by Dale Bennett

ON THIS, the 112th anniversary of the rape and strangulation murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan by her sweatshop boss — and Atlanta B’nai B’rith president — Leo Max Frank, let us remember her young life and reflect on the massive Jewish propaganda machine that has been attempting to whitewash her killer’s reputation for more than a century.

Besides the victim, Mary Phagan, there were five people in the National Pencil Company building when she was killed on 26 April 1913. We know that four of them didn’t do it. That leaves Leo Frank.

110 years later, the ADL is still trying to frame the janitor, Jim Conley, for Mary Phagan’s murder: How likely is it that Conley, a Black man—in 1913 Georgia—would rape and kill a White girl just a few feet from the unlocked glass-paneled front entrance door of the National Pencil Company, where people were coming and going all day, right at the foot of an open staircase at the top of which was Leo Frank’s open office door? Preposterous.

Leo Frank was elected the Atlanta B’nai B’rith president of the Gate City Lodge #144 in 1912 and his Summer of 1913 conviction for the rape and strangulation-murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan had galvanized B’nai B’rith HQ to found the ADL less than two months after the fact.

Even though Leo Frank was convicted in late August 1913, in September 1913 his 500-member Independent Order of B’nai B’rith fraternal organization in Georgia voted unanimously (see Atlanta Constitution, September 24, 1913 at leofrank.info) to re-elect him their president. So while Leo Frank was incarcerated in the city jail as his appeals were wending their way through the appellate courts, he was running the affairs of this powerful Atlanta Jewish group like a powerful mafia boss behind bars until the Autumn of 1914. He was not re-elected once the affidavits, testimony, and evidence of the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records were revealed to the public (available at the Internet Archive and leofrank.info).

A must-read on the topic is “100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty” from the American Mercury, and another important source every student of the case must read are the contemporary works of Tom Watson.

I encourage everyone to please listen to the works of investigative journalist Tom Watson in the audio books by Vanessa Neubauer, from the pages of Watson’s Jeffersonian Magazine, January, March, August, September and October of 1915.

I promise you won’t be disappointed.

1. Tom Watson: The Leo Frank Case

2. Tom Watson: A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case

3. Tom Watson: The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank

4. Tom Watson: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert

5. Tom Watson: The Rich Jews Indict a State!

Tom Watson articulated the evidence, testimony and exhibits of the Leo Frank trial with such force and power it is impossible to believe Leo Frank is innocent. Listen and find out why!

In this year of 2024, on the 111th anniversary of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan by Jewish sex killer Leo Frank, we present this article, based on a piece from the alternative media.

by K.A. Strom and Valdis Bell

I BELIEVE IT was the great writer Daniel Concannon who first said that in America, no matter who you vote for you always get Jonathan Greenblatt.

Greenblatt looks like a particularly filthy gunsel from a 1940s gangster movie. He makes Peter Lorre look handsome. He’s the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (or ADL), which is perhaps the foremost anti-Gentile hate operation in America today. It is the ADL who decides what you get to hear or see in the media, and what you are allowed to say in public and on social media. It would be better named the Defamation League, as one of their main activities is defaming and deplatforming and smearing and financially and personally ruining anyone who exposes Jewish crimes or the genocidal nature of the Jewish agenda.

As proof that the ADL gets what it wants, and what it wants is to silence anyone who inhibits the Jewish agenda of a brown America, look at what happened to populist Tucker Carlson last year. The most highly-rated talk show host on the dinosaur media, so well-liked that a recent poll puts his popularity higher than that of the entire Fox News Network where he appeared, Carlson was fired by mega-Zionist and possibly crypto- or part-Jew Rupert Murdoch without reason being given. Jonathan Greenblatt has been pushing for Carlson to be fired for at least two years. Take a look at this softball CNN interview with Greenblatt from 12 April 2021. CNN is owned and run by Jews.

Greenblatt gets all worked up emotionally when he tells Brian Stelter, “Tucker Carlson has got to go!” calling for him to be deplatformed, and literally a few seconds later screeches “This is not cancel culture.” Right. Greenblatt and the ADL goddamned invented cancel culture, for the gods’ sake. It’s the very basis of their existence. Apparently Tucker had mentioned the increasingly obvious fact that there a media agenda to replace the heritage population of the US and Europe and other Western nations. (It’s okay for the controlled media to mention this, they often do, so long as they frame it as a good and inevitable thing. But Tucker hadn’t made the obligatory ritual incantations, and that might stir up the peasants and get them thinking maybe, just maybe, someone is trying to hurt them — something that Greenblatt and his ilk cannot tolerate.)

Now, I’m not a hod carrier for Tucker Carlson. He articulates many of the problems we face well. He informs us about a few parts of the media’s agenda that the rest of the Jewish-controlled media try to downplay or keep hidden. But, like Lucy Van Pelt and her football with Charlie Brown, at the last moment he always pulls away and leaves us without knowing who is behind these things and why they do what they do. In some cases he out-and-out misdirects our people into thinking that Democrats are the real problem — not Jewish power — and that Republicans, some of them anyway, are the real solution. He scrupulously and cleverly and rather disgustingly dances around the issue of Jewish/Zionist power. Sometimes he tells us that it’s some shadowy “woke” conspiracy or airheaded “groupthink” trendiness that’s “behind it all.” (Truth be told, we as people need “groupthink.” All peoples need groupthink — that is, thinking of themselves as a group and committing themselves to their group’s survival — in order to even exist at all. Tucker Carlson says that’s a bad thing, promoting some vaguely libertarian strain of populism — or maybe it’s a populist strain of libertarianism; it doesn’t really matter, either one is death for us. So I am not a big fan of Tucker Carlson.

But Carlson went too far for Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL. And he was hugely popular. So he had to go. And, going against — insanely against, I might add — their own economic interests, the Murdochs fired him. Pleasing Jews is more important, apparently, than billions in revenue.

And it is this same Greenblatt and same ADL that is allowed to give “training courses” to police officers nationwide, telling the officers just who it is who is “dangerous” and who should get especially intense law enforcement scrutiny. It is this same ADL that meets with social media executives — including Elon Musk — and tells them who it is who should have a voice and who should be stifled or silenced. It is this same ADL that tells our national and state and local legislators what laws should be passed and what speech should be banned.

Speaking of pleasing Jews, witness the shocking behavior of Florida governor Ron DeSantis. For the second time in history — and DeSantis did it the first time, too — an American governor has signed a bill into law while in a foreign country. It was a bill supported by the ADL and specifically crafted to make distribution of fliers criticizing Jews into a felony. And guess which country DeSantis was in when he signed it? If you guessed Israel, you’re right. DeSantis, who, like Tucker Carlson, makes a lot of noise in apparent opposition to certain of the most outrageous parts of the Jewish agenda, knows who he has to please. Don’t fool yourself; DeSantis still has ambitions to be a major elite political player. His signing of this flagrantly immoral and illegal restriction on our speech while in Israel is deeply significant: a symbolic bowing to his masters, in a place sacred to his masters, signaling he wants their approval for a “move up” in status, something that only they really decide.

I’ll embed the tweet from neocon Jew Rep. Andy Fine, who said: “made a secret trip to JERUSALEM (!!!) to deliver @GovRonDeSantis HB 269, the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States. To Florida’s Nazi thugs, I have news: attack Jews on their property and you’re going to prison. Never again means never again.” All of this surmounts a picture of DeSantis signing the sacred bill, with two smirking Jews looking on. Do I have to tell you that the bill has nothing to do with “attacking” Jews, but only with distributing literature that criticizes them or exposes their activities?

Some of you may be wondering what all this has to do with Mary Phagan. And who is she, anyway? Well, you need to understand the murder of Mary Phagan in order to understand how we got from the Land of the Free to the point where a greasy, sleazy item like Greenblatt gets to decide what our laws should be and what you can say without getting fired or going to prison.

It all began when 19th-century Americans, woefully unaware of reality when it came to Jews, mistakenly thought that Jews were just another kind of European and let them stream into our country in huge numbers. Jews, knowing they were a separate race and with fanatical racial loyalty, immediately began to organize and acquire power for themselves, especially power over the press and eventually all mass media as they emerged.

Initially, Jews in the southern US adapted themselves to the reality of Jim Crow and positioned themselves publicly as “White” and supportive of White institutions.

But all that changed at high noon on 26 April, 1913, in Atlanta, Georgia.

It happened on the second floor of the National Pencil Company building on Forsyth Street. It was a sweatshop where child laborers, mostly White girls, spent their youth making pencils for the company’s Jewish owners for 60 hours a week and more, earning only pennies an hour.

13-year-old Mary Phagan was one such girl. She came that day to the office to collect her pathetically meager $1.20 pay. There she met the sweatshop’s Jewish boss and stockholder, Leo Frank, in his office on the second floor. Leo Frank was also the president of the Atlanta chapter of the B’nai B’rith, a Jewish organization that would spawn the ADL later that same year.

It was a holiday and no one else was on that entire floor. Frank paid her, and then took her into the factory’s “metal room,” in the rear part of the second floor, as far as possible from the stairway and elevator, and from prying eyes and ears, on the pretext of checking to see if the metal supplies she needed for her work had come in. He closed the doors behind them as they walked.

