ADL Sponsored Alonzo Mann Hoax for the Posthumous Pardon of Leo Frank in 1986: Anniversary of Leo Frank Decision by Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles

March 11th is the anniversary of Leo Max Frank’s Posthumous Pardon that was officiated in 1986 thanks to the ADL taking the lead for many years, pressing this issue hard behind the scenes. Despite the ADL taking the lead on this effort, three Jewish organizations worked together in this effort: Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Atlanta Jewish Federation and American Jewish Committee. These three groups worked together in a coordinated effort, pressuring the government of Georgia to get an illegal posthumous pardon. The pardon was in fact illegal because only the convict can legally petition the government, others can not do it on his or her behalf once they are deceased. Fortunately the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not officially exonerate or absolve Leo Frank of the murder when they rendered their posthumous pardon.

Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann in 1913, he was office boy of Leo M. Frank for three weeks at the time of the Phagan murder. Alonzo Mann was born August 8, 1898 and died March, 1985 in Bristol, Virginia, United States of America.
According to Leonard Dinnerstein,

There is no reason to doubt that Alonzo Mann’s affidavit is accurate. Had he ignored his mother’s advice and gone to the police with his information right away, Conley would surely have been arrested, the police and district attorney would not have concentrated their efforts on finding Frank guilty, and the crime would most likely have been quickly solved. But by the time the trial began, in July 1913, Mann’s testimony might hardly have even seemed important.

Source: The Fate of Leo Frank, American Heritage, October 1996 | Volume 47, Issue 6

See: the American Mercury’s article about Leonard Dinnerstein’s pseudo-history book called the ‘Leo Frank Case’.

What Really Happened in 1913?

August 1913, Alonzo Mann, sworn for the Defendant. Official Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913:

Alonzo Mann, Testifies during Direct Examination:

I am office boy at the National Pencil Company. I began working there [Tuesday] April 1, 1913. I sit sometimes in the outer office and stand around in the outer hall. I left the factory at half past eleven on April 26th. When I left there, Miss Hall, the stenographer from Montag’s, was in the office with Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank told me to phone to Mr. Schiff and tell him to come down. I telephoned him, but the girl answered the phone and said he hadn’t got up yet. I telephoned once. I worked there two Saturday afternoons of the weeks previous to the murder and stayed there until half past three or four. Frank was always working during that time. I never saw him bring any women into the factory and drink with them. I have never seen Dalton there. On April 26th, I saw Holloway, Irby, McCrary and Darley at the factory. I didn’t see Quinn. I don’t remember seeing Corinthia Hall, Mrs. Freeman, Mrs. White, Graham, Tillander, or Wade Campbell, I left there 11:30 [AM].


When Mr. Frank came that morning, he went right on into the office, and was at work there and stayed there. He went out once. Don’t know how long he stayed out.

End of Testimony.

Flash Forward to the 1980’s.

From 1982 to 1985, and 1986 Onward

Alonzo Mann, one of the last surviving Leo Frank defense witnesses, came forward some 69 years later in 1982, and provided some very questionable testimony.

The ADL and the Highly Political Posthumous Pardon

Alonzo Mann’s affidavit became the basis of an attempt to obtain a ‘posthumous pardon with exoneration’ for Leo Frank from the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The effort was led by two Jewish-American attorneys: Charles Wittenstein, southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), and Dale Schwartz, an Atlanta lawyer.

[Insert Photo of Charles Wittenstein and Dale M. Schwartz here]

What does common sense tell us?

Common sense tells us most of what Alonzo Mann had to say is likely to be untrue, for a number of reason that will be discussed. The further away in time the memory is from the original event, the more likely it becomes distorted and easily manipulated. How would a 21st century State Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court weigh testimony that comes 69 years after the fact? An even more salient question is: Could such a revelation as Alonzo Mann’s in 1982, even if true, be worthy to exonerate Leo Frank? You decide

Background: On April 1st, 1913, Alonzo Mann, a thirteen year old boy, had scored his highly coveted job as Leo Frank’s personal officeboy at the National Pencil Company. Given Mann was not at the factory long enough (3.5 weeks) to really provide an accurate assessment concerning Leo Frank’s character at the time of the murder, one is not inclined to believe he had known Leo Frank long enough to make an accurate character assessment of him. Moreover one is inclined to believe the young teenage officeboy was a bit starstruck and naive back then, which tended to cause him to be unaware of the “extracurricular activities” going on in the factory under the tutelage of Leo M. Frank as general superintendent for almost 5 years at the time (August 10th, 1908- April 26, 1913).

Flash Forward from 1913, Some 69 Years Later to 1982 when the Story Broke.

In 1982 Alonzo Mann was in the gloaming winter of his life, frail and in terrible physical condition. Alonzo Mann was perched on a cane, had a pacemaker, and was on a cocktail of pharmaceuticals. Mann was truly lonely, the WWI veteran had sadly outlived his wife and only son. His virtual “death-bed” revelation in the years before he died, had all the flare of a fictionalized Hollywood drama and Broadway musical, and the markings of another backroom bribery deal, which has to date, always been the central strategy of Leo Frank’s defenders for more than a century. The Georgia Supreme Court Records containing Leo Frank’s appeals reveal the machinations of this ugly Jewish criminal soap opera that has become a racist anti-Gentile hoax of centenary proportions. Even today, Jews are still pressing for the posthumous exoneration of Leo Frank. On the centennial of Leo Frank’s lynching Rabbi Steven Lebow and a coterie of Jewish judges, attorneys and other prominent officials of Atlanta’s government held a well advertised, public affair to agitate the governor, Nathan Deal, to exonerate Leo Frank. Nathan Deal refused the absurdity. He read the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence that has been suppressed for a century by Jewish groups.

