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

Atlanta Constitution
August 3^rd, 1913

Police Chief James L. Beavers followed Dr. Hurt upon the witness stand. Mr. Rosser immediately asked him if he had been in the courtroom, as he had not been named by the state when other witnesses were named, sworn and put under the rule. He replied that he had for a short time and Mr. Dorsey explained that in the beginning of the case he had no intention of using him.

“Were you present at the National Pencil factory on the Monday following the finding of the dead girl?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“I was there not on Monday, I believe, I think it was on Tuesday,” he replied.

“Did you see the area of the floor around the girls’ dressing room?”

Mr. Rosser then arose and declared that he did not think that the court should allow Mr. Dorsey to get Chief Beavers in as a witness merely on his statement that at the time the other witnesses were sworn and put under the rule that he did not know he would need him.

After some further parley Judge Roan allowed him to go on testifying.

“Well, did you examine the area of which I asked?”
“Yes.”
“What did you see?”
“I saw spots of blood.”

“What size?”

“There was a spot about the size of a quarter and there were other and smaller spots leading towards the door.”
“Describe the blood.”
“Well, it was just ordinary blood.”
Mr. Arnold then took up the cross-examination.

“Hadn’t the spots been chipped up early Monday?”
“Well, I think that they had, but I know that I was there when they were chipped up.”
“You must have been there and seen them on Monday then, rather than on Tuesday.”

“Maybe so, I may be mistaken about the exact day.”
“Who else was present?”
“Starnes and Campbell and another man who chipped the blood spots up.”
“Do you know Mr. Barrett?”
“Well, yes, in fact, I believe he is the man who chipped up the spots but I never saw him before that day.”
The witness was then excused.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, August 3rd 1913, “Chief Beavers Tells of Seeing Blood Spots on Factory Floor,” 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 2^nd, 1913

DR. HURT’S TESTIMONY NOT CONFIRMATORY OF EVIDENCE GIVEN BY DR. H. F. HARRIS

On Cross-Examination, Dr. Hurt Admits That Cabbage Is Considered Very Difficult to Digest and That Under Some Conditions as Much as Three Hours and a Half Might be Required Before the Process of Digestion Was Completed

PHYSICIAN ON STAND GREATER PART OF MORNING AND UNDERWENT RIGID CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE

He Found No Evidence of Violence, He Declared — Detective Waggoner, Chief Beavers, Detective Bass Rosser, Patrolman Lassiter and Miss Ferguson Testify — Court Adjourns Until Monday Morning at 9 o’Clock

Dr. J. W. Hurt, coroner’s physician, who examines the body of little Mary Phagan, was the principal witness introduced by the state at the Saturday morning session of the Frank trial. Dr. Hurt’s expert testimony was the subject of fierce contention between the lawyers for the defense and the state. Attorney Reuben R. Arnold succeeded in drawing from the physician testimony to offset that given on Friday by Dr. H. F. Harris. While Dr. Harris testified that he found evidence of violence of some sort having been committed, Dr. Hurt declared he did not find any evidence that would show a criminal attack of nay [sic] kind.

Dr. Hurt further admitted, in answer to Mr. Arnold’s questions, that cabbage was a difficult article of food to digest and that under some circumstances it might require three and one-half hours before the process of digestion was complete. This testimony was brought out by Mr. Arnold fro the evident purpose of disputing Dr. Harris’ conclusion that the state of digestion the cabbage was found in showed that Mary Phagan must have been killed within a half hour or forty-five minutes after eating.

When court convened Miss Helen Ferguson was cal[l]ed to the stand and testified that Frank refused to let her have Mary Phagan’s pay on Friday afternoon, the day prior to the murder, and that she was told by some one in Frank’s office that Mary would have to come to the factory Saturday and draw her own pay. Attorney Rosser drew from the witness on cross-examination the admission that she had never before drawn the Phagan girl’s pay and that she didn’t know whether Frank knew her name or not.

R. L. Waggoner, one of the city detectives, was next called and told of how Frank twisted his hands on Tuesday, April 29, at the National Pencil factory. The witness said that he accused appeared at the window of his office twelve times in a half hour and each time twisted his hands and looked down as if he was in a very nervous state. Detective Waggoner said that he had been sent there to watch Frank and the factory prior to the accused’s arrest.

Patrolman Lassiter, on whose beat is the National pencil factory, told the court of finding Mary Phagan’s parasol in the bottom of the elevator shaft on the Sunday morning after the tragedy. The witness also testified that the floor of the basement showed that something had been dragged from the elevator shaft.

Chief of Police J. L. Beavers was another witness and he testified simply that he had seen the blood spots on the second floor of the factory.

Had Judge Roan not adjourned court about 12:20 o’clock, Newt Garner, special deputy for the solicitor, and Detective Campbell, had an automobile at police headquarters during the morning, ready to rush the negro to the court, when notified by the solicitor.

There will be no afternoon session, court having adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o’clock.

MORNING SESSION BEGINS.

All women who had arrived at the court house by 8:30 o’clock were admitted and were allowed to select their own seats before the rush began. About fifty availed themselves of this concession to their sex. Leo M. Frank, the accused, entered the court at 8:40 o’clock. The jury entered at 8:55. Judge Roan mounted the bench and convened court at 9 o’clock.

Helen Ferguson, a co-worker with Mary Phagan in metal room of the National Pencil factory, was called to the stand as the first witness.

Miss Ferguson stated that she works now for the Marcus Loeb company, but that for two years she worked for the National Pencil factory and was employed there on Friday, April 25. About 7 o’clock on the evening of Friday she went to Mr. Frank’s office, she testified, and asked him for Mary Phagan’s pay. He refused to let her have it, and she left. On former occasions some months before she had gotten Mary Phagan’s pay for her.

Attorney Rosser took up the cross-examination. Miss Ferguson admitted that she had never gotten Mary Phagan’s pay from Frank. It was about 7 o’clock in the evening when she asked for the money, and that several men whom she thought to be members of the office force were in the office with Frank.

She did not think Frank knew her name, she said. She asked him for Mary’s number and her pay, saying she had forgotten Mary’s number. She thought Frank knew her face, she testified. Some member of the office force told her there would be somebody in the factory Saturday and that Mary could get her pay then. She testified that she had worked in the metal room for two years and never had seen Frank speak to Mary.

