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

Atlanta Constitution
July 25^th, 1913

Negro Was Taken to Tower Without Knowledge of Beavers or Lanford.

Action is likely to be taken against Detective John Starnes and Pat Campbell, who Wednesday afternoon carried Jim Conley, the negro in the Phagan case, from police headquarters to the Tower without permission of either Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford.

When asked by a Constitution reporter Thursday afternoon what steps he would probably take against the detectives, Chief Beavers declined to talk. He inferred, however, that an investigation would likely result and that action would be taken.

Conley was taken from the station house prison shortly before noon Wednesday without the knowledge, it is said, of even Desk Sergeant Arch Holcombe. He was taken to the Tower for a four-hour examination in the cell of Newt Lee, which examination was promoted by Solicitor General Dorsey and his associate, Frank Hooper.

Neither Chief Knew.

Neither Chief Beavers nor Chief Lanford, it is stated, were aware of his absence from headquarters until informed by newspaper reporters who told the detective head. Lanford immediately conferred with Beavers with the result that the latter hurried to the jail, finding the prisoner with the detectives and attorneys.

Secrecy was thrown about the move, and, it is rumored, it was in an effort to prevent reporters from getting wind of the examination that Conley was spirited from the prison in such a mysterious manner. Starnes and Campbell say, however, that they did not inform their chiefs purely because neither happened to be at headquarters at the time.

If both Beavers and Lanford had been in the place, however, they state, they would have sought permission of each chief before removing the negro. Upon visiting the jail Wednesday afternoon, Beavers did not interfere in any manner with the examination.

Chief Lanford said to reporters Thursday that none of his men would ever again take such liberties, and Beavers declared that if Conley were to be removed in the future he would be fully aware of the move and would personally superintended it.

He was asked if action had been taken against either Starnes or Campbell or the turnkey, Tom Bayne, who was on duty at the time the negro was taken from his cell. His answer was:

No Action on Record.

“I can’t talk. No action, however, is on record.”

When asked if action would be taken, he said:

“I can’t help what you infer. I’m only stating facts.”

He would not state whether or not the detectives were guilty of insubordination in assuming authority which should rest only in the hands of department heads.

“I’d rather not talk,” was all he would say.

It is rumored around headquarters that a thorough investigation is being made, and that Starnes and Campbell will be compelled to make a report of their action.

No Action by Lanford.

Chief Lanford stated to a reporter last night that there probably would be no action taken against either Campbell or Starnes, as Conley is as much in charge of his attorney, William M. Smith, as of police headquarters.

Smith’s consent had been obtained for the removal to the jail, Lanford said, and the attorney had made an effort to communicate with both the detective head and Chief Beavers before carrying out the move. Inasmuch as Conley is held only as witness, and is in charge of his attorney, Starnes and Campbell, the chief declared, did nothing wrong in their act.

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Presents Evidence Showing Indictment of Negro Would Hinder Frank Prosecution.

Here are the important developments of Monday in the Phagan case:

The decision of the Grand Jury of Fulton County not to bring at this time an indictment against James Conley.

The information that there is a strong probability of another postponement of the trial of Leo M. Frank.

The Grand Jury’s refusal to reopen its investigation of the Phagan murder mystery was a decided victory for the Solicitor after that body had overridden his request that no session be called to take up the matter in any of its aspects.

A report that Judge L.S. Roan, who will preside at the Frank trial, had signified his desire that the case be put off until fall, gave rise to the expectation that another postponement will take place, and that the date probably will be set for some week in September.

Defense Said To Be Willing.

The defense also is said to be in favor of a continuence [sic]. Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, said Monday that he did not contemplate asking for further delay, but thought that it would be a hardship on the jurors to hear the case at this time of the year. He made it plain that he would not oppose any move for a continuance.

The Grand Jury Monday decided to take no action at this time looking to the indictment of James Conley, accuser of Leo M. Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan.

The Grand Jury came to its decision after Solicitor General Dorsey had presented a mass of evidence to show why the indictment of the negro would hamper the prosecution of Frank. After more than an hour’s conference the Solicitor issued this statement.

“I am requested by the Grand Jury to say no action will be taken at this time on the James Conley matter, and that that body will not pay any attention whatever to anonymous communications.”

