Talk:Leo Frank

What significance?

A fresh mound of human excrement was found in the elevator, though the significance was not recognized until after the trial.[13], quoth the article. No significance is ever indicated. Rwflammang (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the mound of excrement, I've found two websites that state it's significance. Can someone verify the validity of these findings, and if correct, incorporate them in to the article?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/

StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)StrangeApparition2011

Steve Oney described the evidence as literally "the shit in the shaft" and it ended up being the definitive proof Leo Frank did not kill Mary Phagan. Carmelmount (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

James Conley said he dumped in the elevator shaft of the National Pencil Company around morning time April 26, 1913, but also claimed to have moved Mary Phagan's dead body by elevator in the afternoon. When the police followed Nightwatchman Newton Lee to the basement through a scuttle hole and down a ladder, they noticed the mound of feces in the floor tray of the elevator shaft was fresh and not flattened. It meant Jim Conley lied, and didn't take the elevator, but the stairs, when he moved Mary. Carmelmount (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fake citations and Original Research

In the section "Immediate Aftermath", someone inserted a big section of Original Research, including comments about the Lindberg baby, citing it to page 81 of Blakeslee. That page can be found here: [1] and does not contain references that support the content. Stop re-inserting the OR and read the sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.195 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the material about the Lindbergh baby and Dreyfus is not in the Blakeslee source, the rest of what you deleted is and more of it is referenced to another source. You had no business taking that out. I have reverted your deletion and deleted the unreferenced material. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be OR, but it's true.Carmelmount (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disinterested third party here. To be fair, the truthfulness of original research is irrelevant. It is still not allowed under WP:OR. -Dapper cthulhu (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dreyfus case and Leo Frank case are monozygotic twins of anti-Jewish racism. Carmelmount (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Proof: http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation Carmelmount (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation Of The Evidence

This article is in dire need of a major edit. I am currently collecting the mass body of evidence that, not only convicted Leo Frank of this brutal murder, but convinced no less than five higher courts to deny his petitions for reprieve.

A sampling of this convincing evidence that is, oddly enough, completely overlooked in this article, includes testimony by a pastor who stated he had overheard Conley confess his crime to another man, only to later admitted that this statement was false and that he offered the statement because Frank's defense attorneys "were just handing money out".

Also a parade of women testified about his reputation concerning “his attitude toward women,” and witness after witness replied, “bad.”

Most damaging was that of sixteen-year-old Dewey Hall who told jurors that she saw Frank talking to Mary Phagan “sometimes two or three times a day” and that she also saw him “put his hand on her shoulder.”, contradicting Frank's statement that he didn't know her. Another witness reported seeing Frank and a female worker slip into a dressing room and “stay in there fifteen to thirty minutes.”

A young friend of Mary's, George Epps, said that Mary said that Frank had made advances towards her. Several other employees at the factory also claimed they had seen Frank flirt with various females at the plant. Nina Formby, the owner of a "rooming house," stated that Frank had made repeated calls to her on the day of the murder attempting to reserve a room for himself and a girl.

C.B. Dalton, a railroad carpenter, testified he had met with several women in the basement of the National Pencil Factory while Jim Conley watched out for him, and that he had seen numerous women come to the factory to visit Frank.

Monteen Stover, testified that she had arrived at the factory at 12:05 PM to receive her pay, had waited in Frank's office for him for five minutes, then left. This contradicted Frank's statement that he had been in his office the entire time in which the murder took place.

R.B. Barrett, a machinist at the factory, provided new information when he said he had found Mary Phagan's empty pay envelope and bloodstains near a machine on the factory's second floor.

This is just a sampling of the testimony that proved Leo Frank, not only lied about everything, but that he was bribing witnesses to falsify their testimony.

Of course his attornys had the ultimate come back to this extraordinary evidence: "Arnold told jurors that “if Frank hadn’t been a Jew he never would have been prosecuted."

I shall return to repair this article just as soon as I finishing collecting the remaining volumes of evidence. Manson 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.leofrank.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you check the archives of this discussion page before initiating your crusade. Wikipedia is based in general on reliable sources and in particular reliable secondary sources. This article does not need any wikipedia editor's original research and conclusions based on their own take of the primary sources. This was the problem when a previous editor attempted to do what you state you intend to do.

The article as written is largely consistent with the major secondary sources and proper weight is given to the issues you have raised. I suggest you discuss proposed changes here before making edits to the main article. As a starter, you might want to go through the claims you made above and explain exactly what RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES support you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your tone nor your assumptions, especially considering the fact that I have already done exactly what you suggest. I gave a sampling here of some of the evidence I intend to add, including a source. If you take issue with anything that I've stated thus far, then attack the specifics of those issues, rather than harp on what others have done, or what you think I'm about to do. I'm very well aquainted with Wiki's policies, and I intend to follow them to the letter. Any edits, I intend to make to this article, I will post on this page first for everyone's considerations. I do not find where any of the issues I've mentioned thus far have been addressed in the current article. Rather any of those are redundant is left to be seen, but I can assure you that none could be considered original research. As for sources, I will post those along with the proposed edits. Manson 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

Some quotes from your website source:

For more than a century Jewish historians and scholars are continuing to re-writing history on the Leo Frank case, producing grotesque media of every possible sort distorting the case in books, magazine and newspaper articles, films, plays, musicals, and now on the Internet etc… all to suggest the Leo Frank epic saga was one big anti-Semitic frame-up, and conspiracy, with a Jewish twist, all of it colorfully inspired by a semi-literate, uneducated and sloppy black factory sweeper, resulting in easily the biggest bamboozle in US history.

The Leo Frank Case is a Microcosm of a Jewish Culture War Against Western Civilization that Continues Unabated and Grows More Grotesque Each and Every Year….

and:

The Leo Frank case has been seized as an effective weapon by the traditional enemies of Western Civilization for their relentless culture war. The Leo Frank case is used to remind, teach, proselytize, and indoctrinate Gentile, especially children and students about how innately evil, prejudiced, and anti-Semitic their forebearers are concerning their persecution of an “innocent” Jew, but more importantly the Leo Frank case is used to activate the persecution-victimhood pathology that is a prevalent genetic disease deeply interwoven in the the collective Jewish genome, psyche, culture and history.

To the extent that the website provides links to primary sources, this is interesting but of little use to this article. To the extent that it provides narratives that serve as a secondary source, you need to establish that it meets wikipedia standards of reliability. The sections I quoted cast doubts on the authors' historical objectivity and professionalism. Who operates the website and what are their academic qualifications? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I urge people reading this discussion to take a look at two of Manson48's wonderful "contributions" to Wikipedia: [2] and [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServioHumara (talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The only things of value on http://www.leofrank.org/ are the images and primary source libraries. Some of the site content reads like an amateur Tom Watson reborn in the 21st century. Any website claiming Leo Frank made "four separate and distinct murder confessions" can not be considered reliable or mainstream. I have not seen the LF Supreme Court of Georgia records anywhere but there. Carmelmount (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually all of the trial evidence I posted on this page came from this site: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/, which I found posted above. I will admit that some of the statements posted above from the www.leofrank.org/ website are extreme. However, I don't see how this disqualifies any links to qualifying sources available from the website. I wish to include a mention of the prosecutor's closing argument. It is worthy of mention if only because it was an historical record of length at the time. Manson 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

You stated above:

"This is just a sampling of the testimony that proved Leo Frank, not only lied about everything, but that he was bribing witnesses to falsify their testimony"

No reasonable person, especially persons familiar with the weaknesses of the prosecutions case and the testimony of Conley, could accept such an absolute proclamation. The Linder article that you now reference certainly makes no such claim. What do you actually propose to add concerning Dorsey's closing statement and what secondary source do you intend to use to support it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This odious site http://www.leofrank.org/confession/ belonging to Manson48 is claiming Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan on the witness stand. Could you talk more about the weaknesses of the prosecutions case in the LF entry?Carmelmount (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The biggest weakness, of course, is the excrement issue. What this actually means is not currently in the article and should be added. Other weaknesses relate to the timeline. This [4] version of the article in the section "April 26 time line" goes into quite a bit of detail on both the prosecution's and defense's versions of the timeline, but the material was deleted about a year ago because it was too detailed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that the best we can do? "the shit in the shaft theory" (Slaton, 1915; Steve Oney, 2003). Did Conley throw Phagan down the elevator shoot? or did he take the elevator down? The police reported seeing drag marks from the elevator to Phagan's dumping site in front of the cellar furnace. Who ever threw or drove Phagan down the elevator shaft missed Conley's excrement. Was it Conley? Is it because Conley explained at the trial, Leo Frank stopped short a number of times and fell into him that the excrement wasn't crushed? Or is it the small space at the bottom of each elevator. Did Jim lie and take Phagan down the scuttle hole as Alonzo man contends? Was Phagan thrown down from the second floor or first floor? How come the autopsy report doesn't reflect a 4'11 and "heavy girl" (115 to 120?)unconscious being thrown down 14 or 28 feet?

