Newspaper Page Text
3 D
HEARST’g SUNDAY AMERICAN. ATLANTA GA , SUNDAY. MAY 30. 101’
SAYS FACTS IN CASE DO NOT CONVICT FRANK
Conley Real Slayer, Hooper Alexander Insists, and Gives Evidence He Declares Proves Theory
Continued From Preceding Page.
without a pledge to secrecy, who, all
unasked, had given hint $200 that the
bank records and the factory books
show he never had, and never could
have had, took back the gift anfl
promised instead to "make It all right
Monday." The explanation was writ
ten In with a pen as an appendix to
the typewritten affidavit, and the
long and tedious labors of these
searchers after truth were ended;
they never grilled him any more.
There is the evolution of the story.
If Conley had stuck to it as he told
It then, and as the detectives wrote
it down, it would still have been as
demonstrably false as it was when af
terwards, to their amazement, in the
presence of the jury, his luxuriant
ajid unpruned imagination added new
and undreamed of touches to his now
untutored fancy.
"the Relative Importance of Incon*
cistencies.
Before analyzing the story as he
finally told it on the witness stand.
I invite the attention of thoughtful
seekers after truth to the fact that
the inconsistency between his tesi-
mon v and his first three statements
presents a very different situation
from the inconsistency between his
testimony with his final statement.
There is a vital distinction between
these inconsistencies.
While it might be difficult to be-
lieve that Conley, or any other wit
ness under like conditions, could have
lied without limit in denial of his own
complicity in the cnime and con.nec-
ton with it. and still tell the truth at
the end, such a thing i§ not Impossi
ble. A candid believer in Frank's
guilt might candidly concede that the
stories? of May 18, May 24 and May 28
were false, and yet with candor argue,
and with some plausibility, that they
do not necessarily make it impossible
for his final story to be true. It might
be fairly argued, though It would
strain credulity to believe It, that
while he lied at first in order to hide
his own complicity, he finally recant
ed on the witness stand, made a clean
breast of everything, and sought
safety in truth.
It is not the mere fact that he lied
in these statements, that makes his
story unbelievable and impossible.
That conflict is open to an explana-
. tion that, however difficult to accept,
may be fairly argued; it can fairly be
said that Conley was implicated in
the crime; that he was in fact in
danger of being adjudged a criminal:
that he was ignorant and afraid, and
If the story was true, it is an utterly
Immaterial question, in itself, which
he wrapped it in; except that, as a
matter of fact, he could not have
tied up that kind of bundle with ei
ther, and I am not at this point
discussing the impossibilities, but the
inconsistencies of the story.
The significance of this variance
derives its importance from the very
fact of its immateriality. Ther*. was
no possible motive for saying the first
time that it was a crocus sack rather
than bed ticking; but that is what he
said. Why, then, did he change it
and say it was bed ticking?
Except in the particular matters of
variance which I have promised to,
and will, explain later, and in which
he made changes that he had to make
to make the story "fit." Conley ex
pected and Intended to testify exactly
as he had confessed on May 29. His
story had satisfied the detectives,
and, in their satisfaction, he saw his
safety. In their zeal to vindicate the
theories to which they were publicly
committed, they were blind to its
monstrous impossibility, and Conley
had not intelligence enough to know
that its impossibility was visible.
What he did know was that his
story of May 29 "fit" to their satis
faction. He knew that after that story
they looked kindly on the repentant
sinner. They even showed their fa
vor in their treatment of him. While
they say that in the beginning he
was very ‘‘dirty.’’ and the Solicitor
constantly refers to him as ‘lousy,’’
he knew that now he was well fed and
fat; his cup was, according to his
standard, fairly running over; he was
clean and well clothed, and he had
no concern about a short term of im
prisonment as an accessory after the
fact. He was even a sort of hero,
and- obviously so regarded himself.
He had even appeared in the extras
which he so constantly read, as hav
ing bluffed Frank out of an interview,
in which the detectives, as he saw it,
were to be present as his friends and
backers.
Subject to certain variances which
he had perceived that he would be
obliged to make In the story, and
which I shall discuss hereafter, he
was just as confident as the detec
tives were, that he was going to tell
the same story on the witness stand
that he had told on the 29th. If he
did not do so, but made such changes
or injured in a street car accident,
and Frank in some way came In con
tact with the matter. He was so un
strung by it as hardly to be able to
work. If anything went wrong in the
daily routine of the factory, or any
thing like a rebuke came from a supe
rior, it agitated him extremely. One
of the State's witnesses said that he
had ?een him rubbing his hands a
thousand times. Conley unquestion
ably had seen the same thing. Cer
tainly he was a man of at least aver
age intelligence. It may be safely
said that he was above the average in
Intelligence.
Nothing in the record, except Con
ley’s testimony, and Dalton’s suggest
ed that he ever showed anything like
familiarity with other people, or was
ever guilty of any lowering of his
personal dignity, and much of the
State's testimony went to prove that
he at all time.* maintained his dig-
nit^.
Conley, for an evident purpose, and
to make his story “fit.” represents
Frank as in the habit of indulging in
very degraded practices. To prove it
the State called a witness named
Dalton, of whom eleven witnesses
from Walton and Gwinnett Counties
testified that they would not believe
him on hi? oath. He himself admit
ted that he had been Indicted as a
common thief four or five times, and
sentenced.
