1568 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [436 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

after purchasing said dinner he turned,carrying the dinner in his hand,toward the Pencil Factory and that said Mary Phagan saw no more of Jim Conley during that day.

I did not know C.Darbus Dalton, and had never seen him until he was placed on the stand. I had no idea that said Dalton would or could be a witness against me, I never had seen Dalton and had never had anything directly or indirectly to do with him.- I have not seen said Dalton since he testified,nor have I had any opportunity to see him. I am advised and believe that said Dalton left the State of Georgia after testifying and is now at some place in Florida. I did not know or suspect that said Dalton would testify to the facts and things set out in his affidavit, dated March 5, 1914, until after the date of said affidavit.

I did not know that upon the yellow carbon order blank whereon appeared one of the notes written by Conley, the name of H.F.Becker could be seen by a microscope. I could not see the name by the use of my eyes and I had no microscope, nor did I know that the date of "Sept. 9,1909" was discernible under a microscope; nor did I know that said yellow copy order blank was the duplicate carbon order blank of a requisition on the Cotton States Belting & Supply Co. of September, 9,1909 made by said H.F.Becker. I did know that this yellow carbon order blank was not one used by me, but that it was an old blank used by Becker during his time, and made such statement to the jury, but I did not know I could confirm these statement to the jury by the facts above outlined. The existence of said facts did not come to my knowledge, I not having the use of a microscope as aforesaid and not knowing that a microscope was necessary until after my motion for new trial had been overruled and my case carried to the Supreme Court.

I did not know the negro Ivy Jones, and did not know what he would testify to when he was introduced by the State. I had no reason to suppose that Ivy Jones would change his statement and did not know that he had changed his statement, and that he would testify as is set out in his affidavit, dated February 6, 1914, to the court shown at the hearing, until after the date of said affidavit.

I knew Helen Ferguson and knew what she testified for the