Tom, what do we do about trial brief of evidence State's exhibit B (April 28, 1913), Leo Frank claiming the arrival time of Phagan's on April 26, 1913, was at 12:05 to 12:10 PM, maybe 12:07 PM. And then Leo Frank at the trial August 18, 1913, saying he was "unsconsciosly" at the toilet at 12:05 to 12:10 PM to rebut Monteen Stover saying Leo Frank's office was empty during that time. Isn't that the crux of the brief of evidence? We only have one more year to make the Leo Frank case an Antisemitic conspiracy, and right now it doesn't fit that description.Carmelmount (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Newt lee o'clock discrepancies

Newt Lee was supposed to punch his time card on the clock every half hour according to Leo Frank. Is it possible Newt Lee knew something about the Phagan strangulation? On Sunday the day of the murder discovery, Leo Frank in front of the police, Newt Lee and NV Darley said Newt Lee's timecard was punched correctly every half hour for April 26/27 1913. The next day, Leo Frank discovered Lee missed 4 half-hour punches on this same timecard, with the corresponding absences on the night of the murder (April 26) and the next early morning (April 27) the day after the murder of Phagan. Unanswered, Newt Lee never accounted for these 4 missed punches saying he punched the clock every half hour. Leo Frank told the police on 04-28-1913 about these four Newt Lee open discrepancies and submitted the timecard proof as defense exhibit 1 at the 1913 trial. Lee missed a punch at 10:00 PM and 11:30 O'Clock at night on April 26, and 12:30 AM and 2:30 O'Clock in the morning on April 27. Can anyone independently confirm these missed punches by the night watch from the brief of evidence, http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0074.jpg why was this information either suppressed for the defense or used against Leo Frank? The LF Wiki entry does not do enough to show Antisemitism was the root cause of Leo Frank's demise.Carmelmount (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism

An IP has changed the first sentence in the article to exclude the reference to antisemitism. The following are examples from reliable sources that show both the antisemitism and the attention the case attracted attention well beyond Georgia:

Dinnerstein p. xv. Dinnerstein writes, "One of the most infamous outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling in the United States occurred in Georgia in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. ... The Frank case, which eventually developed into one of the most talked-about injustices of the Progressive Era, served also to highlight the dilemnas and difficulties of the American South during that period."

Higham (1988) p. 185-186. Higham notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race. [italics are in the original text]"

Oney p. 462. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915, Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal."

It is my recollection that all of the above was included in the footnotes at one time but were trimmed when the aricle underwent a major rewrite as unnecessary. The material can be added back if folks think it is necessary to support the first sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Checked some diffs and this version [5] contains the documentation -- see footnote 1. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A myriad of references to the Antisemitism in the 'Leo Frank Case' can be found in Leonard Dinnerstein's (1966) PhD dissertation http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation. The LF lead expresses Antisemitism weakly, it needs to be backed up with examples. The LF wiki entry needs to show Antisemitism was the cause of his framing and conviction, not the falsified evidence against him. Carmelmount (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

leo frank teeth xrays and teeth bitemarks on mary phagan's neck and shoulder (fake or real?)

The state's files on the case were lost (state and federal court records on LF all survived, including brief of evidence) and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.

Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein, and others make the conviction-overturning statement there were teeth bitemarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder and xrays were taken of Frank's teeth that didn't match them. There seems to be nothing about this recorded in the brief of evidence (police, doctors, medical examiners), Leo Frank's appeals (1913, 1914, 1915) or any Atlanta/Georgian newspapers. The citation comes from Pierre Van Paasen in 1964 about a claim in 1922. What do we do when a secondary source makes statements not supported or passing minimum scrutiny? 'To Number Our Days' by Pierre Van Paasen (1964), page 237 and line 27, and page 238.

The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy. The unsigned warning was reinforced one night, or rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch.

X-ray photographs are unable to show teeth indentures on skin in 1913 and 2013. X-ray technology was not used in 1913, 1914 or 1915, on teeth anywhere in Georgia. No defense autopsy reports in brief of evidence mention teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or LF teeth x-rays, nor is it mentioned in any of numerous appeals or newspaper articles. Why are we trusting someone (P. Van Paasen) who said LF's appeals lawyer, said LF didn't have a trial yet. LF was not lynched on a train to prison work farm in June 1915 either. Head-on car wreck in 1922, with no scratches? What do we do when a statement does not pass minimum scrutiny, but is added in the lf wiki entry?Carmelmount (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

At wikipedia we rely on reliable secondary sources and the info in question has passed "minimum scrutiny" from these sources. Has a reliable secondary source noted the problem with the dental records that you cite above. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything. I did find this [6] at Amazon -- a reviewer that seems to be on a crusade against all reliable sources on the Frank trial. And of course the claim is made at leofrank.org by whoever organzed the website. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you do a google search and study xray technology and forensics for 1913. It is not possible to X-ray teethmarks on skin then or now. Journalists and authors are prone to cite erroneous information from time to time. It doesn't make the book or author invalid, just the citation. Wiki editors should check statements for their validity, not just insert anything that tickles their fancy. This particular example about xray photographs of teethmarks on skin doesn't pass the science class and is not mentioned in trial or appeals documents or newspapers of the time. What do others have to say about this problem.Carmelmount (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that "Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein" (your list -- I only verified Oney) read Van Paassen's work and judged it credible enough to include in their works. As Wikipedia editors, we don't have the luxury of second guessing their judgement in evaluating the source. They could very well have concluded that Van Paassen did not fully understand what he saw (i.e. did he actually see a photograph of Phagan instead of an x-ray and an x-ray of Frank's teeth instead of a photograph?). They could have judged that any errors made were not significant enough to dismiss everything else contained in the book. This of course is assuming that the transcription from the book is accurate -- where did you get it from?

You would have a better case is our article relied on van Paassen's book alone and nobody else choose to use it as a source. However that's not the case. To repeat an earlier question, Does any reliable source question Oney's use of this material?

