Reading Time: 73 minutes, [13459 words]

Nellie Wood: What She Said Leo Frank Did to Her, What the Murder Jury Never Fully Heard, and Why the 1914 Defense Affidavit Raises Serious Questions of Forgery

C. W. Burke, Witness Pressure, Frank's Reputation for Lasciviousness, and the Wider Fight Over Defense Affidavits

By Art Daniels

September 12, 2026

Nellie Wood’s story in the Leo Frank case is not just about a witness who gave the appearance of having contradicted herself in a defense affidavit of March 1914 that was disputed as a forgery by Hugh Dorsey.

Without nuance and closer inquiry, that becomes a convenient way to dismiss her story.

I do not think this controversial episode is nearly as clear-cut as it first appears. The contradiction was largely one of appearance, not necessarily of substance. When I put everything Nellie Wood said into chronological order, her story gets worse for Leo Frank, not better. A closer examination suggests she may have been describing different parts of the same episode rather than changing her story.

At the same time, I remain skeptical of the later 1914 affidavit. It raises a different question altogether: whether the supposed contradiction in Wood’s account was really a contradiction at all, or whether it may reflect a repeated defense pattern of going back to damaging witnesses and trying to narrow, soften, alter, or recast what they had originally said into something more favorable to Leo Frank.

That does not mean every difference in wording was manufactured, or that every later statement should automatically be rejected. It does mean the 1914 affidavit deserves to be examined carefully, especially when it is compared line by line with what Wood had said earlier and with the circumstances under which each statement was given.

Nellie Wood’s Recounting of Sexual Harassment at the Pencil Factory Upon Employment by Leo Frank

The original incident dates to around March 1911. As Nellie Wood later retold it in 1913, and as the episode was revisited again through conflicting affidavits in 1914, she was a young working-class woman who had been employed at the National Pencil Company for only two days. Wood said she left the factory after those two days because of what she described as aggressive sexual advances and unwanted touching by Leo Frank.

Wood said Leo M. Frank got her alone inside his private business office at the National Pencil Company, made her sit down, told her nobody was coming into the office, put his arms around her, tried to touch her breast, and made another advance involving her “lower limbs” and dress. According to Wood’s own recounting of the episode, this was not just simply about an uncomfortable conversation, or an innocent misunderstanding between an employer and a young female employee. She described physical contact and sexual advances serious enough, she said, to cause her to leave the National Pencil Company after working there for only two days (Georgia Supreme Court, 1).

Coroner's Inquest

Wood recounted the episode under oath at the coroner’s inquest on Thursday, May 8, 1913, when she dated the original incident simply as having happened “two years ago.” So by May 1913, while the Mary Phagan murder investigation was still underway, Wood was already publicly recounting an episode that she placed in the early half of 1911 when she was in her late teenage years, about 18 or 19 years old.

Last Days of the Month Long Trial

The original incident surfaced again during Leo Frank’s murder trial on Tuesday, August 19, 1913, when Solicitor Hugh Dorsey tried to place the fuller account before the jury. In other words, Wood’s story was not something that suddenly appeared years after Frank’s conviction, after memories had faded, or after the case had passed into history. She was talking about Frank’s alleged conduct toward her while the murder case itself was still being investigated and tried.

Two Affidavits, One Questionable Defense Affidavit: Was Wood’s Disputed Affidavit the Ole “Switcheroo?”

Then the story took another turn in 1914, and this is where the Nellie Wood record becomes more difficult and, in my view, far more interesting. In a defense affidavit made public in The Atlanta Journal on Sunday, March 15, 1914, Wood appeared to soften, narrow, or recast much of what had previously been attributed to her. This is where the apparent contradiction really enters the record.

But it did not end there.

Several weeks later, in another affidavit reported by The Atlanta Journal on Friday, May 1, 1914, Wood swung back toward her earlier account, reaffirming that Frank had made indecent proposals to her, had laid his hands on her, and had told her he was “not like other men.”

That later affidavit is one reason I remain skeptical of the easy claim that Nellie Wood simply contradicted herself and can therefore be dismissed. There was not just an earlier story followed by one clean recantation. There was Wood’s 1913 sworn account, then a substantially different March 1914 defense affidavit, followed only weeks later by another 1914 affidavit reaffirming the damaging substance of her earlier account.

So how did the defense come to possess an affidavit bearing Nellie Wood’s name that apparently contradicted what she had previously said, only for Wood to come back several weeks later and reaffirm the damaging parts of her earlier story?

That is where my question about the ole “switcheroo” comes in.

By “switcheroo,” I am not saying that I can prove somebody literally switched one piece of paper for another while Nellie Wood was looking the other way. I am asking what actually happened during the preparation, reading, presentation, and signing of that defense affidavit.

There are several possibilities.

Wood could have been handed an affidavit prepared by somebody connected with the defense and signed it without carefully reading every sentence. Someone could have interviewed her orally, taken portions of what she said, and then drafted the affidavit in language more favorable to Frank than the words Wood herself had actually used. A qualification could have been removed. A phrase could have been added. Several statements could have been rearranged or joined together in a way that changed their meaning. Something Wood expressed uncertainly could have been written down as a flat statement of fact.

And then there is the more serious meaning of the “switcheroo.”

Could Wood have been shown or read one statement, agreed with what she believed she was signing, and then, through confusion, substitution, or sleight of hand, signed a different or altered version? Could she have been shown certain pages but not others? Could she have signed a final page without going back through the entire affidavit? Could wording have been changed after she had already agreed generally to the substance of what she thought the affidavit contained?

I am not saying any one of those things has been proved. I am saying they are legitimate questions raised by the sequence of the documents themselves.

There is also a less dramatic possibility. Wood may simply have trusted whoever prepared the affidavit. An affidavit bearing a witness’s signature does not necessarily mean the witness personally sat down and chose every word appearing on the page. Lawyers, investigators, stenographers, or other people involved in preparing a case could take a witness’s oral account and reduce it to written form. The real question then becomes whether the finished document accurately reflected what Nellie Wood actually said and believed.

And that brings us right back to the later affidavit.

If Wood really intended in March 1914 to withdraw or substantially repudiate her earlier accusations against Frank, why did another affidavit appear only several weeks later in which she once again reaffirmed that Frank had made indecent proposals to her and laid his hands on her? Why does her account appear to move away from Frank’s damaging conduct when the defense affidavit appears, and then move back toward her earlier story when the later affidavit enters the record?

Was Nellie Wood simply an unreliable witness who changed her story back and forth?

Or was the problem somewhere in the preparation, wording, procurement, or presentation of the defense affidavit itself?

That distinction should not be brushed aside.

Put everything back into chronological order, from the incident remembered around March 1911, to Wood’s sworn recounting in May 1913, to the fuller account Solicitor Hugh Dorsey tried to place before the murder jury in August 1913, then to the substantially different defense affidavit in March 1914, and finally to Wood’s later reaffirming affidavit by May 1, 1914, and the supposed contradiction begins to look considerably less straightforward.

The differences are certainly there. Nobody needs to pretend otherwise. But the differences themselves need explaining. Where did they come from? Who prepared the March 1914 affidavit? Who supplied its language? Did Wood read the entire document before signing it? Was it read aloud to her? Who witnessed the signing? Did she understand every statement attributed to her? And did the paper eventually presented as her affidavit accurately reflect what Nellie Wood herself had actually said?

Those are the questions behind my use of the phrase “ole switcheroo.” It is not a declaration that a paper substitution has already been proved. It is a question about how one unusually favorable defense affidavit came to sit between Wood’s earlier damaging account and another affidavit, only weeks later, that returned to the damaging substance of what she had said before.

That is why I am not prepared to look at the March 1914 defense affidavit, say, “Nellie Wood contradicted herself,” and close the book on her as an unreliable witness. The chronology does not let me get off that easy.

Two years After the 1911 Incident Mary Phagan was murdered.

Suddenly what Nellie Wood said happened to her in Frank's private office became part of the Mary Phagan murder investigation.

Wood testified under oath.

The Atlanta newspapers reported what she said.

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey later tried to get her specific experience with Frank before the murder jury. Frank's lawyers objected. Judge Leonard S. Roan ruled that Dorsey could prove Frank's general bad character and reputation, but he could not use character evidence as a back door for proving one specific alleged sexual act after another (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Then Frank's defense investigation came looking for Nellie Wood.

Wood later said an unidentified man offered her money if she would swear to certain things favorable to Frank. She said L. P. Eubanks told her she could make “lots of money” working on the Frank case. She said C. W. Burke, an investigator gathering evidence for Frank's defense, came to her, told her the court had ruled her evidence out, and “insisted” that she give him an affidavit (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Then came the affidavit published in the Atlanta Journal on Sunday, March 15, 1914.

All of a sudden the whole story was dramatically turned upside down.

The same Nellie Wood who had accused Frank under oath of unwanted sexual and physical advances was now supposedly saying Frank was a:

“perfect gentleman”

who had:

“in no way insulted her”

and whose conduct toward her had been:

“upright and manly” (AJ, 10).

