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

Atlanta Georgian
August 12^th, 1913

Defense Forces Dalton to Admit Jail Record

GIRL DENIES STATE’S VERSION OF FRANK’S WORK ON FATAL DAY

Here are the important developments Tuesday in the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan:

State announces its theory that Frank planned a criminal attack upon Mary Phagan the day before she came to the factory for her money.

The court and chaingang record of C. B. Dalton, the State’s witness who testified that he had seen women in Frank’s office, was shown up by the defense and admitted by Dalton.

Four acquaintances of Dalton testify that they would not believe him under oath and that his reputation for truth and veracity is bad.

C. E. Pollard, expert accountant, testifies that it required him three hours and eleven minutes to compile the financial sheet that the defense claims Frank prepared the afternoon of the murder.

Miss Hattie Hall, stenographer, says that Frank did not work on the financial sheet Saturday morning, the day of the crime.

Jim Conley’s declaration that Lemmie Quinn came into the factory and left before the arrival of Monteen Stover, who came at 12:05 o’clock, is challenged by the testimony of Miss Hall, who swears Quinn did not enter the factory before she left at 12:02 o’clock.

State Announces Theory.

The State definitely announced Tuesday its theory that Frank deliberately premeditated and planned a criminal attack upon Mary Phagan Friday, April 25, the day before she came to the factory and was slain.

Frank A. Hooper, associated with Solicitor Dorsey in the prosecution, made the surprising announcement of the State’s attitude during a heated argument over the admissibility of a portion of the testimony of one of the defense’s witnesses, Miss Hattie Hall, stenographer at Montag Bros. and occasionally employed at the National Pencil Factory.

Dorsey and Hooper were objecting strenuously to the admission of a phone conversation between Frank and Miss Hall in which Frank was reported to have asked Miss Hall to come over to the pencil factory to assist in the clerical work, saying: “I’ve got so much work to do that it will take me until 6 o’clock to get it done.”

Hooper, after the Solicitor had objected to the question on the ground that it was self-serving and proved nothing, declared that the conservation not only was self-serving, but was made in deliberate anticipation of Mary Phagan’s visit to the factory in the afternoon.

“This remark was made on Saturday morning, the day after Mary Phagan’s pay envelope was refused Helen Ferguson,” said Mr. Hooper. “It was made in anticipation of her visit in the afternoon. It is the State’s contention that Frank deliberately pre-arranged circumstances favorable to an attack upon the girl and incidents serving to divert any suspicion from himself.”

That the State was working upon the theory of premeditation was hinted by the questioning of Helen Ferguson several days ago, but Attorney Hooper’s address to the court was the first open declaration.

The court and chaingang record of C. B. Dalton, a State’s witness against Frank, was given an airing by Attorney Arnold. Dalton was recalled to the stand and made to admit that he had been sent to the chaingang in 1894 on three separate counts for stealing in Walton County.

Dalton also admitted that he had been indicted in 1899 in Walton County for theft and had paid a fine of $141.46.

Attorney Arnold showed the witness copies of four indictments and asked if he knew these had been issued against him in Walton County for selling liquor to Don Tillman and Bob Harris. Dalton denied all knowledge of the indictments.

Witnesses Assail Dalton’s Character.

As soon as Dalton left the stand V. S. Cooper, J. H. Patrick, W. T. Mitchell and L. M. Patrick, all residents of Walton County, were called to the stand and testified that they knew Dalton and that they wouldn’t believe him on oath in a court of justice.

Misses Laura Atkinson and Minnie Smith were called and denied Walton’s [sic] testimony in regard to being in their company.

Dalton testified, when he was called by the State last week, that he had visited the factory basement with Miss Daisy Hopkins and that he frequently had seen Frank in his office with women.

An unassailable alibi was the object in view when the attorneys for Frank began the questioning of a long line of witnesses who were called to testify in regard to every known movement of Frank Saturday, April 26, the day that Mary Phagan was slain.

The testimony of Miss Hattie Hall was the first along this line. That of Alonzo Mann, office boy, was next.

That Frank did not do any work on the financial sheet Saturday forenoon was one of the most important declarations made by Miss Hall. She had testified at the Coroner’s inquest that she assisted Frank in compiling this sheet, but she explained to Solicitor Dorsey that she was mistaken, and it was only one of the tabulations from which the financial sheet was being made that she had worked on.

Her testimony on this point strikes at the State’s theory that Frank did the work in the forenoon.

Miss Hall also testified that Frank signified his desire to have her work […]

Frank Planned Attack, State Alleges

[…] for him at the factory in the afternoon and had asked Harry Gothelmer to come back to the factory in the afternoon, requests which the defense will claim establish conclusively that Frank was not arranging for the commission of any crime or wrongdoing Saturday afternoon.

The witness said that she left the factory first at 12 o’clock as the whistles were blowing, but that she forgot her umbrella and returned to Frank’s office for it, noting that it was 12:02 as she left finally. She declared that she did not see Lemmie Quinn enter Frank’s office. Conley testified that he saw Quinn enter the factory before the arrival of Monteen Stover or Mary Phagan. The Stover girl said she reached the office floor at 12:05 o’clock.

Miss Hall indignantly denied the imputation of Solicitor Dorsey that her salary had been raised as the result of the testimony she was giving. She said that it had been agreed when she entered the employ of Montag Bros. that she was to get an increase of salary August 1, and that she had been unable to get it before this time.

Wade Campbell, an inspector at the factory, came in for a rigorous grilling at the hands of Solicitor Dorsey. Campbell testified that his sister, Mrs. Arthur White, had told him she had seen a negro at the foot of the stairs on the first floor when she went into the factory at 12:30 o’clock.

Campbell Grilled On Affidavit.

“Don’t you know that what she actually said was that she saw the negro at 12:50 when she left?” inquired the Solicitor.

Campbell denied that this was so. The Solicitor then showed Campbell an affidavit and asked if it was not his signature at the bottom. Campbell said that it looked like his writing, but that he would not say positively. He denied that he had made the statement in the affidavit in which he was quoted as saying his sister had told of seeing the negro as she left the factory.

The witness on his redirect examination testified that he had seen Conley reading in the factory several times after the crime. Conley said on the stand that he was unable to read, except for a few simple words.

C. E. Pollard, an expert accountant, was the first witness called. He began to testify as to the time required to make out the finance sheet. Attorney Rosser said that the defense probably would conclude its expert testimony with Mr. Pollard, and that Miss Hattie Hall, stenographer for Montag Brothers, would be the next witness.

Pollard testified that the minimum time in which Frank could have completed the finance sheet was three hours and eleven minutes. This bore out the testimony of Herbert Schiff, Frank’s co-worker, and Joel Hunter, expert accountant.

Over Three Hours To Compile Report.

Q. What is your business?—A. Certified public accountant.

Q. Have you had occasion to go over the financial sheet of the National Pencil Company of the week of April 21 prepared by Leo M. Frank?—A. I went over a copy of it.

Q. Have you also seen the factory record called the pencil sheet?—A. Yes.

Q. Were you also furnished data necessary to make that sheet?—A. Yes.

Q. I will get you to state as an expert how long it would take to complete it?—A. I took each sheet, compiled it, and timed myself as to the length of time necessary. I prepared the sheet of the 24^th day. It took me ten minutes.

Q. Were there any mistakes?—A. Yes, a little one—of one and one-half gross. It was hard to say whether it was my mistake or his.

Q. Now state the total time it took you?—A. A total of 191 minutes, or 3 hours and 11 minutes.

Q. Was that the quickest?—A. Yes.

Q. In other words, you took exactly the work that he did?—A. Yes; what I was told he did.

Q. That was steady work without interruption, wasn’t it?—A. Yes.

Q. How long have you been an auditor?—A. Sixteen years.

Q. Have you an office here?—A. I am with the American Audit Company.

Q. That mistake occurred before you took up the sheet, did it not?—A. One mistake was made the Saturday before and one on Friday.

Q. Are those two trifling mistakes—a mistake of 50 cents and a gross and a half of pencils — the only mistakes you found?—A. Yes.

Attorney Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Mr. Pollard, this is rather an unusual assignment for you, is it not, to go over a man’s business and undertake to state how long it takes him to do it?—A. No, I think not. Frequently we are called on to estimate the time it takes to do work in changing systems.

Q. Is it not true that a man can work his own books better than anyone else’s books?—A. Yes.

Mr. Arnold took the witness.

Q. How many times would a man have to multiply, divide and subtract in making up that sheet?—A. Well, 40 multiplications and 160 additions, and I can’t guess on the rest.

The witness was excused and Miss Hattie Hall was called. She was questioned by Attorney Arnold.

Q. What is your business?—A. Stenographer-bookkeeper at Montag Brothers.

Q. Do you ever go to the National Pencil Company?—A. When necessary.

Q. On Saturday, April 26, did you see Leo M. Frank?—A. About 10 o’clock at Montag Brothers.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. Yes, he asked me if I could come over and do some work. I told him I didn’t know, but thought I could.

Dorsey interrupted:

“I object to anything he said to her.”

Arnold: “Your honor, it is part of res gestis in this case.”

Dorsey: “Here is this dead girl. They would not let her show what she said at 12 o’clock and I can conceive of no principle of law that would let them show what this man said and not let her show what the deceased said.”

Aimed to Show Conduct.

Arnold: “This is merely to show a course of conduct.”

Judge Roan: “I can see no analogy between the two cases. I rather think you can ask the question.”
Dorsey: “Well, this is a very important point, your honor, and we would like to give you some authorities.”

Judge Roan: “All right.”

Dorsey then read at length from the Eighty-fourth Georgia Report.

Judge Roan: “Do you expect to follow that question by showing that he had certain work to do and engaged her to do it?”
Arnold: “Yes.”

Judge Roan: “Then I will let you ask it.”
Dorsey threw his book on the table and sat down, laughing. Arnold continued the questioning.

Q. When did you call him first?—A. He called me up before 10 o’clock and said he had work enough to do to keep him busy until 6 o’clock.

Dorsey: “Is your honor going to let that telephone conversation in?”

The Solicitor’s objection was overruled.

Q. Miss Hall, did you recognize his voice?—A. I certainly did.

Q. What time did you see him that Saturday morning?—A. About 10 o’clock.

Q. Had you worked for him before?—A. I had been accustomed to going over and helping him on Saturdays. I asked him if he was going to need me. He said, “Yes,” that he had so much work to do that he would be busy until 6 o’clock.

Dorsey Calls Halt; Roan Sustains Him.

Dorsey interrupted, “Your honor, are you going to let that in?”

Judge Roan: “I don’t think I will.”

Arnold: “Your honor, I wish you would let me argue for a moment. Even the State does not claim any crime was committed at that time. There is no reason in the world to suppose that the accused would not have told the truth at that time. I believe that if a part of the conversation is admissible, all of it is admissible. You must admit it all to explain part. You would do this young man an injustice to shut out this evidence of this day’s program, when there was not the slightest motive to be otherwise truthful.”

“Mr. Dorsey has sought to show,” continued Mr. Arnold, “that his financial sheet could have been made up in the morning. We are just trying to show that it was impossible. Now I will read you a decision in which I participated with the father of my good friend, the late Judge Dorsey. It was 24 years ago.”

Rosser: “Are you that old, Mr. Arnold?”

Arnold: “Yes, I am 24.”

Dorsey: “That case has nothing to do with this one. That was a case where a man on trial for murder swore to a lie.”

Arnold: “It was charged that it was a lie. We never did believe it.”

Dorsey: “He was convicted.”

Arnold: “Yes, he was convicted.”

