Sunday, 15th March 1914: A. S. Colyar Offered Her $1,000 Bribe To Slander Leo Frank, She Swears, The Atlanta Georgian

Search for:

Reading Time: 19 minutes [3278 words]

Woman Makes Affidavit She Was Urged to Testify Falsely in Attack on Character of Accused; Asked to Keep Plot Secret. Girl Who Testified at Trial That She Knew Nothing Wrong of Prisoner Declares Detectives Tried to Get Her to Falsify.

NEW YORK, March 14. Public sentiment in Atlanta, which was so strongly against Leo M. Frank during his trial on the charge of slaying Mary Phagan, is gradually changing in his favor as the result of recent revelations, according to John W. Grant, prominent capitalist of Atlanta, who is staying at the Hotel Vanderbilt. Mr. Grant, however, refused to discuss the case in detail.

Charges of an attempted $1,000 bribery by A. S. Colyar in an effort to "frame" perversion testimony against Leo M. Frank are contained in the most sensational of four affidavits made public Saturday by Frank's counsel. Mrs. Mattie Miller, No. 535 Marietta street, is the accuser of Colyar, whose exact status and connections in the Phagan case have remained as much of a mystery as many other of its baffling features. The other affiants were Miss Nellie Wood, Miss Nellie Pettis and Mrs. Lillie Mae Pettis, all State's witnesses at the trial.

Detective W. J. Burns is expected in Atlanta Sunday to begin personal work on the case. He has made quiet investigations of several angles of the mystery in the North, and a number of operatives of his agency are said to have been in Birmingham in the last week. Solicitor Dorsey is in Valdosta, where he went last fall to marshal his objections against the granting of a new trial to the defendant. He is supposed to be working this time on his argument against the extraordinary motion which will be filed shortly.

Aimed to Show Falsehoods. All of the affidavits are intended to confirm Frank's counsel in their contention that the rumors of perversion and immoral conduct on the part of the defendant were started maliciously and without foundation, and that even the witnesses who went on the stand to testify against his character either were unduly influenced or swore to lies of their own accord.

Miss Wood declared that she had worked at the National Pencil Factory only two days, but that Detectives Chewning and Norris and, later, Bass Rosser had approached her and sought to get her to say that Frank had attempted acts of familiarity with her. Miss Wood said that in spite of her denials the detectives evidently carried the report to Solicitor Dorsey that she had admitted such occurrences. They had planned to have her talk with the Solicitor before she went on the stand, but for some reason the plan miscarried and she was called as a witness without any interview with Dorsey. She was able to tell of nothing derogatory to Frank, and was excused by the Solicitor, who, she said, later remarked that she was "a very disappointing witness." She explained to him, according to her story, that it was impossible for her to swear to anything against Frank as he had not acted other than a gentleman in the brief time she had known him.

Mrs. Miller's Story. Mrs. Miller, author of the charges of attempted bribery against Colyar, was interviewed at her home Saturday night by a Sunday American reporter. She repeated all that she had sworn to in the affidavit and added details on the conversation. She said that the suave dictator of Colonel Felder and Mayor Woodward came to her in the guise of a lawyer working up evidence against Frank in the Phagan murder case.

"He asked me if I ever had worked at the Pencil Factory," she said. "I don't know how he found out that I worked there, for it was along back in 1910. I worked there about six months as a forelady." "He told me that he wanted me to make an affidavit that Frank had conducted himself improperly toward me while I was working at the factory. I told him that it wasn't true and that I wouldn't swear to an untruth." "Then he told me that he would write me out a check for $1,000 if I would go on the witness stand at the trial and tell this sort of a story. I kept telling him it wasn't true, but he said that it was just a business proposition and it didn't matter whether it was true and that I couldn't make $1,000 in any easier way than this." "I understood that he was trying to make Mr. Frank out a pervert. I not only was angry, but very much surprised by his insinuations, for Mr. Frank always had behaved properly toward me. I was a forelady and had occasion to go into his office frequently. He was pleasant but businesslike and I never saw him attempt any familiarities with any of the girls." "Finally, Colyar, when he saw that I wouldn't swear to this, tried to get me to testify, at least, that Mr. Frank had made an attempt to become familiar with me or had made improper proposals. I told him then and there that he was wasting his time, even if he had a fortune to give me, for I wasn't going up there and swear to an untruth." "He told me not to get mad about it, and asked me not to say anything about the proposition he had made me, but I didn't promise him I wouldn't."

Certain It Was Colyar. Mrs. Miller was asked how she knew it was Colyar that she was talking to. She said that he gave that name and she then gave a description of the man which would serve to identify him almost unmistakably to anyone who is acquainted with his physical characteristics and appearance. She said that he displayed no checkbook, but that he was positive in his assurance that he would have the $1,000 check for her as soon as she had given her testimony on the stand.