Nearly 70 Years Later After the Murder of Mary Phagan:

In 1982, Alonzo Mann changed his original story and alleged that he really left the NPCo factory at noon, instead of 11:30 a.m. as he had formerly testified long ago in 1913. Alonzo having changed his story from the one he propounded 7 decades early, went on to say further that five minutes after he left the NPCo factory (noon), he came back at 12:05 p.m. and saw the 27-year-old Negro Janitor Jim Conley, carrying the limp body of Mary Phagan on his shoulder, positioned as if getting ready to dump Phagan down the 2foot-by-2foot scuttle hole — a trapdoor next to the elevator. Jim Conley then allegedly reached out for Alonzo Mann and said to the young boy, “If you tell anyone, I will kill you”. And Alonzo Mann, claimed further that he then ran home and told his family and his parents told their young son (Alonzo), not to tell anyone or get involved. Alonzo Mann said he keep this new story as a secret for 70 years, and didn’t tell the whole truth when questioned at the trial.

Does that seem logical? or does that set off your highly refined bullshit detector?

In 1982, Alonzo Mann’s statement did not pass multiple commonsense tests and came off as desperate concoctions of coached lies according to every neutral person who heard his belated revelation and knows the history of Southern culture.

First, why would White parents in the White racial separatist Atlanta, Georgia, of 1913, tell their White son not to tell the police about a “murdering” and “guilty” Negro janitor Jim Conley, when the result of not telling the police would ultimately result in an “innocent”, clean cut, and White boss, Leo Frank, who gave their son a highly prized job, going to gallows for a crime he didn’t commit instead of a “guilty” Negro janitor? Given that in the Old South, African-Americans were regarded as third class citizens with child-like mental and emotional maturity, once Conley was locked up, he would have no longer been a threat. Conley remained in in jail from the time he was arrested on Thursday, May 1st, 1913, until late 1914 when he was released after serving a sentence for being an accessory after the fact. Why didn’t Alonzo come forward while Conley was serving his sentence? It was known to every one in Atlanta through the three daily newspapers that Conley was sentenced to one year in jail. Do these circumstances and behaviors pass the commonsense test?

Second, why would White parents, in a white separatist south, allow their son to report to work on Monday Morning, April 28, 1913, 2 days after their son was “threatened with death by a Negro carrying a dead or unconscious white girl on his shoulder Saturday April 26, 1913, at five minutes past noon”. Jim Conley reported back to work on Monday morning, April 28, 1913, as did the 170 employees who were naturally expected to be back at work after the holiday weekend. Jim Conley was not arrested until Thursday, May 1st, 1913 and Alonzo Mann reported to work everyday as expected. Why would White parents allow their son to go back to work in the cavernous factory where their son could easily be assaulted or killed by Conley the Black man who threatened their sons life?  If you had a child who worked somewhere, and your child came home one Saturday afternoon, and then told you they had seen a fellow employee carrying the dead body of another child and that employee threatened to kill your child, would you let your child go back to work days later where that same alleged murderer was still working there? Does that pass the commonsense test? Put the question to someone who is a mother or father, and has a teenage child.

Third, if Alonzo Mann admitted in the 1980s to lying under oath at the Leo Frank trial in 1913, “withholding information when questioned” and “leaving at 11:30 a.m. instead of Noon” as he contended 69 years later, what’s not to say he wasn’t lying again between all the years he made his new revelations from 1982 and beyond? Relying on our commonsense can we trust him when he admitted to lying under oath at a murder trial?

Fourth, If Alonzo Mann walked in on Jim Conley at 12:05 p.m., getting ready to throw Mary Phagan down the scuttlehole at the Lobby, why did Monteen Stover not bump into this alleged scene? Monteen Stover testified she arrived at the factory at about this exact time. Why didn’t Leo Frank who was less than 40 feet away not hear Phagan scream? Where was Leo Frank when Monteen Stover waited in his vacant office between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m.? These questions can be closely examined in detail when consulting the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence.

Let’s take a closer look at the circumstances, Southern Culture and Ask Common Sense Questions.

If we are to believe Alonzo Mann that he saw Jim Conley carrying the unconscious body of Mary Phagan, isn’t it rather odd that in a White racial separatist south, given the invitation of an extremely violent lynching, a Southern Negro would assault, rob and carrying the body of a White girl across the highest traffic place in the factory with the front door unlocked? Leo Frank said more than a dozen people entered and left his second floor business office during the morning period from 8:30 a.m. till noon. Many of these visitors testified to seeing Jim Conley sitting idly on a crate that morning at side of the staircase in the ground floor lobby. Conley also described seeing people coming and going, when he was seated there (coorborating), would he have assaulted White female employee without locking the front door? There were literally hundreds of people outside the factory walking parallel to the front door, in both directions on the sidewalk. The front door to the factory was a large Glass paned door that people could see into very easily or hear a high pitched scream.

In 1906 four white women were gang raped by Negroes in Atlanta, and a White mob went berserk killing dozens of Blacks, so we might ask, would a Negro be so brazen given what they know about White men, castrating without anesthesia, black men who assault their daughters and wives? Finally, putting it all together: On a day like Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, when the emotions of White people were particularly saddened, outraged and inflamed at the reminder of their great war for independence lost, does that make sense that a Negro would attack a White girl in broad day light with so many people right outside the front glass window door, where people could see into the building so clearly, or easily hear a girl’s scream from being assaulted, or where employees where constantly coming into the factory and the door was left unlocked? Does this pass the common sense test when we consider all these factors?