City Detective R. L. Waggoner was called to the stand.

“You’ve been in the court room before, haven’t you?” demanded Attorney Rosser, when Waggoner had been sworn.

“Yes. I was in here about twenty minutes Wednesday afternoon,” answered the witness.

Solicitor Dorsey explained to the court that on Wednesday afternoon witness had not been subpoenaed.

“How did you happen to be here?” asked Attorney Rosser.

“I was near and came in,” said the detective. He left of his own accord, then, he said, and later when he was subpoenaed as a witness he remained out of the court room.

He proceeded then to testify. He has been a member of the police force about four years she said.

“On Tuesday, April 29, where were you?” asked the solicitor.

“A little after 11 o’clock in the morning I was in front of the National Pencil factory.”

FRANK WAS NERVOUS.

“Did you see Frank, the defendant?”

“Yes.”

“What did you see him doing?”

“I could see Mr. Frank through the window in his office. I was standing across the street. He would come to the window, look down, and twist his hands. He did this about twelve times in thirty minutes.”

“Was Frank nervous or composed on that morning?”

“Well, when Detective Black came up to the factory in an automobile, to take Frank to the police station, I got in between Frank and Black and his knee was shaking all the way to the station.”

Attorney Rosser took the witness.

“How much do you weigh?”

“About 220 pounds.”

“How much does Black weigh?”

“About 200 pounds, I guess.”

“And Frank weighs about 120 pounds—and you had him between you, didn’t you?”

“No, sir.”

“Oh, I thought you said you had him between you.”

“No, sir; I said I sat between Frank and Black.”

“Now when you were standing in the street, Mr. Waggoner, how far were you from the window of the pencil factory?”

“About fifty feet.”

SENT TO WATCH FRANK.

“You don’t know whether Frank was talking to anybody, do you?”

“He wasn’t talking to anybody when he was looking out of the window.”

“What were you doing there?”

“I was sent there to watch Frank and the factory?”

“You knew he was going to be arrested, then, didn’t you?”

“No, sir, I didn’t.”

“Do you mean to tell me that you didn’t know he was going to be arrested?”

“Well, I thought he was.”

“You knew he was detained at the station house the day before for three or four hours, didn’t you?”

“No, sir. I didn’t know he was detained there.”

DR. HURT TESTIFIES.

Dr. J. W. Hurt, the coroner’s physician, was called to the stand.

“What is your profession?” interrogated the solicitor.

“I am a physician.”

“How long have you been a physician?”

“Since 1884.”

“Have you any connection with the county?”

“Yes, I am a county official.”

“What kind of a county official?”

“County physician.”

“How long have you held this position?”

“This time since the first of January.”

“Have you ever held it before?”

“Yes.”

“How long?”

“About four years.”

“How long since your previous time as county physician?”

“About three years.”

“As county physician, what are your duties?”

“I am required to attend all inquests.”

“What college did you graduate from?”

“I graduated at the old Atlanta school of regular medicine. I took my post graduate course at the Polyclinic in New York.”

“Did you ever see the body of Mary Phagan? If so, when?”

“Yes, at the undertaker’s shop on Sunday morning, April 27.”

“Now, tell the jury the condition in which you found this body.”

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

“I was called to Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment on South Pryor street by phone about 9 o’clock Sunday morning, April 27. The coroner called me, I saw Mary Phagan’s body there. There was a scalp wound on the rear left side of the head about two and a half inches long. It was about four inches back from the top of the left ear. The wound penetrated through the scalp to the skull. The right eye was black and contused. There were minor scratches on the face and cheek and contusions on the forehead though the skin was not broken. The skin on the other cheek was broken. There was a wound two and a half inches long on the left leg about three inches below the knee. There were scratches on both the left and right elbows. There was a cord around the neck drawn tightly into the skin.”

The solicitor handed to Dr. Hurt one of the cords from his table. The witness examined it. He declared it looked like the cord he found around the girl’s neck.

“What caused Mary Phagan’s death?” asked the solicitor.

DIED OF STRANGULATION.

“In my opinion she died from strangulation produced by the cord. There was another piece of cloth laying loose over her chest and around her hair, but the cord was next to the skin and under the hair.”

“Was the cord imbedded in the skin?”

“Yes, it had made a considerable indentation in the neck.”

“How deep?”

“Very marked.”

“You saw the knot in the cord.”

“Yes.”

“Was it imbedded in the skin, too?”

“Yes, on the side of the neck.”

“Was there any swelling in the neck?”

“Yes.”

“What did that indicate?”

“It indicated great contusion and strangulation.”

“Was the cord applied before or after death?”

“Before death.”

“What was the character of the wound on the back of the head?”

BLUNT WEAPON USED.

“It was about two and a half inches long, and seemed to have been made by a blunt edged instrument. The blow evidently had been delivered upward, for the upper edge of the scalp was loose.”

“Was this wound made before or after death?”

“Before death.”

“What was the effect of this wound?”

“It undoubtedly produced unconsciousness.”

“Did you find any blood about the body or on the wounds?”

“Not much.”

“Tell the jury about the wound over the right eye.”

“The right eye was black and blue, and contused, though the skin was not broken.”

“Was this wound made before or after death?”

“Before death.”

“What sort of an instrument, produced this wound?”

“It was evidently a substance that was somewhat soft because the skin was not broken.”

“Could it have be[e]n produced with a fist?”

“Yes.”

OTHER WOUNDS.

“Tell the jury about the wound on the left leg.”

“There was a superficial wound below the knee, half an inch wide and about three and a half inches long.”

“You say there were bruises and scratches on the face?”

“Yes; a good many, on both cheeks and forehead.”

“Were these wounds produced before or after death?”

“After death.”

“Why do you say they were produced after death?”

“Because I examined them closely and found no blood.”

Dr. Hurt testified that he found blood on the child’s underclothing. He found no evidence of violence. In reply to questions he stated that he made no examination of the blood vessels, on the condition of which Dr. Harris had based his conclusions in reference to violence of some kind having been committed.

