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

Atlanta Constitution
August 9^th, 1913

When court convened Friday morning Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, engaged by the defense in the Phagan case, was recalled to the stand by the state and asked how long it took Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, to write a copy of one of the murder notes when it was read off to him and [1 word illegible], dictated word for word.

The detective declared that the negro had taken about three or four minutes for this.

“Boots” Rogers was next called and asked one question about the condition of the basement. Rogers is the ex-county policeman in whose car the police answered Newt Lee’s call the morning of the murder. His testimony Friday was in regard to the unsanitary condition of the basement.

After a call for George Epps, the little newsie who swore to riding to town on April 26 with Mary Phagan, had gone unanswered, the defense called its first witness of the day, Daisy Hopkins.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 9th 1913, “Harry Scott and ‘Boots’ Rogers Recalled to Stand by the State,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 8^th, 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dalton Tells of Visits.

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

Dr. Harris On Stand.

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

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

Childs Testifies For Defense.

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

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

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

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

Scott On Conley’s Confession.

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

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

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Defense May Call for Character Witnesses Today,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 8th, 1913

SHOWS NEGRO LIED MANY TIMES

The defense sprang a surprise during the afternoon session whey they called Detective Harry Scott to the stand to testify to the third-degree under which Jim Conley had been placed at police headquarters and which process had exacted his three conflicting confessions.

Scott stated throughout his testimony that Conley had told conflicting stories on numerous occasions during his early imprisonment, and that had failed to tell the detectives much of the story which he related on the witness stand Tuesday and Wednesday.

Scott’s statement created a telling of fact and it is said to have caused the wavering of opinion of the negro’s story. According to the detective’s testimony Conley’s story from past records showed itself to be an unfathomably mess of fabrications.

The Pinkerton man was not removed from the stand until the adjournment of the afternoon session.

He was questioned by Luther Rosser.

“You had information on Monday following the murder that Mrs. Arthur White had seen a negro loitering on the first floor, didn’t you? Did you give it to the police?”

“Yes.”

“You worked in cooperation with the police, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Did you inquire at the factory if Conley could write?”

“Yes.”

“When did you first discover that he would write?”

“Sunday, May 18.”

“I have here a statement purporting to have been written by James Conley on May 18. Were you present when it was made? Please examine it.”

“Yes, I wrote it myself.”

“Who furnished you the data?”

“Jim Conley.”

“Did he furnish you any other statements.?”

“Not that day.”

“In the statement he gave you he recited minute details, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“None of his movements as detailed in the first statement included a visit to the pencil factory did they?”

“No.”

“He told you he left his home between 9 and 9:30 o’clock didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“He told you of buying beer and whisky, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

Was Told Conley Could Write

“You knew that the information that he could write came from the pencil factory?”

“Yes.:”

All the while the attorney plied the witness with questions, he was searching through Conley’s various statements made at police headquarters during the time of his confessions.

“On May 18 you dictate a d statement to Conley, didn’t you?”

‘Yes.”

“You were present weren’t you when he was brought before Mrs. White?”

“Yes.”

“What was his behavior?”

“He was nervous.”

“Did he make any movements with his mouth as a signal to his wife?”

“Describe them.”

Scott illustrated with his mouth a lip motion he attributed to Conley.

“Didn’t he verbally deny to you on May 18 that he had connection with the murder?”

“Yes.”

“You gave him the third degree, didn’t you?”

“I wouldn’t say that we use the third degree in our business.”

“Didn’t one of you wheedle him and the other sympathize with him?”

“I’ll admit we used a bit of profanity.”

“How long was the gruelling you gave him that Sunday?”

“Two hours.”

“Did you have another conversation with him on May 24?”

“Yes.”

“It was put in writing?”

“Yes, by a stenographer.”

“Was he carried to Solicitor Dorsey that day?”

“Yes.”

“He denied having seen the girl’s body, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“He said too that he made the notes on Friday?”

“Yes.”

“He told you the second time he made a statement that he was going to tell the whole truth?”

“Yes. He made a voluntary statement that day.”

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

“Yes.”

“You saw him again on May 27?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”

“Police headquarters.

First Statement Showed Premeditation

“You impressed upon him the fact that his first statement was not plausible and that his story of writing the notes on Friday would show premeditations, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“You saw him again on May 28?”

“Yes.”

“You stayed with him all day that time explaining that his statement was far fetched as well as absolutely unbelievable?”

“Yes.”

“On this day he made another statement?”

“Yes.”

“This time he changed his dates from Friday to Saturday?”

“Yes.”

“He said it was his last statement didn’t he and that had made up his mind to tell the truth?”

“Yes.”

“He said that when he left the Capital City laundry, he met Frank and that Frank followed him to the factory?”

“Yes.”

“How many notes hid he say he wrote?”

Three.”

“What else did he say?”

“He said that all that Frank wrote was Dear mother.”

“What sort of negro was Jim when you first saw him?
“He was dirty and ragged.”

“When they brought him into court the other day he was as slick as an onion, wasn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“He told you the reason he washed his shirt the day he was arrested was because he had been wearing it a long time?”

“Yes.”

On May 29 you had another talk with him?”

“Yes.”

“Did you give him the third degree that day?”

“No, not what you’d call the third degree.”

“You stayed with him until [1 word illegible] o’clock at night?”

“Yes.”

“On this occasion he told you that he hadn’t told the truth up to that time because he expected Mr. Frank to get him out?”

“Yes.”

“In that statement he said nothing about watching for Frank, did he?”

“No.”

“Did you ever try to get him to tell you about the meshbag of Mary Phagan’s?”

“Yes. He denied having seen it.”

“Did he tell you anything about Frank putting it in his safe?”

“He told me nothing about it.”

“At first, didn’t he tell you he wrote only one note?”

Yes.”

At this point of the examination both Mr. and Mrs. Frank leaned over to the attorney’s chair and consulted secretly with Mr. Rosser.

“Did he say he gave the cigarettes and money in a box or the money and cigarettes in a cigarette box?”

“He said he gave the money and cigarettes in the cigarette box.”

First Called Her Phagan

“In speaking of Mary Phagan, did he say he thought her name was Mary Phagan?”

“No.”

“Did he tell you that he saw a girl he thought was Mary Phagan go to the second floor on the day of the murder and that after she had been on the floor a moment or so heard footsteps going back towards the metal room?”

“No.”

“Did he ever say anything to you about hearing a girl scream on the second floor?”

“No.”

“He told you that Mr. Frank sent him back to the metal room, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“Did he tell you anything about wrapping the body up in a cloth?”

“Yes.”

“Conley didn’t say anything about the cord around her neck, did he?”

“Yes, he described it as being looped tightly around her throat.”

“Did he say that he put the sack on his shoulder and that the body touched him about the legs?”

“Yes.”

“Did he say anything about the ribbon or slipper, or hat being found upstairs?”

“He mentioned the hat and slipper but not the ribbon.”

“Did you ask him about the ribbon?”

“Yes.”

“He didn’t say anything about Frank stumbling on the street floor?”

“No, he said Frank stumbled on the office floor.”

“Did you ask Conley anything about burning the body?”

“Yes, he said it was untrue.”

“Did he tell you he promised to come back and burn the body and that he went to sleep and forgot it?”

“No.”

“Did he say that he told Frank that Frank was a white man and had done it and that he wouldn’t go down in the basement unless Frank went with him?”

“No.”

“Did you ask him about any plans to get away and he said Frank had arranged to make his bond and send him away?”

“No.”

“Did he say anything about Frank assuring him of a way to get in the building when he returned to burn the body?”

“No.”

“Describe the scene in which you convinced Conley he could write.”

Forced Conley to Write

“We took him into Chief Lanford’s office and gave him a pad telling him to write. We told him we knew he could write and that he needn’t hesitate. He picked up a pencil and wrote easily.”

The solicitor began cross examination at this juncture.

“With way city official, he asked, did you communicate regarding Mrs. White’s statement that she saw a negro at the factory?”

An objection by Rosser was overruled.

“My impression is that I told Black, Lanford and [1 word illegible] Rosser.”

“Wasn’t it May 7 before you told Rosser?”

“It was a short time after April 28, I remember.”

“How long was it before the state or anybody connected with the prosecution knew of the bloody stick that was found at the factory and which now in the hands of the defense?”

Objection made by Rosser.

“I want to show, said Dorsey, the attitude of the Pinkertons in this matter who were grouped in two divisions, one of which worked for the defense. Mr. Scott only working in touch with the state.”

Dorsey resumed questioning.

“Were you denied admission to Frank?”

Objection by Rosser.

Judge Roan ruled that the witness could state only what was done by Frank himself.

“Did you ever go to the jail with Conley?”

“Yes, Chief Beavers Lanford and Conley and I went to the jail for the purpose of seeing Frank.”

Objection was made by the defense to the word purpose.

“When was the last time you were permitted to see Frank?”

“May 8.”

“Why weren’t you able to see Frank?”

Objections by defense sustained.

“When Conley made his last statement was there any difference in his appearance that the time you saw him make the first statements?”

“No.”

“Were you in the pencil factory when Conley made his trip there with the detectives?”

“Yes.”

“Tell the jury what happened.”

Objection by Rosser on ground that he had gone into that phase of Conley’s connection while examining the witness was sustained.

“Conley altered all matters satisfactorily in his final statement, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“Come down.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Scott Called by Defense to Refute Conley’s Story,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal
August 8^th, 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined Dr. Childs.

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

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

“Not all of them.”

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Free hydrochloric acid?” demanded the solicitor.

Dr. Childs nodded.

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

DIFFICULT QUESTIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CALLS IT GUESSWORK.

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

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

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

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

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

LAUGHTER IN COURT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLOW DIDN’T CAUSE DEATH.

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

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

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

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

DEFENSE CALLS SCOTT.

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

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

“Yes, sir.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And he ate breakfast at 10:30?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

INFORMATION FROM FACTORY.

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRIED TO GET CONFESSION.

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

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

“We talked pretty rough to him.”

THIRD DEGREE.

“Give us a description of that third degree.”

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

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

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

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

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

“How long did this séance last?”

“About two hours.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Three hours,” said Scott.

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

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

STORY WOULDN’T FIT.

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

CHANGED HIS STORY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No, sir.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPROBABLE POINTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIDN’T SEE MISS STOVER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No, he maintained that he did not.”

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

DIDN’T HE SAY HE SAW MARY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT HE DIDN’T TELL.

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

“No.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes, sir.”

DORSEY CALLS TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No, sir.”

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

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

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

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

“Yes, sir.”

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

THE ELEVATOR KEY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No, sir.”

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

CODICIL TO AFFIDAVIT.

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

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

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

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

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

“No, sir.”

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

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

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

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

NEGATIVE ANSWERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DORSEY TAKES WITNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTITUDE OF PINKERTONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“On Saturday, May 3.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Tell the jury what he did and said.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes, most of them.”

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

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

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

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

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 8th 1913, “Defense Begins Introduction of Evidence,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal
August 8^th, 1913

MOTORMAN AND CONDUCTOR SAY NEWSBOY EPPS WAS NOT ON CAR THAT BROUGHT MARY TO CITY

They Swear That She Left Car at Broad and Hunter Streets at 12:10, the Very Hour Monteen Stover Claims to Have Left Factory—Daisy Hopkins Swears She Never Visited Factory With Dalton and That She Did Not Know Frank

NEW THEORY OF HOW CRIME MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED INTIMATED BY ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY

Albert Kauffman Describes Passageway on First Floor Leading to Chute, Through Which He Declares Human Body Could Easily Have Passed—Spots, Said to Be Blood, Found in Passageway

A new theory of the Mary Phagan murder was hinted at by the defense at the trial of Leo M. Frank Friday while Albert Kauffman, a civil engineer, was under examination. From questions asked by Attorney Arnold, Mr. Kauffman testified that there was a chute in the rear of the National Pencil factory building leading from the first floor down into the basement and that the trap door to this chute was large enough to slide a human body through, in fact, he said it was large enough to slide several bodies through at the same moment.

He told of a dark and narrow hallway leading from the front of the building by the stairway back to the rear by the trap door. Many questions were asked concerning this hallway and chute and trial observers believe that the defense is preparing a way for introduction of other testimony possibly bearing out the theory that the child was murdered just as she went to leave the building, was dragged back along this dark hallway and dropped through the chute into the basement. Questions were asked the engineer about a vat in the metal room. He declared that it was plenty large enough to hold the body of a girl who measured five feet and three inches tall.

BLOOD IN DARK PASSAGEWAY?

It is known that the defense had found dark red spots, presumed to be blood, on a door leading to the dark passageway, which goes to the rear of the building and to the chute, to which so much attention was paid by the attorneys. The dark spots on the door have been chipped off and an analysis, the result of which is not known, has been made for the defense.

This circumstance is certain to be used by the defense in its effort to show that the murder could have been committed on the first floor without the knowledge of the defendant. Indications were, after the defense had been introducing testimony several hours, that it will argue to the jury that there are a number of different ways, that the crime could have been committed and a number of ways by which the body could have been carried or hurled to the basement. It is known that a search of the chute did not develop any blood stains.

The testimony given by George Epps, the newsie who said that he rode to town with Mary Phagan on her last trip shortly before she met death at the National Pencil factory, was repudiated by two witnesses, W. M. Matthews, motorman, and W. T. Hollis, conductor, on the English Lindsay street and that she was alone at the time. Both were positive that they knew George Epps and that he was not seen by either of them on that day.

Motorman Matthews testified that Mary Phagan did not leave the car at Marietta street as was sworn by the newsie, but remained on it until the car reached Hunter and Broad and left in company with another girl going toward the pencil factory along Hunter street toward Forsyth. He declared that his car was on schedule time and passed Hunter and Broad at 12:10 o’clock. This testimony repudiates that of Jim Conley that Mary Phagan entered the factory ahead of Monteen Stover if Monteen Stover testified correctly when she said that she left the factory at 12:10. It also strikes at a vital point made by the state that Mary Phagan entered prior to Monteen Stover and immediately after she entered Monteen Stover found Frank’s office unoccupied.

