Talk:Leo Frank

Manson48

Note that Manson48 is now blocked. He's been editing since using IPs, both to talk pages and to make anti-Semitic attacks on editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

because Jim Conley admitted in 1913, moving the dead body of Mary Phagan to the basement

I'm probably being a bit slow, but this doesn't seem to be sourced - where does it say that this admission wasn't enough to settle the issue? "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,". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit doesn't make sense and doesn't follow the sources cited. I've removed it again and it should stay out until Carmelmount produces reliable sources on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked the editor (on their talk page) to reply here, so hopefully they will. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

At the Leo Frank trial (July 28, to August 21), Jim Conley testified on August 4, 1913, to moving the body of Mary Phagan to the basement. Neither the Leo Frank defense, or the State's prosecution, ever disputed Jim Conley moved the body of Mary Phagan to the basement. The dispute was the method utilized. The prosecution's position was the movement of Phagan was conducted using the elevator. The defense's position was down the 2ft x 2ft scuttle hole several feet east of the elevator. The defense changed this position to down the elevator shaft in their closing arguments (August 21, 22) after the trial ended on August 21, because they had to account for the fact the police testified to seeing drag marks in the basement beginning from the elevator shaft to Mary's final dumping point 140 feet east. Alonzo Mann claimed to see Jim moving Mary Phagan in the lobby of the National Pencil Company in 1982, he never said if he saw him use the elevator or scuttle hole, because he ran away when Conley allegedly threatened him into "secrecy". At the Leo Frank Trial in the summer of 1913, Alonzo Mann - sworn under oath - testified he had left the factory for the day at 11:30AM on April 26, 1913, but in 1982, claimed he left at noon, and came back at 12:05 PM and saw Jim Conley carrying Mary Phagan. I guess there's a reason why no court of Law in the United States of America would consider 70 year old memories reliable, and that goes with the Georgia Board of Pardon's and Paroles, that did not exonerate Leo Frank. Carmelmount (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC) banned sock

Two editors have said you need a source for this, yet you don't provide one? We need a reliable source giving that as the reason, not your analysis. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

From here on out I will only add to the article's content with sources. Carmelmount (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)banned sock

Please stop deleting talk entries that are posted in good faith

The section, 100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty is a serious proposal to improve this article. Please refrain from deleting it again so the proposed material may be discussed. Thank you.64.134.99.241 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation for a start, and that anti-semitic website isn't a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS. If you repost it again I'll block you for copyright violation. If you have sources that clearly meet our criteria, post the sources, not the whole content. And if you want good faith, don't accuse others of vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please control your emotions and try to stop being so nasty. This article on Frank is in need of serious work. The man was clearly guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. The trial court said so, the jury said so, the state and federal appeals courts said so, and most importantly, the evidence said so. This wikipedia article is merely a whitewash, and any reasonable human being with half a brain should know that. The only people this article would fool are those who do not meet said description.

Now, as to this claim of copyrighted material, a good 99.9 percent af all of the "reliable sources" on wikipedia is copyrighted material. Also, NO copyrighted material was posted to the article. If any copyrighted material was posted to the talk page, that was done for the purpose of discussion and or comment as to what part of such material could be used in the article to balance the overwhelmingly biased and pov content already there in furtherance of academic study of the subject at hand. Thus, the inclusion of any such copyrighted material on this talk page clearly fits the standard of "fair use", and is therefore no violation of copyright. You are obviously mistaken as to the definition of copyright law, and your threatening behavior is only indicative of your seemingly strong desire to obfuscate any rational review of the core bias in this article, which on the whole, clearly reeks of Anti-Gentileism.

Therefore, your removal of said material was indeed an act of vandalism.64.134.99.241 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or not. If you want to discuss a source, just post a link to the source. If you want to exercise bad behavior, go do it elsewhere. Rklawton (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are trying to be funny, because the only bad behavior evident here is the ongoing attempted white-washing of the pedophile murderer, Leo Frank.64.134.99.241 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)