Friday, 27th February 1914: Mrs. Frank Charges Plot, The Atlanta Georgian

Reading Time: 14 minutes [2530 words]

JUST TRIAL ASKED FOR HUSBAND

Mrs. Frank Cites Fairness Shows Becker Because of Character of State's Witnesses.

Charging that a "vile conspiracy" had placed her husband in the shadow of the gallows and citing the recent startling developments in the Phagan mystery to support her accusation, Mrs. Leo M. Frank Friday addressed a letter to the public asking if the courts and officers of Georgia could not be as fair, at least, as those in New York where Lieutenant Charles Becker was granted a new trial because of the low character of the witnesses who testified against him and because of the hostile atmosphere that enveloped the entire trial.

The wife, who has stood loyally by the accused man, voiced her belief that he will yet go free absolutely vindicated.

Cites Hair Evidence.

Mrs. Frank asserted that the whole case against her husband had been based on vague suspicions, perjured testimony, and suppressed evidence. She cited the information in the possession of Dr. H. F. Harris as a glaring and most reprehensible instance of the suppression of vital evidence and asked why he, an official of the State, should withhold knowledge of the fact that the hair found on the second floor of the pencil factory was not Mary Phagan's, as the Solicitor had sought to establish.

She called attention to the Formby affidavit, and to the repudiation of his testimony by Albert Mc Knight to support her claim that a web of lies and perjury had been woven around Frank in the alleged conspiracy to railroad him to the gibbet.

Not to Ask for Life Sentence.

Reports of a contemplated effort to induce Judge Hill to substitute life imprisonment for the death sentence when Frank is brought before him next week said Friday to be without any foundation. It generally is understood among lawyers that Judge Hill, so long as the case remains in its present status, has no alternative but to name the date on which execution shall be carried out.

Solicitor Dorsey is known to hold the opinion that Judge Hill can do nothing but renew the sentence imposed by Judge Roan last August.

Backed by Decision.

He has a decision of the Supreme Court to back him in his contention, which is said to hold that in the event of appeals superseding the sentence, the prisoner still is under sentence, the date simply remaining indefinite until the prisoner again is brought before the trial judge or his successor.

The Georgia Code says on the subject: "Whenever for any reason any convict sentenced to the punishment of death shall not have been executed pursuant to such sentence, and the same shall stand in full force, the presiding judge of the Superior Court where the conviction was had, on the application of the Solicitor General of the circuit, or other person prosecuting for the State, shall issue a habeas corpus to bring such convict before him... and upon the convict being brought before the judge... if no legal reason rests against the execution of the sentence, he shall sign and issue a warrant to the Sheriff of the proper county, commanding him to do execution of such sentence at such time and place as shall be appointed therein, which the Sheriff shall do accordingly."

Resentence Early Next Week.

The remittitur from the Supreme Court was expected to be filed with the Superior Court Friday afternoon. Solicitor Dorsey early next week will ask Judge Hill to set the date for Frank's execution.

That the execution will not be carried out at once is made certain by the preparations of the defense for the filing of an extraordinary motion for a new trial. This may be submitted to Judge Hill before sentence is imposed. If this is done, it will delay, at least temporarily, the resentencing. If the motion is granted, the date for the new trial probably will be set for several months ahead.

Wife Discusses Case.

Here is Mrs. Frank's statement: "To the Public: The editorial in yesterday's Constitution referring to the trial of Becker of necessity compels a parallel between this case and that of my husband. In that of Becker, the atmosphere surrounding the trial, which was denounced by the Court of Appeals of New York as fully set forth in The New York Times of February 25, was occasioned by the conduct of the court, less potent by far than the overwhelming influence of the clamoring mob that surrounded the jury during the trial of my husband, or the hourly extras scattered through the courtroom, proclaiming as truth every false rumor concerning my husband, or the frequent outbursts of the crowds during the course of the trial, all clearly indicating to the jury the temper of the crowd.

