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

Atlanta Georgian
August 9^th, 1913

THE RIDDLE OF THE CLOCK IN THE PHAGAN MYSTERY

Jim Conley swears Mary Phagan went up the stairs of the National Pencil factory and was murdered before Monteen Stover arrived. He says he saw Miss Stover go up and leave.

Monteen Stover, State’s witness, swears she arrived at 12:05.

George Epps, State’s witness, swears he and Mary Phagan arrived at Marietta and Forsyth streets at 12:07.

The car crew, defense’s witnesses, swear Mary arrived at Broad and Marietta at 12:07^1/2 and at Broad and Hunter at 12:10.

If Mary Phagan was at Marietta and Forsyth at12:07, as the State says, or at Broad and Hunter at 12:10, as the defense says, how could she have preceded Monteen Stover, as Jim Conley says, up the factory stairs, when Monteen Stover was in the factory at 12:05?

What’s the answer?

By JAMES B. NEVIN.

Tick-tock! Tick-tock!
Hark to the tale of the old hall clock!
Tick-tock! Tick-tock!
This is the tale of the clock!
—Old English Ballad.

This is a tale of an office clock and a motorman’s watch—an office clock in the National Pencil Factory, the first requisite of which, it being a “time” clock, is accuracy, and a motorman’s watch.

And this is the story of a clock that may or may not mean life and liberty and a restored good name to Leo Frank, or—a fate infinitely worse than mere death itself!

It is a story involving a young business man of repute and high standing, a college graduate and a husband, a brave, womanly little girl, foully murdered, a motorman known to many Atlantans, a newsboy not so well known, a disinterested working girl, a negro sweeper, a confessed accessory to murder, the dead girl’s mother—and an office clock.

What does the story demonstrate?

That shall be for the reader to say.

Here is the story:

What the State Contends.

The State of Georgia is contending that Leo Frank murdered on April 26, before the hour of 12:05 in the afternoon, Mary Phagan, a 14-year-old working girl, employed in the National Pencil Factory, of which Frank was the superintendent.

It cites, among others, to bear out its contention, James Conley, a negro sweeper in the factory, and Monteen Stover, an employee of the factory.

Miss Stover is a disinterested witness—Conley not only is the star witness against Frank, but is interested in fixing the murder upon Frank.

Here is what the State, by its own witnesses, asserts:

Jim Conley swears that a few minutes before Miss Monteen Stover came into the factory—Miss Stover herself, swearing that she entered at 12:05—Mary Phagan entered and passed upstairs and into Leo Frank’s office.

Miss Stover, asked how she was positive as to the time she went in and the time she came out, stated that she looked at the time clock both as she came in and as she went out. That fixes the time of her coming and going definitely and exactly.

It was before Miss Stover came in that Conley swears Mary Phagan came in. Therefore, Mary Phagan must have arrived at the factory, according to Conley, at least before 12:05, the moment Miss Stover came in.

Before Miss Stover Entered.

But after Mary came in, and before Miss Stover came in, the murder, still according to Conley, had been effected.

For (a) after Mary went upstairs and before Miss Stover came in, Conley (b) heard pattering footsteps toward the rear of the building, where (c) he says the body was found by him later, and after that (d) a scream, and then (e) a period of silence.

All of this, according to Conley, before Monteen Stover entered the factory—that is, before 12:05 certainly—and, considering the things Conley swears happened, several minutes before 12:05, necessarily.

Mrs. Coleman, Mary’s mother, swears that Mary left home “about 11:45” in the morning, and George Epps swears he joined her on the car at 11:50, for he looked at a clock at home just before boarding the car, and that he and Mary arrived at Marietta and Forsyth streets at 12:07, the latter hour not definitely fixed in his mind.

Motorman Remembers Time.

The motorman on that car, however, who swears he knew Mary Phagan, and had seen her board his car frequently, and remembers seeing her board that particular car on that particular day, says that the car arrived at Marietta and Forsyth at 12:7^1/2, [1 word illegible] that is the time it is scheduled to arrive there, and he was running on time that day.

The motorman swears Mary and a companion got off at Hunter and Broad about 12:10, that being a few minutes’ farther run than Marietta and Forsyth. The conductor corroborates the motorman in an additional statement that the car was not running ahead of schedule, the conductors being particularly required by the company not to run ahead of time.

Mary Phagan left the street car at 12:10, still a block and a half from the pencil factory.

If she walked directly to the factory, she could not have reaclied [sic] there before 12:12, in any event.

If the little victim of this tragedy, Mary Phagan, therefore, DID NOT REACH THE FACTORY UNTIL MANY MINUTES AFTER CONLEY SWEARS SHE DID GET THERE, AND UNTIL AT LEAST TWO MINUTES AFTER MONTEEN STOVER HAD DEPARTED, AND UNTIL AFTER CONLEY SWEARS HE HAD HEARD THE FOOTSTEPS AND THE SCREAM, HOW CAN CONLEY’S STORY BE TRUE?

Slain Before She Arrived?

In other words, how could Mary Phagan have been murdered before she arrived at the factory?

Remember, too, that when Frank was asked at the Coroner’s inquest as to the time of Mary Phagan’s arrival, he said that it was after 12, because the noon whistle had blown some time before—that she might have arrived at 12:10 or, maybe later, perhaps as late as 12:20 or 12:25.

Conley, also, in fixing the time of Mary Phagan’s arrival at the factory, said it was soon after the noon whistle blew, therefore, a little after 12—thus placing Mary’s arrival between 12 and the time of Monteen Stover’s arrival, which was 12:05.

Now then, take your pencil and paper, and figure this problem out for yourself.

Can you reconcile Conley’s story with the other things proved, in the main, by the State’s own witnesses?

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 9th 1913, “Here’s the Time Clock Puzzle in the Frank Trial; Can You Figure it Out?” 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
August 3^rd, 1913

Most Important Points State Sought to Prove Are That Mary Phagan Was Killed Shortly After Entering Factory—That Crime Was on Second Floor, and That Frank Was Not in His Office at the Time He Saw He Gave Her the Pay Envelope

An entire week has been given over to the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, and so far the state has not shown or attempted to show any direct connection on the part of the defendant with the crime. Solicitor Dorsey has worked systematically to weave a chain of circumstantial evidence about Frank.

Those who have watched the progress of the trial day by day are impressed with the fact that he has endeavored by the introduction of circumstantial evidence to pave the way for the testimony of James Conley, the negro sweeper, who will be the climax witness for the state and upon whose evidence the case against Frank will largely stand or fall.

The state swore but twenty-six witnesses when the trial began Monday afternoon, but up to date it has called thirty and the indications are that still others are to be put upon the stand. The defense has not put up a single witness and can not do so until the state rests its case. However, Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, counsel for Frank, have administered severe cross-examinations to the more material of the state’s witnesses and in many instances have succeeded in minimizing the evidence given by them on their direct examination.

The state has sought to show by its witnesses:

First. That Mary Phagan was murdered within an hour after she left her home just before noon on April 26 to go to the pencil factory for her pay.

Second. That she was rendered unconscious by a blow upon the back of the head and that she died from strangulation.

Third. That she was murdered on the second or office floor of the factory and that her body was taken to the basement on the elevator.

Fourth. That no one saw her enter or leave the factory and that Frank was the only person who saw her while she was there.

Fifth. That at the exact hour Frank has stated that the girl came into his office he was himself absent from the office, although he claims not have left it from about 11 o’clock until 12:30 and 1 o’clock.

Sixth. That the girl was not criminally assaulted, although she had suffered some kind of violence five or ten minutes before her death.

Seventh. That about 1 o’clock, several minutes after the murder was committed, a negro was seen sitting on a box on the first floor near the foot of the stairs.

Eighth. That on Sunday morning Frank was very nervous and excited and that he would not look upon the face of the dead girl when he was taken to the undertaking establishment.

DR. HARRIS’ TESTIMONY.

The most significant evidence so far offered by the state was the testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, and Monteen Stover, a fourteen-year-old girl, who formerly worked at the pencil factory.

Dr. Harris made a post-mortem examination on the body of Mary Phagan a few days after her death. He testified that she had undoubtedly died from strangulation produced by the tightly-drawn cord around her neck; that the blow on the back of the head undoubtedly rendered her unconscious; that she had died within from a half to three-quarters of an hour after having eaten some cabbage and bread; that she had not been criminally assaulted but that she had suffered some kind of violence between five and ten minutes before death.

Dr. Harris explained that the cord had left a deep indentation in the girl’s neck which was badly contused and swollen; that the blow on the back of the head had caused a slight hemorrhage beneath the skull, but not sufficient to kill; that he had examined the contents of the stomach and found pieces of cabbage and bread which were almost totally undigested; that his examination of the organs of the body convinced him that no criminal assault had been made upon the child, but that the dilated and inflamed blood vessels satisfied him that external violence had been committed, and that the condition of the inflammation caused him to believe it occurred not more than ten minutes before her death.

A bottle containing the undigested cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach was tendered by Dr. Harris, as were two other bottles containing partially digested cabbage, which he said he had taken from the stomachs of two healthy normal men an hour after they had eaten it.

Dr. Harris was too ill to finish his testimony, and the defense had no opportunity to cross-examine him. He will doubtless be recalled this week.

MONTEEN STOVER’S EVIDENCE.

Monteen Stover testified that she went to the pencil factory for her pay at 12:05 o’clock on Saturday, April 27; that she stepped into the outer office where she could have a good view of Frank’s private office; that she saw no one in either office; that she sat on a bench outside the office until 12:10, when she went back home.

A statement made by Frank to the detectives was read to the jury. In it Frank says Mary Phagan came to his office about 12:05 or 12:10; that he gave her her pay envelope and that she then went out.

In their cross-examination of several witnesses Attorneys Rosser and Arnold brought out the fact that it would be almost impossible for a person to see into Frank’s private office from the outer office when the safe door was open; that the door was so large that it practically cut off all view into the inner office. It is presumed that the defense will later attempt to show that the safe door was open at the hour the Stover girl says she looked into Frank’s office.

DR. J. W. HURT.

The testimony of Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner’s physician who performed the autopsy on Mary Phagan’s body, Sunday morning following the murder, differed in several important particulars from that of Dr. Harris in his testimony. He agreed with Dr. Harris that the girl came to her death by strangulation, but admitted on cross-examination that the only accurate way to prove this was by an examination of the lungs, which he had not made. He also agreed that the blow on the head was delivered before death and produced unconsciousness, but admitted on cross-examination that such blows frequently result in concussion of the brain and in death.

Dr. Hurt corroborated Dr. Harris in the latter’s statement that the girl had not been criminally assaulted, but differed with him as to her having undergone external violence. Dr. Hurt says he never found any indications of violence and that the dilated and inflamed blood vessels could have resulted from natural causes.

He would not attempt to estimate how long the cabbage had been in the stomach, but admitted that mastication had a great deal to do with digestion and that some persons digested food sooner than others.

MRS. J. W. COLEMAN.

Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary, testified that the girl left her home at 11:45 to go to the factory, and just prior to leaving she partook of a meal consisting of cabbage and bread.

Attorney Rosser developed from Mrs. Coleman that it was two blocks to the car line from her home and that she had no way of knowing how soon Mary caught a car.

George Epps, a newsboy, swore that he boarded the car with the girl at Olive street and Bellwood avenue at 10 minutes to 12 and that they left the car at Marietta and Forsyth streets about 12:10. He was not sure of the latter time, as he judged it by the sun. The girl, he said, walked on across the Forsyth street viaduct toward the factory, two blocks away.

The presence of blood spots on the second floor of the factory, near the girl’s dressing room was testified to by R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the factory; Mell Stanford, another factory employe, Detectives Starnes and Black, Mrs. George W. Jefferson, also a factory employe, and Chief Beavers. Dr. Claude A. Smith, city bacteriologist and chemist, testified that he had made an analysis of the stain upon chips taken from the floor and found that it was blood.

Barrett swore that he had found hair upon the handle of his turning lathe in the metal room; that it was not there Friday when he stopped work, and that no girls worked in the factory on Saturday. He also testified to having found a pay envelope under Mary Phagan’s machine.

Attorneys Rosser and Arnold brought out from a number of witnesses that paint spots, both red and dark, could be found in all parts of the factory and that it was not an uncommon thing to find blood spots around the women’s dressing rooms and toilets of factories where large numbers of women were employed.

WHAT DARLEY SAID.

One of the State’s witnesses, N. V. Darley, general manager of the pencil factory, stated on cross-examination that about 175 pay envelopes were scattered over the factory on every pay day, and that lengths of cord, similar to that found around Mary Phagan’s neck, could also be found all over the factory; that it was frequently carried to the basement in the trash. He declared further that order blanks and tablet paper of the character upon which the notes found by the body were written, could be picked up in all parts of the factory, and that pencils were everywhere plentiful.

