Talk:Leo Frank

The Trial of Leo Frank Should Be its Own page

The trial of Mr. Frank should really be its own article.

It's such a complicated story! This'll have to be where the information goes, but it'll be a challenge to distill the key info and still have it all make clear sense. Have you read And The Dead Shall Rise? It covers every blessed detail we could ever need and is strictly unbiased. And did you ever find the Lawson abridgement? -- LaNaranja (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Machn (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree or disagree with this? It seems like we really should have an entirely different page about his life and this trial. Lawson's edited abridged version of the trial testimony can be found on archive.org and I have read it carefully. The 31M PDF book is available here, http://www.archive.org/details/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan

Oney is not unbiased, he has publicly stated he thinks Leo Frank is innocent which is the politically correct position in modern times. Machn (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oney has researched the subject thoroughly and is entitled to express his conclusions -- both in the book and in public. ALL serious historians express their conclusions -- this does not make them biased. Please show where Oney, in his book, demonstrated bias in his use and analysis of the available evidence. Or better yet, please show where any serious reviewer of the work makes such claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'll add that on my list of things to do concerning Leo Frank. Machn (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Atlanta newspaper wars

• Asbury, Herbert. "Hearst Comes to Atlanta." American Mercury, April 1926, pp. 87-95. Google Books "Had not Hearst owned The Georgian, the story probably would have died a natural death."

Did you mean January 1926 instead of April? Machn (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve Oney draws extensively from this comprehensive Am Merc article for the chapter "Extra, Extra" in And the Dead Shall Rise.

• The Georgian. Libraries That Have It

• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution deep archive: these are mostly pay-to-view. But all the Journal's and the Constitution's articles on the case are here, starting with the very first article, by Britt Craig for a 6:30 a.m. April 28 special edition of the Constitution.

• Oney, Steve. "Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism." Nieman Reports "[T]he prototypic American convergence of journalistic excess and legal tragedy occurred in the early years of the 20th century, and it was played out not on television or radio but in the medium of print."

• Startt, James D. (2004). Woodrow Wilson and the Press: Prelude to the Presidency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 157-73. Google Books Section on political influence of the press (especially Hearst's) in the South at the time.-- LaNaranja (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know where to get to get free online copies of the newspapers from these various news sources which kept meticulous records of the trial and published the testimony daily. Machn (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only newspapers that covered the testimony daily were the three Atlanta papers. The Constitution's and the Journal's stories are in the AJC archive (link above) but that archive is not free to access. The Georgian, see above. For articles that covered that later time from a variety of sources, look into Google News Archive Search. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• In Google News Archive Search's Jan-Dec 1913 news timeline for "Leo Frank" are a number of free-to-access AP articles published during the trial by regional and farther-flung newspapers. The Atlanta Constitution's headlines (linking to the $ AJC archive) are there to follow along with, too.

• The NYT has a free archive. Try Search: "leo frank" > Advanced Search > Custom Date Range > choose your dates, for example January 1, 1913 to December 31, 1915 > Oldest First. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Watson's Leo Frank Jew Pervert Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry I was not able to respond sooner, I was temporarily banned from posting on Wikipedia by [Jayjg] and [jpgordon] for allegedly posting something that said in the title "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" or some variation of this and it is absolutely not true or because Tom tricked me into saying something which is forbidden to say on wikipedia (or both).

For the record, I have been publically accused by IronDuke and La Naraja of posting some kind of article with the term "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" in it and publically posted and reported to administrators pages of [Jayjg] and [jpgordon] intervened along, claiming I was being disruptive because of it. I want to state for the record, I have not now or ever posted any source to the Leo Frank article that says "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" in the title. I am asking that people please stop making false accusations against me and playing games with me to get me banned. I take the Leo Frank article very serious and would appreciate if the personal attacks, name calling, games and other things against me would stop, so we might have a productive discussion about this very important topic.

The alleged source you may be referring to is: Watson's Magazine published in August of 1915 by former Senator and House of Representative member Tom Watson, the magazine article in question does not say "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" anywhere in the title: http://www.archive.org/details/WatsonsMagazineAugust1915Volume21No.4FeaturingLeoFrankMaryPhagan you can download the PDF and go to page 182 and see for yourself the title of the article says, "Watsons Magazine August 1915 volume 21 no. 4 featuring Leo Frank Mary Phagan Murder Trial" or "The celebrated case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank ; The official record in the case of Leo Frank". There is something on Amazon.com that claims there is an article called: The celebrated case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank ; The official record in the case of Leo Frank, a Jew pervert [Unknown Binding]. See the Jew Pervert, but I don't know if it actually exists or not?

I have looked far and wide across the internet for a copy of an article with the term variations "Leo Frank" and "Jew Pervert" and I can't seem to find it anywhere, can someone please advise? Machn (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as you well know, you were blocked (for 1 day only) for disruptive behavior and making inappropriate Talk: page comments. You've already been pointed to sources proving the title of this article, for example footnote 13 here. Pretending you were blocked for other reasons, or pretending you don't know if the article exists, is repeating that behavior - making talk page assertions that are almost certainly false. Don't continue down this path. Discuss only article content here, nothing else. Do not respond here. Work on the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Introduction and Posthumous Pardon

IronDuke, The introduction is very poorly written and there needs to be a discussion on re-writing it with the help of some real seasoned wiki writers, because as it stands now it reads like a lot of POV Pushing as if it were written from the Leo Frank Defense team. removing the "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence," from the Posthumous Pardon section of the Leo Frank article is to make it into a false climax instead of the Pyrrhic victory it represents in its substance. It is essential that in the Posthumous pardon section of the Leo Frank article that this essential point stays part of the article "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence," to remove it would take away the finality, closure and substance of the Posthumous Pardon. Machn (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See my reply below. IronDuke 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The section s fine as it now stands. Despite Machn's emphasis, he ignores the signifcant part of the ruling that said the lynching failed to "preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction." Governor Slaton's commutation left the road open for further appeals -- the lynching cut this short. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we consult La Naranja on this one? Are you saying that Leo Frank commutation meant that more motions and appeals to the Georgia and United States Supreme Court were available, or were all of those options closed after the Supreme Court voted unanimously against the final time? Machn (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Leo Frank studiers, Can someone with a law degree and knowledge of law, George law and the Supreme Court please tell us if Leo Frank had exhausted all of his appeals? I was under the impression he had exhausted all of his appeals, but I want to get other opinions on this matter, so as not to make a blanket statement which might not be true. Please Respond. Machn (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction and Removal of Appeals

IronDuke, you deleted my additions to the introduction about the very important appeals which is an essential part of Leo Franks 2 year struggle for vindication, freedom and life through 5 appeals including the Georgia Supreme Court 2x and the United States Supreme Court 2x. I believe the 5 appeals (1 of the 5 was the request for a retrial) of the conviction are a worthy of mentioning in the introduction, including the divided prison board which voted 2 to 1 against him? because these last 2 years where the struggle for his survival, followed ultimately by the governors commutation and a pyrric victory with a pardon that "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence,". To leave this 2 year struggle out of the introduction would widely be believed to be a great injustice to the article. Machn (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I simply will not reply to your "arguments" any longer -- they are not being made in good faith. In any kind of reputable encyclopedia, you would have been shown the door long ago. IronDuke 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article lede does mention the appeals -- Machn again seems to be pursuing his POV by trying to over-emphasize this in the lede. It does no appear that anything that has transpired with today's edits has improved the article. It should be apparent by now that the continued efforts to edit controversial aspects of this article without first discussing it on this discussion page is disruptive. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

