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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

Stated That He Was Willing to Reply to Any Questions That Might Be in the Mind of the Public, and Asked to Answer Any Such That Might Be Propounded to Him.

TELLS HOW JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL AND ESCAPED DETECTION

Asserts That Very Fact That He Admitted He Had Seen Mary Phagan on the Day of the Murder, Thus Placing Himself Under Suspicion, Was Proof in Itself That He Was Innocent of Crime.

Probably the most interesting statement yet issued by Leo M. Frank in connection with the murder for which he has been sentenced to hang, is one that he has furnished to The Constitution in the form of a series of answers to questions which were propounded to him bearing on the case.

These questions were prepared by a representative of The Constitution who visited Frank at the Tower last week.

“Ask me any questions you wish,” Frank told the reporter.

In accordance with that, the reporter wrote out a list of questions which, he asserted, comprised the most salient points the prosecution had brought out against him, and to each of these Frank has given an answer.

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

Question 1. Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Question 2. The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Question 3. You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of the negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Question 4. Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Question 5. You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Question 6. You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Question 7. Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Question 8. Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Question 9. Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Question 10. At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Question 11. Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Question 12. Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Question 13. When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Question 14. Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Question 15. When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Question 16. If a girl were never seen[…]

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

[…]alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Question 17. Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Frank’s Answers.

Question 1—Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Answer—Lee had been employed at the factory for but two weeks. Almost any experience, therefore, he would have had at the factory would be for the “first time.” I had on Friday, April 25, received and accepted an invitation from my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to go to the ball game on Saturday afternoon. Accordingly, on Friday night I had directed Lee to report early on Saturday, because I thought I would be absent from the factory Saturday afternoon at the ball game. But on account of the bad weather and the accumulation of work, I called off this engagement at about 1:25 p. m. Saturday when I was home to lunch. Lee, however, reported early, as directed, but as I had changed my plans and was to remain at the factory, there was no need for Lee to remain there unless he so desired. I didn’t insist on his leaving. I told him he could go if he chose, and he availed himself of this permission. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether he stayed or went; but I did insist on his returning not later than 6 o’clock to the factory.

Question 2—The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Answer—Mary Phagan may have been attacked as she went down, at the foot of the steps, in such a way that she was unable to make any outcry at all. In fact, that is my theory.

On the other hand, if she did make an outcry there were many things that would have prevented my hearing it. The head of the stairway leading from the second to the street floor was about 70 feet from where I was sitting at my desk. Half way down the stairway was a pair of heavy doors, which were kept closed. There was a thick flooring, plastered underneath, between me and the floor below. Also the elevator stood at the level of the second floor. Then the two windows in my outer office were open, allowing the noise from the street to come in. Moreover, I was immersed in my work, and, of course, was not anticipating anything out of the ordinary. Please note that Lemmie Quinn was in my office talking to me within three to five minutes after Mary Phagan left my office after receiving her pay envelope from me.

Question 3—You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of a negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Answer—The very idea of writing notes and putting them by the dead body to divert suspicion is even more characteristic of a drunken, ignorant negro than the language itself. Emphatically no. The whole dictation theory is silly. In the first place, no intelligent white man would do such a thing, either by writing himself or having another write for him. He knows that handwriting is a sure clue. It is inconceivable that any white man could have dictated those notes and it is equally as unbelievable that he could be so foolish as to leave them on the body. In the second place, please remember that it was I and none other who gave the detectives the information by which they were able to disprove Conley’s assertion that he could not write. It was I who, as soon as I heard that Conley was denying that he could write, gave the information where they could find a contract signed by him for the purchase of a watch on the installment plan. The detectives followed this clue, secured the contract, and forced Conley to admit that he could write.

Question 4—Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Answer—I told Helen Ferguson no such thing. She did not testify that I so told her. Even the state has never contended that she so testified. There is no basis for such an idea.