ARNOLD TAKES WI[T]NESS.

Attorney Arnold conducted the cross-examination.

“What part did you examine first?”

“Her face and the exposed injuries.”

“Had the face the appearance of having been dragged?”

“It had. It seemed to me that the body had been dragged face forward.”

“You said that the wound in the back of the head near the ear was two and one-half inches long. Dr. Harris testified that it was one and one-half inches long. Now, which is correct?”

Dr. Hurt looked at his notes and said: “We both were wrong. I measured the wound and it was two and one-quarter inches long.”

“What sort of an instrument did you say produced that wound?”

“A sharp edged instrument. I don’t mean a knife.”

“Could the corner of an elevator shaft or the corner of a floor have caused it?”

“A right angled board or instrument, any instrument with a right angled edge could have caused it.”

“Doctor, all you are doing about this is guessing, isn’t it?”

“No.”

“Well, all there is to expert testimony is guessing, isn’t it? And the best guesser is the best witness, isn’t he?”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

INSIDE THE SKULL.

“Doctor, was there any damage on the inside of the skull?”

“There was a very slight damage there.”

“Could you see it with the naked eye?”

“Yes.”

“Well, were the brain tissues injured?”

“No. There was a slight contusion on the inside of the skull. The skull was not fractured.”

“You mean there was an impression on the inner table of the skull?”

“Yes.”

“Was there any blood there?”

“There was a slight hemorrhage.”

“Now, doctor, isn’t it too much of a strain on you or any other doctor to ask you to testify that this wound produced unconsciousness?”

“I don’t think so. It is my opinion that it did.”

“Oh, well,” said Mr. Arnold, “we are just getting back to opinions.”

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.

Mr. Arnold asked a number of hypothetical questions relative to fractures and contusions, and brought out the statement that some men remain conscious even after the skull is fractured, and that some men die of concussions when the skull is not even fractured. He brought from the witness, apparently, that the witness would not say positively that the blow on Mary Phagan’s head produced unconsciousness, but that it was merely his opinion.

“Can’t you produce every conceivable effect on the faculties, short of death, by injuries to the brain?”

“Almost,” answered Dr. Hurt.

“What faculty in the chart of the brain is just by this abrasion?”

Dr. Hurt studied a moment and said that he did not remember.

“Can’t a thousand different effects be produced?”

“I wouldn’t say a thousand, but a good many.”

“What makes you say that one little hemorrhage that you and Harris looked for so long and so carefully produced a given effect?”

“I am only giving an opinion.”

“There was no pressure on the brain, was there?”

“No.”
“Well, doctor, after all, all you mean is that the blow might have caused unconsciousness?”

“Yes.”

“Could the blow have killed her?”

“Not in my opinion.”

“Well, couldn’t she have been killed by the nervous shock of that blow? People often are, aren’t they?”

“People have been killed so, but she was not, in my opinion.”

DIDN’T EXAMINE LUNGS.

“Opinions again!” snorted Mr. Arnold. “In a post mortem examination, isn’t the only way that you can really tell fgrom [sic] a scientific medical standpoint that death was produced by strangulation, an examination of the condition of the lungs?” Dr. Hurt admitted that he had not examined the lungs. He based his opinion that death was caused by strangulation upon the fact that the cord was imbedded in her neck, her tongue protruded and her features were distorted.

Dr. Hurt admitted, in answer to Mr. Arnold’s questions, that he found no sign of a criminal assault. He also admitted that there probably would have been evidence of such an assault had one been committed.

Dr. Hurt admitted that various causes have produced inflammation. External violence was not absolutely necessary to cause inflammation of the blood vessel said he.

He again declared he would not say a criminal attack had been made.

“Were you present when Dr. Harris made a post mortem examination of Mary Phagan’s body?”

“Yes.”

“Did he examine the lungs?”

“Yes.”

“At the time you examined the body was it swollen?”

“Decomposition had not started.”

ATTACKS HARRIS TESTIMONY.

“Doctor, cabbage is one of the hardest things to digest that goes into the stomach, isn’t it?”

“It depends on the individual to a certain extent. Cabbage is considered a hard food to digest.”

“Well, now, doctor, isn’t every person’s stomach to a certain extent a law unto itself?”

“To a certain extent, yes.”

“Well, now, doesn’t it usually take about three and one-half hours for cabbage to be digested?”

“It depends a great deal on the mastication. I should say that it would take about that time for complete digestion.”

In answer to other questions, Dr. Hurt testified that he believed wheat bread would be much easier to digest than cabbage.

“Couldn’t you chew bread until it went down to the stomach in almost a liquid condition?”

“Oh, yes.”

“Suppose a child, eating a meal hurriedly, say to catch a street car, didn’t chew the cabbage thoroughly. It would take a much longer time, then, to dissolve than if well chewed.”

“Yes.”

“Don’t you think a doctor is making a wild guess, then, if he is taking a piece of cabbage” —

Solicitor Dorsey objected to the question. This question, said he, was aimed at the testimony of Dr. Harris. “Let the jury decide on which doctor is speculating,” said the solicitor.

NO DIGESTION WHILE UNCONSCIOUS.

“If a person becomes unconscious, does digestion go on?”

“Yes.”

“A snake swallows a rabbit, and goes right to sleep, doesn’t it, and the digestion goes on?”

“I don’t know.”

“If the digestion goes on when a person is asleep, and not when a person is abnormally unconscious, what is the difference between the two states of unconsciousness?”

“One is natural and the other is unnatural.”

“Some digestion goes on during unconsciousness, doesn’t it?”

“I don’t think so.”

“The circulation of blood and the secretion of gastric juices are the qualities that make up digestion, are they not?”

“Yes.”

“Well, the gastric juices don’t change their natural qualities during unnatural unconsciousness, do they?”

“Oh, I don’t mean to say that.”

“I believe you said it was a wild guess a while ago, to say that the girl was unconscious before death?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected, contending that the doctor had made no such statement. Attorney Arnold withdrew the question.

“You did not make a chemical or a microscopical examination?”

“I did not.”

“Have the medical men experimented as to the time consumed by normal persons in digesting food?”

“Yes.”

