This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
"Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League."
SV, I see you've put this article back on your watchlist. That's fine by me, the more eyes the better, but a couple things: 1) Some of the edits you made do not have consensus. You know this. Please don't reinsert them until you get consensus. 2) Please join talk. You refused to reply to the points that were brought up, then left the article, and now return without a word. 3) I'm leaving in some of what you did, for example, that Frank had flirted with Phagan, though I think it's very bad editing, because right now it's just your opinion against mine. Can you say more about why you think that should be in the lead? IronDuke 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, please try to get some consensus for this. Or better yet: don't. It's making the article much, much worse. I can't tell you how horrified I was when I first saw it -- I assumed Machn must have done it. IronDuke 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
[moved by IronDuke from his talk page] [1]
ID, your stock-in-trade seems to be serial reverting. It leaves a person no response but to continue reverting too, but most people don't want to. You hadn't edited for five days. I restored the lead you'd removed at Leo Frank, and suddenly you're back, reverting twice so far, and you'd probably continue if I did. Here are your reverts in the last month of that material: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
It had been in there without objection since August, until you started reverting on November 11, and practically all your contribs there seem to be reverts. It's not acceptable to engage in the serial removal of other people's work, there or anywhere else, just because you personally dislike it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The lead is too long, has too much inflammatory POV language and goes on too much about the murder trial. It should not need cites if properly written, drawing on content below. This article is supposed to be about the man and the meaning of events, not just details of the trial. Parkwells ( talk) 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.[2]
Can someone explain what the spotlight is, how the lynching turned the spotlight on antisemitism or how it had anything to do with antisemitism? This sentence seems to be loaded with presumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenali ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Elaine Marie Alphin writes that seven members of the lynching party sat on the grand jury that was convened to identify and indict them. She's not an academic source, so I'm reluctant to rely on her alone for a contentious detail like this. Does anyone know whether the academic sources say this too? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Leo Frank, a Jewish-American businessman, was found guilty of the murder of a teenage girl in 1913 in Marietta, Georgia, and was subsequently lynched. Antisemitism is widely agreed to have been a factor, as was prejudice on the grounds that he came from New York and was seen as a Yankee capitalist.
The other murder suspect was a black man who worked with Frank and the murder victim. It was a plank of Frank's defense that this was too brutal to be a "Jewish crime," and was more likely to have been committed by a black suspect. Frank and his lawyers employed racist language against the black worker, just as others employed antisemitic language against Frank. The dispute is over whether the lead should mention this aspect of the case. See this version: "Frank and his lawyers resorted to stereotypes too: another suspect, Jim Conley—a factory worker who testified against Frank—was a "filthy, lying nigger," they said, just the kind who would commit such a brutish crime." [2]
Should this (or similar words) be included in the lead? Input from uninvolved editors would be particularly welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has gotten way off an encyclopedic approach and tone; it quotes too much from Tom Watson and other sensational news reports, seems to take pains to list all the gory details, and glosses over the larger meaning of the trial and social context. It is disappointing to see it turned into one that dwells on the sensational aspects of the trial. Three photos of the lynching are excessive; one is sufficient, so choose. Parkwells ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Editors have overused quotes of newspaper accounts that were sensational and inflammatory. This is not a journalism article but an attempt to present a cooler account of what went on, with the benefit of material from academic researchers and the use of paraphrase, not lengthy quotes from participants. Parkwells ( talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with treating Frank and Phagan is equal characters in this article - the early sections should be about him in standard format. The trial and its aftermath was part of his life, not the whole thing. Parkwells ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The article exceeds WP guidelines and is nearly twice as long as recommended, largely due to the extensive detail about the murder and trial. It seems to want to retry the case. The trial can be covered in less detail; people should go to books if they want to engage in rethinking the whole trial. This is not supposed to be an extensive journalistic account, either. Parkwells ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So far I have discovered at least two copyright violations, in which content was copied word for word from sources and not quoted, nor was the author identified in the content of the article (not just the inline cite), per Wiki policy. This throws the integrity of the article into question, which has been worked on for a very long time by many editors and changed markedly.
1) In the lead, the phrase "a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women" is copied from Albert Lindemann's The Jew Accused, p. 239, without quotations. A few of his words were excluded, but it is unmistakably his work. The original is at (
http://books.google.com/books?id=YCugGyqkYBQC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false)
2)In the second paragraph of the description of the lynching, there is material copied nearly word for word from the NY Times report, as I show in quotes: - They tied "a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up." It was placed around his neck and slung over a branch of a large Georgia oak. He was turned to face the direction of the house Phagan had lived in, and was hanged at around 7 am. -
Some editor added the unsourced detail of the large Georgia oak; perhaps it's OR, as it did not appear in this part of the Times article, which can be viewed at (
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0CE4DD133FE233A2575AC1A96E9C946496D6CF.) The Times article was cited, but not quoted. It appears editors desire to use many journalistic details for color may have made them careless about avoiding copying without using quotations or proper sourcing.
Parkwells (
talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Leo Frank was a representative of Yankee capitalism in a southern city, with row upon row of southern women, often the daughters and wives of ruined farmers, 'at his mercy'—a rich, punctilitious, northern Jew lording it over vulnerable and impoverished working women.
There was no cry for mercy when the lynchers produced a piece of brown canvas, placed it around his waist, and tied it behind him. He wore an undershirt and a night shirt, and on the latter garment, over his heart, was embroidered a name which looked more like 'Lee' than Leo. ... He had been handcuffed, and they had brought with them a brand-new three-quarter-inch manila rope, which they tied in a hangman's knot, so as to throw his head back and his chin up. They swung him to that tree which came nearest to facing Mary Phagan's house, and he hung there, his body four feet from the ground. It was 7 o'clock." [11]
The lynchers tied a piece of brown canvas around his waist. He was otherwise wearing a nightshirt and undershirt, and was handcuffed. They tied a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up. It was placed around his neck and slung over a branch of a large Georgia oak. He was turned to face the direction of the house Phagan had lived in, and was hanged at around 7 am.
Here is some of the Wikipedia guidance on avoiding plagiarism. They note particularly that editors have to credit distinctive phrasing, and recommend using quotations and in-text attribution. [A problem may arise from:]
p. 144 of Wade: When Frank was found guilty...(ellipses are mine), Watson wrote, "Our Little Girl...has been pursued to a hideous death..." This is distinctive phrasing. The source later quotes Watson as saying Frank is part of the "Jewish aristocracy". These were Wade's selection of quotes from Watson. Use of them without in-text attribution to Wade may be a problem. Parkwells ( talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Parkwells, you're steaming in with a lot of criticism, not all of it appropriate. You say the article is twice as long as recommended, but at 5,800 words it's a perfectly normal length. You say there are copyright violations, but neither of the two examples you've given are examples of that. You say the article should be written as though it's a biography of Frank, with the trial and lynching just part of his life, but it's not a biography of Frank, who wasn't notable apart from the trial and lynching. You turn the lead into five paras, though LEAD makes clear that four is usually the upper limit. You removed an image because the website that hosts it says permission is required (as they often do), but in fact all images are PD in the United States if published before 1923.
You're also removing important details from the lead and elsewhere. Why, for example, would you not want the reader to know in the lead when she was killed? Why remove that she was strangled? Why remove the view of Frank (the rich Jew lording it over people) that seems to have caused the problem for him in the first place?
Criticism is welcome, but it needs to be measured and at least arguably accurate. It also needs to reflect our policies. Responding to it is time-consuming, but if it's ignoring policy it just means we're chasing our tails. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's talk again about the lead - to convey the issues of the trial and aftermath, the lead should refer to the issue of the overcrowded courtroom and the large crowd outside whose presence was seen to intimidate witnesses and the jury. It should identify Conley as an early suspect, not just someone who testified against Frank, especially because of Mann's 1982 voluntary statement under oath, which might also appear in the lead, as it supports the idea that Conley was guilty. Ending with the power of the prominent members of the lynch group (the buildings and streets in their name) suggests they were right, and made right by their success in life.[User:Parkwells|Parkwells]] ( talk) 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Parkwells, you wrote (quotation marks in the original):
In the next year, new material was made public. "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."
Following by a citation to Dinnerstein (pp. 114-115). It seems to be Dinnerstein you're quoting -- the same quote is in footnote 39. Is there a reason it's in quotation marks, but without attribution? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read the entire official trial testimony record provided in 'References' and there is not a single word, sentence or phrase that suggests the Lindemann quote in the intro is true. This inserted quote is playing divisive politics and is unfounded. Please, if the Leo Frank entry in Wikipedia is going to be turned into a Gentile vs. Jews ethnic race war, at least provide some balance from the prosecution side of the case. The entire Leo Frank entry wreaks of taking Frank's side. The ethnicity of Frank was never brought up by the prosecution, though Reuben Arnold claimed if Leo Frank were not a Jew he would never have been on trial which is not true.
His trial became the focus of powerful class and political interests. Raised in New York, he was cast as a representative of Yankee capitalism, a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women, as the historian Albert Lindemann put it.
Reference:
Closing Arguments of Counsel, Luther Rosser, Frank Hooper, Reuben Arnold and Hugh Dorsey. American State Trials V. X 1918. HernandoMaya ( talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Frank hired two Pinkerton detectives to help him prove his innocence.
