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

Atlanta Constitution
August 7^th, 1913

W. H. Mincey, witness for the defense in the Leo M. Frank trial whose substantial affidavit that Jim Conley had told him of killing a white girl on the day Mary Phagan was murdered was published some weeks ago was a conspicuous figure in front of the courthouse Wednesday.

Mincey is a country school teacher and has been for twenty years. He is not used to city ways, he says, and the excitement of the crowd around the courthouse seemed to worry him.

“I have great patriotism,” said Mr. Mincey, “and that is the sole reason I am here. I felt it was my duty to throw any light I could on the case. No, I will not talk at the present time. I’ll do my talking when I get on the stand.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 7th 1913, “Because He is Patriotic Mincey is Here for Trial,” 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 6^th, 1913

SMITH ALLOWED ACCESS TO CLIENT

After Judge Roan had ruled out the Conley testimony relating to alleged previous actions of Frank, the jury was returned to the courtroom, and Attorney Rosser resumed his cross-examination of Conley.

“Jim, you took the body of that girl, you say, and wrapped her in a cloth, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Was the cloth all around her?”
“No, sir, it didn’t go over her whole body.”

“Did it cover her head?”
“No, sir.”

“Her feet?”
“No, sir.”

“How much of her body was projecting out of the cloth?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“You tied the cloth in a bundle around the body and put her on your shoulder, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t her head stick out and lean back?”
“Yes, sir.”

Negro Answers Yes.

The attorney arose and stood before the negro, illustrating the manner in which the negro carried the body, asking if he were not correct. The witnessed answered yes.

“You walked out with her that way, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t she get so heavy you couldn’t carry her?”
“Yes, sir, she fell.”

“Didn’t you say that it was because she was so heavy that she fell?”
“I said that was what I told Mr. Frank.”

“Was she so heavy, or what was the matter?”
“She was kinder both ways.”

A laugh spread over the courtroom at this unique expression. Conley laughed, and so did the accused man and his wife. His mother sat with mobile features.

“Now, tell us again why you let her drop.”

“Because she was heavy and I was scared.”

“Where was her head?”
“Toward the elevator.”

“Her feet?”
“I don’t remember at that time.”

“Then it was, you say, that you called Mr. Frank?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where was he?”
“At the head of the stairs.”

“Outside of this story, is there anything else you can answer without saying: ‘I don’t know?’”

Objection Is Sustained.

An objection by the solicitor to this question was sustained.

“You said, didn’t you, that you called to Mr. Frank that the girl was dead?”
“I hollered to him.”

“I thought you said you went up to him?”

“No, sir, I yelled.”

“What did Frank do when you yelled?”
“He waved his hand and said ‘Ssh.’”

“Then, when you heard him say ‘Ssh,’ you walked up to him, did you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What did you tell him?”
“I told him she was too heavy for me to take.”

“What did he say?”
“He said, ‘Well, bring her on up here,’ and I said, ‘How’m I goin’ to bring her when she’s so heavy,’ and he said ‘Go back in the metal room and get some cotton bagging.’”

“How close were you to him?”
“I was walking toward him.”

“Then you went to the metal room and got some black and white striped bagging?”
“I didn’t say anything about white striped bagging—it didn’t have any white stripes.”

“What color was it?”
“I can’t exactly ’scribe the color.”

“Was it the color of your shirt?”

His Shirt Was Blue.

“No, sir; my shirt’s blue.”

“Who gave you that shirt?”
“My old lady brought it to me.”

“What did you do with the cloth when you got through with it?”
“Put it on the trash pile in the basement where I put the hat and slipper and ribbon.”

“How much did the girl weigh?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“You can carry 110 pounds, and, surely she didn’t weigh more than that—can’t you, without any trouble?”

“I can carry it, maybe, but I don’t know about the trouble.”

“You say Mr. Frank packed her up on you; what do you mean by that?”
“Mr. Frank caught her by the head and shoved her up on my back. We was both nervous.”

“How were you nervous and excited?”
“I didn’t say I was excited—I said I was nervous.”

“When you got down into the basement, you took the body out by the cloth, didn’t you?”
“No, sir.”