There are 2 major problems with the intro,

1. Legal Struggle 2. The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]

Don't you think that it would benefit the article if we spelled out the legal struggle and battle for Leo Franks life? We have a big paragraph on the social, political and racial tensions, but how about the Legal struggle to get a new trial or have the verdict set aside? Why down play these important life events with a tiny sentence of "Following the denial of several appeals". The Leo Frank denials actually became case law that every law student in the united states studies and is the talk of great debates of black letter law, why would something so historically important as these individual legal steps and struggles be relegated to a sentence with 6 words in it? What do you say we let bygones be bygones and we try to make this article great, and re-write that intro which seems cramped and unable to properly blossom as the structure of it seems kinda constipated. The paragraph on legal struggle and battle for his life leading up to the commutation really could use some re-writing.

Also, the "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" does that seem like POV pushing? I mean who thinks its widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice? The entire state of Georgia and most of the south may have agreed with the jurys verdict and the sentence of justice being met out after the commutation. Given that Watson and Dorsey became political rockstars after the trial shows that the case was widely regarded as having been Just, given that Leo Frank was originally sentenced to Hang by Judge Roan / Jury. Therefore, I'm not sure the Widely and miscarriage is fair or accurate. Widely sounds like POV Pushing. Not to mention 5 court rulings against Leo Franks appeals and motions. What do you think? Machn (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of your suggestions would improve the article. You are pursuing the same old POV without adequate sourcing to back it up. At the same time you attack actual reliable sourcing with unfounded charges of bias. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

Concerning the introduction:

Part 1: legal proceedings deserve to be fully mentioned in the introduction as they represent the last two years of Leo Franks life in between jail and the court room, they were the tooth and nail struggle for Leo Franks life so that he would not have to die at the end of a rope, hanged to death, at the sentence of Judge Roan after the unanimous guilty decision of the Jury. To highlight Leo Franks struggle for his life in 6 words in the introduction does not do justice for Leo Frank, when the vast majority of the introduction is circus-like overplaying every race, religious and ethnic card. What the introduction needs is SUBSTANCE not national inquirer soap opera drama. Leo Frank fought tooth and nail from 1913 to 1915 for his life and his neck, how could you cheat this articles introduction, by only having some short sentences on the substance of his legal proceedings. The introduction feels like it was written by the Leo Frank defense League, and not by neutral scholars attempting to create a scholarly encyclopedia. The Leo Frank article is exactly a reflection of a widely pervasive problem on wikipedia of political and POV bias on controversial topics and therefore wikipedia is almost unanimously NOT considered a reliable source by all serious colleges, universities and academic institutions. I'm very saddened by this fact, that the current administration in wikipedia has yet to stop the POV pushing and political bias in controversial articles. It saddens me that the admins and you would allow such open, blatant and uncompromising POV pushing in the Leo Frank article and that the Leo Frank introduction reads as if Leo Frank defense team wrote it (could be confirmed by anyone who actually read the Trial Transcript and Brief of Evidence).

Part 2: "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]"

Regarding the statement "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" which is specifically Leo Frank partisan bias POV Pushing.

You seem to be avoiding the substance of the entire weight of United States Legal System, which affirms there was no miscarriage of justice. The substance of the legal system you seem to be avoiding is:

1. black letter law of the Leo Frank trial and legal proceedings 2. settled law of the Leo Frank trial and legal proceedings 3. binding legal precedent of the Leo Frank trial and legal proceedings 4. substance of the rulings of the Georgia State Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.

What you are doing instead by allowing this POV statement is deferring to some authors who have their own personal POV opinion on the Leo Frank subject. The position that the case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice is only the opinion of the Leo Frank defense side of the equation. There is what might be called the Leo Frank Prosecution side of the equation, the people of Georgia and Southerners in general, even more, I dare say there are a lot of Northerners who also consider Leo Frank to be without question guilty. If you actually read the decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the Leo Frank Brief of Evidence which both the Leo Frank Defense and the Leo Frank Prosecution accepted as the unimpeachable testimony, then you would know there was no miscarriage of justice.

So by saying in the article, "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" what you are doing is pushing the opinion of one side Leo Frank case and trial. This is what I am talking about when I say the whole article is written in such a way as if the Leo Frank defense team wrote the article, it is totally biased from top to bottom and I'd like us to start from the top. The statement of "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" is unquestionably biased. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has the final say on this matter and the Georgia Supreme Court have the final say in this matter, which is that the Jury's Verdict represents the binding truth, settled legal precedent, black letter law and fact. No one has yet to step forward and disturb the Jurys Verdict, not 5 different courts, not the Governors commutation, not even a board of pardons would address the issue of guilt in 1986? The Jurys verdict is settled binding law there are no more appeals, motions or requests to set the verdict aside left.

Part 3:

The "pardon" in 1986? did not address Leo Franks Guilt (thus affirming and not disturbing the jury's verdict) and the substance of his "pardon" says that because he was lynched he could not continue to appeal his case. What really happened is that Leo Frank had fully exhausted all of his legal options and appeals, and there was absolutely nothing left he could appeal or motion whatsoever. Even Governor Slaton didn't disturb the Jury's verdict, so that 'statement' is patently and factually false about him being prevented from appealing his case (there were zero appeals left, he exhausted them all). Secondly the pardon did not address his guilt or innocence, which means that the Jurys verdict was once again undisturbed and stands today untouched for almost 100 years. The posthumous pardon comes off more like a political cosmetic appeasement than anything of binding legal substance. Therefore doesn't it make sense to mention the truth and substance of the pardon in the article? Why keep the truth out? Is the pardon even legal? Some sources say it is not legal. Machn (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The appeals were *not* retrials.....

Hi Machn, happy Sunday :) I noticed you were writing earlier about the appeals. Appeals are not rehearings. In each appeal the higher courts can only consider the issues that the defense appellant sets forth regarding lower court proceedings. These were not retrials to redecide LF's guilt or innocence.

If you read thoroughly about the motions and appeals in this case you can understand better how justice was done, yet not done -- how LF fell through the legal cracks.

There's a very quick summary of each motion and appeal at this general interest-type article starting about a third of the way down the page, with the paragraph "Frank’s attorneys kept their word and ignored the issue...."

But Part II of this article from the Alabama Law Review follows them step by step and discusses each in great detail -- Milestones in Habeas Corpus: Leo Frank Lives: Part II -- The Legal Proceedings in Frank :

plain html here | pdf here

The .pdf starts at page 8 of 74 in Adobe Reader, page 1474 in the document. (Part II begins there, with a review of the facts and the trial; discussion of the appeals begins at 11/74, document's p. 1477.)

