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

Atlanta Constitution
August 4^th, 1913

Secretary of State Board of Health Will Resume Testimony Interrupted by His Collapse on Last Friday.

STATE TO USE PHOTO OF SPOT WHERE BODY WAS FOUND BY NEGRO

Friends and Relatives Besiege Prisoner in Cell on Sunday. Shows Little Evidence of Strain of Trial, Say Jail Officials.

The state will open this afternoon’s session of the Frank trial with Dr. Roy Harris on the stand, it is stated, if the physician’s health is as much improved as it was on Sunday.

The solicitor had not finished his examination of Dr. Harris on Friday afternoon when he collapsed upon the stand and necessitated the support of Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner in moving from the courtroom.

A sharp clash is expected between the state and defense over Dr. Harris’ testimony. In an exacting cross examination of Dr. J. W. Hurt Saturday morning, the defense proved that many of the opinions held by the two physicians were conflicting.

State Will Use Photo.

The solicitor has requested a reporter of The Constitution to produce in court this morning a photograph taken by The Constitution staff photographer on the morning of the discovery of the murder of the spot in the pencil factory basement at which Mary Phagan’s body was found. Just what use to which the picture will be put has not been divulged.

Arrangements have been made by Deputy Miner to prevent overcrowding the courtroom, which has been the case in the later sessions of the trial. Instructions will be given doorkeepers to let only a certain number within the building, after which the doors will be closed to all those who are not engaged in the proceedings.

Frank spent a restful Sunday in his cell in the Tower. Throughout the day, friends and relatives besieged his cell. His health, it is stated by jail officials, is good, and he shows but little evidence of the strain caused by the trial. His wife and mother remained at home during the day, recuperating from the effects of the long hours stay in the courtroom. They did not appear at the jail at any time during Sunday.

Will Use Dobbs Again.

Police Sergeant L. S. Dobbs, who has already been on the stand for the state in the Frank trial, is expected to be recalled this morning, as his name was called Saturday afternoon and his absence alone prevented him being used again.

What further detail the state expects to bring out by the police officer is not known and it may be that he will be kept on the stand only a few minutes to tell a few additional things about the trip to the factory Sunday morning that the body was found and thus impress certain facts upon the jury.

Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, will be placed on the stand some time during the early part of the week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday, as the state is gradually paving the way and leading up to Conley’s statement.

Will Lanford Take Stand?

Before Conley takes the stand Newport Lanford, chief of the detective department, may be put up. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey refuses to say definitely whether or not he will use Chief Lanford, but it is known that the defense has made preparation to attack him and fight against him the same battle that battered John Black to pieces.

Chief Lanford will be confronted with the various statements he made during the progress of the trial and the belief is that the defense will try to show that he went into the case with the view of fastening the crime upon one man the man against whom suspicion did not seem to point for a few days, but who is now the defendant in the case.

Just what will happen when the experienced detective faces the grilling that Luther Rosser is capable of or the alert and confusing questions that Reuben Arnold can fire at a witness is a matter of much speculation.

Mrs. May Barrett, who was examined by the solicitor and who was expected to appear during the trial has not been called upon and whether or not she will take the stand is yet unknown.

Mrs. Formby in Background.

Mrs. Mina Formby has remained in the background thus far and while the woman recently declared that she would be at the trial to testify she has not so far been mentioned and apparently no effort has been made to pave the way for the story she is said to have.

That the state is yet holding something to be used in the final effort is known and yet what that is no one can say. From the attitude of the state’s lawyers something is yet to come but whether it will be of more importance than what has already been developed remains to be seen.

It is expected that at least two days will be taken up by Conley’s statement and cross examination and should the negro be brought up as early as Tuesday and used as the final witness, the defense would not open its case until Thursday.

Already the state has introduced numbers of its witnesses. Sergeant Dobbs, Detective John Black and Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott. Boots Rogers and others who went to the factory and saw the body of Mary Phagan have told their story.

N. V. Darley, one of the factory heads and various employees of the factory have been used.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 4th 1913, “Dr. H.F. Harris Will Take Stand This Afternoon,” 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
July 22, 1913

Hearing of Crawford Case May Conflict

Conference Planned to Decide Which Shall Take Precedence. Ready to Draw Venire.

