WE ARE proud to present today, on the 107th anniversary of the foul murder of Mary Phagan, the third and concluding part of our audio version of an extremely rare contemporary book on the murder and the trial of Leo Frank, her killer, entitled The Frank Case — read by Vanessa Neubauer.

It becomes obvious in this concluding segment that this is a pro-Leo Frank book. Not only is Frank’s very odd unsworn statement (in which he literally spent hours going over every irrelevant detail of his company’s financial statement, and which obviously did not make a good impression on the jury) praised to the skies, but long extracts from it are quoted — some of them twice!

Nevertheless, despite its partisan bias, this is a valuable book. It is valuable for what it does not contain. Despite being rather pro-Frank, and being written in 1913, literally weeks after the events it describes took place, it does not allege, as modern pro-Frank propaganda-pieces do, that “anti-Semitic mobs” shouted threats including “hang the Jew or we’ll hang you” at the judge and jury. It does include the acknowledged episode of Frank’s attorneys asking for a mistrial after prosecutor Dorsey received some mere applause from the courtroom audience during the trial — but not a single mention of the much worse “hang the Jew” threat allegation, nor of any defense references to it or to anything similar. It’s safe to conclude, I think, that such threats simply never took place and are a later invention — for surely the defense, if not the judge, would have taken notice of them.

There is also no mention of “bite marks” on Mary Phagan’s body, another decades-later hoax conjured up by pro-Frank partisans. Such a sensational development could hardly have been ignored by the defense, prosecution, or a lurid-headline-loving press.

We at the Mercury are offering this audio book in three parts in April of the year 2020, in commemoration of the life of young Mary Phagan, who died at the hands of Leo Frank on 26 April, 1913 — 107 years ago this month.

To hear part 3, the concluding part, of The Frank Case, simply press the play button on your screen.

Click here to see all the installments of this audio book published (the total is three installments).

THE AMERICAN MERCURY now presents the second part (of three parts) of our audio version of what is probably the most hard-to-find book on the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial of Leo Frank — 1913’s anonymously published The Frank Case — read by Vanessa Neubauer.

The Frank Case: Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery now continues as we get into the detailed story of the trial itself.

One very interesting thing strikes me about this section of the book. Even though the book, I find, is moderately pro-Frank, what it reveals about the atmosphere surrounding the trial tends to strongly disprove the modern “Frank was railroaded by anti-Semitic Southern Whites” theory.

1. The book states that, after Mrs. Frank attacked the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, in an open letter during the proceedings, the phrase “Dorsey is prejudiced [against Jews]” could be heard “on the lips of men all over the city.” That doesn’t fit with the idea that Atlantans were strongly anti-Semitic. And they weren’t: Numerous Jews have said that the South then, as now, was the most pro-Jewish area in the country.
2. The book goes on to say that “many on the street sympathized with Mrs. Frank’s letter denouncing Dorsey,” which reinforces the previous point.
3. Even though the crowds surrounding and eager to get into the courtroom are described in the book — and remember, The Frank Case was published in the city where the trial took place, just weeks after it ended — nowhere are the supposed “anti-Jewish mobs” surrounding the courthouse, screaming “hang the Jew or we’ll hang you” mentioned. They were not mentioned because they did not exist. The “screaming mobs” are the product of the well-oiled and heavily-funded pro-Frank propaganda machine. That propaganda machine was begun in 1913 by cynical advertising mogul Albert Lasker (who was paid hundreds of thousands for supporting Frank even though in private he suspected Frank was a sexual pervert) and continues today under the aegis of the “mainstream” media and pressure groups like the ADL. (The ADL was founded by the B’nai B’rith, of which Leo Frank was an official at the time of his crime and conviction.)

We at the Mercury are offering this audio book in three parts in April of the year 2020, in commemoration of the life of young Mary Phagan, who died at the hands of Leo Frank on 26 April, 1913 — 107 years ago this month.

To hear part 2 of The Frank Case, simply press the play button on your screen.

Click here to see all the installments of this audio book published thus far (the total will be three installments).

THE AMERICAN MERCURY is proud to present the first part of our audio version of a rare, almost-suppressed book on the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial of Leo Frank, 1913’s The Frank Case — published almost immediately after the events it details took place, when they were fresh in the minds of Atlantans. Only one original copy is known to survive, though there are rumors of others. This book is also unique as it is the earliest known book published about the case.

Its full title is The Frank Case: Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery. It was published anonymously. It highlights the events leading up to the trial and aftermath surrounding the April 26th, 1913, murder of Mary Phagan by her sweatshop boss, the superintendent of the National Pencil Company, Leo M. Frank. The book strives to maintain neutrality and includes a dramatically-rendered history of this sensational crime.

Published by The Atlanta Publishing Company, Atlanta, Georgia, in September 1913, the one known surviving copy is very fragile, printed on acidic paper, and in rapidly-deteriorating condition. This rare and possibly unique volume was scanned by Georgia State University and made available to the general public. We are now proud to present The Frank Case as an audio book.

The book’s Preface reads:

The sensational case of Leo M. Frank is undisputedly Atlanta’s and the south’s greatest murder mystery of modern years.

The story of how little Mary Phagan was foully murdered as she went to get her pay at the National Pencil factory, revolting and horrible as it is in its details, naturally interests every working man and every working woman.

The mystery of the crime compels the interest of everyone who hears about it.

“The Mary Phagan murder mystery,” however, lost its identity when Leo M. Frank, superintendent of the big factory where the humble little employe met her death, was arrested and it became the Frank case.