Judge Roan ruled: “Mr. Arnold, this young woman can show that she was called, what she was requested to do and what was shown her to be done. She can state how long she thinks it would take to finish that work. She can not state, however, what he told her over the telephone about what he expected to do.”

Frank Leaves Court With Sheriff.

Arnold: “We want to note an exception to that.”
Q. Miss Hall, what time did you go to Mr. Frank’s office?—A. Between 10:30 and 11 o’clock.

Q. Did you take dictation in his inner office, or in his outer office?—A. In the inner office.

Q. Where did you write it?—A. In the outer office.

At this point Leo Frank went out of the courtroom with Sheriff Mangum. Mr. Hooper jumped up and whispered to Mr. Arnold.

Arnold—Yes, I waived his presence.

Judge Roan—I excused the prisoner properly.

Hooper—I just wanted to know if the defense had waived his presence.

Q. Now, we only have ten orders here. See if they are the ones Frank handed you?—A. Yes. My initials are on them. They are the ones.

Q. Now, the orders are sometimes acknowledged as the first step?—A. Yes; in that case they were.

Q. Do you recall to whom Frank was talking that morning?—A. Yes, but I don’t recall the names. A man and his son came in. Then there was Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. White.

Q. Do you recall what any of them said?—Yes; Mrs. White said she wanted to see her husband.

Q. During this time was Mr. Frank working on this financial sheet or any other similar document?—A. He was not.

Q. Are you familiar with his handwriting?—A. Not very.

Q. I will get you to look on this order book and see if those orders are entered.

The wintess [sic] read the eleven orders from the order book.

Q. Now, is that your handwriting?—A. No; I think it is Mr. Frank’s.

Q. Did you write any of these requisitions?—A. No.

Q. Do you know who did?—A. I understood Mr. Frank did.

Q. Were the requisitions made before or after the orders were put on the book?—A. After.

Left Factory At 12:02 P. M.

Q. Now look at these letters and see whether Frank dictated them?—A. Yes.

Q. How many?—A. Eight, and one he did not dictate.

Q. Did he sign them?—A. Yes, I took them to him after I had typed them.

Q. Did he do any work on that financial sheet while you were there?—A. No.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. Just as I got on my hat and started for the door I heard the whistle blow for noon.

Q. Is there a regular whistle that blows for 12 o’clock?—A. Yes, there are several whistles.

Q. What did you do then?—A. I got to the bottom of the steps and remembered that I had forgotten my umbrella. I went back and got it. It was two minutes past 12 o’clock as I passed the time clock.

Q. Did you see any little girl in the building?—A. I did not.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Did you call Frank or Frank call you that Saturday morning?—A. I called him.

Q. He had a regular stenographer, didn’t he?—A. They had a stenographer, but she didn’t do but about one-third enough work, so I had to go.

Q. Miss Hall, what were you receiving at that time?—A. Ten dollars and fifty cents a week.

Q. What are you getting now?—A. Fifteen dollars a week, and I want to explain——

Q. Never mind, just answer my questions. Didn’t you state in a soda fountain last night that the raise came to you without asking for it after it was known that you were to be a witness?—A. Indeed, I did not. I don’t go to soda fountains. I want to explain?

Attorney Arnold—Let her explain.

A. I insisted that they give me this raise on July 1, but they couldn’t give it to me until August 1.

Q. Did Frank come to Montag’s before or after he called you up?—A. After.

Q. You are the one who called him up?—A. Yes.

Q. You did the insisting about going to his office?—A. I certainly did not.

Q. Did you not swear at the Coroner’s Inquest that Frank left Montag’s before you did?—A. I said I did not recall.

Q. You acknowledged these orders with a postcard and letter?—A. Yes.

Q. You wrote those between 10:30 and 12?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you state to the jury Frank left before you did?—A. I don’t recall.

Q. How long would it take you to fill out the blank?—A. I never timed myself.

Talked Over Time With Office Boy

Q. Didn’t you swear before the Coroner that it would not take more than one minute?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Did you say Frank was at the office when you got there?—A. I said I did not recall.

Q. Who came in while you were there?—A. Two men and three women.

Q. What time was it the office boy left?—A. 11:30.

Q. Didn’t you tell the Coroner you could not tell the time?—A. Yes.

Q. How do you know now?—A. The boy told me.

Q. You talked it over with him?—A. Yes.

Q. Where were you when those people came in?—A. In the outer office.

Q. How long were you there when these came in?—A. I do not recall.

Q. Didn’t you tell the Coroner it […]

RESIDENTS OF DALTON’S HOME COUNTY RIDDLE HIS CHARACTER ON STAND

[…] was fifteen minutes?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. How long was it after those letters were dictated that you commenced writing?—A. Two minutes.

Q. Can you tell how long you were writing those letters?—A. No.

Q. When you were writing those letters, where was Frank?—A. In his office.

Q. After you finished, what did he do?—A. I took them in to him.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. He said he would put them in the envelopes and mail them.

Q. He said you need not wait?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you get anything there Monday?—A. I got the timebook and some papers.

Q. The previous Saturdays when you were over there, do you remember Frank working on the financial sheet that morning?—A. No; I helped him get up something about gross—I found afterward it was the average sheet.

made it up. I helped him by transferring some of the things to the sheet?—A. Yes, but I thought it was the financial sheet.

Q. Didn’t you state at the coroner’s inquest that you helped him the Saturday before?—A. Yes.

Found Her Error Herself, She Says.

Q. When was it you discovered it was not the financial sheet?—A. I don’t know, but I want you to know I discovered the mistake myself.

Q. Now, were you not at the factory the previous Saturday and helped him?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you not have that financial sheet before you at the Coroner’s inquest, and did you not identify it?—A. I don’t think so.

Q. Well, you said he was working on the financial sheet that previous morning?—A. He was not.

Q. Did you not tell the Coroner’s jury that you were in the outer office the entire time?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Now explain how your mind underwent this change. You said then you were not in his office and now you say you were.—A. I was rattled before the Coroner, because I had never been in a courtroom before.

Q. Now, didn’t you say in response to the question, “Do you know what a financial sheet is?” that you did?—A. But I was thinking of the average sheet.

Q. Now, what did you mean by telling the Coroner some of those girls came in for their pay and now saying the only one you know anything about came in for her coat?—A. I just forgot.

Q. Now, didn’t Frank say that morning that he would not get up that sheet until Herbert Schiff came down and got up the necessary data?—A. Yes, he said he could not go on with his work until Schiff came down.

Q. You do know that Frank said positively he could not make up that sheet until Schiff had gotten up certain data?—A. He did not positively say so. He said he did not mind Mr. Schiff being off if he had done his work, but that he had not done his work.

Q. Miss Hall, didn’t you swear before the Coroner’s jury that you worked on this financial sheet which is written in ink the Saturday previous, and now to-day you swear it was this sheet, which is written in pencil?—A. I did not. I was identifying the handwriting on that sheet.

Q. You said lots of people wrote slanting, and it was hard to identify?—A. Yes.

Q. While you were working in Frank’s outer office, you said he was very quiet and you did not know what he was doing?—A. Yes.

Q. You do not know whether he was working on the financial sheet or not?—A. Yes; I saw the papers on his desk that he was working on, and the financial sheet was not among them.

Attorney Arnold took the witness.

Q. Why did you tell Mr. Frank you had to get away at 12 o’clock?—A. He said something about wanting me to help him in the afternoon. I told him I had to get away at 12 o’clock, and I did get away at 12 o’clock.

Dalton’s Prison Record Exposed.

Dorsey objected to the answer, but was overruled.

Miss Hall was excused and C. B. Dalton was recalled to the stand.

Arnold questioned him.

Q. Who is Andrew Dalton?—A. A brother-in-law.

Q. With the same name?—A. Yes.

Q. Who is John Dalton?—A. He is my brother.

Q. Weren’t you three sent to the chaingang at the special term of the Walton County Superior Court in 1894?—A. No.

Q. You were not?—A. I was, but the others paid out.

Q. What did you steal?—A. A chop hammer.

Q. Didn’t you plead guilty to two more charges?—A. That is the only time I ever went to the chaingang. I don’t know how long I served, but I was pardoned in March.

Attorney Arnold moved that the witness’ reply in reference to being pardoned be struck from the records.

Q. Didn’t you plead guilty to three charges all at the same time? And that the sentence was concurrent on the three charges?—A. All I took was a chop hammer. One of the other boys took a plow stock.

Q. At the February term of 1899, were you not indicted for stealing a bale of cotton?—A. For helping.

Q. Were you found guilty?—A. I was fined $146, which I was paid.

Q. After that, did you not go into Gwinnett County and steal?—A. I was indicted for stealing some corn, but I was found not guilty.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. How long since you were in trouble?—A. Eighteen years.

Dorsey to Recall Daisy Hopkins.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. Is it not a fact that there are now four indictments against you in Walton County for selling liquor?—A. If there are I don’t know it.

Q. Is it not a fact that they let you get out of the county and were glad to get rid of you?—A. I have been back there every year.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. Do you know that Daisy Hopkins knows Leo Frank?—A. I do.

Q. How do you know?—A. She told me she knew him, and then I saw her talking to him.

Arnold interrupted: “I object to what she said?”

“That’s all right; then,” Dorsey replied, “I will recall her.”

Dalton was excused and the defense began an attack on his character with witnesses from Walton County.

B. S. Cooper, the first witness called, was accompanied by a small boy of 6. He held the boy on his lap while he testified on the witness stand. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. A farmer.

Q. How long have you been in Walton County?—A. Fifty years.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. I do.

Q. Do you know his general character?—A. I do.

Q. Is it good or bad?—A. Bad.

Q. Would you believe him under oath?—A. I would not.

Wouldn’t Believe Him Under Oath.

At this point, C. B. Dalton, was called for but could not be found. Dorsey said he would admit that the witness was speaking of the Dalton who had testified against Frank. Hooper was excused and J. H. Patrick was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Where do you live?—A. In Walton County.

Q. What do you do?—A. Carpenter and bailiff.

Q. Have you seen Dalton here this morning?—A. I shook hands with him.

Q. Do you know his general character for truth and veracity and is it good or bad?—A. Bad.

Q. Would you believe him on oath?—A. No.

The witness was excused and W. T. Mitchell was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Where do you live?—A. Walton County.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen him this morning?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you know his general character?—A. Yes.

Q. Would you believe him under oath?—A. No.

The witness was excused and I. M. Hamilton was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Where do you live?—A. Walton County.

Q. What is your business?—A. Farmer.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. Yes.

Q. Would you believe him under oath?—A. No.

The witness was excused and Miss Laura Atkinson, of No. 30 Ella street, Atlanta, a woman apparently 35 years of age, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned her.

Q. Where do you work?—A. At the Empire Printing Company.

Q. Did you ever work for the National Pencil Company?—A. Yes, for two days.

Denies Dalton’s Story of Strolls.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever walk home with him from the Busy Bee Cafe on Forsyth street?—A. I did not.

Q. Were you ever with him around the National Pencil Company?—

Dorsey interrupted: “I object,” he said. “The witness said nothing that reflected on this woman.”

Arnold: “It was a reflection for him to say that he was with her.”

The objection was sustained.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. How long have you known Dalton?—A. About six months.

Q. Were you ever in his company?—A. I have been in his company three times.

The witness was excused, and Mrs. Minnie Smith called. Arnold questioned her.

Q. Where do you work?—A. National Pencil Company.

Q. Are you the Mrs. Smith who lives at No. 148 South Pryor street?—A. Yes.

Q. Are you the only Mrs. Smith at that address?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. No.

Q. Were you ever in his company?—A. No.

The witness was excused. Alonzo Mann, the office boy at the National Pencil Factory was then called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Where do you work?—A. At the National Pencil Company as an office boy.

