Tag Archives: Leo M. Frank

Reply Made To Frank’s Attack

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 28th, 1913

Solicitor Cites Prisoner’s Statement on Stand, “Now is the Time, This is the Place.”

Solicitor Dorsey was as busily engaged on the Frank case Thursday as he was any day before Leo Frank was convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan. If the factory superintendent finally succeeds in avoiding the penalty fixed it will not be because the Solicitor has not fought to the uttermost of his strength to put the rope around Frank’s neck.

Briefly but pointedly Solicitor Dorsey Thursday morning summed up his opinion of Leo Frank’s latest alleged statement concerning the trial and the Solicitor’s speech.

“Frank,” said the Solicitor in his quiet manner, “declared on the stand that now was the time and here the place, That’s all I have to say.”

The Solicitor declared that the State would ask the new Grand Jury which will be sworn in Tuesday, to indict Jim Conley immediately as an acknowledged accessory after the fact to the murder of Mary Phagan. He declared further that he had no intention of asking for a shortening of the sentence, as this was in the province of the Grand Jury and the judge.

No Vacation for Dorsey.

Although worn out as a result of the long strain, Solicitor Dorsey declared Thursday that it was his intention to keep right at work without taking a vacation. A few days of “taking it easy,” he said, will put him in excellent shape for the remainder of the summer.

Continue Reading →

Climax of Trial Reached When Frank Faced Jury

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 19th, 1913

The climax of the Frank trial came at the afternoon session Monday, when Leo M. Frank took the stand to tell of his actions on the day of the murder.

The accused man’s statement was clear, concise and straightforward. He talked in smooth, even tones, punctuating his statement with emphatic gestures of the arms and fingers. He had more the appearance of an at attorney making a fury speech instead of an accused man making a plea for life and liberty.

It was a dramatic story, marked by the straightforward delivery of the prisoner. A hush settled over the room throughout his recital and he was able to talk in an ordinary voice and make himself heard all over the place.

The following is the first verbatim report of his statement to be published: “Now, Mr. Frank,” said Mr. Arnold, “such papers as you want to use you can come down here at any time or from time to time and get them on this table right here.”

“Before you commence your statement,” prompted the judge, “I want to read the law. In criminal procedure, the prisoner will have the right to make to the court and jury such statement in this case as he may deem proper in his defense. It shall not be under oath and shall have such force as the jury shall think right to give it. They may believe it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case. The prisoner shall not be compelled to answer any questions on cross-examination. He should feel free to decline to answer them. Now you can make such statement ns you see fit.”

“Gentlemen of the jury,” the accused man began, “in 1884, the 17th day of April, I was born in Terrell, Texas. At the age of 3 mouths my parents took me to Brooklyn, N. Y. which became my home until I came south, to Atlanta, to make my home here. I attended the public schools of Brooklyn and prepared for college In Pratt institute, Brooklyn, N. Y.”

“In the fall of 1902, I entered Cornell university, where I took the course of mechanical engineering, graduating after four years, in June, 1906. I then accepted a position as draughtsman with the B. F. Sturdevant company, of Hyde Park, Mass. After remaining with this firm for about six months I returned once more to my home In Brooklyn, where I accepted a position as testing engineer and draughtsman with the National Meter company, of Brooklyn, N. Y.

Continue Reading →

Says Frank Broke Baseball Date Shortly After Girl Was Killed

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Annie Hicks, a maid in the home of Charles Ersenbach, testified to having received a telephone call from Frank to Ersenbach, breaking a ball game engagement for the afternoon of April 26.

“Do you recall Memorial day?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you get a telephone message from Mr. Frank?”
“Yes, he called at 1 o’clock and said tell Charles Ersenbach that he couldn’t go to the ball game that afternoon. He stopped for a minute and said, to somebody beside him, ‘Hush, honey,’ and I supposed he was talking to his wife.”

Dorsey on cross-examination.

“How long have you been working at the Ersenbach home?”
“For two years.”

