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

Atlanta Journal
August 9^th, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Fiercely Attacks Evidence Given by the Witness For Defense Afternoon Session

He Also Implies That Watchman Was Trying to Fix Crime on Conley to Get Reward. Holloway Admits Signing Statement Produced by the Prosecutor—Other Witnesses for Defense Heard

After Solicitor Dorsey riddled E. F. Holloway, day watchman at the National Pencil factory, with volleys of questions regarding former statements made by the witness and which he could not explain or make coincide with his testimony Friday afternoon, court adjourned at 6:45 o’clock until 9 o’clock Saturday.

The solicitor also trapped the watchman and the witness for the defense. The solicitor also made the sensational implication that the bloody stick found by Pinkertons in the factory was planted by Holloway himself. The solicitor further implied that Holloway was working for a reward and had turned up Conley for that purpose.

After Holloway had declared that Daisy Hopkins’ character was good as far as he knew, the solicitor asked him about a paper he had signed previously stating the contrary. He admitted that he signed the paper. The solicitor asked the witness if he hadn’t told the detectives to return to the factory on a certain day and he was sure they would find something. The witness denied this.

Deputy sheriffs Friday afternoon searched Atlanta for George Epps, the little “newsie” who testified at the trial of Leo M. Frank that he rode to the city on the same car with Mary Phagan on the day she met her death in the National Pencil factory. The “newsie” was called Friday morning, but was not in court and deputies were sent out for him then.

When the afternoon session began Attorney Arnold again called her Epps, but he did not answer and Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor told the court that search for him at his home in Bellwood Friday had been futile, but that his family had promised to send him to court as soon as he came in.

An attachment was then issued for the “newsie” and officers are looking for him where he is accustomed to sell his “wuxtras.” The defense offered testimony by two street railway employes who manned the car upon which Mary Phagan rode into the city from Lindsay street on April 26, during the morning session, to refute the Epps boy’s testimony that he was on the car, and it is expected that the little fellow will receive a severe grilling when he again takes the stand at the trial.

When court reconvened at 2 o’clock, Attorney Arnold called for George Epps. He was not in court and could not be located around the court house. Attorney Arnold addressed the court.

“Your honor, we would like to have him here,” said he.

Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor explained that an officer had been sent to his home in Bellwood Friday morning and that he couldn’t be found there, but [1 word illegible] members of his family had promised to send him to court as soon as he returned. An attachment was issued for the newsboy, and a deputy [1 word illegible] went out to search for him. [several paragraphs illegible]

“Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant?” Attorney Arnold asked.

“Yes.”

“Did you see him on Memorial day, April 26?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”
“Opposite the main entrance of the state capitol on Washington street.”
“Where was Frank?”
“He was on a street car. I can’t say positively whether or not it was a Washington street trolley, though.”
“Do you recollect who was with him?”
“No.”

“What time was it when you saw him?”
“It was between 2 and 2:15 o’clock in the afternoon.”

“How do you know?”
“Well, I left home between 1 and 1:30 o’clock with my wife and her mother.” The witness described the [1 word illegible] they took through town, concluding at the state capitol, and he was passing along the Washington street [several words illegible] with them to get a position where they could see the Memorial day parade.

“How did you happen to see Frank?”
“He was driving my car along the street, and the street car passed me, and I looked up and saw Frank in the car.”

“Have you gone through these maneuvers since to time yourself?”

“Yes.” Mr. Hinchey gave the time it had required on three different occasions, each time arriving at the capitol between 2 and 2:11 o’clock.

“How did you happen to remember seeing Frank?”
“When I read the papers next day the matter was impressed on my memory.”
Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“How many times did you say you saw Frank that day?”
“Only once, in the street car in front of the capitol.”

“Did you say the crowds were congested around, and you were busy guiding your car among the people and the traffic?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You had about all you could say [1 word illegible] over in managing that steering wheel, didn’t you?”
“I claim to be an expert driver.”

“Was there anything special about Frank to attract your attention on that occasion?”

HOW HE REMEMBERED.

“Nothing except I had had in my mind some work which I expected to talk over with him at the factory, and when I saw him I recalled that.”

“You don’t recall any other persons you saw or recognized there?”
“No, sir.”

“Nobody else attracted your attention?”
“No, sir.”

“How many people do you know on that side of town?”
“I know a good many. I know people all over town.”

“Nobody else in that crowd attracted your attention?”
“No, sir.”

“How many times have you been to the jail to visit Frank?”
“Only once.”

“Did you discuss this matter with him at that time?”
“Not in detail. I expressed my sympathy and——“

“What I mean is, you mentioned to him that you saw him that day?”
“Oh, yes.”

“You were just telling him that you saw him. You didn’t know whether it would be worth anything to him or not?”
“No, sir.”

“That’s why you went to the jail, wasn’t it?”
“No, sir.”

“Was it before or after the coroner’s inquest that you called on Frank?”

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

“A long time after the inquest.”

“You had heard that there was some question as to where he was at that [1 word illegible], hadn’t you?”
“There was no question in my mind, for I saw him.”

“Who was the first person you told about having seen Frank, before you told him?”
“I don’t know. I told several people.”

“Why did you try out that experiment of movements on that to ascertain the time you arrived at Washington street?”
“I did it after I learned that I was going to be called as a witness.”

“Did you find out you were going to be called as a witness before or after you went to the jail to see Frank?”
“Before.”

“When you found out you were going to be called as a witness, then you went down to talk it over with Frank?”
“No, sir.”

“Well, why did you go to the jail to see him?”

KNOWN HIM FIVE YEARS.

“I had known him for about five years, and I knew I was going to be a witness.”

“How did you come to be a witness in this case?”
“I was asked by my attorney if I wouldn’t be a witness.”

“Mr. Leonard Haas.”

“Is Mr. Leonard Haas one of Frank’s attorneys?”
“I don’t know.”

“Well, now what do you say was your purpose in going to the jail to see Frank?”
“I was interested in Mr. Frank because he was implicated in this case. We’ve never been personal friends. Just business acquaintances.”

“Have you ever been a witness before?”
“Once, several years ago, in Columbus, Ga.”

“Did you talk it over with the party interested or implicated?”
“Yes, but that was not a murder case.”

“Did you discuss with Frank what your testimony was going to be?”
“No, sir, I told him I saw him on the car, and asked him if he saw me. He said he had not.”

The cardboard model of the basement, ground floor and second floor of the National Pencil factory was brought into court when Mr. Hinsey was excused. The model measures six and one-fourth feet long. H. T. Willett, a pattern maker of 100 Highland avenue, who constructed the model, took the stand.

He made the model faithfully after a blue print furnished to him, he said. The scale of blue print was one-eighth inch to a foot, and he made the model three-eights to the foot. He admitted that he had made none of the measurements himself. The direct examination was brief.

Attorney Hooper directed the cross-examination.

Attorney Hooper developed that the witness had not put in two windows on the office floor himself; that he had not pretended to get the heights, merely making what was termed a ground plan model. The witness further admitted that several holes representing doors, trap-doors, etc., were not in proportion.

The witness talked in such a low voice that the court repeatedly asked him to speak louder. While admitting these mistakes, he declared that generally, he had done everything in his power to follow faithfully the dimensions given in the blue print.

Several times Attorney Arnold objected to Mr. Hooper’s questions. Mr. Arnold did not rise to object, and at each objection Mr. Hooper reached over and patted him on the head, telling him playfully to keep quiet.

The witness was excused, and N. V. Darley, general foreman of the National Pencil factory, was recalled to the witness stand, this time as a witness for the defense.

Questioned by Attorney Arnold, Mr. Darley said that he is general manager of the Forsyth street factory of the National Pencil company.

“You’ve seen this model, haven’t you?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you see it in my office once?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“No, I didn’t se[e] it there.”

“You are familiar with the ground plans of the different floors of the factory, aren’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Come down from the chair and look at this model and tell me if it is a good representation of the basement and first and second floors of the factory?”

GOOD MODEL SAYS DARLEY.

The witness examined it, and answered that it was such.

As Attorney Arnold indicated various objects in the model, Darley described them. Attorney Arnold questioned him particularly about the chute at the rear of the building.

“How big is that chute, Mr. Darley? Is it big enough for a body to go through?”
“Yes.”

Darley then pointed out the spot where Mary Phagan’s body was found. Several of the jurors stood up and looked closely when he indicated that Attorney Arnold pointed to the spot designated as a door leading into the part of the first floor that once was used by the Clark Woodenware company.

“Has this door been kept locked, Mr. Darley?”
“We kept it locked after the Clark Woodenware company moved out, about the first of the year, until after the murder. One day I discovered that it was broken open.”

DOOR BROKEN AFTER MURDER.

“How long after the murder was it you discovered this door open, Mr. Darley?”
“I don’t remember. I know that I had it nailed up though, when I found it open, and it’s been nailed up ever since.”

In answer to other questions. Darley said that the trap door over the stairway at the rear of the basement, and the trap door over the chute, were neither locked nor nailed down so far as he knew.

“Sitting at Frank’s desk in the inner office, what view does one have of the second floor?”
“Well, he can see as far back as the middle of the first clock. I sat there and I could see just about one-half of its face.”

“Suppose the safe door is open in the outer office. Where would one have to stand to see the interior of Frank’s office?”
“Almost in the door.”

“Could one see standing further away see over the door?”
“I can see over it by standing on my tiptoes.”

“Have you ever seen Monteen Stover?”
“I saw her down here one day.”
“Would you say that she could see over the door?”
“I don’t think she could.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness to explain the route that one would have to take from Frank’s inner office to the metal room.

Using a ruler, Darley traced on the model the route one would have to take.

DOUBLE DOOR UNLOCKED.

“This double door between the metal department and the main part of the factory—was it kept locked or unlocked?”
“Unlocked. There was no way of locking them.”
“Was there any way, if two people went on the inside, to lock the doors from the inside?”
“None.”

“State whether there is a cot, lounge, sofa or bed, or anything of that character, in the whole factory building.”

“When the detectives came, I went with them into the woodenware company’s part of the basement, and I saw some old boxes covered over with some bags.”

“That was as foul and filthy a thing as a human being ever rested upon was it not?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. It was a leading question, said he. Attorney Arnold amended his question.

“The conditions there were boggy and dirty,” answered the witness.

“Dirtier than a hog pen, wasn’t it?”
“It was very dirty.”
“What sort of boxes were they?”
“Some old shipping boxes.”

“What kind of sacks?”
“Crocus and corn sacks.”

NO OTHER LOUNGE.

“And you say it was filthy?”
“Yes, sir, it was very nasty and dirty.”
“Outside of these boxes and bags, there was no lounge, cot, bed or sofa anywhere in that factory building?”
“No, sir.”

“Was there anything of that kind in the metal room?”
“No, sir.”

“Was there any chair in the metal room?”
“I never saw one there.”

“Anything except the machinery and stock?”
“No, sir.”

“In the ladies’ closet or dressing room, was there any bed?”
“No, sir, just a small cloak closet.”

“You saw the place where Conley says he found the body?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where was it?”
The witness indicated a spot in the areaway leading from the metal room toward the toilets, on the second floor.

“Where is the lathe that they say they found the hair on?”
“Across the room over on the north side of the factory.”

NEVER SAW BLOOD.

“You never saw any blood under that machine?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you look for any?”
“Yes, sir, I looked it over 50 or 100 times, I guess.”

“Did you see any blood where Conley says the body lay when he first saw it?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you look for blood?”
“Yes, sir, a great many times.”

At the suggestion of Attorney Arnold, the witness indicated a point where Mary Phagan’s machine stood in the metal room.

Mr. Arnold indicated a door at the back of the second floor, and asked if there was not a stairway leading to the third and fourth floors. The witness answered yes.

“Then you can get the into metal room either from the front or from the back by coming down those stairs?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you say that those double doors leading into the metal room from the main part of the factory could be bolted from the outside?”
“Yes, but not from the inside.”

“That door leading to the back stairs in the metal room—is it ever unlocked?”
“Yes, sir, it’s never locked during working hours. Sometimes they are left unlocked when the factory is closed, but they are supposed to be locked then.”

“Isn’t this model in the main a fair idea of the basement, ground floor, and second floor, with location of offices, machinery, etc.?”
“It is a very good idea.”

“Where are the cotton sacks located?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

Mr. Arnold requested the witness to resume the stand. He had been standing beside the model.

“What sort of a day was April 26?”
“It was a holiday.”
“That isn’t what I mean. What kind of weather obtained on that day?”

CLOUDY ON DAY OF CRIME.

“It was raining early in the morning.”
“Well, was it cloudy or not all day?”
“Yes, sir, very cloudy.”
“Was the ground floor darker that morning than usual?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Do the windows in this partition along side the entrance afford any light around the elevator?”
“Yes, sir, some but not much.”

“Standing on the outside, looking through the window at this glass partition, can you see the elevator?”

“No sir, to do that you would have to come in the front door and go close to the elevator, on account of the darkness.”

“What time did you leave the factory on that Saturday morning?”
“About 9:40.”

“If Conley says he saw you leave after 11 o’clock that morning, is it true or not true?”
“It is not true.”

“If he says you came downstairs a minute or two before Mr. Holloway between 10:30 and 11 o’clock, is that true or not true?”
“It is not true.”
Attorney Hooper objected to the manner of Mr. Arnold’s questioning the witness, declaring that he was endeavoring to have this witness pass upon the credibility of another witness and that the supreme court has ruled that this is incompetent.

LEFT WITH FRANK.

“I will frame my questions differently,” said Mr. Arnold. “With whom did you leave the factory?” addressing the witness.

“With Mr. Frank.”

“Which way did you go?”
“I went to a moving picture show on Peachtree street and he went toward Montag’s.”
“Did you see the negro Jim Conley?”
“No, sir.”

“Was that the last time you were at the factory that day?”

“Yes.”

“Did you ever pinch or jolly Conley?”
“I kicked him once or twice when I caught him loafing, and he laughed at it. I wouldn’t call it jollying.”

“Did you ever see Frank jollying with him?”
“No.”

“How long have you been working at the factory?”
“It was two years on April 7.”
“I call your particular attention to a period beginning June, 1912. Did you ever know Daisy Hopkins?”
“I remembered her face when she was shown to me today.”
“Did you ever see this man Dalton?”
“No.”
“In that period, beginning June 1912, what was your custom as to being at the factory on Saturdays?”
“Usually I left at noon and in the two years that I have worked at the factory I have failed to come back in the afternoon between 5 and 6 o’clock only a few occasions. My purpose was to find out about the financial sheet.”

FRANK ABSENT ONCE.

“Do you remember even failing to find Frank there?”
“Only once when he told me he would be away, and then I called to see if Schiff was there.”

“Was Schiff usually there on Saturday afternoons, helping Frank?”
“With the exception of a very few instances.”
“Were those instances while he was away on his vacation?”

“I don’t know.”

“What were the day watchman’s instructions as to Saturday?”
“He was to stay there until the night watchman came on at 4 o’clock.”

“Did you come in contact with the employes more or less than Frank?”
“Ninety per cent more.”

“Dalton testified that there was a negro night watchman there in September. Who was the night watchman then?”
“Either a Mr. Kendrick or his son—both white.”
“When was this negro Lee hired?”

“Three weeks before the tragedy.”

“Was there ever a negro nightwatchman at the factory prior to that time?”
“Not during my two years connection with the factory.”
“Don’t you know it was bothered at all until after the insurance people had made you clean up the basement?”
“I don’t think it was touched until then.”
“Who usually stayed there on Saturday afternoons beside Holloway?”
“Walter Pride does work that he can’t do when the factory is in operation.”
“Does the stenographer ever stay there on Saturday afternoons?”
“Occasionally.”

“Are Saturday afternoons only devoted to work on the financial sheet?”
“Saturday afternoons are holidays.”
“Who else stayed at the factory on Saturdays?”
“Every other Saturday a man oiled the machines on the fourth floor.”

“Did you see Conley Monday after the tragedy? And how did he look?”

CONLEY EXCITED.

“Yes. He was very excited. I went to look over ever body in the factory to see if there was anyone who looked suspicious, and Jim Conley was the man. I instructed the watchman to look out for him.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected and was sustained. The question and answer were ruled out.

“At that time was it customary for the sweepers to work on Saturday afternoons?”
“No, they had instructions to quit at noon.”

Mr. Arnold instructed the witness to point out on the model the position of the lavatory used by Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“Mr. Darley, have you made any contribution to the defense fund of Frank?” questioned the solicitor.

“No, sir.”

“Can you tell the character of Daisy Hopkins?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever see her?”
“I saw her down here this morning.”

“You can’t say, then, what her general reputation was around the pencil factory, can you?”
“No, sir, I cannot.”

Solicitor Dorsey pointed to the door leading into that portion of the first floor formerly used by the Clark Woodenware Company.

“You say you found this door open, after the murder, Mr. Darley?”
“Yes, sir. It wasn’t swinging open, though. The stick nailed across it was torn off.”

“Was there anything else to hold it in place?”
“Nothing.”

“That was after the crowds had gone through the factory on Sunday and Monday following the murder, wasn’t it?”
“It must have been.”

“Who nailed it up at your instruction?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Mr. Darley, don’t you know that the door of these steps,” pointing to the trap door leading from the first floor to the basement, “has been nailed down for months?”
“No, sir.”

DORSEY TRIED STAIRS.

“Can you point out a more secure place to hide a body than at the bottom of the chute leading from the first floor to the basement?”
Attorney Arnold objected and was sustained.

Solicitor Dorsey amended the question. Darley replied that the bottom of the chute would have been a more secretive hiding place for a body than where Mary Phagan’s body was found.

“Did you see the chute before the boxes were removed from around it?”
“I never noticed it.”

Solicitor Dorsey continued: “The Sunday after the murder, Mr. Darley, how high were the boxes piled around the door leading into the woodenware room?”
“Nearly to the top.”

“So far as you know, Mr. Darley, Frank could excuse the night watchman and put Conley to watch in his stead, couldn’t he, on Saturday afternoons?”
“I wasn’t there Saturday afternoons, and can’t say as to that?”
Solicitor Dorsey pointed to the room adjoining the metal room where a vat is. “Isn’t it very damp in this room, Mr. Darley? Isn’t there water on the floor and aren’t there planks in there so you can walk around without wetting your feet?”

“Yes, sir.”

The solicitor directed the witness’ attention to the stairway leading from the third door floor to the second floor at the back of the building.

“Isn’t it your instructions to keep a bar across this door on pay days?”
“Yes.”

“Mr. Darley, there’s no reason for taking the paint from the paint room into the metal room or any other part of this floor, is there?”
“If it’s done, it’s done carelessly. There’s no business reason for it.”

“Do you undertake to say this model is at all accurate as to lines of vision?”

“So far as I can remember, it is.”

FRANK’S DESK MOVED.

“You can’t say the clock or the desk hasn’t been moved since the murder, can you, Mr. Darley?”
“Not positively.”

“How long is it since the clock has been fixed?”
“I don’t remember it’s being fixed since the murder?”
This concluded the cross-examination.

Mr. Arnold asked the witness if he had tried to see the time clock from Frank’s desk. The witness said yes, he tried it Friday and could see about half the circle of one of the clocks and couldn’t see the other at all.

“Have the clocks been moved?”
“Not that I know of.”

“You would have known it if they had been moved?”
“Yes.”

“Under whose orders would the clocks have been moved if they were moved?”
“Under my orders.”
“Mr. Dorsey was questioning you about the localized point of the paint room. Isn’t it true that in no paint shop on earth, can paint be confined to limits like these?”
“Yes, sir, as I said there is no business reason for paint to be outside the polishing room; but it is out and all over the place.”

DIDN’T KNOW BLOOD.

“About that blood in front of the dressing room door. You didn’t know what that was, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“I believe you said when you were previously examined that you frequently found blood spots on the floor, especially around the ladies’ dressing rooms and toilets?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And you have more than 100 women working in this factory?”
“Yes.”

“You don’t know how long that spot had been there?”
“No, sir.”

“And you wouldn’t have noticed it unless your attention had been called to it?”
“No, sir.”

“Mr. Dorsey questioned you about water being in that part of the factory near the toilets, was there any water where it was said that the girl’s body was found?”
“No, sir.”

“And no blood?”
“No, sir.”

“And you looked carefully over this place both Monday and Tuesday?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And found no blood or signs of blood?”
“No, sir.”

“And the floor hasn’t been washed since you’ve been with the factory, so that if the blood of a mouse had been there two years ago, it still would be there?”
Before the witness could answer, Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court.

DORSEY OBJECTS.

“Your honor, you should rule out that question. All this stuff about the blood of a mouse two years ago still being there, and washing the floor, and all like that, is wholly irrelevant.”

The court sustained the objection.

“Well,” said Attorney Arnold, “was there any water under the machine where Barrett said he discovered the hair?”
“No, sir.”

“Had the floor been cleaned there since?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you find any blood there?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever know Frank to make up a financial sheet except on Saturdays?”
“Only on Saturdays and holidays.”
“Conley knew where the cords were kept, didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“In fact, he knew the factory throughout as well as anybody in it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“In reply to questions from Mr. Dorsey, you stated that boxes were piled in front of that door on the first floor on April 26.”

“I don’t know. As far as I could see, they shut off the view of the door.”

TOLD POLICE OF BLOOD.

Solicitor Dorsey resumed the witness.

“It was you yourself who communicated with police headquarters and notified the officers when those blood spots were found, was it not?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Come down,” said the solicitor.

“Wait a minute!” shouted Mr. Arnold.

“You were endeavoring to tell the police everything that you found and everything that was reported to you, were you not?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, sir.”

“Come down.”

“Hold on,” demanded the solicitor. “When did you report Conley’s nervousness to the police?”
“I think it was to Harry Scott, on Monday, April 28.”

“Are you positive of that?”
“No, sir, I am not.”

“You can’t be positive?”

“No, sir.”

The witness was excused.

EPPS BOY ABSENT YET.

“Call in that little boy Epps,” said Mr. Arnold. The bailiffs called, but George didn’t answer.

“Your honor, I want an attachment and a search warrant for this boy,” said Mr. Arnold.

“I have already issued an attachment, and I will assist you in anyway I can to get him here,” said the judge.

The model of the factory was removed from court at this juncture, to make room for the feet of the lawyers.

Albert Kauffman was called back to identify the blue print from which the model was made. He said that the blue print was correct but not as complete as the plat introduced previously.

E. F. Holloway, day watchman and timekeeper at the pencil factory, was called to the stand again. He stands at the clock to see that everybody registers, he said. It was not his habit to indulge Conley by giving him time when he failed to punch the clock. He never asked the negro about failure to punch the clock, but docked his pay. He said that he never saw Frank jollying Conley.

