![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have added a section as named above based on the reorganization plan mentioned above. This following is the material that it replaced and expanded on (I had removed it some time ago):
Shortly after Frank's conviction, a nationwide campaign to exonerate the condemned man was inaugurated by Adolph Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, and A.D. Lasker, an "advertising genius", through a "journalistic crusade" in the Times, and a series of public relations "stunts" by Lasker.[29][30] Both Ochs and Lasker were motivated by their conviction that anti-Semitism had poisoned Frank's trial. They failed, however, to comprehend the role that class and regional tensions played in the Frank case, and how their involvement, and the perception of northern interference, would only make matters worse.[29][72] According to author Steve Oney, "They and their supporters in New York and other urban areas did not take into account how their efforts would come across in the South or in working-class heartland neighborhoods."[30] On October 12, 1913, an article which ran on page six of the New York newspaper The Sun carried the headline "Jews Fight to Save Leo Frank".[73] The article argued that “prejudice did finally develop against Frank and…the Jews,” but that “Frank’s friends” were responsible. "The anti-Semitic feeling was the natural result of the belief that the Jews had banded to free Frank, innocent or guilty. The supposed solidarity of the Jews for Frank…caused a Gentile solidarity against him."[72][73] One year after Frank's conviction, "the agrarian rebel", and future U.S. Senator, Thomas E. Watson laid into Ochs and Lasker with a populist response. Watson, described as "a Georgia lawyer and polemicist of... superior rhetorical gifts and inexhaustible vitriol" argued through his weekly publication The Jeffersonian that, quoting Oney, "self-appointed elites representing money and privilege had decreed that a child laborer's life was not equal in value to that of a Jewish industrialist."[30] The Frank case was about more than racism and anti-Semitism. "It was also about the conflicting perceptions of the nation's haves and have-nots, the chasm between the people who appear to run things and those who feel they lack a say."[30]
I think the new version has a better sense of what followed what (i.e. the Sun article was written before Ochs and Lasker began their efforts) and gave a better context for the overall journalistic picture. I've also expanded on the discussion of antisemitism and its close (inseparable?) connection to economic and social issues. I am going to move the criticism section to follow this new section (as proposed in the reorganization plan) and I am then done with any major rewrites.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk) 01:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
PS I struck out the moving of the criticism section. I'm not sure that it isn't fine where it is but I won't object if anyone else wants to move it as originally proposed.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
01:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The following was removed from the lede with the explanation that it was too detailed:
By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. The defense also resorted to racial stereotypes, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character.
These are the problems I have with these deletions:
1. Conley, certainly the most significant figure in the article after Frank and Phagan, is now totally absent from the lede.
2. The evidence issues relating to the trial are no longer mentioned in the lede. A major purpose of the large rewrite was to include this info in the article. Based on the article space this info now occupies, it would seem that this should be in the lede.
3. The reference to racial stereotypes has been eliminated. Some mention of this has been in the article for years, but only in relation to the defense's use of racially charged language. I had added balance in both the article and the lede. It seems to be an important enough point.
I don't think the lede is an accurate reflection of the article without this info. Perhaps someone can give a shot of adding back a streamlined version of the material removed. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In the section 'Police investigation', who is the 'friend of Phagan's' who was initially arrested? I don't own a copy of Oney. Akld guy ( talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
All of the information needed to clear this up may be found in the transcript of the Coroner’s Inquest which has been digitized and preserved [ HERE]. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
User Tom (North Shoreman) repeatedly demands consensus for material offered by others, yet feels free as a bird completely rewriting the article (while it is "protected" no less) to his own POV without it, and the only consensus he will accept for material offered by others is a pro-Frank consensus. Any editors who begin to form any consensus which appears to deviate from the pro-Frank narrative are subject to accusations of sockpuppetry from a number of pro-Frank meatpuppets who seem to show up here just for that very purpose. The irony is appalling. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — 64.134.98.223 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The archive bot removed the GA review from the talkpage, and - being a bot - is not being selective in when or which discussions to archive. As this talkpage is very active at the moment, and there are occasionally comment sections created that are distracting from the purpose of building the article, I have disabled the bot. All editors are encouraged to archive as appropriate. When the talkpage settles down the bot can be restored. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
SilkTork says,
"By all accounts he was given an inadequate trial (though it is quite normal for trials from that date not to be up to the standards of modern trials), so we will never know the truth of his guilt, but what we do know is the impact it had, and that's why we have an article on it."
That is not true. Only the pro-Frank "scholars" promote that idea. If we want to rely only upon pro-Frank authors, the article loses nutrality.
Frank's last appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in the denial of a writ of habeas corpus sought by Frank's lawyers. The Supreme Court's summation of that decision appears as follows:
"Taking appellant's petition as a whole, and not regarding any particular portion of it to the exclusion of the rest,-dealing with its true and substantial meaning, and not merely with its superficial import,-it shows that Frank, having been formally accused of a grave crime, was placed on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, with a jury lawfully constituted; he had a public trial, deliberately conducted, with the benefit of counsel for his defense; he was found guilty and sentenced pursuant to the laws of the state; twice he has moved the trial court to grant a new trial, and once to set aside the verdict as a nullity; three times he has been heard upon appeal before the court of last resort of that state, and in every instance the adverse action of the trial court has been affirmed; his allegations of hostile public sentiment and disorder in and about the court room, improperly influencing the trial court and the jury against him, have been rejected because found untrue in point of fact upon evidence presumably justifying that finding, and which he has not produced in the present proceeding; his contention that his lawful rights were infringed because he was not permitted to be present when the jury rendered its verdict has been set aside because it was waived by his failure to raise the objection in due season when fully cognizant of the facts. In all of these proceedings the state, through its courts, has retained jurisdiction over him, has accorded to him the fullest right and opportunity to be heard according to the established modes of procedure, and now holds him in custody to pay the penalty of the crime of which he has been adjudged guilty. In our opinion, he is not shown to have been deprived of any right guaranteed to him by the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States; on the contrary, he has been convicted, and is now held in custody, under ‘due process of law’ within the meaning of the Constitution.
The final order of the District Court, refusing the application for a writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed." 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Conley appeared before a grand jury for the murder, but was not indicted. This statement in the lede is false, Conley never went before a grandjury. Grandjury indicted Leo Frank on May 24th, not 23rd. This statement "Conley gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be tried in 1914 and found guilty" is false, Conley never went to trial as an accessory after the fact, he pleaded guilty and because he helped Atlanta police solve the Phagan murder was given a reduced sentence of 1 year. He was released after 10 months for good behavior.
Invinciblegnatfly (
talk)
06:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you for making these corrections more inline with reliable secondary sources. Continuing a discussion about the lede, what would be more elucidating and notable to mention about the case, is that Conley neither testified at the Coroner's Inquest (where some very specific details of Leo Frank's lascivious impropriety was testified about, review the Journal, Georgian and Constitution) that resulted in the 7 man tribunal having voted unanimously (7 to 0) to bind over Leo Frank to the grandjury for murder, nor did Conley testify at the grandjury tribunal where Frank was unanimously indicted (21 to 0) that had several Jews as jurymen (review Oney and Lindemann). The article suggests that Conley as an admitted accessory-after-the-fact was the central source of circumstantial evidence and testimony as to why Leo Frank was convicted, but this is not entirely true and only part of the picture. The accusations about Leo Frank's character for lasciviousness at the Coroner's Inquest and later Monteen Stover's testimony contradicting Leo Frank's murder alibi at both the grand and petit jury, where also very significant factors in building a case against Frank. Ohio Northshoreman Tom and Texas Tony Stewart (the part owners of the Leo Frank article), have worked aggressively to keep mention of the Coroner's inquest out of the Leo Frank article, even though it is discussed in detail by several reliable secondary sources of the case (Golden, Phagan Kean, Brown, and others). Both the lede and main body of the article should mention the Coroner's Inquest because those revelations of Frank's licentious behavior would again come out at the trial, when: Dorsey would direct examine more than a dozen girls, "Is Leo Frank's Character for Lasciviousness Bad?" they all testified with a resounding "YES"! Dorsey was not able to bring up the issue of Leo Frank's character in this manner, without the defense having brought up the issue first (review Oney). Thus it was the defense that opened up this door for Dorsey. This was a major part of the prosecutions case, showing a real pattern that Frank (who was a married man) exhibited the kind of behavioral patterns of an immoral sexually aggressive pedophilia that strongly linked him to the rape and strangulation-murder of Mary Phagan.