Near the rear wall, standing in front of a metal lathe next to the toilet entrance, Leo Frank did to Mary Phagan what he, according to numerous witnesses, had often done with his teenage girl employees: He attempted to take sexual liberties with her. She resisted. Frank knocked her down forcibly, hitting her in the eye and striking her head against the unyielding metal lathe, opening a bloody gash that he may or may not have seen at first. While she was stunned, he pulled her garments up above her waist and raped her right on the red-stained floor in front of the toilet, lying in her own flowing blood.

When he was “done,” seeing the blood and doubtlessly realizing his predicament should Mary tell others of his actions, he found a piece of the twine used to pack supplies in his factory, wound it tightly around Mary’s neck, and strangled her to death. He then tore off a piece of her lace underwear, placed it around her neck as if it were a lace necklet and so it covered the marks of the strangling.

He then summoned the factory’s Black sweeper, Jim Conley, to enlist his aid in the moving and, he hoped, the burning of Mary Phagan’s body. Conley knew that Frank liked to “chat” in private with the prettier of his young White employees, as he had kept watch for Frank on several occasions while such “chatting” took place. And, in fact, he was keeping watch for him near the factory’s first-floor entrance at that very moment. Frank told Conley that he had struck the girl and accidentally killed her. The lace “necklet” might have served to conceal the strangling — at least conceal it from Conley. It could never fool police investigators. But, if Conley had burned the body for Frank as planned (as it turned out, he never did), there might never be any police investigators. Conley and Frank moved Mary’s body to the basement.

Frank and his legal team tried to frame the Black night watchman, Newt Lee, for the murder. Among other things, they forged his time card, and planted a fake bloody shirt at his residence. When that framing attempt failed, they tried to frame Jim Conley — and, 111 years later, they’re still trying to frame him. They planted a fake “bloody club” and pay envelope near the place where Conley kept watch for Frank that day. But that fake was exposed, too. The true evidence kept building up, and the proof was overwhelming that Frank was the killer. He was convicted and sentenced to death.

But Frank had something that ordinary defendants, Black or White, never have. He was not an “ordinary citizen.” He was a Jew, a member of the supposedly “chosen people.” He was also an actual official of the Jewish power structure — the head of Atlanta’s division of the B’nai B’rith. He had the already massive power, money, media ownership, and political influence of the organized Jewish community nationwide behind him. They refused to let the verdict stand. They funded a multimillion-dollar legal and PR campaign to get him a new trial, to make millions of gullible people believe he was innocent and a saintlike “victim of anti-Semitism,” and to get his sentence commuted. They were only partially successful. All his numerous and expensive appeals, which went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, failed. And the death sentence was carried out by an outraged citizenry after a corrupt governor commuted it. The Jews did fool a great number of Americans about Frank, however.

And the Frank case galvanized Jews to see heritage Americans as their enemies. The Leo Frank case was not only the first time the Jewish power structure flexed its muscles so openly to change public opinion and to get what it wanted from the political and legal systems. It was also when they decided that their alliance with White people was at an end. From that day forward, and intensifying greatly after World War 2, the Jews have been ramping up a (slighty) covert war on White people at the very same time that they made overt war on Arabs and others in the Middle East.

Everything else flows from that day. What that Jew pervert did to Mary Phagan on the metal room floor that day 111 years ago this week led directly to Jonathan Greenblatt telling you what you can and cannot say today — led directly, in fact, to the founding of the ADL just a few months after Mary Phagan breathed her last.

And now, as Paul Harvey used to say, you know the rest of the story.

***

Source: based on an article at National Vanguard

Atlanta Constitution
August 29th, 1913

It was learned yesterday that, contrary to reports, Leo Frank would not make public a statement attacking his arraignment by Solicitor Dorsey, withholding at the advice of attorneys.

His counsel has advised silence for the present, and it is likely that no statement at all will be made by the convicted man until his case is brought before the Supreme Court, in the event a new trial is granted.

No move of any kind is expected on the part of the defense until October 4, the date set for argument before Judge L. S. Roan. Both the defense and prosecution are busy preparing and outlining their argument.

Mrs. Rea Frank, mother of the factory superintendent, left Thursday afternoon for her home In Brooklyn. She intimated, however, that she; would return to Atlanta shortly, Her husband, it is said, is ill at home.

Frank is resting well in the Tower. Much of his time is spent in attending to business. He receives visitors daily, and his wife has been a constant caller. He slept nine hours Wednesday night. Many out-of-town friends came to see him Thursday morning and afternoon, some of whom were college mates at Cornell.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 29th 1913, “Leo M. Frank to Make No Public Statement,” 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 19th, 1913

“I’VE TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH” SAYS PRISONER CONCLUDING DRAMATIC STORY TO THE JURY

Discussing Much-Fought-Over Point of His Alleged Nervousness on the Morning of the Murder, Superintendent Admits It Freely. Declaring That Any Man in His Place Would Have Been Similarly Affected—Speaks Bitterly of His Treatment by Members of Detective Force, and Says That One Reason Why He Would Not Consent to Meet Conley Was That the Officers Would Have Distorted His Words.

MOTHER AND WIFE OF DEFENDANT EMBRACE HIM WHEN HE LEAVES STAND

Declares Story of Conley Was a Lie From Beginning to End, and Denies Charge of Miss Jackson That He Ever Locked Into Dressing Room of Girl Employees—-He Tells of Mary Phagan Coming to Office to Get Her Pay Envelope Shortly After Noon on April 26. Says That He Gave Detectives Clue That Conley Could Write, Which Led to Arrest of Negro Sweeper—No Fund Raised for His Defense, He Asserts.

“Some newspaper man has called me “The Silent Man in the Tower.’ Gentlemen, this is the time and here is the place! I have told you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!”

Thus did Leo M. Frank dramatically conclude his remarkable statement of nearly four hours, during which then he was in turn explicit as to detail of his doings on the day of the murder, argumentative when explaining some point which had looked dark for him, tender when referring to his wife and his home life, bitter when he told of the treatment he had received at the hands of the detective department.

It was in all essentials the most remarkable statement which has ever been delivered in a courtroom in the south, “Through the four hours that he was talking there was not the slightest trace of nervousness, not a tremor of the hands, even when conveying a glass of water to his lips. He was perfectly poised, convincingly clear in his statements, the man unafraid.

When he concluded a hush fell over the courtroom. His wife and mother, who had been hanging on his every word, fell forward on his neck and the pent-up tears flowed freely.

The statement carried the ring of truth in every sentence, and scores in the room whose minds had not been made up left the room convinced of the man’s innocence.

FRANK THE MASTER OF HIMSELF.

Shortly before court convened for the afternoon session Frank was chatting with his wife and some friends in the anterroom. He had just had his throat treated for an extremely bad cold which he contracted some days ago. With this exception he stated to newspaper men that he was feeling fine—that he felt no nervousness, and that he expected to be on the stand fully three hours.

Shortly after 2 o’clock Frank took the stand. The courtroom was packed. Scores of friends who have stood by him in his dark days of confinement clustered near. His devoted mother and his faithful wife, her sisters and cousins, sat where they could see him clearly.

He began his statement with a swift account of his life and then hurried forward to the events of the fatal day when Mary Phagan entered the office of the National Pencil company for the Iast time.

He told in detail of his movements and activities that day. From time to time he referred to the financial statement and to various papers on which he says he worked that day. These papers he went over carefully, item by item, figure by figure. He stood facing the jury and talked to them very much as if he were addressing a board of directors before whom he was presenting some proposition demanding explanation.

For some two hours he dwelt on the technical details of the factory to show just how much time it would have taken him to make up the financial statement, and he explained in minute fashion the source from which each item was derived.

LOST SIGHT OF MARY PHAGAN.

He told of little Mary Phagan entering his office to receive her pay, of her going out and then returning to inquire if the metal had come. As she left for the last time he spoke of having heard what he thought was a woman’s voice, hut of this he said he could not be positive.

He visualized for the jury his work of that afternoon and of his trip to and from home; of how he spent Saturday evening.

Of the early morning ride to the undertaking establishment and of his alleged nervousness, he said:

“A good deal has been said of my nervousness that morning. I admit it. I was nervous. Think of it, gentlemen. I was awakened at an early hour, rushed downtown in an automobile going at top speed. I had had no breakfast. I witnessed this poor child–this young girl in the first flush of womanhood—dead and mutilated. Gentlemen, the sight was enough to make any man nervous. It would have touched any man not made of stone.”

Frank then told of his visit to the detective department and of his second visit to the undertaking establishment that afternoon.

Of his experience with the Atlanta detective department he spoke with a trace of bitterness.

He described the manner in which he says John Black administered the third degree to Newt lee. He said the manner in which he shrieked at and cursed the negro was something awful.

Of the criticism that he would not talk to detectives or to Conley, he said:

“My experience with them showed me that they would put words in my mouth and distort what I really said until it became unrecognizable. At first I answered all questions gladly, but finally I decided to wash my hands of them.”

He told of a visit John Black and Harry Scott had paid him.

“’The Pinkertons are suspicious of that man Darley,’ Black said. ‘Now, open up—tell us what you know,” Frank said.