He never saw Frank with the negro except one time when Conley was seeking to borrow a quarter from Frank. He volunteered the information that Frank was careful not to lend the negro more than was due him from the factory.

He said that during the past twelve months it has been a rule that no sweeper should work in the factory after noon on Saturdays. He said that Walter Pride sometimes worked there on Saturdays. He said there had been no negro night watchman until Newt Lee came to the factory three weeks before the tragedy.

RECESS TAKEN.

At this point proceedings were stopped for a brief recess.

When court resumed, Holloway was asked if he ever jollied with Conley, and said that he never jollied with him but that he kicked him around frequently when he caught him loafing.

“On Monday after the tragedy,” asked Mr. Arnold, “did you notice the door leading back from the passageway on the first floor to the Clark Woodenware company’s place; that also leads to that chute in the rear?”
The witness said that on Monday after the tragedy the door was open, although some time before that he had nailed it up.

“In the period beginning June, 1912, up to the time of the tragedy, where were you on Saturday afternoons?”

“Every Saturday during that time, except on legal holidays, I stayed at the factory until 4 o’clock in the afternoon when I was relieved by Kendricks and later by Newt Lee.”

NO WOMEN THERE SATURDAYS.

“Did Frank ever have any women come up to see him on Saturday afternoons?”

“No one except his wife, who often came there to go home with him.”

“Who helped Mr. Frank in the office?”
“Schiff, and sometimes there would be an office boy there.”

“On any other Saturday, this year or last year, did Jim Conley watch at the front door of the factory?”
“Not at any time before 4 o’clock?”
“Would you have been obliged to see him if he had been there?”
“Yes, I generally stayed in front to see that no one came into the factory who should not have been there.”

“Do you recall any Saturday that Schiff failed to go to the factory, except when he was away on his vacation?”
“No.”

“Did you ever see anyone after office hours take any women into the building?”
“No.”

“What time did you always come to the factory in the mornings on Saturday?”
“At 6:20 a. m.”

“What time did you leave?”
“About 4 in the afternoon.”

“You’ve had this man Dalton pointed out to you. Did you ever see him before or see him around the factory?”
“No.”

NO COUPLES ALLOWED.

“Well, would you let a fellow like him come into the factory?”
“No, not unless he had mighty good business there.”

“Did you ever know of any couples going in there?”
“No.”

“What would you have done if you had?”
“I’d have put ‘em out mighty quick.”

“Do you know Daisy Hopkins?”
“I’ve seen her.”

“Did she ever come back there after office hours?”
“Not while I was there.”

“Did she ever go back there after she stopped working for the factory?”
“No.”

“On Saturday, April 26, did you go upstairs and put on your coat and come downstairs about the same time Mr. Darley did?”

REFUTES CONLEY.

“I did not, Mr. Darley left about 9 o’clock.”

“Have the street doors ever been locked while anybody worked in the factory?”
“They have not.”

“Were you at the factory last Thanksgiving?”
“I was there until noon.”

“It snowed that day, didn’t it?”
“I don’t know.”

“Well, did you see a girl with white shoes and stockings, with all that snow on the ground, come into the pencil factory that morning?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper objected to the question on the ground that there had been no evidence introduced that there was snow on the ground last Thanksgiving.

“Don’t worry, Mr. Hooper. I will supply that evidence.”

“On the morning of last Thanksgiving, did Conley come into the factory and watch at the front door?”

“He did not.”

“If he had been watching there, you would have been bound to see him, wouldn’t you?”
“I would.”

“How many times on Saturday did you usually see Frank there?”
“Every time I went by the office.”

“Did you ever see beer in his office?”
“I never saw it a single time.”

STENOGRAPHER REMAINED.

“Did he ever keep stenographers there Saturday afternoons?”
“Sometimes.”

“Did the shipping clerk ever stay there?”
“Sometimes, if there was shipping to be done.”

“Did anybody else usually work in the factory on Saturday afternoons?”

Attorney Arnold suggested the names of several employes.

Holloway said that they did.

“Did you ever see anybody else come in?” The attorney named several of Frank’s business associates.

Holloway replied that frequently men made business calls there on Saturday afternoons.

“Did you ever turn your job over to Conley?”
“No, sir.”

“When Mrs. Frank came, would you let her in?”
“I would, and send her up to Mr. Frank’s office.”

“Did Conley ever take your place when you were sick?”
“I never was sick enough to lay off.”

“Do you know a man named Wilson who works in the factory?”

“Yes.”

WORKS SATURDAYS.

“Doesn’t he work Saturday afternoons, oiling up the motor and fixing the machinery around there?”
“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness if several people whom he named did not work in the factory on Saturday afternoons. The witness replied affirmatively.

“Could these men go all over the factory?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see the doors of the outer or the inner office of Frank locked?”

“I never did.”

“Is there glass in the doors?”

“Yes.”

“There are two windows in Frank’s office, aren’t there?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever see the shades of these pulled down?”
“Never except sometimes in the mornings they would be pulled down a little to keep the sun out.”
“Isn’t it a fact that salesmen often visit the factory on Saturday afternoons?”
“There were nearly always some there.”

“Did you ever know Frank to refuse to see them?”
“Never.”

DARK AT ELEVATOR.

“How far is it from the front door to the elevator shaft?”
“Ten or twelve feet.”

“It’s dark around there, isn’t it?”
“Yes, we have to keep a gas jet burning.”

“If a girl came down the steps, and if a man was lurking there in the dark, couldn’t he attack her?”

“Very easily.”

“Did members of the Montag family sometimes visit Frank on Saturday afternoons?”
“Nearly always on Saturdays.”

“Did you see a negro drayman named McCrary go upstairs Saturday morning, April 26?”
“I did.”

“What time did he go up?”
“I can’t say.”
“Do you recollect when he came down?”
“I do not.”

CONLEY NOT THERE.

“Did you see Conley on the morning of April 26?”
“No, sir. I did not. He was not there.”

“If he had been in that front hall, you would have been obliged to see him, wouldn’t you, Mr. Holloway?”
“I would.”

“Did you observe anything out of the ordinary about Jim Conley on the next week after the murder?”
“I did.”

“What was it?”
“Well, on Monday morning he was around watching the detectives on the first and second floor instead of working on the third floor.”

“What led to his arrest?”
“Well, I caught him washing his shirt, and called them up and told them to come and get him. The day before that he carried out a pair of overalls, and said he was going to Block’s candy factory to take them to another negro there. He came back before he would have had time to get there. And the overalls were washed and dried.”

“Could he write?”
“I don’t know.”

MEASURED TIME FRIDAY.

“Did you walk down the car track from Broad and Hunter streets to the pencil factory and up to Frank’s office?”
“I did.”

“When?”
“Today.”

“How long did it take you to make the distance?”
“About two and three-fourths minutes.”

“Well, anybody that left a street car at Broad and Hunter streets at 12:10 o’clock wouldn’t get to the pencil factory until about 12:12 1-2 or 3-4, would they?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you test the time it took to walk from the corner of Marietta and Forsyth streets to the pencil factory?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How long did it take?”
“Six minutes.”

DORSEY EXAMINES WITNESS.

“You may cross-examine him now, Colonel Dorsey,” said Mr. Arnold. The solicitor went after the witness with a vengeance.

“Have you had any conversation with Kendricks, the former night watchman, since this murder, in which you asked him whether Leo M. Frank had ever called him up after he left the factory?”
Before the witness could answer Mr. Rosser objected, declaring that the question was immaterial.

“We’ll see whether it’s immaterial,” declared Solicitor Dorsey. “Mr. Holloway, didn’t you try to get Kendricks to swear that Frank had called him up after he had left the factory?”
“I did not,” shouted the witness, manifesting some excitement.

“Didn’t you tell Kendricks to go ahead and swear that, for it would make no difference as nobody except he and you ever would know about it?”
“No, I never!” snapped the witness.

“The day before this alleged bloody club was found, didn’t you tell Whitfield to come back next day; that he would be sure to find something?”
“I did not.” The witness answered with emphasis, viciously.

“Do you know Daisy Hopkins’ reputation?”
“It’s all right as far as I know.”

ADMITS AFFIDAVIT.

“All right as far as you know.” Didn’t you sign this paper that I hold in my hand, and didn’t you tell me, that she was anything but all right, and that you couldn’t depend on anything she said?”
“No, sir!”

The solicitor exhibited the paper to him.

“Did you sign this paper?”
The witness replied,”Yes, sir.”

“And you read it before you signed it, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Now, do you deny that you told me, as it is written down here over your own signature that you couldn’t depend on anything he said?”
“I don’t deny it, but I think I said that we couldn’t depend on what she said at the factory.”
“Didn’t you say you read this paper before you signed it?”
“I suppose I did. Is that yours or Starnes?”
“So then Starnes had one, too?” interjected Mr. Rosser, of the defense.

“Yes, sir,” said the witness.

“What time did you say that Darley left the factory that Saturday morning?”

“9:30.”

CHANGES TESTIMONY.

“Look-a-here, Mr. Holloway, didn’t you tell me positively—and I asked you to be positive, that Darley and Frank went out together, that Frank was saying something about going to a ball game if the weather permitted—didn’t you tell me that it was about 10:45 when […]

State Confronts Holloway With Previous Affidavit

[…] Darley left, and that Frank was gone about 40 minutes?”
“Well, that was all guess work.”

“You put your name to this statement, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”
“Then you did say that?”
“Yes.”
“Well, why do you say now that he left there at 9:30?”

“I didn’t recollect the time exactly.”

“Your recollection ought to have been better then than now, oughtn’t it?”
Mr. Arnold objected, declaring that the question about his recollection was not relevant or material.

WITNESS GROWS CROSS.

“I want him to give to this jury a reasonable explanation of why he read over and signed this paper stating one thing, and now comes and swears to another story.”

“Your memory is better now, isn’t it?” inquired the solicitor of the witness.

“Not a bit,” growled the witness.

“What did you say about getting a reward for turning up Conley?”
“I never said anything of the kind!” shouted the witness.

“Well, what did you say about it?”
“A day or two after he was arrested I told Black or some of the detectives that if this negro was convicted he is my negro.”
“And you knew all about this $1,500 reward that newspapers were publishing?”
“I certainly did.”

“When were you accustomed to leave the factory on Saturdays?”
“Generally about 4:30 o’clock.”
“Didn’t you tell me that if there were girls in the factory on Saturday afternoon that you would be in a position to know it because you remained there until about 3 o’clock? Didn’t you say 3 o’clock, Mr. Holloway?”

TRAPS HIM AGAIN.

“If I said 3, I meant 4.”

“If you mean 4, what did you mean just now when you said 4:30?”
The witness said that was a slip of the tongue.

“I asked you, Mr. Holloway, didn’t I, if you were ever away from the factory on Saturdays, holidays or otherwise?”
“I meant 4 o’clock on Saturdays except holidays.”
“And you told me that negroes did work in the factory on Saturday afternoons up to 12 months ago?”
“Yes.”

“How long has Conley been there?”
“About two years.”
“Did he work regularly, along up to April 26?”
“Except when he was in the stockade for 30 days?”
“How long ago since he was in the stockade?”
“Last year some time.”

“What was Jim’s number at the factory?”

FORGETS CONLEY’S NUMBER.

“Do you mean to tell me that you, the man that kept the time of the employes, have forgotten the number of a man who has been working there for two years?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Oh, it was No. 71, wasn’t it, Mr. Holliday?” asked the solicitor, manifesting much patience.

“I don’t know.”

“You won’t swear that it wasn’t?”
“No, sir.”

Obtaining a number of factory time slips from Attorney Arnold, Mr. Dorsey handed them to the witness, commanding: “Mr. Holloway, take those slips and point out the record of No. 71. You say you kept close tabs on those factory employes. How did you do so if you didn’t know their numbers?”
The witness did not reply. He was unrolling the time slips. The solicitor again directed him to indicate on the time slips the registrations by No. 71. After a moment of hesitation, the witness: “I ain’t got my glasses and I can’t see without them.”

Solicitor Dorsey took the time slips back and laid them on the table.

“You are sure Jim Conley worked steadily for fully sixty days prior to April 26, and that he registered every day?”
“No, sir. No. He registered every morning. Sometimes he registered at dinner time. Sometimes he didn’t. Sometimes he failed to register at night.”

“You admit that Walter Pride worked frequently on Saturdays, don’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He’s a negro, too, isn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

SAYS DOOR WAS OPEN.

“Did you say that on Monday after the murder you noticed that the door leading from the pencil factory entrance into the woodenware company’s place was open?”
“Yes, it was.”

“Why Mr. Holloway wasn’t that area in front of the door piled up with all sorts of boxes?”
“There were four or five cases there.”

“There was such a large pile of boxes you couldn’t see the door, wasn’t it?”

“I could see the door. There was some boxes piled there.”

“Why, these boxes were piled all the way around from the steps toward the elevator and in front of the door, weren’t they?”

“I could see the door, all right.”

“Who nailed that door up?”
“I did, on Monday.”

“Was that before or after Darley nailed it up Mr. Holloway? He said he nailed it up three or four days after the murder.”

“Monday, Mr. Darley told me to get my hammer and nails and nail up the door. We never let that door stand open.”

“Mr. Holloway, on this Monday everything at the factory was in turmoil; officers were going through the factory; business was at a standstill. Now, do you mean to say that with this state of affairs, you nailed up the door?”
“Yes.”

“Darley told you to nail it up?”
“Yes.”

“Wasn’t this door open because the officers were looking around the factory building?”
“I don’t know.”

“Didn’t they open it?”
“I don’t know. It might have been opened on Sunday. It was not open on Saturday, I know, when I left the factory. It was nailed up then.”

“On Saturday, boxes were piled up all around and in front of it, weren’t there?”
“There were five or six boxes piled there.”

The solicitor continued to grill the witness.

“Don’t fancy ladies sometimes wear shoes with white tops when there’s snow on the ground? Don’t fancy ladies wear most anything?”
Mr. Arnold objected on the ground that the witness was not qualified as an expert. Mr. Dorsey said that Mr. Arnold had questioned him along the same line, and waived the question, after saying that “fancy ladies” were the kind he contended entered the factory on Saturday afternoons.

WITNESS RATTLED.

“Don’t you know that frequently on Monday mornings beer bottles were found around on the floor near the office?”
“What time?”
Mr. Dorsey shouted, “Monday morning, I said!”

The witness hesitated some more, and finally blurted out, “No!”

Mr. Dorsey smiled and passed to another subject.

“Weren’t you and Darley very strict about negroes being in the factory after work hours?”
“Yes.”

“Then if you had found a negro around there acting as lookout for Frank, you’d put him out, wouldn’t you?”
The witness admitted that he would.

“Was there a drayman there on Saturday?”
“Yes.”

The solicitor put some other questions, which the witness answered, and then the solicitor demanded:

“Just a minute ago, didn’t you say that the drayman was there on Saturday?”

REFUSES TO ANSWER.

“If I said he was, he was,” shouted the witness.

“Well, what did you say just a minute ago?”
“Well, I won’t answer!” said the witness.

“What are the facts about the case? Was there a drayman there, or was there not?”
“I don’t remember,” finally said the witness, after the judge commanded him to answer.

“Well, why did you tell me there was a negro drayman there when you say you don’t remember now?”
Holloway did not answer. The solicitor passed the point.

“Now, you told Mr. Arnold that Conley acted suspiciously on Monday by not staying at his regular job. Did anybody in the whole factory stay at his regular job that morning?”
“Yes,” said the witness.

ALL LOOKING AT BLOOD.

“As a matter of fact, didn’t they shut down the factory at a little after 8 o’clock because all the employees were running out buying the extras and looking at the blood spots?”
“Yes.”

“After that who stayed?”
“Nobody but me.”

“Tell one thing that Conley did different from the others.”

The witness didn’t answer.

“Well, let’s go to Thursday,” said the solicitor, “the time you had your nigger arrested. You said he hid the shirt. Now tell how he hid the shirt? He was there on the second floor, washing it in some vats when you saw him, wasn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“He had taken the shirt off of his own body, hadn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“And he had been wearing it all the morning? And that was at 2:30 o’clock, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“Well, he had it on when he was arrested, didn’t he?”
“No.”

“Now, tell me how he was trying to hide it.”

“He had it stretched behind a radiator up there.”

“He’d put it there to dry, hadn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“How did he hide it; then?”
“Well, he stood in front of it,” said the witness.

“You’ve seen Conley with tablets, haven’t you? And you knew he could write?”
“Yes.”

“When did you tell that he could write?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Was it after or before you visited Mr. Frank in the tower?”
“About two weeks afterward.”

“When you were making those walking tests, you timed yourself by only one watch, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“And you don’t know whether the clocks of the Georgia Railway and Electric company and the clocks of the National Pencil company were both together on April 26, do you?”
“No,” bellowed the witness.

Solicitor Dorsey turned the witness over to Mr. Arnold for redirect examination.

“Were you subpenaed to go to Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”
“I was.”

“He sent you a regular court subpena, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“Did you know you didn’t have to go?”
“Not until I talked to some of the others that got them around there.”
“Did you know it was false imprisonment?”
“I did not.”

“How many asked you questions when you made this statement in Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”
“Oh, there was only three or four.”

“Only three or four!” exclaimed Mr. Arnold.

“Three or four,” repeated the witness.

Attorney Arnold read a number of questions and answers that were the transcript of Holloway’s original examination by the state. He asked Holloway after each one if he hadn’t said that, and Holloway said that he had.

COURT ADJOURNS.

“It’s impossible to repeat a thing, several hours afterwards, exactly as you said it before, isn’t it, Mr. Holloway?”
“It is.”

“Do you know anything about the character of Daisy Hopkins?”
“No, sir.”

“Step down,” said Mr. Arnold. And court recessed until 9 o’clock Saturday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 9th 1913, “State Confronts Watchman Holloway With Previous Affidavit,” 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 2^nd, 1913

N. V. Darley, mechanical head of the National Pencil factory and directly in charge of the Georgia Cedar company, an adjunct concern, was put on the stand by the state, after Mrs. White had finished.

“How long have you been with the company, and are you still employed here?” asked Solicitor Dorsey.

“I’ve been there about five years, and am still employed there.”

“Who is your immediate superior?”

“I consider Sig Montag my immediate superior,” he replied.

“What is your relation to Frank?”

“We are co-laborers, on an equal basis.”

“With whom do you more often come into contact?”

“With Frank.”
“Did you see Frank on Saturday, April 26?”
“Yes.”

“What time did you leave the factory that morning?”

“About 9:40.”

“When did you next see Frank?”

“About 5:20 Sunday morning, at the factory.”

“Was Frank there when you got there?”

“No; he came up just as I got there.”

“Mrs. Frank had called me up and told me all. Mr. Frank had asked her to tell me to go to the factory.”

Rosser objected to the witness telling anything Mrs. Frank had told him, and, despite the solicitor’s statement that it had already been proved that Frank had asked his wife to call up Darley, Judge Roan ruled out his statements about what the wife had said.

Noticed Frank’s Nervousness.

“Did you notice Frank as you got there?”

“Yes.”
“What did you observe about him?”

“Nothing at first.”

“Well, what, if anything, later?”

“When we started to go to the basement I noticed his nervousness.”

“Describe it.”

“Well, he started to lower the elevator, and as he reached for the rope his hands trembled, and then when he started to nail up the back door of the basement later his hands trimbled [sic] again, and I took the hammer and nailed up the door myself.”

“What, if anything, did Frank say to you?”
“When we started to nail up the back door he made some remark about his clothes, and pulled off his coat.”
“Did he say anything about coffee?”

“Not then.”

Why Frank Wanted Coffee.

“Well, what did he say at any time that morning about coffee?”

“At the station house he told me he had been rushed away from home without any breakfast and carried into a dark room, where they turned the light on and showed him the dead girl, and that he was nervous and wanted some coffee.”

“What did he say breakfast would do for him?”

“He said breakfast would keep him from being nervous.”

“Did he get any breakfast?”

“I don’t know; I left him at 10 o’clock.”

“Did you see Newt Lee at the time you saw Frank in the factory?”

“Yes.”

“Was Lee nervous or composed?”

The solicitor fired the above question at the witness as though seeking to show the jury that the man he charged with being guilty was nervous when at the scene of the crime, and the innocent man was not.

“Lee seemed thoroughly composed,” answered the witness.

“What was said in the basement?”

“Something was said about the staple and Frank said that it would have been easy for anyone to have pulled out the staple. The staple looked to me like it had been pulled out before,” the witness said.

“Did Frank suggest that the murder had occurred in the basement?”

“Yes.”

“Repeat his words.”

“I can’t repeat the exact words, but I know he suggested that.”

“Did he say anything later about being nervous or not?”

“Monday afternoon he said that if he had had some breakfast that morning he would not have been so nervous.”

“What brought up the talk?”

“I don’t remember what or who brought it up.”
“How often did Frank try to explain his nervousness?”

“Twice.”

“On what subject did Frank seem to dwell the most, the murder or his nervousness?”

Rosser Offers Objection.

Rosser entered a strong objection to this question, claiming that the witness was not qualified to testify about it. Judge Roan ruled that it could not be asked in that form.

“Well how often did he talk about the murder?”

“On numerous occasions.”
“How much of Frank’s body was shaking?”

“His hands.”

The solicitor then produced a former affidavit made by Darley, in which the man had said Frank was shaking all over.

After he had looked at it, Darley reiterated his statement that only Frank’s hands were trembling.

“It’s too much to say that a man’s whole body is trembling; you can’t well tell,” he continued.

“When were his hands trembling?”

“As we started to go down the elevator to the basement he reached for the rope and both hands trembled,” and here the witness held up both his own hands and shook them violently.

“Could Frank have nailed up the back door?”

“I think so.”

“What did you swear about this in your affidavit?” asked the solicitor, but the witness held out that he thought Frank could have nailed the door.

“How did Frank look that Sunday morning?”

“Pale.”

“Can you say or not if Frank was upset and why in either case?”

Rosser Takes Dig at Dorsey.

“The witness can’t testify in regard to ‘upset,’” roared Attorney Rosser; “if he’d been in the courtroom all the week, though, and had watched the solicitor he would know what the word means.”

“I don’t see why we can’t use the good old Anglo-Saxon word, ‘upset,’ instead of having to use ‘nervous,’” the solicitor objected, and after an argument the court ruled that “upset” was just as much allowable as the Latin derivative.

“Well, was Frank upset?” continued the solicitor.

“I can’t say that he was.”

“Look here at what you said in your affidavit!” yelled the solicitor, apparently thoroughly exasperated.

