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

Atlanta Constitution
August 20th, 1913

Dr. Clarence Johnson, a well-known specialist, who was put up by the prosecution in rebuttal of the testimony offered by the defense in attacking that of Dr. Roy Harris, was the final witness during the afternoon session.

His testimony was stopped in the middle of its narration in order to give the solicitor time to investigate authorities on a medical subject on which Mr. Dorsey was questioning the witness at the time a discussion arose between the prosecution and defense.

“What is your business?” he was asked by the solicitor.

“I am a practitioner of medicine, with a specialty of stomach diseases.”

“What is a pathologist?”

“A man who examines stomachs in any shape.”

“What Is a physiologist?”

An objection was put to this question, the defense striving to show that the state had already shown what was a pathologist and a physiologist.

Judge Roan ruled with the defense.

“The specimens which pathologist investigate, how are they preserved?”

“In anaesthetic.”

“Do they not place specimens in formaldehyde?

“I would not care to quote authority on that subject.”

“Did you give cabbage at 12 to a person who had drunk chocolate milk at 6?”

“Yes”

“If the chocolate milk was perceptible in the contents vomited seven hours later, would that indicate a normal or abnormal stomach?”

“Abnormal.”

It was while the witness was being questioned regarding his opinion of the time of Mary Phagan’s death, determined by condition of the contents of her stomach, when court adjourned.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 20th 1913, “Dr. Clarence Johnson is Called to Corroborate Dr. Roy Harris,” 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 21st, 1913

Dr. Clarence Johnson, when called to the stand Wednesday morning as the first witness, designated the deductions of Dr. H. T. Harris in regard to the time of Mary Phagan’s death after eating as scientific statements based on scientific facts.

When recalled to the stand Dr. Johnson, who is a noted stomach specialist, and who testified on Tuesday afternoon, was asked the direct question about what he would conclude from conditions such as Dr. Harris had reported finding in Mary Phagan’s body. He said he would say the girl had died within an hour after eating.

It was not until Solicitor Hugh Dorsey had made a bitter fight that Judge L. S. Roan allowed him to ask Dr. Johnson the particular question which bolstered up Dr. Harris, and when the trial judge granted it he stated that it was not a right of the state’s, but that the matter was at his discretion, and that he was giving the solicitor the benefit of it.

The defense claimed that to allow Dr. Johnson to tell what he thought of the Harris deductions would be to open the entire matter, and the solicitor declared that he had the right to reply to the attack the defense had made on Dr. Harris.

Mr. Dorsey’s first question was an outline of what Dr. Harris had declared Mary Phagan’s condition to be, and then asked him from that how long he would say it was from the time of outing until death overtook the girl.

Dr. Johnson replied that he would first have to know that the pathologist was thoroughly capable and employed the most scientific methods.

Digestion Stopped in An Hour.

Mr. Dorsey told him to assume that to be the case, and Dr. Johnson then declared that under the conditions, which he carefully repeated and had the court stenographer later read to him, that the digestion of the food had been stopped in an hour after it was eaten.

“Would that be a wild guess?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“It would not,” replied the physician.

“Is every stomach a law unto itself, doctor?”

“No.”

Dr. Johnson was then turned over to the defense for cross-examination.

“What other possible factors that would affect the digestive process?” asked Attorney Reuben Arnold on cross-examination.

“The bruise on the head and the strangulation are two of them.”

“How are they factors?”

“Well, anything that disturbs the circulation of the blood or hinders the action of the nerves toward the stomach, disturbs the action of the stomach.”

“What are the mechanical factors?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“The size of the stomach and the thickness of its walls.”

“Doctor, what is the best test for hydrochloric acid in the stomach?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I consider the color test the best one,” replied the expert.

“Is there any other test?”

“Yes, but I consider the color test best.”

Calm Under Cross-Examination.

Dr. Johnson was then subjected to a thorough grilling, in which Mr. Arnold asked him technical questions to the amount of several hundred on the digestive processes in the stomach and intestines and on the effect of various things on the digestive processes.

It seemed as though the defense was trying to confuse the export and thus discredit him before the jury, as the solicitor had succeeded in doing with one of the physicians introduced by the defense. Dr. Johnson, however, took his own time about every question, refusing to answer when the questions were hurled in lightning order at him, and gave a careful answer to each one of them, ignoring in every care to explain his reasons and show why he had answered that way.

Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Frank Hooper were wreathed in smiles when Dr. Johnson left the stand, and Dr. Frank Eskridge and George Mizell, who have aided the solicitor, were also gratified at the impression the export had made.

Niles Also Upholds Harris.

Dr. George M. Niles, a practicing physician and one who teaches the treatment of intestinal diseases at the Atlanta Medical college and who has also written a textbook on the subject, went on the stand following Dr. Clarence Johnson, and practically corroborated what Dr. Johnson had said in regard to Dr. H. F. Harris.

“Is each stomach a law unto itself?” Solicitor Hugh Dorsey asked after he had established by questions who his witness was.  

“Not exactly, every normal stomach follows certain general laws.”

Mr. Dorsey then outlined to the witness the condition in which Dr. Harris had reported finding Mary Phagan’s organs and asked him from that if he could give a scientific opinion or a wild guess.

Death Within an Hour.

“Assuming a healthy stomach and no excitement or extraordinary physical exercise to disturb it, I could give a scientific opinion that death had come in about an hour after the food was eaten,” replied Dr. Niles.

On cross-examination Attorney Reuben Arnold went into great detail about the digestive processes of the stomach and intestines and drew from the witness the statement that the longest period he ever heard of cabbage remaining in the human stomach was four or five hours.

After a series of technical questions, which failed to confuse him. Dr. Niles was excused by the defense.

Solicitor Dorsey then asked him if there was any code of ethics among physicians which would prohibit a man from doing as Dr. Harris had done in regard to marking his autopsy by himself and then concealing his findings until it was brought out in court. Dr. Niles said there was no such code, and also that Dr. Harris did not have to bring samples of the organs into court with him.

Dr. Funke Put on Stand.

Dr. John Funke, director of the Carnegie Pathological Institute and a professor of pathology and bacteriology in the college of which Dr. Willis Westmoreland, attacker of Dr. H. F. Harris, is president, went on the stand following Dr. George M. Niles and upheld Dr. Harris’ deductions.

He also upheld Dr. Harris’ statement that some sort of violence had been done to the girl before death. He was positive that the violence to her had been done before death and cited so many authorities on cross-examination that at one time Attorney Arnold begged him to quit.

“Let the witness get through with his frog story and I’ll go on,” was Mr. Arnold’s remark.

Dr. Funke went calmly on as though no fling had been taken at him and told of experiments first performed on the web of a frog’s foot by which it had been discovered that the blood acts in certain particular ways before death when an injury is inflicted and then explained that the blood only flows from force of gravity after death.

Dr. Funke had been shown specimens of the organs taken from the dead girl and on cross-examination it was brought out that Dr. R. T. Dorsey, brother to the solicitor, had done this on last Saturday.

Attorney Arnold went into a number of detailed questions with the witness and then he was excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 21st 1913, Testimony of Dr. Harris Upheld by Noted Stomach Specialists,” 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 14^th, 1913

Dr. William S. Kendrick, head of the chair of medicine of the new Atlanta Medical school and for the past thirty eight years a general practitioner of medicine, was the first witness put on the stand Wednesday morning.

The physician on the stand declared the deductions of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, as to the time of Mary Phagan’s death and the alleged violation as nothing more than guesswork.

On cross-examination the solicitor forced Dr. Kendrick to admit that he was no expert on digestion and that he had not read a medical treatise on the subject in ten years or possibly in his life.

Many lively tilts occurred while the physician had the stand and in many instances the solicitor forced the witness to admit his ignorance on points pertaining to the subject.

Reuben Arnold outlined the condition in which it is said that Dr. Harris found the girl’s body and asked the witness if he could tell from that whether or not she had been violated. Dr. Kendrick stated that he could not.

“Would it be merely conjecture or not to make such a deduction?”
“I would call it nothing else.”

“Are you or not a stomach specialist?” Mr. Arnold next asked.

“No, I am not a specialist of any kind. I am a general practitioner, but for the past thirty five years I have been teaching of diseases of the stomach.”

“Do you think that the stomachs of different people are different?”
“Yes, each stomach is a law unto itself.”

Deductions Merely Guesswork.

“Do you think that by chemical methods or by any other methods a physician could tell how long this unchewed cabbage had been in a person’s stomach before death?” Mr. Arnold asked, exhibiting the sample of food taken from the dead girl’s stomach.

“No, it would be just a guess.”

Mr. Dorsey took up the cross-examination.

“There are not many specialists in the state, are there doctor?” was his first question.

“No, there are not many but there are too many at that,” the veteran physician replied.

“Well, doctor is Dr. Willis Westmoreland a stomach specialist?” asked Mr. Dorsey, apparently somewhat taken aback by the reply.

“Dr. Westmoreland is a surgeon, not a stomach specialist,” the witness replied.

“Do you consider Dr. T. H. Hancock surgeon to the Georgia Railway and Power company, a stomach specialist?”
“I do not.”

Mr. Dorsey then outlined the condition of Mary Phagan’s stomach as told by Dr. Harris and asked Dr. Kendrick if he could not give an opinion from such a condition. He replied that he could not.

“There are certain general rules governing what takes place in the stomach, aren’t there, doctor?”
“Yes, there are but there are other things, too. For instance, I can’t eat cabbage without having to go to bed the next day,” said the witness and there was a general laugh.

“I don’t care a rap about your stomach with all respect to you,” replied the solicitor. “We are talking about Mary Phagan’s stomach and not yours, please remember that.”

“I hold its very pertinent,” said Attorney Arnold.

Frequent Clashes Occur.

After a words war in which some bitterness was injected on both sides Judge Roan ruled the reference to Dr. Kendrick’s stomach out and the stenographer was ordered to wipe out all mention of it in the official records.

The next squabble came when Solicitor Dorsey inadvertently introduced Homer to the court. The Greek poet met with the same fate as the stomach of the witness on the stand.

Homer came in when the solicitor in asking about what might be known from the presence of hydrochloric acid in the stomach, asked the witness if any teacher of medicine ought not to know what to judge from the amount of the acid found in a stomach at a given time.

“Some students excel their masters in that too,” was all Dr. Kendrick remarked, apparently referring to himself as the teacher and Dr. Harris as the student.

Homer’s 5,000 Masters.

“Yes, Homer excelled his masters and there were about 5,000 people who afterwards claimed to have been his master, weren’t there?” retorted the solicitor.

“Homer never was taught by anybody, he learned it all himself,” commented Attorney Rosser with a sarcastic smile.

“Well, I’ve been too busy earning my living by the sweat of my brow to keep up with Homer, although I used to teach Latin,” remarked the physician on the stand.

After this a warm argument upon Greek history with particular attention to the Homeric period enlivened the courtroom. Judge Roan ended it by ruling that the incomparable Greek had no place in the Frank trial.

“I don’t suppose I’ve read a book on that in ten years. I know I have not and possibly not in my life.”

Impossible to Fix Time of Death.

Mr. Dorsey then outlined the condition of which Dr. Harris had told he found the dead girl’s body and asked the physician if he could not tell from that how much time had elapsed from the time she ate her meal until she met death.

“No living man could, I will say most emphatically in my judgment.”

The solicitor kept pressing questions upon the physician about the appearance of cabbage in the stomach and asked Dr. Kendrick from a medical standpoint, would or would not cabbage grow in the stomach?

Retort of Witness Causes Mirth.

“It would not grow in the stomach from a medical standpoint but it might from a legal standpoint,” replied the physician.

Deputies immediately began to threaten certain spectators with forcible ejection from the courtroom.

“You and Dr. Westmoreland are very bitter toward Dr. Harris, aren’t you?” the solicitor then asked.

“There is no living man, woman or child who has ever heard me say anything about being bitter toward Dr. Harris,” replied Dr. Kendrick.

“But you are, aren’t you?”
“Well, I’ve given him every medical office he ever held except the present job as secretary of the state board of health and I am not bitter toward him,” the physician replied.

“Well, Westmoreland gave him that, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“And then couldn’t take it away from him?” the solicitor replied and then ended his cross-examination.

“Well, doctor, you have your opinion of Dr. Harris, think he’s a crank or something like that, don’t you?” asked Mr. Arnold.

After a short argument, this was ruled out and the witness was excused at 9:55 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Lively Tilts Mark the Hearing of Testimony of Dr. Kendrick,” 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 12^th, 1913

Dr. Willis Westmoreland, former head of the state board of health, who resigned some time ago after the board gave a clean bill to Dr. H. F. Harris, the secretary, whom he had accused of “scientific dishonesty,” followed Dr. Hancock on the stand.

He also made an examination of Leo Frank, stating in answer to Mr. Arnold’s question that he had found the accused man to be normal.

He was questioned by Arnold.

“What is your calling?”

“I am a physician of twenty-right years’ experience.”

“What is your main practice?”
“General medicine and surgery.”

“Have you occupied any chairs of prominence during your career?”

Former Head of State Board.

“I formerly occupied the chair of surgery in the Atlanta College of Surgery and, at one time, was president of the state board of health.”

A number of questions of the same nature of those put to Dr. Hancock pertaining to Dr. Harris’ testimony of his opinion of the time of death and of his belief that violence had been inflicted were asked Dr. Westmoreland. His replies were substantiation of Dr. Hancock.

“Could you determine how long this wheatbread and cabbage had been in the girl’s stomach?” he was asked.

“No, nor anyone else. It would be the wildest guessing I have ever heard of.”

“Isn’t there an ascending and descending scale of acidity in the stomach?”
“Yes.”

