Newspaper Page Text
2 n
FTEARST ’S ST'NOAY AMERICAN. ATLANTA. 0 A, SUNDAY. MAY 30. 101’
DEMANDS THA T BOARD PROBE CONLEY 9 S STOR Y
Circumstantial Evidence in This Case Is More Consistent With Innocence Than Guilt, He Asserts
{Continued From Page 1.)
*eal of the advocate or the passion
ate conjectures of the partisan. Quilt
•hould not be assumed merely be
cause some fact or set of facts may
be, In the fallible Judgment of par
ticular individuals, consistent with
the theory of guilt, but rather be
cause, and only when, the facts re
lied on are inconsistent with inno
cence, and point to guilt with a force
that can not be broken by reason
able explanation.
There are no such facts as these
against Frank. Passionate seal mav
Insist to the contrary, facts may »»*
conjectured, and facts may be dis
torted or Invented to bolster up such
a contention; but I solemnly protest
that the facts relied on by the pros
ecution will not stand investigation.
Every one of them Is more consistent
with his Innocence than hl« guilt, ex
cept the one solitary statement that
he told Scott on the 28th of A pill
that Gantt knew Mary Phagan. That
fact. If It were true, might have some
bearing in the case, because Frank
had denied that he himself knew
Mary Phagan, and. therefore. If ne
made that statement It would pro 'e
that he did know Mary Phagan. The
overwhelming answer to it Is that
the man who testified to his making
the statement took It back and nd-
mltted that It might have been
somebody else.
The necessary limitations on the
length of this review prevent mv
analysing the alleged circumstantial
evidence and showing its utter flim-
•lness. Fortunately, It Is not neces
sary to do so. For even If the facts
relied on were strong enough to raise
a passing suspicion of his guilt, there
is one consideration that must be
recognized as outweighing every
theory based on the evidence re
ferred to. Conley’s testimony Is the
one central overmastering fact from
which it Is Impossible for the prose
cution to escspe. Conley’s story Is
the most terrific piece of circumstan
tial evidence In this case; and It is a
piece of circumstantial evidence that
can not be put aside or Ignored.
Conley’s story was either true or It
was a deliberate fabrication Mark
that. If It were true, Frank is guilty,
and It Is useless to talk about anv
other circumstance. Put if Conley’s
atorv was false Conley Is the mur
derer. and all the circumstances that
have existed, or been Invented or
conjectured, can not affect the eter
nal verity of that conclusion.
If It can not be shown that Con
ley’s testimony was the moat impu
dent fabrication that ever gulled a
community, 1 shall ask for nothing.
They can not escape from Conley’s
story Upon that story I challenge
the attention of all who love truth and
justice. Upon that story I demand
that the light of reason shine, and
that It be examined and tested by
what Is known and admitted to be
truth.
Everything else that I have to say
shall lead up to an examination of
what Conley testified. And let it be
understood that I do not ask for the
benefit of any doubt; I insist, 1 de
mand that the burden be upon those
who assert before your tribunal that
Conley's story was an utter falsehood
from beginning to end. I start by
conceding that the presumption now
is in it* favor; the presumption la ;
that Conley's story is true. What I !
shall undertake, and what I shall do. j
Is to prove, not merely beyond a rea
sonable doubt, but beyond the shadow
of a doubt, that It was a deliberately
concocted falsehood.
I go further than that. Until I
prove It I shall not call a single wit
ness for the defense, or state a single
fact that depends upon the testimony
for the defense. There were not
less than twenty reputable wltneses
for the defense who testified to facts,
any one of which, if true, makes Con
ley's story Impossible. To sustain
Conley, It was necessary, not only to
assume and contend and believe that
these witnesses testified falsely, but
that they so testified deliberately;
not only that they testified deliberate
ly, but that they did so In pursuance
of a conspiracy elaborately framed for
the purpose of harmonising, ns their
testimony did harmonise, with the
■tatement that was made by Frank
and stenographleally reported In the
very beginning of the investigation.
Surely this case presents some of
the most remarkable features in Ju
dicial annals. Here was a witness to
whom the known facts pointed with
terrific force as the murderer; under
the most powerful persuasion to He;
not merely an admitted perjurer, but
a perjurer boasting of his perjuries;
known by the sure evidence of the
letters he wrote afterward In Jail to
be saturated with a degraded and a
perverted lust; the one person most
likely to have committed such a crime
and the on e who had the best oppor
tunity to commit It. Such a man, con
fessedly to save his own life, tells
the most Improbable and unreason
able story ever heard by a Jury, and
Implicating a man whose whole pre
vious life, eo far as was generally
believed at least, had been without
a stain; yet this witness, under these
conditions. Is believed, and a score
or more of reputable people branded
as conspirators In perjury.
The conditions are hard, but I ac
cept them. Truth is the mightiest
thing In this world; a He Is the most
vulnerable—and I will not call a soli
tary witness for the defense. And I
predict right now—mark the predic
tion, and don’t forget it—that before
this Pardon Board shall complete Its
Inquiries, those who believe In Frank’s
guilt will either abandon that belief
or they will deny the truth of the
witnesses for the State.
