Reading Time: 82 minutes, [15138 words]

The Affidavit That Changed Her Story

Leo Frank, “Perfect Gentleman,” the Supposed Reversal, and a 1914 Trail of Disputed Affidavits, Money Offers, False Identities, Alleged Manufactured Evidence, Grand-Jury Indictments, and National Scrutiny of William J. Burns

By Art Daniels

September 13, 2026

Nellie Wood’s story in the Leo Frank case is often reduced to a few convenient words: she changed her story. That is the easy way to dispose of her. It is also far too simple.

When Wood’s statements are put back into chronological order, the contradiction is not spread evenly across her story. It is concentrated around one remarkably favorable March 1914 defense affidavit, sitting between Wood’s earlier sworn accusations against Leo Frank and her later return to substantially the same accusations.

Wood first accused Frank while Mary Phagan’s murder was still being investigated. On Thursday, May 8, 1913, only 12 days, or 1 week and 5 days, after Mary was murdered on Saturday, April 26, Wood testified under oath before the Fulton County coroner’s jury. According to Wood, Frank got her alone inside his private office at the National Pencil Company, made her sit down after she objected, told her nobody was coming into the office, became too familiar, put his hands around her, tried to touch her breast, made another effort involving her “lower limbs” and dress, and caused her to quit after only two days at the factory (GSC, 1).

The Atlanta newspapers reported Wood’s accusation the following morning. Then, on Wednesday, August 20, 1913, Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey tried to place the fuller private-office incident before Frank’s murder jury. Frank’s attorneys objected, and Judge Leonard Strickland Roan ruled that the State could attack Frank’s general character after the defense had put his good character in issue, but Dorsey could not use that evidentiary route to prove a separate specific sexual act (AG, 6).

After Frank’s conviction, investigators gathering evidence for his defense came looking for Wood. She later said an unidentified man offered her money if she would swear to certain things favorable to Frank. Wood specifically said C. W. Burke himself did not make that particular money offer, and I am keeping that distinction because Wood herself made it. She did say Burke later came to see her, told her the court had ruled out her evidence, and “insisted that I should give him an affidavit” (GSC, 5).

Then came the March defense affidavit.

Frank’s attorneys made several affidavits public on Saturday, March 14, 1914. On Sunday, March 15, the Atlanta Journal printed the affidavit attributed to Nellie Wood. Suddenly the Frank whom Wood had accused of unwanted physical and sexual conduct had become a “perfect gentleman.” According to the paper, Frank had “in no way insulted her,” and his dealings with Wood had supposedly been “upright and manly” (AJ, 8).

Then Wood returned toward her earlier accusation. On Friday, May 1, 1914, another Wood affidavit was presented for the State in which she again accused Frank of making an indecent proposal, laying his hands on her, and saying he was “not like other men” (GSC, 5; AJ, 10). Four days later, on Tuesday, May 5, Wood personally went into open court before Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill, took the oath, and Dorsey asked why she had quit the National Pencil Company.

Wood answered:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank” (AJ, 9).

There is the problem in six words.

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

Wood, personally under oath less than two months later, said she left:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

Then comes the part that is even harder to explain away. Wood later described what she said the affidavit she gave Burke actually contained:

“I gave him an affidavit, which stated that I personally knew nothing about Leo M. Frank prior to the murder, except as to what occurred between me and him in his private office” (GSC, 5).

That little word except carries a lot of weight.

According to Wood, the affidavit she gave Burke preserved the damaging private-office occurrence. The March 15 defense affidavit, as published, substantially neutralized it. It transformed the alleged sexual encounter into innocent workplace reassurance.

The question therefore is no longer just whether Nellie Wood contradicted herself. The deeper question is what happened between Nellie Wood and the finished affidavit placed before the public in her name.

And Wood was not standing alone.

By the spring of 1914, Frank’s post-trial evidence campaign had generated a whole cluster of witnesses complaining that favorable defense affidavits did not accurately reflect what the witnesses believed they had said, dictated, signed, or agreed to. Clayburn Burtus Dalton alleged something close to a bait-and-switch. Albert McKnight said language had been inserted after his signature. Aaron Allen said disputed language appeared after he dictated and signed. Mary Rich disputed a defense affidavit and described Burke tearing a small piece from the paper as a private identifying marker. Frank Reese/Reeves said he refused to sign a long white paper because he could not read and did not know everything in it. Ruth Robinson denied an affidavit and signature attributed to her.

Other witnesses described money, jobs, transportation, travel, false identities, staged circumstances, paid investigative work, courtship, marriage proposals, and pressure surrounding attempts to obtain new affidavits or changed testimony. Two former Fulton County Tower prisoners, Reese/Reeves and Fred Perkerson, went farther and accused Dr. George Wrenn of proposing that they falsely announce Jim Conley had confessed to Mary Phagan’s murder, with “lots of money” supposedly waiting if they did it (AC, 13).

Some accusations were denied. Some witnesses had serious credibility problems. Frank’s investigators produced counter-affidavits and notaries. Men later indicted in one major subornation prosecution were acquitted.

All of that belongs in the history.

But the cluster belongs there too.

And Nellie Wood’s “perfect gentleman” affidavit sits right in the middle of it.

Around March 1911: Nellie Wood’s Two Days at the National Pencil Company

Wood dated her brief employment at the National Pencil Company to approximately March 1911. During the May 1913 coroner’s inquest she said the incident with Frank had happened “two years ago in March” (GSC, 1). That does not establish an exact day, but it puts the encounter about two years before Mary Phagan’s murder.

The National Pencil Company operated at 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street in Atlanta, the business address Frank himself gave investigators on Monday, April 28, 1913, in the statement later introduced at his murder trial as State’s Exhibit B (State’s Exhibit B, 2).

Wood said she worked there for only two days.

There has been confusion over her age. Wood was not sixteen. When she appeared in open court on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, she gave her age as twenty-two (AJ, 9). Depending upon her birthday, she was probably around eighteen or nineteen when the March 1911 incident occurred.

The sixteen-year-old woman appearing elsewhere in this portion of the Frank record was Nellie Pettis, a different woman.

Wood was a young working woman, but there is no reason to make her younger than she was. Her accusation is serious enough exactly as she gave it.

Saturday, April 26, 1913: Mary Phagan Is Murdered

Two years later, on Saturday, April 26, 1913, thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan went to the National Pencil Company to collect her pay and was murdered.

The coroner’s inquest opened on Wednesday morning, April 30, under Fulton County Coroner Paul V. Donehoo, who was legally blind. Contemporary reporting scheduled the opening session for 8:45 o’clock at P. J. Bloomfield’s undertaking establishment on South Pryor Street in Atlanta.

By the final session on Thursday, May 8, proceedings were being held at Atlanta police headquarters. Reporters and stenographers were present, along with Donehoo and his six-member jury, Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey, Frank attorney Luther Zeigler Rosser, Atlanta detectives, Pinkerton detective Harry Scott, Fulton County Physician Dr. John W. Hurt, and Mary Phagan’s stepfather John William Coleman.

Then Nellie Wood was called.

Thursday, May 8, 1913: Wood Tells the Coroner What She Said Happened

Wood’s testimony survives in the Georgia Supreme Court case material on Microfilm Slides 1772 and 1773. This is not a later writer reconstructing what Wood supposedly said. It is part of the surviving legal record created during the murder investigation itself.

Wood gave her address as No. 8 Corput Street and said she knew Frank because she had worked for him.

Only two days.

Asked about his conduct, Wood said Frank had put his hands on her when it was “all uncalled for.” She then described the private-office encounter.

According to the official transcript, Frank called Wood into the office to talk and:

“he made me sit down.”

Wood said:

“I asked him not to.”

According to Wood, Frank then reassured her:

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

Wood continued that Frank “got too familiar with me” and “got too close to me and I didn’t like that.” She described him putting his hands around her and said she resisted him (GSC, 1).

Asked whether Frank put his hands on her breast, Wood said he had not succeeded but:

“he tried to.”

She said she believed he would have if she had not resisted.

The questioning continued. Wood was asked whether Frank made an effort involving her “lower limbs.” She said yes. Asked about her dress, she again answered yes while she was sitting and talking with him.

The old wording is not anatomically exact, and there is no reason to make it say anything beyond what it says. Wood was describing behavior she regarded as physical, sexual, and unwanted.

She said she quit.

Wood did not return until Saturday, when she went back for her pay. Asked about her reaction to Frank, she said:

“I thought he had the wrong girl” (GSC, 1).

That was Wood’s sworn account on May 8, 1913, only twelve days after Mary Phagan was murdered.

Friday, May 9, 1913: Atlanta Reads Wood’s Story

The Atlanta Journal reported Wood’s testimony the following morning. According to the paper, Frank wanted the office door closed and Wood objected. The Journal quoted Frank reassuring her:

“Don’t worry. No one is coming.”

Wood was quoted saying:

“He was too familiar. I didn’t like it” (AJ, 3).

The Atlanta Georgian of the same date reported much the same complaint and printed:

“He barely touched my breast” (AG, 4).

The newspaper language and official stenographic transcript differ slightly. The legal transcript says Frank tried to touch Wood’s breast and she resisted. The Georgian says he barely touched it. I am keeping the records separate rather than creating a third version that appears in neither.

The larger point is unchanged. Wood’s sexual complaint was already sworn, recorded, and printed across Atlanta in May 1913.

That creates a problem for the March 1914 defense affidavit’s later picture of investigators turning innocent physical contact into sexual misconduct. Wood’s detailed complaint existed ten months earlier.

Could Wood have lied in 1913? Certainly. Any witness can lie.

But Wood lied is a different argument from Wood never made the accusation and investigators invented it. The contemporary record establishes that she made the accusation.

Wood Later Called It an “Indecent Proposal”

The appellate record preserves 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” (GSC, 5).

Those were Wood’s words.

According to Wood, Frank told her:

“You know I am not like other people,”

drew his chair closer, and then said:

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

Wood said Frank put his hands on her. She resisted, got up, and opened the office door. According to Wood, Frank then tried to calm her and convince her that she had misunderstood his intentions (GSC, 5).

Again, Wood said nobody else was there.

Leo Frank and Nellie Wood were alone in his private office.

Wednesday, August 20, 1913: What Frank’s Murder Jury Never Fully Heard

Frank’s murder trial began on Monday, July 28, 1913. Wood appeared on Wednesday, August 20, 116 days, or 3 months and 25 days, after Mary Phagan’s murder, and 104 days, or 3 months and 12 days, after Wood’s May 8 testimony.

Dorsey first asked whether Wood knew Frank’s general character. Wood answered:

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

Asked again about Frank’s general reputation, Wood said:

“No sir, I only knew him two days. No sir, I do not know it” (GSC, 5).

That did not withdraw her personal accusation. General reputation and personal experience are different things. A woman can know exactly what she says somebody did to her during two days of employment while honestly admitting she does not know his general reputation throughout Atlanta.

Dorsey then moved toward the private-office incident.

Frank attorney Reuben Rose Arnold objected.

