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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Following the testimony of those who claimed to have played poker at the Emil Selig home on the night of April 26, Mrs. Selig, Leo Frank’s mother-in-law was placed on the stand and asked a number of questions about the happenings at her house on Sunday, April 27. To most of the questions from the state on cross-examination she replied that she had forgotten.

When the witness took the stand, Attorney Arnold called on the state for the affidavit which Minola McKnight, the Selig’s cook, signed at police station and later repudiated.

“Mrs. Selig,” said Mr. Arnold, “I wanted to ask you some questions about statements in this affidavit and find out if they are true.

“Is it true that there was talk in your home about the time of the murder? Leo Frank being caught with a girl at the factory and that the negro cook asked if it was a Jew girl or a Gentile and you or Mrs. Frank said it was a Gentile?”

“It is not true, there was no such conversation that I know of.”

Mrs. Selig was almost crying at this juncture of her testimony.

“Did Mrs. Frank say that he had told her he was in trouble and that he did not know why he would commit murder or did she tell you he had asked her for a pistol to kill himself with?”
“No.”

“Did you raise the wages of Minola McKnight, your cook, right after the murder?”
“Not a penny.”

Mrs. Selig’s Memory Faulty.

Mr. Dorsey then took up the cross-examination.

“How long after the murder was it before your daughter visited her husband in jail?”
“I don’t know.”

“Do you recall the occasion when someone came to your house to get a statement from your cook?”
“No.”

“Do you remember that Albert McKnight, the cook’s husband, was there on Saturday, April 26?”

“No.”

“What time did Frank leave the house that Sunday morning?”
“I don’t know.”

“What time did he get back that night?”
“I don’t remember.”

“[words illegible] come down stairs that morning?”
“No.”

“What time did you have breakfast that Sunday morning?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Did Frank eat with the family?”
“No.”

“Did he eat there that morning?”
“Yes.”

“What time was it?”
“About 11 o’clock.”

Frank Left House.

“Did he remain there that day?”
“I think he went off.”

“Where?”
“I don’t know.”

“How long did you say it was after Frank was locked up before his wife went to see him?”
“I don’t know. I think it was on Thursday that she first went.”

“Did you say that Mrs. Frank did not tell you her husband did not rest well that Saturday night?”
“She did not tell me that.”

“She didn’t tell you he was drunk?”
“She did not.”

“Wasn’t it two weeks before your daughter went to see her husband in jail?”

“No.”

Could Not Remember Date.

“Is it impossible for you to fix the day upon which your daughter first went to see her husband after he was locked up on the serious charge of murder?”

“I can’t fix it.”

“You can’t fix the day?”
“I’m not trying to.”

“What do you pay Minola McKnight a week?”

“I pay her $7.50.”

“Isn’t it true that during the week she made her affidavit you paid her $4?”
“No.”

“Didn’t you give her extra money?”
“No, I once advanced her a week’s wages though.”

“Did she pay it back?”
“She did.”

“Did you not give her $5 about that time?”

“I gave her that amount and told her to get it changed and take her money out and return me the rest.”

Memory Again Grows Faulty.

“When did Mrs. Frank give her a hat?”
“I don’t remember.”

“What else did you give Minola besides money and a hat?”
“I didn’t give her a hat.”

“Mrs. Frank did though?”
“Yes.”

“What time on Thursday was it, if it was that day, did Mrs. Frank go to the jail to see her husband?”
“I don’t know.”

An argument then started and Attorney Rosser interrupted it by moving to rule out all that had been said about the time that elapsed before Mrs. Frank visited her husband in jail.

Judge Roan ordered that all reference to that and to the married life of the couple be ruled out.

“I ought to even be allowed to show that Frank had to send for his wife to come to the jail before she finally went,” was the solicitor’s final protest.

The witness was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Mother-in-Law of Frank Denies Charges in Cook’s 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 Journal
August 15^th, 1913

Testimony up to Thursday Would Fill 500 Newspaper Columns, Says Official

Mrs. M. Marcus, M. J. Goldstein, I. Strauss, Who Participated in Card Game, Declare Frank Showed No Signs of Excitement When They Saw Him Saturday Evening and That There Were No Scratches on His Face

That all Georgia records for criminal trials already had been broken and that probably there was no southern record approaching it, was the statement of the court stenographer informally Thursday afternoon with regard to the Leo M. Frank murder trial.

The stenographer stated that the records of the trial up to Thursday morning and including none of Thursday’s testimony, were well in excess of 400,000 words.

That is equivalent to more than 500 newspaper columns of solid print, with each line a full one.

That court did not include, of course, the voluminous record of the coroner’s inquest nor any of the other profuse documents which were written in advance of the trial’s beginning.

According to witnesses for the defense Leo M. Frank was not nervous and displayed no signs of extra concern on Saturday night, April 26, just a few hours before the little girl’s body was found by Newt Lee, the negro night watchman. The witnesses testified that they attended the card party at the home of Emil Selig that night and that the accused came in about 8:15 or 8:30 and sat in the hall and read a magazine until after 10 o’clock when he retired.

Mrs. M. Marcus, of 482 Washington street, was the first witness. She told the jury that she attended the Seligs’ card party, saw Frank and noticed nothing unusual in his manner. M. J. Goldstein, also of Washington street, declared that he too attended the card game and noticed nothing unusual about the accused. I. Strauss told the jury that he went to the Selig home about 10 o’clock that night to escort Mrs. Strauss home and that he saw the superintendent who retired shortly after he arrived. John W. Todd, of Pittsburg, Pa., was the only character witness introduced early in the afternoon. He was treasurer of Frank’s class at Cornell and said that the accused had a good reputation in college.

Mrs. Emil Selig, mother-in-law of the accused, occupied the stand for a while and denied the allegations in the affidavit made by Minola McKnight, the cook for the Franks. She declared that the married life of her daughter had been a very happy one, but this testimony was ruled out by Judge Roan.

Harry Denham, assistant foreman at the factory, testified that Frank left the factory on Saturday, April 26, the day of the tragedy, shortly before 1 o’clock in the afternoon and returned at 3. Denham gave the names of different visitors to the factory during the period he was there and said that he and White left shortly after 3, leaving Frank in his office writing. He borrowed $2 from Frank as he went out.

The first witness of the afternoon session was Mrs. M. Marcus, of 483 Washington street. She was one of the members of the card party at the Selig residence on the night of Memorial day. She testified that the group of friends with whom she was, played cards every Saturday night at the houses of different members. She testified that she saw Frank in the Selig residence between 5:30 and 8:45 o’clock; that he sat in the hall most of the time reading a magazine, and that he went up to bed about 10 or 10:30 o’clock. Nothing was brought out on examination.

Harry Denham was called as the next witness, but did not answer.

M. J. Goldstein, of 236 Washington street, was called as the second witness.

Mr. Goldstein testified that he was a member of the card party in the Selig home on the night of April 26. He said that he arrived there about 8:15 o’clock, and Mrs. Selig, Mrs. Leo M. Frank and Mrs. Marcus were already there. He said he played cards in the dining room; that Frank was seated in the hall.

In answer to a question by Attorney Arnold, he said there was absolutely nothing unusual about Frank that night. To the best of his recollection, said the witness, Frank went to bed about 10:30 o’clock, and his wife went fifteen minutes later. There were no scratches or bruises visible upon Frank, said he.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness briefly, developing nothing material.

Miss Eula Mae Flowers was called as the next witness. She did not respond and I. Strauss was called.

Mr. Strauss testified that he called at the Selig home about 10 o’clock on the night of April 26, to get his wife and escort her home. He stopped about an hour, he said, and played cards a while. From where he sat at the card table, he said, he could see Frank seated in the hall, and noticed nothing unusual about him. Frank went to bed soon after he, the witness, got there, and Mrs. Frank went soon afterward.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness, asking a few questions, concluding with, “How long did you play?” “An hour, maybe a little less,” answered the witness. “How did you come out?” “I can’t remember.”

MRS. SELIG ON STAND.

Mrs. Emil Selig was recalled as the next witness. Attorney Arnold asked the solicitor for copies of the affidavit that Minola McKnight made, remarking that he wanted to question Mrs. Selig about them. The solicitor gave them to him.

Mr. Arnold asked specifically about every detail of every statement in the affidavit, and Mrs. Selig denied each. Mr. Arnold brought out from Mrs. Selig that “Mrs. Rausin,” referred to in the affidavit, probably was Mrs. Ursenbach, her daughter.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“How long after Frank’s arrest did Mrs. Frank go to see him?”
“That week, I think.”

Later on in his examination, Mr. Dorsey reverted continually to Mrs. Frank’s first visit to her husband in the jail. Mrs. Selig said that not only did she not remember when that first visit was, but that also she would make no effort to remember it. Asking the solicitor what he was trying to imply by his question, the witness admitted that Mrs. Frank was at home Thursday and Wednesday and that she spent some time each day reading on the front porch.

Mr. Dorsey asked if Mrs. Frank went to see her husband before May 3, and the witness answered that she did not know. He asked if Frank had not been a prisoner two weeks when Mrs. Frank called, and the witness said she did not think so.

Mr. Arnold asked Mrs. Selig, when the cross-examination was concluded, “Was the married life of Mr. and Mrs. Frank happy?”
“Exceptionally happy,” answered the witness.

The solicitor objected to the question and answer and asked that they be ruled out. Before Judge Roan ruled, Mr. Rosser objected to all questions and answers by the solicitor about Mrs. Frank’s delay in calling upon her husband at the jail. Arguing his motion, Mr. Rosser declared that in this case it seemed that the court had forgotten the rules of circumstantial evidence and seemed to think that any circumstance was relevant, whereas, as a matter of fact, only circumstances pointing to the guilt or innocence of the accused were irrelevant.

“Suppose I had a veritable virago for a wife,” said Mr. Rosser, “and when I was locked up she didn’t come near me. Or suppose I had a very loving wife whom my inherent decency made me ask to stay away from the jail. How could that show whether I was guilty or innocent?”

Judge Roan ruled out all questions relating to the actions of Mrs. Frank, and also ruled out Mr. Arnold’s question as to the happiness of their married life.

Mrs. Selig was cross-examined at length by Mr. Dorsey. She was asked especially regarding any statement which she might have made to Minola McKnight, the cook, at the time when Minola was carried downtown by officers.

The witness did not remember anything, but denied every question which pointed toward the affidavit of the negress as being in any way correct.

She did not remember what time Frank left home on the morning of April 26. The witness said that on that day she did not see Albert McKnight at the house, in the morning or at dinner time or at night. She had seen Minola talking to Albert not more than two or three times, she said.

EMPHATIC DENIALS.

The solicitor questioned Mrs. Selig closely about the different statements in the affidavit by the cook, but got nothing from her except emphatic denials. The witness said that she was not up and did not remember seeing any officers who came to the residence for Frank on Sunday morning.

The solicitor asked a number of questions about the pay of Minola McKnight, which Mrs. Selig said is $3.50 a week and has been that since the negress first was employed. Mrs. Selig said that one week she did advance Minola $3 of her next week’s wages, and took the amount out the following week.

Mrs. Selig said that one week she did give Minola $5 with instructions to bring back the change, and that the cook brought back only $1 and that the following week she deducted 50 cents. The solicitor asked if Mrs. Frank had not given to Minola a hat since the tragedy. Mrs. Selig said her daughter had given Minola a hat, but she did not remember whether it was before or after the tragedy.

PITTSBURG WITNESS.

John W. Todd was called as the next witness. He is a citizen of Pittsburg, Pa., and assistant purchasing agent of the Crucible Steel company. He testified that he attended Cornell university at the same time Frank was there, and knew him as a fellow-student for four years. He testified that he, the witness, was treasurer of his class. He said that Frank’s general character was very good.

Harry Denham, assistant foreman on the fourth floor of the National Pencil factory, was called. He testified that he was paid off Friday afternoon and went back to the factory Saturday morning about 7:30 o’clock to work on some machinery on the fourth floor.

He said that Holloway was there when he arrived, but that he didn’t know whether Frank was in the building at that time.

He said that Mae Barrett came up about 11:15 o’clock, to the best of his recollection, and stayed there about three-quarters of an hour. She came, said he, for a crocus sack, and stood around and talked awhile.

He testified that Mrs. Emma Freeman and Miss Corinthia Hall came up and stayed about fifteen minutes. He said they got something and wrapped it up. He thought it was a coat.

He said that the next person who came to the fourth floor was the wife of Arthur White, who also was on the fourth floor at work. It was about 12:30 when Mrs. White came. Mrs. White and her husband had a long talk.

