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

Atlanta Constitution
August 3^rd, 1913

Dr. J. W. Hurt, county physician, who examined the body of Mary Phagan, took the stand following Detective Waggoner. Dr. Hurt not only made an examination on the Sunday morning that the body was found, but he was present several days later when the girl’s body was disinterred at Marietta by Dr. Roy Harris.

“How long have you been a physician?” asked Solicitor Dorsey after he had put the formal questions to establish the physician’s connection with the case.

“Since 1884.”

“What are your duties as county physician?”
“To attend all inquests and examine the bodies of the dead.”

“Did you see Mary Phagan’s body?”
“Yes.”
“Where did you first see it?”
“At P. J. Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment on the Sunday morning that the body was found.”

“Describe its condition.”

“I was called to the undertaking establishment about 9 o’clock and saw the body then. There was a scalp wound on the left side of the head about two and a half inches long and about four inches from the left ear.

“The wound went through and touched the skull and there was a small part of the skull exposed. The right eye was black and contused. There were minor scratches on the cheek and a slight contusion on the forehead, but the skin was not broken there. The tongue protruded about two inches from the mouth.

“There was also a wound on the left leg about two inches below the knee,” he continued, “and this wound was 3×1 inches in size. There were also superficial scratches on the left elbow.”

Death From Strangulation.

“There was a cord around the neck that left its impression on the skin and my belief is that the girl died from strangulation. I saw another bruise on her right leg also.”

“Look at this cord and tell if this looks like the one to which you refer,” said the solicitor, extending the cord that was taken from the girl’s neck.

“This looks like the cord that was around her neck.”

“In your opinion what kind of instrument was it that caused this strangulation?”

“The cord around the neck, sir. There was another piece of cloth that was lying loose from her chest and around the hair. This cord was next to the skin under the hair and it had indented itself in the skin it was so tight around the neck.”

“How deep was the indentation around the neck?”
“Well, sir, it was very marked, nearly burying the cord.”
“Do you see that knot there in the cord?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Was there, or not, any impression there indicating that that had been indented?”

“There was, sir.”
“Where was that?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“It was on the inside of the neck.”

“Was there, or not, any swelling in the neck?”
“There was.”

“What did that indicate, doctor?”
“It indicated that there was quite a good deal of contusion there, or swelling over the parts, from the strangulation,” the witness replied.

“I will ask you as to whether or not that was done before or after death?”
“What, the cord?” Dr. Hurt asked.

“Yes.”

“It was done before death, sir.”
“In reference to this 3 1-2-inch wound, was there anything to indicate it was done before or after death?”

Blunt Instrument Used.

“Well, this wound, if you will allow me to describe it a little more minutely, seems to have been made by a blunt-edged instrument of some sort, and the blow was from down, upward. The scalp in the upper part of the wound was loose from the skull, which shows that the lick was coming this way and it seems to have been made with a blunt-edged instrument of some sort.”

“Well, now, is it your opinion that that was made before or after death?”
“Now,” interrupted Mr. Rosser.

“This scalp wound?” the solicitor continued.

“Yes.”

“Before death, sir.”
“What effect would you say that wound had on the girl?”
“I would say it was calculated to produce unconsciousness.”
“Was there or not much blood?”
“I did not see very much blood, sir.”
“Doctor, describe anything you found around the eye area.”

“The right eye was black and blue, contused, skin not broken.”
“What would that indicate to your mind? That it was done before or after death?”

“Before death, sir.”

“What character, or what kind of instrument? Could you tell what kind of instrument that was probably made with?”

“I would say it was made by some soft instrument, although the skin was not broken it was contused.”

“Could or not the fist have produced that kind of contusion?”
“Could have, sir.”

Face Scratched After Death.

“What about any bruises or scratches on the face?”

“There were a good many bruises or scratches on the face, sir; around the cheek, above the cheek and forehead.”

“Give an opinion as to whether these scratches were made before or after death.”
“I would suggest, sir, they were made after death.”
“Why do you say that, doctor?”
“I did not see any blood, sir, that went through the dermis.”

Here the solicitor entered into a detailed description of the girl’s condition through the testimony of the witness, who after stating what he had found by an examination that morning, declared that he was not in a position to say whether or not the girl had been violated. His testimony was to the effect that she had, but to this he added the statement that as far as his examination had carried him, he would not state positively either way. Certain facts that he stated seemed to bear out the testimony of Dr. Roy Harris in this respect.

Arnold Cross-Examines.

After this Attorney Arnold took up the cross-examination. He dwelt on the same subject for quite a while, and succeeded in making Dr. Hurt state that he was even less positive as to certain evidences of violation than had been brought out in his direct statement.

The attorney then took up the question of the girl’s death.

“What part of the anatomy would show the results of strangulation?” he asked.

“The lungs and windpipe, sir.”
Dr. Hurt, with the air typical to what the New Yorkers call the “Professional Southerner,” nearly always prefixed or added the “sir” to his remark, and gave it the soft slur of the south.

“Would the lungs show congestion in case of strangulation?”

“Yes.”

“Are the lungs the only sure test?”
“No, sir, I would’t say that they are.”

“This witness has shown,” objected Mr. Arnold, “that the process of digestion depends entirely on mastication. This cabbage may have been in the stomach in the same shape in which it was chewed. The question is not borne out by the evidence. The girl may not have chewed the cabbage and the question is unjust and unfair.”
“Had rigor-mortis set in?”

“Yes, sir.”
There was then a number of questions and answers in regard to rigor-mortis and the varying time with which it may set in on different subjects and under different conditions.

“Can you account for the blood on the undergarments by the presence of any superficial wounds?”

“There were no superficial wounds.”
“Was there any mutilation of the body, except what you have described?”

“There was not, sir,” replied the physician, setting at rest the various rumors in regard to mutilation of the child’s body.

“Would you say that the girl had been violated?”

“I would not say yes or no.”

Dr. Hurt then went into detail on this subject and related certain indications which might show that she had been so treated, while at the same time, he indicated that these facts did not necessarily show that it had occurred.

Saw Harris Make Post-Mortem.

“Were you present when Dr. Harris made his post-mortem examination?”

“I was.”
“Did he examine the lungs?”

“Yes.”
“Tell us all of the body that was taken away.”
“I took away none myself; but Dr. Harris removed certain parts.”
The witness then told that Dr. Harris had removed portions of the stomach and intestines and other organs for his examination.

“Was the body swollen at that time?”
“Slightly so, I think. It was in about the same condition as when I first saw it at the undertaker’s.”
“Had decomposition set in?”
“I don’t think it had.”

Time Needed for Digestion.

“Cabbage is one of the hardest things to digest, isn’t it?” added Mr. Arnold, referring to the contents of the girl’s stomach.

“Yes,” answered the physician.

“It takes some people longer to digest it than others?”

“Yes.”

“Don’t you know that completely masticated cabbage takes from three to four hours to digest?”
“Yes, I think so.”
“Badly chewed food, of any kind, takes longer to digest, doesn’t it?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Certainly, sir.”
“Suppose, then,” said the lawyer, “that a child eating a meal hurriedly in order to catch a car and go uptown had taken into her stomach a piece of cabbage not chewed, as children frequently do, wouldn’t it take longer for her to digest that than the three or four hours usually taken to digest well-chewed cabbage, and don’t you think it a very wild guess for a physician to undertake to tell by the contents of the stomach exactly how long it was between the time of eating the food and the time that death occurred?”

Mr. Dorsey promptly objected to Dr. Hurt giving any opinion as to what his opinion might be of Dr. Harris’ deductions and Judge Roan held that he could not be allowed to give it.

After some parley Mr. Arnold then asked: “When a person becomes unconscious does the digestive process keep up?”

“I don’t think so.”
“If a person ate something and then went to sleep the digestion would go on, wouldn’t it?”
“Well, why wouldn’t it go on if a person became unconscious? Unconsciousness and sleep are similar in their reaction to the nerves, aren’t they?”
“Well, the effect that renders a person unconscious has the effect of paralyzing the digestive or gastric juices,” Dr. Hurt replied.

Dorsey Again Objects.

Mr. Arnold again entered into a series of questions to have Dr. Hurt say what was his opinion of the Harris testimony and Mr. Dorsey continued his objections, declaring that it was illegal for one physician to be put up to discuss the deductions of another.

Judge Roan ruled out all actual criticism of another witness, but declared that Dr. Hurt might answer hypothetical questions in this matter and thus give his own opinions of the possibility of drawing the deductions.

Mr. Dorsey then placed in evidence the two bottles, one containing particles of the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach and the other containing parts of cabbage taken from the stomach of a man one hour after his eating it.

“If this cabbage had been in the stomach one hour,” said Mr. Dorsey, holding up that taken from a man’s stomach, “how long do you think this other had been in?”

“What is the question?” asked the judge.

“Mr. Dorsey says,” replied Mr. Arnold rather sarcastically, “that if this mixture was of cabbage and bread, how long would it have been in the stomach after having been pumped out?”

Mistrial Is Threatened.

The jury was then given a few minutes intermission and both judge and jury left the court room. After the jury returned Judge Roan came in with a newspaper in his hand.

“Mr. Arnold says,” stated Mr. Dorsey, all the facts are not embodied in the hypothetical question, but I say that Dr. Hurt is an expert and should know if he has enough facts given him upon which to make a deduction and state his opinion. If there are not enough facts and yet Dr. Hurt goes on and gives an opinion the defense can bring that out, as they certainly will try to do, and the jury can decide on it.”

At this juncture Attorneys Rosser and Arnold went up to the judge and spoke to him in a low tone. Then they went out together, shortly followed by Attorneys Herbert Haas and Stiles Hopkins. An air of mystery invaded the courtroom. The attorneys for the defense would say nothing to the newspaper men and Dorsey and Hooper declared that they wished the newspaper men would find out for them what it was about.

“We are going to make a statement to the judge,” Mr. Rosser finally declared, and then he and Mr. Dorsey both talked to Judge Roan so quietly that their voices could not be heard.

By this time spectators who had craned and stretched their necks off during parts of the testimony, exerted themselves still further.

The jury was then sent out at the request of both sides and Attorney Rosser addressed the judge.

“Your honor,” he said, “a moment ago when you came into the courtroom you carried in your hand a newspaper which you had probably been reading and in coming in you held it so that the jury could see it. In boxcar letters of red ink it bore across the top words to this effect, “State adds links to case.”

Mrs. Frank Breaks Down.

At this moment Mrs. Frank, who had hitherto held up during the trial and who during the day had renewed her previous habit of glaring at Solicitor Dorsey while he was speaking, broke down and began to sob. Her bosom heaved and she finally threw herself slightly forward and gave way to her tears.

“I know that your honor would not jeopardize this case for anything,” added Mr. Arnold. “We all know you and your reputation far too well to think that, but the jury had an opportunity to see that head line and, as we all know headlines do not always tell the facts clearly. For instance, in this case the head line states that the state has added new links and while the offense may claim them to be strong ones, we deny it and claim that the reading of the body of the story will show that, for the newspaper men here have certainly acted fairly in the matter of handling this case. Now the jury will have no opportunity to read the read of the article and we think something should be told them to keep them from being influenced by what they saw.

