello, Edgar.’”

“Were her parents accustomed to letting her go with boys?”

Amazed to See Her Uptown.

“No. They were not. It amazed me when I saw her uptown at such an hour with a man. She looked like she was tired and fagged out.”

“What did she wear?”

“A light purple dress, black shoes and a light blue ribbon tied in her hair. She didn’t have a hat. An umbrella was in her hand.”

“Can you swear that it was Mary Phagan you saw?”

“I can and I will. I am swearing now that it was Mary Phagan I saw.”

“Can you swear it was Mullinax?”

“I am not so positive about him. If it wasn’t, it was his spit-and-image.”

“Did you know Mullinax’s name?”

“No. Not at that time. I had seen him so much around the car barns, though. I learned his name later.”

“When did you first hear of Mary’s murder?”

“Sunday morning on an English avenue trolley car.”

“Who did you first tell?”

“Mrs. Coleman, her mother.”

“Did the paper tell who was killed?”

Went to Mother Of Girl.

“No. I heard men at the car barn say the girl’s name was Phagan. I immediately remembered seeing Mary at midnight. I went straight to Mrs. Coleman and learned that it was her daughter.”

“Where did you work before becoming connected with your present employers?”

“I was in the navy.”

“When did you leave?”

“April 18, 1913.”

“How long had you been there?”

“Three months.”

“Why did you leave?”

“Because of eye affliction. I couldn’t read the targets on the rifle range.”

“Is your eye sight ordinarily affected?”

“Not particularly so.”

“Are you sure your eyes didn’t fail you when you saw this girl Saturday at midnight?”

“I am positive they did not.”

“Do you drink?”

“Occasionally. But I never get drunk.”

“Were you drinking Saturday night?”

“Not a drop.”

At this juncture the clothing worn by the murdered girl was held to the questioned man’s gaze.

“Is this the dress she wore when you saw her Saturday night?”

“It is.”

Bloody Hairs Are Found.

The discovery of a dozen strands of bloody hair identified by her sister workers as that of the murdered girls was related by R. P. Barrett, a mechanic in the pencil plant who made the find.

He was placed upon the stand directly after it had been vacated by Policeman Lasseter.

“What is your employment?”

“I am a machinist with the National Pencil company.”

“How long have you been with them?”

“Seven weeks.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”

“Yes. She ran a nulling machine at the factory.

“When did you see her last?”

“Tuesday, one week ago. She didn’t work after that because of shortage of metal.”

“How far is her machine from the dressing room she used?”

“About six feet.”

“Was anything unusual found around the machine at which she worked?”

Splotches Of Blood.

“The girls at the factory told me Monday that Mary had been murdered. They were dim, and looked as the floor at the base of her machine. I found several dim, and looked as though whitewash had been spread over them. It looked as though the floor had been swept carefully.”

“Was anything else found on the floor?”

“Yes. Monday morning, I started to work upon a lathing machine nearby the nulling machine of Mary’s. My hands became tangled with long hair. I picked out a dozen strands or more. They were bloody. A number of the girls came and identified them as having come from Mary’s head.”

“Was Mary a quiet girl?”

“Exceptionally quiet, and a very well behaved one.”

“Did anyone pay, or attempt to pay, attention to her?”

“Not of my knowledge. No one did around the factory.”

“How large was the spot of blood you found near the machine at which she worked?”

“About six inches in diameter. There several smaller spots.”

“What floor?”

“Second.”

“How near the elevator?”

“At the extreme end—200 or more feet, I would judge, from the lift.”

Girls Afraid Of Frank.

“Did you ever know of familiarity which Frank tried with Mary?”

“No.”

Declaring that, in his opinion, both of the notes found beside the dead girl’s body were written by the same person, F. M. Berry, assistant cashier of the Fourth National bank, and a handwriting expert, said that the script in the mysterious missives resembled only slightly that of the writing of the suspected watchman.

