Prosecution Side of the Leo M. Frank Case and Review

The State of Georgia vs. Leo Max Frank (1913 to 2012)

These documents support the the Honorable State of Georgia’s prosecution team and all of those opposing Leo Frank, led by Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey, the prosecutor for the Atlanta Stone Mountain Circuit.

Ironically, the Leo M. Frank legal defense fund that began growing rapidly after the murder of Mary Phagan was used to try to hire one of the best and most influential criminal lawyers in the South, Firebrand Tom E. Watson, to defend Leo M. Frank for $5,000, an impressive sum by 1913 standards. The State’s prosecution team also attempted to recruit Tom Watson, but for a fraction of the offer made by the Leo M. Frank defense fund. Watson turned down offers from both parties. One can only imagine what the outcome, aftermath, and “readings” of the case might have been like, had Watson accepted either of the offers to work for the State Georgia or Leo Frank. Though we have no idea how Watson might have argued for the defense, Watson ultimately sided with the prosecution. Watson’s Magazine (1915) and The Jeffersonian (1914 to 1917) give us an idea how he might have argued, had he been working for the prosecution. They are a most nourishing and venomous reading of deliciously pompous sarcasm and whit.

Leo Frank detractors believe that arguably Tom Watson makes stronger, better, and more concise arguments supporting the conviction of Leo Frank than Hugh Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper. At least that is one opinion, when one compares the Arguments of Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank Arthur Hooper against Watson’s Magazine August and September of 1915, The Jeffersonian newspaper 1914 to 1917 available. To be fair though, Watson had the advantage of having more than a year or so after the trial to apply his adroit legal analysis on the proceedings and official record in the Leo Frank trial and appeals. By 1915, the captured official legal records between 1913 to 1915 numbered more than 5,000 pages, with some juicy details.

Tom Watson’s crowning achievement concerning the Leo Frank trial is he made the Leo M. Frank case, which could easily be interpreted as complex, into something easy to understand by average folks, and moreover, something enjoyable to read about for the average Southerner who was incensed by the subversive efforts of big money organized Jewry to free what the general public saw as a sadistic and vicious serial child molester, rapist-pedophile, and child strangler, whose guilt was affirmed by every level of the entire United States of America Legal System from top to bottom.

Trial Testimony Transcript (Questions and Answers), July 28 to August 25, 1913

Alas, the original Leo M. Frank murder trial transcript stenographed in shorthand on legal cap paper in a seven-volume, 3,647+ page tome, which contains both the questions and answers of the Testimony in the Leo M. Frank Murder Trial, was stolen from the Georgia State Archive in the 1960s, around the time ex-con Harry Golden was researching his book, A Little Girl Is Dead, and future professor Leonard Dinnerstein was researching the case for his dissertation thesis at Columbia University. Is this a coincidence? Do these two authors’ books try to subvert the truth about the Leo Frank case? Or must we ask who in the larger community would have a vested interest in these volumes vanishing from the archives? Leo Frank’s defenders or his detractors? Having been missing for over fifty years, it is presumed these volumes are lost forever. The documents were likely stolen by Leo M. Frank partisans, hoping that all the minutia and deeper details of the case would be gone forever, so it would be harder to prove Leo M. Frank’s guilt to future generations and further cloud the case with mystery and subterfuge that had always been a part of it, especially in the 1980s when the Jewish community agitated for a posthumous pardon of Leo M. Frank. In this library, you can travel down the time web.

Surviving Remnants of a Lost Legal Treasure

Most of the trial questions and answers were preserved in the three main newspapers covering the trial from July 28 to August 26, 1913 (visit the limited Leo Frank Newspapers Archive), including the Atlanta Constitution, the Atlanta Journal, and the Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Yellow Journalism). Fortunately for 21st century Leo Frank scholars, most of the questions and answers survived in the three major local newspapers, shining light on the criminal activity and games the Leo M. Frank legal defense team played to try and get their guilty client free in the elusive 1,800 page Georgia Supreme Court Case File on Leo Frank that reveals one of the biggest criminal conspiracies ever conducted in Southern history by the Leo Frank defense team.

The Brief of Evidence (1913)

There is an official record of the truncated version of the trial testimony available today, for short, generically called The State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank, Brief of Evidence (1913) or the long official name called Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913. The Brief of Evidence, 1913, for convenience is contained within volumes 1 and 2 of the Georgia Supreme Court Case File on Leo Frank, and it is required reading if you ever wish to learn what really happened. Also read the PDFs of the Georgia Supreme Court File on Leo Frank.