“Manly!” It’s such an odd and contrived word in this usage for the incident that too many neutral observers and students of the Leo Frank case tend to pause, squint a little, tilt their head slightly to the side, wrinkle their forehead, and make that curious facial expression, mouth slightly open in a small O-shape, that seems to say, “What?!” before going back, reading it a second time, and coming away a little more skeptical than before.

The image of an older married man whom Nellie Wood accused in 1913 of trying to molest a teenage girl back in 1911 is suddenly, after a year of reconsideration, reframed as simply softened as behaving in a “manly” way. An alleged sexual advance is almost transformed into a harmless getting to know each other workplace encounter between two familiar gender roles: the macho, assertive boss and the young, sensitive woman. That is what makes the word so curiously jarring. “Boys will be boys!” The new sense is that Frank had no bad intentions at all. It was almost a kind of workplace bonding experience where sometime people bump shoulders in passing by, a playful office antics between a boss and a young employee, with a few personal barriers crossed but supposedly no harm intended.

The word “manly” does not directly deny what Wood originally described. It subtly retranslates the whole episode in reconsidered hindsight, changing unwanted sexual and physical conduct into something masculine, flirtatious, jokey, conventional, almost courtship-like, but without any serious long term romantic intention.

The alleged molestation has not exactly been denied, it's now no-longer insulting. It has been made more socially acceptable, almost a clumsy attempt at courting closer workplace friendship and a lite bonding experience, rather than an unwanted advance that crossed the line. Almost as if to say: he was being manly, he was harmlessly courting her in a workplace sense, she misunderstood his friendly flirtyness, and the whole thing was just an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The Mysterious Reversal

The post-trial defense affidavit, appearing about a year later, did not take Wood’s earlier story any farther.

It went in the opposite direction.

Her sworn 1913 inquest testimony described unwanted physical and sexual behavior.

The March 1914 defense affidavit made a U-turn, recasting the same encounter as innocent workplace reassurance. Just a little “hardy har har.”

Her original story said Frank got too familiar.

The defense affidavit recast him as a perfect gentleman.

Her original story said she resisted him and quit.

The defense affidavit said he had never insulted her.

Same woman. Same encounter. Two very different versions of what happened.

Then, less than two months later, on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, Nellie Wood went back into open court, took the oath, and Dorsey asked her why she had quit the National Pencil Company.

Wood answered:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank” (AJ, 16).

There is the problem.

The March affidavit said Frank had “in no way insulted her.”

Wood, back under oath in May, said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

Both statements cannot be true in the ordinary meaning of those words.

Something does not add up.

I do not think the March 15, 1914 defense affidavit can be treated like some magic eraser that wipes away everything Wood said before and after it.

The original accusation came first.

It was detailed.

It was under oath.

Wood later again called what Frank had done an:

“indecent proposal.”

Then people connected with the defense came around.

Then came talk about money and employment.

Then Burke “insisted” on an affidavit.

Then a defense affidavit appeared going in the opposite direction from Wood's sworn accusation.

Then Wood went back into court and put the accusation right back on the record.

That is the story.

And I think it deserves a hard look.

NELLIE WOOD AND THE NATIONAL PENCIL COMPANY

The National Pencil Company operated at South Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia.

Leo Frank himself gave his place of business as 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street in the statement he gave investigators on Monday, April 28, 1913, later introduced at his murder trial as State's Exhibit B (State's Exhibit B, 5).

Frank's private office was on the second floor toward the front of the building. It was window front. It overlooked South Forsyth Street.

Nellie Wood said she worked for Frank for only two days.

Two days.

That was it.

Her coroner's-inquest testimony dated the incident:

“two years ago in March.”

That places it around March 1911 (Georgia Supreme Court, 1).

There has also been confusion over Wood's age.

Some later accounts have called her sixteen.

I am not using that.

When Wood was questioned in open court on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, she gave her age as twenty-two (AJ, 16).

That comes from Wood herself.

If she was twenty-two in May 1914, she was probably around eighteen or nineteen when the incident happened in March 1911, depending upon her birthday. I still have not looked up her birthday in the census data. 

There is no reason to shave a few years off her age.

The record is bad enough as it stands.

NELLIE WOOD'S ADDRESSES

Wood's addresses also change in the record, which makes sense because she moved.

At the coroner's inquest on Thursday, May 8, 1913, she gave:

8 Corput Street (Georgia Supreme Court, 1).

At Frank's murder trial on Wednesday, August 20, 1913, she gave:

28 Ormewood Park (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

During the May 1914 proceedings, Wood said she had lived during the previous year at:

8 Essie Avenue, Ormewood Park.

By then she said she was living:

on Pulliam Street with her parents.

Before Essie Avenue, she said she had lived on Cochran Street for two months.

Before that, she said she had lived on Fitzgerald Street near the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills for six or seven years (AJ, 16).

The March 15 defense affidavit prints an earlier address as “No. 8 Carpet Street.”

That looks like it may be a newspaper or transcription problem for Corput Street, but I am not silently correcting the old newspaper.

I am leaving the conflict visible.

These may look like little details, but they help put a real woman behind all these newspaper stories and affidavits. And this address information may help in tracking down more information about her in later research.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1913: THE MARY PHAGAN INQUEST BEGINS

The coroner's inquest into Mary Phagan's death opened on Wednesday morning, April 30, 1913.

Fulton County Coroner Paul V. Donehoo, who was legally blind, presided.

Contemporary reporting had the first session scheduled for 8:45 o'clock at Bloomfield's undertaking establishment on South Pryor Street in Atlanta.

The inquest continued through several sessions.

By Thursday, May 8, 1913, its final day, the proceedings were being held at Atlanta police headquarters.

The Atlanta Georgian described a crowded room. Fulton County Coroner Paul Donehoo and the six members of his coroner’s jury were there. Reporters and stenographers were there. Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey was there. Frank’s attorney Luther Zeigler Rosser was there. Atlanta detectives John R. Black and John Newton Starnes were there. Pinkerton detective Harry Scott was there. Fulton County Physician Dr. John W. Hurt was there. Mary Phagan’s stepfather, John William Coleman, was there.

And Nellie Wood was called to testify.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1913: NELLIE WOOD TESTIFIES UNDER OATH

Wood's testimony survives in the Georgia Supreme Court case files on Microfilm Slides 1772 and 1773.

This is not somebody remembering what she supposedly said fifty years later.

It is part of the legal record.

Wood gave her name.

She gave her address as:

No. 8 Corput Street.

Then came the questions about Leo Frank.

Wood said she knew Frank because she had worked for him.

Only two days.

She was asked whether she had seen Frank put his hands on any girls.

Wood answered that he had put his hands on her when it was “all uncalled for” (Georgia Supreme Court, 1).

Then she explained what happened.

According to Wood, Frank called her into his office.

She said:

“he made me sit down”

and:

“I asked him not to.”

Then, according to Wood, Frank reassured her that:

“there wasn't anybody coming in his office.”

That sentence has always bothered me.

According to Wood, Frank had a young woman alone inside his private office.

She was uncomfortable.

His reassurance was that nobody was going to come in.

Wood continued:

“he got too familiar with me”

and:

“I thought he got too close to me and I didn't like that.”

Then the questioning became more specific.

Wood said she resisted him and he did not overpower her. She described him putting his hands around her.

Then came the question about her breast.

Wood said Frank had not succeeded, but:

“he tried to”

and she believed he would have if she had not resisted him (Georgia Supreme Court, 1).

She was asked whether he touched her hips.

She said no.

Then she was asked whether Frank made an effort involving her lower limbs.

Wood said yes.

Her dress?

Yes, she said, while she was sitting down talking with him.

I do not know how anybody can honestly reduce that to Frank standing a little too close.

Wood said Frank got her alone.

He made her sit down.

She asked him not to.

He told her nobody was coming.

He put his hands around her.

She resisted.

He tried to touch her breast.

He made an effort involving her lower limbs, believed to be a euphemism in this case for a woman's private parts.

He made an effort below the beltline involving her dress.

That is what Nellie Wood said under oath.

Then she was asked what she did afterward.

Wood said she terminated her employment.

She did not go back until Saturday, when she returned for her pay.

Then came the line:

“I thought he had the wrong girl” (Georgia Supreme Court, 1).

It was as if Frank was looking to hire girls who would be pliant of his sexual desires, and also do the menial factory assembly work. 

That says plenty.

She quit.

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1913: THE ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS REPORT WOOD'S STORY

The timing counts for a lot.

Wood did not first accuse Frank after he was convicted.

She did not first tell this story during his state appeals which concluded near the end of 1914.

Leo Frank's Appeals

Leo Frank’s last appeal through the Georgia state courts ended on Saturday, November 14, 1914.

This was his third appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, a motion seeking to set aside the August 25, 1913 guilty verdict. Frank argued, among other things, that he had been absent when the jury returned its verdict and raised claims concerning disorder surrounding the trial.

