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

Atlanta Georgian
August 3^rd, 1913

Negro’s Testimony Now Supremely Important

Both Sides Stake Their All on His Evidence

STATE FORGES CHAIN TO TAX ALL THE INGENUITY OF DEFENSES LEGAL ARRAY

First Week of Battle Has Fixed the Time Almost Exactly According to Theory of the Solicitor—Doctors’ Testimony His Important Bearing.

BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

There are two tenable theories of the manner in which little Mary Phagan met her tragic death in the National Pencil Factory on Saturday, April 26.

Either she was murdered by Leo Frank, as charged in the indictment, or she was murdered by James Conley, the negro sweeper, employed in the factory.

If there is another theory, it has not been advanced.

The theory that Frank killed the girl is the one set up by the State; the theory that Conley killed her is the one to be set up by the defense.

Which, if either, is the true theory?

That is the all-absorbing puzzle engaging the attention of Atlanta and Georgia to-day.

MANY POINTS CLEARED UP.

The trial of Frank has progressed wearily as to detail, but it has gone far enough for many points to have been cleared up.

The State has sought to show this:

Mary Phagan left home at 11:45, and arrived at the factory at or about 12 o’clock.

She went to Leo Frank’s office to draw her pay, after its delivery to another person had been declined the afternoon before, and, therefore, she must have been in his office not later than 12:05, if not a trifle earlier.

Here she appears in life for the last time, so far as any living being will say.

According to the expert testimony of Dr. Roy Harris, the girl was dead within from thirty minutes to three-quarters of an hour after she ate her lunch of cabbage and bread—as disclosed by an analysis of the contents of her stomach—and, therefore, must have been killed between 11:45, when she concluded her lunch, and 12:30.

Monteen Stover testifies that Frank was not in his office from 12:05 to 12:10, after Mary Phagan arrived there, and still well within the period of the time in which she must, according to Dr. Harris, have been killed.

Mrs. White testifies that she left the factory about 1 o’clock, at which time she saw a negro loafing about the steps leading up to Frank’s office. Presumably, this negro was Conley.

In addition to the foregoing, the State has endeavored to show that part of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope was found, after the crime, near her machine in the factory, that a strand of her hair was found on a lathing machine near where her body was supposed to have fallen first, and that blood spots were found near a dressing room she sometimes used.

These are the big circumstances upon which the State proposes to base Conley’s story of how he was called upstairs by Frank, after Frank presumably had murdered the girl, and hired to help conceal her body in the basement.

MUCH DEPENDS ON CONLEY.

Conley’s story, on the stand and under cross-examination, will make these circumstances either highly important and damaging to Frank, or of relatively small account.

The defense will contend that it is by no means conclusive that the girl died within the narrow limits of time set up by Dr. Harris, even though it might have been effected in that time—and if it was, that Conley still might have been the slayer and not Frank.

It seems certain that Mary Phagan was killed early in the afternoon of April 26, or fatally disabled then, if killed later, as she never was seen to emerge from the factory after she went in about noon.

The defense will claim failure upon the part of the State to show conclusively a motive for the crime upon the part of Frank, but it will contend that the motive upon the part of Conley was robbery.

It will say that Conley, although not known to have been in the factory at all when Frank was indicted, since then has been found to have been there as early as 10 o’clock in the morning, was there before 12 and after 1, had been drunk during the morning, and was, when Mary Phagan came down the steps to emerge from the factory by way of the gloomy passage, still partially drunk, “broke,” and wanting both more whisky and some money to purchase it—that, in this condition, he saw Mary Phagan, with […]

DOCTORS’ EVIDENCE NEW FRANK BATTLE GROUND

[…] her mesh purse in her hand, and that he then and there killed her for her money, threw her body into the open and nearby elevator shaft, down which he went later to conceal her body in the rear, and to make his guilty escape by way of the broken-down back door.

The defense will urge against Conley all the circumstances of his contradictory affidavits, his admitted lies in the earlier stages of the investigation, particularly when he, the now confessed author of the notes found beside Mary Phagan, claimed persistently that he did not know how to write.

Character Is Issue.

In addition to this, Conley’s general reputation for shiftlessness and viciousness will be set up and shown by police records, and that by way of contrast with Frank’s unblemished college and business career and general reputation for good character and decency of conduct in every direction.

Besides, the defense will say, Conley’s last story, contradictory of his other stories though it is, still is amazingly inconsistent as to facts and truth, and should be rejected therefore merely as the utterance of a guilty person, undertaking to shift from his own shoulders and on to the shoulders of Frank responsibility for the awful deed.

It will be the contention of the defense that Conley never chirped of Frank’s connection with the crime until suspicion began rapidly to drift in Conley’s direction, and that he then seized upon Frank as his victim because Frank then had come under suspicion himself, and must therefore have appealed to Conley as the easiest and most likely mark in sight.

There, in brief, are the two theories of the awful fate that befell little Mary Phagan.

Evidently the case of both the State and the defense radiates from Conley—the big, black sinister figure whose depressing shadow has darkened the case from start to finish.

All the State has done has led always to Conley—all the defense will do must lead always to Conley.

What the defense may do on its own direct evidence yet remains to be seen. What it seemingly must do is food for speculation and thought.

The State has proved the death of the girl by violence, and the venue. There is no dispute about those points.

It will be agreed that Mary Phagan reached the pencil factory about noon and that she was paid off by Leo Frank a few minutes later.

The defense will deny, however, the State’s contention that Frank was not in his office at the time Monteen Stover failed to see him there; and it will assert that he might have been in the office, and Miss Stover still fail to see him, such was the arrangement of Frank’s private office with respect to the general office adjoining, and such was the arrangements of the furniture in both rooms.

Time Link All Important.

If the defense can overcome the State’s accusation that Frank was not in his office during all of the time within which experts agree the crime must have been committed, then it will break down one of the strong links in the State’s case.

But can the defense do that?

There is Monteen Stover—will it do merely to throw doubt upon her allegation and not be able to shatter it outright?

If the jury holds fast to the idea that Frank was absent from his office at the time the Stover girl says he was, it will go hard with him, so the general impression is.

The State has shown rather effectively that Frank was very nervous on the morning after the murder, when the officers went for him at his home in Georgia avenue.

He seems to have been checked up on this point from many angles, and it generally is agreed that he was nervous and agitated.

It will be up to the defense, as removing a possibly suspicious circumstance, either to disprove this nervousness or admit it as a perfectly natural thing, in light of the happenings at the factory, guardedly kept from Frank’s knowledge until he was led into the presence of a dead girl at the undertaker’s.

The State has shown that Frank engaged counsel rather early in his troubles, and has attempted to show that he engaged counsel even before he was held as a suspect.

On cross-examination the defense undertook to explain away this by drawing out the fact that Frank was, as a matter of fact, under arrest when taken from his home Monday morning and removed to the police station, and that it was the knowledge of this that prompted him, or his friends, to secure counsel for him.

The one point that the State not yet has made its hand perfectly clear on is the motive of the crime.

Will the State contend that Frank was undertaking to outrage Mary Phagan against her will and that in attempting to do this, whether successful or not, he deliberately attacked her and killed her?

This contention must be made if the indictment which charges strangulation is to be upheld.

Doctor’s Stories Conflict.

The rather conflicting expert testimony of Drs. Harris and Hurt upon the questions controlling these two last-mentioned points makes it difficult to forecast now just which theory the State may adhere to in its final adjustment of its case.

The defense, however, to clear Leo Frank, will have to combat both these theories. Otherwise Frank is condemned utterly in public opinion and in law.

Robbery Defense Theory.

The defense will insist upon one theory only with respect to the motive moving Conley—it will be robbery pure and simple.

The defense, in cross-examination, has undertaken to show that, while Mary Phagan’s pay was refused to a party, as the State contends, the afternoon before her death, it was customary for the office to decline to pay the wages of employees to others than the employees themselves or their authorized and known agents. This agent, the defense contends, was a stranger and not authorized properly.