Q. How long have you been there?—A. Since April 1 of this year.

Q. Where do you stay when you are not at work?—A. Right outside the office.

Left Frank and Miss Hall in Office.

Q. How late do you work on Saturdays?—A. I had only been there two Saturdays before the murder.

Q. You don’t know how late you stayed?—A. No.

Q. What time did you leave the office Memorial Day?—A. At 11:30.

Q. Who did you leave there?—A. Miss Hall and Mr. Frank.

Q. Do you recall what you did that morning?—A. No.

Q. Did you phone Mr. Schiff?—A. Yes. Mr. Frank told me to, but I could not get him.

Q. How late did you stay those other Saturdays?—A. 3:30 to 4 o’clock.

Q. Did you see Mr. Frank bring any women there and buy them drinks?—A. No.

Q. Who do you recall seeing there that day?—A. Mr. Holliday, Mr. Irby, Mr. McCrary and Mr. Darley.

Q. Can you recall anybody else?—A. No.

Q. Did you see Corinthia Hall?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. Did you see a man come in to see about his boy?—A. I don’t know.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. What time did Mr. Frank get there that morning?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. Did he go out?—A. One time, as I recall.

Q. Do you know how long he was gone?—A. No, I can’t remember.

The witness was excused and Wade Campbell was called.

Arnold questioned him.

Q. Where are you employed?—A. I have been at the National Pencil Company for a year and a half.

Q. Do you recall a conversation with Mrs. White the Monday following the murder?—A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what she said?—A. She said that as she went into the factory at 12 o’clock she saw a negro sitting there. She said that when she came down he was not there, and she heard voices, but could not tell where.

Q. Were you at the factory Saturday?—A. Yes.

Q. At what time?—A. About 9:35.

Q. Did you see Frank?—A. Yes; I went right to his office.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. Yes; I was jollying him and he was jollying me.

Q. Were you on the fourth floor Tuesday morning?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Jim Conley up there?—A. No.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Do you board with Mr. Darley?—A. I did.

Q. Where were you Saturday night of the murder?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Didn’t you go to the Bijou that night with Mr. Darley?

“I object,” said Rosser.

Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Q. Darley is a married man with five children, is he not?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Miss Dixon that night?

Rosser—I object.

Judge Roan sustained him.

Q. You reported to Darley on April 28 that your sister had seen a negro in the pencil factory on Saturday, about 10 o’clock?—A. Yes; he sent me to see my sister.

Q. What did she tell you?—A. She said she saw a negro man on the first floor. She said she heard some indistinct voices as she went in.

Q. You saw that blood on the second floor?—A. I saw what they said was blood.

Q. How did it look?—A. I didn’t notice it close enough to tell about it.

Grilled Concerning Statement to Dorsey.

Q. Where do you work?—A. As an inspector at the National Pencil Company.

Q. You made a statement on May 12?—A. I made a statement to you. I don’t remember the date.

Q. Didn’t you state that your sister said she saw the negro as she was coming out?—A. I did not.

Q. You deny it then?—A. I do.

Q. Is this your signature?—A. It looks very much like it.

Q. You can’t swear that this is your signature?—A. I would not swear it.

Q. You say that you don’t know whether that is your signature?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you deny making this statement?—A. I told you I did.

Q. Did you not read over this statement and make certain corrections?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you not say in this statement that your sister went there at 12:30 and could not see her husband and went back?—A. I don’t know.

Arnold the witness.

Q. How did you come to go to Dorsey’s office?—A. I received a subpena.

Q. You thought you had to go?—A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t you know that it was not worth the paper it was written on?—A. No.

Wanted To See Corrections Made.

Q. Did you just point out these corrections or did you wait and see that they were made?—A. I think I waited.

Q. Who was there?—A. Starnes, Campbell and Dorsey.

Q. Did they all ask you questions?—A. Yes.

Q. All of these 21 pages are your statement?—A. Yes.

Q. You were asked all of these questions?—A. Yes.

Q. Were you naked at the time you were in the office if anyone came in and did you answer “No”?—A. Yes.

Q. You answered that someone came in to get their pay?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you know this negro Jim Conley?—A. Yes.

Q. After this murder do you recall seeing him reading newspapers?—A. Yes.

Q. Where?—A. On the fourth floor.

Q. How many times?—A. Twice.

Q. Is it anything unusual to see spots on the metal room floor?—A. No.

Q. Have you seen the place where Conley said he found the body?—A. No.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. Where was Conley sitting when he was reading the paper?—A. By the elevator.

Q. Where was he the second time?—A. In the rear of the building.

Q. What paper was he reading?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Do you know whether he was reading about the crime?—A. No.

Q. Was it an extra?—A. I think so.

Q. You knew Conley could write?—A. Yes.

Q. You did not report it to the officers?—A. No.

Q. Did Frank know he could write?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Where did you see him writing?—A. In the boxroom.

Q. Did you ever see him writing with a pencil?—A. Yes.

Q. Who did you tell what your sister told you?—A. Mr. Darley.

Q. How often did you see those spots in the metal room?—A. Occasionally.

Q. How often have you seen those spots in the hall?—A. Oh, very often.

Q. Did you see the spots where those chips were taken up?—A. Yes.

Q. You saw those spots everywhere, what everybody said was blood, and yet you tell the jury you didn’t pay any attention to it?—A. Yes.

Q. Other people got down and looked at them, didn’t they?—A. Yes.

Rosser interrupted.

“I object to what other people said and saw. It is utterly immaterial and irrelevant,” he said.

“We want to show,” said Mr. Hooper, interrupting, “that this man was interested and that he went out to see his sister about the negro, and yet he came back there and was in no way interested.”

“I think you can ask questions along that line,” said the court.

“Well, we want to record an objection,” said Rosser.

Q. Where and when have you ever seen on that second floor anything that looked like that spot?—A. I did not look close enough at it to know.

Q. When did you see other spots like it on the floor of the metal room?—A. There were other spots, but I don’t know whether they were like that spot or not.

Q. Did you talk to your brother-in-law about what your sister said?—A. He told me about it.

Court adjourned until 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 12th 1913, “State Charges Premeditated Crime,” 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 9^th, 1913

Daisy Hopkins, a resident of Redan, Ga., and the woman who Jim Conley and C. B. Dalton declare frequently went to the National Pencil factory with Dalton while Leo Frank was there and was aware of her presence, was the first witness called by the defense Friday morning.

The woman swore to a full and complete denial of every charge that the white man and the negro had made and declared that she only knew Frank by sight, as she had worked at the factory from October, 1912, until June 1912.

When Solicitor Hugh Dorsey took her on cross-examination, however, he succeeded in trapping her into admitting that she had sworn to a lie on the stand when she declared that she had never been in jail. When confronted with a man who is said to have secured her release she admitted that she had been there on a charge of immorality.

The woman who was seen in the courtroom for the first time proved to be decidedly plain in features and angular in form. She had none of the pale appearance of a factory woman, but showed rather the complexion of a woman who has lived in the country. White shoes and stockings, a white dress topped by a light yellow straw hat of the “picture hat” variety completed her costume.

After the usual questions to establish her identity. Attorney Luther Z. Rosser asked her if she had ever been married. She said that she had.

“Did you ever work at the National Pencil factory, and if so, when?”
“I worked there from October, 1911, until June, 1912,” she replied.

“What floor did you work on?”
“The second floor.”

“How many other women worked there with you?”
“About ten sometimes more and sometimes less.”

Denies Knowing Frank.

“Do you know Leo M. Frank?”
“Only know by sight.”

“Ever talked to him or he to you?”
“No.”

“Ever drink beer with him in his office or anywhere?”
“No, I don’t drink beer.”

“Do you know C. B. Dalton?”
“Yes, I know him when I see him. He was at the house where I stayed once.”

“Did you ever go to the factory with him at any time, during office hours or after?”
“Never in my life.”

“Did you ever introduce him to Frank or Frank to him?”
“No.”

“That’s all,” said Mr. Rosser.

Solicitor Dorsey then began to cross-examine her.

“You say you have been married?”
“Yes.”

“When and where?”

“In Redan about three years ago.”

“Who was your husband?”
“A. N. Sill.”

“Where is he now?”
“He’s dead.”

“Aren’t you under a physician’s treatment?”
“Yes,” replied the witness after a moment’s hesitation.
“For what?”

(Mrs. Sill, or Miss Hopkins, as she calls herself, looked around the courtroom a moment and then replied, “For stomach trouble.”

“Anything else?” urged the questioner.

“No,” she replied.

“How many times have you been in jail, Miss Daisy?” came the next question.

“I’ve never been in jail in my life,” she replied quickly and with a show of anger in her manner.

Trapped in Misstatement.

“You’ve never been in jail, in this county or anywhere else?”
“I said I’ve never been in jail anywhere,” she replied.

“Do you see this man here? Didn’t he get you out of jail recently?” said Mr. Dorsey, indicating one of his deputies, N. A. Garner.

“No, he never got me out of jail; I’ve never been in jail.”

“Do you you mean to say that this man, N. A. Garner, never got you out of jail?” repeated the solicitor, while Garner sat and looked at the woman.

“No, he never got me out of jail?” she answered in a defiant tone.

“Well, who did then?” Mr. Dorsey fired back.

“Mr. Smith,” the woman replied, giving herself completely away.

“Who is Mr. Smith?”
“He’s the lawyer, W. M. Smith,” she replied.

“You mean the one who is representing James Conley, the man sitting right over there?”
“Yes, sir; he’s the man,” the woman replied.

“What were you there for; wasn’t it for immoral actions?”
“No, people told tales on me and that got me in jail.”

“Weren’t you there for reasons of immorality?”

“That’s what they said,” the woman replied.

“What jail were you in?”

“I don’t know,” the woman answered.

“You may come down,” said the solicitor sharply.

“Wait a minute,” interrupted Mr. Arnold.

“Where were you in jail; can’t you tell us; we don’t know?”
“It was in this county.”

“How did you get out?”
“My lawyer got me out.”

“Were you ever tried?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you pay out?”
“I paid my lawyer.”

She was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 9th 1913, “Hopkins Woman Denies Charges Made by Dalton and Jim Conley; Is Forced to Admit Untruths,” 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
August 8^th, 1913

MOTORMAN AND CONDUCTOR SAY NEWSBOY EPPS WAS NOT ON CAR THAT BROUGHT MARY TO CITY

They Swear That She Left Car at Broad and Hunter Streets at 12:10, the Very Hour Monteen Stover Claims to Have Left Factory—Daisy Hopkins Swears She Never Visited Factory With Dalton and That She Did Not Know Frank

NEW THEORY OF HOW CRIME MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED INTIMATED BY ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY

Albert Kauffman Describes Passageway on First Floor Leading to Chute, Through Which He Declares Human Body Could Easily Have Passed—Spots, Said to Be Blood, Found in Passageway

A new theory of the Mary Phagan murder was hinted at by the defense at the trial of Leo M. Frank Friday while Albert Kauffman, a civil engineer, was under examination. From questions asked by Attorney Arnold, Mr. Kauffman testified that there was a chute in the rear of the National Pencil factory building leading from the first floor down into the basement and that the trap door to this chute was large enough to slide a human body through, in fact, he said it was large enough to slide several bodies through at the same moment.