In no other murder case in the south has there been such intense interest. It has become more than the ordinary murder mystery; more than the story of a man of position charged with slaying in lustful passion a little factory girl. The reason of the unusual importance of the case is, it is charged, that Frank is being persecuted because he is a Jew.

The story of the fearful crime; of the principal developments of the four months that followed it, and finally the story of the great, trial, where for a solid month the two greatest criminal lawyers in the south battled against the keen wits of Atlanta’s solicitor general to save Frank, has been told by press reports.

Many of the interesting features about the Frank case, however, have never been printed, because the newspapers dared not embody them in their accounts.

This work ends with the conviction of Frank in the superior court of Fulton (Atlanta) county. Trial did not end the case, for immediately after the young defendant was sentenced to pay the death penalty, a motion for a new trial was made, and it will be months, probably years, before he hangs, if he ever does. From the day of his conviction, however, the fight for Frank’s life became a technical legal battle. The real story ends with the trial and every essential feature is given here.

THE AUTHOR.

We are offering this audio book in three parts in April of the year 2020, recorded by Vanessa Neubauer, in commemoration of the life of young Mary Phagan, who died at the hands of Leo Frank on 26 April, 1913 — 107 years ago this month.

To hear part 1 of The Frank Case, simply press the play button on your screen.

Click here to see all the installments of this audio book published thus far (the total will be three installments).

The Leo Frank case was one of the major factors that led to the founding of the prominent Jewish pressure group, the ADL.

This new audio book series encompasses the American Mercury’s extensive coverage of the 1913 Frank trial. We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Judge Roan’s charge to the jury is the last section of this audio book presentation.

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Here is the text version of Judge Roan’s charge to the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury. This bill of indictment charges Leo M. Frank with the offense of murder. The charge is that Leo M. Frank, in this county, on the 26th day of April of this year, with force and arms, did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill and murder one Mary Phagan by then and there choking her, the said Mary Phagan, with a cord placed around her neck.

To this charge made by the bill of indictment found by the Grand Jury of this county recently empaneled Leo M. Frank, the defendant, files a plea of not guilty. The charge as made by the bill of indictment on the one hand and his plea of not guilty filed thereto form the issue, and you, gentlemen of the jury, have been selected, chosen and sworn to try the truth of this issue.

Leo M. Frank, the defendant, commences the trial of this issue with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and this presumption of innocence remains with him to shield him and protect him until the state shall overcome it and remove it by evidence offered to you, in your hearing and presence, sufficient in its strength and character to satisfy your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt of each and every material allegation made by the bill of indictment.

I charge you, gentlemen, that all of the allegations of this indictment are material and it is necessary for the state to satisfy you of their truth by evidence that convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt before you would be authorized to find a verdict of guilty.

You are not compelled to find, from the evidence, his guilt beyond any doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt, such a doubt as grows out of the evidence in the case, or for the want of evidence, such a doubt as a reasonable and impartial man would entertain about matters of the highest importance to himself after all reasonable efforts to ascertain the truth. This does not mean a fanciful doubt, one conjured up by the jury, but a reasonable doubt.

Gentlemen, this defendant is charged with murder. Murder is defined to be the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the state, by a person of sound memory and discretion, with malice aforethought either express or implied.

Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.

Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all of the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

There is no difference between express and implied malice except in the mode of arriving at the fact of its existence. The legal sense of the term “malice” is not confined to particular animosity to the deceased, but extends to an evil design in general. The popular idea of malice in its sense of revenge, hatred, ill will, has nothing to do with the subject. It is an intent to kill a human being in a case where the law would neither justify nor in any degree excuse the intention if the killing should take place as intended. It is a deliberate intent unlawfully to take human life, “whether it springs from hatred, ill will or revenge, ambition, avarice or other like passion. A man may form the intent to kill, do the killing instantly, and regret the deed as soon as done. Malice must exist at the time of the killing. It need not have existed any length of time previously.

When a homicide is proven, if it is proven to be the act of the defendant, the law presumes malice, and unless the evidence should relieve the slayer he may be found guilty of murder. The presumption of innocence is removed by proof of the killing by the defendant. When the killing is shown to be the act of the defendant, it is then on the defendant to justify or mitigate the homicide. The proof to do that may come from either side, either from the evidence offered by the state to make out its case, or from the evidence offered by the defendant or the defendant’s statement.

Gentlemen of the jury, you are made by law the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the testimony of each and every witness. It is for you to take this testimony as you have heard it, in connection with the defendant’s statement, and arrive at what you believe to be the truth.

Gentlemen, the object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. That is the reason of you being selected, empaneled and sworn in this case – to discover what is the truth on this issue formed on this bill of indictment. Is Leo M. Frank guilty ? Are you satisfied of that beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case? Or is his plea of not guilty the truth?

The rules of evidence are framed with a view to this prominent end – seeking always for pure sources, and the highest evidence.

Direct evidence is that which immediately points to the question at issue. Indirect or circumstantial evidence is that which only tends to establish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proven facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable doubt hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

The defendant has introduced testimony as to his good character. On this subject, I charge you that evidence of good character when offered by the defendant in a criminal case is always relevant and material, and should be considered by the jury, along with all the other evidence introduced, as one of the facts of the case.

It should be considered by the jury, not merely where the balance of the testimony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but also where such evidence of good character may of itself generate a doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. Good character is a substantial fact, like any other fact tending to establish the defendant’s innocence, and ought to be so regarded by the jury. Like all other facts proved in the case, it should be weighed and estimated by the jury, for it may render that doubtful which otherwise would be clear.

However, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not withstanding the proof of good character, it is their duty to  convict. But the jury may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubtful or not, and if a consideration of the proof of his good character, considered along with the evidence, creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the defendant’s guilt, then it would be the duty of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus raised by his good character, and to acquit him.

The “character” as used in this connection, means that general reputation which he bore among the people who knew him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. Therefore, when the witnesses by which a defendant seeks to prove his good character are put upon the stand, and testify that his character is good, the effect of the testimony is to say that the people who knew him spoke well of him, and that his general reputation was otherwise good. When a defendant has put his character in issue, the state is allowed to attack it by proving that his general reputation is not good, or by showing that the witnesses who have stated that his character is good, have untruly reported it.

Hence, the Solicitor General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to testify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, he was allowed to ask them if they had not heard of various acts of misconduct on the defendant’s part. The Solicitor General had the right to ask any question along this line he pleased, in order thoroughly to sift the witnesses, and to see if anything derogatory to the defendant’s reputation could be proved by them.

The Court now wishes to say to you that, although the Solicitor General was allowed to ask the defendant’s character witnesses these questions as to their having heard of various acts of alleged misconduct on the defendant’s part the jury is not to consider this as evidence that the defendant has been guilty of any such misconduct as may have been indicated in the questions of the Solicitor General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to it. Furthermore,  “where a man’s character is put in evidence, and in the course of the investigation any specific act of misconduct is shown, this does not go before the jury for the purpose of showing affirmatively that his character is bad or that he is guilty of the offense with which he stands charged, but is to be considered by the jury only in determining the credibility and the degree of information possessed by those witnesses who have testified to his good character.

When the defendant has put his character in issue, the state is allowed to bring witnesses to prove that his general character is bad, and thereby to disprove the testimony of those who have stated that it is good. The jury is allowed to take this testimony, and have the right to consider it along with all the other evidence introduced on the subject of the general character of the defendant, and it is for the jury finally to determine from all the evidence whether his character was good or bad. But a defendant is not to be convicted of the crime with which he stands charged, even though, upon a consideration of all the evidence, as to his character the jury believes that his character is bad unless from all the other testimony in the case they believe that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You will, therefore, observe that this is the rule you will be guided by in determining the effect to be given to the evidence on the subject of the defendant’s character. If, after considering all the evidence pro and con on the subject of the defendant’s character, you believe that prior to the time of Mary Phagan’s death he bore a good reputation among those who knew him, that his general character was good, you will consider that as one of the facts in the case, and it may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, if it so impress your minds and consciences, after considering it along with all the other evidence in the case; and if it does you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him. However, though you should believe his general character was good, still if, after giving due weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you believe from the evidence as a whole that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be authorized to convict him.

If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant is guilty of murder, then you would be authorized in that event to say, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.” Should you go no further, gentlemen, and say nothing else in your verdict, the Court would have to sentence the defendant to the extreme penalty for murder, towit: to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. But should you see fit to do so, in the event you arrive at the conclusion and belief beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that this defendant is guilty, then, gentlemen, you would be authorized in that event, if you saw fit to do so, to say: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and we recommend that he be imprisoned in the pentitentiary for life.” In the event you should make such a verdict as that, then the Court, under the law, would have to sentence the defendant to the penitentiary for life.

You have heard the defendant make his statement. He had the right to make it under the law. It is not made under oath and he is not subject to examination or cross-examination. It is with you as to how much of it you will believe or how little of it. You may go to the extent, if you see fit, of believing it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case.

In the event, gentlemen, you have a reasonable doubt from the evidence, or the evidence and the statement together, or either, as to the defendant’s guilt as charged, then give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt and acquit him; and in the event you do acquit him the form of your verdict would be: “We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.” As honest jurors do your utmost to reach the truth from the evidence and statement as you have heard it here, then let your verdict speak it.

Click here for a list of all the chapters of this series.

Here is a description of the other parts of this series; in the near future, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Thank you for joining us at The American Mercury as we followed the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.

Even more than 100 years later, we are still feeling the repercussions of this case — which led to the founding of the prominent Jewish pressure group, the ADL, and which profoundly influenced the course of Jewish-Gentile relations in the United States.

This new audio book series encompasses the American Mercury’s extensive coverage of the 1913 Frank trial. We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Today’s presentation is the sixth and last section of Hugh Dorsey’s final statement.

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Mr. Dorsey powerfully recounts all the evidence in the case that sustains Jim Conley’s version of events (the Frank forces were, by this time, attempting to frame Conley for the crime):

But yet you say Conley is impeached? You went thoroughly into this man Conley ‘s previous life. You found out every person for whom he had worked, and yet this lousy, disreputable negro is unimpeached by any man except somebody that’s got a hand in the till of the National Pencil Company, unimpeached as to general bad character, except by the hirelings of the National Pencil Company. And yet you would have this jury, in order to turn this man loose, over-ride the facts of this case and say that Conley committed this murder, when all you have ever been able to dig up against him is disorderly conduct in the Police Court.