The next person who came up was Frank, who told them he was going to dinner and would like to close the doors, and asked Mrs. White if she would leave. He supposed it was about five minutes to 1 when Frank came up. Frank stayed only a moment, and Mrs. White went out right behind him.

Attorney Arnold questioned the witness closely as to whether he heard the elevator running about that time. He testified that he did not hear it running about that time or at all during the day while he was there. He said that the big wheel of the elevator, and the cables of the elevator, can be seen from the fourth floor. The machinery in the building was not running, he said.

Asked if the elevator makes any noise noticeable on the fourth floor when the machinery is not running, Denham said that the elevator jars the building a little when it starts and when it stops. Asked if it was the motor or the elevator that jars the building, he said he thought it was the elevator. From where he and White were working, it would have been easy to see the elevator by turning around, he said.

Denham testified that about 2 o’clock Frank came back and told him and White to get ready to leave. He said they had about finished their work, and that they washed and went on downstairs to the office, getting there about 3:19 o’clock. Frank was at his desk writing, and White borrowed $2 from him. He did not know what it was that Frank was writing on.

“How did Frank look?”

“He looked like he always does.”

“Did he look as usual when he came up to tell Mrs. White that he was going to shut the door?”
“Yes.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”
“I knew her by sight.”

“How long had you seen her before the murder?”

“I hadn’t seen her in about a week.”

“Can you look from the third floor landing to the elevator shaft on the office floor?”
“You can stop there and look and see it.”

“You had the run of the building on Saturday, didn’t you?”
“I suppose we did.”

“When you went downstairs everything was unfastened, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“Why did White tell Frank he wanted the money?”
“He said his wife had ‘robbed’ him.”

DORSEY’S QUESTIONS.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

“You were knocking and hammering considerably when you were working up there, weren’t you?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“Where on the fourth floor were you working?”
On the diagram of the pencil factory the witness pointed out a spot about half way the length of the building.

“You were working over the back of the office floor, then, weren’t you?”
“Yes.”

“How far were you from the stairway?”
“Forty feet.”

At the instance of Solicitor Dorsey, he designated the distance in the court room.

“You couldn’t have seen the elevator from where you were, because it opens to the side, doesn’t it?”
“I couldn’t have seen it but I could have seen the wheels moving.”

“But you were too busy with your work to look at it, weren’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What kind of doors are on the elevator?”
“They are sliding doors; you can slide them up and down.”

“They are always down when the factory is not running, aren’t they?”
“Sometimes they’re not.”

“Did you notice whether the door was up or down, the day you worked there?”
“Do you know whether the box to the switch of the motor on the second floor is kept locked?”

“I don’t know.”

FRANK CAME AT 1 O’CLOCK.

“When was the first time Frank came up to where you were working?”
“About 10 minutes to 1 o’clock.”

“Didn’t he come up earlier than that?”
“No.”

Solicitor Dorsey read a portion of Denham’s evidence before the coroner’s jury, wherein Denham said that Frank came up there about 12 o’clock.

“Is that right?” asked the solicitor.

“I’m not certain,” replied the witness.

“Are you certain now about the time?”
“No, sir.”

“How close did Frank come to where you were working, when he came up?”

“Within about 10 feet of us.”

“What’s the time he talked to Mrs. White, is it?”

“How many times did Frank come up that day?”
“Twice.”

“Were you through when he returned at 3 o’clock?”
“Yes, we were washing when he came back upstairs that time.”

“What time was that?”

RETURNED AT 3 O’CLOCK.

“Three o’clock.”

“You told the coroner that it was about 10 or 15 minutes to 3, didn’t you?”
“I’m not certain.”

“Frank said he was going right out, didn’t he, when he was up there the first time?”
“No, he said he wanted to.”

“Do you know whether he went out or not?”
“No.”

“On April 28 you went to the office floor, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You saw some blood in the metal room near the girls’ dressing room, didn’t you?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you say at the coroner’s jury you saw this blood?”

“I said I saw something that I thought was blood.”

“Did you hear the wind blowing Saturday?”
“Yes, I heard it snapping the blinds.”

“Did you hear any unusual noise in the building?”
“No, sir.”

“There is a door at the head of the stairs, as you come up to the floor you were working on, isn’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Is there a way to lock or fasten it?”
“No, sir.”

“Isn’t there a way to tie it?”
“Not that I know of.”

“Could a man on the office floor hear anybody walking up the aisle from the back of the fourth floor?”

“No, sir. I don’t think so.”

Denham then described how on April 26 he went down to the second floor to get some boards cut. He went to the band saw, he said, and that the boards were necessary for the work they were doing on the fourth floor.

“Didn’t you say at the coroner’s inquest that you did not leave the fourth floor between 7 and 3 o’clock?”
“I think I told them that.”

“That is a mistake then, is it?”
“Yes, it was a mistake.”

In answer to another question, Denham said that he and White had hunted up Holloway to get him to cut the boards for them.

“A person could have come into Frank’s office and you wouldn’t know anything about it, would you?”
“Yes, anybody could have come in or gone out.”

“You said at the coroner’s inquest that when Frank came upstairs, you did not see whether his face was flushed or not?”
“Yes. I didn’t pay any attention to him then.”

“What time did Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Freeman come there?”

“A little after 11 o’clock, I think.”

“Didn’t you say at the coroner’s inquest that it was a little after 10?”
“I don’t know,” said the witness.

“I’m not positive just when it was.”

“What did Frank say when he came upstairs?”
“He just told Mr. and Mrs. White that he wanted to go out to dinner.”

“What time was that?”
“It was some time after noon.”

J. R. LEACH CALLED.

The witness was excused. The next witness, J. R. Leach, division superintendent for the Georgia Railway and Power company, proved a good witness, for both the state and the defense.

Mr. Leach stated that he is familiar with the schedules of different lines in the city. The Georgia avenue cars leave the center of the city on the hour and every ten minutes afterward, except during the rush period, when there is a five minute schedule. It takes them from two to three minutes, depending on the amount of traffic, to go from Broad and Marietta to Whitehall and Alabama. The Washington street cars, he said, also pass Whitehall and Alabama. They leave at two minutes after the hour, and every ten minutes from then on. He said that it takes just about 12 minutes for the Georgia avenue cars to go from Whitehall and Alabama to the corner of Georgia avenue and Washington street. He said, that it takes just about the same time for the Washington street cars to go from that corner to the corner of Georgia avenue and Glenn street.

DORSEY EXAMINES.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“There’s no such thing as a 7 1-2 minute schedule, is there?”
“We figure on them, but they are not posted on the bulletin boards.”

“How long have you been with the power company?”
“Fifteen years.”

“Don’t the cars very frequently reach the center of the city ahead of time?”
“Yes, they do, although it is against the rules and we try to prevent it.”

“Didn’t you last week suspend a man for being six minutes ahead of his schedule?”

“Yes.”

“After Matthews testified, didn’t you see him come in ahead of time?”
The question was ruled out.

By repeated questions the solicitor drove home the fact that cars frequently come into the city ahead of time, and that they are especially prone to come in ahead when crews are about to be relieved.

Mr. Arnold, on re-direct examination, brought out the statement that the English avenue car has a pretty hard schedule.

C. D. ALBERT TESTIFIES.

The next witness to take the stand was Prof. C. D. Albert. He is head of the department of machine designing at Cornell university. His home is in Ithaca, N. Y., and he has had his position on the Cornell faculty for five years. He stated that he knew Leo M. Frank from October, 1904, to June, 1908. He was then an instructor in the mechanical laboratory, and Frank was student under him. He knew Frank very well and his character was good. The witness was not cross-examined. When he left the stand he went over and shook hands with Frank, who greeted him very cordially, Prof. Albert sitting down and talking with Frank and the prisoner’s wife.

J. E. Vanderholt, of Ithaca, N. Y., was called. He is the foreman in the Cornell university foundry. He testified that he had known Frank since 1903 and had been associated with him for two years at Cornell university. He testified that he knew Frank’s character to be good. Attorney Hooper, cross-examining him, asked “How long have you been at Cornell?”
“Twenty-five years,” said the witness.

“How many students on an average are there in that university each year?”
“Two hundred to three hundred in my department.”

“How many are there in the school?”
“About 1,200 this year.”

“Well, you didn’t take any special note of Leo M. Frank, did you?”
“I came in contact with him every alternate day.”

“You don’t mean to say that you know all about the morals of all these 300 men that you teach every year, do you?”

“Well, I see them all.”

“You are never out with them when they start to paint the town red, are you?”
“No, sir.”

“Some of them do paint the town red, don’t they?”
“A certain class of them do.”

“You don’t pretend to tell about the morals of Frank outside of your class, do you?”
“I do not.”

MAE FLOWERS ON STAND.

The witness was excused, and Miss Eula Mae Flowers was called.

“Did you work in the pencil factory on Saturday, April 26?” Mr. Arnold asked Miss Flowers.

“No, sir.”

“Did you work Friday, the day before?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did Herbert Schiff get the data from you for the financial sheet, Friday?”
“Yes, he got it Friday night.”

“What time did he get it?”
“At 10 minutes to 6 o’clock.”

Miss Flowers continued that the data which Schiff got showed the production in her department for the preceding weeks. Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“Did you always turn these slips in Friday night?”
“Yes.”

“Did it touch Friday’s production?”

“No, sir.”

“What particular department is yours?”

“The packing department.”

“Did you see blood spots on the floor in the metal room after the killing?”
“No, sir.”

“How did it happen that you didn’t see them?”
“Well, it was not my business.”

“And you had no curiosity to see them?”
“No, sir.”

Witness was excused.

SATURDAY BALL GAME.

C. F. Ursenbach, of 62 Washington street, whose wife is a sister of Mrs. Leo M. Frank, was the next witness. He testified that on Friday, April 25, he called Frank over the telephone and asked him if he would go to the game on Saturday afternoon.

The witness said that Frank replied he did not know for certain then but would call him later and let him know. He said that when he went home Saturday about 1:30, his cook told him Frank had called up and said he could not go to the game.

He said that Frank was at his house twice on Sunday, the first time about 12:15, when he told him and Mrs. Ursenbach of the tragedy at the factory. He noticed no scratches or bruises on Frank. He said that Frank seemed disturbed and nervous as a man would be naturally under the circumstances.

The witness said he himself felt disturbed. He testified that Frank came to the house again in the afternoon and that when Frank left about 4:30 o’clock he borrowed the witness’ rain coat. That same evening, Sunday, he and Mrs. Ursenbach met Mr. and Mrs. Frank on Washington street and that Frank returned to him the raincoat.

He testified that the two families visited frequently on Saturdays and Sundays. He said he and his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Frank had just learned the game of bridge whist and played it quite a good deal, playing usually nearly every Saturday night.

HOOPER EXAMINES WITNESS.

Mr. Ursenbach was cross-examined by Attorney Hooper.

“What kind of a card did you say you and the Franks played?”

“I said we were very much interested in the game of bridge whist. The Seligs usually played poker on Saturday night, but we did not join in their game.”

“When did you say the baseball engagement was called off?”
“I said Saturday about 1:30 when I went home the cook told me Frank had called up and said he could not go to the game.”

“You are certain Frank didn’t call you himself and tell you he couldn’t go to the game?”
“Yes, I’m certain I did not talk to him over the telephone. The cook said he called up and tried to get me, and had left the message with her.”

“How was it you say that baseball engagement was made?”
“I telephoned to Frank and invited him.”

“You are certain Frank didn’t telephone you?”
“No, I telephoned him.”

“When was it you said you lent him the raincoat?”
“Sunday afternoon at my house.”

“Isn’t it a fact that Frank borrowed the raincoat before that and carried it to the factory on Saturday?”

“No, he didn’t have it Saturday. He got it Sunday afternoon just as I have told you.”

MRS. URSENBACH ON STAND.

The next witness called was Mrs. C. F. Ursenbach, the sister of Mrs. Leo M. Frank. A striking resemblance between the two was noticeable as Mrs. Ursenbach took the stand.

She testified that she remembered on Saturday, receiving a message through her servant about 1:30 to the effect that Frank could not go with Mr. Ursenbach to the ball game. She testified that she saw Frank at her house about 12:15 o’clock Sunday. He told them then of the tragedy at the pencil factory. She noticed on him no marks of any kind, no scratches nor bruises. His manner, she testified, was nervous as a man naturally would be under the circumstances. She said that he returned to the house Sunday afternoon and she and her husband met Mr. Frank and his wife on Washington street Sunday evening.

