Tag Archives: Leo M. Frank

Witness, Called by Defense, Testifies Against Frank

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Journal
August 16th, 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading →

Mother’s Love Gives Trial Its Great Scene

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913

By L. F. WOODRUFF.

Every human emotion has been paraded during the long three weeks of the Frank trial.

There has been pathos. Comedy has opposed tragedy. Science has met sympathy. Truth has been arrayed against fiction. Negro has conflicted with white.

The erudite Arnold has matched wits with the thick-lipped, thick-skulled Conley. Luther Rosser, stern, determined and skillful, has had to try to meet the machinations of a brain of a cornfield negro, Newt Lee.

Hugh Dorsey, young and determined, Frank Hooper, smiling and ambitious, have breast to breast encountered the battles of Rosser and the rapier of Arnold.

There remained but one thing—the dramatic touch that sends the violins trembling a high crescendo and the hearts of the audience beating a long roll in double time.

It was furnished during the past week.

The Mother’s Part.

It was furnished by the person that a Belasco would have picked for the part. The touch was added by the person to whom the trial means more than a seat in high heaven—a woman whose son is on trial for his life.

Continue Reading →

Many Testify to Frank’s Good Character

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913

Nearly half a hundred witnesses testified in behalf of Leo M. Frank Friday. As a climax to the day’s proceedings in Judge Roan’s court the defendant’s mother, Mrs. Rae Frank, went on the stand to add her testimony to that which she hoped would save her son from the gallows.

Virtually all who were called were character witnesses. Near the close of the day Reuben Arnold announced that he proposed to call every woman and girl employed on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, as well as many from the other floors, to testify to Frank’s conduct about the factory and his attitude toward the girls in his employ.

He called three before the close of the day and explained to them in advance that he was going to ask them questions which he planned to direct at every girl employee called. He then asked them if they ever had had any part in the gay parties that the State has said took place in Frank’s office either during or after factory hours. He asked them if they ever had drunk beer in Frank’s office or ever were there for a questionable purpose. All of the witnesses denied knowing of or participating in any such parties.

Frank’s lawyer said that he would continue this line of questioning with all of the women he called from the factory. The testimony was obtained to discredit the stories of some of the State’s witnesses charging that Frank was in the habit of entertaining women in his office.

Continue Reading →

Statement by Frank Will Be the Climactic Feature of the Trial

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

The defense is nearing its end in the Frank case.

A few more character witnesses—there seems to have been no difficulty whatever in securing character witnesses by the score to testify in behalf of the defendant—the statement of Frank, and the defense will rest.

The State will soon introduce its witnesses in rebuttal of the defense’s character witnesses, and along other lines. Not improbably, the State will undertake to rebut in a measure the defendant’s personal statement.

The entire case should go to the jury Monday or Tuesday—meaning by that that the argument should begin then.

The State has been all along much more sensational and spectacular than the defense. That generally is the way these cases go, and in respect of that, therefore, the Frank case has not been particularly remarkable.

In the length of time required to develop fully both sides, however, the case is in a class by itself, so far as Georgia is concerned.

The Frank case has been noticeable, too, because of the fact that women have been excluded from the courtroom practically from the beginning of the trial—and yet in the main there hasn’t been a great deal said in the courtroom that might be called particularly offensive, as those things go.

Continue Reading →

Girls Testify For and Against Frank

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 16th, 1913

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

CLUB AND ENVELOPE FOUND BY PINKERTON MAN PUT IN EVIDENCE

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

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

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

Continue Reading →

Character of Frank Good, So Many Witnesses Declare

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

R. A. Sohn, superintendent of the Jewish Orphans home, was called to testify on Frank’s behalf.

The witness said that his residence was at No. 408 Washington street. He said that he has known Frank a good many years and that his character was good.

He was excused without undergoing cross-examination by Solicitor Dorsey.

Alex Dittler, secretary of the Jewish Alliance and an officer of the Federation of Jewish societies, also testified to Frank’s good character.

The witness said that he has been a resident of Atlanta more than thirty-eight years. He was deputy city marshal under Marshal Humphrey and occupied the position of acting recorder of deeds in the clerk’s office of the superior court many years ago.

I have known Frank since he came to Atlanta and know his character to be good.

Arthur Heyman, a member of the law firm of Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Heyman, took the stand.

“How long have you known Frank?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“About three years.”

Continue Reading →

Frank Not Nervous on Night Of Murder Says Mrs. Ursenbach

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Mrs. Charles F. Ursenbach followed her husband on the stand. During the cross-examination by Attorney Hooper she was asked scores of detailer questions about the words and manner of Leo Frank on the Sunday that the body was found.

“What is your relation to Mrs. Leo Frank?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I am her sister.”

