A Brief Chronology<\/strong><\/p>\nConfederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913, Mary Phagan stepped off the trolley at about noon, which was running ahead of schedule because of the holiday. Leo Frank told Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott that Mary Phagan entered his office specifically at minutes after his stenographer, Mrs. Hall, had left his office at the noon whistle. At just minutes after noon, at about 12:02 p.m., thirteen-year-old little (4\u201911\u201d) Mary Anne Phagan stepped up inside the National Pencil Company factory at 37-41 Forsyth Street and climbed up the fourteen-foot stairway, walking into Leo Frank\u2019s second-floor office and asking him if she could collect her pay envelope of $1.20.<\/p>\n
Her normal wage was about $4.05, according to her former paymaster, John M. Gantt, at the coroner\u2019s inquest. The last two times she had worked was an eleven-hour day on Friday, April 18, 1913, and a five-hour shift on Monday, April 21, 1913.<\/p>\n
After the police questioned numerous people, it was determined Leo Frank became the last person to admit seeing Mary Phagan alive on April 26, 1913, in a virtually empty factory. Her body was found about fifteen hours after her murder by the night watch Newt Lee in the early morning hours of Sunday, April 27, 1913, at 3:18 a.m. This marked the beginning of a scandal and conflict that would rock the whole country, gaining nationwide radio, picture show, and newspaper coverage launching the case to celebrity status, becoming a cause celeb for the international Jewish community.<\/p>\n
After police and detectives arrested several people and questioned dozens more using third-degree methods, Leo Frank became the prime suspect and was arrested on the morning of Tuesday, April 29, 1913, at about 11:30 a.m., which would be the last moment of Frank\u2019s freedom.<\/p>\n
The Coroner\u2019s Inquest Jury<\/strong><\/p>\nMore than 160+ people were sworn under oath and testified during relentless questioning at the coroner\u2019s inquest. The result was the seven-man panel made up of Coroner Paul Donehoo and a coroner\u2019s jury of six men, with a unanimous vote, signed an order that Leo M. Frank be bound over for the murder of Mary Phagan to the grand jury for further review of the facts and evidence to make a decision on whether to indict Frank.<\/p>\n
The Grand Jury<\/strong><\/p>\nAfter questioning witnesses, carefully reviewing, and meticulously deliberating over inquest testimony and grand jury evidence, a grand jury of twenty-one men (including four Jewish members) indicted Leo M. Frank unanimously (21 to 0) on Saturday, May 24, 1913, exactly four weeks after Mary Phagan was murdered.<\/p>\n
Updated \u201cScore\u201d Card<\/strong><\/p>\nThe official score card was now (7 coroner\u2019s inquest jury + 21 grand jury members= 28 to zero) twenty-eight unanimous votes against Leo Frank.<\/p>\n
Murder Trial, July 28 to August 26, 1913<\/strong><\/p>\nLeo Frank was prosecuted during a twenty-nine-day trial beginning on Monday, July 28, 1913, and unanimously convicted and sentenced to death by a petite jury of twelve men on Monday, August 25, 1913. The next day presiding Judge Leonard S. Roan affirmed the verdict. Roan sentenced Leo M. Frank to be hanged by the neck until dead, though it was temporarily stayed on appeal until Leonard Strickland Roan made the ultimate cruel decision and sentenced Leo Frank to die on his thirtieth birthday, April 17, 1914.<\/p>\n
It was a prosecution victory as a result of well thought out, reasoned, and logical arguments presented by the state\u2019s prosecution team, including Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper, the culmination of superbly concatenated chain of events, based on the trial testimony, affidavits, facts, and evidence. The case was proof that sometimes circumstantial evidence is the best kind and it should not be discounted.<\/p>\n
Jewish Pseudo Scholars<\/strong><\/p>\nLeonard Dinnerstein, Elaine Marie Alphin, and many other Jewish pseudo-historians have made slanderous statements, suggesting that Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey was an anti-Semitic, unscrupulously ambitious, cruel, and single-minded lawyer who would stop at nothing to advance his own political career, even if it meant \u201cdestroying and railroading\u201d an \u201cinnocent\u201d Jew, Leo Frank, \u201cfor a crime he did not commit,\u201d all the while letting a \u201cguilty\u201d black rapist and murder go free.<\/p>\n
Jewish Defamation<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Frankite smear mongers like Dinnerstein and Alphin are essentially making anti-Jewish blood libel smears against one of the most progressive and greatest statesmen of 20th century Georgian history and claiming Hugh Dorsey was anti-Semite and so twisted as a racist, he would rather see an \u201cinnocent\u201d white Jew convicted for a \u201ccrime he didn\u2019t commit\u201d than a \u201cguilty\u201d African-American \u201cpedophile-rapist-murderer\u201d die at the gallows for the bludgeoning rape and strangulation of Mary Phagan.
\n
\nRead the Arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey with a Neutral Open Mind<\/strong><\/p>\nDecide for yourself after reading Dorsey\u2019s closing arguments if he is an ambitious sociopath and anti-Semitic climber who would send an innocent man to die, so he could mendaciously ascend the political ladder to the highest executive position\u00a0or<\/strong>\u00a0if Dorsey was truly a superb lawyer who helped put away a pedophile, rapist, and murderer.<\/p>\nAfter studying Dorsey\u2019s closing arguments, review the closing arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper in American State Trials Volume X 1918, which contains all four closing arguments, and compare the prosecution team closing arguments against those of the Leo Frank defense team given by Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold. If you were on the jury, which team made the most compelling and convincing case?<\/p>\n
Available here are numerous versions, the OCR Text of the August 1913, Final Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, at the Trial of Leo M. Frank for the Murder of Mary Phagan on April 26, 1913.\u00a0<\/strong>For the better version,\u00a0download the Adobe PDF version provided<\/strong>.<\/p>\nAn abridged version of the Dorsey speech exists in American State Trials Volume X 1918 by John D. Lawson, LLD; the longer version is by itself. To only read the prosecution closing arguments would not be fair and neutral. Please make sure you should read all four closing speeches, including the defense side, to put everything in context after you study the 1913 Brief of Evidence.<\/p>\n
Hugh M. Dorsey Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey<\/p>\n
Atlanta Judicial Circuit at the Trial of Leo M. Frank<\/p>\n
Charged with the Murder of Mary Phagan, published in 1914<\/p>\n
This is the uncorrected OCR text version.<\/strong><\/p>\nARGUMENT OF HUGH M. DORSEY
\nSolicitor-General, Atlanta Judicial Circuit
\nAT THE TRIAL OF LEO M. FRANK
\nCharged with the murder of Mary Phagan<\/p>\n
Published by N. CHRISTOPHULOS,
\n411 Third Street
\nMacon, Ga.<\/p>\n
Hugh M. Dorsey, Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey Solicitor-General, Atlanta Judicial Circuit at the Trial of Leo M. Frank, Charged with the Murder of Mary Phagan I, 1914<\/p>\n
Press of THE JOHNSON-DALLIS CO. Atlanta, Georgia<\/strong><\/p>\nHugh M. Dorsey, Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey Solicitor-General, Atlanta Judicial Circuit at the Trial of Leo M. Frank, Charged with the Murder of Mary Phagan II, 1914<\/p>\n
FOREWORD<\/strong><\/p>\nI have obtained the consent of Solicitor-General Hugh M. Dorsey to print his address to the jury in the Frank trial, herewith presented, and through him I obtained a copy of the report of his speech as taken down by a stenographer employed by the defense, this being the only available copy.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey has read the speech at my request and states that the same is accurate in every respect, in so far as he is able to recall the same.<\/p>\n
I am offering this speech to the public with two ideas, first, because I believe that in view of the widespread interest being manifested in this case it will prove a profitable business venture, and, second, because I believe that the public will appreciate the opportunity of reading this remarkable speech exactly as it was delivered.<\/p>\n
Solicitor-General Dorsey\u2019s address, occupying as it did the greater part of three days\u2019 session of the court, and coming at the climax of a hotly-contested 29-day murder trial, has been pronounced one of the most powerful addresses of its kind ever delivered in the state\u2019s history.<\/p>\n
The following extract from an article in the Atlanta Georgian of August 23, 1913, the second day of Mr. Dorsey\u2019s speech, pays glowing tribute:<\/p>\n
\u201cA white-hot phillippic, the masterpiece of his career and one of the greatest ever heard in a criminal court in the South, was hurled by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey directly at Leo M. Frank Saturday in the final plea of the State, and held a packed courtroom tense and thrilled as the grim tragedy of Memorial day was unfolded. The solicitor was at the height of his eloquence at 1:30 o\u2019clock when court adjourned until Monday and he had been speaking over six hours. The case will probably go to the jury before Monday noon. The solicitor was cheered as he left the courthouse.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the day after the close of the address the following appeared in The Constitution, being the introduction of a half page report of the solicitor\u2019s speech:<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the big bell in the nearby church tolled the hour of 12 o\u2019clock, Solicitor Dorsey concluded his remarkable plea for the conviction of Leo 11. Frank with the dreadful words: Guilty, guilty, guilty!\u201d It was just at this hour nearly four months ago that little Mary Phagan entered the pencil factory to draw her pittance of $1.20. The tolling of the bell and the dread sound of the words cut like a chill to the hearts of many who shivered involuntarily.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was the conclusion of the most remarkable speech which has ever been delivered in a Fulton County courthouse, a speech which will go down in history stamping Hugh Dorsey as one of the greatest prosecuting attorneys of this age.\u201d<\/p>\n
While the address was yet unfinished the following appeared in The [Atlanta] Constitution of August 24th:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe speech being made by Solicitor Dorsey is the longest in Southern criminal annals. It already has lasted six hours, with prospects for an additional two or three hours more. The longest speech previously was four or five hours. That was in the halcyon days of Charley Hill, who brought tears, smiles and anger whenever he spoke. Some have said that that grand old man never made a better speech than Dorsey\u2019s argument. Some say not so. They have not heard Dorsey. Dorsey\u2019s speech was a masterly argument, with the stamp of genius in every line, and in expression of esteem, Atlanta-or a part of Atlanta-did something it never did before; cheered a solicitor as he came from the court room.\u201d<\/p>\n
The reader of the published address should be informed that to fully appreciate the speech he would have to have a full knowledge of all the evidence adduced at the trial, with which the jurymen, for whose benefit the speech was delivered were familiar. It is also true that to the casual reader some confusion may be caused by the frequent use of the pronoun \u201cyou,\u201d applied by the speaker sometimes to the defendant, sometimes to his attorneys and sometimes to the jury, each being designated in turn by the Solicitor\u2019s gestures. The context, however, when carefully noted, will always show to whom reference is made.<\/p>\n
I have had prepared a \u201cTable of Contents,\u201d in which the entire three days\u2019 address has been analyzed into its divisions and subdivisions, demonstrating the marvelous continuity of thought and tenacity of purpose with which the Solicitor covered the stupendous array of evidence in the case. I have also added an \u201cIndex\u201d at the close, which will greatly facilitate the reader\u2019s finding the contention of the state with reference to any particular piece of evidence, or any other allusion made during the address. A survey of this \u201cIndex\u201d will show the wide range of knowledge displayed by the Solicitor.<\/p>\n
I have also had prepared an introduction, giving the \u201cFacts of the Crime,\u201d and a \u201cChronological History of the Case,\u201d which will be helpful to the reader in keeping the essential facts in mind.<\/p>\n
Parties desiring copies of the speech may address me at 11 Third St., Macon, Ga., or care the printers-Johnson-Dallis Co., 136 Marietta St., Atlanta, Ga.
\nN. CHRISTOPHULOS.
\nMacon, Ga., April 20, 1914.<\/p>\n
Hugh M. Dorsey, Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey Solicitor-General, Atlanta Judicial Circuit at the Trial of Leo M. Frank, Charged with the Murder of Mary Phagan IV, 1914<\/p>\n
FACTS OF CRIME<\/strong><\/p>\nOn Saturday, April 26, 1913, Mary Phagan, a fourteen year-old operative in the employ of the National Pencil Company, in Atlanta, Ga., left home at a little after 11 o\u2019clock, going to the pencil factory to get her pay. She had not worked at the plant since the Monday previous, owing to the fact that they had no metal for use in her branch of the work. It is admitted that Leo M. Frank, the superintendent of the pencil factory, was the last person ever positively known to have seen her alive.<\/p>\n
At about 3 o\u2019clock Sunday morning, April 27th, her dead body was discovered in the rear of the basement in the building occupied by the National Pencil Company by the night watchman, Newt Lee. She had a cord drawn tightly around her neck, and according to the contention of the State had been dead from 16 to 20 hours or more at the time her body was discovered. The little girl\u2019s underclothing was torn in several places, and the crime was pronounced by physicians as well as police officers as unquestionably the work of a pervert. It is generally conceded that Mary Phagan was an unusually pretty and attractive child. Newt Lee, the night watchman, was immediately held by the police, and several other suspects were arrested during the next two days, the climax coming on Tuesday, April 29th, when Leo M. Frank was detained at police headquarters by the authorities, he having been under suspicion since immediately after the crime was discovered.
\nCHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF CASE<\/strong>
\n(Covering period of one year after crime.)
\nApril 26, 1913- (Memorial day)-Mary Phagan murdered.
\nApril 29-Leo M. Frank, superintendent of pencil factory, detained at police station to await action by coroner\u2019s jury.
\nApril 30-Coroner\u2019s jury begins long session, lasting over a week. Newt Lee and Frank both make statements.
\nMay 1-Jim Conley, negro sweeper, arrested. Considered unimportant.
\nMay 8-Coroner\u2019s jury orders Frank and Newt Lee held for grand jury action.
\nMay 24-Frank indicted by grand jury for murder; Lee held as material witness.
\nJuly 28-Trial of Frank commences before Judge L. S. Roan, Judge of Stone Mountain Circuit, Superior Court. Following jury empaneled: F. E. Winburn, foreman; M. L. Woodward, D. Townsend, A. L. Wisbey, W. M. Jeffries, M. Johenning, J. T. Ozburn, F. V. L. Smith, A. H. Henslee, W. F. Medcalf, C. J. Bosshart, and J. F. Higdon.
\nJuly 29-Examination of witnesses begins; over two hundred witnesses called before trial is completed.
\nAugust 20-Evidence completed; argument of counsel begins; Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser speak for defense. Frank A. Hooper follows, assisting in prosecution.
\nAugust 22-Solicitor-General Dorsey begins closing address, extending over three days.
\nAugust 25-Case goes to jury and verdict of guilty is returned.
\nAugust 26-Frank sentenced to death on October 10, 1913; attorneys move for new trial.
\nOctober 31-Judge L. S. Roan denies motion for new trial; case appealed to Supreme Court of Georgia.
\nFebruary 17, 1914-Supreme Court of Georgia affirms verdict of lower court, by vote of four to two. Motion for rehearing is made by attorneys for Frank.
\nFebruary 25-Supreme Court unanimously overrules motion for rehearing.
\nMarch 7-Frank sentenced second time; April 17th set for date of execution.
\nApril 16-Attorneys Rosser and Arnold file extraordinary motion for new trial on ground of newly-discovered evidence. Sentence again stayed.
\nApril 16-New attorneys for Frank file motion to set aside verdict on constitutional grounds, declaring original counsel acted without authority in waiving Frank\u2019s presence at rendering of verdict.
\nApril 22-Hearing of extraordinary motion begins before Judge B. H. Hill, former chief justice of Court of Appeals, recently appointed to new judgeship of Fulton Superior Court.
\n(Atlanta Constitution, Aug. 27, 1913)<\/p>\nHUGH DORSEY\u2019S GREAT SPEECH<\/strong>
\nFEATURE OF THE FRANK TRIAL<\/strong>
\nBy Sidney Ormond
\nThe Frank trial a matter of history, Solicitor Hugh Dorsey and his wonderful speech, which brought the case to a close, form the subject matter for countless discussions among all classes or folk in all sorts of places-on the street corners, in clubs, newspaper offices, at the courthouse and wherever two lawyers chance to get together for an exchange of words.<\/p>\nBeyond all doubt, Hugh Dorsey is the most talked-of man in the state of Georgia today. The widespread interest in the Frank case caused all eyes from Rabun Gap to Tybee Light to be centered on this young man, who, up to a few months ago, was little heard of outside of the county of Fulton.<\/p>\n
The Frank case has been to Atlanta and the state\u2013in fact, several adjacent states-what the Becker case was to New York and the country-at-large.<\/p>\n
Made Thorough Probe<\/strong>
\nWhen Rosenthal was killed by a gang of gunmen at the Hotel Metropole, District Attorney Whitman was unheard of outside of New York. Today he is a national figure. The same thing holds true of Hugh Dorsey in a lesser degree.<\/p>\nIncidentally, there is another point of comparison. When Rosenthal was murdered, Whitman plunged into the case and personally directed the investigation which led up to the arrest and subsequent conviction of the murderers. No one criticised him for his activity in the case. Hugh Dorsey did the same thing. The Frank case was one of far too much importance to be bungled. It was worthy of the beat efforts of every court official sworn to uphold the enforcement of the law. The city was in a state of mental stress. Lines were closely drawn. It was no time for mistakes of judgment. Dorsey knew this. He felt the responsibility of his position and he entered into the work of clearing up the awful mystery with but one end in view that justice should prevail. Unlike Whitman, he met criticism in some quarters-a criticism which was unmerited. He did what he felt to be his duty, that and nothing more; and it is certain that, had he felt Frank innocent, he never would have sought his indictment by the grand jury. During the progress of the Frank trial a close friend of the unfortunate young man said, in a tone that expressed some surprise:<\/p>\n
\u201cI actually believe Hugh Dorsey thinks Frank guilty.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thought Him Guilty<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd he was right. Anyone who knows Hugh Dorsey has never for one instant doubted that all along he has been firmly convinced of Frank\u2019s guilt. Hugh Dorsey is no head-hunter-no savage thirsting for the blood of innocent men. He is human, with human sympathies-tender as a woman at times, but stern as a Spartan when duty calls.<\/p>\n
It was the call of duty that caused him to probe the murder of little Mary Phagan; it was the same call which caused him to prosecute the man he thought guilty of the murder.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t think for one instant that Hugh Dorsey did not suffer during the progress of the trial. He suffered as seldom a man is called upon to suffer. It is hard enough to call upon a jury to convict a man of murder; it is doubly hard to do so in the presence of the man\u2019s wife and mother. During the last half hour of his speech it was nothing short of torture for him to face these faithful, devoted women and ask that the law which condemns men to death be invoked.<\/p>\n
When he said afterward that be felt for the wife and mother he meant every word. He is not a man given to the parade of emotion-men who feel deeply seldom are.<\/p>\n
But back to the trial of the case. If it is given to one to view the case without prejudice-and there are many such in Atlanta-the heroic task which Hugh Dorsey had before him is apparent.<\/p>\n
First, Luther Rosser was employed. Then Rube Arnold entered the lists for the defense. No more formidable array of legal counsel could have been found in the south. Extremes in method, manner and temperament, equally well versed in the law and experienced in its practice, they formed a bulwark that few men would care to attack.<\/p>\n
The knowing ones said: \u201cWell, Hugh Dorsey will get his. They\u2019ll chew him up and spit him out!\u201d Did they? Not so you could notice it. For once Luther Rosser met his match. For once Rube Arnold crossed swords with a man who caused him to break ground.<\/p>\n
Fought Them Every Step<\/strong><\/p>\nThey tried all sorts of tactics. They used sarcasm; they interrupted, they hammered and they hauled, but it was to no purpose. Dorsey met them at every turn, countering here, slamming heads there. He fought them any fashion they pleased to try.<\/p>\n
But his speech was the thing that proved him master. It was a masterpiece. No such speech has ever been heard in the Fulton county courthouse, and the words are measured as they are written. It was, as Burton Smith expressed it, worthy of Bob Toombs in the first-flush of vigorous manhood. It was clean-cut, convincing, forceful. It carried conviction with every sentence. It proved, if proof were needed, that Hugh Dorsey is a lawyer of whom any man need have fear. The speech will live long in the memory of those who heard it, no matter what opinion may be entertained of the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank.<\/p>\n
OUTLINE OF ADDRESS<\/strong><\/p>\nI.-INTRODUCTORY\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u20141<\/p>\n
II.-PREJUDICE CHARGE \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 2-3
\nTribute to Jewish Race \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 3<\/p>\n
III.-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 4-20
\nReasonable Doubt \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 4
\nDurant Case \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 9
\nSimilarity of Durant and Frank Cases \u2014\u2014- 16<\/p>\n
IV.-CHARACTER OF FRANK \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 21-43
\nPut in Issue by Defense \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 21
\nGrand Jury Letters \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 22
\nFailure to Cross-examine \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 24
\nCharacter Evidence \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 25<\/p>\n
(SECOND DAY)
\nWeakness of Character \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 28
\nCase of Oscar Wilde \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 31
\nOther Cases \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 32
\nFrank\u2019s Alibi \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 34-43<\/p>\n
V.-PERJURY CHARGES \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 43-64
\nDefense Witnesses \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 44
\nCharge Against Detectives \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 47
\nFour Cases of Perjury \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 55
\nDuty of Solicitor \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 61
\nProof of Perjury \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 64<\/p>\n
VI.-MURDER NOTES \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 65-70
\nNot in Conley\u2019s Words \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 67
\nNotes Incriminate Frank \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 69<\/p>\n
VII.-FRANK\u2019S STATEMENT \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 70-130
\nLegal Value of \u201cStatements\u201d \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 71
\nFlaws in Statement \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 72
\nBlood Evidence \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 80-90
\nMcKnight Evidence \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 91<\/p>\n
(THIRD DAY)
\nWife\u2019s Absence \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 95
\nRefusal to Face Conley \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 103
\nSecond Time at Morgue \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 108
\nNervousness \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 114<\/p>\n
VIII.-CONLEY\u2019S EVIDENCE \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 130-145
\nSubstantiation \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014- 131
\nPetition to Judge \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 132
\nRemanded to Police \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013 137
\nOverwhelmingly Sustained \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 139<\/p>\n
IX.-CONCLUDING ARRAIGNMENT OF FRANK \u2014-1 45<\/p>\n
ARGUMENT OF HUGH M. DORSEY, SOLICITOR GENERAL<\/strong><\/p>\nMay it please Your Honor:
\nI want to thank you for the courtesy you have granted us in giving us unlimited time in which to argue this case and I desire, gentlemen of the jury, to commiserate you. But, as His Honor has told you, this is an important case; it is important to society, important to this defendant, important to me and it is important to you. I would not feel like slurring over it for the sake of your physical convenience, and indeed, as good citizens, although it does inconvenience you, I feel that you would not have me slur over it. It may be at some stages a little bit tedious, but a case that has consumed almost every day for one month, and a case of this magnitude and importance cannot be argued hurriedly. This case, gentlemen, is not only, as His Honor has told you, important, and as I have suggested, but it is extraordinary. It is extraordinary as a crime, a most heinous crime, a crime of a demoniac, a crime that has demanded vigorous, earnest and conscientious effort on the part of your detectives, and on my part demands honest, earnest, conscientious consideration on your part. It is extraordinary because of the prominence, learning, ability, standing of counsel pitted against me, four of them, the Messrs. Arnold, Rosser, the two Messrs. Haas.<\/p>\n
Mr. Leonard Haas: Mr. Dorsey, I\u2019m not of counsel in the case.<\/p>\n
