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

Atlanta Journal

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

L. A. Quinn was called to the stand. He lives at 31B Julliam street, he said, and is foreman of the metal department at the National Pencil factory. Mary Phagan worked in his department, he said. The last time he saw her was on the Monday preceding the murder, he said. She left the plant about 2 o’clock that Monday, said he. That was earlier than usual, but she left because the metal with which she worked had run out and she wanted to hurry to the matinee. He didn’t know any of her intimate friends, said he. She worked with Helen Ferguson and Grace Hix and Magnolia Kennedy, said he, and Henry Smith and John Ramey also worked in that department.

He worked on Friday, April 25, until 5:30 o’clock, said Quinn. He got his pay and left with the understanding that he would come to work on Monday.

The next morning, Saturday, he got up about 7 o’clock. Later he went uptown with his wife to get a picture made of their baby. Then they went back home. He came up town again, said he. He was stopped there, and questioned closely about hours and minutes.

He left home about 9:30 o’clock, he said. He and his wife and baby went straight to Kuhn’s photograph studio. They were there about ten minutes, he said.

They stopped next at the Globe Clothing company’s store on Whitehall street, said he, and talked for a while with some friends of his in there. He named them. He and his wife were there about five or ten minutes. They went from there down to a meat market in the next block south and bought some meat, staying there about five minutes. Farther down the street they stopped in at a soda water stand and bought some soft drinks. They arrived home about 11:15 o’clock. He remained in the house about thirty minutes. He left there about 11:45 o’clock, for town again, to get to the market before it closed, so he could buy some supplies for Sunday. He bought some meat and vegetables on that trip, said he. He could not describe the man he bought the meat from. He bought the vegetables first, from a man about five feet eleven inches tall, 165-170 pounds in weight, clean shaved. The man seemed to be a foreigner. He looked like an Italian.

HE WENT TO THE FACTORY.

From the meat market he went to Benjamin’s pharmacy and bought some cigars from a man named Pounds. He arrived there at a few minutes after 12 o’clock. He went on up Whitehall, left on Hunter street, to Forsyth, and then to the pencil factory. There was nothing unusual about him going to the factory on holidays, said the witness. He did so often. He wanted to speak to “Mr. Schiff” on this occasion, said he. He found the front door unlocked. He did not see Mary Phagan. He got there some time between 12:20 and 12:25, said he.

He was asked how he observed the time so minutely.

He figured it on the time he left home, said he.  He knew he left there about 11:45 o’clock, because he looked at his watch several times while he was at home. He walked to town, up Pulliam to Garnett, to Whitehall, and so to the market. It took him about 10 or 15 minutes to make the walk. It was pretty close to 12 o’clock when he got to the market, said he. He did not remember looking at his watch after he left home. It didn’t take him long to buy the meat and vegetables. He bought 40 cents worth of steak. He was waited on immediately. It took him about ten minutes, however, he said, to buy the vegetables. He wasn’t around the market longer than ten or twelve minutes. He stopped two or three minutes in Benjamin’s on the corner. The walk from there to the factory took about five minutes. He went straight to the office. He didn’t go anywhere else. He didn’t remember hearing the noon whistles blow.

WHEN HE SAW MR. FRANK.

He found Mr. Frank in the latter’s private office. They exchanged “good mornings,” he said. “Is Mr. Schiff in?” Quinn said he inquired. “No, I don’t suppose he will be down today,” Quinn said Mr. Frank replied. “You see you can’t keep me away even on holidays,” Quinn said he remarked to Mr. Frank. He said that Mr. Frank answered, “Yes,” and laughed, and nothing else was said. He was there in the office about two minutes, said he. He wasn’t positive about the exact time. He didn’t think it could be as early as 12:15 when he arrived there. It could have been between 12:20 and 12:35, he admitted.

“Could it have been as late as 12:30 o’clock?” he was asked.

“It could have been, but it wasn’t.”

“Why are you so positive?”

“Because I was somewhere else at 12:30,” the witness answered.

He continued that when he left the factory he stopped to talk with “Mr. Maulsby” at Mr. Maulsby’s place of business two doors from the factory. He offered Mr. Maulsby a cigar. Maulsby told him “those girls are in the restaurant,” and he answered “I know it; I saw them when I came up.” He told the names of two young women, one of whom was then a bride and the other of whom still worked in the factory.

IS AT FACTORY NOW.

Mr. Quinn said that he thought Miss Corinthia Hall is at the pencil factory this Thursday. The Miss Hall he saw at the undertaker’s establishment was a stenographer at Montag Brothers, and not Miss Corinthia Hall, he said.

The witness said that his purpose in going to the factory Saturday was to see Mr. Schiff and talk baseball with him. He had been accustomed to drop by the factory often on Saturdays and holidays, he said.

Mr. Quinn said that after leaving the factory he met the young ladies—Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman—at the Busy Bee café, at the corner of Forsyth and Hunter streets.

In reply to a question from the coroner, he said that he thinks Mrs. Freeman is at the factory this Thursday.

Mrs. Freeman, who is about seventeen years old, had been married the day before—Friday—he said. Mr. Quinn said that he wanted to chat with her about the wedding. They remained in the café only a few minutes, he said, all three leaving together. Mr. Quinn said that he went to DeFoor Brothers pool parlor, getting there about 12:30, and chatted with the proprietors until about 1:15.

The coroner at this point asked Mr. Quinn if he knew May Barrett.

He replied, “Yes, she is employed in the varnishing department of the pencil factory.”

A FIFTEEN-MINUTE WALK.

In response to a question, Mr. Quinn said that it takes him about fifteen minutes to walk from his home to the pencil factory.

Going back to his visit to the pool room, Mr. Quinn said that after chatting baseball with the proprietors, he went to the Atlanta theater to buy a ticket.

Here Mr. Quinn said in response to a question that he knows John Rainey.

Just after he had bought his ticket at the theater, Mr. Quinn said, he saw Cliff Dodgen, an employee of the theater. The witness said that he didn’t remember exactly where his seat in the theater was, but thought it was on the ninth row, in the center aisle. No one that he knew sat near him that he remembered, he said.

The witness said in reply to the coroner’s question that Mr. Frank wore a brown suit Saturday.

Mr. Quinn said that he went to the factory about 9:30 o’clock Sunday morning. He met Mr. Darley and Ed Montag, an officer of the factory there, he said, and they went in the basement together.

The witness said that he heard of the murder about 9 o’clock Sunday morning when he went to a soda water stand near his home. Officer Payne and the men in charge of the stand were discussing it, he said, and told him. Mr. Quinn said that he gathered from the description given him then that the victim must have been Helen Ferguson. He was told that her first name was Mary, he said, and asked if the last was Phagan. The soda water man recalled it then.

The witness said that he then went to the undertaker’s establishment and looked at the body.

DENIED STATEMENT TO OFFICER.

He said that on Sunday afternoon he saw Mr. Frank at the undertaker’s. Mr. Frank wore a blue or a black suit then, he said.

Mr. Quinn denied that he had told Officer Payne or Detective Starnes that he hadn’t been to the factory since Friday.

He declared that when he had talked with Detective Starnes and Campbell at the rear door of the factory he had not stated that he hadn’t ben to the factory since Friday.

Mr. Quinn was asked about the white material used in his department. It was known as “hascolene,” he said, and was used as a lubricant for the machines. It came shipped in barrels, he said.

The witness said that on Tuesday or Wendesday in the detectives office, he recalled his visit to Mr. Frank on Saturday and that Mr. Frank remembered it readily. He told Mr. Frank, he said, that if it would do any good to mention his visit he would tell of it. Mr. Frank suggested that he mention it to his lawyer first, the witness said.

At this point Mr. Quinn, in response to a question, again denied that he had told Officer Payne or Detective Starnes or Campbell that he hadn’t been to the factory since Friday.

The witness said that he knew Miss Grace Jones and that he thinks she has been at the factory since the tragedy. He hadn’t accompanied Miss Jones from the factory; he said, and had not seen her since the tragedy, except on the fourth floor of the factory. He had talked to her there, he said, to see if she would not come to work in his department in case there were a number of vacancies that were anticipated. Mr. Quinn said that he didn’t remember discussing the Phagan case with Miss Jones.

Mr. Quinn said that he paid the Colemans a visit of consolation on Thursday. He went, he said, at the suggestion of Mr. Darley and Miss Magnolia Kennedy and because he thought he should go. His visit was purely one of consolation, he said.

Coroner Donehoo then asked Quinn:

“Did you ever tell Mr. Coleman (Mary Phagan’s stepfather) how Frank acted toward the girls in your department?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you ever tell Mr. Coleman how you treated the girls?”

“Yes, I told him I had always tried to make the girls feel at home. Frequently in fixing their machines, I would tell them to ‘Get out of the way and let papa fix it.’ I told Mr. Coleman how jolly Mary was—about a remark she made once: ‘Yes, you look like papa!”

“Do you know a man named Barrett?”

“Yes.”

“You never mentioned to him that you went to the pencil factory that Saturday?”

“No, sir.”

“When was the first time that you told anybody that you had been up there Saturday?”

“I told my father the next day, on Sunday. I didn’t tell Chief Lanford or any of the detectives until last Monday.”

“Why did you withhold that information?”

“I wasn’t asked about it.”

“You didn’t consider it your duty to tell unless you were asked?”

“No, I didn’t want to be dragged into it any sooner than necessary.”

“State what else you know, that you have retained.”

“Nothing.”

“You are not withholding anything then?”

“No, sir, nothing.”

“You say it was your duty to come down and see Mr. Frank after his arrest?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you consider it your duty to protect Mr. Frank?”

“No, sir.”

HIS PAY WENT ON.

He was asked if his pay went on while he called upon Mr. Frank at the jail, and said yes. Answering further questions, he said that now and then he got away for matinees, etc., but that his pay went on, that he wasn’t docked for absences. He was asked about his call at the jail.

“You came down and recalled your visit to Mr. Frank. Did he tell you to keep quiet about it until he had told his lawyers?”

“No. He remarked that he was going to tell his lawyers.” He said that Mr. Frank remembered his having been there, but did not remember the time of the visit until his attention was called to it.

“Why did you volunteer this information to Mr. Frank and not to the detectives?”

“I knew he couldn’t question me for three or four hours and the detectives could.”

“Did Mr. Frank consider it advisable that nothing be known about this?”

“No, sir. Mr. Frank didn’t ask me not to tell about it. I didn’t volunteer to tell it, because I expected to be asked every day.”

“Why didn’t you want to be questioned?”

“I knew they had three or four men holding them here, and they could hold me if they wanted to, as I had been in the building on Saturday.”

Other questions intervened, and then the coroner asked:

“Did you go out to Mrs. White’s yesterday?”

“No, sir; I don’t know Mrs. White.”

“Arthur White’s wife—you know Arthur White?”

“Yes, but I never have been out to his house.”

Quinn was excused from the stand at this juncture.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 8th 1913, “Lemmie Quinn Grilled by Coroner But He Sticks to His Statement,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Lemmie Quinn, foreman, who testified that he visited the factory and talked to Mr. Frank just after Mary Phagan is supposed to have left with her pay envelope. He was given a searching examination by the coroner Thursday, but stuck to his statement.

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

Atlanta Journal

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

Lemmie Quinn, the Factory Foreman, Was Put Through a Grilling Examination, but He Steadily Maintained That He Visited the Factory Shortly After the Time Mary Phagan is Supposed to Have Left With Her Pay Envelope

FRANK’S TREATMENT OF GIRLS IN FACTORY DESCRIBED AS UNIMPEACHABLE BY ONE YOUNG LADY EMPLOYEE

Mr. Frank’s Manner at the Time He Was Informed of the Tragedy by Officers at His Home on Sunday Morning is Told of by Former Policeman — Both Frank and the Negro Night Watchman Are Expected to Testify During Afternoon, When Inquest Will Be Concluded

The coroner’s inquest into the mysterious murder of Mary Phagan adjourned at 12:55 o’clock Thursday to meet again at 2:30. At the hour of adjournment, six witnesses had testified. They were “Boots” Rogers, former county policeman; Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the pencil factory; Miss Corinthia Hall, an employee of the factory; Miss Hattie Hall, stenographer; J. L. Watkins and Miss Daisy Jones. L. M. Frank and Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, were both present at headquarters during the morning session, but neither had been recalled to the stand when recess was ordered. Both are expected to testify during the afternoon, when an effort will be made to conclude the inquest and return a verdict.

Though put through a searching examination by the coroner in an effort to break down his statement that he had visited the factory on the day of the tragedy shortly after noon just after Mary Phagan is supposed to have received her pay envelope and left, Quinn stuck to his story. He declared that he had recalled his visit to Mr. Frank, and that Mr. Frank told him he was going to communicate the fact to his lawyers.

“Boots” Rogers testified that Mr. Frank had changed the tape in the time clock while the officers were in the factory Sunday morning after the body of Mary Phagan had been found, and that he stated at the time that the sheet he took from the clock seemed to be correct. Rogers also described Mr. Frank’s manner when the officers went to his home in an automobile to take him to the factory Sunday morning.

Miss Daisy Jones, who was mistaken for Mary Phagan by J. L. Watkins. She was a witness before the coroner Thursday. G. W. Epps, the boy who came to town with Mary Phagan on the day of the tragedy and left her on her way to the factory [right].

Miss Corinthia Hall, an employee in the factory, testified that Mr. Frank’s treatment of the girls in the factory was unimpeachable. She also testified that she had met Lemmie Quinn at a restaurant near the factory near the noon hour Saturday, her statement being confirmatory of his visit to the factory on the fatal day. J. L. Watkins testified that he had mistaken Miss Daisy Jones for Mary Phagan when he thought he saw Mary on the street near her home on Saturday afternoon about 5 o’clock. Miss Jones testimony was also in this connection.

NEW WITNESSES CALLED.

Following a conference between Solicitor General Dorsey, Assistant Solicitor General Stephens and Chief of Detectives Lanford, just after the inquest recessed for lunch, it was learned that Leo M. Frank and Newt Lee would be recalled at the afternoon session and that there would be the following new witnesses: Miss Alice Wood, of 8 Corput street; Miss Nellie Pitts, of 9 Oliver street, and Mrs. C. D. Dunnegan [sic], of 165 West Fourteenth street.

Rogers Describes Mr. Frank’s Manner When Told of Tragedy

“Boots” Rogers, formerly a county policeman, was the first witness. Mr. Rogers said that he lived at 100 McDonough road. He was at the police station at 3 o’clock on the morning of April 27, he said, when a call came from the factory of the National Pencil company. The officers responded to the call in his automobile, he declared. Those who went with him were Police Sergeants Brown and Dobbs, Call Officer Anderson and Britt Craig, a newspaper reporter.

Mr. Craig was the first person to enter the basement, the witness said. He (Mr. Rogers) entered second; Dobbs and Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, bringing up the rear. All saw the body about the same time, Mr. Rogers said.

George W. Epps

The witness said that the girl’s body was lying face down, with the hands folded beneath the body. The body was turned over by Police Sergeant Dobbs, he said.

Rogers continued that they found two notes near the body. The first note, found by Sergeant Dobbs, was on white scratch paper and on a tablet lying face down. The sheet with the note on it was detached and fell off when the tablet was picked up. It was lying about a foot from the body’s right shoulder. Another note was found later, written on a yellow order blank of the factory, lying about a foot from the feet of the body. Rogers wasn’t sure whether he or Sergeant Dobbs noticed that first. He didn’t notice a sharpened pencil nearby. There were a number of stubs, but none sharpened that he saw.

Asked “Who telephoned Mr. Frank that the girl was dead?” he said no one did as nearly as he remembered—that Detective Starnes telephoned Mr. Frank later in the morning to come down to the factory.

About two or three minutes after the first officers arrived with him, said Rogers, they were admitted to the factory. They saw the negro night watchman, Newt Leet, through the glass door, coming down the stairs with his lantern.

“She’s down in the basement—she’s down in the basement,” Rogers aid the negro told them first. He showed them the way down, indicating the trap door and the ladder. Britt Craig, a newspaper man, went first, and was followed by the witness, then by Sergeant Dobbs of the police, and last by the negro.

Everything was in gloom, though a gas jet was burning dimly at the foot of the ladder.

NEGRO WASN’T EXCITED.

