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

Atlanta Constitution
August 21st, 1913

John Starnes, prosecutor of Leo Frank, was put up to tell about the Minola McKnight affidavit.

“Did you Investigate the scuttle hole around the elevator? was Dorsey’s first question.

An objection by the defense was overruled.

“See any blood spots there?

“No.”

“Now, tell the jury about the Minola McKnight affidavit.”

“Pat Campbell and I arrested her at the solicitor’s office. We had gone to get a statement from her husband. We also had information from this husband that she had made the identical statement which she made in the affidavit. The next day, Mr. Craven and Mr. Pickett came to police headquarters. They were sent into the room with Minola. She said, upon request, that she preferred to talk to them. We left them alone with her. When she finished with her statement, I said, “Minola, we only want the truth, and if this isn’t the truth, we don’t want it.” She said that it was the whole truth. Her attorney, Mr. Gordon, was waiting on the outside conferred with him frequently. I don’t recall any demand that he made except for admission. When he went into the room, the statement was half finished. It was read over to him, and he left shortly afterwards, presumably for the solicitor’s office. The statement had been typewritten when he returned. It was read over to him, and he asked Minola a number of questions about it.”

“Was she held upon my authority?” asked the solicitor.

“No.”

“Did I direct you to free her?”

“No.”

Cross-examination, by Rosser:

“What authority did you have to arrest her?”

“The feeling of an honest and conscientious officer who thought she ought to have been arrested.”

“Did you have any warrant?”

“No.”

“Did Dorsey know you were going to lock her up?”

“I suppose he did.”

“He didn’t protest against it because it was against the law?”

“No.”

“She was carried from Dorsey’s office screaming and hysterical, wasn’t she?”

“Yes.” 

“And declaring that she had told all she knew?”

“I don’t think she said that.”

“Your purpose was to get her to make another statement beside the one she had already made—the one that didn’t suit you, eh?”

“My purpose was to get the truth.”

“Did you telephone Dorsey at any time?”

“My recollection is that I called him to tell that Minola had made the statement.”

“Why did you call him?”

“He was representing the state in the state’s case on which we were working.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 21st 1913, “Starnes Tells How Affidavit From Negro Cook Was Secured,” 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 15^th, 1913

Following the testimony of those who claimed to have played poker at the Emil Selig home on the night of April 26, Mrs. Selig, Leo Frank’s mother-in-law was placed on the stand and asked a number of questions about the happenings at her house on Sunday, April 27. To most of the questions from the state on cross-examination she replied that she had forgotten.

When the witness took the stand, Attorney Arnold called on the state for the affidavit which Minola McKnight, the Selig’s cook, signed at police station and later repudiated.

“Mrs. Selig,” said Mr. Arnold, “I wanted to ask you some questions about statements in this affidavit and find out if they are true.

“Is it true that there was talk in your home about the time of the murder? Leo Frank being caught with a girl at the factory and that the negro cook asked if it was a Jew girl or a Gentile and you or Mrs. Frank said it was a Gentile?”

“It is not true, there was no such conversation that I know of.”

Mrs. Selig was almost crying at this juncture of her testimony.

“Did Mrs. Frank say that he had told her he was in trouble and that he did not know why he would commit murder or did she tell you he had asked her for a pistol to kill himself with?”
“No.”

“Did you raise the wages of Minola McKnight, your cook, right after the murder?”
“Not a penny.”

Mrs. Selig’s Memory Faulty.

Mr. Dorsey then took up the cross-examination.

“How long after the murder was it before your daughter visited her husband in jail?”
“I don’t know.”

“Do you recall the occasion when someone came to your house to get a statement from your cook?”
“No.”

“Do you remember that Albert McKnight, the cook’s husband, was there on Saturday, April 26?”

“No.”

“What time did Frank leave the house that Sunday morning?”
“I don’t know.”

“What time did he get back that night?”
“I don’t remember.”

“[words illegible] come down stairs that morning?”
“No.”

“What time did you have breakfast that Sunday morning?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Did Frank eat with the family?”
“No.”

“Did he eat there that morning?”
“Yes.”

“What time was it?”
“About 11 o’clock.”

Frank Left House.

“Did he remain there that day?”
“I think he went off.”

“Where?”
“I don’t know.”

“How long did you say it was after Frank was locked up before his wife went to see him?”
“I don’t know. I think it was on Thursday that she first went.”

“Did you say that Mrs. Frank did not tell you her husband did not rest well that Saturday night?”
“She did not tell me that.”

“She didn’t tell you he was drunk?”
“She did not.”

“Wasn’t it two weeks before your daughter went to see her husband in jail?”

“No.”

Could Not Remember Date.

“Is it impossible for you to fix the day upon which your daughter first went to see her husband after he was locked up on the serious charge of murder?”

“I can’t fix it.”

“You can’t fix the day?”
“I’m not trying to.”

“What do you pay Minola McKnight a week?”

“I pay her $7.50.”

“Isn’t it true that during the week she made her affidavit you paid her $4?”
“No.”

“Didn’t you give her extra money?”
“No, I once advanced her a week’s wages though.”

“Did she pay it back?”
“She did.”

“Did you not give her $5 about that time?”

“I gave her that amount and told her to get it changed and take her money out and return me the rest.”

Memory Again Grows Faulty.

“When did Mrs. Frank give her a hat?”
“I don’t remember.”

“What else did you give Minola besides money and a hat?”
“I didn’t give her a hat.”

“Mrs. Frank did though?”
“Yes.”

“What time on Thursday was it, if it was that day, did Mrs. Frank go to the jail to see her husband?”
“I don’t know.”

An argument then started and Attorney Rosser interrupted it by moving to rule out all that had been said about the time that elapsed before Mrs. Frank visited her husband in jail.

Judge Roan ordered that all reference to that and to the married life of the couple be ruled out.