Three of them, then. It is extraordinary because of the defendant\u2013it is extraordinary in the manner in which the gentlemen argue it, in the methods they have pursued in the management\u2013they have had two of the ablest lawyers,\u2013Mr. Haas, also, I believe,\u2013Mr. Rosser, \u201cthe rider of the wind, the stirrer of storm ;\u201d Mr. Arnold\u2013and I say it with no disrespect, because I like him\u2013is \u201cas mild mannered a man as ever cut a throat or scuttled a ship.\u201d And their conduct throughout this case has been extraordinary. They have maligned and abused me; they have abused the detectives; they have heaped calumny on us to such an extent that that good lady, the mother of this defendant, was so wrought up that she arose, and in this presence denounced me as a dog. Ah, there\u2019s an old adage and it\u2019s true,\u2013\u201cWhen did any thief feel the halter draw with a good opinion of the law?\u201d I don\u2019t want your good opinion in this case; I neither seek it nor ask it. If you put the stamp of your approval on me in this case, I doubt if I would believe in my own honesty.<\/p>\n
Prejudice Charge Answered<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cPrejudice and Perjury,\u201d says Mr. Arnold; and they use the stereotyped phrase that it \u201cfatigues their indignation.\u201d Ah, gentlemen, don\u2019t you let this \u201cpurchased indignation\u201d disturb your nerves or deter you from your duty. \u201cPurchased indignation!\u201d You ought to have been indignant,\u2013you are paid to be so. Prejudice and Perjury! Gentlemen, do you think that I, or that these detectives are actuated by prejudice? Would we as sworn officers of the law have sought to hang this man on account of his race and religion, and passed up Jim Conley, a negro? Prejudice! Prejudiced, when they arrested Gantt and released him? Prejudiced, when they had Newt Lee? No. But when you get Frank, then you have got prejudice at the same time.<\/p>\n
Defense First Mentioned Race<\/strong><\/p>\nNow let\u2019s see about this thing. These gentlemen were disappointed because this case wasn\u2019t pitched on that theory. Not a word emanated from this side, not a word indicating any feeling against, any prejudice against, any human being, black or white, Jew or Gentile. We didn\u2019t feel it, we would despise ourselves if we had appeared in this presence and asked you to render a verdict against any man, black or white, Jew or Gentile, on account of prejudice. But, ah! the first time it was ever brought into this case,\u2013and it was brought in for a purpose, and I have never seen any two men manifest more delight or exultation than Messrs. Rosser and Arnold, when they put the questions to George Kendley at the eleventh hour. A thing they had expected us to do and which the State did not do because we didn\u2019t feel it and because it wasn\u2019t in this case. I will never forget how they seized it, seized with avidity the suggestion, and you know how they have harped on it ever since. Now, mark you, they are the ones that mentioned it, not us; the word never escaped our mouth.<\/p>\n
Tribute to Jewish Race<\/strong><\/p>\nI say to you here and now that the race from which that man comes is as good as our race. His ancestors were civilized when ours were cutting each other up and eating human flesh; his race is just as good as ours,\u2013just so good but no better.\u2019 I honor the race that has produced a D\u2019Israeli,\u2013the greatest Prime Minister that England has ever produced; I honor the race that produced Judah P. Benjamin,\u2013as great a lawyer as ever lived in America or England, because he lived in both places and won renown in both places. I honor the Strauss brothers,\u2013Oscar, the diplomat, and the man who went down with his wife by his side on the Titanic. I roomed with one of his race at college; one of his race is my partner. I served with old man Joe Hirsch on the Board of Trustees of the Grady Hospital. I know Rabbi Marx but to honor him, and I know Doctor Sonn, of the Hebrew Orphans\u2019 Home, and I have listened to him with pleasure and pride.<\/p>\n
But, on the other hand, when Becker wished to put to death his bitter enemy, it was men of Frank\u2019s race he selected. Abe Hummel, the lawyer, who went to the penitentiary in New York, and Abe Reuf, who went to the penitentiary in San Francisco; Schwartz, the man accused of stabbing a girl in New York, who committed suicide, and others that I could mention, show that this great people are amenable to the same laws as you and I and the black race. They rise to heights sublime, but they sink to the depths of degradation.<\/p>\n
I wish, gentlemen, to read to you some authorities from the books referred to by Mr. Arnold,\u2013first, though, I want to come to this: We don\u2019t ask a conviction of this man except in conformity with the law which His Honor will give you in charge. His Honor will charge you that you should not convict this man unless you think he\u2019s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. My friend, Mr. Hooper, read to you, because you have to read the authorities upon which you are going to comment, in the opening, and I want to talk to you about them a little.<\/p>\n
Meaning of Reasonable Doubt<\/strong><\/p>\nA great many jurors, gentlemen\u2013and the people generally get an idea that there is something mysterious and unfathomable about this reasonable doubt proposition. It\u2019s as plain as the nose on your face. The text writers and lawyers and, judges go around in a circle when they undertake to define it; it\u2019s a thing that speaks for itself, and every man of common sense knows what it is, and it isn\u2019t susceptible of any definition. One text writer says a man who undertakes to define it uses tautology,\u2013the same words over again. Just remember, gentlemen of the jury, that it is no abstruse proposition, it is not a proposition way over and above your head,\u2013it\u2019s just common sense, ordinary, every-day practical question. In the 83rd Georgia, one of our Judges defines it, thus:<\/p>\n
Authorities Quoted<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cA reasonable doubt is one that is opposed to an unreasonable doubt; it is one for which a reason can be given, and it is one that is based on reason, and it is such a doubt that leaves the mind in an uncertain and wavering condition, where it is impossible to say with reason nor certainty that the accused is guilty.\u201d<\/p>\n
And as read to you from Wharton, the great authority, you are not to doubt as jurors, if you believe as men; that\u2019s all. If you have a doubt, it must be such a doubt as to control and decide your conduct in the highest and most important affairs of life. That\u2019s what they say. It isn\u2019t, gentlemen, as is said in the case of Johns vs. State, way back in the 33rd Georgia, \u201ca vague, conjectural doubt or a mere guess that possibly the accused may not be guilty;\u201d it isn\u2019t that; \u201cit must be such a doubt as a sensible, honest-minded man would reasonably entertain in an honest investigation after the truth.\u201d That\u2019s in the 47th Georgia. \u201cIt must not be,\u201d as they say, gentlemen, in the case of Butler vs. State, 92nd Georgia, \u201cA doubt conjured up;\u201d or as they say in the 83rd Georgia, \u201cA doubt which might be conjured up to acquit a friend.\u201d Of course, you can get up any kind of a doubt, but it must be an honest, sincere doubt, one which arises from the evidence or the lack of evidence; that\u2019s what controls. \u201cIt must not be,\u201d they say in the 63rd Georgia, \u201ca fanciful doubt, a trivial supposition, a bare possibility of innocence,\u201d\u2013that won\u2019t do, that won\u2019t do; \u201cit doesn\u2019t mean the doubt,\u201d they say in the 90th Georgia, \u201cof a crank or a man with an over-sensitive nature, but practical, common sense is the standard.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wharton\u2019s Rule<\/strong><\/p>\nWharton, in his Criminal Evidence, says \u201cThe rule is not that there must be an acquittal in all cases of doubt, because, as we shall presently see, this would result in acquittal in all cases, since\u201d says this eminent authority, \u201cthere are no cases without doubt\u201d\u2013catch the idea? \u201cDoubt of the character that requires an acquittal, must be far more serious than the doubt to which all human conclusions are subject;\u201d it must, gentlemen, be a doubt so solemn and substantial as to produce in the juror\u2019s mind grave, grave uncertainty as to the verdict of guilty. \u201cIt is not,\u201d says Mr. Wharton, \u201cmere possible doubt,\u201d because, says Chief Justice Shaw, \u201ceverything relating to human affairs and depending upon evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, this standard, gentlemen, is evident, because it is obvious to every intelligent person, and as this authority says, it is incapable, this reasonable doubt phrase, of a precise definition expressed in words, but a comprehension of its meaning follows instantly upon the mere use of the word. That\u2019s the principle. It is incapable of a precise definition; but a comprehension of its meaning follows instantly upon the mere use of the word. \u201cThis measure of proof can be established\u201d\u2013people think, you know, sometimes it is said circumstantial evidence is not as good as direct; listen to what this authority says: \u201cThis measure of proof can be established as well through circumstantial as direct evidence.\u201d Why shouldn\u2019t it? A number of facts proven by a number of people, which your common sense leads you to believe and see and know points to a conclusion that is consistent with an hypothesis and inconsistent with another hypothesis is just as much better than the direct, as evidence, and in the same proportion that the number of witnesses and incidents by whom those particular circumstances are established are better than the view of the witnesses who saw the particular thing. It is a popular fallacy that has no place in the court house\u2013and I\u2019m coming to his Durant case in a minute. \u201cThis measure of proof can be established as well,\u201d says this eminent lawyer and authority, accepted in all courts, and who wrote not in a spirit of prejudice and passion, \u201cas well through circumstantial as direct evidence;\u201d and here in this case we have both circumstantial evidence and admissions.<\/p>\n
Circumstantial Evidence Often Convicts<\/strong><\/p>\nThus, if the circumstantial evidence satisfies the mind, then it is equal to positive evidence. That\u2019s all there is in the case. The question is whether they satisfy your mind on it. \u201cHence, with reasonable doubt as the measure of sufficient proof, limited by the qualification that the conclusion must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion, then the law, which is supposed to be the embodiment of wisdom, has safeguarded life and liberty to the highest degree that can be devised by human intelligence.\u201d This thing of the doctrine of reasonable doubt originated way back yonder, anyway, at a time when a man accused of crime wasn\u2019t allowed counsel. Whenever we come up fully abreast of the times in modern sciences, it\u2019s going to drop out of our law, too. The State has got all kinds of burdens and all kinds of difficulties in establishing a man\u2019s guilt. There never was a case that illustrated it better than this.<\/p>\n
Now, as I said before, gentlemen, and as Wharton says, you are not at liberty to disbelieve as jurors if you believe as men. Now, let\u2019s get that in mind, let\u2019s take that logic,\u2013 don\u2019t you think that this thing of trying a man on circumstantial evidence is something that is so subtle and fine that your mind can\u2019t get hold of it\u2013that it\u2019s something so mysterious that you can\u2019t get hold of it; it\u2019s a common sense proposition, and when your mind takes hold of a thing as a man, then you have got it as a juror. Now, Judge Hopkins says, in the 42nd Ga., 406, \u201cFor a jury to acquit, turn a man loose, upon light, trivial, fanciful suppositions and remote conjectures it is a virtual disregard of the juror\u2019s oath.\u201d Oh, I know you can get up any kind of an excuse, anybody can. But when you do that, gentlemen of the jury, it must be outside of the jury box, and you must not acquit this man upon light, trivial, fanciful suppositions and remote conjectures, because that\u2019s a disregard of your oath\u2013of course, you won\u2019t disregard your oath.<\/p>\n
Moral Certainty Is All That\u2019s Needed<\/strong><\/p>\nIn the 92nd Ga., they speak of it thus: \u201cIt does not mean a vague, conjectural doubt, a doubt conjured up in the minds of the jury, it means a doubt that grows out of the evidence in the case, or the want of evidence\u201d\u2013remember that proposition when you get into your jury room. It means what? It means such a doubt as a juror would hesitate to act on in the most important business affairs of his own, in the ordinary walks of life. Now, it is said, gentlemen, in this book on Evidence,\u2013Reynolds,\u2013\u201cabsolute certainty is never attainable.\u201d You can\u2019t get it outside of mathematics, but you can get the moral certainty. That\u2019s what you are after.<\/p>\n
Circumstantial Evidence Sometimes Best<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, we pass from the reasonable doubt proposition, and touch briefly on this circumstantial evidence. A great many people, over-conscientious and a little bit too refined for practical matters, sometimes want to set themselves up on a pinnacle and say they won\u2019t convict on circumstantial evidence. That\u2019s the merest bosh. The authorities say that it is the best evidence. People are getting better in that respect everywhere, they are coming to that realization. But even now, the best of juries are sometimes reluctant, for some reason or other, to convict, even though the evidence is as plain as it can be. Now, here\u2019s what is said by one of our most eminent Judges in the 26th Georgia: \u201cJuries are generally too reluctant to convict on circumstantial evidence. While it is true that a man ought not to be punished for an offense of which he is guiltless, the jury ought not to pronounce the accused innocent, for the want of positive evidence of his guilt. Circumstances, satisfactorily proven, which point to his guilt and which are irreconcilable with
\nthe hypothesis of his innocence, or which require explanation from him and may be explained by him, if he be innocent, but which are not so explained, ought to satisfy the conscience of every juror and justify him before that forum for rendering a verdict according to their almost unerring intellect. Any other rule will expose society to the ravages of the most depraved men. \u201cThe most atrocious crimes\u201d\u2013gentlemen, listen at this\u2014\u201cThe most atrocious crimes are contrived in secrecy, and are perpetrated generally under circumstances which preclude the adduction of positive proof of the guilt of the person who committed them. But it must be remembered that, while this is true, circumstances which would authorize a bare conjecture of guilt are not sufficient to warrant conviction, but where they point to facts that are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with every other hypothesis, they are the best evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Durant Case<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, gentlemen, Mr. Arnold spoke to you about that Durant case. That case is a celebrated case. It was said that that was the greatest crime of the century. I don\u2019t know where Mr. Arnold got his authority for the statement that he made with reference to that case; I would like to know it.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: I got it out of the public prints, at the time, Mr. Dorsey, published all over the country,\u2013I read it in the newspapers, that\u2019s where I got it.<\/p>\n
On April 15, 1913, Mr. C. M. Pickett, the District Attorney of the City of San Francisco, wrote a letter\u2013<\/p>\n
Effort to Bar Telegram<\/strong><\/p>\nMr. Arnold: I want to object to any communication between Mr. Pickett and Mr. Dorsey,\u2013it\u2019s just a personal letter from this man, and I could write to some other person there and get information satisfactory to me, no doubt, just as Mr. Dorsey has done, and I object to his reading any letters or communications from anybody out there.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: This is a matter of public notoriety. Here\u2019s his reply to a telegram I sent him, and in view of his statement, I have got a right to read it to this jury.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: You can argue a matter of public notoriety, you can argue a matter that appears in the public prints,\u2013my friend can, but as to his writing particular letters to particular men, why, that\u2019s introducing evidence, and I must object to it; he has got a right to state simply his recollection of the occurrence, or his general information on the subject, but he can\u2019t read any letters or telegrams from any particular people on the subject.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Mr. Arnold brought this in, and I telegraphed to San Francisco, and I want to read this telegram to the jury; now, can\u2019t I do it?<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: If the Court please, I want to object to any particular letter or telegram,\u2013I can telegraph and get my information as well as he can. I don\u2019t know whether the information is true, I don\u2019t know who he telegraphed about it; I have got a right to argue a matter that appears in the public prints, and that\u2019s all I argued,\u2013what appears in the papers,\u2013it may be right or wrong, but if my friend has a friend he knows there and writes and gets some information, that\u2019s introducing evidence and I want to put him on notice that I object to it. I have got the same right to telegraph there and get my own information. And, besides, my friend seems to know about that case pretty well, he\u2019s writing four months ago. Why did he do it?<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Because I anticipated some such claim would be made here in this presence.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: You anticipated it, then, I presume, because you knew it was published; that\u2019s what I went on.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: I anticipated it, and know the truth about that case.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: I object to his reading any communication unless I have the right to investigate it also: I am going only on what I read in the public press. April 15th is nearly two weeks before the crime is alleged to have been committed. I want to record an objection right now to my friend doing any such thing as that, reading a telegram from anybody picked out by my friend Dorsey, to give him the kind of information he wants for his speech, and I claim the right to communicate out there myself and get such information as I can, if he\u2019s given the right to do it.<\/p>\n
The Court: I\u2019ll either have to expunge from the jury what you have told the jury, in your argument, or\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: I don\u2019t want it expunged, I stand on it.<\/p>\n
The Court: I have either got to do one of the two\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: No sir, can\u2019t I state to this jury what I knew about it, as well as he can state what he knows?<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: Certainly he can, as a matter of public notoriety, but not as a matter of individual information or opinion.<\/p>\n
Court Rules for Defense<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Court: You can state, Mr. Dorsey, to the jury, your information about the Durant case, just like he did, but you can\u2019t read anything,\u2013don\u2019t introduce any evidence.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: My information is that nobody has ever confessed to the murder of Blanche Lamont and Minnie Williams. But, gentlemen of the jury, as I\u2019ll show you by reading this book, it was proved at the trial and there can be no question about the fact, Theodore Durant was guilty, the body of one of these girls having been found in the belfry of the church in question; and the other in the basement. Here\u2019s the book containing an account of that case, reported in the 48th Pacific Reporter, and this shows, gentlemen of the jury, that the body of that girl, stripped stark naked, was found in the belfry of Emanuel Church in San Francisco after she had been missing for two weeks. It shows that Durant was a medical student of high standing and a prominent member of the church, with superb character,\u2013a better character than is shown by this man, Leo M. Frank, because not a soul came in to say that he didn\u2019t enjoy the confidence and respect of every member of that large congregation and all the medical students with whom he associated.<\/p>\n
Three Years to Hang Durant<\/strong><\/p>\nAnother thing, this book shows that the crime was committed in 1895, and this man Durant never mounted the gallows until 1898, and the facts are that his mother took the remains of her son and cremated them because she didn\u2019t want them to fall into the hands of the medical authorities, as they would have done in the State of California had she not made the demand and received the body. Hence, that\u2019s all poppy-cock he was telling you about. There never was a guiltier man, there never was a man of higher character, than Theodore Durant, and there never was a more courageous jury or better satisfied community than the jury that tried him and the people of San Francisco, where he lived and committed his crime and died.<\/p>\n
In this case, now, I\u2019ll read you, \u201cThe contention of the appellant next to be considered is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, and that the verdict is contrary to the evidence in this, that the evidence fails to show how, when or where Blanche Lamont was murdered, or that the defendant in any way was instrumental in causing her death. On April 15th the defendant was arrested. On April 3, 1895, Blanche Lamont was living with her aunt, Mrs. Noble, in the City and County of San Francisco. She was in person rather tall and slight, and weighed about 130 pounds. Her age was 21 years. She was a school girl attending the High School and Normal School, and upon the morning of April 3, 1895\u201d\u2013and this case wasn\u2019t decided until March 3, 1897, and he wasn\u2019t hung until 1898\u2013\u201cshe was a school girl attending the High School and the Normal School, and upon the morning of April 3, 1895, left her home with her strap of books to join her classes. She met defendant while on the way (such is his testimony), and he accompanied her for a part of the journey. She was at school during the day\u2019s session, and at its close, about 3:00 P. M., left with the other pupils. She did not return home, and never after that day was seen alive. Shortly after 9:00 o\u2019clock, upon the morning of April 14th, two police officers and the janitor attempted to open the door leading to the belfry of Emanuel Baptist Church. They were prosecuting a search for Blanche Lamont. The knob of the door was gone and the lock mutilated, so that the janitor\u2019s key couldn\u2019t open it. They forced the door, and one of the officers, ascending the stairs, found the body of a girl lying on the top landing, in the southeastern corner of the belfry. It was that of Blanche Lamont.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lust Murderers<\/strong><\/p>\nThere are lust murderers,\u2013there are people that are in the height of exultation and their passion is gratified by choking people to death with hands and cords, things like that,\u2013plenty of instances of it,\u2013this man stripping this girl absolutely naked\u2013 \u201cThe body was naked, lying upon its face, the feet close together, her hands folded upon the breast, the head inclined a little to the left. There were two small blocks, apparently employed to hold the head in an upright position. Decomposition was well advanced, and by medical testimony, life had been extinct for about two weeks. An examination and autopsy of the corpse revealed seven finger nail incisions upon the left side of the throat, and five upon the right, a depression of the larynx and a congestion of the trachea, larynx, lungs and brain. Strangulation was the cause of death. A search brought to light the clothing and apparel of the girl, hidden in and about the rough woodwork of the belfry, and also her book strap and school books.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cUpon April 15, the defendant was arrested and charged with this murder. At that time, Durant was a young man, 24 years of age, a student of the Cooper Medical College of San Francisco, and a member of the Signal Corps of the National Guard of the State. He was interested in religious work\u201d\u2013and, of course, that embraces charity work\u2013\u201cwas
\nan attendant, if not a member of Emmanuel Baptist Church, was a member of the Christian Endeavor Society, was Assistant Superintendent of the Sunday School, and was librarian of the church library. As is abundantly testified to, he bore the esteem of his fellows as a zealous, earnest and upright young man, of commendable character and of sincere Christian life. When arrested, he was upon service of the Signal Corps, to which he was attached. Upon the trial, his defense was an alibi,\u201d\u2013the last resort of the guilty man\u2013\u201cHe declared that he had seen Blanche Lamont in the morning of April 3rd, when she was on her way to school but never again thereafter, that he himself had gone to his medical college and there had attended a lecture at the time when, under the contention of the prosecution, the girl had been by him murdered in the church.<\/p>\n
Durant a Church Worker<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cBy the prosecution it was shown that Blanche Lamont was a regular attendant of the Emmanuel Church, and belonged to the Society of Christian Endeavor, of which Durant was also a member. The two were well acquainted; indeed, they seemed to have stood in their intercourse upon terms of cordial and trusted friendship. They met at religious and social gatherings, to and from which Durant frequently escorted the girl in company with her sister and others of their social circle. Durant had a key to the side door of the church, and was thoroughly familiar with the building and premises.<\/p>\n