The very story that he undertook to
tell was intended to associate himself
with happenings of the most un
speakable and degraded sort. Conley
says that on this particular occasion
he himself was ?eler*ted as Frank’s
intimate friend and confident, and
asks us to believe that Frank made
of him an unneeded witness to some
premeditated purpose to assail the
virtue of a young girl for whose com
ing he had arranged in advance;
though we know as a fact that he
could not even have told that she was
coming; that when she came Frank
was so swept away by his passion
that, upon her refusal to yield to his
lust, he struck her Into insensibility
matter of the highest importance
tend* to prove that the story was
manufactured. I am not speaking of
those immaterial variations that a
partisan advocate loves to dwell on
before Jury and ring the changes
on; but which rather tend to prove
a story true than false. I am talk
ing of a more important kind of va
riance, those w'hleh are of such char
acter that a man who told the truth
at one time would be obliged to tell
substantially th© same thing over
again, because it was the fact, and
because it could not be stated differ
ently. except as the result of forget
ting his story or changing it with a
purpose.
On pages 82 and 83 of the brief
will be found some thirty very ma
terial points of difference between
the story of the 29th of May and the
story told on the witness stand.
These were brought out on cross-ex
amination of the detectives. If the
board cares to inquire further, they
can find it in the testimony as many
more of that sort as they need. They
are all substantial matters; they can
not be brushed aside or their Impor
tance minimized by saying that Con
ley is admitted to have been lying on
the 29th of May. It never was ad
mitted that he lied then. That theory
will not work. I have already ex
plained that while his departures In
nis testimony from the earlier stories
are susceptible of almost rational ex
planation, consistent with the Idea
that he told the truth at last; that
his variances from the story of the
29th can not be explained that way.
I shall invite your attention to just
a few of those points as typical of
different classes of lies, depending
upon different principles.
1. What became of the meshbag was
a vitally important question. On the
29th of May he said nothing about
peeing the meshbag. He denied that
he ever saw it. On the stand he gave
an elaborate statement of seeing It on
Frank's desk and of Frank’s hiding it
in the safe. There was no possible
It the truth; thougl^At Is no easy to un
dersand why he sni
hy he should have told
lie of thatf particular sort In the first
instance. Hut let every man ask him
self, What is the explanation of that
change? Then listen to what really
caused it.
On the 29th of May Conley told the
detectives that when he got down to
the basement he and Frank took the
body off the elevator together and
laid it on the ground; that Frank
then went up the ladder to watch
and see If anybody was coming. (By
the way. why didn’t he lock the front
door? Then, at Frank’s command, "I
picked It up and put it on my shoul
der again, and I taken her hack there
and taken the cloth from around her
and taken her hat and shoes and
brought them down and untied the
select a few, and 1 must treat them
briefly.
1. Darley left the pencil factory at
9:40 in company with Frank. I pre
sume there can be no doubt about
that. At that time Conley had al
ready left, according to his story, to
visit his mother at the laundry, and
was to wait for Frank at Nelson
street after he got back from the
laundry. made his visit and got
back to Nelson street between 10
and 10:30. He returned with Frank
at 11 o’clock, concealed himself in
the dark lumber room on the first
floor, and took up his watch. Accord
ing to his story, after his return from
Montag’s he saw several people come
down the steps and leave. Among
them was Mr. Darley. He Axes the
time at 11.30, after the visit of "Peg-
cloth and brought them hack and j leg," and Just before Holloway left,
throwed them on the trashplle In j is it necessary to comment on that?
front of the furnace, and Mr. Frank Fan it possibly be explained? Can
was standing at the trap door at the i rational men Ignore a lie like that?
head of the ladder." He never saw Darley come down at
... .. „ . „ . . „ , | motive for him to lie about it on the
with his fist, and thereafter, in a mad OQ ,. * u
fvttnTV nr hi. flr.t 29th of Ma y-. for he had told e X er ^
frenzy, or to conceal his first attack
deliberately strangled her to death;
that his intelligence was so nearly on
a level with Conley's that he told the
latter to bring out the dead body, and
pretended to him that he had done
nothing more than strike her, though
the cord was even then around her
is: Why? And that is a question
♦■u * v, i, * . „ . . . . .. | that must be met and answered by
(hat he lied at first to save himself; | both gldes ot thlg lMue . The , ng .
wer is absolutely certain: HE
as I am now speaking of, and of neck; that as Conley was bringing
which there wefre many, the question out the body Frank cursed him. and
that, after it was concealed, he in
dulged in Jocular hilarity and the
that at the last, however, he owned
up. abandoned the. refuge of false
hood, and told the truth. We might
not very readily accept such an ex
planation, but it is possible.
On the 29th of May he told every
thing that could involve himself. He
reversed his former attitude. No
FORGOT.
The whole secret of the differ
ences in the two stories is In that
fact, and INJefy any man to find any
other explanation.
Where a thing really happens and
the knowledge of it reaches the mind
longer seeking safety in falsehood he through the primary senses of touch
sought It in truth.. He met the de- 1 0 r sight, the witness will tell sub-
mands of the officers, and, under their : stantially the same thing about it
arguments and persuasions, accepted , every time. If It was a black horse
the teaching that the truth was his j that broke into the cornfield, he can
surest refuge. That is the necessary | not make a mistake and say that it
theory of those who believe him. In- | was a white horse He tells that
deed, he tells us himself that all the j pa rt involuntarily: it tells itself,
lies that were in the first three state- Where It never happened at all,
ments were told because he was where it was never perceived by the
afraid to have it known that he saw j senses, but was a mere fabrication
the body, o r touched it, or even knew ! 0 f the brain, conceived deliberately
of the murder. Very well We may j n telling of a long and involved
be skeptical as to this explanation, we t falsehood* there is nothing concrete
may receive it with incredulity, but | to aid the memory. The mental op-
an argument based on such a theory ©ration involved in the second tell-
can not be rejected as Impossible; it ling is not,an involuntary recalling of
follows rational lines. J a picture actually seen, but is a con-
Very different was the situation on , scious effort to repeat, not what he
and after the 29th of May. In the saw, but what he said he saw.
statement that day made, he told In all such cases there is a per-
everything that could hurt him or ■ centage of variations bound to de-
bring him into suspicions he told the J velop; that Is as certain as the vital
thingp that he says he had hitherto > statistics of the insurance tables,
kept back out of fear After he re- j -‘A liar hath need to have a long
solved to tell the truth, and It Is the memory."
theory of the State that he did re- j His s t or y G f May 29 was compli-
solve to tell the truth on the 29th of ca ^ e( j anc j involved, and entirely be-
May and that his statement of that
date wap the fruitage of the resolu
tion. there was no longer any motive
for lving. When he told of seeing and
touching and hiding the body, he had
taken away all possible motive for
anv further falsehood, and had made
it impossible to explain any further
falsehood. Whatever it had been pre
viously to his interest to conceal, he
confessed on that day. and he con-
fessed in substance to the same
things that he told the Jury- After he
had resolved to do that, there was
nothing else that could make the case
against him either worse or better.
