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

Atlanta Constitution
August 16^th, 1913

The more or less listless curiosity of the courtroom spectators was scarcely aroused during the afternoon until the last witness was called who was Mrs. Rae Frank of Brooklyn, N. Y. The mother of Leo M. Frank.

Not the slightest intimation had been given that Mrs. Frank would be called to the stand and a whisper of surprise spread over the room as the leaden-eyed mother, weary with the many days through which she has patiently sat and heard every conceivable blight cast at the name of her son slowly ascended the stand.

As she held up her hand to take the oath there was a glimmer of the hope in her eyes that now she might be able to say some word which might help or at least comfort her son.

Mr. Rosser questioned her.

“Are you the mother of Leo Frank?”
“Yes.”

“Where do you live?”
“In Brooklyn.”

“Where did you move from to Brooklyn?”
“New York city.”

“Where else have you lived?”
“In Texas.”

Frank Born in Texas.

“And Leo was born in New York?”
“No, in Texas.”

“Who is M. Frank?”
“He is my husband’s brother.”

“Where does he live?”
“In Atlanta.”

“Did you see M. Frank in New York this year?”
“Yes, I saw him April 27 and 28.”

“Where?”

“At the Hotel McAlpine in New York.”

At this point Rosser offered a letter which he wanted to read to Mrs. Frank but Dorsey objected. Rosser stated that he merely wanted to identify it by reading it to the witness. Dorsey stated that he was willing for Mrs. Frank to read it herself. Rosser stated that he also wanted to show by the letter the work that Frank had done on the day of the murder as the letter which was dated April 26, 1913, would do, he claimed.

Hooper objected, saying that a letter written that day would be a self service.

Letter Was Important.

Arnold replied that it was extremely urgent that the letter he read as the defense wanted to account for every moment possible of Frank’s time on the day of the murder and that the letter, whether long or short, would account for just so much time.

“Wouldn’t the letter show that without the contents being divulged?” asked Judge Roan.

Arnold argued that the contents of the letter were necessary to show the time occupied in its writing and stated further that he wanted to show by the handwriting and contents that Frank was not nervous on the day of the murder as the prosecution had set up.

Dorsey asked Judge Roan to rule that it would be improper for Rosser to read the letter and Mrs. Frank was allowed to read it to herself.

The letter is said to have been written by Leo Frank to Mr. Frank and received by the latter in New York on the Monday after the murder.

Here is the Letter.

The letter was as follows:

“Atlanta, Ga. April 6, 1913—Dear Uncle. I trust that this finds you and dear auntie well after arriving safely in New York. I hope that you found all the dear ones well in Brooklyn and I await a letter from you telling me how you found things there. Lucille and I are well.

“It is too short a time since you left for [words illegible] startling to have developed [words illegible]. The opera has Atlanta in its grip but that ends to-day. I’ve heard rumor that opera will not begin again in a hurry here. Today was Yondif here and the thin gray line of veterans, smaller each year, braved the rather chilly weather to do honor to their fallen comrades.

“Enclosed you will find last week’s report. The shipments still keep up well, though the result is not what one would wish. There is nothing here in the factory office to report. Inclosed please find the price list you desired.

“The next letter from me you should get on board ship. After that I will write to the address you gave me in Frankfurt.

“Much love to you both in which Lucille joins me. I am your affectionate nephew.

“(Signed) LEO M. FRANK.”

Knew the Handwriting.

When Mrs. Frank had concluded reading the letter, Rosser asked her:

“Do you know that handwriting?”

“Yes, it is my son’s.”

“No, have you seen the contents of the letter now?”
“Yes.”

“Did you ever hear the contents of that letter read before?”
“Yes.”

“Where?”
“In New York.”

Dorsey asked Mrs. Frank:

“You also got a telegram on the day [words illegible] and this letter read, did you not?”
“Yes. The telegram is in my possession now, but I haven’t it with me. I will bring it to you tomorrow morning.”

Dorsey held up the letter, showing that the paper was of small size while the envelope was a large long one.

“Was this little letter in this large envelope and folded this way when you saw them?”
“Yes, as well as I remember.”

Mrs. Frank was then dismissed from the stand and Rosser submitted the letter.

This was the last incident of the day.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Mother of Frank Takes Stand to Identify Letter Son Wrote,” 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 16^th, 1913

MOTHER IDENTIFIES LETTER FRANK HAD WRITTEN TO UNCLE ON MEMORIAL DAY

Testimony Used by Defense to Show That the Prisoner Could Not Have Written This Letter, Which Was of Considerable Length, Had He Been Laboring Under Stress of Excitement Which Would Have Followed the Murder of Mary Phagan.

PENCIL FACTORY GIRLS SWEAR CONLEY CALLED FRANK AN INNOCENT MAN

Witness After Witness Declare That They Never Saw Women in Office of Superintendent—The State Brings Girl Back From Home of Good Shepherd in Cincinnati to Give Evidence Against Prisoner—Her Testimony Is Kept a Secret.

The defense played one of its strong cards Friday, when, at the heel of the day’s session, Mrs. Rae Frank was placed on the stand to identify a letter which Leo M. Frank, on Memorial day, and which was read in her presence at the Hotel McAlpin, New York, Monday following the murder.

The letter was one of some length, and contained a price list which M. Frank had requested his nephew to send him.

The time element, which is playing an important part in the trial, was made more important by this letter. The defense will attempt to show that the letter could not have been written had Frank been guilty of the murder, or had he been laboring under stress of excitement.

Mrs. Frank was perfectly composed while on the stand and answered the questions of Luther Rosser in a clear, distinct voice.

END NOT IN SIGHT.

At the conclusion of Friday’s session the end was not yet in sight, and no one, not even the attorneys in the case, could predict with any degree of certainty when argument would begin.

The sensation of Friday had no direct connection with the court proceedings. It was the news that Daisy Hewell, a 16-year-old girl, formerly of Atlanta, but who for some time has been an inmate of the Home of the Good Shepherd in Cincinnati, had been brought back to Atlanta in charge of Mrs. Mary Bohnefeld, matron of the police station, to give testimony against Frank.

On the way back to Atlanta Mrs. Bohnefeld did not discuss the Frank case with the Hewell girl, and she does not know what evidence she will give against the accused pencil factory superintendent.

The girl is now at the police station closely guarded, and no one is allowed to talk to her about the case.

For some weeks past there have been stories afloat of a girl in Cincinnati who would throw important light on the case.

RUMOR ATTRACTS CROWD.

Early Friday a rumor was current that the defense would close its case and that Frank would be placed on the stand. This caused one of the largest crowds of the trial to congregate in front of the courthouse. However, it soon became apparent that the rumor was a mere idle story of the street. The witness room on the second floor of the courthouse was crowded with witnesses all day, and despite the fact that over forty witnesses were called during the day there are several hundred yet to be heard from.

Reuben Arnold stated during the afternoon session that he intended to introduce every woman employee of the factory to prove that Frank was not in the habit of receiving women in his office on Saturday afternoons. There will be fully fifty of these. In addition, the defense has subpoenaed approximately 100 more character witnesses who are yet to be heard from.

Reuben R. Arnold, associated with Luther Z. Rosser in the defense of Frank, told The Constitution last night that the entire session of Saturday would be taken up with the examination of some forty or fifty girl witnesses who work on the fourth floor of the National Pencil factory. He said Frank would not take the stand until Monday, or possibly Tuesday.

In rebuttal of these witnesses Solicitor Dorsey will introduce many witnesses to discredit Frank’s character.

All things considered, it will be Wednesday at the earliest before argument will begin. Three days will be consumed in the argument. This will run the case to Saturday night of next week. Assuming that the jury has difficulty in reaching a verdict, Frank will not know his fate before Sunday.

Friday was for the most part taken up in hearing statements of character witnesses. Their statements were stereotyped and nothing new was brought out when they were cross-questioned by the state.

Miss Mary Perk, one of the forewomen employed at the pencil factory, stated that on Monday following the murder she had accused Jim Conley of the crime, and that he had immediately left her presence with a guilty look.

ATTITUDE TOWARD MARY PHAGAN.

Solicitor Dorsey tried to get the witness to acknowledge that she knew of incidents which would throw light on Frank’s partiality for Mary Phagan, but she denied any knowledge of them.

Mrs. Dora Small, another employee of the factory, testified that on Tuesday following the murder Jim Conley had asked her for money to buy newspapers with. He read these papers eagerly, she said.

Conley had said to her:

“Mr. Frank is just as innocent of that murder as you are.”

Mrs. Small, in speaking of Conley and negroes in general, said she would not believe any of them on oath. This caused considerable laughter.

Later Solicitor Dorsey made the witness say she would not believe Arthur Pride, the negro elevator boy, on oath. Pride had just previously given testimony favorable to Frank and derogatory to Jim Conley.

The defense introduced several witnesses to show that Frank did not receive women in his office on Saturdays. Several of these witnesses were in the habit of seeing Frank on business Saturdays, and they stated they had never seen Jim Conley around the front door.

Several employees of the pencil factory made contradictory statements when cross-questioned.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 16th 1913, “Mrs. Rae Frank Goes on Stand in Defense of Son,” 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 16^th, 1913

Identifies Letter Written By Frank to N. Y. Kinfolks On the Day of the Murder

By Asking Pencil Factory Forelady If She Saw Frank Talking to Mary Phagan, Solicitor Dorsey Indicates That He Has Witnesses Who May Furnish Further Sensational Testimony Along This Line

Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of Leo M. Frank, the accused factory superintendent took the stand Friday afternoon in defense of her boy and was on the stand when trial adjourns, at 5:45 o’clock until 9 o’clock Saturday. Mrs. Frank testified as to a letter which was written by her son on the day of the murder of Mary Phagan, addressed to M. Frank, the accused’s uncle, and received in New York several days later. The letter was admitted as evidence but was not read to the jury. Its contents told of the Memorial Day parade and of grand opera closing in Atlanta. A striking paragraph in the letter was the accused’s comment that nothing startling had happened in Atlanta since his uncle left.

Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense announced after court adjourned that the defense would put up about 100 more witnesses and that it would require at least two more days for it to conclude its evidence. This is taken to mean that the accused will not occupy the witness stand until possibly Wednesday.

By one question asked of Miss Mary Burton, forelady of the polishing room, Solicitor Dorsey Friday afternoon indicated that he had witnesses who would testify, if permitted, that Frank made advances to Mary Phagan, the murdered girl, two weeks before the crime. He asked the witness, “Did you ever hear that Frank got Mary Phagan in a corner two weeks prior to the murder and she was begging him to let her get away?” Miss Burton answered, “No.” If the solicitor has such witnesses he can put them on the stand and ask if they know the character of the accused and the witness can only answer as to whether it is good or bad, but if the defense asks the witnesses to give their reasons for their opinion and state a specific instance, then the alleged testimony against Frank’s character can get before the jury.

It was learned Friday afternoon that the defense probably would call practically every employe of the Pencil factory to testify to the good character of Leo M. Frank. No announcement to this effect has been made. Attorney Arnold did announce, however, that he was going to call every girl who worked on the fourth floor of the factory to answer, yes or no as to whether they had been in Frank’s office drinking beer. Mrs. E. H. Carson was the first of these witnesses and she answered emphatically, “No, certainly not.”

Leo Frank’s statement before the coroner that he had an engagement with his brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to attend the baseball game on Memorial day, the day that Mary Phagan was murdered, and telephoned to Mr. Ursenbach’s home later cancelling the engagement was corroborated Friday afternoon when Annie Hix, a negro woman servant at the Ursenbach home testified. The Hix negress declared that Frank called on the telephone and asked for Mr. Ursenbach and then Mrs. Ursenbach and that he was told that both were out and he left word that he would be unable to attend the ball game. The negress testified that she delivered the message to Mrs. Ursenbach when the latter returned home.

Ron Bauer continued on the stand under cross-examination when court resumed at 2 o’clock Friday afternoon.

“Whom have you talked to since you left the stand at noon?”
“I’ve talked to Mr. Garst, to Mr. Rosser, Mr. Arnold, Mr. Leo Gottheimer, Mr. Sig Montag.”

“How long did you talk to Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold?”
“Two or three minutes.”

“Where did you talk to them?”

“At Mr. Arnold’s office.”

“How did you happen to go there?”
“I drove Mr. Montag over there in his car.”

“Do you drive Mr. Montag’s car for him?”
“Yes, while he’s away I usually drive Mrs. Montag when she wants to go anywhere.”

“What did you tell Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold?”
“I gave them a written statement as to the Saturdays I went to the pencil factory.”

“What did that written statement contain?”
“The facts that you have questioned me about.”

“Did you tell them anything in addition to what you have told me here?”
“No, I just told them the facts.”

“Well, how about the third Saturday you went to the pencil factory?”
“Well. I went there in the afternoon, and Mr. Frank was there, and I asked him about Mr. Schiff.”

“How long did you stay?”

DOESN’T REMEMBER NOW.

“I don’t remember how long I stayed.”

“Did you look at any samples of pencils?”
“I don’t remember.”

“What enables you to remember the first and second Saturdays and not remember this Saturday?”
“I just happened to remember the things that I told you about on those Saturdays.”

Questioned very closely as to his visit to the pencil factory on the fourth Saturday in January, the witness stated only that he went there, saw Mr. Frank in his usual place at work. Inquired about Schiff and did not remember how long he stayed.

“Why is it, Mr. Bauer, that you remembered before dinner the minutest details of what took place at the factory on the first and second Saturdays in January, and now since dinner you can’t remember a thing about what took place on the third and fourth Saturday?”
“I have no special reason, Mr. Dorsey. I just undertook to tell you as much as I could remember correctly about the first and second Saturdays.”

“Well, you may come down,” said Mr. Dorsey.

GOTTHEIMER TESTIFIES.

Harry Gottheimer, a traveling salesman for Montag Brothers, and also for the National Pencil company, who resides at the Imperial hotel, was the next witness. He said that generally he makes two trips a year for the National Pencil company, between February 1 and April and between October 11 and November.

Gottheimer testified that he saw Frank at Montag Brothers on the morning of April 26 and stated that Mr. Frank asked him to come over there that afternoon to talk to him on a business matter and that he promised to come.

Attorney Hooper objected on the ground that the statement was self-serving for Frank, but it was allowed to remain in the record.

On cross-examination by Solicitor Dorsey, the witness said that Miss Hattie Hall saw him speak to Frank and that it was some time after 10 o’clock in the morning. He denied that Frank said anything about a baseball engagement with his brother-in-law. The witness declared that the does not belong to the B’nai B’rith.

Emma Bibb, negress, chambermaid for the Schiff family, was called, and testified that about 10:30 on the morning of Memorial day some one whose voice sounded like that of a boy, called over the telephone and told her to tell Mr. Schiff that Mr. Frank wanted him to come to the office at once.

SCHIFF HARD TO WAKE.

She characterized Herbert Schiff as “hard of waking,” and said that after she waked him he went back to sleep. He was called to the phone again and the same voice repeated the message. He heard the clock strike 11 as she went upstairs to wake Schiff the second time, she said.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness. She testified that she has been working for the Schiff family for [one word illegible] years. She said that sometimes Schiff sleeps on the holidays, but he generally sleeps just till she wakes him. [one word illegible] he is “mighty hard of waking.” There was laughter when the solicitor put this question and it was answered.

“Why do you remember about this particular Thanksgiving day?”
“Because it was Memorial day,” answered the witness.

She did not remember what Schiff did on Christmas day or on other holidays about which the solicitor questioned her. The witness steadily declared, despite many questions, that she had talked to no one about what she was going to testify, except Attorney Herbert Haas. She said that Mr. Haas came out to the residence during the first week of the trial and “suspended” her to come to court, and she asked him what for, and he said simply “About the call.” He was the only person who had mentioned it to her, she said.

CORROBORATION WITNESS.

Annie Nix, negress, maidservant of Mrs. Ursenbach, was the next witness.

“Do you remember Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you remember receiving a telephone message from Mr. Frank?”
“Yes, sir, about half past 1 o’clock.”

She continued to testify that Frank asked if Mr. Ursenbach was there, and when she replied no, he asked for Mrs. Ursenbach. She told him they were both out, and Frank then told her to tell Mr. Ursenbach than he, Frank, would be unable to go to the baseball game that afternoon. She said she told Frank she would give Mr. Ursenbach the message if he returned before she left, and that if he did not return she would Mrs. Ursenbach and tell her to tell him. She left before Mr. Ursenbach got home, and she left the message with Mrs. Ursenbach.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“How long have you worked at the Ursenbach home?”
“Two years.”

“What time did you leave there that Saturday evening?”

“Some time about 1 o’clock.”

“You answered the doorbell all the time Sunday, didn’t you?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Who was there Sunday?”
“Mr. Marcus and Mrs. Marcus and their son and Mr. Frank and his wife.”

“When did they come?”
“Right after breakfast. Mr. and Mrs. Frank always come about then.”

“What did Frank bring with him that morning?”
“I don’t know. I didn’t see anything.”

“You let him in, didn’t you?”
“No, sir, I didn’t let him in.”

FRANK LOOKED NATURAL.

She testified that Frank looked like he always did; that he laughed and chatted with the rest of them, and asked her for a drink of water.

“He seemed even better natured than usual, didn’t he?” asked the solicitor.

“No, sir.”

“Don’t you know he wasn’t there that morning, and that he didn’t come until after 2 o’clock?”

“No, sir, he was there that morning.”

“Didn’t you hear him mention the murder?”
“No, sir.”

“Wasn’t that what they were laughing about?”

“No, sir.”

“Do you put up Mr. Ursenbach’s clothes?”

“Yes, sir, if there’s any laying around I put ‘em up.”

DIDN’T SEE RAINCOAT.

“Did you see his raincoat that Saturday?”
“No, sir, I didn’t notice it.”

“Did Mr. Frank wear a raincoat there?”

“I don’t know, sir. I didn’t see it.”

“When did you know you were going to be subpoenaed to testify?”
“The Monday the trial began.”

“Whom did you tell what you going to swear to?”
“Nobody.”

“Didn’t anybody ever ask you about it, Mr. Haas, or Mr. Rosser, or Mr. Arnold or anybody?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you get on the stand and swear without telling anybody what you were going to swear to?”
“Nobody never asked me what I was going to swear.”

“You and Minola McKnight are pretty thick, aren’t you?”

“No, sir.”

“Well, you run together, don’t you?”
“No, sir, I don’t run with nobody but myself.”

“Well, you go to her house frequently, don’t you?”

“Sometimes I go to hers, and sometimes she comes up to mine.”

“How far do you live from Minola?”
“About five blocks.”

ARNOLD OBJECTS.

Attorney Arnold objected to the questions. Solicitor Dorsey argued their admissibility as showing interest on the part of the witness. Attorney Hooper said that it was admissible inasmuch as Judge Roan had allowed other testimony approaching this same point. Attorney Rosser retorted, “I wish we could decide these legal questions without my brother reminding your honor of something you have done already.” Judge Roan finally ordered the questions stricken.