\u201cMrs. Mary Vogel lived across the street from the school Blanche Lamont was attending. She saw defendant a little after two o\u2019clock on the afternoon of April 3, in front of the schoolhouse, walking up and down, apparently in waiting. When school closed, she noticed two girls coming out together. One of them carried books in a strap. They walked to the corner of the street, where they stopped for a car. The defendant joined them as they were about to board it. One of the girls went inside, the other sat outside upon the dummy. The defendant joined this girl and seated himself beside her; Minnie Edwards testified that it was she who accompanied Blanche Lamont from school that afternoon. They were joined by Durant at the corner. Blanche Lamont and he sat together outside, while she found a seat within the car. Blanche Lamont had her school books with her. Mrs. Alice Dogan, at the time of these occurrences, was a pupil at the same school. Upon that afternoon, she, too, saw Blanche Lamont upon the dummy in company with the defendant. May Lanigan, another of the school girls, also saw the two upon the dummy. This was from five to ten minutes after three o\u2019clock. Mrs. Elizabeth Crossett had known the defendant for about four years. Between half-past three and four o\u2019clock of this afternoon, while she was upon a Valencia street car traveling towards 25th street, she saw defendant. He was seated upon the dummy of her car in company with a young lady whom she did not know but whose description answered to that of the murdered girl. The two were in conversation and left the car at 21st or 22d Street, and walked in the direction of Bartlett Street. The Emmanuel Baptist Church is situated upon Bartlett Street, between 22nd and 23rd streets. Martin Quinland, between ten and twenty minutes after four o\u2019clock of this afternoon, saw the defendant and a young lady whose description corresponded to that of the girl, and who carried a loose package in her hand by a string or strap, walking along Bartlett Street, from Twenty-second Street and towards Twenty-third Street. They were upon the same side of the street as the church and were walking towards it. Mrs. Caroline Leak lived upon Bartlett Street, almost directly opposite the church. She had been an attendant there at divine service for many years; she had known defendant for the past three or four years; she. also knew Blanche Lamont. Between four and half-past four of this afternoon, she saw Durant and a young lady pass through the gate into the church yard and on towards the side door. His companion she could not identify positively, but from her appearance, thought at the time that it was Blanche Lamont or another young lady of similar size and height. This young lady testified she was not with defendant at any time upon that day, and no pretense is made that she was. George King was a member of the church and its organist. He knew defendant, and the two were very friendly. At five o\u2019clock on this afternoon, he entered the church by the front door, letting himself in with his key. He noticed a strong smell of gas, and went forthwith into the library to see if it was escaping there. He failed to find the leak. Thence, closing the library door, he proceeded directly to the Sunday School room, and sitting at the piano, began to play. He played for two or three minutes, when defendant, Durant, came through the folding doors to the rear, and stood looking at him. \u2018I asked him what was the matter, because of his pale condition. He had his coat off and his hat off\u2019\u2013no scratches, no blood. \u2018His hair was somewhat disheveled. He came through and then told me that he had been fixing the gas above the auditorium\u2019\u2013not a financial sheet\u2013and had been overcome by it to such a degree that he could hardly descend the ladder.\u201d<\/p>\n
Similarity of Durant and Frank Cases<\/strong><\/p>\nOn account of the inclemency of the weather this man (Frank) gave up the ball game. \u201cHe seemed ill\u201d\u2013this man seemed nervous. \u201cHe handed me a fifty-cents piece and asked me to go and get some bromo seltzer\u201d\u2013this man wanted coffee and breakfast. \u201cWitness procured the seltzer, and upon his return found the defendant either standing in the lobby or lying upon the platform in the Sunday School room.\u201d This man was found running out to meet Newt Lee, washing his hands and nervous. \u201cHe thinks, however, that defendant was lying down. Defendant took a dose of the seltzer, which seemed to nauseate him somewhat. The two sat and talked together for a few minutes, then went upstairs to the choir loft and carried down a small organ. Defendant appeared weak and had to stop two or three times to rest\u201d-this man trembled in Darley\u2019s lap, couldn\u2019t nail the back door up, couldn\u2019t run the elevator, he could open the safe because he had done that often, he talked to the people at home-if he did talk to them-without manifestations of nervousness, if what they say be true, but when confronted with the officers of the law his voice, his eye, his every demeanor showed guilt.<\/p>\n
Durant\u2019s Actions After Crime<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cDefendant appeared weak and had to stop two or three times to rest\u201d\u2013you\u2019ll always find it that way: \u201cThen they went to the library door, which Durant unlocked, and entering, put on his hat and coat, which were lying on a box in the corner. Witness had not seen the hat or coat when he went into the library the first time that afternoon. They then left the church and walking some distance together, separated and went to their respective homes. It was then about six o\u2019clock.<\/p>\n
\u201cUpon the morning of April 13th, ten days after the disappearance of Blanche Lamont and one day before the discovery of the body, her aunt, Mrs. Noble, received through the mail a package which contained all of the rings worn by her when she left her home. The rings were enclosed in a copy of a daily newspaper, The Examiner, and upon the paper written the names of George King and Professor Shurenstein. King was a common friend of Durant and Blanche Lamont. Professor Shurenstein was her music teacher. The paper and wrapper were exhibited to the jury, together with admitted samples of defendant\u2019s writing. Upon a morning between the 4th and 10th of April, Adolph Oppenheimer, a pawnbroker, was offered for sale a gold ring containing a diamond chip. The ring was identified as one worn by Blanche Lamont at the time of her disappearance and subsequently returned to her aunt through the mail. The person offering the ring for sale was the defendant.\u201d<\/p>\n
No doubt, Mr. Arnold\u2013of course, he wouldn\u2019t mislead you, I know that he\u2019s an honorable man and wouldn\u2019t think of such a thing, but I\u2019m just putting the record up to you.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe person offering the ring for sale was the defendant. William Phillips testified that upon a day in the first part of April, he saw defendant standing in front of Oppenheimer\u2019s place, between ten and eleven o\u2019clock in the morning. Doctor G. F. Graham was a student and classmate of Durant at the Cooper Medical College. From 3:30 to 4:15 of April 3rd, Doctor Cheney, of that college, delivered a lecture to his class upon the sterilization of milk. Doctor Graham attended that lecture and took notes of it. The defendant, in support of his alibi, claimed to have attended the lecture\u201d\u2013they put up any kind of claims when they are backed right up in the corner and have got to do it, and he might have known, this fellow Durant might have known they would catch him out on that proposition; this man here, I\u2019ll show you, was caught out in the same way. \u201cDefendant, in support of his alibi, claimed to have attended the lecture and likewise to have taken original notes, which were admitted in evidence. Doctor Graham testified that after Durant\u2019s arrest and before the trial, he visited him with a friend. Durant requested his companion to withdraw, that he might talk to Doctor Graham alone. When he had done so, defendant informed Doctor Graham that he had no notes of the lecture, and requested the Doctor to lend him his, saying that if he could get them he could establish an alibi.\u201d<\/p>\n
Going to his friend, just like this man here went to his friends. Now, let\u2019s see if Graham responded like this defendant\u2019s friends did.<\/p>\n
Framing Up His Alibi<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cDefendant told him that he could take the notes to Durant\u2019s house, get his book and put them in it and that the book could be brought to him in jail, or that the witness could commit his notes to memory, come to the jail and repeat them to him. This summarization of the evidence is not designed to be exhaustive. Much that is cumulative upon the part of the people is omitted. No analysis is made of the alibi of the defense, nor of the claims of the prosecution that, when not completely demolished, it stands upon the unsupported word of the defendant. Enough has been set forth to show that the verdict and judgment find support from legal and sufficient evidence, and when that point is reached, the inquiry of this Court comes to an end, saving in those exceptional cases, of which this is not one, where the evidence against the defendant is so slight as to make clear the inference that the verdict must have been rendered under the influence of passion or prejudice.<\/p>\n
By this evidence, the defendant and Blanche Lamont (she with her strap of books) entered Emmanuel Church at about half past four o\u2019clock in the afternoon of April 3rd. At five o\u2019clock defendant was seen there and explains his distressed condition as caused by the inhalation of gas. At six o\u2019clock he leaves the church. Blanche Lamont was never again seen alive. Two weeks after, her nude and decomposed body is found in the church. She had been strangled and her corpse dragged to the belfry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Motive in Moving Body<\/strong><\/p>\nHe was the librarian, he didn\u2019t want to leave it there in the library, he wanted it in the belfry. This man wanted it off the second floor. Tell me, if you will, men of common sense and reason, tell me where was any motive in this man to have moved Blanche Lamont from the library, he being librarian, except the same motive that prompted Frank in moving that body from his office floor down into the basement?<\/p>\n
\u201cTwo weeks after, her nude and decomposed body is found in the church. She had been strangled and her corpse dragged to the belfry.\u201d \u201cThe\u2019 clothes she wore on leaving home are secreted about the floors and rafters. Her books are found still tightly strapped. These facts, with the others set forth, are sufficient to justify the hypothesis of defendant\u2019s guilt and to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. Such evidence is clearly sufficient to warrant and uphold the determination that the girl was strangled to death at the hands of the defendant upon the afternoon of April 3rd. The evidence of the defendant\u2019s previous good character, so fully established, was a circumstance making strongly in his favor. We are asked to say that the jury disregarded it in reaching their verdict, but this we cannot do. They were fully and fairly instructed upon the matter, and it must be presumed that the instructions were regarded.\u201d<\/p>\n
That, gentlemen of the jury, is the case that Mr. Arnold says the jury went wrong in convicting. They didn\u2019t. The judge that tried it approved the verdict; the high court approved the verdict; the community and the civilized world, notwithstanding he was a professed Christian and member of the church and societies,\u2013and it isn\u2019t true that any man ever confessed it, because the dastardly deed was done by Theodore Durant.<\/p>\n
Now, let me read you a little bit about this thing of good character\u2013before I get down to the discussion of the State\u2019s case I want to clear out the underbrush, and let you understand the legal principles, because His Honor has got to charge you, and I\u2019m not going to mislead you either. I\u2019m just going to do my plain duty here, and expect you to do yours, that\u2019s all anybody wants\u2013if you think this man is innocent, why, you turn him loose, that\u2019s what you do; if you think he\u2019s guilty, you put a cord around his neck\u2013have the courage to do it, and the manhood, and you will, too.<\/p>\n
Frank Put Character in Issue<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, let\u2019s examine this good character a little. I grant you, good character spells a whole lot; but first, ah, first, let\u2019s establish good character. It is presumed\u2013had he not put his character in issue, it would have been presumed\u2013and the State would have been absolutely helpless\u2013that this man was as good a man as lived in the City of Atlanta. It\u2019s a mighty easy thing, if a man is worth anything, if a man attains to any degree of respectability, it\u2019s a mighty easy thing to get some one to sustain his character; but it\u2019s the hardest thing known to a lawyer to get people to impeach the character of another. In the Durant case his character was unimpeached. The defendant here put his character in issue and we accepted the challenge, and we met it, I submit to you. Now, if we concede that this defendant in this case was a man of good character\u2013a thing we don\u2019t concede\u2013still, under your oath and under the law that His Honor will give you in charge, as is laid down in the 88th Georgia, page 92, sub-head 11, \u201cProof of good character will not hinder conviction, if the guilt of the defendant is plainly proved to the satisfaction of the jury.\u201d<\/p>\n
Vain Effort to Prove Character<\/strong><\/p>\nFirst, you have got to have the good character, before it weighs a feather in the balance, and remember, that the hardest burden, so far as proof is concerned, that ever rests on anybody, is to break down the character of a man who really has character; and I ask you if this defendant stands before you a man of good character? Mr. Arnold, along with all this other dramatic performance of his\u2013I don\u2019t know who he was threatening, the Judge or you or me or all of us\u2013\u201cI move for a mistrial\u201d\u2013all that kind of business, all along through the case here\u2013stood up and did that, I suppose, maybe, I don\u2019t know, it may be an attribute of a great lawyer; I don\u2019t want to be great if, in the defense of any man, I have to stand up and say, contrary to law and contrary to good principles and morals, before the witnesses are put on the stand, that they are \u201cliars or crack-brain fanatics,\u201d and he wouldn\u2019t have done that either if he hadn\u2019t realized the force of the evidence banked up here against the man that, on the 26th day of April, snuffed out the life of little Mary Phagan. But in his desperation he stood up in this presence and called nineteen or twenty of these reputable, high-toned girls, though they be working girls, \u201ccrack-brain fanatics and liars,\u201d and they have hurled that word around here a good deal, too, they have hurled that word around here a good deal. If that\u2019s an attribute of great men and great lawyers, I here and now proclaim to you I have no aspirations to attain them. Not once will I say that anybody has lied, but I\u2019ll put it up to you as twelve honest, conscientious men by your verdict to say where the truth lies and who has lied. I\u2019m going to be satisfied with your verdict, too\u2013I know this case and I know the conscience that abides in the breast of honest, courageous men.<\/p>\n
Now, the book says that if a man has good character, nevertheless it will not hinder conviction, if the guilt of the defendant is plainly proved to the satisfaction of the jury\u2013as it was in the Durant case, and I submit that, character or no character, this evidence demands a conviction. And I\u2019m not asking you for it either because of prejudice\u2013I\u2019m coming to the perjury after a bit. Have I so forgotten myself that I would ask you to convict that man if the evidence demanded that Jim Conley\u2019s neck be broken?<\/p>\n
Letters to Grand Jury<\/strong><\/p>\nI want to talk a little bit about those letters to the Grand Jury, too\u2013the conscientious opinion of our friend Billie Owens, the man that went over here with Brent\u2013a man that
\nused to work for the Stevens Lumber Company\u2013Fleming, Fleming, the man that also wrote a note to the Grand Jury, and the man that also\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Rosser: There\u2019s no evidence of that, Mr. Dorsey, at all.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Doctor Owens says a man by the name of Fleming went there\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Rosser: I know, but there\u2019s no evidence that he wrote such a note, he stated that he didn\u2019t know him and that he didn\u2019t know his handwriting.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: That\u2019s true, but he said that the name was the same.<\/p>\n
Mr. Rosser: Yes, but he can\u2019t tell about that, he said plainly that he didn\u2019t know his handwriting.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Well, I don\u2019t care about that, that\u2019s not important, anyway\u2013<\/p>\n
The Court: I understand Mr. Dorsey says he don\u2019t insist on it if there isn\u2019t any evidence of it.<\/p>\n
A man by the name of Fleming went over there in the basement and pulled off that little farce with Owens\u2013I guess I can say that\u2013and Owens is the man whose conscience moved him to try to dictate to the Grand Jury, and Owens is the man whose counsel sits there. All right; now Mr. Arnold said yesterday, and I noticed it, though it wasn\u2019t in evidence, that Jim Conley wasn\u2019t indicted. No, he will never be, for this crime, because there is no evidence\u2013he\u2019s an accessory after the fact, according to his own admission, and he\u2019s guilty of that and nothing more. And Billie Owens may feel his conscientious pangs, sitting up yonder in his office, building houses and squirting something into people\u2019s noses and mouths, but the man that acts as a juror will never so far forget himself as to put a rope around that negro\u2019s neck for a crime that he didn\u2019t commit. And I\u2019m here to tell you that, unless there\u2019s some other evidence besides that which has been shown here or heretofore, you\u2019ve got to get you another Solicitor General before I\u2019ll ask any jury to hang him, lousy negro though he may be; and if that be treason, make the most of it. I have got my own conscience to keep, and I wouldn\u2019t rest quite so well to feel that I had been instrumental in putting a rope around the neck of Jim Conley for a crime that Leo M. Frank committed. You\u2019ll do it, too. Of course, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to the satisfaction of the jury, it is their duty to convict, notwithstanding good character. Is that right? Of course, it is. But you haven\u2019t got good character in this case even as a starting point upon which to predicate that proposition.<\/p>\n
Defense\u2019s Right to Cross-examine<\/strong><\/p>\nLet\u2019s get on a little bit. Mark you, I want you to bear in mind, now, we haven\u2019t touched the body of this case, we have been just clearing up the underbrush\u2013we\u2019ll get to the big timber after awhile. \u201cWhere character is put in issue\u201d\u2013and the State can\u2019t do it, it rests with him\u2013\u201cWhere character is put in issue, the direct examination must relate to the general reputation, good or bad;\u201d that is, whoever puts character in issue, can ask the question with reference to the general reputation, good or bad, as the case may be, \u201cbut on cross examination particular transactions or statements of single individuals may be brought into the inquiry in testing the extent and foundation of the witnesses\u2019 knowledge, and the correctness of his testimony on direct examination.\u201d<\/p>\n
We did exercise that right in the examination of one witness, but knowing that we couldn\u2019t put specific instances in unless they drew it out, I didn\u2019t want even to do this man the injustice, so we suspended, and we put it before this jury in this kind of position\u2013you put his character in, we put up witnesses to disprove it, you could cross examine every one of them and ask them what they knew and what they had heard and what they had seen; we had already given them enough instances, but they didn\u2019t dare, they didn\u2019t dare to do it. Mark you, now, here\u2019s the law:<\/p>\n
Why Didn\u2019t They Cross-examine?<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cWhere character is put in issue, the direct examination must relate to the general reputation;\u201d we couldn\u2019t go further, but on cross examination, when we put up these little girls, sweet and tender, ah, but \u201cparticular instances or statements of single individuals, you could have brought into the inquiry,\u201d but you dared not do it. You tell me that the testimony of these good people living out on Washington Street, the good people connected with the Hebrew Orphans\u2019 Home, Doctor Marx, Doctor Sonn, you tell me that they know the character of Leo M. Frank as these girls do, who have worked there but are not now under the infiuence of the Nation Pencil Company and its employees? Do you tell me that if you are accused of a crime, or I am accused of a crime, and your character or my character is put in issue, that if I were mean enough to do it, or if Messrs. Starnes and Campbell were corrupt enough to do it, that you could get others who would do your bidding? I tell you, in principle and common sense, it is a dastardly suggestion. You know it, and I know you know it, and you listen to your conscience and it will tell you you know it, and you have got no doubt about it. The trouble about this business is throughout the length and breadth of our land, there\u2019s too much shehanigane and too little honest, plain dealings; let\u2019s be fair, let\u2019s be honest, let\u2019s be courageous! Tell me that old Pat Campbell or John Starnes or Mr. Rosser\u2013in whose veins, he says, there flows the same blood as flows in the attorney\u2019s veins\u2013that they could go and get nineteen or twenty of them, through prejudice and passion to come up here and swear that that man\u2019s character is bad and it not be true? I tell you it can\u2019t be done, and you know it.<\/p>\n
His Friends Didn\u2019t Know Him<\/strong><\/p>\nAh, but, on the other hand, Doctor Marx, Doctor Sonn, all these other people, as Mr. Hooper said, who run with Doctor Jekyll, don\u2019t know the character of Mr. Hyde. And he didn\u2019t call Doctor Marx down to the factory on Saturday evenings to show what he was going to do with those girls, but the girls know. And right here, in passing\u2013I\u2019m coming back to it, I\u2019m going to have a good bit more to say\u2013but if old Jim Conley didn\u2019t get every bird in the covey when he shot in amongst them, my Lord, didn\u2019t he nevertheless shoot right in among them? He flushed Daisy\u2013let Dalton be as bad as you say he is, nevertheless, it\u2019s strange, Jim, in poking in that hole, rousted out Daisy and Dalton, and also said that Frank was there; and by the undisputed evidence of a reputable man who saw Dalton go in there, it is certainly shown that Dalton was there. \u201cWhere the defendant put his character in issue, it is allowable on cross examination to ask a witness called to establish good character, if the witness on a certain occasion came upon the scene immediately after the defendant, and made a serious attack with a weapon upon the defendant,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow, gentlemen, put yourself in this man\u2019s place. If you are a man of good character, and twenty people come in here and state that you are of bad character, your counsel have got the right to ask them who they ever heard talking about you and what they ever heard said and what they ever saw. Is it possible, I\u2019ll ask you in the name of common sense, that you would permit your counsel to sit mute? You wouldn\u2019t do it, would you? If a man says that I am a person of bad character, I want to know, curiosity makes me want to know, and if it\u2019s proclaimed, published to the world and it\u2019s a lie, I want to nail the lie\u2013to show that he never saw it, and never heard it and knows nothing about it. And yet, three able counsel and an innocent man, and twenty or more girls all of whom had worked in the factory but none of whom work there at this time, except one on the fourth floor, tell you that that man had a bad character, and had a bad character for lasciviousness,\u2013the uncontrolled and uncontrollable passion that led him on to kill poor Mary Phagan. This book says it is allowable to cross-examine a witness, to see and find out what he knows, who told him those things,\u2013and I\u2019m here to tell you that this thing of itself is pregnant, pregnant, pregnant with significance, and does not comport with innocence on the part of any man. We furnished him the names of some. Well, even by their own witnesses, looks like to me there was a leak, and little Miss Jackson dropped it out just as easy. Now, what business did this man have going in up there, peering in on those little girls?\u2013the head of the factory, the man that wanted flirting forbidden? What business did he have going up into those dressing rooms? You tell me to go up there to the girls\u2019 dressing room, shove open the door and walk in is a part of his duty, when he has foreladies to stop it? No, indeed. And old Jim Conley may not have been so far wrong as you may think. He says that somebody went up there that worked on the fourth floor, he didn\u2019t know who. This man, according to the evidence of people that I submit you will believe, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Reuben R. Arnold said it was a lie and called them hair-brained fanatics,\u2013according to the testimony even of a lady who works there now and yet is brave enough and courageous enough to come down here and tell you that that man had been in a room with a lady that works on the fourth floor; and it may have been that he was then, when he went in there on this little Jackson girl and the Mayfield girl and Miss Kitchens, looking out to see if the way was clear to take her in again,\u2013and Miss Jackson, their witness, says she heard about his going in there\u2013three or four times more than she ever saw it, and they complained to the fore ladies\u2013it may have been right then and there he went to see some woman on the fourth floor that old Jim Conley says he saw go up there to meet him Saturday evening, when all these good people were out on Washington Street and Montags, and the pencil factory employees, even, didn\u2019t know of the occurrence of these things.<\/p>\n
Little Jackson Girl\u2019s Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, that\u2019s the way you\u2019ve got it. Of course, a juror, you know, if he just wants to do a thing, you know, it\u2019s his conscience, but I\u2019m talking to you as sensible men, as men who are just exactly like you said you were,\u2013impartial, not prejudiced. What do you think about it, in the room,\u2013oh, me, in the room with Miss Carson\u2013they wouldn\u2019t let me ask how long he stayed in there, I couldn\u2019t ask that\u2013I didn\u2019t quite understand the principle upon which that went out, but whatever the Judge says must be the law; but he went in there with her, and he came out with her, and surely, surely, he wasn\u2019t in there then to stop flirting! That came out from their own witness, the little Jackson girl, and I suppose she must be classed, under Mr. Arnold\u2019s way of looking at it, as a crack-brained fanatic telling a bald-faced lie. Miss Mayfield, who works there, denied it; Miss Kitchens, one of the ladies who works on the fourth floor\u2013Lord me, how often did Mr. Arnold say he was going to ask this question of every lady,\u2013with that handsome face of his, and that captivating manner\u2013\u201cWe are going to ask this question of every lady who works on the fourth floor\u201d\u2013and lo and behold up comes Miss Kitchens and she herself named another\u2013possibly others\u2013that hadn\u2019t been put up by them, and you don\u2019t know today, right now, except from the fact that Mr. Arnold said it, whether you have seen every woman that worked on the fourth floor or not, and if he wasn\u2019t any more accurate about that than he was about this Durant case, there\u2019s no telling how many people on the fourth floor haven\u2019t been brought up here.<\/p>\n
(At this point the Court took a recess until tomorrow, Saturday, August 23, 1913, at 9:00 o\u2019clock, A.M.)<\/p>\n
Saturday, August 23, 1913, 9 o\u2019clock, A.M.
