Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-06-20
READY TOATTACK
MRS. FORMBY'S
AFFIDAVIT
Defense Finds New Witnesses for
Leo NJ. Frank in the Phagan
Staying Mystery.
Continued From Page 1.

which might be invoked 10 obtain an
acquittal for Frank
The story of the negro sweeper. Jim
Conley, they regard as the browning
piece Of evidence against the factory
superintendent on the sensational
allegations in the last affidavit he
made. the prosecution contends It has
the clinching piece Of evidence in the
long chain. Until they obtained this
AFFIDAVIT, they had been unable TO
find anyone to swear that Frank had
seen Mary Phagan on the day Of the
murder except for the two or three
minutes she was IN his office to draw
her pay.
The negro swore Frank had him
help in the disposal OF the girls body
and the prosecution processes to be-
lieve this statement. which, n true, IS
vitality important. II II IS true, II is
the only circumstance which indi-
Gates that Frank had any direct
knowledge Of how Mary Phagan came
to her death.
But even this evidence, as vital as
IL is IL a jury can be induced 10 give
il credence. is only circumstantial At
best Conley does not profess to
have seen Frank XIII the girl. He
says Mary Phagan was stone dead"
when he first saw her and that Frank
told him she had hit her head against
something.
The prosecution announces II has
fortified itself against the attack that
certainly will be made on the credi-
bility Of the negro by substantiatng
the essential portions Of his many
times conflicting and improbable
stories by a mass OF testimony from
other witnesses They can see no
. loophole through which Leo Frank
may escape.
Defense Also Confident.
The defense is not at all dismayed
by the apparent confidence Of the
prosecution. Franks lawyers ridi-
cule the idea that the prosecution
has any evidence which is damaging
TO Frank. aside from the freely ad
mitted fact that Frank was in the
factory at the time Mary Phag1n
came in TO draw her pay, They are
convinced Of Franks innocence. or
this there is no ioubt.
They are as assured Of the acquit-
tai and sweeping vindication Of Leo
Frank as though II already were an
accomplished fact They say the So
called strong chain of circumstantial
evidence against their client appears
strong only when viewed through the
eyes OF person so prejudiced he can
rot see the possibility OF another hav-
ing been the criminal, and so mar
row that he works with the single
purpose Of convicting this particular
man.
Their attitude. in short, when the
case comes to trial will be expressed
much like this; III you are basing
your case on circumstantiM evidence,
we offer for the consideration OF this
Jury evidence much more damning
and conclusive against this negro
Conley-hls train OF lies, his perjury
his suspicious actions before and art
er the crime, and a hundred and one
circumstances that point to his guilt
with almost certain clearness.
They will contrast the drunken ne
gro, hiding and skuIking in the fac
tory on the day Of the crime, and ly-
ing about his whereabouts for three
weeks afterward. with the conduct of
Frank. who freely admitted he was al
the factory on certain hours, and who
has not been trapped In a single mis-
statement since his arrest They viii
show thar the negro has lied and fall
eified even since he made his last af-
fidavit upon which the prosecution
relies so implicitly.
lronelad Aiibis.
They DO not believe any jury car
hear the evidence and fail to be con
vineed Of the guilt OF the negro, ever
though the authorities have not seer
Mt to indict him. either for the ac'
tual murder or upon his confession
that he was an accessory after th'
fact
Neither do they believe. leaving thu
negro out Of consideration as III,
probable murderer of Mary Phagan
We bope BeauifuI Beddip,