Atlanta Constitution
August 19th, 1913

Harlee Branch, a newspaper man who was present when James Conley, the negro sweeper of the National Pencil factory, went through for the police a pantomime of what he claims occurred on the day of the murder when he says he aided Leo Frank in hiding the body of Mary Phagan, was the first witness called lo the stand Monday morning.

Mr. Branch had been on the stand Saturday, but had not finished his testimony when court adjourned. Through his statements as to the time, Attorney Reuben Arnold drew the conclusion that 49 minutes must have elapsed while Conley was enacting the motions through which he calms lo have gone with Frank.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 19th 1913, “Harlee Branch Tells of Conley Pantomine,” 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 22nd, 1913

When Attorney Frank A. Hooper had made the opening speech of the prosecution, Attorney Reuben R. Arnold prepared for the first speech of the defense. It had been announced that he would review the entire history of the case and when he started at noon the pasteboard model of the pencil factory was brought In.

A large diagram giving a synopsis of the case was also brought in, but was not unwrapped when Mr. Arnold first started, “Gentlemen of the fury, we are all to be congratulated that this case is drawing to a close,” Mr. Arnold began in a quiet voice as though addressing several friends on an everyday subject.

“We have all suffered here from trying a long and complicated case at the heated term of the year. It’s been a case that has taken as much effort and so much concentration and so much time, and the quarters here are so poor.

Particularly hard on you members of the jury who are practically in custody while the case is going on.

“I know it’s hard on a jury to be kept confined this way, but it is necessary that they be segregated and set apart where they will get no impression at home nor on the street.

“The members of the jury are in a sense set apart on a mountain, where, far removed from the passion and heat of the plain, calmness rules them and they can judge a case on its merits.

Takes Rap at Hooper.

“My friend, Hooper, said a funny thing here a while ago; I don’t think he meant what he said, however. Mr. Arnold then stated. “Mr. Hooper said that the men in the jury box are no different from the man on the street, “Your honor, I’m learning something every day and I certainly learned something today, if that’s true,” he added, turning to Judge Roan.

“Mr. Arnold evidently mistakes my meaning, which I thought I made clear,” interrupted Attorney Frank Hooper. “I stated that the men in the jury box were like they would be on the street in the fact that in making. up their minds about me guilt or innocence of the accused they must use the same common sense that they would if they were not part of the court.”

“Well, let’s get away from that street idea, entirely,” Mr. Arnold fired back.

The speaker then launched into a description of the horrible crime that had been committed that afternoon or night in the National Pencil company’s dark basement. He dwelt on the effect of the crime upon the people of Atlanta and of how high feeling ran and still runs, and of the omnipresent desire for the death of the man who committed the crime.

Roasts Motorman Kenley.

“They are follows Ike that street car man, Kenley, the one who vilified this defendant here and cried for him to be lynched and shouted that he was guilty until he made himself a nuisance on the ears he ran.”

“Why I can hardly realize that a man holding a position as responsible as that of a motorman and a man with certain police powers and the discretion necessary to guide a car through the crowded city streets would give way to passion and prejudice like that.”

“It was a type of man like Kenley who said he did not know for sure whether those negroes hanged in Decatur tor the shooting of the street car men were guilty, but that he was glad they hung as some negroes ought to be hanged for the crime. He’s the same sort of a man who believes that there ought to be a hanging because that innocent title girl was murdered, and who would like to see this Jew here hang, because somebody ought to hang for it.

Frank’s Only Guilt.

“I’ll tell you right now, if Frank hadn’t been a Jew there would never have been any prosecution against him. I’m asking my own people to turn him loose, asking them to do justice to a Jew, and I’m not a Jew, but I would rather die before doing injustice to a Jew.

“This case has been built up by degrees; they have a monstrous perjurer here in the form of this Jim Conley against Frank. You Know what sort of a man Conley is, and you know that up to the time the murder was committed no one ever heard a word against Frank.”

“Villainy like this charged to him does not crop out in a day. There are long mutterings of it for years before. There are only a few who have ever said anything against Frank. I want to call your attention later to the class of their witnesses and the class of ours. A few floaters around the factory, out of the hundreds who have worked there in the plant three or four years, have been induced to come up here and swear that Frank was not a good character, but the decent employees down there have sworn to his good character.” Look at the jail birds they brought up here, the very dregs of humanity, men and women who have disgraced themselves and who now have come and tried to swear away the life of an innocent man.”

To Strip State’s Case Bare.

“I know that you members of the jury are impartial. That’s the only reason why you are here and I’m going to strip the state’s case bare for you. If I have the strength to last to do it.”

“They have got to show Frank guilty of one thing before you can convict him; they’ve got to show that he is guilty of the murder, no matter what else they show about him. You are trying him solely for the murder and there must be no chance that any-one else could just as likely be guilty.”

“If the jury sees that there is just as good a chance that Conley can be guilty then they must turn Frank loose.”

“Now you can see how in this case the detectives were put to it to blame the crime on somebody. First it was Lee and then it was Gantt and various people came in and declared they had seen the girl alive (late Saturday) night and at other times and no one knew what to do.”

Lee Has Not Told All.

“Well, suspicion turned away from Gantt and in a little while it turned away from Lee. Now I don’t believe that Newt is guilty of the crime, but I do believe that he knows a lot more about the crime than he told. He knows about those letters and he found that body a lot sooner than he said he did.

“Oh, well, the whole case is a mystery, a deep mystery, but there is one thing pretty plain, and that is that whoever wrote those notes committed the crime. Those notes certainly had some connection with the murder, and whoever wrote those notes committed the crime.”

“Well, they put Newt Lee through the third degree and the fourth degree and maybe a few others. That’s the way, you know, they got this affidavit from the poor negro woman, Minola McKnight. Why, just the other day the supreme court handed down a decision in which it referred to the third degree methods of the police and detectives in words that burned.”

Here the attorney read the decision which attacked alleged third degree methods.

“Well, they used those methods with Jim Conley. My friend Hooper said nothing held Conley to the witness chair here but the truth, but I tell you that the tear of a broken neck held him there. I think this decision about the third degree was handed down with Conley’s case in mind. I’m going to show this Conley business up before I get through.”

Charges “Frame-Up.”

“I’m going to show that this entire case is the greatest frame-up in the history of the state.”

Here court adjourned for lunch.

“My friend Hooper remarked something about circumstantial evidence and | how powerful it frequently was. He forgot to say that the circumstances, in every case, must invariably be proved by witnesses.”

“History contains a long record of circumstantial evidence and I once had a book on the subject which dwell on such cases, most all of which sickens the man who reads them. Horrible mistakes have been made by circumstantial evidence—more so than by any other kind.”

Here Mr. Arnold cited the Durant case in San Francisco, the Hampton case in England, and the Dreyfus case in France as instances of mistakes of circumstantial evidence. In the Dreyfus case he declared it was purely persecution of the Jew.

The hideousness of the murder itself was not as savage, he asserted, as the feeling to convict this man.

“But the savagery and venom Is there, just the same, and it is a case very much on the order of Dreyfus.

Attack’s Hooper’s Position.

“Hooper says ‘Suppose Frank didn’t kill the girl and Jim Conley did, wasn’t it Frank’s duty to protect her?”. He was taking the position that if Jim went back there and killed her, Frank could not help but know about the murder.  Which position, I think, is quite absurd.

“Take this hypothesis, then, of Mr. Hooper’s. If Jim saw the girl go up and went back and killed her, would he have taken the body down the elevator at that time? Wouldn’t he have waited until Frank and White and Denham and Mrs. While and all others were out of the building? I think so. But there’s not a possibility of the girl having been killed on the second floor.

“Hooper smells a plot, and says Frank has his eye on the little girl who was killed. The crime isn’t an act of a civilized man—it’s the crime of a cannibal, a man-eater. Hooper ls hard-pressed and wants to get up a plot—he sees he has to get up something. He forms his plot from Jim Conley’s story”.

“They say that on Friday Frank knew he was going to make an attack of some sort on Mary Phagan. The plot thickens. Of all the wild things I have ever heard that Is the wildest. It is ridiculous. Mary Phagan worked in the pencil factory for months, and all the evidence they have produced that Frank ever associated with her—ever knew her—is the story of weasley little Willie Turner, who can’t even describe the little girl who was killed.”             

“A little further on in his story Jim is beginning the plot. They used him to corroborate everything as they advised. Jim is laying the foundation for the plot. What is it—this plot?”

Ridiculous Alleged Plot.

“Only that on Friday Frank was planning to commit some kind of assault upon Mary Phagan.”

“Jim was their tool. Even Scott swears that when he told Jim’s story didn’t fit, Jim very obligingly adapted it to suit his defense. He was scrupulous about things like that. He was quite considerate. Certainly. He had his own neck to save.”

“Jim undertook to show that Frank had an engagement with some woman at the pencil factory that Saturday morning. There is no pretense that another woman is mixed up in the case. No one would argue that he planned to meet and assault this Innocent little girl who was killed.”

“Who but God would know whether she was coming for her pay that Friday afternoon or the next Saturday? Are we stark idiots? Can’t we divine some things?”

“They’s got a girl named Ferguson, who says she went for Mary Phagan’s pay on the Friday before she was killed, and that Frank wouldn’t give it her. It Is the wildest theory on earth, and it fits nothing. It is a strained conspiracy, Frank, to show you I am correct, had nothing whatever to do with paying off on Friday. Schiff did it all.

“And little Magnolia Kennedy, Helen Ferguson’s best friend, says she was with Helen when Helen went to draw her pay, and that Helen never said a word about Mary’s envelope.”

“There’s your conspiracy, with Jim Conley’s story as its foundation. It’s too thin. It’s preposterous.

“Then my friend Hooper says Frank discharged Gantt because he saw Gantt talking to Mary Phagan. If you convicted men on such distorted evidence as this, why you’d be hanging men perpetually. Gantt, in the first place, doesn’t come into this case in any good light. It Is ridiculously absurd to bring his discharge into this plot of the defense.”

“Why, even Grace Hicks, who worked with Mary Phagan, and who Is a sister-in-law of Boots Rogers, says that Frank did not know the little girl.”

Defends Factory Conditions.

“Hooper also says that bad things are going on in the pencil factory, and that it is natural for men to cast about for girls in such environments. We are not trying this case on whether you or I or Frank had been perfect in the past. This is a case of murder. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

“I say this much, and that is that there has been as little evidence of such conditions in this plant as any other of its kind you can find in the city. They have produced some, of course, but it is an easy matter to locate some ten or twelve disgruntled ex-employees who are vengeful enough to swear against their former superintendent, even though they don’t know him except by sight.”

“I want to ask this much. Could Frank have remained at the head of this concern If he had been as loose morally as the state has striven to show? It he had carried on with thy girls of the place as my friends alleged, wouldn’t entire working force have been demoralized, ruined? He may have looked into the dressing room, as the little Jackson girl says, that if he did, it was done to see that the girls weren’t loitering.”

“There were no lavatories, no toilets, no baths in these dressing rooms. The girls only changed their top garments. He wouldn’t have seen much if he had peered into the place. You can go to Pledmont park any day and see girls and women with a whole lot less on their person. And to the shows any night you can see the actresses with almost nothing on.”

“Everything brought against Frank was some act he did openly and in broad daylight, ‘and an act against which no kick was made.’”

The Trouble With Hooper.

“The trouble with Hooper is that he sees a bear in every bush. He sees a plot in this because Frank told Jim Conley to come back Saturday morning. The office that day was filled with persons throughout the day. How could he know when Mary Phagan was coming or how many persons would be in the place when she arrived?”

“This crime is the hideous act of a negro who would ravish a ten-year-old girl the same as he would ravish a woman of years. It isn’t a white man’s crime. It’s the crime of a beast—a low, savage beast!”

“Now, back to the case: There is an explorer in the pencil factory by the name of Barrett—I call him Christopher Columbus Barrett purely for his penchant for finding things. Mr. Barrett discovered the blood spots in the place where Chief Beavers, Chief Lanford and Mr. Black and Mr. Starnes had searched on the Sunday of the discovery.

Barrett and the Reward.

“They found nothing of the sort. Barratt discovered the stains after he had proclaimed to the whole second floor that he was going to get the $4,000 reward if Mr. Frank was convicted. Now, you talk about plants! If this doesn’t look mighty funny that a man expecting a reward would find blood spots in a place that has been scoured by detectives, I don’t know what does.”

“Four chips of this flooring were chiseled from this flooring where these spots were found. The floor was an inch deep in dirt and grease. Victims of accidents had passed by the spot with bleeding fingers and hands. If a drop of blood had ever fallen there, a chemist could find it four years later. Their contention is that all the big spots were undiluted blood.”  

“Yet, let’s see how much blood Dr. Claude Smith found on the chips. Probably five corpuscles, that’s all, and that’s what he testified here at the trial. My recollection is that one single drop of blood contains 3,000 corpuscles. And, he found these corpuscles on only one chip.”

“I say that half of the blood had been on the floor two or three years. The stain on all chips but one were not blood. Dorsey’s own doctors have put him where he can’t wriggle—-his own evidence hampers him.”

“They found blood spots on a certain spot and then had Jim adapt his story accordingly. They had him put the finding of the body near the blood spots, and had him drop it right where the spots were found.”

“It stands to reason that if a girl had been wounded on the lathing machine, there would have been blood in the vicinity of the machine. Yet, there was no blood in that place and neither was there any where the body was said to have been found by Conley. The cake doesn’t fit. It’s flimsy.

“A Cheap, Common Plant.”

“And, this hascoline that they’ve raised such a rumpus over. It was put on the floor as a cheap, common plant to make it appear as though someone had put it there in an effort to hide the blood spots. The two spots of blood and the strands of hair are the only evidence that the prosecution has that the girl was killed on the second floor. “Now, about these strands of hair, Barrett, the explorer, says he found four or five strands on the lathing machine. I don’t know whether he did or not. They’ve never been produced. I’ve never seen them, But, it’s probable, for, just beyond the lathing machine, right in the path of a draft that blows in from the window, is a gas jet used by the girls in curling and primping their hair. It’s very probable that strands of hair have been blown from this jet to the lathing machine.”

“The state not only has got no case, gentlemen, but they’ve got the clumsiest, ill-fitting batch I’ve ever seen.“

“The detectives say that Frank is a crafty, cunning criminal, when deep down in their heart of hearts they know good and well that their case is bullshit against him purely because he was honest enough to admit having seen her that day. Had he been a criminal, he never would have told about seeing her and would have replaced her envelope in the desk, saying she had never called for her for pay.”

Defends Character of Women.

“I believe that a majority of the women are good. The state jumped on poor Daisy Hopkins. I don’t contend, now, mind you, that she is a paragon of virtue. But there are men who were put up by the stats who are no better than she. For instance, this Dalton, who says openly that he went into the basement with Daisy. I don’t believe he ever did, but, in such a case, he slipped in. There are some fallen women who can tell the truth. They have characteristics like all other types.

“We put her on the stand to prove Dalton a liar and we did it. Now, gentlemen, don’t you think the prosecution is hard-pressed when they put up such on character ag Dalton? They say he has reformed. A man with thievery in his soul never reforms. Drunkards do and men with bad habits, but thieves? No!”