\nMay it please Your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury:<\/p>\n
Frank\u2019s Bad Character Proven<\/strong><\/p>\nI was just about concluding, yesterday, what I had to say in reference to the matter of character, and I think that I demonstrated by the law, to any fair-minded man, that this defendant has not a good character. The conduct of counsel in this case, as I stated, in failing to cross-examine, in refusing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claims of this defendant that he has good character. As I said, if this man had had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those girls where they got their information, and why it was they said that this defendant was a man of bad character. Now, that\u2019s a common sense proposition,\u2013you\u2019d know it whether it was in a book or not. I have already shown you that under the law, they had the right to go into that character, and you saw that on cross-examination they dared not do it. Now let\u2019s see what the law says on that proposition\u2013if I can find it, and I have it here,\u2013an authority that puts it right squarely,\u2013that
\nwhenever any man has evidence\u2013decided in 83rd Ga., 581\u2013\u201cwhenever anybody has evidence in their possession, and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they had, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Defense Dared Not Cross-examine<\/strong><\/p>\nYou don\u2019t need any law book to make you know that that\u2019s true, because your common sense tells you that whenever a man can bring evidence, and you know that he has got it and don\u2019t do it, the strongest presumption arises against him. And you know, as twelve honest men seeking to get at the truth, that the reason these able counsel didn\u2019t ask those \u201chair-brained fanatics,\u201d as Mr. Arnold called them, before they had ever gone on the stand,\u2013girls whose appearance is as good as any they brought, girls that you know by their manner on the stand spoke the truth, girls who are unimpeached and unimpeachable, was because they dared not do it. You know it; if it had never been put in a law book you\u2019d know it. And then you tell me that because these good people from Washington Street come down here and say that they never heard anything, that he\u2019s a man of good character? Many a man has gone through life and even his wife and his best friends never knew his character; and some one has said that it takes the valet to really know the character of a man. And I had rather believe that these poor, unprotected working girls, who have no interest in this case and are not under the influence of the pencil company or Montag or anybody else, know that man, as many a man has been heretofore, is of bad character than to believe the Rabbi of his church and the members of the Hebrew Orphans Home.<\/p>\n
Sometimes, you know, a man of bad character uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up the defects, and sometimes a consciousness in the heart of a man will make him over-active in some other line, in order to cover up and mislead the public generally. Many a man has been a wolf in sheep\u2019s clothing; many a man has walked in high society and appeared on the outside as a whited sepulcher, who was as rotten on the inside as it was possible to be.<\/p>\n
Reputation Versus Character<\/strong><\/p>\nSo he has got no good character, I submit, never had it; he has got a reputation,\u2013that\u2019s what people say and think about you,\u2013and he has got a reputation for good conduct only among those people that don\u2019t know his character. But suppose that he had a good character; that would amount to nothing. David of old was a great character until he put old Uriah in the fore-front of battle in order that he might be killed,\u2013that Uriah might be killed, and David take his wife. Judas Iscariot was a good character, and one of the Twelve, until he took the thirty pieces of silver and betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ. Benedict Arnold was brave, enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the management of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish Knight, a literary man, brilliant, the author of works that will go down the ages,\u2013Lady Windemere\u2019s Fan, De Profundis,\u2013which he wrote while confined in jail; a man who had the effrontery and the boldness, when the Marquis of Queensbury saw that there was something wrong between this intellectual giant and his son, sought to break up their companionship, he sued the Marquis for damages, which brought retaliation on the part of the Marquis for criminal practices on the part of Wilde, this intellectual giant; and wherever the English language is read, the effrontery, the boldness, the coolness of this man, Oscar Wilde, as he stood the cross examination of the ablest lawyers of England,\u2013an effrontery that is characteristic of the man of his type,\u2013that examination will remain the subject matter of study for lawyers and for people who are interested in the type of pervert like this man. Not even Oscar Wilde\u2019s wife,\u2013for he was married and had two children,\u2013suspected that he was guilty of such immoral practices, and, as I say, it never would have been brought to light probably, because committed in secret, had not this man had the effrontery and the boldness and the impudence himself to start the proceeding which culminated in sending him to prison for three long years. He\u2019s the man who led the aesthetic movement; he was a scholar, a literary man, cool, calm and cultured, and as I say, his cross examination is a thing to be read with admiration by all lawyers, but he was convicted, and in his old age, went tottering to the grave, a confessed pervert.<\/p>\n
\u201cGood Character\u201d of Wilde<\/strong><\/p>\nGood character? Why, he came to America, after having launched what is known as the \u201cAesthetic movement,\u201d in England, and throughout this country lectured to large audiences, and it is he who raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. Handsome, not lacking in physical or moral courage, and yet a pervert, but a man of previous good character.<\/p>\n
Reuf Had \u201cCharacter,\u201d Too<\/strong><\/p>\nAbe Reuf, of San Francisco,\u2013a man of his race and religion,\u2013was the boss of the town, respected and honored, but he corrupted Schmitt, and he corrupted everything that he put his hands on, and just as a life of immorality, a life of sin, a life in which he fooled the good people when debauching the poor girls with whom he came in contact has brought this man before this jury, so did eventually Reuf\u2019s career terminate in the penitentiary.<\/p>\n
I have already referred to Durant. Good character isn\u2019t worth a cent when you have got the case before you. And crime don\u2019t go only with the ignorant and the poor. The ignorant, like Jim Conley, as an illustration, commit the small crime, and he doesn\u2019t know anything about some of this higher type of crimes; but a man of high intellect and wonderful endowments, which, if directed in the right line, bring honor and glory, if those same faculties and talents are perverted and not controlled, as was the case with this man, they will carry him down.<\/p>\n
Mayor McCue\u2019s \u201cCharacter\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\nLook at McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville; a man of such reputation that the people elevated him to the head of that municipality, but notwithstanding that good reputation, he didn\u2019t have rock bed character, and, becoming tired of his wife, he shot her in the bath tub, and the jury of gallant and noble and courageous Virginia gentlemen, notwithstanding his good character, sent him to a felon\u2019s grave.<\/p>\n
The Preacher Richeson<\/strong><\/p>\nRicheson, of Boston was a preacher, who enjoyed the confidence of his flock. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most fascinating women in Boston, but an entanglement with a poor little girl, of whom he wished to rid himself, caused this man Richeson to so far forget his character and reputation and his career as to put her to death: And all these are cases of circumstantial evidence. And after conviction, after he had fought, he at last admitted it, in the hope that the Governor would at least save his life, but he didn\u2019t do it, and the Massachusetts jury and the Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man who had taken that poor girl\u2019s life to save his reputation as the pastor of his flock, go, and it is an illustration that will encourage and stimulate every right-thinking man to do his duty.<\/p>\n
The Beattie Case<\/strong><\/p>\nThen, there\u2019s Beattie. Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond, of splendid family, a wealthy family, proved good character, though he didn\u2019t possess it, took his wife, the mother of a twelve-months old baby, out automobiling, and shot her; yet that man, looking at the blood in the automobile, joked! joked! joked! He was cool and calm, but he joked too much; and although the detectives were abused and maligned, and slush funds to save him from the gallows were used, in his defense, a courageous jury, an honest jury, a Virginia jury measured up to the requirements of the hour and sent him to his death; thus putting old Virginia and her citizenship on a high plane. And he never did confess, but left a note to be read after he was dead, saying that he was guilty.<\/p>\n
Crippen an Eminent Doctor<\/strong><\/p>\nCrippen, of England, a doctor, a man of high standing, recognized ability and good reputation, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman, and put her remains away where he thought, as this man thought, that it would never be discovered; but murder will out, and he was discovered and he was tried, and be it said to the glory of old England, he was executed.<\/p>\n
Gentlemen, you have got an opportunity that comes to few men; measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not? Tell me as an honest man may, why not?<\/p>\n
But, you say, you\u2019ve got an alibi. Now, let\u2019s examine that proposition a little bit. An alibi\u2013Section 1018 defines what an alibi is. \u201cAn alibi, as a defense, involves the impossibility\u201d\u2013mark that\u2013\u201cof the prisoner\u2019s presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission.\u201d \u201cAn alibi involves the impossibility, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility of guilt\u201d\u2013and the burden of carrying that alibi is on this defendant. \u201cIt involves the impossibility\u201d\u2013they must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of that crime. The burden is on them; an alibi, gentlemen of the jury, while the very best kind of defense if properly sustained, is absolutely worthless\u2013I\u2019m going to show you in a minute that this alibi is worse than no defense at all. I want to read you a definition that an old darkey gave of an alibi, which I think illustrates the idea. Rastus asked his companion, \u201cWhat\u2019s this here alibi you hear so much talk about?\u201d And old Sam says, \u201cAn alibi is proving that you was at the prayer meeting, where you wasn\u2019t, to show that you wasn\u2019t at the crap game, where you was.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, let\u2019s see this table\u2013I just want to turn that around for half a minute, now, and then I want to turn it to the wall again and I want it to stay turned to the wall.<\/p>\n
Contradiction by Frank<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cOne P. M. Frank leaves the factory;\u201d that\u2019s mighty nice\u2013on the chart. Now, turn it to the wall, turn it to the wall; let it stay turned to the wall because it isn\u2019t sustained by the evidence in the case,\u2013it\u2019s ruined by the statement of this defendant himself, Frank\u2019s statement, made at Police Headquarters, taken down by G. C. February., on Monday, April 28th, 1913, and he says, \u201cI didn\u2019t (that morning) lock the door\u201d\u2013I\u2019m interpolating that\u2013\u201cbecause the mail was coming in, I locked it at 1:10, when I went to leave.\u201d Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement, when you didn\u2019t know the importance of the time element in this case, and yet, honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of indelibly impressing this on your mind, get up this beautiful chart and stick in there that he says he left at one o\u2019clock. If he swore that he left at one o\u2019clock, when he went on this stand, it was because here and in this presence,\u2013and you know it,\u2013 he saw the importance of leaving that factory ten minutes earlier than he ever realized when he made this statement on April 28th, before his attorney, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser\u2013\u201cI left at 1:10.\u201d<\/p>\n
Admitted Leaving at 1:10<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, right here, let me interpolate, this man never made an admission, from the beginning until the end of this case, except he knew that some one could fasten it on him,\u2013wherever he knew that people knew he was in the factory, he admitted it. All right; but you prove an alibi by that little Curran girl, do you? She swore that she saw you at Alabama and Broad at 1:10, and yet here is the paper containing your admission made in the presence of your attorney, Monday morning, April 28th, that you didn\u2019t leave the factory until 1:10.<\/p>\n
Gentlemen, talk to me about sad spectacles, but of all the sad spectacles that I have witnessed throughout this case,\u2013I don\u2019t know who did it, I don\u2019t know who\u2019s responsible, and I hope that I\u2019ll go to my grave in ignorance of who it was that brought this little Curran girl, the daughter of a man that works for Montag, into this case, to prove this alibi for this red-handed murderer, who killed that little girl to protect his reputation among the people of his own race and religion. Jurors are sworn, and His Honor will charge you, you have got the right to take into consideration the deportment, the manner, the bearing, the reasonableness of what any witness swears to, and if any man in this courthouse, any honest man, seeking to get at the truth, looked at that little girl, her manner, her bearing, her attitude, her actions, her connections with Montag, and don\u2019t know that she, like that little Bauer boy, had been riding in Montag\u2019s automobile, I am at a loss to understand your mental operations.<\/p>\n
But if Frank locked the factory door at ten minutes past one, if that be true, how in the name of goodness did she ever see him at Alabama and Broad at 1:10? Mark you, she had never seen him but one time; had never seen him but one time, and with the people up there on the street, to see the parade, waiting for her companions, this daughter of an employee of Montag comes into this presence and tells you the unreasonable, absurd story, the story that\u2019s in contradiction to the story made by Frank, which has been introduced in evidence and will be out with you, that she saw that fellow up there at Jacobs\u2019.<\/p>\n
On this time proposition, I want to read you this\u2013it made a wonderful impression on me when I read it\u2013it\u2019s the wonderful speech of a wonderful man, a lawyer to whom even such men as Messrs. Arnold and Rosser, as good as the country affords, as good men and as good lawyers as they are, had they stood in his presence, would have pulled off their hats in admiration for his intellect and his character,\u2013I refer to Daniel Webster, and I quote from Webster\u2019s great speech in the Knapp case:<\/p>\n
Webster on Time Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cTime is identical, its subdivisions are all alike, no man knows one day from another, or one hour from another, but by some fact, connected with it. Days and hours are not visible to the senses, nor to be apprehended and distinguished by understanding. He who speaks of the date, the minute and the hour of occurrences with nothing to guide his recollection, speaks at random.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s put better than I could have put it. That\u2019s put tersely, concisely, logically, and it\u2019s the truth. Now, what else about this alibi, this chronological table here, moved up and down to save a few minutes? The evidence, as old Sig Montag warned me not to do, twisted, yea, I\u2019ll say contorted, warped, in order to sustain this man in his claim of an alibi. For instance, they got it down here \u201cFrank arrived at the factory, according to Holloway, Alonzo Mann, Roy Irby, at 8:25.\u201d That\u2019s getting it down some, ain\u2019t it? Frank says he arrived at 8:30. Old Jim Conley, perjured, lousy and dirty, says that he arrived there at 8:30, and he arrived, carrying a rain coat. And they tried mightily to make it appear that Frank didn\u2019t have a rain coat, that he borrowed one from his brother in law, but Mrs. Ursenback says that Frank had one; and if the truth were known, I venture the assertion that the reason Frank borrowed Ursenback\u2019s rain coat on Sunday was because, after the murder of this girl on Saturday, he forgot to get the rain coat that old Jim saw him have. Miss Mattie Smith leaves building, you say, at 9:20 A.M. She said,\u2013or Frank says,\u2013at 9:15. You have it on this chart here that\u2019s turned to the wall that Frank telephoned Schiff to come to his office at 10 o\u2019clock, and yet this man Frank, coolly, composedly, with his great capacity for figures and data, in his own statement says that he gets to Montags at that hour. And you\u2019ve got the records, trot them out, if I\u2019m wrong. At 11 A.M. Frank returns to the pencil factory; Holloway and Mann come to the office; Frank dictates mail and acknowledges letters. Frank, in his statement, says 11:05. Any way, oh Lord, any hour, any minute, move them up and move them down, we\u2019ve got to have the alibi\u2013like old Uncle Remus\u2019s rabbit, we\u2019re just \u2018bleeged to climb. \u201c12:12, approximate time Mary Phagan arrives.\u201d Frank says that Mary Phagan arrived ten or fifteen minutes after Miss Hall left; and with mathematical accuracy, you\u2019ve got Miss Hall leaving the factory at 12:03. Why, I never saw so many watches, so many clocks or so many people who seem to have had their minds centered on time as in this case. Why, if people in real life were really as accurate as you gentlemen seek to have us believe, I tell you this would be a glorious old world, and no person and no train would ever be behind time. It doesn\u2019t happen that way, though. But to crown it all, in this table which is now turned to the wall, you have Lemmie Quinn arriving, not on the minute, but, to serve your purposes, from 12:20 to 12:22; but that, gentlemen, conflicts with the evidence of Freeman and the other young lady, who placed Quinn by their evidence, in the factory before that time.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: There isn\u2019t a word of evidence to that effect; those ladies were there at 11:35 and left at 11:45, Corinthia Hall and Miss Freeman, they left there at 11:45, and it was after they had eaten lunch and about to pay their fare before they ever saw Quinn, at the little cafe, the Busy Bee. He says that they saw Quinn over at the factory before 12, as I understood it.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, sir, by his evidence.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: That\u2019s absolutely incorrect, they never saw Quinn there then and never swore they did.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: No, they didn\u2019t see him there, I doubt if anybody else saw him there either.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold Promises to Interrupt<\/strong><\/p>\nMr. Arnold: If a crowd of people here laughs every time we say anything, how are we to hear the Court? He has made a whole lot of little mis-statements, but I let those pass, but I\u2019m going to interrupt him on every substantial one he makes. He says those ladies saw Quinn,\u2013says they say Quinn was there before 12, and I say he wasn\u2019t there, and they didn\u2019t say that he was there then.<\/p>\n
The Court: What is it you say, Mr. Dorsey?<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: I was arguing to the jury the evidence.<\/p>\n
The Court: Did you make a statement to that effect?<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: I made a statement that those two young ladies say they met Holloway as he left the factory at 11:05\u2013I make the statement that as soon as they got back down to that Greek cafe, Quinn came in and said to them, \u201cI have just been in and seen Mr. Frank.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: They never said that, they said they met Holloway at 11:45, they said at the Busy Bee cafe, but they met Quinn at 12:30.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Well, get your record\u2013you can get a record on almost any phase, this busy Quinn was blowing hot and blowing cold, no man in God\u2019s world knows what he did say, but I\u2019ve got his affidavit there.<\/p>\n
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? Jim said Quinn was there, and Jim said Quinn was there before Mary Phagan was there; is that the truth? But Frank, your own man, had a hard time recollecting that Lemmie Quinn was ever there, and Lemmie is entirely too accurate and too precise and had too hard a time making that man there know he was in that factory, and even after he remembered it, Frank wanted to consult his lawyers before Quinn would be authorized to make it public. Emma Freeman and Clark were there before 12 o\u2019clock, and they met old Holloway as he went away, and they didn\u2019t stay there any length of time, and they went to the Busy Bee cafe and Lemmie Quinn came in immediately after they got up there and said \u201cI have just been up to see Mr. Frank.\u201d<\/p>\n
Contradictions of Witnesses<\/strong><\/p>\nIs Jim Conley telling the truth or is Jim a liar? You can\u2019t blow hot and cold\u2013answer me, is he telling the truth or is he telling a lie? Jim says Quinn went up the stairs and came down the stairs before this little girl ever got there, and if that be true, why was it this man Frank wanted to consult his lawyers before he could ever say anything about
\nit? I don\u2019t doubt you\u2019ll find something there that Lemmie Quinn swore, but if you\u2019ll hand me that affidavit that Lemmie Quinn swore to\u2013he\u2019s the hardest man to pin down on a proposition that ever I saw. That man Quinn is the most anxious man that ever I saw on the stand except old Holloway; he would tell it if Frank said tell it, or keep it quiet
\nif Frank says not to tell\u2013and he wanted to consult his lawyers about it\u2013and you tell me that an honest man, an honest juror, will believe anything like that?<\/p>\n
Acts, Not Words Alone<\/strong><\/p>\nBut, gentlemen, let me read you what a great Judge said, in reference to this statement. Judge Lochrane said, in 43rd Georgia, \u201cI don\u2019t take the mere words even, of witnesses, I take their acts.\u201d And while I\u2019m on that subject, I want to read you this proposition of law: \u201cEvidence given by a witness has inherent strength, which even a jury cannot under all circumstances disregard; a statement has none.\u201d Evidence of a sworn witness, who can be impeached and tried for perjury, has inherent strength, they say, in 101st Ga. 520, which a jury, acting under oath cannot disregard, but a statement has none\u2013I mean, arbitrarily disregard\u2013and the law even goes to the extent of saying you must not impute perjury to people if you can possibly reconcile the evidence without doing so, but in seeking to find the truth and do the right thing, you have got to impute it if it is so irreconcilable that you can\u2019t do so.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: I have found that evidence, now, Mr. Dorsey, about the time those ladies saw Quinn.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: I\u2019ll admit he swore both ways.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: No, he didn\u2019t, either. I read from the evidence of Miss Corinthia Hall: (Counsel read the portion of the evidence in dispute.) Then Mr. Dorsey asked her, \u201cThen you say you saw Lemmie Quinn right at the Greek cafe at five minutes to twelve, something like that? A\u2013No sir, I don\u2019t remember what time it was when I saw him, we went into the cafe, ordered sandwiches and a cup of coffee, drank the coffee and when we were waiting on the change he came in.\u201d And further on, \u201cAll he said (Quinn) was he had been up and had seen Mr. Frank, that was all he said?\u201d A\u2013\u201cYes, sir,\u201d and so on. Now, the evidence of Quinn: \u201cWhat sort of clock was that?\u201d\u2013he\u2019s telling the time he was at DeFoor\u2019s pool parlor\u2013\u201cWhat sort of clock was that? A\u2013Western Union clock. Q\u2013What did the clock say when you looked at it? A\u201312:30.\u201d And he also swore that he got to the pencil factory at 12:20, that\u2019s in a half dozen different places.<\/p>\n
The Court: Anything contrary to that record, Mr. Dorsey?<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, sir, I\u2019m going to show it by their own table that didn\u2019t concur,\u2013that don\u2019t scare anybody and don\u2019t change the facts.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: Every time he makes a substantial misquotation I\u2019m going to stop him, but not little ones, life is too short to jump him on little ones,\u2013I\u2019d be up all the time.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, you would,\u2013he isn\u2019t going to let anything go by, he\u2019s too shrewd and too able and too vigilant and too anxious, don\u2019t you be afraid he\u2019s going to let anything get by.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s this table which is turned to the wall and on which, for your purposes, you have Lemmie Quinn coming up to see this man Frank at from 12:20 P.M. to 12:22 P.M., and in my hand I hold an affidavit made by this pet foreman of the metal department, who seeks to shield and protect his superintendent, in which he says that he got up there to see Frank between 12 and 12:20. And Freeman and Clark say that they had left, that they had met old man Holloway and old man Holloway says that he left at about a quarter to twelve, and they say that they went up and then they came down, and then went right up to the other corner and right back down, and that Lemmie Quinn was there; and I submit to you as fair men and honest men, if Frank left the pencil factory, as he said in the first statement that he made in the presence of his counsel, Mr. Rosser, at 1:10 o\u2019clock P.M., on April 26th, and then he got home out yonder at 1:20, in the name of goodness, couldn\u2019t those girls have walked a block up and a block down in fifteen minutes?<\/p>\n
Alibi Table a Fraud<\/strong><\/p>\nI know it hurts; but this table here, which is a fraud on its face, puts Lemmie Quinn there from 12:20 to 12:22\u2013no bigger farce in this case than your, straining at a gnat, like this, except Doctor Billie Owens\u2019 little pantomime with Haas and Fleming and Brent: \u201cWhere did you go when you left? Up town. Where? By the National Pencil Company. What time? Between 12 and 12:20\u201d\u2013I haven\u2019t got time to take up your time reading all that Lemmie Quinn said\u2013\u201cYou don\u2019t undertake to be accurate about the time you was there?\u201d And Lemmie Quinn says \u201cI couldn\u2019t swear positively.\u201d \u201cYou can\u2019t be definite as to what time you got to that pool room?\u201d And Lemmie Quinn says that he got there between 12:20 and 12:30. Now, if he got to that pool room, several blocks away, at 12:20\u2013and this is Quinn\u2019s statement\u2013how could he have gone up in the pencil factory to see Frank at 12:20 to 12:30? But I\u2019ll tell you about that, gentlemen, whenever a man gets to swearing too definitely and too specifically about this thing of time, in the language that I just quoted from, as used by Daniel Webster, in the Knapp case, he isn\u2019t to be relied upon.<\/p>\n
Perjury Charges<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, let\u2019s pass on to this perjury charge that Mr. Arnold has so flippantly made; let\u2019s consider that a little. You saw these witnesses, you saw their manner, their attitude, their interest,\u2013one of those ladies from the factory over there wanted to die for this man Frank,\u2013she was almost hysterical. When, when, gentlemen, did you ever know of an employee being so enamored of an employer that they were willing to lay down and die, if that friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature to know that this willingness to die, this anxiety to put her neck in a noose that ought to go around this man, was born of something more than just platonic friendship; don\u2019t you? Whenever you see a woman willing to lie down and die for a man not related to her, who occupies the relation simply towards her, that of an employer, you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger than ordinary platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation that ought to obtain between a married man and a single woman, employer and employee.<\/p>\n
Flimsy Story of Bauer Boy<\/strong><\/p>\nWe have had a remarkable illustration here of all kinds of facts sworn to, if you had asked me if we could have found people in town who could have done it, oh, me, I wouldn\u2019t have believed it. Take that little Bauer boy,\u2013the man who before he had that ride with Sig Montag,\u2013the man who was so anxious that nothing be twisted,\u2013and before dinner, before he took that ride in that automobile to the office of Mr. Arnold, where Mr. Rosser was also, he could remember the minutest details, but after dinner, after the automobile ride, after he had looked into the countenance of these able counsel, Lord, me, that boy had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told him about like that old hardshell preacher down in South Georgia said to his congregation, when they had met and prayed for rain, and they prayed and they prayed, and after awhile, as old Sam Jones said, the Good Lord sent them a trash mover, a ground soaker and a gully washer, and when it was about to flood everything and move everything away, the old hardshell member whose prayers had brought the rain, scratched his chin and said, \u201cBrethren, we have a leetel over-done it ;\u201d and so Montag must have whispered into the ears of little Roy Bauer, \u201cRoy, you have a leetle over-done it,\u201d and he had, too; and after dinner, he didn\u2019t know anything.<\/p>\n
But that wasn\u2019t all, that little boy remembered exactly where his watch lay\u2013my! my! Talk about perjury,\u2013wilful, deliberate,\u2013and foolish, foolish, foolish, because an honest
\njury knows it isn\u2019t true; don\u2019t you? Of course, you do. It would stultify you to say anything else. But that wasn\u2019t all. They brought in that machinist Lee, and that fellow Lee was just simply prepared to swear anything, and there wasn\u2019t a man on this jury, there wasn\u2019t a man within the sound of his voice but what knows that Lee didn\u2019t tell the truth; and Lee swore that he had seen in the possession of Schiff, just the other day, a statement that he had signed, and I quizzed him particularly about it, and he said he had seen the paper that he had signed, and forthwith we served them with a subpoena duces tecum to bring it here, and they brought in a paper that hasn\u2019t got the mention of his name even on the typewriter.<\/p>\n
Perjury of Defense Witnesses<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, that\u2019s the kind of stuff you\u2019ve got here, that\u2019s the kind of stuff they are unloading on you, and the funny part about it is they expect you to believe it, and not only that, but the idea\u2013and they didn\u2019t think we could get Duffy\u2013that that man stood right over that spot with that blood squirting from his finger, and every man, even one from the asylum, knows the first thing he would do would be to grab something and put around it. Standing there; what\u2019s the purpose of standing there? Well, this will be out with you.
