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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, July 20, 1913

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

Rosser and Arnold Charge Dorsey Seeks to Convict Frank, Guilty or Innocent, Out of Professional Pride

“SHUTTING EYES TO TRUTH, DORSEY PROTECTS NEGRO”

Attorneys Intimate That Dorsey Fears to Let Truth Be Known – Attitude Throughout Case Is Criticised

The attitude of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey throughout the Phagan investigation, and especially in his attempt to block a grand jury indictment of Jim Conley, is scored in an interview made public by Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, counsel for Leo M. Frank.

“The solicitor is seeking to convict Frank innocent or guilty, in order to gratify his professional pride,” Frank’s attorneys say.

In the course of the intetrview [sic] the two famous attorneys, who have been engaged to defend the man accused of the murder of Mary Phagan, charge that the solicitor is protecting the negro Conley.

Mr. Dorsey is severely criticised not only for his avowed intention of trying to block the indictment of Conley by the grand jury Monday, but because he prevented the last grand jury, the one, which indicted Frank, from acting on Conley’s case, and because he did not place before the last grand jury any of Conley[‘s] confessions.

Solicitor Dorsey is geeting [sic] his legal and constitutional functions in seeking to control the action of the grand judy [sic],” Attorneys Rosser and Arnold declare.

Despite the criticism of his attitude, there is little doubt that Solicitor Dorsey will be present Monday, when the grand jury takes up the consideration of the Conley case. In fact the solicitor’s presence has been requested by W.D. Beattie, the foreman of the grand jury, who called the meeting.

Solicitor Dorsey is still confident that the grand jury will not indict Conley.

There is little doubt that there will be a quorum present, when the grand jury meeting is called Monday, for Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor has found that  19 of the 20 grand jurors empanneled [sic] are in the city, and they have promised to be present Monday. It takes 18 grand jurors to act on a bill of indictment. The statement of Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold, scoring the solicitor is as follows:

STATEMENT IN FULL.

“Counsel for Leo M. Frank have refrained from making a statement for the papers except under strong provocation. Clearly counsel on both sides should refrain from any comment of or criticism on any action of the grand jury to be taken at its meeting next Monday, which might tend to hamper or limit the grand jury in their action upon the Conley case.

“The grand jury is an independent body; it is under the control of no one.

“A solicitor general is the adviser of that body as to legal principles merely, but he has no right to exercise any sort of control in determining who shall or shall not be indicted.

“To permit a solicitor general to use the position intrusted to him by the people, to decide for himself who shall and who shall not be indicted, is a danger too great to be contemplated.

“With this preliminary statement, we reluctantly make a reply to Solicitor Dorsey’s interview in this morning’s paper.

“It is rather remarkable that the solicitor general and a person admitting complicity in a grave crime should[…]

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

[…]get together in such harmonious concert of action as these two interviews show. Mr. Dorsey admits that the indictment of Conley will have only a mild but undesirable effect on the state’s case against Leo M. Frank.”

“Ought the solicitor general for one moment to be influenced in his advice to the grand jury by any consideration of the effect upon anybody’s case?

“It is not our understanding that the grand jury is organised to aid the solicitor general in his management of cases in court; their function is a higher one. They investigate every case of probable guilt and return an indictment. It could just as well be argued that the indictment of Frank might have a mild but undesirable effect on Conley’s case in case Conley had been first indicted.

THE SOLICITOR’S POSITION.

“The position of the solicitor general in this case from the beginning has been most remarkable. It has been heretofore understood that the solicitor was to try cases sent to him by the grand jury, but in this case, detective like, the solicitor is seeking to determine who shall be indicted. Forgetting his legal and constitutional functions, he is undertaking to control the action of the grand jury.

“The citizens of this county elected in Mr. Dorsey as solicitor general, but Mr. Dorsey has mistaken the purpose of his election. Evidently he believes that he was elected to be also the grand jury.

“The solicitor general does his duty when he tries to the best of his ability cases sent him by the grand jury. The solicitor falls far below the dignity of his office when he inflames public opinion, thereby inducing a conviction, innocent or guilty.

“The solicitor has closed his eyes to these plain truths and has rushed into print day by day proclaiming the guilt of Frank and the innocence of the negro, apparently for no purpose but to convict Frank, innocent or guilty, for the gratification of his professional pride.

“So far has the state’s counsel forgotten the function of a prosecution, which is only to ascertain the truth and convict the guilty, that Mr. Dorsey’s detective asssitant [sic], Chief Lanford, in an interview in this morning’s paper, use the following language as to the Pinkerton detective, Scott, and Lanford’s refusal to allow him to see Conley: ‘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 seems, therefore, a matter for great endeavor on the part of the state, as the solicitor and his associate detectives see it, to keep whatever facts they rely upon to convict Frank from the defendant and his attorneys and the public.

WHY SO MUCH FEAR?

“If the facts in the solicitor’s possesion [sic] were the truth, why so much fear as to letting them out? Is it possible that the effort is to ambush the defendant by the proof of circumstance on the trial which he has no opportunity to meet or explain? Is it possible that the state’s object is to keep the defendant in the dark as to the state’s eveidence [sic] and to so conduct its case that he will have no opportunity to know the facts relied upon to convict him and no opportunity to clearly meet them and disprove them, if they be raise [sic]?

The solictor [sic] has undertaken in this case to hold certain witnesses in custody. He undertook to do this in the case of the negro Conley; but so fearful was he that the negro might dare tell all he knew, that he went through the farce of requesting the superior court to no longer incarcerate Conley and to discharge him, and immediately upon obtaining this order of discharge, he went through the greater farce of having him loosed upon the streets and then immediately and illegally returning him to the city station house, where he now is carefully watched, counseled and interviewed by the solictor [sic], his assistant Mr. Hooper and his detective assistants.

“We have no criticism of the former grand jury, but some things happened before it, as reported, that tend at least to provoke serious inquiry.

“When Leo M. Frank’s case was before the grand judy [sic] and in the midst of it, Conley made his first confession, forced thereto by the discovery that he could write. It suggested to the solictor [sic] that this confession be brought to the grand judy’s [sic] attention. That would have been a fair thing to do. It was not done, and rumor has it that Mr. Dorsey directed that it be not done.

“One other thing is almost incredible: according to the public prints, when the solicitor wanted a vacation he was so afraid that the grand judy [sic] might act in his absence that he sought to extract a promise from the sworn servants of the state not to indict in his absence.

“When before was it ever suggested to a grand jury that they must await the termination of a pleasure trip before they should indict in any case where indictment was necessary?

IN REPLY TO MR. SMITH.

“Little need be said in reply to lawyer W.M. Smith’s interview given in support of the solictor’s [sic] position.

“It is remarkable that the solictor [sic] has to rely for support upon an argument made by Conley’s counsel. It is, however, appropriate that he should bolster up the solictor as he depends mightily upon the solictor to protect his negro Conley. Conley’s counsel realizes who is Conley’s friend and rushes in print to his rescue.

“We are publishing this interview neither in an effort to have Conley indicted nor in an effort to have him not indicted. That is a matter solely for the grand jury. We are not making any appeal to them or to anybody else as to the effect Conley’s indictment would have on the Frank case. So far as we are concerned we feel that the failure of the solicitor general to secure an indictment against a confessed accessory to the crime of murder would make far more capital in favor of Frank upon his trial, than if he were indicted. We thing [sic] any jury, and we [think] any community would resent the rank favoritism shown this confessed criminal.

“LUTHER E. ROSSER.
“R.R. ARNOLD.”

New Witness Found Who Will Testify for Frank

Both the state and the defense continue with preparations for the great legal battle, which is expected to be staged Monday week. It is said that nearly a hundred witnesses will be subpoenaed for both sides and it is not improbable that this number will be augmented if the defense, as it probably will, decides to put Frank’s character in issue.