Lawyer Tom Watson Brown mentions Leo Frank's visit to the metal room when the murder occurred "Mary Phagan arrived in Frank's second-floor office shortly after noon on Saturday to collect her pay, was lured to the metal room by Frank and was there assaulted and murdered. During the time of
the assault, Monteen Stover arrived at Frank's office at 12:05, checked out both offices and found them empty and then left precisely at 12:10." and Georgia Law Professor Donald Wilkes publishes a segment of Leo Frank's trial statement in Flag Pole Magazine that solves who murders Mary Phagan in the men's toilet of the metal room, where her body was found by Jim Conley. Leonard Dinnerstein mentions this issue in his PHD dissertation about Leo Frank's trial statement, but omits it from his book, "The Leo Frank Case".
Can we find a place for putting this trial statement quote from Wilkes (brackets are for emphasis to help the reader understand the context of Leo Frank's statement), since it is so significant "Now gentlemen [of the Jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock [noon on Saturday, April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [12:46 p.m.] when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [at the rear of the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of the inner office [at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room at the rear of the second floor between 12:05pm and 12:10pm on April 26, 1913]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it (Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, Brief of Evidence, 1913).", Leo Frank reconfirms he was in the metal room at the time the prosecution theorized Phagan was killed there in
Atlanta Constitution March 9, 1914.
Invinciblegnatfly (
talk)
16:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
::AKLD, You might be confusing where: (1.) the nightwatchman Newt Lee and then first-responders (Atlanta police) found Mary Phagan's body dumped at the rear of the National Pencil Company basement between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on April 27, 1913, with (2.) where Conley stated he had initially found Mary Phagan's dead body shortly after she was strangled by Leo Frank in the metal room (located at the back of the second floor) on April 26, 1913.
::::Do we state in the Leo Frank article that everything from every person was "claimed" or "alleged" by each person? Conley didn't just "claim", he stated in sworn testimony at the trial and in his final affidavits -- the ones he no longer modified -- that what he was saying was the truth or at least the main thrust of what happened. The prosecution's theory was that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room at the very time Frank "claimed" he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office (12:05pm - 12:10pm). On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank changed his murder alibi on the witness stand and explained why Monteen Stover had found his office empty between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, by saying he had "unconsciously" gone to the men's toilet in the metal during this exact time to urinate. Prior to Frank's newfangled admission, when the prosecution asked Conley where he found the dead body of Mary Phagan after Leo Frank confessed to having assaulted her in the metal room, Conley stated he found Phagan in the men's toilet area of the metal room. So think about that for a full minute, Leo Frank changed his alibi about never having left his office when Mary was alone with him there (12:05 pm - 12:10pm), by placing himself at the very place the prosecution built the entire case of time and place she had been murdered (in the metal room). Ponder that for a moment, and consider that Phagan's hair was found with dried blood on the lathe in the metal room and blood was found on the floor diagonal to the entry way of the men's toilet. Consider how the forensic evidence and Conley's circumstantial evidence played directly with Monteen Stover's testimony and Leo Frank response to his alibi inconsistencies being put into question. So yes, from the prosecutions point of view, Leo Frank threaded the needle's eye of their case and solved the murder. From the point of view of the Georgia Supreme Court who ruled the evidence presented at the Leo Frank trial sustained his guilt, Leo Frank solved the murder of Mary Phagan. From the point of view of Governor Slaton's commutation order that said on the very last paragraph of the very last page that he was sustaining the guilty verdict of the trial jury, presiding judge and rejected appeals, he was also sustaining Leo Frank's guilt. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, not absolving Leo Frank of guilt, also sustains Leo Frank's guilt. Leo Frank is still officially guilty under the law, but his defenders have all repeated each others academic dishonesty and poor research in creating an artificial consensus that he was "wrongfully convicted" and therefore "innocent".
Invinciblegnatfly (
talk)
15:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There were several images removed from the article during the GA, mainly due to copyright reasons. These images are probably not actually copyright, but we didn't have time to confirm whether they met the criteria of being in the public domain (i.e., published before 1923). The three main ones deleted from Commons were Luther Rosser, Hugh Dorsey, and William Smith. There were others removed, including Frank sitting at trial, Tom Watson, Adolph Ochs, and Fiddlin' John Carson. It might have been that some in this latter group were removed simply for not being notable enough to include a picture, not for copyright reasons, but I want to make sure for each so we add them back in if we can ascertain their copyright status. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to add those pictures back. DopeyBoB ( talk) 11:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A link to The American Mercury website was removed from the article by MarkBernstein here [1] without him understanding the context. The text was not promoting the website, rather referencing the source from ADL article.
Websites supporting the view that Frank was guilty of murdering Phagan emerged around the centennial of the Phagan murder in 2013. [1] [2] The Anti-Defamation League issued a press release comdemning what it called "misleading websites" from "anti-Semites...to promote anti-Jewish views". [3]
I have reverted the removal and opened this topic up for discussion. DopeyBoB ( talk) 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth noting the following paragraph from the Good Article review (see "Review before rewrite" > Fail):
Two prominent anti-Leo Frank sources are not used (theamericanmercury.org and leofrank.org), and this is understandable as they are single purpose sources - however it is permitted to use details from such sites as appropriate per WP:BIASED in order to give a balanced account. I don't feel that the omission of those sites impacts on this GA criteria; I am mentioning them here to indicate that when looking to balance the article, it should not be felt that details from those sites (facts or opinion) should be suppressed. It is acceptable to attribute opinions to them as examples of differences of opinion - this can help strengthen an article: when readers are presented openly with both sides of an argument, including extreme views, they can see the points of both sides, and reasonable readers will discount inappropriate views. Unreasonable readers will form their opinions anyway, so suppressing extreme views will not sway them, but will create doubts in the minds of reasonable readers (why have these views been withheld from us?).
Note also that the articles linked to are from 2014 and 2015, so these are recent articles linked to as an illustration of interest in the case from those who believed he was guilty in the wake of the lynching centennial. The content of the posts does not need to be unbiased or reliable, it's only there to show that there were some who disagreed with the consensus among major scholars of the case and had websites arguing their point of view. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 08:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we all understand Mark's concern, and we thank him for being vigilant; however, as pointed out above, the link abides by policy, is used to support a statement in the article, and has consensus. I have restored it as the general principle behind the widely accepted WP:BRD essay, is that if an editor makes a bold edit which is reverted, the onus is on them to open a discussion and get consensus before restoring the edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Online version of a newspaper originally founded by H. L. Mencken in 1924. Most articles in the History category are on the topic of Leo Frank.
I'm not familiar with this article, but being familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I'm a little concerned that this article's lead is disproportionately lengthy at present. I'd recommend that it get cut back somewhat to a more manageable size. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan, in Atlanta, Georgia. His legal case, and lynching two years later, became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding anti-Semitism.
Born to a Jewish-American family in Texas, Frank was raised in New York and there earned a degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University before moving to Atlanta in 1908. Marrying in 1910, he involved himself with the city’s Jewish community and was elected president of the Atlanta chapter of the B'nai B'rith, a Jewish fraternal organization, in 1912. Although antisemitism was not locally widespread, there were growing concerns regarding child labor at factories owned by members of the Jewish community. One of these children was Phagan, who worked at a factory owned by the National Pencil Company, where Frank was also employed. Phagan was raped and killed in the factory’s cellar on April 26, 1913. Two notes, apparently written by Phagan, were found beside her body, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. Over the course of their investigations, the police arrested five men, including Lee, Frank, and Jim Conley, a janitor at the factory.
On May 24, Frank was indicted on the charge of murder, with the case opening at Fulton County Superior Court on July 28. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Conley – who many historians consider the real culprit of the murder – which alleged that Frank regularly met with women in his office for sexual relations. A guilty verdict was announced on August 25. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals; their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence from capital punishment to life imprisonment. The case had attracted national press attention, with many deeming the conviction a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled antisemitism and hatred toward Frank; a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor’s mansion to protest the commutation. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of armed men and lynched at Marietta, Phagan’s hometown. The new governor vowed to punish the lynchers, who included prominent Marietta citizens, although nobody was charged.