Undoubtedly, the sensation of the week was Dr. Roy Harris’ positive and dramatically delivered testimony to the effect that Mary Phagan died within from 30 to 45 minutes after she ate her lunch, i. e., between 11:45 and 12:30.

Dr. Hurt, another expert, rather vigorously dissented from Dr. Harris’ conclusions, however, holding that the question of how long boiled cabbage remained in process of digestion in a stomach depended largely upon the particular stomach charged with the duty of digesting it.

Some stomachs make comparatively quick work of cabbage; other stomachs find it most difficult to dispose of.

The same condition of partial digestion might be discovered, so Dr. Hurt said, in two different stomachs, particularly with respect to cabbage, notwithstanding the fact that one stomach might have had the cabbage in process of digestion 30 minutes and the other stomach two or even three times as long.

The defense will argue from this statement that Mary Phagan might have been killed after Frank left the factory—a little after 1 o’clock—and the partially digested contents of her stomach would uphold that contention as conclusively as the other.

Therefore, the defense will claim Conley had ample time, even within the limits as set up by Dr. Harris testimony, to effect the murder, and much more than sufficient time within the limits as set up by Dr. Hurt.

Fragments Always Found.

Again, the State endeavored to show by a witness named Barrett that a fragment of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope was found near her machine on the second floor, and that blood spots were found near a dressing room frequented by her.

On cross-examination, the defense succeeded in getting Dr. Claude Smith to say that the samples of this blood given him might or might not have been human blood, and also succeeded in getting Witness Holloway to say that fragments of pay envelopes were scattered habitually all over the factory, and that fragments of rope, also, such as was found around Mary Phagan’s neck when her body was discovered, were commonly scattered all over the building and were swept up every now and then and sent to the basement for burning.

This point will be urged by the defense in establishing its theory against Conley, in that an attempt will be made to show that Conley put the rope around the girl’s neck, after he had killed her on the first floor above the basement, and dragged her back to the rear of the basement, purely as a bluff and as a clumsy attempt to cover up the real manner of her death.

The illiterate notes found beside the dead girl have not yet been tendered as to their actual contents, but it will be admitted that Conley wrote them.

Conley, however, in his affidavits—and, presumably, he will repeat this on the stand—says he wrote these notes at Frank’s dictation, and that Frank told him he wanted “to send them to his mother.”

The notes are in the negro’s handwriting, and the defense will stress the point that he now admits having written them, in spite of early denials and in the fact of his oft-repeated denial that he knew how to write at all. After Conley had denied, time and again, that he knew how to write a contract under which he had purchased a cheap watch was discovered, which he had signed.

This will be urged against Conley as a stronger circumstance of guilt than any circumstances the State has set up against Frank.

The testimony so far as to whether Mary Phagan was outraged is conclusive and conflicting. Dr. Harris, who has gone further than Dr. Hurt, says that she might have been, and that there were some reasons to suspect that she had been. He would not say positively that she had, however.

Sees No Trace of Violence.

Dr. Hurt, on the contrary, said that, in his opinion, she had not been outraged—that he saw no evidence of sexual violence.

Both physicians and the undertaker agree that there were no beastly and unspeakable mutilations about the dead girl’s body, such as street rumor and gossip originally attributed to the perpetrator of the crime.

The foregoing, in a broad and general way, sums up the contentions and pleadings of the State during the past week, the achievements of the defense on cross-examination, and the probable procedure of the defense in the week to come.

The defense may enlarge or narrow its program as the case develops—what is set down here with respect to what the defense likely will do is, of course, speculation in part.

The questions to be thrashed out finally are these:

Did Leo Frank, between 12 o’clock and the time he left the pencil factory, after paying Mary Phagan her pittance of wages, lure or follow her into the back of the second floor, there assault her and kill her? Did he then secure the services of Jim Conley, for hire, promised but not paid, save as to some $2, to conceal the body in the basement? Did he spring upon this girl, like a beast, outrage and kill her; or did he, because she repulsed his low and sinister advances, in endeavoring to force his will, kill her, or kill her to keep her from telling?

Any of these would be murder!

Wanted Money For Whisky.

Or did Jim Conley, half drunk, loitering in the dark hallway below, seeing little Mary Phagan coming down the steps with her mesh bag in her hands, brooding over his lack of funds wherewith to get more whisky, find in the situation thus set up an opportunity to secure a little money—the violent killing of the girl following?

The State is contending the one thing—the defense will contend the other.

Both theories will be exhaustively tested, and upon the decision of that great umpire, the jury, will the fate of Leo Frank depend.

The two extremes goals have been set up. Which side will win?

About Conley—ever and always about Conley—the Frank case revolves, and will revolve until it ends.

* * *

Source: Atlanta Georgian, August 3rd 1913, “Conley to Bring Frank Case Crisis,” 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 (Hearst’s Sunday American)
July 27^th, 1913

Old Police Reporter Sees No Cause for Delay

Either Side Asking Postponement Will Reveal Weakness, as Time Has Been Given for Preparation. Conley Is Center of Interest.

Defense Must Break Story of Negro or Face Difficult Situation. State Will Base Case on Chain of Circumstantial Evidence.

By AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

The defense in the case of Leo Frank would have made a mistake, if current street comment counts for anything, had it decided to move for a continuance of the case to-morrow.

Indeed, the fact that the defense even was suspected of an intent to move for a continuance—righteously or otherwise—has not had a happy effect upon the public, even if it has not, on the other hand, served particularly to prejudice the case.

The people want the Frank case tried. I think there is no mistake about that.

And when it was rumored that it might be postponed, with the consent of the defense, even if not of its own motion, more than one person in Atlanta, even those inclined to be friendly to Frank, began, more or less impatiently, to ask themselves, WHY?

If the State is sure of itself, why delay? If the defense is sure of itself, why delay?

If either is not sure of itself, why, then, it must be because the one not sure of itself has a weak case. Thus reasons the public.

Leo Frank is guilty or he is not guilty.

The case against him can be thrashed out NOW as well as later along. Frank is reported eager for trial. The State professes to be altogether ready.

Hesitancy upon the part of either now is not apt to win favor to the hesitating.

Public Not Muddled.

While much has been said of Jim Conley of late, and an effort was made to have him indicted in advance of Frank’s trial, the public has not permitted itself to be muddled.

It realizes that Conley occupies a somewhat dual position, to be sure, and that the finger of suspicion points to him as a possible principal to the killing of Mary Phagan, no less than as a confessed accessory after the fact.

The public has its eye very much on Conley—YES. But the public has not YET been convinced—and may never become convinced—that Leo Frank is innocent of the crime for which he has been indicted.

And he has been indicted, by “twelve good men and true,” as the law requires—one must NOT forget that!

Frank is admitted to have been in the pencil factory when the crime MIGHT have been committed. The evidence that he actually committed the deed is, to be sure, entirely circumstantial.

Even the affidavit of the negro Conley, if it withstands the blistering attacks Attorneys Rosser and Arnold unquestionably will make upon it, still will not be direct evidence that Frank committed the crime.

It is rather difficult for the layman to comprehend fully the exact difference between circumstantial and direct evidence, and to keep his mind quite clear when passing through the twilight zone dividing the one from the other, but there IS a dividing line, and Frank stands well within the circumstantial limits.

Law Recognizes Circumstances.

While, however, the law holds the State to a sterner accounting in the matter of establishing guilt through circumstances rather than by direct evidence, it nevertheless permits circumstances to convict SWEEPINGLY AND COMPLETELY. If properly sequenced and sustained!

Here, then, is the case against Leo Frank, from the state’s point of view, as given to the newspapers and not otherwise:

Frank was in the factory at the time Mary Phagan might have been slain. He had the OPPORTUNITY to consummate the deed. He had been in prior communication with the girl, when they two were practically alone in the pencil factory, save for the then unsuspected presence of the negro Conley. There is some evidence that Frank had been, at times, rather familiar with factory employees—particularly with two or three young girls.

