Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

i 4 TTTF ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS. DORSEY RIDDLES FRANK'S OWN STATEMENT FINAL PLEA ^-04. a*.j. 4**^* +•+ Crowds Outside and Inside of Court Vociferously Applaud the Solicitor +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•* +•+ +••*• +• + +•* +•* +•+ +•* *• + *•+ +•* 4**i* the said Mary Phagan, with a cord placed around her neck. “To this charge made by the bill of indictment found by the Grand Jury of this counly re cently impaneled Leo M. Frank, the defendant, files a plea of not guilty. The charge an made by the bill of indictment on the on? hand and his plea of not guilty filed thereto form the Issue, and you. gen tlemen of the Jury, have been selected, chosen and sworn to try the truth -'f this issue. “Leo M. Frank, the defendant, com mences the trial of this issue with the presumption of innocence in hi* favor, and this presumption of inno cence remains with him, to shield him and protect him, until the State shall overcome it and remove it by evidence ofTered to you, in your hearing and presence, sufficient in Its strength and character to satisfy your minds be yond a reasonable doubt of his guilt of each and every material allegation made by the bill of Indictment. “I charge you, gentlemen, that all of the allegations of this indictment are material, and it is necessary for the State to satisfy you of their truth by evidence that convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his gui’.t before you would be authorized to And a verdict of guilty. Must Be More Than Beyond Mere Doubt. “You are not compelled to And, from the evidence, his guilt beyond any doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt, such a doubt ns grows out of the evidence 1n the case, or for the want of evidence, such a doubt as a reasonable and impartial man would entertain about matters of the high est importance to himself after all reasonable efforts to ascertain the truth This does not mean a fanciful doubt, ono conjured up by the Jury, but a reasonable doubt. "Gentlemen, t bile defendant is charged with murder. Murder is de fined to be the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the State, by a person of sound memory and discretion, with malice afore thought, either express or implied. “Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. "Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all of the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and ma lignant heart. “There is no difference between ex press and implied malice except in the mode of arriving at the fact of Its existence. The legal sense of the term ‘malice’ Is not confined to par ticular animosity to the deceased, but extends to an evil design In general. The popular idea of mulice In its cense of revenge, hatred, ill will, has nothing to do with the subject. It If an intent to kill a human being in a case where the law would neither justify nor in any degree excuse the intention if the killing should take place as intended. It is a deliberate Intent unlawfully to take human life, whether it springs from hatred, ill will or revenge, ambition, avarice or other like passion. A man may form the Intent to kill, do the killing in stantly, and regret the deed as soon as done. Malice must exist at the time of the killing. It need not have existed any length of time previously. Law Presumes Malice If Homicide si Proven. “When a homicide is proven, if it is proven to be the act of the de fendant, the law presumes malice, and unless the evidence should relieve the slayer he may be found guilty or murder. The presumption of in nocence is removed by proof of the killing by the defendant. When the killing is shown to be the act of the defendant, it Is then on the defendant to justify or mitigate the homicide. The proof to do that may come from either side, either from the evidence offers by the State to make out its case, or from the evidence offered by the defendant or the defendant’s statement. “Gentlemen of the jury, you are made by law the solo judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the seight of the testimony of each and Attack Character. “When a defendant has put his character in issue, the State is al lowed to attack it by proving that his genera! reputation is not good, or oy showing that the witnesses wno have stated that his character Ik good have untruly reported it. Hence tne so licitor General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to tes- tify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses he was allowed to ask th«*m if they had not heard of various acts of mis conduct on the defendant’s part. The Solicitor General had the right to ask any questions along this line he pleaded, in order thoroughly lo sift the witnesses, and to see if any thing derogatory to the defendant’s reputation could bo proved bv them. “The court now wishes to say to you that, although the Solicitor Gen eral was allowed to ask the defend ant's charactei witnesses these ques tion* as to their having heard of va rious acts of alleged misconduct on the defendant's part, the jury is not to consider this as evidence that the*fle- fendant has been guilty of any such misconduct as may have been ind.