Who were these two Pinkerton detectives? Harry Scott and ? HernandoMaya ( talk) 09:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Removed Find a Grave as a reference that is considered unreliable. Otr500 ( talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "Phagan's friend, 13-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, came forward to say that Frank had flirted with Phagan and had frightened her.[citation needed]" to "Phagan's friend, 13-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, came forward to say that Frank had flirted with Phagan and had frightened her. [13]" This provides a link to the images within an authentic Atlanta Journal of this specific report. Feel free to use the corresponding image alone, but giver credit to www.rarenewspapers.com
74.93.121.214 ( talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In regards to using Alphin, Elaine Marie. An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank. Carolrhoda Books, 2010 as a Wikipedia source. Reviews of her book on Amazon.com indicates she makes many mistakes in her book about the case and her research is very poor, can we really rely on her as a reliable source? HernandoMaya ( talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Wall of text quoting entire review collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this latest book on the Leo Frank Case (152 pages), author Elaine Alphin takes for her title a post-lynching judgment by the Mayor of Atlanta (James Woodward): "a just penalty for an unspeakable crime." But she has recast that harsh approval of Leo's Midnight Ride, and added, "The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank." This is clearly not a volume of subtleties and the reader is thus quickly informed of the writer's sympathies. It is mostly about the trials and tribulations of the accused and there is little (correct) about Mary Phagan herself. The book is aimed at young people, and Ms. Alphin notes that in all the literature on the case -- despite the abundance of teenagers at so many stages of the events -- there has not up to now been a retelling aimed for that audience. It is clearly written, with fine production values, with a large variety of vintage photographs, and rarely have they been reproduced so well. She is obviously entranced with this "miscarriage of justice" and has traveled widely and visited several of the major Archives - all are cited in the back along with the previous major books, and is so current that the recent PBS-TV Special ('The People v. Leo Frank') is mentioned. Some of the original material was of a salacious nature, but all is handled here tastefully. The major problem is that even high-schoolers are entitled to an accurate accounting of this iconic case, and that is where this latest publication falls short. The basic narrative of the crime, and its ultimate resolution at the end of the lynchers' rope, strikes our sensibilities to this day, and there are still many who would prefer that an innocent Leo Frank be the prime example of American justice gone wrong. But the Jury, in Georgia's longest trial, heard all of the evidence, and the author seems unaware that the Atlanta newspapers were an excellent source for the day-to-day testimony. As she notes, the stenographic Court Transcript has been lost for some fifty years. For reasons unknown, Ms. Alphin has Mary Anne Phagan born in Marietta, Georgia and her biological father also dying there. But Mary was born in Florence, Alabama, on June 1, 1899 (according to the census) and her father had died several months before she was born - she was a posthumous child. Fannie Phagan (Alphin wrongly calls her `Frannie' throughout) raised her youngest daughter and siblings as a single parent and did not (re-)marry John Coleman until 1912 - she was essentially raised without a father. When Mary did not return home by 7pm, her step-father would indeed look for her on the evening of April 26, 1913, but the family never "called the police" as is claimed here. They would learn of their daughter's death only after a night of waiting, 5:30 the next morning, from one of Mary's chums. We would not expect all material to be footnoted in a book like this, but the author (and her readers) would have benefitted from more explanatory Notes at the back. For example, on p. 11, it is claimed that Mary's body showed bitemarks on her shoulder when found. This is rather a unique statement and was not reported at the time - actually, it derives from one book ('To Number Our Days' by Pierre van Paassen) published years later, in 1964, describing a visit by that author to Atlanta in 1922. Van Paassen said these marks had been "x-rayed" and were still preserved in a court folder. But who could (then or now) x-ray such indentations in human flesh? And surely van Paassen's parallel claim (through lawyer Henry Alexander) that Leo Frank did not have a trial to overturn would make his report highly suspect. But Mrs. Alphin does not question her sources, simply quoting what seems beneficial on each occasion - Oney's book does the same with this incident (p. 617). Van Paassen would argue that Leo's dental records (which he also says he saw in 1922) did not match the bites in Mary's neck and hence he was innocent of the crime. But this is one man's word at best and does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny. Although this is (or should be) a case where the devil is in the details, they come thick and fast but are often unverified or wrong. Ms. Alphin states that Leo's father had retired by 1907 due to a railway accident, and that the family had their basic estate of $20,000 as a result of a financial settlement. However, there is no evidence for this claim, and the 1910 Census shows Rudolph Frank still working (as a salesman). Ms. Alphin does not give a source for this "accident" but it was only mentioned once, in a publication in 1947 by Burton Rascoe, who also gave no supporting details. When Rachel Frank (Leo's mother) testified at the trial, she explained her husband's absence by saying that he was too "nervous" to come to Atlanta and was broken down from his work. Several times, Ms. Alphin refers to Leo and his family as "relatively poor" (but he earned $150 per month as Superintendent of the National Pencil Co.); however, the record shows he had traveled to Europe twice (in 1905 and 1908). Leo's wealthy uncle, Moses Frank, is cited as having fought for the Confederacy, and this factoid is often mentioned in other books on the case, but it is not true and was only introduced (again without details) by one of Leo's lawyers (Reuben Arnold) in October of 1913. Leo would later deny it. [No Eulogies for Moses Frank make any mention of him being a Confederate Veteran] It is claimed that the Seligs were a "high society family" but Lucille's father was at the time a traveling salesman for the West Disinfecting Co., having earlier dealt in various liquor products. On p. 25, Lucille "announced her pregnancy" in the Spring of 1913, but no evidence from that period is offered. This remark apparently derives from Steve Oney's book (p. 85), where the event is instead dated months later to the early Winter of 1913, but leading to a miscarriage (cited Interviews of 1986 and 1998). Oddly, in all the voluminous correspondence between Leo and Lucille (and many other family members), there is not a single reference (oblique or otherwise) to this lost 'offspring' (a tragic result if true). Only 73 years later is this supposed 'miscarriage' mentioned. When one is truly immersed in a murder case, even decades after the fact, one can look at original documents with a new eye. For example, Ms. Alphin seems to have used some of the unpublished Pinkerton Reports generated by the NPCo.'s hiring of that detective agency. But Oney did so as well, and both report that two men in the factory, Ely Burdett and James Gresham, knew more than they were telling. These two indeed worked at the factory, but never testified; however, their names were actually Earl Burdett and James Graham. In a remarkable coincidence, their fathers were in the Forsyth Street building just minutes before Mary was killed. I could go on.... It is claimed that the ADL was founded as a result of Leo's lynching in 1915, but the newspaper backing up this assertion (illustrating the caption) is dated two years before, October 1913. Even then, the ADL did not state that it was established because of the crime, the trial, OR the lynching. Standard dates, such as the original Murder Indictment of May 24th (1913) and the lynching of Aug 17 (1915), are mangled and miscited. The Jury had to confront many other details, some of which are omitted here. For example, Newt Lee had been told the day before (by Leo himself) to report early for his watchman's duties on Saturday, 4pm instead of the usual 5. But when Newt dutifully appeared, on time and after confronting a locked door, Leo sent him away, telling him not to remain in the factory, and only come back at 6pm (an hour later than usual). Having said all of this, can we surmise more accurately than those who came before us, what really happened on Confederate Memorial Day in 1913? Solicitor Dorsey would argue that it was a crime of passion, that Mary stood up for her Southern honor, and that Leo violently reacted to her refusal. Was that scenario indeed the truth? And was Dorsey (and others) driven mainly by anti-Semitism? Even Steven Hertzberg, author of a well-regarded history of the Jews of Atlanta, exculpates him from this charge. Tom Watson's diatribes are mentioned and rightly excoriated, but Watson did not publish anything at all on the case until a year after the crime. And Jim Conley? Alphin makes him out to be a Machiavellian character, intelligent and articulate when he wanted, and folksy and charming at other times. Anyone who has studied the case for a while will surely acknowledge that Conley lied about several of his actions that day, but what was really being concealed? Did Jim bear a greater responsibility than he admitted, or was he instead the sole killer, lurking so close to his boss' office? Why did Leo not permit cross-examination after his own long-courtroom Statement - under Georgia Law, since 1868 (Title VI), it WAS allowed (unsworn), IF the defendant agreed. It is likely that the case will continue to be debated for a long time, even by anonymous reviewers. But those who argue it and present their best efforts on either side are encouraged to get the details right. First the facts, then the interpretations, not the other way around. HernandoMaya ( talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Alas, anyone who works in publishing knows that proper "fact checking" is a lost art, and physical books are as prone to errors as the world wide web. Let us look then at some "facts" that the publisher of 'An Unspeakable Crime' has (presumably) verified: On p. 59, the remarks of Wm Mincey are, shall we say, "misrepresented." Rosser had claimed he would implicate Conley with a confession from the day of the crime, but Mincey never testified, and the author's claim of "several women" to confirm it evaporated. So who were these women? The author doesn't tell us. Even Leo's lawyers realized that Mincey made it up and refused to put him under oath. On p. 76, it is argued that Mrs Selig (Lucille's mother) was ill and hence did not discuss the girl's murder (at home, over the weekend). But Mrs Selig played Bridge and Poker on those 3 successive nights (for hours) and the illness was never mentioned or specified at the time. So what's the source - only a lawyer's convenient claim? And Lucille's supposed pregnancy? That was only mentioned by a family member in 1998, some 85 years later. Does that make it true? On p. 131, the author claims that the modern musical 'Parade' was written in the year 2000. Yet it opened on Broadway (in NYC) in 1998. Ah, but the Publisher must have checked... and yet the information is still wrong (by two years). The book claims (on pp. 48 & 138) that Leo Frank was formally indicted for murder on May 23, 1913. But he was indicted on May 24th. So who is right? Guess. The author states that Alonzo Mann died on March 19, 1985 - only off by a day - he died on March 18th. Is the author or publisher aware that Mann lied about his age (by a full year) when he enlisted in the US Army? I don't think they bothered to check. On p. 111, the author quotes a letter from Leo's niece Eleanore Stern without commenting on how remarkable it must have been for a 3-year-old child to write it. No one checks birthdates any more? On p. 120, the author even gets wrong the date of the lynching, claiming it occurred on the morning of August 16, 1915. Who was asleep at the switch? The correct date of Aug 17 is then given on p. 139. Teenagers must like to have a choice... Why the author repeatedly calls Leo Frank "relatively poor" remains a mystery. He was the head of a factory that employed 170 people and was the highest paid man there ($150 per month). There are three pages of Source Notes (at the back), but no formal footnoting whatever. As a result, we have on p. 49 the unsourced claim that Jim Conley was on the chain gang twice, and once for attempted armed robbery. But Conley's court records were introduced at the Trial, and this is not supported. It would have been helpful for the reader to know where the author got her "facts." There are many other examples of this basic problem in the book, and they may even seem petty to some. But if a work tries to be fair and accurate, it demands the highest standards, for both young and old. Even teenagers should learn, by example, how to do history right. And that includes being careful with sources, citations, and the use of scholarly material. We don't want people to think (on p. 10), because of some presumed 'fact checking department,' that Mary Phagan was really born in Marietta, Georgia. Census records (and Phagan family documents) show clearly that she was born in Florence, Alabama. This case can indeed be discussed at the dinner table, and on the Internet as well. But first comes the hard part: genuine historical research. Then we can make up our minds as to the likely culprit. First the facts, then the interpretations. |
Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, 47, October 1996, pp. 98–109. HernandoMaya ( talk) 03:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop allowing "Jewish" to be referred to as an ethnicity. It is a religion. No group other than Christians (or Nazis) refer to it as an ethnic race. There are Jews from every portion of the world of many different ethnic backgrounds and every race. Then, if you allow it to continue to be listed on this bio as his religion, consider placing the religion of each person on every other bio provided in Wikipedia. The article itself states his religion repeatedly as a cause of action. There is no need to repeat it in the bio unless religion is to become a standard requirement of all bios on Wikipedia. 68.38.19.120 ( talk) 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Tom Stoneman
I think we may be missing what is almost unarguably the central point of this case, which is that multiple (almost all) scholars see this case as a huge miscarriage of justice. I think this point needs to be made in the body of the article, and that the lead must also reference it. When I have a couple seconds to rub together, I'm going to make a stab eat that. IronDuke 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
On October 16, 1915, two months to the night after Frank was taken from the Milledgeville prison, members of the Knights of Mary Phagan burned a gigantic cross on top of Stone Mountain, reportedly inaugurating a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The group was led by William J. Simmons and attended by 15 charter members and a few aging survivors of the original Klan.[60]
Woodrowvitz ( talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I just un-did some anti-Jewish vandalism from this page; please consider locking to prevent repetition. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyroneking ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A fresh mound of human excrement was found in the elevator, though the significance was not recognized until after the trial.[13], quoth the article. No significance is ever indicated. Rwflammang ( talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
In regards to the mound of excrement, I've found two websites that state it's significance. Can someone verify the validity of these findings, and if correct, incorporate them in to the article?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/
StrangeApparition2011 ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)StrangeApparition2011
Steve Oney described the evidence as literally "the shit in the shaft" and it ended up being the definitive proof Leo Frank did not kill Mary Phagan. Carmelmount ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Immediate Aftermath", someone inserted a big section of Original Research, including comments about the Lindberg baby, citing it to page 81 of Blakeslee. That page can be found here: [14] and does not contain references that support the content. Stop re-inserting the OR and read the sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.195 ( talk) 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of a major edit. I am currently collecting the mass body of evidence that, not only convicted Leo Frank of this brutal murder, but convinced no less than five higher courts to deny his petitions for reprieve.