“How did you say you left her on the second floor; repeat that, will you?”
“Her head was toward Alabama street, her face towards Forsyth, and her feet towards Hunter street.”

Front Door Was Locked.

“While you were going down in the elevator, the doors were open, weren’t they?”
“I think the front door was locked.”

“Did the girl have any scratches on her face?”
“Yes, sir, a few. It was dirty, too.”

“What did you have in your hand when Frank told you to throw the things on the trash pile in the basement?”
“The cloth and the hat and the ribbon.”

“Who ran the elevator as you went up?”
“I did, because Mr. Frank said he would meet me on the first floor when he went up the scuttle hole.”

“When you got to the first floor, what did he say?”
“He said: “Gee, but that was a hard job!’ And I said that his job wasn’t half as hard as mine.”

“Is the elevator noiseless?”
“No, sir, it makes some noise.”

“Now, Jim, how long did it take for you and Mr. Frank to do the entire job?”
“I don’t know, exactly, about four or five minutes.”

“Didn’t you say yesterday that you never left the factory until 1:30 o’clock?”

“Yes, sir, I said I went to a beer saloon at Hunter and Forsyth streets, and looked at the clock and it was 2:20. I wasn’t so sure of the time, yesterday.”

“While you were in the office, you heard somebody coming, didn’t you?”

Gave Him $200.

“Mr. Frank said he heard somebody coming.”

“Mr. Frank gave you some greenbacks, didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir, $200, but he took ‘em back.”

“Now, Jim, talking about this plan to burn the body, did you tell Black and Scott anything about it?”
“No, sir, they had been taken off the case when I told about it first.”

“Then who was the first man you told about it?”
“Mr. Starnes and Mr. Campbell, I think.”

“You say, that Mr. Frank told you that if you’d come back that night and burn the body he wouldn’t put the notes down in the basement?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When did you get your hair cut, Jim?”
“Last Saturday.”

“Where?”
“Police station.”

“Who cut it?”
“A barber.”

“Who was with him?”
“My lawyer and a policeman.”

“Jim, didn’t you say one day that you didn’t want a lawyer, and the next day you had one?”

“Yes, sir, Rena, my woman, brought me one.”

“You’ve been locked up ever since you had a lawyer, haven’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You say, too, that you found out Frank wasn’t going to do anything for you and then you begun to talk?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you know he was in jail?”
“I didn’t know whether he had got out or not.”

Didn’t Read the Papers.

“On Monday after the murder, did you read any of the papers?”
“No, it wouldn’t have done me any good—I can’t read.”

“Didn’t you go to Miss Julia Fuss and ask her for a paper and say Frank was as innocent as the angels in heaven?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you read a paper in the presence of Wade Campbell?”
“No, sir.”

“Do you know Miss Georgia Denham?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t she accuse you of the killing, and didn’t you drop your head and deny all about it?”
“No, sir.”

There were numerous lulls in the examination as Attorneys Rosser and Arnold would investigate the records of Conley’s previous statements, apparently seeking material for new questions.

“While you were watching for Frank that Saturday did you see two elderly men go up on the second floor?”
“No, sir.”
“Did you meet a man named Mincey and he said you had promised to take some insurance with him?”

“No, sir; because I never saw any such man.”

In rapid succession Mr. Rosser fired many questions pertaining to the alleged meeting of Mincey, to all of which he received the reply that Conley had never seen the insurance agent.

Denies Mincey Affidavit.

“Didn’t you tell him that you could not take any insurance—that you were in trouble?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you say that you had killed a girl and that you didn’t want to kill any more people?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he say that one-a-day would be 365 a year?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you, on May 31, make a statement to a Constitution reporter that Dorsey had come to you and said it was all right for you to come through—that everything was all right?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected to this unless the name of the reporter was given.

Rosser asked again:

“On May 31, didn’t you talk with Harllee Branch, of The Journal, and H. W. Ross, of the same paper, and tell them that in your opinion that Mary Phagan was murdered in the toilet on the second floor and was later carried to the metal room and that the body was stiff when you reached her?”
“No, sir; I don’t remember telling it.”

