Talk:Leo Frank

/Archive 1

Wrongfully vs Disputed convicted

It seems that this is a disputed conviction since nobody else was ever proven guilty and Frank was never proven innocent? Anyways, --Tom 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know quite what you mean. There are sources in the article that clearly point to this as being a wrongful conviction.

Writers who regard the case as a miscarriage of justice include: Carpenter, James A., Rousmaniere, John, Klenicki, Leon. A Bridge to Dialogue: Story of Jewish-Christian Relations, p. 98. The authors call the evidence "trumped up."

Coleman, Kenneth (ed) A History of Georgia, p. 292.

Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case, p. 162. Dinnerstein quotes John Roche, who he writes chronicled the development of civil rights in this century: "As one who has read the trial record half a century later, I might add... that Leo Frank was the victim of circumstantial evidence which would not hold up ten minutes in a normal courtroom then or now." Dinnerstein writes that Harry Golden echoed Roche's opinion that no one would be convicted today on the same evidence.

Eakin, Frank. What Price Prejudice?: Antisemitism in the Light of the American Christian Experience, p. 97. Frank describes the case as a "travesty of justice."

Again, wrongfully convicted does not mean innocent. It just means the conviction was improper, which this clearly was. See Fells Acres Day Care Center and Little Rascals Day Care Center, also in the same category, also containing person who were not found "innocent." IronDuke 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about those other cases but I can look into it. The disputed category says that the people on that list have not been proven innocent. This falls into that category. You seem to see this case clearly when others have questions. Your material above shows that his conviction is disputed. Anyways, lets get some other imput. Wasn't this covered before in detail with good explainations? I'll have to look back. --Tom 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironduke, it looks like in both the examples you use above, the folks had their convictions overturned, which is not the case here. --Tom 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was disupted at the time, sure. But I know of no serious person or scholar who argues that LF was rightfully convicted (having nothing to do with his guilt or innocence). If you can find a reputable scholar who says, "No, the trial went as it should have, and justice was done," we can take it from there. But yes, more input is surely welcome. IronDuke 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are four more sources, all of which address Frank in the context of wrongful convictions (they use that word). [1], [2], [3], [4]. IronDuke 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The first and last sites do not support your claim. The other two seem to. It seems that the wrongfull conviction category should be for persons who had their convictions overturned by the court system which is not the case here. Anyways, I will not revert back but let others chime in. Cheers! --Tom 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your not reverting. I think the first and last cites do in fact support it, you just have to search inside them a bit. Here is another cite [5]. Also, there are a bunch more on Google. Unfortunately, JSTOR and NYTImes are often behind paywalls. But there are tons of cites available. It's pretty much a settled thing that the conviction was wrongful--the only cite I found against it was from a hate site on the web. Cheers to you, mate... IronDuke 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These people want to imply that Leo Frank was innocent in whatever way they can slip it by. Since they've never been able to get a court of law or an official review board to say so, they resort to pulling the wool over people's eyes with tactics such as this. Obviously, he was never proven innocent; and equally obviously to any logical person, the term "wrongful conviction" implies innocence. If you disagree with them, then you are automatically labeled anti-semitic, which is not necessarily the case. Leo Frank's conviction is disputed, mostly by Jewish writers like Leonard Dinnerstein. It's possible that he was innocent; but until proven so, his conviction is disputed, not wrongful. To say he did not get a fair shake or a fair trial is pretty much obvious also; but this was true for almost everyone of that time period if you compare their trials to today's. RobbChadwick 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You say, "Obviously, he was never proven innocent," but in saying that, you ignore one VERY important part of U. S. law: one never has to be "proven" innocent. One IS innocent until PROVEN guilty. Frank was found guilty by a jury of his peers, yet that finding is a disputed conviction, and evidence never introduced at the trial forms the basis of this disputation. To attempt to "prove" someone innocent is impossible; thus the assumption of innocence. You can't "prove" me innocent of the 9/11/01 acts, for example; you can only show that I was over a thousand miles away, and let a jury make its own conclusion. StavinChain 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"To say he did not get a fair shake or a fair trial is pretty much obvious..." = Wrongful conviction (your gloss on the trials of the time notwithstanding). Plus, I have several reliable sources who all use that exact phrase. IronDuke 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iron Duke, we both know that you can come up with sources supporting your view. That is not relevant. We can all do that; and sources that do not agree with you are not always "hate" sites as you always contend. Here's a source for the term "wrongful conviction." It has NOTHING to do with Leo Frank, so you can't say it's just a "hate" site. "CONVICTED BUT INNOCENT: WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND PUBLIC POLICY" by C. Ronald Huff, Ayre Rattner and Edward Sagarin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. 180 pp. To quote from the text: "Excluding from their definition of wrongful conviction those found not guilty in a second trial or on appeal, the authors instead define it as convicted persons who did not commit the crimes alleged (or the behaviorally innocent, rather than the procedurally innocent)." Now there's a LOGICAL definition of the term. We've talked before, Iron Duke, but I'll say it once again. I don't know if Leo Frank was guilty or innocent, so I'm not a hate-monger. All I know is that he was never PROVEN innocent, so you cannot say he was necessarily wrongfully convicted. You can certainly say there were elements of misconduct, etc.; but that does not add up to wrongful conviction. RobbChadwick 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Robb, you have no sources saying Frank was "rightfully" convicted, do you? Your quote above looks like OR to me; do the authors relate it directly to the Frank case? Also, again, other cases in this category involve persons who were not "proven innocent." IronDuke 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iron, those folks had their convictions OVERTURNED by a court of law which equals proven innocent. Anyways, --Tom 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, nowhere on the category page that I can see does it say cases must have been "OVERTURNED" to be worthy of inclusion. Let me try to boil this thing down to its essence: I have good sources that support the category. Are there good sources that support its removal? That is, sources which specifically say that Frank was rightfully convicted? If not, we don't need further discussion. IronDuke 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC

Tom, you will never win with these people. Logic has no place in their vocabulary. In their opinion, they own the article; and they can make the rules. (It's important to keep the discussion going since others who do not have minds as thick as iron will stumble upon a more rational view.) A rational person would conclude that his conviction was "rightful" since time and time again, courts and review boards could not find any reason to overturn his conviction. (He was pardoned based on the fact that the prison system failed to protect him; but that has nothing to do with his conviction.) To those of us with rational thought processes, his conviction is not wrongful since he has not been proven innocent. 216.248.12.162 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any of those sources I asked for. IronDuke 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent to left) Isn't that like trying to prove a negative? Anyways, the disputed category is for folks who have not been proven innocent/had their conviction overturned by the court systems. This case falls into that class. Anyways, no biggie Iron. --Tom 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all like trying to prove a negative. Take, for example, the trial of Karla Faye Tucker. It would be easy for you to prove the conviction was rightful; that she was guilty and that the trial was conducted fairly. If I wanted to move her trial into the "Wrongful" category, the burden would be on me to find sources that supported my position. And as to "no biggie," I respectfuly disagree. This trial had extraordinarily significant ramifications. How we characterize it is important. IronDuke 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The no biggie was in regards to our back and forth banter and not Mr. Franks trail, ect. Anyways, I still feel this should be categorized under disputed convictions but I guess will agree to disagree? Cheers, --Tom 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, quite agree with you, and very happy to have a civil and productive discussion about such a touchy subject. As I'm sure you know, that doesn't always happen here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a child. As soon as you feel you have gotten your way, you declare it a civil and productive discussion. I will always maintain that any truly adult thinking person will see your antics as juvenile and ridiculous. We could provide you with thousands of sources to disprove your theories and you would declare them invalid. Who cares? I continue the discussion simply so that those who stumble upon these entries will judge for themselves how logical you are. Leo Frank's case is interesting; but he is hardly unique. There are many convicted persons whose convictions MAY have been incorrect. Until proven so, they are still convicted persons. You cannot declare them wrongfully convicted just because you, or a thousand others like you, think so. You can gather any number of individuals who write on this case who support your opinion. Unfortunately, most people who do not have a cross to bear have moved on and give this case little thought. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I really don't know; but I do know that I do not have the right or authority to overturn a conviction and declare it wrongful. Only a court of law, or at least a truly impartial review board, can do that. Your sources all have a personal, emotional basis for their opinion. I can provide you with any number of African Americans who believe than O. J. Simpson was innocent; but rational people know that it is likely that he was guilty. Those people are not racists; they are just rational. Even though the outcome of Mr. Simpson's trial was exactly the opposite of Leo Frank's, it doesn't change the truth. Trials don't always get it right; but a person is either convicted or he is not. Would you say that O. J. Simpson was wrongfully acquitted? I would hope that you would respect our justice system to the extent that you accept the outcome. You can certainly disagree; but you cannot "unconvict" a convict. You can dispute the conviction; but you cannot declare it invalid. No matter how many years go by, Leo Frank's conviction stands. He was convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan; and that conviction has not now, nor will it ever be, overturned. Like it or not, that's the way it is. You can pout and be a cry baby and hijack this article as you please with your faux intelligence and smug insistence that only your sources are valid. It doesn't change the facts. RobbChadwick 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It had been a civil discussion as far as Tom and I are concerned. Your contributions are another matter. You have written much above, little of it to the point. You appear to have no sources, merely opinion, and not particularly well-informed opinion, at that. If you have no sources to bring to the discussion, I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep adding to it. IronDuke 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC

I gave you a source, and many others in previous discussions. It's just that you seem to think you, and you alone, have the exclusive right to decide which sources are valid and which aren't. I continue the discussion, as I've said before, because I want to make sure people see both sides. Leo Frank was convicted. It's up to a court of law to declare it a wrongful conviction. You do not have that authority. Regarding sources, it is routine in the legal profession to apply precedent. A source does not have to explicitly deal with the Frank case to have merit in the discussion of whether this is a disputed or wrongful conviction. RobbChadwick 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed where you quoted a source describing the conviction as rightful, or denying that it was wrongful. (And no, sources that say "There is no way to know if Frank was or was not guilty" don't support your argument; in fact they undermine it.) Can you just remind me again where that source was? IronDuke 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a source for the definition of wrongful conviction. It did not specifically deal with the Frank case; but it doesn't need to deal with that case in particular. A wrongful conviction should be defined objectively, not based on a particular case where people's emotions seem to get the better of them. Also, since this book does not deal with the Frank case, you cannot allege that the authors are anti-semitic. Here's the source again. "CONVICTED BUT INNOCENT: WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND PUBLIC POLICY" by C. Ronald Huff, Ayre Rattner and Edward Sagarin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. 180 pp. To quote from the text: "Excluding from their definition of wrongful conviction those found not guilty in a second trial or on appeal, the authors instead define it as convicted persons who did not commit the crimes alleged (or the behaviorally innocent, rather than the procedurally innocent)." Now I suppose I should attempt to explain it to you since you didn't seem to understand it the first time. The authors did not consider those who were found guilty in a first trial but found not guilty in a subsequent trial or appeal as wrongfully convicted. This is correct since these people were later declared not guilty and were no longer convicted. The authors also excluded people who were convicted where procedural errors were apparent. This is also correct; even though one might argue that these people should have their convictions overturned due to errors, they are not necessarily innocent. Therefore from the perspective of guilt or innocence, they were not necessarily wrongfully convicted. The authors reserved the term "wrongfully convicted" for individuals who absolutely DID NOT commit the alleged crime(s) or for individuals who could not be held responsible for their crimes due to behavioral defects. I don't know how much clearer it could be. This entire thread began with a debate as to whether Leo Frank's conviction should be termed "disputed" or "wrongful". Keeping in mind the question at hand, the source I have listed and explained would exclude Leo Frank's conviction from the "wrongful conviction" category since he has never been conclusively found not guilty or conclusively shown to be absolutely innocent of his alleged crime. His conviction is certainly "disputed" by a number of authors; but none of them have been successful in conclusively proving his innocence. RobbChadwick 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are speaking at cross-purposes here. Is this case disputed? Sure. So are/were all of the cases in the "Wrongful" category. So saying, "This case was disputed" doesn't mean it should always be in that category. What you have above, as you point out, has no bearing on the Frank case. It is simply two authors who define "Wrongful" in a more narrow sense than Wikipedia does. If you'll look at the cases I linked to above, you will see that in those cases innocence was never established (and I think likely could never be). However gross errors in those cases, as in the Frank case, made the convictions wrongful. But I have to say: my opinion does not matter. For Wikipedia purposes (especially in contorversial articles) points must be sourced. The category I'm including is sourced to the hilt. I have seen no sources that rebut my central claim (and the claim of countless legal scholars). IronDuke 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have heard MANY people say that O. J. was "wrongfully acquitted," yet I am not one of them, and no, despite your racist intent in your statement, I am not African-American. The facts, in the Simpson case and the Frank case as well, still stand, no matter who interprets them in what way. Frank was found guilty, Simpson was found "not guilty" (you can't "find" someone "innocent," by U. S. law, probably because, as the Sex Pistols reminded us, "No One is Innocent." A jury's finding doesn't make Frank "guilty" or O. J. "innocent," it just says they were found to be that by a jury of their peers. Persons will always say "O. J. was wrongfully acquitted," just as they will always say "Frank was wrongfully convicted." Persons will always say "Holocaust Yes" and "Holocaust No." People will always say "Jesus Yes" and "Jesus No." Wiki is not pure fact, as if there is any such. Wiki is ENCYCLOPEDIA: information on knowledge, with room for accepted "facts" and disputed "facts." Look it up here in Wiki, if you don't wanna take my word for it. This appears, to me, to be a balanced article, overall, but then, that's just my opinion. StavinChain 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC

I assure you that my intent is not racist. I am neither a bigot nor anti-semitic. It's just that, where the Frank case is concerned, Jewish writers have been the ones to write about the case from a one-sided perspective; and unfortunately in recent times, there have been almost no writers to present the other side of the story. I used O. J. Simpson as an analogy simply because it is recent enough for people to remember and understand that there are two sides to any story. Most people have forgotten about the Frank case; the only people who write about it anymore, for the most part, are people who want to make him a poster boy for anti-semitism; but the case was about so much more than that. (I'm not sure why you bring up the holocaust. It would take a real idiot to deny that it happened; and it would certainly take a bigot to defend it in any way. That's obvious.) Leo Frank is another matter. Certainly some people may have been anti-semitic and that's unfortunate; but there were decent people who thought he was guilty. So far no court of law or review board has found enough evidence to overturn his conviction. Hence, he was not wrongfully convicted. IronDuke does not accept past writers who have thought him at least possibly guilty as valid sources. He will always dismiss them as anti-semitic; and that is just not the case. It's like arguing with an iron post unless you are agreeing with him. RobbChadwick 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything here which changes the meaning of "wrongful conviction" into a matter of opinion. Though this will probably be a problem with a number of articles now that Category:Disputed convictions has been deleted -- that's the actual POV category for this sort of thing, and the yahoos at CfD deleted it for being POV, natch. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about the CfD. If I had seen it, I would have strenuously objected to its removal. As to this category, you are offering up an opinion about what the word "wrongful" might mean in this context. Yours is a pefectly valid, not at all silly opinion. However, it is merely your opinion. I am not offering an opinion. I'm offering multiple sources using that very word to describe this case. I can't be on any firmer ground than that. Others may wish that the phrase was interpreted differently, e.g., to mean "absolutely innocent without a shadow of a doubt," but that is not how it's being used by scholars of the case. IronDuke 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a point; this category is ill defined and even more so now that the "disputed" cat is gone. I'll have to think about this one for a while. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: ==The Mary Phagan song, can I have permission to add it to the article? ==

Wiki will not allow new comments to the original section with that title unless all references in that section to SG are removed, so this must needs be a new section, since I won't remove a link to the song in question.

