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

Atlanta Constitution
August 9^th, 1913

E. F. Holloway, watchman and timekeeper at the pencil factory, whose testimony Solicitor Dorsey riddled on cross-examination, followed General Manager Darley to the stand.

He gave his answers rapidly, making them frequently even before Attorney Arnold had finished propounding his questions. He is a man who looks older than 60, with cold gray eyes and thin lips.

His general appearance causes the lover of Dickens to think that the aged witness had stepped from one of that author’s novels. He became confused upon the cross-fire of the solicitor, and perspired profusely.

Same Rule for All.

He was examined directly by Mr. Arnold.

“Was it a habit of Jim Conley to register as he pleased?”
“No”

“You applied the same rule to him as you applied to all of the help?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever see Frank pinch him or touch him?”
“Never saw Mr. Frank even touch him.”

“Do you recall a Saturday that you missed since you have been employed with the pencil company?”
“Not a one.”

“Who would relieve you before Lee went to work on Saturday afternoons?”
“Kendrick, the nightwatchman.”

“At what time?”
“Four o’clock.”

“Where did you stay on Saturdays?”
“All over the building.”

“Did you ever see any women in Frank’s office?”
“None except his wife.”

“Did you, on any Saturday of this or any other year, see Conley watching the front door?”
“No.”

“Could you have failed to see him if he had watched?”
“No, I think not.”

Could Have Seen Women.

“If Frank had had any women in his office couldn’t you have seen them?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever see Frank bring any women into his office for himself or for Schiff?”
“No.”

“Did you know that anybody was practicing immorality in the building?”
“No.”

“Did you know Daisy Hopkins?”

“Yes.”

“Has she ever been to the factory since she quit?”
“No.”

“On Thanksgiving day, while there was snow on the ground, did you see a woman with white stockings and white shoes come into the building?”
“No, nor women with any other kind of shoes or stockings.”

“Those men who stayed during the holidays to work on the machinery upstairs, had to be there at such times in order to get at the machinery while it wasn’t working, didn’t they?”
“Yes.”

“It’s very dark near the elevator shaft on the first floor, isn’t it?”
“Yes.”

Could Throw Girl Down.

“Could a man waiting near the shaft take hold of a girl and throw her down the shaft with ease?”
“Yes.”

“Did you observe anything about Conley the week following the murder?”
“Yes; he left his work and stayed around where the detectives and newspaper reporters were searching for clues.”

“What caused his arrest?”
“I caught him washing his shirt.”
“Did you walk from Broad street down Hunter to Forsyth and up Forsyth to the pencil factory on a test?”
“Yes.”

“When?”
“This morning.”
“How long did it take you?”
“Two and a half minutes.”

“Did you walk from the bridge on Forsyth street to the pencil factory?”
“Yes.”

“How long did it take?”
“Six minutes.”

Saw Frank in Jail.

Here the solicitor began the cross-examination.

“How many times have you been to see Frank in the jail?”
“Only once.”
“Do you remember talking to Kendrick, the old night watchman?”
“Yes.”

“Do you remember asking him if he would swear Frank had called him over the telephone of nights after Frank had gone home?”

“No; I did not.”

“Now, the time the detective named Whitfield was there searching the factory, didn’t you tell him to come back tomorrow and he would find something, and he came back tomorrow to find the bloody club?”
“No, sir, I did not.”

“Do you know Daisy Hopkins and her general character?”
“Yes.”

“Was it good or bad.”
“So far as I know, it was good.”

“Do you deny this affidavit you made to me and to which you signed your name and in which you said nothing could be depended on what Daisy Hopkins said?”
“No.”
“Didn’t you tell me that Mr. Frank and Mr. Darley went out of the factory together on the morning of the 26^th at 10:45?”

Admits He Was Guessing.

“I can’t recollect that I did.”

“Well, let’s refresh your memory.”

Dorsey showed the witness the affidavit.

“Well,” answered Holloway, “it was all guesswork, anyway.”

“You don’t deny saying it?”
“No.”

“Wasn’t your memory better three months ago than it now is?”

“I can’t say it was.”
“What did you say about getting the reward for Conley?”
“I told Detective Black that if Conley was guilty he was ‘my nigger.’”

“Did you tell Mr. Arnold that you left the factory every day about 5:30 o’clock?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t you tell me you left sometimes at 3 o’clock?”
“If I said 3, I meant 4.”

“What did you mean by 4:30?”

“I never said 4:30.”
“How much time did Conley put in before April 26?”
“Two years.”

Jim Conley’s Number.

“What was Jim Conley’s number on the punch clock?”
“I don’t know.”

“Wasn’t it 71?”
“No.”

“Are you sure about that?”
“Not exactly.”

“Then, why did you say it wasn’t?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Look at this slip and see how well it is registered?”
“I haven’t got my glasses.

“Very well, then.”

“Did Conley work regularly for sixty days preceding the murder?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t he punch the clock accurately every day?”
“He did every morning.”

“On Monday morning you say the door was open in the Clark Woodenware company?”
“Yes.”

“Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that it was obstructed by a huge pile of boxes?”
“There were only four or five cases, but you could see the door.”

“Was that before Mr. Darley nailed the door?”

Nailed the Door.

An objection was interposed to this question, in which Mr. Arnold argued that Darley could have instructed the witness himself to nail the door.

“Mr. Darley told me to get a hammer and nail the door,” said the witness.

“Why?”
“Because nobody wanted that door open.”

“Do you know that it was open Saturday?”
“It wasn’t open Saturday.”

“Are you absolutely sure it was open Saturday?”
“I am.”

“What about the chute on the first floor?”
“They were nailed up.”

“Weren’t they open, though?”
“No.”

“You don’t claim to be an expert in women’s dress, do you Mr. Holloway?”
“No.”

Objection Is Sustained.

“You don’t know whether or not a “fancy lady” would wear white uppers to her shoes in November?”
An objection by Mr. Arnold was sustained.

“Don’t you know that frequently on Monday morning you would find empty beer bottles in the office?”
(Pause.)

“What time?” queried the witness.

“Any time?”
“No, there never were but two bottles found in the whole plant.”

“Why, then, did you ask me ‘what time’ just now?”
“I wanted to know whatever time you meant.”

“Was that negro drayman there Saturday—you said so awhile ago, didn’t you?”
“If I said he was there, he was. If I said he wasn’t there, he wasn’t.”

“Which was the truth?”
“I won’t say.”

The collector insisted upon the judge requiring an answer of the witness. Judge Roan ordered Holloway to answer the solicitor’s question.

“I don’t remember,” he replied.

“Then, why did you say he was there?”
“I don’t know.”

Nothing in Particular.

“Now, tell the jury what Jim Conley did that was unlike the other workmen of the place on Monday?”
“I can’t say there was anything in particular.”

“You do not know whether the street car clock and the pencil factory clock corresponded, do you?”
“No.”

Direct examination was again taken up by Mr. Arnold.

“How many men asked you questions when you were in Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”
“Three or four—somewhere along there.”

“You formed the opinion, didn’t you, that Daisy Hopkins wasn’t a nice girl?”
“I never formed my opinion.”

Holloway was called from the stand and court was over for the day.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 9th 1913, “Holloway, Witness for Defense, Riddled by Cross-Examination,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 9^th, 1913

Eleven Witnesses Are Introduced Friday to Prove Discrepancies in Time Given by Witnesses for the State. Miss Daisy Hopkins Goes on Stand and Swears That She Never Visited Factory With Dalton, But on Cross-Examination She Admitted Having Been in Jail Recently—She Denied That She Knew Frank.

HOLLOWAY’S TESTIMONY RIDDLED BY SOLICITOR; MEMORY FORSAKES HIM

Confesses That He Had Told Detectives the Day That He Caused the Arrest of Conley That “If He’s Convicted, Remember He’s My Nigger”—From Present Indications the Trial Will Be Continued for Two Weeks Longer, and Defense Will Introduce Character Witnesses.

The defense in the Leo M. Frank trial introduced eleven witnesses Friday and a mass of testimony to prove that witnesses for the state were incorrect as to time was presented.

From questions put to Ira Kauffman, civil engineer, who made a drawing of the building, it was evident the defense will seek to show that the body of Mary Phagan was never taken down on the elevator, but was thrown down a chute in the rear of the building leading from the first floor to the basement.

Blood Spots Found.

It is stated that the defense has found blood stains on the floor of the dark passageway leading up the rear of the building.

It is the purpose of the defense to show that the girl could have been killed on the first floor of the building without Frank knowing anything about it.

A large model of the building, made from blue prints, was brought into the court room, and witnesses were asked to point out just how it would have been possible for the crime to have been committed on this floor and the body buried down the chute.

Frank Hooper, who is assisting Solicitor Dorsey for the state, asked T. H. Willett, the maker of the model, a number of questions, the purpose of which was to show that the model was imperfectly made.

Daisy Hopkins, the young woman C. B. Dalton testified went to the pencil factory with him for immoral purposes, was placed on the stand early in the day. She denied having gone to the factory with Dalton. On cross-examination she admitted having been in jail recently. She was questioned as to the ailment for which she was under the care of a doctor. She denied she knew Frank.

Testimony was introduced by W. M. Matthews, a motorman, and W. T. Hollis, a conductor on the car on which Mary Phagan rode to town the day building. He also pointed out various of her death, to disprove the statement of the Epps boy that he had accompanied the Phagan girl to town, and to show that the car reached the city later than Epps had testified.

Matthews stated Mary Phagan did not leave the car at Marietta street, but got off at Hunter and Broad streets in company with a girl. Hollis stated he did not see her with a girl, but coincided with Matthews as to time.

The purpose of this testimony is to show that the evidence of the Stover girl is of little value—that Mary Phagan reached the factory later than the state claims.

Harry Scott was recalled by Solicitor Dorsey. He explained that when Conley wrote the first note, at his dictation, it to[o]k him some seven minutes, but when he discovered he could write and was not attempting to conceal anything it took him a much shorter time.

N. V. Darley was recalled by the defense. He told of the general condition of the factory floor and of the frequent finding of blood spots in the parts of the building on the model. He stated he left the factory at 9 o’clock Memorial day. Conley contends he left at 11 o’clock.

Holloway Gets Muddled.

E. F. Holloway, who was used by the state last week, was placed on the stand by the defense. On the direct examination by Mr. Arnold he answered questions with a cock-sure tone of voice, which promised he would prove a valuable witness for the defense. On the cross-examination by Solicitor Dorsey he got hopelessly mixed up and his memory forsook him. He made a number of contradictory statements and the state managed to tear down a good deal of his testimony, which promised well for the defense.

Solicitor Dorsey asked him the direct question if he had not had a conversation with Kendrick, a former night watchman, regarding the times Frank had called up at night, stating to Kendrick that no one would know anything of the conversation. Holloway denied this.

He also denied having stated to a man named Whitfield that something (meaning a club) would be found in factory.

He said Daisy Hopkins was a nice girl, so far as he knew, and he got mixed up when Solictor Dorsey showed him a statement he had signed to the opposite effect.

He finally confessed he did not know when Darley had left the factory—after stating it was 9:30 o’clock and 10:45 o’clock. It was all guesswork, he said. At another time he confessed that if he “had said 3 o’clock he meant 4 o’clock.”

He was asked if he had ever seen any beer bottles taken out of Frank’s office.

“What time?” he asked.

Later he denied having seen any.

He didn’t seem to remember what he had previously said about a drayman being at the building, and finally said:

“Well, if I said he was there, he was, and if I said he wasn’t, he was not!”

Holloway confessed that he had told the detectives the day he had turned up Conley that, “if he’s convicted, remember he’s my nigger.”

From present indications the trial will last two weeks longer, and it looks as if character witnesses will be introduced by the defense.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 9th 1913, “Defense Will Seek to Show That Mary Phagan’s Body was Tossed a Chute in Rear of Pencil Factory and Not Taken Down by Elevator as the State Insists,” 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 9^th, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Fiercely Attacks Evidence Given by the Witness For Defense Afternoon Session

He Also Implies That Watchman Was Trying to Fix Crime on Conley to Get Reward. Holloway Admits Signing Statement Produced by the Prosecutor—Other Witnesses for Defense Heard

After Solicitor Dorsey riddled E. F. Holloway, day watchman at the National Pencil factory, with volleys of questions regarding former statements made by the witness and which he could not explain or make coincide with his testimony Friday afternoon, court adjourned at 6:45 o’clock until 9 o’clock Saturday.

The solicitor also trapped the watchman and the witness for the defense. The solicitor also made the sensational implication that the bloody stick found by Pinkertons in the factory was planted by Holloway himself. The solicitor further implied that Holloway was working for a reward and had turned up Conley for that purpose.

After Holloway had declared that Daisy Hopkins’ character was good as far as he knew, the solicitor asked him about a paper he had signed previously stating the contrary. He admitted that he signed the paper. The solicitor asked the witness if he hadn’t told the detectives to return to the factory on a certain day and he was sure they would find something. The witness denied this.

Deputy sheriffs Friday afternoon searched Atlanta for George Epps, the little “newsie” who testified at the trial of Leo M. Frank that he rode to the city on the same car with Mary Phagan on the day she met her death in the National Pencil factory. The “newsie” was called Friday morning, but was not in court and deputies were sent out for him then.