Dozens of prominent citizens who know him, then will be called.

The defense is preparing to prove every statement made by Frank at the inquest about his movements on the day of the tragedy, by numerous witnesses. One of these witnesses, who has not previously been known to the case, is Harry J. Hinchley, district manager of the South Atlanta Blow Pipe company, who resides at the Peachtree Inn. Mr. Hinchley states that he saw Frank on April 26, between 1:50 o’clock and 2:05 o’clock on a Washington street car, near the corner of Washington and Hunter streets. Mr. Hinchley was in an automobile which was stopped along side the car. He was out of the city at the time of the inquest, but has recently been located by the defense, and has agreed to give his testimony on the stand. His statement conforms with the statement of Frank as given during his long examination at the inquest.

Conley’s Attorney Does Not Believe He Will Be Indicted

Attorney William M. Smith, counsel for James Conley, has furnished The Journal the following statement for publication:

“One of the least of the evil results of the indictment of Conley, would be to force Conley back to the county jail. He would be immediately arrested, after indictment, under a bench warrant and lodged in the county jail, as a prisoner.

“Of course, it is pretty hard that Conley is now protected from fellows of the Mincey type. You see, since Conley has been held at the station house, it has been impossible to pull off a confession stunt. No one could get to him, so no one could qualify as having had the opportunity to talk with him. Consequently the alleged confession must be dated back prior to Conley’s arrest. You can see a possible reason for the delayed report of Mr. Mincey.

“I smelt this Mincey stunt way back yonder when I was fighting to hold Conley at the station house. The physical construction of the county jail and the inadequacy of guards, owing to lack of public funds for this purpose, renders it an impossibility to protect Conley against such fellows as Mincey. If the grand jury indicts Conley, thereby forcing Conley back to the tower, I know Sheriff Mangum and his men will do the best possible under all the circumstances, but there will be more Mincey patriots, bearing the Conley confession than can possibly be harmonized in the short time between now and the trial. There will be so many hands in the Conley confession pot, until it will spoil the pie.

“Another thing. It must be embarrassing and really alarming to Mr. Frank, in his defense, not to be posted to date on what Jim Conley might be telling. It is easy to win a game, as a rule, if you know the other fellow’s signals. Conley must be made more accessible to interviews, at any cost, is a theory that no doubt appeals strongly. It is difficult for outsiders at the station house to get wise to the whole truth as Conley tells it. It will be comparatively much easier to reach Conley at the county jail. As soon as the grand jury are assembled as soon as they indict Conley, as soon as he is lodged in the county jail, interviewers for information purposes will be Mincey thick.

DOESN’T FEAR JURY.

“The grand jury can mess this up if they want to, in a dozen different ways. I read a list of their names today, and after seeing who they are, I do not believe they will do it. All of them that I know are high-toned, honorable men, in my judgment; and, while they may meet, I have enough confidence in those I know to believe that they will first sift the influences that have been pressing them to act and not be misled by them. I believe a most thorough and painstaking investigation should be made by the grand jury into these influences, if they exist, and that rigorous measures should be adopted, even though it should strike members of the grand jury. If any members of the grand jury have been unduly active in this matter, they should not be spared. Any one who seeks improperly to embarrass the state,  in avenging the murder of this little girl, should be summarily dealt with.”

(Signed.) WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 20th 1913, “Dorsey Is Seeking to Be Grand Jury And Solicitor Too, Say Frank’s Counsel,” 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

Sunday, July 13, 1913

Fugitive, Reported to Have Been Traced to Birmingham, Declares That He Witnessed the Attack on the Girl Slain in the Pencil Plant.

LAYS CRIME TO BLACK WITH WHOM HE HAD GAMBLED

Loser at Dice, He Declares, Planned to Rob Victim as She Came From Getting Pay—Tried to Prevent the Crime and, Failing, Fled.

Report that a negro who has declared that he witnessed the attack by another negro upon Mary Phagan, which resulted in her death in the National Pencil Factory on the afternoon of April 26, has been apprehended in Birmingham, became known Saturday night.

If this information is substantiated, its substance is of such startling character as to revolutionize the present status of the Phagan case, casting down practically every bulwark which has been erected in the prosecution of Leo M. Frank for the murder.

In its present form, however, The Sunday American does not vouch for the correctness of the report. Only the fact that it comes from a source which is so near the defense of the pencil factory head as to make it authoritative and the admission by those connected with the actual legal defense of Frank, prompts this newspaper to present the sensational story, asking that it be taken for what, on its face, it is shown to be worth.

Negro Hunted Since May.

It is known that a search has been made for the mysterious negro ever since a message came from St. Louis early in May, telling of his boast first made in that city.

The negro’s name is said to be Will Green, and he is described as light yellow, about 39 years of age and about 5 feet 9 inches tall.

The essential part of his story, in effect, is said to be like this:

“I was in Atlanta for a few days. I was shooting craps on the first floor with this negro that Saturday. This fellow was half drunk and was losing money to me. He got mad and cursed his luck.

“Before long a little girl went upstairs. This negro said he was going to take her money away from her when she came down. I thought he was fooling at first, but when she came down he started for her. I yelled at him not to do it, but he kept right on. Then I skipped out, for I didn’t want to get mixed up in any trouble. I stayed around town until the next Monday, and then I read all about how a little girl had been killed in the National Pencil Factory, and I knew that she was the one I had seen come downstairs at the factory.

“I got out of town right away and went back to St. Louis. They were surprised to see me back there, and I told a few of them how I happened to come back. That’s how they found out that I had seen what I did.”

Wired Clew to Atlanta Police.

Frank Morrow, of St. Louis, formerly connected with the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, is reported to have been the first one to take notice of the negro Green. Morrow was seriously injured a few years ago, and Green is understood to have assisted in caring for him for several months. In this way Morrow came to know the negro well.

Morrow, on hearing the negro’s astounding tale, wired immediately to Atlanta. Little attention was paid his message at first, as it came along with many others which palpably were from persons seeking the rewards or who were offering evidence of no value. He repeated his wire and this led to an investigation of Morrow himself. His former connections were ascertained and it was found that he had a reputation for reliability.

He was authorized to locate the negro. The delay, however, was unfortunate. Sometime in the few days, Green vanished from St. Louis. Morrow telegraphed that he belived [sic] there was yet a chance to trail Green, and the chase began.

Dispatches to The Georgian and The American from time to time that the trail was growing warm and that Morrow, with his detectives, was just on the point of capturing the negro. Green, however, seemed to be able to slip out of their grasp as they were about to put their hands on him.

The trail led southward from St. Louis. The American’s[…]

Continued on Page 4, Column 4.

NEGRO ASSERTS HE SAW ATTACK ON PHAGAN GIRL

Fugitive, Reported Trapped in Birmingham, Lays Crime to Drunken Black Man.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]correspondent in Cairo, Ill., wired that Green had been seen in that city by negroes, but that he had duplicated his former performance by disappearing before he could be apprehended.

Down in Kentucky the negro made his way, the detectives close on his heels. The trail grew warmer in Tennessee and finally led into Alabama. The detectives believe they reached Birmingham on the train behind Green, and that they have him trapped in the city.

One report to The American was that Green was actually in the custody of the detectives, who were awaiting instructions from Atlanta.

Attorneys for Leo Frank denied Saturday night that they had received word of the capture of Green, but admitted that they had been advised that the negro had been trailed to Birmingham. They declined to say what dependence they would place in the negro’s story until they had interviewed him personally.

They said that the negro had been trailed on the representation that his testimony would be of the utmost value, but they refused to vouch for it before reviewing it thoroughly on their own account.

