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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Sig Montag, president of the National Pencil company and associate in Montag Brothers, was put on the stand at the close of the morning session. He testified that during part of the time named by Jim Conley in the dates at which he swears he watched for Frank on the first floor the Clark Woodenware offices occupied that portion of the factory building.

He was examined by Mr. Rosser.

“What was your connection with the pencil factory from May last?”
“First secretary and treasurer, then president.”

“How often did Frank come to your office?”
“Once a day except on Sundays.”

“Did you see him on April 26?”
“Yes.”

“What time did he come to your office?”
“About 10 o’clock that morning.”

“Who occupied the first floor up to a year ago?”
“The offices of the Clark Woodenware company.”

“Where were their offices?”
“Right up front.”

Factory Model Displayed.

Mr. Montag then displayed on the model of the factory the location of the old woodenware firm offices and the single entrance which was used for both establishments.

“Did Frank report the murder to you Sunday?”
“Yes.”

“Was he nervous?”
“Yes, but no more than I.”

“Were there any scratches or discolorations on his face?”
“None that I could see.”

“Was Frank’s acquaintance in the city limited?”
“Yes.”

“What did you do when you learned Frank was being taken to police station Monday?”
“Telephoned Herbert Haas, my personal attorney.”

“What did Haas say?” questioned Rosser.

“Said his wife was too ill for him to leave the house.”

“What did you then do?”

Went to Police Station.

“I went to police station, they refused me admission, and I then telephoned you, Mr. Rosser.”

“What instructions did you give at the factory in reference to aiding the detectives?”
“I told the help to assist them in all manner possible.”

Cross-examination by Dorsey.

“You say Frank had only a limited acquaintance in the city, and that that was the reason you employed counsel so early? How long has he been in the city?”
“Five years.”

“He was president of the B’nai B’rith?”
“Yes.”

“He was popular in society?”
“Yes, in that particular set in which he moved.”

“How many persons belong to the B’nai B’rith?”
“I would say 400 or —”

“What did you mean, then, when you said he had a limited acquaintance?”
“I meant that his acquaintance was so limited that he wasn’t known at police headquarters.”

“Frank himself didn’t say anything about employing a lawyer?”
“No.”

“Nor the Pinkertons neither?”
“No.”

Why He Was Nervous.

“Did he explain why he was so nervous?”
“No, except to say that they took him in a dark room and flashed on a light and he saw the body of the little girl.”

“Anything else?”
“Yes, he said the little girl was an awful sight and that her eye was discolored, she had sawdust in her mouth and that there was a gash in her head.”

“Who is paying Haas?”
“I don’t know.”

“Did the National Pencil company employ him?”
“No.”

“Who employed the Pinkertons?”
“The National Pencil company.”

“When did you know that they found the stick and pay envelope in the factory?”
“I read it in the report.”

“Did you request the superintendent of the Pinkertons to keep knowledge of the discovery away from the police?”
“No.”

“What did you do with the stick and envelope?”
“Turned them over to Mr. Rosser and Mr. Haas.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Sig Montag Tells of Employment Of Detectives and Two Lawyers,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

Classmates and Instructors at Cornell Come to Atlanta to Testify to His Clean Life While at College and to Show Their Loyalty to Old College Friend.

DORSEY ASKS REMOVAL OF LEO FRANK’S MOTHER AND WIFE FROM COURT

Judge Warns Them That Another Scene Like That of Wednesday, When Mrs. Rae Frank Denounced Solicitor, Will Result in Barring Them—Leach Proves Good Witness for the State Although Called to Testify by Defense

More witnesses were examined Thursday than on any day since the trial of Leo M. Frank began.

However, there was little adduced from the testimony that was of striking interest or that savored of the dramatic.

For the most part the day was taken up with character witnesses—men who have known Frank for years and who have volunteered to swear to his good character.

The only incident of the day that was in any way dramatic came at the morning session, when Solicitor Dorsey asked that Mrs. Rae Frank and Mrs. Leo Frank, mother and wife of the defendant, be removed from the court room. This was the result of the passionate outburst of Mrs. Rae Frank the day previous. Judge Roan gave warning that there must be no more such demonstrations.

LOYALTY OF OLD FRIENDS.

The feature of the day was the loyalty with which Frank’s classmates and instructors at Cornell university flocked to his aid in his time of trouble. Several of them had not seen him since he was a beardless youth. Around him hovered the memories of other and happier days before the real business of life, leading into strange and untried paths, had begun. They remembered him in the first flush of young manhood.

How different the scene yesterday! They saw him the center of a gaping crowd—the observed of all observers—a man charged with an awful crime.

But that mattered little to them. The span of intervening years was forgotten. He was the Leo Frank other days—quiet, studious, retiring. He was their friend; and no matter what opinion the casual spectator might entertain of the guilt or innocence of the man, this one touch of human sympathy of man for man—quiet, unobtrusive and for that very reason eloquent—was not without its appeal.

The sordid surroundings lost some of their grimness as witness and prisoner gripped hands silently or spoke the few simple words of greeting. Between friends—real friends—what is more eloquent than the simple hand clasp and the level look that seems to say, “God bless you.”

MONTAG AND THE DETECTIVES.

Sig Montag, president of the National Pencil factory, was on the stand at the morning session. He stated among other things, the details of the employment of the Pinkerton Detective agency and on cross-examination the fact was brought out that the bill of the agency had not been paid.

Charley Lee, an employee of the pencil factory, admitted on cross-examination that his wages had been raised since the murder of Mary Phagan.

At the afternoon session Mrs. Emil Selig, mother-in-law of Frank, testified to the card game which took place at her house on the night of the murder. She said Frank was in the hall reading a magazine and from time to time seemed to be very much amused.

The state endeavored to show by this witness that Mrs. Leo Frank had not visited her husband at the police station for some ten days after his arrest. Mrs. Selig was of the opinion that her daughter went to see him Thursday following the crime but she was not certain of this fact. She denied that she had raised the wages of Minola McKnight, her cook, who made a sensational affidavit following the murder and explained she had merely advanced her some money which had been repaid.

The evidence regarding Mrs. Frank’s visits to the jail was ruled out.

Harry Denham, an employee of the pencil factory testified that he had waited there on Memorial day from 7:30 o’clock in the morning until 3 o’clock that afternoon, that during that time he had not heard the elevator running.

SCHEDULE OF CARS.

J. R. Leech, superintendent of the Georgia Railway and Electric company, proved an important witness for the state, although cited by the defense. He testified that cars frequently got into town ahead of time. Solicitor Dorsey brought this out to rebut the testimony of Motorman Matthews who testified as to the time Mary Phagan arrived in town Memorial day.

The major part of the testimony during the day was of little material value.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Many Men Swear to Good Character of Superintendent of Pencil Factory,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Journal
August 14^th, 1913

FRANK WAS SEEN BY WITNESSES ON HIS WAY TO AND FROM HOME DAY LITTLE GIRL WAS KILLED

Solicitor Declares That Outburst of Yesterday Should Not Be Allowed and That as There Is Further Unpleasant Testimony to Be Heard, He Suggests That Frank’s Wife and Mother Do Not Hear It—Judge Issues Caution

MOTION OF ATTORNEY ROSSER TO STRIKE OUT SENSATIONAL QUESTIONS IS OVERRULED

Solicitor Dorsey’s Questions Put to John Ashley Jones Will Stand and the Defense Will Be Forced to Disprove Suggestions Given to Jury by Cross-Questioning Witnesses Whom Solicitor Will Summon in Rebuttal

There were three big features in the Thursday morning session of the trial of Leo M. Frank:

First, the request of Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey that the mother and wife of the accused be excluded from the court room to prevent an interruption similar to that made by Mrs. Rae Frank Wednesday afternoon. Judge Roan did not grant the request but cautioned the ladies that they must contain themselves.

Second, the overruling of a motion made by the defense to strike from the record the sensational questions and answers reflecting on Frank’s character elicited Wednesday afternoon during the examination of John Ashley Jones, a character witness.

Third, a formidable presentation of evidence corroborating Frank’s story in reference to his movements on the day of the tragedy.

Through the witnesses who testified Thursday the defense showed that Frank was on his way home at 1:10 o’clock and that he was on his way back to the factory at 2 o’clock. Previously Emil Selig had testified that Frank reached his home at 68 East Georgia avenue about 1:20 o’clock. The superintendent’s story of where he was and what he did immediately before immediately after the tragedy has, therefore, been very strongly corroborated.

Miss Helen Curran, of 360 Ashby street, stenographer, whose father works for Montag Bros., and who herself is employed by the Bennett Printing company, testified that she saw Frank in front of Jacobs’ Alabama and Whitehall streets store at 1:20 o’clock Saturday afternoon.

Mrs. M. O. Michael, of Athens, aunt of Mrs. Lucile Frank, saw Frank, she testified, in front of her sister’s, Mrs. C. Wolfsheimer’s home, 387 Washington street, Saturday afternoon about 2 o’clock. Frank came over and spoke to her, she said. Jerome Michael, her son, also saw Frank in front of the Wolfsheimer residence. Mrs. A. B. Leavy, of 69 East Georgia avenue, Mrs. Wolfsheimer, Julian Loeb and Miss Rebecca Carson were other witnesses who testified to seeing Frank either on his way home shortly after 1 o’clock or as he returned to the factory about 3 o’clock.

Cohen Loeb, of 445 Washington street, testified that he rode to the city on the car with Frank as he was returning to the factory about 2 o’clock and that he sat in the same seat with him.

Sig Montag, one of the proprietors of the factory, proved an important witness. In addition to corroborating Frank’s statement in reference to his visit to Montag Bros., Saturday morning, Mr. Montag swore that prior to January 1, another concern occupied the floor space which included the point where Conley claimed that he was accustomed to sit when he acted as a “lookout” for Frank and that the negro would hardly have been sitting there. Through Mr. Montag the defense developed that it was he who employed counsel for the defendant without any request for a lawyer having been made by Frank. On cross-examination the solicitor drew from Mr. Montag the admission that the Pinkertons had not yet been paid for their services, that they had made several statements, but had made no requests for payment. Mr. Montag admitted also the finding of the bloody stick and a portion of the payment envelope by the Pinkertons had been reported to him and that he notified Mr. Rosser, but did not notifiy the police.

Another witness for the defense who gave interesting testimony was Miss Rebecca Carson, forelady at the factory, who swore that Jim Conley said to her on Monday after the murder that he was not at the factory Saturday and that he was so drunk he didn’t know what he did or where he was.

Among the witnesses examined during the morning was Charley Lee, employed as a machinist at the factory and well known to public as a prizefighter. Lee whipped “Kid” Young, the idol of the newsies Wednesday night, in the fourth round of a bout at the auditorium.

Attorneys for both the state and the defense continued to contest every point and there were frequent clashes during the morning. Mr. Arnold and Solicitor Dorsey became particularly vigorous in their comments upon each other’s manner of conducting the case and at one point a physical encounter was threatened.

When court convened, before the jury was brought in, Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court, asking that Mrs. Lucile Frank and Mrs. Rae Frank, wife and mother respectively, of the accused, be excluded from the court room.

“I appreciate the feelings of the wife and the mother of this defendant,” said the solicitor, “but there is going to be much more testimony which will be very objectionable to them. And if we are to have such outbreaks as that one of yesterday, I feel that I must ask your honor to exclude these two ladies from the court as you have excluded all others. I sympathize with them, and I am very sorry for them, but I must ask the court’s protection. There’s not reason but simply because they are the wife and mother of the accused that they should have any more rights than any one else in this case, and they should not be allowed to give vent to their feelings before the jury.”

MR. ARNOLD REPLIES.

