Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Antisemitism and local and national newspaper coverage

I have added a section as named above based on the reorganization plan mentioned above. This following is the material that it replaced and expanded on (I had removed it some time ago):

Shortly after Frank's conviction, a nationwide campaign to exonerate the condemned man was inaugurated by Adolph Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, and A.D. Lasker, an "advertising genius", through a "journalistic crusade" in the Times, and a series of public relations "stunts" by Lasker.[29][30] Both Ochs and Lasker were motivated by their conviction that anti-Semitism had poisoned Frank's trial. They failed, however, to comprehend the role that class and regional tensions played in the Frank case, and how their involvement, and the perception of northern interference, would only make matters worse.[29][72] According to author Steve Oney, "They and their supporters in New York and other urban areas did not take into account how their efforts would come across in the South or in working-class heartland neighborhoods."[30] On October 12, 1913, an article which ran on page six of the New York newspaper The Sun carried the headline "Jews Fight to Save Leo Frank".[73] The article argued that “prejudice did finally develop against Frank and…the Jews,” but that “Frank’s friends” were responsible. "The anti-Semitic feeling was the natural result of the belief that the Jews had banded to free Frank, innocent or guilty. The supposed solidarity of the Jews for Frank…caused a Gentile solidarity against him."[72][73] One year after Frank's conviction, "the agrarian rebel", and future U.S. Senator, Thomas E. Watson laid into Ochs and Lasker with a populist response. Watson, described as "a Georgia lawyer and polemicist of... superior rhetorical gifts and inexhaustible vitriol" argued through his weekly publication The Jeffersonian that, quoting Oney, "self-appointed elites representing money and privilege had decreed that a child laborer's life was not equal in value to that of a Jewish industrialist."[30] The Frank case was about more than racism and anti-Semitism. "It was also about the conflicting perceptions of the nation's haves and have-nots, the chasm between the people who appear to run things and those who feel they lack a say."[30]

I think the new version has a better sense of what followed what (i.e. the Sun article was written before Ochs and Lasker began their efforts) and gave a better context for the overall journalistic picture. I've also expanded on the discussion of antisemitism and its close (inseparable?) connection to economic and social issues. I am going to move the criticism section to follow this new section (as proposed in the reorganization plan) and I am then done with any major rewrites. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC) PS I struck out the moving of the criticism section. I'm not sure that it isn't fine where it is but I won't object if anyone else wants to move it as originally proposed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of material from the article lede

The following was removed from the lede with the explanation that it was too detailed:

By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. The defense also resorted to racial stereotypes, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character.

These are the problems I have with these deletions:

1. Conley, certainly the most significant figure in the article after Frank and Phagan, is now totally absent from the lede.

2. The evidence issues relating to the trial are no longer mentioned in the lede. A major purpose of the large rewrite was to include this info in the article. Based on the article space this info now occupies, it would seem that this should be in the lede.

3. The reference to racial stereotypes has been eliminated. Some mention of this has been in the article for years, but only in relation to the defense's use of racially charged language. I had added balance in both the article and the lede. It seems to be an important enough point.

I don't think the lede is an accurate reflection of the article without this info. Perhaps someone can give a shot of adding back a streamlined version of the material removed.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed that information, not because it was 'too detailed' but because it was too detailed for the lede. An important distinction. I do not want to see minutiae about the alleged guilt of another person or his alleged perjury in the lede, which should be a succinct summary of the entire article. The lede shouldn't be bogged down by disputing Frank's guilt or innocence versus that of another person. That information rightly belongs in the main body of the article. If the case had been overturned and Conley charged and convicted, then that information should be in the lede. But that didn't happen, and while Conley was a significant witness, in the end he was nothing more than that. If you feel that something important has been removed that does not now appear anywhere, let's discuss it.

Another reason I removed the text was that it confronted the reader with ugly racial accusations made during the case, perhaps polarizing readers before they got any further than the lede. In other words, what should have been the reader's cool appraisal of the sequence of events and evidence was likely coloured far too early by his/her response to the racist accusations. It's not that those accusations shouldn't be in the article, it's that they shouldn't be in the lede, colouring the reader's perception of everything else that follows. Lastly, the article is now very long and I believe needs trimming, which justified the removal. Akld guy (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Conley at least deserves a mention, even if not that entire paragraph above. Perhaps he could be mentioned where we say that Frank was arrested in the second paragraph. We could add something like this at the end of the paragraph: "Police also arrested several other suspects including Jim Conley, a black sweeper at the factory, who became a major witness in the case."

Also, I think the first sentence of the fourth paragraph about 1200 people marching on the governor's mansion possibly could be removed or moved to the end of the third paragraph. It might actually be better the way it is, but I thought I'd at least mention it for consideration. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior to the revision of the lead, this is what the article lead said:

"The basis for Frank's conviction largely centered around the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Conley changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and admitted to fabricating certain parts of his story."

I think, at the least, the current version should say this much. He is also more than just "another suspect" -- the one thing that Watson and Slaton agreed on was that if Frank didn't do it then Conley did. There are 18 subsections in the three sections involving the trial, appeals, and commutation -- Conley is featured in 13 of them. The timeline, the murder notes, the location of the murder, the transportation of the body, the alleged sexual proclivities of Frank -- the key elements of the prosecution case -- all are based on Conley and all of his trial testimony (let alone his fabrications before trial) on these subjects has serious credibility problems in the opinion of both contemporaries and the majority of the reliable sources. I can't imagine the article would pass standard 1.B. of the review without having Conley in the lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Akld guy You are wrong about the role of Conley when you say, "while Conley was a significant witness, in the end he was nothing more than that." The article discusses him as much more than just a witness, as do the reliable sources that the article is based on. According to the reliable sources, Conley was the only other possible suspect (many directly call him the actual killer) and, according to the reliable sources and our article, the consensus among researchers is that Frank was innocent. In the end Conley was more than simply a witness and saying so right up front is not "minutiae". A reader needs to know right up front that the article, just like the reliable sources we rely on, names an alternative (and likely) killer.

Even as a witness, he was more than a "significant witness" -- he was the most important witness upon which the prosecution based its entire case. The reader should know this up front and they should also know upfront that he was a very unreliable witness. The article does not become "bogged down" by mentioning key points that will be described in great detail in the article. Conley is mentioned prominently throughout the Trial, Appeals, and Commutation sections as well as the Criticisms sub-section.

As far as the race issues being in the lead, I can take that or leave that. My reason for including it is largely out of respect for the long standing consensus to include it. I didn't add the material -- I simply balanced it. As far as "colouring the reader's perception of everything else that follows", the fact is that both sides in the trial appealed directly to the perceived (and likely) racist beliefs of a 1913 jury in Atlanta, Georgia. "Ugly racial accusations" happen quite often in American history -- if they are relevant to the subject and a significant part of the topic then they belong in the article lead. I'm not sure how saying both sides relied on racist appeals is polarizing -- which pole does this info direct readers to? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), your two posts were made while I was asleep overnight, it's now just after 8 a.m., and I need to get ready to go out for an appointment and will be out all day. There's no way I can respond for about 10 hours, and even then there may be no response from me 'till tomorrow morning (my time), at least 24 hours from now. Please bear with me. I will respond. Thanks. Akld guy (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I still believe there is no need to mention Conley in the lede. Yes, he was strongly suspected on account of changing his testimony and being caught in lies, but look at it from his point of view. He was himself incarcerated, putting him under pressure. He was being asked to testify against his boss; if Frank were to be found not guilty, there would be implications for Conley's relationship with him when they resumed work at the factory; could Conley afford to lose his job for testifying against Frank? Furthermore, as principal witness, Conley knew that his testimony would lead to Frank's execution, and he may have had strong feelings against the death penalty. Not least of all, Conley was being asked to testify against a Jew, one of 'God's chosen people'. All those thoughts must have been going through his mind as he sat in jail himself. It's not surprising that he dithered and fudged his testimony. Many key witnesses do, eg. Helen Markham in the JFK assassination, and she was ridiculed for it. That is one of the problems with the death penalty; it discourages witnesses from, firstly, coming forward, and secondly, testifying strongly. In the end, Frank was lynched which means that he was guilty. Nothing saved him from the lynching, therefore he was guilty. Justice was done.