The Fulton County Superior Court had dismissed the motion on June 6, 1914. Frank appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

On November 14, 1914, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and rejected Frank’s appeal. The decision is reported as:

Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 741, 83 S.E. 645 (1914).

This was the end of Leo Frank’s state appellate litigation.

The sequence was:

February 17, 1914: Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Frank’s original motion for a new trial, 141 Ga. 243. Rehearing denied February 25, 1914.

October 14, 1914: Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the denial of Frank’s extraordinary motion for a new trial based principally upon newly discovered evidence, 142 Ga. 617.

November 14, 1914: Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected Frank’s third and final state appeal, his motion to set aside the verdict, 142 Ga. 741.

After November 14, 1914, Frank’s attorneys moved into the federal courts, eventually leading to Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, decided by the United States Supreme Court on Monday, April 12, 1915, against Frank by a 7–2 vote.

How Soon the Story Broke

Nellie Wood first testified under oath on Thursday, May 8, 1913, just 12 days (1 week and 5 days) after Mary Phagan was murdered on Saturday, April 26, 1913, and 81 days (11 weeks and 4 days) before Leo Frank’s murder trial began on Monday, July 28, 1913.

She was then called as a witness at Leo Frank’s murder trial on Wednesday, August 20, 1913, which was 116 days (3 months and 25 days) after Mary Phagan’s murder, 23 days (3 weeks and 2 days) after the trial began, and 104 days (3 months and 12 days) after Nellie had first testified under oath at the coroner’s inquest.

When it was First Reported in the Press

The next morning after her Coroner's inquest testimony, the Atlanta newspapers reported her first testimony:

The Atlanta Journal, Friday, May 9, 1913, reported that Frank wanted to close the office door and that Wood objected. The paper quoted Frank reassuring her:

“Don't worry. No one is coming.”

Wood was quoted as saying:

“He was too familiar. I didn't like it” (AJ, 6).

The Atlanta Georgian, also on Friday, May 9, 1913, gave much the same general account. It quoted Wood saying Frank's actions did not suit her and that he came around and put his hands on her when the conduct was completely uncalled for.

The Georgian also printed:

“He barely touched my breast” (AG, 7).

That last line is not exactly how the official stenographic record reads.

The official transcript says Frank tried to touch Wood's breast and that she believed he would have if she had not resisted him.

The newspaper says he barely touched it.

I am keeping those records separate.

I am not mixing the newspaper wording into the legal transcript.

Different wording.

Same general complaint.

According to Wood, Frank's conduct toward her was physical, sexual and unwanted.

And these stories were printed immediately after she testified.

That creates a problem for the March 1914 defense affidavit.

The later affidavit portrays detectives as confusing Wood and trying to get her to accuse Frank of conduct she supposedly denied.

Okay.

Then look at what she actually said in May 1913.

There is a sequence.

Frank called her into his office.

He made her sit down.

She objected.

He said nobody was coming.

He got too familiar.

He put his hands around her.

He tried to touch her breast.

He made an effort involving her lower limbs and dress.

She resisted.

She quit.

Could Nellie Wood have lied?

Of course.

Any witness can lie.

But that is a different argument from saying an innocent pat on the shoulder was somehow turned into this entire sexual encounter by detectives.

WOOD LATER CALLED IT AN “INDECENT PROPOSAL”

The appellate record gives us another Wood statement with more detail.

Wood said:

“I told the Solicitor-General before he put me on the stand that I was in the office of Leo M. Frank on one occasion when the said Frank made an indecent proposal to me” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Her words.

Not mine.

“an indecent proposal.”

Wood said her experience as a trained nurse enabled her to understand what Frank intended.

According to Wood, Frank told her:

“You know I am not like other people”

and drew his chair closer.

As a side light: Jim Conley reported at the trial that Leo Frank stated something similar, "I'm not built like other men."

Frank then told her:

“I don't think you will understand me.”

Wood said Frank put his hands on her.

She resisted.

She got up.

She opened the door.

According to Wood, Frank then tried to calm her down and convince her that she had misunderstood what he meant (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Wood again said nobody else was there.

Leo and Nellie.

Alone in the office.

That was her allegation.

Calling it an allegation does not weaken the record.

It keeps the record honest.

THE “LADY STENOGRAPHER” NEEDS TO BE KEPT STRAIGHT

In the later affidavit preserved in the appellate record, Wood said the portion of that affidavit describing Frank's deportment toward her in his private office had been:

“dictated by me personally to a lady stenographer” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

That does not prove Wood personally dictated every word of the earlier defense affidavit that Burke obtained from her.

Those are two separate points and I am keeping them separate.

What the later appellate affidavit does show is that Wood said she personally dictated its account of Frank's alleged conduct.

Separately, she described what she said the earlier affidavit given to Burke contained.

That distinction counts.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1913: NELLIE WOOD AT FRANK'S MURDER TRIAL

Wood appeared during Leo Frank's murder trial on Wednesday, August 20, 1913.

At trial she gave her address as 28 Ormewood Park (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Her short appearance has sometimes been treated like a recantation.

It was not.

Dorsey asked Wood whether she knew Frank's general character.

Wood answered:

“No sir, not knowing him but two days. I didn't know him but two days.”

Dorsey tried again, explaining that he meant Frank's general reputation before Mary Phagan's death.

Wood still said:

“No sir, I only knew him two days. No sir, I do not know it” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

That is a different question from what Frank personally did to her.

A person can know exactly what somebody did to them during two days of employment and still know very little about that person's general reputation in the community.

Then Dorsey started toward Wood's personal encounter.

Frank attorney Reuben R. Arnold objected.

Dorsey replied:

“I have been misled by the witness.”

That line has caused confusion ever since.

But keep reading.

Outside the jury's presence, Dorsey explained what he was trying to prove.

He wanted to show Frank's alleged:

“indecent proposal”

to Wood.

Judge Leonard S. Roan refused to let him bring the specific incident in through that form of character evidence.

Roan ruled:

“I'll let you show by this woman or by any other person, bad character on the part of this man, but no specific acts or any specific crimes. That's the law” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Dorsey complained:

“Then we are absolutely shut out.”

Roan answered:

“Well, I don't care, then the law shuts you out, if that's the case.”

That explains why the murder jury did not hear Wood stand there and give the full private-office story she had already given under oath months earlier.

Judge Roan was making an evidentiary ruling about admissability.

He was not finding Wood's story true.

But he was not finding it false either.

Wood did not tell the jury:

“I lied.”

She did not say:

“Frank never touched me.”

She did not say:

“Nothing happened in the office.”

She said she did not know his general reputation because she had known him only two days.

The Atlanta Georgian reported the same chain of events in court on Wednesday, August 20, 1913. The paper said Wood was expected to describe improper advances by Frank, but the court prevented that specific testimony because Frank was being tried for murder, not for another alleged act (AG, 8).

That is a big difference from a recantation.

A CONTRADICTION AGAINST WOOD THAT BELONGS IN THE RECORD

There is another document that challenges Nellie Wood.

I am keeping it.

An affidavit preserved on Georgia Supreme Court Microfilm Slide 1610 describes a pre-testimony meeting in Dorsey's office with the female character witnesses.

According to that affiant, Dorsey gathered the women together, told them he wanted the truth, and asked each whether she knew Frank's general character.

The affidavit says Wood answered yes.

The affiant then said Dorsey asked whether Frank's character was good or bad and that Wood said:

bad (Georgia Supreme Court, 4).

Then Wood went into court and said she did not know Frank's general character because she had known him only two days.

That is a contradiction.

It can be used against Wood.

I am not hiding it.

But once again, it concerns her claimed knowledge of general character.

It does not itself retract the personal account of what she said happened inside Frank's office.

General reputation and personal experience are two different questions.

FRANK'S REPUTATION FOR LASCIVIOUSNESS

Nellie Wood was not standing completely alone in the character phase of Frank's trial.

The official Brief of Evidence places a group of women under the State's rebuttal evidence and lists:

Myrtie Cato

Maggie Griffin

Mrs. C. D. Donegan

Mrs. H. R. Johnson

Miss Marie Carst

Miss Nellie Pettis

Mary Davis

Mrs. Mary B. Wallace

Estelle Winkle

Carrie Smith

The Brief of Evidence says they had worked at the National Pencil Company for periods ranging from three days to three and a half years and summarizes their evidence with one sentence:

“Leo M. Frank's character for lasciviousness was bad” (Georgia Supreme Court, 3).

There are name differences in other printed records.

Contemporary newspaper accounts frequently spell Carst as Karst.

The 1918 American State Trials version gives Mary E. Wallace instead of the Brief of Evidence transcription's Mary B. Wallace.

Tom Watson printed Mrs. M. E. Wallace.

So I am not pretending every initial and spelling is settled.

For the formal list above, I use the 1913 Brief of Evidence transcription and leave the variants visible (American State Trials, 21; Watson, 22).

The word used in the official record is:

lasciviousness.

Sexually lustful behavior.

Other words people might used during the era are licentious, lewd, or libertine.

