Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Machn Still Edit Warring

I have reverted an edit by Machn that added language not supported by the source that is linked by a footnote to that section. I have also added back the admission that the testimony offered was labelled as "false" -- this is supported by the cited source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No edit warring here, you are mislabeling my actions in an attempt to stir up unnecessary problems and it is transparent. I later provided sources, to substantiate that George Epps was Mary Phagans neighbor and friend. Also if someone is bribed to recant their sworn testimony, and then repudiates their recantation then the original statement is not false. Machn (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think an official stop to this is now warranted. Machn has had plenty of warning. IronDuke 02:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the allegations of tampering by the Frank side to its own paragraph and labeled it as allegations. Since Machn offered nothing specific to Epps it really doesn't belong in that section at all and eventually the whole issue of alleged tampering needs to have its own section with both sides being given their proportionate weight. And despite your claims, the FACT that witnesses say one thing on one day and something contrary the next would cause most objective people to realize that the trial testimony has to be taken with a large dose os skepticism. Epps is a perfect example -- there is no doubt that he is a liar, the only question is when he was lying and when, if ever, he was telling the truth. A trial based on such testimony is not a fair trial.

As to whether administrator action is necessary, I will leave that to the administrators that are monitoring ths article. Machn was warned to stop blaming Jewish scholars for creating bias against Frank -- he is continuing with the same arguments but is simply no longer naming his targets as being Jewish. His most recent efforts cite a 1913 work, a non-scholarly work by a Mary Phagan ancestor, and a work by the prosecuting attorney. Absent ANYBODY else supporting Machn's efforts and in light of the fact that Oney, Dinnerstein, et al represent the best sources on the subject, his efforts, to me, do take on the appearance of edit warring.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologized and already agreed to stop bringing up our religion, as well as the Jewish ethnocentric and Jewish enthno-religious Bias of the article. I also apologized and agreed to stop pointing out that the majority of the sources utilized in the article are biased Jews (I ask you to confirm this by reading this entire discussion thread). So why are you digging this up again and trying to manipulate this against me? I already told you I would not bring it up again (I ask you to read the entire discussion thread). So why are you being manipulative? If you would like, I will apologize again, I'm apologize again for the Nth time and already agreed not to bring this up for the nth time, so please stop the spin, ganging up and manipulation. Also why are you accusing me of replacing the words, to paraphrase your supposition, Jewish Bias with Political Correctness, when that is not my intention at all. In other words, what I say when I use the term politically correct propaganda, I'm not using it as a code word for Jewish ethnocentric bias, I'm simply pointing out that every level of the United States legal system states that this trial was conducted fairly and that the Jury's decision was not disturbed by any Judge or any level of the court system, not Judge Roan, not the appellate courts, not the Supreme Court of Georgia, not the Supreme Court of the United States of America disturbed the decision of the Jury (how the heck are you turning that into me making statements of Jewish bias????). Please stop trying to put words in my mouth, or drag the Jewish issue we already settled into this against me. That is not fair and underhanded. I take enormous offense that now you are trying to use my religion against me and get admins to ban me for something I agreed to stop bringing up. Machn (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you accuse me of using YOUR RELIGION against you. The fact is that you cannot unring a bell. You indeed have replaced your unfounded claims of a Jewish conspiracy to attack sources with an equally unfounded claim of a Political Correctness conspiracy to attack the very same sources. It is still the same group of reliable sources that you are attacking, isn't it?. You have been asked to present specific criticisms by reliable sources of these works but have repeatedly failed to do so. Perhaps you can explain what aspect of Political Correctness you believe is represented by the vast majority of current scholars who have documented that Frank did not get a fair trial.

You say above, "Some areas of Wikipedia have become the propaganda wing of Political Correctness and this article is an example of this pervasive problem." This seems to be very similar to other statements you have made above such as "I have noticed a lot of wikipedia articles that pertain to Jewish subjects seem to all be overwhelmingly using Jewish sources which are monolithic in self-defense and biased and leaning in our favor, with a sprinkling of opposing Jewish and non-Jewish views."

You need to get totally off your soapbox on conspiracy theories and address what reliable sources say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Widely considered a miscarriage of justice"

By who? Dweebs on the Internet? I have yet to see a single murder case where there wasn't somebody claiming that the murderer was "innocent". I took a quick survey around my office, and 100% of everyone I asked thinks Frank was guilty. So if I throw the results up in a blog somewhere, can I cite it here in the article? :P The point is this: if there's some actual reason to doubt the guilt or innocence of a particular murderer, the put it in a friggin' "Controversy" section, the way we'd do with any other topic. But for the love of God, quit sticking these idiotic "Teenagers on Teh Intrawebs think Manson/Hitler/Godzilla is INNOCENT" comments into the first paragraph of every damn Wiki regarding murderers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk • contribs)

""Widely considered a miscarriage of justice"

By who? Dweebs on the Internet? I have yet to see a single murder case where there wasn't somebody claiming that the murderer was "innocent". I took a quick survey around my office, and 100% of everyone I asked thinks Frank was guilty."

Are you...serious? Have you done any research whatsoever on this case? Okay, here's a "quick" survey to respond to your meaningless office "quick survey" (and frankly, I doubt anyone in your office had the slightest idea what you were talking about, the Frank lynching isn't exactly headline news). Go onto Amazon and do a search on Mary Phagan. Every single book that comes up, with one exception, has strong reservations about Frank's guilt. And whether or not you believe in his guilt, it is incontrovertible fact that his ultimate fate was indeed a "miscarriage of justice." Unless you believe in mob rule carrying out the lynching of commuted prisoners. 24.215.184.44 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read this article, you would find it enlightening. IronDuke 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone has recently changed the verbiage in the opening section to be much less NPOV (e.g., "was an obvious miscarriage of justice", etc.). Rescending. PScooter63 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your reversion, PScooter63. IronDuke 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are challenging the assertion that: "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice" is an incorrect and biased statement, because predominantly only Jewish Scholars believe this and not the mainstream public, then that might be considered anti-Semitic. Just because the article only uses predominantly Jewish sources does not mean that the article itself is biased in favor of Leo Frank. Unfortunately, most of the modern writers on the subject make the assertion that Leo Frank was convicted because of Antisemitism and because he was a rich northern Jew. This idea that the whole system convicted Leo Frank because of Anti-Semitism is in itself a racist, prejudiced and bigoted statement from the modern writers about the Leo Frank case who are asserting that every major court in the united states and the people of the great state of Georgia are Anti-Semitic. It's total nonsense. Machn (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

These are generally the positions a dozen modern political writers might take and it is completely absurd. "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice" is a total fallacy.

Blaming Anti-Semitism for Leo Franks conviction is simply NOT true, a dozen political writers can not overturn the rulings of judges from every level of the US court system. This quote is a total lie and propaganda. Machn (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What the introduction should say is that Leo Frank made 5 attempts to get a new trial or the Jury's conviction set aside, but all attempts failed, or, after several attempts to appeal the case to the Georgia Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court failed, Leo Franks conviction was affirmed and became binding legal precedent. Saying, it it is widely considered a miscarriage of justice is simply not true and POV pushing. Machn (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Machn

This Tom Watson book you cite, why don't you give its full title? -- LaNaranja (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've asked an admin to intervene. Hopefully, that will take care of it. IronDuke 02:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed that reference. He actually treated the anti-Semitic work by Tom Watson, arguably the person most responsible for the lynching, as a reliable source. Amazing! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), With all due respect, did Tom Watson cause Leo Frank to get lynched? or were the actions of Leo Frank beating, raping (according to one of the doctors testimony at the trial) and strangling Mary Phagan to death in the metal room on the second floor of the pencil factory on April 26th 1913, along with Governor Slaton's commutation of Leo Frank's death sentence to life in prison in June 1915 inspire the people to lynch Leo Frank? I think you might be confusing the real reason why Leo Frank was lynched. I have a suspicion that an enormous uncountable number of people were calling for the Jury and Judge Roans decisions and conclusions to be fulfilled. It could also be arguably stated, that it is widely believed that the trial and aftermath were not a miscarriage of justice and that Leo Franks conviction and lynching were widely supported and acclaimed. Machn (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the discussion on Machn's talk page concerning this issue and the subsequent block. Watson wrote many articles criticizing Frank and it appears the Amazon site combined the titles of two different Watson articles. Watson did write an article titled "The official record in the case of Leo Frank, a Jew pervert" a month after the article Machn cited. The problem, however, is not the title of Watson's works but the content. The bottom line is still that Watson clearly was an anti-Semite and racist pursuing a political agenda. In no way do his writings constitute a reliable source for the facts of the case. As the discussion page of the article indicates, Machn rejects any suggestions that anti-Semitism was a factor in the Frank case or that Frank did not receive an absolutely fair trial. Unfortunately, when you look for sources that actually support this position you are left with the likes of Watson and other apologists for a deeply flawed judicial process.

An example of Watson's writings:

Here we have the typical young libertine Jew who is dreaded and detested by the city authorities of the North for the very reason that Jews of this type have an utter contempt for law, and a ravenous appetite for the forbidden fruit -- a lustful eagerness enhanced by the racial novelty of the girl of the uncircumsized. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. I'm well aware of Tom Watson's writing and the influence it had; I added quite a bit on it to the article. I just felt bad because Machn's block was a result of my own misunderstanding. -- LaNaranja (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

La Naranja, I appreciate that you are a participant in this article and can be honest enough to come forward and admit when you made a mistake, it shows the strength and integrity of your character. I say this despite the fact you and I may disagree on many things. Tom Watson articles are very important from a historical stand point and should be read, putting aside some of his arguably anti-religious comments, he makes some very articulate, lucid and astute observations about the Leo Frank case against the backdrop of the half-truths, manipulation and circus-like atmosphere created by the Leo Frank side of the equation. Tom Watson works are very enjoyable read, putting aside some of his controversial anti-religious comments, because putting those aside, the majority of what he writes about is well thought out, well written and logically put together. Taken to the masses, when one puts aside some of his controversial anti-religious statements, many people agree with Tom Watson conclusions about Leo Frank. Tom Watson offers a refreshing change to all the modern contemporaries who put out nothing but politically correct propaganda books attempting to confuse and impeach the testimony of everyone on the prosecution side and make a mockery of every level of the United States Legal system which has established binding legal precedent concerning Leo Franks conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States of America which at the end of every attempt unanimously put an end to the Leo Frank appeal process. Moreover, all the modern books attempt to spin, be apologists for Leo Frank and blame Anti-Semitism as the reason Leo Frank was convicted. Blaming Anti-Semitism for Leo Franks conviction is a total POV pushing fallacy. Was there isolated incidences of Anti-Semitism during the case? of course, no one is denying that, but it is totally exaggerated and blown out of proportion blaming Anti-Semitism for his conviction it had no effect on the Jury, the trial were conducted today and the same testimony was provided he would be convicted without question. Machn (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was a result of his disruption. Just because Amazon got the title wrong doesn't excuse the source, or the behavior. IronDuke 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true, you posted this lie on my talk page and the Jayjg talk page that I sourced some article with Jew Pervert in the title and you never apologized for this lie against me. Machn (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Watson's Leo Frank Jew Pervert Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry I was not able to respond sooner, I was temporarily banned from posting on Wikipedia by [Jayjg] and [jpgordon] for allegedly posting something that said in the title "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" or some variation of this and it is absolutely not true or because Tom tricked me into saying something which is forbidden to say on wikipedia (or both).

For the record, I have been publically accused by IronDuke and La Naraja of posting some kind of article with the term "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" in it and publically posted and reported to administrators pages of [Jayjg] and [jpgordon] intervened along, claiming I was being disruptive because of it. I want to state for the record, I have not now or ever posted any source to the Leo Frank article that says "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" in the title. I am asking that people please stop making false accusations against me and playing games with me to get me banned. I take the Leo Frank article very serious and would appreciate if the personal attacks, name calling, games and other things against me would stop, so we might have a productive discussion about this very important topic.

The alleged source you may be referring to is: Watson's Magazine published in August of 1915 by former Senator and House of Representative member Tom Watson, the magazine article in question does not say "Leo Frank Jew Pervert" anywhere in the title: http://www.archive.org/details/WatsonsMagazineAugust1915Volume21No.4FeaturingLeoFrankMaryPhagan you can download the PDF and go to page 182 and see for yourself the title of the article says, "Watsons Magazine August 1915 volume 21 no. 4 featuring Leo Frank Mary Phagan Murder Trial" or "The celebrated case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank ; The official record in the case of Leo Frank". There is something on Amazon.com that claims there is an article called: The celebrated case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank ; The official record in the case of Leo Frank, a Jew pervert [Unknown Binding]. See the Jew Pervert, but I don't know if it actually exists or not?

I have looked far and wide across the internet for a copy of an article with the term variations "Leo Frank" and "Jew Pervert" and I can't seem to find it anywhere, can someone please advise? Machn (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as you well know, you were blocked (for 1 day only) for disruptive behavior and making inappropriate Talk: page comments. You've already been pointed to sources proving the title of this article, for example footnote 13 here. Pretending you were blocked for other reasons, or pretending you don't know if the article exists, is repeating that behavior - making talk page assertions that are almost certainly false. Don't continue down this path. Discuss only article content here, nothing else. Do not respond here. Work on the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Trial of Leo Frank Should Be its Own page

The trial of Mr. Frank should really be its own article.

It's such a complicated story! This'll have to be where the information goes, but it'll be a challenge to distill the key info and still have it all make clear sense. Have you read And The Dead Shall Rise? It covers every blessed detail we could ever need and is strictly unbiased. And did you ever find the Lawson abridgement? -- LaNaranja (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Machn (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree or disagree with this? It seems like we really should have an entirely different page about his life and this trial. Lawson's edited abridged version of the trial testimony can be found on archive.org and I have read it carefully. The 31M PDF book is available here, http://www.archive.org/details/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan

Oney is not unbiased, he has publicly stated he thinks Leo Frank is innocent which is the politically correct position in modern times. Machn (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oney has researched the subject thoroughly and is entitled to express his conclusions -- both in the book and in public. ALL serious historians express their conclusions -- this does not make them biased. Please show where Oney, in his book, demonstrated bias in his use and analysis of the available evidence. Or better yet, please show where any serious reviewer of the work makes such claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'll add that on my list of things to do concerning Leo Frank. Machn (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction and Removal of Appeals

IronDuke, you deleted my additions to the introduction about the very important appeals which is an essential part of Leo Franks 2 year struggle for vindication, freedom and life through 5 appeals including the Georgia Supreme Court 2x and the United States Supreme Court 2x. I believe the 5 appeals (1 of the 5 was the request for a retrial) of the conviction are a worthy of mentioning in the introduction, including the divided prison board which voted 2 to 1 against him? because these last 2 years where the struggle for his survival, followed ultimately by the governors commutation and a pyrric victory with a pardon that "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence,". To leave this 2 year struggle out of the introduction would widely be believed to be a great injustice to the article. Machn (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I simply will not reply to your "arguments" any longer -- they are not being made in good faith. In any kind of reputable encyclopedia, you would have been shown the door long ago. IronDuke 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article lede does mention the appeals -- Machn again seems to be pursuing his POV by trying to over-emphasize this in the lede. It does no appear that anything that has transpired with today's edits has improved the article. It should be apparent by now that the continued efforts to edit controversial aspects of this article without first discussing it on this discussion page is disruptive. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

There are 2 major problems with the intro,

1. Legal Struggle 2. The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]

Don't you think that it would benefit the article if we spelled out the legal struggle and battle for Leo Franks life? We have a big paragraph on the social, political and racial tensions, but how about the Legal struggle to get a new trial or have the verdict set aside? Why down play these important life events with a tiny sentence of "Following the denial of several appeals". The Leo Frank denials actually became case law that every law student in the united states studies and is the talk of great debates of black letter law, why would something so historically important as these individual legal steps and struggles be relegated to a sentence with 6 words in it? What do you say we let bygones be bygones and we try to make this article great, and re-write that intro which seems cramped and unable to properly blossom as the structure of it seems kinda constipated. The paragraph on legal struggle and battle for his life leading up to the commutation really could use some re-writing.

Also, the "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" does that seem like POV pushing? I mean who thinks its widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice? The entire state of Georgia and most of the south may have agreed with the jurys verdict and the sentence of justice being met out after the commutation. Given that Watson and Dorsey became political rockstars after the trial shows that the case was widely regarded as having been Just, given that Leo Frank was originally sentenced to Hang by Judge Roan / Jury. Therefore, I'm not sure the Widely and miscarriage is fair or accurate. Widely sounds like POV Pushing. Not to mention 5 court rulings against Leo Franks appeals and motions. What do you think? Machn (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of your suggestions would improve the article. You are pursuing the same old POV without adequate sourcing to back it up. At the same time you attack actual reliable sourcing with unfounded charges of bias. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

Concerning the introduction:

Part 1: legal proceedings deserve to be fully mentioned in the introduction as they represent the last two years of Leo Franks life in between jail and the court room, they were the tooth and nail struggle for Leo Franks life so that he would not have to die at the end of a rope, hanged to death, at the sentence of Judge Roan after the unanimous guilty decision of the Jury. To highlight Leo Franks struggle for his life in 6 words in the introduction does not do justice for Leo Frank, when the vast majority of the introduction is circus-like overplaying every race, religious and ethnic card. What the introduction needs is SUBSTANCE not national inquirer soap opera drama. Leo Frank fought tooth and nail from 1913 to 1915 for his life and his neck, how could you cheat this articles introduction, by only having some short sentences on the substance of his legal proceedings. The introduction feels like it was written by the Leo Frank defense League, and not by neutral scholars attempting to create a scholarly encyclopedia. The Leo Frank article is exactly a reflection of a widely pervasive problem on wikipedia of political and POV bias on controversial topics and therefore wikipedia is almost unanimously NOT considered a reliable source by all serious colleges, universities and academic institutions. I'm very saddened by this fact, that the current administration in wikipedia has yet to stop the POV pushing and political bias in controversial articles. It saddens me that the admins and you would allow such open, blatant and uncompromising POV pushing in the Leo Frank article and that the Leo Frank introduction reads as if Leo Frank defense team wrote it (could be confirmed by anyone who actually read the Trial Transcript and Brief of Evidence).

Part 2: "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]"

Regarding the statement "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" which is specifically Leo Frank partisan bias POV Pushing.

You seem to be avoiding the substance of the entire weight of United States Legal System, which affirms there was no miscarriage of justice. The substance of the legal system you seem to be avoiding is:

1. black letter law of the Leo Frank trial and legal proceedings 2. settled law of the Leo Frank trial and legal proceedings 3. binding legal precedent of the Leo Frank trial and legal proceedings 4. substance of the rulings of the Georgia State Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.

What you are doing instead by allowing this POV statement is deferring to some authors who have their own personal POV opinion on the Leo Frank subject. The position that the case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice is only the opinion of the Leo Frank defense side of the equation. There is what might be called the Leo Frank Prosecution side of the equation, the people of Georgia and Southerners in general, even more, I dare say there are a lot of Northerners who also consider Leo Frank to be without question guilty. If you actually read the decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the Leo Frank Brief of Evidence which both the Leo Frank Defense and the Leo Frank Prosecution accepted as the unimpeachable testimony, then you would know there was no miscarriage of justice.

So by saying in the article, "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" what you are doing is pushing the opinion of one side Leo Frank case and trial. This is what I am talking about when I say the whole article is written in such a way as if the Leo Frank defense team wrote the article, it is totally biased from top to bottom and I'd like us to start from the top. The statement of "The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]" is unquestionably biased. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has the final say on this matter and the Georgia Supreme Court have the final say in this matter, which is that the Jury's Verdict represents the binding truth, settled legal precedent, black letter law and fact. No one has yet to step forward and disturb the Jurys Verdict, not 5 different courts, not the Governors commutation, not even a board of pardons would address the issue of guilt in 1986? The Jurys verdict is settled binding law there are no more appeals, motions or requests to set the verdict aside left.

Part 3:

The "pardon" in 1986? did not address Leo Franks Guilt (thus affirming and not disturbing the jury's verdict) and the substance of his "pardon" says that because he was lynched he could not continue to appeal his case. What really happened is that Leo Frank had fully exhausted all of his legal options and appeals, and there was absolutely nothing left he could appeal or motion whatsoever. Even Governor Slaton didn't disturb the Jury's verdict, so that 'statement' is patently and factually false about him being prevented from appealing his case (there were zero appeals left, he exhausted them all). Secondly the pardon did not address his guilt or innocence, which means that the Jurys verdict was once again undisturbed and stands today untouched for almost 100 years. The posthumous pardon comes off more like a political cosmetic appeasement than anything of binding legal substance. Therefore doesn't it make sense to mention the truth and substance of the pardon in the article? Why keep the truth out? Is the pardon even legal? Some sources say it is not legal. Machn (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Atlanta newspaper wars

• Asbury, Herbert. "Hearst Comes to Atlanta." American Mercury, April 1926, pp. 87-95. Google Books "Had not Hearst owned The Georgian, the story probably would have died a natural death."