It is known that the Grand Jury has been flooded with letters on the Phagan case, many of them urging action on Conley, and many unsigned.

A recent Supreme Court decision was cited by Solicitor Dorsey to the Grand Jury when he demanded “hands off” on the Conley indictment. The decision says of the Solicitor:

“He is to determine whether or not to commence a particular prosecution, or to discontinue one already begun. The Solicitor General draws the bill of indictment and examines the witnesses, not with a view to the interest of any client, but alone to subserve public justice.

“The whole prosecution from the time the case is laid before him is under his direction, supervision and control.—102 Georgia, page 271.”

Delay in Trial Rumored.

The impression gained ground Monday that a postponement of the trial of Frank was probable. It was reported that the defense would make a move to effect this before the case comes up on June 28.

According to Solicitor Dorsey, Judge L.S. Roan, who will try the case, is not particularly anxious that it will come up at this time.

Says Judge Favors Delay.

“I was talking with Judge Roan a short time ago,” said the Solicitor, “and from his conversation I gathered[…]

SOLICITOR HALTS INDICTMENT OF JIM CONLEY

Grand Jury Defers Action After Dorsey Shows It Will Hamper Frank Prosecution.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]that he would rather the trial did not come up before fall, though he did not say so outright.”

Shortly before noon Jim Conley was taken from his cell at police headquarters and spirited off in an automobile by Detectives Starnes and Campbell, the officers who have had complete charge of the negro for several weeks. Inquiry failed to reveal the destination or purpose of this action. The negro was out of his cell less than an hour and on his return the same strict secrecy was maintained.

Fighting Mincey.

According to Chief of Detectives Lanford, the mysterious trip of Conley from police headquarters with Detectives Starnes and Campbell ended at the corner of Electric avenue and Carter street, where W.H. Mincey, the insurance agent, declared in an affidavit the negro was sitting on the curb intoxicated the afternoon of the Phagan murder, and confessed that he had killed a girl that day.

Chief Lanford stated that an effort had been made by the detectives to have persons residing in that vicinity identify Conley as having seen him there at the time Mincey stated. However, no one had been able to do so. It was also declared that Conley had been taken around to a Butler street address where it is declared the negro was at the time Mincey swears the conversation on the curbing took place.

Solicitor Dorsey was the only person asked to appear before the jurors. Before they assembled he asserted that he was entirely confident that no indictment would be returned against the negro.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Protest of Solicitor Dorsey Wins,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, July 16, 1913

*Editor’s Note: A small section of text is missing from the article due to scanning blur near a page fold.

CONLEY NEGRO MAY BE INDICTED OVER DORSEY’S PROTEST

New Grand Jury Will Take Up Case and Make an Effort to Get a True Bill Against Negro as Principal

NEGRO HAS ALREADY ADMITTED COMPLICITY

Solicitor Dorsey Is Expected to Vigorously Oppose Jury’s Move—Negro Sweated Again by Detectives

It was learned Wednesday by The Journal, on reliable authority, that there is a strong probability of the Fulton county grand jury which was recently organized by the election of W.D. Beattie as foreman will take up the case of Jim Conley, negro sweeper at the National Pencil factory, and confessed accomplice to the murder of Mary Phagan, before the trial of Leo M. Frank, who is accused of the crime by the negro, is entered upon.

If the grand jury takes up the negro’s case, it is believed that a bill charging the negro with the crime as a principal will be considered and if an indictment is brought it seems probable that murder will be the charge.

The grand jury will take up Conley’s case over the vigorous protest of Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, who it is stated, has not changed his theory about the murder.

Solicitor Dorsey has from the beginning taken the position that Conley should be held as a material witness and that this was not the time for the grand jury to investigate his connection with the Phagan murder. If the grand jury takes up the negro’s case there seems little doubt that the solicitor will bitterly oppose its action.

An indictment of Conley prior to the trial of Frank as principal would undoubtedly greatly weaken the state’s case, and the solicitor is expected to use […] jury to persuade if not to consider an indictment.

MEETS THIS WEEK.

A meeting of the grand jury will probably be called during the present week, its chief object being, it is said, to take up oCnley’s [sic] case. It is said that a number of the members of the jury are of the opinion that it is the grand jury’s duty to investigate Conley’s story and determine whether an indictment should not be returned against him.