“Would you convict a man like Frank or the word of a pervert like Dalton? “Now, I’m coming back to Jim Conley. The whole ease centers around him. Mr. Hooper argued well on that part. At the outset of the case, the suspicion pointed to Frank merely because he was the only man in the building. It never cropped out for weeks that anyone was on the first floor.

Taken Rap at Detectives.

“The detectives put their efforts on Frank because he admitted having seen the girl. They have let their zeal run away with them in this case, and it is tragic. They are proud whenever they get a prisoner who will tell something on anybody. The humbler the victim the worse is the case. Such evidence comes with the stamp of untruth on its face.”          

“Jim Conley was telling his story to save his neck, and the detectives were happy listeners. If there is one thing for which a negro is capable it is for telling a story in detail. It is the same with children. Both have vivid imaginations. And a negro is also the best mimic in the world. He can imitate anybody.”

“Jim Conley, as he lay in his cell and read the papers and talked with the detectives, conjured up his wonderful story, and laid the crime on Frank, because the detectives had laid it there and were helping him do the same.”

“Now Brother Hooper waves the bloody shirt in our face. It was found Monday or Tuesday in Newt Lee’s home/house/place (unclear) while Detectives Black and Scott were giving calm to poor, old man Newt Lee. I don’t doubt it for a minute that they know it was out there when they started out after it.

 “I can’t say they planted it, but It does look suspicious. Don’t ask us about a planted shirt. Ask Scott and Black.”

“The first thing that points to Conley’s guilt is his original denial that he could write. Why did he deny it? Why? I don’t suppose much was thought of it when Jim said he couldn’t write, because there are plenty of negroes who are in the same fix. But later, when they found he could, and found that his script compared perfectly with the murder notes, they went right on accusing Frank. Not in criminal annals was there a better chance to lay at the door of another man a crime as well as Jim Conley had.”

“You see, there is a reason to all things. The detective department had many reasons to push the case against Frank. He was a man of position and culture. They were afraid that someone, unless they pushed the case to the jumping off place, would accuse them of trying to shield him. They are afraid of public and sentiment, and do not want to combat it, so, in such cases, they invariably follow the line of best resistance.”

Conley’s Statement Attacked.

Continuing the reading of Conley’s statement, Arnold pointed out the use of words, which he declared no negro would naturally have used. These were long words, with many syllables in them.

“They said that Conley used so much detail in his statements tha­­­t he could not have been lying!” exclaimed Arnold.

Arnold then read parts of statements which Conley had repudiated as willful lies, and pointed out the wealth of detail with which they were filled.

“And yet they say he couldn’t fabricate so much detail! Oh, he is smart!” cried Arnold.

He then took up the reading of the statement of May 24, in which Conley admitted writing the notes. In this he showed three different times at which Conley stated he wrote the notes, these being early in the morning, at 12:04 and at 3 p.m.

Once more Arnold sought to show that the statements were not genuinely Conley’s. “Take the word ‘negro’,” he said. “The first word that a nigger learns to spell correctly is negro, and he always takes particular pains to spell it n-e-g-r-o. He knows how to spell it. Listen to the statement. He says that at first he spelled the word ‘negros’, but that Frank did not want the ‘s’ on it and told him to rub it out, which he did. “Then he says that he wrote the word over.”

Arnold then read rapidly the parts of the statement referring to smoking in the factory with Frank when it was against the rules, taking the cigarette box with money in it, etc.

Conley’s Lies About the Notes.

“Look at the notes,” he said. “He was tried about those notes and he had to tell a lie and put upon someone the burden of instructing him to write them.”

“The first statement about them was a blunt lie—u lie in its incipiency. He said he wrote the notes on Friday. This was untrue and unreasonable, and he saw it. Frank could not have known anything of an intended murder on Friday from any viewpoint you might take, and therefore he could not have made Conley write them on Friday.”

“Ah, gentlemen of the jury, I tell you these people had a great find when they got this admission from Conley!” Arnold cried sarcastically.

“If Conley had stayed over there in the Tower with Uncle Wheeler Mangum he would have told the truth long ago. There’s where he should have stayed, with Wheeler Mangum.”

Says Dorsey Made Mistake.

“My good friend, Dorsey, is all right. I like him. But he should not have walked hand in glove with the detectives. There’s where he went wrong.”

“My good old friend Charlie Hill would not have done that. He would have let the nigger stay In the jail with Uncle Wheeler.”

“I like Dorsey. He simply made a mistake by joining in the hunt, in becoming a part of the chase. The solicitor should be little short of as fair as the judge himself. But he’s young and lacks the experience. He will probably know better in the future.”

“Dorsey did this: He went to the Judge and got the nigger moved from the jail to the police station.”  

“The judge simply said, ‘Whatever you say is all right.’ “Now, I’m going to show you how John Black got the statement of Conley changed. I am going to give you a demonstration. I have learned some things in this case about getting evidence!”

“They say that Frank cut Conley loose and he decided to tell the truth.”

“Conley Is a wretch with a long criminal record. Gentlemen, how can they expect what he says to be believed against the statement of Leo M. Frank?”

Four Pages of Lies.

“They say Conley can’t lie about detail. Here are four pages, all of which he himself admits are lies. They are about every saloon on Peters street, saloons to which he went, his shooting craps, his buying beer and all the ways in which he spent a morning. There is detail enough, and he admits that they are lies.”

“Now, in his, third statement, that of May 28, he changes the time of writing the letters from Friday to Saturday. Here are two pages of what he said, all of which he afterwards said were lies.

“He says that he made the statement that he wrote the notes on Friday in order to divert suspicion from his being connected with the murder which happened on Saturday. He also says that this is his final and true statement. God only knows how many statements he will make. He said he made the statement voluntarily and truthfully without promise of reward, and that he Is telling the truth and the whole truth.”

“He said in his statement that he never went to the building on Saturday. Yet we know that he was lurking in the building all the morning on the day of the murder. We know that he watched every girl that walked into that building so closely that he could tell you the spots on their dresses. We know that he was drunk, or had enough liquor in him to fire his blood.”

Had Guilt on His Soul.

“I know why he wouldn’t admit being fu that building on Saturday. He had guilt on his soul, and he didn’t want it to be known that he was here on Saturday. That’s why!” 

“When they pinned him down what did he do? He says that he was watching for Frank!”

“My God, wasn’t he a watchman! He said that he heard Frank and Mary Phagan walking upstairs, and that he heard Mary Phagan scream, and that immediately after hearing the scream he let Monteen Stover into the building.

“Why, they even have him saying that he watched for Frank, when another concern was using the very floor space in which Frank’s office was located, and you know they wouldn’t submit to anything like that.”

“Look again! He says that Mr. Frank said, “Jim, can you write?” What a lie!”

“He admitted that he had been writing for Frank for two years. It’s awful to have to argue about a thing like this, gentlemen! You will remember Hooper said, ‘How foolish of Conley to write these notes!’ How much more foolish, I say, of Frank to do it!”

“I don’t think that Newt killed the girl, but I believe he discovered the body some time before he notified the police. Newt’s a good nigger.”

Arnold once more read the notes and commented upon Conley’s spelling of the word “negros” and afterwards rubbing out the letter “s.”

“’Frank said he wanted the ‘s’’ rubbed out,’ quoted Arnold. ‘I rubbed it out.’ Frank said, ‘That’s all right, old boy, and slapped me on the back.’”

Over this picture Arnold had much merriment.

“Now, here is what Scott said,” continued Arnold. “He said that it took Conley six minutes to write a part of one note. Conley said that he wrote the notes three times.”

Attorney Laughs Aloud.

Arnold then read from Conley’s statement the description of the congenial manner in which Frank had Conley to sit down and asked him to have a cigarette, and of the pompous, manner in which Conley took the cigarette and smoked it. Arnold laughed loudly as he read this. He described comically how Frank must have looked when he looked up at the ceiling and said, ‘Why should I hang? I have rich relatives In Brooklyn.’”

“They say that nigger couldn’t lie. Gentlemen. If there is any one thing that nigger can do it is to lie. As my good old friend, Charlie Hill, would say, ‘Put him in a hopper and he’ll drip lye!”

“He was trying to prove an alibi for himself when he said that he was not in the factory on Saturday and told all the things that he did elsewhere on that day. But we know that the wretch was lurking in the factory all of Saturday morning.

“Further he swore that while he was in Frank’s office he heard someone approaching and Mr. Frank cried out, ‘Gee! Here come Corinthia Hall and Emma Clarke!’ and that Frank shut him up in a wardrobe until they left. According to Conley they came into the factory between 12 and 1 o’clock, when, as a matter of fact, we know that they came between 11 and 12.”

“And as for his being able to fabricate the details of his statement — why, he knew every inch of that, building from top to bottom! Hadn’t he been sweeping and cleaning it for a long time?”

Made Conley Change Story.

“With this knowledge of the building, he naturally had no trouble in his pantomime after he had formed his story”.

“The miserable wretch has Frank hiding him in the wardrobe when Emma Clarke came in after the murder, when it has been proved that she came there and left before Mary Phagan ever entered the building on that day.”

“They saw where they were wrong in that statement, and they made Conley change it on the stand. They made him say, ‘I thought it was them.’ They knew that that story wouldn’t fit.”

“Do you remember,” continued Arnold, “How eagerly Conley took the papers from the girls at the factory? And do you remember how for four or five days the papers were full of the fact that Frank’s home was in Brooklyn, and that his relatives were reported to be wealthy? Conley didn’t have to go far to get material for that statement he put in Frank’s mouth.”

“It so happened, though, that Frank really did not have rich relatives in Brooklyn. His mother testified that his father was in ill health, and had but moderate means, and that his sister worked in New York for her living.”

He read from Conley’s statement about what Frank wanted with the notes, saying that Frank said he wanted to send them to relatives in BrookIyn and show what a smart negro he was, so that he could recommend him to them for a job.

“Why the nigger hadn’t even asked for a job,” exclaimed Arnold. “And if he had, what recommendation would such notes as these have been. Can you for a moment imagine a man saying that he intended to send his mother any such notes as these?”

Here Arnold read the repulsive contents of one of the notes.

“Gentlemen, am I living or dreaming, that I have to argue such points as these? This is what you’ve got to do. You’ve got to swallow every word that Conley has said—feathers and all, and you’ve got to believe none of it. How are you going to pick out of such a pack of lies as these what you will believe and what you will not? Yet this is what the prosecution has based the case upon. If this fails, all fails.”

“And do you remember about the watch, where Conley said that Frank asked him, ‘Why do you want to buy, a watch for Your wife? My big, fat wife wanted me to buy her an automobile, but I wouldn’t do it!’”

“Do you believe that, gentlemen of the jury?”

“I tell you that they have mistreated this poor woman terribly. They have “insinuated that she would not come to the tower to see Frank—had deserted him. When we know that she stayed away from the jail at Frank’s own request, because he did not want to submit her to the humiliation of seeing (him locked up and to the vulgar gaze of the morbid and to the cameras of the newspaper men. The most awful thing in the whole case is the way this family has been mistreated! The way they invaded Frank’s home and manipulated his servants.”

Are Not Representative.

“I deny that the people who did this are representative of the 175,000 people of Fulton county! We are a fair people and we are a chivalrous people. Such acts as these are not in our natures!”

Arnold reached the end of the statement where Conley changed the time of the writing of the notes to Saturday.

“That is where he changed the time of the writing of the notes to Saturday, but denied knowledge of the murder.”

“That, of course, did not satisfy these gentlemen and they went back to him. They knew he was dodging incrimination. So they had him to change the statement again.”

“Let me read Scott’s statement about how they got the statements from him.”

He read the detective’s statement about how he and other detectives had spent six hours at the time with Conley on occasions and used profanity and worried him to get a confession.

“Hooper thinks,” continued Arnold, that we have to break down Conley’s testimony on the stand, but there is [np such ruling. You can’t tell when to believe him, he has lied so much.”

Reading on, he came to the statement that the detectives went over the testimony with Dorsey.

“There,” said Arnold, “is where my friend got into it.”

Changed the Day.

Continuing his reading to show how the detectives got Conley lo change his statements, he said that they kept grilling Conley for six hours trying to impress on him the fact that Frank would not have written the notes on Friday.

“They wanted another statement,” he said. “He insisted that he had no other statement to make, but he did change the time of the writing of the notes from Friday to Saturday. This shows, gentlemen, as clearly as anything can show how they got Conley’s statements.

Lawyers Are Accessories.

“In the statement of May 29 they had nothing from Jim Conley about his knowledge of the killing of the little girl,” Mr. Arnold continued, “and the negro merely said that Frank had told him something about the girl having received a fall and about his helping Frank to hide the body.

“Lawyers, why, knowing a person guilty, yet defend him, are guilty of being accessories after the fact.”

“Oh, Conley, we are going to have you tell enough to have you convict Frank and yet keep yourself clear.”

“That’s a smart negro, that Conley.”

“And you notice how the state bragged on him because he stood up the cross-examination of Colonel Rosser, well that negro’s been well versed in law. Scott and Black and Starnes drilled him; they gave him the broad hints.

“Scott says, ‘We told him what would fit.’”

“In his first statement Conley leaves himself not an accessory after the fact.”

“Oh, Conley’s smart enough all right.”

“It ain’t hard to show how perjury comes into this case; the tracks are broad and clear.”

“We came here to, go to trial and knew nothing of the negro’s claim to seeing the cord around the little girl’s neck, or of his claim of seeing Lemmie Quinn go into the factory, or of a score of other things.”

“Yet, Conley was then telling the truth, he said, and he’d thrown Frank aside. Oh, he was no longer shielding Frank, and yet he didn’t tell it all when he said he was telling the whole truth.”

“Well, Conley had a revelation, you know.”

“My friend Dorsey visited with him seven times.”

Conley Saw New Light.

“And my friend Jim Starnes and my Irish friend, Patrick Campbell, they visited him, and on each visit Conley saw new light. Well, I guess they showed him things and other things.”

“Does Jim tell a thing because it’s the truth, gentlemen of the jury, or, because it fits into something that another witness has told?”

“Scott says, ‘They told him things that fitted.’”

“And Conley says they changed things every time he had a visit from Dorsey and the detectives.  Are you going to hang a man on that!?!”

“Gentlemen, it’s foolish for me to have to argue such a thing.”

“The man that wrote those murder notes is the man who killed that girl,” said Attorney Arnold suddenly in a quiet voice.”

“Prove that man was there and that he wrote the notes and you know who killed the girl. Well, Conley acknowledges he wrote the notes and witnesses have proved he was there and he admits that, too”.

Having turned suspicion towards the negro the attorney launched into a description of the way in which Conley might have done the murder.

“That negro was in the building near the elevator shaft; it took but two stops for him to grab that little girl’s mesh bag. She probably held on to it and struggled with him.”

“A moment later he had struck her in the eye and she had fallen. It is the work of a moment for Conley to throw her down the elevator shaft.”

Would Story Stand Pressure.

“Isn’t it more probable that the story I have outlined is true than the one that Conley tells on Frank? Suppose Conley were now under indictment and Frank out, how long would such a story against Frank stand the pressure?”

Here Mr. Arnold read from Conley’s evidence on cross-examination, where he declared that Solicitor Dorsey had visited him seven times and that he had added something new each time.

