The Washington times., 1915-02-28
Detective Burns's Comment,

He asked the aid Of no one In
checking up his tests.
lie went of in his little labora-
tory, made his tests. the results
Of which he kept religiously TO
himself, and then, most astound-
ing thing Of all, he threw away
the greater part Of his specimens.
SO II would be impossible for any
disinterested person or an expert
Tor the defense to 60 through the
same tests and varify the results
obtained by DR.. Harris. This Is
another example of the manner
In which the case against Frank
was conducted by the prosecu-
tlon.
One may gather the idea from
reading the, States presentation
OF the case that the wound on
the back Of Mary Phagan's head
was made by her falling against
the handle Of lathe on the
second floor. There is not
particle Of truth IN that story
There was no sign Of blood on
the lathe. Had II been washed
on. that action also would have
taken of the strands Of hair r.
p. Barrett found on the lathe
handle.
There were two abrasiona Just
below each knee Of the Phagan
girl. No effort was made to ac-
count for these wounds. ac-
counted for them perfectly. The
girl was pushed head foremost
down the scuttle hole on the
hrst moor by the negro Conley.
Her head and shoulders would
have struck between the frst
and second rounds Of the ladder.
In whirling over. her knees
would strike the rungs further
down. and the wound in her
head was caused when she fell
against a sharp- cornered log at
the bottom OF the ladder
Cinders Unaccounted For.
Neither was any one sble to
account for the large amount OF
cinders ground into her face.
asked them how they explained
that. and they said she must
have been dragged. But that
was not the case. looked at
the clothes she had worn, and
there was not sign OF drag
ginz. The fact is, the girl was
stunned when she was hurled
into the basement. Recovering
consciousness, she screamed
. That was the scream that Jim
Conley heard. and 1t was because
OF the memory Of his attack on
the girl and his killing OF he~
that II was months and month";.
bofore he ever Acknowledged he
heard a scream.
Fearful that his crime would be
discovered from tho girls out
cries. he seized her and threw her
on the cinder pile only a few fee,
from the foot OF the ladder and
buried her face in the pile Of Gin
ders to still her shrieks. That
Is the reason cinders were EN-.
bedded In her face and her nos
trils and mouth We're nlled with
cinders and dirt. and the black
dirt OF the basement was under
her fngernails.
Miss Hattie Hall was another
witness who testified that Frank
did not work on the financial
sheet Saturday forenoons. She
was at the factory the forenoon
or the tragedy, and she could
testify authoritatively about that
day. She also furnished testi-
mony showing that Conley could
not have been hid In the ward
robe when Corinthia Hal! and
Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman. two
or the employees, entered the Of
fee. for Hattie Hall was ther.
At the time. II was not after
O'Clock. AS Conley said, but short
iy before IL
Mrs. Arthur White. one OF Dor
sey's own witnesses. sustained the
defense in this particular. as she
was there at nearly the same
time and saw Miss Hal. and Mrs
Freeman.
In reference to Franks address
to the jury. which begins in this
issue, ! want to call attention to
the fact that it was not changed
or modelled in any particular
from the first statement he made
to the Pinkerton detective, Scott.
or from the statement he made
to the police. He readily and
promptly answered all the Gue.-
lions OF the detectives. and had
10 hesitation in submitting 20
their grilling. Contrast this with
the conduct OF Conley, who altered
and remolded his story every time
he made a new statement.