During the Leo Frank trial, the defense team changed its theory of how the attack against Mary Phagan transpired. In one theory, Mary Phagan was crowded back to the empty area of the former Clarke woodenware company on the first floor (see State’s Exhibit A and Defendant’s Exhibit 61, Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence), assaulted, and thrown down a trapdoor at the rear of the building, but there was only one problem, it was determined well before the trial that the owner of the National Pencil Company building that rented only the basement, 2nd, 3rd and fourth floor to Sigmund Montag, had NOT rented the first floor (ground floor office space) and had locked the door to that back area office space on the first floor 4 months earlier before the murder occurred in Jan 1913, when the Clarke wooden ware company departed, and the door was still locked when the police came to the premises on Sunday, April 27, 1913. Some unknown person broke that door lock open 4 days after the murder.

At another time during the trial the Leo Frank defense said Mary Phagan’s body was thrown 14 feet down to the basement below via the 2-foot wide square scuttle hole near the elevator at the front of the building, which had a ladder diagonally going downward to the cellar. In other defense theories, Jim Conley murdered Phagan in the basement. The defense did not commit to a solid theory during the trial and it gave people the impression they couldn’t come up with a consistent theory. 

The defense theories in 1913 to 1915, and every year since then, up until now in the year 2013, keep changing and slowly mutating.

Wouldn’t there have been forensic evidence on the body of a 4’11” and 107 lbs girl, if she were alive and had fallen 14 feet from the lobby to the basement? Mary Phagan had numerous autopsies performed on her by doctors in late April and early May of 1913, none of the reports mention any broken bones or indications on her body that she had fallen 14 feet to a hard dirt floor. Fourteen feet is a significant height that anyone thrown down would without a doubt have forensic evidence of the fall. In fact the forensic evidence shows that the scratches on her face caused by her being dragged 150 feet across the basement floor from the elevator to the rear of the cellar, had no blood coming from them, indicating she was already quite dead when she taken to the basement. Physicians knew for centuries that when a person is dead, the bleeding and healing process ceases in the skin. This forensic fact would likely have not been known to Leo Frank and Jim Conley.

The autopsy reports revealed she had died of strangulation and the black eye suggested a left handed man punched her in the face. What percentage of people are left handed? According to, “A variety of studies suggest that 70–90% of the world population is right-handed.” (Wikipedia Lefthandedness, 2013). Since Leo Frank was left handed and Jim Conley right handed who was more likely to have punched her in the right eye with a left fist?

What about the hair with dried blood found on the lathe handle in the metalroom and the blood stains on its floor? These forensic details are seldom discussed by Leo Frank’s defenders who claim he is innocent.

Did Jim Conley’s Testimony Sustain Itself?

Jim Conley alleged he was waiting in the lobby all morning long, because Leo M. Frank had asked him to wait there as a watchdog for him regarding a planned afternoon tryst. Is there an unwritten subtext here? Jim Conley claimed to have had served as Leo’s watchdog on numerous other Saturdays when Frank entertained other women. Did Leo Frank have a preplanned tryst arranged with Mary? If so it adds a new dimension to the case never before explored. For the purposes of history, if we consider the Konigsberg variation of the murder, that Mary Phagan had a pre-arranged tryst with Leo Frank, then it reveals that perhaps this case is even more bizarre than we might have ever thought. And then the question that arises is, why then did Leo Frank murder Mary Phagan?

Did Leo Frank lie about not knowing Jim Conley was at the factory that day?

If Alonzo Mann was indeed telling the truth about Jim Conley sitting there all morning long doing nothing, it opens up a permutation in the Game theory of the Leo Frank Case, suggesting Leo Frank might have definitely fibbed to the court when he gave his unsworn statement to the Jury on August 18, 1913: Frank said he did not even know Jim Conley was in the factory at all that day on April 26, 1913 (Leo Frank Trial Statement, Brief of Evidence, August 18, 1913).

How could Leo Frank not know Jim Conley was there, when Leo Frank admitted at the trial that during the morning, he left the building and came back after running some errands during a brief trip to Sigmund Montag’s office down the street to get the corporate mail (Leo Frank, Brief of Evidence, August 18, 1913). How could Leo Frank miss seeing a Negro sitting next to the staircase all morning long?

The common sense test is now called:

If Leo Frank did not know Jim Conley was there all morning long at the factory on Saturday, April 26, 1913, the logical question follows, what was an employee of the factory, Jim Conley, who was “not” required to work on a Saturday and state holiday, doing, sitting on a crate next to the staircase on the first floor lobby all morning long, wasting time watching people come and go?

Most African Americans would argue that never in the history of the universe would a Blackman go to work on a Saturday, State Holiday and day off, unless he was require to by his boss. Especially in light of the fact Jim Conley had been paid his weekly salary the evening before on Friday, April 25, 1913 at 6:30 PM by Leo M. Frank. At 5 cents a beer and 3 cents a whiskey, its hard to imagine Jim Conley would have spent all of his salary on booze the night before and still been functional to come to work bright and early the next day. It just doesn’t seem realistic that Jim Conley could have drank 120 beers ($6 divided by 5 cents) the night before and would need to rob, rape, and strangle a White girl in the highest traffic point of the National Pencil Company factory to get more money. Wouldn’t the drunken African-American stumble bum rather bide his time drinking five cent pints at any Russian-Jewish owned Saloon (Russian Jews generally served Negroes Beer, when it was generally an unwritten rule at the time to never sell drinks to Negroes in White owned Saloons).

