Commentary:

Related to this article on the same subject, grotesque lies are captured on film being made by Roy Barnes, on 11 Alive News. Roy Barnes was caught red-headed in a video of him promoting the disgustingly racist, anti-Gentile, anti-White, and anti-Southern hate crime hoax that every single morning of the Leo Frank trial, crowds of people were shouting terrorist anti-semitic death threats at jury saying that if they (the jury) didn’t hang Leo Frank, they would all be murdered by lynching.

Watch this video (link above) and save it in case the powers-that-be try to put it down Winston Smith’s 1984 style memoryhole.

The jury was formed on July 28th, 1913, so they would have walked together as a group beginning on July 29th, 1913, and they were relieved of their duty on August 25, 1913, so what Roy Barnes is claiming is that daily for about a month, crowds outside the courthouse of the Fulton Country Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, were terrorizing the jury. Yet if anyone reads the Leo Frank appeals to the State and Federal Supreme Courts, there is not a single word about crowds of people threatening the jury with lynching death on a daily basis if they didn’t convict.

We are calling for Roy Barnes to be disbarred for ethics violations of promoting one of the most egregious hate crime hoaxes in Georgia history. If Leo Frank can be pardoned without exoneration, 73 years after he raped and strangled Mary Phagan, then we believe there is no time limit to have Roy Barnes disbarred, whether he is alive or deceased (he is presently in the winter of his life), we are seeking a 100-year movement to have him disbarred, even if it has to be posthumously for the sake of justice. So if it takes 100 years to get the right people, in the right positions on the leadership panels of the Georgia bar, so be it, but he must be disbarred for his hate crime hoaxes against the people of Georgia. And we are also seeking to have the Georgia government assembly pass laws making it a felony to promote or attest to hate crime hoaxes and for lengthy sentences to be given to such criminals if duly convicted after a trial.

-End of Commentary

+ + +

After more than 100 years, will Leo Frank be exonerated?

AJC LOCAL IN-DEPTH: GUILT OR INNOCENCE? Aug 22, 2019
By Jennifer Brett, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Prominent civic and political leaders back the effort; relatives of Mary Phagan are livid

The air in the cemetery felt like wet cotton. The sky rumbled above, but the storms that would down limbs and power lines were still a day away. For now, damp heat and a boiling fury gripped the woman scrubbing the marker placed in memory of the murdered young girl she was named for.

“Sleep, little girl, sleep,” Mary Phagan’s gravestone reads. Her body was discovered in April 1913 in the Atlanta factory where she worked. Factory superintendent Leo Frank was convicted four months after Mary’s death and hanged by a lynch mob in 1915.A posthumous pardon issued in 1986 didn’t address the matter of guilt or innocence, but a new investigative effort by the Fulton County district attorney’s office means Frank could one day be officially exonerated.“There’s no statute of limitations on doing the right thing,” said Temple Kol Emeth Rabbi Steven Lebow, who has researched the case for years. “An innocent man was found guilty. Justice is the debt the present owes the future.”Mary Phagan-Kean is the great-niece and namesake of the factory worker killed at age 13. She is convinced Frank was guilty and livid at the thought of him being declared innocent.“This issue has already been decided,” she said while she tidied Mary’s resting place.

[Photo of Mary Phagan Kean]

Her conclusions differ sharply from those of the prominent political and civic leaders behind the exoneration effort. They believe Frank was denied a fair trial and unjustly convicted amid a wave of anti-Semitic fervor that later spurred vigilantes into action.
“It is one of the worst wrongs I’ve ever seen,” said former Gov. Roy Barnes.A longtime legislator before ascending to the state’s top office, he was Gov. Joe Frank Harris’ floor leader when Leo Frank was posthumously pardoned. More recently, Barnes met with Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard to discuss an official exoneration.“He didn’t get a fair trial,” Barnes said.

[Photo of Former Governor of Georgia Roy Barnes]

Barnes joined Howard at a May news conference announcing a new Conviction Integrity Unit that will review old cases, including Frank’s, and he will serve as a consultant. Aimee Maxwell, former executive director of the Georgia Innocence Project, will serve as the unit’s director.

“He never had a chance from the very beginning,” Howard said of Frank. “It was so similar to so many African American men who were tried in the South before all-white juries. It seems because he was Jewish they were bound to convict him. When you start to read some of the evidence, you begin to get a clearer picture that if he was convicted, it certainly wasn’t based on the evidence.”

Frank’s pardon declared that the state failed to protect him and never prosecuted anyone connected to his lynching. In a statement at the time, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles called the action an “effort to heal old wounds” and “put the Leo Frank case behind us.”It didn’t.‘Too Horrible to Contemplate’Mary Phagan was a beauty. Vintage photos show her hair done up in bows, her smile as winsome as a doll’s. She wore a lavender dress her aunt made for her to attend the Confederate Memorial Day parade on April 26, 1913, a Saturday. At about 3:30 a.m. Sunday, her remains were discovered in the National Pencil Company basement. She’d been brutalized and strangled.

[Photo of Mary Phagan from William Bremen Museum]

“Her dress was hitched up around her knees and a shoe was missing,” author Steve Oney wrote in “And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank,” published in 2003. “The belts attaching corset to garters were unfastened and … her underpants had been ripped.”Police questioned a number of suspects, including factory janitor Jim Conley, before focusing on Frank. He was the last person to acknowledge seeing Mary alive; she had come by the factory to collect her wages. From before he was arrested through his trial and afterward, Frank did himself no favors with his stilted manner. News reports dubbed him “the Silent Man in the Tower,” as he refused to grant press interviews. Images from the trial show him staring blankly ahead, arms and legs crossed.

[Photo of Leo Frank]

“Frank was a very bad advocate for himself,” Oney said. “He lived in his head. He was arrogant and he was shy at the same time.”The case leaned heavily on Conley’s sworn statements. Relaxed and personable as he implicated his former boss, he proved a convincing contrast to the stiff and prickly Frank. Not necessarily to Oney, though.“When I was working on the book, I was obsessed with how do liars behave,” he said. “I feel like liars are often slick, and truth tellers are more awkward.”

[Photo of Jim Conley, the Accessory-after-the-fact]

Frank was sentenced to hang, but Gov. John Slaton spared his life. The lengthy commutation order, penned as Slaton was about to leave office, noted his and trial court Judge Leonard S. Roan’s qualms.“Judge Roan declared orally from the bench that he was not certain of the defendant’s guilt,” wrote Slaton. He also cited a letter from Roan urging commutation, as “the execution of any person, whose guilt has not been satisfactorily proven, is too horrible to contemplate.”“It is possible that I showed undue deference to the jury in this case, when I allowed the verdict to stand,” Roan’s letter said. “After many months of continued deliberation, I am still uncertain of Frank’s guilt.”Further bolstering Slaton’s decision was an extraordinary move by Conley’s defense attorney. Convinced his own client was guilty, William Smith also urged Slaton to commute Frank’s sentence. In not issuing a pardon, Slaton respected the jurors’ verdict, but his order reflects anguish over the case.“I can endure misconstruction, abuse and condemnation, but I cannot stand the constant companionship of an accusing conscience, which would remind me in every thought that I, as a governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought to be right,” Slaton wrote in the June 21, 1915 decree.Not quite two months later, a band of self-appointed avengers, many from prominent and well-respected Marietta families, drove to the Milledgeville prison where Frank was held, absconded with him back to Marietta and hanged him. He was married but never had children.“The minute the commutation order was signed,” Oney said, “Frank was a dead man.”‘Did He Do It?’Decades later, former factory office worker Alonzo Mann revealed details he’d never before shared. He said he had seen Conley carrying Phagan’s body the day she died. Mann was 13 at the time. Conley threatened his life if he ever told, Mann said, so he took the secret nearly to his grave.“I did the last interview with Alonzo Mann,” Oney said. “I’m convinced he was telling the truth.”

[Photo of Alonzo Mann]

Still, more than a century after the crime, he thinks exoneration will be a steep challenge.“I think it’s going to be hard for them to find something new,” Oney said. “I’m a little concerned that they have tipped their hand on Frank, that they are looking for evidence to exonerate him rather than just looking for evidence.”It’s not clear what material might be available to examine. There are no surviving witnesses to interview, the complete trial transcript can’t be located, and there’s no way Phagan’s descendants will consent to having her remains exhumed.“One of the things we’re going to try to do is find official records,” Howard said. “One of the things I’m interested in is recreating the place where it happened.”

[Photo of Paul Howard Jr., District Attorney of Fulton County]

The National Pencil Company on Forsyth Street in downtown Atlanta is long gone. The Sam Nunn Federal Center occupies the land where it once sat. The area where Frank was hanged is now a Waffle House parking lot.Deputy Attorney General Van Pearlberg, a former Marietta City Council member who has studied and lectured on the case for years, has seen how challenging it will be to locate verifiable evidence. After Frank’s body was taken down, embalmed and sent by train for burial in Brooklyn, curious witnesses claimed grim souvenirs.“If everyone had a piece of the rope who’s told me they had a piece of the rope, it would drag from here to London,” Pearlberg said.

[Deputy Attorney General Van Pearlberg]

Still, Howard is determined to press forward. The Conviction Integrity Unit will review available documents and evidence available and make a recommendation.
“The criminal justice system has an obligation to get at the truth,” Howard said. “It doesn’t matter how long the truth has been undetected.”

Oney researched the case for nearly 17 years before publishing his nearly 700-page book.“Did he do it? I don’t think so,” he said. “But in my book I left the door slightly open. The only three people who were ever going to know were Leo Frank, Mary Phagan and Jim Conley. I guess my sense is in the end, the Mary Phagan murder will remain a mystery.”A Family SecretPhagan-Kean was 13 in 1967, more than a half-century after the crime, when she learned who her great-aunt was and what happened to her. A teacher asked if she was related to the young Atlanta murder victim, but she had no idea. Her father told her what he knew about the matter the family never talked about.“I asked Daddy if I could talk to Grandpa about it,” she said. “That was the worst mistake.”

[Photo of Mary Phagan-Kean at Grave Plot of Little Mary Phagan (1899-1913)]

Her grandfather, William Joshua Phagan Jr., was Mary’s brother. He’d had a stroke and couldn’t communicate well by the time Phagan-Kean brought it up.“He just broke down and cried,” she said. “I never asked him again.”A retired educator, she’s made a second career out of researching the case. Her book, “The Murder of Little Mary Phagan,” was published in 1987.

“I think Leo Frank killed her and that Jim Conley helped him dispose of the body,” said Phagan-Kean, who has amassed a trove of documents and photographs pertaining to the case over the years. “When Alonzo Mann came out, I just felt like he was a nice, elderly gentleman. He verifies, in my opinion, that Leo Frank was guilty.”

She also notes that one of Frank’s attorneys had practiced law with Slaton, the governor who commuted his sentence.“I do believe he was paid,” she said of Slaton. “I just can’t prove it yet.”

[Newspaper Front Cover 1915]

Phagan-Kean has a cordial relationship with Pearlberg and has attended some of his lectures, but she has no use for the others involved in the exoneration effort.“I’m deeply offended by Roy Barnes and the enthusiasts; they have no respect for my family,” she said. As for Frank’s lynching, her late father considered it vigilante justice, but it disturbs her: “I regret the lynching happened. If I could have stopped it I probably would have.”The case has fascinated Barnes since his law school days.“You could not have written a Greek tragedy any more poignantly than the story of Leo Frank,” he said. “You had sex, power, money, race and class. It all came together.”

[Photo of Roy Barnes]

It’s not hard to discern parallels between Barnes and Slaton. Commuting Frank’s sentence ended Slaton’s political career. Barnes was turned out of office after one term following his action to change Georgia’s state flag, which once featured a prominent Confederate emblem. When “flaggers” would launch demonstrations, he’d stop to listen to their complaints.“The troopers hated it when I did that,” he said. Today, he respects the feelings of Mary Phagan’s descendants.“What I think should happen is we go through this process, and we make it so clear that there can be no doubt for those with open minds,” Barnes said. “We seem to have lost the idea that we can disagree without hating the other side.”‘Pillars of the Community’“The past is never dead,” William Faulkner wrote. “It’s not even past.”When it comes to the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial and lynching of Leo Frank, the line seems to transcend literature. Everyone involved is long gone, but their ghosts are everywhere. Barnes’ law office on the Marietta Square is about a half-mile from Phagan’s grave and maybe 2 miles from where Frank was hanged. It looks out onto Glover Park, where stands a statue of Sen. Alexander Stephens Clay. The senator’s son, Eugene Herbert Clay, a past Marietta mayor, was part of the lynching cabal. So was furniture maker Bolan Glover Brumby and his brother, garage owner Jim Brumby.You pass the Brumby Lofts building on the way from the square to Pearlberg’s house, where his side porch faces Sessions Street. Lawyer and banker Moultrie McKinney Sessions was a member of the ring. The quickest route from the square to Rabbi Lebow’s office at Temple Kol Emeth takes you right by the lynching site. On and on, the past feels ever present.

[Photo Marietta Rabbi Steven Lebow]

“There was a time when it was very important to name the lynchers and expose their evil,” Lebow said. “We don’t need to continue to beat Marietta over the head. These were people who never did an evil thing before or after.”

[Advertisement for another article: » RELATED: ‘Georgia’s shame’ | Leo Frank’s lynching at the hands of an angry mob stunned Georgia and the nation]

For Barnes, the paradox turned out to be personal. Barber Cicero Dobbs, the grandfather of Barnes’ wife, was another conspirator. Marie Barnes was a toddler when Dobbs died and doesn’t remember him.“These people who carried out the lynching were pillars of the community,” Barnes said. “How did they lose their head?”He expects getting the case ready for the new Fulton County Conviction Integrity Unit will take at least a year. He is hopeful about the outcome, legal and otherwise.“Human nature can be loving and kind, and it can be mean and terrible. Why do we have to hate? That I have become very concerned with as my hair has become white,” he said. “These were good people who went crazy over hatred and became blinded by prejudice. If we learn that lesson, it is all worth it.”

Original Source of Article: https://www.ajc.com/news/crime–law/after-more-than-100-years-will-leo-frank-exonerated/NiklGil6M5KoQORH5lD9EN/

Please sign up to AJC, to get updates on the latest news in Georgia.

[evp_embed_video url=”https://www.leofrank.org/videos/Nick-Mason-on-Leo-Frank-and-the-Murder-of-Mary-Phagan.webm” autoplay=”true”]

Nick Mason returns to the podcast ‘Our Interesting Times’ for discussions of his research on the murder of Mary Phagan and subsequent trial and conviction of Leo Frank for that crime.

Nick Mason is a co-host of the Myth of the 20th Century podcast and a frequent contributor to the American Sun.

Download: https://www.leofrank.org/videos/Nick-Mason-on-Leo-Frank-and-the-Murder-of-Mary-Phagan.webm

Commentary by Paul Ruder

“And as they would march-up the jurors every day to go to the Fulton county courthouse the crowd would chant hang the Jew or we’ll hang you” – Former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Advisor to Paul Howard with respect to the Leo Frank “Conviction Integrity Unit” (C/I/U). The CIU was given birth to on the anniversary Mary Phagan perished at the hands of impulsive sex fiend, Leo Max Frank.

Pseudo-Scholar Leonard Dinnerstein’s 1968 Anti-Gentile Blood Libel and Hate Crime Hoax: “Hang the Jew or We’ll Hang You!” Gets Mutated by Roy Barnes in 2019

The morbidly obese and former governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes, just might be lying through his teeth on public TV. Question: Is Roy Barnes a sleazy conman and compulsive liar who will say anything to get the deadly pedophile Leo Frank (1884 – 1915) exonerated for the rape-murder of little Mary Phagan (1899-1913)? Let us do some investigating and find out.

Jury Tampering

Where there crowds or mobs of anti-Semites supposedly shouting anti-Jewish death threat chants in unison, “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you”, while the 12-man jury panel strolled from the Kimball House Hotel to the courthouse each and every morning, for almost 4-weeks, during Leo frank’s murder trial in the summer of 1913? It certainly is a powerful visual that one can envision and imprint in their brains through artificial projection, something which never actually happened, but is intended to distort our understanding of the Leo Frank trial. It is easy to project imagery into one’s brain according to psychologists, especially things which did not occur, and this is one of the techniques the Frankites intend to use so they can get Leo Frank exonerated.

Projecting 3-Dimensional Images Into Your Brain of Events Which Never Happened.

The Leo-Frank-Axis used this approach of “Projecting Visual False Evidence” with Alonzo Mann (August 8, 1898 – March 17, 1985) back in the 1980s and I can show with logical inquiry how that too was a well-engineered hoax. For background on Alonzo Mann, Leo Frank’s office boy, check out the The Astounding Alonzo Mann Hoax authored by Rosemary Pennington in 2015, she hits it out of the park with debunking Alonzo Mann’s manufactured hallucination and well-orchestrated illusions he implanted into the minds of ordinary Georgians. Use your common sense, would any parents allow their child to return to work after what Little Lonnie told his mommy on April 26, 1913? Little did anyone know Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann (born in 1898 and 14-years-old) went back to work on Monday morning, April 28, 1913, and was there everyday going forward at the National Pencil Company factory from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, when Jim Conley was working those days and arrested that Thursday afternoon, the 30th of April at 2 pm. Lonnie was at the factory for 4 full work weekdays with Jim Conley, the same Black man who allegedly threatened this 14-year-old’s life and supposedly who was seen carrying a lifeless little dead White girl like a sack of potatoes at the ground floor lobby of the National Pencil Company at 37-41 South Forsyth Street in the summer hill neighborhood of downtown Atlanta? Lonnie never quit his job after Jim Conley was arrested, or on and before Thursday, April 30th, 1913. Tom Watson Brown who falls for the Mary Phagan Bite Would Legend, explains in one of his 1982 Leo Frank affair treatment works, “READ: Notes on the Leo Frank Case and Its Aftermath” about why Alonzo Mann’s claims are fallacious in nature.

The Mary Phagan Murder Trial With Leo Frank Serving As Defendant July 28 to August 21s 1913 amounts to 25 Days Minus Three Sundays Which Distills Down to 22 Actual Days of Courtroom Presence

The Mary Phagan murder trial, where Leo Frank was defendant, proceeded in the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta Georgia from July 28, 1913, to August 26, 1913 when including closing arguments, verdict, jury completes job and death sentence comes from the trial Judge is 30 days long.

So how many actual days is that for Roy Barnes’ everyday claim? It would be based on the days the jury served.

Let’s Do the Math on the Number of Days of that Atlanta Trial:

01. July 28, 1913 — Monday, the trial jury was created in the late morning, so this day doesn’t count for them walking together to and from the Fulton County Superior Courthouse and the Kimball House Hotel.
02. July 29, 1913 — Tuesday
03. July 30, 1913 — Wednesday
04. July 31, 1913 — Thursday

05. August 01, 1913 — Friday
06. August 02, 1913 — Saturday
07. August 03, 1913 — Sunday (No Court) – jury doesn’t walk to court.
08. August 04, 1913 — Monday, Jim Conley is quizzed and testifies for the prosecution via direct-examination
09. August 05, 1913 — Tuesday, Jim Conley is cross-examined by Luther Rosser to the point of exhaustion
10. August 06, 1913 — Wednesday – Jim Conley finishes his 13-Hour oral quizzing by the defense and gave mesmerizing testimony which had the ring of truth to it.
11. August 07, 1913 — Thursday
12. August 08, 1913 — Friday
13. August 09, 1913 — Saturday
14. August 10, 1913 — Sunday (No Court) – jury doesn’t walk to court.
15. August 11, 1913 — Monday
16. August 12, 1913 — Tuesday
17. August 13, 1913 — Wednesday
18. August 14, 1913 — Thursday
19. August 15, 1913 — Friday
20. August 16, 1913 — Saturday
21. August 17, 1913 — Sunday (No Court) – Jury doesn’t walk to court.
22. August 18, 1913 — Monday – Leo Frank gives an unsworn statement from the witness stand between 2:15 pm and 6:05 p.m. with a 10-to-20-minute break halfway through. Frank’s total speech was about 3 hours and 35 minutes as it had been at the Coroner’s Inquest.
23. August 19, 1913 — Tuesday
24. August 20, 1913 — Wednesday
25. August 21, 1913 — Thursday – Leo Frank gives a few more minutes of testimony and that’s the end of the trial, the grand perorations begin.
26. August 22, 1913 — Friday — Rosser, Hooper, Arnold perorations completed (closing arguments), Dorsey starts
27. August 23, 1913 — Saturday – Dorsey continues his arguments during the half-day.
28. August 24, 1913 — Sunday (No Court) – jury doesn’t walk to court.
29. August 25, 1913 — Monday –Dorsey finishes speech at high noon as the church bells toll, he says the word assertively, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty… 12 times, the jury convicts & are dismissed for their duly rendered service by the Honorable Judge L.S. Roan.
30. August 26, 1913 — Tuesday — Judge sentenced Leo Frank to death by hanging, henceforth October 10th, 1913, but it was stayed up until June 21st, 1915, when it got its last and final stay by the chief executive of the State of Georgia and located in the capital city of Atlanta, John Marshal Slaton the 60th Governor of Georgia.

On Monday, August 25th 1913 (Day 29), the jury unanimously voted for Leo Frank’s guilt (on the second ballot) in the late afternoon, polled and were collectively relieved of their duty thereafter, followed by on the morning of the next day being Tuesday, August 26th, 1913 (Day 30), the presiding judge Leonard Strickland Roan sentenced Leo Frank to death via hanging, when it might have been in his power to equally give Leo Frank life in prison instead of capital punishment for what amounts to second degree murder, a crime of passion, infatuation and jealousy.

Calculations of Roy Barnes’ FlimFlam: So from July 29th 1913 to August 25th 1913, the jury as a united group walked to courthouse 23x (when we don’t count Sundays) from the Kimball House Hotel. Thus according to Roy Barnes, the jury each and every day it walked to individually perform their duty at the Fulton County Superior Court, was screamed at by anti-Semitic White Christians, crowds making deadly lynching terror threats, thus implying mobs of people were terrorizing the 12-men panel into convicting Leo Frank, otherwise they the jury themselves risked getting killed by strangulation from 3/4 inch manilla rope. Is that a fair numerical analysis of Roy Barnes’ falsification of history when we read between the lines and explore the implicit undercurrents?

The Original 1968 Leonard Dinnerstein Anti-Gentile Blood Libel versus The 2019 Roy Barnes Anti-Gentile Blood Libel

From the article ‘Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community’ by Leonard Dinnerstein for the American Jewish Archive Journal, November 1968, Volume 20, Number 2, page 110, Quote:

“Beyond the main testimony, the jurors had little more on which to base their decision than hearsay, rumors, and unsubstantiated accusations. Yet most members of the public were thoroughly convinced of the defendant’s guilt and made their voices heard, The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. “Crack the Jew’s neck!” – “Lynch him!” – were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made “against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that ‘damned sheeny.’ ”

–End Quote.

So you can see the 2019 Roy Barnes falsification of history is a fresh air mutation of the 1968 Leonard Dinnerstein anti-Gentile falsification of history. In Dinnerstein’s version of his anti-Gentile hate crime hoax, he has the crowds of anti-Semitic hate-mongers terrorizing all the people inside the courtroom during daily proceedings, including the judge, jury, police, stenographers, witnesses, and spectators through open windows at the courthouse. The Roy Barnes version of the hate-terror-threat, fake hate speech-crime hoax involving the jury being mob terrorized outside the courtroom as they are walking to the maroon-brick courthouse building from the red-brick hotel they were staying at during their 20-something-days total of jurydom.

Conclusion: Inside versus outside is the major hoodwink differentiation in their (Dinnerstein vs. Barnes) racist and anti-Gentile slander against Southerners, which supposedly involved alleged 1913 events of terrorism against a petit trial jury with 20-something days of lynching death threats (inside 1968 versus outside 2019). These allegations ware meant to trick people into thinking Leo Frank did not have a fair trial, many Hollywood versions of the Frank-Phagan affair project the visual idea the defendant Leo Frank was convicted by a mob terrorized jury, one who had no other choice but to come to the verdict of guilt, because they feared for their lives. As Alan Dershowitz once said in a propagandistic Canadian government-sponsored “documentary” about the April 26, 1913, Mary Phagan murder called “Scandal Then and Now: Southern Knights of the Leo Frank Case”, a made-for-TV extravaganza in 1999:

“the Leo Frank jury was the mob!”