Attorney Rosser declared that the solicitor had no right to talk in such a manner as to indicate to the jury what the witness had said in a former affidavit which had not been placed in evidence and went on to say that Frank’s actions on that morning had shown that he was not thoroughly upset. Before he and the solicitor finished arguing the affair had almost developed into regular argument as to whether or not Frank was upset, rather than in contesting about the witness using the word.

“Well, on that Sunday morning was Frank thoroughly done-up?” asked the solicitor, seemingly determined to get down to plain, old Anglo-Saxon in preference to the Latin derivative, “nervous.”

“What in the world does ‘done-up’ mean?” objected Reuben Arnold, Mr. Rosser’s partner in the case. “It may mean in bed, for all I know,” he added.

The court, however, held that “done-up” might come into the case and take its stand by the side of “upset” and that it was for the jury to determine what was meant when a witness used either of the words.

Frank “Partially Done-up.”

Darley then declared that Frank was “partially done-up” on that Sunday morning that the body was discovered.

“Give your reasons for saying he was partially done-up,” said Mr. Dorsey.

“Well, he did some things that a man entirely unstrung could not have done,” said Darley.

“Unstrung” was a new word and when it came into the trial, spectators expected Attorney Rosser to ask for its credentials, but he let it in without a murmur.

“Did Frank sit steadily on your knees in the auto ride to the station?” asked the solicitor.

“No, he was trembling and shaking.”
“Did you see Lee?”
“Yes.”

“What was his demeanor?”

“He was composed.”

Mr. Rosser objected to the question about Lee, and Dorsey withdrew it.

“Did you attend to any business Monday?” the solicitor then asked.

“Yes.”

“Did you see the financial sheet Sunday?”
“Yes.”

“Who called your attention to sheet No. 287?”

“Frank.”
“What did he say?”
“He said something about it.”

“What time was it?”

“Between 8:20 and 9:45.”

“Did J. M. Gantt ever come to the factory after he was discharged?”

“Yes.”

“Did you see Frank examine the financial sheet?”
“Yes, he handed it to me.”

“When did Haas, the insurance agent, come to the plant?”

“On Monday or Tuesday in May.”

“What was done after his visit?”

“The plant was cleaned up in a general way.”

“Did you clean up the first floor?”
“Yes, it was cleaned on May 3.”

Bludgeon Produced in Court.

Mr. Dorsey then asked the defense to produce the bludgeon which it is claimed was found later in May near the elevator. They produced it.

“Did you see this club found?” Mr. Dorsey asked, sending it clattering down on the floor between the witness and the jury box.

“No.”

“Was the finding of the club subsequent to the cleaning up?”

“Yes.”
“Did you see anything on the rear of the office floor near the ladies’ dressing room Monday after the murder?”

“Yes, blood,” replied the witness.

“Who called your attention to the blood?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Barnett and Quinn.”

Arnold Cross-Questions.

“How many strands of hair did Barrett show you?” asked Mr. Arnold, who here took up the cross-examination which before this Attorney Rosser had always conducted.

“When I first saw them they were wound around a lever, and there seemed to be six or eight in all,” said the witness.

“Wasn’t it difficult to tell their color?”

“Yes.”

“Barrett did most of the discovering, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“Isn’t he mono-maniac on the subject of the crime; buys all the papers and keeps constant watch on the case?”

On objection of Mr. Dorsey this question was ruled out.

“Barrett claims to have discovered the blood spots, doesn’t he?”

Mr. Dorsey also got this question ruled out.

“When you first saw the blood spots, who pointed them out to you?”
“Quinn, Barrett and others.”

“Were they hidden by white spots.”

“Partially; not completely.”
“In other words, the man who attempted to hide the spots left the spots and the attempt to hide them revealed,” said Mr. Arnold.

“It looked that way,” replied the witness.

“Did Barrett tell you he was working for the rewards?”

Mr. Dorsey objected to this question, and was sustained by Judge Roan.

“Did you ever see any blood around Mary Phagan’s machine?”

“No.”

“Did you see Barrett find the pay envelope?”
“No, I was at the other plant.”

“What did most of the employees do with their pay envelopes?”

“Tear them and take out the money.”

“By looking at this envelope can you tell whether it ever had any money in it?”

“No, there are no indications by which one can tell.”

“Don’t you find such envelopes all over the factory?”

“Yes, even in the metal room.”

“Liable to find them anywhere, aren’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Nothing more common than pay envelopes?”

“No.”

“Were you present when Frank ran his finger down the time slip?”

“Yes.”

Fails to Identify Time Slip.

Mr. Arnold then showed the witness the time slip which the defense claims is the one taken out of the clock that Sunday morning by Frank.

“Is this the one?” the attorney asked.

“I can’t say that it is; they are all alike.”

“Did you notice the absence of punches on it?”

“No.”

At this juncture M. Johenning, one of the jurors, stated that he desired some information about these time slips, and he and the witness examined it together, the factory man explaining to the juror the manner in which a record is kept on it of the time the punches are made and how the clock worked.

“I believe you saw the financial sheet Sunday morning.”

“Yes.”

“it is all in Frank’s handwriting?”

“Yes.”

Mr. Arnold then asked the witness to tell what the financial sheet showed and the state objected to this until the actual sheet should be brought into court.

“We are going to produce it,” said Mr. Rosser. “Oh, yes; you needn’t fear but what we’ll bring that in alright,” added Mr. Arnold.

“Why did you always want to look at this sheet on Saturday?” said Arnold.

“Because it always told what had been done during the past week, ending Thursday,” said Darley.

“Was it always made up on Saturday afternoon?”

“Yes.”

“Takes an expert to get it up, too, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, it has not been got up since Mr. Frank left the factory.”

A Laborious Task.

Mr. Arnold produced the sheet and went into great detail as to each item on the sheet, proving by the witness that the task of making out this sheet was a laborious one, and one that required expert work and that it usually took from 3 to 5 or 6 o’clock for Frank to make it out.

“Could the sheet have been made out on Saturday before 2 or 3 o’clock?”

“I left there at 9:40 and he had not started on it then.”

“How does Frank’s handwriting on this sheet compare with his handwriting on similar sheets?” asked Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Dorsey objected to this, saying that Darley was no handwriting expert and that the best evidence would be to produce other sheets and let the jurors judge for themselves about the comparison. Both Attorneys Arnold and then Frank Hooper, for the state, and the Frank Hooper, for the state, joined in on the protest on the question, to which his colleague, the solicitor, had objected.

Judge Roan held up this ruling, declaring that there was one point he wanted to decide upon and that if necessary Darley might be brought back to the stand.

Mr. Arnold then went back to the question of the financial sheet which Frank claims to have made up that Saturday afternoon before the murdered girl was found and had Darley show further what a task it was to prepare the statement.

“How many persons were in the factory that Sunday morning?” the cross-questioner then asked.

“About six or eight.”

“Was any blood found there that morning?”

“No; not that I know of.”

“Was there any excitement?”

“Yes.”
“Weren’t you and the others excited?”

“Yes.”

Lawyers in Long Wrangle.

Mr. Dorsey then objected to the testimony about others being excited and declared the only thing that his trial had to do about excitement was the question of whether or not the defendant was excited. Before he and the opposing attorneys got through the wrangle developed into something was similar to a lawyer’s argument to the jury in which he might justify his client’s excitement on that occasion, while the state’s attorneys were contending that it was only about Frank’s excitement that there was any material evidence.

Judge Roan held that the witness might be used to show that the occasion was an exciting one, but that he could not be used to show that others were excited.

Messrs. Arnold and Rosser repeatedly stated then that they wished their protest against this to go on record.

“Were there any spots on the metal room floor?” asked Mr. Arnold, again taking up his questioning.

“Yes; varnish spots,” replied the witness.

“Any red spots?”

“Yes; red and dark ones.”

“How long have you worked in a factory?”

“Twenty-four years.”

Blood Spot Frequent.

“Have you ever seen blood spots around where the employees work?”

“Yes, they are quite frequent.”
“Why was the back door nailed up that Sunday morning?”

“Well, the factory could not be left unprotected.”

“What colored suit did Frank have on that Saturday?”

“A brown one.”

“Did he wear the same one Monday?”

“Yes; it looked like it.”

“Well, the suit he wore Sunday was just his regular Sunday suit, wasn’t it?”
“I don’t know; it was a different suit.”

“Did you see any scratches or bruises on Frank Sunday?”

“Never noticed any.”
“Does the elevator make a noise when it runs?”

“Yes.”
“Makes a bumping noise when it stops, too, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, some.”

“Is not the factory saw attached to the same motor as is the elevator?”
“Yes.”

“Couldn’t run the elevator without running the saw, could you?”

“Not unless you took the belt off that connects with the saw from the motor.”

“Is the factory floor dirty?”

“Yes, it was when we went there. It was dirty, and it has always been so. In some places the dirt and grease is an inch thick and boxes are cluttered around on the floor.”

Dark Around Elevator Shaft.

“Was it dark around the elevator shaft?”

“Yes, especially on cloudy days.”

“Was April 26 cloudy? Didn’t it rain on that day?”

“Yes, part of the time.”

“Wasn’t it very dark on the second floor around the elevator shaft and near the clock?”

“Yes.”

“Can the metal room door be locked?”

“No, there is no lock on it.”

“Aren’t there large vats in the metal room?”

“Yes.”

“Big enough to get a horse in?”

“Well, no. I won’t say you could.”

“Get a pony in there, then, couldn’t you?” urged Mr. Arnold.

“Well, I don’t know. They were rather shallow.”

“Well, how deep are they, about 2 feet, or a foot and a half?”

“About a foot and a half, I think.”

“Is anybody supposed to be in the factory on Sunday?”

“No.”

“Isn’t there slack in the elevator rope?”

“Yes, some little slack.”

“When Frank was engaged in his work at the factory wasn’t he very intent on it?”

“Yes.”

Frank Easily Excited.

“Have you ever seen him get excited when things went wrong?”

“Yes, never a day went by without his getting excited. I’ve seen him get excited frequently and I’ve seen him rub his hands together a thousand times, and one day when Sig Montag raised cane he became terribly excited.”

“Are you as nervous as Frank?”

“No.”

“When he got excited and worried he would call on you, wouldn’t he?”

“Yes, frequently.”
“Did Frank know many of the help? Did he know Mary Phagan?”

Mr. Dorsey objected to the witness stating what was really something that was a state of Frank’s own mind, and Judge Roan finally ruled that the witness might give his opinion.

“I don’t know whether or not he knew Mary Phagan,” the witness then declared.

“Did you know her?”
“I did not know the name, but if I had seen the girl on the street I would have known that she was one of the factory girls.”
Darley then stated that pieces of paper similar to the part of a scratch pad found near the girl’s body were commonly scattered around the building.

“Was the clock door unlocked that day?”

“Yes, the door was usually kept locked, but about that time the key was lost and the door was kept unlocked.”

“Both you and Frank were mistaken that Sunday morning in thinking that the punches on the time slip were all right, were you not?”

“Yes,” the witness replied.

Judge Roan then adjourned court for lunch.

Roan Reverses Decision.

At the beginning of the afternoon session Judge Roan reversed his decision in which he had sustained the state in their objection to testimony relative to the nervousness of others beside Frank being admitted.

He said:

“The defense can show the mental demeanor of any other person in the building. Relative to Darley’s testimony of the handwriting, inasmuch as he is no expert, his statement will not be admitted without the comparison of other handwriting specimens of the defendant.”

The witness was then questioned by Attorney Arnold. After pointing out a number of stated discrepancies in the diagram presented by the state, he was asked:

“Anybody on the third floor can see anyone coming from the metal room, can they not?”

“Yes.”

“Have you seen Mr. Frank in a nervous condition on any previous occasion?”

“Once, when he saw a child run over by a trolley car on which he was riding. He was nervous throughout the day and couldn’t work. On an occasion prior to that he and Sig Montag had had an argument on the office floor of the pencil factory, and following Mr. Frank was nervous the rest of the day.”

“Did he use any remedy on day of the car accident.”

“Yes, spirits of ammonia.”

Everybody Was Excited.

“Everybody at the pencil factory was excited on the morning the body was discovered, were they not?”

“Yes.”
“Some manifested nervousness in some ways while others manifested in different ways?”

“Yes.”

“Who were they?”
“Detectives Black and Starnes and ‘Boots’ Rogers and others.”
“Is there anything right about this diagram of the state’s except a general view of things at the factory?”
“Yes.”
“Isn’t Frank’s office a lot smaller than shown in the picture?”
“Yes.”

“Does the picture show a bookcase in Frank’s office?”

“Yes.”
“Doesn’t the picture misrepresent the office view?”
“Yes.”
“Isn’t it drawn adroitly with that view?”

“It seems so.”

Objection Is Sustained.

Attorney Hooper’s objection to rule out the word ‘adroitly,’ on the arounds that it was purely a conclusion, was sustained.

“The safe looks small in the diagram, when, in fact, it is larger than the door?”

“Yes.”

“The diagram doesn’t show a roll-top desk, two cabinets nor a wardrobe, does it?”
“No.”

“That’s not a very accurate picture, is it?”
“No.”
Solicitor Dorsey took the witness.

“Did you observe the persons who were there at the factory the same time you observed Frank’s deportment?”
“Not at those very special moments.”
“Did you tremble when you nailed the door in the basement?”
“No.”

“Is there generally any difference in a person’s attitude?”
“No.”
“Who were nervous?”

“Starnes looked and spoke as though he was worried and excited.”

“How do you know?”
“By his manner and words.”
“Well, let’s take up the next man.”
“They were all officers.”

Describe All Actions.

“Well, whether they were officers or not, you said they all were nervous. Now describe the actions of them all.”

“I have explained all I know.”
“Why did you notice Frank so much and fail on the others?”

“Because Frank was so much more nervous than all the others.”
“Who else was nervous?”
“Mr. Holloway was shaky on Monday.”
At this juncture the witness showed signs of anger. The solicitor asked him:

“Are you mad—do you mind my questions?”

“No.”

Another question was asked:

“Who else was nervous?”
“Mr. Schiff was shaky and apparently nervous.”

“Was anybody nervous on Tuesday?”
“Yes, Mr. Frank was when the extras came out that he was to be arrested.”

“Who gets up the data for the financial sheet?”

“Mr. Schiff and others.”
“Then all Frank has to do is to compile the data?”
“I do not know.”
“Was Newt Lee nervous?”

“I never noticed.”
“What did Frank state to you in reference to the clock slips?”

Correct Up to 2:30 A. M.

“He said the slip of Newt Lee’s was correct up until 2:30 o’clock a. m.”

“What was the date of this slip?”
“I didn’t notice.”

“Where are the time slips kept?”
“In a desk, and later in a safe.”
“Could there have been two slips punched by Newt Lee—were his slips ever in duplicate form?”

“Not to my knowledge.”
“Where is the nearest place to Frank’s office that these yellow pads are kept?”
In asking the question the solicitor held to view a yellow scratch pad containing sheets of paper similar to the sheet on which had been written one of the mysterious murder missives found beside the girl’s body.

“On second floor near the office. We gave you twenty or more of them—almost all we had.”
“Is there a place to keep them in the basement?”
“No. They go down sometimes in the garbage.”
“Is there any use for them on the first floor?”

“No use except on the office floor. They are often scattered around, however.”

“Where is the trash put when carried downstairs?”

“Near the boiler in the basement.”

Looked Like She Was Crying.

“What was Miss Smith doing that Saturday morning when you walked downstairs with her?”

“She looked as though she was crying.”
“How long have you and Frank worked together?”
“For two years.”
“On the Tuesday following the Phagan tragedy did any woman become subject to tears in the pencil factory?”
“Yes, a Miss Ella Mae Flowers had a crying spell Tuesday.”

“The whole factory was wrought up, wasn’t it?”
“Yes. I had to let them go on Monday, and I often wished I had not let them go back to working during the whole week.”

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

Atlanta Journal
August 2^nd, 1913

Physician Testifies at Frank Trial That Mary Phagan Met Death Half Hour After Lunch—Describes Wounds

Secretary of State Board of Health Compelled to Leave the Witness Stand on Account of Illness

In the midst of sensational testimony, Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, collapsed Friday afternoon on the witness stand and was excused until Saturday. Dr. Harris and just testified that his examination of the contents of the stomach of little Mary Phagan showed that the dinner which she had eaten before leaving home was still undigested, and he therefore concluded that he little girl was killed within thirty minutes or three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten. Part of the undigested food taken from the stomach was exhibited in the court room. It had been preserved in alcohol.

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault but there were indications of some kind of violence having been committed. He thought this violence had preceded her death five or ten minutes.

Before he finished his testimony Dr. Harris became suddenly ill, his voice became faint and he begged to be excused. He promised to return Saturday, if possible. He said he had gotten up from a sick bed to come to court. He was assisted from the court room.

Also featuring the opening of the Phagan, was the testimony given by N. afternoon session of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary V. Darley under cross-examination of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense.

Darley, according to this testimony, during his lunch hour Friday visited the factory, measured some distances and noted on his return to court many discrepancies and inaccuracies in the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had prepared for the guidance of the jury in following the testimony of the witnesses.

One of the most important inaccuracies in the chart, according to Darley, was that the drawing showed the safe in Frank’s outer office to be a great deal smaller than the door, when, according to the witness. It is about the same size and cuts off a view into Frank’s inner office when the door of the safe is open.

It is expected that the defense will use this one fact to refute one of the important points brought out by one of its principal witnesses that she, a girl employed in the factory, visited there Saturday afternoon at 12:10 o’clock to get her pay and upon entering the outer office saw no one in either of the offices. She testified that the safe door was open. This is the hour that Mary Phagan is supposed to have entered the factory and prosecution claims immediately thereafter Frank was missing from his office.

Another important development in the afternoon session was the indication from the prosecution, by holding two time slips, that it would claim the accused gave the officers a slip which was not the original taken from the clock Sunday morning.

When Attorney Reuben Arnold, attorney for the defense, was examining N. V. Darley, a state’s witness, concerning the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had made for the guidance of the jurors, Mr. Arnold asked:

“Isn’t the toilet in the basement closer to the wall than this picture shows and closer to the boiler?”

“It sets against the wall, and it seems to me that it is closer to the boiler, too.”

“Isn’t the elevator shaft closer to the first floor wall than this picture shows?”

“My impression is that the side of the elevator shaft is a part of the wall.”

“This partition here on the first floor, and the door in it which opens into the woodenware company—the partition is closer to the elevator than is shown on the diagram, is it not?”

“Yes, sir, I think so.”

“There are double doors at the top of the stairs on the second floor, instead of a single door as shown on the diagram, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, is there anything at all right about this diagram, except that it is a gen[e]ral picture of the factory?”

“That’s the way it appears to me.”

“It shows no wardrobe in Frank’s office?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a wardrobe in there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“It shows Frank’s office larger than the outer office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Which office is the larger?”

“The outer office is several feet larger.”

“This picture doesn’t show a bookcase in the outer office, does it?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a bookcase in the outer office, isn’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it half shuts off the view from Frank’s office into the outer hall, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The truth is, Mr. Darley, isn’t it, that this picture is drawn so adroitly as to open up a clear view from Frank’s office through the outer office into the factory?”

Before the witness could answer, Attorney Hooper announced that he objected to Mr. Arnold using the phrase “adroitly drawn.” The court sustained the objection.

“All right,” said Mr. Arnold, smiling. “It’s a fact, but I’ll withdraw it.”

“I object to that statement, too, your honor,” said Mr. Hooper.

“Well, I’ll withdraw it,” said Mr. Arnold. He addressed the witness again. “There’s no such wide space leading from Frank’s office to the outer office, is there?”

“No, sir; there’s a single small door.”

“Did you notice this safe over here, looking like a little B-B cap? As a matter of fact, this safe is wider than the door, is it not?”

“It’s about the same size.”

“Well, it doesn’t show up half as large as the door, does it, in the picture?”

“No, sir.”

“When the safe door is open, it shuts off the view from Frank’s office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“There are two cabinets in the outer office which are not shown in this picture, are there not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“To be exact, this is not a very accurate picture of the factory, is it?”

“No, sir.”

“It opens up Frank’s office a whole lot better than it is really opened up, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Could you see the time clock from Frank’s desk?”

“Yes, sir, I could see just the outer edge of the dial.”

“Could you see the head of the stairs from his desk?”

“No, sir.”

In the redirect examination of Darley. Solicitor Dorsey found the witness refractory. Darley returned short answers to a number of the solicitor’s questions.

“Who were some of the people who were nervous, besides Frank?”

The witness at first said he didn’t know. Then he declared that Detective Starnes was nervous.

“How did Starnes show his nervousness?” asked the solicitor.

“The best way that I can describe it is that he looked worried.”

“Why do you recall Frank’s nervousness and not the nervousness of anybody else except possibly Starnes?”

“Because Mr. Frank was so much more nervous than the others.”

“Did you notice anybody else around there, nervous on Monday?”

“Holloway and Schiff were nervous. Their hands seemed to tremble.”

“Was Frank nervous Tuesday?”

“He became very nervous when he read an extra saying that he was going to be arrested. He was arrested about fifteen minutes later.”

“Don’t you know that Schiff furnishes to Frank all the data for the financial sheet?”

“I know very little about it.”

The solicitor showed two time clock slips to the witness. On one of them was written in typewriter print the ate “April 28.”

“Could this be the slip that you all took out Sunday morning?”

After some hesitation, the witness answered that the date on that slip should have been April 26. The other slip had a date written with a pen, and the solicitor asked the witness if that was Frank’s handwriting. The witness said he couldn’t identify either slip as the one taken out of the clock Sunday morning.

“Could there have been a duplicate made of the slip Newt Lee punched?”

The witness said he didn’t know.

“Isn’t there a bar across the door leading from the metal room to the third floor?”

The witness didn’t know. Despite a rigid examination by the solicitor, the witness maintained that what he told at the morning session, under cross-examination, about the tablets and order blanks being scattered throughout the building was true.

Darley said that he had known Frank since April, 1911.

“How often in that time have you seen him as nervous as he was on Sunday morning, April 27?”

“Twice—once after he saw the street car run over a little child, and again after his fuss with Mr. Montag.”

Attorley [sic] Arnold cross-examined the witness again.

“You say that Schiff and Holloway were nervous, Monday? Was anybody else?”

“Yes, the whole factory was ‘up in the air.’ Really, we did no work that week. Miss Eula Mae Flowers, one of the foreladies, became hysterical on Tuesday.”

“Since the tragedy, have you gotten any work at all out of Christopher Columbus Barrett?”

“A little,” answered Darley.

W. F. ANDERSON CALLED.

The witness left the stand, and Officer W. F. Anderson, police call man, was summoned.