Solicitor Dorsey exhibited the glass bottles containing the stomach contents which had been produced by Dr. Harris Friday. He put hypothetical questions to the witness and got the answer from Dr. Hurt that the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach must have been there only a short time.

“How long do you think it was there?”

Mr. Arnold objected. For ten minutes he strove to break down Dr. Har[r]is’ theory.

“Your honor, it is manifestly, unfair,” said he to the court, “to allow this witness to answer that question when he doesn’t know all the facts. It is evident from the appearance of this cabbage that it was swallowed practically whole. He does not know how long the men who ate the cabbage exhibited in these other glasses chewed it, nor does he know the comparative state of their digestive organs, nor anything about the condition of the cabbage when they ate it. Simply by mastication, cabbage may be reduced practically to a liquid before it enters the stomach. I think the question is unafir [sic].”

Solicitor Dorsey contended that they could never learn all of the facts, and that the question as a legal and commonsense proposition was fair. He pointed out that they could not know how many teeth the girl had nor how many teeth the men had. They could never tell how long the cabbage that she ate had been cooked nor how long the cabbage that the men ate had been cooked, nor whether the cabbage was tender or whether it was tough.

It was at this juncture that the trial was stopped for a few moments because of the newspaper headline.

HEADLINE INTERRUPTS.

Mr. Dorsey resumed his redirect examination of Dr. Hurt, following the interruption caused by the newspaper headline.

Solicitor Dorsey picked up the bottle containing the sample of cabbage from Mary Phagan’s stomach, and the two other samples taken from the stomachs of other persons, and held them up so that Dr. Hurt could see them.

“Assuming, Dr. Hurt, that this substance in these two bottles had been in the stomach of a normal person for an hour, how long would you say this cabbage had been in the stomach?” He indicated the cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach.
“A much shorter time. I should judge from the appearance that the one was in the stomach I should say about one-half the time of that of the others.”

“Have there or not been blows upon the people’s skulls which crushed in the skull without producing death?”

“Yes.”

Attorney Arnold took up the witness again for cross-examination.

“Looking like a liquid depends on how much this cabbage was chewed, doesn’t it?” he asked.

“Yes.”

Attorney Arnold held up the sample of cabbage taken from Mary Phagan’s stomach.

“hat [sic] looked like it had been bolted, doesn’t it? Like a child will bolt meals?”

“It wasn’t well chewed.”

“Isn’t it a wild inquiry, doctor, to ask from the contents of a stomach how long they had been in the stomach?”

“I won’t commit myself.”

CHIEF BEAVERS CALLED.

“Isn’t it possible for a blow on the head to blacken one or both eyes? Doesn’t such a blow sometimes have this effect?”

“It sometimes does.”

This concluded Dr. Hurt’s testimony. Chief of Police James L. Beavers was called to the stand.

Before the solicitor could begin the examination of the witness, Attorney Rosser inquired if Chief Beavers had not been in the court room before.

“Not today,” replied the chief.

“But you have you been in the court room during this trial?”

“Yes, I’ve been here twice.”

Solicitor Dorsey interrupted with the statement that he didn’t know until Friday afternoon that he would summon the witness.

Proceeding with the examination, the solicitor inquired as to the identity of the witness. The witness said that he is chief of police in the city of Atlanta, and has been chief for two years. Prior to that he was a captain for two years. He went to the pencil factory on Tuesday, April 29, he thought it was.

“Did you see the area around the girls’ dressing room and the water cooler on the second floor?”

ROSSER OBJECTS TO WITNESS.

Attorney Rosser remarked to the court: “I don’t think, your honor, it is enough for the state to say they didn’t know they were going to call this witness until this morning. The solicitor knew what information this witness possessed, and what information others possessed.”

“Your honor,” said Solicitor Dorsey. “If the witness had been sworn and stayed in the court room it would not have made any particular difference upon the testimony that I will ask him to give. However, I did not know until yesterday afternoon that I might call him, and I didn’t determine until this morning that I would use the witness. The same thing was true of Mrs. Jefferson. I did not know I would call her until just a short time before she was put upon the stand.”

“Proceed with the examination of the witness, Mr. Dorsey,” directed the court.

The solicitor repeated his question. “If so, tell what you found there,” he added.

“Yes, I examined the area and found blood spots on the floor near the dressing room. The blood appeared to have been spattered.”

“Did you see anything else on the floor except this blood?”

“Nothing special.”

“Describe the color of the blood.”

“It looked like blood.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You saw that Tuesday, captain?”

“I think so.”

TRIES TO TRAP BEAVERS.

“Why, captain, wasn’t this blood chipped up early Monday morning?”

“I’m not sure about that. I was there when it was chipped up. It may have been Monday.”

“You didn’t analyze this stain to determine whether it was blood?”

“No, sir.”

“You are not a chemist?”

“No, sir, but it looked like blood to me.”

“You saw them chip up the blood?”

“Yes.”

“How many chips did they take?”

“Two. I think.”

“Now, captain, didn’t they take four or five chips?”

“No, sir. I didn’t see them take but two.”

“You don’t know whether they took up any more chips afterwards?”

“No, sir.”

“Who was present when the chips were taken?”

“Detectives Starnes and Campbell.”

“All the chips taken up had this substance on them?”

“Yes.”

Mr. Rosser sat down. The solicitor handed to the witness some chips and asked him to identify them, but before the witness could make any statement Mr. Rosser put another question.

“Do you know Barrett?”

“I believe they said that was the man’s name.”

“The man who was chipping it up, eh?”

“Yes.”

The witness then stated that the chips handed to him by the solicitor looked like those taken from the pencil factory floor.

“These chips haven’t been in your possession, have they?”

“No, sir.”

Chief Beavers was excused from the stand.

The solicitor called for City Detective Rosser, who did not answer; for Sergeant Dobbs, who did not answer, and for Policeman Robert Lassiter, who responded and took the stand.

Policeman Lassiter testified that he found the parasol of Mary Phagan, with a ball of wrapping twine beside it, at the bottom of the elevator shaft. He was cross-examined by Attorney Rosser, who asked him if he did not find a trace of a body being dragged in the basement. He did, he said. He found that trace first at a point between the foot of the ladder and the rear of the building.