\nWell, it\u2019s the most ridiculous proposition that ever was set up before an honest jury. Talk about fatiguing your indignation! Talk about fatiguing the indignation! Don\u2019t it
\nmake you sick, such silly tommy-rot? Perjury!<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s go a step further. I tell you, gentlemen, I never have yet seen a case where women have been suborned as in this case. Why, you take Miss Fleming, the stenographer, put up here to prove one thing and we took her up on an unsuspected line of the investigation,\u2013and she was the stenographer,\u2013and she swore that this man\u2019s character was unusually good; she did that. And in her cross examination, \u201cYou are just talking about your personal relations with him, I suppose? Yes sir, in general, of course\u201d: \u201cGeneral,\u201d\u2013she\u2019s got that word \u201cgeneral,\u201d and she\u2019s talking about her personal relations\u2013oh, we didn\u2019t contend that this man tried to seduce or tried to ravish every woman that worked in that factory,\u2013in the first place, all of them wouldn\u2019t submit, and he knew who to approach and who not to, except when he approached Mary Phagan, then he was called. \u201cBut you don\u2019t undertake, of course, to tell what anybody said, you are just telling your own personal experience?\u201d \u201cYes, what I saw,\u201d and that\u2019s in keeping with about all the evidence on character they have got here anyhow. \u201cWhat you saw of him yourself? A.\u2013Yes, sir.\u201d<\/p>\n
Poster Forbidding Flirting<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, so much for that. I submit that isn\u2019t worth a cent, and that\u2019s in keeping with it all. Now, she was the stenographer,\u2013\u201cDid he stay in the office all the time or circulate around?\u201d A.\u2013\u201cNo, he went to different parts of the factory.\u201d \u201cDid he come in contact with the help throughout the factory?\u201d \u201cTo a certain extent he did, he was\u2013the superintendent.\u201d \u201cThere was a great deal of flirting went on at this window, wasn\u2019t there?\u201d \u201cI never did see any.\u201d They never asked her whether she ever heard about it. \u201cI didn\u2019t see any and I don\u2019t know whether it did or not.\u201d \u201cThey tried to put a stop to it?\u201d \u201cI never heard about it.\u201d \u201cDidn\u2019t he write posters and notes and put them up, about flirting?\u201d \u201cI didn\u2019t see any of them.\u201d \u201cWhat time did you get off Saturday afternoon?\u201d \u201cI was supposed to get off at one o\u2019clock.\u201d \u201cOn holidays what time did you get off?\u201d \u201cI got off all holidays, I never worked there on holidays at all. The factory people were supposed to leave at 12 o\u2019clock on Saturdays.\u201d \u201cDid the other office and clerical force get off at the same time you did or not?\u201d \u201cI think they worked in the afternoon\u201d\u2013\u201cNot what you think; did you enter up on the order book, and what did Frank do?\u201d \u201cHe did general office work like the rest. This is in the morning when I was there.\u201d \u201cWhat do you mean by general office work?\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t say that\u2013don\u2019t say he did general office work\u2013but I saw him in the morning.\u201d \u201cDoing what?\u201d \u201cMaking out the financial sheet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Working at Financial Sheet<\/strong><\/p>\nThe stenographer put up to prove his character says, first, she only knows what this man did to her and in her presence, and when questioned about the financial sheet, the stenographer, Miss Fleming, most capable of knowing exactly what work really did occur on Saturdays before she left at one o\u2019clock, says Frank\u2019s business was to make out the financial sheet. \u201cI saw him making out the financial sheet.\u201d \u201cYou saw him at that, did you?\u201d \u201cYes, sir.\u201d \u201cNow, you are sure you did that?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cYou are positive he did that?\u201d \u201cYes sir, he did it always before twelve or one o\u2019clock, in the morning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Then Mr. Arnold says, \u201cHe didn\u2019t have time to do that Saturday morning,\u201d and she caught it, lit on it like a duck on a June bug and said \u201cNo, he didn\u2019t have time Saturday morning.\u201d She had already said in the very words I have read you that that was his Saturday morning work. Mr. Arnold was so nervous that he couldn\u2019t let me continue the examination and he interpolated, \u201cHe didn\u2019t have time to do that Saturday morning\u201d\u2013a thing that was unfair,\u2013and she was telling the truth when she said\u2013I\u2019ve got it here in black and white\u2013\u201cI saw him making out the financial sheet Saturday before I left there at one o\u2019clock.\u201d \u201cYou saw him at that, did you?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cNow, you are sure he did that?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cYou are positive he did that?\u201d \u201cYes sir ;\u201d and then Mr. Arnold comes in with his suggestion, and she takes the bait and runs under the bank\u2013he saw how it cut. Then I came back at her again,\u2013now, just to show how she turned turtle, \u201cYou did see Frank working Saturday morning on the financial sheet?\u201d \u201cNo, he didn\u2019t work on the financial sheet.\u201d \u201cWhy did you state a moment ago you saw him working on it?\u201d \u201cNo sir, I didn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n
My Lord! Gentlemen, are you going to take that kind of stuff? I know she is a woman, and I\u2019d hesitate except I had the paper here in my hands to make this charge but if you as honest men are going to let the people of Georgia and Fulton County and of Atlanta suffer one of its innocent girls to go to her death at the hands of a man like this and then turn him loose on such evidence as this, then I say it\u2019s time to quit going through the farce of summoning a jury to try him. If I had the standing, the ability and the power of either Messrs. Arnold or Rosser, to ring that into your ears and drive it home, you would almost write a verdict of guilty before you left your box.<\/p>\n
Much Easier to Convict Negro<\/strong><\/p>\nPerjury! Perjury! When did old John Starnes and Pat Campbell, from the Emerald Isle, or Rosser ever fall so low that, when they could convict a negro,\u2013easy, because he wouldn\u2019t have Arnold and Rosser, but just my friend Bill Smith. And for what reason do they want to let Jim go and go after this man Frank? Why didn\u2019t they take Newt Lee? Why didn\u2019t they take Gantt? The best reason in the world is that they had only cob-webs, cob-webs, weak and flimsy circumstances against those men, and the circumstances were inconsistent with the theory of guilt and consistent with some other hypothesis.<\/p>\n
But as to this man, you have got cables, strong, so strong that even the ability, the combined ability of the erudite Arnold and the dynamic Rosser couldn\u2019t break them or disturb them.<\/p>\n
Circumstantial evidence is just as good as any other kind, when it\u2019s the right kind. It\u2019s a poor case of circumstantial evidence against Newt Lee; it\u2019s no case against that longlegged Gantt from the hills of Cobb. But against this man, oh, a perfect, a perfect case. And you stood up here and dealt in generalities as to perjury and corruption; it isn\u2019t worth a cent unless you put your finger on the specific instances, and here it is in black and white, committed in the presence of this jury, after she had already said that he wrote the financial sheet Saturday morning, and at your suggestion, she turned around and swore to the contrary.<\/p>\n
Yet my friend Schiff says,\u2013no, I take that back\u2013Schiff says, with the stenographer gone, with Frank behind in his work, that he went home and slept all day, and didn\u2019t get up what he called the \u201cdahta\u201d\u2013well, he\u2019s a Joe Darter, that\u2019s what Schiff is. It never happened, it never happened, with that financial sheet that Saturday morning, but if it did, it wouldn\u2019t prove anything. He may have the nerve of an Oscar Wilde, he may have been cool, when nobody was there to accuse him, and it isn\u2019t at all improbable, if he didn\u2019t have the \u201cdahta\u201d in the morning, for him to have sat there and deliberately written that financial sheet.<\/p>\n
But do you believe it? No. Do you tell me that this man Frank, when the factory closed at twelve o\u2019clock Saturdays, with as charming a wife as he possesses, with baseball,\u2013the college graduate, the head of the B\u2019nai \u2018Brith, the man who loved to play cards and mix with friends, would spend his Saturday afternoons using this \u201cdahta\u201d that Schiff got up for him, when he could do it Saturday morning? No sir. Miss Fleming told the truth up until that time,\u2013\u201cI didn\u2019t stay there very often on Saturday afternoon;\u201d Miss Fleming didn\u2019t stay there all afternoon.<\/p>\n
Financial Sheet Saturday Morning<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, gentlemen, I submit this man made that financial sheet Saturday morning. I\u2019m not going to give you my reasons why I contend that, because it is unnecessary; but if he did it Saturday afternoon, and Schiff hadn\u2019t gotten up his \u201cdahta,\u201d he did it thinking then of an alibi; and don\u2019t you tell me that he didn\u2019t do it Saturday afternoon because the penmanship don\u2019t betray nervousness,\u2013an expert like him, with nobody to accuse him, if he could go home and in the bosom of his family so deport himself after that atrocious crime as not to be observed by his family, if that be true, he could have fixed up that financial sheet Saturday afternoon, but he wouldn\u2019t have done it without Schiff having furnished the data if he hadn\u2019t been suspecting an accusation of murdering that little girl. A man of Frank\u2019s type could easily have fixed that financial sheet,\u2013a thing he did fifty-two times a year for five or six years,\u2013and could have betrayed no nervousness, he might easily,\u2013as he did when he wrote for the police,\u2013in the handwriting, a thing that he was accustomed to do,\u2013even in the presence of the police\u2013you\u2019ll have it out with you\u2013he may have written so as not to betray his nervousness.<\/p>\n
Friend Wouldn\u2019t Identify Writing<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd speaking about perjury: There\u2019s a writing that his mother said anybody who knew his writing ought to be able to identify and yet, that man you put up there to prove Frank\u2019s writing, was so afraid that he would do this man some injury, that he wouldn\u2019t identify the writing that his mother says that anybody that knows it at all, would recognize. I grant you that he didn\u2019t betray nervousness, probably, in the bosom of his family; I grant you that he could fix up a financial sheet that he had been fixing up fifty-two times a year for five or six years and not betray nervousness; I grant you that he could unlock the safe, a thing that he did every day for three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, without betraying nervousness; but when he went to run the elevator, when he went to nail up the door, when he talked to the police, when he rode to the station, then he showed nervousness.<\/p>\n
Beattie Joked, Too<\/strong><\/p>\nBut he could sit in a hall and read and joke about the baseball umpire, but his frivolity, that annoyed the people Saturday night that they had the card game, was the same kind of frivolity that Beattie betrayed when he stood at the automobile that contained the blood of his wife that he had shot. And certainly it is before this jury that he went in laughing and joking and trying to read a story that resulted only in annoyance to the people that were in that card game.<\/p>\n
But whether or not he made out that financial sheet, I\u2019ll tell you something that he did do Saturday afternoon, when he was waiting up there for old Jim to come back to burn that body, I\u2019ll tell you something that he did do,\u2013and don\u2019t forget the envelope and don\u2019t forget the way that that paper was folded, either, don\u2019t forget it: Listen to this: \u201cI trust this finds you and dear tont (that\u2019s the German for aunt) well after arriving safe in New York. I hope you found all the dear ones well, in Brooklyn.\u201d<\/p>\n
Letter to Uncle<\/strong><\/p>\nDidn\u2019t have any wealthy people in Brooklyn, eh? This uncle of his was mighty near Brooklyn, the very time old Jim says he looked up and said \u201cI have wealthy people in Brooklyn.\u201d And I would really like to know, I would like to see how much that brother in law that runs that cigar business has invested in that store, and how much he has got. The very letter that you wrote on Saturday, the 26th, shows that you anticipated that this old gentleman, whom everybody says has got money, was then, you supposed, in Brooklyn, because here you say that \u201cI hope you have found all the dear ones well\u201d\u2013but I\u2019m coming back to what Frank said to old Jim\u2013\u201cand I await a letter from you telling me how you found things there in Brooklyn. Lucile and I are well.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now here is a sentence that is pregnant with significance, which bears the ear-marks of the guilty conscience; tremulous as he wrote it? No, he could shut his eyes and write and make up a financial sheet,\u2013he\u2019s capable and smart, wonderfully endowed intellectually, but here\u2019s a sentence that, if I know human nature and know the conduct of the guilty conscience, and whatever you may say about whether or not he prepared the financial sheet on Saturday morning, here\u2019s a document I\u2019ll concede was written when he knew that the body of little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue\u2019s sake, lay in the dark recesses of that basement. \u201cIt is too short a time,\u201d he says, \u201csince you left for anything startling to have developed down here.\u201d Too short! Too short! Startling! But \u201cToo short a time,\u201d and that itself shows that the dastardly deed was done in an incredibly short time. And do you tell me, honest men, fair men, courageous men, true Georgians seeking to do your duty, that that phrase, penned by that man to his uncle on Saturday afternoon, didn\u2019t come from a conscience that was its own accuser? \u201cIt is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.\u201d What do you think of that? And then listen at this,\u2013as if that old gentleman, his uncle, cared anything for this proposition, this old millionaire traveling abroad to Germany for his health, this man from Brooklyn,\u2013an eminent authority says that unusual, unnecessary, unexpected and extravagant expressions are always earmarks of fraud; and do you tell me that this old gentleman, expecting to sail for Europe, the man who wanted the price list and financial sheet, cared anything for those old heroes in gray? And isn\u2019t this sentence itself significant: \u201cToday was yontiff (holiday) here, and the thin gray lines of veterans here braved the rather chilly weather to do honor to their fallen comrades\u201d; and this from Leo M. Frank, the statistician, to the old man, the millionaire, or nearly so, who cared so little about the thin gray line of veterans, but who cared all for how much money had been gotten in by the pencil factory.<\/p>\n
Letter Betrays Frank<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cToo short a time for anything startling to have happened down here since you left ;\u201d but there was something startling, and it happened within the space of thirty minutes. \u201cThere is nothing new in the factory to report.\u201d Ah! there was something new, and there was something startling, and the time was not too short. You can take that letter and read it for yourself. You tell me that letter was written in the morning, do you believe it? I tell you that that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and that there was something new in the factory, and I tell you that that rich uncle, then supposed to be with his kindred in Brooklyn, didn\u2019t care a flip of his finger about the thin gray line of veterans. His people lived in Brooklyn, that\u2019s one thing dead sure and certain, and old Jim never would have known it except Leo M. Frank had told him, and they had at least $20,000.00 in cool cash out on interest, and the brother-in-law the owner of a store employing two or three people, and we don\u2019t know how many more; and if the uncle wasn\u2019t in Brooklyn, he was so near thereto that even Frank himself thought he was there at the very moment he claimed he was there, because he says \u201cyou have seen or are with the people in Brooklyn.\u201d<\/p>\n
Telegraphs to Montag<\/strong><\/p>\nAll right; let\u2019s go a step further. On April 28th, he wired Adolph Montag in care of the Imperial Hotel\u2013listen, now, to what he says\u2013\u201cYou may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning.\u201d In factory? In factory? No, \u201cin cellar.\u201d Cellar where? \u201cCellar of pencil factory.\u201d There\u2019s where he placed her, there\u2019s where he expected her to be found; and the thing welled up in his mind to such an extent that, Monday morning, April 28th, before he had ever been arrested, he wires Montag forestalling what he knew would surely and certainly come unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupted and should suppress it and protect him, as he sought to have Jim Conley do; but be it said to your credit, John Starnes, and be it said to your credit, Pat Campbell, and be it said to your credit, Rosser, and be it said to your credit, Black, you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and to roll it up to this man, surrounded and protected as he was by wealth and influence, and at that time, ah, listen at this, listen at this, ye men that have been accused of the most dastardly crimes, ye men that have been accused by these attorneys here employed to defend this man, of subornation of perjury, listen to the commendation which Frank himself, at the time he was seeking to have you put a rope around the neck of Newt Lee and around the neck of Gantt, says about you:<\/p>\n
\u201cYou have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory. Police will eventually solve it,\u201d\u2013he didn\u2019t have any doubt about it\u2013\u201cPolice will eventually solve it\u201d\u2013and be it said to their credit, they did,\u2013\u201cAssure my uncle\u201d\u2013he says, Monday morning\u2013\u201cI am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand.\u201d \u201cGirl found dead in pencil factory cellar,\u201d he says in the telegram, \u201cthe police will eventually solve it,\u201d he says, before he was arrested, \u201cI am all right, in case my uncle asks,\u201d and \u201cour company has the case well in hand.\u201d<\/p>\n
Honesty of Pinkerton Detective<\/strong><\/p>\nWell, maybe he did think that when he got that fellow Scott, that he had it well in hand. I\u2019ll tell you, there\u2019s an honest man. If there was a slush fund in this case,\u2013these witnesses here say they don\u2019t know anything about it, but if there was a slush fund in this case, Scott could have got it, because, at first, he never heard any words that sounded better to him than when Scott said \u201cwe travel arm in arm with the police,\u201d that\u2019s exactly what Frank wanted them to do at that time, he wanted somebody that would run with Black and Starnes and Rosser, and it sounded good to him, and he said all right. He didn\u2019t want him to run anywhere else, because he wanted him to work hand in glove with these men, and he wanted to know what they did and what they said and what they thought. But Haas\u2013and he\u2019s nobody\u2019s fool\u2013when he saw that they were getting hot on the trail, opened up the conversation with the suggestion that \u201cnow you let us have what you get, first,\u201d and if Scott had fallen for that suggestion, then there would have been something else. You know it. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? I tell you that this evidence shows, notwithstanding what \u201cJoe Darter\u201d Schiff swore, when he saw the necessity to meet this evidence of Miss Fleming, which Mr. Arnold tried so hard, because he saw the force of it, to turn into another channel, that Frank didn\u2019t fix that financial sheet Saturday morning. I say that, with the stenographer gone and Frank behind (and Schiff had never done such a thing before, he had always stuck to him in getting it up before), that what Gantt told you is the truth.<\/p>\n
This man, expert, brilliant\u2013talk about this expert accountant, Joel Hunter! Why, he isn\u2019t near as smart as this man Frank, to begin on, and besides, the idea of his going up there and taking up those things and trying to institute a comparison as to how long it would take him, even if he had the capacity of Frank\u2013he hasn\u2019t got it\u2013to go up there and do those things\u2013why, it\u2019s worse than ridiculous.<\/p>\n
Frank\u2019s Statement Implies Guilt<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd Frank himself wasn\u2019t satisfied with all this showing about what he had done, he got up on the stand,\u2013he saw the weakness of his case, and he\u2019s as smart as either one of his lawyers, too, let me tell you, and I\u2019ll bet you he wrote that statement, too, they may have read it, but he wrote it\u2013Frank realized that he must go over and beyond what the evidence was, and through his statement he sought to lug into this case something that they didn\u2019t have any evidence for. Why? Because he knew in his heart that all this talk about the length of time it took to fix that financial sheet was mere buncombe. Then he seeks to put in here through that statement\u2013and if we hadn\u2019t stopped him he would have done it\u2013a whole raft of other stuff that Schiff, as willing as he was, as anxious as he was, couldn\u2019t stultify himself to such an extent as to tell you that Frank did that work Saturday morning. But if he did write that financial sheet Saturday afternoon, a thing I submit he didn\u2019t do,\u2013I\u2019m willing to admit he wrote that letter,\u2013I ask you, as fair men and honest men and disinterested jurors representing the people of this community in seeing that justice is done and that the man who committed that dastardly deed has meted out to him that which he meted out to this poor little girl, if this documentary evidence, these papers, don\u2019t have the impress of a guilty man? You know it.<\/p>\n
Four Instances of Perjury<\/strong><\/p>\nAll right; but you say there\u2019s perjury. Where is it? I\u2019ll tell you another case\u2013I have already referred to it\u2013it\u2019s when that man, put up there to identify Frank\u2019s writing, failed to identify a writing that Frank\u2019s own mother swore that anybody that knew anything about his writing could have identified. There\u2019s perjury there when Roy Bauer swore with such minute particularity as to his visits to that factory. There\u2019s perjury when this man Lee says that Duffy held his finger out and just let that blood spurt. But that ain\u2019t all. Here\u2019s the evidence of Mrs. Carson. Mrs. Carson says she has worked in that factory three years; and Mr. Arnold, in that suave manner of his, without any evidence to support it, not under oath, says \u201cMrs. Carson, I\u2019ll ask you a question I wouldn\u2019t ask a younger woman, have you ever at any time around the ladies\u2019 dressing room seen any blood spots;\u201d and she said \u201cI certainly have.\u201d That\u2019s a ridiculous proposition on its face. \u201cHave you seen that on several occasions or not?\u201d \u201cI seen it three or four times\u201d\u2013now, in three years; but now, \u201cDid you ever have any conversation with Jim Conley?\u201d and she says, \u201cYes, on Tuesday he came around to sweep around my table\u201d\u2013that\u2019s exactly where Jim says he was Tuesday morning before this man was arrested; \u201cWhat floor do you work on?\u201d \u201cFourth.\u201d \u201cWhat floor do your daughters work on?\u201d \u201cOn the fourth.\u201d \u201cDid you see him up there Monday morning?\u201d \u201cNo sir\u201d\u2013that\u2019s Frank. \u201cTuesday morning?\u201d \u201cI saw him Tuesday morning\u201d\u2013he was up there on the fourth floor after the murder, on Tuesday, \u201csometime between nine and eleven o\u2019clock.\u201d I said, \u201cbetween nine and eleven, somewhere along there?\u201d \u201cSometime between nine and eleven thirty.\u201d \u201cNow, Jim Conley and Leo M. Frank were both on your floor between the same hours?\u201d \u201cI saw Mr. Frank and I saw Jim Conley.\u201d \u201cAnd you know it because you had a conversation with Mr. Frank, and you had a conversation with Jim Conley?\u201d \u201cYes, I saw them both.\u201d And Conley says\u2013and surely, Conley couldn\u2019t have been put up to it by these men, even if they had wanted to suborn perjury\u2013that when Frank came up there Tuesday morning before he was arrested, it was then that he came to him and leaned over and said \u201cJim, be a good boy,\u201d and then Jim, remembering the money and remembering the wealthy people in Brooklyn and the promises that Frank made, says, \u201cYes, I is.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tuesday morning, says Mrs. Carson, your witness, Jim Conley and Frank both were on that floor, and Jim was doing exactly what he said he was doing, sweeping. Now, let\u2019s see. This old lady was very much interested. \u201cNow, did you go on the office floor to see that blood\u201d\u2013listen at this\u2013\u201cWhat blood?\u201d \u201cThe blood right there by the dressing room?\u201d \u201cWhat dressing room, what blood are you talking about?\u201d She had seen it three or four times all over the factory. \u201cOn the second floor?\u201d \u201cNo sir,\u201d she says, \u201cI never did see that spot.\u201d \u201cNever saw it at all?\u201d \u201cNo, I didn\u2019t care to look at nothing like that.\u201d \u201cYou don\u2019t care to look at nothing like that?\u201d A.\u2013\u201cNo sir, I don\u2019t.\u201d Now, that\u2019s Mrs. Carson, the mother of Miss Rebecca, that\u2019s what she told you under oath when she was on the stand.<\/p>\n
Frank\u2019s Protection Eased Conley<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, let\u2019s see about perjury. Now, mark you, I\u2019m not getting up here and saying this generally, without putting my finger on the specific instances, and I\u2019m not nearly exhausting the record,\u2013you can follow it up,\u2013but I am just picking out a few instances. Here\u2019s what Mrs. Small says about Jim Conley reading the newspapers. Well; if Jim had committed that crime and he hadn\u2019t felt that he had the power and influence of Leo Frank back of him to protect him, he never would have gone back there to that factory or sat around and read newspapers, and you know it, if you know anything about the character of the negro. Why was he so anxious to get the newspapers? It was because Jim knew some of the facts that he wanted to see, negro-like,\u2013that\u2019s what made him so anxious about it. Here Mr. Arnold comes,\u2013\u201cYou are a lady that works on the fourth floor, and I\u2019m going to ask you a question that we are going to ask every lady that works on that fourth floor;\u201d and we caught them out on that proposition, too, didn\u2019t we? And you don\u2019t know right now how many women that worked on that floor were put up and how many weren\u2019t. You\u2019ve got the books and the records and you could have called the names, and you didn\u2019t dare do it, and after you had gone ahead and four-flushed before this jury as to what you were going to do, we picked out Miss Kitchens and brought her here and she corroborated your own witness, Miss Jackson, as to the misconduct of this superintendent, Frank.<\/p>\n
Now, let\u2019s see what Mrs. Small says\u2013Mrs. Small is the lady that got the raise, you remember, and couldn\u2019t tell what date it was, thought it had been about four months ago, she got a five cent raise; about four months ago would make it since this murder, and when I got to quizzing her about it she didn\u2019t know when she got the raise, and she\u2019s not the only one that got the raise, and it wasn\u2019t only in the factory that they raised them, either. Even Minola McKnight got some raise, and after she saw the import of it, \u201cYou don\u2019t remember the exact date.\u201d \u201cNo sir, I don\u2019t,\u201d when she had already placed the date subsequent to this murder; and this woman, Mrs. Small, also corroborates Jim Conley about being up there Tuesday.<\/p>\n
Frank Went Up to See Conley<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cDid you see Mr. Frank up there any of those days?\u201d \u201cI saw Mr. Frank up there Tuesday after that time.\u201d \u201cWhat time Tuesday ?\u201d \u201cI couldn\u2019t tell you, I guess it was between eight and nine o\u2019clock.\u201d The other one saw him somewhere between nine and eleven or eleven thirty. This lady, their witness, says that he was up there between eight and nine.<\/p>\n
