Tuesday, 19th August 1913: Declares Frank Knew Mary Phagan, The Atlanta Georgian

Search for:

Reading Time: 24 minutes, [4188 words]

LEO FRANK SKETCHED AS HE TOLD HIS OWN STORY TO JURY

During the greater part of his story Frank was as calm and statistical as an accountant discussing an audit.

In telling of his dealings with the police and Chief of Detectives Lanford, Frank waxed sarcastic in a quiet yet bitter way. But he never let loose his emotion or lost his poise.

At times Frank would lose his air of complete repression and his face for a moment would take on an aspect of deep feeling. He would, however, quickly resume his normal expression of stoicism.

PAGE 77, COLUMN 6

JUDGE FORBIDS INDIRECT EVIDENCE AGAINST FRANK

Will Turner, formerly employed at the National Pencil Factory, testified Tuesday that he saw Leo Frank talking to Mary Phagan about the middle of March in the rear of the second floor and that the girl apparently tried to evade him.

Rosser objected to the testimony and the jury was sent out while the point was argued.

A crushing blow was dealt the State in the trial of Leo M. Frank Tuesday by the refusal of Judge L. S. Roan to admit, either while the defense was completing its case or after the State had taken up the rebuttal, any evidence not directly and at first hand bearing upon the specific acts charged against the factory superintendent.

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the defense. It gave Frank's case, which had been aided materially the day before by the defendant's own statement, an added strength and heightened the prospects in Frank's favor.

Solicitor Dorsey tried first to cross-question Miss Daisy Hopkins, one of the defense's witnesses, as to conversations she was supposed to have had in regard to incidents at the pencil factory in which she and a man undesignated except as her "foreman" were involved. Frank's name was not mentioned in the indicated charges. The conversation was about a "foreman."

The Hopkins woman denied again that she ever had made visits to the factory for improper purposes or that she had had the conversations referred to by the Solicitor.

Dorsey encountered the same stone wall when he tried to draw testimony against the moral character of Frank from his own witnesses. From W. P. Murk and J. P. Floyd the Solicitor had expected to obtain a recital of the stories of happenings which they said had been related to them Murk, however, had mysteriously disappeared from the courthouse when his name was called, and Floyd was not permitted to go into the details of the testimony the Solicitor had hoped to bring out.

The Solicitor thereafter confined his efforts to bolstering up the character of C. B. Dalton, the State's witness who testified to seeing women in Frank's office, and attacking that of Daisy Hopkins. He called a number of witnesses, one of them a cousin of the Hopkins woman, who swore that her character for truth and veracity was bad and that they wouldn't believe her on oath.

Swear Dalton's Character Is Good.

Other witnesses testified that Dalton's character was good. They were asked by Attorney Rosser if they were acquainted with his court and chain-gang record. They replied, for the most part, that they were not.

The brown suit worn by Frank April 26 was identified by Mrs. Emil Selig, his mother-in-law, at the opening of court in the forenoon and the suit was placed in evidence.

The defense prepared to show by Wiley Roberts, inside jailer at the Tower, that Jim Conley had been reading since his incarceration there, but the Solicitor objected on the ground that no basis had been laid for the testimony.

Daisy Hopkins then was called and questioned, after which the State began its rebuttal, the defense having closed its case.

While waiting for a witness Solicitor Dorsey arose and made the unexpected announcement that he himself had erased the identification "Taken out at 8:26" on the time slip taken from the clock in the factory. Frank had made the charge he had written words as an identification of the slip and that they had been erased. The Solicitor declared that he thought the detectives had made the identification.

"Frank did not know who made the erasure," said Attorney Reuben Arnold.

Solicitor Prepares To Uphold Dalton.

The Solicitor had announced earlier that his first witnesses in rebuttal would be called to support C. B. Dalton and impeach Daisy Hopkins, who declared she had never visited the factory with Dalton or that he had ever introduced Dalton to the factory superintendent.

Wiley Roberts was asked:

Q. Has Jim Conley been in your

PAGE 78, COLUMN 1

INDIRECT TESTIMONY AGAINST LEO FRANK FORBIDDEN BY JUDGE

Continued from Page 1.

custody during this trial? A. Yes.

