00:00State Faces Big Task and Trial of Frank a Slayer, Atlanta, Georgian, Tuesday, May 27, 1913.
00:06What will be the defense of Leo M. Frank when he is called upon next month to answer to the
00:11charge of strangling little Mary Fagan? With the confident announcement of the police Monday that
00:16they had completed a case against the factory superintendent that was as conclusive as it
00:20possibly could be, without the testimony of actual eyewitnesses of the crime, this question
00:26naturally is being asked today by everyone who has any interest in the mystery, and that means
00:31practically every person in Atlanta. The people will not get their answer from Luther Z. Rosser,
00:36the close-lipped and able attorney of Frank, until the trial actually begins. But even at this early
00:42date, when only the vaguest of hints have been given as to the course that will be followed in
00:47the battle to free Frank from all suspicion, it is patent that there are many openings offered the
00:53defense for attacks upon the theories of the state, burden of proof on state. Those who are close to
00:58the daily developments in Atlanta's baffling murder mystery, and who venture to predict the line of
01:03defense that will be offered, are bearing in mind that in the first place, the great burden of proof
01:08is upon the prosecution, and not upon the defense. It is absolutely necessary, due to the protection with
01:15which the law has hedged everyone under suspicion of crime, that the state, in some manner, by some
01:20piece of evidence, connect Frank directly with the crime, or establish his connection beyond a
01:25reasonable doubt. Until the state is able to do this, Luther Z. Rosser may rest on his oars, if he
01:31so desires. Leo Frank is innocent this moment in the eyes of the law. His innocence does not need to
01:37be proved. It is presumed. It immediately becomes a question, therefore, as to whether the state really
01:42has made out a case against Frank, so far as can be judged from the evidence in the hands of
01:47the
01:47public. Have the detectives, by any of their discoveries, connected Frank directly with the
01:52crime? Have they assembled such a chain of circumstantial incidents as to make his guilt
01:56appear certain beyond a reasonable doubt? Frank's friends deny connection. Those interested in the
02:02defense of Frank answer both questions emphatically in the negative. Not one thing has been found,
02:07they declare, that connects Frank directly with the mysterious strangling. Nor do they regard the
02:13circumstantial evidence seriously. The law will not permit Frank's conviction for the crime,
02:18merely because the detectives have discovered that he had the opportunity. It will not permit
02:23his conviction, if no convincing evidence is found against him, merely because he is unable to put his
02:28hands on another man and say, this is the man you want. He is the guilty person. It is not
02:34the
02:34intention of the law to hang one man simply because no one else can be found who is the more
02:38likely
02:39culprit. After the state has presented its reasons for believing in the guilt of Frank,
02:44it is regarded as likely that the defense will claim first of all that the state has failed to
02:48establish Frank's connection with the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense will represent that
02:54the most the state has done is to establish that he had the opportunity to commit the murder.
02:59Frank never was seen with the girl, either on the day of the strangling or before. It is not known
03:04that he ever spoke to her except in connection with her work. Nothing was found to point the finger
03:09of accusation directly at Frank, so far as the public has been informed. None of Frank's clothing
03:14has been found with bloodstains upon it. No fingerprints upon the girl's body or her clothes
03:19were identified as his. None of this personal belonging were found near the girl's body.
03:24Absolutely nothing was discovered in the search of the detectives that fastened the crime on him.
03:29Own admission caused arrest. The police possibly would never even have known that
03:34Frank was the last person to see Mary Fagan, so far as is known, had it not been for his
03:39own
03:39free admission. He told the officers the moment he identified the body, that that was the girl he
03:45paid at noon the day before. No one else knew that Mary Fagan was in the building at that time,
03:50so far as the evidence reveals. Frank did not have to tell if he had desired to conceal the fact.