“I ought to even be allowed to show that Frank had to send for his wife to come to the jail before she finally went,” was the solicitor’s final protest.

The witness was then excused.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Mother-in-Law of Frank Denies Charges in Cook’s 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 Journal
July 28^th, 1913

Negro Cook in the Selig-Frank Home Repudiates Affidavit She Swore to Against Frank, Will Refuse to Swear to the Paper, She Says

Minola McKnight, the negro cook, who signed an affidavit which is to be used by the prosecution against Leo M. Frank, said Monday morning that the police, by three hours’ sweating, forced her to sign this affidavit, and that when she is called as a witness that she will refuse to testify to the statements set forth in it.

The substance of the affidavit was that, on the morning following the murder of Mary Phagan, Mrs. Frank came downstairs at the home of her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, with whom she and Frank made their home, and said that Frank had asked for a pistol with which to kill himself.

At the time the negro cook signed this written statement of what is said in the affidavit to have happened at the Selig residence on the day following the murder, she was confined at police station.

She declares now that the signing of the affidavit followed hours of “sweating” by the police, and that at the time she actually signed the paper she was not aware of what she was doing.

When the names of witnesses were called Monday it was found that her husband, Albert McKnight, who had been summoned by the prosecution, was missing.

Through statements which he made, the police came to cross-examine his wife, and he was summoned as a witness to testify to what she is said to have told him.

When Solicitor General Dorsey found that the negro McKnight was not among the witnesses, he questioned Minola McKnight, the negro’s wife. She said that her husband left home that morning as usual to go to work.

“Do you think he has left town?” the solicitor asked her.

“No,” she said.

Immediately afterward court officers were sent to arrest the missing witness.

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 6, 1913

Dorsey Will Endeavor to Force Defense to Disclose Their Documentary Evidence.

ACT IS COUNTERSTROKE

Frank’s Attorneys Said to Have Affidavits Exonerating Frank and Indicating Conley’s Guilt.

A sensational turn in the Phagan murder mystery, according to one of the attorneys for the defense, will develop next week when Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey issues a subpena duces tecum on Attorneys Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben Arnold, citing them to produce all the affidavits they have secured that bear on the crime.

The movement is in the nature of a counterstroke to block the pending subpenas duces tecum filed by the defense, citing the State to produce all the affidavits that have been secured.

The defense strongly maintains that it will win its point and that the prosecution will suffer. The attorneys say that the Constitution of the State clearly outlines the action of the court in such matters—”that the defendant is entitled to be faced with all the evidence against him”—while the prosecution will labor under the handicap that “a defendant is innocent until he is proven guilty.”

Dorsey Is Silent.

While no announcement would be made by Solicitor Dorsey relative to the contemplated subpenas duces tecum, it was intimated by him that such action might be taken at an early date, and that when it was the defense and the prosecution would lock horns in the first decisive battle in the sensational case.

Affidavits that are sought by the defense are the three different sworn statements of the negro, Jim Conley, the affidavit given by the negro cook at the Frank home, Minola McKnight, the Formby affidavit and the affidavit of Monteen Stover, the girl who stated that she entered Frank’s office at a time when he said he was there, and found the office deserted.

The State will seek to obtain affidavits contradicting their theory and placing the crime on the negro sweeper, Jim Conley. These affidavits are said to deal principally with the time different witnesses entered and left the factory April 26, the most vital question in the trial.

Affidavits of Defense.

The defense is said to be in possession of affidavits that show Monteen Stover entered and departed from the factory before Mary Phagan’s car reached the heart of the city; that the negro Jim Conley entered the factory earlier in the day than he said he did, and that he, instead of the indicted pencil factory superintendent, committed the murder, because the superintendent left the factory at least ten minutes before Conley said he helped him dispose of the body, and that the Formby affidavit, a one-time sensational bit of evidence substantiating the defense, was given by the woman at the behest of the police detectives without regard for its accuracy, and that Mrs. Formby has since admitted that she never knew Leo M. Frank or heard of him until he was held as a suspect in connection with the murder.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 6th 1913, “New Move in Phagan Case by Solicitor,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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.

CHIEF OF DETECTIVES BEFORE GRAND JURY

Continued From Page One.

[…]many other such letters have attacked the detectives and police severely.

Not a Torture Method.

Chief Lanford, in his talk, averred that the public has the wrong conception of the “third degree,” and naturally pictured it as a torture method. This is wholly wrong, he declared, and utterly at variance with the explanation which he gave to the grand jury.

The “third degree,” he told the jury, is one of the most valuable assets of the detective department, and without it many of a city’s most glaring crimes would go forever unsolved. He admitted that in one era of police history the method has been barbarous, but declared that in the present day science and skill had replaced the torture of the past.

In Conley’s case Chief Lanford told the jury the negro’s confession had been secured through clever detective work in confronting him with damaging discrepancies in his stories of innocence. The method employed with him is a popular one and is a plan that has served successfully with negro criminals.

“It is worked in this manner,” the chief said. “Only two men operate the scheme. They study their subject thoroughly by preliminary conversations, learn his traits of character and his weak points. They they warm up to the real work—clamp down the screws, so to speak.

How Confession Is Secured.

“The first detective begins to taunt and deride the prisoner. He confronts him with all incriminating evidence gathered against him, pictures the form of punishment to which he is liable and vividly illustrates the fate of others in predicaments similar to the prisoner’s. The detective attitude is threatening and belligerent. When the subject is worked up into a state of fear the belligerent examiner leaves the room in an assumed fit of anger.

“The second detective, who has quietly watched his fellow sleuth’s operations, during which he has looked on, distinterestedly [sic], takes up the ‘degree’ where the other left off. He affects an entirely different attitude. He soothes the prisoner, encourages him and offers sympathy. His partner, he tells the prisoner, is quick of temper and is easily prejudiced.