“Didn’t you follow it back to the foot of the ladder?” asked Attorney Rosser.

ADJOURNS TO MONDAY.

“No; to the elevator shaft,” answered the witness.

“When you were testifying at the inquest, didn’t you at one time say you traced it to the elevator and another time say you traced it to the foot of the ladder?”

The witness said he did not think so; that he knew that he traced it to the elevator shaft. The witness admitted that the pencil factory was on his beat. He passed it in the rear about 1 o’clock Sunday morning and found it closed. He didn’t try the door, he said. He found the parasol between 6 and 7 o’clock Sunday morning, he said. The witness said that he did not know whether the elevator stops flat on the ground floor at the bottom of the shaft. The witness concluded there.

Judge Roan asked Mr. Dorsey if he had another brief witness to put up. The solicitor answered in the negative, and at 12:25 o’clock Judge Roan adjourned the court until 9 o’clock Monday morning.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 25^th, 1913

Negro Was Taken to Tower Without Knowledge of Beavers or Lanford.

Action is likely to be taken against Detective John Starnes and Pat Campbell, who Wednesday afternoon carried Jim Conley, the negro in the Phagan case, from police headquarters to the Tower without permission of either Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford.

When asked by a Constitution reporter Thursday afternoon what steps he would probably take against the detectives, Chief Beavers declined to talk. He inferred, however, that an investigation would likely result and that action would be taken.

Conley was taken from the station house prison shortly before noon Wednesday without the knowledge, it is said, of even Desk Sergeant Arch Holcombe. He was taken to the Tower for a four-hour examination in the cell of Newt Lee, which examination was promoted by Solicitor General Dorsey and his associate, Frank Hooper.

Neither Chief Knew.

Neither Chief Beavers nor Chief Lanford, it is stated, were aware of his absence from headquarters until informed by newspaper reporters who told the detective head. Lanford immediately conferred with Beavers with the result that the latter hurried to the jail, finding the prisoner with the detectives and attorneys.

Secrecy was thrown about the move, and, it is rumored, it was in an effort to prevent reporters from getting wind of the examination that Conley was spirited from the prison in such a mysterious manner. Starnes and Campbell say, however, that they did not inform their chiefs purely because neither happened to be at headquarters at the time.

If both Beavers and Lanford had been in the place, however, they state, they would have sought permission of each chief before removing the negro. Upon visiting the jail Wednesday afternoon, Beavers did not interfere in any manner with the examination.

Chief Lanford said to reporters Thursday that none of his men would ever again take such liberties, and Beavers declared that if Conley were to be removed in the future he would be fully aware of the move and would personally superintended it.

He was asked if action had been taken against either Starnes or Campbell or the turnkey, Tom Bayne, who was on duty at the time the negro was taken from his cell. His answer was:

No Action on Record.

“I can’t talk. No action, however, is on record.”

When asked if action would be taken, he said:

“I can’t help what you infer. I’m only stating facts.”

He would not state whether or not the detectives were guilty of insubordination in assuming authority which should rest only in the hands of department heads.

“I’d rather not talk,” was all he would say.

It is rumored around headquarters that a thorough investigation is being made, and that Starnes and Campbell will be compelled to make a report of their action.

No Action by Lanford.

Chief Lanford stated to a reporter last night that there probably would be no action taken against either Campbell or Starnes, as Conley is as much in charge of his attorney, William M. Smith, as of police headquarters.

Smith’s consent had been obtained for the removal to the jail, Lanford said, and the attorney had made an effort to communicate with both the detective head and Chief Beavers before carrying out the move. Inasmuch as Conley is held only as witness, and is in charge of his attorney, Starnes and Campbell, the chief declared, did nothing wrong in their act.

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

Atlanta Georgian
July 24^th, 1913

STATE READY AND WILL FIGHT A DELAY

Solicitor Disappointed When Court Fails to Draw Jury Panels at Time Planned.

With the belief growing that a serious effort is being made to delay the trial of Leo Frank, set for next Monday, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey Thursday renewed his protest against further postponement in a vigorous statement, declaring the prosecution is ready with a complete case against the National Pencil Company factory head, accused of killing Mary Phagan.

The trial date rests entirely with Judge Roan, who is in Covington. The drawing of the jury venire awaited word from him, expected some time during the afternoon. At his home it was said the Judge would not return until to-morrow.

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, was said to have consulted with Judge Roan in Covington and presented arguments for delay, but the truth of this report could not be established.

Judge Leaves for Atlanta.

Judge Pendleton, who will conduct the drawing of the jury, said Thursday afternoon that he had received no word from Judge Roan and would proceed unless he did.

A long distance message from Covington had it that Judge Roan left shortly before 2 o’clock for Atlanta and the indications were that it would be known definitely before Thursday night whether the long-awaited trial will begin Monday or be delayed once more.

In a statement to The Georgian, Solicitor Dorsey said:

“The prosecution was ready June 30 in the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of little Mary Phagan on April 26 last. We have subpenaed all the witnesses, expecting to try this case on Monday next. This date was set at the suggestion of Judge L. S. Roan at the instance of counsel for the defense.

“We are disappointed that the jury […]

Solicitor Declares He Is Ready and Will Oppose Any Move for Delay.

[…] was not drawn this morning as Judge Roan stated it would be done.

“The State assuredly will be ready Monday unless something entirely unforeseen happens, and will ask trial of this man at that time.”

Jury Not Drawn.

Superior Judge John T. Pendleton declined to draw a jury for the Frank trial Thursday morning until he heard definitely from Judge L. S. Roan whether the case would be opened next Monday. Judge Pendleton announced he would know definitely by 4 o’clock Thursday afternoon whether the case would be called Monday, and he would draw the jury at that time if necessary.

Deputy Sheriff Plinnie [sic] Miner had instructions from Judge Roan to have one of the other judges draw the jury Thursday unless he was notified to the contrary. Miner heard nothing from Judge Roan and carried the jury box to Judge Pendleton to have the twelve panels drawn. He notified the attorneys for the State and the prosecution in ample time for them to be at the court. Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey and his assistant were the only attorneys to put in an appearance.