“Look out, white folks, you’ll step on her,” the witness said the negro exclaimed when they started toward the rear of the basement. The negro took the lead then, with his lantern, and led them to the body. The negro’s manner was as cool as that of a man would be under the circumstances, said the witness. The negro wasn’t excited. “He was being questioned by all of us,” said the witness. He answered questions promptly.

“How did you happen to find the body?” the witness said was one of the questions put to the negro. He repeated the negro’s answer—of how he was making his rounds, and entered the basement, and by the dim rays of his lantern noticed a suspicious looking object on the ground near the back. “Somebody’s put that there to try to scare me,” the negro said he remarked to himself, going over to see closer. The body was revealed and he hurried back upstairs to telephone the police.

BODY FOUND FACE DOWN.

The witness said that Sergeant Dobbs asked the negro how the body was lying when he found it. The negro’s answer was “on its face.” “Did you turn it over?” the negro was asked; and answered “no sir, I didn’t touch it.”

This point of the evidence was in conflict with previous testimony by the negro himself, who swore at the inquest that when he found the body it was lying on its back face up, with its head toward the back door—exactly the reverse of the position in which the officers found it.

Rogers, the witness, said that the body was lying on its face, hand folded beneath it, when he and the officers first saw it. The negro stuck to the same story while answering all the questions, said the witness. After about ten minutes Sergeant Dobbs ordered that the negro be held under arrest. The negro was taken upstairs by Call Officer Anderson. The rest of them looked around for the girl’s left shoe, which was missing from the body.

Officer Anderson and the negro went upstairs first alone. Twenty or thirty minutes later the witness went up and found the officer and the negro sitting in the office. Anderson was trying to telephone to some of “the factory folks,” said the witness. The negro was sitting nearby in silence. Some one suggested that the officer telephoned to Mr. Frank, the superintendent, at his home. Anderson tried to get Mr. Frank’s number. There was no answer. Anderson talked to the operator, and told her something very serious had happened and that the call was urgent; and Anderson said he heard the persistent ringing that followed.

IDENTIFIED AS MARY PHAGAN.

While he and Sergeant Dobbs had been moving about downstairs, looking for the girl’s shoes, said Rogers, they found the staple on the back door pulled, and pushed the door back and went out into the alley, searching it to Hunter street for some clue. Rogers then went away to find some one to identify the body, said he. The shoe was found by somebody else later. He went to 100 McDonough road, said he, to get Miss Grace Hix, a relative of his own, whom he knew to be employed in the factory. He brought Miss Hix back with him in the automobile, and she identified the body as that of Mary Phagan. Miss Hix sought first to telephone to Mary’s mother, Mrs. J. W. Coleman, but there was no phone in the Coleman home, so she telephoned instead to the home of another girl, Miss Ferguson, and got Mrs. Ferguson, and asked her to go over and break the news to Mrs. Coleman.

MR. FRANK NOTIFIED.

Mr. Rogers said that Detective Starnes, who had been summoned to the factory, called Mr. Frank over the telephone shortly after 6 o’clock. The witness said that he drove Detective Black to Mr. Frank’s home, and that Mrs. Frank, wearing a heavy bathrobe, came to the door. He said that Mr. Frank stood in the hall, fully dressed except his collar and tie.

The witness said that Mr. Frank appeared nervous and excited and asked whether the night watchman had reported to the police that something had happened at the factory. Mr. Rogers said that neither he nor Mr. Black answered.

The witness said that Mr. Frank remarked that a drink of whiskey would do him good and that Mrs. Frank said there was none in the house, but insisted that Mr. Frank get some breakfast before going out. However, they hurried to the undertaking establishment, the witness said.

Mr. Rogers said that on the way to the undertaker’s establishment, Mr. Frank remarked that he had dreamed he had heard his telephone ring about daybreak. Detective Black asked Mr. Frank whether he knew Mary Phagan, the witness said, Mr. Frank replying that he didn’t know whether he did or not.

The witness said that Mr. Frank did not go into the room in which the Phagan child’s body lay.

Mr. Frank remarked, the witness said, that he could refer to his payroll and see whether Mary Phagan worked at the pencil factory.

“Was Mr. Frank steady or trembling at the undertaking establishment?” was asked Mr. Rogers.

“I couldn’t say,” he answered.

Mr. Frank suggested that they go to the factory, the witness said. At the factory, the witness said, they found a number of detectives and policemen and Mr. Darley, an official of the factory, who had been summoned. They went upstairs, the witness aid, to the office and Mr. Frank referred to the payroll, saying that Mary Phagan worked there and that she had been paid $1.20 the day before, shortly after 12 o’clock.

ELEVATOR AT SECOND FLOOR.

The witness said that Mr. Frank then asked if the pay envelope had been found, remarking that it must be around somewhere. They went to the basement in the elevator, which stood at the second floor, the witness said. Mr. Frank switched the current and there was some delay in getting the elevator to work. The fire doors of the elevator were open at this time, Mr. Rogers said, but he didn’t remember whether they were open or closed when he went to the factory the first time.

The elevator was run to the basement, the witness said and Mr. Frank was shown where the body had been found.

CHANGED TAPE IN CLOCK.

When he returned from the basement, said the witness, he sat in Mr. Frank’s inner office with the negro , Lee. Mr. Frank stayed in outer office, but came in twice where he and negro were, and, on the second trip, Mr. Frank looked at the negro and shook his head and said, “Too bad!”

Mr. Frank asked repeatedly if the officers were through with him, saying he wanted to go out and get a cup of coffee, but no opportunity to get the coffee arose. After a while, said the witness, after Mr. Frank had been through the building with Chief of Detectives Lanford, Mr. Frank suggested that they change the tape in the time clock. Mr. Frank took a key to the clock, which he wore on a ring at his belt, and opened the clock with it and removed the time slip and laid it down by the clock. He then went back into his office and got a blank slip. He asked one of the officers standing near to hold back a little lever while he inserted this slip. The lever knocked against a little pencil in the clock. Newt Lee, the negro, was standing near. Mr. Frank turned to the negro and asked, “What is this pencil doing in the hole?” Lee said he had put it there so his number would be sure to register every time he rang. Mr. Frank put the key back at his belt and dated the slip which he had taken from the clock with a pencil which he took from his pocket. The witness though Mr. Frank wrote the date “April 26, 1913,” on it, but he wouldn’t be sure about that, he said.

Mr. Frank, after examining the slip, stated that it was punched correctly, said the witness. He also looked at the slip. The first punch started at 6 p. m., and it was punched every half hour, the witness thought, up to 2:30 o’clock. At 2:30 was the last punch. Mr. Frank took the slip into his own office, said the witness, and the witness said he did not know what became of it after that. A little later they all got into his automobile, said Rogers, Mr. Frank sitting in Mr. Darley’s lap in front beside him (the witness) at the wheel, and some of the officers sitting with Frank in the back.

At this point the coroner asked where Mr. Darley was when the clock slip was being removed. He was standing near by, said the witness.

After delivering his passengers at police headquarters, said Rogers, he went with Miss Hix to take her back to her own home.

On the trip to headquarters, said he, Mr. Frank did not seem to be as nervous as he had been. When he returned to headquarters, said the witness, the detectives were getting Newt Lee, the negro, to write. Lee then seemed very nervous.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 8th 1913, “Phagan Inquest in Session; Six Witnesses are Examined Before Adjournment to 2:30,” 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

Wednesday, May 7^th, 1913

Detectives Said to Attach Much Importance to Testimony That Two Girls Will Give When Inquest Resumes

INQUEST WILL BE ENDED THURSDAY, SAYS DONEHOO

Paul P. Bowen Has Been Released by Houston Officials—Chief Detective and 14 Policemen Are Discharged

Two new witnesses, whom the detectives have recently located, are expected to give testimony of importance at the final session of the Phagan inquest Thursday.

One of the witnesses is Miss Grace Hix, of 100 McDonough road, daughter of James E. Hix. Miss Hix worked at the same machine with Mary Phagan, but has not been to the factory since the latter was slain. Miss Hix was closeted for two hours with the detectives Tuesday evening, but it is not known just what her testimony will be. [Appears to be missing words in the printing—Ed.] day Mary Phagan was killed, but did not see her, according to a statement she made to a Journal reporter Wednesday afternoon at 2:45 o’clock.

“The last time I saw Mary Phagan was on the Monday before she was killed,” said Miss Hix. “That was the day she got layed off. I was uptown Saturday, the day she was killed, but I did not see her.”

The name of the other witness has not been learned. That witness, a young woman, who works at the factory will testify according to the same report, that on the Saturday that Mary Phagan met her death, she (the witness) went to the factory to get her own envelope. According to the report the young woman will testify that she went to Superintendent Frank’s office between 12:10 and 12:20 o’clock (the time Mary Phagan is supposed to have gone for her pay) and waited about five minutes.

TO FINISH INQUEST.

The coroner’s inquest will be concluded Thursday, according to Coroner Paul Donehoo. The inquest has been probably the most thorough and exhaustive ever conducted in Georgia, the jurors having spent many hours in listening to testimony in the case and now the coroner is determined that the inquest itself shall be concluded at Thursday’s session and the jurors relieved from further duty in the case.

It is probable that the body of little Mary Phagan interred at Marietta a week ago will be again exhumed before the final session of the jury. It is said that one important point has now not been fully covered by the examination and this will necessitate the lifting of Mary Phagan’s body from the grave a second time. Before any action is taken, however, the parents of the slain girl will be consulted. It is probable that Dr. J. W. Hurt, the country physician, and Dr. H. F. Harris, of the state board of health, will make the second examination.

It was reported that the principal reason for exhuming the body again is to get some of the hair from the murdered child’s head in order that it might be compared with the hair found in the metal room at the pencil factory. It is understood that the hair which was in possession of the detectives has been lost.

Officials will make no definite statement relative to the second examination of the girl’s body, but it was learned from the coroner that at noon Wednesday the physicians, who are to make the examination, had not started for Marietta. It is said to be practically certain, however, that the body will be exhumed before the convening of the final session of the inquest.

NO EVIDENCE AGAINST BOWEN.

A development of interest in the case as the release of Paul Peniston Bowen, the former Atlantian [sic], who was arrested in Houston, Tex., as a suspect in the Phagan case. The release of Bowen carries out the prediction made Tuesday afternoon by The Journal, when after a vigorous investigation The Journal was able to show that it was practically impossible for Bowen, who left here about nine months ago, to have been in Atlanta or Georgia at the time of the murder.

Young Bowen is well and favorably known in Atlanta, where he worked for several years and has many friends here, who have received letters from him recently. He comes originally from Newnan, where his family is prominent. Interesting in connection with Bowen’s release is the announcement of the summary removal from office of Chief of Detectives George Peyton, of Houston, who made the arrest. Chief of Police Ben S. Davison declares that Peyton exceeded his authority in taking young Bowen into custody. Chief Beavers has wired Houston that Bowen is not wanted by the Atlanta police.

INQUEST AT 9:30.

Interest in the Phagan investigation is again centered in the coroner’s inquest, which is scheduled to resume its probe into the mystery on Thursday morning at 9:30 o’clock.

Just what witnesses will go before the coroner’s jury is not known, as the actions of the officials have been shrouded in mystery since the active entrance of Solicitor Dorsey in the case. It is probable, however, that in addition to recalling Newt Lee to the stand, the jurors will hear the testimony of Dr. Hurt, of Dr. Harris, and of Dr. Claude Smith, the city bacteriologist, who has examined the bloodstains on the shirt found at Lee’s home, on the floor of the factory and on the garments of the murdered girl.

NEWT LEE TO TESTIFY.

The examination of Newt Lee before the jurors will be a vigorous probe, similar to the questioning Monday afternoon of L. M. Frank, and especial emphasis will be laid on the conversation the two men had some days ago in the negro’s cell.

It is not improbable that Mr. Frank himself will be recalled to the stand. Despite the fact that he gave testimony for three hours and a half, the stenographic record of his statement is being examined by the officials in order that they may bring him back if they are able to find any pertinent question that was not put to him during the three and one-half hours examination Monday.

Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the tipping department in which Mary Phagan worked, may be another witness before the inquest. Quinn’s corroboration of Frank’s statement that he (Quinn) came to the factory a few minutes after Mary Phagan got her pay envelope will, it is said, be attacked by the detectives.

Few other witnesses will be examined Thursday, it is said, although it is probable that the two girls who are said to have been paid shortly before Mary Phagan arrived at the factory, may be put on the stand.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 7th 1913, “Two New Witnesses in Phagan Mystery to Testify Thursday,” 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 14^th, 1913

Bending his efforts to break down the testimony of Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, Solicitor Dorsey subjected the witness to a severe grilling when court reconvened at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon.

When Quinn resumed the stand he was still under direct examination by the defense. In answer to Attorney Arnold he declared that he was still an employee of the National Pencil factory.

Solicitor Dorsey began cross-examination.

“When was it these men bled on the floor of the metal room?”

“About a year ago,” Quinn replied.

“What were their names?”

“I remember that C. P. Gilbert, who lives on Jones street, was one. I don’t remember the name of the other.”

“You noticed the spots on the floor of the dressing room on Monday after the murder?”
“Yes, it looked like blood.”

“What is the difference between those spots and the spots made by Gilbert’s bleeding?”
“The spots by the dressing room were darker.”

“Could gasoline have caused that.”

“I don’t know.”

“Where were you at noon on April 26?”
“At the factory.”

“Didn’t you tell Officer Payne that you were not at the factory, and that you were glad you were not there?”
“No.”

“Didn’t you tell Detective Starnes that you were not at the factory?”
“No, sir.”

Reminded Frank of Visit.

“Didn’t you tell Frank and didn’t he tell you not to say anything about it until he told his lawyer?”
“No, sir.”

“Tell us how you reminded Frank of your visit to the factory?”
“I told him that I had been to the factory on Saturday and he replied that he knew that I had.”

“What did he say?”

“He said he would tell his lawyer.”
“Didn’t you go to see Frank and didn’t you say, ‘Why Mister Frank, I was there Saturday,’ and didn’t he say, ‘That’s right, you were there?’”

“The first time I mentioned it to Frank he said that he would tell his lawyer and the next time I mentioned it to him he said that he had told his lawyer.”

“Didn’t you say to him, ‘I don’t want to be mixed up in this thing but if it will help you, Mister Frank, I’ll do whatever you say for me to do?’”

“I think it was like that.”

“What was it you said to Officer Payne?”
“I don’t remember saying anything to him.”

Tells of Conversation.

“Didn’t you testify at the inquest that you walked into a Greek stand Sunday and that Payne and the Greek were talking about the murder, and you said, ‘What? Another Jack-the-Ripper?’ And didn’t Payne say, ‘No, a white girl has been murdered at the pencil factory,’ and didn’t you say, ‘Who was it?’ And didn’t Payne say she worked next to Boot Roger’s sister in law? And didn’t you say, ‘Why it must be Helen Ferguson?’ And didn’t the Greek say, ‘No, it was Mary Phagan?’”

“Yes, that was about the way of it.”

“It was 2 o’clock in the afternoon of the Saturday following the murder that you told Chief Lanford or any of the officers about being in the factory Saturday, April 26, wasn’t it?”

“Yes.”

“What time was it you spoke to Frank about your being in the factory?”
“I think it was Tuesday. It was about 2 o’clock Tuesday.”

Witness Makes Denial.

“Didn’t you make the statement before the coroner’s jury that Frank said that he was going to mention the fact that you were in the factory to his lawyers and if favorable he would call you?”
“I did not make the statement that Frank said he would see his lawyer and find out whether or not is [sic] was favorable.”

“What has come into your mind to make you say at the coroner’s inquest that you went to the factory between 12 and 12:20 and now you state that it was between 12:20 and 12:25?”
“I have given the matter more careful study since that time.”

Not After 12 O’clock.

“You are positive that it was not after 12 when you left home?”
“No, sir.”

“How long does it take you to walk from home to the factory?”

“From ten to fifteen minutes.”

On redirect examination by Attorney Arnold, Quinn explained that at the time he made the statements to Solicitor Dorsey and before the inquest he had not remembered that he had been to Wolfsheimer’s meat market.