Scandal Then and Now: Southern Knights of the Leo Frank Case”, a made-for-TV extravaganza in 1999

[evp_embed_video url=”https://www.leofrank.org/videos/scandal-then-and-now-southern-knights-leo-frank-case.mp4″ autoplay=”false”]

Download video of the Canadian propaganda documentary called ‘Scandal Then and Now: Southern Knights of the Leo Frank Case’ published in 1999.

Manufacturing False Evidence of Legal History 23 Times

Think for a minute about what Roy Barnes who is an attorney basically perjured himself at an official meeting with the DA present and said on 11 Alive public TV news, for about 23 days, thus 23x, he is essentially claiming, mobs of anti-Jewish hate mongers were shouting terrorist strangulation-murder threats at the trial jury just before they entered the courthouse at the Fulton County Superior Courthouse, and no one said anything about it at the time, no one reported it then to the police, or reported the terrorism to the media journalists milling about the streets outside the courthouse. As the jury was sequestered from the hotel by government officials and escorted to the courthouse, no government official reported the supposed mob or crowd shouting death threats. We are to believe an unbelievable 23 times this jury tampering supposedly happened and no one said a word about it?!

The jury itself never reported any terrorist death threats levied against themselves either, not once and certainly not 23x. None of Leo Frank’s appeals to the Georgia and US Supreme Court purported he didn’t get a fair trial because of crowds or mobs of racist anti-Semites chanting terroristic lynching party terror threats at the jury. This at a time in history when lynching was prominent for rapists.

Turn the Leo Frank Case Into A Carnival Sideshow

The local dailies of the news-press (The Georgia, Journal, and Constitution), Atlanta police, detectives, Leo Frank’s defense team (Governor Slaton’s Law firm) and state prosecution (District Attorney Hugh Dorsey, then called Solicitor General) would have known about such events if they were happening up to 23x in 1913 as Roy Barnes propounded in 2019, and it would have given the Frank defense immediate grounds for a mistrial early-on or a change of venue. Moreover, the defense could use such evidence in their appeals of the verdict and request a new trial. On the 107 grounds that Leo Frank’s defense team used to seek a new trial, none of those grounds included terrorist murder-by-hanging threats chanted directly at the jury.

There were teams of snapshooters and reporters outside the court each day waiting for entrance into the courthouse and documenting the events both inside and outside the building, there were teams of journalists inside the courtroom at their own special table next to the jury, reporting every minute detail of the proceedings as they unfolded. Nothing is published in the three Atlanta dailies reporting menacing words levied at the jury that could be heard in the courtroom as Leonard Dinnerstein falsely claims too. We are fortunate enough those daily news reports are available for us to read now more than a century later. Check out the newspaper archive on The Leo Frank Research Library and the Internet Archive.

Georgia Assembly: We Need Legislation in Georgia to Criminalize Anti-Gentile Hate Crime Hoaxes

This disgusting hate-terror bamboozles Roy Barnes is pushing in 2019, to trick the public into accepting an exoneration of Leo Max Frank was first invented by Zio-American fraudster Leonard Dinnerstein (1934-2019) in the November 1968 issue of The American Jewish Archive Journal. The year 1968 is about 53 years after Leo Frank was hanged for his homicidal sex crime, and when one of the many Dinnerstein academic frauds he asserts were mainstreamed in scholarly publications (Like the Mary Phagan Bite Wound Hoax Invented by Pierre van Paassen in 1964). This critical article by Jewish Supremacist pseudo-historian Leonard Dinnerstein is called “Leo M. Frank and the Jewish Community.” and I recommend everyone read the full article and then compare it with this critical article by The American Mercury, “The Leo Frank Case: A pseudo-history” by Eliot Dashfield in 2012.

Imagine hypothetically that, mobs of anti-Semitic terrorists were screaming death threats at the jury, which the judge, the defense (Governor Slaton’s law firm), prosecutors (Hugh Dorsey and his co-counsel Frank Hooper), police, court officials, and the audience, could all clearly hear, but no one ever documented it happening. Leo Frank himself never reported it in any of his voluminous interviews in the press from 1913-1915, neither his wife, mother or anyone from his side of the case ever said a word about it, until 1968 when Dinnerstein first invented the legend. It isn’t even discussed in Frank’s voluminous appeals records either, because it never happened. Leo Frank’s defenders will use any fraud they can artificially fabricate to manufacture a consensus that their deadly pedophile civil rights icon was innocent. They will stop at nothing, even likely perjuring themselves under oath if given the chance.

Leonard Dinnerstein was a cunning liar, thank God he finally died in early 2019 and can no longer poison the academy with his easily disproven propaganda and academic misconduct. I’m glad he was alive long enough to see all the scholarly articles produced that exposed his writings about the Leo Frank case as anti-Gentile frauds. National Vanguard produced an excellent 4-part series on some of Leonard Dinnerstein’s academic dishonesty.

TUNE-IN: Expose of Leonard Dinnerstein’s Use of History as Ethnoreligious Warfare Against Gentiles
https://archive.org/details/photo-of-professor-leonard-dinnerstein-phd

Not long after he got a politically correct Ph.D. (Piled High and Deep) in 1966 from the political science department at the neo-Marxist Columbia University, he felt completely safe to invent terrorism and got away with it for generations, now he is exposed as an academic scamster who twisted history for Jewish supremacist aims. For a supposedly prestigious scholarly journal like AJAJ (American Jewish Archive Journal) to be willing to publish the academic fraud of Dinnerstein, just goes to show the academy and more broadly, intellectual scholarship, have become disreputable institutions of false propaganda with a far-left identarian agenda.

READ: Leonard Dinnerstein’s Dissertation Thesis on “The Leo Frank Case”, 1966.
https://www.leofrank.org/library/pdfs/leonard-dinnerstein-dissertation-leo-frank-case-1966.pdf

That Roy Barnes is allowed to promulgate his favorite Leo Frank FlimFlam to the media as a “true story” and be the leading “Conviction Integrity Unit” adviser to Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, means only one thing:

The U.S. Constitution is Terminally ill.

Bibliography:

Leonard Dinnerstein is Dead (May 5, 1934 — January-22, 2019).
https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/04/leonard-dinnerstein-is-dead/

The Leo Frank Case Book (published 1968 and thereafter):
http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein

The Fate of Leo Frank, American Heritage Magazine, October 1996, Leonard Dinnerstein.
https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-american-heritage-article-october-1996

Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records (1,800 pages).
Link: http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

Case for the Prosecution by Mary Phagan-Kean, 1987, Audiobook 2015, read by O’Turner

The Whole House of Cards Collapses At The American Mercury, Audiobook Segments 9 and 10 of Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3, The Leo Frank Case The Lynching of a Guilty Man

Segment 09: https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/06/the-leo-frank-case-the-lynching-of-a-guilty-man-part-9/

Segment 10: https://theamericanmercury.org/2018/06/the-leo-frank-case-the-lynching-of-a-guilty-man-part-10/

Appendix:

Former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s Propaganda on Leonard Dinnerstein’s Book “the Leo Frank Case” (1991, Green Leather Bound, Hard Cover, Notable Trials Edition, Gold Leaf, Very High Production Value Design).

Introduction By Alan M. Dershowitz

The trial, conviction, death sentence and its commutation and eventual lynching of Leo Frank during the second decade of the twentieth century, constitute a major episode not only in American legal history, but also in the development of American political institutions. The Knights of Mary Phagan, formed to avenge the murder of the young factory worker for which Frank was convicted, became an important component of the twentieth century resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith was founded in reaction to the anti-Semitism generated – or at least disclosed – by the Frank case.

Sometimes characterized as the American “Dreyfus” case (a reference to the frame-up of a French Jew which fanned the flames of nineteenth century European anti-Semitism), the trial of Leo Frank in Atlanta, Georgia was conducted in a carnival atmosphere. Crowds outside the courthouse sang “The Ballad of Mary Phagan,” which included the following lyrics:

Little Mary Phagan

By Sage Ross – Flickr page of Sage Ross, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54484988

She left her home one day;
She went to the pencil-factory
To see the big parade.

She left her home at eleven,
She kissed her mother good-by;
Not one time did the poor child think
That she was a-going to die.

Leo Frank he met her
With a brutish heart, we know;
He smiled, and said, “Little Mary,
You won’t go home no more.”

Sneaked along behind her
Till she reached the metal-room;
He laughed, and said, “Little Mary,
You have met your fatal doom.”

Down upon her knees
To Leo Frank she plead;
He taken a stick from the trash-pile
And struck her across the head.

Crowds inside the courtroom shouted anti-Jewish epithets, and demanded Frank’s death. The smell of the lynch mob was in the air.

The State’s star witness was a black maintenance worker at the factory which Frank managed and at which Mary Phagan worked. He testified that Frank killed the young girl and ordered him to dispose of the body. When the jury convicted Frank, it was the first time in memory that a white man had been convicted of murder on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a black witness. This apparent advance in racial justice was explained away by a local observer who said: “That wasn’t a white man convicted by that N…’s testimony. It was a Jew.”

Predictably, Frank was convicted, sentenced to death and denied relief on appeal, despite some critical dissenting words from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Unpredictably, the Governor of Georgia decided to commute Frank’s death sentence and leave him to serve out a term of life imprisonment. That appeared to be a great victory for Frank and his many supporters around the country, since the evidentiary foundation underlying Frank’s conviction was beginning to crumble as a result of the discovery of new evidence strongly suggesting that it was the government’s star witness – and not Frank – who had killed the victim. It seemed only a matter of time before Frank would be freed from his imprisonment.

In order to prevent Frank’s freedom, several of the “best” citizens of Georgia – including a minister, two former Supreme Court Justices, and an ex-sheriff – decided to take the law into their own hands. They constituted themselves as a vigilante committee and let it be known that they intended to kidnap Frank from prison and lynch him. Despite some perfunctory efforts by prison authorities to protect Frank, the lynch mob had little difficulty breaking into the prison and kidnapping Frank. It was obvious that at least some of the prison authorities were in on the plan. Frank was taken to Marietta, where he was lynched. Everyone knew exactly who was involved in the lynching – indeed some members of the lynch mob boasted about their participation and gave interviews to the press. Photographs of the lynching and souvenir pieces of the rope were sold throughout Georgia. Nonetheless, the coroner’s jury investigating the murder of Leo Frank concluded that it was unable to identify any of the perpetrators. This was typical of lynchings in the South during that era. The only difference is that this victim was not black.

There is a fascinating and largely unknown ethical story behind the public legal story of the Frank case. I use it as a teaching vehicle in my course on legal ethics. It turns out that while Leo Frank was on death row, one of Atlanta’s most prominent lawyers learned that Frank was innocent and that another man – presumably the government’s star witness – was the killer. We do not know for certain whether the real killer confessed directly to the lawyer, or to another lawyer who then sought ethical advice from the pillar of the bar. This is the way the eminent lawyer described it in his own writings:

I am one of the few people who know that Leo Frank was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted and lynched. Subsequent to the trial, and after his conviction had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, I learned who killed Mary Phagan, but the information came to me in such a way that, though I wish I could do so, I can never reveal it so long as certain persons are alive. We lawyers, when we are admitted to the bar, take an oath never to reveal the communications made to us by our clients; and this includes facts revealed in an attempt to employ the though he refuses the employment….The Law on this subject may or may not be a wise law – there are some who think that it is not – but naturally since it is the law, we lawyers and the judges cannot honorably disobey it.

The eminent lawyer (and any other lawyer who may have received the real killer’s confession in confidence) was forced into the most excruciating legal, ethical and moral dilemma a professional can possibly confront. The ethical rules of the profession are fairly clear. There is no available exception to the rule mandating confidentiality of privileged communications about past crimes. It is not a future crime for a guilty client to remain silent while an innocent man goes to his death for the murder committed by a silent, guilty client. The issue is a bit more complicated if the confessing client was, in fact, the witness who testified against Frank, for the client would then be confessing to perjury. Some courts and commentators have suggested that allowing perjured testimony to remain unrecanted, while the victim of the perjury remains under a death or prison sentence, may constitute a continuing fraud on the court, and thus an exception to the lawyer-client privilege. But that line of authority is hazy at best, and the eminent lawyer did not apparently consider it. He saw the legal and professional ethics issue as simple and straightforward. That still left the moral and personal issue of whether any human being – regardless of his or her profession – can and should allow a preventable miscarriage of justice to be carried out, especially in a capital case. My students in legal ethics generally split down the middle over whether they would violate the rules of the profession – engage in an act of civil disobedience against their own client – in order to save an innocent non-client.

In a typically lawyer-like way, the eminent lawyer in the real case apparently saw to it that the governor learned the information known to him, but without his own “fingerprints” being on the communication. This is how he put it: “Without ever having discussed with Governor Slaton the facts which were revealed to me, I have reason to believe, from a thing contained in the statement he made in connection with the grant of the commutation, that, in some way, these facts came to him and influenced his action.” But the eminent lawyer’s compromise did not work. Although the governor did commute Leo Frank’s sentence, he was not able to persuade a vengeful public of Frank’s innocence. I doubt that Frank would have been lynched had the eminent lawyer come forward and disclosed his information. Instead, his client would almost certainly have been lynched. The complexity of ethical and moral issues in the law can rarely be resolved by simple compromise solutions of the kind attempted by the lawyer in the Frank case. Indeed some such issues have no entirely satisfactory solutions.

Nearly seventy years after Leo Frank’s murder, new evidence of his innocence emerged. An eighty-two-year old man, who have been a youthful eyewitness to events surrounding the killing of Mary Phagan, finally came forward and told what he had seen back in 1913. His evidence contradicted the State’s star witness and strongly suggested that the murder was committed by that same witness, the black maintenance man. The murderer threatened the young witness with death if he ever mentioned what he had observed, and he did not come forward for all those years. Now, he has told his story and it seems to have persuaded most objective people that Leo Frank was lynched for a crime committed by someone else.

Finally, in 1986 Frank was posthumously pardoned with following official apology: “The lynching aborted the legal process, thus foreclosing further effort to prove Frank’s innocence. It resulted from the State of Georgia’s failure to protect Frank. Compounding the injustice, the State then failed to prosecute any of the lynchers.” Remarkably, some Georgians continued to resist the pardon.

Alan Dershowitz

Cambridge, Massachusetts
January 11, 1991

Source: Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. Green Leather Hardcover. Notable Trials Library edition, 1991.

—–#2——

The Silent and the Damned by Robert Seitz Frey and Nancy C. Thompson
https://archive.org/details/LeoFrankTheSilentAndTheDamned2002/page/n2

Review of the Silent and the Damned

‘The Silent and the Damned: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank’, authored by Robert Seitz Frey (born 1955) & Nancy C. Thompson (First edition published 1988, second release 2002, Kindle version 2012), is yet another pseudo-scholarly treatment of the Mary Phagan murder case, amounting to nothing more than a maudlin hagiography about the life & tribulations of Leo Max Frank (1884 – 1915). These are conclusions most people will arrive at after fact-checking this book & its references against the primary sources of this famous case, therefore this monograph can accurately be summed up in total as: shamelessly weak on the facts & based on contemptuous omissions.

Here’s a tiny little snapshot of examples concerning the minor errors that fill every chapter of this book:

The authors of this book quote from Leo Frank’s 1906 college yearbook, concerning a number of facts about him, for instance stating he weighed 130lbs, but the original source they cited actually says he was 145lbs (Cornell Senior Class Book, 1906, pages 344 & *345*). Mary Phagan was NOT born in Marietta, Georgia, during the year 1900, she was born hundreds of miles away in Florence, Alabama, on June 1st, 1899. “John Phagan” (the wrong name listed as Mary Phagan’s biological father) did not passaway in the year 1911, William Joshua Phagan (the correct name of Mary Phagan’s biological father) died from measles more than a decade prior, in February of 1899 (yes, Mary Phagan was indeed a posthumous daughter). Leo Frank did NOT marry Lucille Selig in October of 1910, but specifically November 30th (Frank-Selig Wedding Certificate, 1910; Atlanta Journal, Dec 1st, 1910, society pages). Leo Frank’s father, Rudolph Frank, born in 1844, was not 67 years old in 1913, because in 1913 he turned 69. This list of minor errors literally goes on on and on…

26 years of Garbage-In-Garbage-Out: 1986 to 2012:

To be fair, even meticulous authors can make mistakes, but when the hard facts mangled outnumber the book’s pages, something is definitely amiss. There seems to be a pattern here, because I noticed the same level of carelessness concerning the facts found within the author’s Master’s degree thesis (“The Case of Leo Frank M. Frank in The Continuum of American History: An Assessment of Christian Responses”. Masters of Arts Degree in History, June 1986, Baltimore Hebrew College, Maryland). What seems to matter most in the political charged world of academia and mainstream book publishing industry are the perpetuation of politically correct conclusions, not the facts. Moreover, what is most disconcerting about this book is not the minor errors that fill every page, but the major errors found woven together throughout every chapter. The most significant errors found in this book involve misquoting and misrepresenting the Leo Frank trial transcript of testimony, evidence and exhibits contained within the 3,000 pages of official court legal records. Therefore for clarity and brevity, we will review some of the most striking examples below, because to list all the authors willful misrepresentations would result in the creation of a booklet on the long side.

The One Hundred Year Old Anti-Semitic Hate Crime Hoax: Anti-Semitism Convicted the Pedophile who Raped and Strangled a Little Girl

The Atlanta Police investigation into the bludgeoning, rape, strangulation & mutilation of Mary Phagan that lead to the murder indictment and trial of Leo Frank has been often described over the last 100 years by Leo Frank’s defenders as an anti-Semitic miscarriage of justice fueled by racial prejudice against the “Yankee Jew”, but nothing could be further from the truth once we closely examine the official trial records and appeals petitions.

This peculiar & complex criminal affair is one of the most well documented in the annals of Southern jurisprudence, so there is really no excuse for the vagrantly sloppy research contained within this pathological “Gentile-vs-Jews” tribally myopic disinformation book. Moreover, the Official Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence (1913) – ratified by the trial judge, defense & prosecution teams – and Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records (1913, 1914), survived in their entirety into the 21st century & are easily accessible to researchers, students & scholars, so there really is absolutely no justification for these authors falsifying these official legal records publicly available from the State of Georgia’s Archives.

Students of the Leo Frank Case naturally ask the Question: Why would these authors invest so many years of their lives studying the subject at hand and working on this book, yet still allow an uncountable number of factual errors in this latest edition — especially since their inclusions can be so easily verified for whether or not they are accurate or not?

The suppositions contained within this book, reveals an ugly racial extremist agenda by its creators, which ultimately answering this question definitively.

Directed at European-American & African-American Southerners, the activist authors waste no time deliberately making unfounded blood-libel insinuations, promoting century-long hate crime hoaxes, and perpetuating false accusations about vast anti-Jewish conspiracies against Leo Frank. Which is why most of the claims & conclusions in this rendition of the Leo Frank epic saga, do not even stand up to minimal college level academic scrutiny or high school level basic fact-checking.

From a Wider Lens this Book is Overwhelming with Racist Suppositions of Anti-Gentile Hate

This hate filled propaganda book wrongfully indicts the whole state of Georgia, by suggesting its police, government officials & citizenry, willfully, & collectively participated in railroading & then assassinating an “innocent” man, primarily because he was Jewish, not because it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Leo Frank pounded in the face of a little girl before he raped, and strangled Mary Phagan, being sentenced to death for the crime by both a Judge and Jury (the jury was asked by the presiding judge for a sentencing recommendation). TIn context, despite the reality that German-Jews were generally regarded in the Old South by Gentiles of all classes, as upstanding, productive & law abiding citizens. Furthermore, the consensus of Southern Jewish & Gentile historians has always been, then & now, that European-American Southerners in the segregationist South, treated & respected Jews as White equals, but the same can not be said for how Blacks were treated during the Southern progressive era & the generations afterwards leading up to the civil rights movement.

The real purpose of this book is meant to be is another deracinating bludgeon in the 100 year long racist Jewish culture war that began in 1913 and continues today with renewed ferocity. This conflict is lead by an insidious & agitating minority within the organized Jewish community that has always historically been known to be at perpetual war against the majority’s hegemony. The expressed intention of creating this conflict is demoralizing White-Americans for their once prevailing tradition of ethnic solidarity, ironically by some of the most ethnically paranoid zealots, racial extremists & xenophobic people on earth. You can see this general tendency reflected in most of the books written on the Frank-Phagan case by Jews and their partisans who take the prevailing Jewish position that “anti-Semitism was behind it all”.

More people than at any other time in history are asking the forbidden question: Why is it that most of the same people who incessantly express concern about widespread anti-Semitic racist conspiracy theories, often promote the status quo of Apartheid Israel as an ethnocentric ‘Jewish State’, one that is indisputably known for having committed state-sanctioned racist crimes against humanity during the last 60+ years — one seen by the world as a violent pariah that provides no voting, political, social or civil rights for the non-Jewish people illegally occupied under International Law?

The bottom line is that racism, prejudice & bigotry directed against other people is wrong no matter who it comes from & unacceptable no matter who it is directed at, & yet these authors blinded by bigoted tunnel vision are so pathologically obsessed with anti-Semitism, they failed to mention all the delicious and juicy details of the diabolically anti-Black racist plot Leo Frank botched when his gambit to frame his African-American nightwatchman Newt Lee, with a conspicuously forged time card and planted bloody shirt, fell apart in 48 hours into the investigation of Mary Phagan’s death. The authors also conveniently omitted the well documented tirade of anti-Black gutter racism spewed by Leo Frank’s legal defense team against the Negro Jim Conley during the trial’s closing arguments.

From the perspective of Leo Frank Case historians not suffering from pathological tribal myopia, who have spent several uninterrupted years studying the official trial & appeals records, & read every single local Atlanta newspaper account of the whole ordeal from 1913 to 1915, this ill-conceived book does not measure up to the level of scholarly research & historical accuracy you would expect from the experienced technical writers who authored this latest edition. Simply put, they omitted, fabricated or twisted out of context the vast majority of the witnesses words who testified in this case. This is easily confirmed by reading the developments, coroner’s inquest & trial testimony published in the Atlanta Journal, Constitution & Georgian newspapers, from April through August of 1913, that all together can be easily compared to the official trial transcript digest of testimony (see: Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913).

Brimming with half-truths, misrepresentations, fabrications and omissions, most of which are not obvious or known to the average person reading this book, the authors chose to leave out the SUPER vast majority of relevant pre-trial evidence uncovered by investigators against Leo Frank during the critical first 48 hours and subsequent Coroner’s Official Inquest (April 30 to May 8) that revealed some very interesting facts. Anyone who takes the time to study the several thousand pages of official Leo Frank case legal documents (that fortunately survived into the 21st century, despite underhanded efforts to purge them), will quickly come to the conclusion that the authors of this book never bothered to carefully read, study & sift the appeals records in the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case Files, nor do they accurately report what was really argued at the trial & why it mattered. It’s easy to understand why people cringe in disbelief when they read this impetuous book, particularly at how recklessly it was formulated.

Spoiler Alert: This book is another clumsily concocted attempt to rehabilitate the image of the convicted child strangler, Leo Max Frank, the prominent Atlanta president of B’nai B’rith, from September 1912 to 1914, whose conviction galvanized the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith founding of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on October 20, 1913.

So now we come around full circle to the reoccurring question that comes to everyone’s mind as they fact check this book: Why would Nancy C. Thompson-Frey and Robert Seitz Frey go to such extreme lengths to obfuscate the facts and twist the events of the Leo Frank Case?

Perhaps the longtime modern leader of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), can give us the answer:

“The authors are to be commended for this calm, dispassionate, yet chilling story of how bigotry can kill a man and destroy a system of justice…. Must reading!” -Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League [ADL of B’nai B’rith].

The ADL, Born in Blood:

The conviction of Leo Frank, so often cited as the impetus for creating Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in 1913, has ever since then, resulted in numerous books having been written about the Leo Frank Case in this same vein of manufacturing mythological anti-Semitism where there was none, attempting to re-write history, rehabilitate Leo Frank into a hero-martyr & cover-up an embarrassingly heinous scandal that can’t be buried.