Both Darley and E. F. Holloway, the day watchman, testified that the switch box on the elevator was unlocked on Sunday morning, and Holloway recalled under cross-examination that he had left it unlocked the day before.

Mrs. J. Arthur White stated that she was at the pencil factory from 12:30 to about 1 o’clock on the day of the murder and that as she walked down the stairs to leave she saw a negro sitting on a box on the first floor a few feet from the staircase.

In his affidavit Conley claims that it was just before 1 o’clock that Frank called him up to aid in disposing of the body. Conley’s statement has not yet been produced in court.

FRANK’S NERVOUSNESS.

Among the witnesses who swore that Frank was very nervous on Sunday morning when he was brought to the factory were Detective John Black, Detective J. N. Starnes, W. W. Rogers, a bailiff, and Darley.

Upon cross-examination practically all of these witnesses admitted that they had never seen Frank before and knew nothing about his natural demeanor. Some of them said he was not very much more nervous than others at the factory that Sunday, and Darley declared that on two former occasions he had seen Frank fully as nervous and excited—once just after he had seen a child run over by a street car and once after Frank and a pencil factory official had quarreled.

Detectives Black and Rogers did not think that Frank had looked upon the dead girl’s face when taken to the undertaking establishment, but neither would swear positively that he had not. Black admitted that Frank was between him and the body and that he had seen the face.

Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott testified that Frank had told him that he had not left his office from the time he returned from Montag Bros., about 11 o’clock, until about 1 o’clock, when he went upstairs to tell Mrs. White that he was going to lunch and lock the front door, and that she had better leave if she wished to get out before he returned at 3 o’clock.

THE STATE’S WITNESSES.

A list of the witnesses so far introduced by the state follows: Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan; George Epps, a newsboy; Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the factory; Police Sergeant L. S. Dobbs, who found the notes in the basement beside the body; Detective J. N. Starnes, W. W. Rogers, a bailiff; Miss Grace Hix, an employe at the factory, who identified the dead girl; Detective John Black, J. M. Gantt, former ship[p]ing clerk at the factory, who testified that Frank was nervous and jumped when he encountered him at the factory door about 6 o’clock the day of the murder; Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, Miss Monteen Sttover [sic], R. P. Barrett, Mell Stanford, Mrs. George W. Jefferson, who saw the blood on the metal room floor and who swore no paints were ever kept in the metal room; Detective B. B. Haslett, who said he saw Frank in his office on Monday morning and that he was nervously pacing back and forth; William A. Gheesling, the undertaker, who embalmed the body; Dr. Claude A. Smith, E. F. Holloway, Mrs. J. Arthur White, N. V. Darley, Call Officer W. F. Anderson, who responded to Newt Lee’s call for thhe [sic] police to come to the factory Sunday morning amout [sic] 3 o’clock; Dr. H. F. Harris, G. C. Febuary, stenographer tto [sic] Chief Lanford, who identified a statement made by Frank to the chief; Albert McKnight, husband of the cook at the Frank home, who swore Frank reached his home on the day of the murder about 1:30, remained but a few minutes and left without eating luncheon; Helen Ferguson, who testified that she asked Frank for Mary Phagan’s pay on the Friday before the murder, but that he didn’t give it to her; Detective R. L. Waggoner, who rode to police station in the automobile with Frank on Tuesday following the murder and who swore he was nervous; Dr. J. W. Hurt, Police Chief James L. Beavers and Patrolman Lassiter, who with some of the other officers, swore that he saw a trail in the basement, leading from the elevator to the body which indicated that the dead girl had been dragged.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 3rd 1913, “State’s Case Against Frank As It Stands After Week’s Testimony Is Shown Here,” 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
August 3^rd, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Indicates That Real Sensation Will Be Developed for State in Closing Days of Famous Mary Phagan Mystery Case.

ANOTHER WEEK OF ORDEAL IN THE HEAT IS EXPECTED

Routing of Detective Black and Surprise in the Testimony of Pinkerton Agent Gives the Defense Principal Points Scored—Newt Lee Hurts.

Slow and tedious, almost without frills, full of bitter squabbles between lawyers, made memorable by oppressive heat, the first week of Leo Frank’s trial on the charge that he killed Mary Phagan, the little factory girl, has drawn to an end.

With the close of the week came the promise that still another six days, or more, will be consumed in taking the testimony.

When the last witness was dismissed just before the week-end recess was taken, it was realized that few telling blows had been delivered by the State. However, the promised sensation of the prosecution still is impending, and Solicitor Dorsey hints at hitherto unrevealed lines of evidence that seem to point directly to Frank’s guilt.

SCOTT TESTIMONY HITS STATE.

Thus far, however, the apparently contradictory testimony of the State’s witness, particularly that of Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, and John Black, city detective, seems to favor the defense. The corps of city detectives have told of Frank’s nervousness and excitement the day following the discovery of Mary Phagan’s body. The Pinkerton man testified to the prisoner’s composure and balance. This was but one detail of the difference, but the lawyers for the defense made much of it.

Frank’s attorneys, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, have been from the first wonderfully powerful factors in the trial, and are the agencies about whom the friends of the defense build all their hopes.

Time and again this hope has been justified. Under the grilling administered by Rosser, witnesses have squirmed and twisted their bodies and their statements as it were a material instead of a mental fire to which they were subjected.

Detective John Black was one of these. Time and again he contradicted himself as to details, and several times he confessed that he did not remember. Black it was who, of the city police force, was among the most zealous in obtaining evidence against Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey had stated that he expected to show by Black’s testimony that the detectives had gone to Lee’s house only after Frank had informed him that several punches were missing from the watchman’s clock; that Frank’s attorneys, even before Frank’s arrest, had insisted that Frank’s house be searched; that the bloody shirt found in Lee’s house was a “plant” in Frank’s favor. Much of the prosecution’s plans in this regard were fruitless, however, because of Black’s confusion under cross-examination.

NEWT LEE HOLDS GROUND.

One witness, however, and a witness damaging to the defense, who was unperturbed by a pitiless cross-examination was Newt Lee, the negro night watchman of the National Pencil Factory. The negro steadfastly maintained his original story that Frank was nervous the afternoon of Mary Phagan’s disappearance, that he had made conflicting statements concerning the watchman’s clock, and that he had seemed frightened when he found J. M. Gantt in the factory the afternoon on which the little girl probably was slain.

An evident attempt was made by the defense to place suspicion on Newt Lee. The manner in which Lawyer Rosser questioned L. S. Dobbs, the police sergeant who found the body of the dead girl, seemed to imply that much of the negro’s behavior was suspicious.

Dobbs declared that Lee had read the hardly legible notes that were found at the side of the dead girl, and had read them easily. This point the defense urged. Frank’s lawyers also inferred that it was strange the negro should identify the girl as being white in the dim-lighted gloom of the factory basement, and at a time when he confessedly was frightened out of his wits.

The attempt of the defense to throw suspicion on Newt Lee, however, seemed to be of no avail. The steadiness and ingenuousness of the old negro absolved him, in the minds of those who heard, of guilt in connection with the murder.

Except for Lee, none of the witnesses of the week revealed anything of injury to the defense. Mrs. J. W. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s mother, and George W. Epps, the newsboy friend of the little girl, were merely witnesses of incidental facts.

Grace Hix, a companion of Mary Phagan in the factory, called by the prosecution, gave evidence really favorable to the defense, telling that Frank seemed to have no acquaintance with the Pha- […]

DORSEY CONFIDENT AS FIRST DAYS OF TRIAL END

[…] -gan girl, and that he seldom talked with the factory girls when he visited the rooms in which they worked.

The extent of testimony of “Boots” Rogers, former county policeman, and J. N. Starnes, city detective, besides outlining incidents about the discovery of the body and the examination of the factory building, was merely that Frank appeared nervous and excited when he was told of the discovery at the factory, and that his speech at various times during the Sunday following the discovery seemed to be suspicious.

Solicitor Dorsey, maintaining from the first that the State has framed a conclusive case against Frank, is steadfast, here at the end of the week, in declaring that he is satisfied with the results and the progress made.

“The case which the State, from the evidence in its hand, has made against Frank, seems to be as strong as before the trial,” he said yesterday.

The lawyers for the defense declined to make a statement at this juncture, declaring that any word from them during the prosecution’s direct examination would appear indelicate. It is known, however, that they are confident of the strength of their defense, and are highly pleased with results of the trial as far as it has gone.

Girl Aids the State.

A valuable witness for the State was Monteen Stover, a young girl who was a companion of Mary Phagan in the factory work. Miss Stover said Frank was not in his office about 12 o’clock, April 26, although the prisoner had stated in the preliminary investigation that he was at his desk at that time. The girl testified she came to the office then for her pay.

Another was R. P. Barrett, an employee of the factory, who said he found a portion of Mary Phagan’s envelope, several long strands of hair, and splotches which he was sure were blood stains, under a lathe on the second floor of the factory.

Dr. Claude Smith, city bacteriologist, testified that the dark stains on the second floor were blood stains.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of one of the last of the State’s witnesses called before the week-end recess was taken. She said she had seen a negro hiding behind a pile of boxes near the factory entrance the day of the murder and that later, when she entered Frank’s office, she saw him. She spoke to him and he jumped sharply, she said.

It is likely that the trial will continue far into this week, probably consuming all of it.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 3rd 1913, “First Week of Frank Trial Ends With Both Sides Sure of Victory,” 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 1^st, 1913

Following the Pinkerton detective testimony the state introduced Miss Monteen Stover, who worked in the factory when Mary Phagan did. The girl was rather abashed when she first appeared, but turned out to be a witness who could relate exactly what she started out to tell and who did not seem to get confused.

“Where do you work?” asked the solicitor of the girl.

“Nowhere.”

“Were you work on April 26?”

“No.”

“When did you last work before the murder?”
“On the Monday before the murder,” she answered.

“Were you in the factory on April 26?”

“Yes, at 12:05.”

“How long did you stay there?”

“Five minutes.”

“Why did you go there?”

“To get my pay.”

“What part of the factory were you in?”

“I was on the second floor in Mr. Frank’s office.”
“Was Frank there, or was anybody in the building?”

“Mr. Frank was not there and I saw no one in the building.”

“How about the door just east of the girls’ dressing room, was it open or closed?”
“I don’t know.”

“How were you dressed?”

“I wore a little yellow hat, a brown dress and had on tennis slippers.”

Entered Building at 12:05.

“Did you look at the clock?”

“Yes, the first thing I did on going in was to look at the clock and it showed that it was 12:05, and I looked at it when I went out and it showed 12:10.”

“Did you see a coat or hat or any part of a man’s apparel in Frank’s office.”

“No.”

“Why did you leave?”

“I thought that they had finished paying off.”

“Ever go into that office before?”

“No.”

“May I show the witness this affidavit which she made and signed, your honor?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“He’s got no right to do that,” objected Mr. Rosser.

“I want to refresh her memory about the dressing room door which she says was sometimes open and sometimes closed.”

When the girl stated that she had signed the affidavit after it had been read to her, but had not read it herself, Judge Roan ruled that it could not be used to refresh her mind.

Mr. Dorsey then declared he wanted to look up the law on that question and turned the witness over to the defense for cross-examination.

“When did you leave home, Miss Monteen?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“I don’t remember.”

“Are there one or two offices on the second floor?”

“Two.”

“Did you notice the safe?”

“No.”

“Did you notice a wardrobe in which men’s clothes were put?”

“No.”

The witness was then asked many questions about the details of the office, but could give little in reply.

Waited on Bench in Hall.

“You saw no one in the office and didn’t wait, I presume?” said Mr. Rosser.

“I stayed there long enough to see that no one was in and then I went out into the hall and sat on a bench near the clock for about one and a half minutes.”

“Did you see any one you know on your way to or from the factory?”

“No.”

“Who saw you when you first got home?”

“My mother.”

“Who else?”

“Mr. McElreath and a Mrs. Lagerson.”

Attorney Rosser questioned the witness very carefully as to the first names or addresses of these persons as though he desired to get in touch with them. She knew the first name of neither, but declared McElreath was an insurance man.

“Did you go directly home from the factory?”

“Yes.”

“Do you work in the metal department?”

“No.”

“How often have you talked with Mr. Dorsey about this?”

“Once.”

“Did you work on the fourth floor?”

“Yes.”

“Who’s your foreman?”

“Arthur White.”
“Do you get paid off in the office?”

“No, outside.”

“Does Schiff pay off?”

“Sometimes he does and sometimes another man does.”

“Do you know anybody on the second floor?”

“Yes; Mr. Darley and some of the girls who work there.”

Affidavit Read by Girl.

After an argument the solicitor then won his point for the girl to read her signed affidavit. She was told to read it to herself and read slowly and with perfect composure, her lips moving as she scanned the words, like a child would do.