Now, as to the lede, to elevate Conley to the status of 'actual murderer' based on desperate and despicable allegations made by those attempting to save Frank is just ridiculous. Conley was a witness, no more no less and placing him in the lede gives him far too much significance. As for the racist stereotyping, it doesn't belong in the lede either. In my opinion, there is a tendency to make ledes far too long. In this case, the lede should succinctly give an overview of what happened, the trial, and the outcome. It should not sidetrack the reader into the debatable issue of whether Conley was guilty or not because there really should be no debate. Akld guy (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with your response. Where to begin?

Let's start with your first paragraph. You have one good independent clause -- "Yes, he was strongly suspected on account of changing his testimony and being caught in lies, ...". I say it's good because it is what the reliable sources say. Everything else you say in the paragraph is strictly your speculation on Conley's motivations -- speculation that nowhere occurs in the reliable sources.

Your claim -- "In the end, Frank was lynched which means that he was guilty. Nothing saved him from the lynching, therefore he was guilty. Justice was done." -- is about the best argument for lynch law and mob rule that we're likely to see in the 21st Century. You obviously don't know the first thing about the U.S. history regarding lynching, do you?

You open the second paragraph with: ""Now, as to the lede, to elevate Conley to the status of 'actual murderer'... ". You need to pay better attention -- there is no mention in the material proposed for the lead that says anything about him being the "actual murderer", is there?

You then continue with: "...based on desperate and despicable allegations made by those attempting to save Frank is just ridiculous." Just what might these desperate and despicable allegations be? The defense was no more racist than the prosecution. But the case against Conley, documented by the governor and the reliable sources, goes beyond racism. Conley lied, repeatedly. The physical evidence -- the murder notes, where the crime occurred -- and the time line suggest Conley was the actual murderer. Are you suggesting that Oney, Lindemann, Dinnerstein, Woodward, Melnick, et al base their academic analysis regarding Frank and Conley rely on desperate and despicable allegations?

You claim the lead "should not sidetrack the reader into the debatable issue of whether Conley was guilty or not because there really should be no debate." You ignore Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which clearly states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Your opinion that "there really should be no debate" is totally irrelevant -- the fact is that there is a debate and the reliable sources discuss this debate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate and unhelpful that you have resorted to accusing me of advocating lynch mob mentality when all I said was that, since a lynching occurred in this case, Frank was guilty because nothing saved him from that fate. I can no longer debate with you because you have turned this into a personal issue. Akld guy (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you said a little bit more than you claim, didn't you. You added, "Justice was done." How can you equate breaking someone out of prison in order to kill them with justice while claiming that you don't advocate lynch law? How did lynching Frank prove that he was guilty? Your "justice was done" argument, to use your own words, sounds pretty "desperate and despicable" to me -- not to mention extremely "unfortunate and unhelpful". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unidentified friend of Phagan's

In the section 'Police investigation', who is the 'friend of Phagan's' who was initially arrested? I don't own a copy of Oney. Akld guy (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It was Arthur Mullinax, who Oney notes was a victim of mistaken identity. The person who said Mullinax was with Phagan that day had been discharged from the navy just three weeks before due to poor eyesight! Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think his name should go into the article (at the place I cited), but how much detail should be given? Is it sufficient to simply state that it was a case of mistaken identity? Does Oney say that the accusation was a genuine mistake, a prank, or motivated by a grudge? Akld guy (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think for the purposes of Wikipedia, his name isn't really that important. Perhaps Tom could weigh in also, but I think it's fine the way it is. Oney doesn't specify if the accuser (named Edgar Sentell) was sincere in believing Mullinax was walking Phagan down Forsyth Street, but simply stated that police dropped charges against him due to this fact. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks. It just seems odd to not identify Mullinax. My mind idly wondered whether the arrested person was Newt Lee, Gantt, George Epps, Philip Chambers, or even a female friend such as Grace Hicks or Magnolia Kennedy. Akld guy (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

All of the information needed to clear this up may be found in the transcript of the Coroner’s Inquest which has been digitized and preserved [HERE]. 64.134.98.223 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus"

User Tom (North Shoreman) repeatedly demands consensus for material offered by others, yet feels free as a bird completely rewriting the article (while it is "protected" no less) to his own POV without it, and the only consensus he will accept for material offered by others is a pro-Frank consensus. Any editors who begin to form any consensus which appears to deviate from the pro-Frank narrative are subject to accusations of sockpuppetry from a number of pro-Frank meatpuppets who seem to show up here just for that very purpose. The irony is appalling. 64.134.98.223 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — 64.134.98.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Archiving

The archive bot removed the GA review from the talkpage, and - being a bot - is not being selective in when or which discussions to archive. As this talkpage is very active at the moment, and there are occasionally comment sections created that are distracting from the purpose of building the article, I have disabled the bot. All editors are encouraged to archive as appropriate. When the talkpage settles down the bot can be restored. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank Received an Exceptionally Fair Trial

SilkTork says,

"By all accounts he was given an inadequate trial (though it is quite normal for trials from that date not to be up to the standards of modern trials), so we will never know the truth of his guilt, but what we do know is the impact it had, and that's why we have an article on it."

That is not true. Only the pro-Frank "scholars" promote that idea. If we want to rely only upon pro-Frank authors, the article loses nutrality.

Frank's last appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in the denial of a writ of habeas corpus sought by Frank's lawyers. The Supreme Court's summation of that decision appears 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 penalty 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." 64.134.98.223 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern sources agree he did not get what we would consider today to be a fair trial. We cannot, however, work out today from the evidence if he was guilty or not, but the consensus of opinion of those interested in the trial is that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. I don't think he received a trial any better or worse than other contemporary trials, hence the contemporary Supreme Court could not overturn the decision. To be honest, at this point, his guilt or otherwise is academic, what the article needs to do is neutrally detail the main points, and the mainstream views and opinions, even if not everyone - such as yourself - agrees with them. The article does make space to note that some anonymous sources assert that Frank was guilty, and those sources are detailed in the References section so interested readers can look into them. I think that is appropriate, and as much as should be done. It is Wikipedia's responsibility to identify and report on fringe views, though not to promote them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

lede

Conley appeared before a grand jury for the murder, but was not indicted. This statement in the lede is false, Conley never went before a grandjury. Grandjury indicted Leo Frank on May 24th, not 23rd. This statement "Conley gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be tried in 1914 and found guilty" is false, Conley never went to trial as an accessory after the fact, he pleaded guilty and because he helped Atlanta police solve the Phagan murder was given a reduced sentence of 1 year. He was released after 10 months for good behavior. Invinciblegnatfly (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and in particular the correction to the 24th. As regards the grand jury - from the article: "Frank's legal team, meanwhile, passed on suggestions to the media that Conley was the actual killer, and put pressure on the July grand jury to indict Jim Conley. The jury foreman on his own authority convened the jury on July 21, though they decided, on the advice of Dorsey, not to indict Conley.[Ref 58=Oney pp. 178-188]" As regards being an accomplice - from the article: "On February 24, 1914, Conley was sentenced to a year in jail for being an accomplice after the fact to the murder of Mary Phagan.[Ref 95=Frey p. 132.]" I have now adjusted the wording to follow more closely what the article says, so I have removed that Conley appeared before a grand jury, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

