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

Atlanta Journal

Monday, April 28^th, 1913

Arthur Mullinax, Trolley Conductor, Denies That E. L. Sentell Saw Him Saturday Night With Mary Phagan

Arthur Mullinax, identified by E. L. Sentell, of 22 Davis street, clerk for the Kamper Grocery company, as the man whom he saw with Mary Phagan, the murdered girl, at midnight Saturday, vehemently denies any part in the atrocious crime, and declares that he will be able to prove an alibi. Subjected to a quizzing in the office of Chief of Police Beavers, he told an apparently straightforward story of his actions on the night preceding the finding of the body. Investigation of his statement by the police, however, developed discrepancies, they say. He is kept in solitary confinement on a tentative charge of suspicion.

Sentell, who was an acquaintance of the dead girl, told the police that he saw her at Forsythe and Hunter streets with Mullinax at 12:30 o’clock Sunday morning. He said he spoke to her and that the former street car man tipped his hat in response to the salutation.

In the presence of Chief Beavers, Chief of Detectives Lanford, Police Captain Mayo and Detective Black, the clerk and Mullinax were brought face to face. The clerk reiterated his identification. Pointing at the prisoner, he said:

“That is the man who was with the girl last night. I’m positive. There’s no doubt about it.”

“It’s false! It’s a lie!” cried the man accused. “I was at home asleep, and I can prove it.”

Sentell never wavered in his contention, however.

“WAS WITH ANOTHER.”

Mullinax told the police following his arrest Sunday, that he had called on a girl friend, Miss Pearl Robinson, who lives in Bellwood avenue, and later accompanied her to the Bijou theater.

“We came downtown on an English avenue car, got off at Marietta and Forsyth streets, and went directly to the theater. We arrived at about the middle of the first show and left about the middle of the second. Then we boarded a car and I took the girl home. The only time I was near the intersection where Sentell says he saw me with Miss Phagan was when I took the car with Miss Robinson.”

A coincidence in the case is the fact that Miss Robinson wore the same kind of a dress and is of the same size and appearance as the murdered girl. Friends of Mullinax declare that this shows that Sentell is mistaken in his identification.

“When we arrived at Miss Robinson’s house we talked for awhile,” Mullinax said in his cell. “I guess I stayed there for fifteen minutes. Then I went home. I room at 60 Poplar street, in Bellwood. When I got there I gave Mrs. Emma Rutherford, my landlady, a dollar which I owed her. She slipped it under her pillow. I went to bed then, and didn’t know of the murder until Sunday morning.

THE VITAL FLAW.

In this part of the suspect’s statement the police believe they have picked a vital flaw. Mrs. Rutherford, they say declares that Mullinax did not come home Saturday night and pay her a dollar.

“He gave it to me Saturday at noon,” she said.

In his cell at the jail Mullinax is denied to all callers. Although obviously perturbed over his arrest, he had remained cool and has told time and time again the same story of his actions on the night of the crime.

To reporters he said that he had known the murdered girl but casually. He denied that he had become acquainted with her on her frequent rides on his car between the pencil factory and her home. This, also, is in contravention of other testimony in the hands of the police, officials declare. It is said that witnesses have told of frequent conversations between Miss Phagan and Mullinax on the street car of which the suspect was in charge that would not come under the designation of casual acquaintance.

MET AT CHURCH SOCIAL.

“I met her at a social in Western Heights Baptist church last Christmas,” said the prisoner. “That is the only time I knew her. Anybody that says I was a good friend of hers, lies. Why, I was never even introduced to the girl. We both took part in the entertainment. She depicted ‘Sleeping Beauty’ in a playlet. I did a black-face act and sang in a quartet.

“During the show I was standing in the wings waiting for my turn to go on. Miss Phagan came up to me.

“You look fine in black face,” she said to me. Then I said, ‘Then I’ll keep my face black always.’ It was a joke,” added the alleged murderer as he smiled grimly.

Mullinax said that that was the last time he had seen the girl to talk to her.

“I haven’t been with her since Christmas. I never saw her Saturday night. My arrest is all a horrible mistake, but I’m not worrying much, because the police can’t hold an innocent man long—and I am an innocent man.”

Samples of Mullinax’s handwriting were compared with that of the notes found by the dead girl’s body in the pencil factory basement. The penmanship did not tally.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, April 28th 1913, “Man Held for Girl’s Murder Avows He Was With Another When Witness Saw Him Last,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, May 28^th, 1913

Police Secure Admission From Negro Sweeper During Examination for Phagan Clews.

Admission that he was in the National Pencil factory on the day of the murder of Mary Phagan was gained from James Conley, the negro sweeper on whom suspicion has turned, after cross-examination by detectives at police headquarters.

