Talk:Leo Frank

Please stop deleting talk entries that are posted in good faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A contemporary view of the fairness of the Leo Frank trial

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Continued from Page 1

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speculation as to Outcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conley Indictment Likely

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

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

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

The judge will have no discretion in sentencing him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The recent, and almost immediate deletion of the above quote from the Leo Frank page was an obvious act of POV vandalism, done without just cause or good reason, and here's why:

The United States Supreme Court decision in Frank v Mangum (237 U.S. 309) occupies a total of some 42 pages of printed text. The deleted quotation contained only 366 words, in 4 sentences, totaling 2 short paragraphs. Every word of the quote is vital to a general understanding of the plethora of issues ruled upon in that case, and forms a short, concise synopsis of the evidence and testimony reviewed by the highest court of appeal, and given by that court as its final summation. In this sense it was neither "POV", "unsourced", or "overly long", but contained just enough factual, fully sourced material to convey the actual ruling of the court, as well as the court's justification for same.

Within the full body of that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed every relevant objection of the appellant to the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, and includes many direct quotes from the ruling of that court, which contained nearly twice the amount of printed material as in the U.S. case.

The primary issue upon which the Leo Frank Wikipedia article is built is the contention that Frank did not have a fair and impartial trial, because of some alleged disorder in and about the courtroom, including manifestations of public sentiment which his lawyers claimed to have been sufficiently hostile to him as to influence the decision of the jury.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and both the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue exhaustively, and clearly found that such allegations were "untrue in point of fact".

Contrary to either the overblown false imaginings, misrepresentations, or blatant fabrications of the so-called, "reliable sources" of Dinnerstein, Olney, and others, upon which the slant of this Wikipedia article relies, only 3 minor incidents occurred within the hearing or knowledge of the jury over the entire course of the trial, and were as follows:

1. One incidence of laughter by spectators while the defense was examining one of its witnesses.

On this occurence, the Supreme courts ruled:

"...there being nothing to indicate what provoked it, other than a witty answer by the witness or some other innocuous matter. The trial court requested the sheriff to maintain order, and admonished those present that if there was further disorder nobody would be permitted in the court-room on the following day. The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of anything showing a detrimental effect, there was in this occurrence no sufficient ground for a new trial."

2. Spectators applauded the result of 1 colloquy between the solicitor general and counsel for the accused.

On this occurence, the Supreme courts ruled:

"The latter complained of this conduct, and requested action by the court. The Supreme Court (of Georgia) said: 'The [trial] court directed the sheriff to find out who was making the noise, and, presumably from what otherwise appears in the record, the action by the court was deemed satisfactory at the time, and the orderly progress of the case was resumed without any further action being requested. The general rule is that the conduct of a spectator during the trial of a case will not be ground for a reversal of the judgment, unless a ruling upon such conduct is invoked from the judge at the time it occurs. [Citing cases]. . . The applause by the spectators, under the circumstances as described in the record, is but an irregularity not calculated to be substantially harmful to the defendant; and even if the irregularity should be regarded as of more moment than we give it, we think the action of the court, as a manifestation of the judicial disapproval, was a sufficient cure for any possible harmful effect of the irregularity, and deemed so sufficient by the counsel who, at the time, made no request for further action by the court.'"

3. As to the "disorderly" spontaneous applause and cheering by crowds outside of the courthouse, after the verdict, but during the polling of the jury, the Supreme Court of Georgia said (141 Georgia, p. 281), and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that:

"'Just before the jury was ushered into the court's presence for the purpose of rendering their verdict, the court had the room cleared of spectators. The verdict of the jury was received and published in the usual manner. A request was made to poll the jury, and just after the polling had begun loud cheering from the crowd in the streets adjacent to the court-house was heard. This cheering continued during the polling of the jury. The plaintiff in error insists that the cheering on the outside of the court-room, which was loud, and which was heard by the jury, could not have been interpreted otherwise than as expressive of gratification at the verdict which had been rendered, and of which the crowd on the outside had in some way been informed, and was so coercive in character as to affect the fairness of the poll of the jury which was taken. . . . [p. 282]. In order that the occurrence complained of shall have the effect of absolutely nullifying the poll of the jury taken before they dispersed, it must appear that its operation upon the minds of the jury, or some of them, was of such a controlling character that they were prevented, or likely to have been prevented, from giving a truthful answer to the questions of the court. We think that the affidavits of jurors submitted in regard to this occurrence were sufficient to show that there was no likelihood that there was any such result. Under such circumstances we do not think that the occurrence complained of amounts to more than an irregularity, which was not prejudicial to the accused. There is a wide difference between an irregularity produced by the juror himself, or by a party, and the injection into a trial of an occurrence produced by some one having no connection therewith.'"