He told of a dark and narrow hallway leading from the front of the building by the stairway back to the rear by the trap door. Many questions were asked concerning this hallway and chute and trial observers believe that the defense is preparing a way for introduction of other testimony possibly bearing out the theory that the child was murdered just as she went to leave the building, was dragged back along this dark hallway and dropped through the chute into the basement. Questions were asked the engineer about a vat in the metal room. He declared that it was plenty large enough to hold the body of a girl who measured five feet and three inches tall.

BLOOD IN DARK PASSAGEWAY?

It is known that the defense had found dark red spots, presumed to be blood, on a door leading to the dark passageway, which goes to the rear of the building and to the chute, to which so much attention was paid by the attorneys. The dark spots on the door have been chipped off and an analysis, the result of which is not known, has been made for the defense.

This circumstance is certain to be used by the defense in its effort to show that the murder could have been committed on the first floor without the knowledge of the defendant. Indications were, after the defense had been introducing testimony several hours, that it will argue to the jury that there are a number of different ways, that the crime could have been committed and a number of ways by which the body could have been carried or hurled to the basement. It is known that a search of the chute did not develop any blood stains.

The testimony given by George Epps, the newsie who said that he rode to town with Mary Phagan on her last trip shortly before she met death at the National Pencil factory, was repudiated by two witnesses, W. M. Matthews, motorman, and W. T. Hollis, conductor, on the English Lindsay street and that she was alone at the time. Both were positive that they knew George Epps and that he was not seen by either of them on that day.

Motorman Matthews testified that Mary Phagan did not leave the car at Marietta street as was sworn by the newsie, but remained on it until the car reached Hunter and Broad and left in company with another girl going toward the pencil factory along Hunter street toward Forsyth. He declared that his car was on schedule time and passed Hunter and Broad at 12:10 o’clock. This testimony repudiates that of Jim Conley that Mary Phagan entered the factory ahead of Monteen Stover if Monteen Stover testified correctly when she said that she left the factory at 12:10. It also strikes at a vital point made by the state that Mary Phagan entered prior to Monteen Stover and immediately after she entered Monteen Stover found Frank’s office unoccupied.

Conductor Hollis corroborated the motorman as to time and Mary Phagan boarding the car alone, but he did not see her in company with another girl. He left the car at Marietta and Forsyth streets, however, and Motorman Matthews rode on over to Mitchell street. The car crew was relieved by another crew at Forsyth and Marietta streets, they both testified.

Daisy Hopkins, the woman mentioned in the testimony of the negro, Jim Conley, which was corroborated by C. B. Dalton, took the stand Friday morning as a witness for the defense and repudiated the testimony given by Conley and Dalton. The Hopkins girl denied any misconduct with Dalton, denied that she had introduced Dalton to Frank, denied that she ever spoke to Frank or that Frank ever spoke to her, and denied that she knew where the basement to the pencil factory was. The witness further declared that Dalton had never visited her at the factory. She admitted having been arrested and lodged in jail.

IMPORTANT WITNESSES FOR DEFENSE.

After proving the correctness of the cardboard model of the Pencil factory made by T. H. Willett, of 100 Highland avenue, who made it from Kauffman’s blue prints, the defense, it is understood, will call Darley or Holloway to the stand, to contradict statements made by the negro Conley. The next witness is expected to be Herbert Schiff, Frank’s young assistant at the factory, and he is one of the most important of the state’s witnesses. He will testify, it is said, that one day subsequent to the murder, when the police were there and there was considerable excitement, he found Conley hiding among a pile of boxes on one of the upper floors and apparently very much frightened.

Schiff will also identify the financial statement made out by Frank on the afternoon of the murder, and will show the tediousness of the work, and will declare that it certainly took the superintendent several hours to complete it.

The Journal has learned that there is little doubt, now, that the defense will put the character of Frank in issue.

This means that the trial will be prolonged some time, as fifty or more well-known citizens are ready to swear to the good character of the defendant.

DAISY HOPKINS CALLED.

A sensation was sprung at the opening of court Friday morning when the defense called Daisy Hopkins, involved by the testimony of C. B. Dalton and of James Conley, as a witness for its own side of the case.

Detective Harry Scott was to be recalled to the stand by the state to answer one question, the state agreeing at the same time to let the defense recall Boots Rogers to answer a question of its own.

The jurors spent a pleasant evening Thursday listening to Juror Winburn tickle the ivories of the Kimball house piano. All members of the jury were well except Juror Metcalfe, who has been bothered by a crick in the neck for the past twenty-four hours. The court directed that a physician wait upon him at the conclusion of court Friday, the physician to be overshadowed by a court bailiff. Juror Townsend is growing a mustache. He was clean shaven when he became a juror, but now he presents a very creditable set of furs on his upper lip.

SCOTT ON STAND.

Detective Scott was called to the stand.

“How long did it take Jim Conley to write those notes at your dictation, at police headquarters?” asked the solicitor.

“Two or three minutes.”

“You are not fixing to leave the city, are you, Mr. Scott?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir.”

“Boots” Rogers was recalled, but it was announced that he was not in court. Attorney Rosser called for George Epps. He wasn’t present, Solicitor Dorsey announcing that he had excused the newsboy, but that he would get him to court if the defense wanted him. The defense said they wanted him, and the solicitor ordered that he be subpenaed. Rogers arrived at this juncture, and was called to the stand.

HOPKINS GIRL TESTIFIES.

Daisy Hopkins was called by the defense. She entered court chewing gum and retained it on the witness stand, chewing leisurely.

She held up her left hand by mistake to be sworn, and was admonished to hold up her right. In answer to a question of Attorney Arnold she said she […]

DEFENSE ATTACKS STATE’S CASE FROM MANY ANGLES

[…] lives now in Redan on the Georgia railroad. She said that she is Mrs. Daisy Hopkins, and not Miss.

“Did you work at the pencil factory, Mrs. Hopkins?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Yes.”

“When did you work there?”
“I started there in October, 1911, and worked until June 1, 1912.”

“What department did you work in?”
“The packing department.”
“What floor is that on?”

“On the third floor.”

“How many other young women worked there?”
“Usually there were ten, but sometimes more.”
“Do you know Mr. Frank, the defendant?”

NEVER SPOKE TO FRANK.

“I used to know him when I saw him about the factory.”
“Did you ever speak to him?”
“No.”
“Did he ever speak to you?”
“No.”
“Were you ever in his office, drinking coca-cola or beer?”
“No.”

“Do you know a fellow named Dalton?”

“I know him when I see him.”
“Did you ever visit the pencil factory with him?”
“No, sir. I went to his house to see Mrs. [name illegible] when he lived at East Point.”

“Did you ever, at any time, on a Saturday or any other day, come into the factory with Dalton and go up where Frank was or go any other place in the factory? Is there any truth in that?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever introduce Dalton to Frank?”
“No, sir.”

DENIES MISCONDUCT.

“Did you ever go down into the basement with Dalton?”
“I don’t know where the basement is.”
She denied any misconduct with Dalton.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness for cross-examination.

MARRIED AT REDAN.

“Mrs. Hopkins, have you ever been married?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes, sir.”

“Where were you married?”
“At Redan.”

“What is the name of the man you married?”
“Sill.”

“Are you living with him him [sic] now?”
“No, sir, he is dead.”

“Did you have any children?”
“No, sir.”

“What were your husband’s initials?”
“A. M. Sill.”

“Who married you?”
“Preacher Miles.”

“Who was present when you were married?”

“Mr. Street.”

“What is your doctor named?”
“Dr. Pounds.”

“What is he treating you for now, Mrs. Hopkins?”
The witness hesitated, then replied, “Stomach trouble.”

“Have you ever been in jail, Miss Hopkins?”
“No, sir,” after hesitation.

“Why, Miss Hopkins, didn’t this man,” pointing to N. A. Garner, a special bailiff attached to the solicitor’s office, “didn’t this man get you out of jail?”
“No, sir.”

“Have you ever seen him before?”
“Yes, sir.”

DEPUTY WAS ALONG.

“Well, didn’t he, N. A. Garner, get you out of jail?”
“No, sir, but he was along.”

“Well, you were in jail, now; and who got you out?”
“Mr. Smith.”

“What were you put in jail for, Miss Hopkins?”

“Because they told a tale on me.”

“Who got you and brought you here to court?”
“Captain Burke.”

“Was Captain Burke formerly with the Southern railroad?”
“I don’t know.”

“Now, Miss Hopkins, what jail were you in?”

“I don’t know.”

“All right, Miss Hopkins, you can come down,” said the solicitor. The defense detained her, however.

“You were put in the jail in this county, were you not?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Did they do anything to you?”
“No, sir.”

JUST PAID HER LAWYER.

“I mean, did you have to pay a fine?”
“No, sir, I just paid my lawyer, Mr. Bill Smith.”

“Well, he got you out?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever go to any court about it?”
“No, sir.”

“All right. Come down.”

W. M. Matthews, a motorman on the English avenue car line of the Georgia Railway and Power company, was called as the next witness.

“On Apirl 14, last, Mr. Matthews, what were you doing?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Running my car on the English avenue car line.”

“Does this car run out to Bellwood avenue and by Lindsay street?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Do you recollect the occasion on that morning when your car was coming into the city and passed Lindsay street about 10 minutes to 12?”
“Yes, sir.”

MARY BOARDS CAR.

“That was the time for you to pass Lindsay street?”
“Yes, sir, that was the scheduled time.”

“And you left on time?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Do you remember a little girl getting on the car there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Was it Mary Phagan?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Well, tell the jury the route of your car.”

“On Bellwood to English avenue, to Kennedy street, to Grace, to Jones avenue to Marietta street, and in along Marietta to Broad and out Broad street.”

“As usual your car stopped at the various points, to take on and let off passengers?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What is the distance over your route from Lindsay to Broad street?”
“About one and a half or two miles.”

“And you made the usual frequent stops?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And in al[l]owing up to stop and in starting off again you lost the usual time?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What time did you get to Marietta and Broad streets on that trip?”

POINT FOR DEFENSE.

“I was scheduled to arrive at 12:07 1-2.”

“Were you on time?”
“Right about on schedule. I wasn’t late all that day.”

“You say your car turned south along Broad street after leaving Marietta?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where did Mary Phagan get off the car?”
“At Hunter and Broad streets.”

The previous testimony of George Epps, the newsboy, was that Mary Phagan got off the car at Marietta and Forsyth streets and walked across the bridge.

“How long does it take your car to run from Broad to Hunter street?”
“It generally takes 2 1-2 minutes, but on account of the wagons and traffic, congested, it often requires three minutes.”

“On that trip it took about the same time as usual?”
“Yes, sir. I was not running the car after we left Broad and Marietta streets. I was relieved there.”

“You were still on the car, though?”
“Yes, sir. I was going over to Mitchell street.”

“Where were you sitting in the car?”
“I sat on the seat behind Mary Phagan.”

“Was there anyone else with Mary Phagan?”

GIRL WITH MARY PHAGAN.

“Yes, sir, another girl was sitting by her. I don’t know whether she was with her, though.”

“What time did you get to Hunter and Broad streets?”
“About 12:10, the best I can tell you. We got to Broad and Marietta about 12:07 1-2 and it took about 2 1-2 minutes to run on down to Hunter.”

“What happened at 12:10?”
“The girls got off.”
“Both of them?”
“Yes, sir, they went on down Hunter street like they knew each other.”

“How far is it from there to the National Pencil factory?”
“A short block down Hunter and across Forsyth, and it is the second or third building on Forsyth.”
“Which side of Hunter street did they go up?”

“I didn’t notice.”

“And you don’t know how long it would take for her to talk up the steps at the pencil factory to Frank’s office?”
“No, sir.”

“You were certain that you noticed her get off the car at Broad and Hunter?”
“Yes.”