A sampling of this convincing evidence that is, oddly enough, completely overlooked in this article, includes testimony by a pastor who stated he had overheard Conley confess his crime to another man, only to later admitted that this statement was false and that he offered the statement because Frank's defense attorneys "were just handing money out".
Also a parade of women testified about his reputation concerning “his attitude toward women,” and witness after witness replied, “bad.”
Most damaging was that of sixteen-year-old Dewey Hall who told jurors that she saw Frank talking to Mary Phagan “sometimes two or three times a day” and that she also saw him “put his hand on her shoulder.”, contradicting Frank's statement that he didn't know her. Another witness reported seeing Frank and a female worker slip into a dressing room and “stay in there fifteen to thirty minutes.”
A young friend of Mary's, George Epps, said that Mary said that Frank had made advances towards her. Several other employees at the factory also claimed they had seen Frank flirt with various females at the plant. Nina Formby, the owner of a "rooming house," stated that Frank had made repeated calls to her on the day of the murder attempting to reserve a room for himself and a girl.
C.B. Dalton, a railroad carpenter, testified he had met with several women in the basement of the National Pencil Factory while Jim Conley watched out for him, and that he had seen numerous women come to the factory to visit Frank.
Monteen Stover, testified that she had arrived at the factory at 12:05 PM to receive her pay, had waited in Frank's office for him for five minutes, then left. This contradicted Frank's statement that he had been in his office the entire time in which the murder took place.
R.B. Barrett, a machinist at the factory, provided new information when he said he had found Mary Phagan's empty pay envelope and bloodstains near a machine on the factory's second floor.
This is just a sampling of the testimony that proved Leo Frank, not only lied about everything, but that he was bribing witnesses to falsify their testimony.
Of course his attornys had the ultimate come back to this extraordinary evidence: "Arnold told jurors that “if Frank hadn’t been a Jew he never would have been prosecuted."
I shall return to repair this article just as soon as I finishing collecting the remaining volumes of evidence. Manson 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.leofrank.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your tone nor your assumptions, especially considering the fact that I have already done exactly what you suggest. I gave a sampling here of some of the evidence I intend to add, including a source. If you take issue with anything that I've stated thus far, then attack the specifics of those issues, rather than harp on what others have done, or what you think I'm about to do. I'm very well aquainted with Wiki's policies, and I intend to follow them to the letter. Any edits, I intend to make to this article, I will post on this page first for everyone's considerations. I do not find where any of the issues I've mentioned thus far have been addressed in the current article. Rather any of those are redundant is left to be seen, but I can assure you that none could be considered original research. As for sources, I will post those along with the proposed edits. Manson 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs)
I urge people reading this discussion to take a look at two of Manson48's wonderful "contributions" to Wikipedia: [15] and [16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServioHumara ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The only things of value on http://www.leofrank.org/ are the images and primary source libraries. Some of the site content reads like an amateur Tom Watson reborn in the 21st century. Any website claiming Leo Frank made "four separate and distinct murder confessions" can not be considered reliable or mainstream. I have not seen the LF Supreme Court of Georgia records anywhere but there. Carmelmount ( talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually all of the trial evidence I posted on this page came from this site: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/, which I found posted above. I will admit that some of the statements posted above from the www.leofrank.org/ website are extreme. However, I don't see how this disqualifies any links to qualifying sources available from the website. I wish to include a mention of the prosecutor's closing argument. It is worthy of mention if only because it was an historical record of length at the time. Manson 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs)
This odious site http://www.leofrank.org/confession/ belonging to Manson48 is claiming Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan on the witness stand. Could you talk more about the weaknesses of the prosecutions case in the LF entry? Carmelmount ( talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Tom, what do we do about trial brief of evidence State's exhibit B (April 28, 1913), Leo Frank claiming the arrival time of Phagan's on April 26, 1913, was at 12:05 to 12:10 PM, maybe 12:07 PM. And then Leo Frank at the trial August 18, 1913, saying he was "unsconsciosly" at the toilet at 12:05 to 12:10 PM to rebut Monteen Stover saying Leo Frank's office was empty during that time. Isn't that the crux of the brief of evidence? We only have one more year to make the Leo Frank case an Antisemitic conspiracy, and right now it doesn't fit that description. Carmelmount ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Newt Lee was supposed to punch his time card on the clock every half hour according to Leo Frank. Is it possible Newt Lee knew something about the Phagan strangulation? On Sunday the day of the murder discovery, Leo Frank in front of the police, Newt Lee and NV Darley said Newt Lee's timecard was punched correctly every half hour for April 26/27 1913. The next day, Leo Frank discovered Lee missed 4 half-hour punches on this same timecard, with the corresponding absences on the night of the murder (April 26) and the next early morning (April 27) the day after the murder of Phagan. Unanswered, Newt Lee never accounted for these 4 missed punches saying he punched the clock every half hour. Leo Frank told the police on 04-28-1913 about these four Newt Lee open discrepancies and submitted the timecard proof as defense exhibit 1 at the 1913 trial. Lee missed a punch at 10:00 PM and 11:30 O'Clock at night on April 26, and 12:30 AM and 2:30 O'Clock in the morning on April 27. Can anyone independently confirm these missed punches by the night watch from the brief of evidence, http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0074.jpg why was this information either suppressed for the defense or used against Leo Frank? The LF Wiki entry does not do enough to show Antisemitism was the root cause of Leo Frank's demise. Carmelmount ( talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP has changed the first sentence in the article to exclude the reference to antisemitism. The following are examples from reliable sources that show both the antisemitism and the attention the case attracted attention well beyond Georgia:
Dinnerstein p. xv. Dinnerstein writes, "One of the most infamous outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling in the United States occurred in Georgia in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. ... The Frank case, which eventually developed into one of the most talked-about injustices of the Progressive Era, served also to highlight the dilemnas and difficulties of the American South during that period."
Higham (1988) p. 185-186. Higham notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race. [italics are in the original text]"
Oney p. 462. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915, Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal."
It is my recollection that all of the above was included in the footnotes at one time but were trimmed when the aricle underwent a major rewrite as unnecessary. The material can be added back if folks think it is necessary to support the first sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
PS Checked some diffs and this version [18] contains the documentation -- see footnote 1. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A myriad of references to the Antisemitism in the 'Leo Frank Case' can be found in Leonard Dinnerstein's (1966) PhD dissertation http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation. The LF lead expresses Antisemitism weakly, it needs to be backed up with examples. The LF wiki entry needs to show Antisemitism was the cause of his framing and conviction, not the falsified evidence against him. Carmelmount ( talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The body of the article contained this sentence, "The Atlanta area public was outraged, in part because of what they saw as Slaton's conflict of interest: during Frank's trial Slaton had been made a partner in the law firm headed by Rosser, Frank's lead defense counsel at his 1913 trial." It was sourced to Dinnerstein pp. 123-124 and a similar statement was included in the lede. I have removed the material.
The source does in fact discuss a potential conflict of interest. It was mentioned in the context of a possible excuse Slaton could have used to disqualify himself from making a decision on Frank. Dinnerstein does not, however, on these pages or elsewhere make the link that the spontaneous demonstrations were, in any part, a reaction to this potential conflict of interest. Oney, likewise, does not make any such connection.
Absent a reliable source that connects the rioting with the perceived conflict of interest, it is OR for wikipedia to suggest that the two were related. Also, if someone wants to add the material back with the proper context in the proper place in the section, they can do so. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Erased from existence of Wikipedia the most powerful lawfirm in Georgia was called Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips (some of the company stationary with their name has survived and is available online), the 'Slaton' was lawpartner Governor John Marshall Slaton. The populist Tom Watson described the perceived gross conflict of interest in his Watson's Magazine (August, September and October 1915?) and Jeffersonian newspapers (1915, 1916, 1917?) as the Gov. Slaton "commuting the death sentence of his own client". Watson used the "disqualified status" of the Governer-lawpartner Slaton and his controversial commutation to whip up anger in his readership and further enrage the public by making them aware of what many believed was a treasonous betrayal by one of their own and the Jewish community therefore inciting Antisemitism and AntiJewish feelings.
Now that the doorway has been opened to Antisemitism, What's the consensus on Antisemitism was it non-existent or rampant in the south except for some isolated incidents. What do the news records of the period say to the amount of Antisemitism.
The ADL says "hang the Jew" was shouted outside into the court room windows, and so do other notable sources on the Leo Frank case. Numerous reliable sources have made this claim about Antisemitism in the Leo Frank Case can we please have an articulation of it? Shall we add Antisemitism to the article to replace Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, and the GA Supreme Court Case Archive filled with affidavits and statements about this lawfirms criminal behavior during the appeals?
What we are beginning to see is wikipedia is evolving into whoever can write the most about a subject and quote it in Wikipedia, becomes mainstream WIKIPEDIA. Shall we hire every professor in the country to write this way or that way on the LF case to make it the mainstream Wikipedia version? Does anyone see where wikipedia is going? Unreliable claims becoming Wikipedia mainstream like the Phagan Teeth mark fraud because numerous "reliable" authors wrote about it Dinnerstein, Oney, Melnick, Wilkes, Alphin and others. What's going on here?
The commutation likely had everything to do with the lynching of Leo Frank (LF), not Anti-Semitism, and you can't help but blame the public being angry that a man who gave a blue moon to Mary Phagan's eye got clemency for the crime. The Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court file of appeals includes a number of incriminating affidavits against Slaton by former National Pencil Company employees accusing Slaton of being involved or associated in trying to criminally get them to rescind their LF trial testimony. Never before talked about is the GA Supreme Court Case archive on LF, it is there the devils in the details. Carmelmount ( talk) 05:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a small issue, but I corrected the height of Frank based on Oney's work. The issue is reliable secondary sources versus primary sources and has been discussed to death -- both recently and the past. A while ago most references to primary sources were eliminated and there is no point in slowly adding them back. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on leaving the info box at 5'6" and adding to the footnote so it includes the Cornell info?
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link))-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Height 5'6" [1]
Notes
- 1. ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.
- (5'8" according to Cornell University. Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link))
The state's files on the case were lost (state and federal court records on LF all survived, including brief of evidence) and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.
Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein, and others make the conviction-overturning statement there were teeth bitemarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder and xrays were taken of Frank's teeth that didn't match them. There seems to be nothing about this recorded in the brief of evidence (police, doctors, medical examiners), Leo Frank's appeals (1913, 1914, 1915) or any Atlanta/Georgian newspapers. The citation comes from Pierre Van Paasen in 1964 about a claim in 1922. What do we do when a secondary source makes statements not supported or passing minimum scrutiny? 'To Number Our Days' by Pierre Van Paasen (1964), page 237 and line 27, and page 238.