The discrepancies that followed in his
testimony did not make him any more
guilty or any less guilty, or put him in
anv more cr any lew danger, and
even his limited Intelligence was
obliged to teach him that. So far as
concerned their bearings on his for
tunes, the story of the 29th of May
and his testimony on the stand were
exactly the same, no matter what dif
ferences in detail there may have
been In them. Indeed, so far as their
points of variance are concerned, the
two stories are the same in their ef
fect on the guilt or innocence of
Frank himself. .
The admitted falsity of tn^. first
three statements, then, are of rela
tively small importance. However
yond the capacity of his mental
standards. as long aB there were
none to doubt It; as long as the de
tectives were his sole audience, who
themselves say, "Anything in his
story that looked to be out of place
we told him wouldn't do;” as long as
they were there to tell him why it
would not "fit;" as long as it was
consistent with what they were
hunting for and hoping to find; as
long as it vindicated their theories
and promises, the critical examina
tion they gave it kept him in bounds:
but the problem that now confronts
us is not to see that it fits, but if It
fits.
Analysis of Conley’s Story.
1. Its generally improbable and un
reasonable character.
Before considering the story in de
tail, I submit, that any candid man,
not wholly predisposed to believe in
Conley's truth, is obliged to be im
pressed with the utterly unreasona
ble and improbable character of what
he told, when it is considered as a
whole.
Here is a man supposed by the
community at large, ho far as they
are acquainted with him. to be of
singularly gentle and amiable dispo
sition, modest and retiring—almost
timid. Working at a small salary of
$150 a month, he is diligent and ac-
most intimate familiarity with his ac
complice. In the whole atory there
thing then that hurt himself. There
are a great many contradictions of
the sort of which this Is typical.
These are pure Inventions by a wit
ness who has found himself a hero in
the estimation of auditors who seem
to him prepared to believe anything
he tells. They are relatively of small
importance in testing Conley's story,
and for the leason that they deal with
a very material matter, a matter that
tended to aggravate Frank’s guilt.
Because this was so, I attach little
_ - _i._ i relative importance to them in the
were so many things utterly unbe- p nnnr9m . ,
llevable In the liftht of ordinary ex- ! g l ’ th gU
perlenoe. that It I* Impossible to set d'^egarded^ falsehoods,
them out. T call attention here to but ' 2. I select now a variance of a dlf-
one of them. and because It was so j ferent type. On May 29 he did not
manifestly purposeless. »ay a word about Frank’s wanting
Frank had asked Conley, aeeordlng | b '“ b , urn , the a „ bod i n an , d h ^.'nne^
to Conley 1 ., story, to come there that r ? fuaa > to , do sa , ° n tbe * ltneas
. ofa*. Mr** aw.at stand he told an elaborate story to
day and watch for him. U hat thRt pffpct why? That wa , ne i thcr
could have been the purpose of the
watching? There could be no ration
al conjecture except that it was to
prevent interruption or give warning
that interruption was imminent; yet
Conley did neither. From 11:50 until
12:10, during which interval, accord
ing to Conley’s story, the murder
took place, two people came in and
went up to the office without inter
ruption by Conley, and with no effort
on his part even to give Frank warn
ing—one of them Just before, and the
other Just after Mary Phagan came.
forgetfulness nor invention. It was
the result of suggestion. In order to
understand that this is true, the
board must be Informed that on the
29th of May the detectives did their
utmost to make him say that the
plan was to burn the body. It was
one of their numerous theories that
they tried so diligently to make him
sustain them in. Mark you! This
denial of the burning story was told
after he claimed to have abandoned
his earlier policy of seeking safety in
. _ g j denial, and after he thought he had
Manifestly there was nothing for ; found safety in telling whatever the
the watcher to do In the way of; detectives wanted him to tell; and
watching: but in his testimony he , su gg es tive questioning of
says that his agreement with Frank detectives that day, he calmly as-
was that as soon ap the expected visl- ! sured them that nothing of the kind
tor came Frank would stamp his foot
in order that Conley might lock the
door and shut out Interruption, and
that when she was ready to go he ,
would whistle for Conlev to unlock j
the door and come upstairs. We
had happened; that Frank had never
made such a suggestion. But the
idea found lodgment In his head It
grew and developed, and. at the trial,
he told an elaborate story about that
Whether the suggestion had by that
nich they may discredit Conley as curate in the discharge of his duties,
a liar in the minds of those who do
not carefully search out motives,
these falsehoods are capable of an
explanation that might leave it pos
sible for Conley to have told the
truth in his testimony in spite of their
falsity. „ ,, . ,
But on the 29th of May he told
everything that could hurt him. and
everything that could hurt Frank.
If, after he did that, he told a story,
the same in substance, but different
in vital particulars, some other ex
planation must be looked for than
that which is relied on to explain
aW ay the falsity of his first three
statements.
There is an explanation—a clear,
logical and certain explanation. I do
not mean, now, that the explanation
I am about to point out applies to
every variation between his affidavits
njiri hie testimony, for ther e were
variations which I shall specially
consider, that were the results, some
of design, and some of necessity.