In response to their requests it is said that the foreman, W.D. Beattie, has practically decided to call a meeting. Foreman Beattie was in conference with the solicitor Tuesday, but both of them declined to state what the subject of their conversation was.

It is believed that the probability of the grand jury taking up Conley’s case and considering an indictment was the cause of the sweating given to the negro Wednesday by the solicitor and Detectives Starnes and aCmpbell. [sic]

It is probable that the solicitor wanted to go over the negro’s story and make doubly sure that he had told everything that he knows in connection with the crime. Whatever the object, it is known that the negro was put through a gruelling examination, and that every effort was made to wring additional information from him.

CONLEY GRILLED AGAIN.

James Conley, the negro was has confessed that he was an accessory in the Mary Phagan murder, was grilled again Wednesday by Detectives Starnes and Campbell, who have been working under the direction of the solicitor general.

While the solicitor maintains that the state’s theory of the crime has not been changed and he is going ahead with plans for the trial of Leo M. Frank on July 28, the continued sweating of the negro has occasioned much speculation.

Immediately after Conley made his three startling affidavits, in which he[…]

(Continued On Page 7, Col. 1)

CONLEY NEGRO MAY BE INDICTED OVER DORSEY’S PROTEST

(Continued from Page One.)

[…]said that Frank killed the girl and that he helped dispose of her body, he was cross-examined for hours at a time, the solicitor and the detectives making themselves thoroughly familiar with the case.

Then he was allowed to rest for several weeks, but now, almost on the eve of the Frank trial, the officers have commenced more vigorously than ever their cross-examination, and this occasioned the rumor that Conley has again changed his story, or that the detectives are expecting still another confession.

Solicitor Dorsey on Tuesday examined a new witness, a young woman, who made a lengthy statement, which the state considers of importance. The woman’s story had no direct bearing on the crime, it is said, and can only be used in event the defense puts Frank’s character in issue.

Preparations for the Frank trial, which will be held in the court room on the first floor of the old city hall, are now being made by Deputy Plennie Minor and other court attaches.

When the sweating of Conley was concluded shortly before 2 o’clock, it developed that Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey had been present at the questioning. He left the room in company with City Detectives Stares [sic] and Campbell, all of whom declined to give any intimation of what had transpired behind the closed doors. The negro was immediately led back to his cell.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 16th 1913, “Second Phagan Indictment Probable,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

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

TELLS HOW JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL AND ESCAPED DETECTION

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

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

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

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

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

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

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

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

Frank’s Answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls Gantt A Liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof I Am Innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character Witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, March 9th 1914, “Leo Frank Answers List of Questions Bearing On Points Made Against Him,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Wednesday, June 25, 1913

Date of Trial Changed From June 30 Until July 28 at Plea of Attorneys for Defense.

The first appearance in open court of the indictment against Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan came yesterday afternoon when Judge L. S. Roan, presiding over the criminal division of superior court, summoned attorneys for both sides, and after a hearing changed the date of trial from June 30, as set by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, to July 28.

This and the legal move by the defense in serving upon Solicitor Dorsey, Police Chief James L. Beavers, Detective Chief Newport Lanford and other detectives and officials for the state, with formal subpoenas duces tecum, commanding them to bring to court all affidavits they may have which bear upon the state’s case against Frank, were the only changes in the present situation.

Judge Roan also decided that the trial of Frank would be held not in the regular room in which he holds his division of court, but in one of the rooms in which the civil division of the superior court sits.

Where Trial Will be Held.

This was done, the judge explained, because the ceiling is very low in the courtroom in the Thrower building, where his court regularly sits, and the room is ventilated by windows only on one side. The trial will be held, according to present plans, in one of the courtrooms in the old city hall, corner South Pryor and East Hunter streets, where the ceilings are higher and windows can be thrown open on both sides of the room to allow ventilation.

Solicitor Dorsey appeared very anxious to have the trial take place on June 30, the date he had in his official capacity as solicitor, named. He states that his only reason for this is that the state is ready, and he is anxious to dispose of the case as soon as possible.