“Didn’t you tell them that it took thirty minutes to get the body downstairs and for you to get back to the second floor?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you tell them that you remembered Lemmie Quinn’s visit?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you talk with them at all?”

“Yes, sir, a little bit.

Rosser Reads Affidavit.

Mr. Rosser handed Attorney Arnold an affidavit of Conley’s, which the latter started to read. The solicitor interposed an objection to change of counsel.

“Sit down, Hugh, sit down; I’ll read it if I can. Don’t know, though, whether or not I can. It’s in a detective’s handwriting.”

The affidavit was read. It was one of those made by Conley at police headquarters, detailing parts of his history and actions on the day which preceded the murder. While reading the affidavit Roser spoke sarcastically of some of the high-flown grammar interjected by detectives into the statement. Each remark caused a ripple of laughter throughout the audience.

As the jury left the room prior to adjournment, Attorney William M. Smith, counsel for Conley, arose, saying:

“I do not know by what legal procedure my client is held in the jail, as he is not held as a witness. I should have the right of counsel to talk and consult with him. I met with a good deal of trouble and unpleasantness last night in doing for him what I thought best.

Smith Wins Point.

“It is a reflection on the solicitor that he should be prevent from talking with a leading witness for the state. It is unheard of for a man to put in solitary confinement without privilege of his attorney’s audience.”

The solicitor said:

“I think that it is just and right that Conley should have the rights of attorney.”

Reuben Arnold said:

“Since the solicitor and Lawyer Smith are in such harmonious accord over this witness, I do not think that Smith should be allowed to talk with the witness.”

Judge Roan ruled that the attorney should not be deprived of his client, and could talk with him whenever he saw fit. Conley will resume the stand when court meets today.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 6th 1913, “Mincey Affidavit is Denied by Conley During Afternoon,” 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 6^th, 1913

Declares Negro Told Him He Had Killed a Girl—Waiting as Witness

W. H. Mincey, the man who has made an affidavit in which he swears that Jim Conley told him on April 26, the day Mary Phagan was murdered, that he had killed a girl that day, appeared at the court house Wednesday morning but did not go into the court room.

Mincey was seen by a Journal reporter as he stood across the street from the court house and watched the crowd seeking entrance. He declared that he was ready to take the witness stand and to back up his statement. When asked whether he had seen Conley since the day that he claimed the negro confessed to him, he declined to answer.

Mincey says that he has been teaching school at New Salem, near Rising Fawn, in Dade county, Ga., and that school adjourned in order to permit him to come to Atlanta to testify in the Frank case.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 6th 1913, “Mincey Ready to Swear to Conley Affidavit,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Atlanta Georgian
August 6^th, 1913

Deplores Newspaper Publicity, but Poses Merrily for the Camera Brigade.

W. H. Mincey, the school teacher and insurance solicitor who made an affidavit that Jim Conley confessed to him that he had already killed a girl that day and didn’t want to kill anyone else, was the center of attention for the crowd on the outside of the courthouse Wednesday mornin[g].

While deploring newspaper publicity, he readily agreed to pose for a group of newspaper photographers, assuming many poses, some of which were rather grotesque. He followed this with implicit instructions to the photographer that his picture was not to be printed in the papers.

Efforts to get him to state whether he had seen Jim Conley since his arrest proved futile. Mincey declared he would make this statement or answer until he had taken the stand.

Mincey was located at New Salem, Ga., near Rising Fawn, in Dade County. He is teaching school there, his work being the preparation of students to enter the Martha Berry School at Rome.

“I will not talk of the case and will not tell my story until I take the stand,” said Mincey. “If Jim Conley killed little Mary Phagan, I feel that it is my duty to tell of the experience I had with him that Saturday afternoon. I don’t think this thing should be discussed in the newspapers, though. I regard newspapers as a necissity. These matters should be left to the court hearings. It is a loss to me to be here and I trust the case will soon be over. I think, though, that it is my duty to tell what I know.”