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Leo M. Frank, announced Tuesday that he proposed to seek a conference of the attorneys in the Frank case and in the Crawford will hearing to determine which case should be postponed next Monday, the date set for the beginning of the trial of Frank on the charge of slaying Mary Phagan.

Mr. Arnold, Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, both also are attorneys in the Crawford will case, and it would be impossible on this account to conduct the two cases simultaneously. The Crawford hearing will resume Wednesday before a special auditor in a branch of the Superior Court, and undoubtedly will be in progress next week if it is not stopped by a postponement.

The will hearing, because of the fact that it already is under way, would have a natural precedence over the Frank trial. This may be waived, however, in order to take up the Phagan mystery.

None of the attorneys for the defense will say that they intend to ask for a postponement of the Frank trial, but the hot weather and the fact that the Crawford case is in progress at this time appear to be combining to bring about such a consummation.

Judge Roan has stated that the case would be called Monday, but he probably will accede to the request for a conference some day this week to discuss the matter.

Court Likely to Accede.

Attorney Arnold will ask that the jurymen be not summoned until a definite decision is reached as to which of the cases is to take precedence.

When Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner arranged to install twelve large electric fans in the courtroom for the Frank trial Tuesday morning, he said there would be no excuse for a postponement on the grounds of the room being too warm.

“Spectators will not be allowed to crowd into the court,” he said. “The fans will keep it much cooler than the average office building in the city. There are plenty of windows, and the place is always well shaded.”

Despite the reported repudiation of her sensational affidavit that eLo [sic] M. Frank had tried repeatedly on the night of the Mary Phagan murder to secure a room in which to bring a girl, Mrs. Nina Formby declared in Chattanooga Tuesday that she would be in Atlanta on July 28 to testify to her statements when the trial of the pencil factory superintendent opens.

Denies She Retracted.

According to a dispatch from Chattanooga, where the woman has been for several weeks, Mrs. Formby denies having ever retracted from her original declarations which she made to the police, and further stated that she would repeat them on the witness stand.

The police have asserted that Mrs. Formby has been eliminated from the case.

Superior Judge John T. Pendleton prepared Tuesday to draw the 150 veniremen for the trial. This venire will be called next Monday morning unless the weather is unusually warm.

The jury, in all probability, will be selected and served before Wednesday[…]

COURT DIRECTS FRANK VENIRE BE DRAWN
Preparations Are Made to Begin Trial Monday Despite Talk of Delay.

[…] night, according to Judge Pendleton.

Attorney Reuben R. Arnold stated Tuesday morning that he probably would ask Judge Pendleton to draw the venire from the Grand Jury box and that he felt confident he could cite enough law on the subject to sustain his point.

Solicitor to Fight Move.

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey stated that the procedure was altogether irregular, if not illegal, and that he would oppose such a move as strongly as he fought the attempt on the part of the Grand Jury to indict Jim Conley over his protest.

The attorneys on both sides will be notified by telephone when Judge Pendleton begins to draw the venire, and he will allow them to be heard.

Judge L. S. Roan, who will preside at the Frank trial, will not return to Atlanta from Covington until Friday. He announced to a correspondent of The Georgian in Covington that the Frank trial would be called next Monday sure, but he would not commit himself as to whether he would consider any move for postponement after the case was called.

Before leaving for Covington he remarked that if the weather was as hot next Monday as it was last week he would welcome some sufficient ground for postponement.

Both Sides Are Ready.

Attorneys Arnold and Rosser admit they would like to se[e] the trial postponed to escape the ordeal of a hard fight in torrid weather, but state they will be reluctant to ask for delay unless there is some very excellent reason why the case should not go to trial.

Both sides are ready. All the witnesses who will be used are within the jurisdiction of the court and able to attend. The inability of any one of the more than 100 to be in court on the day the case is called would sustain a request for postponement, but the attorneys for the defense made it clear that if any move for postponement for any other reason than the absence of a witness was made, it would come from the other side, or the judge.

Attorney Arnold stated that the failure of the Grand Jury to indict Conley had made little difference to their case, because it had been built before any known move was made to bring about the indictment.

“It made absolutely no difference to us,” he said. “It was purely a technical point in the trial that would have been in our favor. As to the negro’s character and standing, it would make little difference to a fair-minded jury whether he were indicted.”