“Well, what about that back door now?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“Sometimes it was open and sometimes it was closed,” replied the girl, sticking to her original statement on the stand.

“When the factory was not running?”

“Oh, the door was closed then,” she said.

“All the time?” asked the solicitor.

“Yes.”

He then made her tell that the door referred to was one leading back to the metal room and situated near the girls’ dressing rooms.

Mr. Rosser then asked her if she went to the solicitor’s office before or after going to the grand jury, and she said before. She was allowed to come down from the stand at 11:40, after being up for about 40 minutes.

During Miss Stover’s testimony Leo Frank, the defendant, paid more attention to the examination of her than he had previously to any witness.

When she was telling that she had been in the factory and found him not in his office at the very time he claims to have been there, he appeared to take a deep interest in what she said and sat staring at her and passing his hand over his chin after the manner described by Detective Scott.

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

NEW TESTIMONY GIVEN AT TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK BY R. B. BARRETT

Machinist at Pencil Factory Tells Jury of Discovery of Murdered Girl’s Pay Envelope and of Strands of Hair Near Her Machine in Metal Room on Second Floor.

HENRY [sic] SCOTT PUZZLES BOTH SIDES OF CASE BY EVIDENCE THURSDAY

E. L. Holloway, Who Swore in Affidavit That Elevator Was Closed on Saturday, the Day of the Murder, Admits on Stand That He Was Mistaken—“I’ve Been Trapped,” Cries Dorsey.

The first piece of new testimony of any importance which has developed since the beginning of the Leo M. Frank trial came Thursday morning, when R. B. Barrett, a machinist employed at the National Pencil factory, testified that he had found what was supposed to be Mary Phagan’s pay envelope near her machine in the metal room. Up to this time the matter of the pay envelope had been a complete mystery. Barrett also testified to having discovered blood stains on the floor near her machine, and a strand of hair on the machine. The blood stain had been wiped over with some kind of white preparation.

The whole gist of Solicitor Dorsey’s questioning was to prove that the murder was committed on the second floor. The testimony of this witness and others seemed to bear out this contention.

Scott Proves Surprise.

Harry Scott, of the Pinkerton Detective agency, who has been employed by the National Pencil factory to ferret out the murderer, proved a strong witness for the state, although at first it looked as if he would prove of more value to the defense.

In the early stages of his examination by Solicitor Dorsey Scott was asked if, on his first meeting with Leo M. Frank, the accused had not appeared extremely nervous. This was on Monday following the murder. Scott denied this to be a fact. Solicitor Dorsey became excited and intimated that he had been “trapped;” that the witness was not giving the testimony he had been led to expect.

Scott grew healed and exclaimed:

“I hope you do not infer that I am withholding anything!”

Solicitor Dorsey said he did not, and from that time on Scott told in details of his connection with the case.

Among other things he said that either Frank or Darley had told him on Monday following the murder that Gantt had been very familiar and intimate with Mary Phagan. He also testified that on Tuesday night at the station home Frank had been very nervous; that he had repeatedly crossed his legs, felt of his chin, and that he took deep breaths—more like sighs than anything else.

Haas Wanted to See Reports.

He stated that Herbert Haas, one of Frank’s attorneys, had suggested that the Pinkertons turn over all evidence to him before it was given the police department, and that he declined to consider any such proposal, stating he would throw up the case first.

Luther Rosser failed to shake Scott’s testimony.

Frank Was Not There.

Monteen Stover, a former employee of the pencil factory, testified that she had gone to Frank’s office at 5 minutes after 12 o’clock on Memorial day, and that Frank was not there. She had remained in the building fully five minutes and saw no one. Frank has claimed that he was in his office at that time.

Dr. Claude Smith testified to making an examination of the bloody shirt found at Newt Lee’s home. He said he had examined the neck-band and it did not have the appearance of having been worn. No odor could be detected on the under side of the sleeves. He also testified to making an examination of the blood stains found on the floor. He could not state whether or not this was human blood.

Holloway Contradicts Himself.

E. L. Holloway, an employee of the pencil factory, who had previously signed an affidavit that the power box on the elevator was closed on Saturday, the day of the murder, admitted that he was mistaken; that he had opened the box and hung up the key in Frank’s office.

His affidavit was placed in evidence, and Judge Roan ruled that certain parts of it were admissible.

Summing up the day’s testimony, the weight of it was not so favorable to the defendant as on the day previous.

The courtroom continues to attract large crowds.

Mrs. Callie Applebaum, recently acquitted of killing her husband, was one of the interested spectators.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 31^st, 1913

BLOOD SPOTS AND HAIR FOUND ON DAY FOLLOWING DISCOVERY CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED

Pay Envelope Was Found Near Machine Used by Mary Phagan Some Days Later—Find of Strands of Hair on Lathe Was Reported to Quinn, Who Notified Darley—Mell Stanford and Magnolia Kennedy Also Saw It

BARRETT’S EVIDENCE MOST IMPORTANT YET TOWARD PROVING CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN METAL ROOM

Mell Stanford and Harry Scott Also Tell of Finding Blood Spots, but Scott’s Testimony Is Not Entirely Satisfactory to Either State or Defense—Monteen Stover on the Stand. Will Conley Testify in Rebuttal Only?

New and sensational testimony for the state was given by R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the National Pencil factory where Mary Phagan was murdered on April 26, when Barrett Thursday afternoon declared from the witness stand that he had discovered early Monday morning following the tragedy a large blood spot, surrounded by a number of smaller spots, at the water cooler near the dressing room on the second floor of the factory. Barrett testified further that he had found a broom nearby which from its appearance evidently had been used to smear the large blood spot over with a white substance.

Barrett testified further that on the same morning he had found strands of hair on the lathe of the machine used by him and that he had called this discovery to the attention of Magnolia Kennedy, Mell Stanford and Lemmie Quinn, and that Quinn had notified Darley. The solicitor developed through Barrett’s testimony that no girls had been at the factory since Friday afternoon before the crime, his purpose evidently being to show that the hair must have been that of Mary Phagan. In addition to this testimony, Barrett swore that a few days after the murder he had found in the area near Mary Phagan’s machine a portion of a pay envelope. There was nothing on the envelope to positively identify it as having belonged to Mary Phagan.

The fact that blood spots were found in the metal room on the second floor was also established by the state through the testimony of Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective, and Mell Stanford, an employe of the factory.

Barrett’s testimony was decidedly the most important that the state has thus far managed to get before the jury and no doubt will be stressed by the solicitor in support of the state’s theory that Mary Phagan met her death in the metal room on the second floor of the factory.

By both Pinkerton Detectives Harry Scott and Barrett the state showed that careful searches had been made of the first floor shortly after the tragedy and that neither a pay envelope, a purse, a bludgeon or stick, had been found there. The prediction has been frequently made that the defense would introduce evidence to show that both Mary Phagan’s pay envelope and a bloody bludgeon were found on the first floor by Pinkerton detectives.

NOT THE SAME ENVELOPE.

Whether the defense will introduce the piece of envelope found by the Pinkertons on the first floor of the factory is not known. In the event they do so two pay envelopes will be in evidence. These two pieces are not from the same envelope. This fact was demonstrated by Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who is assisting in the prosecution. After the state can contend that the envelopes are separate and distinct.

Mary Phagan’s machine, Mr. Hooper took it and endeavored to fit it with the piece of envelope held by the defense. It did not fit, thus the state can contend that the envelopes are separate and distinct.

It is quite evident that the state will insis[t] that the envelope and bludgeon found by Pinkerton detectives and turned over to the defense are nothing more than “plants.”

Monteen Stover, a twelve-wear-old [sic] girl employed at the factory, stated that she had gone to the factory on the Saturday of the murder arriving at 12:05 and leaving at 12:10. She swore that she had gone into the office and that she did not see nor hear anyone in the building. She had gone for her pay.

Scott swore that Frank had told him that he was in his office and did not leave it from 12 to 12:30.

Solicitor Dorsey has begun to weave the chain of circumstantial evidence with which the state expects to convict Frank with the murder. The remainder of the week will most likely be taken up by the state in the introduction of witnesses.

WILL CONLEY BE CALLED?

James Conley, the negro sweeper, who swore that he helped Frank carry the girl’s body into the basement and wrote the notes found beside it at Frank’s suggestion, may or may not be introduced as a principal witness. The state may hold him back as a rebuttal witness, and there is a slight possibility that he may not be put upon the stand at all.

Throughout the Thursday session of the trial Frank remained as impassive as he has been heretofore. He took a keen interest in the proceedings, but did not display the slightest trace of emotion.

The testimony of Detective Scott was not satisfactory to either the state or the defense. He engaged in frequent clashes with Mr. Rosser while the latter was cross-examining him, but unlike Detective John Black, he never once lost his head.

MANY WOMEN PRESENT.

A number of women were among the early arrivals in the crowd of spectators who surrounded the court house before court convened Thursday morning for the resumption of the Frank trial. The women stood in line for an hour to be among those close to the doors when those portals were opened.

The crowd was admitted at 8:40 o’clock. Leo M. Frank, the accused, had arrived early, as usual, under custody of the sheriff. At 3:55, Mrs. Frank, wife of the accused, joined her husband in an ante-room of the court. Court convened, with Judge Roan on the bench, at 9 o’clock.

J. M. Gantt was recalled to the stand.

“When were you arrested?”

“Monday, April 28, at 11:30 o’clock in Marietta. I was released on Thursday of the following week.”

The witness was excused.

SCOTT TAKES STAND.

Harry Scott, assistant superintendent of the Atlanta branch of the Pinkerton detective agency, was called to the stand.

“When did you first see Leo M. Frank?”

“At 4:30 o’clock Monday, April 28, at the National Pencil factory.”

“With whom have you worked on this case.”

“John Black, city detective of Atlanta.”

“By whom were you engaged?”

“By Mr. Frank, representing the National Pencil company.”

“Tell all about your engagement.”

“I went up to the National Pencil company’s factory on request, and saw Mr. Frank standing about where the time clocks are. Accompanied by Mr. Darley and another man, we went back into Mr. Frank’s private office for a conference.

FRANK ASKED PROBE.

“He stated that the directors of the company and himself thought that the public demanded an investigation of the horrible crime committed in the factory. He, Frank, had just come from police headquarters, and John Black seemed to suspect him. Then he detailed to me his movements on Saturday. He arrived at the factory about 8 o’clock. Between 9:30 and 10 o’clock he went to Montag’s, and returned to the factory about 11, he said.

“About 12 o’clock Mrs. White came in and went up to the fourth floor where her husband and Harry Denham were working. About 12:10 Mary Phagan came in and he paid her two half dollars and two dimes. She received the money in his private office and when she reached the outer office asked if the metal had come.

“He replied that he didn’t know. When she had reached the stairway, he heard voices, but couldn’t tell w[h]ether it was a man or two women talking. About 12:50 he went up to the fourth floor and found that White and Denham wanted to work about two hours longer. Mrs. White preceded him down the steps and mentioned that when he came in she had seen a negro sitting behind some boxes on the first floor.

“At 1:10 Frank went to lunch. He returned at 3, and at 4 o’clock Newt Lee reported and was told that he could go out and have a good time for two hours. Lee returned at 6 o’clock and about 6:04 Frank left the factory. On the outside he met J. M. Gantt, a former bookkeeper, who had been discharged […]

PENCIL FACTORY MACHINIST GIVES STARTLING TESTIMONY

[…] for thieving. Frank reached home at 6:25 o’clock and at 6:30 tried to get the night watchman to ask him if Gantt had left. He didn’t get him then, but did get him at 7 o’clock. He went to bed about 9:30 o’clock.

SEARCH IN FACTORY.

“After Frank had detailed his movements, said the witness, he and Scott and Darley went through the factory. Darley was the spokesman, pointing out the supposed blood spots, and the point where the hair was said to have been found. From the second floor they went to the basement through the scuttle hole, where Scott saw the place where the body and several objects were found.

Solicitor Dorsey asked Scott if he observed Frank’s manner when Frank engaged him.

SCOTT SURPRISES DORSEY.

“Yes, it was perfectly natural and he exhibited no sign of nervousness.”

“How did Frank breathe?”

“Between words he seemed to take a deep breath.”

Attorney Rosser objected to the question and answer. In reply, the solicitor said he was surprised by the evidence of Detective Scott, and that he had been misinformed as to what his testimony would be. He then asked permission of the court to ask the witness some questions to refresh his memory. This was granted.

“How did his eyes look?”

“They were large and piercing.”

The witness said further that Frank sighed several times during the conversation in Frank’s private office. Attorney Rosser entered another objection, and said that the answers of Detective Scott were conclusions merely inasmuch as he had never seen Frank before that time.