Helen Ferguson never got even her own pay, much less that of another, from me. I was not the paymaster. No evidence was presented at the trial to show that I was. In fact, Helen Ferguson herself testified that previous to Friday, April 25, she never asked for or received an envelope from me. She said April 25 was the first time, and she is mistaken about this. Please note that the two girls who worked in her department with her testified at the trial that they were with Miss Ferguson when she drew her money from Mr. Schiff, and that in their company she left the factory immediately and started for home. There was no mention of asking Schiff, who was paying off, or Frank, who was not at the cashier’s window, for another person’s envelope. The two girls who so testified were Miss Hicks and Miss Kennedy. Schiff, who actually paid off Helen Ferguson, swore to this fact at the trial.

Calls Gantt A Liar.

Question 5—You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Answer—What Gantt said was an unqualified falsehood. I never knew that Gantt knew Mary Phagan intimately until Halloway told me after the murder of Monday, April 28, 1913, when I went to the factory in the afternoon at about 3 o’clock.

Question 6—You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Answer—Messrs. Schiff, Stelker, Sigancke, Quinn, Darley, Campbell and Halloway were with me when I examined the alleged “blood spots.” The police had taken up only a few chips from the spot, and left the remainder of the spot, which I examined. They didn’t take away the whole spot, nor did they take up the floor.

Question 7—Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Answer—When I first phoned Mr. Schiff it was Mr. Montag’s lunch hour, and I couldn’t get Mr. Montag on the phone. Mr. Schiff was at the factory office, and, so, when Mr. Montag gave his permission to Mr. Schiff to hire detectives, he could more readily arrange an interview and receive detectives than I, who was at my residence, could. Mr. Schiff was my assistant, and naturally I had him do this work for me. I don’t see the materiality of this question. The material point is that as soon as I could I had a detective employed and put upon the case to ferret out the crime.

Question 8—Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Answer—This is not true. At the coroner’s inquest I said: “She got there—of course, it is pretty hard to give the exact time—but I venture to say it as near as possible, between 12:10 and 12:15.” At the trial I said: “Miss Hattie Hall finished the work and started to leave when the 12 o’clock whistle blew, she left the office and returned, it looked to me, almost immediately, calling into my office that she had forgotten something, and then she left for good. . . . To the best of my knowledge, it must have been from 10 to 15 minutes after Miss (Hattie) Hall left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered by office and asked for her pay envelope.”

Let me call attention, at this point, to the fact that if I had been guilty, nothing on earth would have induced me to have revealed the fact that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan in my office a few seconds before the prosecution claims I killed her. Would the man who killed Mary Phagan have freely and voluntarily stated that he saw her and talked with her just a few moments before she was supposed to have been killed? Would not every instinct of self-preservation have caused him to conceal the fact that he had seen her at all? Why, if he were guilty should he disclose the fact that he had seen her, especially when no one had seen him talking with her, and it could not be proved that he had seen her? If I had a guilty conscience would I have freely and voluntarily stated, as I did, that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan? And if I did not hesitate to declare that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan (which was the big, important fact), what object could I have had in misstating the time that I saw her?

I stated simply the truth, and the whole truth. I gave the time to the best of my recollection.

Proof I Am Innocent.

Question 9—Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Answer—I said I was not out of my office at 12:05. I always contended that, and I still assert it. I never changed. I may have stepped to the toilet for a minute or two, but one couldn’t remember such an occurrence. I am not fully satisfied as to the accuracy of Miss Stover’s testimony. She is but a child, and may not be accurate.

Let me say, as I did in answer to the preceding question, that I always stated freely and voluntarily that I saw and talked with Mary Phagan in my office. I gave her her pay envelope. She asked me if the metal had come, and when I told her no, she departed. I did not see her alive again. Now, if I had anything to conceal about the meeting between Mary Phagan and myself, if I had been the guilty man, would I not have denied from the first that I had ever seen her at all? Would I ever have come forward freely and voluntarily and stated that I had seen and talked with her? Would I not have tried to conceal that fact? Let me say that if some other man were accused of a murder, and he were to come forward voluntarily and state, without any compulsion, that he had seen and talked with the dead person just a few moments before the killing was supposed to have occurred, I would say that the man had a clear conscience and was not guilty. For, if he had been guilty, common sense would have made him hide and conceal the fact of seeing the dead person just before the killing.