When the afternoon session began Attorney Arnold again called her Epps, but he did not answer and Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor told the court that search for him at his home in Bellwood Friday had been futile, but that his family had promised to send him to court as soon as he came in.

An attachment was then issued for the “newsie” and officers are looking for him where he is accustomed to sell his “wuxtras.” The defense offered testimony by two street railway employes who manned the car upon which Mary Phagan rode into the city from Lindsay street on April 26, during the morning session, to refute the Epps boy’s testimony that he was on the car, and it is expected that the little fellow will receive a severe grilling when he again takes the stand at the trial.

When court reconvened at 2 o’clock, Attorney Arnold called for George Epps. He was not in court and could not be located around the court house. Attorney Arnold addressed the court.

“Your honor, we would like to have him here,” said he.

Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor explained that an officer had been sent to his home in Bellwood Friday morning and that he couldn’t be found there, but [1 word illegible] members of his family had promised to send him to court as soon as he returned. An attachment was issued for the newsboy, and a deputy [1 word illegible] went out to search for him. [several paragraphs illegible]

“Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant?” Attorney Arnold asked.

“Yes.”

“Did you see him on Memorial day, April 26?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”
“Opposite the main entrance of the state capitol on Washington street.”
“Where was Frank?”
“He was on a street car. I can’t say positively whether or not it was a Washington street trolley, though.”
“Do you recollect who was with him?”
“No.”

“What time was it when you saw him?”
“It was between 2 and 2:15 o’clock in the afternoon.”

“How do you know?”
“Well, I left home between 1 and 1:30 o’clock with my wife and her mother.” The witness described the [1 word illegible] they took through town, concluding at the state capitol, and he was passing along the Washington street [several words illegible] with them to get a position where they could see the Memorial day parade.

“How did you happen to see Frank?”
“He was driving my car along the street, and the street car passed me, and I looked up and saw Frank in the car.”

“Have you gone through these maneuvers since to time yourself?”

“Yes.” Mr. Hinchey gave the time it had required on three different occasions, each time arriving at the capitol between 2 and 2:11 o’clock.

“How did you happen to remember seeing Frank?”
“When I read the papers next day the matter was impressed on my memory.”
Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“How many times did you say you saw Frank that day?”
“Only once, in the street car in front of the capitol.”

“Did you say the crowds were congested around, and you were busy guiding your car among the people and the traffic?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You had about all you could say [1 word illegible] over in managing that steering wheel, didn’t you?”
“I claim to be an expert driver.”

“Was there anything special about Frank to attract your attention on that occasion?”

HOW HE REMEMBERED.

“Nothing except I had had in my mind some work which I expected to talk over with him at the factory, and when I saw him I recalled that.”

“You don’t recall any other persons you saw or recognized there?”
“No, sir.”

“Nobody else attracted your attention?”
“No, sir.”

“How many people do you know on that side of town?”
“I know a good many. I know people all over town.”

“Nobody else in that crowd attracted your attention?”
“No, sir.”

“How many times have you been to the jail to visit Frank?”
“Only once.”

“Did you discuss this matter with him at that time?”
“Not in detail. I expressed my sympathy and——“

“What I mean is, you mentioned to him that you saw him that day?”
“Oh, yes.”

“You were just telling him that you saw him. You didn’t know whether it would be worth anything to him or not?”
“No, sir.”

“That’s why you went to the jail, wasn’t it?”
“No, sir.”

“Was it before or after the coroner’s inquest that you called on Frank?”

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

“A long time after the inquest.”

“You had heard that there was some question as to where he was at that [1 word illegible], hadn’t you?”
“There was no question in my mind, for I saw him.”

“Who was the first person you told about having seen Frank, before you told him?”
“I don’t know. I told several people.”

“Why did you try out that experiment of movements on that to ascertain the time you arrived at Washington street?”
“I did it after I learned that I was going to be called as a witness.”

“Did you find out you were going to be called as a witness before or after you went to the jail to see Frank?”
“Before.”

“When you found out you were going to be called as a witness, then you went down to talk it over with Frank?”
“No, sir.”

“Well, why did you go to the jail to see him?”

KNOWN HIM FIVE YEARS.

“I had known him for about five years, and I knew I was going to be a witness.”

“How did you come to be a witness in this case?”
“I was asked by my attorney if I wouldn’t be a witness.”

“Mr. Leonard Haas.”

“Is Mr. Leonard Haas one of Frank’s attorneys?”
“I don’t know.”

“Well, now what do you say was your purpose in going to the jail to see Frank?”
“I was interested in Mr. Frank because he was implicated in this case. We’ve never been personal friends. Just business acquaintances.”

“Have you ever been a witness before?”
“Once, several years ago, in Columbus, Ga.”

“Did you talk it over with the party interested or implicated?”
“Yes, but that was not a murder case.”

“Did you discuss with Frank what your testimony was going to be?”
“No, sir, I told him I saw him on the car, and asked him if he saw me. He said he had not.”

The cardboard model of the basement, ground floor and second floor of the National Pencil factory was brought into court when Mr. Hinsey was excused. The model measures six and one-fourth feet long. H. T. Willett, a pattern maker of 100 Highland avenue, who constructed the model, took the stand.

He made the model faithfully after a blue print furnished to him, he said. The scale of blue print was one-eighth inch to a foot, and he made the model three-eights to the foot. He admitted that he had made none of the measurements himself. The direct examination was brief.

Attorney Hooper directed the cross-examination.

Attorney Hooper developed that the witness had not put in two windows on the office floor himself; that he had not pretended to get the heights, merely making what was termed a ground plan model. The witness further admitted that several holes representing doors, trap-doors, etc., were not in proportion.

The witness talked in such a low voice that the court repeatedly asked him to speak louder. While admitting these mistakes, he declared that generally, he had done everything in his power to follow faithfully the dimensions given in the blue print.

Several times Attorney Arnold objected to Mr. Hooper’s questions. Mr. Arnold did not rise to object, and at each objection Mr. Hooper reached over and patted him on the head, telling him playfully to keep quiet.

The witness was excused, and N. V. Darley, general foreman of the National Pencil factory, was recalled to the witness stand, this time as a witness for the defense.

Questioned by Attorney Arnold, Mr. Darley said that he is general manager of the Forsyth street factory of the National Pencil company.

“You’ve seen this model, haven’t you?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you see it in my office once?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“No, I didn’t se[e] it there.”

“You are familiar with the ground plans of the different floors of the factory, aren’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Come down from the chair and look at this model and tell me if it is a good representation of the basement and first and second floors of the factory?”

GOOD MODEL SAYS DARLEY.

The witness examined it, and answered that it was such.

As Attorney Arnold indicated various objects in the model, Darley described them. Attorney Arnold questioned him particularly about the chute at the rear of the building.

“How big is that chute, Mr. Darley? Is it big enough for a body to go through?”
“Yes.”

Darley then pointed out the spot where Mary Phagan’s body was found. Several of the jurors stood up and looked closely when he indicated that Attorney Arnold pointed to the spot designated as a door leading into the part of the first floor that once was used by the Clark Woodenware company.

“Has this door been kept locked, Mr. Darley?”
“We kept it locked after the Clark Woodenware company moved out, about the first of the year, until after the murder. One day I discovered that it was broken open.”

DOOR BROKEN AFTER MURDER.

“How long after the murder was it you discovered this door open, Mr. Darley?”
“I don’t remember. I know that I had it nailed up though, when I found it open, and it’s been nailed up ever since.”

In answer to other questions. Darley said that the trap door over the stairway at the rear of the basement, and the trap door over the chute, were neither locked nor nailed down so far as he knew.

“Sitting at Frank’s desk in the inner office, what view does one have of the second floor?”
“Well, he can see as far back as the middle of the first clock. I sat there and I could see just about one-half of its face.”

“Suppose the safe door is open in the outer office. Where would one have to stand to see the interior of Frank’s office?”
“Almost in the door.”

“Could one see standing further away see over the door?”
“I can see over it by standing on my tiptoes.”

“Have you ever seen Monteen Stover?”
“I saw her down here one day.”
“Would you say that she could see over the door?”
“I don’t think she could.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness to explain the route that one would have to take from Frank’s inner office to the metal room.

Using a ruler, Darley traced on the model the route one would have to take.

DOUBLE DOOR UNLOCKED.

“This double door between the metal department and the main part of the factory—was it kept locked or unlocked?”
“Unlocked. There was no way of locking them.”
“Was there any way, if two people went on the inside, to lock the doors from the inside?”
“None.”

“State whether there is a cot, lounge, sofa or bed, or anything of that character, in the whole factory building.”

“When the detectives came, I went with them into the woodenware company’s part of the basement, and I saw some old boxes covered over with some bags.”

“That was as foul and filthy a thing as a human being ever rested upon was it not?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. It was a leading question, said he. Attorney Arnold amended his question.

“The conditions there were boggy and dirty,” answered the witness.

“Dirtier than a hog pen, wasn’t it?”
“It was very dirty.”
“What sort of boxes were they?”
“Some old shipping boxes.”

“What kind of sacks?”
“Crocus and corn sacks.”

NO OTHER LOUNGE.

“And you say it was filthy?”
“Yes, sir, it was very nasty and dirty.”
“Outside of these boxes and bags, there was no lounge, cot, bed or sofa anywhere in that factory building?”
“No, sir.”

“Was there anything of that kind in the metal room?”
“No, sir.”

“Was there any chair in the metal room?”
“I never saw one there.”

“Anything except the machinery and stock?”
“No, sir.”

“In the ladies’ closet or dressing room, was there any bed?”
“No, sir, just a small cloak closet.”

“You saw the place where Conley says he found the body?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where was it?”
The witness indicated a spot in the areaway leading from the metal room toward the toilets, on the second floor.

“Where is the lathe that they say they found the hair on?”
“Across the room over on the north side of the factory.”

NEVER SAW BLOOD.

“You never saw any blood under that machine?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you look for any?”
“Yes, sir, I looked it over 50 or 100 times, I guess.”

“Did you see any blood where Conley says the body lay when he first saw it?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you look for blood?”
“Yes, sir, a great many times.”

At the suggestion of Attorney Arnold, the witness indicated a point where Mary Phagan’s machine stood in the metal room.

Mr. Arnold indicated a door at the back of the second floor, and asked if there was not a stairway leading to the third and fourth floors. The witness answered yes.

“Then you can get the into metal room either from the front or from the back by coming down those stairs?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you say that those double doors leading into the metal room from the main part of the factory could be bolted from the outside?”
“Yes, but not from the inside.”

“That door leading to the back stairs in the metal room—is it ever unlocked?”
“Yes, sir, it’s never locked during working hours. Sometimes they are left unlocked when the factory is closed, but they are supposed to be locked then.”

“Isn’t this model in the main a fair idea of the basement, ground floor, and second floor, with location of offices, machinery, etc.?”
“It is a very good idea.”

“Where are the cotton sacks located?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

Mr. Arnold requested the witness to resume the stand. He had been standing beside the model.

“What sort of a day was April 26?”
“It was a holiday.”
“That isn’t what I mean. What kind of weather obtained on that day?”

CLOUDY ON DAY OF CRIME.

“It was raining early in the morning.”
“Well, was it cloudy or not all day?”
“Yes, sir, very cloudy.”
“Was the ground floor darker that morning than usual?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Do the windows in this partition along side the entrance afford any light around the elevator?”
“Yes, sir, some but not much.”

“Standing on the outside, looking through the window at this glass partition, can you see the elevator?”

“No sir, to do that you would have to come in the front door and go close to the elevator, on account of the darkness.”

“What time did you leave the factory on that Saturday morning?”
“About 9:40.”

“If Conley says he saw you leave after 11 o’clock that morning, is it true or not true?”
“It is not true.”

“If he says you came downstairs a minute or two before Mr. Holloway between 10:30 and 11 o’clock, is that true or not true?”
“It is not true.”
Attorney Hooper objected to the manner of Mr. Arnold’s questioning the witness, declaring that he was endeavoring to have this witness pass upon the credibility of another witness and that the supreme court has ruled that this is incompetent.

LEFT WITH FRANK.

“I will frame my questions differently,” said Mr. Arnold. “With whom did you leave the factory?” addressing the witness.

“With Mr. Frank.”

“Which way did you go?”
“I went to a moving picture show on Peachtree street and he went toward Montag’s.”
“Did you see the negro Jim Conley?”
“No, sir.”

“Was that the last time you were at the factory that day?”

“Yes.”

“Did you ever pinch or jolly Conley?”
“I kicked him once or twice when I caught him loafing, and he laughed at it. I wouldn’t call it jollying.”

“Did you ever see Frank jollying with him?”
“No.”

“How long have you been working at the factory?”
“It was two years on April 7.”
“I call your particular attention to a period beginning June, 1912. Did you ever know Daisy Hopkins?”
“I remembered her face when she was shown to me today.”
“Did you ever see this man Dalton?”
“No.”
“In that period, beginning June 1912, what was your custom as to being at the factory on Saturdays?”
“Usually I left at noon and in the two years that I have worked at the factory I have failed to come back in the afternoon between 5 and 6 o’clock only a few occasions. My purpose was to find out about the financial sheet.”

