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

Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, May 7^th, 1913

BY KENNETH TODD.

HOUSTON, Tex., May 7.—Although young Paul P. Bowen, arrested in Houston Monday as a suspect in the Mary Phagan case, has been released by the chief of police, the release was ordered against the wishes of the chief of detectives and the latter has been summarily discharged for opposing his superior in spite of the telegram from Chief Beavers, of Atlanta, to Chief Davison, of the local department.

Bowen was released twenty-four hours after the message was received. Chief of Detectives Peyton stubbornly refused to let the youth go free, so Chief Davison procured the keys and acted as turnkey. He also discharged Peyton and started a row that has the police department up in the air. Fourteen members of the department were discharged. Claiming that the discharge of Bowen was actuated largely by spite and before a thorough investigation had been made local Pinkerton’s agents as well as private detectives are doing some work on their own accord.

The row between the chief of police and the chief of detectives was caused when the latter gave out the story to an afternoon paper without consulting the head of the department and mentioning his name.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 7th 1913, “Fourteen Houston Policemen Fired on Bowen’s Account,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal
August 16^th, 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLASH OVER PINKERTONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness again.

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

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

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

“My sister, Mrs. Bennett.”

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

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

“What does your son-in-law do?”

“He is a retail cigar dealer.”

ESTATE NOT LARGE.

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

“No, sir.”

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

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

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

“How much is that?”
“About $20,000.”

“That is all your own?”

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

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

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

“Well, how does it rank?”

“It’s just a residential section.”

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

“Is there a two-story house on it?”

“Yes.”

“Made of brick?”
“Yes, I think so.”

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

“$6,000.”

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

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

WITNESS, CALLED BY THE DEFENSE, TESTIFIES AGAINST FRANK

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

“You didn’t pay all cash, did you?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNCLE CONSIDERED WEALTHY.

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

“He’s very wealthy, isn’t he?”

“He’s generally considered so.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I don’t know.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGINEER TESTIFIES.

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

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

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

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

MISS HALL RECALLED.

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

JIM A BORROWER.

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

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

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

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

SHE COULDN’T REMEMBER.

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

“Where were you the night of April 26?”

“I don’t know.”

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

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

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

“I don’t remember.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Come down.”

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

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

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

DIDN’T KNOW HIS CHARACTER.

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

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

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

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

PINKERTON ON STAND.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Describe those stains.”

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

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

ROSSER COMPLAINS TO COUNSEL.

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

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

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

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

HAD NO FIGURES ON IT.

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

“No.”

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

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

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

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

COURT ALLOWS QUESTION.

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

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

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

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

DENIES CONVERSATION.

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

Judge Roan allowed the question. Solicitor Dorsey then asked.

“Did any such conversation occur?”

“No,” answered the witness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAYS PINKERTON CONCEALED EVIDENCE.

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

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

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

Judge Roan ordered the jury out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JURY BROUGHT BACK.

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

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

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

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

“Where is Pierce?” again asked the solicitor.

“I don’t know.”

“Where is Whitfield?”
“I don’t know.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No, I was not there.”

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

“No.”

“Didn’t you make this report?”
“No.”

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

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

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

“No, I do not.”

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

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

Miss Sarah Barnes was the next called.

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

LOVES THE SUPERINTENDENT.

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

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

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness in hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

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

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

“Do you know Miss Emily Mayfield?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEARD OTHERS COMPLAIN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I sustain your objection,” said Judge Roan.

ORDERS AGAINST FLIRTING.

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

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

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

“Yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DORSEY TAKES WITNESS.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-questioned the witness again.

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

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

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

“No, sir.”

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

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

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

“Whom was he talking to?”

“The forelady.”

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

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

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

“I don’t remember.”

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

“Seven o’clock.”

“What time was it when Frank came in?”

“Ten or fifteen minutes after that.”

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

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

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

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

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

The witness was cross-examined by Solicitor Dorsey.

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

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

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

“At the jail.”

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

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

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

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

SOLICITOR SUSTAINED.

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

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

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

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

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

ROSSER ENTERS OBJECTION.

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

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

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

“What time did Conley finish?”

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

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

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

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

SPEAKS TO JURY.

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

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 16th 1913, “Witness Called by Defense, Testifies Against Frank,” Leo Frank Case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 1^st, 1913

When court convened on Thursday morning, J. M. Gantt, formerly employed in the bookkeeping department of the National Pencil factory, was placed on the stand for two questions, and he was followed by Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, who worked as a partner of John R. Black, of the city detectives, in searching for the murder of Mary Phagan.

Solicitor Hugh Dorsey had Gantt swear that he was arrested on April 28 and hold until the following Thursday.

During Scott’s testimony, there were lively tilts of all sorts. At one time Scott became angry with the solicitor and asked him if he were accusing him of withholding evidence, and Dorsey declared that Scott had entrapped him by promising to swear one thing on the stand and then by refusing to swear it.

A moment later the defense was in a rage when Scott swore that Herbert Haas, one of Leo Frank’s counsel, had ordered him to furnish to the defense the evidence he might obtain before giving it to the police.

Luther Rosser, another of Frank’s attorneys, then tried to show that he had not been concerned in this, and when this was not helld [sic] admissible, he burst out with the statement, “There’s certainly no one here who believes that I had anything to do with this!”
Scott declared he told Haas, in the presence of Rosser and Sig Montag, that before the Pinkertons would do as he asked that they would quit the case.

In the formal examination the first question asked by the solicitor was, “How long have you known Frank?”

Employed by Frank.

“Since I first saw him on April 28,” the Pinkerton man replied.

“By whom were you employed in the Phagan murder?”
“By Frank, representing the National Pencil company.”

“Where did you see him?”
“In his office in the pencil factory. He called me in his private office for a conference.”
“What did he say?” asked the solicitor.

“He told me about the crime, and stated that he and the directors of the company had decided that the public demanded a thorough investigation to find the murderer. Then he said he had just left police station, and that Detective Black seemed to suspect him.

“Then,” continued the detective, “he outlined to me his own movements on that Saturday, stating that he had come to the factory at 8 o’clock; had gone to Montag brothers’ place about 9 with Darley, and came back to the factory about 11 o’clock.

“He then said,” Scot[t] went on, “that Mrs. White, wife of J. A. White, who was at work upstairs, had come in just before noon and asked permission to go up and see her husband.

Paid Off in Private Office.

“Mary Phagan came in and drew her pay at ten minutes after 12, according to what Frank said, and he paid her $1.20, giving her two halves and he thought two dimes,” continued Scott, “and then he said that the Phagan girl was paid off in his private office at his desk, and that as she went out she stopped in the outer office and called back to know if the metal had arrived yet.

“Frank declared he told the girl that he did not know about the metal, and then as she went on out he thought he heard voices, but could not tell whose they were. He then said that at about half past 12 he went up and told Mrs. White that he was about to close up the factory, and that she had best leave, and that Mrs. White told him of seeing a negro behind some boxes on the first floor.

“Frank said he left at about ten after 1,” Scott went on, “and that he went home, and was back at the factory at 4 o’clock, when Newt Lee came, and that he sent Lee out to have a good time and told him to come back at 6.

“Frank then told that Lee came back at 6, and that a few minutes afterwards he went out and saw Lee sitting on a box and talking to Gantt.”

Tried to Call Factory.

“Gantt, Frank said, was a former bookkeeper who had been discharged for thieving,” Scott stated, “and then Frank said he got home by 20 minutes after 6, and, worrying about Gantt’s presence, tried to call the factory at 6:30. Frank told me he tried and tried the telephone, and finally got the number at 7 o’clock and asked Lee if Gantt had gone and if everything was all right. Lee answered in the affirmative, according to Frank,” said the Pinkerton man, “and Frank then said that at 9 o’clock he took a bath and went to bed.

“After that Frank and Darley and I went through the factory and the various details were explained to me. I was shown the place where the hair had been found and the place where some dark spots had been chipped out, and there was a white substance around the place.

“I then examined the time clock, and then went to the basement and was shown where the body had been found, and also the hat and shoe. Darley did most of the explaining on this trip and Frank had been the spokesman in the office.”

“How did Frank act in his office?”
“He seemed perfectly natural,” replied the witness.

“What do you mean by perfectly natural?” interrupted Rosser, for the defense.

“He wasn’t nervous,” said Scott.

“Was he nervous or not later?”

Nervous While at Station.

“Yes, he was nervous at the police station when we were talking about Lee.”

“How did he breathe in the office?”

“Occasionally, he seemed to take a long breath,” said Scott.

“Was Frank accurate and specific as to time in describing to you his actions on that Saturday when the girl is supposed to have been killed,” asked Dorsey.

On Attorney Rosser’s objection this was ruled out.

“What did his eyes look like?” continued the solicitor.

“Large and piercing.”

“What kind of breaths did he take?”

“Deep sighs,” said Scott.

“How often?”

“Four or five times while in the office.”

“How large did his eyes look then?”

“Same as now.”

“How about his complexion?”

“He was a little pale then.”

“What, if any, pauses did he make?” asked Dorsey.

“That’s a leading question,” snapped Rosser.

“How did Frank give his narrative and was he rapid in speech and specific in regard to time?” the solicitor went on without the other question being answered.

Mr. Rosser objected to the use of the word “specific,” and declared that Frank had always used the word, “about” in referring to the time of his movements.

“What else was said in the conversation?” asked Dorsey.

“Nothing more that I recall.”