Various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the case over the years, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted, and Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
I replaced the first Citation Needed tag under the Leo Frank sub-section and cited the following lines:
The sentence in question was Frank described his married life as happy.
Leede states = "Phagan was raped and killed in the factory's cellar on April 26, 1913." This was the defense's version of where the murder occurred at trial, and their theory was rejected by the trial jury. The prosecution's theory was that Phagan was raped and killed in the metal room, 2 floors above from the cellar. The prosecution convinced the jury of their theory and Frank was convicted. His conviction was upheld by all appeals courts. Why is the failed defense's version of the case made to appear as a fact? DopeyBoB ( talk) 07:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Leede states = "His legal case, and lynching two years later, attracted national attention and became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism." Someone unfamiliar with the case might read "his legal case and <emphasis on loaded word> lynching" ... <emphasis on ending with loaded word> "antisemitism", implicitly that these were all lopsided sectarian divisions askew against Frank. However, defense relied heavily on anti-Black racism to play to racial fears of Whites (racial concerns), and outside newspaper attacks against Georgia (regional) were in play during appeals. How might this sentence be reformed to bespeak the sectarianism as double-sided and not over simplified as one-sided. DopeyBoB ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It only reflects the opinion of the majority of editors of this article. There is no unanimity on the subject. Gulbenk ( talk) 21:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the Pinkertons or Burns. I think this might be worth adding to the Police investigation section. I don't see this mention in the latest GA review, so I'm not sure why it isn't there. It seems worthy enough of at least a sentence or two.
We don't say that Frank initially claimed he didn't know Phagan, but tried to implicate Gantt based on accusations of a prior relationship. The article does mention "a late Monday meeting called by Frank in which he tried to implicate Gantt”. But perhaps we can expand on this.
The blood stains found on Conley's shirt turned out to be rust. We mention that the police looked for blood and found none, but we could mention this as well.
Minola McKnight also isn't mentioned in the article. Supposedly, she claimed to be "tortured" at the police station, claimed Frank said he wanted to kill himself, and admitted the murder to Lucille. A 2010 version of the article gives her 3 paragraphs, but the current one doesn't mention her at all!
There were also a few things that were originally brought up by a GBH sock, but still merit attention.
The lead says about Conley: He gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be found guilty and sentenced in 1914, and was the prosecution's main witness against Frank in the murder trial. Conley wasn't found guilty, but plead guilty. Perhaps this could just say he was sentenced, and leave out "found guilty [and]".
Another quote from the lead on the murder notes: There were two notes next to Phagan, which appeared to be written by her, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. If "at first" is added to make it "which at first appeared...", it might be a bit clearer that they appeared to be written by her at first, but then it became apparent that they were instead written by Conley. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The salient points you brought up for discussion would definitely add more quality context to the article. Is there any reason why you don't pursue adding these details to the article? DopeyBoB ( talk) 22:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and commented out the monuments, spouse, parents, and relations lines from the infobox in this edit. As I noted in the comment, I will delete this text soon if there is no objection. I want to delete unnecessary information already in the body of the article as the infobox was very long previously.
For the lead, we currently have this as our final paragraph:
Various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the case over the years, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime.
This paragraph abruptly shifts from media to the consensus and pardon. It also mentions books written on the case, but doesn't list any books. My suggestion is to move the last two lines to the end of paragraph 4 and reorder them, then elaborate on paragraph 5 with major books. Paragraphs 4 and 5 would look like this:
The case attracted national press, with many deeming the conviction a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled antisemitism and hatred toward Frank; a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion to protest the commutation. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of armed men and lynched at Marietta, Phagan's hometown. The new governor vowed to punish the lynchers, who included prominent Marietta citizens, although nobody was charged. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
Various media productions have been inspired by the case, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. Major books on the case include The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein, And The Dead Shall Rise by Steve Oney, and The Murder of Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, the grand niece of the murder victim.
Let me know if you have any feedback. I'll make the changes if there is no objection. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In this edit I removed parenthetical text stating that Phagan ate her last meal of cabbage and biscuits at 11:00 a.m. This statement was disputed in the past, under the argument that 30-45 minutes after 11:00 Phagan was still in her house as she left around 11:45 and thus must have been murdered at least an hour after the meal. Coleman's testimony says that Phagan woke up "about 11 o'clock and had breakfast right afterwards" which would put it slightly after 11:00. The parenthetical text made it seem as though it was 11:00 exactly. I think the text is unnecessary and it is sufficient to simply say that the prosecution's medical witness determined that the cabbage had been in the stomach 30-45 minutes. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I nominated this article for Featured Article status and came up short after a long and arduous review spanning over four months. I will be on a wikibreak over the rest of the holidays and into 2017, but I encourage anyone interested to review the article for further improvements, particularly regarding removal of unnecessary content and adding sources where needed, and renominate the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The statement "Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.", appears to be redundant in the lede. Not all students of the Leo Frank case believe him to be wrongly convicted. Many believe him to be guilty. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 01:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
The title says that he was convicted in murder, it doesn't add at the same place that later it was found out that it was all a plot against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
While making the last edit, I noticed there was a 2016 RfC that removed the Religion parameter from the infobox. This article formerly had Frank's religion of Judaism in this box, although it is no longer there. We could do without it, but it seems like it should be considering the importance of Frank's faith to the Phagan case. Please feel free to weigh in on whether we should leave as is or try to get another template with it back in. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 13:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This editor has twice deleted this sentence from the 1st paragraph of the lede:
Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
He/she states it is unsourced. As anyone who follows this article knows, this sentence is more than adequately discussed and sourced in the body of the article. As anyone who has read the entire lede can easily see, there are no footnotes in the lede -- a conscious decison made as the article was improved. As WP:LEADCITE states:
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
If Professor feels there should be footnotes in the lede, the case needs to obtain consensus here. It seems that zeroing in on this single sentence is another POV attack similar to the ones that have gone on for years by a number of sock puppets. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The statement should be removed it's non NPOV and it misleads people about the historical facts surrounding this case. Which those who defend Frank (such as the ADL) conveniently leave out, who are unfamiliar . --
Justforthefun17 (
talk)
17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Who are these researchers? Do they have a conflict of interest to this case? Why do they omit the evidential fact Frank's legal team and his family were caught trying to bribe witnesses and fabricate evidence to frame his two African-American workers? who unlike Frank would of never have gotten a trial for those charges, let alone fair one. If we are going to refer specifically to "racial bias", why is it never fully scrutinised, the "racial bias" against African Americans in the Dixie South, that Frank tried to exploit by attempting to implicate those men for the Mary Phagan's murder and rape?
Under normal circumstances anybody who had done what Frank was accused (and found guilty) of doing to Mary Phagan would of been executed. yet somehow he managed to dodge the death penalty. These "researchers" fail to deduct that is perhaps the more likely reason Frank was lynched. Anger from the public that he managed to dodge the maximum sentence that many suspected was due to influence from Frank's very wealthy and influential family. I've seen articles on wiki where people are labelled "supremacist", "antisemite", "racist", "holocaust denier" , "conspiracy theorist" nonchalantly with very little to no rational justification to why that is allowed, to justify those obviously bias introductions. Yet somebody who was convicted (and had a trial) avoiding the maximum penalty for raping, torturing and murdering an innocent child, somehow its "fair" for bias editors and sources be used to portray him as a victim of civil injustice, yet anything else that suggests otherwise is refuted and instantly discredited. -- Justforthefun17 ( talk) 18:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Just wish to amplify the rather limited data concerning Alonzo Mann's years kept secret testimony about Jim Conley's apparent blame of Mary Phagan's assault and murder. Hereon cited from the " http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu" web site. 77.127.36.11 ( talk) 08:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
"March 4, 1982 - Alonzo Mann, in failing health, signed an affidavit asserting Leo Frank’s innocence and Jim Conley’s guilt. He admitted he had seen Conley carrying the limp body of Mary Phagan on his shoulder near the trapdoor leading to the basement on April 26, 1913. Conley had threatened to kill him if he ever told anyone what he had seen. He did go home and tell his mother, who advised him to keep quiet. After Frank’s conviction, his parents still kept him quiet, saying it would do no good to come forth after the verdict. He was telling the story now to unburden his soul. He had actually tried to tell the story several times before, but no one had paid any attention. He had even gotten into a fight with a fellow soldier in World War I when he tried to assert Frank’s innocence. He took several lie detector tests while telling his story to a group of reporters for The Tennessean, a newspaper in Nashville, TN. The tests indicated Mann was telling the truth.