FRANK ABSENT ONCE.

“Do you remember even failing to find Frank there?”
“Only once when he told me he would be away, and then I called to see if Schiff was there.”

“Was Schiff usually there on Saturday afternoons, helping Frank?”
“With the exception of a very few instances.”
“Were those instances while he was away on his vacation?”

“I don’t know.”

“What were the day watchman’s instructions as to Saturday?”
“He was to stay there until the night watchman came on at 4 o’clock.”

“Did you come in contact with the employes more or less than Frank?”
“Ninety per cent more.”

“Dalton testified that there was a negro night watchman there in September. Who was the night watchman then?”
“Either a Mr. Kendrick or his son—both white.”
“When was this negro Lee hired?”

“Three weeks before the tragedy.”

“Was there ever a negro nightwatchman at the factory prior to that time?”
“Not during my two years connection with the factory.”
“Don’t you know it was bothered at all until after the insurance people had made you clean up the basement?”
“I don’t think it was touched until then.”
“Who usually stayed there on Saturday afternoons beside Holloway?”
“Walter Pride does work that he can’t do when the factory is in operation.”
“Does the stenographer ever stay there on Saturday afternoons?”
“Occasionally.”

“Are Saturday afternoons only devoted to work on the financial sheet?”
“Saturday afternoons are holidays.”
“Who else stayed at the factory on Saturdays?”
“Every other Saturday a man oiled the machines on the fourth floor.”

“Did you see Conley Monday after the tragedy? And how did he look?”

CONLEY EXCITED.

“Yes. He was very excited. I went to look over ever body in the factory to see if there was anyone who looked suspicious, and Jim Conley was the man. I instructed the watchman to look out for him.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected and was sustained. The question and answer were ruled out.

“At that time was it customary for the sweepers to work on Saturday afternoons?”
“No, they had instructions to quit at noon.”

Mr. Arnold instructed the witness to point out on the model the position of the lavatory used by Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“Mr. Darley, have you made any contribution to the defense fund of Frank?” questioned the solicitor.

“No, sir.”

“Can you tell the character of Daisy Hopkins?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever see her?”
“I saw her down here this morning.”

“You can’t say, then, what her general reputation was around the pencil factory, can you?”
“No, sir, I cannot.”

Solicitor Dorsey pointed to the door leading into that portion of the first floor formerly used by the Clark Woodenware Company.

“You say you found this door open, after the murder, Mr. Darley?”
“Yes, sir. It wasn’t swinging open, though. The stick nailed across it was torn off.”

“Was there anything else to hold it in place?”
“Nothing.”

“That was after the crowds had gone through the factory on Sunday and Monday following the murder, wasn’t it?”
“It must have been.”

“Who nailed it up at your instruction?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Mr. Darley, don’t you know that the door of these steps,” pointing to the trap door leading from the first floor to the basement, “has been nailed down for months?”
“No, sir.”

DORSEY TRIED STAIRS.

“Can you point out a more secure place to hide a body than at the bottom of the chute leading from the first floor to the basement?”
Attorney Arnold objected and was sustained.

Solicitor Dorsey amended the question. Darley replied that the bottom of the chute would have been a more secretive hiding place for a body than where Mary Phagan’s body was found.

“Did you see the chute before the boxes were removed from around it?”
“I never noticed it.”

Solicitor Dorsey continued: “The Sunday after the murder, Mr. Darley, how high were the boxes piled around the door leading into the woodenware room?”
“Nearly to the top.”

“So far as you know, Mr. Darley, Frank could excuse the night watchman and put Conley to watch in his stead, couldn’t he, on Saturday afternoons?”
“I wasn’t there Saturday afternoons, and can’t say as to that?”
Solicitor Dorsey pointed to the room adjoining the metal room where a vat is. “Isn’t it very damp in this room, Mr. Darley? Isn’t there water on the floor and aren’t there planks in there so you can walk around without wetting your feet?”

“Yes, sir.”

The solicitor directed the witness’ attention to the stairway leading from the third door floor to the second floor at the back of the building.

“Isn’t it your instructions to keep a bar across this door on pay days?”
“Yes.”

“Mr. Darley, there’s no reason for taking the paint from the paint room into the metal room or any other part of this floor, is there?”
“If it’s done, it’s done carelessly. There’s no business reason for it.”

“Do you undertake to say this model is at all accurate as to lines of vision?”

“So far as I can remember, it is.”

FRANK’S DESK MOVED.

“You can’t say the clock or the desk hasn’t been moved since the murder, can you, Mr. Darley?”
“Not positively.”

“How long is it since the clock has been fixed?”
“I don’t remember it’s being fixed since the murder?”
This concluded the cross-examination.

Mr. Arnold asked the witness if he had tried to see the time clock from Frank’s desk. The witness said yes, he tried it Friday and could see about half the circle of one of the clocks and couldn’t see the other at all.

“Have the clocks been moved?”
“Not that I know of.”

“You would have known it if they had been moved?”
“Yes.”

“Under whose orders would the clocks have been moved if they were moved?”
“Under my orders.”
“Mr. Dorsey was questioning you about the localized point of the paint room. Isn’t it true that in no paint shop on earth, can paint be confined to limits like these?”
“Yes, sir, as I said there is no business reason for paint to be outside the polishing room; but it is out and all over the place.”

DIDN’T KNOW BLOOD.

“About that blood in front of the dressing room door. You didn’t know what that was, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“I believe you said when you were previously examined that you frequently found blood spots on the floor, especially around the ladies’ dressing rooms and toilets?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And you have more than 100 women working in this factory?”
“Yes.”

“You don’t know how long that spot had been there?”
“No, sir.”

“And you wouldn’t have noticed it unless your attention had been called to it?”
“No, sir.”

“Mr. Dorsey questioned you about water being in that part of the factory near the toilets, was there any water where it was said that the girl’s body was found?”
“No, sir.”

“And no blood?”
“No, sir.”

“And you looked carefully over this place both Monday and Tuesday?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And found no blood or signs of blood?”
“No, sir.”

“And the floor hasn’t been washed since you’ve been with the factory, so that if the blood of a mouse had been there two years ago, it still would be there?”
Before the witness could answer, Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court.

DORSEY OBJECTS.

“Your honor, you should rule out that question. All this stuff about the blood of a mouse two years ago still being there, and washing the floor, and all like that, is wholly irrelevant.”

The court sustained the objection.

“Well,” said Attorney Arnold, “was there any water under the machine where Barrett said he discovered the hair?”
“No, sir.”

“Had the floor been cleaned there since?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you find any blood there?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever know Frank to make up a financial sheet except on Saturdays?”
“Only on Saturdays and holidays.”
“Conley knew where the cords were kept, didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“In fact, he knew the factory throughout as well as anybody in it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“In reply to questions from Mr. Dorsey, you stated that boxes were piled in front of that door on the first floor on April 26.”

“I don’t know. As far as I could see, they shut off the view of the door.”

TOLD POLICE OF BLOOD.

Solicitor Dorsey resumed the witness.

“It was you yourself who communicated with police headquarters and notified the officers when those blood spots were found, was it not?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Come down,” said the solicitor.

“Wait a minute!” shouted Mr. Arnold.

“You were endeavoring to tell the police everything that you found and everything that was reported to you, were you not?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, sir.”

“Come down.”

“Hold on,” demanded the solicitor. “When did you report Conley’s nervousness to the police?”
“I think it was to Harry Scott, on Monday, April 28.”

“Are you positive of that?”
“No, sir, I am not.”

“You can’t be positive?”

“No, sir.”

The witness was excused.

EPPS BOY ABSENT YET.

“Call in that little boy Epps,” said Mr. Arnold. The bailiffs called, but George didn’t answer.

“Your honor, I want an attachment and a search warrant for this boy,” said Mr. Arnold.

“I have already issued an attachment, and I will assist you in anyway I can to get him here,” said the judge.

The model of the factory was removed from court at this juncture, to make room for the feet of the lawyers.

Albert Kauffman was called back to identify the blue print from which the model was made. He said that the blue print was correct but not as complete as the plat introduced previously.

E. F. Holloway, day watchman and timekeeper at the pencil factory, was called to the stand again. He stands at the clock to see that everybody registers, he said. It was not his habit to indulge Conley by giving him time when he failed to punch the clock. He never asked the negro about failure to punch the clock, but docked his pay. He said that he never saw Frank jollying Conley.

He never saw Frank with the negro except one time when Conley was seeking to borrow a quarter from Frank. He volunteered the information that Frank was careful not to lend the negro more than was due him from the factory.

He said that during the past twelve months it has been a rule that no sweeper should work in the factory after noon on Saturdays. He said that Walter Pride sometimes worked there on Saturdays. He said there had been no negro night watchman until Newt Lee came to the factory three weeks before the tragedy.

RECESS TAKEN.

At this point proceedings were stopped for a brief recess.

When court resumed, Holloway was asked if he ever jollied with Conley, and said that he never jollied with him but that he kicked him around frequently when he caught him loafing.

“On Monday after the tragedy,” asked Mr. Arnold, “did you notice the door leading back from the passageway on the first floor to the Clark Woodenware company’s place; that also leads to that chute in the rear?”
The witness said that on Monday after the tragedy the door was open, although some time before that he had nailed it up.

“In the period beginning June, 1912, up to the time of the tragedy, where were you on Saturday afternoons?”

“Every Saturday during that time, except on legal holidays, I stayed at the factory until 4 o’clock in the afternoon when I was relieved by Kendricks and later by Newt Lee.”

NO WOMEN THERE SATURDAYS.

“Did Frank ever have any women come up to see him on Saturday afternoons?”

“No one except his wife, who often came there to go home with him.”

“Who helped Mr. Frank in the office?”
“Schiff, and sometimes there would be an office boy there.”

“On any other Saturday, this year or last year, did Jim Conley watch at the front door of the factory?”
“Not at any time before 4 o’clock?”
“Would you have been obliged to see him if he had been there?”
“Yes, I generally stayed in front to see that no one came into the factory who should not have been there.”

“Do you recall any Saturday that Schiff failed to go to the factory, except when he was away on his vacation?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see anyone after office hours take any women into the building?”
“No.”

“What time did you always come to the factory in the mornings on Saturday?”
“At 6:20 a. m.”

“What time did you leave?”
“About 4 in the afternoon.”

“You’ve had this man Dalton pointed out to you. Did you ever see him before or see him around the factory?”
“No.”

NO COUPLES ALLOWED.

“Well, would you let a fellow like him come into the factory?”
“No, not unless he had mighty good business there.”

“Did you ever know of any couples going in there?”
“No.”

“What would you have done if you had?”
“I’d have put ‘em out mighty quick.”

“Do you know Daisy Hopkins?”
“I’ve seen her.”

“Did she ever come back there after office hours?”
“Not while I was there.”

“Did she ever go back there after she stopped working for the factory?”
“No.”

“On Saturday, April 26, did you go upstairs and put on your coat and come downstairs about the same time Mr. Darley did?”

REFUTES CONLEY.

“I did not, Mr. Darley left about 9 o’clock.”

“Have the street doors ever been locked while anybody worked in the factory?”
“They have not.”

“Were you at the factory last Thanksgiving?”
“I was there until noon.”

“It snowed that day, didn’t it?”
“I don’t know.”

“Well, did you see a girl with white shoes and stockings, with all that snow on the ground, come into the pencil factory that morning?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper objected to the question on the ground that there had been no evidence introduced that there was snow on the ground last Thanksgiving.

“Don’t worry, Mr. Hooper. I will supply that evidence.”

“On the morning of last Thanksgiving, did Conley come into the factory and watch at the front door?”

“He did not.”

“If he had been watching there, you would have been bound to see him, wouldn’t you?”
“I would.”

“How many times on Saturday did you usually see Frank there?”
“Every time I went by the office.”

“Did you ever see beer in his office?”
“I never saw it a single time.”

STENOGRAPHER REMAINED.

“Did he ever keep stenographers there Saturday afternoons?”
“Sometimes.”

“Did the shipping clerk ever stay there?”
“Sometimes, if there was shipping to be done.”

“Did anybody else usually work in the factory on Saturday afternoons?”

Attorney Arnold suggested the names of several employes.

Holloway said that they did.

“Did you ever see anybody else come in?” The attorney named several of Frank’s business associates.

Holloway replied that frequently men made business calls there on Saturday afternoons.

“Did you ever turn your job over to Conley?”
“No, sir.”

“When Mrs. Frank came, would you let her in?”
“I would, and send her up to Mr. Frank’s office.”

“Did Conley ever take your place when you were sick?”
“I never was sick enough to lay off.”

“Do you know a man named Wilson who works in the factory?”

“Yes.”

WORKS SATURDAYS.

“Doesn’t he work Saturday afternoons, oiling up the motor and fixing the machinery around there?”
“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness if several people whom he named did not work in the factory on Saturday afternoons. The witness replied affirmatively.

“Could these men go all over the factory?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see the doors of the outer or the inner office of Frank locked?”

“I never did.”

“Is there glass in the doors?”

“Yes.”

“There are two windows in Frank’s office, aren’t there?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever see the shades of these pulled down?”
“Never except sometimes in the mornings they would be pulled down a little to keep the sun out.”
“Isn’t it a fact that salesmen often visit the factory on Saturday afternoons?”
“There were nearly always some there.”