“We are not going to ask a mistrial, but we want something said to them.”
“I want your honor to put in writing so there can be no mistake about it that the jury is to put the faith in a headline,” said Mr. Rosser.

“We deny that the jury saw this headline,” stated Mr. Dorsey, “but we also want to go into other features of the newspapers. In going to and fro from their headquarters in the Kimball house the jurymen frequently have papers thrust before their eyes by newsboys, and they also see them in the hands of people on the street, and for several days the newspaper accounts of this trial have put the state’s case as decidedly light and faulty.

Dorsey Criticizes Newspapers.

“In fact, your honor I think that the papers have been so prejudiced in the matter that they have committed contempt of court. We want you to take up the entire situation in regard to the jury having seen newspapers.

“I will state to the jury, answered Judge Roan, “that they are not to pay any attention to what they may have seen in the papers, or, in fact, to anything that they have seen or heard in any way but in sworn evidence.”

The jury was then called back, and Judge Roan explained the situation to them.

“Gentlemen,” he began, “you know that in the case that you are trying that we must all be extremely careful to decide it only on evidence regularly and legally admitted before the court, and on nothing else. It has been suggested that you may have seen some writing in the papers which might influence you in your decision and now I desire to remind you that nothing you may see in the papers about this can be allowed to influence you in any way. You are to try this case on sworn evidence only.”

Examination Again Taken Up.

Mr. Dorsey then took up again the examination of Dr. Hurt.

“Have there, or not, been cases of blows on people’s skulls where death did not ensue?” he asked.

“Yes,” replied the witness.

“What process of the body is delayed by unconsciousness?” asked Mr. Arnold, who took up the cross-examination again.

“Is the nervous system delayed and what else?” he continued.

“The nerves of sensation and emotion are delayed,” replied the witness.

“Isn’t it the same as in sleep?”
“Yes, to a certain extent.”

After discussing still further the effect of unconsciousness and of sleep upon the nerves, Mr. Arnold entered [1 word illegible] detailed questioning in regard to Mary Phagan’s condition upon the day that she was murdered.

“You saw a discoloration on the right eye?” he then asked.

“Yes.”
“Well, don’t the nerves cross from the right side of the front of the head to the left side of the back?”

“Yes.”

“Doesn’t a blow on the back and to one side of the head sometimes cause the eye on the other side to become blackened?”

“Yes.”
Mr. Arnold then took up in detail again the girl’s physical condition on the day. At 12:10 Dr. Hurt was excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 3rd 1913, “Condition of Girls Body Described by Dr. J. W. Hurt,” 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 3^rd, 1913

Inadvertent Action of Judge Roan Caused Quick Conference Between Attorneys for the Defense in Frank Case.

PRACTICALLY NOTHING NEW WAS INTRODUCED IN SATURDAY TESTIMONY

Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, Takes Stand to Tell of Examination of the Dead Body of Girl—Testimony Conflicts With Harris’ at Times.

Practically nothing new was adduced from the testimony at Saturday’s session of the Leo M. Frank trial.

But by far the session—which lasted from 9 o’clock until 1 o’clock, adjournment being had until Monday—was fought with the keenest interest of any thus far held.

This was due to the fact that for a time it looked as if a mistrial might be called for by the attorneys for the defense, when inadvertently Judge Roan held up a copy of one of the afternoon newspapers containing a conspicuous headline in red ink in such a position that members of the jury could see it.

Rube Arnold was instantly on his feet and requested that the jury be sent out. This was done and the attorneys for the defense held a brief conference. When they returned Luther Rosser made a statement in which he said he would ask for no mistrial, but he hoped the judge would caution the jury not to be influenced by the sight of the paper—if they had really seen it—and to instruct them fully on this point.

This Judge Roan did and the trial proceeded.

During the time the matter was being discussed the court room was filled with repressed excitement. The strain on Mrs. Frank was particularly noticeable. She seemed to be laboring under the greatest excitement, and her breathing was deep and labored. Her head dropped to the table beside her and it looked as if she was on the verge of a collapse.

DR. HURT ON THE STAND

Dr. Hurt’s testimony added little to the case. He told of the examination he had made of the body immediately after death. He could not state positively whether the little girl had been violated, but said the indication pointed strongly to this being the case.

Mr. Arnold cross-examined him at some length in an effort to discredit the testimony of Dr. Roy Harris that Mary Phagan must have been killed half an hour after she had eaten her breakfast of cabbage and bread. Dr. Hurt thought that cabbage took several hours to digest.

Chief James L. Beavers testified that he was in the National Pencil factory when the blood stains were discovered.

Helen Ferguson the first witness on the stand Saturday, testified that she had called at the National Pencil factory Friday to get Mary Phagan’s pay; that Frank had told her Mary would call for it Saturday.

R. F. Lassiter, a policeman, testified to finding Mary Phagan’s parasol at the bottom of the elevator shaft Monday following the murder.

Court adjourned at 1 o’clock until Monday morning.

The crowd Saturday was the largest of any day of the trial. A special detail of police was necessary to keep them from blocking the entrance and crowding the doorway.

From present indications Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whose statement that he helped Frank conceal the body in the basement is the strong card of the state, will not go on the stand Tuesday.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 24th 1913, “Mistrial Near When Jury Saw a Newspaper in Judge’s Hands,” 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 3^rd, 1913

Most Important Points State Sought to Prove Are That Mary Phagan Was Killed Shortly After Entering Factory—That Crime Was on Second Floor, and That Frank Was Not in His Office at the Time He Saw He Gave Her the Pay Envelope

An entire week has been given over to the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, and so far the state has not shown or attempted to show any direct connection on the part of the defendant with the crime. Solicitor Dorsey has worked systematically to weave a chain of circumstantial evidence about Frank.

Those who have watched the progress of the trial day by day are impressed with the fact that he has endeavored by the introduction of circumstantial evidence to pave the way for the testimony of James Conley, the negro sweeper, who will be the climax witness for the state and upon whose evidence the case against Frank will largely stand or fall.

The state swore but twenty-six witnesses when the trial began Monday afternoon, but up to date it has called thirty and the indications are that still others are to be put upon the stand. The defense has not put up a single witness and can not do so until the state rests its case. However, Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, counsel for Frank, have administered severe cross-examinations to the more material of the state’s witnesses and in many instances have succeeded in minimizing the evidence given by them on their direct examination.

The state has sought to show by its witnesses:

First. That Mary Phagan was murdered within an hour after she left her home just before noon on April 26 to go to the pencil factory for her pay.

Second. That she was rendered unconscious by a blow upon the back of the head and that she died from strangulation.

Third. That she was murdered on the second or office floor of the factory and that her body was taken to the basement on the elevator.

Fourth. That no one saw her enter or leave the factory and that Frank was the only person who saw her while she was there.

Fifth. That at the exact hour Frank has stated that the girl came into his office he was himself absent from the office, although he claims not have left it from about 11 o’clock until 12:30 and 1 o’clock.

Sixth. That the girl was not criminally assaulted, although she had suffered some kind of violence five or ten minutes before her death.

Seventh. That about 1 o’clock, several minutes after the murder was committed, a negro was seen sitting on a box on the first floor near the foot of the stairs.

Eighth. That on Sunday morning Frank was very nervous and excited and that he would not look upon the face of the dead girl when he was taken to the undertaking establishment.

DR. HARRIS’ TESTIMONY.

The most significant evidence so far offered by the state was the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, and Monteen Stover, a fourteen-year-old girl, who formerly worked at the pencil factory.

Dr. Harris made a post-mortem examination on the body of Mary Phagan a few days after her death. He testified that she had undoubtedly died from strangulation produced by the tightly-drawn cord around her neck; that the blow on the back of the head undoubtedly rendered her unconscious; that she had died within from a half to three-quarters of an hour after having eaten some cabbage and bread; that she had not been criminally assaulted but that she had suffered some kind of violence between five and ten minutes before death.

Dr. Harris explained that the cord had left a deep indentation in the girl’s neck which was badly contused and swollen; that the blow on the back of the head had caused a slight hemorrhage beneath the skull, but not sufficient to kill; that he had examined the contents of the stomach and found pieces of cabbage and bread which were almost totally undigested; that his examination of the organs of the body convinced him that no criminal assault had been made upon the child, but that the dilated and inflamed blood vessels satisfied him that external violence had been committed, and that the condition of the inflammation caused him to believe it occurred not more than ten minutes before her death.

A bottle containing the undigested cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach was tendered by Dr. Harris, as were two other bottles containing partially digested cabbage, which he said he had taken from the stomachs of two healthy normal men an hour after they had eaten it.

Dr. Harris was too ill to finish his testimony, and the defense had no opportunity to cross-examine him. He will doubtless be recalled this week.

MONTEEN STOVER’S EVIDENCE.

Monteen Stover testified that she went to the pencil factory for her pay at 12:05 o’clock on Saturday, April 27; that she stepped into the outer office where she could have a good view of Frank’s private office; that she saw no one in either office; that she sat on a bench outside the office until 12:10, when she went back home.

A statement made by Frank to the detectives was read to the jury. In it Frank says Mary Phagan came to his office about 12:05 or 12:10; that he gave her her pay envelope and that she then went out.

In their cross-examination of several witnesses Attorneys Rosser and Arnold brought out the fact that it would be almost impossible for a person to see into Frank’s private office from the outer office when the safe door was open; that the door was so large that it practically cut off all view into the inner office. It is presumed that the defense will later attempt to show that the safe door was open at the hour the Stover girl says she looked into Frank’s office.

DR. J. W. HURT.

The testimony of Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner’s physician who performed the autopsy on Mary Phagan’s body, Sunday morning following the murder, differed in several important particulars from that of Dr. Harris in his testimony. He agreed with Dr. Harris that the girl came to her death by strangulation, but admitted on cross-examination that the only accurate way to prove this was by an examination of the lungs, which he had not made. He also agreed that the blow on the head was delivered before death and produced unconsciousness, but admitted on cross-examination that such blows frequently result in concussion of the brain and in death.

Dr. Hurt corroborated Dr. Harris in the latter’s statement that the girl had not been criminally assaulted, but differed with him as to her having undergone external violence. Dr. Hurt says he never found any indications of violence and that the dilated and inflamed blood vessels could have resulted from natural causes.

He would not attempt to estimate how long the cabbage had been in the stomach, but admitted that mastication had a great deal to do with digestion and that some persons digested food sooner than others.

MRS. J. W. COLEMAN.

Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary, testified that the girl left her home at 11:45 to go to the factory, and just prior to leaving she partook of a meal consisting of cabbage and bread.

Attorney Rosser developed from Mrs. Coleman that it was two blocks to the car line from her home and that she had no way of knowing how soon Mary caught a car.

George Epps, a newsboy, swore that he boarded the car with the girl at Olive street and Bellwood avenue at 10 minutes to 12 and that they left the car at Marietta and Forsyth streets about 12:10. He was not sure of the latter time, as he judged it by the sun. The girl, he said, walked on across the Forsyth street viaduct toward the factory, two blocks away.

The presence of blood spots on the second floor of the factory, near the girl’s dressing room was testified to by R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the factory; Mell Stanford, another factory employe, Detectives Starnes and Black, Mrs. George W. Jefferson, also a factory employe, and Chief Beavers. Dr. Claude A. Smith, city bacteriologist and chemist, testified that he had made an analysis of the stain upon chips taken from the floor and found that it was blood.