Conductor Hollis corroborated the motorman as to time and Mary Phagan boarding the car alone, but he did not see her in company with another girl. He left the car at Marietta and Forsyth streets, however, and Motorman Matthews rode on over to Mitchell street. The car crew was relieved by another crew at Forsyth and Marietta streets, they both testified.

Daisy Hopkins, the woman mentioned in the testimony of the negro, Jim Conley, which was corroborated by C. B. Dalton, took the stand Friday morning as a witness for the defense and repudiated the testimony given by Conley and Dalton. The Hopkins girl denied any misconduct with Dalton, denied that she had introduced Dalton to Frank, denied that she ever spoke to Frank or that Frank ever spoke to her, and denied that she knew where the basement to the pencil factory was. The witness further declared that Dalton had never visited her at the factory. She admitted having been arrested and lodged in jail.

IMPORTANT WITNESSES FOR DEFENSE.

After proving the correctness of the cardboard model of the Pencil factory made by T. H. Willett, of 100 Highland avenue, who made it from Kauffman’s blue prints, the defense, it is understood, will call Darley or Holloway to the stand, to contradict statements made by the negro Conley. The next witness is expected to be Herbert Schiff, Frank’s young assistant at the factory, and he is one of the most important of the state’s witnesses. He will testify, it is said, that one day subsequent to the murder, when the police were there and there was considerable excitement, he found Conley hiding among a pile of boxes on one of the upper floors and apparently very much frightened.

Schiff will also identify the financial statement made out by Frank on the afternoon of the murder, and will show the tediousness of the work, and will declare that it certainly took the superintendent several hours to complete it.

The Journal has learned that there is little doubt, now, that the defense will put the character of Frank in issue.

This means that the trial will be prolonged some time, as fifty or more well-known citizens are ready to swear to the good character of the defendant.

DAISY HOPKINS CALLED.

A sensation was sprung at the opening of court Friday morning when the defense called Daisy Hopkins, involved by the testimony of C. B. Dalton and of James Conley, as a witness for its own side of the case.

Detective Harry Scott was to be recalled to the stand by the state to answer one question, the state agreeing at the same time to let the defense recall Boots Rogers to answer a question of its own.

The jurors spent a pleasant evening Thursday listening to Juror Winburn tickle the ivories of the Kimball house piano. All members of the jury were well except Juror Metcalfe, who has been bothered by a crick in the neck for the past twenty-four hours. The court directed that a physician wait upon him at the conclusion of court Friday, the physician to be overshadowed by a court bailiff. Juror Townsend is growing a mustache. He was clean shaven when he became a juror, but now he presents a very creditable set of furs on his upper lip.

SCOTT ON STAND.

Detective Scott was called to the stand.

“How long did it take Jim Conley to write those notes at your dictation, at police headquarters?” asked the solicitor.

“Two or three minutes.”

“You are not fixing to leave the city, are you, Mr. Scott?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir.”

“Boots” Rogers was recalled, but it was announced that he was not in court. Attorney Rosser called for George Epps. He wasn’t present, Solicitor Dorsey announcing that he had excused the newsboy, but that he would get him to court if the defense wanted him. The defense said they wanted him, and the solicitor ordered that he be subpenaed. Rogers arrived at this juncture, and was called to the stand.

HOPKINS GIRL TESTIFIES.

Daisy Hopkins was called by the defense. She entered court chewing gum and retained it on the witness stand, chewing leisurely.

She held up her left hand by mistake to be sworn, and was admonished to hold up her right. In answer to a question of Attorney Arnold she said she […]

DEFENSE ATTACKS STATE’S CASE FROM MANY ANGLES

[…] lives now in Redan on the Georgia railroad. She said that she is Mrs. Daisy Hopkins, and not Miss.

“Did you work at the pencil factory, Mrs. Hopkins?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Yes.”

“When did you work there?”
“I started there in October, 1911, and worked until June 1, 1912.”

“What department did you work in?”
“The packing department.”
“What floor is that on?”

“On the third floor.”

“How many other young women worked there?”
“Usually there were ten, but sometimes more.”
“Do you know Mr. Frank, the defendant?”

NEVER SPOKE TO FRANK.

“I used to know him when I saw him about the factory.”
“Did you ever speak to him?”
“No.”
“Did he ever speak to you?”
“No.”
“Were you ever in his office, drinking coca-cola or beer?”
“No.”

“Do you know a fellow named Dalton?”

“I know him when I see him.”
“Did you ever visit the pencil factory with him?”
“No, sir. I went to his house to see Mrs. [name illegible] when he lived at East Point.”

“Did you ever, at any time, on a Saturday or any other day, come into the factory with Dalton and go up where Frank was or go any other place in the factory? Is there any truth in that?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever introduce Dalton to Frank?”
“No, sir.”

DENIES MISCONDUCT.

“Did you ever go down into the basement with Dalton?”
“I don’t know where the basement is.”
She denied any misconduct with Dalton.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness for cross-examination.

MARRIED AT REDAN.

“Mrs. Hopkins, have you ever been married?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes, sir.”

“Where were you married?”
“At Redan.”

“What is the name of the man you married?”
“Sill.”

“Are you living with him him [sic] now?”
“No, sir, he is dead.”

“Did you have any children?”
“No, sir.”

“What were your husband’s initials?”
“A. M. Sill.”

“Who married you?”
“Preacher Miles.”

“Who was present when you were married?”

“Mr. Street.”

“What is your doctor named?”
“Dr. Pounds.”

“What is he treating you for now, Mrs. Hopkins?”
The witness hesitated, then replied, “Stomach trouble.”

“Have you ever been in jail, Miss Hopkins?”
“No, sir,” after hesitation.

“Why, Miss Hopkins, didn’t this man,” pointing to N. A. Garner, a special bailiff attached to the solicitor’s office, “didn’t this man get you out of jail?”
“No, sir.”

“Have you ever seen him before?”
“Yes, sir.”

DEPUTY WAS ALONG.

“Well, didn’t he, N. A. Garner, get you out of jail?”
“No, sir, but he was along.”

“Well, you were in jail, now; and who got you out?”
“Mr. Smith.”

“What were you put in jail for, Miss Hopkins?”

“Because they told a tale on me.”

“Who got you and brought you here to court?”
“Captain Burke.”

“Was Captain Burke formerly with the Southern railroad?”
“I don’t know.”

“Now, Miss Hopkins, what jail were you in?”

“I don’t know.”

“All right, Miss Hopkins, you can come down,” said the solicitor. The defense detained her, however.

“You were put in the jail in this county, were you not?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Did they do anything to you?”
“No, sir.”

JUST PAID HER LAWYER.

“I mean, did you have to pay a fine?”
“No, sir, I just paid my lawyer, Mr. Bill Smith.”

“Well, he got you out?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever go to any court about it?”
“No, sir.”

“All right. Come down.”

W. M. Matthews, a motorman on the English avenue car line of the Georgia Railway and Power company, was called as the next witness.

“On Apirl 14, last, Mr. Matthews, what were you doing?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Running my car on the English avenue car line.”

“Does this car run out to Bellwood avenue and by Lindsay street?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Do you recollect the occasion on that morning when your car was coming into the city and passed Lindsay street about 10 minutes to 12?”
“Yes, sir.”

MARY BOARDS CAR.

“That was the time for you to pass Lindsay street?”
“Yes, sir, that was the scheduled time.”

“And you left on time?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Do you remember a little girl getting on the car there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Was it Mary Phagan?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Well, tell the jury the route of your car.”

“On Bellwood to English avenue, to Kennedy street, to Grace, to Jones avenue to Marietta street, and in along Marietta to Broad and out Broad street.”

“As usual your car stopped at the various points, to take on and let off passengers?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What is the distance over your route from Lindsay to Broad street?”
“About one and a half or two miles.”

“And you made the usual frequent stops?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And in al[l]owing up to stop and in starting off again you lost the usual time?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What time did you get to Marietta and Broad streets on that trip?”

POINT FOR DEFENSE.

“I was scheduled to arrive at 12:07 1-2.”

“Were you on time?”
“Right about on schedule. I wasn’t late all that day.”

“You say your car turned south along Broad street after leaving Marietta?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where did Mary Phagan get off the car?”
“At Hunter and Broad streets.”

The previous testimony of George Epps, the newsboy, was that Mary Phagan got off the car at Marietta and Forsyth streets and walked across the bridge.

“How long does it take your car to run from Broad to Hunter street?”
“It generally takes 2 1-2 minutes, but on account of the wagons and traffic, congested, it often requires three minutes.”

“On that trip it took about the same time as usual?”
“Yes, sir. I was not running the car after we left Broad and Marietta streets. I was relieved there.”

“You were still on the car, though?”
“Yes, sir. I was going over to Mitchell street.”

“Where were you sitting in the car?”
“I sat on the seat behind Mary Phagan.”

“Was there anyone else with Mary Phagan?”

GIRL WITH MARY PHAGAN.

“Yes, sir, another girl was sitting by her. I don’t know whether she was with her, though.”

“What time did you get to Hunter and Broad streets?”
“About 12:10, the best I can tell you. We got to Broad and Marietta about 12:07 1-2 and it took about 2 1-2 minutes to run on down to Hunter.”

“What happened at 12:10?”
“The girls got off.”
“Both of them?”
“Yes, sir, they went on down Hunter street like they knew each other.”

“How far is it from there to the National Pencil factory?”
“A short block down Hunter and across Forsyth, and it is the second or third building on Forsyth.”
“Which side of Hunter street did they go up?”

“I didn’t notice.”

“And you don’t know how long it would take for her to talk up the steps at the pencil factory to Frank’s office?”
“No, sir.”

“You were certain that you noticed her get off the car at Broad and Hunter?”
“Yes.”

“Did you see any little boy with her?”

NO BOY WITH HER.

“No boy got on with her at Lindsay street, and there was no boy with her when I noticed her next at Broad and Marietta.”

“Do you know George Epps?”
“By sight, since this case came up.”

“And you didn’t see him that day?”
“No.”
“Did you see the body of this girl at the undertaker’s?”

“Yes.”

“And you are certain that it was Mary Phagan that you saw?”
“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“Why did you say it was about 12:10 and then say it was 12:10?”

“Well, it was about that time.”

“Did you tell L. P. Whitfield, a Pinkerton operative, that you could have been three or four minutes ahead of the schedule at that time?”
“No.”

“Where was it Epps got on the car?”
“I don’t know.”

“What made you notice Mary? Was she very pretty or attractive?”
“No more than anybody else.”

“Why, don’t you know as a matter of fact that Mary Phagan was an especially pretty girl?”
“Well, she was pretty,” said the witness.

POSITIVE ABOUT TIME.

“What makes you so certain about the time?”

“Well, we were on time at 12:07 1-2, and I know it takes from two and a half to three minutes to go on Broad from Marietta to Hunter—that is, in the middle of the day.”

“Then a person could get off at Forsyth street and walk to the factory more quickly than they could go there by the car?”
“No, the same time. I’ve walked it.”

“Why is it that you are willing to tell the jury that this particular girl got off at that particular point and time on that particular day?”
“Because it’s the truth.”

“Why is it that out of the hundreds of passengers you have in a day, you can fix this girl so positively in your mind?”
“Well, when I was relieved and sat down behind her I was talking to a street car conductor and an ex-street car conductor and he had a picture in a badge and I took it and held it over there and said, ‘Here, little girl, is your picture.’”

“And those girls were talking together?”
“They seemed to be.”

“Well, did you hear them say a single word?”
“No, I didn’t.”

POSITIVE IT WAS MARY.

“Well, as a matter of fact, wasn’t that the other girl or another girl to whom you showed the picture?”
“No.”

“Haven’t you been looking for that other girl since then?”
The witness first said no, and then said yes.

“How was the other girl dressed?”

“About the same as Mary Phagan.”

“Well, how was Mary Phagan dressed?”

“She had on a light-colored dress.”

“What light color—pink or white?”
“It wasn’t black.”

“What else did she have on?”
“She had on a hat.”

“What sort of a hat?”
“A light-colored hat.”

“Well, what is there about George Epps that you can identify?”

“I’ve read about him in the papers since this case came up.”
“Tell us one single thing by which you would know Mary Phagan.”

“I just know her.”

“Well, tell us how light that dress was.”

“Not as light as this,” pointing to Mrs. Rae Frank, the mother of the accused, dressed completely in white.

“Tell us about the hat.”

“I never paid much attention to the hat; it was light colored.”

“Are you certain of that?”
The witness hesitated and answered that he was not certain.

“Well, why did you say at first it was light?”
“Come down,” ordered the solicitor, before the motorman answered.

CONDUCTOR IS CALLED.

“Wait a minute,” commanded Mr. Arnold. “You can’t tell generally what colored clothes your passengers wear, can you? Few notice what women wear—isn’t that true?”
“That’s right.”

“You were certain that this girl you saw in the morgue was Mary Phagan, the girl you saw on your car?”
“Yes.”

Mr. Arnold exhibited the dress in which Mary Phagan was killed.

“I couldn’t say that that’s the one she wore,” said the witness. “I know the girl just by her looks, and had spoken to her numbers of times when s[h]e got on the car at Lindsay street.”

“And this is the light colored hat you saw, is it?” asked Solicitor Dorsey, producing the light blue hat.

“I don’t know,” said the witness. He was excused, and W. T. Hollis, conductor on the same line, was called to the stand.

In answer to questions of Attorney Arnold, Hollis described his occupation as conductor, and said that he was on the Cooper Street-English Avenue route on the day Mary Phagan was killed. He described the exact route of the car.

CORROBORATES MOTORMAN.

“Did you cross Lindsay street about noon, April 26?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes.”