“The prisoner is warned that the detective who threatened will strive to convict and is prevailed upon to confess in order to save himself from the vengeance of the sleuth who has just left the room. With assumed sympathy, encouragement and advice, the second detective almost invariably cajoles a confession from the ‘third degree’ subject.”

Different Treatment Needed.

With white prisoners the method is different. They are credulous and prejudiced against detectives and are keen to divine the false attitude of sympathy which wins so easily over the negro. The whites are subjected to an incessant volley of questions for many hours.

These methods are calculated to frazzle the nerves and drive the subject into admission. The duration of the “degree” is general the most effective phase of the entire examination. Under the severe mental pressure created by the constant necessity of having to meet the bombardment of questions with plausible answers and the accompanying physical strain the guilty prisoner frequently reaches a point of exhaustion which forces confession.

The inocent [sic] subject is seldom forced to endure such methods. His innocence is easily divined by his frankness, his collaborative answers and his story. Guilt is quickly detected in even the shrewdest and most experienced of crooks. Even the best of rehearsed stories are often broken down under the strain of constant examination.

Series of Examinations.

As explained by Chief Lanford, the “third degree” is merely the last of a series of examinations. In the first degree the prisoner is allowed to tell his story without cross-examination. He signs a written statement, following which the detectives “run it down,” finding whatever discrepancies they may and obtaining corroboration.

The second degree is for the purpose of confronting the subject with the fruits in his tale and the evidence unearthed against him. If he fails to confess in this stage of the examination he is forced to remain in solitude and confinement for hours, to meditate over the situation, sum up the probability of conviction and to consider the strain to which he will be subjected in the following degree, of which he has been made vividly aware during the previous examination.

The queries put to him by the grand jury, says the chief, were of a nature meant to ascertain whether or not the police methods were tortuous and whether or not they often resulted in prisoners making false confessions in order to escape suffering. The chief declares he informed the jury that the methods were not barbarous and that it was only the guilty who suffered and that they experienced suffering only through the mental strain which attended the necessity of having to answer volleys of questions with faked answers.

So far as is known the jury has taken no action regarding their investigation of police methods. Lanford expresses belief that they were pleased with his explanation of the “third degree” and that they have learned definitely that it is only a method of science and not torture.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 15th 1913, “Detective Chief Tells Grand Jury of “Third Degree”,” 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

Wednesday, June 11th, 1913

Judge Roan Gives Suspect Chance to Show Why He Should Not Be Released.

The Phagan case took a queer turn Wednesday afternoon when Judge Roan, apparently stirred by Luther Z. Rosser’s ar[r]aignment of the way Jim Conley has been “petted” by the police, issued notice to suspects in the mystery that they will be given opportunity Friday to show cause why the negro should not be released from custody as a suspect.

However, the move is strictly legal in character, Conley, through his attorney, W. M. Smith, having signed a written statement to stay in the custody of the police as a principal witness if previous orders are vacated and he is legally freed as a suspect.

Agrees to Remain.

Judge Roan informed Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey that he wanted to withdraw his previous order committing Conley to the police station so that the negro’s status could be definitely fixed and so that he could perhaps be sent back to the county jail. Both Conley and his attorney announced that the prisoner wanted to stay at police headquarters.

Smith also came forward with the agreement that Conley would remain in custody of the chief of police.

Sensations Ahead.

Judge Roan then issued what is known as a rule nial, informing Frank, Gordon Bailey, an elevator boy, and Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, that they could be given a chance Friday to show why Conley should not be released.

Sensational developments may follow Friday if the Frank defense is allowed to present facts against Conley for Attorney Rosser is firmly convinced that the negro is the guilty man and has so announced.

Whether the negro shall be indicted as an accessory after or to the fact, or be continued to be held as a witness, will then be determined.

Napier Analyzes The Phagan Case.

The Georgian publishes the following letter written by George M. Napier, the well-known lawyer, on the Phagan case, as it gives for the first time a legal analysis of the case for and against Frank:

To the Editor of The Georgian:

This section of our country has held very few criminal cases so profoundly interesting as the Phagan case. Indeed, it is questionable whether the entire South has ever had enacted within it a crime which has created such intense and widespread interest.

Personally, I have no concern in the case, save as a citizen of the State, desiring that the guilty party or parties may receive condign punishment.

Profoundly Interested.

As a lawyer, being interested more intimately perhaps than those not of that profession, certain aspects of the case—the procedure taken in the efforts of those immediately charged with ferreting out the facts of the crime, and the varied and swiftly changing developments in connection with it—I find these to be of profound interest.

One thing has been made evident: The people generally are disposed to ascribe guilty to one who has the opportunity to commit crime. This was shown by the widely-accepted conclusion that Leo Frank and Newt Lee, colored, were guilty of the murder of the Phagan girl, as soon as it became known that they had been at the pencil factory on the day of the homicide.

This conclusion was fixed in the minds of many by reason of the evident inclination of the detectives to believe Frank guilty. And there is little doubt that if the two men had been imprisoned in an unprotected town jail they would have been lynched while suspicion and excitement were at their height.

Praises Newspaper.

This mental state of the community did not last, however. The remarkable success of the local press in obtaining and publishing every detail of the evidence of the detectives enabled the reading public to weigh the testimony by piecemeal. It is safe to say that there lately have been many accessions to those who from the first hesitated to accept the theory of the guilt of Frank, or of the night watchman who found the body, upon the sole basis of their opportunity to commit the crime, and with all the circumstances going to negative motive to kill the young girl, especially on the part of the white man.

The zeal of the secret service men in trailing to cover criminals who effect getaways is to be commended, but the work of building a successful prosecution upon a mere case of suspicion will, in many instances, fail.

The testimony of Frank before the Coroner’s jury, in which he gave, with conspicuous consistency and openness, an account of his actions and whereabouts on the day of the killing, created a favorable impression on the public mind.

Strengthened by Witnesses.