The affidavits of Miss Nellie Pettis and Mrs. Lillie Mae Pettis, sisters-in-law, present an interesting contradiction. Miss Nellie testified at the trial against Frank's character and in her affidavit declares that if she had been cross-examined by Frank's attorneys she would have said that Frank attempted to flirt with her when she went after her sister-in-law's money and that he one time made a suggestive remark. The affidavit of Mrs. Lillie Mae Pettis is to the effect that it was most improbable that these things could have occurred. Miss Nellie, the affidavit says, did not work at the factory, but only went after the affiant's money. She went there only four times and on returning invariably said that she had obtained the envelope from Miss Eula May Flowers, never mentioning Frank's name, even to remark that she had seen him.

Didn't Say Anything of Frank. Mrs. Pettis said in effect: "The first two times I sent Nellie after my pay I asked her what Miss Flowers had had to say about my not being at the factory. She replied both times that Miss Flowers didn't have anything to say about me, but had just handed her the money without any comment." "The third time she went after my money I went with her as far as Hunter and Forsyth streets and waited for her. She was not gone more than five minutes. I asked her again what Miss Flowers had said about me, and she replied again that Miss Flowers hadn't said anything, but had just gone and procured my envelope and handed it to her." "So far as I know Nellie never told anyone that she had been insulted by Mr. Frank or anyone else at the factory."

Frank's Version of Vital Points Against Him; Prisoner Answers All Questions in Detail. Leo Frank Saturday night gave his version of some of the vital links in the web of evidence the State presented at his trial. He answered in detail eight of the most important questions raised. Here are the queries put to him and his own answers in full:

Q. Why did you not recognize the notes to be in Conley's handwriting when you and others were examining them at police headquarters the Sunday after Memorial Day?A. I simply did not know Conley's handwriting. There were seven other negroes employed at the factory, in one capacity or another. I had also received notes from some of them. I had no more reason to remember Conley's scrawl than that of the others. A superintendent of a factory cannot be expected to recognize the handwriting of every one of his negro employees.

Theory of the "Bloodstain."

Q. The State has convicted you of the murder of Mary Phagan. The theory the State gives is that you committed the murder in the metal room on the second floor of the pencil factory. What answer have you to this?

A. The State's theory as to the murder being committed on the second floor of the pencil factory rests upon three contentions, viz.: (1) The hair found on the lathe; (2) the spot by the dressing room alleged to be blood; (3) Conley's testimony.

The contention as to the hair has been disproved to every fair-minded man and exploded by Dr. Harris' recent revelation.

The supposed "blood spot" was nothing but paint. There are many such spots all about the factory, on account of the paint used in the painting of pencils. The factory used three or four shades of red paint, which, when on the floor, might look like blood. On the second floor was one of the factory's paint storage rooms, from which paint was distributed for all the factory. On April 26 there must have been about 60 gallons of red and brown paint in the second floor storage room, not to speak of 150 gallons of other colors.

Couldn't Say It Was Blood.

At the trial Dr. Claude Smith, the prosecution's chemical expert, declared that he examined four chips taken from this spot. He found paint or stain on three of the chips. On the fourth chip he found paint and four blood corpuscles. He could not say positively that this was human blood.

I am told that a single drop of blood contains several million corpuscles. These are so very small that if one-thousandth part of one drop of blood, which is about as large as the point of a needle, were placed under the lens or magnifying glass of a microscope such as Dr. Smith used, there would easily be visible about 10,000 corpuscles. The part of the spot that LOOKED LIKE blood was shown by Dr. Smith's analysis to be paint. If the spot had really been caused by blood from Mary Phagan's head, the number of corpuscles would have been countless, and would have been found on all four chips.

As to Conley's testimony, I am obliged to leave it to the intelligence and fair-mindedness of the community whether his successive perjuries, his motive to lie, the most powerful that could actuate a human being, and the utter improbability of his story, does not render it unworthy of belief.

Q. Why did you not state that Conley could write as soon as you learned that Conley had been arrested on May 1?

A. On May 1 I was taken to the Tower. I understand that the negro Conley was arrested on the same day, though at that time I did not know it.

No suspicions were directed toward Conley at that time, and no one dreamed of what was to follow later. His name was not in the Atlanta newspapers, as far as I remember, from May 1 until May 18, when his first confession appeared. I had no inkling that he was denying he could write, and had supposed that he had been put through the same handwriting test by the police as were all the other suspects in the case, including Lee, Mullinax, Gantt, as well as myself.

Just as soon as I learned that Conley denied being able to write, I immediately gave the information in regard to Conley's having signed an installment contract for a watch. The detectives took up this clew, located the contract, and thus forced Conley to admit that he could write. His confession thereupon followed.

It will thus be seen that I am the very man who enabled the detectives to unearth and prove the most powerful and significant fact in this entire case.

Didn't Know Girl Was to Call.

Q. Conley testified that on Friday, April 26, you asked him to come to the factory Saturday morning to watch. Did you know at that time, or any other time prior to her coming to the factory on Saturday morning, that Mary Phagan was coming to the factory Saturday morning, April 26, or at what hour she was coming, and if you would be alone when she did come?