Reported to Haas and Rosser.

“Did you or did you not make reports or statements to the defendant of what you did?” asked Dorsey.

“I made them to Herbert Haas, Luther Rosser and Sig Montag,” Scott declared.

“I grant that he furnished them,” injected Rosser, “but the fact that he did doesn’t make it admissible.”

“Did the Pinkertons give Frank’s counsel reports?” continued the solicitor.

“Yes.”

“Give them to the state?”

“I don’t know.”

“Did Frank say he heard the voices in the hall about noon that Saturday, before or after noon?”

Scott was allowed to refer to his notes and started reading from them when Rosser stopped him.

“You must not necessarily read what the notes say, but what your mind says after refreshing it by means of the notes,” ruled Judge Roan.

“Frank said he heard the voices after noon,” said Scott.

“What did Frank tell you he did at home after he left the factory at lunch time?” asked Dorsey.

“He did not say.”

“Did he tell you he ate lunch?”

“No.”

Frank’s References to Gantt.

What, if anything, did Frank tell you about Gantt?”

“He stated in the first conversation,” said Scott, “that Gantt knew Mary Phagan very well and was intimate with her.”

“Did he say how he knew this?”

“No.”

“Did Frank say anything about Gantt’s attentions to Mary Phagan?”

“Not that I recall.”

“May I refresh the mind of the witness?” asked the solicitor, turning to Judge Roan.

Attorney Rosser entered an objection.

“Your honor,” said Mr. Dorsey rather hotly, “it is in your direction to allow me to ‘lead’ a witness, and if there ever was a time when a witness needs to be led this is one, this detective in the employ of the defense.”

Scott Becomes Angry.

“You don’t mean to intimate that I’m holding anything back!” Scott exclaimed angrily.

“The state has been trapped,” said Mr. Dorsey amid a general murmur from Rosser and Scott, and for a moment things looked black.

“The witness told me something and now he don’t seem to remember it,” Mr. Dorsey continued, “and I’m not trying to impeach him, I’m simply trying to refresh his memory,” he added as his colleague, Frank Hooper, whispered something to him.

“Mr. Dorsey said three times that he had been trapped by Scott,” Rosser interrupted, “and now after Hooper has talked to him he’s changed; Hooper’s a wise man.”

“You have the right, your honor, to allow me to ask leading questions, and while generally they are not allowed on cross-examination, you may allow them on direct examination and even refuse them to the other side when they are cross-examining. This detective seems to have a lapse of memory. Why, he had to refresh it a while ago with his notes, and now I want to ask him to refresh it about what Frank said about Gantt.”

The solicitor evidently wanted Scott to declare that Frank had narrated seeing Gantt and Mary Phagan together and thus give the lie to Frank’s declaration to Rogers and Black that he did not know even whether such a girl as Mary Phagan worked at the factory.

“In my talk to you, Mr. Scott, did I or not make memoranda of what you said?” asked the solicitor, and then turning to the judge he asked to show these to the witness.

Rosser Again Objects.

Mr. Rosser objected to this procedure and the judge asked Scott if he knew what the solicitor had written on the memoranda. When Scott said he did not know all that Dorsey wrote, Judge Roan ruled that unless the witness had seen all that he solicitor wrote that he could not be shown the notes to refresh his memory.

“As I understand it, Mr. Dorsey can tell about what they talked over and can ask, ‘Well, Mr. Scott, how about this or that?’” stated Attorney Hooper. “It is not a ‘leading’ question to call attention to a certain subject.”

“Mr. Dorsey, you may call attention to a specific subject, but not to the answer you want,” said Judge Roan.

“Mr. Scott, did Frank or did he not discuss Gantt’s relations to Mary Phagan?” the solicitor then asked.

“Yes,” Scott replied.

“What did he say?”

“He said Gantt paid a great deal of attention to her.”
“Anything more?”

“Not that I now recall.”
“Do you know when Gantt was arrested?”

“On Monday, April 28, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon.”

“Before or after your talk with Frank?”

“About the same time; Gantt was arrested in Marietta just about that hour.”
“Was there any suggestion by Frank’s attorneys that you suppress any evidence in this case?” asked the solicitor.

“Your honor,” interrupted Attorney Rosser, “Leo Frank in a civil case would not be bound by what his lawyers did, and certainly he would not in this.”

Mr. Dorsey then withdrew the question.

“What was said about the matter?” asked the solicitor.

Scott Suspected Frank.

“During the first week in May,” said Scott, “Pierce and I went to Herbert Haas’ office to discuss the handling of the case and we told him we had strong suspicion against Frank.”

“I object; that can’t come in!” roared Rosser.

“Mr. Haas said that he would rather we would submit what evidence we might get to them before turning it over to the police,” the Pinkerton man continued, “so that they would know in advance what the evidence was, and we told him that we would quit the case before we would handle it in that way.”

Scott was then made to describe the locality where the supposed blood spots were found near the girls’ dressing room and he declared that the spots had been chipped out when he went there, but that white substance was smeared around the place as if someone had taken a cloth and rubbed the whiting on the floor.

“Are you sure that the white stuff had been smeared on, or had it merely been spilled there?” asked the solicitor.

“I could tell by its appearance that it had been smeared there,” Scott replied positively.

“On the facts you have told about Frank’s appearance are you willing to tell whether or not Frank was nervous?” asked the solicitor, referring to Scott’s testimony about the defendant’s being pale and taking long breaths during the first conference.

“He seemed nervous but not trembling,” answered Scott.

“Tell what happened on Tuesday night, April 29, in Frank’s presence,” said Dorsey.

“Black and I were with Frank at police station and Black told him that he and I believed Newt Lee knew more about the crime than he would tell and we suggested to Frank that he, as Lee’s employer, might get something out of him and we asked Frank to hold a private talk with the negro.

Says Frank Squirmed in Chair.

“Frank did that and when he had been there about ten minutes Black and I entered just as Lee was saying, ‘Mr. Frank, it’s awful hard to be handcuffed here to this chair.’

“Frank hung his head for about 30 seconds and then flinging up his hands he burst out, ‘Well, they’ve got me, too!’

“Later Frank told us he got nothing out of the negro,” said Scott.

“How about Frank’s demeanor at that time?” asked Dorsey.

“He was extremely nervous; he squirmed in his chair and crossed and uncrossed his legs. He didn’t seem to know what to do with his hands and put them all over his face and rubbed his mouth with them several times, four or five times, and hung his head, swallowed hard and sighed.”

Scott was then made to tell that on the first Monday afternoon he saw Frank that the superintendent had told him the clock had not been correctly punched during the night before the finding of the body.

Search Made in Factory.

“Black and I went to the factory and carried him to the station house and after a conference decided to keep him here,” Scott declared next in answer to the solicitor’s question about the time that Frank was first arrested.

“How about his appearance?” asked Dorsey.

“He had nothing to say and he was very pale.”

“Did you see Mr. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, with him on Tuesday before his arrest?”

“No.”

“Did you see Frank on May 3, and what took place?”
“Black and I went to his cell and asked him if, after going bacw [sic] to the factory from Montag’s place, he stayed in the office, and he said he did and also that he was there from 12 to 12:30.”

“Did you talk to Frank about the suspects in the case previous to the offerings of the rewards?”

“No.”

“Did you search the factory?”

“Yes, I searched thoroughly around the elevator shaft, but only on the surface; I did not dig up the dirt.”

“Find anything like a ribbon, a purse, pay envelope or a stick or bludgeon?” asked Dorsey quickly.

“No, I ran my lantern up and down and looked thoroughly, but I found nothing like what you describe,” Scott declared with emphasis.

Cross-Questioned by Rosser.

Mr. Rosser then took up the cross-examination.

“Did you make a report of your talk with Mr. Haas?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Haas said that he wanted to find the murderer whoever he might be, didn’t he?” queried Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, he said that after I had told him we would quit the case before we would handle it like he first suggested, in telling us to submit new evidence to him before giving it to the police,” replied Scott.

Mr. Rosser then declared that he wanted to show that he had not been concerned in the affair. The solicitor won his point, however, that because it might have been that one of the defendant’s counsel had tried to suppress facts, that such did not open up the way for proving that others had not.”

“Well, there’s certainly no one here who would think that I had anything to do with it, and I know it,” thundered Rosser, apparently addressing himself to court and spectators as well as jurymen.

“Didn’t you give me a statement of your first conversation with Frank in which there was no mention of his statement about the alleged intimacy between Gantt and Mary Phagan?” asked Mr. Rosser a moment later of Scott.

“It was purely an oversight.”

“Didn’t the coroner ask you about Leo’s statement and you answered without saying anything of Gantt’s intimacy?”

“Yes, I didn’t consider Gantt a suspect and for that reason did not report it to you.”

Gives Notes to Rosser.

Scott then gave Attorney Rosser the notes of his testimony.

“Isn’t it true that at the inquest you failed to tell of Frank’s lowering his head?”

“I do not remember.”

“Didn’t you make one statement at the inquest and another here?”

“Oh, I’ve refreshed my memory,” said Scott.

“Show me in your notes anything about Gantt’s intimacy with Mary Phagan,” said Rosser.

“It isn’t there; I’ve got my system of taking notes and maybe they are not like yours.”

“Isn’t it true you took part of the notes one day and some another day?”

“I did no such thing.”

“You never mentioned to me of Gantt’s intimacy.”

“No.”

“At the coroner’s inquest did you not say Frank was nervous that afternoon at the office?”