::Thank you for making these corrections more inline with reliable secondary sources. Continuing a discussion about the lede, what would be more elucidating and notable to mention about the case, is that Conley neither testified at the Coroner's Inquest (where some very specific details of Leo Frank's lascivious impropriety was testified about, review the Journal, Georgian and Constitution) that resulted in the 7 man tribunal having voted unanimously (7 to 0) to bind over Leo Frank to the grandjury for murder, nor did Conley testify at the grandjury tribunal where Frank was unanimously indicted (21 to 0) that had several Jews as jurymen (review Oney and Lindemann). The article suggests that Conley as an admitted accessory-after-the-fact was the central source of circumstantial evidence and testimony as to why Leo Frank was convicted, but this is not entirely true and only part of the picture. The accusations about Leo Frank's character for lasciviousness at the Coroner's Inquest and later Monteen Stover's testimony contradicting Leo Frank's murder alibi at both the grand and petit jury, where also very significant factors in building a case against Frank. Ohio Northshoreman Tom and Texas Tony Stewart (the part owners of the Leo Frank article), have worked aggressively to keep mention of the Coroner's inquest out of the Leo Frank article, even though it is discussed in detail by several reliable secondary sources of the case (Golden, Phagan Kean, Brown, and others). Both the lede and main body of the article should mention the Coroner's Inquest because those revelations of Frank's licentious behavior would again come out at the trial, when: Dorsey would direct examine more than a dozen girls, "Is Leo Frank's Character for Lasciviousness Bad?" they all testified with a resounding "YES"! Dorsey was not able to bring up the issue of Leo Frank's character in this manner, without the defense having brought up the issue first (review Oney). Thus it was the defense that opened up this door for Dorsey. This was a major part of the prosecutions case, showing a real pattern that Frank (who was a married man) exhibited the kind of behavioral patterns of an immoral sexually aggressive pedophilia that strongly linked him to the rape and strangulation-murder of Mary Phagan.

Monteen Stover's later testimony about Leo Frank not having had been in his office for a full five minutes between 12:05pm to 12:10pm on the day of the murder was first discovered on May 3rd, 1913, when investigators bumped into Stover and her step mother at the factory as she was making a second attempt to collect her pay envelope. She had been unable to first do so on Saturday, April 26, 1913, between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, because Frank was not in his office. With this new inconsistency in the timeline, Pinkerton detective Harry A. Scott and Atlanta Detective John R. Black went to Leo Frank's jail cell and asked him if he had been in his office every minute from noon to 12:35 and Frank responded with a resounding Yes. This was very significant because Frank always maintained the alibi that he was in his office during this time with Mary Phagan. Please Review: People verses Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney, Frank said Mary came into his office at about 12:03 p.m. Please also review, the many sources that state Leo Frank said Mary Phagan was with him alone in his office between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, thus repeating State Exhibit B that is published in the trial brief and Atlanta Constitution August 2, 1913. Because Monteen Stover had created a major inconsistency in Leo Frank's murder alibi about his supposed having never having left his office when Phagan was with him, Leo Frank on August 18, 1913 at his trial, testified thusly:

Now gentlemen [of the Jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock [noon on Saturday, April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [12:46 p.m.] when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [at the rear of the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of the inner office [at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room at the rear of the second floor between 12:05pm and 12:10pm on April 26, 1913]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it (Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, Brief of Evidence, 1913). Frank reconfirmed his supposed men's room visit at the time Stover came to his office on Atlanta Constitution, May 9, 1914. Georgia Professor Donald Wilkes mentions this exact Leo Frank trial statement in his paper on the case, Dinnerstein in his PHD disseration mentions this when he discusses Leo Frank's trial statement. Tony Stewart expunged the Further Reading section, where Georgia Professor Donald E. Wilkes was listed, where Dinnerstein's PHD Dissertation was linked, where the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence was linked. There is an absolute effort by Tom and Tony to keep the most important elements of this case down the memory hole of history. Invinciblegnatfly (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My involvement with this article is coming to an end, but I have read your comment, and checked the article. It does say: "Dorsey called "a steady parade of former factory workers" to ask them the question, "Do you know Mr. Frank's character for lasciviousness?" The answers were usually "bad."[95]", so that is already in there. I am concerned that the article is balanced and neutral, so will consider any suggestion that it is not, but it is difficult to get away from the implication in what you say, that what you are after is attempting to prove that Frank was guilty. As I have said, and as the various courts have said since the case, (and as the judge of the trial himself said) it is difficult to ascertain if Frank was guilty or innocent. That a number of historians feel that Frank was innocent is what the article says - it does not, I hope, at any point, suggest that the man was innocent, as that cannot be ascertained from the available evidence. People will have their own opinions. So be it. But it's not the business of Wikipedia to be arguing his guilt/innocence either on the article page nor here on the talkpage. I will be quite happy for folks to go through the article carefully to ensure that any remaining implications that Frank was innocent are filtered out of the article. I have done my bit, and am moving on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Where was Leo Frank when Mary Phagan was being killed in the metal room

Lawyer Tom Watson Brown mentions Leo Frank's visit to the metal room when the murder occurred "Mary Phagan arrived in Frank's second-floor office shortly after noon on Saturday to collect her pay, was lured to the metal room by Frank and was there assaulted and murdered. During the time of the assault, Monteen Stover arrived at Frank's office at 12:05, checked out both offices and found them empty and then left precisely at 12:10." and Georgia Law Professor Donald Wilkes publishes a segment of Leo Frank's trial statement in Flag Pole Magazine that solves who murders Mary Phagan in the men's toilet of the metal room, where her body was found by Jim Conley. Leonard Dinnerstein mentions this issue in his PHD dissertation about Leo Frank's trial statement, but omits it from his book, "The Leo Frank Case".

Can we find a place for putting this trial statement quote from Wilkes (brackets are for emphasis to help the reader understand the context of Leo Frank's statement), since it is so significant "Now gentlemen [of the Jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock [noon on Saturday, April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [12:46 p.m.] when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [at the rear of the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of the inner office [at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room at the rear of the second floor between 12:05pm and 12:10pm on April 26, 1913]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it (Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, Brief of Evidence, 1913).", Leo Frank reconfirms he was in the metal room at the time the prosecution theorized Phagan was killed there in Atlanta Constitution March 9, 1914. Invinciblegnatfly (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You make a valid point about Frank not remembering that he may have left his office very briefly to answer a call of nature, but you are in error about the place where Mary Phagan's body was found and by whom. It was not found in the "men's toilet of the metal room", but in the building's basement quite a few yards from the toilet used by African-American workers. Newt Lee, the nightwatchman, went there to use the toilet and found the body. Conley did not discover it. The basement was very large and apparently ran the entire length of the building with only one partition at the rear end where Phagan's body was found. Akld guy (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::AKLD, You might be confusing where: (1.) the nightwatchman Newt Lee and then first-responders (Atlanta police) found Mary Phagan's body dumped at the rear of the National Pencil Company basement between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on April 27, 1913, with (2.) where Conley stated he had initially found Mary Phagan's dead body shortly after she was strangled by Leo Frank in the metal room (located at the back of the second floor) on April 26, 1913.