Says Women Heard Conefssion [sic].

Saturday’s other important development was the statement of Attorney J.H. Leavitt that several negro women heard Jim Conley make his alleged angry boast to William H. Mincey, the insurance agent, that “he had killed a girl to-day, and didn’t want to kill nobody else.”

Attorney Leavitt indicated that the defense will be able to call these women at the trial of Frank to support Mincey’s affidavit and testimony as to the conversation of Conley on the afternoon of the crime.

By an agreement between Solicitor Dorsey and Graham & Chappell, attorneys for Newt Lee, who has been held in jail technically as a “suspect” but actually as a material witness in the Phagan mystery, the habeas corpus proceedings brought in behalf of the negro were dropped.

Solicitor Dorsey promised to take steps which would give Lee his rightful status as a material witness, and Sheriff Mangum advised the court that he would give Lee all the freedom to which a material witness in custody is entitled.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 13th 1913, “Seek Negro Who Says He Was Eye-Witness to Phagan Murder,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, July 12, 1913

Frank’s Attorneys Said to Have Corroborating Evidence, Newt Lee Denied Freedom

Joseph H. Leavitt, an attorney, with offices at 422 Grant building, the man who secured the affidavit of W.H. Mincey, who alleges that James Conley confessed to the killing of a girl on April 26, the day Mary Phagan was murdered, declares that a number of affidavits fully corroborating every word that Mincey has said, are in the hands of counsel for the defense of Leo M. Frank.

Mr. Leavitt states that the Mincey affidavit is really much stronger than the published reports, which have purported to give its substance.

The reports are correct as far as they go, Mr. Leavitt admitted to a Journal reporter, but the affidavit dictated and signed by Mincey contains still more testimony, damaging to Conley.

“Mincey is a good citizen,” Mr. Leavitt told a Journal reporter, “a man of education and of character. However, every assertion which he made in the affidavit has been corroborated.”

“Then you must mean that some one else heard the confession Mincey claims that Conley made?” the reporter asked.

“Yes, others head [sic] it,” was the answer of Attorney Leavitt.

While he states that he doesn’t know his address, Mr. Leavitt says that he is confidence [sic] that Mincey will be here when Leo M. Frank faces a jury on the charge of murdering Mary Phagan.

Mincey in his affidavit claims that he went to see Conley on the afternoon of April 26, the day Mary Phagan was murdered to solicit insurance from him, and that Conley became angered and told him that he had killed a little girl that day and did not want to have to kill another person.

The police make light of the Mincey affidavit, and say that Mincey once came to headquarters to identify a man he had seen drunk in the negro quarter. He saw Conley, they say, and then admitted that he had never seen the engro [sic] before.

Attorney Leavitt says that the affidavit will give a good reason for Mincey’s failure to make known at once the information, which he claims to have on the sensational murder case.

Solicitor General Dorsey and Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who will assist him in the prosecution of Frank, grilled James Conley at headquarters for more than an hour Friday afternoon. While Mr. Dorsey would not discuss the matter, it is understood that he questioned Conley closely about the statements alleged to have been to Mincey, and the negro claims that he never saw [the] insurance agent except at police headquarters.

LEE DENIED FREEDOM.

The only result of the hearing of the habeas corpus writ for the release of Newt Lee Saturday morning was the announcement of the sheriff that the negro would be given increased opportunities for taking exercise.

The negro himself stated to the court that he was perfectly willing to remain in jail until the Mary Phagan murder case has been disposed of. He said that he was well treated and well fed, and that his only complaint was that he was stiff from a want of exercise. Sheriff Mangum then told the court this was the first he had heard of  the negro’s want of exercise, and that he would see that he had plenty in future.

Attorneys Graham and Chappell, counsel for Lee, made two points in their petition for a habeas corpus. First, that the negro night watchman had been bound over by the coroner’s jury, and that the two grand juries had failed to act on his case; and, second, that Lee was not a material witness.

The attorney admitted, however, in his petition that the negro did find Mary Phagan’s body.

Solicitor Dorsey declared that Lee was one of the most material witnesses of the state, and that he could testify[…]

(Continued on Page 5, Col. 2.)

MORE AFFIDAVITS TO SUPPORT MINCEY CLAIMED

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]to several points that no one else could.

The hearing then developed into whether or not Lee should be placed under bond as a material witness or whether he should be held in jail as a witness.

COULDN’T MAKE BOND.

The negro said that he couldn’t make bond, and an order remanding him back to the custody of Sheriff Mangum was issued by Judge W.D. Ellis, who was presiding.

Attorney Chappell, who wanted to go into the issues of the case, presented a petition to have Leo M. Frank, who is charged with the Phagan murder, and James Conley, self-confessed accomplice, brought into court.

The solicitor general stated that he would admit the seevral [sic] things which Attorney hCappell [sic] set out in his petition, and that phase of the case was disposed of.

Attorneys Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser, counsel for Frank, were in court to fight any effort to bring Frank to the court, if a fight had been necessary. Mr. Arnold stated that a complete and exhaustive examination of Frank had been made at the inquest and he was ready to produce the record of Frank’s statement if it was needed.

Solicitor General Dorsey told the court that he would submit the warrant binding over Lee to the grand jury to that body, but could not conscientiously ask that Lee be indicted for murder, as there is no evidence against him.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 12th 1913, “More Affidavits to Support Mincey Claimed,” 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

Tuesday, July 8, 1913

Habeas Corpus Proceedings May Bring Frank and Conley Face to Face

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the National Pencil factory who has been held in jail since the Mary Phagan murder as a suspect, has been drawn up at 2 o’clock Tuesday afternoon by the negro’s attorneys, Graham and Chappell, and the firm then was seeking the signature of the nearest available judge of the Fulton superior court to a writ fixing the time and place for a hearing upon the matter and directing Newt Lee be brought into court.

It is by this method that the negro is said to seek his freedom from jail, contending that there is no reason for confining him for any part in the matter. The solicitor is expected to vigorously fight the habeas corpus and insist that Lee be held as a material witness.

Should the petition be signed both the state and the attorneys for Leo M. Frank will be notified and this brings up the possibility of Frank and the negro sweeper, Conley, being brought face to face in court.

At 2 o’clock it was said that the habeas corpus hearing would probably be set for Wednesday morning at 9:30 o’clock.

The following is Newt Lee’s petition:

“To the superior court of Fulton county:

“The petition of Newt Lee shows the following facts:

“1. That petitioner is a resident of said state and county.

“2. That on the 26th day of May, 1913, petitioner was arrested as a suspect in the Mary Phagan murder, and following the investigation of said murder case by the coroner’s jury of said county your petitioner was ordered held as a suspect.

“3. Petitioner shows that two grand juries of Fulton county have failed to indict petitioner in said murder case.

“4. Petitioner respectfully shows that he found the body of Mary Phagan and immediately reported to the proper authorities the finding of the body, as any good citizen would have done, and that his motive in so doing was prompted through his proper raising by good white people, to-wit: the well known Arnold family of Coweta county, Ga., and in accord with petitioner’s conception of right and wrong. Petitioner says that by so reporting to the authorities, he believes that he has done his whole duty to the good people of the great state of Georgia and believes that his continued unlawful imprisonment is an injustice to himself, and is not in furtherance of justice or a correct solution of the murder of Mary Phagan; that he has no direct knowledge of the crime and that his testimony is not sufficiently important to a successful prosecution of said murder case to warrant the continued imprisonment of your petitioner as a witness in said case.

“5. Petitioner shows that he was incarcerated in the city prison of Atlanta; that he was put through the ‘third degree’ by the city detectives and was browbeaten, abused and sought to be entrapped or confused.