Mr. Arnold said: “Without any criticism, I want to say that the solicitor’s examination of Mr. Jones yesterday was wholly unwarranted and much more reprehensible than the act of this man’s mother. The solicitor tried to get before the jury in an illegal way specific acts which he could not get before it in a legal way and acts which he knows your honor would have ruled out, as only his general character can be attacked. He had no idea that Jones knew anything about these things to which he referred in his questions. He simply made an appeal to the crowd and to the jury by charging specific acts which he could not get in evidence. Does your honor call that good practice, honorable practice, high-class practice, when a man is on trial for his life? My friend is zealous, maybe over-zealous, but I have no right to criticize. I can only ask that illegal evidence be excluded. The issue in this case had been clouded with a thousand things which should never have been allowed. The jury system is very lame if this sort of evidence is to be admitted. The jurors are honorable men, but they do not know how to separate reflections upon a man from direct evidence in a case.

The state’s counsel, a learned and a skillful lawyer, by his suggestions, was much more reprehensible than the mother of this defendant. It is a new doctrine, and I have heard of only other judge in Georgia allowing it to keep the wife and mother from sitting in a court in a man’s hour of need. Have we reached such a point in prosecution and persecution that this can be done? I promise no more outbreaks as far as I can control them and I call your honor’s attention to the fact that the wife has sat through this whole case without a word and the mother has committed only one little outbreak. Under all circumstances my friend’s conduct was much more culpable. He is not justified in doing such things because he is the state’s attorney. I don’t believe that he will state that he thought Mr. Jones knew anything about these circumstances, for he knows that Jones does not move in […]

DEFENSE’S MOTION TO STRIKE SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE FAILS

[…] the same sphere with these people. Yet he tried to inject these specific acts to inflame the jury and to inflame the [1 word illegible].”

DORSEY DEFENDS HIS COURSE.

Solicitor Dorsey: “The situation is just this. They have put his character in issue. Your honor knows that I can’t bring out specific acts, but that they can by cross examination. I can not call attention to anything that I could not support by the testimony of reputable witnesses, some of whom I consider high-[1 word illegible] ladies. I have a right to contrast what Jones knows about this defendant with what these people know. I know that I couldn’t get these specific acts in, but I know that I was acting in perfectly good faith when I put in the defense’s hand these things which they can bring out on cross examination from the witnesses that I will put up—if they dare. I am not over zealous in this case. I am doing my duty. I want right to triumps. I submit that it is unfair to exclude other ladies from the court room and extend the courtesy to the wife and mother, and then let them give vent to such outbursts as that of yesterday. I think it is the duty of the court to prevent such outbreaks.

“I would like to mention the conduct of Mr. Arnold. The courts have ruled that it is highly improper for an attorney to express an opinion about evidence, and yet before I scarcely had finished my question he characterized these charges as lies and it was he who inflamed the mother.”

MUST BE NO OUTBREAK.

Judge Roan said, “You are entirely right in your desire to be protected. Other ladies were excluded from the courtroom only on account of the nature of the evidence. And I say now that if there is another outbreak from these ladies, they shall be excluded from the court.”

“While the jury is yet out,” said Mr. Rosser,” I want to make two motions.”

MOVES TO STRIKE EVIDENCE.

Mr. Rosser moved to strike out the questions asked by Solicitor Dorsey of John Ashley Jones, which led to the outbreak by the elder Mrs. Frank in court Wednesday afternoon.

“My brother, Mr. Dorsey, concedes that he can’t introduce these specific allegations,” said Mr. Rosser, “even in rebuttal, unless we draw them out on cross-examination. Yesterday he said that he wasn’t four-flushing and that he intended to prove them. I move to rule out the following questions and answers, and I hope that if you rule with me the solicitor will not ask them again. I am going to keep right after him until he asks legal questions. The inquiries themselves were improper, and therefore the answers were that also.”

Mr. Rosser read the questions and answers about alleged specific acts of improper conduct by Frank toward women named in the questions. Mr. Rosser cited authorities to sustain his motion. While Mr. Rosser was reading, Frank, the accused, left his accustomed seat and engaged in earnest conferences with Mr. Arnold at the lawyers’ table.

Mr. Dorsey answered, “Your honor ruled with me yesterday that these questions were proper and admissible. I may not ask them again. It will be merely a matter of policy on my part if I do not, however.” The solicitor cited the penal code to sustain. “It isn’t necessary to refer to decisions to get the law on the subject. The Georgia code itself gives that authority.”

Solicitor Dorsey said he had other authorities which he was ready to cite.

MOTION OVERRULED.

Judge Roan, however, signified that he was satisfied, and overruled the motion by Mr. Rosser.

Mr. Rosser’s second motion proved to be a suggestion to the court. It was that before certain questions are to be asked of witnesses in regard to a particular fact, the jury be retired. Before Judge Roan could remark upon the suggestion, Solicitor Dorsey arose and said “I agree to that,” and the matter was settled.

Then the jury was brought in and Miss Helen K. Curran was called as the first witness of the defense for the day.

MISS CURRAN TESTIFIES.

Miss Curran said she lives at 160 Ashby street, and is a stenographer with a medicine company and that her father works at Montag Brothers. She said she graduated in shorthand last winter and that her shorthand teacher was Professor Briscoe. She was examined by Attorney Arnold as follows:

“Before you finished your shorthand course, did you know Mr. Frank?”

“Yes.”

“Where did you meet him?”
“I met him at the factory.”

“How did you happen to go there?”
“I went there with Professor Briscoe to see about getting a position as stenographer.”

“Did you get the position?”
“No.”

“Do you know why?”
“No, Mr. Frank said he would report to my father whether he could give me the position or not.”

“Where were you working on April 26, 1913?”

“At the Bennett Printing company.”

“What time did you get off that day?”
“About 12 o’clock.”
“Where did you go?”
“I went up town to do some shopping on Whitehall street.”

“Did you have an appointment with any one?”
“Yes, I was to meet a friend of mine named Velma Turner.”

“Do you remember where you were about 1 o’clock?”
“Yes, I was coming out of Kress’ and I noticed it was five minutes after 1 o’clock by [1 word illegible] & Freman’s clock there on Whitehall street.”

“You mean, then, the Kress store between Alabama and Hunter streets?”
“Yes.”

“Where did you go then?”
“I went to Jacobs’ corner at Alabama and Whitehall streets.”

“Do you recall seeing Mr. Frank there?”

SAW FRANK AT 1:10.

“No, I didn’t see him when I first got there, but after I had been there about five minutes I turned around and saw him standing near the corner.”

“What time was it when you saw him, then? Just give us your best judgment.”

“I should say it was about ten minutes after 1 o’clock.”

“How long did he wait there for his car?”
“I should say until about 1:20 o’clock.”

“When was the first time you heard that Mr. Frank was involved in this trouble?”
“About the middle of the next week.”

“Did you tell anyone about having seen him there on the corner?”
“Yes, I told my father.”

“Do you know whether he told anybody?”
“No, I don’t know.”

HOOPER CROSS-QUESTIONS.

At this point the cross-examination was taken up by Attorney Hooper.

“The Bennett Printing company is owned by Montag Brothers, isn’t it?”

“No, I don’t think so.”

“You say you came out of Kress’ about five minutes after 1 o’clock?”
“Yes.”

“You say you stood on the corner a good while at Jacobs’?”
“Yes.”

“Yes. I stood there waiting for my friend about fifteen or twenty minutes.”

“You say you saw Mr. Frank as soon as you got there?”
“No, I think it was about five minutes after I got there.”

“You noticed Mr. Frank in that large crowd, did you?”
“It was not crowded where I was standing.”

“Refresh your memory, and see if it wasn’t packed and jammed there on the corner. The Memorial day parade came along about that time, didn’t it?”
“No, the parade came along about 3 o’clock.”

“It was crowded then, though, wasn’t it?”
“No, there was plenty of room there where I was standing.”

“Where were you standing?”
“I was standing on Alabama street a little above Whitehall street, against the building. And there was plenty of room where I stood.”

“The corner is about the worst place for a crowd that you can find, isn’t it, when people are waiting for a parade to come by?”
“I wasn’t right at the corner. I was away from the corner a little.”

“How long were you there?”
“I reckon I was there about five minutes before I saw Mr. Frank.”

“You couldn’t see Davis & Freeman’s clock from there, could you?”

“No, but I saw it when I went back to Kress’.”

“How do you know it was five minutes before you saw it?”
“That’s my best judgment as to the time.”

ASKED ABOUT CROWD.

Mr. Hooper devoted the great part of his examination to questions about the crowd, which Miss Curran finally admitted was large all around, but that immediately next to her the space was clear and that no one was standing between her and Frank when she saw him. He did not speak to her and she did not speak to him, she said. She assumed he did not recognize her. Asked whom else she saw there, she mentioned the young lady whom she had gone there to meet; her mother, father and brother, and a Mr. Ogletree, whom she had met at business college. She declared that she could not be mistaken in the time. Mr. Hooper asked her if Kress’ store, where she said she was just before 1 o’clock, did not close at 12 that day. She was positive it had not, for she was in it at a minute or so after 1, she said. Though the crowd was large, she said, she had seen bigger crowns on that corner. She was certain it did not take her more than one or one and a half minutes to walk from the store to the point where she saw Frank. She saw him only the one time, she said, and did not know when he came up or when he left.

SAW FRANK AT 2 P. M.

Mrs. M. G. Michael followed Miss Curran on the stand. She is the wife of a wealthy citizen of Athens. Mrs. Michael said that she is an aunt of Mrs. Lucille Frank. On Memorial day, April 26, she said, she was stopping with her sister, Mrs. C. Wolfsheimer, 387 Washington street, Atlanta. She said that she saw Leo M. Frank about 2 o’clock that day in front of the Wolfsheimer residence. Asked how she fixed the time, Mrs. Michael said that her youngest son, David Michael, was going to grand opera that day and he had just left the house. She was on the front porch, she said, and Frank came by, and stood by the steps at the sidewalk and they had a casual conversation. Among the others who were there were her son, Jerome Michael, an attorney of Athens, who has been in the court assisting in the Frank defense; and her nephew, Julian Loeb. Mrs. Wolfsheimer, she said, was not on the porch at the time, but came out a little later. She saw Frank go up Washington street to Glenn street, she said, and she saw him when he caught the car there. She saw him again Sunday morning at the Selig residence, she said. That ended the direct examination.

Mrs. Michael was cross-examined by Attorney Hooper. She said that the last time she saw Frank was at 2 o’clock at the corner of Glenn street. She could not tell what car it was he took.

“He came by to inquire how everybody was, you say?” asked Mr. Hooper.

“Yes.”

“Was this a usual thing for him to do?”
“Well, he saw that I was in town and he came over to speak to me.”

“You say he was collected, and had no scratches or bruises about him?”
“Yes.”

In answer to other questions, she said she had arrived in town that morning and had left for her home in Athens Sunday afternoon.

Jerome Michael, her son, was the next witness.

Mr. Michael, answering Mr. Arnold, said that it was between 5 minutes to 2 and 2 o’clock when Frank came to the Wolfsheimer home.

WATCH IN HIS HAND.

Asked by Attorney Arnold as to how he fixed the time so closely, he replied: “I was going to call on a young lady that day, and I had my watch in my hand most of the time.”

The Wolfsheimer home, said he, is three doors from the corner of Georgia avenue, and he saw Frank approaching the house before Frank got there.

Attorney Hooper asked the witness a few questions on cross-examination, but developed nothing in particular.

MRS. LEVY ON STAND.

Mrs. Albert B. Levy, of 69 East Georgia avenue, was called to the stand. She testified that she lives directly across the street from the Selig home, where the Franks lived. She saw Frank at 1:20 o’clock on Memorial day, she said, as he got off the street car and went to his home. Asked as to how she fixed the time, she replied that she had been dressing and was watching for her son to come home for lunch. She said that there was a clock on her dresser. The time, therefore, was impressed on her mind. Several days later, she said, after Frank had been arrested the matter was impressed more firmly on her mind. Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“The cars run a ten-minute schedule there, don’t they?”