“It was about 11:50, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did any girl get on there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see this girl again?”
“I saw her body at the morgue.”

“Did you ever see her before?”
“Yes, frequently. She used to get on the car.”

“Did you know her name before this day?”
“I did not.”

“Did anybody get on at Lindsay street with her?”
“No, sir.”

“Did anybody sit in the same seat with her on the way downtown?”
“I couldn’t say.”

“Have you ever seen George Epps?”

“Yes.”

REPUDIATES EPPS’ STORY.

“Did he get on with her that day?”
“No, sir.”

“Did he sit in the same seat with her on the way down?”
“I couldn’t say whether he did or not. She was alone, I know, when I took her fare at English avenue, three blocks from Lindsay street.”

“Do you recollect the Epps boy getting on at all?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you have a full car that day?”
“There were thre[e] on, I think, when she got on.”

“Did you see anybody get in the seat with her at all?”
“No, sir.”

“What time do you get to Broad and Marietta streets usually?”
“At seven and a half minutes after 12 o’clock.”

“Were you on schedule time that day?”
“Yes, I got relieved there.”

“Where did you get off?”
“I got off there at Marietta and Forsyth streets.”

“Did she get off with you?”
“No, sir, not with me.”

“Were you the first to get off?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you see her get off at all there?”
“No, sir.”

“Where was she to the best of your knowledge when you left the car?”

LEFT HER ON CAR.

“She was in the car.”

“What time did the car get to Broad and Hunter streets?”
“Well, it’s supposed to get there about 12:10.”

Attorney Hooper interrupted. “Your honor, I think these questions are all leading, and my brother, Mr. Arnold, gets worse as he goes on.”
Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“What time did you look at her at the morgue?”
“Well, I get off Sunday at 6:37 p. m., and I went over there then.”

Attorney Arnold opened the suitcase in which Mary Phagan’s clothes were in court. “Do you recollect the clothes that she had on that day?”
When the witness replied, “No, sir, I don’t recollect,” Mr. Arnold left the clothes in the suitcase and proceeded.

HOOPER TAKES WITNESS.

Attorney Hooper took the witness for cross-examination.

“Mr. Hollis, there was something unusual about this trip that day, was there?”
“No.”

“There was no particular reason for you to notice whom you picked up, was there?”

“No, sir.”

“There was nothing to attract your attention especially to that, was there?”
“No, sir.”

“This little Epps boy frequently got on your car. You don’t know whether he got on and off that day or not, do you?”
“No, sir.”

“You don’t even know the color of this little girl’s dress, you say?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper pointed to the hat. “You wouldn’t call that hat light, would you?”
“No, sir.”

“You’d call it a very dark blue, wouldn’t you?”
“Yes, I guess so.”

“Did you notice anyone at all with Mary Phagan that day?”
“I did not.”

DIDN’T SEE OTHER GIRL.

“Wasn’t there a little girl sitting in the seat with her?”
“I didn’t see her.”

“Can you tell the jury of any other single trip when she was with somebody?”
“No, sir.”

“You don’t know whether the Epps boy got on at all, then, do you?”
“No, sir.”

“And you say you got Mary Phagan’s fare when you turned into English avenue?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Well, I never take them up until I get to English avenue.”

“Well, you picked up some passengers coming into town, didn’t you? How many?”
“I don’t know.”

“Were they male or female?”
“Both.”

“Can you name any of them? Name a single one of them to the jury.”

“I can’t.”

“Which end of the car did Mary Phagan get on?”
“The front end.”

“How do you know that?”

ENTERED LAUGHING.

“Well, Matthews used to speak to her when she got on. That day she come in and said she was late, laughing.”

“Do you stay on the front platform of the car all the time?”
“No, sir.”

“How did you happen to be there that morning?”
“I wasn’t there.”

“Oh, you stood at the back end of the car and heard her there, did you? She hollered, did she?”
“I heard her from the back end.”

“What time does Mary Phagan usually get on your car?”
“Well, she used to ride in on the trip when we got to town at 7:07 in the morning. She’d say she’d be fifteen minutes late then.”

“That day when you got to town, it was a holiday, wasn’t it? There was a procession of some kind on the streets, wasn’t there?”
“I didn’t notice any.”

“Do you remember the tow-headed Epps boy being on the car that day?”
“No, sir, but I know him.”

Mr. Arnold resumed his questioning of the witness.

“Mr. Hooper has asked you who got off at Marietta and Forsyth streets. I believe you said you didn’t know?”
“Yes, sir.”

SHORT CAR.

“Is your car a short car or a long car?”

“A short car.”

“When you are standing on the rear platform, do you have any difficulty in hearing what the motorman says on the front platform?”
Solicitor Dorsey objected, declaring that an answer would be a conclusion simply. He insisted that the witness be made to state facts—how far he was from the motorman, and what sounds he heard.

Judge Roan allowed the question.

The witness replied that he had no difficulty in hearing what the motorman said on the front platform when the car was stopped.

“When you are on the rear platform, how many feet are you away from the motorman?”
“I don’t know, exactly. The car seats twenty-eight passengers and is a short car.”

“It’s about 25 feet in length, then?”

“Something like that.”

“Were the doors open on this occasion?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Mr. Hooper asked you why you re-[…]

SAYS NEWSIE WAS NOT ON CAR WITH GIRL

[…]membered this girl. I’ll ask you if when you heard of the murder and went and looked at the girl, it didn’t recall her to your attention?”

“Yes, sir, the newspaper reporters asked me on Sunday to go and identify her.”

“And you went to the morgue to see the body after the reporters asked you to do so?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And you found it was the little girl who had been on that car the day before?”
“Yes, sir.”

“If your attention was called to this little girl a month or two later, you would not remember her so well as you would the next day?”
Mr. Hooper objected. The objection was sustained.

“When you saw the little girl the next day in the morgue, you had no difficulty in remembering her?”
“No, sir.”

“How far is Oliver street from Lindsay street?”
“One block.”

“You didn’t see Epps get on your car there?”
“No, sir.”

“Would you have remembered if it he had got on there?”
“I think so.”

Mr. Hooper again objected, declaring Mr. Arnold’s questions were leading. No ruling was made, however, and Mr. Arnold proceeded.

“How far is Oliver street from Lindsay?”

“One block.”

“And you say you don’t remember the Epps boy getting on at Oliver?”
“What is the next cross street after you leave Oliver?”
“Franklin street.”

“After leaving Franklin you pass into English avenue?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you had reached English avenue before you began to take up fares?”
“Yes, sir.”

“No one was in the seat with Mary Phagan when you took up her fare?”
“No, sir.”

“That was your last run of the morning?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When did you go out on your next run?”
“At 3:22.”

SAYS HE WAS ON TIME.

“I believe you said you didn’t remember whether the Memorial day crowds had gathered at Marietta and Forsyth streets.”

“No, sir, I don’t remember noticing them.”

“You never get to the center of the city before scheduled time to arrive?”
“No, sir, it is against the rules of the company.”

“And you didn’t get in ahead of time on that day?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper cross-questioned the witness again.

“Do you mean to tell me that you keep the rules of the company so rigidly that you never get in ahead of time or behind time?”
“It’s not against the rules to get in behind time.”

“Don’t you sometimes get in ahead of time?”
“Very seldom. Sometimes perhaps half a minute or maybe a minute.”

“When you are going in on your last trip at night, don’t you go in ahead of time?”
“The company doesn’t object to that.”

“Do you always stop and look at your watch in crossing the main street?”
“I hardly ever pass one without it. I always look at my watch at the designated points.”

“And this was your last trip?”
“Yes, sir.”

ALBERT KAUFFMAN CALLED.

Witness was excused. Attorney Arnold called for the Epps boy. He had not reached the court house, and Albert Kauffman, a civil engineer, was called. While court waited for him, Mr. Arnold took a number of papers from a basket in front of him, announcing that he had a model there and some blue print diagrams which he wished to use. While he searched for these papers, Mr. Arnold came across a package which he handed to Solicitor Dorsey, saying: “Here is that bank and cash book that you asked for yesterday.” After opening up a number of blue prints, Mr. Arnold began questioning the witness.

“What is your business?” he asked.

“I am a civil engineer,” answered Mr. Kauffman.

“Have you made a drawing of the Selig residence on Georgia avenue, showing the rear rooms in it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When?”
“Tuesday of this week.”

“This residence is known as 68 East Georgia avenue?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you make a plat of the kitchen, dining room, reception room, parlor and passageway between the kitchen and dining room?”
“Yes, sir.”

“These are the diagrams?”
“Yes, sir.”

REPUDIATES M’KNIGHT.

“Well, come over here and point them out to the jury.”
In reply to questions by Mr. Arnold, the witness indicated the location of the mirror in the dining room, the table in the dining room, the passageway between the kitchen and dining room, the back door of the kitchen, and other details of the diagram. He said the distance is fourteen feet between the kitchen door and the passageway leading into the dining room; that this passageway is 2 1-2 feet in width and a little over two feet long.

“Did you stand in the back door of the kitchen, on the north side of the door, which is the only door to the kitchen, to ascertain whether you could see the mirror in the dining room?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Could you see it?”
“No, sir.”

“Why?”
“Because of this partition in the passageway?”
“Taking the most extreme view possible, could you see any part of the mirror?”
“No, sir.”

“Were you present when a photographer took some views of these rooms?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Suppose you stood on the south side of the back kitchen door, what sort of a view would you have into the dining room?”
“Considerably less than if I stood on the north side.”

“How close to the sideboard could you see from that point?”
“Within about three or four feet.”

“If a man sat in a chair in the middle of the passageway, could he see the sideboard?”
“No, sir.”

“Have you drawn a plat of Georgia avenue?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Of that block bounded by Georgia avenue, Washington and Pulliam streets?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Is this it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How far is it from the Selig home to Washington street?”
“One hundred and seventy-five feet.”

“How far is it to Pulliam street?”
“Two hundred and seventy-one feet.”

“Is there a car line on Georgia avenue in front of the Selig house?”
“Yes, sir.”

“One on Washington street?”
“Yes, sir.”

PLAT OF FACTORY.

Mr. Kauffman identified the plate of the Selig residence and streets in the vicinity. He then stated that he made a detailed drawing of the National Pencil factory on all floors. He explained minutely the details of the drawing of the National Pencil factory, the attorney causing him to emphasize his description of a chute at the rear of the basement. Mr. Kauffman’s testimony showed that the chute is about five feet wide. The defense laid stress on the size of the opening, indicating to the minds of many observers that their theory of the killing probably will be that the murderer dragged Mary Phagan’s body along behind the partition from the first floor entrance toward the back and dropped it through the chute, which ends in the basement within a short distance of where the body was found.

Mr. Kauffman explained first the drawing of the basement. He described it as 136 feet from the elevator to the point where the body was found; 80 feet from the elevator to the trash pile; 90 feet to the boiled [sic]; 116 feet to the toilet; 135 feet to the back stairway.

COULD SLIDE BODY IN CHUTE.

Mr. Kauffman described minutely the chute in the rear of the building, saying that it is big enough for one or two human bodies or even for a pony to slide down. It empties into the basement eight feet from the rear wall of the building, and 32 feet from where the body was found. The total length of the building is 280 feet, and the walls are 2 feet thick, making it 196 feet from inner wall to inner wall.

Mr. Kauffman described the partitioned inclosure in the basement, declaring that it and the bunk which it contained were very filthy when he saw them. From the point where the body was found to the toilet is 21 feet, and the body was found 42 feet from the back door. The line of vision from the toilet to the point where the body was found is an angle of 43 degrees, he said. The partition cuts the line of vision in half, making a point three feet from the wall visible.

The witness described in similar detail the plat of the ground floor. He declared that as one enters the building it becomes very dark a few feet back from the street door. From the front door to the bottom of the stairway the distance is thirty-five feet.

The stairway to the second floor is twenty-five feet. The distance from the foot of the stairs to the elevator is thirteen feet.

LONG DARK HALLWAY.

The witness described minutely a long dark hallway about five feet wide, leading to the rear of the building. On this hallway ninety feet from the front door are several toilets. This point is almost directly above where the body was found.

Adjoining the toilets is a trap door with steps leading into the basement. These steps and fifteen feet from where the body was found. That point is also about fifteen feet from the chute.

Mr. Kauffman described the opening of the chute. On the second floor, said the witness, is the office, measuring 30 by 38 feet. He observed the doors of the safe, when opened, and they completely cut off the view from the inner to the outer office.

“Would it be possible for a man of your height to see over the safe door from Frank’s office?”
“Yes.”

“Would it be possible for a girl, say 5 feet 3 inches in height to see over?”
“I don’t think so.”

Mr. Kauffman laid the diagrams on the jury rail, and the jurors studied them with him.
Witness described the furniture in Frank’s office, and the relative position of the various articles. Anybody on the opposite side of the street could see Frank’s desk through the window. The witness said the distance between Frank’s desk and the metal room is 150 feet.

FRANK MAKES SUGGESTION.

At this point Frank, the accused, arose from his seat, and whispered a suggestion to Attorney Rosser, Attorney Arnold asked the witness if anybody sitting at Frank’s desk could see the stairway leading from the third floor, and the witness replied that there was no view of the stairway from that point.

From the desk in the inner office the only view one could have from Frank’s desk would be of one corner of the time clock.

Kauffman continued that anybody in the outer office could see a portion of the top of the stairway leading to the third floor, but not the bottom of the stairs. The door of the metal room is six feet wide and he thinks there is some glass in the door, said he. The dressing room in the metal room is ten feet from this door, said he. The distance is twenty-six feet between the lathe where the hair was found and the door of the metal room and thirty-seven feet from the lathe around the machines to the point where Conley said he found the dead body of the girl.

VAT COULD HOLD GIRL.

