Policeman W. F. Anderson: The First Responder Who Entered the Basement Where Mary Phagan Was Found Sunday, April 27, 1913: The Telephone Rings at Police Headquarters At approximately 3:20 a.m. on Sunday, April 27, 1913, a telephone call reported a killing at the National Pencil Company factory on South Forsyth Street in Atlanta. The officer who answered the call was W. F. Anderson. Anderson did not know what awaited him at the factory. He was responding to an emergency report, and he had to act quickly. The Atlanta Constitution later described the moment in a July 20 article about the discovery of Mary Phagan's body. Its reportage portrayed Anderson dropping the telephone receiver and calling to the desk sergeant: “I'm no mind-reader,” retorted Anderson, diving for the door. The newspaper then quoted him shouting: “Killing up on Forsyth street!” The article was written by Britt Craig and published nearly three months after the murder. It is a dramatic newspaper reconstruction, not a verbatim police transcript. Nevertheless, it identifies Anderson as the officer who received the initial call and set the response in motion (The Atlanta Constitution, Sunday, July 20, 1913). The police officers traveled to the factory in an automobile driven by Woods White Rogers AKA W. W. “Boots” Rogers, a former county policeman. Sergeant L. S. Dobbs and other officers joined the response. When they reached the factory, they encountered Newt Lee, the night watchman toting a smoky lantern, who had reported finding a young girl's body in the basement. Anderson was one of the officers who entered the building and examined the scene. His testimony would become important because he could describe what the responding officers encountered during the first hours of the investigation, before the case developed into the highly publicized prosecution of factory superintendent Leo M. Frank. What Anderson found in the basement The National Pencil Company building stood on South Forsyth Street, between Alabama and Hunter Streets. The building had four floors, with manufacturing and office areas above a basement. Lee led the officers toward the basement entrance. The officers descended by a ladder through a scuttle opening. They encountered a dark area where the available light came from lanterns and police lights. Mary's body lay on the basement floor near a partition. Anderson described her position, clothing, injuries, and the objects nearby. His account became part of the evidence used to reconstruct the discovery. The precise location of each object deserves attention. Newspaper reports do not always agree about where the shoe, hat, handkerchief, pencil, and papers lay. A careful account should preserve those differences rather than combine them into one description. Anderson also described the condition of the basement door and its fastening. The newspapers reported a staple that had been pulled from the fastening. This was relevant to the investigation of access to the building, but the observation alone could not establish when the staple had been disturbed or who had disturbed it. Anderson was a first responder, not a forensic scientist. He could tell the coroner what he saw. His testimony could not, by itself, identify the killer or establish the time and manner of every act inside the factory. Wednesday, April 30, 1913: Anderson testifies at the coroner's inquest Three days after the discovery, the coroner's inquest resumed at Atlanta police headquarters. Coroner Paul Donehoo presided, and the jury examined the evidence surrounding Mary's death. Anderson was the first witness examined during the resumed proceedings. The Atlanta Journal reported his account of the discovery, the condition of the basement, Mary's body, and the questions raised by Lee's story. One of the central questions concerned the lantern Lee said he had used. Lee's account placed him at a distance from the body when he first noticed something on the basement floor. Anderson questioned whether the smoky lantern could have provided enough light for Lee to recognize what he was seeing. The Atlanta Journal reported Anderson estimating that the lantern would illuminate roughly twelve to fifteen feet. The Atlanta Georgian gave a similar estimate of approximately ten to twelve feet. The surviving trial record preserves Anderson's earlier statement as Defendant's Exhibit 93, printed page 307 of the Brief of Evidence. It records his words: “With the lantern that he had I could see about ten or twelve feet, something like that.” The exhibit is relevant because it preserves a portion of Anderson's original inquest testimony, allowing it to be compared with his later testimony at Frank's trial (The Atlanta Journal, Wednesday, April 30, 1913; The Atlanta Georgian, Wednesday, April 30, 1913; Brief of Evidence, Defendant's Exhibit 93, p. 307). The lantern question was not a small detail. If Lee could not clearly identify the body from where he said he stood, the jury had reason to examine how he discovered it and what he actually saw. At the same time, Anderson's estimate was not a controlled scientific test. Visibility depended on the condition of the lantern, the darkness, the angle of view, and the objects between the light and the body. The disagreement over the body's position Another issue concerned Mary's position when the officers arrived. The Atlanta Journal reported that Anderson and the responding officers found Mary lying face downward, with her head toward the front of the building. Lee was reported as giving a different description of the body's position when he first discovered it. This raised an obvious question: had Lee described the scene incorrectly, or had the body been moved between discovery and the officers' examination? The testimony alone did not answer that question. A difference between two descriptions is a reason to investigate, not proof that someone moved the body. The testimony of Rogers adds another layer. At the May 8 inquest session, Rogers described Lee's account of finding Mary and said the officers found her face downward. His recollection did not match every version of Lee's initial description printed in the newspapers. These differences are important because the early accounts were later used to reconstruct the crime scene. They should be examined individually, with the speaker and date identified, rather than treated as if every report repeated exactly the same words. What Anderson said about the objects near Mary The newspapers also discussed a pencil, writing paper, notes, and a handkerchief found in the basement. The Atlanta Georgian reported Anderson describing a note and