What I am proposing to discuss is
the# very great number of varia
tions in matters that, while substan
tial in character, were In themselves
unimportant as affecting the guilt or
Innocence either of himself or Frank,
though tremendously Important in
their bearing on the question of
whether the story was true or false.
Variations of this sort becom P im
portant by reason of the very fact
that if the story was true, it was
immaterial which way they hap-
pened.
I fan make my point clearer by an
Illustration. In the story of May 29
the detectives tell us that he said
he wrapped the body up In a cro
cus sack. On the witness stand he
wrapped it up in a piece of bed tick
ing which he described minutely.
Now. if h» wrapped It up at all-
know. as a matter of fact, that Miss | sn ripened in bis mind that he
Hattie Hall was there at 11:50 and r ,. a ii y believed it himself. o r whether
that^ she had gone At although j adopted it as a good suggestion,
r-, and, knowing the great interest that
existed on the subject, deliberately
worked it out in the interest of add
ing to the glare of his reputation as a
hero, is Immaterial. The fact stares
us in the face that we are about to
put a man to death on the testimony
of a witness whom it Is essentially
dangerous to believe, because no man
can be sure now that, if he testified
again, he would not tell a wholly dif
ferent story.
3. Take another of the numerous
discrepancies that belong to this
class of lies developing out of sug
gestion. On the witness stand he told
of hearing the victim stream, and. In
so doing, told a thing that was im
possible. He had never told that be
fore. It was. like the storv of burning
the body, the result of suggestion. On
the 29th of May the detectives asked
him about that, and .although he pre
tends. and the prosecution ask? us to
believe, that on the 29th he had
abandoned all thought of further con
Conley says not one word about her
going. He not only ?uys that he did
not do anything to prevent interfer
ence. but that he heard Mary Phagan
scream, and that, after that, he saw
Monteen Stover come In and go up,
and never lifted a hand to give warn
ing. According to Conley, the signal
to lock the door was not given until
long after the girl had come and the
murder had been perpetrated, and at
least one other visitor had appeared
upon the scene, and had been allowed
to come in without hindrance.
Even the poor' service of locking
the door was worse than unnecessary.
Frank carried the keys. Why could
Frank not lock the door himself? Why
did he need a witness to his shame?
Why did he want the door unlocked?
Conley says his instructions were,
when Frank whistled to unlock the
door and come * upstairs as if to bor
row’ money. How would a person
look when he was coming up as if to
borrow money? Why would he w ? ant
seeking a loan. How could she tell
bv his looks that that was the object
of his visit? The story U just one
of those obvious falsehoods that an
ignorant man like Conley would in
vent.
even deferential to his employees, Unnecessary as It was to lock the
though little acquainted among them ; door by proxy, the question is
I do not overlook the fact that In unavoidable: If Conley’s story is
the rebuttal evidence for the State a , true, why did ^ he not lock
number of girls were called who were ; it? Why did not Frank stamp?
the lady to suppose that Conley was j roa lment. he denied it. There could
disposed to suggest that Frank had
given some evidence of being lecher
ous. I hope the board will not over
look'the fact, easily apparent from
the record, that in the rebuttal tes
timony there w r ere a large number of
witnesses who manifestly testified
out of a very zealous belief that
Frank was guilty and should be pun
ished, and who manifestly overesti
mated. in their minds, matters that,
were not really important. The
things that these young ladies Raid
were hardly sufficient to warrant a
suspicion of the character indicated.
There were Several vomrg women
witnesses In the factory who testified
i» chief for the State I can not
comment on the testimony of all of
them, but Miss Hicks said that in five
years she had never seen Frank
speak to any of the girls and thot
he had spoken to her but thre« times,
one of them being a deferential lift
ing of his hat when he met her on the
street. She said that h° orlv knew
her face, and added that ‘>he never
saw Frenk speak to Marv Phagan or
Msrv Phoean speak to him.
He’en *>rguson. a witness in chlee
for th» State, whose testimony was
strora’lv relied on to create one of
the flimsy nieces of clrcomstantlal
eviderce. said that she did not be
The girl came before 12:05. The
blow which we are asked to believe
produced unconsciousness, and which
certainly, if the story is true, pro
duced the scream, must hav^ taken
place, if at all. very close to 12
o’clock. Mrs. White was there at
12:30 and it was impossible for her
to have gotten in unless she came be
fore the door was locked. Thf* So
licitor says in his argument that she
came at 12:35. When she came,
Frank was in his office attending to
office work, and if Conley tells the
truth, the door had not yet been
locked. The locking story is im
probable. I shall demonstrate here
after that the unlocking was impos
sible.
We are seriously asked to believe
that Frank undertook the contemplat
ed wrong, without having the door
fastened, and knowing that visitors
were liable to arrive at any moment,
and were in fact arriving constant
ly. We are asked to believe this ab
surd story as proof that th** person
to whom the notes pointed as the
murderer was not the guilty wretch,
and to believe it on his own t*^ti-
mony.
2. The Conflict With the Affidavit.
I have already pointed out that
lieve Frank even knew’ her name. T when Conlev departed on the witness
mention these facts bec {,,, se they tend i stand from his affidavit of May 29. the
to discredit ‘den di’igentlv nug- variance was, in the main, due to the
eest^d that Fran 1 ’ «ought acquaint (certain truth that even an intelli-
ance amor.? the efrls. i g^-nt man can not tell an involved lie
He was mantfeefT- of a highlv ner-
”0”S |pmri®nn ot ' f , nnusuallv «riscen.
tible to the suffering of other*- A
young girl was on one occasion killed
and afterward repeat it^ When one
who has manufactured a story tells
It afterward and varies in certain
kinds of deiails, the variance is a
not have been at that time any mo
tive for concealment on this subject.