March 7, 1982 - The Tennessean ran the story of Alonzo Mann’s confession.
November 10, 1982 - Alonzo Mann repeated his story in a videotaped statement in Atlanta.
January 4, 1983 - Based largely on Alonzo Mann’s testimony, the Anti-Defamation League submitted an application for a posthumous pardon for Leo Frank to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.
December 22, 1983 - the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the motion for a pardon, the reason being that while Alonzo Mann’s testimony might incriminate Jim Conley, it did not conclusively prove the innocence of Leo Frank.
March 11, 1986 - the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles finally issued a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank, based on the state’s failure to protect him while in custody; it did not officially absolve him of the crime."
Unfortunately, the Leo Frank Wikipedia page does not include a little-known fact about the Frank case: Mary Richards Phagan (1899-1992), sister-in-law and namesake of the murder victim, went public with her denunciation of the grave injustice done to Leo Frank, and declared her support for his posthumous pardon, in two newspaper interviews in December 1983. [1]
When the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles initially denied a pardon to Leo Frank, neither it nor the petitioners may have been aware of this fact; had they known about Mary Richards Phagan's belief in Frank's innocence, I believe the parole board might have granted the pardon in the first place, instead of in 1986.
Having read Steve Oney's book, And The Dead Shall Rise, I noticed that among those persons he interviewed during the process of researching and writing it, Mary Richards Phagan was conspicuous by her absence, so the above fact was not mentioned therein. Even if he did not interview her, the interview she gave to the Marietta Daily Journal would still have been available to him from that newspaper's archives. A glaring omission from an otherwise superb history of the Leo Frank case.
For further reading, I recommend my essay, "Why The Leo Frank Pardon Is Important," by Richard Mamches. It can be viewed online at www.jahsp.org, in the section under American Jewish History.
-- 2600:1700:3BE0:5A60:256D:363C:C734:BC75 ( talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Leo Frank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I hope someone will make this easy fix on my behalf:
In the section on "Abduction and Lynching," please change "175-mile (282 km) trip" to "125-mile (200 km) trip."
The distance from Marietta to Milledgeville penitentiary is about 125 miles (200-201 km), not 175 miles (282 km) as stated. That is also about the distance one could cover in seven hours, traveling at a top speed of 18 mph. If it were 175 miles, it would take almost ten hours at that speed.
My source is the Google Maps mileage reported between Marietta and the Milledgeville penitentiary along two "blue highway" routes that are largely unchanged over the years, which I checked after a swift calculation of how many miles one could drive in seven hours at a speed of 18 mph.
Thank you! Timkens ( talk) 00:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The distance from Marietta to Milledgeville is about 125 miles (201 km), not 175 miles (282 km) as stated in the section on the abduction and lynching. That is also about the distance one could cover in seven hours, traveling at a top speed of 18 mph. If it were 175 miles, it would take almost ten hours at that speed.
I hope someone will make this easy fix on my behalf. Since this is apparently a controversial article, I would need more past editing credits to be able to edit it myself.
Timkens ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
According to MapQuest.com the distance from Milledgeville to Marietta is roughly 120 miles. At a top speed of 18 miles an hour, the shortest path would take around 6 to 6.5 hours. Reportedly, one of the vehicles in the caravan of vigilance committee entourage had a flat tire halfway during the midnight ride back, resulting in a pause of the journey. Keep in mind they claimed to have taken backroads and many of the streets at the time weren't paved, thus 7 to 8 hours from the Milledgeville penitentiary to Sheriff William Frey's farm in South East Marietta makes sense. Having left their pickup point at 11pm, would place them at their destination at around 7:00 am, presumably. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 06:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@ TonyMorris68:, see the response below. Anything we add to the article must have published sources meeting WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"His trial, and lynching two years later, attracted national attention and became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism."
I think, at minimum, this sentence should at least include the fact that he was convicted, in between "trial, and lynching" as it misleads the reader to believe that this is a simple matter of "revenge" anti-semitism. I also think that the sentence should include the idea that Frank's conviction was upheld by the Georgia Appeals Courts, the (Federal) Supreme Court, a Georgia Prison Commission, until Frank was released by Commutation of his sentence by the Governor of Georgia. The problem with this idea is that it will be more difficult to do, and would require a lot more wordsmithing and discussion. But, at minimum, the idea that there was a substantive amount of legal process involved before Frank was released and then murdered should be included in the Lede. I'd do it myself, right now, but would like to open the suggestion to some discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 ( talk) 23:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is an article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the Marker commemorating lynching to be rededicated. Rjluna2 ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it would help readers, and do more good than harm, of the title were changed to Lynching of Leo Frank. That's really the central topic. If he hadn't been lynched it would be a small and little-read article.
This was proposed casually 7 years ago (Archive 4) but there was no discussion.
Anyone have a problem if I change it? deisenbe ( talk) 01:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a minor change, I suggest you submit a formal move request. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Leo Frank was not convicted due to anti semitism. 4 of the jurors were Jewish (Source?), and every single juror voted him guilty. There are also no mentions of the supposed anti semetic death threats occurring outside of the court in the newspapers or the official legal documents. This article is heavily biased and parts need to be re written.
Criminal justice student here. Have studied this case for years.
Not only did several factory girls previously under employment by Frank testify regarding his bad character, but there was forensic evidence (blood, hair) that Mary Phagan was murdered on the second floor in the machine room adjacent to Frank's office. Frank also broke his only alibi of never leaving his office on August 18th, 1913, where he stated on the witness stand that he may have had an unconscious visit to the men's toilet where he would have passed Mary's workstation at the exact time and the exact location that Mary Phagan died. This statement by Frank came after a witness friendly to frank - 14 year old Monteen Stover - testified that she came to collect her pay on that fateful afternoon only to find Leo Frank's office empty between that exact same time segment from 12:05 pm through 12:10 pm on April 26, 1913. His cover story put him right at the scene of the murder at the exact time it happened. Mary Phagan's autopsy was consistent with the blood stains and hair found on the lathe - there was evidence in the autopsy that Mary had fell and hit her head on something before she died - and this is exactly what the witness James Jim Conley states Frank said when Frank got the help of Conley to dispose of the body.
Frank was also incidentally caught tampering with Newt Lee (the night watchman's) time card. Frank's house maid, Minola McKnight testified how she heard Frank confess to his wife Lucille Selig that he didn't know why he'd murder. This sheds light on why Lucille Selig ordered in her will not to be buried next to her husband, even though a grave plot already existed next to Frank's headstone. One can visit the Mount Carmel cemetery themselves and ask if the plot is empty. They will tell you that it is. (Lucille Selig ordered to be cremated and her ashes scattered in a field).