Frank, contrary to his usual custom, permitted Newt Lee to go away from the factory during the afternoon of April 26—Saturday. This extraordinary procedure has not been accounted for to the State’s satisfaction.

Frank, contrary again to his usual custom, phoned to the factory after he arrived at his home Saturday evening, and this fact also never has been explained to the State’s satisfaction.

A negro, Jim Conley, a sweeper in the factory, has signed an affidavit to the effect that Frank, nervous and seemingly much agitated, called him to the second floor of the factory—the negro admitting that he had been dozing in a drunken stupor on the floor below—along about 1 o’clock in the afternoon of the killing and that Frank thereafter hired him to remove the dead body of Mary Phagan from the second floor to the basement below, hide it, and, at Frank’s dictation, write and place the notes beside the dead girl, found next morning.

Frank also is accused—whether the State will rely upon this evidence in any particular is not altogether clear, however—with phoning persistently a notorious woman between 7 and 10 in the evening of April 26, asking that he be permitted to bring to her house a girl, unnamed, “upon a matter of life and death.”

Conley Center of Case.

Now, if the State can sustain itself thoroughly upon these allegations, it must be admitted that the case against Frank will be very serious, indeed!

Of course, Conley will be the most damaging witness against him, for upon Conley’s evidence will depend the hurtfulness or the utter worthlessness of the other circumstances set up against the defendant.

In other words, if Conley is BROKEN DOWN, the remaining allegations against Frank doubtless will be quickly and easily disposed of.

If Conley is NOT broken down, however, then the other circumstances become links in a chain against Frank that likely can be made to hold together.

It is just as well to look things squarely in the face, as the Frank trial comes on to-morrow!

Can the defense break Conley down?

That, of course, I do not know—I can not know.

The only thing I know of experience in cases of this kind is that the defense MUST break Conley down or Leo Frank will face a very, very dangerous situation!

It must be borne in mind, moreover, that it will be the defense’s burden to break Conley down, rather than the State’s burden to establish his credibility.

Unless successfully assailed, Conley’s affidavit will stand before the jury unprejudiced for exactly what it may be worth.

The defense claims to be prepared perfectly for the annihilation of Conley’s statement. Maybe it is—the defense should have read its own hand pretty well by now.

The defense, however, may be in the situation “Br’er Rabbit” found himself once when he “clum a tree” because he just naturally was “obleeged to,” and NOT because anybody ever had heard of a rabbit climbing a tree before in all natural history. And I do not write this flippantly, but to illustrate the point. Whether the defense can break down Conley or not, the DEFENSE MUST BREAK DOWN CONLEY or face a perilous alternative!

Refused Conley Indictment.

All the circumstances and recitals concerning Conley, tending to show that he and not Frank more likely was the principal in the killing of Mary Phagan, is beside the IMMEDIATE QUESTION. The trial to [be] called to-morrow is the trial of LEO FRANK and not James Conley.

In addition to that, a Grand Jury but recently has definitely and directly REFUSED to indict James Conley for the murder, pending the disposition of the Frank case.

These are stubborn facts the defense is called upon to face—and it will not do, I take it, to face them either hesitatingly or otherwise than frankly and candidly.

The defense may be loaded with ammunition sufficient to shoot the State’s case to pieces, just as it claims to be. There are many people who believe it is—but there also are quite as many people, perhaps, who believe it isn’t.

Looking back over the progress of events in this puzzling, elusive and continuously interesting Phagan case—to my mind by far the most bizarre and grimly engaging mystery in all the catalogue of crime in Georgia—I am moved to no great surprise that the public yet is largely of open and fair mind in respect of it.

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 6, 1913

*Editor’s Note: See insert article, “Decisions Which May Aid Defense of Frank”, at the conclusion of this post.

Frank Expects Freedom by Breaking Down Accuser’s Testimony, and State a Conviction by Establishing Truth of Statements.

BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

The developments in the Phagan case have been of late highly significant and interesting.

During the past week, it became evident that the very heart and soul of both the prosecution and the defense is to center largely about the negro, James Conley.

He is at once apparently the hope and the despair of both sides to the contest!

This circumstance, however, while tending to add much to the dramatic and the uncertain, in so far as the outcome is concerned, is not by any means an unusual thing in cases of this kind.

It frequently happens in mysterious murder cases that both the State and the defense must pin their faith to one and the same witness.

Of late there has been some talk of the Grand Jury indicting Conley, even over the Solicitor General’s head, which, of course, it would have a perfect right to do.

The thought occurred to me some time ago that the case might take that direction, but in the article in which that point was discussed, I mentioned it incidentally, rather than as a likely thing.

Indictment may Mean Much.

It seems, nevertheless, that the idea of indicting Conley has had, and still may have, much more behind it than some people have been willing to admit, and that phase of the situation has caused me to speculate somewhat in detail today as to how and why Conley might be indicted.

I find that those who are urging it have much more to stand upon than would seem probable at first blush.

Two things are evident:

First, the defense will attack Conley vigorously.

Second, the character of Leo Frank will be put in issue by the defense, fearlessly and frankly!

These two things, I take it, will constitute the defense’s primary challenge to the prosecution!

And if I be right about that, the issue will be thrilling and dramatic enough to satisfy the cravings of the most exacting, when the case comes on for trial later along this month.

About these two points of disagreement, Hugh Dorsey and Frank Hooper, on the one hand, and Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, on the other, will be on their mettle—and if the fur and likewise the fire doesn’t fly, I mistake my guess at this writing!

Leo Frank has been indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan, and for reasons presumably unsatisfactory to the Grand Jury.

Points Against Conley.

Let’s examine the points upon which the defense will indict Conley, if the Grand Jury fails to beat the defense to it—which yet is problematical.

The defense will contend:

(1) That Conley wrote of his own notion the notes found beside the dead girl’s body.

(2) That the negro told of incidents and conversations which took place admittedly in the pencil factory an hour or more before he swears he went there.

(3) That the negro admits he was drinking and “broke” when he went to the factory Saturday morning and is known to have spent in the afternoon about the amount of money Mary Phagan is supposed to have had in her little mesh bag when she started out of the factory.

(4) That the negro admits he was in hiding or loafing near the open elevator shaft, at the foot of the steps Mary Phagan must have used as she came down to go out of the factory.

(5) That at the inquest Frank said he thought he had heard voices outside his office, very soon after Mary Phagan started down the stairs, and that the voices he thought he heard which might have been voices of Mary Phagan and the negro, just as the negro attacked the girl.

(6) That the negro said the body of Mary Phagan was carried down the elevator shaft, and yet two witnesses stand ready to swear, and have sworn, that the elevator did not run on the fatal Saturday at all.

(7) That, while the negro accounts after a fashion for the girl’s shoe and hat thrown onto a trash pile, he fails to account for the incriminating parasol found at the foot of the elevator shaft, where it might have been thrown with Mary Phagan’s body from above.

(8) That the negro says Frank called him at 12:56, notwithstanding the fact that Frank was talking to Mr. and Mrs. White at 1 o’clock, and immediately thereafter left the factory, reaching home about 1:20. That, therefore, Frank could not have down the things Conley accuses him of having done, for sheer lack of time, if nothing else.

(9) That the negro did not flee, if guilty himself, because the police promptly accused in turn Newt Lee, Gantt, Mullinix [sic] and Frank as suspects, not once mentioning Conley; and, besides, no one knew at the time these suspects were proclaimed that Conley had even been in the pencil factory Saturday morning.

(10) That Conley was caught washing his shirt, which might have been blood-stained, very soon after Mary Phagan’s murder was effected, and that he said at the time he was worried over something not stated.

(11) That the negro’s statements have been inconsistent and conflicting, both those under oath and those not under oath, and that he has admitted having sworn falsely more than once.

(12) That the negro’s defense of himself is of no merit, because it is the only possible defense of himself he could frame—a last and desperate resort to fix upon Frank Conley’s own guilt.

(13) That Conley’s evidence is of small if any value against Frank, because it was not given until suspicion seemed drifting rapidly toward Conley.