But hi» story had given him notorie
ty. He was talking to a thronging
multitude who looked upon him with
evident admiration, as a hero: the
extras were bringing out every hour
big headlines about his marvelous
revelations; he was reading about
himself in them every night, and
there was no apparent limit to cred
ulity. The screaming w'a»» fine melo
drama The detectives had tried to
make him sav it and W'ere disap
pointed when he didn’t. Now’ was his
chance and he threw it in for good
measure.
4 I purpose now to call attention to
a different class of variance, one
which, when fnllv understood, will be
recognized as being such a master
piece of cunning as to make us won
der how such a mind as Conley's
could Have ever seen that it was
needed, or worked it out without help.
Its full significance will not be per
ceived In the outset.
On May 29 Conley tells us that he
went, at Frank’s command, and
wrapped up the body in a crocus
sack: be put It on his shoulder and
started with it. and that when he got
a« far as the dressing room it slipped
off his shoulder and fell. On the
stand he said that after he had tied
Up the body in tty- bed ticking he
tried to put it on his shoulder and
w’as not strong enough Instead of
cutting it on his shoulder, then, he
ran his arm through the loop of the
bundle and carried It that way, and
when he got to the dressing room he
let it fell. (Just why he did no 4 put
the body down instead of letting it
fall is not clear.)
Now T invite t!Vi-ightfu! men to
ask themselves why that change was
made. It is. of course, a flat contra
diction. But why? One man might
pay that it w r as a case of forgetting
his flr wt lie and that the tb’ng never
reallv happened at all. Another might
say that the affidavit *r*s false but
that he repented afterward and told
In his testimony he tells us that
when they got to the basement they
took the body ou of the elevaor. "and
T opened the cloth and rolled her out
there on the floor." and says not a
word about taking the body hack to
the sawdust pile on Ms shoulder or
any other way. Then he tells u9 that
he asked Frank what he was to do
with the hat and the slipners and the
rlhnon. and Frank told him to leave
them there (i. e,. by the elevator)
hut he took them and pitched them
on the trashplle.
This change in the story was not
invented to explain why the bed
ticking was not found on the trash-
pile, where the hat and the shoes
were found, though certainly that
question needs to be answered now.
Neither was it for the purpose of
getting rid of the fatal fact that one
who could not carry the body on his
shoulders for 40 feet on the second
floor without dropping it could easily
carry it that way in the basement 136
feet, though the fact also had to be
reconciled. The imperative necessity
which made this change unavoidable
grew out of something that is not ap
parent at all in his story.
After the 29th of May, and before
the trial, the doctors had very care
fully considered the condition of the
body and expressed an opinion. Be
fore Conley w T as ever put on the
stand Dr. Hurt had testified. In an
swer to the questions of the defense,
that the condition of the body. Its
being so black and dirty as to make
it Impossible at first to tell whether
it was the body of a white girl at a’l.
the scratches and punctures on the
face, the dirt in the mouth and eyes
showed that It had been dragged over
dirt and cinders. The floor was cov
ered with these materials.
After Dr. Hurt so testified on th?
stand there was an interval of some
days and nights before Conley was
put up. Manifestly, if he carried that
body on his shoulder again in the
basement the evidence of the drag
ging was a thing that would not "fit.’’
Manifestly, also, he had ample time
and opportunity to revise the story
and make it "flt." We can not but
wonder that a man of his low order
of intelligence could have perceived
the necessity for the change. More
over. note how this strengthened the
theorv against Frank. If Conley left
the body at the elevator, It would be
an easy inference that Frank went
back in the afternoon and did the
dragging.
But to give verisimilitude to the
story. h e must become too weak to
shoulder 125 pounds; and so to make it
"flt" all around, instead of shoulder
ing the body upstairs and subse
quently dropping it from his shoulder,
he ties up the cloth like a Monday
wash and carried ^t with his aim
through the loop; and men believe a
thing like that, told bv such a crea
ture. under such conditions, and under
the obvious necessity to save his own
neck.
Even In telling that he left the body
at the elevator Instead of carrying it
back to the sawdust pile, as he had
said on the 29th. he dropped out an
expression in his testimony that
shows that he never really had in his
mind a concept of the body lying by
the elevator, but that the locus of the
corpse In his mind’s eye was back at
the sawdust pile, where he really put
It.
Let me give one other illustration
of this class of change in the details
of the story. There are plenty of them
of all classes.
5. On May 29 he reasserted what
had been said in his affidavit of May
29 about the writing of the notes. He
said he wrote on the white-ruled pa
per at Frank’s dictation—wrote it
three times—Frank, after careful ex
amination, selecting the one that suit
ed his purpose. He did not write the
second note then at all. According
to the story he then told, there follow
ed, after this writing, a long detailed
account of happenings and conversa
tions (things, by the way, that, rea
sonably considered, would have taken
thf* full 34 minutes or more that he
says they were there, from 12:56 to
1:30). Just before the time came to
separate, he saw Frank go to his desk
and "take out a brownish looking
scratch pad." (Do not forget, by the
way, that it was a pad.) He saw Frank
start to write on it. He even saw
that the first letter was "M," but
Frank became suddenly suspicious of
his trusted friend, shut the pad up,
looked at Conley and told him he
could go. On the witness stand Conley
said that he not only wrote the first
note and wrote it three times, but that
he wrote the other note on the brown
paper also.
Now, why was that change made? l
have no evidence on that subject. I
rely on conjecture, but I will risk rny
reputation as a man of reason on the
proposition that, if the Pardon Board
will Investigate that matter to the
bottom, and insist on knowing how
and when Conley owned up to the
writing of the second note, and why,
and all the details about it, they will
be absolutely convinced that the
change resul fr»trn Conley’s becom
ing convinced that evidence could be
produced outside of himself, and
would be produced, to prove that he
did write the second note. He con
tinued to deny it after the 29th of May.