Is Conley sustained? Abundantly. Our proof of general bad character, the existence of such character as can reasonably be supposed to cause one to commit an act like we charge, our proof of general bad character, I say, sustains Jim Conley. Our proof of general bad character as to lasciviousness not even denied by a single witness, sustains Jim Conley. Your failure to cross-examine and develop the source of information of these girls put upon the stand by the State,–these “hare-brained fanatics,” as Mr. Arnold called them, without rhyme or reason, sustains Jim Conley. Your failure to cross-examine our character witnesses with reference to this man’s character for lasciviousness sustains Jim Conley. His relations with Miss Rebecca Carson, the lady on the fourth floor, going into the ladies’ dressing room even in broad daylight and during working hours, as sustained by Miss Kitchens. His relations with Miss Rebecca Carson, who is shown to have gone into the ladies’ dressing room, even in broad daylight and during work hours, by witnesses whose names I can’t call right now, sustains Jim Conley. Your own witness, Miss Jackson, who says that this libertine and rake came, when these girls were in there reclining and lounging after they had finished their piece work, and tells of the sardonic grin that lit his countenance, sustains Jim Conley. Miss Kitchens, the lady from the fourth floor, that, in spite of the repeated assertion made by Mr. Arnold, you didn’t produce, and her account of this man’s conduct when he came in there on these girls, whom he should have protected and when he should have been the last man to go in that room, sustains Jim Conley; and Miss Jackson’s assertion that she heard of three or four other instances and that complaint was made to the foreladies in charge, sustains Jim Conley. Darley and Mattie Smith, as to what they did even on the morning of Saturday, April 26th, even going into the minutest details, sustain Jim Conley. McCrary, the old negro that you praised so highly, the man that keeps his till filled by money paid by the National Pencil Company, as to where he put his stack of hay and the time of day he drew his pay, sustains Jim Conley. Monteen Stover, as to the easy-walking shoes she wore when she went up into this man’s Frank’s room, at the very minute he was back there in the metal department with this poor little unfortunate girl, sustains Jim Conley. Monteen Stover, when she tells you that she found nobody in that office, sustains Jim Conley, when he says that he heard little Mary Phagan go into the office, heard the footsteps of the two as they went to the rear, he heard the scream and he saw the dead body because Monteen says there was nobody in the office, and Jim says she went up immediately after Mary had gone to the rear. Lemmie Quinn, your own dear Lemmie,– as to the time he went up and went down into the streets with the evidence of Mrs. Freeman and Hall, sustains Jim Conley. Frank’s statement that he would consult his attorneys about Quinn’s statement that he had visited him in his office sustains Jim Conley. Dalton, sustained as to his life for the last ten years, here in this community and in DeKalb, when he stated that he had seen Jim watching before on Saturdays and holidays, sustains Jim Conley. Daisy Hopkins’ awful reputation and the statement of Jim, that he had seen her go into that factory with Dalton, and down that scuttle hole to the place where that cot is shown to have been, sustains Jim Conley. The blood on the second floor, testified to by numerous witnesses, sustains Jim Conley. The appearance of the blood, the physical conditions of the floor when the blood was found Monday morning, sustains Jim Conley. The testimony of Holloway, which he gave in the affidavit before he appreciated the importance, coupled with the statement of Boots Rogers that that elevator box was unlocked, sustains Jim Conley. Ivey Jones, the man who says he met him in close proximity to the pencil factory on the day this murder was committed, the time he says he left that place, sustains Jim Conley. Albert McKnight, who testified as to the length of time that this man Frank remained at home, and the fact that he hurried back to the factory, sustains Jim Conley. The repudiated affidavit, made to the police, in the presence of Craven and Pickett, of Minola McKnight, the affidavit which George Gordon, the lawyer, with the knowledge that he could get a habeas corpus and take her within thirty minutes out of the custody of the police, but which he sat there and allowed her to make,. sustains Jim Conley. The use of that cord, found in abundance, to choke this girl to death, sustains Jim Conley. The existence of the notes alone sustains Jim Conley, because no negro ever in the history of the race, after having perpetrated rape or robbery, ever wrote a note to cover up the crime. The note paper on which it is written, paper found in abundance on the office floor and near the office of this man Frank, sustains Jim Conley.

You can follow along with the original text here.

Mr. Dorsey also sums up the case against Frank dramatically:

Gentlemen, every act of that defendant proclaims him guilty. Gentlemen, every word of that defendant proclaims him responsible for the death of this little factory girl. Gentlemen, every circumstances in this case proves him guilty of this crime. Extraordinary? Yes, but nevertheless true, just as true as Mary Phagan is dead.

She died a noble death, not a blot on her name. She died because she wouldn’t yield her virtue to the demands of her Superintendent. I have no purpose and have never had from the beginning in this case that you oughtn’t to have, as an honest, upright citizen of this community. In the language of Daniel Webster, I desire to remind you “that when a jury, through whimsical and unfounded scruples, suffers the guilty to escape, they make themselves answerable for the augmented danger to the innocent.”

Your Honor, I have done my duty. I have no apology to make. Your Honor, so far as the State is concerned, may now charge this jury,–this jury who have sworn that they were impartial and unbiased, this jury who, in this presence, have taken the oath that they would well and truly try the issue formed on this bill of indictment between the State of Georgia and Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan; and I predict, may it please Your Honor, that under the law that you give in charge and under the honest opinion of the jury of the evidence produced, there can be but one verdict, and that is: We the jury find the defendant, Leo M. Frank, guilty! guilty! guilty!

Click here for a list of all the chapters we’ve published in audio form so far — keep checking back, they will be updated regularly!

Here is a description of the full series which will be posted as audio in future weeks; once all segments have been released, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Be sure to look for next week’s installment here at The American Mercury as we continue to follow the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.

This new audio book series encompasses the American Mercury’s extensive coverage of the 1913 Frank trial. We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Today’s presentation is the fifth section (of six) of Hugh Dorsey’s final statement.