other objects, but its account also indicates uncertainty about who found particular items. Anderson saw Sergeant Dobbs pick up a note. He was not necessarily the person who collected every object mentioned in the investigation. At trial, Anderson was questioned about a pencil found near the body. The Atlanta Journal reported him estimating that the pencil was eight or ten feet away. He also acknowledged that pencils were common throughout the factory. That qualification is important. A pencil found in a pencil factory was not, by itself, evidence identifying the person who had handled it. The same principle applies to paper and other ordinary factory materials. Their location could be relevant, but their importance depended on additional evidence connecting them to the crime. The prosecution's case included the notes found near Mary's body. Anderson's testimony helped establish what officers encountered at the scene, but it did not establish who wrote the notes. Other witnesses and exhibits were needed to address that question. Anderson's attempts to reach Leo Frank Anderson's testimony was relevant to the investigation of Frank because the officers attempted to contact the factory superintendent after finding Mary's body. According to the later trial testimony, Anderson tried to reach Frank by telephone at approximately 3:30 a.m. He continued trying for several minutes and made another attempt around 4 a.m. The calls were unsuccessful. Rogers corroborated the setting. At trial, he testified that Anderson was in the factory office with Lee at approximately 3:45 a.m. and was trying to telephone someone. Rogers did not know whom Anderson was attempting to reach. The Atlanta Constitution published Rogers's testimony on Thursday, July 31, 1913. The report states: “Officer Anderson was in the factory office with Newt Lee about 3:45 o'clock that morning and he tried to call someone over the phone. I don't know who he tried to get.” This is useful independent testimony about Anderson's actions. It places him in the office with Lee during the early investigation and confirms that he was attempting to make a call. The unanswered calls were relevant because Frank was the superintendent of the factory. But the evidence must be described accurately. An unanswered telephone call does not prove that the person being called heard it, knew who was calling, or deliberately refused to answer. Rogers later testified about the trip to Frank's home and the subsequent journey to the undertaking establishment and factory. Those events belong to the larger investigation, but they should not be attributed to Anderson. Anderson's role was the initial police response and the effort to contact people associated with the factory. Friday, August 1, 1913: Anderson takes the stand for the State Anderson testified for the prosecution on Friday, August 1, during the trial of Leo Frank. Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey questioned him, and defense attorney Luther Z. Rosser cross-examined him. His testimony returned to the discovery of the body, the basement, Lee's lantern, the objects found nearby, and the early telephone calls. The defense had a clear reason to examine these details closely. If the State relied on the officers' observations to establish the circumstances of the discovery, the defense was entitled to test how reliable those observations were. Anderson's testimony also concerned the tracks near the body and the question of whether the scene showed signs of movement or disturbance. Such observations could help reconstruct the scene, but they did not independently establish who made the tracks or when they appeared. The most revealing part of the later examination concerned the lantern. Anderson's testimony was not simply that nothing could be seen from twenty-five feet away. He acknowledged that a large object might be visible without being recognizable as a person. The Brief of Evidence records his answer: “You could see the bulk of anything that far, but you couldn't tell that far whether it was a person.” This qualification is central to understanding his testimony. Anderson was distinguishing between seeing a shape and recognizing what the shape was. His earlier estimate of the lantern's range and his later answer should be read together. What the three newspapers emphasized The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal, and Atlanta Georgian covered the trial from different angles. Their accounts overlap, but they do not offer identical presentations of Anderson's evidence. The Atlanta Constitution published a dedicated report on Saturday, August 2, titled “Policeman W. F. Anderson Tells of Newt Lee's Telephone Call.” Its coverage placed Anderson's role in the early response near the center of the story. The report connected the call from Lee, the officers' arrival, the attempts to reach Frank, and the question of what could be seen with the lantern. The Atlanta Journal published an extensive account on August 2 under the headline “Dr. Harris Collapses on Stand as He Gives Sensational Evidence.” Although the headline emphasized Dr. Harris, the article also included detailed questioning of Anderson. It discussed the lantern, the tracks, the telephone calls, and Anderson's earlier inquest testimony. The report is useful because it shows how the defense tested his memory and earlier statements during cross-examination. The Atlanta Georgian also reported the first investigation and the coroner's inquest. Its April 30 account included additional details about the body, the objects near it, and the basement. It also contains a discrepancy in Anderson's initials, printing W. T. Anderson where other reports identify him as W. F. Anderson. The matching role and testimony strongly suggest a newspaper error, but the discrepancy should be noted rather than silently corrected. The newspapers also differ in their descriptions of the shoe, hat, and other objects. These differences are a reminder that a newspaper account is not the same thing as a complete sworn transcript. The original Brief of Evidence should take priority when it records Anderson's exact words. The evidence that was incriminating to Frank Anderson's testimony was relevant to the State's case in several ways. First, he helped establish the timing and circumstances of the initial police response. His testimony placed the officers at the factory shortly after Lee's call and established that the body was discovered during the early hours of April 27. Second, he testified about attempts to reach Frank. These calls were part of the chronology of the investigation, although they did