(14) That Frank’s statements have been straightforward, consistent and reasonable, whereas, in contrast thereto, the negro’s have been inconsistent, conflicting and unreasonable.

(15) If the negro’s presence in the factory had been known at the time Frank was indicted, Frank likely never would have been indicted; or, at least, would not likely have been indicted in preference to the negro.

(16) That the motive in the case of Frank never has been established and will be difficult to establish, but that the motive in the case of the negro—i. e., robbery—is immediately apparent.

(17) That the entire factory force testifies to the good character of Frank, whereas the character of the negro, both by his own admissions and the police court records, is bad.

(18) That many of the horrible details of the murder, scattered broadcast when it was first effected, are not true, and that the circumstances of the crime point to the negro Conley as its perpetrator, much more surely than to Frank.

Now, the reader must understand that which I have tried to impress upon him in every article I heretofore have written about the Phagan case, to wit: I know nothing more about the POSITIVE TRUTH of the case than he does—that is to say, my sources of information have been precisely the same sources that his have been—the newspapers.

I have scrutinized the files of The Georgian and The American and other Atlanta papers, and the foregoing eighteen counts against Conley I have gathered together from perhaps fifty different issues.

Framework is Powerful.

I have set them forth as showing the strength of the position of those—or the imaginary strength, whichever it is—invoking the indictment of Conley NOW.

They may be of tremendous significance—they may be of no material significance. But they DO serve to show the framework of the powerful defense that is being constructed for Frank.

I give them for what they are worth.

There stands between Conley and Grand Jury indictment, of course, the compelling necessity of using Conley as a material witness—THE material witness, indeed!—against Frank.

To indict Conley NOW would weaken the State’s case against Frank, unquestionably.

And yet the fact remains that certain members of the Grand Jury have been reported as seriously inclined to that course, nevertheless.

And, after all, that matter (theoretically, anyway) is utterly impersonal with the Grand Jury and arbitrarily in its hands.

Before I became a newspaper man and later along police reporter, I studied law, as I mentioned before, and was admitted to the bar, I practiced four years, and while I abandoned the law long ago for the newspaper profession, I never lost my taste entirely for my first love.

I went over to the State Library Saturday and looked up some few decisions bearing upon the two vital points to be raised in the Phagan case, as I view it now, and two things impressed me profoundly.

State Can Not Attack Frank.

When the defense attacks Conley it will be backed by some weighty law affecting his credibility, and when it puts Frank’s character in evidence—the State CAN NOT put his character in evidence, it will be understood—it will be backed again by some weighty opinions as to the value of character, established and proved.

In the Twenty-third Georgia Supreme Court Reports I find that Mr. Justice McDonald laid down this rule:

If a witness swear willfully and knowingly false, even to a collateral fact, his testimony ought to be rejected entirely, unless it be so corroborated by circumstances, or other unimpeached evidence, as be irresistible!

That is the law of the land, and it will be invoked, I suppose, against Conley, with vigor and possible effect.

The defense, no doubt, will contend that Conley has sworn falsely—and proved it by written instruments—and it then will insist that Conley’s entire evidence must be rejected unless corroborated by other unimpeached testimony.

Can the State corroborate Conley by such evidence?

Evidently the defense doubts it.

I do not know, of course.

Hearsay, irrelevant matter, street gossip, newspaper stories—those things will not do when it comes to trying Leo Frank for his life.

Conley Must Be Corroborated.

Conley, at best an admitted accessory after the fact of the murder, must be corroborated by COMPETENT and LEGAL evidence.

And right here, I think, the defense expects to give the State one of its very hardest nuts to crack.

Maybe the State can crack it, all right!

That remains to be seen, and as to that I venture no opinion.

Again, I take it the defense expects to strike straight from the shoulder when it puts Frank’s character in issue.

I do not KNOW that the defense will do this, but from the tone of some of the articles, particularly Mrs. Frank’s remarkable interview, given out recently by the defense, or authorized by it, I SUSPECT that is exactly what it will do.

This will be a bold stroke, too, for unless the DEFENSE puts Leo Frank’s character in issue, IT CAN NOT BE PUT IN ISSUE AT ALL.

The State is estopped, of its own motion, from doing that.

Therefore, when the defense DOES it, it is pretty apt to be taken as an evidence that the defense is very confident of itself.

Into the case at this point, then, will come a portion of the law of Georgia that is most picturesque and significant—a portion that is founded upon the very bedrock of decency and common sense, and that throws about all observers of the law and about all right-living men a protection as certain and as sure as it is majestic and noble.

Character Good Evidence.

In respect of CHARACTER as evidence of innocence of crime, I find that Chief Justice Simmons, in the 102d Georgia, said this:

“Evidence of good character is admitted as evidence of a positive fact, and may, of itself, by the creation of a reasonable doubt, produce acquittal!”

And, again, the same authority says:

“Of what avail is a good character, which a man may have been a lifetime in acquiring, if it is to benefit nothing in the hour of peril?”

Chief Justice Simmons was a Superior Court judge for some twenty years before he was elevated to the Supreme bench, and a Supreme Court justice for a like period.

He was one of the noblest men that Georgia ever produced, and one of the most profound and approved students of the law.

And he made good character the very Rock of Gibraltar upon which a man attacked might depend in time of peril!

Once the defense puts Leo Frank’s character in issue, however, the State may attack it as bitterly and as vehemently as it likes.

This, it may be, the State is prepared to do.

Unless the State does break down Frank’s character, however, once it is put in issue by his own attorneys, the State will be thereafter at a tremendous disadvantage, I think, particularly when the defense is undertaking to shoot the character of Conley to pieces from the other flank!

Character can not be broken down in a courtroom with whispered words and sinister gossip.

Must Attack in Open.

Under the impersonal rules of evidence and the law, character must be attacked in the open—it must be beaten down, if beaten down it be, with weapons the judge and the jury may see, wielded in fair play, and it must be a fight to a finish.

True, if a defendant deliberately puts his own character in issue, the burden is upon him to sustain his character; but once the law puts that burden upon a defendant, it holds in leash and sure control the State in its attempts to demolish it.

I have written of crimes and of criminals for fifteen years—of petty sneak thieves and bank robbers, of common back-alley bullies and murders, of brutes and degenerates, of clever confidence men and clumsy bunglers.

I have seen the innocent made victims of cruel circumstances and the unquestionably guilty escape, but I am yet to see a case in which good character, firmly and frankly set up, was not a tower of strength to the accused—a sure and abiding “benefit in his hour of peril,” as Chief Justice Simmons says it should be!

After all is said and done, character is the corner stone upon which civilization and society most securely rests.

It holds the business world together, and it differentiates the wheat from the chaff in the professions.

Without it, the grand old name of gentleman is a mockery and a sham—and, above all things, it best marks the woman as fitted to her natural and noblest environment!

If Leo Frank puts his character in issue, it will be a challenge full and free to the State to do its worst—it well may be expected to make or mar the defense of Leo Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.

DECISIONS WHICH MAY AID DEFENSE OF FRANK

The old police reporter, in sizing up the many possibilities of the Phagan case, has reached two conclusions as to the line of action which he believes will be followed by the defense:

FIRST, he believes the defense will undertake to destroy the value of Conley’s evidence, and fix upon Conley the guilt the State is trying to fix upon Frank.

SECOND, he thinks the defense will make the character of Leo Frank an issue.

The old police reporter, in poring through the files of the Georgia Supreme Court Reports, has found two decisions upon which he thinks the defense will rely.

The first which might be used to break down Conley’s evidence is as follows:

If a witness swears willfully and knowingly false, even to a collateral fact, his testimony ought to be rejected entirely, unless it be so corroborated by circumstances, or other unimpeached evidence, as to be irresistible. —23 GEORGIA REPORTS.