“Did you ever know Frank to refuse to see them?”
“Never.”

DARK AT ELEVATOR.

“How far is it from the front door to the elevator shaft?”
“Ten or twelve feet.”

“It’s dark around there, isn’t it?”
“Yes, we have to keep a gas jet burning.”

“If a girl came down the steps, and if a man was lurking there in the dark, couldn’t he attack her?”

“Very easily.”

“Did members of the Montag family sometimes visit Frank on Saturday afternoons?”
“Nearly always on Saturdays.”

“Did you see a negro drayman named McCrary go upstairs Saturday morning, April 26?”
“I did.”

“What time did he go up?”
“I can’t say.”
“Do you recollect when he came down?”
“I do not.”

CONLEY NOT THERE.

“Did you see Conley on the morning of April 26?”
“No, sir. I did not. He was not there.”

“If he had been in that front hall, you would have been obliged to see him, wouldn’t you, Mr. Holloway?”
“I would.”

“Did you observe anything out of the ordinary about Jim Conley on the next week after the murder?”
“I did.”

“What was it?”
“Well, on Monday morning he was around watching the detectives on the first and second floor instead of working on the third floor.”

“What led to his arrest?”
“Well, I caught him washing his shirt, and called them up and told them to come and get him. The day before that he carried out a pair of overalls, and said he was going to Block’s candy factory to take them to another negro there. He came back before he would have had time to get there. And the overalls were washed and dried.”

“Could he write?”
“I don’t know.”

MEASURED TIME FRIDAY.

“Did you walk down the car track from Broad and Hunter streets to the pencil factory and up to Frank’s office?”
“I did.”

“When?”
“Today.”

“How long did it take you to make the distance?”
“About two and three-fourths minutes.”

“Well, anybody that left a street car at Broad and Hunter streets at 12:10 o’clock wouldn’t get to the pencil factory until about 12:12 1-2 or 3-4, would they?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you test the time it took to walk from the corner of Marietta and Forsyth streets to the pencil factory?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How long did it take?”
“Six minutes.”

DORSEY EXAMINES WITNESS.

“You may cross-examine him now, Colonel Dorsey,” said Mr. Arnold. The solicitor went after the witness with a vengeance.

“Have you had any conversation with Kendricks, the former night watchman, since this murder, in which you asked him whether Leo M. Frank had ever called him up after he left the factory?”
Before the witness could answer Mr. Rosser objected, declaring that the question was immaterial.

“We’ll see whether it’s immaterial,” declared Solicitor Dorsey. “Mr. Holloway, didn’t you try to get Kendricks to swear that Frank had called him up after he had left the factory?”
“I did not,” shouted the witness, manifesting some excitement.

“Didn’t you tell Kendricks to go ahead and swear that, for it would make no difference as nobody except he and you ever would know about it?”
“No, I never!” snapped the witness.

“The day before this alleged bloody club was found, didn’t you tell Whitfield to come back next day; that he would be sure to find something?”
“I did not.” The witness answered with emphasis, viciously.

“Do you know Daisy Hopkins’ reputation?”
“It’s all right as far as I know.”

ADMITS AFFIDAVIT.

“All right as far as you know.” Didn’t you sign this paper that I hold in my hand, and didn’t you tell me, that she was anything but all right, and that you couldn’t depend on anything she said?”
“No, sir!”

The solicitor exhibited the paper to him.

“Did you sign this paper?”
The witness replied,”Yes, sir.”

“And you read it before you signed it, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Now, do you deny that you told me, as it is written down here over your own signature that you couldn’t depend on anything he said?”
“I don’t deny it, but I think I said that we couldn’t depend on what she said at the factory.”
“Didn’t you say you read this paper before you signed it?”
“I suppose I did. Is that yours or Starnes?”
“So then Starnes had one, too?” interjected Mr. Rosser, of the defense.

“Yes, sir,” said the witness.

“What time did you say that Darley left the factory that Saturday morning?”

“9:30.”

CHANGES TESTIMONY.

“Look-a-here, Mr. Holloway, didn’t you tell me positively—and I asked you to be positive, that Darley and Frank went out together, that Frank was saying something about going to a ball game if the weather permitted—didn’t you tell me that it was about 10:45 when […]

State Confronts Holloway With Previous Affidavit

[…] Darley left, and that Frank was gone about 40 minutes?”
“Well, that was all guess work.”

“You put your name to this statement, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”
“Then you did say that?”
“Yes.”
“Well, why do you say now that he left there at 9:30?”

“I didn’t recollect the time exactly.”

“Your recollection ought to have been better then than now, oughtn’t it?”
Mr. Arnold objected, declaring that the question about his recollection was not relevant or material.

WITNESS GROWS CROSS.

“I want him to give to this jury a reasonable explanation of why he read over and signed this paper stating one thing, and now comes and swears to another story.”

“Your memory is better now, isn’t it?” inquired the solicitor of the witness.

“Not a bit,” growled the witness.

“What did you say about getting a reward for turning up Conley?”
“I never said anything of the kind!” shouted the witness.

“Well, what did you say about it?”
“A day or two after he was arrested I told Black or some of the detectives that if this negro was convicted he is my negro.”
“And you knew all about this $1,500 reward that newspapers were publishing?”
“I certainly did.”

“When were you accustomed to leave the factory on Saturdays?”
“Generally about 4:30 o’clock.”
“Didn’t you tell me that if there were girls in the factory on Saturday afternoon that you would be in a position to know it because you remained there until about 3 o’clock? Didn’t you say 3 o’clock, Mr. Holloway?”

TRAPS HIM AGAIN.

“If I said 3, I meant 4.”

“If you mean 4, what did you mean just now when you said 4:30?”
The witness said that was a slip of the tongue.

“I asked you, Mr. Holloway, didn’t I, if you were ever away from the factory on Saturdays, holidays or otherwise?”
“I meant 4 o’clock on Saturdays except holidays.”
“And you told me that negroes did work in the factory on Saturday afternoons up to 12 months ago?”
“Yes.”

“How long has Conley been there?”
“About two years.”
“Did he work regularly, along up to April 26?”
“Except when he was in the stockade for 30 days?”
“How long ago since he was in the stockade?”
“Last year some time.”

“What was Jim’s number at the factory?”

FORGETS CONLEY’S NUMBER.

“Do you mean to tell me that you, the man that kept the time of the employes, have forgotten the number of a man who has been working there for two years?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Oh, it was No. 71, wasn’t it, Mr. Holliday?” asked the solicitor, manifesting much patience.

“I don’t know.”

“You won’t swear that it wasn’t?”
“No, sir.”

Obtaining a number of factory time slips from Attorney Arnold, Mr. Dorsey handed them to the witness, commanding: “Mr. Holloway, take those slips and point out the record of No. 71. You say you kept close tabs on those factory employes. How did you do so if you didn’t know their numbers?”
The witness did not reply. He was unrolling the time slips. The solicitor again directed him to indicate on the time slips the registrations by No. 71. After a moment of hesitation, the witness: “I ain’t got my glasses and I can’t see without them.”

Solicitor Dorsey took the time slips back and laid them on the table.

“You are sure Jim Conley worked steadily for fully sixty days prior to April 26, and that he registered every day?”
“No, sir. No. He registered every morning. Sometimes he registered at dinner time. Sometimes he didn’t. Sometimes he failed to register at night.”

“You admit that Walter Pride worked frequently on Saturdays, don’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He’s a negro, too, isn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

SAYS DOOR WAS OPEN.

“Did you say that on Monday after the murder you noticed that the door leading from the pencil factory entrance into the woodenware company’s place was open?”
“Yes, it was.”

“Why Mr. Holloway wasn’t that area in front of the door piled up with all sorts of boxes?”
“There were four or five cases there.”

“There was such a large pile of boxes you couldn’t see the door, wasn’t it?”

“I could see the door. There was some boxes piled there.”

“Why, these boxes were piled all the way around from the steps toward the elevator and in front of the door, weren’t they?”

“I could see the door, all right.”

“Who nailed that door up?”
“I did, on Monday.”

“Was that before or after Darley nailed it up Mr. Holloway? He said he nailed it up three or four days after the murder.”

“Monday, Mr. Darley told me to get my hammer and nails and nail up the door. We never let that door stand open.”

“Mr. Holloway, on this Monday everything at the factory was in turmoil; officers were going through the factory; business was at a standstill. Now, do you mean to say that with this state of affairs, you nailed up the door?”
“Yes.”

“Darley told you to nail it up?”
“Yes.”

“Wasn’t this door open because the officers were looking around the factory building?”
“I don’t know.”

“Didn’t they open it?”
“I don’t know. It might have been opened on Sunday. It was not open on Saturday, I know, when I left the factory. It was nailed up then.”

“On Saturday, boxes were piled up all around and in front of it, weren’t there?”
“There were five or six boxes piled there.”

The solicitor continued to grill the witness.

“Don’t fancy ladies sometimes wear shoes with white tops when there’s snow on the ground? Don’t fancy ladies wear most anything?”
Mr. Arnold objected on the ground that the witness was not qualified as an expert. Mr. Dorsey said that Mr. Arnold had questioned him along the same line, and waived the question, after saying that “fancy ladies” were the kind he contended entered the factory on Saturday afternoons.

WITNESS RATTLED.

“Don’t you know that frequently on Monday mornings beer bottles were found around on the floor near the office?”
“What time?”
Mr. Dorsey shouted, “Monday morning, I said!”

The witness hesitated some more, and finally blurted out, “No!”

Mr. Dorsey smiled and passed to another subject.

“Weren’t you and Darley very strict about negroes being in the factory after work hours?”
“Yes.”

“Then if you had found a negro around there acting as lookout for Frank, you’d put him out, wouldn’t you?”
The witness admitted that he would.

“Was there a drayman there on Saturday?”
“Yes.”

The solicitor put some other questions, which the witness answered, and then the solicitor demanded:

“Just a minute ago, didn’t you say that the drayman was there on Saturday?”

REFUSES TO ANSWER.

“If I said he was, he was,” shouted the witness.

“Well, what did you say just a minute ago?”
“Well, I won’t answer!” said the witness.

“What are the facts about the case? Was there a drayman there, or was there not?”
“I don’t remember,” finally said the witness, after the judge commanded him to answer.

“Well, why did you tell me there was a negro drayman there when you say you don’t remember now?”
Holloway did not answer. The solicitor passed the point.

“Now, you told Mr. Arnold that Conley acted suspiciously on Monday by not staying at his regular job. Did anybody in the whole factory stay at his regular job that morning?”
“Yes,” said the witness.

ALL LOOKING AT BLOOD.

“As a matter of fact, didn’t they shut down the factory at a little after 8 o’clock because all the employees were running out buying the extras and looking at the blood spots?”
“Yes.”

“After that who stayed?”
“Nobody but me.”

“Tell one thing that Conley did different from the others.”

The witness didn’t answer.

“Well, let’s go to Thursday,” said the solicitor, “the time you had your nigger arrested. You said he hid the shirt. Now tell how he hid the shirt? He was there on the second floor, washing it in some vats when you saw him, wasn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“He had taken the shirt off of his own body, hadn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“And he had been wearing it all the morning? And that was at 2:30 o’clock, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“Well, he had it on when he was arrested, didn’t he?”
“No.”

“Now, tell me how he was trying to hide it.”

“He had it stretched behind a radiator up there.”

“He’d put it there to dry, hadn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“How did he hide it; then?”
“Well, he stood in front of it,” said the witness.

“You’ve seen Conley with tablets, haven’t you? And you knew he could write?”
“Yes.”

“When did you tell that he could write?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Was it after or before you visited Mr. Frank in the tower?”
“About two weeks afterward.”

“When you were making those walking tests, you timed yourself by only one watch, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“And you don’t know whether the clocks of the Georgia Railway and Electric company and the clocks of the National Pencil company were both together on April 26, do you?”
“No,” bellowed the witness.

Solicitor Dorsey turned the witness over to Mr. Arnold for redirect examination.

“Were you subpenaed to go to Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”
“I was.”

“He sent you a regular court subpena, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“Did you know you didn’t have to go?”
“Not until I talked to some of the others that got them around there.”
“Did you know it was false imprisonment?”
“I did not.”

“How many asked you questions when you made this statement in Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”
“Oh, there was only three or four.”

“Only three or four!” exclaimed Mr. Arnold.

“Three or four,” repeated the witness.

Attorney Arnold read a number of questions and answers that were the transcript of Holloway’s original examination by the state. He asked Holloway after each one if he hadn’t said that, and Holloway said that he had.

COURT ADJOURNS.

“It’s impossible to repeat a thing, several hours afterwards, exactly as you said it before, isn’t it, Mr. Holloway?”
“It is.”

“Do you know anything about the character of Daisy Hopkins?”
“No, sir.”

“Step down,” said Mr. Arnold. And court recessed until 9 o’clock Saturday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 9th 1913, “State Confronts Watchman Holloway With Previous Affidavit,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 9^th, 1913

What promised to be a very favorable day for the defense in the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, was partly spoiled at its close Friday by the bewilderment of E. F. Holloway, day watchman at the pencil factory, in a maze of conflicting statements.