The African-American Christian Perspective

African-American Christian observers are wondering when in the “11,000 year history” of the Universe has a black man gone to work on his day off and a state holiday, when he was not required. Especially in light of the fact he was just paid off his salary which was oddly much higher ($6.05 vs. $4.05) than the wages of the average laborer at the factory. Jim Conley coming to work on his day off, on his own, just didn’t fit or make sense, unless he was asked to come to work by his boss Leo Frank. Surely an employee like Jim Conley who had two years tenure (1911 to 1913) at the factory, and was known for being an alcoholic, would much rather spend his free time on a Saturday and State Holiday carousing in a local beer saloon burning off his $6 pay envelope at a nickel a pint, rather than sitting on a crate all day long twiddling his thumbs and staring at spider webs on the ceiling or watching employees come and go through the front door — after all — Leo Frank paid Jim Conley his unheard of janitorial salary the evening before on Friday, April 25, 1913 at 6:30 PM.

Concerning Jim Conley’s unheard of Salary: It left many people asking, why is the lazy negro floor sweeper named Jim Conley who was demoted from Elevator Operator, making 50% more ($6.05 vs $4.05) than the white day laborers. Perhaps the floor sweeper Jim Conley was more than meets the eyes for Leo Frank, sustaining all the testimony which confirmed Jim Conley was Leo Frank’s watchdog after-all, when Leo would order call-in prostitutes from Nina Formby on Saturdays or arrange trysts with his potentially willing child laborers who were living on the edge of poverty. Given that one female employee reported at the Leo M. Frank trial that she told Assistant Superintendent Herbert George Schiff (Trial Testimony of Herbert George Schiff, Brief of Evidence, August, 1913) that Jim Conley was “sprinkling” (peeing) on the pencils. Why was Jim Conley never fired? Unless that is Jim Conley served a more important purpose for Leo M. Frank.

Schiff would claim at the trial that the reason why Jim Conley wasn’t fired was because he knows the business too well (BOE, 1913).

According to, “Snow Ball” (Gordon Bailey, Brief of Evidence, August, 1913), Jim Conley, was an employee not always required to punch the time clock. Why would a Negro sweeper like Jim Conley who got busted down to the lowest job in the factory, be extended such unique liberties by Leo M. Frank. Especially in the wider context, why was Jim Conley the only person out of the 170 factory employees — the super vast majority of whom were White and 8 of which were African-Americans — not have to punch the time clock? Unless Jim Conley was more than meets the eye for Leo M. Frank. Was Jim Conley indeed Leo Frank’s “pet” and watchdog as alleged?

Broad Daylight: The defense and Leo Frank partisans contend, Jim Conley was waiting in the lobby, there to rob a fellow employee, namely Mary Phagan between Noon and 12:15pm on April 26, 1913, But they forgot about the Scream!

The Scream

Where Jim Conley sat on the first floor, it was no more than 30 to 40 feet away from Leo Frank in his inner office on the second floor. As we already know the first floor lobby of the National Pencil Company was the highest traffic point in the entire building, it was where people would come and go, all day long during the work week, and all morning long on Saturdays. Sound also traveled very easily in the factor and through the creaky wood floor boards which were not insulated.

On Saturday, April 26, 1913, people were coming to collect their pay envelopes and several employees were present in the morning for a half-days work wrapping things up and tying up lose ends. Leo Frank was on the second floor in his office on April 26, 1913, as he was on most Saturdays, he surely could have heard a potential scream from 30 to 40 feet away, which was how far Leo’s second floor office was from the first floor lobby area, that is if Mary Phagan was actually assaulted at the first floor lobby.

Jim Conley claimed he heard a scream after Leo and Mary went to the metal room. Leo Frank did not mention a scream coming from under his office where Jim Conley Sat, because Leo Frank claimed to have unconsciously gone to the metal-room’s toilet at trial, contradicting his earlier claim that at the exact same time (he told police) he was alone with Mary Phagan in his second floor office. Were scream experiments conducted by the police at the factory during the murder investigation? Yes.

If Jim Conley had attacked Mary Phagan in the lobby, then Leo Frank would have heard a scream downstairs below him, and he could easily call the police, the phone was inside Leo Frank’s office on the wall (See Defense Exhibit Diagrams of Second Floor).

The defense’s theory of Negro Jim Conley beating, robbing and “possibly raping” a White girl in the place where Monteen Stover would have walked in on him doing it, would almost surely guarantee her backing up into the street filled with White men, a castration without anesthesia would ensue, which is how Negro rapists were generally dealt with in 1913 Atlanta, that is, just before they were lynched from tree or riddled with bullets.

Monteen Stover, and Lemmie Quinn indicated they never heard or saw Mary Phagan coming or going on April 26, 1913, when they both claimed they came to the factory at around the same time she came. Moreover, Lemmie Quinn’s claim that he came to the factory and visited Leo Frank’s office at 12:20 to 12:25 was determined to be a lie by Coroner Paul Donehoo at the coroner’s inquest in May 1913. (see State’s Exhibit S, Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913).

Does the mainline of Jim Conley’s story stand up?

Was Jim Conley telling the truth when he said Leo Frank asked him on the evening of Friday, April 25, 1913, to come to work on the morning of April 26, 1913, to act as a watchdog as he had in the past, because it was something Leo M. Frank had done many times before on Saturdays, according to Jim, and that naturally given its implications, Leo Frank denied it. In Judeo-Christian conservative society of early 20th century Atlanta, what other man would not deny he was arranging booty-calls at work with women other than his wife? Which brings us back full circle to the question, why was Jim Conley sitting on a crate all morning long in the factory lobby on his day off if Leo Frank had not asked him to be present?

Jim Conley sitting on a crate next to the stairs was corroborated by Mrs. White at the trial in 1913, and later by Alonzo Mann in 1982, but not by Mann in 1913, thus it tends to potentially corroborate the notion that Leo Frank requested Jim Conley to come to work on Saturday, April 26, 1913, to act as a lookout while Leo Frank “chatted” with girls upstairs in the afternoon. This is not an unreasonable conclusion given other child laborers’ testimony delivered about Leo Frank’s character for lasciviousness being bad.