ADL & Abraham Foxman’s Hate Crime Hoax:

Two or more pages on the ADL web site suggests that racist mobs of people were shouting murderous anti-Jewish slogans into the open court room windows at the Judge & Jury during the 1913 summer trial of Leo Frank, & that anti-Semitism was the reason Leo Frank was convicted, Direct ADL and Abraham Foxman Quote:

“Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew.” This was the cry of the furious mob outside the Atlanta courthouse where Leo Frank, a Northern Jew, stood trial after his arrest in 1913 for a murder he did not commit. Anti-Semitism hung heavy in the courtroom as Frank was found guilty and sentenced to death. On the 95th anniversary of the Lynching, Abraham Foxman wrote an Op-Ed published on the ADL web site claiming people were shouting “Kill the Jew” into the open windows of the courtroom and intimidating the Leo Frank trial jury (see: History of the ADL on their main website www.adl.org and Abraham Foxman’s Op-Ed August, 2005).

The Century-Long Anti-Jewish Hate Crime Hoax Uncovered:

If there was even a drop of anti-Semitism leading up to the indictment or during the Leo Frank trial, why is it not mentioned in Leo Frank’s numerous petitions and appeals between 1913 – 1915? Why is it not mentioned in any of the three major local Atlanta newspaper accounts (Constitution, Georgian and Journal) that had teams of reporters inside and outside the courtroom meticulously documenting the events of the trial? Surely, something so noteworthy of a mistrial, disruptive mobs of yahoos screaming bloody racist murder into the windows of the trial’s courtroom, would have been mentioned. This book commended by Abe Foxman is guilty of perpetuating it’s own version of this ADL Hate Crime Hoax.

Frey and Thompson, Chapter 4, The Verdict, Quote:

Through the blistering days of summer the trial unfolded amidst the very real presence of an anti-Jewish mob spirit. The streets were thronged with people demanding the conviction of “the damned Jew.” The crowd, some allegedly armed, applauded, jeered, and laughed through out the trial. Judge Roan had made repeated, but timid, efforts to maintain a semblance of order. Spectators in the courtroom sat directly behind the jurors. The jury could surely feel the palpable presence and sentiment of the crowd. Because of the heat, the windows in the city hall building were open and the heads of people standing in the street were practically level with the sills of these open windows. A group of men sat on the roof of a shed outside the window just ten feet behind the judge and the witness chair. “The mob was breathing vengeance in the very face of the judge and jury.”

In reality, Jews were not historically known in the South for committing such malicious & perverted sex crimes of extreme violence. Italians, Greeks and Russians were European sub-species that were thought to be more prone to crime and were ranked significantly below Jews and Anglo-Saxons. If anything, it would have been infinitely easier to convict the Negro James “Jim” Conley or Newton “Newt” Lee with less evidence against them, than Leo Frank, who was very well connected in the organized Jewish community, especially because he was Atlanta president of the 500 member Jewish fraternal organization B’nai B’rith.

Leo Frank the Serial Pedophile:

Now that the State of Georgia is scanning all legal records of Leo Frank’s trial and appeals, slowly making them available online, the public is soon going to learn about another unpublicized pedophile-rape committed by Leo Frank, one involving a very sadistic twist. More than a year prior to the rape-murder of Mary Phagan on April 26, 1913, Leo Frank raped one of his young child laborers, causing her to become pregnant. She was shipped off to a home for unwed teenage mothers in Ohio. After initially defiling the little girl, Leo Frank descended between the legs of this child, plunged his teeth so rabidly into the inner most region of her thy (adjacent to her genitals), that he permanently scarified her flesh. Luckily she survived to tell of the incident during Leo Frank’s appeals (Georgia Supreme Court Records, 1913, 1914). This revelation of psychopathic perversion is left out of Leo Frank partisan books, because it tends to corroborate the 19 pre-teen & teenage girls, who were former employee’s of the National Pencil Company, that testified under oath at Frank’s murder trial, affirming & sustaining his reputation for behavioral patterns of aggressive sexual predation against little children.

What the authors also left out of this unworthy book is the Mary Phagan murder investigation:

During the Coroner’s Tribunal (late April to May 8, 1913), Leo Frank testified under oath he had never used the bathroom all day on April 26, 1913 – not that he didn’t remember using it, but that he hadn’t used the bathroom at all. Leo Frank also repeatedly swore to an alibi during the official Coroner’s Inquest on Monday, May 5th, 1913 and Thursday, May 8th, 1913, stating that he never left his office after Mary Phagan had arrived & left him alone on April 26, 1913, between noon and 12:20pm. Prior to Leo Frank making these statements at the Coroner’s Inquest, he also gave the exact same murder alibi to Atlanta Police Detective John R. Black and Pinkerton Assistant Superintendent Harry A. Scott on Sunday, May 4th, 1913, while imprisoned in jail.

Meet 14-year old Monteen Stover:

What Leo Frank didn’t know at the time he stated his murder alibi about having never left his office or going to the bathroom, is that another one of his child laborers, one he also temporarily laid off, named Monteen Stover, had come to his office to collect her wages. Stover arrived just minutes after Mary Phagan & found Leo Frank’s office perplexingly empty as she waited between 12:05pm & 12:10pm. When Monteen Stover revealed this timeline incident at the trial, it resulted in Leo Frank completely changing his 4-month-long-maintained murder alibi. About half an hour into Leo Frank’s trial statement, that he had given orally to the jury, he explained where he might have supposedly been & why his office seemed empty during that critical time & in doing so, Leo Frank solved the murder of Mary Phagan…

Grand Jury Indictment of Leo M. Frank:

On Saturday, May 24, 1913, after a two week murder investigation and hearing numerous witnesses testify under oath, the Fulton County Grand Jurors, voted unanimously, 21 to 0 against Leo Frank, indicting him for the murder of Mary Phagan. Several of the grand jurymen were Jews, placing serious doubt about the perpetual cri-de-wolf of anti-Semitism concerning the investigation into the murder of Mary Phagan that led to the indictment of Leo Frank. With all the real instances of anti-Semitism in the world, artificially fabricating instances of it only cheapens the genuine cause against it. And there are no shortages of snake oil salesmen, con artist professors & fear-mongering activists who make a living off of inventing anti-Semitic hate crime hoaxes (read my review of Leonard Dinnerstein’s ‘The Leo Frank Case’).

What’s the real reason the Grand Jury indicted Leo Frank? The authors of this book failed to mention the full extent of who testified & who did not testify at the Grand Jury hearings, so that the reader would be unable to draw their own conclusions about what was revealed & why the Grandjurors likely voted unanimously against Leo Frank. With this list of witness names, the average researcher could easily read what these same witnesses later restated at the Leo Frank trial in the summer of 1913. Moreover, Jim Conley did NOT testify at the Grand Jury hearings, but Monteen Stover DID, & this among other things is the crux of suppression by these authors: Monteen Stover, the girl who defended Leo Frank’s character & ironically cracked his alibi wide open.

State of Georgia vs. Leo M. Frank:

The 4-week long Leo Frank murder trial began with its first witness on the afternoon of Monday, July 28, 1913, with Newt Lee the last to testify that afternoon session. Day after day, witness after witness, the curiously intriguing details of State’s witnesses were conveniently left out of this book, “The Silent and the Damned”. Such utter contempt for legal history is inexcusable.

By Monday, August 4, 1913, Jim Conley testified at the trial for three grueling days, stating he found Mary Phagan dead adjacent to the metal department’s bathroom entryway (State’s Exhibit A, Key item #9), that is after Leo Frank allegedly confessed to assaulting Phagan in the metal room when she refused to have sex with him. Leo Frank’s legal defense dream team – made up of the best legal minds in all of Georgia – spent 3 days using every trick in the book to try and trip up & impeach this Negro accessory-after-the-fact to the murder of Mary Phagan, but Rosser & Arnold were unable to do so & what they actually did was foolishly draw out of Conley information about Leo Frank’s predilection for oral sex and escapades with Atlanta prostitutes at the factory. Conley also described “accidentally” walking in on Leo Frank during assignations no less than two times, but these cowardly authors felt it necessary to leave out all the relevant details that would paint the scandalous culture of what was really going on at the factory.

Jim Conley Admits to Writing the Murder Notes:

The murder notes found by the dead body of 13-year-old Mary Phagan dumped in the rear of the basement, describe her going to “make water” (urinating) at the only place she would have gone to the bathroom in the factory: Namely, the metal department’s bathroom, it would have been the only bathroom Phagan would have used when she left Leo Frank’s office on the second floor, because there was no accessible bathroom on the first floor of the NPCo, & the toilet in the rear of the dark-dingy basement was racially segregated for “Negroes Only”. Leo Frank forgot to jimmy open the locked door on the first floor lobby leading to the office space of former Clark Woodenware company, that had departed on January 17, 1913, because the police found the door locked when they arrived, as the owner of the building later said it should have been. Ultimately, Leo Frank had boxed himself in as the culprit via his deviously racist plot to frame the old, tall, dark-complected, balding, married Negro, with no criminal record, Newton “Newt” Lee, known colloquially at the factory as the nightwatch.

The Tight and Narrow Solution:

On the second floor of the National Pencil Company, Mary Phagan worked in the metal department, colloquially known by factory employees as the metal room, & her work station was right next to the entryway of the men’s toilet by a matter of a few foot steps. Leo Frank to reach the toilet would literally walk by Mary Phagan’s work station each day from the time she worked there between the spring of 1912 to Monday, April 21, 1913, when she was temporarily laid off because of a shortage in brass sheet metal. The authors never adequately explain how Leo Frank could tell the police, the coroner and trial jury that he did not know his employee Mary Phagan’s name, given the fact she worked under his tutelage for 55 hours a week registering her timecard on the punch clock, over 53 weeks, logging more than 2,700 hours of labor sticking little rubber erasers into short-thin brass banded tubes wrapped around the edges of pencil bases.

Leo Frank’s Delicious ironic Admission on the Witness Stand:

The most significant omission by Nancy Thompson Frey & Robert Seitz Frey are the clear-cut details about Leo Frank’s trial testimony playing out to the solution of the Phagan murder mystery, after Leo sat down on the witness stand, during the last week of his 29-day trial.

Leo Frank made a loquacious & mind-numbing unsworn 4-hour statement to the Jury on Monday, August 18th, 1913. Leo Frank changed his sworn murder alibi that he maintained for 4 months about having never left his office around the time when Phagan arrived & departed.

According to Leo Frank, when did Mary Phagan arrive in his business office on Saturday, April 26, 1913?

During the late morning on Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank told Atlanta Police officers that Mary Phagan came into his office about a few minutes after twelve (12:03pm). On Monday, April 28, 1913, he told Atlanta Police that Mary Phagan arrived in his office “between 12:05 and 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm”. At the Coroner’s Inquest he changed the time to 12:10pm to 12:15pm. At his trial when he gave his statement to the jury it was then that Leo Frank changed the time for the 4th time, saying Mary Phagan came into his office between 12:12pm & 12:17pm. We might ask as 21st century observers are these four critical time inconsistencies given by Leo Frank, about the time he saw Mary Phagan in his window front second floor office, the behavior of an innocent man? And why did Phagan’s moment of arrival continue to slowly inch away minute by minute, as the days, weeks and months went by, from his original stated meeting time of about 12:03 pm?

In the shocking climax of the most sensational murder trial in Southern history, Leo Frank mounted the witness stand & told the 13 men sworn to try his fate – twelve jurymen and judge Leonard Roan – the real reason why Monteen Stover found his office empty. Leo Frank reversed himself, and told the jury that he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom in the metal room to account for Monteen Stover’s testimony!

Leo Frank said (direct quote on witness stand):

Now, gentlemen [of the jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock [on Saturday April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [12:45 p.m.] when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [on the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of my office [located at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room located at the back of the 2nd floor]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and can not tell how many times nor when he does it (Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, Brief of Evidence, 1913, p. 186).

The Solution to the Murder of Mary Phagan:

Leo Frank made this newfangled explanation as to why Monteen Stover found his second floor office empty between 12:05pm & 12:10pm, which was timeline wise, precisely when the bludgeoning, rape & strangulation of Mary Phagan occurred in the metal room according to case the prosecution built at the trial. When 200 plus people packed in the courtroom heard Leo Frank’s “unconscious” metal room bathroom admission, they likely involuntarily shivered & felt cold chills down their spines, especially after hearing about the wound on the back of Mary Phagan’s head, blood on the floor near the metal room bathroom & the discovery of her broken off hair with dried blood on it, found tangled around the solid iron handle of Robert P. Barret’s lathe in the metalroom.

Forensic Evidence:

Descriptions of the 5 inch wide blood stain & spatter smeared with haskolene diagnal to the metal room’s bathroom door discovered by child laborer Magnolia Kennedy, was most significant, because Jim Conley testified he found Mary Phagan dead near the metalroom bathroom (toilet) entryway. However the lynch pin that brought it all together was State’s Exhibit B, Leo Frank’s deposition to Atlanta police on Monday, April 28, 1913, where he stated Mary Phagan came into his office between 12:05 and 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm, that created an unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidence, when Leo Frank finally explained his absence during that exact same time. On Sunday, April 28, 1913, Leo Frank told police that Mary Phagan came into his office at 12:03pm, which essentially gave them both enough time to reach the metal room before Monteen Stover arrived.

The significance of it all was in the critical first 48 hours of the Mary Phagan murder investigation that Leo Frank first stated Mary Phagan arrived at 12:03pm and then “12:05pm to 12:10pm, maybe 12:07pm” based on his own wall clock, before he got wind of Monteen Stover, who he never mentions seeing that tends to result in Leo Frank threading the eye of the needle.

Case Closed:

Leo Frank admittedly put himself precisely in the metal room where all the forensic evidence indicated Mary Phagan had been killed, at the exact same time he told the police that Mary Phagan was alone with him in his office. Leo Frank got caught in an inescapable lie, because it is impossible to be at two locations at the exact same time.

Flash Backwards Dateline Sunday morning, April 27, 1913:

Mary Phagan had been found dumped in a mutilated state at the back section of the National Pencil Company’s factory cellar, her 4’11” tall & 107lbs of dead-weight had apparently been dragged 140 feet face down from the basement elevator shaft located at the front section, across the hard earthen floor, leaving a clearly visible trail according to the first responders who arrived before 4:00 a.m on Sunday morning, April 27, 1913. The Coroner theorized she likely wasn’t murdered in the basement, because the dirt encrusted scratches all over her face didn’t show any signs of bleeding or scabbing. Physicians performing autopsies on Mary Phagan, later pointed out back in 1913, that once the heart stops beating, the body ceases the healing process. Thus the Mary Phagan Autopsy revealed she was already quite dead when she had been dragged from the elevator shaft and that the basement was probably not the initial scene of her bludgeoning, rape & strangulation. It was a simple CSI forensic revelation Leo Frank never anticipated when he ordered his pet janitor Jim Conley to remove the cadaver of Mary Phagan from the metal room and dispose of it at the rear of the basement. The police realized that if Mary Phagan likely hadn’t been killed in the basement, there were only two other likely options, the first floor lobby which was the highest traffic place of the factory, or the metal room at the rear of the second floor where conspicuous forensic evidence had been found. It should be noted again: The door to the large office space of the Clark Woodenware company on the first floor had been locked since January 17, 1913, when they departed & there was no other forensic evidence found around the lobby. This caused the police to put their entire focus on the 2nd-floor’s metal room located opposite to Leo Frank’s office. Pinkerton detective McWorth an agent of Leo Frank mysteriously kept discovering forensic evidence three weeks after the murder in the factory lobby: A bloody stick and Phagan’s pay envelope, but the police had scowered that area, so how could they have missed those items? McWorth was relieved of his duty on suspicion of planting evidence, but those items were entered into evidence by the defense at the trial.

Student’s of the case are left wondering why did Leo Frank go to such unusual lengths to coverup the crimes origins, by having Phagan moved 2 floor down & then attempt to frame his Negro nightwatchman Newt Lee with “death notes” hand written by Conley via dictation, but not bother to meticulously clean up Phagan’s bloodied and broken off hair tangled around the handle of the bench lathe in the metal room?

Why didn’t Leo Frank make any real effort to clean up the 5 inch wide fan-shaped stain of Mary Phagan’s blood on the floor, located front diagonal of the doorway to the bathroom (toilet) inside the metalroom?

Was this evidence planted to frame Leo Frank, who was not under suspicion when it was found, “in some kind of an ugly anti-Semitic conspiracy” or was the bespectacled Leo Frank lacking in prescience, therefore rendering him simply myopic?

Perhaps intelligent book smart people, sometimes lack basic common sense. Ironic is the fact that in 1913, only 1 in 100 murders was ever solved, and here was one that was almost too easy for the Atlanta Police, Detectives, State Physicians and Hugh Dorsey.

The Trial Exhibits Obfuscated by the Authors:

Looking back on the case nearly a century later, the significance of everything comes to light when one looks closely at Leo Frank’s Defendant’s Exhibit 61 and State’s Exhibit A (Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913), precise architectural floor plans, revealing the only set of bathrooms (toilets) on the 2nd floor, were located inside the metal room at its inner-most corner. Thus providing a commonsense conclusion that Leo Frank ineluctably incriminated himself well beyond a reasonable doubt with his “unconscious” bathroom visit contradicting himself, and thus making his murder conviction a no-brainer for any jury & every level of the United States appeals courts in 1913 or 2013, and now again 2019 and the years henceforth.

Robert Seitz Frey is a Racist Anti-Gentile Domestic Jewish Extremist:

There was no anti-Semitic conspiracy to convict Leo Frank, he looked the jurymen straight in their eyes and calmly said that essentially, he might have “unconsciously” been at the prosecution’s theory of where the original crime scene was located, at the exact time the murder was theorized to have occurred. In the 20th or 21st century, what would any other jury, possessing average intelligence, have done in the same situation? The verdict of guilt was not difficult or challenging by any stretch of the imagination when based upon commonsense.

As a whole, Leo Frank’s trial statements to the jury were, generally speaking, filled with unmitigated and incomprehensible blunders that left most legal minds dumbfounded & flabbergasted in 1913, & today.

Still Left Unanswered by Leo Frank’s Defenders:

Most people wonder, how could Leo Frank claim to the Atlanta police that he was in his second-floor business office alone with Mary Phagan between 12:05 pm and 12:10pm on April 26, 1913, and also simultaneously be “alone” in the metal room bathroom located down the hall as he told his Trial-Jury on late afternoon of Monday, the 18th day of August-1913?

Looking back in time as 21st century time travelers of the imagination, the Leo Frank trial was without a shadow of a doubt no nail biter, it is certainly not a “cold case” today, & it definitely was not some kind of collective anti-Semitic framing against the “Yankee Jew” by racist Southerners, but instead, what it was, is the first time in Southern history that a legitimately indicted man, made an admission at his own murder trial, that unequivocally amounted in tantamount to a murder trial confession. So perhaps we could ask legal scholars: How many times has something this dramatic happened in American jurisprudence? But of course Frank never confessed, he would always maintain the verbal belief in his own innocence. Except when he evaded the question of his guilt or innocence on the last day of his life according to the vigilance committee which amounted to state-sanctioned lynch party.

Leo Frank’s Confirmation of his Guilt?:

The Titanic Interview of 1914

Six months after Frank’s August 25 conviction, on March 9, 1914, the Atlanta Constitution published an authorized pre-written Q & A interview of Leo Frank conducted while he was incarcerated at the jailhouse during his appeals, where he once again admitted, as he had done on August 18, 1913, stating again that he was using the metal-room’s bathroom, unknowingly at the exact same time Monteen Stover was waiting alone for him to collect her pay inside his temporarily empty office between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm, thus again contradicting his deposition to Atlanta police that Mary Phagan had been with him inside his office, alone with him, between 12:05 pm & 12:10 pm, maybe 12:07 pm, on Saturday, April 26, 1913.

This is why I encourage people to read the official Leo Frank trial brief of evidence (1913) contained within the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records, to learn specifically why this married dynamic duo, Nancy C. Thompson and Robert Seitz Frey, can not be considered — by any stretch of the imagination — reliable, honorable and trustworthy to retell this epic saga.

So what do you call people who intentionally obfuscate facts, evidence & testimony, to transform a perverted sexual predator and child killer into an innocent & noble martyr of anti-Semitism?

Buy this book today & fact check it against the official legal documents of the Leo Frank Case.

You might also consider buying this book now on Amazon and use it as a teaching guide to show precisely how the well organized Jewish community works in concert with individual Jews to regurgitate their racist anti-Gentile narratives for the purpose of waging a viciously ugly culture and racewar against American Southerners, European-Americans in general and all of Western Civilization.

—–3——

The Atlanta Constitution

Monday, March 9, 1914

[Leo Frank] Stated That He Was Willing to Reply to Any Questions That Might Be in the Mind of the Public, and Asked to Answer Any Such That Might Be Propounded to Him.

[LEO FRANK] TELLS HOW [JAMES] JIM CONLEY COULD HAVE SLAIN GIRL [MARY PHAGAN] AND ESCAPED DETECTION

[Leo Frank] Asserts That Very Fact That He Admitted He Had Seen Mary Phagan on the Day of the Murder, Thus Placing Himself Under Suspicion, Was Proof in Itself That He Was Innocent of Crime.

Probably the most interesting statement yet issued by Leo M. Frank in connection with the murder for which he has been sentenced to hang, is one that he has furnished to The Constitution in the form of a series of answers to questions which were propounded to him bearing on the case.

These questions were prepared by a representative of The [Atlanta] Constitution who visited [Leo] Frank at the Tower last week.

“Ask me any questions you wish,” [Leo] Frank told the reporter.

In accordance with that, the reporter wrote out a list of questions which, he asserted, comprised the most salient points the prosecution had brought out against him, and to each of these [Leo] Frank has given an answer.

Here Are Questions.

Following are the questions which were asked:

Question 1. Why did you [Leo Frank] let Newt Lee [the National Pencil Company factory nightwatchman] off that afternoon [on April 26, 1913, at about 4:00 p.m.], the first time he was ever off, as [Newt] Lee testified [on July 28th, 1913]?

Question 2. The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your [window-front second-floor business] office [of the National Pencil Company], and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Question 3. You [Leo Frank] say the wording of the [death throe] notes is plainly that of the negro [James “Jim” Conley]. Isn’t it possible that the negro [James “Jim” Conley] could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you [Leo Frank]?

Question 4. Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you [Leo Frank] had given Mary Phagan’s pay to [her friend and co-worker] Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy [on Friday, April 25th, 1913 at about 6:00 p.m.] that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day [State Legal Holiday, Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913]?

Question 5. You [Leo Frank] said you did not know Mary Phagan. [James Milton “John”] Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Question 6. You [Leo Frank] said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor [in the machine department “metal room” located at the back section of the National Pencil Company] on Monday [April 28th, 1913] following the murder [of Mary Phagan on April 26, 1913]. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Question 7. Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone [National Pencil Company’s Senior Executive and Treasurer Sigmond] Montag about getting a detective, instead of [assistant superintendent Herbert] Schiff? Why did you [Leo Frank] telephone [Herbert] Schiff, and not [Sigmond] Montag?

Question 8. Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest [presided by Paul V. Donehoo from Wednesday, April 30, 1913 – Thursday, May 8, 1913] you gave one time [on May 5th, 1913, and May 8th, 1913] for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial [on August 18, 1913] you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Question 9. Did you [Leo Frank] not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Question 10. At first [on Sunday morning, April 27th, 1913], you [Leo Frank] said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Question 11. Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Question 12. Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Question 13. When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Question 14. Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Question 15. When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Question 16. If a girl were never seen[…]

LEO FRANK ANSWERS LIST OF QUESTIONS

Continued From Page One.

[…]alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Question 17. Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Frank’s Answers.

Question 1—Why did you let Newt Lee off that afternoon, the first time he was ever off, as Lee testified?