This date was stricken out by Judge Roan when Attorney Reuben Arnold, for the defense, came out with the statement that the trial would last two weeks. July 14, another date suggested, was left out upon the statement by Attorney Arnold and Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, both for the defense, that they would be engaged in the trial of Mrs. Mattie Flanders, in Swainsboro, Ga. At that time the two Atlanta attorneys who are working together in the Frank defense, will oppose each other. Attorney Rosser will represent the defense, while his colleague will aid the prosecution.

Judge Roan, in announcing his determination of the trial date, stated that he believed that it was necessary to set a definite date, formally agreed upon by both sides and thus eliminate a further delay. The judge took the position that the case, while before the law similar to any other, is really different, in that it will be one in which many veniremen and witnesses must be brought into court, and a postponement would cost the state a large sum of money.

Both sides announced in court that they would be ready when the time comes.

“I’m ready now to take up the trial,” said the solicitor, “and that’s why I am objecting to any postponement.”

“We are ready ourselves,” said both attorneys for the defense.

These public declarations make it appear that the trial will actually take place on the July date set, and that, unless something new should appear, there will be no further delay.

Solicitor Dorsey refused later to discuss the service of a duces tecum upon him. He declined to state what would be his action in regard to the matter, or what in his opinion was its legal bearing upon the case.

May Attack Conley Statement.

The subpoenas declare that the papers and affidavits are wanted as evidence for the defense of Frank, and leads to the belief that the defense will make an attack upon the various statements of James Conley, the negro sweeper, who had declared in an affidavit that he aided Frank in hiding the Phagan girl’s body. The several affidavits alleged to have been made by the Conley negro are demanded in the subpoenas, as are the affidavits credited to Miss Monteen Stover and Miss Grace Hix.

Another affidavit demanded from all of the parties subpoenaed is that of W. M. Mathews. The name of Mathews has not yet appeared publicly in the Phagan case, and his affidavit, if there is such a one, is believed to have been secured by Solicitor Dorsey and held in secret by him. Just how the defense succeeded in finding out that there is such an affidavit, or getting reasons for declaring that there is one, in their demand for it, is not explained. The solicitor refuses to discuss this affidavit, and the other officials deny all knowledge of it.

The others named in the subpoenas duces tecum besides those already mentioned are: Assistant Solicitor E. A. Stephens, Harry Scott, a Pinkerton detective, employed by the National Pencil company, but working with the city detectives on the case; City Detectives John Black, Pat Campbell and J. N. Starnes and G. C. Febuary, secretary to Chief Lanford.

Confers With Assistant.

Solicitor Dorsey is still taking up various points in the case and going over them with his assistant and with Attorney Frank Hooper, retained to aid the state. He spent several hours late Tuesday evening in conference with Detectives Campbell and Starnes. He has also planned several changes in an elaborate drawing of the National pencil factory, which he had specially drawn from measurements.

Bert Green, a newspaper artist, who made the drawing for the state, is the same man who, while employed in New York, made the diagrams of a New York roof garden in the famous case against Harry K. Thaw for the murder of Stanford White.

Conley is Grilled.

Jim Conley, the negro pencil factory sweeper, was subjected to a secret grilling at police headquarters yesterday shortly before noon. Detectives say it was in an effort to extract some new statement, but declare that the negro divulged nothing of fresh importance. Chief Lanford would not talk to reporters regarding the examination.

Conley was not taken to the chief’s office, as has heretofore been the custom. Detectives Campbell and Starnes and others took him to a vacant cell in the extreme rear of the prison, where he was questioned for an hour or more.

The negro’s counsel, Attorney William M. Smith, also was not aware of the examination. He says, however, that nothing new was gained from Conley, and that he was questioned only in regard to a probable desire to make additional statements.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 25th 1913, “Trial of Leo Frank Postponed by Judge,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, June 25, 1913

Few Developments Expected Between Now and July 28, Conley Is Grilled

The statements made by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and by Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser, the counsel for the defense before the postponement of the trial of Leo M. Frank from June 30, the date set by the solicitor, to July 28, indicate very strongly that neither side expects further developments of importance in the investigation.

Mr. Dorsey told the court that his case was complete and that he was ready for trial. All of the statements by Attorneys Arnold and Rosser indicate that they also have completed the preparation of the defense and are ready for the court fight.