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Mr. Dorsey argues that the proposition of the defense (after they gave up on framing night watchman Newt Lee) that Jim Conley was the real murderer was a preposterous one, and one tainted with the fake “bloody club” that someone among the pro-Frank forces had planted — weeks after the murder — near the place where Conley was keeping watch for Frank on the fatal day:

The defense is uncertain and indistinct on another proposition, they flutter and flurry but never light when it comes to showing you what hole Jim Conley pushed his victim down. Did he shoot her back of that staircase back there? No. Why? Because the dust was thick over it. Because unimpeached witnesses have shown you it was nailed down; because if he had shot her down that hole, the boxes piled up there to the ceiling would have as effectively concealed her body as if she had been buried in the grave, for some days or weeks. Did he shoot her down this other hole in the Clark Woodenware Company’s place of business? Where even if what Schiff says is true, that they kept the shellac there, it would nevertheless have concealed her body a longer time than to put it down there by the dust bin where the fireman and people were coming in through the back door. Did this negro, who they say robbed this girl, even if he had taken the time to write the notes, which, of course, he didn’t –even after he had knocked her in the head with that bludgeon, which they tell you had blood on it, and robbed her, even if he had been such a fool and so unlike the other members of his race, by whom brutal murders have been committed, should have taken time to have tied a cord around her neck, a cord seldom found down there in the basement, according to your own statement, except when it’s swept down in the trash, but a cord that hangs right up there on the office floor, both back there in the varnish room and up there in the front. If he had done all that,–a thing you know that he didn’t do, after he had shot her down in that hole in the Clark Woodenware Company, down there in that wing of the place where they keep this shellac, if they do keep it, why would that negro have gone down there and moved her body, when she was more securely fixed down there ? And why was it, will you tell me, if he shot her down that scuttle hole, that he wrote the notes and fixed the cord, and will you tell me how it happens that, when after this man Holloway, on May 1st, had grabbed old Jim Conley, when he saw him washing his shirt and said “he’s my nigger,”– fifteen days afterwards, when squad number two of the Pinkerton people had been searching through that factory a whole day and right down in that area, the elevator being run, the detectives, both the Pinkertons and the city force had looked around there immediately after the crime, will you tell me how it happened that, if he shot her down that hole, that there was so much blood not found until the 15th of May, and more blood than that poor girl is ever shown to have lost?

You can follow along with the original text here.

Mr. Dorsey also discusses the relative weight of the contradictory testimony from the medical men on the time of Mary Phagan’s last meal, and suggests that the general practitioners brought in by the defense 1) had no specialized knowledge of digestion, on which hinged the timing issue; and 2) were likely brought in with the hope of swaying jurors for whom they may have been family physicians:

It wouldn’t surprise me if these able, astute gentlemen, vigilant as they have shown themselves to be, didn’t go out and get some doctors who have been the family physicians and who are well known to some of the members of this jury, for the effect that it might have upon you.

I can’t see any other reason in God’s world for going out and getting these practitioners, who have never had any special training on stomach analysis, and who have not had any training with the analysis of tissues, like a pathologist has had, except upon that theory. And I am saying to you, gentlemen of the jury, that the number of doctors that these men put up here belie the statement of Mr. Rosser that he doesn’t attach any importance to this cabbage proposition, because they knew, as you know, that it is a powerful factor in sustaining the State’s case and breaking down the alibi of this defendant. It fastens and fixes and nails down with the accuracy only which a scientific fact can do, that this little girl met her death between the time she entered the office of the superintendent and the time Mrs. White came up the stairs at 12 :35, to see her husband and found this defendant at the safe and saw him jump.

You tell me that this Doctor Childs, this general practitioner, who don’t know anything about the action of the gastric juices on foods in the stomach, this man of the short experience of seven years, this gentleman, splendid gentleman though he is, from Michigan, can put his opinion against the eminent Secretary of the Georgia Board of Health, Doctor Roy Harris ? I tell you no.

Click here for a list of all the chapters we’ve published in audio form so far — keep checking back, they will be updated regularly!

Here is a description of the full series which will be posted as audio in future weeks; once all segments have been released, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Be sure to look for next week’s installment here at The American Mercury as we continue to follow the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.

This new audio book series encompasses the American Mercury’s extensive coverage of the 1913 Frank trial. We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Today’s presentation is the fourth section (of six) of Hugh Dorsey’s final statement.

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Mr. Dorsey argues that there was something strange about the fact that Mrs. Leo Frank didn’t visit her husband in jail for some time after his arrest:

Frank said that his wife never went back there because she was afraid that the snapshotters would get her picture–because she didn’t want to go through the line of snapshotters. I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that there never lived a woman, conscious of the rectitude and innocence of her husband, who wouldn’t have gone to him through snapshotters, reporters and over the advice of any Rabbi under the sun. And you know it.

You can follow along with the original text here.

Mr. Dorsey also stresses the fact that Frank refused to meet with Jim Conley, the Black factory sweeper who testified that Frank admitted killing Mary Phagan and enlisted his help in moving the body; and also details Frank’s very odd meeting with Newt Lee, the pencil factory’s night watchman who at the time was also a suspect in the case:

This man Frank, a graduate of Cornell, the superintendent of the pencil factory, so anxious to ferret out this murder that he had phoned Schiff three times on Monday, April 28th, to employ the Pinkerton Detective Agency, this white man refused to meet this ignorant negro, Jim Conley. He refused upon the flimsy pretext that his counsel was out of town, but when his counsel returned, when he had the opportunity to know at least something of the accusations that Conley brought against this man, he dared not let him meet him. It is unnecessary to take up time discussing that.

You tell me that the weakest among you, if you were innocent and a man of black skin charges you with an infamous murder, that any lawyer, Rosser or anybody else, could keep you from confronting him and nailing the lie?

