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

Atlanta Constitution
Wednesday, August 20th, 1913

Miss Nellie Wood, a former employee of the National Pencil factory, whom the state claims left there because on the second day she was there when Leo Frank got her into his office and made indecent proposals to her, was put on the stand following the McKnight negro.

After bitter wrangles with the jury out of the courtroom, Judge Roan ruled that the woman could not tell that Frank had made these proposals to her, but that all she could tell about was what she had heard others say in regard to his character before the day of the murder. It was a severe blow to the state and only came after Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Hooper bad Invoked every point they knew to fight HH. Mr. Dorsey declared that the court had allowed the defense to ask the factory girls If Frank had ever on any occasion made Improper proposals to them and that now he refused to let the state ask the same question of the witness on the stand.

Mr. Dorsey also declared that this decision would also keep him from putting up a witness later lo swear that he had seen Frank in an Indecent position with a woman in a dark part of the factory.

 Judge Roan replied that he did not know about that, but that he would wait until that subject was taken up.

The jury was then brought back.

“Miss Wood, where do you live?” asked the solicitor.   

“In Ormewood park,” she replied.

“Do you know the general character of Leo Frank up to and including April 26, 1913?”

The witness began to say she knew a little about it, but the defense contended and were upheld, that she must answer yes or no.

Miss Wood then said: “No.”

“I’ve been misled by this witness,” said Mr. Dorsey.

“What was it you told me in my office?” he continued, when the defense got that ruled out also. Mr. Dorsey then declared that he wanted to refresh her memory, but Judge Roan ruled against him in everything he suggested and with rather a crestfallen air, he said: “That will’ do.”  

“Come down, come down!” shouted Attorney Rosser quickly, and the witness left the room.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 20th 1913, “State Suffers a Severe Blow When Testimony is Ruled Out,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey, in a characteristic pose, examining a witness. On Solicitor Dorsey is placed dependence for the solving of the puzzling Phagan slaying case. He is making every effort to unravel the mystery.

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

NO REAL SOLUTION OF PHAGAN SLAYING MYSTERY

EVIDENCE AGAINST MEN NOW HELD IN BAFFLING CASE WEAK, SAYS OLD POLICE REPORTER

Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, May 11^th, 1913

Detectives in Coroner’s Jury Probe Admit They Have Nothing on Which to Convict Anyone in Mysterious Tragedy of Atlanta.

TESTIMONY BROUGHT OUT NO INCRIMINATING POINTS

BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

The most sensational testimony offered at the Coroner’s inquest in the Phagan case was lost sight of entirely by the newspapers.

Juror Langford asked Detective Black, who was on the witness stand: “Have you discovered any positive information as to who committed this murder?”

Detective Black replied, “No, sir, I have not!”

Coroner Donehoo asked Detective Scott of the Pinkerton force on the witness stand:

“Have you any definite information which makes you suspect any party of this crime?”

Detective Scott replied, “I would not commit myself. I am working on a chain of circumstances. Detective Black has been with me all the time on the case and he knows about the circumstances I refer to.”

As you read this over and consider it carefully, you will be impressed by the fact that the two most important detectives engaged for a period of two weeks on the Phagan case testify under oath that they have no positive information as to who committed the crime—in fact really know nothing about it at all.

I am setting down here my own thoughts and ideas, without intending the slightest disrespect to any official, and further, I believe I am at liberty to do so because of Scott’s and Black’s testimony.

MYSTERY STILL WITHOUT SOLUTION.

In The Sunday American of last week I published an article saying that the developments of the preceding week had led nowhere, and that the mystery was then as dark and deep as any mystery that ever puzzled police and detectives.

I can only repeat this statement to-day. I am not in the confidence of any of the detectives, of Solicitor Dorsey, or of Coroner Donehoo, or any of the persons engaged in the attempt to unravel the crime.

I know what the average newspaper readers knows—no more, no less. I walk about the streets a great deal, I ride on the cars and met a great many people who talk about the terrible affair, and I believe I am right in saying that the consensus of opinion now is that the police and detectives are very far indeed from solving the mystery.

In making this statement I do not wish to be understood as casting reflections upon the police or detective force. The men engaged on the case are well-meaning, but of limited experience, and they may have made mistakes.