Did you mean January 1926 instead of April? Machn (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve Oney draws extensively from this comprehensive Am Merc article for the chapter "Extra, Extra" in And the Dead Shall Rise.

• The Georgian. Libraries That Have It

• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution deep archive: these are mostly pay-to-view. But all the Journal's and the Constitution's articles on the case are here, starting with the very first article, by Britt Craig for a 6:30 a.m. April 28 special edition of the Constitution.

• Oney, Steve. "Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism." Nieman Reports "[T]he prototypic American convergence of journalistic excess and legal tragedy occurred in the early years of the 20th century, and it was played out not on television or radio but in the medium of print."

• Startt, James D. (2004). Woodrow Wilson and the Press: Prelude to the Presidency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 157-73. Google Books Section on political influence of the press (especially Hearst's) in the South at the time.-- LaNaranja (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know where to get to get free online copies of the newspapers from these various news sources which kept meticulous records of the trial and published the testimony daily. Machn (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only newspapers that covered the testimony daily were the three Atlanta papers. The Constitution's and the Journal's stories are in the AJC archive (link above) but that archive is not free to access. The Georgian, see above. For articles that covered that later time from a variety of sources, look into Google News Archive Search. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• In Google News Archive Search's Jan-Dec 1913 news timeline for "Leo Frank" are a number of free-to-access AP articles published during the trial by regional and farther-flung newspapers. The Atlanta Constitution's headlines (linking to the $ AJC archive) are there to follow along with, too.

• The NYT has a free archive. Try Search: "leo frank" > Advanced Search > Custom Date Range > choose your dates, for example January 1, 1913 to December 31, 1915 > Oldest First. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction and Posthumous Pardon

IronDuke, The introduction is very poorly written and there needs to be a discussion on re-writing it with the help of some real seasoned wiki writers, because as it stands now it reads like a lot of POV Pushing as if it were written from the Leo Frank Defense team. removing the "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence," from the Posthumous Pardon section of the Leo Frank article is to make it into a false climax instead of the Pyrrhic victory it represents in its substance. It is essential that in the Posthumous pardon section of the Leo Frank article that this essential point stays part of the article "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence," to remove it would take away the finality, closure and substance of the Posthumous Pardon. Machn (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See my reply below. IronDuke 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The section s fine as it now stands. Despite Machn's emphasis, he ignores the signifcant part of the ruling that said the lynching failed to "preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction." Governor Slaton's commutation left the road open for further appeals -- the lynching cut this short. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we consult La Naranja on this one? Are you saying that Leo Frank commutation meant that more motions and appeals to the Georgia and United States Supreme Court were available, or were all of those options closed after the Supreme Court voted unanimously against the final time? Machn (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Leo Frank studiers, Can someone with a law degree and knowledge of law, George law and the Supreme Court please tell us if Leo Frank had exhausted all of his appeals? I was under the impression he had exhausted all of his appeals, but I want to get other opinions on this matter, so as not to make a blanket statement which might not be true. Please Respond. Machn (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The appeals were *not* retrials.....

Hi Machn, happy Sunday :) I noticed you were writing earlier about the appeals. Appeals are not rehearings. In each appeal the higher courts can only consider the issues that the defense appellant sets forth regarding lower court proceedings. These were not retrials to redecide LF's guilt or innocence.

If you read thoroughly about the motions and appeals in this case you can understand better how justice was done, yet not done -- how LF fell through the legal cracks.

There's a very quick summary of each motion and appeal at this general interest-type article starting about a third of the way down the page, with the paragraph "Frank’s attorneys kept their word and ignored the issue...."

But Part II of this article from the Alabama Law Review follows them step by step and discusses each in great detail -- Milestones in Habeas Corpus: Leo Frank Lives: Part II -- The Legal Proceedings in Frank :

plain html here | pdf here

The .pdf starts at page 8 of 74 in Adobe Reader, page 1474 in the document. (Part II begins there, with a review of the facts and the trial; discussion of the appeals begins at 11/74, document's p. 1477.)

I think if you read that "Legal Proceedings in Frank" section especially, then the appeals puzzle should become clear :)

Could I suggest also -- please just move on to a different, unemotional part of the article for the time being -- forget the lead for now. -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The brief details of the legal struggle belongs in the introduction because it was a life or death battle finally leading to the commutation. How about something like this: On August 26th 1913 a day after the verdict and sentencing, a motion for a new trial was submitted and denied. The motion was re-raised (use a different word) to the Georgia Supreme Court who also denied the motion. And, then mention the 3 appeal attempts to have the verdict set aside? Are these items worthy of the intro? Machn (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think for now they're covered there with "Following the denial of several appeals...." With consensus, would you be interested in editing the Appeals section? Set out concisely the facts of each? I think that's what you're already starting to write. After you've "gotten to know" each you'll be in better shape to discuss how best to fit them succinctly into the Intro. -- LaNaranja (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi La Naranja.

Thank you for providing this enjoyable read, do you have more like it? How about the crown jewel of the Leo Frank case, Hugh M Dorsey's Brief of Evidence? I wonder if the writer Eric M. Freedman didn't pre-suppose Leo Franks guilt if he would have written this review of the law differently. It would be so nice if there were more sources out there which were neutral on the Leo Frank subject. I Concur with you that the section on Franks legal struggle needs to be carefully developed with consensus, because the last 2 years of Leo Franks life were a struggle for his existence, survival and probably the most gut wrenching years of his life. Machn (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Machn, the section on the Frank appeals in the Freedman article walks us through the matters of law in each one, that's why I offered it. If you'd prefer to use other sources, go ahead. The bases for the courts' rulings are not going to change from author to author. -- LaNaranja (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

La Naranja,

From the confederate holiday of April 26th 1913th till August 17th 1915 represents the time of intense struggle for the life, liberty and survival of Leo Franks and his family, it not only deserves a proper brief explanation in the intro, but a more thorough one in the article itself is necessary. I'm saddened by the intro being written in such a cramped and constipated matter (and I don't direct that at any individual), and was wondering if you could step in and discuss the matter of the widely believed to be a miscarriage of justice sentence which comes off as POV Pushing.

When I removed the authors personal political bias from the article it was very enjoyable read and I thank you for providing it for me, because it provided a starting point for the legal struggle that consumed the last 2 years of Leo Franks life. Do you have other documents like this one? How about the most essential item: the Brief of Evidence? Is there a digital version of this document available to be downloaded? My hope is that the Leo Frank article can be neutral and present all the facts of the case neutrally without Leo Frank Defense POV and Propaganda and without Leo Frank Persecution POV and Propaganda. Which brings us to an interesting conclusion that the Leo Frank Trial itself could be it's own Wiki page, but I wonder if they would allow that given the controversial political nature of the subject and the complexity involved in monitoring its evolution. What do you think? I'm looking forward to seeing this part of the article developed properly. Machn (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What parts of the article sections I gave you contain "the author's personal political bias"? Please be specific. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One time he says Frank is an Innocent Jew and then another time he says that Jim Conley did the actual crime. I'd love it if there were some docs out there that were neutral on the subject or shocking if someone has the personal courage to admit they think Leo Frank is guilty. Anyhow, more to the point do you have a digital copy of every single document associated with the legal proceedings, law and so forth regarding Leo Franks legal attempts? Machn (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. Which attorney or judge said that? I gave you the page numbers.

Here's a third way, and then I cant play this anymore. Take the Dorsey book, a source it seems you trust. Take this Freedman article. Compare their sections on the appeals. Do the facts differ? -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

one more. You seem to have grown out of guessing that the appeals verdicts were affirmations of the trial's guilty verdict. Now that you know what the appeals were not, do you think you should know what they were? -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, I certainly do think the legal proceedings, motions and appeals from 1913 to 1915 are worthy of deep exploration and understanding as they have had the influence of shaping our legal system and have become binding precedent and how they were an intricate fabric of Leo Franks life. Leo Frank is studied in every Law school in the US because of the impact his collective legal proceedings, motions and appeals had on shaping the laws. I can not thank you enough for taking the time to point me in the right direction in studying the legal proceedings. However, you said, "Now that you know what the appeals were not, do you think you should know what they were?" and I ask, "What do you think they were?" if they weren't attempts to have the verdict set aside and were not affirmations of the Jurys verdict? The legal proceedings seemed to try to motion for a new trial (GA superior court, GA & US supreme court), introduce new evidence so as to have a new trial, have Leo Frank released on Habeas Corpus and at other times get the verdict set aside (GA & US supreme court). Could you please clarify? Machn (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didnt mean the defense's motivation to appeal, of course. I meant the limited grounds on which the defense could base their arguments, which were the only matters the judges could legally consider. In the appeals section of the Freedman article, which is actually quite short (or others that are exclusively about the appeals, but those I didnt find), you can watch the arguments and the court opinions change and develop as they progress up to the US Supreme Court and the Holmes dissent, and you'll understand what the appeals were. -- LaNaranja (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja.

I have reviewed your contributions to the article again and of all the contributors to this article, your writing reads and seems to be the closest to neutrality and your scholarly additions to the article have been excellent in comparison to the political POV bias pushing that is so blindingly obvious in this article. you are an invaluable asset in terms of pointing me to the most interesting documents concerning the Leo Frank case. I can't thank you enough for motivating me to track down digital scans of the Brief of Evidence (agreed upon by both Leo Defense team and Leo Defense prosecution) and documents in legal proceedings after Leo Franks conviction. I am pouring over what looks like could easily be 1000 pages and I must say reading these original documents are a treasure trove of subtle nuance, infinitesimal detail, and information the general public has rarely had the opportunity to review.

It is also interesting to read some of the original unabridged testimony during the original trial which convicted Leo Frank. At some point I hope every document concerning Leo Frank are made available online because they bring such clarity of truth to a topic which has been obfuscated by Oney, Dinnerstein and all the other contemporary writers who have written their books and articles with a mental outlook of victim-complex and persecution-syndrome, a manner to dupe the public into thinking a well educated Leo Frank was without question innocent, framed and railroaded by an illiterate uneducated black janitor through an Anti-Semitic legal system motivated by religious and racial hatred of Jews. The truth is in the brief of evidence and I hope this document becomes available to the public soon online because it proves without a shadow of a doubt Leo Franks guilt. Thank you again for pointing me in the direction of getting copies of these most precious and rare documents. I feel like I struck gold, truly struck gold. Machn (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Machn....

Before you do anything else, I'd really like to ask you to edit the section devoted to "Leo Frank's two year tooth and nail legal struggle to prevent himself from being hanged." Just look up the information and distill it down. It shouldnt take too long and you have a little more space to cover it there. Then you'll be better able to distill that into something to suggest for the lead. The lead will still be there, don't worry. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, you're a rockstar! Thanks again, seriously, for pointing me to this golden treasure trove of information on Leo Frank. I'm gonna need some time :) it's like 1000+ pages of legal documents. Do you have a PDF copy (not on paper, but digital) of the Hugh M. Dorseys Brief of Evidence? I'm not going to touch the intro like you for the time being. Machn (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the links to the newspaper article archives? You're welcome. Or... what do you mean? A thousand pages of stuff about the appeals? That's way too much :)

Do you have a chronology of the appeals to keep you on track -- it's a confusing journey. I dont know where to find online other sources that explain them in layman's language, besides Part II of the Freedman article. That doesnt mean they're not out there, though.

(Or, are you saying you're going to be doing some reading, about the whole case? I didn't understand.)

No, I dont have Brief of Evidence. I'd like to read it. I looked for it at Google Books but it's not there. Oh well, I'll run across it someday. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great News! One no longer needs to go to the Georgia state archives in person to get the Crown Jewels of the Leo Frank Trial known as the *elusive* brief of evidence. *For $135 (including shipping) one can get a digitized copy of Brief of Evidence from the Georgia State Archive and it is absolutely essential and invaluable to anyone who wants to study the Leo Frank case to get a copy of it and read it!

Georgia Archives
Attn: Archival Services
5800 Jonesboro Road
Atlanta, GA 30260

It should help dispel, debunk or confirm any accusations of bias or inaccuracy about any contemporary writers on the subject. Machn (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is it? Is it a memoir? Or is it a printed (now digital) transcription of his arguments in the case? I dont know, if it were that valuable wouldnt it be available in law libraries? There's nothing with that title at University of Georgia law library, where you'd think it would be under glass in the lobby. At the Georgia State Archives main page there's a link to "Ask an Archivist," maybe it's best to find out exactly what it is before shelling out money. (That Georgia Archives by the way also has images of the flurry of corresp./documents leading up to the clemency decision (draft of that very statement is Item 20); your man Dorsey is in there.)

Oh -- it must be this: Brief of evidence in trial of plaintiff in error Leo M. Frank, indicted for murder, in the Supreme Court of Georgia, Fall Term, 1913.

It is "a 134-page document that summarizes the trial and whose accuracy was ratified by lawyers for both sides." Goldfarb, Stephen J. Framed. (There are two articles on this one page, this one is the second.) He says, "In itself this document, the Brief of Evidence, which has for so long lain dormant, does not prove guilt or innocence." And -- Stephen J. Goldfarb is/may still be "on the staff of the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library". Their databases look pretty comprehensive, maybe it's there.

La Naranja, At your recommendation I just finished reading The Fate of Leo Frank & Framed the two in one article by Leonard Dinnerstein (has errors and leaves out details?) and Steven Goldfarb (blames detective Scott for the conviction of Leo Frank?) respectively. It was not clear the brief of evidence they were discussing was for this trial mentioned concerning money owed to the pinkertons or the brief of evidence from the Leo Frank 1913 trial for the murder of Mary Phagan. Do you or anyone know what happened to the original coroners inquest documents, testimony and notes for the murder of Mary Phagan? Do those documents still exist and is there any record of them or where they lost? How about the affidavits which were submitted for the 1913 trial? What exactly has been lost, aside from the 7 volume stenographic records of the trial testimony? What still remains of that first trial? Still trying to determine the extent of what has survived. From what I have been told Brief of evidence in trial of plaintiff in error Lee M. Frank, indicted for murder, in the Supreme Court of Georgia, Fall Term, 1913. is the most complete version of the trial testimony as Lawson's American State Trials volume X is abridged and incomplete. Machn (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeals section

Machn, you're off to a great start! I think next comes the discovery of new evidence and the extraordinary motion.

• Dont know if you need a chronology to follow, but Lawson has probably the most trustworthy one at pp 410-412. There's also one here: The Leo Frank Trial: A Chronology; I havent compared them but it's probably reliable. Of course you might have one you prefer, I dont mean to be more bossy (than usual) :)

• You could also mention real quick, Dorsey's counterarguments to the first motion and extraordinary motion.

• Kudos for moving the August 26 blockquote (etc.) to the Appeals section. Just my opinion, but at the end of the Trial section, maybe a last line could be added to emphasize the drama at the reading of the verdict. Dorsey crying as the jury was polled, people screaming and beating on each other in the street, etc. Details were recorded by the Atlanta Journal, quoted at Lawson pp. 407-8; Oney also used that article and others to describe the reaction, but I dont have a copy). It's great color and does emphasize the prevailing high emotion. I realize including it, though it's true, could seem prejudicial -- a good example of the problems with this article. Up to you or someone else to decide.

• • Another thought about the problem of balancing information. I had added, right before "Judge Roan denied the motion on October 31st...", paraphrases of two examples of the defense's grounds of error: "Arnold argued that it would make no sense for Frank to have ordered the notes written since, according to Conley, he had also told Conley to burn the body in the basement furnace to prevent its discovery" (Linder, Frank Account) and one of "....(attacking failure to give instruction, apparently also not requested at trial, that if jury found Conley to be accomplice, his testimony could not be accepted without corroboration)." (Freedman 1478, fn 45). But I took them out because they would lead the reader, "hearing" argument not admitted, to decide. It might be useful later to quote, somewhere, any of the wide opinion that the defense fatally bungled their job, without giving examples (alternative to give them and then use even more space to include the counterargument/court opinion).

• I added the sentence about Stoics to the blockquote. If that's left in, please remove the ellipse in front of it (the whole statement is at Lawton p. 409).

• "Leo Frank had exhausted all his options to motion for a new trial;" -- had he?

• Replaced content with direct quote, "But I do not have to be convinced. The jury was convinced." This can't be ignored/left out: it influences all the proceedings that follow, all the way up. Your content was a partial (:frown:) quote of the Ga. Supreme Court paraphrasing the defense lawyers, who themselves had quoted or paraphrased Judge Roan in their brief ("that he, the judge, had thought about this case more than any other he had ever tried; that he was not certain of the defendant's guilt; that with all the thought he had put on this case he was not thoroughly convinced whether Frank was guilty or innocent, but that he did not have to be convinced; that the jury was convinced there was no room to doubt that and that he felt it his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled." Freedman, p. 1480, quoting Frank, 80 S.E. at 1034.). It seemed simpler just to directly quote Roan. Also the next paragraph re the Ga. Supreme Court refers to the Roan statement; paraphrasing and triple-quoting make it too tangled up.

To me it's reasonable if the appeals section temporarily becomes long, and then with consensus is edited down. Better to include all key information than to omit any. I hope everyone agrees with this --? -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Update. In light of Machn re-adding "allegedly" and then apparently actually rewriting the first motion Roan quote here, not to mention deliberately leaving out earlier the important part of Judge Roan's statement, I have to conclude that Machn not only is not editing in good faith but is editing maliciously. It doesnt seem to be a matter of just not knowing how to find the facts, which I had thought was the problem. He had the facts and he redefined them, and possibly even rewrote a quote. Machn, if you got your version of the quote from somewhere, would you please post that reference? You sure didnt get it from Frank v Mangum, which you posted as your ref. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my hope was putting in the part of uncertainty about guilt or innocent in there. I have a copy of In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term 1914 No. 775 Leo M. Frank, Appellant, vs. C. Wheeler Mangum, Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, Appellee. Here is the exact quote, that I think makes the most sense to include there, and ill put it in, and we can talk about it. Here is the quote...

the Jury had found me guilty, that he had thought about the case more than any other that he had ever tried, that he was not certain of my guilt, that with all the thought he had put on the case, he was not fully convinced that I was innocent or guilty, but that he did not have to be convinced, that there was no room to doubt that the jury was, and that he felt in his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled.

I was trying to get the "he was not fully convinced that I was innocent or guilty" part, this came from the legal document coming from Leo Franks petition saying he heard the judge say this, so I put that the judge allegedly said this, but if there is a document that is signed by Judge Roan, then it isn't allegedly and that was my mistake. No bad faith. Machn (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why didnt you quote that and attribute it and cite it? This isnt rocket science. In any case the Roan quote is the direct primary quote; why did you revert it? At this point I think you were just trying to stick in an "allegedly," which wouldnt apply anyway. Im losing my faith here. There's nothing to talk about, in fact the less talk the better. You know how to research and edit honestly, just do that. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote from Leo Frank vs. Mangum:

(Leo Frank writes in his petition) Seventh. On August 26th 1913, my counsel filed for a new trial. This was denied on Oct. 31st 1913 by Honorable Judge Leonard S. Roan, the presiding Judge, in denying the motion saying, that the jury had found me guilty; that he had thought about the case more than any other that he had ever tried; that he was not certain of my guilt; that with all the thought he had put on the case, he was not fully convinced that I was innocent or guilty, but that he did not have to be convinced; that there was no room to doubt that the Jury was, and that he felt it his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled.

I was trying to get the part about the judges uncertainty of the innocent or guilt part in that quote (NO BAD FAITH), it is important that we capture the depth of Judge Roans doubt accurately. Maybe we could put the whole quote? I wanted to put the words allegedly in there, because a higher up court (either GA or US Supreme), later said that those statements were only ORAL, indicating that there was no documentation of proof that they had substance to paraphrase. I will look for the quote from the Supreme Court on stating that Judge Roans statements were Oral only and that his actions are what spoke about his real position on the matter. Machn (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First, start indenting. Second, regarding Judge Roan's doubt in 1913, his own words are fine; Leo Frank confirmed them in your own 1915 quote, so there's no "allegedly;" are you saying you think the defense and LF misconstrued Roan's words? And this was never corrected by subsequent courts? Judge Roan's doubt later, are you not aware of Judge Roan's letter? Didnt you read the Mary Phagan Kean book? In any case none of it would go in the first motion section, certainly not your convoluted Leo Frank "allegedly" non-quote. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will definitely start indenting from now on. Yes, I read the Mary Phagan book The Murder of Little Mary Phagan and I put the allegedly in there, because I thought Leo was saying that Judge Roan was saying that and that there was no documentation to support it (sorry bout that). It was the wrong choice of words. I was all excited and giddy :), when you said, Machn, you're off to a great start! and then I had to go and ruin that by choosing the wrong word in a mix up. I'll try my best to not let that happen again. My humblest apologies and thanks for keeping me on my toes. Machn (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for indenting, it's impossible to read otherwise. The implication about "oral" is from the first appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. If you want to include mention that it was an oral statement, please quote directly. It's not for us to claim "allegedly." -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that and I appreciate the spanking, I should have used the Supreme Court quote to show that the statement from Judge Roan was Oral - the keyword being Oral (not allegedly). I also wanted your opinion on the matter of having a picture of Tom Watson in the appeals section. Shouldn't we have pictures of Judge Roan, GA & US Supreme Court there instead? Speaking of Tom Watson, there should probably be a section on him in the article because he seemed to be the voice countering all the "outsider" newspaper articles claiming Leo Frank was innocent. I know there are some people who follow these discussion who would even say that Tom Watson caused Leo Frank to be lynched (though that is certainly debatable). Machn (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably Tom's picture has slid down or moved up through different edits. I dont know where it should best go. But listen. At least one source says Judge Roan stated it orally, "in open court and for the record." And -- how would we have a direct quote if it hadnt been on the record?