The negro, who became the center of attention with his amazing story that Leo Frank had told him to write the death notes, changed his narrative again to-day. Confronted by E. F. Holloway, a foreman in the plant, he admitted having been in the factory after having steadily maintained that he was on Peters Street between 10 and 2 o’clock that fatal Saturday and at home all other hours of the day.

Says Confession Is Near.

Holloway, after leaving the secret grilling at which the admission was obtained, declared he was sure it was only a matter of hours before Conley would confess. He asserted that if he had been allowed to put questions to Conley he could have gotten important information.

The police questions were, of course, all put with the idea of gaining information against Frank.

Chief Lanford had announced that he would go before Judge Roan with a request for an order allowing him to confront Frank with the negro, so that Conley’s statement would be admissible in court. Lanford, however, failed to carry out his plans, although he would not admit they had been abandoned.

Found Negro Falsified.

Conley told the officers when he was first arrested that he could not write. Later they found releases that he had written for watches, and he admitted he had been lying. He gave them an address on Tattnall Street when they took him in custody. It later was found that he had not lived there for six months or a year.

In his affidavit of last Saturday he swore that he wrote the notes found by the body of the dead girl at the dictation of Leo Frank the day before the crime. Tuesday night he repudiated this affidavit and said that it was on Saturday that he wrote them.

The result of this series of lies and misstatements was that suspicion was gradually shifting from Leo Frank to Conley in spite of the attitude of the police. The culminating action that pointed the accusing finger in his direction was his new statement of Tuesday night, which was utterly at variance with his affidavit in its most essential point—the date.

With his first affidavit repudiated and worthless, it will be practically impossible to get any court to accept a second one. If a second one is offered action will be taken at once to impeach it and it is regarded as most unlikely that it would be accepted in the circumstances.

Now Changes Date.

In his original affidavit Conley swore that he wrote on Friday, April 25—the day before the murder—the notes which he believes were found by the body of Mary Phagan. He swore that he wrote them at Frank’s dictation. In the revised statement that he made to the police Tuesday night. Conley declared that instead of writing the notes on Friday, he wrote them Saturday about four minutes before 1 o’clock.

His second statement is impeached by the fact that the negro has repudiated his first affidavit. It may be impeached further by the development that at the time he says Frank was dictating the notes to him Frank, as a matter of fact, was on another floor talking to Harry Denham, Arthur White and Mrs. White.

Frank and the other three persons all have testified that it was within a few minutes of 1 o’clock that Frank came upstairs and said that he was going to leave the building and that if the three did not wish to be locked in the building they would have to leave also. Mrs. White left at 1 o’clock. Frank and Denham and White remained in the building.

The negro in making the second statement described exactly who was in the building at the time, on what floors they were and waat [sic] they were doing, indicating that he must actually have been there or else has read the papers very carefully. Until his second statement he had denied repeatedly that he was in the factory on the day of the crime, and had told the detectives of his whereabouts at various times of the day.

Unable to Prove Whereabouts.

He was unable, however, to corroborate his declaration that he was on Peters Street between 10 o’clock in the forenoon and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. He could name no one he had seen between those hours.

Despite the new developments, the detectives, of course, stand firmly by their theory of Frank’s guilt. They assert that they have the testimony of four handwriting experts that the writing on the notes found by the body of Mary Phagan positively as that of Frank. This evidence is lessened in importance by the fact that three other handwriting experts have declared positively that the writing is that of Newt Lee, the negro night watchman in the pencil factory.

So far as is known no expert comparison has been made between the notes and the handwriting of Conley. If such a comparison has been made the results have not been announced.

The detectives are placed in a peculiar position by the new statement of Conley. If they are to believe a word of his statement that he wrote the notes at Frank’s dictation they are forced to discredit absolutely the testimony of their four handwriting experts that the notes are those of Frank. If they accept the testimony of the experts, on the other hand, they must take the position that both the first and second statements of the negro are worthless and have no bearing on the mystery.

Contradicted by Wife.

Maggie Conley, wife of James Conley, whose confession that he wrote the mysterious notes found at the side of murdered Mary Phagan at the dictation of Leo M. Frank, has developed into one of the most puzzling incidents of the case, made a statement to a Georgian reporter on Wednesday morning bearing on the whereabouts of her husband on the afternoon of the murder that is utterly at variance with statements made by Conley.

Conley has repeatedly told detectives that on the evening of April 26, the night Mary Phagan was murdered, he left his home at 172 Rhodes Street at 6 o’clock and went downtown, remaining there until 8, when he returned home.

The woman who says she is his wife told a Georgian reporter that Conley came home at 2 o’clock in the afternoon of April 26, and REMAINED AT HOME UNTIL MONDAY MORNING AT 8 O’CLOCK. APRIL 28, when he went to work at the pencil factory. He returned home about an hour later, she said, and told her he didn’t have to work that day, because a white girl had been murdered.

Her Story of His Actions.

The woman told the following story of her husband’s action on the day of the murder.

