Wednesday, 18th March 1914: Burns Indicates His Belief In Innocence Of Leo Frank, The Atlanta Journal

Reading Time: 15 minutes [2617 words]

EVERY CRIMINAL IS CERTAIN TO LEAVE TRACK,

HE ASSERTS

"Trail is Very Plain,"

States Detective Enigmatically in Murder With Newspapers

EXPRESSES CONFIDENCE IN DORSEY'S SINCERITY "But Smartest Man's Vision Is Liable to Be Distorted," Adds Sleuth-Becker, in Letter, Defends Frank

The indication that Detective William J. Burns believes Leo M. Frank is innocent of the murder of Mary Phagan, in the light of his present information, was made plain by the interpretation of remarks he made during conversation Wednesday morning with newspaper men.

"Every criminal leaves some sort of track," was one of his assertions.

Later he said:

"The trial is very plain."

Then he said:

"Notwithstanding the various charges that have been made, I think Solicitor General Dorsey has been absolutely honest in this case, and that he never would have prosecuted a man he did not thoroughly believe to be guilty. But however keen or smart a man may be, his vision is liable to be distorted."

Burns then turned his attention to detectives and speaking of them generally declared they too often hit on a theory and then try to build the facts to suit that theory.

"The theory should always be made to fit the facts, although the reverse is true in the work of many detectives."

"Often I have known detectives to follow a given theory until they struck a stone wall. Then they get mad, instead of simply dropping the theory."

"The theory should always be made to fit the facts, although the reverse is true in the work of many detectives."

"Often I have known detectives to follow a given theory until they struck a stone wall. Then they get mad, instead of simply dropping the theory."

"I know of no detective who is quicker to change his theory than myself.

On some cases, I have had half a dozen different theories. I follow one just as far as the facts let me, and then I drop it, and start out on an entirely different angle."

Refusing generally to discuss detail points of the case, Mr. Burns did remark, however, that he considers as very important the evidence which H. F. Becker, now of New York, formerly master mechanic of the pencil factory, is reported as being able to give.

Becker is ready to testify regarding the paper on which one of the notes was written, that it was a piece of trash paper which had been used months before the murder.

BURNS IS CONFIDENT.

Mr. Burns appeared confident that the mystery will be solved.

He said it is not too late to get at the bottom of the case.

On the other hand, he appeared to think conditions at this late day are more favorable to the correct solution than they were at first.

"Sometimes it is better to wait till indignation has subsided and then look at a thing sanely and calmly," said he.

He said the indignation aroused by the murder of Mary Phagan was but natural and did not discredit the community.

On the contrary, said he, it showed the community is law-abiding and will not tolerate lawlessness.

He assumed race prejudice had militated against Frank.

There are undoubtedly people in every community, he said, who are prejudiced against Jews.

"I am glad to see the chief of the city detectives say he will co-operate with me," said Burns, "or rather I am glad he will let me co-operate with him."

Burns would not say, however, when (Continued on PAGE 2, COLUMN 3.)

PAGE 2, COLUMN 3

EVERY CRIMINAL IS CERTAIN TO LEAVE TRACK, HE ASSERTS (Continued from Page 1.)

he expects to call on Chief Lanford and confer about the case.

While he will make no definite statement Burns indicates he will be at work on the case some days before he formulates his final report.

"In a case like this," he said, "a detective must consider the fact that he must satisfy all right-thinking people, and I am very certain that when my final report on this case is read there will be no doubt left in anyone's mind as to the identity of Mary Phagan's slayer."

Burns has nothing to say about the number of men he has at work on the case or the methods of investigation they are pursuing.

Wednesday morning he went direct from the Georgian Terrace hotel, where he is stopping, to the office of his agency here, and he is devoting a number of hours each day to investigation.

Besides W. W. Rogers, one of the men who reached the factory just after the discovery of the body.

Burns is reported to have interviewed Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, who was first suspected of the crime.

Apparently Burns has made no effort to secure an interview with Jim Conley, the negro who has been convicted as Leo M. Frank's accomplice in the murder.

Developments in the case are expected Thursday on the return from Washington of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, of the defense.

While Mr. Arnold did not make the trip in connection with the Frank case it is said new and sensational affidavits have been placed in his hands, and these possibly will be made public.

Becker Defends Frank

In Letter to Journal Henry F. Becker, the former master mechanic at the National Pencil factory, has written The Journal in defense of Frank, declaring that one of the order blanks on which one of the murder notes was written could not have been picked up by Frank in his office, as Jim Conley claims in his story.