The wikipedia article on Pierre van Paassen and the list of his works does not suggest that van Paassen is a crackpot given to making stuff up. Of course we can't really tell what he saw because the actual records mysteriously disappeared. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Carmelmount, you are misrepresenting what's in the article. The article contains no information sourced to van Paassen and says nothing about x-rays. None of the information in the paragraph you reproduce above is in the article. It merely says that when the parole board reviewed the case in the 80s the case files were missing and consequently they had no way of comparing Frank's dental records to photographs of the bite marks on Phagan's body. This statement is sourced to Oney. If you have any reasonable challenge to those facts as cited by Oney or to Oney's reliability as a source, you're welcome to bring it, but so far all you're doing is whining about something that isn't even in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oney made a mistake including this erroneous/false claim in his book. Several doctors testified at the LF trial for LF and the State. The defense/state doctor autopsy reports at the LF trial and appeals mention no teethmarks or bitemarks on Phagan's shoulder and neck. None of the newspapers of the era 1913-1914-1915 mention teethmarks / bitemarks on Phagan. Authors/journalists do make mistakes from time to time, it doesn't invalidate the author or book. The origin of Oney's citation about teethmarks / bitemarks on Mary Phagan comes from Pierre Van Paasen 1964, clearly an unreliable source. Mary Phagan was evaluated by several doctors, buried, exhumed, evaluated by doctors and buried again. There are no bitemarks / teethmarks on the neck or shoulder of Mary Phagan's embalmed body. You should read the brief of evidence, appeals and newspaper reports to know there are no teeth or bitemarks on Phagan.Carmelmount (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

North Shoreman, Re your edit summary[7] "revert -- the source cited (Oney p. 647) specifically mentions 'Frank's dental X rays' and 'photograhps of the bite wounds' " — Could you give the excerpt from Oney p. 647 that includes these two phrases that you quoted, and any references that Oney gives for the excerpt? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the paragraph from which the quotes are taken (you can access it yourself by using the green link to the book in the article's bibliography):

Conley's disappearance from the scene was not the only factor complicating the Board of Pardon and Paroles' attempt to delve back into the Phagan mystery. Also gone were the state's files. In 1947, an Atlanta lawyer and writer named Allen Lumpkin Henson visited Hugh Dorsey in his office to discuss the possibility of writing about the case. "Magazines all over the country keep on distorting the facts," Dorsey told Henson before directing his attention to a large cabinet packed with the documents and pieces of physical evidence that had factored so large during the summer of 1913. "Every scratch of the pen, including my notes and memoranda made during the trial" were there, the former solicitor remarked. Not long after this meeting, Dorsey was dead. Seventeen years later, his oldest son, James, wrote historian Leonard Dinnerstein: "During the years since my father's death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." As a result, the men looking into the matter in 1983 were unable to apply the tools of contemporary forensic science to such items as Frank's dental X rays and the photographs of the bite wounds supposedly covering Mary Phagan's body. Simply put, the argument would never move beyond that of Conley's word versus Frank's.

The reference in the "Notes" section of Oney's book is to Van Paasen.

PS There is a specific discussion of van Paassen on page 617. Oney specifically quotes van Paassen:

The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth.

Note that Carmelmount slightly changes the quote to:

But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included.

Carmelmount makes much of the inclusion of the word "X-ray", but the question is now whether Oney or Carmelmount is accurately quoting van Paassen (shame on Oney, however, if he failed to use ellipsis).Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections of the Jewish community may well have been cautious about re-opening the case, but I am cautious about assuming that this feeling was as strong as this quote makes out, given that there was a lot written about the case in the 20th century e.g. Harry Golden, a leading Jewish journalist, wrote a book about the case in 1966, arguing strongly for Frank's innocence. PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The reluctance on the part of the Jewish community to reopen the case refers back to the 1920s, not the 1960s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Paassen (presumably Paassen's 1964 book), and the corresponding part of Paassen's book that was provided by Carmelmount.

Oney — There, he discovered what seemed to be a critical new evidence — Frank's dental X rays and photographs of Mary Phagan's body "showing teeth indentures." Confirming long-standing speculation, Van Paassen later wrote: "The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled." What was truly startling, however, was this: "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set teeth ... If those photos had been published at the time of the murder ... the lynching would probably not have taken place."[8]

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

Comparing the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Van Paassen's book, with the excerpt that Carmelmount got directly from Van Paassen's book:

• Oney mentions Van Paassen's use of the term X-ray but doesn't give a quote of Van Paassen using the term X-ray.
• Carmelmount gives the corresponding excerpt from Van Paassen's book that uses the term X-ray.

Oney might have thought that Van Paassen's memory got mixed up about what were X-ray photos and what were ordinary photos, and Oney may have been correcting Van Paassen's mistake. That would explain the selective quoting by Oney that didn't include quotes with the term "X-ray". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming that Carmelmount took the info from the book. I asked him/her above where the excerpt came from and have not received a reply. It is more likely that the quote came from leofrank.org (see, for example [9]). While the website does have links to legitimate websites, much of the material (see discussion above) that is original commentary is extremely unprofessional and antisemitic. On the portion of the website that I linked, the following commentary occurs right before the van Paassen material is quoted:

Pro Leo Frank revisionists and partisan authors have been intentionally perpetuating a known fraud called the “1964 Mary Phagan Bitemark and Leo Frank X-Ray Hoax” for the specific purpose of tricking the general public into thinking Leo Frank was an innocent White man wrongfully convicted for the murder of Mary Phagan by an evil Goyim conspiracy orchestrated by the people of Georgians who knew he was innocent, but were bent on framing him because Leo Frank was Jewish. The fraud has been perpetuated by Pseudo-Historian Leonard Dinnerstein, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Arizona; Tabloid journalist-author Steve Oney; Pseudo-Scholar Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law; and children’s book author Elaine Marie Alphin, along with many other members of the Jewish community.

I don't think it is reasonable to accept w/o question that van Paassen is quoted accurately by this website. Of course, the bottom line, regardless of my opinion or what the actual language is, is that reliable sources have found van Paassen to be a reliable source for their works. If I seem to be beating a dead horse, it is because a little over a year ago the article was attacked by an editor using numerous sock puppets and Carmelmount and Manson48 are using the exact same arguments and sources used by the other editor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I trust Oney to quote van Paasen accurately more than I trust Carmelmount or leofrank.org. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If an editor gives an excerpt from a book that is available to the public, it seems reasonable to get the book from a library and check the excerpt if there's some doubt about the authenticity of the excerpt. Here's a link for finding nearby libraries that have it.[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oney's citation about teethmarks on Phagan comes from Pierre Van Paasen (1964), 'To Number Our Days'. The copied quote from Pierre Van Paasen's book is accurate, and if anyone has any doubts about the accuracy of the quote they can purchase the book from Amazon, or borrow a copy through the US inter-loan library system. No where in the LF trial brief of evidence, appeals or slaton commutation hearings is there any mention of teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or photographs of teethmarks anywhere on Phagan. None of the three local Atlanta newspapers, Constitution, Journal or Georgian mention anything about teeth marks on Mary Phagan.Carmelmount (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "No where in the LF trial brief of evidence, appeals or slaton commutation hearings is there any mention of teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or photographs of teethmarks anywhere on Phagan. None of the three local Atlanta newspapers, Constitution, Journal or Georgian mention anything about teeth marks on Mary Phagan." — Do you have a link to any reliable sources that made these claims? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please search on 'Leo Frank' once inside the Georgia State Virtual Vault. There are three links of Leo M. Frank vs. The State of Georgia. The state archive contains three identical copies of the LF trial brief of evidence (28th of July, 1913, to 26, of August, 1913) http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php some versions are clearer than others (2nd copy of the brief of evidence is clear with the motion for new trial). State and defense doctors who examined Phagan testified to what they found on Phagan's body in the brief of evidence. I checked again for the fourth time to be sure and nowhere does it mention teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder (or anywhere on her body). American State Trials v. 10 by JD Lawson LLD, has the closing statements of State / Defense attorneys http://www.archive.org/download/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan/american-state-trials-1918-volume-X.pdf nothing by Dorsey, Hooper, Rosser or Rube Arnold about teeth marks on Phagan. Leo Frank and his counsel filed a motion for a new trial on more than 100 grounds, and nowhere in those 100 grounds does it mention teeth marks on Mary Phagan. The motion for a new trial is also available to read on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php see Leo Frank vs State (second example Leo Frank vs. The State of Georgia). There is a bill of exceptions on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php and nothing about teeth marks on MP. The original 30 page clemency order of Gov. J.M. Slaton is listed on http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php and again nothing about teeth marks on Phagan. I found a 1818 page GA supreme court file on LF on the unreliable source called the Leo Frank library http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ it appears to be authentic when compared against Georgia State Archive documents. The newspaper articles taken from proquest on http://www.leofrank.org/newspapers/ appear to be authentic as well. The Internet Archive http://www.archive.org contains numerous books on the Leo Frank case, eg. CP.Connolly The Truth about the Leo Frank Case http://www.archive.org/download/TheTruthAboutLeoFrankCase/the-truth-about-the-leo-frank-case-1915.pdf Night fell on Georgia http://www.archive.org/download/NightFellOnGeorgia/Night_Fell_on_Georgia.pdf The case of Leo Frank by Rascoe Burton http://www.archive.org/details/TheCaseOfLeoFrank and none of the legal docs, or books before 1964 describe teeth marks on Phagan. 1964 appears to be the birth of this fabrication.Carmelmount (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you went through all that effort with your last message, but that doesn't seem to be what I was asking, although I appreciate your effort. I was asking for a reliable source that came to the same conclusions that you made in your previous message that I quoted.