“Did you see any little boy with her?”

NO BOY WITH HER.

“No boy got on with her at Lindsay street, and there was no boy with her when I noticed her next at Broad and Marietta.”

“Do you know George Epps?”
“By sight, since this case came up.”

“And you didn’t see him that day?”
“No.”
“Did you see the body of this girl at the undertaker’s?”

“Yes.”

“And you are certain that it was Mary Phagan that you saw?”
“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“Why did you say it was about 12:10 and then say it was 12:10?”

“Well, it was about that time.”

“Did you tell L. P. Whitfield, a Pinkerton operative, that you could have been three or four minutes ahead of the schedule at that time?”
“No.”

“Where was it Epps got on the car?”
“I don’t know.”

“What made you notice Mary? Was she very pretty or attractive?”
“No more than anybody else.”

“Why, don’t you know as a matter of fact that Mary Phagan was an especially pretty girl?”
“Well, she was pretty,” said the witness.

POSITIVE ABOUT TIME.

“What makes you so certain about the time?”

“Well, we were on time at 12:07 1-2, and I know it takes from two and a half to three minutes to go on Broad from Marietta to Hunter—that is, in the middle of the day.”

“Then a person could get off at Forsyth street and walk to the factory more quickly than they could go there by the car?”
“No, the same time. I’ve walked it.”

“Why is it that you are willing to tell the jury that this particular girl got off at that particular point and time on that particular day?”
“Because it’s the truth.”

“Why is it that out of the hundreds of passengers you have in a day, you can fix this girl so positively in your mind?”
“Well, when I was relieved and sat down behind her I was talking to a street car conductor and an ex-street car conductor and he had a picture in a badge and I took it and held it over there and said, ‘Here, little girl, is your picture.’”

“And those girls were talking together?”
“They seemed to be.”

“Well, did you hear them say a single word?”
“No, I didn’t.”

POSITIVE IT WAS MARY.

“Well, as a matter of fact, wasn’t that the other girl or another girl to whom you showed the picture?”
“No.”

“Haven’t you been looking for that other girl since then?”
The witness first said no, and then said yes.

“How was the other girl dressed?”

“About the same as Mary Phagan.”

“Well, how was Mary Phagan dressed?”

“She had on a light-colored dress.”

“What light color—pink or white?”
“It wasn’t black.”

“What else did she have on?”
“She had on a hat.”

“What sort of a hat?”
“A light-colored hat.”

“Well, what is there about George Epps that you can identify?”

“I’ve read about him in the papers since this case came up.”
“Tell us one single thing by which you would know Mary Phagan.”

“I just know her.”

“Well, tell us how light that dress was.”

“Not as light as this,” pointing to Mrs. Rae Frank, the mother of the accused, dressed completely in white.

“Tell us about the hat.”

“I never paid much attention to the hat; it was light colored.”

“Are you certain of that?”
The witness hesitated and answered that he was not certain.

“Well, why did you say at first it was light?”
“Come down,” ordered the solicitor, before the motorman answered.

CONDUCTOR IS CALLED.

“Wait a minute,” commanded Mr. Arnold. “You can’t tell generally what colored clothes your passengers wear, can you? Few notice what women wear—isn’t that true?”
“That’s right.”

“You were certain that this girl you saw in the morgue was Mary Phagan, the girl you saw on your car?”
“Yes.”

Mr. Arnold exhibited the dress in which Mary Phagan was killed.

“I couldn’t say that that’s the one she wore,” said the witness. “I know the girl just by her looks, and had spoken to her numbers of times when s[h]e got on the car at Lindsay street.”

“And this is the light colored hat you saw, is it?” asked Solicitor Dorsey, producing the light blue hat.

“I don’t know,” said the witness. He was excused, and W. T. Hollis, conductor on the same line, was called to the stand.

In answer to questions of Attorney Arnold, Hollis described his occupation as conductor, and said that he was on the Cooper Street-English Avenue route on the day Mary Phagan was killed. He described the exact route of the car.

CORROBORATES MOTORMAN.

“Did you cross Lindsay street about noon, April 26?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes.”

“It was about 11:50, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did any girl get on there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see this girl again?”
“I saw her body at the morgue.”

“Did you ever see her before?”
“Yes, frequently. She used to get on the car.”

“Did you know her name before this day?”
“I did not.”

“Did anybody get on at Lindsay street with her?”
“No, sir.”

“Did anybody sit in the same seat with her on the way downtown?”
“I couldn’t say.”

“Have you ever seen George Epps?”

“Yes.”

REPUDIATES EPPS’ STORY.

“Did he get on with her that day?”
“No, sir.”

“Did he sit in the same seat with her on the way down?”
“I couldn’t say whether he did or not. She was alone, I know, when I took her fare at English avenue, three blocks from Lindsay street.”

“Do you recollect the Epps boy getting on at all?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you have a full car that day?”
“There were thre[e] on, I think, when she got on.”

“Did you see anybody get in the seat with her at all?”
“No, sir.”

“What time do you get to Broad and Marietta streets usually?”
“At seven and a half minutes after 12 o’clock.”

“Were you on schedule time that day?”
“Yes, I got relieved there.”

“Where did you get off?”
“I got off there at Marietta and Forsyth streets.”

“Did she get off with you?”
“No, sir, not with me.”

“Were you the first to get off?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you see her get off at all there?”
“No, sir.”

“Where was she to the best of your knowledge when you left the car?”

LEFT HER ON CAR.

“She was in the car.”

“What time did the car get to Broad and Hunter streets?”
“Well, it’s supposed to get there about 12:10.”

Attorney Hooper interrupted. “Your honor, I think these questions are all leading, and my brother, Mr. Arnold, gets worse as he goes on.”
Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“What time did you look at her at the morgue?”
“Well, I get off Sunday at 6:37 p. m., and I went over there then.”

Attorney Arnold opened the suitcase in which Mary Phagan’s clothes were in court. “Do you recollect the clothes that she had on that day?”
When the witness replied, “No, sir, I don’t recollect,” Mr. Arnold left the clothes in the suitcase and proceeded.

HOOPER TAKES WITNESS.

Attorney Hooper took the witness for cross-examination.

“Mr. Hollis, there was something unusual about this trip that day, was there?”
“No.”

“There was no particular reason for you to notice whom you picked up, was there?”

“No, sir.”

“There was nothing to attract your attention especially to that, was there?”
“No, sir.”

“This little Epps boy frequently got on your car. You don’t know whether he got on and off that day or not, do you?”
“No, sir.”

“You don’t even know the color of this little girl’s dress, you say?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper pointed to the hat. “You wouldn’t call that hat light, would you?”
“No, sir.”

“You’d call it a very dark blue, wouldn’t you?”
“Yes, I guess so.”

“Did you notice anyone at all with Mary Phagan that day?”
“I did not.”

DIDN’T SEE OTHER GIRL.

“Wasn’t there a little girl sitting in the seat with her?”
“I didn’t see her.”

“Can you tell the jury of any other single trip when she was with somebody?”
“No, sir.”

“You don’t know whether the Epps boy got on at all, then, do you?”
“No, sir.”

“And you say you got Mary Phagan’s fare when you turned into English avenue?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Well, I never take them up until I get to English avenue.”

“Well, you picked up some passengers coming into town, didn’t you? How many?”
“I don’t know.”

“Were they male or female?”
“Both.”

“Can you name any of them? Name a single one of them to the jury.”

“I can’t.”

“Which end of the car did Mary Phagan get on?”
“The front end.”

“How do you know that?”

ENTERED LAUGHING.

“Well, Matthews used to speak to her when she got on. That day she come in and said she was late, laughing.”

“Do you stay on the front platform of the car all the time?”
“No, sir.”

“How did you happen to be there that morning?”
“I wasn’t there.”

“Oh, you stood at the back end of the car and heard her there, did you? She hollered, did she?”
“I heard her from the back end.”

“What time does Mary Phagan usually get on your car?”
“Well, she used to ride in on the trip when we got to town at 7:07 in the morning. She’d say she’d be fifteen minutes late then.”

“That day when you got to town, it was a holiday, wasn’t it? There was a procession of some kind on the streets, wasn’t there?”
“I didn’t notice any.”

“Do you remember the tow-headed Epps boy being on the car that day?”
“No, sir, but I know him.”

Mr. Arnold resumed his questioning of the witness.

“Mr. Hooper has asked you who got off at Marietta and Forsyth streets. I believe you said you didn’t know?”
“Yes, sir.”

SHORT CAR.

“Is your car a short car or a long car?”

“A short car.”

“When you are standing on the rear platform, do you have any difficulty in hearing what the motorman says on the front platform?”
Solicitor Dorsey objected, declaring that an answer would be a conclusion simply. He insisted that the witness be made to state facts—how far he was from the motorman, and what sounds he heard.

Judge Roan allowed the question.

The witness replied that he had no difficulty in hearing what the motorman said on the front platform when the car was stopped.

“When you are on the rear platform, how many feet are you away from the motorman?”
“I don’t know, exactly. The car seats twenty-eight passengers and is a short car.”

“It’s about 25 feet in length, then?”

“Something like that.”

“Were the doors open on this occasion?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Mr. Hooper asked you why you re-[…]

SAYS NEWSIE WAS NOT ON CAR WITH GIRL

[…]membered this girl. I’ll ask you if when you heard of the murder and went and looked at the girl, it didn’t recall her to your attention?”

“Yes, sir, the newspaper reporters asked me on Sunday to go and identify her.”

“And you went to the morgue to see the body after the reporters asked you to do so?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And you found it was the little girl who had been on that car the day before?”
“Yes, sir.”

“If your attention was called to this little girl a month or two later, you would not remember her so well as you would the next day?”
Mr. Hooper objected. The objection was sustained.

“When you saw the little girl the next day in the morgue, you had no difficulty in remembering her?”
“No, sir.”

“How far is Oliver street from Lindsay street?”
“One block.”

“You didn’t see Epps get on your car there?”
“No, sir.”

“Would you have remembered if it he had got on there?”
“I think so.”

Mr. Hooper again objected, declaring Mr. Arnold’s questions were leading. No ruling was made, however, and Mr. Arnold proceeded.

“How far is Oliver street from Lindsay?”

“One block.”

“And you say you don’t remember the Epps boy getting on at Oliver?”
“What is the next cross street after you leave Oliver?”
“Franklin street.”

“After leaving Franklin you pass into English avenue?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you had reached English avenue before you began to take up fares?”
“Yes, sir.”

“No one was in the seat with Mary Phagan when you took up her fare?”
“No, sir.”

“That was your last run of the morning?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When did you go out on your next run?”
“At 3:22.”

SAYS HE WAS ON TIME.

“I believe you said you didn’t remember whether the Memorial day crowds had gathered at Marietta and Forsyth streets.”

“No, sir, I don’t remember noticing them.”

“You never get to the center of the city before scheduled time to arrive?”
“No, sir, it is against the rules of the company.”

“And you didn’t get in ahead of time on that day?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper cross-questioned the witness again.

“Do you mean to tell me that you keep the rules of the company so rigidly that you never get in ahead of time or behind time?”
“It’s not against the rules to get in behind time.”

“Don’t you sometimes get in ahead of time?”
“Very seldom. Sometimes perhaps half a minute or maybe a minute.”

“When you are going in on your last trip at night, don’t you go in ahead of time?”
“The company doesn’t object to that.”

“Do you always stop and look at your watch in crossing the main street?”
“I hardly ever pass one without it. I always look at my watch at the designated points.”

“And this was your last trip?”
“Yes, sir.”