Whs his change made on the witness
stand, or was it before? Did the de
tectives know it was to be made? If
so. w’hy?
The change was made deliberately
to make his story "fit," in a full and
intelligent knowledge that it would
discredit the witness and be danger
ous to his life if, on the witness stand,
he told a lie like that, of which proof
could be brought from outside sources.
And I call upon the board to probe
that matter; it is of the most serious
importance.
3. The Story Impossible.
There are so many things In Con
ley’s story that arc clearly impossible,
in the light of testimony of other wit
nesses for the State, that 1 can only
all. Darley came down with Frank
at 9:40, and Conley had left before
that time.
2. I propose two questions, and I
ask that they be candidly considered:
If Conley tells the truth—
(a) How did Mrs. White get in?
(b) How did she get out?
Conley says that when the lady
came whom Frank was expecting.
Frank was to signal by stamping and
Conley was to lock the door. At a
time when everybody else was gone
and therefore after 11:50, and after
Miss Hattie Hall had subsequently
gone, he saw cjuinn come in, go up
and come down. Then he saw Mary
Phagan go up. This must have been
before 12:05 There was no stamp
ing, but he heard her and Frank go
back to the metal room. Remember
that he was near the front door
dow’nstairs, shut off by partitions
from the rear and the doorway from
upstairs. The metal room was up
stairs at the back of a building 200
feet long, and shut off from the front
by a partition, and yet he heard the
girl scream, and "then I didn’t hear
any more." Then he saw Monteen
Htover come in, go up, come down and
leave. Then he heard a tip-toeing
upstairs, first forward, then backward,
to the metal room; then he went to
sleep. After all this Frank stamped
for him to lock the door to prevent
Interruption, and he did lock it. I
may not pause to comment on 'he
unreasonableness of the story that
Frank would hav e delayed so long the
signal to lock. It is too obvious for
comment.
But how did Mrs. White get in?
Manifestly, as she came at 12:30, ac
cording to her statement, and at 12:35
according to the Solicitor's. Frank de
layed for half an hour before shut
ting out visitors, and during that
time completed the murder by delib
erately strangling the victim. No
other theory can possibly explain
Mrs. White’s getting in, and that is
a very unreasonable theory. But
how did she get out? There was a
delay of at least fifteen minutes, ac
cording to Conley, between the time
he locked the door and the time he
got th« sighal to unlock it. If 1 were
seizing upon ordinary contradictions
and ringing the changes on them, I
should dwell here upon the fact that
he first says, in the course of the
cross-examination, that he went up
stairs between the tim 0 he locked the
door and the time he unlocked it.
In a very little while he said he un
locked the door first and then w'ent
upstairs. Finding himself caught In
the net of that sort of self-contradic-
tloYi, he settled down deliberately to
this proposition; "As soon as he
whistled I unlocked the door and
went upstairs." In the presence of so
many such contradictions, I can not
waste time commenting on that. But
it emphasizes the fact that his story,
as deliberately revised, was that there
was no Interval of time between his
unlocking the door and his goin
stairs.
When he got upstairs Frank was
at the head of the steps. The evi
dence is that he stayed there. He
sent Conley back to the metal room
with instructions to bring the body
forward. If Mrs. White came down,
then she would have seen Frank at
the head of the steps, and If Conley
brought the body out, a* ordered, she
would have seen that. Indeed, at al
most the identical time fixed by Con
ley for those Incidents, Frank had just
warned Mrs. White to come down.
Did he want her to come down and see
him there? He had told Conley to
bring the body forward. Did he want
her to see that? How did she get out?
If she w'ent out after Conley came up
stairs, she would have seen this per
formance. If she went out before
Conley came upstairs, the door was
locked. If she went by Obnley before
the whistle, she would have had to
unlock the door herself; but If that
happened, how could it have been un
locked by Conley when the signal
came. We know Mrs. White told the
truth. Therefore, Conley did not.
The reconcilement of these facts
must present grave questions. No
theory can he invented that will be at
all reasonable to explain either her
getting in or her getting out, consis
tently with Conley’s story. The only
one that can possibly be invented will
not "fit," and w’hen it is advanced, its
want of fitness will be made to ap
pear.
4. When Did Mary Phagan Come?
In respect to the time of Mary 1'ha-
gan’s arrival, the Htate Is faced by a
serious dilemma Conley’s story not
only has her there before Monteen
Stover, but has the murder consum
mated before that time On the other
hand, the evidence of Monteen Stover,
who is highly commended by the So
licitor in argument, is that she herself
got there at 12:05. Epps, who is equal
ly commended by the Solicitor, says
that Mary's car didn’t get to Forsyth
street until after that time. Of course,
the prosecution will answer that
either Epps or Stover was w’rong, and
probably both. In other words, we are
now asked not only to believe Conley
in a story he is telling to save his own
neck, in preference to all the wit
nesses for the defense, but we must
even rejfect these two commended wit
nesses for the State That seems to
be going pretty far.
I think Mrs. White’s story Is true.
She Hays she left there at 11:50 and
left Miss Hattie Hall there at work.
Ia that to be denied now by the State?
I hope not. (Jraham and Tlll&nder
were there when she came, and she
talked there after that for fifteen min
utes with Mr. White I think Graham
and Tillander were slightly mistaken
in their time. They say they got there
at 11:40. If that is correct. Mrs. White
could not have left till 12. She says
she ieft about ten minutes before that
—at 11:50—and that seems reasona
ble. Miss Hattie Hall could hardly;
have closed up her work and got away
much before 12. if any. Say she left
at 11:55. Conley says Quinn came in
before Mary’ Phagan. and that Mon*
teen Stover came afterward. These
things can not be made to "flt." They
are impossible. Now, what Is the ex
planation? Mine 1h that Conley's
whole story was a fabrication, built
up from the necessity that grew out of
discovery that he was the author of
the murder notes. What is the State’s
explanation?
