This is only a short review: to write up my notes
fully
would require 600 pages the size of these.
While the papers in the early stages of the matter, by
circulating all sorts of wild reports, some given out too hastily by
the
police, and some picked up here and there by the reporters, tended to
poison
the public mind against anyone suspected, we are here to deal with the
real
evidence against Frank. The short space only admits of a short review.
When it was learned Sunday morning, April 27, 1913, that
a girl had been found dead-murdered-in the basement of the National
Pencil
Factory on Forsyth Street,
in the very center of Atlanta,
excitement ran high. It increased as the days sped by and all sorts of
false
report’s spread far and wide. When Newt Lee, the night watchman, was
arrested,
and then Mullinax locked up on suspicion, there was at once talk of
lynching.
Then came the arrest of Gantt and Frank. Mayor Woodward asked chief of
police
to try to stop the giving out of all sorts of misleading reports.
Newspaper
extras, one after another, were being cried by newsboys on every
prominent
corner. The state militia was notified to be in readiness.
Too many people lose their heads under such conditions,
and may even commit a crime in their haste to punish the guilty. To
know the
real guilty party should be their real object, and to know that, we
must have a
trial by an unbiased and unintimidated court. The statements of
witnesses
should be carefully weighed, and the truthfulness of each of the
witnesses
carefully considered. People generally in their cool moments do this:
but in
time of excitement some, too many, forget themselves, and prejudge from
loose
gossip.
Many false reports poison the minds of the people, and though
these reports may be corrected-or disputed-the effect still on the mind
and is
not easily removed. To start a false report to
the injury of another is sinful, and to
aid spreading it is not much better. To get excited and give way to
prejudice or malice is
not only hurtful to
the mind and science of the party so indulging, but it is a "hindrance
to the
soul.”
We have no right to wreak vengeance on anyone. "Vengeance
is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." If we our vengeance out on a
fellow-being, the Lord will repay pouring His vengeance on us. We have
no right
to that there is no future punishment, and that because we not punish a
man
under our law, that he will not be punished in the course of time by a
greater
tribunal than of man. If we punish him without sufficient reliable of
his
guilt, then we commit a crime as great as that of the party may be
accused. We
can only ascertain the guilty and punish that party under our law and
by the instruments
of the law, the courts. If the court is biased and intimidated the
verdict and
execution would be wrong although the accused might be guilty. If he
escapes
the punishment here that he deserves, he is sure to get that punishment
at some
future time. If we punish another
illegally, then we may expect punishment ourselves. That punishment may
not be
immediate, but it will come. "Be sure your sin will find you out."
It is a principal of law and justice as laid down by our able
judges that, "it, is better that the guilty should punishment, rather
than
the life or liberty of an innocent person be imperiled."
If the guilty escape here, be sure their sin
will find them out.
To judge fairly in this matter, the Mary Phagan murder, it
requires a knowledge of the building in which the crime took place.
That building
is 200 feet long and four stories high. It has a deep basement. It has
on the
first floor a long glazed-in office on the right as you go in from Forsyth Street. There is some enclosure (room) to the left,
making a sort of hallway back to the foot of stairway, which leads up
to second
floor. It is over 38 feet from the front door to the foot of that
stairway.
Going up the stairway from foot to top is more than 28 feet. One-third
of the
way up the stairs is a platform and a double door that closes the way
up. Just even
with this double door and to the right is the partition that cuts off
all the
back (and large) part of the first floor from the stairs, the hatchway
(or
scuttle hole), elevator box and passage way used by the pencil factory
employees in going into the building from Forsyth street. The glazed-in
office on
the right as you go in from street, the way around the elevator shaft
and
around the hatch hole, and all the back of this floor was used by the
Clark
Woodenware Co., during 1912, and until January 15, 1913. The pencil
factory had
use of elevator and right of way from front door to the stairway. Since
the
Clark Co., left, the office and all hack of one-third (lower part) of
stairway
has been closed up and unoccupied. Now the much-discussed scuttle hole
has a
trap door that fits down close over it. This is just back of elevator
shaft and
about 8 feet from where one would come down the stairs from the second
floor.
From the bottom step of stairway to the elevator shaft is about nine
feet. When
you are fully up the stairs to the second floor you have gone from the
street door
about sixty-seven (67) feet. It is 8 or 9 steps from first floor up to
the
platform and double door on stairway and 16 or 17 steps then on up to
the top
of stairs at second floor. It is 61 and a half feet from the top of
stairway
back east to the front end of the building. Factory office is in the
north-east
corner of this floor, and it is full 60 feet from the head of the
stairway to
inside of the back (or so-called private) office. It is 73 feet from
the top of
the stairway back to the double door that cuts off the metal room.
These doors
have each a small glass panel in top part. The metal room extends from
these glass
panel doors back to the west, or back end, of the building. That
distance is sixty feet and eight inches, (60' 8"). Only a few feet
beyond
the double door to the metal room and on the left side of the walkway
is the
girls' dressing room where Jim Conley says he dropped the body of the
victim because as
he said, it was so heavy he could not tote it. That dressing room is
only 7 or
8 feet long and some 3 three feet wide, with a door in the side, next
to the
walkway. Just at the far end, and beside the walkway, stood the cooler
of
drinking water. Just there by the side of the far end of this little
dressing
room, and within two to four feet of the water cooler is where the
so-called
blood spots were found. To the right, or north, of this cooler some
seventeen
(17) feet is the lathe where the hair was found. This lathe is on a
work bench
that stands against the north wall of the building. The hair was on a
·little
crank handle about two and one-half (2 ½) inches long and about
the size of a
man's finger. Just beyond the lathe about five or six feet is a gas jet
where
the girls dressed, combed or curled their hair. Just by that is a waste
basket where
the waste paper, hair, etc., was thrown. To the right and a little
beyond where the" blood spots" were found, about 12
or 13 feet, is the eyelet machine on which ,the haskoline
is used. On the right of this walkway, beginning near the head of the
stairs,
is a wall that encloses the varnish room. That room is 50 or 60 feet
long and
has two doors that open out to the hall this side of the double door,
and then
one door beyond the double door that opens to the hall. All the doors
are this side
of the dressing room door and cooler. The paints and varnishes are kept
in this
end of this room. Paints can be carried out at either door and would be
carried
right by the dresser door and water cooler. Bottles of these colors are
around
on many tables or work benches. They are spilled in places around over
several
hundred square feet. They are carried from there to the painting room
on third
floor.
To the left of a line drawn from the double door to back
end of the building, and at the back end of the building is the
stairway
leading from the second to the third floor. Just over that, one leads
from the
third to the fourth floor. Now eighteen (18) feet to the left of this
line and
sixteen from the back wall is where Jim says he found the body. That is
eight
or ten feet from the foot of the stairway leading to the upper floors.
It is
over 60 feet from the double you walk back to where .Jim says·
the body was
found. The employee’s generally went up and down the stairs. They did
not use
the elevator much for the travel from one floor other. At this, or the
east,
end of the building, is a system of stairs.
I have been a little lengthy in this description; no one
can form a correct idea of the chances of not hearing, the
sounds--walking,
talking, screaming-without this knowledge.
I had taken these dimensions long ago, but on reading a
recent
publication purporting to give some of them, and finding they did not
agree
with my notes, I took a tape line and went over them again.
That article states the building is about 150 feet long,
when it fills an entire 200-foot lot, and is, on the second feet and
eight inches
inside. It states the stairway commences some 25 or 30 feet from the
entrance,
when it is over 38 feet. To say that "immediately back of the head of
the stairway
was cut off by partition, and was known as the metal room,” does not
convey an
idea of the distance. "There was an entrance to the metal room by means
of
a double glass door directly in front of the head of the stairway." It
is seventy-three
(73) feet from the head of the stairway, on a straight line, to the
double door
to the metal room. The glass is only in the top of the doors and the
glass is
less than is usual in such doors. Again my information obtained from
employees
there is that they did not go to the outer office and receive their pay
from
the inner office.
They were paid at a booth or stand out on the main floor
and nearer to the head of the stairway. This is all right for a
discussion of the
law as to the admission of certain sorts of evidence, but it does not
satisfy
in the discussion of facts in dealing with the credibility of the
witnesses.