“No; I was not asked about it.”

“Why did you state it?”

“Oh, there is a lot besides going into a whole detailed sheet about it.”

“When you told of the talk between Lee and Frank you never said he was nervous.”

“Not nervous; I said Frank hung his head.”

“Are you following Dorsey’s attack?”

“No, his line of questions.”

“Are you a trained sleuth?”

“Suppose so.”

“You are trained to note all indications of guilt in a man?”

“Yes.”

“Did you swear you told all you knew at the inquest?”

“Yes; I did my best in a general way.”

“You never hid anything?”

Scott Again Grows Angry.

“No; that’s not my business nor my reputation,” Scott finished back, his anger, which had been visible since his hot words with the solicitor, flaring high again.

“It wouldn’t have been wise to open up and toil everything at the inquest,” interrupted the solicitor.

“Who was present at the factory office when you conferred with Frank?”

“Darley was there and I think Schiff was,” answered Scott.

“Do you work with the police?”

“Yes.”

“Never work against them?”

“No.”

“You just go right down the road with them do you?” said Mr. Rosser.

Scott made no particular reply and the cross-examination went on.

“Were you in the factory that Sunday morning?” the attorney next asked.

“No; I never entered there until about 4:30 Monday afternoon.”

“Did you testify as to blood stains at the inquest?”

“Yes.”

“I also found some supposed blood stains,” Rosser read from the stenographic report of Scott’s testimony before the coroner.

“Mr. Scott, you said nothing then about the smears over the spots,” said Mr. Rosser.

Scott was then made to tell that Frank acted as the spokesman in the office and that Darley did the explaining as they made the trip through the factory on the Monday after the crime.

“You say now,” continued Mr. Rosser, “that Frank told you he left the factory about 1:10?”

“Yes.”

“Didn’t you report to me that Frank said he left about 1 o’clock?”

“No, I said 1:10.”

When the attorney exhibited the report it showed 1 o’clock instead of 1:10 and Scott declared that it was merely an error, and should have been 1:10.

“Did Detective Black know all that happened before Herbert Haas, Sig Montag or I did?”

“Yes, absolutely.”

“Well, you may go,” said Mr. Rosser, and turning to the judge he declared he wanted to reserve the right to question him again.

Dorsey Resumes Questioning.

“Did you ever report to the police the finding of a stick?” asked Mr. Dorsey, again taking up the examination.

“I presume that unless it was held out that chief got knowledge of it about the time it was found,” answered Scott.

“Don’t you know whether he did or not?”

“No, I was away at the time, and I don’t know what happened while I was out of town.”

“When you work with the police do you follow them or the facts in the case?” asked Dorsey.

“We report to the police each day the facts we get.”

“How do you work with the police?”

“Black and I worked as partners, and he knew all I knew, and reported it to the police.”

Then Mr. Dorsey made the witness tell again about the threat that the Pinkertons would leave the case before they would report evidence to the defense before giving it to the police. After Scott had pointed out on the cross-section of the factory building the route taken by himself, Frank and Darley in examining the place on the Monday after the case, he was excused. The Pinkerton man had been on the stand for two hours.

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

Atlanta Georgian
July 31^st, 1913

FRANK NOT IN OFFICE JUST AFTER 12 ON DAY OF SLAYING, SAYS GIRL

The deliberate charge that he had been “trapped” by Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott was made by Solicitor Dorsey at the trial of Leo M. Frank Thursday. Scott played a curious part in the trial, being attacked by both sides.

He was given the same fiery baptism that annihilated City Detective Black the day before, but he passed through the ordeal in much better shape than his brother detective. Scott left the stand at 11 o’clock and Miss Monteen Stover was called.

The Stover girl testified that she visited the factory shortly after 12 o’clock, April 26, and that Frank was not in his office.

Scott refused to be cowed by the battering attack of Luther Rosser, chief of Frank’s counsel, and fought back viciously at various times during his cross-examination. He was inclined to argue with both Attorney Rosser and Solicitor Dorsey, and at one time blazed forth angrily when he though that Dorsey was charging him with holding something back.

Defense Discounts Scott’s Story.

Rosser succeeded in impeaching Scott’s testimony to a certain extent by showing that his testimony at the Coroner’s inquest differed in some respects from that given at the trial, and that the testimony at the inquest lacked much that was contained in his testimony just given under the questioning of Solicitor Dorsey, although Scott had sworn at the inquest that he was telling all he knew.

It was evident as soon as the Pinkerton detective was called that a sharp battle was to ensue over his testimony. A lively tilt occurred between Rosser and Dorsey before Scott had been on the stand five minutes. The testimony had progressed only a little further when Dorsey claimed that he had been trapped by the witness into believing that testimony of another sort would be given.

Dorsey demanded the privilege of asking leading questions in order to determine whether Scott’s memory was faulty or if he was purposely holding something back.

Haas Wanted First Reports.

The Solicitor got from his witness the details of his engagement by the National Pencil Company and sought to emphasize that Herbert Haas, one of Frank’s attorneys, had tried to induce Scott to withhold his evidence from the police, but Scott on cross-examination declared that Haas asked only that [t]he evidence be given the pencil factory officials first.

Scott testified that Frank in the first days of the investigation had told him that J. M. Gantt, a discharged factory employee, knew Mary Phagan well and was familiar and intimate with her, the Solicitor by this evidence seeking to show a disposition on the part of Frank to throw suspicion on someone else.

The detective described Frank’s demeanor as extremely nervous at the interview Tuesday night, April 29, between Frank and Lee. Scott said that Frank hung his head, crossed and recrossed his legs, rubbed his face and lips with one hand and then the other, and seemed not know where to put his hands.

Rosser Grills Scott.

Rosser, cross-examining Scott, made the detective admit that he had not told of these circumstances before the Coroner’s inquest and had not stated any of the conversation between Lee and Frank which he had just told to the Solicitor. Going further, he forced Scott to admit that he had said at the inquest that he had heard none of the conversation.

Scott told Dorsey that he had made a thorough search of the first floor of the factory soon after his services were engaged, and that he had found no ribbon, purse, pay envelope or bloody stick, which later was said to have been found near where Jim Conley was hiding, by Pinkerton operatives.

Scott said that he had looked for blood spots, but that most of the evidence of this sort had been chipped up before he entered the case.

Rosser and Scott engaged in a heated argument when Rosser called attention to the fact that the detective had not mentioned at the Coroner’s inquest Frank’s alleged remark in regard to Gantt’s intimacy with the Phagan girl.

Scott gave as his excuse that it was an oversight, or that he possibly had not been questioned on that matter by the Coroner.

“I am not fool enough to give away the whole case in detail at a preliminary hearing, anyway,” added Scott.

R. P. Barrett, the machinist at the pencil factory, who discovered the strand of hair on a lathing machine and spots resembling blood on the floor, was called to the stand at the conclusion of Monteen Stover’s testimony.

Dorsey Quizzes Scott.

Solicitor Dorsey started his questioning of Harry Scott with the query:

Q. What is your business?—A. Pinkerton detective.

Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you first see Frank?—A. Monday, April 28, at 7 p. m.

Q. Where was that?—A. In Frank’s private office.

Q. What was Frank’s attitude?—A. He was composed.

Dorsey said:

“Your honor, I want to refresh his memory. I was misinformed as to what the witness would testify.”

Attorney Rosser objected.

“I am surprised at the evidence,” said the Solicitor, “of this witness regarding Frank’s attitude.”

Noted Nothing Unusual.

“What about his breathing?” asked the Solicitor—A. Well, between sentences, occasionally he took a deep breath.

Q. What about the expression of his eyes?—A. I had never seen him before. The expression of his eyes was about as they are now.

Frank, sitting a few feet away, wore the same cool expression he has had since the beginning, his face utterly devoid of emotion. The expression of his unusual eyes was calm. Dorsey resumed his questioning.

Q. What did he say?—A. “I suppose you have heard of the horrible murder in this factory. The directors and I have decided to employ you to find the murderer.”

Frank Said He Was Suspected.

Q. What else did he say?—A. He said he had just come from the police station and that the police, particularly Detective Black, seemed to suspect him.

Q. What else?—A. He related his movements on the day of the murder. He said that the paid the little girl off that day and that when she left he heard voices on the stair. He said that later he let Mrs. White out of the factory at about 1 o’clock. She saw a negro sitting on a box at the foot of the stairway. Frank said he left the factory at 1:10 o’clock and went home for lunch. He said he returned from lunch at about 2 o’clock and went up to his office.

Scott testified as readily as though we were reading a narrative.

Q. Give the jury a description of […]

RED SPOTS ON FACTORY FLOOR SMEARED OVER, SAYS SCOTT

Swears Frank’s Lawyer, Haas, Called for Report Before Police Saw It

DETECTIVE SCOTT PROVES PUZZLING WITNESS BOTH FOR STATE AND DEFENSE

[…] how Frank acted.—A. He acted perfectly natural.

Rosser interrupted.

Q. How do you know it was natural if you never saw him before?—A. I just thought it was natural.

Rosser Objects Again.

Dorsey took up the questioning again.

Q. How were his eyes?—A. Large and piercing.

Q. How was his breathing?—A. Very deep.

Q. Didn’t you state to me—

Rosser interrupted.

“I object. You can’t ask him that.”

Dorsey replied: “I don’t know whether this witness has trapped me or not. I have it written down.”