I shall take the known facts and
Conley’s story, and out of the‘Internal
evidence furnished by them and by
th » testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution, I shall demonstrate Con
ley’s falsehood with the same mathe-
natical precision w’ith which the as
tronomer, out of the measureless
depths of space can call the elements
that calculate the sun's eclipse.
The Case Against Conley.
1. Shortly before noon on April 26.
1913, Mary Phagan left her home in
the suburbs of Atlanta with the
known purpose of going to the pencil
factory to collect a small sum of
money due her.
2. At 3 o’clock the next morning her
dead body is found in the basement of
the factory building, the victim of a
murder singularly cruel and singular
ly brutal, the body giving evidence
that It had been dragged over dirt
and cinders with a' disrespect
amounting to ferocity.
3. Beside the body are found writ
ings, evidently penned by an Illiterate
person, manifestly Intended by the
writer to appear as though written by
the victim herself, and while she was
ug even while she was being mur-
|rad—evidently intended alio to di-,
p. suspicion toward some negro who
is tall and slim, and probably toward
the night watchman.
4. It is afterward discovered, and is
now known to be Indisputably true,
that these notes were written by a
short, thick-set negro, who, by his
own admissions, has been In prison
seven or eight times within the last
four or five years, known to he of
lustful and drunken proclivities, and
who was at the time of the murder
employed about the factory, and of
unsavory repute.
Whit Is the Natural Inference?
No candid man will deny that these
meager facts here stated would be
accepted In any other case as circum
stantial evidence against the writer,
measuring up to the standards of law
and conscience. Undeniably they
point to the writer as the murderer,
and with such force as leaves no
dOUbt of his guilt, unless he ran offer
some reasonable, credible and con
sistent explanation. I have not stat
ed all the facts that point to Conley;
I have confined the case against him
to those that were ascertained en
tirely without his help, and even
while he was denying that he could
write.
Why the Public and the Police Were
Deceivable.
If. In spite of the tremendous fore©
of these circumstances, the public and
the police did believe Conley and
accept his story, the natural Inquiry
will arise in the mind of every earnest
seeker after truth why it was so.
Within the limits of this appeal It
Is not possible to go at any length
Into this subject; but I may brielly
recall some of the reasons.
The murder was peculiarly aggra
vated Public indignation ran high.
The wildest stories that could be In
vented were circulated without the
slightest foundation Whoever heard
one of them accepted It as fact. In
nocent people were arrested, both In
and out of Atlanta, upon the hare as
sertions of the most Irresponsible
people. To whomsoever the slightest
rumor pointed ns the murderer, the
hearers of reports believed that guilt
attached.
As a specimen of the recklessness
of credulity, when Newt Dee was the
object of suspicion, reputable and ex
perienced experts In penmanship, res
ident In the city, testified most posi
tively that the note* w r ere In Lee's
handwriting Horrible stories of
wanton mutilations obtained currency
and are even yet believed.
During all this time Frank, who
was the last person known to have
seen the victim, and Dee. who had
discovered her bodv, were the most
probable objects of suspicion. Sus
picion gradually ripened Into convic
tion Many of th* stories told that
pointed to Frank, though utterly un
true. have never yet been corrected
hv the police, who knew them to be
false
Perhaps one among the worst of
these was the story, given the widest
currency, that Frank had been over
heard In the station house on the
night of the 29th of April talking to
Dee in language that seemed on Its
face to be the detected confidences of
eo-consplrator«.
It is a startling evidence of the In
justice with which he was treated,
that the men who dragged him out
of his bed at midnight and told him
that they had reason to suspect Dee.
and told him to hold an Interview
with Dee and see If he could not se
cure an admission, and even told him
the very words thnt he was to sav.
have never to this day had the gra-'e
to relieve him of the unjust Imputa
tion by stating the simple facts: and
their course In maintaining such si
lence is the more de^’orable because,
beyond any oiiestlon. the rumors that
grew out of It had ihelr origin with
no one else but them.
They have, indeed, grudgingly ad
mitted some part of the facts, and
have not denied the balance, but the
deadly effect of the rumor still
marches on; and yet Frank has been
criticised since because he refused to
hold nnother Interview' w'lth a sus
pect in the presence of men who
could treat him that way.
The deep-seated belief in the pub
lic mind that was being fostered and
built up by these end other equally
unjust rumors crystallized rapidly
Into conviction, until the public be
gan to lose patience with the police,
and charged them with a lack cf
zeal. Conscious that they were in
deed drawing upon their utmost en
ergies In a sincere purpose to detect
the murderer, the police were sensi
ble of the utter injustice of the attl-
tued toward them and spurred In
consequence, to even more zealous -
Indeed. I might say oversealous ef
forts.