Answer—Lee had been employed at the factory for but two weeks. Almost any experience, therefore, he would have had at the factory would be for the “first time.” I had on Friday, April 25, received and accepted an invitation from my brother-in-law, Mr. Ursenbach, to go to the ball game on Saturday afternoon. Accordingly, on Friday night I had directed Lee to report early on Saturday, because I thought I would be absent from the factory Saturday afternoon at the ball game. But on account of the bad weather and the accumulation of work, I called off this engagement at about 1:25 p. m. Saturday when I was home to lunch. Lee, however, reported early, as directed, but as I had changed my plans and was to remain at the factory, there was no need for Lee to remain there unless he so desired. I didn’t insist on his leaving. I told him he could go if he chose, and he availed himself of this permission. It was a matter of perfect indifference whether he stayed or went, but I did insist on his returning not later than 6 o’clock to the factory.

Question 2—The last thing known about Mary Phagan’s movements being her visit to your office, and the body being found in the basement of the factory in the same building as your office, what is your explanation of how she could have been murdered without your knowing anything about it?

Answer—Mary Phagan may have been attacked as she went down, at the foot of the steps, in such a way that she was unable to make any outcry at all. In fact, that is my theory.

On the other hand, if she did make an outcry there were many things that would have prevented my hearing it. The head of the stairway leading from the second to the street floor was about 70 feet from where I was sitting at my desk. Half way down the stairway was a pair of heavy doors, which were kept closed. There was a thick flooring, plastered underneath, between me and the floor below. Also, the elevator stood at the level of the second floor. Then the two windows in my outer office were open, allowing the noise from the street to come in. Moreover, I was immersed in my work, and, of course, was not anticipating anything out of the ordinary. Please note that Lemmie Quinn was in my office talking to me within three to five minutes after Mary Phagan left my office after receiving her pay envelope from me.

Question 3—You say the wording of the notes is plainly that of a negro. Isn’t it possible that the negro could have written only the substance, in his own way, of the notes dictated by you?

Answer—The very idea of writing notes and putting them by the dead body to divert suspicion is even more characteristic of a drunken, ignorant negro than the language itself. Emphatically no. The whole dictation theory is silly. In the first place, no intelligent white man would do such a thing, either by writing himself or having another write for him. He knows that handwriting is a sure clue. It is inconceivable that any white man could have dictated those notes and it is equally as unbelievable that he could be so foolish as to leave them on the body. In the second place, please remember that it was I and none other who gave the detectives the information by which they were able to disprove Conley’s assertion that he could not write. It was I who, as soon as I heard that Conley was denying that he could write, gave the information where they could find a contract signed by him for the purchase of a watch on the installment plan. The detectives followed this clue, secured the contract, and forced Conley to admit that he could write.

Question 4—Evidence was offered to show that on previous occasions you had given Mary Phagan’s pay to Helen Ferguson when the latter called for it. Is it true that you told Helen Ferguson on the day preceding the tragedy that Mary Phagan would come for her pay the following day?

Answer—I told Helen Ferguson no such thing. She did not testify that I so told her. Even the state has never contended that she so testified. There is no basis for such an idea.

Helen Ferguson never got even her own pay, much less that of another, from me. I was not the paymaster. No evidence was presented at the trial to show that I was. In fact, Helen Ferguson herself testified that previous to Friday, April 25, she never asked for or received an envelope from me. She said April 25 was the first time, and she is mistaken about this. Please note that the two girls who worked in her department with her testified at the trial that they were with Miss Ferguson when she drew her money from Mr. Schiff, and that in their company she left the factory immediately and started for home. There was no mention of asking Schiff, who was paying off, or Frank, who was not at the cashier’s window, for another person’s envelope. The two girls who so testified were Miss Hicks and Miss Kennedy. Schiff, who actually paid off Helen Ferguson, swore to this fact at the trial.

Calls Gantt A Liar.

Question 5—You said you did not know Mary Phagan. Gantt says you had talked to him about her. How do you explain this?

Answer—What Gantt said was an unqualified falsehood. I never knew that Gantt knew Mary Phagan intimately until Halloway told me after the murder of Monday, April 28, 1913, when I went to the factory in the afternoon at about 3 o’clock.

Question 6—You said you examined the alleged blood spots on the second floor on Monday following the murder. Evidence was offered to show that the blood spots had been chipped up before you could have come to the factory. How do you explain this? Was anyone with you when you examined these alleged blood spots?

Answer—Messrs. Schiff, Stelker, Sigancke, Quinn, Darley, Campbell and Halloway were with me when I examined the alleged “blood spots.” The police had taken up only a few chips from the spot, and left the remainder of the spot, which I examined. They didn’t take away the whole spot, nor did they take up the floor.

Question 7—Wouldn’t it have been the natural thing to telephone Montag about getting a detective, instead of Schiff? Why did you telephone Schiff, and not Montag?

Answer—When I first phoned Mr. Schiff it was Mr. Montag’s lunch hour, and I couldn’t get Mr. Montag on the phone. Mr. Schiff was at the factory office, and, so, when Mr. Montag gave his permission to Mr. Schiff to hire detectives, he could more readily arrange an interview and receive detectives than I, who was at my residence, could. Mr. Schiff was my assistant, and naturally, I had him do this work for me. I don’t see the materiality of this question. The material point is that as soon as I could I had a detective employed and put upon the case to ferret out the crime.

Question 8—Is it true that at the coroner’s inquest you gave one time for the arrival of Mary Phagan at your office, at the trial you gave another time? If true, how do you explain this conflicting testimony?

Answer—This is not true. At the coroner’s inquest I said: “She got there—of course, it is pretty hard to give the exact time—but I venture to say it as near as possible, between 12:10 and 12:15.” At the trial I said: “Miss Hattie Hall finished the work and started to leave when the 12 o’clock whistle blew, she left the office and returned, it looked to me, almost immediately, calling into my office that she had forgotten something, and then she left for good. . . . To the best of my knowledge, it must have been from 10 to 15 minutes after Miss (Hattie) Hall left my office, when this little girl, whom I afterwards found to be Mary Phagan, entered by office and asked for her pay envelope.”

Let me call attention, at this point, to the fact that if I had been guilty, nothing on earth would have induced me to have revealed the fact that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan in my office a few seconds before the prosecution claims I killed her. Would the man who killed Mary Phagan have freely and voluntarily stated that he saw her and talked with her just a few moments before she was supposed to have been killed? Would not every instinct of self-preservation have caused him to conceal the fact that he had seen her at all? Why, if he were guilty should he disclose the fact that he had seen her, especially when no one had seen him talking with her, and it could not be proved that he had seen her? If I had a guilty conscience would I have freely and voluntarily stated, as I did, that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan? And if I did not hesitate to declare that I had seen and talked with Mary Phagan (which was the big, important fact), what object could I have had in misstating the time that I saw her?

I stated simply the truth, and the whole truth. I gave the time to the best of my recollection.

Proof I Am Innocent.

Question 9—Did you not at one time say you were not out of your office at 12:05 o’clock? Did not Monteen Stover say she was there at that time and you were not in? Did you not then change your statement? If so, what is your explanation?

Answer—I said I was not out of my office at 12:05. I always contended that, and I still assert it. I never changed. I may have stepped to the toilet for a minute or two, but one couldn’t remember such an occurrence. I am not fully satisfied as to the accuracy of Miss Stover’s testimony. She is but a child, and may not be accurate.

Let me say, as I did in answer to the preceding question, that I always stated freely and voluntarily that I saw and talked with Mary Phagan in my office. I gave her her pay envelope. She asked me if the metal had come, and when I told her no, she departed. I did not see her alive again. Now, if I had anything to conceal about the meeting between Mary Phagan and myself, if I had been the guilty man, would I not have denied from the first that I had ever seen her at all? Would I ever have come forward freely and voluntarily and stated that I had seen and talked with her? Would I not have tried to conceal that fact? Let me say that if some other man were accused of a murder, and he were to come forward voluntarily and state, without any compulsion, that he had seen and talked with the dead person just a few moments before the killing was supposed to have occurred, I would say that the man had a clear conscience and was not guilty. For, if he had been guilty, common sense would have made him hide and conceal the fact of seeing the dead person just before the killing.

Question 10—At first, you said the time clock slip punched by Newt Lee was correct, did you not? Later, you said there were discrepancies. Is this not true? If true, how do you explain the contradiction?

Answer—At first, I said the slip was all right, as no successive numbers were skipped. Mr. N. V. Darley looked at the slip, also, and corroborated this. Later, when I studied carefully the time at which the punches occurred, I noted three lapses of one hour instead of a half hour, as they should have been. The whole matter of Lee’s punching the time clock, while a physical fact, is immaterial. There is one thing, however, that is material in this matter. When I took out of the clock the time slip that Lee punched, I wrote on it, ‘Taken out at 8:26 a. m.’ to identify it. Several of those about me at the time saw me write on the slip. This was a complete identification of this slip. Mr. Dorsey admitted, in open court, that he rubbed it out. He says he thought a detective wrote those words on it to identify it.

Question 11—Did you not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory, that you were in haste to leave? Did you not, when she had gone, resume your seat, and begin writing? If so, how do you explain what you said to Mrs. White?

Answer—I did not tell Mrs. White to hurry from the factory. I told her that if she did not wish to be locked in with the two boys at work on the fourth floor, that she would have to leave then, as I was going home to lunch, and was going to lock up the factory. I did not mention haste. As I followed her down the stairs at an interval of less than a minute, I could not have been writing as she passed, and was not writing. I may have been placing papers together preparatory to leaving, but I had nothing to wrtie [(write) -sic]. The record of the case bears me out in this.

Question 12—Why did you refuse to see Jim Conley before the trial, when he offered to face you?

Answer—Conley came to my cell surrounded by detectives who had put themselves on record as being antagonistic to me. They were not hunting the truth; they were trying to fasten the crime on me. No matter what I would have done, if I consented to the interview, they would have used it against me. At the trial the negro never looked at me once, though my eyes were glued on him the whole time.

Question 13—When you made your statement before the police, didn’t you fail to mention the visit of Lemmie Quinn? If so, why?

Answer—To the police I did fail to mention Lemmie Quinn’s visit. It slipped my mind, though it was a circumstance favorable to me. But his statement, and my own, that he called and saw me in my office that day, has never been questioned. As soon as Quinn mentioned to me the fact of his visit to me the day of the murder, it refreshed my memory, and I at once remembered it.

Question 14—Did you ask him not to say anything about his visit until you had consulted your lawyers? If so, why?

Answer—No. I told him to tell the truth. Not knowing exactly what the police were claiming (at that time), and not being a lawyer, I did not know what value Quinn’s visit could have as evidence, and I told Quinn I would report the fact to my lawyers.

Character Witnesses.

Question 15—When your character was put in issue, why did you not insist upon your attorneys cross-questioning the witnesses who testified against your character?

Answer—My experience with Dalton, the first character witness against me, had given me and my attorneys fair warning what to expect from the so-called character witnesses. Here was a man upon whom I had never laid my eyes before he took his seat in the witness chair, and of whom I had never heard, and yet he swore solemnly to acts and doings with me that were utterly and absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation. Was not this fair warning to me and my attorneys of what they might expect from the other so-called character witnesses? There was nothing that they could truthfully testify against my character, but I had been duly warned that I could not rely upon their speaking the truth.

My lawyers decided that if they cross-examined those character witnesses, it would allow these hostile people to tell all they heard about me in the way of vile slander—not what they knew. They felt that these witnesses had been loaded with slanders about me just for the purpose of telling them on cross-examination. They did not want to give them the chance to repeat malicious tales against me which they had no opportunity to investigate or answer.

Question 16—If a girl were never seen alive after she had been known to visit a certain man’s office, and if that girl was found the next day in the same building as that office—dead, murdered—would you call it persecution for that man to be arrested and vigorously prosecuted?

Answer—If the only facts known were what you state, then it would not be surprising that such a man should be arrested, and if subsequent developments indubitably pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime, that he should be vigorously prosecuted. But if, after this man’s arrest, a negro brute is discovered, who admits a knowledge of the crime, who admits writing the very notes found by the body, though, at first, steadfastly denying he could write at all, and who, after repeated visits and promptings from the detectives and the solicitor, finally invents a preposterous and unbelievable tale, putting the crime on the man arrested in order to save his own neck—then I would say that the further prosecution of this man is persecution, indeed!

Question 17—Would you call it prejudice for that man to be suspected?

Answer—Not prior to the time that another was shown to have had the opportunity to commit the crime.

Article Transcription End.

* * *

NOTES:

The Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9th, 1914 issue is 10 pages and features a ground-breaking article, titled: 17 Questions and answers by Leo Frank about the case against him. This important interview published on behalf of the people of Georgia concerns the public’s most common curiosities about the case of Mary Phagan and is thus required reading for students of the Leo Frank case who seek earnestly to learn the thought processes, reasons, and arguments within defendant Leo Frank’s mind and what was attempted to be propounded by the defense at his trial.

The interview deals with questions concerning Leo Frank’s attempt to frame his nightwatchman, Newt Lee, for the murder of Mary Phagan because on Sunday, April 27, 1913, Leo Frank removed Newt Lee’s timesheet from the punch clock and noted it had been punched perfectly every half hour as it was suspected to be, but the next day, Monday, April 28th, 1913, Leo Frank told police the timesheet was missing 4 punches (giving Newt Lee enough time to go home and put a bloody shirt in his burn barrel. As there were no widespread garbage removal services in Atlanta, 1913, people burned their garbage in ashcans or burn-barrels. The planted shirt with blood on it was made to appear that Newt Lee forgot to burn the bloodied shirt he was wearing during the commission of the crime and thus further incriminate him), I believe this item might be Defendant Exhibit A, 1913 in the BOE (brief of evidence). This clumsy racially tinged framing attempt by Leo Frank had sharply turned suspicion upon himself when in fact he was not under suspicion at the time, despite him being a person of interest during the investigation.

Atlanta Constitution, March 9th 1914, provided groundbreaking revelations about the murder case of Mary Phagan, because Leo Frank reconfirms that he was in the metal room’s bathroom using the toilet to answer a call of nature or to urinate, at the exact same time Monteen Stover claimed to be waiting in his (Frank’s) business office for him between 12:05 pm through 12:10 pm. This time segment was critical because is also the exact same time Leo Frank told the police on Monday morning, April 28th, 1913 (State Exhibit B, BOE) that he was alone with Mary Phagan in his business office

More excellent books and reading on the subject include:

The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913 – The first neutral book written on the subject. Very interesting read.

The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (Available here on www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand-niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial of Leo Frank. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is well worth reading and it is a refreshing change from the endless number of Jewish and contemporary books turning the Leo Frank case into a neurotic anti-Semitism obsessed tabloid controversy.

American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson. Tends to be biased in favor of Leo Frank and his legal defense team, this document provides an abridged version of the Brief of Evidence, leaving out some important things said and details when it republishes parts of the trial testimony. Be sure to read the closing arguments of Luther Zeigler Rosser, Reuben Rose Arnold, Frank Arthur Hooper, and Hugh Manson Dorsey. For a more complete version of the Leo M. Frank trial testimony, read the 1913 Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence and you can see what was left out.

The argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank. Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial. Only 18 Libraries in the world have copies of this book. This is an excellent book and required reading to see how Dorsey in sales vernacular ‘closed’ a Jury of 12 men and Judge Leonard S. Roan.

Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. the State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of Evidence. Extremely rare, only 1 copy exists, and it is at the Georgia State Archive.

Three Major Atlanta Dailies:

The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Tabloid Yellow Journalism), The most relevant issues center around April 28th to August 27th, 1913.

Atlanta Constitution Newspaper: The Murder of Mary Phagan, Coroner’s Inquest, Grand Jury, Investigation, Trial, Appeals, Shanking and Lynching of Leo Frank Case in the Atlanta Constitution Newspaper from 1913 to 1915.

WWW: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915

The Atlanta Georgian newspaper covering the Leo Frank Case from April though August 1913.

WWW: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913

Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April 28, 1913, through till the end of August 1913, pertaining to the Leo Frank Case:

WWW: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913

Leo Frank confirms he might have been in the bathroom located in the metal-room at the exact time Monteen Stover said his office was empty:

WWW: Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9, 1914, Leo Frank Jailhouse Interview

Tom Watson

Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian Newspaper (1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917) and Watson’s Magazine: Watson’s Magazine, January 1915, Watson’s Magazine, March 1915; Watson’s Magazine, August 1915, Watson’s Magazine, September 1915, and Watson’s Magazine, October of 1915 (Available here on www.Archive.org).

Tom Watson’s best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in August and September 1915. Watson’s five major magazine works written collectively on the Leo M. Frank topic, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with the superb reasoning of a genius lawyer. These five 1915 works are absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the Leo M. Frank Case. Tom Watson’s magazine publications surged from 30,000 to 100,000 copies, when it was announced he would be writing on the Leo Frank case. These magazines are extremely rare and very difficult to find.

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., Digital Source www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source www.Archive.org

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., Digital Source: www.Archive.org

Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian Weekly Newspaper

The archive of Tom E. Watson Digital Papers, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, contains the full collection of Jeffersonian Newspapers:

http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson

Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers, around and across the Internet, attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson’s analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair.

Watson’s analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that have been censored for more than 100 years. Tom Watson discusses the Leo Frank Case in his Newspapers from 1914 to 1917.

For a nearly complete selection of Tom Watson’s Jeffersonian newspaper articles related to the Murder of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank Case. Available on www.Archive.org The Internet Archive.

Tom Watson Brown, Grandson of Thomas Edward Watson

Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank, By Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982.

Georgia Supreme Court Archive:

Leo Frank Trial and Appeals Georgia Supreme Court File (1,800 pages). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

Remember this website address: https://www.LeoFrank.Info

We have moved the Leo Frank Research Library to a new location, please visit: https://www.LeoFrank.info for more information.

By Oscar Turner

Audio-Book: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean (1987), Read by Oscar Turner and released to the public on April 26, 2016 (103rd anniversary when Phagan was slain). Tune-In Below (Link Provided):

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 1) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 2) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 3) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 4) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 5) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 6) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 7) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 8) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 9) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 10) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 11) ::

Murder Of Little Mary Phagan (Chapter 12) ::

Further Listening About the Phagan-Frank Case:

Please open your ears for Oscar Turner’s 2015 reading of Tom Watson’s five (January, March, August, September, and October of 1915) booklets on the period account of the Leo Frank saga. Direct link: https://www.leofrank.org/five-extraordinary-leo-frank-case-audiobooks-created-in-2015-from-watsons-magazines-1915-jan-march-august-september-and-october/

Debunking the embarrassingly obvious con games which will be used to maliciously exonerate Leo Frank.

The assertion by Steve Oney in his 2003 magnum opus (And The Dead Shall Rise), and 2019 article (Atlanta Magazine, July 2019) of bite wounds on Mary Phagan’s body, being real material evidence which tends to exonerate Leo Frank, was originally a 1964 hoax, published by fake news Globe-Trotting journalist Pierre van Paassen in his final book “To Number Our Days”. Van Paassen was quite the prolific writer during his adult life as a foreign correspondent and author, between the 30-year span of 1934 and 1964, when he penned a considerable number of books. Modern analysis and fact-checking of his voluminous work tend to reveal the common tendency of him being an unreliable self-promoter and colorful huckster who served biased interests, using pushy or showy tactics.

Is Pierre Van Paassen Credible?

International Journalist-Author Pierre van Paassen is far from a credible source, he claimed in his autobiography to have seen on several occasions a poltergeist black dog which would magically appear and disappear at will. To make things even more unbelievable, he describes witnessing this same ghost dog using invisible, supernatural powers, which caused his own German Sheppard police dog to have a heart attack, and die on the spot (Days of Our Years, 1939, pages 248-251).

The first clue Pierre van Paassen is not a reliable source of factual information, comes from reading his 404-page book (‘To Number Our Days’, 1964), filled from beginning to end with egomaniac and fantastic tall tales, defying basic common sense, logic, and reason.

Pierre van Paassen stated in his recollections that while visiting Palestine, he dressed himself up in blackface as a minstrel-like character to feign being a Mohammedan, rubbing burned cork on his white face, and supposedly fooling Arab leadership staff managing the Dome of the Rock, so he could enter the famous golden-domed mosque in Jerusalem, (because only Muslims are ever allowed to enter Dome of the Rock). As if anyone would have been fooled by a White man smearing pitch-black make-up all over their face and thus looking like a racist clown, in an attempt to successfully pretend to be a faithful Muslim adherent and tricking learned-followers of the Islamic faith into believing him too. Doubtful such an outlandish and insolent approach by a White Canadian, who was not a Muslim, would have worked to hoodwink anyone.

The Tip of the Iceberg

His demonic killer ghost dog story and minstrel Mosque caper, cited above, and his now-famous ‘Mary Phagan Bite Wound Hoax’ are just a few examples of the incongruous juxtapositions which are found, literally by the dozens, throughout his books, and give the impression of being wildly unrealistic and too flawed to believe, but he presents them as factual recollections.

Origin of the 1964 Mary Phagan Bite Wound Hoax

Van Paassen first invented and promoted the Phagan bite wound legend in his last book “To Number Our Days” and since then Leo Frank defenders have been restating it in the mainstream media and through book publishing houses as part of their multigenerational arguments that Leo Frank was innocent by the weight of historical consensus.  However, none of the Atlanta daily news articles or autopsy reports from the state medical examiner of the day, mention bite marks on Mary Phagan’s shoulders or neckline, even pro-Frank sources, never mention the alleged teeth mark-wounds before 1964 (51 years after she was raped and strangled by Leo Frank in 1913).

Mary Phagan’s body was examined by police, the undertaker Mr. Geesling and several physicians for 2 days after she was found dead in the National Pencil Company factory on April 27th, 1913, and she was even exhumed from her grave on May 5th, 1913 (she was buried Tuesday, April 29th, 1913 and removed from her grave on May 5th before being reinterred afterward) for another autopsy, but none of these reports mention bite wounds on her body. Moreover, there was no conspiracy by state government officials in Atlanta Georgia to cover-up a black man’s guilt in the White cultural separatist Georgia of 1913, as many of Leo Frank’s defenders and coreligionists have suggested otherwise.

Harry Golden and Leonard Dinnerstein Mainstream the Mary Phagan Tooth Wound on Flesh FlimFlam in the 1960s that’s almost 6 generations in the making with at least 60 years worth of authors repeating the legend as a kind of truth

The repetition of this false assertion about bite indentations on Mary Phagan’s throat and shoulder area started spreading bay academic parasites with publications from Jewish activist Harry Golden in his book, A Little Girl is Dead, 1964 (page 53) and Leonard Dinnerstein, who did his substandard Ph.D. dissertation (based largely on academic fraud accusing the South of an anti-Semitism which did not exist) about the Leo Frank case in 1966. 

Dinnerstein also promotes the bite wound photograph bamboozle in his pseudo-scholarly book, The Leo Frank Case, 1968. Admittedly by objectivity, it’s an effective fraud to promote for tricking ordinary people into believing Leo Frank was framed, railroaded and wrongfully convicted. The average person is not going to read the dry pages of legal records and reports connected with the postmortem of Mary Phagan. And in the full sweep of legal records not a single mention of violent bite wounds anywhere on Mary Phagan exists in the 3,000 pages of trial and appeals records with regards to Leo Frank’s criminal debackle. Nor is there even a single mention that Leo Frank had X-ray photographs conducted on his teeth, by anyone, anywhere before 1964. Leo Frank never mentioned in any of his interviews with the Atlanta press organs or his high powered attorneys that we know of about X-rays and bite indentures on Phagan’s Dermal-skin layers and exterior. How can justice prevail for Mary Phagan when such fallacious legends are presented as true by so many members of Leo Frank’s rehabilitation team over multiple generations.

Summary of To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen

Pierre van Paassen, weaves together a lifetime of phantasmagorical personal stories, ostentatious tall tales, and deliciously embellished memories as a travel correspondent in his epic memoirs, ‘To Number Our Days’ (405 pages), published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Ground Zero for one of the most popular Leo Frank hoaxes.

Historical Notability

Pierre van Paassen (February 7, 1895 – January 8, 1968) is most often cited post-1964, for his unverifiable claim that in 1922, while he was investigating the Leo Frank case files at the Fulton County Superior Courthouse of Atlanta, Georgia, he made an incredible discovery of a sheaf containing human flesh X-rays of Mary Phagan and dental photographs of Leo Frank from 1913, suggesting it was “concealed evidence” which unequivocally proved Leo Frank was actually innocent of raping and strangling Mary Phagan.