not prove that Frank deliberately ignored them. Third, Anderson's description of the basement, the body, and the objects nearby helped establish the scene the officers encountered. This evidence could be compared with the accounts of Lee and other witnesses. Fourth, his testimony about the lantern challenged Lee's ability to identify the body from the position he described. That question was important to the credibility of the discovery account, even though Anderson's estimate did not conclusively establish what Lee could or could not see. Finally, Anderson's evidence became part of the record that the prosecution and defense used to test competing explanations of the crime. The State could rely on his firsthand observations, while the defense could challenge the accuracy of his recollection and the conclusions drawn from it. What Anderson did not provide was a direct identification of Frank as Mary's killer. He did not testify that he saw Frank attack Mary, move her body, or write the notes. His evidence was circumstantial and concerned the discovery and investigation. Its weight depended on how it fit with the rest of the case. The surviving inquest record and Defendant's Exhibit 93 One of the most valuable records for researchers is Defendant's Exhibit 93, printed page 307 of the Brief of Evidence. It preserves part of Anderson's April 30 testimony about Lee's position and the lantern. The exhibit matters because Anderson's complete coroner's inquest transcript has not been located in the material examined here. The surviving passage gives researchers a direct source for comparing his inquest statement with his August 1 trial testimony. During the trial, the defense also questioned whether Anderson's earlier testimony had been recorded. Stenographer H. L. Parry said he had not personally recorded Anderson's testimony. That statement does not prove no transcript existed, because the surviving exhibit demonstrates that at least part of the testimony was preserved. On Monday, August 18, 1913, Rosser read a portion of Anderson's earlier inquest testimony into the trial record. The exchange shows that the defense considered the earlier statement useful for testing Anderson's recollection. Anderson and the Georgia Supreme Court record The principal Georgia Supreme Court decisions in the Frank case include Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (1914), and the later proceedings reported at 142 Ga. 617 and 142 Ga. 741. These records are important for understanding the legal challenges to the conviction. The material examined for this article establishes Anderson's testimony in the trial record and the survival of the inquest excerpt as Defendant's Exhibit 93. I have not verified a separate substantive discussion of Anderson in the published Supreme Court opinions. It would be misleading to claim that the Court specifically endorsed or rejected his testimony without locating the relevant passage. The next step is to examine the complete appellate record and the original Brief of Evidence for references to Anderson, his exhibits, and any arguments concerning his testimony. The search should include variations such as “W. F. Anderson,” “Policeman Anderson,” and “Defendant's Exhibit 93.” The absence of a direct mention in a published opinion would not mean his testimony was absent from the underlying trial record. Conclusion: Why Anderson deserves a closer look W. F. Anderson was one of the first police officers to respond to the report of Mary Phagan's death. He entered the factory basement, examined the scene, participated in the early effort to contact Frank, and testified at the coroner's inquest and the murder trial. His evidence is important because it comes from the first hours of the investigation. It records what the officers saw, what they questioned, and what they could not establish. His testimony about the lantern raised a question about Lee's account. His evidence about the body and the objects nearby helped reconstruct the scene. His telephone testimony helped establish the chronology of the police response. The strongest historical account of Anderson is one that preserves both the value and the limits of his testimony. He was a first responder with firsthand observations. Those observations deserve careful study, especially where the newspapers differ. But his evidence should not be stretched into claims he did not make. The record leaves a clear research path: compare the three newspapers dated August 1–2, 1913, line by line with Anderson's sworn testimony; examine Defendant's Exhibit 93; and search the complete Georgia Supreme Court materials for any direct reference to him. That work can give readers a clearer picture of what Anderson actually saw and how his testimony fit into the prosecution of Leo Frank. References The Atlanta Constitution. (1913, July 20). Grim justice pursues Mary Phagan's slayer. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-07-20-gr… The Atlanta Constitution. (1913, July 31). Rogers on stand describes visit of Frank to undertakers. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-07-31-ro… The Atlanta Journal. (1913, April 30). Negro watchman tells story of finding girl's body and questions fail to shake him. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-04-30-ne… The Atlanta Georgian. (1913, April 30). Went down scuttle hole on ladder to reach body. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-04-30-we… The Atlanta Constitution. (1913, August 2). Policeman W. F. Anderson tells of Newt Lee's telephone call. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. Original newspaper scan. maryphagan.com/pdf-files/arc… The Atlanta Journal. (1913, August 2). Dr. Harris collapses on stand as he gives sensational evidence. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-08-02-dr… State of Georgia v. Leo M. Frank. (1913). Brief of the evidence, testimony of W. F. Anderson, pp. 39–40, and Defendant's Exhibit 93, printed p. 307. maryphagan.com/019-w-f-ander… leofrank.info/library/leo-m-… Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (1914). Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 617 (1914). Frank v. State, 142 Ga. 741 (1914).

My Sister in Christ @PhaganKean can dispute the origins of the foundation of the ADL, built on a LIE, Leo Frank 🍇 & 👹☠️🩸 young Mary Phagan 💔

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt: "We've been at this for 113 years!" "We were fighting Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent in the 1920s, and today we're fighting Students for Justice in Palestine and the Goyim Defense League!" Over a century of subversion...