In the midst of it all. and whan
they were meeting criticism by the
boasting assurance that they were
going to detect the criminal.’ boss's
that were couched in such language
as to commit them irretrievably to
the theory of Frank's guilt and a
promise to prove it, there came an
other sensation, growing out of this
case and connected with It, that
brought before the public mind *he
bitter Jealousies that existed between
two rival groups of free lances called
detective agencies and held up 'n
high light equally bitter local politi
cal quarrels disconnected with this
case Into that sensation there came
echoes of South Carolina factional
ism. Dictographs and detectives,
public officers and private citizens
mingled in indistinguishable confu
sion. out of which the only thing that
could be clearly caught was the loud
and irrelevant charge that the de
tective force of Atlanta was trying
to 'shield that Jew.” Already pub
licly committed to *he theory of
Frank’s guilt, the determination < f
the police to prove him guilty was
Jtimulated to a still higher pitch.
When Conley came forward to
charge the guilt on Frank, the police
were in a perfect frame of mind *o
be his dupes, and he humored them
.o the top of their bent
I esn not stop to fully recall all
the cruel and unspeakable slanders
that were circulated. Resolved as T
am to adhere to temnerate speech. I
dare not permit myself to dwell upon
that worst of them all that was cir
culated in respect to the conduct of
his faithful and devoted wife.
The point T am trving faintly to
develop here Is that when the truth
about Conley was discovered neither
♦he police nor the public were In a
frame of mind that mad* It possible
to perceive the trerCenden* Impor
tance of the discovery that he was
the author of the notes that pointed
to the murderer
Facts That Are Certainlv Known.
T have undertaken to demonstrate
with mathematical precision that *he
story which Conley told to break th?
force of this <V“ 'overy was entlrelv
false To do so It is necessary tbit
w# have some certs!* and estab
lished fac's as landmarks hv which
to steer the enuat’en* out of which
f n calculate the unknown
There are such facts, admitted by
all, Indisputable. I propose to put
down at this point three of the most
important of them and emphaslce
their absolute certainty. To them I
desire all the subsequent Investiga
tion to be referred; by them the sto
ry must be tested.
Fact No. 1.
Mary Phagan left her home at
11:46.
I pause here to comment on the
unusual number of witnesses on both
sides who testified to the time of the
happening of events. The suspicion
excited by so much testimony of this
character Is not entirely Justified.
Examination Of the testimony ihowi
that most of the witnesses stated the
time approximately, and that some,
at least who undertook to state th*
time with precision are entitled to
be believed because their reasons for
knowing the time are credible. They
mav he divided Into three groups —
first, those whose testimony Is not
free from suspicion of Intentional de
ception; second, those whose state
ments may be reasonably taken, In
the light of common experience, as
approximately but not exactly cor
rect; third, those who are entitled to
belief as not only intending to speak
truth, but as actually sneaking It
with accuracy and precison.
Of the last-named class, beyond all
question was Mrs. Coleman. She
knew. Her child had eaten the fru
gal meal at the usual and nrobable
hour of 11:30 and had left home at
11:46. Tn \ very fflw hours her
mother love was anxiously on the
lookout for her missing ’ove^ one
All through the watches of that
dreadful night she ws« recalling the
very minute of her child’s departure
Pv daylight she knew the terrible
story. The hour fixed by Mrs. Cole
man must be accepted as established
fact.
Fact No. 2.
Mary Phagan could not by any
possibility have caught a car that
was scheduled to reach Broad street
earlier than 12:07.
Earnest efforts were exhausted to
produce witnesses for the State who
could make conjectures of how the
car might have gotten there a min
ute or two, ahead. The official in
spector for the street car company
testified for the £tate that the sched
ule was 12:07. George Epps was on
the car and saw' Mary Phagan on It.
He testified for the State that It
reached Forsyth street at 12:07 —
Foray th being only 200 feet short c f
Broad. The Solicitor in his argu
ment gave the Imprimatur of his
confidence to Epps. I accept the So
licitor’s Judgment and pin my faPh
to the reasonable and probable story
told by Epps. The car was necessa
rily due at Forsyth street at 12:08}$.
The point from w'hich she got off the
car Is nearly a quarter of a mile
from the pencil factory. One wit
ness for the State testified that it
took six minutes ard another that it
took four and a half minutes to waXk
to the factory.
Fact No. S.
Monteen Stover was in the factory
at 12:06 and left it at 12:10
This Is another witness whose tes
timony as to time la exact and alto
gether credible. Nobody has ex
pressed the slightest distrust of her
veracity. The Solicitor In his argu
ment expresses implicit confidence In
her truthfulness, and I accept it as
a fact beyond controversy that it was
her purpose to tell the truth.
There Is no reason to think that
she was inexact as to the time. She
tells a perfectly reasonable story as
to how she knows it. She says that
she was going there to get her pay,
that the hour for paying was 12
o’clock, that she knew that fact, and
that that was the reason why she
went at that time. She says that she
looked at the clock as she went up;
and it was a natural thing for her
to do. She was a witness for the
State, and if there Is any one fact
established in this case, It is that
Monteen Stover was in the office from
12:05 to 12:10.