This was strengthened by the corroboration of his statements as to the time of his movements by impartial witnesses of unquestioned veracity.

The indictment of Frank by the Grand Jury seems to have been seized upon as the psychological opportunity for the negro Conley to admit that he wrote the notes found by the dead girl’s body, and the comparison of his handwriting with that of the notes proves that fact beyond peradventure. But the network of lies in which Conley has become enmeshed seems not to have given the forces conducting the prosecution any serious impression as to his own guilt as the actual murderer of Mary Phagan.

Two things, it seems to me, would be sufficient to clear Frank of the crime, in the absence of any proved motive to commit it. The first is the work done by him on his books at the pencil factory on the afternoon of the killing and subsequent to the time which is assigned by common consent for the occurrence of the deed.

How Could He Have Done Work?

That a man could go to the delicate and intricate task of spreading upon account books the record and figures of a week’s transactions of a factory employing a large number of hands, and involving numerous financial dealings, and requiring four or more hours of steady work; and that he could do this with his usual accuracy and celerity staggers belief.

The other fact is a piece of testimony by the negro Conley himself. He has made the statement that when he was assisting Frank in the disposal of the dead girl’s body he noticed the time clock in the factory and saw that it lacked four minutes of 1 o’clock. At that moment, he says, Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman, two employees, came into the factory and Frank told him to hid in a cupboard in the office.

But Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman testified that they were at the factory one hour and eleven minutes earlier than that, and that they left the factory at 11:45 and did not return that day. The conversation they had with Mr. Frank is the same that the negro says he heard.

Discrepancy in Time.

The murdered girl reached the city by street car at 12:04. This has been definitely proved. She reached the factory and received her pay envelope at 12:10 or 12:15, so far as is known. Thus the negro adds this to his many other admitted lies—and if the girl was dead at the time he heard Frank talking to Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman, she was murdered before she left her home.

To one who is sufficiently interested to look over the scene of the crime several things worth nothing will be revealed. Coming down from the office in the pencil factory, a young girl, unprotected, might well glance with nervous dread at the pile of large boxes under the stairway near the elevator shaft. In daytime the corner under the staircase is in semi-darkness. It is an ideal place for a would be criminal to screen himself.

If the girl left the factory after receiving her pay and came down the stairs, this dark corner was behind her as she walked down the steps. A woman who testified, but whose name I do not now recall, saw a negro lurking in this corner. Conley has admitted that he sat for some time near the elevator.

He had the opportunity to spring upon the poor girl as a spider would upon a fly. If robbery was his motive, an assault with a stick might have felled her. She could have been thrown down the elevator shaft or through the opening near the elevator, which has a ladder under it leading down to the dirt floor of the basement.

The place on the second floor where Conley says he picked up the body of the girl shows no trace of blood. Every circumstance indicates that she received the blow on her head before she died—and he says she was dead when he saw her there–so if she bled anywhere the strong probability is that the bloodstains would have been found where she had been picked up.

Even the mystifying fact that the staple of the rear door, leading out of the basement to the street, had been pulled from the inside could be easily explained on the theory that the criminal took the precaution to pull that staple so as to be able to run down the ladder and make his exit safely by the back street in the even any outcry was made by his victim.

Much emphasis is placed upon the dramatic manner with which Conley re-enacted the supposed work of carrying the body from the second floor to the basement that fatal day.

Might Not He Swear Falsely?

Does it tax our credulity greatly to believe that a cunning negro, who has been proved to have had unobstructed opportunity to commit the crime, and who admits having secreted the body, is capable of swearing that another man was with him when the crime was committed—a man behind whom he can hide from the law?

Would a drinking, irresponsible, perhaps criminal man of a low order of life be incapable of swearing away the life of any man if by so doing he could save himself from the gallows?

What is called the “humanity of the law” invests every person charged with crime with the presumption of innocence until his guilt has been proved, and proved to the extent of being irreconcilable with every hypothesis of his innocence. Guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the reasonableness of a doubt on the minds of the jury trying a given case might depend largely upon the state of the public mind regarding that case.

For this reason, if for no other, the people in a community where a crime has been committed should be reluctant to reach a conclusion of the guilt of any one, where only circumstantial evidence is adducible.

It would be a remarkable termination of the Phagan case, which is not now so mysterious as it once seemed, if Frank, the first man suspected by the detectives, should be acquitted, and his accuser, the negro Conley, should be brought to trial and convicted.

But stranger things have happened.

And if the evidence against Conley is as strong as it now seems assured it will be, will not the prosecution be greatly handicapped in the necessity of prosecuting Conley by reason of having put forth such strenuous and hopeful efforts to convict Leo Frank?

How Rewards Would Be Shared.

Rich rewards will recompense the discovery of evidence to convict the slayer in this case. If Frank should be found guilty, the division of the large sums offered for evidence to convict will go to certain secret service men who first called attention to the opportunity of Frank to commit the crime, and who have directed their energies in the investigation of it on the theory of his guilt.

If Conley should be proved guilty, one of the foremen of the factory who saw the negro washing a shirt under suspicious circumstances, and who directed his arrest, will likely get the coin. But with the public it is not a question of rewards to be distributed; but it is the vital, the supreme question, who is the real murderer?

The law, if rightly followed, is a noble instrument of protection to society, including the ignorant, the weak, and those of little understanding. It points the finger of suspicion at no man, but demands evidence before guilt can be determined—either the clear and unmistakable proof of eyewitnesses, or an array of circumstances which excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Lauds Frank’s Character.

In determining motive to commit crime, we have reason to regard the character and reputation of the individual. In the case under consideration, the man who protests his entire innocence and ignorance of the crime, but who now stands indicted as a criminal, has been for six years an exemplary citizen of this community, and the trusted manager of an important manufacturing enterprise.