I think if you read that "Legal Proceedings in Frank" section especially, then the appeals puzzle should become clear :)

Could I suggest also -- please just move on to a different, unemotional part of the article for the time being -- forget the lead for now. -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The brief details of the legal struggle belongs in the introduction because it was a life or death battle finally leading to the commutation. How about something like this: On August 26th 1913 a day after the verdict and sentencing, a motion for a new trial was submitted and denied. The motion was re-raised (use a different word) to the Georgia Supreme Court who also denied the motion. And, then mention the 3 appeal attempts to have the verdict set aside? Are these items worthy of the intro? Machn (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think for now they're covered there with "Following the denial of several appeals...." With consensus, would you be interested in editing the Appeals section? Set out concisely the facts of each? I think that's what you're already starting to write. After you've "gotten to know" each you'll be in better shape to discuss how best to fit them succinctly into the Intro. -- LaNaranja (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi La Naranja.

Thank you for providing this enjoyable read, do you have more like it? How about the crown jewel of the Leo Frank case, Hugh M Dorsey's Brief of Evidence? I wonder if the writer Eric M. Freedman didn't pre-suppose Leo Franks guilt if he would have written this review of the law differently. It would be so nice if there were more sources out there which were neutral on the Leo Frank subject. I Concur with you that the section on Franks legal struggle needs to be carefully developed with consensus, because the last 2 years of Leo Franks life were a struggle for his existence, survival and probably the most gut wrenching years of his life. Machn (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Machn, the section on the Frank appeals in the Freedman article walks us through the matters of law in each one, that's why I offered it. If you'd prefer to use other sources, go ahead. The bases for the courts' rulings are not going to change from author to author. -- LaNaranja (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

La Naranja,

From the confederate holiday of April 26th 1913th till August 17th 1915 represents the time of intense struggle for the life, liberty and survival of Leo Franks and his family, it not only deserves a proper brief explanation in the intro, but a more thorough one in the article itself is necessary. I'm saddened by the intro being written in such a cramped and constipated matter (and I don't direct that at any individual), and was wondering if you could step in and discuss the matter of the widely believed to be a miscarriage of justice sentence which comes off as POV Pushing.

When I removed the authors personal political bias from the article it was very enjoyable read and I thank you for providing it for me, because it provided a starting point for the legal struggle that consumed the last 2 years of Leo Franks life. Do you have other documents like this one? How about the most essential item: the Brief of Evidence? Is there a digital version of this document available to be downloaded? My hope is that the Leo Frank article can be neutral and present all the facts of the case neutrally without Leo Frank Defense POV and Propaganda and without Leo Frank Persecution POV and Propaganda. Which brings us to an interesting conclusion that the Leo Frank Trial itself could be it's own Wiki page, but I wonder if they would allow that given the controversial political nature of the subject and the complexity involved in monitoring its evolution. What do you think? I'm looking forward to seeing this part of the article developed properly. Machn (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What parts of the article sections I gave you contain "the author's personal political bias"? Please be specific. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One time he says Frank is an Innocent Jew and then another time he says that Jim Conley did the actual crime. I'd love it if there were some docs out there that were neutral on the subject or shocking if someone has the personal courage to admit they think Leo Frank is guilty. Anyhow, more to the point do you have a digital copy of every single document associated with the legal proceedings, law and so forth regarding Leo Franks legal attempts? Machn (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. Which attorney or judge said that? I gave you the page numbers.

Here's a third way, and then I cant play this anymore. Take the Dorsey book, a source it seems you trust. Take this Freedman article. Compare their sections on the appeals. Do the facts differ? -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

one more. You seem to have grown out of guessing that the appeals verdicts were affirmations of the trial's guilty verdict. Now that you know what the appeals were not, do you think you should know what they were? -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, I certainly do think the legal proceedings, motions and appeals from 1913 to 1915 are worthy of deep exploration and understanding as they have had the influence of shaping our legal system and have become binding precedent and how they were an intricate fabric of Leo Franks life. Leo Frank is studied in every Law school in the US because of the impact his collective legal proceedings, motions and appeals had on shaping the laws. I can not thank you enough for taking the time to point me in the right direction in studying the legal proceedings. However, you said, "Now that you know what the appeals were not, do you think you should know what they were?" and I ask, "What do you think they were?" if they weren't attempts to have the verdict set aside and were not affirmations of the Jurys verdict? The legal proceedings seemed to try to motion for a new trial (GA superior court, GA & US supreme court), introduce new evidence so as to have a new trial, have Leo Frank released on Habeas Corpus and at other times get the verdict set aside (GA & US supreme court). Could you please clarify? Machn (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didnt mean the defense's motivation to appeal, of course. I meant the limited grounds on which the defense could base their arguments, which were the only matters the judges could legally consider. In the appeals section of the Freedman article, which is actually quite short (or others that are exclusively about the appeals, but those I didnt find), you can watch the arguments and the court opinions change and develop as they progress up to the US Supreme Court and the Holmes dissent, and you'll understand what the appeals were. -- LaNaranja (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja.

I have reviewed your contributions to the article again and of all the contributors to this article, your writing reads and seems to be the closest to neutrality and your scholarly additions to the article have been excellent in comparison to the political POV bias pushing that is so blindingly obvious in this article. you are an invaluable asset in terms of pointing me to the most interesting documents concerning the Leo Frank case. I can't thank you enough for motivating me to track down digital scans of the Brief of Evidence (agreed upon by both Leo Defense team and Leo Defense prosecution) and documents in legal proceedings after Leo Franks conviction. I am pouring over what looks like could easily be 1000 pages and I must say reading these original documents are a treasure trove of subtle nuance, infinitesimal detail, and information the general public has rarely had the opportunity to review.

It is also interesting to read some of the original unabridged testimony during the original trial which convicted Leo Frank. At some point I hope every document concerning Leo Frank are made available online because they bring such clarity of truth to a topic which has been obfuscated by Oney, Dinnerstein and all the other contemporary writers who have written their books and articles with a mental outlook of victim-complex and persecution-syndrome, a manner to dupe the public into thinking a well educated Leo Frank was without question innocent, framed and railroaded by an illiterate uneducated black janitor through an Anti-Semitic legal system motivated by religious and racial hatred of Jews. The truth is in the brief of evidence and I hope this document becomes available to the public soon online because it proves without a shadow of a doubt Leo Franks guilt. Thank you again for pointing me in the direction of getting copies of these most precious and rare documents. I feel like I struck gold, truly struck gold. Machn (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Machn....

Before you do anything else, I'd really like to ask you to edit the section devoted to "Leo Frank's two year tooth and nail legal struggle to prevent himself from being hanged." Just look up the information and distill it down. It shouldnt take too long and you have a little more space to cover it there. Then you'll be better able to distill that into something to suggest for the lead. The lead will still be there, don't worry. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, you're a rockstar! Thanks again, seriously, for pointing me to this golden treasure trove of information on Leo Frank. I'm gonna need some time :) it's like 1000+ pages of legal documents. Do you have a PDF copy (not on paper, but digital) of the Hugh M. Dorseys Brief of Evidence? I'm not going to touch the intro like you for the time being. Machn (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the links to the newspaper article archives? You're welcome. Or... what do you mean? A thousand pages of stuff about the appeals? That's way too much :)

Do you have a chronology of the appeals to keep you on track -- it's a confusing journey. I dont know where to find online other sources that explain them in layman's language, besides Part II of the Freedman article. That doesnt mean they're not out there, though.