Question 10—At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Answer—At first, I said the slip was all right, as no successive numbers were skipped. Mr. N. V. Darley looked at the slip, also, and corroborated this. Later, when I studied carefully the time at which the punches occurred, I noted three lapses of one hour instead of a half hour, as they should have been. The whole matter of Lee’s punching the time clock, while a physical fact, is immaterial. There is one thing, however, that is material in this matter. When I took out of the clock the time slip that Lee punched, I wrote on it, ‘Taken out at 8:26 a. m.’ to identify it. Several of those about me at the time saw me write on the slip. This was a complete identification of this slip. Mr. Dorsey admitted, in open court, that he rubbed it out. He says he thought a detective wrote those words on it to identify it.

Question 11—Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Answer—I did not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory. I told her that if she did not wish to be locked in with the two boys at work on the fourth floor, that she would have to leave then, as I was going home to lunch, and was going to lock up the factory. I did not mention haste. As I followed her down the stairs at an interval of less than a minute, I could not have been writing as she passed, and was not writing. I may have been placing papers together preparatory to leaving, but I had nothing to wrtie [sic]. The record of the case bears me out in this.

Question 12—Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Answer—Conley came to my cell surrounded by detectives who had put themselves on record as being antagonistic to me. They were not hunting the truth; they were trying to fasten the crime on me. No matter what I would have done, if I consented to the interview, they would have used it against me. At the trial the negro never looked at me once, though my eyes were glued on him the whole time.

Question 13—When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Answer—To the police I did fail to mention Lemmie Quinn’s visit. It slipped my mind, though it was a circumstance favorable to me. But his statement, and my own, that he called and saw me in my office that day, has never been questioned. As soon as Quinn mentioned to me the fact of his visit to me the day of the murder, it refreshed my memory, and I at once remembered it.

Question 14—Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Answer—No. I told him to tell the truth. Not knowing exactly what the police were claiming (at that time), and not being a lawyer, I did not know what value Quinn’s visit could have as evidence, and I told Quinn I would report the fact to my lawyers.

Character Witnesses.

Question 15—When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Answer—My experience with Dalton, the first character witness against me, had given me and my attorneys fair warning what to expect from the so-called character witnesses. Here was a man upon whom I had never laid my eyes before he took his seat in the witness chair, and of whom I had never heard, and yet he swore solemnly to acts and doings with me that were utterly and absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation. Was not this fair warning to me and my attorneys of what they might expect from the other so-called character witnesses? There was nothing that they could truthfully testify against my character, but I had been duly warned that I could not rely upon their speaking the truth.

My lawyers decided that if they cross-examined those character witnesses, it would allow these hostile people to tell all they heard about me in the way of vile slander—not what they knew. They felt that these witnesses had been loaded with slanders about me just for the purpose of telling them on cross-examination. They did not want to give them the chance to repeat malicious tales against me which they had no opportunity to investigate or answer.

Question 16—If a girl were never seen alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Answer—If the only facts known were what you state, then it would not be surprising that such a man should be arrested, and if subsequent developments indubitably pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime, that he should be vigorously prosecuted. But if, after this man’s arrest, a negro brute is discovered, who admits a knowledge of the crime, who admits writing the very notes found by the body, though, at first, steadfastly denying he could write at all, and who, after repeated visits and promptings from the detectives and the solicitor, finally invents a preposterous and unbelievable tale, putting the crime on the man arrested in order to save his own neck—then I would say that the further prosecution of this man is persecution, indeed!

Question 17—Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Answer—Not prior to the time that another was shown to have had the opportunity to commit the crime.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, March 9th 1914, “Leo Frank Answers List of Questions Bearing On Points Made Against Him,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution

Wednesday, May 28^th, 1913

Negro Sweeper, It Is Stated, Acknowledges That He Erred in Former Statement to the Detectives.

POLICE NOW SATISFIED WITH NEGRO’S EVIDENCE

Conley Is Taken to Frank’s Cell, But Prisoner Refused to See Him Except in the Presence of His Lawyer.

In a gruelling three-hour third degree at police headquarters last night, James Conley, the negro pencil factory sweeper, is reported to have made the statement that he erred in the date of his original confession and that he wrote the murder notes at Leo Frank’s dictation at 1 o’clock on the Saturday of Mary Phagan’s disappearance instead of the preceding Friday.