Also, what concerns me is that it is difficult to say that evidence regarding bite marks never existed. There seemed to be an atmosphere around the time of the trial that may have suppressed exculpatory evidence and kept it from the defense attorneys. It's my understanding that Van Paassen claims to have come across the bite marks evidence in 1922, 9 years after the trial when things may have settled down somewhat. I can only speculate that he may have been able to find the evidence when others during the trial didn't, because it wasn't as carefully guarded and hidden anymore. Do you think that's a reasonable possibility? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So much of what Van P says misrepresents facts of the LF case. He provides incorrect information about the trial, lynching, Henry Alexander. Most amusing he claims while driving his car in 1922 he was forced into a head on collision, but he escaped with out a scratch. The airbag must have saved him. Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors and their reports http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php are in the LF brief of evidence. None of the Lf defense doctors describe teeth marks on Phagan or xrays of LF mouth proving him innocent. The LF teeth xrays and Phagan bodily teeth marks are made up. Had there been teeth marks on Phagan, it would have been reported.Carmelmount (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors and their reports http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php are in the LF brief of evidence." — I went to the link you provided and only got the home page. Could you give the link to the webpage that has the autopsy reports by the LF defense doctors? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked again for teeth marks on MP or LF mouth xrays/photos at Georgia Virtual Vault http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php search on Leo Frank, look for three items Leo Frank vs. The State of Georgia. The second and third copy of the brief of evidence are clear to read. The State made it's case first, then the Defense made it's case. You can find the Defense's case in the second half of the trial portion brief of evidence. Then comes the exhibits at the end. No defense doctors who examined MP's naked and embalmed body and reported teeth marks on Phagan's neck or shoulder, they reported nothing about LF xrays, mouth indenture molds or photos of his mouth. I checked again LF made a motion for a new trial on 107 grounds http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php nothing in their either about teeth marks on MP's shoulder or neck, nothing in their about xrays, denture molds or photos of LF mouth. Same with all of LF appeals, nothing about teeth marks on MP shoulder and neck, or LF mouth xrays, photos or mouth molds. I downloaded and checked the agonizing long http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/ supreme court of georgia file on LF, nothing in their either. Gov. JM Slaton says nothing about teeth marks either in his 30 page clemency order. I checked every book written about the LF case before 1964, none mention teeth marks anywhere on MP. Van P is an unreliable source and his claims can not be verified.Carmelmount (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that but you didn't give the requested link. Could you give the link to the webpage that has the autopsy reports by the LF defense doctors? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through the brief of evidence, 1913, and focused on defense doctors. Page 154 Prof. Geo Bachman, p. 143 Dr. Owens, p. 156 Dr. Thomas Hancock, p.159 Dr. Thomas Hancock, p. 159 Dr. Willis F. Westmoreland, P. 161 Dr. J.C. Olmstead, p. 162 Dr. W.S. Kendrick, p165 Dr. Leroy Childs, p228 Dr. SC Benedict, p. 236 Dr. Clarence Johnson, P. 238 Dr. George M. Niles, p240 Dr. John Funk. The central argument by defense doctors seems to be over things like stomach digestion, cause of the black eye on Mary Phagan, inflammation found in her vagina, LF penis examinations. The examinations of Phagan were primarily conducted by undertaker Gheesling and Dr. Harris, probably Atlanta police, not defense doctors as far a I can see. However, there is still no mention of Leo Frank teeth examination, photos, molds, xrays or teeth marks on Phagan by defense doctors. Can someone please provide evidence before the Van P claim in 1964 that there were teeth marks on phagan and xrays or photos taken of LF mouth. Otherwise there is no proof of it and Van P is not a reliable source because he gets everything wrong about the frank case.Carmelmount (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the discussion concerning YOUR analysis of primary sources and YOUR analysis of Van Paassen's book are irrelevant. What is relevant is that ACTUAL RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES have accepted Van Paassen's claim regarding dental records as credible and NO RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES question it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Carmelmount, Re your comment, "The examinations of Phagan were primarily conducted by undertaker Gheesling and Dr. Harris, probably Atlanta police, not defense doctors as far a I can see." — Thanks for correcting your previous comment, "Autopsies were performed on the naked and embalmed body of Mary Phagan by LF Defense doctors..."

Re your comment, "However, there is still no mention of Leo Frank teeth examination, photos, molds, xrays or teeth marks on Phagan by defense doctors." — Couldn't that be because the exculpatory evidence related to bite marks was withheld from the defense doctors and they didn't know about it since they didn't examine the body themselves? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of sources suggest at 3 AM-ism on Aug. 27, 1913, when the Nightwatch Newt Lee found Phagan in the basement she was fully clothed. Could someone have take off her dress, bit her shoulder and then put the dresss back on? Possibly, but there is no evidence about teeth marks on MP except from an unreliable journalist Van P. in 1964. Leo Frank was not arrested until Tuesday, so between Sunday and Monday, nobody reported teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder. Had someone bitten Phagan they would have reported it and taken teeth molds of Lee, Gantt, Frank, Bailey, Mullenaux (sp) and all the other people suspected. The media would have likely reported the police where looking for the suspect whose teeth marks were on Phagan. To suggest Gheesling, Dorsey, Harris, Atlanta Police, others knew of teeth marks on Phagan and they took xrays of Leo Frank's mouth and they didn't match, but prosecuted him anyway, amounts to intentionally murdering an innocent man. This is nearly impossible to reconcile with the evidence, when considering Leo Frank told the police on he never left his office between noon and 12:45. Monday the 28 of April, Frank said miss Phagan came into his office between 12:05 to 12:10PM (states exbht b), but at the trial (aug. 18) he changed his story and said he was using the toilets in the metal room during this time to account for his office being empty (Monteen Stover). According to one site, in a prison interview, Atanta Constitution, March 9, 1914, Frank one more time confirmed his presence at the toilets in the metal room regarding Monteen Stover, this again during the time he once said Phagan was in his office. Apparently the only toilets on second floor / office floor are in the metal room based on defendents exhibits and states exhibit A. Pretty incriminating to put yourself so near the crime scene at the time claimed for Phagans arrival. About the teeth marks, I'm not saying Oney is an unreliable source, but journalists do make mistakes from time-to-time, and the question arises, should we include their unverifiable mistakes in the wiki entry.Carmelmount (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I went to a library and photocopied the part of the Van Paassen 1964 book on pages 237–8 that discussed the Leo Frank case. I compared it with Carmelmount's excerpt, word for word. With regard to the teeth marks part, Van Paassen's book was identical to that part of Carmelmount's excerpt. There were some minor transcription errors in other parts of Carmelmount's excerpt. Those transcription errors were also found in the excerpt that was at http://www.leofrank.org/steve-oney/.