The negress testified that she had been making $4 a week for two years, ever since she commenced working for the Ursenbachs.

“Why, you’ve been talking to Minola today, haven’t you?” demanded the solicitor. “You’ve been talking to her upstairs in the witness room, haven’t you?”
“No, sir, Minola’s not up there today.”

“Well, you spoke to her somewhere today, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir, I saw her at Mrs. Selig’s. I ate dinner there.”

“Who else spoke to you there?”
“Well, everybody there spoke to me.”

The witness was excused.

DIDN’T SEE CONLEY.

Truman McCrary, a negro drayman, the next witness, testified that he did regular hauling for three years or more prior to May 1 for the National Pencil factory. He testified that he hauled for the factory nearly every Saturday up to 12 o’clock, the hour when the factory shut down, and sometimes on Saturday afternoons. The point of his testimony as developed by Attorney Arnold’s questioning was that he never found the front door locked on Saturday afternoons, that he never saw Jim Conley watching or guarding the front door on Saturday afternoons, that he never found Frank’s office closed on Saturday afternoons, and that he always found either Frank or Herbert Schiff or both of them at work in the office on Saturday afternoons. He testified further that he remembered going to the pencil factory on Memorial Day, in the morning about 7:30 o’clock and again just before 12 o’clock, and that he did not see Jim Conley there.

He was cross-examined at considerable length by Solicitor Dorsey, but the examination developed nothing of any consequence, except emphasizing his testimony that on Memorial Day boxes were piled high on the first floor in the front of the building. The solicitor emphasized further the negro’s testimony that he had hauled for the factory on some Saturday afternoons and not on every Saturday afternoon.

Isaac Haas, of 179 Washington street, a manufacturer, with the assistance of Attorney Arnold, put a little humor into the afternoon proceedings. Mr. Haas was called to testify as to the character of the defendant and declared it to be excellent.

Attorney Arnold then said, “It has been testified here that your phone rang Sunday morning after the tragedy. Did it wake you?”
The witness answered that it did not, but that it waked his wife, who called him and took a message.

Attorney Hooper on cross-examination asked “I understand you to say that the telephone did wake you?”
“No. It waked my wife and my wife waked me.”

“There’s a good deal of difference between your wife and the telephone, isn’t there?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“I should remark,” said Mr. Haas, as he left the stand, “A big difference in expense and severity.”

ARTHUR WALTER PRIDE.

Arthur Pride, colored, was the next witness.

“Which are you, Arthur Pride or Walter Pride?”
“I’s both,” returned the witness. “Some calls me one, an’ some calls me de yuther.”

The negro testified that he had been employed at the factory five years; that from July 12 to January 1 he was in the factory every Saturday afternoon and that he stayed until 4:30 o’clock; and that his duties took him from the first floor to the roof of the building.

The negro declared that he never saw any women call there to see Frank, and that he never saw Jim Conley watching. He said he probably would have seen Conley if Conley had been there. The negro said that the employees often used the back stairs from the metal room to the third floor. He said that the elevator went smoothly, but that if the machinery stopped you could hear it on any floor in the building.

“How long have you known Jim Conley?”
“Three years.”

“What is his reputation for truth and veracity?”
The witness said he did not know what the attorney meant.

“Do you know his character—his general character?”

CAN’T BELIEVE CONLEY.

“Yes, sir, it’s bad,” said the negro. He continued that he would not believe Jim Conley on oath.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the negro.

“When did you make up your mind that you wouldn’t believe Jim on oath?”
“Four months ago when him and his whole family lied. I wouldn’t believe any on ‘em.”

Answering further questions, the negro said that Jim had sold him a watch for $4.50, and that later had been arrested by the man from whom he bought it on the installment plan. On the promise of Jim and his family to pay him, he let them have the watch back so Jim would not have to go to jail. He declared he had never yet received the $4.50.

“Jim’s not a high class negro like you, is he?”
“I ain’t a high class negro, but I’m different grade from him,” replied the witness. The witness admitted that he had never heard anybody else speak ill of Jim Conley. He said he did not know where the elevator key generally is kept. He swore positively that if the machinery is not running, regardless of what else is going on in the building, the elevator is audible.

Mrs. E. H. Carson, mother of Miss Rebecca Carson and of another young woman who also works in the pencil factory, testified that she has worked in the factory for three years.

“Have you ever seen blood spots on the floor around the ladies’ room?”
“Yes, I’ve seen them.”

“On the Friday before Memorial Day were you in the factory?”
“Yes, but I left about 12:45 o’clock.”

“Were you back there Monday?”

“Yes.”

“How long did you stay?”
“Until something after 9 o’clock.”

“Was it Monday or Tuesday that you saw Jim Conley?”
“I saw him Tuesday.”

FRANK INNOCENT, SAID JIM.

Mrs. Carson testified she remarked to Jim, “They haven’t got you yet, I see.” She testified that on Wednesday about the same hour she repeated the observation to the negro, and that she saw him again on Thursday and made the same kind of remark. On Thursday, she said, Jim turned around and said, “I ain’t done nothing.” “You know Mr. Frank never did that,” the witness testified she said then to the negro. “And yet they’ve got him.” The negro answered “No, Mr. Frank’s just as innocent as you, and I know you is innocent.”

Mrs. Carson testified she then said to Conley, “When they find the murderer of Mary Phagan, it will be that negro who was sitting down there in the entrance.” When she made this remark, she said, Jim dropped his broom and disappeared and did not finish sweeping.

“Do you know the character of Leo M. Frank?” asked Mr. Arnold.

The witness answered yes, that it was good.

“How long have you known Conley?”
The witness did not know exactly.

“Do you know his character?”
“Just the same as any other negro.”

“What was his reputation for truth and veracity? What did people around the factory say about him?”

“Well, his character wasn’t very good.”

“Would you believe him on oath?”

“No, I wouldn’t.”

DON’T KNOW DAISY HOPKINS.

Solicitor Dorsey began the cross-examination.

“Were you working there when Mrs. Daisy Hopkins was there?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“I don’t know.”

Mrs. Hopkins was brought in, and the witness failed to identify her. Mrs. Carson said that she and her daughters, who worked on the fourth floor, saw Frank nearly every day.

“Did you see him Monday?”
“No.”

“Did you see him Tuesday?”
“Yes, I saw him on the fourth floor.”

In answer to further questions by the solicitor, the witness said Frank came up to the fourth floor between 9 and 11 o’clock and she had a conversation with him.

“What time Tuesday did you have a talk with Conley?”
“Between 9 and 11:30.”

“Then Leo M. Frank and Conley were on your floor between the same hours Tuesday morning, were they?”
“Yes.”

“Did you see Frank when he went over to Jim and whispered to him?”
“No, sir.”

“Whom else did Frank talk to?”
“Well, my daughter.”

“What did he say?”

FRANK SAID HE WAS GRIEVED.

“I was so disturbed. I don’t know what he said, just like I am now. He said he was sorry that the little girl was killed, though, that it was a brutal murder.”

“Did anybody else about the factory tell you they were sorry the little girl was killed?”
“Yes, there were lots of them.”

“When did you see the blood spots in the dressing room?”
“Lord knows I can’t tell you!”

“How big was the biggest spot of blood you ever saw there?”
“As big as my hand.”

“What is there, now, that would cause girls to bleed in there and not on the stairway, for instance?”

“Well, it is dark on the stairs and you couldn’t see it there.”

The witness testified that she had seen blood on the machines, in the aisles, in the toilet rooms, and at various other places at various times. She referred to a little girl who once had been hurt there, and the solicitor asked her to fix the time. The witness was unable to state when it occurred, and solicitor Dorsey called on Herbert Haas for the record of the accidents at the factory. Mr. Haas did not have it. Addressing Frank’s counsel generally, the solicitor said “You promised me, gentlemen, you would have this here when I wanted it.”

FUSSING LIKE SHE-BEARS.

Attorney Rosser spoke up. “Well, we’ve had to wait on you for papers and things like that, two or three times.”

“I made a particular request for this, and you assured me I could have it when I wanted it.”

“Let’s quit this fussing,” said Mr. Rosser. “You just quarrel like an old she-bear.”

Mr. Arnold spoke up. “Yes, let’s cut it out gentlemen. We all sound like she-bears.”

The jury went out for a short recess. When it returned the cross-examination of Mrs. Carson was resumed.

BLOOD SPOTS EVERYWHERE.

“Tell us where you ever saw blood, Mrs. Carson.”

“In the dressing room, around the machines, in the aisles, and in the ladies’ room.”

“You say the biggest spot you ever saw was as large as your hand. Now tell us where you saw that.”

“Near the garbage can on the fourth floor.”

“You had no trouble recognizing that as blood?”
“No, not that spot.”

“Well, how about the others?”
“I was always sure of it in the dressing room and in the aisles.”

“Tell us where was the dirtiest and greatest place you ever saw blood on the fourth floor.”

“Around the sink and in the ladies’ room.”

“How big were those spots?”
“Several spots as big as your finger.”

“Did you know who had been hurt?”

“No, the girls are always mashing and cutting their fingers.”

“What was the worst injury you ever heard of in the factory?”
“I believe the worst one was when a fellow named Carlisle got his arm all torn up.”

“When was that?”
“Soon after I went to the factory.”

“Did you go down to the second floor to see that blood?”
“No, I didn’t go. Several of the girls said they were going down to see it, and asked me to come on, but I told them I didn’t want to see it.”

“What time did you hear the report that blood had been found down there?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Were you there Monday morning?”

“Yes.”

“Did you see Jim Conley Monday?”
“No, it was Tuesday morning I saw him.”

“Now it was Wednesday you say you had that conversation with Conley?”
“No, it was Thursday.” And the witness then related again the conversation.

“What time was that?”
“I don’t remember. There’s no clock on the fourth floor.”

“When was the first time you heard that Mrs. White had said she saw a negro sitting at the foot of the stairs?”
“I don’t remember.”

Attorney Arnold asked: “Mrs. Carson, we are going to put every girl on the fourth floor on the witness stand and ask them if they ever went down to Mr. Frank’s office and drank any beer, or did anything like that. Now I’m going to ask you that question.”

“No, sir; certainly not.”

“Yes, Mrs. Carson; I knew you would say that,” said Attorney Arnold. “Now you may come down.”

FORELADY TESTIFIES.

Miss Mary Burton, forelady of the polishing department of the pencil factory, employed in the factory five years, testified as to the good character of Frank.

Miss Burton said that on the Monday following the tragedy, early in the morning, she met Jim Conley and accused him of the murder, but that he said nothing and walked away. She said she knew Jim Conley’s reputation to be bad, and that she wouldn’t believe him on oath.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“You say you suspected Jim Conley as early as Monday, April When did you tell about it?”

“I told Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold.”

“Was that before or after Jim was arrested?”
“Afterward.”

The solicitor asked the witness repeatedly if she knew at the time that Lee and Gant and Frank had been arrested. She said she did.

“Why didn’t you report your suspicion of Conley then?”
“I don’t know,” said the witness.

“You knew the officials or the factory were anxious to find the murderer, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Well, give one reason why you didn’t report it.”

“I don’t know why, but I just thought it best not to.”

“What made you suspect Conley?’
“He just looked guilty.”

“Didn’t you tell anybody else about it?”
“Mrs. Denham, Mrs. Johns and Miss McCord heard me when I accused him.”

“Did you accuse Jim before or after the blood discovered?”
“Before.”

“It was blood, was it?”
“I wouldn’t swear it.”

The witness continued that she had seen other stains that looked like that, near the dressing room, but couldn’t say when.

“You say you spoke to Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold about this. Was it before Jim was arrested?”
“I don’t know.”

“Was it after the coroner’s inquest?”
“I don’t know.”

“You say you never heard Frank talked about generally?”
“He was always a perfect gentleman toward me.”

“Well, what did the other girls say about him?”

“I don’t remember anything.”

“You mean you’ve never heard him accused of any act of immorality?’
“No.”

“You never heard of him watching the girls in the dressing room?”
“No.”

“Nor slapping them as they went by?”
“No.”

“Did you know Mary Phagan?”
“Yes.”

“You never saw Frank talking to her?”

“No.”

TRIED TO GET AWAY.

“You never heard of the time, two weeks before her death, that he had her in a corner, and she was begging him and trying to get away from him?”

“No.”

“Come down.”

Attorney Rosser addressed the court.

“Your Honor understands that it is not necessary for me to repeat objections that have been ruled upon, every time the subject comes up.”

“Yes; there’s no use repeating objections that have been ruled on,” said the court.

Mrs. Dora Small, a machine woman on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, was the next witness. She testified that she was at home all day Memorial Day until 1:15, and then went down town. In answer to a question by Attorney Arnold, she said that she knew Conley, and she replied to another question that on Tuesday she saw him with a newspaper in hand. He worried her to buy an extra edition of the newspaper, she said; and after she had bought it, he bothered her until she gave it to him. She testified later that later she saw him sitting on a box near the elevator reading it and others.

“How was his coat buttoned?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“He had on a Norfolk coat, and it was buttoned up tight, and up at his neck he had a pin in it. Before that he always wore his coat loose with the belt string hanging down.”

“Did you see whether he wore a shirt or not?”

The witness replied that on Tuesday morning she talked with the negro, and he remarked to her, “Mr. Frank’s as innocent as you are,” and added, “God knows I wosn’t near the factory that day.”

“Did he tell you how near the factory he was?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“No, sir.”

“Did you see Frank talking to this negro Conley on Tuesday?”

“No, sir; nor on any other day.”

“How long have you known Frank?”

“Five years.”

In answer to other questions she said his general character is good. “I never met a more thorough gentleman in my life,” she added.

“I am going to ask you a question that we are going to ask all the women on the fourth floor,” said Attorney Arnold. “Have you ever been down in Frank’s office after hours?”
“No, sir.”

BELIEVES NO NEGRO.

He asked the usual character questions then about Conley. In answer to the question as to whether she would believe Conley on oath, Mrs. Small replied: “I don’t know a negro on earth that I’d believe on oath, or any other way.”

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness. “Would you believe Snowball?” he asked.

“No, I wouldn’t believe any negro.”

“Then you wouldn’t believe Newt Lee, or Pride, or anybody else who’s skin is black? They’re all on the same plane, are they?”
“Yes.”

“Do you know Mrs. Daisy Hopkins?”
“No; I do not.”

“You say you’ve never been around there on holidays or Saturday afternoons?”
“Yes, sir, I say that!”

“What is your salary now?”
“$6.50 a week.”

“How long have you been getting that?”
“About four months. I got a 50 cent raise.”

“Then you must have gotten it since the murder?”

“No, it was before the murder.”

“Did you see Mrs. Carson on the fourth floor on Tuesday, April 29?”
“Yes, I see her every day in the year.”

“Was she at work?”
“Yes.”

“On Wednesday, did she talk to Conley?”
“Not that I saw.”

Mrs. Small testified that she had seen Conley also every day until his arrest.

Conley also every day until his arrest. She said she had seen Frank talking to Miss Rebecca Carson about 9 o’clock on Tuesday morning, and that he later had O. K’d a ticket for her.

“Where was Conley when Frank was talking to Miss Carson?”

“He was standing near the elevator.”

“When Frank finished talking with Miss Carson, how far toward the elevator did she go with him?”
“She went and got a drink.”

Mrs. Small testified that she didn’t see Frank go toward Conley, and she said that he afterwards came down to the back of the fourth floor, where she was working. She swore that she had not seen Frank when he came up the stairs.

BOUGHT FOUR EXTRAS.

“Was Conley working when Frank came up?”

“He had a trash truck.”

“How many extras did you buy on Tuesday?”

“I bought four before noon.”

“How much does the elevator shake the building when it is running?”

“Anybody can notice it if the machinery is not running.”

“What did you do yesterday afternoon?”
“I worked.”

“How late?”
“Till about 5:20.”

“When did you last consult with the attorneys in this case?”
“I don’t know.”

“Can’t you remember how long?”
“No; I don’t remember the date.”

“How many consultations did you have with them?”
“One.”

“Didn’t they take a written statement from you yesterday?”
“Yesterday? Why, no.”

DOESN’T REMEMBER.

“You saw Jim Conley every day at the pencil factory, which was a usual occurrence; and you’ve held only one consultation with the lawyers in this murder case, which was an unusual occurrence. You can remember everything Jim did on a given date and yet you can’t remember even approximately when you consulted with the lawyers. Now why is that?”

“Why, I just don’t remember the date. That’s all.”

“Were you at the factory when Mr. Parrott held a conference with the employees?”

“Yes.”

“Who was there?”

“Why, all the hands in the factory.”

“Did you ever go back into the metal room on the second floor?”
“Yes, one day a crowd of us went down there to look at the blood spots.”

“Was Mrs. Carson in the crowd?”
“Yes.”

“Are you sure she was in the crowd?”
“Yes, I’m sure.”

“Who else was in the crowd?”
“Why I remember Mrs. Thompson was one of them.”

“What did you see?”
“We didn’t see anything except where the floor had been chipped up, and we saw some white spots that looked like talcum powder where the girls had been powdering their faces.”

“Did you see anything dark under the white spots?”
“No, sir.”

“What makes you say Mrs. Carson went down there?”

“Why, they went back in the back end of the machine room where she worked on the fourth floor, and got her.”

“Don’t you know she didn’t go down there with the crowd?”
“I know she did!”

“Don’t you know she refused to go down there?”
“No, sir, she did not!”

This concluded the cross-examination, and as Mrs. Small gave her final answer there was suppressed laughter in the back of the court.

JULIA FUSS CALLED.

Miss Julia Fuss, 17 years old, who works on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, was the next witness. Mr. Arnold asked her the usual question as to whether she had ever had been down in Frank’s office for drinks or after work hours, the witness answering “No, sir.” She testified as to Frank’s character, terming it very good.

In answer to questions by Attorney Arnold, she testified that she knew Jim Conley and that she had a talk with him on Tuesday after the murder and on Wednesday after the murder.

She testified that he was sweeping on the fourth floor Tuesday morning, and that on the table beside her machine she had an extra edition of one of the newspapers.

Jim Conley asked her for the paper, she said, and as he read it “he kind of grinned.” On Wednesday morning, she testified, he came by her machine and asked her if the papers had come yet and she told him they had not.

She testified that she asked Jim what he thought of the case and he said he didn’t know what to think of it. She testified that she then asked Jim if he thought Mr. Frank committed the murder, and Jim answered: “No, ma’am; Mr. Frank’s as innocent as the angels in heaven.”

She swore that Conley’s reputation is bad and that she would not believe him on oath.

DORSEY EXAMINES WITNESS.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

Miss Fuss said that on Tuesday after the murder she went to the second floor, curious to see the blood spots where Mary Phagan was supposed to have been killed. It was a dark spot, she said, red like blood.

“In your best opinion, what was it?”

“Paint,” said the witness.

“How long after the murder did the defense ask you about Frank’s general character?”

