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)

I did a bit of digging, concerning that American Mercury article (100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty), printed in 2013. No question that the Mercury, for quite some years, was/is an unreliable source. However... the article in question is a REPRINT of an earlier published work, authored by William Bradford Huie and published during a time when the Mercury was a reliable source. Martin Luther King wrote the introduction to one of Huie's books, so I think it would be a fair say that Huie was not guilty of the prejudice (correctly) attributed to the modern day Mercury. If the orginal article can be found (and that shouldn't be too hard), I believe that it SHOULD be included as a source for quotations and citations in the Leo Frank article.Gulbenk (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Let us know if you find it, I couldn't. As for 'fair use', that's not part of our policy which is much stricter. As a rule of thumb, we allow about 220 words. The 2013 article does say " Bradford L. Huie" and is by Bradford L. Huie, not William Bradford Huie and a search on his name turns up some links I really don't want to post here. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, different Huie, or perhaps just a nom de plume Huie (none of the several obituaries that I read for William Bradford Huie state that he had children). So the article is certainly not the work of the famous author. My thanks to Dougweller for setting me straight on that point.Gulbenk (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A contemporary view of the fairness of the Leo Frank trial

A popular and Atlanta newspaper furnishes the most remarkable evidence as to what was thought, at the time, of the fairness of Leo Frank's trial:

On Sunday, August 24, 1913. The "Sunday American", a Hearst publication, published a story of the four weeks' trial, "By an old Police Reporter," which concludes as follows:

"Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case. It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.

Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any cause. When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.

That the state's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however— that was a matter not so immediately settled!

...

It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down. He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called 'bud' and 'son' right along — but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!

...

The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foeman worthy of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!

...

In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail— at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Kosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!

Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!

...

A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it. It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side. The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways— sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.

...

Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases; expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.

It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case."

This was published after the evidence was all in, and while Hugh Dorsey was closing his argument for the State.

Nobody knew what the verdict would he. But the Atlanta paper told the world, that it was difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more, FOR FAIR PLAY, than was provided in the Frank case.

The trial had been generally regarded "as fair and square, as human forethought and human effort could make it." So said the "Sunday American" on the Sunday before the verdict had been rendered.

It was, however, only after the verdict of "Guilty", came in that the same papers which had heaped so much praise upon the fairness of the trial, were now the ones who bitterly denounced the jury, and the courts.

64.134.99.241 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks before, the same publication and author had this to say on the subject of both public reaction to, and the fairness of the trial:

Hearst's Sunday American - August 10, 1913 - Page 2-A - End Excerpt:

Sub-Headline: "DEFENSE HAS TO CLEAR NAME OF TWO CHARGES"

"Continued from Page 1

. . .

Rarely before, if ever, has there been as intense interest in a murder trial as there unquestionably is in the Frank case.

The crowds attending the trial have been enormous, the officers finding it necessary every day to turn away hundreds of anxious would-be spectators.

Public sentiment has swung back and forth - to-day inclined to believe Frank may be innocent, to-morrow sternly the reverse.

The jury, sitting there in the courthouse, day after day, has been the subjective study of hundreds of real, and near analytical minds - and the answer?

Every fellow answers for himself. The jury imperturbable, unreadable, almost seemingly indifferent at times, indeed - but always keenly keyed to intense interest, nevertheless!

One might as well undertake to read the riddle of the Spynx as to read the riddle of the Frank case in the minds of the jury trying it. It looks as if it is a jury well above the average - and that is about the beginning and the end of an intelligent guess as to what it will do.

Judge Roan is as baffling as the rest of the case, too, when it comes to speculating upon what he may or may not think of it all.

He is rated one of the very best Superior Court judges in the State, unusually able, certainly fearless, and agreed to be utterly fair and impartial.

At times, his rulings have seemed to favor the defense, and at other times they have seemed to favor the State; but, withal, the public seems agreed that he is handling the case with an open and judicially just mind.

Speculation as to Outcome

Speculation as to the outcome of the trial is varied. There are those who can see nothing ahead but conviction, just as there are others who can see nothing but acquittal.

If a ballot could be taken, however, those holding to the idea of a mistrial would likely would be found in the majority, for that is the way the fight seems, to many observing minds, to be drifting.