Barrett swore that he had found hair upon the handle of his turning lathe in the metal room; that it was not there Friday when he stopped work, and that no girls worked in the factory on Saturday. He also testified to having found a pay envelope under Mary Phagan’s machine.

Attorneys Rosser and Arnold brought out from a number of witnesses that paint spots, both red and dark, could be found in all parts of the factory and that it was not an uncommon thing to find blood spots around the women’s dressing rooms and toilets of factories where large numbers of women were employed.

WHAT DARLEY SAID.

One of the State’s witnesses, N. V. Darley, general manager of the pencil factory, stated on cross-examination that about 175 pay envelopes were scattered over the factory on every pay day, and that lengths of cord, similar to that found around Mary Phagan’s neck, could also be found all over the factory; that it was frequently carried to the basement in the trash. He declared further that order blanks and tablet paper of the character upon which the notes found by the body were written, could be picked up in all parts of the factory, and that pencils were everywhere plentiful.

Both Darley and E. F. Holloway, the day watchman, testified that the switch box on the elevator was unlocked on Sunday morning, and Holloway recalled under cross-examination that he had left it unlocked the day before.

Mrs. J. Arthur White stated that she was at the pencil factory from 12:30 to about 1 o’clock on the day of the murder and that as she walked down the stairs to leave she saw a negro sitting on a box on the first floor a few feet from the staircase.

In his affidavit Conley claims that it was just before 1 o’clock that Frank called him up to aid in disposing of the body. Conley’s statement has not yet been produced in court.

FRANK’S NERVOUSNESS.

Among the witnesses who swore that Frank was very nervous on Sunday morning when he was brought to the factory were Detective John Black, Detective J. N. Starnes, W. W. Rogers, a bailiff, and Darley.

Upon cross-examination practically all of these witnesses admitted that they had never seen Frank before and knew nothing about his natural demeanor. Some of them said he was not very much more nervous than others at the factory that Sunday, and Darley declared that on two former occasions he had seen Frank fully as nervous and excited—once just after he had seen a child run over by a street car and once after Frank and a pencil factory official had quarreled.

Detectives Black and Rogers did not think that Frank had looked upon the dead girl’s face when taken to the undertaking establishment, but neither would swear positively that he had not. Black admitted that Frank was between him and the body and that he had seen the face.

Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott testified that Frank had told him that he had not left his office from the time he returned from Montag Bros., about 11 o’clock, until about 1 o’clock, when he went upstairs to tell Mrs. White that he was going to lunch and lock the front door, and that she had better leave if she wished to get out before he returned at 3 o’clock.

THE STATE’S WITNESSES.

A list of the witnesses so far introduced by the state follows: Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan; George Epps, a newsboy; Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the factory; Police Sergeant L. S. Dobbs, who found the notes in the basement beside the body; Detective J. N. Starnes, W. W. Rogers, a bailiff; Miss Grace Hix, an employe at the factory, who identified the dead girl; Detective John Black, J. M. Gantt, former ship[p]ing clerk at the factory, who testified that Frank was nervous and jumped when he encountered him at the factory door about 6 o’clock the day of the murder; Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, Miss Monteen Sttover [sic], R. P. Barrett, Mell Stanford, Mrs. George W. Jefferson, who saw the blood on the metal room floor and who swore no paints were ever kept in the metal room; Detective B. B. Haslett, who said he saw Frank in his office on Monday morning and that he was nervously pacing back and forth; William A. Gheesling, the undertaker, who embalmed the body; Dr. Claude A. Smith, E. F. Holloway, Mrs. J. Arthur White, N. V. Darley, Call Officer W. F. Anderson, who responded to Newt Lee’s call for thhe [sic] police to come to the factory Sunday morning amout [sic] 3 o’clock; Dr. H. F. Harris, G. C. Febuary, stenographer tto [sic] Chief Lanford, who identified a statement made by Frank to the chief; Albert McKnight, husband of the cook at the Frank home, who swore Frank reached his home on the day of the murder about 1:30, remained but a few minutes and left without eating luncheon; Helen Ferguson, who testified that she asked Frank for Mary Phagan’s pay on the Friday before the murder, but that he didn’t give it to her; Detective R. L. Waggoner, who rode to police station in the automobile with Frank on Tuesday following the murder and who swore he was nervous; Dr. J. W. Hurt, Police Chief James L. Beavers and Patrolman Lassiter, who with some of the other officers, swore that he saw a trail in the basement, leading from the elevator to the body which indicated that the dead girl had been dragged.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 3rd 1913, “State’s Case Against Frank As It Stands After Week’s Testimony Is Shown Here,” 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 2^nd, 1913

DR. HURT’S TESTIMONY NOT CONFIRMATORY OF EVIDENCE GIVEN BY DR. H. F. HARRIS

On Cross-Examination, Dr. Hurt Admits That Cabbage Is Considered Very Difficult to Digest and That Under Some Conditions as Much as Three Hours and a Half Might be Required Before the Process of Digestion Was Completed

PHYSICIAN ON STAND GREATER PART OF MORNING AND UNDERWENT RIGID CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE

He Found No Evidence of Violence, He Declared — Detective Waggoner, Chief Beavers, Detective Bass Rosser, Patrolman Lassiter and Miss Ferguson Testify — Court Adjourns Until Monday Morning at 9 o’Clock

Dr. J. W. Hurt, coroner’s physician, who examines the body of little Mary Phagan, was the principal witness introduced by the state at the Saturday morning session of the Frank trial. Dr. Hurt’s expert testimony was the subject of fierce contention between the lawyers for the defense and the state. Attorney Reuben R. Arnold succeeded in drawing from the physician testimony to offset that given on Friday by Dr. H. F. Harris. While Dr. Harris testified that he found evidence of violence of some sort having been committed, Dr. Hurt declared he did not find any evidence that would show a criminal attack of nay [sic] kind.

Dr. Hurt further admitted, in answer to Mr. Arnold’s questions, that cabbage was a difficult article of food to digest and that under some circumstances it might require three and one-half hours before the process of digestion was complete. This testimony was brought out by Mr. Arnold fro the evident purpose of disputing Dr. Harris’ conclusion that the state of digestion the cabbage was found in showed that Mary Phagan must have been killed within a half hour or forty-five minutes after eating.

When court convened Miss Helen Ferguson was cal[l]ed to the stand and testified that Frank refused to let her have Mary Phagan’s pay on Friday afternoon, the day prior to the murder, and that she was told by some one in Frank’s office that Mary would have to come to the factory Saturday and draw her own pay. Attorney Rosser drew from the witness on cross-examination the admission that she had never before drawn the Phagan girl’s pay and that she didn’t know whether Frank knew her name or not.

R. L. Waggoner, one of the city detectives, was next called and told of how Frank twisted his hands on Tuesday, April 29, at the National Pencil factory. The witness said that he accused appeared at the window of his office twelve times in a half hour and each time twisted his hands and looked down as if he was in a very nervous state. Detective Waggoner said that he had been sent there to watch Frank and the factory prior to the accused’s arrest.

Patrolman Lassiter, on whose beat is the National pencil factory, told the court of finding Mary Phagan’s parasol in the bottom of the elevator shaft on the Sunday morning after the tragedy. The witness also testified that the floor of the basement showed that something had been dragged from the elevator shaft.

Chief of Police J. L. Beavers was another witness and he testified simply that he had seen the blood spots on the second floor of the factory.

Had Judge Roan not adjourned court about 12:20 o’clock, Newt Garner, special deputy for the solicitor, and Detective Campbell, had an automobile at police headquarters during the morning, ready to rush the negro to the court, when notified by the solicitor.

There will be no afternoon session, court having adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o’clock.

MORNING SESSION BEGINS.

All women who had arrived at the court house by 8:30 o’clock were admitted and were allowed to select their own seats before the rush began. About fifty availed themselves of this concession to their sex. Leo M. Frank, the accused, entered the court at 8:40 o’clock. The jury entered at 8:55. Judge Roan mounted the bench and convened court at 9 o’clock.

Helen Ferguson, a co-worker with Mary Phagan in metal room of the National Pencil factory, was called to the stand as the first witness.

Miss Ferguson stated that she works now for the Marcus Loeb company, but that for two years she worked for the National Pencil factory and was employed there on Friday, April 25. About 7 o’clock on the evening of Friday she went to Mr. Frank’s office, she testified, and asked him for Mary Phagan’s pay. He refused to let her have it, and she left. On former occasions some months before she had gotten Mary Phagan’s pay for her.

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination. Miss Ferguson admitted that she had never gotten Mary Phagan’s pay from Frank. It was about 7 o’clock in the evening when she asked for the money, and that several men whom she thought to be members of the office force were in the office with Frank.

She did not think Frank knew her name, she said. She asked him for Mary’s number and her pay, saying she had forgotten Mary’s number. She thought Frank knew her face, she testified. Some member of the office force told her there would be somebody in the factory Saturday and that Mary could get her pay then. She testified that she had worked in the metal room for two years and never had seen Frank speak to Mary.

City Detective R. L. Waggoner was called to the stand.

“You’ve been in the court room before, haven’t you?” demanded Attorney Rosser, when Waggoner had been sworn.

“Yes. I was in here about twenty minutes Wednesday afternoon,” answered the witness.

Solicitor Dorsey explained to the court that on Wednesday afternoon witness had not been subpoenaed.

“How did you happen to be here?” asked Attorney Rosser.

“I was near and came in,” said the detective. He left of his own accord, then, he said, and later when he was subpoenaed as a witness he remained out of the court room.

He proceeded then to testify. He has been a member of the police force about four years she said.

“On Tuesday, April 29, where were you?” asked the solicitor.

“A little after 11 o’clock in the morning I was in front of the National Pencil factory.”

FRANK WAS NERVOUS.

“Did you see Frank, the defendant?”

“Yes.”

“What did you see him doing?”

“I could see Mr. Frank through the window in his office. I was standing across the street. He would come to the window, look down, and twist his hands. He did this about twelve times in thirty minutes.”

“Was Frank nervous or composed on that morning?”

“Well, when Detective Black came up to the factory in an automobile, to take Frank to the police station, I got in between Frank and Black and his knee was shaking all the way to the station.”

Attorney Rosser took the witness.

“How much do you weigh?”

“About 220 pounds.”

“How much does Black weigh?”

“About 200 pounds, I guess.”

“And Frank weighs about 120 pounds—and you had him between you, didn’t you?”

“No, sir.”

“Oh, I thought you said you had him between you.”

“No, sir; I said I sat between Frank and Black.”

“Now when you were standing in the street, Mr. Waggoner, how far were you from the window of the pencil factory?”

“About fifty feet.”

SENT TO WATCH FRANK.

“You don’t know whether Frank was talking to anybody, do you?”

“He wasn’t talking to anybody when he was looking out of the window.”

“What were you doing there?”

“I was sent there to watch Frank and the factory?”

“You knew he was going to be arrested, then, didn’t you?”

“No, sir, I didn’t.”

“Do you mean to tell me that you didn’t know he was going to be arrested?”

“Well, I thought he was.”

“You knew he was detained at the station house the day before for three or four hours, didn’t you?”