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Sunday, July 20, 1913

Woman Swore That Leo M. Frank Tried to Engage Room on Night of Murder

Mrs. Nina Formby, who signed an affidavit in the Frank case in which she swore the superintendent has endeavored to engage a room at her house, 400 Piedmont avenue, during the Phagan murder night to which he might bring a girl has fled to Chattanooga and will not appear at the coming trial on July 28. This announcement was made to a Constitution reporter last night by the woman’s legal representative, John Gossett. Gossett states that she is fearful of facing cross examination on some phases of her story.

A letter has been placed on file in Gossett’s office in which the Formby woman asks for a continuance of a trial in which she will be arraigned before a justice court. August or September are the months to which she asks the case be put. The letter says that she will not be in Atlanta until that time. She has obtained a position in the Tennessee city, she says, and intends making Chattanooga her future home.

At first it was intimated that the state would put credence in the affidavit, but on account of the woman’s character it was later considered of but little value.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, July 20th 1913, “Mrs. Nina Formby Will Not Return for Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, June 23, 1913

Defense Has Announced Its Case Is Complete and Judge Roan Is Free.

Prosecuting Attorney Hugh M. Dorsey announced for the State Monday morning that the trial of Leo M. Frank would be placed on the calendar for the week of June 30.

The defense had announced that its case was completed and no continuance would be asked unless some unforeseen contingency arose.

The trial judge, L. S. Roan, will have the most to say about the date for the trial. He intimated he would be ready on this date and would personally make no move for a continuance. He said, however, that in the event of it being impossible to open the trial June 30, he would be at leisure between July 14 and 28, and it is not improbable the trial may be advanced to that date.

Dorsey Back From East.

Solicitor Dorsey returned to Atlanta Sunday afternoon from a week’s vacation in New York. He called a conference with his assistants, E. A. Stephens and F. A. Hooper, at his home Sunday evening. Following it he announced that he would be ready for trial on June 30 and that unless the defense or the trial judge moved to have the trial postponed he would commence at once summoning witnesses and getting ready.

“We will set the case for June 30 with an idea of going to trial. Of course the convenience on Judge L. S. Roan will have to be consulted and there is the possibility of the defense moving for a continuance. I had understood all sides would be ready, however, and will make my preparations accordingly.

Expects Decision Monday.

“Before summoning witnesses I will formally notify the defense to find whether it will be ready. I would not like to have all the witnesses here and then have the trial postponed. I will probably confer with the interested parties during the day and be able to announce definitely whether the case can be tried June 30 by to-night.”

Solicitor Dorsey would not discuss the return to Atlanta of Mrs. Mina [sic] Formby and her announcement that she would go on the stand against Frank. He intimated, however, that he entertained the same opinion as had already been expressed by his assistant, Mr. Hooper, that when the woman left Atlanta she dropped from the case entirely.

Attorney John W. Moore denied emphatically that he had been employed in the case with L. Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold to defend Frank, as was reported by Solicitor Dorsey.

Moore Not Employed.

“I have not been employed in the case and have no other interest in it than that of a citizen. I believe Frank is innocent, and have since he was first drawn into the case, but I am not connected with it in any way. I have never been approached on the subject.”

Solicitor Dorsey opened court in the Thrower building Monday morning for a week of criminal trials to clear the jail docket. He will be in court every day until Saturday, and will have to depend on his assistants to summon witnesses and prepare the Frank case in the event of it being set for the following week.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 23rd 1913, “State Ready for Frank Trial on June 30,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Prominent Atlanta Lawyer Engaged to Aid in Defense of Pencil Factory Superintendent.

NO WHITE MAN KILLED GIRL, ASSERTS LAWYER

Formby and Conley Statements Should Not Be Given Credence So Far as They Tend to Incriminate Frank, He Says.

Reuben R. Arnold, perhaps the best-known attorney in Georgia, has been engaged to aid the defense of Leo M. Frank, the suspected pencil factory superintendent, in the Mary Phagan mystery. This announcement was made from his office yesterday afternoon.

In a statement that was furnished [to] each of the newspapers, Mr. Arnold attacks the detectives for their continued efforts to lay the Phagan murder at his client’s door. He hoots at the credence which he says has been placed in Conley’s story and in the sensational affidavit sworn by Mima [sic] Formby.

Asserting his anticipation of clarifying the situation in due time, Mr. Arnold says that in the evidence the prosecution holds against Frank there is no room whatever in which to believe him guilty, and that no white man committed the crime.