Officer Anderson told of Newt Lee calling police headquarters on the telephone, on Sunday morning, April 27, and telling the police that a white girl’s body had been found in the basement. After he went to the pencil factory, about 3:30 or before 4 o’clock, while he had Newt Lee in custody, he tried to call Frank over the telephone. In answer to questions by Solicitor Dorsey, he said he heard the connection made, and heard the phone ringing at the other end for above five minutes. After waiting five minutes, he said, he gave up the attempt, and called police headquarters and Herbert Haas and Sig Montag, officials of the pencil company.

“How long did it take you to get them?” asked the solicitor.

“Just a few minutes.”

“Did you make any other effort to get Frank over the telephone, and if so, when?”

“I tried again after I got Montag and Haas, about 4 or 4:10 o’clock.”

“What success did you have this time?”

“Just the same as before.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You didn’t get Sig Montag when you called his house, did you?”

“I got a Montag—I don’t remember his initials.”
“Did you try to get Mr. Darley?”

“He didn’t have a telephone.”

SAW NOTES BY BODY

“You saw these notes found by Mary Phagan’s body, didn’t you?”

“I saw Sergeant Dobbs pick one up.”

“When you went to the factory, you shook the front door and old man Lee came down. He wasn’t standing at the door, was he?”

“He came down the stairs.”

“And Lee told you over the telephone that it was a white girl’s body?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What sort of a lamp did that negro have?”

“He had a lantern.”

“Smoky, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you stand at the same place Lee says he stood, and look, and see Mary Phagan’s body?”

“Not that day.”

“When Lee says he saw the body, he says the lantern was on the ground, doesn’t he?”

“That’s what he told me.”

“The little girl’s clothing was such a color that it wouldn’t show up in the dark?”

“I think it was lavender.”

“When the coroner’s jury was down there, you took the lantern and set it where Lee says he set it that night, didn’t you?”

“No, sir; not then.”

“Well, didn’t you testify before the coroner’s jury that you stood with the lantern on the ground and testify I should not think it would be possible to see a body?”

“I said you might see the bulk of it, but you couldn’t tell what it was.”

“Then this is wrong, is it?”

“I said you might not be able to tell what is [sic] was.”

“You say the body was lying east and west with its head against the partition?”

“Yes.”

“You said something about there being some tracks. Where were they?”

TRACKS AROUND BODY.

“On the left hand side of the body, leading from the body to the shavings room.”

“That’s not what you said before the coroner’s jury, is it? Didn’t you say there were tracks all around the left side of the body?”

“I said the tracks led into the shavings room. I went into the shavings room to see if I could any lady’s tracks there.”

“You called up Frank first?”

“Yes.”

“When did you call Mr. Haas and the others?”

“About 4 o’clock.”

“Do you remember their telephone numbers?”

“No, sir, I don’t keep telephone numbers in my mind. I get ’em out of the book.”

“Your testimony at the coroner’s inquest was taken down by the stenographer, wasn’t it?”

“I guess it was.”

“What side of the body did the police come up on?”

“The right side.”

“The tracks were on the left side?”

“Yes.”

“Which side did you come up on?”

“The right side.”

“You found a pencil down there, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How far was it away from the body?”

“About eight or ten feet.”

“There were a great many pencils in the basement, were there not?”

“Yes.”

“The basement is ragged and dirty, with cinders and all sorts of trash down there?”

“Yes, the basement’s dirty. There were some cinders and trash by the boiler.”

POLICE TEST.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness again.

“Did you make any tests down in the basement on your own account?” inquired the solicitor.

“Yes. About 10 o’clock one night shortly after the murder we went down there with a lantern. We fixed up a box and threw some sacks over it in the place where the girl’s body was lying. Then we took the lantern and set it down where the negro said his lantern was sitting when he saw the body.”

“Could you see anything?”

“Yes, we could make out the bulk.”

Attorney Rosser questioned the witness.

“You made an investigation for the coroner, did you not?”

“Yes, but I didn’t have a lantern.”

“Well, what did you have?”

“This.” The witness produced one of the electric searchlights carried by policemen, and flashed it across the court room.

“You didn’t use the lantern?”

“No, there was a lantern along, but I didn’t use it. I knew I could see that far with a searchlight.”

“Did you see the place where they said the body was dragged?”

“No.”

STENOGRAPHER CALLED.

Anderson was excused, and Solicitor Dorsey requested H. L. Parry, the court stenographer, to take the stand. The solicitor inquired if he had reported the evidence at the inquest held by the coroner.

“Part of it,” replied the witness.

“Did you report the evidence given by Frank?”

“Some of it. I don’t know whether I reported all of it or not.”

“Well, examine the records here and tell us whether you did or not.”

The witness examined the record.

“Yes, I reported Frank’s testimony,” said Parry.

“Is it correctly reported?”

“To the best of my ability,” responded Parry.

“You are an expert stenographer?”

“I am considered such.”

“What has been your experience?”

“Between twenty-five and thirty years.”

“You are reporting this case?”

“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Rosser arose.

“I’ll get you to say whether or not you took the testimony of Officer Anderson, Mr. Parry?” asked Mr. Rosser.

The witness examined the record and replied that he did not.

“Did you take the negro Lee’s testimony?”

The witness examined the record again and answered, “Yes, sir.”

“Did you take it correctly?”

“To the best of my ability.”

“Well, it was correctly taken, was it not?”

“I can’t say that I’m infallible.”

“Then you are not prepared to say that any record you take is accurate?”

“I said I took them as nearly accurately as possible.”

“Well, are you prepared to say that this record you took of Newt Lee’s testimony is a correct one?”

“In the common acceptation of the term, yes.”

“I want to know, now, if you took Frank and Lee’s statements correctly.”

“I took down and wrote Lee’s and Frank’s words as I heard them. I may have misunderstood some few things, although I was in a good position to hear.”

“And you took down correctly what you did hear?”

“Yes.”

RECORD COMPARED.

Witness, who had been examining closely into the record which he held, looked up at this point and said: “It appears that Lee had been on the stand once before and that the testimony I took was on his recall. Frank’s testimony indicates that he had just been sworn. It begins with the question, ‘What’s your name?’ That of Lee’s which I took begins: ‘Now, Newt, state to the jury,’ indicating that he had been on the stand before.”

Mr. Rosser, referring to his own copy of the testimony given at the coroner’s inquest, walked over to where the witness sat and requested him to turn to that place in his record where certain questions were asked of Lee. Lee’s questions he read from his record, and asked the stenographer to compare them with the record which he held.

“This portion of Lee’s testimony concerned the length of time it required Frank to put a new slip in the time clock. It also quoted Lee as to the length of time it had taken Frank on a previous occasion to put in a slip. With but one or two minor discrepancies, the records, taken by different stenographers, corresponded.

After considerable discussion, Solicitor Dorsey stated that he would defer for a time any effort to put in evidence a portion of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury. He would take the matter up later, he said.

Mr. Dorsey started the discussion by offering in evidence all of Frank’s testimony before the coroner. The defense objected immediately. At first Attorney Arnold seemed to take the position that none of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury was admissible. Later, however, he said that if the solicitor wanted to put in evidence the whole of Frank’s testimony before the coroner’s jury, representing some four hours of examination, he would offer no objection. It would be manifestly unfair to put in evidence a part of anybody’s testimony.

The argument followed over whether Frank’s evidence was given with the consent of his counsel, the defense contending that the state had never proven that at that time Frank had any counsel employed, although Mr. Rossed [sic] admitted having sat in the room during the inquest.

Dr. H. F. Harris was called to the stand. He is secretary of the Georgia state board of health. He has been a practicing physician since 1889. He graduate then from the Jefferson medical college. He was a professor of chemistry in the Southern Medical college and also in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons later. He mentioned other positions which he had filled. He resigned three years ago from the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons. He had been connected with the state board of health since 1903.

Solicitor Dorsey’s first question was: “Did you make an examination of the body of Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, I made an examination. I think it was on May 5.”

“What wounds or marks did you find on her body?”

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

“There were several abrasions. One or two were on her face, one on her forehead, one on her left arm, one on her left leg, one on her right leg at the ankle, and her right eye was discolored. On the back of her head, somewhat toward the left side, there was a wound one and half inches long. This looked as if it had been made by an upward blow. There was no actual break in the skull, but there was a small hemorrhage inside the skull and directly beneath the wound, showing that the blow that were marks of a cord on her neck which caused it must have been severe enough to make her unconscious for some time.”

“Could this have caused her death?”

“I think not. In fact I am sure not.”

“What did cause her death?”

“When I examined her body, there were marks of a cord an [sic] her neck which had cut into the flesh. I think beyond the question of a doubt that this cord around her neck caused her death.”

KILLED EARLY AFTER LUNCH.

“Were the injuries to her eye and scalp made before her death?”

“Unquestionably.”

“Did you make an examination of her stomach, doctor?”

“Yes.”

“What did you find in it?”

“Cabbage and biscuit—that is, I guess it was biscuit. It was wheaten bread, anyway.”

“How far had it progressed toward digestion?”

“Very slightly.”

At this time Dr. Harris took a bottle from the suitcase that he carried to the witness stand with him, and said, “I have a sample of the cabbage here, if I am permitted to show it.”

“Yes, you can show it to the jury,” said the solicitor.

“Was this the condition of the cabbage when it came from Mary Phagan’s stomach?”

“Yes.”

“How long would you say the cabbage had been in her stomach?”

THIRTY MINUTES AFTER LUNCH.

“It is impossible to say exactly. I am confident, however, that it could not have been there more than half an hour.”

Dr. Harris brought two more bottles from his suitcase. “I have two samples of cabbage taken from the stomach of normal persons after one hour.” He showed the bottles to the court and the jury. Their contents were pesty—in contrast with the other sample from Mary Phagan’s stomach, which could be recognized immediately as cabbage and was almost intact.

“Dr. Harris, did you ever examine the vital organs of her body?”

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault, but there were indications that violence of some sort had been done. He said that some of the blood vessels were dilated.

“What did the dilation of these blood vessels indicate?”
“It indicated that violence of some sort had been done a little time before death.”

“How long before death was this violence done?”

Possibly five or ten minutes, replied the witness. The blood vessels were dilated, and it takes an appreciable time for inflammation to begin. Judging from the character of the inflammation, said the witness, he did not think the interval between violence and death was more than five or ten minutes.

“Doctor, how long after death does rigor mortis begin?”

“It varies so much, that it is impossible to say. I don’t think that would be of importance, in determining the time of death, because as I say it varies in different cases.”

“Is there any standard with reference to strangulation cases?”

“No, sir. I have seen rigor mortis begin within a very few minutes after death.”

“Does it ever begin before death?”

“No, sir. It may be delayed for many hours. I have seen persons dead for hours in whom rigor mortis had not set in. It begins with the eyelids and goes down, and goes off in the same way.”

“Can you state how long Mary Phagan was dying?”

“No, I could not exactly.”

“How long after she had eaten the cabbage and bread was it before death occurred?”

“To the very best of my opinion, she must have lived between one-half and three-quarters of an hour after eating.”

At this point the witness stopped, and appeared to be very faint. In a weak voice: “I’ll have to ask you to excuse me. I cannot go on further. I am very weak.”

“Just one more question, doctor,” asked the solicitor.

“How much blood did Mary Phagan lose before she died?”

“I couldn’t tell that.”

“When can you come back, doctor?”

“I’ll try to come back tomorrow. I’ve been in bed three days and I got up to come down here. I am utterly exhausted.”

Dr. Harris was very pale and appeared quite. He was assisted from the stand and out of the court room by one of the deputy sheriffs. Early during his testimony he had paused and asked for a glass of water, and with it had taken a dose of some medicine.

FEBUARY CALLED.

G. C. Febuary, stenographer to Chief of Detectives Lanford, was called to the stand and identified a report of a conversation between Frank and Lanford on Monday, April 28, in Lanford’s office. The defense let it go in without objection, after some discussion. That report later on was read to the jury in its entirety, by Assistant Solicitor Stephens. It was a short statement of Frank’s movements from about 11 o’clock, April 26, till the next morning.

The part which it was assumed the state was most anxious to get in was Frank’s statement that Mary Phagan arrived at the factory between 12:05 o’clock and 12:10, perhaps about 12:07. The rest of the statement detailed in Frank’s language his movements during the rest of the day. The statement quoted Frank as saying that he took a bath Saturday night and was wearing then different under clothes than the ones he wore on the day of the tragedy. Attorney Rosser examined Febuary and convulsed the court by his opening question:

“Have you got a dictograph on you?”

Attorney Rosser questioned Febuary specificically [sic] about Frank allowing Lanford to examine his clothing. He has been chief of police for a number of years, hasn’t he?”

The witness answered, “I don’t know that he ever has been chief of police.”

“Well,” said Ros[s]er, “chief of detectives, then—that’s worse.”

Before the witness could answer, Mr. Rosser turned to Chief Lanford, sitting in court and pointed out “this handsome man here” as the one he meant.

SAW FRANK SATURDAY.

Albert McKnight, negro, husband of Minola McKnight (the woman being the cook at the Selig residence), was called to the stan[d].

“How long has your wife been employed by Mrs. Selig?”

“A year or two years—something like that.”

“Where were you between 1 and 2 o’clock on Saturday, April 26?”

“At Mr. Frank’s house.”

“Did you see Mr. Frank?”

“Yes, about 1:30 o’clock.”

“What did he do?”

“He went into the dining room and went to the sideboard.”

“How long did he stay in there?”

“About five or ten minutes.”

The solicitor turned the witness over to the defense.

“Who was there, besides you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank’s wife. I was sitting in the kitchen.”

“How do you know that Mr. Frank didn’t stop to eat? You can’t see through from the kitchen to the dining room, can you?”

“Yes, sir, you can see through.”

“Don’t you know it is impossible to see through the swinging doors?”

“The swinging door was open and you can look into a mirror in the corner of the dining room and see the room.”

“And Mr. Frank went to the sideboard? You don’t know what he did there.”

“No, sir.”

“Oh, you couldn’t see the sideboard from the mirror?”

“No, sir.”

“How big is the kitchen?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, about how big?”

The negro couldn’t answer definitely, and the question was waived.

“How big is the dining room?”

The negro couldn’t describe that, either.

“Have you ever been in the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

“What kind of furniture is in there?”

“I don’t know.”

“What kind is in the kitchen?”

“Well, there’s a safe and a stove and a table.”

“Where did you sit in the kitchen?”

“At the side of the back door.”

“Were you sitting right in front of the little hall betwe[e]n the dining room and the kitchen?”

“No, sir, not exactly.”

“Wait a minute till I look at a diagram of the house I’ve got here,” said Mr. Rosser. Then he put this question:

Well, don’t you know it’s impossible to sit in the kitchen and look through this little hall into the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

Mr. Rosser called the negro from the stand to explain to the jury, on the diagram of the Selig-Frank home, how he could sit in the kitchen and see all over the dining room. The negro insisted merely that he could sit in the kitchen and see into the dining room, and that in a mirror there he could see a reflection of almost all parts of the dining room.

“You haven’t got a curve to your eyesight, have you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir,” said the witness.

“You can’t look a curve, can you?”

“No, sir.”

“Where was Minola?”

“She was in the kitchen.”

“Didn’t she go into the dining room?”

“Yes, sir, she went in once.”

“How long did she stay?”

“About two minutes.”

“Do you know whether Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig ate anything?”

“No, sir; I didn’t see them eating.”

HEARD THEM TALKING.

“You never saw Mr. Selig at all?”

“No, sir.”

“Where did you go from to the Selig residence?”

“I went from home.”

“What time did you get there?”

“Some time after 1 o’clock.”

“You saw Mr. Frank come in and go to the sideboard?”

“Yes.”

“He walked up to the sideboard, walked out, and went to town?”

“He went back into the sitting room, where Mr. Selig was.”

“I thought you said you didn’t see Mr. Selig?”

“I didn’t, but I heard him talking back there.”

Mr. Rosser held up the diagram in front of the negro again. He asked the negro how it was he could sit back in the kitchen and hear them talking in the sitting room or the hall. The negro reiterated that he heard them.

“And you never moved away from the door until you left to go home?”

“No, sir.”

“Did Minola go with you?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you first tell this tale after the 26^th of April?”

“After I came back from Birmingham.”

“To whom did you first tell it?”

“Mr. Craven, the boss of the plow department at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Co.”

“Was that before or after they got Minola?”

“Two or three days before.”

“You never told any others?”

“Yes, sir, later I told Detective Starnes, Detective Campbell, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorsey.”

“That’s the time Mr. Dorsey had Minola sent to jail, was it not?”

“I don’t know whether he did or not.”

“He said, ‘Take her on down,’ didn’t he?”

“I don’t know, sir. I guess so.”

Solicitor Dorsey entered an objection. “I did nothing of the kind,” said he.

SAW FRANK TAKE CAR.

“They brought Minola out of Mr. Dorsey’s office while you were there didn’t they?”

“No, sir.”

“You didn’t go to the jail with Minola?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you go to see her when she was locked up down at police barracks?”

“I didn’t know she was locked up till I got home from work that night.”

“You say it was about 1:30 o’clock when Mr. Frank came home to lunch?”

“Yes, sir, it was about that time, but I can’t say for certain.”

“And you didn’t see Mr. and Mrs. Selig or Mrs. Frank?”

“No, sir.”
“What car did Mr. Frank catch to come back to town?”

“He caught the Georgia avenue car at Pulliam street.”

“How do you know? You were still sitting in the kitchen, weren’t you?”

“No, sir, I was on my way home and came up Georgia avenue behind him.”

Solicitor Dorsey took up the redirect examination of the witness. The solicitor caused the negro to repeat emphatically that from the point where he sat in the kitchen he could see Mr. Frank and did see him.

COURT ADJOURNS.

Judge Roan had the jury sent to its room, and stated that the jurors had expressed a request that some magazines be sent to them, that they be allowed to write notes to their wives, and that they be permitted to get fresh linen. Solicitor Dorsey said he had no objection if the magazines were censored properly by the sheriff and any notes received or sent by the jurors were censored also. The defense had no objection.

Judge Roan adjourned court at 5:02 until 9 o’clock Saturday morning.

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

Atlanta Journal
August 2^nd, 1913

Miss Mattie Smith has given The Journal a statement in which she says that a part of the testimony of N. V. Darley at the Frank trial in reference to her was not true. Mr. Darley stated that on April 26 Miss Smith told him that her father was dying and asked him to help bear the funeral expenses. Miss Smith says that she merely told Darley that her father was very low and that she said nothing about helping with the funeral expenses.

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

Atlanta Journal
August 1^st, 1913

DARLEY’S ADMISSIONS ABOUT FRANK’S DEFENSE OFFSET BY HIS EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL

Having Admitted Frank Trembled, That He Was Pale and Seemed “Upset,” on Cross-Examination Mr. Darley Said Frank Was Naturally of a Nervous Temperament and Told of Tedious Work He Did on Saturday in Preparing Financial Sheet

JUDGE ROAN REVERSES HIS RULING IN REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER OTHERS WERE NERVOUS

Attorneys for Defense Had Intimated That His Refusal to Admit This Evidence Was Good Ground for Appeal—Mrs. White’s Testimony That She Saw Negro Lurking Near Stairway at 1 o’Clock Saturday a Feature of Morning Session

Little progress was made at the morning session Friday of the fifth day of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan. The state showed by one witness that a negro was sitting on a box on the main floor shortly before 1 o’clock at the point Jim Conley claims he was sitting when he says Frank called him.

The state also introduced its best testimony relative to the nervousness and general demeanor of the defendant on the morning that the crime was discovered.

The witness, who gave his testimony was N. V. Darley, who also materially aided the defense by a number of points brought out on his cross-examination by Attorney Reuben R. Arnold. Considered of special value to the defense was his statement that with the time clock in the condition that it was on Sunday anyone understanding its mechanism could have made the punches for twelve hours within five minutes. The defense, brought out by Darley a statement that it had been hammering home since the trial first started, namely that the elevator and its motor made much noise when running and that a saw on the fourth floor ran simultaneously with the elevator. The inference is that the defense will argue that if the elevator ran shortly after noon or even up to 3 o’clock that White and Denham, working on the fourth floor, would necessarily have heard it.

The same witness also asserted that a financial sheet gotten up Saturday afternoon was in Frank’s handwriting and that it takes three hours or more to do this work.

The defense made a timely rebuttal of Darley’s testimony that Frank displayed unusual nervousness following the discovery of the murder, and used Darley himself to refute, to a certain extent, his own testimony. Solicitor Dorsey, in his examination of the witness had drawn the statement from him that the accused was nervous, that his hand trembled when he went to run the elevator, and that he was pale and was trembling when he rode to the police station. When Attorney Arnold took the witness he drew from him the assertion that Mr. Frank was of a natural nervous temperament and that frequently he (Darley) had to take charge of affairs at the factory, prior to the murder, on account of the accused’s nervousness. Frank, declared Darley, often rubbed his hands together and was unable to do much work when he was in one of his nervous states.

Mrs. White was also an important witness in reference to Frank’s nervousness, declaring that when she went into the factory at about 12:30, just after the state claims the crime was committed, Frank jumped when she spoke to him.

When court convened after lunch, Judge Roan reversed himself on his ruling at the morning session. By reversing this ruling he holds now that the defense may introduce evidence to show that others besides the accused were nervous at the pencil factory following the discovery of the body of Mary Phagan. Attorney Rosser, for the defense, had indicated in a remark to the court at the morning session that the defense would likely appeal the case on this point if the jurist held to his ruling.

Judge Roan also announced his decision in the matter of Darley testifying relative to the contrast or comparison of handwriting on the financial sheet made out by Frank on the Saturday of the murder and others made out prior to that date. Judge Roan held that Darley would have to qualify as a handwriting expert to testify along these lines.

STATE INTRODUCES WITNESSES.

Mr. Arnold, in a discussion with attorneys for the state, made the remark that the prosecution need not fear that he would fail to introduce evidence. If the defense introduces any evidence at all, as the attorneys now think it will, it will probably introduce many witnesses and the trial will be prolonged a number of days.

At the close of the morning session Friday the indications were that the state would not close its case until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Jim Conley, the state’s principal witness, has not been called yet, and probably will not be until Saturday. It will take a whole day if not longer for his examination.

COURT CONVENES.

At 8:40 o’clock the crowd was admitted to the court room, filling the seats immediately and leaving a number of disappointed people outside. A large part of the crowd had been waiting since 7 o’clock.

Leo M. Frank, the accused, arrived early, under custody of the sheriff. He entered the court room at 8:50 o’clock, with his wife and mother, smiling cheerfully, and responding to greetings of a number of friends.

Mrs. J. Arthur White was called to the stand as the first witness. Her husband has been employed by the National Pencil company for the past two years, she said.