“How long would cabbage like this specimen which is said to have been removed from the body remain in the stomach?”
“Until the process of digestion had completed.”

“Doctor, couldn’t one man eat another man’s stomach and the acids that would digest the foreign stomach benefit the stomach in which it had been placed?”
“Yes.”

“Have you ever known such stomach tests to have ever been made before on dead bodies?”
“No.”

Says Harris Destroyed Specimens.

“Have you ever before known a chemist to make an analysis in a lawsuit of parts of a body then destroy the parts without showing them to the other side or produce them in courts?”
“No.”

“Such conduct is unethical, isn’t it?”
An objection was made by Dorsey to this question.

Mr. Arnold, in argument, said:

“Here’s a case of an ‘alleged’ chemist who is hired by Dorsey and who takes the specimens to his own back room and, after he has finished with them, destroys them I want to show that it was unethical and unprecedented.”

Solicitor Dorsey replied:

“It is irrelevant in every respect, and should not be permitted.”

Judge Roan ruled, however, that the rules and ethics of the medical profession could be shown by the witness.

“What are your ideas of ethics?” Dr. Westmoreland was asked.

“In the case of a chemist destroying the specimens, I would first call in another expert or preserve the specimens of my test.”

“If you take the case of the stripped epithelium after a digital examination has been made, and the hemorrhage and the distended blood vessels in the female organs, is that any indication of violence?”
“The epithelium is easily separated and a digital examination could have detached it from the wall. Such conditions would not necessarily indicate violence.”

Opinion Would Be Rash.

“In such a case, could a chemist give a scientific opinion on violence?”
“No. Such an opinion would be the rashest I ever heard.”

“Did you examine Leo Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Does he appear to be a normal man?”
“Yes.”

The cross-examination was then begun by the solicitor.

“Aren’t sexual inverts normal so far as physical structure is concerned?”
“Yes, unless they belong to certain classes.”

“Aren’t there about three classes?”
“Yes, about forty.”

“If a corpse is hit on the eye with the fist, what’s the effect?”
“Discoloration.”

“If there is a blow on the back of the head with no fracture of the skull and no effect on the brain and but little blood, accompanied by a deep indentation in the throat, livid features, purple fingers and nails, bulging eyes and tongue, what would you say caused death?”

Caused by Strangulation.

“Strangulation under those conditions.”

“Would the lick on the eye cause swelling if inflicted after death?”
“It is possible.”

“It is possible for a digital examination to be made without impairing the blood vessels, walls or organs, isn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“How long does it take cabbage to digest?”
“About four hours.”

“What is personal feeling toward Dr. H. F. Harris, kindly or unkindly?”
“Neither one way or the other.”

“What has been your past connection?”
“I was the president of the state board of health and obtained him the position of secretary.”

Direct examination was resumed by Mr. Arnold.

“What was your trouble with Dr. Harris?”
“I preferred charges against him for scientific dishonesty, and when the board found him guilty, but refused to drop him, I resigned.”

“Do you consider him the same doctor he used to be?”
“I know he isn’t.”

“Whatever troubles you have had, it doesn’t influence you in this case, does it?”
“I had no trouble with him.”

Blood Spots Likely.

“There is a final question I will ask, doctor. If the girl who was killed had received the blow on the head at the lathing machine, wouldn’t she have bled instantly, and wouldn’t big blood spots have been on the machine and in the spot where they say her body had been lain?”
“Yes, more than likely.”

Mr. Dorsey continued the cross-examination.

“Wouldn’t water have eradicated fresh blood?”

“Blood is a difficult stain to remove.”

He was then called from the stand.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 12th 1913, “As the Very Wildest of Guessing Dr. Westmoreland Characterizes Testimony Given by Dr. Harris,” 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 12^th, 1913

MADE CABBAGE DIGESTION EXPERIMENTS

Dr. T. H. Hancock, a well known Atlanta physician, was the first of three medical experts to be presented in the afternoon in behalf of the defense. Dr. Hancock is official physician of the Georgia Railway and Electric company, and is a man of twenty-two years’ experience.

An astonishing feature of his testimony was the statement he made in answer to a question from Attorney Arnold to the effect that he had treated 14,000 surgery cases, a record hitherto unparelleled [sic] in Georgia history.

He was examined directly by Mr. Arnold.

“What is your occupation, Dr. Hancock?”
“I have been a physician and surgeon for the past twenty-two years?”
“How many cases of surgery have you treated?”
“About 14,000.”

“Have you made a physical examination of Leo M. Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Is he normal?”
“He is perfectly normal.”

“You have read the stenographic report of the testimony delivered by Dr. Harris, haven’t you?”
“Yes.”

“If a subject dies, and, eight or ten hours after death, one gallon of blood is taken from the body and is replaced by one gallon of embalming fluid, 8 per cent of which is formaldehyde, and eight or ten days after death the body is exhumed and examination made on the head reveals a wound and hemorrhage near the brain, could the physician who made the examination ascertain whether or not death was caused by the wound?”

“No, not entirely.”

Could Only Guess at Opinion.

“Are there any means to tell whether or not such a blow produced unconsciousness before death?”
“No.”

“Wouldn’t such an opinion be conjecture?”
“Yes, purely guess work.”

“If a wound was made during life, wouldn’t there have been considerable flow of blood?”
“There might have been, and might not.”

“In case it had been made by a sharp instrument?”
“There probably would have been much blood, but not by a blunt instrument.”

“Suppose the lungs of such a subject had been examined visually and no congestion was found, is it possible to tell whether or not death was caused by strangulation?”
“I have never had any experience in such cases. Authorities, however, on such a subject, are widely divided.”

“If the stomach were removed and an examination made of contents and bread and cabbage, partly digested, were found, would it be possible to determine the period the food had been in the organ—could an intelligent opinion be reached?”
“No—nobody could.”

“Where does the indigestion begin, doctor?”
“In the mouth.”

“Where does the indigestion of cabbage begin?”
“I’m not what you might call an expert on digestion.”

Three or Four Hours Required.

“What time does cabbage require to digest?”
“I would say from three to four hours.”

“Is it possible for foods not mutilated to obstruct the passage into the stomach?”
“Yes.”

“Aren’t there many things which retard digestion?”
“Yes, excitement, anger, violent exercise, retard digestion, as well as other things.”

“What effect has formaldehyde on the pancreatic juices?”

“It stops all process of fermentation.”

“Then, after formaldehyde had been injected, would you expect to find the pancreatic juices?”
“No.”

“Or pepsin?”

“No, nor saliva.”

“Do you think that by any chemical analysis you could give any dependable opinion of how long this particular cabbage had been in the subject’s stomach?”

“No.”

“Have you made on men or women any tests on cabbage?”

Exhibits Results of Experiments.

“Yes, I experimented yesterday with four women and one man.”

Here the witness produced a number of vials containing emulsified cabbage which had been drawn from the men and women with whom he had experimented. The vials were numbered respectively.

“No. 1,” he said, “I gave to a young woman, white, aged 22 years, at five minutes after 12 o’clock. The cabbage was mixed with white bread. I produced emesis in sixty-nine minutes. The cabbage and bread had been masticated for nine minutes.

“No. 2 I gave to a woman middle-aged. It was bolted down in large pieces. It remained in her stomach forty-two minutes.

“No. 3 was given to a woman 32 years old. It was not so well chewed as that in specimen No. 1. It remained for thirty-five minutes, after which time I produced emesis. A portion of tomato, which she had eaten at breakfast as 8:30, was vomited with the cabbage. Emesis took place at 12:30 o’clock.

“No. 4 was given to a man aged 20, remaining in his stomach forty-five minutes, after which it was disgorged by emesis.”

“No. 5 was given to a woman aged 25, who ate it at 5 o’clock this morning. It was chewed well and vomited in two hours and twenty-eight minutes.”

“Take the case of a 14-year-old girl, doctor,” Mr. Arnold questioned, “when a chemist finds the epithelium detached from the walls, and finds also that blood vessels in the female organs are congested, and, upon making this find, learns that a digital examination had been made, what could have caused the epithelium to become detached?”

Digital Examination the Cause.

“The digital examination could have caused the rupture of the blood vessels while the epithelium could only be expected to shed off after death.”

“Would that necessarily indicate any signs of violence?”
“No.”

“Aren’t conditions like that caused often by things other than violence?”
“Yes.”

“Suppose the man who found these conditions believed that there was violence, could he tell how long before death it had been inflicted?”
“No.”

“Would death by strangulation cause dilated blood vessels in the female organism?”

“It depends. It might in one case and might not in another.”

Solicitor Begins Cross-Examination.

Here the solicitor began the cross-examination.

“You are surgeon for the Georgia Railway and Power company, aren’t you, doctor?”
“Yes.”

“Are you familiar with the standing of The American Medical Journal?”
“I know that it represents most eclectic and pathological schools and colleges of medicine.”
“Are you acquainted with G. H. Brill, of Columbia, where you graduated?”
“No.”

“You don’t mean to say, do you, that homo-sexuality is confined to defected patients?”

“In my experience, I have not touched much on that line.”

“Didn’t you say you had examined Frank?”
“Yes, but I judged merely from his outward appearance.”
“You know but little, then, of homo-sexuality?”
“I do not undertake to tell the jury any expert testimony on the examination I made of Frank.”

“Are you an expert on stomach analysis?”
“No, I can’t say that I am.”

“In order to give a good statement of stomach conditions, you must be an expert, eh?”
“I am a practicing physician, and they generally know as much of the stomach as any others.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 12th 1913, “Dr. Hancock Called by Defense, Assails Dr. Harris’ Testimony,” 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 12^th, 1913

Professor George Bachman, professor of physiology in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons, and formerly a demonstrator of physiology in Jefferson Medical college, was put on the stand following Schiff.

By him the defense made a further attack on the deductions of Dr. H. F. Harris. He declared that the statements made by Dr. Harris amounted to guess work, according to his knowledge of the subject.

“What is your nationality, professor?” Mr. Arnold asked.

“I’m a citizen of Atlanta,” replied the witness.

“I mean, where were you born?”

“I was born a Frenchman,” replied Dr. Bachman.

“Do you investigate chemistry as regards digestion?” Mr. Arnold then asked.

“Yes, I teach that subject.”

“How long would you say from you knowledge that it would take to digest cabbage.”

“It takes about four and a half hours for it to pass into the intestines.”

“Is it acted upon after that?”
“Yes, most of the action upon that substance comes after it has passed in to the small intestine.”

“What acts on it there?”
“The pancreatic juice.”

Mr. Arnold then had the expert go into a detailed explanation of the constituents of pancreatic juice.

Might Take Much Longer.

“Suppose the person does not chew the cabbage?”
“Then it takes longer for the juices to act upon it.”

“Is there any regular rule that you will find the digestion of cabbage and bread governed by?”
“No there are too many factors to be considered.”

“Suppose a person had not thoroughly masticated the cabbage and pieces of it touched upon the opening from the stomach into the intestine would not that close up this opening and prevent the passage out?”
“Yes, when a large unchewed piece of food touches this opening it closes up and the food is kept longer in the stomach.”

“Unless a chemist could know all about how many of these pieces had touched that opening and how often he could not tell much about how long the food had been there could he?”
“No, it would be guess work.”

“How much of the cabbage is acted upon in the stomach?”
“The protein which constitutes one and one half per cent of the cabbage.”

Showing the witness the samples of cabbage taken from the stomach of the dead girl, Mr. Arnold asked if the unchewed pieces would not have been sufficient to have caused a closing up of the passage to the intestines.

“Yes, they certainly would have if they touched it,” the expert replied. Mr. Arnold then drew from the expert the statement that when an undertaker drew out from the body one gallon of its liquids and injected a like quantity of formalin that the ferment of the pancreatic juice made it much harder to judge anything in regard to what had been done.

Impossible to Form Opinion

“If you were to investigate a stomach and find wheatbread and cabbage one gallon of the liquids of the body substituted by one gallon of formalin, no pepsin, 32 degrees of hydrocholoric acid and practically nothing in the lower intestines, could you or in your opinion could any physician hazard an opinion as to how long the food had been there?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“It would be impossible to form an opinion,” replied the expert.

Mr. Dorsey here took up the cross-examination and asked the witness a number of technical questions as though trying to show whether or not he was expert as claimed by the defense.

“Where did you say you were born?” the solicitor first asked.

“In Alsace-Lorraine,” Dr. Bachman replied.

“Are you German or French?”

“I’m of French birth and parentage,” replied the physiologist, referring to Alsace Lorraine as French as Frenchmen the world over still do despite the fact that it has been German territory since the Franco-Prussian war.

“How long have you been with the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons?”
“This is my fourth year.”

“Whom did you succeed?”

“Dr. Stewart Roberts.”

“What is your work?”
“Physiological chemistry.”
“Are you the head professor of your department?”
“Yes, I am.”

“Well, professor, what is the chief principal in wheaten bread?”
“Starch,” replied Dr. Bachman.

“What is the chief ferment in saliva?”

“Ptyalin is the chief ferment.”

“What is amidulin?” the solicitor next asked.

“I never heard of it,” replied Dr. Bachman.

“You mean to say that you, an expert on this subject never heard of amidulin?” queried the solicitor.

“No, I never heard of it and you can’t find it any dictionary,” replied the physician stoutly.

“You mean to say that you never saw it in a dictionary or medical book?” the solicitor repeated.

“I certainly do and no other physician ever did.”

Webster’s dictionary gives the definition of amidulin as soluble starch and according to the solicitor it is one of the stages through which starch passes while in process of digestion.

“Well, you never heard of amidulin, did you ever hear of erythrodextrin?” asked the solicitor.