These dimensions-these great distances-have a strong,
direct bearing on the oral testimony as given by some of the witnesses.
They
tend to impeach some of the testimony of certain witnesses and
especially that
of Jim Conley, who, by the way, has already been impeached by every
rule and
method known to the law.
The location of the trap door, and its distance from' the
second floor and Frank's office, is also important. That door is .just
behind
the elevator box or shaft, and about eight (8) feet to the right of the
bottom
step of the stairs. It is just across the little hallway there from the
steps,
and not in front of the steps. This hatchway or scuttle hole, is two
feet by
two feet and three inches-or about four and one-half square, feet. It
closes
with a door that fits into the floor and that can be easily lifted up.
From
this, down to the dirt floor of the basement, is a ladder-not
stairs-made of
two scantlings and a great number of rungs or rounds. The basement is
deep-the
ladder about twelve feet long. The basement has a dirt floor. It is
.very dirty
from the coal dust, ashes, cinders-almost anything that makes dirt in
such a
place. This is where Dalton
says he went with a woman- while Jim Conley watched for him-"a mighty
nasty ,place to take a woman." Yet, while some people are depraved
themselves, they are still in favor of social equality-want to put
everybody on
a level-and having no desire to rise up themselves, would pull
every-body else
down to their level. At every single time he says he went down that
scuttle,
that floor, back and front, was occupied by the Wooden Ware Company.
I have no abuse for this man, nor any of the rest of the
witnesses, not even Jim Conley. I hope Dalton
may see the Warrior of his way, join the church again and live up to
its teachings.
True charity does not consist in giving money alone. That
may be Liberality, or even
a reckless
throwing away of money. True charity is a matter of mind and
conscience. It
consists in doing justice to everybody of every race and station in
life. It
does not tolerate prejudice, envy, or malice. "Faith, hope, charity;
but
the greatest of these is charity." It is in this sense of charity that
I
discuss the "Frank case."
Some of the witnesses were young and scarcely
responsible,
being led in by the excitement of the time. Some bore malice.
As to one witness brought in to "prove" that
Frank knew Mary Phagan and had made advances on her. He worked at the
factory
two days only. Like many others, he had spurted out some remark to the
effect
that he "knew a few things himself." At the time, and not on oath, he
had gassed a little. Many older people do the same thing. I quote from
his
statement made in court on the trial and certified to by the lawyer for
the
prosecution and defense, and approved as correct by Judge Roan.
"I worked at the National Pencil Company during
March of this year. I saw Leo Frank talking to Mary Phagan On the
second floor,
about the middle of March. She was going to work and he stopped to talk
to her.
She told him she had to go to work. She backed off and he went on
towards her
talking to her. That is all I saw or heard."
Cross-examined, this boy said: "That was just before
dinner. Mary was going in the direction where she worked, and Mr. Frank was
going the other way. I don't know whether any of
the girls were still at work or not. I didn't look for them. Some
of the girls came in there while this was going on
and told
me where to put the pencils. Lemmie Quinn’s office is right there. I
don't,
know whether any of the girls saw him talking to Mary or not, they were
in
there. It was just before the whistle blew for noon. I can't describe
Mary
Phagan. I don't know any of the other little girls in there. I don't
remember
who cal1edher Mary Phagan, a young man on the fourth floor told me her
name was
Mary Phagan. I don't know who he was. I don't know anybody in the
factory. I
can't describe any of the girls. I don't know a single one in the
factory." There you have it.
The girl brought from Cincinnati was a trouble here, to her
people
and the police. The probation officers were unable to cope with her.
She ran
the streets and according to them statements, she was absolutely
untru1Jhful.
One policemal1, death down on Frank, said to me: "We would have proved
more by her, but we were afraid the defense would pull our records on
her. She
is entered up at headquarters as the most notorious liar we have ever
had to
contend with."
She swore: "I worked at the pencil factory four
months. I quit in March, 1913. I
have seen Frank talk to Mary Phagan two or three
times a day in the metal department. He called her Mary. He would stand
pretty
close to her. He would lean over in her face."
On cross-examination she said: "All the rest of the
girls were there when he talked to her, I don't know what b-e was talking to her
about." The other girls swear it is not so.
She swears she worked there "four months." That
she "quit" in March, 1913. Now,
she only worked five weeks and nine hours, and
was discharged as soon as they had time to find her out. She did not
work on
same floor that Mary did.
Another girl swears: "I have seen Leo M. Frank
talking to Mary Phagan. He would just tell, her, while she was at work,
about
her work. He would stand just close enough to her to tell her about her
work.
He would show her how to put rubbers in the pencils. That's all I saw
him do.
That was last summer." This girl worked on the fourth floor and Mary on
the
second floor. The foreman instructed, and not Frank. The witness was
discharged
for obscenity and vulgarity. Women and girls on the fourth floor-some
of them
widows and mature women with daughters there, complained at her nasty,
vulgar
talk and she was "fired." Foreman Quinn and the other girls swear the
above statements are false.
There were two girls that swore they had seen Frank go
into the dressing room on the fourth floor with one of the foreladies.
There
were other foreladies and foremen there. You can see all over the work
floor.
Several girls and some men and boys work there. The mother and sister
of that
particular lady were there with 'her. All know that the statement is
absolutely
false. One of these witnesses was a sort of tough around a city suburb.
She
told a girl or two she was going to the pencil factory and get a job.
They told
Mr. Darley they did not want her in the building. He promised not to
take her
in. Soon after that she came and applied. The day watchman, knowing
nothing of
the agreement, 'but knowing a foreman who needed a hand right then to
facilitate his work, took her direct to the foreman who started her in
to work.
When it was known to the parties who had put Darley on notice, he declared he knew nothing of
her being there. He asked him to be quiet and he would soon quietly let
her out.
He did
this to avoid offense, and she worked there only a short time. Of
course she
left there with no good feeling for any superintendent or any forelady.
The other witness who swore that Frank went to the room
with a forelady and stayed fifteen· or twenty minutes, two or
three times, was
also prompted by malice. She had a small brother who stole from the
factory,
was caught, and let off with the promise by this sister and the mother
that the
mother would give him a good whipping. These and some few other
witnesses were
not cross-questioned-mainly for the reason that impeachment of their
testimony
might have become more necessary and their personal character shown up;
so
their evidence was left to the jury.
The statement that Frank looked into the dressing room
when girls were changing their outer skirts shows within itself that it
was
during working hours when no. one was supposed to be in there, that he
merely
looked in one time, smiled and then turned away. Besides other girls,
alleged
to have· been in there at the same time, swear it is not so.
C. B. Dalton, another star witness for the state-a star
of second magnitude-but second only to Jim Conley-swears that he had
visited
the pencil factory three, four or five times. Had been in the office of
Leo M.
Frank two or three times. Had been down in the basement. "Saw Conley
and
the night watchman and he was not Conley. There would be some ladies in
Mr.
Frank's office. Sometimes there would be two and sometimes one. Maybe
they
didn't work in the mornings and they would be there in the evenings."
Says
he was introduced to Frank by a woman. Says he went down the scuttle
hole and
ladder with her. That was all in 1912,
except one time in this year, 1913, and that was" about the first of
January." "Frank wasn't there the last time," he swears. “I saw Mr.
Frank about 2 o’clock in the afternoon. There were no· curtains
drawn in the
office. It was very light in there. I went to the first office near the
stairway."
There was no office near the stairway unless he refers to
the one on the first floor, occupied then by the Woodenware Co.
He then says, "The watchman I spoke of was a negro.
I saw him about the first, of January, 1913. I saw a Negro night watchman there
between September and December." Now the night watchman who preceded
Newt
Lee was a white man.; and he had been there two years. Newt Lee went on
only
three weeks before the murder-or about April 7, 1913. The woman he says he went there with swears, it is
not so. She may not be reliable, but she is as
good as he is. He says he walked home from the factory (presumably
from the door) with two ladies. They swear it is not so. He says he
paid Jim
Conley a half dozen quarters or more, for watching for him when he went
down
that hatchway or scuttle hole and ladder with a woman. All these times
that
floor was occupied, by the Woodenware Company, and neither Frank nor
the: pencil
factory had any connection with that company.