“Jim left home about 9 or 10 o’clock Saturday morning and said he was going downtown. He came back somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 o’clock, and told me he had been at the near-beer saloons on Peters Street with a gang of niggers. I was in the kitchen when Jim came in the front door, and I heard him moving around in the front room several minutes before I called him. Then he began joking me and fooling like he always does. We sat in the front room and talked a little while and then I went back in the kitchen.

“I heard Jim moving around after I went into the kitchen, and I thought he was going out again. I went into the front room and couldn’t see Jim. I reached over to pick up a shawl that had fallen to the floor and Jim poked his head over the top of the dresser. He had been hiding behind it, just to see what I would say. We sat around all afternoon and talked, and Jim didn’t leave the house any more until Monday morning, when he went to work.”

Not Seen by Neighbors.

The woman said her husband did not appear nervous or excited when he came home on the Saturday afternoon of the murder. She said he is always fooling and joking, and was even a little more playful than usual. She said also that he said nothing to her about having written any notes for Mr. Frank, and said she had never heard him speak of his employer.

No negro could be found in the neighborhood where Conley lives who had seen him at home Saturday afternoon.

Hattie Crawford, a negress who lives at 170 Rhodes Street, next door to Conley, declared that she was at home all Saturday afternoon and Saturday night and that she did not see Conley. The first time she saw him was Sunday morning, when he was sitting on stump in his back yard, she says.

Accuse Negro Conley.

In an effort to discover how the negro Jim Conley, now the center of attention in the Phagan mystery, was regarded at the National Pencil factory by the girls employed in the trimming and finishing departments where Conley worked as a sweeper, two Georgian reporters late Tuesday afternoon interviewed six foreladies and some 50-odd girls at the factory, 37-39 South Forsyth Street.

Without exception, the ordinary workers said that they had no opportunity to ever judge Conley’s character as they were too busy and there were foreladies there to protect them.

Mrs. G. W. Small, a forelady of 37 West Fair Street; said that before the murder of Mary Phagan the negro Jim Conley was slow moving and negligent of his duties; taking his time about performing any task he was asked to do.

“After the Phagan murder,” said Mrs. Small, “I noticed a great change in the negro. He did the things I told him to do with much more promptness. His whole demeanor changed.

“I never did trust him,” declared Mrs. Small, “and he knew it. I certainly believe that if anyone working in this factory did that terrible deed it was the negro Conley. I said from the first that it was no white man’s job, and I have always believed that Mr. Frank was innocent.”

Several of the young women, however, defended the negro as a fairly good workman.

All Think Frank Innocent.

Every employee of the National Pencil factory, without exception, scouts the idea that Leo Frank had anything to do with the fate of Mary Phagan. Each one is loyal and is yet to be convinced that he had any part in the crime of which he now stands accused.

One woman who is employed in the finishing department asserted that the negro Conley was impudent several time[s].

A number of the girls stated that they had smelled whisky on the negro. Miss Eulah May Flowers told of her experience when she went to the storage room one evening and there stumbled over Conley, who was dead drunk, stretched on the floor.

E. F. Holloway, the timekeeper and foreman of the pencil factory, says he had just about made up his mind to discharge Conley when the crime was committed, but Conley showed improvement and that he kept him on, until he caught him washing the shirt which caused his arrest.

Deductions Damaging.

Making deductions from Conley’s first affidavit, here are a few facts which tend to throw suspicion on the negro:

Conley says that Frank, after dictating the notes, said to him: “Why should I hang?” If Frank intended committing a deed which would warrant hanging, it is preposterous to hold that he would so commit himself to as unreliable a person as a negro.

Conley did not say he had written the notes until after he had lain in jail for weeks. Yet, his confession was not in the least incriminating to himself.

Conley made his statement not until Frank’s case was under investigation by the Grand Jury. He made it voluntarily then.

Frequently Intoxicated.

Conley, the negro, was brought into close association with the factory girl employees. As sweeper he brushed the refuse from beneath the chairs in which they sat. As elevator conductor he operated the cage, crowded with girls, up and down the shaft.

Conley frequently was intoxicated while on duty.

On the afternoon of the murder Conley’s story as to his whereabouts lack corroboration. The negro states that he was on Peters Street for at least two hours, yet he can give the name of no one whom he saw there during that time to bear out his statement.

At the first address Conley gave as his home it was found he had not lived there for a year.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of a machinist at the factory, declares she saw a negro sitting by the elevator shaft (which Conley operated) as she left the factory at 1 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 28th 1913, “Conley Was in Factory on Day of Slaying,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Luther Z. Rosser, who is leading attorney of counsel for the defense of Leo M. Frank, indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan at the National Pencil factory. Mr. Rosser, as usual, is playing a game of silence. He has not indicated his line of defense.