No lawyer on earth, no lawyer that ever lived in any age or any clime could prevent me, if I were innocent, from confronting a man who accused me wrongfully, be he white or black.

And you, Leo Frank, went in and interviewed Newt Lee down yonder at twelve o’clock, Tuesday night, April 29th. And what did you do? Did you act like a man who wanted to get at the truth, who didn’t know it and wanted to get at the truth? Ah, no. Instead of going into that room and taking up with this negro Newt Lee, the man towards whom you had directed suspicion infamously to save your own neck, a man that you would have seen hung on the gallows in order to save your reputation with the people on Washington Street and the members of the B’nai B’rith, did you make an earnest, honest, conscientious effort, as an innocent employer would with his employee, to get at the truth? No; according to Lee, you hung your head and quizzed him not, but predicted that both Lee and you would go to hell if Lee continued to tell the story which he tells even until this good day: and then in your statement here, try to make it appear that your detective Scott and old John Black concocted a scheme against you and lied as to what occurred on that Tuesday night.

Click here for a list of all the chapters we’ve published in audio form so far — keep checking back, they will be updated regularly!

Here is a description of the full series which will be posted as audio in future weeks; once all segments have been released, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Be sure to look for next week’s installment here at The American Mercury as we continue to follow the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.

Frank was the president of the Atlanta, Georgia B’nai B’rith and the Frank case was a major factor in the establishment of the Jewish “anti-hate” group, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), over 100 years ago.

This new audio book series encompasses the American Mercury’s extensive coverage of the 1913 Frank trial. We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Today’s presentation is the second section (of six) of Hugh Dorsey’s final statement.

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Mr. Dorsey dismisses the defense’s contention that the blood stains found were not Mary Phagan’s blood:

[A]nd never was such a farce enacted in the courthouse as this effort on the part of able counsel to make it appear that that wasn’t blood up there on that floor. Absurd! Not satisfied with the absurdity of the contention that it’s paint, that it’s cat blood, rat’s blood, varnish, they bring in this fellow Lee, who perjures himself to say that that man stood there just letting the blood drip. Old man Starnes tells you that they saw the blood there and chipped it up, and saw the blood right along on the route towards the elevator; Jim Conley tells you that right there is where he dropped the head so hard, and where Frank came and took hold and caught the feet. Every person that described that blood and its appearance bears it out that it was caused by dropping, because it was spattered,–one big spot here and other little ones around it,–and if human testimony is to be believed, you know that was blood–that that was blood and not paint, you know that it was the blood of Mary Phagan and not the blood of Duffy. Duffy says so. You know that it was the blood of Mary Phagan because it corresponds with the manner in which Jim Conley says he dropped the body. You know it’s blood because Chief Beavers saw blood there. It spattered towards the dressing room; you know it was blood because Starnes says he saw it was blood and he saw that the haskoline had been put over it. . .

You can follow along with the original text here.

Mr. Dorsey also describes the vast difference between the legitimate evidence in the case and the planted evidence designed to implicate two innocent Black men in the crime — night watchman Newt Lee and facory sweeper Jim Conley: the bloody shirt found at Newt Lee’s residence and the planted fake envelope, bloody club, and blood stains found (more than two weeks later!), near the scuttle hole near which Jim Conley was sitting on that fatal day, by a Pinkerton detective (later fired for questionable practices) named McWorth:

Now, Harry Scott didn’t manipulate exactly right, so they got them some new Richmonds and put them in the field, and this fellow Pierce,–and where is Pierce? Echo answers where? And where, oh, where, is Whitfield? And echo answers where? The only man you bring in here is this man McWorth. Starnes denies, Black denies, Scott denies, every witness put on the stand denies, that around that scuttle hole anything was seen immediately after that murder.

Don’t you know that Frank, who went through that factory,–that Schiff, Darley, Holloway, don’t you know that they would have been only too glad to have reported to Frank that blood spots had been found around that scuttle hole, and don’t you know that Frank would have rushed to get his detective Scott to put the police in charge of the information that blood had been found here! But long after Jim Conley had been arrested, after this man Holloway had arrested him, after this man Holloway had said that Jim was “his nigger,” realizing the desperation of the situation, realizing that something had to be forthcoming to bolster up the charge that Conley did it, then it was and not until then that this man McWorth, after he had gone looking through the factory for a whole day, at about 3 :30 o’clock saw seven large stains, found the envelope and stick right there in the corner.

Now, he found too much, didn’t he! Wasn’t that a little too much! Is there a man on this jury that believes that all these officers looking as they did there, through that factory, going down in this basement there through that very scuttle hole, would have overlooked seven large stains which were not found there until May 15th? Scott said “I looked there just after the murder, made search at the scuttle hole, didn’t see blood spots there.” Starnes says the same, Rosser says the same, and these men Mel Stanford and Darley both say they had been cleaning up all that very area May 3rd, and yet the men who cleaned up and all these men never saw them and never even found the envelope or the stick. Why it’s just in keeping with that plant of the shirt at Newt Lee’s house.

