Tag Archives: Mary Phagan

Postponement Likely In Leo Frank’s Trial

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Saturday, June 21, 1913

Doubt is expressed around the Fulton superior court that Leo M. Frank, superintendent of the National Pencil factory, now under indictment for the murder of Mary Phagan, an employee, on the afternoon or night of April 26, will go to trial during June.

This date was the one upon which the solicitor had suggested that the trial might be held, but it is believed that if the state should prove to be ready at that time, that the defense would move to postpone the trial, pending further investigation and preparation on their part.

Should the trial start on June 30, it would be less than two months since the commission of the crime with which Frank is charged and it is unusual in Georgia for a man to go to trial for his life within such a short time after the crime has been committed.

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, who has spent the past week in New York, presumably on a recreation trip, is expected to return by Sunday or Monday, and following his arrival preparations will probably start for the trial, provided he intends to call it on that date.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 21st 1913, “Postponement Likely In Leo Frank’s Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Frank Trial Will Not Be Long One

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Friday, June 20, 1913

Few Witnesses of the Scores Examined Will Be Called When Case Is Heard.

That the trial of Leo M. Frank will take a much shorter time that is generally thought was indicated in a statement by Judge L. S. Roan. The judge said the greatest difficulty and almost as great a length of time would be consumed in drawing a jury as in the hearing of the case. He said the actual taking of evidence might not consume more than a day.

Judge Roan intimated that he expected neither side to introduce the scores of witnesses who had been examined and made affidavits, but that from these witnesses the State and the defense would select the most material evidence, or salient points, and then introduce the most reliable witness who could cover the ground.

For instance, eight or ten different persons might be able to testify on some different minor points, while there would be one witness who could testify to the same thing the different witnesses could. This witness, he thought, would be the one to go on the stand, and the others would not be summoned.

Affidavits Are Plentiful.

As a matter of fact, it is known that only a comparatively small number of the witnesses examined by the Solicitor will be introduced at the trial. In the course of his investigation he secured an affidavit from almost every employee of the pencil factory. While he questioned them closely and had each sign an affidavit, he found little that threw any new light on the case. He examined them, he said, to be sure that he would overlook nothing that might have been missed at the Coroner’s inquest or by the police. Continue Reading →

Frank Case May Not Be Tried June 30

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 20, 1913

Dorsey Expects to Be Ready, He Says, but Postponement Seems Probable

That Leo M. Frank will go on trial for the murder of Mary Phagan on June 30th is not a certainty, although it is generally conceded that Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey will set the case on the court’s calendar for that date when he returns to the city from New York.

Solicitor Dorsey will return to Atlanta on Sunday. In reply to a telegram from The Journal relative to the time of the trial he makes the following statement: “Cannot say definitely that state will be ready on June 30, but expect now to be.”

As to whether or not the trial actually will be commenced on that date depends largely upon the defense, although there is a bare possibility that the court may wish to hold up the trial of the long case until after the jail is cleared. It is the general policy of the criminal division of the superior court to clear the jail for the summer at this time of the year, and it is known that thirty or forty routine cases could be disposed of in the time that it will take to hear the Frank case. The court will grind on routine business for the week of June 23rd, but in that time, it is said, it will be imposible [sic] to clear the jail.

However, it will remain largely with the defense as to whether or not the case comes to trial.

ROSSER LEAVES CITY.

Luther Z. Rosser, counsel for Frank, is expected to leave the city on Friday on business which is said to have no connection with the Frank case. He refuses to discuss the defense’s attitude toward an early trial.

Reuben R. Arnold, who probably will be associated with Mr. Rosser in the defense, is spending the week end at Atlantic Beach.

Mr. Arnold has been busy on a number of court cases, and while he is said to be quite familiar with the evidence in the Frank case, if he does become associated with the defense, it is probable that he will want additional time to study the case before he enters into the trial of such an important matter.

Mary Phagan was killed on April 26th, little more than two months from the date the case will probably be set on the court’s calendar.

It is not often that a person is brought to trial for a criminal offense in Fulton county two months after the commission of the crime with which he is charged.

Another element which, while it may not figure in the court record, is an important factor behind the scenes, is the intense heat at this time of the year. Continue Reading →

Reuben Arnold May Aid Frank’s Defense In Big Murder Trial

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Thursday, June 19, 1913

When questioned last night as to the truth of the rumor that he will be associated with the defense of Leo M. Frank, indicted for the Mary Phagan murder, Reuben R. Arnold, one of Georgia’s most prominent attorneys, refused to either affirm or deny the rumor.