“I told them that Darley was the soul of honor, and thereupon they left in disgust.” Frank branded as a lie the statement that women had ever visited him. He denied that he had seen Conley on the day of the murder. He told of how he was the first man to prove that Conley could write. He denied all knowledge of Dalton of ever having seen him. He said he had no rich relatives In Brooklyn, and denied there was any fund raised for his defense. The money for this purpose, he said, was ‘secured by mortgaging his parents property’.

He wound up with the dramatic statement quoted at the beginning of this article, and immediately was on his way back to the Tower.

MANY CHARACTER WITNESSES.

Many character witnesses wero called at the morning session, all of whom testified to Frank’s good character. A large part of the forenoon was taken up in enumerating the various exhibits which the defense wanted to introduce.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 19th 1913, “Frank Ends Statement After Testifying Four Hours,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 8^th, 1913

Will Leo Frank’s character be one of the issues in his trial for the murder of little Mary Phagan?

That is the question which has been the subject of speculation since it was first known that he would be tried for the murder, and as the case has progressed the subject has been discussed frequently.

Not one in a hundred defendants place their character in issue when on trial for murder, but a condition has arisen in the Frank case which may cause his attorneys to think it wise to take this step.

It came when James Conley, the negro who accuses Frank of the murder, testified to misconduct on the part of the defendant which would brand him as an outcast among men, and when C. B. Dalton, the white man, mentioned by the negro, testified to having visited the factory for immoral purposes with Frank’s knowledge and to have seen him drinking beer with women in his office.

Defense Lose Point.

The defense, after letting the testimony of the negro stand until they had cross-examined him upon it, moved to strike it from the record and only lost after a hot argument on both sides.

That such evidence is bound to have its effect upon a jury of twelve average men is admitted by both the state and the defense. It was admitted by the state when the state fought to keep it in and it was admitted by the defense when a fight was made to strike it.

In rebuttal of this the defense may put the character of the defendant squarely in issue and introduce many witnesses to prove good character.

From the time Frank was first arrested on suspicion his friends declared that he was a man of unimpeachable morals and habits. Many of those whom he associated as a young man frankly declared that Leo Frank had never indulged in even the slightest form of dissipation and that he had parted company with them on every occasion when they started out to indulge in forms of dissipation.

Others who knew him as a man and as superintendent of the large factory asserted the same thing, and when the case started to trial on July 28 there were nearly a hundred witnesses sworn in whose only use could be to testify, if need be, to the defendant’s good character.

Will Testify for Frank.

Many of the well-known business men of Atlanta were among this list, and there were others in various walks of life, all of whom know Frank and believe in him. There were men who could tell of him in business and in fraternal orders, others who knew him in social life, and still others who knew him in the closer relations of family life.

There are many women also among the list which includes those people who have known Frank from the day he came to Atlanta until the present time, and who were closely associated with him until the day of his arrest.

On the other hand, should the character of the man become an issue, it is not known what the state would do. It might allow it to go unchallenged and to declare that it was not seeking to convict him on past character, but on the actual charge of a specific crime.

The state might, however, bring what it could to attack the man’s character and try to show evidence tending to paint him such a man as Conley and Dalton picture him.

Would Swear for Frank.

Should Frank’s character go in issue there is one great advantage that would lie with the defense. Men and women whose reputations are free of any charge would swear to his good character. Many of those witnesses who might be in a position to swear to his evil character must necessarily admit to the jury that they were besmirched with the same mud in which they would claim Frank had wallowed in.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Will Defense Put Character of Leo Frank Before Jury?” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 8^th, 1913

By O. B. KEELER.

They call it a chain that the State has forged, or has tried to forge, to hold Leo Frank to the murder of Mary Phagan.

But isn’t it a rope?

A chain, you know, is as strong as its weakest link. Take one link out, and the chain comes apart.

With a rope, it’s different.

Strand after strand might be cut or broken, and the rope still holds a certain weight. Then might come a time when the cutting of one more strand would cause the rope to break.

The point is, the finished rope will sustain a weight that would instantly snap any one of its several strands.

Bits of Evidence Threads.

And that is what the various bits of circumstantial evidence might better be called—strands or threads.

Edgar Allen Poe, in “The Mystery of Marie Roget,” has nearly exhausted the philosophical phase of accumulative circumstance and its relation to evidence.

Applying the system of the well-known Dupin to the case in point—and REGARDING IT, BE IT UNDERSTOOD, STRICTLY FROM THE STATE’S VIEWPOINT—an analysis of part of the evidence against Leo Frank follows:

First off, the isolated circumstance of Conley’s ability to write would seem as futile as a smoke wreath in sustaining any weight of evidence, except against Conley himself.

But to the fact is added the fact that Frank knew Conley could write.

Still, the thread is flimsy, and even connected with the case against Frank, would appear worthless.

Six Deductions Seen.

But when it develops that Frank knowing Conley could write, and knowing the police were trying to find the author of the murder notes—when Frank, well aware of these things, did not inform the police that Conley was lying when he said he could not write, the following deductions appear:

(1) That Frank did not want to connect Conley with the murder notes which (2) would have been the natural and prompt inclination of a suspected man who knew nothing of the crime himself, so that (3) it appeared Frank knew something of the murder, and (4) knew that Conley knew he knew something of the murder, which (5) justified the conclusion on the part of the State that Frank feared to implicate Conley, lest (6) Conley, in turn, tell something that would implicate him.

Of course, this stand may be broken entirely by the defense, showing Frank never knew the police were ignorant of Conley’s ability to write before the police learned it themselves.

But there is one pretty substantial stand of evidence, as the State sees it—and all having its genesis in the simple fact that Conley knew how to write, and at first denied it.

But that strand of itself surely would fail to carry the burden of the case. There must be others.

Even Conley’s story is strong only by reason of many strands that surround and support it. Presented to a jury, round and unvarnished—tainted by the reek of false affidavits and weakened by the dry-rot of self-interest, Conley’s story never would win a verdict against Leo Frank.

But there is the shred of the murder notes—Conley’s story draws support from that. There is the time factor brought out by the expert testimony—Conley’s story twines itself about the prop of science. There is the agitation of Frank noticed by Newt Lee in the middle of the afternoon—Conley’s story provides for that. There is the visit of Monteen Stover, a tiny circumstance of itself—but of vast importance just so far as it strengthens Conley’s recollection of exact time.

And it is by reason of the rope already well along in the twisting that a hundred other little circumstances become significant that of themselves would be lighter than the air drawn dagger that troubled the dreams of Macbeth.

They fit in with the twisting of the rope.

Will the Rope Hold?

There is Frank’s agitation at home and at the factory. There is the ugly story of habitual “chats” at the factory, guarded by Conley as watchman. And the sending away of Newt Lee that afternoon. And the seeing of Conley by Mrs. White, “loitering” at the place he fixes for himself as watchman, and at the time. And the alleged reluctance of Frank to confront Conley at the jail.

And all the rest of it.

So many little incidents, and most of them small to triviality in themselves.

The point is, each strengthens the other, until the fragile threads become a rope.

Will it hold after Frank’s lawyers have presented their side of the case.

The jury must decide.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 8th 1913, “Bits of Circumstantial Evidence, as Viewed by State, Strands in Rope,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 8^th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

As the defense in the Frank case gets under way, it is evident enough, as it has been from the beginning of this case, that there is but one big, tremendously compelling task before it—the annihilation of Conley’s ugly story!

The State climaxed its case thrillingly and with deadly effect in the negro.

He came through the fire of cross-examination, exhaustive and thorough, in remarkably good shape, all things considered. He unfolded a story even more horrible than was anticipated. Certainly, in every conceivable way, he has sought to damage the defendant—even going to the extent of lodging against him another crime than murder!

Through the cross-examination, however, there an an evident vein of deadly purpose upon the part of the defense. Conley was given full limit to go his length. He went it—no disputing that!

The question is, did he go TOO FAR?

Did he, in his last minute effort to get in EVERYTHING that possibly might work against the defendant, tell things, or say things, that eventually will rise to plague him to his utter undoing?

That is the defense’s task—THE UNDOING OF CONLEY.

Conley the State’s All.

Conley is the heart and soul of the State’s case—without Conley, the State is rendered helpless. He is the Alpha and the Omega of the charge against Leo Frank.

That great detective, William J. Burns, says “they always—criminals—leave something out of gear in the stories they tell.”

Burns declares there never was a lie told to shield a criminal that did not have in it SOMEWHERE a fatal weakness, that might be located if patiently sought for. The more elaborate the tale of the criminal relates, the mere chance there is, no matter how [1 word illegible] shrewd he may seem to be, that he will be discovered.

Today is the defense’s day in court—during its progress, which may be for a week or more, even as the State’s day lasted 240 hours, Leo Frank must break down the awful story of Jim Conley, and prove himself innocent, if he can, of all the various charges brought against him.

Can he do it?

Well, maybe he can, and maybe he can not—at least, in the name of justice and decency and all that is right, he must have full and free OPPORTUNITY.

One Side of the Case.

During the progress of the State’s case, the defense was led far into the gloom. People began to doubt Frank’s innocence—people of poise and fair minds, desirous of seeing the truth prevail though the heavens fall. Even these people found themselves staggering and groping as the hideous and sinister charges fell from the lips of the negro.

Could Leo Frank, of previous good reputation, of fair name and unblemished integrity, college bred and studious in habit, so far as the public knew or suspected, be the the monster responsible for little Mary Phagan’s death, and also—the other unspeakable thing?