On April 26, she testified, she went to the National Pencil factory twice. The first time she remained from 11:30 to 11:50 o’clock. She returned at 12:30 and left about 1. On the first visit she stated she saw Miss Hall, the stenographer, and Frank and two men in his office.

“I asked Mr. Frank if I could see Mr. White. Mr. Frank then was standing in the inside office. He asked me if I was Mr. White’s wife, and when I answered yes, he said I looked like a Campbell.”

The witness explained that her father and brother, named Campbell, had been working for two years in the National Pencil factory.

“Mr. Frank sent Miss Emma Freeman for Mr. White and he came down and talked to me at the foot of the steps on the second floor.”

Solicitor Dorsey questioned the witness about her second visit to the factory. Mrs. White said that she looked at the clock when she arrived on her second visit, and that the time was about 12:30, possibly one minute to or after that hour.

SAYS FRANK JUMPED.

“When I came up the steps,” she said, “I saw Mr. Frank standing by the safe in the outside office. His back was turned to me. I asked him if Mr. White and Mr. Denham had gone back to work.

“He jumped, as if surprised.”

“Is there any doubt about his jumping?” asked the solicitor.

“No.”

“What was he doing at the safe?”

“I didn’t see him doing anything.”

“What did you do?”

“I went upstairs to the fourth floor, where Harry Denham and my husband were working. They were working on a machine with a hammer. I heard the hammer distinctly when I reached the fourth floor. They quit work when I came up.”

“How many times did you have to ask Mr. Frank if White and Denham were at work?”

“I had to repeat my question.”

The witness testified that while she was upstairs, about 1 o’clock, Frank came up and told her that she would have to leave then if she expected to get out before 3 o’clock, because he was going out and intended to lock the doors behind him.

“What time did you leave?”

“Some time about 1 o’clock.”

“Was it before or after 1?”

“It was before 1.”

“How do you know it was before 1?”

“Because I was in McDonald’s furniture store at 1 o’clock.”

“And how far is that from the pencil factory?”

“Five or six blocks.”

“How much before 1 do you say it was?”

“About ten minutes.”

Mrs. White said that Frank preceded her down the stairs. She left the building.

SAW A NEGRO ALSO.

When she went by the office on her way out Frank was sitting by a table in the outer office, with his coat off.

“What was he doing at the table?”

“I suppose he was writing.”

“What led you to believe he was writing?”

“Well, he was sitting there.”

“As you came down the steps from the second floor did you see anybody?”

“Yes, a negro.”

“Where was he?”

“Sitting on a box to the bottom of the stairway leading from the second floor.”

“Did you see his coat?”

“No.”

“Did you see his hat?”

“No.”

Solicitor Dorsey walked up to the witness stand with Mary Phagan’s parasol and handing it to Mrs. White asked her to point out the spot on the diagram where the negro was sitting. She pointed to a place in the lower hallway, near the stairway. The solicitor also asked her to point out the place on the fourth floor where Denham and White were working. She put the end of the pointer on a place several feet toward the front of the building from the top of the stairway on the fourth floor.

“Could they see down the stairway from where they were working?”

“No, sir.”

ROSSER TAKES WITNESS.

Mr. Rosser took up the cross-examination of the witness.

“You left the factory about 1 o’clock, Mrs. White?”

“Yes.”

“You are not sure as to the exact time?”

“No, sir.”

“How long after 1 o’clock was it that you reached the furniture store?”

“I don’t know exactly.”

“You won’t say positively that it was ten minutes to 1 when they left the factory?”

“No, sir, not positively.”

“It was somewhere about 1 o’clock?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where is that furniture store, and how far from the factory?”

“It is on Mitchell street beyond the Terminal station.”

“Did you walk there directly from the factory?”

“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Rosser stopped to refer to a statement which the witness furnished to the defense some time ago.

“You say it was about 1 o’clock when you left the factory, but you didn’t look at the clock?”

“Yes, sir. It was about 1. I did not look at the clock.”

“You got to the factory the first time about 11:30 o’clock?”

“Yes.”

“And you say you found there two men whose names you didn’t know, Mr. Frank and the stenographer, Miss Hall?”

“Yes.”

“You didn’t see the office boy, Alonzo Mann?”

“No.”

“You went in and sat down in Frank’s office?”

“Yes.”

“He was talking to two men?”

“Yes.”

“After he had finished talking to the two men he came over to you, did he not?”

“Yes.”

“You told him you wanted to see Mr. White?”

“Yes.”
“Did you see your brother, Wade Campbell, or your father, there?”

FRANK SENT WORD.

“No, sir.”

“They both work there, do they not?”

“Yes.”

“Frank sent word up to White that you were downstairs and wanted to see him, did he not?”

“Yes.”

“By whom did he send this word?”

“By Mrs. Emma Freeman.”

The witness said that Mrs. Emma Freeman formerly was Miss Emma Clark, and had married just the day before.

“How long was it before White came down?”

“About five minutes.”

“Where was it you talked with him?”

“Outside of the office, near the time clock.”

“How long did you talk with him there?”

“About fifteen minutes.”

“Who came up while you were talking to your husband?”

“Cornelia Hall, Mrs. Freeman and Mrs. Mae Barrett.”

The witness added that these three came down the stairs. “Mrs. Barrett’s daughter also came in, coming upstairs,” she continued.

“Who left first?”

“Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman.”
“Who next?”

“Mrs. Barrett and her daughter.”
“You left last?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What time was it when you left?”

“About 19 minutes to 12 o’clock.”

“You couldn’t say accurately as to the time you left?”

“No, sir.”

“You went somewhere up town—we don’t care where—did you not?”

‘Yes, sir.”

“How long did you stay?”

“About 40 minutes.”

“And you came back to the factory about 12:30?”

“Yes, sir it was 12:30.”

“How do you know?”

“I looked at the clock that time.”

“Where did you say Frank was when you came back?”

“He was standing in front of the safe in the outer office.”

WHAT WAS FRANK DOING?

“What was he doing? Did he look like he was taking something out of the safe, or putting something into the safe?”

“He didn’t appear to be doing anything.”

“Was the safe door open?”

“Yes.”

“When the safe door is open, it closes up against the inside office door, does it not?”

“Yes.”

“When you spoke to Frank, where were you?”

“I was inside the office door and just behind Mr. Frank.”

“And he appeared startled?”

“Yes sir.”

“Acted as a person does when some one comes up on them unexpectedly?”

“Yes, sir; that’s what I thought.”

“You asked Frank if White still was upstairs?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What did Frank say?”
“He told me that he was, and suggested that I go on upstairs, which I did.”

“After a while Frank came up and asked your husband and Harry Denham if they had finished their work?”

“I don’t know, sir. I didn’t hear him ask that.”

“You heard him say to your husband if your wife wants to get out before 3 o’clock she’d better go pretty soon?”

“I’m not sure as to the exact words he used.”

WHAT FRANK SAID.

Here Mr. Rosser read from the statement which had been furnished to him by the witness: “If you wife wants to get out before I go to lunch,” read Mr. Rosser, “she’d better get out in a few minutes, for I’m going as soon as I get my hat and coat.”

Mrs. White said that was about the language used by Frank.

“You remained a few minutes after Frank went down?”

“Yes.”

“And when you came down to the office floor, you saw Frank at a table in the outer office, writing?”

“Yes.”

“You then went on down the steps to the street floor?”

“Yes.”

“As you came down, just where did you see the negro?”

“Between the stairway and the door.”

“Just what do you mean by between the stairway and the door? Between the front of the stairway and the door?”

“Yes.”

“How far from the front of the stairs?”

“About five or six feet.”

Attorney Rosser asked the witness to point out, on a blue print of the plant which he produced, the spot where she saw the negro. He brought from the witness a statement that she had talked with Solicitor Dorsey about two weeks after the tragedy.

Attorney Frank Hooper took up the re-direct examination.

“The negro was not sitting against the wall, was he?”

“No.”

DARLEY TESTIFIES.

The witness was excused. Solicitor Dorsey called Arthur White, who did not answer. He called Arthur Denham, who did not answer. Then he called N. V. Darley, who took the stand.

Mr. Darley stated that he has charge of the employes at the National Pencil factory. His immediate superior is Sig Montag. Darley is a co-worker and rated equally with Frank. Mr. Darley stated that he was in the factory on Saturday, April 26; that he left there about 9:40 a. m., and that he returned there the following day at 8:18 or 8:20 o’clock in the morning, and as he came in Mr. Frank came up.

“Did you observe anything unusual about Frank?” asked the solicitor.

“Not at first, but when we got into the elevator and he reached for the rope, I noticed that his hands were trembling. His hands still were trembling when he started to nail up the door in the basement. I took the hammer from him because his hands were trembling and he was nervous, and also because I could handle the hammer better.”

The statement that he thought he could handle the hammer better was ruled out after some discussion.

Darley said that he could not remember very well the conversations that morning. Asked specifically if he remembered Frank saying anything about coffee, he said:

“Yes, as we were starting away from the factory, he said that he had been called from home without any breakfast or coffee, and that they had taken him straight down to the undertaker’s into a dark room where they suddenly flashed on a light and he instantly saw the corpse, and that he was nervous. He said that he wouldn’t have been nervous if he’d had a chance to get some breakfast.”
The witness continued that he remembered that at 10 o’clock Frank telephoned to his home about getting his breakfast ready.

Darley was asked about the elevator. The key of the lock to the power box was in place, but the box was not locked that morning. He didn’t know where the key was. He saw Newt Lee that morning, he said, in answer to a question, and Lee seemed to be composed.

“What did Frank say with reference to the staple and the hasp?” asked the solicitor.

“Frank referred to the easy manner in which they could be pulled out and seemed to think that the crime was committed in the basement.”

The witness’ statement that Frank “seemed to think” the crime was committed in the basement, was ruled out.

Darley said that the staple in the back door looked like it had been pulled out before. It was black, he said, and usually when a staple is pulled out the first time it looks rather red.

“You said Frank intimated that the murder occurred in the basement. What were his words?” inquired the solicitor.

“I don’t remember.”

FRANK TALKED OF NERVOUSNESS.

“The day after this talk about coffee, did you talk with Frank about coffee again or his condition on that day?”

“Yes.”

“What did he say?”

“About the same thing.”

“Did he say next day anything about being nervous?”

“Yes.”
“How many times did you hear him explain, or try to explain, his nervousness?”

“Numerous times. I don’t remember the exact number.”

Mr. Dorsey asked permission to read to the jury a statement that Darley previously had made to him. Attorney Rosser objected. The solicitor contented himself with showing the statement to Mr. Darley to refresh his memory. He asked Darley this question after the witness had scanned the paper.

“Now what was more on Frank’s mind—the murder of the explanation of his nervousness?”

Attorney Rosser jumped to his feet. “That’ wont’ do!” he exclaimed. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“I think I should be permitted to read this statement to the jury, your honor,” said Mr. Dorsey, addressing the court. A heated colloquy between attorneys followed. Attorney Arnold, seated, said: “He hasn’t made his usual showing, your honor, that he has been entrapped.”

“I don’t hesitate to do it,” replied Mr. Dorsey.

“You don’t hesitate to do anything,” said Mr. Arnold.

It appeared that Judge Roan ruled against reading the statement.

“How much of his body shook?” the solicitor inquired.

Darley answered that he couldn’t remember.

“Tell the truth about this statement,” admonished the solicitor.

Darley replied: “My words there are that he shook all over.”

“Is that true or not?”

Mr. Rosser objected. The solicitor had no right to cross-question his own witness, said Mr. Rosser. Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

“When and where was it that you first saw Frank shaking all over?”

HAND WAS TREMBLING.

“When we were going down in the elevator. He reached up to pull the rope, and his hand was trembling. I can’t say positively about his body, though.”

“Could Frank or not have driven the nails in the back door?”

“I guess he could, but I thought I could do it better.”

The solicitor showed Mr. Darley his statement and asked “What do you say now?”

“Just the same,” was the reply.

“How did Frank look Sunday morning?”

“Pale.”

“Can you or not say that he was upset?”

Attorney Rosser objected. “The solicitor can’t say ‘upset,’ your honor.” “Oh, yes, I can,” retorted the solicitor. “I guess the jury knows that ‘upset’ means. I’ll cite you some authorities on that.”

Solicitor Dorsey read several authorities tending to show that his questions were proper. One of these set out that it could be shown that a person was nervous, worried, excited, preoccupied, pale and that it was proper to develop evidence as to his movements, appearance, behavior and bearing.

Judge Roan interrupted, declaring: “That doesn’t touch the point we have up here now, Mr. Dorsey. The witness says that the defendant was nervous. He must show how and why he was nervous.”

QUESTION IS ALLOWED.

“Why does your honor select the word ‘nervous’?” inquired the solicitor. “’Upset’ is a term which is well understood by the members of this jury and I dare say by every one in this court room.”

“Go ahead and ask him the question,” directed the court.

“Mr. Darley,” commanded the solicitor, “just state to this jury whether or not Leo M. Frank appeared upset on that Monday morning, and if so why and how.”

The witness replied that he wouldn’t say as to that.

“Now, look here,” shouted the solicitor, as he advanced toward the witness with the latter’s written statement.

Attorney Rosser, jumping to his feet, declared “Your honor, he can’t do that. He can’t snarl at this witness. He mustn’t talk to this witness in that manner. This is his own witness, and he can’t dispute him.”

“Your honor,” answered the solicitor, “I’ve got a right to show by this witness Frank’s conduct and manner. I want to read you another decision, to show you that I’ve got that right.”

The solicitor then read a decision which was to the effect that it could be shown whether a person accused had appeared wild, whether he had shown satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and several other specific terms of conduct.

“Let him get the law!” shouted Mr. Rosser.

Before Solicitor Dorsey could send for the laws, Judge Roan addressing the solicitor said: “I don’t need the laws. I understand perfectly what can be done. You can’t ‘wild’ and stop there without explaining how and why.”

Addressing the witness, Solicitor Dorsey asked:

“Say whether or not on Sunday morning, April 27, Leo M. Frank looked upset. If so, why. State the reasons to the jury.”

Darley answered that Frank did appear upset. Solicitor Dorsey submitted the witness’ previous statement to him, and after he had read a paragraph indicated by the solicitor, the solicitor asked:

“Have you answered those questions now as you did before?”

“I object, your honor,” said Mr. Rosser. “He can’t ask the witness that question.”

Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

FRANK “DONE UP.”

The solicitor then put his question to the witness:

“Do you state whether or not Leo M. Frank was or was not completely done up? Whichever way you state, give your reasons.”

“Wait a minute!” spoke up Mr. Arnold. “’Done up’ might mean that he was dead. It might mean anything else. We object to that.”

“I’ll risk the jury on the meaning of that,” said the solicitor.

Attorney Rosser interrupted.

“Your honor,” said he, “will decide on risking the jury—not my friend Dorsey.”

The court permitted the solicitor to ask the question.

Darley replied, “He was partially done up. That’s as far as I can state now.”

“Why do you say ‘partially’?” asked the solicitor.

“Well, Mr. Frank was able to attend to some business around the factory, and if he had been completely done up he couldn’t have done that.”

“Did you take an automobile ride with Frank Sunday morning?”

“Yes. I went in an automobile with him to the station house.”

“Where did you sit in the automobile?”

“On the front seat besides Rogers, the driver.”

“Where did Frank sit?”

“He sat on my left knee.”

“Well, what was his condition then?”

“He was trembling and shaking.”

“Was Newt Lee in the automobile?”

“Yes.”

“Well, was Newt Lee composed or nervous?”

LEE’S TESTIMONY VALUELESS?

Attorney Rosser objected. The court previously had ruled out such a question. Judge Roan asked the solicitor if he insisted upon putting the question. Both Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Hooper addressed the court, declaring the state’s willingness for everything to go out of the record about Newt Lee.

Attorney Rosser insisted that whatever was to be withdrawn from the record must be stated specifically. Jduge Roan directed the solicitor to sit down and draw up what he wished withdrawn from the record. The solicitor declared it would be impossible. It would be an interminable job, said he.

Attorney Rosser sought to explain to the court what questions with reference to Lee had been ruled out previously, stating that they applied to the negro’s condition—whether he was nervous or not. Solicitor Dorsey remarked that the state was perfectly willing for all reference to Lee being nervous to be stricken from the record.

“Your honor,” said Mr. Rosser, “It’s not a favor that they are conferring up on me, but it has at last dawned upon them that it is illegal.”

LEE’S TESTIMONY STANDS.

Attorney Hooper replied, addressing the court, “I don’t want it to go down in records, your honor, what my friend Rosser has just said in regard to it taking a long time for anything to dawn upon us. Mr. Rosser’s statement was one of criticism, and I don’t care for him to pass upon how long it takes anything to soak into my head.”

Mr. Hooper’s remarks were in the nature of a rebuke to Mr. Rosser. Nothing was done, however, by the court, and the trial proceeded. Mr. Dorsey seemed oblivious of Mr. Rosser’s criticism.

Judge Roan ruled out all references to Newt Lee’s demeanor during the trial of the case. This was done at the solicitor’s instance, by agreement of both sides. All questions brought answers regarding Newt Lee’s demeanor, and all answers to that effect, were ordered stricken from the records. The trial went on.

“Did you see the financial sheet Monday morning?”

“Yes. Frank picked it up and said something about it.”
“After Gantt was discharged, did he come to the factory?”

“Yes, once or twice.”

“Did you see Frank examine the financial sheet Sunday?”

“I think so. I know I looked at it.”

“When did Mr. Haas, the agent for the insurance company, come down to the factory?”

“About May 1.”

“When was the factory cleaned up after that?”

“May 3.”

The solicitor pointed to the spot on the diagram where the bloody stick is supposed to have been found, and asked if that area was cleaned up. Orders for a general cleaning had been given, answered the witness. He didn’t know anything about that particular area.

ARNOLD QUESTIONS DARLEY.

Attorney Arnold took up the cross-examination, asking who called Darley’s attention to the blood spots which Barrett claimed to have found.

“Lemmie Quinn.”

The state objected to Attorney Arnold’s use of the phrase “claimed to have been found.” Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Attorney Arnold asked the witness about the hair on the lathe. Darley said that he was shown six or eight hairs on a lathe which is about twenty feet from Mary’s machine. It was difficult to tell the color of the hair, he said.

“Barrett had be[e]n doing most of the discovering around the factory, hadn’t he?” asked Mr. Arnold.

The state objected. Attorney Arnold said: “We want to show that Barrett is a monomaniac on this subject; that he buys all the extras, and is working for a reward.” After some discussion, the state’s objection was sustained and the question ruled out.

“Who showed you the hair, then?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Quinn, Barrett and The Journal reporter,” answered the witness.

Mr. Arnold asked about the blood spots.

The witness described them as looking to him like blood spots, with a white smear over them.

“Did Barrett say he was working for a reward?” asked Arnold.

The state objected and Attorney Arnold said: “We simply want to show, your honor, that Christopher Columbus wasn’t in it with this Barrett.” The state’s objection was sustained by Judge Roan.

“Were you there when Barrett said he found a piece of pay envelope under Mary Phagan’s machine?” asked Mr. Arnold.

PAY ENVELOPES COMMON.

The witness said he was not there. The pay envelope was shown to the witness, who in answer to questions said that about 175 similar envelopes were used in the factory every week. Most of them were thrown around. It was a rule that if an inaccuracy was found by an employe in his pay envelope after he left the factory, he could not recover anything.

Pay envelopes generally were thrown away on the second floor, he said. Attorney Arnold asked the witness if he remembered seeing Frank take out the slip from the time clock Sunday morning. Yes, he did, said the witness.

He looked over Frank’s shoulder at the slip, and then thought himself that it was incorrect. The time slip was exhibited to him, and he showed how Frank ran his finger down the side on which the numbers were.

The witness stated that there were no breaks although there were lapses of time, and that because there were no breaks he at first glance thought that the clock had been punched regularly and correctly.

EXPLAINS TIME SLIP.

At this point Juror Johenning said that he wanted to ask a question. The juror asked the witness to go further into his explanation about the time slip. Standing by the jury box with the slip in his hand, Darley went over the matter again, detailing how the lapses in time occurred without a break in the space.

Attorney Arnold asked the witness if the financial sheet for that week had been made out in Frank’s own writing. The witness said yes.

Attorney Hooper objected to any questions about the financial sheet, saying that it would be the best evidence about itself.

Attorney Arnold retorted: “You needn’t be afraid we won’t introduce evidence.”

This was the first intimation from the defense as to whether it would introduce evidence.

Attorney Arnold had the witness go into the different details covered by the financial sheet, his purpose being to show the amount of work, expert work, to make out the sheet. Darley said that it required such expert work that there hadn’t been a financial sheet made out since Frank left the factory, although it was custom to have them made every week.

Darley continued that Frank usually started on the financial sheet about 2:30 o’clock on Saturday and finished it about 5:30 or later. When shown the sheet, he declared that it was all in Frank’s handwriting. No work had been done on it when he left the factory about 9:40 o’clock.

Mr. Arnold asked the witness how the handwriting by Frank on the financial sheet in evidence, compared with Frank’s handwriting on previous financial sheets.

WANTED COMPARISON.

Solicitor Dorsey objected on the ground that the previous sheets themselves were the best possible evidence, and that Darley was no handwriting expert and therefore was not competent.

The solicitor read a section of the Georgia code to support that view.

There followed a twenty-minute argument on this question, in which all four of the principal attorneys at various times took the floor. Attorney Hooper, in one of his arguments, said that the defense had no right to show this sheet to the jury without showing previous sheets so that the jury itself could compare them. “You need have no fear, Mr. Hooper,” said Mr. Arnold. “They’ll be introduced at the proper time.”

At the conclusion of this questioning, Judge Roan withheld his decision until he could look up authorities in the matter.

Attorney Arnold questioned the witness on the various items in the financial sheet and the calculations. Darley said that it was necessary in computing the sheet to go into each individual item on the sheeet.

At the conclusion of this questioning, the solicitor asked, “Are you through with him, Mr. Arnold?”

“Oh, no, no,” replied Mr. Arnold. “We haven’t got a good start with him yet.”

“On Sunday you were in the pencil factory, were you not?” continued Mr. Arnold, addressing the witness.

“Yes.”

“Detective Starnes was there, wasn’t

“Yes.”

“He went through the factory with you, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“Forty or fifty people were in that building on Sunday, were there not?”

“Not Sunday. My recollection is that there were six or eight there.”

“Did you go down into the basement?”

“Yes.”

“There was a great deal of excitement, wasn’t there?”

“Yes.”

“You were excited, weren’t you?”

EVERYBODY EXCITED.

“Yes.”