“I am not associated with the defense yet,” Mr. Arnold said. “I cannot make any statement at the present time in regard to this matter.”

When questioned closely as to whether he would be engaged by the defense later on, Mr. Arnold made the same statement. Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, would make no statement, one way or the other, as to whether Mr. Arnold would be associated with him.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 19th 1913, “Reuben Arnold May Aid Frank’s Defense In Big Murder Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Blow Aimed at Formby Story

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Thursday, June 19, 1913

DEFENSE HAS WITNESSES TO REFUTE WOMAN

Learns Identity of Other Persons in Home on Night of the Phagan Slaying.

That the defense in the trial of Leo M. Frank will be able, if it wishes, to produce three or four witnesses who will testify that the affidavit of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby is untrue was discovered Thursday when the identity of the other persons in the house of Mrs. Formby, 400 Piedmont Avenue, the night of April 26, when Mary Phagan was murdered, was learned.

It was from Mrs. Formby that the detectives obtained what they consider one of their most sensational affidavits against Frank. She signed a statement swearing that Frank called her up a half dozen times the night of the murder and tried to persuade her to let him bring a girl to her house. She said she refused.

“It’s a matter of life or death,” she said she told her over the telephone.

Returns to Atlanta.

Mrs. Formby returned to Atlanta Wednesday, after a mysterious absence of several weeks. She said she proposed to stick to her original story when she was called as a witness in the trial of Frank.

In spite of her strong declaration in the truth of her affidavit, no one else who was in the house the night of April 26 has been found who will corroborate her statements. All say that the affidavit is false. Continue Reading →

Mrs. Formby Here for Phagan Trial

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Thursday, June 19, 1913

Woman Declares She Will Appear in Court and Will Corroborate Sensational Affidavit to Police.

Mima [sic] Formby, the rooming housekeeper of 400 Piedmont avenue, who made the affidavit declaring that Leo Frank had telephoned her on the night of Mary Phagan’s murder in an endeavor to rent a room to which he could bring a girl, has returned to Atlanta after a disappearance of several weeks.

To a reporter for The Constitution she stated yesterday afternoon that she intended remaining in the city until time of the Phagan trial and that she would appear before the court and deliver testimony corroborating the sensational affidavit to which she has attested.

Why She Left City.

Mrs. Formby’s recent disappearance created considerable mystery. The police of several different cities were notified to be on the lookout for her, and while the police and detective bureau of Atlanta scoured the city, widespread efforts were made to locate her by the solicitor general’s office.

She declares that she was persuaded by no one to leave town, and that her departure was of her own accord. She had gone away, she said, to avoid notoriety which was incurred by her affidavit, and to remain out of the city until the sensation subsided. She visited Chattanooga, Bristol and Sulphur Springs, Tenn., while on the trip, she said.

Chief Lanford said Wednesday afternoon that he expected the woman’s return and had felt no fears of her absence at time of trial.

Says Frank Wanted Room.

Mrs. Formby’s affidavit was one of the most sensational obtained by the detectives, excepting, of course, the James Conley statement. She swore that on the night of April 26 Leo Frank had telephoned her frequently between the hours of 6:30 and 10 o’clock in an effort to get a room to which he could bring a girl.

She testified that he even declared it was a matter of life and death, and that he even threatened her life when she refused to rent him an apartment. He telephoned her six times, she stated, and finally she was rid of him only after she had told him she was leaving her home on an automobile ride.

Mrs. Formby has returned to her home at the Piedmont avenue address. Continue Reading →

Hooper Returns and Takes Up Phagan Case

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Thursday, June 19, 1913

Declares Trip to Cincinnati Had Nothing to oD [sic] With Murder Mystery

Frank A. Hooper, the experienced prosecutor, who has been engaged to assist Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey in the trial of the case against Leo M. Frank, returned Thursday from a three days’ trip to Cincinnati, and set at rest the rumors that he went to the Ohio city on a matter connected with the investigation of the Phagan murder mystery.

Mr. Hooper declared that his private business called him to Cincinnati, and that his trip was in no way connected with the Phagan case.

While away Mr. Hooper states that he did not see Solicitor Dorsey nor did he see Attorney Thomas B. Felder, who went to the same city on a matter, which he said before leaving, was not connected with the Phagan case nor with the famous dictograph episode.