“I mentioned the matter to my father and my wife and my wife reminded me that I had been to the meat market.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Lemmie Quinn is Severely Grilled by Solicitor Dorsey,” 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 14^th, 1913

Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal department of the National Pencil factory, was put on the stand by the defense following the ex-office boy.

“Aren’t you foreman of the department Mary Phagan worked in?”
“Yes.”

“Do you recall the time R. P. Barrett found the spots on the floor?”
“Yes.”

“Did Barrett ever state to you about his hope of getting a reward?”
“Yes, he asked my opinion.”

“What statement has he made about getting a reward if Frank should be convicted?”

“He asked me if I didn’t think he was entitled to something.”

“Did anybody ever see that blood or the strands of hair before he pointed them out, did they?”
“Not that I know.”

“Did you ever notice any spots on the floor?”
“Yes, quite often.”

“Did you ever know a man named Gilbert?”
“Yes, he got cut in the metal room about a year ago and was carried out to the ambulance.”

“Did he bleed much?”
“Yes, from a gash in his head.”

“Do you know what the white stuff on the floor was?”

“No.”

“Does hascoline ever get on the floor?”
“Yes, frequently.”

Floor Never Scrubbed.

“Has the floor ever been scrubbed since you remember?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see the hair?”
“Yes.”

“Could you tell what color it was?”
“No.”

“Is there any place near the lathe where the girls dress their hair?”
“Yes, a gas jet is about ten feet away and they often dress their hair there.”

“Isn’t there a window nearby from which the breeze might blow stray hairs towards the lathe?”

“Yes.”

“What was the day on which you saw Mary Phagan last?”
“On Monday before the murder.”

“Did you ever see Frank speak to her?”
“No.”

“What time did you get up Saturday morning?”
“At 7 o’clock.”

“Did you go to see Frank?”
“Yes.”

“What was your idea in going there?”
“I went to see Schiff.”

“Was he there?”
“No.”

“Was the door open or closed?”
“Open.”

“Did you see Conley?”
“No.”

“Did you see Mary Phagan?”
“No.”

“Did you see Monteen Stover?”
“No.”

Frank in Office Alone.

“Did you see Leo Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Was the door to Frank’s office open?”
“Yes.”

“Do you recollect how the safe door was?”
“I think it was open.”

“What time were you there?”
“About 12:20 o’clock.”

“Did you see anybody else in there besides Frank?”
“No.”

“What was he doing?”
“Writing.”

“What did you say?”
“I said, ‘Good morning,’ and he said the same.”

“Anything else?”
“I said, ‘You can’t keep me away, even on holidays.’”

“How was Frank dressed that morning?”
“In a brown suit; he had his coat off.”

“Did you see any blood around the metal department Monday?”
“No.”

“Did you see any place where blood had been washed up?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see any blood in the metal room where Jim Conley says the body was found?”
“No.”

Court then adjourned for the noon lunch hour with Quinn to be further examined later.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Quinn Intimates That Spots May Have Been on Floor for Months,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Atlanta Georgian
August 14^th, 1913

Call New Witnesses to Complete Alibi

WIFE AND MOTHER OF ACCUSED ARE WARNED AGAINST OUTBREAKS

Nearly a score more of alibi witnesses were to be called by the defense in the Frank trial when court opened Thursday morning. Frank’s attorneys thought that they would not be able to coincide before the early part of next week.

A number of character witnesses also will be called before the defense ends its case in behalf of the factory superintendent.

Solicitor Dorsey, before the jury was brought in, said he wanted to make a request that the mother and wife of Leo M. Frank be excluded from the court as the witnesses have been because of the outbreak of the elder Mrs. Frank Wednesday afternoon.

“I appreciate the feeling of the wife and mother,” he said, “it is a terrible strain on them. I am sorry for them. But I must have protection and I think they should be excluded when we are subjected to outbreaks like that of yesterday.”

Attorney Reuben in reply said:

“Without criticizing Mrs. Frank, I want to state that the Solicitor’s examination of the witness yesterday was far worse than her outbreak. He was undertaking to get in evidence in an illegal way. He could not get it in a legal way. He was appealing to the crowd and to the feelings of the jury. Does your honor think that good practice—honorable practice—especially when a man is on trial for his life?”
Judge Roan ruled, after more arguing:

“You are entirely right, Mr. Dorsey, in saying that you are entitled to protection. Other women were put out because the evidence was of such a nature as to be indecent to be heard by them. It is a matter in the discretion of the court to state whether these ladies should be allowed to remain. I will say that if there are any more such outbreaks as yesterday I shall be forced to exclude them.”

Mr. Frank, the mother and the prisoner’s wife were both in court while the argument was in progress.

The calling of four character witnesses Wednesday opened the floodgates for the State to get before the jury all of its accusations against Frank, and was the direct cause of a frantic outburst on the part of Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, who rose from her chair and dramatically denounced Solicitor General Dorsey.

It was the first scene created by any of the members of the prisoner’s family. Frank’s wife and mother were perceptibly affected when the Solicitor previously was hurling his charges of gross misconduct against the defendant, but both had restrained themselves from any marked demonstration.

Feeling Reaches Bursting Point.

The elder woman persistently had maintained an almost expressionless face while the most abhorrent charges were being made. Save that she looked away from the crowd as if it were a terrible ordeal to listen to the testimony. It would have been impossible to tell that it was one of her loved ones against whom the charges were being made.

Her feelings, however, had reached the bursting point Wednesday. She could stand the attack against her son’s character no longer. From the impassive and quietly suffering woman she was goaded to the fury of a tigress.

From the lips of the Solicitor General flowed a stream of implied accusations. He asked about alleged incidents in Frank’s office at the factory; about incidents in the girl’s dressing room which the Solicitor intimated that Frank invaded without apology or excuse.

The mother of Frank lifted her eyes to the Solicitor. There was in them no longer the look of resignation with which the other charges had been met. In its place blazed hate and outraged mother love. She was willing no longer to await the end of the trial for her son’s vindication.

Denounces Solicitor.

The Solicitor continued. He gave the names of girls of tender years. He narrated circumstances that brought a crimson flood to the fact of the younger Mrs. Frank.

“Haven’t you heard of these stories?” he asked insinuatingly of the witness, Ashley Jones.

“No, nor you either!” cried the mother.

She was on her feet. The court room was astounded at the suddenness and dramatic intensity of the outburst. Persons rose here and there among the spectators, oblivious of the calls for order of the court attaches.

Mrs. Frank stood in hysterical indignation before the Solicitor. She said things to him that were lost in the confusion. She would have continued her tirade had she not been restrained by court deputies and members of her own family who rushed to her side to quiet and comfort her.

“My God, my God,” she moaned as she was led sobbing from the courtroom. She was taken home in a hysterical condition. She returned toward the close of the afternoon session, but did not reenter the courtroom.

If the denunciation affected the Solicitor, the did not show it unless it was by a line of questioning even more severe than he had pursued before.

Testimony Aids Frank.

Jones, an insurance man, in whose company Frank holds a policy denied that he had heard any of the reports of alleged immorality. He said that the young man’s record, in respect to health habits and morals, had been very thoroughly investigated before the policy was issued. He testified that Frank showed an unusually clean record.

The bars were let down for the introduction of testimony against Frank’s character when the defense put on the stand Alfred L. Lane, of Brooklyn, a classmate of Frank in Pratt Institute. Lane said that he had known Frank for figteen [sic] years and that he knew he possessed a good character.

Lane was followed by two other of Frank’s classmates.

They were Richard A. Wright, a consulting engineer of Brooklyn, and Philip Nash, a clerical engineer, of Ridgewood, N. J. Both testified as to his good character. Several witnesses intervened and then Ashley Jones was called.

Important testimony was given by Dr. William Owens, who was one of four men who sought to reproduce the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body as Jim Conley described it. William A. Fleming took the part of Frank and a Mr. Brent the part of Conley. Conley said that he and Frank carried the body downstairs and returned to Frank’s office in about five minutes.

Dr. Owens said that it took them about eighteen and a half minutes to carry out the drama in the pencil factory, exclusive of writing the notes and also exclusive of the time that Conley said he spent in the wardrobe in Frank’s office.

If the defense is able to make the jurors believe that it would have taken Frank and Conley eighteen and a half minutes to accomplish this they will have established what is considered a very strong alibi for the superintendent. To this must be added the eight minutes that Conley declares he was in Frank’s wardrobe and about twelve minutes for the writing of the four notes—this is half of the time that it probably would have taken the negro to write them according to the testimony of Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective. This makes a total of thirty-nine and one-half minutes. Conley said they started with the body at 12:56. The thirty-eight and one-half minutes would have brought the time to 1:34 1-2.

But, according to one of the State’s own witnesses, Frank had left the factory and had arrived home at 1:30—or, in other words, had arrived home before the disposal of the body could have been accomplished.

Quinn Severely Grilled.

Lemmie Quinn, metal department foreman, received a severe grilling from Solicitor Dorsey in the afternoon, but stuck to his story, that he visited the office of Frank at about 12:20 the afternoon of the murder. This is in contradiction of Conley’s story, who testified that he saw Quinn enter the factory before Mary Phagan and Monteen Stover came. The Solicitor displayed affidavits of Quinn in which the foreman said he had been at the factory sometime between 12 and 12:30 o’clock. Quinn said that at the time he made the affidavit he had not estimated the time so closely as he had been able to do since.

Other witnesses of the day were Dr. William S. Kendrick, head of the chair of medicine of the new Atlanta Medical School; Frank Payne, a former office boy for Frank, and Oscar Pappenheimer, a stockholder in the National Pencil Factory.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 14th 1913, “State Wants Wife and Mother Excluded,” 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 13^th, 1913

ACTION A CHALLENGE TO STATE TO PUT UP WITNESSES IN REBUTTAL WHO OTHERWISE COULDN’T TESTIFY

Lemmie Quinn, Foreman In Metal Room, Tells the Jury He Visited Factory on Saturday, April 26, and Found Frank at His Desk Writing at 12:20 o’Clock, the Very Minute Almost That State Claims Mary Phagan Must Have Been Killed

EFFORTS TO SHOW EXPERIMENTS OF WITNESSES WHO RE-ENACTED CONLEY’S STORY BRING FIGHT

Judge Roan Delays Decision Until Both Sides Can Submit Authorities—Dr. W. S. Kendrick Declares Dr. H. F. Harris Was Guessing in Conclusions He Gave About Mary Phagan’s Death—Three School Mate Friends of Frank Tell of His Good Character

The character of Leo M. Frank was put in issue Wednesday morning by his attorneys during the fifteenth day’s session of his trial for the murder of Mary Phagan.

While not unexpected the fact that the defense has thrown down the bars and challenged the state to put a blot on the character of the young factory superintendent was decidedly the feature of the morning session. Generally the defense in important criminal cases does not put the defendant’s character in issue, for few people can stand the searching investigation to which the accused is generally subjected by detectives. Since Frank was first accused of the Phagan murder there have been constant rumors that the detectives have found witnesses who are ready to attack the character of the accused. These witnesses, if the detectives have found them, could never have testified had the defense not paved the way by putting his character in issue and practically challenging the state to its weaknesses. This action on the part of the defense means that Frank’s attorneys are confident that the defendant’s life will stand the white light of investigation.

The direct case of the defense is almost finished. When the noon recess was taken Wednesday, Attorney Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold expected to be through with all except character witnesses in less than a day’s time.

The defense scored an important point Wednesday, when Lemmie Quinn, a factory foreman, declared that he saw Frank in his office, writing at 12:30, almost the exact time that the state claims Frank killed Mary Phagan. Quinn was still on the witness stand, when court adjourned for the noon recess, and the indications were that the completion of his direct and cross-examination would occupy an hour and possibly two hours of the afternoon.

Alfred L. Lane, who went to school with Frank at Pratt Institute, a New York merchant, who resides in Brooklyn, was the first witness to take the stand and tell of Frank’s good character. He came to Atlanta especially for the purpose of testifying.

ATTORNEYS CLASH OVER EVIDENCE.

Philip Nash, of Greenwood, N. J., and Richard A. Knight, of Brooklyn, N. Y., both schoolmates of Frank, both testified that his character was excellent. No other character witnesses were put up during the morning, Attorney Arnold stating that the three who testified had come a long ways and for that reason he had called them early.

Efforts of the defense to get before the jury experiments made by four men, who re-enacted Jim Conley’s story as told on the witness stand, at the pencil factory, taking part in the conversations and movements [t]hat Conley claims he participated in, brought a vigorous protest from Solicitor Dorsey.

The solicitor contended that the court had declined to permit the evidence in regard to Conley’s pantomime reproduction of his own story and that to admit the experiments made by the defense would be a direct reversal of his former decision. He declared that if the evidence is admitted he will seek to rebut it with Conley’s own pantomime, previously ruled out.

Attorneys Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser both replied eloquently and authorities were cited on both sides. Judge Roan finally decided to postpone his decision until afternoon, when further authorities could be assembled and arguments heard. The point will be bitterly contested. Dr. William Owens was on the stand when the argument took place, it being the purpose of the defense to show through him that Conley could not have acted the part he claimed within the time alleged and that his story was therefore impossible.

Dr. W. S. Kendrick testified as the first witness Wednesday morning, characterizing Dr. Harris’ conclusions as given in reference to Mary Phagan as guesses. He was cross-questioned at length by the solicitor.

Dr. William Owens was called and had taken the stand as the defense’s first witness for the day, Wednesday, when he consented to give way to Dr. W. S. Kendrick, another witness, who was in a hurry to leave the court.

Dr. Kendrick said he had been practicing general medicine for thirty-eight years and was not a specialist of any sort. He was elected the dean of the old Atlanta Medical college twenty-seven years ago, he said, and was the founder of the Atlanta School of Medicine. He gave Dr. H. F. Harris his first position as a professor of medicine, he said, and also gave him his first position as a professor of bacteriology after he had taken a special course in Philadelphia. In answer to hypothetical questions Dr. Kendrick followed the other experts put on the stand for the defense, characterizing every important feature of Dr. Harris’ testimony as “guess work.”

Dr. Kendrick discussed conditions in Mary Phagan’s body, the hemorrhage, and the blow on the head. He discussed then the conditions reported in Mary Phagan’s stomach. He said that though he is not a stomach specialist, he had been lecturing on diseases of the stomach for thirty-five years.

NO DEPENDABLE OPINION.

Dr. Kendrick said, in answer to one of Mr. Arnold’s questions: “I have explained to my class, probably 1,000 times, that each stomach is a law unto itself.” He said that no dependable opinion was to the length of time food has been in the stomach could be formed from an examination of its contents after death. He does not think, he said, that there is an expert in the world who could form such an opinion that could be relied on.

Solicitor Dorsey attacked the witness vigorously on cross-examination. The examination was interrupted by frequent tilts among the attorneys.

After a few preliminary questions, the solicitor put to the witness a long hypothetical question regarding the stomach and its various functions, in an effort to make the witness commit herself on an opinion as to the length of time food found in a certain state had been in the stomach. Dr. Kendrick replied that he couldn’t advance an opinion. “I am not a specialist, and not an expert on the stomach,” said he. “I am only a practitioner of medicine.”

“There are very few experts on the stomach in Atlanta, are ther[e] not, doctor?” asked the solicitor.

NOT STOMACH SPECIALISTS.

“Yes, there are only a few; but they are more than we need,” answered the witness.

“Is Dr. Westmoreland a stomach spe—[…]

FRANK’S CHARACTER MADE ISSUE BY THE DEFENSE IN TRIAL

[…]—cialist?” asked the solicitor. Dr. Westmoreland had testified previously for the defense.

“Well, I’ve been his family physician for thirty years.”

“I didn’t ask you that. I asked if he is a stomach specialist.”

“He is a surgeon,” said the witness.

“Is Dr. Hancock, a surgeon for the Georgia Railway and Power company, a stomach specialist?” asked the solicitor.

Dr. Hancock also had testified for the defense.

“No, sir.”

In answer to other questions, Dr. Kendrick disclosed the fact that all practitioners of medicine and of surgery possess a certain practical knowledge of the stomach, although very few of them are stomach specialists.

CLASH BETWEEN COUNSEL.