“Frank and his wife came over to the Ersenbach residence the Sunday morning after the murder?”
“Yes, sir—he came into the dining room where I was and asked me if I could get him a drink of cool water.”

“Did you hear him talk any?”
“Yes, they all talked and laughed.”

“Was he nervous?”

“No, I’ve been knowing him for a long time and I never have seen him nervous.”

“Weren’t they laughing about the little girl being murdered?”

“I don’t know.”

“You and Minola McKnight are great friends?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Has Minola ever talked to you about this affair?”
“No, I just asked her why they locked her up and she said she didn’t know.”

“When was the last time you saw Minola?”
“This morning at Mrs. Selig’s where I had dinner.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Says Frank Broke Baseball Date Shortly After Girl Was Killed,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Still Another Office Boy Swears He Never Saw Women With Frank

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

B. J. Nix, of Marietta, an office boy for Leo Frank from April to October, 1912 was the first witness, outside of those testifying to character, who was put on the stand Friday. The lad who gave his age as 19 swore that he had never seen Frank having women in his office. He stated that he left the office at 1 o’clock every other Saturday during the summer months.

“Were you ever an office boy for the National Pencil company?” was Mr. Arnold’s first question.

“Yes, sir.”

“When?”
“From April to October of last year.”

“Did you have any agreement about getting off on Saturdays?” Mr. Arnold continued.

“Yes, sir, on every other Saturday I got off at 1 o’clock and on the Saturdays between I stayed to 4 o’clock and sometimes as late as 6 o’clock.

“Were you sent out of the office much?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see Mr. Frank have women in his office?”

“No, sir.”

“Ever see him have beer in his office?”
“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Dorsey took up the cross-examination.

“Most of the Saturdays on which you did not get off at 1 o’clock you got off at 4 o’clock, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir, most of the time.”

“You don’t undertake to say do you that that on the days you were off that Frank did not have women and beer in his office?”
“No, I can’t say that.”

“That’s all,” said the solicitor.

The witness was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Still Another Office Boy Swears He Never Saw Women With Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Frank as Innocent as Angels Conley Told Her, Says Witness

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

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

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

She replied that she had not.

“Do you know Jim Conley?”
“Yes.”

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

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

Wanted to See Newspaper.

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

Continue Reading →

Maid in Schiff Home Tells of Phone Message From Frank

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Emma Hill, a maid in the Schiff home was called to tell of a telephone message for Herbert Schiff, made by Frank on the morning of the tragedy.

“Do you remember anybody trying to call Schiff on the 26th of April?”

“Yes, sir. Somebody who sounded like a boy, rang the phone and said tell Mr. Schiff that Mr. Frank wanted him at the office to do some work.”

“What time was it?”

“It was about 11 o’clock. I woke Mr. Schiff and he said tell whoever it was at the phone that he would be there when he got up. He went back to sleep.”

Cross-examination by Mr. Dorsey.

“How long have you been at the Schiff home?”

“Seven years.”

“Why do you remember this especial Saturday?”
“Because it was Memorial day—everybody knows Memorial day.”

“Who did you first tell about this phone conversation?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Who first saw you about it?”
“Nobody but the lawyer.”

“What lawyer?”
“Herbert Haas.”

“And you never mentioned a word of it to a soul before that?”
“No, sir.”

“What did Haas say to you?”
“Nothing. He just gave me the subpoena to court.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Maid in Schiff Home Tells of Phone Message From Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Traveling Salesman for Montag’s Tells of Conversation With Frank

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

Harry Gottheimer, a traveling salesman for the Montag firm and the pencil factory, took the stand to tell of an engagement he had made with Frank on the afternoon of the murder.

“Do you remember seeing Frank on April 26?” he was asked by Arnold.

“Yes, I saw him at Montag’s about 10 o’clock that morning.”

“Did you talk with him?”
“Yes, I was at the desk in the office and he came over to speak to me. I asked him of two important orders which had been forwarded and he said that if I would come at 2 o’clock that afternoon he would see about them.”