He says, "Frank had coca-cola, lemon and lime, and
beer in the office." The different office boys, messengers, the foremen
and foreladies, young lady employees and older, settled lady employees,
were
all privileged to go into the building at any time. The doors were open
to the
office. The general Superintendent, superintendent of working force,
drummers,
were all free to go in and out. No doors were ever found shut on them.
The
Woodenware Company men had access to the front door. How is it none of
them
ever ran up against that ever watchful, ever reliable sentinel, Jim
Conley 1
How was it that some of them did not run ·up on some of that
beer drinking? Too
many good, truthful men and women there that swear they never saw such
a thing
and that it could not have existed without its being· known to
several of them.
They- are not all bought with "Jew money," either. They are clean,
truthful people.
One little boy says Mary told him that she was afraid·
of
Frank and wanted the compl1ny of this boy to protect her. He could only
go back
and forth with her, out in town and on the cars. His protecting her-a
mere "bare-foot
boy!" That was only boy gas. He took back much of his statement later,
and
swore that a detective bribed him to swear that stuff. I was not there
and
don't know of course that the detective did not do it, but I am sure he
did not
"have to." Such boys on such mat1tersdo not have to be even persuaded.
They are apt to be too glib-too free to talk such stuff anyhow. I can't
think
the detective needed to waste any money, and don't 1Jhink he did-at
least on
that occasion. That boy -is in the state reformatory as a tough.
The story of the boy who told one tale and swore another
illustrates this. A boy gassed a lot before court, and· when
sworn on the stand
in court he told a very different tale. Witnesses were put up to state
what he
had told before court. The court demanded to know why he, had changed
his
story. Bursting into a cry, he said, “Judge, I was just talking then; I
am swearing
now."
In this case most of the witnesses for the prosecution
had their statements taken long before the trial began. An officer or
other
party interested in pushing the case against the accused, wrote down
their
statements while they were "just a talkin' then." Then and there they
were signed and sworn to. There was not much chance to change their
statements
and escape prosecution for perjury.
Jim Conley was, however, an important exception. He made
several statements, and was allowed to change them. Then he made a
statement
that -did not" fit in," he changed it "to fit" the plan as best he could. Then it was
reduced to writing also.
Jim Conley denied that he could write for some time. Then
when Frank was notified of this denial, he told them where they could
find
papers containing his signature. Thus confronted, he admitted that he
could
write, and did write for the detectives. Although on the 29th of April
"experts," after comparing the death notes found by the body with
Newt Lee's writing, declared Newt Lee the author of the notes, it now
appeared
to the detectives that Jim Conley was the author. This they put up to
him and
he needed, to change his former statement. This time, May 24th, he
completely
demolished his statement of May 18. Jim in this second written
statement, says
he wrote one note, that
Frank looked at
that, and then Frank wrote the other note. He says, "on Friday evening,
before the holiday, about four minutes to one o'clock," Frank went upon
the fourth floor and asked him, Conley, to come to the office. Note
this
statement as to the exact time. That is a low Negro characteristic. You
are to
understand he is exact, an-d of course, reliable. During my U. S.
Government
service I took the depositions of hundreds in the District of Columbia and half-dozen
southwestern states. That is one of the many ways of "fooling the white
folks." Jim's statements carry a full quota of such baits and catches.
He
claims here that Frank had him write one note and Frank wrote the
other, and on
Friday afternoon before the murder occurred on Saturday, said Frank
wanted to
send the note to his mother in Brooklyn.
The
whole statement is a palpable fabrication-a pot of soft soap-for the
detectives. Scott swears he repeated on the 25th the story of the 24th.
They
questioned him about three 'hours. Mr. Scott further swears: "We saw
him again
on May 27th in Chief Lanford's office. Talked to
him about five or six hours. We tried
to impress him with
the fact that Frank would not have written these notes on Friday. That
that was
not a reasonable story. They showed premeditation and that would not
do. We
pointed out to him why the first statement would not fit. We told 'him
we
wanted another statement. He declined to make another statement. He
said he had
told the truth. On May 28, Chief Lanford and I grilled him for five or
six
hours again, endeavoring to make clear several points which were
farfetched in
his statement. We pointed out to him that his statement would not do
and would
not fit. He then made us another long statement May 28." Scott uses the
expressions, "He then made us another long statement, having been told
that his previous statements show deliberation; that that could not be
accepted." "We pointed out things that were improbable and told him
he must do better than that." "Anything in his story that looked to
be out of place we told him wouldn't do."
Conley did not tell then of the many people who came into
the factory building on that fatal Saturday morning, though he was
questioned
fully as to that. He swore he got up at home between 9 and 9:30
Saturday morn.
That he looked at clock on the Atlanta University
(col.). That
was a long way from the pencil factory. Says he went to Peters street
then, after eating and
doing other things at home. On Peters street he drank two beers, went to another saloon
and shot dice, winning 90 cents, got two more beers at different times;
went
out and bought a half pint of whiskey, and ,drank some of it. He then
tells of
meeting Frank near Montag's, some three blocks from the pencil factory.
Says he
went on at Frank's bidding, walking just behind Frank to the factory.
They went
into the building, and there were some great big boxes further back
near the
foot of the stairs. Frank took his foot and pushed a box at the foot of
the
stairs and told Jim to sit there until Frank whistled. That would put
him in
plain view of anyone coming in. He tells of Miss Mattie Smith coming in
and of
Darley's walking to the door with her. Now it is known beyond all
question that
Mattie Smith left the factory about 9:20
o'clock-or long before Jim left his home away out Rhodes street. From the time he
was on Peters street,
the
crap shooting, cigarette rolling he talks of, drinking beers, wine and
whiskey,
he could not have gotten to the factory before about 11:30 o’clock-not
before
11 at the earliest.
His whole story is filled with such inconsistent
statements. He speaks of a girl going up
and getting her pay and coming down. Says she was up there 7 or 8
minutes.
"That she stopped just opposite him, and tore her envelope open and took out her money and counted
it, shut it up in her hand and went out at the door and turned up Hunter Street."
He could not see from the foot of stairs and pile of boxes which way
she went.
He puts this in to show that he did not snatch her purse.
On May 29th, 1918, he tells all about being sent for the
body, of tying it up, taking it to the dressing room door and dropping
it,
"hollering" to Frank that he could not tote it, and goes through all
the account of the acts that required forty (40) minutes' time. He is
full in
statements, tells how Frank acted when they got back up stairs. Tells
how he
talked and walked the floor. Just at this juncture Frank exclaims,
"Here comes
Emma Clark and Corinthia Hall." Says Frank told him to get into the
wardrobe quick. Says he was so slow Frank told him to "hurry up, damn
it!" Jim says he was in the wardrobe 7 or 8 minutes. The ladies went
away.
He heard them talking to Frank while he, Jim, was in the wardrobe. When
Frank
turned him out, they proceeded to write the notes -the death
notes-found by the
body of Mary Phagan. This Emma Clark was just married and was that day
Mrs.
Emma Clark Freeman. Mrs. Freeman, Miss C. Hall, Mrs. White and Miss
Hattie Hall
were all there at the same time and all know it was from 11:30 to 11:50
when
these ladies were there. There were two men there in the office when
Mrs.
White, Mrs. Freeman and Miss Corinthia Hall went in at 11:30 to 11:35
A.M., and left at 11:45 to
11:50.
White and Denham were at work on the fourth floor. These ladies all
swear to
the time, yet Jim says Mary's body was already carried to the basement.
She
must by this statement have been dead at least thirty minutes before
these
ladies reached the factory. Mary did not leave home till 11:45-just the
time
these ladies were leaving the factory.
There was a reason that day for their watching the time.
Mrs. May Barrett was there from 11:15 to 12 o'clock. White and Denham
were
there from soon in morning till 3 P. M. They were in a position to see
or hear
the elevator had it, run. Jim says
they went down with the body on the
elevator, then came up to first floor from basement and stopped it,
then ran on
up to the second floor-making three starts and three stops. White and
Denham
would most likely have seen it at some time if it had run. It makes
much noise
and so does the motor;
In Tim's statement of May 28 he says the girl worked On
the fourth floor, went up, stayed 7 or 8 minutes got her envelope and
stopped
near him at the foot of the steps and took out her money and counted
it, shut
it up in her hand and went out. Then he speaks of dozing off to sleep
likely.