Mr. Hooper declares that so far as he knows there are no new developments in the Phagan mystery.

“The state’s case is regarded as complete,” Mr. Hooper said, “and we are simply waiting for the hour of the trial to come.”

Mr. Hooper would not discuss the testimony of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, who returned to the city Tuesday after an absence of several weeks.

Mrs. Formsby [sic] made an affidavit for the detectives in which she alleged that Leo M. Frank phoned her residence at 400 Piedmont avenue, a number of times between the hours of 6:30 p. m. and 10 p. m. on the evening of the tragedy, and each time begged her to let him bring a girl to her house.

WON’T BE CALLED.

It is considered improbable, however, that Mrs. Formsby will be called as a state’s witness when the case against Frank is tried, for it has been known from the first that her story did not fit in with the theory of the state as to Frank’s actions on the night of the tragedy.

The fact that Mrs. Formsby had returned to the city first became known to the detective department, when she phoned headquarters that practically all of the furniture left in her apartment had mysteriously disappeared. Continue Reading →

Will Reuben R. Arnold Aid Frank’s Defense?

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, June 18, 1913

Mr. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser Both Decline to Discuss Report Circulated

The rumor that Reuben R. Arnold, famous Georgia lawyer, will be associated with the defense of Leo M. Frank, indicted for the Mary Phagan murder, is persistent.

Luther Z. Rosser, who has been retained in the case since Frank was first arrested, refused to deny or affirm the rumor. It is intimated, however, that negotiations are not complete as yet.

Mr. Arnold himself, when questioned about the rumor, refused to discuss it in any way, and his silence has added weight to the report that he will be in the case.

With Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold leading the defense of Frank one of the greatest legal battles in a criminal case in the history of the south is promised. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser have been pitted against each other in the famous McNaughton-Flanders case and in other well known trials, and each time they met there was a legal battle royal. With the two famous lawyers together, a hard and brilliant fight is certain to be given Hugh M. Dorsey, and Frank A. Hooper, the experienced prosecutor who has been engaged to assist the state in the case.

Despite the entry of Mr. Arnold there is said to be little chance that Solicitor Dorsey will have assistance other than that of Mr. Hooper.

DATE OF TRIAL.

Mr. Arnold during the past several weeks has been engaged in the trial before an auditor of the famous Crawford will case. He is said to have closely followed the many developments in the Phagan murder investigation, however, and if he enters the trial, it will not mean necessarily that a postmentment [sic] will be asked by the defense, although it will make a postponement of the trial more probable.

The calendar for the criminal division of the superior court for the week commencing June 23 has been made up and published by E. A. Stephens, the assistant solicitor general.

The calendar for the week commencing June 30 will not be made up until the return next Sunday of Solicitor General Dorsey from Atlantic City, according to Mr. Stephens, who states that as yet he is not certain that the[…]

(Continued on Page Six, Col. 5.)

WILL REUBEN R. ARNOLD AID FRANK’S DEFENSE?

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]superior court will be in session on that date.

It is said that there is sufficient business of a routine nature pending before the court to occupy it not only during the week of June 23, but through the week of June 30 as well. It is known, however, although there has been no definite announcement, that it is the intention of Solicitor General Dorsey to bring the case against Leo M. Frank to trial on June 30, if possible. Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who will assist Mr. Dorsey in the case, has declared that the state is ready to go to trial at once, and he intimates that efforts to push the trial will be made.

WILL DEFENSE BE READY?

As a result of the attitude of the state’s officials, speculation over the case turns to the defense. Will Attorney Luther Z. Rosser announce ready, if the case is called Monday week?

Mr. Rosser will not discuss the matter. It is known that he has been engaged in the courts in trial of various civil cases practically since the time of Frank’s indictment, and for that reason it is said that he probably would want a postponement of the case.

However, it is known also that regardless of the amount of work he has on hand, Mr. Rosser seldom asks for the postponement of a trial. In fact, he is more often found announcing “ready” than are the majority of other attorneys in Atlanta.

POSTPONEMENT TILL FALL.

If an effort is made to postpone the case at all, it is said that it will be to postpone it until early fall.

The courts generally take a vacation during the months of July and August, and the trial of Mrs. Daisy Grace last July demonstrated the general unpleasantness of a big criminal trial during the summer.