The infallible detective, like the indispensible man, does not exist.

All detectives are not “man catchers,” and many detectives employ very stupid methods in their work. They can see the obvious things, but they lack imagination. Their minds work like a circular saw, and a knotty problem sometimes stops their minds from working entirely, just as a tangle of knots in a plank being sawed puts the saw out of business.

I pay my respects here to Coroner Donehoo in the way he has handled the case. His examinations of witnesses showed unusual intelligence. His questions were searching and he exhibited a zeal in the public welfare that must not be overlooked. But Coroner Donehoo is not a Sherlock Holmes. He performed his function under the law in a creditable manner. He really wasted hours in asking questions that might have been spared except that there was always a hope that a blind question might catch a witness off-guard and there would be an ensuing revelation.

What did the Coroner’s inquiry develop?

Take first the case of Lee. The testimony against him is that he is the only person KNOWN to have been in the pencil factory, after 6:30 o’clock in the evening until the body was discovered.

Frank testified that he found three “skips” in the clock tape Lee should have punched.

Sergeant R. J. Brown testified that Lee could not have seen the body from the place the night watchman told him he first saw it.

Sergeant L. S. Dobbs testified that Lee, without suggestion from any one, said that the words “night witch” in one of the notes found near the body of the dead girl meant “night watchman.”

F. M. Berry, assistant cashier at the Fourth National Bank, testified that the notes found near the body were in his opinion written by Lee.

Detectives told of finding a shirt with blood stains near the right shoulder in a barrel at the rear of Lee’s house. The indications were that the shirt never had been worn, however.

TESTIMONY FAVORING LEE.

Testimony favoring Lee is that he was not alone in the building until after 6:30 o’clock, and that it can not reasonably be supposed that he would have been able to lure the girl to the factory by any means after this time, or even that the girl would have been alone in that vicinity at that time. There is no evidence to account for her whereabouts between 12:10 and 6:30 o’clock.

Lee’s own testimony was that he did not know the girl and that he never saw her until he came upon the body in the basement of the factory shortly before 3 o’clock Sunday morning.

W. W. Rogers testified that Lee did not appear excited. Other officers who went to the factory Sunday morning corroborated this testimony.

These circumstances conflict with what is known of Lee’s nature. The natural course for Lee, had he been the culprit, it is argued, would have been instant flight.

The framing of the notes to divert suspicion, according to the testimony of persons familiar with the negro nature, was too subtle a plan to suggest itself to Lee’s mind.

What was developed against Frank?

The principal points brought out connecting him with the crime were:

He was the last person known to have seen Mary Phagan. By his own testimony, he saw her at 12:10 Saturday afternoon, April 26, when she appeared at the factory to get her pay. No one was able to swear she was seen after that time.

G. W. Epps, Jr., a boy friend of the Phagan girl, testified that Mary had told him Frank had waited at the door when she left the factory one day and winked at her and tried to flirt. Epps rode to town with her the day she went to the factory to get her money, and was to meet her again at 4 o’clock at Five Points. She did not appear, lending strength to the theory that she never left the factory after once going to get her pay.

FRANK’S CONDUCT WITH GIRLS.

Thomas Blackstock, a former employee, testified that he had seen Frank attempt liberties with girls in the factory.

Nellie Pettis, 9 Oliver Street, testified that Frank had made improper advances to her when she went to get her sister-in-law’s pay at the factory. She said he pulled out a box of money from a drawer and looked at her and then the money and asked: “How about it?”

Mrs. C. D. Donegan, 165 West Fourteenth Street, said she had seen Frank smile and flirt with the girls in his employ.

Nellie Wood, 8 Corput Street, testified that Frank had attempted familiarities with her in his office, and had put his hands on her and had tried to persuade her to remain with him in his office.

Frank testified that he was at the factory Saturday afternoon from 12 to 1 o’clock and from 3 to 6:30 o’clock. Harry Denham, Arthur White and White’s wife were in the factory part of the afternoon, the two men until 3:10. From 3:10 until 3:45 Frank was alone in the factory. Then Newt Lee came and was told by Frank to take the remainder of the afternoon off until 6 o’clock. From about 4 o’clock until 6, Frank again was alone in the factory, so far as the testimony showed.