Mincey is a man of small stature with piercing eyes and a gray mustache. He wears a black felt slouch hat and a dark suit.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, August 6th 1913, “Accuser of Conley is Ready to Testify,” 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
July 30^th, 1913

During the two days’ progress of the Frank trial public interest has centered around the case and all eyes seemed turned to it. To date, the interest has really been in watching the struggle between the skilled attorneys who are fighting for position and whose clashes over the preliminary witnesses are merely the skirmishes of the pickets before two mighty armies come together.

Thus far the interest, while to a certain extent centered on the maneuvering, has been mostly of the future tense. Every one is looking forward to what is to come. A fierce skirmish that almost engaged the two sides in real and earnest conflict came over the cross-examination of Newt Lee, and in it the state won. It was rather through the rare character of the negro testifying and his unbreakable spirit that the state won its first skirmish than through the efforts of its lawyers.

Much Depends Upon Conley.

It is the amount of weight to be placed upon James Conley’s affidavit, that if believed would convict Frank and if held false would turn the charge upon the maker, that the public waits.

What will Dr. J. M. Hurt, the coroner’s physician, testify? This is a question that has been frequently asked. Dr. Hurt delivered his testimony only before the executive session of the grand jury, and not a word of his evidence has been made public.

What will become of the Mincey affidavit is something that is puzzling spectators who are closely following the developments from day to day. Mincey’s affidavit, if believed, would hang Conley, as sure as Conley’s would hang Frank, should it be believed.

There are other witnesses who will be produced, it is said, whose names have never been called, and one of these is said to be a physician who will be put upon the stand by the state in an attack upon Frank. While the evidence he will give is not known, it is asserted that his testimony is intended to establish a link in the state’s chain of evidence.

What Defense May Do.

The probability that the defense will introduce no witnesses at all is something that has caused much speculation and many attorneys believe that they will not.

Then there is a strong chance that the defense has a witness whom they are saving and whose testimony will come like a sudden discharge of Maxims upon an advancing army and wither up the state’s attacking forces as they seek to establish their position.

Certain it is that a terrific fight will be made by the defense to batter down the negro Conley’s testimony and that the gruelling under which Newt Lee stood up Tuesday will be nothing to the assaults upon Conley.

Mincey may expect the same treatment from the state and it is known that every effort will be made to attack his testimony and to show him unworthy of belief.

Dr. Hurt’s Testimony.

That one of the great fights to be made by the defense will be upon Dr. Hurt’s testimony is one of the later developments in the case. The public generally does not know what the physician will testify about the condition of the Phagan child’s body and about a score of other details, but it is known that the defense has obtained at least an inkling of its import and is making every preparation to batter it down and to discredit it.

That the big fights will be made upon the statements of Dr. Hurt, W. H. Mincey, the negro Conley, the unknown physician and possible unknown witnesses, does not indicate that each point will not be contested to the very last and that each witness will be strained to the final ounce of his strength before he is ready to leave the stand.

From the fight made on the first two days and the frequent references to the minutes of the coroner’s hearing it appears that the case will last through another week and will be marked by the wonderful amount of detail in it.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 30^th, 1913

Attorney for Defense Says the State Won’t Hurt His Character

“Mincey will be Johnny-on-the-spot when the defense needs him to testify.”

Those were the words of Joseph Leavitt, one of the lawyers for the defense in speaking Tuesday afternoon on the affidavit sworn to some time ago by W. H. Mincey, by which the defense hopes to prove that Jim Conley confessed to Mincey that he killed a girl on the day Mary Phagan was murdered.

Attorney Leavitt would not say where Mincey was staying, but declared that he was in town; that he had been with him Tuesday afternoon, and that he would stick to his affidavit when called upon to testify.

It is known that Mincey stayed Monday night at the Williams house No. 3, where he registered as coming from Rising Fawn, Ga. Attorney Leavitt says that Mincey has been teaching school there since he left Atlanta.

“It is rumored,” said Attorney Leavitt, “That the state will try to break down Mincey’s character. I don’t care how many affidavits they get against him. I can bring forward hundreds of prominent Atlanta people, teachers, preachers, and merchants, who will swear that Mincey is an honest man. And I’ll subpoena ’em, too.”