Then he says for 15 or 20 minutes there was no one came in at all. That
is his
sleepy period. At that date he did not care to tell just when Mary went
up. He
tells in his statement of May 29, and also in the court at the trial of
Frank,
positively and fully states that they had already disposed of the body
and were
in the office when Mrs. Freeman and Miss C. Hall Came in. They came in
at 11:35
and left at 11:45 A.M. and did not go back. In his court statement he
say's
Mary Phagan went up, he heard her foot steps going towards the office
and after
she went in the office. I heard two people walking out of the office
and going
like they were coming down the steps, but they didn’t come down the
steps; they
went back towards the metal department. After they went back there, I
heard the
lady scream, and I didn't hear no more, and the next person I saw
coining in
there was Monteen Stover. She stayed there a pretty good while; it
wasn't so
very long either. She came back down the steps and left." She wasn't
counting any money this time. That would contradict Monteen's statement
that
there was nobody in the office to pay her. He could not have heard that
walking
either, and he swears several times in cross-examination, when
questioned as to
other people going up the steps and into the office, that he could not
hear the
walking at or in the office. He says he heard screaming. If she was
screaming
back in that metal room, then White and Dellham should have heard it,
for they
were only about half as far away as Jim Conley says he was. He says
after
Monteen left he heard tiptoeing by some one from the metal room and
then
tiptoeing back towards the metal department. You can't hear tiptoeing on second floor
from where Jim was. He next says,
"After 'that I kind of dozed off and went to sleep." Says next thing
he heard stamping. Says Frank looked funny and his
face was red." Says Frank bad a
little rope or string in his hands and was rubbing his hands. Who is
simple
enough to believe a face would 'be red under such circumstances -
Frank's
complexion is not such as to turn very red under any condition, and
nobody turns
red over such a matter-Frank would have been deathly pale. Jim now says
that
after he got up the steps, Frank says, ”Did you see that little·
girl who
passed here just awhile ago?" “I told him I saw one come along there
and
she came back down again, and then I saw
another one come along there and she
hasn't come back down." Here he puts Monteen Stover as going up and
down
before Mary Phagan came.
Then he tells that Frank explained that he hit her and
guess he "struck her too hard and she fell and hit her head against
something." In former statement he was dozing and did not see Mary go
up.
Note here two things: First, he puts Monteen Stover as
going up and then coming down before Mary came in. Second, he says,
"hit
her head against something." It has never been determined what cut that
gash in her head. Jim understands that and don't aim to tell.
There was much evidence in court as 110 the time Mary got
to the factory. There are only slight discrepancies in statements as to
car
time. Most of that hairsplitting of time was useless except to burden
the jury
with a lot of chaff to sift for a few grains of wheat. Mrs. Coleman,
the mother
of Mary, states she left home 11:45. Car men say they were on time and
Mary
boarded car at 11:50. Due at crossing of Marietta
and Broad streets at 12:07. Then 4½ to 5 minutes to walk to the
factory, would
put her there at 12 :12; and if she got off at Broad and Hunter streets
at 12
:10, and then two minutes on to the factory, would again put her there
12 :12.
Unless she went direct from car to factory and walked at a reasonably
fast gait
she would have been later-say 12:13 to 12:15.
Monteen Stover says she got there at 12:05 and stayed
until 12:10, and saw nobody in the building-that everything was"
quiet."
She did not even see Jim Conley, the ever-present sentinel. She was
there five
minutes. Frank told the detectives that he was not out of his office
from 12
till about 12:50. It is contended by the state that during the five
minutes
Monteen Stover was there Frank had Mary in the back end of the
building, 180
feet away from the office. Yet, Mary had not reached the factory, by
two, or
more minutes after Monteen had gone away. Now if the car on which Mary
rode was
2 or 3 minutes ahead of time as the state tried to prove, then Mary
would have
walked in before Monteen got out of the factory-they would have met in
there.
Jim Conley swears May 28 that Monteen Stover got her
money and came down the steps and he saw her count the money. Then he
says for
15 or 20 minutes there wasn’t, any passing. Thinks he may have gone to
sleep
then, and was aroused by Frank's whistling twice. At that time he did
not want
it known that he saw Mary come in. At the trial he says Monteen came
down and
left, and then Quinn came in and left, and then Mary came. Then his
story of
the screaming, tiptoeing, etc. But before he is through testifying in
court he
says Mary came in and then Monteen. Then he "kind of dozed off and went
to
sleep," and was aroused by Frank.
Jim was on the first floor about 70 feet from the street
car tracks. The Hapeville cars in and out every ten minutes, the
College Park
cars in and out every ten minutes: Besides these the Magnolia street
cars and Stewart Avenue
cars
and others all traveling that track. Denham and White were not half as'
far
from where the crime was committed, according to Jim's statement, as
Jim was;
and they were less disturbed by cars and other street noises. They
could have
heard screaming three times as easily as Jim could if there had
been any
screaming in back part of the building on the second floor as Jim
swears.
Yet, we are told all over the country that a negro could
not" make up" as good a story and stick to it as well. Why the story
is absolutely weak; and he don't" stick to it" at all. The average
Negro
can make a better story and stick to it better. Scott swore it was" an
unfathomable fabrication." It is a fabrication, but not unfathomable.
Again, Jim puts the time they were moving the body to the
basement, the time he was in the wardrobe, and the time taken to write
the
notes at 35 minutes. Four men went to the factory and while two
performed the
course Jim says they went through with in disposing of the body, two
men timed
them. They used a sack filled with wet sawdust and cinders-about the
weight of
a body. It took them thirty-six and one-half (36 ½) minutes.
Other parties made
the test of time and it required 38 to 40 minutes.
Now, Mary could not have gotten to the factory before 12:12,
and a few minutes would be required for Frank's dealing with her, so
that Jim
could not, have been called into service before 12 :15 at the soonest.
Quinn
went up and spoke to Frank between 12:20 and 12:25. Mrs. White went up and saw
Frank in the office and spoke to him at 12:30. She had gone in at 11:30
and out
at 11:45 before that. At 12:50 Frank is on the fourth floor with Denham,
White and Mrs. White. He comes down immediately and Mrs. White in
passing out
sees him, again in his .office. Frank goes out at 1 P.M. and is seen on
the
streets by several parties while on his way to his lunch at home a mile
away. Where
does Jim or anybody else get in that 35 to 40 minutes required to move
the
body?
Don't
forget that Jim says,
first, last and, all the time, that all this work except writing the
notes was done
before Mrs. Freeman and Miss CJ. Hall came to the office. They came at
11:35
and left there at 11:45 A. M., as sworn to by them and two
or three competent, reliable witnesses. That was
all before Mary boarded the car for town. They were not back, there
that day.
Mrs. White and Miss Hattie Hall were there before, during the time they
were
there, and after they left.
Jim says repeatedly, when questioned as to hearing the
walking
of several 'People he says went to Frank's office, that he could not
hear the
walking from where he' was watching on the first floor. Asked to
describe certain
men and' women he uses such expressions as "The man was tall, slim
built,
a heavy man," "She was very tall, heavy built lady." "She
was a tall, heavy, built lady." "Stayed there a pretty good while, it
wasn't so very long either." Descriptions that fit anybody or any sort
of
time.
Talk about breaking down Jim Conley. If you mean by that
to "make him confess," why you' can't break- down one unscrupulous
Negro
in fifty. It is a matter of physical endurance. He'll stand and lie as
long as
you can stand and ask questions. I would rather "break down" five
white men with a conscience than one Negro that has no conscience. I
have sworn
hundreds of them. I would sooner try to “break down" five white men
than
two" Indians and I have worked among five tribes of Indians. You can
hem a
Negro, you can trip him up and throw him, but by the time you have
another
question ready he's on foot again with another mouth full of lies. You can hem an old "tubby" Indian,
but the minute he sees you have
him hemmed he stops, gives a big guttural grunt
and goes no further. Like a balky mule yon must take him out of that
harness,
turn his head in another direction, and then another grunt and another,
balk.
Jim not only contradicts himself repeatedly, but he contradicts
conditions by stating
things that could not exist in such surroundings.
That jury at, the trial not only had such stuff as the above
to contend with and try to solve, butt they had that hair splitting, as
to car time-the
schedules. That stuff took up hours and hours, of time, and several
pages to record.