Attorney Arnold directed the witness’ attention to a store room near the metal room on the second floor, and questioned him particularly about a certain vat in that room. The witness said this vat was six feet by four feet, and that it would be possible to put a girl five feet three inches tall in it. Mr. Kauffman continued that any one coming down the stairway from the third floor to the second floor has a full view of the elevator.

Attorney Arnold picked up the drawing of the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and designating a marked spot about the center of the south wall of the building, asked the witness what was located there. The witness replied that it was a vat. That ended the technical questioning of the witness on this direct examination.

“Did you find any part of a lounge or a bed or a sofa, with the exception of the one in the basement, anywhere in the building?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“No.”

“Did you find anything that looked like a private room or a bed room, any place except the women’s dressing room?”
“No.”

“How far is it from the top of the steps leading from the first floor to the second floor, to the bottom of the steps leading to the third floor?”
“Twenty-seven feet.”

“How long is the stairway from the second to the third floor?”
“About twenty-five feet.”

HOOPER EXAMINES KAUFFMAN.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“About this chute from the first floor to the basement—is it open?”
“Yes.”

“Is the trap door covering it, open?”
“No.”

“Is it nailed down?”
“I didn’t try it.”

“How long after the killing did you see this trap door and chute?”
“It was about two months, I think.”

“Wasn’t it very dusty then?”
“Yes.”

“There wasn’t a sign that it had been used for months, was there?”
“I wouldn’t say positively as to that. It was dark when I went down there.”

Attorney Hooper designated th[e] spot in the drawing of the basement where the witness said that the body of Mary Phagan was found.

“Who told you where the body was found?”
“Mr. Schiff,” replied the witness.

Mr. Schiff, employed by Mr. Frank in the factory?”
“Yes.”

“Well, if that is wrong, then all your distances are wrong, are they not?”

“Yes.”

ARNOLD OBJECTS.

Attorney Arnold objected to the question and answer. He said, “this distance is only one of a hundred.” Attorney Hooper explained that he meant only the distances between the body and other points in the basement.

Mr. Hooper asked the witness if the body lay just a little further toward the rear from where Schiff said it was laying, it could be seen from the toilet. Mr. Hooper laid a ruler on the diagram to illustrate the view line. The witness admitted that it would be visible under those conditions. The witness had noticed the gas jet burning near the elevator, but had not indicated it on the plat. Discussing the diagram of the first floor, Attorney Hooper asked a number of questions as to the lighting conditions of the entrance way. When the double doors at the street are open, the entrance is fairly well lit between the street and th[e] stairway, but when they are closed the light is not so good. He had not noticed any gas jet on the first floor.

The witness could not say whether any considerable light penetrated the building through the windows and glass partition at the front and side of the entrance. He did not think much light could enter there, though, inasmuch as the glasses were very dirty when he observed them.

He admitted that he did not know the condition of the glass was on April 26, but it looked like it had been dirty some time. He had seen the glass several times in the last month. The trap door leading from the first floor to the basement, said the witness, is two feet across one way by two feet and three inches the other.

COULDN’T GET BY TRAP.

He admitted that a man of his size would have a hard time getting through if he was in a hurry; that he did not think one person could carry another person through the trap door. With the ruler Attorney Hooper indicated a line from Frank’s desk in the inner office through the doors and out to the time clock, in an effort to show the vision uninterrupted between those points.

The witness stated that when he drew the plat, this desk behind the partition was about two feet nearer the street wall from the door, and from that position the time clock was not visible. Attorney Hooper caused him to admit that if this desk was flush with the doorway through the partition that one could see a part of the time clock from the desk chair.

He made the measurements five or six weeks ago, said the witness. The clocks face the elevator shaft about twelve feet away. He didn’t think a man sitting at Frank’s desk could be seen from the opposite side of Forsyth street; however, and he, that was a matter of opinion.

The witness admitted that anyone entering the door of the inner office could see the whole office without obstruction. The witness also admitted that owing to the twists in the stairway flights between the second and fourth floor, a person on the fourth floor could not see down to the foot of the stairs on the second floor, unless there was some shaft down the stairs which he did not recall.

He admitted that there were doors on the stairway at the fourth floor, but was not certain whether there were doors at the third floor on the stairway.

COULD DROP THROUGH.

Attorney Arnold asked: “You didn’t make any tests to ascertain whether you could see from the third floor to the second floor?”
“No, sir.”

“I believe you said two persons couldn’t get through the trap door at the same time?” continued Mr. Arnold.

“I said that.”

“But there would be no trouble for one person to open the trap door and drop another person through?”
“No.”

“It would be an easy matter for two, three or four persons, and even a small horse, to go through the elevator shaft there by the trap door?”
“Yes, sir.”

“It is rather dark when the street doors are closed, on the first floor, isn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And there isn’t much light through the panel partition?”
“I don’t think so. I didn’t notice the extent of the solid work in the partition?”
Mr. Arnold directed the witness to come down, but before he left the stand it was announced by Mr. Hooper that he would be subject to recall. Mr. Hooper remembered another question, and the witness stayed on the stand a moment.

DINING ROOM MIRROR.

Mr. Kauffman admitted that when one sits in a certain part of the kitchen a mirror reflecting a portion of the dining room of the Selig home could be seen. He admitted also that he had no idea of the arrangement of the doors or furniture on April 26. The witness was excused, and Attorney Arnold tendered in evidence the diagrams of the four floors of the factory, the diagram of the Selig home, and a diagram of the home with reference to the surrounding streets. There was no objection by the state.

J. Q. Adams, a commercial photographer, was called to the stand. He identified a number of photographs taken by himself. One was taken from the outside of the back door of the Selig home, showing the passageaway [sic]. Another was taken with the camera just inside the door.

From neither of these points, said he, could he see the sideboard or the mirror in the dining room. He identified views of the pencil factory. The first views were taken from the hallway and from the outer office, showing the safe door open. The photographer declared that the view of Frank’s desk was cut off completely by the open safe door and that the inner office would be seen only by a narrow opening over the top of the safe.

The photographer identified a number of views of the basement, taking in elevator shaft, the ladder, the partition near which the body was found, and several other points in the basement which have been mentioned in the testimony. He showed a view of the ground floor taken with the camera just inside the door, showing the elevator shaft.

Another view showed exactly where Conley claimed to have been sitting. He had a number of other views of the second floor, showing where Jim Conley claims to have found the body and the metal room, the point where the detectives chipped up parts of the floor. Other views showed the different departments on that floor.

Attorney Arnold then showed a photograph of the front of the metal room and the machinery. The photographer identified that with the others.

“In each of these instances, did you endeavor to make these photographs as accurate as possible?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“I did,” replied the witness.

That concluded the direct examination. Attorney Hooper cross-examined the photographer.

PHOTOS MONTH OLD.

“How long ago were these photographs of the factory taken?”
“About a month.” The witness added that the photographs of the Selig home had been taken just a few days ago. Attorney Hooper asked the witness to indicate on the diagram of the Selig home where he had taken the picture. The witness pointed to the doorway leading from the kitchen to the porch. This picture showed the inside wall of the dining room to a point where a window appears. Attorney Hooper asked: “Now, Mr. Adams, a slight change in the position of the sideboard in the corner of the room would make it possible to see the the [sic] mirror from the door, would it not?”
“You could see the edge of it.”

“If a man sitting right inside the door, looked through the passage into the dining room, he could see the mirror, then, couldn’t he?”
“He could see part of it.”

“He could see enough of the mirror to see a reflection of a good part of the room, couldn’t he?”
“I wouldn’t say as to that.”

All of the photographs then were submitted in evidence by the defense without objection by the state.

Court recessed at 12:30 o’clock until 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 8th 1913, “Defense Attacks State’s Case From Many Angles,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 8^th, 1913

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

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

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

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

Denied He Had Seen Purse.

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

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

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

Negro’s Story in Own Words.

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

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

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

Scott said that this was the truth.

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

Childs Attacks Harris.

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

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

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

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

Childs Not a Specialist.

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

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

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

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 8th 1913, “Scott Put Conley’s Story in Strange Light,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 3^rd, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Indicates That Real Sensation Will Be Developed for State in Closing Days of Famous Mary Phagan Mystery Case.

ANOTHER WEEK OF ORDEAL IN THE HEAT IS EXPECTED

Routing of Detective Black and Surprise in the Testimony of Pinkerton Agent Gives the Defense Principal Points Scored—Newt Lee Hurts.

Slow and tedious, almost without frills, full of bitter squabbles between lawyers, made memorable by oppressive heat, the first week of Leo Frank’s trial on the charge that he killed Mary Phagan, the little factory girl, has drawn to an end.

With the close of the week came the promise that still another six days, or more, will be consumed in taking the testimony.

When the last witness was dismissed just before the week-end recess was taken, it was realized that few telling blows had been delivered by the State. However, the promised sensation of the prosecution still is impending, and Solicitor Dorsey hints at hitherto unrevealed lines of evidence that seem to point directly to Frank’s guilt.

SCOTT TESTIMONY HITS STATE.

Thus far, however, the apparently contradictory testimony of the State’s witness, particularly that of Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, and John Black, city detective, seems to favor the defense. The corps of city detectives have told of Frank’s nervousness and excitement the day following the discovery of Mary Phagan’s body. The Pinkerton man testified to the prisoner’s composure and balance. This was but one detail of the difference, but the lawyers for the defense made much of it.

Frank’s attorneys, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, have been from the first wonderfully powerful factors in the trial, and are the agencies about whom the friends of the defense build all their hopes.

Time and again this hope has been justified. Under the grilling administered by Rosser, witnesses have squirmed and twisted their bodies and their statements as it were a material instead of a mental fire to which they were subjected.

Detective John Black was one of these. Time and again he contradicted himself as to details, and several times he confessed that he did not remember. Black it was who, of the city police force, was among the most zealous in obtaining evidence against Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey had stated that he expected to show by Black’s testimony that the detectives had gone to Lee’s house only after Frank had informed him that several punches were missing from the watchman’s clock; that Frank’s attorneys, even before Frank’s arrest, had insisted that Frank’s house be searched; that the bloody shirt found in Lee’s house was a “plant” in Frank’s favor. Much of the prosecution’s plans in this regard were fruitless, however, because of Black’s confusion under cross-examination.

NEWT LEE HOLDS GROUND.

One witness, however, and a witness damaging to the defense, who was unperturbed by a pitiless cross-examination was Newt Lee, the negro night watchman of the National Pencil Factory. The negro steadfastly maintained his original story that Frank was nervous the afternoon of Mary Phagan’s disappearance, that he had made conflicting statements concerning the watchman’s clock, and that he had seemed frightened when he found J. M. Gantt in the factory the afternoon on which the little girl probably was slain.

An evident attempt was made by the defense to place suspicion on Newt Lee. The manner in which Lawyer Rosser questioned L. S. Dobbs, the police sergeant who found the body of the dead girl, seemed to imply that much of the negro’s behavior was suspicious.

Dobbs declared that Lee had read the hardly legible notes that were found at the side of the dead girl, and had read them easily. This point the defense urged. Frank’s lawyers also inferred that it was strange the negro should identify the girl as being white in the dim-lighted gloom of the factory basement, and at a time when he confessedly was frightened out of his wits.

The attempt of the defense to throw suspicion on Newt Lee, however, seemed to be of no avail. The steadiness and ingenuousness of the old negro absolved him, in the minds of those who heard, of guilt in connection with the murder.

Except for Lee, none of the witnesses of the week revealed anything of injury to the defense. Mrs. J. W. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s mother, and George W. Epps, the newsboy friend of the little girl, were merely witnesses of incidental facts.

Grace Hix, a companion of Mary Phagan in the factory, called by the prosecution, gave evidence really favorable to the defense, telling that Frank seemed to have no acquaintance with the Pha- […]

DORSEY CONFIDENT AS FIRST DAYS OF TRIAL END

[…] -gan girl, and that he seldom talked with the factory girls when he visited the rooms in which they worked.

The extent of testimony of “Boots” Rogers, former county policeman, and J. N. Starnes, city detective, besides outlining incidents about the discovery of the body and the examination of the factory building, was merely that Frank appeared nervous and excited when he was told of the discovery at the factory, and that his speech at various times during the Sunday following the discovery seemed to be suspicious.

Solicitor Dorsey, maintaining from the first that the State has framed a conclusive case against Frank, is steadfast, here at the end of the week, in declaring that he is satisfied with the results and the progress made.

“The case which the State, from the evidence in its hand, has made against Frank, seems to be as strong as before the trial,” he said yesterday.

The lawyers for the defense declined to make a statement at this juncture, declaring that any word from them during the prosecution’s direct examination would appear indelicate. It is known, however, that they are confident of the strength of their defense, and are highly pleased with results of the trial as far as it has gone.

Girl Aids the State.

A valuable witness for the State was Monteen Stover, a young girl who was a companion of Mary Phagan in the factory work. Miss Stover said Frank was not in his office about 12 o’clock, April 26, although the prisoner had stated in the preliminary investigation that he was at his desk at that time. The girl testified she came to the office then for her pay.

Another was R. P. Barrett, an employee of the factory, who said he found a portion of Mary Phagan’s envelope, several long strands of hair, and splotches which he was sure were blood stains, under a lathe on the second floor of the factory.

Dr. Claude Smith, city bacteriologist, testified that the dark stains on the second floor were blood stains.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of one of the last of the State’s witnesses called before the week-end recess was taken. She said she had seen a negro hiding behind a pile of boxes near the factory entrance the day of the murder and that later, when she entered Frank’s office, she saw him. She spoke to him and he jumped sharply, she said.

It is likely that the trial will continue far into this week, probably consuming all of it.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 3rd 1913, “First Week of Frank Trial Ends With Both Sides Sure of Victory,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Proves Surprise.

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

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

Scott grew healed and exclaimed:

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

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

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

Haas Wanted to See Reports.

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

Luther Rosser failed to shake Scott’s testimony.

Frank Was Not There.

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

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

Holloway Contradicts Himself.