When considering these quotes from the Supreme Court rulings, taken from the actual records themselves, as well as the fact that no contemporary reports of any influence of "mob law", "mob violence", or "mob domination" upon the trial of Leo Frank is found in any period newspapers during the entire time the original trial was proceeding, the falsely misleading POV slant of this Wikipedia article, as well as that of the various authors of its so-called "reliable sources" becomes clear.

Such exaggerated charges were first brought up in the petition for rehearing by Frank's attorneys, following the "Guilty" verdict, as the first of a number of obviously contrived, and transparent last-ditch efforts to allow their client to avoid just punishment, and these charges were subsequently exaggerated and expounded upon by later writers on the case in order to pursue an agenda, to wit: To rehabilitate the image of Leo Frank into one of martyrdom and victimhood, to the point and intent of serving to totally overshadow the wanton viciousness of the crime perpetrated upon the innocent, underage girl, Mary Phagan, of which he was lawfully convicted, in a shamelessly dishonest attempt to circumvent justice, and elevate Frank to the near stature of sainthood.

The adoption, and continued propagation of this scandalous effort through the concerted actions of various Wikipedia editors to obfuscate the truth of the matter through selective deletion of pertinent edits which expose various misrepresentations, and their stone-walled reliance upon clearly biased and questionable sources which lend support to the article's obviously one-sided, dishonest POV only serves to lay upon the entire organization an equal share of that shameful, and dishonorable disgrace. 64.134.45.86 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

APPEALS section of this article requires a re-write

North Shoreman recently deleted an edit by an IP user, stating that the IP edit was POV unsourced comments and overly long quote. While I would agree that the IP user's summary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision could have been improved upon, it wasn't POV. Neither was the submission unsourced. It was Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). The IP included that, along with a few extra legal citations, which aren't required.

North Shoreman is quite correct when he states that the quote is overlong. I would add that the quote wasn't positioned particulary well, within the article. The "Final ruling...(etc.)" divider was inappropriate, since the previous sentence (above the divider) also concerned the same court decision, namely Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915).

Here is the rub. That previous discussion of the Supreme Court decision, under the sub-section header of APPEALS *only* quotes from the dissent (twice!). If there is POV, it arises from presenting only one side of a decision (in such a way as to convey an impression of the "wrongness" of the majority opinion). The whole Appeals section of the Frank article is a prime example of POV pushing.

So I think we actually NEED part of the majority opinion added to the article, to bring us back to a neutral position. We just don't need the entire quote that North Shoreman deleted. A rewrite of the entire APPEALS section of the article, including a succinct summary of the majority opinion, backed up by a shorter quote, is called for. Gulbenk (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The part I find objectionable on POV grounds is the emphasis on the word "Final" as if the Supreme Court has spoken and there is no further reason to discuss the matter. It is also inaccurate to state that the SC decided in full "whether Leo Frank was given a fair trial" when, in fact, their decision was narrow and focused and did not consider all facets of the case. Dinnerstein, for example, emphasizes that the Court majority decision noted "that errors in law, however serious, committed by a court of proper jurisdiction cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus since habeas corpus cannot be substituted for a writ of error." Olney indicated that the Court was "content to leave 'due process' in the hands of the state."

As far as sourcing, our preferred sourcing, especially in an area where we are providing interpretation of history (i.e. the significance of a court decision) rather than simply reciting facts, is reliable secondary sourcing. The has been a continuous problem in this article with POV warriors trying to use their interpretation of primary sources to prove that Frank was guilty -- probably more than a half dozen sock puppets have been identified and banned and this IP appears to be either another one or a fellow traveler.

Dinnerstein, for example, emphasizes that the Court majority decision noted "that errors in law, however serious, committed by a court of proper jurisdiction cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus since habeas corpus cannot be substituted for a writ of error." Olney indicated that the Court was "content to leave 'due process' in the hands of the state." "A succinct summary" of what the reliable sources say about the majority opinion may be appropriate. A clear point that needs to be made is that Court did not delve into the actual facts of the case and weigh guilt versus innocence.