“About a week.”

“Did they ask you if you had heard anything against him or if you knew anything [a]gainst him?”

“They asked me if I knew anything against him.”

“Well, have you ever heard anything against him?”
“No, they generally—no, they always spoke good of him.”

“Why was it that you first said ‘generally’ and then said ‘always?’”

“I just made a mistake.”

“Aha!” said the solicitor. “You just made a mistake and caught yourself right quick.”

“I object to that,” said Mr. Rosser. “He insults every woman that comes on this stand.”

Mr. Arnold echoed Mr. Rosser’s objection, and then asked the court to declare the remark improper. Judge Roan ruled that the attorney could ask the witness if she had caught herself in a mistake.

NEVER HEARD OF FAMILIARITY.

“You never heard of any familiarity of Frank’s with any of the girls, or boys?”
“No.”

“When was it Jim got the papers from you?”
“On Tuesday and Wednesday after the murder.”

“Did Jim seem nervous then?”
“He always seemed to be nervous or half drunk.”

“Did he arouse your suspicion?”
“Not until he began to read the papers, and grin and comment.”

“Did he ever say anything against Frank?”
“No.”

“He always stood up to Frank and wouldn’t give him away, would he?”
Attorney Rosser objected to “wouldn’t give him away,” declaring it was a “dirty suggestion.” Judge Roan ruled it out.

“What did he say about Frank?”
“He said he was as innocent as the angels in heaven.”

Solicitor Dorsey brought out from the witness a statement that Frank came to the fourth floor twice on Tuesday morning within a period of 15 minutes, but she declared that he did not talk to Conley either time; that he just came to see if everything was getting on all right.

The witness was excused, and Fred Hellbren was called. He lives at 373 Washington street, and is a clothier. He testified to Frank’s character, terming it good.

FRANK’S MOTHER TESTIFIES.

Attorney Rosser asked Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, to take the witness stand.

“You are the mother of the defendant.”

“Yes.”

“Where do you live?”
“Brooklyn, N. Y.”

“How long have you been there?”
“36 years.”

“Where did you move to Brooklyn from?”
“New York city.”

“Then you’ve lived in only those two cities?”
“No. I lived three years in Texas, from 1881 to 1884 inclusive.”

“Your son here was born in Brooklyn?”
“No, he was born in Texas.”

“What relation are you to Mr. M. Frank?”
“He is my husband’s brother.”

“Where does he live?”
“Here in Atlanta.”

“Have you seen Mr. M. Frank this year?”
“Yes, I saw him on Sunday, April 27, and Monday, April 28.”

“Where?”
“At the McAlpin hotel, New York.”

“Where is that located?”
“Thirty-second street and Broadway.”

FRANK WROTE LETTER ON 26TH.

Mr. Rosser took up a letter and started to read it to the witness. Solicitor Dorsey objected. Attorney Rosser said: “We are dealing with what Frank did on April 26, and I went to show this letter, dated April 26, was mailed here, delivered to his uncle in New York, and read there in the presence of this lady.”

Attorney Hooper took the floor, declearing [sic] that the letter was immaterial, that anything in it could be no more than self-serving declaration, and that it was inadmissible.

Mr. Arnold argued, “It’s very important to account for time in this case. The hour from 12 to 1 is very important. We want to show that he wrote this between those hours. We want to show as clearly as possible what he did with every little fragment of time on that day. Suppose he went to a baseball game. That would be admissible to show how his time was spent. As he wrote a letter, we want to show that he took up that much time. It’s small, but important.”

“It might be admissible to show time spent, but the state objects to the contents of the letter,” said Judge Roan.

LETTER IN EVIDENCE.

“Well, the contents are the only thing to show the length of time it took to write it,” said Mr. Arnold.

The letter finally was admitted in evidence, without being read to the jury.

Answering questions by Attorney Rosser, Mrs. Frank identified the handwriting as that of her son, as well as the handwriting on the envelope. She heard the contents before when her sister-in-law read it to her brother-in-law in a New York hotel. Mrs. Frank volunteered the information that one word in it needed explanation. That was “yondef” which is pure Hebrew for holiday, she said.

In cross examination, solicitor Dorsey asked her if she did not also see a telegram sent by her son on that same day. She replied,

“Yes, I have it in my possession, but not with me at the present time.

“I’ll give it to you tomorrow morning.”

Taking up the letter, Mr. Dorsey asked “was this folded exactly as it is now?”
“To the best of my recollection.”

“Do you know what time of day you read it?”
“I don’t know the precise time. It was between 10 and 10:30 o’clock.”

Mr. Rosser tendered the letter in evidence and it was admitted. Mrs. Frank was excused from the stand. Court then adjourned at 5:45 until Saturday morning.

FRANK’S LETTER.

Here is the letter:

“Atlanta, Ga., April 26, 1913.

“Dear uncle:

“I trust that this finds you and dear auntie well after arriving safely in New York. I hope that you found all the dear ones well in Brooklyn, and I await a letter from you telling me how you found things there. Lucile and I are well.

“It is too short a time since you left for anything starting to have developed down here. The opera has Atlanta in its grip, but that ends today. I have heard a rumor that opera will not be given again in a hurry here.

“Today was yondef here, and the thin gray lines of veterans, smaller each year, braved the chilly weather to do honor to their fallen comrades.

“Inclosed you will find last week’s report. The shipments still keep up well, though the result is not what one would wish. There is nothing new in the factory, etc., to report. Inclosed please find the price list you desired.

“The next letter from me you should get on board ship. After that I will write to the address you gave me in Frankfort.

“Much love to you both, in which Lucile joins me.

“I am your affectionate nephew,

(Signed) “LEO M. FRANK.”

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 16th 1913, “Mrs. Rae Frank Takes Stand in Son’s Defense,” 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 16^th, 1913

MISS IRENE JACKSON DECLARES FRANK LOOKED INTO DRESSING ROOM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS

Daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson Testifies That Frank Opened the Door of Dressing Room and Looked in While Young Lady Was Dressing and That a Complaint Was Registered With a Forelady, Miss Cleland, About It

NEWSPAPER MAN TELLS OF JIM CONLEY’S PANTOMIME RE-ENACTMENT AT FACTORY

Solicitor Dorsey Attacks the Pinkertons, Charging That They Failed to Report Their “Finds” to Police—Many Young Women Employed at the Factory Testify to Frank’s Good Character—Court Adjourns Until Monday Morning

With Harllee Branch, a reporter for The Journal, on the witness stand where he had just described Conley’s pantomime re-enactment of his alleged part in the disposal of the body of Mary Phagan, witnessed by him as a newspaper man, the trial of Leo M. Frank was adjourned at 1:05 o’clock Saturday afternoon until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. Mr. Branch, summoned by the defense to testify in regard to an interview with Jim Conley at the tower, over the protest of Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, was permitted by the court to describe Conley’s pantomime re-enactment when requested to do so by the solicitor.

Just before court adjourned, Judge Roan addressed a few words to the jury, expressing regret that it was necessary to keep them away from their families another Sunday but stating that he sincerely hopes this would be the last Sunday that they would have to held together.

Unexpected testimony for the state was drawn from Miss Irene Jackson, daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson, a former employe of the factory, who had been summoned as a defense witness. On cross-examination Solicitor Dorsey developed testimony to the effect that the girls in the factory were somewhat afraid of Frank, that on one occasion Frank had looked into the dressing room while Miss Emily Mayfield was partly dressed and that Miss Mayfield had complained to a forelady, Miss Cleland. She told of other occasions on which the superintendent is alleged to have pushed the door of the dressing room open while the girls were in there dressing. She admitted on cross-examination that the occurrence to which she testified occurred last summer, but that she had […]

when her father made her leave. She also admitted that there had been complaint of the girls flirting through the windows of the dressing room and that Frank had spoken to her forelady about it.

CLASH OVER PINKERTONS.

Efforts of Solicitor Dorsey to show that the Pinkertons did not “go down the road with the city police and detectives,” out that on contrary they concealed evidence discovered by them from the city detectives brought a protest from Attorney Luther Z. Rosser. It was during the testimony of W. D. McWorth, the Pinkerton who found the bloody club, part of a pay envelope and some lengths of cord on the first floor of the factory, that the argument was precipitated. The jury was sent out during the argument. Dorsey charged that Detective John Black, hearing about the find of a bloody club, went to the Pinkertons and was shown the handle of a buggy whip, produced in court by the solicitor, instead of the club. Judge Roan permitted the state to ask when the Pinkertons had reported to the police, but declared hearsay evidence must be omitted.

Solicitor Dorsey also sought in his questioning of McWorth to show that when McWorth showed the portion of the pay envelope found by him to the Colemans, there was a figure 5 on it and that Mary Phagan’s wages for the week in which she was killed were $1.20, containing no such figures. The Pinkerton denied that there was a figure 5 on the envelope and that there had been any conversation with the Colemans about the figure 5.

At the conclusion of Mrs. Rae Frank’s testimony, many women employes of the pencil factory took the stand Saturday morning to testify to the good character of Leo M. Frank and the bad reputation of the negro Jim Conley. Practically the same questions were asked all of these witnesses and the same answers received in reply. The solicitor contented himself with a few brief questions, except in the case of Miss Opie Dickinson. Miss Dickinson couldn’t remember whether she had been at the Bijou theater with Darley, Wade Campbell and Miss Louise Gresham on the night of April 26, though pressed for a definite answer by the solicitor. The purpose of the solicitor’s question was not apparent.

Attorneys for the defense of Leo M. Frank, who has been on trial in the criminal division of the superior court since July 28 for the murder of Mary Phagan, changed their plans during Friday’s session and have called nearly one hundred additional witnesses, principally employes of the National Pencil factory, who will testify to the good character of the young superintendent.

Apparently by the weight of overwhelming numbers the defense is endeavoring to build such a character wall around Frank that it cannot be denied by the promised attack of Solicitor H. M. Dorsey’s witnesses, who will be introduced in rebuttal.

Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the accused, was recalled to the stand by the defense when court resumed Saturday morning for the eighteenth day of the Frank trial. She had been the last witness of Friday afternoon’s session, identifying then a letter signed “Leo M. Frank” and dated Atlanta, April 26, which she said had been received by her brother-in-law, Moses Frank, and had been opened by him in her presence in a New York hotel on April 28. While on the stand Friday Mrs. Frank promised to the state that she would produce in court Saturday morning the originals of telegrams sent by her son to his uncle in New York.

Attorney Rosser asked, “Have you any rich relatives in Brooklyn?”
“No, I have not.”

“Was there any other paper in this envelope when you saw it?” asked Mr. Rosser, producing the envelope identified by Mrs. Frank Friday.

“Yes, another long paper with something on it about prices was taken out with the two papers you have read.”

“Mrs. Frank I hand you here what purports to be a photograph of some handwriting. Do you know whose it is?”
“Yes, it is my son’s handwriting.”

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness again.

Indicating the photograph, which was exhibited several days ago to a witness who identified much of Frank’s handwriting but could not identify the photographed writing, the solicitor asked: “Anyone at all familiar with your son’s handwriting would know at once that that is his, wouldn’t he?”
“Yes.”

The solicitor questioned Mrs. Frank about the papers which were received by Moses Frank in the envelope. She said that she could not tell much about the long slip, but that Mr. McCarley got them all back from Europe and he could tell. She had never had it in her hand, she said.

“What relatives have you in Brooklyn?” asked the solicitor.

“My sister, Mrs. Bennett.”

“What does her husband do?”
“He’s a clerk at $18 a week. He clerks for my brother in LaFayette avenue.”

“What does your brother do?”
“He is a clerk for my son-in-law, Mr. Stearns.”

“What does your son-in-law do?”

“He is a retail cigar dealer.”

ESTATE NOT LARGE.

“Your own estate is quite large, isn’t it?”

“No, sir.”

“What are your tax returns?”
“I don’t understand you.”

“What is the value of your estate?”
“I have no estate.”

“Well, what do you live on?”
“We have a little money out at interest.”

“How much is that?”
“About $20,000.”

“That is all your own?”

“No, indeed, it belongs to my husband and myself together.”

“Do you own the house you live in?”
“I don’t understand.”

“Lafayette avenue is one of the principal streets in Brooklyn, isn’t it?”
“We don’t live on Lafayette avenue. We live on Underhill avenue.”

“Well, how does it rank?”

“It’s just a residential section.”

“Don’t you know the size of your lot?”
“I think it’s about 16×90.”

“Is there a two-story house on it?”

“Yes.”

“Made of brick?”
“Yes, I think so.”

“What taxes do you pay?”
“We pay $86 a year, I think, New York rates. But you must remember, Mr. Dorsey, we have a large mortgage on the house.”
“How much is that mortgage?”

“$6,000.”

“That’s about a third of what the house is worth, is it?”
“No, no. The mortgage is more than the price we paid for the house.”

“You mean to say you’ve got your house mortgaged for more than it’s worth?” […]

WITNESS, CALLED BY THE DEFENSE, TESTIFIES AGAINST FRANK

[…] “No, we paid $4,000 down on the house and assumed a $6,000 mortgage.”

“You didn’t pay all cash, did you?”

“I don’t know. I’m no business woman.”

“You paid $4,000 for the house, and assumed a $6,000 mortgage. That makes the house worth $10,000, doesn’t it?”
“Yes, if you count the mortgage.”

“You don’t owe anything except the mortgage, do you?”
“No, sir.”

“Are you sure that you haven’t more than $20,000 loaned out?”
“Yes, we haven’t any more.”

“What interest do you get on it?”
“I don’t know. Do you want me to tell you all about my everyday life?”
“I want you to answer, if you please, the questions I ask you. What business is your husband in now?”
“Temporarily he is doing nothing.” Mrs. Frank added that until a year ago he had been a traveling salesman. She testified that her son-in-law lives with her and pays $22.80 a month rent. She does not know the extent of his business, she said. She testified that she has two sisters in Brooklyn—Mrs. Bennett and Miss Jacobs. Miss Jacobs, said she, lives with Mrs. Bennett and works every day.

“Where does Leo Frank’s uncle live?”
“Right here in Atlanta.”

“Doesn’t he spend any time in Brooklyn?”

UNCLE CONSIDERED WEALTHY.

“Oh, yes, he spends some Sundays there. And sometimes he invites u over to New York to dinner when he’s there.”

“He’s very wealthy, isn’t he?”

“He’s generally considered so.”

“Don’t you know that he was in Brooklyn Saturday?”
“He wasn’t at my house.”

“How much of the $20,000 is yours personally?”
“About $3,000.”

“How much interest do you get on that?”
“Six per cent. I collect it myself every six months.”

“You don’t know whether or not Mr. Frank owns more than this, do you?”
“Oh, I know all of my husband’s affairs.”

“How much cash did he have in the bank when you left?”
“I don’t know. A few hundred dollars possibly.”

“How much interest do you get on the other $17,000?”

“I don’t know.”

“And you say you get your six per cent interest on your $3,000 every six months?”
“Yes.”

“How much interest do you pay on the mortgage?”
“Five per cent.”

“How often do you pay it?”
“Once a year.”

That concluded the cross-examination. Attorney Rosser questioned the witness again.

“How old is your husband, Mrs. Frank?”
“Sixty-seven years.”

“What is the state of his health?”
“It is very poor. He is nervous and broken down from hard work.”

Mrs. Frank was excused, and Attorney Rosser read to the jury the letter tendered as having been written by Frank to his uncle on April 26.

ENGINEER TESTIFIES.

Knox Thomas, a civil engineer, was called as the next witness. He testified that he had measured the distance from the intersection of Marietta and Forsyth streets to the office of the pencil factory on the second floor, and found it to be 1, 016 feet. He testified that he walked this distance at his usual gait and that it took him four and a half minutes. He measured also the distance between the corner of Alabama and Whitehall street and found it to be 931 feet. He testified that he walked this distance at his usual gait and that it took him three and a half minutes. He testified that he measured the distance from Broad and Hunter streets to the pencil factory office and found it to be 333 feet. He walked that distance at his usual gait, said he, and it took him one and three-quarters minutes.

Briefly cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey, the witness answered the question “What is your walking gait?” with the reply “Four miles an hour.” Then asked as to how long it would take him to walk one mile, that being his usual gait, he figured on a piece of paper and replied that it would take him 30 minutes. In a moment he saw his mistakes, grinned and corrected himself by saying 15 minutes.

“Then,” asked the solicitor, “were the measurements you made for the attorneys for the defense any more accurate than your first answer?”

The witness answered, “Yes, sir. I’m satisfied they were accurate.”

MISS HALL RECALLED.

Miss Corinthia Hall, who works on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, and who had testified previously for the defense, was the next witness. Attorney Arnold asked her the usual question as to whether or not she ever had been to Frank’s office to drink beer, she answering in the negative. She then testified in a general way that she had once or twice heard of Jim Conley being drunk in the factory, and that she would hesitate to believe any negro on oath. She was asked a few questions by Solicitor Dorsey and then was excused.

JIM A BORROWER.

Miss Ida Hayes, who works on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, testified that Frank’s general character is good. She denied that she ever went to Frank’s office to drink beer. In answer to a question “What is Jim Conley’s general reputation for truth and veracity?” she answered. “I guess you would say it is bad.” On cross-examination by Attorney Hooper she said that Jim Conley’s worst habit, probably, was borrowing money.

Miss Eula Mae Flowers, who works on the second floor of the factory, testified that Frank’s character is good, and that the character of Jim Conley is bad and that she would not believe him on oath. Cross-examined by Mr. Hooper, she stated that Jim had borrowed money from her and that she got it back by having it taken out of his wages without his agreeing to that.

Miss Ella Hayes, who now works at Kress’, testified that for eleven months she worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory and quit Monday after the tragedy. She testified that Frank’s character is good.

Miss Minnie Foster, who worked on the fourth floor of the factory for a year, testified that Frank’s character is good. On cross-examination she admitted she had formed her opinion of his character from her own knowledge and had never heard it discussed prior to the tragedy.

SHE COULDN’T REMEMBER.

Miss Opie Dickinson, who has worked at the pencil factory seven years, testified that Frank’s character is good and that Conley’s character is bad and she wouldn’t believe him on oath. Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned her.

“Where were you the night of April 26?”

“I don’t know.”

“Do you know Miss Louise Gresham?”
“Yes.”

“Were you with her the night of April 26?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Were you with Wade Campbell the night of April 26?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Do you know Mr. Darley ever at the pencil factory?”
“Yes.”

“He’s a married man, isn’t he?”
“Yes.”

“Didn’t you go to the Bijou theatre with Mr. Darley, Mr. Campbell and Miss Gresham on the night of April 26?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Don’t you remember going out to Miss Gresham’s house to get her?”
Attorney Arnold objected to the question as immaterial and irrelevant. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“How did you get Miss Gresham up town that night?”
“I wasn’t with her.”
Attorney Arnold objected again, and was sustained, and the question and answer were stricken.