The second clue Pierre Van Paassen is not a reliable source of factual history regarding the Mary Phagan murder, comes from the fact that when he published his book (4 years before he died at the age of 73 in 1968), he was supposedly recollecting memories from 1922, about 7 years after the Leo Frank affair concluded at the end of a hangman’s noose, and there was a separation of about 42 years of time, between the alleged event in 1922, and the publication of his book in 1964. How reliable is the memory of a man nearly 70 years old writing about something from his 30s? Any court expert or psychologist familiar with the reliability of human memory — especially concerning when someone near the end of their lifespan, reports something after more than half a lifetime had passed — can tell you the veracity is highly suspect and unreliable after decades transpired from the initial incident, especially in a politically charged case like this one. Whether his memory was good or not, the claim of bite wounds on Mary Phagan’s neck and shoulders does not comport with any of the autopsy reports. It is difficult to believe the Doctors who performed autopsies on Mary Phagan would intentionally omit bite marks from their findings and testimony at the trial of Leo Frank.

Frankites: Leo Frank’s Defenders Promote the Mary Phagan Neck and Shoulder Bite Wound Hoax

Several of the most notable Leo Frank partisan authors (Steve Oney, Harry Golden, Leonard Dinnerstein, Elaine Marie Alphin, Jeffrey Paul Melnick, and others) cite Pierre van Paassen’s alleged earth-shattering discovery as ineluctable proof that posthumously exculpates Leo M. Frank. These are people with academic credentials who are willing to promote falsified evidence which was invented half a century after the sex-murder occurred. This is what history is up against, a tribalist stacking of the deck and accusations of Anti-Semitism if you point it out! We now have more or less the grand library of everything notable said about the 1913 truecrime case up until 2019 by partisans and detractors of Leo Frank.

Leo Frank’s Detractors Debunk the Bite Wound Hoax

Leo Frank detractors have described Pierre van Paassen’s newfangled evidence as a deeply incredulous fraud, some dubbing it, “The Mary Phagan Bitemark Hoax”, because they believe this dubious material was never mentioned in any of the well documented legal proceedings concerning Leo Frank’s trial and appeals between 1913 to 1915 (see Leo Frank’s Georgia Supreme Court appears which include the trial brief of evidence), nor was the subject ever broached or taken seriously by legal scholars, during efforts to obtain a posthumous pardon for Frank between the years 1982 to 1986. Moreover, many history students of the Phagan-Frank legal proceedings, say, Pierre van Paassen is the only person who ever claims to have seen these non-existent medical images. As observers, we might ask: why would those who were supposedly trying to frame Leo Frank, put such obviously vindicating evidence among his official legal records, when they were never cited at any time between the full sweep of his legal travails between 1913-1915, and whatever happened to these alleged items after he supposedly reviewed them?

The excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen’s discovery of photographic medical evidence, pages 237 and 238:

The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: “Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.” The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch…

Source: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case):
WWW: http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen

The Scholarly Debunking of the Mary Phagan Bite Wound Hoax

In reality, X-ray technology was in its infancy in 1913, and it was never possible to X-ray bite marks on the skin in 1913 or today (ask any X-ray technician). Vehicles had virtually no safety features to speak of in 1922, so the chances of someone walking away “without a scratch” from a head-on collision is a bald-faced lie. Was Leo Frank’s appeals attorney named “Harry Alexander” (false) or Henry Alexander (correct)? Leo Frank was not lynched before he had his trial. He was tried and sentenced to death by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan on August 26, 1913. The hanging took place nearly two years later on August 17, 1915. Leo Frank went on trial in Atlanta, not 125 miles away in Milledgeville where the hoaxer suggests the trial was scheduled.

Strangely enough, even though the Mary Phagan bite wound hoax has been thoroughly exposed as a fraud by modern research scholars and forensic scientists, 21st-century efforts to exonerate Leo Frank with fabricated evidence in the popular culture, continues, with Jews and to a lesser extent, politically correct Gentile liberals, citing the disingenuous rumors created by Pierre van Paassen as evidence of Leo Frank’s wrongful conviction.

Further Reading:

Golden, Harry, A Little Girl is Dead, 1964 and The Lynching of Leo Frank 1965 (Same book)
https://archive.org/details/ALittleGirlIsDeadByHarryGolden

Leonard Dinnerstein (born May 5, 1934 – died January 22nd, 2019) completed his Ph.D., Dissertation in History on the Leo Max Frank Case (1966) for the Political Science Department of Columbia University. One of the central themes of his dissertation is Anti-Semitism was responsible for railroading an innocent Jewish man, who was convicted for the murder of Mary Phagan in 1913. Dinnerstein’s dissertation became the species for his book, “The Leo Frank Case”, which would go through a number of editions in its evolution beginning in 1968 when the first edition was released to the public. In 1991, he released a revised edition which included information on the newfangled Alonzo Mann story and posthumous pardon of Leo Frank which ensued.

Dinnerstein, Leonard (1968), Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community, American Jewish Archive Journal, November 1968, Volume 20, Number 2: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity This is the major scholarly source of Leonard Dinnerstein’s academic dishonesty about mobs of anti-Semites outside the Fulton County Superior Court, who were allegedly screaming murderous and terrorist threats directly at the judge and jury, through the open windows of the building.

Dinnerstein, Leonard (1966) Leo Frank Case Ph.D. Dissertation in History for the Political Science Department of Columbia University: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation. The central thesis of his disseration is anti-Semitism was behind the suspicion, indictment, conviction, rejected appeals and hanging of Leo Frank.

Dinnerstein, Leonard (1968), The Leo Frank Case Book: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein

Van Paassen, Pierre (1964), To Number Our Days (see pages 237, 238 about the Phagan-Frank medical evidence hoax): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen

The Leo Frank Case Georgia Supreme Court Case Records Archive (1,800+ pages contains Leo Frank’s trial brief and appeals to the state supreme court of Georgia). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914

* * *

A review of the Leo Frank case could reopen old wounds—and exonerate an innocent man

STEVE ONEY

MAY 31, 2019

In early May, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that he will reopen one of the most notorious criminal proceedings in American history: the trial of National Pencil Company superintendent Leo M. Frank for the murder of child laborer Mary Phagan. The review will be supervised by the newly formed Conviction Integrity Unit, a panel created to look into cold cases. Former Governor Roy Barnes will serve as a consultant. Standing at Howard’s side during a news conference, Barnes said, “There is no doubt in my mind that we’ll prove that Leo Frank is not guilty.”

If the judgment of time is the deciding factor, the unit will indeed find Frank innocent. In the years since the April 26, 1913 murder, a consensus has emerged about what happened in Frank’s downtown Atlanta factory that day: The killer was Jim Conley, a black janitor who was the state’s star witness against Frank. While researching And the Dead Shall Rise, my 2003 book on the case, I too reached the same conclusion. This is not, of course, how Georgians first saw it. An all-white jury accepted Conley’s word over that of Frank, his Jewish boss, and the judge sentenced Frank to die by hanging.

The spectacle of a Jim Crow–era court relying on a black man’s testimony to convict a white man of murder was remarkable, but the nation remembers the case because of what happened next. Following extensive coverage in the press and appeals that ran all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Governor John Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence in June 1915. Shortly thereafter, a group of men from Marietta, Phagan’s hometown, abducted Frank from the Georgia prison farm in Milledgeville, drove him to Marietta, and lynched him. Several months later, the Ku Klux Klan, which had disbanded following Reconstruction, reestablished itself at a cross-burning atop Stone Mountain.

The Frank case opened a deep vein of anti-Semitism in America, unleashing furies that remain part of the national psyche. (The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to combat those furies.) As a result, any discussion of the subject is difficult. Emotions about it run strong, and, while a majority now believes the factory superintendent was guiltless, others resent what they regard as a knee-jerk acceptance of that fact. Howard’s investigators will need to keep this in mind if they are to vindicate Frank. The affair pitted Jew against Gentile, white against black, rural against urban. Regardless of the outcome, not everyone will be happy.

Attempts to clear Frank’s name are nothing new. In 1982, Atlanta lawyers Charles Wittenstein and Dale Schwartz sought a posthumous pardon for him. The application was based on the revelations of 83-year-old Alonzo Mann, who as a 14-year-old boy was Frank’s office assistant. In a deposition, Mann swore that on the day of the murder, he entered the factory lobby and saw Conley carrying Phagan’s body. Conley, Mann said, threatened that if he mentioned this to anyone, he’d kill him.

Mann’s story was not only dramatic, but it seemed to give the lie to a central part of Conley’s testimony. Conley asserted that Frank murdered Phagan, who worked for pennies an hour on the factory building’s second floor, after she resisted his sexual advances. He said that Frank then recruited him to cover up the crime and that he transported the body by elevator directly to the factory basement, where the police discovered it the next day. According to Conley, he was never in the lobby with the body. Mann’s statement refuted that.

Powerful as this was, the application for a posthumous pardon—which was opposed by the Phagan family and relatives of Hugh Dorsey, Frank’s prosecutor—failed. The Georgia Pardon and Paroles board announced, “After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively.” The board felt Conley may simply have lied about the route he took to get the body to the basement and that Frank could still have committed the murder.

In 1986, Wittenstein and Schwartz reapplied to the board. This time, they sought an apology from Georgia for its failure to protect Frank from the lynch party. The board agreed, but the factory superintendent’s conviction remained intact.

Other efforts to vindicate Frank have proven just as futile. The first came in 1922 when Pierre Van Paassen, a young Dutch journalist working at the Atlanta Constitution, became obsessed with the story. While going through Dorsey’s files, he discovered what he determined to be a telling discrepancy between photos of bite wounds on Phagan’s body and Frank’s dental x-rays. The girl’s murderer, he determined, could not have been the factory superintendent: The photos and the x-rays did not match.

The Constitution, capitulating to pressure from Atlanta Jews fearful of stirring up anti-Semitic sentiments, refused to print Van Paassen’s findings. Not until the 1964 publication of his memoir, To Number Our Days, was the evidence that Van Paassen thought absolved Frank made public. But still, no action was taken.

In 1943, Atlanta lawyer Arthur Powell, in a book entitled I Can Go Home Again, asserted that he possessed material exonerating Frank, yet once more Georgia’s Jewish community argued against revealing the information, which was said to implicate Conley. “I accept full responsibility for advising Judge Powell to destroy the memorandum,” wrote fellow Atlanta lawyer Max Goldstein. “It would have merely resulted in renewing the agitation.”

Again and again, in other words, those hoping to prove Frank’s innocence have hit a wall, which leads to the question hovering over the latest attempt: Why is this time different from others?

The involvement of Roy Barnes could provide that difference. The former governor is a native of the Marietta area, and his wife is a granddaughter of a Frank lynch party member. Barnes has a deep understanding of the stain the affair has left on Georgia. He wants to confront the troubled past and bring the truth into the open.

The question is how. Conley disappeared from the public record after a 1941 gambling arrest. There is no death certificate for him. Dorsey’s dossiers on the case, which included the dental x-rays that intrigued Van Paassen, were lost or destroyed sometime during the 1960s following the suicide of his son, James, the family archivist. Even the trial transcript is missing.

There is, however, one promising source: a study conducted by Conley’s lawyer, William M. Smith. The morning after Phagan’s murder, the police found two strange notes by her body. Conley swore that Frank dictated the notes to him in hopes of directing suspicion at another black factory worker. The story was improbable, but in the heat of the moment, the jury and most Georgians believed it. Following the trial, Smith examined the notes, comparing them to other written and spoken remarks by Conley. He determined that the notes, contrary to Conley’s testimony, were not dictated by Frank. They feature Conley’s syntax, misspellings, and slang. According to Smith, they are Conley’s compositions.

Smith’s study of the notes is on file at the Georgia Archives. It persuasively points the finger at Conley, it played a role in Slaton’s commutation decision, and it convinced me. Dusted off and presented anew, the study could establish Frank’s innocence as not just a matter of opinion but of fact. Howard and Barnes should start there.

This article appears in our July 2019 issue.

Direct link: https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/did-leo-frank-kill-mary-phagan-106-years-later-we-might-finally-find-out-for-sure/

COBB COUNTY, Ga. (CBS46) — The tragic case of Leo Frank and Mary Phagan is well known for the inflammatory nature of the trial. Now, the case is being revived as the Fulton County District Attorney’s office begins its new conviction integrity unit.

Frank was accused of killing 13-year-old Little Mary Phagan in 1913. Mary was found raped and strangled in the factory where she worked. Frank, Mary’s superintendent at the factory, was reportedly the last person to see Mary alive.

His trial roiled the nation with hatred stoked by race, gender, and religion. He was convicted and sentenced to death, but the governor commuted his death sentence. Enraged, a mob of people kidnapped Frank from prison and lynched him in Mary’s home town of Marietta.

Over the years, many people have doubted whether Frank was guilty of the crime. But there’s one person who believes the right person was convicted, and that’s Mary’s namesake—her grand-niece, Mary Phagan-Kean.

“It won’t go away,” Phagan-Kean told CBS46 Special Assignment reporter Sally Sears. She says she learned of her family’s history when she was 13—the same age Mary Phagan was when she was murdered.

“My teacher Mr. Henry said, are you, by chance, related to that little girl that was murdered in Atlanta?” Phagan-Kean says. She took the question right to her father. “Is it true there’s another Mary Phagan? He stood back, white as he could be. And he said ‘who told you that? You go back to Mr. Henry, say you are related,” she explains.

The infamous trial and later lynching of Leo Frank are captured in the neat files in her bedroom. Yet a century of doubt about Frank’s guilt is here, too, and in the Georgia archives where the Leo Frank story lives on. The archives hold photographs the New York Times staged but never published, showing an alternate theory of the murder. The staging shows a model of Mary, pushed down a hole into the basement, knocked unconscious. In this theory, Mary is attacked and strangled by Leo Frank’s accomplice Jim Conley, who was the star witness against Frank.

Mary Phagan-Kean recoils from the photos. Convinced of Leo Frank’s guilt, she wondered if her own research into the case was worth publishing. “I have her DNA in me. When I have questions about it, I’ll go to Mary’s grave and ask if I should get involved. And I always receive a sign that tells me yes,” she says.

Phagan-Kean’s confidence has led her to protest the District Attorney’s decision to re-examine the case. “It would be very sad if they exonerate Leo Frank without the Phagan family involvement. But then I will push the world to know we were not involved in it,” she explains.

Watch the Video, from CBS 46:

https://www.cbs46.com/news/family-of-little-mary-phagan-reflects-on-case/article_afc4d14e-a1c0-11e9-ac36-2fe60be4d8ac.html

By Sally Sears

FULTON COUNTY, Ga. (CBS46) — As the Fulton County District Attorney’s office plans to re-examine the case against Leo Frank in the 1913 murder of Mary Phagan, there are doubts that the right man was convicted. But Mary’s namesake, great-niece Mary Phagan-Kean, disagrees. “Leo Frank was a sexual pervert. He raped her and murdered her,” she says.

Neat files in her home hold reminders of the many women who testified against Frank because of his inappropriate behavior toward them. “A lot of the women who testified against him. There were 20 former employees. They left,” she explains.

When CBS46 special assignment reporter Sally Sears asked why the women left, Phagan Kean said “Leo Frank did immoral and inappropriate and improper things to them,” and added Frank was accused of misconduct before Mary’s murder.

Crime Scene Investigator and founder of the Cold Case Investigative Rearch Institute Sheryl McCollum wonders about the testimony against Frank. “I think you can get one or two people to lie for you. I don’t know that you are going to get 20, to tell the same thing over and over and over,” she says.

CBS46 dug through the records of the trial at the Georgia State Archives. Among the documents are the notes that were found on Mary’s body. “The notes are bothersome for so many reasons,” says McCollum. The language is sexual in nature, where the words “play”, “lay”, and “love” connotate sexual intercourse, even rape.

Perhaps even more bothersome are notes written by the lawyer who represented Jim Conley, the star witness against Leo Frank. Those notes show the lawyer may have doubted his own client, and that he felt guilty for potentially convicting an innocent man. “Undo the wrong that I have helped to do,” the note reads.

CBS 46 Video: https://www.cbs46.com/news/archives-reveal-troubling-details-of-leo-frank-case/article_7a7c0d8a-a1c1-11e9-affd-f7bd97f5c5ee.html

Submitted by a student of the Leo Frank case, correspondent M. C., edited by James Woodward.

Comments About The Fake News Media And Leo Frank’s Guilty Verdict For The Murder Of Mary Phagan:

Below is the full text of Georgia’s Augusta Chronicle “opinion editorial” piece mentioning DA Paul Howard’s “Conviction Integrity Unit” (C-I-U hereafter) and its intention to review Atlanta’s 1913-15 Frank court case, conviction and appeals. Frank’s August 25, 1913 conviction has not been set aside, overturned, revoked or nullified in the last 106 years that his impressively sized cult of personality followers have tried to subvert justice for Mary Phagan.

Frank’s 3-11-1986 pardon, seven decades after his death, at the request of ADL attorneys Dale Schwartz, Charles Wittenstein, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, AJF (Atlanta Jewish Federation), and AJC (American Jewish Committee), did not exonerate the convicted sex-strangler, contrary to popular belief at the time. For decades, many people incorrectly believed the pardon had exculpated Frank of the Phagan rape-murder. In a 2017 article about the Leo Frank case for Salon, academic Ingrid Anderson ironically wrote in an article, What the Leo Frank Case tells us about the Danger of Fake News, that in 1982 Frank was “cleared of all charges”. It’s astonishing how numerous in the academy there are lazy activists who don’t do their due diligence before making public their unsupportable claims, or simply know the facts but intentionally commit academic fraud for a political agenda.

In summary, the editorial piece is worth reading, this article is worthy for a titillating tidbit about a long-ago editor of the Augusta Chronicle, Thomas W. Loyless, but aside from that, it’s mostly just letter-to-the-editor tripe of the politically correct type and emotional activism in favor of Leo Frank’s vindication. Sadly the anonymous author is pushing ethnic warfare, blood libeling the Gentiles of the South with insupportable claims a “rising tide” of anti-Semitism at the time, and “crazed mobs” who ultimately lynched Leo Frank. The men who hanged Frank were far from being a “crazed mob”, quite the opposite, they were some of the most prominent and well-educated men in Georgia, who were seeking justice for the dead little girl of a poverty-stricken family. Frank was executed in no frenzy or scene of tumult, but what might be best described as in a calm, clinical and orderly fashion, as eye-witness reports recorded the event and sustain how it proceeding was well-organized.

During the height of confederate times, Jewish-American lawyer Judah Benjamin’s face was on their separatist currency. Hardly a reflection of rampant or widespread anti-Semitism as other modern Leo Frank activists have pushed about the South during the era and generations prior, or thereafter. Before and after the war of the states, there was no rampant or widespread anti-Jewish sentiment at the time. We Jews enjoyed one of the highest qualities of life in the centuries of our residence in this section of the US and prospered in all manner of business. Georgia being the new South’s regional epicenter of trade, mercantilism, manufacturing, and all the other labor industry-related buzzword, Jews continue to prosper even in current events.

Chances are the Leo Frank trial and appeals will not get a fair hearing, but will be done in an air of political bullying and cronyism. Former Gov. of Georgia Roy Barnes is a consultant to district attorney Paul Howard’s C-I-U. Barnes is said in some media reports as being the impetus for the C-I-U and wanting the Leo Frank case to be the reason for its creation. Dale Schwartz was talking about a new plan to get Frank exonerated during the second rededication of the Leo Frank historical lynching plaque, in August of 2018.

Since 4-26-2019 when C-I-U was announced in a PR release, Barnes has been going around like a glib media ham promoting the hate crime hoax about so-called Antisemitic mobs of people screaming life-threatening terrorist threats at the Phagan murder trial jury. This legend that has best been described by many other students of the Leo Frank Case, as “The Leonard Dinnerstein Hoax” was first promoted in the academy by quack-scholar Dr. Dinnerstein (b. 5-1-1934, deceased in 1-22-2019) who put the hoodwink in a scholarly paper he wrote for the peer-reviewed AJAJ American Jewish Archives Journal, Nov. 1968, V.2, N. 20.

This popular anti-Semitic scam – “The Leonard Dinnerstein Hoax” – will likely be used as the pretext to exonerate Frank in 2020.  Of course nowhere in Leo Frank’s state and federal appeals documentation does it mention crazed mobs of anti-Semites making loud and deadly “or else” threats at the jury, judge, etc…  None of the daily news reports in the local press of Atlanta during the Frank trial prints any such claims which are being amplified today. Some of the newspapers show they were leaning pro-Frank during the trial. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution did not report Leo Frank’s admission to the jury he might have unconsciously visited the men’s toilet stall to explain why Monteen Stover discovered his office empty at the time Phagan was being raped and murdered. Outside the courthouse, the street was crawling with journalists. At the Frank trial, journalists were even given their own table flanking the jury’s bench box. There is even an image of the photojournalists standing together as they pose, published in one of the daily reports.

They really should pass some laws making the promotion of hate crime hoaxes illegal. 

The other scam being pushed at present (Atlanta Magazine, July 2019) is by quack-journalist Steve Oney who is claiming there were teeth marks all over Mary Phagan.  None of the autopsy reports or newspaper records on the Frank trial mention any such evidence. This scam was first introduced into the public by the self-promoting hoaxer Pierre van Paassen in 1964, on page 278 of his book “To Number Our Days”. Henceforth, Frank’s advocates have been pushing the false rumor of teeth marks on Phagan’s neck and shoulder, to trick people who don’t know anything about the Phagan rape-slaying, into believing Frank got a raw deal.

I look forward to seeing what other scams are used to make the exoneration of Leo Frank possible.

* * *

Article Begins:

One of the most shocking court cases in Georgia’s history is getting a second look.

And somewhere, a former Augusta Chronicle editor must be smiling.

The editor is Thomas W. Loyless. We say “somewhere” because he died in 1926.

The case is the infamous Leo Frank murder case. He died in 1915. And he wasn’t supposed to.

Though the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles posthumously pardoned Frank in 1986, he never was exonerated.

That might change. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced in May that an eight-member panel he assembled called the Conviction Integrity Unit will revisit the case. Former Gov. Roy Barnes, a consultant on the case, told the Marietta Daily Journal that he believes a judge could rule on the case as early as next year.

What’s Augusta’s connection to all this? To get to Augusta we’ll have to go through Atlanta first.

Frank was found guilty in Atlanta in 1913 in the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, an employee at a pencil factory Frank managed. Frank was Jewish. A disgusting rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout the state, and the testimony of a janitor named Jim Conley, were huge factors in deciding Frank’s guilt.

The trial consumed newspapers’ front pages, and appeals went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 1915, Georgia Gov. John Slaton commuted Frank’s death sentence to life in prison. It enraged so many Georgians that when Slaton’s term as governor ended, he and wife fled the state and didn’t return for a decade.

In August 1915, a mob abducted Frank from prison in Milledgeville and imposed its twisted sense of justice by lynching Frank from a tree just east of Marietta.

At the time of the lynching, Chronicle editor Loyless was on a business trip in New York. When word reached him about Frank’s death at the hands of a crazed mob, he wired an editorial to The Chronicle that couldn’t be more clear about the damage wrought by this sick act:

“There can be but one answer to this latest assault upon the authority and integrity of Georgia. The decency and civilization of our state must, at last, assert itself, or else pull up stakes and quit. It is a straight-out issue between law and anarchy; let Georgians choose for themselves.

“This climax was inevitable as we permit incendiary publications to set Georgia aflame. Tom Watson has cost Georgia more than 10,000 good and true men can rebuild in 20 years.”

The “incendiary publications” Loyless referred to were edited by politician Thomas E. Watson. His publications The Jeffersonian and Watson’s Magazine brazenly convicted Frank in print and howled for his execution. We won’t even quote his comments directly. Watson’s bigotry is just that nauseating.

But sometimes a newspaper has to stand against the tide of public opinion to fight for what’s right. No other editor in Georgia – perhaps no other editor in the United States – thundered more loudly than Augusta’s Loyless in his cries to bring Leo Frank’s lynch mob to justice:

“Perhaps in time, we shall be able to wipe out the stain of this horror…. But the crime against the individual is of less importance and consequence than the crime committed against the state and against civilization.”