Attorney Arnold borrowed from the solicitor the Minola McKnight affidavit and read to Mrs. Ursenbach that portion which claimed to report remarks which passed between Mrs. Ursenbach and Mrs. Frank. In the affidavit Mrs. Ursenbach was referred to as “Miss Rausin.” Mrs. Ursenbach explained that her given name is Rosalind. She supposed “Miss Rausin” was the negro’s pronunciation of her name. Reading the affidavit, Mr. Arnold asked the witness if she had said to Mrs. Frank: “It’s mighty bad,” and if Mrs. Frank replied: “Yes. I’m going to get after her.”

Mrs. Ursenbach stated that nothing of the kind had occurred.

Mrs. Ursenbach was cross-examined by Attorney Hooper. The witness stated that she remembered her husband lending the rain coat to Frank Sunday afternoon.

“Where was the rain coat Saturday?”
“In my house.”

“What time Saturday did you notice it?”
“I don’t know that I noticed it that day?”
“Then you don’t know that it was in your house?”
“No, but I know it was there Sunday when my husband asked Mr. Frank if he wouldn’t wear it.”

“Who suggested speaking to Minola McKnight about the case?”

“Why, I don’t know. I didn’t speak to her, and I didn’t hear anybody else.”

“What did Frank tell you about the crime?”
“He told me how he was called down there, and how horrible it was.”

“What time was it he told you that?”
“A little after 12.”

“What else did he say about it?”
“He was talking to Mr. Ursenbach and I was frequently out of the room.”

“Tell us something that he said.”

SAID CRIME WAS BRUTAL.

“He said it was a brutal crime.”

“Didn’t he say anything about getting a lawyer or hiring the Pinkertons?”

“I didn’t hear him.”

“What time did he say he left the factory?”
“He didn’t say, I think.”

“How did he show his nervousness?”
“He kept patting his foot on the floor.”

“Did he wring his hands or run them through his hair?”
“I don’t think so.”

“Did he say how he slept that night?”
“He didn’t say.”

“What did he tell you about the ringing of the telephone?”
“He said he thought he heard it in his sleep.”

“What else did he say about the crime?”
“He said they were trying to find out who killed the girl.”

“Did he tell you about identifying the body?”
“Yes. He said he was down there in the afternoon.”

“Are you sure he said afternoon?”

“I think so.”

“Did he say he saw the body?”
He said the body was a gruesome sight.”

“Did he mention the changes he made in the time clock?”
“I didn’t hear anything like that.”
“Did he say he suspected Gantt, or Newt Lee, or anybody?”

DISTRUSTED GANTT.

“He said he was sorry he left Gantt into the factory because he distrusted him.”

“He didn’t say that he thought Newt Lee or Gantt did it?”
“No, I don’t remember that he mentioned Lee. I was in and out of the room. Oh, yes, he did say that Newt Lee was a good negro as far as he knew.”

Witness said he did not know when she heard the name of the murdered girl. She said she was at the Selig home again Monday evening.

“What did Mr. Frank say then?”
“He said the detectives seemed to suspect him.”

“Was he nervous then?”
“I don’t think so.”

“You mean to say Frank was nervous before he was suspected, and not nervous after he was suspected?”
“Well, really I don’t remember. I think he patted his foot that afternoon.”

“When was the last time you played bridge with him before the tragedy?”
“It was that week. I don’t remember the day.”

“When did you play after the murder?”

“We didn’t play, but Sunday night Mr. Frank phoned to Mr. Ursenbach to see if we were going to.”

“Did you hear the conversation?”
The witness said no, and Attorney Rosser moved to rule it out. He was sustained by Judge Roan.

MRS. A. E. MARCUS CALLED.

The witness left the stand, and Mrs. A. E. Marcus, of 489 Washington street, another sister of Mrs. Frank, went on the stand. She stated that she played cards at the Selig residence, Saturday night; saw Frank sitting in the hall; noticed nothing out of the ordinary about his demeanor, and that he went to bed about 10:30 o’clock.

Mr. Hooper, cross-questioning the witness, asked:

“Where was he sitting?”
“Out in the hall.”

“You didn’t let him break up your poker game, did you?”
“One of the ladies said something to him about not reading a story, and he told it to us instead.”

“I see. You didn’t want any story of a baseball game to break up a poker game, did you?”
The witness shrugged her shoulders, and the examination ended.

KRIEGSHABER TESTIFIES.

Victor H. Kriegshaber was called to the stand as the next witness for the defense. Mr. Kriegshaber is a dealer in building supplies and has lived in Atlanta for 22 years, he said. He has known Frank for three years, he said, and his general character is good.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“How often do you come in contact with Frank?” he asked.

“Not frequently.”

“You are much older than he, aren’t you?”
“I don’t know how much older.” This caused audible laughter in court.

“Who is that out there?” demanded Mr. Arnold. “Is that the way to try this case, with the audience giggling?”
Judge Roan addressed the spectators. “If there is any more disorder out there, I won’t let you in here at all tomorrow.”

Judge Roan instructed the deputy to seek the man who laughed. Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor put the man out.

The witness continued that he is a member of the board of trustees of the Hebrew Orphans’ home and that Frank is also.

“How often does the board meet?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“Once a month.”

“How often do you attend?”
“Nearly every meeting.”

“How long has Frank been on the board?”
“He was appointed only a short time ago.”

“How many times, then, have you seen him at these meetings? Give us an estimate.”

“About twice.”

The witness said that he had seen Frank at the Orphans’ home with Frank’s uncle several times. He did not know Frank socially, said the witness, but had met him a few times at various places.

MAX GOLDSTEIN.

Max Goldstein, a lawyer, was called to the stand. He testified that he has known Frank for three years and a half and that his general character is good. He said that for a year he lived on the same street with Frank and saw him nearly every day then. Also he met Frank in B’nai B’rith work, he said.

“Are you married?” asked Solicitor Dorsey, cross-examining the witness.

“No, sir.”

“You don’t associated a whole lot, socially, then, with Frank, do you?”
“No, sir.”

The witness testified that he met Frank at the Progress club occasionally, too.

Sidney Levy was called as the next witness. He is a clerk for the Atlanta Joint Terminals company.

Levy Testified that Frank’s reputation is good, and was excused.

RABBI MARX TESTIFIES.

Rabbi David Marx was called to the stand. He testified that he has lived in Atlanta eighteen years; that he knows Frank very intimately, and that Frank’s character is exceptionally good. He was excused.

D. I. McIntyre, a member of the firm of Haas & McIntyre, insurance agents, was the next witness. He said that he has known Frank for some time and that Frank’s general character is good.

Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court. “We would like to have the privilege of calling this witness back later for further questioning, your honor,” said he. Attorney Arnold said, “We don’t want to hold him. He’s a business man.”

“We will subpoena him again,” said the solicitor.

“I intend to leave for New York tomorrow night,” said Mr. McIntyre.

Solicitor Dorsey said, “All right.”

Dr. B. Wildauer, a dentist, of 69 Windsor street, was the next witness called. He said that he had lived in Atlanta since 1890; that he had known Frank five years and that his general character is good.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned him briefly.

“You never knew about his conduct in the pencil factory with the girls, did you?”

“I did not.”

“You didn’t know what occurred at the pencil factory on Saturdays, holidays and nights, did you?”
“I did not.”

JOHN FINLEY.

John Finley, of 16 Irene avenue, formerly assistant superintendent of the pencil factory, was called next. He testified that he had known Frank for five years, and that his character was good. The solicitor cross-questioned the witness at considerable length, digging into other matters than Frank’s character. The solicitor developed that Finley had gone to the pencil factory as master mechanic, and later was made assistant superintendent.

“What is your business now?”
“I’m superintendent for Dittler Brothers.”

“Are you any relative of Frank or his wife?”
“Not that I know of.”

“When did you leave the employ of the pencil factory?”
“About three years ago.”

“How have you kept in touch with Frank since that time?”
“I haven’t.”

“Do you know what his actions at the pencil factory have been since you left?”
“I do not.”

“Did you know about that old cot down there in the basement?”
“I did not.”

The witness testified that at the time he worked there Frank usually left on Saturday about 1 o’clock. He said that at that time they did not have a nightwatchman, although a Mr. Green acted as day watchman.

“Do you know about the elevator there?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes, sir, I had it put in.”

“Where is the switch box on the second floor?”
“It’s on the left hand side of the elevator shaft, when a person faces the elevator.”

“Did you keep it closed or open when you were there?”
“We kept it closed when I was there.”

“Where did you keep the key?”
“I usually kept one in my pocket, and there was a key box for another in the office.”

The witness explained that it was the custom after anybody had used the elevator, to lock the box and put the key in the office.

“All the machinery of the elevator was on the second floor, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, the last time I was there?”
“The elevator makes a good deal of noise, doesn’t it?”
“No.”

“It shook the whole building, didn’t it, when they run it?”
“No, not while I was there.”

“You were as familiar with the elevator and the noise it made as anyone else, weren’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Looking after the elevator was part of your business, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“Were there any wheels of the elevator in the basement?”
“Yes, one small wheel.”

“Were there in the top of the building?”
“Yes, the sheave wheel and some other wheels were on the top floor.”

“Were they closed or open?”

“They were closed in.”

“You couldn’t see them then, could you?”
“Yes, you could see two of them from the fourth floor.”

“Did those wheels make any noise?”
“No.”

Attorney Arnold took the witness in hand for a few more direct questions.

“When did you leave the factory, Mr. Finley?”

“About three years ago.”

“Mr. Dorsey asked you whether the power box made any noise. Did you ever hear of a power box making any noise, Mr. Finley?”
“No, except when a fuse would blow out.”

“When the machinery would stop, could you hear the elevator?’
“Yes, I should say you could hear the motor all over the building.”

ANOTHER CHARACTER WITNESS.

The next witness called was Nathan Klein, a character witness for the defense. He testified that he is 30 years old, has lived 29 years in Atlanta, is in the wholesale lumber business, that his residence is at 93 Windsor street, that he has known Frank six years, and that Frank’s character is good.

“Do you recollect seeing Mr. Frank on the evening of Thanksgiving day, 1912?”

“Yes, I saw him at a dance at the Hebrew Orphans’ home from 8 o’clock until 11:30 that night. Mr. Frank, myself and some others were committee in charge of the dance. It was for the benefit of the B’nai B’rith lodge.”

DORSEY’S VIGOROUS ATTACK.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness, and injected new life into the sluggish proceedings by going after the witness in probably the most vigorous fashion of any whom he had attacked during the day.

“You’ve been with Mr. Frank a good deal down at the jail, haven’t you?”
“Yes.”

“How much.”

“From thirty minutes to an hour five days during the week.”

“Were you there when Conley sought an interview with Frank?”
Attorney Rosser objected to the words, “sought an interview” on the ground that they implied a conclusion, and Judge Roan sustained him.

“Were you there when Conley asked to confront Frank?”
Attorney Rosser entered a vigorous objection. He was sustained by the court.

“Then tell us just what did happen, Mr. Klein. Did Conley come down there?”
“Yes, he was brought there by Detective Black, Scott and Campbell.”

“Did Frank see him?”
“No.”

“Did you send down a message to them?”

REFUSED TO SEE CONLEY.

“Yes, I told them that Mr. Frank would see no one.”

“Did they bring Conley to the front of Frank’s cell?”
“Yes, they brought the negro to the front of his cell.”

“Did Frank come out and see Conley?”

“No, I went to the front and acted as spokesman.”

“Then Frank didn’t come out at all, did he? He stayed in the back end of the cell all the time?”

“I said he did not come out.”

“He wouldn’t see the detectives, either, would he?”
“No.”

“He wouldn’t even see his own detective, Scott, would he?”
Attorney Rosser objected to Solicitor Dorsey referring to Scott as Frank’s own detective.

“All right, then,” said the solicitor. “We’ll call him Detective Scott. Frank didn’t see him, did he?”
“No, he didn’t see him.”

“What did Frank say?”

“He said he would see nobody except in the presence of his attorney.”

“Did Frank offer to send for his attorney then?”
“He said if they wanted to see him they’d have to go and get Mr. Rosser.”

“Was this before or after Conley had been taken to the factory?”

“I think it was the day he admitted writing the notes on Friday.”

“What was Frank’s manner at that time?”

“He was perfectly cool. He considered Conley the same as one of the city detectives.”

“How do you know that?”

“I conferred with him and he said so.”

“Why did he say that he wouldn’t see Scott?”

“He said he would see none of the city detectives, and that included Scott?”

“No.”

“Then you just concluded that. Now tell us how Frank looked when Conley came up that day.”

“He looked very much disappointed, because the grand jury had just indicted him. He expected to be cleared before the grand jury.”

“Why did he say he expected to be cleared?”
“He didn’t say why. I just know that he expected to be cleared.”

“What did he do when the news came that he had been indicted?”
“I went there with Dr. Wildauer, and Frank and he didn’t think it was possible. He said he had been in a hopeful frame of mind.”