Holloway’s confusion under the fire of the Solicitor General was more than offset by the importance of the testimony which had gone before, two of the witnesses giving testimony which was intended to establish that Mary Phagan did not enter the National Pencil Factory on the day of her death until after Monteen Stover had come and gone.

Besides giving the lie direct to Jim Conley’s tale, this testimony, if it stands as the truth in the minds of the jurors, upsets the State’s theory that Monteen Stover visited the office of Leo Frank while the superintendent was in the metal room with the Phagan girl.

Conley said on the stand that he saw Lemmie Quinn, then Mary Phagan and then Monteen Stover go up to the second floor. The Stover girl said that she entered the factory at 12:05 o’clock. It was 12:10 when she left, she testified. She looked at the time clock both times.

Street Car Men Testify.

W. M. Matthews and W. T. Hollis, the motorman and conductor on the car which brought Mary into town the day that she met her death, testified that she did not leave the car before 12:10 o’clock, the inference from this testimony being that she could not have entered the factory before Monteen Stover and entered and left.

If the testimony of George Epps the State’s witness, is accepted, the defense declares Mary Phagan could not have entered the plant before Monteen Stover.

Matthews said that he knew the girl by sight and frequently spoke to her when she boarded his car. He said that he was relieved at Broad and Marietta streets at 12:07 o’clock, the day of the crime and that he went inside the car and sat back of Mary Phagan and a girl companion while they were riding to Broad and Hunter streets. He said they got off at about 12:10 and walked toward the pencil factory.

Matthews’ story contradicts that of George Epps, who testified on the stand that he rode to town with Mary, got off the car with her at Forsyth and Marietta streets and walked as far as the viaduct with her on her way to the pencil factory. Matthews and Hollis both said that they had no recollection of Epps being on the car. Hollis said that Mary was sitting alone when he took her fare just after the car got onto English avenue. Matthews said another young girl was sitting with her when the center of town was reached.

Attacks Conley’s Story.

The significance of the story of the two street car men is that it seems to add another falsehood to the many that Jim Conley already has told and freely admitted telling.

He did not see Mary Phagan go upstairs to Frank’s office, hear the sounds of footsteps going to the metal room, then a girl’s scream, and after this witness the entrance and departure of Monteen Stover. On the contrary, the Stover girl was in the factory and gone before Mary Phagan came inside the doors.

Holloway, the day watchman, was called back to the stand by the defense to testify in rebuttal of Conley’s testimony in regard to the alleged visits of women to Frank’s office. Holloway said that no incidents of this sort ever took place. Conley would have had no opportunity of watching at the door without his (Holloway’s) knowing it, he declared.

He denied that Daisy Hopkins ever visited the factory with a man while he was on duty or that immorality of any sort was practiced in the building to his knowledge. He said that Herbert Schiff and Frank were generally in the office together on Saturdays and that neither of them ever had women in the office.

Solicitor Dorsey began cross-examining Holloway in savage fashion and soon had the watchman badly rattled. At one time Holloway refused to commit himself as to what he had testified only a moment before.

“Was that negro drayman there Saturday—you said so awhile ago, didn’t you?” asked the Solicitor.

Holloway floundered while Dorsey was insisting on an answer. He could not remember what he had testified. Finally he blurted out:

“If I said he was there, he was. If I said he wasn’t there, he wasn’t.”

Refers to Reward Claim.

“But what is the truth?” persisted Dorsey.

Holloway continued to return the same answer until Judge Roan forced him to make a definite reply. Then he took refuge in the old reliable answer: “I don’t remember.”

The Solicitor called Holloway’s attention to a remark that the watchman was said to have made about Conley being “my nigger” when a reference was made to the rewards offered. He also showed an affidavit signed by Holloway saying that Darley had left the factory the Saturday of the killing at 10:45 in the forenoon. Darley had testified that he left at about 9:30 and Holloway had said only a few minutes before that Darley left about 9:20 or 9:30.

“What did you say 10:45 for in the affidavit you signed for me shortly after the murder?” shouted the Solicitor.

“That was mostly guesswork,” explained the witness.

“Did you tell Mr. Arnold that you left the factory every day about 5:30 o’clock?”

“Yes.”

Said 3, but Meant 4 o’Clock.

“Didn’t you tell me that you left sometimes at 3 o’clock?”
“If I said 3, I meant 4.”

“What did you mean by 4:30 just now?”
“That just slipped out.”

N. V. Darley, general manager of the factory; H. J. Hinchey, of No. 391 Peachtree street; Harry Scott, “Boots” Rogers, I. U. Kauffman, T. H. Willett and J. Q. Adams were the other witnesses of the day.

Kauffman identified blueprints and drawings he had made of the Selig home and of the pencil factory. Willett explained the pasteboard model of the factory that he had made from the blueprints. Adams identified photographs he had made at the Selig home and the factory.

Hinchey told of seeing Frank coming from home on a Washington street car the afternoon of the crime. This was intended to discredit Albert McKnight, one of the State’s witnesses, who said that he saw Frank board a Georgia avenue car when he left home.

Darley was recalled largely to testify to the possibility of various methods which Conley might have employed in disposing of the girl’s body in the event he was the murderer of the girl.

New Theory Is Suggested.

The most startling sug[g]estion came from Darley’s testimony that a door leading from the entryway on the first floor into the rear of the building was found broken open right after the crime. Two trap doors open into the basement from this rear room. One of them is over a chute. Reuben Arnold, by his line of questioning, showed that the defense seriously had considered the theiry [sic] that the girl’s murderer had dragged her through this door on the first floor and had dropped her body down the chute.

The Solicitor brought out that the door might have been opened by the detectives in their search of the building and that if the body ever had been dropped down the chute it most probably would have been left there, as it would have been perfectly hidden.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 9th 1913, “Confusion of Holloway Spoils Close of Good Day for the Defense,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The article below is just a piece of the printed testimony of E. F. Holloway from the Atlanta Constitution. Unfortunately, most of the beginning part of this article is missing from our archives.

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

“Who was the next man?”

“Mr. Darley.”

“Who was the next man or woman?”

“Mattie Smith.”

“Did you turn the building over to Newt Lee?”
“Yes.”

“How many negroes worked in the building?”

“Seven or eight.”

Always Sweeping.

“Did you ever hear of a man named Stanford who had a mania for sweeping out and couldn’t stop until he had swept the whole floor?”

“Yes. He did it frequently.”

“Do you remember seeing Mrs. Arthur White at the plant on the morning you left?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember Miss Hall coming in?”

“Yes.”

“What was she doing?”

“Writing on the typewriter.”

“Remember Frank coming back from Montag’s?”

“Yes.”

“Do you use these wrapping cords in any other part of the building beside the third floor?”

“Yes—everywhere.”

“Don’t some of them get into the trash?”

“Every day.”

Did Not See Phagan.

“Did you see Mary Phagan that Saturday?”

“No.”

“Did you see Monteen Stover?”

“No.”

“Was Jim Conley familiar with the metal room?”

“Sure he was. With every part of the factory.”

The solicitor took the witness.

“Where were Denham and White working on the third floor?”

“Thirty feet from the elevator.”

“What kind of lock was on the door where the blood was said to have been?”

“Common lock.”

“Why are these wrapping cords used on the second floor?”

“To wrap up pencils.”
“Who ever tied up pencils on the second floor?”

“Nobody.”

Attorney Arnold began interrogating.

Forgot to Tell Dorsey.

“You forgot to tell Mr. Dorsey of sawing planks for Denham and White and, upon recollecting it, remembered about leaving the switch unlocked?”

“Yes.”
“The elevator makes a lot of noise?”

“It surely does.”
Further questions were asked by Mr. Dorsey.

“Does the elevator or motor make the most noise?”

“Motor.”
Upon removing Holloway from the stand, Judge Roan adjourned Thursdays’s session.

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

NEW TESTIMONY GIVEN AT TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK BY R. B. BARRETT

Machinist at Pencil Factory Tells Jury of Discovery of Murdered Girl’s Pay Envelope and of Strands of Hair Near Her Machine in Metal Room on Second Floor.

HENRY [sic] SCOTT PUZZLES BOTH SIDES OF CASE BY EVIDENCE THURSDAY

E. L. Holloway, Who Swore in Affidavit That Elevator Was Closed on Saturday, the Day of the Murder, Admits on Stand That He Was Mistaken—“I’ve Been Trapped,” Cries Dorsey.

The first piece of new testimony of any importance which has developed since the beginning of the Leo M. Frank trial came Thursday morning, when R. B. Barrett, a machinist employed at the National Pencil factory, testified that he had found what was supposed to be Mary Phagan’s pay envelope near her machine in the metal room. Up to this time the matter of the pay envelope had been a complete mystery. Barrett also testified to having discovered blood stains on the floor near her machine, and a strand of hair on the machine. The blood stain had been wiped over with some kind of white preparation.

The whole gist of Solicitor Dorsey’s questioning was to prove that the murder was committed on the second floor. The testimony of this witness and others seemed to bear out this contention.

Scott Proves Surprise.

Harry Scott, of the Pinkerton Detective agency, who has been employed by the National Pencil factory to ferret out the murderer, proved a strong witness for the state, although at first it looked as if he would prove of more value to the defense.

In the early stages of his examination by Solicitor Dorsey Scott was asked if, on his first meeting with Leo M. Frank, the accused had not appeared extremely nervous. This was on Monday following the murder. Scott denied this to be a fact. Solicitor Dorsey became excited and intimated that he had been “trapped;” that the witness was not giving the testimony he had been led to expect.

Scott grew healed and exclaimed:

“I hope you do not infer that I am withholding anything!”

Solicitor Dorsey said he did not, and from that time on Scott told in details of his connection with the case.

Among other things he said that either Frank or Darley had told him on Monday following the murder that Gantt had been very familiar and intimate with Mary Phagan. He also testified that on Tuesday night at the station home Frank had been very nervous; that he had repeatedly crossed his legs, felt of his chin, and that he took deep breaths—more like sighs than anything else.

Haas Wanted to See Reports.

He stated that Herbert Haas, one of Frank’s attorneys, had suggested that the Pinkertons turn over all evidence to him before it was given the police department, and that he declined to consider any such proposal, stating he would throw up the case first.

Luther Rosser failed to shake Scott’s testimony.

Frank Was Not There.

Monteen Stover, a former employee of the pencil factory, testified that she had gone to Frank’s office at 5 minutes after 12 o’clock on Memorial day, and that Frank was not there. She had remained in the building fully five minutes and saw no one. Frank has claimed that he was in his office at that time.

Dr. Claude Smith testified to making an examination of the bloody shirt found at Newt Lee’s home. He said he had examined the neck-band and it did not have the appearance of having been worn. No odor could be detected on the under side of the sleeves. He also testified to making an examination of the blood stains found on the floor. He could not state whether or not this was human blood.

Holloway Contradicts Himself.

E. L. Holloway, an employee of the pencil factory, who had previously signed an affidavit that the power box on the elevator was closed on Saturday, the day of the murder, admitted that he was mistaken; that he had opened the box and hung up the key in Frank’s office.

His affidavit was placed in evidence, and Judge Roan ruled that certain parts of it were admissible.

Summing up the day’s testimony, the weight of it was not so favorable to the defendant as on the day previous.

The courtroom continues to attract large crowds.

Mrs. Callie Applebaum, recently acquitted of killing her husband, was one of the interested spectators.

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

Atlanta Journal
August 1^st, 1913

E. F. Holloway Angers Dorsey When He Testifies Contrary to Affidavit—Had Told Dorsey Elevator Switch Was Locked

Court adjourned at 4:58 o’clock until 9 o’clock Friday morning after a day of surprises in the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, in the National Pencil factory building.

That the switch board which controls the motor used to operate the elevator in the National Pencil factory, where Mary Phagan was murdered was left unlocked Saturday morning when he left the building at 11:45 o’clock, and that anybody could have entered and run the elevator up and down the shaft during the balance of the day, was the statement of E. F. Holloway, one of the factory’s watchmen at the trial of Leo M. Frank late Thursday afternoon.

Although Holloway made an affidavit for Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, which he identified in the court room, swearing to the fact that he left the switch box locked on that Saturday, he positively declared on Thursday that he left it unlocked, and when confronted with his own signature answered, “I forgot.”

When Holloway took the stand he had hardly started his narrative when Solicitor Dorsey cut him short and addressed the court.

“I wish to state that I have been entrapped by this witness.” The solicitor’s remarks followed the statement of Holloway that he unlocked the switch box to operate the motor to cut some boards and ran the elevator up to the third floor for White and Denham, and left the box unlocked.

Dr. Claude Smith, city bacteriologist, was on the stand for a while and testified that stains upon certain chips which were brought to him by city detectives, presumably cut from the second floor of the pencil factory, contained blood corpuscles. He could not say, however, that it was human blood, he only knew that it was the blood of a mammal, and under cross-examination by Attorney Rosser, admitted that it might have been the blood of a mouse. Dr. Smith examined the shirt said to have been found in the house of Newt Lee and declared that the shirt was not soiled save for blood stains and that it appeared not have been worn recently, as there were no body odors on it.