I think you also need to keep in mind that the "neutral position" is not one that devotes equal space to "guilt" and "innocence" but one that reflects the manner in which the case is presented by reliable secondary sources. The majority of these sources either lean to or outright acknowledge that Frank was innocent and did not receive a fair trial.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for that response. I think your reaction to "Final" may be unjustified. The SC is the court of last resort and, unless they remand to a lower court, their word is, in fact, final. One does not appeal a SC decision. I also believe that Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915) was the last of thirteen separate judicial reviews of the case. In that sense, also, it was "final". So I don't believe that the heading "Final Supreme Court decision..." is POV. It doesn't stifle discussion within the article (as per your "no further reason to discuss the matter" concern), nor does it convey the impression of a opinionated summary, the way that, say, "Conclusion" might.

You are correct in stating that the appeals process is narrow in its focus. Only conclusions of law, not findings of fact, made by a lower court are reviewable. Appellate courts can decide only issues actually before them on appeal, not general issues of guilt or innocence. The Leo Frank case was actively appealed by a team of highly paid (Albert D. Lasker, alone, contributed $160,000 towards Frank's legal expenses) and highly regarded attornys. Frank's attorneys (the dream team of their day) "petitioned the higher courts of Georgia and of the United States, all the way to the Supreme Court, some thirteen different times." (Lindemann, "The Jew Accused", p.267) So there was more than adequate opportunity for Frank's lawyers to appeal any and all errors alleged to have been made by the trial court. And they certainly seized upon that opportunity. Frank made a motion for a new trial based on no less than 100 grounds. The writ of error that you mentioned (the "alleged lack of due process") was a technical argument that "neither [Frank] nor [his] counsel had the right to waive his constitutional privilege to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the proceedings." (They had agreed to be absent at the reading of the verdict). (Dinnerstein, "The Leo Frank Case", p.108). So the "fairness" of the proceedings (absent finding of fact) were indeed adjudicated - repeatedly. Frank's legal team zealously pursed the writ of error. They went so far as to appeal directly to two individual SC justices. Failing that, they argued the "wit of error" before the entire SC, which ruled against them.

We should be careful when it comes to substituting "opinion" (secondary source comments) for "fact" (primary source quotes). Your statement "The majority of these [secondary] sources either lean to or outright acknowledge that Frank was innocent and did not receive a fair trial" is a dangerous one. It is subjective, and not readily quantifiable. It justifies a non-neutral, POV, stance based on current popular opinion and some (less than scholarly) modern writings, which (in some instances) ignore or recast facts to suit their agenda. The same is true for the role that anti-semitic sentiment (to the extent that it was even substantially present in the South at that time) played in the arrest of Frank and the eventual verdict.

To conclude, I think the "Appeals" section is appalling in its bias. It substitutes non-binding dicta (which has not been borne out, all these years later) for the majority opinion, which had the full force of law. We can (and should) do a better job here. Gulbenk (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should note what Lindemann (p. 267), who you are apparently familiar with, wrote, "The issues in the petitions were mostly technical, not easily summarized, and the judgments by no mean constituted thirteen different legal reaffirmations of Frank's guilt. Still, there were many who saw them as that, or at least as an overwhelming affirmation that Frank had been given a fair trial." The language by the IP that I deleted (and your comments) give the false impression that Lindemann speaks of.

There is plenty of info from Olney, Lindemann, and Dinnerstein to briefly summarize for a reader the general issues of the appeal. You decry dicta but then want to leave it to wikipedia editors, rather than reliable secondary sources, to interpret what part of the decision is dicta and which part is not. Minority opinions, especially when issued by justices as notable as Holmes, are often found to be relevant by historians writing about judicial events.

If you doubt my analysis of the majority opinion of writers who have addressed the trial and lynching of Frank, then perhaps you can tell me what secondary sources you would prefer to rely on. The IP who has said this:

"The man was clearly guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. The trial court said so, the jury said so, the state and federal appeals courts said so, and most importantly, the evidence said so. This wikipedia article is merely a whitewash, and any reasonable human being with half a brain should know that. The only people this article would fool are those who do not meet said description."(see [1]}

and this:

"I assume you are trying to be funny, because the only bad behavior evident here is the ongoing attempted white-washing of the pedophile murderer, Leo Frank." (see [2])

Allowing someone with such an obvious agenda to determine what info from primary sources should be added to the article is, to use your language, both "dangerous" and "appalling". Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources -- to make a serious argument you need to discuss proposed language in the context of what the reliable sources say. The purpose of this article is not to re-argue guilt or innocence -- it is to summarize what the reliable sources have said.