1 tender these three facts ns es
tablished truth. They are the immut
able quantities in the mathematical
situation. Upon the absolutely ver
ity, in particular, of Monteen Stover’s
statement, the whole prosecution
hangs. It v,’as dwelt upon as the
most important fact In the case and
for a reason which I will now state
with entire candor. Until that fact
was ascertained, the detectives had
not the slightest hope of showing that
Frank had varied anywhere from the
truth in the statement which he gave
them on the 28th of April. On May
3 they were deliberately exhausting
Industry in the effort to catch Frank
In a lie. Knowing that Monteen Sto
ver was in his office at 12 o’clock
and five minutes, they asked him
whether he was there the entire time
between his return from Montag’s at
11 o'clock and his going up stairs at
12:60 to notify Mrs. White of his pur
pose to go to lunch. He answered,
”Yes.”
By all the standards of detective
logic the trap was sprung. They were
not content to take any chances;
they repeated the Inquiry. “Were
you there every minute from 12 to
12:30?" (Brief of Evidence, page i
24), and he answered, "Yes.”
From that moment the detectives
never doubted their ability to fasten ,
the crime on Frank. No matter how i
much Conley lied afterwards, the
prophecies they had publicly made
were bound, in their opinion, to be
vindicated. They had found one va
riance in the perfect consistency of
all that Frank had said.
It is not necessary to ask for
Frank's explanation of his statement.
The explanation is so obvious that th e
man who needs to have it made would
not have the intelligence to under
stand or the candor to accept it.
The prosecution has never sought
to escape from the fact that Monteen
Stover was in the office at 12 o’clock
and five minutes. They have dwelt
upon it. It has been from the be
ginning the backbone of their case.
Frank had said, on the 3d of May,
that he was In th© office every min
ute of the time from 12 to 12:30.
They knew that Monteen Stover was
there at 12:05. and that Frank was
not. They have stood upon that fact
from the beginning as the strongest
element In their case outside of Con
ley’s story. Now, I *108181 that they
be not allowed to recede from or
evade this fact that they made the
chosen basis of Frank’s conviction.
They must stand on it. We will see
hereafter what part It plays in this
case.
Persons Present in the Factory on
April 26.
In undertaking to show the move
ments of those who were in the fac
tory on the 26th of April I shall, as
In all other matters, stand upon the
testimony offered by the State. If It
were permissible to call the witnesses
for the defense I might add substan
tial and important evidence on this
subject; but I have agreed to prove
H ooper Alexander, of DoKaib County,!
who has made a remarkable plea for commuta- \
tion of death sentence of Leo Erank, at request of his
friends in the legal profession of Georgia.
Frank’s innocence by the State’s own
evidence, and T shall relate here
nothing as x to the presence of any
other person, or the movements of
any other person, except those of
whose presence and movements we
are informed by the witnesses for the
State, leaving out all others, no mat/*
ter how important they may be for
the defense.
April 26 was a holiday, but there
were some classes of work going on
in the factory until noon, and a num
ber of employees and some visitors
there.
At 6:80 the day watchman ar
rived: at 7 White and Denham, car
penters or machinists, came and went
up to the fourth floor and went to
work on pome repair Job that had to
be done. They were shortly followed
by Alonzo Mann, the office boy.
At 8:30 or 8:45 Frank came, opened
the safe, got out his books and went
to work About 9 o’clock Darley
came, an executive superintending
officer of equal dignity with Frank.
About 9:10 a young girl named
Mattie Smith came to correct some
error about her time. She was there
about te n minutes, and Darley fol
lowed her downstairs to the front
door to speak words of condolence in
the matter of her grief over the ex
pected death of her father. At 9:30
by the testimony of one witness, or
9:40 by that of another. Darley left
for the day, going off In company
with Frank, who went, according to
his usual custom on Saturdays, to
Montag Brother.®’ plac? of business to
obtain certain data that was neces
sary in making up the weekly finan
cial statement. Darley left Frank at
the corner and did not return at all
that day or s**e Frank any more. Up
to the time of leaving the factory, as
here stated, Darley says that Frank
had been at work on his books.
At some time, about which Hollo
way declined to be absolutely posi
tive. a one-legged negro drayman
named McCrary was there, and Hol
loway checked up some freight mat
ters with him at the front door.
Shortly before 11 o’clock Miss Hat
tie Hall, stenographer for Montag
Brothers, came In to assist Frank In
some clerical work. At 11 o'clock
Frank returned from Montag’s with a
port of portfolio in his hand, carrying
papers, and found Miss Hall In the
outer office and at work.
Frank says that Alonzo Mann, the
office boy. left at noon, the boy him
self says he left a half hour earlier,
and his statement Is mosrt probably
correct.