“Did you hear about the message from Mr. Frank saying he could not go to the ball game with your husband that Saturday?”
“Yes, I got it from the servant.”

“At what time?”

“At about 12:30.”

“Did you see Frank on Sunday?”

“Yes.”

Continue Reading →

Pittsburg Witness Tells of Frank’s Standing in School

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

John W. Todd, of Pittsburg, PA., purchasing agent for the Crucible Steel company, who was with Frank at Cornell university, followed Mrs. Emil Selig to the stand.

He was asked if he knew the general character of Frank while at college and replied that he did and that it was good. He was let off with no cross-examination and went over and shook hands with the defendant and his wife and mother. He then passed by the press table and shook hands with a newspaper man who formerly worked in Pittsburg. After staying a while and listening to the testimony of other witnesses and making queries about Jim Conley, Mr. Todd left the court room.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Pittsburg Witness Tells of Frank’s Standing in School,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Many Men Swear to Good Character of Superintendent of Pencil Factory

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15th, 1913

Classmates and Instructors at Cornell Come to Atlanta to Testify to His Clean Life While at College and to Show Their Loyalty to Old College Friend.

DORSEY ASKS REMOVAL OF LEO FRANK’S MOTHER AND WIFE FROM COURT

Judge Warns Them That Another Scene Like That of Wednesday, When Mrs. Rae Frank Denounced Solicitor, Will Result in Barring Them—Leach Proves Good Witness for the State Although Called to Testify by Defense

More witnesses were examined Thursday than on any day since the trial of Leo M. Frank began.

However, there was little adduced from the testimony that was of striking interest or that savored of the dramatic.

For the most part the day was taken up with character witnesses—men who have known Frank for years and who have volunteered to swear to his good character.

The only incident of the day that was in any way dramatic came at the morning session, when Solicitor Dorsey asked that Mrs. Rae Frank and Mrs. Leo Frank, mother and wife of the defendant, be removed from the court room. This was the result of the passionate outburst of Mrs. Rae Frank the day previous. Judge Roan gave warning that there must be no more such demonstrations.

Continue Reading →

Leo M. Frank Ready to Tell His Own Story to Jury

Posted on by

When Herbert Lasker, former roommate of Leo M. Frank, came to Atlanta to testify on the previous good character of the man accused of murdering Mary Phagan, he brought with him several photographs of the class of ‘06, of which both he and Frank were members. The two men, and the half-dozen other professors and former fellow-students who made the journey south simply to testify, spent an hour at the court house Thursday noon gazing at the pictures taken in happier days.
The members of the class are scattered over the earth now. One is in France, one in China, another spent two years making geological investigation in Alaska. All who were within reach came to Atlanta in their former classmate’s hour of need. In the accompanying picture ‘Herbert Lasker,’ who has already told of his friend’s character is in the front row on the extreme left. Frank in the [word illegible] front and left in the same row. This picture was taken some eight or nine years ago.

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

Atlanta Journal
August 15th, 1913

TAKES WITNESS STAND SATURDAY MORNING; UNDER LAW CANNOT BE EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR

Defense’s Case is Rapidly Nearing Completion, and Indications Are That All Witnesses, Except Frank, Will Have Testified Before Court Adjourns Friday—Forty Atlantians Tell of Accused’s Good Character

ATLANTA GIRL BROUGHT REFORMATORY IN CINCINNATI TO TESTIFY AGAINST FRANK

Miss Dewey Hewell, Sixteen Years Old, Arrived Friday Morning With Matron Bohnefeld—Nature of Her Testimony Is Not Known-Expert in Varnish Department Says Spots in Factory Look Like Varnish

Forty Atlantians took the stand during Friday morning’s session of the Frank trial and testified to the good character of the accused. In only one or two instances did the solicitor cross-question these character witnesses, and then only when the witness related something other than testimony concerning Frank’s character.

The character witnesses testified in the following order: Dr. J. A. Sommerfield, F. G. Schiff, A. D. Greenfield, Joseph Gershon, M. O. Nix, Joseph Stalker, P. D. McCarley, Mrs. M. Y. Meyer, Mrs. David Marx, Mrs. Arthur I. Harris, A. L. Gluckman, M. S. Rice, Mrs. D. Glowsky, Mrs. J. A. Sommerfield, Mrs. L. H. Moss, Mrs. Joseph G. Brown, E. E. Fitzpatrick, Emil Dittler, William Bauer, Miss Helen Loeb, J. C. Matthews, Al Fox, Mrs. Adolf Montag, Mrs. Martin May, Julian Boehm, Mrs. Mollie Rosenberg, M. H. Silverman, Mrs. M. L. Starne, Charles Adler, Mrs. R. A. Sohn, A. J. Jones, Mrs. Dan Klein, Nathan Coplan, Miss Rae Klein, F. F. Hulburn, Lester Einstein, M. J. Bernard, Jacob Fox, Marcus Loeb and Mrs. J. O. Phrmateo [sic].