Leo Frank's Disputed Reputation for Lasciviousness

Reputation evidence does not prove every specific accusation made against Frank, but it can suggest a pattern of behavior or propensity. There was also autopsy evidence presented at trial indicating that Mary Phagan had been sexually assaulted before she was murdered by strangulation, which could suggest a possible motive for the killing.

Lasciviousness is not evidence of murder. 

But neither can Nellie Wood be brushed aside as though she stood alone, when other women also gave adverse character evidence about Frank’s behavior toward women.

DID THE DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINE THE CHARACTER WITNESSES?

This point needs a little care, in substance it is correct.

Dorsey later argued to the jury that Frank's lawyers had failed to press the young women about the basis for their bad-character testimony. In his closing argument reported by the Atlanta Journal on Saturday, August 23, 1913, Dorsey said the defense had failed to ask where the women got their information and why they said Frank's character was bad (AJ, 9).

Tom Watson later made the same point in stronger language (Watson, 22).

But the daily trial reporting shows that Rosser did cross-examine some individual women on limited points such as where they lived, where they worked, or other details. The Atlanta Georgian on Wednesday, August 20, 1913, for example, reports brief cross-examination of Myrtie Cato and other witnesses, while Marie Karst was reported as not cross-examined (AG, 8).

So I am not writing that the defense asked none of these women a single question.

That would be too broad.

The narrower statement is safer.

Dorsey argued that the defense did not press the damaging issue of why these women believed Frank's reputation for lasciviousness was bad.

That is different. The prosecution could not question the specifics, but the defense could to attempt to impeach the witnesses by questioning them. 

 

MAMIE KITCHENS AND THE WOMEN'S DRESSING ROOM DURING SCHEDULED CHANGING TIME

There was also specific testimony concerning Frank's conduct around female workers.

Mamie Kitchens testified that she was in the women's dressing room on the fourth floor with Irene Jackson, who was undressed.

According to Kitchens, Frank opened the door without knocking, put his head inside, stood there and laughed, and then shut the door after Jackson objected (Georgia Supreme Court, 3).

On cross-examination, Kitchens admitted this happened during working hours and said Frank asked why the women were not working.

She also said she had never met Frank for an immoral purpose.

Both parts belong in the record.

According to Kitchens, Frank opened the women's dressing-room door while Jackson was undressed and stood there laughing.

According to the defense side of the cross-examination, he was checking on employees during work hours.

The reader can weigh both.

DEWEY HEWELL AND MARY PHAGAN

Then there was Dewey Hewell.

Hewell testified that she had seen Frank talking with Mary Phagan two or three times a day in the metal department.

She said Frank called her:

“Mary.”

She said she saw him put his hand on Mary's shoulder.

She said he stood pretty close to Mary and leaned toward her face (Georgia Supreme Court, 3).

On cross-examination Hewell admitted that other girls were present and that she did not know what Frank and Mary were discussing.

That qualification belongs here.

Hewell's testimony does not prove sexual conduct by itself.

It was, however, part of the evidence concerning Frank's behavior around young female employees.

MYRTIE CATO, MAGGIE GRIFFIN AND REBECCA CARSON

The Brief of Evidence also records a conflict involving forelady Rebecca Carson.

Carson denied going into the fourth-floor dressing room with Frank.

Myrtie Cato said she had seen Carson go into the dressing room with Frank twice.

Maggie Griffin said she had seen Frank and Carson go into the dressing room together three or four times during working hours (Georgia Supreme Court, 3).

Carson denied it.

So there was a direct conflict.

I am not going to declare Cato and Griffin right simply because their evidence hurts Frank.

The conflict itself belongs in the record.

NELLIE PETTIS

Then there was Nellie Pettis.

Pettis had not been employed at the factory, but she went there in connection with her sister-in-law's pay and on one occasion looking for work.

Pettis said Frank looked at her in what she described as a sly way.

She said that on one occasion he stood close to her and quietly asked:

“How about it?”

Contemporary reporting also contains the accusation that Frank displayed money.

Pettis's sister-in-law, Lillie Mae Pettis, disputed parts of Nellie's story (Georgia Supreme Court, 3).

That conflict belongs here too.

Not every allegation against Frank went unanswered.

Some were disputed.

Some were weaker than others.

Some could have innocent explanations.

But when I put this surrounding testimony beside Wood's detailed sworn accusation, I can understand why the State argued that Frank's reputation for lasciviousness was bad.

THEN FRANK'S DEFENSE CAME LOOKING FOR NELLIE WOOD

After the murder trial, Nellie Wood did not just disappear back into ordinary life.

She became one of the witnesses Frank's defense wanted an affidavit from.

Wood later said an unidentified man came to see her in an automobile.

Later C. W. Burke came to see her.

Wood said she recognized Burke's automobile as the same automobile used by the first man (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Wood was careful about what she said Burke did and did not do.

She specifically stated:

“C. W. Burke did not himself ever offer me any money to swear for Leo M. Frank” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

Keep that in.

But Wood also said the unidentified man:

“did make me a proposition to pay me money if I would swear to certain things in favor of Leo M. Frank” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

That is Wood's allegation.

Can I prove who sent the man?

No.

Can I prove Burke sent him?

No.

Can I prove Wood accepted money?

No.

I cannot.

Wood later said she did not take what was offered.

So I am not writing that Nellie Wood accepted a bribe.

The evidence does not get us there.

But the alleged money offer belongs in the story.

BURKE “INSISTED” ON AN AFFIDAVIT

Wood then brought Burke directly into the affidavit story.

She said:

“C. W. Burke afterwards came to see me and told me that the court had ruled out my evidence, and insisted that I should give him an affidavit” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

There is Wood's word:

“insisted.”

How hard did Burke press her?

I do not know.

But that is how Wood described it.

I think it is fair to say Wood claimed there was pressure surrounding the affidavit.

That is not the same as proving Burke coerced her.

WHAT WOOD SAID THE AFFIDAVIT SHE GAVE BURKE CONTAINED

This is one of the strongest parts of the entire story.

Wood later described the affidavit she said she gave Burke.

She said it stated that she personally knew nothing about Leo Frank before the murder:

“except as to what occurred between me and him in his private office” (Georgia Supreme Court, 2).

That little word except carries a lot of weight.

According to Wood, the affidavit she remembered giving Burke did not erase the private-office incident.

It preserved it.

She knew nothing else personally about Frank before the murder, except what happened between the two of them in that office.

Keep that in mind when we get to the affidavit printed in March.

L. P. EUBANKS AND “LOTS OF MONEY”

Wood also testified about L. P. Eubanks.

According to Wood, Eubanks telephoned her while her younger brother was sick and she was nursing him.

She did not know Eubanks.

He later arrived in an automobile.

Wood's father and the doctor were at the house.

Eubanks wanted to speak with Wood privately, so they drove to the home of one of her cousins.

According to Wood, Eubanks later introduced her to Burke (AJ, 16).

Wood said Eubanks told her she was a working girl and that there was an opportunity for her to make money working on the Frank case for Burke.

She said Eubanks told her she could make:

“lots of money”

and that she needed the money and ought to take the work (AJ, 16).

No exact amount was given.

And there is an important distinction here.

That conversation concerned paid employment.

It is not automatically the same as paying somebody to swear falsely.

The separate unidentified man is the person Wood accused of offering money for favorable sworn statements.

Those two things should not be blended together.

Later, under Rosser's questioning, Wood snapped:

“Not for you all! I didn't take what Burke offered me” (AJ, 16).

Again, that line cuts both ways.

Wood is saying she did not take it.

I am not calling that proof of a bribe.

SUNDAY, MARCH 15, 1914: “WITNESS AGAINST FRANK NOW ACCUSES SLEUTHS”

Now we get to the document that causes all the trouble.

On Sunday, March 15, 1914, the Atlanta Journal, page 1, columns 5 and 7, continuing on page 2, published the affidavit attributed to Nellie Wood under the headline:

“WITNESS AGAINST FRANK NOW ACCUSES SLEUTHS” (AJ, 10).

That headline tells you something before you even get into the text.

This was not just Wood supposedly changing her mind about Frank.

The affidavit did two jobs.

It cleared Frank.

And it attacked the people who had investigated him.

According to the March affidavit, Detectives Chewning and Norris questioned Wood about whether she had quit because Frank had been too familiar with her or had insulted her.

The affidavit had Wood denying that.

Instead, the document said Wood had been a new forelady and was having trouble with the women under her.

She became upset.

She went into Frank's office.

Frank supposedly tried to calm her down.

His physical contact was recast as pats on the shoulder intended to reassure her.

Then comes the language that turns the original story upside down.

The affidavit described Frank as a:

“perfect gentleman.”

It said nothing he had done during Wood's two days at the factory was ungentlemanly.

It said Frank had:

“in no way insulted her.”

It described his dealings with Wood as:

“upright and manly” (AJ, 10).

That is not a slight change.

It is the opposite story.

Wood under oath in May 1913:

Frank made me sit down.

I asked him not to.