James "Jim" Conley testified at the Leo Frank trial on August 4, 5, and 6, 1913, stating he found Mary Phagan's dead body at the back of the second floor at the men's toilet area in the machine room (colloquially known as the metal room). Take a closer look at Jim Conley's later affidavits, after the police finally broke him down using the third degree. Conley's first affidavits are basically him trying to cover for himself and Frank, but once the police poked holes and his initial stories fell apart, they finally got the main thrust of what really happened (You can read the Leo Frank trial transcript and Georgia Supreme Court Records of his appeals at The Internet Archive). On August 4th, 1913, Dorsey direct questioned Conley and the witness pointed to the area of State's Exhibit A -- the three dimensional diagram of the National Pencil Company -- that indicated the toilet area as being where he found Phagan dead. Conley stated he was instructed by Frank to move the body to the basement and then write some notes pointing suspicion on the Nightwatchman Newt Lee and trying to frame him. Leo Frank's racist plot to frame the African-American nightwatchman first fell apart, when the police questioned Frank about Newt Lee's timecard. Frank inspected Newt Lee's timecard and told police on April 27, 1913 that Newt Lee's time card was punched perfectly every half hour as it should have been during his security guard rounds. But the next day, Leo Frank told police Newt Lee's time card was missing 4 hours worth of punches. You can see the forged timecard Leo Frank created in Defendant Exhibit A in the Frank trial brief of evidence (1913). This is why the bloody shirt that Leo Frank had his cohorts plant at Newt Lee's home was so significant, because it tied in perfectly with the Phagan murder notes, the time card, and the blood shirt. This is all detailed in Phagan-Kean's book 'The Murder of Little Mary Phagan' and 'Notes on the Leo Frank Case and it's Aftermath' by Tom Brown. Invinciblegnatfly (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. I understand everything you've written because I have read the trial testimony. What concerned me was that you said, "that solves who murders Mary Phagan in the men's toilet of the metal room, where her body was found by Jim Conley." as though the murder in the men's toilet and the finding of the body in the metal room by Conley were facts. You stated those things as facts, whereas they were only claims made by Conley. It would have been better if you had made clear that those were claims. I felt it necessary to call attention to the discrepancy, because I thought you were mistaken (although it now turns out you weren't) and because readers here might be misled into taking the claims as fact. Akld guy (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Do we state in the Leo Frank article that everything from every person was "claimed" or "alleged" by each person? Conley didn't just "claim", he stated in sworn testimony at the trial and in his final affidavits -- the ones he no longer modified -- that what he was saying was the truth or at least the main thrust of what happened. The prosecution's theory was that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room at the very time Frank "claimed" he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office (12:05pm - 12:10pm). On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank changed his murder alibi on the witness stand and explained why Monteen Stover had found his office empty between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, by saying he had "unconsciously" gone to the men's toilet in the metal during this exact time to urinate. Prior to Frank's newfangled admission, when the prosecution asked Conley where he found the dead body of Mary Phagan after Leo Frank confessed to having assaulted her in the metal room, Conley stated he found Phagan in the men's toilet area of the metal room. So think about that for a full minute, Leo Frank changed his alibi about never having left his office when Mary was alone with him there (12:05 pm - 12:10pm), by placing himself at the very place the prosecution built the entire case of time and place she had been murdered (in the metal room). Ponder that for a moment, and consider that Phagan's hair was found with dried blood on the lathe in the metal room and blood was found on the floor diagonal to the entry way of the men's toilet. Consider how the forensic evidence and Conley's circumstantial evidence played directly with Monteen Stover's testimony and Leo Frank response to his alibi inconsistencies being put into question. So yes, from the prosecutions point of view, Leo Frank threaded the needle's eye of their case and solved the murder. From the point of view of the Georgia Supreme Court who ruled the evidence presented at the Leo Frank trial sustained his guilt, Leo Frank solved the murder of Mary Phagan. From the point of view of Governor Slaton's commutation order that said on the very last paragraph of the very last page that he was sustaining the guilty verdict of the trial jury, presiding judge and rejected appeals, he was also sustaining Leo Frank's guilt. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, not absolving Leo Frank of guilt, also sustains Leo Frank's guilt. Leo Frank is still officially guilty under the law, but his defenders have all repeated each others academic dishonesty and poor research in creating an artificial consensus that he was "wrongfully convicted" and therefore "innocent". Invinciblegnatfly (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth have you given such a long response, like you're arguing with me that Frank was guilty? All I said was that you had given the thrust of Wilkes' article that Phagan was murdered in the metal room men's toilet and her body was found there by Conley, and by not qualifying that as Conley's testimony you have given the impression to unwitting readers that those circumstances were factual. The truth is that we do not know where Phagan was murdered and we do know that her body was found in the basement by Newt Lee. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed images

There were several images removed from the article during the GA, mainly due to copyright reasons. These images are probably not actually copyright, but we didn't have time to confirm whether they met the criteria of being in the public domain (i.e., published before 1923). The three main ones deleted from Commons were Luther Rosser, Hugh Dorsey, and William Smith. There were others removed, including Frank sitting at trial, Tom Watson, Adolph Ochs, and Fiddlin' John Carson. It might have been that some in this latter group were removed simply for not being notable enough to include a picture, not for copyright reasons, but I want to make sure for each so we add them back in if we can ascertain their copyright status. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add those pictures back. DopeyBoB (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of link to The American Mercury restored

A link to The American Mercury website was removed from the article by MarkBernstein here [1] without him understanding the context. The text was not promoting the website, rather referencing the source from ADL article.

Websites supporting the view that Frank was guilty of murdering Phagan emerged around the centennial of the Phagan murder in 2013. The Anti-Defamation League issued a press release comdemning what it called "misleading websites" from "anti-Semites...to promote anti-Jewish views".

I have reverted the removal and opened this topic up for discussion. DopeyBoB (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The linked series of articles are patently anti-Semitic diatribes published circa 1915. They are clearly unreliable for the history of the crime, and are also clearly inappropriate for linking from Wikipedia. Note that, after its 1953 sale, the American Mercury became a very marginal publication; its Wikipedia article observes that after the magazine was sold to Russel Maguire, owner of a gun company. “Within a short time, Maguire steered the magazine "toward the fever swamps of antisemitism", as National Review publisher William A. Rusher would describe it. The sale to Maguire spelled the end of The American Mercury as a mainstream magazine. It survived, steadily declining, for nearly 30 more years.” MarkBernstein (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth noting the following paragraph from the Good Article review (see "Review before rewrite" > Fail):

Two prominent anti-Leo Frank sources are not used (theamericanmercury.org and leofrank.org), and this is understandable as they are single purpose sources - however it is permitted to use details from such sites as appropriate per WP:BIASED in order to give a balanced account. I don't feel that the omission of those sites impacts on this GA criteria; I am mentioning them here to indicate that when looking to balance the article, it should not be felt that details from those sites (facts or opinion) should be suppressed. It is acceptable to attribute opinions to them as examples of differences of opinion - this can help strengthen an article: when readers are presented openly with both sides of an argument, including extreme views, they can see the points of both sides, and reasonable readers will discount inappropriate views. Unreasonable readers will form their opinions anyway, so suppressing extreme views will not sway them, but will create doubts in the minds of reasonable readers (why have these views been withheld from us?).

Note also that the articles linked to are from 2014 and 2015, so these are recent articles linked to as an illustration of interest in the case from those who believed he was guilty in the wake of the lynching centennial. The content of the posts does not need to be unbiased or reliable, it's only there to show that there were some who disagreed with the consensus among major scholars of the case and had websites arguing their point of view. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we all understand Mark's concern, and we thank him for being vigilant; however, as pointed out above, the link abides by policy, is used to support a statement in the article, and has consensus. I have restored it as the general principle behind the widely accepted WP:BRD essay, is that if an editor makes a bold edit which is reverted, the onus is on them to open a discussion and get consensus before restoring the edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede

I'm not familiar with this article, but being familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I'm a little concerned that this article's lead is disproportionately lengthy at present. I'd recommend that it get cut back somewhat to a more manageable size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We did have a Good Article review recently where we made the lead four paragraphs (the longest recommended) but included all major facets of the trial. It was a balance between including everything important and not being too verbose. If you have any specific suggestions for trimming, that would be appreciated. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may, I would probably point to my own work on Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro as instructive in this regard. In both cases it was a real struggle to ensure that the lede covered everything in these individuals' (long) lives in sufficient detail, without getting too lengthy. It was difficult, but I generally found a good rule of thumb to be that of having an opening paragraph of no more than five lines, a second and third of no more than eight lines each, and a final paragraph of no more than four. I'll have an attempt at writing an alternative lede that fits that word length and post it here for you to have a look at. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The language in the lede was discussed in great depth prior to and during the GA process. This version [2] of the lede, IMO, represented the results of the discussion and I believe represents a concise summary of the article. The lede was expanded after this, largely by the GA reviewer. The additions, again IMO, added info that someone only reading the lede would find useful and interesting. However if you are preparing a shorter version (I like your proposed guidelines for the size of the paragraphs -- something that is lacking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) I suggest you start with the older version I referenced -- this contains the essential elements of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The following is my suggested, revised version:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan, in Atlanta, Georgia. His legal case, and lynching two years later, became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding anti-Semitism.