He took the stand at 3:30 p. m.

“What experience have you in distinguishing handwriting?”

“Only the experience that could be gained by my twenty-three years of service with the bank.”

The notes were shown him. He inspected them closely in the light of a window fronting Decatur street.

“Were they written by the same person?” he was asked.

“In my opinion, they were.”

Was Factory Used For Assignation?

Berry, the factory mechanic, was recalled to the stand at 4:10 o’clock. Sensational evidence was gained from him relative to the usage of the factory building as an alleged place of assignation for men and women.

“Did anybody work in the plant during a Saturday?” was the first question.

“No one of my direct knowledge. I heard, however, of two young employees who were at work on the top floor.”

“Do you know them?”

“Not their names.”

“Could you point them out to the detectives?”

“I could.”

“Then,” from Coroner Donehoo, “I will send a man after them. You go with him.”

“What is the usual pay hour of the factory?”

“At 12 noon on Saturdays.”

“Have you ever heard of the building used for immoral purposes?”

“Yes. Frequently. A Mr. Asbury Calloway, connected with the Scaboard offices near the factory building, has told me that he has often seen men and women and girls going in and out of the building at night.”

“Had you heard such rumors from the inside of the concern—by that is meant from attaches to the plant?”

“No.”

“Don’t you suspect that some of the girls of the factory have filled clandestine appointments in the building?”

“I don’t think so. I believe every girl in the place is straight—absolutely.”

Gantt Smiles During Quiz.

J. M. Gantt, the Marietta youth who is held as a suspect in the Phagan case, was put through a grueling examination. He never flinched through the ordeal, answered the questions promptly and concisely and smiled during the entire procedure.

He was put on the rack the moment his sweetheart, Pearl Robinson [Pearl Robinson was actually the sweetheart of Arthur Mullinax, not Gantt — Ed.], had been excused. He remained under examination probably longer than any other witness except the negro, Newt Lee. The time was an hour.

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”

“I did. I had known her since she was a little tot.”

“Were you ever employed with the pencil factory?”

“I was—up until three weeks ago.”

“Why did you leave them?”

“I was discharged.”

“Why were you discharged?”

Alleged Shortage the Trouble.

“Because of personal differences with Mr. Frank, the superintendent.

“What were the differences?”

“Two dollars short in the pay roll.”

“Were you in charge of the pay roll?”

“I was paymaster.”

“Did you ever see Frank with Mary Phagan?”

“No.”

“You always paid off the employees, did you not?”

“I did.”

“How were they paid?”

“With the envelope method.”

“Did you ever pay Mary Phagan?”

“Yes.”

“What did she make?”

“Presumably $4.05 a week, judging by the wage scale of the plant.”

“When did you see her last?”

“The day I quit the pencil company.”

“Had you seen her since?”

“No.”

“Where did you go on Saturday?”

Went to the Factory.

“I went to the pencil factory about 6:30 o’clock that afternoon.”

“Did you see Mr. Frank there?”

“Yes.”

“Did he appear excited, agitated?”

“Yes. He seemed nervous.”

“Did you ever hear Mary Phagan say she couldn’t trust Frank—that she feared him in any manner?”

“No.”

“How long were you in the building Saturday afternoon?”

“No longer than ten minutes.”

“What did you do?”

“I got a pair of shoes I had left in the place when I quit. Also, I telephoned my sister, Mrs. F. C. Terrell what time I intended coming home that night. I used the phone in Mr. Frank’s office.”

“Then what did you do?”

“Went to the poolroom, watched several games of pool and went home.”

“What time did you arrive home?”

“10:30 p. m.”

“Were you there when the police came?”

“No.”

“Did your sister tell of their visit?”

“No.”

Shank Takes Stand.

Other testimony relative to the rumored immoral reputation of the factory building was gained from V. F. Shank, of Shank Bros., whose establishment is on Forsyth street, near the pencil plant.