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

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

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

The courtroom continues to attract large crowds.

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

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

When court convened on Thursday morning, J. M. Gantt, formerly employed in the bookkeeping department of the National Pencil factory, was placed on the stand for two questions, and he was followed by Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, who worked as a partner of John R. Black, of the city detectives, in searching for the murder of Mary Phagan.

Solicitor Hugh Dorsey had Gantt swear that he was arrested on April 28 and hold until the following Thursday.

During Scott’s testimony, there were lively tilts of all sorts. At one time Scott became angry with the solicitor and asked him if he were accusing him of withholding evidence, and Dorsey declared that Scott had entrapped him by promising to swear one thing on the stand and then by refusing to swear it.

A moment later the defense was in a rage when Scott swore that Herbert Haas, one of Leo Frank’s counsel, had ordered him to furnish to the defense the evidence he might obtain before giving it to the police.

Luther Rosser, another of Frank’s attorneys, then tried to show that he had not been concerned in this, and when this was not helld [sic] admissible, he burst out with the statement, “There’s certainly no one here who believes that I had anything to do with this!”
Scott declared he told Haas, in the presence of Rosser and Sig Montag, that before the Pinkertons would do as he asked that they would quit the case.

In the formal examination the first question asked by the solicitor was, “How long have you known Frank?”

Employed by Frank.

“Since I first saw him on April 28,” the Pinkerton man replied.

“By whom were you employed in the Phagan murder?”
“By Frank, representing the National Pencil company.”

“Where did you see him?”
“In his office in the pencil factory. He called me in his private office for a conference.”
“What did he say?” asked the solicitor.

“He told me about the crime, and stated that he and the directors of the company had decided that the public demanded a thorough investigation to find the murderer. Then he said he had just left police station, and that Detective Black seemed to suspect him.

“Then,” continued the detective, “he outlined to me his own movements on that Saturday, stating that he had come to the factory at 8 o’clock; had gone to Montag brothers’ place about 9 with Darley, and came back to the factory about 11 o’clock.

“He then said,” Scot[t] went on, “that Mrs. White, wife of J. A. White, who was at work upstairs, had come in just before noon and asked permission to go up and see her husband.

Paid Off in Private Office.

“Mary Phagan came in and drew her pay at ten minutes after 12, according to what Frank said, and he paid her $1.20, giving her two halves and he thought two dimes,” continued Scott, “and then he said that the Phagan girl was paid off in his private office at his desk, and that as she went out she stopped in the outer office and called back to know if the metal had arrived yet.

“Frank declared he told the girl that he did not know about the metal, and then as she went on out he thought he heard voices, but could not tell whose they were. He then said that at about half past 12 he went up and told Mrs. White that he was about to close up the factory, and that she had best leave, and that Mrs. White told him of seeing a negro behind some boxes on the first floor.

“Frank said he left at about ten after 1,” Scott went on, “and that he went home, and was back at the factory at 4 o’clock, when Newt Lee came, and that he sent Lee out to have a good time and told him to come back at 6.

“Frank then told that Lee came back at 6, and that a few minutes afterwards he went out and saw Lee sitting on a box and talking to Gantt.”

Tried to Call Factory.

“Gantt, Frank said, was a former bookkeeper who had been discharged for thieving,” Scott stated, “and then Frank said he got home by 20 minutes after 6, and, worrying about Gantt’s presence, tried to call the factory at 6:30. Frank told me he tried and tried the telephone, and finally got the number at 7 o’clock and asked Lee if Gantt had gone and if everything was all right. Lee answered in the affirmative, according to Frank,” said the Pinkerton man, “and Frank then said that at 9 o’clock he took a bath and went to bed.

“After that Frank and Darley and I went through the factory and the various details were explained to me. I was shown the place where the hair had been found and the place where some dark spots had been chipped out, and there was a white substance around the place.

“I then examined the time clock, and then went to the basement and was shown where the body had been found, and also the hat and shoe. Darley did most of the explaining on this trip and Frank had been the spokesman in the office.”

“How did Frank act in his office?”
“He seemed perfectly natural,” replied the witness.

“What do you mean by perfectly natural?” interrupted Rosser, for the defense.

“He wasn’t nervous,” said Scott.

“Was he nervous or not later?”

Nervous While at Station.

“Yes, he was nervous at the police station when we were talking about Lee.”

“How did he breathe in the office?”

“Occasionally, he seemed to take a long breath,” said Scott.

“Was Frank accurate and specific as to time in describing to you his actions on that Saturday when the girl is supposed to have been killed,” asked Dorsey.

On Attorney Rosser’s objection this was ruled out.

“What did his eyes look like?” continued the solicitor.

“Large and piercing.”

“What kind of breaths did he take?”

“Deep sighs,” said Scott.

“How often?”

“Four or five times while in the office.”

“How large did his eyes look then?”

“Same as now.”

“How about his complexion?”

“He was a little pale then.”

“What, if any, pauses did he make?” asked Dorsey.

“That’s a leading question,” snapped Rosser.

“How did Frank give his narrative and was he rapid in speech and specific in regard to time?” the solicitor went on without the other question being answered.

Mr. Rosser objected to the use of the word “specific,” and declared that Frank had always used the word, “about” in referring to the time of his movements.

“What else was said in the conversation?” asked Dorsey.

“Nothing more that I recall.”

Reported to Haas and Rosser.

“Did you or did you not make reports or statements to the defendant of what you did?” asked Dorsey.

“I made them to Herbert Haas, Luther Rosser and Sig Montag,” Scott declared.

“I grant that he furnished them,” injected Rosser, “but the fact that he did doesn’t make it admissible.”

“Did the Pinkertons give Frank’s counsel reports?” continued the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“Give them to the state?”

“I don’t know.”

“Did Frank say he heard the voices in the hall about noon that Saturday, before or after noon?”

Scott was allowed to refer to his notes and started reading from them when Rosser stopped him.

“You must not necessarily read what the notes say, but what your mind says after refreshing it by means of the notes,” ruled Judge Roan.

“Frank said he heard the voices after noon,” said Scott.

“What did Frank tell you he did at home after he left the factory at lunch time?” asked Dorsey.

“He did not say.”

“Did he tell you he ate lunch?”

“No.”

Frank’s References to Gantt.

What, if anything, did Frank tell you about Gantt?”

“He stated in the first conversation,” said Scott, “that Gantt knew Mary Phagan very well and was intimate with her.”

“Did he say how he knew this?”

“No.”

“Did Frank say anything about Gantt’s attentions to Mary Phagan?”

“Not that I recall.”

“May I refresh the mind of the witness?” asked the solicitor, turning to Judge Roan.

Attorney Rosser entered an objection.

“Your honor,” said Mr. Dorsey rather hotly, “it is in your direction to allow me to ‘lead’ a witness, and if there ever was a time when a witness needs to be led this is one, this detective in the employ of the defense.”

Scott Becomes Angry.

“You don’t mean to intimate that I’m holding anything back!” Scott exclaimed angrily.

“The state has been trapped,” said Mr. Dorsey amid a general murmur from Rosser and Scott, and for a moment things looked black.

“The witness told me something and now he don’t seem to remember it,” Mr. Dorsey continued, “and I’m not trying to impeach him, I’m simply trying to refresh his memory,” he added as his colleague, Frank Hooper, whispered something to him.

“Mr. Dorsey said three times that he had been trapped by Scott,” Rosser interrupted, “and now after Hooper has talked to him he’s changed; Hooper’s a wise man.”

“You have the right, your honor, to allow me to ask leading questions, and while generally they are not allowed on cross-examination, you may allow them on direct examination and even refuse them to the other side when they are cross-examining. This detective seems to have a lapse of memory. Why, he had to refresh it a while ago with his notes, and now I want to ask him to refresh it about what Frank said about Gantt.”

The solicitor evidently wanted Scott to declare that Frank had narrated seeing Gantt and Mary Phagan together and thus give the lie to Frank’s declaration to Rogers and Black that he did not know even whether such a girl as Mary Phagan worked at the factory.

“In my talk to you, Mr. Scott, did I or not make memoranda of what you said?” asked the solicitor, and then turning to the judge he asked to show these to the witness.

Rosser Again Objects.

Mr. Rosser objected to this procedure and the judge asked Scott if he knew what the solicitor had written on the memoranda. When Scott said he did not know all that Dorsey wrote, Judge Roan ruled that unless the witness had seen all that he solicitor wrote that he could not be shown the notes to refresh his memory.

“As I understand it, Mr. Dorsey can tell about what they talked over and can ask, ‘Well, Mr. Scott, how about this or that?’” stated Attorney Hooper. “It is not a ‘leading’ question to call attention to a certain subject.”

“Mr. Dorsey, you may call attention to a specific subject, but not to the answer you want,” said Judge Roan.

“Mr. Scott, did Frank or did he not discuss Gantt’s relations to Mary Phagan?” the solicitor then asked.

“Yes,” Scott replied.

“What did he say?”

“He said Gantt paid a great deal of attention to her.”
“Anything more?”

“Not that I now recall.”
“Do you know when Gantt was arrested?”

“On Monday, April 28, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon.”

“Before or after your talk with Frank?”

“About the same time; Gantt was arrested in Marietta just about that hour.”
“Was there any suggestion by Frank’s attorneys that you suppress any evidence in this case?” asked the solicitor.

“Your honor,” interrupted Attorney Rosser, “Leo Frank in a civil case would not be bound by what his lawyers did, and certainly he would not in this.”

Mr. Dorsey then withdrew the question.

“What was said about the matter?” asked the solicitor.

Scott Suspected Frank.

“During the first week in May,” said Scott, “Pierce and I went to Herbert Haas’ office to discuss the handling of the case and we told him we had strong suspicion against Frank.”

“I object; that can’t come in!” roared Rosser.

“Mr. Haas said that he would rather we would submit what evidence we might get to them before turning it over to the police,” the Pinkerton man continued, “so that they would know in advance what the evidence was, and we told him that we would quit the case before we would handle it in that way.”

Scott was then made to describe the locality where the supposed blood spots were found near the girls’ dressing room and he declared that the spots had been chipped out when he went there, but that white substance was smeared around the place as if someone had taken a cloth and rubbed the whiting on the floor.

“Are you sure that the white stuff had been smeared on, or had it merely been spilled there?” asked the solicitor.

“I could tell by its appearance that it had been smeared there,” Scott replied positively.

“On the facts you have told about Frank’s appearance are you willing to tell whether or not Frank was nervous?” asked the solicitor, referring to Scott’s testimony about the defendant’s being pale and taking long breaths during the first conference.

“He seemed nervous but not trembling,” answered Scott.

“Tell what happened on Tuesday night, April 29, in Frank’s presence,” said Dorsey.

“Black and I were with Frank at police station and Black told him that he and I believed Newt Lee knew more about the crime than he would tell and we suggested to Frank that he, as Lee’s employer, might get something out of him and we asked Frank to hold a private talk with the negro.

Says Frank Squirmed in Chair.

“Frank did that and when he had been there about ten minutes Black and I entered just as Lee was saying, ‘Mr. Frank, it’s awful hard to be handcuffed here to this chair.’

“Frank hung his head for about 30 seconds and then flinging up his hands he burst out, ‘Well, they’ve got me, too!’

“Later Frank told us he got nothing out of the negro,” said Scott.

“How about Frank’s demeanor at that time?” asked Dorsey.

“He was extremely nervous; he squirmed in his chair and crossed and uncrossed his legs. He didn’t seem to know what to do with his hands and put them all over his face and rubbed his mouth with them several times, four or five times, and hung his head, swallowed hard and sighed.”

Scott was then made to tell that on the first Monday afternoon he saw Frank that the superintendent had told him the clock had not been correctly punched during the night before the finding of the body.

Search Made in Factory.

“Black and I went to the factory and carried him to the station house and after a conference decided to keep him here,” Scott declared next in answer to the solicitor’s question about the time that Frank was first arrested.

“How about his appearance?” asked Dorsey.

“He had nothing to say and he was very pale.”

“Did you see Mr. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, with him on Tuesday before his arrest?”

“No.”

“Did you see Frank on May 3, and what took place?”
“Black and I went to his cell and asked him if, after going bacw [sic] to the factory from Montag’s place, he stayed in the office, and he said he did and also that he was there from 12 to 12:30.”

“Did you talk to Frank about the suspects in the case previous to the offerings of the rewards?”

“No.”

“Did you search the factory?”

“Yes, I searched thoroughly around the elevator shaft, but only on the surface; I did not dig up the dirt.”

“Find anything like a ribbon, a purse, pay envelope or a stick or bludgeon?” asked Dorsey quickly.

“No, I ran my lantern up and down and looked thoroughly, but I found nothing like what you describe,” Scott declared with emphasis.

Cross-Questioned by Rosser.

Mr. Rosser then took up the cross-examination.

“Did you make a report of your talk with Mr. Haas?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Haas said that he wanted to find the murderer whoever he might be, didn’t he?” queried Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, he said that after I had told him we would quit the case before we would handle it like he first suggested, in telling us to submit new evidence to him before giving it to the police,” replied Scott.

Mr. Rosser then declared that he wanted to show that he had not been concerned in the affair. The solicitor won his point, however, that because it might have been that one of the defendant’s counsel had tried to suppress facts, that such did not open up the way for proving that others had not.”

“Well, there’s certainly no one here who would think that I had anything to do with it, and I know it,” thundered Rosser, apparently addressing himself to court and spectators as well as jurymen.

“Didn’t you give me a statement of your first conversation with Frank in which there was no mention of his statement about the alleged intimacy between Gantt and Mary Phagan?” asked Mr. Rosser a moment later of Scott.

“It was purely an oversight.”

“Didn’t the coroner ask you about Leo’s statement and you answered without saying anything of Gantt’s intimacy?”

“Yes, I didn’t consider Gantt a suspect and for that reason did not report it to you.”

Gives Notes to Rosser.