Born to a Jewish-American family in Texas, Frank was raised in New York and there earned a degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University before moving to Atlanta in 1908. Marrying in 1910, he involved himself with the city’s Jewish community and was elected president of the Atlanta chapter of the B'nai B'rith, a Jewish fraternal organization, in 1912. Although antisemitism was not locally widespread, there were growing concerns regarding child labor at factories owned by members of the Jewish community. One of these children was Phagan, who worked at a factory owned by the National Pencil Company, where Frank was also employed. Phagan was raped and killed in the factory’s cellar on April 26, 1913. Two notes, apparently written by Phagan, were found beside her body, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. Over the course of their investigations, the police arrested five men, including Lee, Frank, and Jim Conley, a janitor at the factory.

On May 24, Frank was indicted on the charge of murder, with the case opening at Fulton County Superior Court on July 28. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Conley – who many historians consider the real culprit of the murder – which alleged that Frank regularly met with women in his office for sexual relations. A guilty verdict was announced on August 25. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals; their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence from capital punishment to life imprisonment. The case had attracted national press attention, with many deeming the conviction a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled antisemitism and hatred toward Frank; a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor’s mansion to protest the commutation. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of armed men and lynched at Marietta, Phagan’s hometown. The new governor vowed to punish the lynchers, who included prominent Marietta citizens, although nobody was charged.

Various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the case over the years, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted, and Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles.

This is much more concise, avoiding repetitive prose and keeping things at the appropriate word count. Let me know if there are any further alterations that you think need carrying out. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed tags

I replaced the first Citation Needed tag under the Leo Frank sub-section and cited the following lines:

The sentence in question was Frank described his married life as happy.

• Oney p. 85 (the page following the citation of the previous sentence): "Both husband and wife said they wanted a child, but thus far they'd failed to bring one into the world." ... "Such matters aside, however, the Franks were evidently happy. 'I suppose there are many husbands in the world as good as Leo,' Lucille would later say, 'and it may be therefore that I am foolishly fond of him. But he is my husband, and I have the right to love him very much indeed, and I do. If I make too much of him, perhaps it is because he has made too much of me.'"
• Oney p. 483 (quoting Lucille): "Our marriage has been exceedingly happy and has never been marred by the slightest cloud."

That's great Tony! We need to be sure that all of the little pieces of uncited information such as this get a proper citation appended to them, lest readers suspect them of being WP:Original Research or something of that order. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Where was Mary Phagan raped and strangled?

Leede states = "Phagan was raped and killed in the factory's cellar on April 26, 1913." This was the defense's version of where the murder occurred at trial, and their theory was rejected by the trial jury. The prosecution's theory was that Phagan was raped and killed in the metal room, 2 floors above from the cellar. The prosecution convinced the jury of their theory and Frank was convicted. His conviction was upheld by all appeals courts. Why is the failed defense's version of the case made to appear as a fact? DopeyBoB (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that User:Midnightblueowl's efforts to shorten the lead might have been to blame. Overall, the lead is better, so we should give her credit for that, but this fact is incorrect. I changed it to the previous text from January. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Article shortening always leads to nuanced bias when facts are redacted or reformed.DopeyBoB (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sectarianism

Leede states = "His legal case, and lynching two years later, attracted national attention and became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism." Someone unfamiliar with the case might read "his legal case and <emphasis on loaded word> lynching" ... <emphasis on ending with loaded word> "antisemitism", implicitly that these were all lopsided sectarian divisions askew against Frank. However, defense relied heavily on anti-Black racism to play to racial fears of Whites (racial concerns), and outside newspaper attacks against Georgia (regional) were in play during appeals. How might this sentence be reformed to bespeak the sectarianism as double-sided and not over simplified as one-sided. DopeyBoB (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In what way is the use of "lynching" to describe a lynching "one-sided" or "over-simplified"? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism is disputed regarding Leo Frank's case and lynching by its principals at the time and a century later by major historical organizations in Georgia [3]. Governor Slaton deflated the spurious accusations of race prejudice + anti-semitism in his commutation order of June 22, 1915 [4] (and in a New York Times article). In the Jewish Daily Forward (forverts) of 1914 + 2013, articles published about Leo Frank in his own words stating antisemitism was not the primary reason for his being accused and convicted, but aggressive police and their investigations. Frank Stated = "Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me." [5] The 2015 historical marker honoring John Slaton at Atlanta History Center approved by three recognized history organizations (one obviously Jewish), states the reason Leo Frank was lynched was because his death sentence was commuted, not antisemitism [6]. If antisemitism was the reason they lynched him there were many Jews available in Marietta + Atlanta, not requiring a 16 hour round trip drive to miledgeville. The posse that lynched Leo Frank believed they were carrying out the death sentence of the jury and judges (3 judges sentenced Leo Frank to hang), not because Frank was Jewish.DopeyBoB (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We agree then that "lynching: is in fact the appropriate description to apply. Glad we’ve cleared that up. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

you didn't read. the sentence implicates sectarianism was falsely one-sided when it was two-sided. 40 to 50% of people lynched were white, doesn't make it anti-white. lynching or hanging someone for crimes doesn't make someone anti-semitic, racism or insert your sectarianism. DopeyBoB (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The existing language reflects the consensus of historians as well as the consensus of the editors of this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It only reflects the opinion of the majority of editors of this article. There is no unanimity on the subject. Gulbenk (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Nazi sources agree with you. Otherwise, North Shareman is correct: the existing language reflects the consensus of historians. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MarkBernstein: Just to be clear, are you calling another editor a Nazi? Gulbenk (talk)

Wikipedia rules stipulate against personal attacks. It is not appropriate to ad hominem people who disagree with you as nazi. The phrasing of the sentence implies one-sided sectarianism when Frank's lawyers used racist language directed at Conley + newspapers outside attacked Georgia. Slaton's history marker in front of the Georgia history center is approved by three Georgia historical groups clearly indicating the commutation, not antisemitism led to Frank's lynching. Read the history marker. DopeyBoB (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The American Mercury, after its takeover in the 1950s by Russell Maguire, is widely considered to have been neo-Nazi. Historical Markers, in particular those in the Deep South, are not ideal historical sources when compared to more recent and more thorough studies by historians. This is not the only occasion in history when newspapers outside Georgia denounced that state; examples both earlier and more recent will come to you if you think about it. The word “sectarian” may not mean what you think it means. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

MarkBernstein. You tried some time back, logged in archive 9 [7], to remove in the referrences Mary Phagan research library about Leo Frank [[8]] + American Mercury [[9]]. You have a nazi fixation and use it for racist ad hominem on people who disagree with you "Well, the Nazi sources agree with you". Logical fallacy, Hitler was a vegan, Gandhi was a vegan, therefore Hitler = Gandhi. 1 of 3 Atlanta history groups who mounted the Ga historical marker is eminent Jewish history group, Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation [[10]], are they Nazis who agree with American Mercury? Logical Fallacy. Some of people who unveiled historical marker are Jewish, are they Nazis because they helped design the words on Slatons marker? Leave ad hominem and logical fallacy out. Concensus is the people who hanged Leo Frank did it to follow-through on judge Roan + Hill's death sentence. The Slaton Marker at the Atlanta History center is the new concensus. DopeyBoB (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The word universally employed to describe extrajudicial vigilante murder in the United States -- especially in the former rebel states -- is "lynching." No further discussion is needed. The discreditable and unreliable status of the American Mercury after 1951 is widely known; see, for example, our own article. Again, no further discussion is needed. The text of a historical marker is not a reliable source; if you wish to demonstrate a new consensus, you'll need the preponderance of published books and articles about the mater. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

The article doesn't mention the Pinkertons or Burns. I think this might be worth adding to the Police investigation section. I don't see this mention in the latest GA review, so I'm not sure why it isn't there. It seems worthy enough of at least a sentence or two.