“Mr. Rosser asked Jim on cross-examination why he had not told all the first time that Dorsey went there and the negro said he didn’t want to; that he wanted to save some of it back. Who corrected the negro? Did Dorsey or Starnes or Campbell?”

“Now, see here,” added Mr. Arnold, “In the statement of May 29 there are any number of things that are not told of which later were told on the stand.”

“In the May 29 statement Conley never told of seeing Mary Phagan enter; he never told of seeing Monteen Stover enter, nor of seeing Lemmie Quinn enter; now he tells of having seen all of them enter.”

“Don’t you see how they just fitted to fit witnesses and what the witnesses would swear?”

“It was, ‘Here, Conley, swear that Quinn came up, swear that the dead girl came up and swear that Miss Stover came up; they all did and it’s true, swear to it!“

“And Conley would say, ‘All right, boss, Ah reckon they did.’”

“And it was, ‘Conley, how did you fail to hear that girl go into the metal room? We know she went there, because by our blood and hair, we have proved she was killed there,’ and the poor negro thought a minute and then he said, ‘Yes, boss, I heard her go in.’”

Made Conley Swear.

Attorney Arnold went through the same methods and In the same way declared that the state’s representatives had put it into the negro’s head to swear he heard Frank go in with her and that he heard Frank come tiptoeing out later and that by that method they made Conley swear that Frank was a moral pervert.

“Now, I don’t know that they told Conley to swear to this and to swear to that, but they made the suggestions and Conley knew whom he had to please. He knew that when he pleased the detectives that the rope knot around his neck grew looser.

“In the same way they made Conley swear about Dalton, and in the same way about Daisy Hopkins. They didn’t ask him about the mesh bag. They forgot that until Conley got on the stand. That mesh bag and that pay envelope furnish the true motive for this crime, too, and if the girl was ravished, Conley did it after he had robbed her and thrown her body into the basement.

“Weil, they got Conley on the stand and my friend Dorsey here asked Conley about the mesh bag and he said yes, Frank had put It in his safe. That was the crowning lie of all!”

“Well, they’ve gone on this way, adding one thing and another thing. “They wouldn’t let Conley out of jail; they had their own reasons for that and yet I never heard that old man over there (pointing to the sheriff), called dishonest. He runs his jail in a way to protect the innocent and not to convict them in his jail.”

Talks of the Murder.

Mr. Arnold then switched away from that and talked of the murder.

“Gentlemen, right here a little girl was murdered (pointing to the pasteboard model of the National Pencil factory, which had been brought Into court when he started to speak), and it’s a terrible crime.”

Mr. Arnold then went on to describe in detail the horror of the Phagan tragedy, the crime that stirred Atlanta as none other ever did.

“We have already got in court the man who wrote those notes and the man who by his own confession was there; “the man who robbed her, and gentlemen, why go further in seeking the murderer than the black brute who sat there by the elevator shaft?” 

“The man who sat by that elevator shaft is the man who committed the crime. He was full of passion and lust, he had drunk of mean whisky and he wanted money at first to buy more whisky.”

Mr. Arnold then asked the sheriff to unwrap a chart which had previously been brought into court. It proved to be a chronological chart of Frank’s alleged movements on Saturday, April 26, the day of the crime, and Mr. Arnold announced to the jury that he would prove by the chart that it was a physical impossibility for Frank to have committed the crime.

“Every word on that chart Is taken from the evidence,” slated the pleading attorney, “and it will show you that Frank did not have time to commit the crime charged to him”.

“The slate has wriggled a lot in this affair; they put up little George Epps and he swore that he and Mary Phagan got to town about seven after twelve and then they used other witnesses, and my friend Dorsey tried to boot the Epps boy’s evidence aside as though it were nothing.”

“The two street car men, Hollis and Mathews, say that Mary Phagan got Forsyth and Marietta at five or six minutes after twelve; and they stuck to it, despite every attempt to bulldoze them, and then Mathews, who rode on the car to Whitehall and Mitchell, says that Macy Phagan rode around with him to Broad and Hunter streets before she got off.”

McCoy Had No Watch.

“Well, the state put up McCoy, the man who never got his watch cut of soak until about the time he was called as a witness, and they had him swear that he looked at his watch at Walton and Forsyth (and he never had any watch), and it was 12 o’clock exactly, and then he walked down the street and saw Mary Phagan on her way to the factory.

“Now, I don’t believe McCoy ever saw Mary Phagan. Epps may have seen her but the state apparently calls him a lie when they introduce other testimony to show a change of time to what he swore to. It’s certain those two street car men who knew the girl, saw her, but the state comes in with the watchless McCoy and Kenley, the Jew-hater, and try to advance new theories about the time and different ones from what their own witness had sworn to.”

“Well, we have enough to prove the time, all right; we have the street car schedule, the statement of Hollis and Mathews and of George Epps, the state’s own witness.”

“The next thing is how long did it take Conley to go through with what he claims happened from the time he went Into Frank’s office and was told to get the body until he left the factory?”

“According to Conley’s own statement he started at four minutes to 1 o’clock and got through at 1:30 o’clock, making 34 minutes in all.”

“Harlee Branch (here the speaker paid a tribute to the newspaper man mentioned) says that he was there when the detectives made Conley go through with what he claimed took place and that he started then at 12:17 and by Mr. Branch’s figures, it took Conley 50 minutes to complete the motions.”

Didn’t Attack Dr. Owen.

“Well, the state has attacked nearly everybody we have brought into this case, but they didn’t attack Dr. William Owen, and he showed by his experiments that Conley could not have gone through those motions in 34 minutes.”

Mr. Arnold then read from Jim Conley’s evidence on cross-examination where he declared that ho started at 4 minutes to 1 o’clock to get the body and that he and Frank left at 1:30.

“If we ever pinned the negro down to anything, we did to that, and we have shown that he could not have done all that in 34 minutes.”

“Leaving out the slander and filth hurled at Frank and the statements of “those poor little factory girls, dragged up here and made to swear that his character was bad, there can be no truth in the state’s case.”

Mr. Arnold then read the chronological chart through to the jury, stopping from time to time to comment on it. He paused at where the chart stated that Miss Hattie Hall left the office at 12:02 o’clock and went on to show from her evidence how that had been settled upon. Then he declared that the little Stover girl had entered the office and left before Mary Phagan did.

“Away with your filth and your dirty, shameful evidence of perversion: your low street gossip, and come back to the time—the time-element in the case,” Mr. Arnold almost shouted.

“Now, I don’t believe the little Stover girl ever went into the inner office; she was a sweet innocent, timid little girl, and she just peeped into the office from the outer one, and if Frank was in there, the safe door hid him from her view, or if he was not there, he might have stepped out for just a moment.”

“Oh, my friend, Dorsey,” Mr. Arnold again launched into an attack on his brother attorney’s methods. “He stops clocks and he changes schedules, and he even changes a man’s whole physical make-up, and he’s almost changed the course, of time in an effort to get Frank convicted.”

Charges Rotten Evidence.

“Oh, I hate to think of little Mary Phagan in this, I hate to think that such a sweety pure, good little girl as she was, with never a breath of anything wrong whispered against her, should have her memory polluted with such rotten evidence against an innocent man.”

“Well, Mary Phagan entered the factory at approximately 12 minutes after 12,” Mr. Arnold continued in a quieter tone, “and did you ever stop to think that it was Frank who told them that the girl entered the office and when she entered it. If he had killed her, he would have just slipped her pay envelope back in the safe and declared that he never saw her that day at all, and then no one could have ever explained how she got into that basement.”

“But Frank couldn’t know that there was hatred enough left in this country against his race to bring such a hideous charge against him.”

“Well, the little girl entered, and she got her pay and asked about the metal and then she left, but there was a black spider waiting down there tear the elevator shaft, a great passionate, lustful animal, full of mean whisky and wanting money with which to buy more whiskey. He was as full of vile lust as he was of the passion for wore whisky, and the negro (and there are a thousand of them in Atlanta who would assault a white woman if they had the chance and knew they wouldn’t get caught) robbed her and struck her and threw her body down the shaft and later he carried it back, and maybe, if she was alive, when he came back he committed a worse crime, and then he put the cord around her neck and left the body there.”

“Do you suppose Frank would have gone out at 1:30 o’clock and left that body in the basement and those two men, White and Denham, at work upstairs? Do you suppose an intelligent man Iike Frank would have risked running that elevator, like Conley says he did, with the rest of the machinery of the factory shut off and nothing to prevent those men up there hearing him?”

Girl Saw Frank.

“Well, Frank says he left the factory at 1 o’clock and Conley says he left there at 1:30. Now there’s a little girl, who tried the week before to get a job as stenographer in Frank’s office, who was standing at Whitehall and Alabama streets and saw Frank at ten minutes after 1.

“Did she lie? Well, Dorsey didn’t try to show it, and according to Dorsey everybody lied except Conley and Dalton and Albert McKnight.”

“This little girl says she knows it was Frank because Professor Briscoe had introduced her to him the week before and she knows the time of day because she had looked at a clock as she had an engagement to meet another little girl.”

“That stamps your Conley story a lie blacker than hell!”

“Then Mrs. Levy, she’s a Jew, but she’s telling the truth; she was looking for her son to come home and she saw Frank get off the ear at his home corner and she looked at her clock and saw, it was 1:20. There Mrs. Selig and Mr. Selig swore op the stand that they knew he came in at 1:20.”

“There’s no one in this ease that can tell the truth,” shouted the attorney in a sarcastic tone, “but Conley, Dalton and Albert McKnight. They are the lowest dregs and jail-birds and all that, but they are the only ones who know how to tell the truth!”

“Well, now Albert says he was there at the Selig home when Frank came in; of course he is Iying, for his wife and the Seligs prove that, but he’s the state’s witness and he says Frank got there at 1:30 and thus he brands Conley’s story about Frank’s leaving the factory at 1:30 as a lie.”

Saw Frank’s Reflection.

“Well, along the same lines Albert says Frank didn’t eat and that he was nervous and Albert says he learned all this by looking into a mirror in the dining room and seeing Frank’s reflection.“

“Then Albert caps the climax for his series of lies by having Frank board the car for town at Pulliam street and Glenn.”

Mr. Arnold then dwelt on the claim of the defense that the affidavit signed by Minola McKnight, the cook for Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, was obtained by “third degree” methods.

“How would you feel, gentlemen of the jury, he asked, “if your cook, who had does no wrong and for whom no warrant had been issued, and from whom the solicitor had already got a statement, was to be locked up.”

“Well, they got that wretched husband of Minola’s by means of Craven and Pickett, two men seeking a reward, and then they got Minola, and they said to her: “Oh, Minola, why don’t you tell the truth like Albert’s telling it!”

“They had no warrant when they locked this woman up. Starnes was guilty of a crime when he locked that woman up without a warrant, and Dorsey was, too, if he had anything to do with it.”

“Now George Gordon, Minola’s lawyer, says that he asked Dorsey about getting the woman out, and Dorsey replied, ‘I’m afraid to give my consent to turning her loose: I might get in bed with the detective department.’”

“That’s the way you men got evidence, was it?” he shouted, pointing to a group of city detectives who stood at the table with the state’s lawyers.”

 Then Mr. Arnold changed his subject. He took up the accusations made against certain witnesses and delivered a eulogy upon Miss Rebecca Carson, a forewoman of the National Pencil factory, who, when called by the defense, sword Frank had a good character. The state had introduced witnesses who swore that the woman and Frank had gone into the woman’s dressing room when no one was around. Mr. Arnold branded it a culmination of all lies when this woman was attacked. He said Frank had declared her to be a perfect lady with no shadow of suspicion against her.

Made Out Financial Sheet.

“Well, Frank went on back to the factory that afternoon when he had eaten his lunch and he started in and made out the financial sheet. I don’t reckon he could have done that if he had just committed a murder, particularly when the state says he was so nervous the next morning that he shook and trembled.”

“Then the state says Frank wouldn’t look at the corpse. But who said he didn’t? Nobody. Why, Gheesling and Rack didn’t swear to that?”

“Now, gentlemen,” continued the speaker, “I’ve about finished this chapter, and I know it’s been long and hard on you and I know it’s been hard on me, too; I’m almost broken down, but it means a lot to that man over there (pointing to Frank). It means a lot to him, and don’t forget that.”

“This case has been made up of just two things—prejudice and perjury,” Mr. Arnold continued, “I’ve never seen such malice, such personal hatred in all my Ife and I don’t think anyone ever has.”

“The crime itself is dreadful, too horrible to talk about, and God grant that the murderer may be found out, as I think he has. I think we can point to Jim Conley and say there is the man.”

“But, above all, gentlemen, let’s follow the law in this matter. In circumstantial cases you can’t convict a man as long as there’s any other possible theory for the crime of which he is accused, and you can’t find Frank guilty if there’s a chance that Conley is the murderer.”

“The state has nothing on which to base their case but Conley, and we’ve shown Conley a lie Write your verdict of not guilty and your consciences will give your approval.”

Court then adjourned until 3 o’clock Friday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 22nd 1913, “Arnold Ridicules Plot Alleged by Prosecution And Attacks the Methods Used by Detectives,” 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 16^th, 1913

Miss Julia Fuss, a girl about 16 years old, and an employee at the National Pencil factory took the stand to testify as to Frank’s character. She not only testified that she believed the defendant’s character to be good, but that she had heard Jim Conley declare that Mr. Frank was as innocent as the angels in heaven.

Mr. Arnold asked Miss Fuss whether she had ever been in Frank’s office when anything immoral took place.

She replied that she had not.

“Do you know Jim Conley?”
“Yes.”

“Did you talk with him after the murder?”
“Yes. On Tuesday and Wednesday.”

“What conversation took place between you and Jim Conley?”

Wanted to See Newspaper.

Jim asked me to let him see a newspaper which I had there. I asked him what he thought about the case but before he answered or saw the paper he was called by Mr. Darley or somebody. On the next day he came to me again and asked me let him see the paper. This time I asked him again, ‘Jim, what do you think about the case? Do you think Frank did it?’ He said Mr. Frank is as innocent as the angels in heaven.”

She testified that Jim Conley was so untruthful that no one ever knew when to believe him.

Mr. Dorsey then took Miss Fuss for cross-examination.

“Did you go on the office floor a few days after the murder?” he asked.

“Yes, to get an order.”

“Did you see any blood on the floor of the factory?”
“Yes. Some of it had been chipped up but some of it was left.”

“What do you think the spots were?”
“I think they were paint.”

“Why?”
“Because paint was used near there all the time.”

“Do you still work at the pencil factory?”
“Yes.”

Asked About Character.

“What do the girls and boys about the factory say about Frank?”
“Generally—always they spoke good of him.”

“Now, you say they generally spoke good of him. If they generally spoke good of him, did they ever speak bad of him?”
“I mean, they always spoke good of him.”

“At first you said ‘generally’ and then you changed to ‘always.’ Why did you change?”
“I just made a mistake. I meant always.”

“You made a mistake and caught yourself right quick?”
“Yes.”

To this Arnold objected but later withdrew his objection.

Dorsey continued:

“About Jim Conley and the newspapers—Jim always stuck up for Frank, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“What did Jim say about Frank?” continued Dorsey.