“Are you quite sure you don’t know where you were Saturday night, April 26?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Quite sure, now, are you?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Come down.”

Miss Emma Freeman testified that she has been working on the fourth floor of the factory for four years, that Frank’s reputation is good, and that she would not believe Conley on oath. Solicitor Dorsey asked her one question. “You have never heard a suggestion or reference to immoral conduct on the part of Frank, have you?” “No, sir,” she answered.

Miss Gussie Wallace and Miss Annie Osborn testified that Frank’s character is good. Miss Wallace said that she did not know Conley’s character. Miss Osborn and Conley’s character is bad. Answering Attorney Hooper, Miss Osborn and she based her estimate of Conley’s character simply on the fact that he did not pay back money that he had borrowed from her.

Mrs. Ella Thomas testified that Frank’s character is good, that Conley’s is bad, and that she would not believe Conley on oath. Answering questions by Attorney Hooper, she said she loaned Conley 18 cents and never got it back.

DIDN’T KNOW HIS CHARACTER.

Miss Bessie Thrallkro testified that she did not know either Frank’s or Conley’s character. Answering questions by Attorney Hooper, she said she did not remember seeing Conley on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday following the murder; that she had heard of the blood stain on the metal room floor but did not have curiosity enough to go back and see it. She worked in the job department on the second floor, she said.

Miss Allie Denham was excused without the usual questions when it was found that she had gone to work in the factory only two weeks before the murder. She appeared to be not more than 12 or 13 years old.

The next witness, Miss Rebecca Carson, testified that Frank’s character is good and that Conley’s is bad. On cross-examination she stated that she declined several times to lend Jim money; that he bore a reputation among the young women workers of being a bad payer.

Miss Maude Wright, who works on the third floor of the pencil factory, failed to qualify as a character witness for Frank or against Jim Conley, as she stated that she merely knew them both when she saw them. On cross-examination she declined to say that she had ever heard anything against Frank.

PINKERTON ON STAND.

W. D. McWorth, a Pinkerton detective, who claimed to have found on the first floor the large bludgeon and the end of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope, was the next witness. In response to questions by Attorney Rosser, he testified that he worked fifteen days on the mystery; that on May 15 he made a search of the ground floor of the pencil factory, finding stains near the trap door which may or may not have been blood. He testified that on a radiator behind the trap door and up against the partition he found eight or nine lengths of rope used in the factory to tie up pencils. He testified that one length of the rope showed signs of having been cut recently. Behind the radiator he found about half a barrel of rubbish, and among the rubbish a newspaper dated February 19, 1913. Six of eight inches from the radiator, said he, in a corner, he found a small pile of trash. He found in this pile the end of a pay envelope. It was dirty, said he, and when he and Whitfield, another Pinkerton detective, took it to the front door to examine it more closely he discovered on the envelope the number “186” and the initials “M. P.” He found, standing up against the door, a large club, said he, which was produced and identified by him. It is about two inches in diameter. He testified that he asked Holloway what it was used for, and that Holloway told him it was a roller used in loading boxes on to wagons. He found some stains on it, said he.

He was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey. The solicitor produced the handle of a buggy whip and asked the witness if he had ever seen that. The witness answered in the affirmative.

The detective said that h found the whip handle behind the front door of the factory. He pointed out on the diagram where he found the bludgeon and where he found the part of an envelope. The door to the Clark Woodenware company was closed and nailed the day he found them. He said that he started his search about 9 o’clock in the morning on the office floor and that it was about 5:15 o’clock when he commenced to make his discoveries.

He said that Darley had shown him the place on the second floor where the chips had been taken, and that the floor back there looked as if it was stained. Factory employees pointed out to him half a dozen places in the metal room where there were similar stains. He could see no difference between those other stains and the one whence the chips had been taken.

Answering the solicitor’s questions, the witness declared he was not looking especially for a pay envelope, but acting under the instructions of Harry Scott he was looking for a mesh bag. He described the mesh bag for which he was looking as about five inches wide, with three or four links broken. He was joined in his search at the factory by L. P. Whitfield, Pinkerton operative, before he made his discoveries.

“Where did you discover these blood stains?”
“I didn’t say blood stains. I said stains.”

The solicitor referred to a report by the Pinkertons. “Didn’t you say in your own report that day that you had found blood stains?”
The witness examined his report and said that he said that he had found what looked to him like blood stains.

“Describe those stains.”

The witness described them as discolorations of the floor, seven in number, and six or seven inches in diameter. The witness admitted that it was rather dark at that point near the trap door, but said that he discovered the stains without artificial light, but used matches to examine them more closely. The detective described how the cords which he claimed to have found were entwined about the pipes of the radiator.

In reply to questions, McWorth said that he found the stains first, and later the envelope. Some of the stains were within two feet of the trap door. The witness first said that Whitfield was not examining the stains and the rope when he picked up the rolled corner of the envelope on which was written Mary Phagan’s name. When shown a Pinkerton report, however, which shows that Whitfield was examining the stains and rope when he picked up the paper, he said that it probably was correct.

ROSSER COMPLAINS TO COUNSEL.

While the solicitor was examining the witness Attorney Rosser walked over and complained to Attorney Hooper that the conduct of Detective Starnes and Policeman Payne in receiving messages from witnesses was improper, and he asked that Mr. Hooper stop it. The solicitor stopped his examination to whisper to Detective Starnes. Then he called the court’s attention to the matter, declaring that in view of the complaint of the counsel he would like to have Mr. Starnes state to the court what the message was that he had just received. Attorney Rosser objected to the discussion in open court, saying he had made merely a private complaint to counsel. Attorney Hooper, upholding the solicitor’s position, asked that the court go into the matter, and said to Attorney Rosser, “You don’t know how loud you whisper, my big friend.”

The court held that no complaint had been brought before it by counsel for the defense, and refused to go into the matter.

Solicitor Dorsey, continuing the examination of McWorth, caused the witness to show how the corner of the pay envelope was rolled and folded when he found it. He declared that the envelope was only eight or ten inches from the trap door. He said there were two scraps of white paper, possibly a newspaper, about the size of a person’s finger, within a short distance of the envelope.

“is this paper,” exhibiting the corner of an envelope, “just like it was when you found it?”
“Yes.”

HAD NO FIGURES ON IT.

“Didn’t it then have a figure ‘5’ on it?”

“No.”

“Do you know who addressed the envelope?”
“No.”

“Did you talk to Schiff about it?” At that point the solicitor looked over and saw Schiff sitting with counsel for the accused, and asked the court to put him out. Attorneys for the defense said that they needed Schiff to help them because he knew the names of people in the factory; that he already had been examined, and that they saw no reason why he should not remain. They called attention to Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective, who was sitting behind the solicitor. The solicitor contended that Scott was in the room by consent of counsel for both sides and the court. He said Schiff was not. Schiff was excluded from the court. Attorney Arnold remarking as he went out, “Well, we will a month if necessary and go out and consult between the examination of witnesses.”

“Did you show this envelope to Schiff?” resumed the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“Did he identify the writing on it?”
Attorney Rosser objected, and was sustained by Judge Roan.

“On Saturday, May 17, did you in the presence of Mr. Whitfield, of the Pinkerton agency, show this envelope to Mr. Coleman and Mrs. Coleman?”
“Yes.”

“Isn’t it true that at that time there was a figure five on the envelope?”
“No more than there is now.”

“What was the conversation with the Colemans with reference to this figure five?”

COURT ALLOWS QUESTION.

Attorney Rosser objected. It was hearsay evidence, said he. He said that the only way it would admissible was for impeachment, and that if the state expected to impeach the witness it was not proceeding upon the right foundation.

Judge Roan: “I will allow the question if the state expects to show that this man asquiesced to the figure five in that conversation.”

Solicitor Dorsey explained, “That’s exactly what I do want to show.”

“Well, your honor. I don’t see how we could be bound by what happened out there on May 17,” exclaimed Attorney Rosser. “The defendant was not present.”

DENIES CONVERSATION.

“I expect to show by Mr. Coleman that on May 17,” said the solicitor, “two days after this piece of envelope was found, Whitfield and this detective went out at the Colemans and had a conversation there about the figure 5, and I expect to show that this envelope had a figure 5 on it and that Mr. Coleman called the attention of this detective and Whitfield to the fact that Mary didn’t get but $1.20 on the day she was murdered.”

Judge Roan allowed the question. Solicitor Dorsey then asked.

“Did any such conversation occur?”

“No,” answered the witness.

“You deny, then, that Mr. Coleman called your attention to a figure 5, do you?”
“No, sir,” he did not.”

“What was the amount Mary Phagan had received on the four pay days preceding her murder. Didn’t that amount end in a $5?”

Attorney Rosser objected, “He doesn’t know how much Mary Phagan got.”

The solicitor apparently withdrew the question. Instead, he picked up the Pinkerton report which he had been using, and showed it to the witness. Singling out a portion of it, he asked, “Where did you get that information?”
“From the office, I guess.”

“Where from in the office?”
Attorney Rosser objected and was sustained. Solicitor Dorsey said, “I’ll ask that this man be held if you don’t want to let this evidence in now.” Attorney Rosser did not object further.

“You had made this report before you saw the Colemans, hadn’t you?” pursued the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“This sentence was in your report, wasn’t it? ‘What appeared to be blood stains may well be paint.’ You reported that, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Why did you say that?”
“I didn’t know whether the stains were blood or not.”

“Now that rope: it was tangled up in the radiator pretty bad, wasn’t it?”
“Yes.”

“When did you report the discovery of this club to the city police?”
Attorney Rosser objected. “The solicitor seems to think,” he said, “that he discredits every witness we put up by showing that our witness did not report facts to the police.”

Solicitor Dorsey answered, “I want to show,” said he, “what the head man of the Pinkertons did in this matter.”

“Who is the head man?” asked Judge Roan.

“I’ll show you in a minute if you’ll permit me. It is Pierce.”

“Has he been here before as a witness?” asked the judge.

SAYS PINKERTON CONCEALED EVIDENCE.

“So, sir. But can’t we show that the Pinkertons didn’t go down the road together with the police, as Mr. Rosser claimed one day? That on the other hand, they kept the police in absolute ignorance of this find. Doesn’t this evidence show that the Pinkertons and the police did not go down the road arm in arm, but that the Pinkertons helped to conceal certain evidence?”

Mr. Rosser jumped from his seat. “Your honor, this isn’t proper in the presence of the jury.”

“Let the jury retire,” exclaimed the solicitor. “I want your honor to have all the facts. Let them go out.”

Judge Roan ordered the jury out.

Attorney Rosser said as they were leaving, “The state ought to have some decency in this matter.”

Attorney Rosser argued against the admission of the evidence, after the jury was out.

“The Pinkertons were employed to discover the murderer, no matter who he was,” said Mr. Rosser. “Frank is not the pencil company. Our witnesses are discounted, if that is possible, because Solicitor Dorsey tries to bring out the fact that they did not tell the police everything they knew.” He contended that the evidence which the solicitor sought to introduce was hearsay, irrelevant and immaterial.

The solicitor answered, contending that the evidence went to show the interest of the witness in the case.

“I expect to prove to the jury,” he said, “that Detective John Black went up there to see about this club, when the police learned through another source that it had been found, and that they brought out this piece of a buggy whip and showed it to him, and never said a word about the club.

“We propose to show that nothing was said about the envelope until July 12. We propose to show that this witness was instructed not to report his finds to the police. We want to show his interest, your honor, and his attitude, and the interest and attitude of the Pinkerton Detective agency.”

Judge Roan ruled that he would let the state show that the witness found the club and the envelope (as had already been shown by the defense); that he would let the state show by cross-examination of the witness whether he reported the find to the police; that he would rule out what any other man told the witness.

JURY BROUGHT BACK.

The jury was brought back and the cross-examination continued.

“Who is the head of the Pinkerton Detective agency in Atlanta?”
“H. B. Pierce.”

“Where is he now?”
Attorney Rosser objected and was sustained.

“Where is Whitfield now?”
Attorney Rosser objected again, and there was another argument and finally the judge let the solicitor ask the witness as to the whereabouts of both Pierce and Whitfield.

“Where is Pierce?” again asked the solicitor.

“I don’t know.”

“Where is Whitfield?”
“I don’t know.”

“When was the last time you saw them?”
“Last Monday evening.”

“Do you know whether they are in Atlanta or out of Atlanta?”
“I do not.”

“How long after you found this club and this note, did you report the find to the police?”
“Seventeen hours.”

“How long after that before you held another conference with the police?”
“Four hours.”

“Didn’t you tell Black about this buggy whip and this envelope?”
“No, I told him about the club and the envelope.”

“When Black went up to the Pinkerton office, didn’t you show him this buggy whip stub instead of the club?”
“No.”

“To whom did you turn over the buggy whip and the club and the envelope?”
“To H. B. Pierce.”

“Then you were not at the office when this was shown to Black?”

“No, I was not there.”

Attorney Rosser, taking up the written report by the Pinkerton agency, asked: “Is that the report you furnished?”

“No.”

“Didn’t you make this report?”
“No.”

“Didn’t Mr. Dorsey show you the signature at the bottom of this report, and didn’t you say it was yours?”
“That may be a copy of the report I made.”

“Did you make this diagram showing where you found the club and envelope?”
“Yes, I made it and attached it to my report.”

“Do you know if I ever saw this diagram before?”

“No, I do not.”

It is reported that Pierce is in Birmingham, outside the jurisdiction of the Georgia court.

Miss Mollie Blair was the next witness. She failed to qualify as a character witness for Frank as she had worked at the pencil factory only three months and knew him only when she saw him.

Miss Sarah Barnes was the next called.

When asked by Attorney Arnold if she knew Leo M. Frank instead of replying yes or no, she launched into an enthusiastic tribute to Frank’s character and personality.

LOVES THE SUPERINTENDENT.

“Yes,” said she, “I know Mr. Frank, and I don’t know anything in the world against him, and I certainly am mighty sorrw [sic] he’s got into trouble. I’ll tell you, and I’ll tell everybody else, Mr. Arnold, that I love my superintendent because he is strictly a business man. I’d be willing to stand right here in my place and die to show that I believe he’s innocent. I’d be willing to fight for him.”

Attorney Arnold scratched his head and drew a deep breath and decided that he would do well to put the question in legal form. He did so, and after considerable difficulty restrained the witness to the usual stereotyped answers expected from witnesses.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness in hand.

“Who talked to you about what you were going to swear?”

“Nobody’s talked to me about what I was going to swear, except down there at the boarding house, there’s fourteen of ‘em, and I have to fight with ‘em every day about my superintendent.”

By this time the witness had the court room in an uproar, and the deputies and the judge himself (with a mallet) had difficulty in restoring order.

Judge Roan admonished the witness not to give her opinions but simply to answer the questions.

The solicitor asked her again to state whom she had discussed the case with. She answered that she had discussed it with nobody, except Mr. Arnold came down to the pencil factory office and asked her what she knew about Frank. With that she was excused.

Mrs. Helen Barnes, who worked two years on the fourth floor, testified that Frank’s character is good.

Miss Ethel Stewart, now employed by the Southern Belle Telephone company, who formerly worked on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, testified that the character of Frank is good so far as she knows. On cross-examination she said that her estimate of his character is based solely on her own personal knowledge of him.

Miss Irene Jackson, 18 years old, daughter of Policeman A. W. Jackson, on cross-examination delivered the most sensational testimony of the morning.

Miss Jackson stated on direct examination that she worked on the fourth floor about three years, and that she left the factory shortly after the murder. She said she did not know anything about Frank.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“You mean you personally knew nothing about him. How did the other girls feel?” he asked.

“The girls seemed to be afraid of him, and started working faster whenever he came around.”

“Do you know Miss Emily Mayfield?”

The witness answered that she did, continued that at one time the young woman worked in the pencil factory and later at Jacobs’. But the witness said she had not seen her since about Easter.

Answering questions by the solicitor, the witness declared that Frank came and pushed open the dressing room door one day while Miss Mayfield was undressing. He looked in, and then left. The witness said she did not see him smile. She said Miss Mayfield had discarded her top dress. In answer to another question, she said Miss Mayfield reported the intrusion of the factory superintendent to one of the foreladies, Miss Cleland.

Asked if she had threatened to quit at that time on account of the occurrence she said, “No,” that her sister had.

“After this occurrence, what was said to you about quitting?”
“Mr. Darley asked me if I was going to quit, after this murder. I told him that papa was going to make me. He said that it couldn’t be helped if papa was going to make me, but he said ‘The girls who stay here through this thing won’t lose anything.”

“Who else heard that?”
“Miss Clara Stewart was sitting there.”

The defense objected to both of the last questions and their answers, but the objection was overruled by the court.

HEARD OTHERS COMPLAIN.

The witness admitted that she had heard the other girls remark several times about Frank coming into the dressing rooms. In answer to other questions, the witness stated that on a second occasion, Frank came into the dressing room when her sister was lying down in there with her feet elevated on a table or a stool. She said Frank just walked in and walked out again, and that she didn’t remember in just what stage of undress her sister lay. The witness admitted that she had heard other girls complain that Frank would come to the dressing room and stand and stare.

On a third occasion when she was in the dressing room, said the witness, with Miss Mary Kitchens, Frank came in. Replying to questions, the witness said that Frank did not knock on any occasion, but just pushed the door in. The witness said she worked at the factory just about three years.

On redirect examination, the witness said that she would have stayed at the factory, as she had a number of bills she wanted to pay, if her father had not objected.

The witness said that two windows in the dressing room of which she spoke open on Forsyth street. She admitted that complaints had been lodged with Frank that some of the girls had been flirting through those windows.

Solicitor Dorsey objected. Attorney Arnold answered: “It’s permissible, because it is explanatory of his conduct. We want to show that he was strictly guarding the rules against the girl’s flirting with boys on the street through the dressing room windows.”

Judge Roan directed Mr. Arnold to put the question again.

“Did you ever hear that girls had been flirting through these windows?”
Solicitor Dorsey directed the witness: “Don’t answer,” and addressing the court said: “That’s the question I’m objecting to.”

“I sustain your objection,” said Judge Roan.

ORDERS AGAINST FLIRTING.

Attorney Arnold, however, by other questions brought out the fact that there were orders in the factory against girls flirting. He also established that there are a beer saloon and a belting factory across the street.

“Did Frank’s looks take in the windows when he came to the door of the dressing room?”
“I don’t know.”

“When you were in there with your sister, was she fully dressed?”
“Yes.”

“Yes.”

“Were you?”
“Frank said nothing on either occasion, did he?”
“No, sir.”

“Who was with you there the second time?”
“Emily Mayfield.”

“What time of day was that?”
“Shortly after 7 o’clock.”

“And he simply pushed the door open and stood there?”
“Yes.”

“The third time, was anything said?”
“No.”

“Which time was it that you were not dressed?”