Dorsey said:

“I have been misled by the witness.”

That sentence looks bad if the reader stops there. The rest of the exchange explains what happened.

The jury was removed and Dorsey told Judge Roan he wanted to prove “actual specific misconduct,” including Frank’s alleged “indecent proposal” to Wood.

Roan would not permit it through that character-evidence route. He said:

“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” (GSC, 5).

Dorsey complained:

“Then we are absolutely shut out.”

Roan replied:

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

Roan was making an evidentiary ruling. He did not find Wood truthful. He did not find her false.

The murder jury therefore never fully heard her private-office account.

Frank’s Reputation for Lasciviousness and the Other Women

Wood did not stand completely alone in the State’s rebuttal evidence concerning Frank’s character around women.

The official Brief of Evidence lists a group of female witnesses and summarizes their evidence with the sentence:

“Leo M. Frank’s character for lasciviousness was bad” (GSC, 7).

Among those women were Myrtie Cato, Maggie Griffin, Mrs. C. D. Donegan, Mrs. H. R. Johnson, Marie Carst or Karst, Nellie Pettis, Mary Davis, Mary Wallace, Estelle Winkle, and Carrie Smith.

Some were briefly cross-examined. Contemporary newspaper reporting does not support the old broad claim that none of them was questioned at all. The more accurate point is Dorsey’s own complaint that Frank’s attorneys generally did not press them on the damaging question of why they believed his reputation for lasciviousness was bad.

Specific testimony appeared too.

Mamie Kitchens described Frank opening the fourth-floor women’s dressing-room door while Irene Jackson was undressed, standing there and laughing before closing the door after Jackson protested. Kitchens acknowledged the episode occurred during working hours and said Frank asked why the women were not working (GSC, 7).

Dewey Hewell testified that she had seen Frank talking with Mary Phagan two or three times a day, calling her “Mary,” putting his hand on Mary’s shoulder, standing close, and leaning toward her face. Hewell admitted other girls were present and did not know what Frank and Mary were discussing (GSC, 7).

There was also conflict concerning Rebecca Carson. Carson denied going into the fourth-floor dressing room with Frank. Myrtie Cato said she saw Carson enter with him twice, while Maggie Griffin said she saw them go in together three or four times during working hours (GSC, 7).

None of those episodes proves Wood’s accusation. They show that Wood’s complaint did not arise in a record otherwise empty of adverse evidence concerning Frank’s behavior or reputation around women.

Where This Falls in Frank’s Appeal Timeline

The timing of the Wood affidavit becomes even more interesting when placed against Frank’s appeals.

Judge Roan denied Frank’s original motion for a new trial in late 1913. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that denial on Tuesday, February 17, 1914, by a 4–2 vote. Rehearing was denied on Wednesday, February 25.

Only a few weeks later came the March affidavit campaign.

Frank’s attorneys publicly released Wood’s affidavit on Saturday, March 14.

The Atlanta Journal printed it on Sunday, March 15.

Frank’s extraordinary motion for a new trial was formally filed on Thursday, April 16.

So Wood’s “perfect gentleman” affidavit appeared after Frank had already lost his first Georgia Supreme Court appeal and while his defense was assembling newly discovered evidence for the extraordinary motion.

Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill denied the extraordinary motion on Friday, May 8, 1914.

The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that denial on Wednesday, October 14, 1914.

Frank’s separate motion to set aside the verdict was later unanimously rejected by the Georgia Supreme Court on Saturday, November 14, 1914.

That chronology gives the affidavit campaign its proper setting. These papers were being gathered at a time when Frank’s legal options were narrowing and his defense needed new evidence, recantations, contradictions, attacks on State witnesses, and material pointing toward Jim Conley.

After the Trial: Frank’s Defense Comes Looking for Nellie Wood

Frank was convicted on Monday, August 25, 1913. His attorneys and investigators then began the long post-trial campaign to attack State witnesses, find recantations, develop new evidence, and prepare additional legal proceedings.

Wood later said an unidentified man came to see her in an automobile. Burke later came to see her, and Wood said she recognized Burke’s automobile as the same vehicle used by the first man (GSC, 5).

Wood specifically said:

“C. W. Burke did not himself ever offer me any money to swear for Leo M. Frank.”

That qualification stays.

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” (GSC, 5).

Wood said she refused.

Then Burke himself returned.

Burke “Insisted” on an Affidavit

Wood said Burke told her the court had excluded her evidence and:

“insisted that I should give him an affidavit” (GSC, 5).

Then she described what she said the affidavit contained:

“I gave him an affidavit, which stated that I personally knew nothing about Leo M. Frank prior to the murder, except as to what occurred between me and him in his private office.”

There it is again.

Wood said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved the private-office occurrence.

It did not erase it.

L. P. Eubanks and “Lots of Money”

Wood also testified about Lovelace Preston Eubanks. She said Eubanks telephoned while she was caring for her sick younger brother, later came to her home in an automobile, and eventually introduced her to Burke.

According to Wood, Eubanks told her she could make:

“lots of money”

working on the Frank investigation for Burke (AJ, 9).

This particular conversation concerned paid investigative work. Paid work does not automatically equal bribery.

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

Later, under Rosser’s questioning, Wood fired back:

“Not for you all! I didn’t take what Burke offered me” (AJ, 9).

Again, Wood said she did not take it.

Saturday, March 14 and Sunday, March 15, 1914: The “Perfect Gentleman” Affidavit Appears

Frank’s attorneys made several affidavits public on Saturday, March 14, 1914. The Atlanta Journal printed Wood’s affidavit the following morning under the headline:

“WITNESS AGAINST FRANK NOW ACCUSES SLEUTHS” (AJ, 8).

The extraordinary motion for a new trial was not formally filed until Thursday, April 16, 1914, so the Wood affidavit belonged to the defense campaign being assembled in preparation for that motion.

The document did not simply soften Wood’s earlier accusation.

It changed its entire direction.

According to the March affidavit, Detectives Chewning and Norris questioned Wood about whether she had left the factory because Frank became too familiar or insulted her. The paper had Wood denying it.

Instead, the document said Wood had been an inexperienced forelady, had trouble with women working under her, became upset, and went to Frank for advice.

Frank supposedly comforted her.

His physical contact became pats on the shoulder.

Then came the language that creates the problem.

Frank was:

“a perfect gentleman.”

He had:

“in no way insulted her.”

His dealings with Wood were:

“upright and manly” (AJ, 8).

That is not a small difference.

It is the opposite story.

“Upright and Manly”

Put the two accounts beside each other.

In May 1913, Wood said Frank made her sit down after she objected. In March 1914, Frank is comforting an upset forelady. In May 1913, Wood said Frank told her nobody was coming. In March 1914, there is no threatening private-office atmosphere.

In May 1913, Wood said Frank became too familiar, put his hands around her, tried to touch her breast, and made another effort involving her lower body and dress. In March 1914, the touching becomes reassuring shoulder-patting by a “perfect gentleman.”

The original account describes resistance.

The March account describes reassurance.

Wood later called the encounter an “indecent proposal.”

The March affidavit called Frank “upright and manly.”

Same woman. Same employer. Same two days of employment. Same private office.

Two radically different stories.

The March Affidavit Also Attacked the Investigation

The March document did more than clear Frank.

It attacked the investigators who had worked against him.

The affidavit accused Detectives Chewning and Norris of trying to get Wood to make false accusations. It brought Detective Bass Rosser into the story, saying he asked confusing questions, took notes, and did not show Wood what he wrote.

Then the paper turned toward Dorsey.

According to the affidavit, Dorsey told Wood after her trial appearance that he had expected to make her his “star witness” but was disappointed.

The affidavit had Wood telling Dorsey she could not truthfully testify against Frank because she had only known him two days and Frank had never insulted her.

The paper then portrayed Dorsey as acknowledging that he had misunderstood her (AJ, 8).

Look at what the document accomplished. It cleared Frank, attacked city detectives, weakened Wood’s earlier accusation, and converted Dorsey’s own trial frustration into support for the defense.

Once the affidavit existed, it could also be used against Wood whenever she returned to her original accusation.

It was about as useful a Nellie Wood document as Frank’s defense could have asked for.

The Published Document Does Not Match What Wood Said She Gave Burke

If the March affidavit was Wood’s genuine and knowing recantation, I would expect Wood’s later description of the affidavit she gave Burke to resemble it.

It does not.

Wood said her Burke affidavit preserved:

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

The March paper largely stripped the damaging meaning from that occurrence.

That is a document-content problem.

Maybe there were multiple Wood affidavits. Maybe the statement was rewritten during preparation. Maybe words were added. Maybe something was removed. Maybe a different version was substituted.

The precise mechanism has not been established.

But the discrepancy itself is evidence.

Wood said she gave Burke one thing.

Frank’s defense publicly produced something materially different.

Then the wider affidavit record starts getting very interesting.

The Wider Defense Affidavit Campaign

By spring 1914, Frank’s extraordinary-motion investigation had become an affidavit war.

Witnesses were being re-interviewed. Trial testimony was being repudiated. Repudiations were themselves being repudiated. Investigators traveled throughout Georgia and outside the state. Witnesses were approached about jobs, paid work, transportation, travel, and money.

False identities and false stories were admittedly used in some interviews.

Several witnesses later complained that finished affidavits did not reflect what they believed they had said, dictated, or signed.

Dorsey accused some affidavits of outright forgery.

Frank’s attorneys and investigators denied wrongdoing and produced rebuttal affidavits, notaries, attorneys, and witnesses saying papers had been properly read and voluntarily executed.

The point is not that every accusation against Frank’s investigators was true.

The point is that Nellie Wood’s disputed affidavit was not an isolated event.

Several other disputes look uncomfortably similar.

Who Was C. B. Dalton? The Documentary Trail to Clayburn Burtus Dalton

Before getting into Dalton’s affidavit dispute, his name needs to be cleaned up because the contemporary record uses several forms.

At Frank’s 1913 murder trial the witness was formally introduced as:

“C. B. DALTON, sworn for the State” (BOE, 32).

In rebuttal testimony, C. J. Maynard said:

“I have seen Burtus Dalton go in the factory with a woman in June or July, 1912” (BOE, 32).

The Atlanta Georgian of Tuesday, May 5, 1914, identified the witness as:

“C. Burtus Dalton” (AG, 33).

The New York Times of the same date likewise called him:

“C. Burtus Dalton, back from Fort Myers, Fla.” (NYT, 34).

Some contemporary newspapers printed the middle name as Brutus rather than Burtus. The spelling was plainly unstable in print.

Now go backward.

The 1912 Atlanta City Directory contains the entry:

“Clayburn B (Sarah), carpenter, r 340½ E Hunter” (Directory, 31).

That establishes an Atlanta resident named Clayburn B. Dalton immediately before the Frank case.

Then go farther back to Gwinnett County.

The News-Herald of Lawrenceville, Georgia, on Thursday, January 11, 1900, printed the court entry:

“State vs Burtus Dalton, Larceny, Verdict not guilty” (NH, 35).