That linked article is by a law professor reviewing the Oney book but very likely going further with his own knowledge. If it's in Oney, he probably has a cite for it; otherwise, we could look around for this professor's writing, or some other source for the claim. Either way I'm not sure how to fit the "oral" notes in; the Supreme Court judge uses the adj. "oral" twice, but only in passing, he didn't belabor it. (But the point gets across). I'm inclined to think it's a footnote. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom has his own entry in Wikipedia, and his influence is well noted in this article. His bio is in the bibliography and is readable at Google Books. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Watson certainly does have an entry in Wikipedia. Do you think there should be a section about him in the Leo Frank article? because he is mentioned in the introduction. Machn (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He's mentioned all through; I added quite a bit about him. He only comes into the picture in 1915. The name of his bio is "Agrarian Rebel", if you'd like to read it online. Im going to lunch now; keep reading your 1000 pages :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip I'm gonna check it out. I don't like google books; I find it cumbersome so I purchased the book instead. The reading pile grows and grows! Machn (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman) & IronDuke's Leo Frank introduction or lead

IronDuke, when is the propaganda POV bias going to stop? when is the article going to stop reading like the Leo Frank defense team wrote it? and instead be written with neutral scholarship? You change the intro to:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American, who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the Antisemitic act led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

It could easily be argued that the lynching was not an Antisemitic act done only because Leo Frank was a Jew, but instead because Leo Frank beat, strangled and raped a 13 year old girl and then in a total botch job tried to pin it on the African American Night Watchman (night witch). Why are you calling the lynching an Anti-Semitic act? that would imply it was done out of blind malicious hatred for Leo Frank because because is Jewish. The more likely reason Leo frank was lynched is because the Governor Slaton (who was law partners with Roser) commuted the sentence of his client from death to life in prison after Leo Frank exhausted all his legal appeals. The just thing done under Georgia law is that when someone is convicted of capital murder they get hanged.

What if we took an entirely different route with the Leo Frank article and we wrote it without the POV bias and tried to make it more neutral. What if we stopped overplaying the obsession with race, religion, creed and so forth, and focused on the actual facts of the case, trial, legal proceedings and so forth? Right now the article reads like the Leo Frank defense league wrote it. Remember when I said before to stop being so obvious about making the article seem biased in Leo Franks behalf? Well you're doing it again and it's crystal clear. Remember I told you to be more subtle about it and not so obvious? Come on now, you can do better than that, why don't you try again. This time take out the POV bias. Machn (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You add nothing -- nothing whatever -- to this article. IronDuke 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks against you, but the introduction looks like a Leo Frank Defense team botch job - lets discuss it without personal attacks or emotions. You say I add nothing, but I'm the only voice in here right now speaking out against the shameless POV pushing bias of the article. I have tried to make many contributions, but you, tom and ebuddies revert my additions to the article, when I'm genuinely trying to help with quality additions.

What the introduction should do is summarize Leo Frank and the most salient points of his life, predominantly the last 2 years of his life which are his tooth and nail struggle for his life. We should mention the trial, legal proceedings after the trial, commutation and lynching as they represent the defining moments of Leo Franks life.

From April 26th 1913 up until the time he was lynched deserve a good solid brief. What if we put the introduction in chronological order of time to make it flow a little more smoothly. Some key points: Leo Frank was a Jewish American man raised in the North, mention his education, training, his moving to GA, his marriage, his position as president of B'nai B'rith, what he did for a living, the accusation, indictment, trial, conviction, motions for retrial, habeas corpus, prison board appeal, the results of them, finally commutation, lynching, formation of ADL and KKK part 2, throw in a mention of tom watson for good measure.

What do you say we put aside our differences, and decide to work together to make the article neutral. Lets not overplay the religion, race, Anti-Semitism and other political cards, but write the article in a neutral manner. Machn (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? I haven't been clear? I apologize if so. IronDuke 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean it as a personal attack against you, but the introduction is poorly written, amateurish, kinda constipated and reads like a botch job. Please review my suggestions above, so we can all work together to make a better introduction. Right now the intro isn't very well written and needs to be completely redone in a more chronological manner and the article would benefit if that was done to it as well. The introduction gets a C- and what do you say we try again? And this time we include more substantial information about Leo Franks two year tooth and nail legal struggle to prevent himself from being hanged to death by Sheriff Magnum. Machn (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your additions are a net negative here, your opinions unhelpful (to put it in the mildest possible way). If there's a way for me to make this yet clearer for you, please tell me. (Also, please learn how to indent.) IronDuke 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We know and agree the subject of Leo Frank is a highly contentious topic. I can empathically sense the tension, friction and reactionary emotions in your writing directed toward me, but I ask that we both please make an effort to put our emotions aside and instead focus on writing an article which is not biased or POV pushing, but instead neutral and scholarly with consensus. I don't mean these as personal attacks against you, but here is another example of the additions and changes you made to the introduction and article which are poorly written and POV bias pushing. Let's look at this new example:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the antisemitic episode led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

Let's talk about your POV pushing with the words "antisemitic episode". Was the lynching of Leo Frank an Anti-Semitic episode? Which would imply that Leo Frank was lynched because of some kind of blind malicious hatred of Jews or Leo was lynched because he is Jewish - Nope. Leo Frank was lynched because he strangled and possibly raped a little 13 year old girl named Mary Phagan who worked for him (and according to some of the doctors who testified indicated specific vaginal damage - see the Brief of Evidence). So let's try again, what if we looked at some of my suggestions above and let's talk about how we can write a better introduction without the POV propaganda pushing. Let's try to keep this productive and I ask that you please stop with the personal attacks. Machn (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to discourage you from editing this article but: your writing skills are poor, your knowledge of the case (and law in general) scanty at best, and the POV you keep pushing utterly odious. My fear is that you may find it frustrating to edit here. However, there are websites out there that would welcome your villification of Frank, but I believe wiki policy prevents me from linking to them. May I suggest Google? Then post at those sites to your heart's content. IronDuke 00:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to discourage me from editing the article you say (to quote your words), but you keep suggesting to me in couched or overt language to leave and no longer participate in the Leo Frank article. Therefore, your words seem to contradict themselves, so let me be frank with you (no pun intended) I have no intention now or ever of NOT participating in the scholarly development of this article. Instead of making these and other types of personal attacks against me and avoiding my open and legitimate criticisms of your writing, we should take a different course and be discussing the issues I bring up, working toward producing a more scholarly and neutral article without your (or anyone's) overt POV bias and propaganda pushed into the article (I will address that here in specifics so we can move forward).

What I would like to ask you to do, is stop telling me to leave, because i have no intention of doing so ever and the personal attacks just take away from your credibility. If you want to make personal attacks against me, please keep them to yourself, because I do not care to hear them, nor does anyone else participating here who respects the Wikipedia rules of no personal attacks. Moreover, personal attacks are childish and only poorly reflect upon the person making them. I do not find it frustrating to edit here (to address your words and suggestion), it's just kinda boring that you sound like a broken record concerning your personal attacks against me, but ultimately I'm like Teflon when it comes to personal attacks, they do not phase me. I'm just suggesting you stop them because they are counter productive.

I actually enjoy studying this case very much and this article has inspired me to do independent research at great lengths and also obtaining elusive and rare legal documents (like the brief of evidence which can only be obtained from the Georgia State archives) which many people who have studied this case have ever read or reviewed (the brief of evidence does not exist in digital form and can not be purchased online). Even though the precedent is that Leo Franks guilt has been confirmed, affirmed and re-affirmed ad naseum by the Supreme Court of United States and Supreme Court of Georgia, I still would like the article to be neither pro-frank or anti-frank, but completely neutral and scholarly. Right now the article introduction reads with a tone of POV propaganda pushing bias and I shall address this point again below. What I am asking you to do, is to please put your emotions and feelings aside, and your animosity towards me aside, so we can work together in consensus for the common goal of making this article neutral and scholarly.

Let's talk about your POV pushing with the words "antisemitic episode" in the first section of the introduction. Saying that Leo Franks lynching was an antisemitic episode is POV bias and propaganda making racist, bigoted and prejudiced statements against the people of Georgia and its most prominent citizens. There is no a shred of evidence that the people who lynched Leo Frank did so because he was Jewish. Leo Frank was lynched not because he is Jewish but because he was arguably a sexual predator, pedophile rapist (see the Brief of Evidence on the damage reported by Doctors concerning Mary Phagans Vagina) and child-murderer. Franks Jewishness had nothing to do with his lynching, if Leo Frank were Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, Baptist, Atheist, Muslim or Agnostic, or even black, white or in between, it would not have changed why he was lynched. I do not know if you are aware of this or not, but people who kill or rape little children, are generally considered by the people and general public as the absolute lowest of humanity. This feeling is not something isolated to 100 years ago, even today people feel this same way and in prison child killers or child rapists are often repeatedly gang raped. In some cases, these child killers or child rapists are even forced in prison to grow out their hair really long, wear makeup and lipstick and put on feminine clothes, though the thought of Leo Frank being forced to do that seems utterly unjust and equally cruel. It has nothing to do with ones religion, this feeling that people have of abject loathing toward child killers or child rapists, it has to do with the act of abject violence against a little girl. Your statement that the lynching, trial or anything surrounding Leo Franks guilt, conviction and lynching were Anti-Semitic are not true. Please stop pushing this kind of propaganda onto the article. Machn (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple editors who find your work problematic -- gravely so. Your ill-informed POV insertions are unwelcome, and will not be tolerated here. IronDuke 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not supposed to be the result of any editor's original research into primary documents (OR- prohibited by Wikipedia policy), but to reflect valid, third-party sources, preferably recognized academics writing in peer-reviewed forms. Your interest is terrific, but don't let it carry you away. This is not the place to present your own ideas.Parkwells (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Parkwells, forgive me for being skeptical, because these remarks of yours are so refreshing and uncommon to hear within the discussion area of an article and topic so highly contentious and controversial. The subject of Leo Frank should probably be semi-protected here on wikipedia because of the unending efforts to utilize it turn a pedophile-murderer into a Martyr for race or religious hatred. I hope with belief, your words are genuine (I'll assume good faith they are), reading between the lines that no one, whether they think Leo Frank is guilty or innocent should be allowed to push any kind of racial, religious, political or classicist biases and propaganda into the article for furthering their own narrow POV or agenda. The substance and point of your words being, the article should be written utilizing scholarly peer reviewed sources and I concur. There are some people who would like to turn the 'Leo Frank Case' into the culmination of an Anti-Jewish fevered pitch or American zenith of Antisemitic persecution and victimhood. This despite the fact that Leo Franks trial, conviction and lynching had nothing to do with him being Northern Jew. I couldn't agree more with your words about the needs of this article and Wikipedia to be more scholarly, however the Introduction of this article as devolved into disgusting hate.

I don't want to be a tattletale, crying to the admins about the problems here, but I'm at the point where if this antagonistic and intentionally disruptive behavior by IronDuke can't be resolved with rational discussion, fairness and neutrality, I have no other choice. I have tried to speak to him using reason, but I have gotten nothing but a broken record of responses from IronDuke. IronDuke has turned the introduction of this article into hate propaganda calling it an antisemitic episode and thus by fiat accusing the people of Georgia, the judges, the Jury, lawyers, police and the Supreme Court of Georgia collectively as part of some kind of vast Anti-Semitic conspiracy. I'm ashamed that something so visible as Wikipedia can't even stop it's own activist editors from pushing Anti-Semitic propaganda. Can you make a suggestion how IronDuke can be properly dealt with in a manner to stop him from these disruptive edits to the Introduction? I have tried to ask him nicely and he ignores me, parroting personal insults in new and subtle ways. Could you please have a man to man talk with him in private. This lead statement:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish American who was lynched by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915; the antisemitic episode led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League in the United States.

is totally unacceptable and needs to be re-written. I would change it myself but IronDuke would revert it or ask a buddy. Machn (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tattle away. And while you're at it, please go ahead and mention your hate speech-y denigration of Jewish scholars and scholarship, your relentless attempts to pervert this article into a platform of that hate speech, your utter disregard for facts, sourcing (remember your uncritical use of a vicious antisemite's screed?), good writing, or Wikipedia policy. It's a minor miracle you haven't been topic-banned yet: a trip to the authorities might be just the ticket. IronDuke 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. Machn writes, " I'm ashamed that something so visible as Wikipedia can't even stop it's own activist editors from pushing Anti-Semitic propaganda." In fact, the only person I am aware of pursuing such an agenda was Machn when he made edits such as this [1] (written before he escalated his rhetoric and changed his mind regarding Frank's guilt). He is still stuck in his tendentious editing mode -- endlessly repeating his arguments about pedophilia and bias while avoiding the most reliable sources available such as Dinnerstein and Oney. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to support the anti-Semitism charge. Eventually t will probably be necessary to add a separate section in the article to cover both class and religious influences on the trial, the coverage of the trial, and the lynching. The footnoted material should eventually find its way into the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, no long winded responses. Then lets call this thread: Tom (North Shoreman) & IronDuke's Leo Frank introduction sentence and lead. Present the evidence. Machn (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, may I be the first to congratulate you on your promotion? IronDuke 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear what Dinnerstein and Oney have to say about the Leo Frank Case concerning Anti-Semitism. What do other contemporary authors have to say concerning the Leo Frank case being Anti-Semitic? Is there any Anti-Semitism in The Leo Frank Extracted American State Trials X 1918. Machn (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo Max Frankel, source check requested

I noticed someone put Leo Frank's real name in the introduction as Leo Max Frankel, can I request a source check on that name? Does anyone have a copy of his birth certificate? I also wanted to know whether or not "Leo" is short for Leonard, Leonardo, Leon or some other variation? Lastly, the middle name "Max" is that short for Maxwell, Maximilien or Maximilian? I am requesting clarity on his name and would appreciate any sources on the subject to back up such claims. Machn (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, thanks for changing the Frankel back to Frank as I did not see any source to back up such claim that his last name was Frankel (it might actually be though, still waiting on evidence). Machn (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Posthumous Pardon"

Frank had exhausted all legal appeals in the state and federal court system of his murder conviction, so the statement by the board that he was prevented from pursuing further legal appeals is false. Does anyone have any evidence to counter this? Machn (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, the language of the pardon, quoted by Dinnerstein (a reliable secondary source) and listed in the article, contradicts your opinion. The very fact that the posthumous pardon WAS CONSIDERED puts the lie to your claim that no further legal appeals were possible. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, No need to be frustrated, let's all stay calm and collected here. Please don't avoid my request for an answer of clarity.

I was asking in the substance of my statement, if Leo Frank had exhausted all legal appeals concerning his conviction (See the Pardon Quote: thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction). Can someone please show me proof, that Leo Frank had more legal options to appeal his conviction? The answer is no as far as I can tell, unless you can show me otherwise. Focus on the words: continued legal appeals of his conviction. With who else could he continue a legal appeal of his conviction? The board of pardons WOULDN'T address it (without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence), so who Tom at the time of Leo Franks lynching could appeal his conviction? Who is left? Where else could Leo Frank appeal his conviction of being guilty for the Murder of Mary Phagan? Please enlighten me? The pardon board? They refused to address it. Who Tom? It's a serious question.

What if you actually read the specific substance of the pardon and answered the question:

Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon.

The statement at issue: preserving Leo franks opportunity for continue legal appeal of his conviction. There were - read this - no more legal appeals for his conviction, the pardon wouldn't address it, so therefore it wasn't actually a pardon at all, but some kind of cheesy appeasement. What exactly got pardoned? Isn't the focus of a pardon on a crime? If the crime wasn't pardoned, then what was?

All legal appeals of his conviction had been legally exhausted at the state and federal level, unless you can show me otherwise. Therefore, since all legal appeals of his conviction had been exhausted, the statement concerning the issue of preserving his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, when at the time of his lynching he had exhausted all legal appeals of his conviction, was a false statement (unless you can show me other times). Again, The pardon did not address, his guilt or innocence, which is the substance of what a pardon is, therefore the pardon did not address his conviction. Therefore the statement by the board of pardons or whatever they call themselves was an error.

Sorry for being repetitive, but I do not think I am getting through to you. I am trying to understand what actually got pardoned? And what continued legal appeals of his conviction did he have? Machn (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Machn. About continued legal appeals -- You're right that LF had exhausted the usual means of appeal in the courts. But as the heat of the trial receded into the past, the attorneys began to use forms of appeal in which they could raise the question of whether LF's due process rights had been violated, and doubt as to whether the jury had been influenced by the atmosphere in and around the courtroom began to rise in some judges, though their opinions were in the minority. The US Supreme Court dissenting opinions gave the attorneys hope that the Governor, if he were to study the facts of the case -- which appellate courts don't do, they use briefs of evidence :) -- as well as the new evidence, might find reasonable doubt as to his guilt or that he hadn't received due process of law. Clemency only means commuting a sentence from execution to life in prison, it doesn't mean freeing the prisoner. Dinnerstein at p.117 says that by seeking commutation instead of seeking a complete pardon as Frank had wanted to do, "[c]ounsel also hoped that sometime in the future the climate of Georgia public opinion might change".

There was no promise that LF would ever even have had another hearing. But executing him would not have honored the Governor's decision that there was reasonable doubt. Leaving him alive left the possibility open for further proceedings, sometime down the line.

I hope you're understanding that appeals have to be argued on very narrow grounds and an appeal denied doesn't mean the appellant was retried and again found guilty.

I'd like to ask, what about writing out your arguments first on a sandbox page, and then deciding whether or what parts of them to publish? I think I've posted this reply to the appropriate argument but I'm not sure because there's so much writing on this page -- people would like to reply but they can't read it all. Please consider writing sandbox drafts first. -- LaNaranja (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi La Naranja, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, though I guess maybe I still don't understand this pardon. I understand that clemency can mean commuting a sentence from execution to life in prison, and I appreciate you confirming this, with the example in this case being that the Governor John M. Slaton, a senior law partner of the Leo Frank defense team gave clemency to Leo Frank. What I am trying to understand is this posthumous pardon. First what was pardoned if they didn't address his crime and conviction? According to wikipedia: A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. I was under the impression a pardon means that your guilt for a crime is forgiven and so is the penalty associated with the crime and conviction (according to wikipedia)? According to Steve Oney, the pardon did not exonerate Leo Frank of the crime. If they are not even going to attempt to address the question of guilt or innocence of the crime and conviction, I'm confused what was actually pardoned? Was his crime forgiven? did they forgive him for his crime without actually addressing his guilt or innocence? I'm really trying to understand this and it doesn't make sense. Check this out: [2] Are they saying we are not going to address the issue of his guilt or innocence in this crime, but we are pardoning (forgiving it?) so they are forgiving him of being guilty? Are they basically saying we are upholding your guilt(or refusing to address it), but forgiving you of being guilty? Are they saying you are guilty of the Crime Leo Frank, but we forgive you. ?

Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon.

The other issue is that as we both seem to agree (?) Leo Frank had exhausted all of his legal appeals in the court system over his conviction, so who or where was there left for him to legally appeal his convictions to? Even the Governor upheld his guilty verdict and did not disturb the verdict of the Jury. So what legal appeals did he have left to appeal his conviction? I'd really like to know. The word legal appeals implies the court system?

From wikipedia:

An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process).In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts.

If Leo Frank had exhausted all of his legal appeals in the court system, how can the pardon claim it prevented him from continued legal appeal of his conviction, if there was no where left to legally appeal the conviction?

I'm really trying to understand the substance of this pardon.

Machn (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you understand or not; we cannot interpret ANYTHING in Wikipedia articles. You can find articles and maybe discussions of the posthumous pardon elsewhere on the internet which might help. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll write a letter to the board of pardons, and try to get some better clarity on this Pardon. Machn (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

George W. Epps, Kidnapped and Threatened to Racant his 1st Affidavit

Hi Tom,

According to a sworn affidavit by Detective Black, George W. Epps told Mary Phagan's father (Mr. Coleman) in Black's presence on Sunday, April 27th and Monday, April 28th, immediately after the murder of Mary Phagan was discovered, that Phagan had confided in Epps, that Leo Frank scared Mary and made lascivious sexual propositions to her. George W. Epps, also testified about these same sexual predatory behavior patterns of Leo Frank in an affidavit used at the 1913 murder trial. Later George Epps was lured to Birmingham Alabama (by Leo Frank Cronys) and threatened with physical harm if he didn't recant his first affidavit. Epps was then forced under threat of violence by Jimmie Wrenn and C.B. Burke (two men who worked for the Leo Frank Defense) to recant his first affidavit (which he did out of fear for his life). Why would you want these facts removed from the article? Why did you remove these facts from the article? What is your purpose in attempting to impeach the testimony of a little boy and friend to Mary, testimony which was never impeached. Machn (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not telling the truth, are you? This [3] is the edit in question -- none of the essential material listed by you above was removed by me or anybody else. In fact, what I did (as is clearly stated in the edit summary) was eliminate your effort to list the same material twice. You added the info re Wrenn and Burke, but ignored the FACT that the same info, w/o the names of the two, was already in the paragraph where it states "Epps later repudiated his recantation, stating his recantation was forced under threat of violence by men working for Leo M. Frank." All I did was delete YOUR DUPLICATION and clean up the sloppy language that you had added with two different edits to the paragraph. Did you even read the entire paragraph before you edited it?