He got too familiar.

He put his hands around me.

He tried to touch my breast.

He made an effort involving my lower limbs and dress.

I resisted.

I quit.

The March 1914 affidavit:

Frank was calming me.

The touching was innocent.

Perfect gentleman.

No insult.

Upright and manly.

Those two versions point in opposite directions.

THE MARCH AFFIDAVIT ALSO ATTACKED THE DETECTIVES

The March affidavit went after more than Wood's original accusation.

It portrayed Detectives Chewning and Norris as repeatedly trying to get her to admit that Frank had been improperly familiar with her.

Then Detective Bass Rosser enters the document.

According to the contested-validity defense affidavit, Bass Rosser asked Wood confusing questions, took notes and did not show her what he had written.

The affidavit said the detectives tried to get Wood to admit that Frank had grabbed her or attempted acts of violence or sexual perversion, which she supposedly denied (AJ, 10).

Then the affidavit turned toward Dorsey.

Wood supposedly said Dorsey told her after the trial that he had expected to make her his “star witness” and had been disappointed in her testimony.

According to the affidavit, Wood explained to Dorsey that she could not truthfully testify against Frank because she had known him only two days and that he had never insulted her. An argument one might infer from her statements, an argument I would infer as well and have articulated above, but were those her own words at the time? 

The document then had Dorsey replying that he had been misled and had not understood the situation (AJ, 10).

So the affidavit was extremely useful to Frank's defense and played off the exchange from the trial. 

It cleared Frank.

It attacked three detectives.

It weakened Wood's original sworn accusation.

And it portrayed Dorsey as admitting he had misunderstood her.

It was a perfect for the defense.

WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL SIGNED MARCH AFFIDAVIT?

Here is another problem.

What I can identify with certainty is the affidavit as published in the Atlanta Journal.

What I still want to see is the original signed paper.

Not the newspaper transcription.

The original.

Who drafted it?

Who typed it?

Who witnessed it?

Who notarized it?

Who was standing there when Wood signed it?

Was it read back word for word? Or is that where the deception, switch or "switcheroo" occurred, because her prior and later statements did not support it. 

Were there corrections?

Were there interlineations?

Does it use exactly the same language printed in the newspaper?

Was there an earlier draft?

Was there more than one Wood affidavit?

Does another version contain the private-office exception Wood later said was in the affidavit she gave Burke?

Until that original document is located and compared with the rest of the record, I would put a very large question mark beside the March 15 affidavit.

DID SOMEBODY CHANGE NELLIE WOOD'S WORDS?

Maybe.

I think it is a real possibility.

But I cannot write it as proved fact.

Several explanations remain possible.

Maybe Wood later remembered the Burke affidavit incorrectly.

Maybe the newspaper printed exactly what she signed and she later backed away from it.

Maybe she signed language prepared by somebody else without appreciating how completely it reversed her earlier story. And like most people, we often don't read for ourselves what other people tell us are in a document. It's like the terms of service, most people just check the box and move on, few actually read it. 

Maybe there was an earlier statement and a later version.

Maybe language was expanded or changed somewhere along the way.

I do not know.

What I do know is this.

Wood later said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved her original statement of:

“what occurred between me and him [Frank] in his private office.”

The March 15 published defense affidavit went in the opposite direction.

It said there had been no insult.

It said Frank was a perfect gentleman and was "manly".

It turned the disputed physical contact into innocent reassurance.

That difference is real.

So I would put it this way:

Nellie Wood later described the affidavit she gave C. W. Burke as preserving the private-office incident. The March 15 defense affidavit  later appeared and went in the opposite direction and denied the substance of that original 1911 incident. That leaves an unanswered question about whether there was more than one affidavit, whether Wood remembered it incorrectly, or whether the statement used publicly had been changed, expanded, or replaced somewhere along the line.

That is as far as the surviving record lets me go.

And frankly, that is far enough. This was a common pattern with the defense, where witnesses would later state that what emerged in the affidavit was not what they had originally stated or had stated at the time.

WAS THE MARCH AFFIDAVIT PRESSURED?

I think there is a fair basis for saying Wood described pressure surrounding it.

She said Burke:

“insisted”

that she give him an affidavit.

She said an unidentified man offered money if she would swear to things favorable to Frank.

Eubanks told her she could make:

“lots of money”

working on the case.

Then an affidavit appeared going in the opposite direction from her earlier sworn accusation.

Does that prove coercion?

No.

Does it prove bribery?

No.

But Wood herself described pressure.

WAS THE MARCH AFFIDAVIT FALSE?

Somewhere my sense is highly likely, given how this pattern kept emerging at the time with other witnesses who gave disfavorable testimony against Leo Frank. 

At least part of it cannot be squared with Wood's other sworn statements.

The cleanest example is one word:

insulted.

The March 15, 1914 defense affidavit says Frank had:

“in no way insulted her.”

Then on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, Wood went back into open court under oath and said she quit:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

One of those statements is wrong.

They cannot both be true in their ordinary meaning.

What I cannot prove is how the false statement, whichever one it was, came about. Wood's statements before and after the defense affidavit tend to indicate the March 1914 affidavit that was favorable to Frank was likely falsified by the defense. There are just too many other examples of this same pattern. 

WAS IT SUBORNED?

Possibly. There were inducements of money and jobs mentioned. Especially, "a lot of money." Those inducements sound like bribery to me. 

But I would not publish that as established fact.

Subornation means knowingly inducing somebody to give false sworn evidence.

To prove that in Wood's case, I would want evidence that Burke, a lawyer, an investigator, or somebody else knowingly caused Wood to swear falsely.

We do not have that final link.

So I would not write:

“Burke suborned Nellie Wood.”

I would write that the circumstances raise the question.

That is accurate.

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1914: WOOD'S ACCUSATION COMES BACK

The March affidavit did not settle anything.

On Friday, May 1, 1914, the affidavit war around Frank's extraordinary motion for a new trial exploded into public view.

The Atlanta Journal ran the headline:

“SOLICITOR CHARGES FORGERY WAS USED IN SOME AFFIDAVITS” (AJ, 13).

Dorsey accused defense investigators of using improper methods and challenged several affidavits.

Those were accusations, not final judicial findings.

The Atlanta Georgian on the same day reported that Nellie Wood and R. P. Barrett made charges involving offers of money for statements favorable to Frank (AG, 14).

Wood again described Frank's conduct in a way that did not match the clean March denial.

The March affidavit was not Wood's final word.

Not by a long shot.

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1914: NELLIE WOOD GOES BACK INTO OPEN COURT

Then came one of the strongest parts of the whole Wood story.

On Tuesday, May 5, 1914, Wood appeared during Frank's extraordinary-motion proceedings before Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill.

The previous day Lovelace Preston Eubanks had attacked Wood's character.

The Atlanta Journal reported that Wood went to Dorsey's office in tears and asked permission to answer him publicly (AJ, 16).

Judge Hill allowed her to testify.

Wood was sworn.

Dorsey asked why she had quit the pencil factory.

Wood answered:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank” (AJ, 16).

There it is again.

March 15:

Frank had “in no way insulted her.”

May 5:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

Dorsey then asked what proposition Frank had made.

Wood answered:

“I think the details are unnecessary.”

Later Dorsey tried again to get her to describe what happened in Frank's office.

Wood said:

“I don't know that I remember every detail.”

Then she became silent.

Dorsey told her to come down (AJ, 16).

That belongs in the article.

Someone defending Frank can point to it.

I would too.

Wood did not repeat every detail in 1914 that had caused her so much pressure from the defense in the aftermath of her 1913 statement, when Frank was trying to get a new trial in 1914.

But she did not say nothing happened.

She still said she quit because Frank insulted her.

And after Wood was excused, Rosser himself read her May 8, 1913 coroner's-inquest testimony into the 1914 proceedings (AJ, 16).

So the old story came right back into court and is part of that record.

WHAT ROSSER ASKED NELLIE WOOD

Rosser's May 5 cross-examination went deep into Wood's personal life.

He asked how many times she had been arrested.

Wood said:

never.

He asked how many police cases had been made against her.

Wood said:

none.

He asked whether she had ever been taken into police court.

Wood said she had once appeared as a witness.

Then came the questions about where she lived.

Essie Avenue.

Pulliam Street.

Cochran Street.

Fitzgerald Street.

Rosser asked whether Wood had ever signed anybody's bond.

She said yes.

Judge Hill directed her to give the name.

Wood said she had signed a bond for a printer named Eddie Ward, who had been charged with seduction. She explained that Ward was a close friend of a woman she knew (AJ, 16).

Then Rosser went into Wood's work history.

Wood said she was a milliner.

She said she had recently quit because she was getting married.

Before that she had worked as a telephone operator for Southern Bell, including the Pryor Street exchange and Terminal Station.

Before that she had worked in a cotton mill.

Wood finally protested:

“I am hurt, this morning. I am scandalized.”

Later she snapped:

“Not for you all! I didn't take what Burke offered me” (AJ, 16).