He has sustained well the confidence reposed in him. A leader in the community life of his race, he has been highly honored for one of his years. The attachment of his friends to him in the weeks of his imprisonment has been rarely significant of an unshaken confidence in his complete innocence.

The high character of a large majority of his friends, who are men incapable of the desire to shield the perpetrator of so heinous a crime, removes the suggestion of a clannish defense of racial bias.

Is not the case against Leo Frank so far presented against him palpably weak? And does not the far greater weight of evidence now point unmistakably to the negro Conley as the sole perpetrator of the crime?

GEORGE M. NAPIER.

Lanford Lauds Sleuths’ Work in Phagan Mystery.

The extra labor falling on the detective department because of the Phagan mystery received special reference in the monthly report of Chief of Detectives Lanford, sent to Chief of Police Beavers for submission to the Police Commission. Chief Lanford also commends several detectives for their untiring work on the case. He said:

“It has been a very hard and laborious month on account of the Phagan case, and I wish to state that the men have been very vigilant and untiring in their efforts to run down this case. I wish especially to commend Officers Starnes and Campbell for their untiring, faithful and able work. I feel that the public will feel throughly satisfied with the results when wound up.

“I wish to thank each and every man, and especially yourself, for the services and valuable assistance rendered my department during the month.”

With the remark that she had been away on business of her own as the explanation of her mysterious disappearance of two days, Minola McKnight, negro cook at the Selig residence, returned to her work Monday. To every inquiry she replied:

“I’se jus’ been away on some business of my own,” and with this meager enlightenment Mrs. Frank and other members of the household were forced to be content. The negro woman was as positive on her return as she was before she mysteriously dropped out of sight for 48 hours that she had told the detectives nothing of the nature of that contained in the document purporting to be her affidavit.

Attempt to Remove Jim Conley Reported.

There were unconfirmed reports Wednesday that an effort would be made to have Jim Conley, the negro sweeper who made three conflicting affidavits accusing Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan, removed from the police station to the county jail.

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey held a hurried conference with Superior Court Judge Roan and the negro’s attorney, W. M. Smith, but would tell nothing about the conference.

Just what was to be gained by the transfer was not plan unless it was to get the negro out of the reach of persons who may be interested in drilling him in his story. The police consistently have denied that Conley was drilled in his narrative.

The reports were evidently the result of the announcement made Tuesday by Luther Z. Rosser, who charged that the police had made no real effort to get the entire truth from the negro. He pointed out that after the negro had made two conflicting affidavits the police announced themselves satisfied with the third, which was just as patently unsatisfactory in the things it left unexplained.

Slain Girl’s Parents Subpenaed by Dorsey.

Mr. and Mrs. W. J. Coleman, parents of Mary Phagan, were subpenaed by Solicitor Dorsey Wednesday and appeared at the court house shortly after noon. The solicitor would not say for what purpose they had been summoned. It was, however, expected that they would be called before the trial of Frank.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 11 1913, “Police Hold Conley by Court’s Order,” 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

Saturday, June 7th, 1913

Report That Elevator in Pencil Factory Was Not Running Proves Groundless.

Following a widely-prevalent rumor that Leo Frank’s defense will strive to prove that the current was shut off from the pencil factory plant on the day Mary Phagan was slain, and that, for this reason, James Conley could not have lowered the girl’s body to the basement on the electrically-driven elevator as he claims in his confession, it was established conclusively last night that the Georgia Railway and Power company’s electric service was in effect on the tragedy day.

This statement was made to a Constitution reporter by S. Arthur Redding, general superintendent of the department of electricity of the local power concern. Mr. Redding investigated his reports of the murder date to ascertain whether or not the power was running into the pencil factory building on April 26, revealing that the service was effective.

A rumor was circulated Friday that an affidavit had been secured by the defense to the effect that the current was shut off from the entire building on the day of the murder. Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, declared to a reporter for The Constitution that he knew nothing of such a document’s existence. He would not deny, however, that an affidavit of that nature had been obtained. He only said that word of its existence was “news to him.”

Shut Off From Inside.

Superintendent Redding said it was probable that the current was shut off from the inside of the plant, as is usual in all factories employing electric power. In this case, however, he declared that to turn on the power required only the plugging of an individual switch, which would have been a fixture of the plant’s not the power company’s.

Negro Sticks to Story.

Conley, when informed of the rumored affidavit, strongly maintained, the detectives who questioned him say, that he did operate the elevator to carry down the girl’s body, and that Frank drove it on the return trip. Furthermore, he is said to have declared the power company was not accustomed to shutting down the current on holidays.

Another startling rumor gained headway Friday in which A. S. Colyar, the sensational figure in the dictagraph charges, was said to have announced his possession of a sworn confession from the negro Conley, and that he had told Sheriff Mangum of it. The rumor had it that Conley had admitted to Colyar that he murdered the girl.

Chief Lanford branded the story as a total falsehood. He had heard it on Thursday night, he said, and immediately had ordered Conley brought to his office for examination. The negro, says the chief, told him emphatically that he had never intimated anything relative to having slain the girl, and that he made no sworn statements other than those in hands of the detectives.

Furthermore, the chief declares, Conley avowed he had never seen or heard of Colyar except through what he had read of him in the newspapers. Also, in a telephone conversation with Colyar, Lanford declares Colyar denied having made the reported statement, and said that he had never even seen the negro sweeper, much less talked with him.

Has Negro Cook Disappeared?

The report prevailed at police headquarters Friday that Minola McKnight, the servant girl in the Frank household, had mysteriously disappeared, and that no trace of her could be found. Investigation at the Frank home, 68 East Georgia avenue, revealed, it is said, that she was there no longer. Neither is she reported to be at her home on Pulliam street.

Her attorney, George Gordon, refuses to talk of his client or of her whereabouts. Neither will he speak of his connection with the case. He has admitted, heretofore, however, that he is counsel for the woman who recently made such a startling affidavit which she denied almost twenty-four hours after it had been in the hands of the solicitor general.