“No, sir. I didn’t know he was detained there.”

DR. HURT TESTIFIES.

Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner’s physician, was called to the stand.

“What is your profession?” interrogated the solicitor.

“I am a physician.”

“How long have you been a physician?”

“Since 1884.”

“Have you any connection with the county?”

“Yes, I am a county official.”

“What kind of a county official?”

“County physician.”

“How long have you held this position?”

“This time since the first of January.”

“Have you ever held it before?”

“Yes.”

“How long?”

“About four years.”

“How long since your previous time as county physician?”

“About three years.”

“As county physician, what are your duties?”

“I am required to attend all inquests.”

“What college did you graduate from?”

“I graduated at the old Atlanta school of regular medicine. I took my post graduate course at the Polyclinic in New York.”

“Did you ever see the body of Mary Phagan? If so, when?”

“Yes, at the undertaker’s shop on Sunday morning, April 27.”

“Now, tell the jury the condition in which you found this body.”

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

“I was called to Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment on South Pryor street by phone about 9 o’clock Sunday morning, April 27. The coroner called me, I saw Mary Phagan’s body there. There was a scalp wound on the rear left side of the head about two and a half inches long. It was about four inches back from the top of the left ear. The wound penetrated through the scalp to the skull. The right eye was black and contused. There were minor scratches on the face and cheek and contusions on the forehead though the skin was not broken. The skin on the other cheek was broken. There was a wound two and a half inches long on the left leg about three inches below the knee. There were scratches on both the left and right elbows. There was a cord around the neck drawn tightly into the skin.”

The solicitor handed to Dr. Hurt one of the cords from his table. The witness examined it. He declared it looked like the cord he found around the girl’s neck.

“What caused Mary Phagan’s death?” asked the solicitor.

DIED OF STRANGULATION.

“In my opinion she died from strangulation produced by the cord. There was another piece of cloth laying loose over her chest and around her hair, but the cord was next to the skin and under the hair.”

“Was the cord imbedded in the skin?”

“Yes, it had made a considerable indentation in the neck.”

“How deep?”

“Very marked.”

“You saw the knot in the cord.”

“Yes.”

“Was it imbedded in the skin, too?”

“Yes, on the side of the neck.”

“Was there any swelling in the neck?”

“Yes.”

“What did that indicate?”

“It indicated great contusion and strangulation.”

“Was the cord applied before or after death?”

“Before death.”

“What was the character of the wound on the back of the head?”

BLUNT WEAPON USED.

“It was about two and a half inches long, and seemed to have been made by a blunt edged instrument. The blow evidently had been delivered upward, for the upper edge of the scalp was loose.”

“Was this wound made before or after death?”

“Before death.”

“What was the effect of this wound?”

“It undoubtedly produced unconsciousness.”

“Did you find any blood about the body or on the wounds?”

“Not much.”

“Tell the jury about the wound over the right eye.”

“The right eye was black and blue, and contused, though the skin was not broken.”

“Was this wound made before or after death?”

“Before death.”

“What sort of an instrument, produced this wound?”

“It was evidently a substance that was somewhat soft because the skin was not broken.”

“Could it have be[e]n produced with a fist?”

“Yes.”

OTHER WOUNDS.

“Tell the jury about the wound on the left leg.”

“There was a superficial wound below the knee, half an inch wide and about three and a half inches long.”

“You say there were bruises and scratches on the face?”

“Yes; a good many, on both cheeks and forehead.”

“Were these wounds produced before or after death?”

“After death.”

“Why do you say they were produced after death?”

“Because I examined them closely and found no blood.”

Dr. Hurt testified that he found blood on the child’s underclothing. He found no evidence of violence. In reply to questions he stated that he made no examination of the blood vessels, on the condition of which Dr. Harris had based his conclusions in reference to violence of some kind having been committed.

ARNOLD TAKES WI[T]NESS.

Attorney Arnold conducted the cross-examination.

“What part did you examine first?”

“Her face and the exposed injuries.”

“Had the face the appearance of having been dragged?”

“It had. It seemed to me that the body had been dragged face forward.”

“You said that the wound in the back of the head near the ear was two and one-half inches long. Dr. Harris testified that it was one and one-half inches long. Now, which is correct?”

Dr. Hurt looked at his notes and said: “We both were wrong. I measured the wound and it was two and one-quarter inches long.”

“What sort of an instrument did you say produced that wound?”

“A sharp edged instrument. I don’t mean a knife.”

“Could the corner of an elevator shaft or the corner of a floor have caused it?”

“A right angled board or instrument, any instrument with a right angled edge could have caused it.”

“Doctor, all you are doing about this is guessing, isn’t it?”

“No.”

“Well, all there is to expert testimony is guessing, isn’t it? And the best guesser is the best witness, isn’t he?”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

INSIDE THE SKULL.

“Doctor, was there any damage on the inside of the skull?”

“There was a very slight damage there.”

“Could you see it with the naked eye?”

“Yes.”

“Well, were the brain tissues injured?”

“No. There was a slight contusion on the inside of the skull. The skull was not fractured.”

“You mean there was an impression on the inner table of the skull?”

“Yes.”

“Was there any blood there?”

“There was a slight hemorrhage.”

“Now, doctor, isn’t it too much of a strain on you or any other doctor to ask you to testify that this wound produced unconsciousness?”

“I don’t think so. It is my opinion that it did.”

“Oh, well,” said Mr. Arnold, “we are just getting back to opinions.”

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.

Mr. Arnold asked a number of hypothetical questions relative to fractures and contusions, and brought out the statement that some men remain conscious even after the skull is fractured, and that some men die of concussions when the skull is not even fractured. He brought from the witness, apparently, that the witness would not say positively that the blow on Mary Phagan’s head produced unconsciousness, but that it was merely his opinion.

“Can’t you produce every conceivable effect on the faculties, short of death, by injuries to the brain?”

“Almost,” answered Dr. Hurt.

“What faculty in the chart of the brain is just by this abrasion?”

Dr. Hurt studied a moment and said that he did not remember.

“Can’t a thousand different effects be produced?”

“I wouldn’t say a thousand, but a good many.”

“What makes you say that one little hemorrhage that you and Harris looked for so long and so carefully produced a given effect?”

“I am only giving an opinion.”

“There was no pressure on the brain, was there?”

“No.”
“Well, doctor, after all, all you mean is that the blow might have caused unconsciousness?”

“Yes.”

“Could the blow have killed her?”

“Not in my opinion.”

“Well, couldn’t she have been killed by the nervous shock of that blow? People often are, aren’t they?”

“People have been killed so, but she was not, in my opinion.”

DIDN’T EXAMINE LUNGS.

“Opinions again!” snorted Mr. Arnold. “In a post mortem examination, isn’t the only way that you can really tell fgrom [sic] a scientific medical standpoint that death was produced by strangulation, an examination of the condition of the lungs?” Dr. Hurt admitted that he had not examined the lungs. He based his opinion that death was caused by strangulation upon the fact that the cord was imbedded in her neck, her tongue protruded and her features were distorted.

Dr. Hurt admitted, in answer to Mr. Arnold’s questions, that he found no sign of a criminal assault. He also admitted that there probably would have been evidence of such an assault had one been committed.

Dr. Hurt admitted that various causes have produced inflammation. External violence was not absolutely necessary to cause inflammation of the blood vessel said he.

He again declared he would not say a criminal attack had been made.

“Were you present when Dr. Harris made a post mortem examination of Mary Phagan’s body?”

“Yes.”

“Did he examine the lungs?”

“Yes.”

“At the time you examined the body was it swollen?”

“Decomposition had not started.”

ATTACKS HARRIS TESTIMONY.

“Doctor, cabbage is one of the hardest things to digest that goes into the stomach, isn’t it?”

“It depends on the individual to a certain extent. Cabbage is considered a hard food to digest.”

“Well, now, doctor, isn’t every person’s stomach to a certain extent a law unto itself?”

“To a certain extent, yes.”

“Well, now, doesn’t it usually take about three and one-half hours for cabbage to be digested?”

“It depends a great deal on the mastication. I should say that it would take about that time for complete digestion.”

In answer to other questions, Dr. Hurt testified that he believed wheat bread would be much easier to digest than cabbage.

“Couldn’t you chew bread until it went down to the stomach in almost a liquid condition?”

“Oh, yes.”

“Suppose a child, eating a meal hurriedly, say to catch a street car, didn’t chew the cabbage thoroughly. It would take a much longer time, then, to dissolve than if well chewed.”

“Yes.”

“Don’t you think a doctor is making a wild guess, then, if he is taking a piece of cabbage” —

Solicitor Dorsey objected to the question. This question, said he, was aimed at the testimony of Dr. Harris. “Let the jury decide on which doctor is speculating,” said the solicitor.

NO DIGESTION WHILE UNCONSCIOUS.

“If a person becomes unconscious, does digestion go on?”

“Yes.”

“A snake swallows a rabbit, and goes right to sleep, doesn’t it, and the digestion goes on?”

“I don’t know.”

“If the digestion goes on when a person is asleep, and not when a person is abnormally unconscious, what is the difference between the two states of unconsciousness?”

“One is natural and the other is unnatural.”

“Some digestion goes on during unconsciousness, doesn’t it?”

“I don’t think so.”

“The circulation of blood and the secretion of gastric juices are the qualities that make up digestion, are they not?”

“Yes.”

“Well, the gastric juices don’t change their natural qualities during unnatural unconsciousness, do they?”

“Oh, I don’t mean to say that.”

“I believe you said it was a wild guess a while ago, to say that the girl was unconscious before death?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected, contending that the doctor had made no such statement. Attorney Arnold withdrew the question.

“You did not make a chemical or a microscopical examination?”

“I did not.”

“Have the medical men experimented as to the time consumed by normal persons in digesting food?”

“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey exhibited the glass bottles containing the stomach contents which had been produced by Dr. Harris Friday. He put hypothetical questions to the witness and got the answer from Dr. Hurt that the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach must have been there only a short time.

“How long do you think it was there?”

Mr. Arnold objected. For ten minutes he strove to break down Dr. Har[r]is’ theory.

“Your honor, it is manifestly, unfair,” said he to the court, “to allow this witness to answer that question when he doesn’t know all the facts. It is evident from the appearance of this cabbage that it was swallowed practically whole. He does not know how long the men who ate the cabbage exhibited in these other glasses chewed it, nor does he know the comparative state of their digestive organs, nor anything about the condition of the cabbage when they ate it. Simply by mastication, cabbage may be reduced practically to a liquid before it enters the stomach. I think the question is unafir [sic].”

Solicitor Dorsey contended that they could never learn all of the facts, and that the question as a legal and commonsense proposition was fair. He pointed out that they could not know how many teeth the girl had nor how many teeth the men had. They could never tell how long the cabbage that she ate had been cooked nor how long the cabbage that the men ate had been cooked, nor whether the cabbage was tender or whether it was tough.

It was at this juncture that the trial was stopped for a few moments because of the newspaper headline.

HEADLINE INTERRUPTS.

Mr. Dorsey resumed his redirect examination of Dr. Hurt, following the interruption caused by the newspaper headline.

Solicitor Dorsey picked up the bottle containing the sample of cabbage from Mary Phagan’s stomach, and the two other samples taken from the stomachs of other persons, and held them up so that Dr. Hurt could see them.

