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

Atlanta Journal
August 10^th, 1913

After Two Weeks of Testimony Only Evidence Directly Linking Frank With the Crime is the Sensational Statement Made on the Stand by Negro Sweeper-Summary of Developments in Trial to Date

STATE HAS INTRODUCED 34 WITNESSES, DEFENSE 10

A Synopsis of the Evidence Presented by Both Sides Shows Just What the State Has Sought to Prove and How the Defense Has Begun to Fight to Convince Jury of Frank’s Innocence

For two long and tedious weeks Leo M. Frank, indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan, has been on trial for his life. During those two weeks forty-eight witnesses have testified, innumerable exhibits, documents, books, diagrams, photographs and illustrative contrivances have been displayed to the jury.

Only the remarkable story of James Conley, the negro sweeper, directly connects the defendant with the crime, and even in this ingenious narrative the negro did not say that he actually saw Frank do the deed.

Time and again while under the merciless gruelling of Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, Conley frankly and complacently confessed that he had lied and lied frequently in his many statements and affidavits to the detectives. However, he clung fast to his story as related upon the witness stand Monday, Tuesday and part of Wednesday. He had every circumstance and feature of this story clear in his mind and not once during the sixteen and a half hours that he was in the witness chair did he admit that any portion of it was false — notwithstanding the terrific bombardment of questions hurled at him on cross-examination by Attorney Rosser.

He would not attempt to explain apparent inconsistencies in his last and final testimony, but contented himself with asserting that he had told the whole truth.

There can be no doubt that Conley’s story made a profound impression even upon those who believe he is lying to save his own neck, and who are convinced that he was enabled to piece together a plausible narrative because the detectives in the continual sweating administered to the negro pointed out the flaws in his original stories.

But the question which present itself most persistently is: “Could this illiterate negro have conceived and fitted together such a set of detailed circumstances without some foundation in fact?”
The verdict in the Frank case without doubt depends on just how much credence the jury places in Conley’s testimony and how it regards the circumstantial evidence which the state has introduced to corroborate it.

ENTER MANY OBJECTIONS.

The defense is evidently playing for position in the event the jury returns a verdict against Frank. Both Attorneys Rosser and Arnold have daily entered many objections and taken many exceptions which they asked to be noted in the record. This is understood to mean that they are paving the way for an application to the supreme court for a new trial in case the verdict is adverse to their client.

With its thirty-four witnesses, the state, through Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Hooper, sought to show:

That Mary Phagan met her death in the metal room on the second floor of the pencil factory between 12:30 and 1 o’clock on April 26. That she went to the factory between 12:05 and 12:10 o’clock.

That she was struck on the head and rendered unconscious and that she was then strangled with a twine cord.

That Frank was the last person who saw the girl alive.

That he was out of his office between 12:05 and 12:10, after Mary Phagan called.

That she was heard to scream after she went up to the second floor of the factory.

That she was done some kind of external violence a few minutes before death.

That Frank called the negro Conley upstairs to help him get the body into the basement.

That when he went home to luncheon he did not eat anything and remained in the house but a few minutes.

That he was very nervous on the day after the murder when he was brought to the factory by the detectives.

That he refused to look upon the dead girl’s face when taken to the undertaking establishment.

That he is guilty of perversion. The state took nine days in which to […]

FIGHT FOR FRANK’S LIFE WILL CENTER AROUND STORY OF JIM CONLEY

[…] present its evidence. The defense has been offering evidence but three days and has introduced but fourteen witnesses, three of them having been witnesses for the state.

Just what is the theory of the defense as to the time and manner of the murder has not yet been disclosed. So far the defense has been content to confuse and cast doubt upon the evidence offered by the state.

THE EXPERT TESTIMONY.

Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health and a physician and chemist of high standing, testifying for the state said that he had made a careful examination of the dead girl’s boy and that he was satisfied beyond doubt that she had first been struck upon the back of the head and rendered unconscious and that later she was strangled to death.

Dr. Harris was positive that the girl died within a half or three-quarters of an hour after she ate the cabbage and bread which her mother swore she had eaten about 11:45. He based his opinion upon the undigested cabbage which he found in her stomach. Dr. Harris also testified that the girl had without doubt been done some violence a few minutes before death. This he had determined by the condition of the blood vessels.

DR. CHILDS DISAGREES.

The defense put up Dr. Leroy Childs, a well known physician and surgeon to rebut Dr. Harris’ testimony. Dr. Childs had not examined the Phagan girl’s body but from the evidence given by both Dr. Harris and Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner’s physician, he was confident that it would have been impossible to tell just how long after she had eaten the cabbage that the murder occurred. He declared that cabbage was one of the most indigestible of vegetables and often remained in the stomach for hours before being digested.

Dr. Childs expressed the opinion that death could have been produced by the blow on the head, but from the information furnished him he was inclined to the belief that she died from strangulation. He declared that the dilated and ruptured blood vessels could have resulted from natural causes and not necessarily from external violence.

George Epps, a newsboy, testifying for the state, swore that he rode into the city with Mary Phagan on the day of the murder and that she left the car at Forsyth and Marietta streets at about 12 o’clock, going across the viaduct to the factory.

By W. M. Matthews and W. T. Hollis, motorman and conductor on the car, the defense showed that Mary Phagan boarded the car alone, rode into the city alone and left the car at Broad and Hunter street at 12:10.

E. F. Holloway, the day watchman at the factory swore that he had timed himself to see how long it would take him to walk to the pencil factory from Broad and Hunter streets and from Forsyth and Marietta streets. He said that in the former instance, it required two and a half to three minutes and in the latter, seven minutes.

WHEN SHE ARRIVED.

If the testimony of the conductor, motorman and Holloway is be to considered and that of George Epps thrown aside then Mary Phagan did not reach the factory until 12:13. On the other hand, if the testimony of Epps and Holloway is to be credited she arrived there before 12:10.

Neither of these calculations fits in with the testimony of Monteen Stover, the witness for the state who swears she went to the factory at 12:05 and left at 12:10, that she saw no one while there and that she went to the office door and looked in to see if Frank was there but that he was not. Conley swore that Miss Stover followed Mary Phagan upstairs.

By N. V. Darley, general manager of the factory, Herbert Schiff, assistant superintendent, Holloway, the day watchman and others, the defense brought out that while at work Frank was accustomed to keep the big safe in the outer room open and that when it was open the door shut off the view into the inner office and that a person no taller than Miss Stover would find it impossible to see over the safe door even if she tiptoed.

Conley was the only witness to testify that the girl screamed. He said he heard the scream very shortly after she went upstairs and after he heard the sound of footsteps going back toward the metal room. Several detectives, policemen and officials at the factory swore that Frank was very nervous on the day after the murder.

To offset this, the defense developed from the factory officials that Frank was of a highly nervous temperament and that when anything went wrong he became excited and nervous; that on one occasion, when he was on a street car which ran over a child, he was so nervous he could not work and that at another time when he had quarreled with a factory official he manifested extreme nervousness.

None of those who visited the undertaking establishment with Frank would swear that he had failed to look at the face of the dead girl. However, both Detective Black and Bailiff Rogers who accompanied him there declared they had not seen him do so.

Conley swore that Frank called him up at about 4 minutes to 1 to aid in carrying the body down to the basement. The testimony of Mrs. Arthur White, who said she saw a negro sitting on a box at the foot of the stair when she went out of the factory about 1 o’clock, has never been disputed, although Solicitor Dorsey developed that this information did not reach the police until several days after the murder, notwithstanding, Mrs. White reported the fact to Frank on the Monday following.

In his statement, Conley related incidents reflecting on Frank’s moral character. The defense made vigorous objection to the admission of this evidence and during the argument which followed Solicitor Dorsey announced that the state expected to be able to corroborate Conley’s accusations.

DALTON’S TESTIMONY.

C. B. Dalton was put up by the state and he swore that he had visited the factory with Daisy Hopkins, a former employe that he knew Frank and had seen him in his office on Saturday afternoons drinking beer and soft drinks with girls.

Dalton also testified that he had taken Daisy Hopkins to the factory and that Conley had kept a lookout for him. The Hopkins girl was put up by the defense and she denied everything that had been stated by Conley and Dalton declaring that she only knew Frank when she saw him, that she had never been into his office and that she had never seen him drinking soft drinks and beer with women.

Solicitor Dorsey made the Hopkins girl admit that she had been in jail on a statutory charge.

Officials and employes of the factory put upon the stand all swore that they had never seen girls visit Frank in his office nor had they ever seen girls drinking soft drinks and beer with him in his office.

COULDN’T SEE THE MIRROR.

The testimony of Albert McKnight, the negro husband of Minola McKnight, cook at the Frank-Selig home, in which he swore that on the day of the murder Frank came home for luncheon about 1:30 and left a few minutes later without having eaten was rebutted by the defense with pictures and diagrams of the Frank-Selig home. McKnight swore that he was sitting in the kitchen near the passageway to the dining room and could by looking in the sideboard window in the dining room see that Frank didn’t eat anything. He also swore that Frank caught a street car at Pulliam street on his return to the city.

Albert Kauffman, a civil engineer, who made blueprints of the Frank-Selig home, and of the pencil factory and who measured the distance from the home to Washington and Pulliam streets, testified that it was impossible to see the mirror in the dining room sideboard from where McKnight said he sat in the kitchen; that a street car ran on Georgia avenue in front of the home, and that it is further to Pulliam street by about 100 feet than it is to Washington street.

H. J. Hinchey, manager of the South Atlantic Blow Pipe company, declared he saw Frank on a Washington street car, just in front of the capitol about 2:15.

Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, who had been first called by the state, was also called by the defense. He testified that Conley had made a number of statements to him: that he had called the negro’s attention to defects in his statements and that later the negro would change his story to confirm.

WITNESS CONFUSED.

The very favorable testimony for the defense given by E. F. Holloway, the day watchman at the pencil factory, was greatly minimized by the fact that he went completely to pieces under the cross-examination of Solicitor Dorsey. The solicitor asked him many question which he evaded and others he answered only when forced to do so by the judge. Holloway became excited and belligerent when the solicitor asked him if he had not sought to get a former night watchman at the factory to swear that Frank had frequently telephoned him at night. He was also disconcerted when the solicitor demanded to know if he had not sought to convict Conley in order to obtain the reward offered for the murderer, and when Mr. Dorsey inquired if he had not boasted about “turning up” Conley and set up his claim to the rewards the witness became sullen.