In any event, I have rewritten the paragraph yet again in the logical chronological order. First, I leave alone what he originally told the police except that I clarify that the planned meeting with Phagan was only Epps' version of the story. Second, I state the facts concerning his recantation. Third is Epps' revocation of his recantation -- I've used your most recent language (even though I see no point in adding the names of two operatives who are not referenced anywhere else in the article), but have again made it clear that this is only Epps' version of the story. I have retained the FACT that Epps was in police custody when he once again admitted that he had lied. Fourth, I've added the rebuttal by Burke (from Oney) for the alleged coercion by Wrenn and Burke. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, In an effort to make Wikipedia a more reliable resource of scholarly knowledge and information, it helps if one emotionally distances themselves from the topics they edit, even if this is a controversial and contentious one. When one emotionally distances themselves from controversial and contentious subjects, they often tend to feel less tense and frustrated. It is essential that we strive to be neutral and impartial in our editing of Wikipedia.org. We do not want to allow our own personal passions, positions, opinions and biases to cause us to become neurotic or emotional over a subject, this is in the best interest of everyone, not just ourselves. Nor does does making personal insults help, like accusing other people of lying or not telling the truth, when other people might not have malicious intentions. Personal attacks tend to distract from the content development and goals of making wikipedia neutral, impartial and scholarly.

My concern over your editing is that you initially deleted content [4] about George W. Epps which is very important to the Leo Frank Case. When one reads the amended Brief of Evidence ratified by both the Leo Frank defense and prosecution teams, as well as subsequent affidavits and legal documents submitted during Leo Franks appeals over 2 years, it turns out that there were numerous successful attempts by the Leo Frank defense team to bribe, manipulate and threaten with violence witnesses, causing many said witnesses to temporarily or unintentionally retract their initial affidavits and statements at the murder trial. Worse is that there are even some affidavits submitted by the Leo Frank defense team during the appeals process which were not even signed by the people they purported to be affidavits from, as the affidavits in the appeals process show from these irate people who had false affidavits submitted without their knowledge, they were rightfully enraged and thus signed new affidavits specifying the specific examples of criminal activity and manipulation from the Leo Frank defense team members to get them to sign false affidavits. These facts are very important to Leo Frank Case, because they tend to show a pattern of illegal criminal activity and manipulation by the Leo Frank defense team, and such illegal behavior is very unbecoming and speaks to the true circus-like ugliness of some of the actors and players in this case. We shouldn't remove these facts, especially since there are numerous examples that can and should be cited in the article. I know your position based on your editing of the lead sentence and paragraph of the Leo Frank article is to turn it into a propaganda article claiming the entire Leo Frank Case was a widespread Anti-Semitic conspiracy, but this tends to go against all of the legal documents which were submitted to the United States Supreme Court, Georgia Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Georgia. So again, I'd like to ask nicely that you please strive to be neutral and impartial, and please, not turn the Leo Frank article into a biased propaganda POV soap box. I want to thank you for putting some of the information back into the article that you initially deleted [5]. Let's try to put our differences aside Tom, and work together to really make the Leo Frank article a high quality one, so that in 2013, 2014 and 2015 it could be worthy of being featured on the front page of wikipedia. Machn (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You have ignored my last response and simply repeated your false charges about relevant information being deleted. As far as the affidavits that you refer to, they are only relevant as to what the affiant has said -- not to what the actual truth is. There are facts, affidavits, and reliable sources that contest many of those claims. You personal opinion asside, the fact is that the consensus of current reliable sources is that Frank was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. The article needs to make this clear. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting on more than one occasion (just read the archive) that your POV and Political agenda is to bias the article into making it seem like Leo Frank was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice and also that his entire case was a vast Anti-Semitic conspiracy. But the fact is you are absolutely wrong. The entire weight of the state and federal court systems disagrees with you and the precedent is a binding precedent and binding law that Leo Frank got a fair trial and that the evidence is worthy of a conviction. The entire weight of the Law and legal system of the United States of America, including the unanimous decision of the grand jury, the unanimous decision of the jury for the murder trial, Judge Roan more than once affirmed the verdict of guilty, denying new trials and even sentenced Leo Frank to be hanged on his birthday (happy birthday Leo Frank from Judge Roan), Judge Hill numerous times affirmed the verdict and denied any attempts of having the verdict set aside and so forth, Every member of the Georgia Supreme Court read the brief of evidence and more than once affirmed the verdict numerous times, every member of the United States Supreme Court read the brief of evidence and affirmed the verdict numerous times, even governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton who was senior law partner of the Leo Frank defense team, affirmed the guilty verdict and did not disturb the verdict, Every judge, jury, court system from state to federal government affirmed the guilt of Leo Frank. All of Leo Franks cheesy appeals (read the brief of evidence), all of the criminal attempts of the leo frank defense legal team to bribe, threaten with violence witnesses and even illegally sign false affidavits where called out, exposed, revealed, and denied. Not even the board of pardons in 1986 would address the issue of guilt or innocence, meaning that the pardon of 1986 did not exonerate Leo frank of the crime. Not a single Governor, not a single president of the united states every pardoned Leo Franks crime. No serious person, who reads the brief of evidence believes Leo Frank is innocent. The evidence is overwhelming against him. Even if you remove the evidence of Jim Conley the evidence is still overwhelming against him. Read the brief of evidence, instead of the propaganda books you have been reading. Try actually read the legal documents in the case, not just Oneys admittedly biased propaganda book that spins the facts.

The injustice is against all the little early teen aged girls who got sexually harassed and propositioned by Leo Frank and they all signed sworn affidavits to it (which where never legitimately recanted, because illegally obtained affidavits do not count, if you read the brief of evidence). The injustice was to Leo Franks wife, who had a cheating husband who was a whore monger and pedophile, a man who described his wife, as my big fat wife ("what a nice guy"). The injustice was to all the witnesses who were threatened with violence, lured, tricked or bribed, or all of the above by the Leo Frank defense team. The Injustice was to little Mary Phagan, who was beaten, raped and strangled in the metal room on the 2nd floor by Leo Frank (affirmed by every level of the state and federal court). The injustice was big money people and the Jewish community (according to Dinnerstein and Oney) creating a nationwide media propaganda movement and letter writing campaign from people who never actually read the brief of evidence or heard any testimony, convincing people falsely by leaving out all of the important facts in the case. The injustice is that for more than 100 years and here today, there are still people trying to spin the Leo Frank case into an ugly circus of manipulation, half-truths and lies, claiming it was all one big vast widespread Anti-Semitic conspiracy and that this pedophile, rapist, murder was the victim of gross injustice. My advice to you is to actually get a copy of the 1813 page brief of evidence from the Georgia Government Archive and actually read about the 2 years of criminal behavior by the Leo Frank Defense team that extended beyond an unforgivable rape and strangulation by Leo Frank. The law is against you, the courts are against you, the juries are against you, the Georgia supreme court is against you, the united states supreme court is against. You are in the minority and you are wrong, and you are pushing bias, POV, propaganda and your own personal agenda, you are breaking every rule on wikipedia by doing this and you, and all the other Frankites trying to manipulate this article are the reason why no single accredited academic institution in the united states of America considers wikipedia a reliable reference source for scholarly papers. Despite all the overwhelming evidence against Leo Frank, I still believe we should try to make the article impartial, fair and balanced as possible, given the uphill battle against POV activist editors trying to spin this case with an endless web of Anti-Semitism conspiracy theories. Machn (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

More of the same. There is absolutely nothing in your latest exercise of disruptive and tendentious editing that is related to the substance of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I really want to understand your position better. Despite the fact your position (that the conviction of Leo Frank was an Anti-Semitic conspiracy against an innocent man), which contradicts the entire weight of the evidence and goes against 1. the coroners inquest and jury, 2. the unanimous grand jury, 3. the unanimous murder trial jury, 4. the brief of evidence, 5. the decisions of the superior court of georgia, 6. the decisions of the supreme court of georgia, 7. the decisions of the supreme court of the united states, 8. judge roans numerous decisions, 9. judge hills numerous decisions, 10. the governor John M. Slaton (who doesn't disturb the Juries verdict and conviction) 11. the board of pardons and paroles in 1986 (which didn't exonerate Leo Frank's guilt and conviction), 12. the Leo Frank prosecution (which never brought up Leo Frank's Jewishness), 13. the detectives and police in the case, despite all of this, I still want to learn more about your position. Because your position is shared by a small group of people that write on the Leo Frank subject and you seem to embrace it with almost a kind of fanaticism. It is this fanaticism that I find very fascinating. I really do want to understand your position that the conviction and lynching were a "widespread Anti-Semitic conspiracy against an innocent man who was railroaded", as well as why there is a group of people who write about the Leo Frank case who wish to embrace Anti-Semitic persecution and victim conspiracies. It doesn't help me to understand the case with true total depth, if I only learn about and understand the prosecution side of the Leo Frank case. I want to also understand the defense position with as great of depth as possible. Is it safe to say the article should embrace both the prosecution and defense positions if it is to be fair, neutral and impartial? I just find it hard to understand the Leo Frank defense position and the Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory position when I read the endless affidavits in the brief of evidence about the Leo Frank defense team bribing, cheating, manipulating and threatening with violence so many witnesses to get them to recant their statements, testimony and affidavits. When the Leo Frank defense is using illegal, criminal and violent means to manipulate so many witnesses that testified, it makes it harder to understand the defenses position that Leo Frank was an innocent man railroaded by a widespread Anti-Semitic Conspiracy. I'll try to overlook the mountain of criminal activity committed by the Leo Frank defense in the brief of evidence and try to understand the defense position better by not factoring in all of their criminal activity. I really want to understand your position better. I really do want to understand the defense position better. It does me no good if I can not argue the case equally well from the prosecution and defense side. I also find it fascinating that there is a small group of people that embrace the Anti-Semitic persecution and victim conspiracy theories with such fanaticism, I want to understand better why they embrace it with such emotional ferocity. If you can recommend some sources I should read about the Anti-Semitism conspiracy position, I would love to read more about it. Thanks for your help in these regards. Machn (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank's four hour Boring and Mind Numbing unsworn testimony before the Jury

I just had the misfortune of reading the part of Leo Franks unsworn testimony before the jury where he spends hours doing boring mathematical computations and calculations while pacing back in forth in front of the jury. For most of Leo Franks 4 hour speech before the Jury, he went over the accounting minutia he did at the factory that day. If you ever suffer from insomnia, it's the perfect read to put you to sleep. He spends hours multiplying, dividing, adding and subtracting pencils, pencil parts, boxes, even using fractions and decimals, it is the most painfully boring thing you could possibly ever imagine or read and if you had the misfortune to have to sit there for most of his 4 hour speech and listen to it, your eyes would glaze over, roll back into your head and you might even pass out. If someone doesn't believe me and wants me to type it out, i'll do it, but its going to take me few days. I wanted some advice on how to frame that without using biased words, but to still get the point across. I used the words mind numbing and boring, which it was, but I want to make sure I use more impartial words. How with impartial words can you describe one of the most boring and mind numbing testimony humanly possible in U.S. legal history without using the words mind numbing and boring? Machn (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's called editing. And the Dead Shall Rise covers the effects of that speech on public opinion, if you'd like to check it out. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Twice Oney backs up this point. Oney definitely backs up this point on it not only in his book, but also in an interview in the documentary People v Leo Frank (available at archive.org for watching and downloading). Do you know of any other sources that back up this notion of the mind numbingly boring speech of Leo Frank (other than Oney). I'm glad I'm not putting original research here and that other people can back up this addition to the article. Why someone would go into a blithering long winded diatribe during their own murder trial before the jury, knowing that hours of mathematical computations on pencil counting is not going to address the murder charges or damaging testimony and worse, put the Jury to sleep is beyond me. However, in trying to see it through his eyes, I think Leo Frank was attempting to show that these boring calculations took so long that he did not have time to murder Mary Phagan down the hall in the metal room (supported by reliable sources and as the article suggests). Machn (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you (Machn) admit that the words "mind numbing and boring" are your own characterization of primary material, the words should be removed. Once again you are in violation of Wikipedia:No original research which clearly states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm glad you are posting this immediately above, because your whole premise that the Leo Frank case is a widespread Anti-Semitic conspiracy goes against the entire weight of every level of the state and federal legal system, including unanimous Grand Jury of 21, unanimous Murder Trial Jury, Judge Roan repetitively, Judge Hill repetitively, Georgia Supreme Court repetitively, United States Supreme Court repetitively, Prison Board, Board of Pardons in 1986. Machn (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your favorite Leo Frank author, Steve Oney, backs up this addition 2x, once in his book and once in an interview in the documentary the people v. leo frank. Can you recommend any other authors that backs this up? Machn (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Oney's analysis is a little more nuanced that what you would have people believe. I have added details from his analysis as well as several on point quotes. Your recently added language is redundant, but if you feel the need to add it back, w/o deleting the more accurate and detailed additions I made, then go ahead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I wont delete Oneys emphatically humane analysis as you requested and will add the statements back since you mentioned it was OK to do so. I think we can all agree that having the misfortune of watching and listening to a short, skinny, nerd that looks like a dead ringer for Pee Wee Herman, as he paces up and down for 2.5 hours, going over the nano intricacies of multidimensional pencil accounting computations would accurately be described as mind numbing and boring. What would possess any person being tried for the murder of a 13 year old girl to spend 2.5 hours of their 3.5 hour testimony on the femto minutia of pencil counting mathematics is beyond me. Thank you very much for adding oney's overly forgiving analysis. It would be nice if there were other people who spoke about this mind boggling and mind numbing feat. Do you know of any other Leo Frank authors that provides analysis of Leo Franks 2.5 hour lecture on the quantum physics of pencil counting? Machn (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery for Leo Frank!

I'm absolutely delighted beyond words. That drab and stale Leo Frank article was starting to look so passe and the flow and order of everything seemed a little bit constipated (can still use a lot of work). I really love the new freshened up re-design of the Leo Frank case article! Especially the new images, formatting and that nice dossier box on the top right hand side, with some of Leo Frank's stats and details (nice touch by the way). The very tight and clean formatting of the references, further reading, sources and so forth at the bottom looks very cogent, neat and professional. I'm extremely pleased that such thoughtful energy and care was put into the cosmetics of the site. I'm hoping all these visual changes might inspire a renewed energy to develop the content of article in a more neutral, impartial and scholarly way, moving forward (with less Anti-Semitism conspiracy theory stuff). I guess now that we have a face lift, how do we get the content to be worthy of being featured on wikipedia's front page? Is there some kind of process that can be utilized to get this article promoted? What needs to be done to the article substance and content wise to have it featured April 26th 2013 and August 17th 2015? It's a worthy goal for the 100 year anniversary. Machn (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad it's okay. :) To get it to featured-article status so it can go on the front page, we'd need to do several things: keep the writing very tight and professional; and the article shouldn't be too long—it's already on the long side, in fact, so if there's a lot of extra stuff to come about the trial, it should probably go in a spin-off article. Make sure the citations are all consistent and clear, and the sources good. Secondary sources for the most part, with primary sources used to augment them. Make sure it's MoS-consistent, and that no major event or source has been left out. And we should probably create a section about the antisemitism issue, or develop the Aftermath section, and clarify the extent to which that was a factor. That's about it, but that's a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The National media section has wandered way off topic

It has become a discussion of what remains today of the original trial testimony, which is probably more important than what the section had been. Since the section formerly had overstated the trial's media portrayal outside Georgia ("a national spectacle"), it might be time for a rethink about this section and where it might best go. Seems to me that individual sections about the Atlanta press coverage, and about the disappearance of trial transcripts, would each have critical value; a section on national press coverage, not so much. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Steve Oney and others talk about the importance of national media coverage inside and outside of Georgia, as well as how the outside influence was negatively perceived by Georgians. There was a very successful massive media campaign outside of the State of Georgia by the wealthy media moguls and Jewish groups to get national media coverage favorable to Frank and letter writing campaigns asking that Frank be exonerated of his murder conviction. Governor Slaton (senior law partner of Leo Frank defense attorneys Luther Rosser and Brandon) received thousands of unique and stock letters requesting clemency as a result of such a successful campaign. Machn (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then shouldn't those points be included in the section, with appropriate cites? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The present section, as it exists, only addresses local newspaper coverage so I have changed the section title accordingly. The second paragraph is clearly about the local papers. The unsourced first paragraph states, "During the murder investigation, papers published every new detail of hearsay, gossip, conflicting rumors and shifting conspiracy theories, thus ensuring continued interest — and continued circulation — during the trial, outcome and appeal stages of the case." This describes the local coverage which began with the actual murders -- national coverage only came later. Both the local and national newspaper coverage needs to be expanded. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom: Good change. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke, Good Change. Machn (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

After the GA Supreme Court appeal failed it became a national story, first through magazines. The Oney book, and Screening a Lynching... at pages 17-18, mention a 15-minute anti-capital punishment documentary, now lost, sympathetic to Frank, distributed sometime before his murder. For background on [[Adolph Ochs]'s fateful crusade and Albert Lasker's campaign, I recommend "Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism" by Steve Oney, and for a close-up on the local coverage from inside the Georgian, Herbert Asbury's Menckenesque "Hearst Comes to Atlanta," The American Mercury, January-April 1926, pp. 87-95. --- LaNaranja (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi LaNaranja,

Are Steve Oney and these other sources you provided corroborating the nauseating Anti-Semite Tom Watson, who seems to be (correctly?) claiming that outside national newspaper influence and the Jewish Community are manipulating the Leo Frank case? And that this media manipulation is fanning the flames of rage from the people of Georgia and the Southern States?

You'd have to look and see.... -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

Watson seems to be making these same claims, though he does it with unacceptable Venomous Anti-Semitism. It would be nice if there were an edited version of Tom Watson's five major works on the Leo Frank Case, because some of the Anti-Semitism in them is very nauseating. Though, I have to admit, his arguments are very compelling. I just wish he had made his very well argued positions without all the vile Anti-Semitic language. His Anti-Semitism detracts from what would be some very well thought out arguments on the subject. Machn (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Watson's gifts of persuasion were so compelling they got Leo Frank lynched. I think that's made clear in the article, though; more on him is not needed here. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Machn, I'm sorry, I didn't exactly answer your comment. That is an interesting idea, to look at Watson's arguments with the hate extracted; I think his biographer had a run at that -- Watson didn't diverge from Dorsey's points if I remember rightly -- it's probably been done by others too. If you find anything about it online maybe it could fit into the Tom Watson article. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Conley

I added a single sentence to the picture of Conley identifying him as the primary alternative to Frank as the murderer. The reader, in order to understand the issues, needs to know up front that there is a viable alternative to Frank. The section on Conley needs to be expanded. For example, nowhere in the article is there a reference to the problem of the poop in the elevator shaft as it relates to Conley's credibility -- this despite the fact that it was probably the main issue that Slaton based his decision on. While Slaton's written response is a primary source, it contains the clearest summary of the weaknesses in Conley's testimony -- weaknesses that were not identified at trial.

More details on the wide swing in his various affidavits need to be provided. The ineffectual cross examination of Conley by the defense also needs to be described in the trial section. I am going to put all this info in (and it will be sourced). Eventually, however, a consensus is going to need to be reached on what info stays and what info goes. However at present there are too many information gaps that need to be filled. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added to the Conley section through his first three versions of his story. I'll continue with the pre-trial testimony and then probably lump all this together in a single subsection. Conley's attorney warrants a separate subsection, including hisown reasons for doubting, and publicly announcing those doubts, after the trial. Finally a third subsection describing the other post- trial doubts about Conley, especially those cited by Slaton. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your edits and comments are heroic! I can't commit a time, but I'd like to help work on the William Smith doubts section, and also on tightening up the Appeals and Clemency sections, as soon as I can. Your work today inspired me! :) LaNaranja (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A major problem in improving this article is dealing with the amount of details available in a logical manner that benefits the reader. A proper Appeals and Clemency section is needed, but it is also going to expand the size of the article. You proposed a while ago that a separate article be created to cover just the events involving the trial and lynching, separate from a biography. I believe this is going to need to be done at some point. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom and LaNaranja, Without question, there probably should be a new pages created to cover the trial, appeals (?), lynching (?) and so forth. I did propose this before, but I am very thankful others are suggesting it, so that there is more strength to the consensus. It would enable the development of the trial with greater details for instance, which is much needed. Therefore there would be a Leo Frank biography page and a Leo Frank trial & aftermath page? Other pages as well? Frank v Mangum? The more the merrier as long as it were within the wiki guidelines. Machn (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

True, Machn suggested a separate article for the trial, awhile back (and a couple of times, I think :). I'd said something vague about tightening it up, back when it was a wispy little 89 kb. Correctly weighting details will be the biggest challenge, I agree, but what a good puzzle. I'm so relieved we're all going to work on this article constructively! -- LaNaranja (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We've still got some room -- the readable prose is at 62 kb which is right at the point where dividing the article should be strongly considered. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Hi North, can you say why you reverted here? [6] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See my explanation above in the sectin "Jim Conley". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(post moved into this section by SV) I have reverted several edits to this section by SlimVirgin. It is clear from the above that this is a work in process. I will be glad to discuss here what needs to be eliminated, but the point now is to get the details into the article and then determine what needs to be tightened. The numerous discrepancies in Conley's various statements is relevant.

