Audio Information
File Name: 1914-04-17-dr-harris-not-certain-of-hair-test-s-accuracy-frank-contention-hit-the-atlanta-georgian.mp3
Modified Date: 2026-06-19 16:32:51
File Size: 4.79 mb
Duration: 00:05:13 (314 seconds)
Bitrate: 128 kbps
Codec: MP3
Reading Time: 6 minutes, [1043 words]
The Atlanta Georgian,
Friday, 17th April 1914,
8th Edition,
PAGE 6, COLUMN 1.
Dr. H. F. Harris, to whom questions were put bearing on his comparison of the strands of hair found on the second floor of the National Pencil Factory with that taken from the head of Mary Phagan, is much less positive that they were not the same than at the time he was quoted first in respect to the matter several weeks ago.
This became known Friday when his answers to the series of questions submitted to him Thursday at the filing of the extraordinary motion for a new trial in behalf of Leo Frank were made public. Dr. Harris had refused to make an affidavit in the form that the lawyers for Frank desired. It was said that he insisted on adding statements which the attorneys regarded as irrelevant. For this reason written questions were prepared for him, which he was required to answer.
Dr. Harris, at the time it became known that he had made a comparison of the strands of hair found on the lathe on the second floor of the pencil factory with that of Mary Phagan, was quoted as saying that they were not the same and that he so had informed Solicitor Dorsey. The Solicitor is said to have told him to "forget" this discovery, as it was immaterial.
Not Certain of Accuracy.
The physician in his answers to the questions appears to withdraw considerably from the stand he was formerly represented to take. He now says that he can not be at all sure of the accuracy of his examination. "I had only 100 sections to examine," he wrote in his reply to the questions of Frank's lawyers, "and this was insufficient for me to reach a thoroughly positive conclusion. I made a microscopic comparison of the two samples of hair. They appeared not to be the hair of the same person, and I so reported it to the Solicitor, but I could not be certain."
About the only statements that Dr. Harris made with any degree of assurance in his set of answers were his declarations that the hair found on the lathe was that of a girl or woman and of a Caucasian.
Of his comparison with the hair of Mary Phagan he said: "It resembled so much the hair of Mary Phagan that it was impossible to say that it was not her hair. On the other hand, there was a slight difference in the shade and shape, but no difference in the texture.
Every Person's Hairs Differ.
"I compared the color with the naked eye, but there was not a sufficient quantity to do this with accuracy."
"I have recently examined hair microscopically taken from other persons, and I find that individual hairs taken from the same person differ as much in shape as the samples given me by Mr. Dorsey."
"I told Mr. Dorsey that it was my impression that the two samples of hair were different, but I added that I could not be certain of this."
Dr. Harris would not say that Solicitor Dorsey had told him to "forget" the result of his examination.
"I recall speaking about it in the presence of the Solicitor, Dr. R. T. Dorsey, and possibly others," he swore in his series of answers, "but I can not answer as to what Mr. Dorsey said in case the hair was mentioned."
Knows Nothing of Missing Hair.
The physician was also unable to clear the mystery of the disappearance of the strands of hair that were found on the second floor of the factory. He said that he returned them to the Solicitor's assistant, E. A. Stephens, and beyond that knew nothing of what became of them. When they were called for at the trial it was said they had been lost.
Solicitor General Dorsey returned to the city from Valdosta Thursday night. Discussing the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that Frank was held in jail when the verdict was rendered, he said that this was done over his protest and at the request of Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, counsel for the accused.
"The court told me that Frank himself had requested that he be held at the Tower when the verdict was rendered," said the Solicitor. "I did all in my power to have him present."
Mr. Dorsey did not reach his office until noon, when he went into conference with Detectives Starnes and Rosser.
May Talk Later, He Says.
"I may have something to say about the Frank case later in the day," he announced before beginning the conference."
Lawyers were interestedly discussing Friday the sensational development of the case in the filing of the motion to set aside the verdict in the Frank case on the ground that the defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights in not being in court at the time the verdict was rendered.
The suggestion of a possibility that the lawyers for Frank might be estopped from making the motion at this time because the case already had been carried to the Supreme Court and the point had not been raised, was met by the citation of the case of Nolan against the State in which similar conditions arose.
In this case, after the motion for a new trial had been made, the case was carried to the Supreme Court, which was asked for a suspension of judgment on the ground that the defendant was not in court at the time the verdict was rendered. The Supreme Court decided that judgment could not be suspended on this ground, but that a plea to set aside the verdict, had it been asked, must have been granted.
Loophole Seen for Accused.
This plea later was made to the lower court and was denied. The case again was carried to the Supreme Court, the members of which at once held that the lower court should have sustained the defendant in his plea.
The effect of the motion to set aside the verdict, in the event that it is granted, will be to place Frank in a position where he may plead "second jeopardy" should the State attempt to place him on trial again on the charge of murder.
Detective Burns had not returned to Atlanta Friday.