Scott then gave Attorney Rosser the notes of his testimony.

“Isn’t it true that at the inquest you failed to tell of Frank’s lowering his head?”

“I do not remember.”

“Didn’t you make one statement at the inquest and another here?”

“Oh, I’ve refreshed my memory,” said Scott.

“Show me in your notes anything about Gantt’s intimacy with Mary Phagan,” said Rosser.

“It isn’t there; I’ve got my system of taking notes and maybe they are not like yours.”

“Isn’t it true you took part of the notes one day and some another day?”

“I did no such thing.”

“You never mentioned to me of Gantt’s intimacy.”

“No.”

“At the coroner’s inquest did you not say Frank was nervous that afternoon at the office?”

“No; I was not asked about it.”

“Why did you state it?”

“Oh, there is a lot besides going into a whole detailed sheet about it.”

“When you told of the talk between Lee and Frank you never said he was nervous.”

“Not nervous; I said Frank hung his head.”

“Are you following Dorsey’s attack?”

“No, his line of questions.”

“Are you a trained sleuth?”

“Suppose so.”

“You are trained to note all indications of guilt in a man?”

“Yes.”

“Did you swear you told all you knew at the inquest?”

“Yes; I did my best in a general way.”

“You never hid anything?”

Scott Again Grows Angry.

“No; that’s not my business nor my reputation,” Scott finished back, his anger, which had been visible since his hot words with the solicitor, flaring high again.

“It wouldn’t have been wise to open up and toil everything at the inquest,” interrupted the solicitor.

“Who was present at the factory office when you conferred with Frank?”

“Darley was there and I think Schiff was,” answered Scott.

“Do you work with the police?”

“Yes.”

“Never work against them?”

“No.”

“You just go right down the road with them do you?” said Mr. Rosser.

Scott made no particular reply and the cross-examination went on.

“Were you in the factory that Sunday morning?” the attorney next asked.

“No; I never entered there until about 4:30 Monday afternoon.”

“Did you testify as to blood stains at the inquest?”

“Yes.”

“I also found some supposed blood stains,” Rosser read from the stenographic report of Scott’s testimony before the coroner.

“Mr. Scott, you said nothing then about the smears over the spots,” said Mr. Rosser.

Scott was then made to tell that Frank acted as the spokesman in the office and that Darley did the explaining as they made the trip through the factory on the Monday after the crime.

“You say now,” continued Mr. Rosser, “that Frank told you he left the factory about 1:10?”

“Yes.”

“Didn’t you report to me that Frank said he left about 1 o’clock?”

“No, I said 1:10.”

When the attorney exhibited the report it showed 1 o’clock instead of 1:10 and Scott declared that it was merely an error, and should have been 1:10.

“Did Detective Black know all that happened before Herbert Haas, Sig Montag or I did?”

“Yes, absolutely.”

“Well, you may go,” said Mr. Rosser, and turning to the judge he declared he wanted to reserve the right to question him again.

Dorsey Resumes Questioning.

“Did you ever report to the police the finding of a stick?” asked Mr. Dorsey, again taking up the examination.

“I presume that unless it was held out that chief got knowledge of it about the time it was found,” answered Scott.

“Don’t you know whether he did or not?”

“No, I was away at the time, and I don’t know what happened while I was out of town.”

“When you work with the police do you follow them or the facts in the case?” asked Dorsey.

“We report to the police each day the facts we get.”

“How do you work with the police?”

“Black and I worked as partners, and he knew all I knew, and reported it to the police.”

Then Mr. Dorsey made the witness tell again about the threat that the Pinkertons would leave the case before they would report evidence to the defense before giving it to the police. After Scott had pointed out on the cross-section of the factory building the route taken by himself, Frank and Darley in examining the place on the Monday after the case, he was excused. The Pinkerton man had been on the stand for two hours.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 31^st, 1913

BLOOD SPOTS AND HAIR FOUND ON DAY FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED

Pay Envelope Was Found Near Machine Used by Mary Phagan Some Days Later—Find of Strands of Hair on Lathe Was Reported to Quinn, Who Notified Darley—Mell Stanford and Magnolia Kennedy Also Saw It

BARRETT’S EVIDENCE MOST IMPORTANT YET TOWARD PROVING CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN METAL ROOM

Mell Stanford and Harry Scott Also Tell of Finding Blood Spots, but Scott’s Testimony Is Not Entirely Satisfactory to Either State or Defense—Monteen Stover on the Stand. Will Conley Testify in Rebuttal Only?

New and sensational testimony for the state was given by R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the National Pencil factory where Mary Phagan was murdered on April 26, when Barrett Thursday afternoon declared from the witness stand that he had discovered early Monday morning following the tragedy a large blood spot, surrounded by a number of smaller spots, at the water cooler near the dressing room on the second floor of the factory. Barrett testified further that he had found a broom nearby which from its appearance evidently had been used to smear the large blood spot over with a white substance.

Barrett testified further that on the same morning he had found strands of hair on the lathe of the machine used by him and that he had called this discovery to the attention of Magnolia Kennedy, Mell Stanford and Lemmie Quinn, and that Quinn had notified Darley. The solicitor developed through Barrett’s testimony that no girls had been at the factory since Friday afternoon before the crime, his purpose evidently being to show that the hair must have been that of Mary Phagan. In addition to this testimony, Barrett swore that a few days after the murder he had found in the area near Mary Phagan’s machine a portion of a pay envelope. There was nothing on the envelope to positively identify it as having belonged to Mary Phagan.

The fact that blood spots were found in the metal room on the second floor was also established by the state through the testimony of Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective, and Mell Stanford, an employe of the factory.

Barrett’s testimony was decidedly the most important that the state has thus far managed to get before the jury and no doubt will be stressed by the solicitor in support of the state’s theory that Mary Phagan met her death in the metal room on the second floor of the factory.

By both Pinkerton Detectives Harry Scott and Barrett the state showed that careful searches had been made of the first floor shortly after the tragedy and that neither a pay envelope, a purse, a bludgeon or stick, had been found there. The prediction has been frequently made that the defense would introduce evidence to show that both Mary Phagan’s pay envelope and a bloody bludgeon were found on the first floor by Pinkerton detectives.

NOT THE SAME ENVELOPE.

Whether the defense will introduce the piece of envelope found by the Pinkertons on the first floor of the factory is not known. In the event they do so two pay envelopes will be in evidence. These two pieces are not from the same envelope. This fact was demonstrated by Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who is assisting in the prosecution. After the state can contend that the envelopes are separate and distinct.

Mary Phagan’s machine, Mr. Hooper took it and endeavored to fit it with the piece of envelope held by the defense. It did not fit, thus the state can contend that the envelopes are separate and distinct.

It is quite evident that the state will insis[t] that the envelope and bludgeon found by Pinkerton detectives and turned over to the defense are nothing more than “plants.”

Monteen Stover, a twelve-wear-old [sic] girl employed at the factory, stated that she had gone to the factory on the Saturday of the murder arriving at 12:05 and leaving at 12:10. She swore that she had gone into the office and that she did not see nor hear anyone in the building. She had gone for her pay.

Scott swore that Frank had told him that he was in his office and did not leave it from 12 to 12:30.

Solicitor Dorsey has begun to weave the chain of circumstantial evidence with which the state expects to convict Frank with the murder. The remainder of the week will most likely be taken up by the state in the introduction of witnesses.

WILL CONLEY BE CALLED?

James Conley, the negro sweeper, who swore that he helped Frank carry the girl’s body into the basement and wrote the notes found beside it at Frank’s suggestion, may or may not be introduced as a principal witness. The state may hold him back as a rebuttal witness, and there is a slight possibility that he may not be put upon the stand at all.

Throughout the Thursday session of the trial Frank remained as impassive as he has been heretofore. He took a keen interest in the proceedings, but did not display the slightest trace of emotion.

The testimony of Detective Scott was not satisfactory to either the state or the defense. He engaged in frequent clashes with Mr. Rosser while the latter was cross-examining him, but unlike Detective John Black, he never once lost his head.

MANY WOMEN PRESENT.

A number of women were among the early arrivals in the crowd of spectators who surrounded the court house before court convened Thursday morning for the resumption of the Frank trial. The women stood in line for an hour to be among those close to the doors when those portals were opened.

The crowd was admitted at 8:40 o’clock. Leo M. Frank, the accused, had arrived early, as usual, under custody of the sheriff. At 3:55, Mrs. Frank, wife of the accused, joined her husband in an ante-room of the court. Court convened, with Judge Roan on the bench, at 9 o’clock.

J. M. Gantt was recalled to the stand.

“When were you arrested?”

“Monday, April 28, at 11:30 o’clock in Marietta. I was released on Thursday of the following week.”

The witness was excused.

SCOTT TAKES STAND.

Harry Scott, assistant superintendent of the Atlanta branch of the Pinkerton detective agency, was called to the stand.

“When did you first see Leo M. Frank?”

“At 4:30 o’clock Monday, April 28, at the National Pencil factory.”

“With whom have you worked on this case.”

“John Black, city detective of Atlanta.”

“By whom were you engaged?”

“By Mr. Frank, representing the National Pencil company.”

“Tell all about your engagement.”

“I went up to the National Pencil company’s factory on request, and saw Mr. Frank standing about where the time clocks are. Accompanied by Mr. Darley and another man, we went back into Mr. Frank’s private office for a conference.

FRANK ASKED PROBE.

“He stated that the directors of the company and himself thought that the public demanded an investigation of the horrible crime committed in the factory. He, Frank, had just come from police headquarters, and John Black seemed to suspect him. Then he detailed to me his movements on Saturday. He arrived at the factory about 8 o’clock. Between 9:30 and 10 o’clock he went to Montag’s, and returned to the factory about 11, he said.

“About 12 o’clock Mrs. White came in and went up to the fourth floor where her husband and Harry Denham were working. About 12:10 Mary Phagan came in and he paid her two half dollars and two dimes. She received the money in his private office and when she reached the outer office asked if the metal had come.

“He replied that he didn’t know. When she had reached the stairway, he heard voices, but couldn’t tell w[h]ether it was a man or two women talking. About 12:50 he went up to the fourth floor and found that White and Denham wanted to work about two hours longer. Mrs. White preceded him down the steps and mentioned that when he came in she had seen a negro sitting behind some boxes on the first floor.

“At 1:10 Frank went to lunch. He returned at 3, and at 4 o’clock Newt Lee reported and was told that he could go out and have a good time for two hours. Lee returned at 6 o’clock and about 6:04 Frank left the factory. On the outside he met J. M. Gantt, a former bookkeeper, who had been discharged […]

PENCIL FACTORY MACHINIST GIVES STARTLING TESTIMONY

[…] for thieving. Frank reached home at 6:25 o’clock and at 6:30 tried to get the night watchman to ask him if Gantt had left. He didn’t get him then, but did get him at 7 o’clock. He went to bed about 9:30 o’clock.

SEARCH IN FACTORY.

“After Frank had detailed his movements, said the witness, he and Scott and Darley went through the factory. Darley was the spokesman, pointing out the supposed blood spots, and the point where the hair was said to have been found. From the second floor they went to the basement through the scuttle hole, where Scott saw the place where the body and several objects were found.

Solicitor Dorsey asked Scott if he observed Frank’s manner when Frank engaged him.

SCOTT SURPRISES DORSEY.

“Yes, it was perfectly natural and he exhibited no sign of nervousness.”

“How did Frank breathe?”

“Between words he seemed to take a deep breath.”

Attorney Rosser objected to the question and answer. In reply, the solicitor said he was surprised by the evidence of Detective Scott, and that he had been misinformed as to what his testimony would be. He then asked permission of the court to ask the witness some questions to refresh his memory. This was granted.

“How did his eyes look?”

“They were large and piercing.”

The witness said further that Frank sighed several times during the conversation in Frank’s private office. Attorney Rosser entered another objection, and said that the answers of Detective Scott were conclusions merely inasmuch as he had never seen Frank before that time.

Scott testified, after looking at Frank in court, that his eyes looked then as they did during the conversation.

“Didn’t you say to me—“

Attorney Rosser objected, interrupting. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“How about his complexion, Mr. Scott,” asked Dorsey.

“He was a little pale at that time.”

“What pauses did he make in this conversation?”

Attorney Rosser objected, and was sustained.

“How did he give this narrative?”

ANSWER STRICKEN.

“Very specifically as to time.”

Attorney Rosser asked that the question and answer mbe [sic] stricken. The details themselves were the best evidence, said he. The answer was a conclusion. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“What did he state with reference to his movements about the time Mary Phagan entered the factory?”

“He was not very definite. He said she came about 12:10.”

“What did he say about having heard anybody talking before she came?”

“I don’t remember that he said anything about that.”

Solicitor Dorsey asked Judge Roan if he could see the written reports that Scott had made to him to refresh the witness’ mind. Attorney Rosser objected, and before there was a ruling on the issue the solicitor asked:

GAVE REPORTS TO DEFENSE.

“Did you not furnish your reports to the defendant?”

“Yes.”

Attorney Rosser demanded, “Whom do you mean?”

“To Sig Montag, Herbert Haas and Luther Z. Rosser.” Scott added that the reports were sent either by special messenger or by mail.

“Did the Pinkertons furnish reports to counsel?” asked Solicitor Dorsey.

“Yes.”

“Reports that they could read?”

“Yes.”

The solicitor picked up some papers and asked:

“Is this one of the reports that you furnished to the state?”

“I don’t know until I look at my original notes.”

The solicitor requested the witness to refer to his original notes. The court permitted this. The witness did so. He started to read his notes. The defense objected. The court sustained the objection, explaining to the witness that while he could refresh his memory from the notes, he could not read the notes aloud to the court, but must give his evidence from his mind as it had been refreshed.

BEFORE GIRL ENTERED FACTORY.

“I now say,” continued Detective Scott, “that Frank stated to me that he heard the voices before 12 o’clock.”