You can hear the anger in the record. And apparently, if her anger was authentic, she had been offered money to work for the defense in their efforts to suborn perjury or manipulate witnesses into signing false affidavits. 

WOOD'S ENGAGEMENT AND “JUST RUINED ME”

Dorsey asked Wood whether she was engaged to be married.

She said yes.

The Atlanta Journal described her hanging her head and her voice becoming husky.

Wood said Eubanks's testimony had:

“just ruined me” (AJ, 16).

Think about that in Atlanta in 1914.

Wood was twenty-two.

She was engaged.

She had publicly accused the superintendent of a factory of unwanted sexual behavior.

Her name was tied to the most famous murder case in Georgia.

Her accusation had appeared in newspapers.

Investigators came to see her.

Then her own character came under attack.

Rosser questioned her about arrests.

Police court.

Bonds.

Her addresses.

Her employment.

She was being put through the wringer.

And when Dorsey asked why she left Frank's factory, she still said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1914: ROSSER USES THE CONTRADICTIONS AGAINST HER

The next day, Wednesday, May 6, 1914, Luther Rosser attacked Wood's credibility before Judge Hill.

The Atlanta Journal reported Rosser asking the judge to compare Wood's earlier coroner's-inquest testimony with her later affidavit.

Then came Rosser's line:

“you wouldn't convict a mosquito on her testimony!” (AJ, 17).

It is a good courtroom line.

And yes, Wood contradicted herself.

No use pretending otherwise.

But look at the order.

Wood first testified under oath against Frank.

She later again described an indecent proposal.

Then people connected with Frank's defense approached her.

Wood alleged a money offer from one man.

Eubanks talked about money and employment.

Burke insisted on an affidavit.

A defense affidavit appeared going in the opposite direction from Wood's original sworn story.

Wood then went back into open court and said Frank did insult her.

Then the defense used the contradiction between the defense affidavit and her other statements to attack her credibility.

That is a strange circle.

It does not prove Rosser knew there was anything improper about the affidavit.

I have no evidence proving that.

But once the March affidavit existed, every time Wood returned to her original accusation the defense could use its own affidavit against her.

THE DEFENSE HAD AN ANSWER

I do not want to write this as though Frank's defense admitted all these accusations against its investigators.

It did not.

The defense fought back hard.

It produced affidavits saying witnesses had made defense statements voluntarily.

It presented witnesses who said statements had been read back before they were signed.

New York notary Austin G. Dennison supported the defense's account of how Ruth Robinson's affidavit had been taken.

Affidavits from Minola McKnight, John M. Minor, Dan S. Lehon, Dan MacIntyre, William J. Burns and others were used to answer Albert McKnight's accusations.

Burke denied promising McKnight rewards for changing his story.

Jimmy Wrenn denied accusations involving Barrett.

The defense also argued that prosecution witnesses themselves had been pressured, coached or confused.

That was the fight.

Both sides accused the other of pressure.

Both sides attacked witnesses.

Both sides said affidavits on the other side could not be trusted.

I am not going to turn every accusation against Frank's defense into proved fact.

It was not all proved.

But neither am I going to pretend the March Nellie Wood affidavit somehow floats above this fight untouched.

It sits right in the middle of it.

ALBERT McKNIGHT: ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT AND ANOTHER PROBLEM

Albert McKnight is one of the closest parallels.

McKnight had testified for the State during Frank's trial.

Later he signed an affidavit for Frank's defense repudiating part of his trial testimony.

Then he repudiated the repudiation.

On Sunday, April 19, 1914, the Atlanta Journal reported McKnight claiming Burke had discussed getting him a Pullman job paying around $40 a month, with tips that could raise his income considerably.

McKnight said:

“That was the way he got around me” (AJ, 11).

McKnight changed stories.

That weakens him.

Nobody should hide it.

But the Atlanta Constitution on Sunday, April 19, 1914, reported another allegation that is even more relevant to Nellie Wood.

McKnight said statements concerning R. L. Craven and C. C. Pickett had been inserted into the affidavit after he had signed his name (AC, 12).

Same murder case.

Same general defense investigation.

Same C. W. Burke.

Another affidavit favorable to Frank.

Another witness later complaining about what appeared in the document.

Does McKnight prove Wood's affidavit was changed?

No.

But his allegation shows that complaints about post-signature additions to defense affidavits were being made right there in 1914.

This is not some modern theory invented a century later.

GEORGE EPPS AND THE BIRMINGHAM AFFIDAVIT

Then there was George Epps.

On Tuesday, May 5, 1914, the Atlanta Journal reported an affidavit from Epps in which he reaffirmed his trial testimony and said he had been frightened into signing a defense repudiation after being taken to Birmingham (AJ, 16).

According to Epps, men using false identities kept after him until he signed.

He later identified the man he knew as “Terry” as Jimmy Wrenn and the man posing as “Detective Kelly” as C. W. Burke.

The defense denied wrongdoing and produced rebuttal affidavits.

So again, Epps does not prove what happened with Nellie Wood.

But he belongs in the larger history of disputed defense recantations.

RUTH ROBINSON

Then there was Ruth Robinson.

During the May 1 proceedings, Dorsey charged that an affidavit attributed to Robinson was forged.

Robinson denied making the defense affidavit and denied its signature (AJ, 13).

The defense answered.

Notary Austin G. Dennison gave an account supporting the defense's version of how Robinson's statement had been taken.

So I would not publish “the Robinson affidavit was forged” as a proved fact.

It was sharply disputed.

But again, we are looking at the same recurring questions.

Who said what?

Who wrote it down?

Was it read back?

Did the witness later stand behind it?

CARRIE SMITH AND “MADDOX”

Carrie Smith, one of the women connected with the character testimony, also made an affidavit for the State.

According to the Atlanta Journal on Friday, May 1, 1914, Smith said a man calling himself “Maddox” repeatedly tried to get her to sign a defense affidavit and allegedly offered her $20 out of his commission if she would sign it (AJ, 13).

Smith said she later went to the seventh floor of the Grant Building and identified the office where she had met “Maddox” as belonging to Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips.

Dorsey introduced affidavits he said identified “Maddox” as Jimmy Wrenn.

That was Dorsey's showing.

It was not a judicial finding that Wrenn was “Maddox.”

Again, I am keeping the line between evidence and conclusion where it belongs.

MARIE CARST OR KARST

Then there was Marie Carst, spelled Karst in contemporary newspaper reports.

The Atlanta Journal on Friday, May 1, 1914, reported affidavits in which Karst said Burke paid her $2 per day to work in the afternoons approaching female witnesses (AJ, 13).

According to Karst, Burke wanted her to go live with Monteen Stover and persuade Stover to change her testimony.

Karst said she refused and lost the job.

The defense later produced an affidavit saying Karst had again sworn to substantially the same defense affidavit and had it read to her before she signed.

So once again:

accusation,

answer,

counter-affidavit.

But another woman connected with Frank's case was complaining about how defense evidence was being gathered.

The Atlanta Constitution on Sunday, May 3, 1914, also reported allegations concerning Burke's dealings with Karst and other witnesses (AC, 15).

R. P. BARRETT AND JIMMY WRENN

R. P. Barrett was another former National Pencil Company employee pulled into the post-trial affidavit fight.

Barrett accused Jimmy Wrenn of suggesting that Barrett could get work if he went to New Orleans and changed his testimony.

Barrett also described railroad passes (AG, 14).

Wrenn denied trying to buy or change Barrett's testimony.

His own affidavit admitted conversations about New Orleans and employment but said Barrett was looking for work and denied promising him money for changing his story.

Burke also denied offering Barrett a reward.

Once again:

a witness,

a defense investigator or associate,

employment,

travel,

an affidavit,

accusation and denial.

One by itself proves very little.

A pile of them deserves attention.

DAN S. LEHON AND THE $1,000 BOND

On Tuesday, May 5, 1914, the affidavit controversy became serious enough that Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill ordered Dan S. Lehon, Southern representative of the William J. Burns Detective Agency, to post a $1,000 bond guaranteeing his appearance before the Fulton County grand jury in connection with the C. B. Ragsdale affidavit (AJ, 16).

At 1:15 o'clock Lehon appeared and Milton Klein signed his bond.

Posting a bond does not prove wrongdoing.

It does show that the accusations surrounding Frank's post-trial affidavit investigation were being taken seriously by the court and grand jury at the time.

THE FERGUSON NAME PROBLEM

Another Frank-case witness named Ferguson became part of accusations concerning the defense investigation.

There is a first-name problem in the newspapers.

The trial witness connected with the pay-envelope episode is identified in the record as Helen Ferguson.

The Atlanta Journal article of Thursday, June 18, 1914, calls her “Nellie Ferguson.”

The Atlanta Constitution the following day identifies her as Helen Ferguson.

The June 19 Atlanta Journal report concerning Jimmy Wrenn also uses Helen Ferguson.

I am not going to silently change the June 18 paper.

The broader record points to Helen Ferguson, but the Journal transcription says Nellie.