Injustice, Says Arnold.

He deplores alleged injustice done the suspected superintendent by reports circulated to the effect that Frank’s friends had persuaded the Formby woman to leave town and by many other false rumors deliberately set before the public, he declares.

His statement follows:

“It is true that I have accepted employment to assist in the defense of Mr. Leo M. Frank, but I wish to state that before I agreed to take the case, I made it a condition that I should have time to study critically all the evidence delivered at the coroner’s inquest and all the affidavits that have reached the public through the newspapers, so I could form an opinion for myself as to Frank’s innocence or guilt. I would not defend any man if guilty of such a murder as the one in this case.

“After studying the evidence as critically as I can, I am satisfied that I hazard not a thing in saying that there is no room to believe Mr. Frank guilty of this horrible murder. I do not believe that any white man committed the crime.

“Indeed, it is surprising to me that the detectives should continue to try to put this crime on Frank with the positively incriminating affidavits of Conley before them. People of common sense, unless under great excitement, ought not to give a moment’s credence to either the Formby or Conley statements in so far as they attempt to incriminate Mr. Frank.

“I see the detectives are gradually giving it out that Mrs. Formby will not be called as a witness, although her affidavit has been paraded before the public before the unqualified endorsement of the detective department as being perfectly reliable and true. Worse than this, as intimation was published in the newspapers that Frank’s friends had persuaded her to leave town. In this and in many other ways our client has been done a very great injustice. The effort seems to have been not to find the criminal but to try by all means to put the crime on Frank.

“However, I think we will be able to clarify the situation in due time.”

Trial Will Be in July.

Indications at present are that the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan will be held not on June 30, as previously indicated, but on either July 14 or 28.

Solicitor Hugh Dorsey is out of town and is expected to return some time today. It remains for him to set the date of the trial, and then there is a probability that the defense will ask for a postponement.

It is understood that the jail will not be cleared of those waiting for trial by June 30, and it is hardly probable that the state would enter into a long trial before clearing the jail as much as possible of short cases.

The fact that Judge L. S. Roan, who, by special appointment, presides over the criminal division of the Fulton superior court, will not have to hold court in the Stone Mountain circuit during either the week of July 14 or July 28, makes it possible that the trial will be set for this date.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 22nd 1913, “Frank Not Guilty of Phagan Murder Declares Arnold,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

REUBEN R. ARNOLD,
Able attorney, who declares he would not have entered case were he not firmly convinced of Leo M. Frank’s innocence.

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Famous Lawyer Says He Wouldn’t Defend Man Accused of Such Crime Unless Sure of His Innocence

SCORES CITY DETECTIVES FOR HOLDING TO THEORY

Mr. Arnold Says Detectives Have Tried to Prejudice the Case by Unfair Means—Has Studied Evidence

Reuben R. Arnold, famous Georgia lawyer, has officially entered the Phagan case in the defense of Leo M. Frank, as exclusively forecasted by The Journal last Thursday.

Mr. Arnold comes into the case with a ringing statement declaring his firm belief in the innocence of his client, and asserting that he would never defend a person charged with such an atrocious crime if he were not fully convinced of his innocence. Mr. Arnold says that he has reached the conclusion that there is no room to believe Frank guilty, after carefully studying the evidence in the case.

Mr. Arnold declares that it is surprising that the detectives should continue to put the crime on Frank with the incriminating statements of Conley before them. He scores the detectives because of the publication of the Formby affidavit, declaring that by this and other means they have done Frank a great injustice.

With Mr. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser working in his behalf a great legal battle is made a certainty when Frank faces a jury in the criminal division of the superior court. Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank A. Hooper, who is associated with him, will have charge of the state’s case. Lawyers and court attaches predict the most brilliant legal battle ever known in a criminal case in this state.

The date of the trial is still a matter of interesting conjectures, although it may be settled Monday after the return of Solicitor Dorsey to the city.

Mr. Dorsey still expects to set the trial of the case on the court calendar for June 30, but any number of things may interfere. An attorney associated with the defense stated Saturday afternoon that he knew of no reason why there should be a postponement, but would make no more definite statement.

While they know nothing definite it is the opinion of court attaches that the trial of the case will not be reached before July 14 or July 28, and their guess is generally expected to prove correct.