Q. Has he ever asked for newspapers? A. Yes.

Dorsey interrupted.

"Your honor," he said, "I think the witness, Jim Conley, ought to have the privilege of denying or affirming that before he can be impeached."

"Conley said that he could only read certain words," said Arnold, "but probably Mr. Dorsey is right. I will have to call Jim Conley back again. Mr. Rosser will be back in a minute and we will close."

Daisey Hopkins Is Recalled by Dorsey.

The witness was excused and Dorsey made the announcement that four doctors of the following five would be called by the prosecution:

Drs. G. C. Mizell, F. L. Eskridge, Clarence Johnson, John Funke, S. E. Benedict, of Athens, and J. C. Cramer, of Macon, the latter two president and vice president of the State Board of Health.

Solicitor Dorsey asked that Daisy Hopkins be returned to the stand so that he might continue his cross-examination of her.

The witness took the stand.

Q. You say you knew nothing of the cot in the basement of the National Pencil Factory? A. No.

Q. Do you know anything at all of the basement? A. No.

Q. Are you acquainted with A. R. Floyd, of Redan, Ga.? A. Yes.

Q. Have you known him for a long time? A. Yes.

Q. Have you had a conversation with Floyd since the murder? A. No.

Q. Haven't you been to his house to get milk? A. I don't think I have since the murder.

Q. Didn't you go to the home of Floyd to get milk and tell him about that cot in the basement of the National Pencil Factory? A. No.

Q. Do you know Bob Goddard? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Dr. R. S. Pound, of Redan? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Mr. Smith, superintendent of the Nunnally-Mc Rae Company? A. On Mitchell street?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, I know him.

Q. Do you know Walter P. Murk? A. Where does he live?

Met Murk On Peachtree Street.

Q. You met him first at Stone Mountain, then you met him on Walker street? A. I met him at Redan. They used to live down there.

Q. You said something about being married. Have you two living husbands? A. No; only one.

Q. Have you seen him since the murder? A. Yes; at Redan.

Q. Do you remember meeting Walter P. Murk one Saturday afternoon on Whitehall street? A. I met him on Peachtree.

Q. Didn't you tell him that afternoon that you were going to the National Pencil Factory? A. No; I told him I had just left the factory.

Q. Didn't he make an engagement with you to go to the factory? A. No.

Rosser objected, declaring that a female witness could not be attacked in that way.

"Your honor," said Dorsey, "I want to show by Murk that this woman did make an engagement with him that afternoon."

"I understand," replied Rosser, "that when an argument of this kind is to be made the jury is to retire."

"It would be better to have the ladies retire also," said Dorsey. "I don't want to embarrass them."

Jury and Women Retire From Room.

The jury retired, and after a hurried conference, Frank's wife and mother also left the courtroom at the request of Attorney Arnold.

"This is their witness," said Dorsey. "We want to show that this man Murk had her Saturday afternoon, and she said she was going to the National Pencil Factory. It was cold weather. We want to show that he saw her that night and what she told him."

The witness interrupted:

"It was summer time," she said pertly.

"She has denied," said Dorsey, "in the impeachment of Dalton that she ever went to the pencil factory for any improper purpose."

"We object," said Rosser.

"I want to show that she told Murk about meeting her foreman at the factory," said Dorsey.

Then the Solicitor repeated a conversation involving the "foreman," which is unprintable, which he wanted to get before the jury.

"He does not mean to charge Frank is the foreman," said Arnold. "He is frank enough to state that."

"Murk in an affidavit," said Dorsey, "said foreman. He didn't say Mrs. Hopkins said her superintendent or that she named any names. I mean to let the jury draw its own conclusions."

"I knew when your honor refused to rule out the charges of Conley and Dalton," said Arnold, taking up the argument, "that you were opening the doors for new issues that would obscure the charge of murder. I knew it would lead to a situation in impeachments bringing us to the point where we would hardly know who we were trying. This woman never would have been put up as an original witness except for the aspersions cast on her by Conley and Dalton. Look how far afield we have wandered. Now, he wants to impeach this witness on something with which the defendant has no connection."

Defense's Objection Is Sustained By Roan.