Solicitor Dorsey then put another hypothetical question, giving the conditions found in Mary Phagan’s stomach and the report upon its contents, and asked Dr. Kendrick again if he could not venture some kind of opinion as to how long the cabbage had been in her stomach. Dr. Kendrick said he could not hazard such an opinion. The witness admitted in answer to questions, that certain general principles regarding the functions of the stomach and digestive apparatus are recognized as well as tables on that subject compiled by scientists. In answer to one of Solicitor Dorsey’s questions, Dr. Kendrick retorted “I can’t digest cabbage at all, for instance.” Solicitor Dorsey admonished the witness that did not answer his question. Attorney Arnold addressed the court, “I think, your honor, that it’s very pertinent,” said he. Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court, “This man may be a dyspeptic. Probably he is,” said the solicitor. Dr. Kendrick interposed, “No, sir.” Attorney Arnold concluded by crying, “It’s just his way of jumping on everybody who appears in this case.” He said, further, that the witness was old enough to be Mr. Dorsey’s father and his testimony should be credible and Solicitor Dorsey retorted, “Yes, that’s right.”

Solicitor Dorsey then put another question to Dr. Kendrick regarding digestion and the witness replied that in the normal stomach digestion begins as soon as the food enters. There followed several questions of a technical nature, until Dr. Kendrick replied to one, “I don’t know.”

Attorney Arnold interrupted, “He says, your honor, that he’s not a laboratory man.”

“Yes, I know he does and so do you. You’ve already got it in the record,” said the solicitor.

WAS HOMER TAUGHT?

“Isn’t it true, Dr. Kendrick,” asked the solicitor, “that Homer excelled all the men who taught him?”

Attorney Arnold turned around to Mr. Dorsey, “Nobody never taught him,” said he, referring to Homer. There followed a little side debate as to whether Homer had any teachers or not. The solicitor contended that history said Homer had 3,000 teachers and that finally he grew wiser than all of them.

“It’s true, isn’t it, doctor, that students sometimes excel the master?”

“Yes,” answered Dr. Kendrick.

“The progress of digestion is not complete until hydrochloric acid is found in its free state in the stomach. Is that correct, doctor?”

“Yes; I have taught that.”

“When the descending scale begins, the process of digestion is complete, isn’t it?”
“I don’t know as to that.”

“Isn’t it true that free hydrochloric acid means that digestion is finished?”
“It is reasonable to say so—yes.”

“When you find undigested food and a small degree of hydrochloric acid, it means that digestion is hardly complete, doesn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“It is an irresistible conclusion, isn’t it, doctor?”
“Well, I should say it was the general rule.”

“You would be obliged to come to that conclusion, shouldn’t you, doctor?”

EACH STOMACH A LAW.

“Well, I don’t know. As I have said, ‘Each stomach is a law unto itself.’ I personally wouldn’t eat cabbage at all because it makes me sick each time I eat it.”

“Well, I guess a Welsh rarebit would make you sick, too, wouldn’t it, doctor?”
“I never saw a Welsh rarebit.” (Laughter in court.)

“There are certain fundamental principles that govern the stomach, aren’t there?”
“Yes, I should say so, but I still say that every stomach is more or less a law unto itself.”

“There are four stages of digestion, aren’t there?”
“I am not a stomach specialist. I haven’t read anything on digestion in ten years.”

“How long does it take an ordinary stomach to digest turnips?”
“I never tested it.”

“You don’t mean to say you try every principle of medicine on yourself, do you?”
“No.”

“Well, you do know how long it would take to digest [1 word illegible] in an ordinary stomach, don’t you?”
“I should say from three to four hours, like an ordinary mixed meal.”

“Don’t you know that Dr. Crittenden of Yale university has made an elaborate study of the subject of digestion?”
“Yes, and [several words illegible] specialists sometimes [several words illegible].

QUESTION [two words illegible]

“Well, of course [several words illegible] the attribute of the [word illegible] isn’t it, doctor?”
To this question Attorney Arnold objected vigorously on the ground that it was improper. Solicitor Dorsey replied that it was no more improper than Dr. Kendrick’s commonplace platitudes. Then followed a hot wrangle among the attorneys, which finally subsided when the court ruled that Solicitor Dorsey’s question and his comment were both improper and should be stricken from the records.

The solicitor propounded the following hypothetical question, “Suppose a child about thirteen or fourteen years old ate cabbage, around 11:30 o’clock in the morning. Suppose her body was found at 3:30 a. m. the following morning. Suppose the tongue was out, there were deep indentations on the neck, a small wound in the back of the head, one eye discolored, the under clothes bloody, the body stiff, all the blood in the body [1 word illegible] on the lower side as it lay on the ground. Suppose you knew the small intestine was clear for six feet below the stomach. Suppose you had every indication that digestion had been progressing favorably. Suppose you found starch granules undigested. Suppose you found the acidity at 32 degrees. Wouldn’t you venture an opinion as to how long the cabbage had been in the stomach before death?”

NO MAN COULD TELL.

“I should say emphatically that no living man could have said how long the cabbage had been in the stomach before death. And if you care to hear it, I will give you my reason for saying that.”

Solicitor Dorsey indicated that he didn’t care to hear the witness’ explanation, but Mr. Arnold interrupted, insisting that Dr. Kendrick should be allowed to explain. If Solicitor Dorsey didn’t want the explanation, the defense certainly did and he thought the jury was entitled to have it, Dr. Kendrick proceeded.

His explanation in substance was as follows: That taking the case of Mary Phagan, for instance, if in thirty minutes after she ate her cabbage and bread she was alarmed by something, digestion would have been almost completely arrested. He said if she had lived six hours after the alarm, there would have been practically no progress in the digestion. He said that he had frequently had patients whose digestion had been arrested by violent emotions, or somethings by violent heat in summer, and he had found undigested food in their stomachs from ten to twenty-four hours later.

Dr. Kendrick declared, in answer to other questions, that he would consider himself “the greatest surgeon living” if he could examine a body, ten days after death and get any definite idea as to how long after eating a certain meal the person died. He declared that he did not believe it was possible to tell anything accurate even in two or three days.

“You and Dr. Westmoreland and some of the others are very bitter toward Dr. Harris, are you not?”

NOT BITTER TOWARD HARRIS.

“I call on anybody to say that they ever heard me utter a bitter word against Dr. Harris. I have given him everything he has had except the position on the board of health.”

“And Dr. Westmoreland gave him that, didn’t he?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“And Dr. Harris has still got it, hasn’t he?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes.”

Attorney Arnold examined the witness again, and exhibited the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach.

“Leaving out the acid, and things like that,” said he, “this cabbage looks like it had hardly been chewed at all, doesn’t it?”
“Yes.”

HARD TO DIGEST.

“Cabbage chewed no more than that would be terribly hard to digest, wouldn’t it?”
“It certainly would.”

“Dr. Kendrick, you say every stomach is a law unto itself?”
“True or false. I’ve been teaching that for many years.”

Mr. Arnold asked the witness about laboratory men, or chemists. Dr. Kendrick replied that he had a young man who had been practicing only eighteen months, whom he considers as good as anyone else for chemical analyses of the stomach.

Mr. Arnold brought out the point that laboratory men usually work under the regular practitioners.

“Ten days after death, what becomes of the hydrochloric acid by the process of asmosis?” asked Mr. Arnold.

Dr. Kendrick said he did not know.

“What effect would formaldehyde have on the pancreatic juices?”
“I don’t know.”

Dr. Kendrick was excused.

DR. OWENS CALLED.

Dr. William Owens, who described himself as a physician and a real estate operator, was called to the stand.

“Did you make certain tests at the National Pencil factory to determine”—

“We object,” said Solicitor Dorsey.

“Wait till you’ve heard the question,” said Mr. Arnold.

“Oh, I know what it will be,” said Mr. Dorsey, “and I object right now.”

Mr. Arnold addressed the court, “Your honor, we want to show that these gentlemen have gone through certain movements and have made certain conversations, following verbatim conversations which Conley alleged to have occurred and movements which he claimed to have made. They’ve used the same steps, the same elevator, the same metal room, in the same building. What is the difference between that and testimony given by the expert accountants on the financial sheet?”

SOLICITOR’S OBJECTION.

“This is not an expert matter,” said Mr. Dorsey. “Your honor recently ruled out evidence that we tried to put in, as to the time it took Jim Conley, one of the real actors in this matter, to go through the movements and conversations which he described. And now these gentlemen want the jury to hear the details of this farce which these others have gone through. I say that it is thoroughly inadmissible.”

“Well, put your question, so we can see,” directed Judge Roan.

Mr. Arnold addressed the witness. “You have gone through certain movements at our request in the National Pencil factory, have you not?”

“Well, I just kept the time and followed along,” said the witness.

“Who was with you?”

“A Mr. Wilson, who I think is with the express company; Mr. Brent and Mr. Fleming.”

“What did you carry?”

“Brent carried a 110-pound sack.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. “We tried to show, your honor, how long it took Jim Conley to execute these movements, and it was ruled out. And now they want to put in the testimony of this builder who had no part in the actual crime.”

Mr. Arnold interrupted, “The gentleman always tries to show that your honor has done something to him. And then he almost cries about it and used that as an argument. At the time that Conley made the demonstration at the factory he was only at the third stage of his lying, and since then he has put in many new features. Then he denied seeing Mary Phagan. He denied seeing Monteen Stover. He denied having heard any screams or having heard footsteps toward the metal room. And he left out many extremely important statements which he gave when on the stand.”

Attorney Hooper objected to the use of the word “lying.” Judge Roan directed Mr. Arnold to couch his objection in more admissible language.

SAYS DECISION IS REVERSED.

“Your honor, when we were presenting our case,” said the solicitor, “we not only asked Conley about the time it took him to carry the body down, but also other witnesses, if you admit this evidence, it is a positive reversal of your former ruling. Isn’t the testimony of the man who actually went through it himself better than that of a man who held a watch while others did it?”
“Mr. Dorsey, if the question of time came up before,” said Judge Roan, “I will rule with you. I don’t remember that the time came up, though.”

“Well, if it does go in, we will expect to bring it up again in rebuttal, your honor. You will be called on again to pass on the admissibility of this evidence.”

Attorney Arnold commented “that question would have to be decided then,” produced a paper depicting the scene of the carrying of the body to the basement, as told by Conley, and directed Attorney Leavitt, one of the subordinate counsel for the defense, to read it to the jury.

The document, some 2,000 words long, was arranged much in the form of a moving picture scenario upon Conley’s testimony, using Conley’s words from the transcript of evidence given in court, according to Attorney Arnold.

Mr. Leavitt read it to the jury. It went in as a part of the question, the witness being expected to answer that he and his companions had enacted the scenario. A copy of the paper was furnished to Solicitor Dorsey. At the conclusion he objected again to the question. “They’ve got things mixed up here. There are some things in here that actually occurred Monday and Tuesday. This witness has no right to testify about it anyhow. It is purely a matter of opinion.”

ATTORNEYS ARGUE AGAIN.

Attorney Arnold followed with a long and eloquent argument, contending that it was not an opinion; that Dr. Owens had been called to testify about facts. The witness took the scenario, he said, and saw men re-enact Conley’s story; and he held a watch to time them while they followed it as faithfully as possible.

Solicitor Dorsey answered, contending that the witness was not an expert and that he therefore could not give the results of tehts [sic].

“Experts can give the results of tests under certain conditions,” said he, “but this man is not an expert. Is this man an expert at strangling girls to death? Is he an expert at running elevators? Is he an expert at carrying dead bodies?”

Judge Roan replied to Mr. Dorsey: “I’m not going to let this man give an opinion. Here is the point Mr. Arnold makes, though. Suppose a man walks from here to Whitehall street. If he testifies as to the time he thinks it took him, he is advancing an opinion. But if he was timed by a watch and testified as to the actual time it took him, he is testifying to fact. I am inclined to let the time in.”

Solicitor Dorsey argued again, still claiming that it was a matter of opinion.

Judge Roan said: “You don’t need to argue on that, Mr. Dorsey. I’m with you on the opinion part of it. I’m not going to let an opinion in.”

“It’s expert testimony, your honor, or none,” said the solicitor. “These twelve men are twelve times as competent to judge, as the witness.”

“Mr. Dorsey, if there is nothing in the negro’s testimony to show the speed with which he moved, I am inclined to believe this is nothing but guesswork,” said Judge Roan.

Attorney Arnold addressed the court, “I am going to show that this man went to the pencil factory and went through this operation as quickly as was reasonably possible. Would your honor hold that we are bound by the simple statement of this lying negro?”

ROSSER ENTERS DEBATE.

Attorney Rosser entered the debate for the first time. “It’s impossible for any man to duplicate a feat in exactly the same time as any other man did it, or any man to duplicate a feat that he himself did. If I walk into my office, the presumption is that I do it in an ordinary time. In the law of experimentation, it is assumed that it took a man an ordinary time to do anything.” He concluded by saying: “We only want to show with approximate accuracy the length of time of this operation, and leave it to the jury to decide just how accurate it is.”

Solicitor Dorsey challenged the attorneys for the defense to produce any authority in support of their contention. He declared if their proposition was being urged by anyone of less than their well known and recognized ability, the court would not consider it for a moment.

To this Judge Roan replied that he had no more respect for their ability than for any other lawyer’s ability. He said he was going to decide the question as nearly as he could according to the law.

DECISION DEFERRED.

Solicitor Dorsey based his argument on the ground that a non-expert witness cannot testify as to the result of experiments made out of court. He read several decisions in support of that contention. Attorney Arnold took the decision on which Solicitor Dorsey laid particular stress and read a little further down and made it appear in support of his contention, where the decision said that an act or a series of acts may be re-enacted under practically the same circumstances as sworn to in court, and the results testified to.

After arguments on both sides had proceeded for several minutes and the attorneys on both sides continued sending for authorities, Judge Roan suggested that the witness be excused until the afternoon; that the attorneys in the meantime assemble their authorities and finish their arguments at a time to be agreed on during the afternoon session. Dr. Owens said that it would be convenient for him to return during the afternoon, and the judge’s suggestion was agreed to by both sides.

DALTON ATTACKED AGAIN.

The defense called seven witnesses from Gwinnett county, who declared that they knew C. B. Dalton and would not believe him on oath. Only one or two of them were cross-examined, admitting that it had been a number of years—about fifteen—since they knew Dalton. In each instance Mr. Arnold asked on the redirect examination if the witnesses though his character had improved, upon his own admissions; the witnesses replying that they did not think it had. The witnesses were A. O. Nix, an attorney, of Lawrenceville, who testified that Dalton had been tried in the city court of that place for stealing; Samuel Craig, a farmer, who owns 500 acres of land; B. L. Patterson, another farmer who owns 700 acres; Robert Craig, farmer; T. L. Ambrose, a merchant and farmer, and J. P. Byrd, merchant.

The attack on Dalton’s character was followed by character witnesses for Leo M. Frank, the accused.

CHARACTER PUT IN ISSUE.

Alfred L. Lane, of Brooklyn, N. Y., a merchant in New York City, was the first witness. He said that he had known Frank for fifteen years. He said that from 1898 to 1902 they were associated intimately in Pratt Institute. Solicitor Dorsey interrupted, declaring that he did not see the relevancy of the questions unless the defense was putting the defendant’s character at issue.

“That’s exactly what we are doing,” said Mr. Arnold.

The witness continued that he did not go to Cornell with Frank, but saw him there. Asked the formal questions as to the defendant’s character, the witness replied “Good,” with emphasis. He was not cross-examined by the solicitor. Mr. Lane stated that he arrived in Atlanta at 5 o’clock Tuesday afternoon to testify for Frank.

Philip Nash was called. He testified that his home is in Greenwood, N. J., and that he is a clerical engineer for the New York Telephone company.

“Did you come to Atlanta to testify in this case?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“I did.”

He testified that he had known Leo M. Frank since 1895; that they were associated four years as schoolmates; that frequently they were in the same class rooms when the witness was between sixteen and twenty years of age. The witness testified that the general character of the accused is good.

Richard A. Knight, of Brooklyn, N. Y., stated that he is a consulting engineer with an office of his own. He testified that he had known Frank six years while going to school with him at Pratt Institute, in Brooklyn, and at Cornell; that he was in the class ahead of Frank at college; that his reputation was good.

With these three character witnesses the defense dismissed that subject for a while. Attorney Arnold stating that the three had come a long way to testify and that he did not wish to hold them any longer than was necessary.