Why was Frank so anxious to go up there on that floor? Why? It was because he wanted to see this man Jim Conley that he thought was going to protect him. Mr. Rosser characterized my suggestion that this man Frank called upon and expected Jim Conley to conceal the crime as a dirty suggestion, and I accept it as absolutely true, and I go a step further, and say it was not only dirty, it was infamous. And he would today sit here in this courthouse and see a jury of honest men put a rope around Jim Conley\u2019s neck, the man that was brought into it by him; and he didn\u2019t mean to bring Jim Conley in unless he had to\u2013and he had to. Jim says the first question he asked him when he saw him down there after this dastardly crime had been committed was, \u201cHave you seen anybody go up?\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d says Jim, \u201cI have seen two girls go up but I haven\u2019t seen but one come down.\u201d And then it was that this man saw the absolute necessity of taking Jim into his confidence, because he knew that Jim was on the lookout for him, and Starnes and Campbell and Black, combined, together, and even if you make a composite intellect and add the brilliance of Messrs. Rosser and Arnold to that of these detectives, could never have fitted that piece of mosaic into the situation; it isn\u2019t to be done.<\/p>\n
Low Enough to Hang Conley Instead<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cJim, have you seen anybody go up?\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d said Jim, \u201cI see two girls go up but only one came down.\u201d And you told Jim to protect you, and Jim tried to do it, and the suggestion was dirty, and worse than that, it is infamous, to be willing to see Jim Conley hung for a crime that Leo Frank committed.<\/p>\n
But I\u2019m coming to that after a while, I haven\u2019t got to the State\u2019s case yet, I\u2019m just cutting away some of the underbrush that you have tried to plant in this forest of gigantic oaks to smother up their growth, but you can\u2019t do it, the facts are too firmly and too deeply rooted. Oh, yes, says Mrs. Small, I saw Frank up there on that fourth floor between eight and nine o\u2019clock Tuesday morning, and the other lady saw him up there between nine and eleven, she wouldn\u2019t be sure the day he was arrested\u2013I say arrested, according to Frank\u2019s own statement himself, they got him and just detained him, and even then, red-handed murderer as he was, his standing and influence, and the standing and influence of his attorney, somehow or other\u2013and that\u2019s the only thing to the discredit of the police department throughout the whole thing, say what you may\u2013they were intimidated and afraid because of the influence that was back of him, to consign him to a cell like they did Lee and Conley, and it took them a little time to arrive at the point where they had the nerve and courage to face the situation and put him where he ought to be.<\/p>\n
Honest Efforts of John Black<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, I\u2019ll tell you another thing, too, if old John Black\u2013and Mr. Rosser didn\u2019t get such a great triumph out of him as he would have us believe, either. Black\u2019s methods are somewhat like Rosser\u2019s methods, and if Black had Rosser where Rosser had Black, or if Black had Rosser down at police station, Black would get Rosser; and if Black had been given an opportunity to go after this man, Leo M. Frank, like he went after that poor defenseless negro, Newt Lee, towards whom you would have directed suspicion, this trial might have been obviated, and a confession might have been obtained. You didn\u2019t get your lawyer to sustain you and support you a moment too soon. You called for Darley, and you called for Haas, and you called for Rosser, and you called for Arnold, and it took the combined efforts of all of them to keep up your nerve. You know that I\u2019m telling you the truth, don\u2019t you? And I don\u2019t want to misquote and I won\u2019t misquote, but I want to drive it home with all the power that I possibly can or that I possess. The only thing in this case that can be said to the discredit of the police department of the City of Atlanta is that you treated this man, who snuffed out that little girl\u2019s life on the second floor of that pencil factory, with too much consideration, and you let able counsel and the glamour that surrounds wealth and influence, deter you. I honor\u2013I have nothing to do with it\u2013but I honor the way they went after Minola McKnight. I don\u2019t know whether they want me to apologize for them or not, but if you think that finding the red-handed murdered of a little girl like this is a ladies\u2019 tea party, and that the detectives should have the manners of a dancing master and apologize and palaver, you don\u2019t know anything about the business. You have seen these dogs that hunt the \u2018possum bark up a tree or in a stump, and when they once get the scent of the \u2018possum, you can do what you like but they\u2019ll bark up that tree and they\u2019ll bark in that stump until they run him out, and so with old John Starnes and Campbell. They knew and you know that Albert McKnight would never have told Craven this tale about what he saw and what his wife had told him except for the fact that it be true, and if you had been Starnes, you would have been barking up that tree or barking in that stump until you ran out what you knew was in there. That\u2019s all there is to it.<\/p>\n
Following Duty of Solicitor<\/strong><\/p>\nYou have got the writ of habeas corpus that\u2019s guaranteed to you, go and get it; and if Mr. Haas had come to me Tuesday morning aid said \u201cYou direct the police\u201d\u2013on Monday
\nmorning, when Frank was taken down into custody, and said to me, \u201cYou direct the police to turn this man Frank loose, he\u2019s innocent,\u201d I would have said \u201cIt\u2019s none of my business, I run my office, they run their office,\u201d and the next time the police department, in an effort to serve the people of this community, take a negro that they know and you know and lock her up or what not, I\u2019ll not usurp the functions of the judge of these courts, who can turn her loose on a habeas corpus, and direct them to turn her loose or interfere in any way in their business; I don\u2019t run the police department of the City of Atlanta, I run the office of Solicitor General for the term that the people have elected me, and I\u2019m taken to task because I went in at the beginning of this thing and didn\u2019t stand back.<\/p>\n
I honor Mr. Hill. I am as proud of having succeeded him as I am that I was elected to the position by the people of this community, to the office of Solicitor General, but I have never yet seen the man that I would take as my model or pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience. And if there is one act since I have been Solicitor General of which I am proud, it is the fact that I joined hand and glove with the detectives in the effort to seek the murderer of Mary Phagan, and when your influence poured letters in to the Grand Jury, in an effort to hang an innocent man, negro though he be, that I stood firmly up against it. If that be treason, make the best of it. And if you don\u2019t want me to do it, then get somebody else to fill the job, and the quicker you do it the better it will suit me. I will not pattern myself after anybody or anybody\u2019s method, not even Mr. Hill, and, bless his old soul, he was grand and great, and I have wished a hundred times that he was here today to make the speech that I\u2019m now making. There wouldn\u2019t be hair or hide left on you,\u2013he was as noble as any Roman that ever lived, as courageous as Julius Caesar, and as eloquent as Demosthenes. Such talk as that don\u2019t scare me, don\u2019t terrify me, don\u2019t disturb the serenity of my conscience, which approves of everything that I have done in the prosecution of this man.<\/p>\n
Witness Substantiates Conley<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, let\u2019s come back here and discuss this thing of perjury, let\u2019s talk about that a little, let\u2019s not get up here and say that everybody is a liar without citing any instances and that they are crack-brain fanatics, let\u2019s knuckle down and get specific instances. So this Mrs. Small says she saw Jim Conley,\u2013\u201cDid you see Mr. Frank up there on any of those days?\u201d \u201cI saw Mr. Frank after that crime on Tuesday.\u201d \u201cWhat time Tuesday?\u201d \u201cI couldn\u2019t tell you, I guess between eight and nine o\u2019clock, he and Miss Carson were coming up from the back end of the factory (Miss Rebecca, I presume).\u201d \u201cHe and Mrs. Carson were coming up from the back end of the factory, and I stepped up in front of him and I said \u2018Here, Mr. Frank, wait a moment, O.K. this ticket,\u2019 he says \u2018are you going to put me to work as soon as I get here?\u2019 and I says \u2018Yes it\u2019s good for your health.\u2019 He O.K.\u2019d the ticket and I went on with my work.\u201d So Frank was up there Tuesday morning.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow, speaking about Mrs. Carson, how far towards the elevator did Mrs. Carson go with Frank? A.\u2013\u201cMrs. Carson wasn\u2019t up there, it was Miss Carson, Miss Rebecca.\u201d The old lady says she was; I said, \u201cOh, the old lady wasn\u2019t up there at all?\u201d \u201cNo sir, she wasn\u2019t there Tuesday at all.\u201d \u201cYou saw Miss Rebecca Carson walking up towards the elevator?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cWhat was Conley doing?\u201d \u201cStanding there by the elevator.\u201d And yet Jim has lied about Frank! Frank was up there twice, Jim was sweeping, Jim was there by the elevator. \u201cAt the time you saw Frank, the negro was standing there at the elevator?\u201d \u201cYes, sir, he wasn\u2019t sweeping, he was standing there with his hand on the truck looking around.\u201d \u201cDid he see you and Frank?\u201d \u201cI guess he must have seen us.\u201d \u201cWhere was Conley when he went down the steps?\u201d \u201cStanding in front of the elevator.\u201d \u201cHow close did Frank pass Conley?\u201d \u201cAs close as from here to that table, about four feet.\u201d \u201cConley was still standing there with his hand on that thing, is that true?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d<\/p>\n
Couldn\u2019t Hear Elevator Far<\/strong><\/p>\n\u201cThat\u2019s exactly like Conley says. And here\u2019s another thing: This woman, Mrs. Small, testifies about that elevator,\u2013it shakes the whole building, I said, anybody in the world could tell it if the machinery wasn\u2019t running? She says, \u201cNo, anybody in the world could tell it if the machinery wasn\u2019t running but you can\u2019t notice it unless you are close to the elevator.\u201d I asked \u201cIf there was hammering and knocking, would you still hear the elevator?\u201d She said \u201cYou could if you get close to it.\u201d Well, of course, you could, nobody disputes that. \u201cIf the elevator was up here, and you were back in the rear and there was hammering and knocking going on, you couldn\u2019t?\u201d \u201cNo sir.\u201d And that disposes of that point, that\u2019s the truth on that.<\/p>\n
Now, Mrs. Carson had already sworn here positively that she didn\u2019t go down to see that blood, hasn\u2019t she? There were too many of these people over there at the factory who had seen that blood,\u2013that blood that at first wasn\u2019t blood, it was paint, and then wasn\u2019t paint but was cat\u2019s blood or blood from somebody that was injured, and then wasn\u2019t fresh blood but was stale blood\u2013too many of them had seen it. \u201cOn Wednesday I had no business back there, I was there one day but can\u2019t remember.\u201d \u201cWhat did you go back there for?\u201d \u201cA crowd of us went at noon to see if we could see any blood spots.\u201d \u201cWere you successful?\u201d \u201cNo sir.\u201d \u201cWho went with you?\u201d And lo and behold, Mrs. Carson, the mother of Rebecca, had already stated that she didn\u2019t go about it, the very first person that this Mrs. Small refers to\u2013\u201cWell, Mrs. Carson.\u201d \u201cMrs. Carson went with you,\u201d I said. \u201cYes sir, she saw the places where the blood was said to be.\u201d \u201cYou know she was there, you are pretty sure she was there?\u201d Mrs. Small said \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cIt looked like what?\u201d \u201cLooked like powder.\u201d \u201cHow much of it down there?\u201d \u201cA small amount, just a little, looked like some of the girls had been powdering their face and spilled powder.\u201d You know better than that. I came back to the subject, \u201cWhat makes you say Mrs. Carson went down there with you?\u201d Answer.\u2013\u201cBecause curiosity sent us down there.\u201d \u201cDid curiosity send her down there too?\u201d \u201cWe went back afterwards.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, gentlemen, somebody swore,\u2013and I put it up to you, too,\u2013somebody committed perjury! \u201cYou were going back yourself and went to get her?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cShe didn\u2019t make any objection to going down, did she?\u201d \u201cNo sir.\u201d \u201cDon\u2019t you know she didn\u2019t go?\u201d \u201cI know,\u201d she says, \u201cthat she did.\u201d<\/p>\n
Instances, Not Generalities<\/strong><\/p>\nAll right; if this case is founded on perjury, it\u2019s the kettle calling the pot black, and I haven\u2019t dealt in glittering generalities, I have set forth specific cases. But that isn\u2019t intended to be exhaustive, that\u2019s a mere summary of a few of these instances, they are too numerous to mention. The truth is that there is no phase of this case, where evidence was needed to bolster it up that somebody hasn\u2019t come in, you say, willingly and without pay, because, you say there is no slush fund back of this case. Now, let\u2019s pass on here a little bit.<\/p>\n
They tried mighty hard to break down this man Albert McKnight with Minola\u2013and I believe I\u2019ll leave that for a little later and come now to this statement of Frank\u2019s. Gentlemen, I wish I could travel faster over this. I\u2019m doing the very best I can, I have a difficult task and I wish I didn\u2019t have it to do at all.<\/p>\n
Notes Incriminate Frank<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, gentlemen, I want to discuss briefly right here these letters, and if these letters weren\u2019t \u201cthe order of an all-ruling Providence I should agree with my friends that they are the silliest pieces of stuff ever practiced; but these letters have intrinsic marks of a knowledge of this transaction,\u201d these pads, that pad,\u2013things usually found in his office,\u2013this man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fasten the crime upon another, \u201chas indelibly fixed it upon himself.\u201d I repeat it, these notes, which were intended to fix the crime upon another, \u201chave indelibly fixed it upon this defendant,\u201d Leo M. Frank. The pad, the paper, the fact that he wanted a note,\u2013you tell me that ever a negro lived on the face of the earth who, after having killed and robbed, or ravished and murdered a girl down in that dark basement, or down there in that area, would have taken up the time to have written these notes, and written them on a scratch pad which is a thing that usually stays in the office, or written them on paper like this, found right outside of the office of Frank, as shown on that diagram, which is introduced in evidence and which you will have out with you? You tell me that that man, Jim Conley, sober, as Tillander and Graham tell you, when they went there, would have ravished this girl with a knowledge of the fact that Frank was in that house? I tell you no. Do you tell me that this man, Jim Conley, \u201cdrunk as a fiddler\u2019s bitch,\u201d if you want it that way, would, or could have taken time to have written these notes to put beside the body of that dead girl? I tell you no, and you don\u2019t need me to tell you, you know it. The fact, gentlemen of the jury, that these notes were written\u2013ah, but you say that it\u2019s foolish. You say it\u2019s foolish? It\u2019s ridiculous. It was a silly piece of business, it was a great folly; but murder will out, and Providence direct things in a mysterious way, and not only that, as Judge Bleckley says, \u201cCrime, whenever committed, is a mistake in itself; and what kind of logic is it that will say that a man committed a crime, which is a great big mistake, and then, in an effort to cover it up, won\u2019t make a smaller mistake?\u201d There\u2019s no logic in that position. The man who commits a crime makes a mistake, and the man who seeks to cover it up nearly always makes also a little mistake. And this man here, by these notes purporting to have been written by little Mary Phagan, by the verbiage and the language and the context, in trying to fasten it on another, as sure as you are sitting in this jury box \u201chas indelibly fastened it on himself.\u201d These gentlemen saw the significance of the difference between Scott\u2019s evidence, when he was before the Coroner,\u2013and he wasn\u2019t quizzed there particularly about it,\u2013\u201cI told her no,\u201d and \u201cI told her I didn\u2019t know\u201d; to tell that little girl \u201cNo,\u201d would have given her no excuse, according to their way of thinking, to go back to see whether that metal had come or not, but to tell her \u201cI didn\u2019t know,\u201d would lure her back into the snare where she met her death. And your own detective, Scott, says, after he gave the thing mature deliberation, that this man on the Monday evening,\u2013and he was so anxious about getting a detective that he had that man Schiff telephone three times, three times, three times, three times,\u2013remember that,\u2013so anxious was he. Scott says, after thinking over the matter, that Leo M. Frank told that girl that he didn\u2019t know whether the metal had come or not, and she went back there to see about the metal, and he followed her back there. Mr. Arnold saw it.<\/p>\n
Conley Would Have Written \u201cDone It\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\nI\u2019ll tell you another thing, that old Starnes and Campbell and Rosser, and even Newport Lanford, if he had been called in, and even if I had been called in, to save my life, could not have known that the very word that Leo M. Frank used, according to Jim Conley when Conley says Frank told him \u201cI\u2019m going to chat with a girl,\u201d would have been used exactly four times, as I\u2019ll show you when I come to read this statement by Leo M. Frank, for he chatted, and he chatted, and he chatted, and he chatted, according to his own statement. This letter that I hold in my hand says that this negro \u201cdid it.\u201d Old Jim Conley in his statement here, which I hold in my hand, every time he opened his mouth says \u201cI done it.\u201d Old Jim Conley, if he had written these notes, never would have said \u201cthis negro did it by his self,\u201d but Frank wanted it understood that the man that did do it, \u201cdid it by his self.\u201d Jim Conley says that Frank says he wanted to chat, and four times in this statement before they suspended to go out and let you refresh yourself, this man Frank had said that somebody came in the office \u201cto chat,\u201d and Mr. Arnold, in making his argument to the jury, realized, because he is as keen and as smart as they ever get to be, the force of that word and endeavored to parry the blow which I now seek to give this defendant.<\/p>\n
Necessity of Moving to Basement<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd you tell me that old Jim Conley, after he had robbed and murdered, or\u2013after he had ravished and murdered this girl, when he would have had no occasion in the world to have cared whether her dead body was found right there at that chute, was such a fool as to take the time to take her body way back there in the basement and hide it behind the corner of that room? I tell you that it never occurred. That body was taken down there and put in the place where it was. Why? Because she was murdered on the second floor, where the blood spots are found, and because Leo M. Frank, the superintendent of the plant, saw and felt the necessity that that girl\u2019s body should not be found on the second floor of the pencil factory, but, to use the language which he put in the letter or telegram which he sent to Adolph Montag in New York, \u201cin the cellar.\u201d My! My! \u201cThat negro fireman down here did this.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, let\u2019s see how many times Jim says \u201cdone it\u201d: \u201cI locked the door like he done told me, I remembers that because the man what was with the baby looked at me like he thought I done it.\u201d That\u2019s when they ran into the man that Jim says looked at him like he thought \u201cI done it.\u201d It\u2019s the difference between ignorance and education, and these notes that you had that man prepare in your office on this paper that stayed on that floor and on that pad that came from your office, bear the marks of your diction, and Starnes and Campbell, with all their ingenuity, couldn\u2019t have anticipated that old Jim would get up here and state that \u201cthis man looked at me when he ran into that baby, like I done it\u201d; and couldn\u2019t have made him say \u201cI locked the door like he done told me\u201d; and couldn\u2019t have said \u201cI went on and walked up to Mr. Frank and told him that girl was done dead, he done just like this and said sh-h-h.\u201d I could go on with other instances.<\/p>\n
He Said He Was Going to Chat With Her<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd there\u2019s your word \u201cchat,\u201d \u201cchat,\u201d \u201cchat,\u201d \u201cchat,\u201d four times, I\u2019m going to read it to you, it\u2019s here in black and white, and you can\u2019t get around it. This girl went down there in that scuttle hole? Listen at this,\u2013you didn\u2019t want to say that she went back there to see about the metal, but you knew that the ladies\u2019 water closet was back there, and you make this poor girl say \u201cI went to make water,\u201d \u201cI went to make water, he pushed me down that hole, a long, tall, black negro\u201d\u2013\u201clong, slim, tall, negro, I write while he play with me.\u201d And this note says \u201cthat long, tall, black negro did it by his self.\u201d Make water? Where did she go to make water? Right back there in the same direction that she would have gone to see about the metal. You tell me, except Providentially, that that would have crept in here? You tell me that old Jim Conley, negro, after he had struck that girl with that big stick,\u2013which is a plant as sure as you are living here and as sure as Newt Lee\u2019s shirt was a plant,\u2013you tell me that negro felt any inducement or necessity for leaving that girl\u2019s form anywhere except where he hit her and knocked her down? You tell me that he had the ingenuity,\u2013and mark you, Starnes and these other men weren\u2019t there then to dictate and map out,\u2013you tell me that he would write a note that she went back to make water when there\u2019s no place and her usual place was up there on the second floor?<\/p>\n
Notes Are Powerful Argument<\/strong><\/p>\nI tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that a smarter man than Starnes, or a smarter man than Campbell, a smarter man than Black, a smarter man than Rosser, in the person of Leo M. Frank, felt impelled to put there these letters, which he thought would exculpate him, but which incriminate and damn him in the minds of every man seeking to get at the truth. Yet you tell me there\u2019s nothing in circumstantial evidence, when here\u2019s a pad and there\u2019s the pad and there\u2019s the notes, which you must admit, or which you don\u2019t deny, old Jim Conley wrote, because you say in your statement you had got numerous notes from him, and yet, the very day, at the police station, according to your own statement, when you wrote that, you saw the original of these, and you didn\u2019t open your mouth, you didn\u2019t say a word, you didn\u2019t direct the finger of suspicion against this man Jim Conley, who had been infamously directed to keep quiet to protect you. Things don\u2019t happen that way, gentlemen, and you know it. There isn\u2019t an honest man on that jury, unbiased, unprejudiced, seeking to get at the truth, but what knows that these letters,\u2013silly? Yes, silly, except you see the hand of Providence in it all\u2013that don\u2019t know that the language and the context and the material out of which they are written were written for the protection of Leo M. Frank, the superintendent of this factory, who wired Montag to tell his uncle \u201cif my uncle inquires about me state that I am all right, the police have the thing well in hand and will eventually solve the problem,\u201d and the girl was found dead, not in the factory, but in the cellar. The man who wrote the note, \u201cnothing startling has happened in so short a time,\u201d wrote it with a knowledge and conscious of the fact that this poor girl\u2019s life had been snuffed out even at the time he penned the words.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ll have this out with you, you look at them, if you can get anything else out of them you do it, and as honest men, I don\u2019t want you to convict this man unless you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but don\u2019t let that doubt be the doubt of a crank, don\u2019t let it be the doubt of a man who has conjured it up simply to acquit a friend, or a man that has been the friend of a friend; let it be the doubt of an honest, conscientious, upright juror, the noblest work of Almighty God.<\/p>\n
Frank\u2019s Statement<\/strong><\/p>\nNow this statement. I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that when this statement is scanned, it isn\u2019t susceptible of but one construction, and that is, that it is the statement of a guilty man, made to fit in these general circumstances, as they would have you believe\u2013these gentlemen here harped a great deal, gentlemen of the jury, \u201care you going to convict him on this, are you going to convict him on that.\u201d It isn\u2019t the law that circumstantial evidence is inferior to direct and positive evidence, and it is correct to instruct the jury that there is nothing in the nature of circumstantial evidence that renders it less reliable than other classes of evidence. The illustration that they would seek, gentlemen of the jury, not by direct language did they do it in their argument to you, because we had already read them this authority, but they would bring up this isolated fact and that isolated fact and they would say \u201care you going to convict him on that?\u201d I don\u2019t ask your conviction on that. Two illustrations, first, each of the incidental facts surrounding the main fact in issue, is a link in a chain, and that the chain is not stronger than its weakest link, this authority says is generally rejected as an incorrect metaphor and liable to misconstruction. The second illustration and the one that is approved is, each of the incidental facts surrounding the main facts in issue are compared to the strands in a rope, where none of them may be sufficient in itself, but all taken together may be strong enough to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
Strands Form Mighty Cable<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd so they took isolated instance after isolated instance and then said \u201care you going to convict him on that?\u201d I say no. But I do say that these instances each constitute a chain, or a cord,\u2013a strand in a cable, and that, when you get them all, all together, you have a cable that ought to hang anybody. That\u2019s the proposition. Not on this isolated instance or that one, but upon all, taken together and bound together, which make a cable as strong as it is possible for the ingenuity of man to weave around anybody.<\/p>\n
Now, listen at this statement and let\u2019s analyze that as we go on a little. I don\u2019t know whether this man\u2019s statement to the jury will rank along with the cross examination of that celebrated pervert, Oscar Wilde, or not, but it was a brilliant statement, when unanalyzed, and if you just simply shut your eyes and mind to reason and take this statement, then, of course, you are not going to convict. But listen to what our Courts say about these statements\u2013I have already read it to you, but I want to read it again. \u201cEvidence given by a witness has inherent strength which even a jury cannot under all circumstances disregard; a statement has none.\u201d No cross examination, no oath, merely a statement adroitly prepared to meet the exigencies of the case.<\/p>\n