- cated in the questions of the Solicitor MRS. FRANK ARRIVING AT THE COURTHOUSE Here is Judge Roan’s complete charge to the jury verbatim: "Gentlemen of the Jury—This bill of indictment charges Leo M. Frank with the offense of murder. The charge is that Leo M. ■ Frank, in this county, on the 26th day of April of this year, with force and arms, did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill murder one Mary PhW|~ wltneM ~ ~ f „ r ~ ~ ~ by then and then* choking her, | this testimony as you have heard ii. in connection with the defendant’s statement, and arrive at what you believe to be the truth. “Gentlemen, the object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. That is the reason of you being se lected, Impanneled and sworn in thU case—to discover what is the truth on this issue formed on this bill of In dictment. lx Leo M. Frank guilty? Are you satisfied of that, beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case? Or is his plea or not guilty the truth? The rules of evi dence are framed with a view to this prominent end—seeking always for pure sources and the highest evidence. “Direct evidence is that which ir mediately points to the question at issue. Indirect or circumstantial evi dence is that which only tends to es tablish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence the proven facta must not only be consistent, with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable doubt hypothesis pave that of the guilt of the accused. Character Issue Of Importance. “The defendant has introduced tes timony ns to his good character. On this subject I charge you that evi dence of good character when offered by the defendant in a criminal case is always relevant and material, and should be considered by the jury, along with all the other evidence in troduced, as one of the facts of the case. It should be considered by the Jury, not merely where the balance of the testimony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but also where Ruoh evi dence of good character may of Itself generate a doubt as to the defend ant's guilt. Good character is a sub stantial fact, like any other fact tend ing to establish the defendant’s inno cence, and ought to be so regarded by the jury. “Like all other facts proved in the case, it should be weighed and esti mated by the Jury, for it may render that doubtful which otherwise Vould be clear. However, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to the sat isfaction of the Jury beyond a reason able doubt, notwithstanding the proof of good character, it is their duty to convict. But the Jury may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubt ful or not. and if a consideration of the proof of his good character, con sidered along with the evidence, cre ates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the Jury as to the defendant’s guilt, then it would be the duty of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus raised by his good character, and to acquit him. “The word ‘character* as used in this connection means that general reputation which he bore among the people who knew him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. Therefore, when the witnesses by which a defendant seeks to prove his good character are put upon the stand, and testify that his character Is good, the effect of the testimony is to say that the people who knew him spoke well of him. and that his general reputation was otherwise good. State Allowed to The wife of the defendant in the Phagan case has not missed a session of the trial of her husband. DEMANDS PRISONED BE SENT IB GALLOWS AS MARY PHAGAN’S SLAYER Refreshed by the week-end recess, Solicitor General Dorsey returned Monday to the State’s closing argument. By the force of logic and denunciation of his Anal words to the jury the Solicitor hopes to obtain a verdict of guilty against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. The day and a half intermis- son furnished a breathing spell for the State’s prosecutor. He came bac kto the battle with new spirit and with an absence of the fatigue that compelled him to stop his stirring argument Sat urday and ask Judge Roan for a recess. Solicitor Dorsey was vociferously cheered as he entered the courthouse by a crowd waiting for the trial to open, and in the courtroom there was applause as he went to the State’s table within the railing. Judge Roan entered the room as the applause died down while the deputies were rapping for order. He announced that if there was any sem blance of a repetition he would clear the courtroom. The Judge declared that a similar occurrence might de stroy the work of four long weeks was discovered that Conley oould write Frank had said nothing It was only through the work done by th* detectives and the fact tax* Conley knew they had learned he couid write that the negro finally was made to submit specimens of his handwrit ing. “Why did Frank keep silent when he knew those notes were the key which would unlock the mystery?’’ Dorsey turned to Fra^.k at this point and said: ‘You did know that he could write. You knew that \f it was found out that the whole mystery would ye solved. You had notes asking for loans. You had seen his writing by which he checked up the boxes of pencils. Why did ”ou keen silent? “You saw him at the police station and even then never mentioned that he could write.” “Frank says that after this visit of Conley's to the Jail, after Conley had gone to the factory and gone through and warned the audience to keep i his pantomime at the time, almost ex- strict order. actly to the minute that he said it 1 Mr l IJorse -’ began his speech in a took, that on this visit to the jail lie low hoarse voice. j said, ‘I told them if they would get ^ our honor and gentlemen of the j permission of Rosser that I would Jury he said, I regret the necessity face Conley.’ Now. gentlemen of the for having to carry this case over into jury Mr R osser was at Tallulah another week and through anoth« i j Falls that day. Therefore, there was Sunday. If a recess had been de- I no chance to get his permission that dared Saturday I might have been day B(lt Mr . RoS ser wasa Tallulah able to have finished my speech an 1 : Falls that dav> and when he got ba , k his honor have delivered his ch arge did he allow Frank to face Conley? and turned the case over to you. The > be dl(J not circumstances made the present ‘ "'Gentlemen,' you know it is true course w , lse £; j that never in the historv of the An- begins to Kiddie glo-Suxon race and in the history of Frank’s Statement. “When we closed proceedings Sat urday, I was giving you a brief analy- J sis of the statement of the defendant, j 1 am not going into an exhaustive study of that statement. It is un- necssary to further burden you with it. But there are certain language and statements which merit some consideration. “The defendant stated, after his honor had excluded our evidence, and excluded it properly, that his wife visited him at the police station. He stated that she was there with his father-in-law and his two brothers- in-law. He said Pabbi David Marx was with him and that he consulted General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to it. “Furthermore, where a man's char acter is put in evidence, and in the course of the investigation any spe cific act of misconduct is shown, this does not go before the Jury for the purpose of showing affirmatively that his character is bad or that he is guilty of the offense with which h< stands charged, but is to be consider ed by the Jury only in determining the credibility and the degree of in formation possessed by those wit nesses who have testified to his good character. “When the defendant has put his character iu issue, the State is allow ed to bring witnesses to prove that his general character is had, and thereby to disprove the testimony of those who have stated that it is good. The Jury is allowed to take this tes timony, and have the right to con sider it along with all the other evi dence introduced on the subject of the general character of the defend ant, and it is for the jury finally to determine from all the evidence whether his character was good oi bad. Good Character May Create Reasonable Doubt. “You will, therefore, observe that this is the rule you will be guided by in determining the effect to be given to the evidence on the subject of the defendant’s character: If. after con sidering all the evidence pro and con, on the subject of the defendant’s character, you believe that prior to the time of Mary Phagan‘s death he bore a good reputation among those who knew him. that his general char acter was good, you will consider tha as one of the facts in the case, and i may be sufficient to create a reason able doubt of the defendant’s guilt, if it so impress your minds and con sciences. after considering it along with all the other evidence in the case; and if it does, you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him. “However, though you should be lieve his general character was good, still if. after giving due weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you be lieve from the evidence ns a whole that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be authorized to convict him. “If you believe beyond a reason able doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant is guilty of murder, then you would be authorized in that event to say ‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.' “Should you go no further, gentle men. and say nothing else in your verdict, the court would have to sen tence the defendant to the extreme penalty for murder, to wit: to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. But should you see fit to do so, in the event you arrive at the conclusion and belief beyond a reasonable doubt from tlie evidence that this defendant is guilty, then, gentlemen, you would be authorized in that event, if you saw fit to do so, to say: ‘We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty, and wo recommend that he be Imprisoned in the penitentiary fob life.’ “In the event you should make such a verdict as that, then the Court, under the law. would huve to sen tence the defendant to the peniten tiary for life. “You have heard the defendant make his statement. He had the right to make it under the law. It is not made under oath and he is not subject to examination or cross-ex amination. It is with you as to how much of it you will believe, or how little of It. You may go to the ex tent. if you see fit, of believing it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case. “In the event, gentlemen, you have a re isonable doubt from the evidence, or the evidence and the statement togeth , or either, as to the de- fendair's guilt as charged, then give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt and acquit him; and in the event you do acquit him the form of vour ver dict would be: ‘We. the jury, find the defendant not guilty.’ As honest Jurors do your utmost to reach the truth from the evidence and state ment as you have heard it here, then let your vercLlct speak it.” Dr. Marx on the advisability of hav- j After a ing her to come up to the top floor and see him surrounded by policemen, reporters and snapshotters. He doesn't prove by a living soul that this statement is true. You must rely on his own lips for its value. “If they corM have proved It by Dr. Marx, why didn’t they do it? You tell me a loving wife lives who, con scious of a husband's innocence amid such circumstances, wouldn't have braved policemen, snapshotters to have seen him? Arnold jumped up. ‘I object,” he said, “to those out rageous references to his wife. I have sat here in silence during many of his unfair remarks, but to bring in the wife of this man who is on trial for his life is an outrage on law and decency and fairness.” “Let mo see,” said Judge Roan. “the evidence on which you speaking, Mr. Dorsey.” Dorsey Fires Hot Retort at Arnold. i the African race has an ignorant, j filthy negro ever accused a white man of crime where the white man was in nocent and the white n.an decline to face the negro. There never 'ived in Georgia a lawyer who possessed half the ability of Rosser who sincerely believed in tne innocence of his cli ent who would not have said to this negro. ‘Face my client.’ You may say here that you did not know’ what Con ley’s statement was going to be. but you could have found out. You couio have known.” Rosser Objects To Being Criticised. Mr. Rosser was on his feet with an objection to commenting on counsel. moment’s wrangling, Mr. Dor- “Let the galled jade wince,” said Dorsey, sarcastically. “He has no right to make any such statement,” said Arnold. “It is whol ly uncalled for.” “I submit the remark,” retorted Dorsey, “of Mr. Rosser that this is an i sey insisting that he had a right to comment on the action of the de fendant’s counsel, charging the facts in the record justified him, Judge Roan sustained the objection. “But they see the force of it,” con tinued Dorsey. “Now, I don’t think that’s fair, your honor,” said Rosser, Interrupting again. There was another minute (t wrangling, both Dorsey and Rosser speaking at the same time. Judge Roan again sustained Rosser. Dorsey turned to the Jury, and slapping his hand viciously on the railing, shouted: “If they don’t see the force of it you do.” Rosser objected again. “I insist, your honor that that \a entirely proper comment. I ask you, ■ am I out side the record? I have a ‘ 1 right to comment upon their conduct in declining to cross-examine wit nesses.” “You may comment upon the act of Frank,” interrupted Judge Roan, “in not facing Conley and upon his counsel not having given the permis sion, but it is not proper for you to comment upon why counsel for the defense did not do certain things. Dorsey turned to the jury: “This man Frank, with Anglo the B’Nai Brith—according to Lee, you hung your head and quizzed him not, but said: If you don’t tell more about this we’ll both go to hell.’ Then In your statement to the jury you tried to make it appear that your own detective, Scott, had concocted a scheme against you and lied about w hat happened. “The reason Frank didn’t put it up to Newt Lee was because he knew Newt Lee was innocent. He knew' he was guilty and he was only adding to the dastardly crime of assault on the virtue of this little girl by trying to break the neck of this old negro to save his own reputation and neck. “Listen to his statement. He is smart. Listen how he qualifies and fixes so that when we come back with rebuttal the technical law will pro tect him. Old Newt Lee had been night watchman at that factory only a few weeks. There had been other night watchmen before, and the charges of going into the place for immoral purposes were during the time before Newt Lee came. He knew the detectives had charged that peo ple had gone in there for Immoral pur poses but in his statement on the stand he confined his denial to the xime Newt Lee was there as nigh’ watchman No. during the time old Newt Lee was there there was but one person for whom your passion burned.” the Solicitor continued, turning to Frank, • little Mary Phagan. She never would go there with you. But if you were telling the truth, why didn’t you make a bold and emphatic statement that none had ever been there. It was during the summer previous that Dalton and the others testified of the immorality there. There was the chance for impeachment of his state ment, and yet you tell me that that’s a good, fair, frank statement. “Now, another thing, listen to this. I read from the defendant’s state ment, ‘Now. in reference to those spots claimed to be blood spots found by Barrett. I don’t say they are not blood. They are near the ladies’ dressing room, and we also have many accidents near there. Let me say in tonnection with those acci dents that not all accidents are re ported. Only those w'hich incapaci tate an employee are reported. But I say it might have been blood. It also might have been aniline dye or paint. I have seen girls drop bottles of this colored matter, but if it had been fresh blood or fresh paint the haskoline which was spread over it would have become pink or red in stead of remaining white.’ ‘‘Why Didn’t They Bring in a Chemist?’’ “But I ask you if the haskoline would not have produced the identi cal result which the witnesses say was produced? Why didn’t you bring before the jury a reputable chemist and a man w’ho would have sustained you in this contention. If you had time to bring in experts to attack the overwhelming evidence of Dr. Roy Harris, why, in the name of truth and justice, didn’t you bring in just one chemist to support your theory of the blood spots? “You know the reason. You know they were blood spots. You know that you didn’t bring in a chemist be cause the result of spreading the has koline over blood w'ould have been exactly the result that was produced in the dressing room on the gecond fionr.” Dorsey turned toward the jury at this point and asked: “Are 3’ou going to take this man’s unsupported word when his law’vers are unable to get any reputable chem ist to come in and stultify himself by declaring that those spols were not blood or that the result produced was not that of spreading haskolinu over fresh blood? “This defense can not—they haven’t got any defense. They circle and flut ter. but never light. They grab at j varnish, rat blood and Duffy’s blood, I but they never knuckle down to show j that it was not blood. In view' of the statement of Mell Stanford, who swept that floor and who says it was not there Friday: in view of the statements of Christopher Columbus Barrett, v ho, despite what they say, continues to draw his livelihood from the coffers of the National Pencil Company; in view of the statements of a great many others who went there to see the blood spots, can we get but cne solution of the matter? I say you can not Contends Fallacy in Defense's Theory. “Then they fly onto another sub ject? It is the way they claim Jim Conley took that body into the base ment. But, gentlemen of the Jury, you know, and they know’, that th'a body wasn’t taken down that scuttle- hole. It did not show there where the dust was thick. And then did he shoot her down the chute of the Clark Woodenware’s place, w’here the body w’ould have been concealed bet ter and longer than where the body was found'/ Did this negho, who, they say, robbed this girl—even if he had taken time to write the notes, even if he had hit her with a bludgeon. —do you think, gentlemen of the jury, that he would have taken the time to tie a cord around her neck—a cord seldom found in the basement except when it was swept there with the trash, but the proper place for which was in that metal room on the second floor, where little Mary Phagan met her death? If he had done all that — after he had sent her body down the chute—why would he have gone dow r n into the basement and have removed the body from its safest hiding place dowrn there at the bottom of the chute, where the dust, trash and boxes would have kept it concealed for weeks at least? Why would he have removed it out there near the boiler, where the firemen and everyone else w’ould have been sure to find it? “I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that body was never sent down that chute; that body was never sent down that scuttlehole. It was taken down into the basement just as Jim Con ley says it was. “They fly off onto other things. Why, on May 1, when Holloway caught Jim Conley washing his shirt, he said, ‘This is my negro.’ Fifteen days later, when the second squad of Pinkertons came in, can you tell me, will you tell me, why, if he shoved her down that hole, that not until the 15th of May was this bloody bludgeon found, and more blood than this girl has ever been shown to have lost was there? “Another thing. Frank said in his statement that this man Quinn came to him and told him he would like tc take him back to the metal room, where, the newspapers said, and where everybody else said, and knew that morning, that some blood and som? hair had been found. Stresses Fact Frank Hadn’t Examined Spots. “Although he had seen this in the papers, although he had heard from others in the factory that the spots and hair had been found, although he had been all around there, although the knowledge of the finding of these spots and hair had torn him to pieces, although he was so anxious to get detectives to work on the case that he had phoned SchilT three times, yet Quinn had to come and ask him to come back there to see the spots. “Tell me. was that the conduct of ah innocent man anxious to help the police? But, strange to say, not even Lemmie Quinn comes to support yqu in this statement. No one ever saw Leo M. Frank go back there to exam ine those spots. “If there was ever a spot on this earth that Famk did not want to see it was the blood spot back there in the metal room, the spot where this little girl met her death. If Frank went down there to the morgue and the sight of that little girl tore him to pieces as he tells you it did. let any honest man on this jury tell me why It was he wanted to look upon her dead body again. “Rogers says lie didn't look at it. Black says he didn't see him look at it.” Attorneys Arnold and Rosser en tered strenuous objection. “Rogers did not say that Frank did Continued on Page 3, Column 1. M. RICH & BROS. CO. v W«iWiVV^ J Tuesday Only! unfair speech (referring to an aside) (Saxon blood in his veins, a graduate- is uncalled for. Frank said that his : of Cornell, a man of sense and intelb- wife would not come to see him be cause she was afraid of the snap shotters and the. reporters and that she did not want to go through this line of newspaper men every time she came to see him. 1 tell you. gentle men, there never lived a true wife who would not have gone through a line of snapshotters and reporters in spite of the contrary advice of a rabbi or any one else.” i “Let us see who first found out Conlev could write. Frank said. *1 was the man who made this discov ery. I was the means of getting this information to the police. I have re ceived too many notes asking for loans not to know that he can write. I know that if you will look in the safe you ■will find some receipts for watches signed by him. and that if u will go to the jeweler's you proo- gence and spirit, refused to see Conley because his counsel was not in town. But when his counsel re turned and he still had the oppor tunity he dared not let Conley meet him. It is not necessary to take up this discussion. Would the weakest of you when innocent and wrongfully accused by a man with a black skin on the charge of murder let Rosser or any lawyer in the world keep you from confronting him and nailing the lie. No lawyer of any age or clime could prevent me from meeting a man, be he white or black, who had wrongfully accused me.” Pointing his finger at Frank he con tinued : “You went in a room and inter viewed old Newt Lee dow n at the po lice station at 12 o’clock at night. What did you do? Did you act like ably will find other specimens of his an innocent man who was trying handwriting.' “But Scott says that no such thing get at the truth? Oh, no! ‘Instead of going after him and try- over happened. Why didn’t Fran*, ting to get from him new' light on this when those notes were found by the case—this man at whom you han dead girl’s body—why didn't he then pointed an infamous suspicion to save and there say that that was Conley’s your own nock and to save your rep- handwriti-g? Up to the tim that it 1 utation on Washington street and in P-R-I-N T-O-R-I-A-L-S No. 227 Good Printing a Business Necessity! You can't go far in business without PRINTING. It is one of the very first essentials, in fact. Beginning with STATIONERY— the staple needs—Including LETTER HEADS. BILL HEADS. STATEMENTS, CARDS, ENVELOPES and HIGH CLASS STA TIONERY, is the kind we advise, because it has an ADVERTIS ING VALUE. Phone for our Representative to call with samples BYRD of our handsomely Printing Co. LITHOG R APHED e STATIONERY. 46-48-50 W. Alabama, Phones M. 1560-2608-2614. Atlanta. & i -35 5 This is tlie “Dollar” shoe sale you’ve been waiting 3b for, for by it all other “Dollar” shoe sales are judged. ^ The size and width range is not complete, but every JJj early comer will find a size that pleases. 5b No. C. 0. D.’s. No refunds. No exchanges after JK Sb £ Tuesday. *&■- t M. Rich & Bros. Co. sT ^ “A Department of Famous Shoes.”