ALBERT KAUFFMAN CALLED.

Witness was excused. Attorney Arnold called for the Epps boy. He had not reached the court house, and Albert Kauffman, a civil engineer, was called. While court waited for him, Mr. Arnold took a number of papers from a basket in front of him, announcing that he had a model there and some blue print diagrams which he wished to use. While he searched for these papers, Mr. Arnold came across a package which he handed to Solicitor Dorsey, saying: “Here is that bank and cash book that you asked for yesterday.” After opening up a number of blue prints, Mr. Arnold began questioning the witness.

“What is your business?” he asked.

“I am a civil engineer,” answered Mr. Kauffman.

“Have you made a drawing of the Selig residence on Georgia avenue, showing the rear rooms in it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When?”
“Tuesday of this week.”

“This residence is known as 68 East Georgia avenue?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you make a plat of the kitchen, dining room, reception room, parlor and passageway between the kitchen and dining room?”
“Yes, sir.”

“These are the diagrams?”
“Yes, sir.”

REPUDIATES M’KNIGHT.

“Well, come over here and point them out to the jury.”
In reply to questions by Mr. Arnold, the witness indicated the location of the mirror in the dining room, the table in the dining room, the passageway between the kitchen and dining room, the back door of the kitchen, and other details of the diagram. He said the distance is fourteen feet between the kitchen door and the passageway leading into the dining room; that this passageway is 2 1-2 feet in width and a little over two feet long.

“Did you stand in the back door of the kitchen, on the north side of the door, which is the only door to the kitchen, to ascertain whether you could see the mirror in the dining room?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Could you see it?”
“No, sir.”

“Why?”
“Because of this partition in the passageway?”
“Taking the most extreme view possible, could you see any part of the mirror?”
“No, sir.”

“Were you present when a photographer took some views of these rooms?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Suppose you stood on the south side of the back kitchen door, what sort of a view would you have into the dining room?”
“Considerably less than if I stood on the north side.”

“How close to the sideboard could you see from that point?”
“Within about three or four feet.”

“If a man sat in a chair in the middle of the passageway, could he see the sideboard?”
“No, sir.”

“Have you drawn a plat of Georgia avenue?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Of that block bounded by Georgia avenue, Washington and Pulliam streets?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Is this it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How far is it from the Selig home to Washington street?”
“One hundred and seventy-five feet.”

“How far is it to Pulliam street?”
“Two hundred and seventy-one feet.”

“Is there a car line on Georgia avenue in front of the Selig house?”
“Yes, sir.”

“One on Washington street?”
“Yes, sir.”

PLAT OF FACTORY.

Mr. Kauffman identified the plate of the Selig residence and streets in the vicinity. He then stated that he made a detailed drawing of the National Pencil factory on all floors. He explained minutely the details of the drawing of the National Pencil factory, the attorney causing him to emphasize his description of a chute at the rear of the basement. Mr. Kauffman’s testimony showed that the chute is about five feet wide. The defense laid stress on the size of the opening, indicating to the minds of many observers that their theory of the killing probably will be that the murderer dragged Mary Phagan’s body along behind the partition from the first floor entrance toward the back and dropped it through the chute, which ends in the basement within a short distance of where the body was found.

Mr. Kauffman explained first the drawing of the basement. He described it as 136 feet from the elevator to the point where the body was found; 80 feet from the elevator to the trash pile; 90 feet to the boiled [sic]; 116 feet to the toilet; 135 feet to the back stairway.

COULD SLIDE BODY IN CHUTE.

Mr. Kauffman described minutely the chute in the rear of the building, saying that it is big enough for one or two human bodies or even for a pony to slide down. It empties into the basement eight feet from the rear wall of the building, and 32 feet from where the body was found. The total length of the building is 280 feet, and the walls are 2 feet thick, making it 196 feet from inner wall to inner wall.

Mr. Kauffman described the partitioned inclosure in the basement, declaring that it and the bunk which it contained were very filthy when he saw them. From the point where the body was found to the toilet is 21 feet, and the body was found 42 feet from the back door. The line of vision from the toilet to the point where the body was found is an angle of 43 degrees, he said. The partition cuts the line of vision in half, making a point three feet from the wall visible.

The witness described in similar detail the plat of the ground floor. He declared that as one enters the building it becomes very dark a few feet back from the street door. From the front door to the bottom of the stairway the distance is thirty-five feet.

The stairway to the second floor is twenty-five feet. The distance from the foot of the stairs to the elevator is thirteen feet.

LONG DARK HALLWAY.

The witness described minutely a long dark hallway about five feet wide, leading to the rear of the building. On this hallway ninety feet from the front door are several toilets. This point is almost directly above where the body was found.

Adjoining the toilets is a trap door with steps leading into the basement. These steps and fifteen feet from where the body was found. That point is also about fifteen feet from the chute.

Mr. Kauffman described the opening of the chute. On the second floor, said the witness, is the office, measuring 30 by 38 feet. He observed the doors of the safe, when opened, and they completely cut off the view from the inner to the outer office.

“Would it be possible for a man of your height to see over the safe door from Frank’s office?”
“Yes.”

“Would it be possible for a girl, say 5 feet 3 inches in height to see over?”
“I don’t think so.”

Mr. Kauffman laid the diagrams on the jury rail, and the jurors studied them with him.
Witness described the furniture in Frank’s office, and the relative position of the various articles. Anybody on the opposite side of the street could see Frank’s desk through the window. The witness said the distance between Frank’s desk and the metal room is 150 feet.

FRANK MAKES SUGGESTION.

At this point Frank, the accused, arose from his seat, and whispered a suggestion to Attorney Rosser, Attorney Arnold asked the witness if anybody sitting at Frank’s desk could see the stairway leading from the third floor, and the witness replied that there was no view of the stairway from that point.

From the desk in the inner office the only view one could have from Frank’s desk would be of one corner of the time clock.

Kauffman continued that anybody in the outer office could see a portion of the top of the stairway leading to the third floor, but not the bottom of the stairs. The door of the metal room is six feet wide and he thinks there is some glass in the door, said he. The dressing room in the metal room is ten feet from this door, said he. The distance is twenty-six feet between the lathe where the hair was found and the door of the metal room and thirty-seven feet from the lathe around the machines to the point where Conley said he found the dead body of the girl.

VAT COULD HOLD GIRL.

Attorney Arnold directed the witness’ attention to a store room near the metal room on the second floor, and questioned him particularly about a certain vat in that room. The witness said this vat was six feet by four feet, and that it would be possible to put a girl five feet three inches tall in it. Mr. Kauffman continued that any one coming down the stairway from the third floor to the second floor has a full view of the elevator.

Attorney Arnold picked up the drawing of the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and designating a marked spot about the center of the south wall of the building, asked the witness what was located there. The witness replied that it was a vat. That ended the technical questioning of the witness on this direct examination.

“Did you find any part of a lounge or a bed or a sofa, with the exception of the one in the basement, anywhere in the building?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“No.”

“Did you find anything that looked like a private room or a bed room, any place except the women’s dressing room?”
“No.”

“How far is it from the top of the steps leading from the first floor to the second floor, to the bottom of the steps leading to the third floor?”
“Twenty-seven feet.”

“How long is the stairway from the second to the third floor?”
“About twenty-five feet.”

HOOPER EXAMINES KAUFFMAN.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“About this chute from the first floor to the basement—is it open?”
“Yes.”

“Is the trap door covering it, open?”
“No.”

“Is it nailed down?”
“I didn’t try it.”

“How long after the killing did you see this trap door and chute?”
“It was about two months, I think.”

“Wasn’t it very dusty then?”
“Yes.”

“There wasn’t a sign that it had been used for months, was there?”
“I wouldn’t say positively as to that. It was dark when I went down there.”

Attorney Hooper designated th[e] spot in the drawing of the basement where the witness said that the body of Mary Phagan was found.

“Who told you where the body was found?”
“Mr. Schiff,” replied the witness.

Mr. Schiff, employed by Mr. Frank in the factory?”
“Yes.”

“Well, if that is wrong, then all your distances are wrong, are they not?”

“Yes.”

ARNOLD OBJECTS.

Attorney Arnold objected to the question and answer. He said, “this distance is only one of a hundred.” Attorney Hooper explained that he meant only the distances between the body and other points in the basement.

Mr. Hooper asked the witness if the body lay just a little further toward the rear from where Schiff said it was laying, it could be seen from the toilet. Mr. Hooper laid a ruler on the diagram to illustrate the view line. The witness admitted that it would be visible under those conditions. The witness had noticed the gas jet burning near the elevator, but had not indicated it on the plat. Discussing the diagram of the first floor, Attorney Hooper asked a number of questions as to the lighting conditions of the entrance way. When the double doors at the street are open, the entrance is fairly well lit between the street and th[e] stairway, but when they are closed the light is not so good. He had not noticed any gas jet on the first floor.

The witness could not say whether any considerable light penetrated the building through the windows and glass partition at the front and side of the entrance. He did not think much light could enter there, though, inasmuch as the glasses were very dirty when he observed them.

He admitted that he did not know the condition of the glass was on April 26, but it looked like it had been dirty some time. He had seen the glass several times in the last month. The trap door leading from the first floor to the basement, said the witness, is two feet across one way by two feet and three inches the other.

COULDN’T GET BY TRAP.

He admitted that a man of his size would have a hard time getting through if he was in a hurry; that he did not think one person could carry another person through the trap door. With the ruler Attorney Hooper indicated a line from Frank’s desk in the inner office through the doors and out to the time clock, in an effort to show the vision uninterrupted between those points.

The witness stated that when he drew the plat, this desk behind the partition was about two feet nearer the street wall from the door, and from that position the time clock was not visible. Attorney Hooper caused him to admit that if this desk was flush with the doorway through the partition that one could see a part of the time clock from the desk chair.

He made the measurements five or six weeks ago, said the witness. The clocks face the elevator shaft about twelve feet away. He didn’t think a man sitting at Frank’s desk could be seen from the opposite side of Forsyth street; however, and he, that was a matter of opinion.

The witness admitted that anyone entering the door of the inner office could see the whole office without obstruction. The witness also admitted that owing to the twists in the stairway flights between the second and fourth floor, a person on the fourth floor could not see down to the foot of the stairs on the second floor, unless there was some shaft down the stairs which he did not recall.

He admitted that there were doors on the stairway at the fourth floor, but was not certain whether there were doors at the third floor on the stairway.

COULD DROP THROUGH.

Attorney Arnold asked: “You didn’t make any tests to ascertain whether you could see from the third floor to the second floor?”
“No, sir.”

“I believe you said two persons couldn’t get through the trap door at the same time?” continued Mr. Arnold.

“I said that.”

“But there would be no trouble for one person to open the trap door and drop another person through?”
“No.”

“It would be an easy matter for two, three or four persons, and even a small horse, to go through the elevator shaft there by the trap door?”
“Yes, sir.”

“It is rather dark when the street doors are closed, on the first floor, isn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And there isn’t much light through the panel partition?”
“I don’t think so. I didn’t notice the extent of the solid work in the partition?”
Mr. Arnold directed the witness to come down, but before he left the stand it was announced by Mr. Hooper that he would be subject to recall. Mr. Hooper remembered another question, and the witness stayed on the stand a moment.

DINING ROOM MIRROR.

Mr. Kauffman admitted that when one sits in a certain part of the kitchen a mirror reflecting a portion of the dining room of the Selig home could be seen. He admitted also that he had no idea of the arrangement of the doors or furniture on April 26. The witness was excused, and Attorney Arnold tendered in evidence the diagrams of the four floors of the factory, the diagram of the Selig home, and a diagram of the home with reference to the surrounding streets. There was no objection by the state.