We don't say that Frank initially claimed he didn't know Phagan, but tried to implicate Gantt based on accusations of a prior relationship. The article does mention "a late Monday meeting called by Frank in which he tried to implicate Gantt”. But perhaps we can expand on this.

The blood stains found on Conley's shirt turned out to be rust. We mention that the police looked for blood and found none, but we could mention this as well.

Minola McKnight also isn't mentioned in the article. Supposedly, she claimed to be "tortured" at the police station, claimed Frank said he wanted to kill himself, and admitted the murder to Lucille. A 2010 version of the article gives her 3 paragraphs, but the current one doesn't mention her at all!

There were also a few things that were originally brought up by a GBH sock, but still merit attention.

The lead says about Conley: He gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be found guilty and sentenced in 1914, and was the prosecution's main witness against Frank in the murder trial. Conley wasn't found guilty, but plead guilty. Perhaps this could just say he was sentenced, and leave out "found guilty [and]".

Another quote from the lead on the murder notes: There were two notes next to Phagan, which appeared to be written by her, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. If "at first" is added to make it "which at first appeared...", it might be a bit clearer that they appeared to be written by her at first, but then it became apparent that they were instead written by Conley. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The salient points you brought up for discussion would definitely add more quality context to the article. Is there any reason why you don't pursue adding these details to the article? DopeyBoB (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the Pinkertons and Burns to the article. I'll try to get the rest knocked out soon. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I went through and did most of what I wrote above. I also have some new comments:

We should mention Arthur Mullinax and re-add the newspaper article image with the "Police Have the Strangler" headline. This was mentioned in the GA review but never added. Tom mentioned that Mullinax was a minor figure and would take too many words to explain, but perhaps we could be concise.

We could also add the Watson photo back if the copyright information is good enough. This also came up during GA, so perhaps we should look for a source besides the encyclopedia - one that was published before 1923 and would establish public domain status. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I added a line about Frank implicating Gantt and fixed the chronology of the Police Investigation subsection. I probably won't mention McKnight or Mullinax as it might not make sense to mention minor characters who only seemed to be important to the case for a few days before fading away. At this point, my main focus on copyright and publishing information for the Watson image above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a different Tom Watson photo that was taken closer to the time of the Frank case, and is more clear as far as the copyright information. It is from the Library of Congress and since Watson died in 1922, it is in the public domain.

I've resolved all of my personal concerns about the article above, and will move to another peer review soon before moving to FAC. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and lead changes

I went ahead and commented out the monuments, spouse, parents, and relations lines from the infobox in this edit. As I noted in the comment, I will delete this text soon if there is no objection. I want to delete unnecessary information already in the body of the article as the infobox was very long previously.

For the lead, we currently have this as our final paragraph:

Various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the case over the years, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime.

This paragraph abruptly shifts from media to the consensus and pardon. It also mentions books written on the case, but doesn't list any books. My suggestion is to move the last two lines to the end of paragraph 4 and reorder them, then elaborate on paragraph 5 with major books. Paragraphs 4 and 5 would look like this:

The case attracted national press, with many deeming the conviction a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled antisemitism and hatred toward Frank; a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion to protest the commutation. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of armed men and lynched at Marietta, Phagan's hometown. The new governor vowed to punish the lynchers, who included prominent Marietta citizens, although nobody was charged. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.

Various media productions have been inspired by the case, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. Major books on the case include The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein, And The Dead Shall Rise by Steve Oney, and The Murder of Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, the grand niece of the murder victim.

Let me know if you have any feedback. I'll make the changes if there is no objection. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Phagan's last meal

In this edit I removed parenthetical text stating that Phagan ate her last meal of cabbage and biscuits at 11:00 a.m. This statement was disputed in the past, under the argument that 30-45 minutes after 11:00 Phagan was still in her house as she left around 11:45 and thus must have been murdered at least an hour after the meal. Coleman's testimony says that Phagan woke up "about 11 o'clock and had breakfast right afterwards" which would put it slightly after 11:00. The parenthetical text made it seem as though it was 11:00 exactly. I think the text is unnecessary and it is sufficient to simply say that the prosecution's medical witness determined that the cabbage had been in the stomach 30-45 minutes. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-FAC comments

I nominated this article for Featured Article status and came up short after a long and arduous review spanning over four months. I will be on a wikibreak over the rest of the holidays and into 2017, but I encourage anyone interested to review the article for further improvements, particularly regarding removal of unnecessary content and adding sources where needed, and renominate the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy

The statement "Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.", appears to be redundant in the lede. Not all students of the Leo Frank case believe him to be wrongly convicted. Many believe him to be guilty. TonyMorris68 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The consensus of contemporary historians holds, in fact, that Frank was wrongly convicted. This is germane to the lede, not redundant. You may disagree with that consensus, but the reliable sources make the consensus clear. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say it over and over again in the lede? Should we say it in every paragraph using different words? I think once is sufficient. Otherwise it looks like the goal of the article is to push a political position. TonyMorris68 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark- what was meant by the user above is that the "consensus of researchers" line was used twice in the lead section alone. I changed one instance (see this diff) to make it not redundant and simplify the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased title

Hi,

The title says that he was convicted in murder, it doesn't add at the same place that later it was found out that it was all a plot against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Leo Frank's guilt has never been overturned, attempts have been made, but they all failed. The pardon of 1986 does not absolve Leo Frank of his guilt. In 2015 the centennial of Leo Frank's lynching, Rabbi Steven Lebow tried to get Governor Nathan Deal and the Georgia Congress to exonerate Leo Frank, but they declined to do so. At this point, Leo Frank's guilt is black letter law and will likely never be overturned. Besides, the trial records are online and most people who review them come to the conclusion he was guilty. Most people don't know this, but Leo Frank incriminated himself on the witness stand, when he was giving his statement to the jury. Frank answered the vexing question of why Monteen Stover found his office empty between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, by placing himself at the very place the prosecution presented to the jury where Leo Frank murdered Phagan -- in the metal room. Frank said he might have unconsciously gone to the men's toilet in the metal room, this is the area where Conley said he found the dead body of Mary Phagan in the metal room. The men's toilet was in the metal room. It was an open and shut case. Took the Jury 2 hours to convict Leo Frank. TonyMorris68 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

While making the last edit, I noticed there was a 2016 RfC that removed the Religion parameter from the infobox. This article formerly had Frank's religion of Judaism in this box, although it is no longer there. We could do without it, but it seems like it should be considering the importance of Frank's faith to the Phagan case. Please feel free to weigh in on whether we should leave as is or try to get another template with it back in. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The RFC seems quite clear; we don't put religion in infoboxes. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it out. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Leo Frank's religion is quite relevant to the article and his case. For more than 100 years the Jewish community (ADL, and other Jewish activist alphabet soup groups that have arisen) and individual journalists / researchers have in the press and academia, been alleging that Frank was hanged because of his religion (Judaism). Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has described the lynching as one of the worst outbursts of anti-Semitism in America. While great numbers of Southerners believe Frank was hanged because he raped and strangled his teenage employee, and because that was the sentence given to him by the judge and jury in August of 1913. Some others believe that Leo Frank was hanged because the partner-owner of the law firm that represented Frank at trial, namely Governor Slaton, commuted the death sentence of his own law client, who was represented by Luther Rosser in 1913 and 1914 (trial and state level appeals).

