Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 18 hours ago
Thursday, June 5th, 1913

Wife of Accused Pen[c]il Factory Superintendent Arraigns Solicitor General Dorsey for What She Terms the Torturing of Witnesses Into Making Desired Affidavits—Says Treatment of Her Negro Cook by Solicitor and Detectives Taxed Patience

DECLARES MR. FRANK'S DEMEANOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT OF AN INNOCENT MAN

Says Many Slanders Have Been Circulated Concerning the Alleged Unhappy Married Life of Herself and Her Husband—"He Could Not Have Been the Good Husband He Has Been to Me if He Were a Criminal," Asserts Mrs. Frank

For the first time since her husband, Leo M. Frank, was arrested more than four weeks ago on suspicion of having murdered Mary Phagan, the pencil factory girl, the accused man's wife on Thursday broke her silence and issued a statement in which she vigorously attacks Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and the city detectives for the methods which she charges they have employed in an effort to gather evidence against Mr. Frank.

Mrs. Frank begins her statement by declaring "the action of the solicitor general in arresting and imprisoning our family cook because she would not voluntarily make a false statement against my innocent husband, brings a limit to patience."

She charges that witnesses are being tortured into furnishing the kind of affidavits desired by the solicitor and the detectives, and states that "it is hard to believe that practices of this nature will be countenanced anywhere in the world, outside of Russia."

Several times in the course of her statement, Mrs. Frank reiterates her full confidence in the innocence of her husband. Referring to Mr. Frank's movements on the day of the murder she says: "My husband was at home for lunch and in the evening at the hours he has stated on the day of the murder. He spent the whole of Saturday evening and night in my company. Neither on Saturday, nor Saturday night, nor on Sunday, nor at any other time did my husband by word or act, or in any other way, demean himself otherwise than as an innocent man."

Mrs. Frank asserts that slanders have been circulated to the effect that the home life or herself and her husband was not a happy one. "I know my husband is innocent. No man could make the good husband that he has been to me and be a criminal," she declares.

As stated above this is Mrs. Frank's first public statement since the arrest of her husband, and it will probably be her last. Under the Georgia laws a woman is not permitted to testify for or against her husband. It was for this reason that Mrs. Frank was not summoned as a witness before the coroner's jury:

STATEMENT IN FULL.

Mrs. Frank's statement, which comes to The Journal in the nature of a communication, follows in full:

"Atlanta, Georgia, June 3, 1913.