"You can rebut any of their direct testimony," said Judge Roan. "You can not bring any new criminal charge against this defendant. If it is against someone else, it is irrelevant."

"Your honor," said Dorsey, "I want to ask a question to let the jury hear that you rule it out."

"No; we object," said Rosser "That's just why the jury was sent out."

"I'll let you assume that you ask it," said the court to Dorsey.

"Why, your honor," replied Dorsey, "it puts us in the position of not even trying to prove what we have indicated we would."

"I can not permit the question," said Judge Roan.

"Very well," said Dorsey, adding, in an undertone, "That shuts me off; that shuts me off."

Dorsey continued the examination:

Q. Didn't you meet Murk during the afternoon after working hours and tell him you were going to the pencil factory? A. No.

Q. Didn't he come to see you that night? A. No.

Q. Didn't you tell him that you had been to the factory that afternoon? A. No.

Men Say Woman's Character Is Bad.

Miss Hopkins was excused, and J. R. Floyd, of Redan, Ga., was called. Dorsey questioned him.

Q. Do you know Daisy Hopkins? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many husbands she has?

Rosser: "I object, your honor. I don't care if she has three hundred husbands."

The objection was sustained.

Q. Would you believe her under oath? A. I would not.

Q. Did you ever hear her say anything about a cot in the basement of the pencil factory? A. Yes.

The witness was excused. Bob Goddard, brother of C. M. Goddard, who was shot to death a few months ago by Elmer F. Darden, was the next witness called in rebuttal. Goddard resides near Redan. Dorsey questioned him.

Goddard testified to the bad character of Daisy Hopkins, and declared he would not believe her under oath.

Henry Carr, of Stone Mountain; N. J. Ballard, a second cousin of Daisy Hopkins, and J. L. Rice all followed each other in rapid succession and testified that they would not believe the Hopkins girl under oath.

Dorsey then addressed the court.

"Your honor," he said, "we want to offer indictments against Daisy Hopkins and also a bond forfeiture."

Rosser: "Your honor, they objected to the introduction of an indictment against Dalton and they objected rightly. An indictment is nothing against one's character."

Dorsey: "Dalton denied any knowledge of an indictment. This is a bond forfeiture."

Judge Roan: "I rule it out."

Dalton's Recent Past Good, Says J. T. Hearn.

Glenn Smith, superintendent of the Nunnally-Mc Rae Company, testified that Daisy Hopkins' character was bad and that he would not believe her on oath.

J. T. Hearn, of Walton County, said he had known C. B. Dalton since 1890. Dorsey questioned him

Q. Is his character good or bad? A. The first part of his life was bad. The last part has been good.

Q. Would you believe him on oath? A. Yes.

Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. When was the last time you knew Dalton? A. 1903 or 1904.

Q. Did you hear about him being indicted for selling whisky in 1906? A. Yes, but he had joined the church about 1904 and I understood was leading a good life.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. Do you know the instance of his being indicted for stealing years ago? A. Yes.

Rosser: "We object. He can't go into that."

Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Dorsey: "When they go into specific acts, can't I?"

Judge Roan: "No."

R. V. Johnston, another Walton County citizen, was called. Dorsey questioned him.

Q. When were you approached in regard to testifying to the character of C. B. Dalton?

Rosser interposed with an objection, but was overruled.

A. Last Friday, a week ago.

Q. Who approached you? A. Har y Gottheimer.

Rosser again objected, and was sustained.

Q. Are you acquainted with the character of C. B. Dalton? A. Yes.

Q. Would you believe him on oath? A. I would.

Rosser took the witness.

Q. You never heard that he was indicted for stealing and selling whiskey? A. No.

The witness was excused, and W. M. Cook, of Social Circle, Ga., a dairyman and farmer, testified as to Dalton's good character, and declared that he would believe him on oath.

W. J. Elder, of Decatur, followed Cook on the stand, and said that Dalton came to Decatur about five years ago and worked for him as a carpenter. Dorsey questioned him.

Q. Are you acquainted with Dalton's general character? A. I don't know as I am.

Q. That means what people say about him? A. Yes.

Q. Is his character good or bad? A. Good.

Rosser took the witness.