Mr. Hooper arose to voice an objection on the grounds that the statement was self-serving and that a similar statement made relative to words of Mary Phagan had been ruled out previously by the judge.

After an argument by Mr. Rosser and his colleague, however, Judge Roan ruled that the evidence was admissible and overruled the state.

“Did you go to see Frank?”
“Not that afternoon.”

Dorsey on cross-examination:

“When was it you recalled this talk with Frank?”
“Immediately upon hearing of the tragedy.”

“Did you tell him you would come over that afternoon?”

“No.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Traveling Salesman for Montag’s Tells of Conversation With Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Host of Witnesses Declare Frank’s Character to Be Good

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

The greater part of the time Friday was taken up by the defense in producing witnesses to swear to the good character of Frank. One witness placed on the stand, F. F. Gilbert, an employee of Montag Mros. [sic], swore that he did not know Frank well enough to testify to his character.

The witnesses who were used solely to attest his good character were: Dr. and Mrs. J. E. Sommerfield, of 300 Washington street; F. Schiff, of 18 West Fair street; Joseph Gershon, of 390 Washington street; P. D. McCarley, of 24 Hemphill avenue, in charge of the oil business of M. Frank, Leo Frank’s uncle; Mrs. M. W. Myers, of Washington street; Mrs. David Marx, wife of Rabbit Marx, of 354 Washington street; Mrs. R. I. Harris; Al Guinman, of 479 Washington street; M. S. Rice, who formerly boarded at the same place with Frank; Mrs. B. Giogowski, with whom Frank once boarded; Mr. and Mrs. L. H. Moss, Mrs. Joseph D. Brown; E. E. Fitzpatrick, of 105 Sinclair avenue, foreman of the shipping and receiving department of Montag Bros.; Emil Dittler, William Bauer, Miss Helen Loeb, J. C. Mathews, of 86 Sinclair avenue, employee of Montag Bros.; Al Fox, Mrs. Adolph Montag, who said Frank had been discussed by Mrs. Myers, his landlady, who had said how attentive to her wants he was to her when her husband was out of town, and F. F. Gilbert, an employee of Montag Bros., who swore he did not know Frank well enough to tell of his character.

Mrs. Martin May on Stand.

Mrs. Martin May, a petite and stylishly dressed brunette, followed. As she took the stand she bowed and smiled to Mr. and Mrs. Frank. She testified that the defendant’s character was good and was not cross-examined.

Continue Reading →

Mrs. Rae Frank Goes on Stand in Defense of Her Son

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16th, 1913

MOTHER IDENTIFIES LETTER FRANK HAD WRITTEN TO UNCLE ON MEMORIAL DAY

Testimony Used by Defense to Show That the Prisoner Could Not Have Written This Letter, Which Was of Considerable Length, Had He Been Laboring Under Stress of Excitement Which Would Have Followed the Murder of Mary Phagan.

PENCIL FACTORY GIRLS SWEAR CONLEY CALLED FRANK AN INNOCENT MAN

Witness After Witness Declare That They Never Saw Women in Office of Superintendent—The State Brings Girl Back From Home of Good Shepherd in Cincinnati to Give Evidence Against Prisoner—Her Testimony Is Kept a Secret.

The defense played one of its strong cards Friday, when, at the heel of the day’s session, Mrs. Rae Frank was placed on the stand to identify a letter which Leo M. Frank, on Memorial day, and which was read in her presence at the Hotel McAlpin, New York, Monday following the murder.

The letter was one of some length, and contained a price list which M. Frank had requested his nephew to send him.

The time element, which is playing an important part in the trial, was made more important by this letter. The defense will attempt to show that the letter could not have been written had Frank been guilty of the murder, or had he been laboring under stress of excitement.

Mrs. Frank was perfectly composed while on the stand and answered the questions of Luther Rosser in a clear, distinct voice.

Continue Reading →

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 →