"Editor Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Georgia
Transcript
00:00My husband is innocent, declares Mrs. Leo M. Frank in first public statement.
00:04Atlanta Journal, Thursday, June 5th, 1913.
00:07Wife of accused pencil factory superintendent, arraigned solicitor General Dorsey,
00:11for what she terms the torturing of witnesses into making desired affidavits,
00:16says treatment of her Negro cook by solicitor and detectives taxed patients, declares,
00:20Mr. Frank's demeanor has always been that of an innocent man,
00:23says many slanders have been circulated concerning the alleged unhappy married life of herself and her husband.
00:30He could not have been the good husband he has been to me if he were a criminal,
00:33asserts Mrs. Frank for the first time since her husband Leo M. Frank was arrested more than four weeks ago
00:39on suspicion of having murdered Mary Fagan, the pencil factory girl.
00:43The accused man's wife on Thursday broke her silence and issued a statement in which she vigorously attacks
00:48solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and the city detectives for the methods which she charges they have employed
00:54in an effort to gather evidence against Mr. Frank.
00:57Mrs. Frank begins her statement by declaring,
01:00The action of the solicitor General in arresting and imprisoning our family cook
01:04because she would not voluntarily make a false statement against my innocent husband
01:08brings a limit to patience.
01:10She charges that witnesses are being tortured into furnishing the kind of affidavits
01:15desired by the solicitor and the detectives
01:17and states that it is hard to believe that practices of this nature
01:21will be countenanced anywhere in the world outside of Russia.
01:25Several times in the course of her statement, Mrs. Frank reiterates her full confidence in the innocence
01:30of her husband. Referring to Mr. Frank's movements on the day of the murder, she says,
01:34My husband was at home for lunch, and in the evening at the hours he has stated on the day
01:39of the murder.
01:40He spent the whole of Saturday evening and night in my company.
01:44Neither on Saturday, nor Saturday night, nor on Sunday, nor at any other time did my husband by word,
01:50or act, or in any other way, demean himself otherwise than as an innocent man.
01:55Mrs. Frank asserts that slanders have been circulated to the effect that the home life or herself and her husband
02:00was not a happy one. I know my husband is innocent. No man could make the good husband that he
02:05has been to me
02:06and be a criminal, she declares. As stated above, this is Mrs. Frank's first public statement since
02:12the arrest of her husband, and it will probably be her last. Under the Georgia laws, a woman is not
02:17permitted
02:17to testify for or against her husband. It was for this reason that Mrs. Frank was not summoned as a
02:23witness
02:23before the coroner's jury. Statement in full. Mrs. Frank's statement, which comes to the journal
02:28in the nature of a communication follows in full. Atlanta, Georgia, June 3, 1913. Editor, Atlanta
02:35Journal, Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Sir, the action of the Solicitor General in arresting and imprisoning
02:40our family cook because she would not voluntarily make a false statement against my innocent husband
02:45brings a limit to patience. This wrong is not chargeable to a detective acting under the necessity
02:50of shielding his own reputation against attacks in newspapers, but of an intelligent, trained lawyer
02:56whose sworn duty is as much to protect the innocent as to punish the guilty. My information is that
03:01this solicitor has admitted that no crime is charged against this cook and that he had no legal right
03:07to have her arrested and imprisoned. The following statement from the Atlanta Journal undertakes to
03:12give the history of the arrest up to the time the woman was carried to the police station in the
03:17patrol
03:17wagon, weeping and shouting in a hysterical condition. The Negress was arrested at the Selig residence
03:23shortly after noon Monday upon the order of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey. She was carried to the
03:29Solicitor's office and that official with Detectives Campbell and Starnes examined her for more than an
03:35hour. The woman grew hysterical during the vigorous examination and finally was led from the Solicitor's
03:41office to the police patrol, weeping and shouting, I am going to hang and don't know a thing about it.
03:45They tortured her. They tortured her for four hours with the well-known third-degree process,
03:51in the manner and with the results stated in the Atlanta Constitution of June 4th as follows.
03:56Her husband, who was also carried to the police station at noon, was freed a short while before
04:02his wife left the prison. He was present during the third degree of four hours, under which she
04:07was placed in the afternoon. He is said to have declared, even in the presence of his wife, that
04:12she had told conflicting stories of Frank's conduct on the tragedy date. After she had been quizzed to a
04:17point of exhaustion, Secretary G.C. February, attached to Chief Lanford's office, was summoned
04:23to note her statement in full. It was the longest statement made by the woman since her connection
04:28with the mystery. It will be used probably in the trial. The Negress was calm and composed upon
04:34emerging from the examination. That the Solicitor, sworn to maintain the law, should thus falsely arrest
04:41one against whom he has no charge, and whom he does not even suspect, and torture her contrary
04:47to the laws. To force her to give evidence tending to swear away the life of an innocent man is
04:52beyond
04:52belief. Innocent sufferers. Where will this end? My husband and my family and myself are the innocent
04:59sufferers now, but who will be the next to suffer? I suppose the witnesses tortured will be confined to
05:04the class who are not able to employ lawyers to relieve them from the torture in time to prevent their
05:09being forced to give false affidavits, but the lives sworn away may come from any class. It will be
05:15noted that the plan is to apply the torture until the desired affidavit is wrung from the sufferer.
05:20Then it ends, but not before. It is to be hoped that no person can be convicted of murder in
05:26any
05:26civilized country on evidence wrung from witnesses by torture. Why then does the Solicitor continue to
05:32apply the third degree to produce testimony? How does he hope to get the jury to believe it? He can
05:38have
05:38only one hope, and that is to keep the jury from knowing the methods to which he has resorted. Of
05:43course,
05:44if he can torture witnesses into giving the kind of evidence he wants against my innocent husband in this
05:48case, he can torture them into giving evidence against any other man in the community in either this or any
05:54other case. I can see only one hope, and that is to let the public know exactly what this officer
05:59of the law is
06:00doing, and trust as I do trust, to the sense of fairness and justice of the people. It is not
06:06surprising that my cook should sign an affidavit to relieve herself from torture that had been applied
06:11to her for four hours, according to the Atlanta Constitution, to a point of exhaustion. It would be
06:17surprising if she would not, under such circumstances, give an affidavit. This torturing process can be used
06:23to produce testimony to be published in the newspapers to prejudice the case of anyone the
06:27solicitor sees fit to accuse. It is also valuable to prevent anyone stating facts favorable to the
06:33accused, because as soon as the solicitor finds it out, he can arrest the witness and apply the
06:38torture. It is hard to believe that practices of this nature will be countenanced anywhere in the
06:42world, outside of Russia. Corroborates. Husband. My husband was at home for lunch, and in the
06:49evening, at the hours he has stated on the day of the murder. He spent the whole of Saturday evening
06:54and night in my company. Neither on Saturday, nor Saturday night, nor on Sunday, nor at any other
06:59time did my husband, by word or act, or in any other way, demean himself otherwise than as an innocent
07:05man. He did nothing unusual, and nothing to arouse the slightest suspicion. I know him to be innocent.
07:11There is no evidence against him except that which is produced by torture. Of course, evidence of
07:16this kind can be produced against any human being in the world. I have been compelled to endure
07:21without fault, either on the part of my husband or myself, more than it falls to the lot of most
07:27women to bear. Slanders have been circulated in the community to the effect that my husband and
07:32myself were not happily married, and every conceivable rumor has been put afloat that would
07:37do him and me harm with the public, in spite of the fact that all our friends are aware that
07:42these
07:42statements are false. And all his friends and myself know that my husband is a man actuated by
07:48lofty ideals that forbid his committing the crime that the detectives and the solicitor are seeking
07:52to fasten upon him. I know my husband is innocent. No man could make the good husband to a woman
07:58that
07:58he has been to me and be a criminal. All his acquaintances know he is innocent. Ask every man that
08:04knows him
08:04and see if you can find one that will believe he is guilty. If he were guilty, does it not
08:09seem
08:09reasonable that you could find someone who knows him that will say he believes him guilty?
08:13Being a woman, I do not understand the tricks and arts of detectives and prosecuting officers,
08:17but I do know Leo Frank and his friends know him, and I know and his friends know that he
08:23is utterly
08:23incapable of committing the crime that these detectives and this solicitor are seeking to
08:28fasten upon him. Respectfully yours, Mrs. Leo M. Frank. Dorsey denies having sweated Negro cook
08:35solicitor Dorsey, when acquainted with Mrs. Frank's statement, said, The McKnight affidavit was not
08:40made in my office and was not made at my direction. Manola McKnight, the Negro cook of the Seeligs
08:45and Franks, was not sweated while she was in my office, nor was she sweated anywhere else that I
08:50know. Merely she was confronted here with her husband.
Comments
VERDICT VOYAGER
Creator
#MurderofMaryPhagan

Recommended