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 29^th, 1913

W. H. Mincey, who made the famous affidavit in which he declared that Jim Conley had told him on April 26 that he had killed a girl, arrived late last night for the Frank trial.

In a statement made to The Constitution, Mr. Mincey reaffirmed his affidavit in its entirety and declared that he would tell this story on the witness stand. He was accompanied by Colonel Ben E. Neal, of Ringgold, Ga., a lawyer who has known him for years and who states that he will testify as to Mincey’s [rest of article cut off].

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

Atlanta Journal
July 29^th, 1913

Agent Who Said That Conley Told Him of Killing “a Girl” May Testify

W. H. Mincey, who has made affidavit that James Conley, the negro sweeper, practically confessed to him as being the murderer of Mary Phagan, is in Atlanta but has not yet gone to the courthouse where Frank is being tried.

At the time of the murder, Mincey was employed here as an insurance solicitor. On the day of the murder, he says that he met Conley at the corner of Carter and Electric streets.

The negro, according to the affidavit, was drinking, and when the solicitor mentioned insurance the negro flared into anger.

“I’ve killed a girl today,” the affidavit charges Conley, the negro sweeper, with having said, “I don’t want to hurt anybody else.”

Several weeks ago Mincey left Atlanta to take a position as school teacher. But attorneys for the defense say that he has returned, and is now here.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 28^th, 1913

Judge L. S. Roan Announces That He Will Call Case at Nine O’Clock This Morning.

LAWYERS BELIEVE JURY WILL BE NAMED IN DAY

Legal Representatives Take Good Rest on Sunday in Preparation for Struggle That Begins Today.

After weeks of preparation by some of the most skilled legal minds in the state and after every point in the affair that has been made public has been discussed and threshed out by thousands of citizens, the case of the state v. Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of little Mary Phagan, will be called at 9 o’clock today.

Event after event has followed in rapid succession since the morning of April 27, when Atlanta arose to wend its way to church and read of the finding by police of the little girl’s dead body in the basement of the National Pencil company, on South Forsyth street. Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, who called the police, was arrested, and is still held. J. M. Gantt and Arthur Mullinax, two white employees, were then arrested, and afterwards freed. Then the young factory superintendent was taken into custody.

Then Conley’s Affidavit.

Then came the arrest of James Conley, negro sweeper, who stayed in jail apparently unheeded until he burst forth with his sensational affidavits against the superintendent.

Frank was bound over by the coroner’s jury on May 8, and Lee was bound over with him. On May 24 the grand jury indicted the white man, but took no steps in regard to the negro, against whom the solicitor later declared he had no case.

Although the case is to be called today upon the time agreed upon early in June by attorneys for both sides, when it was postponed in open court from June 30, the attorneys for the defense will make no statement to set at rest the persistent rumor that they will ask for a continuance. The state, however, which has announced ready all along, is still ready and anxious to go to trial, according to the solicitor.

Judge L. S. Roan, who is to try the case, announced Sunday in response to a query that he felt very well, and believed that he had recovered from his slight illness of the past week. He stated that he expected to call the case Monday morning.

Should Frank leave the tower for the first time since May 8 and appear ready for trial in court today when his case is called, it is expected that the task that will take up the greater part of the day will be the selection of a jury.

Concentrate on Jury.

To a proper selection of the jury lawyers on both sides have strained every effort since Thursday, when the panels containing 144 names were drawn. Every bit of history and every point that could be gathered about the men on the venire list has been learned.

The state has called in assistants for this and has been assisted by several experts. The defense has been at the same thing.

Among Atlanta attorneys who have discussed the matter it has been suggested that it might be impossible to secure a jury in this county, as so many men either oppose capital punishment, or have formed a conclusion already in regard to the crime. It is known that both the lawyers for the defense and for the state believe that they will have little trouble in this regard, and that the jury will be picked in about a day.

Either side might, upon sufficient showing, secure a change of venue, which would allow the case to be tried in another county, where it would be easier to get jurors who have not formed an opinion previously.

Atlantans who have been kept guessing since the investigation started will see unfolded in the next week or so, if the case is tried, the importance of the various affidavits and of the testimony of the witnesses, many of whom are said to conflict.