That conflict stays visible.

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1914: C. W. BURKE IS INDICTED

On Thursday, June 18, 1914, the Fulton County grand jury indicted C. W. Burke on a charge of attempting to suborn perjury in connection with the Ferguson witness.

The Atlanta Journal identified Burke as a man employed by Frank's counsel to gather evidence and reported that the indictment accused him of trying to get Ferguson to change her trial testimony (AJ, 18).

The next day's Atlanta Constitution also reported the indictment and said Burke furnished $2,500 bond. That paper identified the witness as Helen Ferguson (AC, 20).

I want the limits clear.

That indictment was not about Nellie Wood.

An indictment is not a conviction.

The indictment does not prove Burke suborned Wood.

It does not prove Wood's March affidavit was altered.

I have not found a dependable final disposition of Burke's indictment in the sources used here.

But the indictment belongs in the historical background.

Questions about Burke's methods were not invented by modern critics.

They were being investigated in 1914.

So when Nellie Wood says Burke came to her and:

“insisted that I should give him an affidavit”

I do not shrug it off, because Nellie Wood said she gave him her recounting of the indecent office incident that involved sexual innuendo, unwanted touching, and resistance. So how did that part disappear from Nellie Wood's defense affidavit of March 1914? Words don't disappear on their own, without someone actively removing them and replacing them with something else. 

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1914: JIMMY WRENN IS INDICTED

The next day, Friday, June 19, 1914, the Atlanta Journal, page 2, column 4, reported that Jimmy Wrenn, identified as an employee of Burke, had also been indicted for an alleged attempt to suborn perjury in connection with Helen Ferguson (AJ, 19).

Again:

indictment,

not conviction.

But by June 1914 we are a long way from one woman complaining about one affidavit.

There were disputed affidavits.

Money allegations.

Employment offers.

Travel.

Recantations.

Repudiations of recantations.

Arguments over signatures.

An allegation that language was inserted after signing.

Grand jury investigations.

Then indictments.

That is the historical setting around Nellie Wood's “perfect gentleman” affidavit.

JUDGE ROAN'S FINAL CHARGE AND WHY THE DISTINCTION COUNTS

Judge Roan explained the character-evidence rules to the jury again on Monday, August 25, 1913.

The Atlanta Journal printed his charge.

Roan explained that because Frank had introduced evidence of good character, the State could answer with evidence of bad general reputation.

He also explained that Dorsey had been allowed to ask defense character witnesses whether they had heard of certain alleged misconduct in order to test how well informed they were.

But the questions themselves were not proof that every alleged incident happened (AJ, 9).

That distinction helps explain why people get confused about Nellie Wood.

The jury heard general character evidence.

The jury heard evidence that Frank's reputation for lasciviousness was bad.

The jury did not hear Wood stand there and give the complete private-office account she had already given under oath.

WHAT HAPPENED TO NELLIE WOOD SHOULD NOT BE BURIED

Step away from the lawyers for a minute.

Look at Nellie Wood.

She worked for Leo Frank for two days.

According to her sworn testimony, Frank got her alone inside his office.

He made her sit down.

She asked him not to.

He told her nobody was coming.

He moved close.

He put his hands around her.

She resisted him.

He tried to touch her breast.

He made an effort involving her lower limbs and dress.

She quit.

Two years later Mary Phagan was murdered.

Wood was pulled into the investigation.

She told the story under oath.

The newspapers printed it.

She was called during Frank's murder trial.

The judge would not allow Dorsey to put the whole specific incident before the jury through the character-evidence route.

Then Frank's investigators came around.

Wood said somebody offered her money for favorable testimony.

Eubanks told her she could make lots of money working on the case.

Burke insisted on an affidavit.

A defense affidavit appeared saying Frank had never insulted her.

Then Wood's own character was attacked.

She went to Dorsey's office in tears.

She said Eubanks's testimony had:

“just ruined me.”

Then she went back into court.

Took the oath.

And said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

That is more than a stray contradiction on a piece of paper.

There was a human being in the middle of all this.

WAS LEO FRANK LASCIVIOUS, LICENTIOUS, LEWD, OR LIBERTINE?

The official trial record gives us the word:

lasciviousness.

The State's rebuttal evidence was summarized as saying:

“Leo M. Frank's character for lasciviousness was bad.”

Nellie Wood gave a first-person accusation of conduct she said happened to her.

Frank got her alone.

Made her sit down.

She asked him not to.

He told her nobody was coming.

He put his hands around her.

He tried to touch her breast.

He made an effort involving her lower limbs and dress.

She resisted.

She quit.

She later called it:

“an indecent proposal.”

Call the alleged conduct lascivious.

Call it licentious.

Call it lewd.

Call it libertine behavior.

Whatever word somebody chooses, Wood's account is a long way from the March affidavit's description of Frank as a:

“perfect gentleman”

whose conduct was:

“upright and manly.”

WHAT I THINK THE MARCH 15 AFFIDAVIT SHOWS

Here is where I land.

I do not think the March 15 affidavit should be treated as a clean recantation.

That gives one defense document far too much weight and everything Wood said before and after it far too little.

The chronology is pretty plain.

Wood gave detailed sworn testimony against Frank.

Wood later again described an indecent proposal.

She said another man offered money for favorable testimony.

She said Eubanks told her she could make lots of money working on the case.

She said Burke “insisted” on an affidavit.

She later described the affidavit she gave Burke as preserving:

“what occurred between me and him in his private office.”

Yet the published March affidavit went in the opposite direction and said Frank had:

“in no way insulted her.”

Then Wood returned to open court and said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

I cannot prove Leo Frank personally ordered anybody to change Nellie Wood's affidavit.

I cannot prove Luther Rosser changed it.

I cannot prove Reuben Arnold changed it.

I cannot prove C. W. Burke physically altered it.

I cannot prove forgery, but it looks like some kind of bait and switch.

I cannot prove subornation in Wood's case, even though there were mentionings of money and jobs, from what I can tell Woods did not accept these inducements. At least there is no evidence of it from the record.

I cannot even prove that the affidavit Wood later described and the March 15 newspaper affidavit were the exact same physical document.

Those limits stay.

I do think the March affidavit is dubious.

I think Wood's own account describes pressure around getting an affidavit.

I think the difference between what Wood later said the Burke affidavit contained and what the March newspaper affidavit said raises a serious question about what happened between the witness and the final public document.

Anybody using the March affidavit to say:

“Nellie Wood took it all back”

still has some explaining to do.

Explain why she later still called it an indecent proposal.

Explain why she said Burke insisted on an affidavit.

Explain the alleged money offer.

Explain Eubanks and the “lots of money.”

Explain why Wood said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved the private-office incident.

Then explain why the March affidavit went in the opposite direction and said Frank never insulted her.

Then explain why Nellie Wood went back into open court on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, raised her hand, took an oath, and said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

That is the problem.

I do not think the March 15 affidavit solves it.

I think the affidavit creates another problem of its own.

THE DOCUMENT I STILL WANT TO FIND

There is one document I want to see more than any other in this part of the Leo Frank case.

The original signed March 1914 Nellie Wood defense affidavit.

Not the newspaper transcription.

The actual paper.

Who drafted it?

Who typed it?

Who witnessed it?

Who notarized it?

Who was present when Wood signed it?

Was it read back to her?

Are there handwritten corrections?

Are there interlineations?

Does it contain exactly the same wording printed in the Atlanta Journal?

Was there an earlier draft?

Was there another Wood affidavit?

Can the private-office exception Wood later described be found in another version?

Until the original document is located and compared with everything else, I think the March 15 affidavit deserves a very large question mark.

CONCLUSION

Nellie Wood should not be treated like some stray name buried in the Leo Frank record.

And the March 15, 1914 defense affidavit should not be allowed to wipe away everything else.

Wood's original sworn testimony came first.

She said Leo Frank got her alone in his private office.

He made her sit down.

She asked him not to.

He told her nobody was coming.

He put his hands around her.

He tried to touch her breast.

He made an effort involving her lower limbs.

He made an effort involving her dress.

She resisted him.

She quit.

She later called it:

“an indecent proposal.”

Then people working around Frank's defense entered the picture.

Wood said an unidentified man offered her money to swear to things favorable to Frank.

She said Eubanks told her she could make:

“lots of money.”

She said Burke:

“insisted”

that she give him an affidavit.

Wood later said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved:

“what occurred between me and him in his private office.”

Then the March defense affidavit appeared and went in the opposite direction.

Frank had:

“in no way insulted her.”

He was a:

“perfect gentleman.”

His conduct was:

“upright and manly.”

Less than two months later Wood was back under oath saying:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

Then Frank's lawyers used the contradictions against her.

At the same time, other Frank-case witnesses were fighting over jobs, inducements, pressure, recantations and disputed affidavits.

Some accusations were denied.

Some witnesses changed stories.

The defense had answers.

I am not hiding any of that.

But I am not going to hide the other side either.

Albert McKnight said language had been inserted into a defense affidavit after he signed it.