I wonder what you mean when you say, "It justifies a non-neutral, POV, stance based on current popular opinion and some (less than scholarly) modern writings, which (in some instances) ignore or recast facts to suit their agenda." What specific works are you talking about and what is the agenda that you accuse these writers of pursuing? In light of what's gone on in the past with this article, you really need to (IMHO) make your position clear.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom thanks for your reply. Your response, however, contains an informal fallacy and a certain lack of understanding of the legal process.

The IP most certainly has an agenda and a bias (although his pronouncement of guilt is really just a less refined mirror image of your pronouncement of innocence). His personal statements of opinion should not be included in this article. But, anything that he offers in the way of fact (backed up by a primary source) is suitable for inclusion in this article. You simply cannot dismiss the validity of a primary source based on your Ad hominem attack on the contributor. When you say: Allowing someone with such an obvious agenda to determine what info from primary sources should be added to the article is, to use your language, both dangerous and appalling. That is the logical fallacy.

There is a pretty bright line when it comes to dicta. It is a statement of opinion, rather than the portion of the decision that established legal precedent. When Holmes dissents, and offers up his minority opinion, that is dicta. How in the world did you get it that I was leaving it up to others to decide what part of the court's statement was dicta? I said: "It substitutes non-binding dicta (which has not been borne out, all these years later) for the majority opinion". I was stating that the entire "Appeals" section is slanted, and (twice) uses the minority opinion in the place of the court's decision to reinforce that slant. I haven't edited that section (yet) simply out of courtesy, to allow time for others to comment.

To conclude, I can see that this article has certainly attracted its share of opinions, both for and against. On balance, it's not a bad article. But it occasionally loses its neutral voice, as it has in the "Appeals" section. I'm not likely to please either side with my edit of that section, but I am not out to win friends here. Just to help build a better encyclopedia. So, let me know what you think, after I post the edit (in the next day or two). Gulbenk (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as Holmes' minority opinion on due process, in fact the significance of it was affirmed in 1923 in Moore v. Dempsey. In that case Holmes, this time speaking for the majority in reversing a conviction, stated that the defendants "were hurried to conviction under the pressure of a mob, without any regard for their rights, and without according to them due process of law." Dinnerstein notes (page 151) that "Since Frank's death the United States Supreme Court has revamped its standard for fair trials." This is another part of the reason why the history of the Frank case didn't end with the SC ruling. For historical and legal purposes, Holmes' dissent has ended up having more significance than Frank v. Mangum.

I hope any edits you make conform to OR guidelines, especially:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Again, this deals with intrepretations of primary sources. A factual statement of a non-intrepretive nature, coming directly from the primary, is just fine.

This talk about secondary intrepretations brings me back to something that you said earlier, which I didn't repond to (because it is a bit awkward to do in this type of exchange). But, perhaps we can take it up now, if you are so inclined.

I guess that you are typical of the good folks who edit here, who may have read Olney, Lindemann, and Dinnerstein...and this Leo Frank article. Before I make my edit, I would like to see if I can convey a point to you (which I would hope to include in my edit) that may not conform to your present understanding of the Frank appeals process. Just one point of the larger issue, but nonetheless important.

You previously cited Dinnerstein, "that errors in law, however serious, committed by a court of proper jurisdiction cannot be reviewed [by the Supreme Court] by habeas corpus since habeas corpus cannot be substituted for a writ of error." And then followed it up with a quote from Olney, that the [Supreme] Court was "content to leave 'due process' in the hands of the state."

I would like to know what meaning those two statements convey to you, about the Frank appeals process, and your sense of whether or not Frank was able to get a proper review of his case by the appellate courts.Gulbenk (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the Supreme Court quote was an act of blatant vandalism, and one that is obviously intended to prevent any influx of truth into this extremely false and misleading article. No contemporary reports of any influence of mob law, mob violence, or mob domination upon the trial of Leo Frank is found in any of the newspapers of the time until the guilty verdict was made, and the Supreme Court was explicit in its ruling that such allegations were "untrue in point of fact". There are many other distortions and falsehoods in this article which are referenced to Dinnerstein and others which do not belong in any reputable encyclopedia, and the efforts of those who promote them are clearly acting out a pov agenda.

