Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Confess?

"Phagan's family continued to insist on Frank's guilt, even after Conley's repeated confessions were revealed. They disassociated themselves from the Klan's use of Mary's murder to further its own purposes. Mary Phagan's great-niece, also named Mary Phagan, wrote a book about the case in 1987."

What confessions?

Ridiculous Bias

This entire article needs to be rewritten. The man was guilty. 12 white jurors would gladly have hanged a negro instead of a Jew at that time. There must have been a lot of evidence against him. Instead of the endless discussions of anti-semitism, why not focus on the facts?

That's totally irrelevant, pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Use the term "black" not "negro". We're not in 1915, anymore jack. You're right though, this article does need rewriting. This here sentence for one, is profoundly racist:

"Phagan's body was so dirty that some officers initially believed she was black, and they had to pull down one of her stockings to verify her race."

No one can justify this kind of ignorance.

An interesting to point out in the article is that the case, aparting from leading to the founding of the ADL, also sparked the revival of the Klan, now with a pronounced anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, and anti-immigrant stance. I would do it but I'm just too tired. Danny 02:57, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- Viajero 12:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"ashes of populism"? Populism says it's alive and well. (The verb I'd prefer is admits; that article tastes of an anti POV.) Kwantus 21:34, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Wikipedia even censors the discussion page. DBaba pulls the second highest Leo Frank traffic [http://judicial-inc.biz/MiscPics.htm website] on the internet

Of course you want the entire article to be rewritten. It just might favor Frank and make him look innocent. If you want to focus on the facts, don't argue that he was guilty. It isn't official that he was, or even that Conley was. This case is classified as unsolved. If you don't want bias, don't be biased, yourself. -- LittleMissLeo 02:33, 1 Jan 2008

Bold text

Mary Phagan's family

Perhaps someone could add a paragraph regarding Mary Phagan's family's take on the situation. As I've read elsewhere, while they were convinced of Leo Frank's guilt, they stated on several occasions they had no connection to the Knights of Mary Phagan nor did they support/agree with the revitalized KKK.

Mary's great-grandneice, Mary Phagan Kean, has written a book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, where she details her research into the case. It's pretty incredible that someone can compile that much information and still think Frank is guilty. She also discredits Alonzo Mann's deathbed confession from 1982 with little more evidence than "because I said so," so I guess her insistence of Frank's guilt shouldn't come as any real surprise. However, this book might be worth mentioning in a paragraph about the Phagan family's view. --Birdhombre 18:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful suggestions. I added some text. -- Viajero 19:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it sounds like that book needs to be converted into HTML, DOC, PDF etc... I will contact the right people to see that this solution to the problem is brought to the web net.

I guess they need to believe the man was guilty so they don't feel partly responsible for his lynching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Lokison 07:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Impartial Additions / Comments

I recently attempted to provide some facts and/or comments about this case because I find that most of the reporting on this case has been somewhat selective. It really is not as clear cut a case as most writers seem to think. Viajero has written me a message suggesting that I may have used some editiorial comments. I revised my additions several times to avoid this; but I suppose I might have done a better job. At any rate, the quote from Mr. Busch which uses the phrase "the most one can say is" happens to be a direct quote from his book "Guilty or Not Guilty." This is not an editorial comment. Robbchadwick 11:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no question that Leo Frank was guilty

Conley was an eye witness. Leo was a leach, constantly abusing his child employees, he killed Mary, tried to frame Newt Lee (watchman). His legal team bought off Leo's cook, his shift foreman, his office boy (Lorenzo Mann), the brothel madame,etc etc. When they hung him, his last words were "I will not disgrace my family with a confession".

Can you please post a source for Leo's last words? Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to try to prove a point, nobody's going to take you seriously if you make Alonzo Mann Hispanic. Alonzo. Not Lorenzo.

Leo's last words were, "I think more of my wife and my mother than I do of my own life." How's this for a source? LittleMissLeo 12:37, 10 February 2008

Actually, when they HANGED him, the only witnesses were keeping their identities a secret (as they were the forerunners of today's Ku Klux Klan), so I'd be pretty interested in seeing your source for his last words as well. As it stands, Leo Frank was convicted but granted a post-mortem pardon by the governor of Georgia because the evidence against him was questionable.

=

The State of Georgia granted a 'Pardon' in 1986 but was very specific about its purpose - they said it had nothing to do with issues of Guilt or Innocence, but was ONLY a reflection of the State's failure to protect Leo Frank from lynching in 1915. The wording is very precise and easily checked.

Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's darkest hour

The unmitigated bias in this Leo Frank article is disgraceful. How the f*** do you remove a famous 90 yr old ballad?

I have seen twenty instances of pro-Jewish bias and it just degrades the total integrity of this Wikipedia website.

What ballad is it to which you're referring? Also, as has been noted, the article is essentially plagiarized, lacks appropriate citations, is clearly one-sided, lacks focus as to what this article is about, i.e. Is it about Leo Frank's life? His trial? His role in the rise of the ADL? His lack of justice because of his lynching? Etc.? I posted some info regarding what transpired between Leo and those that were about to lynch him and it seems that Leo regretted what he did (which would make him guilty) but refused to at least even defend himself by making any last statements protesting not only his guilty conviction but also a protestation regarding his rapidly approaching lynching. Clearly, this article is in desperate need of updating, clarification, and balance. Jtpaladin 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

comments to Robbchadwick

Robbchadwick, as I mentioned on your talk page, I have tweaked your recent additions a bit. I removed these lines:

Unfortunately, Alonzo Mann's assertion that he saw Jim Conley carrying the body of Mary Phagan may not shed much new light on this case. Jim Conley was prosecuted for being an accessory after fact at the time of the murder and served prison time for that offense.

First, presumably Conley was convicted for being a "watchout", not for moving the body around. Second, this statement has an editorial POV and needs to be attributed to someone. Do you have a source for it?

Most of the literature written since the middle of the twentieth century has focused on the religious prejudice surrounding the case, without presenting the considerable evidence that really did implicate Leo Frank.

Likewise, it would be better to attribute this to someone. Do you have a source for it?

It is indeed a tragedy that Leo Frank was the victim of religious prejudice, but that fact alone cannot determine his innocence.

This, as you perhaps can see by now, is clearly an editorial standpoint that likewise needs to be attributed or left out.

Thanks, -- Viajero 12:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mary Phagan was ONLY TWELVE YEARS OLD when she was killed. We can argue all we want about whether Frank was convicted as a result of anti-Semitic sentiment -- or whether he cynically tried to use anti-black prejudice to falsely implicate the black janitor -- but you CAN at least get the basic facts right.

http://www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/chronpop/584

Mary Phagan born June 1, 1900 - died April 26, 1913. That's TWELVE, not thirteen. I changed it where possible, but the error appears in the introductory section that I am unable to edit. Please fix the error. 65.17.23.46 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mary Phagan (the great-niece of the Mary Phagan in question) seems to disagree with that birthdate. She claims that the first Mary Phagan was born on June 1, 1899 in Florence, Alabama (Phagan, p. 11). However, that would still only make her CLOSE to 14 at the time of the murder, not 14 as the article states. StavinChain 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding Jim Conley's conviction, etc.

Actually, Jim Conley was convicted for being an accessory AFTER the fact. He claimed to have acted as a lookout while Leo Frank entertained young ladies on a number of occassions; but he admitted helping Leo Frank move the body and write the notes after the murder; and this is why he was convicted as an accessory and served about a year, I believe, on the chain gang.

By the way, not that it makes any difference since I am not a member of the newsroom, but I work for The Tennessean in Nashville which actually broke the story of Alonzo Mann's "confession" back in the 1980's. About the only thing Alonzo Mann contributed to what was already known is that (if his statement is totally accurate) Jim Conley was alone with the body, while Conley had stated that he helped Leo Frank move the body in the elevator. (Frankly, I am just not so sure we can put a lot of faith in the memory of a 13 year old boy 6o+ years later. Is it possible that as a young white boy, Mann saw a large black man, whom he had been taught to fear, carrying a dead body and failed to notice there was a skinny white man there as well?) At any rate, Alonzo Mann's testimony was not that revealing. Mary Phagan was already dead when Alonzo Mann saw Jim Conley with the body. It really didn't change things all that much whether Jim Conley helped move the body alone or was accompanied by Leo Frank. Leo Frank was his boss; and according to him, he helped move the body and write the notes under orders from his boss. It seems that the State of Georgia saw it that way when they considered Alonzo Mann's statement.

Let me state for the record that I am a white male without any religious affiliation. However, I absolutely abhor any discrimination based on race or religion. It is wrong for a person's race or religious beliefs to have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of a legal proceeding. My statement that most of the written material on this case within the last fifty years has totally focused on anti-semitism instead of the murder and the evidence itself is simply an observation gathered by having read what was written early in the 20th century compared to what was written in the last half of the century. The facts of the case, especially the ones that are negative to Leo Frank, seem to have been lost. Anti-semitism certainly did rear it's ugly head in this case; but prejudice toward Jewish people was not generally that great in Atlanta at the time of this crime. Perhaps during the trial, anti-semitism did increase; but it is an absolute fact that prejudice and distrust toward African Americans was much more prevalent. I can't help believing that a white prosecutor and twelve white male jurors in 1913 Atlanta must have felt the evidence quite compelling to accept the word of an African American semi-literate man over that of a well educated, successful white businessman, Jewish or not.

Thanks. Robbchadwick 14:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Porter Is On Leo Frank's Side

In an odd turn of events the world famous 'Holocaust Revisionists' says Leo Frank was innocent!