J. Q. Adams, a commercial photographer, was called to the stand. He identified a number of photographs taken by himself. One was taken from the outside of the back door of the Selig home, showing the passageaway [sic]. Another was taken with the camera just inside the door.

From neither of these points, said he, could he see the sideboard or the mirror in the dining room. He identified views of the pencil factory. The first views were taken from the hallway and from the outer office, showing the safe door open. The photographer declared that the view of Frank’s desk was cut off completely by the open safe door and that the inner office would be seen only by a narrow opening over the top of the safe.

The photographer identified a number of views of the basement, taking in elevator shaft, the ladder, the partition near which the body was found, and several other points in the basement which have been mentioned in the testimony. He showed a view of the ground floor taken with the camera just inside the door, showing the elevator shaft.

Another view showed exactly where Conley claimed to have been sitting. He had a number of other views of the second floor, showing where Jim Conley claims to have found the body and the metal room, the point where the detectives chipped up parts of the floor. Other views showed the different departments on that floor.

Attorney Arnold then showed a photograph of the front of the metal room and the machinery. The photographer identified that with the others.

“In each of these instances, did you endeavor to make these photographs as accurate as possible?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“I did,” replied the witness.

That concluded the direct examination. Attorney Hooper cross-examined the photographer.

PHOTOS MONTH OLD.

“How long ago were these photographs of the factory taken?”
“About a month.” The witness added that the photographs of the Selig home had been taken just a few days ago. Attorney Hooper asked the witness to indicate on the diagram of the Selig home where he had taken the picture. The witness pointed to the doorway leading from the kitchen to the porch. This picture showed the inside wall of the dining room to a point where a window appears. Attorney Hooper asked: “Now, Mr. Adams, a slight change in the position of the sideboard in the corner of the room would make it possible to see the the [sic] mirror from the door, would it not?”
“You could see the edge of it.”

“If a man sitting right inside the door, looked through the passage into the dining room, he could see the mirror, then, couldn’t he?”
“He could see part of it.”

“He could see enough of the mirror to see a reflection of a good part of the room, couldn’t he?”
“I wouldn’t say as to that.”

All of the photographs then were submitted in evidence by the defense without objection by the state.

Court recessed at 12:30 o’clock until 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 8th 1913, “Defense Attacks State’s Case From Many Angles,” 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
August 8^th, 1913

Say Mary Phagan Did Not Reach Factory Before 12:10

FRANK TAKES ACTIVE INTEREST IN CASE AND ASSISTS HIS LAWYERS

The vital time element which may serve alone to convict Leo Frank or set him free, entered largely into the evidence presented Friday by the defense at the trial of the factory superintendent. Two witnesses testified that Mary Phagan did not arrive at Broad and Marietta streets the day she was murdered until about 12:07^1/2 o’clock, the time the English Avenue car on which she rod[e] from home was due there. One witness, W. M. Matthews, motorman on the car, testified that Mary did not get off at Forsyth and Marietta, but continued on the car and rode as far as Broad and Hunter where the car arrives at about 12:10 o’clock, [t]he conductor corroborated Matthews.

This testimony strongly supports the contention of the defense that Mary Phagan did not enter the factory until after 12:10 o’clock and that Monteen Stover, therefore, was in the factory and had left before the Phagan girl ever entered the doors. If the defense succeeds in establishing this, the visit of the Stover girl to the factory will be of tremendous significance because it is in direct conflict with the explicit testimony of James Conley that Mary Phagan entered the factory and supposedly was strangled before the Stover girl went up the stairs. Miss Stover testified that she did not see Frank in his office, but admitted she did not enter the inner office and [t]he defense will try to show Frank could have been writing at his desk and the girl not have seen him.

Seeks to Discredit Epp’s Story.

Arnold Throws Doubt on Epps.

Attorney Arnold, who was conducting the examination during the forenoon, sought aslo [sic], to throw a deep shadow of suspicion upon the story of young George Epp’s, who testified that he rode uptown with Mary Phagan the day she was killed.

Matthews said that another girl was seated with Mary the latter part of the ride to own. He did not recollect that Epp’s was on the car at all. The motorman said that he was relieved at Broad and Marietta streets and that he sat behind Mary and her companion all the way to Hunter Street. He said the two alighted at Hunter Street and proce[e]ded toward Forsyth on which the factory is located.

This is in direct contradiction to the story of Epps, who testified that he and Mary left the car at Forsyth and Marietta streets and that he walked with her toward the factory as far as the viaduct.

Hollis did not remember seeing Epps on the car. He said Mary was alone when he collected her fare after the car got on English avenue. He left the car at Forsyth and Marietta streets and did not see Mary Phagan alight there.

Albert Kauffman, an architect, was called to discredit several of the State’s witnesses. He had blue prints of the Selig home which he displayed to the jury to show that it was impossible for Albert McKnight to have seen from the kitchen into the dining room as he testified he did on the Saturday afternoon that Frank came home from the factory.

Denies Stover Girl’s Story.

His testimony was to the effect that Monteen Stover could not have seen over the safe door into Frank’s office at the time she declared she was unable to find him on her visit to the factory.

He said that there was room for several bodies to pass down the scuttle hole into the basement. He exhibited a diagram of the factory to show that Frank could have sat in his office and not been aware of anything taking place beyond the time clock, for example, anyone coming up or going down the stairs.

Miss Daisy Hopkins, who, C. B. Dalton said, was his companion on visits to the factory basement, was called by the defense and denied Dalton’s statements.

She said she never had spoken to Frank, and that Frank never had spoken to her.

Solicitor Dorsey made an attack on her character and forced her to admit she had been in jail on a statutory ch[a]rge. It was brought out, however, that she was released without trial.

Frank, for the first time during the trial, took an active part in helping direct the course his case was taking. He arose from his seat several times to make suggestions to his lawyers, and at his request certain questions were put.

Before Daisy Hopkins was called, Solicitor Dorsey said he wanted to ask Harry Scott one more question. Attorney Rosser said he also wanted to ask one more question of Boots Rogers, Detective J. M. Starnes and George Epps. Detective Scott was the first witness called.

Dorsey asked:

Q. Mr. Scott, how long did it take you to get Jim Conley to write after he had admitted that he could write and you dictated it to him without delay?—A. Two or three minute.

Daisy Hopkins on Stand.

Miss Hopkins is a woman of very small features, with bright, keen eyes and wore a cotton striped dress that looked a bit too short. She wore white shoes and stockings. Mr. Arnold began the questioning:

Q. Did you ever work for the National Pencil Company?—A. Yes, I went to work there about October 1, 1911, and quit June 1, 1912. […]

DAISY HOPKINS DENIES VISITING PENCIL FACTORY WITH DALTON

Girl Mentioned by Conley Swears That Leo Frank Never Spoke to Her

STREET CAR CREW TELL OF MARY PHAGAN’S LAST RIDE TO PENCIL FACTORY

[…] Q. What department?—A. Packing department.

Q. What floor?—A. Second floor.

Q. How many other girls worked there?—A. Sometimes there were as many as ten.

Q. Did you know Leo M. Frank?—A. I knew him when I saw him. I saw him pars around the factory.

Q. Did he ever speak to you?—A. No, never in my life.

Denies Drinking Frank’s Office.

Q. Did you ever go into Frank’s office and drink beer and cold drinks with other women?—A. No, I never went into his office and I don’t drink.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. I know him when I see him.

Q. Did you ever speak to him?—A. I went to his home once to see his sister and spoke to him. That is the only time.

Q. Did you ever go to the pencil factory with Dalton?—A. No, I never did,

Q. Did you introduce him to Mr. Frank?—A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you ever go into the factory and go into the basement with Dalton?—A. No, I don’t even know where the basement is. I never have been in it.

Says She Was Married.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Were you ever married?—A. Yes.

Q. Where?—A. Redair.

Q. Who did you marry?—A. E. A. Sills.

Q. Who married you?—A. Preacher Miles.

Q. Who is your doctor?—A. Dr. Pound.

Q. What is he treating you for?—A. Stomach trouble.

Q. Were you ever in jail?—A. No.

Q. Do you know this man here, Garner, my deputy?—A. No.

Q. Did he get you out of jail?—A. No, he was along.

Q. What were you charged with?—A. Somebody told tales on me.

Q. Who brought you down here?—A. Mr. Burke.

“Bill” Smith Her Lawyer.

Arnold took the witness on the redirect.

Q. Who got you out of jail?—A. My lawyer.

Q. Did you pay anything?—A. I only paid my lawyer his fee.

Q. Who was your lawyer?—A. Mr. Bill Smith.

W. M. Mathews, motorman on the English Avenue car on which Mary Phagan is supposed to have come to town from her home, Saturday, April 26, followed Miss Hopkins on the stand.

Q. What was your run on April 26?—A. English avenue that runs to Bellwood.

Q. What time did you pass Lindsay street?—A. Ten minutes to 12.

Q. Was that on schedule?—A. Yes.

Q. Did a little girl named Mary Phagan get on at Lindsay street?—A. Yes.

Sat Behind Mary Phagan.

Q. What is the distance from Lindsay street to Broad street?—A. About two miles.

Q. What time did you get to Marietta and Broad streets?—A. At 12:07 1-2. We were on time.

Q. Do you recollect where this little girl got off?—A. At Broad and Hunter streets.

Q. What time did you reach that point?—A. About two and one-half minutes later. It took that long on account of the crowds.

Q. It took that long?—A. Yes, I was not running the car then. I was sitting behind Mary Phagan. There was a little girl on the seat with her.

Q. Where did she get off?—A. At Broad and Hunter streets.

Q. What time was it then?—A. 12:10 as near as I could recollect.

Q. Where did she go when she got off?—A. She walked to the sidewalk with the girl that was with her.

Q. Did you see this little girl get on the car?—A. Yes.

Q. Did a little boy get on the car with her?—A. No.

Didn’t See Epps Boy.

Q. Do you know this little boy Epps?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he get on the car with her?—A. No.

Q. He didn’t sit on the seat with her?—A. No; I didn’t see him.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. You said you arrived at Broad and Hunter streets at about 12:10 o’clock. Why do you say about 12:10 if you are sure of it?—A. It was about that time.

Q. Didn’t you tell Detective Whitfield, of the Pinkertons, that you might have been three or four minutes ahead of schedule?—A. No.

Q. You are sure you never told him that?—A. No.

Q. How is it that you are willing to tell this jury that Mary Phagan did not get off at Marietta and Broad streets?—A. Wait a minute and I will tell you. There was an ex-conductor sitting by me. He had a pin on his coat. I took it off and leaning over to Mary Phagan I said: “Little girl, this is your picture.” She said: “No, it ain’t.” That made me positive.

Can’t Describe Clothing.

Q. Tell me how these little girls were dressed?—A. I don’t remember, except they were dressed in something light.

Q. Well, tell us anything that Mary Phagan had on?—A. I don’t know anything except she had on a dress and hat.

Q. Yes, she had on shoes and stockings, too?—A. Yes, and her dress was light colored.

Q. You didn’t see George Epps?—A. No, I didn’t see him.

Q. Would you know George Epps if you were to see him?—A. I would know him if I were to see him now.

Q. Tell me one thing about him by which you can identify him?—A. I can’t remember.

Q. What color was Mary Phagan’s hat?—A. It was light color.

Q. You say it was a light color. Just what color was it?—A. I don’t know.

Q. What did you say light color for? Come, don’t—

Arnold Calls Halt.

Attorney Arnold interrupted.

“Just wait a minute. That is not the form to question him.”