During the cross-examination of Holloway Solicitor Dorsey implied that the witness had “planted” the bloody stick which was alleged to have been found nearly two weeks after the murder on the first floor of the factory close to where Conley admits to have been in hiding. This was vehemently denied by the witness.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 10th 1913, “Conley’s Story is Still Center of Fight in Frank Case,” 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 8^th, 1913

C. B. DALTON TELLS ABOUT VISITS HE PAID THE PENCIL FACTORY WITH MANY WOMEN

Declares He Used Basement for Immoral Purposes at Same Time That Frank Was in Building, But Did Not Attempt to Say What the Superintendent’s Relations With Women Were—Declares Conley Acted as Lookout for Him.

DR. LEROY W. CHILDS CALLED BY DEFENSE TO REFUTE DR. HARRIS

Harry Scott Is Also Put on Stand by Defense to Prove That Conley Lied on Many Occasions—Detective Was on the Stand When Court Adjourned for Day—Cross-Examination Fails to Shake Dr. Harris.

Shortly after Dr. H. F. Harris had completed his testimony for the state and was cross-examined in detail by Reuben Arnold, the state rested its case against Leo M. Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey had called for Frank’s bank book to show that he had in his possession approximately $200—the sum Jim Conley says he gave him and then took back—but the book was not produced, and the state rested. Later the solicitor may introduce other witnesses, but not until after the defense has closed.

Interest just now centers on the possibility of the defense introducing character witnesses, in which event the state is prepared to call several witnesses in rebuttal who otherwise could not be heard. When the trial was first called, the defense had read a long list of witnesses who have known Frank for years, and who will swear to his general good character. If these witnesses are called, the trial will be drawn out for at least two weeks.

Dalton Tells of Visits.

C. B. Dalton was the first witness called by the state Thursday morning. Dalton made a remarkably frank witness. He told of several visits he had made to the pencil factory with a Miss Daisy Hopkins and other women, and of his using the basement of the factory for immoral purposes during the time Frank was in the building with women. He did not attempt to say what the relations of Frank were with these women. He said Conley was present in the capacity of a “lookout,” and that he had paid him to act as such. Dalton gave the names and addresses of the women who had visited the pencil factory with him.

Dr. Harris On Stand.

Dr. H. F. Harris was late in arriving at the courtroom and a recess was taken until he came. Dr. Harris took up the thread of his testimony where he left off last week and reiterated his belief that Mary Phagan had been killed within three quarters of an hour after she had eaten cabbage and bread. He also took up the condition of her organs, and said there must have been violence of some kind. He described the microscopic examination of the tissues he had made as bearing out this contention.

Reuben Arnold cross-examined Dr. Harris for over an hour in an effort to discredit his assertions and to show that death could have come at a later period. Dr. Harris was firm in his first position and the cross-examination did not shake him.

Childs Testifies For Defense.

Dr. Leroy W. Childs was placed on the stand by the defense to disprove the contentions of Dr. Harris. He stated that cabbage was one of the most indigestible of foods and might remain in the stomach for four and one-half hours without being digested.

Dr. Childs had made no examination of the dead girl, and the questions put to him by Mr. Arnold were hypothetical.

He was of the opinion that the condition of the dead girl’s organs could have been produced by the digital examination of the parts made by Dr. Hurt and that violence need not have been the case.

On cross-examination by Mr. Dorsey, Dr. Childs admitted that he was not a laboratory expert, and that he could not give expert testimony as to the existence of hydrochloric acid in the stomach under certain conditions. The best he could do was to give an opinion.

Scott On Conley’s Confession.

Harry Scott of the Pinkertons, who worked a large amount of the evidence in the case, was placed on the stand by the defense to help disprove many of the statements of the negro Conley. He testified that he had found out Conley could write on May 8. He said he had been unable to get any information from Conley about Mary Phagan’s silver mesh bag.

Scott proved of value to the defense in showing that Conley had lied on numerous occasions. He was on the stand when court adjourned for the day.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Defense May Call for Character Witnesses Today,” 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 8th, 1913

Following Dr. H. F. Harris, the final witness of the state, DR. L. W. Childs also an expert on matters pertaining to the various processes of digestion was placed on the stand by the defense to refute what Dr. Harris had said about the food in Mary Phagan’s stomach showing that she had been killed in about half an hour after she ate.

Dr. Childs took a decidedly opposite stand from that of his brother physician and declared that he would hazard no guess within two hours of the time that death occurred after eating and also after looking at the sample of cabbage taken from the girl’s stomach stated that he had seen cabbage look that way after it had remained in a person’s stomach for 12 hours.

After ascertaining for the benefit of the jury that Dr. Childs graduated in 1906 from the medical college of the University of Michigan and that his occupation was that of surgery and general medicine Mr. Arnold propounded a number of hypothetical questions.

“If a person dies and the body is found at 3 o’clock in the morning when rigor mortis has set in to a certain extent: said the attorney “and the body is then embalmed at 10 o’clock that day and later disinterred nine days after and a physician finds a wound in the back of head say about 2 inches long and cut through to the skull with perhaps a drop of blood on the skull but with no pressure on the brain and injury to the skull could that physician determine whether or not that a would had caused unconsciousness before death?”

“A physician might hazard a guess under those conditions you have out lined but personally I would not like to do it”, replied Dr. Childs

“Would it be anything more than a guess to say that a person had become unconsciousness from that wound?”

“I would call it a guess.”

Wounds Would Be Similar

“Would not a wound, made right after death resemble one made just before death”? urged Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, if it were inflicted in from one to three hours after death.”

“How could you say whether it had been inflicted just before or just after death?”

“It would be a guess to say so.”

“If the would were examined nine days after death wouldn’t that make it harder to determine whether or not it was made before or after death?”

“It would make it decidedly harder.”

“Could as person have remained conscious after receiving such a wound as I have described?”

“Yes, that could easily be so.”

“Doesn’t a person often keep consciousness after having the skull fractured?”

“Yes, that is sometimes the case.”

“Among what is cabbage classed when treated as a food?”

“Among the carbohydrates.”

“State whether or not cabbage is classed among the hardest foods to digest.”

“Cabbage is classed as about the hardest among the carbohydrates and cellulose foods to digest.”

“The digestion of cabbage starts in the mouth when a certain ferment in the si[a]liva begins to mix with it.”

Not Digested in Stomach

“Does that keep up in the stomach?”

“No, the acids of the stomach neutralize the ferment and the process stops and there is no more digestion of the cabbage until it passes into the intestines.”

Mr. Arnold then showed the witness the sample of cabbage taken from the dead girl’s stomach and asked him if it had been well chewed. Dr. Childs stated that from its appearance it had not been well chewed and that had it been chewed much less that it could not have been digested at all. In answering the next question, the physician stated that it usually takes about four and a half hours for cabbage to pass from the stomach to the intestines.

“Are there many things that retard indigestion?”

“Yes, the psychic influences frequently do so [2 words illegible] fear and anger or fright and similar influences, the physician replied.”

“Does exercise retard or not?”

“Yes, I should say it does.”

Do you not find substances in the stomach that have been there quite a while and yet show but a little appearance of being digested?”

“Yes, that is possible.”

Mr. Arnold then read from notes on Dr. Harris testimony the condition of the cabbage on the murdered girl’s stomach and asked if from that Dr. Childs would say how long the cabbage had been there before death, the physician replied that he would not.

“How long have you seen cabbage lie in the stomach and then look no more digested than this?

“At least twelve hours,” Dr. Childs replied.

Court then adjourned for the lunch hour.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Dr. Childs Differs With Harris as to Processes of Digestion,” 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

Afternoon Session of Frank’s Trial Thursday Is Without Any Interesting Development

Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott Testifies That Conley Never Told Him New Features of Story—Dr. Leroy Childs Testifies in Effort to Break Dr. Harris’ Story

When court adjourned Thursday afternoon at 5:10 o’clock Detective Scott, called by the defense to impeach Jim Conley, had just concluded his examination by the solicitor. Scott had been put through a long series of questions by Attorney Rosser, the purpose of which was to show the discrepancies between what Conley told Scott and what he swore on the witness stand.

Harry Scott, of the Pinkertons, was called as the second witness for the defense of Leo M. Frank Thursday afternoon when Dr. Leroy Childs left the stand. Scott testified that he informed the detectives immediately upon learning that Mrs. White had seen a negro sitting on a box at the foot of the second floor stairs. The state has contended that this information was withheld from the city detectives until May 7 or 8, and that Scott learned it from Frank on April 28.

Dr. Childs while under the examination of Attorney Arnold characterized testimony similar to some of that given by Drs. Hurt and Harris as remarkable guess work. When the wound on Mary Phagan’s head was described to the physician by Attorney Arnold, Dr. Childs declared that it would be guess work to say that the wound would have caused unconsciousness; when the wound was described to him by Solicitor Dorsey he declared that it would not have caused death. He declared that the conditions upon which Dr. Harris based his opinion that violence had been done the girl, might have been caused by the examination made by Dr. Hurt prior to Dr. Harris’ examination and by the process of embalming.

At 2 o’clock the trial resumed, with Dr. L. W. Childs still on the stand under direct examination by Attorney Arnold.

The jurors and the two bailiffs in immediate charge of them wore each a tube rose, which had been sent to them, it was said, with the compliments of a Mrs. Winburn.

“Could a bruise over an eye or a discoloration have been inflicted upon a body after death?”
“Yes, if the body was not cold. I should say that it could have been inflicted within two hours after death.”

“Could a blow on the back of the head blacken the eye?”
“Yes, it could blacken one or both.”

Dr. Childs testified that dilated blood vessels might be caused in several ways and not necessarily from external violence such as Dr. Harris said had been committed.

Congestion and rupture of the blood vessels—could have come from natural causes, could they not?”
“Yes.”

“Now, wouldn’t the strangulation tend toward a congestion of the blood vessels?”
“Yes, it would tend to congest the blood vessels of the entire body.”
Framing an hypothesis, Mr. Arnold asked:

“Would you be able to tell how long violence had been done before death?”
“No, sir.”

“Could you tell anything about this from the inflammation?”
Dr. Childs stated that inflammation is caused by bacterial invasion, which takes time, that congestion is the better description. He stated that in order to tell anything about the time of violence preceding death, it would depend a good deal upon whether the inflammation is chronic or temporary.