Flaws in Frank\u2019s Statement<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, listen at this. This man Frank says \u201cI sat in my office checking over the amount of money which had been left over\u201d\u2013not the cash, not cash, but the amount of money which had been left over\u2013\u201cfrom the pay-roll\u201d\u2013from the $1,100.00 that they had drawn Friday, and to this day, we don\u2019t know how much was left over, and we don\u2019t know whether what was left over coupled with the cash left on hand would make this bundle of bills that old Jim says was shown to him and taken back, when Frank wanted to get him to go down into that dark cellar and burn that body by himself, and old Jim says \u201cI\u2019ll go if you go, but if I go down there and burn that body, somebody might come along and catch me and then what kind of a fix will I be in?\u201d And I\u2019ll tell you right now, if Jim Conley had gone down in that cellar and have undertaken to have burned that body, as sure as the smoke would have curled upward out of that funnel towards Heaven, just so certain would Leo M. Frank have been down there with these same detectives, and Jim Conley would have been without a shadow of a defense. But old Jim, drunk or sober, ignorant or smart, vile or pure, had too much sense, and while he was willing to write the notes to be put by the dead body, and was willing to help this man take the body from the second floor, where the blood was found, into the basement and keep his mouth shut and to protect him, until the combined efforts of Scott and Black and Starnes and all these detectives beat him down and made him admit a little now and a little then, he wasn\u2019t willing, and he had too much sense, to go down into that basement to do that dirty job by himself and cremate the remains of this little girl that that man in his passionate lust had put to death. You don\u2019t show that he didn\u2019t have the money, and the truth of the business is, I expect, that out of that $1,100.00 for the pay-roll, and $30.00 in cash which you had, if the truth were known, you offered old Jim Conley and bought him with that $200.00 just as surely as Judas Iscariot implanted the kiss for the thirty shekels.<\/p>\n
Reserved Mary Phagan\u2019s Pay<\/strong><\/p>\nHe says that \u201cNo one came into my office who asked for a pay envelope or for the pay envelope of another.\u201d This running-mate and friend of the dead girl tells you under oath that she went there on Friday evening when they were paid, with the knowledge that little Mary wasn\u2019t there, and as she had done on previous occasions, sought to get the money to take to her. And Ill show you when I get to the State\u2019s case later on that this diabolical plot, of which you have made so much fun, is founded in reason and really did exist, and that this man really, goaded on by passion, had been expecting some time before to ultimately, not murder this little girl, but cause her to yield to his blandishments and deflower her without her resistance. Let me do it right now.<\/p>\n
Proof That He Knew Mary<\/strong><\/p>\nWay back yonder in March, as far back as March, little Willie Turner, an ignorant country boy, saw Frank trying to force his attentions on this little girl in the metal room; he is unimpeached, he is unimpeachable. She backed off and told him she must go to her work, and Frank said \u201cI am superintendent of this factory,\u201d\u2013a species of coercion\u2013\u201cand I want to talk to you.\u201d You tell me that that little girl that worked up there and upon the same floor with you in the metal department, and you had passed right by her machine, this pretty, attractive little girl, twelve months, and a man of your brilliant parts didn\u2019t even know her, and do you tell me that you had made up the pay-roll with Schiff fifty-two times during the year that Mary Phagan was there and still you didn\u2019t know her name or number? You tell me that this little country boy who comes from Oak Grove, near Sandy Springs in the northern part of this county, was lying when he got on that stand? I\u2019ll tell you no. Do you tell me that little Dewey Hewell, a little girl now from the Home of the Good Shepherd in Cincinnati, who used to work at the National Pencil Company, who probably has lost her virtue though she is of such tender years, was lying when she tells you that she heard him talking to her frequently,\u2013talked to Mary frequently, placed his hands on her shoulder and called her Mary?\u201d You tell me that that long-legged man, Gantt, the man you tried to direct suspicion towards, the man Schiff was so anxious to have arrested that he accompanied the police, that you said in your telegram to your uncle, had the case in hand and would eventually solve the mystery,\u2013do you tell me that Gantt has lied when he tells you that this man Frank noticed that he knew little Mary and said to him, \u201cI see that you know Mary pretty well?\u201d<\/p>\n
I am prepared to believe, knowing this man\u2019s character as shown by this evidence, that way back yonder in March, old passion had seized him. Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from Burns, and said it\u2019s human to err; and I quote you from the same poem, in which old Burns says that \u201cthere\u2019s no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie, when convenience snug, and he has a treacherous, passionate inclination.\u201d There\u2019s no telling what he will do when he\u2019s normal, there\u2019s no telling what he will do when he\u2019s like other men, but, oh! gentlemen, there\u2019s no telling what a pervert will do when he\u2019s goaded on by the unusual, extraordinary passion that goaded on this man, Leo M. Frank, when he saw his opportunity with this little girl in that pencil factory, when she went back to find out if the metal had come.<\/p>\n
Claimed He Didn\u2019t Know Her<\/strong><\/p>\nYou tell me that all of these people have lied,\u2013Willie Turner has lied? Dewey Hewell has lied? That Gantt has lied? That Miss Ruth Robinson has lied? And even Frank, in his statement, admits that he knew Mary well enough to know that Gantt was familiar with her, because Chief Detective Harry Scott was told on Monday, April 28th, that this man Gantt was familiar with little Mary. And yet you expect an honest jury of twelve men\u2013although out of your own mouth you told these detectives, whom you wired your uncle would eventually solve the problem, you told them that this man Gantt was so familiar with her that you directed suspicion towards him. How did you know it if you didn\u2019t know little Mary? And in addition, as I have stated, you tell me that this brilliant man had helped to make out the pay-roll for fifty-two times and seen little Mary\u2019s name there, and he didn\u2019t even know her name and had to go and get his book to tell whether she worked there or not? And I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised, gentlemen of the jury\u2013it\u2019s your man Frank\u2019s own statement,\u2013that shortages occurred in the cash even after this man Gantt left,\u2013I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised if the truth of the business is that this man coveted that little girl away back yonder in March, I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised, gentlemen, and, indeed, I submit that it\u2019s the truth, that every one of these girls has told the truth when they swore to you on the stand that back yonder in March, after this little girl had come down to work on the office floor in the metal department, that they observed this man, Leo M. Frank, making advances towards her and using his position as superintendent to force her to talk with him. I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised if he didn\u2019t hang around, I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised if he didn\u2019t try to get little Mary to yield. I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if he didn\u2019t look upon this man Gantt, who was raised on an adjoining farm in Cobb County, as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the evil purpose which he had in hand, and I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised if, instead of discharging Gantt for a one dollar shortage, which Gantt says \u201cI\u2019ll give up my job rather than pay,\u201d that you put him out of that factory because you thought he stood in the way of the consummation of your diabolical and evil plans.<\/p>\n
Laying Snare for Mary<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd you say that you and Schiff made up the pay-roll Friday, and I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised that, after little Mary had gone and while you and Schiff were making up the payroll Friday afternoon, you saw little Mary\u2019s name and you knew that she hadn\u2019t been notified to come there and get her money Friday afternoon at six o\u2019clock, and then, as early as three o\u2019clock,\u2013yes, as early as three,\u2013knowing that this little girl would probably come there Saturday at twelve, at the usual hour, to get her pay, you went up and arranged with this man Jim Conley to look out for you,\u2013this man Jim Conley, who had looked out for you on other occasions, who had locked the door and unlocked it while you carried on your immoral practices in that factory,\u2013yes, at three o\u2019clock, when you and Schiff were so busy working on the pay-roll, I dare say you went up there and told Jim that you wanted him to come back Saturday but you didn\u2019t want Darley to know that he was there. And I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised if it were not true that this little Helen Ferguson, the friend of Mary Phagan, who had often gotten Mary\u2019s pay envelope before, when she went in and asked you to let her have that pay envelope, if you didn\u2019t refuse because you had already arranged with Jim to be there, and you expected to make the final onslaught on this girl, in order to deflower and ruin her and make her, this poor little factory girl, subservient to your purposes.<\/p>\n
Mary Falls in Trap<\/strong><\/p>\nAh, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, Saturday comes, and it\u2019s a reasonable tale that old Jim tells you, and old Jim says \u201cI done it,\u201d\u2013not \u201cI did it,\u201d but \u201cI done it\u201d just exactly like this brilliant factory superintendent told him. There\u2019s your plot. I\u2019ll tell you, you know this thing passion is like fraud,\u2013it\u2019s subtle, it moves in mysterious ways; people don\u2019t know what lurks in the mind of a libertine, or how anxious they are, or how far ahead they look, and it isn\u2019t at all improbable, indeed, I submit to you as honest men seeking to get at the truth, that this man, whose character was put in issue and torn down, who refused to go into specific instances on cross examination, if he didn\u2019t contemplate this little girl\u2019s ruin and damnation it was because he was infatuated with her and didn\u2019t have the power to control that ungovernable passion. There\u2019s your plot; and it fits right in and jams right up, and you can twist and turn and wabble as much as you want to, but out of your own mouth, when you told your detective, Scott, that this man Gantt was familiar with that little girl, notwithstanding at other places in this statement you tried to lead this jury of honest men to believe you didn\u2019t know her\u2013I tell you that he did know her, and you know that he knew her.<\/p>\n
What are you going to believe? Has this little Ferguson girl lied? Is this little factory girl a hair-brained fanatic suborned to come up here and perjure herself, by John Starnes or Black or Campbell or any of these detectives? Do you tell me that such a thing can be done, when the State of Georgia, under the law hasn\u2019t a nickel that this girl could get? I tell you, gentlemen, you know that\u2019s a charge that can\u2019t stand one instant.<\/p>\n
Conley Quoted Him Right<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, he says right here in his statement that he kept the key to his cash box right there in his desk. Well, he makes a very beautiful statement about these slips\u2013but I\u2019ll pass that and come to that later. He explains why they were put on there April 28th, and so forth. Now, here\u2019s the first reference that he makes to \u201cchatting\u201d: \u201cI stopped that work that I was doing that day and went to the outer office and CHATTED with Mr. Darley and Mr. Campbell.\u201d \u201cI should figure about 9:15, or a quarter to nine, Miss Mattie Smith came in and asked for her pay envelope.\u201d Jim is corroborated there, he identified Miss Mattie Smith and told with particularity what she did. He says, \u201cI kept my cash box in the lower drawer of the left hand side of my desk.\u201d Jim says that\u2019s where he got some cash. This man also shows he took a drink at Cruickshank\u2019s soda fount and two or three times during this statement he showed that he was doing at the soda fount exactly as Jim says he was doing as they came on back from the factory. Again he says, \u201cbut I know there was several of them and I went on CHATTING with Mr. Montag.\u201d I told you I was going to read you this, and I just wanted you to know you were going to have this out with you. Another thing he says, \u201cI moved the papers I brought back from Montag\u2019s in the folder;\u201d old Jim says he had the folder and put the folder away; \u201cI would look and see how far along the reports were which I used in getting my financial statement up every Saturday afternoon, and, to my surprise, I found the sheet which contains the record of pencils packed for the week didn\u2019t include the report for Thursday, the day the fiscal week ended, that\u2019s the only part of the data that Schiff hadn\u2019t got up.\u201d \u201cA short time after they left my office, two gentlemen came in, one of them Mr. Graham\u201d\u2013Mr. Graham says that he talked to this negro down stairs; the negro told him the way to the office, and they tried to get around it on the idea there\u2019s some difference in color. Well, being in jail, gentlemen, changes the complexion of anybody. That man was there, Graham says, Tillander says, and he was there for what purpose? By whose request? And he wasn\u2019t drunk, either. And then he says \u201cI gave the required pay envelope to the two fathers,\u201d this man Frank says, \u201cI gave the pay envelope and CHATTED with them at some length.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold says these darkeys pick up the language and manners of the men by whom they are employed. I tell you that, if Frank didn\u2019t come in contact with the people that worked in that factory more than he would lead you to believe, old Jim Conley never had the opportunity to pick up words that he uses; and yet here old Jim says, and even in his statement, even in his statement, this man uses the very language that Jim puts in his mouth. I just picked out four of them, in a very few pages, I don\u2019t know how many others there are.<\/p>\n
\u201cAfterwards Found Her to Be Mary Phagan\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMiss Hall finished her work and started to leave when the twelve o\u2019clock whistle blew.\u201d Whistle blowing on a holiday? Well, maybe it did, I\u2019ll leave that for you to say. Another place he says \u201cI chatted with them:\u201d \u201cEntering, I found quite a number of people, among them Darley,\u201d etc. \u201cI chatted with them a few minutes,\u201d\u2013using the same words Jim said he used with reference to this girl: \u201cMiss Hall left my office on her way home; there were in the building at the time, Arthur White and Harry Denham and Arthur White\u2019s wife, on the top floor; to the best of my knowledge, it must have been ten or fifteen minutes after Miss Hall left my office when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered my office and asked for her pay envelope.\u201d \u201cThis little girl whom I afterwards found\u201d\u2013why didn\u2019t you give her her money? No, he didn\u2019t give her her money; he knew her all right. That child never got her money, she never got her money, and this man Frank, when Mrs. White came down there at 12:35, and when he jumped and when Jim Conley was still sitting down stairs,\u2013the one fact in this case that must make you see that Jim Conley didn\u2019t do the deed,\u2013this man Frank was at that safe then, when he jumped and Mrs. White came up, getting out the pay envelope of this little girl, who had gone back to the rear to see whether the metal had come or not-not to make water, as he stated in that note. At the time Frank was at that safe and Mrs. White came in, she says he jumped. Remember that. As she went down the stairs at 12:35 she saw Jim Conley, or a negro who resembled him, and that\u2019s the one incident in this case that shows that old Jim Conley didn\u2019t do the deed. Then it was after this man had tipped up and tipped back,\u2013then it was, he had to let Mrs. White go up. Previously he had sent up and had them to come down, but this time he lets Mrs. White go up, and then after Mrs. White had been up there a little while, and in order not to get caught in the act of moving that body, because he knew Mrs. White might come down, he knew that these men had their lunches and would work and stay up on that floor; at 12:50, Mrs. White says when she went down she saw Conley there, at 12:50, and Frank was anxious to get Mrs. White out of the building, in order that he might call Jim Conley, if Jim had seen, and his saying that he had seen would have given him away; then it was that he wanted to get her out of the building, and he sent her up-stairs and then went up-stairs to get her out and pretended to be in a big hurry to get out, but according to her evidence, instead of going out, he didn\u2019t have on his coat and went back in his office and sat down at his desk. Anxious to get out,\u2013going to close up right now! Now, that wasn\u2019t the purpose.<\/p>\n
Blow Didn\u2019t Cause Much Blood<\/strong><\/p>\nTalk about no blood being found back down there? Talk about no blood being found? Well, there\u2019s two reasons why there wasn\u2019t any found: This lick the girl got on the back of the head down there wasn\u2019t sufficient to have caused any great amount of blood, and if old Jim Conley hadn\u2019t dropped that girl as he went by the dressing room and the thing hadn\u2019t gone out like a sunburst all around there, like these men describe it, there wouldn\u2019t have been any blood. When you assaulted her and you hit her and she fell and she was unconscious, you gagged her with that, and then quickly you tipped up to the front, where you knew there was a cord, and you got the cord and in order to save this reputation which you had among the members of the B\u2019nai B\u2019rith, in order to save, not your character because you never had it, but in order to save the reputation with the Haases and the Montags and the members of Doctor Marx\u2019s church and the members of the B\u2019nai B\u2019rith and your kinfolks in Brooklyn, rich and poor, and in Athens, then it was that you got the cord and fixed the little girl whom you had assaulted, who wouldn\u2019t yield to your proposals, to save your reputation, because dead people tell no tales, dead people can\u2019t talk. And you talk about George Kendley saying that he would be one to lead a riot, and you talk about your ability to run George Kendley with a fan or a corn shuck. I tell you Frank knew and you know that there would have been men who would have sprung up in this town, had that little girl lived to tell the tale of that brutal assault, that would have run over ten thousand men like you, would have stormed the jail or done anything. It oughtn\u2019t to be, because that thing ought to be left to be threshed out before an upright Court and an honest jury.<\/p>\n
Her Resistance Brought Death<\/strong><\/p>\nBut this man Frank knew,\u2013he didn\u2019t expect her to turn him down, he paved the way, he had set the snare and he thought that this poor little girl would yield to his importunities, but, ah! thank God, she was made of that kind of stuff to which you are a stranger, and she resisted, she wouldn\u2019t yield, you couldn\u2019t control your passion and you struck her and you ravished her, she was unconscious, you gagged her and you choked her. Then you got Mrs. White out, the woman that saw you jump at 12:35 when you were there fixing to see about little Mary\u2019s pay envelope, which you never did give the poor child. And you fussed a good deal about that pocket book, that mesh bag; I wouldn\u2019t be at all surprised if old Jim\u2019s statement that Frank had that mesh bag, didn\u2019t keep that mesh bag from turning up in this trial, just exactly like that plant of old Newt Lee\u2019s shirt and just exactly like that club and just exactly like these spots these men found on May 15th around that scuttle hole. It worried you too much, it worried you too much, it disconcerted your plans. The thing had already been done when Mrs. White got back there at 12:35 and old Jim Conley was still sitting down there waiting patiently for the signal that had been agreed upon, waiting patiently for the signals that you had used when some other women from the fourth floor and other people had been down there to meet you Saturdays and holidays. And the first thing he did after he had gagged her with a piece of her underskirt, torn from her own underskirt, was to tip up to the front, where he knew the cords hung, and come back down there and choke that poor little child to death. You tell me that she wasn\u2019t ravished? I ask you to look at the blood\u2013you tell me that that little child wasn\u2019t ravished? I ask you to look at the drawers, that were torn, I ask you to look at the blood on the drawers, I ask you to look at the thing that held up the stockings. Oh, no, there was no spermatazoan and there was no semen, that\u2019s true; but as sure as you are born, that man is not like other men. He saw this girl, he coveted her; others without her stamina and her character had yielded to his lust, but she denied him, and when she did, not being like other men, he struck her, he gagged her, he choked her; and then able counsel go through the farce of showing that he had no marks on his person! Durant didn\u2019t have any marks on his person, either. He didn\u2019t give her time to put marks on his person, but in his shirt sleeves, goaded on by an uncontrollable passion, this little girl gave up her life in defense of that which is dearer than life, and you know it.<\/p>\n
Absurd Argument of Paint<\/strong><\/p>\nWhy this man says he had an impression of a female voice saying something. How unjust! This little girl had evidently\u2013listen at that, gentlemen, this little girl whose name had appeared on the pay-roll, had evidently worked in the metal department, and never was such a farce enacted in the courthouse as this effort on the part of able counsel to make it appear that that wasn\u2019t blood up there on that floor. Absurd! Not satisfied with the absurdity of the contention that it\u2019s paint, that it\u2019s cat\u2019s blood, rat\u2019s blood, varnish, they bring in this fellow Lee, who perjures himself to say that that man stood there just letting the blood drip. Old man Starnes tells you that they saw the blood there and chipped it up, and saw the blood right along on the route towards the elevator; Jim Conley tells you that right there is where he dropped the head so hard, and where Frank came and took hold and caught the feet.<\/p>\n
Every person that described that blood and its appearance bears it out that it was caused by dropping, because it was spattered,\u2014one big spot here and other little ones around it,\u2013and if human testimony is to be believed, you know that was blood\u2013that that was blood and not paint, you know that it was the blood of Mary Phagan and not the blood of Duffy. Duffy says so. You know that it was the blood of Mary Phagan because it corresponds with the manner in which Jim Conley says he dropped the body. You know it\u2019s blood because Chief Beavers saw blood there. It spattered towards the dressing room; you know it was blood because Starnes says he saw it was blood and he saw that the haskoline had been put over it,\u2013and I\u2019m going to read you this man\u2019s statement, too, unless I give out physically, about this haskoline, it\u2019s the purest subterfuge that ever a man sought to palm off on an honest jury.<\/p>\n
More Blood Near Elevator<\/strong><\/p>\nStarnes tells you that \u201cI found more blood fifty feet nearer the elevator on a nail.\u201d Barrett,\u2013Christopher Columbus Barrett, if you will, that discovered the hair that was identified, I believe, by Magnolia Kennedy, Monday morning, as soon as they began work, before anybody ever had had time to write a reward,\u2013Barrett, who was not caught in a single lie, Barrett, who though he works for the National Pencil Company, had the manhood to stand up\u2013I trust him and put him up against this man Holloway, who says that Jim Conley was his nigger. This man Holloway, who made a statement to me in my office, when he didn\u2019t see the purpose and the import and the force of the suggestion that this elevator key, after the elevator box was locked, was always put in Frank\u2019s office, but when it became apparent that too many people saw this man Frank Sunday morning go there and turn the lever in the power box, without going to his office to get the key, then it was that this man Holloway, who we put up and for whose veracity we vouched and who betrayed us and entrapped us, after he saw the force of the suggestion, after he had told us that always, without exception, he had locked this elevator box himself and put the key in Frank\u2019s office, throws us down and by his own affidavit as read in your presence here, made at a time when he didn\u2019t see the importance of the proposition, changed his evidence and perjured himself either to have this jury acquit this guilty defendant, his boss and employer, or to get the reward for the conviction of \u201chis nigger,\u201d Jim Conley.<\/p>\n
Contrast his with Barrett,\u2013Barrett, the man who discovered the hair on his machine early in the morning and whose attention was called to this blood there by the dressing room at a time when no reward is shown to have been offered and indeed, when you know that no reward was offered because no executive of this State or of this City offered any reward during Sunday or as early as seven or eight o\u2019clock Monday morning. I say to you that this man Barrett stands an oasis in a mighty desert, standing up for truth and right and telling it, though his own job is at stake, and you know it. And you may fling your charges of perjury just as far as you want to, but I tell you right now, gentlemen, that Barrett, when he swore that he found blood there at the place where Conley said he dropped the body, told the truth; and when he said he found that hair on that machine, I tell you Barrett told the truth, and if there be a man in this town that rightly deserves and who ought to receive the rewards, if there are any, it\u2019s this poor employee of the National Pencil Company, who had the manhood and the courage to tell the truth, and I hope if there be such a thing as a reward to be given to anybody, that this man Barrett gets it. But not a single thing did Barrett swear but that either didn\u2019t occur before any rewards were offered, or that weren\u2019t substantiated by four and five of the most reputable witnesses that could be found. And Barrett didn\u2019t make his discoveries May 15th, either, Barrett made them Monday morning, April 28th, and they haven\u2019t any resemblance to a plant. They come so clean and so natural that the most warped and the most biased must recognize the fact that Barrett has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.<\/p>\n
Others Saw Blood, Too<\/strong><\/p>\nBut you can wipe Barrett out of this case and still you have got an abundance of firm ground upon which to stand. Barrett isn\u2019t shown to have lied, dodged or equivocated. Mrs. Jefferson,\u2013and I\u2019m only going to give you a few of the people that saw blood there-Mrs. Jefferson saw dark red spot about as large as a fan, and in her opinion, it was blood, and it was blood. Mel Stanford says he saw the blood at the dressing room Monday, dark spots that looked exactly like blood and this white stuff, haskoline, had been smeared over it. \u201cIt was not there Friday. I know,\u201d said Mel Stanford, \u201cbecause I swept the floor Friday at that place. The white substance appeared to have been swept over with a coarse broom; we have such a broom, but the one used by me Friday in sweeping over that identical spot was of finer straw; the spots were dry and the dark led right up here within five feet of where the smear was.\u201d Blood and haskoline.<\/p>\n