Mrs. Levy replied that she did not know; she had never paid any attention to the cars. As nearly as she could recollect, they were running frequently on that day on account of it being Memorial day.

“When did you first tell about seeing Frank?”
“During the first few days after the murder?”
“Was there anything said about what time he was accused of committing the crime, when you thought of the time?”
“No.”

“Can you tell what time of day anything happens, by your clock? What time did your son get home yesterday, for example?”
“Twelve-thirty,” replied the witness.

“What time did he get home the day before?”
“Twelve-thirty. He always comes home then.”

“Oh, you’re just judging from his custom, then.”

“Yes.”

“Well, on Memorial day he already had his lunch, hadn’t he?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Arnold asked the witness another question. It was in regard to a sick woman whom Mrs. Levy had also she visited that day. Mrs. Levy said the woman is Mrs. J. A. Hirsch, and that she arrived at Mrs. Hirsch’s home at 15 minutes to 2 o’clock.

MRS. WOLFSHEIMER CALLED.

The next witness was Mrs. Wolfsheimer, of 387 Washington street. She said she lives in about the third house from the corner of Georgia avenue; that she saw Frank come up on the front steps, about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, to the best of her recollection.

She said that when she walked out on the porch Frank was there; and that she was called back into the house after he went up to the corner to catch his car, but that she did not see him board the car.

She testified that he did not appear to be nervous, and that she saw no scratches or bruises on his face. She said that she saw him two or three times the next day also, and that she then saw no bruises or scratches on his face.

Mrs. Wolfsheimer was cross-examined by Attorney Hooper.

“Was there anything to call your particular attention to Mr. Frank?”

“Not specially.”

“What fixed the time in your mind?”

“My husband hadn’t yet come to dinner. We ate dinner at 1:30 and had finished and come out on the porch.”

“You were not looking for any marks on his face, were you?”
“No, certainly not,” indignantly.

JULIAN LOEB TESTIFIES.

The next witness was Julian Loeb, of 380 Washington street, diagonally across the street from the Wolfsheimer residence.

He testified that he is a cousin of Leo Frank’s wife, and that he was on the front porch at the Wolfsheimer house on April 26 when Frank came up on the steps. He said that to the best of his recollection, the time was between 1:50 and 2 o’clock.

He said that Frank invited himself and young Mr. Michael to attend the meeting of the officers of the B’nai B’rith lodge, the next morning, which was Sunday. He said that Frank then was the president of the lodge. Attorney Arnold asked what sort of an organization is the B’nai B’rith.

Mr. Loeb started to say that it is a charitable organization, but Attorney Hooper objected on the ground of irrelevancy, and was sustained by the court. The witness testified that he saw Frank leave and go up to Glenn street to the corner, he supposed to catch a car.

He was cross-examined briefly by Mr. Hooper.

“Was there any special reason for you to notice the time?”
“I judge the time by the time I left the office where I am employed.”

Miss Rebecca Carson, forelady in the assorting department on the fourth floor of the National Pencil factory, was called. She entered the court room wearing a freshly starched and ironed blue dress and a black hat, and greeted Frank very cordially with a smile.

She testified that she has been employed by the National Pencil company since last April three years ago, and has been forelady in the assorting department for three years, with from thirteen to fifteen girls working under her. She was examined by Attorney Arnold.

“To what extent,” he asked, “can you hear the elevator running when you are on the fourth floor and the other machinery in the building is not running?”
The witness answered she remembered noticing the elevator running under these circumstances last Christmas. She said the other machinery in the building was not running at the time, and that she heard the vibration of the elevator motor below the fourth floor, that she saw the ropes move, and that she heard the cables knocking against the sides of the elevator shaft.

She testified further that she got her pay about 3:30 Friday afternoon, April 25 and that she did not come back to the factory on the next day, April 26.

“Did you see Mr. Frank on Memorial day?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“I did.”

“Where?”
“In front of Rich’s store.”

“About what hour?”
“Between 2:20 and 2:26 o’clock.”

“What was he doing?”
“He was looking at the parade.”

“Did you speak to him?”
“Yes, we both spoke.”

“Do you remember seeing him again that afternoon?”

SAW FRANK AT 2:50.

“Yes, about 2:50. I remember the time because I noticed the clock. I was standing in front of Brown & Allen’s drug store and looked across the street and saw him go into Jacobs’ pharmacy.”

On continued direct examination, Miss Carson testified that she returned to the factory Monday morning and saw Frank and Jim Conley. She testified that on Monday morning she and her mother talked to Jim Conley on the fourth floor.

She testified that Jim Conley brought the raw pencils to the fourth floor, and she asked him where he was on Saturday, and he said he was so drunk he didn’t remember.

She said that Snowball (a negro witness who already had testified) was present at the time and when she asked him where he was on Saturday he replied that he could prove where he was.

She testified that Jim Conley went over to her mother’s machine and her mother said: “They haven’t got you, yet, Jim?” And he said “No, I haven’t done nothing.” She testified that her mother said then “But they’ve got Mr. Frank, and you know he hasn’t done anything either.” She testified that Jim Conley replied “No, he’s as innocent as you, and I know you ain’t done nothing.”

She testified that her mother then said that in her opinion, when they found the murderer of Mary Phagna, it would the negro that Mrs. White spoke of having seen downstairs on the first floor Saturday afternoon. She testified that when her mother said this, Jim Conley dropped his broom and walked away.

When Miss Carson commenced to testify as to what her mother said and what Jim Conley said, there was an objection by the state. In reply to the objection attorneys for the defense stated that they were laying a foundation for further testimony, and on this ground the court admitted the questions.

HOOPER TAKES WITNESS.

Attorney Hooper cross-questioned Miss Carson.

“When was it you say Conley made that remark?”
“Monday morning about 8 o’clock.”

“Then you went right straight and told your mother?”
“Yes.”

“Speaking of this elevator—it really runs very smoothly, compared with other elevators, doesn’t it?”
“I never have noticed others especially, but I know that this one makes a noise.”

The witness admitted that she could not hear the elevator when the machinery in the factory was running. She also admitted that she remembered hearing it only the one time—Christmas. She also admitted that if the doors were closed, even if the machinery was not running, she might not hear the elevator.

Mr. Hooper questioned the witness about the first time that she claimed to have seen Frank on Memorial day. She said that she was sure of the time because she had looked at the clock on Whitehall street near Kress’. She wasn’t sure whether it was Haynes’ clock or the Davis & Freeman clock. She explained that she said she saw Frank between 2:20 and 2:25 because it was only a minute or two after she had seen the clock.

She looked at the clock because her sister, who was with her, asked her the time. She witness said she had been forelady for three years; that her salary is $10 per week. The last time it was raised, said she, was in January.

Asked especially if it had been raised since the tragedy, she indignantly said, “No, indeed.” Asked if Frank was a friend of hers, she said, “Yes, in a business way.” She said that she had never worked later than 1 o’clock on Saturday afternoons, and did not know whether Jim Conley stayed at the factory, but had heard that some negro stayed to sweep.

“That was just a chance conversation with Conley?” asked Mr. Hooper.

“Yes.”

“It was before the blood was found on the office floor?”
“I don’t remember when it was found,” said the witness.

“So Conley said he was so drunk on Saturday that he didn’t know where he was or what he did?”
“Yes.”

“He never admitted to you before that he had been drunk?”
“No.”

“Conley was not suspected then, was he?”

“No.”

“You didn’t think much about the conversation, did you?”
“No, but I told my mother. I tell her everything.”

“Then it didn’t make an impression?”
“Yes, it did,” said the witness.

“When did you tell Darley about it?”
The witness said she didn’t know, but before Frank was arrested.

“Whom else did you tell about it?”

TOLD MR. ROSSER.

“I told Mr. Rosser.”

“When did you tell him?”

“I don’t remember. He came to the factory and called for some girls to tell him what they thought about Conley, and I was one of them.”

“Did he know of this conversation before that?”
“I don’t know.”

“Who else was present?”
“Some other girls, but I don’t remember.”

“The second time you saw Frank was where?”
“I was at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall and saw him go in Jacobs’.”

“What did you do?”
“I was on my way to catch my car then.”

“Did you ever see that blood?”
“Well, I’ve seen blood in the factory,” said the witness quickly.

“Well, did you see that spot on the second floor after the murder?”
“I didn’t go into the metal room till Tuesday, and I walked through there with Mr. Frank, and I didn’t look for the spot.”

“Oh, yes. You were talking to Frank about the crime?”
“I only shook hands with him and told him I was glad he was back with us. That was all I said about it.”

The witness was excused, and Cohen Loeb, of 445 Washington street, a brother of Julian Loeb, was called to the stand.

ON CAR WITH FRANK.

He testified that on Memorial Day he and Frank rode to town on the car together in the afternoon about 2 o’clock. He boarded a Washington street car at Georgia avenue and took the seat with Frank, who had gotten on at Glenn street. He said that the car does not go down Georgia avenue by Pulliam. He got off at Hunter street, he said, in front of the capitol, about 2:10 o’clock. The car was blocked there, and Frank got off just before he did. He said that he noticed no scratches or bruises on Frank, and there was nothing unusual in his demeanor. The witness said he thought Frank had on a brown suit and a derby. Asked whom he saw on the trip to town, he said that while the car was blocked he saw Mr. Arthur Harris and Ike Liebmann pass in an automobile. He said he did not know whether or not Frank saw them.

He said those two were the only people that he recognized. He and Frank sat on the right front side of the car with Frank next to the window.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hooper, the witness said that he knows Mr. Hinchey (a previous witness for the defense).

“Did you see him there in front of the capitol?”
“I didn’t recognize him, but I remember noticing his car.”
“Oh yes.” “Why did you notice the car?”
“It’s a dark color.”

“There are a thousand other dark machines in town, aren’t there?”
“I suppose so.”

“What was the exact color?”
“Dark maroon.”

“How many passengers car is it?”
“It is a touring car.”

“What was the number?”
“I don’t know.” […]

FRANK’S STORY UPHELD BY MANY WITNESSES

[…] “Well, how do you know it was his car?”

“I heard it afterward. And then I remembered noticing the car, particularly because it ran in front of the street car and struck against it.” The witness said he heard a noise but there was no [1 word illegible].

Asked if it is not an invariable custom for a street car to stop after any sort of a collision, and get the names of witnesses, Mr. Loeb replied that they do when the collision is serious, but not always. Asked if he had ever been on a street car and seen any accident, however little except that one, that was not investigated, the witness replied that he had not.

“Come down,” said Mr. Hooper.

The next witness, Charles Lee was called. He did not answer and the defense called Henry Smith to the stand. He testified that he has worked for the National Pencil company a little over two years, and had been employed in the metal department about nine months.

LOOKING FOR REWARD.

“Do you know a man named Barrett over there?” asked Attorney Arnold.

“Yes, sir, I work with him.”

“Did he ever talk to you about rewards?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What did he say?”

“Well, he said there was about [1 word illegible] reward and he thought if anybody was to get it he would get first hook [1 word illegible].

“What did he say about it?”
“He said he found the blood and the hair and he thought he was entitled to some of it.”

In answer to other questions, the witness said that Barrett had talked to him six or seven times about this reward. He testified that Barrett had gone through the pantomime of counting out imaginary bills in his hand.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness.

“This Barrett is a sensible sort of man, isn’t he?”
Attorney Arnold objected to the question and Attorney Hooper withdrew it.

In answer to a series of questions by Attorney Hooper the witness said Barrett would count this imaginary money and laugh. He said the first time Barrett talked about rewards was about a week after the arrests, and that he last time was about three weeks ago.