W. F. Anderson at the Mary Phagan Coroner's Inquest: The First Police Responder Under Oath The Atlanta Policeman Who Described the Basement, Examined the Murder Evidence, and Questioned Newt Lee's Account of Discovering the Body By M. Watts Wednesday, April 30, 1913: Anderson Becomes the First Witness On Wednesday morning, April 30, 1913, Atlanta Police Call Officer W. F. Anderson became the first witness examined when Coroner Paul Donehoo resumed the official inquest into the murder of thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan. Anderson had been among the first policemen summoned to the National Pencil Company during the early morning of Sunday, April 27, after night watchman Newt Lee telephoned police headquarters to report discovering a dead girl in the factory basement at 37–41 South Forsyth Street. The six-member coroner's jury had originally assembled on Monday, April 28, and recessed. It reconvened on Wednesday at the undertaking establishment of P. J. Bloomfield on Pryor Street, where Mary's body had been held prior to her burial on Tuesday. Donehoo led the jurors to Atlanta police headquarters, where the witnesses were to be examined in the office of the Board of Police Commissioners. The Atlanta Journal reported that the hearing began at approximately 9:10 a.m. The jurors were H. C. Ashford, L. Glenn Dewberry, J. C. Hood, C. A. Langford, John Miller, and C. Y. Sheats. Both Newt Lee and factory superintendent Leo M. Frank were being detained at police headquarters. Frank's defense attorney, Luther Z. Rosser, was also present during the proceedings (Atlanta Journal, 1). Anderson's appearance was important because he had examined the basement during the first police response. His observations could help the jurors establish the body's position, the physical evidence around it, the possible entrances and exits, and the reliability of Lee's explanation of finding Mary. The First Police Response: Sunday, April 27, 1913 Anderson began by describing the telephone call received at police headquarters shortly after 3 a.m. on Sunday. The caller identified himself as Newt Lee, night watchman at the National Pencil Company, and reported discovering the body of a woman. Anderson asked whether the deceased was White or Black. Lee answered that she was White. Anderson accompanied Sergeants L. S. Dobbs and R. J. Brown to the factory in an automobile driven by W. W. Rogers, commonly known as Boots Rogers. Newspaper reporter Britt Craig also accompanied the responding party. When the officers reached the building, the street entrance was locked. They knocked until Lee descended from the second floor and admitted them. The watchman directed the party through a scuttle hole, an opening in the first floor containing a ladder descending into the basement. Anderson described the interior as a poorly illuminated industrial cellar containing partitions, machinery, a boiler, rubbish, wood shavings, a toilet, and a rear exit. The officers moved toward the rear of the building, where Mary's body lay near the end of a partition on the left side. Anderson told the inquest that the body was only a few inches from the partition and approximately six feet from an outside wall. Her head pointed toward the front of the factory, in the direction of Forsyth Street, and she was lying face downward. His account in the April 30 Atlanta Georgian included the statement: "I did not see the body until I reached it" (Atlanta Georgian, 2). The remark demonstrates how difficult it was to see into the rear of the basement. Even officers who knew a body had been reported could not readily distinguish it from a distance. Anderson Describes Mary's Injuries and Clothing The coroner's jurors questioned Anderson about the physical condition of Mary's body. He described a wound on the left side of her head near the temple and extending toward the back of the skull. Blood was visible on her head, and her eyes appeared bloodshot. Dirt and sawdust covered her face, mouth, eyes, and parts of her legs. Her left shoe was missing from her foot, the left stocking was torn, and the skin below her left knee appeared scraped. Her clothing had been displaced upward, and the stocking supporters were unfastened. Anderson identified wrapping cord and a strip of material torn from Mary's underclothing around her neck. The Atlanta Journal described the cord as approximately six or seven feet long. These objects were among the most important items examined because they were associated with the fatal strangulation (Atlanta Journal, 1). Anderson also described how heavily soiled the girl's body had become. He said the dirt initially made it difficult to determine whether she was White, although Lee had already identified her race during the telephone call. Other officers gave similar testimony. Sergeant Brown explained that the policemen examined an exposed area of skin beneath a stocking to establish the victim's race. During a later portion of the hearing, Anderson was recalled to testify about the body's condition. The Journal reported that the legs were not completely stiff and that blood beneath the hair remained moist. The newspaper also attributed an observation about blood still flowing to Anderson. These were observations made by a policeman, not a medical calculation of the time of death. The evidence did not establish precisely how many hours had passed since Mary was killed. The Disagreement Over the Body's Position One of the most consequential questions concerned whether Mary had been lying face upward or face downward when Newt Lee originally discovered her. Anderson told the inquest that the body was face downward, with the head toward Forsyth Street. Lee, however, testified that he found her face upward, with her head directed toward the rear of the building. The Atlanta Journal made this contradiction a central feature of its April 30 coverage. If Lee had left the body untouched after discovering it and remained upstairs until the police arrived, the two descriptions could not both represent its unchanged position. The disagreement raised questions concerning whether Lee had confused the direction of the body, whether the officers misunderstood his original account, or whether someone had moved it. No explanation was established simply by identifying the conflict. Anderson's account was supported by other responding officers, who described seeing Mary lying face downward. But Lee continued to maintain his own version during the inquest. The contradiction was particularly important because the police were still investigating Lee as a suspect. Any inconsistency between what he claimed and what the responding officers witnessed attracted close attention. Boots Rogers later complicated the issue by testifying that Lee originally told the police the body was lying on its face. That recollection differed from the face-up position Lee described at the inquest (Atlanta Journal, 1) (Atlanta Journal, 3). The disagreement therefore remained a question of witness reliability and recollection rather than a settled demonstration that the body had been moved between the discovery and the police response. The Hat, Missing Shoe, and Murder Notes Anderson also described physical objects discovered around Mary's body. He identified the yellow-paper murder note during the hearing and recalled seeing Sergeant Dobbs pick up one of the handwritten notes. The notes appeared to implicate the night watchman and would become a central subject of the later