“He said he was as innocent as the angels of heaven.”

The witness was called from the stand and Ben Hellburn, a clothier, was placed on the stand. He testified that Frank’s character was good and was dismissed.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Frank as Innocent as Angels Conley Told Her, Says Witness,” 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 16^th, 1913

Miss Mary Perk, a forelady in the polishing department of the pencil factory followed Mrs. Carson to the stand.

“Do you know Frank and his general character?” she was asked by Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, for five years.”

“Is it good or bad?”
“Good.”

“Do you know Jim Conley?”

“I saw him Monday. I accused him of the murder and he tucked his head and walked away.”

“Is his character good or bad?”
“Bad.”

Mr. Dorsey on cross-examination.

“You reported your suspicion of Conley to Frank on Monday, didn’t you?”
“No.”

“What made you suspect Jim?”
“He acted like he was guilty.”

“To whom did you first report your suspicion?”
“To Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold.”

“Can you explain why you didn’t tell of your suspicion to Frank when you saw he had Pinkerton detectives at work on the case?”
“I just didn’t think it best.”

“Have you ever known of Frank being accused immorality?”
“No.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”
“Yes.”

“Ever see Frank go over and call her off to one side?”
“No.”

“Ever see Frank scuffling with her?”
“No.”

“Ever hear of Frank slapping girls?”
“No.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Miss Mary Perk Tells Jurymen She Believes Conley Is Guilty,” 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 16^th, 1913

Walter Pride, a negro employee in the National Pencil factory, who is named in Jim Conley’s story, was put on the stand in the middle of the afternoon.

“Where do you work on Saturdays?” he was asked by Arnold.

“I work every where anything is to be done on the machinery.”

“Have you missed a single Saturday since May?”
“No.”

“What floors do you work on on Saturdays?”
“From basement to the roof.”

“What do you do on the office floor?”
“Work on the toilets.”

“What time do you generally leave on Saturdays?”
“4:30 o’clock.”

“Ever see any women come to Frank’s office?”
“No.”

“Jim Conley?”
“No.”

“Ever see him watching the first front door?”
“No.”

“If he had you’d have seen him?”
“Yes.”

“Is there or not any difficulty in hearing the elevator when machinery is not in motion?”

“No.”

“Would you believe Jim Conley on oath?”
“No.”

Cross-examination by Hooper.

“When did you make up your mind you wouldn’t believe Jim?”
“Four or five months ago.”

“Why did you?”
“Him and his whole family is liars. They got me in trouble once by lying.”

“You’re a high class nigger, eh?”

“No, sir, but I’m a different grade from him.”

“Your animosity then is based on a single lie?”
“Yes.”

“You heard no one else speak bad of him?”
“No.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Never Saw Any Women in Office of Frank Says Negro Witness,” 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 16^th, 1913

Mrs. Dora Small, a machine operator for the pencil factory, was the last witness of the afternoon session.

“How long have you been working with the factory?” she was asked by Arnold.

“For five years.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”
“Only when I saw her.”

“Did you know Jim Conley?”
“Yes, I saw him the week after the murder.”

“Did you see him with newspapers?”
“Yes, he borrowed money from me to get them with.”

“Did he look like he was reading them?”
“He was reading them.”

“How was his coat?”

Said Frank Was Innocent.

“All buttoned up plumb to the collar.”

“Did he say to you that Frank was innocent?”
“Yes, he said Mr. Frank was as innocent as I was.”

“How long have you known Frank?”
“For five years.”

“What was his character, good or bad?”
“Good—I never met a more thorough gentleman.”

“Ever been drinking in Frank’s office?”
“Indeed not.”

“Do you know Jim Conley’s character?”
“Yes.”

“What is it, good or bad?”
“Bad.”

Cross-examination by Dorsey.

Got Raise Four Months Ago.

“When did you get your last raise?”
“Four months ago about.”

“Did you see Frank on the fourth floor on Tuesday after the tragedy?”
“Yes, I saw him coming down the aisle with Miss Carson.”

“Was Jim Conley around?”

“Yes, he was sitting over by the elevator.”

“When did you last talk with the counsel for Frank about this matter?”
“I don’t remember. My mind is a blank on the subject.”

Mrs. Small, upon questions from Solicitor Dorsey, stated that she was led to the metal room to see the supposed blood spots out of pure curiosity.

“Did you see any blood spots?” asked Dorsey.

“No, sir. They had been chipped up. There was something white, like face powder, on the floor around the chipped place.”

“Did Mrs. Carson go with you to the metal room to look at the blood spots?” again asked Dorsey.

“Yes, she went with us.”

“Positive?”
“Yes.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Leo Frank Innocent, Said Conley, According to a Girl Operator,” 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 16^th, 1913

Mrs. E. H. Carson, mother of Rebecca Carson, and a forewoman in the pencil factory, was put on the stand late in the afternoon.

“How long have you been employed by the pencil factory?”

“Three years.”

“Did you ever see blood spots around the dressing rooms?”

“Yes.”

“When did you see Jim Conely last?”

Saw Conley on Tuesday.

“I saw him the Tuesday after the murder. He came to my machine, and I said: ‘Jim, I see they haven’t go you yet.’ Thursday he came again. I told him the same thing. He said that he had done nothing for them to get him about. I said, ‘No,’ and poor Mr. Frank hasn’t done anything, either. He said: ‘No’m, and he’s as innocent as you is. When I said that they would get the murderer when they arrested that nigger Mrs. Arthur White saw on the first floor Jim walked away, and I’ve never seen him to this day.”

“How long have you known Frank?”
“Three years.”

“What is his general character, good or bad?”

“Good.”

“What is Jim’s reputation?”
“Bad.”

Cross-examination by Dorsey.

“How often did you ever come in contact with Frank?”
“Whenever he would come up the aisle on my floor.”

“He came up that aisle quite often, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

Was on the Same Floor.

“Wasn’t Frank there when you had the first talk with Conley?”
“Yes, he was on the same floor.”

“When did you see those spots?”

“I can’t remember.”

“Was it blood?”
“It looked mighty like it to me.”

“Tell us everywhere you ever saw this blood?”
“Around the dressing rooms, in the aisles and around the sinks.”

“Couldn’t it have been paint?”
“It was dark and hard to distinguish.”

Arnold resuming direct examination, said:

“You know most of the girls on the fourth floor?”
“Yes.”

“We intend putting on the stand every girl on the fourth floor to question her whether or not she has ever been in Frank’s office and seen other girls there or beer bottles.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Every Girl on Fourth Floor of Factory Will Go on Stand,” 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 16^th, 1913

Joseph Stelker, an employee of the National Pencil company, followed the Montag’s credit man to the stand.

Stelker was questioned closely about conditions at the factory, and while he was on the stand both sides again took up the much-discussed question of whether or not Frank had a raincoat with him on the day of the murder. Stelker, in his testimony, made the spectators laugh when he told of how Jim Conley had swindled him out of a half a can of beer. He also remarked that he thought Jim was a better negro for having served in the city chaingang.

“Where were you on the day the little girl was killed?” asked Mr. Arnold on direct examination.

“I was at home.”

“Did you see the spots said to be blood and also the white stuff partly covering them?”
“Yes.”

“Were the floors ever scrubbed in the factory?”
“No.”

“Did the spots look fresh or old?”

“They looked like they were about three days old.”

“Was there grass or dirt on the floor?”

“Yes, both.”

“Could anyone by shaking a bottle of varnish near there have got the spots on the floor?”
“Yes.”

“Did you try spilling some of the red varnish, or ‘clear stain’ on the floor?”

“Yes.”

“How did it look?”

Looked Like Blood.

“It looked just like the spots they said were blood.”

“Were you at Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment at 2 o’clock Sunday afternoon?”
“Yes.”

“Was Frank there?”
“He was.”

“Did you see the dead girl’s body?”
“Yes.”

“Did Frank see it?”
“I don’t know.”

“How long have you known Frank?”
“About five years.”

“Do you know his character?”
“Yes.”

“Is it good or bad?”
“It is good.”

“Do you know Jim Conley?”

“Yes, I’ve known him ever since he began work at the factory.”

“Do you know his general character?”
“Yes.”

Would Not Believe Conley.

“From it would you believe him on oath?”
“I would not.”

Mr. Dorsey took up the cross-examination.

“What did you say your name was?” asked the solicitor.

“Joseph Stelker.”

“What do you get paid a week?”

“My wages are $30 a week.”

“How long have you been getting that much?”
“For a year and a half.”

“Are you a member of Frank’s society?”

“I am not.”

“Are you any kin to him or to his wife?”
“No.”

Testimony Ruled Out.

On cross-examination the solicitor got the witness to say that he had never discussed Conley’s character with anyone, and then by apply to the judge, he had all of Stelker’s testimony against the negro ruled out of court. Judge Roan held that if the witness had ever heard anything against the negro that he could tell it.

“Well, have you ever heard anything against Conley?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“No, not until about three weeks ago.”

“Well, you never heard a word of evil against Jim Conley then, until Leo Frank was indicted for murder?”

“No; but I know something against Jim Conley,” the witness replied.

“What was that?”
“He had served in the chaingang.”

“Well, Frank took him back to work after he had served in the chaingang and he only served on the city squad on a police case?”
“Yes, Mr. Frank took him back. Conley was a better nigger, I think, for having served on the gang.”

Filled Beer With Water.

“Jim played me a mean trick,” the witness then volunteered.

“How? What was it?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“Well, I drink a can of beer about 10:30 every morning, and one day last summer I sent Jim out to get me 25 cents worth of beer, and he drank half of it and filled the can up with water. He came on back and says, ‘Here’s your beer, Joe,’ and I tasted the stuff and found that it was half water.”

“What did you do to Jim?”

“Nothing; only I went after my own beer after that.”

“Well, how do you know that the white bartender didn’t cheat you, and not Jim?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“Jim didn’t get it from no white bartender, he got it from a nigger saloon.”

Did Not Wear Raincoat.

“Did Frank have a raincoat with him when he went to the undertaker’s at 2 o’clock Sunday?” Mr. Dorsey continued.

“No.”

The solicitor then made the witness describe in detail the bruises he saw on the dead girl’s face and head as he viewed her in the undertaking parlors.

In his testimony Stelker frequently got mixed up, and could not tell whether he had seen the body before or after Frank did.

“How far did Frank go toward the door to see the body?” Mr. Dorsey asked.

“I don’t know.”

“Was Frank nervous?”
“He was nervous,” replied Felker.

“You don’t know whether or not he ever went in to see the body, do you?”
“I do not.”

“Did the sight make you nervous and sick?”

“It did.”

“But you said, I believe, that after Frank saw the body there was no change in his expression?”
“There was none that I saw.”

“Will you swear to the jury that the spots you saw in the factory were not blood?”
“No.”

Stelker was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Factory Employee’s Testimony Causes Laughter Court Room,” 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 16^th, 1913

MISS IRENE JACKSON DECLARES FRANK LOOKED INTO DRESSING ROOM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS

Daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson Testifies That Frank Opened the Door of Dressing Room and Looked in While Young Lady Was Dressing and That a Complaint Was Registered With a Forelady, Miss Cleland, About It

NEWSPAPER MAN TELLS OF JIM CONLEY’S PANTOMIME RE-ENACTMENT AT FACTORY

Solicitor Dorsey Attacks the Pinkertons, Charging That They Failed to Report Their “Finds” to Police—Many Young Women Employed at the Factory Testify to Frank’s Good Character—Court Adjourns Until Monday Morning

With Harllee Branch, a reporter for The Journal, on the witness stand where he had just described Conley’s pantomime re-enactment of his alleged part in the disposal of the body of Mary Phagan, witnessed by him as a newspaper man, the trial of Leo M. Frank was adjourned at 1:05 o’clock Saturday afternoon until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. Mr. Branch, summoned by the defense to testify in regard to an interview with Jim Conley at the tower, over the protest of Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, was permitted by the court to describe Conley’s pantomime re-enactment when requested to do so by the solicitor.

Just before court adjourned, Judge Roan addressed a few words to the jury, expressing regret that it was necessary to keep them away from their families another Sunday but stating that he sincerely hopes this would be the last Sunday that they would have to held together.

Unexpected testimony for the state was drawn from Miss Irene Jackson, daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson, a former employe of the factory, who had been summoned as a defense witness. On cross-examination Solicitor Dorsey developed testimony to the effect that the girls in the factory were somewhat afraid of Frank, that on one occasion Frank had looked into the dressing room while Miss Emily Mayfield was partly dressed and that Miss Mayfield had complained to a forelady, Miss Cleland. She told of other occasions on which the superintendent is alleged to have pushed the door of the dressing room open while the girls were in there dressing. She admitted on cross-examination that the occurrence to which she testified occurred last summer, but that she had […]

when her father made her leave. She also admitted that there had been complaint of the girls flirting through the windows of the dressing room and that Frank had spoken to her forelady about it.

CLASH OVER PINKERTONS.

Efforts of Solicitor Dorsey to show that the Pinkertons did not “go down the road with the city police and detectives,” out that on contrary they concealed evidence discovered by them from the city detectives brought a protest from Attorney Luther Z. Rosser. It was during the testimony of W. D. McWorth, the Pinkerton who found the bloody club, part of a pay envelope and some lengths of cord on the first floor of the factory, that the argument was precipitated. The jury was sent out during the argument. Dorsey charged that Detective John Black, hearing about the find of a bloody club, went to the Pinkertons and was shown the handle of a buggy whip, produced in court by the solicitor, instead of the club. Judge Roan permitted the state to ask when the Pinkertons had reported to the police, but declared hearsay evidence must be omitted.

Solicitor Dorsey also sought in his questioning of McWorth to show that when McWorth showed the portion of the pay envelope found by him to the Colemans, there was a figure 5 on it and that Mary Phagan’s wages for the week in which she was killed were $1.20, containing no such figures. The Pinkerton denied that there was a figure 5 on the envelope and that there had been any conversation with the Colemans about the figure 5.

At the conclusion of Mrs. Rae Frank’s testimony, many women employes of the pencil factory took the stand Saturday morning to testify to the good character of Leo M. Frank and the bad reputation of the negro Jim Conley. Practically the same questions were asked all of these witnesses and the same answers received in reply. The solicitor contented himself with a few brief questions, except in the case of Miss Opie Dickinson. Miss Dickinson couldn’t remember whether she had been at the Bijou theater with Darley, Wade Campbell and Miss Louise Gresham on the night of April 26, though pressed for a definite answer by the solicitor. The purpose of the solicitor’s question was not apparent.

Attorneys for the defense of Leo M. Frank, who has been on trial in the criminal division of the superior court since July 28 for the murder of Mary Phagan, changed their plans during Friday’s session and have called nearly one hundred additional witnesses, principally employes of the National Pencil factory, who will testify to the good character of the young superintendent.

Apparently by the weight of overwhelming numbers the defense is endeavoring to build such a character wall around Frank that it cannot be denied by the promised attack of Solicitor H. M. Dorsey’s witnesses, who will be introduced in rebuttal.

Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the accused, was recalled to the stand by the defense when court resumed Saturday morning for the eighteenth day of the Frank trial. She had been the last witness of Friday afternoon’s session, identifying then a letter signed “Leo M. Frank” and dated Atlanta, April 26, which she said had been received by her brother-in-law, Moses Frank, and had been opened by him in her presence in a New York hotel on April 28. While on the stand Friday Mrs. Frank promised to the state that she would produce in court Saturday morning the originals of telegrams sent by her son to his uncle in New York.

Attorney Rosser asked, “Have you any rich relatives in Brooklyn?”
“No, I have not.”

“Was there any other paper in this envelope when you saw it?” asked Mr. Rosser, producing the envelope identified by Mrs. Frank Friday.

“Yes, another long paper with something on it about prices was taken out with the two papers you have read.”

“Mrs. Frank I hand you here what purports to be a photograph of some handwriting. Do you know whose it is?”
“Yes, it is my son’s handwriting.”

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness again.

Indicating the photograph, which was exhibited several days ago to a witness who identified much of Frank’s handwriting but could not identify the photographed writing, the solicitor asked: “Anyone at all familiar with your son’s handwriting would know at once that that is his, wouldn’t he?”
“Yes.”

The solicitor questioned Mrs. Frank about the papers which were received by Moses Frank in the envelope. She said that she could not tell much about the long slip, but that Mr. McCarley got them all back from Europe and he could tell. She had never had it in her hand, she said.

“What relatives have you in Brooklyn?” asked the solicitor.

“My sister, Mrs. Bennett.”

“What does her husband do?”
“He’s a clerk at $18 a week. He clerks for my brother in LaFayette avenue.”

“What does your brother do?”
“He is a clerk for my son-in-law, Mr. Stearns.”

“What does your son-in-law do?”

“He is a retail cigar dealer.”

ESTATE NOT LARGE.

“Your own estate is quite large, isn’t it?”

“No, sir.”

“What are your tax returns?”
“I don’t understand you.”

“What is the value of your estate?”
“I have no estate.”

“Well, what do you live on?”
“We have a little money out at interest.”

“How much is that?”
“About $20,000.”

“That is all your own?”

“No, indeed, it belongs to my husband and myself together.”

“Do you own the house you live in?”
“I don’t understand.”

“Lafayette avenue is one of the principal streets in Brooklyn, isn’t it?”
“We don’t live on Lafayette avenue. We live on Underhill avenue.”

“Well, how does it rank?”

“It’s just a residential section.”

“Don’t you know the size of your lot?”
“I think it’s about 16×90.”

“Is there a two-story house on it?”

“Yes.”

“Made of brick?”
“Yes, I think so.”

“What taxes do you pay?”
“We pay $86 a year, I think, New York rates. But you must remember, Mr. Dorsey, we have a large mortgage on the house.”
“How much is that mortgage?”

“$6,000.”

“That’s about a third of what the house is worth, is it?”
“No, no. The mortgage is more than the price we paid for the house.”

“You mean to say you’ve got your house mortgaged for more than it’s worth?” […]

WITNESS, CALLED BY THE DEFENSE, TESTIFIES AGAINST FRANK

[…] “No, we paid $4,000 down on the house and assumed a $6,000 mortgage.”

“You didn’t pay all cash, did you?”

“I don’t know. I’m no business woman.”

“You paid $4,000 for the house, and assumed a $6,000 mortgage. That makes the house worth $10,000, doesn’t it?”
“Yes, if you count the mortgage.”

“You don’t owe anything except the mortgage, do you?”
“No, sir.”

“Are you sure that you haven’t more than $20,000 loaned out?”
“Yes, we haven’t any more.”

“What interest do you get on it?”
“I don’t know. Do you want me to tell you all about my everyday life?”
“I want you to answer, if you please, the questions I ask you. What business is your husband in now?”
“Temporarily he is doing nothing.” Mrs. Frank added that until a year ago he had been a traveling salesman. She testified that her son-in-law lives with her and pays $22.80 a month rent. She does not know the extent of his business, she said. She testified that she has two sisters in Brooklyn—Mrs. Bennett and Miss Jacobs. Miss Jacobs, said she, lives with Mrs. Bennett and works every day.

“Where does Leo Frank’s uncle live?”
“Right here in Atlanta.”

“Doesn’t he spend any time in Brooklyn?”

UNCLE CONSIDERED WEALTHY.

“Oh, yes, he spends some Sundays there. And sometimes he invites u over to New York to dinner when he’s there.”

“He’s very wealthy, isn’t he?”

“He’s generally considered so.”

“Don’t you know that he was in Brooklyn Saturday?”
“He wasn’t at my house.”

“How much of the $20,000 is yours personally?”
“About $3,000.”

“How much interest do you get on that?”
“Six per cent. I collect it myself every six months.”

“You don’t know whether or not Mr. Frank owns more than this, do you?”
“Oh, I know all of my husband’s affairs.”

“How much cash did he have in the bank when you left?”
“I don’t know. A few hundred dollars possibly.”

“How much interest do you get on the other $17,000?”

“I don’t know.”

“And you say you get your six per cent interest on your $3,000 every six months?”
“Yes.”

“How much interest do you pay on the mortgage?”
“Five per cent.”

“How often do you pay it?”
“Once a year.”

That concluded the cross-examination. Attorney Rosser questioned the witness again.

“How old is your husband, Mrs. Frank?”
“Sixty-seven years.”

“What is the state of his health?”
“It is very poor. He is nervous and broken down from hard work.”

Mrs. Frank was excused, and Attorney Rosser read to the jury the letter tendered as having been written by Frank to his uncle on April 26.

ENGINEER TESTIFIES.

Knox Thomas, a civil engineer, was called as the next witness. He testified that he had measured the distance from the intersection of Marietta and Forsyth streets to the office of the pencil factory on the second floor, and found it to be 1, 016 feet. He testified that he walked this distance at his usual gait and that it took him four and a half minutes. He measured also the distance between the corner of Alabama and Whitehall street and found it to be 931 feet. He testified that he walked this distance at his usual gait and that it took him three and a half minutes. He testified that he measured the distance from Broad and Hunter streets to the pencil factory office and found it to be 333 feet. He walked that distance at his usual gait, said he, and it took him one and three-quarters minutes.

Briefly cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey, the witness answered the question “What is your walking gait?” with the reply “Four miles an hour.” Then asked as to how long it would take him to walk one mile, that being his usual gait, he figured on a piece of paper and replied that it would take him 30 minutes. In a moment he saw his mistakes, grinned and corrected himself by saying 15 minutes.

“Then,” asked the solicitor, “were the measurements you made for the attorneys for the defense any more accurate than your first answer?”

The witness answered, “Yes, sir. I’m satisfied they were accurate.”

MISS HALL RECALLED.

Miss Corinthia Hall, who works on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and who had testified previously for the defense, was the next witness. Attorney Arnold asked her the usual question as to whether or not she ever had been to Frank’s office to drink beer, she answering in the negative. She then testified in a general way that she had once or twice heard of Jim Conley being drunk in the factory, and that she would hesitate to believe any negro on oath. She was asked a few questions by Solicitor Dorsey and then was excused.

JIM A BORROWER.

Miss Ida Hayes, who works on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, testified that Frank’s general character is good. She denied that she ever went to Frank’s office to drink beer. In answer to a question “What is Jim Conley’s general reputation for truth and veracity?” she answered. “I guess you would say it is bad.” On cross-examination by Attorney Hooper she said that Jim Conley’s worst habit, probably, was borrowing money.

Miss Eula Mae Flowers, who works on the second floor of the factory, testified that Frank’s character is good, and that the character of Jim Conley is bad and that she would not believe him on oath. Cross-examined by Mr. Hooper, she stated that Jim had borrowed money from her and that she got it back by having it taken out of his wages without his agreeing to that.

Miss Ella Hayes, who now works at Kress’, testified that for eleven months she worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory and quit Monday after the tragedy. She testified that Frank’s character is good.

Miss Minnie Foster, who worked on the fourth floor of the factory for a year, testified that Frank’s character is good. On cross-examination she admitted she had formed her opinion of his character from her own knowledge and had never heard it discussed prior to the tragedy.

SHE COULDN’T REMEMBER.

Miss Opie Dickinson, who has worked at the pencil factory seven years, testified that Frank’s character is good and that Conley’s character is bad and she wouldn’t believe him on oath. Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned her.

“Where were you the night of April 26?”

“I don’t know.”

“Do you know Miss Louise Gresham?”
“Yes.”

“Were you with her the night of April 26?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Were you with Wade Campbell the night of April 26?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Do you know Mr. Darley ever at the pencil factory?”
“Yes.”

“He’s a married man, isn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t you go to the Bijou theatre with Mr. Darley, Mr. Campbell and Miss Gresham on the night of April 26?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Don’t you remember going out to Miss Gresham’s house to get her?”
Attorney Arnold objected to the question as immaterial and irrelevant. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“How did you get Miss Gresham up town that night?”
“I wasn’t with her.”
Attorney Arnold objected again, and was sustained, and the question and answer were stricken.

“Are you quite sure you don’t know where you were Saturday night, April 26?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Quite sure, now, are you?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Come down.”

Miss Emma Freeman testified that she has been working on the fourth floor of the factory for four years, that Frank’s reputation is good, and that she would not believe Conley on oath. Solicitor Dorsey asked her one question. “You have never heard a suggestion or reference to immoral conduct on the part of Frank, have you?” “No, sir,” she answered.

Miss Gussie Wallace and Miss Annie Osborn testified that Frank’s character is good. Miss Wallace said that she did not know Conley’s character. Miss Osborn and Conley’s character is bad. Answering Attorney Hooper, Miss Osborn and she based her estimate of Conley’s character simply on the fact that he did not pay back money that he had borrowed from her.

Mrs. Ella Thomas testified that Frank’s character is good, that Conley’s is bad, and that she would not believe Conley on oath. Answering questions by Attorney Hooper, she said she loaned Conley 18 cents and never got it back.

DIDN’T KNOW HIS CHARACTER.

Miss Bessie Thrallkro testified that she did not know either Frank’s or Conley’s character. Answering questions by Attorney Hooper, she said she did not remember seeing Conley on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday following the murder; that she had heard of the blood stain on the metal room floor but did not have curiosity enough to go back and see it. She worked in the job department on the second floor, she said.

Miss Allie Denham was excused without the usual questions when it was found that she had gone to work in the factory only two weeks before the murder. She appeared to be not more than 12 or 13 years old.

The next witness, Miss Rebecca Carson, testified that Frank’s character is good and that Conley’s is bad. On cross-examination she stated that she declined several times to lend Jim money; that he bore a reputation among the young women workers of being a bad payer.

Miss Maude Wright, who works on the third floor of the pencil factory, failed to qualify as a character witness for Frank or against Jim Conley, as she stated that she merely knew them both when she saw them. On cross-examination she declined to say that she had ever heard anything against Frank.

PINKERTON ON STAND.

W. D. McWorth, a Pinkerton detective, who claimed to have found on the first floor the large bludgeon and the end of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope, was the next witness. In response to questions by Attorney Rosser, he testified that he worked fifteen days on the mystery; that on May 15 he made a search of the ground floor of the pencil factory, finding stains near the trap door which may or may not have been blood. He testified that on a radiator behind the trap door and up against the partition he found eight or nine lengths of rope used in the factory to tie up pencils. He testified that one length of the rope showed signs of having been cut recently. Behind the radiator he found about half a barrel of rubbish, and among the rubbish a newspaper dated February 19, 1913. Six of eight inches from the radiator, said he, in a corner, he found a small pile of trash. He found in this pile the end of a pay envelope. It was dirty, said he, and when he and Whitfield, another Pinkerton detective, took it to the front door to examine it more closely he discovered on the envelope the number “186” and the initials “M. P.” He found, standing up against the door, a large club, said he, which was produced and identified by him. It is about two inches in diameter. He testified that he asked Holloway what it was used for, and that Holloway told him it was a roller used in loading boxes on to wagons. He found some stains on it, said he.

He was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey. The solicitor produced the handle of a buggy whip and asked the witness if he had ever seen that. The witness answered in the affirmative.

The detective said that h found the whip handle behind the front door of the factory. He pointed out on the diagram where he found the bludgeon and where he found the part of an envelope. The door to the Clark Woodenware company was closed and nailed the day he found them. He said that he started his search about 9 o’clock in the morning on the office floor and that it was about 5:15 o’clock when he commenced to make his discoveries.

He said that Darley had shown him the place on the second floor where the chips had been taken, and that the floor back there looked as if it was stained. Factory employees pointed out to him half a dozen places in the metal room where there were similar stains. He could see no difference between those other stains and the one whence the chips had been taken.

Answering the solicitor’s questions, the witness declared he was not looking especially for a pay envelope, but acting under the instructions of Harry Scott he was looking for a mesh bag. He described the mesh bag for which he was looking as about five inches wide, with three or four links broken. He was joined in his search at the factory by L. P. Whitfield, Pinkerton operative, before he made his discoveries.

“Where did you discover these blood stains?”
“I didn’t say blood stains. I said stains.”

The solicitor referred to a report by the Pinkertons. “Didn’t you say in your own report that day that you had found blood stains?”
The witness examined his report and said that he said that he had found what looked to him like blood stains.

“Describe those stains.”

The witness described them as discolorations of the floor, seven in number, and six or seven inches in diameter. The witness admitted that it was rather dark at that point near the trap door, but said that he discovered the stains without artificial light, but used matches to examine them more closely. The detective described how the cords which he claimed to have found were entwined about the pipes of the radiator.

In reply to questions, McWorth said that he found the stains first, and later the envelope. Some of the stains were within two feet of the trap door. The witness first said that Whitfield was not examining the stains and the rope when he picked up the rolled corner of the envelope on which was written Mary Phagan’s name. When shown a Pinkerton report, however, which shows that Whitfield was examining the stains and rope when he picked up the paper, he said that it probably was correct.

ROSSER COMPLAINS TO COUNSEL.

While the solicitor was examining the witness Attorney Rosser walked over and complained to Attorney Hooper that the conduct of Detective Starnes and Policeman Payne in receiving messages from witnesses was improper, and he asked that Mr. Hooper stop it. The solicitor stopped his examination to whisper to Detective Starnes. Then he called the court’s attention to the matter, declaring that in view of the complaint of the counsel he would like to have Mr. Starnes state to the court what the message was that he had just received. Attorney Rosser objected to the discussion in open court, saying he had made merely a private complaint to counsel. Attorney Hooper, upholding the solicitor’s position, asked that the court go into the matter, and said to Attorney Rosser, “You don’t know how loud you whisper, my big friend.”

The court held that no complaint had been brought before it by counsel for the defense, and refused to go into the matter.

Solicitor Dorsey, continuing the examination of McWorth, caused the witness to show how the corner of the pay envelope was rolled and folded when he found it. He declared that the envelope was only eight or ten inches from the trap door. He said there were two scraps of white paper, possibly a newspaper, about the size of a person’s finger, within a short distance of the envelope.

“is this paper,” exhibiting the corner of an envelope, “just like it was when you found it?”
“Yes.”

HAD NO FIGURES ON IT.

“Didn’t it then have a figure ‘5’ on it?”

“No.”

“Do you know who addressed the envelope?”
“No.”