That section of the public generally credited with being calm, poised, and desirous of seeing the right prevail, no matter which way it cuts, apparently has suspended judgement. Extremists pro and con still are talking themselves hoarse about town, however.

The progressing inclination among the people seems to be to let the jury settle it, and then to call that as near right as abstract justice and human ingenuity can make it.

In the event of an acquittal, the case ends. The State has no appeal. It must win on the first round, or it loses for all time.

The defense, on the other hand, if it loses, may move for a new trial, upon proper assignment of error in the first trial. The judge of original jurisdiction passes upon this motion - he may grant it or not, as his discretion directs.

The general policy of judges is to refuse motions for new trials, but it is not an unbroken policy, by any means.

If the new trial motion is denied, the case goes to a court of review - either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. If one error or several be found in the original rulings of the court below, the case will be remanded back for a new trial, the judgement thus having been reversed and set aside.

Then the case begins all over again, practically as if it never had been tried.

In the event of maters taking that course, Frank hardly could be tried again before next year, 1914, and perhaps not before spring.

Conley Indictment Likely

If Frank is acquitted, there is hardly a doubt that Jim Conley will be promptly indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan, and brought to trial later.

In the event of Frank's final conviction, Conley will be indicted as an accessory after the fact. This would mean a sentence of not more than three years in the State penitentiary for him.

If Frank is convicted, he can be convicted only of murder - the jury will not be permitted, under the form of the indictment, to find him guilty of a lesser crime.

The judge will have no discretion in sentencing him.

If found guilty, without a recommendation to mercy, he must hang, unless the Governor should subsequently interfere and order executive clemency.

If he is convicted, and the jury 'recommend him to the mercy of the court,' the court then will be obliged to send him to prison for life.

The general opinion is that the present trial will run all of this week - that the best to be expected is that the jury may be given the case by Saturday night.

After the evidence is all in, the case still will have to be argued to the jury. It is thought that Judge Roan will take the bridle off in respect of this, and both sides will be permitted to go the limit.

Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold will consume at least one entire day in argument, and Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Hooper willnot take less time.

It is expected that Hooper will open for the State and Dorsey close, and that Rosser will open for the defense and Arnold close. The State has the opening and the concluding argument before the jury."

64.134.45.86 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Final Ruling on Frank by the Supreme Court of the United States

The final word in the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision on the matter of whether Leo Frank was given a fair trial, including whether any evidence as to supporting the claim of the influence of mob law, mob violence, or mob domination upon the trial of Leo Frank as being either credible, or sufficient to warrant any re-examination or nullification of the guilty verdict against him was as follows:

"Taking appellant's petition as a whole, and not regarding any particular portion of it to the exclusion of the rest,-dealing with its true and substantial meaning, and not merely with its superficial import,-it shows that Frank, having been formally accused of a grave crime, was placed on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, with a jury lawfully constituted; he had a public trial, deliberately conducted, with the benefit of counsel for his defense; he was found guilty and sentenced pursuant to the laws of the state; twice he has moved the trial court to grant a new trial, and once to set aside the verdict as a nullity; three times he has been heard upon appeal before the court of last resort of that state, and in every instance the adverse action of the trial court has been affirmed; his allegations of hostile public sentiment and disorder in and about the court room, improperly influencing the trial court and the jury against him, have been rejected because found untrue in point of fact upon evidence presumably justifying that finding, and which he has not produced in the present proceeding; his contention that his lawful rights were infringed because he was not permitted to be present when the jury rendered its verdict has been set aside because it was waived by his failure to raise the objection in due season when fully cognizant of the facts. In all of these proceedings the state, through its courts, has retained jurisdiction over him, has accorded to him the fullest right and opportunity to be heard according to the established modes of procedure, and now holds him in custody to pay the penalth of the crime of which he has been adjudged guilty. In our opinion, he is not shown to have been deprived of any right guaranteed to him by the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States; on the contrary, he has been convicted, and is now held in custody, under ‘due process of law’ within the meaning of the Constitution.

The final order of the District Court, refusing the application for a writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed."

Source: 237 U.S. 309; 35 S.Ct. 582; 59 L.Ed. 969

64.134.45.86 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)