murder trial. Anderson also described the discovery of a pencil and writing tablet in the basement. The Atlanta Georgian quoted him: "We also found a tablet and a pencil" (Atlanta Georgian, 2). He could not say with certainty which of the four or five men present originally found those particular objects. This was an important limitation. Anderson witnessed the initial evidence collection, but he did not personally discover or recover every item. The newspapers also reported conflicting locations for Mary's missing shoe and hat. The Georgian attributed to Anderson a location near the front and right side of the body. The Journal placed the missing slipper nearer the elevator, while Sergeant Dobbs subsequently described the hat and shoe together on a rubbish pile near the boiler. These differences are significant because the original locations of Mary's belongings could help reconstruct how her body reached the basement and whether her personal effects had been moved separately. The inquest reports do not establish one uncontested location for the objects. The Bloody Handkerchief: A Reported Piece of Evidence One unusual part of Anderson's testimony concerned a possible bloody handkerchief. The April 30 Atlanta Georgian reported that Anderson was asked whether there were signs of a struggle near Mary's body. He answered that evidence of a disturbance existed behind the location where she lay and described a bloody handkerchief approximately seven or eight feet away. This item deserves attention because it was absent from Anderson's condensed official trial testimony. The subsequent courtroom proceedings provide an additional connection. On Wednesday, July 30, 1913, Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey attempted to introduce several physical exhibits, including the cord, clothing, personal effects, and a bloody handkerchief. The Atlanta Journal reported that the exhibits were admitted except for the handkerchief. Rosser objected because the item had not been sufficiently identified (Atlanta Journal, 4). The two reports establish that a bloodstained handkerchief was discussed during the inquest and that a bloody handkerchief was subsequently offered during the trial. They do not conclusively establish that the two accounts concern the same item or prove its ownership. Nor does the newspaper's description establish that the staining was scientifically confirmed as Mary's blood. The handkerchief therefore remains an important but incompletely documented part of the early physical evidence. The Rear Basement Door and the Pulled Staple Anderson was questioned about the rear basement entrance. He reported that a staple associated with the door fastening had been pulled loose. The Atlanta Georgian described the door as closed despite the disturbed hardware. The Atlanta Journal suggested that the fastening had been drawn and that the door had been opened. These reports differ in an important detail. The condition of the door could indicate possible access through the rear of the factory, but the damaged fastening did not establish whether an intruder had entered or escaped during the murder. It also did not establish when the staple had been pulled loose. Anderson's observation was nevertheless valuable because it documented the condition of an alternate entrance during the first police examination. The rear door would receive additional attention during the trial and Governor Slaton's 1915 review, particularly when investigators and attorneys discussed whether James Conley or another person might have used it. The Most Disputed Evidence: Could Newt Lee See Mary With His Lantern? The longest-running controversy associated with Anderson's inquest testimony concerned the ability of Newt Lee to see the body from the basement toilet. Lee explained that he had gone into the basement to use the toilet and left his lantern on the floor. When he emerged, he noticed something unusual near the partition. Anderson examined Lee's lantern and described its glass as heavily smoked or darkened by soot. He estimated that the distance from the toilet to Mary's body was approximately twenty-five to thirty feet. Dr. J. W. Hurt questioned Anderson about the effective distance of the lantern's illumination. The Atlanta Journal recorded the officer's answer: "He couldn't have seen more than twelve or fifteen feet" (Atlanta Journal, 1). The Atlanta Georgian reported an estimate of ten to twelve feet. Anderson also believed the partition might obstruct the light, making recognition of a person from the toilet area particularly difficult. The significance was apparent. If Lee could not see the body from where he claimed to be standing, the accuracy of his discovery account would be called into question. Yet the issue required more care than simply comparing distances. Lee said he initially noticed an unidentified object, thought it might be a prank, and approached it. Recognizing the outline of something unusual at twenty-five feet did not require identifying it immediately as a dead girl. Lee had also spent time working in a dimly illuminated factory, and his eyes may have been more accustomed to darkness than those of officers entering from comparatively brighter surroundings. The actual extent of his dark adaptation cannot now be determined. These possibilities did not invalidate Anderson's observations. They limited what could be concluded from them. Anderson's Unsuccessful Telephone Calls to Leo Frank Anderson testified that after examining the body and questioning Lee, he attempted to telephone Leo M. Frank, the superintendent of the National Pencil Company. The telephone rang, but no one answered. Anderson then contacted another person associated with the factory, identified in the April 30 Georgian as Mr. Haas. Sergeant Brown had instructed him to try to contact company officials. The Atlanta Journal also reported Brown's corroboration of Anderson's unsuccessful attempts to reach Frank. The police had a practical reason to contact the superintendent. A murdered employee had been discovered in the premises he managed, and the responding officers needed information about the factory and those who had access to it. The unanswered calls later became part of the prosecution's circumstantial presentation concerning Frank's conduct. However, Anderson's testimony established the attempted communications, not the reason Frank failed to answer. He could not determine whether Frank heard the telephone ringing or was asleep. His evidence was therefore relevant to the early investigative chronology but did not independently prove that Frank knew about the murder. Anderson Is Recalled to the Witness Stand The April 30 hearing included another important moment when Anderson was recalled. After the testimony of other officers, Mary's clothing was presented to the coroner's jury. The Atlanta Journal described her brother becoming visibly distressed when he saw the garments and leaving the room. Anderson was questioned again about the clothing and the position of the body. He reiterated that Mary was face downward, with her head toward the front of the building. He also described the condition of her legs and the moisture of blood beneath her hair. The jurors were therefore comparing Anderson's observations with those of other officers and with Lee's account of discovering the body. The clothing itself became part of the inquest's examination of the physical evidence. Anderson's second appearance reinforced his role as a firsthand