As a circumstance tending to prove Frank’s innocence, the defense, the old police reporter thinks, will produce the following:

Evidence of good character is admitted as evidence of positive fact, and may, of itself, by the creation of a reasonable doubt, produce acquittal!—102 GEORGIA REPORTS.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 6th 1913, “Phagan Case Centers on Conley; Negro Lone Hope of Both Sides,” 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

Sunday, June 8th, 1913

Average Atlantan Believes Frank is Guilty, but That Little Real Evidence Has Yet Pointed to Him as Slayer.

Stirring Defense by Wife and Attack on Solicitor Dorsey Are Two Striking Features of Week’s Progress in Case.

by AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

I have thought a good deal during the past week about a fine young newspaper man I used to know some fifteen years ago, and particularly of the last thing he said to me before he died.

He was a Georgian, too. We had been college mates and fraternity mates, and all that sort of thing.

After we graduated, he plunged into newspaper work, and I studied law. I practiced—to a limited extent—that honorable profession for some four years, but abandoned it eventually for newspaper work, and when I plunged in also, I asked him how about it.

This is what he said: “There is only one thing about it. Work fast, get your facts straight, beat ‘em if you can—but don’t go off half-cocked. Don’t get yourself where you have to take back things—but don’t be afraid to take ‘em back, if necessary—and be fair. The Golden Rule is, ‘BE FAIR!’ Unless you are fair, you will not respect yourself, and nobody else will respect you!”

Phagan Case Shows People Are Fair.

I find that most people ARE fair. I believe there is in the hearts of nine people in every ten one meets a desire to see his fellow-man get “a square deal.” And I believe it more nowadays than I ever believed it before, for the progress of the Phagan investigation has reaffirmed my faith in my fellow-man.

The Atlanta Georgian was the first newspaper to give pause to the riot of passion, misunderstanding, misinformation and rank prejudice primarily set in motion by the slaying of little Mary Phagan.

Before the story had grown to large proportions, The Georgian, with all the emphasis at its command, begged for calm, and poise, and fairness. It invoked the SUPREMACY OF THE LAW—and I think it is entitled to have that said of it.

Governor’s Appeal Cooled Passion.

Quick to appreciate the significance and the timeliness of this, the Governor of Georgia, in a ringing interview given to The Sunday American, approved The Georgian’s attitude of fair play, and added his voice to that of The Georgian in its effort to hold fast to the LAW.

Since then the Phagan investigation has progressed with an ever-growing demand from the public for fair play—fair play for everybody, defense and prosecution.

And yet, to be strictly truthful, I must say that the man in the street believes Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan.

All that he has to base this belief upon are statements published in the newspapers, and some of these are worthless upon their face. Many of them are absurd. Many of them could not be introduced in court at all. Many of them are the mere opinions of unimportant people that would have no standing anyway.

The developments in the week just passed, while not distinctly favorable to Frank, were not unfavorable. Various affidavits made by Conley, affidavits and repudiation of affidavits made by Frank’s cook, Minola McKnight, will, I feel reasonably sure, have no weight before a jury, if indeed the court every permits them to go to a jury.

Must Weigh Words of Conley and Cook

And yet, if the statements of Conley and the cook could be corroborated, they would prove strong links in the chain of circumstantial evidence against Frank.

Let me say again, as I have so often said, that I am setting down here my own opinion only. I speak for no one but myself. I do not know the Franks or the Seligs. I do not know of any of the persons whose names are mentioned as investigators or any of the detectives working on the case. I do not know Dorsey; and I know only just what you know, rather—what is published in the newspapers.

I do know, and you know, that the prosecution must prove him guilty of the crime, while the defense does not have to prove him innocent.

Now, I do not say that Frank is innocent. I do not say he is guilty. I do not know. I do not know what evidence Mr. Dorsey has, or to what his witnesses will testify, but I do know that such of it that has appeared in the newspapers would not be convincing legal evidence to me. Nor would I consider it very seriously if I was a member of the jury.

Dorsey May Be Holding Evidence.

Dorsey may have a great deal of important evidence that has not yet been made public. I shall be greatly surprised if he has not. I look for a great many sensations between now and the time of the trial.

It ought not to be difficult for Frank to prove his innocence, if he is innocent, and it will be well to remember that he must be considered innocent until the jury returns a verdict of guilty against him.

Frank will undoubtedly take the stand and make a statement in his own defense. He will be his own best witness. What he says, and how he says it, will have more influence with the jury than anything that many be said against him.

One of the most interesting events of the past week’s developments, to my way of thinking, was the statement in defense of her husband given out by Mrs. Leo Frank.

It is not competent legal evidence of Frank’s innocence, of course, for the wife can testify neither FOR nor AGAINST the husband in Georgia, but it had a powerfully steadying effect upon public opinion, and has served to give it additional poise and calm.

In part, it was a fine utterance in part it was a mistaken utterance, but withal it was an intensely human document, full of appeal for justice and righteous judgment—and, in a way, it cleared the atmosphere considerably.

Mrs. Frank May Have Crossed Lawyers.

Mrs. Frank, of all people, was the one person who COULD say the necessary word at a moment of tenseness and deep significance. To have left it unsaid would have been unwomanly and unwifely—and I have an idea she may have said it not because of her husband’s legal advisers, but largely in spite of them.

They might have been willing for her to have given vent to her already too long repressed feelings, and to have vehemently protested her husband’s innocence and incapability of the crime laid at his door—but they hardly would have permitted her to go the length she did in attacking the Solicitor.

And yet it is the very fact that she DID go so far in that direction that stamps her utterance with the mark of sincerity and genuineness!

It will avail her much to take her stand unfalteringly and in full confidence there beside her husband—it will avail her nothing to complain that the Solicitor is prosecuting the case against her husband with all the resourcefulness at his command.

The one thing she should do—the other thing the Solicitor should do.

It was a tactical mistake to assail Dorsey. He represents all the people. He should be, and I believe he has tried to be, a prosecutor—not a persecutor!

Dorsey, representing all the people, has a perfect right to get his evidence in any way he sees fit.

Dorsey Represents All People in the Case.

Dorsey, I am sure, believes in fair play for the public and fair play for anyone accused of the murder of Mary Phagan!

Mrs. Frank, through weeks of intense trial and suffering has held her peace. She permitted things to be said of her husband that to her must have seemed cruel in the extreme—and she never murmured. Finally, in a passionate outburst, she DID break her silence, and pleaded, for what? For fair play—just for fair play, that’s all! For her statement amounts to only that, stripped of its naturally emotional construction.

Mother Asks Fairness For All Concerned.

There, on the other hand, is Mrs. Coleman—Mary Phagan’s mother. Through weeks of heart-breaking gloom and grief, she has held HER peace. Giving vent early in the case up to her unspeakable sorrow and horrified indignation, she soon recovered her equilibrium—and has asked since, for what? For fair play—just for fair play, that’s all!

Men who are not going to permit women to try this case in the court room, officials who will not have one woman on the jury that tries Leo Frank for his life, nevertheless have been bellowing from the house tops things they knew, things they didn’t know, things they never did, can or will know about the Phagan case—and a pretty nice mess they have made of it so far, too!

Facts, near-facts, nonsense and imagination—it has seemed to be a mater of every fellow talking for himself, and as much as possible, and the devil take the hindmost!

Happily, however, from out the mass of matter that has been printed during the past five weeks, the public has gathered abundant and abiding courage to suspend its judgment—to insist upon it that the Phagan case be settled eventually in COURT, in impartial and legal order.

In every article that I have written I have stated frankly my freedom from bias in discussing the matter. I do not wish to prejudice this case one way or the other—I am interested in it purely as an abstract proposition. What I say is just my own idea of things—it is binding upon nobody—it is not, in any degree, competent evidence in a court of law.

Average Atlantan Thinks Frank Guilty.