Lee testified that the crime could not have been committed in the night without his knowledge, as he had gone past the lathe machine on the second floor, where the struggle is believed to have taken place, twice every half hour on his regular rounds.

Lee testified that Frank appeared greatly agitated when he met him at the door of the factory office just before 4 o’clock. He said that Frank seemed nervous and was rubbing his hands in an excited fashion.

J. M. Gantt, a former employee who happened to be in the factory at 6 o’clock, testified that Frank appeared nervous and apprehensive at this time.

UNABLE TO REACH FRANK AT 3.

Call Officer Anderson testified that he tried to telephone Frank at his home after the police had viewed the body at 3 o’clock Sunday morning, but that he could not get him.

W. W. Rogers, former county policeman, who carried the officers in his automobile to the scene of the murder and later to get Frank, testified that Frank, when he saw the officers, began to ask them if “anything had happened at the factory?” and if the night watchman had “found anything” when nothing had been told him at that time as to the tragedy.

Rogers said he saw Frank remove the time slip from the time clock which Lee had punched. Rogers said that there were no “skips” on it, but that it was punched regularly every half hour from 6:30 in the evening until 2:30 the next morning. It was shortly after 2:30 o’clock that Lee told the officers he had found the body. The time slip which later was turned over to Chief Lanford by Frank had three “skips” in it.

Three of the detectives working on the Phagan case, and some of the events in the gruesome slaying. The sleuths are (from left to right: J. N. Starnes, Harry Scott, Pinkerton operative, and John Black.

Lee testified that Frank had told him the Sunday the body was found that the clock was punched all right and later contradicted himself by saying there were three “skips” in it, and that it “looked queer.”

Lee testified that Frank had told him in a private conference that “they would both go to hell” if Lee maintained his present attitude.

Harry Scott, Pinkeron detective, bore out Lee on this point.

I am inclined to classify this as negative testimony.

Frank is reached and held through a process of elimination.

Testimony pointing toward the innocence of Frank was that of Frank himself.

He said that he had not known Mary Phagan by name before her murder; that he recalled paying her at 12:10 Saturday afternoon, but that she left his office at once and he heard her footsteps dying away as though she had left the building. He said he remained at the factory until 1 o’clock in the afternoon and then went to his home for luncheon, returning about 3 o’clock. He said that he was entirely alone from 4 o’clock until 6, and that he arrived home at 7 in the evening, where he remained. He declared he knew nothing of the tragedy until the following morning. He said that he dreamed during the night that some one was ringing the telephone, but that he did not fully awaken. In this manner he explained his failure to answer the telephone.

Harry Denham, one of the men in the factory Saturday afternoon until 3:10 o’clock, testified that Frank did not appear nervous or agitated when he saw him.

F. M. Berry, assistant cashier of the Fourth National Bank, testified that the notes found by the side of Mary Phagan did not appear to be in the handwriting of Frank.

Lemmie Quinn testified that he was in the office of Frank Saturday afternoon between 12:15 and 12:30, and that he did not see Mary Phagan in the office or anywhere else in the building.

Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Frank’s parents-in-law, corroborated the story of Frank’s movements during the day.

Quinn and other men in the factory testified that they never had seen Frank many any improper advances toward the girls, but that on the contrary he had been most courteous when he had any personal dealings with them, which was not frequently.

Miss Corinthia Hall, one of the employees, said she never had observed Frank attempt any liberties with any of the girls.

Herbert Schiff, chief clerk in the factory, testified that the work which Frank accomplished Saturday afternoon on the financial sheet would have taken any expert five or six hours.

EVIDENCE IS NOT CONVINCING.

I ask would YOU consider this very convincing in the case of either man?

I do not.

But after the Coroner’s inquest the case assumes a new form. The whole matter now rests in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey. I have never met him. All that I heard about him is in his favor. But he has never shown any unusual skill as a detective. He knows criminal law, and he will proceed along the regular lines of bringing the whole matter to the attention of the Grand Jury, and indicting both Frank and Lee. Then will come the trial.