witness to the original basement scene. What the Coroner's Inquest Established About the First Police Investigation Anderson was also asked how thoroughly the responding officers had examined the factory. He acknowledged that their first investigation did not include an examination of the second floor. This is particularly important when considering the prosecution's later contention that Mary was murdered in the second-floor metal department and subsequently moved to the basement. Anderson could testify about the condition of the basement. He could describe the body, its position, nearby objects, the rear doorway, and Newt Lee's statements. He could not personally testify about the condition of Frank's office or the metal department during the first police response. Later police investigations and other witnesses provided evidence about suspected blood spots, hair on the bench lathe, and the possible location of the original attack. Anderson's testimony therefore established the starting point of the investigation rather than the complete reconstruction ultimately offered by the prosecution. August 1–18, 1913: His Inquest Evidence Returns During the Murder Trial Anderson testified for the prosecution at Leo Frank's murder trial on Friday, August 1, 1913. The official Brief of Evidence preserved his sworn testimony on printed pages 39–40 (Fulton County Superior Court, 5). During cross-examination, Luther Rosser questioned him about Lee's lantern and the original statements Anderson made at the inquest. The following day's Atlanta Journal reported Anderson qualifying his original estimate. He acknowledged that someone could see the general shape of an object at a distance without recognizing exactly what it was. A later nighttime experiment using a box covered with sacks demonstrated the possibility of seeing an indistinct object near Mary's original location (Atlanta Journal, 6). On Monday, August 18, Rosser introduced part of Anderson's earlier coroner's inquest testimony. That excerpt became Defendant's Exhibit 93. It appears on printed page 307 of the Brief of Evidence prepared for the Georgia Supreme Court proceedings. The document records Anderson's account of Lee emerging from the toilet, standing near his lantern, and observing something approximately twenty-five feet away. Anderson stated: "I could not see that far with the lantern that he had" (Fulton County Superior Court, 8). He then estimated useful visibility at approximately ten or twelve feet. Defendant's Exhibit 93 was an excerpt of Anderson's earlier inquest testimony introduced by Frank's defense during the original murder trial. It was not a separate statement taken by the Georgia Supreme Court. It preserves a portion of his original inquest account in a formal legal document, making it particularly useful for comparing the contemporary newspaper reports with the evidence introduced at trial. The complete original transcript of Anderson's April 30 examination has not yet been independently located. Why Anderson's Inquest Testimony Was Important to the Case Against Frank Anderson's evidence was important because it established what the first responding police officers encountered at the factory. His description of the body's position, clothing, injuries, bindings, and surroundings helped create the original record of the crime scene. His account of the murder notes confirmed their presence during the first police examination. His observations of the basement floor, partitions, rubbish, and rear exit were relevant to theories concerning how Mary's body reached the cellar and whether another entrance might have been used. His unsuccessful telephone calls contributed to the prosecution's examination of Frank's activities after the discovery. These observations could support aspects of the prosecution's reconstruction when considered alongside the testimony of other witnesses. Yet Anderson did not witness the attack or personally identify the murderer. His testimony did not establish that Frank carried Mary's body into the basement, dictated the murder notes, or deliberately avoided the telephone. Anderson's strongest contribution was his firsthand documentation of the original physical scene and his account of what Newt Lee said and did during the police response. The lantern dispute was particularly important during the coroner's investigation because it raised early doubts about Lee, who was then being detained as a suspect. It subsequently became evidence that the defense used to examine the reliability of the first police reconstruction. Both uses of his testimony are part of the historical record. Conclusion: The First Witness and the First Official Reconstruction W. F. Anderson's testimony on Wednesday, April 30, 1913, established an important foundation for the investigation into Mary Phagan's murder. He was the first witness examined when the coroner's jury resumed its formal inquiry at police headquarters. He described the original response, the condition and position of Mary's body, the evidence surrounding her, the rear basement door, the handwritten notes, and the difficulty of seeing through the poorly illuminated basement. He also questioned Newt Lee's explanation of discovering the body and documented his attempts to contact Leo Frank. The April 30 newspapers preserve details absent from Anderson's condensed trial testimony, including the reported bloody handkerchief, the original locations attributed to Mary's belongings, and the extent of the officers' first examination. The subsequent introduction of Defendant's Exhibit 93 provides a rare surviving excerpt of his coroner's inquest testimony in the official trial evidence. Together, these sources establish Anderson as an important early witness whose observations were revisited during the murder trial and preserved with the appellate record. His testimony remains essential to understanding what Atlanta police observed during the first hours of the Mary Phagan investigation and how the original evidence was examined under oath. References The Atlanta Journal. (1913, April 30). Negro watchman tells story of finding girl's body and questions fail to shake him (p. 1, col. 4; p. 6, col. 1). Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-04-30-ne… The Atlanta Georgian. (1913, April 30). Went down scuttle hole on ladder to reach body. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-04-30-we… The Atlanta Journal. (1913, May 8). Phagan inquest in session; six witnesses are examined before adjournment to 2:30. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-05-08-ph… The Atlanta Journal. (1913, July 30). Defense to claim strands of hair found were not Mary Phagan's. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-07-30-de… Fulton County Superior Court. (1913). State of Georgia v. Leo M. Frank: Brief of evidence (pp. 39–40, sworn testimony of W. F. Anderson). Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/019-w-f-ander… The Atlanta Journal. (1913, August 2). Dr. Harris collapses on stand as he gives sensational evidence. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-08-02-dr… The Atlanta Journal. (1913, August 18). Frank takes stand, tells his story. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project. maryphagan.com/1913-08-18-fr… Fulton County Superior Court. (1913). State of Georgia v. Leo M. Frank: Brief of evidence (Defendant's Exhibit 93, p. 307, Anderson's earlier coroner's inquest testimony). Leo Frank Case Archive. leofrank.org/trial-and-evide…