HARRY LEWIS CALLED.

Charles Lee was called again but again did not answer. The defense called Harry F. Lewis to the stand. He lives at [number illegible] Underhill avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. Mr. Lewish said that he is a practicing lawyer and at one time was assistant to the district attorney in Brooklyn.

He said he knew Frank twelve years; that he had known him when he lived on Lafayette avenue in Brooklyn and later when Frank moved to within two doors of his, the witness’ home. He testified that he knows Frank’s general character and that it is very good.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness, asking him how long ago it was he knew Frank. “It was about five years ago ago, before Frank came south,” he said. The witness was excused and Herbert Lasher, of Fleischmann, N. Y., was called. He replied to a question by Attorney Arnold, that he manages his father’s estate [1 word illegible] the town. He said that he was in the same class at Cornell and that they roomed together and ate together for two years. He said that Frank’s general character was very good.

Attorney Hooper cross-examined the witness. “You mean it was very good when he was at Cornell?”
“Yes, he associated with the best class of fellows at the university.”

“You were one of them, too, of course.”

“Yes.”

In answering the other questions the witness said he kept up a correspondence with Frank for two years after they graduated and that he also had [1 word illegible] Frank since their graduation.

CHARLES LEE ON STAND.

Charles Lee was called and took the stand [words illegible].

[words illegible] by the National Pencil factory and that he lives at 119 Washington street.

“Do you remember about an accident [words illegible] in the pencil factory on [words illegible] in 1912?”

“Yes.”

“Where did he get hurt?”
“By the eyelet machine.”

The witness testified that one of Duffy’s fingers was cut to the bone and that it bled freely; that Duffy went to the office to get his wound dressed, and then was taken to the Atlanta hospital. He said that a lot of blood from Duffy’s finger fell on the floor.

“Did he go by the women’s dressing closet in the metal room?”

“Yes.”

“Did he bleed or not, at that place?”
“He bled there.”

“Did you see a man named Gilbert who was hurt there same time, bleeding?”

“No, I didn’t see him until after his wound was dressed.”

DORSEY EXAMINES.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness vigorously.

“How long did you say you’ve worked at the pencil factory?”
“Two years and four months.”

“How long have you lived in Atlanta?”

“All my life.”

“What are you wages?”

“Thirty-two and a half cents an hour.”

“How long have you been getting that?”

“Only two weeks.”

“What did you get before that?”
“Thirty cents an hour.”

“That’s a partly good raise, isn’t it?”
“Not so much.”

“Who gave it to you?”
“Mr. Darley.”

“How long did you get this raise, after you told about seeing those men bleed?”

“I never told them about it.”

“How did they know that you knew about this blood being on the floor?”

“Well I signed a statement right after it happened that I witnessed the accident.”

The witness testified that in answer to other questions that about two months ago Schiff had the statement in his hand and was looking for blood on the floor where the man got hurt. The witness said Schiff was looking for all the evidence he could get for the defense.

“When was it Gilbert got hurt?”
“Last year some time.”

“Where is the eyelet machine?”
“In the metal department.”

“What part of the metal department?”
“About the middle.”

Solicitor Dorsey then had the witness point out the machine on the diagram of the factory.

“In how many places did you see the blood drop?”
“Well, there was a stream of it.”

Solicitor Dorsey asked the witness several questions about the size and frequency of the drops of blood. The witness replied that he had paid no particular attention to their size.

“Which one of this hands was cut?”

“His right hand.”

“Did he stop on his way to the office?”
“Yes.”

“Where?”
“In front of the dressing room door.”

“How far from the water cooler?”
“About three steps.”
“Did you speak to him?”
“Yes.”

“What was said?”
“He asked me which one of the offices he should go into?”
“How long did he stand there in front of the dressing room?”
“About eight or ten seconds.”

“How big a splotch on the floor did the blood make?”
“I didn’t notice it.”

“Who cleaned up the blood?”
“It wasn’t clean up then. The floor never was cleaned up except once a week.”

“Did you notice the blood spots after that?”
“No.”

“Could you go there now and find them?”
“I don’t know as I could, exactly.”

“Who else besides you saw him get his finger cut?”
“Nobody else.”

“Did anyone else see him standing there in front of the dressing room?”
“Yes, Ramsey saw him, and one of the girls.”

In answer to questions, the witness testified that he has lived on Washington street about a year; that his father is a candy manufacturer, and that they formerly lived on Whitehall street.

“Where else did he stop?” referring to the man whose finger was cut.

“Nowhere else except in the office.”

“Did you see any blood there in the metal room on April 26?”

“No.”

“You didn’t go in there at all?”
“Yes, I went in after they had chipped it up.”

“How close was that stain that they chipped up to the stain left by the man with his finger cut?”
“Just a few steps. It might have been just the same spot.”

“Now you tell us that it was the exact spot, then, do you?”
“No, I’m not so certain.”

Toward the close of the cross-examination, Attorney Arnold registered an objection to the manner in which the solicitor was proceeding, and in the exchange of words which followed Attorney Arnold remarked that Solicitor Dorsey didn’t examine the witness, but quarreled with him.

SIG MONTAG CALLED.

The next witness called by the defense was Sig Montag. He testified that he has been in Atlanta twenty-five years; that he is in the stationary manufacturing business, and that on April 26 he was treasurer of the National Pencil company. He testified that the pencil company got its mail at the office of Montag Brothers, about two blocks from the National Pencil factory, and that Frank came there every day except Sundays, in the morning about 10 o’clock to get the mail and discuss the pencil company affairs. He testified that on April 26 Frank came to his office about 10 o’clock; was there approximately an hour, and talked to him, to his stenographer, Miss Hattie Hall, and to Harry Gottheimer.

He testified that prior to about a year ago, he, Montag, went to the pencil factory every Saturday afternoon, and that invariably he found Frank in the office at work on the finance sheets.

Mr. Montag’s attention was directed to the diagram of the pencil factory. He said that this diagram did not show the ground floor except in front.

In answer to questions, he testified that up to January 1 the Clark Woodenware company had nothing to do with that portion of the ground floor.

He testified that the woodenware company had an office on the ground floor at the street front, and that he thought they used the main entrance for shipping goods. At this point the model of the pencil factory was brought in and set on a table in front of the jury. Mr. Montag pointed out the space on the right of the entrance on the ground floor that had been occupied by the office of the woodenware company, except that its employees entered there.

Mr. Montag testified as to events on Sunday, April 27. He said that his telephone is on the second floor of his home about thirty feet from his bed. He said he did not hear the telephone ring that morning but that it roused his wife and she came and waked him.

TELLS OF TRAGEDY.

He said that a man at the other end of the line asked him if he could identify the body of a girl who had either died or been killed in the pencil factory, and that he told the man he would not and referred him to Darley. He said that after breakfast Sunday morning Frank came to his home and reported to him the tragedy which had occurred at the pencil factory. The weather that morning was chilly, said he, and the weather on Saturday was cloudy and raw.

“What was Frank’s appearance that morning? Was he nervous?”

“He was no more nervous than I was.”

“Were you nervous?”
“Yes, sir. I was very much so. I think I trembled some. My wife also was very nervous.”

“Was Mr. Frank nervous?”
“Yes, he was agitated, too.”

“Where were you sitting then?”
“We were seated in my front sitting room.”

“What opportunity did you have for observing Frank closely?”
“We had plenty of light because there are three large windows in the front sitting room.”

“Did you notice any scratches on his face, or any bruises, or did you notice any spots on his clothing?”
“I sat just in front of him, but I didn’t notice any of those things.”

Mr. Montag continued that he went to the factory Sunday morning, April 27, and that together with Darley and a machinist he made a general examination of the building, including the metal room. He said he saw nothing on the floor of the metal room to attract his attention, and that Darley did not call his attention to anything.

Mr. Montag stated that he often had noticed the white lubricant, used in the metal room. He frequently saw where it had been spilled, he said. For eight years prior to the time the pencil factory moved into the building now occupied, that his paint shop had been operated on the second floor of that building. In reply to a question, he said that had been a great many accidents. The injured people were conducted to the office on the second floor, he said. He first heard that the detectives had Frank at headquarters on Monday, April 26, about 9 a. m.

“You have been associated intimately with Frank in business, haven’t you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes.”

HE SENT LAWYER.

“Has he a wide or limited acquaintance?”

“A limited acquaintance.”

Mr. Dorsey objected, but was overruled.

“Well, because of his limited acquaintance, what did you do?”
“I telephoned for Mr. Herbert Haas, my personal counsel, and also the attorney for the pencil company, and asked him to go to headquarters.”

“Did he want to go? And if he did not, why not?”

“He didn’t want to go because his wife was expecting a new member of the family.”

“Well, what was done?”
“I persuaded Mr. Haas to go, and went around for him with my car.”

Over the objection of the state, Attorney Rosser brought from the witness that Haas was refused admittance, and that they then telephoned for him, Mr. Rosser. That was between 10:30 or 11, according to the witness, and in 30 or 40 minutes Mr. Rosser arrived and went upstairs at headquarters.

Judge Roan explained that he allowed this testimony because it showed motive.

In reply to a question, Mr. Montag said that Haas and Detective Black left headquarters with Frank 30 minutes or an hour after the arrival of Mr. Rosser.

EMPLOYED PINKERTONS.

Mr. Montag said that he received weekly financial sheets from Frank, who brought them over himself usually on Sunday morning. The Monday after the tragedy, he said, he didn’t receive the financial sheet until about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. In answer to another question, he said that after that Schiff called him up and asked him about the employment of the Pinkertons. Mr. Montag said he told them to employ the Pinkertons and to give all the detectives any assistance in their power in getting evidence.

Mr. Rosser asked the witness if he knew of any anticipated raise for Miss Hall, the stenographer at Montag Bros. He said that he did not, as he employed only the heads of departments.

Solicitor Dorsey cross-examined the witness.

“You say that Frank had a limited acquaintance here?”
“Yes.”

“Well, he’d been here six years, hadn’t he?”
“Just a little more than five,” said the witness.

“Didn’t he know Mr. Haas here, and all of the attorneys connected with the patent litigation against the American Pencil company?”
“I don’t know.”

“Isn’t he president of the B’nai B’rith?”

“I think so.”

“How many members has that organization?”
The witness said he guessed it has between 400 and 500.

“What do you mean by saying that he had a limited acquaintance?”

DIDN’T ASK FOR ATTORNEY.

“I mean that the people around police headquarters probably wouldn’t know him.”

“Frank didn’t asked for an attorney.”

“No.”

“Frank didn’t ask for the employment of the Pinkertons?”
“I only talked to Schiff about that.”

“You saw Frank about 9:30 or 10 o’clock Sunday morning?”
“Yes.”

“Why did he come to see you?”
“He wanted to make a report about the tragedy.”

“You already knew about it?”
“Yes, but he didn’t know that I knew.”

“You say he was agitated?”
“Yes.”

“Very perceptibly.”

FRANK WAS AGITATED.

“Knowing him as I do, I noticed it. His general appearance was that of nervousness.”

“Did he explain his nervousness?”
“Yes. He said that they carried him into a dark room and suddenly flashed on the light, and he saw the girl.”

“He said he saw her, did he?”
“Yes, he described her appearance. He said her face was scratched, one eye was discolored, and her mouth was full of sawdust.”

At this point, the witness said in replying to one of the solicitor’s questions, “Mr. Dorsey, don’t twist anything I say.”

“He will anyhow,” said Mr. Arnold in an audible aside.

ATTORNEYS CLASH.

Both Attorney Arnold and Solicitor Dorsey charged each other then and there with improper conduct, and for a minute or two a physical encounter between them in court seemed imminent. The solicitor vehemently demanded that Mr. Arnold’s remarks be ruled from the record, and Judge Roan ordered him to go on with the examination of the witness.