“When I was in there with Mamie Kitchens?”
The witness continued that she had on all but her top dress on that occasion. There followed other questions by which the defense showed that the girls were never entirely undressed in there. Among them were several which appeared to be leading. Attorney Hooper objecting and saying, “My brother is in a leading streak again,” and Judge Roan sustaining the objections.

“When did all this occur?”
“Last summer.”

“Did you work there all through the winter?”
“Yes.”

DORSEY TAKES WITNESS.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned the witness again.

“When Frank opened the door there was no way for him to tell until he looked just how the girls were dressed, was there?”
“No, sir.”

“That was the regular time for dressing, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever hear any talk about Frank putting his hands on girls?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you ever hear about him going after the girls?”
“No, sir.”

“How long after it that Frank walked in, was it that your sister wanted to quit?”
“It was the next day, but the forelady persuaded her not to.”

“Did you ever hear Frank say anything about girls flirting?”
“Yes.”

“Whom was he talking to?”

“The forelady.”

“What did he say?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Was that before or after he ran into the dressing room?”
Attorney Arnold spoke up. “I object to ‘ran in,’” said he.

“Well, went to the door, then,” said the solicitor.

“I don’t remember.”

“What time are the girls supposed to go to work?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Seven o’clock.”

“What time was it when Frank came in?”

“Ten or fifteen minutes after that.”

The witness was excused, and Harllee Branch, a Journal reporter, was called to the stand.

Mr. Branch was asked if he recalled interviewing Jim Conley in the jail, and answered affirmatively. His attention was directed to a file of The Atlanta Journal of May 31. He looked at the interview, read it, and stated that the interview was a correct reported of the substance of what Conley had said to him.

“Did he say it took him thirty minutes to go through with this performance, or did he say it took him thirty minutes for all these things to happen?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Yes, he estimated that it took him about that time to get through and out of the building.”

“Did he tell you that Lemmie Quinn got there after 12 o’clock, and stayed nine or ten minutes?”
“Yes.”

The witness was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey.

“Was he specific as to the time?”
“He qualified it, I think, by saying ‘about.’”

“Now, about this meshbag. When did you question him concerning that?”
“I don’t recall the date, but it was the morning after he went to jail.”

“Are you positive he said he saw Lemmie Quinn there?”
“Where did this interview take place?”

“At the jail.”

“Was it before or after Conley had reenacted his story at the factory?”
“It was after that.”

“Were you there at the factory when he went through the story?”
“Yes.”

“What time was he started on his reenactment at the factory?”
Attorney Arnold was on his feet in an instant, objecting. He argued that a witness cannot re-enact his own story for the purpose of corroborating himself, and, therefore, that a person who sees a witness in such a re-enactment cannot testify as to the time it took the witness to go through the performance.

Solicitor Dorsey argued that if Dr. Owens and the party of gentlemen who went to the factory to re-enact Conley’s story could testify about the time, then the testimony of Mr. Branch as to the negro’s own re-enactment certainly was permissible.

SOLICITOR SUSTAINED.

Judge Roan sustained the solicitor. Mr. Branch then was directed to take up Conley’s movements on the diagram and follow them through to the end. As soon as the witness started to comply with this direction, Attorney Arnold objected again, on the ground that Conley’s pantomime at the factory was an illustration of an affidavit which he changed in many vital particulars when he testified on the witness stand.

Solicitor Dorsey argued that the affidavit was practically the same as Conley’s story told on the witness stand.

Attorney Rosser urged the judge to read the testimony and the affidavit as the highest evidence.

Judge Roan finally ruled that Mr. Branch’s testimony would be admitted for the purpose of comparing Conley’s re-enactment with the story Conley told on the witness stand so far as the particulars of the two might coincide.

Mr. Branch again commenced to trace the negro’s re-enactment. He estimated that it was about 12:15 when Conley entered the factory. He said the officers led the negro upstairs and stopped on the second floor to tell him what they wanted him to do. Mr. Branch was about to detail some of the conversation, when Attorney Arnold objected again, and there was another long discussion. Mr. Branch finally was instructed to leave out all of the conversation except that part which might be explanatory of Conley’s actions. The witness said it would be hard for him to draw this distinction.

ROSSER ENTERS OBJECTION.

Again he started, but no sooner had he gotten under way than Attorney Rosser objected once more. Judge Roan ruled that he would admit Branch’s testimony not as a proof of Conley’s story, but as an estimate of the time it might take to go through Conley’s story.

“But I want you to understand, your honor,” said Attorney Rosser, “that while I’m not going to object any more, we here and now record an objection to this testimony.” The objection was recorded, and Mr. Branch proceeded, following the negro’s movements as he reanacted his story in the pencil factory.

“Now what time did you say you got to the factory?” asked the solicitor, when the witness had finished with the diagram.

“What time did Conley finish?”

“I did not say until Conley had finished. About 1 o’clock he was in the office after having written one or two notes—I am not certain which—and at that hour it was time for me to report at my office, and I telephoned for another man to relieve me.”

The witness said that Conley moved so fast that he kept him, the witness, on the run continually, he said. There were half a dozen detectives firing questions at him, which he was answering.

“Leaving out the time it took for Conley to answer the questions, or the detectives to ask them, what is your best opinion, Mr. Branch, of the time it took to go through the performance?”
The witness declared that it was a difficult question to answer. The solicitor insisted on his making an effort to give his opinion.

The defense objected, and while the matter was being argued, Judge Roan announced court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. The hour then was 1:05.

SPEAKS TO JURY.

Before letting the jury go for the interval, Judge Roan addressed them, saying: “Gentlemen, I am not holding an afternoon session today for very good reasons, and I shall have to ask you to remain together through another Sunday. I trust and believe that it will be the last Sunday that you will have to remain away from your homes and families. I want to ask you to be extremely cautious and not allow anyone to talk to you or in your hearing about the case, and not to talk about it yourself. I sympathize with you greatly, gentlemen, but jury duty is one of the burdens of good citizenship. You have been chosen in this case because you measure up to the standards of good citizenship. I trust that nothing unpleasant will happen to you. I want to warn you to be very careful of your health. Do not overeat nor eat any substance that is liable to make you ill. I have instructed the sheriff to give you all the exercise that you care to take, and I want to remark again that I hope this is the last Sunday that you will be kept away from your families.”

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 16th 1913, “Witness Called by Defense, Testifies Against Frank,” 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 16^th, 1913

By L. F. WOODRUFF.

Every human emotion has been paraded during the long three weeks of the Frank trial.

There has been pathos. Comedy has opposed tragedy. Science has met sympathy. Truth has been arrayed against fiction. Negro has conflicted with white.

The erudite Arnold has matched wits with the thick-lipped, thick-skulled Conley. Luther Rosser, stern, determined and skillful, has had to try to meet the machinations of a brain of a cornfield negro, Newt Lee.

Hugh Dorsey, young and determined, Frank Hooper, smiling and ambitious, have breast to breast encountered the battles of Rosser and the rapier of Arnold.

There remained but one thing—the dramatic touch that sends the violins trembling a high crescendo and the hearts of the audience beating a long roll in double time.

It was furnished during the past week.

The Mother’s Part.

It was furnished by the person that a Belasco would have picked for the part. The touch was added by the person to whom the trial means more than a seat in high heaven—a woman whose son is on trial for his life.

The stage had been appropriately set for the dramatic effect. The audience had a man of unquestioned wealth back of him, with a little girl of the common masses of the common people called the victim of his degenerate lust.

Atlanta’s most noted criminal lawyers confronted a young prosecutor and a young lawyer who is seeking the accolade of the bar.

A cornfield “nigger” had told his simple story. There was even the air of minstreley in his testimony, though it was as black as the charge against the man who looked on him calmly and unafraid during the minutes and hours in which he spoke words that helped the opposition in its desire to fasten a rope around his neck.

This same man had sat coolly when another negro, a being of a different type, had told a story as sinister as Satan, as awful as the wrath of Jove. He sat, and without a noticeable change of expression, heard this being accuse him of a deed as dark as murder.

And all though this ordeal a woman had sat near the accused man. Her eyes had faced his accusers. They had faced them boldly. Her bearing was remarkable.

The Last Straw.

But a straw will break a camel’s back, the old saw declares.

The straw fell, and the camel’s back caved as dynamite destroys.

But the break came unexpectedly.

Ashley Jones, an insurance man, had told of Frank’s good character on the witness stand.

He paused for cross-examination. Solicitor General Dorsey asked him if he knew of any acts of perversion Frank had committed.

Then the volcano that had been dormant for ages became active. Then the race that has endured martyrdom broke its silence. Then the mother, who believes in her heart that her boy could do no wrong, spoke.

“He never heard such a thing, and neither have you,” and her voice was blazing when she spoke it.

Then the drama was furnished. The audience rose from the seats. Eyes were fixed. Breaths were shortly drawn. Seconds seemed hours.

It had taken mother love, the tenderest of all passions, to furnish the incident that had really stirred.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 16th 1913, “Mother’s Love Gives Trial Its Great Scene,” 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 16^th, 1913

‘I’D DIE FOR HIM!’ CRIES ONE, CONVULSING COURT

CLUB AND ENVELOPE FOUND BY PINKERTON MAN PUT IN EVIDENCE

Two factory girls, one of them defending Leo M. Frank with all the eloquence at her command, and the other admitting that she had known of the factory superintendent opening the door to the girls’ dressing room on three different occasions and looking in, formed the center of interest among the score of witnesses who were called Saturday by the defense. They were Miss Irene Jackson and Miss Sarah Barnes.

Miss Jackson, daughter of County Policeman Jackson, testified on direct examination that she never had known of any improper conduct on the part of Frank, and that his character was good. Cross-questioned by Solicitor Dorsey she admitted that she had been in the room where the girls change from their street to their working clothes and had witnessed Frank open the door, look in and then turn around and leave. Once she said, Miss Emmeline Mayfield was in the room with her. On another time her sister was there, and on a third occasion, she said Miss Mamie Kitchen was the other girl in the room.

She said that her sister had started to quit at the time Frank opened the door when she was in the dressing room. The witness also was asked if N. V. Darley, general manager of the factory, ever had made the remark at the time several girls were thinking of quitting the factory directly after the murder that “if the girls stick by us through this, they won’t lose anything by it.” Miss Jackson said she had heard Darley say this. Miss Jackson quit work the day after the body was found.

Frank’s Mother Again on Stand.

Another long string of character witnesses occupied most of the session which was adjourned shortly after 1 o’clock for the day. Mrs. Rae Frank, the defendant’s mother was placed on the stand at the beginning of court, but remained there only long enough to be questioned somewhat in detail as to the means of Frank’s relatives.

One of the sensations of the day came during the testimony of W. D. McWorth, Pinkerton operative, who testified to the finding on the first floor of the pencil factory a pay envelope with Mary Phagan’s initials and number on it, a bloody club, part of a whip, a piece of rope and spots near the trapdoor leading into the basement resembling bloodstains. Exactly the value of his finds did not develop either from the examination by the defense or the prosecution. Dorsey, however, sought to show that the Pinkertons dealt in bad faith with the city detective department by not reporting their discoveries as soon as made.

Court adjourned with the testimony of Harlee Branch, an Atlanta Journal reporter, who estimated the time it required Jim Conley to re-enact his version of the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body, up to the writing of the notes as 47 minutes.

Girl Vehemently Defends Frank.

Miss Sarah Barnes was Frank’s vehement defender. The first question asked her was the signal for a torrent of words that neither Attorney Arnold nor the Solicitor was able to stop until she paused for breath.

“Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?” was asked.

She replied that she not only knew him, but that she knew he was a good man, a perfect gentleman, always good to the girls and everyone else in the factory, never attempting any familiarities or talking to the girls except in regard to their work and never b[e]ing guilty of any of the charges that have been made against him by the State.

“I know Mr. Frank couldn’t have committed that murder,” she cried positively, emphasizing her words with a vigorous brandishing of her fan.

“I’d be willing to die in his place. I’d be willing to fight for him. I’d be willing they’d give me any sort of death they wanted to. I just wish I could made everybody believe in his innocence.”

Judge Roan, just before court adjourned, made this statement to the jury:

“For a number of reasons we won’t hold a session this afternoon. I am very sorry you have been held together so long, but I believe this will be the last Sabbath you will be kept […]

RED-STAINED CLUB AND PAY ENVELOPE ARE SHOWN TO JURY

Pinkerton Detective Says He Found Spots on the Floor Near Cubby Hole

FRANK’S MOTHER AGAIN ON STAND; WOMEN FROM FACTORY HELP ACCUSED

[…] apart from your families. This duty is one of the burdens of good citizenship. You are here because you have measured up to the responsibility. If there was any way to relieve you I would, but you are under oath and so am I. Be very particular about your health. Be select in what you eat. Make the Sheriff exercise you as much as possible. I hope we will be able to wind up this case soon.”

Mother Denies “Wealthy” Relatives.

Mrs. Frank declared Frank’s relatives were of only moderate means. Solicitor Dorsey did not spare the defendant’s mother in his cross-examination. He sought to show that Frank’s parents in reality were wealthy and that Conley’s quotation of Frank’s alleged remarks about his “wealthy folks” was quite plausible. She said the source of the income of herself and her husband was the interest on about $20,000. They paid $5,000 for their home in Brooklyn and assumed a $6,000 mortgage on the residence.

“In what business is your husband?” the Solicitor asked her.

“He is not in business at present.”

“Ah, he’s a capitalist, is he?” said Dorsey.

Mrs. Frank replied that this was not so and added later that her husband was broken down in health and that this was the explanation of his being out of business at present.

Mrs. Frank was shown a photographic copy of the test note Frank wrote for the detectives which Dorsey had intimated was written in a disguised hand.

“That’s my son’s writing,” she exclaimed, as soon as she saw the photographic copy. “He wrote me very week and I know his handwriting.”

Mother to Son’s Aid.

A hushed crowd leaned forward expectantly as the saddened woman whose outburst of anger against Solicitor Dorsey was one of the sensations of the we[e]k, took her place in the witness chair.

The prisoner and his wife wore the same cool, unflinching demeanor. Frank kept his eyes on his mother. Luther Z. Rosser questioned Mrs. Frank.

Q. Mrs. Frank, you said you lived in Brooklyn? Has your son Leo Frank any rich relatives in Brooklyn?—A. He has not.

Q. This letter that was received by him from his uncle, were show you here?—(The small letters were in a long envelope—A. Yes, a long paper. I don’t know what it was.

Q. I show you a photograph letter. Is the writing similar to your son’s?—(He handed her the photograph of Frank’s writing for the police which witness Nix could not identify yesterday)—A. That is my son’s writing.

Dorsey Delves Into Family’s Finances.

Dorsey took Mrs. Frank for cross-examination.

Q. Mrs. Frank, you have no difficulty in recognizing that as your son’s writing, have you?—A. None at all.

Q. What were those other papers?—A. A price list, I think.

Q. Now you look at the price list?—A. No.

Q. Who are your relatives in Brooklyn?—A. My sister, Mrs. Bennett. Her husband clerks for my brother-in-law.

Q. What does your son-in-law do?—A. He is in the retail cigar business.

Q. What do your other sons-in-law do?—A. I don’t know, I have enough to do to keep up with my own affairs.

Q. What are your means of support?—A. We have a little money out at interest.

Q. How much?—A. About $20,000.

Q. Do you own your own home?—A. Yes.

Q. What is it worth?—A. I don’t know. We pay about $86 taxes.

Q. Well, what does that make it worth?—A. You must understand we have a large mortgage.

Q. How much?—A. About $6,000.

Q. Was that about one-third of the cost?—A. More than that. We paid $6,000 and assumed the mortgage.

Q. Now, haven’t you more than $20,000 out at interest?—A. No.

Q. What income do you get on that?—A. Do you want me to tell you everything of my everyday life?

Q. I want you to answer my questions, if you please, Mrs. Frank.—A. All right.

Doesn’t Know Frank’s Uncle Is Called Rich.

Q. What other relatives have you?—A. Miss Jacobs, a single lady.

Q. Are these the only relatives your son has in Brooklyn?—A. Yes.

Q. Where is his uncle?—A. He lives in Atlanta.

Q. He is supposed to be very wealthy?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Don’t you know he was in Brooklyn Saturday?—A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Don’t you know what rate of interest your husband gets on his $20,000?—A. About 6 per cent.

Q. Do you know how much money he has in the bank?—A. About $200.

Q. How much interest are you paying on the $6,000 mortgage?—A. Five per cent.

Q. How often do you pay it?—A. Once a year.

Rosser took the witness.

Q. How old is your husband?—A. Sixty-seven years.

Q. What’s the condition of his health?—A. Very poor.

Q. Too bad to come here?—A. Oh, yes; he is very nervous.

The witness was excused and Knox T. Thomas, a civil engineer, was the next witness called.

At this time Mr. Rosser offered the letter of Leo M. Frank to his uncle, M. Frank, as evidence. Arnold questioned Mr. Thomas.

Civil Engineer Tells of Measuring Street.

Q. At our request did you make some measurements, one from Marietta and Forsyth streets to the National Pencil Factory?—A. Yes.

Q. How far was it?—A. One thousand and sixteen feet.

Q. Did you walk it?—A. Yes.

Q. How long did it take you?—A. Four and one-half minutes.

Q. Did you walk from the National Pencil Factory to Atlanta and Whitehall streets?—A. Yes.

Q. How far is it, and how long did it take you to walk it?—A. 821 feet, and three and one-half minutes.

Q. Did you walk from Frank’s office to Broad and Hunter streets?—A. Yes.

Q. How far was it, and how long did it take you?—A. A distance of 333 feet, and it required one and three-quarter minutes to walk it.

Q. How fast did you walk?—A. My usual gait, rather brisk.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. You could have quickened your gait and walked from Marietta and Forsyth streets in two minutes, couldn’t you?—A. Not easily.

Q. At that rate, how long would it take you to walk a mile?—A. I’ll have to figure it—60 minutes.

Q. Sixty minutes to walk a mile?—A. No; fifteen minutes.

Q. You were more accurate in your measurements than you were with your first answer?—A. Yes.

The witness was excused and Miss Corinthia Hall was recalled to the stand. She was the first of another array of witnesses employed in the factory and scheduled to be called during the day to repudiate the charges of immorality on the part of the prisoner in the plant.

Says Conley Delayed Paying Back Money.

Miss Hall said Frank’s character was good. She added that she did not know Conley well enough to swear about his character.

Dorsey then took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. You don’t know Conley’s character?—A. No. Only I loaned him some money once and could hardly get it back. I wouldn’t lend him any more.

The witness was excused and Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman was recalled, but did not answer. Miss Ida Hayes, another employee, who works on the fourth floor, testified to the good character of Frank. She said she had never heard of any immoral practices in the factory. She would not believe Jim Conley under oath, she added.

Hooper cross-examined her.

Q. The principal trouble with Jim Conley was borrowing money and forgetting to pay it back, wasn’t it?—A. Yes.

The witness was excused and Eula May Flowers, another employee, was recalled to the stand.