“How would you tell whether it is temporary or chronic?”
“In cases of chronic inflammation, even of three or four weeks duration a fibrous tissue is formed.”

“Suppose though it is chronic inflammation and has not existed long enough for the fibrous tissue to form?”
“That would be congestion and not inflammation.”

“Then there’s no way to tell, nine days after death, when the violence occurred?”
“I think not.”

“Would you hazard an opinion as to whether it occurred one hour before death?”
“I would not.
“Would you hazard an opinion as to whether it occurred two hours before death?”
“I would not. Perhaps it would be possible to determine and render a reliable opinion as to whithin two weeks of when it occurred.”

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined Dr. Childs.

The witness stated that he is 31 years old, born in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a resident of Ann Arbor, Calumet, and Atlanta during all of his [several words illegible] been practicing profession seven years and limits his work to surgery and general medicine.

“Most experts confine themselves to one or the other [several words illegible] and then have all they can do, don’t they?” asked the solicitor.

“Not all of them.”

“Now, doctor, do you mean to tell the jury, strictly and scientifically speaking, that digestion starts in the mouth?”

“Yes.”

“Well, what on earth is mastication, then?” asked the solicitor.

“Mastication is the chewing of the food and its mixing with the saliva. I do not mean to say [several words illegible] is digested in the mouth, but that is the beginning of digestion.”

“Doctor, are turnips and cabbage in the same class?”
“In the same general class,” responded Dr. Childs.

“Well, now, Dr. Crittenden (picking up a book), the head of Sheffield school of scientific medical research of Yale university, says that turnips have been digested and passed out from the stomach in from three and a half to four hours. He says the same thing about cabbage. Now, will you admit that you are at issue with this eminent authority?”

Dr. Childs said that he would. A great many other authorities, he added, were at issue with them. “Tell me some of them,” asked the solicitor.

“A Dr. Peterson is one,” said the witness.

“Is that Dr. Peterson the nerve specialist?”
“No, he is neither that Dr. Peterson, nor the gynecologist, but an entirely different Dr. Peterson.”

“How long after any substance has been taken into the stomach do we find free hydrochloric acid?”
“It may be there without any food,” said the witness.

“Free hydrochloric acid?” demanded the solicitor.

Dr. Childs nodded.

“Well, what is an Ewald test breakfast?”
“A couple of slices of bread and twelve to sixteen ounces of water,” said the witness.

DIFFICULT QUESTIONS.

“Well, in in one hour after a man has taken an Ewald test breakfast, how much free hydochloric acid do you find?”
Dr. Childs at first said two grains. The solicitor asked him to state his answer in degrees. Dr. Childs answered that the solicitor was asking questions which should more properly be put to a laboratory man, and that he would prefer not to answer.

“Don’t you know that any doctor should be able to tell how much hydrochloric acid there is after a one hour Ewald test breakfast? Isn’t that the first thing taught in a medical school?”
“No,” said Dr. Childs.

“Don’t you know that the amount of hydrochloric acid is the main thing that shows the stage of digestion?”

“It is one of the main things,” said the witness.

The solicitor asked him to describe the function of digestion. Dr. Childs proceeded to do that.

“I want you to look at this cabbage,” said the solicitor, holding up before Dr. Childs the specimen taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach. “Suppose it is in that state when taken out of a normal stomach and you found bread progressed to just exactly the same degree of digestion as this, how long would you say these substances had been in the stomach?”

CALLS IT GUESSWORK.

“I couldn’t tell within an hour and a half. It would be guesswork to determine it any nearer than that.”

“Will you give the jury one instance where cabbage has been found in a normal stomach after a period of several hours?”
“I recall an instance in which cabbage was found after twelve hours.”

“Wait a minute,” interrupted the solicitor, “wasn’t that a diseased stomach?”
“Not ordinarily a diseased stomach.”

There followed some question and discussion among counsel as to what constitutes a normal stomach.

Dr. Childs stated that he had induced vomiting in the stomach where he found the cabbage after twelve hours. It could not be considered technically a normal stomach inasmuch as he introduced a foreign agent for the inducement of the vomiting, said he.

LAUGHTER IN COURT.

“Of course not,” said the solicitor, in comment on the admission that it was not a normal stomach.

“I object to this comment on the part of the solicitor,” objected Attorney Arnold.

“All right, let it go out of the record then,” said the solicitor. There was subdued laughter in court.

“I object to this laughter, your honor,” said Mr. Arnold. “Every little while we are interrupted in this manner.”

Judge Roan admonished the spectators to be quiet and not make any further demonstration in court.

The solicitor asked Dr. Childs to explain a normal stomach. Dr. Childs defined a normal stomach as one which under normal conditions would digest food in the usual time. “One cannot, however, state this time in hours and minutes,” said he.

“Did you ever undertake an experiment with cabbage beside the one you made on this man whom you made vomit it up after twelve hours?”
“No, sir.”

“Your experience regarding cabbage then is confined to this one isolated case?”
“I am not a laboratory man.”

“If you find underneath the hair of a girl who has been dead a number of hours, blood that still is moist, a deep indentation around the neck where cord had been drawn tight, the tongue out, the face livid, the nails and lips blue, the windpipe injured, and a blow on the head—what would you say caused death?”

BLOW DIDN’T CAUSE DEATH.

“I should say that the blow on the head did not cause death.”

That concluded the cross-examination. Attorney Arnold asked one question before the witness left the stand.

“Ten days after death, to what extent is a body usually discolored?”
“It depends on how much blood is removed in the embalming process.”

“You mean that he embalming fluid might take the place of blood?”
“Virtually that, yes.”

DEFENSE CALLS SCOTT.

Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, who had testified as a witness called by the state, was called to the stand next by the defense. While the bailiffs were calling for him, Mr. Rosser, speaking to the solicitor, said, “Give me those statements by your friend Conley.” The solicitor tossed the affidavits to him.

“Did you get information on Monday after the crime about Mrs. White seeing a darky on the first floor of the factory?” asked Attorney Rosser.

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you give it to the detectives?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You worked in harmony with the detectives?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You gave the information you collected, and they gave you the information they gathered?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Frank gave you that information about Mrs. White having seen the negro when he first talked to you, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“Did you make any investigation at the factory to ascertain if Conley could write?”
“No, sir.”

“When did you first discover that he could write?”
“Sunday, June 18.”

Mr. Rosser then handed to the witness a statement which he said purported to be signed by James Conley and was dated May 18, 1913. The witness examined the paper. Mr. Rosser then took it back.

“Were you present when this statement was made?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, I wrote it myself,” replied the witness.

“Who furnished to you the facts stated here?”
“Conley.”

“Did he furnish to you any other or further facts?”
“Not that day.”

“In that statement, Conley contended that he didn’t go to the factory at all on the day of the murder, didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And he gave you a minute and detailed statement of his actions on that day?”
“Yes.”

“When you took down that statement did you know that Conley could write?”
“Yes, I had had him to write.”

“And after you knew he could write, he still made this statement?”
“Yes.”

“He told you he left home between 9 and 9:30 o’clock?”
“Yes.”

“And he ate breakfast at 10:30?”

The witness hesitated in his answer, and Mr. Rosser handed to him the statement to refresh his memory.

The witness then corrected himself and said the negro told him he ate breakfast between 9 and 9:30, and that he left home about 10:30.

“He told you that was the first time he was away from home that day?”
“Yes.”

“That he went to Peters street and bought some beer and some whisky, paying 40 cents for it?”
Attorney Hooper objected to Mr. Rosser interrogating the witness on the contents of the affidavit. The document was in court to speak for itself, said he. Judge Roan ruled that Mr. Rosser was not asking the witness about what was in the affidavit, but was simply using it to refresh his memory as to the conversation he had had with Conley.

“Didn’t he state to you that he visited the Butt-In saloon; that he shot some dice there and won 90 cents; that he drank some beer; that he visited Early’s saloon and drank some beer and wine?”
“Yes.”

“He also told you that he went home at 2:30 o’clock?”
“Yes.”

“After he went home, he said, he sent his little girl out for some pan sausage, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“What day did you say you found out he could write?”
“May 18.”

“All right, I want to refresh your memory.” Mr. Rosser handed the affidavit to him. After the witness had examined a paragraph indicated by Mr. Rosser, the latter inquired whether Schiff or Darley of the factory had not told him Conley could write.

Scott explained that this information came to his agency while he was out of town.

INFORMATION FROM FACTORY.

“Well, what I want to know is, did you know that this information came from the factory?”
“Yes.”
“Now on May 18 yo dictated to Jim Conley?”
“Yes.”
“Made him write these words: ‘That long, tall, black negro did this by hisself?’”

“Yes.”

“How long did it take him to write it?”
“I dictated each word separately, and it took him about six or eight minutes to write them all.”

“He writes quite slowly, does he not?”
“Yes.”

“You dictated each word separately and he wrote it out?”
“Yes.”

“Were you present when he he was brought before Mrs. White for her to identify him?”
“Yes, he was stood up in front of Mrs. White with several other negroes.”

“What was his behavior on that occasion?”
“He was twisting his mouth about and had a cigarette in his fingers which he seemed unable to hold.”

“Was there any effort on his part to change his features, as if he desired to escape identification?”
Solicitor Dorsey objected to the last part of the question. Mr. Rosser withdrew it and directed the witness to tell just what Conley did.

“He was moving his lips and appeared to be excited,” said the witness.

The solicitor objected to the reference to his appearing to be excited, declaring that that was a conclusion pure and simple.

“He did look nervous,” said Scott. “He continued twirling a cigarette which he had in his hand, and moving his feet, and chewing on his lips.”
Mr. Rosser exhibited the pencil written statement signed by Conley on May 18. Scott identified it as Jim Conley’s statement.

“Well, you went after him pretty hard that day, didn’t you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

TRIED TO GET CONFESSION.

“Yes, we tried to make him confess to the crime.”

“Give us a picture of what you and Black did to him.”

“We talked pretty rough to him.”

THIRD DEGREE.

“Give us a description of that third degree.”

“I wouldn’t admit that I gave anybody a third degree,” said Scott.

“Didn’t you give description of the third degree to the newspapers?”
“No, I never did.”

“Didn’t you say there was a scientific way of giving the third degree, one of you cussing him and the other professing to be his friend?”
“We used a little profanity,” said Scott.

The court room was intensely hot. There seemed to be more suffering from the heat, upon the part of those taking part in the trial and the others witnessing it, than on any previous day of the trial.