Becker, who is now employed in a pencil factory in New Jersey, identifies his signature on the photographic copy of the murder note, which he has seen, and corroborates the claim of the Frank defense, that the discarded order blanks, used by himself, were carted to the basement of the pencil factory when he left the service of the Atlanta concern.

Becker also pays tribute to Frank.

His letter follows in full:

Irvington, N. J., March 14, 1914.

The Atlanta Journal:

Atlanta, Ga.:

Gentlemen

Just a few lines in reference to your editorial of March 10, 1914, in regards to Mr. Leo Frank's case.

I would like to make a few remarks in his behalf.

Having been employed as master mechanic with the National Pencil company, where I came in contact with Mr. Frank more than anyone of the employers, I will state I always found him upright and honest, and in regard to female help it was nothing but business through and through with him.

There has been a booklet sent me from Atlanta with a photograph of the notes found by the girl's body, and, as near as I can see, it has my signature.

Before I left the employ of the National Pencil company I sent the bulk of old order books to the basement to be burned, as I kept them for reference to myself, and with the photograph note the date 190 and, as the negro claims that the notes were written in Mr. Frank's office, which could not be possible, as Frank's order blank books were dated 191 .

I am not connected with Mr. Frank in any way or form, but would like to see that justice is done by giving him another trial, so his innocence will be proved.

Hoping you will approve of this and have it published in your paper, I remain.

Sincerely yours, HENRY H.

BECKER,

41 Maple Ave., Irvington, N. J.

Frank Juror

Replies To Pulpit Utterances

J. T. Osburn, a member of the jury which convicted Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, has addressed a communication to the editor of The Journal in which he replies to the pulpit utterances of three Atlanta pastors last Sunday in advocacy of a new trial for the condemned man.

He says the jury heard "ALL" the evidence and "claims to have sufficient honesty and intelligence to weigh the same without prejudice and to render the verdict according to the law and testimony, notwithstanding the opinion of the holier-than-thou gentlemen to the contrary."

He says the jury was not trying "yellow dogs" nor "sheep killing dogs" but a "white man charged with a heinous crime," and realized the solemn responsibility.

He says the jury was not listening to the "inflamed condition of the public mind" spoken of by the preachers.

In conclusion he says the jury, after listening to all the testimony and carefully and honestly considering every point, "believed and still believes, the verdict was righteous and the sentence just."

PAGE 4, COLUMN 2

LETTERS FROM READERS MORE INDORSEMENTS FOR JOURNAL'S EDITORIAL

Letters Commending Paper's Attitude on Frank Trial Continue to Pour

In

Below will be found a number of letters from well-known citizens who indorse The Journal's editorial asserting that "Frank Should Have a New Trial":

FROM WILMER L. MOORE.

Wilmer L. Moore, president of the Southern States Life Insurance company, and ex-president of the Atlanta chamber of commerce, writes to the editor of The Journal as follows:

Atlanta, Ga., March 14, 1914.

Hon. James R. Gray, Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Ga.:

My Dear Mr. Gray:

The position of The Journal in giving a strong editorial upon the Frank verdict is being commended by the thinking and fair-minded element of our city.

I trust that you will continue your campaign for a fair trial, and that you will succeed in bringing to your assistance the editorial indorsement of the other Atlanta papers.

Yours very truly,

WILMER L. MOORE.

FROM EUGENE M. MITCHELL.

Eugene M. Mitchell, Atlanta lawyer, says:

Atlanta, March 16, 1914.

Hon. James R. Gray, Editor Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Ga.

My Dear Mr. Gray,

I wish to commend the editorial in last Monday's Journal on the subject of the Frank case.

Very truly yours,

EUGENE M. MITCHELL.

FROM T. D. MURPHY.

T. D. Murphy, postmaster at Augusta, writes:

Augusta, Ga., March 14, 1914.

Hon. James R. Gray, The Atlanta Journal, Atlanta,

Ga.,

My Dear Mr. Gray:

I know little of the Frank case.

I note with the deepest interest the position of The Atlanta Journal that Frank was not accorded a fair trial.

That being your conviction, I want to say that I hope you will succeed in reopening the case to the end that an impartial hearing be given the condemned man.

The murder of the poor child who was slain should be avenged by the law.

But in the punishment there for no injustice should be done another.

Every man is entitled to a fair trial.

If Frank, as you point out, was not given this fair trial in court I hope your influence will win the square deal for him.

If he is guilty he should be punished.

If he is innocent, he should go free.

Above all, his trial should be fair and impartial.

Respectfully, THOMAS D.

MURPHY FROM W. F. DORSEY.