If Detectives Scott and Black are reported accurately in their testimony, as quoted at the beginning of this article, then the prosecution in my opinion has very little upon which to base a successful trial of either of the men now held for the crime. Lee came through the cross-questioning without any discredit at all. The points made against Frank are not of much importance. They may foreshadow something big. They were, of course, sufficient to warrant the Coroner’s Jury in holding him for the Grand Jury.

An indictment by the Grand Jury does not mean that a person is guilty. Far from it.

CRIME SHOULD BE UNRAVELED.

I hope Solicitor Dorsey will be able to unravel the great mystery, and that he will have evidence enough to convince—not only a jury of twelve men, but the entire community as well, of the guilt or innocence of whatever persons, Frank, Lee or others who may yet be caught in the net, of the murder of the innocent little girl.

An indictment by the Grand Jury is a very important legal document. It must be air tight, and held together by such a strong chain of evidence that it can not be broken anywhere. It has to run the whole gauntlet of the law. An imperfect indictment falls of its own weight.

For the battle really begins—not before a Coroner’s Jury, but in the court room, where the law and the facts have precedence over everything else.

When the prosecution in the Phagan case goes into court, it will be faced by one of the best lawyers in the South.

Luther Z. Rosser, big of frame, big of intellect, big in the knowledge of the law and schooled in all the intricacies of its machinery, will be at the opposing counsel’s table, making a battle for his client, turning evidence with his shield from the lance of Mr. Dorsey, sifting every piece of evidence for the jury, challenging every inch of the law to the judge.

And I am told, that he is skillful with the use of the broad sword as he is deft with the rapier.

I am writing thus freely, for the reason that the two detectives, quoted at the beginning of this article, in their testimony gave me the right to discuss the matter in the columns of the newspapers as I am doing.

PRECEDENT HAS NOT YET BEEN VIOLATED.

This is no violation of precedent. It is not for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of any person. It is solely because I am trying to set down what I believe to be the thoughts running through the minds of the average man and woman.

Frank and Lee may be guilty, but it would require a great deal more evidence than has been published in the newspapers to convince me of it.

It may be that Mr. Dorsey has a mass of evidence to present to the jury when it confronts the accused in open court, and overwhelm the defense with sensation after sensation and buttressed fact after buttressed fact.

I do not know whether this is so or not. I give my own opinion for what it is worth. What the detectives and police now have against Frank and Lee at this moment is apparently worthless.

Any day or any hour may bring forth new suspects and the real criminals.

I can not help but sympathize with Frank in being held as he is on the very slight evidence presented against him. At the moment, it would seem as though he were a victim of circumstance and that he would have to take the consequences that follow being the superintendent of the factory and the last person who is said to have seen Mary Phagan alive. And consequences, as George Eliot said, are unpitying.

FRANK’S PAST IN HIS FAVOR.

I said in my article in last Sunday’s American that what is known of Frank’s past is in his favor. I reiterate that. He is a college graduate, a man of culture, has traveled considerably, and stands well among his friends.

Public Opinion that first condemned Lee, then Frank, then both of them, then was ready summarily to dispose of them without waiting for the process of the law, is calmer to-day and anxious for the facts.

I do not mean by this that I believe Public Opinion would acquit Frank without a trial, for the belief prevails that not all of the evidence has been made public. But Public Opinion is willing to “play fair” and hear the facts.

I hope Solicitor Dorsey will continue his investigation while he is weaving his web around Frank and Lee. It may be that they are not guilty. It may be that some other person or persons committed the ghastly deed. It is worth while for our alert prosecutor to watch in all directions for the criminals.

And it may be well for our citizens to keep their minds open and receptive, not acquitting or condemning anybody, no matter of what color, race or creed, until all the facts are known.

We can afford to be patient—even with THE LAW.

The great professor Drummond once asked a little girl to a Glasgow Sunday school for a definition of patience. She replied: “To wait a-wheel, an dinna get weary, to keep yer mouth shut and yer eyes open!”

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 11th 1913, “Weak Evidence Against Men in Phagan Slaying,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Miss Nellie Pettis, at top, who testified against Frank at the inquest. At the bottom, Mrs. Lillie Pettis, her sister-in-law, former employee at the pencil factory.

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

Atlanta Georgian

Friday, May 9^th, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Says He Has Secured Powerful Aid in Search for Slayer of Girl—Woman Says She Heard Screams in Pencil Factory.