Commonsense tells us that usually no one goes to work on a state holiday or day off – BLACK OR WHITE – unless they were asked to do so. So the question is, who asked Jim Conley to spend the day waiting and sitting on a box on the first floor lobby area of the National Pencil Company? If someone didn’t ask him, what was he doing there all day? Waiting to rob someone at high noon? While the streets are filled with White men just steps away? Jim Conley says Leo Frank did ask him, and numerous witnesses other than Alonzo Mann sustained the fact Jim Conley was actually sitting there all morning long. Eye witnesses had seen him sitting there all day long, would he have been foolish enough to rob, rape and murder an employee there when he could be identified?

Alonzo Mann corroborated that fact in 1982 saying he saw Jim Conley sitting there all morning long in the factory lobby.

Alonzo Mann, never mentioned seeing Tillander, Corrie or Emma, thus sustaining the fact he left the Factory at 11:30 am on April 26, 1913, not his supposed noon he claimed 69 years later. Another interesting element at the trial is Hattie Hall, Leo’s Stenographer, she did not mention seeing Alonzo Mann when she left at Noon, also sustaining that Alonzo Mann did actually likely leave the factory at 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 26, 1913, not at noon.

So if Alonzo Mann left the NPCo factory on Saturday, April 26, 1913, at 11:30 AM, as he claimed in 1913, Mann was probably lying in 1982, when he said he left the factory at Noon and came back 5 minutes later at 12:05 pm and saw Jim Conley carrying an unconscious Mary Phagan, but not seeing Monteen Stover.

We must come back to the most salient question never asked or answered in 100 years: Was Schiff even expected to be at work that day? Probably not, why would someone who prided themselves on never missing a single day of work, coincidentally miss work on the day of the murder?

To further muddy the waters, isn’t it rather odd, the employee Herbert G. Schiff who prided himself at the trial concerning the fact he never missed a day of work for 5 years (except for the flood of 1912), would have supposedly missed work on Saturday, April 26, 1913, a state holiday, when he was not expected to come to work? (see: Trial testimony of Herbert G. Schiff, Brief of Evidence, August, 1913). Alonzo Mann claimed he called Herbert Schiff one time on the morning of Saturday, April 26, 1913, but Schiffs maid, Emma Beard, alleged Alonzo Mann had called 2x. Did he even call at all? What caused the mix up? The cacophony was even bigger than described here, others claimed to have called Herbert George Schiff at different times, but as 21st century forensic time travellers of the imagination, we can presume Schiff was not expected to come to work that day. This fact leads us to believe Leo Frank’s case and his defenders were caught in their own web of confusing lies.

It turns out schiff was indeed called during the morning of April 26, 1913, but not to report to work, he was called to inform him his suit had arrived from the drycleaners.

How Alonzo Mann’s Story Falls Apart Even Further

Alonzo Mann, claimed he came back to the factory at 12:05p.m. because he wanted to speak to Herbert George Schiff, but if Schiff was never expected to be at work that day, as we can logically conclude, and in fact never showed up, it gives greater strength to the likelihood that Alonzo Mann probably lied repeatedly in 1982 through 1985 about coming back to speak with Schiff and seeing Conley. Every aspect of Mann’s story doesn’t pass the common sense test.

Lemmie Quinn, Metalroom Foreman at the National Pencil Company

The other problem Leo Frank had to contend with was the issue of Lemmie Quinn, who allegedly came to the factory at 12:20 p.m. on April 26, 1913, for supposedly 2 minutes, looking for Herbert George Schiff, it turns out to talk about a baseball bet with him. Why was Lemmie Quinn looking for an employee at 12:20 PM on Saturday, April 26, 1913, who was never supposed to come to work on a holiday?

Leo Frank said he had forgotten for a full week to mention Lemmie Quinn’s afternoon arrival at the factory at 12:20 pm and the Coroner Paul Donehoo at the Coroner’s Inquest asked why he didn’t mention this important information to the police once he remembered it a week later. Leo Frank responded by saying he wanted to ask for permission from his lawyers first before revealing it to police, the Coroner Paul Donehoo became incredulous as might be expected.

It was presumed with commonsense that someone accused of murdering a little girl, would make every effort to bring forward exonerating evidence and alibi witnesses as soon as humanly possible and not withhold it for more than a week until May 5th and May 8th, 1913. The result of Leo Frank waiting more than a week to tell anyone, made the newfangled evidence appear as if it was manufactured. Especially in light of the fact that an affidavit was made by Lemmie Quinn a week before the Coroner’s inquest, stating he had left the factory at 11:45 a.m. to go home and then head to a billiards hall on the other side of town.

Lemmie Quinn’s “reappearance” at the factory at 12:20 PM on April 26, 1913, was seen as a physical impossibility given that Lemmie admitted leaving the National Pencil Company at 11:45 AM, going home and then making a 25 minute trip to the billiards hall on the other side of town. Thus it would not have given Lemmie Quinn enough time to get back to the factory at 12:20 pm on Saturday, April 26, 1913, even if Lemmie Quinn only played one quick billiard game and then made the 25 minute trip back to the factory, he still would not have been able to get back to the factory at 12:20 or 12:25 p.m.