Rosser; “I have no doubt you have it written down from Genesis to Revelations, but this witness has already said the defendant was not nervous.”

The objection to the question was sustained.

Dorsey: Q. How did he give you the narrative?—A. Very rapidly and specifically as to time.

Refreshes Scott’s Memory.

Q. How did the defendant state the time when Mary Phagan entered the factory?—A. He said about 12:10.

Q. What did Frank say, if anything, about hearing voices before she came?—A. I don’t recall.

Dorsey addressed Judge Roan: I want to refresh the memory of this witness with the notes he took on the case.”

Q. Mr. Scott, did you furnish a report of this case to the defendant?—A. Yes.

Q. To whom?—A. To S. Montag, Herbert Haas and L. Z. Rosser.

Q. Did you furnish the State a readable copy like you did the defense?—A. I don’t know. I read your complaint.

Rosser objected. “I object to anything like this, Your Honor. It is absolutely immaterial here how or whether he furnished the defense with the reports.”

“Not Sticking to Testimony.”

Dorsey: “I hold, Your Honor, that this witness is not sticking to his previous testimony and I have the right to refer to these reports to refresh his memory.”

Judge Roan: “Put your question, Mr. Dorsey.”

Q. Was it before or after 12 o’clock that Frank said he heard voices?—A. (Scott read from his notes) Frank told me that before 12 o’clock he heard voices outside his office.

Rosser objected. “I object to his

The objection was sustained.

“Mr. Scott, you can only refresh your memory from the notes,” said the court.

Scott refreshed his memory from his notes, and said:

“I now state that Mr. Frank told me he heard those voices before 12 o’clock.”

Q. Before Mary Phagan came or not?—A. Before.

Q. Where?—A. On the second floor.

Dorsey Misled, He Asserts.

Q. What did Frank say he did at home when he went home at 1:10 o’clock?—A. He said he went home for lunch.

Q. What, if anything, did Frank say in reference to Gantt?—A. He said J. N. [sic] Gantt knew Mary Phagan very well and was intimate with her.

Q. What, if anything, did Frank say about Gantt’s intentions to Mary Phagan?—A. Nothing.

“Your honor,” said Dorsey, “I admit I have been misled.”

Rosser objected. “These sorts of questions fall on me like a false note on a piano.”

“Your honor,” said Dorsey, “it is discretionary with you as to whether I may lead a witness. If there ever was a time when a witness should be led it is now with this detective who was hired by the pencil factory and who has been working with the attorneys for the defense. When I talked with him and he told me things and now he testifies differently I have a right to lead him.”

Charges Scott “Trapped” Him.

“If you mean to say the witness has trapped you, I will permit it,” said Judge Roan.

“I do,” answered Dorsey.

Attorney Rosser objected, and the court recessed until authorities could be looked up.

“He is trying to impeach a witness,” said Rosser.

“If it is meant that I am holding back anything I want to disabuse his mind of that,” interrupted Scott. “I—“

“I am not trying to impeach a witness,” declared Dorsey. “Here is a detective employed by this defendant and he simply has had a lapse of memory.”

Dorsey wanted to submit a memorandum he had taken from Scott, but Rosser objected.

No Reference to Notes.

“He saw me take it,” said Dorsey.

“He saw you write it,” retorted Rosser, “before my friend Dorsey conferred with Hooper. Hooper is a wise man. He charged three times that he had been trapped by the witness.”

Judge Roan ruled: “At this stage of the game I can’t allow you to ask the witness leading questions. He may be allowed to refresh his memory, but if it is on anything that is written, he must have seen it at some other time.”

Dorsey then questioned the witness:

Q. Mr. Scott, in my talk with you at my office last week, did I not make a memorandum of what you would swear? I want to ask this witness if he wrote these notes.

Rosser objected: “That is just exactly what I don’t want.”

Judge Roan ruled: “I don’t think you can lead the witness at this stage of the game.”

Said Gantt and Girl Were Friendly.

Mr. Hooper interrupted: “As I understand it, Mr. Dorsey has the right to ask this witness what he wishes, provided he asks him about the specific question.”

“I hold that,” said Judge Roan.

Dorsey put the question:

Q. Did Frank say anything about the attention of Gantt to Mary Phagan?—A. He said he seemed unusually friendly.

Q. Do you remember when Gantt was arrested?—A. Yes, about the time I was in conference with Frank.

Q. Was there anything said by one of the attorneys for Frank about you suppressing evidence?

Rosser objected. “Why, your honor,” he said, “a client is not even bound by his attorney in a civil case. I demand that that question be withdrawn.”

The objection was sustained.

When Pinkertons Suspected Frank.

Dorsey: “It is a circumstance, your honor.”

Rosser (angrily): “Then I withdraw my objection.”

Scott answered the question: “Sometime in May I, with Superintendent Pierce, of the Pinkerton agency, went to the office of H. J. Haas, in the Third National Bank Building, and told him there was a strong suspicion against Frank. He said he wanted us to give him personally our reports in full before we submitted it to the police. We told him we would withdraw from the case before we would do that.”

Q. Who did the talking and showed you on your walk through the factory?—A. Mr. Darley did most of it; Mr. Frank a little.

Q. Did Mr. Frank offer any suggestions as to how or why it happened?—A. No.

Q. Did you see any white smear over the blood spots?—A. Yes; they were covered with a sort of white smear.

Q. Were you sure it was a smear or a spit?—A. It was a smear.

When Frank Met Her.

Q. Are you willing to tell the jury whether Frank was nervous or composed?

“He answered that question,” interrupted Rosser.

“Did you?” asked Judge Roan of Scott.

A. I said his eyes were piercing and he looked pale.

Judge Roan asked the witness if Frank was composed.

A. He was composed.

Dorsey resumed his questioning.

Q. What happened at the police station Tuesday night?—A. Detective Black and I had a discussion in Frank’s presence about Newt Lee. We had been talking to Lee. Mr. Black told Mr. Frank he didn’t think Newt Lee was telling all he knew. I said about the same thing. We asked him if he would consent to go into a room with Lee and try to get the truth out of him. He agreed to and we left them alone together about ten minutes. When we interrupted, Lee did not seem to have finished his conversation. ‘Mr. Frank,’ said Lee, ‘it’s awful hard for me to be handcuffed to this chair.’ ‘Well, they got me, too,’ said Frank. Frank told me later they did not get anything out of the negro.

Frank’s Head Was Dropped.

Q. What did Frank do?—A. His head was dropped.

Q. What was Frank’s attitude at the police station?—A. He was extremely nervous.

Q. On what do you base that statement?—A. He didn’t know what to do with his hands or feet. He rubbed his face with his hands and was agitated.

Q. How about his eyes?—A. His eyes always appeared to be the same.

Q. What was his attitude at the time of his arrest on Tuesday?—A. His hands were trembling. He was pale and silent.

Q. Did you see Attorney Rosser at the police station?—A. No, I did not.

In Office from 12 to 12:30 p. m.

Q. Did you see Frank at the factory Saturday, May 3?—A. Yes; with Black.

Q. What conversation did you have with him then?—A. I asked him if he was in his office continuously from 12 o’clock noon until 12:30. He answered that he was there in his private office for every minute.

Q. How was it you put the question?—A. “For every minute of the time between 12 and 12:30, were you in your private office?” He replied that he was.

Q. Did you search the area around the elevator shaft and radiator?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you find anything around there in the shape of hair ribbon, bludgeon or purse?—A. No.

Then Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Didn’t Order Reports Held.

Q. You sent a report to me?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you report this, “Mr. Pierce and myself went to Haas’ office and he told us to catch the murderer regardless?”—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t report that other incident to me. Didn’t I say to you—

Dorsey: “I object to anything that was said except what was said to Haas.”

Judge Roan: “Isn’t it competent evidence for these attorneys to show there was not any effort at suppression?”

Dorsey replied: “Your honor, the State can show flight on the part of the defendant, but he can’t show that he stood still.”

Scott interrupted: “Haas never told us not to give the reports to the police, but merely to report to him first.”

Not in Inquest Testimony.

Q. Didn’t you testify before the Coroner’s inquest everything you know?—A. Yes; but not in detail.

Q. Did you say before the Coroner that Frank said that Gantt was familiar with Mary Phagan?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Why didn’t you give it to me in your report?—A. Either I didn’t think Gantt was a suspect or it was an oversight.

Q. Well, why didn’t you tell the Coroner about what Frank said about Gantt and Mary Phagan? Gantt was a suspect then, wasn’t he?—A. It must have been an oversight, if I didn’t do it.

Q. Isn’t it true when at the inquest that you did not say one word about Frank holding his head down when you and Black interrupted his interview with Newt Lee?—A. I don’t recall. I haven’t read the minutes.

Admits Working for Frank.

Q. You have stated here you were working in the interest of Frank, the defendant?—A. Yes.

Q. You stated there that you were employed by the National Pencil Company—A. Yes; Frank was the man I talked to. He had to see Mr. Montag before he could employ me.

Q. Didn’t you say before the Coroner’s jury that all you could find out about the conversation between Frank and Lee was from Lee?—A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t say a word about overhearing Lee and Frank in their conversation, and of Frank hanging his head, did you?—A. No; I have refreshed my memory since then.

Scott Gets Angry.

Q. Wasn’t you asked then to tell it all?—A. Yes; but a man would be a fine sister who couldn’t refresh his memory. Do you think a man can remember verbatim everything said a year ago?