What importance will be given to the Mincey affidavit which, if believed, would totally destroy the case against Frank and would name Conley as the murderer, is a matter that will soon be known. At present, while it is known that the defense has this affidavit, it is not known how strongly they depend upon it.

Investigating Mincey.

That the state will make a Herculean effort to break it down and to prove that Mincey is not to be believed, should the affidavit be brought up, is already known, and it is said that Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey has spent much time in investigating W. H. Mincey’s life and history with this end in view.

The question of Conley’s affidavit and the weight and importance to be attached to will also be taken up. Should that be believed the state would have as complete a case against Frank as it would have none should the Mincey affidavit be accepted by the jurors.

A thousand other points are expected to come up, and it is freely predicted that both sides will introduce witnesses and evidence which has hitherto remained a complete secret and of which the public and the other side will have no inkling until its actual introduction.

“Nothing new,” was the comment of both sides Sunday afternoon. Attorneys for both Frank and the state were apparently taking life easy and resting for the beginning of the struggle today.

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Protest of Solicitor Will Be Heeded

Foreman Declares Inquisitorial Body Will Not Ride “Roughshod” Over Dorsey.

With Solicitor Dorsey reaffirming his certainty that Jim Conley will not be indicted before the tral [sic] of Leo M. Frank and declaring that he will fight with all his vigor any movement in that direction, the Grand Jury members gathered in the Thrower Building Monday morning in response to the call of Foreman Beatie to decide whether they will reopen their investigation of the Phagan murder mystery.

A strong probability that no action would be taken during the day arose when it became known that there were only eighteen of the grand jurors in the city, a bare quorum. In the event that all of the eighteen did not appear, there still was the opportunity to go out and summon talesmen at random to serve on the Grand Jury, but no statement was made as to whether this legal privilege would be exercised.

No Witnesses Called.

Foreman Beatie announced that no witnesses had been summoned as yet, giving confirmation to the report that the meeting was called only for the purpose of passing on the petitions requesting the Grand Jury to reopen the murder investigation, and not for the purpose of proceeding at once to the definite consideration of Jim Conley’s indictment.

Solicitor Dorsey was the only person asked to appear before the jurors. Before they assembled he asserted that he was entirely confident that no indictment would be returned against the negro.

“I can not conceive that these men, when they are in possession of the facts of the case, seriously will consider bringing an indictment for murder against Conley,” said the Solicitor.

Foreman Beattie indicated that if a quorum were present and a decision were reached to go into the connection of Conley with the crime a number of witnesses would be served at once with subpenas and that an opportunity would be given for the presentation of all the important evidence against the negro.

He said, however, that the report that the meeting Monday was called for the definite and prearranged purpose of indicting Conley was utterly false.

Not to Ignore Dorsey.

“We have no intention of riding roughshod over the Solicitor,” he said. “The purpose of our meeting to-day merely is to become informed on the question and to determine if we are warranted in reopening the investigation with a view of bringing an indistment [sic] against Conley in case the evidence is sufficient.

“We propose only to discuss the matter informally and to have the Solicitor lay before us his reasons for desiring no action at this time. We have no desire to block the Solicitor in his prosecution of the case or to defeat the ends of justice in any manner. If we come to the conclusion that the investigation should be made, we have a list of witnesses we will ask to have called.”

William H. Mincey, author of the sensational affidavit which accused Conley of confessing to the killing of a girl on the afternoon that Mary Phagan was murdered, has returned to Atlanta, it was reported Monday, and is prepared to go before the Grand Jury to repeat his story, Min[…]

GRAND JPRY [sic] NOT TO HASTEN TO INDICT NEGRO

Foreman Declares Wishes of Solicitor Will Not Be Overridden Without Consideration.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]cey has been in Rising Fawn, Ga., where he was located by The Georgian after the publication of his remarkable story. He maintains that every word of his accusation is true and that he is eager to take the stand and assist in the vindication of Frank.

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, said Monday that no move would be made by the defense for a continuance of the case, which is set for trial a week from to-day. He asserted that the lawyers for Frank were prepared to go ahead with the trial at once.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Grand Jury Meets to Consider Conley Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)