Shelby Smith, chairman of the Fulton commission, declared Friday afternoon that the board would back Solicitor Dorsey in any and all expense he might incur in the state’s exhaustive investigation into the Phagan murder mystery. Smith said;

“We have instructed Dorsey to obtain the best possible detective skill for his probe and he would be backed by the county commission to the last ditch in the money the spent.

“The fact that he hired a good detective Friday is news to me, but he has the sanction and backing of the board in the matter.”

HIRE’S BEST DETECTIVE, HE SAYS.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey said Friday afternoon that he had the best detective in America working on the mystery of the Mary Phagan strangling.

Important developments had ensued already, he declared, and he was confident that an early solution of the case would be reached by the new expert of national reputation who had been placed at work on the clews.

The solicitor is understood  to have the affidavit of a woman who swears that she heard a girl’s screams as she was passing the factory at 4:30 o’clock the afternoon of the tragedy. The cries were shrill and piercing, she says, and died away as she stopped an instant to listen.

The woman was sure they came from inside the factory, but she gave little attention to her startling experience until she read of the strangling of Mary Phagan. Then it occurred to her that she very likely had heard the dying cries of the little girl and she reported the matter to the authorities.

Solicitor Dorsey, as his first action after the holding of Leo M. Frank and Newt Lee to the Grand Jury for the murder of Mary Phagan, put out the dragnet for witnesses.

A batch of subpoenas were issued for the witnesses to appear in his office to give testimony in the case of “The State vs. John Doe.”

After a long conference with Detective Starnes and Campbell, Solicitor Dorsey asserted that action on the part of the Grand Jury might be expected any time after Friday. He plainly intimated that a special session of the jury might be convened Saturday to consider the Phagan murder.

The Solicitor declared as he left the court house with a private detective whose name he refused to divulge that he anticipated the development of startling evidence before night, which, he said, would clear matters materially.

Dorsey Questions Newt Lee.

With the private detective the Solicitor went to the Tower and was closeted with Newt Lee, the night watchman, for more than an hour.

The form of the subpoena is taken to mean that many of the witnesses will submit their sworn testimony before the Solicitor General, who will thus have it in documentary form, instead of going before the Grand Jury to give oral testimony. However, it will be necessary for the material or indicting witnesses to go before the Grand Jurors in person.

“The investigation has just begun,” said Chief of Detectives Lanford Friday, in discussing the action of the Coroner’s jury. “We were confident we had presented sufficient evidence to warrant the holding of the two suspects in the case, but we will have much more when the case gets into the courts.

Have Strong Theory Already.

“We are going to continue right on with the investigation and try to dig down to the full truth of the mystery. We have a strongly supported theory as to who committed the crime, but we are ready at any time to change our opinions as soon as the evidence points in another direction.

“It will be possible, with the rush and hurry of the Coroner’s jury

PHAGAN CASE TO BE RUSHED TO GRAND JURY BY DORSEY

passed, for my men to work with more deliberation and care and to sift with a greater thoroughness every bit of evidence that comes into their possession. Even if nothing new should develop, we have enough leads to keep half a dozen detectives busy for a week.”

Detectives Rosser, Campbell, Black, Starnes and Bullard are still working with the chief on the case and probably will continue until the mystery is cleared.

Lemmie Quinn, foreman in the tipping department at the National Pencil factory, was the first of the witnesses to be examined by the Solicitor. He was in Mr. Dorsey’s office a considerable part of the forenoon and underwent a rigorous examination.

New Witnesses Sought.

Detectives Starnes and Campbell also were with the Solicitor, and two of the Solicitor’s assistants. Newton Garner and Dan Goodlin were dispatched the first thing in the morning to hunt up new witnesses of whom Mr. Dorsey had information.

Foreman Quinn was called, it is understood, to clear up the discrepancies in his testimony and the statement he is said to have made to the detectives and to several of his acquaintances. In his testimony before the Coroner’s jury he declared that he visited the factory between 12:10 and 12:30 o’clock, the afternoon of the killing of Mary Phagan. He said he talked with Frank for two minutes in the superintendent’s office.