The fact that the Supreme Court rejected Frank's appeals, and that Frank was the only Jew lynched on US soil, and the fact that none of the original documents mention the supposed anti semetic death threats points to Frank being convicted because of the evidence against him, not because he was Jewish. Many Jews and non-Jews in the Old South intermarried and one of Hugh Dorsey's law firm partners was Jewish - so it is unlikely that he would have been motivated by anti-semitism. I encourage those interested in this case to check out the original documents themselves as they are now public access and uploaded to the internet. To assume there's some grand anti semetic conspiracy going on to this day that's preventing every legal jurisdiction (including the Supreme Court) over the past century from exonerating Frank is absurd. 95.144.255.47 ( talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
No comment. Job Esop ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2019 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have added a section as named above based on the reorganization plan mentioned above. This following is the material that it replaced and expanded on (I had removed it some time ago):
Shortly after Frank's conviction, a nationwide campaign to exonerate the condemned man was inaugurated by Adolph Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, and A.D. Lasker, an "advertising genius", through a "journalistic crusade" in the Times, and a series of public relations "stunts" by Lasker.[29][30] Both Ochs and Lasker were motivated by their conviction that anti-Semitism had poisoned Frank's trial. They failed, however, to comprehend the role that class and regional tensions played in the Frank case, and how their involvement, and the perception of northern interference, would only make matters worse.[29][72] According to author Steve Oney, "They and their supporters in New York and other urban areas did not take into account how their efforts would come across in the South or in working-class heartland neighborhoods."[30] On October 12, 1913, an article which ran on page six of the New York newspaper The Sun carried the headline "Jews Fight to Save Leo Frank".[73] The article argued that “prejudice did finally develop against Frank and…the Jews,” but that “Frank’s friends” were responsible. "The anti-Semitic feeling was the natural result of the belief that the Jews had banded to free Frank, innocent or guilty. The supposed solidarity of the Jews for Frank…caused a Gentile solidarity against him."[72][73] One year after Frank's conviction, "the agrarian rebel", and future U.S. Senator, Thomas E. Watson laid into Ochs and Lasker with a populist response. Watson, described as "a Georgia lawyer and polemicist of... superior rhetorical gifts and inexhaustible vitriol" argued through his weekly publication The Jeffersonian that, quoting Oney, "self-appointed elites representing money and privilege had decreed that a child laborer's life was not equal in value to that of a Jewish industrialist."[30] The Frank case was about more than racism and anti-Semitism. "It was also about the conflicting perceptions of the nation's haves and have-nots, the chasm between the people who appear to run things and those who feel they lack a say."[30]
I think the new version has a better sense of what followed what (i.e. the Sun article was written before Ochs and Lasker began their efforts) and gave a better context for the overall journalistic picture. I've also expanded on the discussion of antisemitism and its close (inseparable?) connection to economic and social issues. I am going to move the criticism section to follow this new section (as proposed in the reorganization plan) and I am then done with any major rewrites.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk) 01:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
PS I struck out the moving of the criticism section. I'm not sure that it isn't fine where it is but I won't object if anyone else wants to move it as originally proposed.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
01:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The following was removed from the lede with the explanation that it was too detailed:
By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. The defense also resorted to racial stereotypes, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character.
These are the problems I have with these deletions:
1. Conley, certainly the most significant figure in the article after Frank and Phagan, is now totally absent from the lede.
2. The evidence issues relating to the trial are no longer mentioned in the lede. A major purpose of the large rewrite was to include this info in the article. Based on the article space this info now occupies, it would seem that this should be in the lede.
3. The reference to racial stereotypes has been eliminated. Some mention of this has been in the article for years, but only in relation to the defense's use of racially charged language. I had added balance in both the article and the lede. It seems to be an important enough point.
I don't think the lede is an accurate reflection of the article without this info. Perhaps someone can give a shot of adding back a streamlined version of the material removed. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In the section 'Police investigation', who is the 'friend of Phagan's' who was initially arrested? I don't own a copy of Oney. Akld guy ( talk) 00:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
All of the information needed to clear this up may be found in the transcript of the Coroner’s Inquest which has been digitized and preserved [ HERE]. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
User Tom (North Shoreman) repeatedly demands consensus for material offered by others, yet feels free as a bird completely rewriting the article (while it is "protected" no less) to his own POV without it, and the only consensus he will accept for material offered by others is a pro-Frank consensus. Any editors who begin to form any consensus which appears to deviate from the pro-Frank narrative are subject to accusations of sockpuppetry from a number of pro-Frank meatpuppets who seem to show up here just for that very purpose. The irony is appalling. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — 64.134.98.223 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The archive bot removed the GA review from the talkpage, and - being a bot - is not being selective in when or which discussions to archive. As this talkpage is very active at the moment, and there are occasionally comment sections created that are distracting from the purpose of building the article, I have disabled the bot. All editors are encouraged to archive as appropriate. When the talkpage settles down the bot can be restored. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
SilkTork says,
"By all accounts he was given an inadequate trial (though it is quite normal for trials from that date not to be up to the standards of modern trials), so we will never know the truth of his guilt, but what we do know is the impact it had, and that's why we have an article on it."
That is not true. Only the pro-Frank "scholars" promote that idea. If we want to rely only upon pro-Frank authors, the article loses nutrality.
Frank's last appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in the denial of a writ of habeas corpus sought by Frank's lawyers. The Supreme Court's summation of that decision appears as follows:
"Taking appellant's petition as a whole, and not regarding any particular portion of it to the exclusion of the rest,-dealing with its true and substantial meaning, and not merely with its superficial import,-it shows that Frank, having been formally accused of a grave crime, was placed on trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, with a jury lawfully constituted; he had a public trial, deliberately conducted, with the benefit of counsel for his defense; he was found guilty and sentenced pursuant to the laws of the state; twice he has moved the trial court to grant a new trial, and once to set aside the verdict as a nullity; three times he has been heard upon appeal before the court of last resort of that state, and in every instance the adverse action of the trial court has been affirmed; his allegations of hostile public sentiment and disorder in and about the court room, improperly influencing the trial court and the jury against him, have been rejected because found untrue in point of fact upon evidence presumably justifying that finding, and which he has not produced in the present proceeding; his contention that his lawful rights were infringed because he was not permitted to be present when the jury rendered its verdict has been set aside because it was waived by his failure to raise the objection in due season when fully cognizant of the facts. In all of these proceedings the state, through its courts, has retained jurisdiction over him, has accorded to him the fullest right and opportunity to be heard according to the established modes of procedure, and now holds him in custody to pay the penalty of the crime of which he has been adjudged guilty. In our opinion, he is not shown to have been deprived of any right guaranteed to him by the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States; on the contrary, he has been convicted, and is now held in custody, under ‘due process of law’ within the meaning of the Constitution.
The final order of the District Court, refusing the application for a writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed." 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Conley appeared before a grand jury for the murder, but was not indicted. This statement in the lede is false, Conley never went before a grandjury. Grandjury indicted Leo Frank on May 24th, not 23rd. This statement "Conley gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be tried in 1914 and found guilty" is false, Conley never went to trial as an accessory after the fact, he pleaded guilty and because he helped Atlanta police solve the Phagan murder was given a reduced sentence of 1 year. He was released after 10 months for good behavior.
Invinciblegnatfly (
talk)
06:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you for making these corrections more inline with reliable secondary sources. Continuing a discussion about the lede, what would be more elucidating and notable to mention about the case, is that Conley neither testified at the Coroner's Inquest (where some very specific details of Leo Frank's lascivious impropriety was testified about, review the Journal, Georgian and Constitution) that resulted in the 7 man tribunal having voted unanimously (7 to 0) to bind over Leo Frank to the grandjury for murder, nor did Conley testify at the grandjury tribunal where Frank was unanimously indicted (21 to 0) that had several Jews as jurymen (review Oney and Lindemann). The article suggests that Conley as an admitted accessory-after-the-fact was the central source of circumstantial evidence and testimony as to why Leo Frank was convicted, but this is not entirely true and only part of the picture. The accusations about Leo Frank's character for lasciviousness at the Coroner's Inquest and later Monteen Stover's testimony contradicting Leo Frank's murder alibi at both the grand and petit jury, where also very significant factors in building a case against Frank. Ohio Northshoreman Tom and Texas Tony Stewart (the part owners of the Leo Frank article), have worked aggressively to keep mention of the Coroner's inquest out of the Leo Frank article, even though it is discussed in detail by several reliable secondary sources of the case (Golden, Phagan Kean, Brown, and others). Both the lede and main body of the article should mention the Coroner's Inquest because those revelations of Frank's licentious behavior would again come out at the trial, when: Dorsey would direct examine more than a dozen girls, "Is Leo Frank's Character for Lasciviousness Bad?" they all testified with a resounding "YES"! Dorsey was not able to bring up the issue of Leo Frank's character in this manner, without the defense having brought up the issue first (review Oney). Thus it was the defense that opened up this door for Dorsey. This was a major part of the prosecutions case, showing a real pattern that Frank (who was a married man) exhibited the kind of behavioral patterns of an immoral sexually aggressive pedophilia that strongly linked him to the rape and strangulation-murder of Mary Phagan.