(Or, are you saying you're going to be doing some reading, about the whole case? I didn't understand.)

No, I dont have Brief of Evidence. I'd like to read it. I looked for it at Google Books but it's not there. Oh well, I'll run across it someday. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great News! One no longer needs to go to the Georgia state archives in person to get the Crown Jewels of the Leo Frank Trial known as the *elusive* brief of evidence. *For $135 (including shipping) one can get a digitized copy of Brief of Evidence from the Georgia State Archive and it is absolutely essential and invaluable to anyone who wants to study the Leo Frank case to get a copy of it and read it!

Georgia Archives

Attn: Archival Services 5800 Jonesboro Road

Atlanta, GA 30260

It should help dispel, debunk or confirm any accusations of bias or inaccuracy about any contemporary writers on the subject. Machn (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is it? Is it a memoir? Or is it a printed (now digital) transcription of his arguments in the case? I dont know, if it were that valuable wouldnt it be available in law libraries? There's nothing with that title at University of Georgia law library, where you'd think it would be under glass in the lobby. At the Georgia State Archives main page there's a link to "Ask an Archivist," maybe it's best to find out exactly what it is before shelling out money. (That Georgia Archives by the way also has images of the flurry of corresp./documents leading up to the clemency decision (draft of that very statement is Item 20); your man Dorsey is in there.)

Oh -- it must be this: Brief of evidence in trial of plaintiff in error Leo M. Frank, indicted for murder, in the Supreme Court of Georgia, Fall Term, 1913.

It is "a 134-page document that summarizes the trial and whose accuracy was ratified by lawyers for both sides." Goldfarb, Stephen J. Framed. (There are two articles on this one page, this one is the second.) He says, "In itself this document, the Brief of Evidence, which has for so long lain dormant, does not prove guilt or innocence." And -- Stephen J. Goldfarb is/may still be "on the staff of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library". Their databases look pretty comprehensive, maybe it's there.

La Naranja, At your recommendation I just finished reading The Fate of Leo Frank & Framed the two in one article by Leonard Dinnerstein (has errors and leaves out details?) and Steven Goldfarb (blames detective Scott for the conviction of Leo Frank?) respectively. It was not clear the brief of evidence they were discussing was for this trial mentioned concerning money owed to the pinkertons or the brief of evidence from the Leo Frank 1913 trial for the murder of Mary Phagan. Do you or anyone know what happened to the original coroners inquest documents, testimony and notes for the murder of Mary Phagan? Do those documents still exist and is there any record of them or where they lost? How about the affidavits which were submitted for the 1913 trial? What exactly has been lost, aside from the 7 volume stenographic records of the trial testimony? What still remains of that first trial? Still trying to determine the extent of what has survived. From what I have been told Brief of evidence in trial of plaintiff in error Lee M. Frank, indicted for murder, in the Supreme Court of Georgia, Fall Term, 1913. is the most complete version of the trial testimony as Lawson's American State Trials volume X is abridged and incomplete. Machn (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman) & IronDuke's Leo Frank introduction or lead

IronDuke, when is the propaganda POV bias going to stop? when is the article going to stop reading like the Leo Frank defense team wrote it? and instead be written with neutral scholarship? You change the intro to:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American, who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the Antisemitic act led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

It could easily be argued that the lynching was not an Antisemitic act done only because Leo Frank was a Jew, but instead because Leo Frank beat, strangled and raped a 13 year old girl and then in a total botch job tried to pin it on the African American Night Watchman (night witch). Why are you calling the lynching an Anti-Semitic act? that would imply it was done out of blind malicious hatred for Leo Frank because because is Jewish. The more likely reason Leo frank was lynched is because the Governor Slaton (who was law partners with Roser) commuted the sentence of his client from death to life in prison after Leo Frank exhausted all his legal appeals. The just thing done under Georgia law is that when someone is convicted of capital murder they get hanged.

What if we took an entirely different route with the Leo Frank article and we wrote it without the POV bias and tried to make it more neutral. What if we stopped overplaying the obsession with race, religion, creed and so forth, and focused on the actual facts of the case, trial, legal proceedings and so forth? Right now the article reads like the Leo Frank defense league wrote it. Remember when I said before to stop being so obvious about making the article seem biased in Leo Franks behalf? Well you're doing it again and it's crystal clear. Remember I told you to be more subtle about it and not so obvious? Come on now, you can do better than that, why don't you try again. This time take out the POV bias. Machn (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You add nothing -- nothing whatever -- to this article. IronDuke 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks against you, but the introduction looks like a Leo Frank Defense team botch job - lets discuss it without personal attacks or emotions. You say I add nothing, but I'm the only voice in here right now speaking out against the shameless POV pushing bias of the article. I have tried to make many contributions, but you, tom and ebuddies revert my additions to the article, when I'm genuinely trying to help with quality additions.

What the introduction should do is summarize Leo Frank and the most salient points of his life, predominantly the last 2 years of his life which are his tooth and nail struggle for his life. We should mention the trial, legal proceedings after the trial, commutation and lynching as they represent the defining moments of Leo Franks life.

From April 26th 1913 up until the time he was lynched deserve a good solid brief. What if we put the introduction in chronological order of time to make it flow a little more smoothly. Some key points: Leo Frank was a Jewish American man raised in the North, mention his education, training, his moving to GA, his marriage, his position as president of B'nai B'rith, what he did for a living, the accusation, indictment, trial, conviction, motions for retrial, habeas corpus, prison board appeal, the results of them, finally commutation, lynching, formation of ADL and KKK part 2, throw in a mention of tom watson for good measure.

What do you say we put aside our differences, and decide to work together to make the article neutral. Lets not overplay the religion, race, Anti-Semitism and other political cards, but write the article in a neutral manner. Machn (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? I haven't been clear? I apologize if so. IronDuke 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean it as a personal attack against you, but the introduction is poorly written, amateurish, kinda constipated and reads like a botch job. Please review my suggestions above, so we can all work together to make a better introduction. Right now the intro isn't very well written and needs to be completely redone in a more chronological manner and the article would benefit if that was done to it as well. The introduction gets a C- and what do you say we try again? And this time we include more substantial information about Leo Franks two year tooth and nail legal struggle to prevent himself from being hanged to death by Sheriff Magnum. Machn (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your additions are a net negative here, your opinions unhelpful (to put it in the mildest possible way). If there's a way for me to make this yet clearer for you, please tell me. (Also, please learn how to indent.) IronDuke 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We know and agree the subject of Leo Frank is a highly contentious topic. I can empathically sense the tension, friction and reactionary emotions in your writing directed toward me, but I ask that we both please make an effort to put our emotions aside and instead focus on writing an article which is not biased or POV pushing, but instead neutral and scholarly with consensus. I don't mean these as personal attacks against you, but here is another example of the additions and changes you made to the introduction and article which are poorly written and POV bias pushing. Let's look at this new example:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the antisemitic episode led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