It developed Thursday morning that there were two rather ruffled chiefs at the police department the previous afternoon when Jim Conley was sneaked from his cell in the station over to the Tower without their permission and without their knowledge.

Chief Lanford said: “This will never happen again.”

Chief Beavers would not talk of the incident, but is understood to have told the two detectives, Starnes and Campbell, that if the negro were taken from the police station again he (Beavers) proposed to be in on it.

There was a commotion at police headquarters Wednesday afternoon, when it was found that Conley had been spirited away to confront Newt Lee in the Tower. Chief Lanford knew nothing of the circumstance until he was informed by The Georgian. Even then he insisted that Conley was in his cell.

Then Detectives Explain.

He went to Chief Beavers’ office to see if permission had been given there for Conley’s removal. Beavers said he did not know Conley was gone. Station Sergeant Holcomb was appealed to. He said he had not been notified that the prisoner was to be taken away. Turnkey Bayne, the last resort, was asked to explain the mysterious disappearance of Conley. He informed Chief Beavers that Detective Starnes and Campbell had taken him about a half hour before.

The Chief, to satisfy himself that Conley was still in custody, made a personal visit to the jail.

When Starnes and Campbell later were in conference with the Chief they told him that they had said nothing about their intention because neither Chief Beavers nor Chief Lanford was in the station at the time.

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, July 21, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Makes Brief Announcement to This Effect After Grand Jury Session Lasting Over an Hour

NO ANONYMOUS LETTERS WANTED BY THE JURORS

Solicitor Dorsey Will Now Concentrate Efforts Against Having Frank Jury Drawing From Grand Jury List

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey has for a second time blocked an attempt by members of the grand jury to indict James Conley, the negro sweeper, who confessed complicity in the Mary Phagan murder.

The grand jurymen who had called a meeting over the protest of the solicitor to consider taking up a bill against the negro listened to the prosecuting official for more than an hour Monday morning, and then authorized him to announce that the matter will not be taken up at this time.

DORSEY MAKES STATEMENT.

The solicitor wrote out his statement, which is as follows:

“I am authorized by the grand jury to say, first that no action will be taken at this time on the James Conley matter; second, that the grand jury will not pay any attention whatever to anonymous communications.”

The solicitor would not explain or amplify the statement in any way, but it is naturally supposed that the grand jury has decided not to take up the Conley matter until after the trial of Leo M. Frank, giving the solicitor a clear victory.

A QUORUM PRESENT.

There were eighteen members of the grand jury, a quorum, present when the meeting was called to order by Foreman W.D. Beatie. The solicitor was asked to remain in the room, when the meeting opened, and he did not leave it until the meeting adjourned more than one hour later, and the presumption is natural that he took part in the discussion of the case.

The solicitor had previously announced his position in the matter, declaring that the indictment of Conley at this time would be a serious mistake, and saying that it would have “a mild but undesirable” effect on the state’s case against Leo M. Frank.

Just why the solicitor should have seen fit to add to his announcement the statement about anonymous communications also remains unexplained. It has been known that the Phagan mystery from the first has called forth many anonymous letters. The city detectives, the counsel for the defense, the solicitor, the past and the present grand juries have been flooded with them.

The solicitor’s statement might lead to the inference that the “public sentiment” which worked on the grand jurors until they called the meeting, was of the anonyous [sic] communication sort.

MADE LONG SPEECH.

From the length of time during which the solicitor was before the grand jury it is apparent that it was not without difficulty that he persuaded the members of the body to let the Conley matter alone until after the Frank trial.

It is reported that the solicitor quoted many laws to the grand jury to strengthen his position in the matter, and an interesting decision on the point involved which appears in the 102 Georgia reports, page 271, was quoted in full.

Dealing with the case of Hix against Brantley, the supreme court in the decision says: “He (the solicitor general) is to determine whether or not to commence a particular prosecution or to discontinue one already begun. The solicitor general draws the bill of indictment, and examines the witnesses, not with a view to the interest of any client, but alone to subserve the public justice. The whole proceeding from the time the case is laid before him, is under his direction, supervision and control.”

No other meeting of the grand jury has been called and it is probable that none will be until after July 28, when the case against Frank is set for trial.

DRAWING OF JURY

The solicitor general’s next fight is the famous murder case will come next Thursday, when he will oppose the motion of counsel for the defense of Frank[…]

(Continued On Page 7, Col. 1.)

WILL NOT INDICT JIM CONLEY NOW, JURY’S DECISION

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]that the veniremen, from whom the twelve jurors to try Frank will be chosen, he [sic] drawn from the grand jury list instead of the petit jury list. The Fulton county grand jury list contains approximately 1,000 names, while the petit jury list has more than 6,000 names on it.

The solicitor has made it known that he will vigorously oppose the motion. The drawing of the veniremen from the grand jury list would be unusual and there is no instance of it ever having been done in this country, it is said. As yet, however, no law against the move has been advanced.

Conley Carried to Carter Street and Electric Ave.

Jim Conley was carried away from police headquarters in Chief Beavers’ automobile about 11:30 o’clock Monday morning by Detectives Starnes and Campbell, who are working directly under the solicitor general.

The negro was returned to his cell within half an hour.

The explanation of the trip given by Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford was that Conley was carried to the corner of Electric avenue and Carter street in order that all of the residents there might see him, and, if possible, identify him as a man seen in dispute with a white man about the day of the Phagan murder. He was not identified.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 21st 1913, “Will Not Indict Jim Conley Now, Jury’s Decision,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Four young women, three of whom had been caught in Chief Beavers’ vice dragnet last week, escaped from the Martha Home during chapel exercises Sunday night.

The women were Effie Drummond, who after being caught in a raid on Mrs. Lula Bell’s place at Peters and Fair streets, declared she was a minister’s daughter from North Carolina, and had been the victim of a white slaver; Maude Doughetry, apprehended at the same house; Beatrice Renfro, companion of A.N. Trippe, a Whitehall street clerk, arrested on complaint of Tripp’e [sic] wife, and Myrtle Bell, who was placed in the home at the request of her parents.

The dragnet has been recast for the fugitives.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Four Women Caught In Vice Net Escape From Martha Home,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Saturday, July 19, 1913

Asserting That He Considers Recorder Mentally Irresponsible, the Mayor Announces Controversy Closed.