“Frank explained his nervousness, did he?” asked the solicitor.

“Well, he told what he had seen.”

“Didn’t he say anything about having been to police headquarters, nor request that you get him a lawyer?”
“No.”

“Well, who made the trade with Haas?”
“There’s been no trade.”

“Have you contributed or promised anything toward his fee, or has the National Pencil company?”
“No.”

“Have the Pinkertons been paid?”
The defense objected. Solicitor Dorsey argued his question, saying, “This is relevant, your honor, to show the attitude of the officials and the National Pencil company generally, and we may make it apparent that there is a reason for the Pinkertons not having been paid. Can’t we show that the Pinkertons have asked for their money and have not received a cent?”
Judge Roan allowed the question.

PINKERTONS SEND BILLS.

Mr. Montag replied that the Pinkertons had sent two or three bills but hadn’t requested any pay.

“Has Pierce asked you for any money?”
“No.”

“Have you received the reports of the Pinkertons?”
“Yes.”

Attorney Rosser objected. Judge Roan said, “Mr. Dorsey, I don’t how far you intend to go into this.” “I am going just as far as you will let me go,” said the solicitor. “I wan the jury to know that he knew when the stick was found and when the pay envelope was found, and that he kept the finds from the police.”

“Well, I’m objecting to all of it,” said Mr. Rosser.

Judge Roan ruled, “If your purpose is to show that this witness is biased, you can pursue this line of questioning.”

“You got the report of the finding of that stick, didn’t you?” asked the solicitor.

“I did.”

“And of the finding of the envelope, too?”
“I did.”

“You were so much interested in this case that you hired the Pinkertons. And yet you didn’t tell the police about these discoveries?”
Attorney Rosser objected and was sustained.

“What did you do about these finds?”
“I gave the reports to Mr. Rosser.”

“Did you request Pierce, of the Pinkertons, to keep these discoveries from the police?”
“No, sir.”

“How many reports of accidents have you received from the pencil factory?”
“It’s impossible for me to tell. There’s a small accident about once a month, I think.”

Mr. Montag, answering questions, said that he remembered the accident to Gilbert because it was the most serious that ever had occurred in the pencil factory. Either Frank or Schiff told him about it, he said.

“You say Frank carried the financial sheet to you on Monday, April 28?”
“Yes.”

“Before that he mailed it, you say?”
“No, sir, I didn’t say that.”

“Sometime in June were you in the pencil factory when some detectives and Mr. Hooper were over these.”

“Yes, but I wasn’t with them.”

“How long after Mary Phagan’s death did the insurance people order you to clean up that basement?”
“Within the week, I think.”

“Were you in the basement the next day after it was cleaned up?”
“No, sir.”

“Do you know where the shellac is kept? You seem to know all about everything at the pencil factory?”
“No, sir. I know it should be kept in a cool place. That’s all.”

“Did you make any effort to get a horse and buggy on the afternoon of Saturday, April 26?”

“No, sir.”

DIDN’T CALL LIVERYMAN.

“Did you call up the residence of W. D. Brown, a liveryman, about 4 o’clock that afternoon?”
“I did not.”

“Are there any other Montags in Atlanta?”
“Three of them.”

“Who are they?”
“My partners.”

“And you didn’t authorize anybody to call up W. D. Brown on that afternoon, did you?”
“No, sir.”

That concluded the cross-examination. Attorney Rosser questioned the witness in re-direct.

“Isn’t it a fact that when you received these reports from the Pinkertons, you understand that the police already had duplicates of them?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You don’t know, do you, whether or not Frank knew me before that morning when I went down to the jail?”
“I don’t know that.”

Mr. Montag was excused from the stand.

At the instance of the solicitor, subpoenaea duces tecum were issued to the pencil factory officials and certain insurance officials commanding them to brief into court papers relative to accidents in the factory.

Court recessed at 12:35 until 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 14th 1913, “Frank’s Story of Before and After Crime Corroborated; Defense’s Motion to Strike Sensational Questions Fails,” 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
August 14^th, 1913

CONLEY ADMITTED MIND WAS BLANK DAY OF CRIME, GIRL SAYS

NEGRO DRUNK DAY OF CRIME, MISS CARSON SWEARS HE TOLD HER

Miss Helen Curran, a pretty girl of 17 years, proved one of the strongest witnesses Thursday for the defense in establishing what will be claimed as an alibi for Leo M. Frank. She testified that she saw Frank at 1:10 o’clock the afternoon Mary Phagan was murdered standing by Jacobs’ Drug Store, Whitehall and Alabama streets, apparently waiting for his car home.

The State fought hard against the “alibi” witnesses.

The defense devoted most of the forenoon session to producing persons who had seen Frank on the day of the tragedy. Miss Curran was probably the most important as she was the only one who professed to have seen Frank immediately after the time he has stated he left the factory.

Others were called who saw him as he arrived home at about 1:20 o’clock, or as he was on his way back to the factory later in the afternoon. It was the purpose of Frank’s lawyers, so far as they could, to account for every minute of his time during the day.

Appreciating that the case of the State against the defendant was hit by Miss Curran’s story, Attorney Frank A. Hooper made a determined effort to confuse or break down the young witness, but failed to shake her in the least.

The significance of the girl’s testimony is apparent in the light of Jim Conley’s story. The negro said he and Frank started to dispose of Mary Phagan’s body at 12:56. Allowing two minutes for Frank to get from the factory to Whitehall and Alabama streets, he would have had to leave the building at 1:08. This would have left but 12 minutes for the two to dispose of the body and do everything else the negro mentioned.

Conley testified that he was in the closet in Frank’s office eight minutes. This would have reduced the remaining time to four minutes. Part of this was occupied in writing the notes, Conley says.

Thirty-two Minutes to Dispose of Body.

If the negro could have written the four notes in two minutes, two minutes would have been left for the disposal of the body. But Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective, said that Conley took six or seven minutes in writing one test note exactly like the shorter note that was found by the slain girl’s body. The defense contended that this, in view of Miss Curran’s testimony, puts Conley’s story in the realm of the impossible.

Miss Curran said that she lived at No. 160 Ashby street and that she knew Frank from trying to get a position as stenographer at the factory one time. She said that on the day she saw Frank she had an appointment to meet a girl friend at Jacobs’ store at 1:15. She left Kress’ store at 1:05, she testified, and had been at Jacobs’ only a short time when she observed Frank.

Attorney Hooper brought out the fact that her father is employed by Montag Bros., who also are interested in the pencil factory. He asked her at one point in his examination:

Miss Rebecca Carson, called primarily as an alibi witness, told of suspicious conversations and actions of the negro Jim Conley.

“No, Miss Rebecca, I wasn’t at the factory Saturday. I was so drunk that I don’t know what I did or where I was,” she testified that Conley said when she asked him on the Monday after the crime if he had been in the factory at the time the murder was committed.

She also said that Conley had appeared greatly startled when Mrs. Carson, her mother, had said in his presence that she thought they would find the murderer when they found the negro that Mrs. Arthur White saw at the foot of the stairs.

Two more character witnesses, Harry E. Lewis, of Brooklyn, formerly the District Attorney of New York, and Herbert Lasher, of Fleischman’s, N. Y., a classmate of Frank’s at Cornell, testified that they knew the defendant well and that they knew his character to be good.

Sig Montag of Montag Bros., treasurer of the National Pencil Company, told of his part in the hiring of the Pinkertons and of Frank’s demeanor the Sunday the body of the girl was found. He testified, in refutation of Jim Conley’s story about watching at the front door at the direction of Frank, that the first floor on occasions of which Conley told was the property of the Clark Woodenware Company, and that it was used by the pencil company only as an entrance.

Montag was asked by Dorsey just before he left the stand if he tried several times to hire a horse and buggy the afternoon of April 26 from W. D. Brown, a West End liveryman. The witness said he had not.

“Don’t you know that Kress’ store was closed all of Saturday afternoon, April 26?”

“It wasn’t closed at the time I went in there in the afternoon,” she replied.

The attorney also sought to show that the crowds were so dense that afternoon that she would not have been likely to see Frank.

Miss Curran was the first of a long string of alibi witnesses for Frank. Still others are to be called to present to the jury a record of the defendant’s every movement throughout the day so far as it is known.

Important Battle Lost by Defense.

An important battle was lost by the defense in the Frank trial Thursday in the over-ruling of Luther Rosser’s motion for the expunging of Solicitor Dorsey’s questions of the day before relating to Frank alleged acts of immorality.

The defeat of Attorney Rosser came immediately after Solicitor Dorsey had failed in an attempt to have Frank’s mother and wife excluded from the courtroom because of the elder woman’s sensational outburst of the afternoon before, when she dramatically denounced the Solicitor for his charge of grossly improper conduct against her son, the defendant.

Judge Roan refused the motion of the Solicitor, but said that he would refuse them admission if another outbreak of the sort took place.

With the preliminary skirmishes of the day settled, the defense set out with great minuteness to complete its record of Frank’s movements throughout the day of the crime.

Miss Helen Curran, No. 150 Ashby […]

FRANK NERVOUS, MONTAG ADMITS, ‘AND I WAS, TOO’

[…] street, testified that she saw Frank near Jacobs’ drug store, Whitehall and Alabama streets, at 1:10 o’clock Saturday afternoon apparently waiting for his car home.

Saw Frank Get Off Car.

Mrs. Albert P. Levy, No. 69 East Georgia avenue, swore that she saw Frank get off his car on Georgia avenue at 1:20 o’clock the afternoon of the crime.

Mrs. M. G. Michael, of Athens, Ga., aunt of Mrs. Leo Frank, said that she was visiting at the home of Mrs. C. Wolfsheimer, No. 387 Washington street, three doors from Georgia avenue, and that Frank came up to the steps ata bout 2 o’clock to speak to her, leaving a moment later to catch a Washington street car at Glenn street.

Jerome Michael, son of the previous witness, testified that he was on the steps at the time and that Frank walked up the street between 1:55 and 2 o’clock.

Mrs. Wolfsheimer, who lives at No. 387 Washington street, said she saw Frank at this time.

Julian Loeb, No. 380 Washington street, testified to the same effect.

J. Cohen Loeb, No. 445 Washington street, told the jury he rode partway to town with Frank and that the defendant boarded the Washington street car at about 2 o’clock.

Miss Rebecca Carson, a factory employee, testified to seeing Frank on the street at 2:20 and also at 2:50.

Asks Women Be Excluded.

Solicitor Dorsey, before the jury was brought in, said he wanted to make a request that the mother and wife of Leo M. Frank be excluded from the court as the witnesses have been because of the outbreak of the elder Mrs. Frank Wednesday afternoon.

“I appreciate the feeling of the wife and mother,” he said; “it is a terrible strain on them. I am sorry for them. But I must have protection and I think they should be excluded when we are subjected to outbreaks like that yesterday.”

Attorney Arnold in reply said:

“Without criticising Mrs. Frank, I want to state that the Solicitor’s examination of the witness yesterday was far worse than her outbreak. He was undertaking to get in evidence in an illegal way. He could not get it in a legal way. He was appealing to the crowd and to the feelings of the jury. Does you honor think that good practice—honorable practice—especially when a man is on trial for his life?

Arnold Calls Dorsey Overzealous.

“My friend is zealous—he is a little overzealous, I think, but that is not a matter for me to criticise. Your honor, our jury system is very lame if we admit this sort of evidence. They are good men, but simple men. It’s hard for them to distinguish between things that condemn a man and things that prove him guilty. I won’t say that the conduct of the Solicitor is illegal, but it is a little more culpable than the act of the mother. It’s a pretty pass if a man’s wife and mother are to be barred at the hour of his trial. This evidence of the State was put in to poison the minds of the jury. It was hard to bear—awfully hard to hear—but I promise it shall not occur again. We will do all we can to prevent a recurrence.”