Holloway says he left - ‘ 11:45. So
far as appears from the brief of evi
dence. he did not qualify this time
by saying "about." In my opinion,
there is ample Internal evidence for
paying that he must have left a few
minutes earlier, somewhere from
11:35 to 11:40.
About 11:30 Mrs. White came in.
She found Miss Hattie Hall there
writing on tho typewriter, and two
men talking to Frank in the outer of
fice. These were no doubt Tillander
and Graham, who fixed the time of
their arrival at 11:40, and who say
that Ml»s Hattie Hall was there when
they arrived. I think there Is sub
stantial evidence to show that their
arrival was probably a little earlier
than they state. I say so because
Mrs. White says she got there at
11:30 and found them there.
When Holloway left the factory he
met Corlnthla Hall and Emma Clark
Freeman some 200 or 300 feet away,
coming toward the factory. They
stated to him that Mrs. Freeman had
left her wrap on the fourth floor a day
or two before and asked if Frank was
there, and if they could get in. Hol
loway told them that Denham ami
White were at work on the fourth
floor, and that there would be no
trouble about their getting in. While
Mrs. White was waiting for Graham
and Tillander to finish their business
with Frank. Miss Corlnthla Hall and
Mrs. Freeman came, and one or both,
most probably both, started ud to the
fourth floor. In response to an in
quiry from Mrs. White as to whether
she could see her husband. Frank
called up the stairs to Mrs. Freeman
to tell White that his wife was down
stairs. The message was evidently
delivered, for White did come down
in a few minutes, and talked to his
wife for fifteen minutes at the foot of
the stairs that led down from the
third floor and reached the second
floor at a point close to the outer of
fice door and fully visible from the
inner office.
Mrs. May Barrett and her daughter
were there. The time and circum
stance® of their arrival are not given
by the witnesses for the State, but
both of them had been upstairs, and
Mrs. Barrett came down before her
daughter These movements occurred
while White and his wife were talk
ing at the foot of the stairs, in the
main room of the pencil factory and
close to the office door. During the
same time Mis® Hall and Mrs. Free
man left. Miss Barrett came down
stairs. and she and her mother left.
Mrs. White followed shortly after,
leaving at 11:50. After hti departure
there was no one else known to be in
the building except Frank and Miss
Hall, who were In the outer office at
work and Denham and White on the
fourth floor. None of the State’s wit
nesses tell us when Mis? Hattie Hall
left. As she was a witness for the de
fense. I am precluded by the term® of
my agreement from stating what she
says on that subject. I suggest, how-
over. thnt there is» no reason why the
Pardon Board should not send for her
and ask her.
From the time of Mrs. White’s de
parture at 11:50 we have no te^ti-
many from the State’s witnesses as to
what was transpiring uiidl 12:05,
when Monteen Stover arrived and
found nobody in the office. If it be
assumed, however, that Miss Hattie
Hall finished her work and left dur
ing that Interval, and the reasoning
faculties of the human mind be given
any play at all, it is not difficult to
conjecture where Frank was during
the five minutes that Monteen Sto
ver was present, and without discov
ering the slightest difficulty In recon
ciling the statement which he made a
week later that he was in his office
that day all the time from 12 o’clock
until 12:30.
'Let it not be forgotten here, as one
fact of which the importance is now
surely beginning to be manifest, that
Mary Phagan left her home, two or
three miles away, at 11:45; that Mrs.
White left the factory at 11:60; that
Monteen StoVer arrived at the factory
at 12:05, and that Mary Phagan reach
ed a point on Forsyth street at least
an eighth of a mile away at 12:07, and
that somewhere between 11:50 and
12:05 Miss Hall left. I vet it not be
forgotten, either, that White and Den
ham were all this time, and until 3
o’clock, at work upstairs on the fourth
floor; that persons coming up to the
office floor came up into a main room,
from which the office was cut off by a
partition, and upon which the office
door opened; that, going up or coming
down from the third floor, the stair
case reached the bottom Just in front
of the office; that the office door was
visible from the third floor; and that
there was no way by which any rea
sonable man could know' when White
and Denham might have some cause
to come down to the office. Keep these
facts in mind. They are necessary in
order to test all the story in the light
of reason and experience.
I Leaving out any possibility of what
‘ witnesses for the defense might say
as to happenings in that large room
on which the office opened between
the hours of 11.50 and 12:30, atten
tion Is called to the fact that Mrs.
White returned at 12:30. In his argu
ment the Solicitor says she returned
at 12:35. I do not know upon what
evidence he bases this statement, but
I see no particular importance In It,
and I am content that it be taken
either way.
Mrs. White found Frank standing In
front of the safe In the outer office,
with his back to the door. She asked
him for permission to go upstairs and
see her husband. While it is not rele
vant to the present inquiry, I can not
forbear calling attention here to the
fact that one of the alleged circum
stances which point to Frank's guilt is
in what she here says: "He jumped
like I surprised him, and turned and
said, ‘Yes.’ ” And, in answer to a
question by the Solicitor, she added.