As I state above and as I stated in my edit summary, at least one additional subsection will be added and the subsection on Smith will be expanded. Without subsections the section wll be way too long. Again, I would ask that the cutting be postponed until it s finished or, at the least, discussed here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, you reverted my removal of some wordiness, lots of "claimed" this or that, which we should avoid; and quotes without attribution, which we must always avoid. They were also words that didn't need to be quoted, but could easily be summarized. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed copy edit of the Colney section

This is the copy edit I wanted to make, but was reverted after the first edit. It fixed the tenses, removed "claimed," removed unattributed quotes, tightened the writing, made the citations more MoS compliant, and removed words that didn't need to be quoted. I didn't check the source: this was just a copy edit.

Tom

SV

On May 1, Jim Conley, the pencil factory's janitor, was arrested after he was caught by the plant's day watchman, E.F. Holloway, washing a dirty blue workshirt. Conley tried to hide the shirt, then claimed the stains were rust from the overhead pipe on which he had hung the shirt. Detectives examined it for blood, found none and returned it. Conley originally denied that he was literate. Conley was still in police custody two weeks later when he gave his first formal statement. He claimed on the day of the murder that he spent the entire day visiting saloons, shooting dice, and drinking at home. He provided specific details on places visited and money spent (i.e. 40 cents for a bootle of rye, 90 cents won at dice, and twice spending 15 cents for beer). Almost immediately, however, Conley's initial story was called into question when a witness informed detectives that "a black negro... dressed in dark blue clothing and hat" had been seen lurking in the lobby of the factory on the day of the murder. Further investigation also determined that Conley could read and write. Conley was submitted to a more intense interrogation. After initially sticking to his claim that he couldn't write, Conley admitted, after being threatened with perjury charges, "White folks, I'm a liar." Conley was then asked to write portions of the murder notes. Finding similarities in the spelling, the detectives accused Conley of writing the notes. Conley denied this. The interview was ended and Conley was placed in a basement isolation cell. A week later, on May 24, Conley called for a detective and admitted that he wrote the notes. In his sworn statement Conley claimed that Frank had called him to his office on the day before the murder. Regarding the notes, Conley said: [H]e asked me could I write and I told him yes I could write a little bit, and he gave me a scratch pad and ... told me to put on there "dear mother, a long, tall, black negro did this by himself," and he told me to write it two or three times on there. I wrote it on a white scratch pad, single ruled. He went to his desk and pulled out another scratch pad, a brownish looking scratch pad, and looked at my writing and wrote on that himself. Conley also claimed, "He told me he had some wealthy people in Brooklyn and then he held his head up and looking out of the corner of his eyes said "Why should I hang?" The detectives were originally skeptical. However after again testing Conley on his spelling (he spelled "night watchman" as "night witch"), they were convinced that he wrote the notes. They still did not believe the rest of his story since it implied that the murder was premeditated and all of their theories were based on the murder being spontaneous. They also doubted that Frank would have confessed his premeditation to Conley by asking "Why should I hang?" For the next three days two police detectives adopted a version of good cop/bad cop. One "persistently accused Jim of murdering Mary Phagan and vowed to see him hang" while the other offered him "drinks, pies, sandwiches and consolation." The Georgian wrote, "The police questions were, of course, all put with the idea of gaining information against Frank. The police refused to admit that suspicion was turning or should turn to Conley, who has told one falsehood after another since his arrest. In contrast, the Journal stated that he was questioned "as if they are convinced he committed the murder." On May 28 Conley was confronted by both E. F. Holloway and a Georgian newspaper headline that said "SUSPICION TURNED TO CONLEY; ACCUSED BY FACTORY FOREMAN." The article said that Holloway was "thoroughly convinced that [Conley] strangled Mary Phagan when about half drunk." As a result, in a new affidavit (his second affidavit and third statement) Conley admitted that he lied about his Friday meeting with Frank. He stated instead that he met Frank on the street Saturday and was told to follow him to the factory. After his arrival, he said he was told to hide in a wardrobe to avoid being seen by two women who visited Frank in his office. He then claimed that Frank dictated the murder notes for him to write, gave him cigarettes, and told him to leave the factory. Afterward, Conley said he went out drinking and saw a movie. He stated that he did not learn of the murder of Mary Phagan until he went to work on Monday. The police were satisfied with the new story and both the Journal and the Georgian gave the story front page overage. Three officials of the pencil company were not convinced and said so to the Journal. They contended that Conley had followed another employee into the building intending to rob her, but instead found that Mary Phagan was a more ready target. The murder was the result not of Frank's "lust but by a pathetic desire to steal the $1.20 in wages Mary Phagan had collected the day of the crime." The Georgian summarized the story: Three responsible officials of the plant have outlined plausible theories as to how the negro could have committed the crime. They have compiled a most laudable explanation of how he killed the Phagan girl. With each cross-examination of the negro by the police in their attempts to secure more evidence against Frank, Conley has only ensnared himself. The police placed little credence in the employees' theory, but had no explanation for the failure to locate the purse. They were, however, concerned, that in his statement, Conley made no mention that he was aware that a crime had been committed when he wrote the notes. To resolve their doubts, the police attempted on May 28 to arrange a confrontation between Frank and Conley. Frank, based on his prior bad contacts with the police, exercised his right not to meet without his attorney, who was out of town, being present. The police announced that this refusal was simply an indication of Frank's guilt and Frank, even after his attorney returned, never met with Conley. However this still did not resolve the holes still remaining in Conley's story. On May 29 Conley for four hours subjected to "the most ruthless grilling" he had yet been subjected to. A number of police officers "peppered the Negro with a dizzying barrage of questions, making him vividly aware of the treacherous ground on which he was treading." The new affidavit claimed that Frank told him that “he had picked up a girl back there and let her fall and that her head hit against something”. Conley said that he and Frank took the body to the basement via the elevator and then returned to Frank's office where the murder notes were dictated. The alleged incident of Conley hiding in the wardrobe occurred after the two had returned to the office. Frank then supposedly gave Conley two hundred dollars, but then took it back, saying “Let me have that and I will make it all right with you Monday if I live and nothing happens.” The affidavit concluded with, "The reason I have not told this before is I thought Mr. Frank would get out and help me out and I decided to tell the whole truth about this matter." At trial, Conley changed his story concerning the two hundred dollar payment. He claimed that the money was withheld until Conley burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace. William Smith The Georgian hired William Smith to be Conley's lawyer and offered to pay his fees. Smith was known for specializing in representing black clients. Although this put Smith at the bottom of the professional totem pole, he had successfully defended a black man against an accusation of rape by a white woman. He had also taken an elderly black woman's civil case as far as the state Supreme Court. Although Smith believed Conley had told the truth in his final affidavit, he became concerned that Conley was giving long jailhouse interviews with crowds of reporters. Smith was concerned about reporters from the Hearst papers, who had taken Frank's side. Smith arranged for Conley to be moved to a different jail. He also severed his own relationship with the Georgian. Two unsworn witnesses came forward to incriminate Conley. Will Green, a carnival worker, said that he had been playing craps at the factory with Conley and had run away from him when Conley had declared his intention to rob a girl who walked by. William Mincey, an insurance salesman, had met an intoxicated Conley on the street. He said that Conley, trying to brush Mincey off, said, "I have killed one today and do not wish to kill another." Mincey had thought it was a joke. Neither man signed an affidavit or testified in court.

On May 1, Jim Conley, the pencil factory's janitor, was arrested after he was caught by the plant's day watchman, E.F. Holloway, washing a dirty blue workshirt. Conley tried to hide the shirt, then said the stains were rust from the overhead pipe on which he had hung it. Detectives examined it for blood, found none and returned it. Conley was still in police custody two weeks later when he gave his first formal statement. He said that, on the day of the murder, he had been visiting saloons, shooting dice, and drinking at home. He offered some details, such as 40 cents spent on a bootle of rye, 90 cents won at dice, and 15 cents for beer, twice. His story was called into question when a witness told detectives that "a black negro... dressed in dark blue clothing and hat" had been seen in the lobby of the factory on the day of the murder. Further investigation also determined that Conley could read and write, something he had initially denied. After initially sticking to his claim that he couldn't write, he was threatened with perjury charges, and eventually told them, "White folks, I'm a liar." He was asked to write portions of the murder notes, and although the police found similarities in the spelling, he continued to deny having written them. The interview ended and Conley was placed in a basement isolation cell. A week later, on May 24, he called for a detective and admitted that he had written the notes. In his sworn statement he said Frank had called him to his office on the day before the murder, and had apparently said he had some wealthy people in Brooklyn, and asked: "Why should I hang?" [H]e asked me could I write and I told him yes I could write a little bit, and he gave me a scratch pad and ... told me to put on there "dear mother, a long, tall, black negro did this by himself," and he told me to write it two or three times on there. I wrote it on a white scratch pad, single ruled. He went to his desk and pulled out another scratch pad, a brownish looking scratch pad, and looked at my writing and wrote on that himself. After testing Conley again on his spelling—he spelled "night watchman" as "night witch"—the police were convinced he had written the notes, but they were skeptical about the rest of his story, because it not only implied premeditation on the part of Frank, but also that Frank would have confessed this to Conley and involved him. For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation. On May 28 Conley was confronted by both E. F. Holloway and a Georgian newspaper headline that said suspicion in the case had turned to Colney. The article said that Holloway was believed Colney had strangled Phagan when he was drunk. As a result, in a new affidavit (his second affidavit and third statement) Conley admitted that he had lied about his Friday meeting with Frank. He now said that he had met Frank on the street on Saturday, and was told to follow him to the factory. Frank told him to hide in a wardrobe to avoid being seen by two women who were visiting Frank in his office. He said Frank then dictated the murder notes for him to write, gave him cigarettes, and told him to leave the factory. Afterward, Conley said he went out drinking and saw a movie. He said he did not learn of the murder until he went to work on Monday. The police were satisfied with the new story and both the Journal and the Georgian gave the story front-page coverage. Three officials of the pencil company were not convinced and said so to the Journal. They contended that Conley had followed another employee into the building intending to rob her, but instead found that Phagan was a more ready target. The police placed little credence in the employees' theory, but had no explanation for the failure to locate the purse, and were concerned that Conley had made no mention that he was aware that a crime had been committed when he wrote the notes. To resolve their doubts, the police attempted on May 28 to arrange a confrontation between Frank and Conley. Frank exercised his right not to meet without his attorney, who was out of town. The police announced that this refusal was an indication of Frank's guilt, and the meeting never took place. On May 29 Conley was subjected four hours to a ruthless grilling. His new affidavit said that Frank told him that "he had picked up a girl back there and let her fall and that her head hit against something." Conley said that he and Frank took the body to the basement via the elevator, then returned to Frank's office where the murder notes were dictated. Conley then hid in the wardrobe after the two had returned to the office. Frank then supposedly gave Conley two hundred dollars, but took it back, saying “Let me have that and I will make it all right with you Monday if I live and nothing happens." Colney's affidavit concluded, "The reason I have not told this before is I thought Mr. Frank would get out and help me out and I decided to tell the whole truth about this matter." At trial, Conley changed his story concerning the $200. He said the money was withheld until Conley had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace. Other witnesses Two witnesses came forward to incriminate Conley. Will Green, a carnival worker, said he had been playing craps at the factory with Conley, and had run away from him when Conley had declared his intention to rob a girl who walked by. William Mincey, an insurance salesman, said he had met an intoxicated Conley on the street, and that Conley told him, "I have killed one today and do not wish to kill another," but Mincey thought it was a joke. Neither man signed an affidavit or testified in court. William Smith The Georgian hired William Smith to be Conley's lawyer and offered to pay his fees. Smith was known for specializing in representing black clients, and had successfully defended a black man against an accusation of rape by a white woman. He had also taken an elderly black woman's civil case as far as the Georgia Supreme Court. Although Smith believed Conley had told the truth in his final affidavit, he became concerned that Conley was giving long jailhouse interviews with crowds of reporters. Smith was concerned about reporters from the Hearst papers, who had taken Frank's side. He arranged for Conley to be moved to a different jail, and severed his own relationship with the Georgian.

In controversial articles I find that using quotes rather than paraphrasing is a better approach. The best way to counter the numerous, and largely baseless, POV charges that have been made is, IMO, to make the text as specific as possible.All quotes are supported by footnotes and attributed (such as to a newspaper or an author) where I thought it was appropriate. I have a big problem with the change in the caption on Conley -- I don't think there is any doubt that from an historical perspective that he is considered as the only alternative. Do you have any sources that suggest any other alternative? I also have a problem with your elimination of the subsections since it was already discussed on this discussion page.

Most of your edits do seem to be reasonable, but at least some of the quotes you eliminated should be included in the footnotes. I do intend, after finishing with all that I plan to add, to go back and tweek the material so that it all fits together. The article is going to get bigger before it gets smaller. There are serious and curius omissions from the article. In editing this section, I noticed both the inadequacy of the "Suspicion falls on Frank" section as well as the fact that the whole issue of the timeline on April 26, essential to understanding the case, is barely touched on. The appeals section needs to be expanded as does the newspaper coverage section. Anti-Semitism and cultural issues, while mentioned in the lede, are barely addressed at all in the body of the artcle.

As far as the immediate situation, I have no problem if you revert my revert as long as you add back the subsections and caption. The quotes will be added back at a later date (in the footnotes) if they still appear to be necessary. If you want to continue to discuss those issues we can.13:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Tom (North Shoreman) (talk)

Using quotes is not the best way to put articles together, because they become quote farms, and the writing is meant to be our own summary, leaving quotes for words that are distinctive or important in some way. Sources are POV too, remember. Quoting them doesn't resolve POV issues.

We can use your caption if you strongly prefer it; my aim was only to tighten it.

I agree that it will grow before it shrinks again, but it's important to write it tightly from the start (every word made to count), because otherwise the copy-editing work is so substantial that it reaches the point where no one wants to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

article started for William Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Smith_(attorney)

(This title isn't set in stone, it's just to disambiguate him.) I don't see really anything online about this noble man who accomplished so much in his lifetime, much more than just his association with J Conley. It might all be in Oney. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a tiny bit about him here. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, there are a lot of articles about him on the AJC.com archive. For $30 a month you can download nearly 30 articles a month from that era or you might try the local library, but most of that stuff is on Microfilm. Machn (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank#Suspicion falls on Frank

There are major problems with this section. Frank was arrested on April 29 (I don't think the article ever mentions that he was arrested). McKnight was not inteviewed until over a month later so her info does not belong there. The reason she was interiewed at all was that Conley's final affidavit created a problem with the police timeline. I am not clear on when Epps was first interviewed but his name didn't hit the papers until a newspaper printed it on May 1 -- it probably should be added into an account of the coroner's inquest which currently does not exist.

In fact, the whole issue of the conflicting timeline for the day of the murder needs to be centralized in one section. Perhaps a chart of some sort should be prepared. In any event, this section needs to go and the materil needs to be moved around. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I eliminated the Epps reference since the material was added earlier. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the McKnight material from this section to the section "April 26 timeline" where it is more appropriate. In the course of doing that the following material, which was previously in the text but had been moved to a footnote by SlimVirgin was deleted:

The police used the third degree method against witnesses such as Nina Formby, the madam of a bordello who knew Frank. Frank called her on the day of the murder looking to reserve a private room at the bordello. The police appeared to intimidate and threaten witnesses such as Formby, the madam of a bordello who may or may not have known Frank. Shortly after Frank was arrested, Formby signed an affidavit which claimed that among other things, Frank had called her on the day of the murder looking to reserve a private room at the bordello. In 1914, well after the trial and conviction when she was far away from police, Formby told The New York Times that detectives had "plied her with whiskey." "Woman Admits She Lied About Frank", The New York Times, February 26, 1914. Back in Atlanta, Chief of Detectives Langford insisted that Mrs. Formby "never gave out the confession attributed to her in New York," and added that in any case, Mrs. Formby's statement was not introduced at trial. "Atlanta Stirred by Mrs. Formby's Story", The New York Times, February 27, 1914.

I will leave it to others as to what should be done with this material, but if added it should be pointed out that even before the retraction the prosecution had determined her testimony was not credible which is the reason she wa not called at trial. See Oney p. 188.

Is the lead chubbing up a little?

I always thought the lead section was supposed to be just the very essence of the story, the barest-bones statement of the tale. The Leo Frank lead has picked up a lot of extra material, and I wonder if some of it isn't, kinda, extraneous. Do we want to include details of the murder, details of Frank's extraction from prison and the drive to Marietta and the lynching? If you discuss all these things here, now, what do you build to down in article? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand independently as an overview of the subject. In other words, anyone wanting to read the lead alone should go away with a summarizing understanding of the story as a whole. See WP:LEAD for the guideline. In terms of length it recommends three or four paragraphs for an article of this length. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely my point, SlimVirgin. Details about his membership in B'nai B'rith, about Confederate Memorial Day, about Milledgeville, face stamping... are not the kind of details that make an intro effective. It still strikes one as too chubby. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Details of the lynching matter, in my view, because that's what made the case famous. His membership of B'Nai B'rith is relevant to why this became a definitive issue in the founding of the ADL, and it also speaks to his standing in the community. The other two details (Confederate Day, Milledgeville), I see as harmless colour. People do need some details to orient themselves. The most boring leads are the ones that offer nothing of substance. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the addition of "Frank had been one of the few people in the factory; he said he had spoken to Phagan that day when she came in for her wages, and there were stories that he had flirted with her in the past." While this is true, it speaks to only one side of the evidence. The long standing, and equally accurate phrase "though his case has often been cited as a miscarriage of justice" that was eliminated is equally true." It was not just the lynching but the problems with the trial that make the case historically significant. A reader of the lede as currently constructed would have no idea that most historians and writers have serious concerns about the fairness of the trial and/or the accuracy of the jury's decision. Some version of the excluded phrase needs to be added back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, numerous employees said that Leo Frank and Mary were on a first name basis, and it is safe to say Leo Frank knew Mary Phagan very well given that he paid her at least 50 times, worked on the same floor as her, passed by her everyday looking around, and needed to walk by her to use the toilet. Numerous people testified that Leo knew Mary very well. Twelve female employees testified that Frank had a serious problem lasciviousnes (sexual harrasment) and several girls signed affidavits that he propositioned them with money for sex. See the Brief of Evidence. Machn (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Would it be beneficial if the lead were also in chronological order? Shouldn't the first mention be that Leo Frank was convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan, then go into his 13 denied appeals, denial of recommendation from prison board, commutation, lynching and so forth? Could I request that the Lead be put in chronological order? Also all the political interpretation or exaggeration (?) of political cards, race cards, north v south card, Anti-Semitism cards, etc.... wasn't this really about the evidence against him? the 1,800 brief of evidence that affirmed his guilt and maintained it through a zillion court reviews? After a zillion judges reviewed the brief of evidence and affirmed his conviction, wouldn't that speak more to his guilt and the juries decision being a rightful one, rather than blaming race, religion and creed cards? Machn (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That would make it very long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. The lead is not the place to introduce any argumentation, only to introduce the fact that there was contention. The actual arguments should come later. And four paragraphs was what we had... they just somehow got a lot, uh, flabbier. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrington, do you think the lead is a good place to have sociological interpretations about various race cards, political cards, Anti-Semitism cards and a zillion other cards which basically say the Jury didn't convict him on the evidence, but racial bias, prejudice, racism, Anti-Semitism and so forth? Shouldn't the lead, just be the cold hard summary facts, not a place to push a kind of liberal sociologist interpretation of the Jury? Every member of the Jury signed an affidavit stating they convicted him totally on the evidence and not prejudice, hate, racism or Anti-Semitism. I find it troubling sociologish (sp) interpretations are perpetually forced on the lead. Machn (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

lead correction, suggestions

• The folks who actually did the kidnapping and the lynching weren't the prominent citizens, they were just henchmen. Newt Morris materialized at the site because his job was crowd control and control of the body.