That is potentially significant because the Frank trial record contains testimony concerning C. B. Dalton’s earlier legal history in Gwinnett and Walton Counties.

No single record I have located yet prints the complete name Clayburn Burtus Dalton in one line.

But the documentary chain is strong:

1912 Atlanta City Directory: Clayburn B. Dalton.

1913 Frank trial: C. B. Dalton.

1913 Frank trial rebuttal: Burtus Dalton.

1914 Atlanta Georgian: C. Burtus Dalton.

1914 New York Times: C. Burtus Dalton.

1900 Gwinnett County court reporting: Burtus Dalton.

Taken together, these sources provide substantial documentary support for identifying the Frank-case witness C. B. Dalton as Clayburn Burtus Dalton, while recognizing the contemporary Brutus spelling variant.

A death certificate, marriage record, census record, prison record, court indictment, or family record spelling the complete name in one place would strengthen the identification further.

Clayburn Burtus Dalton: An Alleged $100 Bait-and-Switch

Dalton had given damaging testimony at Frank’s murder trial concerning Frank’s alleged conduct around women. The defense later presented an affidavit from Dalton repudiating important portions of that testimony.

Then Dalton came back.

On Monday, May 4, 1914, Atlanta Detective John R. Black brought Dalton back to Atlanta from Fort Myers, Florida. The following day Atlanta newspapers and the New York Times reported Dalton’s new affidavit.

The Atlanta Georgian called him “C. Burtus Dalton.” According to Dalton, Burke traveled to Fort Myers and represented that he wanted Dalton to sign a document intended for the Georgia Pardon Board to help save Frank from hanging.

Dalton alleged that Burke offered him:

$100 and transportation to Atlanta

for his signature (AG, 33; NYT, 34).

Then comes the part that makes Dalton especially relevant.

Dalton said Burke had a typewritten statement but read him only a small part of it.

According to Dalton, the portion read to him contained nothing about repudiating his murder-trial testimony.

Dalton signed.

The defense later used the paper as a repudiation of Dalton’s damaging trial evidence.

Dalton said he asked when he would receive the $100. According to him, Burke told him to return to the hotel that night. Dalton said he did.

Burke had packed and left.

The money was not there.

That is more than a generic claim of a cash offer. Dalton’s accusation is a document bait-and-switch allegation.

He said the paper was represented as one thing.

He said only part was read.

He said the part read said nothing about repudiating his trial evidence.

The defense then used the document as a repudiation.

Burke denied Dalton’s account. He said Dalton voluntarily gave the statement, that a notary read it, that Dalton acknowledged it was true, and that no money or improper reward had been promised.

Two sharply different stories.

But Dalton’s allegation asks exactly the question raised by Nellie Wood:

Did the final defense affidavit accurately represent what the witness understood himself to be giving?

Albert McKnight: Language Allegedly Added After Signing

Albert McKnight provides another close comparison.

McKnight had testified for the State. Later he signed a defense affidavit retreating from parts of his trial testimony.

Then he repudiated the repudiation.

On Sunday, April 19, 1914, the Atlanta Journal reported McKnight saying Burke had discussed getting him a Pullman job paying about $40 a month plus tips, which McKnight believed could raise his total income considerably (AJ, 14).

McKnight said:

“That was the way he got around me.”

McKnight changed stories. That damages his credibility and belongs in any fair account.

But the Atlanta Constitution that same day reported a different allegation going straight to document integrity.

McKnight said statements concerning R. L. Craven and C. C. Pickett had been inserted into his affidavit:

after he had signed it (AC, 15).

Same murder case.

Same defense investigation.

Same C. W. Burke.

Another affidavit favorable to Frank.

Another witness saying the finished document contained language not present when he signed.

The defense disputed McKnight and produced affidavits supporting its position that his defense statement had been voluntarily given.

That rebuttal counts.

So does McKnight’s allegation.

Aaron Allen: “After I Dictated and Signed It”

Aaron Allen may be the closest parallel of all.

Allen said people working around the Burns investigation tried to obtain an affidavit from him concerning Jim Conley.

According to Allen, Charles A. Isom suggested there was:

“a lot of money in it”

if Allen would give the kind of evidence investigators wanted (AJ, 9).

Allen described being taken to Chicago, staying there for several days, and visiting the Burns Agency offices in the Transportation Building.

At one point, according to Allen, he was left alone in a room where silver and greenbacks were spread across a table.

Allen said he did not touch the money.

Later a stenographer was brought in and Allen dictated an affidavit.

Then came the key statement:

“I dictated an affidavit. If there was anything in that paper about me knowing Conley it was put in there by somebody else after I dictated and signed it” (AJ, 9).

That is not a vague complaint.

Allen said disputed language appeared after he dictated and signed.

The defense disputed the implication that a false affidavit had knowingly been procured.

But put Allen beside McKnight and Wood.

McKnight says words were inserted after signing.

Allen says words appeared after dictation and signing.

Wood says her affidavit preserved the private-office occurrence while the defense paper released in her name largely removed its damaging meaning.

Three different witnesses.

Three disputes involving what the final written affidavit actually said.

Allen’s Chicago Burns-Office Story Was National News the Next Day

The Allen story did not stay in Atlanta.

On Wednesday, May 6, 1914, the New York Times published:

“MAY CALL BURNS BEFORE GRAND JURY” (NYT, 37).

The article reported Allen’s allegation that Burns Agency representatives in Chicago tried to obtain a statement involving Jim Conley. It carried the accusation that Allen was left alone inside a Burns Agency room with a large quantity of silver and greenbacks spread across a table.

The Times also reported Charles A. Isom’s affidavit concerning his own involvement in going to Chicago to obtain a statement from Allen (NYT, 37).

The significance is not that the New York Times independently proved the cash-on-the-table accusation.

It did not.

The significance is that Allen’s allegation about misconduct inside the Chicago Burns office was being reported to a national audience the morning after Dorsey presented it in Atlanta.

This was not something reconstructed decades later.

It was a live 1914 accusation.

Charles Isom Strengthens the Allen Dispute

Allen was not completely alone even inside the accusation.

Charles A. Isom gave his own affidavit concerning the Chicago episode. According to the contemporary reports, Isom had been employed in connection with obtaining a statement from Allen.

The key point is that Isom’s separate account supported the proposition that Allen had said he did not know Jim Conley, and therefore an affidavit representing Allen as knowing Conley would not accurately reflect what Allen told Isom (AJ, 9; NYT, 37).

That does not prove who altered anything.

It does strengthen the underlying Allen complaint.

Allen’s central objection was that a finished statement contained something about his knowing Conley that he said he had never authorized.

Isom’s affidavit gave Dorsey another witness saying Allen had told him the opposite.

Burns and Stiles Hopkins Give Accounts That Do Not Fit Cleanly Together

The Allen episode also produced an interesting inconsistency on the defense side.

On Saturday, May 2, 1914, the Atlanta Journal ran:

“DETECTIVE BURNS GRILLED BY DORSEY FOR OVER AN HOUR” (AJ, 45).

During the examination, Burns was reported as saying attorney Stiles Hopkins had taken Aaron Allen’s affidavit.

Four days later, on Wednesday, May 6, the Atlanta Journal reported Hopkins’s rebuttal.

Hopkins said he had gone to Chicago but declined to see Allen or take an affidavit from him because Allen’s proposed information was not considered useful to Frank’s extraordinary motion (AJ, 12).

Those two published accounts do not fit neatly together.

Burns was reported saying Hopkins took Allen’s affidavit.

Hopkins was later reported saying he declined to see Allen and did not take one.

I cannot tell from the surviving newspaper accounts whether Burns was speaking loosely, whether there were different visits or papers involved, whether the newspaper summarized one of the men imprecisely, or whether one account was simply wrong.

But the inconsistency belongs in the article.

The defense-side explanation of the Allen affair was not perfectly consistent even before we reach Allen’s own accusation of altered affidavit language.

We Still Do Not Have the Chicago Newspaper

One limit remains.

I have not located a Chicago daily newspaper article from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Examiner, Inter Ocean, Chicago Daily News, or related Chicago press reporting Allen’s allegations.

The Chicago Examiner run is digitized, but the indexing and OCR are poor.

That means I would not write:

“The Chicago newspapers reported Allen’s accusation.”

I cannot yet prove that.

What can safely be written is:

Allen alleged misconduct inside the Burns Agency’s Chicago office, and the New York Times nationally reported that allegation on Wednesday, May 6, 1914.

The next serious archival step is an issue-by-issue page examination of the Chicago papers from approximately Tuesday, May 5 through Friday, May 8, 1914.

Mary Rich: A Paper She Said She Never Made

Mary Rich adds another strong document-integrity dispute.

On Friday, March 27, 1914, Frank’s attorneys publicly relied on Rich as a significant new witness. The defense represented Rich, who operated a small food stand near the National Pencil Company, as saying she saw Jim Conley come from the alley behind the factory at about 2:15 o’clock on Saturday, April 26, 1913, buy a 20-cent dinner, and return toward the alley and factory (AJ, 16).

That was potentially useful evidence for Frank.

Then Rich repudiated the paper.

The Atlanta Constitution of Tuesday, May 5, reporting Monday, May 4 proceedings, said Rich denied making the affidavit submitted by Frank’s defense (AC, 13).

Rich alleged that Lucile Frank, Rabbi David Marx, C. W. Burke, and another man came to see her and tried to obtain her signature.

According to Rich, Mrs. Frank appealed to her to help “take the rope from around my husband’s neck.”

Rich said she refused because the statement was false.

Then came a striking physical detail involving the document itself.

According to Rich, C. W. Burke tore a small piece from the paper and gave the scrap to Rich as an identifying marker so she could recognize the document again.

Rich said she showed the scrap to F. J. Wellborn and later took it to Dorsey’s office. The Constitution reported that the scrap was attached to Wellborn’s affidavit (AC, 13).

The defense answered.

Rabbi Marx swore that he went to see Rich on April 14 with Mrs. Frank and Dan Lehon, showed Rich the affidavit marked “Exhibit A1,” and that Rich said the substance was true except that the time should have been 2:30 rather than 2:15.

Lehon corroborated Marx’s account (AJ, 12).

So Mary Rich leaves a direct conflict.

Rich said she never made the defense affidavit and refused to sign a false paper.

The defense said she admitted the underlying story was true but disagreed over the time.

Again, the issue is not simply a witness remembering an old event differently.

It is a fight over what the paper represented and whether the witness stood behind it.

Monday, May 4, 1914: Frank Reese or Frank Reeves and a Proposed False Conley Confession

The May 5 Atlanta Constitution adds another extraordinary episode from the Monday, May 4 hearing.

First, the name has to be handled carefully.

The same newspaper article initially calls the former Fulton County Tower prisoner Frank Reese. A few paragraphs later it calls the document the “Reeves affidavit.” On the same newspaper page, the headline over Dr. George Wrenn’s denial calls him:

“Frank Reeves.”

The Atlanta Journal also varies between Reese and Reeves.

This instability belongs to the contemporary record itself.

I therefore refer to him as Frank Reese/Reeves rather than pretending the newspapers were consistent.