“Your honor, I didn’t ask Mr. Jones all the questions I might have asked him,” replied Dorsey. “You ruled the questions I did ask, were legal. I asked only questions I can substantiate by reputable witnesses, some of them high class women, I regard them.

“It’s a mistaken idea bout me being overzealous. I am trying to do my duty. I want to protect myself and the court. You have excluded other women. There is no reason why these should be allowed to remain to offend the dignity of the court. An accused man should not be allowed to bankrupt his wife and mother. Mr. Arnold criticises my act. The courts have held it is highly improper for a lawyer to express his opinion on the evidence. Mr. Arnold has branded this evidence as lies before I put these good women on the stand.”

Judge Roan ruled, after more arguing.

“You are entirely right, Mr. Dorsey, in saying that you are entitled to protection. Other women were put out because the evidence was of such a nature as to be indecent to be heard by them. It is a matter in the discretion or the court to state whether these ladies should be allowed to remain. I will say that if there are any more such outbreaks as yesterday I shall be forced to exclude them.”

Mrs. Frank, the mother, and the prisoner’s wife were both in court while the argument was in progress.

Girl Says She Saw Frank on Street at 1:10.

Miss Helen K. Curran was the first witness called. She is a very attractive looking girl, about 16 years old.

Q. Where do you live?—A. 160 Ashby street.

Q. After you took a course in shorthand, did you go to the National Pencil Company and meet Mr. Frank?—A. Yes.

Q. You were looking for a position?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you get it?—A. No.

Q. Why?—A. He was to let my father know, but I never heard from him.

Q. Where were you working April 26?—A. At the Bennett Printing House.

Q. What time did you get off that day?—A. Twelve o’clock.

Q. Where did you go?—A. Shopping.

Q. Did you have an appointment to meet another girl?—A. Yes. I was to meet Velma Turner at 1:15 o’clock at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets.

Q. Where were you about 1:05 o’clock?—A. I came out of Kress’ store.

Q. Where did you go?—A. To Jacob’s, corner Alabama and Whitehall.

Q. Did you see the defendant there?—After I had been there about five minutes I turned around and saw him.

Q. What time would you say that [words illegible]—A. About 1:10 o’clock.

Q. What was he doing?—A. Standing on the corner.

Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Your father works at Montag’s, doesn’t he?—A. Yes.

Q. You told your father about seeing Frank, didn’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. In that large crowd, Saturday, a holiday, you saw Mr. Frank?—A. It was not very crowded at that time.

Q. Didn’t the parade come along then?—A. Not until about 3 o’clock.

Q. How long did you stand backed up against the wall there?—A. From five minutes after 1 until twenty after 1.

Q. You saw hundreds of people you recognized?—A. I saw a number.

Q. Did you speak to Mr. Frank?—A. No.

Q. How far were you from him?—A. About as far as I am now.

Q. What time did your friend come?—A. About 1:20 o’clock.

Q. Could you see Davis & Freeman’s clock from where you were backed up against the wall?—A. I stepped out to look at it.

Q. Who else did you see while there?—A. My mother, father and brother.

Q. You went from Kress’ at 1 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t you know that Kress’ closed at 12 o’clock that day?—A. It did not; I was in there.

Q. How do you know so well what time it was?—A. I had an engagement at 1:15 o’clock and I was watching the clock.

Q. What time was it when you looked at the clock?—A. It was 1:05.

Can’t Recall Anyone Else She Saw That Day.

Q. All the stores closed at 1 o’clock and great crowds were in the streets.—A. I don’t know about any store but Kress’. I was in there.

Q. Give me the name of anyone you recognized on your way from Kress’ to the corner?—A. I don’t remember seeing anyone I recognized.

The witness was excused and Mrs. M. G. Michael, of Athens, Ga., was put on the stand.

Q. Do you recall where you were last Memorial Day?—A. Atlanta.

Q. Where were you at 2 o’clock?—A. Mrs. Wolfsheimer’s, my sister, No. 387 Washington street.

Q. Are you related to Frank?—A. His wife is my niece.

Q. Where did you see Frank that day?—A. At about 2 o’clock he was coming up Washington street.

Q. Where were you at that time?—A. On the porch of my sister’s residence.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. Yes; he came up to the porch steps and talked to me.

Q. How do you know it was 2 o’clock?—A. My son had just left to go to the matinee.

Q. Did Frank appear nervous?—A. No.

Q. Did you see him again?—A. Sunday morning at his home.

Q. Did you notice anything out of the ordinary?—A. No.

Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Where was he going when you saw him?—A. Toward Glenn and Washington streets.

Q. You are sure it was 2 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Q. Was it the custom for Frank to come in?—A. No, but this was the first time he had seen me since I arrived in Atlanta.

The witness was excused, and her son, Jerome Michael, was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What time did you see Frank Memorial Day?—A. Betwen 5 minutes to 2 and 2 o’clock at Mrs. Wolfsheimer’s. I had an engagement with a young woman and was looking at my watch.

The witness testified to the same fact as his mother. Attorney Hooper took him on cross-examination and asked him if he were sure of the time, and upon receiving an affirmative answer he excused the witness.

Mrs. Albert P. Levy, No. 65 East Georgia avenue, was called, Arnold questioned her.

Q. Do you live opposite Mr. Frank?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall seeing him Memorial Day?—A. Yes.

Q. Where?—A. I was looking for my son who was coming to take me to the Grand Opera matinee, and I saw Mr. Frank get off the car at about 1:30 o’clock.

Looking For Son On That Car.

Q. You expected your son on that car?—A. Yes.

Hooper took the witness.

Q. You never heard of this crime until Tuesday?—A. Yes, I had heard of it.

Q. You did not think of it until several days afterward, did you?—A. No.

Q. Well, what made you recall seeing Frank? Was there anything unusual about his appearance?—A. No; I just know because I was constantly looking at the clock and at the cars.

Q. When did you first speak of this?—A. When the trouble first came up.

Q. Was anything said then of the time Frank was supposed to have committed this murder?—A. I don’t think so.

Arnold took the witness.

Q. You said you reached your sick friend’s home at 2:15 o’clock. Who was she?—A. Mrs. J. A. Hirsch.

The witness was excused, and Mrs. Hennie Wolfsheimer, No. 387 Washington street, was called. Arnold questioned her.

Q. Did you see Mr. Leo M. Frank Saturday, April 26?—A. Yes, about 2 o’clock. He came up to the steps of my house.

Q. You talked to him?—A. Yes; I don’t think I was on the porch when he came up, but I came out immediately after he arrived.

Q. Did he appear nervous?—A. No.

Q. Did you notice any scratches on him?—A. No.

Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. What was it that made you remember the time so positively?—A. My husband was late for dinner.

The witness was excused, and Julian Loeb, of No. 380 Washington street, was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Is your residence next door to the Wolfsheimer residence?—A. It is across the street.

Q. Are you related to Mr. Frank?—A. No; I am a cousin of his wife’s.

Q. Do you remember seeing Leo Frank April 26?—A. Yes; I saw him at the Wolfsheimer residence.

Q. You were there?—A. Yes.

Q. What time was it?—A. Between 1:30 and 2 o’clock.

Q. Do you remember anything he said?—A. He invited Mr. Michael and others to attend a meeting of the officers of the B’nai B’rith Society the following Sunday morning.

Hooper took the witness.

Q. There was no special reason for you to remember the time, was there?—A. Yes; I judged by the time I left the office where I am employed.

Says Conley Told Her He Was Drunk.

The witness was excused, and Miss Rebecca Carson, an employee of the National Pencil Company; was the next witness. She smiled and bowed to Frank as she took her seat. Arnold questioned her.

The witness said she was forelady of the assortment department on the fourth floor and had been there three years.

Q. How noticeable is that elevator to you on the fourth floor when it is running?—A. It is quite noticeable. There is a noticeable vibration and a knocking noise.

Q. Did you see Mr. Frank at any time or place on Saturday?—A. Yes, between 2:20 and 2:25 o’clock in front of Rich Brothers.

Q. What was he doing?—A. Looking at the parade.

Q. Did you speak to him?—A. I did.

Q. Did you see him any more that day?—A. Yes; about ten minutes to 3. I went down to Brown & Allen’s corner just across the street and saw him going into Jacobs’.

Q. Did you see Jim Conley Monday morning?—A. I did.

Q. Did you say anything to him?—A. I asked him where he was on Saturday. He said, “Miss Rebecca, I was so drunk I didn’t know where I was.”

Q. Did you overhear any conversation between Jim Conley and your mother?—A. Yes. On Thursday the was sweeping. Mother said to him, “Well, Jim, I see they haven’t got you yet.” He said: “No, Missis, I ain’t done nothing.” She said: “No, and Mr. Frank hasn’t either, but they took him.” Conley said: “No, Missis, he’s as innocent as an angel.” Mother remarked: “Well, when they find out who murdered that little girl, it will be that negro Mrs. White saw sitting on the box back of the stairs.” Jim dropped his broom and looked very scared.

Q. How long was this before Jim was arrested?—A. About an hour.

Q. What day was that?—A. Thursday.

Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. That was Monday when Jim Conley made the remark to you about him having been too drunk Saturday to know anything?—A. Yes.

Q. What time?—A. About 8 o’clock.

Q. When did you tell of that before?—A. To mother right away.

Q. You all work on the fourth floor?—A. Yes.

Q. That elevator makes very little noise?—A. It makes some noise.

Q. Could you hear it with those doors closed?—A. You might not.

Q. Where was that clock you saw the first time Memorial Day?—A. In front of the jewelry store.

Q. The other clock?—A. Above Kress’ store.

Q. You looked at the clock both times before you saw him? Are you certain of the time?—A. Yes.

Q. The first time you noticed him. It was between 2:20 and 2:25 o’clock. How did you get that so certain?—A. My sister just asked me the time and it was only a short time later when I saw him.

Salary Not Raised Since Last January.

Q. How long have you been forelady?—A. About three years.

Q. Would you mind telling your salary?—A. $10 a week.

Q. Did you ever stay there Saturday afternoon?—A. No.

Q. Did you know Mr. Frank very well?—A. Only in a business way.

Q. When was your salary raise last?—A. January.

Q. Do you know whether Conley stayed there Saturday afternoon or not?—A. I heard he stayed there and I reckon he did.

Q. Conley told you right away he was so drunk he didn’t remember where he was?—A. He certainly did.

Q. He came right out with it?—A. Yes.

Q. Did it make any impression on you?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell anyone else?—A. Mr. Darley and Mr. Rosser.

Q. Why did you tell Mr. Rosser?—A. He came to the factory and sent for some of the girls to tell them what we thought of Conley.

Q. You don’t know what time Frank came out of Jacobs’ drug store?—A. No.

Q. Did you see anything like blood in the factory?—A. No.

Q. You didn’t go back there?—A. Not that day.

Q. When did you go back there?—A. Tuesday; I went back there with Mr. Frank.

Q. You didn’t see the blood?—A. No, I wasn’t looking for any.

Saw Frank on Way Down Town.

The witness was excused and Cohen Loeb, No. 445 Washington street, a brother of Julian Loeb, was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. Do you remember seeing Leo Frank on Memorial Day, April 26?—A. Yes, on the trolley car comin’ to town.

Q. Where did you get on the car?—A. At Georgia avenue.

Q. Where did he get on?—A. At Glenn street.

Q. Did you see him get on?—A. Yes, we sat together.

Q. Where did you go?—A. The car was blockaded at Hunter street by the crowds watching the parade. We got off.

Q. Where did he go?—A. Down Hunter street.

Q. What time was that?—A. I would say about 2:10 o’clock.

Hooper took the witness.

Q. Did you see anyone else that morning?—A. I saw Arthur Harris […]

Frank’s Neighbors Tell of Seeing Him on Fatal Day as He Left Home

[…] and like Liebman pass in an automobile near the Capitol.