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

Atlanta Georgian

Tuesday, May 27^th, 1913

What will be the defense of Leo M. Frank when he is called upon next month to answer to the charge of strangling little Mary Phagan?

With the confident announcement of the police Monday that they had completed a case against the factory superintendent that was as conclusive as it possibly could be without the testimony of actual eyewitnesses of the crime, this question naturally is being asked to-day by everyone who has any interest in the mystery, and that means practically every person in Atlanta.

The people will not get their answer from Luther Z. Rosser, the close-lipped and able attorney of Frank, until the trial actually begins. But even at this early date, when only the vaguest of hints have been given as to the course that will be followed in the battle to free Frank from all suspicion, it is patent that there are many openings offered the defense for attacks upon the theories of the State.

Burden of Proof on State.

Those who are close to the daily developments in Atlanta’s baffling murder mystery and who venture to predict the line of defense that will be offered are bearing in mind that, in the first place, the great burden of proof is upon the prosecution and not upon the defense.

It is absolutely necessary, due to the protection with which the law has hedged everyone under suspicion of crime, that the State in some manner, by some piece of evidence, connect Frank directly with the crime or establish his connection beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until the State is able to do this, Luther Z. Rosser may rest on his oars if he so desires. Leo Frank is innocent this moment in the eyes of the law. His innocence does not need to be proved. It is presumed.

It immediately becomes a question, therefore, as to whether the State really has made out a case against Frank, so far as can be judged from the evidence in the hands of the public. Have the detectives by any of their discoveries connected Frank directly with the crime? Have they assembled such a chain of circumstantial incidents as to make his guilt appear certain beyond a reasonable doubt?

Frank’s Friends Deny Connection.

Those interested in the defense of Frank answer both questions emphatically in the negative. Not one thing has been found, they declare, that connects Frank directly with the mysterious strangling. Nor do they regard the circumstantial evidence seriously.

The law will not permit Frank’s conviction for the crime merely because the detectives have discovered that he had the opportunity. It will not permit his conviction, if no convincing evidence is found against him, merely because he is unable to put his hands on another man and say, “This is the man you want. He is the guilty person.”

It is not the intention of the law to hang one man simply because no one else can be found who is the more likely culprit.

After the State has presented its reasons for believing in the guilt of Frank, it is regarded as likely that the defense will claim first of all that the State has failed to establish Frank’s connection with the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense will represent that the most the State has done is to establish that he had the opportunity to commit the murder.

Frank never was seen with the girl, either on the day of the strangling or before. It is not known that he ever spoke to her except in connection with her work. Nothing was found to point the finger of accusation directly at Frank, so far as the public has been informed. None of Frank’s clothing has been found with blood stains upon it. No finger prints upon the girl’s body or her clothes were identified as his. None of this personal belonging were found near the girl’s body. Absolutely nothing was discovered in the search of the detectives that fastened the crime on him.

Own Admission Caused Arrest.

The police possibly would never even have known that Frank was the last person to see Mary Phagan, so far as is known, had it not been for his own free admission. He told the officers the moment he identified the body that that was the girl he paid at noon the day before. No one else knew that Mary Phagan was in the building at that time, so far as the evidence reveals. Frank did not have to tell if he had desired to conceal the fact.

The defense, therefore, will be in a position to ask: “Should not this admission, given freely and voluntarily, be regarded as an indication of innocence rather than as an admission of guilt, as the detectives have considered it up to this time? Is a guilty man likely to tell the officers as soon as he is approached that he saw the girl and talked with her, when there is no need of such an admission?”

If the State attempts to show that the murder was committed between 12 and 1 o’clock Saturday afternoon, as one of the theories contends, the defense will be able to argue that there were several other people in the factory at the time, this fact opening the way to the argument that if the crime was committed at this time it need not have been Frank who did it, and to another argument that Frank would have been very unlikely to attack the girl when he knew there were other persons in the factory at the time who might discover him.

May Prove an Alibi.

Should the State seek to prove that the murder was committed in the evening, as the affidavits obtained from Mrs. Mima [sic] Fomby [sic] indicate may be done, the defense will be able to establish a very strong alibi for the suspected man from the testimony of seven persons who are said to have been at Frank’s house Saturday evening playing a game of cards.

Several of them already have testified before the Coroner’s jury, and all of them are said to be willing to give their testimony in court to the effect that they saw Frank come home that evening about the time he said in his statement to the Coroner’s jury, and that he remained home the remainder of the evening, to the best of their knowledge.

This will bring it to an issue of veracity between Mrs. Mima Fomby and these seven persons, who are persons of reputation and standing in the community, if, indeed, the testimony of Mrs. Fomby is allowed admission, which appears doubtful.

Mrs. Fomby swore in her affidavit that Frank called her on the telephone several times between 6:30 and 10:30 o’clock the Saturday night of the murder, asking her for permission to bring a girl to her place. She testified that she denied the request. It is between these hours that Frank has a very well established alibi from all appearances.