Last year during the Grace trial it was so stifling and hot in the poorly ventilated criminal court room on the fourth floor of the Thrower building, that it was generally considered dangerous to the health of those engaged in the case and of the spectators who thronged there, to hold the trial in the room.

As a result it is probable that the scene of activity will probably be transferred to the old city hall, if the Frank case does come to trial in June. All of the civil courts will not be in session in the first week in July, and one of those rooms probably will be utilized.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 18th 1913, “Will Reuben R. Arnold Aid Frank’s Defense?,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Two New Witnesses Sought by Officers

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Wednesday, June 18, 1913

Former Girl Employee and a Machanic [sic] May Testify Against Frank.

Two new witnesses may be used by the state in the prosecution of Leo Frank when his trial is held on June 30. Chief Lanford is investigating the reported statement of a young girl living near Roswell and of a mechanic who resides near East Point.

The former, a lass of 17, is said to have been employed in the pencil factory two years ago. For the past year or more she has been living with her parents at their home just outside Roswell. The nature of the statements she is alleged to have made is being kept secret by the detectives. It is hinted, however, that in case she is placed on the stand, her testimony will deal with the character of the superintendent.

The testimony of the East Point mechanic is said to relate to the girl’s story, and [in the] event he is used by the prosecution, his testimony will be for the purpose of corroborating that of the girl.

The departure of Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who has been associated with Solicitor General Dorsey in the prosecution of the Phagan case, adds interest to the mystery. Mr. Hooper, it is said at his home, has gone to Indianapolis. His family declare his trip has no connection whatever with the Phagan case.

Solicitor Dorsey announced before leaving that he was going to Atlantic City to spend several days’ vacation. He said that he would have nothing to do with the Phagan case while away. He left at 2:45 Saturday afternoon, accompanied by Mrs. Dorsey.

Much speculation has also been created by a trip on which Colonel T. B. Felder embarked Sunday afternoon, less than twenty-four hours after the solicitor’s departure. Mr. Felder says he goes to Cincinnati on business entirely foreign with the Phagan investigation or the dictograph charges.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 18th 1913, “Two New Witnesses Sought by Officers,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Guessers See a Mystery in Dorsey-Hooper Trips

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, June 17, 1913

Speculation About Departure of Phagan Case Figures Not Credited, However

What is believed to be but a coincidence in the unheralded out-of-town trips of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who is to assist the solicitor in the prosecution of Leo M. Frank, and Attorney Thomas B. Felder, has given rise to a rumor that these lawyers really have gone on a secret mission of importance and one connected with the Phagan case.

Solicitor Dorsey left Atlanta Saturday afternoon, saying he was going to Atlantic City and New York for a week’s rest; Mr. Felder went away on Sunday, announcing that he was headed for Cincinnati, where he had business that was not of interest to the public; and Mr. Hooper left Monday afternoon, it being stated by his family that he had gone to Indianapolis on business and would return to Atlanta either Thursday or Friday.

Those who profess to scent a mystery in the departure of the three attorneys are allowing their speculations free range. One of the rumors set in motion is to the effect that Messrs. Dorsey, Hooper and Felder have arranged to meet in some eastern city to discuss some important feature of the Phagan case.

Detective Chief N. A. Lanford, Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, and others who are posted as to the progress of the Phagan case, do not believe that the trips of the three lawyers have any relation whatever.

Chief Lanford and Detective Scott continue to accept as true the statement of the negro sweeper, James Conley, who swore that the only part he played in the Phagan murder was to assist Superintendent Frank to dispose of the body and to write the notes, which he says he did at the dictation of Frank.

It is claimed that Solicitor Dorsey and his investigators have in their possession evidence which strongly corroborates Conley’s story and that they are guarding this evidence very jealously in an effort to keep any inkling of it away from the defense. It was this evidence, it is said, which satisfied the solicitor general that the case against Frank was complete and that he could afford to take a much-needed vacation before the trial.

On the other hand the defense continues to ridicule the efforts made by the prosecution to substantiate Conley’s confession. The defense, it is said, has a few cards up its sleeve which it promises to play at the trial and which may result in some surprises.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 17th 1913, “Guessers See a Mystery in Dorsey-Hooper Trips,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Sensations in Phagan Case at Hand

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Tuesday, June 17, 1913

Out-of-Town Trips Believed To Be of Great Importance—Defense Has Strong Evidence.

Frank A. Hooper, associate counsel with Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey in the prosecution of the Phagan murder mystery, left Atlanta Monday for a trip to Indianapolis. Attorney Hooper was the third man closely connected with the Phagan case to leave town within a space of three days.