“Was this before or after Mary Phagan came to the factory?” inquired the solicitor.

“Before.”

“What did Frank tell you about the location of the voices?”

“He told me that he thought the voices were near the stairway, although he could not say for certain, as he had remained inside the office himself.”

“What did Frank say to you about what happened when he went home that Saturday?”

“He said he went home for luncheon.”

DIDN’T SAY HOW LONG.

“Did he say how long he remained there?”

“He did not.”

“Did he say whether he ate lunch?”

“No, sir.”

“What did Frank say to you on that occasion with reference to Gantt?”

“During the conversation in Frank’s office, Frank said to me that Gante [sic] knew Mary Phagan and was familiar and intimate with her.”

“Did he tell you how he knew?”

“He did not.”

“What, if anything, was said to you by Frank about Gantt’s attention to Mary Phagan?”

Attorney Rosser interrupted, declaring “Questions like these grate on my ears like the false notes from a piano.”

Judge Roan ruled that it was a leading question and could not be put.

Solicitor Dorsey modified the question.

“Was anything said by Frank about Gantt’s attention to Mary Phagan?” he asked.

“Not that I recall,” replied Scott.

SAYS HE WAS MISLED.

The solicitor sought to question the witness as to what he, Scott, had told him, the solicitor, on this point. Attorney Rosser objected, declaring that what the witness had told the solicitor was not material.

“Your honor,” said the solicitor, “I’ve been misled on this proposition by the witness. If there ever was a case for a leading question, this is one; and it is entirely within the court’s discretion to permit such a question. This witness is a detective. He is in the employ of the defendant. I certainly should be allowed to refresh his memory as to what he told me about his conversation with Frank.”

Mr. Rosser made the point that before the solicitor could proceed along this line he must charge that he had been entrapped by the witness. The solicitor did not insist that he had been entrapped, but did maintain that he had been misled on this particular point.

Detective Scott, addressing the solicitor, demanded to know if the solicitor was intimating that he was holding back any evidence.

Solicitor Dorsey addressed his reply to the court.

“I do say, your honor, that I did expect this witness to testify differently on this proposition.”

Attorney Rosser renewed his objection, and insisted that before the solicitor could proceed further on his line of questioning he must charge that the witness had entrapped him. The colloquy was suspended until the attorneys on both sides could consult the code.

Mr. Dorsey explained that he was not trying to impeach the witness, but sought to refresh his memory. He claimed the right to ask leading questions.

“He has just had a lapse of memory,” said the solicitor. “And I want to read to him notes which I made in his presence about a conversation between us.”

Attorney Rosser objected, and Judge Roan sustained him.

“Didn’t I make a memoranda in your presence?” asked the solicitor.

DIDN’T READ DORSEY’S NOTES.

“Yes, but I didn’t read your memoranda.”

“Did Frank discuss the friendliness between Gantt and Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, he said that they were familiar and intimate, and that Gantt paid a good deal of attention to her.”

“Do you know when Gantt was arrested?”

“He was at police headquarters when I went down there after the conference with Frank.”

“Was any suggestion made to you subsequent to your employment by an attorney of Leo M. Frank relative to your suppression of evidence?”

Mr. Rosser objected immediately. Before Judge Roan ruled, the solicitor withdrew the question. Attorney Rosser demurred. “I’ll withdraw the objection,” said he.

“About the first week in May,” said Scott, “Mr. Pierce and I went to the office of Herbert J. Haas, attorney for Frank, to hold a conference relative to the Pinkerton’s position in the investigation. I told him that there was strong suspicion against Frank.”

The last sentence was ruled out.

“After a conversation, Mr. Haas said that he would rather we would submit our reports to him before we did to the police. We told him we would get out of the case before we would do that.”

“Who did the most talking about your inspection trip through the factory?”

asked the solicitor.

“Darley, but Frank talked some.”

BLOOD SPOTS CLIPPED UP?

Scott continued that he saw the place on the floor of the metal room whence the supposed blood spots had been clipped up. Some white substance had been smeared there.

“Are you sure it was a smear or was it a spill?” asked the solicitor.

“It was a smear.”

“Did Frank show unusual signs of nervousness that first interview you had with him?”

After objection and argument, the question was allowed.

“He was a little pale and sighed four or five times.”

“Was he composed.”

“No.”

“What happened at the police station Tuesday night in the presence of this defendant?”

“Frank and I were together in a private room when Detective Black came up and said Newt Lee wasn’t telling all he knew. At that time I also expressed this same opinion. We asked Frank if he would go into the private room and talk to Lee as an employer to an employe and see if he couldn’t get something out of him. They were together alone for about ten minutes. At the end of that time, Detective Black and I went in. Lee evidently hadn’t finished some reply he was making to a question by Mr. Frank. As we entered the room and took seats beside them he said to Frank: ‘It’s awful hard for me to be handcu[ff]ed to this chair.’ Frank hung his head and said “They’ve got me, too.”

“What was the appearance and deportment of Frank at the police station?”

“He was very nervous. He was squirming in his chair, hung his head, didn’t appear to know what to do with his hands, was pale, and sighed heavily.”

“How were his eyes then?”

“Just the same as they are now. You can’t tell anything by his eyes.”

“Did you hear any conversation between Frank and Lee about the punch clock?”

“I have a slight recollection of one Monday afternoon at the police station.”

“What did Frank say about that?”

“He said that the first punch Lee made was at 6:33 p. m., and the last one at 3 o’clock. No discrepancy was remarked by Frank then.”

“Describe Frank’s appearance and deportment on April 29 at 11 a. m., when he was taken into custody.”

“We went to the factory and told Frank that he had better go to police headquarters with us. He was trembling and was very pale. He had nothing to say in the automobile on the way to the station house.”

“Did you see Mr. Rosser with Frank on Monday previous to Frank’s arrest on Tuesday?”

“I did not.”

“Illustrate to the jury Frank’s manner when Frank stated to Lee ‘Well, they’ve got me, too.’”

FRANK’S MANNER.

“When Black and I entered the room Lee was just finishing an answer to one of Frank’s questions. He was saying: ‘It’s awful hard, Mr. Frank, on me. You see, they’ve got me chained to this chair.’ Lee repeated this about three times. Frank hung his head, squirmed in his chair, and holding his hands in the air said, ‘Well, they’ve got me, too.’”

“Did you see Frank at the jail on Saturday, May 3, 1913.”

“I did.”

“Did you have any conversation with him then?”

“I did.”

“Tell the jury what you said to Frank and what Frank said to you.”

“I went to Frank’s cell in company with Black. I asked Frank: ‘From the time you went back to the factory from Montag Brothers until you went upstairs where Denham and White were working, did you remain in your office?’ ‘Yes,’ Frank answered. ‘From the time you got back to the factory until Mary Phagan arrived at 12:10, did you remain in your office?’ Frank answered ‘yes.’ ‘From 12 noon up to 12:30 of that Saturday, were you in your private office?’ Frank answered ‘yes.’”

“Up to this conversation you had with Frank in the jail, had he made any similar statement?”

“No.”

“He did tell you that he was in the office all the time from 12 to 12:30 o’clock?”

“Yes.”

“Did you have any conversation with Frank as to suspects previous to the offering of rewards?”

“No.”

SEARCHING THE FACTORY.

“Did you make any search of the factory immediately after your employment?”

“I did.”

“Did you make any search of the area around the elevator and the radiator on the street floor?”

“I did. I made a surface search. I didn’t dig into the dirt.”

“What did you find?”

“Nothing.”

“Did you find a pay envelope, a purse, a ribbon, a bludgeon, a stick, or anything like these?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you make this search?”

“Right after I was engaged. I ran the elevator up and down, and examined the scuttle hole or trap hole and ladder.”

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination.

“You made a report as to what happened between you and Haas, didn’t you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes.”

ROSSER’S CROSS-EXAMINATION.

“The report reads something like this, doesn’t it? ‘This p. m., H. B. P. and I discussed agency’s position. Haas said he wanted murderer caught regardless of who it was.’”

“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected on the ground that a self-serving declaration of an attorney for the defendant was not admissible. Mr. Rosser contended that he had the right to go into the whole conversation. Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

In the discussion of the matter Mr. Rosser said he wanted to make it clear that at no time had attorneys for the defendant asked that evidence be suppressed. He wanted the witness to answer a question relative to a conversation with him, Rosser. Solicitor Dorsey objected. After some discussion and after he had made the remark “Mr. Dorsey is a little fractious this morning.” Mr. Rosser withdrew the question about his conversation, and asked Scott:

“Did Mr. Haas request you to suppress any evidence?”

“No. He said he wanted it submitted to him before it went to the police, and we told him that we could not do that.”

SCOTT AND ROSSER TILT.

Scott proved a difficult witness for Mr. Rosser. The detective made frequent and sharp retorts from the witness chair, and comments on Mr. Rosser’s tactics is trying to tangle him. Scott’s answers were direct and pointed.

Mr. Rosser produced a transcript of the evidence by Scott at the coroner’s jury. Mr. Rosser asked Scott if when he was before the coroner’s jury be told what Frank had said in relation to Gantt. Scott replied that he did not remember.

“Did you mention this remark by Mr. Frank in your report to the defense?”

“No, because the day I made this report Gantt was released from police headquarters and was regarded no longer as a suspect. It is customary in Pinkerton reports also to mention no names of suspects.”

“You didn’t testify before the coroner’s jury about hearing Frank say ‘They’ve got me, too,’ when he and Lee had their interview, did you?”

“I don’t remember whether I did or not.”

“You didn’t tell the coroner’s jury about Frank hanging his head, did you?”

Scott replied that he didn’t remember.

Mr. Rosser read from the transcript. “See if this is what you testified before the coroner’s jury,” he asked. He read a lengthy excerpt from Scott’s testimony. It contained neither of these assertions. Scott said he assumed that was what he said before the coroner’s jury.

A DIFFERENT WITNESS.

“You should remember, Mr. Rosser,” added Scott, “that I was answering only questions that were asked me by the coroner, and that he didn’t draw out and cross question me like you and Mr. Dorsey have done.”

Mr. Rosser read another excerpt from Scott’s testimony before the coroner.

“’I am working for the interests of the pencil factory,’” Mr. Rosser read. “You didn’t represent Frank personally, then, did you?”

“I was engaged by Frank.”

In reply to a retort by Mr. Rosser, Scott said: “It’s impossible for any man to repeat verbatim what he said years ago.”

Attorney Rosser took out of a leather case some papers, perhaps notes. “There is some reference to Gantt, there, isn’t there?” he asked. “About Gantt knowing Mary Phagan intimately. Did you have these notes when you were writing your reports to me?”

“We never put in the names of suspects,” replied Scott.

“When you were before the coroner’s jury you didn’t say Frank was nervous at the pencil factory, did you?”

Scott said he didn’t know—that his testimony there was the same as in court.

“When you were before the coroner, these facts were fresh in your mind, were they not?”

“Yes.”

“And you didn’t relate them?”

“I wasn’t asked. There is something different in telling what you know, and going into detailed sheets.”

“Well, let’s see about these detailed sheets,” said Mr. Rosser, picking up the transcript of testimony by Scott before the coroner’s inquest. “I count here, Mr. Scott, ten pages in which you detailed your testimony. In all these ten pages, you only told of two matters, your conversation with Frank, and that evening with Frank and Newt Lee.”

“Yes.”

“And you didn’t state in any of it about this matter? When you were telling about that conversation with Frank, you said nothing about him being nervous?”

“I said he hung his head.”

“Let me see,” said Mr. Rosser, examining the transcript. “I don’t find that you used anything about Frank crossing his legs, putting his hands up, and things of that kind.”

“No.”

“It was not until three or four weeks ago that you told these things to Dorsey?”

“I told him when Mr. Dorsey asked me the question.”

“Then it took ten pages to carry your brief details?”

“I guess Dorsey has a line of attack that the coroner did not have.”

“What do you mean by ‘line of attack,’ Mr. Scott?”

“Line of questions.”

ROSSER’S FAST QUESTIONS.

“And you didn’t says a word about Frank putting his hands up to his face?”

“No.”

“You are a trained detective?”

“Yes.”

“And you make a habit of noticing the appearance and actions of people?”

“Yes.”

“And you never told the coroner about this?”

“I’ve got more sense than to tell all I know at a coroner’s inquest.”

“Uh-huh!” grunted Mr. Rosser. “Weren’t you recalled, Mr. Scott, and asked if you had told all that you knew?”

Solicitor Dorsey interrupted with an objection against Mr. Rosser’s method of questioning the witness.

“Your honor, the witness provoked me,” said Mr. Rosser. Addressing the witness again, Mr. Rosser asked: “You undertook to tell all you knew at the coroner’s inquest?”

“Only in a general way.”

“General way, eh?”

“I was not such a fool as to go in with a fine-tooth comb at a preliminary hearing, added Scott.

Mr. Rosser called the court’s attention to the manner in which the witness was replaying to his questions. Before he had finished, Solicitor Dorsey was on his feet, making the point that the witness repeatedly had explained to Mr. Rosser why he had not testified everything at the inquest. He had stated that he was not accustomed to give out everything at preliminary hearings, and that he was not asked as to certain facts.

ROSSER CHANGES TACTICS.

Mr. Rosser changed abruptly his line of questioning. He asked the witness if Darley and others were not present when he walked with Frank in Frank’s office. They were, answered the witness. They saw and heard all that was said.

“Black was present at the station house when you talked with Frank, was he not?”

“Yes.”

“Your agency works with the police, does it not?”

“Yes, on criminal investigations.”

“You always hook up with the police and go on down the road with them, don’t you?”

“We work in harmony with the police.”

“You quit work if you don’t agree with the police?”

“We never clash over views.”

“Were you in the pencil factory on Sunday morning, April 27?”

“No, it was Monday afternoon about 1:30 o’clock that I first went to the pencil factory.”

“Did you testify before the coroner about any blood stains?”