In a rather remarkable interview Mrs. Leo Frank gave The Sunday American some few weeks ago, she said this of Frank and herself: “As sweethearts, we went hand in hand, and intruded ourselves upon no person; as man and wife we have gone hand in hand, and we have intruded ourselves upon no person.”

They still are going “hand in hand,” the man and the woman, the husband and the wife—the one holding up as best he can under the terrible charge of murder, the other there beside him—“for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer”—until death, or worse than death, shall sever the tie that binds.

That is something steadying to think about!

It is the defendant’s day in court—and he is entitled to fair play and a fair chance!

To some it may seem that the burden has shifted, that it is up to the defense now, notwithstanding the more or less fictitious presumption of innocence that law jealously has established in his favor, to PROVE his innocence.

Be that as it may—even as the gloom has closed about him and all he holds most dear in this world—he still is a human being, in very dire distress, as yet unconvicted; and it is only right that the public should be patient, as he sets forth HIS side of this terrible affair.

And I give it as my opinion here and now, for whatever it is worth, that the case against Leo Frank yet may be far from conclusive—and it may never be made conclusive.

Conley’s Tale Impossible?

Suppose the defense is able to show, by a sequence of logical, orderly and honorably sustained witnesses, that the tale Jim Conley tells is utterly absurd—and IMPOSSIBLE?

What then?

Will you be prepared, if forced to a conviction against your will, if it be that way with you, to say to Frank: “All right, you came through the fire, at times seemingly sure to consume you, unhurt and unscorched, but you came through, and I am content.”

Conley’s story has not YET been broken down—no. But it MAY be broken down.

In an article a few days ago, I said this, and I feel like repeating it now:

In judging this Frank case, purely from the State’s own standpoint, there is [n]othing so important as the TIME ELEMENT in which the State uncompromisingly claims the crime was committed.

In another article a few days thereafter, I said this, and this I also feel like repeating now:

If the Conley story is a lie, if it has been TOO CLEVERLY “framed up”—if and a thousand other “ifs”—what matters that?

It matters this: If it be a lie, it MUST break down, somewhere, sometime; if it be the truth, it will stand against ALL the assaults made upon it!

State Tied by Conley.

Remember, unless Conley’s story holds together, the case against Frank goes to pieces. Everybody who has read the evidence and who still is capable of rendering just judgment will admit that.

Suppose it can be shown, and is shown, that the story Conley told CAN NOT be true?

The defense MUST show that, or Frank is lost!

Can the defense do that?

The State has pinned itself down to exact and definite propositions. Remember, the defense has hardly started its story yet—it may be able to make absurd those very propositions the State has set up.

The crime, according to the State’s witnesses, MUST have been committed thus and so, in exact order, and just as stated—or Conley’s story falls down.

The biggest element in the State’s case is the time element—mark that!

Upon it the State will stand or fall eventually.

If Mary Phagan was NOT killed before 12:05, then Leo Frank didn’t kill her. If she was not killed at that time, Conley’s story will not do.

Then is when the State says she was killed—THEN and not at any other time. Conley’s story ALL leads up to and away from that.

Remember, too, that the only witness who swears to knowledge or suspicion of any unspeakable conduct upon the part of Frank is—again—Conley.

Dalton a Tame Witness.

When it came to corroborating Conley, Dalton proved a tame corroboration. The ugly, nasty charge of perversion and degeneracy, glibly dropped from the lips of Conley, rests ENTIRELY AND ALTOGETHER on Conley’s word.

If Conley’s story of the murder is shown to be IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD, will you then reverse your other opinion concerning Frank—if you have accepted Conley’s word as to that—and agree that Conley, having lied to send Frank to the gallows, would have lied as readily to besmirch him with unmentionable scandal otherwise?

Shall not Frank have the right, unchallenged and fair, to clear himself of every charge lodged against him?

To-day is his day in court—will any living person begrudge him, sore pressed, one moment of it?

Will, in the end, he be able to read and take to himself, happily and serenely, Tennyson’s beautiful poem ending—

“And now it is daylight everywhere!”

Will he?

We shall see.

At least, he is entitled to his day in court—and it is at hand!

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 8th 1913, “State, Tied by Conley’s Story, Now Must Stand Still Under Hot Fire,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

by Philip St. Raymond

WE ARE very pleased to present here a new American Mercury video based on the widely reprinted 2013 Mercury article by Bradford L. Huie, 100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty, and using the audio book read by Miss Vanessa Neubauer as its basis. The article was written for our centenary retrospective of Mary Phagan’s 1913 murder. It provides in cinematic form an assessment of the Leo Frank case — perhaps the most amazing and intriguing murder mystery in American history — that simply cannot be found in the controlled media.

This ultra-high-resolution video is freely available to download so that you may keep it on your personal hard drive and re-upload it to video sharing platforms.

Today, the noose of censorship is being pulled ever-tighter by a media/government complex that is desperate to keep its lies and its crimes hidden from the public. Thus this video — exposing one of the first major operations on American soil of that complex — is very timely and important today. The American Mercury is proud to, once again in our 97-year history, bear witness to the truth.

* * *

Source: The American Mercury

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

Atlanta Journal
August 6^th, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey in Vigorous Speech Protests Against Striking Evidence, Declaring He Has Witnesses to Corroborate the Negro and That Striking of Testimony Will Prevent His Getting Their Statements Before the Jury

Sustaining a motion made by the defense in the trial of Leo M. Frank, Judge L. S. Roan Tuesday afternoon announced that he would rule out all of Conley’s testimony charging the accused superintendent with perversion, and the negro’s testimony that he acted as a “lookout” for Frank on days previous to the murder. The judge ruled that Conley’s testimony that he watched for the accused on the day of the tragedy would remain in evidence.

Attorney Arnold entered the court about two minutes late. Mr. Rosser had not arrived. Mr. Arnold asked that the jury be sent out and stated that he had several motions to make. The jury went out. The first, he said, was a motion to exclude certain testimony from the record on the ground that it was wholly irrelevant, incompetent and inadmissible. Mr. Arnold held a long typewritten document in his hands.

“We move, first,” he said, “to exclude from the record all the testimony of Conley relative to watching for the defendant, and we withdraw our cross-examination on that subject.”

Second, Mr. Arnold moved that a portion of the negro’s testimony attacking Frank’s character, which was brought out through questions propounded by the solicitor, be ruled out.

Mr. Arnold concluded the argument by saying, “Before anything else is done, we move to exclude this from the record.”

Judge Roan spoke up, “As I understand it, Mr. Arnold, what you want to withdraw is testimony about watching on other occasions.”

Before this question was answered, Attorney Arnold turned to Mr. Hooper and showed him that part of Conley’s evidence which the defense wished to exclude.

Attorney Hooper took the floor saying, “To allow this motion would be to trifle with the court. When they did not object at the time this evidence was introduced I believe they lost any ground that they had for an objection. If their objection had been entered at the time of the introduction of this testimony, I should say that the objection was well taken, but I do not think that they have a right after letting it all go into the records without protest, now to move for its total exclusion.”

Mr. Dorsey sent a deputy sheriff out for some law books.

FRANK BEGINS TO BREAK.

During the wait, Frank drooped his head, and his mother put his arm around his neck and patted him on the shoulder and whispered in his ear. He smiled faintly and looked around.

DORSEY PROTESTS.

Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court.

“I submit, your honor,” said he, “as an original proposition this evidence is admissible. They have waited too late to enter their objection.”

Mr. Rosser interrrupted.

“We move to rule it out because it is immaterial,” said he, addressing both the court and the solicitor.

“If you’ve got any authority to back up your objection,” retorted the solicitor, “trot it out.”

“I never trot out anything in court,” replied Mr. Rosser. “I’ve got too much respect for the court.”

“Well, gallop it out, lope it out,” said the solicitor. “It doesn’t make any difference, just so you produce it.”

“You wouldn’t understand it if we did,” snapped Mr. Rosser.

Solicitor Dorsey proceeded, ignoring the last remark.

WILL CORROBORATE CONLEY.

“Your honor, just as a matter of fairness, I submit that it is not right to let this gentleman give this witness a most severe gruelling for two days, go into his testimony by cross-examination, and then come along and ask that certain portions of it be ruled out. They would stop us now from bringing out witnesses to sustain Conley. We purpose to corroborate the testimony of this witness as to Frank’s conduct. To grant their motion would be to stop us from introducing our corroborative evidence.”

The solicitor announced that he has other witnesses waiting to corroborate Conley.

“IS IT FAIR?”

“Is it fair, your honor, after one, two, three, four, able counsel have sat here and let this evidence get into the record; after they have cross-examined the witness for two days and then wake up to the conclusion that it should be expunged from the record—is that a fair proposition?”

“The state’s case will have been done great damage,” continued the solicitor, “If now, after the defense has derived all the benefit it possibly can expect from cross-examination, these facts are cut out and we are not given an opportunity to put witnesses on the stand to show that this man Jim Conley has spoken the truth.

“Now the able counsel sees the terrific force of these transactions, and they would stop us from corroborating them.

“I appeal to you, in the name of fairness and justice, to let counsel now see that objections, if they are to be entertained, must be timely.

“Why, your honor, they have gone into even the workings of the National Pencil factory, and showed this man Conley’s relations with a half a dozen different men, and they have done so very properly, for it shows his connection with this defendant and is a part of the history of the crime.