Q. Hold on; don’t lose your temper.—A. I’m not losing my temper.

Q. Now, you didn’t say anything before the Coroner about Frank saying that Gantt was intimate with Mary Phagan?—A. No.

Q. You haven’t got the word intimate in your notes here. (Rosser had obtained Scott’s notes from him.)—A. Well, I’ve got my own system about taking notes which may be different from yours. I don’t write out the whole story. Neither was I cross-questioned before the Coroner.

Q. You didn’t say anything about Mr. Frank being nervous before the Coroner?—A. I said I wasn’t cross-questioned.

Q. You detailed your statement to ten pages before the Coroner and you didn’t refer to that?—A. Yes.

Q. When you detailed the statement about the conversation between Lee and Frank you didn’t say anything about his being nervous?—A. I said he hung his head.

Works With Police.

Q. You didn’t say anything about his crossing and recrossing his legs?—A. I don’t think the Coroner asked me.

Q. You didn’t say anything about his putting his hand before his face?—A. No.

Q. You are a trained detective—trained to observe things—and you didn’t bring out these facts?—A. I have too much sense to tell everything I know at preliminary hearing.

Q. Weren’t you telling all you knew?—A. In a general way. I am not fool enough to go into detail with a fine-tooth comb at a Coroner’s inquest.

Rosser: “Your honor, this witness is provoking me.”

Dorsey: “I submit, your honor, that he has a right to answer the question.”

Judge Roan: “Don’t argue with the attorney, Mr. Scott.”

Rosser:

Q. Let’s go back. You work with the police, don’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. You never work against them. You just get in the road with them?—A. Yes.

Q. You will work against your client with the police, won’t you?—A. Some time.

Q. You testified about the blood spots, but nothing about the white stuff over it?—A. Yes, I think that’s right.

Q. That conversation you said about Frank, are you sure that statement didn’t come from Darley?—A. Yes, I am quite sure Frank dictated them in his office.

Mental Notes.

Q. You are sure you didn’t take these notes during your inspection of the factory?—A. Yes. I only took mental notes and wrote when we got back to the factory.

Q. You are not positive whether on that point?—A. Yes, because it was so dark I could not see in the factory.

Scott Corrects Report.

Q. Mr. Scott, you say now that Mr. Frank told you when the little girl asked him if the metal had come, Mr. Frank replied, “I don’t know?”—A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t you swear before the Coroner that he said, “No?”—A. Yes. I have said about half and half all the time.

Q. Didn’t you say in a report to me he said, “No?”—A. Yes.

Q. Did you mean I don’t know? Don’t you know that the meanings of the words are quite different?—A. It was just a grammatical error. I now swear positively he said, “I don’t know.”

Q. You say now Mr. Frank told you he left the factory about 1:10?—A. Yes.

Q. You told me in this report (he had Scott to identify the report) that he told you he left the factory at 1 o’clock?—A. Yes. It was simply an error in that report to you.

Q. How many mistakes are there in this report?—A. Very few. They are errors of the stenographer I overlooked.

Q. Mr. Scott, Mr. Black and the police always knew the contents of these reports before you made them to me, or Mr. Haas or the owners of the pencil factory?—A. Yes.

Scott Ends Testimony.

Dorsey on redirect examination:

Q. When did you report the finding of club to the police?—A. I saw it in a report of Hay 1.

Q. Do you swear what day it was reported to the police?—A. No.

Q. About the police—do you follow the facts, or the theory?—A. I don’t quite understand.

Q. Report in full to the jury what you mean by working with the police?—A. Mr. Black and I worked in partnership and reported to the police.

Q. Detail on this chart the course of your inspection of the factory with Frank and Darley?—A. We went from the office to the machine room, where the hair was found; saw the bloodstains, went down to the basement and were shown where the body [w]as found. We saw where the slipper [w]as found.

“That’s all. Call Miss Monteen Stover.”

Monteen Stover on Stand.

Judge Roan said: “Mr. Sheriff, take the jury out for a few minutes and let them get a little fresh air.”

Solicitor Dorsey began questioning Monteen Stover. She obviously was somewhat overawed, but fairly well composed.

She appeared about the same age as Grace Hix, and, like her, had very light hair. She was dressed in a tan cotton dress with a skirt well above her ankles. She appeared 16 or 17 year of age.

Q. What is your name?—A. Monteen Stover.

Q. Where do you work now?—A. Nowhere.

Q. Where were you working April 26?—A. The day Mary Phagan was killed?

“Yes,” said Dorsey.

A. Nowhere.

Q. Did you ever work for the pencil factory?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you quit?—A. Monday before Mary Phagan was killed.

Q. Did you go to the factory on the Saturday before Mary Phagan was killed?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time?—A. 12:05 o’clock.

Q. How long did you stay?—A. Five minutes.

Q. What did you go for?—A. To get my pay.

Q. What floor did you go on?—A. The second.

Q. To where?—A. To Mr. Frank’s office.

Q. Did you see Mr. Frank?—A. No.

Q. Did you see anyone?—A. No.

Q. Did you notice the door in the rear that leads to the women’s dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it opened or closed?—A. It was closed.

Q. Had you ever noticed it before?—A. Yes.

Q. Wasn’t usually opened or closed?—A. Sometimes opened and sometimes shut.

Q. Did you notice the clock?—A. Yes.

Q. What time was it?—A. 12:05 o’clock when I entered and 12:10 when I left.

Stayed Five Minutes.

Q. What did you have on—what kind of shoes?—A. Tennis.

Q. Did you look at the clock when you went in?—A. Yes. I walked up to it. It was 12:05.

Q. What time was it when you left?—A. 12:10.

Q. Was there any hat or coat or gentleman’s apparel in the office?—A. No.

Q. Had you ever noticed the door before?—A. Yes.

Q. What was the condition of that door?—A. Sometimes closed and sometimes opened.

Q. Your honor, may I repeal this witness’ memory on this point from an affidavit she made?

Rosser—I object, your honor. He can’t show her that.

Judge Roan—Did she read the statement before signing it?

Dorsey—It was read to her.

Rosser—It might have been changed.

Dorsey—I won’t press the matter right now. I will cite some authority on it in a little while.

Mr. Rosser began the cross-examination.

Q. Miss Monteen, where did you start from to go to the factory?—A. From home.

Q. What time?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Did Mr. Frank have one or two offices at the factory?—A. He had two offices.

Q. Did you notice the safe in the office?—A. No sir.

Q. You just walked in, turned around and walked out?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any person?—A. No sir.

Q. Did you notice the desk in the office? Did you notice a wardrobe? A. No.

Q. What did you do?—A. I walked in the front office, saw no one, and went and sat down on the bench near the stairs.

Q. Then you got up and went home?—A. No, I went back into the office, looked around and seeing no one, left the building.

Q. You went straight home?—A. Yes.

Q. The factory was still in quiet, when you were there?—A. Yes.

Q. That door to the metal room—you had worked in metal department, and you sometimes saw the door open and sometimes closed?—A. Yes, sir.

Reads Affidavit.

Q. How many times has Solicitor Dorsey talked to you about this case?—A. Once. I went down to his office and made an affidavit.

Q. No matter what an affidavit might say, you know you sometimes saw that door open and sometimes closed?—A. Yes.

Q. If you made such an affidavit, you were mistaken?—A. I don’t know. I sometimes got there first and it was closed. Then I have passed it and seen it open.

Q. You do know that you saw it both open and closed?—A. Yes.

Judge here ruled that [t]he Stover girl could look at the affidavit to refresh her memory.

Solicitor Dorsey handed it to the witness and she slowly read it.

Door Opened and Closed.

Then Dorsey questioned the witness:

Q. Having refreshed your memory, Miss Monteen, state whether that back door usually was open or closed?

A. Sometimes it was open and sometimes it was closed.

Q. When the factory was not running, was it open or closed?—A. Closed.

Q. All the time?

Attorney Rosser objected: “You are leading the witness.”

The objection was sustained.

Q. What door are you referring to?

A. The door right back from Mr. Frank’s office.

Rosser then took the witness on the recross-examination.

Q. Was Mr. Dorsey present when you heard that affidavit read?—A. No.

Lawyers Clash Again.

“Your honor, Mr. Dorsey said it was read to her,” said Mr. Rosser. “How did he know?”

“She said it was read to her,” retorted Dorsey.

“No, she didn’t,” said Rosser.

“I call for a reading of the records,” said Dorsey.

“It is not of enough importance,” returned Rosser.

Then Monteen Stover was excused, and R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the National Pencil Factory, who found the hair on the lathing machine, was called to the stand.

Solicitor Dorsey questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Machinist at the National Pencil Company.

Found Blood Spot.

Q. What did you see near the water cooler in Mary Phagan’s dressing room?—A. A peculiar spot I have never seen before.

Q. Were you in the factory Saturday?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it there then?—A. No.

Q. How large was it?—A. About 5 or 6 inches in diameter with lots of little dots around it.

Q. Was there anything else?—A. Yes; some white substance smeared over it by the side of the big spot that was not covered up.

Q. What was it?—A. Blood.

Q. What did it look like that had been used in putting the white stuff on it?—A. A broom.

Q. Did you see the broom?—A. Yes; one was nearby.

Q. Was anything on the broom?—A. Yes, lots of dirt.

Found Hair on Lathe.