Numerous slightly conflicting statements that, split minutes, into
halves, quarters
and even seconds. If, the
jury
could have had it all before them in print they, could have figured it
out easily.
Not so as it was. There was
about enough
of that stuff to fill an
ordinary man's head. The prosecution destroyed rather than established
their
theory when you see it all.
Then came that "expert" medical testimony. Any
jury would need to empty their heads of Conley's contradictions and car
time
conflictions, to take on that overdose of medical technicalities. These
doses
would require some 11wenty (20) large quarto pages of print to hold
them, aside
from the questions. The entire course required several days of
treatment or
administration at least one of the experts was, so far as that jury was
concerned, like the old Irish doctor that we called in to see a
patient. He
told the patient he could not treat him for that trouble, but could
give him
something that would throw him into fits, and he was "hell on fits."
The jury got the first dose all right.
Some statements made to the effect that the
cabbage had
only been in the stomach three-fourths of an hour prior to death is not
scientific sense. That is only trashy theory-simple sophistry. They may
have
been there one hour or even three hours. Anyway, that cuts no figure
except to
take up time, becloud the evidence, and befuddle the minds of the jury.
Yet any
man 30 years old or any mother
with half grown children knows that, cabbage or
beans may remain in the stomach from four to eight hours, pass, on
through the
bowels and out of the system in from 12 to 16
hours, apparently as
"whole and sound" as when they left the mouth on their way to the
stomach. Various causes,
excitement alone, may retard or
entirely suspend digestion.
Now as to that epithelium theory. This epithelium is only
a very thin outer part of the mucous membrane. It is thinner than the
thinnest
paper and always tender and moist. It corresponds to the epidermis or
outer
part of the skin on the outside of the body. It is easily abraded or
torn.
Being thin, tender and moist, it would decompose or decay sooner than
the outer
skin of a dry part of the body. We say of a body that "it has been dead
so
long that the skin slips."
Our methods of embalming check but do not prevent slight
decay like the Egyptian, methods did.
The body was not mutilated and there was no real evidence
of criminal assault. Best evidence and only safe evidence in a
case like
this did not exist, and that was stilted by both physicians that
examined the
body. The blood on the underclothing was
due to a natural periodical flow. The
murderer
may have had other assault in view, but changed his mind
on seeing conditions. Her underclothing was
torn, evidently for the
purpose of getting rags to gag and strangle her with. Then the cord was
tied
tight around her neck. This cord finished the work. The basement has
only
ground, or dirt, for a floor. Almost from the foot of the ladder back
to the
engine is covered with the dirt, slack from the coal used, and a great
quantity
of cinders-rough and sharp. The officers found her on the saw dust or
shavings
pile much beyond the cinders and dirtiest part of the basement. They
could only
tell she was white by her hair and by pulling up her clothes to the
knee. Her
hands face all very black from the dirt and cinders. Cinders were
pressed under
her finger nails, showing she had clawed the ground in her struggles.
The
cinders had cut into her face. "Her face was punctured, full of
holes." The body was lying with the head towards the ladder and about 130 feet from the foot of that
ladder and about 40 feet from
the back end of the basement. She had
evidently been dragged face down and evidently by the feet-part of the
way,
anyhow. Parasol, shoe and hat found, but some ribbon she wore' and
mesh-bag and
money never found. There is not a shadow of doubt that she was murdered
in this
basement on this dirty floor. The back door had been forced open by
drawing the
staple. This door opened out on an alley back of the building. There is
every reason
for believing that the murderer went out that door. There is no such
dirt or
cinders anywhere on the second floor, or elsewhere in
the building.
The place where Jim says he found the body is about as clean as any
place in
the metal room. Where he says he dropped the body by the dressing room
is
greasy, dirty, from paints, oils and the general factory floor dirt;
but no cinders
or such dirt as that on the body and clothing-and cut or pressed into
her face
and under the finger nails. That sort of dirt is only in the basement,
and that
mainly from the foot of ladder back to the engine. She was evidently
dragged
over this very part of the basement floor.
Jim says he carried the body from the elevator to the saw
dust pile on his shoulder. That don't "fit in." That body was
actually dragged some distance.
One private detective told me in an argument that Jim
Conley could not have knocked that girl down and Frank not know it.
Says,
"Why, it wasn't farther than to that door there"-pointing to a door
not 12 feet away. From the
office door back to the top of stairway is 60 feet,
and then 28 feet down the stairs. Frank's
office overlooks the street and is on second floor. Jim was on first,
and
nearly on a level with the street. The street noise was considerable.
Anybody
of the strength of Conley could have gone in from the street, concealed
himself
as Jim was in 4 feet of stairs and in 4
feet of the scuttle hole, and could have
knocked Mary down that hole, gagged her with pieces of her clothing,
tied the
string around her neck, dragged her back to saw dust pile, prized out
that
staple and passed out, all inside of four minutes. To write the notes
would
have taken more time with Jim, likely, than some others. If she had
screamed at
all she would have been heard out on the street easier than up at the
office.
Unless the cry was very loud it could not have been heard for the
street noise;
and the scream would as likely-or more so-been down in the basement
when she
had been tumbled down the ladder. The gash in the head was most likely
cut .as
she struck the chop block at the foot of the ladder.
I have tested these noises there and studied
distances and conditions generally; and believe it possible, and easily
so, for
a man to stand where Jim was and do all that. was done in this case in
five
minutes; and a man, or ten men or women, in the office know nothing of
it.
Unless some one came in just at the moment to catch him, he could
repeat the
operation every ten minutes for an hour and no one in the office have
the least
suspicion of what was going on below. I think there is no doubt of that
if the
girls came down at regular intervals of eight or ten minutes.
Now taking the notes found by the body and applying them
to conditions, I think the matter is solved easily. That so-called
blood stain
and the hair found on the lathe on second floor seems to me too flimsy
for
consideration when the notes· are properly examined. Besides the
hair was not
that of Mary. I had bad some experience in running down criminals, had
worked
some with post office inspectors and detectives. I had never but once
heard
that there was a pencil factory in Atlanta,
and did not know where it was. Did not know a single party connected
with it in
any way, did not know a detective on the investigation. I did know from
much
observation that even detectives could· be misled in different
ways. They
sometimes get started wrong and will follow a weak scent, and a cold
trail, a
long time before they will give it up. None of us are too ready to
admit that
we are wrong in a matter of theory or opinion. The chief of detectives
and a
lawyer in Atlanta
disagreed over the method of investigating the mystery. They said some
nasty
things about each other through the papers and "got indicted" for
libel. I did not, and do not till yet, know either one of them. Not
being able to
dispute what either one said, I decided to "believe all they both
said,"
and to pursue my own course. I have not been paid or offered money or
other
thing of value 'by either side or any other party, whether Jew or
Gentile. I
expe0t to put a price on this pamphlet, and such as buy it" will be
helping to defray the expense of publishing. That is all I expect out
of it.
Aside from that there is no pe0uniary consideration and any person who
says
there is, is a liar.
Before going further on the theory that she was
"pushed" down the ladder way and killed in the basement, let us look
at the doubtfulness of its being otherwise. If she had gone back to the
toilet
in the back part of the metal room she had no business to be anywhere
near the lathe
where the hair was found "wrapped around" the crank handle. If she
had been attacked at the toilet, why should the body be found by Jim
several
steps to the north of that? If she had
gone straight back to the window, why was her body found 18 feet to the left of that? If
Frank had enticed her back there, why would he go right to the stairway
up to
the third floor, where he was in open view, and
where White and Denham might come up on him any
moment? There were many much more retired places nearby that he could
as easily
have led her to. There was no
blood at the toilet, lathe, or where the body
was found. Jim puts in several minutes from the time he says she was
knocked
down and her head hit "something" until he was aroused from his
slumbers near the foot of stairway on the lower floor. He puts it 15
or 20 minutes
at the least from the time she went up. Then he goes up, gets the cloth
to tie
her up in. There was no blood there where he says he found her, none at
other
places and none found on Sunday by the detectives-none anywhere there.
Monday
the spots are found at the place where he says he dropped her more than
20
minutes after the blood would have stained
the floor where he says he found the body. The wound fresh would have
bled more
freely than 20 minutes later. These
spots were not covered up by the haskolin.