Excerpt from Van Paassen 1964, pages 237–8, that discusses Leo Frank case

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

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

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

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

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Van Paassen claims, Leo Frank was lynched on his way from the Atlanta tower to Milledgeville for a murder trial, but Leo Frank had his trial in 1913, and was lynched 2 years later in Marietta August 17, 1915. Van P also claims, he went to the courthouse and found records concerning teeth marks on Phagan and photos of LF's teeth, how come no one else ever saw these records? How did they get there? How do we know they are real? What ever became of the evidence? Why did LF never mention his teeth were photographed to compare them with teeth marks on Phagan? Van Paasen claims, "Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested". Why would Frank's appeals lawyer Henry Alexander be talking about presenting evidence to a grand jury and that Leo Frank did not have a trial yet? Van Paasen claims he was in a head on collision and escaped without a scratch, "A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....". Van Paasen is indisputably a crackpot and any references to his unverifable and unreliable teeth mark claims by sources such as Dinnerstein or Oney should be added to the wiki entry if it is to maintain scholarly integrity.Carmelmount (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Much of your message is off the topic of this section which is evidence related to teeth marks. Regarding the questions you are raising about the credibility of Van Paassen's recounting of the teeth mark evidence, I don't think those questions are enough reason to exclude the material from the article. See my comments of 23:53, 13 January 2012 in the section below. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of excerpts from Oney and Van Paassen

From Oney p. 617,[11]

Shortly after landing a job at the Constitution, Pierre Van Paassen immersed himself in the records at the Fulton County Courthouse. There, he discovered what seemed to be a critical new evidence — Frank's dental X rays and photographs of Mary Phagan's body "showing teeth indentures." Confirming long-standing speculation, Van Paassen later wrote: "The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled." What was truly startling, however, was this: "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth ... If those photos had been published at the time of the murder ... the lynching would probably not have taken place."

From Van Paassen pp. 237–8,

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

Oney misrepresented and misquoted Van Paassen's book regarding X rays.

1. Misrepresentation — Oney referred to X rays of Frank's teeth, and photographs of teeth marks (indentures) on Phagan's body, whereas Van Paassen wrote the opposite, i.e. there were X rays of teeth marks (indentures) on Phagan's body, and photos of Frank's teeth.
2. Misquoting — Oney quote of Van Paassen, "The photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth ..."

Van Paassen actually wrote, "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included."

Oney summarized his comments later in his book on p. 647,[12]

...Frank's dental X rays and the photographs of the bite wounds supposedly covering Mary Phagan's body.

The corresponding material currently in the Wikipedia article is,

...comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.

Before considering whether to do anything about this, I would like editors' thoughts on whether Oney misrepresented and misquoted what Van Paassen wrote. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, "misrepresented" suggests intentionality (for example see [[13]]. There is nothing to suggest that there was any attempt by Oney to deceive anybody. Did he "misquote"? It seems likely that he did, but it probably was nothing but sloppy note taking or sloppy editing. It should be noted that Dinnerstein (page 158) also used van Paassen.

Does any of this suggest that van Paassen did not see something that he concluded were Frank's dental records and bite wounds on Phagan?

I would suggest rewriting the paragraph as follows (bold print indicates new language and strike out indicate deleted material):

Mann's deposition was the basis of an attempt to obtain a posthumous pardon for Frank from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue. The board also reviewed the files from Slaton's commutation decision. It denied the pardon in 1983, hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records. Conley had died in 1962. The state's files on the case, which were last in the possession of lead prosecutor Hugh Dorsey, were lost or destroyed and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs bite marks on Phagan's body. It concluded that, "After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo. M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively." At the time, the lead editorial in the Atlanta Constitution began, 'Leo Frank has been lynched a second time'.

Absent any discussion in reliable sources regarding the x-ray/photograph discrepancy, I don't see where any attempt to speculate on it in the article is warranted nor is it sufficient to justify exclusion. What would be inappropriate is to claim that evidence proved Frank's innocence but we don't do that.

I do think it is appropriate to explain, as Oney does (page 647), who had the evidence before it was lost or destroyed. I also think that elsewhere in the article it is necessary (since the issue of forensic evidence is being raised) that more details be added on the evidence reviewed by Governor Slaton which includes the shit in the shaft, the lack of blood where it should have occurred, the language of the murder notes and the location of the pads, the faulty hair analysis, etc. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(Let's first settle the Van Paassen/Oney teeth marks issue before going onto something else.)

The teeth marks info looks unreliable. It comes from the 1964 memoirs of a journalist who makes the uncorroborated claim to have seen X-ray photographs of teeth marks 42 years previously in 1922. So far, there hasn't been presented on this talk page even a hint of this evidence from any other independent source. Oney's report of Van Paassen's account was carefully crafted, not sloppy, with the result that a part of Van Paassen's recollection that casts doubt on its credibility, was changed. Editors can read the excerpts from Oney and Van Paassen at the top of this section and judge for themselves. In any case, sloppy or otherwise, wouldn't you agree that Oney incorrectly reported and misquoted Van Paassen's account with respect to the X-ray photos?

I don't think we should propagate in Wikipedia clearly erroneous reporting (e.g. Oney's report of Van Paassen's X-ray info) or present info in a way that is not NPOV. However, if you think the Van Paassen account is worthwhile information for the article, then for NPOV why not put its information in the article with its problems? (Note that Van Paassen's book is a secondary source for the information in the X-ray photos and photos, and thus OK in that regard.) One possibility is the following,

The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.[1]

1. For example, a journalist claims in his 1964 memoirs to have seen in 1922, records containing X-ray photos of teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with most of your comments. Memoirs certainly are primary sources -- see [[14]] and [[15]]. While the lines may blur depending on the scope of the memoir, this memoir is a primary source for the salient issue (i.e. what van Paassen saw). As far as corroboration, van Paassen's work was published in 1964, after the records were lost or destroyed. The basic charge by van Paassen (i.e. that the prosecution improperly handled and interpreted evidence) is certainly not extraordinary -- there are numerous examples of this happening. With regard to autopsy results, see Oney pages 91-92 -- Dorsey (the last man known to have the records in his possession before they disappeared) placed very tight restrictions on the release of evidence from the autopsy. You ignore the fact that it is not just Oney who relied on van Paassen but numerous other authors. The most significant scholarly use of the material was the book by PHD Leonard Dinnerstein.

I really object to you statement, "I don't think we should propagate in Wikipedia clearly erroneous reporting (e.g. Oney's report of Van Paassen's X-ray info) or present info in a way that is not NPOV." There is nothing POV about the existing language -- it is properly sourced and uncontradicted by any reliable source. Perhaps you can show us what part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view has been violated. I think the error would be to ignore evidence reported in the two most significant works on the subject.

Having said all that, your proposal merits consideration. I object to the use of the weasel word "claim" (see WP:CLAIM. I also believe, as I suggested earlier, that specifics on who last had the evidence is significant. I suggest the following:

The state's files on the case were lost[1] and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.[2]

1. Oney 2003, p.647. Hugh Dorsey admitted to having the records in his possession in 1947, but after his death Dorsey's son replied in 1964 to historian Leonard Dinnerstein's request that the records had "been lost or destroyed".

2. For example, a journalist claims states in his 1964 memoirs to have seen that he saw in 1922, records containing X-ray photos of teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we disagree on a number of peripheral items but seem to be moving towards agreement about what should be in the article, I'll focus on the latter.

Here's a version that edits your latest version (including a part which was also in my previous version), mainly by changing to the relevant quote from Van Paassen's book and the relevant quote of Dorsey's son in Oney's book.

The state's files on the case were lost[1] and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques.[2]

1. Oney 2003, p.647. In 1947 shortly before his death, Hugh Dorsey admitted to having said he had the records in his possession in 1947, but after his death Dorsey's son replied in 1964 to historian Leonard Dinnerstein's request that the records had "been lost or destroyed". Seventeen years later, Dorsey's son James wrote in a private communication, "During the years since my fathers death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." Oney 2003, p.647.