“Assuming, Dr. Hurt, that this substance in these two bottles had been in the stomach of a normal person for an hour, how long would you say this cabbage had been in the stomach?” He indicated the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach.
“A much shorter time. I should judge from the appearance that the one was in the stomach I should say about one-half the time of that of the others.”

“Have there or not been blows upon the people’s skulls which crushed in the skull without producing death?”

“Yes.”

Attorney Arnold took up the witness again for cross-examination.

“Looking like a liquid depends on how much this cabbage was chewed, doesn’t it?” he asked.

“Yes.”

Attorney Arnold held up the sample of cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach.

“hat [sic] looked like it had been bolted, doesn’t it? Like a child will bolt meals?”

“It wasn’t well chewed.”

“Isn’t it a wild inquiry, doctor, to ask from the contents of a stomach how long they had been in the stomach?”

“I won’t commit myself.”

CHIEF BEAVERS CALLED.

“Isn’t it possible for a blow on the head to blacken one or both eyes? Doesn’t such a blow sometimes have this effect?”

“It sometimes does.”

This concluded Dr. Hurt’s testimony. Chief of Police James L. Beavers was called to the stand.

Before the solicitor could begin the examination of the witness, Attorney Rosser inquired if Chief Beavers had not been in the court room before.

“Not today,” replied the chief.

“But you have you been in the court room during this trial?”

“Yes, I’ve been here twice.”

Solicitor Dorsey interrupted with the statement that he didn’t know until Friday afternoon that he would summon the witness.

Proceeding with the examination, the solicitor inquired as to the identity of the witness. The witness said that he is chief of police in the city of Atlanta, and has been chief for two years. Prior to that he was a captain for two years. He went to the pencil factory on Tuesday, April 29, he thought it was.

“Did you see the area around the girls’ dressing room and the water cooler on the second floor?”

ROSSER OBJECTS TO WITNESS.

Attorney Rosser remarked to the court: “I don’t think, your honor, it is enough for the state to say they didn’t know they were going to call this witness until this morning. The solicitor knew what information this witness possessed, and what information others possessed.”

“Your honor,” said Solicitor Dorsey. “If the witness had been sworn and stayed in the court room it would not have made any particular difference upon the testimony that I will ask him to give. However, I did not know until yesterday afternoon that I might call him, and I didn’t determine until this morning that I would use the witness. The same thing was true of Mrs. Jefferson. I did not know I would call her until just a short time before she was put upon the stand.”

“Proceed with the examination of the witness, Mr. Dorsey,” directed the court.

The solicitor repeated his question. “If so, tell what you found there,” he added.

“Yes, I examined the area and found blood spots on the floor near the dressing room. The blood appeared to have been spattered.”

“Did you see anything else on the floor except this blood?”

“Nothing special.”

“Describe the color of the blood.”

“It looked like blood.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You saw that Tuesday, captain?”

“I think so.”

TRIES TO TRAP BEAVERS.

“Why, captain, wasn’t this blood chipped up early Monday morning?”

“I’m not sure about that. I was there when it was chipped up. It may have been Monday.”

“You didn’t analyze this stain to determine whether it was blood?”

“No, sir.”

“You are not a chemist?”

“No, sir, but it looked like blood to me.”

“You saw them chip up the blood?”

“Yes.”

“How many chips did they take?”

“Two. I think.”

“Now, captain, didn’t they take four or five chips?”

“No, sir. I didn’t see them take but two.”

“You don’t know whether they took up any more chips afterwards?”

“No, sir.”

“Who was present when the chips were taken?”

“Detectives Starnes and Campbell.”

“All the chips taken up had this substance on them?”

“Yes.”

Mr. Rosser sat down. The solicitor handed to the witness some chips and asked him to identify them, but before the witness could make any statement Mr. Rosser put another question.

“Do you know Barrett?”

“I believe they said that was the man’s name.”

“The man who was chipping it up, eh?”

“Yes.”

The witness then stated that the chips handed to him by the solicitor looked like those taken from the pencil factory floor.

“These chips haven’t been in your possession, have they?”

“No, sir.”

Chief Beavers was excused from the stand.

The solicitor called for City Detective Rosser, who did not answer; for Sergeant Dobbs, who did not answer, and for Policeman Robert Lassiter, who responded and took the stand.

Policeman Lassiter testified that he found the parasol of Mary Phagan, with a ball of wrapping twine beside it, at the bottom of the elevator shaft. He was cross-examined by Attorney Rosser, who asked him if he did not find a trace of a body being dragged in the basement. He did, he said. He found that trace first at a point between the foot of the ladder and the rear of the building.

“Didn’t you follow it back to the foot of the ladder?” asked Attorney Rosser.

ADJOURNS TO MONDAY.

“No; to the elevator shaft,” answered the witness.

“When you were testifying at the inquest, didn’t you at one time say you traced it to the elevator and another time say you traced it to the foot of the ladder?”

The witness said he did not think so; that he knew that he traced it to the elevator shaft. The witness admitted that the pencil factory was on his beat. He passed it in the rear about 1 o’clock Sunday morning and found it closed. He didn’t try the door, he said. He found the parasol between 6 and 7 o’clock Sunday morning, he said. The witness said that he did not know whether the elevator stops flat on the ground floor at the bottom of the shaft. The witness concluded there.

Judge Roan asked Mr. Dorsey if he had another brief witness to put up. The solicitor answered in the negative, and at 12:25 o’clock Judge Roan adjourned the court until 9 o’clock Monday morning.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 2^nd, 1913

Newspaper on Judge’s Desk Causes Protest

DR. HURT UNDER FIRE OF DEFENSE, HITS A DR. HARRIS TESTIMONY

A genuine sensation was sprung at the trial of Leo M. Frank Saturday morning when Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, attorneys for the defense, asked the State to consent to a new trial on the ground that Judge Roan had allowed the jury to catch a glimpse of a headline in the first extra of The Georgian.

Judge Roan had laid the paper on the stand in front of him, and, according to the defense, the headline across the first page could be read by the men in the jury box.

The headline said: “State Adding Links to Chain.”

The defense’s lawyers went into immediate conference with the judge, and a few minutes later asked Solicitor Dorsey to consent to a new trial. The Solicitor refused.

Rosser Asks Explanation.

Rosser and Arnold then came into the courtroom and asked that the jury be withdrawn.

Rosser addressed the court:

“Your honor inadvertently displayed a newspaper when you came in just now. One side was turned up with large red letters reading: ‘State Adding Links to Chain.’ Every member of the jury read it. I saw them leaning forward to see it.

“We don’t want to make a motion for a new trial, but we want this jury called back and such explanation made by your honor as will eliminate any harm that might have been done by the jury seeing this paper.”

Solicitor Dorsey Objects.

Dorsey objected to Rosser’s request of Judge Roan.

“I object to your honor making an explanation as to an isolated instance,” said Dorsey. “It is only fair to the State to call that jury back and ask if it had seen any newspaper. It is only fair to the State to tell that jury that this objection of protest was registered by the defense. The jury must have seen newspapers on the streets in going to and from the hotel that had headlines in them eminently unfair to the State’s case. I will ask your honor to explain the matter fully to the jury.”

Judge Roan heatedly said: “Call the jury back and I will tell it what I see fit.”

Attorney Rosser during the Solicitor’s speech spoke in undertones, threatening a mistrial if the prosecution’s request was granted.

Judge Warns Jury.

Judge Roan said to the jury when the tribunal had been returned to the jury box:

“Gentlemen of the jury, this is an important case. You will have to be extremely cautious and extremely careful. You are to try this case from the evidence and from nothing else. It has been suggested that you have been able to se[e] some headlines or some writings in the newspaper which may have influenced you in your judgment on this case. I desire to tell you that you are the ones trying this case, and I desire to warn you again that nothing you see in the newspapers on the streets or in the courtroom should have nay influence upon you either in respect to the case of the State or that of the defense. Let the case proceed.”

The [e]xamination of witnesses proceeded.

The defense rallied sharply Saturday in a vigorous impressive attack on the sensational testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, who declared Friday afternoon that Mary Phagan was killed within a half-hour after she ate dinner April 26, and that she came to her death by strangulation.

From one of the State’s own witnesses, Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, Reuben Arnold obtained the important admission that the time it takes to digest cabbage depends on the individual and that the only way to determine with certainty if strangulation is the cause of death is by an examination of the lungs. He admitted the lungs were not examined.

Attacking the testimony of Dr. Harris, who collapsed while testifying on the stand Friday, Arnold asked the witness if Dr. Harris’ statement that Mary Phagan had come to her death within a half hour of the time she ate her noon meal was not the wildest sort of a guess. Harris had based his conclusions on the fact that the cabbage he had found in her stomach had undergone only the slightest digestion.

“Is it not true that cabbage is one of the hardest foods to digest and that the average time required to digest it is from 3 1-2 to 4 hours?” asked Attorney Arnold.

Dr. Hurt replied that he thought this was so.

No Proof in Cabbage.

Arnold then showed the specimens of cabbage taken from the stomach of the murdered girl, and called attention to the fact that if it had not even been masticated, and that therefore it might have been in her stomach for several hours before she was killed.

Dr. Hurt accompanied this statement by the one, equally vital, that no examination was every made of the murdered girl’s lungs. From this testimony the defense will be able to argue that the State had no substantial foundation for its charge that the girl was strangled to death.

Arnold also forced Dr. Hurt reluctantly to admit that it was impossible for him to state positively either that the blow on the back of Mary Phagan’s head had produced unconsciousness or that, on the other hand, it might not have been the actual cause of her death.

State Adds to Chain.

The State Saturday continued to strengthen the web of circumstantial evidence in which it seeks to enmesh Frank by preparing to introduce additional testimony showing Mary Phagan arrived at the National Pencil Factory at 12:05 or before.

As the case stood Saturday morning, these are the strong links in the State’s case:

Mary Phagan left her home at 11:45, according to her mother, after having eaten some cabbage.

The girl arrived at the factory between 12:05 and 12:10, according to Frank’s own statement before the Coroner’s jury.

Monteen Stover looked into Frank’s office between 12:05 and 12:10 and says he was not there.

Dr. H. F. Harris, Secretary of the State Board of Health, testifies that the condition of the cabbage taken from the girl’s stomach shows conclusively that she died within about half an hour after it was eaten. This would make the time of death about 12:10—a few minutes before or after.

Claims Negro Is Eliminated.

Mrs. Arthur White testifies that when she left the factory at about 1 o’clock a negro, presumably Conley, was sitting on a box on the first floor. This, according to the State, eliminates the negro as the slayer, because, according to its expert evidence, the girl must have been killed some time before that.

The defense’s attack on all this testimony and reasoning was expected to be spirited and bitter, and until it has been made it is impossible to determine how much weight testimony like Dr. Harris’ purporting to fix almost to the minute the time it takes to digest cabbage will have with the jury.

Helen Ferguson, a companion of Mary Phagan and an employee of the […]

CORONER’S PHYSICIAN DAMAGES HARRIS’ EVIDENCE FOR STATE

Dr. Hurt Says That Undigested Cabbage Does Not Prove Time of Death

EXPERT FOUND NO SKULL FRACTURE; SURE GIRL WAS STRANGLED TO DEATH

[…] factory, was the first witness to be called when court resumed Saturday morning. The greatest crowd of the week besieged the courthouse clamoring for admission.