The Constitution described Reese as a former Tower prisoner living at 7 Kingsley Street, who had been a trusty, worked in the prison laundry, and performed odd jobs.

Reese alleged that Dr. George T. Wrenn talked to him and another prisoner, Fred Perkerson, several times and tried to get them to go into Jim Conley’s cell, come back out, and falsely claim Conley had confessed to Mary Phagan’s murder.

According to Reese:

“He said we would get lots of money if we did” (AC, 13).

If Reese told the truth, this was not payment of legitimate investigative expenses.

It was an alleged proposal to manufacture evidence that did not exist.

Reese also described George Wrenn interacting with Anna Maud Carter and claimed Wrenn once threw Carter a note from the second floor which she carried to Conley’s cell.

Then the written paper enters the story.

According to Reese, after he was released from jail, Wrenn appeared at his home at approximately:

7 o’clock in the morning

with a:

long white paper

and wanted Reese to sign it.

Reese said he could not read or write.

According to Reese, Wrenn told him the paper only concerned Reese having carried notes between Conley and Carter.

Reese refused.

His reason deserves attention. He said he did not know everything contained in the paper and would not permit Wrenn to write or sign something for him when Reese did not know the contents (AC, 13).

That is another affidavit-integrity episode.

Unlike somebody later saying he signed carelessly and regretted it, Reese’s account says he stopped the process before signing because he could not verify what the paper actually said.

Fred Perkerson Corroborates the Alleged Proposal

Fred Perkerson supplied his own affidavit.

Perkerson alleged that Burke, Jimmie Wrenn, and Dr. George Wrenn frequently conferred with Leo Frank in Frank’s Tower cell.

That is Perkerson’s allegation. It does not prove the subject of every conversation.

Perkerson then described substantially the same proposal Reese described. According to him, Wrenn told Perkerson and Reese/Reeves they were in a position to make a lot of money and advised them to enter Conley’s cell, come back out, and claim Conley had confessed.

Perkerson said he asked why Wrenn did not do it himself.

According to Perkerson, Wrenn replied that he did not want to get mixed up in the case (AC, 13).

We therefore have two former prisoners in Dorsey’s counter-showing describing substantially the same alleged plan.

That does not prove the plan happened.

It makes the allegation harder to dismiss as one man’s solitary invention.

And what they alleged was not a request to reconsider a memory.

They alleged an attempt to create a Jim Conley confession that had never occurred.

The New York Times Carries the Reese-Perkerson Allegation Outside Georgia

The Reese and Perkerson story, like Aaron Allen’s, did not remain confined to Atlanta newspapers.

On Tuesday, May 5, 1914, the New York Times published:

“FRANK AFFIDAVITS FALSE, SAYS DORSEY” (NYT, 34).

The article reported Reese’s allegation that Dr. George Wrenn wanted Reese and Perkerson to enter Conley’s cell and afterward falsely claim that Conley had confessed, with “lots of money” supposedly in it for them.

The Times described the hearing as involving accusations of bribery, perjury, subornation, and an alleged deliberate effort to manufacture evidence against Conley (NYT, 34).

Again, a newspaper report does not establish that Wrenn made the proposal.

It does establish that the allegation was contemporaneous, formally placed before the court, and being reported outside Georgia immediately.

Dr. George Wrenn Denies It

The same Atlanta Constitution page printed Dr. George Wrenn’s answer.

Wrenn called the charges a:

“damnable lie.”

He said Perkerson and Frank Reeves had lied and were trying to shield themselves.

His explanation was that Reese/Reeves and Perkerson were the men carrying notes between Conley and Anna Maud Carter.

Wrenn acknowledged visiting Frank’s cell but said he went there as a hospital intern, to borrow newspapers or take Frank things.

He denied trying to frame Conley.

Wrenn also acknowledged that he had asked Reese/Reeves to sign a paper.

His explanation was narrower. He said he wanted a written statement confirming that Reese had carried notes between Conley and Carter.

According to Wrenn, Reese initially agreed but changed his mind after Detective Bass Rosser appeared.

The following day the defense presented a formal George T. Wrenn affidavit again denying any reward offer, denying an effort to obtain a fake confession from Conley, and denying asking Carter to obtain one (AJ, 12).

This is how the evidence should be presented.

Reese and Perkerson accuse.

Wrenn denies.

One point, however, is common to both sides.

Wrenn did seek a written statement from Reese/Reeves.

The dispute is over what he wanted it to say and why.

George Epps: False Identities, Birmingham, and a Staged Telephone Call

The George W. Epps Jr. episode adds something different because important parts of the deception were acknowledged by the defense side.

Epps had testified for the State. A defense affidavit later appeared repudiating portions of his testimony.

Then Epps repudiated that affidavit.

According to Epps, a man calling himself “Terry” befriended him and offered $10 a week plus expenses in connection with what was presented as travel with an entertainment venture.

Epps eventually went to Birmingham, Alabama, arriving at approximately 3 o’clock in the morning.

There, another man appeared posing as:

“Detective Kelly.”

Epps later identified:

“Terry” as Jimmie Wrenn

and:

“Detective Kelly” as C. W. Burke.

Epps said he was frightened with accusations involving theft and perjury, confronted about his Frank-case testimony, deprived of sleep, and eventually signed an affidavit.

Burke denied coercion.

But Burke’s own rebuttal acknowledged that Wrenn had been instructed to use the false identity “Terry” and pose as a prizefighter supposedly preparing to go to New Orleans.

Burke also acknowledged a staged telephone call in Birmingham. According to Burke’s explanation, he pretended to telephone Atlanta concerning money Epps supposedly stole while the person on the other end had been arranged beforehand.

The defense described these as investigative techniques intended to get Epps away from outside influence and obtain the truth.

Whatever word somebody chooses, false identity and staged circumstances were part of the method.

That does not depend solely upon Dorsey’s accusations.

The defense side admitted it.

Ivey Jones: Another Admitted False Pretext

Ivey Jones supplies another admitted deceptive interview technique.

Burke said Wrenn was instructed not to tell Jones that the Frank case was the actual purpose of the interview.

Instead, Wrenn approached Jones with a story about investigating a railroad accident said to have occurred on Memorial Day.

Jones described his movements.

Wrenn took notes.

The notes went to Burke.

Burke prepared an affidavit from them.

The defense said the false railroad story was used to obtain an unguarded and truthful account.

Dorsey later attacked the Jones affidavit as a forgery.

The forgery allegation was disputed.

The false pretext used during the interview was acknowledged.

Ruth Robinson: “I Never Signed It”

The Ruth Robinson dispute went directly to authenticity.

Robinson denied making a defense affidavit attributed to her and denied the signature.

Dorsey called the paper a forgery (AJ, 10; AG, 11).

The defense answered with New York notary Austin G. Dennison, who said the affidavit had been properly taken and executed.

Those accounts cannot both be completely correct.

I do not call the Robinson affidavit a proved forgery.

I do say the dispute concerned whether the document was hers at all.

Again, affidavit integrity was being challenged.

Carrie Smith and an Alleged $20 Offer

Carrie Smith, one of the women associated with Frank’s adverse character evidence, gave another State affidavit.

According to contemporary reporting, a man calling himself “Maddox” approached Smith about signing a defense paper and allegedly offered:

$20 out of his commission

if she would sign (AG, 11).

Smith said she refused.

She later described going to the seventh floor of the Grant Building, where she connected the supposed “Maddox” with an office of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips.

Dorsey introduced evidence attempting to identify “Maddox” as Jimmie Wrenn.

That identification was part of Dorsey’s showing, not a final judicial finding.

Still, another woman connected with damaging evidence against Frank alleged a cash offer tied to a defense affidavit.

Marie Carst or Karst: $2 a Day and Monteen Stover

Marie Carst, usually spelled Karst in contemporary newspaper coverage, described paid investigative work for Burke.

Karst said Burke paid her:

$2 per day

to approach female witnesses, even when she performed only a short amount of work (AG, 11).

According to Karst, Burke eventually wanted her to get close to Monteen Stover and persuade Stover to change her testimony.

Karst said she refused.

The defense answered with evidence saying Karst voluntarily gave another affidavit and that the paper had been read to her before signing.

Paid investigative work itself does not establish wrongdoing.

The damaging part is what Karst said she was being paid to accomplish.

R. P. Barrett: New Orleans, Employment, and Railroad Transportation

Robert P. Barrett, the factory employee who testified about physical evidence discovered after Mary Phagan’s murder, also became part of the post-trial affidavit fight.

Barrett accused Jimmie Wrenn of discussing employment and a proposed trip to New Orleans in connection with a change in Barrett’s testimony.

Barrett also described railroad transportation.

Wrenn denied attempting to buy or alter Barrett’s evidence.

The defense account acknowledged discussions involving New Orleans and employment but said Barrett was unemployed and looking for a job.

Once again, the contact is less disputed than the reason for it.

James E. Duffey: Money, Loans, Employment, and a Disputed Paper

James E. Duffey became another witness in the inducement argument.

State evidence alleged that L. P. Eubanks and C. W. Burke used money and employment while trying to obtain a paper from Duffey.

Duffey’s father, B. E. Duffey, said money supplied by Eubanks was described as a loan and that a note was taken, but the father was told the younger Duffey would never actually have to repay it (AC, 13).

The defense denied any improper bargain.

Burke’s side said help with employment was not conditioned upon false evidence.

Notary J. O. Knight later swore Duffey gave his affidavit without a promise of reward (AJ, 9).

Another accusation.

Another answer.

And once again money, jobs, and a written affidavit appear in the same episode.

Helen Ferguson: $100, “J. W. Howard,” Courtship, and Marriage

The Helen Ferguson story is one of the strangest episodes in the entire post-trial investigation.

Ferguson had testified for the State concerning her attempt on Friday, April 25, 1913, to obtain Mary Phagan’s pay envelope.

Her later State affidavit was sworn on Tuesday, April 7, 1914.

Ferguson said that after Frank’s trial there were two attempts either to get her out of Atlanta or to change her testimony.

The first involved money.

According to Ferguson, an unidentified young man approached her on a street corner while she was going to work and offered:

$100, plus board and expenses

if she would leave Atlanta because Frank was going to obtain a new trial (AC, 13).

Ferguson refused.

The second episode began during the two weeks before Christmas 1913. Ferguson was working at the Clark Woodenware Company on Foundry Street.

A young man approached her and gave the name:

“J. W. Howard.”

He was actually Jimmie Wrenn.

Ferguson said Wrenn took her to shows, spent money, courted her, talked about love, and proposed marriage.

Then Wrenn introduced Ferguson to a large man as his father.

Ferguson later identified the supposed father as:

C. W. Burke.

One night at 9 o’clock, after Ferguson finished extra work at the Clark Woodenware Company, Wrenn met her and took her to the Grant Building on Broad Street.

Ferguson remembered the name J. H. Porter on the office door.

According to Ferguson, Wrenn and the man she later identified as Burke tried to get her to change the portion of her trial testimony concerning Frank’s refusal to give her Mary Phagan’s pay envelope.