Let's talk about your POV pushing with the words "antisemitic episode". Was the lynching of Leo Frank an Anti-Semitic episode? Which would imply that Leo Frank was lynched because of some kind of blind malicious hatred of Jews or Leo was lynched because he is Jewish - Nope. Leo Frank was lynched because he strangled and possibly raped a little 13 year old girl named Mary Phagan who worked for him (and according to some of the doctors who testified indicated specific vaginal damage - see the Brief of Evidence). So let's try again, what if we looked at some of my suggestions above and let's talk about how we can write a better introduction without the POV propaganda pushing. Let's try to keep this productive and I ask that you please stop with the personal attacks. Machn (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to discourage you from editing this article but: your writing skills are poor, your knowledge of the case (and law in general) scanty at best, and the POV you keep pushing utterly odious. My fear is that you may find it frustrating to edit here. However, there are websites out there that would welcome your villification of Frank, but I believe wiki policy prevents me from linking to them. May I suggest Google? Then post at those sites to your heart's content. IronDuke 00:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to discourage me from editing the article you say (to quote your words), but you keep suggesting to me in couched or overt language to leave and no longer participate in the Leo Frank article. Therefore, your words seem to contradict themselves, so let me be frank with you (no pun intended) I have no intention now or ever of NOT participating in the scholarly development of this article. Instead of making these and other types of personal attacks against me and avoiding my open and legitimate criticisms of your writing, we should take a different course and be discussing the issues I bring up, working toward producing a more scholarly and neutral article without your (or anyone's) overt POV bias and propaganda pushed into the article (I will address that here in specifics so we can move forward).

What I would like to ask you to do, is stop telling me to leave, because i have no intention of doing so ever and the personal attacks just take away from your credibility. If you want to make personal attacks against me, please keep them to yourself, because I do not care to hear them, nor does anyone else participating here who respects the Wikipedia rules of no personal attacks. Moreover, personal attacks are childish and only poorly reflect upon the person making them. I do not find it frustrating to edit here (to address your words and suggestion), it's just kinda boring that you sound like a broken record concerning your personal attacks against me, but ultimately I'm like Teflon when it comes to personal attacks, they do not phase me. I'm just suggesting you stop them because they are counter productive.

I actually enjoy studying this case very much and this article has inspired me to do independent research at great lengths and also obtaining elusive and rare legal documents (like the brief of evidence which can only be obtained from the Georgia State archives) which many people who have studied this case have ever read or reviewed (the brief of evidence does not exist in digital form and can not be purchased online). Even though the precedent is that Leo Franks guilt has been confirmed, affirmed and re-affirmed ad naseum by the Supreme Court of United States and Supreme Court of Georgia, I still would like the article to be neither pro-frank or anti-frank, but completely neutral and scholarly. Right now the article introduction reads with a tone of POV propaganda pushing bias and I shall address this point again below. What I am asking you to do, is to please put your emotions and feelings aside, and your animosity towards me aside, so we can work together in consensus for the common goal of making this article neutral and scholarly.

Let's talk about your POV pushing with the words "antisemitic episode" in the first section of the introduction. Saying that Leo Franks lynching was an antisemitic episode is POV bias and propaganda making racist, bigoted and prejudiced statements against the people of Georgia and its most prominent citizens. There is no a shred of evidence that the people who lynched Leo Frank did so because he was Jewish. Leo Frank was lynched not because he is Jewish but because he was arguably a sexual predator, pedophile rapist (see the Brief of Evidence on the damage reported by Doctors concerning Mary Phagans Vagina) and child-murderer. Franks Jewishness had nothing to do with his lynching, if Leo Frank were Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, Baptist, Atheist, Muslim or Agnostic, or even black, white or in between, it would not have changed why he was lynched. I do not know if you are aware of this or not, but people who kill or rape little children, are generally considered by the people and general public as the absolute lowest of humanity. This feeling is not something isolated to 100 years ago, even today people feel this same way and in prison child killers or child rapists are often repeatedly gang raped. In some cases, these child killers or child rapists are even forced in prison to grow out their hair really long, wear makeup and lipstick and put on feminine clothes, though the thought of Leo Frank being forced to do that seems utterly unjust and equally cruel. It has nothing to do with ones religion, this feeling that people have of abject loathing toward child killers or child rapists, it has to do with the act of abject violence against a little girl. Your statement that the lynching, trial or anything surrounding Leo Franks guilt, conviction and lynching were Anti-Semitic are not true. Please stop pushing this kind of propaganda onto the article. Machn (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple editors who find your work problematic -- gravely so. Your ill-informed POV insertions are unwelcome, and will not be tolerated here. IronDuke 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not supposed to be the result of any editor's original research into primary documents (OR- prohibited by Wikipedia policy), but to reflect valid, third-party sources, preferably recognized academics writing in peer-reviewed forms. Your interest is terrific, but don't let it carry you away. This is not the place to present your own ideas.Parkwells (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Parkwells, forgive me for being skeptical, because these remarks of yours are so refreshing and uncommon to hear within the discussion area of an article and topic so highly contentious and controversial. The subject of Leo Frank should probably be semi-protected here on wikipedia because of the unending efforts to utilize it turn a pedophile-murderer into a Martyr for race or religious hatred. I hope with belief, your words are genuine (I'll assume good faith they are), reading between the lines that no one, whether they think Leo Frank is guilty or innocent should be allowed to push any kind of racial, religious, political or classicist biases and propaganda into the article for furthering their own narrow POV or agenda. The substance and point of your words being, the article should be written utilizing scholarly peer reviewed sources and I concur. There are some people who would like to turn the 'Leo Frank Case' into the culmination of an Anti-Jewish fevered pitch or American zenith of Antisemitic persecution and victimhood. This despite the fact that Leo Franks trial, conviction and lynching had nothing to do with him being Northern Jew. I couldn't agree more with your words about the needs of this article and Wikipedia to be more scholarly, however the Introduction of this article as devolved into disgusting hate.

I don't want to be a tattletale, crying to the admins about the problems here, but I'm at the point where if this antagonistic and intentionally disruptive behavior by IronDuke can't be resolved with rational discussion, fairness and neutrality, I have no other choice. I have tried to speak to him using reason, but I have gotten nothing but a broken record of responses from IronDuke. IronDuke has turned the introduction of this article into hate propaganda calling it an antisemitic episode and thus by fiat accusing the people of Georgia, the judges, the Jury, lawyers, police and the Supreme Court of Georgia collectively as part of some kind of vast Anti-Semitic conspiracy. I'm ashamed that something so visible as Wikipedia can't even stop it's own activist editors from pushing Anti-Semitic propaganda. Can you make a suggestion how IronDuke can be properly dealt with in a manner to stop him from these disruptive edits to the Introduction? I have tried to ask him nicely and he ignores me, parroting personal insults in new and subtle ways. Could you please have a man to man talk with him in private. This lead statement:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the antisemitic episode led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