EX-OFFICE BOY CALLED.

The defense next called Frank Payne, aged sixteen, formerly an office boy employed by the National Pencil company. He testified that he severed his connection with the factory eight or ten months ago, and that he is not working now nor going to school.

“Do you memember [sic] last Thanksgiving day?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Yes, sir.”

“What kind of a day was it?”
“There was snow on ground.” In answer to further questions he said that he worked for the pencil company until about three weeks after Thanksgiving, and that he had worked for them two or three weeks before Thanksgiving—a total of about six weeks in all. He testified that Herbert Schiff had sent him upstairs to work in the box room on that day.

“Where were Frank and Schiff when you were given these instructions?”
“In the office.”

“What did you do on the fourth floor?”
“Moved some boxes.”

“Who was there with you?”
“Jim Conley.”

“What time did you leave?”
“About 11 o’clock.”

CONLEY LEFT AT 10:30.

“What time did Conley go?”

“About 10:30 o’clock.”

“Did you go down to Frank’s office when you left there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Were Frank and Schiff in there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What time did you leave the building?”
“About 12 o’clock.”

“Did you see a negro in the hallway as you went down the stairs?”
“No, sir.”

“On Saturday afternoons when did you usually leave?”
“Between 3:30 and 4 o’clock.”

“Did you ever know Frank to have any women in his office?”
“No, sir, he never did.”

“Did you ever at any time see him buy drinks for any women?”
“No, sir.”

The boy testified that when he left on Saturday afternoons he always left Schiff and Frank in the office. He said in answer to other questions that his dinner hour was from 1 to 2 o’clock, and that Frank usually left for dinner about 12:30 or 1 o’clock and returned about 3 o’clock.

“Where did you stay most of the time?”

“In Mr. Frank’s office.”

“Was Mr. Schiff there, too?”

“Yes.”

“Did they ever send you to Montag’s in the morning?”
“Yes, all the time.”

“How long did you stay?”
“Ten or fifteen minutes.”

“What work was Jim Conley doing on the fourth floor on Thanksgiving day?”
“He was working all around up there.”
Frank Payne, the witness, was cross-examined by Attorney Hooper.

“What was your work?” asked Mr. Hooper.

“I was general office boy.”

“Were Mr. Frank and Mr. Schiff in the office all of the time?”
“Yes.”

“When did you leave the employ of the factory?”
“Seven or eight months ago.”

“Why did you leave?”
“Because I got a better job.”

“You say you left on Saturday afternoons between 3:30 and 4 o’clock?”
“Yes.”

“You say you left Mr. Frank there, and Mr. Schiff?”
“Yes.”

“You never went back there at night?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever see any beer bottles around the office?”
“No.”

“What time did you get there Thanksgiving morning?”

“Between 1 and 3 o’clock.”

“Who was there when you got there?”
“Mr. Holloway.”

“You say Jim Conley left the building about 10:30?”
“Yes.”

“What time did you leave?”
“About 11 o’clock.”

“Did you come back?”
“No.”

“Then you don’t’ know whether Jim came back or not?”
“No.”

“You are not certain he left the building at all, are you?”
“I see him go downstairs.”

This closed the cross-examination.

QUINN TESTIFIES.

Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal department of the National Pencil factory was called next by the defense. Quinn greeted the accused with a smile as he took the stand. He was questioned by Mr. Arnold.

“Where do you work?”
“At the National Pencil factory.”

“What do you do there?”
“I am the foreman of the metal department.”

“Is that where Mary Phagan worked?”
“Yes.”

“Is that where Mr. Barrett works?”
“Yes.”

“Do you recollect Memorial day, April 28, 1913.”

“Yes.”

“Was the factory running that day?”
“No, it was a holiday.”

“Do you recollect when Mr. Barrett claims to have found the blood spots and the hair?”
“Yes.”

“Did he point them out to you?”
“Yes.”

TALKED OF REWARD.

“Did Mr. Barrett ever make any statements to you as to the reward, if Mr. Frank should be arrested?”
“Yes, he mentioned it to me several times.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. Judge Roan overruled him.

“What statements did he make to you in regard to the reward?”
“He asked me if Frank was arrested, and didn’t know whether they could or not.”

reward. I told him I was not a lawyer know whether they could or not.”

“What sums, if any, did he mention to you?”
“He mentioned $3,700 and $4,500.”

“How often did he mention the reward to you?”
“I don’t remember. It was so numerous that I can’t recall them.”

TELLS OF BLOOD SPOTS.

Quinn continued that he would not have noticed the blood on the metal room floor unless his attention had been called to it. At this point Attorney Arnold asked his associate counsel if they had in court the planks taken from the metal room, and the machine lathe, and when informed that they had not he said that they be sent for. Quinn said that he couldn’t tell whether the blood was fresh or old.

“Do people often get hurt in the factory?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Every once in a while somebody gets his hand hurt.”

“Do you remember a fellow named C. P. Gilbert being hurt?”
“Yes, about a year ago an emery wheel flew off and struck him in the forehead.”

“Did he bleed profusely?”
“Yes, very.”

“What was done with him?”
“First he was carried to the dressing room that I use, and then he was taken to the office, and finally to an ambulance.”

“Did he have to pass right by this spot where the blood was found?”

“Yes.”

“And he was bleeding very much?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t a boy get his hand badly cut on that floor?”
“Yes. That was some time after Gilbert was hurt.”

“And he had to go by that spot to get to the office?”
“Yes.”

“And you saw his hand bleeding?”

“Yes.”

“Was this boy’s cut so bad that he had to be taken to the hospital?”

“Yes, he went to the Atlanta hospital.”

“Did you ever notice blood around the women’s dressing rooms?”
“I don’t remember seeing any.”

“You have a number of women working there, haven’t you?”
“Yes, about 100.”

“Did you see the white stuff over the stain?”

“Yes, but I don’t know what it was.”

“There is a white substance up there, that you use, isn’t there, and it often gets scattered, doesn’t it?”

COULDN’T IDENTIFY HAIR.

The witness replied yes, and in answer to another question said he had never known of the floor of the factory being scrubbed. He continued that only five or six hairs were found on the lathe, and that he, Quinn, could not tell the color. He said that Mary Phagan had worked in his department since Christmas, and that her hair was very much the same color as Magnolia Kennedy’s.

He often saw girls curling their hair at a jet about ten feet from the lathe where the hair was found, said Quinn. The hair easily could have been blown that way, said he in answer to a question. He described Mary Phagan’s appearance, and said that he saw the body at the undertaker’s. He last saw Mary on the Monday before the tragedy, he said, when she was laid off because they were out of certain material.

“Do you know Henry Smith?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes.”

“When did you get your pay for that week?”
“Friday night.”

“And when were you due to return to the office?”
“Monday, as Saturday was a holiday.”

VISITED FACTORY AT 12:30.

The attorney had the witness go into a detailed description of his movements on Saturday. Quinn said that he arose at 7 o’clock and went to town with his wife and baby to have the baby’s picture taken. He was at the photographer’s at 10 o’clock by appointment. Leaving the photographer’s, he walked by the Globe Clothing company’s place, by Wolfsheimer’s market and a soda fountain, then returning to his residence at 31-B Pulliam street. He left home about 11:45, he said, going to Wolfsheimer’s market, making the trip by Pulliam, Garnett and Whitehall. He made a number of purchases and ordered the packages sent home. He had hurried to reach the market by 12, thinking that they might close, he said. From the market he went to Benjamin’s pharmacy, and was there at about 12:10 o’clock. He went from there to the pencil factory, as he often did on holidays, he said. One of the purposes of his visit, he said, was to see Schiff. He did not find the street door locked. He did not see Mary Phagan, Monteen Stover or Jim Conley. He found the door of Frank’s outer office and his inner office open, and in answer to a question about the safe said he thought it was open. He arrived at the factory about 12:30 o’clock, he said.

He said that he was in Wolfsheimer’s market about twelve minutes. As well as he could remember, the 12 o’clock whistle blew just before he left there, he said. He told of the purchases that he made. He was at Benjamin’s three or four minutes, he said.

“Did you see anybody beside Mr. Frank at the pencil factory?”
“No, sir.”

“Where was Frank when you saw him?”
“In the inner office.”

“What was he doing?”
“He was writing.”

“Did you say anything to Frank?”
“Yes, I said ‘Good morning, Mr. Frank.’”

“Did he say anything to you?”
“Yes, he answered, ‘Good morning.’”

The witness testified that then he asked Frank if Mr. Schiff would be in, and that Frank replied he didn’t think Schiff would be down that day. Quinn testified that he remarked then to Frank, “You see you can’t keep me away.”

“About how long were you in the pencil factory?”
“About two minutes.”

“Where were you when you next noticed the time?”
Quinn gave the name of a pool parlor a block and a half distant from the pencil factory.

“Do you recollect Harry Mulsby?”

“Yes.”

“Where is his place of business?”
“Two doors from ours.”

“Did you speak to him that day?”
“Yes.”

WENT TO BUSY BEE.

Quinn then told of going into the Busy Bee cafe and seeing Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Freeman there. He related that incident as Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman already had told it.

“What did you want to see Schiff about?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I wanted to see him about a bet we had on a baseball game.”

Quinn told of the two young women going out of the Busy Bee cafe and going into Mulsby’s place to telephone. In answer to a question by Attorney Arnold, he said he looked at the Western Union clock in the pool room when he arrived there, and the clock showed 12:30 then.

“Did you talk with anybody in these parlors?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, I talked to a Mr. McMurray.” Quinn continued that he stayed in the pool parlor until 1:15 o’clock. Then he left there and went to the Atlanta theater to purchase tickets. After buying the tickets, he returned to the pool room.

“Who is John Rainey?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“He works in my department.”

“Were you at the pencil factory Sunday?”
“Yes.”

“Whom did you talk with?”
“Mr. Darley and Mr. Montag.”

“Which Montag?”
“I don’t know.”

A DIFFERENT SUIT.

Attorney Arnold asked the witness what kind of clothes Frank had on when he was in the office Saturday. Quinn said as well as he could remember Frank had on brown trousers and was in his shirt sleeves.”

“Did you see Frank on Sunday?”
“Yes.”

“What kind of a suit did he have on?”
“Black or blue.”

Quinn stated that he chipped off a piece of wood from the back door of the basement for Detective Starnes. He explained that the white stuff smeared on the stain upon the metal room floor was used on the machines in the metal room and that frequently it was spattered on the floor while being taken from one machine to another in buckets.

“Did you see Mr. Frank on Monday?”
“Yes, I saw him Monday afternoon.”

“What suit did he have on then?”
“A brown suit, as well as I can recollect.”

At this point Attorney Arnold directed the witness’ attention to the diagram of the pencil factory tendered by Solicitor Dorsey. Quinn pointed out on the diagram his department.

Attorney Arnold indicated “No. 7” on the diagram, and asked: “Is this the place where Barrett pointed out the blood to you?”
“Yes.”

SAW NO BLOOD MONDAY.

“Did you see any blood near the lathe or under the lathe on Sunday or Monday?”
“No.”

“Did you see anything that looked like where blood had been washed or smeared over?”
“No.”

“Did you see any hair on the running lathe?”
“No, sir.”

“Is the floor dry near the ladies’ dressing room?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see any blood there?”
“No.”

“If blood had been washed up near the turning lathe, why couldn’t it have been washed up just as well near the dressing room?”
Solicitor Dorsey objected to the question and was sustained by the court. Attorney Arnold smilingly remarked that it was a conclusion, but such a good one that he could not resist the temptation to ask the question.

“Does this diagram show anything of the Clark Woodenware basement?” Attorney Arnold referred to that rear portion of the first floor.

“No.”

Solicitor Dorsey contended that the diagram did show the door giving entrance to that portion of the building.

At this point court adjourned for lunch.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 13th 1913, “Frank’s Character Made Issue by the Defense,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 13^th, 1913

Leaps to Defense of Son at Dorsey’s Question

FRANK’S CLASSMATES AT COLLEGE TELL OF HIS GOOD CHARACTER

A sensation was created in the courtroom during the cross-examination of Ashley Jones by Solicitor Dorsey at the Frank trial when Mrs. Rea [sic] Frank, mother of the defendant, sprang to her feet with a denial of intimations made by the Solicitor reflecting on her son.

“Mr. Jones, you never heard of Frank having girls on his lap in the office?” Dorsey had asked.

“No; nor you neither!” cried Frank’s mother.

“Keep quiet, keep quiet; I am afraid you will have to sit here and listen to this a long time,” said the Solicitor.

Mrs. Frank broke into tears and was assisted from the room, crying: “My God, my God!”

Mother and Wife Set With Bowed Heads.

The Solicitor’s examination of Jones had been of a most sensational nature and during the portion of it leading up to the interruption by Mrs. Frank the mother of the defendant and her daughter sat with lowered heads listening to the questions and answers.

Following the outbreak, Attorney Arnold jumped to his feet and shouted: “Your honor, this is outrageous. We are not responsible for the lies and slanders that cracked-brain extremists have circulated since this murder occurred.”

“I will rule that the Solicitor can not ask anything that he has heard since the murder,” replied Judge Roan. “He can ask on this cross-examination what happened before.”

“Your honor,” returned Solicitor Dorsey, “I am not four-flushing about this. I am going to present a witness to prove the charges.

Attorney Arnold interrupted the speaker.

“Your honor,” he said, “if any more of these gross slanders are brought up, I am going to make a motion for a new trial.”

Judge Roan ruled Wednesday afternoon that the testimony of Dr. William Owens should be admitted over the objection of Solicitor Dorsey. He said he had some doubts of it but that he would let it go to the jury.

The decision was a most decisive victory for the defense. It enabled Frank’s lawyers to introduce testimony in regard to a striking reproduction of the events connected with the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body as described by Jim Conley for the purpose of showing that it would have been absolutely impossible for these events to have taken place between 12:56 and the time that Frank left the factory for home.

As Solicitor Dorsey was making an impassioned plea for the exclusion of the testimony and describing the terror that must have hastened the movements of the little factory girl’s murderer, Mrs. J. W. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s mother, broke down utterly and wept for several minutes.

Court opened in the afternoon with the attorneys arguing the admission of Dr. Owens’ testimony. Luther Rosser cited case after case in which evidence similar to that proposed by the defense had been admitted and allowed to stand.

Solicitor Dorsey contended that the witness was not testifying as an expert, but was giving his opinion on a matter concerning which the jurors were just as well qualified to judge as the witness.

Dr. Owens was prepared to testify that with three others he went through all the movements described by Conley, and that it required the two men who took the parts of Conley and Frank eighteen and one-half minutes to carry a burden representing the body of Mary Phagan to the basement and return to the office floor.

Lemmie Quinn, foreman in the metal department of the National Pencil Factory, told a story on the witness stand Wednesday in the trial of Leo M. Frank which gave the lie to another of Jim Conley’s courtroom statements.

Conley testified that he saw Lemmie Quinn enter the factory before Mary Phagan and Monteen Stover came in. The two girls entered some time between 12 and 12:15. Quinn said he did not get to the factory until about 12:20, and that he saw neither of the girls.

Aside from the testimony of Quinn, the forenoon was marked by the opening of the gates for all of the character testimony against Frank which the State wishes to produce.

Three witnesses were produced by the defense to testify to Frank’s good character. When the first one was called Solicitor Dorsey objected, saying:

“I don’t see how this testimony is material, your honor, unless the defense intends to make the defendant’s character an issue.”

“That’s exactly what we propose to do,” retorted Arnold.

Challenge to State To Do Its Worst.

The crowded room of spectators knew that this was a challenge by the defense for the State to do its worst. Frank’s lawyers deliberately had introduced Frank’s character into the trial, apparently indicating that they had no fear of the evidence which the prosecution might bring forth.

It is known that the State has made elaborate preparations for an attack on the young superintendent’s character with stories of gross immorality.

Solicitor Dorsey was asked Wednesday how many witnesses he expects to call.

“I don’t know,” he replied. “It largely depends on the number that the defense calls and the nature of their testimony.”

Those called by Attorney Arnold at the forenoon session were:

Alfred L. Lane, a merchant of Brooklyn, N. Y., and a classmate of Frank’s at Pratt Institute from 1898 to 1902.

Philip Nash, electrical engineer, Ridgewood, N. J., and a class mate of Frank’s at Pratt Institute during the same period.

