Tuesday, May 27th, 1913<br /><br />What will be the defense of Leo M. Frank when he is called upon next month to answer to the charge of strangling little Mary Phagan?<br /><br />With the confident announcement of the police Monday that they had completed a case against the factory superintendent that was as conclusive as it possibly could be without the testimony of actual eyewitnesses of the crime, this question naturally is being asked to-day by everyone who has any interest in the mystery, and that means practically every person in Atlanta.<br /><br />The people will not get their answer from Luther Z. Rosser, the close-lipped and able attorney of Frank, until the trial actually begins. But even at this early date, when only the vaguest of hints have been given as to the course that will be followed in the battle to free Frank from all suspicion, it is patent that there are many openings offered the defense for attacks upon the theories of the State.<br /><br />Burden of Proof on State.<br /><br />Those who are close to the daily developments in Atlanta's baffling murder mystery and who venture to predict the line of defense that will be offered are bearing in mind that, in the first place, the great burden of proof is upon the prosecution and not upon the defense.<br /><br />It is absolutely necessary, due to the protection with which the law has hedged everyone under suspicion of crime, that the State in some manner, by some piece of evidence, connect Frank directly with the crime or establish his connection beyond a reasonable doubt.<br /><br />Until the State is able to do this, Luther Z. Rosser may rest on his oars if he so desires. Leo Frank is innocent this moment in the eyes of the law. His innocence does not need to be proved. It is presumed.<br /><br />It immediately becomes a question, therefore, as to whether the State really has made out a case against Frank, so far as can be judged from the evidence in the hands of the public. Have the detectives by any of their discoveries connected Frank directly with the crime? Have they assembled such a chain of circumstantial incidents as to make his guilt appear certain beyond a reasonable doubt?<br /><br />Frank's Friends Deny Connection.<br /><br />Those interested in the defense of Frank answer both questions emphatically in the negative. Not one thing has been found, they declare, that connects Frank directly with the mysterious strangling. Nor do they regard the circumstantial evidence seriously.<br /><br />The law will not permit Frank's conviction for the crime merely because the detectives have discovered that he had the opportunity. It will not permit his conviction, if no convincing evidence is found against him, merely because he is unable to put his hands on another man and say, "This is the man you want. He is the guilty person."<br /><br />It is not the intention of the law to hang one man simply because no one else can be found who is the more likely culprit.<br /><br />