Loyless’ sincere defense of justice even spurred Frank’s wife, Lucille, to write a letter to The Chronicle publicly thanking the paper for its fair coverage.

The case remained a sore spot with Loyless for a long time afterward. In December 1915, when rival Augusta Herald editor Bowdre Phinizy jokingly greeted Loyless with “Hello, Tom Watson,” Loyless drew a revolver and pulled the trigger point-blank against Phinizy’s stomach. All that saved Phinizy’s life was that the gun’s hammer fell on an empty chamber.

In coming months we envision another chamber will be full – a court chamber, crowded with people eager to hear the new examination of an old case. Leo Frank will get a fairer examination in 2019 that circumstances denied him in 1913.

We hope it provides an appropriate end to a century-old saga that Augusta’s Tom Loyless never could put to rest.

origin: https://www.augustachronicle.com/opinion/20190713/editorial-frank-case-recalls-editors-stand-for-justice

June 26, 1913.

MARIETTA, Ga. (CBS46) — The infamous rape and murder of Little Mary Phagan still invites questions… and outrage. In April, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced plans to investigate old criminal convictions.

Phagan’s convicted killer Leo Frank was named.

Anything connected with the Leo Frank Mary Phagan rape and murder case seems to inflame Georgians. Bringing up this century old case makes her namesake wonder. Why now?

“They have no respect for my family. They are telling intentional mis- representations of the case,” said Mary Phagan- Kean. She knows by heart the murderous tale of her grandfather’s little sister. In 1913 the 13-year-old Little Mary Phagan’s raped and strangled body was found in the basement of the pencil factory where she worked.

Superintendent Leo Frank was convicted and sentenced to death, but a doubting Georgia governor commuted his sentence. A furious mob of Mariettans kidnapped Frank and lynched him from an oak tree.

For a century the crimes of murder and lynching with overtones of sexism, race and Anti Semitism fascinated the public. Mary Phagan Kean kept track of every failed attempt to overturn the conviction.

“They constantly say if he were tried today he would not be convicted. Okay. So that’s their rationale. Yet he had 13 appeals. Denied all the way to the Supreme Court.”

The District Attorney is advertising for a director of this new unit. Some are pushing for fresh looks at other controversial cases, but none are likely to stir the public passions quite like the century old questions still lingering about Leo Frank and Mary Phagan.

Video Source:

Please visit the article’s origin, watch the video and sign up for CBS 46 News:

Fresh look at old wounds: Infamous rape, murder of Little Mary Phagan By Sally Sears, June 26, 2019
https://www.cbs46.com/news/fresh-look-at-old-wounds-infamous-rape-murder-of-little/article_385d1024-9862-11e9-9d0a-bf91b233a334.html

Police & Fire

Georgia’s First Ever Conviction Integrity Unit Formed In Fulton

The Atlanta child murders will be the first case to be examined by the unit, which is still searching for a director.

By Tim Darnell, Patch Staff

Apr 26, 2019 12:42 pm ET

ATLANTA — Fulton County D.A Paul Howard Jr. announced on Friday the creation of Georgia’s first ever conviction integrity unit (CIU). The unit, Howard said, will investigate claims of actual innocence to determine whether new evidence or facts may prove a convicted defendant didn’t commit the offense.

“The CIU will investigate claims of actual innocence or wrongful convictions by convicted defendants who have already been through their trial and appellate processes,” Howard said. “The CIU will review cases in which there is new factual, physical, or forensic evidence. The unit will also review cases in which there is relevant evidence that went untested at the time of trial or some other new evidence that a person was convicted wrongfully.”

Howard has already announced that the Wayne Williams/Atlanta child murders case will be the first to undergo an in-depth review by the newly formed unit, which is still searching for its director.

Read more:

Tip Line Set Up For Atlanta Child Murder Leads
PHOTOS: ‘The Atlanta Child Murders’ Premieres Saturday
Police To Retest Atlanta Child Murders Evidence
Cases must fall into at least one of these four categories to be considered for re-investigation.

Alleged misconduct on part of prosecutor/law enforcement officer
Forensic testing of relevant evidence

Sentence modifications due to nature of offense/defendant’s lack of criminal history
Cases determined to warrant review in “interest of justice”

Howard said D.A’s offices across the U.S. are creating CIUs to re-examine questionable convictions and to guard against future conviction error. “We believe prosecutors can and should be leading the charge to ensure the public has confidence in criminal convictions,” Howard said. “The many proven cases of wrongful convictions and their known causes demonstrate that more needs to be done to guard against such errors.

“Conviction Integrity Units must investigate and remedy wrongful convictions, and they must also establish policies and procedures to learn from the errors identified, so the criminal justice system is strengthened.”

Please Visit Patch.com for the Source of this Article and Sign-Up to their newsletter: https://patch.com/georgia/atlanta/georgias-first-ever-conviction-integrity-unit-formed-fulton

July 7th 2019 Update: LOC staff responded and agreed to remove the anti-Gentile Blood Libel from their Library of Congress Website.

We were able to get this 106-year-old racist Jewish Supremacist, bigoted anti-Black, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Southern, anti-Gentile Blood Libel Trope removed from the Library of Congress Website:

The 1915 Leo Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the U.S.

+ = + = +

July 4th 2019

Dear Library of Congress Staff,

On your Library of Congress website page about the Leo Frank criminal affair: “Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank: Topics in Chronicling America” which is presently located at: https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-leo-frank (if the link changes in the future, people can use the search feature at LOC to scan for Leo Frank related subjects and materials). You claim, QUOTE: “The 1915 Leo Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the U.S.”

There can be no doubt the lynching of Leo Frank was extrajudicial and therefore obviously illegal. However he was not lynched because of his religious affiliation, but because he pounded in the face of a little girl, Mary Phagan, until it was swollen purple, before sadistically raping and strangling her to death on April 26, 1913.

Unconstitutional, Gross Conflict of Interest, and Ethics Violation

Georgia Governor John Slaton, who commuted the convicted sex-killer’s August 26, 1913, death sentence, to life in prison, on June 21, 1915, was part-owner of the law firm, “Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips”, which actually represented Leo Frank at his 1913 trial. It was obviously an outlandish violation of ethics and monstrous conflict of interest, it was also very unconstitutional for a Governor to commute the criminal punishment of his own law client.

The said statement is making a very ugly racist and antigentile accusation against non-Jews, essentially saying the Leo Frank case was a flashpoint of their anti-Semitism. You are making biased sweeping statements about the Frank-Phagan true-crime which represent a one-sided narrative and not the whole picture, which should include the Fulton County prosecution’s version of why the defendant Leo Frank was in fact guilty.

Everyone has “Anti-Semitism” Fatigue Now: People Are Sick and Tired of IT.

“Anti-Semitism”: This anti-Gentile canard and trope is a vicious blood libel against European-Americans, African-Americans, Christians, and Southerners of all backgrounds to say Frank’s case and hanging was about religious prejudice.

Invoking Religious Prejudice

These accusations about Leo Frank’s case being a flashpoint of anti-Semitism are coming predominantly from racist (anti-black and anti-white) and anti-Gentile sources, which contradict the legal deliberations by the GA and USA Supreme Courts who ruled in their majority decisions, stating: There were no technical legal violations, his trial was fair, and the defendant received due process of law. The people saying this case was anti-Semitic are predominantly from Jewish individual activists and organized groups like ADL.

Using the Weight of History to Manipulate the Storyline

If enough people say the Frank-Phagan case was anti-Gentile, will you publish it was a flashpoint of anti-Gentilism? Do your editorial decisions come from what the U.S. legal system says or whichever activist team, whether Jewish or Gentile, can organize the loudest voice on the subject?

Georgia Supreme Court Sustains the Judge and Jury’s Verdict in the Trial of Leo Frank

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the evidence at Leo Frank’s trial was more than sufficient for a conviction. Likely because on August 18, 1913, Leo Frank orally spoke to the jury — while he was on the witness seat — that he unconsciously went to the bathroom in the metal room to use the toilet (the scene of the crime), as an explanation why Monteen Stover found his office empty, during the exact same time he formerly claimed to be alone with Mary Phagan (State Exhibit B). Leo Frank basically placed himself directly in the crime scene, when the murder occurred on April 26, 1913.

When Convicted rapist-pedophile sex-stranglers are killed during their prison term does it grandfather in innocence for their crimes of the violent nature?

Just because Leo Frank was kidnapped and lynched while he was in prison does not make such criminal activity anti-Semitic. Leo Frank was not lynched because he was Jewish, he was lynched because he sexually assaulted, strangled-to-death and mutilated a little 13-year-old girl, not because he was considered a White Hebrew.

LOC, you are fanning the flames of ethnic conflict, culture war, anti-Gentilism and racism, by claiming the case was a “flashpoint of anti-Semitism.” Please give both sides of the case an equal hearing, not just the Jewish activist version. “Both sides” means: prosecution and defense, both deserve an equal hearing in the case. Your library is playing partisan politics taking the side of Leo Frank against every level of the United States Legal System. Please reconsider the lack of impartiality of your government library, because it is giving the impression you are unfairly playing partisan politics.

Sincerely, Students of the Leo Frank Case.

* * *

Appendix:

QUOTE

Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank: Topics in Chronicling America

The 1915 Leo Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the U.S. This guide provides resources on the topic of the “trial and lynching of Leo Frank” found in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.

Convicted of the April 1913 murder of 13-year-old factory worker Mary Phagan in Atlanta, Georgia, Jewish-American businessman Leo Frank appeals his conviction for the next two years. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejects Frank’s final appeal in April 1915. On August 17, 1915 a mob of men abduct and lynch Leo Frank near Marietta, Georgia. Leo Frank’s case energized the press, resulting in nationwide coverage of the trial and Frank’s eventual death, and the Frank case is today widely regarded as a flashpoint of anti-Semitism in the United States.

The information in this guide focuses on primary source materials found in the digitized historic newspapers from the digital collection Chronicling America.

The timeline below highlights important dates related to this topic and a section of this guide provides some suggested search strategies for further research in the collection.

Reference Links:

Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank: Topics in Chronicling America
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-leo-frank

Chroniclinig America:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/

Library of Congress Selectively Biased Articles on the Leo Frank Case (notice they do not include any of the local reports from the Atlanta Georgia press, retrieved July 2019)
https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-leo-frank/selected-articles

You’ll notice LOC curators selected articles which were mostly biased in Leo Frank’s favor or portraying him as a victim of injustice. They selected none of the Atlanta newspapers which actually published the testimony from the Coroner’s Inquest in May of 1913, and trial transcript three months hence in August.

“Frank Guilty of Murder”
New-York Tribune (New York, NY), August 26, 1913, Image 1, col. 2.

“Must Die for Crime”
The Mahoning Dispatch (Canfield, OH), February 20, 1914, Image 4, col. 1.

“Striving to Save Leo Frank’s Life”
New-York Tribune (New York, NY), April 17, 1914, Image 2, col. 6.

“Frank Fights for Life”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), October 26, 1914, Night Extra, Page 7, Image 7, col. 2.

“New Trial Denied to Leo M. Frank”
New-York Tribune (New York, NY), November 15, 1914, Page 12, Image 12, col. 3.

“Leo Frank Loses Again”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), November 23, 1914, Night Extra, Image 3, col. 6.

“Is Leo Frank Guilty?”
The Leavenworth Echo (Leavenworth, WA), January 8, 1915, Image 2, col. 3.

“Leo A. Frank Innocent, Says Detective Burns”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), January 8, 1915, Night Extra, Page 7, Image 7, col. 3.

“Leo Frank’s Appeal Bond Is Approved”
The De Soto County News (Arcadia, FL), January 14, 1915, Second Section, Image 14, col. 4.

“Leo Frank Must Die”
University Missourian (Columbia, MO), April 19, 1915, Image 1, col. 5.

“Frank’s Plea is Denied by Prison Commission”
The Mahoning Dispatch (Canfield, OH), June 11, 1915, Image 6, col. 4.

“How Hearst Treated the Leo Frank Case”
The Day Book (Chicago, IL), July 17, 1915, Image 1, col 1.

“Leo M. Frank Dies; Georgia Lynchers Hang Him to Tree”
University Missourian (Columbia, MO), August 17, 1915, Image 1, col. 6.

“Leo Frank Lynched by Mob After Swift Ride to Home of Murdered Mary Phagan”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), August 17, 1915, Night Extra, Image 1, col. 1.

“All Civilized States Should Pity Georgia and Pray for Her”
Evening Public Ledger (Philadelphia, PA), August 17, 1915, Night Extra, Page 2, Image 2, col. 3.

“Leo Frank Hanged by Georgia Mob”
The Graham Guardian (Safford, AZ), August 20, 1915, Image 1, col. 7.

Over the last decade, Amazon has gained a near-total monopoly over Internet book sales, and late last month, we saw the dangerous consequences of such intellectual control as the company suddenly banned dozens of books, many of them of excellent scholarly quality. Apparently, activist organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC had succeeded in pressuring the company to ban those works to avoid any risk that American readers might become “confused” on certain controversial historical matters.

In an extremely ironic twist, several outstanding works of black historiography were banned at the height of Black History Month, presumably because they provided a far more complex and nuanced view of the historical relations between blacks and Jews than the ADL and those in its orbit have long promoted. In particular, one of the volumes published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, which I had only discovered and read last year, seemed to conclusively demonstrate that the circumstances of the ADL’s own establishment a century ago were almost exactly contrary to what I had long believed based upon my standard history books.

Clearly, the ADL was loath to have others discover these same facts, and must be pleased that Amazon has now banned the work in question. I covered this and the various other Amazon book banning in a lengthy article a couple of weeks ago.

Although various people have discussed plans aimed at pressuring Amazon to retract its policy and I have even provided them some suggestions in that regard, it is not at all clear whether a company with a market value of nearly $900 billion will be swayed by a few intellectual malcontents. Indeed, the far greater likelihood is that large numbers of additional books will eventually be “disappeared.”

This small webzine was founded with a mission of providing “interesting, important, and controversial perspectives largely excluded from the American mainstream media.” Therefore, it seems natural to extend this policy to cover books, and I have now added a new Bookstore Section, allowing interested readers to browse and order those texts that Amazon has banned, in most cases directly from the websites of the particular publisher. As a start, I have stocked it with the hundred-odd books banned by Amazon but still available elsewhere on the Internet.

A half-century ago in a totally different America, publishers sometimes trumpeted the fact that their books had been “Banned in Boston,” which vastly increased their sales in many other parts of the country. Since past sales of the banned books had hardly been great, it seems not impossible that the notoriety associated with their removal might actually boost their visibility and purchase sufficiently to render the policy counter-productive.

After all, Amazon eager sells many millions of books these days, including Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and how-to manuals for producing homemade explosives to be used in domestic terrorist attacks. Yet the hundred-odd books now provided in my new system are apparently believed to contain ideas so horrifically dangerous that Amazon has chosen to violate its longstanding policy of intellectual freedom and ban them. Perhaps you should consider purchasing a couple of them and deciding for yourself.

I’m only familiar with a small fraction of the banned books, but can highly recommend the following half dozen:

• The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man, by Nation of Islam Research Group, which I had discussed last year at considerable length in American Pravda: The ADL in American Society.
• The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume One, by the same organization, on the Jewish role in black American slavery.
• The Culture of Critique, by Prof. Kevin MacDonald, on organized Jewish activist movements in America, originally published in 1998 by a leading academic press.
• Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality, by Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, a British historian of science
• The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, by Prof. Arthur Butz, the seminal text of Holocaust Denial
• Stalin’s War of Extermination, by Dr. Joachim Hoffmann, a leading mainstream German military historian, presenting analysis that I had discussed last year in American Pravda: When Stalin Almost Conquered Europe.

The works provided in this Bookstore section may be filtered based on Topic, Author, or Period, and the first of these criteria may provide some intriguing clues as to why they were selected for elimination from among Amazon’s endless millions, along with suggestions of the source of the pressure.

More than two-thirds of the books focus on the subject of “Jews” and over half deal with the Holocaust in particular. Indeed, it appears that the Amazon ban now now encompasses virtually all Holocaust books that substantially deviate from the orthodox framework promoted by the ADL and its allies, which is currently enforced by the threat of fines and prison sentences throughout most of Europe. These include several of the texts I had relied upon for my long 2018 article American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, but which I had fortunately purchased at Amazon before they were banned.

Aside from now providing convenient access to what the Amazon Corporation officially ranks as the hundred most dangerous books in the history of the world, I’m also pleased to be able to resurrect the collected writings of a very prominent conservative writer and intellectual purged from National Review nearly thirty years ago, during the early stages of the Neocon takeover of the conservative movement.

Although the name of Joseph Sobran may be somewhat unfamiliar to younger conservatives, during the 1970s and 1980s he possibly ranked second only to founder William F. Buckley, Jr. in this influence in mainstream conservative circles, as partly suggested by the nearly 400 articles he published for NR during that period. By the late 1980s, he had grown increasingly concerned that growing Neocon influence would embroil America in future foreign wars, and his occasional sharp statements in that regard were branded “anti-Semitic” by his Neocon opponents, who eventually prevailed upon Buckley to purge him. The latter provided the particulars in a major section of his 1992 book-length essay In Search of Anti-Semitism.

Oddly enough, Sobran seems to have only very rarely discussed Jews, favorably or otherwise, across his decades of writing, but even just that handful of less than flattering mentions was apparently sufficient to draw their sustained destructive attacks on his career, and he eventually died in poverty in 2010 at the age of 64. Sobran had always been known for his literary wit, and his unfortunate ideological predicament eventually led him to coin the aphorism “An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”

Following his defenestration from National Review, he spent about a dozen years as a syndicated columnist, while providing a small monthly conservative newsletter called Sobran’s. I’m very pleased to have now made arrangements to republish his complete archives of that period, currently totaling just nearly 650 columns and a half-million words, but probably due to rise as additional writings are located and added.

The obvious similarities between between the purge of a leading conservative writer thirty years ago and the banning of various books from Amazon thirty days ago provides an intriguing glimpse in the underlying nature of American political life, and the forces that can shape its trajectory. Writers, authors, and other intellectuals constitute a minuscule fraction of our society, yet removing or muzzling just a few of these can have enormous influence upon the social and political directions eventually taken by our country.

http://www.unz.com/announcement/banned-by-amazon-and-purged-by-the-neocons

In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.

Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career, and he eventually donated millions of dollars to Jewish groups in desperate hopes of regaining some of his public standing. When the ADL criticized a cartoon that had appeared in one of his newspapers, media titan Rupert Murdoch provided his personal apology to that organization, and the editors of The Economist quickly retracted a different cartoon once it came under ADL fire. Billionaire Tom Perkins, a famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was forced to issue a heartfelt apology after coming under ADL criticism for his choice of words in a Wall Street Journal column. These were all proud, powerful individuals, and they must have deeply resented being forced to seek such abject public forgiveness, but they did so nonetheless. The total list of ADL supplicants over the years is a very long one.

Given the fearsome reputation of the ADL and its notorious hair-trigger activists, there was a widespread belief that my small webzine would be completely annihilated when I first launched my recent series of controversial articles in early June by praising the works of historian David Irving, a figure long demonized by the ADL. Yet absolutely nothing happened.

During the next three months my subsequent articles directly challenged nearly every hot-button issue normally so fiercely defended by the ADL and its lackies, so much so that a friendly journalist soon described me as the “Kamikaze from California.” Yet despite my 90,000 words of text and the 13,000 comments I had attracted, the continuing silence of the ADL was absolutely deafening. Meanwhile, my articles were read more than half a million times, with the following being a list of the most provocative pieces:

• The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving
  June 4, 2018 • 1,700 Words • 570 Comments
• American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II – Who Did It?
  June 25, 2018 • 8,000 Words • 985 Comments
• American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion
  July 16, 2018 • 7,800 Words • 1,637 Comments
• American Pravda: The Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath
  July 23, 2018 • 6,900 Words • 913 Comments
• American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism
  July 30, 2018 • 5,500 Words • 666 Comments
• American Pravda: Jews and Nazis
  August 6, 2018 • 6,800 Words • 554 Comments
• American Pravda: Holocaust Denial
  August 27, 2018 • 17,600 Words • 2,323 Comments
• American Pravda: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
  September 10, 2018 • 11,000 Words • 2,355 Comments

When divine wrath fails to smite the heretic and terrifying enforcers of official dogma seem to have suddenly lost their taste for battle, others gradually begin to take notice and may grow emboldened. Eventually leading pro-Russian and Libertarian websites such as Russia Insider and LewRockwell began republishing some of my most controversial American Pravda articles, thus bringing my factual claims to the attention of broader audiences. After the conclusion of the my series, I began directly ridiculing my strangely timorous ADL opponents, publishing a short column entitled “Has the ADL Gone Into Hiding?” which led the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts to describe me as “the bravest man I know.”

Apparently the combination of all these factors at long last grew too worrisome for the ADL, and stirring from their secret hiding place, its activists have now finally released a short and rather milquetoast response to my material, one which hardly much impresses me. A few days ago, they Tweeted out their column, together with a photo of their new nemesis.

The ADL may boast an annual budget of $60 million and have many hundreds of full-time employees, but its research skills seem sorely lacking. I discovered that they opened their rebuke by denouncing me as a notorious “anti-immigrant activist.” This seems an extremely odd claim given that I have published perhaps a quarter-million words on that contentious topic over the last twenty-five years, nearly all of it online and fully searchable, and my views have never been characterized in that fashion. To cite just one example, my article “California and the End of White America” appeared as a 1999 cover-story in Commentary, the flagship publication of The American Jewish Committee, and surely anyone reading it would be greatly puzzled by the ADL’s description. Indeed, just a few years earlier, I had been a top featured speaker at the October 1994 pro-immigrant protest in downtown Los Angeles, a 70,000 strong political rally that was the largest such gathering in American history to that date.

I was equally unimpressed that they so hotly denounced me for substantially relying upon the writings of Israel Shahak, whom they characterized as viciously “anti-Semitic.” As I had repeatedly emphasized, my own total lack of Aramaic and Hebrew necessarily forces me to rely upon the research of others, and the late Prof. Shahak, an award-winning Israeli academic, certainly seems a fine source to use. After all, famed linguist Noam Chomsky had lauded Shahak’s works for their “outstanding scholarship,” and numerous of our other most prominent public intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Edward Said, and Gore Vidal had been similarly lavish in their praise. Furthermore, one of Shahak’s co-authors was Norton Mezvinsky, a prominent American academic specializing in Middle Eastern history, himself hardly an obscure figure given that both his brother and sister-in-law served in Congress and his nephew later married Chelsea Clinton. And as far as I’m aware almost none of Shahak’s explicit claims about the Talmud or traditional Judaism have ever been directly challenged, while the online availability of his first book allows those so interested to conveniently read it and decide for themselves.

The ADL similarly denounced me for taking seriously the theories of Ariel Toeff, another Israeli academic. But Prof. Toeff, son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, certainly ranks as one of the world’s leading scholarly authorities on Medieval Jewry, and working together with his graduate students and other colleagues, he had devoted many years of effort to the research study in question, drawing upon extensive primary and secondary sources produced in eight different languages. I found his 500 page book quite persuasive, as did Israeli journalist Israel Shamir, and I have seen no credible rebuttals.

Now the work of all these prominent academics and intellectuals may not necessarily be correct, and perhaps I am mistaken in accepting their factual claims. But I would need to see something far more weighty than a casual dismissal in a few paragraphs contained within an anonymous ADL column, whose author for all I know might have been some ignorant young intern.

Those glaring flaws aside, most of the ADL’s remaining catalogue of my numerous heretical positions seemed reasonably accurate, though obviously presented in a somewhat hostile and derogatory fashion and sorely lacking any links to my original pieces. But even this desultory listing of my mortal transgressions was woefully incomplete, with the ADL strangely failing to include mention of some of my most controversial claims.