Mary Phagan Case: Dorsey Challenges Leo Frank's New Trial Papers as Atlanta Puts Mounted Police on Downtown Streets The Atlanta Journal, Thursday, October 16, 1913, pages 6 and 9. Leo Frank's New Trial Hearing Delayed Again On Thursday, October 16, 1913, The Atlanta Journal reported that Leo Max Frank's request for a new trial would be delayed again, this time from Saturday, October 18, until Wednesday, October 22. Frank had been convicted on Monday, August 25, 1913, of murdering 13-year-old Mary Phagan. His lawyers, Luther Zeigler Rosser and Reuben Rose Arnold, were now trying to overturn the verdict. They claimed the judge had made mistakes during the trial, that two jurors had been prejudiced against Frank, and that cheering crowds had affected the jury. The defense had raised 115 separate complaints about the trial. Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey was responsible for answering those complaints and defending the conviction. He had spent several days working in Valdosta, Georgia, reviewing the defense's arguments and preparing the state's response. Now another delay had developed. A large package containing the trial records, which Dorsey had shipped from Valdosta, had failed to arrive in Atlanta on time. Without those papers, Dorsey and defense attorney Leonard Haas could not begin their planned review of the testimony. The package eventually arrived, and the two attorneys began working together on Thursday. But they still had many disagreements to settle, and both sides agreed that more time was needed (The Atlanta Journal, 1). Dorsey Questions the Accuracy of Frank's Papers One of the most interesting details in the October 16 newspaper concerned the written account of Frank's trial. The lawyers called it a "brief of evidence." In simple terms, this was a written record of what witnesses had said and what evidence had been presented to the jury. Because Frank's lawyers were asking for another trial, the record needed to be accurate. Dorsey believed that parts of the defense's account were wrong or incomplete. He wanted those passages corrected before Judge Leonard Strickland Roan considered the complaints. That was why Leonard Haas was meeting with Dorsey. The two attorneys were going through the evidence, discussing disputed passages, and trying to agree on what the official record should say. When that work was finished, Reuben Rose Arnold would meet with Dorsey to discuss other disagreements about what had happened during the trial. This raises an important question about the defense's approach. Frank's lawyers were accusing the original trial of being unfair, yet the prosecution was questioning whether their own written account accurately described what happened. If the defense claimed that a witness had said something improper, the record needed to show the witness's actual words. If the lawyers argued that Judge Roan had wrongly rejected an objection, they needed to establish what objection had been made and how the judge answered it. The defense could not simply describe events in whatever way best supported its arguments. The written account had to match what actually happened in court. The October 16 report does not prove that Frank's attorneys deliberately changed the evidence. It does show that Dorsey found enough problems to demand a careful review before the hearing could proceed. That was an important part of the prosecution's effort to challenge the defense's claims (The Atlanta Journal, 1). Why the 115 Complaints Required So Much Work Frank's lawyers had challenged many parts of the murder trial. They complained about testimony, questions asked by the prosecutor, decisions made by Judge Roan, and accusations that jurors Atticus Haygood Henslee and Marcellus Johenning had already decided Frank was guilty before hearing the evidence. They also claimed that cheering crowds around the courthouse had influenced the jury. Those were serious accusations, but making them was only the beginning. Each complaint needed to be checked against the trial record. For example, if the defense claimed the jury had been influenced by cheering, the court needed to determine what the jurors had actually heard and whether the noise affected their decision. If Henslee and Johenning were accused of prejudice, the prosecution had the right to examine the accusations, question the witnesses, and present evidence defending the jurors. And if the defense claimed that Judge Roan had made mistakes during the trial, Dorsey could examine the written record to see whether those claims were accurate. That helps explain why the work was taking so long. Dorsey was not willing to rush through the defense's complaints and risk leaving important accusations unanswered. He had his entire office working on the Frank case and intended to continue until the state was properly prepared. The Defense's Papers Were Open to Challenge The dispute over the trial record deserves attention because Frank's lawyers were asking Judge Roan to set aside a verdict reached by twelve jurors. That was a serious request. The defense had every right to challenge the verdict, but it also had a responsibility to describe the trial accurately. Dorsey believed some passages needed correction. Rather than accept the defense's account without question, he insisted that the attorneys compare their claims with the actual testimony. This was a sensible approach. A disagreement over a witness's words, a lawyer's objection, or a judge's ruling could change the meaning of a complaint. The defense might consider some of those differences small. But if the words were being used to argue that the trial had been unfair, the details deserved careful attention. Frank's lawyers could challenge the court's decisions, but they could not expect the prosecution to accept every description in their papers without examining it. The newspaper shows Dorsey doing exactly what a prosecutor should do in such circumstances: checking the record, questioning disputed claims, and preparing to defend the jury's verdict. Chief Beavers Puts Two Mounted Officers on Atlanta's Streets Another article in the same newspaper described a different problem facing Atlanta. Police Chief James L. Beavers announced that two officers, E. J. Pate and C. T. Maddox, had begun patrolling downtown streets on horseback. Their job was to keep traffic moving. Atlanta's streets were becoming increasingly crowded with horse-drawn wagons, carriages, automobiles, streetcars, and pedestrians. The city needed better ways to control traffic in its busy business district. Pate and Maddox were assigned to parts of Peachtree, Whitehall, Forsyth, Marietta, and Decatur streets. They were instructed to keep slow-moving vehicles close to the curb, make sure drivers followed traffic rules, and prevent unnecessary delays. These two officers were the beginning of a larger mounted traffic squad. Chief Beavers planned to add more officers as needed. The report gives us a look at Atlanta in 1913, when automobiles were sharing crowded downtown streets with horses, wagons, and streetcars. Police officers on horseback could move through traffic and help keep the streets orderly (The Atlanta Journal, 1). A Look at Atlanta on October 16, 1913 The two newspaper reports show different sides of Atlanta during the weeks following Frank's conviction. Inside the courts, Dorsey was working to defend the verdict against a lengthy challenge from Frank's lawyers. He was questioning parts of