In an effort to confront the suspected pencil plant superintendent with this acknowledgement, Chief Beavers, Chief Lanford and Harry Scott, of the Pinkertons, took the negro to the Tower at 8 o’clock, where they tried to gain admission to Frank’s cell. Sheriff Mangum refused entrance unless permitted by Frank.

When word came to him that the police chiefs and the Pinkerton man desired to confront him with Conley, the prisoner positively refused them an audience, declaring that he would have to first consult his counsel, Attorney Luther Rosser.

Secrecy Shrouds Confession.

Secrecy shrouds the negro’s reported confession amendment. All three men who subjected him to the third degree admit that he has made a statement of importance, but will neither deny nor affirm the rumor of his change of dates. Chief Lanford was seen by a reporter for The Constitution at police headquarters a few minutes after the negro had been returned to his cell.

He admitted that an important admission had been made by Conley, and, that as a result, he would be used as a material witness against Frank.

He was asked if the negro had revised the date on which he declared he wrote the Phagan murder notes.

“I can’t say at present. I will not be able to talk for some time yet. Not until the negro makes another affidavit at least,” he replied.

Judging from this, Conley will be required to attest to a new sworn statement of his confession. Chief Lanford would not commit himself on that subject.

Saying that he was not entirely surprised at the result of the examination under which Conley was placed last night, the detective chief said that it was one of the most significant developments of the entire investigation, and that it was valued as highly as any evidence now in his possession.

Harry Scott, assistant superintendent of the Atlanta branch of the Pinkertons, who assisted the police officials in the third degree, would not commit himself regarding the rumored amendment to the negro’s admission. He said, though, that an acknowledgement of importance had been gained from the prisoner, and that it was damaging to Frank.

Police Were Worried.

Throughout Tuesday police headquarters was worried over the negro’s statement that he had written the notes he says were dictated by Frank on Friday, and had reached the conclusion that he was either lying or had confused his dates. On the latter theory, he was subjected to the gruelling examination at night.

Ever since it was sworn to in an affidavit made in the office of Solictor General Dorsey last Saturday, the detectives have been sorely puzzled over Conley’s confession. It did more to muddy the waters of their investigation than any other phase of the case. Supporting, to a large degree, the rumor that the dates had been changed was the statement by Chief Lanford that he now was satisfied with Conley’s story.

Earlier Tuesday afternoon, he had stated to a reporter for The Constitution that he was not pleased with Conley’s confession because of the day—Friday—on which he claims to have written the notes for Frank. He admitted being mystified.

Last night, however, he said

“One thing—I’m no longer puzzled.”

Chief Beavers said that inasmuch as the detective department was conducting the investigation into the Phagan case, he did not deem it prudent to give out information which they evidently intended keeping secret. This he gave as a reason for not committing himself on the rumor of Conley’s new confession.

He told the reporter who talked with him that Conley had not changed his affidavit, laying emphasis on the word “affidavit.” He was asked if the negro had changed his statement in any manner.

“I did not say statement,” he answered, “I said affidavit.”

It is an admitted fact that Conley has not made a fresh affidavit.

Hour Is the Same.

Chief Lanford says that Conley did not change the hour in which he originally declared the notes were written, which was four minutes to 1 o’clock in the afternoon. It will be recalled that he stated in his affidavit that Frank had called him to his office at 12:56 o’clock. He was positive of the hour, he said, because, on his way to the office he had glanced at the time clock in the hallway just outside the office entrance.

If he has altered his original statement, as rumored, it is now to the effect that Frank summoned him to write the murder missives less than forty-five minutes after Mary Phagan had entered the factory building to draw her pay envelope.

Chief C. W. Tobie, the Burns agent, left the city Tuesday afternoon. He goes to Chicago to return to his office as manager of the criminal department of his agency.

Declaring his belief that factional wrangles, such as the one now existing between certain forces engaged in the Phagan mystery, impede the progress of operations, the Burns man explained his reason for withdrawal in this caustic remark:

“This is a hell of a family row, for a stranger like me to be mixed in.”

He commends the detective department of police headquarters for the progress they have made, and expresses belief that Frank will be convicted on the evidence now at hand much of which, he says, has never yet been revealed to the public.