Lemmie Quinn Backfired

Lemmie Quinn got caught in a bald face lie and it was likely that none of the 12 Jury members and Judge Leonard Strickland Roan believed Lemmie Quinn. National Pencil Company foreman of the metal room, Lemmie Quinn, gave testimony that simply came off as completely fabricated after the murder when he testified at the Coroner’s Inquest, on behalf of Leo Frank as an alibi witness, for the purpose of shrinking the amount of time available for Leo Frank to kill Mary Phagan from Noon through 12:30, down to the range of Noon to 12:19 pm. Even if we were to believe Lemmie Quinn’s newfangled claims, it still left Leo Frank with some 18 minutes unaccounted for time according to Jewish activist historian Leonard Dinnerstein, especially in light of the fact Leo Frank changed the time Mary Phagan came into his office four times his credibility is most questionable.

Lemmie Quinn’s Claims Boxed in Leo Frank

The problem with Lemmie Quinn’s supposed appearance at the factory at 12:20 PM is NOT only that our highly refined bullshit detectors tell us that his arrival was likely a fabrication to help Leo Frank, but more importantly by Leo Frank claiming Lemmie Quinn arrived at 12:20 PM, it transformed into another blunder for Leo Frank at his trial, because it makes the Defense’s first floor attack of Mary Phagan even more difficult to believe.

If Alonzo Mann allegedly saw Jim Conley carrying the unconscious body of Mary Phagan there in the lobby at 12:05 pm, the Jury would be asking itself, well where was Monteen Stover if State’s Exhibit B is correct concerning when Mary Phagan arrived?

If Leo Frank changed the time Phagan came to his office  to 12:12 to 12:17 at the trial, and spoke to Phagan for 2 or 3 minutes, why didn’t she bump into Lemmie Quinn upon her exiting and him arriving at the factory? Both Stover (reliably) and Quinn (unreliably) claimed to be at the factory sandwiching the time segments Leo Frank said Mary Phagan arrived, so wouldn’t have Quinn bumped into at least Mary Phagan or Jim Conley at 12:20?

Leo Frank’s Ever Changing Times Concerning Mary Phagan’s Arrival Finally Becomes Significant concerning Alonzo Mann and Lemmie Quinn

The Saturday April 26, 1913, 12:20 pm appearance of Lemmie Quinn was not the only Lie Leo Frank got himself tangled in, but to make matters worse, he changed the time Mary Phagan arrived on April 26, 1913, from:

  1. “12:02 to 12:03” (This was time he gave police orally on Sunday, April 27, 1913); to
  2. “12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07” (The time he gave in a deposition to police on Monday, April 28, 1913 known as State’s Exhibit B, 1913); then it became
  3. 12:10 to 12:15 (The time he gave at Coroner’s Inquest, May 5 and 8th, 1913); and finally
  4. 12:12 p.m. to 12:17 p.m. (Leo Frank Trial, August 18, 1913).


Leo Frank gave four separate times Mary Phagan had arrived at his office, on four different occasions, damaging his credibility beyond repair, and to make matters worse, they were all in the time period he could not account for, even with Lemmie Quinn’s perjury, boxing him in at 12:20 p.m.

The defense theory that Jim Conley attacked Mary Phagan opens up more unanswered questions:

Where was Leo Frank, if and when, Mary Phagan Screamed? Did she scream or was she assaulted and kept quiet?

Why was there no forensic or physical evidence the attack happened on the first floor lobby area of the National Pencil Company? Until W.D. McWorth planted evidence against Conley there in the lobby 3 weeks after the crime? Who is Detective McWorth? He was a Pinkerton Agent that switched sides and became an asset to the Leo Frank Defense Team.

We are again left with asking the question: If Mary Phagan was attacked on the first floor, made “unconscious” and dumped 14 feet to the hard dirt floor of the basement, why did none of the doctors who autopsied her not find broken bones or appropriate bruises from the 14 foot fall?

We know looking back on the case with 21st century forensic eyes that 107lbs of dead weight falling 14 feet is absolutely going to leave unmistakable medical and forensic evidence. That unmistakable evidence, was not reported by doctors who performed numerous autopsies on Mary Phagan! Therefore no 14 foot fall of Mary Phagan likely occurred.

We can conclude that Alonzo Mann’s testimony was wishful thinking at best, as Steve Oney once put it.



reported by WENDELL RAWLS Jr., Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late
Edition (east Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Mar 8, 1982. p. A.12

Locations: ATLANTA (GA)

People: Frank, Leo, Phagan, Mary, Conley, Jim, Mann, Young Alonzo

Author(s): WENDELL RAWLS Jr., Special to the New York Times

Dateline: NASHVILLE, March 7

Publication title: New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York,
N.Y.: Mar 8, 1982. pg. A.12
Source type: Newspaper

ISSN: 03624331
ProQuest document 946649181

Text Word Count 1318

Document URL:

Abstract (Document Summary)

”Many times I wanted to get it out of my heart,” the white-haired Mr. [Young Alonzo Mann] said
in an interview last night. ”I’m glad I’ve told it all. I’ve been living with it for a long time.
I feel a certain amount of freedom now. I just hope it does some good.”

”I know I don’t have a long time to live,” he said. ”All I have said is the
truth. When my time comes, I hope that God understands me better for telling
it. That’s what matters most.”

”Thousands of times I’ve gone to bed at night with all this on my mind,” he said Saturday.
”I hope you folks tell the whole world what I saw and that [Leo Frank] was innocent.”

Full Text (1318 words): Copyright New York Times Company Mar 8, 1982

“New but long-held secret information was disclosed today in one of the most
disputed trials in American history, the murder conviction and subsequent mob
lynching of Leo Frank almost 70 years ago.

Mr. Frank, a 29-year-old Jewish factory superintendent, was convicted in
Atlanta of killing one of his employees, Mary Phagan, 14, and dumping her in
the basement of the pencil factory where they worked.