is totally unacceptable and needs to be re-written. I would change it myself but IronDuke would revert it or ask a buddy. Machn (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tattle away. And while you're at it, please go ahead and mention your hate speech-y denigration of Jewish scholars and scholarship, your relentless attempts to pervert this article into a platform of that hate speech, your utter disregard for facts, sourcing (remember your uncritical use of a vicious antisemite's screed?), good writing, or Wikipedia policy. It's a minor miracle you haven't been topic-banned yet: a trip to the authorities might be just the ticket. IronDuke 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. Machn writes, " I'm ashamed that something so visible as Wikipedia can't even stop it's own activist editors from pushing Anti-Semitic propaganda." In fact, the only person I am aware of pursuing such an agenda was Machn when he made edits such as this [1] (written before he escalated his rhetoric and changed his mind regarding Frank's guilt). He is still stuck in his tendentious editing mode -- endlessly repeating his arguments about pedophilia and bias while avoiding the most reliable sources available such as Dinnerstein and Oney. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to support the anti-Semitism charge. Eventually t will probably be necessary to add a separate section in the article to cover both class and religious influences on the trial, the coverage of the trial, and the lynching. The footnoted material should eventually find its way into the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, no long winded responses. Then lets call this thread: Tom (North Shoreman) & IronDuke's Leo Frank introduction sentence and lead. Present the evidence. Machn (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, may I be the first to congratulate you on your promotion? IronDuke 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear what Dinnerstein and Oney have to say about the Leo Frank Case concerning Anti-Semitism. What do other contemporary authors have to say concerning the Leo Frank case being Anti-Semitic? Is there any Anti-Semitism in The Leo Frank Extracted American State Trials X 1918. Machn (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Leo Frank Lynching Was An Episode of Anti-Semitism

According to Mary Phagan Kean:

Some writers, such as Harry Golden in his book A Little Girl Is Dead, feel that many Atlantans were grossly anti-Semitic and accused Frank of the murder because he was Jewish

She writes this with the notion that such sentiments are empty and lacking substance. This is the sentiment of some writers such as Harry Golden, Steve Oney, Dinnerstein and others, but indeed the prejudiced sentiment that Anti-Semitism was the cause of Leo Frank lynching lacks substance. Machn (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I'm asking for help with some sources and references concerning some of the activist editors claims about an Anti-Jewish conspiracy in the Leo Frank Case. I would like to understand that position from their point of view as nothing in any of Leo Franks writings, letters and appeals claims their was an Anti-Semitic conspiracy or any Anti-Semitism at all. I have been searching far and wide for sources and references on Leo Frank, to see if there is any substance to Tom and IronDuke's assertions that the 'Leo Frank Case' was 'in toto' was an Anti-Semitic conspiracy, or as they put it in colorful terms, an "Anti-Semitic Episode". So far, I have only found several books or so on the Leo Frank Case which have some Anti-Semitic sentences in them, but the substance of these booklets and articles are not Anti-Semitic. They seem to be very well argued and reasoned treatise or compositions on the 'Leo Frank Case' from the prosecution position, but with sarcasm, more wit and energy. Tom Watson to the best of my knowledge, is accused by the Frankites and activist editors (Tom?) here as being the man who is responsible for causing Leo Frank to be lynched. Unless I overlooked a quote, I have failed to see how he was the man who is responsible for Leo Franks lynching and the Anti-Semitic statements in these books, are few and far between. If someone can please point me in the right direction to find some reliable sources on this Anti-Semitism conspiracy position I would be very thankful and indebted. The following five books (possibly more?) written by the seasoned lawyer Tom Watson are here and I put them here for reference purposes only, I'm not suggesting they should be used as sources because of their Anti-Semitic content is unacceptable:

1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson's Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for 'A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for 'The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank". Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for 'The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

After reading these five very well written arguments about the Leo Frank Case, I will definitely agree with everyone that there were Anti-Semitic sentences in them, some of the Anti-Semitism was even nauseating and I almost stopped reading them when I got to those parts, but the substance of these articles as a whole were not Anti-Semitic in and of themselves from the Southern position about how things were transpiring. These booklets and arguments just seem to be new and innovative rehashes of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorseys arguments for the prosecution. If your position is that Tom Watson is the man who may have inflamed an already enraged population in the South with his well argued position on the Leo Frank Case, I would have to concur that his arguments are definitely convincing, but I'm still not seeing how Tom Watson's writings equate to the Leo Frank lynching as being an Anti-Semitic episode. I have been waiting 2 weeks for more evidence, sources and references from Tom and IronDuke, but haven't really gotten anything convincing that this whole Leo Frank Case is some widespread Anti-Semitic conspiracy. Can someone please point me to reference pages for this position, I would really like to understand this position better. Machn (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeals section

Machn, you're off to a great start! I think next comes the discovery of new evidence and the extraordinary motion.

• Dont know if you need a chronology to follow, but Lawson has probably the most trustworthy one at pp 410-412. There's also one here: The Leo Frank Trial: A Chronology; I havent compared them but it's probably reliable. Of course you might have one you prefer, I dont mean to be more bossy (than usual) :)

• You could also mention real quick, Dorsey's counterarguments to the first motion and extraordinary motion.

• Kudos for moving the August 26 blockquote (etc.) to the Appeals section. Just my opinion, but at the end of the Trial section, maybe a last line could be added to emphasize the drama at the reading of the verdict. Dorsey crying as the jury was polled, people screaming and beating on each other in the street, etc. Details were recorded by the Atlanta Journal, quoted at Lawson pp. 407-8; Oney also used that article and others to describe the reaction, but I dont have a copy). It's great color and does emphasize the prevailing high emotion. I realize including it, though it's true, could seem prejudicial -- a good example of the problems with this article. Up to you or someone else to decide.

• • Another thought about the problem of balancing information. I had added, right before "Judge Roan denied the motion on October 31st...", paraphrases of two examples of the defense's grounds of error: "Arnold argued that it would make no sense for Frank to have ordered the notes written since, according to Conley, he had also told Conley to burn the body in the basement furnace to prevent its discovery" (Linder, Frank Account) and one of "....(attacking failure to give instruction, apparently also not requested at trial, that if jury found Conley to be accomplice, his testimony could not be accepted without corroboration)." (Freedman 1478, fn 45). But I took them out because they would lead the reader, "hearing" argument not admitted, to decide. It might be useful later to quote, somewhere, any of the wide opinion that the defense fatally bungled their job, without giving examples (alternative to give them and then use even more space to include the counterargument/court opinion).

• I added the sentence about Stoics to the blockquote. If that's left in, please remove the ellipse in front of it (the whole statement is at Lawton p. 409).

• "Leo Frank had exhausted all his options to motion for a new trial;" -- had he?

• Replaced content with direct quote, "But I do not have to be convinced. The jury was convinced." This can't be ignored/left out: it influences all the proceedings that follow, all the way up. Your content was a partial (:frown:) quote of the Ga. Supreme Court paraphrasing the defense lawyers, who themselves had quoted or paraphrased Judge Roan in their brief ("that he, the judge, had thought about this case more than any other he had ever tried; that he was not certain of the defendant's guilt; that with all the thought he had put on this case he was not thoroughly convinced whether Frank was guilty or innocent, but that he did not have to be convinced; that the jury was convinced there was no room to doubt that and that he felt it his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled." Freedman, p. 1480, quoting Frank, 80 S.E. at 1034.). It seemed simpler just to directly quote Roan. Also the next paragraph re the Ga. Supreme Court refers to the Roan statement; paraphrasing and triple-quoting make it too tangled up.