In a statement which he gave the public Mr. Arnold, who has been long regarded as one of the ablest criminal lawyers in the south, intimated that he is thoroughly familiar with all phases of the case, and as a result it is not considered probable that a postponement will be asked on his account.

“It is true that I have accepted employment to assist in the defense of Mr. Leo M. Frank, but I wish to state that before I agreed to take the case, I made it a condition that I should have time to study critically all the evidence delivered at the coroner’s inquest and all the affidavits that have reached the public through the newspapers, so I could form an opinion for myself as to Frank’s innocence or guilt. I would not defend any man if guilty of such a murder as the one in this case.

“After studying the evidence as critically as I can, I am satisfied that I hazard not a thing in saying that there is no room to believe Mr. Frank guilty of this horrible murder. I do not believe that any white man committed the crime.

“Indeed, it is surprising to me that the detectives should continue to try to put this crime on Frank with the positively incriminating affidavits of Conley before them. People of common sense, unless under great excitement, ought not to give a moment’s credence to either the Formby or Conley statements in so far as they attempt to incriminate Mr. Frank.

“I see the detectives are gradually giving it out that Mrs. Formby will not be called as a witness, although her affidavit has been paraded before the public before the unqualified endorsement of the detective department as being perfectly reliable and true. Worse than this, as intimation was published in the newspapers that Frank’s friends had persuaded her to leave town. In this and in many other ways our client has been done a very great injustice. The effort seems to have been not to find the criminal but to try by all means to put the crime on Frank.

“However, I think we will be able to clarify the situation in due time.”

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 22nd 1913, “Arnold Declares Frank Innocent and Enters Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 21, 1913

Belief Grows That Case Will Not Come Up Before July 14 or 28

Interest in the Phagan case still centers on the time of the trial of Leo M. Frank. Indications still are that the case will not be tried the week of June 30.

Solicitor Dorsey has never finally committed himself on the matter but Colonel Frank A. Hooper, who is associated [with] him, still expects the case to be set for that date.

Mr. Hooper expects the trial to last a week. The jail will not have been cleared by June 30, according to court attaches, and it is the general policy of the court to clear the jail of as many cases as possible before entering into a lengthy trial. In addition the Fourth of July, a holiday, comes in the week of June 30 and this might mean that the jury would be locked up during a day that the court was not in session. Still further there is the possibility that the defense will ask for a postponement.

Judge L. S. Roan will not have to hold court in the Stone Mountain circuit on either the week of July 14, or the week of July 28, and as a result it is now considered extremely probable that Frank will face a jury on one of those dates.

Apparently the Phagan case is at a standstill. Saturday both Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, who will be associated with the defense in all probability, were out of the city, on business said not to be connected with the case.

Mr. Hooper, who is in charge of the state’s case during the absence in New York of Solicitor Dorsey, states that there have been no developments of importance, and that the state is ready for the trial, whenever Mr. Dorsey returns and sets it on the court calendar.

Mr. Hooper was not interested in the return of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, maker of a sensational affidavit, to the city. The state made no effort to find her when she left the city, and apparently there is no chance of her being used as a witness unless the defense puts Frank’s character in issue.

During the absence of Solicitor Dorsey, Detectives Starnes and Campbell have been working under his instructions, smoothing over rough places in the state’s case, but nothing of importance has been developed.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 21st 1913, “Date of Frank Trial Still In Much Doubt,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, June 21, 1913

I have not been employed in the case to prosecute Leo M. Frank, but to help find and convict the murderer of Mary Phagan. If the trial proves we are wrong, we will begin work on another angle. We have but one object and idea. It is that justice and the law be vindicated. We are, however, convinced we have a strong case against the accused.

FRANK A. HOOPER,
Attorney.

Mrs. Mina [sic] Formby and her sensational affidavit will not be used by the State in the trial of Leo M. Frank, according to a statement Saturday from Attorney Frank A. Hooper, assisting the prosecution.

Mr. Hooper said the State had never attached any importance to the affidavit, except for the first few days, and that when Mrs. Formby mysteriously disappeared from the city, the State eliminated her from the case entirely and made no effort to locate her. He said time set forth in the affidavit and the alleged facts were at too wide a variance with anything the State expected to prove, and there had been no trouble in making the case without her.

Affidavit Did Not Fit.