I don’t care how much you mix up this man Black. Boots Rogers says, Darley says, that Sunday morning, when suspicion pointed towards this man Newt Lee, that this man Frank, the brilliant Cornell graduate and the man who was so capable at making figures that certain parts of his work have never been fixed since he left that factory, when he knew a girl had been murdered downstairs, when he knew that suspicion pointed towards Newt Lee, took that slip out of the clock and stood there, looked at it, told those men, in answer to a question, if Newt Lee would have had time to have left and gone home after he killed that girl and changed his clothing, that old Newt didn’t have the time. Why did he say it then? Because he knew that Lanford and Black and the other detectives who were there would have examined that slip for themselves, then and there, and would have seen that these punches were regular or irregular. But he stood there, and because he knew he would be detected if he tried to palm off a fraud at that time and place, this man of keen perception, this man who is quick at figures, this Cornell graduate of high standing, looked over those figures which register the punches for simply twelve hours,–not quite twelve hours,–in that presence, surrounded by those men, told them that Newt Lee wouldn’t have had the time, but, ah! Monday afternoon, when he sees that there isn’t enough evidence against Newt Lee, and that the thing ain’t working quite as nicely against this man Gantt, who he told was familiar with this little girl, Mary Phagan, and then he suddenly proposes, after a conference with his astute counsel, Mr. Haas, that “you go out to my house and make a search,” and then, in the same breath and at the same time, he shrewdly and adroitly suggests to Black that Newt Lee, he has suddenly discovered, had time to go out to his house, and forthwith, early Tuesday morning, John Black, not having been there before because Leo M. Frank told him that Newt Lee didn’t have time to go out to his house, but after the information comes in then Tuesday morning, John Black puts out and goes to old Newt’s house and finds a shirt; that’s a plant as sure as the envelope is a plant, as the stick is a plant, as the spots around the scuttle hole. And the man that did his job, did it too well; he gets a shirt that has the odor of blood, but one that has none of the scent of the negro Newt Lee in the armpit. He puts it, not on one side, as any man moving a body would necessarily have done, but he smears it on both sides, and this carries with it, as you as honest men must know, unmistakable evidence of the fact that somebody planted that shirt sometime Monday, at whose instance and suggestion we don’t know.

And that club business: Doctor Harris says that that wound could not have been done with that club, and Doctor Hurt says it could not have been done with that club, and not a doctor of all the numerous doctors, good men and good doctors as they are for some purposes, ever denies it. A physical examination of that shirt shows you that it wasn’t on the person when that blood got on it,–there is as much blood on the inside or the under side that didn’t come through to the outside. Lee didn’t deny the shirt, but he never did say that it was his shirt. Cornered up as he was, not a negro, one negro in a thousand, that wouldn’t have denied the ownership of that shirt, but old Lee was too honest to say that it wasn’t his shirt,–he didn’t remember it; and you don’t know whether it was his or not. Now this envelope and this stick is found at the radiator, at the scuttle hole, May 15th, after the place had been cleaned up, according to Darley and other witnesses, including Mel Stanford, and after, as I said, it had been thoroughly searched by Scott, Campbell, Rosser, Starnes and I don’t know how many others; and then you say that these things weren’t a part and parcel of the same scheme that caused this man to have Conley write those notes planted by the body to draw attention away from him.

Click here for a list of all the chapters we’ve published in audio form so far — keep checking back, they will be updated regularly!

Here is a description of the full series which will be posted as audio in future weeks; once all segments have been released, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Be sure to look for next week’s installment here at The American Mercury as we continue to follow the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.

This new audio book series encompasses the American Mercury’s extensive coverage of the 1913 Frank trial. We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Today’s presentation is the second section (of six) of Hugh Dorsey’s final statement.

Mr. Dorsey discusses the investigative and interrogation techniques of the police in his argument:

. . . I say arrested, according to Frank’s own statement himself, they got him and just detained him, and even then, red-handed murderer as he was, his standing and influence, and the standing and influence of his attorney, somehow or other – and that’s the only thing to the discredit of the police department throughout the whole thing, say what you may – they were intimidated and afraid because of the influence that was back of him, to consign him to a cell like they did Lee and Conley, and it took them a little time to arrive at the point where they had the nerve and courage to face the situation and put him where he ought to be.

. . . [I]f [Detective] Black had been given an opportunity to go after this man, Leo M. Frank, like he went after that poor defenseless negro, Newt Lee, towards whom you would have directed suspicion, this trial might have been obviated, and a confession might have been obtained. You [Dorsey is here speaking to Leo Frank] didn’t get your lawyer to sustain you and support you a moment too soon. You called for Darley, and you called for Haas, and you called for Rosser, and you called for Arnold, and it took the combined efforts of all of them to keep up your nerve.

And I don’t want to misquote and I won’t misquote, but I want to drive it home with all the power that I possibly can or that I possess. The only thing in this case that can be said to the discredit of the police department of the City of Atlanta is that you treated this man, who snuffed out that little girl’s life on the second floor of that pencil factory, with too much consideration, and you let able counsel and the glamour that surrounds wealth and influence, deter you. I honor — but I honor the way they went after Minola McKnight [a Black servant girl at the Frank household who provided evidence against Frank but after receiving money from the Franks claimed that the police had intimidated her — Ed.] — I don’t know whether they want me to apologize for them or not, but if you think that finding the red-handed murderer of a little girl like this is a ladies’ tea party, and that the detectives should have the manners of a dancing master and apologize and palaver, you don’t know anything about the business.

You can follow along with the original text here.

Mr. Dorsey also heaps scorn on the idea that Jim Conley would have come up with the idea of hiding Mary Phagan’s  body in the factory basement or writing the death notes (which he here refers to as “letters”):

Now, gentlemen, I want to discuss briefly right here these letters, and if these letters weren’t “the order of an all-ruling Providence I should agree with my friends that they are the silliest pieces of stuff ever practiced; but these letters have intrinsic marks of a knowledge of this transaction,” these pads, that pad,–things usually found in his office,–this man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fasten the crime upon another, “has indelibly fixed it upon himself.” I repeat it, these notes, which were intended to fix the crime upon another, “have indelibly fixed it upon this defendant,” Leo M. Frank. The pad, the paper, the fact that he wanted a note,–you tell me that ever a negro lived on the face of the earth who, after having killed and robbed, or ravished and murdered a girl down in that dark basement, or down there in that area, would have taken up the time to have written these notes, and written them on a scratch pad which is a thing that usually stays in the office, or written them on paper like this, found right outside of the office of Frank, as shown on that diagram, which is introduced in evidence and which you will have out with you?