Lawyer Tom Watson Brown mentions Leo Frank's visit to the metal room when the murder occurred "Mary Phagan arrived in Frank's second-floor office shortly after noon on Saturday to collect her pay, was lured to the metal room by Frank and was there assaulted and murdered. During the time of
the assault, Monteen Stover arrived at Frank's office at 12:05, checked out both offices and found them empty and then left precisely at 12:10." and Georgia Law Professor Donald Wilkes publishes a segment of Leo Frank's trial statement in Flag Pole Magazine that solves who murders Mary Phagan in the men's toilet of the metal room, where her body was found by Jim Conley. Leonard Dinnerstein mentions this issue in his PHD dissertation about Leo Frank's trial statement, but omits it from his book, "The Leo Frank Case".
Can we find a place for putting this trial statement quote from Wilkes (brackets are for emphasis to help the reader understand the context of Leo Frank's statement), since it is so significant "Now gentlemen [of the Jury], to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for twelve o’clock [noon on Saturday, April 26, 1913] until after a quarter to one [12:46 p.m.] when I went up stairs and spoke to Arthur White and Harry Denham [at the rear of the fourth floor], to the best of my recollection, I did not stir out of the inner office [at the front of the second floor]; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet [in the metal room at the rear of the second floor between 12:05pm and 12:10pm on April 26, 1913]. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it (Leo Frank Trial Statement, August 18, Brief of Evidence, 1913).", Leo Frank reconfirms he was in the metal room at the time the prosecution theorized Phagan was killed there in
Atlanta Constitution March 9, 1914.
Invinciblegnatfly (
talk)
16:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
::AKLD, You might be confusing where: (1.) the nightwatchman Newt Lee and then first-responders (Atlanta police) found Mary Phagan's body dumped at the rear of the National Pencil Company basement between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on April 27, 1913, with (2.) where Conley stated he had initially found Mary Phagan's dead body shortly after she was strangled by Leo Frank in the metal room (located at the back of the second floor) on April 26, 1913.
::::Do we state in the Leo Frank article that everything from every person was "claimed" or "alleged" by each person? Conley didn't just "claim", he stated in sworn testimony at the trial and in his final affidavits -- the ones he no longer modified -- that what he was saying was the truth or at least the main thrust of what happened. The prosecution's theory was that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan in the metal room at the very time Frank "claimed" he was alone with Mary Phagan in his office (12:05pm - 12:10pm). On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank changed his murder alibi on the witness stand and explained why Monteen Stover had found his office empty between 12:05pm and 12:10pm, by saying he had "unconsciously" gone to the men's toilet in the metal during this exact time to urinate. Prior to Frank's newfangled admission, when the prosecution asked Conley where he found the dead body of Mary Phagan after Leo Frank confessed to having assaulted her in the metal room, Conley stated he found Phagan in the men's toilet area of the metal room. So think about that for a full minute, Leo Frank changed his alibi about never having left his office when Mary was alone with him there (12:05 pm - 12:10pm), by placing himself at the very place the prosecution built the entire case of time and place she had been murdered (in the metal room). Ponder that for a moment, and consider that Phagan's hair was found with dried blood on the lathe in the metal room and blood was found on the floor diagonal to the entry way of the men's toilet. Consider how the forensic evidence and Conley's circumstantial evidence played directly with Monteen Stover's testimony and Leo Frank response to his alibi inconsistencies being put into question. So yes, from the prosecutions point of view, Leo Frank threaded the needle's eye of their case and solved the murder. From the point of view of the Georgia Supreme Court who ruled the evidence presented at the Leo Frank trial sustained his guilt, Leo Frank solved the murder of Mary Phagan. From the point of view of Governor Slaton's commutation order that said on the very last paragraph of the very last page that he was sustaining the guilty verdict of the trial jury, presiding judge and rejected appeals, he was also sustaining Leo Frank's guilt. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, not absolving Leo Frank of guilt, also sustains Leo Frank's guilt. Leo Frank is still officially guilty under the law, but his defenders have all repeated each others academic dishonesty and poor research in creating an artificial consensus that he was "wrongfully convicted" and therefore "innocent".
Invinciblegnatfly (
talk)
15:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There were several images removed from the article during the GA, mainly due to copyright reasons. These images are probably not actually copyright, but we didn't have time to confirm whether they met the criteria of being in the public domain (i.e., published before 1923). The three main ones deleted from Commons were Luther Rosser, Hugh Dorsey, and William Smith. There were others removed, including Frank sitting at trial, Tom Watson, Adolph Ochs, and Fiddlin' John Carson. It might have been that some in this latter group were removed simply for not being notable enough to include a picture, not for copyright reasons, but I want to make sure for each so we add them back in if we can ascertain their copyright status. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to add those pictures back. DopeyBoB ( talk) 11:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A link to The American Mercury website was removed from the article by MarkBernstein here [1] without him understanding the context. The text was not promoting the website, rather referencing the source from ADL article.
Websites supporting the view that Frank was guilty of murdering Phagan emerged around the centennial of the Phagan murder in 2013. [1] [2] The Anti-Defamation League issued a press release comdemning what it called "misleading websites" from "anti-Semites...to promote anti-Jewish views". [3]
I have reverted the removal and opened this topic up for discussion. DopeyBoB ( talk) 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth noting the following paragraph from the Good Article review (see "Review before rewrite" > Fail):
Two prominent anti-Leo Frank sources are not used (theamericanmercury.org and leofrank.org), and this is understandable as they are single purpose sources - however it is permitted to use details from such sites as appropriate per WP:BIASED in order to give a balanced account. I don't feel that the omission of those sites impacts on this GA criteria; I am mentioning them here to indicate that when looking to balance the article, it should not be felt that details from those sites (facts or opinion) should be suppressed. It is acceptable to attribute opinions to them as examples of differences of opinion - this can help strengthen an article: when readers are presented openly with both sides of an argument, including extreme views, they can see the points of both sides, and reasonable readers will discount inappropriate views. Unreasonable readers will form their opinions anyway, so suppressing extreme views will not sway them, but will create doubts in the minds of reasonable readers (why have these views been withheld from us?).
Note also that the articles linked to are from 2014 and 2015, so these are recent articles linked to as an illustration of interest in the case from those who believed he was guilty in the wake of the lynching centennial. The content of the posts does not need to be unbiased or reliable, it's only there to show that there were some who disagreed with the consensus among major scholars of the case and had websites arguing their point of view. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 08:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we all understand Mark's concern, and we thank him for being vigilant; however, as pointed out above, the link abides by policy, is used to support a statement in the article, and has consensus. I have restored it as the general principle behind the widely accepted WP:BRD essay, is that if an editor makes a bold edit which is reverted, the onus is on them to open a discussion and get consensus before restoring the edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Online version of a newspaper originally founded by H. L. Mencken in 1924. Most articles in the History category are on the topic of Leo Frank.
I'm not familiar with this article, but being familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I'm a little concerned that this article's lead is disproportionately lengthy at present. I'd recommend that it get cut back somewhat to a more manageable size. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan, in Atlanta, Georgia. His legal case, and lynching two years later, became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding anti-Semitism.
Born to a Jewish-American family in Texas, Frank was raised in New York and there earned a degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University before moving to Atlanta in 1908. Marrying in 1910, he involved himself with the city’s Jewish community and was elected president of the Atlanta chapter of the B'nai B'rith, a Jewish fraternal organization, in 1912. Although antisemitism was not locally widespread, there were growing concerns regarding child labor at factories owned by members of the Jewish community. One of these children was Phagan, who worked at a factory owned by the National Pencil Company, where Frank was also employed. Phagan was raped and killed in the factory’s cellar on April 26, 1913. Two notes, apparently written by Phagan, were found beside her body, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. Over the course of their investigations, the police arrested five men, including Lee, Frank, and Jim Conley, a janitor at the factory.
On May 24, Frank was indicted on the charge of murder, with the case opening at Fulton County Superior Court on July 28. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Conley – who many historians consider the real culprit of the murder – which alleged that Frank regularly met with women in his office for sexual relations. A guilty verdict was announced on August 25. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals; their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence from capital punishment to life imprisonment. The case had attracted national press attention, with many deeming the conviction a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled antisemitism and hatred toward Frank; a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor’s mansion to protest the commutation. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of armed men and lynched at Marietta, Phagan’s hometown. The new governor vowed to punish the lynchers, who included prominent Marietta citizens, although nobody was charged.