The "Little Mary Phagan" song performed by Rosa Lee Carson, to which that link refers, is by no means the only one from that period; there were many which described, to different degrees, the fate of Phagan and the reasons for it. (My own favorite is Vernon Dalhart's "The Death of Little Mary Phagan," but that's just my opinion.)

Might I recommend that you transcribe the lyric and post it here (being pre-'23, there is probably not going to be a copyright issue), and at least that will allow preservation and dissemination of the intent behind the song (if not the song itself) without the disallowed reference to the SG website. Failing that, you might consider copying the (out-of-copyright) sound file from that site (as the site itself encourages you to do) and adding it to WikiCommons? I'm not sure what the Wiki folks would think about that, but it's worth a try. StavinChain 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued Discussion of Wrongful Conviction & Books / Articles on Frank Case

To IronDuke:

I understand what you are saying. Certainly different persons might define "wrongful conviction" in different ways. I'm not sure that Wikipedia defines it the way you suggest. If you search for an article on wrongful conviction, you reach an article entitled “Miscarriage of Justice.” I quote from the first sentence of that article: A miscarriage of justice is primarily the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he did not commit.” I think the contributors to this article (and perhaps other articles) have decided to define it broadly enough to include Leo Frank and others that may or may not have been wrongfully convicted. (The West Memphis Three are another example. It happens that I totally agree that they were wrongfully convicted, but I digress.)

My whole problem with this article and many of the other books and articles on the Frank case is that there just seems to be so much selective reporting. Back in the 1980's I read the book written by Mary Phagan's great-niece. I still have it in my library along with all the others and Steve Oney's newer book. When I originally read Mary Phagan Kean's book, I honestly didn't think much of it. I didn't think she was a very good writer; and I thought she was probably reporting from her family's perspective. I had read all the other books available at the time (Dinnerstein, Golden, Samuels, Frey, etc.) and generally agreed with them. As I mentioned in another post, I work for the newspaper, The Tennessean, which was instrumental in bringing Alonzo Mann's belated revelations to the forefront, so I accepted what was written in those articles as the total truth as well.

A few months after I read Mary Phagan Kean's book, I happened to be in Atlanta for a meeting and had some free time. I spent some time at the Atlanta Public Library looking through material on the Frank case. I was so intrigued by what I found that I stayed a few extra days just to have more time to review additional material. What I found was that most of the material I had read on Leo Frank's case had been only part of the story. It's not that Dinnerstein and the others were wrong in what they wrote; it's just that they seemed to pick and choose carefully in order to make their point. (I suppose most writers do this to a certain degree; but honest reporting should not be editorial.)

At any rate, what I learned from my research at the Atlanta Public Library was that Mary Phagan Kean had apparently done what these other writers had not done. She seemed to have also been through the same material I had seen since she found in the work of the most well known authors many glaring omissions, as well as a great deal of emphasis on the evidence and general circumstances of the trial that favored Leo Frank. This gave me more respect for her work than I had when I first read her book.

IronDuke: you had asked me for a source previously that absolutely stated that Leo Frank was rightfully convicted. I hesitated to mention Ms. Kean since I feel sure you will not accept her as an authority. Even though I don't think her writing is the best, from my own research in Atlanta I know that she at least attempted to do honest research. Her book did not bash Leo Frank; and I don’t think her writing indicated that she was anti-Semitic at all. I suppose it's no surprise that she came to the conclusion that Leo Frank was guilty since, even though distant, she is a relative of the murder victim. However, I have come to question whether it is any fairer to judge her from her perspective than it would be to judge most of the well known writers from theirs. I'm trying to choose my words carefully here because I really do not want to be labeled anti-semitic since I am not. However, when most of the writers on the case are Jewish and see this as simply an atrocity against a Jewish man, I don't see that their perspective is very neutral either. For what it's worth, Ms Kean stated emphatically that Leo Frank was rightfully convicted. She did so in her book, "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan", and also in an article that appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on January 6, 1999 entitled “Leo Frank Killed Mary Phagan ...”