One glaring falsehood out of many is the following:

"During the trial an Atlanta musician and millworker, Fiddlin' John Carson, wrote and began performing a murder ballad, "Little Mary Phagan..."

John Carson neither wrote, nor performed that song during the trial. The song was written by Franklyn Bliss Snyder, and was sung at rallies in support of carrying out the execution of Leo Frank, AFTER he was found guilty.

This article on Frank is a total disgrace.64.134.45.86 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref: The Journal of American Folk-Lore, XXXI (1918), 264 -66

Not true. Franklyn Bliss Snyder did not write the song, but was a literature professor and university president. Your alleged reference is a journal article written by Snyder. The article does contain the text of the song, however the words were submitted to him by a Miss Helen Duncan of Chicago who apparently heard Carson sing it in Bessemer, Alabama. You really shouldn't cite sources you haven't read. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Dinnerstein Is Not A Reliable Source

Notwithstanding his position as "Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies", Leonard Dinnerstein's revisionist monograph on the Leo Frank Case is a shameless embarrassment to American academic standards of scholarly research, in that within which he deliberately falsifies American legal history. In his discourse about the early 20th century Mary Phagan murder investigation and ensuing Leo Frank trial, Dinnerstein verifiably omits 99% of the 1,800 page official Leo M. Frank Georgia Legal Records, that encompass the 1913 summer trial, and State Supreme Court Appeals from 1913 through 1914.

A major portion of the original case files mysteriously disappeared, apparently having been stolen from their repository around the very time that Dinnerstein began work on his original dissertation. However, other portions and various copies of these legal records have fortunately survived in their entirety into the 21st century, and provide a digest of the trial transcript and exhibits. - See: Frank vs. State 141 Ga. 243; 80 S.E. 1016; 1914, the Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence (1913) and Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records (1913, 1914), the final decision of the US Supreme Court, 237 U.S. 309; 35 S.Ct. 582; 59 L.Ed. 969, as well as archived copies of period newspapers and other publications, including The Atlanta Georgian, The Atlanta Constitution, and Hearst's Sunday American, et al.

To any student of law or history who would study the primary sources of the Leo Frank Case, and then cross reference them with every edition of Leonard Dinnerstein's personal treatise, it is indisputably revealed that Dinnerstein spent nearly a half century of his life making an absolute, abject mockery of Southern legal history and jurisprudence, using pathologically treacherous activist academics, with a racist agenda, in order to perpetuate Jewish-Gentile culture wars.

Concerning Jewish-Gentile relations, the general conclusion of Dinnerstein's lifetime thesis about that Leo Frank Case is that, in the context of a White racial segregationist & separatist Atlanta of 1913, White Southern Gentiles were so filled with anti-Jewish animus, that they knowingly and willingly set free a guilty African-American man so they could instead indiscriminately, but intentionally, frame an innocent White man for the crime, primarily because he happened to be Jewish.

There is certainly plenty of racism, bigotry, prejudice and injustice to be found in our multicultural world, but there is really nothing more spineless and cowardly than to fabricate evidence of it and then falsely accuse someone without real evidence. Especially in the case where Frank was convicted and sentenced to death by the overwhelming preponderance of the forensic evidence and trial testimony, sustained by every level of the United States of America's legal system from 1913 to 1986.

Instead of presenting all of the facts, testimony, and evidence of the case in a fair, neutral, balanced and cogent manner, thus providing his readers with accurate, contextualized information, so they might decide for themselves whether or not Leo Frank was innocent or guilty, Leonard Dinnerstein perpetuates a viciously racist blood libel accusation against European-American Gentiles, and one that is perhaps the most grotesque imaginable.