WE HAVE CORROBORATION.

“I will tell your honor right now that we have witnesses to sustain this man.

“Any piece of evidence, any transaction, anything of his past conduct, to show his intent and purpose when he got this girl up there, is admissible. And it is largely by this that we are showing what this man did to poor little Mary Phagan. Anything to show his motive must be admissible. As to the distinct relevancy of this testimony, I cite as an instance the testimony of Dr. Hurt.

“This testimony which they would rule out goes right to the point and it will be corroborated. It goes largely to show who killed the girl.

“I beg of you to think twice before you rule out these powerful circumstances.”

Solicitor Dorsey challenged the defense to produce any decision written within the past five years contrary to this principle.

“The courts are slow,” said Mr. Dorsey. “Too slow to progress. But this one rule the courts have now taken up.

“The importance of this testimony will be more manifest before we get further in this case.”

MRS. FRANK WEEPS.

During Solicitor Dorsey’s arraignment of Frank, Mrs. Frank, wife of the accused, arose from her seat and left the room. She went into an anteroom and remained several minutes. When she returned to the court, there were fresh tears in her eyes. She resumed her seat at her husband’s side.

ARNOLD SPEAKS.

“There’s no use making stump speeches here,” said Mr. Arnold. “There’s no use waxing so eloquent. I could do it, I guess, but I don’t want to make my jury argument while it’s so hot unless I have to.”

Mr. Arnold termed the objectionable evidence, “miserable, rotten, stuff,” and went on to say that the defendant suffered outrageously by its admission into the records.

“The state admits that it is illegal evidence,” said he. “The only ground that they want it retained on is that we didn’t make timely objection. In a criminal case, you never can try a man for but one crime. That’s the old Anglo-Saxon way. In France, and in Italy and in Germany, when a prisoner comes into court, he comes prepared to answer for his whole life. But it’s not that way here. We only try a man for one crime. What is this proposition?

POINTS TO CONLEY.

“I sympathize with the little girl’s parents as much as anybody, but I say it is just as much murder to attempt to convict this defendant by the introduction of illegal and irrelevant evidence. This miserable wretch on the stand,” pointing to Conley, “has told a glib parrot-like tale. He was schooled in it for two months, and I feel sorry for anybody that will believe him. He has introduced another capital crime into this case—not that I believe a white man would believe a word he said, but his testimony has brought it in. A case of murder is a distinctly marked case, and as I understand it the state does not contend even that this is a premeditated case.

“The state has put this man on the stand, and they want to bolster up his outrageous tale with a lot of irrelevant matter.”

Attorney Arnold attacked the supreme court decision cited by Solicitor Dorsey, contending that the decision was written in a case involving illegal sale of cocaine, and not in a murder case. Murder, said he, is an entirely different matter, and is more serious than the selling of cocaine.

DANGEROUS TESTIMONY.

“If this evidence is admitted we would have to stop investigating the murder and take up the investigation of two other cases and the cases he mentioned are not parallel with this.

“With this evidence before the jury, there is a likelihood of that body convicting this defendant on general principles. I am coming under a general rule when I say this ought to be ruled out.”

“Your honor, how much confusion would be in the jury’s mind! How much the issue would be clouded!” continued Mr. Arnold. “How unfair to this defendant in a day or two without notice and require him to answer such charges as these. It would necessitate our going back over all of these days this villain has mentioned. We would have to call in every employe of the factory, and goodness knows how many other witnesses. If they can put such evidence as this in, we certainly can rebut it. This is illegal testimony, and they have done us an incalculable injury to let this suspicion get into the minds of the jury.”

Judge Roan interrupted Mr. Arnold.

ROAN’S RULING ON FIRST POINT.

“Everything relating to the watching on the particular day, April 26, is relevant.”

“Everything relating to that particular transaction is a part of this case,” said Mr. Arnold. “We are not even objecting to what this witness says happened at the factory or what was told him on the Friday before.”

JUDGE’S RULING.

Judge Roan announced his ruling as follows:

“There is no doubt in my mind that his evidence was inadmissible as an original proposition, and I will rule out all except as to the watching on that particular day.”

Attorney Hooper requested the judge to postpone his decision until Wednesday, in order to give the state time to look up and submit decisions bearing on the point in issue. The court refused to do this.

Judge Roan added, however, that he holds himself in readiness to reverse himself if he finds that he has ruled wrong.

“I have no pride about that matter,” said the judge. “I wouldn’t hesitate to reverse myself if I found I was wrong.”

The jury was then brought back into court, and Attorney Rosser resumed his cross-examination of Conley.

TRIAL IS RESUMED.

“You took that girl, rolled her on a sheet, wrapped her up and tied her like a bundle of clothes? asked Attorney Rosser.

“Yes, sir,” replied the negro.

“Was she covered up?”

“No, sir, the sheet didn’t go all over the body.”

“Well, what part of her body was covered up?”

The negro indicated on his own body that portion between the thighs and shoulders.

“Well, the head and feet were not covered up?”
“No, sir.”

“You left her feet hanging out?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How much?”
“I don’t know.”

“How much was her head hanging out?”
“I didn’t pay any attention.”

“After you tied that cloth around her, you pushed your arm through the knot and put her up on your shoulder?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Her head was leaning back?”

HEAD HANGING OUT.

Mr. Rosser illustrated this by leaning his own head over the back of the chair. He held up his arm, too.

“Yes, sir, but her arms wasn’t hanging back. They was tied up in there.”

“How much was her feet hanging out?”
“I don’t know, sir. I didn’t pay any attention to that.”

“She reached down just about to your knees, did she?”

Mr. Rosser illustrated, with the ends of the sack hanging over his shoulder, how the negro claimed to have carried the body.

“That’s the way it was,” said the negro. “And her head and her feet were out.”

“You say she was so heavy that you dropped her?”

“I told Mr. Frank I dropped her because she was so heavy.”

“Then she wasn’t too heavy?”
“I don’t know, sir. I told him she was too heavy because I wanted him to help me.”

“Then you were lying to him, were you?”

“I don’t know—I was so nervous and excited.”

“Wait, was she too heavy, or was she not too heavy?”

“Sorter both ways.”

NEGRO LAUGHS WITH COURT.

The negro laughed with the court.

“You are a sort of a two ways negro, anyhow, ain’t you, Jim?”

“I don’t know about that.”

“Well, at any rate you dropped her.”

“Well, I let her fall.”

“Well, she just fell from your knees down?”

“I don’t know about that.”

“She was hanging as far down as your knee, wasn’t she?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Hold your leg out here and let the jury see how far she fell.”

The negro extended one leg.

“When you called to Mr. Frank, how far away was he?”

“I don’t know. He was at the top of the steps, and I went to the doors.”

“Well, that’s just about as far as it is from the top of the steps to the street, isn’t it?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“Well, outside of the story that you told for Mr. Dorsey, do you know any facts at all about this case?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected, and was sustained. Mr. Rosser amended it.

“Outside of the story you told here, yesterday, is there anything that you know about this case?”

The negro did not give a direct answer, but went on repeating the detail which he gave Monday, but was interrupted by Mr. Rosser.

“How close was you to Mr. Frank when you told him she was dead?”
“I don’t know how far it was. He was standing at the steps.”

“It was then he told you to get the cloth?”

“He first said ‘Sh!’ And then he told me to get the cloth. And I went up to him and told him I didn’t understand. And he told me again.”

“It was then that you looked at the clock, was it?”
“Yes.”

Mr. Rosser asked the color of the cloth that the negro got. Conley said he couldn’t tell what color. “Is it the color of that shirt you have on?” Mr. Rosser asked. “No, sir, not that color,” said the negro. “Where’d you get that shirt, anyhow, Jim?”
“My old lady gave it to me,” said the negro.

RECESS TAKEN.

A brief recess was taken.

When court resumed Attorney Rosser picked up the sack introduced in evidence Monday, and asked: “Was the sack that you had Mary Phagan’s body tied up in the same shape as this?”

“No, sir, it wasn’t tied together at the ends like that.”

“It wasn’t a sack, then?”

“Yes, sir, it had been once—a cotton sack.”

“Well, there wasn’t any cotton in it when you saw it, was there?”

“No, sir.”

“Well, you didn’t’ see any little pieces of cotton in it, did you?”

“I don’t remember any.”

“Was it this quality of goods?”
“I don’t know what you mean by that.”

“Well, finer, then.”

“No, sir, it was thinner than that.”

“Was it woven like this?”

The negro didn’t’ understand the question. “Woven,” repeated Mr. Rosser. “You know what woven means, don’t you, Jim?”
Conley hesitated. “I suppose you don’t know whether cloth is woven, or knit[t]ed or just grows,” said Mr. Rosser.

“I never heard of any growing,” said Conley.

“What did you do with the cloth when you got through with it down there in the basement, Jim?”

THREW CLOTH AWAY.

“I threw it on the trash pile at the end of the furnace,” said the negro.

“The same place you put the hat and shoe?”
“Yes, sir, right near them.”

“That cloth never came in contact with her head or feet, did it, Jim?”

“No, sir.”

“Now, Jim, as a matter of fact when you were carrying her, you didn’t lift the cloth onto your shoulder, did you?”

“Yes, sir, I did.”