Right aligned lead image

The right-aligned image makes it easier to read the page, with the TOC on the left below, and the next image alternating to the left. Does anyone have any problems with this design? --Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

plagiarism

Some of the text seems to have been plagiarized from

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/leofrank.htm

--Bcrowell 02:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be just the "Antecedents" section that was plagiarized. I've deleted the plagiarized text.--Bcrowell 03:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There's more plagiarized text, taken from

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/penclfct.htm

I've deleted some more. --Bcrowell 03:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I eventually found out that almost the entire article was plagiarized from these two sources.--Bcrowell 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

With very few citations, most if not all this article must have been plagiarized. Jtpaladin 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

starting on a new version

I've started writing a new version to replace the plagiarized one:

Leo Frank/Temp

--Bcrowell 15:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the plagiarized and copyright-violating version with a new one written from scratch. Copyediting and fact checking would be very helpful.--Bcrowell 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Conley's confessions?

At

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/leofrank.htm ,

there are statements that Conley confessed to both his cellmate and his girlfriend about murdering Phagan, and that these were part of what convinced Slaton to commute Frank's sentence. However, I can't seem to find any information about these confessions in Oney's book. Can anyone shed any light on the matter?--Bcrowell 05:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I got in touch with Charles Pou, which was where I saw the statements about the confessions. His web site is one of the two that was plagiarized in the old version of the article, and I explained that to him. He doesn't remember the sources, but he's going to see if he can dig them up.--Bcrowell 23:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Pou spent some time searching for his source for those statements, and couldn't find them, so he's taken them off of his own web site. I've removed them from the article.--Bcrowell 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Conley or Frank's guilt?

I think the article should have a discussion briefly summarizing the arguments that we can make, now, about whether Conley killed Phagan by himself, or whether Frank did it and Conley just helped him dispose of the body. I came into this believing that there was no question that Conley was guilty and Frank innocent. However, it doesn't seem so clearcut to me now. There's a huge amount of evidence, a lot of it is contradictory, and it's hard to make sense of it all. A lot of it, like Alonzo Mann's belated statement, incriminates Conley, but doesn't necessarily show Frank wasn't involved. I don't think Frank had a fair trial, and I don't think the jury should have found him guilty based on the evidence presented at the trial, but I think it would be helpful for the article to have a clear, well thought out summary of the arguments that can be made in hindsight about whether Frank was completely innocent. I guess if the confessions Pou talks about are documented, and if they show clearly that Conley killed Phagan, rather than just being involved after her murder, that would be very strong evidence. Otherwise...? Opinions?--Bcrowell 00:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a complicated case, some points could be clearer maybe, the article discusses the Conley/Frank question and points towards Conley as the culprit, I think that　part is basically ok. What is more interesting than who did it, is the media involvement and the lynching. What about the people who lynched Frank? It says they were investigated... were they arrested? Ben ^T/_C 11:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody was ever arrested, and I don't think there was anything but a pro-forma investigation. I'll clarify that part.--Bcrowell 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "Dorsey was also the solicitor general for the Blue Ridge Circuit, who would theoretically have been in charge of prosecuting the lynchers for murder (none of whom were ever even indicted)." --Bcrowell 15:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Couldn't believe it when I first read it. One more question: John Tucker Dorsey and Hugh Dorsey, were they relatives? Which one of them was the solicitor general for the Blue Ridge Circuit? Ben ^T/_C 06:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good question. I've changed the text to clarify that it was JT Dorsey. I don't know if they were related.--Bcrowell 15:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article biased towards Leo Frank?

This article has a lot of bias in it benefiting Leo Frank, why is it that anytime a topic involves jews or judaism their is extensive bias in favor of jews and judaism, why are there no checks and balances on wikipedia and why are jews the only group on wikipedia that no fair and balanced articles are allowed if they might hurt jewish sensitivities?

• Possibly because many of the Wikipedians are actually Hillel-types?
• Because when any Jew is mentioned in a negative light, the media come out with the big stick of "anti-semitism" to the point that that phrase is meaningless.
• Just because this discussion chronically arises and causes such strife is evidence of a continuous white-washing of the event.
• Look at murderers row: Son of Sam, Leo Frank, the Columbine duo, and now the trio that got caught burning churches...all Jewish.

Ironic that this comment itself should display the very double-standard which rightly makes a lot of Jewish people nervous about hatred toward them. -J21

Look at the topic and the people involved and remember who ever is in power has the right to prevent criticism or even worse "the truth", imagine if we had all the evidence of both sides presented on the article and imagine if we gave independent thinking people the ability to come to their own conclusions. Such a dangerous thought! Just watch how fast dangerous thoughts like that get you banned from here and then you will know the answer.

Boy, do you ever seem to enjoy taking on the same mantle of victimhood that so infuriates you when you think that Jews try to assume it. No one is taking away your right to spew whatever hatred you think passes for the "truth," but your allegations of "extensive bias in favor of jews and judaism" and that "jews the only group on wikipedia that no fair and balanced articles are allowed" smack of your myopic paranoia. You are the one with an agenda to carry out, not some amorphous yet threatening group of "the Jews," and the fact that you claim to be defending against bias is heavily ironic. Your instruction to "Look at murderers row: Son of Sam, Leo Frank, the Columbine duo, and now the trio that got caught burning churches...all Jewish" is inflamatory and ludicrous, first because it is pointless and proves nothing about either Jews or murders, and second, because you've gotten a bunch of them wrong: neither Eric Harris (of Columbine notoriety), nor any of the three recent church-burners were/are Jewish, and if you READ the relevant article, you'd note that the definition of Leo Frank as a murderer is a historically-disputed one. ---130.160.122.200 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lokison 08:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Leo Frank Story Suffers From Continuous Re-Writes

Unfortunately, the story of Leo Frank and the murder of Mary Phagan is a perfect example of revised history. If one goes back to the time of the crime and reads what was written then and up to about the middle of the 20th century, it is clear that determining the actual murderer of Mary Phagan is a very difficult (probably impossible) task. Since the middle of the 20th century, almost everything written or dramatized about this case has focused on anti-semitism. People who write about this crime seem to ignore facts which point to Mr. Frank's possible guilt. Even worse, when someone else attempts to draw attention to questionable points, these writers either eliminate those ideas (as is the case with the Wikipedia article) or they label the dissenter a prejudiced person or an ignorant southerner.

I am a southerner; but I am neither ignorant nor prejudiced. The fact is that some facts do point to Frank's guilt. Some other facts point to his innocence. After all this time, his absolute guilt or innocence will almost certainly never be proven. Certainly Alonzo Mann's belated revelations of the 1980's proved absolutely nothing since we already knew that Jim Conley assisted Leo Frank in moving the body. He was convicted of the offense and served prison time for his involvement. Whether he moved the body WITH Leo Frank's help or simply did so at the instruction of Mr. Frank is really not very relevant. Frank was his boss; and that was that.

Also, people go on and on about Governor Slaton and his conscience and difficulty with commuting Leo Frank's sentence to life in prison. What you don't hear anymore is that Governor Slaton had been (and probably still was) the law partner of Leo Frank's defense attorney. How's that for a conflict of interest? (Having said this let me also say that he probably did do the right thing, since Leo Frank's guilt really is at question.)

I could go on and on; but I won't. Like the previous poster, I SINCERELY DO have a problem with these people who want to make it all about Leo Frank and anti-semitism. This is about the murder of a little girl; and all the facts deserve to be out there for people to read. STOP eliminating what you don't like with feeble excuses about plagiarism. (If someone has commited plagiarism, just note the source!) No reasonable person is going to read this saga and come away without doubts about Leo Frank's guilt, even if all the facts are there. I'd be the first to say he probably should not have been convicted, because, in my opinion, there was reasonable doubt. (However he was not certainly innocent either.) He certainly should not have been lynched; and any reasonable person will agree with that.

Someone really needs to go back and insert facts into this article. I have tried previously only to have the article REVISED because someone didn't like the facts. Robbchadwick 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not everybody's EVER going to be happy with this article.

Look. I've been reading this talk section and about all of it I have this to say: from rewriting and rewriting the article, nobody is going to come any closer to determining the true murderer. Robbchadwick is correct - it would be almost impossible to do this. I'm not sure that this article can ever be written unbiased, especially since it's evident that everybody here has a staunch position. We're never going to agree on the best possible way to tell this story simply because it cannot be told without a point of view. This isn't a technical thing - it's that noone is ever going to let go of his position.

I think the article-writers here, since we've seemed to agree that Steve Oney's novel is generally unbiased, need to model the article after his work. Just the facts.

Another note about the musical and dramatized versions of this case - I don't think any dramatized version of any historical event is 100% accurate. That's called poetic license. Thus, I think these dramatizations should be excused from that accusation. -- LittleMissLeo 03:06, 1 January 2008

The Response Below Is From Someone Who Believes In Leo Frank's Absolute Guilt

The case is absolutely open and shut that leo frank did it and what was an outrage was him being pardoned for what he did. "death to all child rapists and murderers" was the law of the land back then. I have never in my entire life read an article so obviously biased in leo franks behalf, you should be ashamed of yourself for making wikipedia a den of puffing and obfuscation. What a true shame, how can you live with yourselves lying over the death of a small female child. I ask the moderators to seriously investigate this case and bring forward all the evidence, not the bias or more pro-leo frank and no anti-leo frank. Look at the ratio honestly of pro and anti, it becomes clear how terrible the bias POV is in leo franks favor. Lokison 08:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mary Phagan song, can I have permission to add it to the article?

I found this song on solargeneral.com/music but everytime I add something from solargeneral.com I get accused of trying to promote the site, which I am not, however it has a lot of concentrated impossible to find, unique and one of a kind works which can be found no where else in the world.

http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3

I wanted to ask the permission of those people who will in a nano-second delete this link. Can we discuss this song? Because it brought tears to my eyes. Why would you try to block something like this from being added to the Mary Phagan article?

OK, I added the song, lets count how many nanoseconds it takes to be removed by the cabal. It's 5am EST right now

This is what I added to the Mary Phagan Article

• http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3 The Mary Phagan Song: A very old song preserved in MP3 about Mary Phagan.

Lokison 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship and bias: SlimVirgin deleted the link to this song [http://judicial-inc.biz/pyschos/MaryPhaghanSong.htm Here is the Mary Phagan song]

• http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3 The Mary Phagan Song: A very old song preserved in MP3 about Mary Phagan.