“The woman’s affidavit did not fit in anywhere in our case,” said Mr. Hooper. “If it had we would have looked around a long time for witnesses to substantiate it before we put her on the stand. When she left Atlanta we considered her gone for good, and built without her. Mr. Dorsey and myself discussed her statement several times, and we decided she could not be used to any advantage.”

Mr. Hooper said it has been decided to put the Frank case on the calendar for the week of June 30 and the State would be ready for trial on that day.

“When Mr. Dorsey returns from New York to-night or Sunday, we will go into a conference and definitely outline the case to be presented by the State,” said Mr. Hooper. “We had decided to have it called Monday morning, June 30. Unless the defense asks for a continuance, the case will probably be tried then.”

No Weak Points Remain.

He said that he had been acquainted with every bit of evidence that was in the hands of the State and had studied it carefully with the Solicitor. For one week, he said, he and Mr. Dorsey worked incessantly on the sworn statements secured from the probable witnesses.

“Where there was a weak point we either strengthened it or eliminated it entirely. We have not depended on the evidence of any one person alone to build our case on [sic] make it stand up. We are prepared for any emergency, and feel that we have left no stone unturned in our investigation. We are confident there are no more mysterious witnesses to be heard from, for we feel that we have questioned everyone who could possibly know anything of importance.”

Mr. Hooper would not discuss the many conflicting statements of the negro Jim Conley and the part he was expected to play in the State’s case.

The strong probability that Leo Frank will not be called for trial June 30 was discussed Saturday by persons interested in the case. The attorneys for the accused man have stated that they were prepared to go into court at any time, although it is not usual to give the defense so little time in a capital case.

Frank was arrested April 29. If his case is called June 30, only two months will have elapsed since he was seriously suspected of being involved in the crime. More time than this ordinarily is given the attorneys for the defense to investigate every circumstance and story which may point to the innocence of their client.

Continued on Page 2, Column 4.

STATE TO IGNORE FORMBY FRANK AFFIDAVIT

Attorney Hooper, Prosecutor’s Aide, Declares Justice Is Aim in Phagan Case.

Continued From Page 1.

It is known that Judge L. S. Roan, who will preside at the trial, will be free the weeks of July 14 and July 28. This is interpreted to suggest the possibility that the trial will be postponed to one of those dates.

Reuben Arnold, the probability of whose participation in the Frank trial was indicated by The American three weeks ago, is at Atlantic Beach and will not return to Atlanta until Monday. It was said at his office, however, that definite arrangements for his becoming one of the counsel for the defense had not as yet been made.

Chief Lanford said that the great sheaf of affidavits procured by his department had no use except to guide the memory of his men in their investigations and to hold as a protection in the event of an emergency, such as the sudden change in the testimony of a witness or a disappearance of a witness from the jurisdiction of the court.

Some question had arisen as to the purpose of the large number of affidavits when none of them would be permitted to be introduced as evidence in the trial of Leo Frank, so long as the affiant appeared to testify.

The chief explained that it had been the design of the department to protect itself at all points, and that in case a witness changed his testimony on the stand it would be possible to proceed against him on the charge of perjury.

The affidavits also were obtained to be used in the event that a witness dies before the trial or leaves the jurisdiction of the court.

Defense Also Has Many.

It is known that the defense has in its possession as many affidavits as the prosecution. The attorneys for Frank carefully have investigated every story that has come to their ears, and when it has appeared reliable they have obtained the sworn statement of the person telling of the circumstances.

The main difference in the case of the prosecution and that of the defense is that the contents of most of the affidavits obtained by the detectives are known to the public, while the revelations made to the defense have been most carefully guarded.

Luther Z. Rosser, attorney for Frank, made one public statement, but in it he carefully avoided giving any hint that would aid the prosecution in determining who his witnesses were to be or what they would testify.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 21st 1913, “Justice Aim in Phagan Case, Says Hooper,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Friday, June 20, 1913

State Declares Its Case Against Frank Is Now Complete Dorsey Still Absent

Because of the inconsistency of her statement with the state’s outline of prosecution, Chief Lanford intimates that Mima Formby [sic], the roominghouse keeper of 400 Piedmont avenue, will not be called to the stand in Leo Frank’s trial. He does not state this positively, however, but it is the general opinion that such will be the prosecution’s action.