“When did you first see him after he was arrested?’
“I saw him at the station house.”

“He wasn’t arrested then, was he?”
“The papers said he was being detained, but there was a policeman on guard over him.”

“He expected to go to jail, didn’t he?”
“I don’t know whether he did or not.”

“Did you see the telegrams he sent to his uncle?”

“No.”

“Who was his uncle?”
“Mr. Moses Frank.”

“How often did you go to the National Pencil factory to see Mr. Frank?”

MANY VISITED HIM.

“I should say fifteen times or more, in connection with B’nai B’rith work.”

“Who else besides yourself was with Mr. Frank at the jail?”
“Several friends went down to see him. Sometimes there’d be as many as six or seven there at once.”

“Were you one of those who helped to make arrangements to shift the […]

END OF TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK IS NOW IN SIGHT

[…] watch so that there would be somebody on guard there with him all the time?”
“I don’t know as to being on guard there with him. I know I went to see him nearly every day, and that Dr. Wildauer went to see him I think nearly every day, and that many other friends went to see him.”

This concluded the cross-examination. Before the witness was excused Attorney Rosser asked, “Do you remember whether I was in the city on the day they took Conley to the jail to see Frank, or whether I was in north Georgia trying a case?”

“I don’t know as to that.”

R. B. SONN CALLED.

R. B. Sonn, of 478 Washington street, superintendent of the Hebrew Orphans’ home, resident of Atlanta for the past 25 years, was the next witness. He testified to Frank’s good character.

Alex Dittler, of 340 Courtland street, a resident of Atlanta for 33 years, present secretary of the Jewish Educational Alliance and the Federation of Jewish Charities, formerly a deputy city marshal, and for a number of years a deputy clerk of the superior court in this county, also testified as to the good character of the accused.

Arthur Heyman, a law partner of Solicitor Dorsey, was another character witness. He said that he had known the defendant for three or four years and that his general reputation is good.

The solicitor cross-examined his partner, and brought out the statement that Mr. Heyman had seen Frank only seven or eight times and talked to him alone for no more than a few minutes at a time. Mr. Heyman admitted that he knew nothing of Frank’s relations with girls at the factory nor of how he spent his afternoons and holidays.

COURT ADJOURNS.

Court then adjourned until 9 o’clock Friday morning.

Luther Z. Rosser, chief counsel for the defense stated privately to reporters that he hoped to conclude the defense cause by Friday night.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 15th 1913, “All Georgia Records Broken by the Frank Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution

Friday, June 6th, 1913

Says the Wife of an Accused Man Would Be the Last to Learn of Her Husband’s Guilt.

MRS. FRANK BITTER IN HER CRITICISM

Detective Department Not at All Disturbed Over Denial of the McKnight Woman That She Signed Affidavit.

The wife of a man accused of crime would probably be the last person to learn all of the facts establishing her husband’s guilt, and certainly would be the last person to admit his culpability, even though it be proved by overwhelming evidence.

Perhaps the most unpleasant feature incident to the position of prosecuting attorney arises from the fact that punishment of the guilty inevitably brings suffering to relations who are innocent of participation in the crime, yet who must share the humiliation following from its exposure.”

These statements are contained in a signed letter for publication given The Constitution yesterday afternoon by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey shortly following the issuance of a letter criticizing him by Mrs. Leo Frank, wife of the man indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan.

Scores the Detectives.

Mrs. Frank’s letter rings with caustic denunciation of the solicitor and the detectives for imprisoning the servant girl, Minola McKnight, and issuing the sensational affidavit purported to have been signed by the negress. She declares belief in her husband’s innocence and expresses confidence that he will be acquitted.

She arraigns the circulators of unsavory and “untrue” stories regarding her alleged unhappy married life and asserts that the suspected man could not have been “the good husband he had been to her if he were a criminal.” It is the first public statement issued by any member of the Frank family and created wide interest.

In accounting for the affidavit of the McKnight girl, she says that it is not improbable that the negress told such a story, as one would have doubtless concocted any kind of tale in order to escape the “tortuous third degree” to which Mrs. Frank says the girl was subjected at police headquarters on the day she made the affidavit. The wife corroborates her husband in his statement of his conduct at home on the day of the tragedy and says that other stories are absolutely false.

In speaking of the Phagan situation, Solicitor Dorsey says that a bill of indictment has been found by the grand jury, composed of impartial and respected citizens, and that as solicitor general, he welcomes all evidence from any source that will aid an impartial jury in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused man. It also is Mr. Dorsey’s first statement for publication.

It follows in full:

Solicitor Dorsey’s Statement.

“I have read the statement printed in the Atlanta newspapers over the signature of Mrs. Leo M. Frank, and I have only to say, without in any wise taking issue with her premises, as I might, that the wife of a man accused of crime would probably be the last person to learn all of the facts establishing his guilt, and certainly would be the last person to admit his culpability, even though proved by overwhelming evidence to the satisfaction of every impartial citizen beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt.

“Since the discovery of this crime I have rigidly adhered to my consistent policy of refraining from newspaper interviews of statements with relation to the evidence upon which the state must depend to convict and punish the perpetrator of the crime, and it is my purpose to adhere steadfastly to this policy, submitting to the jury of Fulton county citizens, to be selected under the fair provision of the law, the evidence upon which, alone, conviction or acquittal must depend.

“A bill of indictment has been found by the grand jury, composed of impartial and respected citizens of this community, and as solicitor general of this circuit, charged with the duty of aiding in the enforcement of our laws by the prosecution of those indicted for violating the law. I welcome all evidence from any source that will aid an impartial jury, under the charge of the court, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

“Perhaps the most unpleasant feature incident to the position of prosecuting attorney arises from the fact that punishment of the guilty inevitably brings suffering to relations who are innocent of participation in the crime, but who must share the humiliation flowing from its exposure.

“This however is an evil attendant upon crime and the courts and their officers cannot allow their sympathies for the innocent to retard the vigorous prosecution of those indicted for the commission of crime for were it otherwise sentiment and not justice would dominate the administration of our laws.

HUGH M. DORSEY.”

Detectives Not Disturbed.

Chief Lanford and Harry Scott apparently are not the slightest perturbed over the report that Minola McKnight the servant girl in the Frank home had repudiated the sensational affidavit to which she attested Tuesday afternoon. The chief declared that he did not believe the report and that he did not think the woman would renounce her sworn statement in the manner rumored.

She will be placed on the witness stand in the Frank trial the detectives assert and if she denies having made the affidavit Detectives Campbell and Starnes and two citizens will be sworn to testify that she did sign the document. The report is that she made a total denial of the statement accredited her by the detectives. She has returned to work in the Frank household.

The mother of the suspected superintendent, Mrs. L. Frank, whose home is in Brooklyn, N. Y., has arrived in Atlanta to be near her son and to attend his trial. She is stopping at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, 68 East Georgia avenue, at which Frank lived with his wife. She has visited the jail frequently since coming to Atlanta and will visit it daily throughout her visit.

Besides the reported denial of her affidavit by the servant girl there were no developments in the Phagan mystery Thursday, the detectives say Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford devoted their time to the grand jury to which they were summoned while the solicitor general and his staff were employed throughout the day in the same manner.

The Fulton county board of commissioners approved a bill of $45 submitted to them by William Black an undertaker of Marietta for the disinterment of Mary Phagan’s body in Marietta. The bill when first presented was protested by S. B. Turman on the ground that it already had been given the coroner’s O. K. His argument was that the coroner had no right to exercise this authority. He finally withdrew his protest.

Mrs. Frank’s Letter Follows:

Atlanta, Ga., June 5, 1913.

Editor Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Ga.

Dear Sir: The action of the solicitor general in arresting and imprisoning our family cook because she would not voluntarily make a false statement against my innocent husband brings a limit to patience. This wrong is not chargeable to a detective acting under the necessity of shielding his own reputation against attacks in newspapers but of an intelligent trained lawyer whose sworn duty is as much to protect the innocent as to punish the guilty. My information is that this solicitor has admitted that no crime is charged against this cook and that he had no legal right to have her arrested and imprisoned.

The following statement from The Atlanta Journal undertakes to give the history of the arrest up to the time the woman was carried to the police station in the patrol wagon, weeping and shouting in a hysterical condition.

The negress was arrested at the Selig residence shortly after noon Monday upon the order of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

She was carried to the solicitor’s office and that official with Detectives Campbell and Starnes examined her for more than an hour. The woman grew hysterical during the vigorous examination, and finally was led from the solicitor’s office to the police patrol weeping and shouting, “I am going to hang and don’t know a thing about it.”

“They Tortured Her.”

They tortured her for four hours with the well-known third degree process in the manner and with the result stated in The Atlanta Constitution of June 4, as follows:

Her husband who was also carried to the police station at noon was freed a short while before his wife left the prison. He was present during the third degree of four hours under which she was placed in the afternoon. He is said to have declared even in the presence of his wife that she had told conflicting stories of Frank’s conduct on the tragedy date.

After she had been quizzed to a point of exhaustion, Secretary G. C. Febuary attached to Chief Lanford’s office was summoned to note her statement in full.

It was the longest statement made by the woman since her connection with the mystery. It will be used probably in the trial. The negress was calm and composed upon emerging from the examination.

That the solicitor sworn to maintain the law should thus falsely arrest one against whom he has no charge and whom he does not even suspect and torture her contrary to the laws to force her to give evidence tending to swear away the life of an innocent man is beyond belief.

Innocent Sufferers.

Where will this end? My husband and my family and myself are the innocent sufferers now but who will be the next to suffer? I suppose the witnesses tortured will be confined to the class who are not able to employ law years to relieve them from the torture in time to prevent their being forced to give false affidavits but the lives sworn away may come from any class.

It will be noted that the plan is to apply the torture until the desired affidavit is wrung from the sufferer. Then it ends, but not before.

It is to be hoped that no person can be convicted of murder in any civilized country on evidence wrung from witnesses by torture. Why then does the solicitor continue to apply the third degree to produce testimony? How does he hope to get the jury to believe it? He can have only one hop and that is to keep the jury from knowing the methods to which he has resorted.

Of course, if he can torture witnesses into giving the kind of evidence he wants against my innocent husband in this case he can torture them into giving evidence against any other man in the community in either this or any other case. I can see only one hope. And that is to let the public know exactly what this officer of the law is doing and trust as I do trust to the sense of fairness and justice of the people.

It is not surprising that my cook should sign an affidavit to relieve herself from torture that had been applied to her for four hours according to The Atlanta Constitution to a point of exhaustion. It would be surprising if she would not under such circumstances give an affidavit.

This torturing process can be used to produce testimony to be published in the newspapers to prejudice the case of anyone the solicitor sees fit to accuse. It is also valuable to prevent anyone stating facts favorable to the accused because as soon as the solicitor finds it out, he can arrest the witness and apply the torture. It is hard to believe that practices of this nature will be countenanced anywhere in the world outside of Russia.

Corroborates Husband.

My husband was at home for lunch and in the evening at the hours he has stated on the day of the murder. He spent the whole of Saturday evening and night in my company. Neither on Saturday nor Saturday night nor no [sic] Sunday nor at any other time did my husband by word or act or in any other way demean himself otherwise than as an innocent man. He did nothing unusual and nothing to arouse the slightest suspicion. I know him to be innocent. There is no evidence against him, except that which is produced by torture. Of course evidence of this kind can be produced against any human being in the world.

I have been compelled to endure without fault either on the part of my husband or myself more than it falls to the lot of most women to bear. Slanders have been circulated in the community to the effect that my husband and myself were not happily married and every conceivable rumor has been put afloat that would do him and me harm with the public in spite of the fact that all our friends are aware that these statements are false and all his friends and myself know that my husband is a man actuated by lofty ideals that forbid his committing the crime that the detectives and the solicitor are seeking to fasten upon him.

I know my husband innocent. No man could make the good husband to a woman that he has been to me and be a criminal. All his acquaintances know he is innocent. Ask every man that knows him and see if you can find one that will believe he is guilty. If he were guilty, does it not seem reasonable that you could find some one who knows him that will say he believes him guilty?

Being a woman I do not understand the tricks and arts of detectives and prosecuting officers but I do know Leo Frank, and his friends know him and I know and his friends know that he is utterly incapable of committing the crime that these detectives and this solicitor are seeking to fasten upon him. Respectfully yours,

MRS. LEO M. FRANK.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, June 6th 1913, “Dorsey Replies to the Charges of Mrs. L. Frank,” 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

Tuesday, June 3^rd, 1913

George Gordon Represents Minola McKnight as Attorney and May Seek Habeas Corpus During Afternoon

NEGRESS DECLARES HER HUSBAND HAS LIED

She Swears Leo M. Frank Was at Home at Time He Testified Before the Coroner’s Inquest

It became known Tuesday morning that Attorney George Gordon had been retained to represent Minola McKnight, the negro cook employed by Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, parents-in-law of Leo M. Frank, held for the murder of Mary Phagan.