Another Motive Possible.

The defense also will be in a position to suggest that there might have been another motive for the crime than the one generally accepted. No physician has stated positively that he was certain of any conclusions from his examination of the body either immediately after the crime or at the times the body was exhumed.

Added to this fact is the unexplained circumstance that the girl’s purse never has been found. It contained only the wages she had drawn that day, to be sure, but even this small amount might prove an incentive to some persons, the defense very likely will argue. And it is not at all certain that the robber, if robbery was the motive, had any idea that the amount he would obtain would be so small.

“Is it probable that Frank would have taken the trouble to hide the girl’s purse when it could not have incriminated in any way any particular persons had it been lying near her body?” is a question that can be put to the jurors in this connection.

The defense also will fight against the introduction of much of the character testimony that was permitted to go before the Coroner’s jury. Frank’s attorneys will attack the identification of Frank made by Officer House, of Druid Hills Park, on the grounds of its utter improbability.

Will Attack Officer.

They will question the ability of House to identify a man he has seen only once and after a lapse of two years. They will attack the probabilities of a man of Frank’s standing permitting himself to be seen in company with a girl in short skirts.

They will question the probability of his admitting his identity to the officer and saying, “I am Leo Frank, superintendent of the National Pencil Factory,” when his main concern naturally would have been to keep his identity secret. Probabilities are bound to play a large part in the trial, declare those interested in the mystery, for it is very much on a sequence of probabilities that the police are basing their expectations of convicting Frank.

Even should the State be able to prove beyond a doubt that it was Frank whom the park guard discovered in company with a young girl two years ago, the defense will still be able to say that this fact no more connects Frank with the murder than it does hundreds of other persons.

The announcement of the detectives themselves that they do not place implicit confidence in the so-called confession of the negro, James Conley, makes it unlikely that the trial will have anything to do with his statement that he wrote notes at the dictation of Frank the day before the murder.

Sentell May Yet Be Witness.

Laying aside the possibility of a premeditated murder, which no one had even suggested up to the time of the negro’s alleged confession, the friends of Frank, and those who are without personal interest as well, scouted the idea that Frank, who is an intelligent and shrewd man, would taken an ignorant negro into his confidence and do everything but tell him that he was going to commit a murder on the next day.

It is rumored that E. L. Sentell may yet figure in the case again. Sentell is the man who declared positively before the Coroner’s jury that he saw Mary Phagan shortly before midnight the night of the murder. Sentell knew Mary Phagan from infancy. He said that he could not be mistaken in her identification. He testified that he met her on the street in company with some man and that the said, “Hello, Mary,” and that she replied, “Hello, Ed.”

This testimony would appear quite conclusive were it not for the statements of the physicians that the girl must have been dead at least six hours when found. It is known, however, that some confidence is still being placed in his statements.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 27th 1913, “States Face Big Task in Trial of Frank as Slayer,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Mrs. Nina Fomby, woman who made affidavit that Leo M. Frank had telephoned to her on the day of Mary Phagan’s death trying to get a room for himself and a girl.

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

Atlanta Georgian

Monday, May 26^th, 1913

Chief of Detectives Lanford was given two papers Monday accusing friends of Leo M. Frank of attempting to bribe a man and a woman to swear that they saw Mary Phagan at 10:30 Saturday night, April 26, at a soda fountain at Marietta and Forsyth Streets.

These papers were given Lanford by A. S. Colyar, whose entrance into the Phagan case has been marked by one sensation after another. Colyar told Lanford that the papers were copies of sworn affidavits and that he had the originals which he would produce at the proper time. The copies are not signed.

Haas Denies Charge.

Emphatic denial that he had in any manner resorted to bribery in behalf of Frank was made by Herbert Haas, well-known Atlanta attorney and friend of the pencil factory superintendent. Mr. Haas further declared that any intimation that he had sought to bribe anyone was absolutely false.

Two Affidavits Alleged.

Colyar said that one of the affidavits was signed by the woman it was sought to bribe and the other by the man, a traveling salesman. Five hundred dollars each is said by the alleged of the affidavits to have been offered to the man and the woman for their testimony.

Colyar alleges that the woman was brought here from Birmingham with the intention of inducing her to swear to the statement that she saw Mary Phagan late Saturday night. He said that he knew where she was at the present time, although the friends of Frank though that she had left the city.

Another report of attempted bribery was submitted to Chief Lanford by Will Henson, of 12 Leonard Street. Henson told Lanford that he had been informed by Mrs. Edmondson, mother of little Monteen Stover, of 175 South Forsyth Street, that a man had come to her house and asked how much she (Mrs. Edmondson) would take to keep Monteen out of town until after the trial had concluded.

Swore Frank Wasn’t in Office.