Mrs. Formby has stated to a Constitution reporter that she is ready to testify against the factory superintendent and that she will remain in Atlanta until time of trial. It is said that a number of occupants of her Piedmont avenue home who were in on the night she alleges Frank telephoned her several times to obtain a room to which he could bring a girl have testified that no such telephone calls came and that the phone did not ring more than once or twice during the entire evening.

Frank Hooper, the well known attorney, who is to be associated with Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey in the prosecution, has returned from his recent trip to Cincinnati. Although much speculation was created over his journey in view of the fact that Col. T.B. Felder, who has been an active figure in the Phagan investigation, was in Cincinnati at the same time on a trip, the nature of which he declined to disclose.

Also, importance was attached to the fact that the solicitor general was out of the city at the same time. Each of the trio, however, declared that their visits out of the city had nothing whatever to do with the Phagan case. None but the solicitor, though, would tell the mission of his trip. He went on a vacation to Atlantic City, he told reporters.

“The state’s case is regarded as complete,” Mr. Hooper said Thursday, shortly following his return to town. “There have been no new developments. We are waiting now for time of trial.”

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 20th 1913, “Formby Woman May Not Be A Witness,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Thursday, June 19, 1913

DEFENSE HAS WITNESSES TO REFUTE WOMAN

Learns Identity of Other Persons in Home on Night of the Phagan Slaying.

That the defense in the trial of Leo M. Frank will be able, if it wishes, to produce three or four witnesses who will testify that the affidavit of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby is untrue was discovered Thursday when the identity of the other persons in the house of Mrs. Formby, 400 Piedmont Avenue, the night of April 26, when Mary Phagan was murdered, was learned.

It was from Mrs. Formby that the detectives obtained what they consider one of their most sensational affidavits against Frank. She signed a statement swearing that Frank called her up a half dozen times the night of the murder and tried to persuade her to let him bring a girl to her house. She said she refused.

“It’s a matter of life or death,” she said she told her over the telephone.

Returns to Atlanta.

Mrs. Formby returned to Atlanta Wednesday, after a mysterious absence of several weeks. She said she proposed to stick to her original story when she was called as a witness in the trial of Frank.

In spite of her strong declaration in the truth of her affidavit, no one else who was in the house the night of April 26 has been found who will corroborate her statements. All say that the affidavit is false.

Fannie Jones, of 77 Pratt Street, negro maid at the Formby home, said that she usually answered the telephone there, and that it did not ring the night of April 26, as Mrs. Formby said it did. The Jones woman was sure that she would have known it if Frank had called half a dozen times between 6:30 and 10:30 o’clock in the evening.

She said she had been approached many times by detectives who sought to persuade her to corroborate the affidavit of Mrs. Formby. She added that she had told them she was not going to swear to a story she knew was not true.

Men Deny Woman’s Story.

Another witness, a man in the house at the time, told a Georgian reporter that he was at the house the night of April 26, and that he is positive that Frank did not call up. Mrs. Formby said in her affidavit that they were playing bridge when the telephone rang. This witness declared they did not play bridge during the whole evening, and that the telephone did not ring. He said that he is certain that the whole story of Mrs. Formby is a fabrication.

Still another witness is a friend of the other visitor at the Formby residence. He recalls the circumstances exactly as the other man who was there that evening.

Both Prosecution and Defense Are Confident.

Statements gathered Thursday morning from attorneys interested in each side of the case in the approaching trial of Leo M. Frank for the strangling of Mary Phagan indicate that in one respect, at least, it will be one of the most remarkable cases ever brought before a Fulton County court.

Its almost unprecedented feature will consist in the absolute confidence in the invulnerability of their evidence that is entertained both by the prosecution and the defense.

It is not unusual for both sides to anticipate victory, but it is rare for both to go into a trial, as they will June 30, upheld by a feeling of unshakable certainty that the evidence they will submit will be unassailable and that the case of the opposite side must, of necessity, be weak and hopelessly circumstantial.

Prosecuting officials and detectives have said repeatedly there is not a weak link in their whole chain of evidence. They admit it is circumstantial from beginning to end, but assert that the chain is so strong that it eliminates the “reasonable doubt.” [Remainder of article cannot be transcribed as the material is missing from our archived newspaper material — Ed.]

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 19th 1913, “Blow Aimed at Formby Story,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)