“Did you talk to Schiff about it?” At that point the solicitor looked over and saw Schiff sitting with counsel for the accused, and asked the court to put him out. Attorneys for the defense said that they needed Schiff to help them because he knew the names of people in the factory; that he already had been examined, and that they saw no reason why he should not remain. They called attention to Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective, who was sitting behind the solicitor. The solicitor contended that Scott was in the room by consent of counsel for both sides and the court. He said Schiff was not. Schiff was excluded from the court. Attorney Arnold remarking as he went out, “Well, we will a month if necessary and go out and consult between the examination of witnesses.”

“Did you show this envelope to Schiff?” resumed the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“Did he identify the writing on it?”
Attorney Rosser objected, and was sustained by Judge Roan.

“On Saturday, May 17, did you in the presence of Mr. Whitfield, of the Pinkerton agency, show this envelope to Mr. Coleman and Mrs. Coleman?”
“Yes.”

“Isn’t it true that at that time there was a figure five on the envelope?”
“No more than there is now.”

“What was the conversation with the Colemans with reference to this figure five?”

COURT ALLOWS QUESTION.

Attorney Rosser objected. It was hearsay evidence, said he. He said that the only way it would admissible was for impeachment, and that if the state expected to impeach the witness it was not proceeding upon the right foundation.

Judge Roan: “I will allow the question if the state expects to show that this man asquiesced to the figure five in that conversation.”

Solicitor Dorsey explained, “That’s exactly what I do want to show.”

“Well, your honor. I don’t see how we could be bound by what happened out there on May 17,” exclaimed Attorney Rosser. “The defendant was not present.”

DENIES CONVERSATION.

“I expect to show by Mr. Coleman that on May 17,” said the solicitor, “two days after this piece of envelope was found, Whitfield and this detective went out at the Colemans and had a conversation there about the figure 5, and I expect to show that this envelope had a figure 5 on it and that Mr. Coleman called the attention of this detective and Whitfield to the fact that Mary didn’t get but $1.20 on the day she was murdered.”

Judge Roan allowed the question. Solicitor Dorsey then asked.

“Did any such conversation occur?”

“No,” answered the witness.

“You deny, then, that Mr. Coleman called your attention to a figure 5, do you?”
“No, sir,” he did not.”

“What was the amount Mary Phagan had received on the four pay days preceding her murder. Didn’t that amount end in a $5?”

Attorney Rosser objected, “He doesn’t know how much Mary Phagan got.”

The solicitor apparently withdrew the question. Instead, he picked up the Pinkerton report which he had been using, and showed it to the witness. Singling out a portion of it, he asked, “Where did you get that information?”
“From the office, I guess.”

“Where from in the office?”
Attorney Rosser objected and was sustained. Solicitor Dorsey said, “I’ll ask that this man be held if you don’t want to let this evidence in now.” Attorney Rosser did not object further.

“You had made this report before you saw the Colemans, hadn’t you?” pursued the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“This sentence was in your report, wasn’t it? ‘What appeared to be blood stains may well be paint.’ You reported that, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Why did you say that?”
“I didn’t know whether the stains were blood or not.”

“Now that rope: it was tangled up in the radiator pretty bad, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“When did you report the discovery of this club to the city police?”
Attorney Rosser objected. “The solicitor seems to think,” he said, “that he discredits every witness we put up by showing that our witness did not report facts to the police.”

Solicitor Dorsey answered, “I want to show,” said he, “what the head man of the Pinkertons did in this matter.”

“Who is the head man?” asked Judge Roan.

“I’ll show you in a minute if you’ll permit me. It is Pierce.”

“Has he been here before as a witness?” asked the judge.

SAYS PINKERTON CONCEALED EVIDENCE.

“So, sir. But can’t we show that the Pinkertons didn’t go down the road together with the police, as Mr. Rosser claimed one day? That on the other hand, they kept the police in absolute ignorance of this find. Doesn’t this evidence show that the Pinkertons and the police did not go down the road arm in arm, but that the Pinkertons helped to conceal certain evidence?”

Mr. Rosser jumped from his seat. “Your honor, this isn’t proper in the presence of the jury.”

“Let the jury retire,” exclaimed the solicitor. “I want your honor to have all the facts. Let them go out.”

Judge Roan ordered the jury out.

Attorney Rosser said as they were leaving, “The state ought to have some decency in this matter.”

Attorney Rosser argued against the admission of the evidence, after the jury was out.

“The Pinkertons were employed to discover the murderer, no matter who he was,” said Mr. Rosser. “Frank is not the pencil company. Our witnesses are discounted, if that is possible, because Solicitor Dorsey tries to bring out the fact that they did not tell the police everything they knew.” He contended that the evidence which the solicitor sought to introduce was hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial.

The solicitor answered, contending that the evidence went to show the interest of the witness in the case.

“I expect to prove to the jury,” he said, “that Detective John Black went up there to see about this club, when the police learned through another source that it had been found, and that they brought out this piece of a buggy whip and showed it to him, and never said a word about the club.

“We propose to show that nothing was said about the envelope until July 12. We propose to show that this witness was instructed not to report his finds to the police. We want to show his interest, your honor, and his attitude, and the interest and attitude of the Pinkerton Detective agency.”

Judge Roan ruled that he would let the state show that the witness found the club and the envelope (as had already been shown by the defense); that he would let the state show by cross-examination of the witness whether he reported the find to the police; that he would rule out what any other man told the witness.

JURY BROUGHT BACK.

The jury was brought back and the cross-examination continued.

“Who is the head of the Pinkerton Detective agency in Atlanta?”
“H. B. Pierce.”

“Where is he now?”
Attorney Rosser objected and was sustained.

“Where is Whitfield now?”
Attorney Rosser objected again, and there was another argument and finally the judge let the solicitor ask the witness as to the whereabouts of both Pierce and Whitfield.

“Where is Pierce?” again asked the solicitor.

“I don’t know.”

“Where is Whitfield?”
“I don’t know.”

“When was the last time you saw them?”
“Last Monday evening.”

“Do you know whether they are in Atlanta or out of Atlanta?”
“I do not.”

“How long after you found this club and this note, did you report the find to the police?”
“Seventeen hours.”

“How long after that before you held another conference with the police?”
“Four hours.”

“Didn’t you tell Black about this buggy whip and this envelope?”
“No, I told him about the club and the envelope.”

“When Black went up to the Pinkerton office, didn’t you show him this buggy whip stub instead of the club?”
“No.”

“To whom did you turn over the buggy whip and the club and the envelope?”
“To H. B. Pierce.”

“Then you were not at the office when this was shown to Black?”

“No, I was not there.”

Attorney Rosser, taking up the written report by the Pinkerton agency, asked: “Is that the report you furnished?”

“No.”

“Didn’t you make this report?”
“No.”

“Didn’t Mr. Dorsey show you the signature at the bottom of this report, and didn’t you say it was yours?”
“That may be a copy of the report I made.”

“Did you make this diagram showing where you found the club and envelope?”
“Yes, I made it and attached it to my report.”

“Do you know if I ever saw this diagram before?”

“No, I do not.”

It is reported that Pierce is in Birmingham, outside the jurisdiction of the Georgia court.

Miss Mollie Blair was the next witness. She failed to qualify as a character witness for Frank as she had worked at the pencil factory only three months and knew him only when she saw him.

Miss Sarah Barnes was the next called.

When asked by Attorney Arnold if she knew Leo M. Frank instead of replying yes or no, she launched into an enthusiastic tribute to Frank’s character and personality.

LOVES THE SUPERINTENDENT.

“Yes,” said she, “I know Mr. Frank, and I don’t know anything in the world against him, and I certainly am mighty sorrw [sic] he’s got into trouble. I’ll tell you, and I’ll tell everybody else, Mr. Arnold, that I love my superintendent because he is strictly a business man. I’d be willing to stand right here in my place and die to show that I believe he’s innocent. I’d be willing to fight for him.”

Attorney Arnold scratched his head and drew a deep breath and decided that he would do well to put the question in legal form. He did so, and after considerable difficulty restrained the witness to the usual stereotyped answers expected from witnesses.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness in hand.

“Who talked to you about what you were going to swear?”

“Nobody’s talked to me about what I was going to swear, except down there at the boarding house, there’s fourteen of ‘em, and I have to fight with ‘em every day about my superintendent.”

By this time the witness had the court room in an uproar, and the deputies and the judge himself (with a mallet) had difficulty in restoring order.

Judge Roan admonished the witness not to give her opinions but simply to answer the questions.

The solicitor asked her again to state whom she had discussed the case with. She answered that she had discussed it with nobody, except Mr. Arnold came down to the pencil factory office and asked her what she knew about Frank. With that she was excused.

Mrs. Helen Barnes, who worked two years on the fourth floor, testified that Frank’s character is good.

Miss Ethel Stewart, now employed by the Southern Belle Telephone company, who formerly worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, testified that the character of Frank is good so far as she knows. On cross-examination she said that her estimate of his character is based solely on her own personal knowledge of him.

Miss Irene Jackson, 18 years old, daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson, on cross-examination delivered the most sensational testimony of the morning.

Miss Jackson stated on direct examination that she worked on the fourth floor about three years, and that she left the factory shortly after the murder. She said she did not know anything about Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“You mean you personally knew nothing about him. How did the other girls feel?” he asked.

“The girls seemed to be afraid of him, and started working faster whenever he came around.”

“Do you know Miss Emily Mayfield?”

The witness answered that she did, continued that at one time the young woman worked in the pencil factory and later at Jacobs’. But the witness said she had not seen her since about Easter.

Answering questions by the solicitor, the witness declared that Frank came and pushed open the dressing room door one day while Miss Mayfield was undressing. He looked in, and then left. The witness said she did not see him smile. She said Miss Mayfield had discarded her top dress. In answer to another question, she said Miss Mayfield reported the intrusion of the factory superintendent to one of the foreladies, Miss Cleland.

Asked if she had threatened to quit at that time on account of the occurrence she said, “No,” that her sister had.

“After this occurrence, what was said to you about quitting?”
“Mr. Darley asked me if I was going to quit, after this murder. I told him that papa was going to make me. He said that it couldn’t be helped if papa was going to make me, but he said ‘The girls who stay here through this thing won’t lose anything.”

“Who else heard that?”
“Miss Clara Stewart was sitting there.”

The defense objected to both of the last questions and their answers, but the objection was overruled by the court.

HEARD OTHERS COMPLAIN.

The witness admitted that she had heard the other girls remark several times about Frank coming into the dressing rooms. In answer to other questions, the witness stated that on a second occasion, Frank came into the dressing room when her sister was lying down in there with her feet elevated on a table or a stool. She said Frank just walked in and walked out again, and that she didn’t remember in just what stage of undress her sister lay. The witness admitted that she had heard other girls complain that Frank would come to the dressing room and stand and stare.

On a third occasion when she was in the dressing room, said the witness, with Miss Mary Kitchens, Frank came in. Replying to questions, the witness said that Frank did not knock on any occasion, but just pushed the door in. The witness said she worked at the factory just about three years.

On redirect examination, the witness said that she would have stayed at the factory, as she had a number of bills she wanted to pay, if her father had not objected.

The witness said that two windows in the dressing room of which she spoke open on Forsyth street. She admitted that complaints had been lodged with Frank that some of the girls had been flirting through those windows.

Solicitor Dorsey objected. Attorney Arnold answered: “It’s permissible, because it is explanatory of his conduct. We want to show that he was strictly guarding the rules against the girl’s flirting with boys on the street through the dressing room windows.”

Judge Roan directed Mr. Arnold to put the question again.

“Did you ever hear that girls had been flirting through these windows?”
Solicitor Dorsey directed the witness: “Don’t answer,” and addressing the court said: “That’s the question I’m objecting to.”

“I sustain your objection,” said Judge Roan.

ORDERS AGAINST FLIRTING.

Attorney Arnold, however, by other questions brought out the fact that there were orders in the factory against girls flirting. He also established that there are a beer saloon and a belting factory across the street.

“Did Frank’s looks take in the windows when he came to the door of the dressing room?”
“I don’t know.”

“When you were in there with your sister, was she fully dressed?”
“Yes.”

“Yes.”

“Were you?”
“Frank said nothing on either occasion, did he?”
“No, sir.”

“Who was with you there the second time?”
“Emily Mayfield.”

“What time of day was that?”
“Shortly after 7 o’clock.”

“And he simply pushed the door open and stood there?”
“Yes.”

“The third time, was anything said?”
“No.”

“Which time was it that you were not dressed?”

“When I was in there with Mamie Kitchens?”
The witness continued that she had on all but her top dress on that occasion. There followed other questions by which the defense showed that the girls were never entirely undressed in there. Among them were several which appeared to be leading. Attorney Hooper objecting and saying, “My brother is in a leading streak again,” and Judge Roan sustaining the objections.

“When did all this occur?”
“Last summer.”

“Did you work there all through the winter?”
“Yes.”

DORSEY TAKES WITNESS.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned the witness again.

“When Frank opened the door there was no way for him to tell until he looked just how the girls were dressed, was there?”
“No, sir.”

“That was the regular time for dressing, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever hear any talk about Frank putting his hands on girls?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you ever hear about him going after the girls?”
“No, sir.”

“How long after it that Frank walked in, was it that your sister wanted to quit?”
“It was the next day, but the forelady persuaded her not to.”

“Did you ever hear Frank say anything about girls flirting?”
“Yes.”

“Whom was he talking to?”

“The forelady.”

“What did he say?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Was that before or after he ran into the dressing room?”
Attorney Arnold spoke up. “I object to ‘ran in,’” said he.

“Well, went to the door, then,” said the solicitor.

“I don’t remember.”

“What time are the girls supposed to go to work?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Seven o’clock.”

“What time was it when Frank came in?”

“Ten or fifteen minutes after that.”

The witness was excused, and Harllee Branch, a Journal reporter, was called to the stand.

Mr. Branch was asked if he recalled interviewing Jim Conley in the jail, and answered affirmatively. His attention was directed to a file of The Atlanta Journal of May 31. He looked at the interview, read it, and stated that the interview was a correct reported of the substance of what Conley had said to him.

“Did he say it took him thirty minutes to go through with this performance, or did he say it took him thirty minutes for all these things to happen?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Yes, he estimated that it took him about that time to get through and out of the building.”

“Did he tell you that Lemmie Quinn got there after 12 o’clock, and stayed nine or ten minutes?”
“Yes.”

The witness was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey.

“Was he specific as to the time?”
“He qualified it, I think, by saying ‘about.’”

“Now, about this meshbag. When did you question him concerning that?”
“I don’t recall the date, but it was the morning after he went to jail.”

“Are you positive he said he saw Lemmie Quinn there?”
“Where did this interview take place?”

“At the jail.”

“Was it before or after Conley had reenacted his story at the factory?”
“It was after that.”

“Were you there at the factory when he went through the story?”
“Yes.”

“What time was he started on his reenactment at the factory?”
Attorney Arnold was on his feet in an instant, objecting. He argued that a witness cannot re-enact his own story for the purpose of corroborating himself, and, therefore, that a person who sees a witness in such a re-enactment cannot testify as to the time it took the witness to go through the performance.