That white, powdery stuff was put around about the
spots, not over them.
It was not an effort to cover them up; but an effort to make somebody
believe
that some one had tried to cover them up and had partly failed. If they
had
been completely covered they might of course not be noticed -hence the
putting
"around about." Frank, or even
Jim Conley, would have made a complete job of
that. The young man who put that "plant" up on the boys might tell
it, but it would be shouted all over the county that "the Jews have
bought
him," and then the detectives might get after him. He did not mean any
harm by it.
Now to the notes. One reads: "Mam that negro hire
down here did this I went to make water and he push me down that hole a
long
tall negro black that hoo it was long sleam tall negro I wright while
play with
me."
The other note reads: "he said he wood love me land
down play like the night witch did it but that long tall black Negro
did by his
self."
The first note was written on yellow paper and the other
white paper. The writing is bad. He brings the bottom of the stem of
the letter
h down below the line like he does the bottom of the letter p. That
word may be
either "hire" or "fire" most likely hire. Anyway, it is
intended evidently to describe the Negro fireman, Nolley, who fired the
engine
in the basement. That Negro ·is a tall, slim, black Negro. Newt
Lee is also
slim and tall and black. The word witch was thought at first to mean
watch. Mr.
Alexander thinks it an allusion to some Negro superstition and means
what it
says, a "night witch." Anyway, the words "hire down here"
or "fire down here," show that the notes were written in the basement
and that .Jim, the acknowledged author of the notes, meant to lay the
crime on
the fireman.
There is no assumption or theory ill connection with this
whole case that is more plausible or reasonable than the theory that
Jim in
these notes stated the facts as to how the crime was committed.
My first thought was that he snatched her purse as she
came down to the foot of the stairs. She resisted and he knocked her
down and
then tumbled her down the scuttle hole. He probably states all
correctly except
describing the murderer. Jim is a low, stout, heavy-built 'negro, and a
light
ginger cake color. Nolly, who was "hire down here," is slim and black.
He needed to emphasize that description and he does it. He says "negro
hire down here "-that is, in the basement and hot hired up on the fourth
floor, where Jim did the most of his work as roustabout and sweeper.” A
long,
tall, Negro, black, that who it was, long, sleam, tall Negro." Mary
went
up to the office, get her pay and, did not tarry. She did not go back
from the
bead of the stairs 100 feet to the west and then 40 feet to the south to the ladies' toilet; but turned
down the stairs, and in that dark hallway at foot of the stairs she
turned to
her left about 8 feet to that scuttle hole, in haste before starting
for the
street to see the parade and be on the streets several hours. Jim was
in the
boxes about 4 feet to her left as she passed from stairs to the scuttle
hole.
Jim's note tells the rest. Her knee and elbow, and probably forehead
near the
eyes, were bruised in her fall down the ladder, her head struck the
chop block
and that gash was cut in the head. She tumbled from the block before
the blood
could run out to stain it. In tearing at her underskirt for cloth to
gag her
with he caught one leg of the drawers and tore that open. He may have
had no
other object but purse snatching. If he had any other he desisted for
the
reason stated before. He took her money and purse, or hand bag, the
little
ribbon also; and wrote the notes" down here" as he says.
Jim was not known to the foremen or Mr. Darley or Prank
as a very bad Negro. He borrowed money from many of the white people
and would
not pay them. He swears he owed many and when pay day came he sometimes
go1i
another Negro to get his pay envelope and slip it to him outside to
keep from
paying his debts. When he got it himself he says he slipped down stairs
and
down that scuttle hole and out at the back basement door. He drank and
smoked
and kept a woman that was no this wife. His
employers could not know his habits
outside of his work there. The story he tells of watching for Frank on
that Thanksgiving
Day is all false. There were from two to five parties there all the
time and
one went with him at noon to help him carry some bundles to the car on
which he
left for his work at the orphans' home, where he was on a committee to
arrange
for a party that evening. These parties know Jim lies, there. Jim
swears the
lady that came to the office to Frank on Thanksgiving Day had on white
slippers
and white stockings. That don't "fit in," as the snow was two inches
deep and a raw, mean wind besides. If he had been on watch the other
times he
tells of some of the Wooden Ware Company or other visitors would most
certainly
have caught him. Frank could never have taken such a risk there in .a
business
for the success of which he was' partly responsible. His good judgment
would
'have prompted him to seek a room, elsewhere for such conduct if he had
wanted
to so pervert himself.
The letters written to the Negro woman, Annie Maud
Carter, by Jim, show where the moral pervert is. I have read them. They
contain the most exaggerated and vulgar expressions
that can be written or spoken. Beastly lust and perversion shown all
through
them. No more vulgar words ever heard in the dirtiest back alley in Atlanta or any
other
.city. He spells them out in full. His whole head seems to be filled
with
thoughts of beastly lust, and he don't mince matters in stating his
thoughts.
He does not deny them. They were written after he was jailed. That was
after
the trial of Frank and of course after the solicitor and detectives
were set in
their way. At least two of the officers working the case against Frank,
believing Jim and not Frank, the guilty party, abandoned the case and
refused
to proceed further in getting up the slanderous statements that have
been used
against Frank.
An editor of a vulgar paper says that the fact that Frank
failed to call Mary Phagan's name in some of his letters to the papers
and that
he "shuddered" and "shrank" at the sight of the corpse at
the undertaker's, has a "psychological significance. " Jim Conley
worked at the factory two years; so did Mary Phagan. Jim was porter and
sweeper. He borrowed money from the girls and never paid it back. He
knew more
names there, five to one, than Frank did. In his talk he knew Mary
Phagan until
he goes on the stand at the trial. There he uses this exact language:
"The
next person that I saw was Miss Mary Perkins, that's what I call her,
this lady
that's dead, I don't know her name." Will this great Psychologist apply
a
little of his science to the death notes, the several long letters to
the
Carter woman, and to the pretension of ignorance as to Mary's name?
There are certain racial, and even national,
characteristics. The American uses his
pistol, the Malay his bolo, the Irishman his shelala, the Italian his
stiletto
and the Negro his razor. I have studied the psychological and racial
features
in this case, and am now convinced that the whole crime was purely that
of a Negro
and a Negro alone. By studying the death notes in connection with the
lustful
and vulgar notes to the Carter woman it is clear that the death notes
were
framed solely by Jim-that no white man dictated or even made the
slightest
suggestion in the writing or framing of the death notes. They are of
purely
Negro conception.
We should not take as truth every report made in the papers.
We should not take as truth the statements of silly boys and girls made
in
answer to leading questions-deceiving, misleading questions-and the
answers
made when the parties were off their guard,
"just a talking." Such testimony is not
only exparte, but is half "frame up.”. But the signature is appended,
the oath
is taken and the witness is caught. Thus entrapped, the witnesses are
told 'by
malicious persons, as well as friends and officers, that when they go
into
court they must ~wear the same things or they will be sent to the pen
for perjury.
In a civil case, with only a few dollars at stake, if the
testimony is needed of a witness who is not easily gotten into court,
interrogatories are taken. One side asks questions and the other
"crosses" them by asking questions, all reduced to writing and in
form provided by law. The clerk issues a commission to disinterested
parties
with authority to administer the oath and reduce the answers to all
questions
of both sides, -to writing. Depositions can not be taken in a criminal
case. In
a case involving life or liberty, no matter how little the liberty that
may be
at stake, the witness’s must face the accused in court. The witness
must stand
so the jury can see him as well as hear him, that they may be the
better able
to judge of his competency and reliability. There before that jury in
open court
that witness can be questioned by both sides and allf3lcts brought out,
not
just one side. Even in the grand jury room where there are 23 disinterested
men the witness can be cross-questioned by any member of the .grand
jury. While
that is an ex parte examination, the jury simply looking for evidence
sufficient to authorize them to send the party into court for trial, it
may
disclose that the witness when properly examined is incompetent. Many
such
witnesses are turned down 'by the grand jury, and their names are not
even
placed on the list of witnesses expected to testify, in the trial
court.
But, when the detectives, Tom, Dick and Harry, take the
affidavit it is purely a one-sided affair; not made in open court with
cross
examination in presence of judge and jury. He may be "just a
talking," or it may be a clear" frame up," yet he must stick to
it or he is to go to the pen for perjury. Most of the evidence put up
in this
case against Frank was of that nature. Some of it was absolutely false;
premeditated, willful and malicious.