Detectives declared that Quinn had told them and other persons that he did not visit the factory at all Saturday and that he was not there from the time he left Friday until the following Monday.

Frank Expected To Be Held.

“That’s about what I expected at this time,” was the comment with which Leo M. Frank, with little trace of emotion, received the news of the action of the Coroner’s jury Thursday night.

Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor was the officer who informed both Frank and Newt Lee that the jury had recommended that they be held under charges of murder for further investigation by the Fulton County Grand Jury.

The night watchman received the news indifferently and had nothing to say.

Frank and Lee are held under charges of murder, as the following verdict of the Coroner’s jury will show:

Atlanta, Ga., May 8, 1913.

We, the Coroner’s jury, impaneled and sworn by Paul Donehoo, Coroner of Fulton County, to inquire into the cause of the death of Mary Phagan, whose dead body now lies before us, after having heard the evidence of sworn witnesses, and the statement of Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, find that the deceased came to her death from strangulation. We recommend that Leo M. Frank and Newt Lee be held under charges of murder for further investigation by the Fulton County Grand Jury.

(Signed)

HOMER C. ASHFORD, Foreman.

DR. J. W. HURT, County Physician.

Solicitor Dorsey said Friday he would give the Phagan case all of his attention and present his evidence to the Grand Jury as quickly as possible.

The solicitor has shown an anxiety to avoid delays of any nature in hunting down the slayer of the Phagan girl, and now that the Coroner’s jury has turned the case over to the Solicitor and the Grand Jury it may be taken for granted that the investigation will be hurried along with all possible speed.

Case in State’s Hands.

“The case now is fully in the hands of the State,” said the Solicitor Friday morning. “It will not be presented to the Grand Jury Friday, but I shall endeavor to present it at the earliest possible moment. The instant that I have a complete case I shall bring it to the attention of the Grand Jury. It is my desire to bring the slayer of Mary Phagan to justice with the greatest dispatch. A great crime has been done and I am no less eager to see the guilt determined than the general public.”

It required the Coroner’s jury about twenty minutes to frame its formal verdict Thursday night. The jurors received a brief charge from Coroner Donehoo and filed from the Commissioners’ room in the police station at 6:08 o’clock. At 6:28 they were back with their verdict.

Coroner Donehoo admonished the jurors to be as ready to hold a person who they thought might be withholding information of the crime as to hold a person they regarded as the possible culprit. A person possessing knowledge of the crime and withholding it, he said, was an accessory after the fact.

An immediate hush fell on the packed room when the jurors returned. There was a dead silence except for the voice of Homer C. Ashford, foreman of the jury, when the verdict was read.

Girls Testify Against Frank.

The most damaging testimony against Frank in regard to his treatment of employees at his factory was saved until the last hours of the hearing. Girls and women were called to the stand to testify that they had been employed at the factory or had had occasion to go there, and that Frank had attempted familiarities with them.

Nellie Pettis, of 9 Oliver Street, declared that Frank had made improper advances on her. She was asked if she ever had been employed at the pencil factory.

“No,” she answered.

Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. I have seen him once or twice.

Q. When and where did you see him?—A. In his office at the factory whenever I went to draw my sister-in-law’s pay.

Q. What did he say to you that might have been improper on any of these visits?—A. He didn’t exactly say—he made gestures. I went to get sister’s pay about four weeks ago and when I went into the office of Mr. Frank I asked for her. He told me I couldn’t see her unless “I saw him first.”

Says He Winked at Her.

“I told him I didn’t want to ‘see him.’ He pulled a box from his desk. It had a lot of money in it. He looked at it significantly and then looked at me. When he looked at me, he winked. As he winked he said: ‘How about it?’

“I instantly told him I was a nice girl.”

Here the witness stopped her statement. Coroner Donehoo asked her sharply:

“Didn’t you say anything else?”

“Yes, I did! I told him to go to h—l! and walked out of his office.”

Thomas Blackstock, who said that he was employed at the factory about a year ago testified as follows:

Tells of Frank’s Conduct.

Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?—A. Yes.

Q. How long have you known him?—A. About six weeks.

Q. Did you ever observe his conduct toward female employees of the pencil factory?—A. Yes. I’ve often seen him picking on different girls.