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy. The unsigned warning was reinforced one night, or rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch.
X-ray photographs are unable to show teeth indentures on skin in 1913 and 2013. X-ray technology was not used in 1913, 1914 or 1915, on teeth anywhere in Georgia. No defense autopsy reports in brief of evidence mention teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or LF teeth x-rays, nor is it mentioned in any of numerous appeals or newspaper articles. Why are we trusting someone (P. Van Paasen) who said LF's appeals lawyer, said LF didn't have a trial yet. LF was not lynched on a train to prison work farm in June 1915 either. Head-on car wreck in 1922, with no scratches? What do we do when a statement does not pass minimum scrutiny, but is added in the lf wiki entry? Carmelmount ( talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
North Shoreman, Re your edit summary [23] "revert -- the source cited (Oney p. 647) specifically mentions 'Frank's dental X rays' and 'photograhps of the bite wounds' " — Could you give the excerpt from Oney p. 647 that includes these two phrases that you quoted, and any references that Oney gives for the excerpt? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sections of the Jewish community may well have been cautious about re-opening the case, but I am cautious about assuming that this feeling was as strong as this quote makes out, given that there was a lot written about the case in the 20th century e.g. Harry Golden, a leading Jewish journalist, wrote a book about the case in 1966, arguing strongly for Frank's innocence. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Paassen (presumably Paassen's 1964 book), and the corresponding part of Paassen's book that was provided by Carmelmount.
Comparing the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Van Paassen's book, with the excerpt that Carmelmount got directly from Van Paassen's book:
Oney might have thought that Van Paassen's memory got mixed up about what were X-ray photos and what were ordinary photos, and Oney may have been correcting Van Paassen's mistake. That would explain the selective quoting by Oney that didn't include quotes with the term "X-ray". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
All of the discussion concerning YOUR analysis of primary sources and YOUR analysis of Van Paassen's book are irrelevant. What is relevant is that ACTUAL RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES have accepted Van Paassen's claim regarding dental records as credible and NO RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES question it. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I went to a library and photocopied the part of the Van Paassen 1964 book on pages 237–8 that discussed the Leo Frank case. I compared it with Carmelmount's excerpt, word for word. With regard to the teeth marks part, Van Paassen's book was identical to that part of Carmelmount's excerpt. There were some minor transcription errors in other parts of Carmelmount's excerpt. Those transcription errors were also found in the excerpt that was at http://www.leofrank.org/steve-oney/.
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.
I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.
Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.
That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
From Oney p. 617, [27]
From Van Paassen pp. 237–8,
Oney misrepresented and misquoted Van Paassen's book regarding X rays.
Oney summarized his comments later in his book on p. 647, [28]
The corresponding material currently in the Wikipedia article is,
Before considering whether to do anything about this, I would like editors' thoughts on whether Oney misrepresented and misquoted what Van Paassen wrote. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)Bob is showing remarkable patience in staying on point. All of Carmelmount's arguments have been rejected in the past when made by a banned user and his/her numerous sock puppets. I have generally avoided going into detail and refuting Carmelmount's repetitive claims, but I am making a one-time exception to his/her latest effort.
Carmelmount: Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent.
Response: Conspiracy theory? So Oney, Dinnerstein, and law professor Wilkes have deliberately “manufactured fraud.” Of course this conspiracy theory is exactly the claim made by leofrank.org which attributes it to a Jewish conspiracy. Do you accept the Jewish conspiracy charge or is their some other reason why these people “manufactured fraud”.
Carmelmount: Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication.
Response: Not true. Wikipedia policy fully supports including information widely reported in reliable secondary sources.
Carmelmount: It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF.
Response: Bad idea. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. We have established in these discussions that no reliable secondary sources support your interpretation.
Carmelmount: If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame anti-Semitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes.
Response: So now the editors of this article are involved in your conspiracy. And the conspiracy is to find anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist? This is straight out of leofrank.org. In fact, the existence of anti-Semitism as a factor in the Leo Frank case is widely accepted by historians.
Carmelmount: If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors.
Response: The goal is to create an accurate article that adequately reflects the significant information included in reliable secondary sources. In your arguments you have failed to cite even one reliable secondary source.
Carmelmount: Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism.
Response: Not true. What was eliminated was the UNSOURCED claim that a belief in a conflict of interest was related to the spontaneous demonstrations in Atlanta after the commutation was announced. In fact, there is no objection (see “Slaton and Conflict of Interest” below) to including the material in the proper context. Slaton became a partner ONLY because he had an existing law firm that he could not operate while Governor. As Dinnerstein (page 124) states, “After the new law partners commenced operations, Slaton had nothing to do with the defendant: he shared neither the burdens of the work nor the rewards of the fee.” It should also be noted that Tom Watson actually offered to politically support Slaton if he would allow Frank to die.
There’s an interesting story there and I am fine with including everything from the reliable secondary sources.
Carmelmount: So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching?
Response: Good idea. We really do need to add further information to show the extent to which secondary sources discuss the role of anti-Semitism in the Frank case. It is interesting that in the Slaton section below that you call Watson a populist while ignoring the anti-Semitism and racism that was found throughout his writings. Higham (pp. 185-186) for example notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race."
Do you (Carmelmount) really disagree that referring to Jews as the "scum and dregs of the Parasite Race" is baltant anti-Semitism? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The absolute bottom line is a known hoax that should be called the 1964 Pierre Van Paassens fraud perpetuated by Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Melnick, Professor Wilkes (and other notable and reliable authors) perpetuate a known fraud about xray photographic proof concerning teethmarks, bitemarks, indentures, imprints, whatever you want to call vicious biting, on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder, and Photographic xray photos of Leo Frank's teeth and mouth disproving he strangled Phagan. Hopefully Verifiability is the highest God on wikipedia. Carmelmount ( talk) 06:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
bob i have no other choice but to agree to your proposal about the inclusion, im in the minority here about this and outnumbered. The world deserves to know it was a fraud perpetuated by numerous notable and "reliable" authors. Carmelmount ( talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(Editors new to the discussion are invited to comment in the above section on the proposal there.) -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
North Shoreman, How confident are you that the 5'6" value is correct? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" — If I understand your question correctly, there may not be the kind of evidence you are asking for the Cornell yearbook reputation of accuracy. Many, if not most, of the sources in Wikipedia don't have specific evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for example, another reliable source saying that the source in question has such a reputation. Here's an excerpt from WP:IRS.
As editors, it is up to us to judge whether a source is reliable for a specific purpose, in this case the height of Leo Frank. I expect that the Cornell senior class yearbook was written by a staff of Cornell seniors and perhaps under the supervision of one or more faculty members. The height of Leo Frank is contained in a systematic table of info for 572 Cornell seniors, where Frank is student #177 with height 5'8". [33] This seems like a reliable source for Frank's height.
Furthermore, we can check whether this 5'8" value of Frank's height is consistent with a group picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. [34] (Left click your mouse over the image to enlarge.) The students in the front row are Lasher 5'8", Peck 5'5½, Frank 5'8", Shaw 5'9", and Perry 5'10". In the picture, Frank is about the same height as Lasher 5'8". Frank is taller than Peck 5'5½". And Frank is shorter than Shaw 5'9" and Perry 5'10". The height of 5'8" for Frank in the Cornell yearbook student info tables is consistent with this picture.
The Oney and Lindemann sources give 5'6" for Frank's height. We don't know where they got this value and the value is not consistent with the picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. This 5'6" value is the height given in the info box of the Wikipedia article with the Oney and Lindemann references in a footnote. This I suggest we keep because Oney and Lindemann can be considered reliable sources in general. However, I think it is appropriate to add to just the footnote, the value 5'8" along with the Cornell senior class yearbook as a reference. ( Proposed addition to footnote.) -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 09:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I put in a dispute request:
There is a dispute on the Leo Frank article between 3 editors concerning Leo Frank's height. Steve Oney (2003) and Lindemann (1991) - both secondary sources - wrote in their books Leo Frank (LF) was 5'6" tall, but do provide any references for this information. There are two reliable sources that put 5'8" as Leo Frank's height, his 1906 Cornell University senior class year book (p344, p345), and his 1907 official U.S. passport (Ancestry.com). I am requesting that a foot note be inserted in the ref, about his height concerning two reliable sources, but Tom Northshoreman seems to be against the footnoting. Is a Cornell University college senior yearbook and U.S. passport considered a reliable source of information about a person's height? What do we do in a situation where a secondary source author makes errors that can be verified as errors with primary sources? I'm requesting a footnote be put in place on the Leo Frank article and need help with this dispute. Carmelmount ( talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a high quality and accurate encyclopedia. It is the principle of the matter that we use high quality and reliable sources. Secondary source authors are sometimes known to make errors, both Oney and Lindemann incorrectly reported Leo Frank's height. I am requesting we allow a footnote to the more reliable sources of Leo Frank's height from 1906 and 1907. If there are no objections, I would like to add the correct information. Carmelmount ( talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Heights of students in the front row of the Debate Club photograph on p. 281 of Cornell 1906 yearbook. The heights were obtained from the 1906 Cornell yearbook on the respective pages indicated in the table. Comparison of the students' relative heights in the photograph suggests Frank's height is more consistent with 5'8" than 5'6". Here's a copy of p.281 that is easier to view after left clicking your mouse over the image of that page. [38]
Herbert Lasher | Howard Peck | Leo Max Frank | Charles Frederick Shaw | Leslie Donald Perry | ||
height | 5–8 | 5–5½ | 5–8 | 5–9 | 5–10 | |
weight | 154 | 125 | 145 | 178 | 150 | |
pages | 348–9 | 352–3 | 344–5 | 354–5 | 352–3 | |
student # | 302 | 390 | 177 | 451 | 393 |
-- Carmelmount ( talk) 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I opened a section at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that Manson48 is now blocked. He's been editing since using IPs, both to talk pages and to make anti-Semitic attacks on editors. Dougweller ( talk) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm probably being a bit slow, but this doesn't seem to be sourced - where does it say that this admission wasn't enough to settle the issue? "The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue,". Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The 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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
"Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League."
SV, I see you've put this article back on your watchlist. That's fine by me, the more eyes the better, but a couple things: 1) Some of the edits you made do not have consensus. You know this. Please don't reinsert them until you get consensus. 2) Please join talk. You refused to reply to the points that were brought up, then left the article, and now return without a word. 3) I'm leaving in some of what you did, for example, that Frank had flirted with Phagan, though I think it's very bad editing, because right now it's just your opinion against mine. Can you say more about why you think that should be in the lead? IronDuke 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, please try to get some consensus for this. Or better yet: don't. It's making the article much, much worse. I can't tell you how horrified I was when I first saw it -- I assumed Machn must have done it. IronDuke 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
[moved by IronDuke from his talk page] [1]
ID, your stock-in-trade seems to be serial reverting. It leaves a person no response but to continue reverting too, but most people don't want to. You hadn't edited for five days. I restored the lead you'd removed at Leo Frank, and suddenly you're back, reverting twice so far, and you'd probably continue if I did. Here are your reverts in the last month of that material: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
It had been in there without objection since August, until you started reverting on November 11, and practically all your contribs there seem to be reverts. It's not acceptable to engage in the serial removal of other people's work, there or anywhere else, just because you personally dislike it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The lead is too long, has too much inflammatory POV language and goes on too much about the murder trial. It should not need cites if properly written, drawing on content below. This article is supposed to be about the man and the meaning of events, not just details of the trial. Parkwells ( talk) 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.[2]
Can someone explain what the spotlight is, how the lynching turned the spotlight on antisemitism or how it had anything to do with antisemitism? This sentence seems to be loaded with presumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenali ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Elaine Marie Alphin writes that seven members of the lynching party sat on the grand jury that was convened to identify and indict them. She's not an academic source, so I'm reluctant to rely on her alone for a contentious detail like this. Does anyone know whether the academic sources say this too? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Leo Frank, a Jewish-American businessman, was found guilty of the murder of a teenage girl in 1913 in Marietta, Georgia, and was subsequently lynched. Antisemitism is widely agreed to have been a factor, as was prejudice on the grounds that he came from New York and was seen as a Yankee capitalist.