"It wasn’t mych of a jump.”
This evidence of guilt is not among
the least important of the chain of
circumstances relied on. The Solici
tor argued, in regard to this chain,
that It should not be measured or
tested by the weakness of the indi
vidual facts that composed it, but
rather by the fact claimed that there
were so many of them.
Mrs. White did go upstairs, and re
mained there fifteen or twenty min
utes. Shortly before 1 o'clock (esti
mated by Mrs. White as 12:50), and
certainly not very long before 1,
Frank went up to the fourth floor and
told Mr. While that he was about to
go to lunch and lock the front door,
and that if Mrs. White desired to
leave earlier than 3 o’clock it would be
well for her to come down then and be
ready to go as soon as he put on his
hat and coat. She followed down the
steps shortly after he left, and as
she passed the office door he wjls sit
ting at a table in the outside office
writing, and did not have on his hat
and coat. As Mrs. White went down
the steps to the street floor she saw’ a
negro in the passageway whom she
did not recognize and whom she said
she would not be able to identify. A
few minutes after 1 she was at a fur
niture store four or five blocks away.
Denham and White rerpained at work
on the fourth floor until 3 o’clock.
I call here one of the State’s wit
nesses who was highly commended
by £he Solicitor as truthful, and who
was indeed one of th* three witnesses
whofce testimony was regarded as
most important in the case. Albert
McKnight testified that Frank was at
home, a point at least two miles
away, at 1:30. If, by the terms of
my agreement, I were permitted to
call the witnesses for the defense. I
could strongly corroborate his state
ment He was very emphatic on this
point and was particular to say that
it was not later than 1:30.
The movements of individuals
which I have been at pains thus to
set out In detail, are not or have not
heretofore been disputed It is not
easy to see how they can be disputed
The number of them present at one
time, the circumstantiality and de
tail of the happenings related by
them, the general character of the
transactions, the reasonableness and
probability of it all, the fact that
there is no conflict between any of
the witnesses on these subjects, are
circumstances which leave no room
for doubt that the movements I have
related are the exact history of the
case.
Every statement that I have made
on the subject comes from the State’s
witness. They are all indorsed by
the Solicitor—some of them indeed
highly commended—all »except one,
and the point on which he incurred
the disapprobation and distrust of the
Solicitor, was a matter wholly unre
lated to what we are now discussing.
I hope that there will be no receding-
on this subject from what has here
tofore been accepted and insisted on
by the State; for these are some more
of the given data in thp problem;
they arc indeed the established facts
of the case, that ought to take the
hangman’s noose off of Leo Frank’s
neck and put it on that of the real
murderer.
Before proceeding to the analysis
of Conley’s story I Invite attention
brieuy now to so much of the his
tory of its evolution as can be deter
mined, not from conjecture, but from
the testimony of the men under w-hose
supervision he developed it
Evolution of Conley’s Story.
The detectives do not seem to have
conceived any distrust of Conley for
several days. On Monday or Tuesday
following the murder he was seen
washing a shirt, and there is some
testimony indicating that he had pre
viously to that time taken away a
pair of overalls and caused them to
be washed and dried, and brought
them back. He was thereupon ar
rested as a suspect, Darley, the su
perintendent, having immediately giv
en notice to the police.
Conley steadfastly denied that he
could write. By the terms of the
agreement I can not tell how' the po
lice derived their knowledge that this
was untrue; but the witnesses for th e
prosecution give us some light on the
subject. One of them tells us that
on the 18th of May they all knew that
Conley could write, and that the In
formation came from the pencil fac
tory. On that day the detectives
"talked very strongly” to Conley,
"used a little profanity, and cussed
him.” This pastime, it seems, oc
cupied them "two or three hours that
day.”
In view of these statements con
cerning their methods, I desire at this
point to draw on Frank’s statement
far enough to give some faint con
ception of what It means. After mid
night on the 29th of April the de
tectives, Black and Scott, took Frank
out of his bed, and after suggesting
to him that they had some consid
erable suspicion of Newt Lee, who
was also in prison with Frank, in
duced Frank to talk with Lee, in the
hope of extracting something.
Complying with their request, and
at their instance, Frank did <talk
w'lth Lee, who was at that time
chained to his chair. He said to Lee
exactly what the detectives told him
to say, and without result.
It was widely published next day
that Frank had been overheard talk
ing with his partner in crime, and the
very words he spoke at Black’s dicta
tion are still, In the minds of many
men, the ground of a persistent belief
In his guilt. After Frank gave It up.
Black took Lee In hand, and of what
followed I call on Frank to testify:
Then it was that I had my first
initiation Into the third degree of
the Atlanta police department.