Who employed the lawyer could not be learned, but the fact remains that Mr. Gordon is representing the negress, whose arrest Monday by city detectives, followed a questioning by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

It is also understood on good authority that Mr. Gordon is seriously considering the matter of seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the McKnight woman and further developments along this line are expected during the afternoon.

WOMAN QUESTIONED.

Shortly after noon Tuesday the McKnight woman was taken from her cell on the first floor at police headquarters by Detectives tSarnes [sic] and Sampbell [sic], who led her to a private room adjoining the detective department on the third floor. Two unknown white men and a negro man, supposed to be the woman’s husband, were left alone with her for about an hour and a half, when the detectives were called in.

After talking with the woman for a few minutes Detective Starnes came out of the room, gathered up a pen, ink and paper and went back. It is presumed that she has made some kind of a statement which the detectives consider significant and which they desire to take down in the form of an affidavit.

Attorney George Gordon was outside in the detective department for a portion of the time the woman was being questioned.

The hysteria which marked her demeanor when she first was arrested, has subsided, and Minola McKnight, the negro cook for Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, of 68 East Georgia avenue, home of Leo M. Frank, still sticks to the story she hysterically shouted throughout police headquarters Monday afternoon.

The negress was arrested at the Selig residence shortly after noon Monday upon the order of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

She was carried to the solicitor’s office and that official with Detectives Campbell and Starnes examined her for more than an hour. The woman grew hysterical during the vigorous examination, and finally was led from the solicitor’s office to the police patrol, weeping and shouting: “I am going to hang and don’t know a thing about it.”

Later it developed that [t]he woman’s husband, Albert McKnight, had been in the room with the officers.

The husband, it is said, reported to the police officials that Minola told him that Mr. Frank returned to the Selig residence about noon of the Saturday Mary Phagan was murdered and went back to the office at 1 p. m. The husband further quotes his wife as saying that on the Sunday morning after the tragedy Mrs. Frank complained that she did not sleep during the night because of the nervousness of Mr. Frank.

Albert McKnight, in the room with the solicitor and the two detectives, is said to have attempted to induce his wife to repeat the statements which he claimed she had made to him. She refused, however, calling her husband a liar, and saying that she never made any statements faintly resembling those attributed to her.

At variance with the allegations of her husband, the negress declares that Frank arrived at the residence on the Saturday of the tragedy about 1:20 or 1:30 o’clock, that he ate his luncheon and then lay down on a couch in one of the rooms. He went downtown later, she says, and returned about 6:30 o’clock. She says that she is certain that he was at the residence at about 7:45 or 8 o’clock that evening, for at that time he gave her a week’s wages, five $1 bills, and she left the Selig residence for her own home in the rear of 351 Pulliam street.

Minola declares that she will stick to her story despite the efforts of her husband to induce her to change it.

Minola declares that some time ago she had a fuss with her husband, and this quarrel, she avers, must have led him to tell the police “lies” about her.

During the first hours of her incarceration the cook shouted continually that she was going to hang, although innocent; and frequently she shouted, too, that Frank is innocent.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, June 3rd 1913, “Attorney Retained for Negro Servant at Frank’s Home,” 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

Monday, June 2^nd, 1913

Woman Questioned by Dorsey, Becomes Hysterical; Solicitor Refuses to Tell Whether She Gave Important Information; Alibi for Defense.

Minola Mcknight, the negro cook in the household of Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, 68 Georgia Avenue, with whom Leo M. Frank lived, was put through the severest sort of grilling in the office of Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey Monday in an effort to break down Frank’s alibi which tends to show that he was at home about the time James Conley swore the notes found by Mary Phagan’s body were written.

The negro woman grew histerical [sic] and her shrieks and protestations could be heard through the closed door. She maintained to the end of the two hours of rapid-fire questioning, however, that Frank had arrived home by 1:30 o’clock the Saturday afternoon of the crime.

She was taken into custody on information said to have been furnished by her husband. She later was taken to the police station to be held under suspicion. The details of her statements to the solicitor and the full import of the information said to have been disclosed by her husband have been shrouded with the utmost secrecy by Solicitor Dorsey. It is said, however, that she declared to the last that Frank had arrived home by 1:30 o’clock to her positive knowledge.

Her sobs and hysterical cries were heard soon after she entered the office of the solicitor. Mr. Dorsey was able to quiet her for a few minutes at a time, when it is supposed he obtained her statement of Frank’s whereabouts on Saturday, April 26, so far as she knew. At detective headquarters, the officers were non-commital as to the nature or value of the testimony that the engro [sic] woman had given.

It was on the negro cook that the defense had relied to assist in proving an alibi for Frank when his case comes to trial this month.

The woman was in hysterics at police headquarters and kept shouting, “I am going to hang but I didn’t do it. I don’t know a thing about it.”

Four Others to Testify.

Four other persons will be prepared to testify at the trial of Leo M. Frank that he arrived at home for luncheon at 1:20 o’clock the Saturday afternoon that Mary Phagan was killed, which would have been an impossibility, the defense will assert, if Frank had directed the disposal of the body and dictated the notes at the time the negro alleges.

Information leading to the woman’s arrest is said to have come from statements made by her husband, Albert McKnight.

According to report, Albert is said to have informed detectives of a statement made by his wife to the effect that Frank did not return to his home until midnight on the night of the murder. This allegation is contrary to Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury.

The negro woman is also declared to have said that Mrs. Frank complained the following morning that Frank kept her awake that night by his extreme nervousness.

Minola declares that her husband is lying. She refused to swear to the statements attributed to her by her husband when taken before Solicitor Dorsey. She declader [sic] that Albert’s stories were prompted by a quarrel she had with him some time ago.

Differences in Stories.

Testimony before the Coroner’s jury by Frank and others indicated strongly that he was at home by 1:20 the afternoon of the crime. Conley in his affidavits declared that he went into Frank’s office at four minutes before 1 o’clock. He said that after a conversation of a few minutes Frank heard voices and shoved Conley into a closet. Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Clark entered, Conley was kept a prisoner in the closet, he said, for eight or ten minutes.

It was after this, he said, that Frank asked him if he could write. Conley swore in his affidavit that he answered in the affirmative, and that he was directed to write several notes, most of which began: “Dear mother, a long tall black negro did this by hisself.”

After this followed the giving of $2.50 to the negro, according to his story, as well as the giving of the $200 which later was taken back by Frank.

All of the incidents that the negro has detailed, in the minds of many interested in the case, would have kept Frank at the factory considerably after the time that five witnesses will swear he arrived home.

Wife and Her Parents to Aid.

These witnesses are Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Mrs. Frank, the cook in the Selig household and an acquaintance of Frank who is said to have seen him riding home in the street car.

Adding doubt to the negro’s affidavit is the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall before the Coroner’s jury. Miss Hall testified that she left the building about 11:45 Saturday forenoon. Conley described her as coming to Frank’s office more than an hour later.

Sheriff Mangum made indignant and emphatic denial Monday of the reports that Conley had been approached, threatened or intimidated while he was in a cell at the Tower.

Conley, he said, was not threatened in any way. He was not approached by friends of Leo Frank and no one was permitted to see Conley whom the negro did not wish to see.

“There is not a bit of truth in the statements that have been made to the effect that Frank’s friends were allowed to get to Conley and make attempts to frighten him into a confession,” said the Sheriff. “It was reported that a group of Frank’s friends, with a bottle of liquor, went to Conley’s cell. This is absolutely fabrication.

Treats All Prisoners Alike.

“Frank is no more to me than Conley, so far as the law is concerned. The law tells me to protect all my prisoners without fear or favor. This I have done, and this I shall continue to do. Conley was treated exactly as Frank has been, or as anyone else awaiting trial or the action of the Grand Jury.

“If anyone came to see him, he was asked first if he wished to see that person or persons. If he said he did not, his wishes were regarded to the letter.

“The report that I am seeking the Jewish support and the Jewish vote or any other class or race or nationality, as against another, is most absurd upon the face of it.

“I have nothing to say against Chief Lanford. I would only suggest that he try his case in the court and not attempt to settle the whole case and hang one man or another before the twelve men the law prescribes have had a chance to pass on the prisoner’s guilt or innocence.”

Conley made a personal request of Chief of Detectives Lanford Monday morning to be taken to confront the factory superintendent.

“I think I could make him tell everything if I could just go there to his cell and tell my story again,” said the negro. Conley repeatedly urged upon Chief Lanford that he be allowed to face Frank. He declared he thought his presence would break Frank down.

The Chief regarded Conley as sincere in his request, but said that he would make no further effort to bring the negro and the factory superintendent together. All rested in the hands of Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, Lanford announced.

“I have made several attempts to take Conley to Frank’s cell since the negro began making his disclosures,” explained Chief Lanford. “All efforts have been unavailing. Frank steadfastly has refused to talk with the detectives or with anyone whom the detectives may bring to see him. Attorney Rosser may arrange for a meeting of this sort, but the detective department has given it up.

Conley Not To Be Indicted Now.

“If Rosser is confident that Frank is innocent, he may think it will help his client’s case to give him a chance to see the negro and deny his tale.”

Chief Lanford said that there would be no bar to Conley’s testimony at the trial of Frank. Conley, he said, would not be indicted as an accessory after the fact at the present time, but more likely would be indicted after Frank’s fate was determined in one way or another. In the meantime he will be held as a material witness like Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the factory.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 2nd 1913, “Negro Cook at Home Where Frank Lived Held by the Police,” 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

Monday, June 2^nd, 1913

Defense to Cite Discrepancies in Time to Disprove Conley’s Affidavit—Sheriff Denies Friends of Superintendent Approached Sweeper in Cell.

After a two-hour grilling by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey Minola McKnight, a negro woman about 21 years old, was taken to police headquarters and is held under suspicion in connection with the murder of Mary Phagan.

She is believed to have made sensational disclosures to the solicitor.

At the police station she was in hysteria, shouting:

“I am going to hang, but I didn’t do it.”

* * *

Five persons will be prepared to testify at the trial of Leo M. Frank that he arrived at home for luncheon at 1:20 o’clock the Saturday afternoon that Mary Phagan was killed, which would have been an impossibility, the defense will assert, if Frank had directed the disposal of the body and dictated the notes at the time the negro alleges.

Testimony before the Coroner’s jury by Frank and others indicated strongly that he was at home by 1:20 the afternoon of the crime.  Conley in his affidavits declared that he went into Frank’s office at four minutes before 1 o’clock. He said that after a conversation of a few minutes Frank heard voices and shoved Conley into a closet. Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Clark entered. Conley was kept a prisoner in the closet, he said, for eight or ten minutes.

It was after this, he said, that Frank asked him if he could write. Conley swore in his affidavit that he answered in the affirmative, and that he was directed to write several notes, most of which began: “Dear mother, a long tall black negro did this by hisself.”

After this, followed the giving of $2.50 to the negro, according to his story, as well as the giving of the $200 which later was taken back by Frank.

All of the incidents that the negro has detailed, in the minds of many interested in the case, would have kept Frank at the factory considerably after the time that five witnesses will swear he arrived home.

Wife and Her Parents to Aid.

These witnesses are Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Mrs. Frank, the cook in the Selig household and an acquaintance of Frank who is said to have seen him riding home in the street car.

Adding doubt to the negro’s affidavit is the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall before the Coroner’s jury, Miss Hall testified that she left the building about 11:45 Saturday forenoon. Conley described her as coming to Frank’s office more than an hour later.

Sheriff Mangum made indignant and emphatic denial Monday of the reports that Conley had been approached, threatened or intimidated while he was in a cell at the Tower.

Conley, he said, was not threatened in any way. He was not approached by friends of Leo Frank and no one was permitted to see Conley whom the negro did not wish to see.

“There is not a bit of truth in the statements that have been made to the effect that Frank’s friends were allowed to get to Conley and make attempts to frighten him into a confession,” said the Sheriff. “It was reported that a group of Frank’s friends, with a bottle of liquor, went to Conley’s cell. This is absolutely a fabrication.”

Treats All Prisoners Alike.

“Frank is no more to me than Conley, so far as the law is concerned. The law tells me to protect all my prisoners without fear or favor. This I have done, and this I shall continue to do. Conley was treated exactly as Frank has been, or as anyone else awaiting trial or the action of the Grand Jury.