W. F. Dorsey, head of the Dorsey Furniture Company and mayor of Athens, expressed himself as follows:

Athens, Ga., March, 1914.

Hon. James R. Gray, Care Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Ga.

Dear Sir:

I desire to express to you my sincere appreciation of your editorial concerning the Frank case.

In my opinion no more courageous stand has been taken by a Georgia newspaper for what it considered to be the right than your paper has taken in this instance.

I further believe that you have the support of all good citizens who desire to see the law enforced in a manner that will be above reproach and that will not bring shame upon the state of Georgia.

As some one has aptly said, it is quite as important that the people believe that their courts are doing justice as it is that they actually do justice, and I do not for a moment doubt that the people of this state who have given the matter sober reflection will agree with you that this man, regardless of his guilt or innocence, is entitled to a trial which will be free from the prejudices and passions which surrounded the other.

You have really done a great service for the cause of law and order, because you have made it clearly apparent that Georgians do not care for other than a legal and orderly procedure in their courts.

Assuring you of my high regard, I am Very sincerely yours,

W. F. DORSEY, Mayor of Athens.

FROM J. E. CARTER.

J. E. Carter, of Lumpkin, clerk of the superior court of Stewart county, commends the editorial in the following letter:

Lumpkin, Ga., March 15, 1914.

Dear Sir:

Allow me to congratulate you on your editorial "Frank Should Have a New Trial."

I believe it the duty of the press and of the citizens of Georgia to leave nothing undone to the end that Frank gets a new trial.

I very much fear that the Frank case has done more to undermine respect for the judiciary than any other event in the history of Georgia.

I was in Atlanta part of the time Frank was on trial, and followed the case closely in the press throughout the trial, and I have never yet been able to see wherein a conviction was based.

But be that as it may, our people are divided in their opinion as to Frank's guilt or innocence, but one thing they all agree on is he has not had a fair trial and that he should have a new trial.

Yours very truly,

J. E. CARTER.

FROM WM.

B. MOORE.

William B. Moore, secretary of the Blue and Gray Memorial association of Fitzgerald, Ga., says:

Fitzgerald, Ga., March 15, 1914.

Editor Atlanta Journal:

I have read the case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank closely from the commencement, and with all due respect for our supreme court, the trial judge, solicitor and jury, I feel as though the state, Atlanta and Frank have been the victims of extreme haste and passion, and am firmly of the opinion (which is fully concurred in by all cool headed and fair thinking people) first, that Leo Frank should have a new trial; and, second, that he should have a change of venue.

Yours for fairness, W.M. B. MOORE.

FROM PROF. J. LUSTRAT.

Prof. J. Lustrat, who occupies the chair of languages at the University of Georgia, has written the following letter:

Athens, Ga., March 14, 1914.

Mr. James R. Gray,

Editor Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Ga.

My Dear Mr. Gray:

Allow me to congratulate you on your splendid editorial of a few days ago on the Frank case.

Public feeling such as prevailed in Atlanta at the time of Frank's trial, has caused in France an innocent man to be sent to Devil's Island, where month after month he had to suffer torments worse than death.

I do not claim that Frank is innocent, but I claim, with you, and many others, that he ought to be given a fair chance to prove his innocence.

Sincerely yours, J. LUSTRAT FROM E. H. M'MICHAEL.

E. H. Mc Michael, speaker pro tem, of the Georgia house of representatives and member of the legislature from Marion County, writes as follows:

March 15, 1914.

Mr. J. R. Gray, Editor Atlanta Journal:

Dear Sir

As a citizen of Georgia and as a lover of justice and fair play, I wish to indorse every word of your able editorial of the 10th advocating a new trial for Leo Frank.

The crime for which he stands convicted was so brutal that the public mind was wild with indignation when he was tried.

There was a thirst for the blood of the murderer.

So intense was this feeling that the very atmosphere in and about the court house was charged with the sulphureous fumes of anger.

I was in the court house several times during the trial, and the spirit, the feeling, the thought of the crowd affected me.

Without reason, I found myself prejudiced against Frank.

Prejudiced, not from facts and testimony, but by popular belief and hostile feeling manifested by the crowd.

Psychology, or mental science, teaches that under conditions like those which prevailed during Frank's trial a jury may be unconsciously prejudiced or swayed by the popular mind.

Frank may be guilty; he may be innocent.

Certainly, he has not had a fair trial.

Let's give him one.

The constitution of our state guarantees to every man, white or black, high or low, Gentile or Jew, an absolutely fair trial.

Respectfully, E. H. M'MICHAEL.