There were other sources that held this opinion. However, I don’t live in Atlanta so I don’t have easy access to the library there at this time. Most of the books & articles available in the Atlanta library have been out of print for many years and were not even available to include in my own personal library at the time I did my research on the case; but that does not mean they don’t contain very pertinent information. For what it’s worth when I did my research at the library, it was a purely personal interest. I had no idea I’d ever write anything about it. I wish I had kept better notes.

A couple of things that may be worth mentioning are that the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, went to his grave stating emphatically that his files contained absolute proof of Leo Frank’s guilt. Granted, he was the prosecutor; but I don’t believe he was anti-semitic or simply out to “get” Leo Frank any way he could. The trial Judge, Leonard Roan, was undecided one way or the other. I know you allege that the opinions of those who find it impossible to decide Mr. Frank’s guilt or innocence are irrelevant; but I disagree. I think that any moral person who looks at the evidence and understands that is it simply not clear cut has something valid to say about his guilt, especially when so many others are doing the opposite. Since that time I spent in Atlanta, I have stumbled across the book by Francis X. Busch that deals with the Frank case and, of course, the work of Steve Oney. Both these writers dealt with the case a little more open-mindedly than I feel some of the major writers have. Neither were able to reach an absolute conclusion about Mr. Frank’s guilt. Mr. Busch was noncommittal; but he certainly did not appear to lean toward the guilt of Mr. Frank. Mr. Oney, I believe, does lean toward Mr. Frank’s innocence; but he correctly states that he cannot be absolutely sure.

This brings me to the final paragraph of this post. I hope you can see from my tone today that I am truly attempting to discuss this in an honest and fair way. What I just cannot understand is why people keep removing items out of this article that would make it a little less one-sided. I’m not talking about things that are truly anti-semitic; they should certainly be removed. However, things have been removed that really should have been left in. For instance, there’s nothing in the article about Ms. Kean’s findings and why she came to that conclusion. The only mention of her left in the article is that she wrote a book. She did write a book; and it was a well researched book regardless of her writing style. You’d never know what she uncovered about the case from the Wikipedia article though, nor would readers learn anything about others who were not Leo Frank bashers but who honestly felt there was reason to consider him a likely suspect. RobbChadwick 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Robb, I appreciate your thoughtful tone, and what you have to say. Your suspicions are correct: I wouldn't accept the murder victim's niece as an unbiased expert. I think it's pretty clear why, but I can expand on this, if you like, or open up to an RfC, but I’m 98% sure other editors would agree. As to those authors who cannot say conclusively if Frank was guilty, I don't say they are irrelevant, rather, that they support my position. If a person is innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and all scholars agree at a minimum that there is reasonable doubt, then the conviction is wrongful. Again, in some of those child care molestation cases I referenced above, the convictions are wrongful because of irregularities with the witnesses, not because we can ever know. (I also believe those people are likely innocent, but couldn’t’ say for sure.) As for the religion of the people who call it wrongful, I think they come from a diverse set of backgrounds. I also don’t think you can dismiss their claims as biased because they are Jewish. That is, you can in a casual conversation if you like, but cannot for WP purposes. Here, you would have to have a reputable source that says, “Dinnerstein is selective in his fact choice and suspect because he is Jewish” (which I would think would be difficult to find, as it comes very close to being antisemitic). Taking, say, Darfur as an example, if scholars who happen to be Christian condemn the violence there, that does not mean that we can dismiss their views because they are Christian. Their opinion still matters.