Pay Refused.

Solicitor Dorsey examined Miss Ferguson.

Witness said she was an employee of the factory.

Q. Were you at work at the factory Friday, April 25?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you work that day or just go there?—A. I went to the office about 10 o’clock.

Q. What conversation did you have there?—A. I asked for Mary Phagan’s money and was told that I could not get it. I talked to Mr. Frank.

Q. Did you ever get her pay before?—A. Yes, but not from Mr. Frank.

Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Did you know who paid off?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever get Mary Phagan’s money from Mr. Frank?—A. No.

Q. Did you work in the metal department with Mary?—A. Yes.

Says Frank Wrung Hands.

Attorney Rosser raised an objection to Wagoner on account of his having been in the courtroom for twenty minutes Wednesday. Wagoner stated that he had heard nothing and Judge Roan allowed him to testify.

Q. Where were you Tuesday, April 29?—A. Across the street from the National Pencil Factory.

Q. What did you see?—A. I saw Frank come to the window, wringing his hands and looking down. He did it about a dozen times.

Q. Was he nervous or composed?—A. Nervous.

Q. Were yo in the automobile when he was taken to the police station?—A. Yes.

Q. Was he nervous?—A. Yes. His leg was next to mine. It shook very much.

Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. What were you doing in front of the factory?—A. Watching.

Q. Do you know whether Frank was arrested?—A. He was not.

Q. Could you see whether anyone was in the office with him?—A. No.

Dr. Hurt Called to Stand.

Dr. J. W. Hurt followed Wagoner on the stand.

Q. What is your business?—A. County physician.

Q. How long have you held this position?—A. Since January 1. Four years at another time.

Q. What are your duties?—A. To appear at all inquests.

Q. Where did you graduate?—A. I attended the old College of Physicians and Surgeons and also studied in New York.

Q. Did you see the body of Mary Phagan?—A. Yes; Sunday morning, April 27.

Q. Describe to the jury how she appeared.—A. I went to the undertaking establishment. She had a scalp wound on the left side of the head, about two inches long. The right eye was bruised. There were some broken places on the cheek and forehead, scratches on the right and left elbows and scars on right and left legs just below the knees. There was a cord around her neck. It is my opinion that she died from strangulation.

Q. Was this the cord? (Dorsey displayed a long hemp cord.)—A. Yes, so it appears.

Q. Was there any swelling in the neck?—A. Yes.

Q. What would that indicate?—A. That the cord was put around her neck before death.

Q. What was the appearance of the scalp wound?—A. It appeared to have been made by a blunt instrument from below striking upward.

Looked Like First Bruise.

Q. What about the wound around the eye area?—A. The skin was not broken. It looked like it might have been made with a soft instrument.

Q. Could a fist have done it?—A. Yes, it was quite possible.

Q. What do you think would have been the effect of these blows? Were they sufficient to have caused death?—A. No. I would think the blow on the back of the head would have caused unconsciousness.

Q. Did you find any evidence of assault?—A. I did not discover any evidence of violence. There was some blood, but I could not say whether it was from a wound or not.

Q. What was the nature of the wounds on the elbows and the leg?—A. I would say they were made after death.

Attorney Arnold took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. How did these scratches appear? Could they have been made by the body being dragged by the heels?—A. No. If she were dragged, I should say she was dragged face forward. The scratches ran back as though she was dragged forward.

Cut Two and Half Inches Long.

Q. How long did you say the wound on the scalp was?—A. Let me refer to my notes.

Q. You said it was two and a half inches long and Dr. Harris said it was one and a half inches long. I want to know which is right.

“Two and a half inches,” said Dr. Hurt, after looking at his notes.

Q. Did you measure the wound when Dr. Harris dug up the body nine days later?—A. No.

Q. You are not absolutely certain about this examination?—A. I am not absolutely certain, but judging from the best of my ability.

Q. All expert testimony is guessing more or less, isn’t it? It is just a question as to who can guess the best, isn’t it?—A. I expect you are more familiar with expert testimony than anybody else, aren’t you?

Skull Not Fractured.

Q. You didn’t see any damage on the side of the skull, did you?—A. No, the skull was not fractured.

Q. The brain was not injured?—A. There was some slight trace of concussion on the inside.

Q. You had to be looking for it to see it, didn’t you?—A. No, it could be easily seen.

Q. Did you ever hear of a test to see whether a hemorrhage on the inside would produce unconsciousness?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever hear of such a question or strain on the medical profession as to answer a question like that?—A. No.

Q. Were you ever asked before to examine the inside of a skull to determine whether a person was knocked unconscious?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever hear of a person being killed from a blow on the head and there being no scar on the outside?—A. No.

Q. Have you ever heard of persons living after a fracture having the inner and the outer table trepined and a piece taken out and then living?—A. Yes.

Results Always Uncertain.

Q. You can reduce almost every faculty of the brain without producing death? The sight, the hearing?—A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what faculty of the brain was located where this blow was struck?—A. No, I don’t believe I can.

Q. One thousand different effects could be produced without producing death or unconsciousness?—A. Yes.

Q. What makes you say that one little blow could have produced unconsciousness?—A. I just believe it.

Q. That little hemorrhage was not what enabled you to say that she was knocked unconscious?—A. No. The exterior appearance was on what I based my opinion, but I strengthened it by the extent of the contusion on the inside.

Q. How do you know strangulation killed her?—A. I could find no other cause.

Q. What about the windpipe and the lungs in strangulation?—A. What do you mean?

Q. How do the lungs appear?—A. Congested.

Q. You never examined the lungs?—A. No.

Q. Why do you say strangulation caused her death?—A. Because I found the rope deeply imbedded in the neck.

Not Sure About Assault.

Q. Looking at that girl that morning would you say that she was ravished?—A. I haven’t said so.

Q. Will you say so?—A. I do not know.

Q. You found no external signs of violence?—A. No, but my examination was not final.

Mr. Dorsey objected and was sustained.

Q. There are a great many things to cause a little inflammation?—A. Yes.

Q. Were you present at the first post-mortem examination?—A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Harris took the body a second time, didn’t he?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Dr. Harris is a sort of specialist on post-mortems, isn’t he?—A. I don’t know.

Solicitor Dorsey made a side remark that Mr. Arnold’s cross-examination of the witness was a pedantic parade.

Q. Doctor, it depends on the individual just how soon cabbage is digested, doesn’t it?—A. Yes, some digest it sooner than others.

No Rule for Digesting Cabbage.

Q. Isn’t each man a law unto himself?—A. Yes, more or less.

Q. Cabbage is one of the hardest things of the world to digest, isn’t it?—A. Yes; it is generally regarded as hard.

Q. Doesn’t it take from three to four hours to digest cabbage?—A. Yes; three or four hours to thoroughly digest it.

Q. It depends a great deal on how well it was chewed, and how much saliva flowed down, doesn’t it?—A. Yes. Masticating helps digestion.

Q. Suppose a little girl in a hurry to catch a car hurriedly ate some cabbage and allowed it to go down unchewed. Wouldn’t it take much longer to digest the unchewed part?—A. Yes.

Q. Don’t you think a doctor is making a mighty wild statement to get up here and state that a piece of unchewed cabbage had not been in a stomach—

“I object,” said Dorsey. “That is a question for a jury, and not Dr. Hurt.”

“I thought it was wild,” said Mr. Arnold.

“I object to that,” returned Dorsey.

“I withdraw it,” said Mr. Arnold.

“It was entirely gratuitous and should never have been put in,” said Solicitor Dorsey. The Solicitor was sustained.

Death Stops Digestion.

Q. Does death stop digestion?—A. Yes, sir; I think it does.

Q. When a person becomes unconscious, does digestion stop?—A. I rather think so.

Q. If you ate something and went to sleep, digestion would continue?—A. Yes.

Q. Why, then, does digestion stop when a person is unconscious?—A. It is an unnatural unconsciousness.

Q. Aren’t the gastric juices and blood the only two things that have anything to do with digestion?—A. Yes.

Q. Well, do they die when a person becomes unconscious?—A. No, but the stomach is partially paralyzed.

Q. Didn’t you say it was a wild guess to say how long she was unconscious until the time she died?—A. No, I don’t think I did.

A mass of testimony followed that is unprintable. In the course of it, Dorsey said:

“I object to these comparisons.”

Judge Roan—He has not asked any question that was a comparison.

Arnold—I withdraw the question.

Dorsey—I thought so.

Arnold—Then I won’t withdraw it.

Rosser—Don’t pay any attention to Dorsey, Rube.

Arnold—All right; I withdraw it.

The witness left the stand and was followed by Detective R. L. Waggoner.

The testimony of Dr. Harris came as a startling climax to Friday’s session of the Frank trial. The State had been getting along, only indifferently well up to this point.

Darley Proves Disappointment.

N. V. Darley, associated with Frank in the supervision of the factory’s administration, had given promise of being one of the State’s star witnesses, but he later had proved a disappointment from the prosecution’s viewpoint and under the cross-examination of Reuben Arnold had developed about as good a witness for the defense as the State has called so far.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of one of the employees who was working on the fourth floor of the factory the day of the crime, possibly added a weak link in the chain of circumstantial evidence that the State is welding about Frank, but the most that she could say was that Frank was startled when she entered his office at 12:30—just after the girl had been murdered, according to the State’s theory—and that Frank did not put on his hat and coat to leave as he said he was going to do when he came to the fourth floor at 12:50 to tell the three persons there to go or be locked in.

One piece of her testimony which is expected to play an important part in the later development of the State’s theory was that she saw a negro lounging by the steps as she left a few minutes before 1 o’clock.

Four Others Called.

The other witnesses of the day were Call Officer W. F. Anderson, Stenographer L. F. Parry, Albert McKnight, husband of the servant girl in the home where Frank and his parents lived, and G. C. Febuary, private secretary to Chief of Detectives Lanford.

Anderson told of his efforts to get Frank on the telephone the morning of the tragedy. Under cross-examination, he was led to repudiate in part some of the testimony he had given at the Coroner’s inquest. Before the Coroner he had said that he negro Newt Lee could not have seen the body of Mary Phagan from the point where he declared he stood when he made his grewsome discovery.

Attorney Rosser called his previous testimony to his attention, but the policeman asserted that he was mistaken when he made his first statement and that it now was his opinion that Lee could have seen the body all right.

Parry was called to identify the testimony of Leo Frank before the Coroner’s jury and later by the defense was asked to identify that of Lee and other witnesses and declare if it was a correct statement of what they had said at the preliminary inquiry.

Gets in Frank’s Story.

Solicitor Dorsey called Febuary to get in evidence the first statement that Frank made to the police after he was taken to headquarters. In this statement Frank said that the Phagan girl came to the factory for her money between 12:05 and 12:10, possibly 12:07.

McKnight’s most important testimony was that he had been in the Frank home at 1:30 the afternoon of April 26, and had seen Frank come home and rush away without getting anything to eat. He said that looking into a mirror from his vantage point in the kitchen he had obtained a good view of Frank as he entered the house.