* * *

Source: Atlanta Constitution, June 7th 1913, “Current in Effect on Day of Tragedy,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 7th, 1913

In Card to The Journal, Wife of Factory Superintendent Declares Solicitor Dorsey Has Approved Third Degree

“WE ARE SUFFERING NOW, BUT WHO WILL BE NEXT?”

Her Statement in Full—Conley Will Not Be Indicted as Accessory, but if Frank is Acquitted, He Will Be Tried

Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the indicted pencil factory superintendent, Saturday afternoon sent The Journal a second statement in which she renews her charge that Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and the city detectives are obtaining evidence in the Phagan murder case by torturing witnesses into giving testimony.

Mrs. Frank’s statement is given out in reply to one issued Thursday afternoon by the solicitor. She declares that her negro cook, Minola McKnight, was arrested in violation of the criminal laws, because there was no charge against her and she was suspected of no crime.

“I do not wish to be in any manner bitter towards Mr. Dorsey, even in my feelings,” declares Mr[s]. Frank, “because it is [m]os[t] perfectly clear that his action is dictated by a serious mistake of judgment, and my only purpose is to let the community understand as thoroughly as I can, in the interest of fairness to my innocent husband, that Mr. Dorsey is proposing to use third degree torture chamber testimony in an effort to take his life and that he thinks it is perfectly proper for him to do so.”

MRS. FRANK’S STATEMENT.

Following is Mrs. Frank’s statement:

“Atlanta, Ga., June 7, 1913.

“Editor, Atlanta Journal,

“Dear Sir: I think fairness to Mr. Frank requires that the public should clearly understand Mr. Dorsey’s position as stated by him in his card in the Constitution of June 6, and repeated in the papers yesterday, in reply to my statement that he proposes to use testimony which comes from witnesses as the result of torture.

“His real position, as gleaned from his card, can be stated in the following sentences which he employed:

“‘I have only to say, without in any wise taking issue with her in the premises as I might . . . that I welcome all evidence from any source that will aid an impartial jury, under the charge of the court, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.’

“That is to say, he thinks it unnecessary to waste time in disputing the fact that the detectives are procuring testimony from witnesses by torture. He considers this point immaterial. He believes he is thoroughly justified in using tortured testimony, if it is turned over to him, for he says: “I welcome all evidence from any source.”

“The Journal and the Constitution stated that he had had my cook arrested and carried to his office and quizzed to such an extent as to drive her into hysterics and that after this he sent her screaming to the police station in the patrol wagon. After she left his office she was taken to the detectives’ torture chamber, and according to the Atlanta Constitution, she there had the third degree applied to her to the point of exhaustion, after which she made an affidavit, which the detectives or someone immediately gave out to the papers. The solicitor had no charge against this cook and did not suspect her of any crime. Yet Mr. Dorsey waives this aside as a trivial matter, not worthy to be discussed by him, because he says “I welcome all evidence from any source,” clearly implying that he will take it from the torture chamber if it is offered to him.

VIOLATED CRIMINAL LAWS.

“That he and the detectives violated the criminal law in arresting my cook when they had no charge against her and when they suspected her of no crime, I am told by lawyers, admits of no doubt. But this, Mr. Dorsey thinks, need not be discussed by him.

“While Mr. Dorsey thinks all this is entirely proper, it is the next thing to an impossibility to believe that many persons in the community will agree with him. Indeed, I would be surprised if a single individual could be found who would agree with him that he should use, even in the newspapers, torture chamber testimony to take away a man’s life.

“When Mr. Dorsey introduces this third degree evidence to the jury, can it be supposed that he will at the same time tell the jury that it comes direct from the torture chamber?

“It is our time to suffer now. Can any one tell whose turn will come next?

“I do not wish to be in any manner bitter toward Mr. Dorsey, even in my feelings, because it is so perfectly clear that his action is dictated by a serious mistake of judgment, and my only purpose is to let the community understand as thoroughly as I can, in the interest of fairness to my innocent husband, that Mr. Dorsey is proposing to use third degree torture chamber testimony in an effort to take his life and that he thinks it is perfectly proper for him to do so.

“Mr. Dorsey and the detectives know that I cannot go on the witness stand and deny the affidavits they have published in the newspapers wrung from my cook in the torture chamber by the third degree process, because I am informed that under the law a wife will not be permitted to testify either for or against her husband. The law puts this absolute seal upon my lips and my only recourse is in letting the community know the facts through the newspapers as far as I can. I know I cannot keep up with all the false affidavits and false rumors and innuendos that have been so industriously put in the newspapers, but I feel that I should call attention in this instance to Mr. Dorsey’s position, which he so boldly justifies.

“Respectfully yours,

“MRS. LEO M. FRANK.”

WON’T INDICT NEGRO.

Although the Fulton county grand jury meets again next Tuesday morning to take up criminal matters, there is said to be no probability of the jury’s considering a bill against James Conley, the negro sweeper, charging him with being an accessory after the fact of Mary Phagan’s murder.

In fact, there is little chance of Conley’s being indicted on this charge until after the trial of Leo M. Frank, superintendent of the factory where Conley was employed.

The natural inference from the fact that Conley will not be indicted by the grand jury until after Frank’s trial is that should the state fail to secure a conviction, and any additional evidence is developed against Conley by the defense, then he can be indicted, not as an accessory, but as the principal in the murder.

Nothing has developed to change the attitude of the state, but there has been no evidence to demonstrate to a mathematical certainty the guilt of any party. As a result the attitude of the state is said to be quite flexible.

If the state fails to secure a conviction of Mr. Frank then the chances favor a charge of murder against the negro. It has been said that the defense of Frank will try to show the negro guilty of the crime, and additional evidence against the negro will be produced by Frank’s attorneys.

NEGRO MAY FACE TRIAL.

If this should prove to be the case and Frank is acquitted, then the negro is certain to face a trial for his own life.

