Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOUR
which Barrett found, and which Dr. Harris
examined with a microscope?
That’s an easy question, a fair question,
an inevitable question, and a terrible ques-
both for Leo Frank and John M. Sla
ton.
Whose hair was it, swaying there on Bar
rett's machine?
It was not there Friday; it was there, some
time Saturday: who put it there? and how?
and why?
I! hat woman was in the metal room Fri
day. after Barrett left? Which of those 100
female workers, went back there, Saturday?
Don't you know that, if a single one of
those women could have been induced to say
the strands of hair might have come from
her head, that woman would have been pro
dr red ?
They have had more than two years to
do it.
The best they can do. is what Slaton pub
lishes. to-wit. that Dr. Harris, who examined
some hair taken from Mary’s head, a day
afOr she died, could not be-sure it was ex
actly like the hair which the State contended
came from her head, while she was alive.
But didn't Slaton realize that his attempt
to minimize the hair evidence, magnified it?
To attempt a suppression, enhances the im
j ortance of the testimony, for it proves how
tin deft nse fears it.
First of all. we are stimulated into an ex
am mation of the Dr. Harris affi lavit, to
which Slaton refers, and we are not at all
surprised to see that Slaton misrepresented it.
This is what Dr. Harris said—
“Affiant further says that the two speci
mens (of hair) were so much alike that it
was impossible for him to form any definite
awl absolute opinion as to whether they
were from the head of the same person or
not.'’
In other words, the strands taken from
Mary's scalp after she was dead, and her
hair had been cleansed of dirt and blood,
and thoroughly washed out with pine-tar
soap, were so much like the strands that
clung to Barrett's machine, that it was im
possible for Dr. Harris, after a microscopic
examination, to form any definite and abso
lute opinion as to whether they were from
the same head.
If they had been from a different head,
could not an expert, whose examination Avas
carefully made with a microscope, have
found a. dissimilarity in size, color, and tex
t ure ?
The (rod who never made two leaves alike,
nor two grains of sand alike, never made
two heads of hair alike.
PRODUCE THE GIRL, OR THE WOMAN!
We mmst account for that hair! Produce
the girl who went back there and combed her
hair. It can't be done. Produce the woman
who went back there, and did up her hair.
It can't be done. Produce the girl, or the
woman, who will swear that the hair might
hare been hers. IT CAN'T BE DONE!
They could monkey with the cook, and
squelch her', they could monkey with the
keeper of the lewd house, and run her out of
Atlanta: they could buy poof old Ragsdale,
but they were utterly unable to prevail upon
any woman to testify tlrat the hair on Bar
rett's machine might have been hers.
What is the necessary inference?
For Heaven's sake, use your common sense I
11 hat is THE ONLY solution, as to the
hair, WHEN NOBODY WILL CLAIM
IT?
The only possible solution is. that the
girl who could hare claimed, it, IS DEAD!
Dead, my lords and gentlemen! Dead in
her tender youth, in the flower of maiden
hood, in her virginal purity—dead, as your
little girl may be. some day, if other Leo
Franks escape just punishment, through the
THE JEFFERSONIAN
machinations of such men as Luther Rosser,
John M. Slaton, and John IF. Moore.
Tell us this—O tell us this!— lf that hair
on Barrett's machine came from the tresses
of some girl who was still alive at the trial,
why in God's name, shouldn't she"have come
forward, and claimed it?
There was nothing to disgrace her. She
could have said she went to the toikt. She
could have said she stood there, by the ma
chine. doing up her hair. She could have
said that she idly let a few strands fall, and
that they might have caught on the handle
of the machine.
There was no disgrace to sea didn't
the girl come forward?
O my lords, there is but one answer:
THE GIRL JFAN DEAD!
If, in Mary’s uplifted, horrified, franti
cally opposing little hands, there had been
found some hair, from the head of the
Simian Jew who was assaulting and killing
her, the evidence wouldn't be a bit stronger.
It was her hair on the machine, because she
was in the factory that day, and the only
other person whose hair resembled hers,
WAS n OT.
Who was that other person? Magnolia
Kennedy.
The record shows that no other girl, or
avoman, Avho Avorked there, had hair that
looked like Mary's.
The record slioavs that Mary and Magnolia
Avorked in the same room, close together.
The record shows that Magnolia sAvore the
hair looked like Mary’s.
Therefore, John M. Slaton had before him
the undisputed testimony of the only possi
ble girl, excepting Mary, whose hair it could
have been; and this girl swore it Avas not
her's, but seemed to be Mary’s.
IVhen the only other possible girl sAvears
herself out of it, what does inexorable logic
say? Exclude every other possible person,
and you have Mary Phagan.