“Yes.”

“Let me read you what you said before the coroner’s jury. ‘Also to a point about ten feet from the lathe, supposed blood stains had been chipped up from the floor by the police. Did you testify to anything about the white smear over these blood stains?”

“No.”

“These original notes of yours—when did you make them?”

“All in Frank’s private office on Monday afternoon, April 28.”

“On your trip through the factory that afternoon, didn’t Darley do some talking?”

“Yes. Both Darley and Frank talked.”

“Wasn’t it Darley who told you about Gantt being familiar with Mary Phagan?”

“No—it was Frank.”

SCOTT ADMITS UNCERTAINTY.

“I simply want to refresh your memory, Mr. Scott. Are you absolutely clear whether you got that statement from Frank or Darley?”

“No, not exactly clear; but Frank did the talking in the office and all the notes were taken in the office.”

“Did you take down any notes as you went through the factory?”

“No, I made memoranda later at my office.”

Holding up Scott’s original notes, Attorney Rosser asked, “Some of these were written at your office?”

“No, all were written at the factory. I’ll swear positively to the last word that those notes were taken in Frank’s office.”

“But you won’t be positive whether it was Darley or Frank who made the statement about Gantt being familiar with Mary Phagan?”

“I think it was Frank, but I am not entirely clear. As far as I can recollect, Frank was the spokesman. I only took down what Frank said. Darley may have made some statements.”

Mr. Rosser quoted the evidence by Scott at the coroner’s inquest and a report made by Scott to him in which he had stated that Frank told Mary Phagan that the metal had not come.

“How is it that you now say Frank answered, ‘I don’t know?’”

BLAMES STENOGRAPHER.

“It must be stenographic error,” said Scott. “I now swear positively that Frank told me he answered ‘I don’t know’”

“It’s peculiar that the same error occurred twice,” remarked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, it is,” smiled the witness.

“Why didn’t you put the Gantt episode in your report to me?”

“Because he had been eliminated from my mind as a suspect when I dictated that report.”

“You say now that Frank left the office at 1:10. Why did you say in your report to me that he left at 1?”

“Either I made a mistake or the stenographed did,” answered Scott.

Attorney Rosser reverted to Scott’s relations with the city police, bringing out the statement from Scott that the police received repor[t]s on his work before his clients did.

Solicitor Dorsey took up the re-direct examination.

“Did your agency report the finding of any ribbons, pay envelopes, or sticks, to the police?”

“I don’t know. I was out of town part of the time.”

Solicitor Dorsey referred to the Pinkertons’ relations to the city police, asking what the Pinkertons did when the facts did not harmonize with the theories of the police.

“We fight it out then and there,” Scott answered.

“Did you carry a lantern with you when you went around through the factory?”

“Yes, I held one in my hand.”

The solicitor asked Scott to describe his route through the factory on the diagram. Before Scott left the stand, Attorney Rosser asked this question:

“Did you notice any stairway from the basement to the first floor?”

“Yes.” The witness pointed to a spot on the diagram, which was not marked, near the boiler in the basement. Solicitor Dorsey asked him to describe that. The witness did, saying it was nailed up when he saw it and was covered with dust and cobwebs.

MONTEEN STOVER ON STAND.

Scott was excused from the stand.

Miss Monteen Stover was called as the next witness.

Miss Stover testified that she is not working anywhere now, but until the Monday preceding the murder of Mary Phagan she worked at the National Pencil factory. On the day of the murder she was in the factory building from 12:05 o’clock until 12:10 o’clock, and that she did not see Frank or anyone else.

“What purpose did you have in going to the factory?”

“To get my pay.”

“When do they usually pay?”

“At 12 o’clock on Saturday.”

“What part of the factory were you in?” pursued the solicitor.

“Mr. Frank’s office.”

“Was he there?”

“He was not.”

“Did you see anybody at all anywhere in the building?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you hear anybody anywhere in the building?”

“No, sir.”

Solicitor Dorsey, taking Mary Phagan’s parasol as a pointer, went to the diagram hanging on the wall, and pointing to the location of the women’s dressing room, asked Miss Stover if the door of it was open or shut.

“I don’t know.”

“How were you dressed that day?”

“I had on a yellow hat.”

“What kind of shoes did you wear?”

“Tennis slippers.”

“How far toward the rear of the building did you go?”

“I went as far as the time clock.”

“Did you look at the clock?”

“Yes.”

LOOKED AT THE CLOCK.

“What time did it register then?”

“The hands stood at 12:05 o’clock.”

“What did it register when you went out of the factory?”

“Ten minutes after 12 o’clock.”

“Did you see any man’s apparel in Frank’s office?”

“No, sir.”

“Had you ever previously noticed this door of the women’s dressing room? Was it usually open or closed?”

The solicitor picked up a paper from his desk and said to the court: “May I show her this affidavit to refresh her memory, your honor?” Attorney Rosser objected. Solicitor Dorsey explained: “I want to show her what she said to me about this door when it was fresher in her memory than it is now.”

An argument followed, and Judge Roan called for citation of authorities. The solicitor sent Special Deputy Newt Garner to his office for an authority, turning the witness over to the defense for the interim.

ROSSER TAKES WITNESS.

Attorney Rosser’s manner toward the witness was gentle. Her voice was low.

“Did Mr. Frank have one or two offices?”

“There are two offices there.”

“How far did you go into the office?”

“Into the outer office far enough to get a full view of the inner office.”

“Did you notice several articles of furniture and fixtures in there? Did you notice the safe in the inner office?”

“No, I was looking for a person and didn’t notice any of these objects.” Miss Stover added that entering the building she went directly to the office, entered the outer office and looked into Frank’s private office, sat on a bench outside the outer office for a minute and a half or two minutes, lingered around a little while, and then left.

Attorney Rosser questioned her as to who saw her leave home and who saw her return. Miss Stover gave the names of several people who saw her leave and return.

“You didn’t see Miss White or Miss Corinthia Hall that day, did you?”

“No, sir,” she replied.

How many times have you talked to the solicitor about this case?”

“Once, and I saw him at the grand jury.”

“It’s the truth, is it, that sometimes you saw the door of the women’s dressing room closed and sometimes open?”

“Yes.”

“That’s the truth, no matter what kind of an affidavit you made, isn’t it?”

“Yes.”

Attorney Rosser was through with the cross-examination. Solicitor Dorsey cited his authority for asking permission to show her the affidavit in order to refresh her memory. Judge Roan granted the point to Solicitor Dorsey. The affidavit was shown to her. After she had read it, the solicitor asked:

“Having refreshed your memory, Miss Stover, tell us about that back door?”

“Sometimes it was open, and some times it was closed.”

“In what position was it when the factory was not running?”

“Then it was shut.”

Mr. Rosser interposed: “You went to the solicitor’s office before you went to the grand jury, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

IMPORTANT WITNESS.

R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the National Pencil factory, was the next witness. He stated that he had been employed at the pencil factory for about eight weeks before the murder and that he still is employed there. He appeared before the coroner’s jury and the grand jury, he said.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness what if anything he had seen at the water cooler near the dressing room used by Mary Phagan, on Monday morning, April 28.

“An unusual spot,” replied the witness.

“Had you ever seen this spot before?”

“No.”

“Did you work at the factory Friday?”

“Yes.”

“Was the spot there on Friday?”

“No.”

Describe this spot.”

“There was a large spot about four or five inches in diameter. There were several little spots just behind it.”

“How many of these little spots?”

“About six or eight.”

“When did you discover these spots?”

“Between 6:30 and 7 o’clock Monday morning after the murder.”

“Of what was this spot?”

BLOOD SPOTS FOUND.

“It was blood.”

“Did you notice anything else about it?”

“Yes, there was some white substance over it.”

“Do you know what this substance was?”

“I do not.”

“Had you ever noticed any white substance like this on the floor before?”

“No.”

“Are there any white substances kept on this floor?”

“Yes, potash and hascoline.”

“Do you know which it was that was smeared over the spot?”

“No.”

“What was the appearance of the spots and the potash and hascoline?”

“The large spot was about four or five inches in diameter. There was a white substance smeared over it. There was nothing on the little spots.”

“How had this white substance been applied?”

“By a broom.”

“What kind of a broom?”

“A course cane broom.”

“Did you find the broom anywhere near these spots?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”

“About four or five feet away, leaning up against the wall.”

“Was this broom in its regular place?”

“I don’t know.”

“Do you know whether this broom was there on Friday?”

“I do not.”

“What makes you think this white substance was applied with the broom?”

“Because there were large streaks through the blood and the white stuff.”

“Did you examine the broom?”

“Yes. It was very dirty.”

“Did it show any evidence of having been used?”

“No, I couldn’t tell.”

“For what was this broom used?”

“To clean up the grease on the floor in the metal department.”

“What sort of broom is used for sweeping the floor regularly?”

“A broom with finer straw.”

“What else, if anything, did you find in the metal room?”

FOUND STRANDS OF HAIR.

“I found some strands of hair on the handle of the bench lathe where I worked.”

“What is the shape of this handle?”

“L-shaped.”

“Describe it.”

The witness asked for a pencil and a piece of paper. He drew an illustration of the lathe handle.”

“Where was the hair?”

“It was hanging over the handle.”

Witness indicated where the hair hung, on his pencil sketch.

“Of what material was the handle?”

“Iron.”

“Did anyone else see the hair?”

OTHERS SAW THE HAIR.

“Yes—Mell Stanford.”

“Was Magnolia Kennedy there?”

“Yes.”

“Did she identify this hair?”

Attorney Rosser objected. Solicitor Dorsey insisted, contending that Mr. Rosser had gone into great detail concerning hair; that he had asked many questions of Miss Grace Hix about hair, inquiring the shade of Mary Phagan’s hair, that of Magnolia Kennedy, and even went so far as to have the witness point out Mr. Arnold’s hair as a sample. Judge Roan ruled that what Magnolia Kennedy said about the hair after the discovery would be hearsay evidence. Solicitor Dorsey remarked: “I just wanted to show, your honor, by this witness, whether Magnolia Kennedy identified the hair.” Mr. Rosser interrupted, declaring that only the God of the universe would know whether she identified it—that it was purely a matter of opinion.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness, “How far away from the bench lathe where the hair was found, is the gas jet where the girls curled their hair?”

“About ten feet,” answered the witness.

The solicitor had the witness locate the machine and the gas jet on the diagram.

“You say the hair was not there Friday?”

“No,” said the witness.

“When did you discover it?”

“Monday morning.”

“Whose attention did you call to it?”

TOLD QUINN ABOUT IT.

“I called Quinn and Quinn called Darley.”

“How do you know that the hair was not there on Friday?”

“Because I used the machine myself up to quitting time.”

“When is quitting time?”

“Five thirty p. m.”

“Was the factory closed Saturday?”

“Yes.”

“Were there any girls working there Saturday?”

“No.”

“How far is the nearest lot of hascoline and potash from where the broom and blood were found?”

FOUND PAY ENVELOPE.

“There was a can of hascoline about eight feet away. The potash is in the plating department about twenty or twenty-five feet away.”

“What was the color of the smearing?”

“White.”

“You found no black stuff around?”

“Nothing but streaks of grease on the floor.”

“Did you examine the area around Mary Phagan’s machine? If so, when?”

“Yes—the latter part of the week.”

“What did you find?”

“I found a piece of a pay envelope under her machine.”

The witness said that was between the 28^th and 30^th of April. On that part of the pay envelope was a mark that looked like it was a part of the letter P or G or F. He gave that to one of the solicitor’s attaches. He identified a piece of pay envelope handed to him as the piece which he had found. He found nothing else except filings under that machine.

The envelope could not be seen where he found it, unless a person looking toward it was standing ten or fifteen feet away from the machine. Solicitor Dorsey indicated on the diagram where a bloody stick is supposed to have been found, and asked the witness if he made a search of that area.

The witness said that he did, during the latter part of the week following the tragedy, and that he found no stick, blood, nor part of any pay envelope. Solicitor Dorsey asked the attorneys for the defense if they had in court the bloody stick, said to have been found by the Pinkertons.

The attorneys answered in the negative, saying they could produce it Thursday afternoon. The solicitor announced that he would bring the witness back later.

CAN’T IDENTIFY IT.

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination and developed that there was no distinguishing mark on the piece of envelope found by Barrett except the little loop. There was no number, no amount, nor anything like that, to distinguish it from hundreds of others used in the factory.

Barrett testified under cross-examination that he found the hair when he turned the handle of the lathe on Monday morning and the hair caught on his fingers. Barret[t] was positive that the spots which he found were blood spots, although he admitted he had made no chemical analysis.

Mr. Rosser concluded his cross-examination, and Mell Stanford, another employe of the pencil factory, was called to the witness stand.

Stanford declared that on Friday, April 25, he swept the second floor of the pencil factory, including the metal room, and was certain that he swept around the water cooler and by the dressing room. On Monday he was again in the metal room and saw the hascoline smeared on the floor, where it had not been when he swept the metal room between 9 and 10 o’clock Friday morning. He was certain that a heavy broom had been used for smearing the hascoline. The spots leading from the hascoline smear went back toward the dressing room.

Attorney Arnold took up the cross-examination of the witness, but at 12:25 o’clock, before he could ask a question, Judge Roan ordered a recess of the court until 2 o’clock.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

A number of people remained in the court room throughout the noon recess, preferring to run no risk of losing their seats. A small boy who somehow got past the guards brought a basket of lunch and sold it out in short order.

Leo M. Frank, the accused, and his wife lunched together in one of the rooms adjoining the court.

Some fifty or seventy-five women were in the crowd which entered the court room just before 2 o’clock. [T]hey were more numerous than at the morning session. The number of women attending the trial grows with each session of the court.

At 2 o’clock court re[c]onvened with Mell Stanford in the witness [c]hair, and with Attorney R. R. Arnold conducting the cross-examination.