“6. Petitioner shows that after he had been put through the ‘third degree’ by the detectives he was removed to the county jail, where he is now being held unlawfully and illegally by C. W. Mangum, as sheriff of said county.

“7. Petitioner further shows that he is restrained of his liberty without warrant or authority, and contrary to the laws of the state of Georgia and the constitution of said state and of the United States of America: Petitioner shows that his continued incarceration is undermining and ruining his health; that he has no money or source of revenue by which he can purchase proper food or other necessities so that he may conserve his health and constitution.

“Wherefore petitioner prays the court[…]

(Continued on Page Seven, Col. 6.)

NEWT LEE’S ATTORNEYS SEEKING HIS FREEDOM

(Continued from Page One.)

[…]to issue the state’s writ of habeas corpus directed to the said C. W. Mangum, sheriff as aforesaid, to produce the body of your petitioner before your honor or at the time and place to be specified in the writ for the purpose of examination into the cause of the detention.

“GRAHAM & CHAPPELL,
“Petitioner’s Attorneys.”

“Georgia—Fulton County.

“Personally comes Newt Lee, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the allegations contained in the foregoing petition for writ of habeas corpus are true.

By
“NEWT L X LEE.
Mark

“Sworn to and subscribed before me this July 8th, 1913.

“J. N. SUTTLES,
“Notary Public for Fulton County, Georgia.
“My commission expires 1916.”

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 8th 1913, “Newt Lee’s Attorneys Seeking His Freedom,” 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

Tuesday, July 8, 1913

Negro’s Counsel Secures Chance to Argue for Habeas Corpus Writ Wednesday.

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Leo M. Frank, communicated with Sheriff Mangum Tuesday afternoon directing him under no circumstances to permit the removal of Frank to appear Wednesday as a witness in the habeas corpus hearing to free Newt Lee.

“There is no law on earth to bring Frank to court under an order as a witness,” said Arnold. Attorney Rosser, chief of counsel, was absent from the city Tuesday.

Attorney C. J. Graham, of the firm of Graham & Campbell, went to the home of Judge W. D. Ellis Tuesday afternoon to obtain the court’s signature to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of Newt Lee, negro night watchman in the National Pencil Factory prior to the killing of Mary Phagan.

Judge Ellis said he would sign the application and set Wednesday morning at 9:30 o’clock for a hearing on the writ. The hearing will be held in Judge Ellis’ court. Mr. Graham announced that he would ask subpenas for Jim Conley and Leo M. Frank.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey said Tuesday he was confident the State would be able to defeat any attempt to get Newt Lee out of the Tower, where he has been confined since April 27, first as a suspect in the Mary Phagan murder case and later as a material witness. He said he had advised Lee’s attorney not to take the action, as the negro was regarded as an important witness in making a complete chain of evidence against Leo M. Frank.

Defense’s Attitude Secret.

The plan of bringing Conley and Frank together may meet an insurmountable obstacle when it comes to getting the permission of Frank’s attorneys. The law allows an indicted man to testify or to refuse to testify. Frank has been willing to appear as a witness at any time, but he has placed himself under the instructions of his lawyers and the matter is entirely in their hands.

Attorney Rosser is out of town, but Reuben Arnold, associated with Mr. Rosser in the defense, said Tuesday that no thought had been taken of the possibility that Frank would be asked to appear in the habeas corpus hearing, and that, therefore, he could not say what the attitude of the defense would be.

The sentiment of the new Grand Jury, which is said to favor an investigation into the Phagan mystery with a view of indicting Conley, also opens a most interesting possibility in that the defense will be called upon to make known for the first time the evidence which it has against Conley.

Rosser Guards His Evidence.

Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for the accused man, has stated publicly that he believes the negro, and not Frank, guilty of the terrible crime. He has narrated a number of suspicious circumstances that point to the guilt of Conley, but he has carefully guarded the contents of the scores of affidavits in his possession which are said to weave the strongest sort of a net about the negro.

If an effort is made by the Grand Jury to indict Conley, Attorney Rosser, as well as members of the detective department, probably will be asked to lay their evidence before the jurors for an impartial determination of whether it is sufficient to warrant the action.

This will be the first time the defense will have been led into any show of its real strength. Every attorney working in the interests of Frank has closed his lips tightly when questioned as to the really vital pieces of evidence in the hands of the defense.

It is regarded as likely, however, that they will welcome this opportunity to assist in the indictment of the negro, particularly as their evidence will be given behind closed doors and in the presence of men sworn to secrecy.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 8th 1913, “Grants Right to Demand Lee’s Freedom,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, June 14, 1913

Attorney for Conley Injects Politics Into Dispute Over Negro’s Place of Confinement.

William M. Smith, counsel for James Conley, confessed accessory after the fact in the killing of Mary Phagan, in a statement Saturday sought to make a political issue out of his controversy with Sheriff Mangum over the alleged treatment Conley received while in the Tower.

Attorney Smith employed references to his own previous statement that the jail was five stories high; was divided into four wings with seventeen cell blocks distributed over five floors, to discredit Sheriff Mangum’s characterization of the entire affidavit as “an infamous lie.”

He continued by asking if his other references to the structural conditions at the Tower also were lies. He added that Conley had furnished him with an affidavit as to the treatment he had received as a prisoner at the jail, and said he had given to Sheriff Mangum the name of one person, though what the charges are against this person the attorney does not specify. He intimated he had performed services for the Sheriff in the past and that there was much more he could tell if he desired.

The attorney concludes his reply to the Sheriff by the observation that Mr. Mangum “must be reaching the point where his usefulness to the public in his present position is at an end, and the citizens of this county would do well to select from among his ranks of splendid deputies a new Sheriff in the next election.”

In discussing his affidavit, Mr. Smith remarked:

“I did state that I thought the condition was due to the physical construction of the jail and to the fact that the county authorities did not give Sheriff Mangum money to hire sufficient guards. I stated that the best Sheriff in the world, with the best and the most efficient deputies, could probably do no better under the conditions that Sheriff Mangum and his deputies were placed. If I lied anywhere, it was in an effort to exonerate Sheriff Mangum from any blame in connection with the conditions in Fulton County jail.

“Mangum may forget, but he has men on his force who do not, and the general public remembers the weight of obligation that should rest upon him for services rendered by me to him in the past. For him to rush into public print and denounce me as an ‘infamous liar,’ probably without reading the many statements made in my affidavit exonerating him and his men, is not entirely surprising to me.

“If Sheriff Mangum wants me to tell the general public through the press the conditions as I know them to exist relative to the Fulton County jail, I can do it, and with the gloves off.”

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 14th 1913, “Sheriff Mangum Near End, Says Lawyer Smith,” 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

Friday, June 13, 1913

Rosser Declares ‘Gibbering Statements’ Point Out Sweeper as Guilty of Slaying.

James Conley, self-confessed accessory after the fact in the murder of Mary Phagan, Friday was discharged by Judge L. S. Roan entirely from the custody of the State on the petition of Solicitor Dorsey.

Technically free, Conley was at once rearrested and held by the police on suspicion in the murder mystery. The action of Judge Roan constituted a victory for Solicitor Dorsey, who was fighting to prevent the authorities returning Conley to the Tower, from which he had been taken on the representation of his attorney, William M. Smith, that the negro was threatened and intimidated in the Tower.

Luther Z. Rosser, attorney for Leo Frank, made a bitter protest against the liberation of the negro, which, in the opinion of Judge Roan, was the only legal alternative of returning him to the county jail. He made a still stronger protest in a formal written statement placed on file as a record in the case.

Accuses Conley as Slayer.