• In the first sentence, possible to include the resultant rebirth of the Klan? something like ".... whose lynching... turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.[2] The defiant populist anger the case had aroused [found expression in] a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan.[refs]" ? (Added "defiant" to indicate the... defiance that the Knights of MP's "statement" on Stone Mountain exactly two months after the lynching illustrated against Yankee intrusion into Georgia affairs)

• Room to mention up here that political fortunes were made (Dorsey governor, Watson senator) and destroyed (Gov Slaton) based on the player's role in the Leo Frank case?

• I'll change the miles from 75 to 150; it was 150 miles to Marietta on the back roads, Phagan Kean at p. 223 (today on highways it's about 130). If it's possible to fit in that they drove the reverse of Sherman's march (Phagan Kean same page) that would be cool, but maybe too much information too soon. (It's noted later in the article.) -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Marietta wasn't exactly Mary's home town, though she was buried there; it was the home of her grandfather, influential person in Marietta. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with your statements, and I would like to add it seems like the lead is forever a POV propaganda soap box struggle and fight.

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman and engineer, whose lynching in 1915 by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.[2]

Why do we lock in the evil lynchers to Marietta? I doubt they were all from Marietta. Why do we feel the need to force accusations of Anti-Semitism and political cards so eagerly in the lead? Why is the lynching made out to be more important that the Trial and conviction which got significantly more media coverage? number 1. The most important thing about Leo Frank was not just the lynching, it was also the conviction and his 2 year struggle to have the verdict set aside or have him released on Hab corpus. number 2 - The other issue is that the accusations against the Jury, the prosecution, the lynching or anyone involve that they were Anti-Semitic, is really more of a political opinion not really based on facts. The conviction had nothing to do with Anti-Semitism, and everything to do with the facts, evidence and testimony, it seems like Leo Frank is the latest wikipedia poster child for Jewish victimhood and persecution or accusations of Anti-Semitism and I really want to know why we feel it so necessary to over exaggerate this position which seems to come from the defense side. I would say that accusing the jury, the courts, etc... Anti-Semitic is in and of itself racism, prejudice, bigotry and hate. Hugh M. Dorsey built a perfectly credible case against Leo Frank, it wasn't Anti-Semitism that got him convicted. Could I make a humble suggestions that we don't write the article as if it was written by the Leo Frank Defense team? Could we write it to have a balance of both the prosecutions position and the defenses position? Because right now the lead with its endless play of every race, political, Anti-Semitism, every demographic card, it kinda seems more like its written with a persecution and victim hood position, than a neutral one. There's not one word of Anti-Semitism in entire trial testimony, until at the very end when Dorsey has to defend against a grasping at straws, desperate defense position that if Leo Frank werent a Jew he would never be tried (accoding to reuben arnold). While they are accusing Anti-Semitism, they are saying the most disgusting and racist things about Jim Conley. I have never heard such vile and loathsome race hatred and racism, it sounded like something you might expect at a neo-nazi Klan Rally coming from the defense. Machn (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason we stress the lynching and the antisemitism is that secondary sources do, including academic sources. There are lots of miscarriages of justice, but fewer lynchings, and this was the only known lynching of a Jew in the United States in its entire history, according to the sources. In addition, it wasn't spontaneous and thoughtless, as they usually are, but well-planned, and it was organized by the great and the good of the area. All these factors make it unique, which is why those issues are highlighted.

As for the antisemitism, it's an issue the academic sources address, and they do it in a more nuanced way than we do, pointing out that the context was complex, with Frank being seen as a member of the ruling class, the northern industrial exploiters of the southern poor, "other" not "self". So the antisemitism has to be interpreted within that context. It would be good to have a carefully written section about it at some point, and how Jews in America were seen generally during that era. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

The article seems to use a lot of primary sources, which isn't really allowed, not without secondary sources backing them up. It's also not clear what the citations are. For example:

She had reportedly told him that Frank had flirted with her and scared her;

Where is this material to be found, for any reader who wants to look it up? Also, why does that brief point need three sources? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say primary source, you mean for instance the brief of evidence is the primary source and then Oney's interpretation of it is secondary? So that the secondary source is more important because it provides interpretation of the primary source. Machn (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right, yes. A primary source is someone involved in a situation, or a document written by someone involved. A secondary source is at least one step removed, providing an overview. Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources, so that we're not interpreting primary sources by ourselves, which is notoriously tricky.

Just as importantly, though, where would a reader look to find these primary sources, e.g. "1st Affidavit of George W. Epps, submitted by Solicitor General, Hugh M. Dorsey to the State vs. Leo M. Frank, Fall Term 1913, Fulton County Superior Court, Presided by Judge L.S. Roan, Brief of Evidence"? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Could whoever added these sources say more about how readers can find them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the recent ones were added by Machn. The issue I would think is less about telling the reader how to find them than replacing them with secondary sources. If secondary sources can't be found to support the interpretation placed on them, then the material should probably be eliminated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the following is based on primary sources. Is it contentious?

George Epps, 14, a fellow factory worker, neighbor, and friend, testified at the trial that he had ridden the streetcar with her that morning. She reportedly told him that Frank had flirted with her and scared her. According to Epps, he and Phagan agreed to meet mid-afternoon to watch the parade together. Governor Slaton, examining the trial transcripts in 1915, determined that Phagan had reached the pencil factory door just after noon, some time between 12.05 and 12.10. Late that same evening Epps went to the Phagan home, to find out why she had not met him as planned. Phagan's mother later told someone the Pinkerton Detective Agency that she doubted her daughter had arranged to met Epps as Phagan had told her mother she detested him; the mother also said she had never heard her daughter say anything about Frank flirting with her. Epps at the trial said he rode the train with Mary, and that they got off several minutes after noon at Forsyth and Marietta Streets. According to Epps, Epps and Phagan had agreed to meet each other near Elkin-Watson's at 2pm to see the Memorial Day parade. After the trial he recanted his testimony, stating in a 3,500-word affidavit, that "at both the coroner's inquest and the trial of Leo Frank I swore falsely. I now state that I was persuaded to give the false testimony ... by Detective John Black." Epps later repudiated his recantation, claiming that he had been lured by Jimmie Wrenn and C.W. Burke (employed by the Leo Frank defense team), taken to Birmingham Alabama and forced by treat of violence to recant his testimony. Epps was in police custody in the state reformatory where he was serving a sentence for theft when he made this last statement. C.W. Burke in an affidavit denied that Epps had been forced to go to Alabama. He claimed, "Epps told us he was afraid of John Black and wouldn't make a statement in Atlanta."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The reporting in the article of the fact that Epps said these things is not contentious. Epps said what the article says he said and it is readily available in secondary sources. My problem from an editing standpoint (and one that needs to be dealt with at some point) is how much of this should be introduced at this stage of the article and how much of it should be treated in isolation from the other character issues that were at play. In this case, for example, the info on Epps from the primary source was added without any perspective. The material sourced to secondary sources regarding the retractions was only added later -- by me.

In any event, a better example (the material has been in the article for awhile and I don't know who put it in) is the following from the "Clemency" section:

However, in his written decision, Slaton said of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that there was "no error of law" in Frank's trial and that "there was sufficient evidence to sustain the [guilty] verdict." On this latter point, he said the Court had ruled "correctly in my judgement." Furthermore, Slaton explicitly stated he was "sustaining the jury, the judge, and the appellate tribunals." His reason for commuting Frank's sentence to life imprisonment was that the Frank verdict fell in that "territory 'beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT and absolute certainty,' for which the law provides in allowing life imprisonment instead of execution." On the matter of bias against Frank as a Jew, Slaton wrote, "The charge against the State of Georgia of racial prejudice is unfair."

All of this is based on a primary source. Both the context and interpretation (i.e. the use of "however", "on this later point", "His reason for commuting was ...", "On the matter of Bias") are original research. More important, is the information in this paragraph significant to interpreting Slaton's ruling? Is the material germaine to Slaton's overall message or is it just "politician speak" that needed to be inserted? The only way to answer these essential questions is to determine how secondary sources treated Slaton's ruling. Dinnerstein discusses the specifics of Slaton's written response from the bottom of page 126 through 129 w/o including any of this material. Oney covered the text of the message (in smaller print) from page 500 through page 502 -- he also doesn't mention the material from this paragraph. Lindemann, as would be expected considering the scope of his work, devotes two long paragraphs to Slaton w/o mentioning anything from the paragraph. All three authors concentrate of Slaton's analysis of the facts, especially his rejection of Conley's version of events. Absent some other reliable source explaining how the material in the paragraph is noteworthy, it should be excluded. And, of course, the section itself needs to be rewritten with the material actually listed by Lindemann, Dinnerstein and Oney. My intent, is to include a part of what Slaton relied on in a final subsection under Conley (the info was not new with Slaton) and refer back to it when writing the clemency section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Denial of anti-Semitism (copied from a user's talk page)

Perhaps you could advise exactly where it says in that quote that the episode was anti-semitic as I cannot read that into it anywhere…? Instead of saying simply 'it does say that' it would be more helpful to confirm exactly where it says so. To me - and I am a lawyer so I am qualified to interpret things of this nature - it clearly says that there was a lot of anti-semitic feeling at the time, and such comments were made in the press. In addition, there was much to say about the fact that Frank was a Jew. However, nowhere does it say that the whole episode (the lynching etc) was due to this; it was, if you like, an ancillary issue existing alongside the real issue, but not part of it. The very first comment refers, in fact. I feel that this quote has been mis-understood. Please stop entering into an edit war about this and see it for what it actually is. I get the impression you have forced the issue to fit into a preconceived idea about the episode. 78.150.21.193 (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am the one that added the footnote. I have now expanded the footnote to include specific language that reiterates the obvious. Please note that simply because some specific info is included in the footnote, this does not imply that this is all the source had to say about it. Youreally should go to the actual source (or at least ask about it) before you start reverting. There has been a long discussion on the page about anti-Semitism and no consensus for removing the reference was reached. I am copying this entire conversation to the article discussion page where it is more appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The amended statement still does nothing to show that anti-semitism was involved. Simply by adding 'at the time of the lynching' does not go any way to confirming that either the trial or the lynching itself was influenced by anti-semitism; it simply shows that anti-semitism was rife at the time. This is nothing more than a co-incidence unless proven otherwise. In fact, my knowledge of this case suggests that the events were more to do with anti-northern sentiment rather than anti-semitism. Nothing in the statement proves - or even suggests - that the event was anti-semitic. If, as you say, that evidence is included in the wider source, why not add that to the wiki article, rather than allow a statement which does not prove what it is alleged to prove. Please re-visit this, please provide something which categorically states that the episode was anti-semitic. While I have no doubt there was much anti-jewish feeling at the time, and many people disliked Frank because of his religion, or believed he committed this murder because he was a Jew - this is not what the quote says and as far as I can see there is NO evidence to show that anti-semitism was the motive for what happened. Again, I think this is a personal crusade to force into the article something which is simply not evidenced and this must surely be against wiki's impartiality rules??? I have now read the comments above and I agree - this is a disgraceful, one-sided article which is nothing more than the POV of someone on a frolic of their own. If you are not prepared alter this to make it more fair, please refer to someone independent - perhaps a senior administrator - for review and final determination. If you are not prepared to do that, I will report the page as a gross and flagrant bias. As I say, I am happy to accept it was anti-semitic, but only where evidence of such is provided. I reiterate that the quote given does not prove it even slightly 78.150.21.193 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Both the footnote and the source itself are clear. In no way could any reasonable person believe that Higham's intent was to describe a "co-incidence" -- the phrase "In the last stages of the Frank Case" provides the EXACT context. A far as your claim that, "my knowledge of this case suggests that the events were more to do with anti-northern sentiment rather than anti-semitism", this is only relevant to the extent that you can provide reliable secondary sources that support your own original research. In fact, as the source clearly indicates, different factors were at play after the trial than during the trial. Rather than engaging in personal insults about other editor's motives, try producing some actual sources to back your opinions up. I can't help but notice that in both tone and substance, you do sound a lot like a sock puppet of Machn would sound. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, there's no need to be paranoid that your POV agenda and weak hypothesis are being called out, this is just a normal part of being an editor here on wikipedia when you make such broad, sweeping and dubious claims. Instead of changing the subject with lame accusations, why don't you just follow through like you said you would in the threads above, weeks ago, that you would support your far-flung Anti-Semitism conspiracy theory. You and your biased sources, are in the minority in attempting to allege and blame Leo Franks conviction and lynching on a supposed nationwide Anti-Jewish plot, so at least attempt to back it up with something solid. Why, because every level of the United States legal system from the state to the federal courts affirmed that the Trial was fair and that the evidence supported the verdict of Guilty. Sorry Tom, No cheesy Anti-Semitic Plot to convict an innocent man. Sorry Tom, the Leo Frank Case is not an Anti-Semitic episode, like you put in the first sentence of the Leo Frank article. Every time a person calls you out as being an activist editor and propaganda pusher are you going to claim they are a sock puppet of me? The admins have tools they can use to confirm these red-herring accusations by you are untrue. Tom, how about you back up your claims that the 'Leo Frank Case' is an "Anti-Semitic episode" with some real solid scholarly sources. To the new comer, it is time, you register an account with wikipedia.org and contribute with reliable scholarly sources which are numerous. Machn (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi New Comer, before you make edits to the Leo Frank article, I suggest you read up more on the subject. The following books on the topic will give you a pretty good understanding of the Leo Frank Case:-

• "The Frank Case" The Inside Story of Georgia's Greatest Murder Mystery Published in 1913 by Atlanta Publishing Company. 148 PP. Digitized by Harvard Library in Adobe Acrobat PDF [7]
• The Murder of Little Mary Phagan Free book download 316 pages in adobe PDF format. Written by Mary Phagan Kean (Great Grand Niece of Mary Phagan).
• American State Trials Volume X (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D. Available for download in Adobe PDF format (31M) and contains the abridged edited version of the Leo Frank trial testimony starting on page 182.

My suggestion to you is to go to http://www.archive.org and search on the individual terms Leo Frank or Mary Phagan and you will find a number of good sources and some questionable sources on the subject. You should read them all so you can be familiar with the different positions on the Leo Frank Case. You should try to understand the Leo Frank case from the different sides and positions. It will help you better understand the political battle going on here, which is that you have activist editors trying to rehabilitate a pedophile rapist (affirmed in the testimony by more than one specialist), unfaithful husband (affirmed in the testimony by more than one person), lascivious libidinous predator (affirmed in the testimony by numerous child employees) and child murderer (convicted and 13 failed appeals).Machn (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Denial of Antisemitism The Trial of Leo Frank by Reuben Arnold Potzeey (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

We have a problem with the images, including the lead image, which are all likely to be deleted because they lack licensing information. If we're claiming public domain, we need to be able to show that they were published before 1923. We can use them even if they were not, but the licence would then be different, but without any information about their publishing history or origin we can't use them at all without violating the image policies.

Basically the more information we have about old images, the safer they are. Could those of you who have books about this case, or old newspaper stories, look to see whether these images are included, and what is known about them, specially what date they were published, and whether we know who took them?

• File:Leo-frank-at-trial.jpg
• File:Leo-and-lucille-frank.jpg
• File:Mary Phagan.jpg
• File:Mary-phagan-murder-note.jpg
• File:James-conley.jpg
• File:William-smith-lawyer-for-jim-conley.jpg
• File:Leo-frank-trial.jpg
• File:Hugh-dorsey.jpg
• File:Luther-rosser.jpg
• File:Tom E Watson.jpg
• File:Leo-frank-lynch-law-cartoon.jpg

And any images of the lynching—sources showing when and where they were published will help us retain them.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the images has been deleted already, though it hasn't affected the article yet because it's also on the Commons, but it's only a matter of time before the others go too. Could any of the editors who own the books about this say whether any of these images appear in them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Leo Frank Lynching Was An Episode of Anti-Semitism

According to Mary Phagan Kean:

Some writers, such as Harry Golden in his book A Little Girl Is Dead, feel that many Atlantans were grossly anti-Semitic and accused Frank of the murder because he was Jewish

She writes this with the notion that such sentiments are empty and lacking substance. This is the sentiment of some writers such as Harry Golden, Steve Oney, Dinnerstein and others, but indeed the prejudiced sentiment that Anti-Semitism was the cause of Leo Frank lynching lacks substance. Machn (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I'm asking for help with some sources and references concerning some of the activist editors claims about an Anti-Jewish conspiracy in the Leo Frank Case. I would like to understand that position from their point of view as nothing in any of Leo Franks writings, letters and appeals claims their was an Anti-Semitic conspiracy or any Anti-Semitism at all. I have been searching far and wide for sources and references on Leo Frank, to see if there is any substance to Tom and IronDuke's assertions that the 'Leo Frank Case' was 'in toto' was an Anti-Semitic conspiracy, or as they put it in colorful terms, an "Anti-Semitic Episode". So far, I have only found several books or so on the Leo Frank Case which have some Anti-Semitic sentences in them, but the substance of these booklets and articles are not Anti-Semitic. They seem to be very well argued and reasoned treatise or compositions on the 'Leo Frank Case' from the prosecution position, but with sarcasm, more wit and energy. Tom Watson to the best of my knowledge, is accused by the Frankites and activist editors (Tom?) here as being the man who is responsible for causing Leo Frank to be lynched. Unless I overlooked a quote, I have failed to see how he was the man who is responsible for Leo Franks lynching and the Anti-Semitic statements in these books, are few and far between. If someone can please point me in the right direction to find some reliable sources on this Anti-Semitism conspiracy position I would be very thankful and indebted. The following five books (possibly more?) written by the seasoned lawyer Tom Watson are here and I put them here for reference purposes only, I'm not suggesting they should be used as sources because of their Anti-Semitic content is unacceptable:

1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson's Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for 'A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for 'The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank". Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for 'The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

After reading these five very well written arguments about the Leo Frank Case, I will definitely agree with everyone that there were Anti-Semitic sentences in them, some of the Anti-Semitism was even nauseating and I almost stopped reading them when I got to those parts, but the substance of these articles as a whole were not Anti-Semitic in and of themselves from the Southern position about how things were transpiring. These booklets and arguments just seem to be new and innovative rehashes of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorseys arguments for the prosecution. If your position is that Tom Watson is the man who may have inflamed an already enraged population in the South with his well argued position on the Leo Frank Case, I would have to concur that his arguments are definitely convincing, but I'm still not seeing how Tom Watson's writings equate to the Leo Frank lynching as being an Anti-Semitic episode. I have been waiting 2 weeks for more evidence, sources and references from Tom and IronDuke, but haven't really gotten anything convincing that this whole Leo Frank Case is some widespread Anti-Semitic conspiracy. Can someone please point me to reference pages for this position, I would really like to understand this position better. Machn (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The several articles by Watson are superb and of historical importance. Senator and House of representative Tom Watson's specific historical works on Frank have been added to the further reading section. They are the proof for the whole world you ask for and so is this man caused the lynching. My addition to the Leo Max Frank article The Leo Frank Trial by Reuben Arnold is the answer to your question about proof of Antisemitism. There can be no denying Antisemitism with Tom Watson and Reuben Arnold articles added to it. Potzeey (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

proof of episodic Antisemitism in the Frank case can be found in Steve Oney's And The Dead Shall Rise The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank right mouse click to save as. Potzeey (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Detail

I'm wondering whether the way in which the detail is introduced makes the article hard to follow. For example, we go into detail about the August 26 timing, and what was said at trial, before the trial section. We discuss what the coroner said, before we've said anything about an autopsy. I'm thinking we need to establish a structure so that the reader can follow more easily. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article as it existed a few days ago had very few details on either Jin Conley or the events involved in the timeline. The trial section had, and still has, very few details at all that would allow a reader to evaluate the evidence or determine how reliable sources have evaluated the evidence. I have stated above the problems with the section "Suspicion falls on Frank" which was just a hodge podge of information. My vision of the trial section would be less a discussion of specifics and more of a discussion of strategy and a general outline of what they presented by way of testimony.

It is my feeling that however the information is organized the reader should be able to find the information in one place on the important subjects. They should not have to find one piece of the timeline at the coroner's hearing, another at the grand jury, more at the trial, and even more at the appeals. At present I am consolidating that information in the two sections that I am working on. I believe I have pointed out the lack of information on the coroner's inquest -- it needs to be written as do many other things. We still haven't described either the fact of or the details relating to the arrest of Frank.

I believe an outline of the future shape of the article might be in order. However the first step here would be to determine whether the main article is going to remain as a biography of Frank or be changed to "The Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank." I prefer the latter which would immediately allow us to eliminate the first two subsections on Frank and Phagan. Instead the "Background" section should include the cultural and class issues that effected the case, placing Frank and Phagan in their assigned parts of Atlanta society.

"At the factory, April 26" and "Body Found, April 27" should be eliminated an replaced with a chonologically arranged section that starts with Lee finding the body and ending with the arrest of Frank. The section "Murder Investigation" would be the place for this information. At some point a separate section, "Conduct issues" should be created to describe the various issues that were raised regarding Frank's alleged proclivities. When all of this is accomplished, it would be time to rewrite the "Trial" section. IMO.