In a nutshell, many people believe Leo Frank was hanged because Slaton commuted his death sentence. The historical market in front of the Atlanta Jewish History Center, officially recognizes the reason Leo Frank was hanged because of Governor Slaton's actions in commuting Frank's capital punishment to life in prison. This makes sense, because John Slaton was part of Luther Rosser's law firm (Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips) as logged in the Atlanta Directory 1913-16. There is great deal of coverage about this conflict in Frank's appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court, where former employees of the National Pencil Company said they received bribe money to retract their trial testimony at Governor John Slaton's law office. With so many books and articles claiming "anti-Semitism" was behind it all, I think Leo Frank's religion is very relevant to the case and his article. TonyMorris68 (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is perfused with original research and at least tinged with anti-Semitism. To the extent that it relies on sources, it says that they’re wrong -- but we should identify the subject as Jewish in the infobox, contrary to policy, because the reliable sources are wrong. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Documented consensus within the Jewish community is Leo Frank was convicted because of anti-Semitism. Frank's religion was perceived as determinedly relevant to his why he was lynched after his failed appeals and commutation. It would be more helpful to the discussion if you learned the basic facts of the case and the conflicting interpretations arising from them. If you need contemporary examples of anti-Semitism, Watson's weekly and monthly screeds bring these points home. Modern examples of anti-Semitism can be seen in Nation of Islam's Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3, Leo Frank, a Guilty Man Lynched, 2016. TonyMorris68 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, you're preaching to the choir on anti-Semiitism. And on Leo Frank. Check my website if you like. But policy says, no religion in info boxes. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of material by The Proffesor

This editor has twice deleted this sentence from the 1st paragraph of the lede:

Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.

He/she states it is unsourced. As anyone who follows this article knows, this sentence is more than adequately discussed and sourced in the body of the article. As anyone who has read the entire lede can easily see, there are no footnotes in the lede -- a conscious decison made as the article was improved. As WP:LEADCITE states:

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

If Professor feels there should be footnotes in the lede, the case needs to obtain consensus here. It seems that zeroing in on this single sentence is another POV attack similar to the ones that have gone on for years by a number of sock puppets. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The statement should be removed it's non NPOV and it misleads people about the historical facts surrounding this case. Which those who defend Frank (such as the ADL) conveniently leave out, who are unfamiliar . --Justforthefun17 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Who are these researchers? Do they have a conflict of interest to this case? Why do they omit the evidential fact Frank's legal team and his family were caught trying to bribe witnesses and fabricate evidence to frame his two African-American workers? who unlike Frank would of never have gotten a trial for those charges, let alone fair one. If we are going to refer specifically to "racial bias", why is it never fully scrutinised, the "racial bias" against African Americans in the Dixie South, that Frank tried to exploit by attempting to implicate those men for the Mary Phagan's murder and rape?

Under normal circumstances anybody who had done what Frank was accused (and found guilty) of doing to Mary Phagan would of been executed. yet somehow he managed to dodge the death penalty. These "researchers" fail to deduct that is perhaps the more likely reason Frank was lynched. Anger from the public that he managed to dodge the maximum sentence that many suspected was due to influence from Frank's very wealthy and influential family. I've seen articles on wiki where people are labelled "supremacist", "antisemite", "racist", "holocaust denier" , "conspiracy theorist" nonchalantly with very little to no rational justification to why that is allowed, to justify those obviously bias introductions. Yet somebody who was convicted (and had a trial) avoiding the maximum penalty for raping, torturing and murdering an innocent child, somehow its "fair" for bias editors and sources be used to portray him as a victim of civil injustice, yet anything else that suggests otherwise is refuted and instantly discredited. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Long and detailed discussion of this issue -- see Rfc in archive 7. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Just wish to amplify the rather limited data concerning Alonzo Mann's years kept secret testimony about Jim Conley's apparent blame of Mary Phagan's assault and murder. Hereon cited from the "http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu" web site.77.127.36.11 (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"March 4, 1982 - Alonzo Mann, in failing health, signed an affidavit asserting Leo Frank’s innocence and Jim Conley’s guilt. He admitted he had seen Conley carrying the limp body of Mary Phagan on his shoulder near the trapdoor leading to the basement on April 26, 1913. Conley had threatened to kill him if he ever told anyone what he had seen. He did go home and tell his mother, who advised him to keep quiet. After Frank’s conviction, his parents still kept him quiet, saying it would do no good to come forth after the verdict. He was telling the story now to unburden his soul. He had actually tried to tell the story several times before, but no one had paid any attention. He had even gotten into a fight with a fellow soldier in World War I when he tried to assert Frank’s innocence. He took several lie detector tests while telling his story to a group of reporters for The Tennessean, a newspaper in Nashville, TN. The tests indicated Mann was telling the truth.

March 7, 1982 - The Tennessean ran the story of Alonzo Mann’s confession.

November 10, 1982 - Alonzo Mann repeated his story in a videotaped statement in Atlanta.

January 4, 1983 - Based largely on Alonzo Mann’s testimony, the Anti-Defamation League submitted an application for a posthumous pardon for Leo Frank to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.

December 22, 1983 - the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the motion for a pardon, the reason being that while Alonzo Mann’s testimony might incriminate Jim Conley, it did not conclusively prove the innocence of Leo Frank.

March 11, 1986 - the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles finally issued a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank, based on the state’s failure to protect him while in custody; it did not officially absolve him of the crime."

Unmentioned: Mary Richards Phagan (1899-1992), sister-in-law and namesake of murder victim, believed Leo Frank was innocent.

Unfortunately, the Leo Frank Wikipedia page does not include a little-known fact about the Frank case: Mary Richards Phagan (1899-1992), sister-in-law and namesake of the murder victim, went public with her denunciation of the grave injustice done to Leo Frank, and declared her support for his posthumous pardon, in two newspaper interviews in December 1983.

When the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles initially denied a pardon to Leo Frank, neither it nor the petitioners may have been aware of this fact; had they known about Mary Richards Phagan's belief in Frank's innocence, I believe the parole board might have granted the pardon in the first place, instead of in 1986.

Having read Steve Oney's book, And The Dead Shall Rise, I noticed that among those persons he interviewed during the process of researching and writing it, Mary Richards Phagan was conspicuous by her absence, so the above fact was not mentioned therein. Even if he did not interview her, the interview she gave to the Marietta Daily Journal would still have been available to him from that newspaper's archives. A glaring omission from an otherwise superb history of the Leo Frank case.

For further reading, I recommend my essay, "Why The Leo Frank Pardon Is Important," by Richard Mamches. It can be viewed online at www.jahsp.org, in the section under American Jewish History.

--2600:1700:3BE0:5A60:256D:363C:C734:BC75 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Mr. Mamches, I was unable to find the Mary Richard Phagan article in the Marietta Daily Journal, dated December 23, 1983. Do you happen to know where I might find a copy of the article? TonyMorris68 (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

I hope someone will make this easy fix on my behalf:

In the section on "Abduction and Lynching," please change "175-mile (282 km) trip" to "125-mile (200 km) trip."