The hair looked like Mary’s, to the work
companion of Mary; and it Avas Mary Avho
Avas there, Saturday; and she asked Frank a
question Avhich suggested a visit to the metal
room!
Can any reasoner escape the conclusion
that, as she Avas the only person with that
kind of hair was there that day, SIIE
was the person whose hair got on Barrett’s
machine?
And Slaton admits that if it was her hair,
it furnished the highest and best evidence
of Frank's guilt.
Docs it? Then, why waste six columns of
space, in the newspapers, demolishing Jim
Conley ?
Why not use one column, to demolish that
hair?
WHOSE BLOOD WAS THIS?
Having washed the hair out of the State’s
case—Avith pine-tar soap—Ahe ingenious John
IM. Slaton gets rid of Avhat blood escaped
Frank’s haskoline efforts. Between the in
nocent Brooklynite and the conscience
burdened Governor, who acquits Frank of
murder and sends him to the penitentiary
for his health. Ave have a case of bloody
murder, minus the blood.
The Governor quotes Frank, Avho declared
that there Avas no blood: he quotes Chief
Beavers, Avho said he didn't knoAv Avhether
it was blood or not: and he quotes Dr.
Smith, avlio found half-a-drop of blood on a
chip. So, you see, the State’s case loses all
of its gore, excepting a possible half-drop—
Avliich is surely not enough to hang a Jew
on, and can hardly justify a life-time of
hard labor at pretending to be sick.
What does the official record show, as to
this rapidly disappearing blood?
I must hasten, or Ave will lose Dr. Smith’s
half drop.
Captain J. N. Starnes testified:
“I suav splotches that Faked like blood
some of which I chipped up. I should judge
the area around those splotches was a foot
and a half. It looked like a Avhite substance
had been sAvept over it. There is a lot of
that Avhite substance in the metal depart
ment.
“One Barrett’’ swore positively, “7? was
blood!" The spots were not there Friday:
the largest was “four or five inches in diame
ter, with little spots behind these from the
rear, six or eight in number.”
Here Ave have Frank’s machinist —Avhom.
they afterwards tried to buy, and could not
—swearing that he found a splotch of blood
bigger than your hand. Avith half-a-dozen
smaller spots near it; and he made this dis
covery early on Monday morning.
Mell Stanford had Avorked at Frank's
place tAvo years: he Avorked in the metal
room: he SAvept that floor on Friday. April
25th. and he swore that there was no spots
that looked like blood on it, then.
But the spots Avere there Monday morn
ing! '
“The spot looked to me like it was blood,
•with dark spots scattered around.’’
If not blood, what was it? If red paint,
Avho spilled it there, on Saturday?
Not a single workman or Avork-Avoman
could be produced to contradict the Avitnesses
—Barrett and Stanford—Avho swore that the
spots were not on the floor Friday evening.
Not a single employee of the factory would
swear that he. or she, spilled paint, or var
nish, or blood, or anything else, there, on
either Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Mon
day.
More significant still—if possible—not a
single man or Avoman, bov or girl, would
sAvear to spreading the white; substance over
those accusing spots, at any time.
Mrs. George W. Jefferson was another
worker in the metal department. She swore:
“We saAV the blood, Monday. It Avas
about as big as a fan, and something white
was over it.
“I didn't see the blood Friday. It was not
paint."
N. V. Darley, manager of a branch of
Frank's factory, testified:
“Mr. Quinn called my attention to the
blood spots. Barrett called Quinn's atten
tion to it. Barrett showed me some hair on
a lever of the lathe.
Mt looked like an attempt had been made
to hide the (blood) spots. The Avhite stuff
practically hid the spots.”
Yes; those accusing spots are also “prac
tically hid,” by the special plea for the de
fense, signed by John M. Slaton.
But let us seize upon these undisputed
facts, and apply to them the unerring, re
lentless processes of logic.
The. white men avlio used that metal room
in their work, one of whom swept it up on
Friday, testify positively that the spots on
the floor were not there Friday: they were
there Mondav morning, and immediately at
tracted attention.
A recent attempt had been made to hide
these fresh spots!
What made the spots, and who tried to
hide them?
Who spilled the paint, or the blood, and
smeared haskoline oA r er it?
We narrow the investigation to Saturday,
because three white Avitnesses swear the spots
Avere not there Friday, and .nobody but Newt
Lee had the opportunity to stain the floor
Saturday night.
Nobody contends-that Newt did it, and his
evidence is all to the contrary.
WHO DID IT?
Harry Denham and Arthur White did not
go to the metal room: none of Frank's vis
itors did, on Saturday, if we leave out Mary
Phagan.
If Ave except Leo Frank and Mary Phagan,
we are absolutely unable to trace anybody to