Perhaps one of those "Under Construction" templates should be added to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to be careful when writing chronologically in cases like this. I've worked on two Wikipedia articles about complex criminal issues where X is known on day 1, then contradicted on day 2, then changed back on day 3, and you have to be very careful to decide whether you're "in universe" or not, i.e. what perspective, what level of knowledge, you're writing from. You also have to keep it readable (not easy with so much detail), and you have to guide the reader through who-said-what, and how stories changed. The two I found similar problems on were Death of Ian Tomlinson and Jeremy Bamber. The first wasn't as complex as this, though it had some of the same story-changing elements,and I dealt with by saying (a) what happened, and then (b) how the story emerged. The second is very complex, and I'm still wrestling with how to make it clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My perspective is not from "in universe". At this point, almost a century after the fact, historians have wrangled over the case's inconsistencies and arrived at a consensus conclusion (at least as much as historians ever reach consensus. The point of the article should be to present this information in the most understandable manner possible. I looked at the Tomlinson and Bamber cases and they are either too new to place the issues primarily in the hand of historians or, in the case of Bamber (based on looking at the sources cited) not yet of interest to historians. I do agree, though, that the information should be in the article that tells the source (i.e. trial, grand jury, private letter, etc) was developed.

The best example here is on the character issues. The narrative on this needs to stress the chronology of how the information originated. If I recollect correctly, a theory is that once some of the intial character questions were raised the issue took on a life of its own. It is important to point out, as the secondary sources do, that several of the more colorful early episodes, usually exposed in the newspaper in sensationally headlined stories, turned out not to be true. By the time this was realized, the prosecution was locked in to its theory of the crime. To use the example of Formby, I believe the reader should be told at the same time, what she said, how it was reported, and why it was ultimately not used at trial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, sorry, just saw your reply. Yes I agree about the presentation, but the issue of being "in universe" still arises, because at each point in the narrative you have to decide which perspective you're seeing things from, which point in time, and how much detail to go into. The problem with parts of the article is it immediately tells how much it knows about something the minute that thing is introduced, so the reader is overwhelmed by details about that one issue (e.g. the boy she rode to work with) before knowing the basic story. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

monteen stover trial prosecution testimony , frank alibi breaker

alibi cracked wide open. a section or put monteen stover in article. she sat inside frank 2-floor inner office from 5 minutes past noon to 10 minutes past noon waiting for pay. she peered down hallway noticed door to 2-floor metal room was shut. prosecution case victory built on frank murdering phagan in 2-floor metal room between five minutes past noon and ten minutes. frank tells detective black and scott he was in office every second & minute from noon to half past noon when mrs white scared him. closing arguments. frank states possible nature call [poo poo] or urination [pee pee], putting him in bathroom when not in office during five and ten minutes past noon. to get to bathroom have to go through metal room. frank implicates putting self in the room adjacent to phagan strangulation. review monteen stover. review frank statement. review detectives statement frank said every minute in office noon to half-noon Potzeey (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is incomprehensible. Do you know what a sentence is? What are you trying to say? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

steve, where was leo frank from 12:05 to 12:10 if monteen stover was inside leo frank's empty office waiting for him for five minutes? Potzeey (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That question is answered in the section on Frank's testimony at the trial. The more important question, however, is where was Phagan? The timeline, as reported in the reliable secondary sources, do not present a scenario in which Phagan arrived before 12:05. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom maybe we could add some of these details to the wiki essay on Leo Frank. In a written statement to Chief of detectives lanford on Monday, April 28 1913, Leo Frank said Mary came into his office between "12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07", but Monteen Stover said she waited in Leo Frank's empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 to collect her pay and that when she looked down the hall the door to the metal room was closed. So where was Leo Frank and Mary Phagan between 12:05 and 12:10 if they were not in Franks office, where Frank said they were?

during frank's murder trial he said to the Jury, to counters monteen stover's testimony that he was not in his second floor office from 12:05 to 12:10, with, he may have "unconsciously" gone to the toilet or to urinate. doesn't one have to walk through the metal room on the second floor to get to the toilet? by his own words, did Leo Frank put himself in the metal room during 12:05 to 12:10, the very place where the prosecution spent 29 days trying to prove Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan? the very place several employees testified they saw a big 5 inch blood stain on the floor that someone had attempted to cover up, by smearing haskolene on it? As well as finding hair on the lathe machine that resembled Mary Phagans? Did Leo Frank make what amounts to a confession that he was in the very place where Phagan was murdered between 12:05 and 12:10? why does the leo frank wiki essay not cover these glaring issues?

The superintendent of the pinkerton detective agency, Harry Scott, at the trial testified:

On Sunday, May 3, I went to Frank's cell at the jail with detective Black, and asked Mr. Frank if, from the time he arrived at the factory from Montag Bros. (before noon) up until 12:50 p. m., the time he went upstairs to the fourth floor, was he inside of his office the entire time, and Frank stated, 'Yes', Then I asked him if he was inside his office every minute from noon until 12:30, and he said, 'Yes'

Frank entrapped himself beyond escape. Are there any secondary sources, which discuss Frank's testimony blunder, as he said what amounts to a confession he was in the metal room where Mary Phagan was alleged by the prosecution to be murdered? Potzeey (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your speculations about the alleged "confession" are bizarre (not to mention a violation of the policy against original research). Bottom line -- the consensus of current scholarship is that Frank got a raw deal at his trial. This article should reflect that consensus. You need to make your arguments for including material in the article by showing that reliable secondary sources have included the material in their works. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

North Shoreman Tom and Steven Anderson, the confession by Leo Frank that he murdered Mary Phagan is covered in Watson's Magazine, The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, September 1915. The essay is here http://www.archive.org/download/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915/4-leo-frank-jew-pervert-watsons-magazine-september-1915-v21-n5-.pdf you can download this and read it yourself. Frank made what amounts to a confession that he was in the second floor metal room where Mary Phagan was strangled. To respond to Monteen Stover's testimony that Frank was not in his office from 12:05 to 12:10, Frank says he may have unconsciously gone to the toilet, but to get to the toilet you have to go through the metal room. Frank essentially puts himself in the metal room from 12:05 to 12:10, the second floor metal room is the very place the prosecution spent a month trying to prove Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan. There is no original research here, this comes directly from Watson Magazine September 1915, The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, found on www.archive.org. Potzeey (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Potzeey, I'm going to try this one last time. I am begging you to read Wikipedia's policy page on original research. It's not allowed. Look at your previous post in this thread. Your conclusion that Frank's testimony put him in the metal room at the time of the murder is your original research. Your conclusion that he made what amounts to a confession is your original research. Your conclusion that he "entrapped himself" with a "testimony blunder" is your original research. Your question about the conflict between his testimony and Stover's is your original research. The purpose of this article is to describe, in an encyclopedic fashion, the biography of the named individual, not to relitigate the case against him. You seem to be here to fight a battle, to right great wrongs. That's not what we're here for. You obviously want to prove that Leo Frank committed the crime of which he was convicted. That's not our job. If you continue in this vein, I'm going to regard it as disruption and take the appropriate measures. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I appreciate your begging and I take your begging very seriously. I will at your request read these materials you asked me to study. However, you might be mistaken, I did not come up with this revelation about Leo M. Frank confessing to the murder of Mary Phagan. This topic is covered in The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank by Tom Waton in Watson's Magazine Sept 1915. You can download it and read it for yourself it's of historical importance and located on archive.org here http://www.archive.org/download/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915/4-leo-frank-jew-pervert-watsons-magazine-september-1915-v21-n5-.pdf you can download the PDF scan. I can not take credit for this as my own original research, it comes from the secondary source Tom Watson's magazine. Potzeey (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom Watson was a racist anti-Semite who was probably the individual most responsible for Frank's lynching. His writings are not reliable sources for either facts or analysis and there is nothing "Official" about anything he wrote. You really think Wikipedia should base its articles on the rantings of such extremists? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

North Shoreman Tom, Watsons best written essays written in September 1915 on Leo Frank was written after Leo Frank was lynched August 17 1915. I carefully read Watson's September 1915 The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank and compared it with the "Brief of the Evidence, Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. Fulton Country Superior Court at the July Term, 1913". There are no errors at all in Watson's works in terms of the accuracy of the quotes he put in there, he took the exact testimony from the Brief of Evidence, and interpreted it exactly how the substance of the testimony was given. So please illuminate what the problem is with utilizing Watson's logical and well reasoned arguments. Watson was after all a very brilliant and seasoned lawyer, his arguments are superb. Watson, calls Leo Frank a Jew Pervert, and used some foul language when describing Leo Frank, so what is the problem? They didn't have all the terms we use today, like child molester or child killer to describe someone who possibly molested and strangled a thirteen-year-old girl. Back in those days they used pervert. What would you call someone that raped and murdered a little girl? I would also call that person a pervert too and use foul language to describe them, that doesn't diminish his truly superb and logical arguments in his September essay. It is the correct terminology at the time to call someone a pervert for what Frank did to Mary Phagan. You say Watson was a racist and anti-Semite, but i found nothing anti-Semitic in Watsons The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank. Just because Watson criticized the Jewish community for its nationwide letter writing campaign against Georgia, doesn't make someone an extremist or anti-Semite. The term anti-Semite seems to be thrown around anytime some criticizes an individual Jew or the Jewish Community, that's not right. Potzeey (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

why is Focus listed as related article

book has just about nothing to do with Leo Frank.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research and inappropriate use of primary source documents

A flurry of edits by user Potzeey are adding unsourced opinions, changing sourced material, and relying on interpretations of primary sources w/o proper context being provided by secondary sources. These issue were addressed previously (see Archive 3 section "Primary Sources". At that time, the concern was user Machn, whose last edit was August 23. User Potzeey, by coincidence or otherwise, began editing this article, almost exclusivey on August 27. The style and pattern of the two users are awfully darn similar and have the same purpose -- proving the guilt of Frank.

In any event may of his edits need to be removed as do some older edits that simply rely on interpretations of primary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: Phagan's earliest departure time, based on an interpretation of primary sources, was changed to 12:03. However Dinnerstein, relying on the trial testimony of the same witness places the time at 12:10. If there is a valid claim that someone made a credible statement of 12:03, then a reliable secondary source is needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: An entire paragraph on Slaton's clemency was based entirely on quotes taken from the primary source. Words need context and significance from secondary sources. The cut and paste from the document creates a different picture (i.e. Slaton's very serious doubts about Frank's guilt) than the one presented in secondary sources like Oney and Dinnerstein. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Potzeey failed to respond to this and simply reverted the time supported by the reliable sources. This is the text of the footnote that supports the time that I have restored yet again:

Dinnerstein, p. 48. Oney pp. 197, 266. Both the motorman, W. M. Matthews, and the conductor, W. T. Hollis, testified that Phagan got off the trolley at 12:10. In addition they both testified that Epps was not on the trolley. Epps said at trial that Phagan got off the trolley at 12:07.

Potzeey had earlier changed this properly sourced statement, "From the stop it was a two to four minute walk", changing the time w/o sourcing and w/o explanation to one to two minutes. This appears to me to constitute edit warring to advance a personal POV. Reliance on an editor's interpretation an archival record of primary documents (Brief of Evidence) to contradict material from reliable secondary sources is not acceptable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I checked a footnote elsewhere. Lawson, on page 241, does mention the time 12:03, but it is the testimony by an N. Kelly, who knew Phagan, and said he was at the stop at 12:03 but that Phagan did not get off at that time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

tom, what time did mary phagan arrive in frank's office?

nothing original, just read lawson's state trials volume x, dinnerstein, oney, mary phagan kean and others...

some trolley drivers testified in the trial saying the trolleys were sometimes up to 5 minutes early or late depending, because it was a holiday, the drivers may have wanted to get off a little bit early. this speculation appears to be confirmed by frank if he was telling the truth on april 27 1913.

april 27, 1913 = therefore the trolley drivers would tend to be corroborated by frank's initial statement to detective black and police officer w. w. rogers during the morning april 27, 1913, frank said that after miss hall left at noon, a few minutes later alonzo mann left (12:03), and then mary came into his office (12:03 to 12:04) got her pay and left. This would according to frank, put mary in frank's office at 12:03 to 12:04. If frank is telling the truth (because he changed the time of marys arrival 3 or more time), it would mean mary got off the trolley at just minutes after noon and arrived in his office at 12:03 or 12:04

April 28, 1913 - in a monday, april 28, 1913, frank's statement to chief of detectives landford, Frank says Mary came into his office between 12:05 and 12:10 with a maybe 12:07 (sounds pretty specific)

insert the coroners inquest statement from frank about mary's arrival time if you wish,

August 1913 = in a statement to the Jury in Frank's murder trial august 1913, Frank said Mary arrived in his office at between 12:10 to 12:15.

according to leo frank, we have from 12:03 to 12:04 arrival time on one day, to 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07 arrival time on another day, to 12:10 to 12:15 arrival time on another day, so which is it tom? and why does it not mention in wiki essay on leo frank that frank changed the time of mary's arrival 3 or more times? leo frank keeps changing his story minute by minute. Potzeey (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are dodging the issue. Wikipedia is not interested in your analysis of the issues. Nor is it surprising that there are discrepancies in the testimony. The significance of the discrepancies is a matter for the reliable secondary sources -- our job as editors is to provide the analysis from these reliable sources. It is not our job to go back to original sources (i.e. records of testimony) and make an independent analysis.

We should treat discrepancies in Frank's testimony the exact same way that Dinnerstein, Oney, et al did. Why do you ignore the two most widely accepted authors on the subject in editing the article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I added material sourced to Oney that shows Frank's initial estimate of Phagan's arrival was between 12:05 and 12:10. I replaced your material which was less specific and out of place with the rest of the section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to reinforce what Tom is saying here, Potzeey. I still don't think you understand Wikipedia's policy on original research. Please click that link and read it. You must not take what you find in sources, draw what you think are reasonable conclusions from them and put those conclusions in a Wikipidia article. This is textbook original reaseach and clearly against policy. We report what the reliable sources say only.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

how does this work? you put exact quotes from secondary sources, or do you reword them (or can you reword them)? and is one allowed to analyze the secondary sources in the wiki essays?

Do dinnerstein and oney both put Mary Phagan in Frank's office between 12:05 and 12:10 based on Franks 4 statements on the time she arrived in his office? because frank twice said that Phagan came into office, once implied at 12:03 to 12:04 to Officer W.W. Rogers on sunday April 27, the day after the murder, and frank the next day made into a written document a statement that Mary Arrived 12:05 to 12:10, with a maybe 12:07 (written statement to chief of detectives Lanford, Monday april 28 1913). What I am trying to understand is that if Monteen Stover says she was in Frank's empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 waiting for her pay, where was Frank? Frank says he was in the toilet or urinating, but to get to the toilet, one has to walk through the metal room. The metal room is where the prosecution spent 1 month trying to convince the Jury as the location where Frank murdered Mary. Did Frank essentially do what amounts to a confess to murdering Mary Phagan in the metal room between 12:05 and 12:15? I ask this because several employees testified to the big blood stain in the metal room (with a half assed attempt to cover up the blood stain) and Mary's hair was found on the lathe handle in the metal room. Where is this analysis? Potzeey (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You parrot the state's case (and Watson's) without allowing for the contradictory evidence -- much of it unavailable in the primary records of the trial since it was discovered after the trial. Wikipedia's policies against no original source and reliance on reliable secondary sources are intended to prevent the type of sloppy editing that create a distorted picture of the actual events. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Parrot? I could say you parrot the defense side of the leo frank case and then we get into circle of infantile name calling games. Leo Frank is guilt, nothing changes this fact, not even his powerful friends and his worshipers today ever got him exonerated. I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but Leo Frank is still guilty 100 years later and his guilt is eternally permanent. In 1986 even at the behest of the powerful ADL and several other Jewish groups could they get him exonerated, nothing new has ever been brought forward to even remotely exonerate him in the last 30 years. No one has ever exonerated him, not even the lackey Governor John M. Slaton, who was a legal partner in the law firm defending Frank. I was not parroting the state's case, I was using a secondary source to show that Leo M. Frank did what amounted to making a confession he murdered Mary Phagan. When you use dinnerstein or oney, who parrots the weak defense side of the leo frank case, I don't accuse you of being a parrot. Frank is guilty now and forever, nothing will ever change that. To poke fun at your infantile name calling, eventually when virtual universe 2.0 comes out in the next 100 years, we can set the date, time and coordinates, so we can watch the actual events of Frank murdering her on a big movie screen <g>. Potzeey (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the issues here are, but the article should rely on secondary source, not primary sources. The latter may be used when all we're doing is describing, without interpretation or cherry-picking facts. And the source should be available for other editors to check. But in a case like this it's almost impossible not to cherry pick, and there are so many secondary sources available that primary sources should never be needed. We can add them to footnotes as an adjunct (as in "also see transcript X, located at Y"), but the information in the text should be taken from a cited secondary source.

Also, we're not here to decide on the guilt or innocence of Leo Frank. We don't know whether he was guilty or innocent, because we didn't witness the killing. So what we do here is describe what reliable secondary sources say about it SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I just finished reading Tom Watson's absolutely superb Sept 1915 essay on the Leo Frank Case, it is of historical importance. Watson uses the official record in the Leo Frank trial and I compared his testimony quotes against the 1913 brief of evidence and it is spot on. Despite the fact that Watson, uses some questionable choices of words, like calling Frank a Jew Pervert, I would like your opinion on the substance of this article (not the occasional adult language). The substance appears to be rock solid and your opinion on the quality of the substance is something i would appreciate your thoughts on, but please disregard the foul language of Watson. Would this be considered a secondary source?

Slim, The article should rely on secondary sources, but when it comes to generic facts like when Frank went to europe, or college, when he married and other non-political things, I do not think primary sources are a bad choice. For instances of use of primary sources, I added Leo Frank's height of 5'8" to his profile from his passport application, I have also looked up ancestry.com and US census information on him as well. There is no reason these things can not be used for the article. I also have a copy of Frank's marriage certificate, which is a primary source and puts the date of Frank's marriage.

Slim, how can you say we do not know if Frank was innocent or guilty? The court systems have already decided. As others and secondary sources have pointed out. The coroners jury unanimously 6 to 0 recommended frank to a grand jury of 21 that voted unanimously to indict frank 21 to 0, The trial Judge and Jury of 12 said Leo Frank was guilty 13 to 0. And more than once, the state supreme court, district court, and us supreme court all upheld the verdict and rejected Frank's frivolous appeals. In 1915 the prison board voted against commutation for frank, governor john m. slaton did not disturb the jurys verdict June 1915 despite him being a kind of lackey and partner of the law firm defending Frank. In 1986 the parole board did NOT exonerate frank and if they pardoned (forgave him) him it means they acknowledged he is guilty, because you can't pardon someone unless you acknowledge first they did a crime (they acknowledge Franks guilt). Frank is still guilty today, after a umpteen appeals. No real evidence has come forward in 100 years to exonerate Frank. Moreover, Frank said Mary came into his second floor office between 12:05 and 12:10 according to every secondary source. Frank practically confesses to the murder when in response to Monteen Stovers testimony that Frank's second floor office was empty from 12:05 to 12:10, Frank says to the Jury he unconsciously went to the toilet. Well to get to the toilet you have to go through the second floor metal room. The second floor metal room is exactly where the prosecution spent a month convincing the Jury Frank had murdered Mary Phagan between 12:05 and 12:10. Potzeey (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You can use Tom Watson if he's a reliable source; can you link to it or give a full cite so I can look it up? And you can cite the testimony he relies on (I mean cite it in the footnote, along with Watson), but you can't use the testimony yourself. That's particularly true if it's not easily available to other readers. If someone went to their public library could they order American State Trials Volume X 1918 or Lawson's American State Trials V. X, Leo Frank's final unsworn statement, through an interlibrary loan? (These do not look like full citations.)

If it's available to other readers, then I see no harm in using it for harmless facts, e.g. date of marriage. But are these facts not available in reliable secondary sources?

Using primary sources to add facts that push the article in the direction of guilt or innocence would be an inappropriate use; see WP:PSTS. As for his guilt, you may be right, but it's irrelevant. We simply publish what reliable secondary sources have published. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Potzeey, please don't add any more material from primary sources, such as in this edit. It's pointless to add it, because it's very likely to be removed in future, if not by editors now, then by other editors who come along later, because it's a policy violation. I'm letting you know about this because I don't want you to feel later that you've wasted your time adding it. If you rely on secondary sources, what you add is much more likely to stick. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Were you editing here earlier by any chance as Machn? Not a sock allegation, just wondering, as I recall he was adding material from transcripts that was problematic for the same reason. I just assumed it was you when I posted here earlier, then saw you hadn't made many edits. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see American State Trials Volume X is online here. The cite would be:

Lawson, John D. (ed.). American State Trials. F.H. Thomas Law Book Co, Volume X, 1918, p. 1.