However, if the defense of Frank should fail to attack the negro and Frank still be acquitted, even then the probability is that the negro would be indicted as a principal and not as an accessory after the murder.

“In other words, developments of Saturday indicate that when Frank faces the jury in the criminal division of the superior court the negro Conley, his principal accuser, will be given a “preliminary hearing.” If Frank is found guilty he escapes. If Frank is declared innocent then he (Conley) will have to stand trial for his life.

There has been much speculation about the legal right of the authorities to hold Conley, a witness in a state case, at police headquarters, where the city is bearing the expense of his incarceration.

Conley, soon after his sensational confession, was transferred to the tower from police headquarters, where he had been detained several weeks. The transfer was on an order from Judge L. S. Roan, holding the man as a material witness in the case against Frank.

Conley remained only about twenty-four hours in the tower, when he went to the solicitor’s office on another order issued by Judge Roan. From there he was carried by Detectives to police headquarters, where he now is.

Solicitor Dorsey was asked to explain the negro’s position Saturday, and his states that Judge Roan has issued an order permitting Conley to be detained at police headquarters.

The order is said to have been taken at the request of the negro himself, and by co[n]sent of his cou[n]sel, William M. Smith.

Conley was not “sweated” Saturday. The chief of detectives states that the negro will probably not be cross-examined again unless there are unforeseen developments.

TRIAL JUNE 30.

There is now little doubt that the case against Frank will be set on the superior court calendar for Monday, June 30, by the solicitor general.

It is also quite probable that the actual trial will be entered into on that day. The criminal division of the superior court is seldom in session during the months of July and August, and, should the defense attempt to postpone the hearing from June 30, the trial of the case would go over until September, and it is not considered likely that either side will want such a long delay.

It has been reported that Viola [sic] McKnight, the negro cook at the Frank home, has disappeared, but Chief Lanford says that no report about her has been made to him. The woman is a witness located by the solicitor general, and Chief Lanford says that he will make no effort to find her unless requested to do so by Mr. Dorsey. The rumor of the woman’s disappearance has caused little comment, since she is not considered important as a witness.

It has been stated that the defense of Frank is expecting to show at his trial that the elevator in the National Pencil factory, where the tragedy occurred, was not operated on April 26. Chief Lanford, on the other hand, is very confident that the state will be able to show conclusively that the elevator was in perfect running order on the day of the murder and could have easily been run.

It has not been learned in just what way the defense expects to show that the elevator did not run during that day.

The point, however, is considered a very important one since it would upset the state’s theory and the statement of James Conley that the body was carried to the basement in the elevator, if the defense can show that the car did not run on the day of the crime.

Conley’s Record Bad, Says Former Officer

Investigations of the past record of James Conley, the negro who says he helped L. M. Frank dispose of Mary Phagan’s body, are said to have been underway for some days.

The investigation is being made very quietly and it is not known whether it is being conducted by detectives or friends of Frank. B. M. Brodie, a former policeman, who is now in business at 153 Decatur street, states that according to information which he has received. Conley became enraged with his wife about three months ago and fired at her with a revolver. The bullet missed the man’s wife, but struck another negress, it is said, inflicting a slight flesh wound. Conley was not persecuted. It is also said that some years ago Conley pulled a pistol on A. Boss, a grocer now deceased, and threatened to shoot him.

These and several additional charges against the record of the incarcerated negro are being investigated.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, June 7th 1913, “‘Torture Chamber’ Methods Charged in Getting Evidence,” 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)

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

Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 6th 1913

Report of a Confession, Different From One Given to the Detectives, Is Ridiculed by Chief Lanford

DORSEY MAKES REPLY TO MRS. L. M. FRANK

No More News of Phagan Case to Be Given to Newspapers Except Through Head of Detectives

Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford gave out a statement Friday morning in which he characterized as absurd the rumor that James Conley, the negro pencil factory sweeper, had ever made any confessions other than those contained in the affidavits given the detectives.

The chief stated that he had questioned Conley on this subject both Thursday evening and Friday morning and that the negro had positively denied that he had made any other confessions.

This rumor is said to have originated at the court house Thursday following certain questions which the members of the grand jury are said to have put to A. S. Colyar, a witness. Colyar is said to have been asked if he had at any time drafted or had in his possession an affidavit of confession from Conley.

Colyar emphatically denied that he had ever discussed such an affidavit with any one. The only information he had of Conley’s confessions, said Colyar, he had obtained from the newspapers.

Chief Lanford says that he talked with Colyar over the telephone Friday morning and that he denied ever having or claiming to have such an affidavit, much less offering one for sale. “He also told me,” said the chief, “that he had never talked with Conley in his life and stated that he had only seen the negro once and that was when he happened to glance in the door of my office when we were questioning Conley.

“Last night Conley was brought up to my office and I asked him if he had ever intimated to anybody that he knew anything about the murder of Mary Phagan before he confessed to us. He stated that he had not. This morning he said he had never seen nor heard of Colyar.”

According to Chief Lanford, Conley reiterates that his affidavit of confession contains all that he knows of the murder. “I have told the truth and the whole truth as far as I know it,” the negro is quoted as having said.

SOLICITOR ANSWERS MRS. FRANK.

The publication of the statement of Mrs. Leo M. Frank, attacking the prosecuting officials of the city and county for the methods employed in securing evidence against her husband, who is charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, has broken the long silence of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey.

Despite the hundreds of questions which have been poured at him each day, Mr. Dorsey has consistently refrained from discussing the evidence in any way, and it was with greatest reluctance that he has consented to talk on any phase of the case.

Mrs. Frank has charged that Minola McKnight, the family cook, has been imprisoned illegally and tortured until a false affidavit was made.

“Why does the solicitor continue to apply the third degree to produce testimony?” asks Mrs. Frank. “How does he hope to get the jury to believe it?”