"In the case of Becker, the Court of Appeals of New York declined to sustain the conviction on the testimony of criminals, while in the case of my husband, the only testimony connecting him with the crime was that of the negro Conley, a many times convicted criminal and a more often self-confessed liar, whose testimony as finally produced in the courthouse was testified by those responsible for it to be 'a tale made to fit the case.'

Appeals to State's Honor.

"Shall it be said that the people of Georgia are less willing to accord fair play than are the people of New York, as indicated by the decisions of its court? Or is it unfair to say that the people of Russia, in the trial of Beilis, are more disposed toward principles of fair dealing? Or shall the people of this State content themselves to be on a parity with the methods of the Mexican Villa, and receive the just condemnation of all civilized States?

"I fear that there is some misapprehension created by the divided opinion of the Supreme Court. I understand that some misguided people believe and feel that by reason of this decision the Supreme Court of this State has set its approval on the findings of the jury, but I am advised that this is not the fact. That the Supreme Court has merely passed on the questions of law involved, as to whether errors were committed in the introduction of testimony or the ruling of the trial court. The decision of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial was based upon whether a fair trial had been granted, and as to whether or not the jurors were impartial were matters with which the Supreme Court would not interfere. That the trial judge, notwithstanding his refusal to grant a new trial, believed that my husband did not have a fair trial, no man can doubt.

Questions the Motive.

"To what potent influence shall then be ascribed such refusal? Can it be anything but the deep-seated, all-pervading, insistent demand that a victim be offered? And was not this demand created and nurtured by the false statements fed to the public immediately following the murder by interested detectives and seekers after reward?

"The prominence given to the story of the Formby woman caused many good people to be satisfied of my husband's guilt. The detectives pointed to it as absolute proof. The influence of this story upon the public, and its aid in creating the unfavorable atmosphere cannot be conceived; the unlawful arrest of my cook, Minola Mc Knight, and the affidavit which she was forced to give under such trying circumstances, and which, as soon as she was released from imprisonment, she promptly repudiated, was another morsel offered to the public to fortify and strengthen the charge against my husband, and afterward used on the trial of the case to influence the jury by making me, his wife, testify against him by means of this affidavit, although by reason of the law I was compelled to remain silent and refused an opportunity of denying this miserable concoction.

Scores the Solicitor.Notwithstanding Minola Mc Knight had given this repudiated affidavit, it was necessary to place her on the stand on account of the testimony of her husband, and it has been shown how much the testimony of Albert Mc Knight was worth, and yet it served its horrible purpose.

I feel compelled to call attention to the animosity displayed by the prosecuting officer, although at the end of the trial there was some show of tears, caused, it was said, by some sympathy for the family of the defendant. Who will say now that these tears had any such significance?

Anyone reading the trial of Conley, just had, can have no misgivings on this subject. The Solicitor's solicitude about Conley was touching. Only "stern duty" impelled him to ask for conviction. Personally, he desired him to go free, in order that all the opprobrium might be placed on my husband, and so far as he was able by his speech in this case, he endeavored to create this situation. All the testimony in connection with Conley's case, except Gheesling, was placed before the jury by agreement. Selected extracts from the trial of my husband.

The statement of Conley was read by agreement, an unprecedented thing, I am told, in procedure under the law of Georgia, if not that of every other civilized State. And why was this? Conley had heretofore sworn that he was unable to read, therefore he could not, with propriety at this time, read a prepared statement.

Why Didn't He Go On Stand?

Who, may I ask, was unwilling that this negro should go on the stand and make a statement? Since he has been in the county jail no opportunity has been afforded for the rehearsing and fixing of a tale. What might he have said on the stand? How consistent would it have been with the story which he told against my husband? The time since that trial might have effaced some of this memorized stuff, and some inkling of the real truth might have shown through by inconsistent and contradictory statement.

Was it merely because the slight expense might have been saved the State that this unusual thing was arranged by counsel? A fair public will some time determine this correctly.