And yet the average man believes Frank guilty. It would be easy enough to make out a case proving Frank’s innocence by putting yourself, say, in Frank’s position, and reasoning thus:

“I, Leo Frank, shortly after 1 o’clock in the afternoon of April 26, killed a fifteen-year-old white girl, for some sinister purpose, not quite clear. I did it, notwithstanding my previous good character, my business reputation, my wife at home, my people, and my every sense of decency and humanity. Nevertheless, I did it, craftily and SECRETLY. After I had consummated my crime, I went forth deliberately, searched out an ignorant, drunken negro, acquainted him with many circumstances of my crime, and got him to write some cunning notes tending to turn away from me suspicion that likely never would have been directed toward me positively except for the negro’s knowledge of crime furnished by me.

Secret Deliberately Given To Negro.

“I hired this negro, with money I never gave him, to help me hide the dead body, already as effectively hidden as the immediate necessity of the occasion required, and when he had helped me carry the dead body downstairs that I might just as well have carried myself, I told him good-bye, and said I would see him Monday and fix things up—maybe. After a while, however, I decided that I had not been thoughtful enough in securing only ONE witness against myself, so I concluded, along about 7 o’clock, to get up a few more. It had dawned upon me that perhaps the State MIGHT need seven or eight witnesses in order to accomplish my conviction.

“So between 7 and 10 that night, I called up a notorious woman, by me suspected of being known well to the police, and upon whom I thought I might depend to put the police wise promptly, and I told said notorious woman that I desired, on a matter of life and death, to bring a girl to her house, notwithstanding the fact that I knew said girl was dead, and had been for many hours.

“Of course, my idea was to acquaint the notorious woman with my crime, and maybe a half dozen others who might see me bring in the dead body, including the hackman likely employed to haul us.

Woman’s Refusal Causes Chagrin.

“I tried three times to get this woman’s permission to bring the girl’s dead boy there, and naturally my chagrin was great when she refused. I have noticed with pride that the de-tec-i-tiffs have solemnly, from time to time, pronounced me guilty of doing all the foregoing things, as I hoped they would, and I would now confess the entire crime, except for the fact that I just naturally like to tease de-tec-i-tiffs, and am of a somewhat mean and contrary disposition, anyway. To further establish my devilish ingenuity, however, it seems that I did all the things Conley says I did when I WASN’T EVEN THERE—which is a fact that should not be overlooked!”

Now, if you believe this you must find the murderer of Mary Phagan. Who comes first to your thought? Conley, of course.

Here’s what MIGHT have happened on that fateful Saturday afternoon:

Negro Knew It Was Pay-Day.

The negro Conley was sitting at the foot of the stairs, near the open elevator shaft, when Mary Phagan came in to get her pay. He may have seen her go up the steps, and he did see her come down. He must have known that she had just been paid some amount of money, and probably had it in her little mesh bag, dangling from her wrist. As she came DOWN the steps, and passed toward the front door, her back was turned to the half drunken negro. The passageway was dark, for the gas was not burning and the front doors were closed, because of a holiday. The negro may have seized the girl from behind, choked her noiselessly into insensibility, snatched her purse—robbery probably being his primary impulse—and then chucked her body over into the open elevator shaft and down into the cellar below. He may then have passed down the ladder beside the elevator shaft, for it will be established that the elevator did not run the day Mary Phagan was killed, and into the cellar.

He may have dragged the body back to its last resting place in the factory, loosening the girl’s hat and one of her shoes as he went.

Noticed Shoe; Forgot Parasol.

Noticing the shoe and the hat along the way, he went back and got them, and threw them over on the trash pile by the furnace—but HE DID NOT NOTICE THAT THE GIRL’S PARASOL WAS LEFT AT THE FOOT OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, INTO WHICH HE TOPPLED HER FROM ABOVE, and there it subsequently was found. Mary Phagan, hat, shoe and parasol may have been chucked down the elevator shaft. The hat and the shoe might have come down from the second floor above, attached to the dead body, as the negro says, but the parasol could not have come down in the dead girl’s hand.

How, then DID the parasol get to the bottom of the elevator shaft, where it was found? If it didn’t get there when Mary Phagan was first thrown there, how did it get there? It looks as if Conley may have overlooked a telltale bet in the parasol. After the murder had been consummated, the negro may have looked around for a means of escape. He need not hurry, for the factory was practically empty, and he, with his victim alone, was in the cellar.

First: he picked up a piece of cord, of which there was plenty in the cellar, and put that around the dead girl’s throat, then he wrote those stupid, ignorant, negro-like notes, hoping to avert possible suspicion from himself—and, finally, he pulled the staple from the back door, only a few feet away from the dead body, and made his escape from the factory. The girl’s purse never has been found.

Guilty of Conley May Be Defense’s Task.

And thus analyzing and theorizing, my readers will see it would not be a very difficult matter for the Frank defense to take up this line of reasoning. It seems orderly and rational. It may prove to be worthless.

Mrs. Frank and her relatives must remember that they are placed in a very extraordinary position. Whatever the detectives do in trying to unravel the crime, whatever the newspapers do in publishing rumors and gossip and statements about the mystery, would naturally cause them much suffering. I do not believe that Mr. Dorsey or any of the police officials or detectives would add one particles to the terrible burden that Mrs. Frank and her family have to bear.

But I do know the officials would not be doing their duty if they did not do all in their power to solve this terrible mystery. And it must be remembered that poor little Mary Phagan is dead. Somebody killed her! She had a right to her life, just as much as you or I, dear reader, have a right to ours; and the duty of the officials is to find the murderer, and to punish him as the law directs.

Meanwhile, let me say another final word—for fair play and suspension of judgment until the trial of the case.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 8th 1913, “Fair Play Alone Can Find Truth in Phagan Puzzle, Declares Old Reporter,” 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

Sunday, June 1^st, 1913

By AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

Developments came thick and fast during the past week, and one is able to approach consideration of the Phagan case to-day with more assurance and ease of mind than heretofore.

Distinctly have the clouds lifted, so I think, from about Leo Frank, and if not yet are they “in the deep bosom of the ocean buried,” they have, nevertheless I take it, served to let a measure of the sunshine in.

Leo Frank, snatching eagerly at that faltering ray of blessed and thrice-welcome light, may thank the negro Conley for it—albeit Conley let it in neither by way of an impulse of sympathy nor intentional truth.

If I were a de-tec-i-tiff—which, praise be to Allah, I am not!—I think I should cease shouting from the housetops my unshakable belief in Frank’s guilt, and should begin to contemplate in solemn and searching analysis the shifty and amazing James Conley, negro!

It is my opinion, bluntly stated, that Conley is an unmitigated liar, all the way through, and that the truth is not in him!

His statement appeals to me an Old Police Reporter—and not a de-tec-i-tiff, again praise be to Allah!—as distinctly the weightiest document in Leo Frank’s favor that yet has been promulgated.

Would Belong in Asylum.

Certainly, if Frank DID do the astonishing things Conley attributes to him, he should not be sent to the gallows, in any event, for he surely belongs in Milledgeville, safely held in the State lunatic asylum. But, more of Conley hereafter. The issue of murder has been made with Leo Frank, and he must face trial. The Grand Jury has indicted him, and he will be arraigned in due time and in order.

It will be a finish fight between the State and the defendant. There can be no compromise now—either Frank is guilty or he is innocent, and the truth of that is for twelve men, “good and true,” to say.

They will be picked carefully, the State and the defense each exercising its right of elimination to the limit, no doubt, in seeking to frame a jury likely to hand in a just verdict. At least, that is the theory of it.

Solomon cited three strange things as the strangest of all things—the way of an eagle in the air, a serpent upon a rock, and a man with a maid.

Jury Strangest of All.

In Solomon’s day, however, they did not have trials by jury, otherwise I feel sure his majesty would have added the way of a jury with a defendant as the fourth exceeding strange thing.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and no man knoweth whence it cometh or whither it goeth—and by the same token, the verdicts of juries are past prophecy and sure anticipation.

Therefore, students of the uncertain—those people who delight to indulge in speculation and baffling forethought—have three puzzles to engage their minds.

First, who killed Mary Phagan? Second, what will Frank’s defense be? Third, what will the jury say?

One thing seems certain, either the jury will acquit Frank utterly or condemn him utterly.