Q. Did you find any hair there?—A. Yes, on the bench lathe.

Q. Describe to the jury how the lathe was shaped.—A. It was “L” shaped and made of iron.

Q. Did anyone else see this hair?—A. Yes, L. Stanford and Magnolia Kennedy.

Q. Did Magnolia Kennedy identify the hair?

Rosser objected: “It would be only hearsay. Only the God of the Uni- […]

MACHINIST’S UNEXPECTED TESTIMONY AT TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK

“I found the strands of hair on the handle of the lathing machine in the National Pencil Factory Monday morning. I also found the blood spots on the second floor by the water cooler at the ladies’ dressing room. I know they were blood. The same day I found the spots of blood, I found the pay envelope under the machine at which Mary Phagan worked. The lathe on which I found the hair was about 20 feet away from where I found the pay envelope. The hair was not there Friday, for I worked on the lathe up to 5:30 o’clock, quitting time.

[…] verse could identify the hair.”

The objection was sustained.

Rosser began cross-examination.

Q. How far was it from the machine where the hair was found to where the girls combed their hair?—A. About 10 feet.

Q. How do you know that hair was not on that machine Friday?—A. I worked at the machine until 5 o’clock Friday afternoon.

Q. Did any girls work there Saturday?—A. No.

Q. How far was it from where you found the blood spots to where you found the hair?—A. About 8 feet.

Pay Envelope Also.

Q. Did you find anything around Mary Phagan’s machine?—A. Yes, I found a part of a pay envelope.

Q. Describe how you found it.—A. The latter part of the week I was standing about 15 feet from her machine when I saw a paper under her machine and I went over and picked it up. It was a part of a pay envelope with the letter “P” or “F” on it.

Q. What day and date was that?—A. The same day I found the spot of blood between the 28 and 30.

Q. What did you find under the machine?—A. Nothing but filings.

Q. What did you do with the pay envelope?—A. Turned it over to that man (pointing out a deputy).

Solicitor Dorsey here had the witness to identify the paper and it was then shown to the attorneys for the defense.

Examined Factory Closely.

Q. Did you examine the factory?—A. Yes, very closely.

Q. Did you find anything like a baseball bat around the first floor?—A. No.

Q. Did you find any part of a pay envelope?—A. No.

Q. Did you search closely?—A. Very closely.

Q. You say you found blood?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t know that it was blood—it just looked like blood?—A. No, sir, I know it was blood.

Q. What time was it when you noticed the strand of hair?—A. A few minutes later.

Q. Were they long strands or knotted?—A. They were around my fingers when I noticed them.

Strands of Hair Foot Long.

Q. How long were they?—A. About a foot long.

Q. You didn’t see them when you took hold of the handle and the first you saw of them was when they were wound around your fingers?—A. Yes.

Q. You say this envelope was found under her machine?—A. Yes.

Q. Then the lathe the hair was on was 20 feet away?—A. Yes, 20 or 25 feet away.

Q. The pay envelope you found had no name or number on it—only this little loop?—A. Yes.

Attorney Rosser here walked over to the jury and showed them the loop marked on the envelope.

Told of Find Same Day.

Then Mr. Rosser called the witness closer to the jury.

Q. It is the same sort of envelope they always have used at the factory?—A. Yes.

Q. There is nothing to identify it unless this little loop be a part of a name?—A. Yes, sir, the top of the envelope was torn off. All the writing on it was a loop that looked like the lower part of a “G.”

Dorsey here took up the re-direct examination.

Q. When did you tell Schiff about this?—A. The same day.

Barrett was excused.

Mell Stanford, who had not figured in the case up to this time, was called. Stanford also is an employee of the pencil factory.

The witness stated that he had worked at the pencil factory for two years and was at work there Friday, April 25.

Spot Not There Friday.

Q. What did you do this Friday?—A. I swept the whole floor of the metal room.

Q. Did you see anything there Monday?—A. I saw some white compound smeared over something.

Q. Was it there Friday?—A. No.

Q. What kind of a broom did you use?—A. A little broom.

Q. Do you know anything about a big cane broom?—A. Yes.

Q. Where was this broom Monday?—A. About 8 feet from the spot.

Q. What was under the white substance?—A. Some spots.

Q. Was it blood?—A. I don’t know.

Q. Could you tell whether the broom used was big cane or a little broom?—A. A big one.

The witness was then turned over to the defense for cross-examination.

Court then adjourned until 2 o’clock.

Praises Hooper.

Attorney Reuben Arnold took up the cross-examination of Mel Stanford when court resumed after the recess.

Just before court opened Leonard Haas, friend of Leo Frank, leaned across the table to Attorney F. A. Hooper, Dorsey’s assistant, and said:

“Mr. Cooper, I want to congratulate you on the very gentlemanly manner with which you have conducted yourself.”

He said nothing to Solicitor Dorsey, who was sitting beside him. Dorsey was unmindful if any slight was intended.

Gantt Recalled.

J. M. Gantt was recalled a moment at the beginning of the morning session Thursday to tell of the time he was arrested and the time he was released. Scott then was called as a witness and it was expected that he would be on the stand most of the day.

The courtroom was crowded as on every other day of the trial. There was a noticeable increase in the number of women present. The seats all were taken half an hour before the time set for the beginning of the trial.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 27^th, 1913

April 27—The dead body of Mary Phagan is found in basement of National Pencil factory at 3 a. m. by Newt Lee, the negro night-watchman. Police hold Lee, who yater [sic] in the day re-enacts discovery of the remains before city detectives.

April 27—Leo M. Frank, superintendent of the Pencil factory, called from bed to view Mary Phagan’s body at

April 27—Arthur Mullinax arrested on information given the police by E. L. Sentell, who declared he saw the murdered girl in the former’s company at 1220 o’clock on the morning of the murder.

April 28—Coroner Donehoo empanels in metal room on second floor and blood splotched on the floor lead police to believe the girl was killed there.

April 28—Coroner Donehoo empanels jury for inquest, it meets, views body and scene of crime and adjourns.

April 28—The largest crowd that ever viewed a body in Atlanta sees Mary Phagan’s remains at [t]he undertaking chapel.

April 28—J. M. Gantt, former bookkeeper at the factory arrested at Marietta.

April 28—Pinkertons hired by Pencil factory to find slayer.

April 29—Frank taken from factory to police station. Chief Lanford announces he will be held until after the inquest.

April 29—Experts declare Newt Lee wrote notes found by dead girl’s side.

April 29—Luther Z. Rosser announces he has been retained by Frank and is present when his client is questioned in Chief Lanford’s office.

April 29—Discovery of what is apparently a blood stain near elevator leads police to believe girl’s body was dragged to the conveyance shaft and dropped to the basement.

April 29—J. M. Gantt asks release from police station on habeas corpus.

April 29—State offers reward of $200 for apprehension of murderer. City later adds $1,000.

April 29—Miss Pearl Robinson tells detectives it was she that Sentell saw with Mullinax on night of murder.

April 30—Frank and Lee closeted together in office of Chief of Detectives Lanford for an hour.

April 30—Coroner’s jury, reconvenes. Lee tells his story. Many witnesses called.

May 1—Detectives conclude Mary Phagan never left factory after she entered to receive her pay early in the afternoon of the day of the murder.

JIM CONLEY’S ARREST.

May 1—James Conley, negro sweeper, a[r]rested while washing shirt in factory. Considered unimportant at time.

May 1—Satisfied with alibis, police liberate Gantt and Mullinax.

May 1—Frank and Lee taken to county jail to be held until outcome of coroner’s jury probe.

May 2—Solicitor General Dorsey enters actively into case.

May 4—Police search for girl said to have gone to pencil pactory [sic] with Mary Phagan on day of murder.

May 5—Frank tells story of his actions on the day of the crime. On the stand for three and one-half hours, he tells a straightforward tale.

May 6—Paul Bowen arrested in Houston, Tex.

May 7—Bowen released upon proving alibi.

May 7—Frand [sic] and Lee ordered held for grand jury by coroner’s jury.

May 12—Mrs. Frank visits her husband for first time since his incarceration.

May 16—Fund to bring William J. Burns, famous detective, to Atlanta is opened.

May 17—Colonel Thomas B. Felder announces that Burns detective is at work on the mystery.

May 18—Burns sleuth turns out to be C. W. Tobie. He says city detectives are on right trail.

May 21—P. A. Flak, New York finger print expert, makes investigation. Result unknown.

May 24—Conley unexpectedly makes startling confession in which he says he wrote notes found near body at instigation of Frank.

May 24—Frank indicted by grand jury for murder; Lee held as material witness.

May 25—Detectives attempt to gain further confession from Conley.

May 26—C. W. Tobie withdraws from case and Burns officials announce their investigation terminated.

May 27—Conley makes another sensational affidavit in which he says he helped Frank carry Mary Phagan’s body to basement.

CONLEY RE-ENACTS TRAGEDY.

May 30—Conley taken to pencil factory and re-enacts in pantomime carrying of body to basement. Taken to tower.

May 31—Conley taken from county jail to Solicitor Dorsey’s office for grilling.

June 2—Defense theory, embodying, among other features, the belief that the girl was slain on the first floor, becomes known.

June 3—Minola McKnight makes sen-cook [sic], employed by Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Mrs. Frank’s parents, taken into custody.

June 3—Minola McKnight makes sensational affidavit in which she says she overhea[r]d Mrs. Frank tell of strange conduct on Frank’s part on the night of the murder.

June 4—Mrs. Frank, in first public statement, declares her husband is innocent.

June 5—Further grilling by detectives fails to change Conley’s story.