Q. Name some.—A. I can’t exactly recollect names.

Q. What was the conduct you noticed particularly?

The witness answered to the effect that he had seen him place his hands with undue familiarity upon the person of girls.

Q. See it often?—A. A half dozen times, maybe. He generally was seen to become that familiar while he was touring the building.

Q. Can’t you name just one girl?—A. Yes. Magnolia Kennedy.

Q. Did you see him act with undue familiarity toward her?—A. No. I heard talk about it.

Q. Before or after the murder?—A. Afterward.

“Girls Tried to Avoid Him.”

Q. When did you observe this misconduct of which you have told?—A. A year ago.

Q. Did you hear complaints around the plant?—A. No. The girls tried to avoid him.

Mrs. C. D. Donegan said she was connected with the pencil plant for three weeks. Her capacity was that of forelady. She resides at 165 West Fourteenth Street with her husband.

Her testimony follows:

“State your observations of Frank’s conduct toward the girls and women of the plant.”

“I have noticed him smile and wink at the girls in the place. That was two years ago.”

“Did you make a statement to the detectives of undue familiarity you had witnessed?”

“I told them that I had seen Frank flirt with the girls and women—that was all I said.”

Charges Familiarities.

The testimony of Nellie Wood, a young girl of 8 Corput Street, came next.

In brief it was this:

Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. I worked for him two days.

Q. Did you observe any misconduct on his part?—A. Well, his actions didn’t suit me. He’d come around and put his hands on me when such conduct was entirely uncalled for.

Q. Is that all he did?—A. No. He asked me one day to come into his office, saying that he wanted to talk to me. He tried to close the door, but I wouldn’t let him. He got too familiar by getting so close to me. He also put his hands on me.

Q. Where did he put his hands?—A. He barely touched my breast. He was subtle with his approaches, and tried to pretend that he was joking but I was too wary for such as that.

Quit His Employ.

Q. Did he try further familiarities?—A. Yes.

Q. When did this happen?—A. Two years ago.

Q. What did you tell him when you left his employ?—A. I just quit, telling him that it didn’t suit me.

Frank’s testimony was looked forward to with keen interest, but when he was called to the stand in the afternoon, he merely answered additional questions as to his movements on the day of the crime and failed to add materially to the evidence in hand.

He appeared pale and haggard from his imprisonment, but he replied to all of the questions clearly and showed no hesitation or apparent fear. He was asked:

Testimony of Frank.

Q. What kind of elevator door is there to the shaft in the pencil factory?—A. Sliding doors.

Q. How many?—A. One on each floor.

Q. Are they latticed or solid?—A. Solid.

Q. Where was the elevator at 12 o’clock Saturday?—A. I did not notice.

Q. Were the doors open or closed?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. What protection would a person have from falling down the shaft if the doors were left open?—A. A bar which projects across the opening.

Q. After the crime was committed, where did the elevator stand?—A. I only know where it stood Sunday morning. It then was on the second floor.

Didn’t File Time Tape.

Q. When you last removed the tape from the time clock, what did you do with it?—A. Handed it to an officer in the building.

Q. Did you put it on file?—A. No.

Q. Are you sure?—A. Yes, positive.

Q. Do you remember a party at your house on the night of April 26?—A. Yes.

Q. Can you name the guests?—A. I don’t remember them all.

Q. When the police came to bring you down to the factory that Sunday morning, what was said about whisky?—A. I said I wanted something warm to drink. One of the detectives suggested whisky.

Q. What time was it?—A. Between 7:30 and 8 o’clock.

Says He Viewed Body.

Q. What did you say about dreaming?—A. I said to someone that I thought I had dreamed of hearing the telephone ring in the dead of night.

Q. When you went to the undertakers’, did you go in the water closet instead of the room in which the body lay?—A. No.

Q. Did you view the body?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you recognize the girl?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you first hear her name?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. What time did you return home that Sunday afternoon?—A. I don’t recollect.

Q. Did you telephone your wife before your return?—A. Yes.

Q. Was the murder discussed at home that afternoon?—A. Not much.

Q. What topic was discussed?—A. I don’t remember.

Often Does Not Remember.