He declared that all Frank did was to go to the sideboard and a moment later leave the house. Frank at the Coroner’s inquest said that when he went home at noon he ate luncheon with his father-in-law and lay down for a few minutes on the lounge. McKnight said he had a good view of the table and that Frank did not sit down.

Darley, after admitting to Solicitor Dorsey that Frank was nervous, pale and trembling the day after the tragedy, added under cross-examination that this condition was nothing unusual for the young factory superintendent. He said that frequently when Frank was excited he ran his hands through his hair and that he had seen Frank a thousand times rub his hands nervously.

He also declared that on two occasions in particular he had witnessed Frank in the same condition he was in Sunday at the factory. One was when Frank saw a street car run down a child, and another when he had an altercation with one of the factory officials.

Darley testified it was nothing unusual for scratch pads like the one found in the basement near Mary Phagan’s body to be discovered in any part of the factory. He said the same of the pay envelopes like the one found by Mary Phagan’s machine. He asserted that the envelopes were scattered on every floor of the factory every pay day. A ripple of merriment was caused when Attorney Arnold, referring to R. P. Barrett and his discoveries of pay envelope, blood spots and strands of hair, designated him as “Christopher Columbus Barrett.”

After a sharp fight between the attorneys, Attorneys Arnold and Rosser succeeded in getting before the jury that other persons as well as Leo Frank were excited and nervous after the tragedy. Judge Roan was inclined at first to sustain the prosecution’s objections, but later decided that testimony of this sort might be admitted in order that the defense might show that these signs of nervousness need not be taken as indications of guilt.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 30^th, 1913

During the two days’ progress of the Frank trial public interest has centered around the case and all eyes seemed turned to it. To date, the interest has really been in watching the struggle between the skilled attorneys who are fighting for position and whose clashes over the preliminary witnesses are merely the skirmishes of the pickets before two mighty armies come together.

Thus far the interest, while to a certain extent centered on the maneuvering, has been mostly of the future tense. Every one is looking forward to what is to come. A fierce skirmish that almost engaged the two sides in real and earnest conflict came over the cross-examination of Newt Lee, and in it the state won. It was rather through the rare character of the negro testifying and his unbreakable spirit that the state won its first skirmish than through the efforts of its lawyers.

Much Depends Upon Conley.

It is the amount of weight to be placed upon James Conley’s affidavit, that if believed would convict Frank and if held false would turn the charge upon the maker, that the public waits.

What will Dr. J. M. Hurt, the coroner’s physician, testify? This is a question that has been frequently asked. Dr. Hurt delivered his testimony only before the executive session of the grand jury, and not a word of his evidence has been made public.

What will become of the Mincey affidavit is something that is puzzling spectators who are closely following the developments from day to day. Mincey’s affidavit, if believed, would hang Conley, as sure as Conley’s would hang Frank, should it be believed.

There are other witnesses who will be produced, it is said, whose names have never been called, and one of these is said to be a physician who will be put upon the stand by the state in an attack upon Frank. While the evidence he will give is not known, it is asserted that his testimony is intended to establish a link in the state’s chain of evidence.

What Defense May Do.

The probability that the defense will introduce no witnesses at all is something that has caused much speculation and many attorneys believe that they will not.

Then there is a strong chance that the defense has a witness whom they are saving and whose testimony will come like a sudden discharge of Maxims upon an advancing army and wither up the state’s attacking forces as they seek to establish their position.

Certain it is that a terrific fight will be made by the defense to batter down the negro Conley’s testimony and that the gruelling under which Newt Lee stood up Tuesday will be nothing to the assaults upon Conley.

Mincey may expect the same treatment from the state and it is known that every effort will be made to attack his testimony and to show him unworthy of belief.

Dr. Hurt’s Testimony.

That one of the great fights to be made by the defense will be upon Dr. Hurt’s testimony is one of the later developments in the case. The public generally does not know what the physician will testify about the condition of the Phagan child’s body and about a score of other details, but it is known that the defense has obtained at least an inkling of its import and is making every preparation to batter it down and to discredit it.

That the big fights will be made upon the statements of Dr. Hurt, W. H. Mincey, the negro Conley, the unknown physician and possible unknown witnesses, does not indicate that each point will not be contested to the very last and that each witness will be strained to the final ounce of his strength before he is ready to leave the stand.

From the fight made on the first two days and the frequent references to the minutes of the coroner’s hearing it appears that the case will last through another week and will be marked by the wonderful amount of detail in it.

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, June 29, 1913

Great Array of Finger-Print and Blood-Stain Students Will Give Their Views.

The trial of Leo M. Frank will bring forth the most prominent array of criminal and medical experts ever grouped in a Southern court room.

This became known Saturday when Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey began making preparations to have the skilled investigators who have worked in the Phagan case return to Atlanta for the trial, July 28.

The defense has not been idle and is prepared to have an expert on almost every conceivable angle to introduce in rebuttal.

Fingerprint experts were brought into the case almost immediately after it was taken from the hands of the police by Solicitor Dorsey. One of the most prominent of these, who has figured in solving many New York mysteries, was the first to be brought South. He spent several days in a minute investigation of the scene of the crime, articles of clothing and the fingerprints of every suspect in the case. Other experts in the same line followed him.

Solicitor Dorsey did not trust wholly to the examination of Dr. Hurt, the Coroner’s physician, who could not qualify as an expert in the Appelbaum trial, but sent with him some of the most prominent of the Atlanta medical men.

Blood Stains Important.

Important roles will be played by the experts on blood stains.

The state’s case rests almost entirely on its ability to prove the blood found on the second floor of the pencil factory was the blood of Mary Phagan. It is conceded the evidence of the negro, Jim Conley, that he found the body on this floor, may be found weak when he goes before a jury.

The blood-stained floor was chipped up and the examination made by the State’s experts. This is an advantage for the prosecution.

Another point on which experts will be asked to testify will be as to the flow of blood after the heart stops beating. Blood was found in two places on the factory floor where Conley said he dropped the body of the murdered girl in carrying it to the basement, and yet there were no stains where she was said to have been first found by him. Experts have testified that blood would not necessarily flow from a wound that produced death, but that if the body was lifted or moved so as to place the wound below the level of the rest of the body blood would flow from it.

Cite Appelbaum Case.

In the recent Appelbaum trial, the defense proved by several local physicians that had Appelbaum shot himself, or been shot, while he was standing, the blood would have spurted several feet from where the body was found, while if the wound was inflicted when he was lying down the flow would have been very nominal.

Many other experts, not a few of them prominent physicians here, and some from the great hospitals of the East, are to testify.

The State has changed its theory in some small detail, but the Solicitor would not discuss it.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 29th 1913, “Many Experts to Take Stand in Frank Trial,” 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

Friday, May 9^th, 1913

Full Story of Hearing Thursday Afternoon When Frank, Newt Lee, Detectives Black and Scott and Several Character Witnesses Were Placed on the Stand

The verdict of the coroner’s jury that Mary Phagan came to her death by strangulation and its recommendation that both Mr. Frank and Lee be held for investigation by the grand jury was rendered at 6:30 o’clock Thursday afternoon and marked by the conclusion of one of the most remarkable inquests ever held in this state.

Deputy Plennis Minor carried the news of the coroner’s jury verdict to Mr. Frank and to the negro. Mr. Frank was in the hallway of the Tower, reading an afternoon paper, when the deputy approached him and told him that the jury had ordered him and the negro held for an investigation by the grand jury.

“Well, it’s no more than I expected at this time,” Mr. Frank told the deputy. Beyond this he made no comment.

Newt Lee, says Mr. Minor, was visibly affected. He seemed very much depressed and hung his head in a dejected manner.

The jury was empaneled by Coroner Paul Donehoo on Monday, April 28, and has held four long and tedious sessions for the taking of testimony in addition to meeting to inspect the body and the scene of the crime. Twice the body of Mary Phagan was exhumed at the order of the coroner, in order that physicians might search more thoroughly for clues and evidence.

The reports of the physicians, who made these examinations, have never been made public, even the evidence of the county physician, Dr. J. W. Hurt, having been given the jury behind closed doors. It is said that even to the jury the physician did not go thoroughly into his investigation. The verdict of the jury was rendered after only twenty minutes of deliberation.

Superintendent Frank and the negro, Lee, were both searchingly examined for the second time by the coroner at Thursday afternoon’s session inquest, but neither added materially to former statements. Lee was principally questioned about the interview, which Mr. Frank had with him in a cell at police headquarters.

EVIDENCE ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

Harry Scott, the Pinkerton operative on the case, gave interesting testimony of his position in the probe of Mary Phagan’s death. Mr. Scott refused to commit himself, when asked if he had definite information as to who killed Mary Phagan. “I am working on a chain of circumstance—that is all,” he said.

City Detective John Black in answering the same question said that he had no “positive” information as to the murderer.

A number of character witnesses were introduced towards the close of the inquest.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 9th 1913, “Here is Testimony of Witnesses Given at the Final Session of Coroner’s Jury in Phagan Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Miss Hattie Hall, Superintendent Leo M. Frank’s stenographer, who testified to-day at the Phagan inquest.

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

Atlanta Georgian

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

Crowd in Small, Smoke-Filled Room Breathlessly Follows the Phagan Slaying Inquiry.

FATHER WEEPS SILENTLY

Jurors, Officials and Detectives Manifest Intense Interest in Replies of Witnesses.

In a small, crowded and smoke-filled room at police  headquarters, Coroner Donehoo on Thursday morning began what it is thought will be the last session of the jury impaneled to inquire into the death of Mary Phagan, strangled to death in the basement of the National Pencil Factory April 26.

The situation was tense and pregnant with possibilities. The fact that the investigation of the case is rapidly drawing to a close, coupled with the admissions of officials that new and important evidence would develop the examination of the witnesses to-day, brought out a large and curious crowd.

At one end of the long table, heaped with notebooks and typewriters, sat Coroner Donehoo, flanked on each side by members of the jury. At the foot of the table sat the newspaper reporters and the official stenographers, four in number. Facing Coroner Donehoo and the jury sat the witness. Ranged along the wall were curious spectators, relatives of the dead girl and friends of the witnesses. Long before the inquest was called every available chair in the room was taken, and late comers ensconced themselves on the window ledges.

Dorsey Takes Active Part.

Prominent among the spectators were the attorneys for Frank, Pinkerton and city detectives and county and State officials. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey sat just behind Coroner Donehoo, and took an active part in the questioning of the witnesses. While Mr. Dorsey asked no questions himself, several times he conferred with the Coroner on the best manner in which to examine the witnesses.

Attorney Luther Rosser also occupied a seat near the Coroner, and took keen interest in the proceedings of the inquest. He did not object to any of the questions asked the witnesses that had bearing on the actions of Leo M. Frank on the day of the murder.

Ranged against the wall behind Coroner Donehoo were Detective John Black, in charge of the city investigating squad; Detective Starnes, and Detective Harry Scott of the Pinkertons. All of the officers paid close attention to the examination of the witnesses. To the left of the Coroner sat Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, who examined the body, and whose testimony is awaited with considerable curiosity.

Father a Pathetic Figure.

J. W. Coleman, father of the dead girl, stood against the wall to the right of Coroner Donehoo, a pathetic figure in his sorrow. Mr. Coleman evinced keen interest in what was transpiring. He kept his eyes fixed constantly on the witness who sat at the foot of the long table, and his eyes filled with tears as the tragic details of the finding of the child’s body were related.