Colonel Thomas B. Felder, who took an active part in the hunt for the slayer of Mary Phagan until the dictograph controversy arose, left Sunday, saying that he was going to Cincinnati. He said that it was a business trip and intimated that it was related either to his quarrel with Chief of Detectives Lanford or directly with the Phagan case.

Solicitor Dorsey left the previous afternoon. He gave out that the prosecution entirely had completed its preparation of the Phagan case and that he was going away for a week’s rest at Atlantic City and New York.

Deny Mystery.

At the Hooper home Tuesday it was admitted that Mr. Hooper’s trip was on business, but denial was made that it was in connection with the Phagan case or that there was any significance in his departure practically at the same time as that of Solicitor Dorsey and Colonel Felder.

Rumors are circulating, however, that material witnesses in the case have been uncovered and that their testimony may have a most important bearing in determining the person who strangled Mary Phagan. It is said that the sudden trips out of town of Solicitor Dorsey and his associate, Attorney Hooper, may not be unrelated to these new developments.

The prosecution has been aware for some time that the attorneys for the defense have been weaving a strong net of damaging evidence around the negro sweeper, Jim Conley.

But Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, following his custom of silence, has let neither the public nor the prosecution in on the secret of the source of this important evidence. He has scores of affidavits. That much is known by the prosecution, but by whom they are signed will probably remain a deep mystery until the Frank trial begins. Continue Reading →

Constitution Picture Will Figure in Trial

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, June 16, 1913

Solicitor Wants Photograph of Spot Where Mary Phagan’s Body Was Found

A flashlight picture, made by The Constitution’s staff photographer is to be used as evidence by the prosecution in the trial of Leo M. Frank. This was made evident Sunday afternoon when Detective John Starnes applied to a Constitution reporter for the photograph of the spot in the pencil factory basement, where Mary Phagan’s body was discovered.

Starnes would not state why he wanted the picture, saying only that it would be used by the prosecution. He was extremely desirous of getting it, and it will be put in his possession this morning. It is rumored that by the picture an effort will be made to corroborate certain statements of James Conley, the negro sweeper when he is placed on the witness stand.

Starnes told the reporter that the prosecution was ready for trial. He expressed confidence that the mystery would be cleared at the coming trial, which he believes will be held on the thirtieth. In case of postponement, he says, it will be the fault of the defense, as the state is ready.

Starnes has been intimately associated with the solicitor general during the murder investigation. In fact, he has been more closely in touch with Dorsey than any other official concerned in the case. He is a detective attached to headquarters and associated with Detective Pat Campbell who has been identified with many big criminal cases, which the detective department has solved.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 16th 1913, “Constitution Picture Will Figure in Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Hooper Wants a Rest For Public From Case

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, June 16, 1913

Attorney Associated With Prosecution, Says State Is Ready for Frank Trial

With Solicitor General Dorsey away on a short vacation, the state’s case against Leo M. Frank, who is charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, is now in charge of Frank A. Hooper, the well known attorney, who is associated with the solicitor.

“The state’s case is complete,” Mr. Hooper said Monday morning, “and we are waiting quietly for the trial on the 30th of the month to come.”

“If the defense will stop writing cards,” continued Mr. Hooper, “and stop having their friends write them, the public can be given a needed rest from the case until the trial.”

Mr. Hooper’s statement that the prosecution is quietly waiting for the trial on June 30 is the most authoritative announcement of the date of the trial yet made.

Solicitor General Dorsey has steadfastly refrained from any definite announcement about the time of the trial, but it has been generally understood for some time that the solicitor set the case on the court’s calendar for June 30, and it will then remain with the defense as to whether there is a postponement.

While Mr. Hooper’s name was not publicly connected with the case until Sunday, it is understood that the solicitor general has been consulting with him for several weeks, and it is said that Mr. Hooper is familiar with every phase of the investigation.

With the state’s case regarded as complete, it is said that the attorneys and detectives identified with the prosecution are now devoting their energies to preparing for any surprises the defense may spring when the case goes before the court.

It was rumored Monday that the grand jury on Tuesday would take up the case of James Conley, the negro who is a self-confessed accessory after the fact in the killing, but this rumor was without foundation. It was occasioned by an error in the issuance of subpenas. The grand jury, according to its foreman, will devote the entire session Tuesday to routine cases, which have piled up during the vice investigation.