But in a sworn statement to the newspaper The Tennessean, an 83-year-old
Virginian who, seven decades ago, was a frightened and reluctant teen-age
witness in that trial, now says that he saw the real killer bear-hugging the
long-haired girl at her waist and carrying her limp, unconscious body to a
partly opened trap door leading to the basement on the day she was murdered.

”Leo Frank did not kill Mary Phagan,” Alonzo Mann insisted in confirmation of
a widely believed theory of historians. Says Janitor Was Murderer

”She was murdered instead by Jim Conley,” he asserted, referring to a factory
janitor who was the chief witness against Mr. Frank. Mr. Mann was 14 years old
at the time of the murder and was working as Mr. Frank’s office boy for $8 a
week. He said the janitor, startled by the boy, threatened to kill him if he
ever mentioned what he had seen that day.

Young Alonzo Mann was called to testify at the trial, but was asked only a few
perfunctory questions. On the advice of his mother, he volunteered no
information and told no one in authority what he had seen that Saturday, April
26, 1913. He said he continued to heed that advice for several years, except
for an occasional confidence to relatives and a rebuffed attempt to tell an
Atlanta newspaper reporter 30 years ago.

In later years, he said, he would have agreed, even been eager to talk with
those who have written some 50 books about events surrounding the infamous
trial. None of the authors ever approached him, he said.

But when confronted by two Tennessean reporters, Jerry Thompson and Robert
Sherborne, who were acting on a tip, he related his story and supplied them
with notes, photographs and other materials. He submitted to a lie-detector
test and a psychological stress evaluation and passed both impressively, The
Tennessean said. The newspaper reported that a two-month investigation
satisfied it of the historical accuracy of his information and the validity of his claims.

”Many times I wanted to get it out of my heart,” the white-haired Mr. Mann
said in an interview last night. ”I’m glad I’ve told it all. I’ve been living
with it for a long time. I feel a certain amount of freedom now. I just hope it
does some good.”

His lips trembled, but his clear blue eyes belied his frail physique and
failing heart that pumps with the aid of a surgically implanted pacemaker. He
now lives in Bristol, Va., where he said he is fond of his friends and his church.

”I know I don’t have a long time to live,” he said. ”All I have said is the
truth. When my time comes, I hope that God understands me better for telling
it. That’s what matters most.”

But he is reluctant to tell it again. ”I have laid that burden down and I
don’t ever want to pick it up again,” he said. According to Mr. Mann’s
account: He was working with Mr. Frank in the office that Saturday morning. He
had encountered Mr. Conley early that day when the burly black janitor asked to
borrow a dime for beer. Mr. Mann, who is white, did not lend him the money.

He worked until about 11:30 A.M., when he left the National Pencil Company
factory to meet his mother to watch the Confederate Memorial Day parade. His
mother did not show up, and he returned to work. Startled by Sight

He stepped into the first floor vestibule and walked toward the stairs to the
second floor. But a movement in the shadows caught his attention. He was
riveted by the scene before him: Jim Conley standing beside a trap door clutching
the wilted body of a young white girl. Her head lolled on the man’s right shoulder.
She seemed either dead or unconscious. He saw no blood, no wounds, no rope.

The janitor looked over his left shoulder at the boy and their eyes locked.
They faced each other for a few moments before the man spoke. ”If you ever
mention this, I’ll kill you,” he said.

The frightened youngster fled back to the front door and ran outside. On
arriving home, he told his mother what he had seen and recalled her saying:
”For God’s sake, don’t tell anybody else about this. You just stay out of it.”

Early the next morning, a night watchman found Mary Phagan’s bruised body lying
face down in a pile of wood shavings in the basement. A ligature was around her
neck, having scorched her throat. Blood had flowed from a deep cut in her
scalp. There were signs of a struggle to escape. Her underclothing was ripped,
but there was no evidence that she had been raped.

While Mr. Mann was out, she had come to the factory to pick up her pay, $1.20
for 10 hours work. Neither her purse nor her $1.20 was ever found.

The janitor accused Mr. Frank of the killing and said the defendant had paid
him $200 to carry the body to the basement and burn it in the furnace.

Although nothing in Mr. Frank’s history indicated wrongdoing, no other evidence
supported the janitor, and the prosecution acknowledged that Mr. Conley had told
several other versions of his story, the community and the jury were quick to convict Mr. Frank.

A wave of anti-Semitism was washing over Georgia and mobs swarmed the
courthouse daily, screaming, ”Kill the Jew.” A local newspaper defamed Mr.
Frank as ”a Jew Sodomite.”

Mr. Frank was sentenced to hang. He appealed his case unsuccessfully for two
years before Gov. John Slaton commuted the sentence to life in prison days
before his term expired in 1915.

The commutation produced a furor of protest. Armed mobs roamed streets forcing
Jewish businessmen to board up windows and doors. A mob of several thousand
people armed with guns, hatchets and dynamite surrounded the Governor’s mansion
until they were dispersed by state militiamen.

Within days of the commutation, 75 men calling themselves Knights of Mary
Phagan met at the girl’s grave in Marietta, Ga., north of Atlanta, and vowed to
avenge her death. They armed themselves and stormed a prison farm where Mr.
Frank was being held 175 miles to the southeast in Milledgeville, and where he
had survived a throat slashing by an inmate a month earlier.

The mob handcuffed Mr. Frank and transported him back to Marietta and hanged
him from a oak tree a stone’s throw from Miss Phagan’s birthplace.

In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the
state. Those who remained hid behind locked doors, forced to survive a
widespread boycott of Jewish businesses.

The Frank trial marked the rebirth of a moribund Ku Klux Klan movement that
grew out of the Knights of Mary Phagan, and it also gave rise to the formation
of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

Recently Mr. Mann went back to Georgia and visited the grave of Mary Phagan and
mused about the possibility that he could have saved her life, as well as Mr.
Frank’s, if he had shouted out that Saturday in 1913. But he said he often had
harbored such thoughts.