A. There was no possible way for me to know or imagine that Mary Phagan would come to the factory on April 26. It is a proven fact that on that day at least thirty people called at the factory, and saw me at my work in my office. I had no idea of how many people were coming to the factory that day, or when they were coming. I certainly could have had no knowledge in advance as to when I would be left alone, or that I would be left alone at all.

The Perversion Charge.

Q. The record of the case discloses that Conley is the only witness who testified you had been guilty of perversion. What is your theory as to why this was brought into the case?

A. This was brought into the case to poison the minds of the public and the jury, so that any charge thereafter brought against me, no matter how absurd, would be believed and swallowed whole. In my opinion, this nasty lie is chiefly responsible for my conviction, and its dirty work overshadowed every real issue in the case.

Wife Wanted to See Him.

Q. What of the contention of the State that your wife refused to visit you for ten days after your arrest?

A. This is a dastardly insinuation and absolutely false. My wife was at the station house to see me on April 29, when first detained. She was on the first floor in company with some of her relatives. I was on the top floor with Rabbi Marx. Word was sent to me that my wife wanted to come up to see me. I consulted with Dr. Marx, and decided that as I expected to be liberated in a few hours, or a day or so, at the longest, I would save my wife the sight of myself under arrest. I was surrounded by detectives and officers.

My wife hysterically pleaded to see me, but I thought I would soon be out of custody, and requested her to return home without seeing me. As long as I was detained at police headquarters I was in a private room where I had the use of a Bell telephone. I had hourly and constant telephone communication with my wife. She still insisted upon coming down to see me, but I refused.

On May 1, I was carried to the Tower. There I could use no telephone to communicate with my wife, but for the next ten days every friend who came down to the Tower, who had previously seen her, brought a message from her, entreating me to allow her to come to see me. I still declined because I could not bring myself to allow her to see me behind the bars of a jail. When my hopes of immediate release were disappointed, I finally consented that she might come. I simply wanted to spare her the pain and distress of seeing me under such conditions. Since then my wife has been to see me every day, and spends most of her time with me.

Discusses Time Testimony.

Q. Conley testified that you and he were in the factory on Saturday, April 26, from four minutes to 1 to 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. What answer do you make to this?A. On Saturday, April 26, I left the factory at 1 p.m. or a minute or two thereafter, locking the factory doors when I left. Miss Kern testified at the trial that she saw me on the corner of Whitehall and Alabama streets between 1:05 and 1:10. I caught the car for my home at this corner. Mrs. Miller now says she saw me at the same place and time. Mrs. A. P. Levy, who lives opposite my home, testified she saw me get off the Georgia avenue car near my home on Georgia avenue at about 1:20 p.m. My parents-in-law and Minola Mc Knight testified that I arrived at my home for lunch at about 1:20 p.m., and that I sat down and ate my lunch. Albert Mc Knight, a prosecution witness, says he was at my home and saw me there before 1:30 p.m. I certainly could not have been in two places at the same time. The wealth of testimony and the truth refutes Conley's unsupported assertion. His statement in regard to what he and I did from 12:56 to 1:30 p.m. on April 26 is a lie out of the whole cloth, is absurd on its face, and has been thoroughly disproved!

As to Conley "Watching for Him."

Q. Conley says that prior to April 26, and during the year 1912, he watched for you on various Saturday afternoons. What is your answer to this?

A. This is but another of Conley's infamous lies. His story about watching is preposterous on its face. Aside from this, at the trial, it was proved that not alone was Conley's story about watching for me untrue, but was impossible. Among those who so testified were Messrs. Darley, Schiff, Bauer, Weinkauf, Montag, Gottheimer, Mann, Chambers, Payne, Nix, Campbell, Stelker and Holloway. Some of these men were at the factory with me, not alone on the Saturday afternoons in question, but on all other Saturday afternoons.

Up to and previous to January 15, 1913, the first or street floor of the factory building was occupied by the Clark Woodenware Company. Their employees and the National Pencil Company's used the same street entrance the same entrance that Conley says he watched. The Clark Woodenware Company also worked on Saturday afternoons. It was impossible for me not to speak of Conley to have controlled anyone who wished to enter the building when the entrance was being used by both of the firms.

Attacks Conley's Story.

Conley states that April 26 was the first time he watched since January 1, 1913. Conley could have stopped no one previous to January 15, 1913, and as per his own testimony, he did not watch after that time till April 26. It is a remarkable fact that of all the times he said he watched he never mentioned one person whom he had ever stopped. That is simple to account for. First, he never was watching, and, second, he could not have stopped anyone! What white person desiring to enter the building could he have stopped? Anyone desiring to enter the factory would have brushed by Conley (if he had been watching) and entered in spite of him!

If at times, when the first floor was unoccupied, I should have desired any privacy in the factory, I possessed the keys of the building and could have locked the factory doors. If I had desired to be alone, I certainly needed no one (white or black) to watch for me.