Monteen Stover is the girl who is reported to have gone to the factory at 12:05 o’clock Saturday afternoon and to have been unable to find Frank in his office, although he swore he was there all the time from the moment that Mary Phagan left his office until Lemmie Quinn is said to have entered at about 12:20.

After hearing the report, made to Chief Lanford that an offer had been made to her to keep her daughter, Monteen Stover, out of Atlanta till after the trial of Frank, Mrs. Edmondson dictated a denial to a Georgian reporter. Her statement follows.

Mrs. Fomby [sic] Not at Home.

“No, there has been nothing like that at all. There has been no offer of money, or anything else, for my daughter to leave Atlanta. There has been nothing but just her little testimony you saw in the papers, and no improper offers have been made to either me or her.”

The detectives are also working on reports that Mrs. Mima [sic] Fomby, of 400 Piedmont Avenue, the woman who reported that Frank had called her up several times by phone on Saturday night, has been approached by several persons who have attempted to bribe her to alter the statements contained in her affidavit.

Mrs. Fomby has not been seen at her residence for two days. She is said to be out of the city visiting friends.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 26th 1913, “Lay Bribery Effort to Frank’s Friends,” 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

Monday, May 26^th, 1913

Reported Two Telephone Operators Will Swear to Conversations Held Over the Pencil Factory’s Line.

GAVE THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY

A. S. Colyar Confers With Chief Beavers on Bribery Allegations—Case Now in Its Infancy, Says Chief.

With the entire city aroused over the recent sensational Felder bribery charges and counter charges of graft and corruption in the police department, investigation of the Mary Phagan mystery continues. Police headquarters was elated Sunday over the progress and over new developments which have arisen.

New testimony has been given by girl telephone operators relative to conversations which were held over the pencil factory’s line on the night of the tragedy, Chief Lanford says. Secrecy shrouds the nature of the alleged conversations. No one acquainted with the evidence will talk. It is hinted to be the strongest yet secured.

No one acquainted with the evidence will talk. It is hinted to be the strongest yet unearthed.

Coupled with this development comes the rumor of a telephone call reported to have been made on the Friday morning preceding the murder, in which Mary Phagan is said to have been instructed to come to the pencil factory Friday afternoon to obtain her pay envelope. Detectives will neither deny nod [sic] admit that the rumor has been confirmed.

Phone Message to Pope.

J. B. Pope, of Bellwood avenue, a county policeman and neighbor of the slain girl, to whom the rumored telephone message was made, could not be reached last night by The Constitution. Mrs. Pope says she knows nothing of the report, but says numerous calls came to her home for Mary Phagan and members of her family.

A. S. Colyar, the soldier of fortune and acknowledged instigator of the bribery trap, came to police headquarters Sunday afternoon at 5 o’clock and held an hour’s conference with Chief Beavers. They were closeted in the latter’s office, and, upon emerging, neither would disclose the nature of their consultation.

It is freely reported, however, that the adventurer has something new up his sleeve, and that he will play a leading role in the charges to be made in alleged new bribery attempts. He stated that on Monday he would expose others than Colonel Felder and the men he has already attacked. Chief C. W. Tobie, it is said, is to be included in his attack today.

Harry Scott, the Pinkerton superintendent, and Detective John Black of headquarters, again tried Sunday to break the testimony of the negro Conley, who confessed to having written notes at the dictation of Frank, and which are believed to have been the murder missives found beside the dead girl’s body. He stoutly maintained his original tale as explained in his affidavit and a strenuous third degree failed to swerve it.

Wife Will Assist Colyar.

Mrs. A. S. Colyar, wife of the bribery accuser, who has been in Atlanta for several weeks, left the city Sunday afternoon for her home in Cartersville, where she goes to get papers relating to her husband’s past and supporting his charges. She will return soon, it is said, to assist him in his fight against Colonel Felder.

“This is not the end,” Colyar said at headquarters. “It is only the beginning. Whenever I take hold of thing like this, the results are many and widespread and it can be depended upon that there will be a general clean up before we are through.”

Chief Beavers, in talking with a reporter for The Constitution, echoed Colyar’s expression regarding the extent of the probe proposed into alleged bribery practices in the Phagan murder.

“This thing is only in its infancy. It first began as an individual exposure. Now that it has been a political plaything, we are going to reveal the infamy of others. It won’t take long to do it either. Some folks are going to be driven to disgrace. They’d do well to get out of town before the bomb bursts.”

Think Tobie Victimized.

When asked if he intended attacking the character of Chief Tobie, of the Burns agency, as has been rumored, Chief Lanford declared,

“I have nothing against Tobie. He doesn’t seem to be badly mixed up in this affair. I think he, too, has been victimized. He was unfortunate in becoming attached to the operations of the wrong person, and naturally will have to suffer the consequences. In fact, I feel a certain degree of pity for Tobie. He’s unfortunate—exceedingly unfortunate.”