The grand jury foreman, L. H. Beck, also denied the rumor that it had taken up any investigations of third degree work by the detectives in the Phagan or in any other case. “No such investigation is even likely,” he said.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 16th 1913, “Hooper Wants a Rest For Public From Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Dorsey Aide Says Frank Is Fast In Net

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, June 16, 1913

Attorney Hooper Declares State Is Prepared for Any Move the Defense May Make.

Frank A. Hooper, the well-known criminal lawyer who has been engaged to assist Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey in the trial of Leo M. Frank for the alleged murder of Mary Phagan, said Monday that the case was complete and was ready for presentation in court at any time.

Mr. Hooper asserted that the attorneys interested in the prosecution had investigated every angle of the mystery so thoroughly and fortified themselves against any defense that Frank will present, that practically nothing remained to be done until the case was called for trial. The departure of Solicitor Dorsey for a week’s vacation, he said, was an indication of the preparedness of the prosecution.

No new developments are expected by the prosecution, according to Mr. Hooper. All of the stories and rumors have been run down to their original source. The defense, in his opinion, will be able to spring no surprise that has not been anticipated by the prosecution.

Mrs. Frank Gives Interview.

The American printed Sunday an exclusive interview with Mrs. Frank, whose husband, Leo M. Frank, is under indictment chraged with the murder of 14-year-old Mary Phagan. It was the first time that Mrs. Frank had permitted himself to be interviewed since the Coroner’s jury a month ago recommended that the Grand Jury hold her husband for trial.

She broke her silence to tell the thousands who have been gripped by the remarkable murder mystery just why she is absolutely confident and positive that Frank could not have been the author of the terrible deed. She made no plea for sympathy, but expressed herself as fully reconciled to the processes of the law, even though they temporarily caused her the greatest sorrow and kept her husband behind the cars as a man suspected of one of the most brutal crimes thinkable. The loyal wife said that she was able to bear the present belief because of the assurance of Frank’s ultimate and complete vindication.

Why She Believes Husband.

On the fact that she believes from her life with the suspected slayer that any gross or immoral act is utterly apart from his nature, she bases much of her belief in his entire innocence. Continue Reading →

Detective Chief Tells Grand Jury of “Third Degree”

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Sunday, June 15, 1913

Questions Put to Lanford Indicate That Investigation of Police Methods Is Being Conducted.

TORTURE ERA IS PAST, CHIEF INFORMS JURY

Science and Skill Now Employed by Detectives in Securing Confessions From Criminals, He Says.

The police “third degree,” which has created such widespread discussion during the Mary Phagan murder investigation, has been thoroughly explained to the grand jury by Detective Chief Newport A. Lanford, who appeared before that body at its request.

Detective John Black, of headquarters, who has been an active figure in the Phagan case, is also said to have been quizzed about methods employed by the police and detectives. He will not talk of the subject. Members of the jury are reluctant to give any information.

Chief Lanford, however, willingly told a Constitution reporter of his testimony before the jury and of the nature of queries which were put to him. He says he gave a complete and apparently satisfactory account of the “third degree” and the manner in which it is practiced at police headquarters.

Is Jury Probing Police Methods?

The belief is prevalent in both police and court circles that a secret probe is being promoted by the grand jury into methods employed by both the police and detective departments, and that it was in pursuit of this investigation that the detective head and Black were examined. Chief Lanford is inclined to scout this theory, although he is unable to account for the testimony that was required of him and of Black in the “third degree” probe.

The use of the “third degree” during the Phagan mystery has caused much comment. Its most effective employment, it will be recalled, was in extracting three sensational confessions from the negro sweeper, James Conley. Newt Lee, the negro watchman, the first suspect in the murder case, was subjected to a “degree” equally as strenuous.

The public letter of Mrs. Leo Frank, in which she took the detectives and Solicitor General Dorsey to task for subjecting her servant girl, Minola McKnight, to a system of cross-examination, which, she asserted, left the girl in a state of exhaustion, probably served to actuate the jury’s inquiry into police methods. Mrs. Frank’s letter was a stinging arraignment, and[…]

Continued on Page Four.

Continue Reading →

Solicitor H. M. Dorsey Leaves for New York

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 14, 1913

Declares Visit Has Nothing to Do With Phagan Case, Which Is Complete

Hugh M. Dorsey, solcilictor [sic] general of the Atlanta circuit, left Atlanta for New York and Atlantic City on Saturday afternoon at 2:45 o’clock.