“Didn’t you cuss and abuse him?”
“Yes, that first Sunday.”
“Didn’t he swear that he hadn’t been near the factory, that he didn’t know anything about the crime at all; and didn’t he look you straight in the eye when he said those things?”
“Yes.”

“How long did this séance last?”

“About two hours.”

“Where was it held?”
“In a private room on the third floor of police headquarters.”

“On May 24, when he made the sworn statement that he wrote the notes on Friday, you carried him to Mr. Dorsey, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Conley told you then that he was telling the whole truth, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

That statement was voluntary, wasn’t it?”
“Yes. Conley sent for Black and we went down together to see him.”

“That was his first sworn statement, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“Now, on May 25 you and Black gave him another sitting, didn’t you? For about how long?”

“Three hours,” said Scott.

“Did you cuss and abuse him then?”
“No, we didn’t abuse him. We were only stern with him.”
“And he repeated that same story, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“On May 27, how long did you sit with him?”
“Five or six hours.”

STORY WOULDN’T FIT.

“You tried to impress on him that the statement that Frank wrote the notes on Friday showed premeditation and was unreasonable and wouldn’t fit.”

“Yes.”

“On May 28 you had a session with him with the chief, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“How long did you grill him then?”
“Five or six hours.”

“It was most of the day, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“You tried to make clear to him the statements were far fetched and would not fit?”
“Yes.”

“Then on the 28^th he made you a long statement, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

CHANGED HIS STORY.

“And having been told that the Friday statement wouldn’t do it, he changed it to Saturday?”
“Yes.”

“He told you that this was his second and last statement, that it was the whole truth, that it was given freely and after due premeditation?”
“I don’t know that he said ‘freely,’” said Scott, “but he did tell us that it was after he had thought about it.”

“He said he was telling you the whole truth, and still he repeated to you that he got up about 9 or 9:30 that morning and went to Peters street, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“How many notes did he tell you he made altogether?”

“He said he wrote on three pieces of paper.”

“Did he say that Mr. Frank took another place and wrote something like an M on it?”
“Yes.”

“He didn’t say anything at that time about seeing Mary Phagan, did he?”

“No, sir.”

“What sort of a looking negro was Conley when you saw him the first time? Wasn’t he a dirty, ragged negro?”
“Yes, he was rather dirty.”

“Did you see him in court the other day?”
“Yes.”

“Slick as an onion, wasn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He told you how he had tried to go down to see where a girl named Mary Puckett had been killed, didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What day was Frank arrested?”
“Tuesday, when he was detained with your consent.”

“You weren’t at police headquarters when he was detained there Monday, were you, Mr. Scott?”
“No, sir.”

“On May 29 you had another talk with him, didn’t you, Mr. Scott?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you give him the third degree?”
“No, sir.”

IMPROBABLE POINTS.

“Didn’t you point out the improbable points in his story and tell him that that wouldn’t do?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You kept at him that day until 6 p. m., and started early Tuesday, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Now, this last talk, which lasted nearly a day. He said that he hadn’t told you the whole truth because he thought Frank was going to get out and help him, but that he had found out that Frank was not going to do so, and he intended then to tell you the whole truth. Didn’t he tell you that?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He told you also that he went straight from Peters street to Nelson and Forsyth streets, and that he had not gone to the factory between 7 and 5 o’clock that morning—didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He said nothing about Frank asking him to watch for him, and about him closing the door when Frank stamped his feet?”
“No, sir.”

“In that statement, the first information he got from Frank was the whistle, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

DIDN’T SEE MISS STOVER.

“He denied having seen Monteen Stover?”
“Yes.”

“And he denied having seen Mary Phagan?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever try to get him to tell you about the mesh bag?”
“Yes, sir, several times, but he always denied having seen it.”
“When he made this statement, he never intimated that he saw it in Frank’s office and that he saw Frank put it in the safe?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ask him about the parasol?”
“Yes.”

“Did he say he saw it, or did he deny seeing it?”
Witness refreshed his memory from the affidavit. He said that the negro denied having seen it.

“Did he tell you anything about Frank stumbling as he got into the elevator on the street floor, and falling against him?”
“No, sir.”

“He said Frank made a misstep at the office floor, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t he say that he remained some time in the wardrobe?”
“Yes, I think he said ten or fifteen minutes.”

“Refresh your memory, Mr. Scott. Didn’t he say seven or eight minutes?”
“Probably he did.”

“In this last statement, didn’t he say that he wrote only one note, not four?”
“Yes.”

“How long before this trial was the last time that you were admitted to see him?”
“May 29.”

“Now this statement we were talking about—he said it was final, and that nothing else could be said on the subject by him, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“That was the first time any money except that in the cigarette box was mentioned, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“What did he say that money consisted of?”
“Two greenbacks and some silver.”

“He didn’t at any time tell you that he went straight from his home to the factory, did he?”
“No. As long as I saw him, he always maintained that he went to the factory the first time following Frank from Montag’s.”
“Did he tell you that he saw Lemmie Quinn that day?”

“No, he maintained that he did not.”

“Did he ever tell you that he thought this poor girl’s name was Mary Perkins?”
“No.”

DIDN’T HE SAY HE SAW MARY.

“Did he ever say to you that he saw her alive on that day?”
“No.”

“Did he ever say anything to you about hearing steps toward the metal room, and screams?”
“No!”

“Did you question him about these points?”
“Yes. He said he only saw a dead body.”

“Can you remember whether he said that Frank told him that he had let her fall and she hit her head, or that Frank struck her?”
“I don’t remember.”

Mr. Rosser handed to Scott a Pinkerton report and asked him to refresh his memory.

“He told me that Frank told him that he let her fall, but he said nothing to me about Frank having admitted striking her.”

WHAT HE DIDN’T TELL.

“Did he tell you he heard somebody tip-toe to Frank’s office?”

“No.”

“Did he tell you he heard somebody stamp, and that then he went to sleep, and the next thing he heard was the whistling?”
“No, sir.”

“Did he tell you about Frank showing him how to lock the door?”
“No, sir.”

“Did he tell you Frank had a cord in his hand when he met him at the head of the stairs?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you find any more cord around the factory like that on the little girl’s neck?”
“I saw a number of pieces like it in the basement and in other places.”

“Did he tell you about Frank’s eyes looking funny that day?”
“No, sir.”

“He didn’t tell you she had a rope around her neck when he found her, did he?”
“No, sir.”

“When did he tell you Frank whistled and he went upstairs?”
“He said it was four minutes to 1.”

“Didn’t he tell you about four minutes to 1, without specifying the exact time?”
“I believe he said four minutes to 1. That’s my recollection.”

“He told you that when he went to the back of the factory and when he saw the girl he hollered, “This girl is dead, Mr. Frank, didn’t he? And he didn’t say he went back up to the front of the building to tell Frank that?”
“No, sir.”

“Did he tell you about wrapping the body in cloth?”
“I believe not in his statements.”

“Mr. Scott, you went to the pencil factory with him one time to see how he did it, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“He said then that he got a crocus sack and tied the body in it, didn’t he?”
“I believe he did.”

“Do you call this a crocus sack?” continued Attorney Rosser, indicating the crocus sack laying at the foot of the witness stand.

“Yes, sir.”

DORSEY CALLS TIME.

At this point Solicitor Dorsey remarked: “In the interests of time, I think Jim Conley has admitted all this.”

“He said he told Black and Scott all this. I’m going to show he didn’t, if I can.”

Judge Roan said, “I think he has the right to do that, Mr. Dorsey.”

The solicitor sat down. “All right; go ahead,” said he.

“When he was going through the factory, did he say anything about the cord?”
“Yes, he said there was a cord around the girl’s neck, and it stretched off at a right angle from the body.”

“Did he tell you that when he came back and told Frank the girl was dead, that Frank raised his hands and said, ‘Shh! Shhh!’ And he said, ‘well, she is dead?’”

“No, sir.”

“He told you that he put the girl’s body on his right shoulder to carry it out, and that he dropped it near the dressing room door?”
“Yes.”

“Did he tell you that when he put the sack on his shoulders, the body dangled around his legs?”
“No, sir.”

“Did he say anything to you about the slipper, the piece of ribbon, and the hat, being by the body upstairs?”
“Yes, but he didn’t mention the ribbon.”

“He told you he never saw the ribbon that came from around her hat, though, you asked him about it several times?”

“Yes, sir.”

“He told you that after he dropped the body, he took it up by the shoulders and Frank took it up by the feet; that he walked backwards and Frank pressed up against him as he walked?”
“Yes.”

THE ELEVATOR KEY.

“Did he tell you that after they put the bod on the elevator. Frank tried to move the elevator and when he didn’t move it he said he would have to go into the office and get the key? On the contrary, didn’t he say that Frank got the key and the body was put on the elevator afterward?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t you tell me that Conley didn’t say anything about Frank stumbling onto the elevator at the first floor and hitting him? That the only stumbling he mentioned was at the top floor?”
“Yes.”

“He didn’t tell you anything about Frank leaving the elevator unlocked?”
“No, sir.”

“He didn’t tell you that Frank left the motor box unlocked and carried the key into the office?”
“No, sir.”

“When he told you about being in the wardrobe, he said something about sweating, didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He didn’t say anything about remarking to Frank, ‘You’ve got me in a right place?’”

“No, sir.”

“He told you Frank gave him $200 and took it back?”
“Yes.”

CODICIL TO AFFIDAVIT.

Mr. Rosser handed the negro’s statement to the witness. “This seems to have been typewritten and after it was finished, something seems to have been added in long hand at the bottom. How did that happen?”
“Well, after the statement was completed, Conley said something about the money and we called the stenographer back.”

“You asked him whether any attempt was made to burn the body?”
“Yes.”

“And he said that none was made?”
“Yes.”

“He never told you about Frank telling him to burn it?”
“No.”

“Nor that he promised Frank to come back in about 40 minutes to burn it, and went to sle[e]p and forgot it.”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he tell you that he was afraid to go down into the basement by himself?”
“No.”

“Did he tell you he told Frank that he was a white man and did it, and that he should go down there?”
“No.”

“Did he tell you that Frank told him he would get him out on bond?”
“No.”

“Did he ever say anything to you about a plan for burning the body?”
“No.”

NEGATIVE ANSWERS.

Attorney Rosser asked these questions of Scott very slowly, picking out from the record of Conley’s testimony every statement that he quoted; and Scott replied no to practically all of them.