Richard A. Wright, a consulting engineer, Brooklyn, who knew Frank at Pratt Institute and also at Cornell University.

All testified as to Frank’s good character.

Office Boy Called to Aid Frank.

Frank Payne, former office boy at the factory, was asked to particularize as to certain incidents mentioned in the testimony of Jim Conley and C. B. Dalton. He said that he never knew Frank to have women in his office, although it was his custom to be at the office at the times Conley and Dalton testified that these gay parties took place.

A full three-quarters of the forenoon was consumed in a legal wrangle over the admissibility of Dr. William Owen’s testimony. Dr. Owens was ready to testify in regard to the reproduction of the alleged movements of Conley and Frank in disposing of Mary Phagan’s body as Conley recited them on the witness stand. Judge Roan reserved his decision until afternoon.

Quinn was questioned minutely in regard to the time of his visit to the factory as soon as he was called to stand. Attorney Arnold began by having him detail his movements throughout the day from the time he arose in the morning.

The foreman told an apparently straightforward story, although the Solicitor did not have time for cross-examination before the noon recess. He estimated that he entered the factory at about 12:20 o’clock. All of the doors were unlocked, he said, and the doors of the outer and inner offices on the second floor were open. The safe door, he thought, also was open. He testified that his conversation with Frank was very brief and that he left the factory within two or three minutes.

He said that R. P. Barrett, designated by Attorney Arnold as the “Christopher Columbus” of the Frank trial, had discovered the blood spots and the strands of hair on the lathing machine. Barrett frequently had remarked to him, Quinn testified, that he would draw down the big rewards if Frank was convicted. Quinn said that Barrett had mentioned $2,700 at one time and $4,500 at another as the sum he would receive because he had been the first to find the blood spots and other evidence.

The witness said that it was nothing unusual for factory employees to be hurt and bleed. He cited the case of C. P. Gilbert, who, he said, had been badly injured by the bursting of an emery wheel and was carried, bleeding, past the very place where Barrett discovered the blood spots.

He testified that he never had seen Frank speak to Mary Phagan and did not know that he knew her.

The defense was able to get only so far as the reading of the excerpts from Conley’s testimony, so far as it related to the actual movements of the day when the judge decided that he would reserve his decision until afternoon in the dispute over Dr. Owens’ testimony.

With one man taking the role of Jim Conley, another the part of Leo Frank and two others timing every movement, the four actors in the drama went to the factory and proceeded, through the actions which the negro described in telling the story of the body’s disposal.

Even the victim of the tragedy did not go unrepresented. A sack filled with material weighing 110 pounds, the weight of Mary Phagan, was car- […]

TRAGEDY RE-ENACTED TO PROVE JIM CONLEY’S STORY FALSE

Frank Trial Scene of Hot Battle on Admissibility of Evidence for Defense

COLLEGE CHIEF HITS HARRIS’ EVIDENCE

[…] -ried from the rear of the metal room to the front of the factory and down the elevator to the basement.

Dr. William Owens was called to the stand. He was one of the timers. He said that William A. Fleming, a contractor and builder, took the part of Leo Frank and a Mr. Brent the part of Conley.

Dorsey objected on the ground that the judge had ruled out evidence as to the time it required Conley to reenact the disposal of the body.

Arnold replied that this pantomime was done under one of Conley’s “lying affidavits,” and not as he told of it on the stand.

Numerous authorities were cited by both sides. Judge Roan finally announced that he would reserve his opinion until 2 o’clock in the afternoon, and Dr. Owens was excused.

It took defense’s men eighteen minutes and a half to re-enact the bare details of the disposition of the body. To this, if the testimony is allowed, the defense will explain, must be added the time the negro was in the closet—eight minutes—the time it took to write the notes, the time consumed in the conversation the negro reported, the alleged exchange of the roll of bills and everything else that transpired in the office that Conley told of.

Dr. W. S. Kendrick, head of the old Atlanta Medical College, was the first witness called Wednesday and notified in rebuttal of Dr. H. F. Harris. He was the first man who employed Harris as a chemical assistant.

Harris Testimony Again Attacked.

Attorney Arnold put his usual hypothetical question about the cut on the back of the head and the doctor answered:

“In expressing any opinion on a wound such as you describe that one after death is nothing more nor less than hazarding the wildest guess imaginable.”

Q. Do you know of any way my physician could determine how long food had been in the stomach?—A. There is no way.

Q. Well, if a doctor were to say from a chemical examination of the contents of the stomach, that it had been there only 30 minutes before death, could he know what he was talking about?—A. No.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Are you a specialist on the stomach?—A. No.

Q. Is Dr. Westmoreland a specialist on the stomach?—A. No, he is a surgeon, but he would have to know something about the stomach.

Q. is Dr. Hancock a stomach specialist?—A. No, he is a surgeon.

Q. You say you are not a stomach specialist?—A. Yes, but I have to have a general knowledge of the stomach to instruct in medicine.

Tilt Comes Over Doctor’s Digestive Powers.

Q. Tables have been compiled showing how long it takes to digest chicken, cabbage, etc. You are familiar with the digestion of cabbage, are you not?—A. I can not digest cabbage at all myself. If I should eat it to-day, it would put me in bed tomorrow.

Q. I am not asking you about your own stomach. You may be a dyspeptic?—A. No, I am not.

Dorsey—I move that this answer be stricken out.

Arnold—He had a right to answer that question that way.

Dorsey—No, he hasn’t a right to shoot in statements.

Rosser—That is a reflection on this man, who is old enough to be the young Solicitor’s father and a man of undisputed character.

Arnold—Your honor, we want you to rule out that statement of the Solicitor’s about “shooting in.”

Judge Roan—I must sustain Mr. Dorsey in his objection to the witness answering questions he was not asked. I also strike out Mr. Dorsey’s comment on the witness.

Judge Objects to Dragging in Homer.

Dorsey—Dr. Kendrick, I am asking you about medical science—the processes of digestion have been determined, have they not?—A. I am not a stomach specialist. I have had to know something about the stomach to practice.

Q. Isn’t it true that Homer exceeded his teachers in knowledge?—A. I have had to make a living by the sweat of my brow. I haven’t had time to read Homer. I had to teach Latin once—

Judge Roan—I don’t think there is any reason to bring Homer into this case.

Q. Whenever you find free hydrochloric acid in the stomach, digestion is over with, is it not?—A. Yes.

Q. Is it not true that when you find it in a small degree you know that digestion has not progressed very far?—A. Yes.

Q. Well, if you find undigested particles of food in the stomach and only a small degree of hydrochloric acid, then would not the natural conclusion be that the food had only been there a short time?—A. Not necessarily. If I ate cabbage, it would be there the next day.

Q. I never asked you about cabbage. Get your mind away from that. You might have been laid up from eating a Welsh rarebit. Now, are there no certain infallible rules of digestion?

Arnold interrupted—Wait a minute, let him answer that other question.

Addressing the witness Arnold said: “He asked you if a Welsh rarebit would not affect you the same way as cabbage?”

Dr. Kendrick—A. I never saw one in my life.

A ripple of laughter ran through the court and even Frank laughed heartily.

Q. Well, do you go out and practice medicine with your stomach as a standard?—A. I certainly do not.

Q. When did you read the last book on digestion?—A. About ten year ago.

Never Read Book On Digestion, He Says.

Q. You say you have not read a book on digestion in ten years?—A. I don’t know that I ever read a book specifically on digestion. It hasn’t been necessary. All the books are sent me free. I don’t have to buy them.

Q. And there hasn’t been any progress in the study of digestion in ten years?

Arnold: I object to the Solicitor asking and answering the question.

Dorsey: They put him up as an expert, and I want to see what he knows.

Dorsey then put a hypothetical question, describing the conditions surrounding the analysis of the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach.

Q. Would you venture an opinion on how long that cabbage was in the stomach before death?—A. Nine days after death, I don’t think you could tell a thing about it. Now, I will explain, if you desire.

Q. Wait a minute.

Arnold: Let him explain.

Dorsey: Can’t the witness take care of himself?

Arnold: Yes, he can.

Dorsey: Then let him.

Dr. Kendrick Gives His Views on Case.

Dr. Kendrick: I have always thought that every stomach is a law unto itself. There is such a wide latitude for fear, anger and a hundred other things to interfere with digestion that it is practically impossible to set a standard.

Q. You and Dr. Westmoreland and some others of you became very bitter against Dr. Harris did you not?—A. I gave him everything he ever had in Atlanta, except his place on the State Board of Health. Dr. Westmoreland gave him that.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. What do you think about Dr. Harris, his eccentricities, etc.?

Dorsey objected and was sustained.

Q. Does this cabbage seem to be masticated?—A. No.

Q. What becomes of the hydrochloric acid after death?—A. I don’t know, but I imagine it would stay in the body.

Q. Do you know what effect formaldehyde has on the pancreatic juice?—A. No.

Clash Over Real Estate Physician’s Testimony.

The witness was excused and Dr. William Owens was called. Arnold question him.

Q. What is your business?—A. A physician and real estate man.

Q. Did you, at our request, make certain tests of the building of the National Pencil Company regarding what Jim Conley said he did?—A. I did.

Dorsey—I object to this testimony. This man is no expert on this subject. The jury is just as capable of judging the time as this witness. It is a farce to have this man go through this testimony. The other day we tried to prove that Jim Conley had gone through this test, and your honor ruled it out. What is the difference in principle between the two?

Arnold—Your honor, you admitted the time the negro said he went through these acts. He said it was all completed about 1:30 o’clock. Jim Conley went through his act after his second lying statement.

Hooper—I object to him referring to the statement of the witness as a lie. That is for the jury to decide.

Judge Roan sustained Hooper’s objection.

Arnold—He admitted he lied. He changed his statement in a half dozen particulars. You can’t judge a man who one time is a pup and the next time is a pig?

Dorsey—Your honor, if you admit this evidence, it will be a positive reversal.

Rules State May Show Time of Conley’s Act.

Judge Roan—I don’t remember that the question at the time was put up to me when I ruled on Conley’s statement. If it is admissible to show how long it took to enact what Conley said was his part, then the State can show how long it took Conley to enact it. I won’t reverse myself. I rule that the State may put in its evidence as to the time it took Conley to enact it.

Doresy—All right, you[r] honor; that is all I want.

Arnold—The Solicitor gets up every time he has an objection and almost cries about something that has been done to him on what he claims is a similar case. We will argue the point about the admissibility when we get to it.

“If the court rules, I am going to read the pantomime that this negro went through,” said Arnold.

Attorney Joe Leavitt read for Attorney Arnold the negro’s statement, detailing the events from the time the negro said he went to move the body until he said he left the factory at about 1:20.

The statement follows:

12:55 o’clock. Conley goes to cotton box from the elevator stairs and gets a piece of cloth but takes cloth back to where body lay and ties it just like a person that is going to give out clothes on Monday. Ties each corner and draws it in and ties it. Ties the four corners together and runs right arm through cloth, and went to put it up on his shoulder and found he could not get it up on his shoulder; it was too heavy, and he carried it that way on his arm and when he gets to the little dressing room in the metal department, he let the body fall, and he didn’t know if anybody heard him, and when he let her fall, he jumped and he was scared and said:

(Conley) “Mr. Frank, you’ll have to help me with this girl. She is heavy.” Frank comes and runs down there from the top of the steps, and after he gets down there, he caught her by the feet and Conley laid hold of her by the shoulders, and when they got her up that way they backed, and Mr. Frank kinder put her on Conley. Frank was nervous and trembling, too, and after walking a few steps, Frank let her feet drop, and then they picked her up and went to the elevator and set her on the elevator, and Frank pulle down on one of the cords and the elevator would not go.

Frank: “Wait, let me go in the office and get the key.” Frank goes in the office and gets the key and comes back and unlocks the storage box and after that he started the elevator down. The elevator went down to the basement.

Frank: “Come on.” He opened the door that led there to the basement in front of the elevator (there is no such door) and carried her out and laid her down, and Conley opened the cloth and rolled her out there on the floor, and Frank turned around and went on up the ladder. Conley carries the body back to where the body was found. Conley goes around in front of the boiler and notices her hat and slipper and the piece of ribbon.

Conley: “Mr. Frank, what am I going to do with these things?”
Frank: “Just leave them right there.” Conley pitched them in front of the boiler. Conley goes on elevator.

Frank: “Come on up and I will catch you at the first floor.” Frank hits Conley a blow on his chest and jams him up against the elevator. Frank stumbles out of the elevator as it nears second floor. Frank goes and washes his hands and takes elevator keys into the private office. They sit down in the private office, Frank rubbing his hands and the back of his hair.

Frank: “Jim.” Conley said nothing. All of a sudden Frank happened to look out of the door.

Frank: “My God, here is Emma Clark and Corinthia Hall.” Frank runs back.

Frank: “Come over here, Jim; I’ve got to put you in this wardrobe.” Frank puts Conley in wardrobe. Conley stayed there quiet a while.

Frank: “You are in a tight place.”

Conley: “Yes.”

Frank: “You done very well.” Frank goes in the hall and comes back and lets Conley out of the wardrobe.

Frank: “You sit down.” Conley sits down and Frank sits down. Frank reaches on table to get a box of cigarettes and matches, takes out a cigarette and match and hands Conley box of cigarettes. Conley lights cigarette and goes to smoking and hands Frank back box of cigarettes. Frank puts cigarettes back in his pocket and then takes them out.

Frank: “You can have these.”

Conley reaches over and takes box of cigarettes and sticks them in his pocket.

Frank: “Can you write?”
Conley: “Yes, sir, a little bit.”

Frank takes out his pencil and sits down. Conley sits down at table and Frank dictates notes, Conley taking the paper that Frank gave him. Conley writes one note and Frank told him to turn over and write again. Conley turns over paper and writes again.

Frank: “Turn over again.” Conley turns over again and writes on next page.

Frank: “That is all right.” Frank reaches over and gets a green piece of paper and tells Conley what to write and Conley writes. Frank takes and lays it on his desk and looks at Conley smiling and rubbing his hands. Runs his hands into his pocket, pulls out a roll of bills.

Frank: “There is $200.” Conley takes money and looks at it a little bit.

Conley: “Mr. Frank, can’t you pay another dollar when that watch man comes, I will pay him myself.”

Frank: “Well,, all right; I don’t see why you want to buy a watch for either. That big fat wife of mine, she wanted me to buy an automobile and I wouldn’t do it. (Pause.) I will tell you the best way. You go down there in the basement, you see that package that is on the floor in fron[t] of the shavings, take a lot of that trash and make up a fire and burn it.

Conley: “All right. Mr. Frank, you come down there with me and I will go.”

Frank: “There is no need of my going down there, and I haven’t got any business down there.”

Conley: “Mr. Frank, you are a white man and you done it, and I am not going down there and burn it myself.” (Pause.)

Frank: “Let me see that money.” Frank takes money and puts in his pocket.

Conley: “Is this the way you do things?”

Frank: “You keep your mouth shut, that is all right.” (Pause.) Frank turns around in his chair and looks at the money; looks back at Conley, turns his hands and looks up.

Declares Frank Cried, “Why Should I Hang?”

Frank: “Why should I hang? I have wealthy people in Brooklyn.”

Conley: “Mr. Frank, what about me?”
Frank: “It’s all right about you. Don’t you worry about this thing. You just go back to work on Monday like you have never known anything and keep your mouth shut. If you get caught I will get you out on bond and send you away.”

Conley: “That is all right, Mr. Frank.” (Pause.)

Frank: “I am going out home. Can you come back this evening and do it?”
Conley: “Yes, I am coming to get my money.”

Frank: “Well, I am going home to get my dinner now and you come back here about 40 minutes from now. It is near my dinner hour and I will go home and get my dinner and fix up the money.”

Conley: “How will I get in?”
Frank: “There will be a place for you to get in all right, but listen, if you are not coming back let me know and I will take those things and put them down with the body.”

Conley: “All right; I will be back in 40 minutes.” Conley looks at Frank; Frank looks around. Then Conley gets up, stands by the chair, looks down at Frank and Frank grabs a scratch pad from the typewriter table, starts to make a memorandum from the paper, but his hand trembles so that he can’t. Frank gets up to go.