Press Table in Despair.

By this time the press table had thrown up the sponge and was ready to retire from the ring. The official court stenographer came to the rescue by asking for help, and after that the questioning went on with Solicitor Dorsey asking Dr. Bachman if he had ever heard of half a hundred substances, each with a name that would floor a Welchman, but the solicitor spelled out each work and Dr. Bachman wrote it down on a tablet. Even the expert had to hear some of them pronounced in medical parlance or at least spelled out before him before he could grasp what it was.

When erythrodextrin had been made intelligible to everybody concerned, Dr. Bachman asserted that he was familiar with it.

More Jawbreakers.

Solicitor Dorsey could not be downed by that, but, consulting a paper before him, fired “achrodextrin” at the witness.

After the court stenographer had given another groan and the word had finally been written at the press table, the witness assured his interrogator that he was thoroughly familiar with the gens and habitat of “achrodextrin,” and the solicitor turned to other subjects.

“With the stomach perfectly normal, how far down do you get a reaction for starch?” he next asked.

“You get it way down.”

“When?”
“As soon as it gets there,” replied Dr. Bachman.

The expert then stated that all forms of soluble starch may be found at the same time.

The solicitor then asked a number of questions about the different colors obtained by tests of the contests [sic] of the stomach, and, according to his authority, Dr. Bachman was right in all but one answer, where Mr. Dorsey contended that a purple color should result, and the medical man contended that the test would show up red.

“Doctor, in examining a healthy stomach after the person had eaten an Ewald test breakfast, how long would it take to get a positive starch test?” the solicitor asked.

“You could get it all the time the starch was in the stomach.”

“Would that be from the moment that the wheaten bread got there?”
“Yes.”

“Don’t you know that the authorities all agree that it takes from thirty to forty minutes to get the positive starch test?” asked the solicitor.

“No, I don’t know it; what is your authority?” asked Dr. Bachman.

“Well, you are on the witness stand, I’m not,” retorted the solicitor.

“If you take out the contents of the stomach and find nothing in the intestines, what does that indicate about the degree of digestion?” Mr. Dorsey continued.

“Nothing at all.”

Rosser Takes a Dig at Dorsey.

Mr. Dorsey then asked a number of technical questions, regarding the Ewald test breakfast but was interrupted by Attorney Rosser.

“I want just a minute, your honor,” began Mr. Rosser.

“You can have it,” replied the solicitor.

“That’s very kind of you, young man,” Mr. Rosser flung back at the solicitor, and then continued addressing the judge. “Your honor, we are dealing with bread and fried cabbage, and I object to all this Ewald test breakfast, or what ever-you-call it business.”

“I’m coming to the cabbage in a minute,” replied the solicitor, but the Ewald test breakfast is something that is a standard, and I can show a great deal by it.”

“Doctor, did you ever experiment on boiled cabbage?” the solicitor asked the witness.

“No,” replied Dr. Bachman.

“How do you know, then, how long it takes to digest it?”
“By the authorities whom I have studied.”

“Is the Ewald breakfast test the standard?”
“Yes.”

“When you find starch and no maltose you know that indigestion has not progressed fully?”
“Yes.”

“Where do you first find maltose?”
“You might find it in the mouth.”

“If you didn’t find it in the mouth or in the stomach, how long would you say digestion had been going on?”
“I would not say. I have never seen maltose tested for after an Ewald test breakfast,” replied the expert.

“A scientist might do it, mightn’t he?”
“He might,” replied the witness doubtfully.

Samples Again Shown.

Showing the witness samples of cabbage cooked as near as possible like those eaten by Mary Phagan and afterwards taken from the stomach of others. Mr. Dorsey asked:

“If these boiled cabbages had been in the stomach from 40 to 50 minutes would you say this other cabbage taken from the girl’s body had been there a longer or shorter period?”
“Oh they’re fri-i-i-ed cabbages and not boiled,” interrupted Mr. Rosser, dragging out the word “fried.”

“Well, make it fried cabbage, then,” replied Mr. Dorsey, “but please answer the question doctor.”

“I couldn’t say about it,” replied Dr. Bachman.

Dr. Bachman then stated that after a meal of bread and water that 32 degrees of hydrochloric acid was found within half an hour, as the acidity increased and again in an hour and a half as the acidity lessened.

“Well, how long before you would find 32 degrees of hydrochloric acid after a meal of cabbages and bread?” the solicitor asked.

“I can not say, it has not been tested for.”

“That’s all,” said Mr. Dorsey.

“Doctor, could anybody but Dr. Harris give an opinion on a matter like this?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“No, I never heard of anyone before who would do so,” Dr. Bachman replied.

The physiologist was then excused and court adjourned for lunch.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 12th 1913, “Expert Flatly Contradicts the Testimony of Dr. Harris,” 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 12^th, 1913

AS WILD GUESSES PHYSICIANS TERM TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DR. ROY HARRIS

Assert It Is Impossible to Tell Accurately Just How Long It Takes for the Digestion of Cabbage—One Doctor Tells of Experiments He Had Made on Several Patients to Settle This Point. Doubt Value of Testimony About Violence.

OLD ROW OF DOCTORS BOBS UP IN TESTIMONY OF DR. WESTMORELAND

Declares That He Accused Dr. Harris of Scientific Dishonesty and Then Resigned From Board When It Refused to Discharge the Secretary—Joel Hunter Goes on Stand to Testify as to the Amount of Time Necessary on Frank’s Books.

When Monday’s session of the Leo M. Frank trial came to an end, it was generally conceded that it had been the best day the defense has thus far had.

True, there were no sensational developments and there was nothing particularly startling in the testimony. It was merely the drip, drip of the water on the stone which eventually wears it away—the stone in this case being the story told by Jim Conley and the statement made by Dr. H. F. Harris that Mary Phagan must have met her death within three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten her breakfast of cabbage and bread.

The damage to Conley’s story came in the testimony of Herbert Schiff, assistant superintendent of the National Pencil factory, an extremely bright young man, who was on the stand Saturday when court took a recess, and the most rigid cross-examination by Solicitor Dorsey failed to shake him or to make him alter his testimony in any material point. He had a mass of information at his tongue’s end regarding the financial statement which Frank says he made out the Saturday afternoon of the murder. Schiff finally admitted that Frank might have done part of the work in the morning, but he stuck to the statement that the work would have required at least three and one-half hours. This statement was later corroborated by Joel Hunter, an expert accountant, who verified the mathematical work entering into the financial statement. He said it would have taken him fully that length of time.

Defense Trains Guns on Harris.

The big guns of the defense were trained on the expert testimony of Dr. Harris, who made a post-mortem examination of Mary Phagan’s body and who testified with a finality which was startling that Mary Phagan’s death must have occurred within a half to three-quarters of an hour after eating.

The consensus of expert opinion testifying for the defense was that Dr. Harris was hazarding the wildest sort of a guess.

An interesting echo of the recent differences between Dr. Willis Westmoreland and Dr. Harris was heard while Dr. Westmoreland was on the stand. It will be recalled that Dr. Westmoreland was formerly president of the state board of health and preferred charges against Dr. Harris. When the board failed to remove him, Dr. Westmoreland resigned.

On the stand Monday, Dr. Westmoreland was asked by Solicitor Dorsey what his feelings were toward Dr. Harris. He replied that he had none. Asked as to the trouble he had had with him he replied that he had “found Dr. Harris scientifically dishonest” and had so reported to the board.

The physicians called to refute Dr. Harris were Dr. George Bachman, Dr. T. H. Hancock, Dr. Willis Westmoreland and Dr. John C. Olmstead.

Blood Could Flow Out.

Dr. Hancock testified that blood could and probably would flow out of a wound after a person was dead. Dr. Harris testified that this would be improbable.

He told of having made several tests on persons eating cabbage and bread and exhibited samples taken from the stomachs of these person at various times. The net result of these experiments was to show that cabbage takes three and one-half to four hours to digest.

Dr. Hancock stated that he had made an examination of Leo M. Frank and found him to be normal, so far as he could discover. He confessed, however, that he was not an authority on homosexuality. He also said he was not an expert on stomach trouble.

Dr. Willis Westmoreland stated in reply to a hypothetical question that if a physician made a postmortem examination for one side in a litigation and failed to preserve the samples from which he had made microscopical examinations so that the other side would have the advantage of making similar examinations it would be against the ethics of the profession and contrary to good practice. It was a rule, he said, to lay aside a part of all specimens.

Speaking of the conclusion of Dr. Harris that Mary Phagan had been violated—the question was again stated hypothetically—Dr. Westmoreland said.

“It is about the wildest guess I ever heard of.”

Dr. Westmoreland stated that he had made an examination of Frank and found him to be normal.

In reply to a question by Solicitor Dorsey to the effect that many inverts are otherwise normal he replied that they were.

“There are three classes of inverts, are there not?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“I should say there were nearer forty,” was the reply.

Dr. J. C. Olmstead’s testimony was along practically the same lines as that of Dr. Westmoreland. Dr. Bachman also contradicted the conclusions reached by Dr. Harris.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 12th 1913, “Defense Has Best Day Since Trial of Frank Began,” 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 12^th, 1913

Sensational Charge Hurled By Physician in Testimony Given at Afternoon Session

Dr. Westmoreland, Answering Question of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, Declares He Never Heard of a Chemist Who Had Made Examination by Himself and Then Destroyed the Organs Without Bringing Them Into Court

Three experts took the stand Monday afternoon at the trial of Leo M. Frank to repudiate the conclusions reached by Dr. H. F. Harris to the effect that the condition of the cabbage in the stomach of Mary Phagan showed that she must have died within an hour after eating, and that the distended blood vessels showed that she had suffered violence of some sort immediately prior to her death.

Dr. Thomas H. Hancock and Dr. Willis Westmoreland both declared that Dr. Harris’ conclusions were not justified. Dr. Hancock said that no physician in the world could have told from the evidence that Dr. Harris had before him how long the cabbage and bread had been in the little girl’s stomach. He exhibited to the jury a number of specimens of cabbage taken from the stomachs of five different people at different periods after it had been eaten to illustrate that very little if anything could be told by an examination of the food.

An attack upon the ethics of Dr. Harris for having made his examination without calling in any other chemist or physician and then having destroyed the stomach, was made by Attorney Arnold. He asked the following question of Dr. Westmoreland:

“Have you ever known a chemist to make an examination of a corpse nine days after death and utterly destroy the organ and not bring it into court to exhibit it to the jury or give it to the other side for investigation and examination?”
Dr. Westmoreland replied in the negative, after Judge Roan had ruled that the question shouldn’t be allowed.

The sensational statement was made by Dr. Willis Westmoreland that he had preferred charges of scientific dishonesty against Dr. H. F. Harris while a member of the state board of health, that the board had found him guilty but refused to discharge him and that he (Westmoreland) thereupon resigned.

Answering a question of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, Dr. Westmoreland declared that he knew Dr. Harris to be the same man professionally now as when he preferred his charges.

Dr. J. C. Olmstead also testified and characterized Dr. Harris’ conclusion as pure guesses.

Joel Hunter, expert accountant, was the last witness introduced by the defense. He testified that it would take a pretty swift man to make up the financial sheet, said to have been prepared by Frank on the afternoon that of the day Mary Phagan was killed, in less than three and one half hours. At the conclusion of the testimony at 5:30, court adjourned until 9 o’clock Tuesday morning.

Dr. Thomas H. Hancock, head of the Atlanta hospital, was called as the first witness for the defense when court resumed at 1 o’clock Monday afternoon. Dr. Hancock testified regarding a physical examination which he made of Leo M. Frank, the accused. [1 word illegible] his twenty-two years medical experience, said he, he has observed probably 14,000 surgical cases. He had read the report of Dr. Harris’ testimony, said he.

Mr. Arnold asked this hypothetical question:

“Say a body was embalmed eight hours after death, one gallon of the fluid of the body taken out and one gallon of embalming fluid containing 8 per cent formaldehyde put in its place. Say nine or ten days after death, the body was exhumed, and a cut one and one half inches long found back of the ear, no break is found in the skull, no pressure on the brain, but a little hemorrhage is found under the skull. Could any one tell whether that wound produced unconsciousness?”
“No, the skull might have been fractured and yet the patient remained conscious.”

“There is no possible way to tell, then, is there?”
“No, any statement to that effect would have been merely a guess.”

“Is there any way under those circumstances to tell whether or not the wound was produced before or after death, granted that there was some blood (we don’t know how much) which flowed from it?”

“No. Blood could have flowed for from six or eight to ten hours after death.”

“Say it was inflicted before death by a sharp-edged instrument?”

“There would have been considerable blood. That is, there would have been much more blood before death than afterward. And there would have been more blood from a wound inflicted by a sharp instrument than from a wound inflicted by a blunt instrument.”

“Say nine or ten days after death a visual examination was made of the lungs. Could a person say whether or not the subject died of strangulation?”
The witness said that he knew very little of strangulation cases.

“In strangulation cases, the blood is forced from the lungs, isn’t it?”

“The authorities differ,” said Dr. Hancock. “Usually the right side of the heart fills up and the left empties.”

NOBODY COULD TELL.

“Suppose you remove a stomach and make an examination of its contents. Suppose you find wheat bread and cabbage and 32 degrees of acidity. Suppose on taking out the cabbage you found some to be particles like that (holding up the sample taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach). Suppose you find very little fluid or solid in the small intestines. Suppose you have no more data than that to go on. Could you give a reliable opinion as to how long that food had been in there if you dug the body up nine days later and formaldehyde had been used in the embalming?”
“Nobody could.”

Attorney Arnold again held up the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach and asked, “Doctor, lumps like that—what influence have they on digestion?”
“They retard it.”