He also said that, although the Burns organization was not connected with the mystery in any manner at present, it probably would work on the case later. In such event he declared, their connection would be secret.

CHIEF LANFORD MAKES OFFIER TO COL. FELDER

Detective Chief Lanford Tuesday issued to a reporter for The Constitution a signed statement in which he proposed to rid himself and Atlanta of “two nuisances by sending A. S. Colyar handcuffed and in custody of a policeman to Knoxville Tenn., and Colonel T. B. Felder in charge of a detective to Columbia, S. C.

The Statement Follows:

“I will make this proposition to Colonel Felder. That I will handcuff A. S. Colyar and send him back to Knoxville, Tenn. without requisition papers if he (Colonel Felder) will accompany one of my men to Columbia, S. C. waiving requisition papers. Thereby I would get rid of two nuisances.

(Signed) N. A. LANFORD”

Difference, Says Felder.

Colonel Felder, when informed of the detective’s proposition, treated it lightly, but said:

“There is only one difference between those crooks Lanford and Colyar—one has been caught and the other hasn’t.”

Following Chief Beavers’ conference with Solicitor General Dorsey over the proposed presentation before the grand jury of charges made against Colonel Felder by the detective department and Felder’s counter charges of corruption, the attorney said that he was ready and willing to undergo investigation of any nature.

“No investigation would be too exhaustive,” he said. “I would be pleased to go before any committee organization or tribunal. I have done nothing wrong. There is nothing in my whole professional career of which I am ashamed. I wish an investigation would be started.”

Suspicion of the Phagan murder, which is freely reported to have been directed toward the negro James Conley, is scouted by the police and detectives. Chief Lanford intimates that the confession to having written the murder notes is either a plot to muddy the waters of the investigation, or an act of ignorance.

He also says, however, that in case the negro did pen the missives, it was done on the Saturday of the crime, and about the hour at which he declares they were written on the preceding day. “It is probable,” the chief says, “that the black has got confused in his dates and has mistaken Friday for Saturday.”

Confession Is Puzzling.

Conley’s confession is at present, the most mystifying phase of the whole mystery. In an effort to break his story the detectives are exerting in vain every possible scheme upon the negro.

The report that Mrs. Mattie White, wife of Arthur White, who visited her husband in the pencil plant on the day of Mary Phagan’s disappearance, had identified Conley as the negro she noticed loitering in the shadows of the first floor that afternoon, is erroneous. Mrs. White denies having seen the negro at all during the day. Her statement to this effect was made to detectives Tuesday.

Relative to the withdrawal of the Burns agency from the Phagan mystery, Colonel Felder said Tuesday that the usefulness of that organization was over, and that its agents already had performed the duty for which they had been employed. He says further that Tobie unearthed evidence firmly indicating the suspected superintendent’s guilt, and that the detective’s operations had been invaluable to the solicitor general.

Tobie, in an interview Monday night, took the detective department of headquarters to task for allying with Colyar in their operations. He said that it lowered the dignity of the department.

No new developments arose in the investigation Tuesday. Although he will not state it as a positive fact, Chief Lanford strongly intimates that the alleged telephone conversation between Frank and Mrs. Mima [sic] Famby [sic] has been verified by telephone operators who overheard the alleged message.

Conley Worries Detectives.

The mystery of Conley’s confession is the most baffling puzzle now confronted with by the detectives, they say. He was arrested on the Tuesday following the murder when E. F. Holloway, timekeeper and foreman of the pencil plant discovered the negro washing a shirt on the second floor of the factory building. Holloway immediately notified the detectives. Conley was arrested and since has been kept at police station.

The new theory entertained by the detectives is that Conley wrote the notes on Saturday instead of the Friday which he claims. He stoutly declares however that it was 1 o’clock Friday afternoon, the day before the tragic holiday. Nothing seems able to break his story.

Supporting, in a degree, the suspicion directed toward the negro, is the story of Foreman oHlloway [sic], who says that Conley had recently become addicted to drink and was on the verge of being discharged when his arrest was made. He had been transferred from the job of elevator boy, Holloway says because of drink, and was put to work sweeping on the second floor, where he came in contact with the girl operatives.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 28th 1913, “Conley Reported to Admit Writing Notes Saturday,” 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

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

Mrs. Mattie White Tells Detectives That on Afternoon of Killing She Saw Negro in Factory.