Q. You were sitting on the right side of the car?—A. Yes.

Q. Next to the window?—A. No; Mr. Frank was next to the window.

Q. Did you see Mr. Hinchey?—A. No, but I recognized his car.

Q. Do you know the number of his car?—A. No, but I recognized it by its dark color.

Q. How many dark-colored cars are there in the city?—A. Well, the street car struck this one and impressed it upon me. I found out later——

Hooper—Wait a minute. I am not asking what you found out later.

Arnold—Mr. Loeb, you found out later that it was Mr. Hinchey’s car, did you not?—A. I did.

Hooper—I object.

Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Miss Carson was excused and Henry Smith, another employee of the pencil factory was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What department are you in?—A. Metal room.

Q. Do you know a man named Barnett?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he ever say anything about getting a reward if Frank was convicted?—A. Yes.

Q. What did he say about it?—A. He said he would get the first hook of about $4,300 because he found the blo[o]d and hair.

Q. Anything else?—A. Well, when he passed me he would play like he was counting money.

Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Has he ever spent any of that imaginary money?—A. No.

The witness was excused and Charles Lee was called, but did not answer Harry Lewis, of No. 156 Underhill avenue, Brooklyn, took the stand.

Arnold questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. Practicing attorney.

Q. Were you ever in the District Attorney’s office?—A. I was his assistant.

Q. Do you know Leo Frank?—A. Yes. I knew him when he lived next door to me.

Q. Do you know his general character?—A. Yes.

Q. Is it good or bad?—A. Very good.

The witness was excused without cross-examination.

Herbert Lasher, of Fleischman’s, New York, was called. Arnold questioned him.

Q. What is your business?—A. I manage my father’s establishment.

Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank?—A. Yes, I was with him at Cornell in 1903-4-5.

Q. Did you live with him?—A. Yes.

Q. Do you know his general character, and is it good or bad?—A. Very good.

The witness was excused.

Tells of Man Bleeding on Floor.

Charley Lee, No. 109 Washington street, was the next witness.

Arnold: “What is your business?”—A. I am machinist at the National Pencil Factory.

Q. Do you remember an accident to a fellow named Duffy in October 1912?—A. Yes.

Q. How was he hurt?—A. His finger was badly cut and bled freely. The blood spurted out.

Q. Where was he taken?—A. To Quinn’s office.

Q. Did that take him by the water cooler near the ladies’ dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he bleed there?—A. Yes.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. How much do you get?—A. Thirty-two and one-half cents an hour.

Q. How long have you been getting that?—A. Two weeks.

Q. Who gave you the raise?—A. Mr. Darley.

Q. How large a raise?—A. Two and one-half cents.

Q. Have you talked about it to anyone?—A. No.

Q. Not to the lawyers in the case?—A. No.

Q. They didn’t know what you were going to swear when you went on the stand?—A. No.

Q. How did they know about it?—A. I made a statement at the time.

Q. When did you see it last?—A. About two months ago.

Q. Who had it?—A. Mr. Schiff.

Q. Did he say anything?—A. He just wanted to know if I remembered it.

Q. Where did Duffy drop blood?—A. All along here (pointing to the diagram). It was just streaming down.

Q. Well, how large was the largest spot?—A. I couldn’t say. It was just all over the floor.

Q. Did he stop anywhere?—A. Right there by the water cooler.

Q. How far from it?—A. About 2 or 4 feet.

Q. How long did he stop there?—A. About 8 or 10 minutes.

Saw Blood Drops on Floor.

Q. He just stood there with the blood dripping?—A. Yes.

Q. You were the only man who saw the accident?—A. Yes.

Q. You are the only one who saw him drop the blood there?—A. No; somebody else saw him.

Q. Who is your father?—A. Henry Lee.

Q. Where did this man stop and spill the blood?—A. In the office. Nowhere else.

Q. Did you see the spot where the blood was found?—A. I saw the spot after it was chipped up.

Q. Did this man Duffy stand at the same spot and drop blood from his fingers?—A. It might have been the same spot.

Q. Wasn’t it the same spot?—A. It might have been a step away.

The witness was excused and Sig Montag, an officer of the National Pencil Company, was called to the stand. Rosser questioned him.

Q. How long have you lived in Atlanta?—A. About 25 years.

Q. What was your connection with the pencil factory on April 26?—A. I was treasurer.

Q. Did the mail come to your office?—A. Yes.

Q. Did Frank ever come to your office?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he come there Saturday, April 26?—A. Yes, about 10 o’clock.

Q. How long did he stay?—A. About an hour.

Q. What was your habit prior to twelve months ago about visiting the pencil factory?—A. I went there every Saturday afternoon.

Q. What did you find Frank doing on those Saturdays?—A. Working on the financial sheet.

Plan to Show Conley Lied About Watching.

Q. Mr. Montag, who occupied that first floor up to January 1?—A. The Clark Woodenware Company.

Q. What did the pencil company have to do with it?—A. Nothing, except as an entrance and to use the elevator.

Q. Where were the offices of the woodenware company?—A. In the front of the building.

The defense regards this evidence as extremely important to show that Conley lied about watching for Frank at the front door. They showed by Montag that the pencil company had nothing to do with this floor except as an entrance.

The model of the factory was again brought in to demonstrate the witness’ statement.

Rosser—Let’s take Sunday morning. Have you a telephone at your home?—A. Yes, about 20 feet from my bed.

Q. Were you aroused by the telephone Sunday morning?—A. No, but my wife was, and she told me someone wanted to speak to me.

Q. What did the voice say?—A. A man wanted to know if I could identify a girl who had been killed in the factory. I referred him to Mr. Darley, who then and now has charge of the help.

Q. Did Mr. Frank come to your home?—A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you of what had happened and that he had been roused out of bed without any breakfast?Dorsey—I object to that.

Judge Roan—You can bring out the fact that the witness talked with him, but not what he said.

A. Yes, he told me about him.

Q. Was he nervous?—A. No more nervous that I was when he explained to me what had happened.

Dorsey—I must object again. That is irrelevant.

The objection was sustained.

Q. Was Mr. Frank nervous?—A. Yes; naturally he was nervous in telling of this terrible crime.

Q. Were you nervous?—A. I was.

Q. How did your wife take the news?—A. She was very much agitated and cried.

Q. Did you have a good opportunity for observing Frank? Where was he when he told you of the tragedy?—A. He was in my sitting room and I had a good opportunity of observing him.

Q. Were there any scratches on his face or spots on his clothes?—A. There were not.

Q. Did you go to the factory?—A. I did.

Q. Did you make an examination of the factory?—A. I made a general examination.

Q. Were there any accidents when you used the building the pencil factory is in?—A. Yes, a great many.

Q. Where were the injured people taken?—A. To the front office.

Q. They would have to go down those stairs, wouldn’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. When did you hear of Frank being taken to headquarters by the police?—A. Monday.

Calls Frank’s Acquaintance Limited.

Q. You have known Frank for a good while. Was his acquaintance large or limited?—A. I would call it limited.

Q. Knowing he had a limited acquaintance, what did you do?—A. I called Mr. Haas, my personal friend.

Q. What did he do?—A. He went to the police station to see Frank. Mr. Haas came back and said he couldn’t see Frank.

Dorsey—I object. Are you going to let that go in?

Judge Roan—Yes, it explains the conduct of this man.

Q. Well, what did you do then?—A. Mr. Haas telephoned Mr. Rosser.

Q. What time was that?—A. 11 or 12 o’clock.

Q. What time did he get there?—A. About 40 minutes later.

Judge Roan at this point read to Mr. Dorsey the rule that made this evidence admissible.

Q. You don’t know what happened upstairs?—A. No.

Q. How long before Frank left was it after I got there?—A. You got there about 40 or 50 minutes after, Mr. Rosser.

Q. Who was with him?—A. Detective Black and Mr. Haas.

Q. You receive those financial sheets, don’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you get it that Monday?—A. About 2 o’clock.

Q. Was that financial sheet brought you before or after you got that message about detectives?—A. After.

Q. Who called you?—A. Mr. Schiff. He wanted to know whether I would sanction the employment of detectives and I told him certainly.

Q. Did you give any instructions?—A. Yes. I told him to give the authorities every assistance.

Q. Did you know that Miss Hall, the stenographer, anticipated the raise in her salary before the murder?—A. I don’t employ the stenographer and would not have known.

Frank’s Friends Not Around Police Station.

Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. Mr. Montag, you said Frank had a limited acquaintance in the city?—A. Yes.

Q. In this patent litigation with the American Pencil Company he came in contact with a number of attorneys, did he not?—A. Yes.

Q. He was president of the B’nai B’rith Society and came in contact with lots of people in that organization, did he not?—A. Yes, he came in contact with the members, I suppose. I never went to the meetings.

Q. How many members are there?—A. Four or five hundred.

Q. What did you mean by telling the jury he had a limited acquaintance?—A. I meant the people he knew would not be around the police station.

Q. Did Frank ask for a lawyer?—A. No.

Q. Did he ask for the Pinkertons?—A. I only know what Mr. Schiff said.

Q. Did he explain to you why he was nervous?—A. Yes, he said they took him into a dark room and suddenly turned a light on the girl’s body.

Q. Did he say he saw the body?—A. He described it.

Q. What did he say?—A. He said her face was scratched, her eye bruised, and her tongue out. I don’t remember anything else.

Q. You can’t remember all of it?—A. I said I couldn’t remember all. Now do not twist what I say.

Arnold—He will if you don’t watch him.

Dorsey—I submit that the remark of Attorney Arnold is improper and should be stricken from the record. It is untrue.

Judge Roan—I sustain you.

Charges Dorsey With Heckling Witnesses.

Arnold—It is true and proper and I call for the records to sustain me. The whole trouble is that the Solicitor quarrels with the witnesses instead of cross-examining them.

Dorsey—All I want is for your honor to rule him out of order.

Judge Roan—I have, Mr. Dorsey, go on. Let’s not be interrupted by quarreling.

Q. Did you mention to him the fact that he was nervous?—A. No.

Q. Did he say anything about being asked to go to police headquarters?—A. No.

Q. Who made the trade about paying the attorney?—A. I don’t know.

Q. You didn’t agree to pay Mr. Rosser’s fee?—A. No.

Q. No part of it?—A. No.

Q. All you agreed to pay was the Pinkertons?—A. Yes.

Q. Have they been paid?

Rosser—I object to that, your honor.

Dorsey—Your honor, I want to show that these people have made frequent demands for their money and have not gotten it. I want to show the bias on the part of this witness.

Judge Roan—You can ask it.

Q. Have the Pinkertons been paid?—A. No.

Q. Have they asked for the money?—A. No, but they sent two or three bills.

Q. You haven’t paid them, have you?—A. No.

Q. You got a report from the Pinkertons daily, didn’t you?—A. Practically.

Q. Now, when did you hear about the finding of the stick?—A. When I read it in the report.

Read First of Stick Being Found.

Q. Now, did you tell Mr. Pierce, of the Pinkertons, not to report the finding of the stick and envelope to the police?—A. I did not.

Q. When was there any accident in the National Pencil Factory?—A. There was one big accident about a year ago. A man by the name of Gilbert got his head burst.

Q. Do you remember any other?—A. Not definitely.

Q. Why do you remember this one?—A. It was a very bad accident.

Q. You say Frank brought you the financial sheet Monday afternoon after the murder?—A. He did.

Q. How long after this tragedy was it that the insurance company made you clean up that factory?—A. Some time within the week.

Q. When did you pay for it?—A. I don’t remember. The records in my office will show that.

Q. You were in the factory on June 14 with a number of detectives, were you not?—A. I don’t remember the day.

Q. Did you telephone the residences of W. D. Brown, a livery stable man, on the afternoon of April 26 that you wanted a horse and buggy?—A. I did not.