“Did he ever tell you that he went over to a sfaloon [sic] and after a meal of fish and liver, he looked at the clock?”
“No.”

“Did he tell you that he slept too long in the afternoon and didn’t go back to the factory for that reason?”
“No.”

“Where did he tell you he was on the Tuesday that he claimed Frank talked to him—on the steps leading from the third to the fourth floor, or on the fourth floor?”
“He said the fourth floor.”
“Did he tell you Frank said if he had come back there would have been no trouble?”
“No.”

“Describe the scene at police headquarters when you made Conley admit that he could write.”

“He was brought into Chief Lanford’s office, and we handed to him a pad and pencil. We told him that we knew positively that he could write and we would produce evidence showing that he could write if he hesitated at all. Then I started dictating, and he took up a pencil and wrote.

DORSEY TAKES WITNESS.

This ended the examination by Attorney Rosser, and Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned the witness for the state.

“Mr. Scott, did you get your information that Conley could write from the National Pencil company?”
“No, sir.”

“Did the authorities of the pencil factory know that Conley was in jail eight days, and withhold telling the police that he could write?”
Attorney Rosser objected and was sustained.

“To what city official, and when, did you tell of Mrs. White saying she saw the negro beside the elevator?”
Attorney Rosser objected. Judge Roan ordered the question read by the stenographer and then overruled the objection.

“I told it in conversation with Detective Rosser, Detective Black and Chief Lanford.”

“Wasn’t it May 6, Mr. Scott, when you told Detective Rosser about it; and wasn’t he the first one you told?”
Attorney Rosser jumped to his feet. “Your honor knows, I suppose, that I am objecting to all of this?”
Judge Roan held that the question was leading, and Solicitor Dorsey repeated it, omitting the specific date.

Detective Scott answered: “It was shortly after April 28. I don’t remember the date.”

“Mr. Scott, when was it the state first learned of the discovery of this big stick?”
Attorney Rosser interposed a question. “What do you mean by the state?”
Solicitor Dorsey replied: “Anybody connected with the prosecution.”

Attorney Rosser entered an objection to the question on the ground that it was immaterial.

ATTITUDE OF PINKERTONS.

“I want to show the attitude of the Pinkertons in this matter, your honor,” said the solicitor.

Judge Roan refused to allow the question, however. The solicitor proceeded, asking Scott if he had ever searched the area in the pencil factory where the stick is supposed to have been found. Scott replied that he had.

“What was one of the far-fetched things that you told Rosser that Conley had in his statements?”
“Well, one was writing the notes on Friday.”

“Were you denied access to Frank?”
There was objection from Attorney Rosser. Solicitor Rorsey [sic] explained, “I want to show that Conley was open to the detectives at any time, and that Frank shut himself up and denied himself to everybody. Can’t I show his conduct, but you can’t show the conduct of his lawyers,” retorted Mr. Rosser.

The judge held that Scott could tell anything Frank actually did and that he knew he did, of his own knowledge.

At the request of Solicitor Dorsey, Detective Scott then started to tell of his attempt to see Frank at the jail.

“Conley, with Chief Beavers and Chief of Detectives Lanford and I went to the jail on the night Conley made his last statement. We went to the sheriff and explained that we wanted to see Frank, and the sheriff went up to Frank’s cell.”

Attorney Rosser interrupted the answer. That was hearsay, he said. Judge Roan sustained him.

“When was the last time you saw Mr. Frank?” asked the solicitor.

“On Saturday, May 3.”

“Why haven’t you seen him since?”
Attorneys Rosser and Arnold jumped to their feet together. Attorney Arnold objected on the ground that the question was illegal and the answer would irrelevant. He was sustained.

The solicitor abandoned, apparently, his effort to get that circumstance before the jury.

“What was the last time you had an opportunity to see Conley and hear him talk?”
“May 29.”

“When he made that statement, was there any difference in his manner and appearance from when you first saw him?”
“No, there was not.”

“Were you at the factory when Jim Conley went through it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Tell the jury what he did and said.”

Mr. Rosser objected. Solicitor Dorsey insisted that Mr. Rosser had gone into that incident in his direct examination: “and this opens it up for us,” said he. The court sustained Mr. Rosser’s objection.

“In these conversations you had with Conley, did you take him to task on fewer subjects in the first conversation than you did in the last?”
Mr. Rosser objected Judge Roan sustained him.

“Well, name now a number of matters you told Conley didn’t fit in his first statement, and the number you told him didn’t fit in his second statement.”

“That would be almost impossible, unless I had the statements before me.”

The solicitor handed him the statements and requested him to contrast them and answer his question.

Detective Scott stated that after Conley made his first statement he questioned him a number of times as he whether he was sure that the first meeting with Frank on Saturday, April 25, occurred after Frank came from Montag Brothers at 1:30; and also about Conley’s claim then that the notes were written on Friday.

“Conley corrected and eliminated those matters in his last statement, didn’t he?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes, most of them.”

Mr. Rosser asked the witness if he could enumerate the particular matters that he told Conley didn’t fit in with the facts. “No, not all,” said the witness.

“Did you suggest to Conley just what changes he should make?” inquired the solicitor. “Or did you tell him that his statements didn’t fit?”
“I just told him that the statements didn’t fit. He himself suggested the changes to be made.”

The witness was excused. Judge Roan delivered a brief talk to the jury, telling them that the weather is very hot and that they should take it easy. He stated he had been informed some of them are musicians, and that there is a piano at their hotel. “It will be all right,” said the judge, “for you to make some music and enjoy it, just so you don’t get separated or allow outsiders to come into your concerts.”

The judge then excused the jury and adjourned court until 9 a. m., Friday.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 8th 1913, “Defense Begins Introduction of Evidence,” 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 8, 1913

Dr. LeRoy W. Childs who was the first witness placed on the stand by the defense underwent a rigorous cross examination by Solicitor Dorsey.

The solicitor showed a keen knowledge of medicine and chemistry in the volley of questions he fired at the medical expert, and, upon one occasion elicited the admission from the witness that he was not informed of a certain phase of laboratory work on which great stress had been laid by Dr. Roy Harris who preceded Dr. Childs to the stand.

In concluding his testimony Dr. Childs when asked by the solicitor who explained the condition in which Mary Phagan’s body had been discovered declared that it was his opinion death did not result from the blow upon the head.

Dr. Childs was on the stand at the opening of the afternoon session under direct examination of Attorney Arnold.

“State whether or not doctor a bruise upon an eye can be inflicted after death?”

“Such a bruise could be produced before the body is cold. Some bodies retain heat longer than others.”

“Can a blow on the back of the head cause a black eye?”

“Such a blow could blacken both eyes.”

Mr. Arnold then asked the witness a series of questions as to the effect of death on the organs of the body with the purpose of indication that the signs of violence referred to by Dr. Harris might have been from natural causes.

“Would strangulation case congestion of blood vessels?”

“Yes.”

“Is there any possible way for an expert examiner to determine at what time violence was committed?”

“I don’t think so.”

“Would you hazard an opinion of what time death had ensued say 15 minutes?”

“No.”

“Within two days?’

“No.”

Dorsey Cross-Examines

At this point Solicitor Dorsey began the cross examination.

“What kind of practitioner are you doctor? he asked.
“Surgery and general medicine.”

“You have been speaking from a purely scientific standpoint, haven’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Do you mean to say that digestion begins in the mouth?”

“Yes.”

“That is mastication, isn’t it?”

“Yes.”
“From a strictly scientific standpoint as you say you speak digestion begins in the mouth?”

“No, not exactly.”

“Well, isn’t it correct-you have just stated so?”

“Mastication is an essentially important part of digestion, but it is not literally a process of digestion. That was what I meant.”

“What part do the salivary glands play in mastication?”

“I said that digestion begins in the mouth – or that digestive process begins there. That latter question I cannot answer.”

“Do you dispute the eminent authority of Dr. Crittenton/”

“I don’t think Dr. Crittenton would be in issue with other authorities.”

Differs with Authorities

“Then he is in issue with you?”

“Yes, on the point.”

“Who is your authority?”

“Dr. Peterson.”

“Dr. Peterson is a nerve specialist, isn’t he?”

“Yes, and gyni[e]ecologist.”

“You say that every man’s stomach is a study in itself?”

“Yes.”

“But you do mean to say there are not certain fundamental laws that control every normal stomach?”

“Yes, there are certain laws.”

“You say you find free hydrochloric acid in the stomach without the presence of food?”

“Yes.”

“Is that your theory?”

“Yes, it all depends upon the glands?”

“But I am talking of the ordinarily normal stomach.”

“Yes, I know that.”

“Do you know the Elhwald test breakfast?”

“Yes.”

“Of what does it consist?”

“A sliced of apple, a slice of bread and six ounces of water.”

“After this breakfast has been given can any hydrochloric acid be found in the stomach?”

“It depends entirely upon the glands.”

“I am not talking of the glands. I am talking of a perfectly normal stomach.”

“The acidity would be about two tenths of a drachm.”

Not Familiar With Chemistry

“Give me the total acidity in degrees doctor.”

“You are getting out of my line and into the realm of chemistry or laboratory work. I am not familiar with the degrees.”

“Then give to the jury the total acidity after this test breakfast.”

“I prefer not to answer that question.”

‘Don’t you know that any ordinary doctor knows how much hydrochloric acid could be found in a normal stomach after this breakfast.”

“Not necessarily so.”

“Can you tell the jury the functions of hydrochloric acid?”

“Yes. The two prime principles of the stomach are hydrochloric acid and pepsin. They act in cooperation in the digestion of foo. They also are the two active principles of gastric juice.”

“Suppose doctor that this cabbage I have here in this vial was taken from a normal stomach with no part of the cabbage in the smaller intestine and upon removal of the stomach it was found that combined hydrochloric acid was present in 32 degrees, what would you as to how long the substance had been in the stomach before death?”

Could Not Tell Time

“I couldn’t tell within an hour and a half of the time.”

“Why couldn’t you tell?”

“I recall an instance where I forced emesis on a patient when cabbage had caused indigestion and it was in state similar to this cabbage removed from Mary Phagan’s stomach.”

“But that stomach was diseased, wasn’t it?”

“To a certain extent.”

“The structure of the stomach might have been normal but how about the gastric juices?”

“Any normal stomach might suffer irritation.”