The other murder suspect was a black man who worked with Frank and the murder victim. It was a plank of Frank's defense that this was too brutal to be a "Jewish crime," and was more likely to have been committed by a black suspect. Frank and his lawyers employed racist language against the black worker, just as others employed antisemitic language against Frank. The dispute is over whether the lead should mention this aspect of the case. See this version: "Frank and his lawyers resorted to stereotypes too: another suspect, Jim Conley—a factory worker who testified against Frank—was a "filthy, lying nigger," they said, just the kind who would commit such a brutish crime." [2]
Should this (or similar words) be included in the lead? Input from uninvolved editors would be particularly welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has gotten way off an encyclopedic approach and tone; it quotes too much from Tom Watson and other sensational news reports, seems to take pains to list all the gory details, and glosses over the larger meaning of the trial and social context. It is disappointing to see it turned into one that dwells on the sensational aspects of the trial. Three photos of the lynching are excessive; one is sufficient, so choose. Parkwells ( talk) 16:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Editors have overused quotes of newspaper accounts that were sensational and inflammatory. This is not a journalism article but an attempt to present a cooler account of what went on, with the benefit of material from academic researchers and the use of paraphrase, not lengthy quotes from participants. Parkwells ( talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with treating Frank and Phagan is equal characters in this article - the early sections should be about him in standard format. The trial and its aftermath was part of his life, not the whole thing. Parkwells ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The article exceeds WP guidelines and is nearly twice as long as recommended, largely due to the extensive detail about the murder and trial. It seems to want to retry the case. The trial can be covered in less detail; people should go to books if they want to engage in rethinking the whole trial. This is not supposed to be an extensive journalistic account, either. Parkwells ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So far I have discovered at least two copyright violations, in which content was copied word for word from sources and not quoted, nor was the author identified in the content of the article (not just the inline cite), per Wiki policy. This throws the integrity of the article into question, which has been worked on for a very long time by many editors and changed markedly.
1) In the lead, the phrase "a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women" is copied from Albert Lindemann's The Jew Accused, p. 239, without quotations. A few of his words were excluded, but it is unmistakably his work. The original is at (
http://books.google.com/books?id=YCugGyqkYBQC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false)
2)In the second paragraph of the description of the lynching, there is material copied nearly word for word from the NY Times report, as I show in quotes: - They tied "a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up." It was placed around his neck and slung over a branch of a large Georgia oak. He was turned to face the direction of the house Phagan had lived in, and was hanged at around 7 am. -
Some editor added the unsourced detail of the large Georgia oak; perhaps it's OR, as it did not appear in this part of the Times article, which can be viewed at (
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0CE4DD133FE233A2575AC1A96E9C946496D6CF.) The Times article was cited, but not quoted. It appears editors desire to use many journalistic details for color may have made them careless about avoiding copying without using quotations or proper sourcing.
Parkwells (
talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Leo Frank was a representative of Yankee capitalism in a southern city, with row upon row of southern women, often the daughters and wives of ruined farmers, 'at his mercy'—a rich, punctilitious, northern Jew lording it over vulnerable and impoverished working women.
There was no cry for mercy when the lynchers produced a piece of brown canvas, placed it around his waist, and tied it behind him. He wore an undershirt and a night shirt, and on the latter garment, over his heart, was embroidered a name which looked more like 'Lee' than Leo. ... He had been handcuffed, and they had brought with them a brand-new three-quarter-inch manila rope, which they tied in a hangman's knot, so as to throw his head back and his chin up. They swung him to that tree which came nearest to facing Mary Phagan's house, and he hung there, his body four feet from the ground. It was 7 o'clock." [11]
The lynchers tied a piece of brown canvas around his waist. He was otherwise wearing a nightshirt and undershirt, and was handcuffed. They tied a new three-quarter-inch manila rope in a hangman's knot so it would throw his head back and his chin up. It was placed around his neck and slung over a branch of a large Georgia oak. He was turned to face the direction of the house Phagan had lived in, and was hanged at around 7 am.
Here is some of the Wikipedia guidance on avoiding plagiarism. They note particularly that editors have to credit distinctive phrasing, and recommend using quotations and in-text attribution. [A problem may arise from:]
p. 144 of Wade: When Frank was found guilty...(ellipses are mine), Watson wrote, "Our Little Girl...has been pursued to a hideous death..." This is distinctive phrasing. The source later quotes Watson as saying Frank is part of the "Jewish aristocracy". These were Wade's selection of quotes from Watson. Use of them without in-text attribution to Wade may be a problem. Parkwells ( talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Parkwells, you're steaming in with a lot of criticism, not all of it appropriate. You say the article is twice as long as recommended, but at 5,800 words it's a perfectly normal length. You say there are copyright violations, but neither of the two examples you've given are examples of that. You say the article should be written as though it's a biography of Frank, with the trial and lynching just part of his life, but it's not a biography of Frank, who wasn't notable apart from the trial and lynching. You turn the lead into five paras, though LEAD makes clear that four is usually the upper limit. You removed an image because the website that hosts it says permission is required (as they often do), but in fact all images are PD in the United States if published before 1923.
You're also removing important details from the lead and elsewhere. Why, for example, would you not want the reader to know in the lead when she was killed? Why remove that she was strangled? Why remove the view of Frank (the rich Jew lording it over people) that seems to have caused the problem for him in the first place?
Criticism is welcome, but it needs to be measured and at least arguably accurate. It also needs to reflect our policies. Responding to it is time-consuming, but if it's ignoring policy it just means we're chasing our tails. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's talk again about the lead - to convey the issues of the trial and aftermath, the lead should refer to the issue of the overcrowded courtroom and the large crowd outside whose presence was seen to intimidate witnesses and the jury. It should identify Conley as an early suspect, not just someone who testified against Frank, especially because of Mann's 1982 voluntary statement under oath, which might also appear in the lead, as it supports the idea that Conley was guilty. Ending with the power of the prominent members of the lynch group (the buildings and streets in their name) suggests they were right, and made right by their success in life.[User:Parkwells|Parkwells]] ( talk) 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Parkwells, you wrote (quotation marks in the original):
In the next year, new material was made public. "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."
Following by a citation to Dinnerstein (pp. 114-115). It seems to be Dinnerstein you're quoting -- the same quote is in footnote 39. Is there a reason it's in quotation marks, but without attribution? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read the entire official trial testimony record provided in 'References' and there is not a single word, sentence or phrase that suggests the Lindemann quote in the intro is true. This inserted quote is playing divisive politics and is unfounded. Please, if the Leo Frank entry in Wikipedia is going to be turned into a Gentile vs. Jews ethnic race war, at least provide some balance from the prosecution side of the case. The entire Leo Frank entry wreaks of taking Frank's side. The ethnicity of Frank was never brought up by the prosecution, though Reuben Arnold claimed if Leo Frank were not a Jew he would never have been on trial which is not true.
His trial became the focus of powerful class and political interests. Raised in New York, he was cast as a representative of Yankee capitalism, a rich northern Jew lording it over vulnerable working women, as the historian Albert Lindemann put it.
Reference:
Closing Arguments of Counsel, Luther Rosser, Frank Hooper, Reuben Arnold and Hugh Dorsey. American State Trials V. X 1918. HernandoMaya ( talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Frank hired two Pinkerton detectives to help him prove his innocence.