At this time court adjourned until 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 14th 1913, “State Fights Frank’s Alibi,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

Stated That He Was Willing to Reply to Any Questions That Might Be in the Mind of the Public, and Asked to Answer Any Such That Might Be Propounded to Him.

TELLS HOW JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL AND ESCAPED DETECTION

Asserts That Very Fact That He Admitted He Had Seen Mary Phagan on the Day of the Murder, Thus Placing Himself Under Suspicion, Was Proof in Itself That He Was Innocent of Crime.

Probably the most interesting statement yet issued by Leo M. Frank in connection with the murder for which he has been sentenced to hang, is one that he has furnished to The Constitution in the form of a series of answers to questions which were propounded to him bearing on the case.

These questions were prepared by a representative of The Constitution who visited Frank at the Tower last week.

“Ask me any questions you wish,” Frank told the reporter.

In accordance with that, the reporter wrote out a list of questions which, he asserted, comprised the most salient points the prosecution had brought out against him, and to each of these Frank has given an answer.

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

Question 1. Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Question 2. The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Question 3. You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of the negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Question 4. Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Question 5. You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Question 6. You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Question 7. Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Question 8. Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Question 9. Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Question 10. At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Question 11. Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Question 12. Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Question 13. When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Question 14. Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Question 15. When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Question 16. If a girl were never seen[…]

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

[…]alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Question 17. Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Frank’s Answers.

Question 1—Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Answer—Lee had been employed at the factory for but two weeks. Almost any experience, therefore, he would have had at the factory would be for the “first time.” I had on Friday, April 25, received and accepted an invitation from my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to go to the ball game on Saturday afternoon. Accordingly, on Friday night I had directed Lee to report early on Saturday, because I thought I would be absent from the factory Saturday afternoon at the ball game. But on account of the bad weather and the accumulation of work, I called off this engagement at about 1:25 p. m. Saturday when I was home to lunch. Lee, however, reported early, as directed, but as I had changed my plans and was to remain at the factory, there was no need for Lee to remain there unless he so desired. I didn’t insist on his leaving. I told him he could go if he chose, and he availed himself of this permission. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether he stayed or went; but I did insist on his returning not later than 6 o’clock to the factory.

Question 2—The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Answer—Mary Phagan may have been attacked as she went down, at the foot of the steps, in such a way that she was unable to make any outcry at all. In fact, that is my theory.

On the other hand, if she did make an outcry there were many things that would have prevented my hearing it. The head of the stairway leading from the second to the street floor was about 70 feet from where I was sitting at my desk. Half way down the stairway was a pair of heavy doors, which were kept closed. There was a thick flooring, plastered underneath, between me and the floor below. Also the elevator stood at the level of the second floor. Then the two windows in my outer office were open, allowing the noise from the street to come in. Moreover, I was immersed in my work, and, of course, was not anticipating anything out of the ordinary. Please note that Lemmie Quinn was in my office talking to me within three to five minutes after Mary Phagan left my office after receiving her pay envelope from me.

Question 3—You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of a negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Answer—The very idea of writing notes and putting them by the dead body to divert suspicion is even more characteristic of a drunken, ignorant negro than the language itself. Emphatically no. The whole dictation theory is silly. In the first place, no intelligent white man would do such a thing, either by writing himself or having another write for him. He knows that handwriting is a sure clue. It is inconceivable that any white man could have dictated those notes and it is equally as unbelievable that he could be so foolish as to leave them on the body. In the second place, please remember that it was I and none other who gave the detectives the information by which they were able to disprove Conley’s assertion that he could not write. It was I who, as soon as I heard that Conley was denying that he could write, gave the information where they could find a contract signed by him for the purchase of a watch on the installment plan. The detectives followed this clue, secured the contract, and forced Conley to admit that he could write.

Question 4—Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Answer—I told Helen Ferguson no such thing. She did not testify that I so told her. Even the state has never contended that she so testified. There is no basis for such an idea.

Helen Ferguson never got even her own pay, much less that of another, from me. I was not the paymaster. No evidence was presented at the trial to show that I was. In fact, Helen Ferguson herself testified that previous to Friday, April 25, she never asked for or received an envelope from me. She said April 25 was the first time, and she is mistaken about this. Please note that the two girls who worked in her department with her testified at the trial that they were with Miss Ferguson when she drew her money from Mr. Schiff, and that in their company she left the factory immediately and started for home. There was no mention of asking Schiff, who was paying off, or Frank, who was not at the cashier’s window, for another person’s envelope. The two girls who so testified were Miss Hicks and Miss Kennedy. Schiff, who actually paid off Helen Ferguson, swore to this fact at the trial.

Calls Gantt A Liar.

Question 5—You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Answer—What Gantt said was an unqualified falsehood. I never knew that Gantt knew Mary Phagan intimately until Halloway told me after the murder of Monday, April 28, 1913, when I went to the factory in the afternoon at about 3 o’clock.

Question 6—You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Answer—Messrs. Schiff, Stelker, Sigancke, Quinn, Darley, Campbell and Halloway were with me when I examined the alleged “blood spots.” The police had taken up only a few chips from the spot, and left the remainder of the spot, which I examined. They didn’t take away the whole spot, nor did they take up the floor.

Question 7—Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Answer—When I first phoned Mr. Schiff it was Mr. Montag’s lunch hour, and I couldn’t get Mr. Montag on the phone. Mr. Schiff was at the factory office, and, so, when Mr. Montag gave his permission to Mr. Schiff to hire detectives, he could more readily arrange an interview and receive detectives than I, who was at my residence, could. Mr. Schiff was my assistant, and naturally I had him do this work for me. I don’t see the materiality of this question. The material point is that as soon as I could I had a detective employed and put upon the case to ferret out the crime.

Question 8—Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Answer—This is not true. At the coroner’s inquest I said: “She got there—of course, it is pretty hard to give the exact time—but I venture to say it as near as possible, between 12:10 and 12:15.” At the trial I said: “Miss Hattie Hall finished the work and started to leave when the 12 o’clock whistle blew, she left the office and returned, it looked to me, almost immediately, calling into my office that she had forgotten something, and then she left for good. . . . To the best of my knowledge, it must have been from 10 to 15 minutes after Miss (Hattie) Hall left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered by office and asked for her pay envelope.”

Let me call attention, at this point, to the fact that if I had been guilty, nothing on earth would have induced me to have revealed the fact that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan in my office a few seconds before the prosecution claims I killed her. Would the man who killed Mary Phagan have freely and voluntarily stated that he saw her and talked with her just a few moments before she was supposed to have been killed? Would not every instinct of self-preservation have caused him to conceal the fact that he had seen her at all? Why, if he were guilty should he disclose the fact that he had seen her, especially when no one had seen him talking with her, and it could not be proved that he had seen her? If I had a guilty conscience would I have freely and voluntarily stated, as I did, that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan? And if I did not hesitate to declare that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan (which was the big, important fact), what object could I have had in misstating the time that I saw her?

I stated simply the truth, and the whole truth. I gave the time to the best of my recollection.

Proof I Am Innocent.

Question 9—Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Answer—I said I was not out of my office at 12:05. I always contended that, and I still assert it. I never changed. I may have stepped to the toilet for a minute or two, but one couldn’t remember such an occurrence. I am not fully satisfied as to the accuracy of Miss Stover’s testimony. She is but a child, and may not be accurate.

Let me say, as I did in answer to the preceding question, that I always stated freely and voluntarily that I saw and talked with Mary Phagan in my office. I gave her her pay envelope. She asked me if the metal had come, and when I told her no, she departed. I did not see her alive again. Now, if I had anything to conceal about the meeting between Mary Phagan and myself, if I had been the guilty man, would I not have denied from the first that I had ever seen her at all? Would I ever have come forward freely and voluntarily and stated that I had seen and talked with her? Would I not have tried to conceal that fact? Let me say that if some other man were accused of a murder, and he were to come forward voluntarily and state, without any compulsion, that he had seen and talked with the dead person just a few moments before the killing was supposed to have occurred, I would say that the man had a clear conscience and was not guilty. For, if he had been guilty, common sense would have made him hide and conceal the fact of seeing the dead person just before the killing.

Question 10—At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Answer—At first, I said the slip was all right, as no successive numbers were skipped. Mr. N. V. Darley looked at the slip, also, and corroborated this. Later, when I studied carefully the time at which the punches occurred, I noted three lapses of one hour instead of a half hour, as they should have been. The whole matter of Lee’s punching the time clock, while a physical fact, is immaterial. There is one thing, however, that is material in this matter. When I took out of the clock the time slip that Lee punched, I wrote on it, ‘Taken out at 8:26 a. m.’ to identify it. Several of those about me at the time saw me write on the slip. This was a complete identification of this slip. Mr. Dorsey admitted, in open court, that he rubbed it out. He says he thought a detective wrote those words on it to identify it.

Question 11—Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Answer—I did not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory. I told her that if she did not wish to be locked in with the two boys at work on the fourth floor, that she would have to leave then, as I was going home to lunch, and was going to lock up the factory. I did not mention haste. As I followed her down the stairs at an interval of less than a minute, I could not have been writing as she passed, and was not writing. I may have been placing papers together preparatory to leaving, but I had nothing to wrtie [sic]. The record of the case bears me out in this.

Question 12—Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Answer—Conley came to my cell surrounded by detectives who had put themselves on record as being antagonistic to me. They were not hunting the truth; they were trying to fasten the crime on me. No matter what I would have done, if I consented to the interview, they would have used it against me. At the trial the negro never looked at me once, though my eyes were glued on him the whole time.

Question 13—When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Answer—To the police I did fail to mention Lemmie Quinn’s visit. It slipped my mind, though it was a circumstance favorable to me. But his statement, and my own, that he called and saw me in my office that day, has never been questioned. As soon as Quinn mentioned to me the fact of his visit to me the day of the murder, it refreshed my memory, and I at once remembered it.

Question 14—Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Answer—No. I told him to tell the truth. Not knowing exactly what the police were claiming (at that time), and not being a lawyer, I did not know what value Quinn’s visit could have as evidence, and I told Quinn I would report the fact to my lawyers.

Character Witnesses.

Question 15—When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Answer—My experience with Dalton, the first character witness against me, had given me and my attorneys fair warning what to expect from the so-called character witnesses. Here was a man upon whom I had never laid my eyes before he took his seat in the witness chair, and of whom I had never heard, and yet he swore solemnly to acts and doings with me that were utterly and absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation. Was not this fair warning to me and my attorneys of what they might expect from the other so-called character witnesses? There was nothing that they could truthfully testify against my character, but I had been duly warned that I could not rely upon their speaking the truth.

My lawyers decided that if they cross-examined those character witnesses, it would allow these hostile people to tell all they heard about me in the way of vile slander—not what they knew. They felt that these witnesses had been loaded with slanders about me just for the purpose of telling them on cross-examination. They did not want to give them the chance to repeat malicious tales against me which they had no opportunity to investigate or answer.

Question 16—If a girl were never seen alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Answer—If the only facts known were what you state, then it would not be surprising that such a man should be arrested, and if subsequent developments indubitably pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime, that he should be vigorously prosecuted. But if, after this man’s arrest, a negro brute is discovered, who admits a knowledge of the crime, who admits writing the very notes found by the body, though, at first, steadfastly denying he could write at all, and who, after repeated visits and promptings from the detectives and the solicitor, finally invents a preposterous and unbelievable tale, putting the crime on the man arrested in order to save his own neck—then I would say that the further prosecution of this man is persecution, indeed!

Question 17—Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Answer—Not prior to the time that another was shown to have had the opportunity to commit the crime.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, March 9th 1914, “Leo Frank Answers List of Questions Bearing On Points Made Against Him,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)