“If anyone came to see him, he was asked first if he wished to see that person or persons. If he said he did not, his wishes were regarded to the letter.

“The report that I am seeking the Jewish support and the Jewish vote or any other class or race or nationality, as against another, is most absurd upon the face of it.

“I have nothing to say against Chief Lanford. I would only suggest that he try his case in the court and not attempt to settle the whole case and hang one man or another before the twelve men the law prescribes have had a chance to pass on the prisoner’s guilty or innocence.”

Conley made a personal request of Chief of Detectives Lanford Monday morning to be taken to confront the factory superintendent.

“I think I could make him tell everything if I could just go there to his cell and tell my story again,” said the negro. Conley repeatedly urged upon Chief Lanford that he be allowed to face Frank. He declared he thought his presence would break Frank down.

The Chief regarded Conley as sincere in his request, but said that he would make no further effort to bring the negro and the factory superintendent together. All rested in the hands of Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, Lanford announced.

“I have made several attempts to take Conley to Frank’s cell since the negro began making his disclosures,” explained Chief Lanford. “All efforts have been unavailing. Frank steadfastly has refused to talk with the detectives or with anyone whom the detectives may bring to see him. Attorney Rosser may arrange for a meeting of this sort, but the detective department has given it up.

Conley Not To Be Indicted Now.

“If Rosser is confident that Frank is innocent, he may think it will help his client’s case to give him a chance to see the negro and deny his tale.”

Chief Lanford said that there would be no bar to Conley’s testimony at the trial of Frank. Conley, he said, would not be indicted as an accessory after the fact at the present time, but more likely would be indicted after Frank’s fate was determined in one way or another. In the meantime he will be held as a material witness like Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the factory.

[Prisoner Can Shield Himself

Sheriff Mangum, in replying to Lanford’s attack of his attitude in preventing detectives from confronting Frank with his accuser, declared Monday morning the power to do this is not discretionary.

“If Lanford knew anything about the law,” said the Sheriff, “he would know that the law allows the prisoner in the county jail to say whom he will see and whom he will not see. If Frank does not want to see the negro, he doesn’t have to. If a prisoner asks a jailer to keep everyone out except his friends, his request is granted. That was the case when Mrs. Appelbaum was in jail, and all others as well.

“I don’t see why Lanford doesn’t try the Phagan case in court. He says he has the evidence to convict Frank. Why doesn’t he take it into court instead of trying to bring the matter into the jail?”– added from the “afternoon edition” of the Georgian — Ed.]

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 2nd 1913, “5 to Testify Frank Was at Home at Hour Negro Says He Aided,” 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

Tuesday, May 6^th, 1913

For Three Hours and a Half Mr. Frank Was on the Stand, Answering Questions About His Movements Every Hour and Minute of the Day—He Was Calm and Unruffled When Excused From Stand and Returned to the Tower

HE TELLS OF VISIT OF LEMMIE QUINN TO HIS OFFICE TEN MINUTES AFTER MARY PHAGAN RECEIVED WAGES

Introduction of Quinn Gives the Factory Superintendent an Important Witness, in Confirmation of His Statements. Only Three Witnesses Examined by Coroner at Session Monday Afternoon

For three hours and a half Leo M. Frank, general superintendent of the National Pencil factory in which Mary Phagan was murdered, faced the coroner’s jury Monday afternoon and told minutely, detail by detail, in precise sequence, where he was and what he did during practically every minute of Saturday, April 26, Saturday night, and Sunday, April 27. When he had finished, his father-in-law, Emil Selig, was put upon the stand and questioned closely regarding what he knew of Frank’s whereabouts and acts on those days. And after Mr. Selig had been excused, Mrs. Josephine Selig, his wife, was called to testify along the same line. These three witnesses occupied the entire session Monday, which was at work for almost five hours.

That Lemmie Quinn, foreman of tipping department, visited the Naitonal Pencil factory shortly after Mary Phagan is supposed to have received her pay envelope and departed, was an absolutely new feature in the murder mystery brought out by Mr. Frank’s testimony.

While Quinn has never been on the stand he has corroborated Mr. Frank’s statement in interviews with the detectives, and goes further by saying that he recalled his visit to the factory for the incarcerated superintendent.

Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, father and mother-in-law of Mr. Frank, with whom the latter lives, were the only other witnesses examined Monday afternoon before the inquest was adjourned until Thursday morning at 9:30 o’clock.

When Mr. Frank left the witness stand at 6:20 o’clock, after three hours anda half of examination, he stated to a Journal reporter that he was not tired. He seemed none the worse for the ordeal he had just gone through. He was at once transferred to the tower.

Leo. M. Frank, superintendent of the National Pencil factory, was the first witness when the inquest was resumed. Mr. Frank entered the commissioner’s room where the inquest was being held at 2:45 o’clock. He was accompanied by Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford, Chief of Police James L. Beavers, Detective J. N. Starnes and Deputy Plennie Miner.

He was sworn at 2:50 o’clock and a systematic questioning was begun by Coroner Donehoo, who was occasionally prompted by Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and Chief of Detectives Lanford.

“What is your name?” the coroner asked.

“Leo M. Frank,” was the answer.

“Where do you live?”

“At 68 East Georgia avenue.”

“What is your connection with the National Pencil factory?”

“I am general superintendent.”

“How long have you been with the National Pencil factory?”

“Since August, 1908,” was the answer.

“How long have you held the office of general superintendent?”

“Since September 1, 1908.”

“Where were you prior to that date?”

“Just prior to that time I was buying machinery for the factory.”

“Have you lived in Atlanta all your life?”

“No, sir.”

“Where did you live before coming to Atlanta?”

“In Brooklyn, New York.”

“Are you married or single?”

“I am married.”

“Is your wife living?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How many times have you been married?”

“Once only.”

“Where did you live in Brooklyn, N. Y.?”

“My last address there was 152 Underhill avenue.”

“In what business were you engaged in Brooklyn?”

“I was with the National Meter company.”

“When did you leave Brooklyn?”

“About the middle of October, 1907.”

“Where did you go?”

“To Atlanta to confer with the National Pencil company.”

“When did you go abroad?”

“The first week in November, 1907.”

“When did you return to Atlanta?”

“August 1, 1908.”

HIS DUTIES AT FACTORY.

“What are your duties at the pencil factory?”

“I look after the purchasing of material, inspect factory costs; see that orders are properly entered and filled, and look after the production in general.”

“What time did you get up Saturday morning, April 26?” was the next question.

“About 7 o’clock.”

“Do you and your wife live alone?”

“No, sir.”

“With whom do you live?”

“My mother and father-in-law.”

“Who are they?”

“Mr. and Mrs. Emile Selig.”

“Have you any children?”

“No, sir.”

“Does any one else live with you?”

“No, sir.”

“How many servants have you?”

“There is only one on the place.”

“What is this servant named?”

“I don’t know her last name. Her first name is Minola. She is colored.”

“What time does she get there?”

“About 6:30 o’clock.”

“Was she on time Saturday, April 26?”

“Yes, sir.”

LEFT HOME AT 8 A. M.

Mr. Frank said that he left his home about 8 o’clock that morning, Saturday, April 26. He remembered seeing his servant, Minola, and his wife, as he was leaving. He didn’t remember seeing any one else. He was sure he did not see Mrs. Selig. He might have seen Mr. Selig, but he did not remember.

At his corner he can catch either the Washington street or the Georgia avenue car, said he. He did not remember which he boarded that morning. He did not remember talking to any one on the car. He arrived at the factory about 8:20 o’clock. He does not punch the time clock. Mr. Holloway, the day watchman, and Alonzo Mann, the office boy, both were there. Holloway was near the time clock as he went by. Alonzo, the office boy, was in the office. He did not remember whether any one was in the machine room. He didn’t look back there. He didn’t remember how long it was, perhaps an hour until several other people came in to get their pay envelopes. One man came to get his envelope for his son, and another for his stepson. One of the men was the father of a boy named Jimmie Grant, he remembered. Saturday being Memorial day, was a holiday in the factory, but he had instructed the office force to report and Coroner Donehoo fired question after question, related or without context, at Mr. Frank, the queries being rapid and precise. It was evident that the witness was to be examined most minutely.

Continuing, Mr. Frank remembered that during the morning of that Saturday Miss Mattie Smith came in to get the pay envelopes of herself and her sister. He didn’t remember whether there was anybody in the outer office at that moment. The office boy should have been there. His chief clerk was Herbert Schiff, a salesman, who had been acting in that capacity since the discharge of J. M. Gantt, the former incumbent. Schiff was not in the office. The stenographer should have been in the outer office. She is a Miss Eubanks. He didn’t remember her first name.

He had been in the office about thirty or forty minutes when M. B. Darley, Wade Campbell and “Mr. Fullerton” came in. The first thing he did was look over his mail and the papers.

WENT TO MANAGER’S OFFICE.

“What sort of papers?” he was asked.

“Notes and orders,” he replied, adding that the notes are memoranda for his attention about work around the factory. He put them in a folder, to get ready for Monday.

“What did you do after you went through the mail?” he was asked.

He replied that he went over to the manager’s office about 10 o’clock. Before going there he talked several minutes with Darley and Campbell. He did not attend to the financial sheet then. He couldn’t recall doing anything else. The manager’s office is in the establishment of Montag Bros., 10 to 20 Nelson street, he said. Sig Montag is the manager. The coroner questioned him closely about what papers he handled that morning. He asked the witness, “What do you usually do after you get to the office when the factory is at work?”

Mr. Frank replied that usually he opened his desk, got out the orders, arranged the work for his stenographer, and at a few minutes after 7 o’clock he would go up into the factory and distribute the orders among the proper departments.

He said that he did not get the factory mail at this office. Sometimes he got personal mail there, he said. He went to the safe that morning and got out the papers, but couldn’t recall what the first one was. He answered numerous specific questions about where he was when the others came in, and how to make out a financial sheet, etc.

Frank said that he prepared a financial sheet Saturday afternoon. It bore the date of Thursday, the twenty-fourth, he said, in response, to the coroner’s question. Their week ended on Thursday, he said.

“Why didn’t you make out the sheet on Thursday?” he was asked.

“I didn’t know the payroll then. We generally get the payroll on Friday.”

INTENDED TO GO TO GAME.

“Did you intend to go to the ball game on Saturday?” the coroner asked.

“Yes,” replied Mr. Frank, “until I got up and saw it was a cloudy day.”

He was asked why he didn’t make out the final sheet in the morning, and replied that he had other matters—invoices, orders, etc.—to look after.

“When did you work on the house books?” he was asked.

“Not on Saturday,” he said.

Mr. Frank said that his stenographer was not at the office Saturday, so he called a Miss Hall from Montag Brothers to help him. He went to Montag Brothers to see an official of the National Pencil company, who has his office there, he said, and shortly before 11 o’clock Miss Hall telephoned him there to return to the pencil factory and took over some important papers. When he got back to the pencil factory Miss Hall, his office boy and some others were in his office, he said.

At this point the coroner abruptly changed his line of questioning to ask  “Is the house order book of April 30 in your handwriting?”

“No,” replied the witness.

“How many others were there on April 30?”

“Eleven, I think,” said Mr. Frank.

“Who entered those?”

“Miss Hall,” said the witness.

The coroner then came back to the visit to Montag brothers, and Mr. Frank said that he remained there until about 11 o’clock. He said that he talked to several persons there on business.

[Part of a paragraph is missing here—Ed.]

look over the mail for matters needing immediate attention.

MANY QUESTIONS ASKED.

“Did you stop on your way there?” he was asked.

“I don’t remember.”

“Did you stop on your way back?”

“I don’t remember,” he again answered.

The coroner asked him to try to refresh his memory. He still insisted that he did not remember stopping at any place, either on his way to or from Montag Brothers.

The coroner kept up his systematic fire of questions, asking “How old is your office boy?”

“About fifteen or sixteen,” he replied.

“Does he wear long or short trousers?”

“Short.”

“What did you do when you got back to the pencil factory?”

“I sorted orders for about ten minutes.”

“What was in those orders?”

“I don’t remember.”

He didn’t remember whether the orders or invoices were from in Atlanta or out of the city, he said.

“Do you usually get orders or invoices on the twenty-sixth?” was the next question.

“We get invoices when the goods are shipped,” the witness answered.

“Do you remember any specific order or invoices on that date?” he was asked.

“No, sir, I do not,” said Mr. Frank.

He had no specific times for taking up routine work, said Mr. Frank. Usually he took up what appeared to be most important at the time.

HE WAS ALONE, HE SAID.