Jim Conley saw her go up and didn\u2019t see her go down. Necessary, absolutely necessary, that this man should put her where he said in his telegram or letter the body was found. The discovery made Monday by Barrett and Jefferson and Mel Stanford and seen by Beavers and Starnes, but not only that, but reinforced by Darley, for Darley says \u201cI saw what appeared to be blood spots at the dressing room, a white substance had been smeared over it, as if to hide it.\u201d And Quinn says \u201cThe spots I saw at or near the dressing room looked like blood to me.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sometimes you have got to go into the enemy\u2019s camp to get ammunition. It\u2019s a mighty dangerous proposition,\u2013Doctor Connally knows what a dangerous proposition it is to go into the enemy\u2019s camp to get ammunition, he has been an old soldier and he will tell you that there is no more dangerous proposition,\u2013I expect Mr. Mangum knows something about it, this going into the enemy\u2019s camp to get ammunition; and yet in this case, conscious of the fact that we were right, having Darley tied up with an affidavit, we dared to go right into the enemy\u2019s camp, and there we got the best evidence of the fact that Frank was more nervous than he had ever been known to be except on two occasions, one when he had seen a little child killed, and the other when he and his boss had had a falling out\u2013this man Montag, who was so afraid something was going to be twisted in this case\u2013and also Darley saw the blood. It was a mighty hard pill for Darley, it was an awful hard situation for him, but we drove it up to him and he dared not go back on the affidavit which he had signed, though he did modify his statements.<\/p>\n
Blood Wasn\u2019t There Friday<\/strong><\/p>\nAll right; I\u2019m not going to call over all these other people,\u2013Mrs. Small and others,\u2013though Mrs. Carson denied it, she went there,\u2013who claimed to have seen that blood. But to cap it all, Mel Stanford says \u201cI swept the floor,\u201d\u2013he\u2019s an employee and he\u2019s an honest man,\u2013\u201cit wasn\u2019t there Friday.\u201d Why? Because old Jim, when he went to move that body, put it there Saturday. To cap it all, Doctor Claud Smith, the City Bacteriologist, says \u201cI analyzed it and I tell you that I found blood corpuscles.\u201d And now you come in with the proposition that that blood had been there ever since that machinist Lee saw that fellow Duffy stand there with his finger cut and let it spout out at the end,\u2013a thing Duffy says never happened, and you know never happened, and we called on you to produce the paper this man Lee said he signed and you can\u2019t do it, because he never signed one. Not only that, but your own employee, your own witness, Mary Pirks, your own witness, Joel Fuss, your own witness Magnolia Kennedy, your own witness Wade Campbell, and your own witness Schiff and others whose names are too numerous to take up your valuable time to mention, all say that they saw this great big spot there covered over with something white, which we know to have been haskoline.<\/p>\n
Stains at Scuttle Hole a \u201cPlant\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, Harry Scott didn\u2019t manipulate exactly right, so they got them some new Richmonds and put them in the field, and this fellow Pierce,\u2013and where is Pierce? Echo answers where? And where, oh, where, is Whitfield? And echo answers where? The only man you bring in here is this man McWorth. Starnes denies, Black denies, Scott denies, every witness put on the stand denies, that around that scuttle hole anything was seen immediately after that murder. Don\u2019t you know that Frank, who went through that factory,\u2013that Schiff, Darley, Holloway, don\u2019t you know that they would have been only too glad to have reported to Frank that blood spots had been found around that scuttle hole, and don\u2019t you know that Frank would have rushed to get his detective Scott to put the police in charge of the information that blood had been found here? But long after Jim Conley had been arrested, after this man Holloway had arrested him, after this man Holloway had said that Jim was \u201chis nigger,\u201d realizing the desperation of the situation, realizing that something had to be forthcoming to bolster up the charge that Conley did it, then it was and not until then that this man McWorth, after he had gone looking through the factory for a whole day, at about 3:30 o\u2019clock saw seven large stains, found the envelope and stick right there in the corner.<\/p>\n
Now, he found too much, didn\u2019t he? Wasn\u2019t that a little too much? Is there a man on this jury that believes that all these officers looking as they did there, through that factory, going down in this basement there through that very scuttle hole, would have overlooked seven large stains which were not found there until May 15th? Scott said \u201cI looked there just after the murder, made search at the scuttle hole, didn\u2019t see blood spots there.\u201d Starnes says the same, Rosser says the same, and these men Mel Stanford and Darley both say they had been cleaning up all that very area May 3rd, and yet the men who cleaned up and all these men never saw them and never even found the envelope or the stick. Why it\u2019s just in keeping with that plant of the shirt at Newt Lee\u2019s house. I don\u2019t care how much you mix this man Black. Boots Rogers says, Darley says, that Sunday morning, when suspicion pointed towards this man Newt Lee, that this man Frank, the brilliant Cornell graduate and the man who was so capable at making figures that certain parts of his work have never been fixed since he left that factory, when he knew a girl had been murdered downstairs, when he knew that suspicion pointed towards Newt Lee, took that slip out of the clock and stood there, looked at it, told those men, in answer to a question, if Newt Lee would have had time to have left and gone home after he killed that girl and changed his clothing, that old Newt didn\u2019t have the time.<\/p>\n
Threw Suspicion on Newt Lee<\/strong><\/p>\nWhy did he say it then? Because he knew that Lanford and Black and the other detectives who were there would have examined that slip for themselves, then and there, and would have seen that these punches were regular or irregular. But he stood there, and because he knew he would be detected if he tried to palm off a fraud at that time and place, this man of keen perception, this man who is quick at figures, this Cornell graduate of high standing, looks over those figures which register the punches for simply twelve hours,\u2013not quite twelve hours,\u2013in that presence, surrounded by those men, told them that Newt Lee wouldn\u2019t have had the time; but, ah! Monday afternoon, when he sees that there isn\u2019t enough evidence against Newt Lee, and that the thing ain\u2019t working quite as nicely against this man Gantt, who he told was familiar with this little girl, Mary Phagan, and then he suddenly proposes, after a conference with his astute counsel, Mr. Haas, that \u201cyou go out to my house and make a search,\u201d and then, in the same breath and at the same time, he shrewdly and adroitly suggests to Black that Newt Lee, he has suddenly discovered, had time to go out to his house, and forthwith, early Tuesday morning, John Black, not having been there before because Leo M. Frank told him that Newt Lee didn\u2019t have time to go out to his house, but after the information comes in then Tuesday morning, John Black puts out and goes to old Newt\u2019s house and finds a shirt; that\u2019s a plant as sure as the envelope is a plant, as the stick is a plant, as the spots around the scuttle hole. And the man that did his job, did it too well; he gets a shirt that has the odor of blood, but one that has none of the scent of the negro Newt Lee in the armpit. He puts it, not on one side, as any man moving a body would necessarily have done, but he smears it on both sides, and this carries with it, as you as honest men must know, unmistakable evidence of the fact that somebody planted that shirt sometime Monday, at whose instance and suggestion we don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n
Club and Shirt Both \u201cPlants\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd that club business: Doctor Harris says that that wound could not have been done with that club, and Doctor Hurt says it could not have been done with that club, and not a doctor of all the numerous doctors, good men and good doctors as they are for some purposes, ever denies it. A physical examination of that shirt shows you that it wasn\u2019t on the person when that blood got on it,\u2013there is as much blood on the inside or the under side that didn\u2019t come through to the outside. Lee didn\u2019t deny the shirt, but he never did say that it was his shirt. Cornered up as he was, not a negro, one negro in a thousand, that wouldn\u2019t have denied the ownership of that shirt, but old Lee was too honest to say that it wasn\u2019t his shirt,\u2013he didn\u2019t remember it; and you don\u2019t know whether it was his or not.<\/p>\n
Now this envelope and this stick is found at the radiator, at the scuttle hole, May 15th, after the place had been cleaned up, according to Darley and other witnesses, including Mel Stanford, and after, as I said, it had been thoroughly searched by Scott, Campbell, Rosser, Starnes and I don\u2019t know how many others; and then you say that these things weren\u2019t a part and parcel of the same scheme that caused this man to have Conley write those notes planted by the body to draw attention away from him. Gentlemen, you can\u2019t get away from the fact that blood was there, you can\u2019t do it; now, can you? Just as honest men, now, honest men can you get away from that? If human testimony is to be believed, you\u2019ve got to recognize the fact that blood was on the second floor, and that there was no blood at the scuttle hole; that the shirt and the club and the spots were plants. \u201cShe had left the plant five minutes when Lemmie Quinn, the foreman of that plant, came in and told me I couldn\u2019t keep him away from the factory even though it was a holiday, at which time I smiled and kept on working.\u201d Smiled and kept on working! \u201cI wanted to know when they would have lunch, I got my house and Minola answered the phone and she answered me back that she would have lunch immediately and for me to come right away. I then gathered my papers together and went upstairs to see the boys on the top floor; this must have been, since I just looked at my watch, ten minutes to one. Mrs. White states it was 12:35 that she passed by and saw me, that\u2019s possibly true, I have no recollection about it, perhaps her recollection is better than mine.\u201d She remembered it very well.<\/p>\n
McKnight Watched From Kitchen<\/strong><\/p>\nNow, this Minola McKnight business. Isn\u2019t it strange that this man Albert, her husband, would go up there and tell that kind of a tale if there wasn\u2019t some truth in it? Isn\u2019t it strange that Minola herself, in the tale that they seek to have you believe was a lie, should have been sustained by Mrs. Selig, when she tells you \u201cYes, I gave her $5.00 to go get some change,\u201d and Mrs. Frank gave her a hat? Do you believe that this husband of hers didn\u2019t see that man Frank when, after this murder, he went home and was anxious to see how he looked in the glass, but as the people had gone to the opera, anxious to get back to keep his engagement with Jim Conley? And all this talk about Mrs. Selig, about this thing not having been changed. Gentlemen, are you just going to swallow that kind of stuff without using your knowledge of human nature? And you tried to mix old Albert up, and right here, I\u2019m going to read you a little bit about Albert\u2019s evidence: \u201cYes sir, he came in close to 1:30, I guess, something like that.\u201d \u201cDid he or not eat anything?\u201d \u201cNo sir, not at that time, he didn\u2019t, he came in and went to the sideboard in the dining room and stood there a few minutes, then he goes out and catches the car.\u201d \u2018\u201dHow long did he stay at the house ?\u201d \u201cI suppose he stayed there five or ten minutes.\u201d \u201cAbout five or ten minutes?\u201d \u201cAbout five or ten minutes.\u201d \u201cWhat did he do at the sideboard?\u201d \u201cI didn\u2019t see him do anything at the sideboard.\u201d \u201cIsn\u2019t there a door between the cook room and the dining room?\u201d These gentlemen asked him, and Albert said, \u201cYes, this here dining room was open;\u201d yes, they didn\u2019t keep it shut all the time, said Albert. \u201cAnd you know he didn\u2019t eat anything in that dining room?\u201d \u201cYes, I know he didn\u2019t eat.\u201d<\/p>\n
Told Truth to Craven<\/strong><\/p>\nAnd this is the tale that had been told Craven by the husband of Minola McKnight, and Minola went down there and in the presence of her counsel, stated these things to these officers and she never would have done it if it hadn\u2019t been the truth. Gordon was down there, and he could have said\u2013and if he hadn\u2019t said it then he\u2019s unworthy of the name of lawyer\u2013\u201cMinola, if these things aren\u2019t true, don\u2019t you put your name to it, if you do you are liable to go to the penitentiary for false swearing; if you don\u2019t, the writ of habeas corpus is guaranteed to every man, and in less than two hours, by an order of a judge of the Superior Court I\u2019ll have you out of here.\u201d And yet, George Gordon, with his knowledge of the law, with his knowledge of his client\u2019s rights, sits there and lets Minola McKnight, the cook, who is sustained in the statement that she then made but which here in this presence she repudiated, corroborated by her husband and sustained in many particulars by the Seligs themselves,\u2013George Gordon sat there and let her put her fist to that paper, swearing to a lie that might send her to the penitentiary, and he was her lawyer and could have released her from that prison by a writ of habeas corpus as quick as he could have gotten to a judge, because any judge that fails to hear a writ of habeas corpus immediately, is subject to damages and impeachment.<\/p>\n
Couldn\u2019t Break Down McKnight Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\nBut Craven was there and Albert was there and this woman, McKnight, sitting there in the presence of her lawyer, this man that was so eager to inject into this case something that these men wanted in here all the time, but never could get until he got on that stand and swore that I had said a thing that you saw by the questions that I asked him never did occur, that I was afraid that I would get in bad with the detectives\u2013I would get in bad with them if I would try to run their business, and I never will get in bad with them because I never expect to undertake to run their business; I\u2019ve got as much as I can say grace over to attend to my own business. And you go out there, now, and bring in Julius Fisher and a photographer, and all these people, and try to prove this negro Albert McKnight lied, and by the mere movement of that sideboard, which Mrs. Selig in her evidence says, even, every time they swept it was put just exactly back in the same place,\u2013then you try to break down Albert McKnight\u2019s evidence with that. Why, gentlemen, Albert says that that sideboard had been moved, and you know it had been moved, and Albert McKnight stood, not where these gentlemen sought to put him, but at a place where he could see this man Frank, who came home, there sometime, as Albert says, between one and two o\u2019clock, after he had murdered the girl, and didn\u2019t eat his dinner, but hurried back to the factory to keep his engagement with Jim Conley, who had promised to come back and burn her body in the furnace.<\/p>\n
Minola Sustained Her Husband<\/strong><\/p>\nYou tell me that Albert would have told that lie? You tell me that Albert\u2019s wife, in the presence of Albert and Craven and Pickett, honorable, upright men, who worked for the Beck & Gregg Company, the same firm that Albert McKnight works at,\u2013and do you tell me that George Gordon, a man who poses as an attorney, who wants to protect the rights of his client, as he would have you see, sat there in that presence and allowed this woman, for her husband, to put her fist to a paper and swear to it which would consign her to the penitentiary? I tell you that that thing never happened, and the reason Minola McKnight made that affidavit, corroborating this man, her husband, Albert, sustained as she is by the Seligs, biased and prejudiced and willing to protect their son-in-law as they were, is because it was the embodiment of the truth and nothing but the truth; and as honest, unprejudiced, unbiased men, you know it.<\/p>\n
And you know he didn\u2019t eat anything in that dining room, yes, I know he didn\u2019t eat. \u201cDon\u2019t you know you can\u2019t sit in that dining room,\u201d says Mr. Arnold, \u201cand don\u2019t you know you can\u2019t see from the kitchen into the dining room, you know that, don\u2019t you?\u201d \u201cYes sir, you certainly can see\u201d; and the very evidence of the photographs and Julius Fisher and others who came here, after that sideboard had been moved, sustains Albert McKnight, and shows that once that sideboard is adjusted, you could see, as Albert says, and he did see because he would have never told that tale unless he had been there and seen it. \u201cYou can see in there?\u201d \u201cYes sir, you can see; look in the mirror in the corner and see all over that dining room\u201d; that\u2019s what Albert swore. And if there\u2019s anybody in the world that knows how to get up a plan to see from the kitchen into the dining room or to hear what\u2019s going on among the white folks in the dining room, it\u2019s a negro. And Albert told too straight a tale, he told too reasonable a tale. \u201cDon\u2019t you know that you can\u2019t look in the mirror in the corner and see it?\u201d Albert says \u201cI did do it, I stayed there about five or ten minutes while he was there and looked in that mirror at him, Mr. Frank.\u201d \u201cYou stayed there in that kitchen on that occasion and looked in the mirror at him that five or ten minutes he stayed there?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cBy looking in that mirror you can see what\u2019s going on in that room?\u201d \u201cYou can see if they are eating at the table.\u201d \u201cDon\u2019t you know that you can\u2019t see in that room by looking into that mirror?\u201d \u201cYes sir, you can see in there.\u201d \u201cYou can see all over the room?\u201d\u2013tried to make him say that\u2013\u201cNo, not all over it exactly.\u201d \u201cBut you can see even when they are eating at the table?\u201d \u201cYou can look in that mirror and see in the sitting room and through that dining room,\u201d said Albert, \u201cto a certain extent.\u201d And he says he never was in the dining room in his life. That\u2019s reasonable. \u201cYou were right side of the back door of the kitchen?\u201d \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cLet me give you a little drawing; now were you sitting right in front of that little hallway between the two rooms, in front of it?\u201d Says Albert, \u201cNot exactly.\u201d \u201cYou were sitting right here against the wall, weren\u2019t you?\u201d And he said \u201cYes sir.\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t know whether it\u2019s fair or not,\u2013that\u2019s a fair statement?\u201d And Albert says, \u201cI don\u2019t know whether it\u2019s fair or not, but I know I saw Leo M. Frank come in there some time between one and two o\u2019clock Saturday, April 26th, and I know he didn\u2019t stay but about ten minutes and left to go to town.\u201d And he tells you the way in which he left, and Frank in his statement says that, while he didn\u2019t get on that car, he went in such a direction as Albert McKnight might have naturally supposed he went down there. \u201cMinola she went in there but stayed only a minute or two in the dining room, I never looked at the clock.\u201d \u201cYou don\u2019t know exactly what time?\u201d \u201cNo, but I know it was obliged to have been something after one when Mr. Frank came there and he came in and went before the sideboard and then went back to town.\u201d And he says \u201cI don\u2019t know exactly whether he did or not because I have never been in the house no further than the cook room.\u201d Then he says \u201cWho did you tell?\u201d \u201cI told Mr. Craven.\u201d \u201cWho is Mr. Craven?\u201d \u201cHe is the boss at the plow department at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Company\u201d; and that\u2019s the way the detectives got hold of it, and try all you will to break old Albert down, I submit to you, gentlemen, that he has told the absolute truth and stands unimpeached.<\/p>\n
(At this point, a recess was taken until Monday, August 25, 1913, at 9 A.M.)<\/p>\n
Monday, August 25th, 1913, 9:00 A.M.<\/p>\n
May it please Your Honor and Gentlemen of the Jury:<\/p>\n
I regretted more than you the necessity for your being carried over another week or, rather, another Sunday. I was even more exhausted than I anticipated, and this morning my throat and voice are in such shape that I fear I will not be able to do the case the justice that it demands. I thought myself, had we not had the adjournment that I might have been able to finish my speech and His Honor charge you Saturday afternoon but I am sure such would not have been the case.<\/p>\n
Analysis of Frank\u2019s Statement<\/strong><\/p>\nWhen we closed on Saturday, I was just completing a brief analysis of the statement made by this defendant. I\u2019m not going into any exhaustive analysis of that statement, because it is not necessary to further inconvenience you and I haven\u2019t the physical strength, but there is certain language and certain statements and assertions made in this statement by this defendant which merit some consideration. This defendant stated to you, after His Honor had excluded our evidence and properly, I think, that his wife visited him at the police station. He says that she was there almost in hysterics, having been brought there by her father and two brothers-in-law and Rabbi Marx\u2013no, \u201cRabbi Marx was with me, I consulted with him as to the advisability of allowing my dear wife to come up to the top floor to see those surroundings, city detectives, reporters and snap-shotters.\u201d He doesn\u2019t prove that by a living soul and relies merely upon his own statement. If they could have proven it by Rabbi Marx, who was there and advised him, why didn\u2019t they do it? Do you tell me that there lives a true wife, conscious of her husband\u2019s innocence, that wouldn\u2019t have gone through snapshotters, reporters and everything else, to have seen him\u2013<\/p>\n
Tilt Between Attorneys<\/strong><\/p>\nMr. Arnold: I must object to as unfair and outrageous an argument as that, that his wife didn\u2019t go there through any consciousness of guilt on his part. I have sat here and heard the unfairest argument I have ever heard, and I can\u2019t object to it, but I do object to his making any allusion to the failure of the wife to go and see him; it\u2019s unfair, it isn\u2019t the way to treat a man on trial for his life.<\/p>\n
The Court: Is there any evidence to that effect?<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: Here is the statement I have read.<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: I object to his drawing any conclusions from his wife going or not going, one way or the other, it\u2019s an outrage upon law and decency and fairness.<\/p>\n
The Court: Whatever was in the evidence or the statement I must allow it.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: \u201cLet the galled jade wince\u201d\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Arnold: I object to that, I\u2019m not a \u201cgalled jade,\u201d and I\u2019ve got a right to object. I\u2019m not galled at all, and that statement is entirely uncalled for.<\/p>\n
The Court: He has got the right to interrupt you.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: You\u2019ve had your speech\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Rosser: And we never had any such dirty speech as that, either.<\/p>\n
Mr. Dorsey: I object to his remark, Your Honor, I have a right to argue this case\u2013<\/p>\n
Mr. Rosser: I said that remark he made about Mr. Arnold, and Your Honor said it was correct; I\u2019m not criticizing his speech, I don\u2019t care about that.<\/p>\n
Why Didn\u2019t Wife Go to Him?<\/strong><\/p>\nFrank said that his wife never went back there because she was afraid that the snapshotters would get her picture because she didn\u2019t want to go through the line of snapshotters. I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that there never lived a woman, conscious of the rectitude and innocence of her husband, who wouldn\u2019t have gone to him through snapshotters, reporters and over the advice of any Rabbi under the sun. And you know it. Frank says in his statement with reference to these notes written by Conley, \u201cI said I know he can write.\u201d How long did it take him to say it, if he ever said it? \u201cI received many notes from him asking me to loan him money, I have received too many notes from him not to know that he can write.\u201d In other words, says Frank, in his statement, I have received notes signed with his name, purporting to have been written by him, and he says they were written by a pencil. Frank says he said \u201cI told them if you will look in the drawer in the safe you will find the card of a jeweler from whom Conley bought a watch on the installment plan.\u201d He corroborates Conley there, with reference to the watch incident and what occurred there in his office when Conley told him not to take any more money out. \u201cNow, perhaps if you go to that jeweler you may find some sort of receipt that Conley had to give and be able to prove that Conley can write.\u201d Scott says that no such thing ever happened. But if Frank knew so well that this man Conley could write, in the name of fairness why didn\u2019t Frank, when he saw those notes at the Police Station, found beside this dead body, then and there say \u201cthis is the writing of James Conley?\u201d Why didn\u2019t he do it? Scott denies that any such thing happened, or that they came into possession of any information from Frank that led to knowledge on their part that this man Conley could write. And up to the time that they discovered that this man Conley could write, this man had kept his mouth sealed and it was only the knowledge on the part of the detectives and the knowledge on the part of Conley that the detectives knew he was lying about his ability to write, that forced him to make the first admission that he was connected with this crime. He says he knew that that Conley could write. Why, then, did he keep his mouth shut until the detectives discovered it, when he knew that the notes found beside that poor girl\u2019s body was the one key that was going to unlock the Phagan mystery?<\/p>\n
Knew Conley Could Write<\/strong><\/p>\nYou know why. Ah, you did know that Conley could write. You knew it, not only because he wrote the notes for you, through which you sought to place the responsibility for this crime on another man, but you knew it because he checked up the boxes of pencils, and he had written you numerous notes to get money from you, just like he borrowed money from those other people in that factory. You knew that the most powerful fact that could be brought to light showing who committed this dastardly crime was to find who penned the notes placed with the body; and yet, although you saw them, according to your own statement, at Police Headquarters and saw them there the very Sunday morning that the crime was committed, not a word, not a word, although the notes themselves said that the crime was done by a negro. It is not necessary to discuss that further.<\/p>\n
Frank says, with reference to this visit of Conley to the factory, after Conley had gone through over yonder and demonstrated in detail, as told you by Branch, and in the same length of time and almost to the minute that Conley himself says it took, too, though Conley only knows the clock registered four minutes to one and don\u2019t know anything about the balance of the time, he says, with reference to the visit of Conley to the jail, when Conley wanted to confront him, \u201cI told them if they got the permission, I told them through my friend Mr. Klein, that if they got the permission of Mr. Rosser to come, I would speak to them, would speak to Conley and face him or anything they wanted, if they got the permission of Mr. Rosser. Mr. Rosser was on that day up at Tallulah Falls trying a case.\u201d But Mr. Rosser got back, didn\u2019t he? Mr. Rosser didn\u2019t remain at Tallulah Falls.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.leofrank.org\/images\/hugh-dorsey\/solicitor-general-hugh-m-dorsey.jpg\")
<\/center>Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, August 1913.<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.leofrank.org\/images\/hugh-dorsey\/argument-of-hugh-m-dorsey-cover.jpg\")
<\/center>The Original Trial Transcript: 3,647 Pages<\/strong><\/p>\n