The way that fellow Black cursed
at that noor old negro. Newt Lee.
was something awful. He shrieked
at him, he hollered at him. he
cursed him, and did everything
but beat him. Then they took
Newt Lee down to a cell and I
went to my cot In the outer
room. • • * Midnight was the
time they chose to talk to me. but
even at auen an outlandish hour I
was still willing to help them, and
at their instigation I spoke to
Newt Leo alone: but what was
the result? They commenced and
they grilled that poor negro and
put words Into his mouth thht I
never said, and twisted not alone
the English, but distorted my
meaning. T just derided then and
there that if that was the line of
conduct they were going to pur
sue I would wash my hands of
them.
I think it may fairly be presumed
that when they say that they used "a
little profanity” on Conlov they were
not milder than (hey had previously
been toward I^ee. This was on the
18th of May. Up to this time Conley
hud Insisted to the detectives that he
could not write. They got pencil and
paper and put It before him and con
vinced him that they knew he could
write—they made him admit it: and
he wrote. Then they questioned him
about his movements on the 26th of
April. The answers were reduced to
writing and signed, and this paper Is
set forth on pace 281 of the brief. It
purported to give a detailed history
of his movements, how much beer he
bought and drank, how much beer
and win* mixed, and how much whis-
kv. where he went and what he did
on the 2f»th of April. There was In It
a complete and sweeping denial that
he was there that day at all. If any
particular suspicion was created by
this statement In the minds of the de
tectives it is not disclosed. They tell
us little or nothing more about Con
ley until the 24th of May.
On that day. after deliberating for
six days ever the peril that obviously
threatened him from the discovery of
his ability to w’lte. knowing, of
course, that even th* detectives would
eventually see the tremendous impor
tance of that fact, he completed in hi<*
mind the fabric of a story that he
thought would be believed, and vol
untarily told it to the officers. It wa«
reduced to writing and is to be found
on page 2S2 of the brief. -
In substance, he declared that he
wrote one of the notes; that at 12:56
on Friday, the 25th of April, Frank
sent for him to come to the office, and
asked him If he could write. It should
be borne In mind at this point that
Frank knew Conley could write, and
that Conlev knew he knew it. He
goes on to tell us that Frank dictated
to him a note beginning. "Dear moth
er,” which he wrote at Frank’s re
quest on white, single-ruled paper;
that Frank then got out from his
desk another scratch-pad of brown
ish paper and himself wrote another
note, which Conley did not read. In
this story will be found a number of
the principal Incidents which Conley
thereafter repeatedly narrated and
testified to on the stand, though not
told in absolutely the same way.
Among them was the story about the
box of cigarettes and the $2.50 In It.
the statement that Frank "was
laughing, and Jollying, and going on.”
and the further statement that Frank
told him that he had wealthy people
in Brooklyn, looked out of the corner
of his eye and asked Conley, "Why
should I hang?"—with a number of
other things, including a wanton and
disrespectful remark about Frank’s
wife—one which, by the way, con
tained an expression curiously simi
lar to one which afterward frequently
occurred In some of the letters that
Conlev wrote in Jail.
While this story appeared at the
time to impress the police, the pub
lic received it with absolute ridicule.
The whole story, as told by Conley.
Implied premeditation, and the theo
ry which had already crystallized In
the minds of the public was utterly
inconsistent with premeditation.
Stunned by the failure of the public
to appreciate their acumen, the de
tectives tried again. On the 25th "we
questioned him very closely for about
three hours." But Conley stuck to
the Friday story; and on the 27th of
May they talked to him again "five or
six hours.”
In believing as I do that Conley’s
final story was not his own. but that,
outside of the facts which he stated
on the 24th, all the rest was driven
into his mind by the questions of the
officers, reiterated and accompanied
by their forcible methods of persua
sion. I am not relying on conjecture;
I am basing 1t on what they them
selves testified. Scott tells us that
during those five or six hours of ar
gument. which he naively denominat
ed as "grilling." they pointed out to
him with great pertinacity the things
that the public had hooted at ar*
rejected—thit "the statement would
not fit"—and explained to him with
great care that the “premeditation"
In It ruined its value, and pressed
him for a better story, Conley in
sisting all the time that he had told
the truth.
On May 28 the heavy artillery was
brought to bear on Conley. Chief
Lanford hlm«elf and the principal lo-
« a L,n!5 re u? nt - tive of the ^nkertons
grilled him five or six hours" \t
last thev beat it into his head that
som/ of his statements were "far
fetched." Those that were fetched
farthest, those that were most obvi
ously and Importantly fetched, they
have never yet seen, but the public
ridicule of the premeditation feature
had taught them that It would not
do and they made him take it out.
He admitted on the 28th that the
absurd story of how Frank had called
in a witness against himself took
place on Saturday; and the second
affidavit, that of May 28, was born.
W’lth the profound confidence of the
detectives In something written and
sworn to, this remarkable document
begins with all the solemnity of a
last will and testament:
"I make this statement, my second
statement.” etc.
It was an elaboration of the af
fidavit of May 24, enlarging it, add
ing new and Interesting details ad
nauseam, and bringing in the mythi
cal story of the lady In green who
••worked for Arthur White,” and who
went upstairs while he was waiting
to hear Frank whistle. The story of
the stamping signal had not yet de
veloped.