“How long is cabbage in a normal stomach usually?”
“Three or four hours.”

“Is it possible for it to stay in there longer?”
“Yes.”

“Looking at that cabbage, could you undertake to say how long it had been in the stomach?”

“I could not.”

“What things retard digestion?”
“Excitement, anger and grief and emotions like that.”

“What about exercise?”
“That is a very vague and uncertain subject. Authorities disagree on its effect.”

“Do you think that by any chemical analysis, doctor, you could give a dependable opinion as to how long that cabbage had been in her stomach?”
“I could not.”

“Is cabbage hard or easy to digest?”
“Very hard.”
“Have you made any tests on men, at our request, dealing with cabbage and wheat bread, in the last few days?”

EXHIBITS SPECIMENS.

“One man and four women.” Dr. Hancock then took from a grip which he carried to the stand with him five glass jars containing specimens of results obtained by the experiment.

The bottles were set on a table in front of the jury, and Dr. Hancock resumed the witness chair, using a note book to help him with the answers.

“Consider jar No. 1,” said Attorney Arnold. “Tell us about that.”
Referring to his note book, Dr. Hancock said he had given portions of cabbage and wheat bread to a white woman thirty-two years old at 12:05 o’clock on August 8, and had let it remain in her stomach sixty minutes, after which he induced vomiting and got it up again. It was well masticated, Dr. Hancock said, the woman having taken nine minutes to chew it.

“What is the cause of the reddish tinge of the contents, doctor?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“The young woman was supposed to have had nothing to eat after 6:30 o’clock that morning. I found though, after she had vomited the cabbage and bread, that at 9:30 that morning she had taken a chocolate milk.”

“And that chocolate milk had remained in the stomach, had it not, three hours and thirty-five minutes?”

“I have only her word for the time she drank it.”

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS.

“But even chocolate milk, a liquid in form, remained in her stomach length of time?”
“Evidently.”
Sample No. 2, according to Dr. Hancock, consisted of cabbage and bread for a normal woman at 12:05 o’clock. It was not chewed well and stayed in the stomach from 45 to 50 minutes. The sample as exhibited to the jury showed the cabbage looking very much like it probably did when it went into the patient’s stomach.

Sample No. 4, said Dr. Hancock, consisted of cabbage fed to a man twenty-five years old. It was not well chewed, and stayed in the stomach an hour and 15 to 20 minutes. As exhibited to the jury, large particles of the cabbage seemed to have remained unchanged.

Sample No. 3, according to Dr. Hancock, was fed to a woman twenty-one years old, was chewed well, and stayed in the stomach twenty-five minutes. The sample as exhibited to the jury showed particles of what looked like tomato. Dr. Hancock explained that the patient she she had eaten some tomato for breakfast at 6:30 that morning, this indicating, said he, that particles of the tomato remained unchanged after remaining in the stomach some six hours.

The fifth and final sample consisted of cabbage and bread with butter on it, fed to a woman 25 years of age, at [time illegible] o’clock Monday morning. It was taken from the stomach at 12:28, said Dr. Hancock. This sample was not chewed well, said Dr. Hancock. As exhibited to the jury, the sample showed particles of cabbage practically unchanged. Dr. Hancock stated that an hour later the patient gave up some cabbage which showed little if any greater change, although this latter sample was not exhibited to the jury.

Dr. Hancock stated that all of these samples were taken from the stomachs of the patients by vomiting induced by the drinking of warm salt water. He said a stomach pump had not been used because he wanted to obtain samples of the cabbage and bread as nearly as possible in the condition in which they left the stomach.

Stating the circumstances of the examination of Mary Phagan’s body, Mr. Arnold asked this question:

“From such an examination as that, could any physician give any safe or dependable opinion as to how long the cabbage and bread remained in the stomach?”

NO PHYSICIAN COULD TELL.

“No physician in the world could tell. I doubt if any physician in the world could tell from examining these specimens here, how long they had been in the stomach.

NO BASIS FOR OPINION.

Dr. Hancock testified that the conditions described by Dr. Harris on which he based his opinion that Mary Phagan had suffered violence would not be sufficient to warrant an opinion. He said distended blood vessels might have resulted from varying causes.

“Even if you should believe there had been violence, could you possibly tell from the conditions I have enumerated how long before death the violence was inflicted.”

“No man could.”

“Would you consider five or ten minutes a guess, then?”
“I wouldn’t like to express my opinion of that estimate.”

“You mean, I suppose, that you try to express yourself always in parliamentary language?”
Dr. Hancock nodded and smiled.

“It wouldn’t be much violence, would it, that was shown only by a microscope?”
“I should say not.”

“Can an eye be blackened by a blow delivered after death?”
“Yes, if delivered during several hours immediately following death.”

DORSEY TAKES WITNESS.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“You are a surgeon of the Georgia Railway & Power Co., are you not?”
“I am.”

“You are familiar with the American Medical Journal, are you not?”
There was objection to the question, but it was allowed.

The witness answered affirmatively. He was asked if it was regarded as a standard.

“I would not say that it is,” answered Dr. Hancock.

“You say you graduated from Columbus, doctor. Do you know anything about Dr. A. A. Brill, one of the professors there?”
Dr. Hancock answered in the negative.

NOT AN EXPERT.

Solicitor Dorsey demanded if the witness did not know that a normal man and an abnormal man do not differ necessarily in physique. The witness said that he had had no experience along that line.

“Then your examination of Frank as an expert amounts to nothing?”

“I didn’t say I was an expert in that line.”

“Well, are you an expert on the stomach?”

The witness declared that he was not an expert, but that he knew enough to make the statements which he had just completed:

“What did you say is the principal element of wheat bread?”
“I didn’t say,” said the witness.

“Well, won’t you say now?” smiled Mr. Dorsey.

“I will not.”

“Come down, doctor,” said the solicitor.

Mr. Arnold called the witness back to the stand and asked some further questions. Before the witness left the stand, Solicitor Dorsey inquired:

“Doctor, are you familiar with the word ‘amidulin?’”

“I don’t know what it means,” said the witness.

“Well, is there such a word?”

“Yes.”

“Do you know anything about the works of Hamilton?” asked the solicitor.

“No.”

“Come down,” said the solicitor.

DR. WESTMORELAND TESTIFIES.

Dr. Willis Westmoreland was called to the stand by the defense as its next witness. He stated that he is president of the (new) Atlanta Medical college. Since 1891 he has occupied the chair of surgery in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons. Also, said he, he was the first president of the Georgia state board of health.

“Have you read the stenographic report of Dr. Harris’ testimony on the first day?”
“Yes.”

Mr. Arnold put the usual hypothetical question about the blow, behind Mary Phagan’s ear, and Dr. Westmoreland replied that the blow rendered her unconscious was entirely a surmise.

Asked if the statement of a physician with no more facts than those described, before him, could give a scientific opinion on the subject, Dr. Westmoreland replied in the negative. In answer to another question, he said there was nothing to show whether the blow was inflicted before or after her death. He declared that it could have happened either way, provided the blow was inflicted before the blood coagulated.

Attorney Arnold asked about the same hypothetical questions of Dr. Westmoreland that he had asked of the preceding two witnesses, and obtained virtually the same answers.

Dr. Westmoreland termed Dr. Harris’ conclusion about the length of time the cabbage was in Mary Phagan’s stomach before she was killed, as “as wild guessing as I ever heard.” There are a number of things that retard digestion, said he, and that digestion of food is one of the most variable subjects that students of medicine have to deal with.

“Have you ever known a chemist to make an examination of the stomach of a corpse nine days after death, and utterly destroy the organ and not bring it into court to exhibit it to the jury or give it to the other side for investigation and examination.”

“No.”

There was objection to this question by Solicitor Dorsey, and Attorney Arnold made a statement of considerable length to the court, in which he said, “Here is a chemist (referring to Dr. Harris as an alleged chemist), who takes the stomach of this little girl, and other organs, and goes into his own back room and makes an analysis. Are we to be tried solely on this man’s say-so, and not be able to show that we never had an opportunity to make any kind of examination at all?”

“Do you want to show the ethics of the profession?” asked Judge Roan.

“Yes, I want to show the ethics and the rules.”

Judge Roan then allowed the question.

In answer to another question along the same line, Dr. Westmoreland said that the usual custom is to keep a portion of organs examined for further investigation if necessary.

Dr. Westmoreland asserted that from evidence at hand it would have been impossible to tell whether Mary Phagan had suffered violence. He said the distended blood vessels would not necessarily have been caused by external violence.

Attorney Arnold asked the witness it from a visual or microscopical examination a physician could advance an opinion as to whether violence had been done from 5 to 15 minutes before death. Dr. Westmoreland replied, “No.”

“In all your experience, Dr. Westmoreland, have you ever heard such an opinion expressed before?”

A RASH CONCLUSION.

Dr. Westmoreland replied, “It is one of the rashest conclusions I have ever heard.”

“There is no time piece in the human body that would determine it within that accuracy, is there?”
“There is not.”

“Did you at our request on yesterday examine Leo M. Frank?”
“I did.”

“Did he appear to be a normal male human being?”
“Perfectly so, yes sir.”

Solicitor Dorsey took up the cross-examination of the witness.

“Do you make any stomach analyses, Dr. Westmoreland?”
“No, I have it done by a laboratory.”

“It’s true, isn’t it, doctor, that normal and abnormal men are physically the same?”

“Yes, except in some pronounced cases.”

“If a corpse is struck a blow on the eye with a fist, what is the effect?”
“Discoloration.”

“Then it’s not true that it leaves no sign?”
“No.”
“If you have a subject who has been struck a blow on the head, whose skull is not fractured, whose brain is not injured, whose face is livid, whose tongue is out, whose eyes are distended, whose nails and lips are blue—what would you say under those conditions was the cause of death?”
“Answering that strictly as a hypothetical question, I should say the cause of death was strangulation.”

A BLOW ON THE HEAD.

“Suppose there was a blow on the head after death. What would you say as to it?”
“I should say it was a blow on the head.”

“You couldn’t say whether the blow was delivered before or after death?”
“No, I hardly think so.”

“Would a blow on the eye after death produce swelling and discoloration?”
“Yes, it probably would if inflicted within two hours.”
“Would a blow on the back of the head after death cause bleeding?”
“If strangulation was the cause of death, it probably would produce more bleeding than if it had been delivered before death.”

“If there was no violence by a digital examination, if dilation, of the blood vessels was found, would you say that violence caused these conditions?”

Dr. Westmoreland said that nature might have caused the conditions described.

“Assuming that no violence was done by the digital examination, then in that event you would look for other violence as the cause of these conditions, would you not?”
On this point Dr. Westmoreland was reluctant to commit himself. When Solicitor Dorsey insisted, Attorney Rosser objected.

When pressed for an answer, Dr. Westmoreland said he probably would first look into the doctor’s statement.

“Isn’t it entirely possible for an examination to be made without dilating the blood vessels, and so forth?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“Assuming then that the examination did not produce these conditions, then you must look for other causes, must you not?”
“Yes.”

A DELUSIVE SUBJECT.

Solicitor Dorsey examined the witness upon the subject of digestion, which Dr. Westmoreland declared is “the most delusive subject in medicine.” To not a single question that the solicitor asked him on this subject would the witness give a definite answer. He declared that medical authorities nearly all disagree on the topic of digestion. They have no more than rough estimates on it.

“Assuming that it takes a perfectly normal stomach four hours to digest cabbage, tell how long—“

The witness interrupted: “Why, I’ve had men shot and operated on them hours after they’d eaten it, and found cabbage in their stomachs.”

The solicitor asked Dr. Westmoreland about test meals. The witness declared that none of the deductions found in tables are exactly correct. He admitted that it generally assumed that the digestion of cabbage requires four hours, but said that some authorities put the time at five hours, and that all tables on the subject are rough estimates and not scientific facts.

“You know how long it takes free hydrochloric acid to form after a meal, don’t you?” asked the solicitor.

“No, I don’t,” said Dr. Westmoreland.

“Why, doctor, don’t you know that it takes thirty minutes as a rule?”
“Well, that is more or less of a guess,” said the witness, “though it is generally assumed. Hydrochloric acid is formed on the ascending and descending scale.”

“When does it start to descend?”
“That depends on many things.” The witness enumerated a number.

“Say 32 degrees of hydrochloric acid was found with cabbage and starch, how long would you say that that food had been in the stomach?”
“Any test for hydrochloric acid is only approximate,” said Dr. Westmoreland.

NO FEELING FOR HARRIS.

“What is your personal feeling toward Dr. H. F. Harris? Is it kindly or not?”
“I have none, kindly or otherwise,” said Dr. Westmoreland.

“Dr. Harris was on the state board of health with you, was he not?”
“Yes.”

“Are you on that board now?”
“No.”

“How long has Dr. Harris been there?”
“About six years.”

“Dr. Harris was also associated with you at the Atlanta College of Physcians and Surgeons, was he not?”

“Yes.”

“What was his position there?”
“Professor of pathology.”

“That had a good deal to do with the chemical analysis of stomachs, didn’t it?”

“No, but he did a lot of that work.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness some further questions on redirect examination.

“What trouble did you have with Dr. Harris?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“When I was president of the state board of health. I preferred charges of scientific dishonesty against him. The board found him guilty and when it would not discharge him I resigned.”

“Do you think he is the same man professionally now as then?”

“I know he is.”

“Whatever trouble or row you had with Dr. Harris has not influenced your testimony here, has it, doctor?”
“I never had a row with Dr. Harris,” Dr. Westmoreland replied. The episode, said he, had not influenced his testimony.