June 7—Mrs. Frank scores Solicitor Dorsey, declaring that the room in which Minola McKnight made her incriminating affidavit was a “torture chamber.”

June 8—Attorney Rosser accuses Chief Lanford of insincerity in search for slayer.

June 13—Solicitor Dorsey wins fight to hold Conley at police station instead of county jail by securing revokal of order designating him as a material witness. Conley released and rearrested at door of city prison.

June 14—Solicitor Dorsey goes to New York. Declares trip has no connection with Phagan case.

June 15—Announcement that Frank A. Hooper will be associated with Solicitor Dorsey in the prosecution.

June 18—Announcement made that Reuben R. Arnold, attorney, will aid in Frank’s defense.

June 23—Solicitor Dorsey sets trial for June 30.

June 24—Date of trial changed to July 28 at conference between Superior Court Judge Roan and defense and prosecution attorneys.

July 9—Public is told of a portion of Mary Phagan’s pay envelope being found at bottom of flight of stairs leading from office by Pinkerton detectives soon after the murder.

July 10—L. J. Fletcher, Bertillion expert at federal penitentiary, fails to find fingerprints on pay envelope.

July 11—W. H. Mincey’s affidavit, in which he says Conley, while intoxicated, confessed to killing the girl, made public.

July 12—It is announced that others will corroborate Mincey’s story.

PINKERTONS CHANGE THEORY.

July 18—It is intimated that the Pinkertons have changed their theory and believe that Frank is innocent.

July 18—Call issued for grand jury to meet and consider indictment of Conley as principal.

July 21—Grand jury, after hearing statement of Solicitor Dorsey, agrees to suspend action in Conley matter.

July 22—The discovery of a bloody stick near where Conley sat on day of murder is announced.

This leads to belief that Mary Phagan may have been killed with bludgeon.

July 24—Solicitor Dorsey announces he is ready to go to trial on July 26 and will fight vigorously any attempt at postponement.

July 24—Judge Roan, of superior court, says he knows of no reason for delay.

July 25—Defense issues subpenas for witnesses who will testify in Frank’s behalf.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 27^th, 1913

H. B. Pierce Declares Lanford Knew of Find of Bloody Stick in Factory

H. B. Pierce, head of the local branch of the Pinkerton detective agency, characterizes as absurd Chief Detective N. A. Langford’s [sic] charge that the Pinkerton sleuth has broken faith with the state in the Pinkerton’s investigation of the Phagan case.

Chief Lanford charges specifically that the Pinkerton broke faith by failing to report the find by two of his men of the part of a pay envelope and of a bloody stick on the first floor of the factory. The find was made in the absence of Harry Scott, who has conducted the Phagan investigation for the Pinkertons, and who Lanford says has been absolutely square and fair in all of his dealings with the state and the police.

Pierce, the chief charges, in the absence of Scott, turned the stick and the pay envelope over the attorneys for the defense, and said nothing to him or to the state about it.

Pierce denies this fully, saying that about May 15, only a few days after the find, he mentioned the fact that two of his men had picked up a bloody stick, a part of a pay envelope, and some rope at a certain point on the first floor of the basement.

Lanford, when he was told this, Pierce says, declared that the articles had been placed there as a plant; that his men and Harry Scott and representatives of an insurance company had scoured the three floors of the factory, and that the articles in question could not have been there, but a very short time before they were found.

“I was not working on the case myself,” says Pierce, “and knew nothing about it. In fact I had been out of town practically since the murder. As a result, when Chief Lanford cried ‘plant,’ I considered the find of no importance. I did turn the stick over to the defense, telling them that it might be a plant and leaving it to them to investigate.’

“That is absolutely the last I thought of the matter until I read a story in The Journal saying that the bloody club was considered of importance in the case.

“Then I went to Mr. Rosser and asked that it be turned over to the solicitor general, and this I understand, has been done.

“The Pinkertons have sought to find the murderer of Mary Phagan and have given the state every bit of evidence which they found, regardless of who is hit. I am sure that the solicitor general will confirm my statement that we have not broken faith with the state.”

Chief of Detectives Lanford denies the statement attributed to him that he is going to seek a police board investigation of the conduct of Pierce in the case.

Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Sunday American)
July 27^th, 1913

Emphatic denial of the charges by Chief of Detectives Lanford that he had kept bad faith with the city department in connection with the investigation of the murder of Mary Phagan was made by H. B. Pierce, superintendent of the Pinkerton Detective Agency in Atlanta, Saturday night.

Chief Lanford’s accusations against the Pinkerton official were mainly that he had withheld evidence from the city police, especially the bloodstained stick and the pay envelope of the Phagan girl, both of which were found by Pinkerton operatives on the first floor of the factory and were later reported in possession of the defense. The Chief intimated that the Police Board would be asked to take action against Pierce personally.

“The stick was submitted to Chief Lanford by myself,” declared Mr. Pierce. “The Mary Phagan pay envelope was shown him by our representative, Harry Scott.

Scoffs Stick Story.

“When I displayed the stick to Mr. Lanford, he informed me that it could not have been found in the place it was reported found, as a minute search of every bit of the three floors in the factory already had been inspected by two of the city detectives, in company with Mr. Scott. Under this information, we cast the stick aside and did not regard it as evidence and thought nothing else about it until I read about it in the newspapers—I think, Thursday.

“The stick was turned over to Mr. Rosser. When I learned a day or two ago that Mr. Dorsey had not heard of it, I went to Mr. Rosser’s office, obtained the stick, and took it to Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Dorsey, I understand, does not think much of the stick as evidence, and neither does Mr. Rosser.

“As to it being planted evidence, I desire to say that I believe Mr. Rosser to be entirely too honorable to have been connected with the planting of evidence, while I also hold the same opinion of Mr. Dorsey.

“Inasmuch as two city detectives and Mr. Scott had made a minute investigation of the factory before the time of the reported finding of the stick, I do not regard the stick highly as evidence.

“Scott Has Been Fair.”

“The policy of the Pinkerton Agency is to be fair and impartial in its investigations. Mr. Scott has been absolutely in charge of this investigation, and I think the least that could be said is that he has been absolutely fair with the police, Solicitor General and the National Pencil Company people in his work upon it.”

Mr. Scott was with Mr. Pierce at the time of the interview. He said he did not remember hearing the conversations between Chief Lanford and Pierce regarding the stick.

“I submitted the pay envelope to Chief Lanford, though,” he said. “He asked me for it, and I said that I preferred to keep it. The Police Department has been advised of everything we have developed in the case, while the same is true of the Solicitor General and Mr. Rosser.”

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

Atlanta Georgian
July 26^th, 1913

Says Pierce Broke His Promise

Detective Head Also Asserts Phagan Evidence Private Sleuth Unearthed Was Plant.

Chief of Detectives Lanford roundly scored H. B. Pierce, head of the Pinkerton Detective Agency in Atlanta, Saturday for what he termed questionable procedure in connection with the Phagan murder investigation.

When application was made by the agency for permission to operate in Atlanta and the matter was under consideration by the Police Board, the promise was made that the Pinkerton’s would work in harmony with the city detective department and would co-operate in the apprehension of criminals.

This promise, according to Lanford, has been kept by all connected with the agency with the exception of Pierce. The Chief intimated that the Police Board would be asked to take action against Pierce personally.

Lanford Hints at “Plant.”

“In the Phagan case Mr. Scott has reported to this department every day and has turned over all the evidence he has found,” said Chief Lanford. “During his absence from the city a bloody stick and an envelope, supposed to have been that in which the money due Mary Phagan was placed, were turned over to the attorneys for the defense, and no mention of the fact made to the detective department.

“The place where these articles were reported to have been found had been searched by officers so thoroughly that it was an absolute impossibility for them have been overlooked. In fact, a search for ten feet around had been made for blood spots.

“In addition to this, the insurance company had all the rubbish removed from this part of the building and the floor scrubbed afterward and before the articles were said to have been found. They were not there at the time, and if they were found there, as Mr. Pierce claims, they were placed there for a purpose.

Charges Breach of Faith.

“Mr. Pierce has not made good his promise (or the promise of his company) to the Police Board, and if the matter is taken up by the board, I will give them the facts.”

The Police Board probably will take the matter up at its next meeting.

Harry Scott, who has conducted the investigation into the Phagan murder mystery for the Pinkertons since the services of the agency were engaged, was subpenaed Saturday as a witness in behalf of Leo M. Frank by counsel for the factory superintendent. The detective previously had been served with a subpena from Solicitor Dorsey’s office.

Inasmuch as Scott’s attitude almost from the first has appeared to be distinctly unfavorable to Frank, this move on the part of the defense was generally unexpected and was the cause of considerable surprised comment. Scott, however, is known to be in possession of facts that seem on their face damaging to the negro Conley, as well as facts that are being used to bring about the conviction of Frank.

“I wish it understood that I am wholly neutral in this matter,” said Scott Saturday afternoon in remarking on the subpena he received from the defense. “The investigation was made by the Pinkertons without fear or favor. We uncovered a large amount of evidence. Some of it was valuable. Some of it was worthless in the light of present developments. Some of it pointed strongly toward the guilt of Frank. Other evidence could be interpreted as very damaging to the negro.

“Our function is to present all of […]

Lanford Scores New Chief of Pinkertons

Charges Breach of Faith With the Police and Questionable Procedure in Phagan Case.