Ferguson refused.

She said Wrenn continued talking about loving and marrying her and asked her to change the statement for him.

Eventually the discussion shifted to Ferguson’s fear of Jim Conley, and a different affidavit concerning Conley was prepared and signed.

Wrenn drove Ferguson home.

According to her, he tried to kiss her.

She hit him in the mouth.

Later she discovered his real name was Jimmie Wrenn and that the supposed father was C. W. Burke (AC, 13).

Burke denied the accusation.

He said Ferguson was brought to him for an affidavit about Conley, not to change her Frank testimony. He denied knowing about a plan to have her leave Atlanta or marry Wrenn (AJ, 12).

Again, accusation and denial.

But the Ferguson affair later reached a grand jury.

Anna Maud Carter Is Removed From Atlanta

Anna Maud Carter became important to Frank’s defense because she claimed Jim Conley had confessed Mary Phagan’s murder to her.

Frank’s defense introduced letters and affidavits attributed to Carter.

The State attacked her credibility and produced conflicting statements.

Then Carter was removed from Atlanta.

On Monday, May 4, 1914, Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill demanded that Carter be returned to the jurisdiction within five days.

The Atlanta Constitution quoted Hill saying:

“Detective Burns admitted before me that he had sent Anna Maud Carter from the jurisdiction of the court” (AC, 13).

The newspaper reported Carter was in New Orleans, where she was said to be working with the Burns Detective Agency.

Hill said if she were not returned he would refuse to consider her evidence.

He also said his order was not intended as criticism of Frank’s attorneys.

That qualification stays.

Still, the judge overseeing the extraordinary-motion proceeding was concerned enough about the removal of a significant defense witness to order her returned.

Sunday, May 10, 1914: The New York Times Reports the Burns Contempt Fight

The Carter affair also moved into the national press.

On Sunday, May 10, 1914, the New York Times ran:

“BURNS TO ANSWER CONTEMPT CHARGE” (NYT, 38).

The article reported that Judge Hill had cited William J. Burns and his chief aide Dan S. Lehon to explain why they should not be held in contempt over Carter’s removal from the court’s jurisdiction while her alleged Conley-confession evidence was being used.

The Times also noted that Lehon was already under a $1,000 bond to appear before the grand jury investigating the Ragsdale affidavit and other defense statements (NYT, 38).

This is stronger than a newspaper columnist complaining about Burns.

A sitting Superior Court judge had become directly involved in how Burns and his investigators were handling a witness central to Frank’s extraordinary-motion evidence.

Reverend C. B. Ragsdale: “Frame a Statement” and Make Money

The fuller C. B. Ragsdale account adds another layer.

Ragsdale and R. L. Barber had given sensational affidavits favorable to Frank, claiming they overheard Jim Conley confess to killing Mary Phagan.

If true, the affidavits would have been powerful evidence for Frank.

Then they collapsed.

Ragsdale repudiated his affidavit.

According to the account published from his later State affidavit, Ragsdale accused his own attorney Arthur Thurman of initiating the plan.

Ragsdale said Thurman knew he was in poor financial condition and told him he could make money from the Frank case if he would:

frame a statement

for Frank’s defense (AC, 13).

Ragsdale said he wrote a statement and brought it to Thurman.

According to him, Thurman said it was weak in places but could be strengthened.

Ragsdale also said Thurman told him they needed somebody to corroborate the story.

Ragsdale brought in R. L. Barber.

According to Ragsdale, more conferences followed.

Then, on Friday, April 24, 1914, Ragsdale said Carlton C. Tedder became involved and took him to the Burns Agency office in the Healey Building, where he met Dan S. Lehon.

Ragsdale said Lehon then took him to the office of Luther Z. Rosser, where a stenographer reduced the Conley-confession story to writing.

Ragsdale later alleged that he received $200 and Barber $100 through the activities of people involved in the affair.

Those were serious accusations.

They were also contested.

The Ragsdale-Barber affidavits were withdrawn by Frank’s attorneys.

Later, when Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman went to trial on subornation charges in January 1915, Ragsdale’s credibility was badly attacked.

The defendants were ultimately acquitted.

That acquittal belongs in the article.

So does the collapse of the affidavits themselves.

Monday, May 4: Lehon Is Asked Where the Money Came From

The May 5 Atlanta Constitution provides useful context concerning Dan S. Lehon, Southern superintendent of the William J. Burns Detective Agency.

Dorsey questioned Lehon about the Frank investigation, the agency’s finances, and the Ragsdale affair.

Lehon repeatedly named Herbert J. Haas, one of Frank’s attorneys, as a source of money for the Burns investigation.

According to Lehon, Haas supplied much of the money through checks which were turned over to Burns Agency superintendent C. E. Sears.

Lehon also said W. W. “Boots” Rogers was employed by the Burns organization and that Carlton C. Tedder was attached to its forces.

Lehon said he had paid Tedder $250 in salary shortly before the Ragsdale affidavit (AC, 13).

None of that proves the $250 was an illicit payment.

It establishes the organizational chain.

Frank’s defense attorneys financed Burns investigative work.

Burns operatives gathered evidence for Frank.

Several of those operatives later appeared in disputed affidavit episodes.

During Monday’s hearing Lehon angrily attacked Dorsey’s methods. Judge Hill temporarily placed him in the custody of Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner. After Arnold and Rosser explained that Lehon had not intended contempt, Hill ordered the offending words removed from the record and released him.

The hearing adjourned at 2 o’clock and was scheduled to resume at 10 o’clock Tuesday morning (AC, 13).

Dan S. Lehon’s $1,000 Grand-Jury Bond

On Tuesday, May 5, 1914, Judge Hill required Lehon to post a:

$1,000 bond

guaranteeing his appearance before the Fulton County grand jury in connection with the Ragsdale controversy.

The Atlanta Journal reported that Lehon appeared at:

1:15 o’clock

and the bond was signed by Milton Klein (AJ, 9).

A bond is not guilt.

It does show the affidavit controversy had moved beyond newspaper accusation.

A Superior Court judge and the Fulton County grand jury were now involved.

Tuesday, May 19, 1914: Judge Hill Assails the Frank Detectives Before the Grand Jury

The national story grew much larger on Tuesday, May 19, 1914.

The New York Times published:

“ASSAILS FRANK DETECTIVES”

with the subheadline:

“Judge Tells Grand Jury They Seek Notoriety, Not Truth” (NYT, 39).

The article reported Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill’s special charge to the Fulton County grand jury.

Hill was no longer simply ruling on whether one affidavit could be considered.

He was publicly addressing the investigative methods attributed to Burns and private detectives operating around the Frank case.

The Times quoted Hill describing those methods as a:

“menace to the peace of the community” (NYT, 39).

Hill directed the grand jury’s attention toward the Ragsdale and Anna Maud Carter episodes and told it to determine who had paid the money and indict whoever was responsible if the evidence warranted it.

This deserves more weight than a partisan newspaper editorial.

It was Judge Hill speaking formally from the bench to a grand jury.

And a New York newspaper was carrying his denunciation nationwide.

Wednesday, May 20, 1914: Atlanta Moves Against the Burns Agency License

The following day, Wednesday, May 20, the New York Times ran:

“TO REVOKE BURNS LICENSE” (NYT, 40).

The article reported that the Atlanta Police Commission voted unanimously to ask the City Council to revoke the license of the William J. Burns Detective Agency.

The Times connected the action with accusations arising from Burns’s work for Frank’s attorneys, including forgery, coercion, and subornation of perjury then under grand-jury investigation (NYT, 40).

Again, the existence of an investigation does not prove all the accusations.

What it does prove is that by May 20 the controversy had become an official city-government issue.

This was no longer just Dorsey and Burns trading accusations through newspaper columns.

Friday, May 22, 1914: Five Men Are Indicted

On Friday, May 22, 1914, the Fulton County grand jury returned indictments arising from the Ragsdale-Barber affair.

C. B. Ragsdale was indicted for perjury.

R. L. Barber was indicted for perjury.

Dan S. Lehon was indicted for subornation of perjury.

Carlton C. Tedder was indicted for subornation of perjury.

Attorney Arthur Thurman was indicted for subornation of perjury (AJ, 21; AC, 22).

William J. Burns himself was not one of those five indicted men.

That distinction is important.

Wednesday, May 27, 1914: Judge Hill Rules That Carter’s Removal Was Contempt

The New York Times returned to the Burns controversy on Wednesday, May 27, under the headline:

“FINDS BURNS IN CONTEMPT” (NYT, 41).

The details require some care.

Judge Hill held that removing Anna Maud Carter from the court’s jurisdiction constituted contempt, but he dismissed the contempt proceeding without punishment after Carter had been returned to Atlanta (NYT, 41).

So I would not write the sloppy version:

“Burns was convicted and punished for contempt.”

He was not punished.

The more accurate and stronger version is:

Judge Hill held that removing Carter from the jurisdiction constituted contempt, but dismissed the proceeding without punishment after she was returned.

The Times also reported that Burns lieutenant Dan Lehon had been fined $100 or thirty days for violating Atlanta’s private-detective ordinances and that the Burns Agency’s Atlanta office had closed after the city revoked its license (NYT, 41).

By late May, the post-trial Frank investigation had produced a judicial finding concerning Carter’s removal, criminal grand-jury investigations, municipal licensing action, and national newspaper coverage.

Thursday, May 28, 1914: The New York Age Attacks Burns

The controversy also appeared in the Black press outside Georgia.

On Thursday, May 28, 1914, the New York Age, one of the leading Black newspapers in the United States, published sharply hostile commentary concerning Burns’s effort to overturn Frank’s conviction and redirect suspicion toward Jim Conley (NYA, 44).

The Age discussed the proceedings against Burns and his operatives, the grand-jury investigation, and city action involving the agency.

The newspaper editorialized that Burns had tried to destroy Conley and had placed himself:

“in the criminal class” (NYA, 44).

That was editorial language.

It was not a judicial finding.

Its value is different.

It shows that criticism of Burns was not confined to White Atlanta newspapers hostile to Frank. A major Black newspaper in New York was looking at the effort to redirect guilt toward Jim Conley and reacting strongly against Burns.

Thursday, June 18, 1914: C. W. Burke Is Indicted

The grand-jury activity continued.

On Thursday, June 18, 1914, the Fulton County grand jury indicted C. W. Burke on an accusation involving attempted subornation of perjury in connection with the Ferguson witness (AJ, 23).

The surviving Atlanta Journal transcription calls the witness Nellie Ferguson, but the trial record and other contemporary reports identify her as Helen Ferguson.

The following day contemporary reporting said Burke furnished a:

$2,500 bond.

An indictment is not a conviction.

But the same C. W. Burke whom Nellie Wood said had “insisted” upon an affidavit from her was later indicted by a Fulton County grand jury in a separate controversy involving another female witness in the Frank case.

Different allegation.

Different witness.

Relevant historical setting.