There will be no recommendation of mercy, if he is found guilty, for that would make it obligatory upon the presiding judge to send Frank to the penitentiary for life, with a possible pardon or commutation of sentence ahead.

He will not be found guilty of manslaughter, either voluntary or involuntary, for that would mean that he killed Mary Phagan, but not with deliberate malice aforethought.

The verdict will be written in one of two words—either “Guitly” or “Not Guilty.”

Law Holds Frank Innocent.

Remember Frank, although indicted, stands in the eyes of the law at this writing with the presumption of innocence in his favor.

That is the written law, and the judges will so charge the jury when he comes to deliver into their hands the case for a decision. The burden of proof will be upon the State to make out its case against Leo Frank “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Frank may introduce witnesses or not, as he chooses. He may, as he will have the right to do, undertake his defense entirely in a personal statement, given not under oath, which the jury may accept in whole or in part, or reject in whole or in part, and to the exclusion of all the sworn testimony, if it so elects.

That also is the written law, and the trial jury will be so charged.

The State of Georgia is very fair to a defendant, fairer than many States.

If Frank should elect to rely upon his own statement alone, it will indicate his firm faith in the weakness of the State’s case against him, and a determination to risk his chances thereup. To that extent, therefore, it would be calculated to affect the jury favorably to his point of view.

Point Favors Rosser.

Moreover, such a course would give that wonderful criminal lawyer, Luther Z. Rosser, both the opening and concluding argument before the jury, which otherwise he will forfeit to the State—and that in a case of the Phagan character, is a matter of possibly tremendous consequence.

It will not surprise me if Luther Rosser takes his time about assembling the jury to try Frank, in so far as he may. Neither will it surprise me to see him exhaust every effort to get a jury of marked intelligence.

I think he will incline to secure as many high-class men upon it as possible—conservative businessmen, heads of families, non-emotional, middle-aged persons, perhaps a minister of the gospel.

Here is a case of nation-wide interest. Not only is Leo Frank to be put on trial; the State of Georgia is to be put on trial also!

Of absorbing interest now, of course, is the probable theory of Frank’s defense.

I have some ideas with regard to what it may be, and these I state, merely for what they may be worth, and as matters of personal speculation purely.

What I say of the defense is not said to prejudice the case one way or another. I have no personal concern in it whatever—it interests me merely in the abstract. I have no acquaintance or connection with any party to the tragedy of Mary Phagan—not the slightest. It is, to me, an absorbing problem—that’s all.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the peace of that State, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It may be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Naturally, it is harder to make out a case of murder by circumstantial evidence alone than by direct or mixed evidence.

Will the State of Georgia be able to make out such a definite case against Frank that the State will be willing to take his life upon the gallows as a forfeit for his crime? It either is that, or acquittal.

No Definite Responsibility.

Prophecy is gratuitous in matters of this kind, of course, and venturesome, but inasmuch as I am speaking for myself alone, I think I shall go on record here and now as saying that THE STATE NEVER WILL FIX UPON LEO FRANK DEFINITE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARY PHAGAN’S MURDER!

I do not believe the State’s case—unless its most convincing elements yet are secret—will “stand up” in court to that degree necessary for conviction.

And with no hint or suggestion from him to guide my mind or direct its trend, I predict that Luther Z. Rosser will bend his best energies to showing more the hopeless weakness of the State’s case than the strength of Frank’s defense. He will, I think, seek to clear Frank largely through a process of elimination directed at the various factors in the case set up against him.

He will put in fearful and full measure the tremendous responsibility upon the State of taking Frank’s life without being very sure of his guilt.

And that argument, remember, is to be directed not to YOU, gentle reader, nor to ME, nor to the judge, nor to the spectators in the court house—but to those TWELVE MEN “good and true,” under oath to do justice, there in the jury box!

Must Remember Law’s Majesty.

Luther Rosser is going to demand of that jury that it remember the majesty of the law—and he is going to picture its greatest majesty in its protection of the innocent rather than in its punishment of the guilty.

Let us now consider for a while the part the negro Conley is playing in this Phagan case.

Conley’s participation began with a lie. He first ventured the assertion, vehemently, that he could not write. It was soon discovered that the negro was falsifying about that.

He next swears that he wrote the notes found beside Mary Phagan’s dead body, and that he wrote them the day BEFORE the killing. Presumably, it finally filtered through his thick head that he had made out a case of premeditated murder against Frank in that statement—if he had made out any case at all—and so he shifted away and again swore that he wrote the notes the day OF the killing!

Finally, he gave out a statement, sworn to again—he seems to be about the most willing swearer that ever came down the pike!—saying that he actually had helped Frank, AT FRANK’S INVITATION, somewhat difficultly delivered, to dispose of the dead body of Mary Phagan, penned the notes at Frank’s dictation, and ALMOST GOT $200 FOR DOING IT!

Do you believe the moon, “the pale, inconstant moon, that nightly changes,” is made of green cheese, gentle reader? If so, it may so happen that you believe Conley is telling the truth—otherwise, I doubt it.

Frank in Conley’s Hands.

Look at it in a common-sense light. Look at it fairly and squarely. Face it in its abstract aspect.

Ask yourself this question: Would Leo Frank, a white man of at least average intelligence and good reputation, with a family at home and a good business standing abroad, kill a girl just in her teens, sure in the knowledge that no human being had witnessed the deed, and then deliberately go forth to find a shiftless negro to make him directly acquainted with the crime and its circumstances, and that to hide a body as effectively hidden as it was when found next morning?

Did Leo Frank do that? If so, he is not a murderer in any—event—he is an irresponsible lunatic! And it doesn’t occur to me as remotely possible that Mr. Rosser will enter a plea of lunacy in Frank’s behalf.

What is there, outside the preposterous “confession” of Conley that might be damaging to Frank that he has not himself been first to admit?

Did Frank not admit, readily, being in the pencil factory at such and such hours, held to suggest the possibility of his having committed the crime? Did he not say, voluntarily, when shown the dead body of Mary Phagan, “Why, that is one of the girls I paid-of yesterday?”

Has Frank dodged and shifted and given out contradictory statements since he was taken in charge by the police?

He has not. On the contrary, such things as he has said have borne the earmarks of naturalness and poise—and of truth.

Contrast that with the almost ludicrous, though grim, tissue of falsehoods Conley has spun from the very beginning.

No Doubt About Notes.

There is no reasonable doubt that Conley wrote the notes—the only possible doubt as to that, it seems to me, is that Conley “confesses” that he wrote them.

One can hardly suppress a smile, of course, when he recalls how the “experts” primarily opined that Newt Lee’s handwriting was mightily like the writing in the notes—but let that pass. This Phagan case is a tragedy, and not a comedy—except in infrequent spots.

Will Conley be indicted as an accessory to the murder of Mary Phagan? If he is, how will the State corroborate him, as it must in that event?

And yet, if this statement is true, or if the authorities believe is to be true, certainly he IS an accessory.

Shreds and patches will be about the proper words to employ in discussing Conley when Luther Rosser gets through with him, I suspect.

If the suddenly grown loquacious Conley only can be kept loquacious, we yet may reach the absolute truth of the Phagan murder, before Frank goes to trial!

Looking back over the articles I heretofore have written with respect to the Phagan case, and noting the thread of more or less unconscious optimism as concerns the final intent of the people to be fair, to be just, to be true to their higher ideals, I note little if anything, that I would unsay.

Public Opinion Honest.

Public opinion yields readily enough now and then to passionate impulse and unreason, but, in the long run, it may be depended upon to right itself and to deal honestly with men and things.

I thought I was right in saying that judgment some time ago was suspended with regard to Leo Frank, that the public mind, free of its initial distortion, had settled itself into a calm determination to see fair play—fair play for all, for Frank, for the dead girl and for the great State of Georgia.

To-day I think the public mind is more firmly set in that direction than ever. The people of Atlanta, of Georgia, of the South, of the nation ARE FAIR!

One or two further points, and I am through.