With the declaration that no utterance by Recorder Nash R. Broyles will induce him to resort to blackguardism or swerve him in the matter of exercising clemency, Mayor James G. Woodward yesterday reduced the sentence of George Poulas, a Greek retsaurant [sic] keeper, who was fined $100 or thirty days in the stockade for alleged violation of the near beer laws.

The extent of the mayor’s clemency was to reduce the fine assessed against Poulas to $49 or twenty-nine days in jail. Poulas was tried and convicted before W.H. Preston, acting recorder.

Considers Testimony Weak.

Mayor Woodward stated that his reason for pardoning Poulas was because the only witness against him was a 12-year-old negro boy.

“The testimony shows,” said the mayor, “that the negro boy had been in the employ of Poulas, and was discharged. By his own admission his testimony was biased and prejudiced, and hardly worthy of credit against the word of a white man.

V. Mazafladl, Greek consul, and a number of influential men of the Greek colony appeared before the mayor in behalf of Poulas, and made a strong plea for clemency.

Must Be Some Error.

Mayor Woodward said:

“Another motive that impels me in the reduction of this penalty is that it was imposed by the acting recorder, and not the recorder himself, and, therefore, there must be some error connected therewith, as it is the policy of the recorder himself to not exceed $49 fine or twenty-nine days in the stockade.

“In view of this error or oversight on the part of the assistant recorder, I desire not to take advantage, as it seems to be the policy of the recorder’s court at this time to place sentence without the limits of the chief executive of the city. I, therefore, reduce this fine to $49, or serve twenty-nine days on the public works, any time served being counted in this sentence. Upon the payment of $49 the said George Poulas will be released from further confinement or service.

No Love Lost.

Replying to the most recent statement of Recorder Broyles, Mayor Woodward [s]aid:

“The people of Atlanta are not, I believe, interested in any controversy of a personal nature between Nash Broyles and myself. It adds nothing to the dignity of either. As far as Broyles and myself are concerned, there is no love lost. He does not hold his position by my vote; neither do I hold the position I have by his vote, and I care nothing for him, either personally or otherwise, and do not propose to go into any further controversy with him, as I consider him irresponsible from a mental standpoint.

“As regards his apologizing to the hog family, possibly he is more interested in that line than I am.

“As regards the statement about falsehoods in referring to the court of appeals, I herewith give the names of the cases that were reversed and also those that were affirmed. The public can judge for themselves who is a liar in this business.

Gives Record of Reversals.

“On May 23, 1913, Chief Beavers made a report to the comptroller showing action by the higher court on seventeen cases, ten of which were reversed. On that report the city remitted fines as follows: Samuel Hughes, $500.75; George Marshall, thirty days, F. E. A. Smith, $500 and thirty days; Dan Brown. $99.25; Andrew Shanks, $50.75; H. Stone, $25.75; Tom Woolfolk, $500 and thirty days; Dave Fielder, $500.75; Will Lumpkin, $100, and Jack Percy, $25.75.

“The records in the comptroller’s office show that in a great many more cases the higher court sustained Broyles and at the same time reduced the fines of the defendants. In the case of Hub Talley, Judge Pendleton ordered the fine reduced to $75.10, all of which goes to prove my contention that Broyles is too severe.

Apologizes to Hog.

“Apologizing to the public, I want to say now and forever that I am through with Broyles.”

Recorder Broyles issued a warm statement Friday morning in reply to Mayor Woodward’s attack. He declared that he cared nothing for the abuse heaped on him, coming from such a character as the mayor. He asserted that the court of appeals never has passed on seventeen cases in one day, and said that the statement compelled him to “apologize to the hog.” He charged the mayor with uttering falsehoods in regard to the record of cases reversed, and intimated that the mayor was side-stepping the issue.

He reiterated that the mayor is hindering the courts by the use of his pardon power.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, July 19th 1913, “Woodward Uses Clemency Again,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Saturday, July 19, 1913

Chief’s Statement Follows the Publication of Report That Pinkertons Are Now of the Opinion Sweeper Is Guilty.

“OPEN TO CONVICTION,” SCOTT TELLS REPORTER

“Our Testimony in Case Will Be Fair and Impartial,” He Says—Grand Jury Called to Consider Indicting Conley.

DEVELOPMENTS OF DAY IN MARY PHAGAN CASE

Meeting of grand jury called to take steps leading to indictment of James Conley on the charge of murder, over protest of Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey, who declares that indictment of Conley will be useless procedure.

Reported on Friday that the Pinkertons have changed their opinion in case, and now believe Conley guilty of murder, and Leo M. Frank innocent.

Harry Scott, field manager of Pinkertons, is denied permission to see Conley in his cell and subject him to quiz, although always allowed this privilege in past.

“Scott told me he still believes Conley innocent and Frank guilty,” says Chief of Detectives Lanford. “Pinkertons will give fair and impartial testimony at coming trial,” Scott tells Constitution. “Whether it affects Frank or the negro is no concern of ours; we were employed to find the murderer.”

“Conley is dealing fairly with the state of Georgia,” says his attorney, William M. Smith, in making attack on action of the grand jury.

That Harry Scott, field manager for the Pinkertons, came to police headquarters yesterday afternoon immediately following the publication of a story to the effect that the Pinkertons now believed in Conley’s guilt, and declared that he still held to the theory that the negro was innocent and Frank guilty, was the assertion made by Newport Lanford, chief of detectives, last night.

“Scott told me,” said the chief last night, “that there was no truth in the article so far as he personally was concerned, and that he continued firm in the belief that Conley was innocent.

“He has maintained throughout the investigation that Frank is guilty, and that Conley had nothing more to do with the crime than the complicity to which he confessed. He came to me Friday especially to deny the story.

Why Scott Was Barred.

Lanford stated that Scott had worked during the entire case along this line. It is further stated that Scott told the chief Friday that his original belief had not been altered in the slightest.

A prominent police official explained the move which prevented Scott from interviewing the negro Friday afternoon. It was to keep any additional statement which might be made by the negro from reaching the ears of counsel for Frank’s defense, he said.