Friday, June 19, 1914: Jimmie Wrenn Is Indicted

On Friday, June 19, 1914, newspapers reported that Jimmie Wrenn had also been indicted in connection with the Ferguson affair (AJ, 24).

By then Wrenn’s name had appeared repeatedly.

George Epps identified him as “Terry.”

Helen Ferguson said he courted her as “J. W. Howard.”

Dorsey connected him with Carrie Smith’s alleged “Maddox.”

Barrett accused him of discussing employment and New Orleans.

Now Wrenn’s name appeared in a grand-jury indictment.

Again:

indictment, not conviction.

June 1914: Burns’s Professional Standing Becomes a National Issue

By June, criticism of William J. Burns had moved far beyond Atlanta.

On Tuesday, June 16, 1914, the New York Times reported from Grand Rapids, Michigan, under the headline:

“CHIEFS MAY OUST BURNS” (NYT, 42).

The setting was the convention of the International Association of Police Chiefs.

According to the Times, Burns’s conduct in the Leo Frank case was the chief cause of a movement to remove him from the association’s honorary roll.

Police Chief Frank J. Cassada of Elmira, New York, complained that Burns pushed himself into publicity and tried cases in newspapers before courts had an opportunity to decide them (NYT, 42).

This is useful because we are now completely outside Georgia.

Police chiefs meeting in Michigan were debating Burns’s professional conduct, and the Frank investigation was identified as the chief cause.

Then, on Saturday, June 20, the New York Times reported:

“DROPPED BY CHIEFS, BURNS ASKS HEARING” (NYT, 43).

Burns had been removed from the honorary roll of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Burns protested that Atlanta Police Chief James Beavers had engineered the removal because of the Frank investigation and because Burns had criticized Atlanta authorities.

The Times reported that Beavers spoke in favor of removing Burns and criticized his methods in the Frank case (NYT, 43).

The chronology now stretches well beyond Fulton County:

Allen’s allegation about the Burns office in Chicago.

National newspaper reporting.

Grand-jury scrutiny.

Contempt proceedings.

Municipal licensing action.

Judge Hill’s formal denunciation.

Professional criticism among police chiefs meeting in Michigan.

Burns removed from their honorary roll.

This was not simply an Atlanta newspaper quarrel.

Even the New York Times Was Reporting the Damage

There is an irony here worth pointing out.

The New York Times was generally sympathetic to Frank during this period and published a great deal of material favorable to his innocence claims and to Burns’s investigation.

Yet the same newspaper still reported Allen’s Chicago-office accusation, the Reese-Perkerson allegation of an attempted false Conley confession, the Carter contempt proceedings, Judge Hill’s denunciation of Burns’s methods, the license-revocation effort, and Burns’s eventual trouble with the national police-chiefs organization (NYT, 34; NYT, 37; NYT, 38; NYT, 39; NYT, 40; NYT, 41; NYT, 42; NYT, 43).

I would not say the Times corroborated the truth of Allen’s cash-on-the-table story.

It did not.

What it corroborates is that Allen’s accusation was contemporaneous, formally presented, and important enough to be nationally reported almost immediately.

The same applies to Reese and Perkerson.

These were not stories invented generations afterward.

They were being fought over in 1914.

January 1915: The Ragsdale Subornation Case Goes to Trial

Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman later went to trial before Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill.

On Tuesday, January 26, 1915, they were arraigned in Fulton Superior Court on charges that they knowingly procured false Ragsdale and Barber affidavits (AJ, 25).

The prosecution relied heavily upon Ragsdale.

The defense attacked him hard.

On Friday, January 29, Ragsdale admitted under cross-examination that he had:

“spells with his mind.”

His son testified concerning concerns about his mental condition. Another witness said he would not believe Ragsdale under oath (AJ, 26).

Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman denied purchasing false affidavits.

The case went to the jury on Saturday night, January 30, at approximately:

10 o’clock.

By:

11 o’clock

there was no verdict.

Judge Hill sent the jurors to the Kimball House for the night (AC, 27).

At:

1:50 o’clock Sunday afternoon, January 31, 1915

the jury returned verdicts of:

Not guilty.

The Atlanta Constitution reported the acquittals the following morning, Monday, February 1 (AC, 28).

That result counts.

The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman criminally suborned Ragsdale and Barber.

Their acquittal does not make the withdrawn Ragsdale-Barber affidavits true.

The correct conclusion is narrower.

The affidavit collapse was real.

Criminal guilt of those three defendants was not proved.

The Pattern Is Wider Than Money Offers

When the entire post-trial record is put together, the pattern is broader than some witnesses said they were offered money.

There were alleged cash inducements: Clayburn Burtus Dalton’s $100, Helen Ferguson’s $100 to leave Atlanta, Carrie Smith’s alleged $20, Ragsdale’s alleged $200, Barber’s alleged $100, and repeated references to “lots of money.”

There were alleged employment inducements: Albert McKnight’s Pullman job, Wood’s proposed paid investigative work, and other employment discussions surrounding disputed affidavits.

There were travel and transportation inducements: Dalton’s transportation, Epps’s Birmingham trip, Barrett’s New Orleans discussion and railroad transportation.

There were false identities and false pretenses: “Terry,” “Detective Kelly,” “J. W. Howard,” Burke allegedly presented as Ferguson’s prospective father-in-law, and the fake railroad-accident interview used with Ivey Jones.

There were document-content disputes: Nellie Wood, Clayburn Burtus Dalton, Albert McKnight, Aaron Allen, Mary Rich, Frank Reese/Reeves, Ruth Robinson, and Ivey Jones.

There was also an alleged effort to produce something more serious than a changed affidavit. Reese/Reeves and Perkerson accused George Wrenn of trying to get them to announce a Conley confession that had never occurred.

If true, that would be manufacture of evidence from whole cloth.

Wrenn denied it.

But that is what two former prisoners accused him of proposing.

What the Defense Admitted and What It Denied

Frank’s defense denied wholesale wrongdoing.

It produced notaries saying affidavits had been read.

It produced witnesses saying statements were voluntary.

Burke denied Dalton’s accusation.

The defense challenged McKnight.

Wrenn denied Reese/Reeves and Perkerson.

Rabbi Marx and Lehon answered Mary Rich.

Burke denied Ferguson’s accusations.

Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman denied Ragsdale and were acquitted.

Those defenses belong in the record.

Something else belongs there too.

The defense side itself acknowledged using deceptive identities or pretexts in some witness interviews.

Burke acknowledged that Wrenn approached Epps as:

“Terry.”

Burke acknowledged a staged telephone call in Birmingham.

The Jones interview was admittedly conducted under a fake railroad-accident story.

Wrenn acknowledged seeking a written statement from Reese/Reeves.

Rabbi Marx acknowledged going to Mary Rich concerning the defense affidavit.

Burke acknowledged extensive contact with witnesses whose later accounts sharply disputed his.

And the published Burns-Hopkins accounts concerning Aaron Allen do not line up cleanly.

In many of these episodes the argument is not:

Did contact occur?

It is:

What was the purpose of the contact, what did the witness understand, and what happened to the resulting paper?

Where the Evidence Is Strongest

The evidence becomes easier to evaluate when separated into different levels.

The strongest proof of deceptive investigative technique comes from admissions on the defense side. False names, staged circumstances, and false interview purposes were used. That does not prove the resulting evidence was false. It proves investigators were willing to deceive witnesses about identity or purpose while gathering evidence.

The second level concerns document integrity. Wood said her affidavit preserved the private-office encounter. Dalton said he thought he was signing one kind of paper and only part was read. McKnight said language was inserted after signing. Allen said language appeared after dictation and signing. Rich disputed the affidavit and described a physical marker torn from the paper. Reese/Reeves refused to sign because he could not verify the contents. Robinson denied an affidavit and signature.

Those are different allegations, but every one asks the same basic question:

Did the finished paper accurately reflect what the witness thought he or she had said, dictated, or signed?

The third level concerns inducements. Money, jobs, travel, transportation, paid investigative work, romance, and marriage do not automatically prove bribery. Investigators can pay legitimate expenses. People can legitimately be offered employment. But when those things repeatedly appear beside attempts to obtain recantations and affidavits, they become historically relevant.

The fourth level is official action. Judge Hill ordered Anna Maud Carter returned. Lehon was required to post a grand-jury bond. Judge Hill formally condemned the investigative methods being alleged. Atlanta moved against the Burns Agency license. Ragsdale, Barber, Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman were indicted. Burke and Wrenn were later indicted in the Ferguson controversy. Burns’s professional standing became an issue before police chiefs meeting in Michigan. Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman were later acquitted.

Each fact gets its proper weight.

Taken together, they make it impossible to treat Nellie Wood’s March affidavit as though it existed in some clean, uncomplicated vacuum.

Friday, May 1 and Tuesday, May 5: Wood Returns to Her Original Accusation

The March affidavit did not end Wood’s story.

On Friday, May 1, another Wood affidavit again accused Frank of making an indecent proposal and putting his hands on her (AJ, 10).

Then, on Tuesday, May 5, Wood personally returned to open court.

Dorsey asked why she had quit the National Pencil Company.

Wood said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank” (AJ, 9).

When Dorsey asked what proposition Frank made, Wood answered:

“I think the details are unnecessary.”

Later she said she did not remember every detail and became silent.

That hesitation belongs in the record.

So does what she did not say.

She did not say the office incident never happened.

She did not say Frank had always been a perfect gentleman.

She did not reaffirm the March affidavit.

She still said she quit because Frank insulted her.

Rosser Puts Wood Through the Wringer

Rosser’s cross-examination moved deeply into Wood’s personal life.

He asked whether she had been arrested.

Wood said never.

He asked about police court, her addresses, her work, and a bond she had once signed for a printer named Eddie Ward, who had been charged with seduction.

Wood said she was a milliner, had worked for Southern Bell, and earlier worked in a cotton mill.

She gave her age as twenty-two.

At one point Wood 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, 9).

When Dorsey asked whether she was engaged to be married, Wood said yes. The Journal described her voice becoming husky as she said the affair had:

“just ruined me.”

Whatever conclusion someone reaches about Wood’s credibility, she was being put through the wringer.

And she still told the court Frank had insulted her.

Wednesday, May 6: The Defense Uses the Contradiction Against Wood

On Wednesday, May 6, Rosser used Wood’s conflicting statements against her and told Judge Hill:

“you wouldn’t convict a mosquito on her testimony!” (AJ, 12).

It was an effective courtroom line.

It does not explain the documentary mismatch.

Wood first accused Frank.

Defense investigators came looking for an affidavit.

Wood said Burke insisted on one.

Wood later said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved the private-office occurrence.

A defense affidavit appeared saying Frank never insulted her.

Wood returned to the original accusation.

Then Frank’s attorneys used the contradiction between the defense affidavit and Wood’s other statements to attack Wood’s credibility.

That is why the origin and handling of the March paper are so important.

Where Is the Original Signed Nellie Wood Affidavit?

The document I want most in this portion of the case remains 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?

What exact day was it signed?

Was every page present when Wood signed?

Was it read word for word?

Were changes initialed?

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

Does it match the Atlanta Journal text word for word?