Mary Phagan had been dead ten or fifteen hours when her body was examined by William A. Gheesling, of P. J. Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment, shortly after 4 o’clock on the Sunday morning her body was discovered in the basement of the pencil factory, according to Gheesling’s testimony given at the trial of Leo M. Frank during Thursday afternoon’s session. Thus according to the undertaker, the little girl met her death some time between the time that she entered the factory at 12:10 o’clock Saturday afternoon and 6 o’clock of the same day, not later than 6 o’clock.

MRS. APPELBAUM PRESENT.

Mrs. Callie Scott Appelbaum, whose trial and acquittal upon the charge that she murdered her husband in an Atlanta hotel, was a recent sensation in Atlanta, because one of the women spectators in the court room shortly after the afternoon session convened.

Under cross-examination by Attorney Arnold, Stanford testified that on Friday preceding the murder he had swept the floor of the entire metal room. The job took him about three hours, he said. He worked from 9 o’clock until 12. He swept beneath all of the machines and even removing boxes and barrels and other debris stored next to the women’s toilet. He swept under Mary Phagan’s machine and under the lathe used by Barrett. The area that he swept is as big as the court room, he said.

“Was it your duty to sweep this room?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“It was my duty to sweep part of it, where the concrete floor is.” That, he said, is little less than half of the total area.

“Why did you go on and sweep the wood floor when you were supposed to sweep only the concrete floor? Did you just start to sweeping and then couldn’t stop?”

“No, sometimes I sweep the whole floor.”

“Who told you to sweep this part?”

“Nobody.”

“A negro was paid to sweep this, wasn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“Wasn’t it a negro’s duty to sweep that same place that same day?”

“No, the negro usually swept it on Saturday.”

“Were you paid by the hour or by the piece?”

“By the hour.”

In sweeping this floor, said Stanford, he saw a few paint spots near the entrance of the women’s dressing room, and also near the door of the room where lacquer is kept.

“Will you swear that there were not half a dozen other spots in that room, of one kind or another?”

“Yes.”

Mrs. George W. Jefferson was called to the stand. She is an employe of the National Pencil factory. She was in the factory on April 23 and again on April 28.

She passed through the metal room on the 28^th to the polishing room and didn’t notice any blood spots, but did see spots on the floor there Monday. She described the blood spots.

She works in the polishing room on the same floor with the metal room. In the polishing room about 50 feet from the blood spots, on a post a number of pieces of twine cord usually hang.

The color of the blood spots was dark, she said; but there was some whitish stuff spread over them. Picking up a cord, Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness if she had seen any cord like that in the factory.

“Yes,” she said. It was similar to lengths of cord that hung on the post.

“How long have you been working in the polishing room?”

“About five years.”

“Are there any paints kept in the polishing room?”

“Yes.”

“Any red paints?”

“Yes.”

“How many different shades of red paint are kept there?”

“Three—maroon red, red line and bright red.”

“Are you familiar with these paints?”

“Yes, I should be. I use them enough in polishing.”

“Those are all the paints there?”

“Yes.”

SPOT WAS NOT PAINT.

“Could you distinguish one of these paints from another?”

“Yes.”

“Could you tell whether or not the red spot had been made by one of the paints used in the polishing room?”

“It was not one of the paints.”

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination.

“How did you happen to discover those dory spots near the dressing room door?” he asked.

“Mr. Barrett and I discovered them together at about the same time.”

“Did you discover them or did Barrett call your attention to them?”

“I had been over to Mary Phagan’s machine and was on my way back to the polishing room where I worked when we saw the spot. I think Mr. Barrett saw it first.”

“Barrett was going around looking for spots, huh?”

“He made a search of the metal room.”

“The floor in the metal room is dirty and greasy, is it not?”

“Yes.”

“There are a good many dark spots on it?”

“I’ve seen greasy spots, but no spots like the one by the dressing room door.”

“Where were the paints kept?”

“In the polishing room.”
“Were there no paints in the metal room?”

“No.”

“After the coloring matter is mixed with the grease, it is difficult to tell the color, is it not?”

“I never tried that.”

“Did the white stuff hide the red spot?”

“No.”

“How many other red spots did you find around the metal room?”

“I didn’t find any others.”

“You say you knew Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, for about a year.”

SPOT CHIPPED UP LATER.

“How much of that white stuff was there?”

“It covered a place about as big as my fan.” The witness exhibited a palm leaf fan of ordinary size.

“This spot later was chipped up, was it not?”

“Yes.”

“Come down,” said Mr. Rosser.

Solicitor Dorsey told her to wait.

“Where are the pencils painted?” inquired the solicitor.

“On the third floor.”

“Where else are the paints used?”

“Nowhere, except on the third floor and in the polishing room on the second floor.”

“After the paints are carried into the polishing room, is there ever any occasion to take them out to the metal room?”

“No, sir.”

Mr. Dorsey sat down as if he had finished with the witness, and Mr. Rosser arose again.

“Mrs. Jefferson, these cords are scattered around all over the building, are they not?” inquired Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir, they are not supposed to be.”

“Well, where are they kept?”

“On the post in the polishing room.”

“Do you mean to say that there are none of these cords anywhere else about the building?”

CORDS IN POLISHING ROOM.

“As a matter of fact, don’t they sometimes fall on the floor and aren’t they sometimes carried in the sweepings to the basement?”

“I have never been to the basement have you?”

“No, sir.”

“You don’t know whether there are any cords down there or not?”

“No, sir.”

“As a matter of fact, Mrs. Jefferson, haven’t you within the past three months seen cords like this on the first floor of the factory?”

“No, sir, I have not.”

“Well where else have you seen them beside the polishing room and the third floor?”

“Nowhere else.”

Mr. Rosser sat down, and Mr. Dorsey questioned the witness.

“Do they have any need for cords in the basement?”

“None that I know of.”

HASLETT ON STAND.

City Detective B. B. Haslett was called to the stand.

He told of going to Frank’s house Monday morning at 7 o’clock to get him to go to the police station. Answering questions put by Solicitor Dorsey, he said that Frank was not arrested at this time, and was kept at detective headquarters only two or three hours.

Haslett said that they told Frank at his house that Chief Lanford wanted to see him. Frank appeared willing to accompany them and said: “Wait a minute and I’ll be with you.”

“Do you know when Frank was arrested?”

“No, sir, I do not.”

“Whom did you see at detective headquarters that morning?”

“I saw Mr. Rosser and Mr. Haas, after I had gone up the street and come back.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined him.

“What time did you say you saw Mr. Haas and me there?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“I think it was about 8 o’clock, as nearly as I can recollect. I won’t swear to the exact time.”

Mr. Rosser asked for details about the detectives’ actions at Frank’s house, in an apparent effort to gain from Detective Haslett an admission that Frank was detained against his will.

“You know, don’t you, that Frank didn’t get away from detective headquarters until nearly 12, don’t you?”

“No, I didn’t stay there until 12.”

“As a matter of fact, when you went out to Frank’s house, it wasn’t a question of whether or not he wanted to go, was it?”

“I don’t suppose it was.”

“Why did they send two of you?”

“Well, we generally work two together.”

“Well, now, if Frank had resisted, Mr. Haslett, wouldn’t you have brought him anyhow?”

“Yes, I guess we would.”

UNDERTAKER TESTIFIES.

William A. Gheesling was called to the stand. He is an undertaker employed by P. J. Bloomfield.

Gheesling said that he went to the pencil factory at about 10 minutes to 4 o’clock on [t]he morning that the body was discovered and found the body lying face down on the ground on the spot where it was discovered. The cord and the loop of an undergarment strip still were around the neck said he. He put the remains in a basket and carried them to the undertaking establishment, said he.

The impression that the loop and the cord had left on the neck of the body was an eighth of an inch deep, said he.

“What was the state of the body as regards rigor mortis?” asked the solicitor.

DEAD 10 OR 15 HOURS.

The body was rigid, said the witness.

“How long would you estimate that she had been dead?”

“Ten or fifteen hours and maybe more,” answered Gheesling.

He said that the blood on her clothes had coagulated. Blood had settled in her face, her head being lower than the rest of the body. The solicitor asked him how long it takes usually for blood to settle. Sometimes it settles in a few minutes, said the witness.

“Did you examine her nails?”

“After Dr. Hurt.”

“What did you discover under her finger nails?”

“Only dust.”

“Did you observe anything about her eyes?”

There was a bruise over the right eye, said the witness. Evidently it had been made before death, for it had swelled.

“Were there any other wounds?” asked the solicitor.

“There were two on the back of the head.”

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

“If you made an examination, tell the jury about it.”

The skull was not fractured, said the witness, but the scalp was broken.

“Were there any marks on the body that could have been made by dragging?”

“There was a scar over each eye about the size of a dime.”

“What was the condition of her nose?”

“I don’t know.”

“Were you present when Frank came to the undertaking place on the morning of Sunday, April 27?”

“Yes. I didn’t know who Frank was until afterward, though.”

“Did you observe his conduct particularly?”

“No.”

“Can you say whether or not he looked upon the body?”

“I cannoa [sic].”

“Can you say what caused the death of Mary Phagan?”

Before the witness could reply, Attorney Rosser objected on the ground that the witness was not competent, not being a physician. Judge Roan held that the solicitor would have to qualify the witness as an expert. The solicitor withdrew his question with the comment that he would prove that by somebody else.

ROSSER TAKES WITNESS.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Rosser.

“Was the blood under hair damp?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, if it had been damp an hour before you found the body, how long would you say that she had been dead?”

“Between ten and fifteen hours, I would say. I don’t go by the blood at all but by the status of the rigor mortis.”

Attorney Rosser brought out from the witness the statement that rigor mortis sets in more quickly in certain cases than in others.

The witness admitted that he had little experience with strangulation cases. He had embalmed the bodies of a couple of men who were hanged. They were the only cases that he remembered. The witness discussed the action of blood after death, and said that no blood would come from wound after the last heart action unless the body was moved or it was forced out by some pressure.

Attorney Rosser brought out that in embalming the body, Gheesling removed half a gallon of blood and put in a gallon of embalming fluid. The witness was asked the formula of the embalming fluid that he used, and asked the court that he be not made to answer as the formula is one of his own which it has taken him fifteen years to perfect. The attorney withdrew the question.

BODY NOT MUTILATED.

The most interesting fact brought out by the cross examination of Gheesling was that Mary Phagan’s body was in no way mutilated. Attorney Rosser brought out that Dr. Hurt had probed under the girl’s finger nails, but the witness did not know what he had found. The witness stated that Dr. Hurt made a post mortem examination of the body on Monday. The witness convulsed the court when in reply to Rosser’s questions as to whether the girl’s underclothes had been torn or cut, he replied he was no dressmaker and couldn’t tell.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness a final question:

“Had the girl lost much blood when you examined the body?”

“She couldn’t have lost much,” was the answer.

Dr. Claude Smith was called as the next witness. He is a physician, and is the Atlanta city bacteriologist and chemist.

FOUND BLOOD ON CHIPS.

Solicitor Dorsey handed to the witness some chips.

“Dr. Smith, have you made any tests on these chips? If so, when?”

“These chips appear to be specimens that the detectives brought to me at my office.”

“What was their condition?”

“They were very dirty, and there appeared to be a stain upon them. I examined several specimens, and one one specimen I found blood corpuscles.”

The chips were the ones exhibited previously as having been dug from the metal room floor.

“Could you tell whether it was human blood or not?”

“I could not.”

The shirt that the detectives claim to have found in the bar[r]el at Newt Lee’s house was handed to the witnes[s]. He was asked if he had seen it before. The shirt was one that the detectives had brought to him, said the witness. He started to repeat something that the detectives told him when they delivered the shirt. Mr. Rosser objected. “We don’t care anything about that. We want to hear what you know of your own knowledge.”

SHIRT NEVER WORN.

Solicitor Dorsey added, “Yes, just tell us what you found.”

The witness stated that he examined the stains on the shirt. They reacted under the chemical test and also under the miscroscope [sic]. The witness examined the arm pits of the sihrt [sic] and it was his opinion that it hadn’t been worn.

Mr. Rosser objected. “We don’t want your opinion on common place subjects,” said he. Dr. Smith continued that blood had been smeared over the inside of the shirt, and very little of it had penetrated outside. It was wadded together in some places as if it had been used to wipe something.

Again Mr. Ros[s]er objected, declaring that the witness merely was giving his own conclusion; that he was supposed to give the condition of the shirt, without surmise.

Judge Roan advised the witness to state just what condition the shirt was in when it reached him.

Solicitor Dorsey declared that the shirt had been produced by Mr. Rosser for the defense, and that he wanted the witness to tell the jury what its condition was when the detectives gave it to him. Mr. Rosser rejoined: “I was just showing what John Black had been doing—that he had been finding a shirt.”

“Go ahead, doctor, and tell us about the condition of the shirt,” said Mr. Dorsey.

“It was not soiled around the inside of the collar,” said the witness. “It had every appearance of having been washed, but not worn.” He said there was no odor to it.

Manifesting some impatience, Mr. Rosser jumped to his feet and asked that the witness’ reply be stricken from the record. He declared that the witness was not discussing a scientific matter, but a common place one, which did not require expert testimony.