This lady In green came down In
the dark passageway and lumber
room on the first floor, where Con
ley says he was hiding, and stopped
to tear open her pay envelope and
to take out her money and count t.
Nobody else ever heard of this green
lady, but she floats through all of
Conley’s subsequent narratives, not
■always exhibiting and counting the
money, but always observed either
gouig up or coming down, and I have
never been able to refrain, when I
read of this myth, from wondering
whether that poor murdered child
didn’t stop In that same dark lum
ber room that she had to pa^s
through and open her pay envelope
there that day by the scuttle hole
Just before that wild beast murdered
her.
But that Is a digression. He went
on to give an account of how he went
upstairs, and how he wrote the first
note for Frank, and wrote it three
times; and how Frank made him rub
out the letter "s.” and gave him a lec
ture on the singular and plural of
nouns: and how Frank slapped him
on the back and called him "Old Boy,”
and exhibited much jollity, while the
body of the murdered child was even
then lying in the metal room, as he
tells us afterward; and how Frank
again wanted to know why be should
hang, and again referred In terms of
disrespect to Mrs. Frank, and a great
dec’ more—some that he had never
told before, and some that he never
told afterward. And when he told in
this statement of how Frank said he
had wealthy people in Brooklyn ho
didn’t forget to add, for the purpose
of showing that he did not invent the
story, that he himself had never be
fore that time known that Frank’s
home was in Brooklyn.
I have not resorted to conjecture in
what I have said, but I can not refrain
at this point from expressing my won
der If that statement about his igno
rance of Frank's home did not come in
answer to some such question as this:
• Jim, you never did know before that,
did you, that Frank came from Brook
lyn?" His statement seems to me as
clearly a reflex of the minds and
thoughts of his grillers, as his state
ment on the witness stand—"A He
won’t work, and you know you have
got to tell the whole truth” (page 67).
When I read that moral platitude
coming from Conley, so foreign a
thing to the grade of his intelligence,
and so utterly Inconsistent with the
story that he told, I can not help turn
ing to the testimony of the detectives
as to their lectures to Conley on the
doctrine of probabilities, when they
explained to him that a lie never fits,
and I wonder how many times they
told him that.
The affidavit of May 28 represented
the full development of Conley’s fabric
of self-defense and the last of his at
titude of antagonism to the detectives.
It was the most elaborate of all his
stories, with the sole exception that
he 3aid not a word about how Frank
confided the murder to him and made
him a needless witness, and nothing
about seeing Quinn or Monteen Sto
ver or Mary Phagan—In fact, he said
he did not see her. On May 29 the
grilling lasted "almost all day.” They
not only tell us that his story was
carefully gone over and analyzed, and
that the consistency and inconsisten
cy of every fact w r as weighed and
tested, but they even tell us In detail
how they did it: "Anything in his
story that looked out of place we told
him wouldn’t do.”
Then he made his last statement—
the affidavit of May 29—and the de
tectives were satisfied and convinced.
They had It all, and it dovetailed and
fit to their complete satisfaction. The
net was perfect. The story was neatly
typewritten, with that demonstrated
impossibility In it about the $200 that
Frank paid him, and was ready for ex
ecution. So well satisfied were the de
tectives as to the reasonableness and
consistency of the story that they
went to trial on it without any fur
ther effort to Improve it, or say they
did, and Scott testified (page 82):
"Since making this statement on May
29, I have not communicated with
Conley and have not seen him.”
The story was finished and type
written and ready to be signed. But
mark. These pastmasters in the
science of probabilities, artists in de
tecting the inconsistences of false
hoods. who had searched out every
weakness in his story—into whose
hands Conley had now committed
himself unreservedly, in the full con
fidence that he had won their favor
by his frankness, and Insured his
safety from the grave peril that came
with the discovery' of his ability to
write, with full assurance that he had
Incurred no worse peril than a brief
imprisonment—these experts in the
art of inquisition, to satisfy whose ex
acting demands for consistent truth,
Conley had furnished a new fact for
every discovered weakness in his
story, to their utter horror, at the
last moment, found that, in spite of
all their care, the story carried oH*
deadly piece of evidence that would
forever defeat its acceptance. Ac
cording to the story as it was type
written, Frank had brought forth a
roll of paper money and presented it
to Conley as a reward for permitting
himself to be ealled as a witness to
the crime. Conley could never es
cape from the necessity of telling
what he did with the fund, and that
fact dawned upon his satisfied In
quisitors.
And^ so the grilling was resumed,
and Conley had to find an explana-
* as readily forthcoming.
\\hether it came from Conley’s un
aided Imagination, or in answer to
searching and suggestive question. I
do not pretent to know; but the ex
planation came.
Frank, who had called up this need
less witness and confided all the deao-
fU LlV >ry *° ^is loyal ears, and even
exhibited the evidence of his shame
Continued on Next Page.