Q. Why did you say just now that you didn't know? A. I didn't know as I did.

Q. You said you didn't know because you didn't know yourself? A. Yes.

The witness was excused, and A. B. Houston, of Decatur, a farmer, who has lived there 41 years, was called. The witness said that he had known Dalton for eight years and that his character was good and that he would believe him under oath.

J. T. Borne, who formerly lived at Ingleside, in De Kalb County, and who now operates a cigar and soda fountain at Decatur, said he knew Dalton and would believe him on oath.

W. M. Wright, of Atlanta, general manager of the Independent Transfer Company, testified in behalf of Dalton's good character and declared that he would believe him on oath.

W. C. Hale, of No. 88 Kirkwood avenue, Atlanta, formerly of Walton County, testified to Dalton's good character and said he would believe him under oath.

L. L. Boyce, a city policeman, formerly of Walton County, testified that eighteen or twenty years ago Dalton's character was bad, but that now it was better and that he had heard nothing bad about him recently.

M. Gordon Caldwell, of Atlanta; J. W. Hunt, of No. 18 Trinity avenue, and W. P. Patrick, of Atlanta, a member of the police force, testified to Dalton's good character and said that they would believe him under oath.

J. E. Dudley, a former employee of the pencil company, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.

Q. Were you working at the National Pencil Factory about October, 1912? A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember a machinist named Charley Lee? A. Yes, he was working there.

Q. Were you hurt there? A. Yes.

Q. Where? A. On the second floor, the office floor.

Q. Just where were you hurt? A. On a metal machine. I hurt the forefinger of my left hand.

Mashed Finger But Kept Blood Off Floor.

Q. How were you hurt? A. This fellow Lee had put the metal on the machine. It dropped off. I picked it up and in putting it back I mashed my finger.

Q. What did you do then? A. There was some cotton waste there, which I put around my hand.

Q. Did any blood drop on the floor? A. A few drops.

Q. Did any blood drop near the ladies' dressing room? A. None.

Q. How long after this accident did you work? A. I quit then.

Q. What does this fellow Lee do besides working at his trade? A. I don't know.

Q. What did you do then? A. I went to the office to get it dressed, then went to the Atlanta Hospital.

Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Q. How badly were you hurt? A. Not very bad.

Q. You bled pretty freely? A. Yes, but I had my hand in the cotton waste.

Q. You didn't notice whether any blood was on the floor or not? A. Yes; none of it dropped except at the machine where I was working.

Dorsey took the witness.

Q. Was your finger outside of the cotton waste until you got to the office? A. No.

The witness was excused, and the witness Murk was called, but failed to answer. Willie Turner, of Sandy Springs, the 16-year-old son of E. M. Turner, a farmer, was called to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.

Q. About March, of this year, where did you work? A. At the pencil factory.

Q. Do you know this man? (pointing to Frank) A. Yes.

Q. Did you know Mary Phagan? A. When I saw her.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Frank talking to Mary Phagan? A. Yes; on the second floor.

Q. What time was it and how long before the murder? A. About the middle of March.

Q. Where was it? A. In the back part of the building.

Q. What time of day was it? A. Just before dinner.

Q. Who was in the room besides them? A. No one else. Two girls came down after I did.

Q. What was said? A. I heard her say she had to go to work.

Q. What did he say? A. He said he was the superintendent of the factory-"

Rosser: "We object and we want to argue this without the jury."

The jury was sent out.

Frank Proves His Own Best Witness.

Frank had demonstrated that he was better than his lawyers and that he was his own best witness when he came down from the witness chair Monday night after talking almost continuously for four hours.

It is doubtful, as shrewd and eloquent as his attorneys are known to be, if anything more impressive, more convincing and more logical will be presented to the jury in his behalf before his fate is placed in the hands of the twelve men.

The young factory superintendent made no attempt at oratory or dramatics. He did not attempt an appeal to the emotions of the jurors. He probably was wise in this, as the memory of what he said and the manner in which he said it will remain with the jurors long after an emotion of pity would have passed away.

Although Frank seldom raised his voice above a conversational tone, his address was deeply impressive from start to finish. Its truth or falsity, of course, is problematical. But it had all the characteristics that are commonly accepted as accompanying the truth.