“Police headquarters has been working in co-operation with Scott,” said the official, “and he has been invaluable to the Phagan investigation. His retainers, however, are pencil factory officials, and his daily reports are submitted to Frank’s counsel.

“We did not want to embarrass Scott by requesting him to keep silent, and did not want to risk the probability of letting new developments reach Frank’s attorneys. Therefore, we were forced to prevent him from seeing the negro.”

It was inferred by this statement that new evidence has been gained from Conley. Chief Lanford would not commit himself. He would neither deny nor affirm the report that additional statements had been obtained.

Scott’s Attitude.

Detective Harry Scott made his attitude in the Phagan case clear to a reporter last night. He declared that he would not commit himself as to his belief of guilt either toward Conley or Frank, but that he was open to conviction regarding either suspect.

“The Pinkertons at the coming trial—or any others that may result from the case—will give fair and impartial testimony. Whether it affects Frank or the negro is no concern of ours. We were employed to apprehend the murderer. This we strove to do at the best of our ability. All evidence we have got will be submitted fully and fairly.”

Scott Is Non-Committal.

Scott would not say whether the evidence at hand was damaging to either of the prisoners. He was extremely non-committal; in fact, more […]

Continued on Page Two.

SCOTT BELIEVES CONLEY INNOCENT

Continued From Page One.

[…] so than at any other stage of the famous case. He did state, however, that there had been no change of attitude in the Pinkerton forces, and that they were concerned in the investigation as they had always been, solely to find the slayer.

It was also stated from the Pinkerton offices that they would not assist the defense of Leo Frank. Their relationship, it is rumored, has been severed from the police department so far as concerns the Phagan case. They will not strive it was said, to prosecute or defend anyone put on trial their object being to submit evidence tending to disclose the murderer.

Conley Quizzed Enough.

Regarding the action of Chief Beavers in refusing permission to see Conley when he applied at police headquarters Friday afternoon, Scott told the reporter.

I will not try to examine the negro again. I do not want to clash with the police department in the first place and in the second I do not think it necessary to quizz [sic] Conley any further. He has already told enough.

As to a definite statement having been made of their attitude as was reported Friday afternoon Scott declared that no such intimation had been given from his office. It probably resulted, he said, because of their reticence which has been maintained of late and of the refusal of the police chief to permit an interview with Conley.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, July 19th 1913, “Scott Believes Conley Innocent, Asserts Lanford,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, July 18, 1913

*Editor’s Note: Small sections of text are missing due to scanning near a crease.

NOTED SLEUTHS WHO HAD ACCUSED FRANK NOW CHANGE THEORY

Harry Scott, Field Chief of the Pinkertons, Refuses to Discuss the Agency’s Change of Theory.

AGENTS HAVE WORKED ON CASE ALONG WITH POLICE

The Pinkertons Were Employed by the National Pencil Factory Immediately Following the Murder

That the Pikerton [sic] detectives, who for so many weeks held to the theory that Leo M. Frank is guilty of the Mary Phagan murder, now lay the crime to the door of Jim Conley, is a recent development of interest to the students of the murder mystery.

While Harry Scott, the field chief of the Pinkerton operatives, who have been working on the case practically from the first, employed by the National pencil factory to find Mary Phagan’s murderer, regardless of who the criminal might be, refuses to discuss the case, the Journal has learned from unquestioned authority that the theory of the Pinkertons has undergone a change.

The Pinkertons, while not admitted to many of the later conferences, which the solicitor has held with the city detectives, are said to be in possession of practically every point of importance in the state’s case.

Scott, who was [sic] worked on the case with John Black, one of the best of the city detectives, was present at the time Jim Conley made his three most startling confessions of complicity in the murder, and he […] the negro Conley’s manner of […] connection with the crime, and the strangeness of parts of his story, are said to be more responsible than any thing else for the Pinkerton man’s dropping the theory that Frank is guilty, and taking up the fight against Conley.

While the Pinkerton’s attitude has been known for a number of days to the counsel for the defense and for the attorneys and detectives actively identified with the prosecution, it was only made public Friday.

A significant fact connected with the Pinkerton’s attitude in the case is that Friday morning Scott made an effort to see Conley and give him another grilling, but was denied admission to the negro’s cell.

Scott, after talking with Chief Beavers, said simply that he had been informed that the negro did not want to talk with anyone during the day, and that he (Scott) would probably see him another day.

Scott, working with Detective Black, made a number of attempts during the negro’s admissions of complicity to secure a confession from him, but failed.

While the Pinkertons do not now believe the factory superintendent guilty of the crime, the attitude of the solicitor general and the city detectives in the case has not been changed, and Solicitor Dorsey is making his preparations to go to trial in the case on July the 28th.

He, too, has talked many times with the negro Conley, and the negro’s story has served only to strengthen his theory that Frank is guilty, rather than to shake it like it shook the theory of the Pinkertons.

Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, attorneys for Frank, are in conference almost daily, and they are expected to be ready to go to trial on Monday week when the case will be called.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 18th 1913, “Pinkertons Now Declare Leo M. Frank Is Innocent,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Thursday, July 17, 1913

Joe North, Alleged White Slaver, Declines to Talk Before Hearing in Recorder’s Court.

Joe North, alleged white slaver, arrested on the statement of Effie Drummond, a young woman who told the police he lured her into a rooming house, will be tried before Recorder Nash Broyles at 2:30 o’clock Thursday afternoon and every effort made to get from him the names of other persons in the “vice ring,” to which Chief of Police James L. Beavers says North owes allegiance.

North was arrested Wednesday night after a search of very nearly a week. He was put through a severe grilling Thursday morning by Chief Beavers, but declined absolutely to make any statement until he was forced to do so by the court.

Effie Drummond, the girl who was arrested in the raid on the house at Fair and Peters streets operated by Lula Bell, will be brought in from Martha’s Home to repeat her sensational story of how she came to Atlanta from the country and was caught in the net of a white slaver. Chief Beavers said he confidently expected the trial Thursday afternoon to establish the fact there was a vice ring in Atlanta and that cases similar to the Drummond affair were not uncommon.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 17th 1913, “Youth Accused in Vice Ring on Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)