She testified to Frank’s good character and gave Conley a bad record. She said Conley had borrowed money from her and never paid it back.

Miss Bessie White, another character witness was called, but did not answer. Miss Ella Hayes, now an employee of Kress’ store, but an employee of the National Pencil Company up to the date of the murder, testified to Frank’s good character. Miss Minnie Foster, an employee in the factory, said Frank’s character was good. She did not know Conley’s character.

Objection by Arnold Upheld by Court.

Hooper cross-examined her.

Q. Up to this killing, whom did you ever hear discuss Frank’s character?—A. No one.

The witness was excused.

Miss Opie Dickerson was another pencil factory employee to give Frank a good character. Conley’s character was bad, she said.

Dorsey cross-examined her.

Q. Where were you on Saturday night, April 26?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. Were you not with Louise Gershon, Wade Campbell and Mr. Darley on that night?

Arnold objected and was sustained.

Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman was recalled to the stand next. She testified to Frank’s good character and declared that that of the negro’s was bad.

Miss Jessie Wallace, another fourth-floor employee, following Mrs. Freeman, said that Frank’s character was good. She stated that she did not know Conley well enough to testify regarding him.

Miss Annie Osborne and Mrs. Ella Thomas, both employees of the pencil factory, also testified to Frank’s good character. Mrs. Thomas declared that Jim Conley had borrowed money from her and never repaid it.

Miss Bessie Thrallkill, another employee of the factory, said she did not know Frank’s character.

Arnold—I mean his reputation.

Miss Thrallkill—He was always a gentleman around me.

Hooper took the witness.

Q. Did you see Jim Conley after the killing?—A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you hear anything about any blood on the floor?—A. Not until Monday morning.

Q. Did you see it?—A. No.

The witness was excused, and Miss Allie Denham, Miss Rebecca Sarson and Miss Maude Wright, all employees of the pencil factory, spoke highly of Frank’s character.

W. W. McWorth, a Pinkerton detective, was next called. Under Rosser’s questioning he said he devoted fifteen days to the Phagan murder investigation, beginning May 12.

Q. What did you do?—A. I questioned the employees and made a search of the ground floor.

Q. What did you find?—A. I found stains by the trapdoor which might have been blood. It was on the ground floor.

Q. What else did you find?—A. Behind a radiator I found a good bit of rubbish. There was a heavy cord in the trash. One end of it looked like it had just been cut with a sharp knife.

Pay Envelope and Bloody Club Introduced.

Q. What else did you find?—A. In one corner a few inches from the radiator, I found a piece of pay envelope folded up. It was in a pile of trash.

The torn bit of envelope was introduced by the defense.

Q. What did you do with the envelope?—A. I saw the number 186 on it and initials “M. P.” I handed it to Officer Whitfield and told him to take it to the light and see what it was.

Q. Did you find anything else?—A. Yes; I found a big stick lying near the radiator beside some pipes.

At this point a boold[sic]-stained stick was exhibited.

Q. Do you know what this stick is used for?—A. Mr. Holloway said it was a roller on which boxes were moved.

Q. Was there anything odd about it that you noticed?—A. It was stained as is apparent now—stains that looked as though they might be blood.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Did you ever see this stick before? (The blunt end of a buggy whip was exhibited.)—A. Yes.

Q. Where?—A. Behind the front door.

Blood Stains Found Around Cubby Hole.

Q. Where did you find the envelope?—A. In the door to the Clark Woodenware department.

Q. What day?—A. May 15.

Q. Where did you begin to search?—A. On the office floor.

Q. What did you see on that floor?—A. In the metal department I saw half a dozen stains like the one Mr. Darley showed me by the water cooler.

Q. Did they look like the other stains?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you make any search of the office for that envelope?—A. No; I was looking for a mesh bag.

Q. Who told you to?—A. Mr. Scott.

Q. You made that search all day alone?—A. Until 5 o’clock, when I was joined by Whitfield.

Q. He searched with you?—A. Yes.

Q. You found bloodstains around the cubby hole?—A. Yes.

Q. Was that your report to the Pinkertons?—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t say anything about blood?—A. I said it looked like blood.

Q. How many stains were there?—A. About six or seven.

Q. How large was each?—A. About six or seven inches in diameter.

Q. And were they blood?—A. I don’t know; I took up the chips.

Q. Now, after you found the bloodspots you found pieces of cord around the radiator?—A. Yes.

Q. The bloodspots led you to that?—A. No.

Q. You showed those bloodspots to Whitfield?—A. Yes.

Envelope Found Near Trap Door.

Q. And while he was examining the stains, you picked up a roll of paper?—A. Yes.

Q. And in that roll you found the envelope?—A. The roll was the envelope itself.

Q. Was that envelope lying right out in the open space?—A. Within eight or ten inches of the trapdoor.

Q. Were there any other pieces of paper?—A. Yes, one or two little ones.

Q. Was it light enough for you to see the number—186—in the right-hand corner?—A. Yes.

Q. Has that envelope been changed any?—A. None at all.

At this point Attorney Rosser conferred with Attorney Hooper.

Rosser—The officer in charge of the witnesses talks to them, then comes down and reports to Detective Starnes. If it doesn’t stop, I will make a protest to the court.

Hooper—If anything improper is going on, I wish you would make it public.

Solicitor Dorsey, who was standing near the witness, turned and said: “Your honor, we want this matter settled, if they think anything improper is going on.”

Judge Roan—No complaint has been made.

Dorsey—We are bringing it now.

The officer came in and spoke to Mr. Starnes.

Dorsey: “If there is any objection, I will have Mr. Starnes state what the officer said to him.”

Asks Schiff Be Sent From Room.

Arnold: “We have no objection to make to the court. We just made a personal request.”

Dorsey continued questioning the witness.

Q. This envelope did not have a figure 5 on it did it?—A. No.

At this point Solicitor Dorsey noticed that Herbert Schiff was in the courtroom. He addressed the court:

“Your Honor,” he said, “I want Mr. Schiff to be put out of the room. I will want him as a witness a little later.”

Rosser: “We merely want to have him here when we are questioning these witnesses who work at the factory.”

Judge Roan: “The witness will have to leave.”

Rosser: “All right, we will go upstairs to confer with him. I don’t care if it takes a month.”

Schiff left the courtroom and Dorsey continued to question the witness.

Q. Did you show this envelope to Herbert Schiff?—A. Later.

Q. Did he identify it as his handwriting?

Rosser: “We object. Mr. Arnold is a little excited about a fire close to his building and will be back in a few minutes.”

Dorsey—Well, I want this witness held until I can examine Schiff. He continued his questioning.

Q. Wasn’t there a figure “5” on that envelope?—A. Not any more than there is now.

Hints at Change in Figures on Envelope.

Q. Didn’t Mrs. Coleman call your attention to a figure “5?”

Rosser objected.

Dorsey—This is for the purpose of impeachment. I want to show that when this envelope was shown to the Colemans on May 15 it had a figure “5” on it. They told the Pinkertons Mary did not get but $1.20 the week she was murdered.

Judge Roan overruled the objection.

Dorsey—Did any conservation between you and the Colemans about a figure “5” take place?—A. No.

Q. Where did you get this information regarding the police. When the tion [sic] in your report? (Solicitor Dorsey handed the witness a typewritten report.)—A. From Mr. Schiff.

Q. When did you report the finding of this stick to the police?

Rosser objected.

Dorsey—I want to show in reference to this club, what the head man for the Pinkertons instructed this police asked about that club, the Pinkertons gave them a little stick. Mr. Rosser has tried to make it appear that the Pinkertons employed at the instance of Frank, went down the road on and on with the police.

The jury was taken from the room at the request of Dorsey.

Judge Roan—Let me hear your objection, Mr. Rosser. I don’t want to hear any argument.

Rosser Through Arguing, He Says.

Rosser: “I don’t want to argue. I don’t expect to argue here any more. All I want is to have my objection recorded. He has tried to impeach every witness we have put up on the grounds on the grounds that he did not report to the police.”

Judge Roan: “Mr. Dorsey, you can ask the witness whether he told any city detectives about the note and the bludgeon, or whether he sought to conceal it. You can not ask him what somebody told him to do.”

Hooper: “What we want to do is to show that Pierce is the head of the Pinkertons, and that he controls the policy of the Pinkertons.”

Judge Roan: “This man is not responsible for what somebody told him.”

The jury was brought back, and Dorsey continued his questioning.

Q. Who is the head of the Pinkertons?—A. H. B. Pierce.

Q. Where is Whitfield?

Rosser; “I object to that, your Honor.”

Dorsey: “It is a well-known principle of law that we can ask that.”

Judge Roan: “You can ask the question.”

Q. Where is Pierce?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Where is Whitfield?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Now how long after you found that club did you report it to the police?—A. Seventeen hours.

Q. How long after that did you have a conference with the police?—A. Four hours.

Q. Now, did you not show Black this stick when you told him about the club?—A. I did not.

Q. Were you there when the stick was shown Black?—A. I was not.

Rosser took the witness.

Q. Now, is this your report?—A. Yes.

Q. Is this your diagram showing the place where you found the club and the pay envelope?—A. Yes.

Girl Bursts Forth In Frank’s Defense.

Q. You attached this to your report and we now get it from Mr. Dorsey?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t know whether I ever saw it or not?—A. No.

Q. Now, this piece of envelope is just like it was when you found it?—A. Yes.

Q. If there are any changes, they don’t show here?—A. No.

The witness was excused, and Miss Mollie Blair, a former employee of the pencil factory, was called as a character witness. She did not answer. Miss Cora Barnes then took the stand. Before Attorney Arnold could ask her any questions, she burst forth into oratory to declare:

“We love our superintendent because he was a good business man and a gentleman.

Her words were interrupted and when the formal questions were put as to whether she knew Leo M. Frank, she arose to her feet and said:

“I believe Mr. Frank is innocent. He is too good a man and I wish I could make everybody else believe he is innocent. I would be willing to take his place and die for him. I would be glad to die for him.”

Miss Barnes’ spasmodic statements threw the courtroom into a volcanic eruption. As her words flowed freely from her mouth, attorneys for both sides sprang to their feet in various attitudes of protest, some shouting their objections at Judge Roan and others in pleading gestures to the witness to come to a halt. Yet her words waxed more eloquent and flowed more freely with each protest that was registered against them.

Spectators in Courtroom Convulsed With Laughter.

Sheriff Mangum and Chief Deputy Plennie Miner, with a dozen deputies, strove for several minutes in the courtroom crowd. Several spectators were so convulsed with laughter that they were compelled to leave the courtroom. One man of large avoirdupois threatened to go in convulsions.

Following the restoration of quietude, the witness was excused without an attempt to question her.

Miss Ethel Stewart, a telephone operator and a former employee of the pencil factory on the fourth floor, was next called and testified to Frank’s good character.

Miss Irene Jackson, an attractive young woman, a daughter of County Policeman A. W. Jackson, and a former employee of the pencil factory, who stated that she left there the day of the murder, was the next witness. On direct examination the witness testified that Frank’s character was good. Dorsey cross-examined her.

Q. Did you ever hear any of the employees say anything about Frank?—A. They seemed to be afraid of him.

Q. How?—A. They would always work hard when they saw him coming.

Q. Do you recall Emily Mayfield?—A. Yes.

Says Frank Looked Into Dressing Room.

Q. Where does she work?—A. She worked at Jacobs’ until Easter.

Q. What about that dressing room incident you told Mr. Starnes about in the presence of your father?—A. Emily Mayfield was in the dressing room one day and Frank came back there. I was there to take off my apron.

Q. How was Miss Mayfield dressed?—A. She had off her dress.

Q. Did he come all the way in?—A. He opened the door and looked in.

Q. Did he laugh?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Did you threaten to quit?—A. Yes.

Q. To whom?—A. Mr. Darley.

Q. What did he say?—A. He said that we girls should stick together and that we would not lose anything by it.

Q. You told your father about it?—A. No, my sister did.

Q. Did you hear anybody but Miss Emily Mayfield talk about Frank going into this dressing room?—A. Yes, I heard about it.

Q. Who told you?—A. I don’t remember. I heard them talking about him going into the dressing room two or three times.

Q. What did Frank do when he came into the dressing room?—A. He walked in, turned around and walked out.

Q. Were you in there?—A. Yes.

Q. You have told me of two times. Have you heard of any other times besides your sister and Miss Mayfield?—A. Miss Mamie Kitchens and I were in there one day when he came in.

Q. Did you hear the girls talk about other times?—A. Yes.

Q. Where were they?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. What else did you hear about Frank besides the fact that he went into the dressing room and stared at the girls?—A. Nothing.

Arnold took the witness on re-direct examination.

Q. How long did you work in the factory?—A. About three years.

Q. You were willing to work on there after this?—A. I had some bills to pay and I wanted to get the money. Papa wanted me to quit.

Q. The murder was the real reason you quit, wasn’t it?—A. Papa said he didn’t want me to work there, so I quit.

Q. Didn’t you hear Frank issuing an order about the girls flirting through the fourth story window?

Dorsey objected and was sustained.

Q. What street did those windows look out on?—A. Forsyth street.

Q. People were constantly walking along the street, were they not?—A. Yes.

Q. Did any rule or order come to you against flirting out of the window?—A. There were orders against it.

Q. Frank never came into the room. He just came to the door and turned away?—A. He pushed the door open and looked in.

Q. Did he ever come in?—A. No.

Girls Partly Undressed When Frank Looked In.

Q. Which time was it you were not fully dressed?—A. When I was with Mamie Kitchens.

Q. The other times you were dressed fully?—A. Yes.

Q. How were you when you were with Miss Kitchens?—A. I had off my top dress and was preparing to put on my street dress.

Q. You had on your underskirt?—A. Yes.

Q. Were any of the girls anywhere nude at any time he came and looked in?—A. No, sir.

Q. When was this?—A. Last summer.

Dorsey took the witness on recross-examination.

Q. How soon after Frank opened the door on your sister did she quit?—A. She wanted to quit right then, but the forelady persuaded her not to.

Q. There was no way he could tell before opening the dressing room door how near any of the girls were to being undressed?—A. No, sir.

Q. It was near to the dressing room wasn’t it?—A. Yes, sir.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. What time were you girls expected to be at work?—A. At 7 o’clock.

Q. What time was it Frank came to the door?—A. Ten or fifteen minutes after 7 o’clock.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. You never flirted with anyone out of the window?—A. No.

Q. Did the forelady come in?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever see any signs around there not to flirt?—A. No.

Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Frank say anything about flirting?—A. I heard him say something once.

Smiled or Made Face at Girl.

Q. Well, when he stood in that dressing room door and smiled did he—

Arnold: “Your honor, she never said anything about smiling.”

Miss Jackson: “He never asked me.”

Dorsey: “Well, I am asking you now; did he smile?”—A. Yes, he smiled, or made some kind of face at Miss Mayfield.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. No, just looked at her and walked out.

Q. He never said anything about flirting?—A. No.

The witness was excused and Harlee Branch, a reporter for The Atlanta Journal, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Do you recollect having an interview with Jim Conley?—A. Yes.

Dorsey: “The story of his actions is practically the same.”

Judge Roan: “He can go as far as this evidence is similar. The jury can tell whether it is the same or not.”

Rosser: “It is the duty of the Judge to pass on it before it goes to the jury.”

Q. I call your attention to this interview of May 31. Read it over and tell the substance.

Before Mr. Branch had replied, Mr. Rosser questioned him.

Q. I will get you to state whether Conley said anything about seeing the little girl’s purse?—A. He did not.

“Took 30 Minutes to Take Body to Basement.”

Q. Didn’t he say it took him 30 minutes to get the body down into the basement?—A. Yes.

Q. I will ask if he didn’t say Lemmie Quinn got to the factory after 12 o’clock and stopped eight or nine minutes?—A. Yes.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Was he positive about the time?—A. I tried to get him to be as definite as he could, but he qualified his statements with the word “about.”

Q. Did you get this interview before or after Conley went through what he said was his part in the crime at the factory?—A. It was two or three days after.

Q. Did you see him go through that performance at the factory?—A. I did.

Rosser objected.

Dorsey—I want to show by this witness Conley’s performance and that it was just as admissible as the evidence of Dr. Owens the other day.

Judge Roan overruled the objection. Rosser continued to object, on the ground that Conley has told a different story since the interview.

Branch went through the negro’s re-enactment of the crime. He estimated the start at 12:18. Rosser made another strenuous objection, but Judge Roan admitted the evidnece.

Branch said that at 1:05 o’clock he left the building and the negro had reached the point in his pantomime where he wrote the notes in Frank’s office.

At this point court adjourned until 9 o’clock Monday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 16th 1913, “Girls Testify For and Against Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

At the opening of the morning session yesterday Solicitor Dorsey motioned for the court to exclude the wife and mother of Leo M. Frank, Mrs. Lucille Frank and Mrs. Rae Frank, on account of the sensational outburst of the mother Wednesday afternoon, when she denounced the solicitor for attacking the character of her son.

In reply to the solicitor’s move to have the mother and wife of the defendant excluded from the court room, Attorney Arnold made a strong speech in their behalf, saying:

“It is a new doctrine to me where a wife and mother of the defendant cannot sit in court with him in the hour of his trial. I promise there will be no more outbreaks in court. Mrs. Frank, his wife, has sat through the trial, quietly and orderly. My friend’s conduct, I would think (meaning Dorsey) was a little more culpable than that of the mother’s. A man, even though he represent the prosecution, is not entitled to just do anything he pleases. It appears to me as though he were injecting these vile, filthy questions and innuendoes, merely for the purpose of inflaming the jury.”

The solicitor said:

“The defense has put the defendant’s character into evidence. I did not ask a witness a single question which I cannot uphold by plenty of evidence and testimony, including the statements of worthy girls and women. I submit that it is in absolute good faith that I am asking these questions. It is a mistaken idea that I am overly zealous in this case. I am only doing my duty as prosecuting attorney. It is unfair to exclude all over women and then to admit the defendant’s wife and mother and when I am doing my duty, to have them rail out at me.”

Judge Roan ruled that the two women could remain in the court room, but stated that any more such outbreaks would mean their prompt exclusion.

Wanted Questions Ruled Out.

Following this argument, Attorney Rosser made a motion to rule out certain questions and answers which Dorsey had put on cross-examination to witnesses for the defense, which questions pertained to the unsavory reports over which there have been many legal battles during the trial. He was overruled.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Wife and Mother of Frank are Permitted to Remain in Court,” 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 14^th, 1913

Mrs. Rae Frank, the mother of the prisoner, startled the courtroom shortly before 4 o’clock, when she denounced Solicitor Dorsey, when he made an attack on the character of her son.

J. Ashley Jones, a local insurance agent, was in the witness chair testifying to the moral character of the accused when the incident occurred. He was asked by Solicitor Dorsey if he had over heard of Frank taking little girls out to Druid Hills, sitting them on his lap and fondling them.