“Didn’t you say yesterday that you couldn’t get it up there?”
“I said I tried and couldn’t the first time, but I said I carried it a little ways on my shoulder.”

“You’re sure you said that, are you?”
“Yes sir.”

Attorney Rosser turned to a transcript of Monday’s testimony and asked, “Now, Jim, isn’t this what you said yesterday?”

And he read the answer in the transcript. It differed inasmuch as Conley had not said then in that answer that he lifted the body to his shoulder.
Conley replied, “No, sir, I don’t remember saying that yesterday.”

“That girl weighed 110 pounds. Couldn’t you carry her without any trouble?”
“No, sir.”

“How much do you weigh?”
“About 150 pounds,” the negro replied.

“And you are twenty-seven years old. Do you mean to tell me you can’t carry 110 pounds?”

CAUSES LAUGHTER.

“Oh, I can carry it all right, but you asked me if I could carry it without any trouble.”

There was a ripple of mirth in court.

“Now don’t you constantly carry burdens that heavy around the factory?” demanded Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir,” the negro replied, “I’ve always told you I trucked them.”

“You said something about Frank backing up. What do you mean?”
“Mr. Frank had her by the feet and I had her by the head. I was walking backwards, and Mr. Frank was pushing too fast.”

“Both of you were excited?”

NERVOUS, NOT EXCITED.

“No, sir, I was nervous, but I wasn’t excited.”

“You never told Black and Scott about backing up when you were telling them the whole truth and nothing but the truth?”
“I told somebody. I guess it was them.”

“Did you tell Mr. Dorsey on one of his seven visits?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“You say Frank pulled the elevator cord, and when it didn’t start, he said, ‘Wait and let me get the key?’”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, did you tell Black and Scott that when you were telling them the whole truth?”
“Yes, sir, I told somebody.”

“Was this before or after you got out of jail?”
“I don’t know.”

“Did you tell Mr. Dorsey?”
“I don’t know.”

“When you got the elevator down you took the cloth off the body right there, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“Oh, I mean after you carried her back to that place?”
“After I took her to where she was laying, I took the cloth off.”

“How did you leave her back there?”

“I left her feet toward Hunter street, her head toward Alabama street and her face toward Forsyth street.”

“Didn’t you tell Black and Scott that you left her on her stomach, the left side of her face down and her head toward the elevator?”
“No, sir, I didn’t tell ‘em that. I took ‘em and showed ‘em.”

“If you did tell it, it was the truth wasn’t it?”
“I don’t remember telling ‘em that.”

“Frank didn’t go back where you left the little girl?”
“No, sir.”

“He stayed at the ladder?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And you called Mr. Frank back there and asked him what you must do with those things?”

“No, sir, it was just about the furnace when I called to Mr. Frank.”

“Mr. Frank was at the top of the ladder?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How far is the furnace from the top of the ladder?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“About 150 feet away, isn’t it?”
“I don’t know sir.”

“You had to talk loud enough for him to hear you, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When you took her down on the elevator, the front door was [s]till unlocked?”
“I don’t know sir.”

“Well, didn’t you say you left it unlocked when you went upstairs?”
“Well, it was still unlocked then when you went down into the basement?”
“It was, unless Mr. Frank went back and locked it.”

“Did Mr. Frank have any chance to go back and lock it without you seeing him?”
“Yes, sir, when I went back to tie up the body, he was up at the front a good while by himself.”

“Did the little girl have any scratches her face?”

BRUISE ON FACE.

“She had a bruise on her face.”

“Was there any dirt on her face?”
“Yes, sir.”

“On both sides?”
“Yes sir.”

“What did the dirt look like?”
“Just like dirt.”

“Were there any other scratches, besides the bruise on her face?”
“No, sir.”

“What was it you called to Mr. Frank from the basement, when you were coming up toward the ladder?”
“I called to him and asked him what I must do with these things. And he told me just leave ‘em there.”

“Did Frank see you when you were calling to him?”
“I don’t know whether he was looking at me or not.”

“He’d gone up the ladder and was on the first floor, wasn’t he?”
“I reckon so.”

“When he was not in sight?”
“No, sir.”

“He wasn’t in the basement then?”
“No, sir.”

“What did you have in your hand when you called to him?”
“I had the cloth, the hat, the piece of ribbon and the shoes.”

“That piece of ribbon Mr. Dorsey showed you yesterday?”

“No, sir.”

“What kind of ribbon was it?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“When you were talking to Black and Scott, telling them the whole truth, you didn’t say anything about the hat and the ribbon and the shoe, did you?”
“If I didn’t it was because they didn’t ask me.”

“You told them about the shoe and the hat, but not about the ribbon and the cloth?”
“I told them I pitched ‘em on the boiler in front of the trash pile.”

“Who ran the elevator up from the basement?”
“I did.”

“Then Frank got on at the first floor?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He was standing there in front of the elevator when you came up?”

FRANK FELL.

“Yes, sir, and he jumped on before the car stopped and fell against me.”

“Did you tell Black and Scott, when you were telling them the whole truth, about him falling against you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Just as he got on the elevator he said, ‘Gee, that’s a hard job,’ did he?”
“Yes, sir, he said that when we was going up, between the first and the second floor.”

“The motor and the elevator and the saw were all running?”
“Not the saw.”

“The elevator has got machinery at the top of the building, hasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“There’s a big wheel up there, ain’t there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When the elevator goes down to the bottom, it hits the bottom hard, doesn’t it?”
“No, sir, not hard.”

“That wheel up in the top of the building over the elevator doesn’t make much noise, does it?”
“No, sir, not much.”

“Something like the buzzing of a June bug, eh?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And the elevator hits the bottom lightly and doesn’t make any noise?”
“No, sir, it don’t make much noise.”

“That’s a silent elevator, isn’t it?”
“I don’t know what you mean by that.”

“It don’t make any noise.”

“No, sir, not much.”

“From the time you went up to get the cloth till you got [b]ack on the upper floor from the basement, how long was it?”

CONTRADICTS DETECTIVES.

“I don’t remember.”

“Didn’t you tell Mr. Scott it was 30 minutes?”
“No, sir, I didn’t, Mr. Scott asked me how long it was, and I told him I didn’t know, and he said ‘Was it 30 minutes?’ and I said I didn’t know, and he said ‘Well, I’ll put it that way.’”

The negro denied that he had given the officers any specific statement of the interval.

“How long do you now say it was?”
“About four or five minutes.”

“How long was it from the time you looked at the clock until you left the factory?”
“It might have been about 30 minutes.”

“You said yesterday, Jim, that you left about 1:30. Wouldn’t that make 34 minutes from the time you looked at the clock?”
“I said I wasn’t sure about the time yesterday. I only know that after I went to the beer saloon and ate some sandwiches and then counted the money in the cigarette box, and went back and got a beer and looked at the clock, I saw it was 20 minutes to 2.”

IN THE WARDROBE.

“You said that while you was in the office you heard someone coming, didn’t you?”
“No, sir, I said Mr. Frank said, ‘Here comes Emma Freeman and Corinthia Hall.”

“After you were put in the closet, you said you heard Miss Hall speak?”
“No, sir, I said I heard one lady speak.”

“You said you wrote three notes on white paper?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And one on green?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What was in those notes?”
“I don’t remember.”

“You say he didn’t like the first two notes you wrote?”
“Yes, sir, then I wrote a long one on the white paper and then the one on the green paper.”

“You couldn’t have written those four notes to save your life in five minutes, could you?”

“I don’t know about that?”
“Well, about how long did it take you?”
“About three and a half minutes.”

“Then you sat in the office and talked?”
“I was writing.”

“Didn’t you smoke, too?”
“Yes, sir, at the same time.”

“You were sitting there smoking and writing, and Frank was sitting with his head back, looking at the ceiling and saying ‘I have wealthy people in Brooklyn?’”

“He just said once,” said the negro. “’Why should I hang? I’ve got wealthy people in Brooklyn.’”

“Well, after you had been in the wardrobe, written the notes, and talked about an automobile for his wife, and money for your watch, how long do you suppose that took?”

“I don’t know.”

“Then Mr. Frank took a roll of greenbacks out of his pocket, did he?”

“Yes, sir.”

CORRECTS ROSSER.

“There was $300 in it, you say?”

“No, sir, I don’t say there was $300. I say Mr. Frank said there was $300 in it.”

“Oh! And then you gave it back to him?”
“No, sir, not right then. He asked me for it later.”

“Well—later.”

“Yes, sir.”
“Now in the first statement you never told about that, did you?”

“I don’t remember.”

“And in this first statement you didn’t tell them anything about burning the body, either, did you?”
“I think I did.”

“Did you tell them before you went to jail or after you came back?”
“Afterwards.”

“Well, who was the first man you told? Can you remember?”
“Well, the first ones I can remember were Mr. Starnes and Mr. Campbell.”

“Did you tell Mr. Dorsey?”
“Yes, sir, but I don’t remember wren [sic].”

“A[f]ter Mr. Frank took the money back, you promised him you would come back and burn the body, did you?”
“Yes, sir, I said I’d come back in 40 minutes.”

“And then you went home and went to sleep and forgot to come back, didn’t you?”
“I didn’t forget to come back. I just went to sleep.”