What do I need to do to bring this to arbitration?

Why can't we hear the song?

You can hear it but the link is to a white power website and the song is deeply antisemitic.

Boris 10:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unconscionable bias in Mary Phagan Article

Every source and link is biased in favor of Leo Frank. Unfair, JPOV translate it.

Lokison 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs considerable work.

After reading this article, it is heavily POV, uses extremely sensationalized wording ("descended like locusts"?), and some of the sources are questionable at best. This article is so heavily biased in Leo Frank's favor that it will take a considerable renovation to even get this up to a reasonable NPOV standard. I wish people with the requisite knowledge of history will help renovate this article. If there's nobody out there, I can help do research and alter the wording when I get some time. As it stands now, this isn't acceptable for such a large article. --BWD ^(talk) 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I got so wrapped up in the article's focus on the murder that I forgot the article was about Leo Frank. That is probably an indication that the murder and this article need to be separated into two articles. --BWD ^(talk) 05:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there would be no article about Leo Frank without the murder. It would be pointless to do an article on him alone since the only thing he was ever known for was the murder of Mary Phagan (whether he did it or not). I agree that the murder and the lynching are really two separate murders; but they are so related that I honestly can't see how they can be separated and still make sense. I, for one, certainly have no problem with Leo Frank's supporters discussing the lynching and speaking about how horrible it was; I agree totally. However, as I and others have said, it's not just about him. It's also about a very complex murder case of a little girl who was also a victim; and unfortunately, we will never know for sure whether she was the victim of Leo Frank, Jim Conley or some unknown perpetrator. This article is very biased in favor of Leo Frank. It seems to take the POV that because he didn't get a fair trial or a fair shake, he must have been innocent. That is nonsense, of course. Many people, still today and especially in 1913, are/were victims of prejudice, police errors, prosecutorial misconduct and did not exactly get fair trials; but that really does not actually make them innocent. I cannot totally blame the authors of this article for their take on this subject since everything written within the last fifty years has totally focused on anti-semitism, as if this alone makes Leo Frank an innocent man. It doesn't. He was certainly a victim of a certain amount of anti-semitism; and that is deplorable. However, he may have still been guilty of this murder. As years go by, we read less and less about the facts and inconsistencies of the case which made Leo Frank look guilty as sin and read more and more about him being a martyr. I just wish the article could present ALL THE FACTS of the case instead of furthering the revisionist history that has been going on through written material and dramatic reconstruction for so many years now. It doesn't help anyone's cause to present less than the entire truth. RobbChadwick 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

==================================

The link to the little Mary song at: http://www.solargeneral.com/music/maryphagan/littlemary.mp3 is a link to the very anti-Semitic and white liberation orientated Stormfront web site. Although the song is historic, it was very much a part of the biased material put out at the time to make a case for "the evil of all Jews". This should be noted as such.

The above unsigned comment was added by Revision as of 00:27, 8 May 2006 Ou tis (Talk | contribs)

Mary Phagan's age

How old was Mary Phagan when she was killed? The article states both 12 and 13 in different places. --Pascal666 11:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mary Phagan was 12 yrs old*. She was born on 6/1/1900 and died on 4/26/1913

According to the official Trial testimony, Mrs. Coleman (Mary's mother), said that her daughter was born on June 1, 1899, and that she (Mary) would have been 14 years old* on her next birthday (in 1913). This is further confimed by US census records for the year 1900 (in Alabama) and 1910 in GA. The gravestone frequently referred to and illustrated (for the oft-cited 1900), is in error. 209.247.5.215 18:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Allen

she was 12 yrs oldProfessor Boris (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me but the above link states she was 14 (from her parents statement at the trial) but accidently quotes the 1900 date on the tombstone.67.160.174.24 (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag now on section on Jim Conley

I will leave this tag up for a day or two and then remove the entire section because it essentially tries and convicts an African American, in the most racist terms, of murder. It is pure viewpoint and it is not sourced. If anyone wants to clean it up, please do. I see problems with most of the article in that there is a a tremendous amount of opinin and yet nothing, except what I added today, is sourced. This violates Wikipedia rules for citation and NPOV. The claims in this article lack citations and are therefore not verifiable, which violates another Wikipedia policy. The article also slants in the direction of trying to prove what a fine upstanding upper class fellow was Leo Frank. I'm sure he was a nice person but just because he was educated or upper class or a nice guy -- but all of that is over done, making the article look very much like it is written by folks with an axe to grind. Skywriter 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Second Disputed tag placed on second section on Conley

I do not know where this section came from. Its viewpoint is unmistakable and yet it is not sourced. It is not verifiable. It is most certainly biased. Let's take this point by point. 1. a "nigger lawyer"? is this the 21st century? why is this on Wikipedia? 2. a newspaper runs a banner headline on its front page with a subheading suggesting that a man, Conley, is a key suspect. 3. that same newspaper pays the legal fees for Conley. 4. the lawyer bought and paid for by the newspaper stalks his own client to obtain his fingerprints to find evidence of guilt? Is this the United States where the accused are entitled to fair representation that is absent conflict of interest? Is this the Wikipedia that is supposed to be fair and unbiased? 5. this Wikipedia article seems to take the position that the wrong man was lynched.

Evidence of Conley's guilt

Conley's lawyer William Smith began to be suspicious of his own client. He learned that there were fingerprints on the basement door that had never been compared with Conley's. He twice attempted to get Conley's fingerprints by tricking him, but failed. The Georgian and the Constitution ran headlines saying "CONLEY IS GUILTY SAYS HIS LAWYER." The Jeffersonian virulently attacked Smith, and hinted at the possibility of lynching, writing, "LET W.M. SMITH BE CAREFUL!" A clearcut lie was detected in Conley's testimony concerning a pile of feces at the bottom of an elevator shaft, which became a major factual issue because according to the prosecution's theory, it should have been mashed by the elevator, but was not.

There is some evidence pointing to Conley as the murderer:...

I have one more thing to say. This is the single most prejudiced article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. That there was a terrible wrong done to one man, Leo Frank, there is no question. To turn his murder into an attack against another is sheer, unsubstantiated slander. That there was no fairness and no justice and that there were prejudiced newspapers, there is no question. That those newspapers whipped up public opinion against blacks and Jews, there's no doubt about that either. That is the story, not who murdered a young girl. That we may never know.

The central issue with this article is that it violates central tenets of Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Not one alleged fact in this article is sourced except this. The only sourcing of alleged facts in the article points to a song. Songs are not acceptable confirmation of facts. A brief bibliography does not substitute for sourcing within the article.

Wikipedia has standards. They are not being enforced here. This is not a whim. It is policy. This page is flagged for the absence of specific citations. Citing sources will be a service to readers, especially student readers who will know that we enforce policy against sloppy research techniques. Skywriter 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One user removed the tag from the section on Conley. Please do not remove totally disputed tag without discussion. This section is highly controversial. If you wish to discuss it, please do so. The reasons for the tag are part of this record. Skywriter 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reworking of this article should take into account that the import of this article is not to get to the bottom of who killed the young girl. That is not possible. Rather it is to reliably describe a time of lawlessness. Please take into account that many of the thousands of black men lynched in the United States were falsely accused of crime. If you do not believe that, please say so, and I will provide references to demonstrate facts to support the statement. Fully 80 percent of the people who were lynched during the period statistics were kept were African American.

This article is weakened by all the claims of what a nice guy was Leo Frank. Factual biographical details are more persuasive than the argument, which exists now below the surface in this article, that he ran in the right circles and therefore did not deserve to be lynched. Nobody deserves to be lynched. It is lawlessnes, pure and simple, an act of murder by a mob. Lastly, it appears to me that this and the accompanying pages appear to be both factual and knowledgable. http://www.leofranklynchers.com/addendum.html

If this were a parlor game of Who killed Mary Phagan?, my money would immediately be placed on the editor of the Georgian who bought Conley's lawyer, then got the lawyer to betray Conley. As long as this case is purely about circumstantial evidence, a strong case can be made that the editor of the Georgian had the most motive for raping the young probable virgin, killing her, framing a Jew, and then reframing a black man for the crimes. Scapegoating when it is not recognized as such is a hell of a story that sells a hell of a lot of newspapers. Skywriter 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I vigorously disagree with the comments by Robbchadwick who studiously ignores the role of the press in the sordid murder of Leo Frank, and betrayal of Conley who also was robbed of his civil rights not so much by the courts but by a deeply racist newspaper. This is a story about the murder of Leo Frank by a mob. Whether he was guilty or innocent of killing a young girl is beside the point-- because of what happened to him. When there's such a complete breakdown of law and order, that is what of historical interest. All of the whodunnit parlor games in the world won't change that. If he had been convicted and executed legally, then there might have been an article proving whether he did or did not do it. But that did not happen. What did happen is that justice was aborted by a murderous mob. That should be the emphasis of this article, and the contributions by the dead girl's grand niece, whose given name was Mary Phagan, concerning who killed Leo Frank become all the more important. Phagan's family, it seems, recognizes the wrong that was done to Leo Frank. Let's see if Wikipedia can frame the larger picture in place of playing the parlor game.Skywriter 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a separate article on Mary Phagan, then, to discuss the investigation of her murder. I do think the trial is a very important piece of any biography on Leo Frank, but by compiling all that information here, it removes some emphasis from the original victim, i.e. Mary. It's akin to all the people who talk about "the O.J. Simpson trial" rather than "the search for Nichole Brown Simpson's murderer" (an investigation that was never completed once OJ was acquitted). --Birdhombre 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not ignore the role of the press in this case. As with many other cases, the press certainly produced an effect on the outcome of the case and the aftermath. However, this does not change the facts surrounding the murder; and to discuss Leo Frank without a full discussion of the murder would be ridiculous. It was only because of his association with this crime that we even remember him today. I do not know if Leo Frank was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If I had been on the jury I probably would have voted to acquit because I would have had doubts. However, I would not have been certain of his innocence either; and at the time even the most liberal people who honestly looked at the case felt the same. The evidence available was simply very conflicting. Books and articles written by scholars of the time and even later (such as Francis X. Busch) were very fair to Mr. Frank; but most of them could not reach a definite conclusion.It was only after the middle part of the 20th century that all attention became focused on anti-semitism. (For that matter if you go back and honestly look at the period of time in question, anti-semitism really wasn't that prevalent in Atlanta. The real cause of the bitter feelings of the people of Atlanta surrounded the influence exerted by The New York Times & other publications. This was viewed as interference from outsiders. Of course, human nature being what it is, some people did use Mr. Franks religion in their remarks about him; but this was not something that was very prevalent at the time of his arrest. Anti-semitism certainly increased during the trial and afterward; but it was not the root cause of the problem.) RobbChadwick 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicians

why isnt taking part in a lynching part of their bios on wikipedia. sounds important and based on facts--85.180.63.229 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Drugs

Leo Frank was an alleged cocaine addict, which was quite common in that period. He was suspected of drugging Mary Phagan, and it was so questionable that they exhumed her body to test for drugs.