Dr. Westmoreland said the signs of violence described by Mr. Dorsey could not have been produced by perversion.

“Do you think there could be injury to the scalp, a wound which one doctor says is an inch and a half long and another doctor says is two inches and a quarter long, be inflicted before death and not produce some kind of a hemorrhage?”
“The scalp bleeds freely.”

PUTS HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

Attorney Arnold put a hypothetical question to the witness.

“Suppose a girl’s head strikes a machine, here,” designating a spot in front of the witness chair, “and she is carried over to a spot over there, and there laid down, and then picked up and carried a certain distance, and then dropped, would you expect to find blood on the last place?”
“I should think it would be found in all three places.”

Solicitor Dorsey questioned the witness again.

“Well, this blood could be washed up while fresh with water, could it not, doctor?” asked the solicitor.

“Blood stains are hard wash up.”

The solicitor asked the doctor if the blood were in sawdust or cinders or like substance, the traces of blood could be scraped away. Dr. Westmoreland answered yes.

Solicitor Dorsey asked, “How many doctors were there on the state board, Dr. Westmoreland, when you and Dr. Harris were there?”
“There were 12, including the secretary.”

Dr. John C. Olmstead was called to the stand as the next witness for the defense. Dr. Olmstead testified that he had been practicing medicine in Atlanta for 30 years. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia, he said, and afterward studied in New York.

“Did you read over the transcript of evidence by Dr. Harris that I gave you?”
“I did.”

IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL.

Attorney Arnold put the hypothetical question as to whether or not it could be determined from the wound on the girl’s head that she had been knocked unconscious by it. Dr. Olmstead said that it was absolutely impossible to tell.

“If a doctor advanced this opinion,” asked Attorney Arnold, “would you say it was a scientific conclusion of a wild guess?”
Dr. Olmstead went over the same ground as the witnesses just receding him, under the same hypothetical questions by Attorney Arnold. He testified that he knows of no medical book in the English language that gives a stomach analysis as having any bearing whatever on the time of death. He said that the fact that Dr. Harris found no ferments in the small intestine was not extraordinary in view of the fact that formaldehyde was used in the embalming fluid, but on the contrary it would have extraordinary if the ferments had been present that long after embalming. He said that from looking at the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach he would not undertake to estimate how long it had been in her stomach; that it might have been there twelve hours. In answer to a question as to what he thought of Dr. Harris’ supposition as to the time of death. Dr. Olmstead said he thought it was “perfectly absurd.” He said that the conditions as enumerated by Dr. Harris were by no means a sign of violence before death. These conditions might have been produced, said he, by strangulation, or by settling of the blood after death.

Dr. Olmstead said that assuming that Dr. Hurt’s examination of the corpse did not injury it still would have been impossible to tell within five to fifteen minutes just how long before death a violence was inflicted. He said it would have been extremely difficult to tell by an examination very carefully made within a few hours after death, much less after an examination made nine or ten days after the body had been embalmed and buried.

Solicitor Dorsey took up the cross-examination of Dr. Olmstead.

The solicitor took the admissions by the witness that it takes four and a half hours to digest cabbage and two and a half hours to digest wheat bread, and upon them formulated the following hypothetical question:

“Say that two normal people have eaten cabbage and bread prepared just alike that they have swallowed it just alike and that the substance was taken out of their stomachs at different times, couldn’t you tell by the one whether the other had been in the stomach a shorter or longer time?”
The experiment would be too delicate for him to attempt, said the witness. Finally, however, the solicitor held up a number of specimens taken from the stomachs of different people from 30 to 60 minutes after they had eaten cabbage in the same manner that Mary Phagan ate her last meal, and Dr. Olmstead admitted that, shown the sample taken from her stomach, it would be presumed naturally that it had remained in the stomach a shorter time than the others.

“Are you a general practitioner or an analytical chemist?”

“A general practitioner,” replied the witness.

The solicitor concluded his examination there, but Mr. Arnold detained the witness for more questioning. Mr. Arnold brought out over the objection of Mr. Dorsey the statement that in the witness’ opinion a general practitioner, on account of his large dealing with patients and his wide observation and with the tables of the analytical chemist to guide him, would be as well qualified if not more so than an analytical chemist to testify on the subject at issue. Mr. Arnold caused the witness to declare once more that a person exhuming a body nine days after death and stating by an examination of the stomach that the subject had eaten from 30 to 40 minutes before death, was making “nothing but a wild guess.”

The witness was excused, and the electric lights were lit for the first time since the trial began.

Joel Hunter, expert accountant, was called by the defense as the next witness.

EXAMINED FINANCE SHEET.

Mr. Hunter qualified as an expert by testifying that he has had some fifteen years’ experience as an accountant and is an examiner of the Georgia board of accountants. He entered court with copies of all the papers that Frank is supposed to have made out on Saturday, April 26, and after comparing the originals with the copies he took the witness chair.

He said that he had examined the financial sheet and the other accounts and papers that Frank said he compiled and made out on Saturday, April 26. He said that he had seen Herbert Schiff at the pencil factory and that Schiff had acquainted him with the data necessary for making out the report; and that he had done it without making out a new financial sheet. He testified in answer to questions by Attorney Arnold that Frank’s financial sheet was correct with the exception of one decimal in the total; and this error, he said, he thought was in copying or setting down the total; rather than in multiplication.

“As an accountant, would you say that the sheet, was accurately, compiled?”
“I should say so.”

“Tell us the calculations necessary and the least possible time in your opinion, that it would take a person to make out this financial report and bal—

THREE HOURS AND HALF.

“In my opinion,” said the witness, “to make out this financial report and balance the cash would take a person 150 minutes. This is the quickest possible time.” This, said he, would not allow for checking over the accounts. He placed a reasonable maximum time at 172 minutes. He went into exhaustive detail with the jury in regard to this subject, reading from a sheet the time which he had estimated it would take to make every computation in the complex preparation of the financial sheet. His estimates for various calculations ran from two minutes up to twenty minutes. He concluded his answer by saying that it would take a pretty swift man to do the work in less than three and a half hours.

Mr. Hunter was cross-examined by Attorney Hooper.

“As an original proposition, in making up this sheet, this data would all be furnished to you?”
“As to that, I cannot say.”

“One’s familiarity with the figures would enable one naturally to do the work quicker, wouldn’t it?”
“Yes, I should say so.”

“Then with Mr. Frank’s necessary familiarity he ought to be able to make up this sheet in less time than you made it up?”
“I shouldn’t say his ‘necessary’ familiarity. I should say his probable familiarity.”

“A great many of the items you had to seek, were at his fingers’ ends, weren’t they?”
“I assume so.”

“You say, then, that it would take from three to three and a half hours, to make up this sheet?”
“Yes, that is my best estimate, although I should say it might take longer than that for the reason that the financial sheet is not subject to internal proof.”

“Do you mean to say that Frank proved each one of the sheets?”
“No, I don’t say that because I don’t know. But I should say that a comparison of the sheet with the other sheets would afford valuable information which a good business manager would be glad to have.”

“You make a very small calculation, don’t you, for his familiarity with the business?”
“No, I have allowed for that.”

“In some places, you have allowed gains for yourself over him, haven’t you?”
“No, I have tried to determine how long it would take a practical man. I think 150 minutes to be the shortest possible time.”

“Then you think that a man who could do it quicker than you did it would be a wonderful man, do you?”
“No, I simply mean that 150 minutes is my opinion of the shortest time in which it could be done.”

Mr. Hunter was excused from the stand and court adjourned, at 5:35, until 9 o’clock Tuesday.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 12th 1913, “Ethics of Dr. H. F. Harris Bitterly Attacked by Reuben Arnold,” 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 12^th, 1913

The defense had what was probably its best day on Monday. Medical experts were on the witness stand the larger part of the day. The purpose of their testimony was to knock down, one after another, the sensational statements of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health. All of the witnesses joined in ridiculing every important theory or conclusion that was reached by the distinguished chemist and physician.

Experts for Defense.

These are the medical experts called by the defense to combat the testimony of Dr. Harris:

Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland, first president of the Georgia State Board of Health, and president of the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Professor George Bachman, demonstrator in physiology at the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons; formerly one of the faculty of the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia.

Dr. T. H. Hancock, a specialist in surgical practice.

Dr. J. C. Olmstead, a graduate of Columbia University, and a practitioner in Atlanta for 32 years.

Here is a summary of Dr. Harris’ theories on the death of the Mary Phagan and the consensus of the four medical experts’ opinions in regard to the theories:

How Views Clashed.

Mary Phagan came to her death within half or three-quarters of an hour of the time she ate her meal of cabbage and wheat bread at home. The condition of the cabbage shows it had been in her stomach no longer than that when death stopped the digestive processes.

“No man in the world could examine those specimens of cabbage and tell either from their condition or from the conditions found in the stomach of the murdered girl nine days after death within hours of the time that elapsed between her meal and her death.”

The wound on the back of the girl’s head indicates that she was knocked unconscious and later strangled to death.

Called Reckless Conjecture.

“From the data at hand, it is absolutely impossible to tell that the wound on the head caused unconsciousness. It is only a rash and reckless conjecture.”

Mary Phagan was the victim of criminal violence other than that superficially apparent.

“This is the most extraordinary surmise that could be imagined. As a matter of fact, he could not have told from the conditions he says were present that she was a victim of criminal violence, even if he had made the examination within a few hours after death, instead of nine days later.”

Dr. Harris not only was buffeted about on account of his startling theories and conclusions, but because of his conduct in the case. Attorney Reuben Arnold asked Dr. Westmoreland what he would think of a physician or chemist who was called into a case like that of the Phagan murder; who made the examinations admittedly for the reason that he “liked the Solicitor”; who conducted all of his analyses and experiments in absolute secrecy, who had not even a collaborator to check up on him, and who saved none of the material for the use of chemists who might be engaged by the defense.

Solicitor Dorsey at once made objection to the question.

“I don’t know that the question is admissible, but it ought to be,” retorted Arnold. “We wish to show that Dr. Harris has violated all of the ethics of his profession, as well as the principles of honesty and decency and fairness. A man’s life is at stake, your honor. His case should not be affected by one man’s word who deliberately has destroyed all of the material upon which he says he bases his theories.”

Dr. Westmoreland was permitted to answer. He said:

“It is the ethical rule that a chemist or physician either call in another expert or preserve the specimens of his test.”

Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to show that Dr. Westmoreland might be influenced in his testimony by a breach of professional relations with Dr. Harris which occurred some time ago.

Attempts to Show Dislike.

“How is you feeling toward Dr. Harris?” he asked. “Is it kindly or unkindly?”
The witness replied that it was neither one nor the other.

Asked by Attorney Arnold to go into the matter to which the Solicitor referred, Dr. Westmoreland said that he had preferred charges of scientific dishonesty against Dr. Harris and that the charges had been found well grounded, but were not regarded as sufficiently grave to warrant any action. He thereupon resigned from the State Board of Health, he said, leaving Dr. Harris in his position of secretary.

Joel Hunter, an expert public accountant, testified just before adjournment that it would have taken Leo Frank at least three hours to make up the financial sheet and balance his accounts on the day that Mary Phagan was murdered.

“That wouldn’t have given him much time to go to the ball game, would it?” inquired Attorney Hooper.

It is the theory of the State that Frank was planning to go to the ball game Saturday afternoon and that complied practically all of the financial sheet Saturday forenoon. This is in opposition to the contention of the defense that Frank did all of the difficult mathematical work in the afternoon, something he could not have done had he just committed a brutal murder.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 12th 1913, “Attacks on Dr. Harris Give Defense a Good Day,” 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 11^th, 1913

Battle of Medical Experts Waged in Court

EXPERTS TESTIMONY ON CABBAGE TESTS CALLED WILD GUESS

A bitter arraignment of the professional ethics and fairness of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health, and a through-going attack on his theories and conclusions marked the Frank trial Monday afternoon.

Attorney Reuben Arnold make a scathing criticism of Dr. Harris’ methods during his examination of Dr. Willis Westmoreland, a prominent Atlanta physician and surgeon.

Arnold was asking the medical expert his opinion of the ethics of a chemist or physician who would take the organs and the stomach with its contents from a body, make his examination in absolute secrecy and would leave no material on which the other aide in a legal case might make analysis and examinations.

Solicitor Dorsey objected to the question.

Attorney Arnold said, in justifying his question:

“We wish to show that Dr. Harris has violated all the ethics of his profession, as well as the principles of decency and honesty.”

Dr. Westmoreland said he never had heard of such procedure before.

Here are some of the professional comments of medical experts given on the witness stand in respect to Dr. Harris’ declaration that Mary Phagan came to her death within half or three quarters of an hour after she ate her dinner and that unconsciousness, but not death, was caused by the blow she received on the back of her head:

“His testimony on this matter must be a surmise entirely. His statement in regard to the cabbage is about as wild a guess as I ever heard.”—Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland.

Only a Conjecture, He Says.

“Such things can not be determined with accuracy that is assumed by the testimony referred to. It is only a conjecture at the best.”—Prof. George Bachman.

Following are comments made previously in the trial:

“I would not hazard a guess as to how long the food had been in her stomach before death from the data at hand.”—Dr. J. W. Hurt.

“I never had known of an opinion of this nature being offered with as little conclusive evidence at hand.”—Dr. L. W. Childs.

“No man in the world could examine those specimens of cabbage and tell how long they had been in the stomach. No one could give a rational opinion as to whether the blow on the back of the head caused unconsciousness.”—Dr. T. H. Hancock.

Dr. T. H. Hancock, an Atlanta surgeon, and Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland, first president of the State Board of Health, were the first medical experts called by the defense in the afternoon. Professor George Bachman preceded them in the forenoon. All joined in saying that Dr. Harris had no reliable data for his startling statements before the jury the first week of the trial.