The distance from Marietta to Milledgeville penitentiary is about 125 miles (200-201 km), not 175 miles (282 km) as stated. That is also about the distance one could cover in seven hours, traveling at a top speed of 18 mph. If it were 175 miles, it would take almost ten hours at that speed.

My source is the Google Maps mileage reported between Marietta and the Milledgeville penitentiary along two "blue highway" routes that are largely unchanged over the years, which I checked after a swift calculation of how many miles one could drive in seven hours at a speed of 18 mph.

Thank you! Timkens (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: And all that great work you did on Google Maps wasn't saved and hyperlinked for us to look at for confirmation? That's a shame. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, this would fail WP:OR. The Oney source says 150 miles, so perhaps that would be a good compromise. Dinnerstein 1987 mentions 175 miles, but doesn't have the information in the rest of the sentence. This should be looked into further to ensure the article is properly sourced. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2018 (UT

Gang, is it possible, Oney and Dinnerstein increased the 120 mile trip from Milledgeville to Marrieta from 25% to 40%, respectively, to account for a common story the hangman's caravan/tailgating party utilized circuitous backroads to "throw the dogs off the trail?". Seems excessive, but maybe there is a legitimate reason for it, other than the appearance of loose-fitting research. Tony, could you please contact Dinnerstein on Facebook, as you have in the past to clarify other points? Oney has an account on Twitter and might be amenable to clarification. One thought I had in passing, maybe the road system was different 100-odd years ago. TonyMorris68 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Distance from Marietta to Milledgeville

The distance from Marietta to Milledgeville is about 125 miles (201 km), not 175 miles (282 km) as stated in the section on the abduction and lynching. That is also about the distance one could cover in seven hours, traveling at a top speed of 18 mph. If it were 175 miles, it would take almost ten hours at that speed.

I hope someone will make this easy fix on my behalf. Since this is apparently a controversial article, I would need more past editing credits to be able to edit it myself.

Timkens (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

According to MapQuest.com the distance from Milledgeville to Marietta is roughly 120 miles. At a top speed of 18 miles an hour, the shortest path would take around 6 to 6.5 hours. Reportedly, one of the vehicles in the caravan of vigilance committee entourage had a flat tire halfway during the midnight ride back, resulting in a pause of the journey. Keep in mind they claimed to have taken backroads and many of the streets at the time weren't paved, thus 7 to 8 hours from the Milledgeville penitentiary to Sheriff William Frey's farm in South East Marietta makes sense. Having left their pickup point at 11pm, would place them at their destination at around 7:00 am, presumably. TonyMorris68 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyMorris68:, see the response below. Anything we add to the article must have published sources meeting WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Are mapquest and google maps considered reliable sources? TonyMorris68 (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Lede goes straight from "Trial" to "Lynching", and that's Misleading

"His trial, and lynching two years later, attracted national attention and became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism."

I think, at minimum, this sentence should at least include the fact that he was convicted, in between "trial, and lynching" as it misleads the reader to believe that this is a simple matter of "revenge" anti-semitism. I also think that the sentence should include the idea that Frank's conviction was upheld by the Georgia Appeals Courts, the (Federal) Supreme Court, a Georgia Prison Commission, until Frank was released by Commutation of his sentence by the Governor of Georgia. The problem with this idea is that it will be more difficult to do, and would require a lot more wordsmithing and discussion. But, at minimum, the idea that there was a substantive amount of legal process involved before Frank was released and then murdered should be included in the Lede. I'd do it myself, right now, but would like to open the suggestion to some discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Marker Commemorating Lynching to be Rededicated

Here is an article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the Marker commemorating lynching to be rededicated. Rjluna2 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is another article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the Frank site getting lynching marker. Rjluna2 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed title change

I think it would help readers, and do more good than harm, of the title were changed to Lynching of Leo Frank. That's really the central topic. If he hadn't been lynched it would be a small and little-read article.

This was proposed casually 7 years ago (Archive 4) but there was no discussion.

Anyone have a problem if I change it? deisenbe (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a minor change, I suggest you submit a formal move request. PatGallacher (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You might also look at the GA review where this was discussed extensively. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Article concerns

Leo Frank was not convicted due to anti semitism. 4 of the jurors were Jewish (Source?), and every single juror voted him guilty. There are also no mentions of the supposed anti semetic death threats occurring outside of the court in the newspapers or the official legal documents. This article is heavily biased and parts need to be re written.

Criminal justice student here. Have studied this case for years.

Not only did several factory girls previously under employment by Frank testify regarding his bad character, but there was forensic evidence (blood, hair) that Mary Phagan was murdered on the second floor in the machine room adjacent to Frank's office. Frank also broke his only alibi of never leaving his office on August 18th, 1913, where he stated on the witness stand that he may have had an unconscious visit to the men's toilet where he would have passed Mary's workstation at the exact time and the exact location that Mary Phagan died. This statement by Frank came after a witness friendly to frank - 14 year old Monteen Stover - testified that she came to collect her pay on that fateful afternoon only to find Leo Frank's office empty between that exact same time segment from 12:05 pm through 12:10 pm on April 26, 1913. His cover story put him right at the scene of the murder at the exact time it happened. Mary Phagan's autopsy was consistent with the blood stains and hair found on the lathe - there was evidence in the autopsy that Mary had fell and hit her head on something before she died - and this is exactly what the witness James Jim Conley states Frank said when Frank got the help of Conley to dispose of the body.

Frank was also incidentally caught tampering with Newt Lee (the night watchman's) time card. Frank's house maid, Minola McKnight testified how she heard Frank confess to his wife Lucille Selig that he didn't know why he'd murder. This sheds light on why Lucille Selig ordered in her will not to be buried next to her husband, even though a grave plot already existed next to Frank's headstone. One can visit the Mount Carmel cemetery themselves and ask if the plot is empty. They will tell you that it is. (Lucille Selig ordered to be cremated and her ashes scattered in a field).

The fact that the Supreme Court rejected Frank's appeals, and that Frank was the only Jew lynched on US soil, and the fact that none of the original documents mention the supposed anti semetic death threats points to Frank being convicted because of the evidence against him, not because he was Jewish. Many Jews and non-Jews in the Old South intermarried and one of Hugh Dorsey's law firm partners was Jewish - so it is unlikely that he would have been motivated by anti-semitism. I encourage those interested in this case to check out the original documents themselves as they are now public access and uploaded to the internet. To assume there's some grand anti semetic conspiracy going on to this day that's preventing every legal jurisdiction (including the Supreme Court) over the past century from exonerating Frank is absurd. 95.144.255.47 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this e.g. some of the jurors being Jewish? Is this something that would be recorded in official records? PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm certain that several members of the Grand Jury, who indicted Frank, were Jewish. That is mentioned in Albert Lindemann's book "The Jew Accused". But I've never seen a discussion of the individual trial jurors. That must be recorded somewhere. There has been extensive discussion about the claim that there were shouts of "Hang the Jew" outside the courtroom. It has never been shown to be true. Atlanta papers, which printed every small detail of the trial, never mentioned it. Dinnerstein dredged that up in 1968, from one northern (long defunct) weekly newspaper article, citing an anonymous source, and printed more than a year after the trial. It was likely part of the exoneration campaign orchestrated by Adolf Ochs and the NYT, which enlisted the help of small papers around the country. All citations that anyone has ever found post date Dinnerstein. Gulbenk (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

No comment. Job Esop (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No self-contradictions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The folowing copied from Esop's talk page:

@North Shoreman: And what is true? The first sentence of the lead section ("Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject holds that Frank was wrongly convicted") or the second ("Most researchers today agree that Conley was likely the murderer")? Job Esop (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If Frank was wrongly convicted, then somebody else did it. Where is the contradiction? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There is none. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)