In this he charged that the negro’s series of “gibbering and incoherent statements,” together with the attendant circumstances of the crime and Conley’s subsequent actions, pointed to him as guilty of the murder beyond any reasonable doubt.

Less than ten minutes was occupied in the disposal of the case. Judge Roan did not read either the statement of Attorney Rosser or that of Attorney Smith, who submitted the reasons he wished his client kept at the police station. The dispatch with which the petition was acceded to was a complete surprise. A protracted and hard fought legal battle had been expected.

Judge Roan said that he was without authority to hold the negro in the custody of the State so long as he had no formal application from either side. The Solicitor, he said, was asking for the release of the prisoner, and Attorney Rosser had characterized his statement only as a “suggestion.”

Smith’s Charges.

Attorney Smith’s statement to the court charged intimidation, and that influences unfriendly to Frank were at the back of the movement to transfer Conley back to the jail. He alleged that neither the interests of justice nor the interests of Conley could be safeguarded by removing Conley from the police station.

Sheriff Mangum branded as an infamous lie the charge that the interests of Conley could not be safeguarded in the county jail, and had not been safeguarded. The only person involved in the charge of intimidating and threatening Conley characterized the accusation as absurd and grossly and wilfully exaggerated. He was present to testify at the hearing, but was not called.

The formality of releasing and rearresting Conley took place in front of the police station. The negro was brought to the sidewalk, where he had his freedom for about a second and was then again taken into custody.

Text of the Petition.

Mr. Rosser’s paper was headed:

Application of Hugh M. Dorsey, Solicitor General, to release James Conley from Legal Custody.

In answer to the petition and order in the above stated cause, served up on us, as attorneys for Leo Frank, w[ho] herewith answer and show cause as follows:

1. If the intention of the Solicitor General is to discharge this negro from custody because (a) he is in fact not a material witness against Frank, or (b) although he is a material witness, his integrity and character are such that he ought[…]

Continued on Page 2, Column 1.

CONLEY, FREED, AGAIN JAILED ON SUSPICION

Dorsey Wins Over Rosser in Contest Over Negro Implicated in Phagan Case.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]to have his liberty and be trusted to obey the subpena of this court, then considered as a witness only, he ought to be discharged and indeed he should not have been imprisoned at all. But in such case to enact the farce in the court’s presence of releasing the negro and immediately return him to his wet nurses at the police station would resemble child’s play.

2. But if the Solicitor believes that one of a number of contradictory statements made by this negro may, if properly preserved, be made valuable in the prosecution of Frank and that the negro may destroy its value if left free to talk, and in order to stop his mouth it is necessary that the detectives should keep him in charge, then we think we have the right to protest against any order of a court of justice that winks at such a purpose.

Release Not Considered.

3. We are constrained to the conclusion that it is not the purpose for any reason to release this negro, but, by obtaining the order here sought, continue the present illegal confinement.

4. But Frank is himself deeply interested in this proceeding. That the consent of the Solicitor and the will of the negro is all that is required to reverse the will of the law is erroneous. The State has the right in the interest of justice to put a witness in custody, but where in custody and in whose custody is of the highest importance. The law has given such custody to the Sheriff, and wisely so. The Sheriff is not a prosecutor; the jail itself is not usually a place of punishment, but a temporary place of detention. The Sheriff is supposed to stand impartially between the State and his prisoners, and may be trusted to neither coajole [sic], threaten nor suppress testimony by third degree methods. The law never meant to place a witness who for lack of character needs confinement under the control of a partisan prosecutor.

5. That the detectives should wish to keep Conley in custody and entertain him at the city’s expense is not at all surprising. They have already extracted from him extravagant, unthinkable confessions, three or four in number. To these statements they have given the widest publicity, and to the credibility of the last one they have staked their reputations and hope of place.

All Staked on Conley.

6. Upon the constancy and stability of this witness they have staked their all. They would be less than human if they did not bend all their power and ingenuity in holding him to his present statement, adding to and taking therefrom only such things as will aid its credibility.

Can any fair-minded man believe that Lanford is a fair man to be the custodian of this ignorant negro? What chance would he have to retract any lies he may have told, or if in a repentant mood he should wish to tell the truth? This negro in the city prison, in the power of Lanford, apart from all questions of truth, would be just as dangerous as Lanford would wish him to be. No one knows that better than Lanford, and no one would feel it as acutely as will this negro.

How well Lanford knows it can be seen from his interview in The Georgian of June 12. In that interview he demonstrated that he thinks he has full, unrestricted ownership of this negro. He graciously expresses his willingness for this negro to go before the Grand Jury upon such terms as he suggests. Neither the negro nor the negro’s lawyer nor the Grand Jury is considered. Nor was this court to be consulted—his will and not the order of this court was to determine when and under what circumstances the negro should leave the police station.

Lanford’s Power Questioned.

If Lanford vaunts in the face of jury and court his power over this negro, what must be his hearing when he deals privately with the negro himself? What chance has he to abstract a lie or add a truth to the foolish statement which Lanford approves and wishes to maintain? If this man will, when he is holding this negro under your honor’s order, declare such ownership over this negro’s person and movements to what length would he go if the court releases his power over him and turns him over to Lanford’s unrestricted power?

6. It is just to Frank, as well as in the interest of public justice, that this negro should be detained by unbiased, fair men, whose reputations and positions are not at stake.

The law recognizes this right and has put that duty upon the Sheriff. Will there be less fairness and less decency in the county jail than in the police station? When did Lanford become a wiser, fairer, better man than the Sheriff of this county?

7. Apart from this negro’s position on a witness, his detention in the custody of the detectives would be a public calamity. Many unbiased people believe this negro is the murderer of little Mary Phagan. The facts of the case, apart from his own confession, point most strongly to him as the guilty man.

Evidence Against Negro.

(a) On the day of the murder he was drunk and concealed himself in a position where he could readily commit the murder.

(b) On Monday morning he was unduly excited; so much so as to arouse the suspicions of the employees. On Saturday night after the murder, he was caught hiding in his own house.

(c) When the police were in the building, he was caught hiding in an obscure part of the factory, where he had no business.

(d) When questioned about this conduct, he said he would hive a large sum to be a white man. When asked why, he said he could then get safely past the police.

(e) He for a long time persistently denied that he could write, and did not admit that he could until longer denial was useless.

(f) He was caught washing a shirt, a thing he had never done before, and when caught gave a foolish excuse.

Trapped Into Confession.

(g) He denied all participation in or knowledge of the crime until he was driven by the charge that he wrote the notes found near the body.

(h) On May 18 he made a signed statement outlining his actions on April 26, making no mention of the murder.

(i) On May 24 he made an affidavit. He said that on April 25, before the murder on April 26, he wrote the notes at the request of Frank, for which Frank gave him cigarettes and $2.50, and added statements about Frank’s people in Brooklyn and an inquiry by Frank as to why he should hang.

(j) On May 28 Conley made a long affidavit, full of contradictions and absurdities, beginning it as follows:

“I make this statement, my second statement in regard to the murder of Mary Phagan at the National Pencil factory. In my first statement I made the statement that I went into the pencil factory on Friday, April 25, and went into Frank’s office at five minutes to 1 o’clock, which is a mistake. I made this statement in regard to Friday in order that I might not be accused of knowing anything of this murder, for I thought if I put myself there Saturday they might accuse me of having a hand in it, and I now make my second and last statement regarding the matter freely and voluntarily, after thinking over the situation, and I have made up my mind to tell the whole truth, and I make it freely and voluntarily, without the promise of any reward or from force or fear of punishment in any way.”

“First Confession Rambling.”

(k) After this beginning he sets out with variations the writing of the notes on Saturday instead of on Friday, and in a long, rambling statement his movements at home and on Peters Street on Saturday and on Monday at the factory, most of which is wholly disconnected with the murder.