Dr. Hancock brought specimens of cabbage into court to disprove Dr. Harris’ assertions. Dr. Westmoreland testified that Dr. Harris was entirely without warrant for any of his conclusions.

Dr. Bachman had no hesitancy in belittling the testimony of Dr. Harris. He seconded Dr. Childs in saying that it was mere guesswork to say that Mary Phagan was killed within half or three quarters of an hour after she had eaten her simple dinner of cabbage and biscuit. He was shown the specimen of cabbage taken from the stomach of the murdered girl and declared that there was no way of telling by its appearance that it had not been in the stomach seven or eight hours before death came.

Appears to Trip Up Expert.

Solicitor Dorsey set out in the cross-examination to test minutely the witness’ qualifications as an expert. He appeared to trap him in one or two instances. One was when he asked Dr. Bachman the meaning of the word “amidulin,” as used in the description of starch in its various stages of digestion.

“I never heard of such a word,” said the witness.

“You never did?”
“No, and no one else ever did. It isn’t in any dictionary.”

“Nor in any medical work?” inquired the Solicitor.

Webster’s International Dictionary gives the definition of “amidulin” as “a variety of starch made soluble by heating.”

Dr. Bachman was called to the stand after Solicitor Dorsey had finished a searching cross-examination of Herbert G. Schiff, assistant to Frank at the pencil factory.

The medical expert said that the average time required for the digestion of cabbage, according to the standard of his profession was four and a half hours. The princips process of digestion took place in the small intestine in the case of cabbage and other carbohydrates, he testified.

Attorney Reuben Arnold showed him the specimens of cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan. […]

FRANK SPENDS HALF HOUR STUDYING PENCIL FACTORY MODEL

Wife and Mother Kiss Prisoner as Trial Opens Upon Its Third Week

GRILLING OF ASSISTANT OF ACCUSED IS ENDED; EXPERT TAKES STAND

[…] “These pieces apparently were not masticated at all,” the physician said. “They would have interfered with digestion and the passage of food out of the stomach into the small intestine by obstructing the pylorus. They would undoubtedly have kept all of the solid contents in the stomach for some time.

“Just from my observation of those pieces of cabbage I would say that they could have been in the girl’s stomach for seven or eight hours before passing out.”

Attacks Dr. Harris’ Conclusion.

He attacked Dr. Harris’ conclusions based on the fact that only 22 degrees of acidity were found in the girl’s stomach on the ground that there was no way of telling whether the acidity at the time digestion was stopped was ascending or descending. If it were descending, he said, it would indicate that the acidity had risen to its maximum point and was on its downward course, a composition [?] which obtains only when the food has been in the stomach for a considerable period.

Dr. Harris’ theory that no digestion had taken place in the small intestine he combatted by declaring that the formalin in the embalming fluid would have destroyed the [1 word illegible] of the pancreatic juice and would have left no way of telling whether or not Dr. Harris’ theory was correct.

Attorney Arnold then proposed a hypothetical question to the witness embracing all of the conditions which were found in the stomach of Mary Phagan and then asked him if he or any other doctor could hazard a guess as to how long the food had been in her body before death.

Dr. Bachman replied that it would be impossible.

The most important admission that the Solicitor wrung from the witness was that if one didn’t find maltose in the stomach, but did find starch, it would be probable that digestion had not progressed very far.

On the re-direct, Arnold asked the witness:

“Do you know of anyone else in the world, except Dr. H. F. Harris, who would venture an opinion of the nature he has given on the data in his possession?”
Dr. Bachman said he did not. He added also that the medical profession never accepted a pronouncement of this sort unless it was confirmed by other experts.

New Theory Sprung.

A new and important development in the State’s theory of the murder of Mary Phagan came to light Monday when Solicitor Dorsey sought to establish that Leo Frank very easily could have compiled Saturday forenoon, instead of Saturday afternoon following the crime, the intricate financial sheet which the defense has introduced.

Herbert Schiff, assistant superintendent of the National Pencil Factory, already had identified the financial sheet as the work of Frank, presumably done by the superintendent on Saturday afternoon as this was his usual time for doing it.

Reuben Arnold had displaced the sheet to the jury and had drawn the jurors’ attention to the fact that the writing was regularly clear and with out any sign of trembling of nervousness on the part of the writer. The evident purpose was to show that Frank, after brutally murdering a girl, could not have done all the difficult mathematical work without error and without signs of agitation in his writing.

The Solicitor, however, started right out on a line of questioning that indicated his opinion was that Frank had one the work during the morning hours, instead of after Mary Phagan had been slain.

Time for Making Report.

Dorsey first asked Schiff who was recalled to the stand, if it would not have been possible for Frank to have done the work on the financial sheet between 8:30 and 10:30 o’clock in the forenoon before he went to Montag Bros., and between 11:30 and 12:30 o’clock, after he returned from the Montag plant. Schiff said that there would have been time for the sheet.

Dorsey recalled to the witness’ mind a conversation between Frank and C. E. Ersenbach Friday afternoon in which Frank said he would try to get his work in shape in time to go to the baseball game on the following day.

It was the implication of the Solicitor that Frank had hurried through with his work Saturday morning and as a matter of fact, had it completed or nearly completed before the afternoon.

Finishing with this line of questioning, the Solicitor began an attack on the time element that the defense has introduced in the case.

Dorsey questioned Schiff at length as to the accuracy of the clock on the office floor, with the apparent intention of arguing that when Monteen Stover came into the factory and saw the clock hands pointing to 12:05 o’clock, the correct time really would have been 12:12 or 12:15 after Mary Phagan entered the factory and went to Frank’s office. Schiff maintained that the clock always was kept on time by W. And A. yard whistles.

Mrs. Frank at Office.

On the redirect examination Schiff said that the financial sheet always was made up Saturday afternoon, and never in the morning. He read the correspondence and entering and acknowledgment of orders always was taken care of in the forenoon.

Attorney Arnold also brought out the testimony that Frank’s wife frequently came to the factory Saturday afternoons to help her husband in stenographic work.

Schiff explained keeping Jim Conley in the employ in the factory after discovering his unreliability by saying that it was difficult to teach new negroes the work. He denied that he ever had tried to discharge Conley and that Frank had prevented it.

Frank’s Aunt in Court.

Mrs. Jacob Selig, aunt of Leo Frank, was the third woman visitor of his family to the court Monday morning. She had a seat near the prisoner and his mother and wife.

Before court convened Frank asked permission to examine the paper model of the National Pencil Company that had been offered in evidence by the defense. He spent some 30 minutes closely examining this model.

Frank was in court early. His wife and mother came in and kissed him, taking seats on either side of him.

It was reported around the courtroom that the jury would be taken to visit the National Pencil Company building. Attorney Reuben Arnold for the defense said that he personally would be very glad for the jury to make the examination. Solicitor Dorsey said that he did not know whether he would consent.

Just before Schiff was recalled to the stand Mr. Arnold announced that Miss Hattie Hall, stenographer for Montag Brothers, who was at the factory Saturday, April 26, to take some dictation from Frank, probably would be the next witness. Solicitor Dorsey resumed his cross-examination of Schiff.

Schiff’s “Darts” Puzzles Dorsey.

Q. Mr. Schiff, of course you don’t know to your personal knowledge that this finance sheet was made up on Saturday?—A. It couldn’t have been made up before.

Q. Why?—A. I had not accumulated the “darts” (data) Friday, as I always did.

Q. The what?—A. The data (pronouncing it as though it were “darta.”)

Mr. Arnold interrupted: “He means data.”

Mr. Dorsey said he didn’t know whether Schiff meant data or some sort of sheet he was accustomed to making out.

Q. Couldn’t you take the data gathered by Miss Eula May Flowers and the others and have gotten up this sheet?—A. I think I might have.

Frank Not an Expert, He Says.

Q. You haven’t made up one since Frank left?—A. No; simply because we have not had time.

Q. Don’t you consider him an expert?—A. I do not.

Q. Go ahead and tell me what he would have to know.—A. The slat record.

Q. Is that here?—A. No.

Q. Can you get me a slat record?—A. Yes.

Q. Well you get one and bring it back here. Now, is the slat record more complicated than this forelady’s report?—A. It is a great long sheet.

Dorsey’s Questions Sharply.

Q. Tell me the truth. Is it more complicated?—A. I am telling you the truth, Mr. Dorsey.

Q. Well, doesn’t he just take the total from all the reports?—No, he has to do some figuring and other work.

Q. Well, what else?—A. He has to get the tipping record and several others.

Q Do you mean to tell me, then, that the totals in these reports and the body of the report are not the same handwriting?—A. I do.

Q. Now this financial sheet? Do you mean to tell me it is all in the same handwriting?—A. It certainly is.

Q. You are sure of it?—A. Yes.

Could Have Done It in Two Hours.

Q. Now, entering all these eleven orders and this financial sheet, was that all Frank had to do that Saturday?—A. All I can think of.

Q. Do you know that it was done Saturday?—A. No, but it was not done Friday, and he did not work on it then.

Q. When did you see this work?—A. Sometime Monday or Tuesday.

Q. Now, could Frank have done this work between 8:30 and 10:30 o’clock that morning?—A. Yes, if he was not interrupted.

Q. Well, didn’t you tell us Saturday that Frank could do that work in one and one-half hours?—A. I did not.

Q. Well, all the work you know that was done there Saturday was the financial sheet and entering those orders?—A. So far as I know.

Orders in Frank’s Writing.

Q. Were you paid off April 26?—A. No.

Q. Was Frank?—A. No.

Q. Now, are you quite sure Frank entered those orders?—A. They are in his handwriting.

Q. Now, it took about two minutes to put down these things and a minute to add them over?—A. Yes.

Q. Will you look there and tell me whether there is an entry on April 26 for $2 advanced Arthur White?—A. It is not on this book; it is on the time book.

Q. Who entered it?—A. Mr. Frank.

Q. Have you got the receipt for $2?—A. I can get it.

Q. Who made note of that on the record?—A. Mr. Frank did. I entered it on the time book the following week.

Mr. Arnold interrupted. “You had better make a note of these various things Mr. Dorsey wants,” he said.

No Record of Orders.

“I know exactly what he wants,” replied Schiff. Dorsey continued the examination.

Q. Is there any record on this financial sheet of the orders you said came in on Saturday?—A. No.

Q. You told Mr. Arnold there was?—A. I told him that as a rule there was.

Q. But there is no record here?—A. I was telling Mr. Arnold what Mr. Frank did on Saturday. I don’t see any place on the financial sheet for it.

Q. Now tell this jury what there is to show that these orders did not come in before Saturday, April 26.—A. They were not there Friday night. I had looked through the files.

Q. Was there any reason why the sheet had to be at Montag’s Monday?—A. It was our custom.

Q. Mr. Frank was a man who always stuck to his business? He would never go away unless his business was up?—A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Schiff, didn’t you swear before the Coroner that it would take two hours and thirty minutes to get up the data and make up the sheet?—A. I may have misunderstood the question. I say now that it would have taken from two and one-half to three hours.

Frank Faster Than He Is.

Q. If he had an engagement and wanted to speed up, couldn’t he do it within two and one-half hours?—A. Not and make it look the same.

Q. Is Frank a faster man than you?—A. Yes. He is a faster man on a financial sheet.

Q. Didn’t you swear before the Coroner that Frank could have gotten the sheet up thirty minutes quicker than you?—A. I could not have specified any time. I have never made up the sheet.

Q. Then you deny this statement before the Coroner?—A. No, I didn’t deny it. It is not in my exact language.

Q. How long did you say it would take Frank to balance the $69 in petty cash?—A. That is hard to say. I think I said before the Coroner that it would have taken from one to one and one-half hours.

Q. How do you remember where you were last Thanksgiving?—A. One thing I intended to do was to go to Athens to attend a football game. It snowed. The B’nai B’righ had an affair that night. I helped Mr. Frank carry some packages there.

Q. Do you mean to tell the jury that you recall every Saturday?—A. I recall that I have never missed a day since my vacation.

Tells of Thanksgiving Day.

Q. Do you know what time you left the factory that Thanksgiving Day?—A. Yes; I left with Frank at 12:30. He went home.

Q. Do you know whether he went back that afternoon?—A. Yes; a friend who was with him told me where he was.

Q. Then from your knowledge you do not know whether he went back or not?—A. No.

Q. Now, how do you recall that Helen Ferguson came there Friday?—A. I just remember it.

Q. Well, who else came?—A. The witness enumerated fifteen other employees.

Q. Can you tell me who came the Saturday before?—A. No; I had an idea in looking up and refreshing my memory as to that day.

Q. Now, that sheet had to be made up by Monday. Why was that data not ready Friday night?—A. I don’t know.

Q. How were the pay envelopes numbered?—A. One to two hundred.

Q. Where was the number?—A. That varied. The office boy had no regular place for it.

Questioned About Basement.

Q. Now, this place where the chute is located is pretty dark and few people go there?—A. Yes.

Q. It is one of the most remote spots in the basement?—A. Yes.

Q. This place down there is not used?—A. Yes; we put schlich down there to keep it cool.

Q. How often do you go down there?—A. Every two or three days.

Q. Now, you saw that place where the blood was?—A. In the metal room?

Q. Yes. A.—Yes, I saw it.

Q. Did you notice anything about it?—A. It was under something white that looked like a compound.

Q. Was it smeared?—A. No, it looked like other spots in the factory.

Q. When did you notice the door leading from the chute?—A. I came up there two or three days after the murder, and it was open.

Q. You are sure of it?—A. Yes.

Never Lost a Day.