So the decision was made to exhume Phagan's body and search her stomach for signs of drugs. Drugs. His erratic behavior (sneaking into dressing rooms, performing oral sex on Alonzo Mann, cornering 12 yr old females, the child molesting incident, etc) can easily explained as the side effect of his drug habit.

Most felt Mary's death was really a result of cocaine rage, and not a homicidal maniac.

And I think that's absolutely ridiculous. --LittleMissLeo (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Parade - Theatre

Why not add Parade as a link to this article? Although it may not correctly portray the story of Leo Frank correctly, it does give you an insight into his pain - and that of Lucille Frank and also the fall of Jack Slaton. It also has a great musical score - not that it really matters but I do believe that such a link would be relevant.

I certainly support the inclusion of "Parade" as related to the story of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank. However, it is very important that people understand that this play, as well as a television mini-series from the 1980's, were very loose with the facts of this case. Perhaps, the authors of these productions simply did not go back very far in their research; but both these productions certainly lean very heavily toward the innocence of Leo Frank without regard to some of the less clear-cut aspects of the case. RobbChadwick 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The article is clearly biased in favor of Frank, a convicted pedophile and child rapist, while at the same time assuming the guilt of Conley, an African-American, and attempting to shift the blame on him. That is just goddamn sick and racist, especially in this day and age. Let the facts speak for themselves and stop injecting your racist opinions into this article. Szygny 15:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's happening. And the facts are speaking for themselves. IronDuke 16:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could at least take a few minutes to explain yourself and your reversion???? Would that be asking too much???? Szygny 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus is that there is no direct evidence of Frank's guilt, thus "circumstantial." Also, please do not remove legitimate categories. Thanks. IronDuke 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources??? The article itself is missing a TON of sources, so please back up your claims. Szygny 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, reading the bits where you claim show "overwhelming" scholarly evidence - well, I don't see any references - just claims. I wonder what the agenda here is? Is it so the ADL can save face? Szygny 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And those categories are POV since it's not a fact that he was wrongfully convicted. This is like the Twilight Zone. Szygny 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ADL? What are you on about? Anyway, there's a very good source in there now, will try to get more. IronDuke 21:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice source, but maybe the quote should go later in the article and not in the intro.

Phiwum 23:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I feel that the heavy majority opinion favors Frank being railroaded, and putting it in the intro makes sense. We could summarise and ref it, too. But just so everyone is clear. IronDuke 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category Wrongly convicted Americans or whatever

Can this be sourced that Frank is considered to have been wrongly convicted? --68.9.116.87 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimV why do you revert with NO explaination? Can you provide ANY sources to back up your revert other than "it reflects the standard view" whatever that means. PLease respond here before reverting, thanks--68.9.116.87 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're too lazy to check out the numerous links and sources listed and notated in the article, does not mean they don't exist. If this Wikipedia article really is as biased as you claim, it should not be that hard to see why Leo Frank can be included in the "wrongly convicted" category. --75.117.255.101 04:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

no need to be uncivil. I never said the article was biased. I just ask for a source that says that Frank was wrongly convicted. I don't see it in the article, do you? --68.9.116.87 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

75.117.255.101 is not being uncivil, or at least not by much. Your comments seem to indicate you have not read the article. IronDuke 15:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate be called lazy. This category should not be added since it is disputed and not well sourced. A ADL article screaming he didn't do it should make his inclusion a done deal. He was NEVER "cleared" or "proven" innocent ect. Did he get screwed and murdered, looks like it, but the other people in that category look like they were "cleared" or PROVEN innocent which still hasn't happened and 90 years after the fact it is still debatable. I am sure the OWNERS of this article will now revert it back, very NPOV..NOT!--68.9.116.87 14:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) .

Is this the discussion? Look, this was in Category:Disputed convictions but that cat just got deleted (which is why I came back here). It's not a wrongful conviction, because it was never overturned. Geez, people, get used to it. Or write the State of Georgia and get it rectified. I'm not too particular, but wrongful conviction means something beyond magical thinking ok? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the current discussion. Please see here. We got considerably past the points you raised above. IronDuke 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does SlimVirgin revert without explaining?

All you need to do is provide a source.--68.9.116.87 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is read the article. IronDuke 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. I am trying to bring a NPOV to this article. What is your agenda?? SlimVirgin COTINUES to revert without ANY explaination.Why not try to IMPROVE this article so it moves toward NPOV??--68.9.116.87 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some sourced material that was here before. I will try to find better sources going forward.--Backroomlaptop 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Leo Frank Appeared To Be Guilty

From what I read in that article, "Terrified Boy Feared for His Life"[1], Alonzo merely saw one part of the crime. If his final confession is to be considered true, that only means that Conley was involved in the crime. Conley may have committed the crime and been the sole participant in the entire event, but Alonzo's confession does not automatically acquit Frank.

The part I thought was most revealing was when Frank was abducted by a number of people intent on lynching him. According to (I think this is the source) "And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank" by Steve Oney:

Somewhere during the trip, the occupants of Frank's car briefly engaged him in conversation. Citing a source whose bona fides were "beyond all question," the Associated Press later reported its gist:

"Is there anything you would like to say before your execution?"

At first there was no reply. Then, slowly and perhaps painfully, the recently wounded man shook his head.

"No," he said. The word was scarcely audible above the throb of the engine.

For a long time following the only sound was that of the automobiles.

Then Frank was asked if he had killed the Phagan girl, and the captors say he made no reply. This question was not repeated again until near the journey's end, and again, it is said, there was no reply. The final interrogation was:

"Is there nothing you wish to say?"

"No."

These four questions constituted the sole conversation in the death car as it sped along the miles which were steadily bringing Frank nearer to Cobb County. (End of quote)

I would think an innocent man would be raising Hell knowing he's about to be hung for a crime he didn't commit. At least, say, "Hey, you bunch of idiots, I'm innocent, I didn't do anything. Conley committed the crime and I didn't know anything about it. If you hang me, you hang an innocent man. And, as Christians, you're going to have to pay the price of going to Hell!!" Anything, something would have been better than quietly resigning himself to dying as a guilty man without any last words regarding an insistence of innocence. When asked directly at the end if he killed the girl, he makes no reply!! For an innocent man, Frank's went to the noose as a man who seems to regret what happened but refused to at least say something to indicate he didn't commit the crime. Considering this to be true, shouldn't we add this info to the article? Thoughts? Jtpaladin 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wehave to be careful not to violate WP:NOR. We cannot speculate as to Frank's guilt or innocence. What we can and should do is report what other notable, respected scholars, etc., think. IronDuke 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable claim

I took this out. If someone can find a source supporting it, please put it back. "Great suspicion was cast on the notes, and there was debate about whether Phagan would have used the word "Negro," which was seldom used by white people in the South at that time." IronDuke 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MUCH is clearly questionable

Yes, the notes are quite questionable. The language used in the notes, especially the word "negro" would not likely have been a part of either Mary Phagan's or Jim Conley's normal vocabulary. Many authors, especially early writers on the case have commented on this. The indications are that an educated person, most likely from the North, probably dictated the notes. Also, even though it appears that Jim Conley actually wrote the notes, there are further indications that he did so at the instruction of another person. There were two notes found. Indications are that someone, supposedly Leo Frank, may not have been satisfied with the way Jim Conley wrote what he dictated in the first note and had him write it again. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why two notes were discovered.

Quite frankly, I've given up on trying to remove the bias in favor of Leo Frank that seems to pervade this article. People, including myself, have spent hours trying to present facts and information regarding this case. The truth is that neither Leo Frank's guilt nor innocence is an absolute fact. As Francis X. Busch wrote in the 1950's, there are clear indications that support either conclusion. I truly have absolutely no objection when folks want to include information pointing to Leo Frank's possible innocence; there are indications that he may have been innocent. However, there are some reasons to consider him possibly guilty; and whenever someone attempts to present information regarding this possibility, those here who prefer to consider this whole affair an instance of anti-semitism will simply delete them citing lack of source, questionable source or anything else they can think of to justify reverting the article to support their viewpoint.

Certainly we want Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information; and I support constraint where opinion is concerned. However, in a case like this, I consider previous reputable authors on the subject who thought Leo Frank might be guilty as good a source as the current group of authors (since the mid 20th century) who simply want to present anti-semitism as the whole story. Sometimes it's hard in a case as old as this to document the "facts" to everyone's satisfaction. In some cases circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, is also compelling evidence.

Leo Frank behaved very suspicously from the time of the murder until his death. He also had a clear reputation for what today would be called sexual harassment with the young women who worked for him. There are so many facts of this case which have simply disappeared from the current literature. There was an alleged relationship between Leo Frank and Alonzo Mann, his office boy. There was an absolutely factual business relationship between Governor Slaton and Leo Frank's attorney which might indicate the governor simply did his friend a favor finding enough "justification" to commute Leo Frank's death sentence. There are a multitude of others; some are presented in the talk section. Others have been deleted from the article by those who set themselves up as "watchdogs" to make sure no ideas other than the "right" ideas (according to them) make it into the article.

