Frank’s Character Bad Declare Many Women and Girls on Stand
August 21st, 1913
Solicitor Dorsey makes a persistent effort Wednesday morning to show that the character of Leo Frank is anything but good. Ha laid particular stress upon his character as to his relations with women and girls, and introduced a large number of women who testified that in this respect his character was in their judgment bad.
Among those who testified merely that his character was bad without going into details were:
Mrs. Marion Dunnigan, who stated that she worked at the pencil factory two or three weeks about two years ago. She testified that Frank’s character was bad, but she did not know about the lascivious part of it.
Mrs. H. H. Johnson, of Stonewall, Ga., stated that she worked at the pencil factory two months in 1910 and that in her estimation his character was bad.
Miss Marie Karts, who worked on the second floor of the pencil factory two years ago, stated that his general character was bad as was also his character for lasciviousness.
Miss Nellie Pettis stated that Frank’s general character and character with respect to lasciviousness were both bad. In answer to questions, she stated that she did not work at the pencil factory, but that her sister-in-law, Mrs. Lilly May Pettis, had worked there and that frequently she went to the factory on Saturday afternoon to draw the pay of her sister-in-law when the latter was sick, and that on one of these occasions she saw Frank.
Mrs. Mary Davis, of 3 Louise Alley, who stated that she had once worked for the pencil factory three weeks, stated that both Frank’s general character and his character for lasciviousness were bad.
Mrs. Mary E. Wallace and Miss Estelle Winkle gave the same testimony.
Miss Carrie Smith, a former employee on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, stated that his general character was bad.