Frank: “Now, Jim, you keep your mouth shut, you hear?”
Conley: “All right, I will keep my mouth shut and I will be back here about 40 minutes.” Conley goes out.

When the statement was read, Dorsey was on his feet with an objection that the statement was inaccurate in that things that occurred. Tuesday were mixed with the things of Saturday, and this evidence would be nothing but an opinion. Judge Roan ruled that if it was an opinion he would have to exclude it. Attor- […]

MORE WITNESSES FROM DALTON’S HOME SWEAR HIS CHARACTER IS BAD

[…] -ney Arnold said that he was going to introduce actual time tests.

Judge Roan—I will let it in, then, because under these circumstances it would be fact and not opinion.

Dorsey—This witness can not pass upon the time it took Frank to choke the little girl.

Attorney Arnold (jumping up angrily)—Of course, he doesn’t know how long it took Conley to choke her.

Judge Roan—I think I understand the question now. There is no evidence here, Mr. Arnold, that they went through the movements as rapidly as Conley did, and I think it would only be an opinion.

Arnold—These men went as fast as they could.

Judge Roan—But the negro never said how fast he walked.

Arnold—Is your honor going to bind us by the unsupported story of this negro?\

Rosser—Your honor, experimentation is purely for establishing relevant accuracy. Even the negro could not go through the same movements again in the same length of time.

Dorsey—Your honor, these men were not under pressure. They had not just choked a poor, little innocent girl to death. They were not trying to dispose of the body. I challenge them to cite any authorities. I submit that if anyone of less standing and ability than these two gentlemen should urge such a proposition, you would not pay any attention to it. I think it is a fact that they have laid down the proposition that makes you reluctant to decide against them.

Judge Roan—They or anyone else can not influence me to do anything wrong.

Dorsey—I didn’t mean that. I have respect for their opinions, but my authorities are clear that non-expert testimony based on tests outside of court is admissible. If Dr. Owens can get up here and testify that he thinks Conley could not have done it as he said he did, he might testify that he could have committed the murder. Then we could produce witness after witness to show that Conley did have time to do what he said. Thus the absolute absurdity of the proposition is revealed.

Attorney Arnold read several authorities.

Judge Roan—What is the reason this witness can’t be called back this afternoon? I will rule on it now, if you gentlemen insist, but I would rather you would produce your authorities, to see if you can find any Georgia cases.”

Dr. Owens was excused until 2 o’clock.

More Witnesses Score Dalton.

O. A. Nix, of Gwinnett County, was next called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Lawyer.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. Yes.

Q. Is he the man who was tried in Gwinnett County for stealing?—A. Yes.

Q. Would you believe him on oath?—A. No.

Solicitor Dorsey declined to cross-examine the witness, and he was excused.

Samuel Craig, a farmer, of Gwinnett County, was next called and declared that he knew Dalton and would not believe him under oath. On cross-examination, Craig said it had been fifteen years since he had known Dalton. The witness was excused and B. L. Patterson, a farmer, of Gwinett County, was the next witness. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Where do you live?—A. Gwinnett County.

Q. What is your business?—A. I am a farmer.

Q. How many acres of land do you own?—A. I never counted them.

Q. Do you know C. B. Dalton?—A. Yes.

Q. Would you believe him under oath?—A. No.

The witness was excused and Robert Craig, of Gwinnett County was called. Under Attorney Arnold’s questioning Craig declared he owned 800 acres of land; that he knew C. B. Dalton and would not believe him on oath.

Ed Craig was the next witness. He declared he was a farmer of Gwinnett County, who had known C. B. Dalton and would not believe him on oath.

T. L. Ambrose and J. P. Byrd also of Gwinnett County, testified along the same line as their predecessors.

Brooklyn Man First Character Witness.

Alfred Lane, of Brooklyn, N. Y., was the first character witness to be introduced by the defense. He is a wealthy merchant of that city. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. A merchant of New York.

Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?—A. Yes, I knew him at Pratt Institute from 1898 to 1902, and later at Cornell.

Q. You say you knew him at Pratt Institute for four years?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you know him at Cornell?—A. Yes; I didn’t go to Cornell, but I saw him much in Brooklyn.

Q. How old was he when you were together at Pratt Institute?—Between 17 and 21 years.

Q. Do you know his general character?—A. I do.

Q. What is it—good or bad?—A. Good.

Dorsey did not cross-examine the witness. He was excused and Philip Nash, of Ridgewood, N. J., was called. Arnold examined him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Electrical engineer for a telephone company.

Q. Where did you know Leo M. Frank?—A. I was with him at Pratt Institute for four years.

Q. Do you know his general character?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it good or bad?—A. Good.

The witness was excused without cross-examination. Richard A. Knight, of Brooklyn, a consulting engineer and a college mate of Frank’s at both the Pratt Institute and Cornell, was called by Attorney Arnold.

Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?—A. Yes.

Q. Where did you know him?—A. I was his college mate at Pratt Institute and at Cornell.

Q. Do you know his general character?—A. Yes.

Q. What is it?—A. Good.

Former Office Boy Called by Defense.

The witness was excused and Frank Payne, a former office boy at the National Pencil Company, was called.

Q. How old are you?—A. 16.

Q. When did you last work at the pencil factory?—A. About 8 months ago.

Q. Where are you working now?—A. Nowhere.

Q. Were you there last Thanksgiving day?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember what kind of a day it was?—A. It snowed.

Q. Were Mr. Frank and Mr. Schiff there?—A. Yes.

Q. What did you do?—A. Mr. Schiff sent me up to the fourth floor to fix some boxes.

Q. Who was up there?—A. Jim Conley.

Q. What time did he leave there?—A. About 11 o’clock.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. About 11 o’clock.

Q. Did you see Jim Conley when you left?—A. No.

Q. What time did you leave the factory on Saturday?—A. About 5 o’clock.

Q. Did Mr. Frank ever have any women there?—A. No.

Q. How many weeks were you there?—A. Five or six.

Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. What were your duties there?—A. General office boy.

Q. You spent most of your time in Frank’s office?—A. Yes.

Q. How long since you quit working there?—A. It has been seven or eight months ago.

Q. Did you ever see any beer bottles around there?—A. No.

Q. You say Jim Conley was there last Thanksgiving morning?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you notice him?—A. He was sweeping around there until 10:30 o’clock.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. About 11 o’clock.

Lemmie Quinn Called to Stand.

The witness was excused and Lemmie Quinn was called. Arnold questioned the witness.

Q. Where did you work?—A. I am foreman of the metal department of the National Pencil Company.

Q. Is that the department Mary Phagan worked in?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you recollect Memorial day?—A. Yes, it was a holliday at the factory.

Q. Do you recollect the occasion when Mr. Barrett discovered the spots on the floor of the metal room and some strands of hair on a lathe?—A. Yes. He mentioned those discoveries to me.

Q. Did he ever mention any reward he expected to get if Mr. Frank was convicted?—A. Yes, he mentioned $2,700 once and another time $4,500. He said he had been told that if Mr. Frank was convicted there wasn’t any chance to keep him out of his reward. He wanted my advice. I told him I was not a lawyer and could not tell him.

Q. Had anyone notice them before Barrett and he discovered them?—A. No.

Q. Do you remember a man named Gilbert getting cut in the metal room and bleeding around the women’s dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. When was it?—A. About a year ago.

Q. Do you know of anyone being cut since then?—A. Yes, a boy was cut on the hand.

Q. Did he go by the women’s dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you know what that stuff was over the spot on the floor?—A. No.

Q. Do you know what has ever become of that hair?—A. I think the detectives have it.

Hair Might Have Blown Into Lathe.

Q. Is there any place in that room where the girls dress their hair?—A. Why there’s a little gas jet about ten feet from the lathe.

Q. This jet is between the lathe and the west windows and a breeze might blow the hair across to this lathe, might it now?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you get your pay Friday night before the murder?—A. About 20 minutes to 6.

Q. What was the last time before the murder that you saw Mary Phagan?—A. The Monday before.

Q. Why did she not work that week?—A. We were out of material and she was laid off.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Frank speak to Mary Phagan?—A. No, I never did.

Q. You were examined about all these things by the Coroner and they were impressed on your memory were they not?—A. Yes.

Mr. Quinn told in detail what he did during the morning up to the time he returned to the factory. He said the front door of the factory was unlocked.

Q. When you got up to Frank’s outer office was the door open or shut?—A. Open.

Q. How about the door to the inner office?—A. Open.

Q. How about the safe door in the outer office?—I think it was open.

Q. What time was this?—A. About 12:20.

Fixed Time by Going to Market.

Q. Why do you fix the time at that?—A. Well, when I left home I was anxious to get up town before the meat markets closed. I left home at 15 minutes to 12. Doing the things I did, I judge it was about 12:20 o’clock when I got to the factory.

Q. You say you left the home at 11:45, did you look at your watch?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you want to get to town?—A. Before 12, because I was afraid the stores would be closed.

Q. How long did it take you to walk to the market?—A. About twelve minutes.

Q. What time was it when you got there?—A. The whistle blew while I was there.

Q. Can you tell how long you remained there?—A. No.

Q. You went to the pharmacy from there?—A. Yes.

Q. How far was that from the market?—A. About three doors.

Q. What pharmacy was that?—A. Bejamin’s.

Q. How long did you stay there?—A. About three minutes.

Q. Did you see anyone else at the factory besides Mr. Frank?—A. No.

Q. What office was he in?—A. The inner office.

Q. What did you say?—A. I asked him if Mr. Schiff was in. He said, “No.”

Q. Did you say anything else?—A. I made some remark about his not being able to keep me away even on a holiday.

Q. What time was it when you left?—A. About 12:20.

Q. Where did you go?—A. To Devore’s pool parlor. It was about 12:30 then.

Q. Where did you go from there?—A. To the cafe, where I met Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman.

White Substance Used on Machines.

Q. What did you go to see Schiff for?—A. We had a baseball wager and I went there to talk to him about it.

Q. How many minutes did you stay at the Busy Bee?—A. I can not tell exactly.

Q. But you do know what time you went to the poolroom?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to anyone at the poolroom?—A. Yes, McMurray.

Q. Where did you go from Devore’s?—A. The Atlanta Theater.

Q. How long did you stay?—A. About fifteen minutes. I bought tickets for the night.

Q. Where did you go then?—A. Back to Devore’s.

Q. Who is John Lamey?—A. He worked with me.

Q. Did you go to the factory Sunday?—A. Yes.

Q. Whom did you talk to?—A. Mr. Darley and Mr. Montag.

Q. How long did you look at the body?—A. Three or four minutes.

Q. Did you see Mr. Frank Sunday?—A. Yes.

Q. At Bloomfield’s?—A. Yes.

Q. How was he dressed?—A. To blue to black.

Q. What is the purpose of that white preparation used at the plant?—A. To clean the machines.

Carried in Buckets, Spatters on Floors.

Q. How was it carried?—A. In buckets.

Q. It spatters over everything?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Frank Monday?—A. Yes, Monday afternoon.

Q. How was he dressed?—A. In brown.

Q. Look at this picture (showing the witness the State’s diagram drawn by the Bert Green of The Georgian). Does it show Mary Phagan’s machine?—A. No.

Q. Point out the place where Barrett claims to have found the hair. Did you find any blood there?—A. No.

Q. Do you recall the place near the closet where the negro said he found the body?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any blood there?—A. No.

Q. Well, if somebody had washed up blood in one place would it not have been the reasonable thing to wash it up in another?

“I object,” said Dorsey. “That’s a question for argument, your honor.

“It’s such a good argument,” said Arnold. “that I could not help it. I withdrew the question.”

Court took a recess until 2 o’clock. The cross-examination of Quinn was to be taken up immediately then.

Argument on Admissibility Of Evidence Resumed.

The argument on the admissibility of Dr. Owens’ testimony was resumed with the opening of the afternoon session. Attorney Rosser addressed the court.

“The rule at the beginning of this hearing was that we would be permitted to introduce any evidence that would tend to shed light on the mystery,” he said.

Attorney Rosser at this juncture read a Georgia decision, tending to show evidence of this kind as being admissible. Judge Roan interrupted, “That part of it is all right, Mr. Rosser,” he said. “The only point is whether the conditions are similar.”

Rosser: “All right, your honor, I will read you some authorities on that point.”

Attorney Rosser read a decision in a case in which such an experiment had been allowed in which the jury could make allowances for the differences.

“We will show that this man walked as fast as he could,” said Rosser. “Is it possible that this court could have so far forgotten its common sense as to permit this jury to draw its own conclusions?”

Rosser Pleads for Test.

“Only God Almighty can made identity,” Rosser continued, “and He hasn’t done it yet. There are no two leaves alike in the forest. I said a while ago that it was a one-horsed lawyer who wrote the opinion cited by my friend Dorsey. With a few exceptions, you and I know the authors of law books have not common sense enough to make a living practicing law.

“I don’t think any more unsound principle of law could be embodied in the statutes than the one involved here, and I don’t want to get in the contempt of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. A man’s life is involved and important light might be excluded. One of the cases I was just showing you said in cases of dissimilarity that the judge shall instruct the jury to make allowances.”

Dorsey took up the argument.

“I take no issue with Mr. Rosser,” said the Solicitor, “about this Georgia case by the Court of Appeals. That was an expert matter—the question of how long it would take to stop an engine. In the Moran case it was a question of whether a stick was a deadly weapon or not. It was declared to be a case not admitting opinion evidence. The jury was just as capable of judging as the witness.”

Raises Question of Strain.

Judge Roan: “They propose to prove by Dr. Owens how long it took persons he watched to go through the htings [sic] Conley said he went through with. He is to state facts. I won’t permit any opinion and I don’t want to hear any more authority on it. It is a question of whether they can go through substantially the same things as Conley said he did as regards speech, pressure, etc.”

Dorsey: “Who can imagine the pressure they were under after murdering a little girl?”
Arnold: “All during this trial we have admitted this kind of evidence. We had policemen to say they had sat in the toilet and tried to see how much of the body of Mary Phagan, Newt Lee, could see. We asked the policeman—they asked the man.”

Judge Roan: “Mr. Arnold, I don’t want anything on that. I want to know whether there is enough similarity between the cases for the jury to draw its own conclusions.”

Arnold: “We know, your honor.”

Judge Roan: “Well, this man don’t know how long Conly stood over the body’s.”

Arnold: “We think that negro’s statement was sufficiently graphic as to detail to admit of the comparison.”

Judge Admits Evidence.

Judge Roan: “I have some doubts about it, but I will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and allow the evidence to be admitted.”

The jury was ordered brought in.
Lemmie Quinn was then recalled to the stand. Attorney Arnold continued direct examination.

Q. Where are you working now?—A. At the pencil factory.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. When did the last man bleed on the second floor?—A. The last man dangerously hurt, was a year ago.

Q. Was that a year from now, or a year from the date of the murder?—A. I mean just what I said.

Q. Can’t you tell us the truth about it?

Arnold: “He has answered the question.”

Dorsey: “I am cross-examination the witness.”

A. I can’t tell you the exact time.

Q. When was the last time you noticed blood from this man?—A. Some time ago. I don’t remember how long.

Q. Did it look like this blood found in front of the ladies’ dressing room?—A. Yes, except the last I saw there was darker.

Q. You told Mr. Starnes, Mr. Black and the other officers that you did not go into the factory on that Saturday?—A. Yes.

Q. You did not tell anyone about being in the factory until after you had been down to see Frank, did you?—A. No, sir.

Q. What did Mr. Frank say when you told him?—A. He said he remembered seeing me, but didn’t remember the time.

Q. Didn’t he tell you to keep it quiet until he had seen his lawyers?—A. He didn’t say keep it quiet. He said he would talk with his lawyer.

Q. When was this that you saw Frank?—A. Tuesday after the murder.

Q. You were with the police all day Monday and said nothing about it?—A. I wasn’t with them all day.

Explains Why He Was Led to Tell of Visit.

Q. Off and on, all day?—A. I saw them a number of times.

Q. Are you absolutely sure about what time you were in Frank’s office?—A. Reasonably sure.

Q. Do you deny that you told Officer Payne that you had not been to the factory since Friday?—A. I do.

Q. You admit refreshing Frank’s memory about your visit?—A. Yes.

Q. Tell us just what you said.—A. I told him that I was there and he said he remembered it, but not the time except that it was after the time Mary Phagan was there.