“Everybody was excited.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. Attorney Arnold argued the point. The defense had the right to show the state of mind of everybody else in the factory, in order to compare it with Frank’s conduct. He spoke of Frank’s having missed his breakfast and his coffee that morning, and remarked, “Everybody that drinks coffee knows that when an habitual user misses his usual drink he is unnerved.” The policemen were excited, said he. “I think I have the right to show that Frank manifested merely natural excitement. This young man was superintendent of the factory, and a little girl had been murdered there. It was no more than natural to assume that he had been perturbed. The state seems to be basing its whole prosecution on whether or not Frank was excited on the morning the body was discovered. This is a question which never should have been admitted to the case.”

Attorney Rosser followed Mr. Arnold with argument upon the point. “Let me tell you what I saw once,” said he. “We had a riot here some years ago. I saw 200 men and they were all excited. Now suppose they tried me for lunacy and told of my excitement—said that I made a fool of myself. Would you hold that I couldn’t say that anybody else around me was excited?”

Solicitor Dorsey argued the point from the state’s standpoint. “They’ve gone on record that you couldn’t take up the deportment of Lee and compare it with that of Frank,” said he. “They objected to our doing that, and they got it into the records. I want to know how far this is going to continue. Are you going to open the flood gates and show the deportment of every man who went into the factory, when the only question at issue is the deportment of Frank?”

Attorney Arnold asked Darley what was the condition of the other people around the factory that morning.

Solicitor Dorsey immediately renewed the objection.

Attorney Rosser declared: “This jury won’t know but that Frank was the sole man who was nervous that morning. The jury wont’ know that my friend Starnes, sleuth that he is, and that son of the Emerald Isle, Pat Campbell, were excited when they looked on that girl’s body. Are you going to take this young man and show how it affected him, and close the mouths of all these other witnesses?”

ROSSER’S WARNING.

“Your honor, I want to impress on you that a misstep here would vitiate this whole trial.”

A moment later Mr. Rosser repeated this statement—taken to mean conclusively that the defense is laying its foundations for an appeal.

Solicitor Dorsey arose.

“If there is any doubt in your honor’s mind,” said the solicitor, “about this matter. I have here a number of decisions. This question they are seeking to put is simply a dragnet proposition. They want to run them all in on it.” The solicitor read two or three decisions to sustain his contention.

“Wouldn’t it be monstrous, your honor, to go outside of this trial and this evidence, and run in everybody and anybody to show that they may or may not have been nervous. The one point to be made before this jury is as to whether or not the defendant was nervous. At the insistence of the defense, the state already has agreed and your honor has ruled that a similar question applying to Newt Lee should be withdrawn from the record.”

“I adhere to my former ruling,” said Judge Roan.

Attorney Arnold arose.

“I purpose to prove by this witness, your honor, that he himself was excited and nervous, and that the others present were nervous and excited.”

“Perhaps that’s a different question,” said the Judge. “I thought you wanted to go out and bring in others who were not present. If you want to show that he and others were excited from the same cause that might be a different proposition.”

Judge Roan asked the solicitor if he renewed his objection.

“I most certainly do, your honor,” answered the solicitor.

Judge Roan announced that he would hold to his former ruling.

Resuming his cross-examination of the witness, Attorney Arnold asked:

“Isn’t it a fact that there are a good many spots on the metal room floor, and that you have seen spots there from time to time.?”

“Yes, I’ve seen spots all over the factory.”

“Red spots and dark spots?”

“Yes.”

ABOUT RED SPOTS.

“How long have you worked in factories?”

“Twenty-four years.”

“Large numbers of women worked in these factories?”

“Yes.”
“Isn’t it a usual and frequent fact that blood spots are found around the women’s dressing rooms and closets?”

“This is a well known fact?”

“Yes.”

“You’ve seen such spots at this factory?”

“Yes.”

“You nailed up the back door. Why did you do that?”

“Because the staple had been pulled out.”

“You did so because you had had more experience in that line than Frank, did you not?”

“Yes, that was one reason, and Frank was nervous, too.”

“Frank wore a brown suit on Saturday?”

“Yes.”

“And on Monday he wore the same brown suit?”

“Yes.”

“Were you accustomed to see him on Sundays?”

“No.”

“Then you couldn’t tell what kind of clothes he wore usually on Sundays?”

“No.”

“He wore a different one the Sunday you saw him at the factory?”

“Yes.”

“But you don’t know about his Sunday clothes?”

“No.”

“Well, on Monday did you observe any spots on the brown suit worn by Frank then and on Saturday?”

“No, sir.”

FRANK NOT SCRATCHED.

“Did you observe any scratches or bruises on his face or hands?”

“I didn’t see any.”

“Saturday morning when you came to the factory, Frank was there, was he not?”

“Yes.”

“Whom else did you find there?”

“Mattie Smith, one of the employes, was in the office. She came for her own and her sister-in-law’s pay. She found that her sister-in-law’s time was wrong. Frank told her to wait a little while and he would straighten it out, that he didn’t want to get his cash out of balance. The girl gave me back the money when she found it was wrong. The mistake was made on account of the similarity of the two girls’ names. Mattie Smith’s sister-in-law was named Mamie Smith, and Mamie’s pay had been put in Mattie’s envelope. Frank corrected this mistake. Then the girl called my attention to the fact that we had promised to raise Mamie’s pay, but hadn’t done it. I told her we would straighten this out next week.”

WHY MATTIE SMITH CRIED.

“I asked her how her father was. She replied that ‘He is dying, I think.’ I assisted her from the office down the stairs to the street door. She was crying. She asked me if the office would aid her in the matter of funeral expenses for her father. I sought to console and [1 word illegible] her. I told her we would do whatever we could for her, and advised her not to worry about her sister-in-law’s time.”

Attorney Arnold inquired, “What time was it when Mattie Smith left the factory?”

“About 9:20 o’clock,” the witness answered.

“Then you went back upstairs to the office?”

“Yes.

“What time was it Frank went to Montag Brothers?”

“About 9:40 o’clock. We went out together. We stopped at a soda fountain a short distance up the street, and got a drink. Afterward Frank went on to Montag’s and I didn’t see him again until next morning.”

“Was the elevator locked or unlocked on Sunday morning?”

“It was unlocked, but the lock was in place.”

“Could anybody have started the elevator?”

“Yes.”

“Does the same motor that drives the elevator drive the saw?”

“Yes.”

“Do both the elevator and the saw run at the same time?”

“Yes, unless the belt to the saw is thrown off.”

“When the elevator is running, it makes a great deal of noise, does it not?”

ELEVATOR’S NOISE.

“Yes, it makes a great deal of noise, but not as loud when it starts as when it stops at the bottom.”

“About these cords, Mr. Darley—they can be found all over the factory, can’t they, from the basement to the top?”

“Yes, sir.”

“They frequently are swept up into the trash, are they not?”

“Yes, sir. I often make complaints about that.”

“A great deal of waste is gathered up in the factory, is it not?”

“Yes, sir, several truck loads every day.”

“When was it you say the factory was cleaned up?”

“It was given a special cleaning on May 3, but it was given a general cleaning on the Tuesday after the murder.”

“There are many crevices and corners that haven’t been cleaned yet, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How long is the factory building?”

“Between 150 and 200 feet, I should say.”

“And it’s about 70 to 100 feet wide?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The factory is an extremely dirty place, is it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“In some places the gum and dirt is about an inch thick, is it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it’s about one-eighth of an inch thick in some places on the metal room floor?”

“Yes.”

“Isn’t it dark on the first floor and in the basement?”

“It is very dark in the basement, and quite dark on the first floor when the front doors are closed?”

“Is it dark around the wall on the first floor near the radiator?”

“Yes, sir; especially so on cloudy days.”

“What kind of a day was it on April 26?”

“It was very dark and misty all day.”

“What was on the first floor on that day?”

“A dozen or more large empty boxes were piled there.”

“There were plenty of places for a man to hide in those boxes, weren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“There’s not so much light on the second floor, between the time clocks and the metal room doors, is there?”

“No, sir.”

“Well, how is it in the little walkway off to the left from the metal room?”

“It is very dark.”

“From Frank’s private office at the desk, you can’t see the steps, can you?”

“No.”

“How far is it from his office to the metal room?”

“About 100 feet.”

“Can the doors to the metal room be locked?”

“No.”

“Behind this dressing room, what is there?”

“It’s used as a storeroom for worthless stock, and also there are three or four vats in there.”

In answer to questions, the witness said that a person practically could have the run of the factory without being seen from Frank’s office.

“How did you happen to go to Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”

“Twice I was served with subpoenas and once he phoned for me.”

“Did you know that he had no right to subpoena you?”

“Not then.”

“Did you know that those subpoenas were not worth the paper they were written on?”

“I since have heard so.”

“The first time you went to his office, who was there?”

“Chief Lanford, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dorsey and the stenographer.”

“Did they all ask you questions?”

“All but the stenographer. One of them would ask a question sometimes before I could finish my answer to another’s question.”

“Who was there the second time?”

“Mr. Dorsey, Detectives Starnes and Campbell and a stenographer. Then I was questioned only by Mr. Dorsey.”

“Is Frank a man of a nervous temperament?”

FRANK’S NERVOUS TEMPERAMENT.

“Yes, whenever the smallest thing went wrong at the factory he would get very nervous and upset, and would go about rubbing his hands. I’ve seen him do it a thousand times.”

The witness said that he considers his own nerves good; that he would take charge when Frank became nervous. Darley was shown the notes found by Mary Phagan’s body. Scratch paper like that on which one of the notes was written was to be found generally through the factory, said he, as many of the tablets were used.

Order blank paper like that on which the second note was written often was thrown on the floor and swept up in the rubbish, he said. The witness said that despite orders, the time clock door was unlocked on Saturday, and that anyone who understood the clock could have made regular punches for a whole night within five minutes. Darley said that he had seen Wade Campbell, a man named Lynes, and a man Irby, at the factory on Saturday.

At this point, at 12:20 o’clock, Judge Roan announced recess of the court until 2 o’clock.

ROAN REVERSES RULING.

Immediately after convening court Friday afternoon Judge L. S. Roan announced that during the noon recess he had given due consideration to two points raised during the morning, on one of which he had ruled and on the other of which he had reversed his ruling.

At the morning session Solicitor Dorsey objected to a question put by the defense to Darley, saying that Darley could not testify as to whether or not the handwriting by Frank on the financial sheet produced in evidence was like that on previous financial sheets drawn by Frank; that the other sheets themselves were the best evidence.

On that point, said Judge Roan, he ruled that Darley could not testify unless he qualified as a handwriting expert; that the defense would have to introduce the other writings and allow those writings to speak for themselves to the jury.

On the second point, Judge Roan said, he reversed his ruling. That point was on an objection by the state that the defense should not be allowed to show the mental condition of others than Frank in the factory on Sunday morning, April 27. Judge Roan ruled with the solicitor at the morning session. This was the ruling which he reversed, giving his decision instead to the contention of the defense.

N. V. Darley, general manager at the National Pencil factory, resumed the stand at the afternoon session, the defense resuming its cross-questioning of him.

“At my request, did you look over the pencil factory during the noon hour?” began Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, sir.”

DIAGRAM INACCURATE.

“I want you to state whether or not there are any inaccuracies in this drawing. If so, tell me what they are.”

Darley took Mary Phagan’s parasol as a pointer and pointed to the stairway at the rear of the basement leading to the first floor, and said: “These steps are too short. The incline is seventeen feet. Apparently this isn’t the correct proportion.”

“What is the space between the wall of the elevator shaft and Frank’s office?”

“It’s five feet.”

“How wide is the elevator shaft?”

“About ten feet.”

“Well, isn’t the space on this diagram between the walls of the elevator shaft and Frank’s office almost as wide as the elevator shaft itself?”

“Yes.”

“Then the drawing is out of proportion, is it?”

“Yes.”

“Anybody coming down the steps between the second floor and the third floor of the building has a full view of the time clock?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Anybody coming down these stairs could see anybody in the metal room, couldn’t he?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see Frank as nervous as previously as on the morning of the murder?”

FRANK USUALLY NERVOUS.

“Yes, sir. One day he saw a little girl run down by a street car, and he was so nervous that he couldn’t work on his books.”

“Frank is of an extremely nervous temperament, isn’t he?”

“Hardly a day goes by that he does not become nervous.”

“Was everybody nervous around the pencil factory Sunday morning?”

“Yes.”

“Were you nervous?”

“Yes. I didn’t tremble though.”

“Mr. Darley, I want to call your attention to another mistake in this picture. Isn’t the bottom of the ladder leading from the first floor into the basement closer to the elevator than this diagram shows?”

“The distance between the bottom of the ladder and the elevator shaft is six feet.”

“Doesn’t it appear to be more in this drawing? Doesn’t it look as if it was as far as the width of the elevator shaft?”

“Almost as far.”

Atlanta Georgian
August 1^st, 1913

Lawyers Wrangle Over Frank’s Nervousness

DORSEY WINS POINT AS ROSSER BATTLES TO DEFEND ACCUSED

Jim Conley, accuser of Leo Frank, will take the stand Saturday morning, according to all indications Friday, to repeat the remarkable story he told concerning his part in the disposition of the body of Mary Phagan and undergo the merciless grilling of the defense.

Solicitor General Dorsey said that he expected to have his case completed by Saturday night and police, believing he will call the negro to-morrow, had him shaved and cleaned up and in readiness for his appearance.

Regardless of statements by defense and State, it is generally conceded that the Frank trial will reach its crux in Conley’s appearance, and that on his story and whether it stands up or not under the first of the defense, will rest the outcome of the trial.

Objections by Attorney Hooper, assistant to Solicitor Dorsey, to questions put to N. V. Darley by Attorney Arnold about the contents of the financial sheet made out by Leo Frank developed the fact that the defense would introduce evidence in rebuttal.

Defense to Introduce Evidence.

“We will introduce this sheet and plenty of other evidence,” said Mr. Arnold. “You need not worry about that.”

“That is just what I was after,” remarked Mr. Hooper, aside. “I wanted to find out whether the defense intended to introduce evidence.”

It had been rumored around the courthouse that the defense might rest its case at the completion of the submission of evidence by the State. Mr. Arnold’s statement is taken to mean that Leo Frank himself will be placed on the stand.

Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, declared Friday that the ruling of Judge Roan against the admissibility of the evidence that persons other than Frank were nervous and excited the Sunday morning after the crime might vitiate the entire trial.

He intimated strongly after Judge Roan refused to change his ruling that a new trial would be asked on a writ of error in the event of Frank’s conviction.

Arnold, in arguing for the admission of Darley’s testimony that other persons at the factory, as well as Frank, were nervous and distrait, got before the jury that it was hardly to be wondered at that Frank, aroused from his bed and told of a shocking crime at his factory, should be agitated, pale and nervous.

Calls Barrett Monomaniac.

Referring to the discoveries of R. P. Barrett, Arnold came out boldly and declared that it was his purpose to show Barrett a monomaniac who continually was turning up evidence, and who very likely was hunting for the rewards offered.

Darley testified that scores of pay envelopes like the one found by Mary Phagan’s machine were scattered about the factory every week, and that it was most common to find them in any part of the factory. He said that he looked over the time tape with Leo Frank Sunday morning and made the same error that Frank did, believing at the time that the punches had been made correctly. The tape was shown to the jury to prove how the mistake might have been made.

Judge Roan ruled out testimony as to the conduct and appearance of other persons than Frank at the factory Sunday morning.

The defense played one of its strong cards in behalf of Leo M. Frank when it secured from Darley, manufacturing head of the plant and State’s witness, evidence that the prisoner performed three hours of the most intricate mathematical work just after the time the prosecution claims Mary Phagan was slain.

This, the defense brought out, required an exceedingly clear mind.

Frank Nervous After Crime.

Darley also gave startling testimony as to Frank’s nervous and upset condition on the two days following the murder of Mary Phagan.

The statements of Darley came as a complete surprise. The nature of the testimony had been carefully guarded by the Solicitor.

Darley declared that he and Frank arrived at the factory at about the same time Sunday morning, April 27, and that at first noticed Frank’s nervousness when he saw the factory superintendent’s hand tremble violently when he grasped the elevator rope to run the elevator down into the basement.

“When we got down to the basement,” continued Darley, “and Frank started to nail up the back door, I saw that his hands were trembling and I took the hammer and nailed up the door myself, because I thought I could do it better than he could.”

Darley also told that when he rode with Frank to the police station Monday, Frank sat on his knee.

“I could perceive that his whole body was trembling and shaking,” said Darley. “I noticed it all of the way to the station house.”

Club Not Found in Clean-Up.

Solicitor Dorsey asked Darley about a general clean-up ordered by a general insurance inspector who visited the factory April 28. Darley replied that the factory had been cleaned on the first and second floors on or before May 3.

Dorsey then called for the bloody club that was said to have been found on the first floor May 15 near where Jim Conley was sitting. Dorsey threw it down with a clatter by the chair of the witness.

“Was any club of this sort turned up during the cleaning process?” shouted Dorsey.

“No,” the witness replied.

“And was not this a thorough cleaning?” the Solicitor asked.

“It was a general cleaning,” replied Darley.

Frank Explains Nervousness.

Darley said that Frank later explained his nervousness of Sunday by saying that he had not had any breakfast and that he had just looked upon the body of the dead girl at the morgue. The witness added that Frank did not appear completely upset Monday, as he was able to transact a number of business affairs.

Darley, in spite of his testimony, which will be interpreted by the State as incriminating against Frank, probably was as valuable a witness for the defense as he was for the prosecution. It was under the skillful questioning of Attorney Reuben Arnold, who had begun to take a more active part in the cross-examinations than he had at first, that Darley told of the intricate work that Frank did on the afternoon of April 26 after the time the State claims that Frank murdered the Phagan girl.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of one of the employees of the National Pencil Factory, who declared she saw a negro hiding behind some boxes on the first floor of the plant on the day Mary Phagan was killed, was the first witness called Friday.

The State with her testimony began […]

CONLEY, SWEEPER, LIKELY TO BE LAST WITNESS FOR STATE

Frank Startled When Woman Came Upon Him Suddenly in His Office

BARRING OF TESTIMONY ON NERVOUSNESS OF FACTORY EMPLOYEES HIT BY ROSSER

[…] to pave the way for the appearance of Conley, who, it is believed, would be the last witness to be called by Solicitor Dorsey, as he would be the most spectacular.

The first witness said her husband had been working at the National Pencil plant about two years.

Tells of Going to Factory.

Q. What is your husband’s name?—A. John Arthur White.

Q. Where does he work?—A. At the National Pencil Factory. He has worked there about two years.

Q. Where was he April 26?—A. At the pencil factory.

Q. Did you go to the pencil factory that day?—A. Yes; about 11 o’clock.

Q. Did you see Frank?—A. Yes; he was in his outside office.

Q. What did you say to him?—A. I told him I wanted to see Mr. White.

Q. What did he say?—A. He asked me if I was his wife. He said he thought so, as I looked like the Campbells.

Q. Did you see your husband?—A. Yes; he sent for him.

Q. Did you go upstairs at 11:30 a. m.?—A. No.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. About ten minutes to 12.

Says Frank Jumped.

Q. What time did you come back?—A. About 12:30.

Q. Whom did you see?—A. I saw Mr. Frank standing at the safe in his office.

Q. What happened then?—A. I asked him if I could see Mr. White. As I spoke to him he jumped.

Q. What did you do then?—A. I went upstairs to see Mr. White.

Q. Did you see anybody else in the office except Denham, White and Mr. Frank?—A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see anyone else as you came down?—A. I saw a negro.

Q. Where?—A. He was sitting on a box near the stairway that leads up to the second floor.

Q. Where did you see Frank the last time?—A. In his outside office.

Q. Where was your husband and Denham at work?—A. On the fourth floor.

Said She Had Better Go.

Q. What were they doing?—A. Working on a machine with a hammer.

Q. When did you first hear the hammer?—A. When I got on the fourth floor.

Q. Did you see Frank again before you left?—A. He came up on the fourth floor.

Q. Did anybody say anything about your going up to the fourth floor?—A. Yes; Frank told me to go up there.

Q. What time did Frank come to the fourth floor?—A. Some time before 1 o’clock.

Q. Where were you at 1 o’clock?—A. At McDonald’s furniture store.

Q. Why did you leave before 1 o’clock?—A. Mr. Frank said, “Arthur, if your wife wants to get out before 3 o’clock she had better leave now. I will go as soon as I get my hat and coat.”

Frank in Office as She Left.

Q. When you came down, did you see Mr. Frank?—A. Yes; when I went down he was sitting in his office.

Q. Did he have on his hat and coat as if he were going out?—A. No.

Q. What was he doing?—A. Writing.

Q. Could your husband and Denham see the stairway from upstairs where they were working?—A. No.

Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Mrs. White, you talked about this matter to Mr. Arnold and myself, didn’t you? You told us you left the factory about 1 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t mean to change your statement by saying it was ten minutes to 1 when you left, do you?—A. I can’t say exactly what time it was, but I know it was about 1 o’clock.

Q. You left there the first time about 11:30 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Q. Who were there?—A. Two men, Mr. Frank and a stenographer.

Q. Your father and your brother are old employees there, aren’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. By whom did he send word to your husband that you were there?—A. Miss Emma Freeman.

Q. How long was it before your husband came?—A. About five minutes.

Q. Who else was there?—A. Miss Hall, Miss Freeman, Mrs. May Barrett and her daughter.

Q. You came back to the factory about 12:30, didn’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. How accurate are you about that?—A. I looked at the clock.

Q. How close were you to Mr. Frank before you spoke?—A. I was in the office door just behind him.

Q. He jumped and you thought he was surprised?—A. Yes, that’s what I thought then.

Q. When he told your husband he was going to leave, he said you had better go pretty soon?—A. He said I had better go now.

Q. You did wait a few minutes?—A. Yes.

Q. Just where did you see the darky as you went out?—A. Between the stairway?—A. Five or six feet.

Q. What do you mean—between the foot of the stairway and the door?—A. Yes.

Q. How far from the foot of the stairway?—A. Five or six feet.

Mr. Rosser took a blueprint to explain the position in which she saw the negro.

Q. How long after this was it that you talked with Mr. Dorsey about seeing this negro? Wasn’t it four or five days?—A. No, sir; about two weeks.

Mrs. White left the stand. Arthur White, her husband, was called, but failed to answer his name. M. V. Darley, assistant superintendent at the National Pencil Factory, was called.

Darley on Stand.

Q. What is your business?—A. Assistant superintendent at the National Pencil Factory. I have charge of the manufacturing plant.

Q. Who is your superior?—A. I considered Sig Montag.

Q. You and Frank worked together, didn’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. Were you at the factory Saturday, April 26?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. About 9:40.

Q. When were you there again?—A. Sunday morning about 8:10 or 8:20.

Q. Why did you go there?—A. Mrs. Frank called me.

Rosser objected.