Evidently Chief Lanford attaches great importance to the reported testimony of the two telephone girls regarding the midnight conversations. His only verification of the rumor is that he knows of the existence of such testimony. Beyond that, he will say absolutely nothing, except that he “understands the two girls went before the grand jury during its Friday morning session.”

It is a known rule of the telephone exchanges which prevents operators from revealing conversations they overhear except when placed under oath. Chief Lanford says that this is the reason why the two operators were sent before the grand jury. Their identity is as secret as the nature of their testimony. Solicitor General Dorsey would make no statement regarding the girls.

Chief Beavers and Colyar would not admit to a Constitution reporter whether or not their conference Sunday was for the purpose of planning some more to expose other suspected bribe practices. They were only talking things over, they said. Any way the talking over was done in utmost secrecy behind locked doors with a uniformed policeman on guard in the ante room.

War to End, Says Chief

The chief reiterated his fury denunciation which he made Saturday night and in which he promised to break the backbone of the vice gang which he charges is in existence and which he declares has been too long in political rife. “It is war to the bitter finish,” he said.

Signed by Allan Pinkerton, principal of the Pinkerton agency, a statement has been issued by the organization denying certain statements regarding their operations which appeared in a statement of Colonel Felder. The Pinkerton denial is as follows:

“In the issue of May 25 of The Constitution there appears an article said to be a statement of Attorney Thomas B. Felder under the following caption: ‘Thomas B. Felder Brands the Charges of Bribery a Diabolical Conspiracy,’ in which the name of Pinkerton’s National Detective agency frequently appears.

“These statements, insofar as they refer to the Pinkerton agency, are absolutely without an iota of truth, as the Pinkertons had absolutely no previous knowledge or information concerning or pertaining to the issue between certain Atlanta civic officials and Attorney Felder, and the agency’s first knowledge of these issues, or in connection therewith, came through newspaper publications of May 23.

“We respectfully request that you give this, our denial, in connection with the statements referred to, as equal prominence as that which you gave the published article in question. Yours truly,

“PINKERTONS NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY.

(Signed) “By ALLAN PINKERTON.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 26th 1913, “New Witnesses in Phagan Case Found by Police,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, May 24^th, 1913

True Bills Already Drawn by Solicitor Against Frank and Lee.

The Grand Jury resumed Saturday morning the Phagan murder case with indictments against Leo M. Frank and Newt Lee charging strangulation.

While nothing definite could be learned, it was confidently expected at the office of the Solicitor Saturday morning the case of Frank might be completed during the day. Only a few more witnesses were to be called. It was learned, and these could tell what they knew in a few hours.

The indictments are the first of the kind to have been drawn in Fulton County in the recollection of the oldest court officials, and for this reason the exact verbiage is being kept secret. Fearing that if the indictments are not drawn in strict conformity to law, there would of course be some question of their validity, and there being so little law on this particular form of indictment, the Solicitor would not make public the phrasing of the bill until his assistant could find some precedent in the Supreme Court records.

It became known Saturday that none of the “star” witnesses for the State would go before the Grand Jury unless at the last moment the Solicitor thought it would be necessary to introduce them to secure the bill. Those who testified Friday were the detectives who appeared before the Coroner, and similar witnesses are awaiting their turn to be called upon Saturday.

The city detectives are the principal witnesses. From their investigation and examination of witnesses they are telling the Grand Jury everything they have found out. The Solicitor was confident this form of introducing evidence would not only greatly expedite matters, but would present the case in a more concise form.

Chief of Detectives Lanford said that he could prove Frank was not at his home the evening of the murder at the hours he said he was.

“I can prove that Frank was not at his home during the hours on Saturday night, the night of the murder, that he said he was. I will have witnesses to swear to this,” was his statement.

The chief added that he had a great amount of other important evidence that has been more carefully guarded than some that had found its way into the papers.

Frank’s statement at the Coroner’s inquest was that he reached his home shortly after 7 o’clock the evening of Saturday, April 26, and did not leave it until the following morning. The testimony of his mother-in-law and father-in-law substantiated his evidence. They said that while they were engaged in a card game Frank was in the next room reading a magazine.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 24th 1913, “Strangulation Charge is in Indictments,” 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

Saturday, May 24^th, 1913

On Night of Murder Prisoner Was Not at Residence, as He Says He Was, States Head of Detective Dept

WITNESSES WILL SWEAR TO THIS, HE ASSERTS

Leo Frank Swore at Coroner’s Inquest That He Reached Home at 7:30 O’Clock and Did Not Leave House

“I can prove that Frank was not at home during the hours of Saturday night, the night of the murder that he claimed he was. I will have witnesses to swear to this.”

Such was the startling statement by Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford to a reporter for The Constitution Friday night.