The attitudes of the individual members of the jury showed their realization of the responsibility that rests upon them. Each of the six sat with his arms on the table, paying closest attention to the statements of the witnesses. Most of the questions were asked by the Coroner, but now and then a juror would interrupt to ask the witness to make some point clearer.

The air of tense eagerness with which the jurors awaited the replies of the witnesses was communicated to those whose only interest in the case was the satisfaction of curiosity.

Crowd Tense and Quiet.

The crowd in the room was one of the quietest that has ever attended a session of the inquest. Save for the occasional scratching of a match or the dragging of a chair across the floor, nothing was heard but the voices of the Coroner and the witnesses.

All of the witnesses brought in were subjected to a close examination by Coroner Donehoo, and all bore the ordeal well. “Boots” Rogers, one of the policemen who found the body, was on the stand more than an hour.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 8th 1913, “Inquest Scene is Dramatic in its Tenseness,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, May 7^th, 1913

Detectives Figure Strangling Was a Typical Mediterranean Crime—Solicitor Dorsey Grills Watchman Lee in Effort to Get New Points.

A new and sensational interpretation was given the Phagan mystery Wednesday afternoon when it was revealed that Pinkerton detectives are trailing a Greek now missing who was employed in a restaurant near the National Pencil factory before the crime was committed.

The reasons that the city detectives give for the adoption of the new theory are:

The slaying of Mary Phagan was not a negro crime, as the only negro who has been suspected in the case, Newt Lee, would have fled from the scene.

The notes which were left with the evident intention of diverting suspicion from the actual criminal were too subtle for Lee to have framed.

Strangulation, the method by which Mary Phagan was killed, is not a negro method of killing.

But this method is typical of the Mediterranean countries.

Working along these new lines, the detectives are of the opinion that the crime was not committed inside the National Pencil Factory. They believe that the girl was attacked outside the factory and that her body was taken inside with the intention of hiding it ultimately in the furnace, although the body never reached there.

Girls Eat at Near-by Café.

It is not the supposition that it was the intention to burn it, as there were no fires under the boilers. The assailant only wanted to hide the body so that he might have time to make his escape.

Girls employed in the pencil factory are in the habit of getting many of their midday lunches at a little Greek restaurant near the factory building. It was the most natural thing to suppose that Mary Phagan, after getting her money Saturday afternoon, stopped in at the restaurant to get something to eat.

One of the important developments in the search for the slayer of Mary Phagan came Wednesday afternoon in the surprising information that the authorities ordered a second exhumation of the body to confirm the statement of an expert physician that the crime, which was taken for granted by all to have preceded the actual killing of the girl, was not accomplished.

One physician whose opinion has great weight in medical circles and who made a minute examination of the body, declared that he virtually was certain that the girl had not been outraged before she was killed and left in the basement of the National Pencil Factory.

Dr. J. W. Hurt, county physician, is understood to have said that he was not at all satisfied on this point.

The man under suspicion is said to have been employed at the restaurant. It is believed that Mary and the man became involved in a quarrel. The man was in love with Mary, the police argue, and in a rage of jealousy slew the girl, the killing probably taking place in an alleyway near the factory.

Took Body in Rear Door.

The theory holds that the man then gained entrance to the factory by the front door, went into the basement and forced the staple of the back door out. Then he went for the body of the girl, returning with it by the rear way.

Newt Lee’s testimony differed materially with that of the police in regard to the finding of the body. Lee said that he found it lying face up on the basement floor. The police declared that it was lying face downward, with the arms folded underneath.

This discrepancy is believed to be explained by the theory that as late as the hour of discovery the criminal was making efforts to hide the evidence of the crime and that he was interrupted when the alarm was given.

The police believe that the Greek still was in the basement when Lee made his gruesome discovery and that he was the one who disturbed the

NEW AND STARTLING TURN IN PHAGAN SLAYING MYSTERY

Continued From Page 1.

Position of the body before he made his escape out the rear door.

Trailed to Anniston.

The Pinnertons [sic] have trailed the Greek into Alabama and he is believed to be in Anniston, from where news of his arrest is expected hourly.

The detectives say that the new theory explains away all of the discrepancies which hitherto have puzzled those working on the case, except those of the hair found on one of the lathing machines on the second floor, where the struggle was supposed to have taken place. They are of the opinion, however, that too much weight may have been attached to these bits of evidence, and that the hair may have been that of some other girl and that the stains on the floor may not have been bloodstains.

It became evident that the State had taken up the trail of the Greek when Solicitor Dorsey, a Greek interpreter and a man said to be a Burns detective started out in an automobile Wednesday afternoon to gather evidence. The Solicitor would say nothing of the object of his trip, but in view of the most recent developments it immediately was surmised that the Solicitor had interested himself in the new phase of the case and was following down the clews on his own account.

The circumstances of the murder were such as to leave the killing without any understandable motive if this presupposed crime was not accomplished. For this reason the reports of the outrage were accepted by everyone as true, and the authorities themselves have been working on this theory.

Solicitor Would Clear Uncertainty.

If the examination on the second exhumation proves the contention of the expert physician, the detectives will have difficulty in fixing a motive for the murder.

Solicitor General Dorsey ordered that the body be exhumed a second time so that the opinion of the expert physician might be either positively established or disproved beyond a doubt. The conflicting theories which have arisen since the body was exhumed last Monday have cast a shadow of uncertainty over the investigation that the Solicitor was desirous of dispelling at once and for good.

The order for the second exhumation was given by Solicitor Dorsey, but it had not been made up to 2 o’clock on Wednesday.

Coroner Donehoo admitted that Dorsey’s order had been given, but said it had not been carried out. He would make no further statement.

The report published in an early edition of The Georgian that the body had been exhumed was made on statements by officials, and that it was for the purpose of making a microscopic examination of every wound on the body for finger prints and other clews.

It is undoubtedly the intention of the authorities to exhume the body again.

Dorsey Maintains Silence.

Very properly Solicitor Dorsey is not making public every move that the prosecution is engaged in, nor is he giving to the public such evidence as he is enabled to obtain.

It would seem probably that the exhumation will be made, if not on Wednesday, at least some other day soon; for the belief is growing that there still may be some clews that are worthy of further examination.

Parents Object to Exhumation.

Solicitor Dorsey instructed Coroner Donehoo to secure the permission of the girl’s parents before ordering the exhumation of the body, and Coroner Donehoo said Wednesday afternoon that the father of the dead girl, J. W. Coleman, was very much excited over the reports that the body had been exhumed Wednesday morning. The Coroner called on Mr. Coleman and assured him that the body had not been taken from its grave in Marietta.

Though none of the officials would make a statement to that effect, it is probable that the opposition which developed from the girl’s parents has caused the officials to abandon their plans to exhume the body, for the present, at least.

It was reported that the finger prints on the body were to be photographed and compared with the finger prints of persons under suspicion; which may, or may not have any basis in facts and might, or might not be of value. After the remains were discovered in the factory basement they were handled by several p[e]rsons—embalmers and others—and whether there are any finger prints now on the body is problematic.

It is said that a complete chart will be prepared by medical experts to be used at the trial, showing every wound and mark.

Notwithstanding these speculations as to the purpose of the exhumation, Solicitor Dorsey declared Wednesday forenoon that it was not for the purpose of obtaining a record of the fingerprints. One of the principal reasons for the action, he said, was to get a strand of the girl’s hair in order to compare it with the hair found on the lathing machine in the tipping department at the factory. It was at this point that the detectives discovered blood spots on the floor and other evidences of a struggle.

“I cannot talk in regard to the matter,” he said. “The body was exhumed, it is true, at my request. But to reveal further plans would be hurtful.”

Thinks She Didn’t Leave Factory.

The Solicitor is in entire accord with the theory that Mary Phagan never left the factory after she received her pay Saturday noon. He declared that if any search was being made for the man seen with a girl Saturday, April 26, by attaches of the Terminal Station, it was not being conducted under his direction.

The results of the chemical analysis in the laboratory of Dr. Harris in the State Capitol have not yet been made public. Dr. Harris would not admit Wednesday that traces of drugs had been found, bearing out the belief that the girl was drugged and rendered helpless before she was slain in the factory.

All of the remaining evidence in the case will be presented when the Coroner’s inquest resumes Thursday morning at 9:30 o’clock.

It is the purpose of Coroner Donehoo to limit testimony to the points that are regarded as essential, so that the hearing may be concluded by Thursday night.

Have Two Hundred Names.

The Coroner and the Solicitor General have the names of about 200 persons on whom they may call for testimony. These include girls and women employed at the pencil factory. It is unlikely, however, that more than a few of the girls will be placed on the witness stand, but will be held in readiness to testify as was the case last Monday afternoon when the roll-call room was filled with witnesses.

So far as the line of testimony can be anticipated from the information given out by the authorities, the most important will come from the physicians and chemists who have been at work on the mystery under the direction of Coroner Donehoo and Solicitor Dorsey.

Dr. H. F. Harris, director of the State Board of Health, will submit a report on his chemical analysis of the contents of Mary Phagan’s stomach. Dr. Harris also made a careful examination of the wounds and bruises on the body and will report on this to the jury.

Dr. J. W. Hurt, county physician, made the first examination of the girl’s body after it was found in the basement of the factory. He also was present when it was exhumed from its little grave in the Marietta cemetery and another examination made at the order of Solicitor General Dorsey. He will present the results of his observations to the jury some time during the hearing Thursday.

Dr. Smith to Be Quizzed.

Dr. Claude A. Smith, City Bacteriologist, has made a chemical examination of the bloodstains on a shirt found at Newt Lee’s home and of the pieces of wood chipped from the factory floor where the stains of blood were discovered, and will be questioned by Coroner Donehoo.

The recalling of Newt Lee also is regarded as an indication that the authorities expect the night watchman to tell something which he forgot or concealed in his previous examination.

The factory girls will tell of their acquaintance with Mary Phagan, of her companions and habits and of the conditions under which they have to work at the factory, so far as they have any relation to the mystery.

Bowen Released in Houston.

Accompanying mystifying new features of the hunt for the slayer was the news that Paul P. Bowen, held in Houston for the Atlanta authorities, had been released and relieved of all suspicion.

Bowen was employed with the Morrow Transfer Company in Atlanta as stenographer and shipping clerk, and later with the Southern Railway. He had many friends here and with them bore a good reputation.

His father and other relatives live in Newnan, Ga., and are among the best people of that part of the State. Chief of Police Davison, of Houston, was angered that his detective chief should have exceeded his authority in arresting Bowen, and promptly discharged him from authority.

By letters Bowen wrote from Texas and statements of friends it was proved conclusively that he could not have been connected with the Atlanta mystery and he was accordingly freed.

Dr. Claude A. Smith, city bacteriologist, said Wednesday that he was hurrying the examination of the blood stains on Newt Lee’s shirt and probably would submit a report to Coroner Donehoo late in the afternoon.

The shirt was found by detectives in a barrel in Lee’s home when a search was made a few days after the killing of the Phagan girl.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 7th 1913, “Employe of Lunch Stand Near Pencil Factory is Trailed to Alabama,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)