Scott testified, after looking at Frank in court, that his eyes looked then as they did during the conversation.

“Didn’t you say to me—“

Attorney Rosser objected, interrupting. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“How about his complexion, Mr. Scott,” asked Dorsey.

“He was a little pale at that time.”

“What pauses did he make in this conversation?”

Attorney Rosser objected, and was sustained.

“How did he give this narrative?”

ANSWER STRICKEN.

“Very specifically as to time.”

Attorney Rosser asked that the question and answer mbe [sic] stricken. The details themselves were the best evidence, said he. The answer was a conclusion. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“What did he state with reference to his movements about the time Mary Phagan entered the factory?”

“He was not very definite. He said she came about 12:10.”

“What did he say about having heard anybody talking before she came?”

“I don’t remember that he said anything about that.”

Solicitor Dorsey asked Judge Roan if he could see the written reports that Scott had made to him to refresh the witness’ mind. Attorney Rosser objected, and before there was a ruling on the issue the solicitor asked:

GAVE REPORTS TO DEFENSE.

“Did you not furnish your reports to the defendant?”

“Yes.”

Attorney Rosser demanded, “Whom do you mean?”

“To Sig Montag, Herbert Haas and Luther Z. Rosser.” Scott added that the reports were sent either by special messenger or by mail.

“Did the Pinkertons furnish reports to counsel?” asked Solicitor Dorsey.

“Yes.”

“Reports that they could read?”

“Yes.”

The solicitor picked up some papers and asked:

“Is this one of the reports that you furnished to the state?”

“I don’t know until I look at my original notes.”

The solicitor requested the witness to refer to his original notes. The court permitted this. The witness did so. He started to read his notes. The defense objected. The court sustained the objection, explaining to the witness that while he could refresh his memory from the notes, he could not read the notes aloud to the court, but must give his evidence from his mind as it had been refreshed.

BEFORE GIRL ENTERED FACTORY.

“I now say,” continued Detective Scott, “that Frank stated to me that he heard the voices before 12 o’clock.”

“Was this before or after Mary Phagan came to the factory?” inquired the solicitor.

“Before.”

“What did Frank tell you about the location of the voices?”

“He told me that he thought the voices were near the stairway, although he could not say for certain, as he had remained inside the office himself.”

“What did Frank say to you about what happened when he went home that Saturday?”

“He said he went home for luncheon.”

DIDN’T SAY HOW LONG.

“Did he say how long he remained there?”

“He did not.”

“Did he say whether he ate lunch?”

“No, sir.”

“What did Frank say to you on that occasion with reference to Gantt?”

“During the conversation in Frank’s office, Frank said to me that Gante [sic] knew Mary Phagan and was familiar and intimate with her.”

“Did he tell you how he knew?”

“He did not.”

“What, if anything, was said to you by Frank about Gantt’s attention to Mary Phagan?”

Attorney Rosser interrupted, declaring “Questions like these grate on my ears like the false notes from a piano.”

Judge Roan ruled that it was a leading question and could not be put.

Solicitor Dorsey modified the question.

“Was anything said by Frank about Gantt’s attention to Mary Phagan?” he asked.

“Not that I recall,” replied Scott.

SAYS HE WAS MISLED.

The solicitor sought to question the witness as to what he, Scott, had told him, the solicitor, on this point. Attorney Rosser objected, declaring that what the witness had told the solicitor was not material.

“Your honor,” said the solicitor, “I’ve been misled on this proposition by the witness. If there ever was a case for a leading question, this is one; and it is entirely within the court’s discretion to permit such a question. This witness is a detective. He is in the employ of the defendant. I certainly should be allowed to refresh his memory as to what he told me about his conversation with Frank.”

Mr. Rosser made the point that before the solicitor could proceed along this line he must charge that he had been entrapped by the witness. The solicitor did not insist that he had been entrapped, but did maintain that he had been misled on this particular point.

Detective Scott, addressing the solicitor, demanded to know if the solicitor was intimating that he was holding back any evidence.

Solicitor Dorsey addressed his reply to the court.

“I do say, your honor, that I did expect this witness to testify differently on this proposition.”

Attorney Rosser renewed his objection, and insisted that before the solicitor could proceed further on his line of questioning he must charge that the witness had entrapped him. The colloquy was suspended until the attorneys on both sides could consult the code.

Mr. Dorsey explained that he was not trying to impeach the witness, but sought to refresh his memory. He claimed the right to ask leading questions.

“He has just had a lapse of memory,” said the solicitor. “And I want to read to him notes which I made in his presence about a conversation between us.”

Attorney Rosser objected, and Judge Roan sustained him.

“Didn’t I make a memoranda in your presence?” asked the solicitor.

DIDN’T READ DORSEY’S NOTES.

“Yes, but I didn’t read your memoranda.”

“Did Frank discuss the friendliness between Gantt and Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, he said that they were familiar and intimate, and that Gantt paid a good deal of attention to her.”

“Do you know when Gantt was arrested?”

“He was at police headquarters when I went down there after the conference with Frank.”

“Was any suggestion made to you subsequent to your employment by an attorney of Leo M. Frank relative to your suppression of evidence?”

Mr. Rosser objected immediately. Before Judge Roan ruled, the solicitor withdrew the question. Attorney Rosser demurred. “I’ll withdraw the objection,” said he.

“About the first week in May,” said Scott, “Mr. Pierce and I went to the office of Herbert J. Haas, attorney for Frank, to hold a conference relative to the Pinkerton’s position in the investigation. I told him that there was strong suspicion against Frank.”

The last sentence was ruled out.

“After a conversation, Mr. Haas said that he would rather we would submit our reports to him before we did to the police. We told him we would get out of the case before we would do that.”

“Who did the most talking about your inspection trip through the factory?”

asked the solicitor.

“Darley, but Frank talked some.”

BLOOD SPOTS CLIPPED UP?

Scott continued that he saw the place on the floor of the metal room whence the supposed blood spots had been clipped up. Some white substance had been smeared there.

“Are you sure it was a smear or was it a spill?” asked the solicitor.

“It was a smear.”

“Did Frank show unusual signs of nervousness that first interview you had with him?”

After objection and argument, the question was allowed.

“He was a little pale and sighed four or five times.”

“Was he composed.”

“No.”

“What happened at the police station Tuesday night in the presence of this defendant?”

“Frank and I were together in a private room when Detective Black came up and said Newt Lee wasn’t telling all he knew. At that time I also expressed this same opinion. We asked Frank if he would go into the private room and talk to Lee as an employer to an employe and see if he couldn’t get something out of him. They were together alone for about ten minutes. At the end of that time, Detective Black and I went in. Lee evidently hadn’t finished some reply he was making to a question by Mr. Frank. As we entered the room and took seats beside them he said to Frank: ‘It’s awful hard for me to be handcu[ff]ed to this chair.’ Frank hung his head and said “They’ve got me, too.”

“What was the appearance and deportment of Frank at the police station?”

“He was very nervous. He was squirming in his chair, hung his head, didn’t appear to know what to do with his hands, was pale, and sighed heavily.”

“How were his eyes then?”

“Just the same as they are now. You can’t tell anything by his eyes.”

“Did you hear any conversation between Frank and Lee about the punch clock?”

“I have a slight recollection of one Monday afternoon at the police station.”

“What did Frank say about that?”

“He said that the first punch Lee made was at 6:33 p. m., and the last one at 3 o’clock. No discrepancy was remarked by Frank then.”

“Describe Frank’s appearance and deportment on April 29 at 11 a. m., when he was taken into custody.”

“We went to the factory and told Frank that he had better go to police headquarters with us. He was trembling and was very pale. He had nothing to say in the automobile on the way to the station house.”

“Did you see Mr. Rosser with Frank on Monday previous to Frank’s arrest on Tuesday?”

“I did not.”

“Illustrate to the jury Frank’s manner when Frank stated to Lee ‘Well, they’ve got me, too.’”

FRANK’S MANNER.

“When Black and I entered the room Lee was just finishing an answer to one of Frank’s questions. He was saying: ‘It’s awful hard, Mr. Frank, on me. You see, they’ve got me chained to this chair.’ Lee repeated this about three times. Frank hung his head, squirmed in his chair, and holding his hands in the air said, ‘Well, they’ve got me, too.’”

“Did you see Frank at the jail on Saturday, May 3, 1913.”

“I did.”

“Did you have any conversation with him then?”

“I did.”

“Tell the jury what you said to Frank and what Frank said to you.”

“I went to Frank’s cell in company with Black. I asked Frank: ‘From the time you went back to the factory from Montag Brothers until you went upstairs where Denham and White were working, did you remain in your office?’ ‘Yes,’ Frank answered. ‘From the time you got back to the factory until Mary Phagan arrived at 12:10, did you remain in your office?’ Frank answered ‘yes.’ ‘From 12 noon up to 12:30 of that Saturday, were you in your private office?’ Frank answered ‘yes.’”

“Up to this conversation you had with Frank in the jail, had he made any similar statement?”

“No.”

“He did tell you that he was in the office all the time from 12 to 12:30 o’clock?”

“Yes.”

“Did you have any conversation with Frank as to suspects previous to the offering of rewards?”

“No.”

SEARCHING THE FACTORY.

“Did you make any search of the factory immediately after your employment?”

“I did.”

“Did you make any search of the area around the elevator and the radiator on the street floor?”

“I did. I made a surface search. I didn’t dig into the dirt.”

“What did you find?”

“Nothing.”

“Did you find a pay envelope, a purse, a ribbon, a bludgeon, a stick, or anything like these?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you make this search?”

“Right after I was engaged. I ran the elevator up and down, and examined the scuttle hole or trap hole and ladder.”

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination.

“You made a report as to what happened between you and Haas, didn’t you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes.”

ROSSER’S CROSS-EXAMINATION.

“The report reads something like this, doesn’t it? ‘This p. m., H. B. P. and I discussed agency’s position. Haas said he wanted murderer caught regardless of who it was.’”

“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected on the ground that a self-serving declaration of an attorney for the defendant was not admissible. Mr. Rosser contended that he had the right to go into the whole conversation. Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

In the discussion of the matter Mr. Rosser said he wanted to make it clear that at no time had attorneys for the defendant asked that evidence be suppressed. He wanted the witness to answer a question relative to a conversation with him, Rosser. Solicitor Dorsey objected. After some discussion and after he had made the remark “Mr. Dorsey is a little fractious this morning.” Mr. Rosser withdrew the question about his conversation, and asked Scott:

“Did Mr. Haas request you to suppress any evidence?”

“No. He said he wanted it submitted to him before it went to the police, and we told him that we could not do that.”

SCOTT AND ROSSER TILT.

Scott proved a difficult witness for Mr. Rosser. The detective made frequent and sharp retorts from the witness chair, and comments on Mr. Rosser’s tactics is trying to tangle him. Scott’s answers were direct and pointed.

Mr. Rosser produced a transcript of the evidence by Scott at the coroner’s jury. Mr. Rosser asked Scott if when he was before the coroner’s jury be told what Frank had said in relation to Gantt. Scott replied that he did not remember.

“Did you mention this remark by Mr. Frank in your report to the defense?”

“No, because the day I made this report Gantt was released from police headquarters and was regarded no longer as a suspect. It is customary in Pinkerton reports also to mention no names of suspects.”

“You didn’t testify before the coroner’s jury about hearing Frank say ‘They’ve got me, too,’ when he and Lee had their interview, did you?”

“I don’t remember whether I did or not.”

“You didn’t tell the coroner’s jury about Frank hanging his head, did you?”

Scott replied that he didn’t remember.

Mr. Rosser read from the transcript. “See if this is what you testified before the coroner’s jury,” he asked. He read a lengthy excerpt from Scott’s testimony. It contained neither of these assertions. Scott said he assumed that was what he said before the coroner’s jury.

A DIFFERENT WITNESS.

“You should remember, Mr. Rosser,” added Scott, “that I was answering only questions that were asked me by the coroner, and that he didn’t draw out and cross question me like you and Mr. Dorsey have done.”

Mr. Rosser read another excerpt from Scott’s testimony before the coroner.

“’I am working for the interests of the pencil factory,’” Mr. Rosser read. “You didn’t represent Frank personally, then, did you?”

“I was engaged by Frank.”

In reply to a retort by Mr. Rosser, Scott said: “It’s impossible for any man to repeat verbatim what he said years ago.”

Attorney Rosser took out of a leather case some papers, perhaps notes. “There is some reference to Gantt, there, isn’t there?” he asked. “About Gantt knowing Mary Phagan intimately. Did you have these notes when you were writing your reports to me?”

“We never put in the names of suspects,” replied Scott.

“When you were before the coroner’s jury you didn’t say Frank was nervous at the pencil factory, did you?”

Scott said he didn’t know—that his testimony there was the same as in court.