Solicitor Dorsey argued that if Dr. Owens and the party of gentlemen who went to the factory to re-enact Conley’s story could testify about the time, then the testimony of Mr. Branch as to the negro’s own re-enactment certainly was permissible.

SOLICITOR SUSTAINED.

Judge Roan sustained the solicitor. Mr. Branch then was directed to take up Conley’s movements on the diagram and follow them through to the end. As soon as the witness started to comply with this direction, Attorney Arnold objected again, on the ground that Conley’s pantomime at the factory was an illustration of an affidavit which he changed in many vital particulars when he testified on the witness stand.

Solicitor Dorsey argued that the affidavit was practically the same as Conley’s story told on the witness stand.

Attorney Rosser urged the judge to read the testimony and the affidavit as the highest evidence.

Judge Roan finally ruled that Mr. Branch’s testimony would be admitted for the purpose of comparing Conley’s re-enactment with the story Conley told on the witness stand so far as the particulars of the two might coincide.

Mr. Branch again commenced to trace the negro’s re-enactment. He estimated that it was about 12:15 when Conley entered the factory. He said the officers led the negro upstairs and stopped on the second floor to tell him what they wanted him to do. Mr. Branch was about to detail some of the conversation, when Attorney Arnold objected again, and there was another long discussion. Mr. Branch finally was instructed to leave out all of the conversation except that part which might be explanatory of Conley’s actions. The witness said it would be hard for him to draw this distinction.

ROSSER ENTERS OBJECTION.

Again he started, but no sooner had he gotten under way than Attorney Rosser objected once more. Judge Roan ruled that he would admit Branch’s testimony not as a proof of Conley’s story, but as an estimate of the time it might take to go through Conley’s story.

“But I want you to understand, your honor,” said Attorney Rosser, “that while I’m not going to object any more, we here and now record an objection to this testimony.” The objection was recorded, and Mr. Branch proceeded, following the negro’s movements as he reanacted his story in the pencil factory.

“Now what time did you say you got to the factory?” asked the solicitor, when the witness had finished with the diagram.

“What time did Conley finish?”

“I did not say until Conley had finished. About 1 o’clock he was in the office after having written one or two notes—I am not certain which—and at that hour it was time for me to report at my office, and I telephoned for another man to relieve me.”

The witness said that Conley moved so fast that he kept him, the witness, on the run continually, he said. There were half a dozen detectives firing questions at him, which he was answering.

“Leaving out the time it took for Conley to answer the questions, or the detectives to ask them, what is your best opinion, Mr. Branch, of the time it took to go through the performance?”
The witness declared that it was a difficult question to answer. The solicitor insisted on his making an effort to give his opinion.

The defense objected, and while the matter was being argued, Judge Roan announced court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. The hour then was 1:05.

SPEAKS TO JURY.

Before letting the jury go for the interval, Judge Roan addressed them, saying: “Gentlemen, I am not holding an afternoon session today for very good reasons, and I shall have to ask you to remain together through another Sunday. I trust and believe that it will be the last Sunday that you will have to remain away from your homes and families. I want to ask you to be extremely cautious and not allow anyone to talk to you or in your hearing about the case, and not to talk about it yourself. I sympathize with you greatly, gentlemen, but jury duty is one of the burdens of good citizenship. You have been chosen in this case because you measure up to the standards of good citizenship. I trust that nothing unpleasant will happen to you. I want to warn you to be very careful of your health. Do not overeat nor eat any substance that is liable to make you ill. I have instructed the sheriff to give you all the exercise that you care to take, and I want to remark again that I hope this is the last Sunday that you will be kept away from your families.”

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 16th 1913, “Witness Called by Defense, Testifies Against Frank,” Leo Frank Case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16^th, 1913

‘I’D DIE FOR HIM!’ CRIES ONE, CONVULSING COURT

CLUB AND ENVELOPE FOUND BY PINKERTON MAN PUT IN EVIDENCE

Two factory girls, one of them defending Leo M. Frank with all the eloquence at her command, and the other admitting that she had known of the factory superintendent opening the door to the girls’ dressing room on three different occasions and looking in, formed the center of interest among the score of witnesses who were called Saturday by the defense. They were Miss Irene Jackson and Miss Sarah Barnes.

Miss Jackson, daughter of County Policeman Jackson, testified on direct examination that she never had known of any improper conduct on the part of Frank, and that his character was good. Cross-questioned by Solicitor Dorsey she admitted that she had been in the room where the girls change from their street to their working clothes and had witnessed Frank open the door, look in and then turn around and leave. Once she said, Miss Emmeline Mayfield was in the room with her. On another time her sister was there, and on a third occasion, she said Miss Mamie Kitchen was the other girl in the room.

She said that her sister had started to quit at the time Frank opened the door when she was in the dressing room. The witness also was asked if N. V. Darley, general manager of the factory, ever had made the remark at the time several girls were thinking of quitting the factory directly after the murder that “if the girls stick by us through this, they won’t lose anything by it.” Miss Jackson said she had heard Darley say this. Miss Jackson quit work the day after the body was found.

Frank’s Mother Again on Stand.

Another long string of character witnesses occupied most of the session which was adjourned shortly after 1 o’clock for the day. Mrs. Rae Frank, the defendant’s mother was placed on the stand at the beginning of court, but remained there only long enough to be questioned somewhat in detail as to the means of Frank’s relatives.

One of the sensations of the day came during the testimony of W. D. McWorth, Pinkerton operative, who testified to the finding on the first floor of the pencil factory a pay envelope with Mary Phagan’s initials and number on it, a bloody club, part of a whip, a piece of rope and spots near the trapdoor leading into the basement resembling bloodstains. Exactly the value of his finds did not develop either from the examination by the defense or the prosecution. Dorsey, however, sought to show that the Pinkertons dealt in bad faith with the city detective department by not reporting their discoveries as soon as made.

Court adjourned with the testimony of Harlee Branch, an Atlanta Journal reporter, who estimated the time it required Jim Conley to re-enact his version of the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body, up to the writing of the notes as 47 minutes.

Girl Vehemently Defends Frank.

Miss Sarah Barnes was Frank’s vehement defender. The first question asked her was the signal for a torrent of words that neither Attorney Arnold nor the Solicitor was able to stop until she paused for breath.

“Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?” was asked.

She replied that she not only knew him, but that she knew he was a good man, a perfect gentleman, always good to the girls and everyone else in the factory, never attempting any familiarities or talking to the girls except in regard to their work and never b[e]ing guilty of any of the charges that have been made against him by the State.

“I know Mr. Frank couldn’t have committed that murder,” she cried positively, emphasizing her words with a vigorous brandishing of her fan.

“I’d be willing to die in his place. I’d be willing to fight for him. I’d be willing they’d give me any sort of death they wanted to. I just wish I could made everybody believe in his innocence.”

Judge Roan, just before court adjourned, made this statement to the jury:

“For a number of reasons we won’t hold a session this afternoon. I am very sorry you have been held together so long, but I believe this will be the last Sabbath you will be kept […]

RED-STAINED CLUB AND PAY ENVELOPE ARE SHOWN TO JURY

Pinkerton Detective Says He Found Spots on the Floor Near Cubby Hole

FRANK’S MOTHER AGAIN ON STAND; WOMEN FROM FACTORY HELP ACCUSED

[…] apart from your families. This duty is one of the burdens of good citizenship. You are here because you have measured up to the responsibility. If there was any way to relieve you I would, but you are under oath and so am I. Be very particular about your health. Be select in what you eat. Make the Sheriff exercise you as much as possible. I hope we will be able to wind up this case soon.”

Mother Denies “Wealthy” Relatives.

Mrs. Frank declared Frank’s relatives were of only moderate means. Solicitor Dorsey did not spare the defendant’s mother in his cross-examination. He sought to show that Frank’s parents in reality were wealthy and that Conley’s quotation of Frank’s alleged remarks about his “wealthy folks” was quite plausible. She said the source of the income of herself and her husband was the interest on about $20,000. They paid $5,000 for their home in Brooklyn and assumed a $6,000 mortgage on the residence.

“In what business is your husband?” the Solicitor asked her.

“He is not in business at present.”

“Ah, he’s a capitalist, is he?” said Dorsey.

Mrs. Frank replied that this was not so and added later that her husband was broken down in health and that this was the explanation of his being out of business at present.

Mrs. Frank was shown a photographic copy of the test note Frank wrote for the detectives which Dorsey had intimated was written in a disguised hand.

“That’s my son’s writing,” she exclaimed, as soon as she saw the photographic copy. “He wrote me very week and I know his handwriting.”

Mother to Son’s Aid.

A hushed crowd leaned forward expectantly as the saddened woman whose outburst of anger against Solicitor Dorsey was one of the sensations of the we[e]k, took her place in the witness chair.

The prisoner and his wife wore the same cool, unflinching demeanor. Frank kept his eyes on his mother. Luther Z. Rosser questioned Mrs. Frank.

Q. Mrs. Frank, you said you lived in Brooklyn? Has your son Leo Frank any rich relatives in Brooklyn?—A. He has not.

Q. This letter that was received by him from his uncle, were show you here?—(The small letters were in a long envelope—A. Yes, a long paper. I don’t know what it was.

Q. I show you a photograph letter. Is the writing similar to your son’s?—(He handed her the photograph of Frank’s writing for the police which witness Nix could not identify yesterday)—A. That is my son’s writing.

Dorsey Delves Into Family’s Finances.

Dorsey took Mrs. Frank for cross-examination.

Q. Mrs. Frank, you have no difficulty in recognizing that as your son’s writing, have you?—A. None at all.

Q. What were those other papers?—A. A price list, I think.

Q. Now you look at the price list?—A. No.

Q. Who are your relatives in Brooklyn?—A. My sister, Mrs. Bennett. Her husband clerks for my brother-in-law.

Q. What does your son-in-law do?—A. He is in the retail cigar business.

Q. What do your other sons-in-law do?—A. I don’t know, I have enough to do to keep up with my own affairs.

Q. What are your means of support?—A. We have a little money out at interest.

Q. How much?—A. About $20,000.

Q. Do you own your own home?—A. Yes.

Q. What is it worth?—A. I don’t know. We pay about $86 taxes.

Q. Well, what does that make it worth?—A. You must understand we have a large mortgage.

Q. How much?—A. About $6,000.

Q. Was that about one-third of the cost?—A. More than that. We paid $6,000 and assumed the mortgage.

Q. Now, haven’t you more than $20,000 out at interest?—A. No.

Q. What income do you get on that?—A. Do you want me to tell you everything of my everyday life?

Q. I want you to answer my questions, if you please, Mrs. Frank.—A. All right.

Doesn’t Know Frank’s Uncle Is Called Rich.

Q. What other relatives have you?—A. Miss Jacobs, a single lady.

Q. Are these the only relatives your son has in Brooklyn?—A. Yes.

Q. Where is his uncle?—A. He lives in Atlanta.

Q. He is supposed to be very wealthy?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Don’t you know he was in Brooklyn Saturday?—A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Don’t you know what rate of interest your husband gets on his $20,000?—A. About 6 per cent.

Q. Do you know how much money he has in the bank?—A. About $200.

Q. How much interest are you paying on the $6,000 mortgage?—A. Five per cent.

Q. How often do you pay it?—A. Once a year.

Rosser took the witness.

Q. How old is your husband?—A. Sixty-seven years.

Q. What’s the condition of his health?—A. Very poor.

Q. Too bad to come here?—A. Oh, yes; he is very nervous.

The witness was excused and Knox T. Thomas, a civil engineer, was the next witness called.

At this time Mr. Rosser offered the letter of Leo M. Frank to his uncle, M. Frank, as evidence. Arnold questioned Mr. Thomas.

Civil Engineer Tells of Measuring Street.

Q. At our request did you make some measurements, one from Marietta and Forsyth streets to the National Pencil Factory?—A. Yes.

Q. How far was it?—A. One thousand and sixteen feet.

Q. Did you walk it?—A. Yes.

Q. How long did it take you?—A. Four and one-half minutes.

Q. Did you walk from the National Pencil Factory to Atlanta and Whitehall streets?—A. Yes.

Q. How far is it, and how long did it take you to walk it?—A. 821 feet, and three and one-half minutes.

Q. Did you walk from Frank’s office to Broad and Hunter streets?—A. Yes.

Q. How far was it, and how long did it take you?—A. A distance of 333 feet, and it required one and three-quarter minutes to walk it.

Q. How fast did you walk?—A. My usual gait, rather brisk.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. You could have quickened your gait and walked from Marietta and Forsyth streets in two minutes, couldn’t you?—A. Not easily.

Q. At that rate, how long would it take you to walk a mile?—A. I’ll have to figure it—60 minutes.

Q. Sixty minutes to walk a mile?—A. No; fifteen minutes.

Q. You were more accurate in your measurements than you were with your first answer?—A. Yes.

The witness was excused and Miss Corinthia Hall was recalled to the stand. She was the first of another array of witnesses employed in the factory and scheduled to be called during the day to repudiate the charges of immorality on the part of the prisoner in the plant.

Says Conley Delayed Paying Back Money.

Miss Hall said Frank’s character was good. She added that she did not know Conley well enough to swear about his character.

Dorsey then took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. You don’t know Conley’s character?—A. No. Only I loaned him some money once and could hardly get it back. I wouldn’t lend him any more.

The witness was excused and Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman was recalled, but did not answer. Miss Ida Hayes, another employee, who works on the fourth floor, testified to the good character of Frank. She said she had never heard of any immoral practices in the factory. She would not believe Jim Conley under oath, she added.

Hooper cross-examined her.

Q. The principal trouble with Jim Conley was borrowing money and forgetting to pay it back, wasn’t it?—A. Yes.

The witness was excused and Eula May Flowers, another employee, was recalled to the stand.

She testified to Frank’s good character and gave Conley a bad record. She said Conley had borrowed money from her and never paid it back.

Miss Bessie White, another character witness was called, but did not answer. Miss Ella Hayes, now an employee of Kress’ store, but an employee of the National Pencil Company up to the date of the murder, testified to Frank’s good character. Miss Minnie Foster, an employee in the factory, said Frank’s character was good. She did not know Conley’s character.

Objection by Arnold Upheld by Court.

Hooper cross-examined her.

Q. Up to this killing, whom did you ever hear discuss Frank’s character?—A. No one.

The witness was excused.

Miss Opie Dickerson was another pencil factory employee to give Frank a good character. Conley’s character was bad, she said.

Dorsey cross-examined her.

Q. Where were you on Saturday night, April 26?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. Were you not with Louise Gershon, Wade Campbell and Mr. Darley on that night?

Arnold objected and was sustained.

Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman was recalled to the stand next. She testified to Frank’s good character and declared that that of the negro’s was bad.

Miss Jessie Wallace, another fourth-floor employee, following Mrs. Freeman, said that Frank’s character was good. She stated that she did not know Conley well enough to testify regarding him.

Miss Annie Osborne and Mrs. Ella Thomas, both employees of the pencil factory, also testified to Frank’s good character. Mrs. Thomas declared that Jim Conley had borrowed money from her and never repaid it.

Miss Bessie Thrallkill, another employee of the factory, said she did not know Frank’s character.

Arnold—I mean his reputation.

Miss Thrallkill—He was always a gentleman around me.