Laughter Riles Arnold

Here a ripple of laughter would cover the corridor. Rueben Arnold jumped to his feet protesting to the demonstration and charging those who had laughed at the expert statement with being a bunch of hoodlums who had no business in a trial room.”

“What is a normal stomach doctor?” Mr. Dorsey asked.

“One which will digest food in an expected length of time.”

“Have you any more experience with cabbage tests run in some instance in which you made the man vomit the food?”

“No. My experience was gained from that and casual observations.”

“If I find a victim eighteen hours after death with a small hole in back of her head tongue protruding eyes hair and face livid and with purple fingers and nails with a deep indentation along the throat caused from a cord noose how would you say she came to her death?”

“I would say not by the blow on the head.”

“All right you may come down.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Dorsey Forces Childs to Admit Certain Portions of His Testimony Could Not Be Considered Expert,” 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

Harry Scott, of the Pinkerton agency, showed up the “confessions” of Conley in a peculiar light when he was called to the stand by the Frank defense Thursday afternoon.

The detective, questioned by Luther Rosser, told the jury that Conley, when he “had told everything,” when he had accused Frank of the killing and had made himself an accessory after the fact by declaring that he assisted in the disposal of the body; when every motive for holding anything back had been swept away by his third affidavit, still denied to him (Scott) many of the alleged circumstances to which he testified, while he was on the stand the first three days of the week.

It will be the contention of the defense that these many additions to Conley’s tale, inasmuch as all reason for concealing them had passed after Conley had come out with his accusations against Frank and his confession of his own part in the crime, are pure fabrications of the black man’s imagination, as are the other details of his tale.

Scott said that he had grilled and badgered Conley repeatedly about seeing Mary Phagan enter the factory. Even after the negro had made all his incriminating statements, he steadfastly denied seeing the girl victim go up the stairs to the second floor.

Denied He Had Seen Purse.

He denied also to Scott, the detective said, that he ever had seen the girl’s mesh bag or parasol, of that he ever had heard a girl’s scream while he was sitting on the first floor. He told the detectives that he did not see Lemmie Quinn or Monteen Stover enter the factory, although he later declared he had seen them both and so testified on the stand.

Conley said on the stand when he was questioned by Rosser that he thought he had told all these things to Scott and John Black while he was making his third and final affidavit. Scott was called to testify that Conley not only had failed to tell them, but for the most part had made strenuous denials when asked about them. It was expected that Black would be called early Friday to testify on the same matter.

Rosser, in his examination of Detective Scott, sought to create in the minds of the jury the impression that Conley had been guided and directed by the detectives in the framing of his string of statements and affidavits.

Negro’s Story in Own Words.

Scott admitted that the improbabilities in the negro’s statements had been pointed out to him, and that, with these suggestions, Conley proceeded to doctor up his affidavits until they harmonized better with the circumstances of the day.

Solicitor Dorsey was loath to let any statement get into the record which indicated that Conley had been coached by the detectives, and he got Scott to say that no one had put the words in the negro’s mouth.

“But you would say,” shouted Rosser, “’That don’t fit, Jim,’ and Jim would get something that did fit; isn’t that so?”

Scott said that this was the truth.

The testimony of Scott and that of Dr. L. W. Childs, a physician and surgeon, marked the opening of the defense’s fight for the life of Leo Frank. The State rested its case against the factory superintendent at noon and Dr. Childs was called at once to testify in rebuttal of Dr. H. F. Harris, the State’s principal medical expert.

Childs Attacks Harris.

Dr. Childs declared boldly that Dr. Harris’ conclusions were the wildest sort of guesses. He said that Harris had made statements with no dependable data on which to base them.

Dr. Harri’s declaration that Mary Phagan came to her death within half or three-quarters of an hour after eating her dinner, an assumption he made because the cabbage in her stomach hardly had begun to digest, the expert of the defense characterized as nothing more than conjecture.

“I have seen cabbage that had been in person’s stomach twelve hours that was less changed than that,” he asserted.

Solicitor Dorsey, when he got hold of the witness, confined himself mainly in an attempt to discredit Dr. Childs as an expert. He brought to the attention of the jury that the physician was only 31 years old, that he had been graduated from a medical school only seven years and that he was a general practitioner, rather than a specialist or laboratory man like Dr. Harris.

Childs Not a Specialist.

The Solicitor then propounded a number of highly scientific medical questions to the witness—questions furnished by the Solicitor’s brother, Dr. R. T. Dorsey—and Dr. Childs was soon forced to reply that only a specialist could answer such a line of interrogation.

Those who expected some sensational testimony from C. B. Dalton, the first of the State’s witnesses Friday, were disappointed. Dalton’s story was made in the nature of a confession of his own derelictions than an expose of misconduct on the part of Frank. Dalton testified that he had seen women in Frank’s office on various occasions. Who they were he did not know. He had witnessed no compromising situations.

Dalton was mentioned in Conley’s story and to that extent corroborated the negro.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 8th 1913, “Scott Put Conley’s Story in Strange Light,” 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 7^th, 1913

STATE FINISHES TESTIMONY AND DR. LEROY CHILDS BEGINS EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE

Dr. Childs Characterizes Conclusions Similar to Those Made by Dr. H. F. Harris and Dr. J. W. Hurt as Remarkable Guesses—He Says Cabbage Is Most Indigestible of All Vegetables and Might Stay in Stomach for Many Hours

DEFENSE IS EXPECTED TO PUT UP CHARACTER WITNESSES IN VIEW OF JUDGE ROAN’S RULING

Dalton Swears He Has Visited Pencil Factory in Company With Women, That Frank Knew of His Presence and That Jim Conley, the Negro Sweeper, Was There—He Tells of Frank’s Visitors

When recess was ordered at 12:30 o’clock Wednesday in the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of little Mary Phagan, Dr. Leroy Childs, called by the defense as its first witness, was on the stand. Dr. Childs had already testified in answer to a hypothetical question framed by Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, that a post mortem examination nine days after death would not show whether a blow on the head, such as that described by Attorney Arnold, had produced unconsciousness, or whether it had been delivered before or after death. Dr. Childs declared that such a blow as that described by Mr. Arnold might even have produced death. He characterized any statement to the effect that such a blow procured unconsciousness and that it could not have produced death, as nothing short of a remarkable guess.

Dr. Harris also declared that cabbage was the most indigestible of all vegetables and that it might remain in the stomach as long as four hours and a half. Looking at the cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan and submitted as evidence at the Frank trial, Dr. Childs said that it was impossible to tell how long this food had remained in the stomach.

Dr. Childs followed Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, who was the concluding witness for the state. At the close of Dr. Harris’ cross-examination, the state rested. Answering the questions of Attorney Arnold, Dr. Harris reaffirmed the testimony given by him previously, namely, that Mary Phagan was killed within less than an hour after eating the cabbage and bread found in her stoamch; that the cause of her death was strangulation; that the blow on her head produced unconsciousness but could not have produced death and that she had suffered violence immediately before she was killed.

It is the evident purpose of the defense as shown by the testimony already drawn from Dr. Childs to vigorously dispute the evidence of Dr. Harris fixing the time of the little girl’s death. Other medical experts, no doubt, will follow Dr. Childs.

It is now believed that the defense will put Frank’s character in evidence, as the state has already succeeded in making an attack upon it through the testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, and C. B. Dalton. Should the defense put up witnesses to prove Frank’s good character, the state will be permitted to rebut this testimony with any evidence it may have that is detrimental to Frank’s character.

C. B. Dalton was the first witness called by the state Thursday morning. Attorney Reuben R. Arnold objected to each and every question and each and every answer of Dalton’s testimony on the ground that it would be irrelevant, prejudicial and unjust. The objection was entered before Dalton began to testify and was overruled by Judge Roan. Dalton swore that he had visited the National Pencil factory with Daisy Hopkins, that Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, was always present and that Frank had received women visitors in his office. Dalton gave no specific dates. He was cross-questioned by Attorney Rosser.

When Thursday’s session started Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor, in charge of the court room, and his several assistants announced that every spectator who disturbed the court by applauding any decision or action in the case, would be promptly ejected. The deputies are determined to prevent a reoccurrence of the scene of Wednesday, when Judge Roan announced his important ruling on the testimony of Conley.

If there is any more applause it is probable that the court room will be cleared.

COURT CONVENES.

A number of medical students stood in line at the court house door of a couple of hours, Thursday morning, and were among those early arrivals who gained admittance to the court when the doors were opened. They were there, some of them explained, to hear the further testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, whose evidence is vital to the state’s charge insofar as it tends to prove that because of the undigested cabbage in Mary Phagan’s stomach, the little girl was killed within thirty to forty minutes after she ate her last meal at home.

In other respects, the prelude of the court’s convening was as usual. Leo M. Frank, the accused, arrived early, and breakfasted in an ante-room of the court. Mrs. Frank, his wife, arrived alter and joined him in the ante-room. About half of the crowed that wanted to get in, found room. The remainder was stopped at the doors.

The name of C. B. Dalton was called as the first witness. Before he arrived in court, Attorney Arnold arose to object to each and every question directed to the witness, and every answer made by him on the ground that his testimony would be irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial.

DALTON TESTIFIES.

“I overrule your objection,” said Judge Roan. “Go ahead, Mr. Dorsey.”

Dalton was sworn.

“Do you know Leo M. Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Do you know Daisy Hopkins?”
“Yes.”

“Do you know Jim Conley?”
“Yes.”

“Do you work at the National Pencil factory?”

“No.”

“Have you ever been there?”

“Yes, four or five times with Daisy Hopkins.”

“Did you go to the office?”
“Yes.”

“Was Frank there?”
“Yes.”

“Then did you go to the basement?”
“Yes.”

“Where in the basement?” The daigram [sic] was handed to the witness. Dalton pointed to the inclosure behind the partition alongside the boiler.

“Did Frank know you were there?”
“He knew I was in the building. I don’t know about the basement.”

“Was Jim Conley there?”
“Yes.”

“Who was with Frank?”
“Why, sometimes two and sometimes […]

DEFENSE BEGINS THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

[…] one young woman.”

Mr. Rosser took up the cross-examination.

ROSSER’S QUESTIONS.

“When was the first time you visited Frank’s office?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“It was sometime last fall. I don’t remember the month.”

“What time of day was it?”
“In the evening.”

“Who was in there with Mr. Frank?”
“I don’t know their names.”

“Were they ladies or gentlemen?”
“Ladies.”

“How many were in there?”
“Sometimes there were two and sometimes there were more.”