The testimony of Dr. Harris during the trial of my husband was insisted upon and upheld as that of a great expert. His ability to tell the condition of the stomach's contents by virtue of science was claimed unfailing, and I am assured that in the mind of the public, the testimony given by Dr. Harris on the trial was convincing.

And yet, the testimony connecting my husband with the crime and which must, of necessity, have shown the crime to have occurred on the second floor was based almost entirely, leaving out the story of Conley, on the proposition that the girl's hair was found on the floor.

The Hair Evidence.

This same Dr. Harris, expert microscopist, declared to the Solicitor in advance that the hair taken from the lathe on this floor was not that of the dead girl. And yet, during the trial of the case, with this knowledge derived from this leading expert, the Solicitor was content to take the testimony of one witness who said that the hair "was like the girl's" and argued to the jury that this was absolutely the hair, and concealed Dr. Harris' statement to him.

Was this fair? Does this conduct appeal to the public as one that should merit approbation? In the trial of Conley, the only witness called was the undertaker, and his sole testimony was in reference to the character of the hair found, and the explanation given that the use of tar soap would have changed the texture, color, and shape. Perhaps! Perhaps!

Why was it necessary in the trial of Conley, where both Conley and the Solicitor, as part of the record, admitted the guilt of my husband, to call Gheesling? Did the Solicitor need a message to the public? Was it necessary that he satisfy his conscience to this extent? Why the display on this trial of the venom and animosity toward my husband? To the full extent of his power, he had done him to death.

Sure Time Will Bare Plot.

Why, then, on a trial where everything was admitted by agreement, was it necessary to denounce, again and again, my absent husband the victim of circumstances worked up and shaped by those so unalterably antagonistic to him while trying the only party who has admitted a connection with or knowledge of the crime?

I am sure that time will clearly show the truth, and that this horrible nightmare, for such it seems to me, will pass away, and that a vile conspiracy will ultimately lay itself bare to condemn and destroy those responsible.

I quote the language of the Court of Appeals of New York in granting a new trial to Becker, which I feel sure many will think applicable to that of my husband: "His counsel was hampered and embarrassed; his case was discredited and weakened; full and impartial consideration by the jury was impeded and prevented. He never had a fair chance to defend his life, and it would be a lasting reproach to the State if under those circumstances it should exact its forfeiture."

MRS. LEO M. FRANK

Pamphlet Discusses Notes.

A contribution to the mass that has been written in regard to the slaying of Mary Phagan will be issued Saturday in the shape of a pamphlet discussing the murder notes penciled by Jim Conley and found by the body of the dead girl.

The author is Henry A. Alexander, an attorney. The pamphlet dissects each of the notes and puts forth arguments to show that none but a negro could have conceived and written them. The prosecution in his case, Frank himself, has resumed his line of argument by drawing a parallel between his case and that of Becker, the New York police officer who has just been granted a new trial. Frank, in his latest attack, insists that his trial was illegal.

Will Stand by Retraction.

A part of Frank's latest statement touches indirectly on the testimony of Mrs. Nina Formby, who declared in New York that she was kept intoxicated by representatives of the police department until she made a false affidavit charging Frank with perversion.

A report from New York Friday indicated that she would stand by her absolute retraction of the charges, and the prosecution and the Atlanta Police Department are preparing to combat her new attitude by showing that the affidavit was made in good faith and not under influence.

Chief Lanford, for his part, renewed his declaration that Mrs. Formby is not in New York, and that the alleged retraction was instigated by Harry Latham, who was supposed to have gone to New Orleans. He insists that the Formby statement was obtained in an absolutely regular manner.

"Mrs. Formby herself volunteered the testimony," said the Chief, "and it was duly given, sworn to, and witnessed within 24 hours, so that the 'three weeks' campaign of drunkenness' is about as far from the facts as it would be possible to get."

Frank makes the statement that he was "ambushed" and confronted not only with the main issue in the case the charge on which he was indicted but also with "innumerable other false accusations and insinuations unspeakable."