The worrisome incompetence of ADL researchers becomes particularly alarming when we consider that over the last couple of years that organization has been elevated into a content gatekeeping role at America’s largest Internet companies, helping to determine what may or may not be said on the most important Social Media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

There is also a far more serious aspect to the situation. The choice of the ADL as the primary ideological overseer of America’s Internet may seem natural and appropriate to politically-ignorant Americans, a category that unfortunately includes the technology executives leading the companies involved. But this reflects the remarkable cowardice and dishonesty of the American media from which all these individuals derive their knowledge of our world. The true recent history of the ADL is a remarkably sordid and disreputable tale.

In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI. The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.

Not long afterward, an ACLU official who had previously held a high-ranking position with the ADL revealed in an interview that his organization had been the actual source of the highly controversial 1960s surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., which it had then provided to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. For many years Hoover had been furiously denounced in the national media headlines for his use of tapes and other secret information on King’s activities, but when a local San Francisco newspaper revealed that an ADL spying operation had actually been the source of all that sordid material, the bombshell revelation was totally ignored in the national media and only reported by fringe organizations, so that today almost no Americans are aware of that fact.

I am not aware of any other private organization in American history that has been involved in even a sliver of such illegal domestic espionage activity, which appears to have been directed against almost all groups and prominent individuals—Left, Right, and Center—suspected of being insufficiently aligned with Jewish and Israeli interests. Some of the illegal material found in ADL possession even raised dark suspicions that it had played a role in domestic terrorist attacks and political assassinations directed against foreign leaders. I am no legal expert, but given the massive scale of such illegal ADL activities, I wonder whether a plausible case might have been made to prosecute the entire organization under RICO statutes and sentence all of its leaders to long prison terms.

Instead, the resulting government charges were quickly settled with merely a trivial fine and a legal slap on the wrist, demonstrating the near-total impunity provided by massive Jewish political power in modern American society.

In effect, the ADL seems to have long operated as our country’s privatized secret political police, monitoring and enforcing its ideological doctrines on behalf of Jewish groups much as the Stasi did for the Communist rulers of East Germany. Given such a long history of criminal activity, allowing the ADL to extend its oversight to our largest Social Media platforms amounts to appointing the Mafia to supervise the FBI and the NSA, or taking a very large step towards implementing George Orwell’s ” Ministry of Truth” on behalf of Jewish interests.

In his 1981 memoirs, the far right Classics scholar Revilo P. Oliver characterized the ADL as “the formidable organization of Jewish cowboys who ride herd on their American cattle” and this seems a reasonably apt description to me.

Although I had long recognized the power and influence of the ADL, a leading Jewish-activist organization whose leaders were so regularly quoted in my newspapers, until rather recently I had only the vaguest notions of its origins. I’m sure I’d heard the story mentioned at some points, but the account had never stuck in my mind.

Then perhaps a year or two ago, I happened to come across some discussion of the ADL’s 2013 centenary celebration, in which the leadership reaffirmed the principles of its 1913 founding. The initial impetus had been the vain national effort to save the life of Leo Frank, a young Southern Jew unjustly accused of murder and eventually lynched. Not long before, Frank’s name and story would have been equally vague in my mind, with the man half-remembered from my introductory history textbooks as one of the most notable early KKK victims in the fiercely anti-Semitic Deep South of the early twentieth century. However, not long before seeing that piece on the ADL I’d read Albert Lindemann’s highly-regarded study The Jew Accused, and his short chapter on the notorious Frank case had completely exploded all my preconceptions.

First, Lindemann demonstrated that there was no evidence of any anti-Semitism behind Frank’s arrest and conviction, with Jews constituting a highly-valued element of the affluent Atlanta society of the day, and no references to Frank’s Jewish background, negative or otherwise, appearing in the media prior to the trial. Indeed, five of the Grand Jurors who voted to indict Frank for murder were themselves Jewish, and none of them ever voiced regret over their decision. In general, support for Frank seems to have been strongest among Jews from New York and other distant parts of the country and weakest among the Atlanta Jews with best knowledge of the local situation.

Furthermore, although Lindemann followed the secondary sources he relied upon in declaring that Frank was clearly innocent of the charges of rape and murder, the facts he recounted led me to the opposite conclusion, seeming to suggest strong evidence of Frank’s guilt. When I much more recently read Lindemann’s longer and more comprehensive historical study of anti-Semitism, Esau’s Tears, I noticed that his abbreviated treatment of the Frank case no longer made any claim of innocence, perhaps indicating that the author himself might have also had second thoughts about the weight of the evidence.

Based on this material, I voiced that opinion in my recent article on historical anti-Semitism, but my conclusions were necessarily quite tentative since they relied upon Lindermann’s summary of the information provided in the secondary sources he had used, and I had the impression that virtually all those who had closely investigated the Frank case had concluded that Frank was innocent. But after my piece appeared, someone pointed me to a 2016 book from an unexpected source arguing for Frank’s guilt. Now that I have ordered and read that volume, my understanding of the Frank case and its historical significance has been entirely transformed.

Mainstream publishers may often reject books that too sharply conflict with reigning dogma and sales of such works are unlikely to justify the extensive research required to produce the manuscript. Furthermore, both authors and publishers may face widespread vilification from a hostile media for taking such positions. For these reasons, those who publish such controversial material will often be acting from deep ideological motives rather than merely seeking professional advancement or monetary gain. As an example, it took a zealous Trotskyite leftist such as Lenni Brunner to brave the risk of ferocious attacks and invest the time and effort to produce his remarkable study of the crucial Nazi-Zionist partnership of the 1930s. And for similar reasons, we should not be totally surprised that the leading book arguing for the guilt of Leo Frank appeared as a volume in the series on the pernicious aspects of Jewish-Black historical relations produced by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI), nor that the text lacked any identified author.

Anonymous works published by heavily-demonized religious-political movements naturally engender considerable caution, but once I began reading the 500 pages of The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man I was tremendously impressed by the quality of the historical analysis. I think I have only very rarely encountered a research monograph on a controversial historical event that provided such an enormous wealth of carefully-argued analysis backed by such copious evidence. The authors seemed to display complete mastery of the major secondary literature of the last one hundred years while drawing very heavily upon the various primary sources, including court records, personal correspondence, and contemporaneous publications, with the overwhelming majority of the 1200 footnotes referencing newspaper and magazine articles of that era. The case they made for Frank’s guilt seemed absolutely overwhelming.

The basic outline of events is not disputed. In 1913 Georgia, a 13-year-old pencil company worker named Mary Phagan was last seen alive visiting the office of factory manager Leo Frank on a Saturday morning to collect her weekly paycheck, while her raped and murdered body was found in the basement early the next morning and Frank eventually arrested for the crime. As the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, Frank ranked as one of the most prominent Jewish men in the South, and great resources were deployed in his legal defense, but after the longest and most expensive trial in state history, he was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.

The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.

The police initially suspected the black night watchman who found the girl’s body, and he was quickly arrested and harshly interrogated. Soon afterward, a bloody shirt was found at his home, and Frank made several statements that seemed to implicate his employee in the crime. At one point, this black suspect may have come close to being summarily lynched by a mob, which would have closed the case. But he stuck to his story of innocence with remarkable composure, in sharp contrast to Frank’s extremely nervous and suspicious behavior, and the police soon shifted their scrutiny toward the latter, culminating in his arrest. All researchers now recognize that the night watchman was entirely innocent, and the material against him planted.

The evidence against Frank steadily mounted. He was the last man known to have seen the young victim and he repeatedly changed important aspects of his story. Numerous former female employees reported his long history of sexually aggressive behavior toward them, especially directed towards the murdered girl herself. At the time of the murder, Frank claimed to have been working alone in his office, but a witness who went there reported he had been nowhere to be found. A vast amount of circumstantial evidence implicated Frank.

A black Frank family servant soon came forward with sworn testimony that Frank had confessed the murder to his wife on the morning after the killing, and this claim seemed supported by the latter’s strange refusal to visit her husband in jail for the first two weeks after the day of his arrest.

Two separate firms of experienced private detectives were hired by Frank’s lavishly-funded partisans, and the agents of both eventually came to the reluctant conclusion that Frank was guilty as charged.

As the investigation moved forward, a major break occurred as a certain Jim Conley, Frank’s black janitor, came forward and confessed to having been Frank’s accomplice in concealing the crime. At the trial he testified that Frank had regularly enlisted him as a lookout during his numerous sexual liaisons with his female employees, and after murdering Phagan, had then offered him a huge sum of money to help remove and hide the body in the basement so that the crime could be pinned upon someone else. But with the legal noose tightening around Frank, Conley had begun to fear that he might be made the new scapegoat, and went to the authorities in order to save his own neck. Despite Conley’s damning accusations, Frank repeatedly refused to confront him in the presence of the police, which was widely seen as further proof of Frank’s guilt.

By the time of the trial itself, all sides were agreed that the murderer was either Frank, the wealthy Jewish businessman, or Conley, the semi-literate black janitor with a first-grade education and a long history of public drunkenness and petty crime. Frank’s lawyers exploited this comparison to the fullest, emphasizing Frank’s Jewish background as evidence for his innocence and indulging in the crudest sort of racial invective against his black accuser, whom they claimed was obviously the true rapist and murderer due to his bestial nature.

Those attorneys were the best that money could buy and the lead counsel was known as the one of the most skilled courtroom interrogators in the South. But although he subjected Conley to a grueling sixteen hours of intense cross-examination over three days, the latter never wavered in the major details of his extremely vivid story, which deeply impressed the local media and the jury. Meanwhile, Frank refused to take the stand at his own trial, thereby avoiding any public cross-examination of his often changing account.

Two notes written in crude black English had been discovered alongside Phagan’s body, and everyone soon agreed that these were written by the murderer in hopes of misdirecting suspicion. So they were either written by a semi-literate black such as Conley or by an educated white attempting to imitate that style, and to my mind, the spelling and choice of words strongly suggests the latter, thereby implicating Frank.

Taking a broader overview, the theory advanced by Frank’s legion of posthumous advocates seems to defy rationality. These journalists and scholars uniformly argue that Conley, a semi-literate black menial, had brutally raped and murdered a young white girl, and the legal authorities soon became aware of this fact, but conspired to set him free by supporting a complex and risky scheme to instead frame an innocent white businessman. Can we really believe that the police officials and prosecutors of a city in the Old South would have violated their oath of office in order to knowingly protect a black rapist and killer from legal punishment and thereby turn him loose upon their city streets, presumably to prey on future young white girls? This implausible reconstruction is particularly bizarre in that nearly all its advocates across the decades have been the staunchest of Jewish liberals, who endlessly condemned the horrific racism of the Southern authorities of that era, but then unaccountably chose to make a special exception in this one particular case.

In many respects, the more important part of the Frank case began after his conviction and death sentence when many of America’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish leaders began mobilizing to save him from the hangman. They soon established the ADL as a new vehicle for that purpose and succeeded in making the Frank murder case one of the most famous in American history to that date.

Although his role was largely concealed at the time, the most important new backer whom Frank attracted was Albert Lasker of Chicago, the unchallenged monarch of American consumer advertising, which constituted the life’s blood of all of our mainstream newspapers and magazines. Not only did he ultimately provide the lion’s share of the funds for Frank’s defense, but he focused his energies upon shaping the media coverage surrounding the case. Given his dominant business influence in that sector, we should not be surprised that a huge wave of unremitting pro-Frank propaganda soon began appearing across the country in both local and national publications, extending to most of America’s most popular and highly-regarded media outlets, with scarcely a single word told on the other side of the story. This even included all of Atlanta’s own leading newspapers, which suddenly reversed their previous positions and became convinced of Frank’s innocence.

Lasker also enlisted other powerful Jewish figures in the Frank cause, including New York Times owner Adolph Ochs, American Jewish Committee president Louis Marshall, and leading Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff. The Times, in particular, began devoting enormous coverage to this previously-obscure Georgia murder case, and many of its articles were widely republished elsewhere. The NOI authors highlight this extraordinary national media attention: “The Black janitor whose testimony became central to Leo Frank’s conviction became the most quoted Black person in American history up to that time. More of his words appeared in print in the New York Times than those of W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Booker T. Washington—combined.”

Back a century ago just as today, our media creates our reality, and with Frank’s innocence being proclaimed nationwide in near-unanimous fashion, a long list of prominent public figures were soon persuaded to demand a new trial for the convicted murderer, including Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Jane Addams.

Ironically enough, Lasker himself plunged into this crusade despite apparently having very mixed personal feelings about man whose cause he was championing. His later biography reveals that upon his first personal meeting with Frank, he perceived him as “a pervert” and a “disgusting” individual, so much so that he even hoped that after he managed to free Frank, the latter would quickly perish in some accident. Furthermore, in his private correspondence he freely admitted that a large fraction of the massive funding that he and numerous other wealthy Jews from across the country were providing had been spent on perjured testimony and there are also strong hints that he explored bribing various judges. Given these facts, Lasker and Frank’s other major backers were clearly guilty of serious felonies, and could have received lengthy prison terms for their illegal conduct.

With the New York Times and the rest of the liberal Northern media now providing such massive coverage of the case, Frank’s defense team was forced to abandon the racially-inflammatory rhetoric aimed at his black accuser which had previously been the centerpiece of their trial strategy. Instead, they began concocting a tale of rampant local anti-Semitism, previously unnoticed by all observers, and adopted it as a major grounds for their appeal of the verdict.

The unprincipled legal methods pursued by Frank’s backers is illustrated by a single example. Georgia law normally required that a defendant be present in court to hear the reading of the verdict, but given the popular emotions in the case, the judge suggested that this provision be waived, and the prosecution assented only if the defense lawyers promised not to use this small irregularity as grounds for appeal. But after Frank was convicted, AJC President Marshall and his other backers orchestrated numerous unsuccessful state and federal appeals on exactly this minor technicality, merely hiring other lawyers to file the motion.

For almost two years, the nearly limitless funds deployed by Frank’s supporters covered the costs of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the national media was used to endlessly vilify Georgia’s system of justice in the harshest possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a local reaction, and during this period outraged Georgians began denouncing the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to subvert the local criminal justice system.

One of the very few journalists willing to oppose Frank’s position was Georgia publisher Tom Watson, a populist firebrand, and an editorial he reasonably declared “We cannot have…one law for the Jew, and another for the Gentile” while he also later lamented that “It is a bad state of affairs when the idea gets abroad that the law is too weak to punish a man who has plenty of money.” A former Georgia governor indignantly inquired “Are we to understand that anybody except a Jew can be punished for a crime.” The clear facts indicate that there was indeed a massive miscarriage of justice in Frank’s case, but virtually all of it occurred in Frank’s favor.

All appeals were ultimately rejected and Frank’s execution date for the rape and murder of the young girl finally drew near. But just days before he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia’s outgoing governor commuted Frank’s sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protest, especially since he was the legal partner of Frank’s chief defense lawyer, an obvious conflict of interest. Given the enormous funds that Frank’s national supporters had been deploying on his behalf and the widespread past admissions of bribery in the case, there are obviously dark suspicions about what had prompted such a remarkably unpopular decision, which soon forced the former governor to exile himself from the state. A few weeks later, a group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank’s prison farm, abducting and hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew lynched in American history.

Naturally, Frank’s killing was roundly denounced in the national media that had long promoted his cause. But even in those quarters, there may have been a significant difference between public and private sentiments. No newspaper in the country had more strongly championed Frank’s innocence than the New York Times of Adolph Ochs. Yet according to the personal diary of one of the Times editors, Ochs privately despised Frank, and perhaps even greeted his lynching with a sense of relief. No effort was ever made by Frank’s wealthy supporters to bring any of the lynching party to justice.

Although I have now come to regard the NOI volume as the most persuasive and definitive text on the Frank case, I naturally considered conflicting works before reaching this conclusion.

For nearly a half-century, the leading scholarly account of the incident had probably been Leonard Dinnerstein’s book The Leo Frank Case, first published in 1966, and Dinnerstein, a University of Arizona professor specializing in Jewish history, entirely supported Frank’s innocence. But although the work won a national award, carries glowing blurbs from several prestigious publications, and has surely graced the reading lists of endless college courses, I was not at all impressed. Among other things, the book appears to be the original source of some of the most lurid examples of alleged anti-Semitic public outbursts that apparently have no basis in reality and seem to have been simply fabricated by the author given his lack of any citations; the NOI authors note these stories have been quietly abandoned by all recent researchers. Even leaving aside such likely falsifications, which were widely cited by later writers and heavily contaminated the historical record, I found the short Dinnerstein work rather paltry and even pitiful when compared to that of its NOI counterpart.

A far longer and more substantial recent work was Steve Oney’s 2003 And the Dead Shall Rise, which runs nearly 750 pages and won the National Jewish Book Award, the Southern Book Critics Circle Prize, and the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel, probably establishing itself as today’s canonical text on the historical incident. Oney had been a longtime Atlanta journalist and I was favorably impressed by his narrative skill, along with the numerous fascinating vignettes he provided to illustrate the Southern history of that general era. He also seemed a cautious researcher, drawing heavily upon the primary sources and avoiding much of the falsified history of the last century, while not entirely suppressing the massive evidence of bribery and perjury employed by the Frank forces.

But although Oney does mention much of this information, he strangely fails to connect the dots. For example, although he occasionally mentions some of the funds spent on Frank’s behalf, he never attempts to convert them into present-day equivalents, leaving a naive reader to assume that such trivial amounts could not possibly have been used to pervert the course of justice. Furthermore, his entire book is written in chronological narrative form, with no footnotes provided in the text, and a large portion of the content being entirely extraneous to any attempt to determine Frank’s guilt or innocence, contrasting very sharply with the more scholarly style of the NOI authors.

To my mind, a central element of the Frank case was the massive financial temptations being offered by Frank’s Jewish backers, and the huge number of Atlanta citizens, both high and low, who apparently shifted their positions on Frank’s guilt in eager hopes of capturing some of that largess. But although this obvious theme was heavily emphasized in the NOI book, Oney seems to mostly avoid this obvious factor, perhaps even for personal reasons. Print publications have suffered massive cutbacks in recent years and I noticed on the book flap that although Oney is described as a longtime Atlanta journalist, he had subsequently relocated to Los Angeles. Once I checked, I immediately discovered that Oney’s book had became the basis for an independent film entitled The People v. Leo Frank, and I wonder whether his hopes of capturing a sliver of Hollywood’s vast lucre may not have encouraged him to so strongly suggest Frank’s innocence. Would an account of Leo Frank as rapist and murderer ever be likely to reach the silver screen? The quiet influence of financial considerations is no different today than they were a century ago, and this factor must be taken into account when evaluating historical events.

The NOI authors devote nearly all of their lengthy book to a careful analysis of the Frank case provided in suitably dispassionate form, but a sense of their justifiable outrage does occasionally poke through. In the years prior to Frank’s killing, many thousands of black men throughout the South had been lynched, often based on a slender thread of suspicion, with few of these incidents receiving more than a few sentences of coverage in a local newspaper, and large numbers of whites had also perished in similar circumstances. Meanwhile, Frank had received benefit of the longest trial in modern Southern history, backed by the finest trial lawyers that money could buy, and based on overwhelming evidence had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. But when Frank’s legal verdict was carried out by extra-judicial means, he immediately became the most famous lynching victim in American history, perhaps even attracting more media attention than all those thousands of other cases combined. Jewish money and Jewish media established him as a Jewish martyr who thereby effectively usurped the victimhood of the enormous number of innocent blacks who were killed both before and after him, none of whom were ever even recognized as individuals.

As Prof. Shahak has effectively demonstrated, traditional Talmudic Judaism regarded all non-Jews as being sub-human, with their lives possessing no value. Given that Frank’s backers were followers of Reform Judaism, it seems quite unlikely that they accepted this doctrine or were even aware of its existence. But religious traditions of a thousand years standing can easily become embedded within a culture, and such unrecognized cultural sentiments may have easily shaped their reaction to Frank’s legal predicament.

Influential historical accounts of the Frank case and its aftermath have contained lurid tales of the rampant public anti-Semitism visited upon Atlanta’s Jewish community in the wake of the trial, even claiming that a substantial portion of the population was forced to flee as a consequence. However, a careful examination of the primary source evidence, including the contemporaneous newspaper coverage, provides absolutely no evidence of this, and it appears to be entirely fictional.

The NOI authors note that prior to Frank’s trial American history had been virtually devoid of any evidence of significant anti-Semitism, with the previous most notable incident being the case of an extremely wealthy Jewish financier who was refused service at a fancy resort hotel. But by totally distorting the Frank case and focusing such massive national media coverage on his plight, Jewish leaders around the country succeeded in fabricating a powerful ideological narrative despite its lack of reality, perhaps intending the story to serve as a bonding experience to foster Jewish community cohesion.

As a further example of the widely promoted but apparently fraudulent history, the Jewish writers who have overwhelmingly dominated accounts of the Frank case have frequently claimed that it sparked the revival of the Ku Klux Klan soon afterward, with the group of citizens responsible for Frank’s 1915 lynching supposedly serving as the inspiration for William Simmons’ reestablishment of that organization a couple of years later. But there seems no evidence for this. Indeed, Simmons strongly emphasized the philo-Semitic nature of his new organization, which attracted considerable Jewish membership.

The primary factor behind the rebirth of the KKK was almost certainly the 1917 release D.W. Griffith’s overwhelmingly popular landmark film Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Klan of the Reconstruction Era. Given that the American film industry was so overwhelmingly Jewish at the time and the film’s financial backers and leading Southern distributors came from that same background, it could be plausibly argued that the Jewish contribution to the creation of the 1920s Klan was a very crucial one, while the revenue from the film’s distribution throughout the South actually financed Samuel Goldwyn’s creation of MGM, Hollywood’s leading studio.

In their introduction, the NOI authors make the fascinating point that the larger historical meaning of the Frank case in American racial history has been entirely lost. Prior to that trial, it was unprecedented for Southern courts to allow black testimony against a white man, let alone against a wealthy man being tried on serious charges; but the horrific nature of the crime and Conley’s role as the sole witness required a break from that longstanding tradition. Thus, the authors argue not unreasonably, that the Frank case may have been as important to the history of black progress in America as such landmark legal verdicts as Plessy vs. Ferguson or Brown vs. Board. But since almost the entire historical narrative has been produced by fervent Jewish advocates, these facts have been completely obscured and the case entirely misrepresented as an example of anti-Semitic persecution and public murder.

Let us summarize what seems to be the solidly established factual history of the Frank case, quite different than the traditional narrative. There is not the slightest evidence that Frank’s Jewish background was a factor behind his arrest and conviction, nor the death sentence he received. The case set a remarkable precedent in Southern courtroom history with the testimony of a black man playing a central role in a white man’s conviction. From the earliest stages of the murder investigation, Frank and his allies continually attempted to implicate a series of different innocent blacks by planting false evidence and using bribes to solicit perjured testimony, while the exceptionally harsh racial rhetoric that Frank and his attorneys directed towards those blacks was presumably intended to provoke their public lynching. Yet despite all these attempts by the Frank forces to play upon the notorious racial sentiments of the white Southerners of that era, the latter saw through these schemes and Frank was the one sentenced to hang for his rape and murder of that young girl.

Now suppose that all the facts of this famous case were exactly unchanged except that Frank had been a white Gentile. Surely the trial would be ranked as one of the greatest racial turning points in American history, perhaps even overshadowing Brown v. Board because of the extent of popular sentiment, and it would have been given a central place in all our modern textbooks. Meanwhile, Frank, his lawyers, and his heavy financial backers would probably be cast as among the vilest racial villains in all of American history for their repeated attempts to foment the lynching of various innocent blacks so that a wealthy white rapist and murderer could walk free. But because Frank was Jewish rather than Christian, this remarkable history has been completely inverted for over one hundred years by our Jewish-dominated media and historiography.

These are the important consequences that derive from control of the narrative and the flow of information, which allows murderers to be transmuted into martyrs and villains into heroes. The ADL was founded just over a century ago with the central goal of preventing a Jewish rapist and killer from being held legally accountable for his crimes, and over the decades, it eventually metastasized into a secret political police force not entirely dissimilar to the widely despised East German Stasi, but with its central goal seeming to be the maintenance of overwhelming Jewish control in a society that is 98% non-Jewish.

We should ask ourselves whether it is appropriate for an organization with such origins and such recent history to be granted enormous influence over the distribution of information across our Internet.