Hooper took the witness.

Q. Did you see Jim Conley after the killing?—A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you hear anything about any blood on the floor?—A. Not until Monday morning.

Q. Did you see it?—A. No.

The witness was excused, and Miss Allie Denham, Miss Rebecca Sarson and Miss Maude Wright, all employees of the pencil factory, spoke highly of Frank’s character.

W. W. McWorth, a Pinkerton detective, was next called. Under Rosser’s questioning he said he devoted fifteen days to the Phagan murder investigation, beginning May 12.

Q. What did you do?—A. I questioned the employees and made a search of the ground floor.

Q. What did you find?—A. I found stains by the trapdoor which might have been blood. It was on the ground floor.

Q. What else did you find?—A. Behind a radiator I found a good bit of rubbish. There was a heavy cord in the trash. One end of it looked like it had just been cut with a sharp knife.

Pay Envelope and Bloody Club Introduced.

Q. What else did you find?—A. In one corner a few inches from the radiator, I found a piece of pay envelope folded up. It was in a pile of trash.

The torn bit of envelope was introduced by the defense.

Q. What did you do with the envelope?—A. I saw the number 186 on it and initials “M. P.” I handed it to Officer Whitfield and told him to take it to the light and see what it was.

Q. Did you find anything else?—A. Yes; I found a big stick lying near the radiator beside some pipes.

At this point a boold[sic]-stained stick was exhibited.

Q. Do you know what this stick is used for?—A. Mr. Holloway said it was a roller on which boxes were moved.

Q. Was there anything odd about it that you noticed?—A. It was stained as is apparent now—stains that looked as though they might be blood.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Did you ever see this stick before? (The blunt end of a buggy whip was exhibited.)—A. Yes.

Q. Where?—A. Behind the front door.

Blood Stains Found Around Cubby Hole.

Q. Where did you find the envelope?—A. In the door to the Clark Woodenware department.

Q. What day?—A. May 15.

Q. Where did you begin to search?—A. On the office floor.

Q. What did you see on that floor?—A. In the metal department I saw half a dozen stains like the one Mr. Darley showed me by the water cooler.

Q. Did they look like the other stains?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you make any search of the office for that envelope?—A. No; I was looking for a mesh bag.

Q. Who told you to?—A. Mr. Scott.

Q. You made that search all day alone?—A. Until 5 o’clock, when I was joined by Whitfield.

Q. He searched with you?—A. Yes.

Q. You found bloodstains around the cubby hole?—A. Yes.

Q. Was that your report to the Pinkertons?—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t say anything about blood?—A. I said it looked like blood.

Q. How many stains were there?—A. About six or seven.

Q. How large was each?—A. About six or seven inches in diameter.

Q. And were they blood?—A. I don’t know; I took up the chips.

Q. Now, after you found the bloodspots you found pieces of cord around the radiator?—A. Yes.

Q. The bloodspots led you to that?—A. No.

Q. You showed those bloodspots to Whitfield?—A. Yes.

Envelope Found Near Trap Door.

Q. And while he was examining the stains, you picked up a roll of paper?—A. Yes.

Q. And in that roll you found the envelope?—A. The roll was the envelope itself.

Q. Was that envelope lying right out in the open space?—A. Within eight or ten inches of the trapdoor.

Q. Were there any other pieces of paper?—A. Yes, one or two little ones.

Q. Was it light enough for you to see the number—186—in the right-hand corner?—A. Yes.

Q. Has that envelope been changed any?—A. None at all.

At this point Attorney Rosser conferred with Attorney Hooper.

Rosser—The officer in charge of the witnesses talks to them, then comes down and reports to Detective Starnes. If it doesn’t stop, I will make a protest to the court.

Hooper—If anything improper is going on, I wish you would make it public.

Solicitor Dorsey, who was standing near the witness, turned and said: “Your honor, we want this matter settled, if they think anything improper is going on.”

Judge Roan—No complaint has been made.

Dorsey—We are bringing it now.

The officer came in and spoke to Mr. Starnes.

Dorsey: “If there is any objection, I will have Mr. Starnes state what the officer said to him.”

Asks Schiff Be Sent From Room.

Arnold: “We have no objection to make to the court. We just made a personal request.”

Dorsey continued questioning the witness.

Q. This envelope did not have a figure 5 on it did it?—A. No.

At this point Solicitor Dorsey noticed that Herbert Schiff was in the courtroom. He addressed the court:

“Your Honor,” he said, “I want Mr. Schiff to be put out of the room. I will want him as a witness a little later.”

Rosser: “We merely want to have him here when we are questioning these witnesses who work at the factory.”

Judge Roan: “The witness will have to leave.”

Rosser: “All right, we will go upstairs to confer with him. I don’t care if it takes a month.”

Schiff left the courtroom and Dorsey continued to question the witness.

Q. Did you show this envelope to Herbert Schiff?—A. Later.

Q. Did he identify it as his handwriting?

Rosser: “We object. Mr. Arnold is a little excited about a fire close to his building and will be back in a few minutes.”

Dorsey—Well, I want this witness held until I can examine Schiff. He continued his questioning.

Q. Wasn’t there a figure “5” on that envelope?—A. Not any more than there is now.

Hints at Change in Figures on Envelope.

Q. Didn’t Mrs. Coleman call your attention to a figure “5?”

Rosser objected.

Dorsey—This is for the purpose of impeachment. I want to show that when this envelope was shown to the Colemans on May 15 it had a figure “5” on it. They told the Pinkertons Mary did not get but $1.20 the week she was murdered.

Judge Roan overruled the objection.

Dorsey—Did any conservation between you and the Colemans about a figure “5” take place?—A. No.

Q. Where did you get this information regarding the police. When the tion [sic] in your report? (Solicitor Dorsey handed the witness a typewritten report.)—A. From Mr. Schiff.

Q. When did you report the finding of this stick to the police?

Rosser objected.

Dorsey—I want to show in reference to this club, what the head man for the Pinkertons instructed this police asked about that club, the Pinkertons gave them a little stick. Mr. Rosser has tried to make it appear that the Pinkertons employed at the instance of Frank, went down the road on and on with the police.

The jury was taken from the room at the request of Dorsey.

Judge Roan—Let me hear your objection, Mr. Rosser. I don’t want to hear any argument.

Rosser Through Arguing, He Says.

Rosser: “I don’t want to argue. I don’t expect to argue here any more. All I want is to have my objection recorded. He has tried to impeach every witness we have put up on the grounds on the grounds that he did not report to the police.”

Judge Roan: “Mr. Dorsey, you can ask the witness whether he told any city detectives about the note and the bludgeon, or whether he sought to conceal it. You can not ask him what somebody told him to do.”

Hooper: “What we want to do is to show that Pierce is the head of the Pinkertons, and that he controls the policy of the Pinkertons.”

Judge Roan: “This man is not responsible for what somebody told him.”

The jury was brought back, and Dorsey continued his questioning.

Q. Who is the head of the Pinkertons?—A. H. B. Pierce.

Q. Where is Whitfield?

Rosser; “I object to that, your Honor.”

Dorsey: “It is a well-known principle of law that we can ask that.”

Judge Roan: “You can ask the question.”

Q. Where is Pierce?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Where is Whitfield?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Now how long after you found that club did you report it to the police?—A. Seventeen hours.

Q. How long after that did you have a conference with the police?—A. Four hours.

Q. Now, did you not show Black this stick when you told him about the club?—A. I did not.

Q. Were you there when the stick was shown Black?—A. I was not.

Rosser took the witness.

Q. Now, is this your report?—A. Yes.

Q. Is this your diagram showing the place where you found the club and the pay envelope?—A. Yes.

Girl Bursts Forth In Frank’s Defense.

Q. You attached this to your report and we now get it from Mr. Dorsey?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t know whether I ever saw it or not?—A. No.

Q. Now, this piece of envelope is just like it was when you found it?—A. Yes.

Q. If there are any changes, they don’t show here?—A. No.

The witness was excused, and Miss Mollie Blair, a former employee of the pencil factory, was called as a character witness. She did not answer. Miss Cora Barnes then took the stand. Before Attorney Arnold could ask her any questions, she burst forth into oratory to declare:

“We love our superintendent because he was a good business man and a gentleman.

Her words were interrupted and when the formal questions were put as to whether she knew Leo M. Frank, she arose to her feet and said:

“I believe Mr. Frank is innocent. He is too good a man and I wish I could make everybody else believe he is innocent. I would be willing to take his place and die for him. I would be glad to die for him.”

Miss Barnes’ spasmodic statements threw the courtroom into a volcanic eruption. As her words flowed freely from her mouth, attorneys for both sides sprang to their feet in various attitudes of protest, some shouting their objections at Judge Roan and others in pleading gestures to the witness to come to a halt. Yet her words waxed more eloquent and flowed more freely with each protest that was registered against them.

Spectators in Courtroom Convulsed With Laughter.

Sheriff Mangum and Chief Deputy Plennie Miner, with a dozen deputies, strove for several minutes in the courtroom crowd. Several spectators were so convulsed with laughter that they were compelled to leave the courtroom. One man of large avoirdupois threatened to go in convulsions.

Following the restoration of quietude, the witness was excused without an attempt to question her.

Miss Ethel Stewart, a telephone operator and a former employee of the pencil factory on the fourth floor, was next called and testified to Frank’s good character.

Miss Irene Jackson, an attractive young woman, a daughter of County Policeman A. W. Jackson, and a former employee of the pencil factory, who stated that she left there the day of the murder, was the next witness. On direct examination the witness testified that Frank’s character was good. Dorsey cross-examined her.

Q. Did you ever hear any of the employees say anything about Frank?—A. They seemed to be afraid of him.

Q. How?—A. They would always work hard when they saw him coming.

Q. Do you recall Emily Mayfield?—A. Yes.

Says Frank Looked Into Dressing Room.

Q. Where does she work?—A. She worked at Jacobs’ until Easter.

Q. What about that dressing room incident you told Mr. Starnes about in the presence of your father?—A. Emily Mayfield was in the dressing room one day and Frank came back there. I was there to take off my apron.

Q. How was Miss Mayfield dressed?—A. She had off her dress.

Q. Did he come all the way in?—A. He opened the door and looked in.

Q. Did he laugh?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Did you threaten to quit?—A. Yes.

Q. To whom?—A. Mr. Darley.

Q. What did he say?—A. He said that we girls should stick together and that we would not lose anything by it.

Q. You told your father about it?—A. No, my sister did.

Q. Did you hear anybody but Miss Emily Mayfield talk about Frank going into this dressing room?—A. Yes, I heard about it.

Q. Who told you?—A. I don’t remember. I heard them talking about him going into the dressing room two or three times.

Q. What did Frank do when he came into the dressing room?—A. He walked in, turned around and walked out.

Q. Were you in there?—A. Yes.

Q. You have told me of two times. Have you heard of any other times besides your sister and Miss Mayfield?—A. Miss Mamie Kitchens and I were in there one day when he came in.

Q. Did you hear the girls talk about other times?—A. Yes.

Q. Where were they?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. What else did you hear about Frank besides the fact that he went into the dressing room and stared at the girls?—A. Nothing.

Arnold took the witness on re-direct examination.

Q. How long did you work in the factory?—A. About three years.

Q. You were willing to work on there after this?—A. I had some bills to pay and I wanted to get the money. Papa wanted me to quit.

Q. The murder was the real reason you quit, wasn’t it?—A. Papa said he didn’t want me to work there, so I quit.

Q. Didn’t you hear Frank issuing an order about the girls flirting through the fourth story window?

Dorsey objected and was sustained.

Q. What street did those windows look out on?—A. Forsyth street.

Q. People were constantly walking along the street, were they not?—A. Yes.

Q. Did any rule or order come to you against flirting out of the window?—A. There were orders against it.

Q. Frank never came into the room. He just came to the door and turned away?—A. He pushed the door open and looked in.

Q. Did he ever come in?—A. No.

Girls Partly Undressed When Frank Looked In.

Q. Which time was it you were not fully dressed?—A. When I was with Mamie Kitchens.

Q. The other times you were dressed fully?—A. Yes.

Q. How were you when you were with Miss Kitchens?—A. I had off my top dress and was preparing to put on my street dress.

Q. You had on your underskirt?—A. Yes.

Q. Were any of the girls anywhere nude at any time he came and looked in?—A. No, sir.

Q. When was this?—A. Last summer.

Dorsey took the witness on recross-examination.

Q. How soon after Frank opened the door on your sister did she quit?—A. She wanted to quit right then, but the forelady persuaded her not to.

Q. There was no way he could tell before opening the dressing room door how near any of the girls were to being undressed?—A. No, sir.

Q. It was near to the dressing room wasn’t it?—A. Yes, sir.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. What time were you girls expected to be at work?—A. At 7 o’clock.

Q. What time was it Frank came to the door?—A. Ten or fifteen minutes after 7 o’clock.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. You never flirted with anyone out of the window?—A. No.

Q. Did the forelady come in?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever see any signs around there not to flirt?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Frank say anything about flirting?—A. I heard him say something once.

Smiled or Made Face at Girl.

Q. Well, when he stood in that dressing room door and smiled did he—

Arnold: “Your honor, she never said anything about smiling.”

Miss Jackson: “He never asked me.”

Dorsey: “Well, I am asking you now; did he smile?”—A. Yes, he smiled, or made some kind of face at Miss Mayfield.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. No, just looked at her and walked out.

Q. He never said anything about flirting?—A. No.

The witness was excused and Harlee Branch, a reporter for The Atlanta Journal, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Do you recollect having an interview with Jim Conley?—A. Yes.

Dorsey: “The story of his actions is practically the same.”

Judge Roan: “He can go as far as this evidence is similar. The jury can tell whether it is the same or not.”

Rosser: “It is the duty of the Judge to pass on it before it goes to the jury.”

Q. I call your attention to this interview of May 31. Read it over and tell the substance.

Before Mr. Branch had replied, Mr. Rosser questioned him.

Q. I will get you to state whether Conley said anything about seeing the little girl’s purse?—A. He did not.

“Took 30 Minutes to Take Body to Basement.”

Q. Didn’t he say it took him 30 minutes to get the body down into the basement?—A. Yes.

Q. I will ask if he didn’t say Lemmie Quinn got to the factory after 12 o’clock and stopped eight or nine minutes?—A. Yes.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Was he positive about the time?—A. I tried to get him to be as definite as he could, but he qualified his statements with the word “about.”

Q. Did you get this interview before or after Conley went through what he said was his part in the crime at the factory?—A. It was two or three days after.

Q. Did you see him go through that performance at the factory?—A. I did.

Rosser objected.

Dorsey—I want to show by this witness Conley’s performance and that it was just as admissible as the evidence of Dr. Owens the other day.

Judge Roan overruled the objection. Rosser continued to object, on the ground that Conley has told a different story since the interview.

Branch went through the negro’s re-enactment of the crime. He estimated the start at 12:18. Rosser made another strenuous objection, but Judge Roan admitted the evidnece.

Branch said that at 1:05 o’clock he left the building and the negro had reached the point in his pantomime where he wrote the notes in Frank’s office.

At this point court adjourned until 9 o’clock Monday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 16th 1913, “Girls Testify For and Against Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)