Mrs. Frank glanced furiously at the prosecutor, and rising from her chair, she shrieked.

“No, nor you either—you dog!”

Mrs. Frank Leaves Courtroom.

Deputies rushed over to where Mrs. Frank stood staring at the solicitor Herbert Haas, a relative, passed in between Attorney Rosser and the stenographer and escorted Mrs. Frank from the courtroom to a cab in which she was driven home.

Jones testified that he had known Frank for a year and eight months and that he knew his general character to be good.

He was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey.

“You are in the insurance business?”

“Yes, I am resident agent.”

“You live on Fourteenth street and of course you have never heard what kind of practices Frank may have carried on down there?”
“No, sir. I never spoke to the girls of the factory.”

“On what do you base Frank’s good character?”

“About five years ago Frank took out a policy with my company in New York. As usual with life insurance companies, we got a report on him both morally and physically, and the fact that he showed up well in his report is proved by the fact that he got a standard policy.

Got a Good Report.

“After he came to Atlanta the policy expired and I took up with him the question of renewal, talking with him several times. Once he told me to come to his office late some Saturday afternoon and he would go over the whole matter with me thoroughly. I went, found Mrs. Frank there with him, and was introduced to her; he made up the application for renewal and again by our agents he was thoroughly investigated both morally and physically, and we got a very good report on him indeed.”

“Then you never heard that Frank took girls on his lap and caressed them?”
Attorney Arnold vigorously opposed the line of questioning.

“Your honor,” he should, “this is outrageous. We are not trying this man on every vile and slanderous lie that has been circulated against him since April 26 by a lot of crack brain extremists. If every long-tongued lying crack brained idiot that has circulated lies against him since April 26 is believed then we have no character to begin with at all.”

Not Four-flushing.

Solicitor Dorsey stood smiling at his adversary.

“Your honor, I am not four-flushing one bit,” he said calmly. “I propose to introduce a witness who will testify that the witness did hear the reports circulated against Frank to which I have just alluded.”

Attorney Arnold banged the table with his fist.

“Your honor,” he began fiercely, “we cannot and will not submit to such outrageous statements in the [1 word illegible] of the solicitor. He knows that he can not prove what he is saying. If he makes another such statement we will then move for a mistrial.”

Solicitor Dorsey was instructed to continue the examination of the witness.

“You never heard that Frank went to Druids Hill with a little girl in his lap, and that he played with her?”
“No.”

Active in This Case.

“You and your people up there have been very active in this case, have you not? You wrote a letter to the grand jury urging them to indict Jim Conley, didn’t you, signed by several men in your office?”
The solicitor produced the letter, and read the list of signatures, which included J. Ashley Jones, a Mr. Cooney and a Mr. Clark Jones admitted he signed the letter.

“Why did you send this leter [sic]?”

“We thought that having had an especially good opportunity of examining into the character of Frank, and that having satisfied ourselves that he was a man of good character, it was no more than right and just that we should take this step and do what we could for him.”

“Did any one speak to you about writing the letter?”

“No, no one except Mr. Cooney. I think he was the one who conceived the idea and was the only man who spoke to me about it at all.”

“Played With Little Girls.”

“Didn’t you hear about twelve months ago that Frank played with little girls in his office?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you ever hear of Frank taking a little girl to Druid Hills, sitting her on his lap and playing with her?”
Before the witness could reply Mrs. Frank was on her feet.

“No, not you either!” she shrieked.

Attorney Arnold prevented Mrs. Frank from saying more.

“Mrs. Frank, if you stay in the courtroom, I’m afraid you’ll have to hear these vile slanderous lies, and I would suggest that if you have reached the limit of your patience you might retire for a little while.”

Mrs. Frank left the courtroom weeping.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Mrs. Rae Frank, Mother of Prisoner, Denounces Solicitor Hugh Dorsey,” 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 14^th, 1913

STIRS COURTROOM WHEN SHE RESENTS QUESTIONS ASKED FRANK’S WITNESS

Solicitor Dorsey Was Cross-Examining Ashley Jones, a Witness Who Had Been Testifying to the Good Character of the Prisoner, and Had Just Asked Him if He Had Not Heard of Frank Taking Liberties With Little Girls Out at Druid Hills Some Time Ago.

TEARS FILLING EYES, WOMAN LEAVES COURT WITH SON’S ATTORNEY

Large Part of Wednesday’s Testimony Was Consumed in an Effort on Part of the State to Break Down the Testimony Given by Lemmie Quinn—Dr. William K. Owen Takes the Stand in Afternoon to Tell How Story of Conley Was Reenacted at National Pencil Company Factory.

There was one brief dramatic moment in the Frank trial Wednesday—so dramatic and full of heart interest that spectators were stirred as they have not been since the trial began.

Solicitor Dorsey was cross-questioning Ashley Jones, a character witness for Frank. He asked him if he had not heard of Frank taking liberties with little girls out at Druid Hills.

“No, and you never did—you dog!” exclaimed Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the accused young man, as she partially rose from her seat and faced Solicitor Dorsey.

It was the first emotion the mother […]

MOTHER OF FRANK DENOUNCES SOLICITOR

[…] had shown during the trial. What she has suffered she alone can tell. It seemed that this last sting was more than she could bear.

Leonard Haas, one of her son’s attorneys, led her gently from the room, her eyes streaming with tears.

Character Witnesses Heard.

The other sensation of the day came when the defense introduced its first character witness—Alfred L. Lane, of Brooklyn, N. Y., who went to school with Frank, and who testified to his general good character during the years he has known him. Mr. Lane came all the way to Atlanta to give his testimony.

As soon as this witness took the stand the significance to the state was manifest. It meant that the gauntlet had been thrown down by the defense—that the state was dared to do its worst. It has been known for some time that the state has some thirty or forty witnesses who will take the stand to discredit Frank’s character in certain directions.

Other character witnesses for Frank during the day were Philip Nash, of Greenwood, N. J.; Richard A. Knight, of Brooklyn, N. Y., both classmates of Frank, and John Ashley Jones, an insurance man of Atlanta.

Argument About Pantomime.

A large part of Wednesday was taken up with argument as to the admissibility of a pantomime based on Conley’s statements regarding the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body. Dr. William Owen, the well-known Atlanta physician, had timed this performance which was given in the pencil factory. It took just thirty-six minutes Judge Roan finally admitted it, but its importance was largely lessened by the cross-examination of Frank Hooper, whose questions brought out the fact that the same conditions did not prevail in many respects.

Dr. Owen told of writing a letter to the grand jury asking that Conley be indicted, the letter being prompted, he said, by his conscience.

The testimony of C. B. Dalton was impeached by several persons who had known him in Gwinnett county and who swore they would not believe him on oath.

Lemmie Quinn, an employee of the pencil factory, gave some important testimony regarding the time he was at the pencil factory Saturday of the murder. This was in contradiction of Conley’s statement.

Dr. W. S. Kendrick stated that the conclusions of Dr. Roy Harris were mere guesswork. On cross-examination Dr. Kendrick admitted he had not read many important works on digestion published in the last few years.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Mother of Frank Denounces Solicitor Dorsey in Court,” 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 14^th, 1913

Defense Character Witness Is Used by Solicitor to Get Suggestions Before Jury

Solicitor Mentions Names of Many Persons, Who Will Probably be Put Up in Rebuttal to Attack Frank’s Conduct as Related to Woman Employes of Factory—Mrs. Rae Frank, Mother of the Accused, Creates a Sensation Shouting at the Solicitor.

Court adjourned at 5:40 until 9 o’clock Thursday morning.

The trial of Leo M. Frank took another sensational turn Wednesday afternoon when Solicitor Dorsey began, through his questions to John Ashley Jones, put up as a character witness by the defense, a vigorous attack upon the character of Frank. The solicitor hurled one sensational question at the witness after the other.

“You’ve never heard L. T. Coursey and Miss Myrtis Cator tell about Frank walking into the dressing room?” shouted the solicitor.

“You never heard how he tried to put his arms around Miss Myrtis Cator?”
“You never heard about his looking at poor little Gordie Jackson?”
“You didn’t hear of what he tried to do to Luis McDonald and Rachel Prater, did you?”
“And you didn’t know about Mrs. Pearl Dodson hitting him with a monkey wrench?”
To all of these questions the witness answered in the negative. The solicitor proceeded with others, asking the witness if he had ever talked to Mrs. G. D. Dunnegan and Marian Dunnegan or to Mrs. Wingard, of 45 Mills street.

It is inferred that the solicitor expects to put up the persons mentioned to testify in rebuttal against Frank’s good character.

Mr. Dorsey drew from Mr. Jones, who is an insurance agent, the admission that he had written to the grand jury, urging an indictment of Jim Conley. Mr. Jones said he did so because his insurance company had written a policy for Frank and before issuing it had made a thorough investigation of his character and found it to be good.

There was a tense scene in the court room Wednesday afternoon when Solicitor Dorsey while examining a witness, was interrupted by Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the accused. The solicitor had just asked a character witness, John Ashley Jones, whether he had ever heard that Frank conducted himself improperly in his office, when Mrs. Frank shouted in a voice that was audible all over the court room:

“No, and you didn’t either.”

Attorney Reuben Arnold, in a kindly voice, admonished Mrs. Frank that if she sat in the court room she must submit to hearing “these vile and slanderous lies.” He suggested that she was probably overwrought and would better leave the court for a while. She was assisted from the room and, very much agitated, driven in an automobile to her son’s home.

After the solicitor and attorneys for the defense had cited authorities and argued at length, Judge Roan, Wednesday afternoon, announced that the testimony of witnesses who re-enacted Jim Conley’s story in an effort to develop the time required to take part in the conversations and movements described by the negro, would be admitted. Both sides had argued strenuously on the point evidently considering it of much importance. Judge Roan stated that he was not entirely satisfied, but that he would give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

Lemmie Quinn resumed the stand after the judge announced his decision and was severely cross-questioned by the solicitor.

Leo M. Frank spent the noon recess of court, after he had eaten lunch in a room adjoining the scene of the trial, chatting with the three out-of-town friends whose testimony Wednesday morning in his behalf as a man of good character had put that point in issue. They were Alfred L. Lane, of Brooklyn N. Y., Philip Nash, of New Jersey, and Richard A. Knight, of Brooklyn, N. Y. Evidently the mother of the accused knew them, too, for she talked with them cordially and introduced to them Atlanta friends of Frank who called.

The discussion as to the admissibility of the testimony regarding the time test made at the factory upon Jim Conley’s story was resumed when court reconvened at 1 o’clock, the jury being left out of court meanwhile. Lawyers for both sides cited the authorities for which Judge Roan had asked.

Judge Roan said that he wanted to hear whether there was any evidence introduced on which to base a time comparison.

Attorney Rosser arguing for the defense, contended that there did exist a reasonable basis of comparison—reasonable because no two things are identical, and because it was therefore humanly possible to approximate what Conley says he did and said that day at the factory.

ROSSER CITES AUTHORITIES.

Mr. Rosser cited a number of authorities, principally from damage suits, to sustain his contention that a re-enactment of a witness story is reasonable to test it. He cited one decision, calling attention to the fact that before recess Mr. Dorsey had challenged him to find “one Georgia authority” to uphold his side, wherein the law firm of which the solicitor is a member carried to the higher courts an effort to get a similar evidence before a jury. He said the defense was offering no new doctrine to the court. Similar evidence is admitted constantly in damage suits, said he. He digressed to declare that that it is a profound mistake of the law which permits the introduction of testimony whose veracity the courts have reason to doubt. Such evidence, said he, never should be allowed to get to a jury, in the first place. The court should stamp its doubtful character and rule it out. “Can’t the court assume that it was under ordinary and usual circumstances that this thing was done?” he demanded. He declared that the four men relied upon by the defense for the test had reproduced as nearly as is humanly possible the story related by Conley as to what he said and did and as to what Frank said and did.

Solicitor Dorsey followed Mr. Rosser. He discussed the case of the Atlanta and West Point railway against Hunter, which was the last authority cited by Attorney Rosser. The solicitor contended that in this case the testimony was admitted because it was expert evidence. The specific question in that case was “How quick can a locomotive be stopped on a track?” Solicitor Dorsey contended that inasmuch as the engineer knew more about the stopping of a locomotive and was in a sense an expert, he was allowed to testify. He was more competent to judge than the jurors. In the present instance, he declared, the jurors were just as competent to judge as Dr. Owen or any other witness. “The admission of this opinion is fraught with danger,” said he. He cited an authority to the effect that experts can testify in relation to a particular art, science or profession, because from their experience they are cited to know more of the subject under discussion than the jury, which is composed of laymen.

Judge Roan interrupted, “I agree with you Mr. Dorsey, that no opinion should be admitted. As I understand it, however, Dr. Owen is not called upon to give an opinion, but to tell the jury of the facts about how long it took to be a certain thing. It is this point that I want to hear authorities on.”

“I won’t call it an opinion, then,” said the solicitor. He cited an authority, and [1 word illegible] that it showed the evidence is hearsay and irrelevant. He said a man goes to the pencil factory and enacts a story. That specific thing, said he, is no kin to this case. “It is too ridiculous for any court anywhere to consider as competent evidence,” he declared. “It would be impossible for men who went over there and coolly, with a watch timing them, to re-enact the hiding of the body, to reproduce the thing exactly because they were not acting in the heat of emotion. It is the duty of the jury to draw conclusions, and not of the witness.”

Mrs. Coleman, the mother of the murdered girl, was sitting within the railing behind the solicitor’s table. When the solicitor reached the point about the carrying of the body the mother buried her face in her handkerchief and sobbed quietly.

Attorney Arnold followed Solicitor Dorsey. He said that all through this case, almost unconsciously, both the defense and the prosecution and the court, had acted on the proposition that evidence of this sort is admissible. He said, for instance, that both sides had asked the policemen if they could see the body from the point in the basement where the night watchman claimed to have been standing when he first saw it.

Judge Roan said he did not care to have any further argument along that line. He asked if the testimony by Dr. Owens would contain anything upon which the jury could make a comparison of the time required to enact the story told by Jim Conley.

Attorney Arnold reviewed briefly what the defense proposed to show by Dr. Owens’ testimony. He said they had taken from the record of Jim Conley’s testimony every word and every movement which he claimed took place in the factory, both on his part and the part of Frank, and had staged the re-enactment of those words and movements as exactly as was humanly possible to do.

RULES WITH DEFENSE.

Judge Roan, in ruling, said he was not sure about the question, but that he would follow the rule and give the defense the benefit of every reasonable doubt.

QUINN RESUMES THE STAND.

Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, was recalled to the stand. Mr. Arnold concluded the examination by asking the witness if he still is employed by the National Pencil factory. The witness answered “Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey began the cross-examination.

“When was it these men bled on the floor of the metal room?”
“About a year ago.”

“What were their names?”
“I remember C. P. Gilbert, who lives on Jones street. I don’t remember the other’s name.”

“The blood at the water cooler didn’t come from Gilbert, did it?”
“I don’t know.”

“Where did he bleed most?”

“In front of the machine.”

“You knew that was blood, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“How long did it stay there?”
“It might be there yet.”

“When did you notice it last?”
“I don’t remember well. It was a long time ago.”

“You noticed the spots on the floor near the dressing room on Monday after the murder?”

“Yes. It looked like blood.”

“What is the difference between those spots and the spots made by Gilbert bleeding?”
“The spots by the dressing room were darker.”

“Could gasoline have caused that?”
“I don’t know.”

“There are only four girls who work on the second floor, are there?”
“Only four in my department. There are about ten others in the polishing room.”

“Where were you at noon, April 26?”

“I don’t remember.”

“When you talked with Officer Payne, with Detective Starnes and Black, and other officers, you told them that you were not around the factory Saturday, didn’t you?”
“No.”

“Is it true that Frank was the first person you mentioned it to?”
“No.”

“You said you reminded Frank of your visit. Tell us how you reminded him.”

WHAT HE TOLD FRANK.

“I told him I had been at the factory, and he said he knew I had, but didn’t remember the time.”

“When was that?”
“On Tuesday after the murder.”

“You were with the police off and on all day Monday, were you not?”
“I was with them part of the time.”

“Did you tell any of the officers that you were at the factory before you talked with Frank?”
“No.”

“How are you so positive about the time?”
“I looked at my watch when I left home, and at the clock at the factory.”

“Didn’t you say at the coroner’s inquest that your wife had to remind you about the time?”
“No. They had been questioning me about how I spent my time, and I told them my wife reminded me that I had been to Wolfsheimer’s market.”

“Could you have been at the factory as early as 11:15?”
“I don’t think I could.”

“How long were you at the Busy Bee?”

“I don’t remember.”

“What time was it then?”
“I don’t know.”

“What did you say to the two girls?”
“I asked Mrs. Freeman if her mother was mad at her for running off and getting married.”

“What did you say to Officer Payne?”
“I don’t remember having any direct talk with Payne.”

ADMITS CONVERSATION.

“Didn’t you say at the coroner’s inquest that you walked into a Greek stand Sunday, and Payne and the Greek were talking about the murder, and you said, ‘What! Another Jack the Ripper?’ And Payne said, ‘No, a white girl’s been murdered at the pencil factory.’ And didn’t you say ‘Who was it?’ And didn’t Payne say ‘She worked next to Boots Rogers’ sister-in-law?’ And didn’t you say, ‘Why, it must be Helen Ferguson?’ And then the Greek said, ‘No, it was Mary?’”

“Yes, that’s about the way of it,” said the witness.

“When you talked with Frank, didn’t he tell you not to mention your visit till he had talked with the lawyer?”
“No; he said he would mention it to his lawyer.”

“Didn’t you tell him that you didn’t like to be brought into it, but would let it be known if it would help him? And then didn’t you tell the police?”
“No; I told him to mention it if he wanted to.”

“You were willing to do what he wanted you to do?”
“It was up to him to mention it if he wanted to.”

“But you didn’t tell it to the police until after he had talked to his lawyer?”
“The police didn’t get hold of it until Saturday, but they could have if they had asked me.”

“You talked to Barrett about the crime before the coroner’s inquest, did you not?”
“Yes.”

“And you two were together every day?”
“He works in my department.”

“And yet you didn’t tell him anything about being at the factory before the inquest?”
“I don’t know that I’ve mentioned it to him yet,” said Quinn.

“Where is Miss Jefferson?”
“I think she is at the factory.”

“You think,” said Mr. Dorsey.

“She was there yesterday,” replied the witness.

“It was 2 o’clock in the afternoon of the following Saturday before you told Chief Lanford or any of the police about being in the factory on Saturday, April 26, wasn’t it?”

“Yes.”

HADN’T TOLD OFFICERS.

“You had never spoke to the officers about it before, had you?”
“No.”

“And you spoke to Frank about it Tuesday?”
“Yes.”

“When was it Frank told you his lawyers had advised him to mention it at the coroner’s inquest?”
“I think it was Tuesday afternoon.”