Shank was called immediately after Barrett had left the stand.

“Do you work at night?”

“I do.”

“Have you ever seen couples going into the pencil factory?”

“I have seen no couples. I have witnessed girls and men going singly into the place after dark.”

“How long has it been since you’ve seen this?”

“Last summer some time.”

“Did you make a statement recently of having seen girls enter the building?”

“I said a crowd of such sights I had seen. We were discussing the question of whether or not frolics were secretly held in the place.”

Thought Girl Was Mary.

E. S. Skipper, of 224 1-2 Peters street, testified that he saw a sextet of men and women reeling drunkenly up Trinity avenue from Whitehall street Saturday night shortly before 11 o’clock. One of the girls, he said, answered the description of Mary Phagan.

“What did you see at Trinity and Whitehall?”

“Three men, two women and a girl dressed like and resembling the dead girl whom I saw at Bloomfield’s. The girl was weeping and trying to break away from the party. She was being led up the street.”

“Did either man answer the description of Frank?”

“I haven’t seen Frank.”

At this juncture the examination was stopped. Frank was brought down from the detectives quarters and put face to face with the witness.

“That’s not the man,” Skipper said.

“When you saw these drunken men and women leading a reluctant girl, didn’t you think it your duty to call the police?”

“I see scenes like that on the streets every Saturday night.”

Step-Father Tells of Grief.

J. W. Coleman, step-father of the murdered girl, told graphically of the grief in the little home on Lindsay street over the death when he took the stand at dusk.

“How old was Mary Phagan?”

“She would have been 14 next June.”

“When did you last see her alive?”

“Friday night. She was at home early and was helping her mother with the housework. I left for work too early to see her Saturday morning.”

“When you got home Saturday afternoon, was Mary there?”

“No. My wife came and said ‘Mary has not come home. What do you suppose is the trouble? I am scared to death.’ I couldn’t eat supper. Her absence affected me. Mary was never known to be away from home at night.

I came to town and visited all the picture shows staying until they all had closed. When I returned, my wife and I speculated on what could have become of the child. We never slept any that night. At daybreak Helen Ferguson, a girl chum of Mary’s came over.

The moment she rang the door bell my wife jumped from her seat. ‘Oh Lord, that’s bad news from Mary,’ she said. The Ferguson girl came in. ‘Mary has been murdered,’ she told us. My wife fainted and she has been almost unable to walk since.”

The coroner then adjourned the inquest until 4:30 o’ clock today.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 1st 1913, “Frank Tried to Flirt With the Murdered Girl Says Her Boy Chum,” 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 April 30^th, 1913

R. P. Barrett, 180 Griffin Street, a machinist at the National Pencil Company, was one of the witnesses of the late afternoon.

He was asked:

Q. How long have you worked at the National Pencil Company?—A. Seven weeks the last time. I worked there about two years ago.

Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?—A. Yes.

Q. What did she do?—A. She ran a “tipping” machine.

Q. When did you last see her?—A. A week ago Tuesday.

Q. Did she work last week?—A. No.

Q. You say you worked in the same department with Mary Phagan? Were your machines close together?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you go to work?—A. Monday morning.

Found Spots on Floor.

Q. Did you find anything unusual?—A. When I went in I was told that Mary had been murdered in the plant and I saw spots on the floor that I thought were (?) used by blood. It looked as though someone had tried to sweep them away, and as though whitewash had been poured over them. I called Mr. Quinn, the foreman, and he notified the detectives. The blood spots were chipped up off the floor and taken to the police station.

Q. Did you find anything on any of the machines?—A. Mr. Quinn gave me some work to do and I started to work on one of the hand lathes. I started to lathe and some hair tangled in the machine, got twisted in my fingers. I called Mr. Quinn and all the girls came up and identified the hair as that of Mary Phagan.