Leo M. Frank, the accused, will take the stand in his own defense Saturday morning and will relate the story which he told the coroner before his arrest. The law doesn’t require the accused to be sworn, neither does it require him to submit to the cross-examination by the prosecution.

Continue Reading →

Testimony of Girls Help to Leo M. Frank

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 15th, 1913

In the presentation of its alibi for Leo M. Frank, the defense probably accomplished more Thursday than it had in all of previous time since the prosecution rested its case. Frank’s lawyers had promised that they would show where Frank was practically every minute on the day the murder of little Mary Phagan was committed and would demonstrate that it would have been impossible to carry out the disposal of the slain girl’s body and the writing of the notes as the negro, Jim Conley, described them.

If their alibi witnesses are to be believed, the lawyers appear to have fairly well accomplished this. On the credibility of one young witness, pretty Helen Curran, of No. 160 Ashby street, the whole alibi may stand or fall. She could, of course, be proved mistaken in her statement that she saw Frank at 1:10 o’clock standing at Jacobs’ Pharmacy, Whitehall and Alabama streets, awaiting a car home from the factory on the afternoon of the murder, and the remainder of the alibi witnesses remain unimpeached, but it would serve to weaken the alibi materially.

Apparently Disinterested.

She is at once the most important and the most disinterested of the witnesses who have testified to seeing Frank immediately after the State says the crime was committed. If Frank was at Whitehall and Alabama streets at 1:10 o’clock, it would have been almost beyond human possibility for him to have taken part in the disposal of the girl’s body, which Conley said was undertaken at 12:55 and finished about 1:30, together with the writing of the notes in Frank’s office.

Continue Reading →

What ‘They Say’ Won’t Hurt Leo Frank; State Must ‘Prove’ Depravity

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 15th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

There is nothing apparently so plain to outside observation as character—just character—and there is, strange to say, nothing so difficult at times to prove.

“They say” and “but” are the two most notorious scandalmongers in the universe—“they say” so and so’ and he or she is all right, “but!”

Character, upon which so much depends in this world, upon which civilization itself and decency and right is founded, is, nevertheless, the most elusive of all things when it comes right down to brass tacks of proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Human nature, too, for some curious and vague reason, seems rather to relish the downfall of character and the undermining of reputation—and that, moreover, the while it is vehemently and rather piously assuring itself that it does nothing of the kind!

Kind words travel on leaden feet—gossip gallops in seven-league boots!

Pessimist?

Not at all—just truthimist, that’s all!

Continue Reading →

Frank Prepares to Take Stand

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 15th, 1913

Defense’s Attorneys Expect to Rest Case To-day

CLIMAX NEAR IN GREAT COURT FIGHT; CROWDS AGAIN FLOCK TO TRIAL

Interest in the trial of Leo M. Frank surged upward magically Friday when it was reported about the courtroom that the defense was nearing the close of its case, and that the defendant himself would be placed on the stand within a short time to make his only statement before his fate was placed in the hands of the twelve jurors.

The rumor spread outside the court house mysteriously and an unusual number sought admittance early in the day, although it was regarded as most unlikely that Frank would go to the stand until afternoon. Luther Rosser said he thought he would call the defendant about the middle of the afternoon. Attorney Arnold announced the defense probably would rest by night.

As the last witnesses were being called by the defense, Frank, his wife and his mother viewed the proceedings with the same calmness that has marked their demeanor since the trial began, with the exception of the outburst of the mother two days before. On Friday she looked steadfastly downward and slightly toward the judge’s bench as though she might be having some difficulty in maintaining her attitude of confidence and calmness.

Continue Reading →

Former Office Boy Saw No Women With Frank on Thanksgiving Day

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Frank Paine, formerly an office boy for the National Pencil company and who claims to have been working there on Thanksgiving day of last year, was placed on the stand following the introduction of the three character witnesses.

The lad stated that he and Herbert G. Schiff were at the factory on the morning of Thanksgiving day, and that Schiff sent him to the top floor to help Jim Conley straighten out some boxes, which were cluttered around there. He declared that Conley left about 10:20 and then he left at 11 o’clock or thereabouts.

That he did not see Conley in the hallway when he left was another statement made by the lad who further declared that he had never known Frank to have women in his office or to have liquor there.

“Did you spend your time in the office?” Attorney Frank Hooper asked on cross-examination.

“Yes.”

“Was Schiff in the office all the time?”
“Did you ever see any beer bottles in there?”
“No.”

“Was Frank in there on Thanksgiving day?”
“Yes.”

“Did you see Jim Conley there?”

“Yes.”