“Didn’t you say before the coroner’s jury that Frank said he was going to mention it if it was favorable to him?”
“I’m not certain I said ‘favorable.’”

“When you made a statement to the police on May 5, didn’t you say you were in the factory between 12 and 12:20?”

“Yes.”

“Didn’t you say that that was as accurate as you could put it?”
“Yes, it was—then.”

“Didn’t you say in answer to a direct question that you couldn’t say exactly what time it was?”
“Yes.”

“You don’t mean to change your statement that it was between 12 and 12:20, do you?”
“It might have been between 12:20 and 12:25.”

“Then, how is it that you said on May 5 that it was between 12 and 12:30?”

“Then I hadn’t reckoned the time as I have now.”

“Didn’t I take you over every place you went, step by step, after you left home until you got back there?”
“No; you tried to, but I forgot part of it.”

The solicitor then read several questions and answers from a statement made to him by Lemmie Quinn on May 5. Quinn admitted all of them.

The solicitor then questioned the witness about the back stairway.

“How is the back stairway, leading from the office floor to the fourth floor, fastened?”
“With a bar.”

“What is the door kept fastened for?”
“In order to keep people from coming down that stairway on pay day and checking out and getting their money before it is ready.”

“This door is always kept closed, is it not?”
“No, sir.”

SOLICITOR PRODUCES STATEMENT.

Solicitor Dorsey said, “All right, Quinn.”

The solicitor produced another statement. “On May 11, in the presence of several detectives, Newt Garner and myself, didn’t you make the statement that the bar replaced a broken lock on this door, and that it was customarily kept closed?”
“Yes, I made that statement.”

“Why do you tell the jury now, then, that it was not customarily kept closed?”
“I was referring to pay day in that statement.”

HOW HE FIGURED IT.

“What has come into your life or your mind that you can now say that you were at the factory between 12:20 and 12:25 on Saturday, April 26, when you said on May 5 and May 12 and before the coroner’s jury that it was between 12 and 12:20 when you were there?”

“I reckoned the time from when I left home and the time I got to the pool room. When I made the statement I didn’t think of visiting. Wolfsheimer’s store. That made fifteen minutes difference.”

That concluded the cross-examination, and Attorney Arnold asked the witness a few more questions.

“When the detectives were questioning you on May 5 you overlooked the visit to Wolfsheimer’s, didn’t you?”
“Yes.”

“Who called your attention to it?”
“My wife.”

“Didn’t you tell your father Tuesday about having been in the pencil factory?”
There was objection from the solicitor, but after the question had been reworded so as to make it not leading Judge Roan allowed it.

The witness answered that he had told his father about it on Tuesday.

“Did Frank ever ask you not to tell the detectives of your visit?”
“No, sir.”

“If they had asked you, would you have told them?”

“Yes.”

OSCAR PAPPENHEIMER CALLED.

Oscar Pappenheimer was the next witness examined.

He testified that he is a furniture manufacturer and owns stock which he bought over a year ago in the National Pencil company. He testified that a week or so after he bought his stock he began to get weekly statements of business from the pencil company. He said that up to the time the Sunday distribution of mail was discontinued he invariably got that statement in his mail box at the post office every Sunday morning. He said that after the distribution of mail on Sunday was discontinued, he got the statement invariably in the Monday morning delivery. He brought these statements with him into court, and they were tendered as evidence by Attorney Arnold.

Solicitor Dorsey objected to them on the ground that they were irrelevant and had no bearing on the case, but Judge Roan admitted them.

TESTIFIES ABOUT CHARACTER.

John Ashley Jones, an insurance agent, was the next witness. He testified that he had known Mr. Frank for one year and eight months. He testified that he knew his general character to be good. He then was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey as follows:

“You are in the insurance business?”
“Yes, sir; I am a resident agent.”

“You live out on Fourteenth street, don’t you?”
“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey then asked the witness if he knew of Frank’s relations with the working girls at the factory, and the witness said he did not. The solicitor asked the witness on what he based his opinion of Mr. Frank’s character.

“About five years ago Mr. Frank out a policy with my company in New York. As usual with life insurance companies, we get a thorough report on him both morally and physically, and the fact that he showed up well in this report is proved by his having been granted a standard policy.

“After he came to Atlanta the policy expired and I took up with him the question of a renewal, talking with him several times. Once he told me to come to this office late some Saturday afternoon and he would go over the whole matter with me thoroughly. I went, found Mrs. Frank there with him, was introduced to her, he made out the application for a renewal and again by our agents he was thoroughly investigated, both morally and physically, and we got a very good report indeed on him.”

“Then you didn’t hear that he took girls in his lap down there at the factory?”

ARNOLD ENTERS PROTEST

Attorney Arnold jumped to his feet and interrupted the solicitor with a bitter objection.

“Your honor,” he exclaimed, “this is outrageous! We are not trying this man on every vile and slanderous lie that has been circulated against him since April 26. We are undertaking to show his character on April 26 and previous to that time. If every long-tongued, lying, crack-brained idiot that has circulated lies against him since this crime was committed, is to be believed, then we have no character to begin with at all.”

In reply to this Solicitor Dorsey said, “Your honor, I am not four-flushing one bit. I propose to introduce a witness who will testify that this witness did hear the reports concerning Mr. Frank to which I have just alluded.”

No sooner had Solicitor Dorsey made this statement than Attorney Arnold was on his feet again.

THREATENS MISTRIAL.

“Your honor, we cannot and will not submit to any such outrageous statements on the part of the solicitor. He knows that he cannot prove what he is saying. If he makes another such statement as that we will then and there move for a mistrial.”

Solicitor Dorsey continued the examination of the witness.

“You never heard that Frank went, to Druid Hills with a little girl, did you?”
“No.”

“You and the people up there at your office have been very active in this case, haven’t you? You wrote a letter to the grand jury urging them to indict Jim Conley, didn’t you, signed by several of the men there in your office?”
Solicitor produced the letter, and in reading the signatures called the name of the witness, John Ashley Jones, and a Mr. Cooney and a Mr. Clark. Mr. Jones admitted that he had signed the letter.

“Why did you send this letter?” demanded the solicitor.

“We thought that having had an especially good opportunity to examine into the character of Mr. Frank, and that having satisfied ourselves that he was a man of good character, it was no more than right that we should take this step and do what we could for him.”

“Did any one speak to you about writing the letter?”
“No, no one except Mr. Cooney. I think he was the man who conceived the idea, and the only man who spoke to me about it at all.”

“Didn’t you hear, about twelve months ago, that Frank played with little girls in his office?”

FRANK’S MOTHER INTERRUPTS.

On hearing this question, Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the accused, turned in her seat beside Frank and faced the solicitor.

“No, nor you either!” she shrieked, her face flushed and her eyes flashing.

Only the prompt and determined work of the deputies prevented the court being thrown into an uproar.

Attorney Arnold, in a sympathetic voice, said, “Mrs. Frank, if you stay in the court room, I’m afraid you’ll have to hear these vile, slanderous lies, and I would suggest that if you have reached the limit of your patience you might retire for a little while.”

Mrs. Frank arose and was escorted through the crowded court room to the door by Attorney Herbert Haas and some other men of the Frank party.

Mrs. Lucile Frank showed considerable emotion for the first time since her husband’s trial began and the face of the accused man flushed when the solicitor hurled his sensational question at the witness.

“Do you know Tom Blackstock?” asked the solicitor.

“No.”

HURLS SENSATIONAL QUESTIONS.

“Did you ever talk with L. T. Courcey or Miss Myrtis Cater? You never heard any of them say that Frank would walk into the dressing room without offering any explanation for his intrusion?”
“No.”

“You didn’t hear of him trying to put his arm around Miss Myrtis Cater and trying to shut the door just before the factory closed one afternoon?”
“No.”

“You didn’t hear how he stood and looked at poor little Gordie Jackson? You didn’t hear how it was the talk of the factory?”
“No.”

“You didn’t hear what he tried to do to Luis McDonald and Rachel Prater?”
“No.”

“You didn’t hear what he said to Mrs. Pearl Dodson when he stood talking to her and her daughter with money in his hand, and you didn’t hear how she hit him with a monkey wrench?”

“No.”

“You didn’t talk to Mrs. C. D. Dunegan and Miss Marian Dunnegan about him?”
“No.”

“You didn’t hear how he was accustomed to slap girls and how he had nude pictures in his office? You did not talk to Mrs. Wingard, of 45 Mills street, about him, did you?”
“No.”

The solicitor finished his examination suddenly at this point and sat down, silence falling over the court.

Attorney Arnold arose and called for the letter written by the witness and his business associates to the grand jury. The solicitor walked over to Mr. Arnold and whispered to him and then said to the court, “Your honor, we are informed that Daisy Hopkins is about to leave. We want her held here.”

“We don’t think she is going to leave, but we are through with her. You’ll have to keep her yourself.”

The court instructed Deputy Miner to order the witness to remain within the jurisdiction of the court until called.

Mr. Arnold then over the objection of the solicitor, read to the jury a letter addressed to W. D. Beattie, signed by the witness, by Robert L. Cooney and others, asking that the grand jury investigate Jim Conley’s connection with the murder case.

With this Mr. Arnold concluded, and Mr. Dorsey resumed the questioning of the witness, and started to ask the witness whether or not the grand jury acted on his suggestion.

Mr. Arnold anticipated the question and said to the court: “We object to anything about what the grand jury did or did not do. It may be that my friend here, with his official position as solicitor general, acting as he has in this case, had the grand jury under his thumb and prevented an indictment of this negro.”

The objection of the defense was sustained, and the witness was dismissed, leaving Solicitor Dorsey smiling.

DR. OWENS TAKES STAND.

Dr. William Owens was called to the stand.

Dr. Owens testified that he was with Mr. Walker and others when they went through an enactment of Jim Conley’s story about moving the body of Mary Phagan. With the assistance of Mr. Arnold, he showed on the diagram the different points of interest.

“You followed carefully the directions in this paper, which has been read to the court, did you not?”
“Yes.”

“Leave out the eight minutes in the wardrobe and the time it took to write the notes. How long were you in going through this performance?”
“Eighteen and a half minutes. We went through the scenes exactly as laid down in this paper and quickly as we possibly could, at the same time reading the instructions.”

“Now add the eight minutes in the wardrobe, and ten minutes for the writing of the four notes. What time would that make for the whole business?”
“Thirty-six and a half minutes.”

HOOPER CROSS-EXAMINES.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“Where did you start this performance?” he inquired.

“First we made an inspection trip through the basement and saw the place where they told us the body was found.”

“Where did you start your calculating?”
“At the top of the stairs.”

“And you read out the directions, did you?”

“No, I held a watch in my hand and Mr. Haas and Mr. Wilson read the paper.”

“Oh,” remarked Mr. Hooper, showing mild surprise. “Mr. Haas was with you?”
“Yes.”

“Who played the part of Conley?”
“Mr. Brandt took the part of Conley.”

The witness continued: “The others followed him and gave directions, except sometimes when the directions were anticipated.”

“Then if a man had been doing this of his own volition, the time would have been shorter?”
“Somewhat shorter, though not much,” said the witness.

“And you didn’t have the men in the two principal roles very much excited and anticipating some one catching them, did you?”
“No.”

“You went through it slowly and deliberately, did you?”
“I wouldn’t say so.”

“Tell us about tying up the body.”

“Well, Mr. Brandt made motions like he was tying it up.”

“Did he let the body fall?”
“Oh, yes,” said the witness.

“He didn’t have to jump out of the way of the blood, did he?” inquired Mr. Hooper.

“No.”

“The knots didn’t come untied, did they?” pursued Mr. Hooper.

“No.” The witness went into an explanation that it was a 110-pound sack, or one supposed to weigh that, which they were carrying. There was sawdust in the sack, he said.

“There was no cord around its neck, choking it to death, was there?”
“Oh, no,” said the witness.

The witness declared that the actors of the scenario lost only five or ten seconds time in the whole operation and that was a point where the schedule directed a pause. The witness said they dragged the sack back from the elevator to the point in the basement where the body was found. The witness described the floor of the basement as soft black dirt.

“Then it wouldn’t hurt a body to drag it over that floor?” asked Mr. Hooper.

“Not except at the boiler, where there are some cinders packed down,” said the witness.

Mr. Hooper went into minute detail in questioning the witness about the scenario which he and the others had enacted, in as apparent endeavor to show its unreliability from all angles. To the most of the questions, Dr. Owen replied that the movements were made as quickly as was reasonably possible. Fleming, said he, enacted the part of Frank.

BRANDT’S IDENTITY.

In answer to Attorney Hooper’s questions, Dr. Owens said that he did not know what the occupation of Brandt is, although he has been acquainted with Brandt for some ten or twelve years. He said that Fleming is a contractor.

Attorney Hooper brought out by his questioning that Mr. Fleming helped Brandt to carry the pseudo body along the second floor, letting the ears at the corner of the sack represent Mary Phagan’s feet and her arms. He said that Brandt, in the character of Conley, found just as the negro did, that it was impossible to carry the body on his arm.

There was laughter in court when it was developed from the witness that Mr. Haas was playing the reading part of Frank, whereas Mr. Brandt had the more difficult one of Conley with his hard physical work. The witness testified that another man named Wilson took part in the action. Dr. Owens said he thinks Wilson works at the Atlanta Baggage and Cab company.

“That’s Mr. Haas’ company, isn’t it?” inquired Mr. Hooper.

The witness replied that he did not know. He said that Mr. Fleming is a contractor.

After the body was put on the elevator, Herbert Schiff pulled the rope, the witness said.

“What character was Mr. Schiff playing in the scene?” asked Mr. Hooper.

“He just pulled the elevator rope. He was the elevator boy,” said the witness. The witness told about all of them riding down on the elevator, he holding a watch all the time, and about the sack being dragged back to where the body was discovered.

“You had to stop in the basement to read the directions, didn’t you?”
“Yes, I do recall that we had to stop.”

“What did you read them by?”
“There was an electric light down there, and a gas jet was lit.”

The witness was then examined in considerable detail as to just where he stood while he read the directions.

“When you stopped to read the directions, the procession stopped, too, didn’t it?”
“No; I went on ahead myself and read the directions.”

“How many men went down into the basement?”
“I believe there were five in all.”

“When you got down in front of the boiler, was the body being carried or dragged?”
“Now let me see. I don’t believe I recall.”

CARRYING OUT SCHEME.

“You were trying to carry out their scheme, were you?”
“Yes. It was furnished to me as a copy of the testimony Conley gave here in court.”

“How was the body carried after you left the elevator? Was it carried bodily or was it dragged?”
“I don’t believe I can recall exactly, although I know it was carried one time and dragged the other time, although I can’t remember whether it was dragged or carried first.”

“How was the body carried the time you did carry it?”
“It was carried in ‘Conley’s’ arms across his abdomen.” (Laughter in court.) “I should say the time was about the same in both cases, when it was carried and when it was dragger [sic].”

“Do you think you could drag the body as fast as you could carry it, doctor?”
“Yes, I think so.”

“Really, now, doctor, you can’t remember positively whether the body was dragged either time, can you?”

“Yes, I am positive it was dragged one time.”

“What did Conley do then, after he had disposed of the body?”

WHICH FRANK?

“He wiped his hands and came away.”

“Which one of the ‘Franks’ was it that hit up against ‘Conley?’”
“I don’t recall which ‘Frank’ it was. It was dark in the elevator.”

“Did you stop below the second floor?”

“Yes, we stopped just below the second floor and ‘Frank’—I think he was being played by Haas this time—fell with a perceptible sprawl.”

Mr. Hooper continued the cross-examination of the witness with the evidence intention not of trapping the witness seriously, but of showing up the performance as a farce.

The witness was not certain which was the private office of Frank, the one they first entered or the one they entered later. One of the passages in the scenario contained a statement, “All of a sudden Mr. Frank looked out the door and exclaimed.” Mr. Hooper laid comical stress on this in the numerous questions that he put to the witness about it.

DIDN’T LIGHT CIGARETTE.

The witness admitted that they did not have other people to take other parts in Conley’s story. Mr. Hooper brought cut from the witness each transition of “Frank” from Haas (the reading Frank) to Fleming (the acting Frank). Mr. Hooper caused the witness to admit that the “Conley” of the performance did not get into the wardrobe because he was too big. Mr. Hooper stressed laughingly the admission that “Conley” forgot to light the cigarette at the proper place in the proceeding. Dr. Owens admitted that he did not time the several pauses made, but that they were all short—from five to ten seconds, he said.

Handing a letter to Dr. Owens which had been received by the foreman of the grand jury, Attorney Hooper asked him if he could identify it as a letter which he had sent. The witness said yes, that he had written it.

“At whose instance?” asked Attorney Hooper.

“Well, partly at the instance of Mr. Leonard Haas and partly at my own.”

Attorney Hooper asked the witness why he had sent it.

Dr. Owens replied that the attitude of the people of Atlanta since the arrest of Frank has been one of prejudice, and that shortly after Frank’s arrest he, the witness, met Leonard Haas on the street and that Haas “said to me—“

Attorney Hooper interrupted, admonishing the witness that he could not detail a conversation. Attorney Arnold contended that the conversation was pertinent and should be heard. Judge Roan ruled with Attorney Hooper.

Attorney Hooper picked up another letter (the third which had been shown to the witness since he came upon the stand) and asked the witness whose name was signed to that.

“A. F. Fleming,” replied the witness.

“Is he the Fleming who helped you stage this play at the pencil factory?” asked Attorney Hooper.

“I don’t know,” said the witness.

Attorney Hooper asked: “Well, you don’t know any other A. F. Fleming, do you?”
The witness replied, “no.”

Attorney Arnold took the witness on re-direct examination. He took from the solicitor the first of the two letters shown together to the witness.

AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE.

“Why did you write this, Dr. Owen?” asked Mr. Arnold.

Attorney Arnold then read the letter. It was to the effect that at the time of writing Dr. Owens believed that out of the people of Atlanta he found very few who believed in the guilt of Leo M. Frank. The letter said that it is the writing of Dr. Owens was discharging what he regarded as his duty, which weighed heavily on his conscience and which he could not forego doing.

“When you went through this pantomime, you didn’t stop to laugh like my friend Hooper, did you?”

“No, sir.”

“It was given as Conley’s testimony, and if it was absurd it was not your fault was it?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Hooper asked: “Who dictated this letter?”
“I did,” replied the witness.

He added that he had submitted it to a prominent local jurist before sending it, to see if he had a legal and a moral right to do so.

The witness was excused. Judge Roan announced that he would like to have another witness called, although the hour was 5:40. The name of Charles Lee was called as the defense’ next witness, but its owner was not to be found, nor was any other witness there. Some mysterious person had gone upstairs and excused the whole flock.

“I had a whole carload of witnesses up there, your honor,” said Mr. Arnold. “A hundred of them. But they’re gone now.”

Court then adjourned until 9 o’clock Thursday.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 14th 1913, “Court Stirred by Outburst from Leo Frank’s Mother,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)