“I object to anything Mrs. Frank said. She can’t be used as a witness,” he said.

“Your honor, we have already shown that Frank told his wife to call this man,” said Solicitor Dorsey.

“If that’s all you want to show, I withdraw my objection,” said Rosser.

Q. What time did Frank call at the factory?—A. Shortly after I did.

Q. Did you notice anything unusual about Frank?—A. When he reached out his hand to start the elevator, it was trembling. And again when he went to nail up the back door, he was so nervous he couldn’t do it, and I did it for him.

Said Body Made Him Nervous.

Q. What, if anything, did Frank say?—A. I don’t remember. He said something about having on a new suit of clothes, or something.

Q. Did he say anything about not having breakfast?—A. He said he hadn’t had his breakfast and wanted a cup of coffee.

Q. Did he say anything about being nervous?—A. Yes; he said they took him by Bloomfield’s and into a dark room, where they turned on the light suddenly and he saw the girl. He said it made him nervous.

Q. Were you there when Newt Lee was?—A. Yes.

Q. Was Lee nervous?—A. No; he was composed.

Q. Did Frank say anything about the murder?—A. He was under the impression the murder occurred in the basement.

Q. Did he say anything about the lock and staple?—A. Yes; he said it looked like it was mighty easily pulled.

Staple Easily Pulled.

Q. Did you observe anything about the staple?—A. Yes; it looked as if it had been taken out easily.

Q. Did you see Frank again?—A. Yes, the following day.

Q. Did he say anything about his nervousness of the day before?—A. Yes; he said something, but I have forgotten.

“Your honor,” said Dorsey, “I would like to refresh the witness’ memory by reading his previous statement.”

“You can only show it to him,” answered Judge Roan.

Dorsey showed Darley the affidavit.

Q. Just tell everything you heard Frank say about the murder.—A. I don’t remember.

“Your honor, I would like to read this,” said Dorsey.

Forgets Vital Evidence.

Rosser and Arnold objected.

“He will have to make the usual showing that he was entrapped your honor,” said Arnold.

“He is trying ot [sic] bring in evidence from the outside,” said Rosser.

“You can’t read it, Mr. Dorsey,” said Judge Roan.

“My friend Dorsey would show anything, your honor,” said Rosser. “Nothing’s too good for him.”

Q. State to the jury how much of Frank’s body was nervous?—A. That is a pretty hard question.

“Look at this,” said Dorsey, showing him an affidavit.

“I said there he was shaking all over,” said the witness.

Rosser objected.

Judge Roan asked the witness if he was making that statement now.

Darley’s Replies Guarded.

“Judge, that’s a very hard question for me,” answered Darley. “He reached up to get the ropes, and his hands were shaking very much.”

Darley appeared very reluctant to answer any question that might incriminate Frank.

Q. Who nailed up the back door of the basement?—A. I did.

Q. Was Frank able to do it?—A. He was able to do it, I think, but he was nervous.

Q. How did Frank’s face appear on the second floor?—A. It was very pale.

Q. Was he upset when you got to the factory?

Rosser objected, but was overruled.

A. I can’t say he was completely upset.

“Now, look here,” said Dorsey, walking toward the witness with his affidavit.

“Your honor,” interrupted Rosser, “he can’t speak to the witness in that nasal tone. It is his witness. He can’t cross-question him.”

“That’s right,” ruled the judge.

“But,” said Mr. Rosser, “your Honor has not been enforcing that ruling.”

“I am going to enforce it,” replied Judge Roan.

“That’s [several words illegible] you to do now,” returned Mr. Rosser.

Mr. Dorsey put his question again.

A. He was somewhat upset, but did some things around the factory that he could not have done if he had been completely upset.

State Wins Clash.

Q. Was he done up?

“I object,” broke in Mr. Arnold. “He may mean that he was dead by ‘done up’.”

“Leave it to the jury to decide what is meant by ‘done up’.” said Dorsey.

“It isn’t for you to decide what is to go before the jury,” retorted Rosser. “That is for the judge.”

Judge Roan ruled the question was admissible.

A. He was partially done up but not completely.

Q. Why do you say that?—A. He did some things he could not have done if he had been wholly done up.”

Q. Who was with yo on the way to the police station?—A. I got in an automobile. I afterward learned that it was run by “Boots” Rogers. Mr. Frank sat on my knee.

Q. What was his condition?—A. He was trembling all over.

Q. To what extent?—A. He was sitting on my knee and I could feel his body shaking.

Q. What was the condition of Newt Lee?

“I object,” said Rosser. “I have been objecting to this line of testimony all along. If your Honor permits this question to be asked, I want to be recorded as protesting.”

“Do you insist on the question?” asked Judge Roan of Solicitor Dorsey.

Dorsey and Hooper conferred.

“I am willing to strike out all reference, to Newt Lee’s condition,” said Dorsey.

Attorneys Exchange Courtesies.

“I am glad it has finally dawned on my brothers that these questions are illegal,” said Rosser. “I have been trying to get them to see and I am glad to say the light finally has dawned upon them.”

“Your Honor,” interrupted Hooper, “I object to Mr. Rosser’s statement, about how long it takes anything to soak into my head. A reference to Newt Lee’s attitude was made the other day. We see the object of these objections is to lead into a large field of investigation. We want to strike it all out.”

Dorsey continued questioning the witness.

Q. Did you attend to any business Monday?—A. There wasn’t much work to do.

Q. Did you see the financial sheet Monday?—A. Yes.

Q. Did Frank say anything about the financial sheet Monday?—A. Yes, Mr. Frank called my attention to it.

Q. What did he say, and at what time?—A. I don’t recall the conversation, but it was about 9 o’clock.

Q. Did Gantt ever come to the factory after he was discharged?—A. Yes.

Ordered Factory Clean.

Q. Did Frank say anything about it?—A. I don’t recall.

Q. Did Mr. Haas, the insurance man, come to the factory Monday or Tuesday?—A. He did.

Q. What did he do?—A. He ordered us to clean up the factory in a general way.

Q. What time did you clean up the main floor?—A. May 3.

Q. Did you know anything about the finding of this club? (The witness was handed a heavy stick.)—A. No.

Q. Do you know whether it was found before or after the cleaning up?—A. Afterward—about May 15.

Arnold here took up the cross-examination.

Q. Did you see any spots on the floor?—A. Yes, in the dressing room.

Q. Who showed them to you?—A. Quinn.

Calls Barrett a “Columbus.”

Q. Where was the hair found?—A. On the handle of the lathe.

Q. How was it?—A. Wound around the lathe.

Q. Did Mr. Barrett find it?—A. Yes.

Q. How many strands of hair were there?—A. Not over six.

Q. Barrett has been doing most of the discovering around there, hasn’t he?

“I object,” said Dorsey. “The question is immaterial.”
“I want to show that this man Barrett was a monomaniac,” said Arnold.

Judge Roan ruled: “You can show that this man was more than ordinarily interested.”

Q. Do you recall Barrett stating he was working for a reward?—A. I don’t recall.

Dorsey: “I object.”

Judge Roan ruled: “I have ruled that he can show that to prove interest.”

“I want to show that his man was a regular Christopher Columbus.”

Q. Do you know who Barrett made this statement to?—A. No.

Q. Is this a pay envelope?—A. Yes.

Pay Envelopes Common.

Q. Are they thrown all over the factory?—A. Yes. We have a rule that if there is any mistake in the pay roll it had to be reported before the employee left.

Q. They are very common in the metal room?—Yes.

Q. Were you present Sunday morning when Frank took out the time slip?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see him run his finger down the time slip?—A. Yes. He ran his finger down the number side. I was looking over his shoulder.

Q. Is there a row of figures down the number side?—A. Yes.

Q. Did Frank say anything?—A. Yes. He said they were all punched and I verified it.

Q. How did you do it?—A. Just lo[o]king at the numbers. We would have noticed a skip in the time.

Juror Asks Question.

Attorney Arnold addressed the court:

“Your honor, a juror wants to ask a question, but Mr. Hooper objects.”

“I don’t object to his asking the question, but I do object to Mr. Arnold giving the answer,” said Mr. Hooper.

Juror Marcellus Johemming asked Darley to explain the time clock system, which Darley did.

Arnold took up the financial sheet.

Q. What did Frank say about the financial sheet?

“I object,” said Hooper. “He can ask him about the sheet, provided it is later put in evidence.”

“We will put it in all right,” said Arnold, “and plenty of other evidence. You need not worry about that.”

Q. When was the financial sheet made up?—A. Saturday afternoon.

Q. You were interested?—A. Yes, it was my duty to see it. It dealt with the cost of production.

Q. What time was it made up—that is, what day of the week did it show last?—A. Thursday.

Financial Sheet Introduced.

Q. Who makes it up now?—A. One has not been made out since Mr. Frank left?

Q. How long did it usually take him to make it out?—A. Always from about 2:30 or 3 until 5 o’clock.

Q. Look at this and tell me if this is the sheet you found on his desk Sunday morning?—A. Yes.

Q. How does it compare with his regular handwriting?

Dorsey objected.

“I object, your honor,” he said. “The writing is the best evidence.”

Q. I want to ask you are you familiar with Mr. Frank’s writing?—A. Yes, I have been seeing it about five years.

Q. Now, I want to ask you one question, but don’t answer until we get a ruling. Does this compare favorably with all of Mr. Frank’s writing?

Dorsey objected.

Ruling on Handwriting Reserved.

“The code says, your Honor, that we are entitled to the very best evidence,” the Solicitor said. “This section holds that in any question of handwriting that an expert must testify, and the papers or specimen of handwriting on the day in question and on other days should be introduced. The jury might not agree with the witness that the sheet in question and other sheets […]

COST SHEET TESTIMONY OF STATE AIDS DEFENSE OF ACCUSED

Exceptionally Clear Brain Required on Such Figures, Rosser Shows

DORSEY SHAPES HIS CASE FOR CONLEY

Builds Up Preliminary to Introduction of Sweeper as Climax of Prosecution.

[..] are similar. They can be produced, and they should be.”

“I will withhold my ruling until I look up some authorities,” replied Judge Roan.

“I will ask the witness something else,” said Arnold.

Q. What process did Frank have to go into to get at these results?—A. He had to get reports from every department, figure averages, costs, sales, profits, expense.

Figures Required Clear Head.

Q. It took a man with a good clear head to figure it?—A. Yes.

Q. What calculation was necessary to arrive at the net result?—A. The amount of rubber tips, labels, and every other little detail must be calculated.

Q. It required a large amount of calculation?—A. Yes.

Q. Sunday, were you in the factory with Frank and Detective Starnes?—A. Yes.

Q. There were forty or fifty people in the factory Sunday, were there not?—A. No, not over six or eight.

Q. Did you go into the cellar?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you get to the factory?—A. 8:20.

Q. There was a great deal of excitement there?

Dorsey objected. “I think your Honor has already ruled on this question,” said he.

Calls Nervousness Natural.

Arnold interrupted.

“Your honor, it is eminently unfair,” he said. “I want to show that this young man was whisked from his home before he had his coffee, and it was nothing unusual if he was excited. Why, I lived at a boarding house with some old bachelors, and they wouldn’t even talk before breakfast. When Newt Lee first saw this girl in the basement he ran like a turkey. That was one way of showing his excitement. Some men are naturally nervous; some show nervousness in reading a paper or making a speech; some men go into battle without even flinching.”

Judge Roan ruled: “I think you can show the occasion.”

Rosser interrupted. “Let me give you a little illustration, your honor,” he said. “I was on the streets during the time of the Atlanta riots. Crowds were everywhere and everyone was excited.”

Dorsey then spoke: “Only a few minutes ago, your honor, you ruled out, or we considered that you ruled out, the question of Newt Lee being nervous or composed. The only question before this jury is: Was Leo M. Frank nervous?”

Dorsey Wins Ruling.

“You can’t show that anyone else was nervous,” said Judge Roan.

Rosser: “If you have ruled that way, it will vitiate this trial. This jury will never know that that crowd was nervous and excited. It will never know that Starnes, sleuth that he is, trembled and was excited when he saw that lifeless corpse. That Pat Campbell, son of the Emerald Isle, started back against when he touched that icy chest. And if there is one mistake at this time it will vitiate this trial.”

“If there is any doubt on your honor’s mind, I want to refer you to the 81 and 85 Georgia,” said Dorsey. “This proposition is simply a dragnet to go out and bring in everyone when Leo Frank is the only one we are concerned with here.”

The objection was sustained.

Attorney Arnold declared that he only wanted those around Frank in the factory described. Dorsey objected, and the objection was sustained.

Attorney Arnold then asked that the objection of the defense be recorded.

Blood Spots Common.

Q. How long have you been working at the factory where there were women…Mr. Darley?—A. 24 years.

Q. Isn’t it a common thing to find bloodspots around the women’s dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see any blood spots around the dressing room in this factory?—A. (Darley hesitated). Yes, sir, I have.

Q. What color was the suit Mr. Frank had on Saturday?—A. Brown.

Q. What color suit did he wear on Sunday?—A. Blue.

Q. What color on Monday?—A. The same one he wore on Saturday.

Q. Did you see any splotches on it?—A. No.

Q. Did you see any scratches on Frank’s face or hands when he came to the factory Sunday?—A. No, I did not.

Q. What time did Frank leave the factory Saturday morning?—A. About 9:40 o’clock. He started toward Montag’s.

Q. You never saw him any more until Sunday?—A. No.

Elevator Found Unlocked.

Q. In what condition did you find the elevator Sunday?—A. The lock was in place but it was unlocked.

Q. Could anybody else have gone in and run it?—A. Anybody who knows how.

Q. That elevator and motor made a good deal of noise when in operation, didn’t it?—A. The saw made more noise than the motor and the elevator. When the elevator was running, the saw also was running.

Q. These cords that have been referred to; they were scattered all over the building, were they not?—A. Yes, sir. Scattered all around.

Q. Mr. Dorsey asked you something about this building being cleaned?—A. Yes, after the girl was killed.

Q. It was very dirty on the floor of the metal room, wasn’t it, the dirt being about an inch thick?—A. I don’t know whether it would average that thick or not, but it was very dirty.

Q. The building also was very dark, especially on dark days, wasn’t it?—A. Yes.

Q. What sort of a day was it on which the little girl was killed?—A. Drizzling rain.

Q. Is anybody supposed to be in the factory on Sunday?—A. No, sir. It is supposed to locked up on Sunday.

Q. The rope on the elevator has some slack in it, hasn’t it?—A. A little.

Q. Did Frank catch it with both hands, or with one hand?—A. With both hands.

Q. Frank only weighs about 125 or 130 pounds, doesn’t he? He is what you would call a little fellow isn’t he?—A. Yes.

Q. Is he fatter now than he was then?—A. He is about the same.

Q. How did you happen to go to Mr. Dorsey’s office?—A. He ‘phoned for me.

Q. He served a subpena on you, didn’t he?

Dorsey objected, but Judge Roan overruled the objection.

A. He served two subpenas on me and phoned me once.

Frank Nervous Every Day.

Q. Didn’t you know those subpenas were not worth the paper they were written on?—A. I didn’t then. I have heard so since.

Q. Who was at Dorsey’s office?—A. Dorsey, Chief Lanford, Detectives Starnes and Campbell and a stenographer.

Q. They asked you questions, except the stenographer?—A. Yes, sometimes. One would interrupt before I could answer the question of the other.

Q. They asked you whether Mr. Frank was a nervous man, didn’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. Wasn’t he a hard working man who easily got nervous when things went wrong?—A. Yes, sir. If your honor will allow me, I will say that there never was a day passed that Mr. Frank didn’t get nervous over something. I have seen him run his hands through his hair in an agitated way a thousand times.

Q. Mr. Frank didn’t know many of the help, did he?

“I object,” said Dorsey. Arnold withdrew the question.

“Did he know Mary Phagan?”

“I object to that,” continued Dorsey still on his feet.

Objection was overruled.

A. Not to my knowledge, he didn’t.

Q. Did you know her?—A. If I had seen her on the street I would have known she was a factory girl; but I didn’t know her name.

Q. I believe you said all sorts of papers get down into that boiler room, don’t they?—A. Yes.

“Give me those notes and that pay envelope,” said Arnold.

Q. It was nothing unusual to find papers like these in the basement, was it?—A. I have seen such papers there.

Q. Any man who had the run of the factory, would have no trouble in getting hold of them, would he?—A. No.

Q. Was the watchman accustomed to locking the clock door?—A. Yes, but at that time the key was lost.

Q. Frank didn’t unlock it Sunday morning, did he?—A. He couldn’t have. The key was gone.

Q. You say you and Frank both made the mistake of thinking all the punches had been made?—A. Yes.

At this point, which was 12:15, the court adjourned until 2 o’clock.

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

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

TELLS HOW JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL AND ESCAPED DETECTION

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

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

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

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

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

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

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

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

Frank’s Answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls Gantt A Liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proof I Am Innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character Witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

Atlanta Georgian

Friday, June 6th, 1913

St. Louis, June 6.—That a negro, who is alleged to have said he witnessed the murder of Mary Phagan in Atlanta, is under arrest in Cairo, Ill., and is about to be returned to Atlanta by a Pinkerton detective, was the information brought into St. Louis today by a passenger who declared he overheard a conversation betwene [sic] the detective and an attorney in the case who were on the train en route to Cairo.

According to the passenger, the negro has admitted that he was in Atlanta with a show at the time of the murder, and was shooting craps in the basement of the National Pencil Factory with a negro watchman when the watchman told him that he would attack the Phagan girl, which was done in his presence.

Inquiry at Cairo failed to-day to verify the report of the arrest of the negro.

Strenuous denials of any knowledge of the mysterious affidavit reported to have been made by Jim Conley, in which he was said to have confessed to A. S. Colyar that he murdered Mary Phagan, was made to Chief of Detectives Lanford Friday by both men.

Conley, on the grill, declared that he had never heard of Colyar until he read his name in the newspapers in connection with the pictograph controversy. The negro said he had never either talked with him or seen him, and that he had at no time made an affidavit other than the ones given to the police.

Colyar made a similar denial. Following the examination, Lanford declared that the whole report was wholly without foundation. He also stated that Conley had reiterated the truth of his former affidavit and that there was nothing further to add to it.

“I attribute this report to Colonel Felder’s work,” said the chief. “It merely shows again that Felder is in league with the defense of Frank; that the attorney is trying to muddy the waters of this investigation to shield Frank and throw the blame on another.

Charges Felder Plot.

“This first became noticeable when Felder endeavored to secure the release of Conley. His ulterior motive, I am sure, was the protection of Frank. He had been informed that the negro had this damaging evidence against Frank, and Felder did all in his power to secure the negro’s release. He declared that it was a shame that the police should hold Conley, an innocent negro.

“He protested strenuously against it. Yet not one time did Felder attempt to secure the release of Newt Lee or Gordon Bailey on the same grounds, even though both of these negroes had been held longer than Conley. This to me is significant of Felder’s ulterior motive in getting Conley away from the police.”

Peculiar Features.

A feature of Conley’s affidavits and stories which has struck many who have read them over is the apparent care which has been taken in framing the declarations so that Conley can not be held as an accessory to the murder itself, and so that the indictment can hold which charges Leo Frank of killing Mary Phagan by strangulation.

In the sensational affidavit in which Conley swore that he helped Frank dispose of the body, there was no mention of the cord with which the strangulation was supposed to have been accomplished. It was only said that Frank had told Conley that a girl had hit her head against something back there. This left nothing in the negro’s story to indicate that the killing had been other than accidental. The indictment charging strangulation would have had no support in the negro’s story.

An Omission Supplied.

But the day that the negro went through the factory with the detectives and re-enacted the tragedy, this omission was supplied. Conley was standing at the point where he said he had found the body and was describing the manner in which it lay. He was about to continue by telling of placing it on his shoulder when he was interrupted by one of the officers.

“Didn’t you find any cord there?” the officer asked.

Conley hesitated and then answered that he had, and said that the cord was right by the girl’s body, but that he did not know that it had been used to strangle her.

Conley’s story also avoided implicating him as an accessory to the murder by declaring that Frank had said that the girl had struck her head accidentally. This relieved Conley from any guilty knowledge of the girl’s death. Had Conley framed his story so as to have Frank admitting murdering the girl, Conley would have been an accessory to the crime and would have been liable to the death penalty.

Mystery in Notes.

Another weird feature is contained in one of Conley’s stories of the note writing. He said that he wrote one of the notes and that Frank wrote another. Yet the two notes are admittedly in identically the same handwriting.

After this is explained, those interested in the case will ask how Frank could have been satisfied with these incoherent notes, in the first place. It will be represented that if the notes actually had been dictated, as the negro says they were, there would have been some intelligibility and evident sequence to the notes. Instead, they say, the notes are exactly like the ramblings of a drunken and ignorant person.

Darley’s Contradiction.

No explanation ever has been given of the wide discrepancies in the time of different events on the day of the tragedy, as narrated by the negro and a[r]e described by others who were actual participants in the events. One of the most glaring is that of the conversation which Conley says he overheard between Foreman Darley and Miss Mattie Smith. Conley has declared that he heard this between 11 and 12 o’clock. Darley insists that he left the factory with Miss Smith at 9:30 in the morning. At this time Conley says he was not in the factory, but that he came later at the invitation of Frank.

Conley may not be able to explain these breaks in his story at this time, but he surely will be asked to explain them satisfactorily when he is called as a witness in the trial of Frank.

The McKnight Incident.

Chief of Detectives Lanford said Friday that his department would take no further action in reference to Minola McKnight, the colored cook at the Frank residence, who is said by the detectives to have made an affidavit incriminating Frank, but who denied it shortly after to The Georgian.

Chief Lanford said that if the woman was to be rearrested it would have to be at the instigation of Solicitor Dorsey. With an investigation of the “leaks” in the department taking place before the Grand Jury, the detectives are saying little to-day about the Phagan case, but it was plain that they were disappointed that the McKnight affidavit, which had been heralded as a document of the most vital importance, had fallen first so far as actual value as evidence was concerned.

The affidavit, in the first place, was only hearsay evidence and would not have been received in any court. To top this, the woman only a few hours after she is said to have made the affidavit made a most emphatic and complete denial. She said that she had said nothing and that she knew nothing damaging to Frank.

“I am not surprised at the turn of this feature of the case,” is the only comment that Chief Lanford would make upon her repudiation.

Censorship Ordered.

Announcement was made by Chief of Detectives Lanford Friday that he had issued orders forbidding the giving out of any information to the newspapers except by the heads of the departments.

The chief said that the order had been given prior to any investigation by the Grand Jury into department “leaks” and was, therefore, not the result of the probe. It, however, was not posted until Thursday night.