“Well, about these notes, now. Frank said he was going to send these notes to his mother and tell her he had a good negro, didn’t he?”
“No, sir, he didn’t say anything about sending them home to his mother.”

“Didn’t you tell the police that he did?”

“No, sir, I didn’t tell them that. I said he was going to write a letter home and tell her about me, but I didn’t say anything about putting the notes in it.”

“Jim, didn’t you tell the detectives that he did say that?”
“I don’t remember it if I did.”

“You said the other day that when you went up into the metal room, you saw the handle of this parasol. Why couldn’t you see the rest of it?”

“I didn’t say I couldn’t see all of it. I said I could tell it by the handle, though. I couldn’t tell it by the cloth.”

GREEN RIBBON.

“Now tell us something about that ribbon that you say you carried downstairs. How long was it?”

“I don’t know.”

“You don’t know how long it was?”
“I couldn’t tell. It was folded up.”

“How wide was it?”
“About as wide as your four fingers.”

“What color was it?”
“Something like green.”

“What time did you get home that evening?”
“About half past two.”

“You didn’t see Mr. Frank Monday morning, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“When did you get your hair cut last?”
“Last week.”

“Who cut it?’
“My lawyer and the police and the barber came down to my cell.”

“And they cut your hair?”
“Well, the police didn’t cut my hair. The barber did.”

“Who shaved you?”

“The barber shaved me.”

“Well, did they give you a bath, too?”
“Yes, sir.”

“They put some clean clothes on you, didn’t they?”
“They didn’t. I put ‘em on myself.”

“So the jury could see you like a dressed-up nigger?”
“I don’t know sir.”

“Who bought you that clean shirt?”
“Lorena bought me that.”

“Lorena’s not your wife, is she?”

“No, she ain’t my wife.”

“Who got you your coat?”
“Mr. Starnes went up to the pencil factory about three weeks ago and got it for me.”

“Who bought you those breeches?”
“Lorena brought ‘em to me.”

“They togged you all up. They put those things on you after this case started, didn’t they?”

“Yes, sir, I put ‘em on a few days ago.”

THE NEGRO’S BATH.

“How’d they bathe you—turn the hose on you?”

“No, sir, they brought me a tin tub.”
“How long were you in the station house before you went to jail?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“They took you over to the jail and they left you there one day and brought you back to the station house, didn’t they?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Then they took you out of police station and turned you loose and rearrested you, didn’t they?”
“They turned me loose at the door, and I started up the sidewalk, but a man grabbed me in the waistband and started me back.”

“You and your lawyer were perfectly willing for you to stay in the station house?”
“Yes, sir, I had to stay somewhere.”

“You said one day you didn’t want no lawyer, and the very next day you had one, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Well, how’d you happen to get a lawyer?”
“One day at the jail Lorena brought one to me.”

“You said you didn’t want a lawyer—that the police and Mr. Dorsey would look after you, didn’t you?”
“No, sir, I never said that.”

“Lorena brought you a lawyer, and he’s been your lawyer ever since?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did your lawyer and Mr. Dorsey visit you together?”
“No, sir.”

“And you’ve been locked up ever since you’ve had a lawyer—that is, if you’ve got a lawyer?”
“Yes, sir, I’ve been locked up.”

“You said when you found out Frank wasn’t going to do anything for you, you decided to tell?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You knew Frank was in jail?”
“I heard he was.”

DIDN’T READ PAPERS.

“On Monday at the factory you read all the papers about the crime, didn’t you?”
“No, sir.”

“Not a single paper?”
“No, sir.”

“On Monday, didn’t you get a paper and didn’t you try to read about this crime?”
“No, sir.”

“Jim, do you know Miss Julia Foss?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you go to her and ask her to let you have a paper?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you say to her that Mr. Frank was as innocent as the angels in heaven?”

“Didn’t you say this to Miss Foss on Wednesday?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you read the papers in front of Wade Campbell? Didn’t he see you read the papers?”
“No, sir.”

“Do you know Miss Georgia Denham?”
“I don’t think so.”

DENIES CHARGE.

“Didn’t she charge you with the killing, and didn’t you hang your head and say you didn’t know anything about it?”
“No, sir.”

“Who saw you washing the shirt that Thursday in the metal room?”
“Mr. Holloway and some of the ladies.”

Answering questions, the negro stated that he had gone down into the basement between 8 and 8:30 in the morning and remained a short time. He said that just before he went down into the basement, he was talking to a negro drayman around back. He started to give the negro drayman a drink, but didn’t do it because there wasn’t enough in the bottle. The attorney then questioned Conley about the purchase of the whisky, and Conley said that he bought it on Peters street and went back in the beer saloon with the man who sold it to him, and they both took a drink. He said that the whisky peddler drank so much that he had to knock the bottle from his mouth and he spilled some.

Attorney Rosser then took up the W. H. Mincey affidavit.

“Do you know where Carter and Electric streets are?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You know that house up on the bluff?”

QUESTIONS ABOUT MINCEY.

“What’s a bluff?” asked the negro.

The attorney explained, and the negro said there are two houses on the hill.

“Were you there about 2 o’clock on the afternoon of April 26?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you meet there a man who asked you about insurance?”
“No, sir.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. The name of the man should be stated, said he.

“W. H. Mincey,” replied Mr. Rosser.

“Didn’t he say you had promised to take some insurance?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he ask you your name, and didn’t you say ‘Conley?’”

“Nobody asked me my name that day.”

“Didn’t you say I can’t talk to you today. I’m in trouble.”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he say, ‘What’s the matter? Have you been in jail?’ And didn’t you say, ‘No, but I’m expecting to go?’”

“No, sir.”

“And didn’t he say, ‘What for?’ And didn’t you say, ‘Murder?’”

“No, sir.”

DENIES KILLING GIRL.

“Didn’t you say, ‘I killed a girl today?’”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he say, ‘What did you kill her for,’ and didn’t you say, ‘That’s for you to find out?’”

“No, sir.”
“Didn’t you jump up and go around the house and say, ‘I’ve killed one today—?’”

The negro interrupted:

“No, sir, I never said that to nobody.”

“Well, didn’t Mincey say, ‘Well, that’s enough. That’s 365 a year?’”

Attorney Rosser questioned the negro next about a statement that he is supposed to have made to a Constitution reporter in the jail on May 21. Mr. Rosser read from a typewritten sheet. The purport of it was that Hugh Dorsey had told Conley to go ahead and talk all he wanted to now.

“No, sir, I didn’t say that. I didn’t know what Mr. Dorsey’s first name was.”

“Well, for your information, Jim, I’ll tell you his first name was Hugh.”

DEMANDS REPORTER’S NAME.

The solicitor objected, saying, “We’ve got a right to know what reporter this was. The rule is that when you are trying to impeach a witness, you’ve got to state the time, the person and the circumstance. If he asks this for the purpose of impeachment, I object to this going into the records.” The solicitor cited an authority to back him up. Mr. Rosser said he didn’t intend to put this in for impeachment, and that he didn’t know the name of the reporter.

Attorney Rosser then questioned him about statements which he is supposed to have made to Harllee Branch and H. W. Ross, Journal reporters, in the jail.

The attorneys pointed out the reporters in court.

“Did you tell them that in your opinion, Mary Phagan was murdered in a toilet room on the second floor and brought out into the metal room?”
“No, sir.”

DENIES STATEMENTS.

“Did you tell them that she had been dead about fifteen minutes?”
“No, sir, I don’t remember saying that.”

“Didn’t you tell them that a ribbon and a parasol and a piece of her skirt lay on the floor a few feet from her body?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you tell them that it took at least thirty minutes to get the body downstairs?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Rosser asked some other questions. As H. W. Ross was leaving the court, Conley pointed him out as a man who had showed a newspaper to him.

“Didn’t you walk away from them and wouldn’t talk to them?”
Conley said, “Yes, sir, a little.”

Attorney Rosser showed the negro a document. It was one of the several statements which Conley made to the police. “You signed this, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“That’s your handwriting and your name is James Conley?”
“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Rosser handed the paper to Mr. Arnold and requested him to read it to the jury. Mr. Arnold began, “This statement made by James Conley to Detectives Black and Scott, police barracks, Sunday, May 18, 1913.”

Before Attorney Arnold could read further, Solicitor Dorsey interrupted and announced to the court that he objected to a change of counsel.

Mr. Rosser grabbed the paper from Mr. Arnold’s hands and said, “Oh, give it to me!” rather savagely. “Sit down, little Hugh!” Adjusting his glasses, he stated that he didn’t know whether he would be able to read the document or not, because it was written by the detectives.

The statement said that Conley was employed as an elevator boy and roustabout at the factory for the past two years.

“Jim, you don’t know what roustabout means, do you?” asked Mr. Rosser. The negro explained that it meant working about in different places.

Mr. Rosser read on till he came to the word “previous.”

“Jim, what does previous mean?”
The negro admitted that he did not know.

“The man who put that over was a little previous himself, wasn’t he, Jim?”
The negro grinned.

Further along in the document, Mr. Rosser came across the word, “previous,” several times, and emphasized it each time with some humorous remark about it.

“On Saturday, April 26, 1913, I arose”—“What does ‘arose’ mean, Jim?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“No, Jim, you don’t know what arose means.”

Mr. Rosser continued reading the statement.