“All right, I’ll put the question differently,” said Dorsey.

Q. Mr. Matthews, you did not observe what color her clothes were?—A. No, sir.

Q. What time did you hear about her murder?—A. Sunday morning.

Q. What time did you go down to identify her?—A. About 6:45 in the afternoon.

Q. You recognized her as the little girl you had carried down the day before?—A. Yes.

Q. How did you recognize her?—A. Well, I knew her. One day she was late and and I waited for her and she said she was mad because she was late. Every time after that I would ask her if she was mad.

Fails on Color of Hat.

Attorney Arnold took the witness and showed him the dress Mary Phagan wore.

Q. Was this the dress she wore that day?—A. I am not sure, but it looks like it might have been.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness. He showed the witness Mary Phagan’s hat.

Q. Is this the light hat you just now told the jury Mary Phagan had on? (The hat was of dark lavender material.)

Q. The girl you saw had on a light hat?—A. That’s what I remember.

The witness was excused, and W. T. Hollis, conductor on the English avenue car on which the Phagan girl rode to town Saturday, April 26, took the witness stand. Arnold examined him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Street car conductor.

Q. Where were you on April 26?—A. On the English avenue and Cooper street line.

Q. Did you cross Lindsay street?—A. Yes.

Conductor Saw Girl.

Q. On what street?—A. Bellwood avenue.

Q. How many miles is it from this point to the heart of the city?—A. I couldn’t say.

Q. What time do you leave the other end of the line?—A. On the hour, quarter and half.

Q. What time did the car that left at 15 minutes to 12 get to the city?—A. It took 22 1-2 minutes.

Q. Did the little girl get on at Lindsay street?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you know her name then?—A. No.

Q. When did you see her again?—A. The next day at the morgue.

Q. Did this little boy, George Epps, get on the car and ride with her?—A. No; he was not with her when I collected the fare.

Q. Was the car crowded?—A. There were only three passengers.

Q. What time did you get to Broad and Marietta streets?—A. About 12:07 1-2.

Epps Boy Didn’t Get Off.

Q. Where did you get off?—A. At Marietta and Forsyth streets.

Q. Did this little girl get off there?—A. No; I left her on the car.

Q. Did this little boy, Epps, get off there?—A. No.

Q. How long did it take to get from Broad and Marietta to Hunter street—A. About 2 1-2 minutes, as a rule.

Q. Do you recollect how she was dressed?—A. No.

Q. You don’t know whether these are the clothes?—A. No; I never noticed.

Attorney Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. There was nothing unusual about her coming in that day, was there?—A. No.

Q. There was no particular reason why you should remember these things, is there?—A. No.

Never Ahead of Time, He Says.

Q. You don’t know whether these are her clothes, or not, do you?—A. No.

Q. You always notice when anything happens to throw you off your schedule, don’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. But you don’t pay any attention to being a few minutes ahead of time, do you?—A. We don’t ever come in town ahead of time.

Q. Are you ever late?—A. Yes; sometimes.

Q. Was there anyone sitting with Mary Phagan on the car?—A. No.

Q. You didn’t see a little girl sitting beside her?—A. No. When I got her fare, she was sitting alone, as I remember.

Q. She usually came down early in the morning—factory hours—didn’t she?—A. Yes; she usually caught the car that gets to town at 7:07. She said she was fifteen minutes late when she caught the car, when she said she was mad.

Q. Which end of the car did she get on?—A. The front end.

Q. Which end were you on?—A. The back end.

Q. And you say you overheard a conversation between her and the motorman?—A. Yes; he asked her if she was mad, and she said yes, she was late.

Said She Was Late.

Q. She went down early in the morning, as a rule? Yet, when she said she was late, it was ten minutes to 12 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Attorney Arnold took the witness on the redirect examination.

Q. Are the cars on this line long or short?—A. Short cars.

Q. Was there any difficulty in hearing what was said on the front end when the car was standing still?—A. No.

Q. No such thing as being ahead of time ever happens?—A. No, sir; it is against the rules of the company.

Attorney Hooper took the witness again.

Q. Do you mean to say that you obey the rules of the company so well that you are never ahead of time nor never run a little late?—A. It isn’t against the rules of the company to be late.

Q. Then you are never early—not even when going to the barn?—A. It isn’t against the rules of the company to come in ahead of time when going to the barn, so long as you don’t run reckless.

Q. And that day you brought Mary Phagan in was your last trip?—A. Yes.

Defense Turns Over Books.

Attorneys for the defense at this juncture turned over to the prosecution the cash book and the bank book of the National Pencil Company. Hollis was excused and Albert Kauffman, an engineer, who drew a plot and diagram of the Selig residence where Frank resided, took the stand.

He was examined by Attorney Arnold.

Q. What is your business?—A. Civil engineer.

Q. Have you made a drawing of the Selig residence on Georgia avenue?—A. Yes.

Q. When?—A. Last week.

Q. Did you make a plat of the kitchen, the dining room, the reception hall, the parlor and the hall?—A. Yes.

Q. How many feet is it from the kitchen door to the passageway?—A. Fourteen feet.

Couldn’t See Mirror.

Q. How wide is the passageway?—A. Two and one-half feet wide and about two feet long.

Q. Did you stand in the kitchen door and see if you could see the mirror in the dining room?—A. Yes.

Q. Could you see it?—A. No. No part of the glass was visible.

Q. Were you present when a photographer took views of the place?—A. Yes.

Q. Standing on the south side of that door, did you see the sideboard?—A. Not within two or three feet of it.

Q. Have you drawn a plat of Georgia avenue?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you draw a diagram of the block bounded by Pulliam street?—A. Yes.

Q. How far is it from the Selig home to Pulliam street?—A. 221 feet.

Q. How far to Washington street?—A. 175 feet.

Q. What does this represent? (A diagram of the pencil factory was displayed.)—A. That is the pencil factory.

Gives Dimensions of Factory.

Q. What is the size of the elevator shaft?—A. Six by eight.

Q. What is the length and breadth of this hole? (A spot where the ladder goes down into the basement of the factory was indicated).—A. Two feet by 2 feet 3 inches.

Q. What is the distance from the elevator to the spot where the body was found?—A. 176 feet.

Q. To the boiler?—A. 90 feet.

Q. From the elevator to this toilet?—A. 118 feet.

Q. The distance from the elevator to the back stairway?—A. 135 feet.

Q. The elevator to the chute? First, the dimensions?—A. 5 feet wide, 15 feet long.

Q. Was that large enough for a human body to go down?—A. One or several.

Q. How far from the elevator is it?—A. About 30 feet.

Q. How far is the back door from the elevator?—A. 165 feet.

Q. The total length of the building?—A. 200 feet.

Q. What are the widths of the walls?—A. Four feet.

Q. What kind of a bunk is in that inclosure back there by the boiler?—A. A big box.

Q. What is in it?—A. All kinds of trash.

Q. How far is the trash pile from the spot where the body was found?—A. Sixty-one feet.

Q. The toilet?—A. Twenty-one feet.

Q. From the back door?—A. Forty-two feet.

Q. What about the line of vision from the toilet to where the body was found?—A. An angle of 43 degrees.

Q. How far would the line of vision throw you from this partition?—A. About 3 feet.

Q. Could you see a body there?—A. Not all of it.

Q. Is it an accurate plan of the first floor?—A. Yes.

Q. What is the width of the front door?—A. Six feet.

Q. What is the length of this partition from the front door?—A. Twenty-six feet.

Q. From the front door to the stairway, how far is it—A. Thirty-six feet.

Q. From the staircase to the elevator shaft?—A. Thirteen feet.

Q. From the stairway to this hole?—A. Ten and one-half feet.

Q. Is there a long hallway on the first floor?—A. Yes.

Trap Door Near Tragic Spot.

Q. Does it extend to the west end of the building?—A. Yes.

Q. What is it used for?—A. Maybe a storeroom.

Q. Was it closed?—A. Yes.

Q. What was in there?—A. Two toilets.

Q. How far back?—A. About 90 feet.

Q. Is this the spot directly over where the body was found?—A. Yes.

Q. What did you find on the right hand side, next to the toilet?—A. A trap door.

Q. Were there steps?—A. Yes.

Q. How near to this chute was the body found?—A. About 20 feet.

Q. When the trap is open, where does it lead to?—A. To the basement.

Q. What is it used for?—A. To send boxes down.

Q. Did you observe the door of the safe when it stood open in the outer office?—A. Yes.

Q. To what extent did it close off the view to the inner office?—A. Entirely.

Q. Could you see over that safe door?—A. Yes.

Q. Could a girl?—A. I don’t think so.

Q. To the right of the door in the inner office, what did you find?—A. A desk.

Q. Are there two windows there?—A. Yes.

Q. They open on the street, don’t they?—A. Yes.

Office 150 Feet From Dressing Room.

Q. This is Frank’s desk?—A. Yes.

Q. A person on the other side of the street could see the desk, couldn’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. How far is it from Frank’s office to the dressing room?—A. One hundred and fifty feet.

Q. What kind of a view is it from Frank’s office to the stairway?—A. None at all.

Q. What kind of a view of the clock?—A. He could see about one-quarter of the first clock.

Q. What are these open spaces (pointing to the diagram)?—A. Passage ways.

Q. How wide are the doors to the metal room?—A. Six feet.

Q. How far from that door is it to the ladies’ room?—A. About 10 feet.

Frank Makes Suggestion.

Q. From that point how far is it to the lathe?—A. Twenty feet.

Q. From this lathe to the point where Conley said he found the body?—A. Thirty-seven feet.

Q. How far from the ladies’ toilet?—A. Nineteen feet.

Here Frank arose from his seat and walked across to Attorney Rosser to make a suggestion for a question.

Q. What is the size of these vats?—A. Six by four.

Q. Could you get a girl into one of these?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you find in this whole building a cot, a bed or a sofa?—A. No.

Q. Did you find anything that looked like a bedroom, except the ladies’ room?—A. No.

Hooper Cross-Examines.

Attorney Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Who told you the location of the body?—A. Mr. Schiff.

Q. He was under Mr. Frank in the factory?—A. Yes.

Q. Then if that location was wrong all of your measurements were wrong?

Arnold objected and his objection was sustained.

Q. You based all your measurements on Mr. Schiff’s location of the body?—A. Yes.

Q. If that was wrong, all of your measurements were wrong—I mean about lines of vision, etc.?—A. Yes.

Q. You found a gas jet burning in the basement? Where was it?—A. Near the front.

Q. On the third floor you depended for light on the front doors and windows?—A. Yes.

Q. These are all glass?—A. Yes.

Q. There is also a gas jet further back?—A. I didn’t see any.

Q. On the first floor you say there is a trap door near the elevator two feet by two feet three inches, leading to the basement?—A. Yes.

Trap Door Small.

Q. A man of your size would have a hard time getting through there, wouldn’t he?—A. Yes.

Q. Two people couldn’t get through?—A. No.

Q. The scuttle hole back on the first floor leads to the basement?—A. Yes, to the dustpan in the back.

Q. A man doesn’t look in a curved line, does he?—A. No, sir.

Q. Well, what do these curved lines on the second floor mean?—A. Those indicate the direction he probably walked.

Several of the jurymen were inattentive to these demonstrations.

Q. Anyone coming into this office could see if anyone was in there, couldn’t he, if the door adjoining was open?—A. Yes.

Q. Nobody standing on the fourth floor at the head of the stairway could see down to the second floor?—A. I don’t think they could.

Q. Don’t you know they couldn’t?—A. They might have a little view.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 8th 1913, “Witnesses Attack Conley Story,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)