“When you were before the coroner, these facts were fresh in your mind, were they not?”

“Yes.”

“And you didn’t relate them?”

“I wasn’t asked. There is something different in telling what you know, and going into detailed sheets.”

“Well, let’s see about these detailed sheets,” said Mr. Rosser, picking up the transcript of testimony by Scott before the coroner’s inquest. “I count here, Mr. Scott, ten pages in which you detailed your testimony. In all these ten pages, you only told of two matters, your conversation with Frank, and that evening with Frank and Newt Lee.”

“Yes.”

“And you didn’t state in any of it about this matter? When you were telling about that conversation with Frank, you said nothing about him being nervous?”

“I said he hung his head.”

“Let me see,” said Mr. Rosser, examining the transcript. “I don’t find that you used anything about Frank crossing his legs, putting his hands up, and things of that kind.”

“No.”

“It was not until three or four weeks ago that you told these things to Dorsey?”

“I told him when Mr. Dorsey asked me the question.”

“Then it took ten pages to carry your brief details?”

“I guess Dorsey has a line of attack that the coroner did not have.”

“What do you mean by ‘line of attack,’ Mr. Scott?”

“Line of questions.”

ROSSER’S FAST QUESTIONS.

“And you didn’t says a word about Frank putting his hands up to his face?”

“No.”

“You are a trained detective?”

“Yes.”

“And you make a habit of noticing the appearance and actions of people?”

“Yes.”

“And you never told the coroner about this?”

“I’ve got more sense than to tell all I know at a coroner’s inquest.”

“Uh-huh!” grunted Mr. Rosser. “Weren’t you recalled, Mr. Scott, and asked if you had told all that you knew?”

Solicitor Dorsey interrupted with an objection against Mr. Rosser’s method of questioning the witness.

“Your honor, the witness provoked me,” said Mr. Rosser. Addressing the witness again, Mr. Rosser asked: “You undertook to tell all you knew at the coroner’s inquest?”

“Only in a general way.”

“General way, eh?”

“I was not such a fool as to go in with a fine-tooth comb at a preliminary hearing, added Scott.

Mr. Rosser called the court’s attention to the manner in which the witness was replaying to his questions. Before he had finished, Solicitor Dorsey was on his feet, making the point that the witness repeatedly had explained to Mr. Rosser why he had not testified everything at the inquest. He had stated that he was not accustomed to give out everything at preliminary hearings, and that he was not asked as to certain facts.

ROSSER CHANGES TACTICS.

Mr. Rosser changed abruptly his line of questioning. He asked the witness if Darley and others were not present when he walked with Frank in Frank’s office. They were, answered the witness. They saw and heard all that was said.

“Black was present at the station house when you talked with Frank, was he not?”

“Yes.”

“Your agency works with the police, does it not?”

“Yes, on criminal investigations.”

“You always hook up with the police and go on down the road with them, don’t you?”

“We work in harmony with the police.”

“You quit work if you don’t agree with the police?”

“We never clash over views.”

“Were you in the pencil factory on Sunday morning, April 27?”

“No, it was Monday afternoon about 1:30 o’clock that I first went to the pencil factory.”

“Did you testify before the coroner about any blood stains?”

“Yes.”

“Let me read you what you said before the coroner’s jury. ‘Also to a point about ten feet from the lathe, supposed blood stains had been chipped up from the floor by the police. Did you testify to anything about the white smear over these blood stains?”

“No.”

“These original notes of yours—when did you make them?”

“All in Frank’s private office on Monday afternoon, April 28.”

“On your trip through the factory that afternoon, didn’t Darley do some talking?”

“Yes. Both Darley and Frank talked.”

“Wasn’t it Darley who told you about Gantt being familiar with Mary Phagan?”

“No—it was Frank.”

SCOTT ADMITS UNCERTAINTY.

“I simply want to refresh your memory, Mr. Scott. Are you absolutely clear whether you got that statement from Frank or Darley?”

“No, not exactly clear; but Frank did the talking in the office and all the notes were taken in the office.”

“Did you take down any notes as you went through the factory?”

“No, I made memoranda later at my office.”

Holding up Scott’s original notes, Attorney Rosser asked, “Some of these were written at your office?”

“No, all were written at the factory. I’ll swear positively to the last word that those notes were taken in Frank’s office.”

“But you won’t be positive whether it was Darley or Frank who made the statement about Gantt being familiar with Mary Phagan?”

“I think it was Frank, but I am not entirely clear. As far as I can recollect, Frank was the spokesman. I only took down what Frank said. Darley may have made some statements.”

Mr. Rosser quoted the evidence by Scott at the coroner’s inquest and a report made by Scott to him in which he had stated that Frank told Mary Phagan that the metal had not come.

“How is it that you now say Frank answered, ‘I don’t know?’”

BLAMES STENOGRAPHER.

“It must be stenographic error,” said Scott. “I now swear positively that Frank told me he answered ‘I don’t know’”

“It’s peculiar that the same error occurred twice,” remarked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, it is,” smiled the witness.

“Why didn’t you put the Gantt episode in your report to me?”

“Because he had been eliminated from my mind as a suspect when I dictated that report.”

“You say now that Frank left the office at 1:10. Why did you say in your report to me that he left at 1?”

“Either I made a mistake or the stenographed did,” answered Scott.

Attorney Rosser reverted to Scott’s relations with the city police, bringing out the statement from Scott that the police received repor[t]s on his work before his clients did.

Solicitor Dorsey took up the re-direct examination.

“Did your agency report the finding of any ribbons, pay envelopes, or sticks, to the police?”

“I don’t know. I was out of town part of the time.”

Solicitor Dorsey referred to the Pinkertons’ relations to the city police, asking what the Pinkertons did when the facts did not harmonize with the theories of the police.

“We fight it out then and there,” Scott answered.

“Did you carry a lantern with you when you went around through the factory?”

“Yes, I held one in my hand.”

The solicitor asked Scott to describe his route through the factory on the diagram. Before Scott left the stand, Attorney Rosser asked this question:

“Did you notice any stairway from the basement to the first floor?”

“Yes.” The witness pointed to a spot on the diagram, which was not marked, near the boiler in the basement. Solicitor Dorsey asked him to describe that. The witness did, saying it was nailed up when he saw it and was covered with dust and cobwebs.

MONTEEN STOVER ON STAND.

Scott was excused from the stand.

Miss Monteen Stover was called as the next witness.

Miss Stover testified that she is not working anywhere now, but until the Monday preceding the murder of Mary Phagan she worked at the National Pencil factory. On the day of the murder she was in the factory building from 12:05 o’clock until 12:10 o’clock, and that she did not see Frank or anyone else.

“What purpose did you have in going to the factory?”

“To get my pay.”

“When do they usually pay?”

“At 12 o’clock on Saturday.”

“What part of the factory were you in?” pursued the solicitor.

“Mr. Frank’s office.”

“Was he there?”

“He was not.”

“Did you see anybody at all anywhere in the building?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you hear anybody anywhere in the building?”

“No, sir.”

Solicitor Dorsey, taking Mary Phagan’s parasol as a pointer, went to the diagram hanging on the wall, and pointing to the location of the women’s dressing room, asked Miss Stover if the door of it was open or shut.

“I don’t know.”

“How were you dressed that day?”

“I had on a yellow hat.”

“What kind of shoes did you wear?”

“Tennis slippers.”

“How far toward the rear of the building did you go?”

“I went as far as the time clock.”

“Did you look at the clock?”

“Yes.”

LOOKED AT THE CLOCK.

“What time did it register then?”

“The hands stood at 12:05 o’clock.”

“What did it register when you went out of the factory?”

“Ten minutes after 12 o’clock.”

“Did you see any man’s apparel in Frank’s office?”

“No, sir.”

“Had you ever previously noticed this door of the women’s dressing room? Was it usually open or closed?”

The solicitor picked up a paper from his desk and said to the court: “May I show her this affidavit to refresh her memory, your honor?” Attorney Rosser objected. Solicitor Dorsey explained: “I want to show her what she said to me about this door when it was fresher in her memory than it is now.”

An argument followed, and Judge Roan called for citation of authorities. The solicitor sent Special Deputy Newt Garner to his office for an authority, turning the witness over to the defense for the interim.

ROSSER TAKES WITNESS.

Attorney Rosser’s manner toward the witness was gentle. Her voice was low.

“Did Mr. Frank have one or two offices?”

“There are two offices there.”

“How far did you go into the office?”

“Into the outer office far enough to get a full view of the inner office.”

“Did you notice several articles of furniture and fixtures in there? Did you notice the safe in the inner office?”

“No, I was looking for a person and didn’t notice any of these objects.” Miss Stover added that entering the building she went directly to the office, entered the outer office and looked into Frank’s private office, sat on a bench outside the outer office for a minute and a half or two minutes, lingered around a little while, and then left.

Attorney Rosser questioned her as to who saw her leave home and who saw her return. Miss Stover gave the names of several people who saw her leave and return.

“You didn’t see Miss White or Miss Corinthia Hall that day, did you?”

“No, sir,” she replied.

How many times have you talked to the solicitor about this case?”

“Once, and I saw him at the grand jury.”

“It’s the truth, is it, that sometimes you saw the door of the women’s dressing room closed and sometimes open?”

“Yes.”

“That’s the truth, no matter what kind of an affidavit you made, isn’t it?”

“Yes.”

Attorney Rosser was through with the cross-examination. Solicitor Dorsey cited his authority for asking permission to show her the affidavit in order to refresh her memory. Judge Roan granted the point to Solicitor Dorsey. The affidavit was shown to her. After she had read it, the solicitor asked:

“Having refreshed your memory, Miss Stover, tell us about that back door?”

“Sometimes it was open, and some times it was closed.”

“In what position was it when the factory was not running?”

“Then it was shut.”

Mr. Rosser interposed: “You went to the solicitor’s office before you went to the grand jury, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

IMPORTANT WITNESS.

R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the National Pencil factory, was the next witness. He stated that he had been employed at the pencil factory for about eight weeks before the murder and that he still is employed there. He appeared before the coroner’s jury and the grand jury, he said.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness what if anything he had seen at the water cooler near the dressing room used by Mary Phagan, on Monday morning, April 28.

“An unusual spot,” replied the witness.

“Had you ever seen this spot before?”

“No.”

“Did you work at the factory Friday?”

“Yes.”

“Was the spot there on Friday?”

“No.”

Describe this spot.”

“There was a large spot about four or five inches in diameter. There were several little spots just behind it.”

“How many of these little spots?”

“About six or eight.”

“When did you discover these spots?”

“Between 6:30 and 7 o’clock Monday morning after the murder.”

“Of what was this spot?”

BLOOD SPOTS FOUND.

“It was blood.”

“Did you notice anything else about it?”

“Yes, there was some white substance over it.”

“Do you know what this substance was?”

“I do not.”

“Had you ever noticed any white substance like this on the floor before?”

“No.”

“Are there any white substances kept on this floor?”

“Yes, potash and hascoline.”

“Do you know which it was that was smeared over the spot?”

“No.”

“What was the appearance of the spots and the potash and hascoline?”

“The large spot was about four or five inches in diameter. There was a white substance smeared over it. There was nothing on the little spots.”

“How had this white substance been applied?”

“By a broom.”

“What kind of a broom?”

“A course cane broom.”

“Did you find the broom anywhere near these spots?”

“Yes.”

“Where?”

“About four or five feet away, leaning up against the wall.”

“Was this broom in its regular place?”

“I don’t know.”

“Do you know whether this broom was there on Friday?”

“I do not.”

“What makes you think this white substance was applied with the broom?”

“Because there were large streaks through the blood and the white stuff.”

“Did you examine the broom?”

“Yes. It was very dirty.”

“Did it show any evidence of having been used?”

“No, I couldn’t tell.”

“For what was this broom used?”

“To clean up the grease on the floor in the metal department.”

“What sort of broom is used for sweeping the floor regularly?”

“A broom with finer straw.”

“What else, if anything, did you find in the metal room?”

FOUND STRANDS OF HAIR.

“I found some strands of hair on the handle of the bench lathe where I worked.”

“What is the shape of this handle?”

“L-shaped.”

“Describe it.”

The witness asked for a pencil and a piece of paper. He drew an illustration of the lathe handle.”

“Where was the hair?”

“It was hanging over the handle.”

Witness indicated where the hair hung, on his pencil sketch.

“Of what material was the handle?”

“Iron.”

“Did anyone else see the hair?”

OTHERS SAW THE HAIR.

“Yes—Mell Stanford.”

“Was Magnolia Kennedy there?”

“Yes.”

“Did she identify this hair?”