2. For example, a journalist states in his 1964 memoirs that he saw courthouse records in 1922, records containing X-ray photos of teeth marks on the corpse of Mary Phagan, and photos of Leo Frank's teeth which did not match the teeth marks. evidence relating to teeth marks on Mary Phagan's body. "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included." Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

And here's the same version without the struckout text and underlines.

The state's files on the case were lost[1] and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques.[2]

1. In 1947 shortly before his death, Hugh Dorsey said he had the records in his possession. Seventeen years later, Dorsey's son James wrote in a private communication, "During the years since my fathers death I am afraid that any old papers which he might have preserved have been lost or destroyed." Oney 2003, p.647.

2. For example, a journalist states in his 1964 memoirs that he saw courthouse records in 1922, containing evidence relating to teeth marks on Mary Phagan's body. "But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank's set of teeth of which several photos were included." Van Paassen, Pierre (1964). To Number Our Days. New York, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 237–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait awhile before making the edit to see if anyone else would like to comment. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not scientifically possible to xray teeth marks on the surface of someone's skin in 1913. I ask for proof it was forensically possible. Other than Van P's 1964 fabrication, can anyone show any evidence their were teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder before 1964? Before LF was arrested on the 29th of April, 1913, there are no reports of teeth mark's on Phagan, or immediately afterwards. Phagan was exhumed and May 5th Dr. Harris performed an autopsy, their are no reports of teeth marks on her from any of the police, the undertaker or Dr. Harris. Why between 1913 till the trial transcripts disappeared in the 1960's does no one else report xrays / photos of teeth marks on Phagan and xrays / photos of LF's teeth? The claims are unverifiable and the original source of the claims is an unreliable source.Carmelmount (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the teeth mark evidence wouldn't be known beyond the police or prosecutors if they suppressed it. They may have thought it would help free a man they "knew" to be guilty. Regarding the x-rays, Van Paassen's memory might have been faulty and there may have been just ordinary photographs of both the teeth marks and Frank's teeth, which may have been enough to see whether they fit or not. Another possibility is that Van Paassen viewed the negatives of the teeth marks photos and thought they were X-ray photos since X-ray photos look like negatives of regular black and white photos.

Although I think Van Paassen's account is flaky, the basic point that there was teeth marks evidence may be true. You and I don't know for sure one way or the other. I also think Van Paassen's account is notable because of its use by historians and other reputable writers after 1964. Considering both these aspects, flaky (IMO) and notable, I think the above proposal is appropriate, i.e. a footnote that quotes the unsanitized sentence from Van Paassen's book. I don't think there's enough reason to exclude the material completely. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, did Van Paassen go to the courthouse when he found the non-existent xrays of teeth marks on Phagan or did he go to Dorsey's office (not in the courthouse) and find them?Carmelmount (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob, calling Van Paassen flaky does not accurately describe him, he is an outright crackpot and con artist extraordinaire (read his 1964 book 'To Number Our Days'), his claims of finding evidence at the courthouse showing teeth marks on Phagan amounts to an indisputable fraud and hoax of the worst kind. Van Paassen's claims are unverifiable when compared against the official records and newspaper articles of the time, and just because some notable authors quote him doesn't mean we should put in the wiki entry when we know his claims are patently false. This is really POV and bad cherry picking to the benefit of Leo Frank. With all the volumes of evidence out there to exonerate Leo Frank, why do we have to use this fabricated evidence in the wiki entry? Are we really that hard up for evidence to show Leo Frank was innocent, that we have to use made up stuff to achieve this position?Carmelmount (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposed change moves the teeth mark material from the more prominent place in the main text, to the less prominent place in a footnote. With the understanding that you want it completely removed from the article, and with the understanding that accepting the proposal does not preclude your continued attempts to argue for its removal completely, would you agree to have the proposal implemented? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent. Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication. It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF. This wiki entry suffers from the problem of having a group of editors who are bent on working together to add anything they can find favoring Leo Frank and removing anything incriminating against him. If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame Antisemitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes. If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors. Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism. So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching? or do we just leave that as the conclusion people can draw themselves, now that they don't know Slaton commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm client Leo Frank (while siding with the judge, jury and appeals courts sustaining LF's guilt, last page of the 29 page clemency order, June 21, 1915).Carmelmount (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that but you didn't answer the question in my last message. Would you agree to have the proposal implemented? --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob is showing remarkable patience in staying on point. All of Carmelmount's arguments have been rejected in the past when made by a banned user and his/her numerous sock puppets. I have generally avoided going into detail and refuting Carmelmount's repetitive claims, but I am making a one-time exception to his/her latest effort.

Carmelmount: Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent.

Response: Conspiracy theory? So Oney, Dinnerstein, and law professor Wilkes have deliberately “manufactured fraud.” Of course this conspiracy theory is exactly the claim made by leofrank.org which attributes it to a Jewish conspiracy. Do you accept the Jewish conspiracy charge or is their some other reason why these people “manufactured fraud”.

Carmelmount: Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication.

Response: Not true. Wikipedia policy fully supports including information widely reported in reliable secondary sources.

Carmelmount: It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF.

Response: Bad idea. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. We have established in these discussions that no reliable secondary sources support your interpretation.

Carmelmount: If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame anti-Semitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes.

Response: So now the editors of this article are involved in your conspiracy. And the conspiracy is to find anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist? This is straight out of leofrank.org. In fact, the existence of anti-Semitism as a factor in the Leo Frank case is widely accepted by historians.

Carmelmount: If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors.

Response: The goal is to create an accurate article that adequately reflects the significant information included in reliable secondary sources. In your arguments you have failed to cite even one reliable secondary source.

Carmelmount: Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism.

Response: Not true. What was eliminated was the UNSOURCED claim that a belief in a conflict of interest was related to the spontaneous demonstrations in Atlanta after the commutation was announced. In fact, there is no objection (see “Slaton and Conflict of Interest” below) to including the material in the proper context. Slaton became a partner ONLY because he had an existing law firm that he could not operate while Governor. As Dinnerstein (page 124) states, “After the new law partners commenced operations, Slaton had nothing to do with the defendant: he shared neither the burdens of the work nor the rewards of the fee.” It should also be noted that Tom Watson actually offered to politically support Slaton if he would allow Frank to die.

There’s an interesting story there and I am fine with including everything from the reliable secondary sources.

Carmelmount: So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching?

Response: Good idea. We really do need to add further information to show the extent to which secondary sources discuss the role of anti-Semitism in the Frank case. It is interesting that in the Slaton section below that you call Watson a populist while ignoring the anti-Semitism and racism that was found throughout his writings. Higham (pp. 185-186) for example notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race."

Do you (Carmelmount) really disagree that referring to Jews as the "scum and dregs of the Parasite Race" is baltant anti-Semitism?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is not all the Antisemitism proof being put into the article if the Lead defines the spot light being put on Antisemitism?To borrow Newt Lee's quote, All im seeing is a gas jet lowered to the level of a small lightening bug. Turn the spot light on it in the LF Wiki entry. Where was the Antisemitism during the murder, investigation, coroner's inquest, jail, grand jury, trial, appeals, lynching and aftermath? Please articulate it.