“All this stuff about odors is not a medical question,” asserted Mr. Rosser. He ought to discuss only those things which the jury cannot determine for themselves.”

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness to tell the condition of the shirt and omit his conclusions.

There was no odor to the shirt. There was no evidence of soiling on the inside of the collar. Most of the blood was on the inside of the shirt.

ROSSER’S EXAMINATION.

Mr. Rosser cross-examined the witness. He endeavored to make the witness admit that under some circumstances, such as the tail of the shirt being turned up, it could be soiled outwardly yet appear to have been soiled from the inside. Dr. Smith was inclined to dispute that theory. Again growing impatient, Mr. Rosser declared that the witness had been arguing ever since he came on the stand.

“You say there was no stain on the inside of the collar?”

“There was none.”

“There was a pungent odor of blood, wasn’t there?”

“Yes, there was some odor from the blood.”

“Then the blood odor might destroy the body odor, might it not?”

“Somewhat.”

“You say the odor of the shirt was that of a garment that had been washed and was fresh?”

“If a person had just worn this shirt a short while, there wouldn’t be much odor, would there?”

“Yes, there would be some odor.”

“If he had put it right on and taken it right off, you still count detect it?”

Mr. Rosser counted out four chips in the package and handed them to the witness. Dr. Smith admitted that he could not tell on which one of the four chips he found the blood.

Dr. Smith continued that blood corpuscles could remain on the floor or piece of wood for years if they were not disturbed in any way. He said, however, that they dissolved rapidly when water was put with them.

He had not examined the blood on the chips for quantity, said the witness, but admitted that all of the corpuscles that he saw—some four or five—could have been left there from one drop of blood. He could only tell that it was the blood of a mammal.

BLOOD OF A MOUSE?

He admitted that the blood might have been from a mouse, but refused to state that it was not the blood of an animal. Some experts could tell the difference between human and brute blood, but he could not.

Dr. Smith was asked a number of questions relative to rigor mortis, which, said he, usually starts very soon after death. It was complete in a number of instances in about ten hours, he said.

Mr. Rosser attempted repeatedly to make the witness say that a person taking off the shirt could have folded it so that the different blood spots would have been distributed upon it as they appeared in court; but the witness contended that it was hardly possible. Some of the blood on the inside of the shirt was only six inches from the arm pits, he said.

E. F. Holloway, watchman at the National Pencil factory, was called to the stand. In reply to questions by Solicitor Dorsey, he said that he worked in the pencil factory on the Saturday of the murder, from 6:20 a. m., until 11:45, and that among his duties was the supervision of the elevator.

“What do you do when you leave, usually?” asked the solicitor. “What did you do regarding the elevator when you left on Saturday?”

“I had cut two plans for White and Denham, and I started the elevator to the third floor, where they were working.”

Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court.

“I want to say right now that I have been entrapped by this witness straight-out.”

The solicitor addressed this question to the witness after taking some affidavits and papers from his table:

“On May 12, 1913, in the presence of E. S. Smith, stenographer, Detectives Starnes and Campbell, and myself, didn’t you say regarding the power box that enables you to run the elevator, that you kept it locked all the time?”

“I said I left it locked Friday night.”

“Where did you leave the elevator Friday night?”

“I left it on the second floor.”

“Was it there when you left the building that Friday night?”

“Yes.”

“On Saturday, where was the elevator when you left?”

SWITCH BOX UNLOCKED.

“I did some sawing for Mr. White and Mr. Denham and sent it up and left the switch box unlocked Saturday.”

“Didn’t you say you never heard of the insurance company ordering the switch box kept open all the time, one day in my office? And don’t you know that you said Mr. Darley had instructed you to keep it locked all the time? And isn’t it a fact that the box was locked Saturday morning at 11:45 when you left the building?”

“It was not.”

“Why then, did you tell me it was?”

“I forgot.”

“What was it Frank said to Newt Lee Friday night—you heard what he said, didn’t you?”

“I didn’t hear him say anything to Newt Lee.”

Solicitor Dorsey picked up an affidavit.

“You signed your name to this paper, didn’t you?”

The witness replied “Yes.”

“Why did you say the box was always kept locked?”

“I forgot.”

Holloway proceeded to testify that he saw Frank leave the pencil factory at 9:45 a. m. Sturdaya [sic], April 26, to go to Montag Brothers.

“Did you ever see Gantt speak to Mary Phagan while he was working in the factory?”

“No.”

The witness had misunderstood the question, he said, asking that it be repeated. The lawyers for the defense interposed that he was hard of hearing. Mr. Dorsey repeated the question.

“I saw him talking to her frequently.”

[several words missing] and where?”

“Around the time clock. [several words missing] would stop to register.

“What is the condition of the stairs that lead from the ground floor to the back of the basement?”

“It is good,” answered the witness.

“Are these stairs nailed up? If so, how long have they been nailed up?”
“All this year.”

“Were you there Monday morning after the murder?”

“I was.”

“What do you know about the insurance people going through the building?”

“I saw a crowd of men in the basement.”
“Do you know when that area down there was cleaned up?”

“About two weeks after the murder.”

That closed the direct examination, and the witness was turned over to Attorney Arnold.

“Mr. Holloway, all Saturday morning the front doors were unlocked, were they not?” began Mr. Arnold.

“Yes.”
“When those men, Denham and White, wanted you to saw those boards for them, you had to use the motor, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“That’s the same motor that runs the elevator, isn’t it?”

“Yes.”

“And you left the switch-box open when you left, did you?”

“Yes.”

ELEVATOR OPEN.

“Then anybody could run the elevator after that?”

“Anybody—yes.”

“Mr. Holloway, isn’t the floor of the metal department dirty and greasy?”

“There’s not a worse one in town.”
During the three years he has worked in the pencil factory, said the witness, the floor of the metal room has not been scoured once.

“Mr. Holloway, spots are not uncommon on this floor, are they?”

“No, sir.”
“Have you ever seen spots that looked like blood, around the ladies’ toilet?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever see the spots that Barret[t] claims to have discovered, on the floor of the metal room?”

“I saw it late on Monday.”
“This man Barret[t] discovered mighty near everything that was found in the building, didn’t he?”

“So he claims,” said the watchman.

“Did you ever see Frank speak to Mary Phagan?”

“Did you see Newt Lee when he got there Monday?”

“Yes, he was just going out with the detectives.”

“Who came next?”

“Either White or Denham—I don’t know which. He went upstairs.”

“Who was the next to come in?”

“Alonzo Mann, the office boy.”

“Who next?”

“Mr. Frank, I think.”
“What did he do?”

“He opened the safe, got out the books and went to work.”

“Who came next?”
“Mattie Smith. She worked there.”

“Who came next?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Didn’t you see Corinthia Hall and another young woman come in?”

“No, I met them at Hunter and Broad streets after I left the factory. Miss Emma asked if there was anybody at the factory. She was getting cold and wanted to get a wrap, she said. I told her Mr. Frank was there and would let her in.”

“Who else came in the factory while you were there?”

“Graham and others came in while I was upstairs with White and Denham.”

“Are there double doors leading back to the metal room? Are they kept locked?”

“Yes, but they’re not kept locked. One stays closed and the other open. They couldn’t be locked. There’s not lock on them. The doors are there to keep the steam out of the packing department. One is kept closed all the time when the factory is working.”
“On the Friday before the murder, did you turn the building over to Newt Lee?”
“Yes.”

“Who closed up the building?”

“Lee.”

“He closes all doors and windows?”

“Yes.”

“On all the floors?”

“Yes.”

“It’s his duty to go to the basement and the back door of the basement?”

“Yes.”

“What other negroes are employed in the factory?”

“Knolys, the fireman; Jim Conley, the sweeper; Bill McKinley, Fred Howell, who sweeps the metal room, and Joe Williams.”

“Have you ever heard of Stanford sweeping up the cement floors and the wood floors around the metal room?”

“Yes, frequently. He’s done that all this year, when we’ve been short of hands.”

“The factory usually paid off on Saturdays at 12 o’clock?”

“Yes.”

“Where were the employes paid off?”

“Near the clock.”
“Frank didn’t usually pay off, did he?”

“No, sir.”
“When were the employes paid off on the Friday before the murder—what time?”

“About 5:45 or 6 o’clock.”
“Saturday was a holiday?”

“Yes.”
“You put up signs notifying the employes that they would be paid off on Friday night?”

“Yes, sir, I put signs up on every floor.”

“What time did you usually get to the factory in the mornings, to relieve the night watchman?”

“Always at 6:20 o’clock.”

“Did you ever come to the factory on Sundays?”

“No, sir.”

“Who was there on Sundays?”

“Nobody.”

“How was the elevator entrance closed?”

“By sliding doors.”
“Could anybody raise them?”
“Yes.”

“What is the condition on the first floor?”

“Very dark. There are always a lot of boxes piled around. Anybody coming from the light of the street would find it hard to see.”

“Could anybody raise the doors and get into the elevator shaft from the first floor?”
“Yes, these doors slide up and down on weights, like windows.”

“Were the same kind of doors on the elevator on the second floor?”

“Yes.”

“Did you see Mrs. White before you left the factory that Saturday morning?”

“No, sir; she came after I left.”
“You say there are two time clocks, one registering from 1 to 100, and the other from 101 to 200?”

“Yes. There are about 160 employes in the factory. Every one has a number. That makes it necessary to have two clocks.”
“Newt Lee, the night watchman, was expected to punch every half-hour to show he was there—twenty-four times every twelve hours?”

“Yes.”

“Was the shipping clerk at the factory that Saturday morning?”

“Yes, he was there about two hours. He came at 8 o’clock and stayed until 10 o’clock.”

“Where is the shipping department?”

“Just off from the packing department on the second floor.”

“When Mattie Smith was paid off, she found a mistake had been made in her pay, did she not?”

“Yes, she found it out just about the time she came out of the office and got as far as the clock. Darley accompanied her back into Mr. Frank’s office and corrected the mistake.”
“The stenographer, Miss Hattie Hall, came in during the morning, did she not?”

“Yes, I saw her at the typewriter in the outer office.”

“What time did Frank come back from Montag Brothers?”

“About 11 o’clock.”

“Did he have a paper in his hand, or a folder?”

“Yes, he always carried this folder over to Montag Brothers and brought it back with him.”

“When Frank returned from Montage Brothers, did he go right up to office?” continued Mr. Arnold.

“Yes.”

“The stenographer was still in the outer office?”

“Yes.”

“We have some cords here.” Mr. Arnold picked up a piece of cord. “You used these cords in various parts of the factory building, did you not?”

“Yes, everywhere in the building.”
“You can find them in various parts of the building?”
“Everywhere.”

“They come to the factory tied around bundles of slats, do they not?”
“And pencils are made out of these slats?”
“Yes.”
“These cords are hung about on nails and get into the trash every day, do they not?”
“Yes, it’s impossible to keep them from being scattered around.”

“Did you see Mae Barrett that Saturday morning?”
“Yes, I met her going up into the building.”
“Did you see Mary Phagan?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you see Mary Phagan’s body?”
“Yes.”

“Did you recognize it?”
“Yes.”
“You knew her by name?”
“Yes.”

“She was stout and stockily built?”
“Yes.”
“Was the negro Conley familiar with the metal room?”
“Yes, he was familiar with every part of the building.”

On re-direct examination. Solicitor Dorsey asked Holloway this question:

“In my office, did you not tell me that you locked the power box of the elevator on Saturday?”

“I don’t remember.”

Solicitor Dorsey took up a stenographic record and read this extract:

“Do you general[l]y keep the power box locked? Answer: Yes. Where do you keep the key? Answer: In the office. Did you lock the box on Saturday? Answer: Yes.’

“Did you read over this record before you signed it?” demanded the solicitor.

“Yes,” said the watchman. “I read it over, but I didn’t tell you anything about sawing wood on that Saturday, and I remembered that I left the box unlocked and put the key in the office, where I got it Monday.”

The solicitor grilled the witness on previous statements by himself in contrast with those offered there in court.

Attorney Arnold said to the witness:

“You forgot to tell him about sawing the planks and that reminded you about unlocking the elevator and then taking the key to the office, where it was left because there is a spring lock on the power box?”

“That’s right,” the witness said.

After the witness left the stand Solicitor Dorsey tendered in evidence that portion of the stenographic record of Holloway’s statement to him which referred to the power box, saying that the witness did not admit saying that he locked the box on Saturday. The attorneys for the defense contended that he did admit saying that he had locked the box, although he was mistaken about it.

The witness was called back to the stand, and then he clearly admitted that he had said to the solicitor that he had told him that he locked the box on Saturday.

Solicitor Dorsey then declared that he still wanted to put the stenographic record in record as it was highest and best evidence of the witness’ contradictory statement by which he, Dorsey, had been entrapped. To avoid a tedious argument, said the solicitor, he would waive the point inasmuch as he had secured the witness’ admission that he had contradicted himself.

Solicitor Dorsey called for Mrs. Arthur White as the next witness, but Judge Roan declared it was time to adjourn. Before adjourning, however, the court asked if any of the jurors had any complaint to make of treatment they were receiving.

Juror Winburn said they had had a complaint relative to their rooms, but he understood the matter would be rectified by the sheriff.