Q. Didn’t you tell him, “I don’t like to be brought into it, but if it will help you, I will”?—A. Yes.

Q. He told his lawyers and said they advised him to mention it, and you told the police?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you talk to Barrett before the Coroner’s inquest?—A. No; that was after the Coroner’s inquest.

Q. Where is Miss Jefferson, who discovered these spots, working now?—A. At the pencil factory.

Q. Are you sure of that?—A. She was there yesterday in the polishing department.

Q. You saw her?—A. Yes.

Q. Now, you didn’t tell the officers you were in the factory on Saturday, April 26, until the following Saturday?—A. The next Saturday.

Q. Didn’t you say this to the Coroner’s Jury? That you told Frank you were there, and he said he would mention if to his attorneys to see whether it was favorable or not?—A. I don’t know whether I said favorable or not.

State Seeking Flaws In Quinn Testimony.

Q. Why was it that you said it was between 12 and 12:30, and that you arrived at the poolroom at 12:25, and now say you arrived at Frank’s office between 12:20 and 12:25 and arrived at the poolroom at 12:30?—A. I overlooked part of it.

Q. Didn’t they ask you if you could be definite and you said you never looked at a clock until you got to the poolroom?—A. Yes.

Q. I will ask you now about the back door. Was it locked or barred?—A. Closed.

Q. On May 12, in the presence of Detectives Lanford, Starnes and myself, did you not sign this statement?—A. Yes.

Q. Well, didn’t you say that there was a bar on that door that cut off communication from the upper floor and didn’t you say it was customarily kept closed?—A. Yes.

Q. Now, didn’t I go further with you say this: “That the door that leads from the office floor to the floor above is kept closed,” and didn’t you say, “No, the door is closed with a bar across it.” “Now, isn’t that true?—A. Yes.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 13th 1913, “Frank’s Mother Stirs Courtroom,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

Stated That He Was Willing to Reply to Any Questions That Might Be in the Mind of the Public, and Asked to Answer Any Such That Might Be Propounded to Him.

TELLS HOW JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL AND ESCAPED DETECTION

Asserts That Very Fact That He Admitted He Had Seen Mary Phagan on the Day of the Murder, Thus Placing Himself Under Suspicion, Was Proof in Itself That He Was Innocent of Crime.

Probably the most interesting statement yet issued by Leo M. Frank in connection with the murder for which he has been sentenced to hang, is one that he has furnished to The Constitution in the form of a series of answers to questions which were propounded to him bearing on the case.

These questions were prepared by a representative of The Constitution who visited Frank at the Tower last week.

“Ask me any questions you wish,” Frank told the reporter.

In accordance with that, the reporter wrote out a list of questions which, he asserted, comprised the most salient points the prosecution had brought out against him, and to each of these Frank has given an answer.

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

Question 1. Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Question 2. The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Question 3. You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of the negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Question 4. Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Question 5. You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Question 6. You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Question 7. Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Question 8. Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Question 9. Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Question 10. At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Question 11. Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Question 12. Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Question 13. When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Question 14. Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Question 15. When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Question 16. If a girl were never seen[…]

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

[…]alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Question 17. Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Frank’s Answers.

Question 1—Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Answer—Lee had been employed at the factory for but two weeks. Almost any experience, therefore, he would have had at the factory would be for the “first time.” I had on Friday, April 25, received and accepted an invitation from my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to go to the ball game on Saturday afternoon. Accordingly, on Friday night I had directed Lee to report early on Saturday, because I thought I would be absent from the factory Saturday afternoon at the ball game. But on account of the bad weather and the accumulation of work, I called off this engagement at about 1:25 p. m. Saturday when I was home to lunch. Lee, however, reported early, as directed, but as I had changed my plans and was to remain at the factory, there was no need for Lee to remain there unless he so desired. I didn’t insist on his leaving. I told him he could go if he chose, and he availed himself of this permission. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether he stayed or went; but I did insist on his returning not later than 6 o’clock to the factory.

Question 2—The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Answer—Mary Phagan may have been attacked as she went down, at the foot of the steps, in such a way that she was unable to make any outcry at all. In fact, that is my theory.

On the other hand, if she did make an outcry there were many things that would have prevented my hearing it. The head of the stairway leading from the second to the street floor was about 70 feet from where I was sitting at my desk. Half way down the stairway was a pair of heavy doors, which were kept closed. There was a thick flooring, plastered underneath, between me and the floor below. Also the elevator stood at the level of the second floor. Then the two windows in my outer office were open, allowing the noise from the street to come in. Moreover, I was immersed in my work, and, of course, was not anticipating anything out of the ordinary. Please note that Lemmie Quinn was in my office talking to me within three to five minutes after Mary Phagan left my office after receiving her pay envelope from me.

Question 3—You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of a negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Answer—The very idea of writing notes and putting them by the dead body to divert suspicion is even more characteristic of a drunken, ignorant negro than the language itself. Emphatically no. The whole dictation theory is silly. In the first place, no intelligent white man would do such a thing, either by writing himself or having another write for him. He knows that handwriting is a sure clue. It is inconceivable that any white man could have dictated those notes and it is equally as unbelievable that he could be so foolish as to leave them on the body. In the second place, please remember that it was I and none other who gave the detectives the information by which they were able to disprove Conley’s assertion that he could not write. It was I who, as soon as I heard that Conley was denying that he could write, gave the information where they could find a contract signed by him for the purchase of a watch on the installment plan. The detectives followed this clue, secured the contract, and forced Conley to admit that he could write.

Question 4—Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Answer—I told Helen Ferguson no such thing. She did not testify that I so told her. Even the state has never contended that she so testified. There is no basis for such an idea.

Helen Ferguson never got even her own pay, much less that of another, from me. I was not the paymaster. No evidence was presented at the trial to show that I was. In fact, Helen Ferguson herself testified that previous to Friday, April 25, she never asked for or received an envelope from me. She said April 25 was the first time, and she is mistaken about this. Please note that the two girls who worked in her department with her testified at the trial that they were with Miss Ferguson when she drew her money from Mr. Schiff, and that in their company she left the factory immediately and started for home. There was no mention of asking Schiff, who was paying off, or Frank, who was not at the cashier’s window, for another person’s envelope. The two girls who so testified were Miss Hicks and Miss Kennedy. Schiff, who actually paid off Helen Ferguson, swore to this fact at the trial.

Calls Gantt A Liar.

Question 5—You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Answer—What Gantt said was an unqualified falsehood. I never knew that Gantt knew Mary Phagan intimately until Halloway told me after the murder of Monday, April 28, 1913, when I went to the factory in the afternoon at about 3 o’clock.

Question 6—You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Answer—Messrs. Schiff, Stelker, Sigancke, Quinn, Darley, Campbell and Halloway were with me when I examined the alleged “blood spots.” The police had taken up only a few chips from the spot, and left the remainder of the spot, which I examined. They didn’t take away the whole spot, nor did they take up the floor.

Question 7—Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Answer—When I first phoned Mr. Schiff it was Mr. Montag’s lunch hour, and I couldn’t get Mr. Montag on the phone. Mr. Schiff was at the factory office, and, so, when Mr. Montag gave his permission to Mr. Schiff to hire detectives, he could more readily arrange an interview and receive detectives than I, who was at my residence, could. Mr. Schiff was my assistant, and naturally I had him do this work for me. I don’t see the materiality of this question. The material point is that as soon as I could I had a detective employed and put upon the case to ferret out the crime.

Question 8—Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Answer—This is not true. At the coroner’s inquest I said: “She got there—of course, it is pretty hard to give the exact time—but I venture to say it as near as possible, between 12:10 and 12:15.” At the trial I said: “Miss Hattie Hall finished the work and started to leave when the 12 o’clock whistle blew, she left the office and returned, it looked to me, almost immediately, calling into my office that she had forgotten something, and then she left for good. . . . To the best of my knowledge, it must have been from 10 to 15 minutes after Miss (Hattie) Hall left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered by office and asked for her pay envelope.”

Let me call attention, at this point, to the fact that if I had been guilty, nothing on earth would have induced me to have revealed the fact that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan in my office a few seconds before the prosecution claims I killed her. Would the man who killed Mary Phagan have freely and voluntarily stated that he saw her and talked with her just a few moments before she was supposed to have been killed? Would not every instinct of self-preservation have caused him to conceal the fact that he had seen her at all? Why, if he were guilty should he disclose the fact that he had seen her, especially when no one had seen him talking with her, and it could not be proved that he had seen her? If I had a guilty conscience would I have freely and voluntarily stated, as I did, that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan? And if I did not hesitate to declare that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan (which was the big, important fact), what object could I have had in misstating the time that I saw her?

I stated simply the truth, and the whole truth. I gave the time to the best of my recollection.

Proof I Am Innocent.

Question 9—Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Answer—I said I was not out of my office at 12:05. I always contended that, and I still assert it. I never changed. I may have stepped to the toilet for a minute or two, but one couldn’t remember such an occurrence. I am not fully satisfied as to the accuracy of Miss Stover’s testimony. She is but a child, and may not be accurate.

Let me say, as I did in answer to the preceding question, that I always stated freely and voluntarily that I saw and talked with Mary Phagan in my office. I gave her her pay envelope. She asked me if the metal had come, and when I told her no, she departed. I did not see her alive again. Now, if I had anything to conceal about the meeting between Mary Phagan and myself, if I had been the guilty man, would I not have denied from the first that I had ever seen her at all? Would I ever have come forward freely and voluntarily and stated that I had seen and talked with her? Would I not have tried to conceal that fact? Let me say that if some other man were accused of a murder, and he were to come forward voluntarily and state, without any compulsion, that he had seen and talked with the dead person just a few moments before the killing was supposed to have occurred, I would say that the man had a clear conscience and was not guilty. For, if he had been guilty, common sense would have made him hide and conceal the fact of seeing the dead person just before the killing.

Question 10—At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Answer—At first, I said the slip was all right, as no successive numbers were skipped. Mr. N. V. Darley looked at the slip, also, and corroborated this. Later, when I studied carefully the time at which the punches occurred, I noted three lapses of one hour instead of a half hour, as they should have been. The whole matter of Lee’s punching the time clock, while a physical fact, is immaterial. There is one thing, however, that is material in this matter. When I took out of the clock the time slip that Lee punched, I wrote on it, ‘Taken out at 8:26 a. m.’ to identify it. Several of those about me at the time saw me write on the slip. This was a complete identification of this slip. Mr. Dorsey admitted, in open court, that he rubbed it out. He says he thought a detective wrote those words on it to identify it.

Question 11—Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Answer—I did not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory. I told her that if she did not wish to be locked in with the two boys at work on the fourth floor, that she would have to leave then, as I was going home to lunch, and was going to lock up the factory. I did not mention haste. As I followed her down the stairs at an interval of less than a minute, I could not have been writing as she passed, and was not writing. I may have been placing papers together preparatory to leaving, but I had nothing to wrtie [sic]. The record of the case bears me out in this.

Question 12—Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Answer—Conley came to my cell surrounded by detectives who had put themselves on record as being antagonistic to me. They were not hunting the truth; they were trying to fasten the crime on me. No matter what I would have done, if I consented to the interview, they would have used it against me. At the trial the negro never looked at me once, though my eyes were glued on him the whole time.

Question 13—When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Answer—To the police I did fail to mention Lemmie Quinn’s visit. It slipped my mind, though it was a circumstance favorable to me. But his statement, and my own, that he called and saw me in my office that day, has never been questioned. As soon as Quinn mentioned to me the fact of his visit to me the day of the murder, it refreshed my memory, and I at once remembered it.

Question 14—Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Answer—No. I told him to tell the truth. Not knowing exactly what the police were claiming (at that time), and not being a lawyer, I did not know what value Quinn’s visit could have as evidence, and I told Quinn I would report the fact to my lawyers.

Character Witnesses.

Question 15—When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Answer—My experience with Dalton, the first character witness against me, had given me and my attorneys fair warning what to expect from the so-called character witnesses. Here was a man upon whom I had never laid my eyes before he took his seat in the witness chair, and of whom I had never heard, and yet he swore solemnly to acts and doings with me that were utterly and absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation. Was not this fair warning to me and my attorneys of what they might expect from the other so-called character witnesses? There was nothing that they could truthfully testify against my character, but I had been duly warned that I could not rely upon their speaking the truth.

My lawyers decided that if they cross-examined those character witnesses, it would allow these hostile people to tell all they heard about me in the way of vile slander—not what they knew. They felt that these witnesses had been loaded with slanders about me just for the purpose of telling them on cross-examination. They did not want to give them the chance to repeat malicious tales against me which they had no opportunity to investigate or answer.

Question 16—If a girl were never seen alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Answer—If the only facts known were what you state, then it would not be surprising that such a man should be arrested, and if subsequent developments indubitably pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime, that he should be vigorously prosecuted. But if, after this man’s arrest, a negro brute is discovered, who admits a knowledge of the crime, who admits writing the very notes found by the body, though, at first, steadfastly denying he could write at all, and who, after repeated visits and promptings from the detectives and the solicitor, finally invents a preposterous and unbelievable tale, putting the crime on the man arrested in order to save his own neck—then I would say that the further prosecution of this man is persecution, indeed!

Question 17—Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Answer—Not prior to the time that another was shown to have had the opportunity to commit the crime.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, March 9th 1914, “Leo Frank Answers List of Questions Bearing On Points Made Against Him,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, June 25, 1913

Police Resume Questioning of the Negro Sweeper Who Accuses Leo Frank.

Puzzled by several of the statements of Jim Conley in regard to his part in the happenings the day that Mary Phagan was killed, the police have resumed the questioning from which the negro had been free since he was taken to the police station by the detectives.

One point that has not been cleared up is why Conley saw every one else that went into or left the factory and yet failed to see Mary Phagan.

Conley, on Sunday, was confronted by Monteen Stover. He identified her as the girl he saw enter the factory shortly after 12 o’clock on the day of the crime. Yet he still maintains that he did not see Mary Phagan, although Mary must have entered the factory either just before or just after the Stover girl was in the building. The evidence in the possession of the State shows that there could hardly have been more than three to five minutes intervening between the times that the two girls were in the factory.

Want Clearer Statement.

Conley has been asked to explain this apparently improbable circumstance. Conley at first denied that he had seen Lemmie Quinn in the factory on the Saturday of the murder. Later he said he had seen the factory foreman. Which statement is believed by the State is not known. What explanation is made by the negro for lying in regard to the matter also is conjectural.

Mary Phagan left her home on April 26 at about 11:50 o’clock. Living in Bellwood, it is regarded as unlikely that she reached the factory in less than 25 minutes, or at 12:15. Monteen Stover had testified that she visited the factory at about 12:10, which would be just before Mary Phagan had entered the factory, if the times testified to are correct.

Conley, on this account, has been asked if he saw, from his vantage point behind the boxes, Monteen Stover enter the factory at 12:10 o’clock, and Lemmie Quinn enter at 12:20, why he did not see Mary Phagan when she entered in the interval between the visits of the Stover girl and Lemmie Quinn.

Sticks to His Story.

Another point on which he has been questioned is as to how he could have left his home at the time he has testified and visit all the saloons of which he has told and still meet Frank at Nelson and Forsyth Streets as Frank was on his way to Montag Bros. factory. Frank, according to the statements of members of the Montag firm, was in their building by 10 o’clock. Yet the things that Conley has testified to doing would have taken him until considerably after 10 o’clock, according to a conservative estimate.

He also has been quizzed on other points in his testimony which appear at variance with the facts, but he has stuck steadfastly to the story told in his last affidavit. Solicitor Dorsey has said that he has been unable to shake the negro in any important particular.

Deny Hoke Smith Story.

Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, made strenuous denial Wednesday that any effort had been made to connect Senator Hoke Smith with the defense. A similar denial was made by Herbert Haas, associated with Mr. Rosser in the defense. Neither was able to say how the rumor had started.

Frank A. Hooper, who is assisting Solicitor Dorsey in the prosecution, said that the State would be prepared Monday to fight the subpenas duces tecum issued by the lawyers for the defense. It is regarded as improbable, however, that the defense will bring the matter to an issue until the trial begins July 28.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 25th 1913, “Conley, Put on Grill, Sticks Story,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)