Who were these two Pinkerton detectives? Harry Scott and ? HernandoMaya ( talk) 09:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Removed Find a Grave as a reference that is considered unreliable. Otr500 ( talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "Phagan's friend, 13-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, came forward to say that Frank had flirted with Phagan and had frightened her.[citation needed]" to "Phagan's friend, 13-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, came forward to say that Frank had flirted with Phagan and had frightened her. [13]" This provides a link to the images within an authentic Atlanta Journal of this specific report. Feel free to use the corresponding image alone, but giver credit to www.rarenewspapers.com
74.93.121.214 ( talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In regards to using Alphin, Elaine Marie. An Unspeakable Crime: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank. Carolrhoda Books, 2010 as a Wikipedia source. Reviews of her book on Amazon.com indicates she makes many mistakes in her book about the case and her research is very poor, can we really rely on her as a reliable source? HernandoMaya ( talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Wall of text quoting entire review collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this latest book on the Leo Frank Case (152 pages), author Elaine Alphin takes for her title a post-lynching judgment by the Mayor of Atlanta (James Woodward): "a just penalty for an unspeakable crime." But she has recast that harsh approval of Leo's Midnight Ride, and added, "The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank." This is clearly not a volume of subtleties and the reader is thus quickly informed of the writer's sympathies. It is mostly about the trials and tribulations of the accused and there is little (correct) about Mary Phagan herself. The book is aimed at young people, and Ms. Alphin notes that in all the literature on the case -- despite the abundance of teenagers at so many stages of the events -- there has not up to now been a retelling aimed for that audience. It is clearly written, with fine production values, with a large variety of vintage photographs, and rarely have they been reproduced so well. She is obviously entranced with this "miscarriage of justice" and has traveled widely and visited several of the major Archives - all are cited in the back along with the previous major books, and is so current that the recent PBS-TV Special ('The People v. Leo Frank') is mentioned. Some of the original material was of a salacious nature, but all is handled here tastefully. The major problem is that even high-schoolers are entitled to an accurate accounting of this iconic case, and that is where this latest publication falls short. The basic narrative of the crime, and its ultimate resolution at the end of the lynchers' rope, strikes our sensibilities to this day, and there are still many who would prefer that an innocent Leo Frank be the prime example of American justice gone wrong. But the Jury, in Georgia's longest trial, heard all of the evidence, and the author seems unaware that the Atlanta newspapers were an excellent source for the day-to-day testimony. As she notes, the stenographic Court Transcript has been lost for some fifty years. For reasons unknown, Ms. Alphin has Mary Anne Phagan born in Marietta, Georgia and her biological father also dying there. But Mary was born in Florence, Alabama, on June 1, 1899 (according to the census) and her father had died several months before she was born - she was a posthumous child. Fannie Phagan (Alphin wrongly calls her `Frannie' throughout) raised her youngest daughter and siblings as a single parent and did not (re-)marry John Coleman until 1912 - she was essentially raised without a father. When Mary did not return home by 7pm, her step-father would indeed look for her on the evening of April 26, 1913, but the family never "called the police" as is claimed here. They would learn of their daughter's death only after a night of waiting, 5:30 the next morning, from one of Mary's chums. We would not expect all material to be footnoted in a book like this, but the author (and her readers) would have benefitted from more explanatory Notes at the back. For example, on p. 11, it is claimed that Mary's body showed bitemarks on her shoulder when found. This is rather a unique statement and was not reported at the time - actually, it derives from one book ('To Number Our Days' by Pierre van Paassen) published years later, in 1964, describing a visit by that author to Atlanta in 1922. Van Paassen said these marks had been "x-rayed" and were still preserved in a court folder. But who could (then or now) x-ray such indentations in human flesh? And surely van Paassen's parallel claim (through lawyer Henry Alexander) that Leo Frank did not have a trial to overturn would make his report highly suspect. But Mrs. Alphin does not question her sources, simply quoting what seems beneficial on each occasion - Oney's book does the same with this incident (p. 617). Van Paassen would argue that Leo's dental records (which he also says he saw in 1922) did not match the bites in Mary's neck and hence he was innocent of the crime. But this is one man's word at best and does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny. Although this is (or should be) a case where the devil is in the details, they come thick and fast but are often unverified or wrong. Ms. Alphin states that Leo's father had retired by 1907 due to a railway accident, and that the family had their basic estate of $20,000 as a result of a financial settlement. However, there is no evidence for this claim, and the 1910 Census shows Rudolph Frank still working (as a salesman). Ms. Alphin does not give a source for this "accident" but it was only mentioned once, in a publication in 1947 by Burton Rascoe, who also gave no supporting details. When Rachel Frank (Leo's mother) testified at the trial, she explained her husband's absence by saying that he was too "nervous" to come to Atlanta and was broken down from his work. Several times, Ms. Alphin refers to Leo and his family as "relatively poor" (but he earned $150 per month as Superintendent of the National Pencil Co.); however, the record shows he had traveled to Europe twice (in 1905 and 1908). Leo's wealthy uncle, Moses Frank, is cited as having fought for the Confederacy, and this factoid is often mentioned in other books on the case, but it is not true and was only introduced (again without details) by one of Leo's lawyers (Reuben Arnold) in October of 1913. Leo would later deny it. [No Eulogies for Moses Frank make any mention of him being a Confederate Veteran] It is claimed that the Seligs were a "high society family" but Lucille's father was at the time a traveling salesman for the West Disinfecting Co., having earlier dealt in various liquor products. On p. 25, Lucille "announced her pregnancy" in the Spring of 1913, but no evidence from that period is offered. This remark apparently derives from Steve Oney's book (p. 85), where the event is instead dated months later to the early Winter of 1913, but leading to a miscarriage (cited Interviews of 1986 and 1998). Oddly, in all the voluminous correspondence between Leo and Lucille (and many other family members), there is not a single reference (oblique or otherwise) to this lost 'offspring' (a tragic result if true). Only 73 years later is this supposed 'miscarriage' mentioned. When one is truly immersed in a murder case, even decades after the fact, one can look at original documents with a new eye. For example, Ms. Alphin seems to have used some of the unpublished Pinkerton Reports generated by the NPCo.'s hiring of that detective agency. But Oney did so as well, and both report that two men in the factory, Ely Burdett and James Gresham, knew more than they were telling. These two indeed worked at the factory, but never testified; however, their names were actually Earl Burdett and James Graham. In a remarkable coincidence, their fathers were in the Forsyth Street building just minutes before Mary was killed. I could go on.... It is claimed that the ADL was founded as a result of Leo's lynching in 1915, but the newspaper backing up this assertion (illustrating the caption) is dated two years before, October 1913. Even then, the ADL did not state that it was established because of the crime, the trial, OR the lynching. Standard dates, such as the original Murder Indictment of May 24th (1913) and the lynching of Aug 17 (1915), are mangled and miscited. The Jury had to confront many other details, some of which are omitted here. For example, Newt Lee had been told the day before (by Leo himself) to report early for his watchman's duties on Saturday, 4pm instead of the usual 5. But when Newt dutifully appeared, on time and after confronting a locked door, Leo sent him away, telling him not to remain in the factory, and only come back at 6pm (an hour later than usual). Having said all of this, can we surmise more accurately than those who came before us, what really happened on Confederate Memorial Day in 1913? Solicitor Dorsey would argue that it was a crime of passion, that Mary stood up for her Southern honor, and that Leo violently reacted to her refusal. Was that scenario indeed the truth? And was Dorsey (and others) driven mainly by anti-Semitism? Even Steven Hertzberg, author of a well-regarded history of the Jews of Atlanta, exculpates him from this charge. Tom Watson's diatribes are mentioned and rightly excoriated, but Watson did not publish anything at all on the case until a year after the crime. And Jim Conley? Alphin makes him out to be a Machiavellian character, intelligent and articulate when he wanted, and folksy and charming at other times. Anyone who has studied the case for a while will surely acknowledge that Conley lied about several of his actions that day, but what was really being concealed? Did Jim bear a greater responsibility than he admitted, or was he instead the sole killer, lurking so close to his boss' office? Why did Leo not permit cross-examination after his own long-courtroom Statement - under Georgia Law, since 1868 (Title VI), it WAS allowed (unsworn), IF the defendant agreed. It is likely that the case will continue to be debated for a long time, even by anonymous reviewers. But those who argue it and present their best efforts on either side are encouraged to get the details right. First the facts, then the interpretations, not the other way around. HernandoMaya ( talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Alas, anyone who works in publishing knows that proper "fact checking" is a lost art, and physical books are as prone to errors as the world wide web. Let us look then at some "facts" that the publisher of 'An Unspeakable Crime' has (presumably) verified: On p. 59, the remarks of Wm Mincey are, shall we say, "misrepresented." Rosser had claimed he would implicate Conley with a confession from the day of the crime, but Mincey never testified, and the author's claim of "several women" to confirm it evaporated. So who were these women? The author doesn't tell us. Even Leo's lawyers realized that Mincey made it up and refused to put him under oath. On p. 76, it is argued that Mrs Selig (Lucille's mother) was ill and hence did not discuss the girl's murder (at home, over the weekend). But Mrs Selig played Bridge and Poker on those 3 successive nights (for hours) and the illness was never mentioned or specified at the time. So what's the source - only a lawyer's convenient claim? And Lucille's supposed pregnancy? That was only mentioned by a family member in 1998, some 85 years later. Does that make it true? On p. 131, the author claims that the modern musical 'Parade' was written in the year 2000. Yet it opened on Broadway (in NYC) in 1998. Ah, but the Publisher must have checked... and yet the information is still wrong (by two years). The book claims (on pp. 48 & 138) that Leo Frank was formally indicted for murder on May 23, 1913. But he was indicted on May 24th. So who is right? Guess. The author states that Alonzo Mann died on March 19, 1985 - only off by a day - he died on March 18th. Is the author or publisher aware that Mann lied about his age (by a full year) when he enlisted in the US Army? I don't think they bothered to check. On p. 111, the author quotes a letter from Leo's niece Eleanore Stern without commenting on how remarkable it must have been for a 3-year-old child to write it. No one checks birthdates any more? On p. 120, the author even gets wrong the date of the lynching, claiming it occurred on the morning of August 16, 1915. Who was asleep at the switch? The correct date of Aug 17 is then given on p. 139. Teenagers must like to have a choice... Why the author repeatedly calls Leo Frank "relatively poor" remains a mystery. He was the head of a factory that employed 170 people and was the highest paid man there ($150 per month). There are three pages of Source Notes (at the back), but no formal footnoting whatever. As a result, we have on p. 49 the unsourced claim that Jim Conley was on the chain gang twice, and once for attempted armed robbery. But Conley's court records were introduced at the Trial, and this is not supported. It would have been helpful for the reader to know where the author got her "facts." There are many other examples of this basic problem in the book, and they may even seem petty to some. But if a work tries to be fair and accurate, it demands the highest standards, for both young and old. Even teenagers should learn, by example, how to do history right. And that includes being careful with sources, citations, and the use of scholarly material. We don't want people to think (on p. 10), because of some presumed 'fact checking department,' that Mary Phagan was really born in Marietta, Georgia. Census records (and Phagan family documents) show clearly that she was born in Florence, Alabama. This case can indeed be discussed at the dinner table, and on the Internet as well. But first comes the hard part: genuine historical research. Then we can make up our minds as to the likely culprit. First the facts, then the interpretations. |
Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, 47, October 1996, pp. 98–109. HernandoMaya ( talk) 03:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop allowing "Jewish" to be referred to as an ethnicity. It is a religion. No group other than Christians (or Nazis) refer to it as an ethnic race. There are Jews from every portion of the world of many different ethnic backgrounds and every race. Then, if you allow it to continue to be listed on this bio as his religion, consider placing the religion of each person on every other bio provided in Wikipedia. The article itself states his religion repeatedly as a cause of action. There is no need to repeat it in the bio unless religion is to become a standard requirement of all bios on Wikipedia. 68.38.19.120 ( talk) 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Tom Stoneman
I think we may be missing what is almost unarguably the central point of this case, which is that multiple (almost all) scholars see this case as a huge miscarriage of justice. I think this point needs to be made in the body of the article, and that the lead must also reference it. When I have a couple seconds to rub together, I'm going to make a stab eat that. IronDuke 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
On October 16, 1915, two months to the night after Frank was taken from the Milledgeville prison, members of the Knights of Mary Phagan burned a gigantic cross on top of Stone Mountain, reportedly inaugurating a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The group was led by William J. Simmons and attended by 15 charter members and a few aging survivors of the original Klan.[60]
Woodrowvitz ( talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I just un-did some anti-Jewish vandalism from this page; please consider locking to prevent repetition. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyroneking ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A fresh mound of human excrement was found in the elevator, though the significance was not recognized until after the trial.[13], quoth the article. No significance is ever indicated. Rwflammang ( talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
In regards to the mound of excrement, I've found two websites that state it's significance. Can someone verify the validity of these findings, and if correct, incorporate them in to the article?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/
StrangeApparition2011 ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)StrangeApparition2011
Steve Oney described the evidence as literally "the shit in the shaft" and it ended up being the definitive proof Leo Frank did not kill Mary Phagan. Carmelmount ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Immediate Aftermath", someone inserted a big section of Original Research, including comments about the Lindberg baby, citing it to page 81 of Blakeslee. That page can be found here: [14] and does not contain references that support the content. Stop re-inserting the OR and read the sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.195 ( talk) 23:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is in dire need of a major edit. I am currently collecting the mass body of evidence that, not only convicted Leo Frank of this brutal murder, but convinced no less than five higher courts to deny his petitions for reprieve.
A sampling of this convincing evidence that is, oddly enough, completely overlooked in this article, includes testimony by a pastor who stated he had overheard Conley confess his crime to another man, only to later admitted that this statement was false and that he offered the statement because Frank's defense attorneys "were just handing money out".
Also a parade of women testified about his reputation concerning “his attitude toward women,” and witness after witness replied, “bad.”