We need this article to present some of these unfavorable indications toward Leo Frank. There was justification to suspect him of the crime; and it's not a good idea to allow only those who want to revise history to present their case. Otherwise, fifty years from now, there won't be anyone left who knows that this case is not clear cut at all. As much as the Board of Pardons was pushed toward exonerating Leo Frank, they could never do so, simply because the evidence cuts both ways. Yes, they finally settled on a pardon to shut people up; but the pardon was NOT for innocence; it was for lack of proper protection.

Unless we are able to present this entire story, people will be reading this article years from now and never question that there are facts to support another viewpoint. RobbChadwick 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Robb, thanks for the thoughtful reply. To your first point, if you could find some sources to support your point about whether Phagan would have used the word "Negro" (as it relates to this case) please put it in. As it stands, the part I removed violated WP:OR. As to your other points, from my reading of the article, I don't see where it says Frank was innocent. It also does not say he was guilty. Also pardons are specifically not given in order to exonerate. And I'm not sure what point you're making about Frank's alleged sexual proclivities, but in any case, the info is in the article. IronDuke 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of removing the category "US wrongly convicted people" from this article?--24.250.56.66 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

24.250.56.66, this has been discussed already. The consensus was for leaving it in. IronDuke 14:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, I will try to locate the sources for the use of the word "negro" in the note. However, there will likely be many since the notes have been one of the most written about aspects of this case. Also, even though you may not consider it worthy of inclusion in the article, all you really have to do is think about this. If you've ever lived in the deep south, and certainly if you'd lived there in 1913, you would know that no Southern person ever used the word "negro"; they used the word "colored" if they were well bred and a less fortunate one if they were not. Black people certainly never referred to themselves as "negroes"; unfortunately the level of education for blacks at that time in the south did not expose them to proper words. This was certainly true for Jim Conley. Fortunately, in modern times, we've come to use words that are more acceptable, thank goodness.

I'm not sure I concur with your analysis re the word "Negro." Check out [2]]. IronDuke 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The article you note is interesting and contains some valid points; but the use of the word "negro", as it pertains to this case, is purely a matter of what was actually used in the south during this time period. Neither Mary Phagan nor Jim Conley were of the class of people who would use the proper term for a black person. (You may recall that Mary Phagan did not have a great deal of education; she was only 12 at the time of her death and was already working a job that would be considered more than full time today. Jim Conley was definitely not educated and would not have spoken in proper terminology.) Leo Frank was of the class who most likely would have used the word "negro" when referring to a black person. I can't imagine that he would have used any other. That's the whole point. (You must keep in mind that the city in question is Atlanta, not New Orleans. In New Orleans there was a system for determining "how black" a person actually was with a whole slew of words to make these distinctions.) I have an entire library on this case; I will try to dig out some actual references to authors who have written regarding this point when I get the time. RobbChadwick 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Looking forward to it. IronDuke 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Leo Frank's sexual proclivities, there was much written at the time to support the conclusion that he was "into" all sorts of sexual activities outside his marriage. I'm not a prude; and I don't consider some of what he was said to have done to be immoral. However, the opinion at the time of his arrest and trial was that he was an "immoral" person. There was MUCH testimony at his trial accusing him of sexual harassment of his employees; whether they were all female or male & female is irrelevant. The allegation that he was "too friendly" with Mary Phagan added a real motive for the murder when things may have gone terribly wrong. If he was also "too friendly" with Alonzo Mann, as a few authors have alleged, that may have had an impact on Alonzo Mann's testimony (or lack of complete testimony) at the time; and it may have colored his life and remembrance of events and guilt until his death. I'm sure you know that many young males who are abused by adults NEVER reveal this. At any rate, that was the point of my statement there.

I think the sensational sex stuff actually undermines the case against him, if anything. But as I say, it's all in there. IronDuke 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This confuses me. The only motive he could have possibly had to kill her is something to do with his sexual proclivities. He certainly didn't kill her for fianancial gain. (I can't remember exactly how much her pay was that day; but I believe it was around one dollar ... certainly nothing to Leo Frank.) His alleged sexual nature is absolutely the only meaningful motive to support his arrest and conviction. RobbChadwick 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me try it another way. The possibility of Frank's having had an affair with an office boy adds nothing to the evidence of his guilt. Indeed, if it were true, and he were a homosexual, it would argue against his being sexaully interested in Phagan. IronDuke 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. It seems that you may be confusing pederasty with homosexuality. (It's interesting how people can be so keen on preserving the rights of one minority group and still see nothing wrong with bashing another.) At any rate, people who find pre-pubescent persons sexually interesting often do so without regard to gender. It's about control and feeling comfortable; they are often not especially comfortable in a sexual relationship with an equal. (Please let's not speculate on the physical relationship between Leo & Lucille. We really don't know.) Besides all that, you are totally ignoring the concept of bi-sexuality; although if Leo is guilty of the sexual misconduct of which he is accused, I'd go for pederasty since Mary was 12 and Alonzo was 13. RobbChadwick 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I am confused, nor am I bashing any group. Let me restate it yet another way: the greater the variety of hints and accusations of Frank's sexual deviance, the less chance any single one of them is true. It's a classic smear campaign, and a patently absurd one, in this case. IronDuke 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about what you wrote regarding pardons. Pardons are generally given when it is determined that a person was wrongly convicted or when it is determined that there were errors in the trial, etc.. This was never the case with Leo Frank. The board was asked several times throughout the years to do so; but they were never able to determine that he was not guilty. Certainly by today's standards, he probably did not get a fair trial; but by the standards of 1913, his trial was probably as fair as any other, so a pardon was not granted on that basis either. The pardon that was finally given was obviously handed out just to finally shut people up. (When have prisons ever given adequate protection to inmates?) At any rate, the pardon did end the efforts of the people who want to make this story all about Leo Frank. Some of them are even writing here that his conviction was overturned. Of course, it was not; and that was my point. RobbChadwick 14:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe pardons are generally, if ever, given as a specific testament to someone's innocence. Mostly, as in presidential pardons, they are given specifically because the person in question is guilty. But only the judicial branch can officially "clear" someone, AFAIK, the executive can not. IronDuke 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As you note, pardons are often given to guilty people. So I guess we agree that even though Leo Frank was possibly guilty, he was pardoned for something other than innocence. :-) RobbChadwick 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed possible that Frank was guilty. There are people to this day who continue to think so. However, the vast majority of them are rank antisemites. But I'm more than happy to make all this quite clear at the end of the article. IronDuke 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A person does not have to be anti-semitic to believe in Leo Frank's guilt, just as a person does not have to be a racist to believe in O. J. Simpson's guilt. It is also true that a person can be a victim of the most heinous racial or religious prejudice and still be guilty as sin. Yes, there are people who are anti-semitic who believe in his guilt for that reason alone. Unfortunately, the reason that most of the people who express that belief today are anti-semitic is that the facts of this case have been suppressed and distorted by authors, filmmakers and playwrights who want this entire matter to be about hatred of Jews. Most people who learn of this crime today read modern literature on the subject which is devoid of many of the facts of the crime and concentrate on the lynching. Therefore these people never learn why Leo Frank was arrested, tried and convicted. He was not arrested, tried or convicted because he was Jewish. It is unfair of you to even hint at such a thing. He may have been lynched by people who were anti-semitic (although it seems clear that they considered themselves vigilantes more than anything else); but that is something totally separate from the murder of Mary Phagan. Throughout the early years following this case, many fair-minded people expressed a belief that Leo Frank was possibly or probably guilty. The trial judge wrote that he could not make up his mind one way or the other; he went to his grave puzzled by this case. Many early authors who wrote about this case felt the same. The trial judge was not anti-semitic; Francis X. Busch was not anti-semitic. There were many others who considered the possibility of Mr. Frank's guilt who were not anti-semitic. Mary Phagan's neice wrote a book about the case several years ago. It certainly is not the best book ever written; but I believe she was fair. She believes Leo Frank was guilty; and I don't believe she is anti-semitic. (For those who find it less than astonishing that she would have the opinion that Leo was guilty, it's really not any less astonishing to find authors with last names such as Dinnerstein & Golden feel that he was innocent and simply a victim of prejudice. Those who share even a remote connection with this case are understandably prone to view it a certain way.) That is why it is imperative that people with no emotional connection write about this case. Even though I am not 100% convinced that Leo Frank was guilty, I think there is a good possibility that he had some involvement. I resent that simply because I question Mr. Frank's innocence, you are grouping me into a category of people I detest and am not a part of. Something does need to be inserted into the article about the fair-minded people who have considered the possibility of Leo Frank's guilt; but from what you have written, sir, I don't believe that you can do this because to you a person who considers such of thing is automatically anti-semitic. How sad! RobbChadwick 14:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It disturbs me a bit when you write, for example, that the people who lynched Frank were not antisemites, or that it's unfair to hint that Frank's religion had anything to do with the case, when every scholar of note who's ever written about this case would disagree with you. If you have relevant information, I look forward to seeing it, and maybe we can leave it at that. IronDuke 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC

WOW! You have distorted my comments even though they are given in the paragraph preceding your distortion of them! I said that the people who lynched Leo Frank MAY HAVE BEEN anti-semitic although they thought of themselves as vigilantes. Go back and read it again, sir. Many writers, including the Wikipedia article, have noted that Atlanta was a comfortable place for Jewish people at the time of this crime. Therefore, acceptance of Jews was not an issue; and it is true that Frank's religion had nothing, that we can pinpoint directly, to do with his arrest. (There were four or five Jewish people on the grand jury that indicted him. Did you know that? If not, how can you consider yourself an expert on this case?)Of course, you can pick and chose the "scholars" that you find "of note" and cite opinions to the contrary that it was all about anti-semitism; but that does not make these "scholars" exclusively correct, "of note" or not. During the trial and aftermath, anti-semitism did develop. However, this was largely due to the same kind of attitude that you are exhibiting. Leo Frank's supporters, mostly Jewish, wrote that the people of Atlanta were ignorant, prejudiced and didn't know or care what they were doing. Frank's own mother is said to have referred to the prosecutor as a "gentile dog" or "Christian dog". That is why anti-semitism developed. It was due to the attitude and condescending manner of Leo Frank's supporters. You cannot treat people as idiots without them developing ill feelings. Unfortunately, these ill feelings probably did manifest as anti-semitism; but this was for the most part after the arrest and especially between the trial and the final outcome. Regarding relevant information, I have already pointed you toward several sources of relevant information. There are many more; and I definitely intend to elaborate more on these later. Naturally I don't expect you to accept them or even read them. You have shown any truly impartial person reading these comments that you have one agenda and one agenda only. If you go back through my comments from the beginning in this discussion area and previous discussion topics, you will note that I have never said that Leo Frank was absolutely guilty. In fact, I have said that knowing what I know now, had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit, because like the truly impartial people who have reviewed and written about this case, the evidence is simply not clear enough to either convict or acquit with absolute certainty. THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MR FRANK'S RELIGIOUS PRACTICES THAT CAUSED HIS ARREST! It's not me that needs to develop an impartial attitude. All that I & some others are asking is that this article not be so heavily slanted in favor of Leo Frank. (Naturally, no one would expect the article to please the truly anti-semitic people who occasionally frequent these pages. Whether you believe it or not, I do not appreciate their attitudes any more than you do.) RobbChadwick 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrongfully vs Disputed convicted

It seems that this is a disputed conviction since nobody else was ever proven guilty and Frank was never proven innocent? Anyways, --Tom 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know quite what you mean. There are sources in the article that clearly point to this as being a wrongful conviction.

Writers who regard the case as a miscarriage of justice include: Carpenter, James A., Rousmaniere, John, Klenicki, Leon. A Bridge to Dialogue: Story of Jewish-Christian Relations, p. 98. The authors call the evidence "trumped up."

Coleman, Kenneth (ed) A History of Georgia, p. 292.

Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case, p. 162. Dinnerstein quotes John Roche, who he writes chronicled the development of civil rights in this century: "As one who has read the trial record half a century later, I might add... that Leo Frank was the victim of circumstantial evidence which would not hold up ten minutes in a normal courtroom then or now." Dinnerstein writes that Harry Golden echoed Roche's opinion that no one would be convicted today on the same evidence.

Eakin, Frank. What Price Prejudice?: Antisemitism in the Light of the American Christian Experience, p. 97. Frank describes the case as a "travesty of justice."

Again, wrongfully convicted does not mean innocent. It just means the conviction was improper, which this clearly was. See Fells Acres Day Care Center and Little Rascals Day Care Center, also in the same category, also containing person who were not found "innocent." IronDuke 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about those other cases but I can look into it. The disputed category says that the people on that list have not been proven innocent. This falls into that category. You seem to see this case clearly when others have questions. Your material above shows that his conviction is disputed. Anyways, lets get some other imput. Wasn't this covered before in detail with good explainations? I'll have to look back. --Tom 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironduke, it looks like in both the examples you use above, the folks had their convictions overturned, which is not the case here. --Tom 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was disupted at the time, sure. But I know of no serious person or scholar who argues that LF was rightfully convicted (having nothing to do with his guilt or innocence). If you can find a reputable scholar who says, "No, the trial went as it should have, and justice was done," we can take it from there. But yes, more input is surely welcome. IronDuke 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are four more sources, all of which address Frank in the context of wrongful convictions (they use that word). [3], [4], [5], [6]. IronDuke 00:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The first and last sites do not support your claim. The other two seem to. It seems that the wrongfull conviction category should be for persons who had their convictions overturned by the court system which is not the case here. Anyways, I will not revert back but let others chime in. Cheers! --Tom 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your not reverting. I think the first and last cites do in fact support it, you just have to search inside them a bit. Here is another cite [7]. Also, there are a bunch more on Google. Unfortunately, JSTOR and NYTImes are often behind paywalls. But there are tons of cites available. It's pretty much a settled thing that the conviction was wrongful--the only cite I found against it was from a hate site on the web. Cheers to you, mate... IronDuke 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These people want to imply that Leo Frank was innocent in whatever way they can slip it by. Since they've never been able to get a court of law or an official review board to say so, they resort to pulling the wool over people's eyes with tactics such as this. Obviously, he was never proven innocent; and equally obviously to any logical person, the term "wrongful conviction" implies innocence. If you disagree with them, then you are automatically labeled anti-semitic, which is not necessarily the case. Leo Frank's conviction is disputed, mostly by Jewish writers like Leonard Dinnerstein. It's possible that he was innocent; but until proven so, his conviction is disputed, not wrongful. To say he did not get a fair shake or a fair trial is pretty much obvious also; but this was true for almost everyone of that time period if you compare their trials to today's. RobbChadwick 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You say, "Obviously, he was never proven innocent," but in saying that, you ignore one VERY important part of U. S. law: one never has to be "proven" innocent. One IS innocent until PROVEN guilty. Frank was found guilty by a jury of his peers, yet that finding is a disputed conviction, and evidence never introduced at the trial forms the basis of this disputation. To attempt to "prove" someone innocent is impossible; thus the assumption of innocence. You can't "prove" me innocent of the 9/11/01 acts, for example; you can only show that I was over a thousand miles away, and let a jury make its own conclusion. StavinChain 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"To say he did not get a fair shake or a fair trial is pretty much obvious..." = Wrongful conviction (your gloss on the trials of the time notwithstanding). Plus, I have several reliable sources who all use that exact phrase. IronDuke 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iron Duke, we both know that you can come up with sources supporting your view. That is not relevant. We can all do that; and sources that do not agree with you are not always "hate" sites as you always contend. Here's a source for the term "wrongful conviction." It has NOTHING to do with Leo Frank, so you can't say it's just a "hate" site. "CONVICTED BUT INNOCENT: WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND PUBLIC POLICY" by C. Ronald Huff, Ayre Rattner and Edward Sagarin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. 180 pp. To quote from the text: "Excluding from their definition of wrongful conviction those found not guilty in a second trial or on appeal, the authors instead define it as convicted persons who did not commit the crimes alleged (or the behaviorally innocent, rather than the procedurally innocent)." Now there's a LOGICAL definition of the term. We've talked before, Iron Duke, but I'll say it once again. I don't know if Leo Frank was guilty or innocent, so I'm not a hate-monger. All I know is that he was never PROVEN innocent, so you cannot say he was necessarily wrongfully convicted. You can certainly say there were elements of misconduct, etc.; but that does not add up to wrongful conviction. RobbChadwick 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Robb, you have no sources saying Frank was "rightfully" convicted, do you? Your quote above looks like OR to me; do the authors relate it directly to the Frank case? Also, again, other cases in this category involve persons who were not "proven innocent." IronDuke 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iron, those folks had their convictions OVERTURNED by a court of law which equals proven innocent. Anyways, --Tom 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, nowhere on the category page that I can see does it say cases must have been "OVERTURNED" to be worthy of inclusion. Let me try to boil this thing down to its essence: I have good sources that support the category. Are there good sources that support its removal? That is, sources which specifically say that Frank was rightfully convicted? If not, we don't need further discussion. IronDuke 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC

Tom, you will never win with these people. Logic has no place in their vocabulary. In their opinion, they own the article; and they can make the rules. (It's important to keep the discussion going since others who do not have minds as thick as iron will stumble upon a more rational view.) A rational person would conclude that his conviction was "rightful" since time and time again, courts and review boards could not find any reason to overturn his conviction. (He was pardoned based on the fact that the prison system failed to protect him; but that has nothing to do with his conviction.) To those of us with rational thought processes, his conviction is not wrongful since he has not been proven innocent. 216.248.12.162 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any of those sources I asked for. IronDuke 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent to left) Isn't that like trying to prove a negative? Anyways, the disputed category is for folks who have not been proven innocent/had their conviction overturned by the court systems. This case falls into that class. Anyways, no biggie Iron. --Tom 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all like trying to prove a negative. Take, for example, the trial of Karla Faye Tucker. It would be easy for you to prove the conviction was rightful; that she was guilty and that the trial was conducted fairly. If I wanted to move her trial into the "Wrongful" category, the burden would be on me to find sources that supported my position. And as to "no biggie," I respectfuly disagree. This trial had extraordinarily significant ramifications. How we characterize it is important. IronDuke 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The no biggie was in regards to our back and forth banter and not Mr. Franks trail, ect. Anyways, I still feel this should be categorized under disputed convictions but I guess will agree to disagree? Cheers, --Tom 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, quite agree with you, and very happy to have a civil and productive discussion about such a touchy subject. As I'm sure you know, that doesn't always happen here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are a child. As soon as you feel you have gotten your way, you declare it a civil and productive discussion. I will always maintain that any truly adult thinking person will see your antics as juvenile and ridiculous. We could provide you with thousands of sources to disprove your theories and you would declare them invalid. Who cares? I continue the discussion simply so that those who stumble upon these entries will judge for themselves how logical you are. Leo Frank's case is interesting; but he is hardly unique. There are many convicted persons whose convictions MAY have been incorrect. Until proven so, they are still convicted persons. You cannot declare them wrongfully convicted just because you, or a thousand others like you, think so. You can gather any number of individuals who write on this case who support your opinion. Unfortunately, most people who do not have a cross to bear have moved on and give this case little thought. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I really don't know; but I do know that I do not have the right or authority to overturn a conviction and declare it wrongful. Only a court of law, or at least a truly impartial review board, can do that. Your sources all have a personal, emotional basis for their opinion. I can provide you with any number of African Americans who believe than O. J. Simpson was innocent; but rational people know that it is likely that he was guilty. Those people are not racists; they are just rational. Even though the outcome of Mr. Simpson's trial was exactly the opposite of Leo Frank's, it doesn't change the truth. Trials don't always get it right; but a person is either convicted or he is not. Would you say that O. J. Simpson was wrongfully acquitted? I would hope that you would respect our justice system to the extent that you accept the outcome. You can certainly disagree; but you cannot "unconvict" a convict. You can dispute the conviction; but you cannot declare it invalid. No matter how many years go by, Leo Frank's conviction stands. He was convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan; and that conviction has not now, nor will it ever be, overturned. Like it or not, that's the way it is. You can pout and be a cry baby and hijack this article as you please with your faux intelligence and smug insistence that only your sources are valid. It doesn't change the facts. RobbChadwick 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It had been a civil discussion as far as Tom and I are concerned. Your contributions are another matter. You have written much above, little of it to the point. You appear to have no sources, merely opinion, and not particularly well-informed opinion, at that. If you have no sources to bring to the discussion, I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep adding to it. IronDuke 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC

I gave you a source, and many others in previous discussions. It's just that you seem to think you, and you alone, have the exclusive right to decide which sources are valid and which aren't. I continue the discussion, as I've said before, because I want to make sure people see both sides. Leo Frank was convicted. It's up to a court of law to declare it a wrongful conviction. You do not have that authority. Regarding sources, it is routine in the legal profession to apply precedent. A source does not have to explicitly deal with the Frank case to have merit in the discussion of whether this is a disputed or wrongful conviction. RobbChadwick 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed where you quoted a source describing the conviction as rightful, or denying that it was wrongful. (And no, sources that say "There is no way to know if Frank was or was not guilty" don't support your argument; in fact they undermine it.) Can you just remind me again where that source was? IronDuke 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a source for the definition of wrongful conviction. It did not specifically deal with the Frank case; but it doesn't need to deal with that case in particular. A wrongful conviction should be defined objectively, not based on a particular case where people's emotions seem to get the better of them. Also, since this book does not deal with the Frank case, you cannot allege that the authors are anti-semitic. Here's the source again. "CONVICTED BUT INNOCENT: WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND PUBLIC POLICY" by C. Ronald Huff, Ayre Rattner and Edward Sagarin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1996. 180 pp. To quote from the text: "Excluding from their definition of wrongful conviction those found not guilty in a second trial or on appeal, the authors instead define it as convicted persons who did not commit the crimes alleged (or the behaviorally innocent, rather than the procedurally innocent)." Now I suppose I should attempt to explain it to you since you didn't seem to understand it the first time. The authors did not consider those who were found guilty in a first trial but found not guilty in a subsequent trial or appeal as wrongfully convicted. This is correct since these people were later declared not guilty and were no longer convicted. The authors also excluded people who were convicted where procedural errors were apparent. This is also correct; even though one might argue that these people should have their convictions overturned due to errors, they are not necessarily innocent. Therefore from the perspective of guilt or innocence, they were not necessarily wrongfully convicted. The authors reserved the term "wrongfully convicted" for individuals who absolutely DID NOT commit the alleged crime(s) or for individuals who could not be held responsible for their crimes due to behavioral defects. I don't know how much clearer it could be. This entire thread began with a debate as to whether Leo Frank's conviction should be termed "disputed" or "wrongful". Keeping in mind the question at hand, the source I have listed and explained would exclude Leo Frank's conviction from the "wrongful conviction" category since he has never been conclusively found not guilty or conclusively shown to be absolutely innocent of his alleged crime. His conviction is certainly "disputed" by a number of authors; but none of them have been successful in conclusively proving his innocence. RobbChadwick 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are speaking at cross-purposes here. Is this case disputed? Sure. So are/were all of the cases in the "Wrongful" category. So saying, "This case was disputed" doesn't mean it should always be in that category. What you have above, as you point out, has no bearing on the Frank case. It is simply two authors who define "Wrongful" in a more narrow sense than Wikipedia does. If you'll look at the cases I linked to above, you will see that in those cases innocence was never established (and I think likely could never be). However gross errors in those cases, as in the Frank case, made the convictions wrongful. But I have to say: my opinion does not matter. For Wikipedia purposes (especially in contorversial articles) points must be sourced. The category I'm including is sourced to the hilt. I have seen no sources that rebut my central claim (and the claim of countless legal scholars). IronDuke 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have heard MANY people say that O. J. was "wrongfully acquitted," yet I am not one of them, and no, despite your racist intent in your statement, I am not African-American. The facts, in the Simpson case and the Frank case as well, still stand, no matter who interprets them in what way. Frank was found guilty, Simpson was found "not guilty" (you can't "find" someone "innocent," by U. S. law, probably because, as the Sex Pistols reminded us, "No One is Innocent." A jury's finding doesn't make Frank "guilty" or O. J. "innocent," it just says they were found to be that by a jury of their peers. Persons will always say "O. J. was wrongfully acquitted," just as they will always say "Frank was wrongfully convicted." Persons will always say "Holocaust Yes" and "Holocaust No." People will always say "Jesus Yes" and "Jesus No." Wiki is not pure fact, as if there is any such. Wiki is ENCYCLOPEDIA: information on knowledge, with room for accepted "facts" and disputed "facts." Look it up here in Wiki, if you don't wanna take my word for it. This appears, to me, to be a balanced article, overall, but then, that's just my opinion. StavinChain 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC

I assure you that my intent is not racist. I am neither a bigot nor anti-semitic. It's just that, where the Frank case is concerned, Jewish writers have been the ones to write about the case from a one-sided perspective; and unfortunately in recent times, there have been almost no writers to present the other side of the story. I used O. J. Simpson as an analogy simply because it is recent enough for people to remember and understand that there are two sides to any story. Most people have forgotten about the Frank case; the only people who write about it anymore, for the most part, are people who want to make him a poster boy for anti-semitism; but the case was about so much more than that. (I'm not sure why you bring up the holocaust. It would take a real idiot to deny that it happened; and it would certainly take a bigot to defend it in any way. That's obvious.) Leo Frank is another matter. Certainly some people may have been anti-semitic and that's unfortunate; but there were decent people who thought he was guilty. So far no court of law or review board has found enough evidence to overturn his conviction. Hence, he was not wrongfully convicted. IronDuke does not accept past writers who have thought him at least possibly guilty as valid sources. He will always dismiss them as anti-semitic; and that is just not the case. It's like arguing with an iron post unless you are agreeing with him. RobbChadwick 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything here which changes the meaning of "wrongful conviction" into a matter of opinion. Though this will probably be a problem with a number of articles now that Category:Disputed convictions has been deleted -- that's the actual POV category for this sort of thing, and the yahoos at CfD deleted it for being POV, natch. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about the CfD. If I had seen it, I would have strenuously objected to its removal. As to this category, you are offering up an opinion about what the word "wrongful" might mean in this context. Yours is a pefectly valid, not at all silly opinion. However, it is merely your opinion. I am not offering an opinion. I'm offering multiple sources using that very word to describe this case. I can't be on any firmer ground than that. Others may wish that the phrase was interpreted differently, e.g., to mean "absolutely innocent without a shadow of a doubt," but that is not how it's being used by scholars of the case. IronDuke 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a point; this category is ill defined and even more so now that the "disputed" cat is gone. I'll have to think about this one for a while. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: ==The Mary Phagan song, can I have permission to add it to the article? ==

Wiki will not allow new comments to the original section with that title unless all references in that section to SG are removed, so this must needs be a new section, since I won't remove a link to the song in question.

The "Little Mary Phagan" song performed by Rosa Lee Carson, to which that link refers, is by no means the only one from that period; there were many which described, to different degrees, the fate of Phagan and the reasons for it. (My own favorite is Vernon Dalhart's "The Death of Little Mary Phagan," but that's just my opinion.)

Might I recommend that you transcribe the lyric and post it here (being pre-'23, there is probably not going to be a copyright issue), and at least that will allow preservation and dissemination of the intent behind the song (if not the song itself) without the disallowed reference to the SG website. Failing that, you might consider copying the (out-of-copyright) sound file from that site (as the site itself encourages you to do) and adding it to WikiCommons? I'm not sure what the Wiki folks would think about that, but it's worth a try. StavinChain 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued Discussion of Wrongful Conviction & Books / Articles on Frank Case

To IronDuke:

I understand what you are saying. Certainly different persons might define "wrongful conviction" in different ways. I'm not sure that Wikipedia defines it the way you suggest. If you search for an article on wrongful conviction, you reach an article entitled “Miscarriage of Justice.” I quote from the first sentence of that article: A miscarriage of justice is primarily the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he did not commit.” I think the contributors to this article (and perhaps other articles) have decided to define it broadly enough to include Leo Frank and others that may or may not have been wrongfully convicted. (The West Memphis Three are another example. It happens that I totally agree that they were wrongfully convicted, but I digress.)

My whole problem with this article and many of the other books and articles on the Frank case is that there just seems to be so much selective reporting. Back in the 1980's I read the book written by Mary Phagan's great-niece. I still have it in my library along with all the others and Steve Oney's newer book. When I originally read Mary Phagan Kean's book, I honestly didn't think much of it. I didn't think she was a very good writer; and I thought she was probably reporting from her family's perspective. I had read all the other books available at the time (Dinnerstein, Golden, Samuels, Frey, etc.) and generally agreed with them. As I mentioned in another post, I work for the newspaper, The Tennessean, which was instrumental in bringing Alonzo Mann's belated revelations to the forefront, so I accepted what was written in those articles as the total truth as well.

A few months after I read Mary Phagan Kean's book, I happened to be in Atlanta for a meeting and had some free time. I spent some time at the Atlanta Public Library looking through material on the Frank case. I was so intrigued by what I found that I stayed a few extra days just to have more time to review additional material. What I found was that most of the material I had read on Leo Frank's case had been only part of the story. It's not that Dinnerstein and the others were wrong in what they wrote; it's just that they seemed to pick and choose carefully in order to make their point. (I suppose most writers do this to a certain degree; but honest reporting should not be editorial.)