“Do you know whether it was his stenographer or not?”
“No, sir.”

“When was the second time you saw him?”
“I don’t remember. I was in his office three or four times, but I don’t know the dates.”

“Who introduced you to Mr. Frank?”

“Miss Daisy Hopkins.”

“When did you see Conley there the first time?”

“About the first of January.”

“What was he doing?”
“He was sitting near the door when I went in.”

“Was the door open when you came back out?”
“Well, he got up and opened it.”

WENT DOWN LADDER.

“Where did you go in the building with Daisy Hopkins?”

The witness pointed again to the enclosure in the basement.

“Did you ever go down these stairs here?” asked Mr. Rosser, indicating the back stairs which it had been testified were nailed up months ago.

“No, I always went down this ladder,” said Dalton, pointing to the ladder near the elevator.

“Where have you lived for the last year, Mr. Dalton?”
The witness gave an address on Hunter street.

“Where have you worked this year?”
“For the Western and Atlantic railroad.”

“What kind of work do you do?”
“Carpenter work.”

“Where did you work last year?”
“I worked for contractors.”

The witness enumerated several contract jobs on which he worked last year, he said.

“Have you been absent from Atlanta in the last ten years?”
“Not for more than a week at a time.”

“Whom else did you work for last year beside Mr. Heflin?”
Witness mentioned a Mr. McGinnis.

“Whom did you work for the year before that?”
Witness named Mr. McGinnis.

“Where did you live last year?”
“337 East Hunter street.”

“Can you come any nearer telling the time when you met Frank in his office than sometime between September and December?”
“I don’t remember.”

IN THE AFTERNOON.

“What time of day was it?”
“Between 2 and 3 o’clock.”

“Was the window of his office open?”
“Sometimes.”

“Were there any curtains on the windows?”
“I never saw any.”

“You saw two windows in each office, didn’t you?”
“I don’t know.”

“Which office did you go into, the inner office or the outer office?”
“I went into the one next to the stairway.”

“Do you know where the desk is in Mr. Frank’s office?”

“I won’t be sure, except I think I saw it sitting next to the wall.”

“Have you see[n] Frank this year?”

“No.”

“You haven’t seen him since last fall?”
“I have not.”

SAW CONLEY ON EVERY VISIT.

“Did you see Conley each time you went through the factory?”
“Yes, I saw him each time.”

“Who was the watchman, at the time you saw a watchman there? Was he a negro each time?”
“He was a negro.”

“When did you go there this year?”
“I went once on Saturday night, I think it was in January.”

“Did you ever live in Walton county?”
“Yes, sir. I lived there about twenty years.”

“Where did you go when you left there?”
“Came here.”

“Were you absent from Walton county at any time while you lived there?”
“Yes.”

“Where did you go?”
“I went to various places.”

“Weren’t you absent once for quite a long while?”
“Yes, I was in Lawrenceville once for two or three years.”

“When was that?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Why did you go there?”
“My father moved there and lived there a while.”
“Did you ever go to the factory with anyone besides Daisy Hopkins?”

MET OTHER GIRLS.

“No, but I’ve been to the corner there several times, near the Busy Bee, waiting to meet girls, and go home with them.”

“Whom did you meet there? Can you name some of them?”
The witness mentioned several names.

“Where were you born?”
“I don’t know.”

“Well, where were you when you waked up?”
“I was in Lawrenceville, I think.”

“Up to ten years ago you lived in Gwinnett and Walton counties exclusively?”
“Yes, the longest time I was away from home was two weeks, when I was in Alabama.”

Mr. Dorsey took up the re-direct examination.

“Did you pay Conley anything?”
“Did you give Jim Conley any money?”
“Yes, I gave him a quarter every time I was there.”

“When was that?”
“About once a week for about six weeks.”

“Did Frank ever have anything to drink in his office?”
“Yes, sometimes he would have cold drinks.”

“Did he ever have anything intoxicating?”
“Yes, beer once.”

“Did you ever see any of the women in there doing stenographic work?”
“No.”

By Attorney Rosser: “You say you saw beer there? Every time?”

“No, not every time. Usually there’d be a waiter full of cold drinks there.”

The witness specified several soft drinks.

BEER AND WOMEN.

“Well, what women were there when he had the beer?” continued Mr. Rosser.
“There were two besides Daisy Hopkins.”

“Describe them.”

“I didn’t pay any attention to anybody but Daisy.”
“She must have been pretty,” said Mr. Rosser.

“Just as pretty as a girl can be,” returned the witness.

“Can you fix the date of the first visit any nearer than you have done?”
“No, sir.”

The witness was excused, and Cite Detective L. S. Rosser was called.

“Did you see Mrs. Arthur White on April 28?”
“Yes.”

“When did Mrs. White first mention to you that she saw a negro as she came down out of the factory about 12:50 on April 26?”
Attorney Rosser objected.

“When did you first know that she claimed to have seen a negro?”
“On May 6 or 7.”

“Whom did you learn it from?”
“From her.”

“Did you ever ask her about a negro?” asked Attorney Rosser.

“I don’t think think so. She volunteered the information.”

Before the witness was excused Solicitor Dorsey asked:

“Did you search around the elevator on the first floor of the factory?”

DIDN’T FIND BLUDGEON.

“Yes, on Monday or Tuesday.”

The bloody stick said to have been found by the defense, and an umbrella handle, were exhibited to the witness by the solicitor.

“Were these there when you made the search?” asked the solicitor.

“No, sir.”

“You took some chips to Dr. Claude Smith, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

The solicitor exhibited some chips and asked: “Are these the chips?”
“They are the same.”

Attorney Rosser: “You mean they look like the same?”
“No, they are the same.”

BLUDGEON THERE TWO YEARS?

“Don’t you know that this roller,” continued Attorney Rosser, referring to the bloody stick, “had been down there for two years?”
“It was not there when I made the search.”

The witness was excused. Solicitor Dorsey tendered in evidence the bloody shirt found by the detectives at Newt Lee’s house. There was no objection. The solicitor tendered the chips in evidence. Attorney Rosser objected, saying that they had not been identified properly. Judge Roan said, “That’s for the jury to judge. We’ll let them in.”

“Now, your honor,” said the solicitor, “we want the cash book and the bank book showing the cash on hand April 26 and the deposits on about Monday or Tuesday or any time during the following week; and the officials of the National Pencil company have promised to produce them. I ask your honor to help one get them here.”

COURT TAKES RECESS.

“There’ll be no trouble about getting the books. We’ll get them here,” said Mr. Arnold.

“When we get these books here, and when Dr. Harris has finished his testimony, the state will rest,” said Solicitor Dorsey. The solicitor explained “Dr. Harris can’t sleep at night, and it was with difficulty that I got him here at all. He has promised to come down some time during the day.” Mr. Dorsey intimated that he expected the defense to go ahead, and that Dr. Harris could be interposed. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser preferred not to do that, and Dr. Harris was called by telephone at his residence, agreeing to come into court at 10 o’clock. Court recessed until about that hour, at 9:45 o’clock.

DR. HARRIS ON STAND.

Dr. Harris arrived in court at 11:05 o’clock and the jury was brought back and resumed its place. Dr. Harris went upon the stand.

Mr. Arnold resumed his cross-examination of the witness. Dr. Harris admitted that nervous influences and certain things taken on the stomach retard digestion, but declared that nobody knows to what extent it is retarded. There is very little known on the subject, he said.

He continued that some people say that sleep retards digestion while others say that it aids it. It is the same way with walking after a meal. He himself has not experimented much along this line, said he, and it would be only after long and tedious experiment that any definite data could be obtained.

He admitted that mental activity retards digestion to some unknown extent. Little, if anything, said he, can be told about the process of digestion by external indication when a person suffers very much from indigestion, but many people suffer mildly from indigestion for years without knowing it.

Dr. Harris said that medical men generally assume that blood goes toward the stomach to aid digestion; that there is more blood there while digestion is going on.

SOMETHING NOT DEFINITE.

He said that there are no definite facts known as to how long it takes substances not digested to pass out of the stomach. It is recognized that some substances are neither digested nor emulsified while they are in the stomach.

Mr. Arnold asked him if cabbage stalks do not sometimes pass out of the stomach without ever having been affected.

He said that they do not pass out that way from a normal subject. He admitted that grains of corn and peas, when swallowed whole, might not be affected even by a normal stomach.

He said that nobody can tell where most vegetables are digested. Parts of vegetables are digested in one place, and parts in another, he said. Mr. Arnold asked if digestion is not the most mysterious thing with which medical men have to contend.

“It is not,” said Dr. Harris. Mr. Arnold asked if man is not the only animal that is omnivorous, except possibly pigs. Dr. Harris said that cats, he thought, are omnivorous, although they eat very little meat.

“I have always understood,” said Mr. Arnold, “that the feline species is the most carnivorous of all. Does a wild cat eat anything but meat?”
“I don’t’ know, I have never associated with them.”

“How about monkeys?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“They don’t eat flesh to any extent, although they do eat insects.”

CITES FAMOUS CASE.

Dr. Harris admitted that the investigations of Alexis St. Martin in a famous Canadian case led up to all digestive experiments.

“Isn’t the study of digestion in its infancy?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I wouldn’t say that,” replied Dr. Harris.

“You don’t know the effect on man’s digestion as well as you know the effect on animals, do you?”
“You do as far as the stomach alone is concerned,” said Dr. Harris.

“What is laid down by science as the hardest vegetable to digest?”
“I never heard of any.”

“Well, isn’t cabbage laid down as one of the hardest?”
“I have seen that statement but experiments have shown that it does not necessarily prove true.”

Attorney Arnold read a transcript of the evidence of Dr. Harris on direct examination, relating to his examination of Mary Phagan’s stomach.

“What did you find out about the bread you found there?”
“Practically speaking, there had been no wigestion [sic] of it at all.”

“Did you call in any other chemist you make these tests?”
“No, sir.”

“You did it all yourself, then?”
“I did.”

ONLY IN STOMACH HALF HOUR.

“And you didn’t call in any representative of this man?”

“No, sir.”

“All you are willing to say is that this material in the stomach had been acted on only half an hour. You wouldn’t undertake to say that it had only been in the stomach that long, would you?”
“Yes, I would. It couldn’t have been in there longer and not been subject to digestion.”

Dr. Harris reiterated that there was absolute evidence that the little girl had suffered violence of some kind.