The statement continued that the negro arose between 9 and 9:30 a. m., and ate breakfast at 10:30 a. m.; left his house at 172 Rhodes street and went to Peters street, visiting a number of saloons between Fair and Haynes street on Peters street; bought half a pint of whisky from a negro and paid him 40 cents for it; visited the Butt-In saloon; at a pool table in the back, saw three negroes shooting dice.

CRAPS, NOT DICE.

“You’d say craps, if you had a fair showing, wouldn’t you, Jim?”
The witness admitted that he would.

The statement proceeded that Conley joined them.

“You was shooting craps, eh?”
The statement continued that Conley won 90 cents, and bought some beer, and walked up the street and visited Carly’s beer saloon.

“Jim, you don’t know what visited is or what it means, do you?”
The negro said he didn’t.

The statement proceeded that Conley purchased two beers and wine, paying 10 cents for it; that that was all he money Conley spent on Peters street; that he got back home at 3:30 p. m.

“Do you know what ‘p. m.’ means?”
“It means 3 o’clock.”

The statement proceeded that he found L. Jones there; she asked if he had any money; he said yes, and gave her $3.50, $1 in greenbacks and the rest in silver. The statement showed that on Saturday afternoon the negro sent out and got 15 cents worth of beer and later he sent his little girl out for something to eat, that he stayed at home Saturday night and up to noon Sunday; that he went on Nichols street Sunday and returned shortly and spent the evening with his mother, and reported for work on April 28, Monday.

SECOND AFFIDAVIT.

Mr. Rosser took up a second affidavit dated May 24. The substance of this affidavit was that on Friday before the holiday, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Frank met him on the fourth floor and told him to come tot his office, that Frank asked if he could write, and gave him a scratch pad on which he wrote “Dear Mother, a long tal black negro,” he wrote that several times; then he wrote something else; Mr. Frank took out a brown pad and wrote something himself; Mr. Frank asked him if he wanted to smoke and handed to him a box containing cigarettes that cost 15 cents.

That he saw some money in the box, two $1 bills and 50 cents in it, and called Mr. Frank’s attention to it when he handed it back; that Frank told him to keep it; that Frank asked about Gordon Bailey; then Frank asked about the nightwatchman, and asked him if he had ever seen the nightwatchman in the basement; that Frank laughed and jollied a little bit and said, “I have wealthy people in Brooklyn. Why should I hang? That Frank held up his head and looked out of the corner of his eye when he said this; that Conley told him not to take out any more money on the watch; that Frank said, “Why did you get a watch? That big, fat wife of mine wants an automobile, but I won’t buy it.”

THIRD AFFIDAVIT.

Mr. Rosser started to read another affidavit and quickly remarked, “This is a copy. I want the original.”

Solicitor started to look in his papers, and said, “I haven’t the original. That copy is the only one I’ve ever had, and I don’t know where the original is.”

Mr. Rosser started reading, but stopped and conferred with Mr. Arnold. Then he told the court that he didn’t want to read anything but the original. Chief Lanford, who is supposed to have the original, was not in court. Mr. Rosser told the court that he had nothing in mind to ask the witness except about the affidavits.

Judge Roan told the jury that it could go back to its room. The jury left.

WANTS TO VISIT CONLEY.

It was announced that Attorney William Smith, representing Conley, wanted to address the court. Attorney Smith declared that he would like to have the privilege of visiting Conley in his cell and attending to his physical needs if nothing more.

“I don’t know,” said he, “by what legal proceedings Conley was put in the Tower; but I’m not objecting to that. I do feel, though, that I ought to have a right as his counsel to see him and talk to him.
“I had considerable difficulty and unpleasantness in trying to get to him last night. I merely wanted him to have an opportunity to take a bath and to get some clean clothes to him. I had the clothes there, and it was only after much trouble that I finally even got the clothes to him.

“Furthermore, I think it is a reflection on counsel and upon Solicitor Dorsey, a man sworn to carry out the laws, to deny us admission to his cell. I don’t see under what law any man can be placed in solitary confinement and denied to his lawyer. I never heard of it being done before.”

Judge Roan replied that when he gave his orders Monday night he did so with consent of the state and the defense. Solicitor Dorsey arose, and said, “No, sir, I beg pardon of the court. I didn’t consent to it. I simply didn’t object to it. That was all. I wasn’t consulted in the matter.”

ARNOLD OBJECTS.

Attorney Arnold argued then. He said, “Well, this negro Conley says he doesn’t know how Mr. Smith thinks himself his lawyer. He says his wife brought Mr. Smith into his cell one day and that’s all he knows about it. I’d like to ask the sheriff about this unpleasantness.”

Attorney Smith spoke up and said that there was no unpleasantness except that he was blocked when the tried to send some clean clothes to the negro.

Judge Roan asked: “Well, is there any objection to letting him see his attorney in his cell, if he wants to.”

“Yes. I’ll take the responsibility of entering an objection,” said Mr. Arnold. “I object because it shows that the state and his witness are in too close accord.”

Solicitor Dorsey spoke again. “I am in charge of the state’s case. Of course your honor would not say that in that capacity I would not have the right to interview this or any other witness put up by the state whenever and wherever I choose. I haven’t found it necessary to talk with him yet. But in such event I would ask your honor, and your honor would grant me the permission. I do think, however, that his counsel should be allowed to talk with him.”

WHY HE WANTS TO SEE HIM.

“What do you want to talk to him about?” inquired Attorney Arnold, of Mr. Smith.

The latter, addressing his remarks to the court, said: “This witness is almost under as much as an attack as is this defendant. As his attorney, I should have the right to confer with him in order that I may protect his interests. I ought to know the names of persons who can be summoned to substantiate his statements. These I would furnish to the solicitor.”
Attorney Arnold declared that Attorney Smith practically admitted that he wanted to take part in the case. “If he’s waited for two months to get this information from this negro, he certainly can wait a day or two longer.”

Attorney Rosser spoke: “I don’t think any one should be allowed to interview or to re-drill him, be he a solicitor ten times over, be he a lawyer one thousand times over.”

“I understand they want to give him a bath,” said Mr. Arnold. “If Mr. Smith wants to give him a bath let him do it. Let him turn the hose on him if he wants to.”

CAN COUNSEL NEGRO.

Solicitor Dorsey: “I’m not asking permission to talk with this negro. If I do find it necessary to talk to him, I will ask your honor’s permission, and will expect you to grant it. It cannot be denied that I would have that right. I am not trying to do anything I ought not to do.”

“No,” sneered Mr. Rosser, “but I don’t think you would hesitate to do a lot of things.”

Judge Roan ruled that Attorney Smith could confer with his client to safeguard the negro’s interests.

Attorney Arnold took an exception to the ruling, and the exception was noted in the records.

Court then adjourned at 5:40, until 9 o’clock Wednesday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 6th 1913, “Judge Roan Rules Out Most Damaging Testimony Given by Conley Against Leo Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 5^th, 1913

Witness Had Gone to the Pencil Factory After Reading The Constitution Extra

L. O. Grice was the first witness put on the stand when court convened Monday morning. He was kept there but a few minutes. He stated that he is employed by W. H. Smith, auditor of the Atlanta and West Point railroad, and that he lives at 270 Houston street.

“Where were you on Sunday, April 27, about 8 o’clock?” Mr. Dorsey started out.

“I was in front of The Constitution building and I saw one of their extras and went on down to the National Pencil factory. I was going in that direction towards the office where I work, anyway,” he replied.

“Did you go in the building?”
“Yes, sir.”

Hadn’t Been in Courtroom.

“Have you been in the courtroom during this trial?” interrupted Attorney Rosser. (Mr. Grice had not been among those witnesses first named by the solicitor.)

“No; I haven’t been in here before this morning,” said Grice.

“Did anything attract your attention down in the factory?” continued the solicitor when his opponent had subsided.

“Yes, sir; I saw Mr. Black, the detective, and a number of men.”

“Did anybody attract your attention by showing nervousness?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Who was it?”
“I didn’t know him then.”

“Is he the defendant, there?” said Mr. Dorsey, pointing to where Frank sat.

“Yes; he was the man,” said Grice.

“Tell the jury what happened then.”

“Well, Mr. Black and the others went on outside the factory, and Mr. Black said something about looking for a pin, and Mr. Frank began to walk around and look for it and he trembled so I couldn’t help notice him. He did just this way,” added the witness, and arose and showed the jury the sight of a man trembling as though his nerves were strained to the last point.

Mr. Rosser then took up the cross-examination. He went into a detailed questioning about the reasons for Grice’s appearance on the stand and was told that the young man had told some friends about what he had noticed about Frank and they had advised him to go to the solicitor and tell about it.

Hadn’t Seen Girl’s Body.

Didn’t you know Mr. Frank had just seen the murdered girl in the basement?” asked Mr. Rosser next.

“No, sir; he hadn’t seen her there—they moved her before he came.”

“Well, he had just seen the blood where her body had been found, hadn’t he?”

“Well, I didn’t see any blood there myself.”

“You didn’t attach any importance to this actions then?”
“Well, I thought about it, but, I didn’t want to get mixed up in this case, and only when I told some friends about it and they urged me to do it, did I go to Mr. Dorsey.”

Mr. Grice was then excused, having been on the stand for about 15 minutes.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 5th 1913, “Frank Very Nervous, Testifies L. O. Grice,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)