”Thousands of times I’ve gone to bed at night with all this on my mind,” he said Saturday.
”I hope you folks tell the whole world what I saw and that Leo Frank was innocent.”

[Illustration]: photo of Alonzo Mann visiting grave of Mary Phagan photo of Leo Frank


1980’s – One Failed Pardon and One Successful Pardon without Exoneration

Second Analysis Repetitive: Alonzo “Lonnie” Mann – March 7, and November, 1982.

A new suspicious and perhaps criminal chapter was unfurled for the public, 69 years after the criminal escapades of the Leo Frank legal defense team. The Nashville Tennessean published a special breaking news report about a story in which Alonzo Mann, Leo Franks former office boy of three weeks in 1913, said he saw janitor Jim Conley carrying Mary Phagans body to the basement of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, where Mr. Frank was the superintendent. Mr. Mann asserted that Conley killed Mary and Frank was innocent. 1982, About seven decades after the murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo M. Frank, Alonzo Mann the former office boy of Leo M. Frank came forward in an other doctored up media expose pushing the Jewish Defense position at the behest of the Jewish Community. Now nearly 83 years old, the senile and ailing Alonzo Mann came forward to say he had seen Conley carrying Mary Phagans body on the first floor. Alonzo Mann produced an affidavit seven decades after the Leo M. Frank trial concluded, thus giving the Frankites more odious support for their position. However, because of the Frank Defense’s history of obtaining falsified affidavits through criminal means, the affidavit was not taken seriously by anyone familiar with the case.

Alonzo Mann brought absolutely nothing new to the Leo M. Frank Case with his new testimony, because Jim (James) Conley had admitted to being an accomplice and that he participated in bringing the dead body of Mary Phagan to the basement at Leo M. Frank’s request.

Alonzo Mann: Dead Man’s Affidavit

However, the ADL of B’nai B’rith, American Jewish Committee, Atlanta Jewish Federation and numerous other Jewish organizations re-used the affidavit of Alonzo Mann after he died to push for a Posthumous Pardon with Exoneration for Leo M. Frank.

First Pardon Failed

Attorneys for three Jewish organizations petitioned the State (Georgia) Board of Pardons and Paroles to pardon Leo Frank, but the petition was denied on December 22, 1983.

Posthumous pardon for Leo Frank without real exoneration was achieved March 11, 1986:

Pyrrhic Victory for the Jewish Community resulted after successful pressure from the ADL of B’nai B’rith, Jewish individuals and other Jewish Organizations on March 11, 1986. Jewish pressure groups and individuals were able to coax the Georgia Board of Paroles to pardon Leo M. Frank, but they would not exonerate him of the crime. It was an odd appeasement.

Jewish Power and Political Correctness Prevailed

On March 11, 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a pardon, citing the state’s failure to protect him or prosecute his killers, though they stopped short of exonerating Leo M. Frank of the murder of Mary Phagan. It was ultimately another victory for the prosecution team, as well as the Judge and Jury who presided over the case. Leo Frank’s murder conviction is still today as black letter and settled law, with permanent and binding legal precedent. Even after decades of relentless criminal activity and behind the scenes wheeling and dealing by the Jewish community at large, ultimately the 1913 Leo Frank Trial Judge and Jury have the last word, as do the vigilante lynchers who were never prosecuted and hanged Leo Frank for his crime on August 17, 1915.

Spun Pardon and Pyrrhic Victory

The Jewish Community saw the Pardon at face value as vindication of Leo Frank, but it was really a Pyrrhic victory. First, because in order to pardon someone of a crime, the person has to be guilty, you can’t pardon someone unless you first acknowledge they are guilty first. Therefore the guilt of the individual has to be affirmed and in Leo Frank’s case it was indisputable after every level of the appellate system preserved his verdict of guilt.

So when the Prison Board between 1982 and 1986 basically acknowledged the veracity and truth that Leo M. Frank was guilty, they also refused to exonerate him of his guilt, though they forgave him of the Murder of Mary Phagan, because the state failed to protect Leo M. Frank and because his lynching prevented him from further appeals – there is only one problem with that…

Further appeals at any level of the United States Court System?

The prison board has a clear and full understanding of the law, and yet they made a bald face lie. They were patently in error concerning the lynching of Leo Frank preventing him from any further appeals within the appellate court system, because Leo M. Frank had fully and totally exhausted all of his court appeal options at every level of the State, District and Federal Appellate Courts, with the Supreme Court unanimously overruling any further review of the case, thus closing the door forever at all levels of the appellate court system. When there were no more options left in the court system, the prison board at the time refused a recommendation of clemency and even the bribed Governor John M. Slaton, refused to pardon Leo Frank and actually stated in his commutation letter he was NOT disturbing the guilty verdict given to Leo Frank by the Jury – sustaining the appellate courts and jury. Not a single legal body in the last 100 years has overturned the guilty verdict of Leo Frank, but attempts to spin the truth have endlessly been made by countless Jews.

The Prison Board Affirmed Leo Frank’s Guilt By Proxy

The board affirmed Leo M. Frank’s guilt and quelled the powerful and wealthy Jewish Community, that has for a century been vociferously screeching Leo M. Frank was a “noble and innocent Jew, Framed, railroaded and scapegoated in a vast Anti-Jewish conspiracy”. The last word on the Leo Frank case from the judicial system came in 1986 preserving his guilt forever, period end of story and case closed… or is it?


Last updated: April 26, 2013.
Related Post

March 11, 2016   Posted in: Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Leo Frank, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."