The absolute bottom line is a known hoax that should be called the 1964 Pierre Van Paassens fraud perpetuated by Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Melnick, Professor Wilkes (and other notable and reliable authors) perpetuate a known fraud about xray photographic proof concerning teethmarks, bitemarks, indentures, imprints, whatever you want to call vicious biting, on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder, and Photographic xray photos of Leo Frank's teeth and mouth disproving he strangled Phagan. Hopefully Verifiability is the highest God on wikipedia.Carmelmount (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

bob i have no other choice but to agree to your proposal about the inclusion, im in the minority here about this and outnumbered. The world deserves to know it was a fraud perpetuated by numerous notable and "reliable" authors.Carmelmount (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing that it is an improvement even though you still question whether the evidence ever existed. And thanks to North Shoreman for coauthoring the proposal. I've incorporated the proposal into the article.[16] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Slaton and Conflict of Interest

The body of the article contained this sentence, "The Atlanta area public was outraged, in part because of what they saw as Slaton's conflict of interest: during Frank's trial Slaton had been made a partner in the law firm headed by Rosser, Frank's lead defense counsel at his 1913 trial." It was sourced to Dinnerstein pp. 123-124 and a similar statement was included in the lede. I have removed the material.

The source does in fact discuss a potential conflict of interest. It was mentioned in the context of a possible excuse Slaton could have used to disqualify himself from making a decision on Frank. Dinnerstein does not, however, on these pages or elsewhere make the link that the spontaneous demonstrations were, in any part, a reaction to this potential conflict of interest. Oney, likewise, does not make any such connection.

Absent a reliable source that connects the rioting with the perceived conflict of interest, it is OR for wikipedia to suggest that the two were related. Also, if someone wants to add the material back with the proper context in the proper place in the section, they can do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with this, only to add that if the material is reinserted, it should not be in the lead. It's hardly a "need to know" about LF. IronDuke 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Did we just put the cause of Leo Frank's lynching down the memory hole? What caused Leo Frank to be lynched was it Antisemitism or a most grotesque conflict of interest, or Both? Now that the Conflict of Interest has been erased from the wiki entry, we can now open the doorway to making the reason Antisemitism. So where is the explanation for the lynching? Since it is one of the major events in Leo Frank's life, I would think we should be able to know WHY according to the consensus. Why does the article put the spot light on Antisemitism but not back it up? Where is the Antisemitism, why isn't the article brimming with it with so many secondary sources claiming it?

Erased from existence of Wikipedia the most powerful lawfirm in Georgia was called Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips (some of the company stationary with their name has survived and is available online), the 'Slaton' was lawpartner Governor John Marshall Slaton. The populist Tom Watson described the perceived gross conflict of interest in his Watson's Magazine (August, September and October 1915?) and Jeffersonian newspapers (1915, 1916, 1917?) as the Gov. Slaton "commuting the death sentence of his own client". Watson used the "disqualified status" of the Governer-lawpartner Slaton and his controversial commutation to whip up anger in his readership and further enrage the public by making them aware of what many believed was a treasonous betrayal by one of their own and the Jewish community therefore inciting Antisemitism and AntiJewish feelings.

Now that the doorway has been opened to Antisemitism, What's the consensus on Antisemitism was it non-existent or rampant in the south except for some isolated incidents. What do the news records of the period say to the amount of Antisemitism.

The ADL says "hang the Jew" was shouted outside into the court room windows, and so do other notable sources on the Leo Frank case. Numerous reliable sources have made this claim about Antisemitism in the Leo Frank Case can we please have an articulation of it? Shall we add Antisemitism to the article to replace Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, and the GA Supreme Court Case Archive filled with affidavits and statements about this lawfirms criminal behavior during the appeals?

What we are beginning to see is wikipedia is evolving into whoever can write the most about a subject and quote it in Wikipedia, becomes mainstream WIKIPEDIA. Shall we hire every professor in the country to write this way or that way on the LF case to make it the mainstream Wikipedia version? Does anyone see where wikipedia is going? Unreliable claims becoming Wikipedia mainstream like the Phagan Teeth mark fraud because numerous "reliable" authors wrote about it Dinnerstein, Oney, Melnick, Wilkes, Alphin and others. What's going on here?

The commutation likely had everything to do with the lynching of Leo Frank (LF), not Anti-Semitism, and you can't help but blame the public being angry that a man who gave a blue moon to Mary Phagan's eye got clemency for the crime. The Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court file of appeals includes a number of incriminating affidavits against Slaton by former National Pencil Company employees accusing Slaton of being involved or associated in trying to criminally get them to rescind their LF trial testimony. Never before talked about is the GA Supreme Court Case archive on LF, it is there the devils in the details.Carmelmount (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone other than Slaton commuted the sentence to life, do you think there wouldn't have been public outrage and a lynching? In any case, without a reliable source for the answer it would be just our opinion, which can't be put into the article because of WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is nothing about the Slaton-Rosser law partnership in the article. Although there wasn't a reliable source that connected the Slaton-Rosser law partnership to the public outrage at the commutation, there are reliable sources that considered whether or not it was a conflict of interest. It seems that some mention of it should be in the article, being careful that what is added is supported by a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I made a corresponding edit.[17] --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"If someone other than [Governor John] slaton commuted the sentence to life, do you think there wouldn't have been public outrage and a lynching?" - Who else had the power or could have commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank scheduled to hang on June 22, 1915, with Slaton's term as Governor coming to an end less than a week later (June 28, 1913 – June 26, 1915)? Leo Frank had fully exhausted all of his appeals at the state and federal level of the united states appellate court system, the supreme court of the united states of america voted unanimously for no more reviews of the case. Followed by the GA prison board that voted 2 to 1 against a commutation of Leo Frank's death sentence, so who exactly else was going to commute the death sentence of Leo Frank other than the only person that had the power to do so, which was Governor John Marshall Slaton, the law partner of 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips', the lawfirm that represented Leo Frank during his trial and several appeals? The LF wiki entry still does not answer one of the most significant questions concerning one of the defining moments of LF's life, "Why was Leo Frank lynched or hanged (lead) by the most prominent citizens of GA"? Surely with all the books, magazine and newspaper articles written on the case, that question can be definitively and reliably answered with secondary sources.Carmelmount (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Height

