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.
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
“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.’ ”
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”]
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
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.
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.
Leonard Dinnerstein is Dead (May 5, 1934 — January-22, 2019).
The Leo Frank Case Book (published 1968 and thereafter):
The Fate of Leo Frank, American Heritage Magazine, October 1996, Leonard Dinnerstein.
Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records (1,800 pages).
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
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.
January 11, 1991
Source: Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. Green Leather Hardcover. Notable Trials Library edition, 1991.
The Silent and the Damned by Robert Seitz Frey and Nancy C. Thompson
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
* * *
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.
The Atlanta Georgian newspaper covering the Leo Frank Case from April though August 1913.
Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April 28, 1913, through till the end of August 1913, pertaining to the Leo Frank Case:
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’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:
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