Further than this Chief Lanford said he had a great deal of evidence which had not found its way into the papers.

“I will admit though,” he said, “it has been almost as hard to keep evidence out of the papers as it has been to get hold of it in the first place.”

Chief Lanford’s statement that he can prove Frank was not at home during the hours he says he was is the most important one in regard to the Phagan case that has come from the detective department in some days.

Leo Frank, in his statement at the coroner’s inquest, said that he reached home shortly after 7 o’clock Saturday night and did not leave his residence until the following morning when he accompanied the detectives to the undertaking establishment to identify the body of Mary Phagan. Frank’s statement was substantiated by his mother-in-law and father-in-law who stated that they were engaged in a card game that night and that Frank was in the next room reading a magazine.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 24th 1913, “Frank Not Home Hours on Saturday Declares Lanford,” 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

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

Miss Daisy Jones, identified by J. L. Watkins as the girl whom he had mistaken for Mary Phagan on the afternoon of April 26, appeared before the coroner’s jury dressed exactly as she was on that afternoon, and testified that she had been just where Watkins said he saw Mary Phagan at the hour when Watkins thought he saw the girl, and that she had crossed a vacant field just as Watkins described Mary Phagan as having done.

In short, with Mr. Watkins’ new testimony, she proved conclusively that it was not Mary Phagan who was seen that afternoon there, but heself—the witness.

She lives at 251 Fox street, said the witness. She is fifteen years old. Her home is on the corner of Fox and Lindsay streets, one block from Mary Phagan’s home. Between 5 and 6 o’clock on the afternoon of Saturday, April 26, said she, she carried her father’s supper to him in his store at the corner of Bellwood avenue and Ashby street. She went back home along Bellwood avenue and crossed a vacant field before she reached Lindsay street, passing between two trees in that field.

She was acquainted with Mary Phagan, said the witness. They were about the same size, said she, though Mary was a little heavier and not quite so tall. Their hair was about the same color, she said.

On the afternoon of April 26, said she, she was dressed exactly as she appeared there at the inquest—in a blue serge skirt, white shirtwaist with a blue bow on the front of it, and a blue bow in her hair. The coroner asking her height, she was measured against a board in the detectives’ office and was found to be five feet one and a quarter inches tall.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, May 8th 1913, “Miss Daisy Jones Convinces Jury She Was Mistaken for Mary Phagan,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

Man Who Said Mary Phagan Passed His Place Testifies He Was Wrong.

J. L. Watkins, who testified that he saw Mary Phagan Saturday afternoon, April 26, between 4 and 5 o’clock, was called to the witness stand.

He was accompanied to the inquest by a girl, Daisy Brown, who he said was the girl he mistook for Mary Phagan.

He said he became convinced of his mistake when detectives came out to his place and had Daisy Brown to dress as she was Saturday afternoon. Then he discovered, he said, that she was the girl he had mistaken for Mary Phagan.

Daisy Brown was placed on the stand and testified that she had passed along Bellwood Avenue at that time, Saturday, April 26.

She said she knew Mary Phagan, but could not understand how Watkins had mistaken her for Mary Phagan, as Mary was a little shorter and heavier.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 8th 1913, “Didn’t See Girl Late Saturday, He Admits,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Thursday, May 8^th, 1913

Frank was slightly nervous when he was answering the questions. He was asked:

Q. What kind of an elevator floor have you in the factory on the office floor?—A. A solid sliding door.

Q. Where was the elevator Friday night and Saturday?—A. I didn’t notice it.

Q. What protection would there be from a person from falling into the shaft if the door was open?—A. There is a bar across the shaft.

Q. Where was the elevator Saturday?—A. I did not notice it.

Q. Where was it Sunday?—A. On the office floor.

Gave Tape to Police.

Q. What did you do with the tape after you took it out of the clock Sunday morning?—A. Gave it to one of the officers.

Q. Who was at a party at your house Saturday night?—A. Mr. Goldstein and others.

Q. Who else?—A. His wife and

New Evidence in Phagan Case Not Yet Brought Out; Dig Carefully For Facts

Mrs. Isaac Strauss.

Q. What were you doing?—A. Reading the Metropolitan magazine.

Q. Did you greet them?—A. Yes.

Q. You just greeted them?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you get up to greet them?—A. I don’t remember.

Q. How about Mrs. Wolfsheimer?—A. She was not there.

Q. What was said about whisky when the officers came?—A. Nothing was said of whisky, but I said I would like to have a drink of something warm and the officer said a drink would do me good.

Dreamed of Phone Call.

Q. What did you say of some one telephoning you later at night?—A. I said I dreamed some one called.

Q. Did you look at the girl when you went to the undertakers?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you go into a toilet?—A. I did not.

Q. When did you first hear the girl’s name?—A. I do not remember that accurately.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 8th 1913, “Frank Answers Questions Nervously When Recalled,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)