It's fine to use this for purely descriptive material that has no bearing on the case (e.g. date of marriage). But for anything that might be significant or contentious, please use secondary sources, because there is a danger not only of misinterpretation of primary sources, but of cherry-picking. Where there's a clash between the primary and secondary sources, note it in a footnote, or if it's very important note it in the text with in-text attribution; but best to discuss the latter on talk first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the problem. Oney covers Lee's trial testimony in detail (page 199 to 206). What Oney includes that Potzeey's doesn't is material developed in the cross examination. For example Lee admits there were a variety of legitimate reasons why Frank would be startled by Gantt. Oney does not indicate that the discussion of Gannt on the phone was in dispute. From what I can tell from Lawson (Lawson's work is basically actual testimony or summaries of testimony), there is no indication that Lee was specifically asked whether Gantt was mentioned on the phone. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The danger of using primary sources is that we highlight one aspect and ignore another, perhaps because of POV, or perhaps because of not realizing the second aspect was there. If we rely on good secondary sources, there's a better chance they will have summed up the key issues for us, hopefully including any counterpoints. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

PS As to the subject of Potzeey being a sock puppet of Machn, I am convinced he is -- see [8]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if people could stick to one account to edit this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

SV, if you want to know who Thomas E. Watson is, I just linked to him. He was one of the loudest voices calling for Frank to be lynched and played a prominent role in the reorganization of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 20th century, one of the most despicable characters you can imagine. Potzeey's suggesting that he should be used as a source here shows about as much good faith as suggesting that David Duke should be used as a source as a history of the Holocaust. Potzeey plainly has no understanding of our editing policies and has no interest in understanding them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. That's a very odd suggestion for a reliable source, unless it's just being used as an example of the kind of thing that was being published. I'm thinking someone needs to go through the article and remove anything sourced to primary sources (unless it's been done carefully in accordance with NOR), or anything inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I found American State Trials v.x. 1918 here on archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan would this be considered a primary or secondary source? The problem with book is that it leaves out large swaths of testimony from the official brief of evidence of the leo frank murder trial. I also wanted to ask you, the argument of hugh m. dorsey, published in 1914 is this considered a primary or secondary source? Potzeey (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous pardon without exoneration

the subject title accurately describes the pardon as there was no exoneration. Potzeey (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to let others check in on this. What you ignore is what the Board actually said. Even in the 1983 decision they wrote, "After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, It is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo. M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively."

You POV language is apparently intended to imply something that they did not say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is just about the subhead, it's accurate, though it's over-egging things a little. I would just say posthumous pardon. They made clear that they were not addressing guilt or innocence, and we make that clear in the text too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Murder Investigation

I have expanded the section on the body discovery. The discovery of the murder notes, due to their significance, needs to go in this section. The info. concerning the feces in the elevator shaft is an essential part of the case against Conley, but to this point it was totally missing from the article. Its significance will be added at appropriate places in the article. The material to be added includes:

1. Conley's admission at trial that he produced the material on Saturday.
2. The fact that it remained in its natural condition until the elevator was activated by Frank and the police and smashed it.
3. The analysis made by the Governor and others that concluded that this meant that Conley's story about the murder occurring on the second floor and the body being moved to the basement by elevator was pure fiction -- creating doubts on his entire story and the prosecution's theory of the crime. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

the blood on the 2nd floor metal room and the hair found on the lathe in the same room were not fiction, numerous employees and the police testified to seeing it at the trial. there seems to be no mention of the murder notes attempting to pin the crime on newt lee.

Two notes were found in the basement next to Mary Phagan's body, supposedly written by Phagan as she was being raped and dying, accusing a tall dark skinned Negro, like the "night witch" attempting to incriminate the night watchman Newt Lee.(During the trial "night witch" was interpreted to mean "night watch[man]"; when read the note night watchman Newt Lee said, "Boss, that's me." During the first appeal, however, Southern attorney Henry Alexander wrote that a night witch was a creature of superstitious terror, well-known to children in the South but which would have been unknown to Leo Frank. Oney p. 379.) of killing her. These came to be known as the "murder notes" and resulted in the night watchman becoming the prime suspect immediately in the beginning of the investigation.

either conley or frank attempted to pin the crime on the nightwatchman newt lee. frank saying at first the night watches card was complete and then two days later saying it wasn't complete. frank telling police to search his home and getting them to search newt lees home, suggest frank was trying to bring suspicion on newt lee. Potzeey (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is covered in the reliable, secondary sources and will be added or expanded on as I get to it. The keys to completing the article properly are proper organization and the proper use of secondary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

the death notes were an attempt to pin the crime on the nightwatch newt lee, the long tall slim negro which was an exact description of newt lee, not a mythical ghost Potzeey (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

lynch mob, mob or lynch party

the term mob conjures up the image of instant indignation by a rowdy crowd, where as, lynch party seems more appropriate as it was a well organized group of prominent georgia leaders that had planned for months to assassinate leo frank. Steve Oney uses the more accurate term lynch party in his article (see the bottom of this article): http://flagpole.com/Weekly/Features/SteveOneysListOfTheLeoFrankLynchers.5May04 Potzeey (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

how long does it take to walk to the factory from where Phagan got off the electric train at just after noon?

according to atlanta police officer john n. starnes,"It takes not over three minutes to walk from Marietta Street, at the corner of Forsyth, across the viaduct, and through Forsyth Street, down to the factory". one opinion is it took phagan between 1 to 3 minutes for phagan to walk to the factory once she got off of the electric train. Potzeey (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So? Dinnerstein (page 48) writes (after first discussing the witnesses who talked about when she got off the trolley), "Other witnesses agreed that it took about two to four minutes to walk from the trolley station to the factory." Three minutes falls between two and four. You have provided no reliable, secondary source for 1 to 3. You have again reverted the "two to four" -- I have restored it.

Stop your edit warring.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

edit warring? that's a direct quote from the police officer from the trial dude, like take a valium or something. that quote is fully sourced infrom Lawson and the B.O.E.Potzeey (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring comes from the elimination of the properly documented "two to four minutes". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The police at the time said it was not more than 3 minutes, so 4 minutes is too much time. I personally walked it myself and it took about 1 to 2 minutes. Where did the two to four minutes come from? oney or dinnerstain? Potzeey (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question has already been provided in this very section. Dinnerstein page 48. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank by Tom Watson

Slim, you asked for the source of this essay so I thought I would provide it for you. I know some people here are in neurotic hysterics, doing hissy fits over Tom Watson as the anti-Semite superstar, and Tom NS, was trying to turn Leo Frank into a mini-holocaust (see his david duke remarks above), but I just read Tom Watson's The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank and I was absolutely blown away by how superb his arguments are as a secondary source. I checked every quote Tom Watson made from the 1913 Trial Testimony brief of evidence, he is absolutely spot on to the letter. Yes, Watson does use some anti-Semitic language, but his essay on Leo Frank is tighter by far and better than Oney, Dinnerstein and every other contemporary writer, that turns the Leo Frank Case into a pity persecution party. I read Watson's Sept 1915 work and it was absolutely superb and logically argued, you can read it for yourself here: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank By Tom Watson Sept 1915. How does it work here in the wikicosmos, let's say you have a writer that uses some language that can be called anti-Semitic, but yet the substance, logic and reasoning in his essay are absolutely superb, intelligent, precise, deep, accurate and spot on? How does that work? do we write him off because he calls a pervert a pervert and uses insensitive language, or do we judge him by his superb writing substance? I read Oney and Dinnerstein backward and forward, they make endless mistakes concerning fact checking and primary sources, leave out huge volumes of damning testimony from the brief of evidence and they just don't seem to be reliable based on these fact. Can we call Oney and Dinnerstein reliable when they leave out so much from the brief of evidence or bungle some facts? Frank never escorted Mrs. White out of the building for example, but yet it is in the wiki article. Potzeey (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding aren't you? A screed against "Jew-owned newspapers?" The reason Slim brought up Watson's anti-Semitism is not only because it clearly biases him, but also, anti-Semites are often poor reasoners (witness Watson's hysterical, emotional language). I think what we see here is the problem with relying on primary sources, especially court ranscripts. They are long an detailed, and any editor quoting a trial transcript is quoting selectively, taking quotes out of context. This is sometimes done in order to make an argument - and that is what sems to be happening here. This is a clear violation of NOR because we do not use sources to build our own argument. This is why we rely instead on secondary sources, that can be assigned a clear POV. For the record I do not object to providing Watson's POV but it is not "the truth," no view is the truth, it is a view and we can clearly identify it as an anti-Semite's view. Not to silence it, just to be informative. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure court transcripts is a complete no-go in relation to OR. It cannot be other than OR. The article should build exclusively on the many good secondary sources about this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear about what's happening here, but Potzeey (talk · contribs) seems to be Machn (talk · contribs), who was editing this article a lot using primary sources, but who stopped editing on August 23, four days before Potzeey's first edit. Potzeey also focuses on this article and adds material from primary sources.

As for using Thomas E. Watson as a source, Watson is a primary source; he was involved as a politician, writer, Ku Klux Klan supporter and local agitator against Leo Frank. His words can be used as an example of the kind of thing that was being published, but he obviously can't be used as a reliable source.

Potzeey, I think you need to explain why you're using two accounts, and in the meantime read our core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I'd particularly draw your attention to this section of the NOR policy, which explains that articles must rely on reliable secondary sources. I think to avoid further disputes we should enforce that rigorously on this article from now on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems

The article now has a significant amount of OR (in the sense of material picked out from primary sources) woven throughout the text. Other material from secondary sources is very detailed and hard to follow, and not clearly cited. I'm wondering if we need to revert to an earlier version, then slowly restore the legitimate edits. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just tried to edit various versions, but the OR is woven throughout (I mean the material sourced to the "brief of evidence" and the trial transcripts, cited in the text as Lawson or American State Trials), and simply removing it leads to large jumps in the narrative. I think the best thing might be to revert to the January 2010 version before Machn started adding the primary sources—this version. And from there we can start rebuilding the text using later versions sourced entirely to secondary sources. Once that's done, we can start to look at primary sources and whether they fill in important detail, or whether there are secondary sources that contradict primary sources, or whatever. But before that, we need to get a solidly sourced text in place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the most reasonable (and constructive) approach. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the course of action you have taken, SV, but I'm not so sure about Potzeey and Machn being one and the same. Machn seemed able to produce readable text in his talk page posts, composed of complete sentences with capital letters at the beginning and comprehensible sentence construction. This seems beyond Potzeey's abilities. But, they both seem fond of the same antisemitic sources and edit with the same agenda. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll fourth this, if such a verb exists, adding only that Potzeey seems perfectly capable of lucid(ish) posts when it suits him/her. See here. IronDuke 23:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IronDuke, that diff just confirms what I said. The lack of normal capitalization, sentences run together with no period, omission of the definite singular article are all typical of Potzeey and not what I've seen from Machn. But, like I said, I think the article is headed in the right direction regardless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke destroying a good lead by SlimVirgin

The lead was exceptionally well written by SlimVirgin, except for the obsession with blaming anti-semitism and political cards, it was probably the best lead the Leo Frank article ever had here on wikipedia (especially when wikipedia has a global reputation for being biased). St. Steve Oney, and Goldfarb both use lynching party or lynch party, which makes more sense than using mob when referring to Frank's lynching. There was cold calculating planning involved for 2 months in the kidnapping of Leo Frank, whereas a mob tends to be something that is whipped up into a frenzy at a moments notice. A lynching party is one that plans and organizes carefully and is therefore more appropriate and neutral for the article.

You also deleted all the race hatred from the defense and the gross act of cronyism from the Governor John M. Slaton. Your edit to the lead shows that you want to remove facts which are very relevant, important and mentioned in every secondary source. Nothing personal, but SlimVirgin is a better writer than you and all you can do is ruin the lead with your edits to it. Machnn (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Website

Machnn, I'm concerned about leofrank.org. I can't find out who runs it, or any information about it. How do we know it's a reliable source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

SlimV, In terms of information about it, it appears to be the only web site in the world you can preview online the original georgia state archive documents on the leo frank case. In terms of reliability, take a look at this fascinating archive http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/ it contains 1800 or more of high resolution photographed pages of official legal documents, testimony, statements, rebuttals, evidence, diagrams, appeals, affidavits, repudiations and recantations of the original Leo Frank case from 1913 to 1915. You could spend a life time reading and studying these documents, for this alone http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/ the web site is very much worthy of being noted. It also provides a means for doing some fact checking of secondary sources if one wished to do so. Machnn (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just confirming here that that website seems to have very fixed views, and I can't see who's behind it, so I'm removing it for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

ID, I'm going to restore some or all of the bits of the lead you removed. [9]

• We already say "mob" once in the lead, so there's no need to repeat it every time.
• It's more informative to say she was found with a cord round her neck that had been used to kill her the day before, rather than just saying "strangled," which doesn't tell us when or how.
• There's no need to keep saying Frank's trial; his trial is fine.
• It's important to point out that the stereotyping worked both ways: Frank was having it done to him and was in turn doing it to Conway.
• And the point about the governor having becoming a partner in the law firm that defended Frank is important because it's part of the reason people were so angry.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SV: I'm okay with some of that, though I think "round" for "around" is not proper American English style, which this article should be written in for obvious reasons. I understand why people were angry about the governor being a partner, but that's a minor part of the story. Certainly important enough to be in the article, but not in the lead. And I must disagree with you in the strongest possible terms that the fact that "the stereotyping worked both ways" is an important part of the lead. That is not, at all, what the case is mainly remembered for, and it creates a false and unpleasant equivalence. I'll leave the rest as you want it, but that part is really not helping the lead. IronDuke 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points. With respect to racist stereotypes of blacks, the prosecution's case was totally based on a racist stereotype. Conley was coached by the prosecution from day 1. How did they justify the repeated major changes to his testimony to themselves. Lindemann (p. 253) writes:

"The solicitor general [Dorsey, the head prosecutor] apparently reasoned that Conley, like most Blacks of his class, was an inveterate liar, a conclusion that was perfectly natural for a southern White, even one who was liberal in his views of Blacks, in confronting such a man as Conley. Indeed, in Conley's case that conclusion was also wholly justified: He was an inveterate liar, a perfect example of the 'lying nigger' of southern mythology; he lied constantly, blithely admitting as much. Faced with transparent lie after lie from Conley, Dorsey could continue to question him until the truth emerged, until Conley 'finally' told the truth, as southern lore maintained would ultimately happen with a 'lying nigger.'"

It is extremely POV to make references in the lede to the defense's use of racist language while omitting the much more significant fact that he prosecution's entire case rested on the jury accepting the black stereotype.

With respect to Slaton, again only one side of the issue of Slaton's reliability and honesty is presented. Slaton was an ambitious politcian at the height of his popularity and his next goal was the U.S. Senate seat from Georgia. Dinnerstein writes (p. 123), "Tom Watson, one of the state's leading politicians, indicated that he would be willing to throw his weight behind the Governor, if Slaton would let Frank die." The body of the article is misleading as to the true status of Slaton's alleged conflict of interest, but that can be improved later. The bottom line is that, on one hand, Slaton's decision MAY have somehow helped his law firm while on the other hand the decision would LIKELY (as it in fact did) destroy his political career.

If one side is listed in the lede, then both sides should. A better solution is to present neither. The primary message from Slaton's actions, and the one given the most weight by Oney and Dinnerstein, is that Slaton's decision was a principled one based solidly on the evidence available to him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Round and around are interchangeable in this context.

We have to follow the sources, and they stress that the stereotyping was in both directions. One of the best academic sources we're using is Albert Lindemann's The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank), 1894-1915. Cambridge University Press, 1991. He writes that Frank's lawyers were insisting this was not a Jewish crime, and "they did not hesitate to exploit anti-Black bigotry." He points out the hypocrisy of this position, and argues that the prosecution actually avoided such blatant stereotyping (see p. 245). We can't include the stereotyping against Frank in the lead, but omit that the same, and perhaps worse, was coming from his defence team.

The governor being a partner was a major issue for the public for obvious reasons; as the sources point out (e.g. Oney, pp. 402, 471), the conflict of interest aspect was raised by neutral parties before the sentence was commuted, e.g. by The New York Times (though they supported it). And it was stressed by the people who wanted Frank to hang, particularly Tom Watson (e.g. Oney, pp. 480, 507). Watson wrote that one partner gave what the other partner wanted. It was the day after Watson stirring things up along those lines that the Knights of Mary Phagan was formed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what context has to do with it. Do you disagree that using "round" for "around" is more of a British style?

I agree with Tom about the governor. My !vote would be 1. Leave it out of the lead entirely and save it for the body or 2. Discuss the difficulty he was in -- though that's going to lengthen the lead.

"We can't include the stereotyping against Frank in the lead, but omit that the same, and perhaps worse, was coming from his defence team." But that's just begging the question. I could replace the word "can't" with "must" and be just as persuasive. As you know, Slim, the lead is a precis of the article. That means there isn't room for every fact. This particular fact is highly misleading in the relatively contextless area of our lead. Yes, the defense was racist (as was the prosecution and the city, state, and country -- and had been for centuries), and yes they used a word that is these days highly inflammatory. But the suggestion that both sides somehow share guilt is... well, I'll just say it's a terrible comparison to make and, more importantly, nothing like a major factor in what people tend to find most important in the case. That a fact resides within a reputable scholarly work does not mean it must necessarily be in the lead. IronDuke 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Context has everything to do with it. Sometimes one or the other is better or required. Sometimes both are fine.

We have to go with the sources. The sources stress that Frank's defence team was using racism against Conway. It's not to do with any particular word. It is that the entire thrust of their case was one of racism. You're making the mistake Machn made. We're not here to accuse or defend Leo Frank. We don't know who killed the girl, because we weren't there. What we do is read the best secondary sources, and summarize what they say, highlighting what they highlight. And they do highlight that aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources highlight many aspects. For example, witnesses being intimidated to implicate Frank. But that's not in the lead. Or that Conley's own lawyer thought he was guilty. That's not in the lead. Or, perhaps most tellingly, that Alonzo Mann swore years later he had seen Conley carrying Phagan's body. There's only room for so much in the lead, and that bit you want to include is misleadingly damning to Frank. And although I very much enjoy being compared to Machn, I can't agree that I am "making the mistake" he made. Indeed, if he were cheerleading loudly here for my version, as he had been for yours, that would give me pause indeed. IronDuke 16:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The mistake in common is that you're here as an advocate, not as a dispassionate researcher. Which books are you relying on for the most part? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're dead wrong; I'm here to make the article reflect the known scholarship, while also adhering to wiki guidelines and common sense. I really wish you wouldn't keep trying to personalize this. I've seen that gambit from you before, and all I'll say about it is that it is not helpful. If you have solid points to make, rather than just a reiteration that you believe yourself to be correct and I am somehow biased, I'll listen. IronDuke 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to Tom's point above, do you prefer leaving out the bit about Slaton having a conflict entirely or expanding on it? IronDuke 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's why I asked you which of the scholarly books you're relying on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at... the point is that racism by both defense and prosecution is a minor part of what people generally understand about this case. That's clear from looking at any one source, I think, or better yet, looking at them all. Can you say where someone says that the LF trial is famous because his team used racist language? IronDuke 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm given you an example of a high-quality academic source who in one section of a book does highlight that issue. But can you answer my question, please? You wrote: "I'm here to make the article reflect the known scholarship ..." Which of the scholarly books have you read? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The example you gave does not answer the example I asked for. I'm not asking for a "highlight." Many things have been highlighted about the case, in that book and others. Who has said this is one of the most salient points to take away from the affair, and that it is widely regarded as such? And as to which books I've read, is that not personalizing the discussion yet again? If I have read all the major ones, do you defer to my point? If I have read none of them, does that invalidate it? IronDuke 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you answer the question? We disagree about how to represent the sources, so I have told you which books I'm relying on -- Lindemann and Oney. Which ones are you relying on? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not answering the question because it doesn't matter. You want to insert a fact into the lead. I do not argue that it is a fact, I argue only that it's a minor part of the whole. Then I ask that you show where it is that the authors you are using say that this is a major part of the case, something anyone who knew about the Leo Frank trial and lynching would know. You keep insisting that they "highlight" it, and I keep telling you that's not enough, that many facts are highlit so why is this one special, and you refuse to respond to that point. I don't have to prove the sentence isn't relevant, the burden is on you to show that it is. That burden has not been met.

So I went ahead and looked at Lindemann, couple of things jumped out at me. 1) Lindemann indicates that Conley (NB: Not "Conway") was a liar, that he even admitted he was (P. 253). 2) There are two mentions of the "lying nigger" quote, only one discussing the racism of Frank's team, and that for a mere paragraph on page 245. That's not even "highlighting," that's just briefly discussing. Also, right under the second mention, we find the following sentence: "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley." (Lindemann, p. 254). Is Lindemann an advocate for Leo Frank?

I also think you haven't really responded to Tom's point about the governor, that we are leaving a one-sided view. I mean... you really think Watson -- Ku Klux Klan supporter Watson -- is the go-to guy for whether Slaton acted in his own self-interest? IronDuke 17:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What I think is happening here is that you haven't read any of the books, because if you had, you'd have said which ones. Life's too short, so I'm going to take the article off my watchlist. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. IronDuke 04:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)