Saturday, 2nd May 1914: Detective Burns Grilled By Dorsey For Over An Hour, The Atlanta Journal

Reading Time: 6 minutes [1072 words]

In the presence of Judge Hill, Solicitor Dorsey secured a detailed account of Detective William J. Burns' work in the Frank case during a special examination on Saturday morning. Burns, who was on the witness stand, was questioned for over an hour about his involvement in the Mary Phagan murder case. The solicitor's questions indicated that he had closely monitored Burns' activities in Atlanta and other cities since he became involved with the case.

Dorsey established that all evidence discovered by Burns or his agents had either been incorporated into the case record or was in the possession of the defense attorneys. Burns confirmed that he had no further evidence, whether physical, documentary, or testimonial, that had not already been disclosed. He also stated that, to his knowledge, the defense had no witnesses whose testimony had not been introduced into the case. Burns admitted that he had not discovered any proof of a crime committed by Jim Conley.

During cross-examination, Burns claimed that his work had been hampered and blocked in a surprising manner. He cited the Monteen Stover and Jim Conley incidents as the most egregious examples of obstruction. Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, representing the defense, elicited these statements from Burns. However, Judge Hill intervened, stating that he would not allow questions that reflected on the jury's verdict or the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court.

Dan S. Lehon, another Burns agent, was subpoenaed to appear before Judge Hill, but his examination was postponed until Monday. Burns arrived in court five minutes late, accompanied by Attorney Arnold. Arnold requested that the examination follow the regular form prescribed by the code, with questions submitted in writing, but Judge Hill overruled this motion.

Burns confirmed that he was employed to investigate the murder of Mary Phagan by attorneys Leonard and Herbert Haas, who represented Leo Frank. He had been paid for his services, with no payment contingent on the outcome of the case. Burns had visited Frank in jail and concluded that Frank was not a pervert, a judgment he felt confident in making based on his experience with criminal classes.

Burns labeled Conley a pervert based on the letters he allegedly wrote to Annie Maude Carter and the mutilation of Mary Phagan's garments. He compared the letters to the so-called murder notes and, despite not being a handwriting expert, believed they were written by Conley. Burns described Conley as a sexual pervert who satisfied his passions in an unnatural manner and suggested that Conley's perversion might have driven him to murder.

The examination also touched on Burns' interactions with other individuals involved in the case, such as Aaron Allen and Charles Isom. Burns denied certain allegations, including leaving money on a table to influence Allen and paying Isom for his trip to Chicago. He also discussed his interactions with Carlton C. Tedder, who was working on the Conley case under the direction of Lehon, one of Burns' lieutenants.

Burns admitted that he did not receive all reports from his agents, with some reports going to local manager Sears and another agent, Hause. He clarified that he did not direct his activities solely toward convicting Conley and exonerating Frank but was employed to work on both cases.

The solicitor questioned Burns about various "alley propositions," where individuals claimed to have been in the alley behind the pencil factory on the day of the murder. Burns mentioned hearing of hundreds of such claims and expressed skepticism about their validity. He also discussed the Ragsdale matter, which he had been informed about by Lehon, but he had advised Lehon to take it to the attorneys for further investigation.

Burns detailed his work on the case, which included reviewing the brief of evidence, examining the factory, interviewing witnesses, and examining Mary Phagan's garments. He reported to the attorneys that no additional evidence beyond what was already in the record was needed.

In response to the solicitor's questions, Burns confirmed that he had no further physical, documentary, or testimonial evidence that had not been turned over to the defense. He was reporting to the defense attorneys daily and had last spoken to them that morning.

Attorney Arnold then questioned Burns, who stated that he had faced extreme difficulty in conducting his investigation due to public prejudice and reluctance to tell the truth. Burns believed that Jim Conley was unquestionably guilty of the murder based on his investigation. Judge Hill again intervened, preventing Arnold from asking questions that reflected on the jury's verdict or the Supreme Court's decision.

Burns explained that he had concluded Conley was a pervert based on the vile content of the letters he wrote and the manner in which Mary Phagan's clothing was mutilated. He denied using improper methods to obtain evidence and noted that he had been besieged by people offering absurd claims as evidence.

During redirect examination, Burns cited the Conley and Monteen Stover situations as examples of obstacles in his investigation. He mentioned that some lawyers, including the solicitor, had been unwilling to discuss the case with him, which led him to believe they were not open-minded. Burns also noted that defense attorneys had advised him that certain witnesses were inaccessible.

The examination concluded with Burns leaving the stand, and the solicitor announced that he would examine Lehon on Monday morning. Dorsey also stated that he planned to present the Frank case to the grand jury the following week, if time permitted, and mentioned that his men were searching for Jimmy Wrenn, Eubanks, and Lynn, individuals connected to the defense.

In a separate incident, Detective Burns was driven out of Marietta after being attacked by a crowd. While en route to Cedartown, Burns and Lehon's car had a tire blowout in Marietta. Burns was recognized and assaulted by Robert Howell, who struck him and threatened him with a knife. The crowd forced Burns to seek refuge in the Whitlock Hotel, while Lehon found safety with a deputy sheriff. Eventually, Burns was allowed to leave Marietta under the protection of Judge Morris and T. M. Brumby.

Burns later commented that the attack was unprovoked and did not represent the better elements of Marietta and Cobb County. He vowed to continue his work on the Frank case despite the incident. Meanwhile, J. E. Duffy, a witness for the defense, was arrested by an attach of the solicitor's office after refusing to cooperate with the solicitor's assistants.