Was there an earlier draft?

Was there more than one Wood affidavit?

Frank’s extraordinary-motion materials survive in the Georgia Supreme Court appeal records and in a 116-page printed and bound defense brief held in the William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum collection (Georgia, 29; DLG, 30).

The public catalog descriptions do not separately identify Nellie Wood’s original signed March document.

Until that paper is located, the March affidavit deserves a very large question mark.

Does This Prove Leo Frank Personally Ordered False Affidavits?

The surviving evidence does not identify Leo Frank personally ordering somebody to rewrite Nellie Wood’s statement or personally directing a specific witness bribery scheme.

I am not going to invent that missing link.

But these affidavits were being gathered for Leo Frank’s defense.

C. W. Burke was gathering evidence for Frank.

Burns Agency operatives were investigating for Frank.

The resulting statements were intended to overturn Frank’s conviction, obtain a new trial, discredit State witnesses, or redirect suspicion toward Jim Conley.

They were not unrelated private papers.

So Frank’s defense cannot be completely detached from the methods by which its new evidence was being collected.

The historical question is about the integrity of Frank’s post-trial evidence-gathering operation and the affidavits it produced.

On that question there is a great deal to examine.

What I Think Happened to Nellie Wood’s Affidavit

When I put Wood’s own chronology beside the wider affidavit disputes, I think the most likely explanation is that Nellie Wood gave Burke an affidavit that still preserved the damaging private-office incident, just as she later said it did.

Somewhere between Wood giving or signing that statement and Frank’s defense releasing the March version, the substance appears to have changed.

The precise mechanism remains open.

The statement could have been rewritten during preparation.

Language could have been expanded.

A qualification may have disappeared.

Words may have been added.

Another version may have been substituted.

There may have been more than one affidavit.

I cannot prove which happened.

But I do not see affirmative evidence that Wood knowingly sat down, read the sweeping “perfect gentleman” reversal, approved every word, and then deliberately reversed herself yet again only weeks later.

The chronology points in another direction.

Wood accused Frank before the March affidavit.

Wood accused Frank after the March affidavit.

Wood later said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved the private-office occurrence.

The March paper sitting between those statements is the document that clears Frank.

Then look around it.

Dalton alleges bait-and-switch.

McKnight alleges post-signature additions.

Allen alleges post-signature additions.

Mary Rich disputes the paper attributed to her and describes a physical identifying marker torn from it.

Reese/Reeves refuses to sign because he cannot verify a long white paper’s contents.

Robinson denies an affidavit and signature.

Epps and Jones are approached through admitted deception.

Ferguson alleges cash, a false identity, courtship, marriage, and pressure.

Reese/Reeves and Perkerson allege a plan to manufacture a Conley confession.

Ragsdale alleges his attorney encouraged him to frame a statement and strengthen its weak spots.

Judge Hill publicly condemned the investigative methods then under examination.

Atlanta moved against the Burns Agency license.

Burns’s professional standing was challenged before police chiefs meeting in Michigan.

Not every accusation was proved.

The pattern still exists.

Nellie Wood Did Not “Recant” in Any Simple Sense

The word recanted does too much work.

It makes the chronology sound clean.

Wood accused Frank.

Wood changed her mind.

End of story.

That is not what happened.

Wood accused Frank under oath on Thursday, May 8, 1913.

Atlanta newspapers reported it on Friday, May 9.

Dorsey tried to put the specific incident before Frank’s murder jury on Wednesday, August 20, but Judge Roan blocked the specific-act evidence.

After Frank’s conviction, Wood said a man offered money for favorable testimony.

Eubanks talked about “lots of money” and paid work.

Burke “insisted” on an affidavit.

Wood later said the affidavit she gave Burke preserved what occurred in Frank’s private office.

Then the March defense affidavit appeared calling Frank a “perfect gentleman” who had “in no way insulted her.”

By Friday, May 1, 1914, Wood was again on record describing an indecent proposal.

On Tuesday, May 5, she personally went into open court and said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

That is not a clean recantation.

The chronology will not support it.

Conclusion

Nellie Wood’s story begins around March 1911, when she worked at the National Pencil Company for only two days. According to her sworn account, Leo Frank got her alone inside his private office, made her sit down after she objected, told her nobody was coming, became too familiar, put his hands around her, tried to touch her breast, made another effort involving her lower limbs and dress, and met resistance.

Wood quit.

Mary Phagan was murdered on Saturday, April 26, 1913.

Only twelve days later, Wood told her story under oath.

The Atlanta newspapers printed it the next morning.

Wood later called Frank’s conduct an:

“indecent proposal.”

Judge Roan prevented Dorsey from placing the full specific incident before the murder jury through the character-evidence route Dorsey attempted.

Then Frank’s post-trial defense investigation came looking for Wood.

She said an unidentified man offered money for favorable sworn evidence.

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

She said Burke “insisted” that she give him an affidavit.

Then Wood told us what she said her affidavit contained:

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

Yet the defense affidavit released in March presented Frank as a:

“perfect gentleman”

who had:

“in no way insulted her”

and behaved:

“upright and manly.”

Then Wood came back.

On Tuesday, May 5, 1914, she went into court under oath and said:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank.”

Now look around that affidavit.

Clayburn Burtus Dalton alleged that Burke offered him $100, represented a paper as something for the Pardon Board, read him only a small portion, and later used it as a broader repudiation of Dalton’s trial testimony.

Albert McKnight said language was inserted after he signed.

Aaron Allen said disputed language appeared after he dictated and signed. Allen’s Chicago Burns-office accusation was being reported by the New York Times the very next day.

Charles Isom supplied separate evidence that Allen had said he did not know Conley, making a statement saying otherwise even more questionable.

Mary Rich disputed an affidavit attributed to her and described Burke tearing a piece from the document as an identifying marker.

Frank Reeves said he refused to sign a long white paper because, being unable to read, he did not know everything it contained.

Reeves and Fred Perkerson independently alleged that Dr. George Wrenn wanted them to enter Jim Conley’s cell, come back out, falsely claim Conley had confessed, and expect “lots of money.”

Wrenn denied it.

The New York Times nevertheless reported that allegation nationally while the proceedings were happening.

Ruth Robinson denied an affidavit and signature attributed to her.

George Epps was approached using false identities and a staged telephone call.

Ivey Jones was interviewed under a false railroad-accident story.

Carrie Smith alleged a cash offer for a signature.

Marie Karst described paid work approaching female witnesses.

Helen Ferguson alleged $100 to leave Atlanta, then a false-name courtship, a marriage proposal, and Burke presented as her prospective father-in-law while her trial testimony was discussed.

C. B. Ragsdale alleged that Arthur Thurman encouraged him to frame a statement for money, criticized weak parts of the story, and said it could be strengthened.

Then judges and grand juries became involved.

Judge Hill ordered Anna Maud Carter returned to Atlanta.

He later held that removing her from the jurisdiction constituted contempt, although he dismissed the proceeding without punishment after she was returned.

The Atlanta Police Commission unanimously moved against the Burns Agency’s license.

Judge Hill told the grand jury that the methods before it represented a:

“menace to the peace of the community.”

Ragsdale, Barber, Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman were indicted.

Burke and Wrenn were later indicted in the Ferguson controversy.

Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman were ultimately acquitted.

That acquittal history stays.

So do the defense denials.

So do the notaries.

So do the counter-affidavits.

But the larger record also stays.

There was a documented post-trial campaign to obtain new affidavits and recantations for Leo Frank.

There were admitted deceptive investigative techniques.

There were repeated allegations involving money, jobs, travel, transportation, romance, and other inducements.

There were repeated disputes over whether finished papers said what witnesses believed they had said, dictated, or signed.

There were allegations of post-signature additions.

There were disputed signatures.

There were partial readings.

There were false names.

There were staged interviews.

There were accusations of outright forgery.

There were allegations of attempts to manufacture testimony that had never existed.

And the controversy became serious enough that it moved far beyond Atlanta.

Even the New York Times, generally sympathetic to Frank, was reporting Allen’s Chicago-office allegation, the alleged Reese-Perkerson Conley frame-up, Burns’s contempt proceedings, Judge Hill’s denunciation of the detective methods, the fight over the Burns Agency license, and the later revolt against Burns among police chiefs meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

On Saturday, June 20, 1914, the Times reported that Burns had actually been dropped from the honorary roll of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (NYT, 43).

The New York Age was attacking Burns from another direction altogether, accusing him editorially of trying to destroy Jim Conley and placing himself:

“in the criminal class” (NYA, 44).

This was not just hostile Atlanta newspaper copy.

The controversy had gone national.

That is the historical environment in which Nellie Wood’s “perfect gentleman” affidavit appeared.

So no, I do not think the March 1914 affidavit should be waved around as proof that Nellie Wood simply “took it all back.”

Her original accusation came first.

Her reaffirmation came afterward.

The defense affidavit is the odd document sitting between them.

Until the original signed March paper is found, examined, and compared word for word with what Wood later said she gave Burke, the people who want to use it as the final word on Nellie Wood have some explaining to do.

They have to explain why Wood later said her affidavit preserved the private-office incident.

They have to explain where that damaging exception went.

They have to explain how an “indecent proposal” became an innocent shoulder pat.

They have to explain how resistance became reassurance.

They have to explain how:

“Because I was insulted by Mr. Frank”

became:

“in no way insulted her.”

They also have to explain why this remarkable reversal appeared during a defense investigation surrounded by witnesses complaining about money offers, jobs, false identities, misleading interview techniques, disputed signatures, partial readings, altered statements, post-signature additions, and even alleged proposals to manufacture evidence that had never existed.

Words do not change themselves.

Somebody has to put them on the paper.

That is why I think the surviving evidence supports a serious historical argument that Nellie Wood’s March 1914 defense affidavit was likely falsified in substance, and that it belongs inside a much wider record showing repeated evidence and accusations of manipulation in Leo Frank’s post-trial affidavit campaign.

References

1. GSC, 1. Georgia Supreme Court case files, Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. Nellie Wood’s sworn coroner’s-inquest testimony, Thursday, May 8, 1913. Microfilm Slides 1772–1773.

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. State’s Exhibit B, 2. Leo M. Frank. Statement to Atlanta investigators, Monday, April 28, 1913. Later introduced as State’s Exhibit B.

http://www.maryphagan.com/202-states-exhibit-b-from-the-1913-leo-frank-trial/

3. AJ, 3. Atlanta Journal. Friday, May 9, 1913. “Here Is Testimony of Witnesses Given at the Final Session of Coroner’s Jury in Phagan Case.” Contemporary report of Nellie Wood’s May 8 testimony.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1913-05-09-here-is-testimony-of-witnesses-given-at-the-final-session-of-coroners-jury-in-phagan-case-the-atlanta-journal/

4. AG, 4. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, May 9, 1913, p. 2. Contemporary account of Nellie Wood’s inquest testimony.

gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053729/1913-05-09/ed-3/seq-2/ocr/

5. GSC, 5. Georgia Supreme Court case files. Nellie Wood material concerning the alleged indecent proposal, C. W. Burke, the alleged money offer, the private-office exception, and related trial colloquy. Microfilm Slides 1683–1686.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1683-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

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/

6. AG, 6. Atlanta Georgian. Wednesday, August 20, 1913. “State Closes Frank Case Near Jury; Defense Begins Its Sur-Rebuttal.”