Identity of people who carried out lynching

Are the identities of the people who carried out the lynching properly sourced? Thanks, --Tom 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Steve Oney's book is considered to be a very reliable source regarding the identities of the lynch party. --RobbChadwick 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Robb, what is your take on the lynching section? I am NO expert or even that knowledgeable about this case until I came here, but it seems that this section should be well sourced if persons are going to be labeled as the "ring leaders" of the lynching. Anyways, --Tom 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You might begin by reading just a few of the many, many sources we have listed. IronDuke 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the names of the members of the lynch party have been well known since the time of the event. I also believe that Steve Oney approached the case from a totally non-biased perspective and did the necessary research to confirm what he wrote. Even though I disagree with him on some minor points, I believe his book is the fairest account that has been written since the middle of the 20th century; and I doubt we will ever find a better source at this point. RobbChadwick 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides having some other very good features on Leo Frank, Flagpole.com has an article which contains a detailed and combined list of Stephen J. Goldfarb's (author of the 2000 website, www.leofranklynchers.com) and Steve Oney's list of lynchers. The article is here. -- LittleMissLeo 02:41, 1 January 2008

Is there any sources for what happened to the lynchers?

Were they prosecuted?--Dacium 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

None of them were prosecuted. There was a pro forma investigation by the new governor, but that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.21.115 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliance on journalism rather than historic accounts

This article is marred by the same sensationalism as occurred in media coverage of the trial. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be based on peer-reviewed historic assessments, not selective picking of journalistic accounts, nor a reworking of the journalism. It uses inflammatory language and is far from the objective account needed.--Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying, Parkwells, it's kind of hard to write anything entirely accurate about this case considering most of it was circumstantial evidence and a lot of the press was especially sensationalized - especially with Hearst with his hand in it with the Georgian.

Frankly, I think the article should reflect the kind of inflammation that was felt at the time. Not entirely, but I think the most accurate way of writing an article about this case would be to present it as it is presented in court - the players, background & introduction, the evidence, both sides, why they conflict, and the aftermath. That way, we'd be presenting information without forcing a specific point of view. We'd leave our jury, the reader, to come to his/her own conclusion - decide their own verdict. --LittleMissLeo (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We're supposed to use third-party scholarly sources, not simply the direct newspaper record. Historians have studied it, too.--Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice

This is purely political. If anything, it's just modern politics. By even saying that Alonzo Mann's confession was racist, you're calling attention to Jim's race in turn. The fact that he was guilty had nothing to do with his race - he committed a crime. Even if he was orange, he committed a crime.

You could even say that a lot of African Americans who are guilty of something or other are acquitted purely on the grounds of the color of their skin. That's true, too. I don't believe in free passes because of race the same way I don't believe in conviction because of race.

There are a lot of black people in jail, there are a lot of white people in jail. People will be human. Everybody has different motivations, but in the long run, the actions count. What actually happens counts, and if Jim's guilty, he committed a crime. --LittleMissLeo (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, what I learned from my research at the Atlanta Public Library was that Mary Phagan Kean had apparently done what these other writers had not done. She seemed to have also been through the same material I had seen since she found in the work of the most well known authors many glaring omissions, as well as a great deal of emphasis on the evidence and general circumstances of the trial that favored Leo Frank. This gave me more respect for her work than I had when I first read her book.

IronDuke: you had asked me for a source previously that absolutely stated that Leo Frank was rightfully convicted. I hesitated to mention Ms. Kean since I feel sure you will not accept her as an authority. Even though I don't think her writing is the best, from my own research in Atlanta I know that she at least attempted to do honest research. Her book did not bash Leo Frank; and I don’t think her writing indicated that she was anti-Semitic at all. I suppose it's no surprise that she came to the conclusion that Leo Frank was guilty since, even though distant, she is a relative of the murder victim. However, I have come to question whether it is any fairer to judge her from her perspective than it would be to judge most of the well known writers from theirs. I'm trying to choose my words carefully here because I really do not want to be labeled anti-semitic since I am not. However, when most of the writers on the case are Jewish and see this as simply an atrocity against a Jewish man, I don't see that their perspective is very neutral either. For what it's worth, Ms Kean stated emphatically that Leo Frank was rightfully convicted. She did so in her book, "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan", and also in an article that appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on January 6, 1999 entitled “Leo Frank Killed Mary Phagan ...”

There were other sources that held this opinion. However, I don’t live in Atlanta so I don’t have easy access to the library there at this time. Most of the books & articles available in the Atlanta library have been out of print for many years and were not even available to include in my own personal library at the time I did my research on the case; but that does not mean they don’t contain very pertinent information. For what it’s worth when I did my research at the library, it was a purely personal interest. I had no idea I’d ever write anything about it. I wish I had kept better notes.

A couple of things that may be worth mentioning are that the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, went to his grave stating emphatically that his files contained absolute proof of Leo Frank’s guilt. Granted, he was the prosecutor; but I don’t believe he was anti-semitic or simply out to “get” Leo Frank any way he could. The trial Judge, Leonard Roan, was undecided one way or the other. I know you allege that the opinions of those who find it impossible to decide Mr. Frank’s guilt or innocence are irrelevant; but I disagree. I think that any moral person who looks at the evidence and understands that is it simply not clear cut has something valid to say about his guilt, especially when so many others are doing the opposite. Since that time I spent in Atlanta, I have stumbled across the book by Francis X. Busch that deals with the Frank case and, of course, the work of Steve Oney. Both these writers dealt with the case a little more open-mindedly than I feel some of the major writers have. Neither were able to reach an absolute conclusion about Mr. Frank’s guilt. Mr. Busch was noncommittal; but he certainly did not appear to lean toward the guilt of Mr. Frank. Mr. Oney, I believe, does lean toward Mr. Frank’s innocence; but he correctly states that he cannot be absolutely sure.

This brings me to the final paragraph of this post. I hope you can see from my tone today that I am truly attempting to discuss this in an honest and fair way. What I just cannot understand is why people keep removing items out of this article that would make it a little less one-sided. I’m not talking about things that are truly anti-semitic; they should certainly be removed. However, things have been removed that really should have been left in. For instance, there’s nothing in the article about Ms. Kean’s findings and why she came to that conclusion. The only mention of her left in the article is that she wrote a book. She did write a book; and it was a well researched book regardless of her writing style. You’d never know what she uncovered about the case from the Wikipedia article though, nor would readers learn anything about others who were not Leo Frank bashers but who honestly felt there was reason to consider him a likely suspect. RobbChadwick 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Robb, I appreciate your thoughtful tone, and what you have to say. Your suspicions are correct: I wouldn't accept the murder victim's niece as an unbiased expert. I think it's pretty clear why, but I can expand on this, if you like, or open up to an RfC, but I’m 98% sure other editors would agree. As to those authors who cannot say conclusively if Frank was guilty, I don't say they are irrelevant, rather, that they support my position. If a person is innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and all scholars agree at a minimum that there is reasonable doubt, then the conviction is wrongful. Again, in some of those child care molestation cases I referenced above, the convictions are wrongful because of irregularities with the witnesses, not because we can ever know. (I also believe those people are likely innocent, but couldn’t’ say for sure.) As for the religion of the people who call it wrongful, I think they come from a diverse set of backgrounds. I also don’t think you can dismiss their claims as biased because they are Jewish. That is, you can in a casual conversation if you like, but cannot for WP purposes. Here, you would have to have a reputable source that says, “Dinnerstein is selective in his fact choice and suspect because he is Jewish” (which I would think would be difficult to find, as it comes very close to being antisemitic). Taking, say, Darfur as an example, if scholars who happen to be Christian condemn the violence there, that does not mean that we can dismiss their views because they are Christian. Their opinion still matters.

I am glad to be having a civil discussion with you. IronDuke 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I too am glad to discuss this in a civil way. Like you, I believe that a person should be found not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt. You will hopefully recall that I have previously said that I really don't think Leo Frank should have been found guilty. There was indeed conflicting evidence; and that should always lean in favor of the accused. I would just like to see a current book that includes all the little details that make me wonder about this case. There were many; and often the solution is in the details. I wish I had the time to do this myself. Unfortunately, I don't. As I've said before, my only reason for playing the devil's advocate here is to let people know that the story is a little broader than we usually hear. Best wishes. RobbChadwick 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Overturned conviction the same as pardoned?

Was the conviction overturned? Right now the article says that a pardon was giving without clearing him of the crime. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How long has that category existed? Because of the unique nature of this case, and because this conviction was not "overturned" - the pardon specifically said that he could be guilty or innocent, and was based on the issue of the state's failure to adequately protect Frank. This has to do with the penalty and post-trial phases of this case, not with the conviction itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificus (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So the category, over turned convictions is not appropriate here? Is there a better category? I know this has been gone over before. Wasn't there or is there a category for contested convictions or something of the like? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that in the past, Wikipedia may have had a category for "Disputed Convictions" - if that no longer exists, I think it should be [re-]created. This particular article was controversially in the "Wrongful Convictions" category, but I think that category was eliminated.

I think that, for accuracy and clarity purposes, it would be best to reserve the Overturned convictions in the United States category for those convictions that were overturned in the conventional way. (See below.) Not only was this "pardon" issued with a disclaimer, specifically saying that Frank wasn't necessarily innocent, but it was issued based upon the state's failure to protect Frank in the period of time after his conviction. This deals with the penalty phase of the trial, or more accurately, it deals with procedural matters, which are independent of the trial (and conviction) itself.

I don't know if the Georgia Pardons and Paroles Board has ever issued such a decision before, or since. Because of the uniqueness of this ruling, it's debatable whether this article should go in that category. Even if it technically was an "overturned" conviction, inclusion in that category should probably be limited to convictions formally vacated, due to reversible error. A pardon is not the same as an overturned conviction; otherwise, we might have to included every single convict who was pardoned in that category. Come to think of it, there is already a category for that.

Unless someone provides a better alternative, I think I will remove this article from the "Overturned convictions" category - and if there is no category for "Disputed convictions", then that Pardon category may be what we have to settle for. Pacificus (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a category for persons who have received pardons? Maybe include that. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC), just saw that category above. It has one entry? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The PBS documentary specifically referred to a pardon, but not an overturned conviction. MMetro (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)