The Official Brief of Evidence, July Term 1913 (July 28, 1913 to August, 26 1913) Went Live on the Internet, Here First, after Ninety-Seven Years of Suppression and Obscurity, on This Date, October, 5, 2010

The Brief of Evidence does not contain the trial questions, only the answers. The answers of the trial testimony survived in this elusive document that could be called “The State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank, July 28th 1913 to August 26th 1913, Brief of Evidence at the Fulton County Superior Court.” It is safely locked away in the vault of the Georgia State Archive, but fortunately, colored scans were created and available in this library archive. This much sought-after document is available to the public through the Internet for the first time after almost a century of being elusive. Available here on Leo M. Frank Case and Trial Library Archive. We are proud to be the FIRST to bring this official unedited and precious Leo Frank legal record to you here today.

The State of Georgia Vs. Leo M. Frank, July Term 1913. Ratified by both the State Prosecution and Leo M. Frank Defense Team (within the 1,800 pages of the Georgia State Supreme Court File on Leo Frank) is 318 pages of the most sensational murder trial in the annals of Southern jurisprudence. This subset is available for full review online or downloaded within this massive archive: Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term, 1913. Brief of Evidence, 1913. It is the most important primary source and official legal document still available and surviving today, and should ideally be read and studied before any other documents are reviewed. Set aside the time for reading the 318-page Brief of Evidence within this 1,800 page Georgia Supreme Court Archive on Leo Frank.

Now add all the other primary source documents collectively on our site and the number surges to several thousand pages of reading material. All primary source legal documents are 100% unedited and original images and PDFs. How’s that for light reading? Had the shorthand trial transcript not been stolen and converted to legible reading, the number of primary source and official documents would easily exceed 10,000 pages.

How about a project to re-piece the trial transcript from the three local newspapers, using the Brief of Evidence as the final arbiter? Sounds like a very interesting but painfully slow project, but we will add it to the to-do list.

Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey and Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper, The Prosecution Team Leadership Dynamic Duo

Available in Adobe PDF Format, download (right mouse button click and save): Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Leo M. Frank Murder Trial. For a review and accessibility to download, visit archive.org: Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey. Be sure to note Dorsey’s subtle interpretation of Leo Frank’s “unconscious” bathroom visit.

Argument of Mr. Hooper is one of the speeches given by the prosecution team member, Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper. An excellent read. Pay close attention to how Mr. Hooper discusses Leo Frank’s “unconscious” bathroom visit to the other side of the second floor. Compare what these attorneys say or not say about Leo Frank’s “unconscious” bathroom visit.

The First Independent Book Published on the Leo M. Frank Case (1913)

The first published book on the Leo Frank Murder trial probably should not be listed in the Prosecution side of the Leo M. Frank equation because it is possibly the most neutral treatment of the case ever written in the last hundred years, next to Mary Phagan Kean’s book called The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, published in 1987 and 1989.

The Frank Case (1913) is available for download in Adobe PDF format (right mouse button click and save): The Leo Frank Case: Inside Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery, published in 1913 by Atlanta Publishing Co., Atlanta, Georgia. Be sure to download and read this one. It gives one of the best and earliest accounts of the pre-trial and trial.

Tom E. Watson, “The Fire Storm” in 1915 through His Watson’s Magazine and Jeffersonian Newspaper (1914 to 1917)

Watson’s Magazine

Tom Watson published a monthly magazine called Watson’s Magazine, and he took a particular interest in Frank’s case from 1913 to 1915, though he primarily only published his opinions on the trial and appeals in January, March, August, September, and October of 1915.

Domestic Jewish Extremism and Jewish Cultural Terrorism

From Watson’s perspective, his interest stemmed from his own loathing of what he perceived as the outside meddling of the big money corruption campaign led by the well-organized and tribal fanatic Jewish community, as reflected in the five selected magazines we have below. Watson at times uses a lot of extreme and sometimes anti-Semitic and insulting language when describing Leo Frank and his supporters. Watson is a pure genius because he puts a complicated case into the language that can be easily understood by the masses. However, Watson deviates from his brilliance when he descends into language meant to appeal to some of the base readers on the extreme end of the spectrum who lust after dark language that transforms Leo Frank into a Greek satyr, “The fearfully sensual lips,” “The Animal Jaw.”

1. Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save as): January 1915: “The Leo Frank Case,” by Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Watson introduces the Frank case in this edition.

2. Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save): March 1915: “The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case,” by Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for “A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case.” Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Here Watson goes into much further detail on the Frank case.

3. Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save): August 1915: “The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank,” by Tom Watson (August 1915) Volume 21, No 4. See page 182 for “The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank.” Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Watson calls the Frank trial the “celebrated case.”

4. Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save): September 1915: “The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert,” by Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for “The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert.” Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Showing his true colors, Watson dubs Frank a “Jew pervert.”

5. Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save): October 1915: “The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank,” by Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga. Continuing on his anti-Semitism, Watson criticizes the “rich Jews” that indict the state.

1918 Review of the Leo M. Frank Trial

American State Trials, a journal of major U.S. court cases, Volume X, includes much of the abridged version of the Leo Frank trial, and the one available here is purely the Leo M. Frank extract. Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save): American State Trials Volume X 1918 by John D. Lawson. It contains an abridged and truncated version of the Leo M. Frank murder trial brief of evidence. Much of the testimony is left out. It contains something very rare and not found in other works on Leo Frank, the abridged closing speeches of the prosecution and defense team lawyers. For that alone, it is worth reading. Compare the closing styles and speeches of Luther Zelig Rosser and Reuben Rose Arnold with that of Mr. Hooper and Mr. Dorsey. The final arguments of the Leo Frank trial must and should be read by anyone serious about understanding the Leo Frank case. American State Trials Volume X 1918, by John D. Lawson, could arguably considered to side with Leo Frank because of the selective editing of the trial testimony and introduction, but the conclusion one gets is leaning toward guilt with carefully study of this work.

1961

Dr. Edward R. Fields’ Analysis of the Leo Frank Case. Dr. Edward R. Fields wrote his take on the case in The Thunderbolt magazine in February 1961. He takes the side against Frank as you will clearly see.

1982

Notes on the Case of Leo Max Frank and Its Aftermath,” by Tom Watson Brown, 1982. (Grandson of Tom Watson wrote this at Harvard.) http://leofrank.org/library/tom-watson-brown/notes-on-the-case-of-leo-max-frank-and-its-aftermath-tom-watson-brown.pdf also available on www.Archive.org @ The Internet Archive.

Instauration Magazine, June 1986: On the Pardon Without Exoneration

Source: http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1986-06-June-pt1.pdf also available on LeoFrank.org in OCR text format from the links at the top of the website. Instauration, June, 1986, is an addition to the Leo Frank library and archive and represents the right winger view on the Leo Frank pardon, which is an opinion shared by many people.

Mary Phagan’s Descendant Speaks, 1987

Mary Phagan Kean, on behalf of the Phagan family, wrote a 287-page fascinating book called The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, published in 1987, and it’s one of the best books written on the subject in contemporary times. It is unlike all the other Frankite books written in modern times by mostly Jews about the Leo Frank subject, which tend to take the melodramatic, “emotional truth,” politically correct, and neurotic side of the Leo Frank case, alleging Frank was railroaded and framed in a supposedly vast anti-Jewish conspiracy by Gentiles.

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, though mostly neutral and evenhanded in giving Frank the benefit of the doubt, in its ultimate conclusions, tends to be a blend of different degrees of neutrality and favoring the side of State’s Prosecution with well-thought-out reasoning. It is the only book that offers a unique perspective on the case of all the modern books available on the subject. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is required reading and worth studying.

Available in Adobe PDF format, download (right mouse button click and save): The Murder of Little Mary Phagan Published in 1987, by Mary Phagan-Kean, the great grandniece of Mary Phagan.

Explore Every Side of the Leo M. Frank Case

Available in Adobe PDF format, please download and compare all of the works here on Leo Frank Case Archive, from the Neutral, Prosecution, and Defense sections. The goal of our website is to give you all of the materials necessary to study and fully understand the depth of the Leo M. Frank Case, as well as be able to argue both sides of the case superbly. If after studying this case you are able to argue both sides better than the experienced lawyers who tried the case in 1913, then we fulfilled the purpose of our Leo Frank Archive website.

Required Reading:

Two-volume Georgia Supreme Court Case File on Leo M. Frank, 1,800 pages: http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/

Other Reading:

Tom Watson’s The Jeffersonian newspaper, images (80% complete), 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917: http://leofrank.org/images/jeffersonian/

The Tom E. Watson Digital Papers Archive (recommended) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson/

Last Updated: July, 2013