To me it's reasonable if the appeals section temporarily becomes long, and then with consensus is edited down. Better to include all key information than to omit any. I hope everyone agrees with this --? -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Update. In light of Machn re-adding "allegedly" and then apparently actually rewriting the first motion Roan quote here, not to mention deliberately leaving out earlier the important part of Judge Roan's statement, I have to conclude that Machn not only is not editing in good faith but is editing maliciously. It doesnt seem to be a matter of just not knowing how to find the facts, which I had thought was the problem. He had the facts and he redefined them, and possibly even rewrote a quote. Machn, if you got your version of the quote from somewhere, would you please post that reference? You sure didnt get it from Frank v Mangum, which you posted as your ref. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my hope was putting in the part of uncertainty about guilt or innocent in there. I have a copy of In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term 1914 No. 775 Leo M. Frank, Appellant, vs. C. Wheeler Mangum, Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, Appellee. Here is the exact quote, that I think makes the most sense to include there, and ill put it in, and we can talk about it. Here is the quote...

the Jury had found me guilty, that he had thought about the case more than any other that he had ever tried, that he was not certain of my guilt, that with all the thought he had put on the case, he was not fully convinced that I was innocent or guilty, but that he did not have to be convinced, that there was no room to doubt that the jury was, and that he felt in his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled.

I was trying to get the "he was not fully convinced that I was innocent or guilty" part, this came from the legal document coming from Leo Franks petition saying he heard the judge say this, so I put that the judge allegedly said this, but if there is a document that is signed by Judge Roan, then it isn't allegedly and that was my mistake. No bad faith. Machn (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why didnt you quote that and attribute it and cite it? This isnt rocket science. In any case the Roan quote is the direct primary quote; why did you revert it? At this point I think you were just trying to stick in an "allegedly," which wouldnt apply anyway. Im losing my faith here. There's nothing to talk about, in fact the less talk the better. You know how to research and edit honestly, just do that. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote from Leo Frank vs. Mangum:

(Leo Frank writes in his petition) Seventh. On August 26th 1913, my counsel filed for a new trial. This was denied on Oct. 31st 1913 by Honorable Judge Leonard S. Roan, the presiding Judge, in denying the motion saying, that the jury had found me guilty; that he had thought about the case more than any other that he had ever tried; that he was not certain of my guilt; that with all the thought he had put on the case, he was not fully convinced that I was innocent or guilty, but that he did not have to be convinced; that there was no room to doubt that the Jury was, and that he felt it his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled.

I was trying to get the part about the judges uncertainty of the innocent or guilt part in that quote (NO BAD FAITH), it is important that we capture the depth of Judge Roans doubt accurately. Maybe we could put the whole quote? I wanted to put the words allegedly in there, because a higher up court (either GA or US Supreme), later said that those statements were only ORAL, indicating that there was no documentation of proof that they had substance to paraphrase. I will look for the quote from the Supreme Court on stating that Judge Roans statements were Oral only and that his actions are what spoke about his real position on the matter. Machn (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First, start indenting. Second, regarding Judge Roan's doubt in 1913, his own words are fine; Leo Frank confirmed them in your own 1915 quote, so there's no "allegedly;" are you saying you think the defense and LF misconstrued Roan's words? And this was never corrected by subsequent courts? Judge Roan's doubt later, are you not aware of Judge Roan's letter? Didnt you read the Mary Phagan Kean book? In any case none of it would go in the first motion section, certainly not your convoluted Leo Frank "allegedly" non-quote. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will definitely start indenting from now on. Yes, I read the Mary Phagan book The Murder of Little Mary Phagan and I put the allegedly in there, because I thought Leo was saying that Judge Roan was saying that and that there was no documentation to support it (sorry bout that). It was the wrong choice of words. I was all excited and giddy :), when you said, Machn, you're off to a great start! and then I had to go and ruin that by choosing the wrong word in a mix up. I'll try my best to not let that happen again. My humblest apologies and thanks for keeping me on my toes. Machn (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for indenting, it's impossible to read otherwise. The implication about "oral" is from the first appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. If you want to include mention that it was an oral statement, please quote directly. It's not for us to claim "allegedly." -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that and I appreciate the spanking, I should have used the Supreme Court quote to show that the statement from Judge Roan was Oral - the keyword being Oral (not allegedly). I also wanted your opinion on the matter of having a picture of Tom Watson in the appeals section. Shouldn't we have pictures of Judge Roan, GA & US Supreme Court there instead? Speaking of Tom Watson, there should probably be a section on him in the article because he seemed to be the voice countering all the "outsider" newspaper articles claiming Leo Frank was innocent. I know there are some people who follow these discussion who would even say that Tom Watson caused Leo Frank to be lynched (though that is certainly debatable). Machn (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably Tom's picture has slid down or moved up through different edits. I dont know where it should best go. But listen. At least one source says Judge Roan stated it orally, "in open court and for the record." And -- how would we have a direct quote if it hadnt been on the record?

That linked article is by a law professor reviewing the Oney book but very likely going further with his own knowledge. If it's in Oney, he probably has a cite for it; otherwise, we could look around for this professor's writing, or some other source for the claim. Either way I'm not sure how to fit the "oral" notes in; the Supreme Court judge uses the adj. "oral" twice, but only in passing, he didn't belabor it. (But the point gets across). I'm inclined to think it's a footnote. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom has his own entry in Wikipedia, and his influence is well noted in this article. His bio is in the bibliography and is readable at Google Books. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Watson certainly does have an entry in Wikipedia. Do you think there should be a section about him in the Leo Frank article? because he is mentioned in the introduction. Machn (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He's mentioned all through; I added quite a bit about him. He only comes into the picture in 1915. The name of his bio is "Agrarian Rebel", if you'd like to read it online. Im going to lunch now; keep reading your 1000 pages :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip I'm gonna check it out. I don't like google books; I find it cumbersome so I purchased the book instead. The reading pile grows and grows! Machn (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo Max Frankel, source check requested

I noticed someone put Leo Frank's real name in the introduction as Leo Max Frankel, can I request a source check on that name? Does anyone have a copy of his birth certificate? I also wanted to know whether or not "Leo" is short for Leonard, Leonardo, Leon or some other variation? Lastly, the middle name "Max" is that short for Maxwell, Maximilien or Maximilian? I am requesting clarity on his name and would appreciate any sources on the subject to back up such claims. Machn (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Denial of anti-Semitism (copied from a user's talk page)