Related Reading:

• American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion
• Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Israel Shahak
• The Bloody Passovers of Dr. Toaff by Israel Shamir
• The International Jew by Henry Ford
• American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism

Article Source:
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

The banning of four Nation of Islam Black history books by Amazon, the largest bookseller in the world, provides a perfect opportunity to examine the wickedly racist ways Jewish power is wielded in America. Amazon provided no warning, no reason, no hearing, and no opportunity to respond—it was a blatant mockery of Amazon founder Jeffrey Bezos’s own creed, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” It is, however, perfect proof of what The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad said: the mental resurrection of Black people will anger our oppressors and cause them to react punitively and viciously.

Bezos’s book purge came in the midst of the extraordinary political spectacle engineered by an awakened Congressional wonder woman named Ilhan Omar. Her exposé of the Zionist-Judaic underbelly of the American political system happened in the most unflattering way. Rep. Omar asked, “Why is it ok for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy?” She was referring to AIPAC, of course, the most powerful foreign lobbying group, which, while protesting that it was powerless, promptly brought ALL the business of the United States of America to a screeching halt to demand an instantaneous group hug from the 535 Congressional members on its payroll!

Rep. Omar’s adroit maneuver exposed the fact that 12 of the top 20 political donors to the American election system are Jewish Zionists, their money amounting to a whopping 78% of the total contributed. What began as a campaign to officially repudiate, isolate, and control this freshman Muslim phenom, dramatically backfired. In effect, she forced the nearly all-white boys’ club to go on record to condemn “discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.” Symbolic, for sure—but Dr. King couldn’t do it; Pres. Obama couldn’t do it. It took but a few weeks and a tweet for Ilhan Omar. She even signed the resolution. For the first time, the annual March meeting of the AIPAC caliphate will have far more attention than it wants, and Omar’s political star rises ever higher.

It’s been that kind of year for the satanic “Jews,” who have had a hell of a time trying to keep alive a plausible mythology about themselves while maintaining control over their gentile brethren and over the non-white world. From all angles and directions new research has chipped away at the holy patina that almost everywhere surrounded in solemn reverence these unholy imposters. A review of the litany of recent Jewish and Israeli crises is in order:

• The United Nations issued a report that accuses Israel of “war crimes” when its forces killed 189 people and shot more than 6,100, most clearly unarmed. Israeli “snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.”
• Jewish historians now admit that today’s brutal occupants of Palestine are genetically unrelated to any of the good people in the Bible, thus establishing that their 71-year tyranny in the holy land is but another white supremacist colonization scheme.
• Though Israel is one of 200 nations on earth, a google search of the general term “apartheid state” results in nothing but Israel-related articles. And that is reinforced by a damning United Nations report concluding that Israel “has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.”
• The Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions Movement (BDS), which has isolated the apartheid state, has forced Israel to take ever more desperate and repressive measures.
• The “war in Syria” was exposed as an Israeli oil theft operation.
• There is the increasing momentum of charges that Israel masterminded 9/11 and that Israeli operatives are the likely suspects in the continuing false-flag terrorism attacks around the globe.
• So despised is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that it was run out of its “racial mediator” role in last year’s Starbucks incident by a single tweet from activist Tamika Mallory.
• The Women’s March continues to grow in influence and power despite Jewish attempts to undermine its progress.
• American police departments with atrocious records of racism and shootings in case after case are shown to have been “trained” by ADL and Israeli forces.
• Artists and athletes are refusing to perform in Israel, and Black Lives Matter blindsided the ADL with their policy statement on Israel which says that Israel is “complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.”
• The manipulation of “anti-Semitism” statistics by the ADL—which were found to be inflated by thousands of “anti-Semitic incidents” that were committed by a single Israeli Jew—has been exposed.
• A series of sexual harassment and human trafficking crimes by Jewish men of wealth and prestige has been exposed as epidemic. Names like Weinstein, Lauer, Epstein, Dershowitz, Moonves, Kraft are appearing with unseemly regularity.
• Morris Dees was unceremoniously fired from the organization he founded, the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is the “race issues” arm of the ADL, and has scammed millions from unsuspecting and fearful Blacks and Jews, claiming to be America’s “hate watchdog.” Dees was fired for sexual harassment and for creating an intolerable climate of racism toward the group’s Black staff.
• The opioid epidemic—which is now said to be responsible for at least 100 deaths a day—is being laid at the doorstep of the billionaire Jewish Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, makers and relentless pushers of OxyContin. The devastation on the workforce is so extensive that Fed chairman Jerome Powell said in a recent 60 Minutes segment that the OxyContin scourge is negatively affecting the U.S. economy.
• Harsh Jewish condemnations of the awakening voices of Black critics of Israel, like Angela Davis, Tamika Mallory, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Marc Lamont Hill, Michelle Alexander, and Alice Walker, have only brought them Black hero status.
• The exposure of Israel’s secret and ongoing espionage operation against Black youth in America, called “Israel Cyber Shield,” was a fatal blow against the alleged Black–Jewish “alliance.” The COINTELPRO-like operation is responsible for the attacks on the above-mentioned Black thinkers, as well as the instigation of Amazon’s book purge.
• Israel’s longtime face of Apartheid, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was indicted for corruption. His leadership of the now internationally acknowledged genocide against the Palestinians has made it nearly impossible for Israel to maintain international toleration.
• Netanyahu merged his right-wing party with the “Jewish Power” Party, the most racist party in Apartheid Israel. And this follows the Knesset’s passing of the nation-state law giving civil rights only to Jews.
• The Talmud, the ancient Jewish rabbinical writing that the Israelis would like to make the law of the land, has come into intense scrutiny as a document that says Jesus deserved death by being boiled in excrement and that his blessed mother, Mary, was “a whore.” Israel’s chief rabbi called Black people monkeys, admitting that he learned that from the Talmud.
• Christian churches in Israel continue to be defaced and burned by Jewish gangs.
• The college cheating scandal to admit less-than-deserving rich kids to elite schools was masterminded by a Jewish man and brought focus on other, past college scams that benefitted Jews.
• Black Jews in America are now in open revolt against white Jews, with their main spokesperson, Nylah Burton, publicly declaring, “that the only way to fix the Black-Jewish alliance is to destroy it….We need to destroy the idea that Black people owe white Jewish people support because some Jews marched with Martin Luther King more than half a century ago…” Black Jews in Israel have long suffered discrimination, poverty, and police violence.
• Boston Globe columnist S.I. Rosenbaum had to admit what the Nation of Islam has always known: “A shocking number of Jews have become willing collaborators in white supremacy.”

Nothing in the above litany of recent racist Jewish horrors says “Chosen.”

In 2010, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan wrote a letter to the ADL’s Abraham Foxman and copied all the major Jewish organizational leaders. His warning to them was most certainly prophetic:

“[T]he more you fight and oppose me rather than help me to lift my people from their degraded state, Allah (God) and His Messiah will bring you and your people to disgrace and ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world. I pray that you will make the wise and best choice.”

Clearly, that “disgrace and ruin” is now here. To this arrogant and intractable Jewish leadership, however, the problem IS NOT their objectionable, detestable behavior—what disturbs them is the mental awakening that they can neither control, curtail, nor redirect.

The above review of recent history is dreadful enough, but it is the long-term Jewish record of wickedness that eats away at the carefully crafted and generationally protected mythology. The sanctimonious Amazon notice is almost comical: Amazon says it prohibits

“[p]roducts that contain violent or offensive material that has no historical significance. Amazon reserves the right to make a determination on the historical value of the item….”

All of academia ought to be frightened at these words, because The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews series by the Nation of Islam is carefully constructed to present the words of the most respected Jewish scholars, and if the “historical value” of these books is now left in the hands of Amazon’s own backroom “historians” (read ADL), and not determined by readers themselves, we have a book burning of the Nazi variety. Each of the NOI books delves into the lengthy and contentious history of interactions of Blacks and Jews—through the eyes of Jewish scholars, historians, and rabbis. No matter the scholarly source, Jews MUST control the intellectual diet of the goyim at any cost and create the false idols they worship.

An accompanying ADL-Amazon notice: “We reserve the right to determine whether content provides a poor customer experience and remove that content from sale.” Each of the NOI books had hundreds of reader reviews with a collective rating of 5 of 5 stars. So the “customer experience” is evident—by Amazon’s standards, such as they are. It is entirely understandable that some of Amazon’s customers may have had a poor or even shocking experience with the content of the 4-book Secret Relationship series. But that, in truth, is only proof that they are woefully ignorant of the voluminous works of their own Jewish scholars.

Sins of the Fathers

It is useful, then, for those who have not seen or read the four controversial Nation of Islam books, to present some of the most provocative content to understand why in 2019 Goliath—after nearly 25 years of selling Secret Relationship—has now outlawed slings and smooth stones (1 Samuel 17:40). And though the book series is fully footnoted, replete with literally thousands of citations, references, and sources, for this exercise we pick a few examples from the most celebrated of Jewish scholars (all of them PhDs with impeccable academic credentials, two of them rabbis) that allow the reader to weigh the import of the works—and Amazon’s deceitful ban—in their proper contexts:

(1) In the trans-Atlantic slave trade nine out of ten Africans were shipped to Brazil. Dr. Arnold Wiznitzer described the early Jewish presence there:

“Besides their important position in the sugar industry and in tax farming, they dominated the slave trade….The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices.”

Dr. Wiznitzer was a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary of America and president of the Brazilian-Jewish Institute of Historical Research—even though his words and authority rewrite the popular mythological version of Black–Jewish relations.

(2) According to Simon Wiesenthal Center scholar Dr. Harold Brackman, during the 1600s “slave trading in Brazil became a ‘Jewish’ mercantile specialty in much the same way it had been in early medieval Europe.” Here, almost unwittingly and in a single sentence, Dr. Brackman places Jews at the center of both African and European slavery. Dr. Brackman also wrote, “Jews were about twice as likely to be slave owners as the average white Southerner.”

(3) Rabbi and historian Dr. Bertram W. Korn was the acknowledged expert on 19th-century American Jewry, and a president of the American Historical Society, and on the executive board of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. He wrote:

“It would seem to be realistic to conclude that any Jew who could afford to own slaves and had need for their services would do so….Jews participated in every aspect and process of the exploitation of the defenseless blacks.”

Rabbi Korn gives a lecture on the subject that can be heard on the Nation of Islam Research Group website.

(4) Columbia University professor Jonathan Schorsch wrote, “some Jewish merchants routinely possessed enormous numbers of slaves temporarily before selling them off.”

(5) Dr. Abraham Peck was the director of both the American Jewish Archives in Cincinnati and the American Jewish Historical Society in New York, the two leading institutions on American Jewish life and history, as well as the director of the Holocaust Museum Houston. Dr. Peck was unmistakably clear:

“The first two centuries of the Black–Jewish encounter in America were highlighted by a fairly extensive record of Jewish slave-holding. Indeed, during the colonial period, in the small Jewish community of the time, almost every Jewish household of any form, North or South, possessed at least one slave.”

(6) At the office of the British Jewish Historical Society, there is a bronze bust of the celebrated Jewish historian Dr. Cecil Roth, who with his many awards and honors was the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Judaica. He wrote that the Black slave revolts in parts of South America “were largely directed against [Jews], as being the greatest slave-holders of the region.” Jews set up militias with the sole purpose of destroying Africans who had escaped from Jewish plantations. The Jewish militias murdered the escaped slaves and cut off their hands to award to their fellow Jews as trophies.

(7) In his 1983 book Jews and Judaism in the United States, Rabbi Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, the longtime editor of the most prestigious of Jewish historical journals, the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, published one of the most definitive statements on Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust. In Brazil, “Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade.”

“In fact,” he stated, “in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.” He continues:

“This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies…”

(8) The Jewish Encyclopedia adds that “Jewish commercial activity” in the time of the Triangular Trade and its Middle Passage included a “monopoly of the slave trade.” It also states: “[T]he cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.”

The fact is that Amazon and the ADL can no longer conceal the incredible collection of facts in The Secret Relationship Series that place the Jewish people among the Black man’s worst historical enemies. What had previously been considered the racist acts of white Christians alone are now shown to have had significant Jewish culpability. Jewish merchants owned, insured, and financed slave ships and Jewish chandlers outfitted them with chains and shackles. Jews became the major traders in “refuse slaves”—Africans who were weak and sick from the Middle Passage voyage. Jewish traders bought them cheap, “fattened them up,” and sold them at a profit. The Gradis family of Jewish shippers had a monopoly on trade to the notorious slave dungeon at Gorée Island—the Auschwitz of the Black Holocaust. They owned 26 ships and extensive plantations in the French colonies St. Domingo and Martinique, and they developed a plan to import 10,000 slaves into Louisiana. When early New Yorkers decided to start slavery in the colony, records show they contacted “the jobbers and the Jews,” who were the recognized international dealers. The largest shipments of Africans arriving in New York in the first half of the 1700s were commissioned by Jewish merchants.

These are irrefutable examples of the Jewish scholars whose works on this subject are represented in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Volume One. And all of those Jewish works remain unassailed and ready to purchase at Amazon.com, where they face no “community standards,” sanctions, or even a review. In stark contrast to the massive evidence of slave-trading Jews is this damning 1853 statement by America’s leading abolitionist organization: Jews “have never taken any steps whatever” against slavery. Dr. Brackman adds that the most influential rabbi in America, Isaac Mayer Wise, believed that abolitionism “was the major threat to Jewish existence.”

And that just covers a small portion of the contents of The Secret Relationship, Vol. 1. Volume Two of The Secret Relationship series, released in 2010, quotes B’nai B’rith officials like Bernard Postal, whose 1928 Jewish Tribune article is titled “Jews in the Ku Klux Klan: Klan-Like Organizations Have Existed Since the Adoption of the Constitution; Jews Played a Part in All of Them.” Volume Two traces the earliest investment in the KKK to the Jewish slave owner and Confederate leader Judah P. Benjamin. Nation of Islam researchers uncovered a photo of a proud Jewish merchant receiving 50 roses from hooded klansmen in a public park to celebrate his “golden business anniversary.”

The post-slavery sharecropping system that kept the ex-slave in desperate poverty and ignorance for decades after emancipation was a product of the vast network of Jewish bankers, moneylenders, and cotton traders, who flooded the South to reap the immense cotton profits.

The Jewish wealth generated from these slavery- and Jim Crow-based enterprises helped finance Jewish community development, built synagogues, homes, schools, businesses, and institutions, and in many untold ways enriched their lives, congregations, and communities. Actually, one is hard-pressed to name a single prominent American Jew in the slavery era who did not own slaves or profit from Black African slavery.

Over centuries Jews built this prodigious and ill-gotten wealth, then wrote themselves out of the history of slavery, and left the white Gentiles to take the entire blame for the slave trade, slavery, sharecropping, and Jim Crow.

The 144-page companion volume to the Secret Relationship series is titled Jews Selling Blacks: Slave-Sale Advertising By American Jews. In effect, this collection of Jewish advertisements—the largest collection of its kind ever published—is the “dashcam video” of Black–Jewish history. The value of these original documents is that they are not filtered through any historian, rabbi, or scholar. Jewish slave traders PAID to place these ads, and the graphic detail can not be explained away.

For instance, some Jewish scholars have used U.S. census records, which show “modest” Jewish slaveholding, to diminish the role of Jews as major “owners” of Black human beings. This, however, is highly misleading. The 1830 census shows that all the Jews of Charleston, South Carolina, claimed to “own” a total of 104 Black human beings. But a single Jew, Jacob Cohen, on a single day in 1857, offered for sale “125 rice negroes.” That same year, the same Mr. Cohen teamed with a Gentile and advertised almost twice that number—210—in a single day. Those warehoused Africans were not counted in the census records as slaves owned by Cohen, a prominent member of Charleston’s Jewish community. Today, Mr. Cohen might have a seller page on Amazon.com selling slaves as both “new” and “used” and then encouraging 5-star customer feedback.

The third and latest volume of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews was released in 2016 and focuses entirely on the notorious Leo Frank case of 1913–1915, the problematic episode that purportedly started the ADL and the KKK and is reputed to be the worst incident of “anti-Semitism” in American history—except that such claims are untrue. Leo Frank was the B’nai B’rith president in Atlanta and arguably the South’s most important Jew. He was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old Gentile girl named Mary Phagan and he was ultimately lynched for the crime. She was a child worker at Frank’s factory who came to get her pay and was later found dead. The NOI’s ground-breaking work explodes the notion that Frank was innocent and powerfully refutes the claim that there was any anti-Semitism in the case at all. The common belief in the oppression and victimhood of the Jews in America is based almost entirely on that 1913–1915 incident, and through it they created an entirely new sympathetic image of themselves as friends of and co-sufferers with the racially oppressed.

The NOI’s 536-page meticulously footnoted book (2,000 footnotes and many more citations and references) refutes this century-old propaganda point by point. Frank is proved to be a lecher who had a sordid history of sexual harassment of his 100 gentile girl employees. Frank and his Jewish defenders committed massive perjuries and planted and tampered with evidence, among other felonies—all to frame two Black men for his crime. Court records show that Frank actually claimed that murder and rape were “negro crimes” and thus he, as a white man, could not be guilty! He further said that “negro testimony” was unreliable so the Black witnesses who testified against him should be ignored. As Frank’s lawyer so elegantly told the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies,” after referring to one witness as “a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying nigger.”

Of course, this reality betrays as false the victimhood image that was carefully prepared for Leo Frank, who for a century has been used to portray Jews as friends of Blacks with a common white enemy. So well documented is the NOI research that the grand-niece of the victim and a scholar and author of her own book on the case, Mary Phagan-Kean, wrote this in 2019:

“The Nation of Islam volume is the most well-researched book published regarding the rape and murder of little Mary Phagan to date.”

So completely does the book uncover the hidden truths about this case that one might confidently speculate that it may have actually altered the Congressional “anti-Semitism” resolution that was originally intended to target Rep. Omar. The first draft of the document mentioned the Leo Frank case as the most egregious example of “anti-Semitism” in American history, yet the mention of Leo Frank was removed in the final draft voted on by Congress. After a century of parading an invented history of “anti-Semitism,” the Jewish propagandists may have been forced by the Nation of Islam book to retire the Leo Frank myth.

S.I. Rosenbaum’s assessment in the Boston Globe that “A shocking number of Jews have become willing collaborators in white supremacy” is only shocking in its understatement. This article provides but a page or two of direct Jewish testimony of Jews in the Black Holocaust, but the 1,600-page Secret Relationship Series goes much, much deeper.

And while all this rich and untapped wealth of data has now been banned, any number—even thousands—of books on the African slave trade that not only conceal the Jewish role but place the entire culpability on white gentiles are readily available at Amazon.com. Wholesome offerings to Amazon customers include the full retinue of Jerry Springer program “highlights” he calls “Undressed and Unleashed” and “UNCENSORED!” Also available is Elie Wiesel’s book Legends of Our Time, in which he counsels: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate—healthy, virile hate—for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.” Meir Kahane’s book The Ideology of Kach is available, even though his Kach party was on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The Talmud can be purchased on Amazon, though the notorious Jewish “holy book” says some of the ugliest things about Blacks, gentiles, and women ever recorded. And, most significantly, an Amazon customer can still purchase Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, with the introduction written by—wait for it—Abraham Foxman of the ADL. This is not to say that these books should be banned, but since Amazon arrogates to itself “the right to make a determination on the historical value of the item,” one can readily see Amazon and Jeffrey Bezos’s supreme hypocrisy.

“The Man of Sin MUST be revealed.”

We are at that moment in time The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us about in His Our Saviour Has Arrived:

The Bible says (Mt. 25:32) “Before Him shall be gathered all nations.” The Holy Qur’an says, “you shall see all nations kneeling before Him and they shall be judged out of their own books. [HQ 45:28]” The government keeps a record of their governmental accounts. They have books in the library and in the courtswhich tell how they have ruled the people. They have a record of how they have judged the people.

The Nation of Islam researchers are under the direction of The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, whose mission is to expose Satan—a dangerous assignment that necessitates a spiritual and mathematical grounding. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 emphatically states: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed”—with his own books and his own Jewish scholarship.

The privatizing of the First Amendment and doling out its privileges to Jews alone are where this Satanic cabal is moving. Blacks and white Gentiles are taking a new look at the presumptions they have always taken as fact, and new racial alliances based on Truth are being formed and solidified in the process.

The banning of The Secret Relationship is a sure sign that victory is near.

One suggestion for dealing with Amazon’s book-burning spree is to nationalize the company, which has a “monopoly in the digital public sphere,” and put Jeff Bezos on trial for treason.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America—and American tradition—enshrines freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Nowhere is this more evident than in the book publishing industry. Historically, few books have been banned or restricted in America for any reason other than obscenity or indecency, and even those restrictions have largely collapsed. Since the mid-1960s, a book can only be banned if a reasonable person would consider it prurient, in violation of contemporary community standards, and completely devoid of literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

But since 2017 our tradition of freedom from book censorship has been annihilated. We are living through the worst-ever assault on the Bill of Rights. This crime is being committed by a monopoly in service to an organized crime syndicate. Amazon, under pressure from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and allied groups, has “kindled” the biggest book-burning bonfire ever. And the books Amazon is burning are not those brimming with obscenity. You can still buy the Marquis de Sade’s pornographic incitements to rape, torture, and murder, alongside thousands of similar abominations, on Amazon. What you can’t buy are scholarly books that carefully and dispassionately document facts that pose a threat to the continued reign of what certain hotheads have (not entirely inaccurately) called ZOG, the Zionist Occupation Government.

On March 11, Amazon—which holds an effective monopoly on book sales in the United States—notified professor Kevin MacDonald that two of his scholarly books, The Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents, had been banned: “During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.”

What content, specifically? Which guidelines did it violate, and how?

MacDonald reports: “In subsequent emails, they just keep repeating that these books were found to violate ‘content guidelines,’ even though I pointed out that they were published 21 years ago by a respected academic publisher. No specifics. No appeal process.”

Amazon doesn’t just ban scholarly works by professors who advocate for white people. America’s leading pro-black-people historical research team, the Nation of Islam (NOI) Research Group, has also been the victim of an Amazon book-burning bonfire. In his article “American Pravda: Amazon Book Censorship: Banning Black Historiography During Black History Month” Ron Unz discusses Amazon’s scandalous banning of the NOI Research Group’s multi-volume series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Volume 3 of that series convincingly exposes the ADL as an organized crime syndicate founded to protect the Jewish rapist and murderer Leo Frank.

Though I do not agree with MacDonald or NOI about everything, I cannot help but recognize that their banned books feature high-quality scholarship. The same cannot be said of the rabidly Islamophobic books of Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and a long list of other Zionist-funded propagandists who together make up the $50-million-per-year Islamophobia industry. Though almost uniformly characterized by poor scholarship and reckless animosity to the people they write about, these authors are not only allowed to sell their deceptive and hateful wares on Amazon but are relentlessly promoted by Zionist big money. In other words, essentially the same organized crime syndicate is forcing Amazon to ban dispassionate scholarly works as “hate,” while simultaneously spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting actual hate propaganda sold by the boatload on Amazon.

Spencer, the Zionist-paid hate propagandist who inspired child-murderer Anders Breivik, is peddling 37 very bad books on Amazon. At least nine editions of Hitler’s Mein Kampf are likewise being sold there. Thousands of books that offend modern liberal sensibilities are equally available. So are books that offend traditional conservative sensibilities. And that is as it should be! Two-bit hate hacks like Spencer, as well as important historical figures like Hitler, should be refuted, not silenced.

And speaking of Hitler: The current wave of Amazon censorship began two years ago with the wholesale banning of revisionist books about World War II. On March 6, 2017, Amazon banned 68 titles from Castle Hill Publishers, which specializes in scientific and forensic historical investigations. Germar Rudolf of Castle Hill asserts that his company was not the only one targeted, and that, in fact, hundreds of revisionist history books were banned that day.

Our Constitution, and the tradition of liberty it enshrines, is being shredded. But there is a simple solution: Force Amazon to respect the Bill of Rights. Like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, Amazon has a monopoly in the digital public square. It is a de facto public utility not a private company. If Jeff Bezos keeps spitting on our Constitution, we must nationalize Amazon—and try Bezos for treason.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions.

Source: https://americanfreepress.net/amazon-bans-more-books-by-respected-scholars/