Q. Now, you told Mr. Arnold that you were at the factory May 31. How do you recall that?—A. For the simple reason that I have never lost a day.

Q. Well, did you mean by that that you were there that Saturday afternoon after 12:30?—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t consider it losing time, then, if you left Saturday afternoon?—A. I certainly did. I remained there at work.

Q. Then you do say you were there that Saturday afternoon?—A. Yes.

Q. Was that clock always right?—A. Usually it was on time.

Q. Who set it?—A. Holloway, I think.

Q. Who saw that it was right?—A. I don’t know.

Q. How do you set that clock?—A. I set it. Holloway sometimes winds it up.

Q. Is it correct? Does it ever get five minutes fast?—A. Whenever I looked at it it was on time.

Q. What did you set it by?—A. A watch or whistle.

Q. You employ reliable people at the pencil factory? You don’t keep those who lie and are untrustworthy?—A. Some of them are not.

The defense objected to this question and was sustained.

Q. When did you discuss the worthlessness of Jim Conley?—A. A long time ago. About the first time I ever spoke to him.

Q. And you continued to keep him?—A. We moved him from the elevator to the fourth floor.

Q. Whom did you tell he was worthless?—A. It was talked to me.

Q. By whom?—A. Schiff named a long list of employees who had complained about Conley borrowing money and being worthless.

Q. Didn’t you complain to Frank about him, and did Frank overrule you?—A. Mr. Frank is not over me.

Q. Did you have the authority to fire Jim Conley?—A. I did.

Q. If he was so worthless, why didn’t you fire him?—A. It was so hard to get a negro who knew anything about the work.

Q. And you kept him there for two years?—A. He was in the chaingang two or three times.

Saw Conley on Chaingang.

Q. How do you know?—A. I saw him once working on Forsyth street in front of the factory.

Q. You swear that he was on the chaingang two or three times?—A. Women came to me once or twice to get money to pay him out.

Q. Out of what?—A. The chaingang or the calaboose. I am not versed in those things.

Q. Why did you swear he was on the chaingang three times?

Arnold interrupted: “Your honor, I object. He doesn’t cross-examine a witness. He just quarrels with him. The best evidence of Conley’s stockade career is the record.”

Dorsey—I have got the record, and I am going to introduce it. That is why I want to pin this witness down.

Judge Roan ruled the witness must answer the question, but the witness should not be any more explicit.

Knew Conley Could Write.

Q. If any of these books got down into the basement, they went into the trash, didn’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. Now, these other books?—A. They were kept all over the place. We gave them to the negroes.

Q. Just who did you give them to?—A. I gave one to Jim Conley. He wanted to write home.

Q. Then you knew he could write?—A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t you know his home was right here?—A. I did not.

Q. What did these negroes do with these pads when you gave them to them?—A. They got on the elevator and went to the basement to write.

Q. How did they get light?—A. In front of the boiler.

Q. Did you ever see Conley there?—A. Yes.

Q. Now, Frank was very anxious to have the Pinkertons at work?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you report Conley’s strange action to the Pinkertons or the police?—A. I don’t recall.

Q. Did you report it to Mr. Frank? He was anxious to have the murderer caught?—A. I think so.

Arnold Balks at Hurrying.

Q. Now, where would a person have to stand on the fourth floor to see the office floor?—A. He could not.

Q. Where were Denham and White on the fourth floor?—A. I was told—

Q. Then don’t’ bother. Were you at the factory when detectives made certain experiments with the elevator?—A. Yes.

Arnold then took the witness on the redirect examination.

Judge Roan said: “Hurry up, Mr. Arnold.”

Rosser spoke up: “Your honor, time should not be considered. A man’s life is at stake.”

Judge Roan: “Go ahead.”

Q. Was that sheet usually made up in the morning or afternoon?—A. Afternoon.

Q. Now, is it not a fact that Frank is interrupted almost constantly by salesmen or employees who have some adjustment of their pay envelope to request?—A. Yes, quite a few interruptions.

Q. Do you not change your opinion that it would take one and one-half hours to fill out these requisitions and enter the orders?—A. I do not. It would take about that time.

Q. When was this made up?—A. In the morning.

More About Financial Sheet.

Q. Was the financial sheet ever made up in the morning?—A. No.

Q. Do you change your opinion that it would take two and one-half to three hours to make up the financial sheet?—A. I do not.

Q. What length of time would you say he worked there Saturday?—A. My original estimate—six hours.

Q. Is this financial sheet of April 26 any different from the reports of three months previous?—A. It is not.

Q. Mr. Dorsey asked you whether these initials, “H. H.,” of April 26 did not mean the last work that was done on that sheet? That it might have been entered two or three days before? Now, what does it really mean?—A. Nothing, really. Those initials and that date would have been there if it had been entered Saturday, regardless of the date it was acknowledged by Miss Hall.

Dorsey Objects to Slur.

Q. Now, Mr. Schiff (I am going to call him Mister. I am not as familiar with him as Mr. Dorsey seems to be. He calls him “Schiff” all the time), you say the murder caused you to remember paying off Helen Ferguson on Friday?—I said that.

Dorsey objected.

Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Mr. Arnold put the question in a different form, and received the same answer.

Q. Mr. Schiff, this diagram (pointing to the prosecution’s diagram of the factory) does not show the openings into the Clark woodenware department, does it?—A. It does not.

Q. Mr. Schiff, it is rather unpleasant to fire a negro and then have to hire a new one and teach him the work, is it?—A. It is.

Hooper interrupted: “Your honor, if he is not leading this witness, I do not know what you would call it.”

Judge Roan sustained the objection, and Mr. Arnold again changed his question.

Didn’t Know of Detectives’ Hunt.

Q. Mr. Schiff, you didn’t know the detectives were trying to find out if Conley could write?—A. Not for some time.

Q. Mr. Schiff, did Mr. Dorsey subpena you to come to his office, and did you know you didn’t have to go?—A. Yes; I was subpenaed—he telephoned me.

Q. Do you know where the sacks in which you keep the cotton were kept?—A. Just outside the metal room.

Q. Were there any empty sacks there?—A. I don’t know. We never keep empty ones there except for a f[e]w hours after they are empty.

Dorsey took the witness on the re-cross-examination.

Q. Mr. Schiff, you talked to Mr. Arnold about customs up there. Was it Mr. Frank’s custom to make engagements Friday afternoon for Saturday afternoon, and neglect his financial sheet?—A. It was not.

Arnold interrupted: “We don’t want to argue this point. We just want to be recorded as objecting.”

Dorsey was allowed to continue.

Q. Was it Mr. Frank’s custom to keep his engagements?

Arnold objected: “We must oppose this.”

Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Noted Conley’s Attitude.

Q. How long did it take Frank to go from the pencil factory to Montag’s—A. From three to five minutes.

Q. How far is it?—A. About two and one-half blocks.

Q. What time was it Monday you observed this peculiar bearing of Jim Conley?—A. Between 7:30 and 8 o’clock.

Q. What time did you go with Detective Starnes to arrest Gantt?—A. Some time late in the day.

Q. After you had observed all of the suspicious conduct on the part of Conley you have just been telling about?—A. I think it was.

Q. When you looked at this white stuff and the red spots under it, were all of those blinds on the north side open or closed?—A. Open.

Q. If they had been closed it would have been much darker in there, would it not?—A. Yes.

Dorsey and Schiff Argue.

Mr. Schiff differed with Mr. Dorsey about the location of the ladies dressing room on the second floor. After considerable argument, they agreed on the location, and the examination continued.

Q. Is it not true that most of the light that shines on the spot where the blood was comes from the windows on the north side?—A. No, sir.

Q. Would it make any difference whether those blinds were closed?—A. Yes; but about as much light comes from the west as from the north side.

Arnold took the witness again.

Q. Mr. Dorsey has the door to the ladies’ dressing room and the door to the metal room out of position, hasn’t he?—A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Frank talking to little Mary Phagan?—A. I never did.

Professor Bachman on Stand.

Schiff was excused from the witness stand and Professor G. Bachman was called as the next witness in rebuttal to the expert testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris.

Attorney Arnold examined him.

Q. What is your occupation?—A. Professor of physiology in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Q. Have you made any study of digestion?—A. Yes, I teach it.

Q. What time would it take cabbage to digest?—A. Four and one-half hours to get out of the stomach.

Q. What is the time required for biscuit to digest?—A. Not less than three hours.

Q. What time would you say a meal of cabbage and bread would take to digest?—A. It would depend on conditions.

Q. Is it possible to say how long it would take to digest anything?—A. It is not. The failure to masticate would materially retard any digestive process.

Might Stay Long in Stomach.

Q. Suppose a person had not properly masticated cabbage, would the unmasticated portions come in contact with the pyloris and keep the rest of the food in the stomach any length of time?—A. Seven to eight hours.

Q. Suppose a physician made an examination of the contents of the stomach, could he say how long it had been there?—A. He could only hazard a guess.

Q. What part of the digestion goes on in the stomach.—A. Only about half.

Q. Look at this cabbage and tell me whether it has been masticated (handing him the specimen of cabbage eaten by Mary Phagan).—A. Hardly at all.

Q. How long would it take this to pass out?—A. It would depend on the acidity.

Q. In a dead body, if you find 32 degrees of acidity could you tell whether it was ascending or descending?—A. Absolutely not.

Q. After a body dies and is thoroughly embalmed, what effect would it have on the pancreatic juices?—A. It would destroy the ferment.

Q. Does it affect the hydrochloric acid?—A. No.

Q. You investigate and find probably a drop and a half of hydrochloric acid. Did you ever hear of a drop of it?—A. NO, it is a gas.

Calls Time Estimated Impossible.

Q. Investigating this body several days after death, would it have been possible for anyone to say how long that food had been in the stomach?—A. It would have been absolutely impossible.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Where were you born?—A. Mulchausen.

Q. French or German?—A. French.

Q. How long have you been in this country?—A. Since 1903.

Q. How long have you been where you are now?—A. Four years.

Q. What do you teach?—A. Physiological chemistry.

Q. Are you an expert chemist?—A. I am so far as the body is concerned.

Q. What is the principal property of wheat bread?—A. Starch.

Q. Where does starch digestion begin?—A. In the mouth.

No Such Word, Says Expert.

Q. What is amidullin?—A. I never heard the word.

Q. What is erythrodextrin (Dorsey spelled the word slowly)?—A. Write it out (Mr. Dorsey wrote both words). There is no such word as the first and the second is a stage in the digestion of starch.

Solicitor Dorsey launched into technical examination, spelling most of the words. Deputy Plennie Minner [sic] had to rap often to hush the laughter in the courtroom.

Q. With an Ewald test breakfast, how long would it take to get a positive starch test?—A. All the time the food is in the stomach.

Q. Didn’t you know that medical authorities agree that it takes from 30 to 40 minutes to get such a test?—A. There is no authority for such a statement as you put it.

Q. Would finding a positive starch test indicate how long the food had been there?—A. It would indicate nothing. Starch is not digested in the stomach.

Q. Then how are doctors able to prepare tables on the process of digestion?—A. They can tell from the proteins combined with the hydrochloric acid. Starch does not. There is nothing certain or clear about these matters.

Calls It Only a Hazard.

Q. How do medical men agree it takes about four hours to digest cabbage?—A. That is a hazard.

Q. Then, tell me what the average condition would be if you found starch but no maltose in the stomach?—A. I would say the food had not been there very long.

Mr. Rosser interrupted, “I want to say that we are not dealing with an Ewald breakfast. We are dealing with cabbage and bread. We want the young Solicitor to come down to fried cabbage and bread—the matters we are dealing with.

Judge Roan ruled that the Solicitor might question the doctor to determine his scientific knowledge.

Q. You never heard of any one making experiments with the various stages of digestion or have you made any yourself?—A. That is true.

Questioned on Cabbage Specimens.

Q. Doctor, take these two samples (handing him Dr. Harris’ vials of cabbage). Assuming that this one has been in a normal stomach one hour, how long would you say this one had been in (the cabbage Mary Phagan ate) had been in a normal?—A. I would say seven or eight hours.

Q. Why?—A. The pieces are so large they would delay the substances in passing from the stomach into the small intestines.

Q. Don’t you know there have been coins to be known to pass from them?—A. After seven or eight hours.

Q. Do you mean to say they stop up the alimentary canal?—A. No, but they don’t go in for several hours.

Q. Now, leave out the time required to pass out of the stomach—what would you say?—A. That would depend on the conditions.

Q. Well, suppose that all conditions were the same?—A. I would say that the digestive processes could not reach those larger pieces at all.

Refuses to Venture Opinion.

Q. Why do you reject the hypothetical proposition that these two specimens were masticated the same way and that this specimen was taken way and aht [sic] this specimen was taken out in a period of from 45 to 60 minutes, and how long would you say this one (Mary Phagan’s) had been there? A. I could not say.

Q. But if everything were equal—we would say?—A. I still could not say.

Q. What is the difference between a meal of bread and water and a meal of bread and cabbage? (The physician gave a technical discussion of the different properties of the foods).

Arnold took up the redirect examination.

Q. Would you take one man’s word about these tests?—A. The medical profession never takes one man’s statement unless it is confirmed.

Q. Do you know any doctor besides Dr. H. F. Harris who would venture an opinion on how long cabbage had been in a stomach?—A. I do not.

Court recessed until 2 o’clock.

Dr. Mancock [sic] Is Called.

Dr. T. H. Hancock, of the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons, was the first witness of the afternoon session. Before the examination began he made a statement to the effect that he had examined Leo Frank and had found him to be a perfectly normal man, physically and mentally.

Attorney Arnold took up the examination.

