1516 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [487 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

of Solicitor Dorsey, he obtained some of the girl's hair when the body was examined, to compare with the hair said to have been found on the lathe handle and which was given affiant by one of Mr.Dorsey's assistants. Affiant states that the conclusions of hair taken from the head of Mary Phagan when compared with the specimens given him appeared somewhat different as to color, but on microsoope examination, and his impression was that the two specimens of hair were not from the same person.

Affiant states that he reported the foregoing views to the Solicitor General and that the latter told him there would be no necessity for going any further with the hair investigation. Affiant further states that he never considered the matter in any way material and dismissed it from his mind. He further states that he does not recall that he was asked about the girl's hair or the hair on the lathe witness stand and states that the comparison was made with the exception of several of the microsoope sections, which were back to the afforesaid assistant of the Solicitor General.

Affiant further states that there was no purpose on his part to conceal the fact that the hair given him appeared different from that of Mary Phagan's head, that he does not think anyone else had such a purpose.

Affiant states that he is quite positive in his assertions that the microsoope test was carefully made. He states that the microsoope will show the size and shape of hair and that he has no doubt but the specimens were similar. Affiant further states that the differences in these particulars that it was impossible for him to form any definite and absolute opinion as to whether they were from the head of the same person or not.

Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this April 2nd,1914.
Notary Public, Fulton County, Ga.

H. A. K. SIEVENS, Sworn for the Movant. He accompanied
J. P. Fyffe to the office of Dr. Harris in the City of
Atlanta, Ga. on April 2nd,1914; that the said Fyffe presented to
the said Harris a typewritten sheet containing certain statements
in connection with the case; that the said Dr.Harris declined to
sign the same but with a lead pencil made certain alterations at
the conclusion of which he stated that if the matter was prepared
in that form, he would sign the same; that he afterwards added
thereto an additional paragraph in lead pencil which he said was a
conclusion which he desired to add to his affidavit.

Witness was present again on April 3rd when the matter
was presented to Dr. Harris, with the paragraph last above referred
to omitted; that the said Dr.Harris stated that the affidavit
prepared and submitted for his signature stated the truth but
that he desired that the additional paragraph referred to above be
added, and refused to sign the same in its then condition. And
when asked why he would not sign the affidavit in its existing