I am glad to be having a civil discussion with you. IronDuke 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I too am glad to discuss this in a civil way. Like you, I believe that a person should be found not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt. You will hopefully recall that I have previously said that I really don't think Leo Frank should have been found guilty. There was indeed conflicting evidence; and that should always lean in favor of the accused. I would just like to see a current book that includes all the little details that make me wonder about this case. There were many; and often the solution is in the details. I wish I had the time to do this myself. Unfortunately, I don't. As I've said before, my only reason for playing the devil's advocate here is to let people know that the story is a little broader than we usually hear. Best wishes. RobbChadwick 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Identity of people who carried out lynching

Are the identities of the people who carried out the lynching properly sourced? Thanks, --Tom 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Steve Oney's book is considered to be a very reliable source regarding the identities of the lynch party. --RobbChadwick 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Robb, what is your take on the lynching section? I am NO expert or even that knowledgeable about this case until I came here, but it seems that this section should be well sourced if persons are going to be labeled as the "ring leaders" of the lynching. Anyways, --Tom 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You might begin by reading just a few of the many, many sources we have listed. IronDuke 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the names of the members of the lynch party have been well known since the time of the event. I also believe that Steve Oney approached the case from a totally non-biased perspective and did the necessary research to confirm what he wrote. Even though I disagree with him on some minor points, I believe his book is the fairest account that has been written since the middle of the 20th century; and I doubt we will ever find a better source at this point. RobbChadwick 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides having some other very good features on Leo Frank, Flagpole.com has an article which contains a detailed and combined list of Stephen J. Goldfarb's (author of the 2000 website, www.leofranklynchers.com) and Steve Oney's list of lynchers. The article is here. -- LittleMissLeo 02:41, 1 January 2008

Is there any sources for what happened to the lynchers?

Were they prosecuted?--Dacium 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them were prosecuted. There was a pro forma investigation by the new governor, but that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.21.115 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliance on journalism rather than historic accounts

This article is marred by the same sensationalism as occurred in media coverage of the trial. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be based on peer-reviewed historic assessments, not selective picking of journalistic accounts, nor a reworking of the journalism. It uses inflammatory language and is far from the objective account needed.--Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying, Parkwells, it's kind of hard to write anything entirely accurate about this case considering most of it was circumstantial evidence and a lot of the press was especially sensationalized - especially with Hearst with his hand in it with the Georgian.

Frankly, I think the article should reflect the kind of inflammation that was felt at the time. Not entirely, but I think the most accurate way of writing an article about this case would be to present it as it is presented in court - the players, background & introduction, the evidence, both sides, why they conflict, and the aftermath. That way, we'd be presenting information without forcing a specific point of view. We'd leave our jury, the reader, to come to his/her own conclusion - decide their own verdict. --LittleMissLeo (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We're supposed to use third-party scholarly sources, not simply the direct newspaper record. Historians have studied it, too.--Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice

Alonzo Mann saw Jimmy Conley dragging the body. Leo Frank was not seen. Thus we have an actual eyewitness. If we conclude, however, that Jimmy Conley was the murderer, aren't we perpetuating the myth that African American males are brutal? We might as well say that there are many African American males in prison because they are the persons who commit many crimes. Alonzo Mann's confession should be ignored because it fans the flames of racial prejudice. Besides, nothing can bring back Leo Frank now, even though he was apparently quite innocent.Lestrade (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

This is purely political. If anything, it's just modern politics. By even saying that Alonzo Mann's confession was racist, you're calling attention to Jim's race in turn. The fact that he was guilty had nothing to do with his race - he committed a crime. Even if he was orange, he committed a crime.

You could even say that a lot of African Americans who are guilty of something or other are acquitted purely on the grounds of the color of their skin. That's true, too. I don't believe in free passes because of race the same way I don't believe in conviction because of race.