Q. Take a body embalmed eight hours after death and one gallon of embalming fluid containing 3 per cent formaldehyde, the body exhumed eight days after death, a cut one and one-half inches long found behind the ear, no fracture of the skull—could any physician say whether that blow caused unconsciousness?—A. No, the bone might have been fractured and still not produce unconsciousness.

Q. How long would it have bled after death?—A. Maybe eight hours.

Q. Could any doctor say whether such a blow produced death or not?—A. No.

Q. If it had been a sharp cut, would it have bled more than otherwise?—A. A live person would bleed more than a corpse.

Q. Where is the best evidence of strangulation?—A. I don’t know from my own knowledge, and the authorities differ.

Mr. Arnold explainer [sic] the condition of Mary Phagan’s stomach as described by Dr. Harris.

Q. Could you give any intelligent idea of how long that cabbage had been in the stomach before death when the analysis was made nine days after burial and after the body had been embalmed with a fluid in which there was formaldehyde?—A. I could not.

Q. Could anyone?—A. I think not.

Q. Why?—A. Because of the variability of processes of digestion and the amount of acidity.

Tells of Tests With Cabbage.

Q. Doctor, where does digestion begin?—A. I am not an authority on digestion. I am just telling you what I know from study.

Q. Well, I would rather have the opinion of a man of practical experience than an expert.—A. Digestion begins in the mouth.

Q. Do you believe that any man by any chemical analysis could give any dependable information on how long this cabbage was in the little girl’s stomach?—A. I do not.

Q. Have you made any experiments of the process of digestion on cabbage?—A. Yes; on one man and four women.

Dr. Hancock produced the cabbage with which he had experimented. The first sample had a chocolate color. The cabbage was well chewed.

Q. What is this chocolate color?—A. The young woman said she drank a chocolate milk about three and one-half hours before I gave her the cabbage.

Q. And how long was the cabbage in her stomach?—A. Sixty minutes.

Q. And here is the chocolate three and one-half hours after being taken?—A. Yes.

Q. Now take this speciment [sic]—what […]

DEFENSE’S FOOD EXPERT IS GRILLED BY SOLICITOR

[…] is it?—A. It is cabbage in formaldehyde. The woman was asked not to chew it at all. It was taken out from 45 to 50 minutes after being eaten.

Q. Does it show any change?—A. None at all.

Q. Take No. 3—what is it?—A. It was taken by a woman of 21. She did not masticate it. It was in the stomach 25 minutes. There was also some tomato which she had eaten for breakfast. It was awfully hard to make her give it up, taking more than two minutes to make her vomit at all.

Q. Now, this last one?—A. That was taken to-day. It was a breakfast of bread and cabbage. It was taken out 2 1-2 hours later.

Q. Is it possible to say from a chemical or any other kind of an examination how long food has been in the stomach?—A. No man on earth could tell.

Never Hear “Omidulin.”

Dr. Hancock, upon being questioned, declared that from what he had heard of the examination made of Mary Phagan, that the evidence did not indicate that an assault had been attempted.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness.

Q. You are a surgeon rather than a general practitioner, are you not?—A. For the last few years I have devoted myself exclusively to surgery.

Q. You are the surgeon for the Georgia Railway and Electric Company, are you not?—A. Yes.

Q. Doesn’t it require considerable knowledge to testify with any accuracy about the effect of digestive processes on cabbage?—A. I have that.

Q. Are you familiar with the word “omidulin”?—A. I am not.

Q. Is there such a word?—A. I think so.

Mr. Arnold took the witness.

Q. It is a word that is rarely used, isn’t it, Doctor?—A. I never heard it before.

Dr. Hancock was excused and Dr. Willis Westmoreland, former president of the State board of Health, and president of the Atlanta Medical College, was the next expert witness called. Dr. Westmoreland’s testimony was regarded as intensely interesting, owing to the differences arising between he and Dr. Harris, over State Board matters last year. Attorney Arnold examined him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Surgeon.

Q. Where?—A. For a number of years at the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Answers Usual Questions.

Q. Were you ever president of the State Board of Health?—A. Yes.

Mr. Arnold propounded the same hypothetical questions he asked Dr. Hancock about the cut on the back of Mary Phagan’s head. Dr. Westmoreland replied that a physician could only surmise or guess as to whether the blow caused unconsciousness, death or what its effect might have been.

Q. Could the blow have been inflicted b[e]for[e] or after death?—A. You could not tell.

Q. Would a cut of that kind bleed after death?—A. So long as the blood was liquid.

Q. Could anyone tell from which direction the blow was inflicted?—A. Absolutely not.

Arnold here asked the doctor regarding the length of time the cabbage had been in t[h]e stomach and the effect of the various digestive processes upon it. The answer was that to make a positive statement would only be the wildest guess.

Q. I will ask you if it is ethical for a physician to make an examination of parts of the body and then destroy them without bringing them into court, or without giving the other side an opportunity to make the same examination?—A. It is a violation of one of the unwritten laws of the profession.

Judge Allows Question.

Solicitor Dorsey objected to this question. Attorney Arnold addressed the court:

“Your Honor,” he said, “over yonder in his little room this chemist, or alleged chemist, made analysis all alone. After he had finished he destroyed all his material on which he had worked. I want to show that such conduct was unethical, dishonest and almost unbelievable. He would try us and convict us without giving us a chance.”

Dorsey: “He simply wants to impeach the ethical character of Dr. Harris by Dr. Westmoreland, and I object.”

Judge Roan ruled that Mr. Arnold could bring out the rule of ethics of doctors, but that he could not comment specifically on Dr. Harris.

Solicitor Dorsey to[o]k the witness on the cross-examination.

Q. Are you a specialist in surgery?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t do any stomach analysis work, do you?—A. I have an assistant who does the work in the laboratory. It takes a long time.

Q. Physical inverts often appear physically normal, do they not?—A. Sometimes.

Dorsey Goes Into Detail.

Mr. Dorsey propounded a hypothetical question describing the body of Mary Phagan, and asked what he thought would have caused the death.

“I would say strangulation,” returned the physician.

Q. Would a blow on the eye that caused swelling have been dealt before or after death?—A. That would depend. It might have been struck after death and have produced practically the same effect.

Q. Would the wound on the back of the head bleed after death?—A. If […]

DR. BACHMAN IS TRIPPED BY SOLICITOR, EXAMINING DEFENSE’S MEDICAL MEN

[…] death was caused from strangulation it might have bled more.

Solicitor Dorsey went into a detailed cross-examination as to the possibilities of assault upon the Phagan girl. The questions were all hypothetical and Dr. Westmoreland’s opinion was that in such cases no unnatural violence was done. Further replies along this line were in favor of Frank.

Q. Assuming that it takes cabbage four hours to digest in the normal stomach, could you look at it and tell how long it had been there?—A. No.

Q. Doesn’t the medical world agree that it takes a certain length of time to digest certain food?—A. Yes. That is the result of hundreds of experiments.

Q. Does the medical world agree that it takes four hours to digest cabbage?—A. Four or five.

Q. Who gives five hours, doctor?—A. It is generally accepted to be between four and five.

Q. Haven’t they laid down the different stages of digestion?—A. Not absolutely.

Says He Put Harris on Board.

Q. Hasn’t this man Hemeter laid down all the stages of digestion?—A. No. He will tell you himself that his rules are not infallible.

Q. What is the length of time before you will find free hydrochloric acid?—A. There is no way of telling.

Q. Well, what is the generally accepted theory?—A. About 30 minutes.

Q. In cabbage and wheat bread, would you expect to find it sooner or later?—A. That would depend upon the mastication.

Q. If we found 32 degrees of hydrochloric acid in the stomach, how long would you say it had been there?—A. I could not say.

Q. Have you any personal feeling toward Dr. Harris?—A. I have none, one way or the other.

Q. You were on the State Board of Health with Dr. Harris?—A. Yes, I put him there.

Q. Is he still there?—A. Yes.

Q. Were you president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons when he was given a chair there?—A. Yes.

Q. What did he do?—A. He was the pathologist.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. Will you tell the jury the cause of your difficulty with Harris?—A. I preferred charges of scientific dishonesty against him. He was not removed by the board so I resigned.

Says They Had No Row.

Q. Whatever row or fuss you had has had nothing whatever to do with your testimony?—A. I never had any row with him. I preferred charges against him. The State Board of Health tried him and found him guilty. They did not see fit to remove him, so I resigned as president of the board.

Q. Which, from the standpoint of common sense, would the most reliable, a visual and digital examination for violence, or a microscopic examination?—A. In post mortem examinations it is often the case that abrasions are overlooked.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. Blood when fresh is easy to wipe off if you have water, isn’t it?—A. Blood is a very penetrating stain.

Q. How many doctors are there on the State Board of Health?—A. Twelve with the secretary.

Dr. Westmoreland was then excused and Dr. John C. Olmstead was called. Attorney Arnold questioned him.

Q. How long have you been practicing and where did you graduate?—A. I have been practicing 28 years and graduated at the University of Virginia and the University of New York.

Q. Where did you practice?—A. In a new York hospital and then in Atlanta.

Attorney Arnold propounded his hypothetical question on the cut on the back of the head and received the answer that Dr. Harris’ opinion was about as wild a guess as could be made.

Q. Could such a wound as I have described to you as appearing on the back of the head have been in inflicted after death?—A. Yes, if it was before the blood congealed.

Can’t Tell Time of Death.

Q. Could such a blow as I have described, black and swollen, have been inflicted on the eye after death?—A. It might.

Q. Look at this cabbage. After a chemical analysis and the finding of 32 degrees of acidity, could you determine with any degree of certainty how long it had been in the stomach before death?—A. No, I don’t think there is any authority, certainly not in English, which assigns to the stomach any quality of accurately determining the time of death.

Q. Suppose cabbage isn’t chewed like that (pointing to one of the samples which had been well masticated), might it not lodge in the stomach?—A. Yes.

Q. How long might it stay in the stomach without being further digested?—A. It might stay ten or twelve hours.

Q. To attempt to state within ten or fifteen minutes when death occurred by the condition of this cabbage—would you consider that a wild guess?—A. Too wild to be characterized.

Mr. Arnold put the usual question to obtain an opinion from the witness as to whether Mary Phagan was assaulted. The answer was that indications were that no unnatural violence was present.

Dr. Olmstead said that Dr. Harris’ surmise that violence had been done the girl immediately before death was the most extraordinary surmise that he had ever heard.

Tells Time of Digestion.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. The medical world recognizes that you can determine the degree and time it takes for the digestion of wheat bread, doesn’t it?—A. Yes, after accurate experiments with is known as a test breakfast, from two to two and one-half hours.

Q. A table has been compiled showing how long it takes to digest various articles, hasn’t it?—A. Yes.

Q. The table states it takes four hours to digest cabbage, doesn’t it?—A. The table I saw put cabbage at four and one-half hours.

Q. What kind of change would you expect on cabbage an[d] bread within thirty minutes?—A. It would depend on the character and quality of the food.

Solicitor Dorsey held up the two phials containing the cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan and that cooked by her mother and taken from the stomach of a normal person after one hour.

Q. What sort of comparison would you make as to how long these samples had been in the stomach?—A. The experiment is a little delicate. Stomachs vary too much.

Q. What element would you have to have to properly express it?—A. I would have to know what amount was taken out and what amount was left in the stomach.

Dorsey Interpolates.

Dorsey: “Just a moment—let me interpolate this. How does it make any difference what amount was taken out? Just tell me from the circumstances I have enumerated if you would not say this specimen, the one I say had been in the stomach only 60 minutes, would have been in the stomach a shorter length of time?—A. Yes. The one with the larger pieces under those circumstances would have been in there a shorter length of time.

Q. You say you are a doctor of medicine and a general practitioner. Are you an expert?—A. I will say this, I am not an analytical chemist, but I am familiar with it and in general practice get the benefit of wide experience.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. After death, could any physician, even an expert, tell how long things had been in the stomach?—A. It would be the very wildest guess.

Dr. Olmstead was then excused, and Joel Hunter, an expert accountant, was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Public accountant.

Q. How long?—Fifteen years.

Q. What position do you hold?—A. I am chairman of the State Board of Examiners.

Q. Did you examine those reports, the financial sheets?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mr. Schiff?—A. Yes, he gave me the date.

Long Time to Make Report.

Q. What did you do?—A. In order to find what length of time it would take to make out one of those sheets I made all the calculations.

Q. Did you find any mistake?—A. Yes.

Q. What was it?—A. A trifling error in a decimal point.

Q. Did you find any other errors?—A. No.

Q. I will get you to tell how long it took to make out this report?—A. I first made the examination with the data, and then without the data. I figured 150 minutes as the quickest possible time. To do any checking at all, it would take from three to three and a half hours.

The expert witness, then went into an extensive explanation of the different items on the financial sheet. Attorney Hooper took him on cross-examination.

Q. If you were making up the report as an original proposition, would the same data have been furnished to you?—A. I could not say.

Q. Well, how much of this work with which you were unfamiliar and had to trace down, he had at his fingers’ tips, did he not?—A. I have only figured a reasonable minimum time. I can not say what Mr. Frank had is such that it is notetaoinshrd at his fingers’ tips. The statement is such that it is not subject to suh-proving. You can’t prove it as you go along. If that could be done, it could be made out quicker.

Q. You have estimated, in other words, how long it would take him?—A. No, I made it out to show how quick I thought it could possibly be made out.

Q. If a man made it out in an afternoon, he would not have time to see a baseball game, would he?—A. I would hardly think so.

Court then adjourned until 9 o’clock Tuesday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 11th 1913, “Defense Bitterly Attacks Harris,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)