Much evidence was put in by institution and intimation.
Many things were "hinted at by the prosecution, that had no foundation,
in
fact-put in to influence the jury-and much of it was a play to the
galleries."
The crowds in the court house relished it and applauded. The reporter
sent it
in to the papers and they sent it out to the public. The solicitor
asked an
office boy who had sworn that he had seen no wrong conduct on the part
of
Frank, some very insinuating questions. He said he was there many
Saturdays all
day as messenger boy; had seen no women, beer or soft drinks there.
That he had
never seen Dalton
or others there-that he had seen nothing to indicate immorality or
depravity on
the part of Frank. The solicitor asked him pointedly if Frank had not
made
"improper advances" to him. The boy said "No." Asked him if
he had not told Gantt so. Answer" No.” Then, “Do you deny that you told
Gantt that Frank had threatened to discharge you if you did not comply
with his
wishes?” The boy did deny it, and Dorsey asked again, "Didn't you 'tell
him twice?" "No," came from the boy. The solicitor, as reported,
threatened to bring in Gantt to prove the boy had told Gantt so. The
jury was
sent out then while the lawyers argued the admissibility of such
testimony.
That gave the jury time to become impressed with that intimation of
dirty acts
on the part of Frank although the solicitor never brought in Gantt, and
Gantt
would not have sworn it if he had been brought in. That stuff not only
stuck
with the jury, but the papers of August 12 published it, and it went
from mouth
to mouth gaining credence as it went. Dorsey had failed in many
prosecutions;
he was "making good" now.
To strengthen such false reports it was being told that
Frank had killed his wife in New
York.
That he had a dozen babies around Atlanta
and
was supporting two and their mothers in East Point right then. One was that
his wife knew he was a
pervert and had already filed, suit for divorce when Mary Phagan was
killed.
One traveling man who was going from town to town and store to store
regaling
people with his knowledge
of the matter, said
he knew Frank was a moral pervert from his looks. He then told that
divorce suit
story. When I told him I had made the
acquaintance
of his wife her people and investigated as to facts, he blurted out,
“Go to the
court house and see the records." I told him there were no such records
and that was only one of many such stories being circulated
maliciously.
To counterfeit is a crime; to circulate a counterfeit is
a crime. To forge is a crime; to circulate a forgery is a crime. To
forge a
paper is a felony; to utter a forgery is a felony, and the penalty is
the same
as for forgery.
To start a slander is sinful; and to circulate it after
it is started is just as bad.
Many witnesses for the state were asked what they knew of
Frank's character for lasciviousness?
Their answer was that it "was bad." Not one in ten
of such
witnesses knows what the word lasciviousness means. Many of them have
so stated
since; and also stated that they had never heard, a word against Frank
until
after he was arrested and that their ideas of him were entirely formed
from
reports circulated after the arrest.
All sorts of reports-false, slanderous-were put in
circulation. He had killed his wife in New York. This wife in Atlanta had
already brought suit for divorce
on the ground that he was mean. That he had often gone out street cat
lines
with young girls pulling them off the cars in spite of their crying and
resistance-many on the cars besides the motorman and conductor seeing
his acts.
That, a girl in a red dress went with Mary for her pay; that Frank sent
her
away, telling her that Mary had work to do and could not go then; that
he
telephoned to a house of questionable character for a room for him and
a girl;
that he bad given Newt Lee a check for $300 to burn the body in the furnace that
night. To create further prejudice it was said he was clearly guilty,
but would
never hang. That he was a Mason and the Masons were all for him; he was
a Catholic
and they were all for him; that he was a Jew and the Jews were all for
him.
Inconsistent, rot! It was said the Jews had made up $50,000 to buy the
court
and jury. People with sense enough to know these reports were false
went on
spreading them for the purpose of deceiving some one they thought silly
enough
to 'believe them. Slanders floated upon every breeze. Ashes thrown to
the four
winds that could never be gathered up again.
The report that his wife would not go to see him because
she" knew he was guilty" was spread. The statement that he had
employed a lawyer to defend him before he was arrested was another
story to
create feeling against Frank.
Frank was taken from his home at 7 o'clock Monday morning.
They were grilling him there when Schiff, his assistant at the factory,
learned
of it. He went in person and notified the general superintendent of
Frank's
arrest and detention at police headquarters. The general superintendent
telephoned Herbert Haas, the attorney for the pencil company, and a
stock
holder in the company, to go and see about it. Haas got there about
9:30 A.M.
Haas was likely to be needed with his family at home and he called in
Col. L.Z.
Rosser. Rosser got to police headquarters about 11 A. M. and for a
while was
refused admittance by the police and was not admitted to the room where
Frank
was being grilled until after some hot words with the chief of
police-Frank in
a closed room knowing nothing of the employment of a lawyer for his
defense.
Frank's wife did not know he was under arrest. He was
released at noon, 12:15 o'clock, and allowed to go home. The next day,
Tuesday,
April 29th, 1913, he was re-arrested at the pencil factory shortly
after noon
and taken to the police headquarters again. As soon as his wife, heard
of it
she went to police headquarters. See the following from column two,
page two,
of the Atlanta Constitution of Wednesday, April 30th, 1913:
FRANK'S WIFE
ARRIVES.
"While her husband was being sweated by the
detectives, the beautiful young wife of the factory president, tearful
and
anxious, came to police headquarters. She was accompanied by friends.
Denied
admission to the floor on which her husband sat, she was led, weeping
bitterly,
into the probation officer's room." Then is added, "Frank was not
aware of her "presence at police station."
Frank's father-in-law, Emil Selig, set to work
then and
there to get an extra to guard him that night to prevent his being
locked up. Frank was
locked up a while and then a guard was put over him in the detectives'
office,
showing the result of Mr. Selig's efforts.
The statement by two girls that they saw Frank and a
forelady go into the dressing room during working hours and stay 15 or
20
minutes is disputed by more than a score of witnesses; clean,
respectable ladies,
some girls, some mature ladies,50 or more years old. This is not what
is called
negative testimony; it is positive. If that occurred several others
would have
known it. Her mother and grown sister were there with her; they went
and came
together. Such other charges against Frank are as absurd and as fully
contradicted by competent, reliable and truthful witnesses.
The grand jury indicted Frank May 24 and Lee was held as a
witness in the county jail. Conley was
taken from police headquarters to the county jail on May 30, 1913,
where he was
kept two weeks, when, on the request of Dorsey, the court, Judge Roan,
granted
an order allowing Conley to betaken back to the
city police headquarters where he was in the
hands of detectives. Frank's trial was set for June 30 was later
changed by
consent to July 28. On July 21 the
grand jury' wanted to indict Jim Conley but
Dorsey persuaded them to postpone it. A venire of 144 men was summoned from which to select the jury. I
was told then that the names of these men should never have made known
as the
Jews and Rosser and Arnold would see them and buy them up. When the
trial came
on and the jurors were examined in the usual way, one man, that I know
and
think strictly straight and honest, answered all questions
satisfactorily-qualifying-when
Dorsey asked, "Have you not said that it would take evidence to make
you-believe Frank guilty?" He said, "Yes, I said that." He then
explained that he had not wanted to be, fixed by gossip and newspaper
reports.
He wanted to keep his mind clear and watch later developments. Dorsey
asked the
judge to send him out "for cause," and out he went. Did Dorsey want a
jury that would convict a man of murder without evidence? The
newspapers said
that Dorsey had every man spotted by the detectives and knew how they
stood. It
would have ruined the defense to have approached a single juror on the
matter.
They had to stand off from such conduct. The detectives could simply
listen and
report to Dorsey.
Jim Conley was kept by the detectives until the trial.
When Dorsey called his name, the papers stated, the women and girls
clapped
their hands in the court house. The chief of police took Jim to the
court in
his private automobile after he had been bathed, shaved and a new suit
of
clothes put on him to give him a nice appearance before the jury.