Various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the case over the years, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted, and Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
I replaced the first Citation Needed tag under the Leo Frank sub-section and cited the following lines:
The sentence in question was Frank described his married life as happy.
Leede states = "Phagan was raped and killed in the factory's cellar on April 26, 1913." This was the defense's version of where the murder occurred at trial, and their theory was rejected by the trial jury. The prosecution's theory was that Phagan was raped and killed in the metal room, 2 floors above from the cellar. The prosecution convinced the jury of their theory and Frank was convicted. His conviction was upheld by all appeals courts. Why is the failed defense's version of the case made to appear as a fact? DopeyBoB ( talk) 07:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Leede states = "His legal case, and lynching two years later, attracted national attention and became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism." Someone unfamiliar with the case might read "his legal case and <emphasis on loaded word> lynching" ... <emphasis on ending with loaded word> "antisemitism", implicitly that these were all lopsided sectarian divisions askew against Frank. However, defense relied heavily on anti-Black racism to play to racial fears of Whites (racial concerns), and outside newspaper attacks against Georgia (regional) were in play during appeals. How might this sentence be reformed to bespeak the sectarianism as double-sided and not over simplified as one-sided. DopeyBoB ( talk) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It only reflects the opinion of the majority of editors of this article. There is no unanimity on the subject. Gulbenk ( talk) 21:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the Pinkertons or Burns. I think this might be worth adding to the Police investigation section. I don't see this mention in the latest GA review, so I'm not sure why it isn't there. It seems worthy enough of at least a sentence or two.
We don't say that Frank initially claimed he didn't know Phagan, but tried to implicate Gantt based on accusations of a prior relationship. The article does mention "a late Monday meeting called by Frank in which he tried to implicate Gantt”. But perhaps we can expand on this.
The blood stains found on Conley's shirt turned out to be rust. We mention that the police looked for blood and found none, but we could mention this as well.
Minola McKnight also isn't mentioned in the article. Supposedly, she claimed to be "tortured" at the police station, claimed Frank said he wanted to kill himself, and admitted the murder to Lucille. A 2010 version of the article gives her 3 paragraphs, but the current one doesn't mention her at all!
There were also a few things that were originally brought up by a GBH sock, but still merit attention.
The lead says about Conley: He gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be found guilty and sentenced in 1914, and was the prosecution's main witness against Frank in the murder trial. Conley wasn't found guilty, but plead guilty. Perhaps this could just say he was sentenced, and leave out "found guilty [and]".
Another quote from the lead on the murder notes: There were two notes next to Phagan, which appeared to be written by her, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. If "at first" is added to make it "which at first appeared...", it might be a bit clearer that they appeared to be written by her at first, but then it became apparent that they were instead written by Conley. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The salient points you brought up for discussion would definitely add more quality context to the article. Is there any reason why you don't pursue adding these details to the article? DopeyBoB ( talk) 22:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and commented out the monuments, spouse, parents, and relations lines from the infobox in this edit. As I noted in the comment, I will delete this text soon if there is no objection. I want to delete unnecessary information already in the body of the article as the infobox was very long previously.
For the lead, we currently have this as our final paragraph:
Various plays, films, and books have been written on or about the case over the years, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime.
This paragraph abruptly shifts from media to the consensus and pardon. It also mentions books written on the case, but doesn't list any books. My suggestion is to move the last two lines to the end of paragraph 4 and reorder them, then elaborate on paragraph 5 with major books. Paragraphs 4 and 5 would look like this:
The case attracted national press, with many deeming the conviction a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled antisemitism and hatred toward Frank; a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion to protest the commutation. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of armed men and lynched at Marietta, Phagan's hometown. The new governor vowed to punish the lynchers, who included prominent Marietta citizens, although nobody was charged. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
Various media productions have been inspired by the case, such as the films The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921 and They Won't Forget in 1937, the TV miniseries The Murder of Mary Phagan in 1988, and the Broadway musical Parade in 1998. Major books on the case include The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein, And The Dead Shall Rise by Steve Oney, and The Murder of Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean, the grand niece of the murder victim.
Let me know if you have any feedback. I'll make the changes if there is no objection. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In this edit I removed parenthetical text stating that Phagan ate her last meal of cabbage and biscuits at 11:00 a.m. This statement was disputed in the past, under the argument that 30-45 minutes after 11:00 Phagan was still in her house as she left around 11:45 and thus must have been murdered at least an hour after the meal. Coleman's testimony says that Phagan woke up "about 11 o'clock and had breakfast right afterwards" which would put it slightly after 11:00. The parenthetical text made it seem as though it was 11:00 exactly. I think the text is unnecessary and it is sufficient to simply say that the prosecution's medical witness determined that the cabbage had been in the stomach 30-45 minutes. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I nominated this article for Featured Article status and came up short after a long and arduous review spanning over four months. I will be on a wikibreak over the rest of the holidays and into 2017, but I encourage anyone interested to review the article for further improvements, particularly regarding removal of unnecessary content and adding sources where needed, and renominate the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The statement "Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.", appears to be redundant in the lede. Not all students of the Leo Frank case believe him to be wrongly convicted. Many believe him to be guilty. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 01:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
The title says that he was convicted in murder, it doesn't add at the same place that later it was found out that it was all a plot against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
While making the last edit, I noticed there was a 2016 RfC that removed the Religion parameter from the infobox. This article formerly had Frank's religion of Judaism in this box, although it is no longer there. We could do without it, but it seems like it should be considering the importance of Frank's faith to the Phagan case. Please feel free to weigh in on whether we should leave as is or try to get another template with it back in. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 13:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This editor has twice deleted this sentence from the 1st paragraph of the lede:
Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
He/she states it is unsourced. As anyone who follows this article knows, this sentence is more than adequately discussed and sourced in the body of the article. As anyone who has read the entire lede can easily see, there are no footnotes in the lede -- a conscious decison made as the article was improved. As WP:LEADCITE states:
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
If Professor feels there should be footnotes in the lede, the case needs to obtain consensus here. It seems that zeroing in on this single sentence is another POV attack similar to the ones that have gone on for years by a number of sock puppets. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The statement should be removed it's non NPOV and it misleads people about the historical facts surrounding this case. Which those who defend Frank (such as the ADL) conveniently leave out, who are unfamiliar . --
Justforthefun17 (
talk)
17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Who are these researchers? Do they have a conflict of interest to this case? Why do they omit the evidential fact Frank's legal team and his family were caught trying to bribe witnesses and fabricate evidence to frame his two African-American workers? who unlike Frank would of never have gotten a trial for those charges, let alone fair one. If we are going to refer specifically to "racial bias", why is it never fully scrutinised, the "racial bias" against African Americans in the Dixie South, that Frank tried to exploit by attempting to implicate those men for the Mary Phagan's murder and rape?
Under normal circumstances anybody who had done what Frank was accused (and found guilty) of doing to Mary Phagan would of been executed. yet somehow he managed to dodge the death penalty. These "researchers" fail to deduct that is perhaps the more likely reason Frank was lynched. Anger from the public that he managed to dodge the maximum sentence that many suspected was due to influence from Frank's very wealthy and influential family. I've seen articles on wiki where people are labelled "supremacist", "antisemite", "racist", "holocaust denier" , "conspiracy theorist" nonchalantly with very little to no rational justification to why that is allowed, to justify those obviously bias introductions. Yet somebody who was convicted (and had a trial) avoiding the maximum penalty for raping, torturing and murdering an innocent child, somehow its "fair" for bias editors and sources be used to portray him as a victim of civil injustice, yet anything else that suggests otherwise is refuted and instantly discredited. -- Justforthefun17 ( talk) 18:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Just wish to amplify the rather limited data concerning Alonzo Mann's years kept secret testimony about Jim Conley's apparent blame of Mary Phagan's assault and murder. Hereon cited from the " http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu" web site. 77.127.36.11 ( talk) 08:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
"March 4, 1982 - Alonzo Mann, in failing health, signed an affidavit asserting Leo Frank’s innocence and Jim Conley’s guilt. He admitted he had seen Conley carrying the limp body of Mary Phagan on his shoulder near the trapdoor leading to the basement on April 26, 1913. Conley had threatened to kill him if he ever told anyone what he had seen. He did go home and tell his mother, who advised him to keep quiet. After Frank’s conviction, his parents still kept him quiet, saying it would do no good to come forth after the verdict. He was telling the story now to unburden his soul. He had actually tried to tell the story several times before, but no one had paid any attention. He had even gotten into a fight with a fellow soldier in World War I when he tried to assert Frank’s innocence. He took several lie detector tests while telling his story to a group of reporters for The Tennessean, a newspaper in Nashville, TN. The tests indicated Mann was telling the truth.