You tell me that that man, Jim Conley, sober, as Tillander and Graham tell you, when they went there, would have ravished this girl with a knowledge of the fact that Frank was in that house? I tell you no. Do you tell me that this man, Jim Conley, “drunk as a fiddler’s bitch,” if you want it that way, would, or could have taken time to have written these notes to put beside the body of that dead girl? I tell you no, and you don’t need me to tell you, you know it The fact, gentlemen of the jury, that these notes were written–ah, but you say that it’s foolish. You say it’s foolish. It’s ridiculous. It was a silly piece of business, it was a great folly; but murder will out, and Providence directs things in a mysterious way, and not only that, as Judge Bleckley says, “Crime, whenever committed, is a mistake in itself; and what kind of logic is it that will say that a man committed a crime, which is a great big mistake and then in an effort to cover it up, won’t make a smaller mistake!” There’s no logic in that position.

The man who commits a crime makes a mistake, and the man who seeks to cover it up nearly always makes also a little mistake. And this man here, by these notes, purporting to have been written by little Mary Phagan, by the verbiage and the language and the context, in trying to fasten it on another, as sure as you are sitting in this jury box “has indelibly fastened it on himself.”

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Click here for a list of all the chapters we’ve published in audio form so far — keep checking back, they will be updated regularly!

Here is a description of the full series which will be posted as audio in future weeks; once all segments have been released, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Be sure to look for next week’s installment here at The American Mercury as we continue to follow the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.

This series encompasses the American Mercury’s coverage of the 1913 trial and conviction of Jewish sex killer Leo Frank — a case which was one of the inspirations for the establishment of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). We are presenting the extensive arguments, both for the defense and the prosecution, in order and in full — a monumental, book-length project. Today’s presentation is the first section of Hugh Dorsey’s final statement.

Mr. Dorsey states that prejudice against Jews had nothing to do with the prosecution of Frank:

I say that the race this man comes from is as good as ours; his forefathers were civilized and living in cities and following laws when ours were roaming at large in the forest and eating human flesh. I say his race is just as good as ours, but no better. I honor the race that produced Disraeli, the greatest of British statesmen; that produced Judah P. Benjamin, as great a lawyer as England or America ever saw; I honor the Strauss brothers; I roomed with one of his race at college; one of my partners is is of his race. I served on the board of trustees of Grady hospital with Mr. Hirsch, and I know others, too many to count, but when Lieutenant Becker wished to make away with his enemies, he sought men of this man’s race.

Then, you will recall Abe Hummell, the rascally lawyer, and Reuff, another scoundrel, and Schwartz, who killed a little girl in New York, and scores of others, and you will find that this great race is as amenable to the same laws as any others of the white race or as the black race is. They rise to heights sublime, but they also sink to the lowest depths of degradation!

You can follow along with the original text here.

Mr. Dorsey also draws attention to the testimony of witnesses — most of them young girls who had worked in Frank’s sweatshop — that Frank had a bad reputation for lasciviousness:

Now, what business did this man [Frank] have going in up there, peering in on those little girls – the head of the factory, the man that wanted flirting forbidden! What business did he have going up into those dressing rooms?  To tell me to go up there to the girls’ dressing room, shove open the door and walk in is a part of his duty, when he has foreladies to stop it? No, indeed. And old Jim Conley may not have been so far wrong as you may think. He says that somebody went up there that worked on the fourth floor, he didn’t know who. This man, according to the evidence of people that I submit you will believe, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Reuben B. Arnold said it was a lie and called them hare-brained fanatics – according to the testimony even of a lady who works there now and yet is brave enough and courageous enough to come down here and tell you that that man had been in a room with a lady that works on the fourth floor; and it may have been that he was then, when he went in there on this little Jackson girl and the Mayfield girl and Miss Kitchens, looking out to see if the way was clear to take her in again – and Miss Jackson, their witness, says she heard about his going in there three or four times more than she ever saw it, and they complained to the foreladies – it may have been right then and there he went to see some woman on the fourth floor that old Jim Conley says he saw go up there to meet him Saturday evening, when all these good people were out on Washington Street and Montags, and the pencil factory employees, even, didn’t know of the occurrence of these things..

Click on the “play” button to listen to the audio book, read by Vanessa Neubauer.

Click here for a list of all the chapters we’ve published in audio form so far — keep checking back, they will be updated regularly!

Here is a description of the full series which will be posted as audio in future weeks; once all segments have been released, the Mercury will be offering for sale a complete, downloadable audio book of the full series.

1. Introduction

100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins

2. WEEK 1

The Leo Frank Trial: Week One

3. WEEK 2

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Two

4. WEEK 3

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Three

5. Leo Frank mounts the witness stand by Ann Hendon

100 Years Ago Today: Leo Frank Takes the Stand

6. Week 4

The Leo Frank Trial: Week Four

7. Closing arguments of Rosser, Arnold and Hooper

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments of Hooper, Arnold, and Rosser

8. Closing arguments of Hugh Dorsey

The Leo Frank Trial: Closing Arguments, Solicitor Dorsey

Be sure to look for next week’s installment here at The American Mercury as we continue to follow the trial that changed the South – changed America – and changed the world.