It's a small issue, but I corrected the height of Frank based on Oney's work. The issue is reliable secondary sources versus primary sources and has been discussed to death -- both recently and the past. A while ago most references to primary sources were eliminated and there is no point in slowly adding them back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what Oney's and Lindemann's source was for Frank's height. I didn't notice a source mentioned on the relevant page in Oney's book. Maybe his source was Lindemann's book? Do you happen to know what Lindemann used as a source for Frank's height? (The relevant page in the Lindemann book wasn't available online.) Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a serious problem on wikipedia cherry picking "facts" from "reliable" secondary sources that are not accurate. The problem with human error, in the form of typos and sloppy research is why primary sources must be relied upon for accuracy. Two primary sources say Leo Frank is 5'8", his 1906 College Senior Year Book p. 345 and his 1907 Passport Application, but Oney and lindemann get Leo Frank's height wrong at 5'6". So guess who is correct about Leo Frank's height Oney and Lindemann, or the 1906 year book and official passport application notarized Dec 20, 1907? The perpetuation of the Phagan teeth mark hoax is not the only mistake Oney makes, he also made a mistake concerning Leo Frank's height and there are lots of other mistakes he made as well, that we will eventually flush in the future. The 5'6" height can not be verified by primary sources, but 5'8" can be verified by primary sources. Carmelmount (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding cherry picking, secondary and primary sources— Unfortunately, so far the only secondary source for the 5'8" height is a website, www.leofrank.org, that is apparently self published and has a biased anti-semitic style, and is thus not reliable. That website has a copy of a passport application with 5'8" and a copy of a Cornell yearbook with 5'8". Frank is student #177 on p.345. That website may or may not have cherry picked sources for the 5'8" height. On the other hand, student #178 in the yearbook is 5'6", so the ultimate source of Frank's 5'6" height might have been a misreading of this data table in the Cornell yearbook. But this is speculation. So far, I'm inclined to agree with North Shoreman and only use the reliable secondary sources for Frank's height since that is more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. But it would give me a better feeling if I knew that Oney and Lindemann had good sources for Frank's height. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lindemann does not footnote that portion of his narrative but based on his other footnotes I assume he got the info from another secondary source. Dinnerstein (page 6) uses a description from the Atlanta Constitution describing Frank as a "small, wiry man" without giving an actual height. I assume that it is likely that 5'6" was widely circulated by the newspapers at the time and that this is the ultimate source. Wouldn't his height have been noted on his arrest and reported in he press? When facts are generally accepted, non-controversial, and/or unquestioned, there is a tendency not to footnote. Leofrank.org has a very specific agenda and a reason to cherry pick on an otherwise insignificant two inches -- objective writers and historians have no such bias. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Dinnerstein's book in general is filled with relevant errors, but we need not flush that out here at this time. Can you produce primary sources that say Leo Frank's height is 5'6" or some other height? Are we to presume Lindemann, Steve Oney et al. made a typo or a copy of a typo? Why not? Does anyone check primary sources anymore? Perhaps we could put in a foot note that says there is no primary source known in existence that records Leo Frank's height at 5'6", but two known reliable primary sources that put his height at 5'8". We should also mention all the authors that list Leo Frank's height and weight incorrectly. What we have here is sloppy research being requoted by secondary source authors that can not be considered reliable when their books are compared against the primary sources. We are all human and make mistakes, 5'6" is a typo, Leo Frank's correct height is 5'8" according to his official passport and his college weight was 145 lbs as listed in the Cornell U. 1906 class book p. 345 row 177.Carmelmount (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that North Shoreman made a good point, "Wouldn't his height have been noted on his arrest and reported in he press? When facts are generally accepted, non-controversial, and/or unquestioned, there is a tendency not to footnote." Regarding the two primary sources at leofrank.org, since the site is self-published and has a biased anti-semitic style, it's not reliable and may not be reporting all the relevant primary sources. Your points are reasonable but aren't good enough to overrule reliable secondary sources in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please show me a primary source that says Leo Frank's height is 5'6". You claim the Leo Frank web site http://www.leofrank.org is not reliable likely because it presents Antisemitic views and you appear to refer indirectly to the Leo Frank Alma Mater page http://www.leofrank.org/alma-mater/ for the 2 primary sources under suspicion. However www.Ancestry.com and Cornell university are reliable sources of information and report Leo Frank's height is 5'8". On Ancestry.com you can find Leo Frank's original passport application notarized on December 20, 1907, and Cornell University has uploaded the 1906 Cornell University Senior Year Book to www.archive.org (copies of the 1906 year book are for sale on Amazon.com). Once again Steve Oney shows himself to be a sloppy researcher and unreliable, as for Lindemann, despite his obvious biases, i'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was a typo and not sloppy research, he mistakenly used the information on page 344 for entry Edward Elway Free #178 (5'6") instead of Leo Frank #177 (5'8") in the Cornell University Year Book page 345. How many other secondary sources make this error of 5'6" concerning Leo Frank's correct height of 5'8"? Can we perhaps meet half way between the typo 5'6" and reliable primary sources recording 5'8"?Carmelmount (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "However www.Ancestry.com and Cornell university are reliable sources of information and report Leo Frank's height is 5'8"." — Do you have any direct link to the 5'8" info that doesn't go through leofrank.org? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For the Cornell Year Book, 1906, it is available on Archive.org at http://www.archive.org/details/seniorclassbook00cornuoft and the Leo Frank passport application is located at Ancestry.com which offers 15 day free trial right now, so have a look. On http://www.archive.org/details/seniorclassbook00cornuoft you can download the PDF on the left hand side it is 17MB. MSN Books is responsible for this digital scan http://www.archive.org/details/msn_books and it appears to be exactly reliable when compared to an original Cornell Year Book, 1906, which can be purchased on Amazon.com.Carmelmount (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yearbooks and passport applications are primary sources, regardless of whether they are archived by a legitimate online or offline organization. We have reliable secondary sources that say one thing and there is no reason to second guess based on the primary sources offered. Both are, likely, self reported and, when you're talking about 2 inches could be subject to any number of variables (i.e. vanity, thick soles of his shoes). Since there is no indication that either Oney or Lindemann ever reviewed these documents (why would they?), speculation about misreading the yearbook is purely a smokescreen.

What other primary sources are there that list Frank's height? We don't know. Are the two primary sources cited absolutely determinative? Obviously not. Are their any secondary sources that give a different height? None that I know of but if this is important enough to anybody than it is the secondary sources that need to be checked. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on leaving the info box at 5'6" and adding to the footnote so it includes the Cornell info?

^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.

  (5'8" according to Cornell University. Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link))

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? So we can have this discussion over and over again as Carmelmount tries to incorporate the leofrank.org info into this article and label secondary sources as sloppy and biased? These discussions, [18] and [19] tackle the relevant issues. Check the editing history -- this article was filled with primary sources, some accurate but many cherry picked or misleading, and they were eliminated (not by me) after considerable discussion. Why should we start going down that road again? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob, you should also add the Leo Frank passport application as well to that footnote, Ancestry.com has a free 15 day membership and provides LF PP. Tom, a passport and college yearbook are considered reliable sourcse on wiki for non-contentious information. There exists no primary sources saying Leo Frank is 5'6", the 5'6" is a result of typo and sloppy research.Carmelmount (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "Why?" — I thought it was interesting information that may be true and improve the article. Putting it in a footnote, where it is subordinate to the 5'6" in the info box, seemed appropriate. I'm still uneasy about not knowing where the authors of 1991 and 2003 books got their info about Frank's height in 1913. The points you brought up did not include whether or not you thought it would improve the article. Perhaps you could give your opinion in that regard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No -- I don't believe the selective quoting of primary sources that are in conflict with reliable secondary sources improves this article, or any article. This is a problem that continually arises in the areas that I primarily edit (Civil War, Revolution, and Antebellum America). There is always "interesting information" that can be added to articles from primary sources, but much of it is anecdotal, taken out of context, or just plain wrong.

If you want to make it both more interesting and reliable, why don't we add in the body of the article a physical description (see Oney p. 10, Dinnerstein p. 6, and Lindemann p. 243-244)? This would be of more interest than simply noting a possible discrepancy in whether he was two inches taller or not -- frankly a subject that I only find interesting because of the anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy aspects introduced by leofrank.org. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "but much of it is anecdotal, taken out of context, or just plain wrong" — That doesn't apply here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's anecdotal -- two instances out of how many documents that might contain his height OBJECTIVELY measured? Two instances we wouldn't even be discussing but for the agenda of leofrank.org. If these two inches were an important issue then they would be discussed somewhere in a reliable secondary source. What is discussed is the relevant fact that Leo Frank was not a physically imposing person (i.e. small, wiry, poor vision). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as anecdotal, any more than I see its mention in Oney as anecdotal. It's data from a table in a publication of the period. Do you know of any sources for the height from that period, or from the following decades? Any idea where Oney and Lindemann might have gotten their height data? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

From your link, Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. Oney has done a "rigorous" analysis of the Frank case. Citing two examples listed on a badly biased website is about as "casual" as you can get. Oney's bibliography lists 16 different newspapers and 14 archive/library collections as well as numerous published secondary sources -- I imagine it's in there somewhere (probably a newspaper). As for Lindemann, as I said, he most likely got it from a secondary source. There is no reason to believe that either relied on the Cornell Yearbook or that either made it up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the 5'8" Cornell info should go into the footnote because it might be true. Please note that the 5'6" value would be in the most prominent position and would clearly be given the most weight. Most readers probably wouldn't even look at the footnote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

On page 10, Steve Oney (2003) puts Leo Frank at 5'6" and 120 lbs. (2 demograhic mistakes, not 1), which is not accurate and there is no foot note for this inaccurate info in oney's book. I thought I would mention the weight too as another error made by him. No way was a 5'8" Leo Frank only 120lbs., his year book puts him at 145lbs and we all know people fatten up when they leave college and marry. He was likely 150lbs or more by 1913.Carmelmount (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked in the Georgia archives for height data? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)