One of the most interesting of the statements made by counsel was that of Mr. Arnold, who said that it would take two weeks to try the case, showing that the defense will have many witnesses, and will come to court prepared to fight every inch in the case.

The action of the defense in demanding through subpoenas duces tecum practically all of the affidavits of importance which have been made the detectives during the Phagan investigation seems to bear out the theory published in The Journal that the defense will consist of the corroboration of Frank’s story as told at the inquest by a number of witnesses, and of an effort to establish, largely by the detectives themselves, the thory [sic] that the negro James Conley is guilty of the crime with which Frank is charged.

It is certain that Conley’s story will be attacked through his many varying affidavits, and much evidence to assist Frank will be brought out through the city detectives, who charge him with the crime.

The substance of all of the affidavits demanded by the defense is known. Conley’s varying affidavits have long formed one of the sensations of the case. Miss Grace Hix, it will be remembered, identified Mary Phagan’s body, while Miss Monteen Stover declares that she came to the pencial [sic] factory of the date of the tragedy at 12:05 o’clock and found no one in the office, not even Frank, who had testified that he was there at that hour.

W. M. Matthews, whose affidavit is also wanted, is a street car motorman working on the English avenue line. He states that a girl, whom he afterwards learned was Mary Phagan, boarded his car near Bellwood avenue on the date of the tragedy, and that she left it about 12:10 o’clock at Broad and Hunter streets.

The statement of the motorman will be valuable to the defense for the reason that the little newsboy who swears he rode to the city with Mary Phagan the day she met her death, states that she got off the car at Forsyth street and went over the viaduct, while he went under it to get some papers.

Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, is said to have gone through another grilling at police headquarters, Detectives Starnes and Campbell having shortly before noon Tuesday conferred for a long time with him in a cell at police headquarters.

It is said that Conley has in no way changed the story he told when his last affidavit was signed.

Apparently the detectives are not yet satisfied with the story told by Conley as again Wednesday morning the negro was put on the grill by officers, who visited his cell at headquarters. Chief of Police J. L. Beavers, when questioned as to the reason of the sudden determination of the detectives to resume the examination of the negro, stated that no special significance was to be attached to the action.

“We have not yet been able to break the negro’s story,” the official said, “nor have we found witnesses, who can prove that it is incorrect.”

It is said that the questioning of the negro has been resumed at the instance [sic] of Solicitor Dorsey, who desires that the detectives examine the negro on every point, regardless of how insignificant it may seem.

The officials deny that anything has occurred to change their theory of the case.

A story published under a Washington date line Wednesday stated that Senator Hoke Smith has denied that an effort has been made to interest him in the Frank defense.

Luther Z. Rosser when asked to comment on the report said that he had nothing to say except that the matter had been correctly stated by the senator.

It was learned definitely Wedensday [sic] that there will be no effort to thrash out the matter on subpenas duces tecum served to stated officers to produce many affidavits made in the Phagan investigation, when court meets Monday.

The matter will not come up until the actual trial of Frank is entered into.

While the subpenas ordered the affidavits produced on June 30 the documents read “or any other time that the case of the state against Frank may be tried in the superior court.”

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 25th 1913, “Both Sides Are Ready for Trial of Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, June 24, 1913

Judge Names Date After Statement From Reuben R. Arnold, In Which He Said Trial Would Last Two Weeks

DEFENSE TAKES STEPS TO GET STATE’S EVIDENCE

Subpenas Duces Tecum Issued, Demanding Production of Affidavits and Popers [sic] in Possession of Solicitor

Leo M. Frank, accused of the slaying of Mary Phagan, will not be tried before superior court Judge L. S. Roan next Monday. The judge in a conference with attorneys at 2 o’clock Tuesday afternoon formally set the trial for Monday, July 28, and no attempt to reopen the questions of arraignment will be made. Both the prosecution and the defense agreed to this date.

Any attempt made to put Frank on trial on next Monday was silenced when Reuben R. Arnold, speaking for the defense, said flatly that the trial would take at least two weeks. The assurance that the trial would last some time and the fact that it likely would be held in the stuffy little court room in the Thrower building, if scheduled Monday, practically caused the postponement.

Solicitor Dorsey, for the state, and Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, for the prosecution, were summoned to the court house by Judge Roan at 3 o’clock and a discussion of the matter was opened.