Attorney Rosser objected. Solicitor Dorsey insisted, contending that Mr. Rosser had gone into great detail concerning hair; that he had asked many questions of Miss Grace Hix about hair, inquiring the shade of Mary Phagan’s hair, that of Magnolia Kennedy, and even went so far as to have the witness point out Mr. Arnold’s hair as a sample. Judge Roan ruled that what Magnolia Kennedy said about the hair after the discovery would be hearsay evidence. Solicitor Dorsey remarked: “I just wanted to show, your honor, by this witness, whether Magnolia Kennedy identified the hair.” Mr. Rosser interrupted, declaring that only the God of the universe would know whether she identified it—that it was purely a matter of opinion.

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness, “How far away from the bench lathe where the hair was found, is the gas jet where the girls curled their hair?”

“About ten feet,” answered the witness.

The solicitor had the witness locate the machine and the gas jet on the diagram.

“You say the hair was not there Friday?”

“No,” said the witness.

“When did you discover it?”

“Monday morning.”

“Whose attention did you call to it?”

TOLD QUINN ABOUT IT.

“I called Quinn and Quinn called Darley.”

“How do you know that the hair was not there on Friday?”

“Because I used the machine myself up to quitting time.”

“When is quitting time?”

“Five thirty p. m.”

“Was the factory closed Saturday?”

“Yes.”

“Were there any girls working there Saturday?”

“No.”

“How far is the nearest lot of hascoline and potash from where the broom and blood were found?”

FOUND PAY ENVELOPE.

“There was a can of hascoline about eight feet away. The potash is in the plating department about twenty or twenty-five feet away.”

“What was the color of the smearing?”

“White.”

“You found no black stuff around?”

“Nothing but streaks of grease on the floor.”

“Did you examine the area around Mary Phagan’s machine? If so, when?”

“Yes—the latter part of the week.”

“What did you find?”

“I found a piece of a pay envelope under her machine.”

The witness said that was between the 28^th and 30^th of April. On that part of the pay envelope was a mark that looked like it was a part of the letter P or G or F. He gave that to one of the solicitor’s attaches. He identified a piece of pay envelope handed to him as the piece which he had found. He found nothing else except filings under that machine.

The envelope could not be seen where he found it, unless a person looking toward it was standing ten or fifteen feet away from the machine. Solicitor Dorsey indicated on the diagram where a bloody stick is supposed to have been found, and asked the witness if he made a search of that area.

The witness said that he did, during the latter part of the week following the tragedy, and that he found no stick, blood, nor part of any pay envelope. Solicitor Dorsey asked the attorneys for the defense if they had in court the bloody stick, said to have been found by the Pinkertons.

The attorneys answered in the negative, saying they could produce it Thursday afternoon. The solicitor announced that he would bring the witness back later.

CAN’T IDENTIFY IT.

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination and developed that there was no distinguishing mark on the piece of envelope found by Barrett except the little loop. There was no number, no amount, nor anything like that, to distinguish it from hundreds of others used in the factory.

Barrett testified under cross-examination that he found the hair when he turned the handle of the lathe on Monday morning and the hair caught on his fingers. Barret[t] was positive that the spots which he found were blood spots, although he admitted he had made no chemical analysis.

Mr. Rosser concluded his cross-examination, and Mell Stanford, another employe of the pencil factory, was called to the witness stand.

Stanford declared that on Friday, April 25, he swept the second floor of the pencil factory, including the metal room, and was certain that he swept around the water cooler and by the dressing room. On Monday he was again in the metal room and saw the hascoline smeared on the floor, where it had not been when he swept the metal room between 9 and 10 o’clock Friday morning. He was certain that a heavy broom had been used for smearing the hascoline. The spots leading from the hascoline smear went back toward the dressing room.

Attorney Arnold took up the cross-examination of the witness, but at 12:25 o’clock, before he could ask a question, Judge Roan ordered a recess of the court until 2 o’clock.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

A number of people remained in the court room throughout the noon recess, preferring to run no risk of losing their seats. A small boy who somehow got past the guards brought a basket of lunch and sold it out in short order.

Leo M. Frank, the accused, and his wife lunched together in one of the rooms adjoining the court.

Some fifty or seventy-five women were in the crowd which entered the court room just before 2 o’clock. [T]hey were more numerous than at the morning session. The number of women attending the trial grows with each session of the court.

At 2 o’clock court re[c]onvened with Mell Stanford in the witness [c]hair, and with Attorney R. R. Arnold conducting the cross-examination.

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

Atlanta Georgian
July 31^st, 1913

FRANK NOT IN OFFICE JUST AFTER 12 ON DAY OF SLAYING, SAYS GIRL

The deliberate charge that he had been “trapped” by Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott was made by Solicitor Dorsey at the trial of Leo M. Frank Thursday. Scott played a curious part in the trial, being attacked by both sides.

He was given the same fiery baptism that annihilated City Detective Black the day before, but he passed through the ordeal in much better shape than his brother detective. Scott left the stand at 11 o’clock and Miss Monteen Stover was called.

The Stover girl testified that she visited the factory shortly after 12 o’clock, April 26, and that Frank was not in his office.

Scott refused to be cowed by the battering attack of Luther Rosser, chief of Frank’s counsel, and fought back viciously at various times during his cross-examination. He was inclined to argue with both Attorney Rosser and Solicitor Dorsey, and at one time blazed forth angrily when he though that Dorsey was charging him with holding something back.

Defense Discounts Scott’s Story.

Rosser succeeded in impeaching Scott’s testimony to a certain extent by showing that his testimony at the Coroner’s inquest differed in some respects from that given at the trial, and that the testimony at the inquest lacked much that was contained in his testimony just given under the questioning of Solicitor Dorsey, although Scott had sworn at the inquest that he was telling all he knew.

It was evident as soon as the Pinkerton detective was called that a sharp battle was to ensue over his testimony. A lively tilt occurred between Rosser and Dorsey before Scott had been on the stand five minutes. The testimony had progressed only a little further when Dorsey claimed that he had been trapped by the witness into believing that testimony of another sort would be given.

Dorsey demanded the privilege of asking leading questions in order to determine whether Scott’s memory was faulty or if he was purposely holding something back.

Haas Wanted First Reports.

The Solicitor got from his witness the details of his engagement by the National Pencil Company and sought to emphasize that Herbert Haas, one of Frank’s attorneys, had tried to induce Scott to withhold his evidence from the police, but Scott on cross-examination declared that Haas asked only that [t]he evidence be given the pencil factory officials first.

Scott testified that Frank in the first days of the investigation had told him that J. M. Gantt, a discharged factory employee, knew Mary Phagan well and was familiar and intimate with her, the Solicitor by this evidence seeking to show a disposition on the part of Frank to throw suspicion on someone else.

The detective described Frank’s demeanor as extremely nervous at the interview Tuesday night, April 29, between Frank and Lee. Scott said that Frank hung his head, crossed and recrossed his legs, rubbed his face and lips with one hand and then the other, and seemed not know where to put his hands.

Rosser Grills Scott.

Rosser, cross-examining Scott, made the detective admit that he had not told of these circumstances before the Coroner’s inquest and had not stated any of the conversation between Lee and Frank which he had just told to the Solicitor. Going further, he forced Scott to admit that he had said at the inquest that he had heard none of the conversation.

Scott told Dorsey that he had made a thorough search of the first floor of the factory soon after his services were engaged, and that he had found no ribbon, purse, pay envelope or bloody stick, which later was said to have been found near where Jim Conley was hiding, by Pinkerton operatives.

Scott said that he had looked for blood spots, but that most of the evidence of this sort had been chipped up before he entered the case.

Rosser and Scott engaged in a heated argument when Rosser called attention to the fact that the detective had not mentioned at the Coroner’s inquest Frank’s alleged remark in regard to Gantt’s intimacy with the Phagan girl.

Scott gave as his excuse that it was an oversight, or that he possibly had not been questioned on that matter by the Coroner.

“I am not fool enough to give away the whole case in detail at a preliminary hearing, anyway,” added Scott.

R. P. Barrett, the machinist at the pencil factory, who discovered the strand of hair on a lathing machine and spots resembling blood on the floor, was called to the stand at the conclusion of Monteen Stover’s testimony.

Dorsey Quizzes Scott.

Solicitor Dorsey started his questioning of Harry Scott with the query:

Q. What is your business?—A. Pinkerton detective.

Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you first see Frank?—A. Monday, April 28, at 7 p. m.

Q. Where was that?—A. In Frank’s private office.

Q. What was Frank’s attitude?—A. He was composed.

Dorsey said:

“Your honor, I want to refresh his memory. I was misinformed as to what the witness would testify.”

Attorney Rosser objected.

“I am surprised at the evidence,” said the Solicitor, “of this witness regarding Frank’s attitude.”

Noted Nothing Unusual.

“What about his breathing?” asked the Solicitor—A. Well, between sentences, occasionally he took a deep breath.

Q. What about the expression of his eyes?—A. I had never seen him before. The expression of his eyes was about as they are now.

Frank, sitting a few feet away, wore the same cool expression he has had since the beginning, his face utterly devoid of emotion. The expression of his unusual eyes was calm. Dorsey resumed his questioning.

Q. What did he say?—A. “I suppose you have heard of the horrible murder in this factory. The directors and I have decided to employ you to find the murderer.”

Frank Said He Was Suspected.

Q. What else did he say?—A. He said he had just come from the police station and that the police, particularly Detective Black, seemed to suspect him.

Q. What else?—A. He related his movements on the day of the murder. He said that the paid the little girl off that day and that when she left he heard voices on the stair. He said that later he let Mrs. White out of the factory at about 1 o’clock. She saw a negro sitting on a box at the foot of the stairway. Frank said he left the factory at 1:10 o’clock and went home for lunch. He said he returned from lunch at about 2 o’clock and went up to his office.

Scott testified as readily as though we were reading a narrative.

Q. Give the jury a description of […]

RED SPOTS ON FACTORY FLOOR SMEARED OVER, SAYS SCOTT

Swears Frank’s Lawyer, Haas, Called for Report Before Police Saw It

DETECTIVE SCOTT PROVES PUZZLING WITNESS BOTH FOR STATE AND DEFENSE

[…] how Frank acted.—A. He acted perfectly natural.

Rosser interrupted.

Q. How do you know it was natural if you never saw him before?—A. I just thought it was natural.

Rosser Objects Again.

Dorsey took up the questioning again.

Q. How were his eyes?—A. Large and piercing.

Q. How was his breathing?—A. Very deep.

Q. Didn’t you state to me—

Rosser interrupted.

“I object. You can’t ask him that.”

Dorsey replied: “I don’t know whether this witness has trapped me or not. I have it written down.”

Rosser; “I have no doubt you have it written down from Genesis to Revelations, but this witness has already said the defendant was not nervous.”

The objection to the question was sustained.

Dorsey: Q. How did he give you the narrative?—A. Very rapidly and specifically as to time.

Refreshes Scott’s Memory.

Q. How did the defendant state the time when Mary Phagan entered the factory?—A. He said about 12:10.

Q. What did Frank say, if anything, about hearing voices before she came?—A. I don’t recall.

Dorsey addressed Judge Roan: I want to refresh the memory of this witness with the notes he took on the case.”

Q. Mr. Scott, did you furnish a report of this case to the defendant?—A. Yes.

Q. To whom?—A. To S. Montag, Herbert Haas and L. Z. Rosser.

Q. Did you furnish the State a readable copy like you did the defense?—A. I don’t know. I read your complaint.

Rosser objected. “I object to anything like this, Your Honor. It is absolutely immaterial here how or whether he furnished the defense with the reports.”

“Not Sticking to Testimony.”

Dorsey: “I hold, Your Honor, that this witness is not sticking to his previous testimony and I have the right to refer to these reports to refresh his memory.”

Judge Roan: “Put your question, Mr. Dorsey.”

Q. Was it before or after 12 o’clock that Frank said he heard voices?—A. (Scott read from his notes) Frank told me that before 12 o’clock he heard voices outside his office.

Rosser objected. “I object to his

The objection was sustained.

“Mr. Scott, you can only refresh your memory from the notes,” said the court.

Scott refreshed his memory from his notes, and said:

“I now state that Mr. Frank told me he heard those voices before 12 o’clock.”

Q. Before Mary Phagan came or not?—A. Before.

Q. Where?—A. On the second floor.

Dorsey Misled, He Asserts.

Q. What did Frank say he did at home when he went home at 1:10 o’clock?—A. He said he went home for lunch.

Q. What, if anything, did Frank say in reference to Gantt?—A. He said J. N. [sic] Gantt knew Mary Phagan very well and was intimate with her.

Q. What, if anything, did Frank say about Gantt’s intentions to Mary Phagan?—A. Nothing.

“Your honor,” said Dorsey, “I admit I have been misled.”

Rosser objected. “These sorts of questions fall on me like a false note on a piano.”