The new order makes any member of the detective force liable to immediate suspension if he gives out information without the authority of the head of the department.

Conforming to the new order, Detectives Starnes and Campbell refused to intimate the nature of the information they gleaned from Jim Conley’s wife after they had questioned her at length in the office of Solicitor Dorsey. They would not even divulge the reason for questioning her again.

Frank’s Cook Missing.

The report that Minola McKnight, reputed author of the sensational affidavit against Leo M. Frank, had disappeared from her home added another mystery to the Phagan murder investigation Friday.

She was not at the Selig residence, 68 East Georgia Avenue, where she had been employed as cook and where she returned immediately after she was released from the police station. It was said she could not be found at her home in the rear of 351 Pulliam Street and the detectives denied they had her in custody again.

Her whereabouts was a complete mystery, although the search that was being made was expected to locate her within a short time. It was not believed that she had left town, but rather that she was in hiding at the home of one of her acquaintances of relatives to avoid further questioning by the police and newspaper reporters.

Gordon Represents Whom?

George Gordon, whose name has been mentioned frequently as the attorney of the McKnight woman, was asked Friday to define his connection with the Phagan case. This he declined to do. He was asked whether his services had been engaged personally by the McKnight woman or by other parties. He refused to answer.

“What does the woman say?” he inquired.

“She says that she doesn’t even know you,” he was told. He would make no comment on this information, citing instead the example of a certain wise old owl that found that the less he said the more he heard. Then he proceeded faithfully to emulate the example of the owl by returning to his typewriter.

Say Woman Is Lying.

That Minola McKnight was lying when she asserted that she never had signed an affidavit in regard to conversations she had heard between Mrs. Leo Frank and her mother was the statement Friday of Ernest Pickett and Roy Cravens, the two employees at the Beck & Gregg hardware store whose information led to the arrest of the McKnight woman.

They did not wish to talk at length on the matter, but desired to make this particular statement in reference to the affidavit, as they said that they had been present during the time the affidavit was being prepared and when the McKnight woman signed it.

They said that considerable persuasion was necessary before the woman finally consented to talk, but that after she began she told her story with little hesitation.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 6th 1913, “Report Negro Found Who Saw Phagan Attack,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Atlanta Journal

Thursday, May 29^th, 1913

They Declare That They Are Anxious to Get at the Truth of the Murder Case, Regardless of Who Is Guilty

Little if any credence is placed by the city detectives in the theory of the officials and employes of the National Pencil factory that Mary Phagan was killed by James Conley, the newro [sic] sweeper, and that his motive was robbery.

The detectives have accepted as true Conley’s second affidavit, in which he swears that he wrote the notes found by Mary Phagan’s body, and that he did so about 1 o’clock on the day of the murder, at the dictation of Superintendent Leo M. [F]rank, who is now under indictment by the grand jury.

However, they are somewhat puzzled by the discrepancies in the time of certain occurrences as sworn by Conley and testified at the coroner’s inquest by other witnesses.

Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective who is working with the city detectives on the Phagan murder case and who developed the fact that Conley could write, notwithstanding his denials, declared that the shortest route to a complete solution of the mystery is to bring the negro Conley and Superintendent Frank face to face. He says the negro insists that he is anxious and willing to confront Mr. Frank with his story, and that if Mr. Frank and his attorneys agree, they (Conley and Mr. [F]rank) will be brought together to discuss the truth or falsity of the negro’s declarations.

Thursday afternoon the detectives will put Conley through another vigorous interrogation, and it is said will question him as if they are convinced that he committed the murder. Failing to bring out any further incriminating admissions from him, they will, it is said, dwell upon what appear to be the weak points in his second affidavit.

SURE HE WROTE NOTES.

The detectives are satisfied that Conley wrote the notes, which he admits writing. They consider the handwriting of these notes identical with specimens written by Conley, Wednesday, photographs of which were reproduced by The Journal Wednesday afternoon.

No doubt is entertained by the detectives concerning Conley’s admission that he was hiding in the pencil factory on the morning of the murder, for they claim to have corroborated thoroughly from other witnesses certain incidents which occurred at the factory that morning, as detailed by Conley. The negro must have been there in order to observe these incidents, the detectives assert.

That portion of Conley’s latest statement which the detectives so far have been unable to corroborate, and in which the negro’s declarations directly conflict with the testimony of inquest witnesses concerns his alleged visit to Superintendent Frank’s office on the day of the murder.

OBSERVED TIME—12:56.

Conley swears that, after remaining in hiding on the first floor just back of the stairs for nearly two hours, he was summoned upstairs to the office by Mr. Frank, who whistled for him to come up; that, as he passed the clock on the way to the office with Mr. Frank, who had him by the arm, he noticed it was exactly four minutes to 1 o’clock; that no one was in either the outer or inner office at the time; that almost immediately after he and Mr. Frank had arrived in the office and the latter had closed the doors leading into both offices, footsteps were heard, and Mr. Frank bundled him into a wardrobe in the inner office and went out and conferred with two ladies who, Mr. Frank told him, were Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Freeman, employes that he overheard the conversation between Mr. Frank and these ladies, and that Mrs. Freeman said she had come for her coat, which she had left in the dressing room upstairs.

THEN HE WROTE NOTES.

Conley swore that when these ladies left the office, which was within a minute or two after they arrived. Mr. Frank followed them out and was gone for about a minute, after which he returned and closing the doors of the offices left him (Conley) out of the wardrobe and dictated the two notes to him, saying he wanted a sample of his handwriting; that Mr. Frank was very much excited at the time; that he kept running his hands through his hair and remarking in an undertone, suppose[d]ly to himself: “Why should I hang when I have got rich relatives,” that after the notes were written Mr. Frank pulled out a cigarette box and handed it to him; that when he opened the box he found it contained $2.50; that he called Mr. Frank’s attention to this and the latter told him to keep it, saying: “You are a good boy; I am going to send these notes to my mother in Brooklyn, N. Y., who is rich and who will probably send you something.”

According to Conley’s second affidavit, he then was escorted to the stairs by Mr. Frank; he walked on down and out the front door and to a nearby saloon where he drank some beer, it being about 1:30 o’clock when he reached the saloon.

Mr. Frank in his statement to the coroner’s jury, testified that he left the factory to go to lunch about 1 o’clock, after having warned Arthur White, Henry Denham, machinists at work on the third floor, and Mrs. White, who was up there with them at the time, that he was going and intended to lock the front door, and if any of them desired to leave they had better do so. Mr. Frank and Mrs. White came down and went away.

In her testimony at the inquest Miss Corinthia Hall, one of the young ladies the negro Conley swears came into the office while he was in hiding in the wardrobe, stated that she and Mrs. Freeman left the factory about 11:45 on the day of the murder; that they were there but a few moments; that when they arrived Mr. Frank was standing in the office door and that a stenographer and Mrs. White were inside the office; that when she and Mrs. Freeman went upstairs to get the latter’s cloak Mr. Frank called to her to tell Mr. White that his wife was downstairs awaiting him; that she delivered the message and Mr. White came downstairs to see his wife; that up on the third floor she found Mrs. Mae Barrett and Messrs. White and Denham.

Conley swears in his second affidavit, that Mrs. Barrett came downstairs before he was called up to the office; that she wore a certain kind of dress and that she stopped just inside the street entrance to remove some money from a pay envelope which she transferred to her handbag.

SEEK CORROBORATION.

Thursday morning the detectives planned to obtain affidavits from Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman concerning the conversation which they held with Mr. Frank in his office on the day of the murder. This was done with a view to corroborating, if possible, what the negro Conley says he overheard.

The detectives took the position that if these ladies corroborated Conley’s account of what transpired then that there could be no doubt that he was hidden in the office as he claims to have been. Such corroboration they hol[d] would establish the truth of Conley’s statement.

After reviewing the evidence given by Miss Hall at the inquest the detectives Thursday afternoon admitted they were somewhat puzzled concerning the discrepancies in time as stated by Conley and Miss Hall. They offer no explanation of the further discrepancy in the statements of the two as regards the presence in the office of Mrs. White and the stenographer during the visit there of Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman.

Discussing the case Thursday morning Detective Chief Lanford declared that he was investigating every possible theory and every phase of the evidence presented. He said he was not shutting his eyes to any fact, but was earnestly endeavoring to establish the truth or falsity of every conclusion reached.

“I am not trying to make a murderer,” he said. “I am doing my best to clear up a murder mystery and to establish beyond the question of doubt the guilt of the person who committed the murder.”

Police Chief Beavers also declared that the investigation was not being conducted with a view to fixing responsibility on some particular individual. “What we desire to do is convict the real murderer, be he white or block [sic],” said the chief.

Notwithstanding the apparent discrepancies in the negro Conley’s affidavit as compared to the testimony of the inquest witnesses the detectives are not included to change their theory. They will, it is said, during Thursday afternoon put Conley through another interrogation with a view to clearing up the weak poitns [sic] in his statement, and while doing so the detectives will, it is said, make another effort to ascertain if Conley knows more about the murder than he has heretofore admitted.

THEORY OF FACTORY EMPLOYES.

At variance with the theory of the detectives is the theory of practically all of the employes of the National Pencil factory, who have always maintained that Superintendent Leo M. Frank is innocent.

The factory employes charge the crime now to the negro Conley.

THEORY OF CRIME.

To a Journal reporter three officials of the place, Assistant Superintendent Herbert G. Schiff, E. F. Holloway, timekeeper, and N. V. Darley, general foreman, outlined their very plausible theory of the crime.

“The fact that Conley was in the building for several hours on the fatal Saturday, must be granted,” said Mr. Schiff. “He told how Mr. Holloway came down the steps and went to the front of the building during the morning to talk with a peg-legged negro employed by a certain glass company. Mr. Holloway, who did not see Conley, but who says that he might easily have missed him in the darkness of the first floor, corroborates the statement that he talked to the peg-legged negro.

“Conley told just how Miss Mattie Smith came up to the office and now she came down, talking to Mr. Darley about her sick father and the mistake in her pay envelope, and how he told her that he would fix it up all right next week.

“All of this corroborated by both Mr. Darley and Miss Smith. Conley has described the dress of Miss Smith and she says the description is correct.

“Now, the theory of the crime we entertain is simply this: Conley came in, following Miss Smith, and expected to rob her as she came down with her money.

“When Mr. Darley happened to come with her, Conley gave up his attempt, but continued to wait there in the darkness.

“Later, he saw little Mary Phagan come in and waited until she came down.

“Then he grabbed her and tried to get her purse. A scuffle by the elevator ensued and the negro knocked the girl down the elevator shaft.

“He quickly followed her, going down by the trap door. He found her cut and bruised and unconscious. Then he tied the cord around her neck and choked her to death. He wrote the notes himself, and then he pulled the staple off the rear basement door and left the place.

“Now, the double doors at the head of the second floor were locked, and Mr. Frank could have easily remained in his office without hearing screams or noise of a scuffle.

UNREASONABLE, HE SAYS.

“It is unreasonable to suppose that an intelligent white man would have called in the negro and dictated those notes to him. Mr. Frank has been in the south a few years and does not know enough about negroes to dictate notes characteristic of the race.

“In addition, why would any intelligent white man try to write two notes to throw pursuers off the track when one would do just as well?

“Further, the negro says in his statement to the detectives that Mr. Frank said, ‘Oh, why should I hang; why should I hang?’

“Would any man of Mr. Frank’s intelligence and education, even under stress of excitement, make such a statement to a negro?”

Mr. Schiff points out that Mary Phagan’s purse and her pay envelope have never been found, and declares that this fact adds to the plausibleness of the robbery motive.

DIDN’T SEE MARY PHAGAN.

Another “disturbing statement” in the Phagan case has been eliminated by Detectives Starnes and Campbell.

Some time ago Mrs. A. A. Smith, of 198 West Peachtree street, wrote to the newspapers and the police that on the Monday following the crime she heard three women talking on the street of the tragedy, and that one of them remarked that she saw Mary Phagan at 4 o’clock on the afternoon of the tragedy.

The lady who, Mrs. Smith says, was doing the talking, has been located. She is the mother of G. W. Epps, the little boy who came to town with Mary Phagan on the day of the tragedy.

Mrs. Epps dressed in the same clothes she was wearing when Mrs. Smith saw her on the streets, and both are satisfied that it was Mrs. Epps conversation which Mrs. Smith overheard. Mrs. Epps says, however, that Mrs. Smith misunderstood her and that she did not see Mary Phagan on the afternoon of the tragedy.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 29th 1913, “Detectives Seek Corroboration of Conley’s Story,” 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

Friday, May 30^th, 1913

Helped Frank Dispose of Mary Phagan’s Body Conley Now Confesses

Negro Sweeper Who Swore to Detectives That He Wrote Murder Notes Found Near Dead Girl’s Body Now Admits His Complicity in Case, According to Statements Which Have Stirred Police Headquarters as Nothing Since Murder.

LANFORD AND BEAVERS PLEASED OVER RESULT OF GRILLING NEGRO, THEY ANNOUNCE TO REPORTERS.

Police and Detective Heads Refuse to Go Into Details of Negro’s Statement Or to Discuss What He Said, But Declare That It Will Prove a Big Factor in the Murder Case—Negro Will Be Subjected to Another Third Degree Today.

Dumbfounding his hearers with the confession that he had helped Leo M. Frank lower the lifeless body of Mary Phagan into the darkness of the pencil factory basement, James Conley, the negro sweeper, is authoritatively said to have made that astounding admission during a strenuous third degree at police headquarters late Thursday afternoon.

He is said to have minutely described the movements of himself and Frank as they packed the mutilated form from the office floor of the building down into the dark cellar, where it was left in the desolate recess in which it was discovered the following morning.

Saying he had found the girl stone dead when he entered the building at 1:15 o’clock with the suspected superintendent, he is declared to have admitted that he and Frank proceeded immediately to remove the corpse, silently and with utmost precaution, to its hiding place in the basement.

Conley Asked No Questions.

Through fear he states he did not ask his employer how the little girl met her death. He is said to have told the police that he asked no questions, carried out Frank’s instructions to the letter, and departed directly after he emerged from the grewsome trip into the basement.

The girl’s body was found, crumpled in a heap, gashed and distorted, secreted on the second floor, he is said to have confessed during the examination, when he arrived with Frank in the building. Frank said but few words, the negro is averred to have told, but helped to carry the corpse to its place of discovery beneath the factory.

As a result of the negro’s confession, police headquarters is stirred as never since the murder. Both Chief Lanford and Chief Beavers declared to reporters that they were pleased even beyond expectation over the result of the Conley cross-examination. It was the most exacting of his entire imprisonment.

Although the source of The Constitution’s information is substantial and authoritative, police officials refuse to discuss the negro’s admission in detail. The police and detective chiefs will not commit themselves, and they neither deny nor affirm the information obtained by a Constitution reporter. The admission is said to have been made between 4:30 and 5 o’clock in the afternoon to Lanford, Beavers, Harry Scott, Secretary Febuary and Detective Pat Campbell.

Will Frank See the Negro?

A strong effort will be made today to confront the accused factory superintendent with Conley and his confession. Detectives who pin faith to the negro’s story and believe Frank guilty, speculate upon the prisoner’s unwillingness to face the sweeper. If he is not guilty, they say, he likely would not object to facing the negro. They say that it is damaging to his plea of innocence to refuse the negro an audience.

For four hours Thursday afternoon, Conley was subjected to the third degree. Newspaper reporters who usually hovered in convenient vicinity of the door leading to Chief Lanford’s office, in which the examination was held, were “shooed” away and ordered to remain a good distance from the place.

The interrogation proceeded quietly, unlike the customary police third degree, in which loudness, abrupt orders and threats play prominent parts. Onlye a few hushed sounds sifted through the lattice work above the door. The entire third floor, where the detective department is situated, was redolent with the atmosphere of mystery.

Everybody seemed to feel the importance of the examination under way behind the locked doors of the chief’s office. Everybody tingled with expectation. It was in the very air, and even though it came with the suddenness of a lightning stroke, the rumor of Conley’s confession did not carry with it the surprise it ordinarily would have carried.

Officials Are Greatly Pleased.

The examination over, the police chiefs, Harry Scott, the Pinkerton man, Secretary Febuary and Detective Campbell emerged with satisfied smiles overspreading their features. Conley, his fingers twitching nervously as though the handcuffs he wore were chafing his wrists, came out between Scott and Campbell. Sweat streamed from his brow, and he was plainly agitated.

He was removed to his cell in the prison downstairs. It was planned to subject him to a further interrogation at night, but this pathetic plea for sleep and rest prevailed, and he curled up on his cell bunk and was sound asleep by 8 o’clock. He will be again examined today, however. He slept well throughout the night; in fact, better than he has slept since having been put in prison, as though he were relieved of a burden by his confession.

Although they will not commit themselves, both Chief Lanford and Chief Beavers infer that Conley has made the long-sought admission. They say that the crisis they now allege they have reached is too great to imperil by talking for publication. All freely admit, however, that the most important admission of the mystery has been gained.

Chief Lanford declared to a Constitution reporter:

“I am more pleased with Conley’s statement tonight than with any other phase of our investigation. The result of his examination has exceeded even our most hopeful expectations.”

“Does Conley admit having seen Frank with the body or having been connected, himself, with its disposal?” he was asked.

“I cannot commit myself,” was his reply. “I will tell all about it later. It would be damaging to talk at present. Otherwise I would be too glad to tell all I know.”

Chief Beavers said:

“Right now we face a crisis in the Phagan case. It would be injurious to reveal the latest and most important developments. I would rather not discuss the report of Conley’s confession. I cannot commit myself, but can say that what he has told is of extreme importance—more so than anything that has not yet developed.

Harry Scott, assistant superintendent of the Atlanta branch of the Pinkertons, who played a leading role in Conley’s interrogation, said:

“Conley is talking, but it would be imprudent at this stage to tell what he is admitting. He continues to weave the web around Frank.”

Conley was released from the chief’s office at 6 o’clock. He is beginning to show the effects of imprisonment, and the incessant interrogation to which he is daily being subjected.

The detectives say that Conley explains his past silence regarding his part in the tragedy by saying that he expected to be given a large sum of money by Frank or Frank’s friends.

When he changed his sworn confession it was to save his own neck, he is said to have stated. He was made vividly aware of the treacherous ground on which he was treading by the handwriting he had submitted, and it was in an effort to retrieve his error that he had altered his original affidavit.

He was made to give numerous specimens of his handwriting last night. New phrases of the murder notes were dictated and his writing, in each instance, compared perfectly with the original script of the murder notes. Each speciment [sic] of his handwriting is kept guardedly by the detectives.

Don’t Think Conley Guilty.

Chief Lanford, Chief Beavers and Harry Scott last night again denied that they believed Conley guilty of the murder. The evidence is so strongly against Frank, they say, that it is difficult to vary from the original theory of the superintendent’s guilt. The negro’s story, said to have been told at the last examination, is so straightforward and coincides so perfectly with other phases that have already been brought out that it is said to be indisputable.

Frank Remains Calm.

Frank, in his cell at the Tower, is apparently unperturbed over the negro’s many admissions. Jailers, turnkeys and Tower attaches, who are the only persons beside the prisoner’s friends who are allowed to see him, say he maintains his characteristic good nature. His health is not falling, they say, and he eats heartily at each meal. He will make no expression regarding the crime of which he is accused to anyone connected with the jail, declining emphatically to discuss any angle of the mystery.

Conley was arrested, it will be remembered, on the same afternoon of Frank’s arrest. He was discovered by Foreman E. F. Holloway while washing a shirt on the second floor of the factory structure. He was turned over to Detectives Coker and McGill, who rushed from police headquarters in answer to a telephone call from the foreman.

Said He Could Not Write.

He strongly denied until a week ago all knowledge of the crime. He even declared he was unable to write. It was Sunday, one week ago, that Detective Scott discovered the negro’s ability to write. He was carried to the office of Chief Lanford and forced to produce specimens of his script.

Last Saturday he admitted having written the notes found beside the body. He stated, however, that they were written on Friday, the day preceding the murder. A day or so following he amended the first confession, admitting to detectives that the notes had been written on the afternoon of Mary Phagan’s death—even an hour after her disappearance.

Conley is a young negro, black and chunky, with an honest face. He is apparently in the twenties, and has been a laborer by profession. He is married, his wife visiting him daily at police headquarters. He had been in the employ of the pencil factory for several years.

He is said to have admitted last night that immediately following the carrying of Mary Phagan’s body to the basement, he returned hurriedly to the first floor, emerging through the Forsyth street entrance, leaving Frank in the building. Whether or not he told of the broken lock on the back door of the cellar is not known.

Bit by bit the detectives have been worming from him his startling confession. Thursday afternoon, it is said, he was willing to talk, and once started on his narrative, continued through to the end with but little questioning to urge him onward.

It was stated by C. W. Tobie, the Burns agent, shortly before his departure from Atlanta, that his chief, the famous William J. Burns, will personally investigate the Phagan case. The Burns headquarters, in New York, were wired by The Constitution to verify the report. No reply has yet been received.

Factory Officials Accuse Him.

Three officials of the National Pencil company—Herbert G. Schiff, head bookkeeper; M. B. Darley, assistant superintendent, and E. F. Holloway, general foreman—have expressed their theory of the negro sweeper’s guilt. Holloway was the man who telephoned police headquarters to have Conley arrested when he discovered the negro washing a shirt on the second floor of the factory building.

They state that the negro’s admission of having written the notes is proof itself of his guilt, and that his story to the effect that they were dictated by Frank is absurd in every respect. Conley’s penchant for falsehoods, as shown in his two affidavits—both contradictory—are also offered as evidence of his guilt. Conley’s statement that he was in the factory for several hours on the day of the tragedy shows strongly against him, they say.

Also, his denial of ability to write when first placed under arrest, and his subsequent display of ability to write, are brought out in the pencil factory official’s theory of his guilt. Detective Harry Scott asserts, in rebuttal to this, that Conley’s story is that he withheld his confession on account of anticipation of a large sum of money he says he expected from Frank or Frank’s friends.

Final Proof, Says Lanford.

Chief Lanford and Scott announced Thursday that they considered the negro’s final affidavit proof conclusive of the suspected superintendent’s guilt, and were thereby ready to place the case on trial at any date set by the superior court, before which it will be tried some time during the latter part of next month.

They admit being puzzled, however, by certain discrepancies in matters of time, as explained in the negro’s second affidavit, and which are contradicted by witnesses who testified before the coroner’s jury. They expect, though, to clear up this condition by the cross-examination under which they placed the negro last night.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 30th 1913, “Conley Says He Helped Frank Carry Body of Mary Phagan to Pencil Factory Cellar,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)