Q. Whose hair do you think it was?—A. It looked to me like Mary’s.

Q. How long have you known Mary?—A. Six weeks.

Q. Was she quiet?—A. Mary was a very nice, quiet girl, and I never had seen her in any misconduct.

Q. Have you ever seen any men with Mary?—A. No. I have seen Mr. Gantt come through and speak to all the girls, but I never saw him speak to Mary in particular.

Q. How large was the place that seemed marked over with whitewash?—A. It was a spot four or five inches in diameter.

Girls Feared Frank.

Q. Did you see traces of blood around the elevator?—A. No, sir.

Q. How far was it from the elevator?—A. Fully two hundred feet.

Q. Was Mr. Frank familiar with the girl?—A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you ever see them together?—A. I never have. I have heard the girls singing at their work, and when Mr. Frank would come they would stop. They were afraid of displeasing him.

Q. In what condition was the hair that you found?—A. Tangled and torn.

Q. How many hairs were there altogether?—A. About a dozen.

At this point Mr. Barrett was dismissed, and F. M. Berry, assistant cashier of the Fourth National Bank was called to the stand.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, April 30th 1913, “Machinist Tells of Hair Found in Factory Lathe,” 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

Monday, April 28^th, 1913

Pieces of wood, the stains on which are believed to be those of the blood of murdered Mary Phagan, are undergoing a chemical examination this afternoon by the city chemist.

The discovery of white powder on the factory floor strengthened the belief that a frantic effort had been made to erase the evidences of the crime. The powder resembled very much cleaning preparations that are used.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, April 28th 1913, “City Chemist Test Stains for Blood,” 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

Monday, April 28^th, 1913

In the room where Mary Phagan was attacked and paid out her young life to the brutality of her assailant, across the floor where her limp form was dragged, down the stairs and down through the square trap-door into the dirty basement where her body was found, Chief of Police Beavers and two detectives trailed, step by step, every move of the girl’s murderer to-day.

Determined that not a clew should be overlooked in the efforts to fix guilt upon the man or men that took the young girl’s life, the Chief and his aides began at the very spot in the tip plant in the rear of the second floor where the bloodstains and the strands of matted hair indicated that the girl had put up such a desperate fight for her life and honor.

Curious Crowd About Factory.

Meanwhile the surging crowd of curiosity seekers on the outside of the building would be restrained, and that with the excitement of the employees made it necessary to close down the factory for the day.

Excited men in the throng, morbidly curious or filled with wrath at the inhuman deed, forced their way into the building and refused to turn back. A detective had an encounter with one insistent man who would not leave the building.

Inside the building the nervous tension of the employees was apparent in every department. With the ghost of the terrible crime stalking about, they could not work. After several hours of ineffectual work, the foreman saw that the girls and other employees were so wrought up over the tragedy that it was useless to keep them in the building longer. They were told to go.

Chief Beavers and the detectives, confident that they had established beyond doubt that the crime was committed inside the building by some one who had access, continued their painstaking and minute inspection.

Bloodstains on Floor.

They demonstrated that the stains on the floor were not of red paint, but were of blood. Had the stains been paint, they would have been soluble in alcohol. But when the alcohol was applied the tell-tale splotches only grew the brighter.

Added to this convincing evidence, the Chief had the testimony of employees in the building that these stains were not there Saturday when the building was cleaned up for the week. They must have come some time between Saturday and the time that they were discovered this morning. For the purpose of conclusive analysis, the Chief had pieces of the floor chiseled up and taken to headquarters.

The detectives believe they have solved the manner in which the assailant made his escape from the building. A staple in the rear door of the basement was found drawn entirely from the wood. The door is a sliding affair and the way in which the staple was pulled out leads to the belief that it was accomplished from the inside.

The theory is still held that the murderer gained entrance through a regular doorway and that the night-watchman, Newt Lee, could tell something of the circumstances if he wished.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, April 28th 1913, “Chief and Sleuths Trace Steps in Slaying of Girl,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)