“Dr. Hurt made a visual observation. Was the dilation noticeable to him?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“He could not have seen with his eye all that I saw with the microscope.”

Dr. Harris continued that he found dilation of the blood ves[s]els or hemorrhages in the tissue.

“These hemorrhages, doctor—were they visible to the eye?”

“No, I observed them under the microscope.”

“And you couldn’t tell by visual examination, whether there were hemorrhages present or not?”

“No.”

“And there were hemorrhages scattered through the tissues?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And the blood vessels and tissues were swollen?”
“Yes, indicating diffusion of the blood.”

“Could you see the blood vessels with the naked eye?”
“No; it was necessary to use a microscope.”

“How much were these blood vessels swollen?”

BLOOD VESSELS ENLARGED.

“Perhaps two-thirds more than their normal size. Maybe double.”

“There is no way to determine what was their natural size?”
“No, not definitely.”

“If I get a bruise on my hand, could you look through the microscope and tell whether the blood had come out of the vessels or not?”
“Yes, sir.”

“I believe you said in your testimony about the skull wound that there was no pressure on the brain?”

“Practically none.”

“Was the cut through to the skull?”
“Oh, yes.”

“Well, what arteries were cut?”
“There are only small arteries there.”

“Well, bleeding comes from the veins and arteries, does it not, doctor?”
“Yes.”

“Well, what artery was on the skull at the base of this wound?”
“There was no particular large artery under it.”

“Did you notice any blood vessels under the wound?”
“Not especially. There are, of course, blood vessels, veins and small arteries at that point on the skull.”

“A wound bleeds more at first, doesn’t it, and the flow of blood diminishes with time?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Right where the injury was inflicted you would expect to find the greatest flow of blood?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You say this injury couldn’t have produced death?”
“No, sir, certainly not.”

“Did you find any blood on the brain inside the skull and beneath this wound?”
“Yes, sir, I found about one drop of blood—a sort of effusion.”

“This wound couldn’t have affected the mental or bodily functions?”
“Not so far as the killing is concerned.”

Mr. Arnold concluded his cross-examination. Solicitor Dorsey asked some additional questions.

“With reference to these poisons that Mr. Arnold asked you about yesterday, doctor, did you find any poison in any of the membranes?”
“No, sir, there couldn’t possibly have been any irritating poisons such as carbolic acid, bichloride of mercury, or other poisonous salts. If there had been they would have shown up on the membranous surfaces.”

“Your examination would have developed this fact?”
“Yes, sir, any quantity of these poisons sufficient to produce an effect would have been noticeable.”

CABBAGE IN EVIDENCE.

Solicitor Dorsey offered in evidence the samples of cabbage—first the little jar containing the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach; second, the two jars of cabbage taken from the stomachs of other persons, alive. Mr. Arnold was willing to admit the sample taken from the dead girl’s stomach, but objected to the others as illegal, irrelevant and immaterial. He said that the conditions of these other stomachs had not been shown to be the same as the condition of Mary Phagan’s stomach. Solicitor Dorsey insisted that the cabbage had been cooked in the same manner for the other subjects; that it had been eaten in the same manner; that it had remained in the stomach a definite period; that these other stomachs were normal.

“We don’t want to argue it,” said Mr. Arnold. “We merely want to get our objection into the record.”

Judge Roan permitted the introduction of the exhibits.

Solicitor Dorsey then called on the defense for the pencil factory cash book and financial statements. They were not in court, and the solicitor announced that the state rested its case.

It was agreed among the attorneys that three witnesses for the state—N. V. Darley, E. F. Holloway and Harry Scott—could be called back to the stand by the defense.

DEFENSE OPENS WITH CHILDS.

Dr. Leroy Childs, the first witness for the defense, branded as a couple of remarkable guesses the testimony by Dr. Harris and Dr. Hurt, who were witnesses for the state. Dr. Childs stated that he is a surgeon, and has been engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery in Atlanta for the past five years. He graduated from Michigan, said he, in 1906; served later in a hospital.

Mr. Arnold asked the witness this hypothetical question:

“Say a body was found at 3 o’clock and rigor mortis was not complete. It was embalmed at 10 o’clock. It was taken up nine days later and a post mortem performed. Behind the ear was a wound, cutting through to the skull, which one doctor says was 2 1-4 and another said was 1 1-2 inches long. There was a single drop of blood on the inside of the skull, but this did not in any way affect the brain or brain tissues. Could a physician performing this post mortem say definitely that this blow produced unconsciousness?”

ONLY A GUESS, HE SAYS.

“He could simply hazard a guess,” said Mr. Childs.

“Would a blow on the body after death produce the same effects as a blow before death?”

“Yes, if it was inflicted within a cer-[…]

DR. HARRIS’ TESTIMONY IS ATTACKED

[…]-tain time, say one to three hours.”

“Then you would say that this blow as described could have been inflicted after death?”

“Yes.”

“Would any statement that it could not have been inflicted, be anything but a guess?”
“No, not if the wound has been fully described to me.”

“The difficulties of getting definite information would be increased or decreased on account of the fact that a post mortem examination was made nine days after death?”
“They would be increased because certain physical changes set in even after a body has been embalmed, and the burying and the exhumation in themselves would make a change. For instance, a body a few hours after death weighs less than at the time of death.”

“With such a blow as I have described could a person have remained conscious?”
“Certainly.”

“Doctor, people have remained conscious with their skulls fractured, haven’t they?”
“In my own experience, I have seen people conscious with both tables of the skull fractured.”

“Have you ever heard any opinion given as to unconsciousness with so little data before physicians?”
“No, I have not.”

“In fact, doctor, a blow might not show anything on the surface and at the same time render a person unconscious or even produce death?”
“A blow could produce death with only a slight swelling,” said Dr. Childs. “I have known of persons being rendered unconscious for many hours by the blow from a sandbag, and even of their being killed without any external sign.”

“In that case, doctor, the concussion causes the death? And where concussion causes the death, there is seldom an external sign, is there?”

CABBAGE HARD TO DIGEST.

“No, very seldom.”

“How is cabbage classed among foods?”
“As a carbohydrate.”

“Are carbohydrates considered hard to digest?”
“Not as a fast rule.”

“Is cabbage considered a hard food to digest?”
“It is generally considered the hardest.”

“Doesn’t cabbage vary? Compare an old woody cabbage with a fresh, watery one?”
“I can only say that fresh vegetables are easier to digest.”

“Where does digestion begin?”
“In the mouth.”

Attorney Arnold directed the attention of the witness to the samples of cabbage produced by Dr. Harris. Designating the sample taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach, he asked, “Tell me if that is masticated thoroughly, in your opinion.”

“Certainly not thoroughly,” responded Dr. Childs.

“Does that cabbage look like it had been thoroughly cooked?”
“I wouldn’t say.”

“Is raw cabbage harder or easier to digest than cooked?”

“Raw is easier.”

“What per cent of carbo-hydrate is there in cabbage, doctor?”
“Between 7 and 8 per cent.”
“This is all of the cabbage affected by saliva in the mouth, is it not?”
“Yes.”

DIGESTION RETARDED IN STOMACH.

“Does the stomach do anything toward digestion of cabbage?”
“It has a physical influence. By churning it may break up particles of cabbage.”

Dr. Childs said that the juices of the stomach retard rather than aid the digestion of cabbage, and that the next real stage of digestion after cabbage leaves the mouth is in the intestine.

“Where is the process of digesting cabbage finally completed?”
“In the small intestines.”

Attorney Arnold directed the attention of the witness again to the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach. “How long would it be before you would expect pieces such as that to get out of the stomach?” he asked.

“Authorities give four and a half hours for cabbage to pass out. There is no absolute rule, however. This varies widely.”

“If you find cabbage up to the very second it leaves the stomach, it is still undigested, isn’t it?”
“In a sense, yes.”

“Isn’t it possible for parts of the cabbage to pass through all the digestive organs and out of the body still undigested?”
“Yes.”

“Aren’t there many things that retard digestion?”

RETARDING DIGESTION.

Dr. Childs then named a number of physical influences which would retard digestion among them being excitement and violent exercise.

“Well, you might find substances in the stomach that had remained there a long time, might you not?”

“Yes.”

“Hasn’t every stomach its individual idiosyncrasies much as has the brain?”
“Absolutely.”

Attorney Arnold asked another hypothetical question. “Take a human body that has been interred nine days. Take out the stomach and in the contents find cabbage and certain remnants of wheat bread. Could you hazard an opinion or a guess that that person had taken it into his stomach one-half or three-quarters of an hour before death.”

“I certainly could not. I don’t think anybody could hazard a guess within an hour.”

COURT RECESSED.

“Well, isn’t it impossible for anybody to state accurately and positively within two hours, doctor?”
“I wouldn’t attempt to advance such an opinion myself.”

“How long is it possible for cabbage like this to remain in the stomach?”
“I should say it is possible for it to remain there twelve hours.”

“Digestion begins slowly, doesn’t it, doctor?”
“Yes.”

“Now, take common wheat biscuits. How long before they commence to pass out of the stomach?”
“I should say two hours and a half.”

Court recessed at 12:30, with Dr. Childs still on the stand under direct examination by the defense. He will resume at 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 7th 1913, “Dr. Harris’ Testimony is Attacked by Defense Expert,” 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 7^th, 1913

Here is a sample of the testimony of Dr. Harris, for the State, given Wednesday afternoon, and conflicting evidence given for the defense by Dr. Childs on Thursday:

Dr. Harris said:

“I want to state that the amount of secretive juice in this stomach was considerably less than would have collected in an hour. The hydrochloride acid had not been in long enough to become free. The amount of confined hydrochloric was 32 degrees. In a normal stomach, the amount would have been 55 or 60 degrees. It was just about the amount one would have supposed to have collected in half an hour or 35 to 40 minutes. I can say with absolute certainty that she was unconscious within 30 or 40 minutes after she ate the cabbage.”

Shortly after the defense opened Mr. Arnold held up a sample of cabbage taken from the Phagan girl’s stomach.

Q. Would you hazard a guess that this cabbage had only been in a stomach one half hour before death?—A. I would not.

Q. Why?—A. For the reasons I have stated. The cause of the psychic influences I know not of that might have been brought to bear and because of the varying effects of stomachs on such a substance.

Q. Do you think a doctor could give an accurate scientific opinion by making such a statement?—A. I do not.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 7th 1913, “Trial Experts Conflict on Time of Girl’s Death,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)