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 1^st, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

Has the State succeeded in thoroughly establishing the fact that little Mary Phagan’s tragic death was effected on the second floor of the National Pencil Factory, in Forsyth street?

It has not, of course—but it has set up by competent evidence a number of suspicious circumstances, which, if properly sustained later along, will prove damaging in the extreme to Leo Frank.

Unless these circumstances, trivial in some aspects, are braced up and backed up, however, by other much stronger circumstances, they will give the jury, in all probability, little concern in arriving at a verdict.

Thursday was not a sensationally good day for the State, although it was much better than the day before.

Twice Thursday the Solicitor General claimed that he had been “entrapped” by witnesses—and this, with the lamentable fall down of John Black the day before—served to give rise in the minds of some spectators to a faint suspicion that the State didn’t have its case very well in hand.

No Help to Defense.

There is something terribly significant and actually sinister in that little word “entrapped,” however, when hurled at a witness in the presence of a jury, and it would be a mistake to believe that a witness, actually convicted, even in the mere opinion of the jury, of having deliberately misled the prosecution thereby helps the defense.

The witness who entraps, or who is thrown under suspicion of having entrapped, frequently does the party he seems primarily to have hurt a wonderful amount of good.

I believe, for instance, that Witness E. F. Holloway was speaking the truth when, on oath, he reversed his former affidavit to the Solicitor, and said that he left the elevator unlocked on Saturday, whereas he before had sworn that he locked it Friday and did not unlock it Saturday—the last inferentially, at least.

This point will mean a good deal later, when it is reached in developing the defense’s case, and if Holloway’s last story, apparently satisfactorily explained, holds together, well and good—but how can tell what the jury thinks about that contradiction upon the part of Holloway, particularly when he has been so deliberately accused by the Solicitor of entrapping him?

Holloway is an employee of the pencil factory—was before and has been since the murder. If the jury gathers the impression that he has been tampered with since his first statement, and by friends of Frank, to clear up seemingly damaging circumstances against Frank, it likely will be an aggravating thing, when the jury comes to make up its findings.

Will Hurt Frank’s Case.

Just as I thought, and still think, that Dorsey made a tactical mistake—for which he paid the full price, moreover—when on Wednesday he exclaimed “plant,” thereby accusing the defense of unfair and grossly indecent methods of bolstering up its cause, so I think the constant suggestion of witnesses changed in opinion and testimony, and in favor of Frank, will hurt Frank’s case, rather than help it, if sustained.

Mr. Dorsey failed utterly to bolster up his charge of “planted” evidence, but he didn’t fail, in anything like the same degree, to say the least of it, in attacking Holloway.

Or, anyway, there is a grave probability that he didn’t fail in the minds of the jury.

In short, my idea is this, as it has been all along: The public, and presumably even more the jury, will resent anything that savors of unfair methods employed either by the State of the defense.

Steadily, though slowly, the defense seems to be pulling away from the prosecution in the Frank trial, and the impression apparently is gaining ground gradually that the State likely is fighting a losing battle.

All of this may be changed in a moment—one witness on behalf of the State may serve to win back all the ground it may have lost.

Nothing More Uncertain Than Verdict

And, of all things, there is nothing to speculate upon quite so uncertain as the verdict a jury will hand in.

The jury is sitting there, its attention confined to the development of the evidence. It reads no newspapers; it converses with no outsiders.

It can not get up, run across the street and swap ideas with somebody in the corner drug store.

It took charge of the case, under its deliberately assumed oath that it was “perfectly impartial between the State and the accused,” and it is seeing things in its own way—and that way may not be the way outsiders are seeing it.

So far, however, the State’s witnesses alone have been introduced. Whatever advantage the defense has obtained of them has come in two ways – either in their failure to testify directly to the State’s benefit or through circumstances and admissions brought out in favor of the defense, under the merciless cross-examination of Luther Rosser.

It is a good deal to say, nevertheless, that at this stage of the trial the defense apparently has scored heaviest, for such points as it has won necessarily have been wrung from the State’s own witnesses, and not the witnesses of the defense. In other words, wherever the State fails to score, the defense scores.

How Points Have Been Scored.

If the defense made little, if anything, of Lee, it lost little, if anything, because of him.

It almost, if not quite, broke even on Rogers—and it most certainly scored tremendously on Black.

Scott, if damaging in a way, was also helpful in a way, in that he practically admitted suspicion of the negro Conley quite as as strong as suspicion of Frank.

Monteen Stover swore that Frank was not in his office for, at least, a period of some five minutes, immediately after 12 o’clock on the day of the murder; at least, if he was, he was where she could not or did not see him. Grace Hix undoubtedly helped Frank. Dr. Smith helped the State.

R. P. Barrett swore he found a piece of a pay envelope under Mary Phagan’s machine three or four days after the murder, and that he found blood spots near the dressing room door three or four days after the murder.

Mell Stanford swore that the spots near the dressing room were not there Friday, and were there Monday, but he could not swear the spots were blood. Holloway helped the defense, probably.

There is nothing new in most of this testimony, however, save that of Barrett conceding the piece of envelope, and the defense presumably is ready, therefore, to meet it.

State Faces Hard Task.

The mere finding of a piece of pay envelope somewhere near Mary Phagan’s machine, is not, of itself, highly important; but it might serve as a link in an otherwise strong chain forged to connect Frank directly with the killing.

But if the state has succeeded in setting forth the fact that Frank may possibly have committed the crime, it yet has a long road to travel before it proves “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he DID do it.

Indeed, Frank’s attorneys have never combated the idea that he was in the factory at a moment when the killing of Mary Phagan MIGHT have been effected—and beyond that fact the State has been unable to proceed very far to date.

It must be remembered, too, that while the State now is engaged in weaving a web, real or imaginary, about Frank, the defense expects to weave a much more terrible and substantial web about Conley.

But even at that, mere suspicion alone will serve to convict neither.

Much Depends on Conley.

After all is said and done, and it generally gets back to this, the preliminary chain of circumstances against Frank likely will hold together tightly or fall apart hopelessly, according to the fate of James Conley on the witness stand.

If Conley stands the test of exhaustive cross-examination, then the circumstances leading up to and away from Conley’s connection with the case will stand or fall.

He is, and has been, at all times both the hope and the despair of the State, no less than the hope and despair of the defense.

He is the star witness about whom the entire Frank case revolves, about whom it has revolved for weeks, and about whom it must revolve to its end.

Of course, there ever is the chance that the State has something sensational, new and significant up its sleeve—and there is the remoter chance that the defense has some big surprises in store.

As the fifth day of the trial drags on, however, the impression has deepened almost into a conviction in the mind of the public that neither the State nor the defense has much to let out that already hasn’t been let out, in whole or in substantial parts.

Spirit of Fairness Everywhere.

And the public is waiting for Conley’s evidence before making up its mind.

More and more I notice in the casual comment of people about town a spirit of fairness and an inclination to await the full developments of both the State and the defense.

The public largely still is open-minded. It is “from Missouri”—and, after all, that is the way the public mind should be in this matter, for it is a very grave matter, and its final effect will be far-reaching and full of significance, no matter which way the verdict comes finally.

There is one point that Undertaker Gheesling cleared up, on oath, and the public should take careful note of it. He swore that Mary Phagan’s body was NOT mutilated in the way street rumor and gossip had it mutilated, just after the crime was committed.

That ugly story undoubtedly was accountable for some of the primary prejudice against Frank—but it was an untrue rumor, and in all fairness, now that it has been exploded it should be borne in mind.

Atlanta Georgian
July 31^st, 1913

Here are the important developments of Thursday in the trial of Leo M. Frank:

Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, is accused of having “trapped” the prosecution by Solicitor Dorsey, when he testifies that Frank was not nervous when he first saw him.

He is fiercely grilled by the defense after having testified to finding blood spots on the second floor, wiped over with a white substance. He testifies in addition that Herbert Haas, attorney for Frank, asked him to give him reports on his investigations before he gave them to the police and that he refused. He admits making statements that he omitted at the Coroner’s inquest.

Monteen Stover testifies that she did not see Frank in his office when she entered the factory at 12:05. She admits not having seen bureau and safe in the room.

R. P. Barrett, a machinist in the factory, declares that he found blood spots, apparently swept over with a white substance, and a portion of pay envelope on the second floor, as well as strands of hair in a lathe.

Mell Stanford, an employee, testifies to having seen the spots. Dr. Claude Smith testifies that spots on chips taken from the second floor were blood.

E. F. Holloway, State’s witness and foreman at the National Pencil Factory, gave the first evidence directly contradictory to the sensational affidavits of Jim Conley Thursday afternoon when he testified that he saw Leo M. Frank return to the factory from Montague Selig’s home the morning of the crime and that no one was with him.

Conley swore that Frank met him on the street and that he (Conley) returned to the plant with the accused superintendent.

The charge that he was entrapped outright by a witness was repeated once more at the trial by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, when E. F. Holloway, foreman at the pencil Factory declared that the elevator at the plant was not locked Saturday.

Solicitor Dorsey declared that in an affidavit Holloway had said the elevator was locked. Holloway said that when he made the affidavit he had forgotten that he had used the elevator to carry some wood for factory employees and had not locked the power box which controls the lift.

* * *

Dr. Claude Smith, city bacteriologist, testified Thursday afternoon that one of the chips taken from the second floor of the National Pencil factory had upon it blood corpuscles; however, he could not say they were corpuscles of human blood, making the statement that it was impossible to distinguish between human and animal corpuscles after they were dry.

This piece of evidence is believed by the State to go a long distance into destroying the contention of the defense that the red spots might be those of paint or aniline dye.

Dr. Smith said of the bloody shirt found at the house of Newt Lee that it apparently never had been worn when the blood was placed upon it. He declared that there was no odor except of a freshly laundered garment and that the inside of the neck band was not at all soiled.

The expert witness added that the blood on the shirt appeared to have been originally on the inside of the shirt and to have seeped outward through the material. In his opinion, the garment had been used to wipe up a quantity of blood.

Rosser Attacks Smith’s Evidence.

Attorney Rosser at once attacked Dr. Smith’s finding of red corpuscles on one of the chips. He made the bacteriologist admit that the blood might have been that of a mouse, killed there, as well as that of a human being. He forced Dr. Smith to say that he had found only four or five corpuscles on the one chip. Rosser ridiculed the idea that any significance could be attached to the finding of four or five corpuscles on one chip, when the other chips stained in the same manner revealed no chemical indication of the presence of blood.

“If blood is present the corpuscles can be distinguished for a matter of years, so long as the blood is not dissolved or washed away, can’t they?” shouted Rosser.

Dr. Smith conceded that this is true.

The bloodstained garments of Mary Phagan were shown at this time and Frank’s wife displayed emotion.

R. P. Barrett, a machinist on the second floor of the National Pencil Factory, gave unexpected and important evidence for the State. He told for the first time of finding between April 28 and 30 part of a pay envelope under the machine used by Mary Phagan, who was murdered in the factory April 26.

who made the startling discoveries of the spots resembling blood near the water cooler at the ladies’ dressing room on the second floor and the strands of reddish-brown hair on the lathing machine about 20 feet from the Phagan girl’s machine.

Not Regarded Seriously.

Barrett’s finding of the pay envelope was not regarded seriously by the defense. The envelope was begrimed and dirty. It must have been scraped about the floor considerably if it had accumulated all its dirt between the time that Mary Phagan was last paid and the time that Barrett found it on the floor. It bore no date. It bore no number or name. It bore no amount. The only scrap of writing on it was the loop of a letter which remained after the top of the envelope had been torn off. The loop might have been that of a “g,” a “y,” or any of the other letters that extend below the line of writing. If it was the envelope of Mary Phagan there is still the possibility that it was of another week.

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, July 15, 1913

State Officials Refuse to Consider Seriously Statement of Insurance Agent

Despite the claim that many witnesses to corroborate the assertions of W.H. Mincey, the insurance agent and school teacher who claims that Conley confessed to him can be produced by the defense of Leo M. Frank, state officials refuse to consider seriously Mincey’s testimony as an important element in the case.

Details of the Mincey affidavit are corroborated by E.F. Holloway, an employe of the National Pencil factory, who states that he remembers Mincey’s visit to the scene of Mary Phagan’s murder on the Tuesday following the crime.

Mincey states that he was told that 20 negroes were on duty at the factory on the day of the murder, although about eight of them were employed by the concern. He further detailed a conversation with a factory employe, who allowed him to look about the place that day.

Holloway says that he remembers the visit of a man who asked particularly about the negroes employed at the factory, and otherwise fully corroborates the details of the visit to the factory as given by Mincey.

Solicitor Dorsey, it was learned Tuesday, has known for some weeks that the Frank defense possessed the Mincey affidavit and as a result he has made a vigorous probe of the affiant’s past career, and of his movements on the day that Mary Phagan was murdered, the day that the negro Conley is supposed to have told him that he had killed a girl.

Solicitor Dorsey will not discuss his investigation of the man, but it is known that he does not consider the man’s probable testimony as important.

The solicitor spent Tuesday morning examining a number of the state’s witnesses, and he is spending practically his entire time in preparing the Frank case. He expects to be ready when the case is called on July 28, a week from next Monday.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 15th 1913, “Mincey Affidavit Not New to the Solicitor,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)