Most damaging was that of sixteen-year-old Dewey Hall who told jurors that she saw Frank talking to Mary Phagan “sometimes two or three times a day” and that she also saw him “put his hand on her shoulder.”, contradicting Frank's statement that he didn't know her. Another witness reported seeing Frank and a female worker slip into a dressing room and “stay in there fifteen to thirty minutes.”
A young friend of Mary's, George Epps, said that Mary said that Frank had made advances towards her. Several other employees at the factory also claimed they had seen Frank flirt with various females at the plant. Nina Formby, the owner of a "rooming house," stated that Frank had made repeated calls to her on the day of the murder attempting to reserve a room for himself and a girl.
C.B. Dalton, a railroad carpenter, testified he had met with several women in the basement of the National Pencil Factory while Jim Conley watched out for him, and that he had seen numerous women come to the factory to visit Frank.
Monteen Stover, testified that she had arrived at the factory at 12:05 PM to receive her pay, had waited in Frank's office for him for five minutes, then left. This contradicted Frank's statement that he had been in his office the entire time in which the murder took place.
R.B. Barrett, a machinist at the factory, provided new information when he said he had found Mary Phagan's empty pay envelope and bloodstains near a machine on the factory's second floor.
This is just a sampling of the testimony that proved Leo Frank, not only lied about everything, but that he was bribing witnesses to falsify their testimony.
Of course his attornys had the ultimate come back to this extraordinary evidence: "Arnold told jurors that “if Frank hadn’t been a Jew he never would have been prosecuted."
I shall return to repair this article just as soon as I finishing collecting the remaining volumes of evidence. Manson 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.leofrank.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your tone nor your assumptions, especially considering the fact that I have already done exactly what you suggest. I gave a sampling here of some of the evidence I intend to add, including a source. If you take issue with anything that I've stated thus far, then attack the specifics of those issues, rather than harp on what others have done, or what you think I'm about to do. I'm very well aquainted with Wiki's policies, and I intend to follow them to the letter. Any edits, I intend to make to this article, I will post on this page first for everyone's considerations. I do not find where any of the issues I've mentioned thus far have been addressed in the current article. Rather any of those are redundant is left to be seen, but I can assure you that none could be considered original research. As for sources, I will post those along with the proposed edits. Manson 20:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs)
I urge people reading this discussion to take a look at two of Manson48's wonderful "contributions" to Wikipedia: [15] and [16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServioHumara ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The only things of value on http://www.leofrank.org/ are the images and primary source libraries. Some of the site content reads like an amateur Tom Watson reborn in the 21st century. Any website claiming Leo Frank made "four separate and distinct murder confessions" can not be considered reliable or mainstream. I have not seen the LF Supreme Court of Georgia records anywhere but there. Carmelmount ( talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually all of the trial evidence I posted on this page came from this site: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankaccount.html http://www.leofrank.org/wrongly-accused-falsely-convicted-wantonly-murdered/, which I found posted above. I will admit that some of the statements posted above from the www.leofrank.org/ website are extreme. However, I don't see how this disqualifies any links to qualifying sources available from the website. I wish to include a mention of the prosecutor's closing argument. It is worthy of mention if only because it was an historical record of length at the time. Manson 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 ( talk • contribs)
This odious site http://www.leofrank.org/confession/ belonging to Manson48 is claiming Leo Frank confessed to murdering Mary Phagan on the witness stand. Could you talk more about the weaknesses of the prosecutions case in the LF entry? Carmelmount ( talk) 20:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Tom, what do we do about trial brief of evidence State's exhibit B (April 28, 1913), Leo Frank claiming the arrival time of Phagan's on April 26, 1913, was at 12:05 to 12:10 PM, maybe 12:07 PM. And then Leo Frank at the trial August 18, 1913, saying he was "unsconsciosly" at the toilet at 12:05 to 12:10 PM to rebut Monteen Stover saying Leo Frank's office was empty during that time. Isn't that the crux of the brief of evidence? We only have one more year to make the Leo Frank case an Antisemitic conspiracy, and right now it doesn't fit that description. Carmelmount ( talk) 14:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Newt Lee was supposed to punch his time card on the clock every half hour according to Leo Frank. Is it possible Newt Lee knew something about the Phagan strangulation? On Sunday the day of the murder discovery, Leo Frank in front of the police, Newt Lee and NV Darley said Newt Lee's timecard was punched correctly every half hour for April 26/27 1913. The next day, Leo Frank discovered Lee missed 4 half-hour punches on this same timecard, with the corresponding absences on the night of the murder (April 26) and the next early morning (April 27) the day after the murder of Phagan. Unanswered, Newt Lee never accounted for these 4 missed punches saying he punched the clock every half hour. Leo Frank told the police on 04-28-1913 about these four Newt Lee open discrepancies and submitted the timecard proof as defense exhibit 1 at the 1913 trial. Lee missed a punch at 10:00 PM and 11:30 O'Clock at night on April 26, and 12:30 AM and 2:30 O'Clock in the morning on April 27. Can anyone independently confirm these missed punches by the night watch from the brief of evidence, http://www.leofrank.org/images/georgia-supreme-court-case-files/2/0074.jpg why was this information either suppressed for the defense or used against Leo Frank? The LF Wiki entry does not do enough to show Antisemitism was the root cause of Leo Frank's demise. Carmelmount ( talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP has changed the first sentence in the article to exclude the reference to antisemitism. The following are examples from reliable sources that show both the antisemitism and the attention the case attracted attention well beyond Georgia:
Dinnerstein p. xv. Dinnerstein writes, "One of the most infamous outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling in the United States occurred in Georgia in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. ... The Frank case, which eventually developed into one of the most talked-about injustices of the Progressive Era, served also to highlight the dilemnas and difficulties of the American South during that period."
Higham (1988) p. 185-186. Higham notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race. [italics are in the original text]"
Oney p. 462. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915, Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal."
It is my recollection that all of the above was included in the footnotes at one time but were trimmed when the aricle underwent a major rewrite as unnecessary. The material can be added back if folks think it is necessary to support the first sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
PS Checked some diffs and this version [18] contains the documentation -- see footnote 1. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A myriad of references to the Antisemitism in the 'Leo Frank Case' can be found in Leonard Dinnerstein's (1966) PhD dissertation http://www.archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCase1966Dissertation. The LF lead expresses Antisemitism weakly, it needs to be backed up with examples. The LF wiki entry needs to show Antisemitism was the cause of his framing and conviction, not the falsified evidence against him. Carmelmount ( talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The body of the article contained this sentence, "The Atlanta area public was outraged, in part because of what they saw as Slaton's conflict of interest: during Frank's trial Slaton had been made a partner in the law firm headed by Rosser, Frank's lead defense counsel at his 1913 trial." It was sourced to Dinnerstein pp. 123-124 and a similar statement was included in the lede. I have removed the material.
The source does in fact discuss a potential conflict of interest. It was mentioned in the context of a possible excuse Slaton could have used to disqualify himself from making a decision on Frank. Dinnerstein does not, however, on these pages or elsewhere make the link that the spontaneous demonstrations were, in any part, a reaction to this potential conflict of interest. Oney, likewise, does not make any such connection.
Absent a reliable source that connects the rioting with the perceived conflict of interest, it is OR for wikipedia to suggest that the two were related. Also, if someone wants to add the material back with the proper context in the proper place in the section, they can do so. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Erased from existence of Wikipedia the most powerful lawfirm in Georgia was called Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips (some of the company stationary with their name has survived and is available online), the 'Slaton' was lawpartner Governor John Marshall Slaton. The populist Tom Watson described the perceived gross conflict of interest in his Watson's Magazine (August, September and October 1915?) and Jeffersonian newspapers (1915, 1916, 1917?) as the Gov. Slaton "commuting the death sentence of his own client". Watson used the "disqualified status" of the Governer-lawpartner Slaton and his controversial commutation to whip up anger in his readership and further enrage the public by making them aware of what many believed was a treasonous betrayal by one of their own and the Jewish community therefore inciting Antisemitism and AntiJewish feelings.
Now that the doorway has been opened to Antisemitism, What's the consensus on Antisemitism was it non-existent or rampant in the south except for some isolated incidents. What do the news records of the period say to the amount of Antisemitism.
The ADL says "hang the Jew" was shouted outside into the court room windows, and so do other notable sources on the Leo Frank case. Numerous reliable sources have made this claim about Antisemitism in the Leo Frank Case can we please have an articulation of it? Shall we add Antisemitism to the article to replace Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, and the GA Supreme Court Case Archive filled with affidavits and statements about this lawfirms criminal behavior during the appeals?
What we are beginning to see is wikipedia is evolving into whoever can write the most about a subject and quote it in Wikipedia, becomes mainstream WIKIPEDIA. Shall we hire every professor in the country to write this way or that way on the LF case to make it the mainstream Wikipedia version? Does anyone see where wikipedia is going? Unreliable claims becoming Wikipedia mainstream like the Phagan Teeth mark fraud because numerous "reliable" authors wrote about it Dinnerstein, Oney, Melnick, Wilkes, Alphin and others. What's going on here?
The commutation likely had everything to do with the lynching of Leo Frank (LF), not Anti-Semitism, and you can't help but blame the public being angry that a man who gave a blue moon to Mary Phagan's eye got clemency for the crime. The Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court file of appeals includes a number of incriminating affidavits against Slaton by former National Pencil Company employees accusing Slaton of being involved or associated in trying to criminally get them to rescind their LF trial testimony. Never before talked about is the GA Supreme Court Case archive on LF, it is there the devils in the details. Carmelmount ( talk) 05:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a small issue, but I corrected the height of Frank based on Oney's work. The issue is reliable secondary sources versus primary sources and has been discussed to death -- both recently and the past. A while ago most references to primary sources were eliminated and there is no point in slowly adding them back. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 18:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts on leaving the info box at 5'6" and adding to the footnote so it includes the Cornell info?
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link))-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Height 5'6" [1]
Notes
- 1. ^ Oney 2003 p. 10. Lindemann 1991 p. 244.
- (5'8" according to Cornell University. Class of 1906. The Senior Class Book. pp. 344–5, student #177.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link))
The state's files on the case were lost (state and federal court records on LF all survived, including brief of evidence) and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body.
Alphin, Melnik, Oney, Dinnerstein, and others make the conviction-overturning statement there were teeth bitemarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder and xrays were taken of Frank's teeth that didn't match them. There seems to be nothing about this recorded in the brief of evidence (police, doctors, medical examiners), Leo Frank's appeals (1913, 1914, 1915) or any Atlanta/Georgian newspapers. The citation comes from Pierre Van Paasen in 1964 about a claim in 1922. What do we do when a secondary source makes statements not supported or passing minimum scrutiny? 'To Number Our Days' by Pierre Van Paasen (1964), page 237 and line 27, and page 238.
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her... continuing on page 238... body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy. The unsigned warning was reinforced one night, or rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch.