George Epps said his defense repudiation was obtained after he was taken to Birmingham and frightened.

Ruth Robinson disputed an affidavit attributed to her.

Carrie Smith described a $20 offer from a man calling himself Maddox.

Marie Carst or Karst said Burke paid her to approach female witnesses and wanted her to persuade Monteen Stover to change her testimony.

Barrett complained about employment, New Orleans and efforts to change his statement.

Dan Lehon was ordered to post a $1,000 bond so he would appear before a grand jury looking into another disputed affidavit.

C. W. Burke, the same investigator Wood said “insisted” on getting an affidavit from her, was later indicted in another Frank witness episode on a charge involving attempted subornation of perjury.

Jimmy Wrenn was indicted the following day in the Ferguson episode.

Again, those indictments were not convictions.

None of that proves Wood's affidavit was forged.

None of it proves Burke suborned Nellie Wood.

But it gives us the setting.

So no, I do not see the March 15 Wood affidavit as some clean piece of evidence clearing Leo Frank.

I see a disputed defense affidavit sitting right in the middle of an ugly fight over witness pressure, money, employment, changing stories and affidavits.

I see a woman who first gave detailed sworn testimony against Frank.

Then the defense investigation came around.

Then her story changed on paper.

And not just a little.

It went in the opposite direction.

Then Wood herself went back into court and put the accusation right back on the record.

That is why I think the March 15 affidavit looks dubious.

It does not erase her original testimony.

It does not erase her later statement about an indecent proposal.

It does not erase the alleged money offer.

It does not erase Eubanks telling her she could make lots of money.

It does not erase Burke insisting on an affidavit.

It does not erase the character evidence surrounding Frank.

And it does not erase Nellie Wood's own words under oath on Tuesday, May 5, 1914:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

The logical conclusion is that the disputed March 1914 affidavit was likely some kind of falsified affidavit of the defense.

REFERENCES

1. Georgia Supreme Court, 1. Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. Nellie Wood's sworn testimony before Fulton County Coroner Paul V. Donehoo, Thursday, May 8, 1913. Microfilm Slides 1772 and 1773.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1772-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1773-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

2. Georgia Supreme Court, 2. Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. Trial colloquy concerning Nellie Wood, Dorsey's attempt to introduce Frank's alleged “indecent proposal,” Wood's later statement concerning the office incident, the unidentified man's alleged money offer, and C. W. Burke. Microfilm Slides 1684, 1685 and 1686.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1684-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1685-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1686-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

3. Georgia Supreme Court, 3. Brief of Evidence, Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. State rebuttal character evidence, pages 221–222, including the women whose testimony was summarized as showing Frank's character for lasciviousness was bad, together with Mamie Kitchens, Ruth Robinson, Dewey Hewell and Rebecca Carson. Microfilm Slides 1263–1264.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1263-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1264-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

4. Georgia Supreme Court, 4. Affidavit describing the pretestimony meeting in Dorsey's office with the female character witnesses, including the claim that Nellie Wood said Frank's character was bad before she later denied knowledge of his general character on the stand. Microfilm Slide 1610.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1610-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

5. State's Exhibit B, 5. Leo M. Frank's statement to investigators, Monday, April 28, 1913. Frank gives his place of business as 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street.

http://www.leofrank.org/trial-and-evidence/prosecution/states-exhibit-b/

6. AJ, 6. Atlanta Journal. Friday, May 9, 1913. Contemporary account of Nellie Wood's May 8 coroner's-inquest testimony, including the office-door episode and Wood's complaint that Frank became too familiar.

http://www.leofrank.org/character-witnesses-are-called-in-the-case-by-city-detectives/

7. AG, 7. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, May 9, 1913. Contemporary account of Wood's testimony, including the newspaper wording concerning her breast.

http://www.leofrank.com/transcribed-newspaper-articles/you-are-there-atlanta-georgian-may-9th-1913/

8. AG, 8. Atlanta Georgian. Wednesday, August 20, 1913. “State Closes Frank Case Near Jury; Defense Begins Its Sur-Rebuttal.” Contemporary trial coverage of Nellie Wood, the character witnesses, Judge Roan's exclusion of Wood's specific-act evidence, and cross-examination of some character witnesses.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-20-state-closes-frank-case-near-jury-defense-begins-its-sur-rubettual-the-atlanta-georgian/

9. AJ, 9. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, August 23, 1913, and Monday, August 25, 1913. Dorsey's closing argument concerning the character witnesses and Judge Leonard S. Roan's final charge explaining the legal use of good- and bad-character evidence.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-23-frank-trial-adjourned-until-monday-morning-the-atlanta-journal/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1913-08-25-leo-m-franks-fate-is-now-in-hands-of-the-jury-the-atlanta-journal/

10. AJ, 10. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, March 15, 1914. “Witness Against Frank Now Accuses Sleuths.” Page 1, columns 5 and 7, continuing page 2, column 1. Defense affidavit attributed to Nellie Wood, including “perfect gentleman,” “in no way insulted her,” “upright and manly,” and her accusations against Chewning, Norris and Bass Rosser.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-15-witness-against-frank-now-accuses-sleuths-the-atlanta-journal/

11. AJ, 11. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Albert McKnight Now Repudiates His Recent Story.” McKnight's allegation concerning Burke and the proposed Pullman employment.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-19-albert-m-knight-now-repudiates-his-recent-story-the-atlanta-journal/

12. AC, 12. Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Testimony He Gave at Trial Was True, Declares McKnight.” McKnight's allegation that statements concerning Craven and Pickett were inserted after he had signed his defense affidavit.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-19-testimony-he-gave-at-trial-was-true-declares-m-knight-the-atlanta-constitution/

13. AJ, 13. Atlanta Journal. Friday, May 1, 1914. “Solicitor Charges Forgery Was Used In Some Affidavits.” Page 1, column 7. Dorsey's accusations concerning disputed defense affidavits, Albert McKnight, Carrie Smith, Marie Karst, Nellie Pettis and other witnesses.

http://www.leofrank.tv/1914-05-01-solicitor-charges-forgery-was-used-in-some-affidavits-the-atlanta-journal/

14. AG, 14. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, May 1, 1914. “Evidence Is Recorded Against Conley.” Contemporary reporting concerning Nellie Wood, R. P. Barrett and the wider affidavit controversy.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-01-evidence-is-recorded-against-conley-the-atlanta-georgian/

15. AC, 15. Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, May 3, 1914. “Dorsey Calls C. W. Burke And Other Investigators For Leo Frank To Court.” Reporting concerning Burke, Wrenn and allegations surrounding post-trial evidence gathering.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-03-dorsey-calls-c-w-burke-and-other-investigators-for-leo-frank-to-court-the-atlanta-constitution/

16. AJ, 16. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Many Sensations Sprung By Dorsey At Frank Hearing.” Page 1, column 7, continuing on later pages. Nellie Wood's sworn return to court, her age, addresses, engagement, employment history, Eubanks testimony, “lots of money,” “just ruined me,” “I am scandalized,” “Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank,” George Epps, Dan Lehon's $1,000 bond and defense rebuttal affidavits.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-05-many-sensations-sprung-by-dorsey-at-frank-hearing-the-atlanta-journal/

17. AJ, 17. Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, May 6, 1914. “Judge Hill Denies Motion As Defense Closes Arguments.” Rosser's attack on Wood's contradictions, including the “convict a mosquito” statement.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-06-judge-hill-denies-motion-as-defense-closes-arguments-the-atlanta-journal/

18. AJ, 18. Atlanta Journal. Thursday, June 18, 1914. “C. W. Burke Indicted For Suborning Perjury.” Page 1, column 5. Reports the Fulton County grand-jury indictment of Burke in connection with the Ferguson witness. The surviving Journal transcription calls her Nellie Ferguson.

http://www.leofrank.com/atlanta-journal/1914-06-18-c-w-burke-indicted-for-suborning-perjury/

19. AJ, 19. Atlanta Journal. Friday, June 19, 1914. “Indictment Is Returned Against Jimmy Wrenn.” Page 2, column 4. Reports Wrenn's indictment for attempted subornation of perjury involving Helen Ferguson.

http://www.leofrank.com/transcripts-atlanta-journal/

20. AC, 20. Atlanta Constitution. Friday, June 19, 1914. Contemporary report of Burke's indictment. Identifies the witness as Helen Ferguson and reports Burke's $2,500 bond.

21. American State Trials, 21. American State Trials, Volume X, 1918. Later printed summary of the Frank trial character evidence. This version gives Marie Carst and Mary E. Wallace, showing the Wallace-initial discrepancy with the Brief of Evidence transcription.

http://www.maryphagan.com/270-slide-american-state-trials-1918-volume-x-leo-frank-document/

22. Watson, 22. Thomas E. Watson. “A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case,” 1915. Used as contemporary corroboration of the Wood specific-act evidentiary dispute and to note variant spellings, not as the controlling trial record.

http://www.maryphagan.com/03-tom-watson-a-full-review-of-the-leo-frank-case/