There are a lot of black people in jail, there are a lot of white people in jail. People will be human. Everybody has different motivations, but in the long run, the actions count. What actually happens counts, and if Jim's guilty, he committed a crime. --LittleMissLeo (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that the whole "Jimmy Conley" section should be deleted. It does nothing but invite racial prejudice. It doesn't matter now who murdered the girl. What matters now is that we must atone for our long history of racial prejudice, even though Leo Frank was probably hung in error. Maybe Conley did it. Today, in this twenty-first century, we are giving out free passes.Lestrade (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Overturned conviction the same as pardoned?

Was the conviction overturned? Right now the article says that a pardon was giving without clearing him of the crime. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How long has that category existed? Because of the unique nature of this case, and because this conviction was not "overturned" - the pardon specifically said that he could be guilty or innocent, and was based on the issue of the state's failure to adequately protect Frank. This has to do with the penalty and post-trial phases of this case, not with the conviction itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificus (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So the category, over turned convictions is not appropriate here? Is there a better category? I know this has been gone over before. Wasn't there or is there a category for contested convictions or something of the like? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that in the past, Wikipedia may have had a category for "Disputed Convictions" - if that no longer exists, I think it should be [re-]created. This particular article was controversially in the "Wrongful Convictions" category, but I think that category was eliminated.

I think that, for accuracy and clarity purposes, it would be best to reserve the Overturned convictions in the United States category for those convictions that were overturned in the conventional way. (See below.) Not only was this "pardon" issued with a disclaimer, specifically saying that Frank wasn't necessarily innocent, but it was issued based upon the state's failure to protect Frank in the period of time after his conviction. This deals with the penalty phase of the trial, or more accurately, it deals with procedural matters, which are independent of the trial (and conviction) itself.

I don't know if the Georgia Pardons and Paroles Board has ever issued such a decision before, or since. Because of the uniqueness of this ruling, it's debatable whether this article should go in that category. Even if it technically was an "overturned" conviction, inclusion in that category should probably be limited to convictions formally vacated, due to reversible error. A pardon is not the same as an overturned conviction; otherwise, we might have to included every single convict who was pardoned in that category. Come to think of it, there is already a category for that.

Unless someone provides a better alternative, I think I will remove this article from the "Overturned convictions" category - and if there is no category for "Disputed convictions", then that Pardon category may be what we have to settle for. Pacificus (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a category for persons who have received pardons? Maybe include that. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC), just saw that category above. It has one entry? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing

One key part of this story, which is omitted from this article, and which has been omitted from most discussions of this case (though it has been included in several books), is the role of anti-black racism in this case. Only seven years before the Frank trial, there was a major race riot in Atlanta, in which many people (almost all African-American) were killed. The Frank trial was the first time in history that a jury in the South had convicted a white man on the testimony of African-Americans.

In the South, there had actually been less anti-Semitism than in the North, while the opposite was (of course) true about white supremacy. This was a theme of Robert N. Rosen's prominent book published a few years ago. However, Leo Frank was also a northerner, which fueled much of the prejudice against him (in addition to his being Jewish).

A prior revision of this article mentioned, in the paragraph on the trial's closing remarks, the racist language used by the defense; that has been omitted, however.

Furthermore, while certain media reaction is mentioned in this article, there is no mention of the fact that the African-American press - of Georgia and nationwide - had a great deal to say, about this case. The NAACP's Crisis, the Chicago Defender, and other major black periodicals expressed strong feelings about the case.

Furthermore, in the section of this article dealing with "Dramatizations," there is no mention of the African-American productions and publications, based upon this case. (This article deals with this issue, and mentions several works that were created, based upon the case.) One of the most notable examples of a work based on this case, made from an African-American perspective, is the film Murder in Harlem (also known as Lem Hawkin's Confession), by the genre pioneer Oscar Micheaux.

The reaction of the Jewish media should of course also be added to this article.

Jeffrey Paul Melnick wrote an entire book dealing exclusively with this aspect (the black and Jewish perspective, and interactions) of this case. It should be added to the Bibliography section.

Black-Jewish relations on trial:Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the new South

I hope that this article is revised, to include this neglected aspect of the Leo Frank case. Pacificus (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing good work so far: why not keep going? IronDuke 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)