SOLICITOR ANNOUNCED READY.

Solicitor Dorsey announced that he was ready and made the declaration that his witnesses would not take more than two days at the outside. He said if the defense had any he didn’t think they would take any longer.

This remark brought a grunt from Luther Z. Rosser and the Arnold statement that the trial would take two weeks.

“We have the witnesses,” both of the lawyers for the defense asserted.

Both Attorneys Rosser and Arnold told the court that in the event of a postponement of the case for Monday that they desired it to go over until after the week of July 14, when both would be engaged in the trial of Mattie Flanders in Swainsboro. Mr. Rosser represents the defense of Mrs. Flanders and Mr. Arnold the prosecution.

This came when Solicitor Dorsey suggested that the case be tried on July 7.

Judge Roan, in fixing July 28 as a date suitable to all concerned, said that there would be no break in the week, as there would with July 4, that a good court room for the trial could be obtained about July 13, that the jail could be cleared of routine cases by that time and previously made engamenest [sic] would not be interrupted.

All lawyers concerned were in court and the judge asserted that lack of preparation could not be offered as an excuse when the case was called on July 28.

The attorneys for Leo M. Frank Tuesday afternoon secured subpoenas duces tecum to be served on Chief James L. Beavers, Chief N. A. Lanford, Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, Assistant Solicitor E. A. Stevens, Hary [sic] Scott, of the Pinkertons; City Detectives John Black, Pat Campbell and J. N. tSarnes [sic], and Secretary of Chief Lanford, G. C. Febuary, calling upon them to produce in court Monday June 30, or any other day that the Frank case might be on trial, all affidavits or statements secured from Jim Conley, the negro sweeper; Monteen Stover and Grace Hix.

Subpoenas declared that the papers are wanted as evidence by the defense in the case of Leo M. Frank.

ALL PAPERS DEMANDED.

The subpoenas duces tecum order those upon whom they are served to produce a certain affidavit or statement sworn to by James Conley in the presence of Detective John Black and Harry Scott, on May 18; also affidavits or statements made by Conley on May 24; also a certain written affida-[…]

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

JULY 28 IS DATE AGREED UPON FOR TRIAL OF FRANK

(Continued from Page 1.)

[…]vit or statement made and signed by Conley on May 28 in the presence of Chief Lanford and Detectives Black and Scott; also an affidavit made by Conley on May 28 in the presence of Lanford and Scott; also an affidavit or statement made by Conley on May 29 in the presence of Chief Lanford and Detectives Campbell and Scott; also “all other statements or affidavits made by James Conley in your power, custody or control, in reference to the murder of Mary Phagan.”

The subpoenas further demand the production of all statements or affidavits made by Newt Lee in reference to the case; also all affidavits or statements made by Monteen Stover; also all statements made by W. M. Mathews; and finally all statements or affidavits made by Grace Hix.

The subpoenas provide that the papers named shall be produced in court on Monday, June 30, or on any other day that the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank might be on trial.

It is evident by this move of the part of the defense that Mr. Frank’s attorneys propose to lay great stress upon the conflicting statements and affidavits made by the negro Conley as the real murderer of Mary Phagan, and his numerous statements in reference to the case will doubtless be used to show the unreliability of his evidence against Frank.

POINT TO BE CONTESTED.

While Solicitor Dorsey absolutely declined to discuss the demands of the defense for the production of the papers and affidavits secured by the state in its investigation of the Phagan tragedy, it is evident that the papers will not be turned over to the defense without a bitter fight. The papers unquestionably will be brought to court by those who not have them in custody, but before the defense is permitted access to them it is believed that the state will contest the point before the judge. Just how this will be done is not known.

Frank H. Hooper, the attorney who will be associated with the solicitor in the porsecution [sic], was in conference with Solicitor Dorsey and Detectives Starnes, Campbell and Harry Scott for several hours Tuesday morning. The nature of this conference was not known but it is believed that they were going over the evidence in the Phagan case, getting ready for the trial.

WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE?

There is considerable speculation as to the nature of the statement or affidavit made by W. M. Mathews, which is among the papers demanded by the defense. Both Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford declare that they never heard of Mathews in connection with the Phagan case before. It seems probable, therefore, that Mathews’ statement is part of the evidence secured by Solicitor Dorsey. The only W. M. Mathews whose name is in the city director is a street car motorman living at 449 Lee street.