He did not ask for pity or mercy. He did not take the attitude of demanding anything to which he was not entitled. His mien throughout was that of a man seeking merely justice, and that alone. He was an innocent man or a consummate actor as he stood before the jury. These are the only two conclusions possible.

The matter-of-fact manner in which he delivered his long address only added to its impressiveness and eloquence. That a man with the burden of a foul murder on his conscience could talk easily, freely, fearlessly for four hours before the men whose word can send him to the gallows was hardly to be conceived.

As he stood before the jurors making minute explanations of the intricate work involved in the financial sheets, the reports and the hundred and one details of his work, the impression that he gave was that of a fluent classroom lecturer thoroughly at home with his subject. He was not disturbed by interruptions. He spoke easily and with unconscious gestures.

He spoke more than two hours on the complexity of the work he was compelled to do Saturday forenoon and afternoon the day that Mary Phagan came to her death. He accounted for every moment of his time on the day of the murder.

The latter part of his address was given over to his experience with the detectives, for whom he did not appear to have great respect or admiration, and to a categorical denial of all the charges made against him.

One of his most startling statements was in reference to the supposed blood spots near the ladies' dressing room on the fourth floor which have figured so prominently in the case since their discovery by R. P. Barrett, a machinist at the pencil factory.

Frank said that he had made an examination of the spots of which the detectives and Solicitor General have made a great deal.

"I did not depend on the light from the windows for my inspection," said the defendant. "I crouched right down on the floor and made the closest sort of an inspection. I discovered a curious thing. I scraped away with my finger and I found that there was an accumulation of dirt and grease over the dark spots. The accumulation was not that of three days. It was not that of three weeks. It was an accumulation of three months or more.

"Another thing which has been overlooked in connection with these spots is the effect that the Haskoline compound would have had had it been smeared over real blood spots when the blood is fresh. The Haskoline, which is simply a lubricating mixture, is applied in a liquid condition. Had the blood been fresh, as the detectives have presumed, it would have mixed with the Haskoline, which would have turned a pink or red color instead of remaining white as has happened to be the case."

Admits His Nervousness.

Frank admitted readily that he had been nervous when he was routed from bed and taken without his breakfast to the undertaking rooms to view the body of the murdered girl.

"I was nervous; I admit it," he said. "I was extremely nervous. I was distracted. But what man would not have been under the circumstances? It would have been a man of stone who would not have been affected by the tragedy of this little girl killed on the dawn of womanhood."

He made a sensational charge, intimating that an attempt had been made to "frame" against him by the detectives in connection with the time slip taken from the clock the morning after the tragedy.

He declared that on the slip he took from the clock he wrote: "Taken out at 8:26 a. am.," underscoring the words with two heavy lines. He said that he handed this slip at once to Chief Lanford.

That an attempt had been made at the erasure of this means he had taken to identify the slip was the accusation he made. He held the slip up to the jurors and told them that the words were still faintly visible as well as the two lines with which he underscored the words.

He added that such a vigorous attempt had been made to rub out his writing that the red lines on the time slip also had been partly obliterated.

Toward the beginning of his address he referred to his home life, which the detectives at various times have sought to show was unhappy. He drew an affectionate smile to the lips of his pretty wife when he said that his married life had been exceptionally happy, the happiest period of his career.

He referred only briefly to the testimony of C. B. Dalton, who said on the stand that he had seen women in Frank's office and had been introduced to Frank by Miss Daisy Hopkins. Frank denied he ever had met Dalton. He denied flatly any intimacy with women in his office or anywhere else, and denounced as unspeakable slanders the charges of other acts of immorality.

His account of the visit of Mary Phagan to his office was simple and direct. He said she came and asked for her pay and was given it. As she passed from his sight she called back to ask him if the metal had come. He answered, "No," and then heard her footsteps retreating. He thought that he heard a female voice an instant later, but paid little attention to it.

That, he said, was all he knew of Mary Phagan's movements on the day she met her death. He did not even know her name at the time, identifying her by the number on her envelope. That he had any part in her death or in the disposal of her body he denied absolutely. He branded the story of Jim Conley, the negro, as a tissue of lies from start to finish.

"I have told the truth and the whole truth," he said as he left the stand at 6:05 o'clock. He had been talking almost continuously for four hours.