March 7, 1982 - The Tennessean ran the story of Alonzo Mann’s confession.
November 10, 1982 - Alonzo Mann repeated his story in a videotaped statement in Atlanta.
January 4, 1983 - Based largely on Alonzo Mann’s testimony, the Anti-Defamation League submitted an application for a posthumous pardon for Leo Frank to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.
December 22, 1983 - the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the motion for a pardon, the reason being that while Alonzo Mann’s testimony might incriminate Jim Conley, it did not conclusively prove the innocence of Leo Frank.
March 11, 1986 - the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles finally issued a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank, based on the state’s failure to protect him while in custody; it did not officially absolve him of the crime."
Unfortunately, the Leo Frank Wikipedia page does not include a little-known fact about the Frank case: Mary Richards Phagan (1899-1992), sister-in-law and namesake of the murder victim, went public with her denunciation of the grave injustice done to Leo Frank, and declared her support for his posthumous pardon, in two newspaper interviews in December 1983. [1]
When the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles initially denied a pardon to Leo Frank, neither it nor the petitioners may have been aware of this fact; had they known about Mary Richards Phagan's belief in Frank's innocence, I believe the parole board might have granted the pardon in the first place, instead of in 1986.
Having read Steve Oney's book, And The Dead Shall Rise, I noticed that among those persons he interviewed during the process of researching and writing it, Mary Richards Phagan was conspicuous by her absence, so the above fact was not mentioned therein. Even if he did not interview her, the interview she gave to the Marietta Daily Journal would still have been available to him from that newspaper's archives. A glaring omission from an otherwise superb history of the Leo Frank case.
For further reading, I recommend my essay, "Why The Leo Frank Pardon Is Important," by Richard Mamches. It can be viewed online at www.jahsp.org, in the section under American Jewish History.
-- 2600:1700:3BE0:5A60:256D:363C:C734:BC75 ( talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Leo Frank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I hope someone will make this easy fix on my behalf:
In the section on "Abduction and Lynching," please change "175-mile (282 km) trip" to "125-mile (200 km) trip."
The distance from Marietta to Milledgeville penitentiary is about 125 miles (200-201 km), not 175 miles (282 km) as stated. That is also about the distance one could cover in seven hours, traveling at a top speed of 18 mph. If it were 175 miles, it would take almost ten hours at that speed.
My source is the Google Maps mileage reported between Marietta and the Milledgeville penitentiary along two "blue highway" routes that are largely unchanged over the years, which I checked after a swift calculation of how many miles one could drive in seven hours at a speed of 18 mph.
Thank you! Timkens ( talk) 00:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The distance from Marietta to Milledgeville is about 125 miles (201 km), not 175 miles (282 km) as stated in the section on the abduction and lynching. That is also about the distance one could cover in seven hours, traveling at a top speed of 18 mph. If it were 175 miles, it would take almost ten hours at that speed.
I hope someone will make this easy fix on my behalf. Since this is apparently a controversial article, I would need more past editing credits to be able to edit it myself.
Timkens ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
According to MapQuest.com the distance from Milledgeville to Marietta is roughly 120 miles. At a top speed of 18 miles an hour, the shortest path would take around 6 to 6.5 hours. Reportedly, one of the vehicles in the caravan of vigilance committee entourage had a flat tire halfway during the midnight ride back, resulting in a pause of the journey. Keep in mind they claimed to have taken backroads and many of the streets at the time weren't paved, thus 7 to 8 hours from the Milledgeville penitentiary to Sheriff William Frey's farm in South East Marietta makes sense. Having left their pickup point at 11pm, would place them at their destination at around 7:00 am, presumably. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 06:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@ TonyMorris68:, see the response below. Anything we add to the article must have published sources meeting WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"His trial, and lynching two years later, attracted national attention and became the focus of social, regional, political, and racial concerns, particularly regarding antisemitism."
I think, at minimum, this sentence should at least include the fact that he was convicted, in between "trial, and lynching" as it misleads the reader to believe that this is a simple matter of "revenge" anti-semitism. I also think that the sentence should include the idea that Frank's conviction was upheld by the Georgia Appeals Courts, the (Federal) Supreme Court, a Georgia Prison Commission, until Frank was released by Commutation of his sentence by the Governor of Georgia. The problem with this idea is that it will be more difficult to do, and would require a lot more wordsmithing and discussion. But, at minimum, the idea that there was a substantive amount of legal process involved before Frank was released and then murdered should be included in the Lede. I'd do it myself, right now, but would like to open the suggestion to some discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 ( talk) 23:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is an article from Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the Marker commemorating lynching to be rededicated. Rjluna2 ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it would help readers, and do more good than harm, of the title were changed to Lynching of Leo Frank. That's really the central topic. If he hadn't been lynched it would be a small and little-read article.
This was proposed casually 7 years ago (Archive 4) but there was no discussion.
Anyone have a problem if I change it? deisenbe ( talk) 01:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a minor change, I suggest you submit a formal move request. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Leo Frank was not convicted due to anti semitism. 4 of the jurors were Jewish (Source?), and every single juror voted him guilty. There are also no mentions of the supposed anti semetic death threats occurring outside of the court in the newspapers or the official legal documents. This article is heavily biased and parts need to be re written.
Criminal justice student here. Have studied this case for years.
Not only did several factory girls previously under employment by Frank testify regarding his bad character, but there was forensic evidence (blood, hair) that Mary Phagan was murdered on the second floor in the machine room adjacent to Frank's office. Frank also broke his only alibi of never leaving his office on August 18th, 1913, where he stated on the witness stand that he may have had an unconscious visit to the men's toilet where he would have passed Mary's workstation at the exact time and the exact location that Mary Phagan died. This statement by Frank came after a witness friendly to frank - 14 year old Monteen Stover - testified that she came to collect her pay on that fateful afternoon only to find Leo Frank's office empty between that exact same time segment from 12:05 pm through 12:10 pm on April 26, 1913. His cover story put him right at the scene of the murder at the exact time it happened. Mary Phagan's autopsy was consistent with the blood stains and hair found on the lathe - there was evidence in the autopsy that Mary had fell and hit her head on something before she died - and this is exactly what the witness James Jim Conley states Frank said when Frank got the help of Conley to dispose of the body.
Frank was also incidentally caught tampering with Newt Lee (the night watchman's) time card. Frank's house maid, Minola McKnight testified how she heard Frank confess to his wife Lucille Selig that he didn't know why he'd murder. This sheds light on why Lucille Selig ordered in her will not to be buried next to her husband, even though a grave plot already existed next to Frank's headstone. One can visit the Mount Carmel cemetery themselves and ask if the plot is empty. They will tell you that it is. (Lucille Selig ordered to be cremated and her ashes scattered in a field).
The fact that the Supreme Court rejected Frank's appeals, and that Frank was the only Jew lynched on US soil, and the fact that none of the original documents mention the supposed anti semetic death threats points to Frank being convicted because of the evidence against him, not because he was Jewish. Many Jews and non-Jews in the Old South intermarried and one of Hugh Dorsey's law firm partners was Jewish - so it is unlikely that he would have been motivated by anti-semitism. I encourage those interested in this case to check out the original documents themselves as they are now public access and uploaded to the internet. To assume there's some grand anti semetic conspiracy going on to this day that's preventing every legal jurisdiction (including the Supreme Court) over the past century from exonerating Frank is absurd. 95.144.255.47 ( talk) 20:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
No comment. Job Esop ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)