CONFER WITH RELATIVES.

Detectives working on the Phagan case Monday afternoon held a conference at Chief Lanford’s office with J. W. Coleman, step-father of the slain girl, and W. J. Phagan, the aged grandfather, of Marietta.

The two men visited police headquarters at the request of the detectives and discussed every feature of the case to be brought out at the trial of Leo M. Frank.

It is said the two men went to headquarters for conference following the last attempt on the part of Solicitor Dorsey to gain new information from Jim Conley, the negro witness. Conley, it is said, was quizzed again Monday, but the examination, so officials assert, developed nothing new.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 24th 1913, “July 27 Is Date Agreed Upon for Trial of Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, June 23, 1913

Unless “Showing” Is Made in Open Court Why the Case Should Be Deferred, Trial Will Proceed

MONTEEN STOVER AGAIN FIGURES IN THE CASE

Detectives Question Her With View to Attacking Theory That Girl Was Slain on the First Floor

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, it was definitely learned Monday, will set the case of the State against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, for June 30, and the solicitor will insist that a legal “showing” be made by the defense before a postponement is allowed.

During the day Monday or early on Tuesday morning the court calendar for the week of June 30 will be made up and then a small army of bailiffs and deputies will commence to summon talesmen. Owing to the unusual interest in the case it is probable that more than 150 talesmen will be summoned to the court in order that twelve jurors to try Frank may be picked from them.

COURT WON’T INTERFERE.

It is understood that the court of its own volition will not interfere in the matter, and if a postponement of the case is secured it will be on a “legal showing” made in open court next Monday by the attorneys, who represent the accused man.

The illness of one of counsel or the absence from the city of a material witness or the engagement of counsel in another court, or any one of several other perfectly good excuses constitute legal grounds for the postponement of case, so the uncompromising attitude of the state by no means makes the trial of the case on June 30 a certanity [sic].

Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, the able attorneys, who represent Frank, will give no intimation of their attitude towards entering into the case next Monday.

The published rumor that John W. Moore, another noted Atlanta lawyer, would assist Attorneys Arnold and Rosser and Herbert Haas in the case is without foundation, according to Mr. Moore and the other attorneys connected with the case.

WITNESS QUESTIONED.

What is believed by the prosecution of Leo M. Frank to be a refutation of the defense’s theory that Mary Phagan was slain at the foot of the stairs on the first floor of the pencil factory, occurred at police headquarters Sunday afternoon, when Jim Conley, the negro, identified Monteen Stover, aged 14, 17 South Forsyth street, as the girl in the raincoat and “easy walkers” who went to the office on the second floor at 12:05 o’clock and came down the stairs five or ten minutes later and left the building.

The little Stover girl was taken before Conley in the detectives’ room Sunday and positively identified by the negro, according to the detectives who were present, Chief Lanford and Detectives Campbell and Starnes.

Conley declared that she was the girl he watched while he was hid at the foot of the tsairs [sic]. The Stover girl entered the building, went up the stairs to the office, stayed there some five or ten minutes, and then came down and went out.

J. C. Hines, who went to headquarters with Walter Sudderth and Mr. Edmundson, pointed out Monteen Stover as the girl whom he saw enter the building.

Mr. Hines, who was present at the alleged identification, said Monday that Miss Stover admitted that she went to the factory at that time to draw her pay, went up the stairs to the second floor and found the office open. She said that she waited around five or ten minutes and noticed the clock when she went into the office. It was 12:05, she said. As no one seemed to be around, she asserted, she left the place some time between 12:10 and 12:15 o’clock.

TO SET CASE FOR JUNE 30.

The prosecution believes that this will kill the defense’s theory that Mary Phagan was killed at the foot of the[…]

(Continued on last page, Col. 6.)

SOLICITOR WILL FIX FRANK TRIAL FOR JUNE 30, HE SAYS

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]stairs, assuming that the Phagan girl undoubtedly preceded Miss Stover into the factory. Miss Stover would have sen [sic] the body, they say, if Mary Phagan had been killed at the foot of the stairs.