X-ray photographs are unable to show teeth indentures on skin in 1913 and 2013. X-ray technology was not used in 1913, 1914 or 1915, on teeth anywhere in Georgia. No defense autopsy reports in brief of evidence mention teethmarks on Phagan's neck and shoulder, or LF teeth x-rays, nor is it mentioned in any of numerous appeals or newspaper articles. Why are we trusting someone (P. Van Paasen) who said LF's appeals lawyer, said LF didn't have a trial yet. LF was not lynched on a train to prison work farm in June 1915 either. Head-on car wreck in 1922, with no scratches? What do we do when a statement does not pass minimum scrutiny, but is added in the lf wiki entry? Carmelmount ( talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
North Shoreman, Re your edit summary [23] "revert -- the source cited (Oney p. 647) specifically mentions 'Frank's dental X rays' and 'photograhps of the bite wounds' " — Could you give the excerpt from Oney p. 647 that includes these two phrases that you quoted, and any references that Oney gives for the excerpt? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sections of the Jewish community may well have been cautious about re-opening the case, but I am cautious about assuming that this feeling was as strong as this quote makes out, given that there was a lot written about the case in the 20th century e.g. Harry Golden, a leading Jewish journalist, wrote a book about the case in 1966, arguing strongly for Frank's innocence. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Paassen (presumably Paassen's 1964 book), and the corresponding part of Paassen's book that was provided by Carmelmount.
Comparing the excerpt from Oney's book that quotes Van Paassen's book, with the excerpt that Carmelmount got directly from Van Paassen's book:
Oney might have thought that Van Paassen's memory got mixed up about what were X-ray photos and what were ordinary photos, and Oney may have been correcting Van Paassen's mistake. That would explain the selective quoting by Oney that didn't include quotes with the term "X-ray". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 00:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
All of the discussion concerning YOUR analysis of primary sources and YOUR analysis of Van Paassen's book are irrelevant. What is relevant is that ACTUAL RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES have accepted Van Paassen's claim regarding dental records as credible and NO RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES question it. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I went to a library and photocopied the part of the Van Paassen 1964 book on pages 237–8 that discussed the Leo Frank case. I compared it with Carmelmount's excerpt, word for word. With regard to the teeth marks part, Van Paassen's book was identical to that part of Carmelmount's excerpt. There were some minor transcription errors in other parts of Carmelmount's excerpt. Those transcription errors were also found in the excerpt that was at http://www.leofrank.org/steve-oney/.
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.
I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.
Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.
That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
From Oney p. 617, [27]
From Van Paassen pp. 237–8,
Oney misrepresented and misquoted Van Paassen's book regarding X rays.
Oney summarized his comments later in his book on p. 647, [28]
The corresponding material currently in the Wikipedia article is,
Before considering whether to do anything about this, I would like editors' thoughts on whether Oney misrepresented and misquoted what Van Paassen wrote. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)Bob is showing remarkable patience in staying on point. All of Carmelmount's arguments have been rejected in the past when made by a banned user and his/her numerous sock puppets. I have generally avoided going into detail and refuting Carmelmount's repetitive claims, but I am making a one-time exception to his/her latest effort.
Carmelmount: Bob, the problem here is vaster than the perpetuation of an indisputable 1964 manufactured fraud about teeth marks on Phagan's neck and shoulder by notable authors like Oney, Dinnerstein, Aphin, Wilkes and others, who use this fraud trying to convince people into thinking LF was indisputably innocent.
Response: Conspiracy theory? So Oney, Dinnerstein, and law professor Wilkes have deliberately “manufactured fraud.” Of course this conspiracy theory is exactly the claim made by leofrank.org which attributes it to a Jewish conspiracy. Do you accept the Jewish conspiracy charge or is their some other reason why these people “manufactured fraud”.
Carmelmount: Wiki editors here feel that because a "reliable" or "notable" author writes something it should be cherry picked and included in the article if it favors LF, even if there is no question it is an unverifiable fabrication.
Response: Not true. Wikipedia policy fully supports including information widely reported in reliable secondary sources.
Carmelmount: It should be mandatory that any editor who wants to contribute to the LF wiki entry should be required to learn the LF trial brief of evidence and appeals, and end this practice of just adding anything they find in secondary sources favoring LF.
Response: Bad idea. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. We have established in these discussions that no reliable secondary sources support your interpretation.
Carmelmount: If the end goal of the group of editors who hang out on the LF entry is to blame anti-Semitism for Leo Frank's conviction and lynching use real evidence not fabrications, frauds, rumors and hoaxes.
Response: So now the editors of this article are involved in your conspiracy. And the conspiracy is to find anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist? This is straight out of leofrank.org. In fact, the existence of anti-Semitism as a factor in the Leo Frank case is widely accepted by historians.
Carmelmount: If the goal of this same group is to make Leo Frank innocent of the murder then use secondary source materials backed up by original evidence, not unverifiable claims by authors.
Response: The goal is to create an accurate article that adequately reflects the significant information included in reliable secondary sources. In your arguments you have failed to cite even one reliable secondary source.
Carmelmount: Recently put down the memory hole in the LF wiki entry is the fact about Governor John Marshall Slaton being a lawpartner of Luther Rosser in the lawfirm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, the firm representing Leo Frank at the trial. Now no one will know that it was this gross conflict of interest that lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, not Antisemitism.
Response: Not true. What was eliminated was the UNSOURCED claim that a belief in a conflict of interest was related to the spontaneous demonstrations in Atlanta after the commutation was announced. In fact, there is no objection (see “Slaton and Conflict of Interest” below) to including the material in the proper context. Slaton became a partner ONLY because he had an existing law firm that he could not operate while Governor. As Dinnerstein (page 124) states, “After the new law partners commenced operations, Slaton had nothing to do with the defendant: he shared neither the burdens of the work nor the rewards of the fee.” It should also be noted that Tom Watson actually offered to politically support Slaton if he would allow Frank to die.
There’s an interesting story there and I am fine with including everything from the reliable secondary sources.
Carmelmount: So with that down the memory hole, I guess the next step is to insert Antisemitism as the cause of Leo Frank's lynching?
Response: Good idea. We really do need to add further information to show the extent to which secondary sources discuss the role of anti-Semitism in the Frank case. It is interesting that in the Slaton section below that you call Watson a populist while ignoring the anti-Semitism and racism that was found throughout his writings. Higham (pp. 185-186) for example notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race."
Do you (Carmelmount) really disagree that referring to Jews as the "scum and dregs of the Parasite Race" is baltant anti-Semitism? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The absolute bottom line is a known hoax that should be called the 1964 Pierre Van Paassens fraud perpetuated by Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Melnick, Professor Wilkes (and other notable and reliable authors) perpetuate a known fraud about xray photographic proof concerning teethmarks, bitemarks, indentures, imprints, whatever you want to call vicious biting, on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder, and Photographic xray photos of Leo Frank's teeth and mouth disproving he strangled Phagan. Hopefully Verifiability is the highest God on wikipedia. Carmelmount ( talk) 06:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
bob i have no other choice but to agree to your proposal about the inclusion, im in the minority here about this and outnumbered. The world deserves to know it was a fraud perpetuated by numerous notable and "reliable" authors. Carmelmount ( talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(Editors new to the discussion are invited to comment in the above section on the proposal there.) -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
North Shoreman, How confident are you that the 5'6" value is correct? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Re "Questions of whether it is a primary or secondary source aside, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the Cornell yearbook of 1906 meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source? What is this yearbook's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" — If I understand your question correctly, there may not be the kind of evidence you are asking for the Cornell yearbook reputation of accuracy. Many, if not most, of the sources in Wikipedia don't have specific evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," for example, another reliable source saying that the source in question has such a reputation. Here's an excerpt from WP:IRS.
As editors, it is up to us to judge whether a source is reliable for a specific purpose, in this case the height of Leo Frank. I expect that the Cornell senior class yearbook was written by a staff of Cornell seniors and perhaps under the supervision of one or more faculty members. The height of Leo Frank is contained in a systematic table of info for 572 Cornell seniors, where Frank is student #177 with height 5'8". [33] This seems like a reliable source for Frank's height.
Furthermore, we can check whether this 5'8" value of Frank's height is consistent with a group picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. [34] (Left click your mouse over the image to enlarge.) The students in the front row are Lasher 5'8", Peck 5'5½, Frank 5'8", Shaw 5'9", and Perry 5'10". In the picture, Frank is about the same height as Lasher 5'8". Frank is taller than Peck 5'5½". And Frank is shorter than Shaw 5'9" and Perry 5'10". The height of 5'8" for Frank in the Cornell yearbook student info tables is consistent with this picture.
The Oney and Lindemann sources give 5'6" for Frank's height. We don't know where they got this value and the value is not consistent with the picture of Frank in the Cornell Debate Club. This 5'6" value is the height given in the info box of the Wikipedia article with the Oney and Lindemann references in a footnote. This I suggest we keep because Oney and Lindemann can be considered reliable sources in general. However, I think it is appropriate to add to just the footnote, the value 5'8" along with the Cornell senior class yearbook as a reference. ( Proposed addition to footnote.) -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 09:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I put in a dispute request:
There is a dispute on the Leo Frank article between 3 editors concerning Leo Frank's height. Steve Oney (2003) and Lindemann (1991) - both secondary sources - wrote in their books Leo Frank (LF) was 5'6" tall, but do provide any references for this information. There are two reliable sources that put 5'8" as Leo Frank's height, his 1906 Cornell University senior class year book (p344, p345), and his 1907 official U.S. passport (Ancestry.com). I am requesting that a foot note be inserted in the ref, about his height concerning two reliable sources, but Tom Northshoreman seems to be against the footnoting. Is a Cornell University college senior yearbook and U.S. passport considered a reliable source of information about a person's height? What do we do in a situation where a secondary source author makes errors that can be verified as errors with primary sources? I'm requesting a footnote be put in place on the Leo Frank article and need help with this dispute. Carmelmount ( talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a high quality and accurate encyclopedia. It is the principle of the matter that we use high quality and reliable sources. Secondary source authors are sometimes known to make errors, both Oney and Lindemann incorrectly reported Leo Frank's height. I am requesting we allow a footnote to the more reliable sources of Leo Frank's height from 1906 and 1907. If there are no objections, I would like to add the correct information. Carmelmount ( talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Heights of students in the front row of the Debate Club photograph on p. 281 of Cornell 1906 yearbook. The heights were obtained from the 1906 Cornell yearbook on the respective pages indicated in the table. Comparison of the students' relative heights in the photograph suggests Frank's height is more consistent with 5'8" than 5'6". Here's a copy of p.281 that is easier to view after left clicking your mouse over the image of that page. [38]
Herbert Lasher | Howard Peck | Leo Max Frank | Charles Frederick Shaw | Leslie Donald Perry | ||
height | 5–8 | 5–5½ | 5–8 | 5–9 | 5–10 | |
weight | 154 | 125 | 145 | 178 | 150 | |
pages | 348–9 | 352–3 | 344–5 | 354–5 | 352–3 | |
student # | 302 | 390 | 177 | 451 | 393 |
-- Carmelmount ( talk) 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I opened a section at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that Manson48 is now blocked. He's been editing since using IPs, both to talk pages and to make anti-Semitic attacks on editors. Dougweller ( talk) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm probably being a bit slow, but this doesn't seem to be sourced - where does it say that this admission wasn't enough to settle the issue? "The effort was led by Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer, though Mann's testimony was not sufficient to settle the issue,". Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The 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)
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)
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)
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)