Perhaps you could advise exactly where it says in that quote that the episode was anti-semitic as I cannot read that into it anywhere…? Instead of saying simply 'it does say that' it would be more helpful to confirm exactly where it says so. To me - and I am a lawyer so I am qualified to interpret things of this nature - it clearly says that there was a lot of anti-semitic feeling at the time, and such comments were made in the press. In addition, there was much to say about the fact that Frank was a Jew. However, nowhere does it say that the whole episode (the lynching etc) was due to this; it was, if you like, an ancillary issue existing alongside the real issue, but not part of it. The very first comment refers, in fact. I feel that this quote has been mis-understood. Please stop entering into an edit war about this and see it for what it actually is. I get the impression you have forced the issue to fit into a preconceived idea about the episode. 78.150.21.193 (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am the one that added the footnote. I have now expanded the footnote to include specific language that reiterates the obvious. Please note that simply because some specific info is included in the footnote, this does not imply that this is all the source had to say about it. Youreally should go to the actual source (or at least ask about it) before you start reverting. There has been a long discussion on the page about anti-Semitism and no consensus for removing the reference was reached. I am copying this entire conversation to the article discussion page where it is more appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The amended statement still does nothing to show that anti-semitism was involved. Simply by adding 'at the time of the lynching' does not go any way to confirming that either the trial or the lynching itself was influenced by anti-semitism; it simply shows that anti-semitism was rife at the time. This is nothing more than a co-incidence unless proven otherwise. In fact, my knowledge of this case suggests that the events were more to do with anti-northern sentiment rather than anti-semitism. Nothing in the statement proves - or even suggests - that the event was anti-semitic. If, as you say, that evidence is included in the wider source, why not add that to the wiki article, rather than allow a statement which does not prove what it is alleged to prove. Please re-visit this, please provide something which categorically states that the episode was anti-semitic. While I have no doubt there was much anti-jewish feeling at the time, and many people disliked Frank because of his religion, or believed he committed this murder because he was a Jew - this is not what the quote says and as far as I can see there is NO evidence to show that anti-semitism was the motive for what happened. Again, I think this is a personal crusade to force into the article something which is simply not evidenced and this must surely be against wiki's impartiality rules??? I have now read the comments above and I agree - this is a disgraceful, one-sided article which is nothing more than the POV of someone on a frolic of their own. If you are not prepared alter this to make it more fair, please refer to someone independent - perhaps a senior administrator - for review and final determination. If you are not prepared to do that, I will report the page as a gross and flagrant bias. As I say, I am happy to accept it was anti-semitic, but only where evidence of such is provided. I reiterate that the quote given does not prove it even slightly 78.150.21.193 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Both the footnote and the source itself are clear. In no way could any reasonable person believe that Higham's intent was to describe a "co-incidence" -- the phrase "In the last stages of the Frank Case" provides the EXACT context. A far as your claim that, "my knowledge of this case suggests that the events were more to do with anti-northern sentiment rather than anti-semitism", this is only relevant to the extent that you can provide reliable secondary sources that support your own original research. In fact, as the source clearly indicates, different factors were at play after the trial than during the trial. Rather than engaging in personal insults about other editor's motives, try producing some actual sources to back your opinions up. I can't help but notice that in both tone and substance, you do sound a lot like a sock puppet of Machn would sound. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, there's no need to be paranoid that your POV agenda and weak hypothesis are being called out, this is just a normal part of being an editor here on wikipedia when you make such broad, sweeping and dubious claims. Instead of changing the subject with lame accusations, why don't you just follow through like you said you would in the threads above, weeks ago, that you would support your far-flung Anti-Semitism conspiracy theory. You and your biased sources, are in the minority in attempting to allege and blame Leo Franks conviction and lynching on a supposed nationwide Anti-Jewish plot, so at least attempt to back it up with something solid. Why, because every level of the United States legal system from the state to the federal courts affirmed that the Trial was fair and that the evidence supported the verdict of Guilty. Sorry Tom, No cheesy Anti-Semitic Plot to convict an innocent man. Sorry Tom, the Leo Frank Case is not an Anti-Semitic episode, like you put in the first sentence of the Leo Frank article. Every time a person calls you out as being an activist editor and propaganda pusher are you going to claim they are a sock puppet of me? The admins have tools they can use to confirm these red-herring accusations by you are untrue. Tom, how about you back up your claims that the 'Leo Frank Case' is an "Anti-Semitic episode" with some real solid scholarly sources. To the new comer, it is time, you register an account with wikipedia.org and contribute with reliable scholarly sources which are numerous. Machn (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi New Comer, before you make edits to the Leo Frank article, I suggest you read up more on the subject. The following books on the topic will give you a pretty good understanding of the Leo Frank Case:-

• "The Frank Case" The Inside Story of Georgia's Greatest Murder Mystery Published in 1913 by Atlanta Publishing Company. 148 PP. Digitized by Harvard Library in Adobe Acrobat PDF [2]
• The Murder of Little Mary Phagan Free book download 316 pages in adobe PDF format. Written by Mary Phagan Kean (Great Grand Niece of Mary Phagan).
• American State Trials Volume X (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D. Available for download in Adobe PDF format (31M) and contains the abridged edited version of the Leo Frank trial testimony starting on page 182.

My suggestion to you is to go to http://www.archive.org and search on the individual terms Leo Frank or Mary Phagan and you will find a number of good sources and some questionable sources on the subject. You should read them all so you can be familiar with the different positions on the Leo Frank Case. You should try to understand the Leo Frank case from the different sides and positions. It will help you better understand the political battle going on here, which is that you have activist editors trying to rehabilitate a pedophile rapist (affirmed in the testimony by more than one specialist), unfaithful husband (affirmed in the testimony by more than one person), lascivious libidinous predator (affirmed in the testimony by numerous child employees) and child murderer (convicted and 13 failed appeals).Machn (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The National media section has wandered way off topic

It has become a discussion of what remains today of the original trial testimony, which is probably more important than what the section had been. Since the section formerly had overstated the trial's media portrayal outside Georgia ("a national spectacle"), it might be time for a rethink about this section and where it might best go. Seems to me that individual sections about the Atlanta press coverage, and about the disappearance of trial transcripts, would each have critical value; a section on national press coverage, not so much. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Steve Oney and others talk about the importance of national media coverage inside and outside of Georgia, as well as how the outside influence was negatively perceived by Georgians. There was a very successful massive media campaign outside of the State of Georgia by the wealthy media moguls and Jewish groups to get national media coverage favorable to Frank and letter writing campaigns asking that Frank be exonerated of his murder conviction. Governor Slaton (senior law partner of Leo Frank defense attorneys Luther Rosser and Brandon) received thousands of unique and stock letters requesting clemency as a result of such a successful campaign. Machn (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then shouldn't those points be included in the section, with appropriate cites? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The present section, as it exists, only addresses local newspaper coverage so I have changed the section title accordingly. The second paragraph is clearly about the local papers. The unsourced first paragraph states, "During the murder investigation, papers published every new detail of hearsay, gossip, conflicting rumors and shifting conspiracy theories, thus ensuring continued interest — and continued circulation — during the trial, outcome and appeal stages of the case." This describes the local coverage which began with the actual murders -- national coverage only came later. Both the local and national newspaper coverage needs to be expanded. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Posthumous Pardon"

Frank had exhausted all legal appeals in the state and federal court system of his murder conviction, so the statement by the board that he was prevented from pursuing further legal appeals is false. Does anyone have any evidence to counter this? Machn (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)