He dictated letters a while to Miss Hall. She entered the orders that he had received that morning. He didn’t remember just what she was doing while he did that. It took him about five or ten minutes to assort the orders. It took Miss Hall about fifteen or twenty minutes to enter them. When she had entered them she wrote postcard receipts for them. Then she copied on the typewriter the letters that he had dictated to her.

That didn’t take her long. About 12 o’clock he started copying the orders in the shipping requests. About that time Miss Hall and the office boy left. He didn’t remember whether they went together. He remembered it was about noon, for he heard the whistle blow at the time. So far as he knew, there was no one else in the office after Miss Hall left. He said it was customary to copy orders on the day of their receipt. They were seldom more than a day late copying them. It took him probably forty minutes to copy the orders. He didn’t begin work more than a minute or two before 12 o’clock. Again he was asked whether he was alone, and answered, “Yes, as far as I know.”

MARY CAME FOR WAGES.

“About 12:10 or 12:05 o’clock,” said Mr. Frank, “this little girl who was killed came up and got her envelope. I didn’t see or hear any one with her. I didn’t hear her speak to any one who might have been outside. I was in my inside office working at the orders when she came up.

“I don’t remember exactly what she said.

“I looked up, and when she told me she wanted her envelope, I handed it to her. Knowing that the employees would be coming in for their pay envelopes, I had them all in the cash basket beside me, to save walking to the safe each time.”

Mr. Frank said he didn’t know Mary Phagan’s number. He said each envelope had the employee’s number stamped on it. He admitted that he had looked up Mary Phagan’s number since the murder, but he had forgotten it again, said he. He did not see her pay envelope after he handed it to her. He made no entry of the payment, on the payroll or any other record, because none was required, said he.

“The girl left. She got to the outer door and asked if the metal had come. I told her no.”

(The girl had been “laid off” from work at the factory the preceding Tuesday, it has been understood, because of a shortage in some metal which her work required.)

“Where was Mary Phagan when she asked about this metal?” he was asked.

“In the outer office, I think, or in the main hall.”

He explained that the Phagan child hadn’t been working since Monday because of the shortage in the metal supply.

There was $1.20 in the child’s pay envelope, he said, part of it being for work on Friday and Saturday of the previous week. He didn’t know at what rate she was paid, he said, as he didn’t open the sealed pay envelope.

HEARD FOOTSTEPS DIE AWAY.

When she left he heard her footsteps die away in the hall, he said, and returned to his work, thinking no more about her.

Mr. Frank said he knew the Phagan child’s face, but didn’t know her name. She stood partly behind his desk, he said, and he didn’t notice the details of her dress, but thought the color was light. He didn’t recall whether she wore a hat, or carried a parasol or purse, he said, and didn’t see her shoes or stockings, which, he said, were hidden by the desk.

The girl reached his office between 12:10 and 12:15, he said and stayed there about two minutes. He thought her name was on the outside of the pay envelope, he said, but had identified her by her number.

No one else came into the office while she was there, the witness said. In response to a question from the coroner, he said that he had told her she had come almost too late. When she left he thought he heard her voice in the outer office, he said. He made no entry on the pay roll after giving the girl her envelope, he said.

About five or ten minutes after Miss Phagan left a man named Lemmy [sic] Quinn, foreman in the tip department, came in, he said.

Quinn remarked, “Well, I see you’re busy,” Mr. Frank said, and left about 12:25. Mr. Frank then copied orders, he said. He didn’t know where Quinn went, he said.

Mr. Frank said that the metal hadn’t come at that time, and he didn’t think it had arrived yet. The acting chief clerk, whose name was Schiff, would receive it when it came, he said.

He didn’t go to see whether it had come when the Phagan child called, he said, nor did he ask Schiff about it. He would probably know it had come before Schiff did, he said.

HEARD WHISTLES.

Mr. Frank said that he fixed the time Mary Phagan came for her money by the factory whistles which blew about noon. He didn’t leave his office between the time the girl left and Quinn called, he said. He didn’t recall how Quinn was dressed, he said, but thinks he wore a straw hat.

Mr. Frank said he didn’t know how long Mary Phagan had worked at the pencil factory.

He said that Quinn knew Mary because he was foreman of the tip department in which she was employed. Quinn worked last week, Mr. Frank said, on tools and machinery.

Mr. Frank said that Quinn usually wore the same clothing around the factory that he wore on the streets. Quinn came into his office about 12:25 and spoke to him. He was wearing street clothes. Quinn was about twenty-five or thirty years old, said he. Probably half an hour after Quinn spoke to him he left the factory—about 1 o’clock, or three or four minutes after that hour. He did not lock all of the papers in the safe, he said, because he anticipated returning to work with them that afternoon.

“Do you remember which ones you got together before you left?”

Mr. Frank answered that he got the production sheet and looked it over, and a few other papers. After the time Miss Hall left the office until he himself left to go home he was in the office all of the time, he said. Before he left he went up to the fourth floor, where he found Harry Denham and Arthur White and Mrs. White, and told them he was going out and would lock the door. Mrs. White, he thought, said she would go on out, and he thought she went away. He went up by the stairway to that floor, he said.

The day watchman was there shortly after 11 o’clock, said he. He didn’t remember exactly what time he left. Except on Saturdays, the day watchman usually worked until the night watchman came on duty. On Saturdays, said he, he himself worked, except on rare occasions; and when he did work he let the day watchman go. He couldn’t remember more than three or four occasions, said he, when the day watchman had worked. He let the watchman off as a usual thing that Saturday, said he.

HADN’T SEEN FRY.

He was asked about Walter Fry, a negro employed at the factory. Fry, said he, is one of the oldest negro employees there. He had to clean the third floor of a lot of glue once each week, and usually he did it on Saturdays. Mr. Frank did not know whether Fry was in the building that day. The watchman said nothing of it, as he should have done had the negro been there. He had not excused Fry from work, said he. He hadn’t seen Fry in two weeks, he added.

He caught a Washington street car and got off at Georgia avenue. He got home about 1:20 o’clock. He found his mother-in-law and his wife dressed and ready to go to the opera. He told them good-bye and went in and had lunch with his father-in-law. The servant, Minola, waited upon them. They spent about twenty minutes eating. Afterward he lit a cigarette and lay down upon the sofa, his father-in-law, a chicken fancier, going out in the back yard to look at some chickens. His father-in-law had not come back when he got up and left the house. He did not sleep while he lay on the sofa. He dozed, for he was tired from the morning’s work.

He left home about 2 o’clock. On the street he saw a cousin of his, from Athens, and the cousin’s mother. He crossed the street and talked with them. They said they had come down for grand opera. He walked on up to Glenn street, not having missed a car, and there caught a Washington street car. On the street car he met another cousin, J. C. Loeb, and talked with Mr. Loeb as they rode to town. At the corner of Washington and Hunter streets the car stopped, on account of the parade, and he got out and walked west on Hunter to Whitehall. When he reached that corner the parade came around into Hunter street from Whitehall.

WATCHED THE PARADE.

He stopped there and watched the parade a while, then walked on up Whitehall toward Alabama. In front of Rich’s he met Miss Rebecca Carson, one of the forewomen in the factory. He spoke to her, but did not stop. That must have been about 2:40 o’clock. Just a few minutes later, when there was a lapse in the parade, he crossed Whitehall and entered Jacobs’ drug store on the corner, buying three or four cigars of a brand that he named, and perhaps a package of cigarettes. From Jacobs’ he went on up Alabama street to Forsyth, and turned down Forsyth to the factory. He opened the street door with his key, and locked it behind him with a latch manipulated from the inside. He unlocked the inner door and left it open behind him. That was about 3 o’clock. He took off his coat and went upstairs to the third floor, where he found Denham and White in the back of the room. They told him they would be through work and ready to leave in a few minutes. He came directly downstairs to his office. He opened the safe and took out some papers and started work on the financial sheet. A few minutes later he heard Denham and White come down from their work and ring the clock. White came into his office and borrowed $2. He joked with White a minute or so about the loan, and then got his signature upon an advanced wage sheet and gave him the $2. He put the slip in an envelope, where he kept other slips like it.

About 3:09 or 3:10 o’clock White and Denham went downstairs. Shortly afterward he followed them and latched the street door again behind them. That was about 3:20 o’clock, he said.

The day watchman left about 3 o’clock, Mr. Frank said, and White and Denham left about 3:15. He went downstairs and locked the door after them, he said, and returned to his work on the financial sheet. The witness said that, so far as he knew, he was alone in the factory. He had seen no one while on his way up or down the steps.

Mr. Frank said that he worked on the financial sheet until about 5:30 o’clock. At about fifteen minutes before 4, he said, he went to the lavatory to wash his hands, and on his way back to his office saw the night watchman coming up the stairs.

NIGHT WATCHMAN COMES.

Mr. Frank said that on Friday he had told the watchman to report for duty at 4 o’clock Saturday afternoon, and that he remembers the time because he looked at his watch to see if the watchman was on time. The watchman had pass keys to the doors, he said.

Asked about his conversation with the night watchman, Mr. Frank said that he said, “Howdy, Lee,” and told him he was sorry he had to come to work so early, and that he could go out and enjoy himself for an hour or an hour and a half. Lee offered him some bananas, he said, but he took none.

The only other interruption during the afternoon, Mr. Frank said, was a telephone call for Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Frank said that he had planned to go to the ball game with his brother-in-law, Mr. Ersenbach. He had tried to telephone Mr. Ersenbach that he couldn’t go, but had been unable to get him, the witness said.

Mr. Frank said that after 5:30 he balanced the cash. This took until about 6 o’clock, he said.

Mr. Frank was not downstairs between 4 and 4:30, he said, in response to a question.

The witness said that when Lee returned about 6 o’clock he was putting in the clock slips. There were two clocks, he said, one that registered between one and 100 and the other between 100 and 200. The watchman punched the latter. Mr. Frank took out the Friday slips, he said, which were dated April 26, and put them on the clerk’s desk.

He was asked when Fullerton was to start to work.

“On Monday, the 28^th,” he said. He didn’t know, he said, whether Fullerton started to work on Monday or not.

It was not very light, Mr. Frank said, when Lee returned to work. He had no conversation with him. Lee did not seem in the least agitated, Mr. Frank said.

GANTT WAS THERE.

Mr. Frank said that about 6 o’clock he washed his hands and put on his coat preparatory to leaving the building. Lee had punched the clock and was at the bottom of the steps, Mr. Frank said, to lock the door after him. Lee was talking to J. M. Gantt, former employee of the factory, on the sidewalk just outside the door, the witness said.

Mr. Frank said that Lee told him Gantt wanted to get a pair of shoes he had left in the factory. The witness said he sent Lee in with Gantt, and left the building himself.

Mr. Frank said he then went to Jacobs’ pharmacy at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets and bought a box of candy. It was a special kind of candy that was not kept boxed and he had to wait a few minutes, he said, while the girl put it in a box for him. He chatted with the girl, he said, but spoke to no one else before he got home.

He reached home about 6:25 o’clock, he said. His father-in-law and the servant were there, the witness said and his wife and his mother came in a few minutes later.

They came in about 6:30, Mr. Frank said, just as he was telephoning to the factory. He telephoned at 6:30, he said, because at that time the night watchman was due to be punching the clock and would ordinarily be where he could easily hear the telephone.

Mr. Frank said that he failed to get Leet at 6:30, so telephoned him again at 7 o’clock, when the watchman answered.

The witness said he asked whether Gantt had gone and if everything was all right, then ate his dinner.

Mr. Frank said he had never heard Gantta make any direct threats against him. Gantt had been discharged, the witness said, because of negligence in his accounts.

Mr. Frank said that he telephone the factory, because Gantt “was a man I wanted to keep up with when he was in the factory.”

The witness said that after supper he smoked and read until about 9:30 o’clock, when he went upstairs and lit the gas heater. He then went back downstairs, he said, and read until about 10:30, when he went back upstairs, took a bath and went to bed about 11.

Mr. Frank said he was awakened about 7:30 o’clock Sunday morning by the ringing of the telephone. He answered it in his bath robe, he said. It was Detective J. M. Starnes, who said he wanted Mr. Frank to identify some one at the factory, the witness said.

Mr. Frank said he asked the detective if there had been a fire, and the reply was, “No; a tragedy.”

The witness said Mr. Starnes told him an automobile would be right up for him. Detective Black and Boot Rogers arrived before he had finished dressing, Mr. Frank said. He went with them, he said, to Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment to see the body of Mary Phagan.

Mr. Frank said that he immediately recognized the “poor little thing.” He looked at her, he said, and remarked, “That is the child I paid off Saturday.”

Mr. Frank then described the appearance of the corpse, and said that the cord about her neck was of the type used on the third and fourth floors of the pencil factory in binding “units.”