“When did you first notice Jim?”
“When he was sweeping.”
“When you left at 11 o’clock, you didn’t come back, did you?”
“No.”

“You don’t know whether Jim was in the basement?”
“No.”

The lad was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Former Office Boy Saw No Women With Frank on Thanksgiving Day,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Quinn Intimates That Spots May Have Been on Floor for Months

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 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.”

Continue Reading →

Surprise Sprung by Introduction of Character Witnesses by Defense

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14th, 1913

Alfred L. Lane, who stated that he lives in Brooklyn, and is a merchant of New York city, was the first witness to take the stand to swear to the good character of Leo Frank and so quietly was he introduced that not until the defense had asked him several questions did it become known what was about to take place.

“You came here yesterday afternoon especially to testify about Mr. Frank, did you not?” asked Mr. Arnold after he had established the identity of the witness and drawn from him the statement that he had known Frank for about fifteen years.

“Yes, I came here for that purpose,” Lane replied.

“Where did you first known Mr. Frank and when?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I knew him when we were in school together from 1898 to 1902 at Pratt Institute, a high school in Brooklyn,” replied the witness.

By this time it had begun to dawn on the spectators and lawyers that the defense was introducing the character of the defendant.

Continue Reading →

Defense Slips Load by Putting up Character of Leo Frank as Issue

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 14th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

The defense in the Frank case did the expected thing when it boldly and unequivocally put Frank’s character in issue.

It indicated its confidence in the justice of the defendant’s cause in doing that, and it met thus a crisis that it hardly could have successfully overcome otherwise, if it so happen that it does overcome it eventually.

Having taken the initiative in the matter of thrashing out Frank’s character, the State will now be forced to make out an unmistakable case of bad character against Frank, or it is likely that the State’s injection of the sinister charge against him, in addition to the charge of murder, may operate as a boomerang to the State’s great hurt finally.

It is not to be wondered at that the defendant’s mother, tried and racked in spirit and pride as she surely must have been, should have let her feelings overcome her for an instant during the course of Wednesday afternoon’s hearing. I do not suppose it is even remotely possible for any person not a mother to understand all she has gone through.

Her vehement protest against the vile things being said and hinted about her boy—true or untrue, though such things always are untrue in mother love, I take it—serves to illustrate, however, how very vital to the defense now is the establishing of Frank’s good character.

I doubt that anything thus far said to the jury has so profoundly impressed it as the unspeakable thing Conley said of the defendant. The jury is only human, and it can no more dodge impressions than other people can.

Impression Must Be Erased.

The defense is up against the herculean task of removing all of that impression from the mind of the jury—the twelve minds of the jury, indeed—for it will not do to leave even a fraction of Conley’s story undemolished!

Manifestly, therefore, the defense could not, if it would get away altogether from the matter of Frank’s character. It found itself necessarily forced to the other extreme of the situation set up by the State.

Continue Reading →

Frank’s Character Made Issue by the Defense

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Journal
August 13th, 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.

Continue Reading →

Interest Unabated as Dramatic Frank Trial Enters Third Week

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 11th, 1913

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

The third week of the most remarkable murder trial ever known in Georgia opened to-day with no apparent lessening of the acute interest and grim appeal heretofore attaching to it.

The public has come to realize thoroughly and completely that the issue is a battle not only between the State and the defendant, Leo Frank, but between Leo Frank and the negro Jim Conley.

Presumably, the defense will take the entire week rounding out its case and perfecting its undermining of Conley’s story.

If it does get through within the week, it will have employed approximately the same amount of time in telling its story that the State employed in telling the other side.

The first powerful and bewildering shock of Conley’s tale, unanticipated in its full sinister detail, has passed away in a measure, it seems.

It is but the simple truth to say that the day of and the day following Conley’s awful charge, in addition to the one of murder, marked the climax of the State’s case and the zenith of feeling against Frank.

Continue Reading →

Introduction by Defense of Host Of Character Witnesses Probable

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 10th, 1913

The introduction of character testimony in behalf of Leo Frank at present seems very probable. It is not thought, however, that witnesses of this nature will be put on the stand until the middle of the week.

Attorneys for the defense, as in the past, who have withhold their plans until the exact moment of performance, have refused to discuss whether or not character witnesses will be called. It is the general impression, however, that a wealth of this evidence will be presented—more, in fact, than has been produced in any trial in the state.

At the opening of the case the roll of witnesses named by the defense included some of the city’s foremost business figures, who, it was freely stated, had been called only in defense of the accused man’s character.

The solicitor has never intimated whether or not he has evidence to produce in rebuttal of character testimony in case it is presented. Such evidence, however, can never be produced by the prosecution unless the issue is opened by the defense.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 10th 1913, “Introduction by Defense of Host of Character Witnesses Probable,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)