Dorsey stated
loudly and publicly that Conley should never be indicted for murder
while he,
Dorsey, was solicitor. He was not. Jim was tried and sentenced to the
chain
gang for one year. His lawyer took an appeal, claiming Jim should have
had the
privilege of paying a fine. That put him in the hands of his lawyer;
and only
lawyer Smith and Dorsey and two detectives who had been on the case
were
allowed to see Jim except in the presence of Smith. Long after this Jim
"got
tired" and decided to go to the gang and work out his sentence of one
year. May be Smith got tired too.
Under such conditions it is not reasonable to suppose any
evidence would be worked up against Conley. It is reasonable to believe
that
evidence against him might even be suppressed.
Much has been said as to the evidence of Frank's guilt
from the fact that he refused to confront Jim Conley at the jail when
Beavers,
Lanford and Scott wanted to take Jim in to "face Frank." The
Constitution of the United States,
of Georgia and of
every
state in the Union expressly declares
that no
one shall be required to give testimony against himself. The reasons
are too plain
to need discussion. The Supreme Court of Georgia long ago declared that
an
officer could not even require a man to set his foot in a track to see
if his
shoe fitted the track. Some say these men were officers and working for
the
facts and not particularly against Frank; that Scott was even employed
by
Frank. Under the Pinkerton charter the men are to work in "harmony"
with the city detective. A ridiculous restriction that I will not now
discuss.
The city detectives under that provision simply "gobbled" up Scott. A
city man was with him all the time and they were working on the theory
and
under the direction of the city force. That was the view of Frank and
his
friends. Frank only required that his lawyer should be present at the
meeting.
Under, the condition of things then he needed besides his lawyer as
many
witnesses as there were of the Conley crowd. Under such backing and
protection
a lying Negro like Jim could have talked "mighty big" to a white man
confined in a cell in jail. There are
men in this state that would "get busy"-mighty busy-if an officer
should go to the jail to grill with a Negro their son or brother. One
of the
best, judges Atlanta
has had in years recently scored the practice, and said an officer had
no right
to even ask a prisoner if he was guilty. Exactly so, too.
One man, after asserting that there is no prejudice
against Frank, because he is a Jew, grows eloquent and says Mary Phagan
"is our folks." Well, she is my folks, too. I am as red-headed as
this editor. I carry as much Scotch blood-am as much of a Clansman. I
was born
in a county adjoining Mary's; went to school there, studied law there,
paid
taxes there. I lived in another county adjoining hers for several
years-paid
taxes there nine or ten years. She may have been a blood relation of
mine. I
have hundreds of distant blood relatives from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. Can't
know them
all The wife of the trial judge, Mrs. Roan, is a blood relative; Hugh
Dorsey,
the solicitor that prosecuted Frank, is a blood relative; James Mason,
the city
attorney, is a blood relative of mine. Maybe they don't like it, but
they can't
help themselves.
My whole sympathy is with people who work at honest
labor-am a strong believer in the" dignity of labor." While I have engaged in professions,
several of them, I work with my hands. I do not believe the ladies who
work at
the pencil factory are bought by "Jew money." I believe they are as
truthful, honest and virtuous as the common run of our women. Have
taken some
time to investigate them.
The charge that the Atlanta
papers have all been bought with "Jew money" is absurd. Two evening
papers had editorials insisting Frank should have another trial. One
man pours
hot shot into the Journal and discuses that paper of trying to dictate
to the
Supreme Court. Now he is trying to bully the governor and pardoning
board in advance
of any action they may take. The Journal editorial of March 10, 1914,
was the
embodiment of good sense and reason. The Journal said that to hang
Frank on
such evidence would be "judicial murder." If I understand that term,
I would not say "judicial."
Strong sentiment, based on false reports, violent
passion, due to the awfulness of the crime, might force the courts and
officers
to carry out the wish of the many, but the act would not be quite
"judicial"
The Journal stated facts as I saw them, and I was on the watch three
days of
that week, including the Saturday when the court adjourned on account
of the excited
crowd around the court building. I heard men say that the jury ought to
know
how the public stood-that the people were always right. I argued that
we had
the loose, false reports controlling outside and that many of the
stories they
called evidence had been exploded-but they were still on the minds of
the
people.
It is a great mistake to believe the majority is always
right. It depends on how the belief is induced. The minority is as apt
to be
right as the majority and this is especially so where much intelligence
and
cool judgment is required to form an opinion. The so-called" conscience
of
the public" may not always be right. It is not always safe to run off
after the many. Christ says, "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way,
that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because
straight
is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few
there be
that find it." Sometimes it may be better to be with the few than with
the
many.
Allowing that the jury was neither consciously or
unconsciously
biased, in the case they had more evidence to consider than they were
capable
of retaining considering fully. The average juror has not the memory a
mind
trained in thinking sufficient to handle that mass of evidence. If they
had all
the facts, the real admissible evidence, arranged systematically and
printed,
and then give them several days to read and consider it, they might
arrive at a
correct verdict. Under our system they can not even make memorandum.
They must carry it all in
their heads-in such a
case as this is a matter of
impossibility. Judge Roan, better trained in eliminating the trashy,
and
retaining and weighing the real evidence, expressed doubt as to Frank's
guilt.
He has been censured by some for expressing his opinion as against that
of the
jury, and by others for not setting aside the verdict and granting a
new trial.
I ask what good would a new trial have done if held under the same
surroundings
as the first?
We are told that the jury did not know of the strong
feeling and of threats being made while the trial was on. They could
not have
known of the threats, but any man could tell from continual
demonstrations that
the feeling outside was intense. Judge Roan, it is said, got scores of
threatening letters. The jury of course did not get such, because they
were
under guard; but it was said they "kept up with the baseball news."
There was much talk that if the jury came in with a verdict of "not
guilty," that Frank and the jury would be lynched, and most likely the
judge and Rosser and Arnold, Frank's attorneys. Then under Such
conditions was
it not better to return a verdict of guilty than to have such a thing
attempted
and scores of men killed in the fight to stand it off?
That is a matter for everyone's
consideration.
One lawyer-editor tells us that the Supreme Court
reviewed all the evidence and passed on it. "And the court did say that
the
evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict," is his language. That
editor has not kept up with the wonderful growth of our wonderful
constitution.
That court does not really pass on the evidence, or facts, but only on
the
right to put certain sorts of evidence before the jury. In commenting
on the
evidence of a certain witness in this case, the majority of the court,
four
justices, say they are dealing with the "admissibility" of the
evidence and not with its "credibility." They add "that was
passed upon by the jury." Two justices dissent, stating that the
evidence
was not admissible. Without authority from Frank or anyone else, I will
venture
the assertion that Frank would be greatly gratified to have the Supreme
Court
take all the law and evidence, pass on the credibility of all
witnesses, and
render a verdict accordingly.
The work done by Frank that day, his whereabouts for most
of the time is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, his good character
as proven
by scores competent witnesses, should not be considered. No one could
have made
a better showing. We must consider the
motive that prompted most of the witnesses for the prosecution and the
manner
in which their was taken.
To couple the names of innocent girls and women with the
conduct charged to Frank is an awful thing. The mere statement of two
girls
that they saw Frank go into a during work hours with a. forelady and
stay 15 or 20 minutes,
and that they
saw it two or three times is not sufficient to base a slanderous report
on. The
object in putting that sort of testimony in was to intimate, of course,
that
they were for immoral purposes. The girls do not state that was the
object of the
parties going into the room. Their statement that they even saw Frank
and the
lady go in there is disputed by more than a score of witnesses of
unimpeachable
character, witnesses who could and would have seen it, had it occurred.
To circulate such a report and give it coloring is a vile
slander. To publish, print such stuff, giving it the appearance of
truth, is
malicious libel, and indictable offense. One
weekly paper in this state says, "the
pervert who had been shameless as to c---- in the factory in broad
day-time with
Miss -----."
Frank is the pervert
alluded to and discussion now his name can be called; but to connect
the name
of a young lady considered by good, truthful acquaintances be above
reproach is
not only criminal libel-it is damnable.
Has the time come when girls and women who work for an honest
living are to be thus slandered? Half the lady stenographers,
typewriters,
bookkeepers are alone at times in the offices with a man. So with
clerks and
factory employees. It is time that
slanders in this case should cease and we should get down to reason and
truthfulness. Without that there can be no haven of rest for us when we
have
sailed stormy seas of this life and landed on the other shore.
W. E. Thompson
|