There are those who wonder why Frank, innocent, if so he be, so persistently declines to see people and to discuss his case for the public edification. In the first place, I may answer to that, Frank has employed for his defense the most discreet and secretive attorney in Atlanta, Luther Rosser is and ever has been, the personification of silence when silence seemed golden. In the matter of keeping things to himself, the well known Sphynx has nothing whatever on Luther Z. Rosser. Mr. Rosser unquestionably long ago advised Frank not to talk—particularly when he (Rosser) was at Tallulah Falls trying a case. Besides, by declining to try his case in the newspapers, Frank has displayed much common sense.

Conley Badly Frightened.

There are those who ask why Conley confessed, when to keep quiet seemed so much safer.

Well, Conley is a negro, and he started out with a stupid purpose to lie—remember his denial of his ability to write—and when he found that he was being suspected, despite his lies, he became fearful that suspicion would shift from Frank to himself, and so he rushed forth to fix it upon Frank in so far as he might. He has had four weeks to frame his story in his mind and to rehearse it to himself. He has rehearsed it to himself so many times, that, negro like, he actually may believe it, or at least part of it.

And I doubt capitally that he is through talking—and swearing—yet!

There are two possible outcomes of the Phagan case that are interesting to think upon.

First, the indictment against Frank may be set aside because of the charge of strangulation therein set up. To dispose of the case after that fashion, however, would hardly leave Frank as clear as he undoubtedly must wish to come, if he is innocent—and, therefore, I do not believe that defense will be entered.

Again, a mistrial may result, is not so unlikely as the other thing—but a mistrial is rated in legal parlance as “a half acquittal.” It merely would postpone the final disposition of the charge.

Well, every fellow to his own taste, as the old lady said when she kissed her cow in preference to her old man. As for me, I believe the State is further from a conviction of Leo Frank to-day than it ever has been—and rightly so.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 1st 1913, “Conley is Unwittingly Friend of Frank, Says Old Police Reporter,” 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

Sunday, May 4^th, 1913

Problem of Slaying in Pencil Factory One That Never May Be Cleared, Declares Crime Expert.

BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

Perhaps as many of the great murder mysteries of history have been solved through the efforts of police reporters—men assigned by newspapers to “cover” criminal cases—as have been solved by detectives. At any rate the police will always admit that police reporters have had a large part in unraveling the knotty problems. In a case of this sort the police reporter’s analysis is particularly good, for he is simply seeking the truth. He, unlike the police, is not held responsible for the production of the criminal, and therefore whatever line of thought he pursues is solely in the interests of clearing up a baffling mystery. As such the accompanying article is presented.

One week ago today a pretty fourteen-year-old girl, Mary Phagan, was found dead in the basement of the National Pencil Company, at 39 South Forsyth Street.

In the week that has elapsed, little, if anything, has been discovered tending to show who committed the crime.

I say this without reserve, but without knowing that information the detectives and police force may have that has not yet been made public.

What has been made public is far from convincing. And in an attempt to consider this most mysterious case in a calm and judicial way, we can deal only with such facts as we have before us, not with facts that may come later.

It should be said at once that this statement is not for the purpose of reflecting in the slightest degree upon the probity of the police or detectives, or to attempt to fasten the crime upon an individual, or to give to the public statements that are not true, or to inculpate or exculpate any person now under suspicion.

I am simply trying to set forth here a plain statement of the case as it was unraveled during the past week without adding anything to, or taking anything from, a mystery that is still as dark and deep as any mystery that has ever puzzled detectives anywhere.

POLICE WORK IN A CIRCLE.

The police and detectives have acted just as police and detectives always act in criminal cases. They have arrested and held the persons last seen or known to be on the premises; have held them pending an investigation and sifting of testimony by the coroner’s jury.

Policemen and detectives always work in a circle. Now and then some pioneer, a braver man, with imagination, breaks out of the circle and takes a straight line, pursues a clew not before considered seriously, and really solves the mystery.

It was the most natural thing in the world, therefore, for the police and detectives to hold Frank and Lee. Lee’s testimony has been heard. What he has told would not be considered very strong legal evidence in the courts, if, indeed, it would be considered seriously at all.

I am assuming that Lee has told nothing that has not been made public, and it is upon the belief that the worthlessness of his statements is founded.

Frank has been questioned by detectives and police, but so far as the public knows, has said nothing, has given no clew, and has maintained a calm attitude in the face of all cross-questioning. He stoutly maintains his innocence.

The inquest to be resumed on Monday may clear the whole mystery and again it may not.

Without in any way desiring to seem to anticipate the action of the coroner’s jury, it would seem likely that the police will hold both Lee and Frank for the grand jury, where there will be a final sifting of all facts brought out, under the masterful hand of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, and if sufficient evidence is produced, indictments will follow.

EVIDENCE NOT AT HAND.

At present, on the evidence now before the public, there is little or nothing to lead to the belief that the mystery has been solved.

Will it ever be solved?

My own guess is that it will not.

Please remember that I am setting forth my own views and they may be utterly valueless, and I may be entirely mistaken.

What I am writing is based upon what is known of the case.

And I may say, too, that never in all my experience as an old police reporter in many cities have I ever known of a mystery that is so many-sided, and so difficult for the public to understand.

Usually, in cases like the one under consideration, the newspapers publish all the rumors, true or untrue, all deductions of police officials, valuable or valueless, as the case may be, and an effort is made to lay before the public everything, column upon column is written, so that the public may know as much as the newspapers know, and thus be able to form an opinion for themselves.

While it is true that no newspaper in Atlanta has suppressed a single fact in this case, it is also true that what has been published has been most carefully considered and scrutinized until there was eliminated every statement that did not bear the name of the person making it. Statements that were valueless because of prima facie absurdity were not published.

PUBLIC SUSPECTED NEGRO.

It was perfectly clear on Sunday and Monday last that the public was willing to put the extraordinary act in the category known as “negro crimes,” and the sentiment of the streets was that Lee was guilty or knew the guilty man.

But a second turn of the kaleidoscope, and it was easily seen that while it might be classes as a “negro crime,” nevertheless Lee’s story was unshaken; it was clear and circumstantial and he did not act in a guilty manner, for it was he who notified the police instead of running away, as a scared rabbit, as nearly every negro does when he is guilty or even accused of crime.

This, of course, does not eliminate Lee from the case. But the fact that he has told the same story so far as the public knows and that he did not run away, has shifted some of the suspicion from him.

The Phagan case is not a “white man’s crime,” or if it is a white man’s crime, it is extraordinary and most unusual.

What is known of Frank’s past is in his favor. There may be pages in his life that the police and public know nothing of. But on the facts as they have been given through the newspapers, his connection directly with the crime is not yet sufficiently placed.

DID FRANK PLAY PART?

The public will have a better idea, after hearing his story at the inquest, what, if any, part he had in the crime, or what, if any knowledge he had of it.

In the meanwhile, in spirit of fair play and the spirit of justice that is inherent in everybody should lead to the withholding of any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of either Frank or Lee.

Nobody knows.

But we do know, all of us, that the law is supreme; that tried and faithful police officials and detectives are working on the case, and that every effort is being made to solve the mystery.

Will it ever be solved?

That is the question many people are asking themselves to-day, for after all the crime does not seem to be either a “negro crime” nor a “white man’s crime,” nor the crime that a young man in the flush of vigorous manhood, would stoop to.

It seems to be more the act of a “Jack-the-Ripper”—a page taken from the East End of London, from Whitechapel.

But whatever it is, may we not wait with calmness for the law to take its course? May we not consider carefully the facts as they are brought out by investigation, and not condemn the police and detectives, not condemn men under suspicion until they have been tried, not condemn the newspapers, on the one hand for being too sensational, and on the other hand condemn them for “suppressing the news,” when, as a matter of fact, no newspaper has suppressed anything; and the police and detectives have worked faithfully and earnestly in a mystery that would puzzle even a Sherlock Holmes?

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 4th 1913, “Old Police Reporter Analyzes Mystery Phagan Case Solution Far Off, He Says,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)