Leo M. Frank will probably be the first witness to take the stand in the Mary Phagan murder inquest to be resumed this morning at 9:30 o’clock in police headquarters. He will be examined thoroughly along lines which neither the chief of detectives, coroner nor solicitor general will disclose.

He was resting comfortably at midnight, and, according to reports from the Tower in which he is imprisoned, he is in fit condition to undergo the ordeal. In the first interrogation to which he was subjected, he was on the stand for a trifle more than six hours. It is not thought that the examination today will last that long.

Headquarters was given a surprise yesterday afternoon with the report brought back by Detectives Rosser and Haslett, who were sent early in the afternoon to interview Mrs. Mattie White, wife of Arthur White, the mechanic who was in the pencil factory during the time Mary Phagan entered the building to draw her pay envelope.

Saw Negro in Factory.

Mrs. White stated that she went to the plant to see her husband shortly before 1 o’clock, and that as she came downstairs a few minutes later, she noticed a stalwart, black negro, sitting on a box on the first floor only a few feet from the elevator. He was seated in the shadow of the staircase, and was almost out of view.

This is the first time she has told of seeing the negro. It also is the first time it has been revealed that a negro was in the building between the hours of 12 noon and 4 o’clock, the fatal afternoon. Mrs. White told the sleuths that she did not recollect the incident at first.

Her statement was written and placed on record at headquarters. She will be summoned to the inquest. Her residence is at 58 Bonnie Brae avenue, where she has resided several years.

“The negro was a big man,” she said to Haslett and Rosser, “and was apparently too well-dressed to be a workman. He was sitting on a box in the shadows of the stairway, and gazing intently at the elevator shafts. I thought nothing of his presence, and hurried on out of the building. I don’t know whether or not I will be able to identify him. I possibly could, though.”

Searching for Greek.

Detectives are searching for a young Greek, who is supposed to have disappeared the day the body was discovered. He was an attaché of the café adjoining the pencil factory, a popular establishment with girl employees of the plant, at which many of whom ate their lunches.

Chief Lanford stated that when city detectives, following clues they had obtained from girls of the factory, sought to interview him, they found him missing. Later, it was reported that he was in Anniston, Ala., in which city Pinkerton men are making a search. He was employed as a waiter at the café, and had been in America for a good many years. The officers will not give his name.

The theory, on which suspicion is directed toward the Greek, is that the girl was murdered on the outside of the factory building, probably in the alley way facing Madison avenue, and that her body was carried into the basement through the rear door which was broken open.

The bursting of the door would have been an easy matter, as the staple could have been taken out, the detectives say, with the fingers.

It is advanced, too, that the slayer was in love with his victim, and that the deed was inspired by insane jealousy.

Added energy was injected into the search for the missing Greek at dusk Wednesday, when W. T. Hunter, a youth living at 250 Grant street, came to police headquarters and told Chief Lanford a story of a scene he had witnessed at 3:30 o’clock on the Sunday morning the body was found.

Hunter told of the appearance of three Greeks in a club at Broad and Hunter streets at 8:30 o’clock the Sunday morning of the discovery. One of the trio, he said, carried a mysterious package under his arm, obviously containing clothing. All three, upon entering the club, went into the washroom, where they cleaned their faces and hands. Detectives have been detailed to look for the three Greeks answering Hunter’s descriptions.

Dorsey Talks With Lee.

Solicitor General Dorsey held a lengthy interview with Newt Lee in the Tower Wednesday afternoon. It was the first opportunity he had gained to talk with the suspect. He would not divulge the result nor tell of the lines along which the negro was quizzed. Immediately after leaving the jail, Mr. Dorsey hurried away in an automobile.

The negro watchman, Chief Lanford says, will also go on the stand today. It will be his second examination. He will be questioned more closely regarding his private interview held with him by Frank Tuesday, a week ago, when both were allowed to talk in the privacy of the negro’s cell.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 8th 1913, “Frank Will Take Stand at Inquest,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)