Sunday, 26th April 1914: Leo Frank Pleads For A Fair Trial In Signed Card, The Atlanta Journal

Search for:

Reading Time: 7 minutes [1110 words]

Leo M. Frank's Plea for a Fair Trial

Leo M. Frank issued a signed statement on Saturday night commenting on the interview of Chief Newport A. Lanford of the city detective's department with Detective William J. Burns. In the interview, Lanford declared that neither the state nor the city had ever charged perversion against Frank. Frank stated, "The charge of perversion having been withdrawn against me, I do not see how any with a love of justice and fair play in his heart could deny me the privilege of a new trial, and a fair trial, which I have never had. I am seeking for that which the people of Atlanta would not refuse to a dirty mongrel cur, slinking through its streets, the right of a fair showing before its life is taken."

In his appeal to the people of Atlanta, Frank argued that the charge of perversion had poisoned the minds of the public, infuriated them against him, and placed him beyond the pale of human sympathy. He claimed that this charge made it impossible for him to obtain a fair and impartial trial, as it led to the acceptance of the testimony of a "vile Negro and self-confessed perjurer" over his own. Frank also mentioned that the charge had enraged crowds around the courthouse to such an extent that the judge advised his lawyers to stay away and keep him out of the courthouse, fearing for their safety if the verdict was acquittal.

Frank further explained that about two weeks prior, Mr. Burns had requested through the newspapers that anyone with information about any acts of immorality on Frank's part should communicate with him. Despite offering $1,000 for such information, Burns received no response except from Chief Lanford, who claimed to have the information Burns was seeking but refused to show it to Burns' assistant, Mr. Lehon, stating he would only show it to Burns upon his return. When Burns returned and met with Lanford, he was told that the affidavits were withheld because a motion for a new trial was pending. Lanford also claimed that the charge of perversion was brought into the case by Frank's own lawyers, a statement Frank dismissed as a "silly, impudent falsehood."

Frank accused Lanford of only taking this position because his bluff had been called, asserting that Lanford knew the charge of perversion against him was a lie. Frank declared his innocence, stating he was not a pervert nor an immoral man and that he did not kill Mary Phagan. He emphasized that the withdrawn charge of perversion made it impossible for him to get a fair trial and pleaded for a fair show for his life before a jury that would not be intimidated and would weigh his testimony against that of a self-confessed perjurer.

Solicitor and Detectives Plan Vigorous Attack on Frank's Defense

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey spent Saturday directing the activities of a group of city detectives, who secured many affidavits to be used to attack the new evidence introduced by Leo M. Frank's defense at the hearing of his extraordinary motion for a new trial. The solicitor refused to discuss the case, but the city detectives characterized the claim of Rev. C. B. Ragsdale, a Baptist pastor, that he heard a Negro identified as Conley confess to the murder, as another "Mincey affair." The detectives had many affidavits attacking Mincey, who claimed Conley confessed to him but was not used as a witness in court.

Despite only forty-eight hours having passed since the minister's name was brought into the case, the detectives had already placed evidence combatting Ragsdale's testimony in the hands of the solicitor. Several affidavits regarding Ragsdale were made by citizens of Cherokee County, where he formerly lived, and were sent to the solicitor. Little was known about the state's attack on Annie Maud Carter, a negress who claimed Conley confessed to her when she promised to marry him, except that an affidavit she gave to the detectives before her statement to the defense would be used. In this affidavit, she claimed to have tried and failed to persuade Conley to confess.

The state also had the original affidavit of Mrs. May Barrett, who visited the solicitor's office with her daughter, now Mrs. Maud Bailey, soon after the crime. One of the women urged the other to make a certain kind of affidavit, which was refused, leading to an apparent argument between them. Both women and the solicitor refused to discuss the interview, and it was unclear whether Mrs. Barrett's affidavit would be used at the next hearing.

Mary Phagan was killed on April 26, 1913, and the case against Frank, who was arrested a few days after the crime, was expected to remain in the courts for another year before being finally decided.

Detective Burns' Statement on Conley's Notes

Detective W. J. Burns issued a statement to the press, claiming he had fastened upon James Conley, the Negro sweeper at the pencil factory and accuser of Leo M. Frank, the sole responsibility for both the notes found beside Mary Phagan's body and her murder. Burns exhibited scores of notes he said were written by Conley to Anna Maud Carter while in jail, which he invited the public to inspect and compare with the murder notes.

Burns pointed out that the notes contained phrases too vile for reproduction, indicating the perversion of Conley's mind. He also noted the prolific nature of Conley's note-writing and the use of the words "did" instead of "done," and "Negro" instead of "nigger," refuting the solicitor's argument at the trial that no Negro would have used those words unless dictated by a white man.

In his statement, Burns elaborated on the affidavit by Anna Maud Carter, who claimed Conley confessed to her that he killed Mary Phagan and wrote the notes himself. Burns presented the notes as evidence more powerful and convincing than an actual confession, proving that the murder note found by Phagan's body came from Conley's perverted brain. The notes, addressed to Carter and sometimes to "Anna Maud Conley," contained vile and abominable language, showing Conley's lust and perverted passion.

Burns argued that the letters refuted Conley's claim of barely knowing Carter and established his guilt beyond question. He also noted that the letters contained the words "did" and "Negro," contradicting the state's argument at trial that Frank must have dictated the notes because of these words. Burns concluded that the letters left Conley as the sole author and writer of the death notes found by Phagan's body, and thus, the murderer of the little girl.