[…] this evidence as it is called for in court, regardless of whom it may help or hurt. We may have our private opinion as to who is the guilty person, but this shall not be allowed to color the testimony as it is given in court. It is for the jury to make its interpretation of the evidence.”

Defense Gets Copies of Notes.

Request was made Saturday by Attorney Rosser for photographic copies of the notes found beside the body of Mary Phagan. The copies were in the possession of Solicitor Dorsey, who readily acceded to the request. The defense will seek to show that Frank could have had no part in their composition or dictation.

The State’s case is reported to be ready for immediate presentation. All of the witnesses have been summoned. All of the panel of 144 jurors, with the exception of six or seven who could not be found, have been notified to be on hand Monday.

Both Sides Getting Ready.

Prosecution and defense continued their preparations for the Frank trial, the last hour hurry of interviewing new witnesses and gathering up the stray ends of evidence, giving a fair promise that the trial will start as scheduled next Monday forenoon.

That Solicitor Dorsey has nearly a score of important witnesses whose testimony has been carefully guarded from the defense and the general public is well known. These witnesses have come to his office from time to time, and the Solicitor has refused to give out the vaguest intimation of the line of testimony they would give at the trial.

The prosecution has reserved their evidence to spring as a surprise during the trial. On these persons the State depends to clinch its case against the young factory superintendent. Some of them will be called to bear out different portions of the negro Conley’s affidavit, in which was told the story of the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body. The Solicitor is understood to have witnesses who will corroborate portions of Conley’s story which have been under severest fire.

Thinks Conley Story True.

The Solicitor several times has announced that he believes Conley is telling the truth in the essential statements of his affidavit. He has strengthened his belief by interviewing many people who were in a position to know of different circumstances mentioned in Conley’s story. The only possibility of an alteration in the State’s theory is that the time element may be modified in certain respects.

Similar surprises may be expected from the defense. Attorney Rosser has not been communicative with the newspaper men. The few bits of his evidence that have become known to the public were obtained in spite of him. Except for the Mincey affidavit, published in The Georgian, most of the important evidence of the defense has been so carefully guarded as to make it still a matter of conjecture. The general plan of Frank’s defense can be surmised, but the contents of the hundred or more affidavits in the possession of Attorney Rosser remain a deep mystery.

“Plant” Generally Suspected.

No one expects at this time that the pay envelope, the bloody club or the piece of rope found on the first floor will play any large part in the trial. Neither side is convinced of their genuineness. The suspicion of a “plant” has prevailed from the time of their discovery.

Two operatives who began turning up this sort of startling evidence the moment they were placed on the case soon were taken off the Phagan mystery by the Pinkerton agency.

Both sides announce themselves ready for the trial to proceed. It is regarded as doubtful that the defense will ask for another continuance, except on account of the absence of material witnesses or the illness of counsel. About 150 witnesses already have been summoned by the defense.

According to Bernard Chappelle, counsel for Newt Lee, the night watchman in the pencil factory, the negro Saturday denied in the presence of Reuben R. Arnold, attorney for Frank, that he had broken down and admitted catching Jim Conley with the body of Mary Phagan.

Chapelle had heard that Frank’s counsel understood Lee had collapsed while being grilled with the sweeper and called up Mr. Arnold. At his suggestion, Arnold visited Lee at the jail and there Lee is said to have reaffirmed his previous statement that he did not see Conley the day of the murder.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 25^th, 1913

As a reward for his success in the Phagan mystery, Detective Harry Scott, assistant superintendent of the Atlanta Pinkerton offices, has been promoted to the superintendency of the Houston, Texas branch, to which he goes immediately following the close of the Frank trial.

Scott’s work has been declared to have been the most successful in the entire Phagan investigation. It was a result of his efforts that the famous Jim Conley confession was obtained, in which admission the negro acknowledged complicity and accused Leo Frank of the actual murder.

The search was at Scott’s direction, which revealed the Phagan pay envelope and the bloody club found in the factory building. He engineered the third degree against Conley, and, assisted by John Black, of police headquarters, procured the evidence which exacted the negro’s confession.

Scott has been attached to the Atlanta offices for two years. He came from the Philadelphia headquarters, where he was assistant superintendent of the Pennsylvania branch. He is married, and is only 27 years old. His experience dates back for seven years, at the beginning of which time he left college for service with the Pinkerton forces.

While promoting the Pinkerton end of the investigation, Scott worked in co-operation with John Black, of headquarters, which made him a semi-associate of the police. Considerable dissent was created at first with his connection with the police department because he was employed by the pencil factory officials. He was practically barred from association with the office of the solicitor general because of this fact.

Scott stated last night that if the Phagan case were postponed on Monday he would leave next Sunday night for his new post. He will return, however, at the date of the trial’s renewal, and will remain in the city until it is completed.

In connection with his career in Atlanta, one of Scott’s master strokes was the ferreting of the famous Gilsey diamond trunk robbery, which happened in Atlanta less than two years ago, associated with George Bullard and John Black, both of the latter of whom were attached to the police department, the famous robbery was cleared within the brief space of two weeks. Three suspects, George Wrenn, Karl Reddy and a man named Kaul, were convicted for the robbery.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 23, 1913

No Witnesses for Defense Have Been Called for Monday, and Indications Are They Will Not Be

CRAWFORD CASE CHECKED TO DATE OF FRANK TRIAL

Attorney R. R. Arnold May Go to Covington to Request Judge L. S. Roan to Postpone Case

While the position of the defense of Leo M. Frank has not been announced, Attorney Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold have indicated clearly that they desire to postpone the trial of case from next Monday, when it is set. Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, on the other hand, has announced the state’s position. He will fight any and every move to postpone the case.

The solicitor general objected, when the case was postponed from June 30, the date he first fixed, and fought to have a date earlier than July 28 when he then saw that postponement was inevitable. Now he is again preparing to fight against further delay.

Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor was instructed by Judge L. S. Roan, to bring the jury box to Judge John T. Pendleton with the request that he draw the venire for the trial on Thursday morning before the trial judge left to hold court this week in Covington.

Attorneys for the state and for the defense will then be present and it is possible that a definite understanding may be reached. The venire will consist of about 150 men, and if it can be definitely known Thursday that the trial will not come up, the veniremen will not be served by the court attaches.

MAY CALL ON JUDGE ROAN.

It is said that Attorney Arnold, for the defense, is considering going to Covington Wednesday night to confer with Judge Roan over the advisability of holding such a tedious trial, and one which thousands will try to hear, during the present hot weather. It is argued that the trial at this season will prove dangerous to the health of those forced to participate.

An indication that the defense does not expect the trial to actually commence Monday in that it has not [text illegible from original newspaper] of its witnesses, although subpenas have been served already on practically every one of the state’s many witnesses. While it is true that it will be some days after the trial opens before witnesses for the defense will be place on the stand, the natural supposition is that the defense would have at least placed the witnesses who live some distance from Atlanta under subpena if it expected the trial to commence Monday.

CRAWFORD CASE CHECKED.

When the hearing before Auditor James N. Anderson, of the Crawford will case, was called Wednesday morning it was postpone at the instance of Attorney Arnold, who declared that practically all of his time was occupied in the preparation of the Frank case. He asked that the case be checked until Monday, and it will be again checked if the Frank trial is commenced.

Attorneys not connected with the case are freely predicting that the state will win the first clash of attorneys if the defense asks that the venire for this trial be drawn from the grand jury box. While no law against it has been advanced there is no precedent at least in this county for such procedure, and it is said that the Frank venire, like all others, will be drawn from the petit jury box.

It was learned Wednesday that there is no probability of Judge Roan continuing or postponing the trial of his own volition, as was done on the date first set. Judge Roan is expected to return to Atlanta from Covington Friday night.

VISIT NEXT LEE.

Solicitor Dorsey, Attorney Hooper, his special assistant in the Frank case; and Detectives Starnes and Campbell called at the jail Wednesday morning and talked for a while with Newt Lee, the negro nightwatchman, who is held there as a witness. Remembering that Newt had complained recently that July was “most gone an’ I ain’t no watermelon yet, the solicitor gave the jailers the price of a “Georgia rattlesnake’ with the request that one be purchased and turned to the negro for his exclusive delectation.

FIND OF DEATH STICK WAS NOT REPORTED TO POLICE.

“The reported find of any club or bludgeon with which Mary Phagan is supposed to have been killed was not reported to this headquarters by any credible authority,” said Chief of Detectives Lanford Wednesday morning anent the find of such a weapon weeks ago at the National Pencil factory. “And if the Pinkerton detectives found it, they concealed the find from us and violated the pact between them and the city detectives.”

Chief Lanford characterized as “absurd” the theory that the club was used in the murder of Mary Phagan by Jim Conley, the negro sweeper at the factory, or by any one else.

“As it is described to me,” said he, “the stick is not heavy enough to have formed a deadly weapon in the hands of anybody, even if it had been found under circumstances indicating its connection with the case.

“I doubt exceedingly that it has that connection. It is said to have been found on May 10. The very spot where the report says it was found had been gone over by members of the detective force very thoroughly. Boxes had been cleared away, and every detail examined. They saw no bludgeon or anything like a bludgeon there immediately after the murder. I am skeptical of a find said to have been made there fourteen days after the murder was committed.”

Chief Lanford said that he heard rumors of a club having been found at a time when thousands of other rumors were in circulation, but he heard no authority for the rumor, and did not attach sufficient importance to it to ask the Pinkertons about it, assuming that they would report any material development as readily as they were supposed to do.