Mr. Dorsey states that he will be away from the city for a week, and is going simply to get a needed rest, and vacation from the duties of his office. He denies that his visit to New York has anything to do with the case against Leo M. Frank, who is charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. It was rumored that Mr. Dorsey would make a personal investigation of the past life of the accused man, but the solicitor states that this rumor is without any foundation.

The duties of the solicitor’s office are naturally arduous, and Mr. Dorsey almost since the murder of Mary Phagan, has had charge of the active investigation of the case as well as his routine work, and as a result is greatly in need of a rest.

Mr. Dorsey’s absence from the city for a week is not expected to delay the trial of Frank.

While he has made no announcement, it has been generally conceded that the official will set the Frank trial for June 30, and it will then depend on the defense as to whether or not a postponement of the case is asked.

For the reason that the court generally do not sit during the months of July and August, it is said to be extremely probable that Frank will actually come to trial on June 30, as a postponement then will probably mean that the case will not be reached until September.

The fact that the solicitor is willing to leave the city at this time is taken by those familiar with the Phagan case as an indication that at last the investigation is complete, and that all sides are simply waiting for the hour of trial to come.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 14th 1913, “Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey Leaves for New York,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Negro Conley May Face Frank Today

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

June 13, 1913

Hearing Before Judge Roan Today Will Decide Whether Negro Will Be Sent to Tower.

Whether James Conley, the negro sweeper, who swears that Leo Frank got his aid in disposing of Mary Phagan’s body and made him write the notes found near her, will be held as a material witness in the county jail or turned free and re-arrested by detectives as a suspect and then kept at police station, is due to be decided at 10 o’clock on the hearing of the rule nisi before Judge L. S. Roan.

The question of Conley’s liberty is not at stake, as the solicitor as well as Attorney L. Z. Rosser, for Frank, and the negro’s own lawyer, W. M. Smith, have announced that they desire him held.

Judge Roan has reached the decision that the negro should be kept at the Tower, where it is claimed that he does not wish to stay, as he asserts that he was intimidated while spending one night there after swearing to writing the notes.

Frank’s attorneys desire that the negro be placed in the Tower where Frank, under indictment for the murder, and Newt Lee, held as a material witness, are now kept.

Frank May Face Negro.

It is possible the meeting between Frank and the negro sweeper, which detectives have urged for several weeks, will finally take place today when the rule nisi is heard, as Frank is one of those named to show cause why the negro should not be released and Solicitor Hugh Dorsey may demand that he appear in person.

Should the negro be quizzed in the presence of the man whom he accuses, his every action and look as he sees Frank’s eyes upon him will be followed closely by detectives and by the solicitor himself, and a crisis in the case may develop from the meeting.

While it is certain that Attorney Rosser will go as far as possible in his attempt to have the negro held in the custody of the state, which means his incarceration in the Tower and out of reach of the detectives, it is not believed that he will speak freely or show many of his reasons for his claim that Conley is the murderer.

It is known that the greatest wish of the attorney for Frank is to get Conley out of the hands of the detectives and on account of this it is possible that he will show his hand to a certain extent at today’s hearing.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 13th 1913, “Negro Conley May Face Frank Today,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Grand Jury Will Probe Affidavits About Dictagraph

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

June 12, 1913

Investigation of Charges and Counter Charges Will Begin at Early Date and Will Be Exhaustive One.

LANFORD SAYS GENTRY WILL DENY AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit Is Made Declaring Dictagraph Instrument Was Secured by Chief Lanford For Use in Phagan Case.

Following close on the heels of the publication of the George M. Gentry affidavit, in which the young stenographer states that his typewritten report of the dictagraph conversation was padded, and says that he left town after he had discovered that he had fallen in with a “crowd of crooks,” comes the assurance that the grand jury will at once make a searching probe of the detective department in an effort to establish the truth regarding the many charges and counter charges that have been afloat since the dictagraph sensation was sprung.

Members of the grand jury take the position that if the Gentry affidavit is true, it constitutes a stinging indictment of the detective department—an indictment which should not be allowed to stand longer than it will take to uncover the facts.

Records True, Says Lanford.

Chief of Detectives Lanford defends his department and his own personal connection with the sensation with the declaration that the dictagraph reports, as published, were absolutely correct, and that reports to the contrary are not only false, but will be proved untrue.