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

7. GSC, 7. Georgia Supreme Court, Brief of Evidence, Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. Character evidence and testimony concerning women at the National Pencil Company. Microfilm Slides 1263–1265.

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/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1265-slide-georgia-supreme-court-leo-frank-appeals-documents-1913-1914/

8. AJ, 8. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, March 15, 1914, p. 1, cols. 5 and 7, continuing p. 2. “Witness Against Frank Now Accuses Sleuths.”

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

9. AJ, 9. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Many Sensations Sprung by Dorsey at Frank Hearing.” Includes Nellie Wood, Aaron Allen, Charles A. Isom, George Epps, Eubanks, Burke, and Lehon.

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

10. AJ, 10. Atlanta Journal. Friday, May 1, 1914. “Solicitor Charges Forgery Was Used in Some Affidavits.”

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

11. AG, 11. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, May 1, 1914. “Evidence Is Recorded Against Conley.”

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

12. AJ, 12. Atlanta Journal. Wednesday, May 6, 1914. “Judge Hill Denies Motion as Defense Closes Arguments.” Includes Stiles Hopkins’s rebuttal, George Wrenn, Mary Rich, Epps, Jones, Robinson, and other disputed affidavits.

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

13. AC, 13. Atlanta Constitution. Tuesday, May 5, 1914. “Return of Negress Ordered by Judge Monday Morning.” Reports the Monday, May 4 proceedings and includes Mary Rich, Frank Reese/Reeves, Fred Perkerson, James Duffey, C. Brutus/Burtus Dalton, C. B. Ragsdale, Helen Ferguson, Dan S. Lehon, and George Wrenn’s denial.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-05-return-of-negress-ordered-by-judge-monday-morning-the-atlanta-constitution/

14. AJ, 14. Atlanta Journal. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Albert M’Knight Now Repudiates His Recent Story.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/captain-burke-train-conductor-the-derailment-and-train-wreck-of-the-leo-frank-defense-april-19-1914/

15. AC, 15. Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, April 19, 1914. “Testimony He Gave at Trial Was True, Declares M’Knight.”

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

16. AJ, 16. Atlanta Journal. Friday, March 27, 1914, p. 1, col. 2. “Frank’s Motion Is Made Public – Many of State’s Witnesses Change Their Testimony.” Includes the Mary Rich evidence presented by the defense.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-27-frank-s-motion-is-made-public-many-of-state-s-witnesses-change-their-testimony-the-atlanta-journal/

17. AC, 17. Atlanta Constitution. Thursday, April 30, 1914, p. 1, col. 1. “$200 Bribe Induced Him to Swear to Confession of Conley, Says Pastor.” Ragsdale repudiation and bribery allegation.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-30-200-bribe-induced-him-to-swear-to-confession-of-conley-says-pastor-the-atlanta-constitution/

18. AC, 18. Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, May 3, 1914. “Dorsey Calls C. W. Burke and Other Investigators for Leo Frank to Court.”

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

19. AJ, 19. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, April 28, 1914. Withdrawal of the Ragsdale-Barber evidence from Frank’s extraordinary motion.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-28-bar-ragsdale-barber-evidence-for-new-trial-the-atlanta-journal/

20. NYT, 20. New York Times. Tuesday, May 5, 1914, p. 4. “Frank Affidavits False, Says Dorsey.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/the-new-york-times-1914-may-5-frank-affidavits-false-says-dorsey-the-new-york-times-p-4/

21. AJ, 21. Atlanta Journal. Friday, May 22, 1914. Ragsdale, Barber, Lehon, Tedder, and Thurman indictments.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-22-five-men-indicted-on-perjury-charge-in-leo-frank-case-the-atlanta-journal/

22. AC, 22. Atlanta Constitution. Saturday, May 23, 1914. Ragsdale-Barber indictments and Burns Agency connections.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-23-state-cases-are-planned-against-burns-operators-by-the-police-commission-the-atlanta-constitution/

23. AJ, 23. Atlanta Journal. Thursday, June 18, 1914. “C. W. Burke Indicted for Suborning Perjury.”

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

24. AJ, 24. Atlanta Journal. Friday, June 19, 1914. “Indictment Is Returned Against Jimmy Wrenn.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-06-19-indictment-is-returned-against-jimmy-wrenn-the-atlanta-journal/

25. AJ, 25. Atlanta Journal. Tuesday, January 26, 1915. “Trial of Burns Men On Before Judge Hill.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-26-trial-of-burns-men-on-before-judge-hill-the-atlanta-journal/

26. AJ, 26. Atlanta Journal. Friday, January 29, 1915. “Ragsdale Weak in Mind, Son Admits on Stand.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-29-ragsdale-weak-in-mind-son-admits-on-stand-the-atlanta-journal/

27. AC, 27. Atlanta Constitution. Sunday, January 31, 1915. “Fate of Burns’ Agents Now in Hands of Jury; No Verdict Until Today.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/1915-01-31-fate-of-burns-agents-now-in-hands-of-jury-s-no-verdict-until-today-the-atlanta-constitution/

28. AC, 28. Atlanta Constitution. Monday, February 1, 1915. “Dan Lehon, Arthur Thurman and C. C. Tedder Are Given Their Freedom After Long Trial.”

29. Georgia, 29. Georgia Archives, Digital Library of Georgia. Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia, Supreme Court Case A-34501, Second Appeal.

dlg.usg.edu/record/gaarchives_adhoc_6271

30. DLG, 30. Digital Library of Georgia, William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum. Frank, Leo M. - Supreme Court of Georgia - Extraordinary Motion for New Trial. Henry A. Alexander Sr. Papers, Mss 024.

dlg.usg.edu/record/breman_lmfc_mss24-10-04

31. Directory, 31. Atlanta City Directory Co. Greater Atlanta City Directory, Including Avondale, Buckhead and All Immediate Suburbs. 1912. Entry: “Clayburn B (Sarah), carpenter, r 340½ E Hunter.”

http://www.ldsgenealogy.com/GA/books/Atlanta-City-Directory-Cos-Greater-Atlanta-Georgia-city-directory-including-Avondale-Buckhead-and-all-immediate-suburbs-1912-part-95.htm

32. BOE, 32. Brief of Evidence, Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia, 1913. Trial witness identified as “C. B. Dalton.” C. J. Maynard’s rebuttal testimony identifies “Burtus Dalton.”

http://www.maryphagan.com/188-c-j-maynard-sworn-in-for-the-state-189th-to-testify/

http://www.maryphagan.com/category/leo-frank-trial-sworn-statements/page/7/

http://www.leofrank.org/trial-and-evidence/murder-trial-testimony/

33. AG, 33. Atlanta Georgian. Tuesday, May 5, 1914, Night Edition. Identifies the witness as “C. Burtus Dalton” and reports his $100 and partial-reading allegations against C. W. Burke.

gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053729/1914-05-05/ed-7/seq-1/

gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053729/1914-05-05/ed-7/seq-1/ocr/

34. NYT, 34. New York Times. Tuesday, May 5, 1914, p. 4. “Frank Affidavits False, Says Dorsey.” Identifies “C. Burtus Dalton” and carries the Reese-Perkerson allegations outside Georgia.

http://www.maryphagan.com/the-new-york-times-1914-may-5-frank-affidavits-false-says-dorsey-the-new-york-times-p-4/

35. NH, 35. News-Herald, Lawrenceville, Georgia. Thursday, January 11, 1900, p. 3. Gwinnett County court report: “State vs Burtus Dalton, Larceny, Verdict not guilty.”

gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053637/1900-01-11/ed-1/seq-3/

gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053637/1900-01-11/ed-1/seq-3/ocr/

36. AG, 36. Atlanta Georgian. Friday, March 27, 1914. Uses the contemporary Dalton name form in reporting the extraordinary-motion evidence.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-03-27-3-swear-to-alibi-for-frank-the-atlanta-georgian/

37. NYT, 37. New York Times. Wednesday, May 6, 1914. “May Call Burns Before Grand Jury.” Aaron Allen, Charles A. Isom, the Burns Agency Chicago office, the money-on-the-table allegation, and the Allen affidavit controversy.

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

38. NYT, 38. New York Times. Sunday, May 10, 1914. “Burns to Answer Contempt Charge.” Burns, Dan S. Lehon, Anna Maud Carter, removal of Carter from the jurisdiction, and grand-jury investigation.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-09-burns-and-lehon-are-summoned-on-contempt-charge-the-atlanta-journal/

39. NYT, 39. New York Times. Tuesday, May 19, 1914. “Assails Frank Detectives.” Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill’s grand-jury charge criticizing Burns and private-detective methods in the Frank investigation.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-18-famous-sleuth-is-scored-from-bench-by-judge-b-h-hill-the-atlanta-journal/

40. NYT, 40. New York Times. Wednesday, May 20, 1914. “To Revoke Burns License.” Atlanta Police Commission action against the Burns Agency and the forgery, coercion, and subornation accusations under grand-jury investigation.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-20-w-j-burns-loses-permit-of-board-to-operate-here-the-atlanta-constitution/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-20-indictments-will-be-considered-by-jury-the-atlanta-journal/

41. NYT, 41. New York Times. Wednesday, May 27, 1914. “Finds Burns in Contempt.” Judge Hill’s ruling involving Anna Maud Carter, Dan Lehon’s fine, and the Burns Agency licensing controversy.

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-26-burns-men-fight-effort-to-shut-up-offices-in-atlanta-the-atlanta-journal/

42. NYT, 42. New York Times. Tuesday, June 16, 1914. “Chiefs May Oust Burns.” International Association of Police Chiefs convention, Grand Rapids, Michigan, with the Frank investigation cited in the move against Burns.

43. NYT, 43. New York Times. Saturday, June 20, 1914. “Dropped by Chiefs, Burns Asks Hearing.” Burns removed from the honorary roll of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

44. NYA, 44. New York Age. Thursday, May 28, 1914. Black New York newspaper commentary sharply critical of Burns and his activities in the Frank investigation.

http://www.dangerouspress.org/papers/new-york-age/1914-05-28

45. AJ, 45. Atlanta Journal. Saturday, May 2, 1914. “Detective Burns Grilled by Dorsey for Over an Hour.” Includes Burns’s testimony concerning Aaron Allen and the report that Stiles Hopkins took Allen’s affidavit.

http://www.leofrank.com/atlanta-journal/1914-05-02-detective-burns-grilled-by-dorsey-for-over-an-hour/

http://www.maryphagan.com/1914-05-02-detective-on-stand-tells-of-probe-the-atlanta-georgian/

46. NYT Archive, 46. New York Times Leo Frank archive. Additional national coverage of Frank, Burns, and the 1914 post-trial investigation.

http://www.leofrank.org/newspapers/new-york-times/