In sum total the whole premise of Dinnerstein's book is to smear the people of the South with a plethora of anti-Jewish canards; to defame Hugh Dorsey as an unscrupulous political climber, when, in reality, he was a man of unimpeachable character, and generally regarded as one of the greatest statesmen of the Southern progressive era; to perpetuate racist conspiracies against African-Americans; and to shamelessly rehabilitate the image of Atlanta's B'nai B'rith President, Leo M. Frank, a justly convicted, serial pedophile-rapist, strangler, and convicted child killer, for bludgeoning, raping, garroting and ordering the necro-mutilation of 13-year old Mary Anne Phagan during and after the noon hour of Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913.64.134.45.86 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It does no good to simply hurl invectives. It won't advance your case, and it diminishes your credibilty. If you have specific examples of falsehoods which Dinnerstein has presented as fact, then present those points here (not in the article, please) on a point-by-point basis. Try to strip the rhetoric from the discussion, and just lay out the dry facts. If it can be tied to a reliable source, and corrects an error in the article (or adds new relevant information) your input will be as valid as mine or any other user here. If you maginalize yourself with chest thumping, you will only fail in your objectives, and probably get yourself banished. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the rules that we abide by, and try hard to practice civility. It may sound very trite, but I believe those same rules will help you achieve more in the wider world, as well. Really, try it. Gulbenk (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Large parts of the IP's diatribe are plagiarized from the anti-Semitic website leofrank.org -- this "source" has been discussed may times in the past on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why I mentioned reliable source. I did come upon one thing from Dinnerstein that I find disturbing. It is that "Kill the Jew" quote. Evidently, the only source we have for that is a small publication in Pennsylvania (of unknown reliability) by the name of the New Castle Herald. They report a statement from an unidentified "Atlantan" in 1915, regarding events that took place two years earlier, in 1913. This published squib was clipped, and later found in Governor Slaton's papers. Dinnerstein includes it in his footnotes, and then reports the "Kill the Jew" event without further critical review or questioning. This "Kill the Jew" statement from Dinnerstein has been taken up by many others (often without attribution) and recited numerous times as fact. It seems to have grown, and been elaborated upon, with each retelling. There seem to be no contemporary reports of this ever happening, and no reference (that I can find) in the Atlanta papers of the day. Since coverage of the trial was so extensive, delving into even small details, one must wonder about the veracity of this "quote". It seems that the ADL has expanded on this theme when they state that there were "threats, intimidation, and a boisterous crowd outside chanting "kill the Jew" and "hang the Jew" [which] could easily be heard through the courtroom's open windows." But I can find no original source for these statements either. Even Lindemann, who goes to great pains to maintain a scholarly approach to his writing, simply cites unspecified "critics" (with no supporting footnote or additional explanation) when he states that there were "chants, jeers, and threats of the crowd - such as "Hang the Jew or we'll hang you". Does ANYONE have a source for these various statements, aside from the New Castle Herald heresay? Gulbenk (talk)

What we need to address this is a scholarly source that debunks the quote. Without that, we're stuck with what we've got. Rklawton (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In critical thinking, it would be stated that one cannot prove a negative (such that the quote does not exist), but instead requires that an individual who claims the quote exists must prove so. I believe that Wikipedia offers a middle ground, which allows the quote, but requires an explanation of its origin. viz: On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder. One newspaper reported, several years later, that outside the Atlanta courtroom there were chants of "Hang the Jew!". Would that work? Gulbenk (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a reliable source -- in fact the single most reliable academic source that makes a clear, unequivocal statement. What in wikipedia guidelines or policy requires us to second guess the reliable source's research methods? If there really is reason to doubt the quote, surely somewhere in the secondary literature there would be a mention of this. Should we have to do this every time an editor decides that they don't like what the reliable source said? Do we have any information at all that says this is the only reference to this chanting?

This pretty much restates my point. Rklawton (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps what we actually need is an expansion in the article of the immediate reaction to the trial verdict as well as the ongoing pressure exerted by the mob during the trial. In addition to the "Hang the Jew" quote, Dinnerstein also states (and sources) in the same paragraph that both the defense attorneys and judge had received threats they"would not leave the courtroom alive if the 'damned jew' were turned loose." An Augusta newspaper is quoted from at length and mentions the "outspoken fear of 'trouble' -- of violence." Lindemann writes about the pressure of the crowd throughout the trial and questions whether a change of venue should have been requested. He also finds it "difficult to believe" that the jury was not intimidated by the crowd. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Rklawton (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason for my suggestion is because your "single most reliable academic source" credits the New Castle Herald as HIS source. It is incorporated in his 1966 dissertation, I believe. I began this line of inquiry asking if there is another primary/contemporary source for these quotes, or if all we have is a string of statements repeating, and adding on, to Dinnerstein's. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable line of inquiry. And, Tom, Lindemann could have helped us out with this if he only cited a source. But he doesn't. He simply states that he finds it difficult to believe that it didn't happen. Lindemann is a meticulous researcher. When he has to resort to a statement like that, without a citation, it is because he couldn't find one. Gulbenk (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)