In his published argument the So
licitor makes no effort at all to recon
cile these Impossibilities. He makes
no reference to them. On their face
they deserve to be considered. The
girl couldn't possibly have got there
before 12:05 If she did, it is incon
ceivable that the incidents narrated
by Conley could have happened in the
fifteen minutes between Mrs. White’s
departure and Monteen Stover's arri
val.
These problems confronted the
prosecution at the trial. They were
in evidence when the State closed In
chief. The defense was then Intro
ducing testimony for a wepk or more
When the defense closed, the State
put in no evidence to rebut its own
evidence in chief, but it did put in
some testimony that could not have
had any purpose except to substitute
a conjecture that there was or may
have been an error In the clocks.
One Kendrick testified that he was
once upon a time night watchman at
the factory, and that at that time the
clock varied from three to five min
utes. He does not tell us when this
wan, nor which way the clock varied,
nor in how long a time, nor which
clock. On cross-examination when
he was pressed to say which way the
variation was, he said it varied both
ways,
It is not easy to be patient in com
menting on that sort of testimony. It
is even less easy to believe. Here
were two clocks by which 200 people
registered their time and drew their
pav. They were side by side. Any
want of accuracy in them would have
provoked a revolt, and especially If
they did not agree. There would have
been a hundred witnesses. It would
be known exactly w'hlch clock varied,
which way, and when; and we w’ould
not be asked, as we are asked now’, to
hang a gian on a conjecture, in the
teeth of the State’s testimony, and
without being even told w’hich way
the conjecture Jumna.
Conley was a more definite witness
for the Btate on the clock question
than Kendrick. Accustomed as he
was to supplying all needed facts to
meet emergencies, he came out about
it. without dodging like Kendrick did,
and tells us flat-footed that th* right-
hand clock was ten minutes fast. If
that Is m. and as Conley’s testimony
is always credited when there is a
conflict, the question recurs—which
clock did Monteen Stover look at? If
«he looked at the clock that w r as
right, if makes r*o difference what
ever about the wrong one. If she
looked at the clock that was W’rong
the dilemma of the State is made
worse; for. Instead of getting there
two minutes before Mary Phag&n’s
car got to Forsyth street, she got
there at 11:55, and the consequence
follows that, if Conley told the truth.
Mary Phagan’? murder was accom
plished nt the pencil factory twelve
minutes before her car reached For
syth street 1,016 feet away.
Clearly the clock theory won’t ex
plain it. Conley might be prevailed
on to say yet that the clock was ten
minutes slow'. Tn that event Monteen
Stover reached the factory at 12:15,
and it still w’ouldn’t do; for if Mary
Phagan reached Forsyth street at
12:07, ^nd you allow five minutes to
put her at the factory door (1.016
feet), and one minute to go upptairs
and into the office (about 140 feet),
and then give her time to get her pnv
envelope and start off. and come
buck, and bsk about the metal, you've
still got Monteen Stover on your
hands before Frank ha? had time to
take Mary back 200 feet to the metal
room and go through the prelimina
ries that must have preceded the
scream.
And even If she had gotten back
there, surely Monteen Stover, up
stairs, could have heart! the scream
as well as Conley downstairs. There
is no escape from the logic of these
facts. Conley’s trtory was an utter
fabrication. Sh* came down from the
office and into the da^k lumber room
where he was lurking and there he
saw her Just what happened or how,
I can not even guess in detail, but
there or somewhere else, he attacked
her. and it w f as Conley and no one
else who strangled her Innocent
young life.
5. The Interruption by Visitors.
By all the mandards of human
knowledge, the visit of Miss Corinthia
Hall and Mrs. Emma Freeman took
place before 12 o’clock. If they were
not out and gone before 11:50, the
impossibility of the account of the
actual murder, as told by Conley, Is
even more certain. They left before
Mr* White left, most probably about
11:45, <»r a few minutes later. There
ar#* a dozen witnesses to that effect.
In his argument the Solicitor himself
says they left Juwt about the time I
state. even made it the basis of
his argument on the subject of
Quinn’s visit. In order to make this
clear, I must, by way of Inducement,
r#*ff*r to the testimony of one witness
for the defense Quinn testified thnt
he dropped in that day about 12:20.
but stayed but a minute or two and
then left finding Frank at work at his
book? The prosecution would have
denied that Quinn was there at all.
and claimed that he lied entirely, but
they couldn’t do that because the im
peccable Conley had said that Quinn
was there just before Mary Phagan.
So the prosecution undertook to prove
that Quinn’s visit was before 12. The
only way they could do it was by
contending that Miss Corinthia HaU
and Mrs Freeman left before 12. be
cause they claimed to have met Quinn
afterward at a restaurant, and he
told them he had been up to see
Frank.
While these matters are referred to
a? connected with evidence for the
defense. I am within my promise, be
cause T get them from the printed
volume of the Solicitor’s argument.
He is authority for the fact that thes*»
ladies came and left before 12
o’clock. That, therefore, is a ques
tion about which there can be no
doubt.
In Conley’s account of what hap
pened he fixes the time of his coming
upstairs as very shortly before 1
o’clock After he had been back, at
Frank’s command, and found the
dead body, he came forward to the
head of the step? where Frank was
waiting for him. and it was 12:56
Th.it hour he fixed a? early as May
24. and he always stuck to It. After
that he says they took the body dow’n
and concealed it and came back and
eat down in the office to arrange for
h subsequent program Then It was
that Frank exclaimed, looking out to
ward the stairway: "My God. here is
Emma Clarke and Corinthio Hall,"
and proceeded to hide Conely In the
wardrobe, during a visit that Conley
fixes as lasting somewhere from seven
to eight minute*.