Mrs. Frank, in her statement, protests her belief in the complete innocence of her husband.

The reply of Solicitor Dorsey to the statement of the accused man’s wife is as follows:

“I have read the statement printed in the Atlanta newspapers over the signature of Mrs. Leo M. Frank, and I have only to say, without in any wise taking issue with her premises, as I might, that the wife of a man accused of crime would probably be the last person to learn all of the facts establishing his guilt, and certainly would be the last person to admit his culpability, even though proved by overwhelming evidence to the satisfaction of every impartial citizen beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt.

“Since the discovery of this crime I have rigidly adhered to my consistent policy of refraining from newspaper interviews or statements with relation to the evidence upon which the state must depend to convict and punish the perpetrator of the crime, and it is my purpose to adhere steadfastly to this policy, submitting to the jury of Fulton county citizens, to be selected under the fair provision of the law, the evidence upon which, alone, conviction or acquittal must depend.

“A bill of indictment has been found by the grand jury, composed of impartial and respected citizens of this community, and as solicitor general of this circuit, charged with the duty of aiding in the enforcement of our laws by the prosecution of those indicted for violating the law. I welcome all evidence from any source that will aid an impartial jury, under the charge of the court, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

“Perhaps the most unpleasant feature incident is the position of prosecuting attorney arises from the fact that punishment of the guilty inevitably brings suffering to relations who are innocent of participation in the crime, but who must share the humiliation flowing from its exposure.

“This, however, is an evil attendant upon crime, and the courts and their officers cannot allow their sympathies for innocent to retard the vigorous prosecution of those indicted for the commission of crime, for were it otherwise, sentiment, and not justice, would dominate the administration of our laws.

“HUGH M. DORSEY.”

Mineola [sic] McKnight, the negress whose arrest is prominently mentioned in Mrs. Frank’s statement, has returned to her work as a cook in the Selig family, and she has repudiated the affidavit said to have been signed by her at police headquarters.

The chief of detectives, Newport A. Lanford, is not at all disturbed, he says, by the charges of Mrs. Frank, and has made no answer.

TRIAL JUNE 30.

If nothing unexpected occurs the state will be ready to proceed with the trial of Leo Frank on the week of June 30—the second week in the June session of criminal division of superior court. Solicitor Dorsey made it plain Friday that he expected to call the case Monday, June 30, and the trial would be staged then if the defense was willing to proceed.

Chief Lanford Puts Lid on Phagan News

As the result of the agitation, said to have originated with Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, the chief of the city detective department, has issued a new order prohibiting his men from giving out any information concerning the cases on which the department is at work.

The order, which reads as follows, was issued and read to the men Thursday morning just before the chief left headquarters to go before the grand jury:

“Special Order No. 6—No information pertaining to any cases worked by this department shall be given out by any of the men. All such information shall come through the head of the department. Any man violating this rule shall be subject to immediate suspension.

“N. A. LANFORD,

“Chief of Detectives.”

While the chief’s order was issued Thursday and cannot be said to be the result of any grand jury recommendation, the official stated that he was taken to task by the grand jury because so much information about the Phagan case had found its way to the newspapers.

The grand jury is said to have probed alleged “leakages” from the department to the newspapers.

CHIEF’S EXPLANATION.

Chief Lanford states that the issuance of the order should not be taken to mean that he does not have confidence in his men. “I received a letter early Thursday morning from Solicitor General Dorsey using me to take steps to prevent the ‘leakage’ of information,” declared the chief, “and it was to satisfy the solicitor that I issued the order.”

The chief stated that while it was true that a large part of the evidence gathered by the detectives in the Phagan case had found its way into the newspapers, this does not mean that the detective gave it out.

“When there is an especially interesting investigation in progress,” said the chief, “a small army of keen-witted reporters invade police headquarters. These reporters are both shrewd and resourceful. They see who is interrogated and it is almost a matter of impossibility for any person who has been closeted with the detectives to get away from the station house without from two to a half dozen reporters ‘arming’ him and plying him with questions.

“Under those circumstances it is not surprising that the newspapers frequently obtain information within a few minutes after it gets into the hands of the detectives. Oftentimes, in order to prevent inaccuracies which might prove serious, we find it advisable to set the reporters right.

AN INSTANCE OF ENTERPRISE.

“Just as an illustration of the enterprise of the newspaper reporters, I wish to call attention to an incident which occurred late Tuesday afternoon. Detectives Starnes and Campbell had hardly finished obtaining the affidavit from Minola McKnight, the negro cook at the Frank home, when a reporter called me from The Atlanta Journal office and outlined to me the contents of the affidavit. I did not at the time know myself what was in the affidavit. At my earnest request the reporter refrained from publishing this information in this late editions, it being understood that if, after I read the affidavit I found that there had been a ‘leak’ I would give it out for publication. This I did on Wednesday.

“Now, this reporter did not obtain his information from any one connected with the police or detective departments. Of that I am sure. However, I do not know just where the ‘leak’ was, but that there was one is an established fact.

Chief Lanford states that in the future he will have regular hours for receiving reporters.

SOLICITOR’S STATEMENT.

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey declared Friday that “leaks” in evidence in the prosecution of the Phagan case had not emanated from his office nor from the police detectives—Messrs. Campbell and Starnes—who are working hand in glove with the prosecuting attorney. He was certain, he asserted, that nothing bearing on the case had been given publicity by them.

“This office,” said the solicitor, “has been ‘mum’ on every matter considered of importance in this case. My own men always have had explicit instructions to give out nothing, and I am sure that Detectives Starnes and Campbell have told nothing.”

The solicitor declined to discuss for publication the McKnight incident and asserted that his formal statement given to the newspapers Thursday afternoon would be his only reply to the accusations made against him by Mrs. Leo M. Frank.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, June 6th 1913, “Conley Sticks to His Story; Declares Detective Chief,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)