Frank at the coroner’s inquest asserted that he paid Mary Phagan at about 12:10 or 12:15 o’clock, and that he himself did not leave the building until about 1 o’clock.

LITTLE GIRL TALKS.

Monteen Stover admitted Monday morning that she has gone to police headquarters Sunday with her stepfather, H. W. Edmondson, Walter Sudderth and J. C. Hines, to see if Conley could identify her. That the police attach significance to the identification is evidenced by the frequent efforts made by detectives to get her to headquarters.

“They wanted me to go down there Friday,” said the girl Monday, “but mamma didn’t want me to. Then Saturday they ‘phoned but mamma said no. Papa said I better go Sunday afternoon, so he took me down to the station himself.

“I wore the raincoat and hat I wore the day I went to the factory, but I didn’t wear the tennis shoes I had on that day and Conley said I was the one he saw only he said I had on ‘easy walkers’ that day. I guess he meant the tennis shoes.

“When I went to the pencil factory I went right up the stairs to the office and went through the front room to where they paid off. Nobody was there. The office door was open so I thought some one was around. I waited about five minutes and I noticed the clock when I went in. It was five minutes after twelve. Nobody came and I didn’t hear anybody so went down the stairs again and left the factory.”

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 23rd 1913, “Solicitor Will Fix Frank Trial for June 30, He Says,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 21, 1913

Belief Grows That Case Will Not Come Up Before July 14 or 28

Interest in the Phagan case still centers on the time of the trial of Leo M. Frank. Indications still are that the case will not be tried the week of June 30.

Solicitor Dorsey has never finally committed himself on the matter but Colonel Frank A. Hooper, who is associated [with] him, still expects the case to be set for that date.

Mr. Hooper expects the trial to last a week. The jail will not have been cleared by June 30, according to court attaches, and it is the general policy of the court to clear the jail of as many cases as possible before entering into a lengthy trial. In addition the Fourth of July, a holiday, comes in the week of June 30 and this might mean that the jury would be locked up during a day that the court was not in session. Still further there is the possibility that the defense will ask for a postponement.

Judge L. S. Roan will not have to hold court in the Stone Mountain circuit on either the week of July 14, or the week of July 28, and as a result it is now considered extremely probable that Frank will face a jury on one of those dates.

Apparently the Phagan case is at a standstill. Saturday both Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, who will be associated with the defense in all probability, were out of the city, on business said not to be connected with the case.

Mr. Hooper, who is in charge of the state’s case during the absence in New York of Solicitor Dorsey, states that there have been no developments of importance, and that the state is ready for the trial, whenever Mr. Dorsey returns and sets it on the court calendar.

Mr. Hooper was not interested in the return of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, maker of a sensational affidavit, to the city. The state made no effort to find her when she left the city, and apparently there is no chance of her being used as a witness unless the defense puts Frank’s character in issue.

During the absence of Solicitor Dorsey, Detectives Starnes and Campbell have been working under his instructions, smoothing over rough places in the state’s case, but nothing of importance has been developed.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 21st 1913, “Date of Frank Trial Still In Much Doubt,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, June 16, 1913

Solicitor Wants Photograph of Spot Where Mary Phagan’s Body Was Found

A flashlight picture, made by The Constitution’s staff photographer is to be used as evidence by the prosecution in the trial of Leo M. Frank. This was made evident Sunday afternoon when Detective John Starnes applied to a Constitution reporter for the photograph of the spot in the pencil factory basement, where Mary Phagan’s body was discovered.

Starnes would not state why he wanted the picture, saying only that it would be used by the prosecution. He was extremely desirous of getting it, and it will be put in his possession this morning. It is rumored that by the picture an effort will be made to corroborate certain statements of James Conley, the negro sweeper when he is placed on the witness stand.

Starnes told the reporter that the prosecution was ready for trial. He expressed confidence that the mystery would be cleared at the coming trial, which he believes will be held on the thirtieth. In case of postponement, he says, it will be the fault of the defense, as the state is ready.

Starnes has been intimately associated with the solicitor general during the murder investigation. In fact, he has been more closely in touch with Dorsey than any other official concerned in the case. He is a detective attached to headquarters and associated with Detective Pat Campbell who has been identified with many big criminal cases, which the detective department has solved.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 16th 1913, “Constitution Picture Will Figure in Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)