their written account of the trial and insisting that the record be checked before the hearing began. Outside the courthouse, Chief Beavers was putting mounted policemen on downtown streets to deal with growing traffic problems. The Frank report is especially useful because it shows how closely the prosecution was examining the defense's complaints. Frank's attorneys were trying to show that mistakes had been made during the trial. Dorsey was asking whether the defense had accurately described those supposed mistakes in the first place. That was a fair question. If the defense wanted Judge Roan to grant another trial because of errors in the original proceedings, its own account needed to be accurate. The October 16 newspaper captures that disagreement as it was developing, with both sides preparing for the hearing and Dorsey refusing to accept the defense's version of events without checking it against the record. References The Atlanta Journal. (Thursday, October 16, 1913). “Nucleus of New Mounted Squad Put to Work Thursday by Chief Beavers,” page 6, column 1; and “New Motion Hearing Will Be Postponed,” page 9, column 2. maryphagan.com/1913-10-16-mo… The Atlanta Journal. (Wednesday, October 1, 1913). “Frank Motion Is Served on Solicitor.” Page 1, columns 4 and 7. Reports the defense's 115 complaints and its accusations against the jurors. maryphagan.com/1913-10-01-fr… Transcript The Atlanta Journal, Thursday, 16th October 1913, PAGE 6, COLUMN 1. Nucleus of New Mounted Squad Put to Work Thursday by Chief Beavers Two mounted traffic policemen were put on duty Thursday morning by Chief of Police James L. Beavers. The officers were E. J. Pate and C. T. Maddox. They will form the nucleus of a mounted traffic squad which will be added to from time to time. These men will ride the streets in the center of the city, and their principal duty will be to keep things moving. Their beat will include parts of Peachtree, Whitehall, Forsyth, Marietta and Decatur streets near the center of the city. They are to regulate traffic, and see to it that slow moving vehicles keep close to the curb and that traffic rules in general are observed by all classes of vehicles. PAGE 9, COLUMN 2 NEW MOTION HEARING WILL BE POSTPONED Frank Case to Go Over From Saturday to Wednesday Anyway, at Solicitor's Request. Attorneys for the defense of Leo M. Frank and the solicitor general are said to have agreed upon a postponement of the argument of the motion for a new trial from Saturday until Wednesday, and it is entirely possible and quite probable that a still further delay will be necessary. A package containing the voluminous record in the case which was shipped by Solicitor General H. M. Dorsey from Valdosta failed to arrive on schedule, and for that reason the solicitor and Attorney Leonard Haas, representing the defense, were delayed in taking up a joint study of the brief of evidence. They got at the work during the day Thursday, however, but it is expected that it will take many hours to discuss the changes in the brief asked by the solicitor, even if they are agreed upon. When the work on the brief of evidence has been completed Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, of the defense, will take up a study of certain points in the amended motion for a new trial, where the facts are in dispute, with the solicitor. This makes it certain that the solicitor will not be ready on Saturday, and it is difficult to estimate the length of the delay which these and other matters not yet arranged will occasion. Mr. Dorsey has his entire force at work on the Frank matter, however, and declares that he will announce ready just as soon as he possibly can without prejudicing the state's case by a Jack of preparation.

Mark Phagan Case: Leo Frank Juror Defends Himself Against Questionable Allegations of Prejudice An article published in The Atlanta Journal on October 17, 1913, page 24, column 3, reported that Marcellus Johenning, a juror in Leo M. Frank’s trial, had met with Solicitor H. M. Dorsey as the prosecution prepared to respond to the defense’s motion for a new trial. The defense had challenged Johenning’s impartiality, and he expressed confidence that he could rebut the accusation. The dispute centered on affidavits submitted by a mother and daughter. According to the article, both women swore that they had encountered Johenning on the street in May and that he had expressed the opinion that Leo Frank was guilty. Their allegation raised a specific question about juror impartiality: whether Johenning had formed and expressed a judgment about Frank’s guilt before serving on the jury. Johenning disputed their account. The newspaper reported that he asserted he had not seen the two women together during the month they identified. Although he declined to discuss the matter in detail, he indicated that he had already obtained affidavits he believed would vindicate him. The article did not reproduce those affidavits or explain precisely what their witnesses would establish. Johenning’s confidence in his defense was not itself a finding that the accusation was false. Likewise, the women’s sworn statements were allegations submitted in support of the motion, not findings that the newspaper reported as established. The article presented a contested factual issue awaiting examination. The report also described the broader preparations for the new-trial proceedings before Judge Roan. Dorsey was devoting his full attention to Frank's motion for a new trial and did not expect to be ready for argument before the following Wednesday. Prosecutors and defense attorneys planned another conference that Friday afternoon to address disputed points in the defense’s submitted brief of the evidence. The article therefore documents a particular challenge to one juror’s impartiality and his effort to answer it. It does not report the court’s resolution of that challenge, establish whether Johenning had prejudged the case, or determine Frank’s guilt or innocence. Nor does the supplied text identify religious prejudice as the basis of the accusation. Its value lies in showing what was being alleged, what Johenning disputed, and how both sides were preparing to contest the issue. Transcript The Atlanta Journal, Friday, 17th October 1913, PAGE 24, COLUMN 3. Frank Trial Juror in Conference With Solicitor-Confident of Vindication Marcellus Johenning one of the jurors who has been attacked as prejudiced in the defense's motion for a new trail for Leo M. Frank, was in conference with Solicitor H. M. Dorsey on Friday morning. Johenning declares that he is confident that at the hearing of the motion he will be completely vindicated of the charge brought against him. While the former juror would not discuss the case in detail, he intimates that he has already secured affidavits which he believes will result in his complete vindication. In affidavits filed by the defense, two ladies, mother and daughter, swear that they met Johenning on the streets in May and that he then expressed the opinion that Frank was guilty. Johenning asserts that he did not see these two ladies together at all during the month named. Solicitor Dorsey is still devoting his entire time to the preparation of the Frank motion, but does not expect to be ready for the argument before next Wednesday. The solicitor and the attorneys for the defense will hold another joint conference on Friday afternoon to discuss disputed points in the brief of the evidence which has been submitted by the defense.