Impeiled by public sentiment the dictagraph incident created, it is authentically stated that the grand jury probe will be made at a very early date, and will be an exhaustive one.

While contradicted by Gentry’s affidavit and statements from the trio of dictagraph “victims”—Mayor Woodward, Colonel Felder and Charles Jones. G. C. Febuary, secretary to Chief Lanford, stoutly maintas that the dictagraph notes were accurate and that there were no discrepancies whatever in the published copies. Continue Reading →

Luther Z. Rosser, Attorney for Frank, Trains His Guns on City Detective Chief

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Tuesday, June 10, 1913

SAYS CHIEF LANFORD IS NOT SEEKING FOR TRUTH OF MURDER

He Charges That the Detective Chief Has Banked His Sense and Reputation on Proving Frank Guilty

“WHY HASN’T CONLEY BEEN BEFORE JURY?”

Attorney Declares Evidence All Points to Negro—Says Felder-Lanford Controversy Unfair to His Client

Luther Z. Rosser, chief counsel for Leo M. Frank, the pencil factory superintendent, who is under indictment for the murder of Mary Phagan, Tuesday afternoon broke his persistent silence regarding the case and gave out a statement for publication.

Mr. Rosser gives as a reason for this statement the fact that Thomas B. Felder has publicly charged Detective Chief Lanford with trying to shield Frank and that the detective chief has in turn publicly accused Felder with having been employed in the interest of Frank.

The accuracy of both charges is denied. Mr. Rosser asserts that Chief Lanford has “banked his sense and reputation as both a man and politician on Frank’s guilt,” and that if he had been seeking the murderer of Mary Phagan with an open mind and not seeking to vindicate his announced opinion of Frank’s guilt, the negro Conley would have already told the whole truth.

Mr. Rosser declares that both the actions and statements of the negro Conley bear the marks of guilt. He states that in making his revelations concerning the murder, Conley is handicapped by Lanford’s opinion.

Mr. Rosser inquires why it was the detectives did not present Conley as a witness before the coroner’s jury and why they now prevent him from telling his story to the grand jury, which he says should determine whether the negro should be indicted, and if so on what count.

MR. ROSSER’S STATEMENT.

Following is Mr. Rosser’s statement in full: Continue Reading →

Rosser Asks Grand Jury Grill for Conley

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

June 9, 1913

Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Leo M. Frank, issued the first public statement Tuesday that he has made since the arrest of the factory superintendent six weeks ago on the suspicion of being the murderer of Mary Phagan.

He took occasion to point out many of the absurdities in the stories of the negro Jim Conley, and paid his respects in a forcible manner both to Chief of Detectives Lanford and Colonel Thomas B. Felder, who have been accusing each other of trying to protect Frank.

Mr. Rosser explained the violation of his invariable custom of maintaining absolute silence in regard to a case in which he was interested by calling attention to the prejudice that had been aroused in the public mind against Frank by the controversy between Lanford and Colonel Felder.

His statement, in full, follows:

Mr. Rosser’s Statement.

Editor, Atlanta Georgian:

Felder and Lanford, in an effort to make progress in their feud, charge each the other with giving aid to Leo Frank, Lanford charges that Felder was employed by Frank and is seeking for that reason to shield him. Felder charges that Lanford and his associates are also seeking, for some reason, to shield and protect Frank.

Both charges are untrue, and, at a time when no harm could come to an innocent man, might well be treated as antidotes to monotony.

Unfortunately, however, the present situation is such that fair-minded citizens may be misled by these counter charges.

Felder does not, nor has he at any time, directly or indirectly, represented Frank. For Lanford to charge the contrary does Frank a serious injustice.

Felder Against Frank.

If Chief Lanford had been in a sane, normal mood, he would have known that every act of Felder has been against Frank. The engagement of the Burns agency ought to have satisfied Lanford. No detective agency of half prudence would have double-crossed the Atlanta department in the Phagan case. Nor did Felder have excuse for suspicion against Lanford. There was reason to suspect his fairness, his accuracy and the soundness of his methods, but not his reckless zeal against Frank.

Had Felder been in a calm mood I am sure he would never have charged the chief and his associates with intention to help Frank.

Lanford at once, as soon as Felder charged him with favoring Frank, settled in his mind the guilt of Frank, and from that monent has bent every energy of his department, not in finding the murderer, but in trying to prove to the public that Felder was wrong in charging him with trying to shield Frank. Continue Reading →