GOES TO FACTORY.

He stayed at the undertaker’s shop but a few minutes. Then he drove down to the factory and saw Darley going in just ahead of him and called to him. He went upstairs, where he saw the negro and a number of detectives. There he was told the details of the tragedy. He took them down to the basement in the elevator. He couldn’t get the elevator to work at first, and Darley started it for him. He didn’t see any blood in the basement. He told Darley to nail up the back door, which they showed him to be standing open. He said it was part of the watchman’s duty to come down in the basement and see that that door was fastened, and also to look in the dust bin. The fire insurance people consider that dust bin somewhat of a hazard, said he. He hadn’t been in the cellar a dozen times before during his connection with the company, said he.

He answered a number of questions relative to the method of operating the elevator. It is run by electricity. There is a switch on the left of the elevator at the second floor landing where the power is turned off. The switch never is locked up. Formerly it was, but the insurance people objected, and later it was left unlocked where the firemen could get to it immediately and shut off the power in the building.

THE PART OF THE TIME CLOCK.

He was questioned as to the tape on the time clock. When he looked at it first after the tragedy, he thought it was all right because the lines had not been broken. Later, said he, he studied it more closely and saw that the negro night watchman had skipped in two or three places, punching hours only instead of hours and half hours. He said he had put the date, 28, on the tape in advance because he knew when the employees came to work Monday morning they would start to punching that date.

While he was in the factory on the Sunday morning after the tragedy was discovered, the detectives used most of the time going over the factory, looking for some one who might have been hidden. He did not know what machine Mary Phagan used in the factory, said he. He didn’t know of any stuff similar to whitewash used around the plant. There was a yellowish substance, like soap, used for a lubricant.

SAID HE HELPED DETECTIVES.

Leaving the factory that Sunday morning, he went to police headquarters with some of the detectives and Mr. Darley. There he answered a number of questions. He did not remember what they were, but he remembered that he wanted to give the detectives every possible help in getting at the bottom of the thing. He told them everything that they wanted to know, said he.

He and Darley left headquarters together and walked toward town. He asked Darley if he wanted to see Mary Phagan’s body, and Darley, saying yes, they walked over to the undertaker’s, but they could not see the corpse, because the embalmers were busy at the moment.

WORE THE SAME SUIT.

Questioned as to the clothes he wore on the day preceding the murder’s discovery, he declared that he wore the same suit that he wore then, as he testified. He had put it on the next Monday again, and had worn it constantly since. On the Sunday when the murder was discovered he wore a blue suit.

He answered a number of questions relative to the time clock. No person unfamiliar with it could manufacture a time record upon it, he said. He experienced some difficulty himself when he changed the dates, said he. There is a key to the time clock, said he, but he didn’t even know who had it. It would be possible, by moving the hands of the clock, to make it register at regular intervals, he thought.

RUNNING THE ELEVATOR.

The coroner reverted to Friday afternoon. He stayed somewhat late that afternoon, he said.

The elevator boy is a negro called “Snowball,” he said. He explained again the operation of the elevator. He (Frank) could run the elevator, but he had not done so on any certain occasion that he remembered. On Saturday morning the motor was running, he knew, because it was being used to operate a circular saw in the department where Denham and White were at work.

He said he had never telephoned before Saturday night to the negro night watchman, Newt Lee, because the negro had been there only a couple of weeks. The negro had been employed formerly by Mr. [1 word illegible], said he.

Frank said that he identified the girl’s corpse by her hair and her features. He didn’t know the girl’s name, he said, but recognized her corpse as that of the girl he had paid Saturday. Mr. Frank said that he hadn’t noticed that the girl appeared nervous when he saw her Saturday afternoon. He wasn’t sure he had heard her voice after she left him, he said, but thought he had heard some girl’s voice in the outer office.

Mr. Frank said that when he went to the undertaker’s establishment Sunday morning, he wore a blue suit he was accustomed to wear on Sundays, having changed from the brown one he had worn the day before. He had never worn this blue suit to the pencil factory that he remembered, the witness said.

He said that he mentioned to Darley on Sunday that he had on another suit. He changed things from the pocket of the brown suit to the blue one, he said; changed his underwear and his shirt, as he was accustomed to do. He had never given the night watchman any clothes, he said.

Mr. Frank was asked about his talk with Lee at the police station. He said that previous to his talk with Lee he had been asked by Detective Black and Scott to try to find out whether Lee had been letting couples into the pencil factory at night.

“Black said, ‘Put it strong to him,’” the witness said, “’Try to get out of him all you can. We think he knows more than he is willing to tell. Tell him they’ve got you and me and they’ll send us both to hell if you don’t tell what you know.’”

Mr. Frank said that he said to Lee something similar to the words Black has used. “I talked to him kindly,” Mr. Frank said. The witness said that he urged Lee to tell the truth about the couples; that he told Lee in substance, “They know you something,” and said, “They can swing us both if you don’t tell.”

Mr. Frank said that the negro said in substance, “’Fore God, Mr. Frank, I don’t know anything about it.’”

Lee declared that he had admitted no couples, Mr. Frank said, and “kept up a good tale.”

The witness said that he didn’t use the words the detectives told him in which he used the word “hell.”

Going back to the talk of the ball games, Mr. Frank said that he didn’t know what time the games started.

The witness was then quizzed as to how many suits of underwear he had worn, and how often he was accustomed to change.

He had worn one suit last week, he thought, he said. When he took them off he put them in the wash bag, he said. Detective Black saw them, he declared—a suit of winter underwear.

He generally wore two suits of underwear a week during the winter, he said, and four or five a week in the summer.

Going back to the references to the ball game, the witness was asked if he had intended going to the ball game after 4 o’clock. He said that he had expected to leave the factory at 1 o’clock.

Mr. Frank said that he had notified the factory employees by posting notices about Monday or Tuesday that they would be paid Friday afternoon, since Saturday was a holiday on account of being Memorial day. They were paid about 5 o’clock Friday afternoon, he said.

Mr. Frank said that during his conversation with Lee the watchman did not accuse him of the crime, or describe the girl’s body, and declared that he did not tell Lee not to talk about the tragedy.

Mr. Frank then said that the usual pay time was about noon Saturday.

He replied in answer to a question that he didn’t remember ever having used any cord like that found about the girl’s neck to tie a bundle.

“Are you right-handed or left-handed?” he was asked.

“Right-handed,” he replied.

Mr. Frank said that he had been in the habit of carrying a pocket knife, but this was taken from him when he was arrested.

The witness repeated his statement that he first heard the telephone on Sunday morning at about 7:30. Later Sunday morning, he said, he thought he recalled dreaming that he heard the telephone in the night.

MR. SELIG ON STAND.

Emil Selig, father-in-law of Mr. Frank, succeeded him on the witness stand. He lives at 68 Georgia avenue, said Mr. Selig. About three years ago Frank married his daughter. He had never heard of Frank being married before. He had known Frank about a year before Frank married Miss Selig.

In answer to the question, “Do you live with Mr. Frank?” the old gentleman replied, “No; he lives with me.”

He didn’t remember seeing Frank leave on the morning of the tragedy, said he. He did see him at dinner time and ate dinner with him. His wife and daughter both were going to grand opera, and, as well as he remembered, they left before the end of dinner.

After dinner, said Mr. Selig, he (Selig) lay down and took a nap. He didn’t know what Mr. Frank did. Maybe he lay down, too. Mr. Selig said he got up about 3 o’clock, and Frank was gone. He saw him again at supper. That was between 7 and 8 o’clock, he thought. He didn’t remember the exact hour. His wife and daughter and the servants all were there with them, he thought. After supper that Saturday night, Mr. Frank went out into the hall and sat there reading. “We played cards,” said he. Asked who “we” was, he replied that they had a little company in that evening.

Asked for the names of the company, he remembered that Mr. and Mrs. Morris Goldstein, Mrs. I. Strauss, who lives on Pryor street, and Mrs. Wolfsheimer, from Washington street, and maybe another married daughter, Mrs. A. E. Marcus, were there.

Mr. Frank didn’t play cards, said he. Mr. Frank must have known that the guests were there. He didn’t remember especially about that. They played cards there until about 11 o’clock. Mr. Frank, he presumed, went on up to bed about 9 o’clock. He didn’t see anything of him after that. Mrs. Frank didn’t play cards, but was out with her husband for a while.

“Who played partners?” the coroner asked him.

“We didn’t have any partners,” answered the witness. “We were playing for blood.”

On Saturday Mr. Frank had on a brown every-day suit, said the witness. He thought Mr. Frank had on the same suit Sunday. It was the same suit he had worn to the inquest, said Mr. Selig.

DIDN’T TALK ABOUT TRAGEDY.

Mr. Selig said that he didn’t hear the telephone ring during the night Saturday or Sunday morning. He didn’t remember Mr. Frank having telephoned the factory Saturday night, but that Mr. Frank might have done so without his having known it.

Mr. Selig said that he awoke about 8 o’clock Sunday morning, after Mr. Frank had left the house. Mrs. Frank told him that “something terrible had happened in the factory,” he said, but that he didn’t press the question as to what had transpired; that all day Sunday he made no efforts to find out what had occurred.

Mr. Frank returned home about 10 o’clock, the witness said. Mr. Selig said that he didn’t remember Mr. Frank having mentioned the affair during the day.

He said that Mr. Frank had frequently called the factory at night to ask if everything was all right.

MRS. SELIG TESTIFIES.

Mrs. Josephine Selig, wife of Emil Selig and mother-in-law of Mr. Frank, was the witness who succeeded her husband on the stand. She saw Mr. Frank Saturday at dinner, she said. She had not seen him at breakfast. She rarely saw him at breakfast. He came home to dinner about 1:15 o’clock. She and her husband, Frank and his wife and the cook were there in the house at that time. She and Mrs. Frank left about 1:20 o’clock to go to the opera matinee. She was not sure whether her husband was present when they left. She saw Mr. Frank again at supper about 6:15 o’clock. He was sitting in the hall, reading a paper, when they came in. They had supper between 6:30 and 6:45 o’clock. Mr. Frank had continued his reading since they came in. She didn’t see Mr. Frank use the telephone, but was pretty sure that he did. It was possible that she might have been upstairs when he used the phone in the dining room. It would not have been unusual for him to telephone, said she. She could not swear, she said, that Mr. Frank used the telephone that evening.

After supper, she said Mr. Frank stayed in the hall and read. She stayed there in the hall until about 8:20 o’clock. Then they had company and their company was entertained in the dining room just off the hall. Asked to name those who were there, she said the two Mrs. Marcus, Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, and Mrs. Ike Strauss were there. Ike Strauss came over about 10:30 o’clock for his wife, he said. She remembered that Mrs. Wolfsheimer was there, too.

KNEW GUESTS WERE THERE.

Mr. Frank knew these guests were in the house, she said. He was in the hall and conversed casually with them when they arrived. He must have talked with the guests about twenty minutes, she said. She couldn’t remember any of his conversation, she said.

“Now, this was the last night of the opera,” her questioners cautioned her. “Are you sure these guests were there that night?”

Mrs. Selig was positive. They played cards, she said. Mrs. Frank was there, too. She was in the dining room and out in the hall with Mr. Frank constantly during the evening. Mrs. Frank sat out there with him a good deal, but came in occasionally. He stopped reading some time between 9:30 o’clock and 10, she said. He went to bed then, stopping at the door as he went and telling them all good night.

Mrs. Frank went upstairs with him, she said.

Mrs. Selig said that when she got up the next morning the first person she saw was her daughter, Mrs. Frank.

Mrs. Frank said Mr. Frank had gone to town, but didn’t say why.

About 10 o’clock Mr. Frank came in and told her that some girl had been found dead in the factory. She didn’t remember anything else about the conversation.

She didn’t attach much importance to it, she said.

Mr. Frank didn’t go into details. He mentioned it casually. After a while he sat down and read a paper, she said. She denied that he seemed to be apprehensive.

Questioned again about that part of her testimony, she reiterated that the matter of the girl having been found dead was treated casually. Mr. Frank seemed not greatly concerned about it, she said.

All of these statements were made in direct answer to direct questions. Mrs. Selig seemed not to remember very much except that which she answered positively.

Mr. Frank wore a brown suit of clothes all three of the very days, she said—Saturday, Sunday and Monday. She was positive about this, she said.

Mr. Frank did not mention to her the name of the girl who had been found dead, said she. He owned another suit, of blue, she said. She went into detail about who their laundrymen are, etc.

At 7:20 o’clock the inquest adjourned until 9:30 o’clock Thursday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 6th 1913, “L. M. Frank’s Complete Story of Where He Was and What He Did on Day of Mary Phagan Murder,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)