(l) On May 29, 1913, although he had already sworn that he had made “his true, full and last statement,” he made another statement in which he purported to aid Mr. Frank in concealing the body of Mary Phagan. This statement is full of contradictions and wholly irreconcilable with itself and with the known facts surrounding the murder.

(m) He closes this remarkable affidavit in the following words: “The reason I have not told this before is that I thought Mr. Frank would get out and help me out, but it seems that he is not going to get out, and I decided to tell the whole truth about the matter.”

“Conley’s Guilt Shown.”

(n) These are some of the facts well known to the public and to the detectives, showing Conley’s guilt. There are other powerful facts which could readily be brought before the Grand Jury.

8. These incoherent, gibbering statements will, it is believed, impress the Grand Jury if the negro Conley’s case is submitted to it.

9. The Grand Jury can be trusted to scan these queer statements in the light of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and, taken in connection with all the other facts implicating Conley, they proclaim his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

(10) The detectives, obsessed as they are with the assumption that Conley is a tool and not a murderer, are unfit to keep him in their sole and unlimited power. Under their protecting care Conley, instead of being left to tell the truth, will at length deceive himself into the belief that instead of being a murderer he is an unfortunate victim.

“Detectives Protecting Negro.”

(11) That Conley and his counsel wish it is the best reason why it should be done. As long as he sticks to a story pleasing to the detectives, or builds upon that story as additions may be needed, he is assured that the detectives will save him as far as possible from the court and Grand Jury, and will so far as they can fix upon him no greater crime than a misdemeanor.

(12) Conley and his counsel are wise. There is for them no other hope than for the detectives to keep Conley and save him from a confession that he committed the crime, giving him immunity, provided he continues to put the guilt on Frank.

Sheriff Shows Up Smith.

Denial of practically every assertion made by Conley or his attorney, William M. Smith, regarding lax jail regulations or the treatment of the negro while in the county prison, was made by Sheriff Mangum when informed of the contents of the affidavit and petitions submitted to Judge Roan.

“Smith’s statements are infamous lies,” said the Sheriff. “There is absolutely no foundation for belief by Conley that he was being poisoned when he was given the sandwiches. The negro lied when he said he did not eat the food. He did eat the four sandwiches. They were given to him by a reporter, who told me all about his interview. The newspaper man said he wanted to get on Conley’s good side and get information for his paper. In the story he wrote he told frankly of the tactics he had used to get information.

“The regulations in the Fulton County jail are as good as those is any county prison anywhere. If Smith says that the jail is not competently guarded he is maliciously falsifying, and he knows it. We have no spies for use in matter that do not concern us, nor have we prying attendants at the jail.

“As I said before, Smith’s assertions are too preposterous to take heed of.”

Intimidation Charged.

Conley’s attorney, William M. Smith, in a petition accompanying the negro’s affidavit, declares that the county jail is scantily guarded and that prison regulations were extremely lax.

“The county prison has at times but one guard inside its walls,” the petition declares, “it is a physical impossibility for this deputy to be at all points and know what is going on; that the actual custody of the prisoners is placed in the hands of trusty prisoners, some of whom are absolutely unreliable; that deponent visited James Conley at the county prison and that it was difficult for anything to be done or said without the espionage of these trusty prisoners, who were overly anxious to know the character of deponent’s connection with Conley’s case.

Smith Sees Bias.

“That deponent talked with a man who, he is advised, is of Jewish extraction and who deponent believes is doing all he can reasonably to place the blame for this crime on his client (Conley), and who is desirous of seeing the defendant (Frank) cleared; and this man admitted to this deponent that he did visit the cell of said Conley and offered him sandwiches and promised whisky and however he specifically disclaimed his being the party who had threatened said Conley at a later hour, and stated that the sandwiches and whisky were offered in good faith with no intention to harm Conley, that the identity of this party is known to deponent and can be given the court upon request; that knowing the conditions as they exist at the county jail, deponent declares that the ends of justice will not be served by detention of James Conley at the county prison, but that same will be materially harmed and damaged.”

Conley Repeats Charges.

Conley, in his affidavit, declared that during his stay in the county jail he was constantly being menaced by persons whom he suspected of the intention to poison him.

“Affiant swears that he was visited by numerous persons, strangers to him, while he was held in the county prison,” the affidavit reads; “that deponent was visited by a young man at one time who appeared to be of Jewish descent, who offered this deponent sandwiches to eat; that deponent did not eat the sandwiches, for fear of being poisoned; that late in the night, after the lights had been turned out, a man came to the cell of deponent and struck a match and looked in and asked deponent if he did not know he would be hanged; told deponent that he was telling a d—d lie on Frank, and would be hanged sure as h—l, asked deponent if he did not know he could shoot him in his cell, if he was a mind to do so; that on account of the darkness deponent was unable to find out who this was; that the only desire of deponent is that he be given protection and be in hands of sworn officers of the law and not turned over to any prisoner or to ‘trusty turnkeys,’ where there is any possibility for this deponent to be harmed in any way.”

Slap at Sheriff.

Conley, in answer to the rule nisi, further attacks the regulations at the county jail, and the treatment accorded him in that institution:

“Respondent is advised that the keys to practically all of the cell blocks are carried by ‘convicted criminals,'” the answer states; “that owing to this condition, men have been known to saw through steel bars and cages and escape.

“That this respondent was imprisoned while in the county jail directly over the cell block in which said defendant (Frank) is detained, that this respondent is advised and believes that the Sheriff of this county publicly proclaimed that the defendant looks him in the eye like an innocent man.”

Release and Rearrest.

A dramatic moment attended the release and rearrest of Conley Friday morning in connection with the working of the court’s order that the negro be given his liberty.

Chief of Detectives Lanford appeared at the door of Conley’s cell at 11 o’clock.

“Well, Jim,” said the Chief, “I am going to release you.”

The negro received the statement with a look of fright, but was silent, as well as bewildered.

Taken from his cell, Conley was ied [sic] by the Chief through the sergeant’s office and to the side door of the police station, which opens into an alley. The negro followed his captors with silent bewilderment.

The party proceeded down the alley to the sidewalk. There a small crowd greeted the negro with curious eyes. Chief Lanford took his hand from Conley’s arm. Conley was a free man.

His freedom was but for an instant, though. Before Conley could move or recover from his astonishment, Detective McGill took him by the arm.

“I will have to arrest you and take you back, Jim,” Chief Lanford said.

Conley’s face brightened perceptibly.

“That’s all right,” he smiled, “I didn’t want to get out, anyhow.”

Appearing opposite Conley’s name now on the police register is the word “Released,” and, following it, “Suspicion,” the charge upon which he was rearrested.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 13th 1913, “Negro Freed But Jailed Again On Suspicion,” 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

Monday, June 2^nd, 1913

Woman Questioned by Dorsey, Becomes Hysterical; Solicitor Refuses to Tell Whether She Gave Important Information; Alibi for Defense.

Minola Mcknight, the negro cook in the household of Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, 68 Georgia Avenue, with whom Leo M. Frank lived, was put through the severest sort of grilling in the office of Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey Monday in an effort to break down Frank’s alibi which tends to show that he was at home about the time James Conley swore the notes found by Mary Phagan’s body were written.

The negro woman grew histerical [sic] and her shrieks and protestations could be heard through the closed door. She maintained to the end of the two hours of rapid-fire questioning, however, that Frank had arrived home by 1:30 o’clock the Saturday afternoon of the crime.

She was taken into custody on information said to have been furnished by her husband. She later was taken to the police station to be held under suspicion. The details of her statements to the solicitor and the full import of the information said to have been disclosed by her husband have been shrouded with the utmost secrecy by Solicitor Dorsey. It is said, however, that she declared to the last that Frank had arrived home by 1:30 o’clock to her positive knowledge.