“Your honor,” said Dorsey, “it is discretionary with you as to whether I may lead a witness. If there ever was a time when a witness should be led it is now with this detective who was hired by the pencil factory and who has been working with the attorneys for the defense. When I talked with him and he told me things and now he testifies differently I have a right to lead him.”

Charges Scott “Trapped” Him.

“If you mean to say the witness has trapped you, I will permit it,” said Judge Roan.

“I do,” answered Dorsey.

Attorney Rosser objected, and the court recessed until authorities could be looked up.

“He is trying to impeach a witness,” said Rosser.

“If it is meant that I am holding back anything I want to disabuse his mind of that,” interrupted Scott. “I—“

“I am not trying to impeach a witness,” declared Dorsey. “Here is a detective employed by this defendant and he simply has had a lapse of memory.”

Dorsey wanted to submit a memorandum he had taken from Scott, but Rosser objected.

No Reference to Notes.

“He saw me take it,” said Dorsey.

“He saw you write it,” retorted Rosser, “before my friend Dorsey conferred with Hooper. Hooper is a wise man. He charged three times that he had been trapped by the witness.”

Judge Roan ruled: “At this stage of the game I can’t allow you to ask the witness leading questions. He may be allowed to refresh his memory, but if it is on anything that is written, he must have seen it at some other time.”

Dorsey then questioned the witness:

Q. Mr. Scott, in my talk with you at my office last week, did I not make a memorandum of what you would swear? I want to ask this witness if he wrote these notes.

Rosser objected: “That is just exactly what I don’t want.”

Judge Roan ruled: “I don’t think you can lead the witness at this stage of the game.”

Said Gantt and Girl Were Friendly.

Mr. Hooper interrupted: “As I understand it, Mr. Dorsey has the right to ask this witness what he wishes, provided he asks him about the specific question.”

“I hold that,” said Judge Roan.

Dorsey put the question:

Q. Did Frank say anything about the attention of Gantt to Mary Phagan?—A. He said he seemed unusually friendly.

Q. Do you remember when Gantt was arrested?—A. Yes, about the time I was in conference with Frank.

Q. Was there anything said by one of the attorneys for Frank about you suppressing evidence?

Rosser objected. “Why, your honor,” he said, “a client is not even bound by his attorney in a civil case. I demand that that question be withdrawn.”

The objection was sustained.

When Pinkertons Suspected Frank.

Dorsey: “It is a circumstance, your honor.”

Rosser (angrily): “Then I withdraw my objection.”

Scott answered the question: “Sometime in May I, with Superintendent Pierce, of the Pinkerton agency, went to the office of H. J. Haas, in the Third National Bank Building, and told him there was a strong suspicion against Frank. He said he wanted us to give him personally our reports in full before we submitted it to the police. We told him we would withdraw from the case before we would do that.”

Q. Who did the talking and showed you on your walk through the factory?—A. Mr. Darley did most of it; Mr. Frank a little.

Q. Did Mr. Frank offer any suggestions as to how or why it happened?—A. No.

Q. Did you see any white smear over the blood spots?—A. Yes; they were covered with a sort of white smear.

Q. Were you sure it was a smear or a spit?—A. It was a smear.

When Frank Met Her.

Q. Are you willing to tell the jury whether Frank was nervous or composed?

“He answered that question,” interrupted Rosser.

“Did you?” asked Judge Roan of Scott.

A. I said his eyes were piercing and he looked pale.

Judge Roan asked the witness if Frank was composed.

A. He was composed.

Dorsey resumed his questioning.

Q. What happened at the police station Tuesday night?—A. Detective Black and I had a discussion in Frank’s presence about Newt Lee. We had been talking to Lee. Mr. Black told Mr. Frank he didn’t think Newt Lee was telling all he knew. I said about the same thing. We asked him if he would consent to go into a room with Lee and try to get the truth out of him. He agreed to and we left them alone together about ten minutes. When we interrupted, Lee did not seem to have finished his conversation. ‘Mr. Frank,’ said Lee, ‘it’s awful hard for me to be handcuffed to this chair.’ ‘Well, they got me, too,’ said Frank. Frank told me later they did not get anything out of the negro.

Frank’s Head Was Dropped.

Q. What did Frank do?—A. His head was dropped.

Q. What was Frank’s attitude at the police station?—A. He was extremely nervous.

Q. On what do you base that statement?—A. He didn’t know what to do with his hands or feet. He rubbed his face with his hands and was agitated.

Q. How about his eyes?—A. His eyes always appeared to be the same.

Q. What was his attitude at the time of his arrest on Tuesday?—A. His hands were trembling. He was pale and silent.

Q. Did you see Attorney Rosser at the police station?—A. No, I did not.

In Office from 12 to 12:30 p. m.

Q. Did you see Frank at the factory Saturday, May 3?—A. Yes; with Black.

Q. What conversation did you have with him then?—A. I asked him if he was in his office continuously from 12 o’clock noon until 12:30. He answered that he was there in his private office for every minute.

Q. How was it you put the question?—A. “For every minute of the time between 12 and 12:30, were you in your private office?” He replied that he was.

Q. Did you search the area around the elevator shaft and radiator?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you find anything around there in the shape of hair ribbon, bludgeon or purse?—A. No.

Then Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Didn’t Order Reports Held.

Q. You sent a report to me?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you report this, “Mr. Pierce and myself went to Haas’ office and he told us to catch the murderer regardless?”—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t report that other incident to me. Didn’t I say to you—

Dorsey: “I object to anything that was said except what was said to Haas.”

Judge Roan: “Isn’t it competent evidence for these attorneys to show there was not any effort at suppression?”

Dorsey replied: “Your honor, the State can show flight on the part of the defendant, but he can’t show that he stood still.”

Scott interrupted: “Haas never told us not to give the reports to the police, but merely to report to him first.”

Not in Inquest Testimony.

Q. Didn’t you testify before the Coroner’s inquest everything you know?—A. Yes; but not in detail.

Q. Did you say before the Coroner that Frank said that Gantt was familiar with Mary Phagan?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Why didn’t you give it to me in your report?—A. Either I didn’t think Gantt was a suspect or it was an oversight.

Q. Well, why didn’t you tell the Coroner about what Frank said about Gantt and Mary Phagan? Gantt was a suspect then, wasn’t he?—A. It must have been an oversight, if I didn’t do it.

Q. Isn’t it true when at the inquest that you did not say one word about Frank holding his head down when you and Black interrupted his interview with Newt Lee?—A. I don’t recall. I haven’t read the minutes.

Admits Working for Frank.

Q. You have stated here you were working in the interest of Frank, the defendant?—A. Yes.

Q. You stated there that you were employed by the National Pencil Company—A. Yes; Frank was the man I talked to. He had to see Mr. Montag before he could employ me.

Q. Didn’t you say before the Coroner’s jury that all you could find out about the conversation between Frank and Lee was from Lee?—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t say a word about overhearing Lee and Frank in their conversation, and of Frank hanging his head, did you?—A. No; I have refreshed my memory since then.

Scott Gets Angry.

Q. Wasn’t you asked then to tell it all?—A. Yes; but a man would be a fine sister who couldn’t refresh his memory. Do you think a man can remember verbatim everything said a year ago?

Q. Hold on; don’t lose your temper.—A. I’m not losing my temper.

Q. Now, you didn’t say anything before the Coroner about Frank saying that Gantt was intimate with Mary Phagan?—A. No.

Q. You haven’t got the word intimate in your notes here. (Rosser had obtained Scott’s notes from him.)—A. Well, I’ve got my own system about taking notes which may be different from yours. I don’t write out the whole story. Neither was I cross-questioned before the Coroner.

Q. You didn’t say anything about Mr. Frank being nervous before the Coroner?—A. I said I wasn’t cross-questioned.

Q. You detailed your statement to ten pages before the Coroner and you didn’t refer to that?—A. Yes.

Q. When you detailed the statement about the conversation between Lee and Frank you didn’t say anything about his being nervous?—A. I said he hung his head.

Works With Police.

Q. You didn’t say anything about his crossing and recrossing his legs?—A. I don’t think the Coroner asked me.

Q. You didn’t say anything about his putting his hand before his face?—A. No.

Q. You are a trained detective—trained to observe things—and you didn’t bring out these facts?—A. I have too much sense to tell everything I know at preliminary hearing.

Q. Weren’t you telling all you knew?—A. In a general way. I am not fool enough to go into detail with a fine-tooth comb at a Coroner’s inquest.

Rosser: “Your honor, this witness is provoking me.”

Dorsey: “I submit, your honor, that he has a right to answer the question.”

Judge Roan: “Don’t argue with the attorney, Mr. Scott.”

Rosser:

Q. Let’s go back. You work with the police, don’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. You never work against them. You just get in the road with them?—A. Yes.

Q. You will work against your client with the police, won’t you?—A. Some time.

Q. You testified about the blood spots, but nothing about the white stuff over it?—A. Yes, I think that’s right.

Q. That conversation you said about Frank, are you sure that statement didn’t come from Darley?—A. Yes, I am quite sure Frank dictated them in his office.

Mental Notes.

Q. You are sure you didn’t take these notes during your inspection of the factory?—A. Yes. I only took mental notes and wrote when we got back to the factory.

Q. You are not positive whether on that point?—A. Yes, because it was so dark I could not see in the factory.

Scott Corrects Report.

Q. Mr. Scott, you say now that Mr. Frank told you when the little girl asked him if the metal had come, Mr. Frank replied, “I don’t know?”—A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t you swear before the Coroner that he said, “No?”—A. Yes. I have said about half and half all the time.

Q. Didn’t you say in a report to me he said, “No?”—A. Yes.

Q. Did you mean I don’t know? Don’t you know that the meanings of the words are quite different?—A. It was just a grammatical error. I now swear positively he said, “I don’t know.”

Q. You say now Mr. Frank told you he left the factory about 1:10?—A. Yes.

Q. You told me in this report (he had Scott to identify the report) that he told you he left the factory at 1 o’clock?—A. Yes. It was simply an error in that report to you.

Q. How many mistakes are there in this report?—A. Very few. They are errors of the stenographer I overlooked.

Q. Mr. Scott, Mr. Black and the police always knew the contents of these reports before you made them to me, or Mr. Haas or the owners of the pencil factory?—A. Yes.

Scott Ends Testimony.

Dorsey on redirect examination:

Q. When did you report the finding of club to the police?—A. I saw it in a report of Hay 1.

Q. Do you swear what day it was reported to the police?—A. No.

Q. About the police—do you follow the facts, or the theory?—A. I don’t quite understand.

Q. Report in full to the jury what you mean by working with the police?—A. Mr. Black and I worked in partnership and reported to the police.

Q. Detail on this chart the course of your inspection of the factory with Frank and Darley?—A. We went from the office to the machine room, where the hair was found; saw the bloodstains, went down to the basement and were shown where the body [w]as found. We saw where the slipper [w]as found.

“That’s all. Call Miss Monteen Stover.”

Monteen Stover on Stand.

Judge Roan said: “Mr. Sheriff, take the jury out for a few minutes and let them get a little fresh air.”

Solicitor Dorsey began questioning Monteen Stover. She obviously was somewhat overawed, but fairly well composed.

She appeared about the same age as Grace Hix, and, like her, had very light hair. She was dressed in a tan cotton dress with a skirt well above her ankles. She appeared 16 or 17 year of age.

Q. What is your name?—A. Monteen Stover.

Q. Where do you work now?—A. Nowhere.

Q. Where were you working April 26?—A. The day Mary Phagan was killed?

“Yes,” said Dorsey.

A. Nowhere.

Q. Did you ever work for the pencil factory?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you quit?—A. Monday before Mary Phagan was killed.

Q. Did you go to the factory on the Saturday before Mary Phagan was killed?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time?—A. 12:05 o’clock.

Q. How long did you stay?—A. Five minutes.

Q. What did you go for?—A. To get my pay.

Q. What floor did you go on?—A. The second.

Q. To where?—A. To Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Did you see Mr. Frank?—A. No.

Q. Did you see anyone?—A. No.

Q. Did you notice the door in the rear that leads to the women’s dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it opened or closed?—A. It was closed.

Q. Had you ever noticed it before?—A. Yes.

Q. Wasn’t usually opened or closed?—A. Sometimes opened and sometimes shut.

Q. Did you notice the clock?—A. Yes.

Q. What time was it?—A. 12:05 o’clock when I entered and 12:10 when I left.

Stayed Five Minutes.

Q. What did you have on—what kind of shoes?—A. Tennis.

Q. Did you look at the clock when you went in?—A. Yes. I walked up to it. It was 12:05.

Q. What time was it when you left?—A. 12:10.

Q. Was there any hat or coat or gentleman’s apparel in the office?—A. No.

Q. Had you ever noticed the door before?—A. Yes.

Q. What was the condition of that door?—A. Sometimes closed and sometimes opened.

Q. Your honor, may I repeal this witness’ memory on this point from an affidavit she made?

Rosser—I object, your honor. He can’t show her that.