Q. When did Quinn first mention to you his visit to the factory on the 26^th?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. What did he say?—A. He said, “Don’t you recollect that I was at the factory Saturday about noon?”

Q. What did you tell him about withholding that information until your attorney had been consulted?—A. I don’t remember. I had so many visitors that I couldn’t recollect the exact words.

Q. Who suggested the conference with your attorney relative to Quinn’s visit?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. How long have you known you had counsel?—A. Since Monday.

Q. Why was it mentioned that Quinn’s visit he kept quiet until consultation with your lawyer?—A. I don’t remember.

Explains Locks and Doors.

Q. How can you lock the door between your office and the dressing room where the blood spots were found?—A. I have never seen it locked.

Q. Is it usually open or locked?—A. Closed.

Q. Is there any way of closing the doors on the back stairway?—A. Yes. They are locked.

Q. Describe your telephone conversation with Detective Starnes at the time you were informed of the tragedy?—A. He asked me if I was superintendent of the National Pencil Factory. “I’d like to have you come down here at once,” he said when I informed him that I was Leo Frank. He said he wanted me to identify a girl, and asked me if I knew Mary Phagan.

Q. Didn’t you say that the first time you had heard her name was while you were traveling in the auto on the way to the factory Sunday morning?—A. I don’t recollect that I did.

Q. Did you have any trouble with a girl in your office Saturday morning?—A. No. There was one incident where a mistake had been made in the pay envelope of Mattie Smith, but it was corrected without any trouble.

Tells of Callers at Office.

Q. What time was Mattie Smith in your office?—A. Between 9 and 10 a. m.

Q. Did any one enter while she was there?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. Give the name of every one in the office throughout the day Saturday?—A. Mr. Darley, Mr. Holloway, the office boy, Miss Hall, the stenographer; Mr. Campbell, Mr. Fullerton, Mrs. White, Lemmie Quinn, Mr. Gantt, Emma Clark, another girl employee, Arthur White, Harry Denham, Newt Lee and Mary Phagan.

Q. Did you see May Barrett?—A. I don’t know her.

Q. What did you say to Emma Clark?—A. I don’t remember saying anything to her.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 9th 1913, “Best Detective in America Now is on Case, Says 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 Journal

Friday, May 9^th, 1913

Tom Backstock, of 21 Hightower street, a youth of about sixteen or seventeen years, testified that he worked at the pencil factory about a year ago. He didn’t know Mr. Frank personally, he said, but knew him when he worked at the factory.

“Did you have any opportunity to observe his conduct with the women there?” the lad was asked.

“I saw him ‘pick’ at the girls,” was the reply.

“Who were they?” the coroner asked.

“I couldn’t tell their names now,” he said. “I didn’t work there long enough to get very well acquainted.”

The coroner asked how Mr. Frank had acted and the boy said he had placed his hands on some of them. He didn’t know how many times he had seen this.

In reply he mentioned the name of a girl, but said he had simply heard a rumor since the crime was committed. He knew nothing of his own knowledge.

The witness said he had never heard any of the girls complain, but had seen them trying to get out of Mr. Frank’s way. He worked at the pencil factory about six weeks, he said, and stopped because he found a better position.

Miss Nellie Wood, of 8 Corput street, said that she didn’t know Mr. Frank very well. She had worked at the factory two days about two years ago, she said.

Miss Wood said that she was employed as a forelady. Mr. Frank would come to her and put his hands on her “when it was not called for,” she said.

“Any other girls?” the coroner asked.

“No, sir, not that I saw,” she said.

“Is that all he did?” the coroner asked.

“No, that’s not all,” the witness replied, “He asked me into his office to talk business on the second day I was there. The subject of the conversation was whether I was going to stay there. He wanted to close the door. I objected and he said, ‘Don’t worry. No one is coming.’ He was too familiar. I didn’t like it.”

The witness said that Mr. Frank attempted familiarity and then tried to pass it off as a joke, but that she told him she was “too old for that.”

Mrs. C. D. Donegan, of 165 West Fourteenth street, said that she worked at the factory about three weeks two years ago. She said that Mr. Frank had smiled and winked at the girls, but never more than that. She denied that she had told Detective Scott anything more than this.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 9th 1913, “Character Witnesses are Called in the Case by City Detectives,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)