Her sobs and hysterical cries were heard soon after she entered the office of the solicitor. Mr. Dorsey was able to quiet her for a few minutes at a time, when it is supposed he obtained her statement of Frank’s whereabouts on Saturday, April 26, so far as she knew. At detective headquarters, the officers were non-commital as to the nature or value of the testimony that the engro [sic] woman had given.

It was on the negro cook that the defense had relied to assist in proving an alibi for Frank when his case comes to trial this month.

The woman was in hysterics at police headquarters and kept shouting, “I am going to hang but I didn’t do it. I don’t know a thing about it.”

Four Others to Testify.

Four other persons will be prepared to testify at the trial of Leo M. Frank that he arrived at home for luncheon at 1:20 o’clock the Saturday afternoon that Mary Phagan was killed, which would have been an impossibility, the defense will assert, if Frank had directed the disposal of the body and dictated the notes at the time the negro alleges.

Information leading to the woman’s arrest is said to have come from statements made by her husband, Albert McKnight.

According to report, Albert is said to have informed detectives of a statement made by his wife to the effect that Frank did not return to his home until midnight on the night of the murder. This allegation is contrary to Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury.

The negro woman is also declared to have said that Mrs. Frank complained the following morning that Frank kept her awake that night by his extreme nervousness.

Minola declares that her husband is lying. She refused to swear to the statements attributed to her by her husband when taken before Solicitor Dorsey. She declader [sic] that Albert’s stories were prompted by a quarrel she had with him some time ago.

Differences in Stories.

Testimony before the Coroner’s jury by Frank and others indicated strongly that he was at home by 1:20 the afternoon of the crime. Conley in his affidavits declared that he went into Frank’s office at four minutes before 1 o’clock. He said that after a conversation of a few minutes Frank heard voices and shoved Conley into a closet. Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Clark entered, Conley was kept a prisoner in the closet, he said, for eight or ten minutes.

It was after this, he said, that Frank asked him if he could write. Conley swore in his affidavit that he answered in the affirmative, and that he was directed to write several notes, most of which began: “Dear mother, a long tall black negro did this by hisself.”

After this followed the giving of $2.50 to the negro, according to his story, as well as the giving of the $200 which later was taken back by Frank.

All of the incidents that the negro has detailed, in the minds of many interested in the case, would have kept Frank at the factory considerably after the time that five witnesses will swear he arrived home.

Wife and Her Parents to Aid.

These witnesses are Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Mrs. Frank, the cook in the Selig household and an acquaintance of Frank who is said to have seen him riding home in the street car.

Adding doubt to the negro’s affidavit is the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall before the Coroner’s jury. Miss Hall testified that she left the building about 11:45 Saturday forenoon. Conley described her as coming to Frank’s office more than an hour later.

Sheriff Mangum made indignant and emphatic denial Monday of the reports that Conley had been approached, threatened or intimidated while he was in a cell at the Tower.

Conley, he said, was not threatened in any way. He was not approached by friends of Leo Frank and no one was permitted to see Conley whom the negro did not wish to see.

“There is not a bit of truth in the statements that have been made to the effect that Frank’s friends were allowed to get to Conley and make attempts to frighten him into a confession,” said the Sheriff. “It was reported that a group of Frank’s friends, with a bottle of liquor, went to Conley’s cell. This is absolutely fabrication.

Treats All Prisoners Alike.

“Frank is no more to me than Conley, so far as the law is concerned. The law tells me to protect all my prisoners without fear or favor. This I have done, and this I shall continue to do. Conley was treated exactly as Frank has been, or as anyone else awaiting trial or the action of the Grand Jury.

“If anyone came to see him, he was asked first if he wished to see that person or persons. If he said he did not, his wishes were regarded to the letter.

“The report that I am seeking the Jewish support and the Jewish vote or any other class or race or nationality, as against another, is most absurd upon the face of it.

“I have nothing to say against Chief Lanford. I would only suggest that he try his case in the court and not attempt to settle the whole case and hang one man or another before the twelve men the law prescribes have had a chance to pass on the prisoner’s guilt or innocence.”

Conley made a personal request of Chief of Detectives Lanford Monday morning to be taken to confront the factory superintendent.

“I think I could make him tell everything if I could just go there to his cell and tell my story again,” said the negro. Conley repeatedly urged upon Chief Lanford that he be allowed to face Frank. He declared he thought his presence would break Frank down.

The Chief regarded Conley as sincere in his request, but said that he would make no further effort to bring the negro and the factory superintendent together. All rested in the hands of Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, Lanford announced.

“I have made several attempts to take Conley to Frank’s cell since the negro began making his disclosures,” explained Chief Lanford. “All efforts have been unavailing. Frank steadfastly has refused to talk with the detectives or with anyone whom the detectives may bring to see him. Attorney Rosser may arrange for a meeting of this sort, but the detective department has given it up.

Conley Not To Be Indicted Now.

“If Rosser is confident that Frank is innocent, he may think it will help his client’s case to give him a chance to see the negro and deny his tale.”

Chief Lanford said that there would be no bar to Conley’s testimony at the trial of Frank. Conley, he said, would not be indicted as an accessory after the fact at the present time, but more likely would be indicted after Frank’s fate was determined in one way or another. In the meantime he will be held as a material witness like Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the factory.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 2nd 1913, “Negro Cook at Home Where Frank Lived Held by the 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

Monday, June 2^nd, 1913

Defense to Cite Discrepancies in Time to Disprove Conley’s Affidavit—Sheriff Denies Friends of Superintendent Approached Sweeper in Cell.

After a two-hour grilling by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey Minola McKnight, a negro woman about 21 years old, was taken to police headquarters and is held under suspicion in connection with the murder of Mary Phagan.

She is believed to have made sensational disclosures to the solicitor.

At the police station she was in hysteria, shouting:

“I am going to hang, but I didn’t do it.”

* * *

Five persons will be prepared to testify at the trial of Leo M. Frank that he arrived at home for luncheon at 1:20 o’clock the Saturday afternoon that Mary Phagan was killed, which would have been an impossibility, the defense will assert, if Frank had directed the disposal of the body and dictated the notes at the time the negro alleges.

Testimony before the Coroner’s jury by Frank and others indicated strongly that he was at home by 1:20 the afternoon of the crime.  Conley in his affidavits declared that he went into Frank’s office at four minutes before 1 o’clock. He said that after a conversation of a few minutes Frank heard voices and shoved Conley into a closet. Miss Corinthia Hall and Mrs. Emma Clark entered. Conley was kept a prisoner in the closet, he said, for eight or ten minutes.

It was after this, he said, that Frank asked him if he could write. Conley swore in his affidavit that he answered in the affirmative, and that he was directed to write several notes, most of which began: “Dear mother, a long tall black negro did this by hisself.”

After this, followed the giving of $2.50 to the negro, according to his story, as well as the giving of the $200 which later was taken back by Frank.

All of the incidents that the negro has detailed, in the minds of many interested in the case, would have kept Frank at the factory considerably after the time that five witnesses will swear he arrived home.

Wife and Her Parents to Aid.

These witnesses are Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, Mrs. Frank, the cook in the Selig household and an acquaintance of Frank who is said to have seen him riding home in the street car.

Adding doubt to the negro’s affidavit is the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall before the Coroner’s jury, Miss Hall testified that she left the building about 11:45 Saturday forenoon. Conley described her as coming to Frank’s office more than an hour later.

Sheriff Mangum made indignant and emphatic denial Monday of the reports that Conley had been approached, threatened or intimidated while he was in a cell at the Tower.