If the prosecution made any effort
to reconcile thi? discrepancy. It has
escaped my attention. In his argu
ment the Solicitor made no explana
tion whatsoever. He himself in that
argument not only conceded that this
visit occurred before 12 o’clock, but
made that fact the basis of his
effort to discredit Quinn. The Im
possibility of its happening after 1, h»
Ignored; and so did the Jury.
No explanation is possible, except
that Conley lied, or they came back
again. But the evidence Is not that
way. There is no hint in the record
that they came back. And people
ought not to be hanged on conjecture,
and especially when conjecture is un
necessary, because Inquiry can easily
b« made.
Why w’as Conley ever allowed to
tell such an Impossible story? I do
not know The only conjecture pos
sible is that before the trial It wag not
known just when these ladies were
there. At the trial their testimony
came after Conley's, but Mrs. White
and Holloway had already told, when
Conley testified that their visit was
before 12. But. while I can not guess
an explanation for this baJd fabrica
tion. it w’as obliged to be a fabrication.
Conley says he was keenly on watch
from 11 o’clock until 12, and tells who
he saw go up and who he saw come
down, or pretends to. He says he
saw’ Darley then, though, in fact, Dar
ley left at 9:40 and while Conley was
at the laundry. He says he saw Hol
loway come down and leave. Hollo
way met Miss Hall and Mrs Freeman
as heleft, between 11: 30 and 11:45, and
the Solicitor is authority for this.
They came in a very few minutes aft
er Holloway left: and yet Conley
didn’t see them. Will those who be
lieve so strongly In Conley as to repu
diate all testimony that conflict* with
his story, even testimony of the
Htate’s witnesses, go also to the ex
tent of repudiating the argument of
the Solicitor himself and the facts on
which he based It?
There Is a matter in the history of
the cose that points very conclusively
to the origin of the story of hiding
Conley In the wardrobe. In the early
stages of the investigation the detec
tives had not settled down to any defi
nite theory, except that Frank was
guilty. They were working on the
hypothesis at one stage that Mary’
Phagan went there by agreement to
meet Frank; or, at least, that she was
not unwillingly In his office between
12 and 1 o’clock. Then they discov
ered that Mrs. White was there dur
ing that time and did not see Mary
Phagan, and found themselves under
the necessity of working out an ex
planation as to why, if she w’as there,
Mrs. White didn’t see her. Where the
rumor came from T do not know, hut I
remember distinctly that the bizarre
theory was put forth, and obtained
considerable currency, that when thus
Interrupted Mary herself was hidden
in the wardrobe. I am not sure, but
there was something like that pub
lished in one of the extras.
When we consider how th* detec
tives questioned Conley on every con
ceivable possibility, It Is by no means
doubtful that they asked him about
the wardrobe story, and so this fancy
found lodgment in his brain and grew
there. We have their own testimony
that they put the meshbag fancy In
his head by questions, and that after
ward he told that. They asked him
about the parasol on May 29, and he
denied seeing it. On the witness stand
’their question had ripened into his as
sertion. The story of hearing her
scream came from them. He denied it
on May 29. and yet testified to the
Jury that he heard it. They must have
asked him about the stamping, for
they say he denied hearing it. Yet on
the witness stand it was a. large part
of his story. They asked him If there
was not a plan considered to bum the
body, and he said he knew nothing
about It. Yet he testified at length
about it at the trial. There is no way
of knowing how much of Conley's
story was built up that way. The in
stances I have mentioned we know
came from their questions, and we
know that the idea of hiding some
body in the wardrobe was in existence
before Conley told it on May 28.
However the story originated, it
certainly was untrue, as appears from
the testimony of the State's witnesses
and the argument of the Solicitor as
to the time of the visit. But its un
truth is not the sole ground of its im
portance. When you see a conjec
ture com© into existence, with no evi
dence to produce it, a purely mental
concept, and afterward someone tells
it as a fact, it raises the unavoidable
inquiry as to whether there was any
channel of communication between
the guesser and the narrator I have
already shown many such Instances In
which I actually traced the guess, by
living witnesses, from the teller of the
story back to Its origin as a pure guess
in the mind of someone else. As In
stances like this multiply, the proba
bility as to their being told merely to
sustain the guess Increases in a geo
metric ratio
Let me add Just one another. On
the witness stand Conley told of a
thin piece of fabric torn off of a gar
ment and used as a cord to strangle
his victim. At the place where he
say? he found the body there was no
blood, and he says of this fact (brief
of evidence, page 55): "The cloth was
also tied around her neck, and part
of it WAS UNDER HEAD. LIKE TO
CATCH BLOOD." The improbability
of the idea, that a thin piece of cloth
could stop the stain of blood or check
its flow is obvious, but the inquiry
does not at first strike the mind as to
why Conley should suppose or suggest
such a purpose.
But turn to the daily papers of May
11, where we find the detectives giv
ing out their theories in the interest
of secrecy and caution, a a they so
often and so amazingly do. This was
long before Conley had told his flrsrt
story. The published theory contains
many of the tilings that were at first
pure guesswork, which Conley after
ward, in the final revision of his story,
told as facts that would fit. Among
them wa? this:
That the assailant then pro
cured a cord and looped around
her neck, after which lie dragged
her into one of the small dressing
rooms near by. placing papers or
some old garment beneath her
head to catch the flow of blood.
6. Conley’s Statements as to Timo.
Conley says that after he went up
he was told by Frank that he had
hurt a little girl, and to go back there
and bring her forward. He went,
found her dead, came back and re
ported. As he came back It was
12:56. That hour was in every state
ment Conley made. I do not know its
significance, but when the truth is
ascertained of how and when Conley
Continued on Next Page.