03:56The defense, therefore, will be in a position to ask, should not this admission, given freely and
04:02voluntarily, be regarded as an indication of innocence rather than as an admission of guilt,
04:07as the detectives have considered it up to this time? Is a guilty man likely to tell the officers
04:12as soon as he is approached that he saw the girl and talked with her when there is no need
04:16of such an
04:17admission? If the state attempts to show that the murder was committed between twelve and one o'clock
04:22Saturday afternoon, as one of the theories contends, the defense will be able to argue that there were
04:27several other people in the factory at the time, this fact opening the way to the argument that if
04:32the crime was committed at this time it need not have been Frank who did it, and to another argument
04:37that Frank would have been very unlikely to attack the girl when he knew there were other persons in
04:43the factory at the time who might discover him, may prove an alibi. Should the state seek to prove that
04:49the murder was committed in the evening, as the affidavits obtained from Mrs. Mima Fomby indicate may be
04:54done, the defense will be able to establish a very strong alibi for the suspected man from the
04:59testimony of seven persons who are said to have been at Frank's house Saturday evening playing a
05:04game of cards. Several of them already have testified before the coroner's jury, and all of them are said
05:10to be willing to give their testimony in court, to the effect that they saw Frank come home that
05:15evening about the time he said in his statement to the coroner's jury, and that he remained home the
05:20remainder of the evening to the best of their knowledge. This will bring it to an issue of
05:25veracity between Mrs. Mima Fomby and these seven persons, who are persons of reputation and standing
05:31in the community, if indeed the testimony of Mrs. Fomby is allowed admission, which appears doubtful.
05:37Mrs. Fomby swore in her affidavit that Frank called her on the telephone several times between
05:426.30 and 10.30 o'clock the Saturday night of the murder, asking her for permission to bring a
05:48girl
05:48to her place. She testified that she denied the request. It is between these hours that Frank has
05:54a very well-established alibi from all appearances, another motive possible. The defense also will be
06:00in a position to suggest that there might have been another motive for the crime than the one
06:04generally accepted. No physician has stated positively that he was certain of any conclusions
06:09from his examination of the body either immediately after the crime or at the times the body was
06:13exhumed. Added to this fact is the unexplained circumstance that the girl's purse never has
06:19been found. It contained only the wages she had drawn that day, to be sure, but even this small
06:25amount might prove an incentive to some persons, the defense very likely will argue, and it is not at
06:30all certain that the robber, if robbery was the motive, had any idea that the amount he would obtain
06:36would be so small. Is it probable that Frank would have taken the trouble to hide the girl's purse when
06:41it could not have incriminated in any way any particular persons had it been lying near her body?
06:47Is a question that can be put to the jurors in this connection. The defense also will fight
06:52against the introduction of much of the character testimony that was permitted to go before the
06:56coroner's jury. Frank's attorneys will attack the identification of Frank made by Officer House of
07:02Druid Hills Park on the grounds of its utter improbability. Will attack Officer. They will question
07:08the ability of House to identify a man he has seen only once and after a lapse of two years.
07:13They will attack the probabilities of a man of Frank's standing, permitting himself to be seen in
07:18company with a girl in short skirts. They will question the probability of his admitting his
07:23identity to the officer and saying, I am Leo Frank, superintendent of the National Pencil Factory,
07:29when his main concern naturally would have been to keep his identity secret.
07:33Probabilities are bound to play a large part in the trial, declare those interested in the mystery,
07:38for it is very much on a sequence of probabilities that the police are basing their expectations of
07:43convicting Frank. Even should the state be able to prove beyond a doubt that it was Frank whom the
07:48park guard discovered in company with a young girl two years ago, the defense will still be able
07:53to say that this fact no more connects Frank with the murder than it does hundreds of other persons.
07:58The announcement of the detectives themselves that they do not place implicit confidence in
08:02the so-called confession of the Negro, James Conley, makes it unlikely that the trial will have
08:08anything to do with his statement that he wrote notes at the dictation of Frank the day before the
08:12murder. Centelle may yet be witness. Laying aside the possibility of a premeditated murder,
08:19which no one had even suggested up to the time of the Negro's alleged confession,
08:23the friends of Frank, and those who are without personal interest as well, scouted the idea that
08:28Frank, who is an intelligent and shrewd man, would take in an ignorant Negro into his confidence and
08:34do everything but tell him that he was going to commit a murder on the next day. It is rumored
08:39that
08:39E.L. Centelle may yet figure in the case again. Centelle is the man who declared positively before the
08:44coroner's jury that he saw Mary Fagan shortly before midnight the night of the murder. Centelle knew
08:50Mary Fagan from infancy. He said that he could not be mistaken in her identification. He testified
08:56that he met her on the street in company with some man, and that the said, Hello, Mary, and that
09:01she
09:01replied, Hello, editor. This testimony would appear quite conclusive were it not for the statements of
09:07the physicians that the girl must have been dead at least six hours when found. It is known, however,
09:12that some confidence is still being placed in his statements.
Comments