Conley, he said, was not threatened in any way. He was not approached by friends of Leo Frank and no one was permitted to see Conley whom the negro did not wish to see.

“There is not a bit of truth in the statements that have been made to the effect that Frank’s friends were allowed to get to Conley and make attempts to frighten him into a confession,” said the Sheriff. “It was reported that a group of Frank’s friends, with a bottle of liquor, went to Conley’s cell. This is absolutely a fabrication.”

Treats All Prisoners Alike.

“Frank is no more to me than Conley, so far as the law is concerned. The law tells me to protect all my prisoners without fear or favor. This I have done, and this I shall continue to do. Conley was treated exactly as Frank has been, or as anyone else awaiting trial or the action of the Grand Jury.

“If anyone came to see him, he was asked first if he wished to see that person or persons. If he said he did not, his wishes were regarded to the letter.

“The report that I am seeking the Jewish support and the Jewish vote or any other class or race or nationality, as against another, is most absurd upon the face of it.

“I have nothing to say against Chief Lanford. I would only suggest that he try his case in the court and not attempt to settle the whole case and hang one man or another before the twelve men the law prescribes have had a chance to pass on the prisoner’s guilty or innocence.”

Conley made a personal request of Chief of Detectives Lanford Monday morning to be taken to confront the factory superintendent.

“I think I could make him tell everything if I could just go there to his cell and tell my story again,” said the negro. Conley repeatedly urged upon Chief Lanford that he be allowed to face Frank. He declared he thought his presence would break Frank down.

The Chief regarded Conley as sincere in his request, but said that he would make no further effort to bring the negro and the factory superintendent together. All rested in the hands of Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, Lanford announced.

“I have made several attempts to take Conley to Frank’s cell since the negro began making his disclosures,” explained Chief Lanford. “All efforts have been unavailing. Frank steadfastly has refused to talk with the detectives or with anyone whom the detectives may bring to see him. Attorney Rosser may arrange for a meeting of this sort, but the detective department has given it up.

Conley Not To Be Indicted Now.

“If Rosser is confident that Frank is innocent, he may think it will help his client’s case to give him a chance to see the negro and deny his tale.”

Chief Lanford said that there would be no bar to Conley’s testimony at the trial of Frank. Conley, he said, would not be indicted as an accessory after the fact at the present time, but more likely would be indicted after Frank’s fate was determined in one way or another. In the meantime he will be held as a material witness like Newt Lee, the negro night watchman at the factory.

[Prisoner Can Shield Himself

Sheriff Mangum, in replying to Lanford’s attack of his attitude in preventing detectives from confronting Frank with his accuser, declared Monday morning the power to do this is not discretionary.

“If Lanford knew anything about the law,” said the Sheriff, “he would know that the law allows the prisoner in the county jail to say whom he will see and whom he will not see. If Frank does not want to see the negro, he doesn’t have to. If a prisoner asks a jailer to keep everyone out except his friends, his request is granted. That was the case when Mrs. Appelbaum was in jail, and all others as well.

“I don’t see why Lanford doesn’t try the Phagan case in court. He says he has the evidence to convict Frank. Why doesn’t he take it into court instead of trying to bring the matter into the jail?”– added from the “afternoon edition” of the Georgian — Ed.]

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, June 2nd 1913, “5 to Testify Frank Was at Home at Hour Negro Says He Aided,” 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, June 2^nd, 1913

Detective Chief Forms New Theory as to Reason Why Prisoner Is Said to Have Phoned Mrs. Formby.

HER DISAPPEARANCE PUZZLING TO OFFICERS

Lanford Says He Will Find Her in Time for Trial, But Does Not Know Where She Is Now.

That Leo M. Frank telephoned Mrs. Formby on the night of Mary Phagan’s murder for a room to which he would be able to remove the victim’s body and thereby lessen suspicion against himself, is the theory on which Chief Newport Lanford is basing a search for Mrs. Formby, which is extending over the entire south.

She mysteriously disappeared several days ago. Efforts to locate her have been futile. The entire detective department is puzzled. The Pinkertons are mystified. Her whereabouts is a matter that interests detectives and the Pinkertons.

Mrs. Formby, in a recent interview to a reporter for The Constitution, told him that she had been made several offers of money to leave Atlanta until the Mary Phagan trial had been completed. She also openly announced that within a short while she intended leaving the city for New Mexico, in which state she said she intended to live.

Chief Determined to Find Her.

Chief Lanford says, however, that he will produce her at the trial of Leo M. Frank, and that she will be an important witness. He admits, though, even with this announcement, that he has not yet been able to find her.

“We were able to find the girl’s murderer,” says the chief, “and surely we will be able to locate Mrs. Formby.”

His theory is that the suspected superintendent, after deliberating over the crime the chief accuses him of having committed, communicated over the telephone with Mrs. Formby to obtain a room to which he could remove the body, thereby lessening the suspicion which would likely cling to himself if the corpse remained in the factory basement.

Carried Notes to Basement.

Chief Lanford’s theory is that the superintendent, after Conley had departed from the pencil plant, carried the notes to the basement, where the body had been placed. The staple was wrenched from the back door so that in case a cab or other conveyance which might drive up the runway in rear of the building could back up to the door to receive the ghastly freight.

He believes that Frank, when he discovered he could not obtain a room at Mrs. Formby’s, the only woman he could trust, dared not communicate with any other place, so he went to his home, leaving the body in the basement.

That is the chief’s theory as outlined to a reporter for The Constitution Sunday afternoon. It will be remembered that Conley, in his confession to having helped the superintendent remove the body to cellar, declared he did not see Frank take the notes from his desk in the office on the second floor, and that he knew nothing of the staple being extracted from the rear door.

Mrs. Formby several days ago stated to a Constitution reporter that Frank had told her over the telephone that night that it was a matter of life or death, and that if she did not rent him a room in her place, she was liable to be killed.

Corroboration of Mrs. Formby’s story of the telephone messages is hinted by Lanford, who told the reporter Sunday afternoon that the telephone operators who testified before the grand jury on the Friday of its session were “believed” to have told of overhearing Frank’s communication with the Formby woman.

Lanford Attacks Mangum.

Chief Lanford, in a talk with The Constitution Sunday afternoon, raps Sheriff C. Wheeler Mangum for his attitude in preventing the detectives from confronting Frank with the negro Conley, and his remarkable admission. The detective declares that Mangum is playing politics, and in an effort to remain in the office of sheriff is catering to friends of his prisoner by refusing to admit the sleuths to the suspect’s cell.

Will Not Reveal Names.

He will not reveal the names of the operators, and will not state positively the nature of their evidence, except that the tell of certain telephonic communication alleged to have been held by the suspected pencil factory official during the night of the Mary Phagan tragedy.

James Conley, the negro sweeper, apparently feels safer in the police headquarter’s prison than he did in the Tower. Chief Lanford says that it was at the negro’s request that he was removed to the station house. Attempts were made, the chief declares, to intimidate the imprisoned sweeper.

“This itself,” says the chief, “is evidence of Sheriff Mangum’s partiality. He should have allowed no one to see the negro, inasmuch as he kept everyone from Frank except his friends. Conley never asked to see any of those folks who came to his cell and threatened him. It’s outrageous, that’s all I can say about it. A new regime is needed. Politics and the sheriff’s administration can’t go hand in hand.”

Conley has made no new confession. Lanford and his men say they do not expect anything more from him than the story that has already been told. Solicitor Dorsey even is said to have expressed the same opinion. That the sweeper is telling the unadulterated truth is the opinion of headquarters detectives and Superintendent Harry Scott of the Pinkertons.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, June 2nd 1913, “Frank Asked Room to Conceal Body Believes Lanford,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)