Judge Roan—Did she read the statement before signing it?

Dorsey—It was read to her.

Rosser—It might have been changed.

Dorsey—I won’t press the matter right now. I will cite some authority on it in a little while.

Mr. Rosser began the cross-examination.

Q. Miss Monteen, where did you start from to go to the factory?—A. From home.

Q. What time?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Did Mr. Frank have one or two offices at the factory?—A. He had two offices.

Q. Did you notice the safe in the office?—A. No sir.

Q. You just walked in, turned around and walked out?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any person?—A. No sir.

Q. Did you notice the desk in the office? Did you notice a wardrobe? A. No.

Q. What did you do?—A. I walked in the front office, saw no one, and went and sat down on the bench near the stairs.

Q. Then you got up and went home?—A. No, I went back into the office, looked around and seeing no one, left the building.

Q. You went straight home?—A. Yes.

Q. The factory was still in quiet, when you were there?—A. Yes.

Q. That door to the metal room—you had worked in metal department, and you sometimes saw the door open and sometimes closed?—A. Yes, sir.

Reads Affidavit.

Q. How many times has Solicitor Dorsey talked to you about this case?—A. Once. I went down to his office and made an affidavit.

Q. No matter what an affidavit might say, you know you sometimes saw that door open and sometimes closed?—A. Yes.

Q. If you made such an affidavit, you were mistaken?—A. I don’t know. I sometimes got there first and it was closed. Then I have passed it and seen it open.

Q. You do know that you saw it both open and closed?—A. Yes.

Judge here ruled that [t]he Stover girl could look at the affidavit to refresh her memory.

Solicitor Dorsey handed it to the witness and she slowly read it.

Door Opened and Closed.

Then Dorsey questioned the witness:

Q. Having refreshed your memory, Miss Monteen, state whether that back door usually was open or closed?

A. Sometimes it was open and sometimes it was closed.

Q. When the factory was not running, was it open or closed?—A. Closed.

Q. All the time?

Attorney Rosser objected: “You are leading the witness.”

The objection was sustained.

Q. What door are you referring to?

A. The door right back from Mr. Frank’s office.

Rosser then took the witness on the recross-examination.

Q. Was Mr. Dorsey present when you heard that affidavit read?—A. No.

Lawyers Clash Again.

“Your honor, Mr. Dorsey said it was read to her,” said Mr. Rosser. “How did he know?”

“She said it was read to her,” retorted Dorsey.

“No, she didn’t,” said Rosser.

“I call for a reading of the records,” said Dorsey.

“It is not of enough importance,” returned Rosser.

Then Monteen Stover was excused, and R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the National Pencil Factory, who found the hair on the lathing machine, was called to the stand.

Solicitor Dorsey questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Machinist at the National Pencil Company.

Found Blood Spot.

Q. What did you see near the water cooler in Mary Phagan’s dressing room?—A. A peculiar spot I have never seen before.

Q. Were you in the factory Saturday?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it there then?—A. No.

Q. How large was it?—A. About 5 or 6 inches in diameter with lots of little dots around it.

Q. Was there anything else?—A. Yes; some white substance smeared over it by the side of the big spot that was not covered up.

Q. What was it?—A. Blood.

Q. What did it look like that had been used in putting the white stuff on it?—A. A broom.

Q. Did you see the broom?—A. Yes; one was nearby.

Q. Was anything on the broom?—A. Yes, lots of dirt.

Found Hair on Lathe.

Q. Did you find any hair there?—A. Yes, on the bench lathe.

Q. Describe to the jury how the lathe was shaped.—A. It was “L” shaped and made of iron.

Q. Did anyone else see this hair?—A. Yes, L. Stanford and Magnolia Kennedy.

Q. Did Magnolia Kennedy identify the hair?

Rosser objected: “It would be only hearsay. Only the God of the Uni- […]

MACHINIST’S UNEXPECTED TESTIMONY AT TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK

“I found the strands of hair on the handle of the lathing machine in the National Pencil Factory Monday morning. I also found the blood spots on the second floor by the water cooler at the ladies’ dressing room. I know they were blood. The same day I found the spots of blood, I found the pay envelope under the machine at which Mary Phagan worked. The lathe on which I found the hair was about 20 feet away from where I found the pay envelope. The hair was not there Friday, for I worked on the lathe up to 5:30 o’clock, quitting time.

[…] verse could identify the hair.”

The objection was sustained.

Rosser began cross-examination.

Q. How far was it from the machine where the hair was found to where the girls combed their hair?—A. About 10 feet.

Q. How do you know that hair was not on that machine Friday?—A. I worked at the machine until 5 o’clock Friday afternoon.

Q. Did any girls work there Saturday?—A. No.

Q. How far was it from where you found the blood spots to where you found the hair?—A. About 8 feet.

Pay Envelope Also.

Q. Did you find anything around Mary Phagan’s machine?—A. Yes, I found a part of a pay envelope.

Q. Describe how you found it.—A. The latter part of the week I was standing about 15 feet from her machine when I saw a paper under her machine and I went over and picked it up. It was a part of a pay envelope with the letter “P” or “F” on it.

Q. What day and date was that?—A. The same day I found the spot of blood between the 28 and 30.

Q. What did you find under the machine?—A. Nothing but filings.

Q. What did you do with the pay envelope?—A. Turned it over to that man (pointing out a deputy).

Solicitor Dorsey here had the witness to identify the paper and it was then shown to the attorneys for the defense.

Examined Factory Closely.

Q. Did you examine the factory?—A. Yes, very closely.

Q. Did you find anything like a baseball bat around the first floor?—A. No.

Q. Did you find any part of a pay envelope?—A. No.

Q. Did you search closely?—A. Very closely.

Q. You say you found blood?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t know that it was blood—it just looked like blood?—A. No, sir, I know it was blood.

Q. What time was it when you noticed the strand of hair?—A. A few minutes later.

Q. Were they long strands or knotted?—A. They were around my fingers when I noticed them.

Strands of Hair Foot Long.

Q. How long were they?—A. About a foot long.

Q. You didn’t see them when you took hold of the handle and the first you saw of them was when they were wound around your fingers?—A. Yes.

Q. You say this envelope was found under her machine?—A. Yes.

Q. Then the lathe the hair was on was 20 feet away?—A. Yes, 20 or 25 feet away.

Q. The pay envelope you found had no name or number on it—only this little loop?—A. Yes.

Attorney Rosser here walked over to the jury and showed them the loop marked on the envelope.

Told of Find Same Day.

Then Mr. Rosser called the witness closer to the jury.

Q. It is the same sort of envelope they always have used at the factory?—A. Yes.

Q. There is nothing to identify it unless this little loop be a part of a name?—A. Yes, sir, the top of the envelope was torn off. All the writing on it was a loop that looked like the lower part of a “G.”

Dorsey here took up the re-direct examination.

Q. When did you tell Schiff about this?—A. The same day.

Barrett was excused.

Mell Stanford, who had not figured in the case up to this time, was called. Stanford also is an employee of the pencil factory.

The witness stated that he had worked at the pencil factory for two years and was at work there Friday, April 25.

Spot Not There Friday.

Q. What did you do this Friday?—A. I swept the whole floor of the metal room.

Q. Did you see anything there Monday?—A. I saw some white compound smeared over something.

Q. Was it there Friday?—A. No.

Q. What kind of a broom did you use?—A. A little broom.

Q. Do you know anything about a big cane broom?—A. Yes.

Q. Where was this broom Monday?—A. About 8 feet from the spot.

Q. What was under the white substance?—A. Some spots.

Q. Was it blood?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Could you tell whether the broom used was big cane or a little broom?—A. A big one.

The witness was then turned over to the defense for cross-examination.

Court then adjourned until 2 o’clock.

Praises Hooper.

Attorney Reuben Arnold took up the cross-examination of Mel Stanford when court resumed after the recess.

Just before court opened Leonard Haas, friend of Leo Frank, leaned across the table to Attorney F. A. Hooper, Dorsey’s assistant, and said:

“Mr. Cooper, I want to congratulate you on the very gentlemanly manner with which you have conducted yourself.”

He said nothing to Solicitor Dorsey, who was sitting beside him. Dorsey was unmindful if any slight was intended.

Gantt Recalled.

J. M. Gantt was recalled a moment at the beginning of the morning session Thursday to tell of the time he was arrested and the time he was released. Scott then was called as a witness and it was expected that he would be on the stand most of the day.

The courtroom was crowded as on every other day of the trial. There was a noticeable increase in the number of women present. The seats all were taken half an hour before the time set for the beginning of the trial.

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 Georgian

Sunday, July 6, 1913

Negro’s Lawyer Says He Will Offer Habeas Corpus When Solicitor Dorsey Returns.

On account of the absence from the city of Prosecuting Attorney Hugh M. Dosey [sic], Bernard L. Chappell, attorney for Newt Lee, announced Saturday that he would not file a writ of habeas corpus until Monday. He claims in the petition for the release of the negro that Lee is being held unlawfully and without any charge against him.

Solicitor Dorsey left for his country place at Valdosta, Ga., Saturady [sic] morning. He will return Monday.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey will ask the courts to hold the negro as a material witness for the State, or may charge him with being an accessory. He was determined Friday to take no chances on so important a witness getting out of his control, as he feared the negro might get beyond the jurisdiction of the courts if given his liberty.

Attorney Chappell and Solicitor Dorsey had agreed, when the negro was committed to jail, to keep him there until the trial. Chappell notified Dorsey Wednesday that he wished to withdraw from the agreement and get his client freed.

Chief Discounts Conley Rumor.

The announcement Friday that the defense had secured an important and damaging affidavit that connected the State’s star witness, Jim Conley, more directly with the crime created a sensation in the ranks of the prosecution.

Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford announced that every movement of the negro on the day of the crime had been “checked up,” and that it was a matter of impossibility to find anything more damaging against him than his admission that he helped dispose of the body at the request of Frank.

In commenting on the affidavit secured at the office of Joseph H. Leavitt Thursday the attorney said that it would be almost impossible for the prosecution to break down any statement that was made in the affidavit when the witness was placed on the stand.

Calls Evidence Vital.

He said the witness was a citizen of high standing and would be one of the most important for the defense of Frank.

Attorney Leavitt said that this particular affidavit was one of more than 50 that had been recently secured that dealt almost exclusively with the movements of the negro on the day of the murder. While he would not comment at any length, he intimated that the defense had been able to establish conclusively the exact time Conley entered and left the factory.

He also intimated that affidavits had been secured that would show what time Monteen Stover entered and left the factory and be able to prove she left before Mary Phagan’s car reached the vicinity of the pencil factory.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 6th 1913, “Application to Release Lee is Ready to File,” 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 Georgian

Saturday, July 5, 1913

Writ to Free Watchman From the Tower Will Be Filed—State to Oppose Liberation.

The prosecution will fight an entirely new angle in the Phagan case Saturday morning when Barnard [sic] L. Chappell, attorney for Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, files a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the negro from the Tower, where he is being held without any charge against him.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey will ask the courts to hold the negro as a material witness for the State, or may charge him with being an accessory. He was determined Friday to take no chances on so important a witness getting out of his control, as he feared the negro might get beyond the jurisdiction of the courts if given his liberty.

Attorney Chappell and Solicitor Dorsey had agreed, when the negro was committed to jail, to keep him there until the trial. Chappell notified Dorsey Wednesday that he wished to withdraw from the agreement and get his client freed.

Chief Discounts Conley Rumor.

The announcement Friday that he defense had secured an important and damaging affidavit that connected the State’s star witness, Jim Conley, more directly with the crime created a sensation in the ranks of the prosecution.

Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford announced that every movement of the negro on the day of the crime had been “checked up,” and that it was a matter of impossibility to find anything more damaging against him than his admission that he helped dispose of the body at the request of Frank.

In commenting on the affidavit secured at the office of Joseph H. Leavitt Thursday the attorney said that it would be almost impossible for the prosecution to break down any statement that was made in the affidavit when the witness was placed on the stand.

Calls Evidence Vital.

He said the witness was a citizen of high standing and would be one of the most important for the defense of Frank.

Attorney Leavitt said that this particular affidavit was one of more than 50 that had been recently secured that dealt almost exclusively with the movements of the negro on the day of the murder. While he would not comment at any length, he intimated that the defense had been able to establish conclusively the exact time Conley entered and left the factory.

He also intimated that affidavits had been secured that would show what time Monteen Stover entered and left the factory and be able to prove she left before Mary Phagan’s car reached the vicinity of the pencil factory.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 5th 1913, “Liberty for Newt Lee Sought,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)